THE PEACE OF ROME. PROCLAIMED TO All the world, by her famous Cardinal BELLARMINE, and the no less famous Casuist NAVARRE.  
Whereof the one acknowledgeth, and numbers up above three hundred differences of Opinion, maintained in the Popish Church. The other confesses near threescore differences amongst their own Doctors in one only point of their RELIGION.  
Gathered faithfully out of their writings in their own words, and divided into four Books, and those into several DECADES.  
WHERETO IS PREFIXED A Serious Dissuasive from Popery.  
By J. H.  
LONDON Printed for john Legate. 1609.   

TO THE HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE, HENRY PRINCE OF GREAT BRITAIN. THE SECOND JOY, AND Hope of our Times, all happiness.  
Most Gracious Prince.  
GOD calleth your Highness by just inheritance to defend his faith. This divine royalty accompanies your Princedom in a blessed society: wherein your challenge is not more true, than your pattern admirable. He that gives you right to the succession of this claim, gives you such an example, as what Father ever gave a Son? His sceptre hath not more defended it, than his Pen: We bless God and wonder: In this right then, all propugnations of truth are yours; How much more from him, whose glory it is to have sworn your service? Yet here, I offer to your Highness not so much any fight of ours against them of Rome, as theirs against themselves, and therein for us: what can be more advantage to us, or shame to them? One blow of an enemy dealt to his brother, is more worth than many from an adverse hand: All our Apologies cannot hurt them so much, as their own divisions. Behold, here your Highness shall sit still, and see all the Romish Doctors (after all their brags of peace) scuffling and grappling together before you: and (which is most worth) in BELLARMINE'S own Theatre; No adversary can give them more deep wounds, than their own swords: And if civil discord can give us hope of their ruin, 
Har. Suis & ipsa Roma viribus ruit.  ROME cannot stand: Lo these are the men that gloried in their unity, and upbraided us (not once) with our dissensions, and have warned the world (because we differ in one point) not to trust us in any. The confidence of their secrecy made them peremptory, not either their innocence, or our guilt: If God have not now opened their own mouths to convince them of bold falsehood, let them have no accusers. I know the view of this Popish fray could not in their conceits fall more unhappily into any eyes, than your Highnesses, whom they grieve to see in this early spring of your age so firmly rooted in the truth, and before Hannibal's years threatening hostility to error. So let your Highness still move their envy and our joy. So much shall God more love you, as you hate their abominations: Neither shall it I hope ever be forgotten, that in their bloody project, your limbs also should have flown up to heaven with your soul. That God which hath reserved you for the second hope and stay of his Christian world, go on to prosper your gracious proceedings, but according to the promise of their entrances: that we may be still happy in your Highness, and you in him for ever. So be it: Yea so it will be: how can it be that so many and faithful prayers of all Gods faithful ones through the world should have other success? Amongst the rest are vowed and duly paid to this purpose, the daily poor devotions of your  
Highness' Unworthy, yet loyal servant IOS. HALL..   

A SERIOUS DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY.  
To W. D. Revolted, etc.  
YOU challenged me for my bold assertion of your manifold divisions, I do here make it good with usury. Those mouths that say they teach you the truth, say also (and you have believed them) that they all teach the same. As you find them true in this, so trust them in the other: For me, I cannot without indignation see, that in this light of the Gospel, God and his truth should thus be losers by you: and that a miserable soul should suffer itself thus grossly cozened of itself, and glory: Many can write to you with more profoundness, none with more sincere fervency, and desire to save you.  
I call heaven and earth to record against you this day, that if you relent, or answer not, your perishing is wilful. We may pity your weakness, but God shall plague your Apostasy; if you had been bred in blindness, your ignorance had been but lamentable, now your choice and love of darkness is fearful and desperate. Alas you can not be condemned without our sorrow & shame: What should we do? We can but entreat, persuade, protest, mourn, & gauge our souls for yours; if these avail not, who can remedy that which will perish? Hear this yet (you weak Revolter) if there be any care left in you of that soul which you have thus prostituted to error; if you have any regard to that God whose simple truth you have contemned and forsaken; what is this that hath driven you from us, alured you to them? For Godssake, let me but expostulate a little ere my silence: Either be convicted or inexcusable: Our bad lives have set you off; Woe is me that they are no holier; I bewail our wickedness, I defend it not; Only ask how they live in Italy; if they be not (for the more part) filths to the worst of ours, go with them and prosper. Let all indifferent tongues say, whether that very See whereon your faith depends, even within the smoke of his Holiness, be not (for viciousness) the sink of the world; we may condemn ourselves, their lives shall justify us: But you lift not to look so far; you see their lives at home, you see ours: The Comparison is not equal; they take this for the time of their persecution; we of our prosperity. The stubbornest Israelite, and the most godless Mariner could call upon God in his trouble: we are all worse with liberty: Look back and see how they lived in former times while they prospered, No Turks (saith Erasmus) more abominably: though now at the worst, how many holy Professors might you find, which would scorn that the most strict Hermit, or austere Cappucine, should go before them in a gracious life, and in true mortification? even amongst twelve, there will be one devil: I wish they were so good that we might emulate them: but for my part, I never yet could know that Papist, which made conscience of all Gods ten moral laws: Shortly, whatsoever is upbraided to us; the truth is pure, though men be unholy; and God is where he was, whatsoever becomes of men: For you, if you had not fallen to cool affections, and a loose life, you had been still ours: It is just with God to punish your secure negligence with error and delusion; and to suffer you thus to lose the truth, who had lost your care of obedience and first love. And now you do well to shift off this blame to others sins, which have most cause to accuse your own.  
From manners to look towards our Doctrine: the novelty of our Religion (you say) hath discouraged you: theirs hath drawn you with the reverence of her age. It is a free challenge betwixt us, let the elder have us both: if there be any point of our Religion younger than the patriarchs and Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, the Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church, let it be accursed, and condemned for an upstart: show us evidence of more credit and age, and carry it. The Church of Rome hath been ancient, not the errors; neither do we in ought differ from it, wherein it is not departed from itself. If I did not more fear your weariness then my own, forgetting the measure of a preface, I would pass through every point of difference betwixt us, and let you see in all particulars, which is the old way; and make you know, that your Popish Religion doth but put on a borrowed visor of gravity upon this Stage, to outface true antiquity. Yet lest you should complain of words, let me without your tediousness have leave but to instance in the first of all Controversies betwixt us; offering the same proof in all, which you shall see performed in one. I compare the judgement of the ancient Church with yours, see therefore and be ashamed of your novelty.  
First our question is, Whether all those books which in our Bible's are styled Apocryphal, 
Especially, To by judith, wisd. of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees.  and are put after the rest by themselves, are to be received as the true Scriptures of God? Hear first the voice of the old Church: To let pass that clear and pregnant testimony of Melito Sardensis in his Epistle to Onesimus cited by Eusebius. Let Cyprian or Ruffinus rather speak in the name of all: 
Euseb. l. 4. c. 25. Exposit. Symboli veteris instrumenti primo omnium Mosis quinque libri. etc..  Of the old Testament (saith he) first were written the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomie; after these the book of joshua the son of Nun, and that of the judges, together with Ruth; after which were the four books of the Kings, which the Hebrues reckon but two: of the Chronicles which is called the book of Days; and of Ezra are two books which of them are accounted but single, and the book of Esther. Of the Prophets there is Esay, Hieremie, Ezekiel and Daniel, and beside, one book which contains the twelve smaller Prophets. Also job, and the Psalms of David are single books: of Solomon there are three books delivered to the Church, the proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs. In these they have shut up the number of the books of the old Testament. Of the new, there are four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke and john; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; of Paul the Apostle fourteen Epistles, of the Apostle Peter two Epistles, of james the Lord's brother and Apostle, one, of Jude one, of john three, Lastly the Revelation of john. 

Haec sunt quae patres intra Canonem concluserunt, ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones, etc.  
Alij libri sunt qui noa Canonici, etc.   These are they which the Fathers have accounted within the Canon; by which they would have the assertions of our faith made good: But we must know there are other books, which are called of the Ancients not Canonical but Ecclesiastical, as the Wisdom of Solomon, and another book of Wisdom, which is called of jesus the son of Sirach; 

In Prologo galeato Tom. 3. p. 6.  
Hic prologus Scripturam quasi Galeatum principium omnibus libris quos de Hebraeo, etc.  
Vt scire valeamus quicquid extra hos est inter Apocrypha esse ponendum: igitur sapientia quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur & jesus etc. non sunt in Canone, etc.  
Euseb. li. 6. c. 24 Haud ignorandum autem fuerit veteris instrum. libros sicut Hebraei tradunt 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Haec sunt Apocrypha, jesus, Sapientia, Pastor, & Macabaeotum libri, judith atque Tobia. Hugo Card.   which book of the Latins is termed by a general name Ecclesiasticus: of the same rank is the book of Toby and judith, and the books of the Maccabees: Thus far that Father; so Hierome after that he hath reckoned up the same number of books with us in their order, hath these words: This Prologue of mine (saith he) may serve as a well defenced entrance to all the books which I have turned out of Hebrew into latin; that we may know, that whatsoever is beside these is Apocryphal: therefore that book which is entitled Salomon's Wisdom, and the book of jesus the son of Sirach, and judith, & Tobias & Pastor are not Canonical: the first book of the Macabees I have found in Hebrew, the second is Greek: which book (saith he) indeed the Church readeth but receiveth not as Canonical. The same reckoning is made by Origen in Eusebius, word for word. The same by Epiphanius, by Cyrill, by Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Damascen: yea by Lyranus, both Hugoes, Caietan, Carthusian, and Montanus himself, etc.  
All of them with full consent rejecting these same Apocryphal books with us. Now hear the present Church of Rome in her own words, thus: 

Concil. Trident. Decr. de Canon. script. April. 8 promulg in quart. Sessione. Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic decreto adscri bendum censuit, etc.  
Sunt autem in fra-scripti Testamenti veteris quinque libri Mosis, etc. Tobias, judith, Sapientia Salomonis, Ecclesiasticus, Macab. 2.   The holy Synod of Trent hath thought good to set down with this Decree a just Catalogue of the books of holy Scripture; lest any man should make doubt which they be which are received by the Synod; And they are these underwritten, Of the old Testament five books of Moses, than joshua, the judges, Ruth, four books of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, two of Esdras the first and the second, which is called Nehemias, Tobias, judith, Ester, job, the Psalter of David, containing one hundredth and fifty Psalms, the proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esay, Hieremy, etc. two books of the Macabees, the first and the second.  

Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt, & in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur, pro sacris & canonicis non susceperit, Anathema sit.  And if any man shall not receive these whole books with all the parts of them, as they are wont to be read in the Catholic Church; & as they are had in the old vulgar latin Edition; for holy and Canonical, let him be accursed. Thus she: judge you now of our age, and say, whether the opinion of the ancient Church (that is ours) be not a direct enemy to Popery, and flatly accursed by the Romish.  
Pass on yet a little further; Our question is whether the Hebrew and Greek Originals be corrupted; and whether those first Copies of Scriptures be not to be followed above all Translations. Hear first the ancient Church with us: 
Aug. de Civit. dei l. 15. c. 13. Sed quomodo libet istud accipiatur, etc. Ei linguae potius credatur unde est in aliam. facta translatio.  But (saith Saint Augustine) howsoever it be taken, whether it be believed to be so done, or not believed, or lastly whether it were so or not so; I hold it a right course that when any thing is found different in either books (the Hebrew and Septuagint) since for the certainty of things done there can be but one truth; that tongue should rather be believed from whence the Translation is made into another language. 

Ludovi. Vives ibid.  
Hoc ipsum Hieronymus clamat ubique hoc ipsum docet ratio, etc. Sed frustra bonorum ingeniorum consensus hoc docet.  
Hieron. l. 3. come. in Isaiam quod si aliquis dix erit Hebrae os libros postea a judaeis falsatos, etc. §   Upon which words Ludovicus Vives (yet a Papist) saith thus: the same (saith he) doth Jerome proclaim every where, and reason itself teacheth it, and there is none of sound judgement that will gain say it; but in vain doth the consent of all good wits teach this, for the stubborn blockishness of men opposeth against it. Let Jerome himself then, a greater linguist be heard speak: And if there be any man (saith he) that will say the Hebrew books were afterwards corrupted of the jews; let him hear Origen, what he answers in the eight Volume of his explanations of Esay to this question, that the Lord and his Apostles which reprove other faults in the Scribs and Pharisees, 

Sin autem dixerint post adventum Domini salvatoris etc. Hebraeos libros fuisse falsatos, cachin num tenere non potero, ut salvator & Apostoli, etc. cap. 6.  
Decr. p. 1. dist. 9 c. ut veterum Vt veterum librorum fides de Hebaeis voluminibus examinanda est, ita novorum graeci sermonis normam desiderat. Ad Decr. p. 1. d 19 c. 3.  
Ad divina recurre scripta Graeca. Bellar. l. de verb. dei 2. cap. 11. §. 3.  
Accedit quod patres passim docent ad fontes Hebraeos & Graecoes esse recurrendum: & Hieron in lib. contr. Heluid. & in epist. ad Marcellam etc.   would never have been silent in this, which were the greatest crime that could be, But if they say that the Hebrews falsified them after the coming of Christ and preaching of the Apostles, I cannot hold from laughter, that our Saviour and the Evangelists and Apostles should so cite testimonies of Scripture, as the Jews would afterwards deprave them: Thus Jerome. And the Canon law itself hath this determination, that the truth and credit of the books of the old Testament should be examined by the Hebrew Volumes, of the new, by the Greek. And Pope Innocentius as he is cited by Gratian could say, Have recourse to the divine Scriptures in their Original Greek. The same lastly by Bellarmine's own confession, the Fathers teach every where: As Jerome in his book against helvidius, and in his Epistle to Marcelia, that the latin Edition of the Gospels is to be called back to the Greek fountains; and the latin Edition of the old Testament is to be amended by the Hebrew; in his Comment upon Zachary, chap. 8. The very same hath Austen in his second book of Christian doctrine, chap. 11.12, 15. and Epist. 19 and elsewhere. This was the old Religion and ours; now hear the new. The present Church of Rome hath thus: 

Concil. Trid. sess 4.  
Sacro sa ncta synodus statuit ut haec ipsa vetus etc. pro authentica habeatur.  
Bell. de verb. l. 2. c. 11.  
Nunc autem fontes multis in locis turbidos fluere, etc. Omnino contendunt judaeos in odium christianae relig. studiose depravasse ita docet jac. Christopolitanus & Canus, etc. Bell. 2. de verb. dei p. 100 So Raynolds in his refutation. p. 303 Against Isaac Valla, Andradius, Monta etc. Haeretici huius temporis, odio vulgatae editionis nimium tribuunt editioni Hebraicae etc. omnia examinari volunt ad Hebraeum textum quem non semel purissimun fontem appellant. Bell. l. 2. de verb. c. 2   The holy Synod decreeth that the old vulgar latin Edition in all Lectures, Disputations, Sermons, Expositions be held for Authentical, saith the counsel of Trent: And her Champion Bellarmine hath these words; That the fountain of the Originals in many places run muddy and impure, we have formerly showed, and indeed it can scarce be doubted, but that as the latin Church hath been more constant in keeping the faith then the Greek, so it hath been more vigilant in defending her books from corruption. Yea some of the Popish Doctors maintain, that the jews in hatred of the Christian faith did on purpose corrupt many places of scripture: so holds Gregory de Valentia, jacobus Christopolitanus in his preface to the Psalms, Canus in the second book of his common places. But in stead of all, Bellarmine shall shut up all with these words; The Heretics of this time in hatred of the vulgar Edition, give too much to the Hebrew Edition, as Calvin, Chemnitius, Georgius Maior: All which would have every thing examined and amended by the Hebrew text, which they commonly call a most pure fountain: See now whether that which Bellarmine confesses to have been the judgement of Hierome, Austen, and all the ancient Fathers be not here condemned by him, as the opinion of the Heretics: 

Epiphan. contr Anomaeos. haeres. 76.  
Omnia sunt clara & lucida &c.  
Basil. in Ascet. or Regul. breviores. quae ambigue, & obscure videntur dici in quibusdam locis sacrae script. & reg. 267.  
Aug. Ep. 3. Non tanta in scriptures difficultate pervenitur ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti, etc.  
Aug. de doctr. Christ. l. 2. c. 9 In jis quae apart in scriptura posita sunt iweniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi.  
Magnifice & salubriter spirit. sanctus ita script. etc.  
De doctr. Christiana, l. 2 c. 4.   Ours was theirs; and theirs is condemned under our names: judge whether in this also Popery be not an upstart.  
Yet one step more: Our question is, whether the Scripture be easy or most obscure, and whether in all essential points it do not interpret itself, so as what is hard in one place is openly laid forth in another: Hear the judgement of the old Church and ours: All things are clear and plain and nothing contrary in the Scriptures; saith Epiphanius, Those things which seem doubtfully and obscurely spoken in some places of Scripture are expounded by them, which in other places are open and plain, saith Basil: What could Calvin or Luther say more?  
There is no so great hardness in the Scriptures to come to those things which are necessary to salvation, saith Austen: In those things which are openly laid down in Scripture, are found all those things which contain our faith and rules for our life, saith the same Father; who yet again also saith thus: The spirit of God hath Royally and wholesomely tempered the holy Scriptures so, as both by the plain places he might prevent our hunger, and by the obscure he might avoid our nice slothfulness; for there is (scarce) any thing that can be fetch't out of those obscurities, which is not found most plainly spoken elsewhere.  
And because Bellarmine takes exception at this (Feré Scarce) compare this place with the former; and with that which he hath in his third, Epistle thus: 
Aug. Epist. 3. Modus ipse dicendi quo sancta scriptura etc.  The manner of speech in which the Scripture is contrived, is easy to be commed to of all; although to be thoroughly attained by few; Those things which it containeth plain and easy, it speaks like a familiar friend without guile to the heart of the learned and unlearned, etc.  
But it invites all men with an humble manner of speech, 
Sed invitat omnes humili sermone.  whom it doth not only feed with manifest truth, but exercise with secret, having the same in readiness, which it hath in secrecy: Thus Austen: To omit Iraeneus and Origen. Chrysostome (whom Bellarmine saith we allege alone for us) besides many other plain places, writeth thus. Who is there to whom all is not manifest, 

Chrysost. Hom. 3. de Lazaro Cui non sunt manifesta quae cunque in Euangel.? etc. quomodo possis intelligere quae ne leviter quidem inspicere velis etc. sum librum in manus, lege etc.  
Citat. ab ipso Bellarm. Apostoli vero & prophetae omnia contra fecerunt manifesta, claraque: quae prodiderunt, exposuerunt nobis veluti communes orbis doctores, ut pierce quisque discere possi●, ea quae dicuntur, ex sola lectione. Chry. hom. 3. in Laz. quamobrem opus est conci onatore, omnia sunt plana ex Scripturis divinis, sed quia delicatuli estis. etc.  
Hom 3. in 2. Thess.   which is written in the Gospel? who that shall hear, Blessed are the meek, Blessed are the merciful, Blessed are the pure in heart, & the rest, would desire a teacher to learn any of these things which are here spoken? As also the signs, miracles, histories are not they known and manifest to every man? This pretence and excuse is but the cloak of our slothfulness: thou understandest not those things which are written; how shouldest thou understand them, which wilt not so much as slightly look into them? take the book into thy hand, read all the history, and what thou knowest remember, and what is obscure run often over it. So Chrysostome: yea he makes this difference betwixt the Philosophers and Apostles: the Philosophers speak obscurely, But the Apostles and Prophets (saith he) contrarily make all things delivered by them, clear and manifest; and as the common teachers of the world have so expounded all things that every man may of himself by bare reading, learn those things which are spoken: yea last, so far he goes in this point, as that he asketh, Wherefore needeth a preacher? all things are clear and plain in the Divine Scriptures; but because ye are delicate hearers, and seek delight in hearing, therefore ye seek for Preachers. You have heard the old Religion, now hear the new: Bellarmine hath these words: 

Bellarm. l 3. de verbo c. 1. Necessario fatendum est scripturas esse obscurissimas. Lutherus duo effugia excogitavit; unum quod scriptura etiam si alicubi obscura, tamen illud idem alibi clare proponat, etc. ibid. § 2.  
Eccius in Enchirid. c. 4. Lutherani contendunt scripturas sacras esse claras.  
Duraeus contr. Whitak. li. 6. Rhemists in 2. Pe. 3.16. and in their preface at large, etc.   It must needs be confessed that the Scriptures are most obscure; Here therefore (saith he) Luther hath devised two evasions; One that the Scripture; though it be obscure in one place, yet that it doth clearly propound the same thing in another. The second is, that though the Scripture be clear of itself, yet to the proud and unbelievers it is hard, by reason of their blindness and evil affections: so the Lutherans (saith Eckius) contend that the Scriptures are clear and plain: so Duraeus against whitaker's: so the Rhemists in their annotations; and generally all Papists. judge now if all these forenamed Fathers, and so the Ancient Church were not Lutherans in this point; or rather we theirs; and yield that this their old opinion by the new Church of Rome is condemned for heretical: and in all these say upon your soul, whether is the elder?  
Let me draw you on yet a little further: Our question is, whether it be necessary or fit that all men (even of the laity) should have liberty to hear and read the Scriptures, in a language which they understand. 

Homili. in 4. dominic. ab Epiphan. Ambr. ser. 35. Hieron in Psa. Dominus narrabit, & quomodo narrabit? Non verbo, sedscriptura, in cuius scriptura? in populorum, etc. Dominus narrabit in scriptures populorum in scriptures sanctis; quae, scriptura populis omnibus legitur, hoc est ut omnes intelligant, non ut pauci intelligerent, sed ut omnes. in Psal. 86.  
Omnia quae post ascens. etc. quis fidelis vel etiam catechumenus antequam spiritum sanctum baptizatus accipiat, non aequo animo, etc.  
Aug. trac. in Io 96. and to the same purpose l. 2 de doct. Chris. c. 8.  
Chrys. hom. 3. de Lazar. Semper horror & hortari non desinam ut non hic tantum attendatis. etc. Ego forensibus causis affixus sum, etc.   Hear first the voice of the old religion: to omit the direct charges of Gregory Nissen and Ambrose; thus hath Jerome upon the Psalms. The Lord will declare; and how will he declare? Not by word but by writing; In whose writing? In the writing of his people, etc. Our Lord and Saviour therefore tells us, and speaketh in the scriptures of his Princes: Our Lord will declare it to us in the scriptures of his people, in the holy scriptures: which scripture is read to all the people; that is, so read as that all may understand; not that a few may understand, but all.  
What faithful man saith Augustine (though he be but a Novice, before he be baptised and have received the holy Ghost) doth not with an equal mind read and hear all things, which after the ascension of our Lord are written in Canonical truth, and authority, although as yet he understands them not as he ought.  
But of all other Saint Chrysostome is every where most vehement and direct in this point: Amongst infinite places, hear what he saith in one of his Homilies of Lazarus.  
I do always exhort, and will never cease to exhort you (saith he) that you will not here only attend to those things which are spoken, but when you are at home, you continually busy yourselves in reading of the holy Scriptures; which practice also I have not ceased to drive into them which come privately to me: for let no man say, Tush, they are but idle words, and many of them such as should be contemned: Alas, 
Vxorem alo & liberos, familiae curamgero etc.  I am taken up with law causes, I am employed in public affairs, I follow my trade, I maintain a wife and children, and have a great charge to look to; It is not for me to read the Scriptures, 
Qui montium vertices occuparunt, etc.  but for them which have cast off the world; which have taken up the solitary tops of Mountains for their dwellings, which live this contemplative kind of life continually.  
What sayest thou O man? 
Quid ais homo? non est tui negotij scripturas evoluere, etc. Imo tuum magis est quam illorum, etc.  Is it not for thee to turn over the Scriptures, because thou art distracted with infinite cares; Nay, than it is for thee more than for them; for they do not so much need the help of the Scriptures, as you that are tossed in the midst of the waves of worldly business.  
And soon after, 
Neque nunc fieri potest ut quisquam, etc.  Neither can it be possible that any man should without great fruit be perpetually conversant in this spiritual exercise of reading and strait. 
Ne negligamus nobis parare libros, etc.  Let us not neglect to buy ourselves books, lest we receive a wound in our vital parts; and after he hath compared the books of Scripture to gold, he addeth, But what say they, 
quid igitur inquiunt, etc.  if we understand not those things which are contained in those books? What gain we then? Yes surely, 

Publicani, piscatores, Tabernaculorum opifices, pastors & Apostoli idiotae illiterati etc.  
Note, that which is read in Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in some better copies is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Goat-beards, more agreeable to the place.  
Vt & famulus, & Vidua mulier, & omnium hominum indoctissimus, exaudita lectione aliquid lucri utilitatisque reportet. Hom. in Gen. 29.  
Obsecro ut subinde huc veniatis, etc.   though thou dost not understand those things which are there laid up, yet by the very reading much holiness is got: Although it cannot be, that thou shouldest be alike ignorant of all thou readest; for therefore hath the spirit of God so dispensed this word, that Publicans, Fishers, tentmakers, Shepherds & Goat-beards, plain unlettered men may be saved by these books; lest any of the simpler sort should pretend this excuse, That all things which are said should be easy to discern; and that the workman, the servant, the poor widow, and the most unlearned of all other, by hearing of the word read, might get some gain and profit.  
And the same Father elsewhere; I beseech you (saith he) that you come speedily hither, and hearken diligently to the reading of the holy Scriptures; and not only when you come hither, but also at home take the Bible into your hands, and by your diligent care reap the profit contained in it. Lastly, in his Homilies upon the Epistle to the Colossians; he cries out, Hear, 
In Coloss. Hom 9 Audite obsecro seculares omnes, etc.  I beseech you, O all ye secular men, provide you Bibles which are the medicines for the soul; At least get the new Testament. Now on the contrary, let the new Religion of Rome speak; first by her Rhemish Jesuits, thus: 
Rhemists in their preface to their Testament.  We may not think that the Translated Bibles into vulgar tongues were in the hands of every Husbandman, Artificer, Prentice, Boys, Girls, Mistress, Maid, Man; that they were sung, played, alleged of every Tinker, Taverner, Rhymer, Minstrel. The like words of scorn and disgrace are used by Hosius, and by Eckius, and by Bellarmine de verbo. l. 2. c. 15.  
The wise will not here regard (say our Rhemists) what some wilful people do mutter, 

Bellar. de ver. l. 2. c. 15. Haeretici huius temporis omnes in eo conveniunt, ut oporteat scripturas omnibus permittere imo & tradere in sua lingua: etc.  
At Catholica ecclesia, etc.   that the Scriptures are made for all men, etc. And soon after they compare the scriptures to fire, water, candles, knives, swords, which are indeed needful, etc. but would mar all if they were at the guiding of other, then wise men. All the Heretics of this time, saith Bellarmine, agree that the scriptures should be permitted to all, and delivered in their own mother tongue; But the Catholic Church forbids the reading of the Scriptures by all, 

Prohibet ne Passim omnibus sine discrimine concedatur eiusmodi lectio, etc.  
Duraeus cont. Whit. l. 6. Si Christianis omnibus ut scripturas seru tentur a Christo dictum esse intelligis, in magno certe errore etc.  
Promiscuae fidelium turbae etc.   without choice: or the public reading or singing of them in vulgar tongues, as it is decreed in the Council of Trent, Ses. 22 c. 8. and can. 9 If you think (saith Duraeus) that Christ had all Christians to search the Scriptures, you are in a gross error; For how shall rude and ignorant men search the Scriptures, etc. And so he concludes, that the Scriptures were not given to the common multitude of believers.  
judge now what either we say, or these Papists condemn, besides the ancient judgement of the Fathers: and if ever either Calvin or Luther have been more peremptory in this matter then Saint Chrysostome, I vow to be a Papist. If ours be not in this the old Religion, be not you ours.  


Basil. Ep. 82. Aug. de unitate ecclesiae, sive Epist. cont. Petilianum Donatistam cap. 2.  
Inter nos autem & Donatistas' quaestio est, ubi sit ecclesia, quid ergo facturi sumus? in verbis nostris eam quaesituri, etc.   Yet this one passage further, and then no more, lest I weary you: Our question is; Whether the Scriptures depend upon the authority of the Church; or rather the Church upon the authority of Scriptures?  
Hear first the ancient Church, with, and for us: The question is (saith Saint Austen) betwixt us and the Donatists, where the Church is; what shall we do then? shall we seek her in our own words, or in the words of her head, the Lord jesus Christ? I suppose we ought to seek her rather in his words, which is the truth; and knows best his own body, for the Lord knows who are his; we will not have the Church sought in our words. And in the same book, 
Aug. ibid. c. 16. Vtrum ipsi ecclesiam teneant, non nisi divinatum scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant, etc. quia nec nos propterea dicimus, etc.  Whether the Donatists hold the Church (saith the same Father) let them not show, but by the Canonical books of Divine scriptures; for neither do we therefore say they should believe us, that we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus or Ambrose hath commended this Church unto us which we now hold; or because it is acknowledged by the Counsels of our fellow-teachers, or because so great miracles are done in it: it is not therefore manifested to be true and Catholic; but the LORD jesus himself judged, that his Disciples should rather be confirmed by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets: These are the rules of our cause, these are the foundations; these are the confirmations.  
And upon the Psalms, 
Aug. in Psa. 69. in illa verba. Omnes qui quaerunt te etc. Ne in ecclesia errares, ne quis, etc.  Lest thou shouldst err (saith the same Augustine) in thy judgement of the Church: lest any man should say to thee, this is Christ which is not Christ, or this is the Church which is not the Church; 

Multi enim di●erunt carnem non habuisse: ostendit etc.  
So Epi. 166 & in Ps. 57 etc. Chrys. hom. in Matth. 49. qui vult cognoscere, quae sit vera ecclesia Christi, unde cognoscet nisi etc.   for many, etc. Hear the voice of the Shepherd himself, which is clothed in flesh, etc. He shows himself to thee; handle him, and see. He shows his Church, lest any man should deceive thee under the name of the Church, etc. yet Chrysostome more directly thus: He that would know which is the true Church of Christ, whence may he know it in the similitude of so great confusion, but only by the scriptures? Now the working of miracles is altogether ceased; yea they are rather found to be feignedly wrought of them, which are but false Christians; Whence then shall he know it, but only by the scriptures? The Lord Jesus therefore knowing what great confusion of things would be in the last days, therefore commands that those which are Christians, and would receive confirmation of their true faith, 

Eckius in Enchirid. c. de ecclesia.  
Scriptura non est authentica sine authoritate ecclesiae; Scriptores enim Canonici sunt membra ecclesiae, unde haeretico contendere volenti, etc.   should fly to nothing but to the Scriptures; Otherwise if they fly to any other help, they shall be offended and perish, not understanding which is the true Church: This is the old faith; Now hear the new, contradicting it, and us. The scripture (saith Eckius a Popish Doctor) is not authentical without the authority of the Church, for the Canonical writers are members of the Church; Whereupon let it be objected to an Heretic, that will strive against the Decrees of the Church, by what weapons he will fight against the Church, he will say by the Canonical scriptures of the four Gospels, and Paul's Epistles: 

Eckius ibidem Scriptura definit in concilio, visum est spiritui sancto etc. rem tam clare expressam, & definitam ecclesia sua authoritate mutavit, etc. Ecce potestas ecclesiae super scriptura.  
Si tollamus authoritatem praesentis ecelesiae & praesentis concilij, in dubium revocari poterunt omnium aliorum conciliorum decreta, & tota fides Christiana, etc. Bell. De effectu sacram. l. 2. c. 25. pag. 300.  
Omnium dogmatum firmitas, etc.  
So Pigh. l. 1. de Hier. ec. Stapl. l. 9 Princ. doct. c. 1.   Let it be strait objected to him, how he knows these to be Canonical, but by the Church: And a while after, The scripture (saith he) defined in a Council, it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us, that you abstain from things offered to Idols, and blood, and strangled: the Church by her authority altered a thing so clearly defined, and expressed: for it useth both strangled and blood; Behold the power of the Church is above the scripture: thus Eckius. And besides Cusanus, Bellarmine saith thus: If we take away the authority of the present Church, and of the present Council (of Trent) all the Decrees of all other councils, and the whole Christian faith may be called into doubt; and in the same place a little after; The strength of all ancient Counsels and the certainty of all opinions depends on the authority of the present Church: You have heard both speak, say now, with whom is true antiquity; and on God's name detest the newer of both: It were as easy to bring the same, if not greater evidence for the perfection, and all-sufficiency of Scripture; and so to deliver all the body of our Religion▪ by the tongues and pens of the fathers, that either you must be forced to hold them Novelists with us▪ or yourselves such against them: 
Compertum est ab his dam nata ut haeretica in Lutheri libris, quae in Bernardi Augustinique libris, ut Orthodoxa, imo ut pra leguntur. Erasm. ep. ad Card. Mogunt. pag. 401.  How honest and ingenuous is that confession of your Erasmus, who in his Epistle to the Bishop and Cardinal of Ments, could say, It is plainly found, that many things in Luther's books are condemned for Heretical, which in the books of Bernard and Austen, are read for holy and Orthodox.  
This is too much for a taste, if your appetite stand to it, I dare promise you full dishes: Let me therefore appeal to you, if light and darkness be more contrary than these points of your religion, to true Antiquity: No, no, Let your author's gloze as they list; Popery is but a young faction, corruptly raised out of ancient grounds; And if it have (as we grant) some ancient errors, falsehood cannot be bettered with age; there is no prescription against God and truth: What we can prove to be erroneous, we need not prove new: some hundreds of years is an idle plea against the ancient of days.  
What can you plead yet more for your change? Their numbers perhaps, and our handfuls? You heard all the world was theirs, scarce any corner ours: How could you but suspect a few? These are but idle brags; we dare and can share equally with them in Christendom: And if we could not; this rule will teach you to advance turcism above Christianity, and Paganism above that: the world above the Church, hell above heaven: If any proof can be drawn from numbers, He that knows all, says the best are fewest.  
What then could stir you? Our divisions and their unity. If this my following labour do not make it good to all the world, that their peace is less than ours, their dissension more, by the confession of their own mouths, be you theirs still, and let me follow you. I stand not upon the scold of Priests and Jesuits, nor the late Venetian jars, nor the pragmatical differences now on foot, in the view of all Christendom, betwixt their own Cardinals, in their sacred Conclave, and all their Clergy, concerning the Pope's temporal power: Neither do I call any friend to be our advocate; none but Bellarmine and Navarrus shall be my Orators; and if these plead not this cause enough, let it fall: See here dangerous rifts and flaws, not in the outward bark only, but in the very heart and pith of your religion; and if so many be confessed by one or two, what might be gathered out of all? and if so many be acknowledged, think how many there are that lurk in secret, and will not be confessed? How loath would we be (after all exclamations) that your busy Jesuits, could rake out so many confessed quarrels out of all our authors, as I have here found in two of yours? We want only their cunning secrecy in the carriage of our quarrels: Our few (and sleight) differences are blazoned a broad with infamy and offence, their hundreds are craftily smothered in silence.  
Let your own eyes satisfy you in this, not my pen: see now, what you would never believe.  
What is it then, that could thus bewitch you to forsake the comely and heavenly truth of God, and to dote upon this beastly strumpet? to change your Religion, for a ridiculous, sensual, cruel, irreligious faction? A Religion (if we must call it so) that made sport to our plain fore fathers, with the remembrance of her gravest devotions: How oft have you seen them laugh at themselves, whiles they have told of their creeping crouch, kissing the pax, offering their candles, signing with ashes, partial shrifts, merry pilgrimages, ridiculous miracles, and a thousand such May-games, which now you begin (after this long hissing at) to look upon soberly, and with admiration.  
A Religion, whose fooleries very boys may shout and laugh at, if for no more but this, that it teaches men to put confidence in beads, medals, roses, hallowed swords, spells of the Gospel, Agnus Dei, and such like idle babbles; ascribing unto them Divine virtue: yea so much as is due to the son of God himself, and his precious blood. I speak not of some rude ignorants; your very book of holy Ceremonies shall teach you what your holy fathers do, and have done. That tells you first with great allowance, and applause, that Pope Vrban the fifth sent three Agnos Dei, to the Greek Emperor, with these verses: 

Balsamus & munda cera cum Chrismatis unda conficiunt Agnum, quod munus do tibi magnum etc.  
Fulgura de caelo, etc.  
Peccatum frangit ut Christi sanguis & angit, etc.   

Balsam, pure Wax, and Chrismes-liquor clear,  
Make up this precious Lamb, I send thee here;  
All lightning it dispels, and each ill spri'ght,  
Remedies sin, and makes the heart contrite.  
Even as the blood that Christ for us did shed:  
It helps the child-beds pains; & gives good speed  
Unto the birth; Great gifts it still doth win  
To all that wear it, and that worthy been:  
It quells the rage of fire; and cleanly bore  
It brings from shipwreck safely to the shore.    
And lest you should plead this to be the conceit of some one fantastical Pope, hear (and be ashamed) out of the same book, 

Sacr. Cerem. l. 1.  
Vt ea, quae in hoc aquarum vasculo, praeparato ad nominis tui gloriam infundere decrevimus, benedicas: quatenus ipsorum veneratione & honore nobis famulis tuis crimina diluantur, abstergantur maculae peccatorum, impetrentur veniae, gratiae conferantur, ut tandem una cum sanctis & electis tuis vitam percipere mereamur aeternam.  
Fran. a Victoria Ordin. Praedicatorum Sum. sacram. art. 184. p. 104. Sed quid faciet Confessor cum interrogatur de peccato, etc.   what by prescription every Pope useth to pray in the blessing of the water, which serves for that Agnus Dei: If you know not, thus he prayeth: That it would please thee O God, to bless those things which we purpose to pour into this vessel of water prepared to the glory of thy name, so as by the worship and honour of them, we thy servants may have our heinous offences done away, the blemishes of our sins wiped off, and there by we may obtain pardon, and receive grace from thee; so that at the last with thy Saints and elect Children we may merit to obtain everlasting life. Amen. How could you choose but be in love with this superstition, Magic, blasphemy practised, and maintained by the heads of your Church?  
2 A Religion that allows juggling Equivocations, & reserved senses even in very oaths. Besides all that hath been shamelessly written by our Jesuits to this purpose; Hear what Franciscus Victoria, an ingenuous Papist, and a learned reader of Divinity in Salmantica, writes in the name of all:  
But what shall a Confessor do (saith he) if he be asked of a sin that he hath heard in Confession? May he say that he knows not of it? 
Respondeo secun dum omnes, quod sic.  I answer according to all our Doctors, that he may; But what if he be compelled to swear? I say that he may and aught to swear that he knows it not; for that it is understood that he knows it not besides confession, and so he swears true. But say, 
Sed fac quod judex aut praelatus ex malitia exigat a me juramentum, an sciam in confession? Respondeo: quod coactus iuretse nescire in confession, quia intelligitur se nescire ad revelandum, aut taliter quod possit dicere.  that the judge or Prelate shall maliciously require of him upon his oath, whether he know it in confession or no; I answer, that a man thus urged may still swear that he knows it not in confession; for that it is understood he knows it not to reveal it, or so as he may tell: Who teach and do thus in another's case, judge what they would do in their own. O wise, cunning and holy perjuries, unknown to our forefathers.  
A Religion that allows the buying and selling of sins, of pardons of souls: so as now Purgatory can have no rich men in it, but fools and friendless: Devils are torments there (as themselves hold from many revelations of Bede, Bernard, Carthusian) yet men can command devils, and money can command men.  
A Religion, that relies wholly upon the infallibility of those, whom yet they grant have been, and may be monstrous in their lives and dispositions; How many of those heirs of Peter (by confession of their own records) by bribes, by Whores, by Devils, have climbed up into that chair; Yet, to say that those men, which are confessed to have given their souls to the devil, that they might be Popes, can err, while they are Popes, is heresy worthy of a stake, and of hell.  
A Religion, that hoodwinkes the poor Laity in forced ignorance, lest they should know God's will, or any way to heaven but theirs: so as millions of souls live no less without Scriptures, then if there were none: that forbids spiritual food as poison; and fetches God's book into the Inquisition.  
A Religion, that teaches men to worship stocks and stones, with the same honour that is due to their Creator: which practise least it should appear to her simple Clients, how palpably opposite it is to the second commandment; they have discreetly left out those words of GOD'S Law, as a needless illustration, in their Catechisms and Prayer books of the vulgar.  
A Religion, that utterly overthrows the true humanity of Christ, while they give unto it ten thousand places at once, and yet no place: flesh and no flesh, several members without distinction; a substance without quantity, and other accidents; or substance and accidents that cannot be seen, felt, perceived; so they make either a monster of their Saviour, or nothing.  
A Religion, that utterly overthrows the perfection of Christ's satisfaction: If all be not paid, how hath he satisfied? If temporal punishments in purgatory be yet due, how is all paid? and if these must be paid by us, how are they satisfied by him?  
A Religion, that makes more scripture than ever God and his ancient Church; and those which it doth make, so imperiously obtrudes upon the world, as if God himself should speak from heaven: and while it thunders out curses against all that will not add these books to Gods, regards not God's curse, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.  
A Religion, whose patrons disgrace the true Scriptures of God with reproachful terms, odious comparisons imputations of corruption and imperfection, and in fine, pin their whole authority upon the sleeves of men.  
A Religion, that erects a throne in the Conscience to a mere man, and gives him absolute power to make a sin, to dispense with it, to create new Articles of faith, and to impose them upon necessity of salvation.  
A Religion, that baffoules all temporal Princes, making them stand barefoot at their great Bishop's gate, lie at his foot, hold his stirrup, yea their own Crowns at his Courtesy, exempting all their Ecclesiastical Subjects from their jurisdiction, and (when they list) all the rest from their allegiance.  
A Religion, 
Papa facit protestationem ante Canonizationem se nihil intendere facere, quod sit contra fidem aut ecclesiam Catholicam. Aliqui tamen clarissimi viri dicunt, etc. Quia Papa quodammodo cogebatur ad Canonizandum quendam contra suam voluntatem. Lib. Sacr. Ceremon.  that hath made wicked men Saints, and Saints Gods; Even by the confession of Papists, lewd and undeserving men have leapt into their Calendar: Whence it is, that the Pope before his Canonization of any Saint, makes solemn protestation, that he intends not in that business to do aught prejudicial to the glory of God, or to the Catholic faith and Church: And once Sainted, they have the honour of Altars, Temples, Invocations; and some of them in a style fit only for their maker. I know not whither that blessed Virgin receive more indignity from her enemies that deny her, or these her flatterers that deify her.  
A Religion that robs the Christian heart of all sound comfort, whiles it teacheth us, that we neither can nor aught to be assured of the remission of our sins, and of present grace, and future salvation; That we can never know whether we have received the true Sacraments of God, because we cannot know the intention of the Minister, without which they are are no Sacraments:  
A Religion, that racks the conscience with the needless torture of a necessary shrift; wherein the virtue of absolution depends on the fullness of confession, and that, upon examination and the sufficiency of examination is so full of scruples (besides those infinite cases of unresolved doubts in this feigned penance) that the poor soul never knows when it is clear.  
A Religion, that professes to be a bawd of sin; whiles both (in practice) it tolerates open stews, and prefers fornication in some cases to honourable Matrimony, and gently blanches over the breaches of God's Law with the name of venials and favourable titles of diminution; daring to affirm that venial sins are no hindrance to a man's cleanness and perfection.  
A cruel Religion, that sends poor infants remedilessly unto the eternal pains of hell; for want of that which they could not live to desire: and frights simple souls with expectation of feigned torments in purgatory; not inferior (for the time) to the flames of the damned; how wretchedly and fearfully must their poor Laics needs die: for first they are not sure they shall not go to hell; and secondly they are sure to be scorched, if they shall go to heaven.  
A Religion, that makes nature vainly proud in being joined by her, as copartner with God, in our justification, in our salvation: and idly puffed up in a conceit of her perfection, and ability to keep more laws than God hath made.  
A Religion, that requires no other faith to justification in Christians, then may be found in the Devils themselves: who besides a confused apprehension, can assent unto the truth of Gods revealed will: Popery requires no more.  
A Religion, that in stead of the pure milk of the Gospel hath long fed her starved souls, with such idle Legends, as the reporter can hardly deliver without laughter, & their abettors not hear without shame and disclamation: the wiser sort of the world read those stories on winter evenings for sport, which the poor credulous multitude hears in their Churches, with a devout astonishment.  
A Religion, which (lest aught should be here wanting to the doctrine of devils) makes religious prohibitions of meat, and differences of diet; superstitiously preferring God's workmanship to itself and willingly polluting what he hath sanctified.  
A Religion, that requires nothing but mere formality in our devotions; the work wrought suffices alone in sacraments, in prayers: So the number be found in the chaplet, there is no care of the affection; as if God regarded not the heart, but the tongue & hands, & while he understands us, cared little whether we understand ourselves.  
A Religion, that presumptuously dares to alter and mangle Christ's last institution; and sacrilegiously robs God's people of one half of that heavenly provision, which our Saviour left for his last and dearest legacy to his Church for ever: as if Christ's ordinance were superfluous, or any shaveling could be wiser than his Redeemer.  
A Religion, that depends wholly upon nice and poor uncertainties, and unproveable supposals: that Peter was Bishop of Rome; that he left any heirs of his graces & spirit; or if any, but one in a perpetual and unfaileable succession at Rome; That he so bequeathed his infallibility to his chair, as that whosoever sits in it, cannot but speak true; that all which sit where he sat, must by some secret instinct, say as he taught; That what Christ said to him absolutely, ere ever Rome was thought of, must be referred, yea tied to that place alone, and fulfilled in it: That Linus, or Clemens, or Cletus, the scholars and supposed successors of Peter, must be preferred (in the Headship of the Church) to john the beloved Apostle then living: That he whose life, whose pen, whose judgement, whose keys may err, yet in his pontifical chair cannot err: That the golden line of this Apostolical succession, in the confusion of so many, long, desperate Schisms, shamefully corrupt usurpations, and intrusions, yielded heresies, neither was, nor can be broken. Deny any of these, and Popery is no religion: Oh the lamentable hazard of so many Millions of poor souls that stand upon these slippery terms, whereof if any be probable, some are impossible: Oh miserable grounds of Popish faith, whereof the best can have but this praise, that perhaps it may be true.  
A Religion that hath been oft died in the blood of Princes: that in some cases teaches and allows rebellion against Gods anointed; and both suborneth treasons, and excuses, pities, honours, rewards the actors.  
A Religion, that overloades men's consciences with heavy burdens of infinite unnecessary traditions; far more than ever Moses commented upon with all the jewish Masters; imposing them with no less authority, and exacting them with more rigour, than any of the royal laws of their Maker.  
A Religion that cousin's the vulgar with nothing but shadows of holiness, in pilgrimages, processions, offerings, holy-water, latin services, images, tapers, rich vestures, garish altars, crosses, censings, and a thousand such like (fit for children and fools) robbing them in the mean time of the sound and plain helps of true piette and salvation.  
A Religion, that cares not by what wilful falsehoods it maintains a part: as Wickliff's blasphemy, Luther's advise from the devil, Tindals' community, Calvin's feigned miracle, and blasphemous death; Bucers' neck broken, Bezaes' revolt, the blasting of Huguenots, England's want of Churches and Christendom; Queen Elizabeth's unwomanlines, her Episcopal jurisdiction, her secret fruitfulness, English Catholics cast in Bears skins to dogs, Plesses shameful overthrow; Garnets' straw, the Lutherans obscene night-revels; Scories drunken ordination in a Tavern; the edict of our gracious King james (An. 87) for the establishment of Popery, our casting the crusts of our Sacrament to dogs, and ten thousand of this nature, maliciously raised and defended against knowledge and conscience for the disgrace of those whom they would have hated, ere known.  
A Religion, that in the conscience of her own untruth, goes about to falsify, and deprave all Authors that might give evidence against her, to outface all ancient truths, to foist in Gibeonitish witnesses of their own forging: and leaves nothing unattempted against heaven or earth, that might advantage her faction, and disable her innocent adversary: Lo this is your choice; if the zeal of your loss have made me sharp, yet not malicious, not false; God is my record, I have not (to knowledge) charged you with the least untruth: and if I have wronged, accuse me: and if I clear not myself, and my challenge, let me be branded for a slanderer. In the mean time what spiritual frenzy hath overtaken you, that you can find no beauty, but in this monster of errors? It is to you, and your fellows that God speaks by his Prophet: O ye heavens be astonished at this, be afraid and utterly confounded, saith the Lord, for my people hath committed two evils, They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, to dig them pits, even broken pits, that can hold no water: what shall be the issue? Et tu Domine deduces eos in puteum interitus: Thou O God shalt bring them down into the pit of destruction; If you will thus wilfully leave God, there I must leave you: But (if you had not rather die) return, and save one; return to God, return to his truth, return to his Church: your blood be upon my head, if you perish.   

ADVERTISEMENTS to the Reader.  
UNDERSTAND (good reader) that in all these passages following, I have brought in C. Bellarm. speaking in his own words, except in some few plain references, where I mention him in the third person.  
2 That the edition of C. Bellarmine which I have followed, and quoted in every page, is that in octavo (the commonest, I think) set forth at Ingolstadt, from the press of Adam Sartorius, in the year M.D.XCIX.  
3 That all those Authors which thou seest named over the head of every Section, are Papists of note: whose quarrels C. Bellarmine confesseth.  
4 That such great Doctors could not be singular in their judgements, but must needs, in all probability, (which yet is not confessed) be attended with many followers, in every point of variance: every Master hath the favour of his own school: the sides taken by their Scholars is not more secret, then likely.  
5 That one Doctor Pappus, a learned Germane, hath undertaken the like task, but somewhat unperfectly: for of my 303 contradictions he hath noted but 237. the edition followed by him was not the same, and therefore his trust could not be so helpful to me: Besides, that two or three of Card. Bellarmine's works are since published.  
6 That I have willingly omitted divers small differences, which (if I had regarded number) might have caused the Sum to swell yet higher.  
7 That thou mayest not look to find all these acknowledged differences, main and essential: All Religion consists not of so many stones in her foundation; it is enough, that deep and material dissensions are intermingled with the rest; and that scarce any point is free from some.  
8 That Card. Bellarmine acknowledges those dissensions only, which fall into the compass of his own Controversies (if all those:) omitting all others. For instance: of all those sixty and two differences, in the matter of penance, which I have here gathered out of Navarre and Fr●a Victoria, he hath not confessed above five or six: So that, by the same proportion, whereas three hundred and three Contradictions are acknowledged, there cannot but be many hundreds wittingly by him concealed.  GEN. 11.7. 
Venite igitur descendamus, & confundamus ibi linguam eorum, ut non audiat unus quis que vocem proximi sui, atque ita divisit eos Dominus ex illo loco in universas terras, & cessaverunt aedificare civitatem, & idcirco vocatum est nomen eius Babel, etc.   

THE PEACE OF ROME.  

LIB. I. FIRST CENTVRY of Dissensions.  

DECAD. I.  

First, Bellarmine against Nic. Lyra, Carthusian, Hugo, and Thomas Cardinals, Sixtus Senensis.  
THere have not wanted some which have held the seven last Chapters of the book of Ester, 
Non defuerunt etiam qui librum quidem, etc.  because they are not in the Hebrew Text, spurious and counterfeit: In which opinion was S. Hierom (as is gathered out of his preface) and following him, not only before the Council of Trent Nicholas Lyra, 
Those additions to Ester, which we reject as Apocryphal.  Dionysius Carthusianus, Hugo, and Thomas de Ʋio Cardinals, but also since the said Council Sixtus Senensis in the first and eight book of his Bibliotheca Sancta.  
But that they are sacred and Divine, is sufficiently proved by all those Decrees of Popes and Counsels, and those testimonies of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin fathers, which we have noted formerly in the fourth chapter of this book, and so those other chapters which are not in the Hebrew, etc. Bellarmine in his first book of the word of God, chapt. 7. (See at large his confutation of Sixtus Senensis in the same place.) pag. 30.   

Secondly, john Driedo against Bellarmine.  
Johannes Driedo (a Catholic writer) denies the book of Baruch to be Canonical, 
Ex Catholicis, johannes Driedo etc.  in his first book, the last chapter, at the last argument: But the authority of the Catholic Church persuades us the contrary, which in the Council of Trent (the fourth sitting) numbers the prophet Baruch among the sacred books. Bellarmine the same book, chap. 8. pag. 41.   

Thirdly, Erasmus and johannes Driedo against Bellarmine.  
NOt only Heretics, 
Nec solum haeretici Pagani & Judaei, etc.  Pagans, jews, but of Catholic Christians julius Africanus of old, and of late, johannes Driedo in his first book de Script. etc. chap. last, and of semi-Christians Erasmus in his Scholees upon Hieroms preface to Daniel, have rejected the story of Susanna as new, and foisted into the Canon. But notwithstanding it is certain that all these parts of Daniel are truly Canonical. Bellarm. the same book chap. 9 pag. 43.   

Fourthly, Caietane a Cardinal, and some other nameless against Bellarmine.  
SOme object that the Church receives those books that Saint Hierome receives, 
Ecclesia eoslibros recipit quos B. Hieron.  and refuseth those which he rejecteth, as it appears Distinct. 15. Canon. Sancta Romana. But Hierome flatly affirms all these five books not to be Canonical: so reasoneth Caietane, otherwise a Catholic & a holy Doctor. Some answer, that Hierome saith only that these are not Canonical among the jews; but that cannot be, for he mentioneth also the book of the Pastor, which was accounted to the new Testament. But I admit that Hierome was of that opinion, because no general Council as yet had defined of these books; except only of the book of judith, which Hierome also afterwards received: That therefore which Gelasius saith in the Distinct above cited, is to be understood of the books of the Doctors of the Church, Origin, Ruffian, and the like; not of the books 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 upon this Epistle: and Caietane in the beginning of his Commentaries upon this Epistle have revived and renewed a question, that hath long slept in silence, concerning the Author and authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Bellarmine undertakes to confute their several reasons, drawn, 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, etc.  THere are two principal opinions about the story of judith: Some would have that story to have happened after the Babylonish captivity, either in Cambyses time, so Beda, Lyranus, Io. Driedo; or under Darius Hystaspes, as Gerardus Mercator; Severus Sulpitius refers it to Artaxerxes Ochus: some others hold it to have been after the captivity; either in Sedecias times, as Gil. Genebrardus; or josias, as john Benedictus. But neither of these seems to me probable enough, saith Bellarmine, who confuting all them, placeth this story in the reign of Manasses king of juda. Bellarm. same book, c. 12. p. 58.   

Seventhly, Erasmus and Cajetan against Bellarm. and all other true Catholics.  
ERasm. in his notes upon these epistles affirms, 
Erasmus in annotationibus ad has Epistolas, etc.  that the Epistle of james doth not savour of an Apostolic gravity: he doubts of the second Epistle of Peter. he affirms the second and third Epistles of john were not written by john the Apostle, but by another: of judes Epistle he saith nothing. Caietane doubts of the Authors of the Epistle of james, of Jude, of the second and third of john, and therefore will have them to be of less authority than the rest. Bellarmine justly refutes their opinion, ch. 18. pag. 86.   

Eightly, Erasmus against all true Catholics.  
ERasmus in the end of his notes upon the Revelation, 

Erasmus in fine annotationum. etc.  
Nec defuerunt olim Catholici qui de huius libri authoritate dubitarent.   seeks out many doubtful conjectures, whereby he would prove this book of the Revelation, not to be written by john the Apostle. His three reasons are truly answered by Bellarmine, chap. 19 p. 94.   

Ninthly, Genebrardus against Bellarmine.  
THE fourth book of Esdras is indeed cited by Ambrose, in his book de Bono Mortis; 
Quartus autem Esdrae, etc.  and in his second book upon Luke; and in the 21. Epistle to Horatian: but doubtless it is not Canonical: since that it is not by any Council accounted in the Canon; and is not found either in Hebrew or Greek, and contains in the sixth chapter very fabulous toys. I wonder therefore what came into Genebrards' mind, that he would have this book pertain to the Canon; in his Chronology, pag. 90. Bellarm. chap. 20. pag. 99   

Tenthly, jacobus Christopolitanus, Canus against Bellarmine.  

His igitur omissis qui Hebraico fonti nimiam puritatem falso attribuunt, etc.  OMitting those therefore which falsely attribute too much purity unto the Hebrew text, we are to meet with others, which in a good zeal, but I know not whether according to knowledge, defend that the jews in hatred of the Christian Religion have purposely depraved many places of Scripture; so teaches jacob Bishop of Christopolis in his preface to the Psalms, and Canus in his second book and thirteenth chapter of common places. These Bellarmine confutes by most weighty arguments, as he calls them, and shows that by this defence the vulgar Edition should be most corrupt, in 2. book of the word of God, chap. 2. pag. 108.    

DECAD II.  

First, Pagnin, Paulus Forosempron, Eugubius, Io. Mirandulanus, Driedo, Sixtus Senensis, all together by the ears.  
COncerning this vulgar Latin Edition, 
Non paruae quaestio est, etc.  there is no small question. That it is not Ieromes, is held by Sanctus Pagninus, in the preface of his interpretation of the Bible to Clement the eight, and Paulus Bishop of Forosempronium, in his second book, first chapter of the day of Christ's passion. Contrarily, that it is Ieromes is defended by Augustine Eugubinus, and johannes Picus Mirandulanus in books set out to that purpose, and by some others. But that it is mixed both of the new and old, is maintained by Io. Driedo in his second book, ch. 1. and Sixtus Senensis in his 8. book of the holy Library, and the end. Bellarm. 2. book, chap. 9 pag. 135.   

Secondly, Bellarmine against some nameless Authors.  
COncerning the Translation of the Septuagint, 
De postrema, etc.  though I know some hold it is utterly lost, yet I hold rather that it is so corrupted, that it seems another. Bellarm. 2. book, ch. 6. pag. 127.   

Thirdly, Valla, Faber, Erasmus, and others against Bellarmine.  
THat place Rom. 1.32. not only Kemnitius, 
Hunc locum non solum Chemnitius, sed, etc.  but also Valla, Erasmus, jacobus Faber and others would have to be corrupted in the Latin vulgar. Bellarmine confutes them, and would show that their Latin Translation herein is better than the Greek original. Bellarm. same book, chap. 14. pag. 168.   

Fourthly, Card. Cajetan against Bellarmine.  
THomas Caietanus in his Treatise of the Institut. and authority of the B. of Rome, 
Thomas Caietanus in tract. de Instit. etc.  chap. 5. teacheth, that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are not the same with the power of binding and losing; for that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven includes the power of order and jurisdiction, and somewhat more: But this doctrine seems to us more subtle than true; for it was never heard of, that the Church had any other keys besides those of order, and jurisdiction. Bellarm. 1. book of the Pope, ch. 12. pag. 101.   

Fiftly, joachim, Raymundus, a nameless Frenchman against all Catholics.  
THat there are three eternal spirits, 
Tres esse spiritus aeternus, etc.  Father, Son Holy Ghost essentially differing, was taught by a certain Frenchman in Anselmes' time; and the same seems to be held by joachim the Abbot, in the year 1190. and Raymundus Lullius, in the year 1270. confuted by Bellarmine in his first book de Christo. cha. 2. pag. 37.   

Sixtly, Erasmus confuted by Bellarmine.  
Bellarmines' disputation against the Transsiluani, 
Sed ocurrunt Arriani Transsiluani, & Erasmus, etc.  and Erasmus as their patron, concerning the Divinity of Christ, warranted from divers places of Scripture. See Bell. l. 1. de Christo. ch. 6. pag. 72.73.   

Seventhly, Bellarmine against Durandus.  
THE fourth error is of Durandus in 3. d. 22. q. 3. who taught, 
Quartus error est Durandi, etc.  that Christ's soul descended not to hell in substance, but only in certain 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 proved by four arguments; and all his objections answered by Bellarm. l. 4. de Christo ch. 15. pag. 391.392, etc.   

Eightly, Bonaventure against Thomas  
SAint Thomas p. 3. q. 52. Art. 2. teaches, 
B. Thomas, etc. Docet Christum per realem, etc.  that Christ by his real presence descended but to Limbus Patrum, and in effect only to the other places of hell: but it is probable that his soul descended to all.  
Secondly, Saint Thomas seems to say (p. 3. q. 52. ar. 1.) that it was some punishment to Christ to be in hell according to his soul, etc. And Cajetan (in act. 2.) saith that the sorrows of Christ's death continued in him, till his resurrection, in regard of three penalties, whereof the second is, that the soul remained in hell, a place not convenient for it.  
But Bonavent. in 3. d. 22. q. 4. saith, that Christ's soul while it was in hell, was in the place of punishment indeed, but without punishment, which seems to me more agreeable to the Fathers. Bellarm. l. 4 de Christo. c. 16. p. 396.397, etc.   

Ninthly, Bellarmine and all other Papists against Lyranus.  
NIcolaus Lyranus is not of so great authority that we should oppose him to all the ancient Fathers and Historians, 
Nic. Lyranus non tantae autoritatis est, etc.  which say, that Peter was slain at Rome (not as Lyranus at Jerusalem.) Bellarm. l. 2. of the Pope of Rome, ch. 10. pag. 210.   

Tenthly, Aeneas Silvius confuted by Bellarmine.  

Quod ante Nicenum, etc.  THat speech of Aeneas Silvius (afterwards Pope) that before the Nicene Council each man lived to himself, and there was small respect had of the Bishop of Rome is partly true, and partly false: It is true that the power of the Popes was somewhat in those times hindered; but it is not true that there was so little respect given him. Bellarm. l. 2. de Pontif. c. 17. pag. 252.    

DECAD. III.  

First, Martinus Polonus confuted by Bellarmine.  
THE confutation of Martinus Polonus which lived An. 1250. in that story of Pope joan, 
Quod fabula sit narratio Martini, etc.  delivered from him by Sigebertus, Marianus Scotus, Platina and others. See Bellarm. l. 3. de Pontif. c. 24. pag. 464.465, etc.   

Secondly, Bellarmine against Valla.  
THe sixteenth is Pope Celestinus, 
Decimussextus est Celest.  whom Laurentius Valla affirms, to have been infected with the heresy of Nestorius; in his declamation against the Donation of Constantine. But Valla lies falsely. Bellarm. l. 4. de Pont. c. 10. p. 512.   

Thirdly, Darandus and Adrian against Pope Gregory and Bellarmine.  
SAint Gregory 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 unto presbyters to confer the Sacrament of confirmation; which is only by right proper to Bishops: By reason of which place of Gregory, Adrian in quest, of confirmation, art. ult. affirmeth, that the Pope may err in defining points of Faith, but in truth, not S. Gregory 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 general Council; and Panormitans, and Gersons, 
Primo ex Gratiano.  that one private man's opinion, if he be furnished with better authorities from Scripture, is to be preferred to the opinion of the Pope: and that any one learned man may, and aught in some cases to resist a whole Council. See confuted, and qualified by Bellar. l. 1. de Concil. cap. 16. p. 72.   

Fiftly, Pighius, Turrecremata, Cajetan, other Popish Doctors against Bellarmine in five several opinions.  
IN this question, 
Sunt de hac re quinque opiniones, etc.  whether in case of heresy the Pope may be judged and deposed, there are five different opinions. The first of Albertus Pighius, 4. book of Eccles. Hierarchy, ch. 8. who holds that the Pope can not be an Heretic, and therefore can in no case be deposed: which is a probable opinion, but not certain, 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 falls into an heresy, though inward and secret, is without the Church and deposed of God; and therefore that he may be judged, that is declared to be deposed (de facto) if he yet refuse to yield. But this opinion I cannot allow. The third is in another extreme, that the Pope neither for secret nor manifest heresy is, or can be deposed: This Io. Turrecremata in the place forecited confuteth; and indeed it is an opinion very improbable. The fourth is caietan's in his Tract of the authority of the Pope and the Council, ch. 20. and 21. That a Pope which is manifestly heretical, is not (ipso facto) deposed, but may and aught to be deposed by the Church: which opinion in my judgement cannot be defended. Here therefore Bellarmine defends these positions against Cajetan.  
1 That every manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed, out of Tit. 3.  
2 That a manifest heretic cannot be the Pope.  
3 That an heretic losing faith, and retaining the Character still, is yet without the Church.  
4 That the Pope cannot be deposed for ignorance or wickedness.  
5 That the Pope may not be deposed by the Church.  
The fifth opinion is true, that the Pope being a manifest heretic, ceases of himself to be Pope and head of the Church: as of himself he ceases to be a Christian and member of the Church; and therefore that he may be judged and punished by the Church. Bellarmine 2. b. of 3. Gener. Contro. chap. 30. pag. 317.   

Sixtly, Some nameless Doctors against Bellarmine.  
IT is the opinion of some Catholics, 
Huc referri potest opinio quorundam Catholicorum, ut refert jodoc. Clict. etc.  as jodocus Clictonaeus reporteth, that Mahumet was that Antichrist properly called, because he came about the year 666. as john foretold. But this reason of theirs is frivolous, Bellarm. third book of the Pope, chap. 3. pag. 346.   

Seventhly, Bellarmine against Bb. jansenius.  
I Cannot enough marvel what Bishop jansenius meant, 
Quo loco non possum satis, etc.  in that he wrote that although it be the opinion of all the ancient, that Elias shall come, yet that it is not convinced out of that place in Ecclesiasticus, chap. 48.10. for if it be so as jansenius saith, it follows that Ecclesiasticus both is, and hath written false. Bellarm. in 3. b. c. 6. pag. 357.   

Eightly, Dominicus a Soto against Bellarmine.  
ONe doubt remains, 
unum superest dubium, Anne, etc.  whether by the cruel persecution of Antichrist, the Christian faith and Religion shall be utterly extinguished: Dominicus a Soto defends it in 4. book of sentences, d. 46. q. 1. art. 1. But this opinion in my judgement cannot be defended. Bellarmine l. 3 chap. 17. pag. 417.   

Ninthly, Gerson, Almain, Pope Adrian, Hosius, Eckius, etc., Pighius, Thomas Waldensis, in three contradictory opinions.  
COncerning the Pope's certainty of judgement, 
Quatuor tantum remanent diversae, etc.  there are four divers opinions. The first is, that the Pope as Pope may be an heretic in himself, and may teach others heresy, although he define something even with a general Council: This is the opinion of all the heretics of this time, Luther, Calvin, etc.  
The second that the Pope as Pope may be an heretic, and teach heresy if he define without a general Council, and that it hath so happened. This opinion follows Nilus in his book against the Primacy of the Pope. Io. Gerson, and Almain: Alphonsus de Castro, and Pope Adrian the sixth, in the quaest. of confirmation: which opinion is not merely heretical, but is erroneous and near to heresy.  
The third in an other extreme, That the Pope cannot by any means be an heretic, nor teach heresy, publicly, 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 heretic or no, cannot by any means define any heretical point to be believed 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, Cajetan, Hosius, Eckius, Io. of Lovan, Petrus a Soto, etc. 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 Peter's faith, that it might not fail, is expounded: 
Qui locus tribus modis exponi solet, etc.   
1 By the Parisian Divines, That the Lord prayed for his universal Church, or for Peter as he bore the figure of the whole Church, which exposition is false.  
2 Others that live at this day teach; That the Lord in this place prayed for the perseverance of Peter alone in the grace of God, until the end, confuted by four arguments.  
3 The third exposition is true; That the Lord obtained for Peter two privileges: One, that he should never lose the true faith, though never so much tempted; The other, that he as Pope should never teach any thing against the faith. Bell. b. 4. ch 3. pag. 477.    

DECAD. FOUR  

First, Melchior Canus and others, against Pighius, Hosius, Io. Lovan, Onuphrius.  
NOt only the heretics, but some Catholic Doctors, 
Nec solum haeretici.  have held Pope Honorius to have been an heretic, so doth Melchior Canus from the two Epistles of Honorius himself to Sergius, wherein he approves the doctrine of the Monothelites: from the 6. Synod, Act. 13. seventh 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, etc. But in the behalf of Honorius have written Albert Pighius, Hosius, Io. of Lovan, Onuphrius: Bellarm. B. 4. ch. 11. pag. 519.   

Secondly, Alphonsus de Castro against Bellarmine, Celestin Pope against Innocentius.  
ALphonsus de Castro affirms flatly, 
Tricesimus tertius est Celestinus 3. quem Alphonsus, etc.  that Pope Celestinus was an heretic; the first Book of heres. chap. 4. for that he held Matrimony so dissolved by heresy, that he whose wife was proved heretical, might marry again: Contrary to which is taught by Pope Innocentius [3. ch. Quanto. of divorces] and the same is defined in the Council 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 john, Bellarmine against Turrecremata.  

Nicolaus 3. qui in capite Exist. de verborum significatione in sexto definite.  POpe Nicholas the third defines, that Christ by his word and example taught perfect poverty, 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 poverty is holy and meritorious: But Pope john. 20. in his extravagants teaches this to be false and heretical: Io. de Turrecremata goes about wholly to reconcile these two Popes: but in truth, if I be not much deceived, they cannot be in all things reconciled. Bellarm. b. 4. chap. 14. pag. 546.   

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

johannes 22. Papa a multis reprehenditur.  THat Pope john. 22. was an heretic in teaching that the souls of the blessed shall not see God till the resurrection, is affirmed by Gul. Occam. Adrian, Erasmus, Io. Gerson. He thought so indeed, but than it was not heresy, so to think, because no Council had defined the question, and Io. Villanus reports, that the day before his death, he partly explained, and partly recanted his opinion. Bellarmine same chapter and book. pag. 548.   

Fiftly, Abulensis against Turrecremata.  
OF the inward jurisdiction in the Court of conscience; 
De secunda est quidem aliqua dissensio inter authores, etc.  there is some dissension amongst our Authors: for Abulensis 
* Jn-defensorio p. 2. c. 63.  holds this power given to all Priests immediately from God, when they are ordained: now that yet notwithstanding this, every Priest cannot bind or lose whatsoever Christians, is therefore ordered, because the Church to take away confusion hath divided Dioceses; and subjecteth one people to one Bishop, another to another. But Io. de Turrecremata 
❀ l. 1. Sum. c. 96  teaches that this power is not given of God by the force of ordination, but by man upon his mere injunction. Bellarm. B. 4. c. 22. p. 589.   

Sixtly, Three ranks of Popish Doctors at variance.  
HOw Bishops receive their jurisdiction, 
Sunt tres de ear Theologorum sententiae.  there are three opinions amongst our Divines. The first, that as well Apostles as other Bishops, did, and do receive it immediately from God. So teach Franciscus Victoria, and Alphonsus de Castro. The second of those that hold, the Apostles not to have received their jurisdiction from Christ, but from Peter; and Bishops not from Christ, but Peter's successor. So Io. de Turrecremata and Dominicus jacobatius. The third of them, which teach, that the Apostles indeed received all their authority immediately from Christ; but other Bishops received it not from Christ, but from the Pope: so holds Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, Franciscus Vargas, Herbaeus, Gabriel, Bonaventure, Albert, Durand. and others. Bellarm. B. 4. c. 22. p. 590.   

Seventhly, Aug. Triumphus, Aluar. Pelagius, Hostiensis, etc. against Henricus, Turrecrem. Pighius, Waldensis, etc.  

De qua etc. tres inveniuntur auct●rum sententiae etc.  OF the Pope's temporal power, are three opinions of authors: First that the Pope hath full power over all the world, both in spiritual things and temporal. So teach August. Triumphus, Aluarus Pelagius, and many Lawyers, Hostiensis, Silvester, and others not a few: yea Hostiensis goes further, and teaches, that all dominion of Infidel Princes, is by Christ's coming translated to the Church, and rests in the Pope.  
The second in another extreme, that the Pope as Pope and by the law of God hath no temporal power, nor can any way rule over secular Princes, and deprive them of their Princedom, though they deserve it. So all the heretics.  
The third, which is the mean betwixt both, is the commonest opinion of Catholic Divines, that the Pope as Pope hath not directly and immediately any temporal power, but only spiritual; yet in respect to his spiritual jurisdiction, that he hath at least indirectly a certain power, and that supreme, even in temporal things. So teach Hugo, Halensis, Durandus, Henricus, Driedo, Turrecremata, Pighius, Waldensis, Petrus de Palude, Cajetan, Francis Victoria, Dominicus a Soto, Nicholas Saunders, etc. What Thom. Aquinas thinks of this temporal power of the Pope, is uncertain. 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 etc.  that the appointment of the Electors of the Roman Empire, was done by Gregory the tenth, but Innocent. 3. which was before Gregory 10. speaks of this Institution, and Hostiensis that was likewise before him, saith, that Innocentius speaks of the seven Electors: and Aluarus Pelagius, who lived in the memory of Gregory 10. reports this to have been the act of Gregory 5. Bellarm. l. 5. c. 8. p. 633.   

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

Hanc autem originem, etc.  THE beginning of Counsels Albertus Pighius in his 6. B. of the heavenly Hierarchy ch. 1. defends to be altogether human and devised by natural reason; But it is more probable that it is Divine, for the Council of Chalcedon in an Epistle to Leo, and the sixth Synod, Act. 17 and Pope Celestine in an Epistle to the Council of Ephesus, and the third Council of Toledo, teach that Counsels are imported in those words of Christ, Matth. 18. Wheresoever two or three, etc. Bellarm. de council. & Eccles. milit. lib. 1. c. 3. pag. 25.   

Tenthly, some un-named Catholics against Bellarm. Turrecremata, Canus.  
SOme Catholics hold, 
Secundo abqui Catholici obij, etc.  that all Bishops are not judges in Counsels, for then (say they) the Pope should be bound, who is precedent in the Council, to follow the greater part of Bishops; but this is false, as appears in the practices of Damasus and Leo.  
I answer first, that perhaps it never fell so out, that the Pope should follow the lesser part in the Council, when they have given their voices without all fraud. Secondly I say, that the Precedent of the Council, as Precedent, must follow the greater part of the voices; but the Pope not as Precedent, but as the chief Prince of the Church, may recall and retract that judgement. So Io. de Turrecremata [lib. 3. c. 6.3.] and Canus [lib. 5. c. 5] Bellarm. ibid. ch. 18. p. 81.    

DECAD. V.  

First, Bellarmine against some Catholics nameless.  
THat particular Counsels confirmed by the Pope cannot err in faith, 
Concilia particularia, etc.  and manners, there are some Catholics that deny: which as yet are not by the Church condemned for Heretics: But surely it is rash, erroneous, and near to heresy, to affirm that particular Counsels confirmed by the Pope may err. Bellarmine, l. 2. ch. 5. p. 114.   

Secondly, Alanus Copus against Bellarmine.  
IT is a very uncertain thing, 
Rem esse incertissimam, etc.  what was decreed of Images in the Council of Francford; for the ancient authors agree not with themselves: by reason of this confusion, Alanus Copus in his fourth and fifth Dialogue, teaches, that in that Synod of Francford the heretical Council of Constantinople was only condemned: the Nicene not only 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 answer, 
Respondent quidam, ut Vega, etc.  as Vega in the Council of Trent [b. 3. c. 39] that any Council is lawful, if held by the faithful, not for that Historians witness so, but because the Council itself defineth so of itself; for they use ever in the beginning of their act, so to determine their meeting lawful, and in the Holy Ghost. But sure this answer is not found; for first the ancient Counsels had not wont to witness so of themselves. Secondly, either it appears to us, that the Council is a lawful one; or it appears not: if it do appear, such a Decree is in vain, if it do not appear, we shall as well doubt of that Decree, as of the Council. Bellarmine same book, cap. 9 pag. 148.   

Fourthly, Parisienses against Cajetan: Turrecremata and Bellarmine against Canus.  
OF general Counsels there are divers opinions amongst us. 
De Concilijs unuersalibus, etc.  First the Divines of Paris, and all those which teach, that the Council is above the Pope, think that lawful general Counsels cannot err, even before the confirmation of the Pope. Contrary to these, teach others, as Cajetan [in Apolog.] Io. Turrecremata, 
P. 2. c. 21  [lib. 3. cap. 32.33, 34.]  
But when Counsels define something with the consent of the Pope's Legates, not having had full instruction: what authority they have, is still in controversy. But I think such a Council may err, before the pope's own confirmation. Canus and others hold the contrary. Bellarm. l. 2. c. 11. p. 153.   

Fiftly, Bellarmine against Gratian.  
GRatian dist. 19 affirms, 
Gratianus dist. etc.  that the decretal Epistles of pope's ought to be numbered amongst the Canonical Scriptures, and Di. 20. he saith, that the Canons of Counsels are of the same authority with Decretal Epistles; and pope Gregory in his first B. Epist. 24. saith, he reverences the four first Counsels, as the four Evangelists. I answer first, that Gratian was deceived by a depraved copy, which he followed, etc. As for Gregory, I answer that his (As) doth not signify equality, but similitude. Bellarm. l. 2. c. 12. pag. 161.   

Sixtly, Three ranks of Popish Divines dissenting.  
IN this question, 
De proposita quaestione tres etc.  Whether the pope be above the Council, I find three opinions of our Doctors. First, that the Council is above the pope: so affirm all the heretics of this time: and the same is taught by Card. Cameracensis, Io. Gerson, jacob. Almain, and some others: Also Nicol. Cusanus, Card. Panormitanus, and his Master the Cardinal 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 supreme power of the Church is as well in the Council, as in the Pope; but in the Council principally, immediately, and immovably: And in the defence of this point, these Authors again differ from themselves, whiles some hold this power formally and subjectively in the Pope; and finally in the Church. Others will have it formally and principally in the Church; and instrumentally in the Pope.  
Second opinion is of some Canonists, which will have the Pope above the Council, and that he cannot upon constraint be judged by any; but that he may subject himself (if he will) to the Council. So teacheth the Gloss. in Canon. Nossi, etc.  
The third is the more common opinion, That the Pope is so above the Council, that he cannot subject himself unto the judgement thereof; if we speak of a coactive sentence: So all the old Schoolmen hold; Albert, Thomas, Bonaventure, Richard Paludanus 
a In 4. d. 19 , so 
b 3. p. tit. 22. c. 10.  Antoninus, 
c L. 2. c. 93. etc.  Turrecremata, 
d De planctu Ec cle. l. 1. c. 93.  Al. Pelagius, jacobatius, Cajetan, Pighius, Turrianus, and Saunders, and many other there mentioned. Bellarmine, l. 2. c. 13. pag. 166.   

Seventhly, Council of Basill against Eugenius, and Leo, Popes.  
THat which the Council of Basill defined of the authority of the Council above the Pope, 
Quae autem definivit.  was never by any Pope allowed. Pope Eugenius first did professedly reject it: then Pope Leo the tenth, in the last Council of Lateran. Sess. 11. as also the whole Church, which ever held Eugenius (who by the council 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 book de Dog. Eccl. c. 74. openly saith, 
Author libri de Eccl.  that Novices in Religion dying before their baptism cannot be saved: but this seems overhard: Melchior Canus holds they may be saved; because though they be not of the christian Church, yet they are of that Church, that comprehends all faithful ones, from Abel to the end of the world. But this satisfies not: I answer, that this rule, No man without the Church can be saved, is to be understood of those which neither indeed, nor in desire are of the Church. Bellarmine, lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 159.   

Ninthly, Bellarmine against Alphonsus de Castro.  
ALphonsus de Castro [in his second book of the just punishment of heretics, 
Haereticos & Apostatas baptiz. Alphonsus, etc.  chap. 34.] teaches that heretics and Apostates, if once baptised are members and parts of the Church, although they openly profess false Doctrine: which opinion, as it is plainly false, so may easily be refuted. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 4. p. 196.   

Tenthly, Alphonsus and others against Bellarmine.  

Deschismaticis, etc.  SOme catholics doubt concerning Schismatics, whether they be of the Church: yea Alphonsus de Castro flatly affirms them to be of the Church; but it is easy to show the contrary out of Scriptures and traditions of the Fathers. Bellarmine, l. 3. c. 5. where also he holds the definition which pope Nicholas gives of the church to be imperfect. p. 200.203.    

DECAD. VI  

First, Catechism. Rom. Waldensis, Turrecremata, etc. against some nameless Papists.  
THat persons excommunicate are not of the church, 
De excommunicatis quod in Eccles. etc.  is taught by the Catechism of Rome, by Tho. Waldensis, Io. de Turrecremata, Io. Driedo, and some others. The contrary is defended by others: whose three objections 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 etc.  that notorious wicked men are not of the Church; not only Brentius and Calvin heretics, but some Catholics, feign two Churches, and they do but feign them indeed; for neither Scripture nor Austen ever mention more than one. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 9 p. 229.   

Thirdly, Bellarmine against Turrecremata.  
THat close Infidels, 
Restant infideles occulti, etc.  that have neither faith nor any other Christian virtue, yet externally for some temporal commodity, profess the Catholic faith, belong not to the true Church, is taught, not only by the Caluinists, 
So Thomas Waldensis, Io. Driedo, Peter a Soto, Hosius, Canus, & others.  but by some of our Catholics; amongst whom is Io. de Turrecremata, l. 4. de Eccles. But we follow their phrase of speech, which say, that those, who by an external profession only are joined to the faithful, are true parts of the body of the Church, though dry and dead. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 10. pag. 232.   

Fourthly, Alexander Alensis, and Turrecremata against Bellarmine.  
THere are some Catholic Doctors, 
Non desunt etiam Catholici qui dicant, etc.  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. ult. art. 2.] and john 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 Universal Church to affirm otherwise. For Rupertus in his 5. book of Divine offices, chap. 26. sayeth, that in his time, the last candle also had wont to be quenched. It may be answered rather with Abulensis, that by this candle is signified, that only in the blessed Virgin; there was for those three days an explicit faith of the resurrection. Bellarmine l. 3. c. 17. pag. 27.   

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

Si nulla extaret etc.  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 choice (setting aside the positive law) should belong to the Council of Bishops: as Caietane in his treatise of the power of the Pope and Council, chap. 13. Franciscus Victoria, Relect. 2. q. 2. of the power of the Church: others (as Silvester reports, in the word excommunication) teach, that it pertains to the Clergy of Rome. Bellarm. in his first book of the members of the Church militant. c. 10. p. 52.   

Sixtly, Bellarmine against Antonius Delphinus, and Michael Medina.  
TO that objection out of Jerome, 
Sexta obiectio ex S. Hieronimo in come. etc.  who saith upon the first to Titus, that a presbyter is the same with a Bishop; is answered by Antonius Delphinus (l. 2. of the Church) that in the beginning of the church all Presbyters were Bishops. But this satisfies not. Michael Medina [in his first book de sacr. hom. Origine] affirms, that S. Jerome held the same opinion with the Aerian heretics, and that not only Jerome was in this heresy, 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 Wickliff. But this opinion of Medina is very inconsiderate. Bellarm. same book, c. 15. p. 75.   

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

Eightly, Io. Maior. and jodoc. Clictonaeus against S. Thomas, Cajetan, Sotus.  

Ac ut a primo incipiamus, Io. Maior, etc.  Johannes 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 book de Contin. Sacerd.] who there defends two opinions which cannot hold together: but S. Thomas [in 2.2. q. 88 art. 11.] saith plainly, that the vow of continency, is only 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 seventh book of justice, etc. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 18. pag. 92.   

Ninthly, Erasmus and Panormitan against the other Popish Doctors.  

Praeterea Erasmus, etc.  ERasmus in a declamation of the praise of Matrimony, holds it profitable, that liberty of marriage should be granted to Priests: and the same is taught by Card. Panormitan, a Catholic and learned Doctor (in the Chapt. Cum olim.) Against these errors we are to prove, that the vow of continency is so annexed to holy orders, that they neither may marry, nor converse with their wives formerly married. Bellarm. same book, c. 19 p. 95.   

Tenthly, the Gloss, Innocent. Panormitan, Hostiensis, opposed by all Divines, and some Canonists.  
THe fourth error is of many of the canonists, 
Quartus error est multorum Canonistarum.  which hold, that tithes, even according to the determination of quantity, stand by the Law of God; and that no other quantity can be set down by any human law or custom: So the Gloss, Innocentius, Panormitan, Hostiensis; but doubtless it is a manifest error, as not only all Divines, but some Canonists also teach, as Sylvester in the word Decima, quaest. 4. and Navar. cap. 21. And herein many of the Canonists offend double: once, in that they defend a falsehood; Twice, in that they do almost condemn all those Divines as heretics, which hold the contrary. Bellarm. same book c. 25. p. 145.    

DECAD. VII.  

First, Sotus against Sylvester, and Navarre, Bellarmine and Aquinas with both.  
WHether the Precept of Tithes, 
Dubium autem est, etc.  as it is Positive and human, may by custom be altered, is doubtful.  
Sotus holds directly it cannot, book 9 quaest. 4. art. 1. and thinks that this is the judgement of aquina's. But I think with Silvester and Navarre, 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 Wald. do●et Clericos debere, etc.  that Clerks should either give their goods to the poor, or lay them together in common; and proves it by some sentences of Fathers, Origen, Hierome, Bernard. But it is certain that Clerks are not by their profession, tied to put away their patrimony. Bellarmine same book, c. 27. p. 156.   

Thirdly, Marsilius Paduan. Io. de janduno. Turrecremata: Canonists, Gloss, Driedonius, Francisc. Victoria, Dominicus a Soto, Couarruuias dissenting.  
IN the question concerning the liberty of Ecclesiastical persons, 
Postrema restat quaestio de libertate Eccles.  are three opinions: First is of many heretics, that Clerks are and should be subject to secular powers, both in payment of tributes, and in judgements, especially not Ecclesiastical: So also Marsilius of Padua, and Io. de janduno teach, that Christ himself 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 extreme, is of many Canonists, who hold that by the Law of God, Clerks and their goods are free from the power of secular Princes: so teaehes the Gloss, in Can. Tributum: and of this mind seems Io. Driedonius to be in his book of Christian liberty, ch. 9  
The third in the mean, is of many Divines, that clerks are free partly by the law of God, partly by the law of men, and partly neither way: so thinks Franciscus Victoria, Dominicus a Soto, Couarruuias in his book of practical questions. Bellarmine same book cap. 28. where he disputes against the Canonists, confutes Cornelius jansenius, and follows Tostatus and Cajetan in the exposition of Austen, and lastly, refels Dominicus a Soto, etc. pag. 159.166.167.   

Fourthly, Dominicus a Soto and Alphonsus against Saint Thomas and Bonaventure.  
IT is a question among Divines, 
Quaestionem esse inter Theologos, etc.  whether duties commanded by God, do properly fall within the compass of our vows: for some deny it, as Thomas and Bonaventure (in 4. dist. 38.) Others affirm it, as some latter writers Dominicus a Soto, l. 7. de justit. & iure: Alphonsus a Castro. l. 1. of penal law, etc. 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 book of the praises of our Lady, and before Albert the holy Fathers, Nissenus and Augustine. Neither do I see, how that vow can prejudice the celebration of her true marriage; if it be supposed (as all Divines do) that it was revealed to her, that Saint joseph should never require of her matrimonial benevolence. Bellarm. ibid. c. 22. p. 296.   

Sixtly, Scotus, Paludanus, Cajetan, against Albertus, Thomas, Bonaventure, Richard, Durand, etc.  
whether after a solemn vow made, 
Vtrum autem post votum.  matrimony be quite dissanulled by the law of God, and of nature; or only by the law of the Church, is questioned: For Albertus, S. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, Richard, and Durand, in the 4. dist. 38. and Dominicus a Soto in his 7. book of law and justice, q. 2. art. 5. will have the marriage, by the law of God and nature utterly void, if it be made after a solemn vow taken: But Scotus and Paludanus in 4. d. 38. and Cajetan, and all the whole school of Lawyers (as Panormitan reporteth) affirm, that such marriage is only void by the law of the Church. Bellarm. ibid. c. 34. p. 378.   

Seventhly, Erasmus and Espencaeus, justinian and Gregory, Bellarmine and the common sort disagreeing.  
OF the fourth are two extreme 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 dissolved by the profession of a monasterial life. So also teacheth Erasm. [upon 7. ch. of 1. Cor.] and to the same judgement inclineth Claudius Espencaeus in his sixth b. ch 4. of Contin. Another error in the contrary extreme, that marriage, though fully consummate, is dissolved by entering into Religion: So decreed justinian G. of Bishops, and this law is related by Gregory, (b. 9 Epist. 39) But the judgement of the Church is in the mean between both, that matrimony ratified only, is so dissolved, not when it is consummate: So besides many Canons, the Council of Trent. Sess. 24. Can. 6. Bellarm. ibid. ch. 38. p. 394. etc.   

Eightly, Io. of Lovan 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 reconciliation betwixt the catholics, 
Tertius error est, etc.  Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. and till they do find it out; that they ought to permit to every one his own faith; so that they all receive the scripture and the Creed Apostolic. This is a manifest error, and against him wrote of the Catholic Doctors, john of Lovan; of the heretics john Calvin: and this opinion may easily be confuted. Bellarmine l. 3. c. 19 p. 500   

Ninthly, some nameless Doctors, also Scotus, Thomas, and Bellarmine in three divers opinions.  

Non defuerunt qui, etc.  THere have been some which have denied, that venial sin could be remitted after this life, as Saint Thomas reports, [in 4. dist. q. 21. art. 2.] but said, that all venial sins are remitted in the instant of death, by a final grace: But they are deceived, for both Scriptures and Fathers teach us, that small sins are remitted after this life, etc. Others (as Scotus in the 4. dist. 21. q. 1.) say, that sin after the act is passed, leaves only a guilt of punishment behind it: and therefore venial sin is said to be remitted in Purgatory, because it is there wholly punished; but mortal sin is not said to be forgiven after this life, because it is never there totally punished. This opinion is also false. Another opinion of the same Scotus is, that venial sins are remitted in the first moment of the soul's separation from the body, by the virtue of our foregoing merits: but this pleaseth me not: the opinion of Thomas is truer, that venial sins are remitted in Purgatory by the act of love and patience, etc. Bellarm. 6. controu. gener. of Purgat. l. 1. c. 14. p. 84.   

Tenthly, some un-named Papists against Bonaventure, Scotus, Durand, Thomas, etc.  
SOme Catholics, 
Argumentum tertium quorundam Catholicorum.  to prove that (as they hold) souls in Purgatory may merit, argue thus: The souls in Purgatory have all things necessary for merit; for they have grace, faith, charity, free-will, etc. Also they prove it by the authority of Saint Thomas, in 4. dist. 1. q. 1. art. 3. But I answer to the argument; That the souls in purgatory cannot merit, because they are not in the state of their passage; for God hath only decreed, during this life to accept our good works for merit: and after this life, good works are the effects of glory: evil the effects of damnation. For Saint Thomas, I answer, that he changed his opinion, for (in q. 7. of evil, art. 11.) he saith directly, that there can be no merit in purgatory: so also Bonaventure, Scotus, Durand, and others. Bellarm. ibid. l. 2. c. 3. p. 106.    

DECAD. VIII.  

First, Carthusian, Michael Baij, Gerson, Roffensis against the common opinion of Divines.  
THe third question is, 
Tertia quaestio nunc, etc.  whether the souls in purgatory be certain of their salvation or no: Some Catholics teach, that they are not; who hold that there be sundry punishments in Purgatory; whereof the greatest is uncertainty of salvation, with which they say, some souls are only punished. So seems Dionysius Carthusianus to hold, by reason of certain visions, which he reports; and so teaches Michael Baij in his 2. b. of merit of works, ch. 8. This way seems to tend the opinion of Io. Gerson, lect. 1. of spiritual life, and Io. of Rochester against the 32. artic. of Luther. who hold venial sin to be only upon the mercy of God: and therefore that it may (if God so will) be eternally punished, etc. But the common opinion of Divines is, That all souls in purgatory are certain of their salvation. Bellarm. ibid. c. 4. p. 108.   

Secondly, Bellarmine warranted by Bede, Carthusian, and Gregory against the Council of Florence, and all Divines.  

Quantum ad primum, difficultas, etc.  IN the first question concerning the number of places, there is great difficulty; for on the one side all Divines teach, that there are no other receptacles beside the four mentioned; and the Council of Florence (Ses. ult.) defines, 
Quod ●am quasi pratum florentissimum lucidissimum, odoratis, amaenum.  that the souls which have nothing to be purged, are strait taken into heaven: On the other side Beda in his 5. book c. 13. tells of a very probable vision, which he doubted not to believe; wherein was showed to a certain soul which after returned to the body, besides hell, Purgatory and heaven, a goodly flourishing, pleasant, light-some and sweet Meadow, wherein lived those souls which suffered nothing, but only stayed there because they were not yet fit for heaven; and divers such visions are brought by Dionysius Cart●. & Greg. 
Mitissimum purgatorium, & quasi carcer quidam Senatorius, & honoratus.  And it seems to me not unprobable that such a place there is to be found, which belongeth to Purgatory: for though there be no punishment of pain, yet of loss there is. Therefore this place is a milder kind of purgatory, and as it were a more Gentlemanlike and honourable prison. Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. p. 123.   

Thirdly, Alphonsus Ciaconus against Melchior Canus, and Dominicus a Soto.  
IF this history of trajan should be defended, 
Si haec historia, etc.  we must say, that trajan was not absolutely condemned to hell, but only punished in hell according to his present demerit, and that the sentence was suspended by reason of Gregory's prayers foreseen by God; and therefore that he was not immediately translated from hell to heaven, but first united to the body, then baptised, and then that he did penance in this life: and this is the common answer of S. Thomas, Durand, Richard, and others: But I rather incline to the opinion of Melchior Canus, which simply rejects this history as feigned: and of Dominicus a Soto, notwithstanding the Apology which Alphonsus Ciaconus hath 3. years ago 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, etc.  that he that is absolutely damned to eternal punishment cannot be recalled to life; for then the damnation of the wicked should be uncertain. Against this opinion is Abulensis [quaest. 57 in the fourth book of the Kings:] To the instances brought, Sotus answers, that those Heathens were only invincibly ignorant, and therefore in Purgatory: but I say, that those which were raised, though they did deserve eternal damnation, yet were not condemned, but that their judgement was suspended, 
In 4- sent. di. 45.  and that in the mean time they were punished, according to their present injustice: So holds Saint Thomas, Richardus, Durand, and others. Bellarm. ibid. c. 8. pag. 133.   

Fiftly, Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto.  
BEsides these errors; 
Praeter hos errores, etc.  it was the opinion of Dominicus a Soto [upon the 4. sent. dist. 19 q. 3. art. 2.] that no man remains ten years in Purgatory. Whom see how Bellarmine confutes by reasons, by visions, by the custom of the Church. Bellarmine ibid. c. 9 pag. 133.   

Sixtly, Thomas and the Schoolmen against the visions of Bede and Carthusian.  
COncerning the third doubt, 
De tertio Dubio etc.  ' it is altogether uncertain; for, that the souls in Purgatory are punished neither by Devils, nor by Angels, but by fire only, is taught by the Schoolmen, as Thomas [upon 4. dist. 20. art. 5.] On the other part, that the souls in Purgatory are punished by devils, is taught by many revelations, as that of S. Fursaeus in Beda, l. 3. hist. c. 19 and others: in Dionysius Carthusian in his book de 4. novissimis. Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 137.   

Seventhly, Bonaventure against Thomas.  
ALthough all men grant in some sort, 
Quamuis autem aliquo modo etc.  that the punishment or pains of Purgatory are greater than the pains of this life: yet it is doubtful how this is to be understood; for Saint Thomas teaches two things: first that the pain of loss is the greatest of all pains, whether in Purgatory, or in this life: Secondly, that the least pain of Purgatory is greater than all the pains of this life. But Bonaventure, in 4. dist. 20. art. 1. teaches; first that the pain of loss in Purgatory is not greater than every pain, whether of Purgatory, or of this life: Secondly, he teaches that the pains of Purgatory are greater than the pains of this life, only in this sense; because the greatest pain of purgatory is greater than the greatest pain of this life: although there be found some other punishment in Purgatory, less than some punishment in this life: which opinion pleaseth me best, for etc. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 138.   

Eightly, Dominicus a Soto against Petr. Cluniacensis.  
NEither ought any man to doubt, 
Nec ulli dubium esse debet, etc.  but that the souls of the departed Saints, which reign with Christ, do pray for the souls of the Saints which are in Purgatory: the contrary 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 prayer, which begins, God the giver of Pardons, beseecheth God that by the intercession of Saint Mary and all Saints, the souls of the departed may come to the fellowship of eternal happiness. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 141.   

Ninthly, Saint Thomas against Pet. Damian, and Bellarmine.  
THat the dead do good to the living, 
Quod autem mortui, etc.  it is manifest: for 2. Macab. 15. we read that Onias and Hieremias long before departed, were seen to pray for the people of the jews then alive: Neither is it incredible, that even the souls in Purgatory do pray for us, and prevail, since that the soul of Paschasius and Severinus (though in Purgatory) wrought miracles, as appears by Gregory, [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 proveth nothing, etc. But although this be true, yet it seems superfluous for us, to sue to them that they may pray for us; because they cannot ordinarily know, what we do in particular, but only in common know that we are in many dangers, etc. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 142.   

Tenthly, Dominicus a Soto against many visions and Saint Brigit.  
ONe doubt remains, 
unum hic solun dubium, etc.  whether the restitution of a thing detained, profit the dead, and so become a fourth kind of suffrage: for the souls of the departed are said to have often appeared, and entreated for restitution of those things, which either they had forgotten, or could not restore: and Saint Brigit in her 6. b. of Revelations, ch. 66. affirms, that the soul is so long tormented, till that which was unjustly taken away be restored. Dominicus a Soto [upon 4. dist. 45. q. 2. art. 3.] holds, that such restitution, if it be made, avails nothing, nor hinders nothing, if un-made; for God punishes not, but for our own faults committed in our life time.  
As to those apparitions, I answer, that perhaps those souls do not desire restitution, as it is restitution, but as an alms; for although it do not benefit the soul, that he restores, which is bound to restore it, yet it will much profit it, if another restore it which is not bound: for this is a kind of alms, and therefore satisfactory. Bellarmine ibid. chap. 16. pag. 146.    

DECAD. IX.  

First, Sotus against Paludanus.  

Qui potest suffragijs, etc.  IT is the just man only, that can help souls by his suffrages: for the unjust cannot satisfy for himself, much less for others. But you will say, What if a just Prelate command his spiritual sons, to pray or fast for the departed, and those sons be unjust? Paludanus answers upon 4. Sent. dist. 45, q. 1. That all those devotions do profit the dead: But Sotus upon better grounds denies it, in the same place. quaest 2. art. 2. Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 147.   

Secondly, Cajetan: some other Divines, and the common opinion in three differences.  
But our Divines descent about particular suffrages: 
At dissentiunt de suffragijs ●●●●●●ularibus, etc.  for Cajetan in the first Tome of his Opuscul. (trac. 16. q. 5.) teaches, that all souls indeed may be, and are helped by the general suffrages; but that by particular suffrages; those souls only are helped, which have particularly deserved to be helped by them, and such he holds to be those, who have had a special devotion to the Keys of the Church, and have been careful for the souls of others.  
Others, whom Saint Thomas cities [upon 4. dist. 45. q. 2. art. 4.] say, that the suffrages which are made for one, do not only profit him, but all others, and not him more than others: as a Candle lighted for the Master, equally gives light to the servants in the same place. But the common opinion is between both these; that particular suffrages profit all them, and them only (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. etc.  would have that place of Christ's speech (Go sell all, and give to the poor, etc.) understood only of the preparation of the mind, 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. etc.  that of Gulielmus de Sancto Amore, and after him of Io. Wickliff, who teach, that Monks are bound to live by the work of their own hands, etc. Bellarm. B. of Monks, cap. 41. pag. 420.   

Fiftly, Erasmus, Agrippa, Ferus against all Catholics.  

Eandem haeresin nostro saeculo, etc.  ERasmus, Cornelius Agrippa, Io. Ferus have in our days revived that opinion of the Manichees, that war is not lawful for Christians, holding herein with the Anabaptists. Bellarm. l. de Laicis. c 14. p. 476.   

Sixtly, eight opinions of Papists (and some ancient) concerning Purgatory.  
COncerning the place where Purgatory is, 
Quaestio quarta sequitur ●vbi sit Purgat.  there are many opinions: The first, of some who hold that the soul is there purged, where it sinned; and indeed that the soul is in divers 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 punished where they sinned, is not probable.  
The second is, That the places of souls are not corporal, so held Austen, but he retracted it.  
The third, That the place of punishment for the soul, is this world, etc.  
The seventh is, That not the earth, but the dark air, where the Devils are, is the place of punishment.  
The eight is, the common opinion of Schoolmen, That Purgatory is in the bowels of the earth, near to hell. Bellarm. l. 1. of Purgat. cap. 6. pag. 117.118.   

Seventhly Peter Lombard, Thomas, Bonaventure, Richardus, Marsilius against Thomas himself, Cajetan, Durand.  
THE Schoolmen inquire, 
Est autem hic notandum scholasticos, etc.  whether the glory of the soul after the resurrection shall be greater than before: in two things they all agree: First, that the accidental glory of the soul shall be greater both in extension, and intention: Secondly, that the essential joy shall be greater in extension, because it is now in the soul alone, then shall reach unto the body also. But about the increase of essential glory in intention, they do not agree: for Peter Lombard in his 4. of Sent. d. 49. And Saint Thomas upon the same place: And Saint Bonaventure, and Richardus, and Marsilius say, that the essential glory shall then be greater in very measure, and degrees of intention: But on the contrary, Saint Thomas 1.2. q. 4. art. 5. and Cajetan, in the same place, and Durandus say, that the essential glory shall not be greater in degrees of intention, but in extent only. I affirm two things: First, that the first opinion is more according to Saint Austin's meaning, and to Haymons in 6. Revelat. and Bernard's, &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.  
Neither doth it hinder much, 
Neque obstat quod esti Patres, etc.  that the Fathers have seldom mentioned (Dulia service) for when they say, that Images and Saints are to be worshipped, and not with (Latria) they show sufficiently, that they ought to be worshipped with that kind of service, which we call Dulia, as Beda calls it upon Luke 4. and the master of Sent. withal schoolmen, l. 3. Sent. There was no need therefore that Martinus Peresius [in his work of Traditions, part 3. consid. 7.] should say, that he did not greatly allow, that this name (Dulia) should be given to the worship of the Saints, since Dulia signifies service, and we are not the servants of the Saints, but fellow-servants, etc. Bellarm. same book, c. 12. p. 83.   

Ninthly, four disagreeing opinions of Doctors.  
How the Saints know what we ask of them, 
De modo autem quo cognoscunt, etc.  there are four opinions of our Doctors: Some say, they know it by the relation of Angels: Others say, that the souls of the saints (as the Angels) by a certain marvelous celerity of nature, are after a sort every where, and hear the prayers of their suppliants. The one of these is Austin's, the other Hieromes, but neither of them is sufficient. Others say, that the Saints see in God all things, from the beginning of their blessedness, which may in any sort concern them, and therefore also our prayers, 
3. par. q. 10. ar. 2  which are directed to them: so teach Gregory (B. 12. of his Morals) Saint Thomas, Cajetan. Others lastly say, that the Saints do not from the beginning of their blessedness see our prayers in God; but that then only they are revealed by God to them, when we utter them. And of these two latter, the first seems to me to be simply the more likely: for if the Saints ever needed new revelations, the Church would not so confidently say to all Saints, Orate pro nobis, pray for us, but rather would desire of God to reveal our prayers to them. Bellarm. ibid. c. 20. p. 129.   

Tenthly, Bellarmine against Catharinus and Thomas Caietane.  
THE second opinion, 
Secunda opinio, etc.  is of Ambrose Catharinus in his treatise of Images, where he teaches, that God in the ten Commandments simply forbids all Images: but that this precept was only positive and temporal. But this opinion is not allowed of us, especially because Saint Irenaeus directly teaches, that the Decalogue is natural, excepting only that Precept of the Sabbath; and Tertullian in his book of Idolatry, holdeth, that this precept is most of all now to be observed: so Cyprian also, Austen, etc. The third is of Thomas Caietane upon 20. Exod. which teacheth, that not every Image or Idol is there forbidden, but only that there is forbidden to any man, to make to himself any Image, which he will take for his God. This opinion displeases me only in the manner of speech; for Cajetan takes an Image and an Idol both for one, which is false, etc. Bellarm. l. 2. contr. 7. gener. c. 7. That is, De Imaginibus sanctorum, l. 2. c. 7. p. 176.    

DECAD. X.  

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

Quarta opinie, etc.  THE fourth opinion is Caluins, in the first book of his institutions, ch. 11. where he saith, it is an abominable sin to make a visible and bodily Image of the invisible and incorporeal God. And this opinion of Caluins is also the opinion of some Catholic Doctors, as Abulensis [upon 4. Deuteron. quaest. 5.] and Durandus [upon 3. dist. 9 q. 2.] and Peresius [in his book of Traditions.] But I affirm three things: First, that it is not so certain in the Church, that we may make Images of God, or the Trinity, as of Christ and the Saints, for this all Catholics confess. Secondly, that Calvin's fraud and craft is admirable, who after he hath proved that Images of God are not to be made, digresseth to amplification, and triumphs, as if he had proved that we may not make, or worship any Image at all. Thirdly, I say, that it is lawful to paint the Image of God the Father in the form of an old man; and of the holy spirit in the form of a Dove, as is taught also by Cajetan 
* 3. Part. q. 25. art. 3. . Ambrose Catharinus 
❀ Lib. de cultu imaginum, etc. , Diegus, Payva, Nicholas Saunders, Thomas Waldensis. Bellarmine ibid. ch. 8. p. 179.   

Secondly, Bellarmine against Bartholomaeus Caranza.  
BEsides it must be noted, 
Praeterea notandum est Bartol. etc.  that Bartholomaeus Caranza errs, who in the sum of the Counsels, saith, (Can. 82. of the 6. Synod) that the Image of Christ in the form of a Lamb, and of the spirit in the form of a Dove, is there forbidden: Whereas the Council forbids not these Images, but only prefers to them the Images of Christ in an human form, etc. Besides, the reason of Bartholomaeus seems to conclude against himself; that the shadows ceased when the truth came, for these Images were not in use in the old Testament, but began only after Christ's coming: but his error is to be corrected out of the 7. Synod, where this Canon is often entirely cited. Bellarmine same book, chap. 8. pag. 182.   

Thirdly, Payva, Saunders, Alan. Copus and others differing.  
Payva answers, 
Ad secundum Payva responder.  that the Elebertine Council forbids only an Image of God, which is made to represent the shape of GOD: But this seems not to satisfy. Nicholas Saunders answers, that the Council for bad Images in the Churches, because the time and place required it; for then there was danger, lest the Gentiles should think we worshipped wood and stones; and lest that in the persecutions, their Images should have been reproachfully handled by the persecutors. This answer is good. Alanus Copus in 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 walls, and not in tables and veils. But howsoever it be, that Council is rather for us, then against us. Bellarm. ibid. ch. 9 p. 190.   

Fourthly, Three ranks of Popish Writers dissenting.  
OF the last question, 
Venio nunc ad postremam quaestionem etc.  what manner of worship Images are worthy of, there are three opinions: First, that the Image is no way in itself 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 seems to be held by Alexander, 3. part. q. 30. art. ult. 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 therefore that Christ's Image is to be worshipped with the worship of Latria, Saint mary's with Hyperdulia, the Saints with Dulia; so Alexander (3. part. q. 30. art. ult.) Saint Thomas (3. p. q. 25. art 3.) And upon the same place, Cajetan, S. Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almain, Carthusianus, Capreolus, and others; which opinion stands upon 7 grounds, there specified. The third opinion in the mean, is of them that say, Images in themselves properly should be honoured, but with a less honour, than the thing represented; and therefore that no Image is to be worshipped with Latria: so holds: Martinus, Peresius, Ambrose, Catharinus, Nicholas Saunders, Gabriel. Bellarm. ibid. c. 20. p. 235.236.237. etc.  
What shift Bellarmine makes to reconcile the second opinion; by adoration improperly, and by accident, See the same book, c. 23. p. 242.   

Fiftly, Bellarmine against Peresius and Durandus, etc.  
PEresius answers, that it is not true, 
Peresius respondet.  that we are carried with the same motion of the heart to the Image, and the thing represented: since these two are opposites, neither can be known, but with a double act of knowledge. Bellarmine confutes him, and shows, that these two are so opposite, as that one depends upon another, and that one can neither be defined nor known without the other. Durandus answers otherwise; for he admits there is one, and the same motion to both, but denies that therefore they have but one and the same adoration: Others confirm this answer, for that although there be one and the same motion of the mind (that is) of the understanding towards them both, yet there may be contrary motions of will, etc. But this answer satisfies not. I hold there must be another answer given: See his determination at large, that there is the same motion of the understanding and will, to the Image and the thing expressed; but in divers respects, as either of them is made the principal, or indirect object. Bellarm. ibid. c. 24. p. 246.   

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

Et quidem Tho. Waldensis,  THomas Waldensis holds not improbably [in his 3. Tom. Tit. 20. ch. 158.] that the very Wooden Cross, which is now divided into many pieces and parcels, shall then be renewed, and gathered up together, and shall appear in heaven. The same seems to be affirmed by Sibilla and Chrysostome; and the other fathers do not contradict it. But if this be not admitted, at least the bright Image of the Cross shall appear out of the air, or fire condensated, as Abulensis, jansenius, and others teach. Bellarm. ib. c. 28. p. 260   

Seventhly, two sorts of Papists dissenting.  

Prima quorundam recentiorum, qui etc.  SOme of our latter writers think, that sacred houses are not properly built, but only to God, as Sacrifices are offered to him alone, and that they have their names from Saints, not for that they are built unto them, but because their memories are in those Temples worshipped, and they called upon, as Patrons in those places: So they interpret, the Church of Saint Peter, not for that sacrifice is therein offered to Peter, but because it is offered to God in thanksgiving, for the glory bestowed on Saint Peter; and he is there called upon, as our Patron and advocate with God. Another answer admits holy houses, truly and properly built to the Saints, but not in the nature of Temples, 
Basilicae vel memoriae.  but as royal 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, etc.  not to sin on festival days, or to the acts of contrition, or love of God. This is Saint Thomas his opinion against Scotus, upon 3. dist. 27. which saith, on holy days men are bound to an internal act of loving God: and against Abulensis and Lyranus, who hold, that sins being servile works, are forbidden; and therefore that a sin done on a Holiday is doubtful. 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 ut hoc, etc.  is a sensible sign; for there are some invisible signs, as the Character imprinted in the soul by the Sacraments: but it is certain there must be visible signs also: scarce ever any but Gulielmus Occam. hath held, that though the Sacraments be visible signs, yet that this is not of their essence; for that God might institute a Sacrament in a spiritual matter, as if he should appoint that a mental prayer, or the meditation of Christ's passion should give grace, merely by the work wrought. But Occam is deceived. Bellarm. de Sacrament in genere c. 9 p. 34.   

Tenthly, Three divers opinions of Popish Doctors.  
COncerning the definition of a Sacrament, 
Tres sunt doctorum sent entiae, etc.  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.     

THE PEACE OF ROME. THE SECOND BOOK OR CENTVRY.  

DECAD. I.  

First. Bellarmine dissenting from Waldensis, Hugo, Gratian, Lombard.  
THE definition of a Sacrament is so canvased by Bellarmine, 
Sunt enim plures definitiones etc.  as that he rejecteth two of Augustine's, 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 imperfect. Also Hugoes definition as too long: Gratians (cited by him from Gregory, but indeed from Isidore) as only an explication of the word, not the matter; Peter Lombard's as wanting somewhat, or rather intricately enfolding it, and allows only the definition of the Council of Trent, as most accurate; (definitio pulcherrima est) Bellarm. ibid. c. 11. p. 43.44. etc.   

Secondly, Albert, Thomas Bonaventure, and others against Thomas, Dominicus a Soto, Ledesmius, etc.  

Duae sunt Theolugorum sententiae.  HEre be two opinions of Divines: the first of the master of Sentences [B. 4. d. 1.] and upon that place: Albertus, Thomas, Bonaventure, and others, who teach, that no definition can directly and properly agree to the Sacraments of both the old and new law, but that they all agree properly to the Sacraments of the new; imperfectly and by proportion only to the Sacraments of the old. Another opinion is, of Saint Thomas 3. part. q. 60. art. 1. (for he manifestly changed his opinion) as also of Dominicus▪ a Soto, and Martin Ledesmius, who teach, that this definition, The sign of an holy thing, doth directly and univocally agree to the Sacraments of both old 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 divers opinions of Doctors, 
Sunt igitur variae Doctorum sententiae, etc.  the first of certain of our late writers, who hold, that properly the matter and form in the Sacraments, is not the thing and words, but that some sensible thing is the matter, whether it be substance or word, or both: and that the signification is the form. So Dominicus a Soto [upon 4. dist. 1. q. 1. ar. 1.] and Caietane seems to affirm the same with very little difference. Another opinion is, of them which teach, that the very Sacrament itself, and not only the material part of it, consists of the things, as the matter; and words, as the form: So Saint Thomas 3. part. q. 60. ar. 6. and the ancient Divines in common. Others again hold, that all Sacraments do not consist of things and words, but some only: so Durandus [upon 4. dist. 1. q. 3.] and Adrianus [quaest. 2. of Baptism] Others teach, that all Sacraments of the new law consist of things and words: so Alexander Alensis, 4. p. q. 8, etc. and the Divines commonly. Others lastly think, that all Sacraments do consist of things and words, if they be taken in a large sense, else not. So Dominicus a Soto upon 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, 
Jtaque quod Paludanus, etc.  [upon 4. dist. 3. q. 1.] that the Sacrament is not ever made void, 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 saith, namely, That the greeks do truly baptise, with those words, Let the servant of Christ be baptised, because the Church of Rome tolerates that fashion, etc. But if the Church of Rome should detest that Rite, than they should not baptise truly, is not altogether true, etc. Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. p. 118.   

Fiftly, Hugo, Pet. Lombard, Alensis, Bonaventure, etc. against the common opinion, and Bellarm.  
Our adversaries teach these two things: 
Aduersarij duo quaedam docent, etc.  That the Sacraments which they hold only two, were instituted by Christ: namely, Baptism and the Lords Supper; and that the rest were not appointed by Christ: so teach Calvin and Chemnitius: and with them (whom they city) Cyprian, Hugo, Peter Lombard, who deny, that all Sacraments were instituted by Christ: They might have added Alexander Alensis, Saint Bonaventure and Marsilius, who say, that the Sacraments of confirmation and penance, were not instituted by Christ, but by his Apostles. Against this error the Council of Trent, set down, Can. 1. Sess. 7. thus: If any man shall say, that all the Sacraments of the new Testament, were not instituted by jesus Christ our Lord, let him be accursed; yea immediately instituted by him. Further, that which Alexander and Bonaventure teach concerning the Sacrament of confirmation cannot be defended, etc. Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. pag. 127.128, 129. etc.   

Sixtly, Bellarmine against Catharinus.  
THere is a new heresy arisen in our time; 
Nova haeresis nostro tempore, etc.  that the intention of the Minister is not necessary in the Sacrament. To this opinion of the heretics Ambrose Catharinus cometh very near: neither can I see, wherein he differs from the opinion of Kemnitius and other heretics, saving that in the end of his work, he subjects himself to the Sea-Apostolike, and to the Council, both which they deride. Bellarm. ibid. c. 27. p. 155.  
Note, the same which he condemns for heretical in Catharinus, he grants to be held by his St. Thomas, in the chapter following, pag. 169.   

Seventhly, Caietane and Ledesmius against Thomas and others.  
HEre are two opinions of Divines: for some, 
Responderidebet duas esse Theologorum sententias.  as Cajetan and Ledesmius teach, that in the Minister there is no operative virtue, as an efficient and instrumental cause, as there is in the Sacrament: for in the words of the sacrament there is operative virtue, but by dependence on the Minister; for then the words have virtue, when they are conjoined with the virtue, which is in the Minister. Others hold that the Minister hath in himself no efficient power, in respect of justification, but that is only in the Sacrament: so Thomas is thought to hold, 3. part. qu. 64. art 1. And that the Minister concurs only by applying the Sacrament. Bellarm. same book, c. 27. pag. 163.   

Eightly, Bellarmine against Ambrose Catharinus.  

Quartum argumentum est Catha. etc.  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 form of words, is sufficient to make a perfect Sacrament, neither is any other intention required on the part of the Minister etc.  
And Catharinus adds a reason, that it seems overhard, that God should put the salvation of men in the arbitrement of a wicked Minister, and so our justification should be made uncertain. 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, Bonaventure, Scotus, Durand, Richardus, Occam, Marsilius, Gabriel.  
THat the Sacraments are true causes of justification; 
Sacramenta esse ver●s causas, etc.  but Moral causes, not natural (as he that commands a murder is the true cause of it, though he touch not the party murdered) is defended by Ledesmius and Canus in Relict. de Sacram. And the same seems to be held by many of the old Schoolmen, Bonaventure, Scotus, Durand, Richardus, Occam, Marsilius, Gabriel, who hold, that the Sacraments do truly justify, but yet, that God only doth work that grace at the presence of the Sacraments, so as the Sacraments are not natural 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, 
una igitur quaestio est, etc.  whether the old Sacraments (excepting Circumcision) did justify actually by the very work 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 justify, though they were done never so much in faith and charity. The other is the common opinion of Divines, that all those Sacraments did justify, ex opere operantis, that is, upon the faith and devotion of the receivers; and this opinion is most true. Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. pag. 239.    

DECAD. II.  

First, Alexander, Bonaventure, Scotus, Gabriel, against Thomas, Capreolus, Scotus, Ledesmius, others, etc.  

Porro de Circumcisione.  OF Circumcision there are two opinions: One of Alexander, and Bonaventure, Scotus, and Gabriel, that Circumcision did confer justification, ex opere operato, upon the very act done: which opinion is disproved by many arguments. Where it is yet to be noted, that this opinion of theirs doth not favour the heretics of our time, for the heretics when they make the old Sacraments equal to ours, do not extol the old, but debase ours: But this opinion doth not abase ours, but extol the ancient.  
The other opinion, is of Saint Thomas and Capreolus, Scotus, Ledesmius, and others; that Circumcision did by it own power justify, but yet justified only as it was a protestation of our faith, and as it applied faith to us. This opinion is doubtless the more probable of the two. Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 236.   

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

Signum aliquod spirituale, etc.  THat there is a certain spiritual stamp imprinted in the mind, in some Sacraments, which is called a Character, is the common opinion of catholics. But it is to be noted that some of our divines, as Durand, Scotus, Gabriel, do indeed admit this stamp or Character, but yet teach something which seems to make for Kemnitius and the heretics: for Durandus holds, that the Character is not any real thing distinguished from the soul, but is only a matter to be conceived in the mind, and which hath his being only in conceit. But all others confess, that the Character is a real matter distinct from the soul. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19 pag. 267.   

Thirdly, Bellarmine against Durandus and Scotus.  
THe Character is not a mere relation, 
Character non est relatio, etc.  but an absolute quality: this is a common opinion, excepting only Scotus and Durandus. Durandus in the place forecited, holds, it hath only a being in conceit, etc. Which opinion can scarcely be distinguished from the heresy of this time, and seems expressly condemned by Counsels: which if Durandus had seen, doubtless he would have taught otherwise; and surely the Council of Trent, in her curse of this opinion, intends it against those which deny a real Character. Scotus would have it a real relation, but that can scarce be defended: and there have not wanted many, that have confuted him sound. 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 understanding: Others place it in the will, because they think it disposeth us to charity, which is in the will: Others hold it simply to be in the substance of the soul, and this seems the truer opinion. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19 p. 270.   

Fiftly, Scotus against Thomas.  

Nec Circumcisio etc.  NEither Circumcision, nor any Sacrament of the old Law did imprint any Character in the soul: So holds Saint Thomas 
* 3. p. q. 63. ar. ●. . Scotus thinks 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 Divines.  

Praeter hos errores est opinio, etc.  BEsides these errors, there is a very incommodious opinion of many Catholics, who have thought, that the invocation of one person in the Trinity, and especially of Christ, is sufficient to Baptism: so seems to hold S. Ambrose in his first book of the holy Ghost: Beda upon 10. chap. of Acts: Bernard, Epi. 340. ad Henricum. Hugo de Sancto victore, l. 2. of Sacraments: Master of sentence. b. 4. dist. 3. And lastly, Pope Nicholas in his Epist. to the Bulgarians. The two foundations of these Author's opinion are overthrown by Bellarm. who concludeth. But howsoever it be, it is certain that baptism is either absolutely, or with condition to be repeated, if it be administered in the name of Christ, or any other person, without an express mention of the rest, as all more grave Divines teach. Bellarm. in his b. of Baptism, cap. 3. pag. 11.   

Seventhly, two contrary opinions of Doctors.  
THat Christ did use some baptism before his passion it cannot be denied, but the doubt is, 
Nota, negari non posse etc.  whether that Baptism were the same Sacrament, which now we have, or only a preparation to the Sacrament of Baptism afterwards to be instituted, as the baptism of john was: Chrysost. Theophilact, and Pope Leo hold with this latter, etc. But the other which we have said, is more probable, which is professedly taught by Augustine, tract. 13. and 15. upon john: by Cyrill 2. B. upon john, c. 57 Hugo de Sancto victore, b. 2. of Sacraments: and this is the commoner opinion of Divines, with the Master of Senten. b. 4. dist. 3. Bellarm. ibid. c. 5. p. 26.   

Eightly, Many opinions of Schoolmen.  
NOte, 
Quo puncto temporis etc.  that concerning the time wherein Christ instituted the Sacrament of baptism, there are very many opinions, among the Schoolmen; but the more common and probable opinion, is that which we follow, which also the Catechism of the Council of Trent receives, and the Master of Sent. with St. Thomas and others. Bellarmine in his book of Baptism, c. 5. pag. 28.   

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

Non desunt Theologi ut Dominicus, etc.  THere are some Divines, as Dominicus a Soto, and Martin Ledesmius upon 4. dist. 3. which teach, that martyrdom doth not give grace (ex opere operato) by the very work wrought▪ but only ex opere operantis, by the work of the sufferer: and gives no degree of grace, but that which answers to the merit of the martyrs charity. But it is a more probable opinion, that martyrdom by the very work wrought doth give the first grace; So that if a man being yet in his sins, shall come to martyrdom, yet without an affection to any sin, and with faith and love in part begun, &c: By the virtue of martyrdom he shall upon the work wrought be justified and saved. So is expressly taught by St. Thomas, Io. Maior, Gabriel and others. Bellarmine same book, cap. 6. pag. 33.   

Tenthly, Bellarmine and all Papists, with Thomas against Peter Lombard.  
THere have been two opinions amongst Catholics, of john's Baptism, 
Inter Catholicos fuerunt etiam etc.  whereof one is thought erroneous, the other very improbable. The first was Peter Lombard's, who distinguishes those which were baptised of john, into two kinds: one was of them which were so baptised of john, that they did put their hope and trust in that baptism, and had not any knowledge of the holy Ghost: These he confessed were to be baptized with Christ's baptism. The other of those, who were baptised of john, but did not rely upon that baptism, and had knowledge of the holy Ghost: These were not necessarily to be rebaptized.  
Bellarmine confutes him by himself, and consent of all Catholics, and concludes; wherefore Saint Thomas [3. p. q. 38. ar. vlt] writes, that this is a very unreasonable opinion. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19 p. 113.    

DECAD. III.  

First, Master of Sentences, Schoolmen, Thomas against Thomas, Bellarmine, and other Papists.  
ANother opinion is, 
Altera opinio est.  That the baptism of john was as a certain Sacrament of the old law: so taught the Master of Sent. in the place forecited, and many of the Schoolmen: and Saint Thomas himself; but he did justly afterwards recant, and teach the contrary, 3. part q. 38 art. 1. Whereupon Saint Thomas well saith that the baptism of john pertained not to the old law, but to the new rather, as a certain preparation to Christ's baptism. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19 p. 113.   

Secondly, Thomas, Concil. Florentinum, Innocentius, Waldensis, Hugo, Bellarmine dissagreeing.  
SOme Schoolmen hold, 
Prior est aliquorum Scholasticorum etc.  that the Apostles did in divers fashions minister the Sacrament of confirmation; and that in the first times, because the holy Ghost visibly descended, than they used no anointing, but mere imposition of hands: After that, unction came in use, etc. And if you object that the Apostles could not institute the matter of a sacrament, they answer; that they received that commandment from Christ, that they should one while use imposition of hands, another while Chrism, as they should think most convenient: This answer is not unlikely: and Saint Thomas is not far off from it [3. p q. 72. art. 1.] and perhaps hither might be drawn the testimonies of the Florentine Council, and of Innocentius, etc. But the other answer (me thinks) is more probable of Thomas Waldensis, and Hugo de Sancto victore; who say, that the anointing with Chrism, and laying on of hands, is all one; for he that anoints, lays on his hand. This answer is the likelier. Bellarmine in his B. of confirmation, c. 9 p. 185.   

Thirdly, Cajetan, Dominicus a Soto, Franc. Victoria against all the elder Papists.  
IT is a question among our Divines, 
Respon. Quaestionem esse inter Theologos.  whether Balm be required in Chrism, as upon the necessity of the Sacrament, or only on necessity of the precept. All the old Divines and Lawyers, hold Balm required upon the necessity of the Sacrament; so as the Sacrament is void, if it be administered without it: But the latter Divines Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, Franc. a Victoria, etc. hold, that balm is not required as to the essence of the Sacrament, but yet necessarily to be used by the commandment of God. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 9 pag. 190.   

Fourthly, Rich. Armachanus against the common opinion.  
OF the Catholics there is only Richardus Armachanus, which thinks, 
Ex Catholicis solus est etc.  that the office of confirming is common both to Bishops, and Presbyters: and from him Tho. Waldensis thinks that Wickliff drew his heresy. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 12. pag. 197.   

Fiftly, Bonaventure, Durand, Adrian, against Thomas, Richard. Paludanus, Marsilius.  
AMongst our Catholic divines there is a question, 
Est quidem inter Catholicos quaestio etc.  whether at least by dispensation a Presbyter may confer this Sacrament: for Saint Bonaventure, Durand, Adrian, upon 4. dist. 7. say, it cannot be committed to Priests. But Saint though mass, and all his Scholars, and many other Divines, as Richardus, Paludanus, Marsilius, and others; and all Canonists teach the contrary: and indeed it is the truer, that these last affirm. Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 197.   

Sixtly, some nameless Papists against the common opinion.  
IT is questioned, 
Sed existit hes loco, etc.  whether those things which are spoken of Christ, in the form of bread and wine be spoken of him truly, and properly, or by some Trope: Some think them truly and properly spoken, as the same thing should be truly and properly spoken of the bread, if bread were there. Their reason is, because they think that the Union of Christ with the accidents of bread, is either personal, or very like to it; and therefore that there is a communication of properties betwixt Christ, and those accidents, etc. But the common opinion of Divines teach the contrary. Bellar. of the sacram. of the Eucharist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 28▪   

Seventhly, Gabriel, Cusanus, Cajetan, Tapperus, Hesselius, jansenius against all other Papists.  
ALmost all Catholics will have the words of john 6. understood of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, 
Porro Catholici fere omnes, etc.  or of the Sacramental eating of Christ's body in the Eucharist: but there are some few, who (the better to disprove the Hussites and Lutherans) hold, that this Chapter meddleth not with any Sacramental eating of Christ's body, or drinking his blood, of which sort are Gabriel, Nicholas, Cusanus, Thomas Caietanus, Ruardus Tapper, johannes Hesselius, and Cornelius jansenius. All other Catholics (whom Nicholas Saunders in his book of the sixth of john citeth) with great consent teach, that this Chapter entreateth of the Sacramental eating of Christ: which doubtless is most true. Bellarmine ibid. cap. 5. pag. 41.   

Eightly, two sorts of Doctors opposite.  
THe Catholics do not agree in the manner of explicating, what is properly meant, 
Nota secundo Catholicos, etc.  by this pronoun Hoc or Hic, This, in the words of consecration: (This is my body) And there are two more famous opinions: One, that this pronoun (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 upon 1. Cor. 11. that the pronoun (Hoc, This) doth not precisely signify the bread, or the body, but in common, that substance which is under these forms; yet so as the signification doth properly pertain to the forms; that so the sense should be, Not, This, that is, These forms are my body: but thus, under these forms 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, etc.  SOme Catholics 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 divided, nor the bodies confounded (as it was done in Christ's coming forth of the grave) than one body may fill two places, etc. But some others, and amongst them Saint Thomas thinks that one body cannot be totally in two places. His reason, by the leave of so great a Doctor, is not found. Bellarm. l. 3 of the Eucharist, c. 3. p. 291.   

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

Primum est, duas opiniones falsas etc.  THere were two particular opinions, and both false and erroneous, devised in the Schools, for the unfolding the greatness of this mystery: One of Durandus [upon 4. dist. 10. etc.] who held it probable, that the substance of the body of Christ is in the Eucharist, without magnitude or quantity: and he used those arguments to this purpose, which now are taken up by the Sacramentaries. Another opinion was of some ancient Divines, which Albertus without any name reports, and confutes; which afterwards Occam [upon 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 think cannot be distinguished from the substance: but they add, that all parts do so run 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 Schools and Church is, that in the Eucharist there is whole Christ with his magnitude and bigness, and all other accidents, etc. And beside, that the parts and members of Christ's body, do not one run into another, but are so distinguished, and disposed among themselves, as they have both order and shape agreeable to an human body: so teach Albertus, S. Thomas, Bonaventure, Richardus, Scotus, and others upon (4. dist. 10. or 13.) and Alexander (3. p. q. 10. in 7.) &c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. pag. 301.    

DECAD. FOUR  

First, Bellarmine against Durandus, etc.  
AVgustine discoursing of Christ's coming into the world, through the womb of the Virgin still continuing closed, saith, 
B. Augustinus in Epistola ad Vo●usianum de utroque isto miraculo, etc.  that in these works 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. Hierome, etc. But I am ashamed to say what Durandus and Beza answer to this, etc. That which Durand saith; that her Virginity might, and did still remain inviolable, and yet that the passages were somewhat dilated; according to the best Physicians, implies a contradiction: for Io. Fernclius teacheth, that the loss of Virginity doth not consist in the breaking of any film, but only in the dilatation of the parts. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 309.   

Secondly, Bellarmine against Durandus.  

Quintum exemplum est.  THe fifth example is, of the ascension of Christ, and the Saints into heaven; for we believe that Christ ascended above all heavens, and likewise that the bodies of the Saints after their resurrection shall ascend But there is no door in heaven, no window, no gap through which they may ascend; for as job, 47. The heavens are solid as brass, therefore there must needs be more bodies in one place. To this Durandus answers, that by the power of GOD the heavens may be divided, when the bodies of the Saints shall ascend: But if the heaven be in it own nature solid, and incorruptible, as all Divines and Philosophers teach, surely it is not probable there should be so many holes made in heaven, as there are bodies of the Saints to ascend, etc. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 311.   

Thirdly, sundry opinions of Popish Doctors.  
DVrandus holdeth, 
Durandus docuit partem unam etc.  that one essential part of the bread namely, the form, is turned, but that the other part, which is the matter, is not turned [upon 4. dist. 11.] Others (that there might no error be missing) have contrarily taught, that the matter of the bread is turned into Christ's body, but that the substantial form of the bread remains still the same: This error St. Thomas reports without the name of the Author [3. p q. 25. art. 6.] A fifth opinion is, that of Rupertus the Abbot, which was some forty years 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 human nature was assumed by the same word, as appears in his sixth book upon john. This error is noted, and confuted by Algerus [in 1. B. of Sacraments, chap. 6.] where he saith, that this is a new and most absurd heresy: this Algerus lived in the same time with Rupertus, about the year 1124. as witness Trithemius and Petrus Cluniacensis, who notes, that Algerus did most accurately confute the errors of some modern Writers, concerning the body of our lord Bellarm. l. 3. c. 11. p. 347.   

Fourthly, Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto, Sanctius, Alanus, etc.  
HEnce may be refuted the common error, 
Hinc refelli potest, etc.  which possesses many of this time, concerning the Author of this heresy: for as Thomas Waldensis witnesses, there was an old book of Divine offices, without any name of the Author, wherein Wickliff did marvelously triumph, and vexed the Catholics with it; boasting it one while to be Ambroses', another while Isidores, another while Fulgentius: At last the Catholics 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; neither was Walramus the Author hereof, but Rupertus Tuitiensis, from whose books this opinion is to be fetch't, which Dominicus a Soto idly expoundeth (upon 4. dist. 9 q. 2.) Bellarm. l. 3. c. 11. p. 348.   

Fiftly, Waldensis and Bellarmine against johannes Parisiensis.  
THE sixth opinion or heresy rather, 
Sexta opinio seu potius haeresis, etc.  is of one johannes Parisiensis, which (as Waldensis reporteth) openly opugned that other heresy, and brought in a new; for he taught, that the bread is assumed by the Son, but by means of the body of Christ; as the body is taken for part of his manhood, not for the whole: and he said, as part, not as whole, lest he 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 Counsels of Constance, and of Trent, and Bellarmine.  
THE third error is of them, 
Tertius error eorum est, etc.  which will have only the matter of bread to remain, which doth expressly contradict the Council of Trent [Sess. 13. cha. 4. and Can. 2.] And the Council of Constance, [Sess. 8.] Yea also this opinion of Durandus is contrary to the Council of Lateran: for neither would that Council have said, that there is a transubstantiation made, unless it would have signified, that the whole substance of the bread is changed, etc. Therefore this opinion of Durandus is heretical, though he himself be not therefore to be called an heretic, because he was ready to yield to the judgement of the Church. Bellarmine lib. 3. c. 13. pag. 351.   

Seventhly, four divers opinions of Divines.  
ABout the time of Christ's instituting the Sacrament, 
Sunt igitur de praesenti quaestione, etc.  there are four opinions: first, of the greeks who hold, that Christ did keep his passover, and institute his Sacrament, the thiteenth day of the first month: The second of Rupertus, who teaches, that the Hebrews were never wont to celebrate two feast days together; and therefore when the feast of unleavened bread fell the sixth day, it was wont to be deferred to the Saboth following. This opinion of Rupertus both is false, and doth not satisfy that main argument of the greeks. The third of Paulus Burgensis, who holds, that both the feast of unleavened bread, and of the Passeover, might be deferred upon the Tradition of the Elders, to the day following: and that in the year wherein Christ suffered, the Hebrews did eat their Passeover on Friday evening, Christ his on Thursday in the evening. The fourth is, the common opinion of Divines, that Christ instituted his Sacrament in that time, wherein according to the law, and custom of the jews, all leaven was cast away, which was the 14. day, etc. This opinion is only true, etc. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 7. p. 455.   

Eightly, the Popish Doctors disagreeing.  
THe Catholic Church hath ever thought it so necessary, 
Porro Ecclesia Catholica semper etc.  that water should be mixed with wine in the Chalice, that it cannot without a grievous sin be omitted: But whether the Sacrament can consist without water, it is not so certain: the common opinion leans to the affirmative part. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 10. pag. 476.   

Ninthly, Popish Divines differing.  

Est igitur quaestio hoc loco tractanda, etc.  HEre is therefore a question to be handled, whether those only words (For this is my body, etc.) pertain to the form of the Sacrament: The Catholic Church affirms it with great consent, Council Florent. Catech. of Concil. Trident, Divines with the Master of Sent. Lawyers: For although Divines dispute, and cannot agree, whether all the several words, which are had in the form of the consecration of the Chalice, in the Latin mass-books, be of the essence of the form thereof, yet all agree that they are of the integrity, and perfection of the form; so as no one of them can without sin be omitted: and their consent in this point is sufficient. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 12. p. 486.   

Tenthly, Io. de Lovanio against George Cassander.  
IOhan. de Lovanio in his book of the Communion under both kinds, 
Johannes a Lovanio ubi praecipue etc.  chiefly confutes a B. of a certain Adviser, who without any name set forth a B. of this quest. persuading to this use: but after, it was known that the B. was George Cassander's. Bellar. l. 4. c. 20. p. 538.    

DECAD. V.  

First, some Papists against the Council of Trent.  
FIrst the opinion of some is to be confuted, 
Breviter refellenda est opinio eorum etc.  who hold, that from the words This is my body, is gathered, that whole Christ is under the form of bread; for they say, that by the word (Body) is signified a living body, and therefore a body with a soul, and blood. But this opinion is flatly contrary to the Council of Trent (Sess. 13. ca 3.) who teaches, that by the power of the words, only the body is there under the form of bread; the soul, the Divinity, and blood, only 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 spiritual fruit received by both kinds, which is not received by one; this proposition is not so certain as the former: for our Divines are of divers judgements concerning it: But it is my opinion, and the common and most probable assertion of Divines, of St. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, Richard, Gabriel, Roffensis, Cajetan, etc. And though Richardus seems to incline the other way: yet he doth it only to reconcile Alexander Alensis unto the common opinion: for of all the ancients there is only Alexander (in 4. part. Sum. q. 53.) which holds the contrary; and of the new writers Gasper Cassalius calls it into doubt and question (in his second book of the Supper, etc.) Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. p. 554.   

Thirdly, Io. of Lovan, Cornel. jansenius opposite.  
OF this place are two opinions of Catholics: 
De hoc loco duae sunt Catholicorum sententiae.  First of john of Lovan, and others, who hold, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was given to the two Disciples in Emmaus, and they bring for them Austen, Chrysost. Bede, Theophilact, Jerome, Isychius: The other of Cornelius jansenius upon the place, who teaches, that the bread blessed by Christ in Emmaus, was not the Sacrament, but only a figure of it Bellarm. l. 4. cap. 24. pag. 563.   

Fourthly, two sorts of Popish Doctors dissenting.  
WE teach, 
De modo autem loquendi, etc.  that the very Sacrament is to be adored (as the Council of Trent speaketh) but this manner of speech is taken two ways: Those that think the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be formally the body of Christ, as he is under those forms; do grant, that the Sacrament is justly said to be formally adored: But those that say, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is formally the Species of bread and wine, as they contain Christ, do 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, etc. disagreeing.  
MAny Catholics endeavour to show the word Missa (Mass) to be Hebrew, 
Plurimi conantur, etc.  for Deut. 16. there is the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in the same signification: and not the Catholics only, but Philip Melanchton acknowledges this derivation. Other (and their opinion is more probable) hold it to be Latin; of whom also some hold it to be (a Mittendo) because our offerings and prayers are sent up to God. So Hugo de Sancto victore (lib. 2. de Sacram.) Others less probably, for that an Angel 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 derive it a missione, seu, dimissione populi: This opinion is Isidores, Rabanus, and Hugo, and others later Divines admit this Etymology. Bellarm. de Missa, l. 1. c. 1. p. 616.   

Sixtly, Bellarmine against a nameless Doctor 1. G. Cassalius.  
Near to this opinion of Melanchton seems to be a certain late Doctor, 
Ab hac Philippi sententia non procul. etc.  a man otherwise learned and godly, who in his book of Sacrifice (chap. 5.) teacheth, that every good work, which is done, that we may in an holy fellowship cleave 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.   

Seventhly, Bellarmine against Arias Montanus.  
THis testimony of Malach. 1. cannot be understood of the sacrifice of the cross; 
Hoc testimonium non potest etc.  nor of any jewish 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 only contradict the opinion of all those Fathers (which we will straightway city) but the Apostle himself, and the open truth: for to what end were the blood of so many thousand Martyrs shed, for not communicating with the Gentiles sacrifices, if those had been clean and acceptable to God. Bellarm. 1. b. of Mass, cap. 10. pag. 679.   

Eightly, Cassalius confuted by Bellarm.  
TO this purpose make all those places of the Fathers, 
Huc faciunt omnia loca Patrum etc.  which teach, that there is one only sacrifice of the church, which succeeded all the multitude of the old sacrifices. Leo, Chrysost. Aug. etc. whence appears, that the opinion 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 Mass, c. 27. pag. 756.   

Ninthly, divers opinions of Popish Doctors.  
THe consecration of the Eucharist belongs to the essence of the sacrifice; 
Consecratio Eucharistiae, etc.  This sentence thus generally proposed hath many upholders, for of the greeks Nic. Cabasilas: of the latins Ruardus, jodocus Tiletanus, Gasper Cassalius, Alanus and others maintain it: But all hold it not a like. Some think it to be therefore, because by the consecration there is made a true and real change of the bread into Christ's body; and a true sacrifice requires such a mutation, whereby the thing ceases to be. But this opinion hath no small arguments against it: Others think it to be, because by this consecration, Christ is truly (though mystically, and unblooodily) ffred. This opinion doth not yet fully satisfy: Thus therefore it seems to be set forth. There are three things in a Sacrifice, which are found in the consecration of the Eucharist; first a profane 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, real, and external mutation, and distinction, etc. This seems to me the opinion of St. Thomas (in 2.2. q. 85. art. 3.) Bellarm. ibid. c. 27. p. 759.   

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

Sacrificium Missae etc.  THE Sacrifice of the Mass hath not only, or principally his virtue from the act of him, that offers it: but even from the work wrought, which is the common opinion of Divines, and of the Council of Trent, (Sess. 22. c. 2.) although there be one or two of our Writers found, that dissent from it. Bellarm. 2. book of the Mass, c. 4. p. 773.    

DECAD. VI  

First, Bellarm. against Platina and Polidor. Virgil.  

Praeterea Damasus in Pontificali.  DAmasus in his Pontifical, in the life of Soter and Silvester Popes, amongst other holy vessels, makes mention of Censers; wherefore it is false, which Platina in the life of Sixtus 1. and Polidore Virgil in his book of the Devisers of things, write, that Leo 3. which lived An. Dom. 800. was the first, that used Frankincense in the Mass. Bellarm. 2. b. of Mass, cap. 15. pag. 843.   

Secondly, Bellarmine against other Papists.  
THat Celestinus 1. was not the first Author of [the Introitus] in the Mass, 
Conuenit ferè inter authores, etc.  see defended by Bellarm. against the consent of their Writers, as himself confesses. Bellarm. ibid. c. 16. p. 846.   

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

Fourthly, four several opinions of Popish Doctors.  
SCotus, Occam, and Gabriel (upon 4. Sent. dist. 14.) place the essence of the Sacrament of Penance, 
Jta ex Catholicis Theologis Scotus, etc.  in absolution only, etc. The question than is, whether there be any thing besides absolution, which belongs to the nature and essence of this Sacrament. Of this there are four opinions: the first is, that only absolution makes the essence of this Sacrament. So of our Catholic Divines, Scotus, Occam, Io. Maior, jacob. Almain and others, etc. The last and truest opinion is, that the Sacrament of penance consists of two parts, inward, and essential to it; the absolution of the Priest, as the form, and the acts of the penitent, as the matter; which was the opinion of many old Divines: St. Thomas, Richardus, Durandus and others upon 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 Bonaventure against the rest.  


Deinde attexit varias esse opiniones Catholicorum etc.  
Denique esto, non sit confessio juris etc.   THen Chemnitius adds, that there are divers opinions of our Catholics, concerning the necessity of confession; and this he proves out of Gratian, and a Gloss of his, & out of Bonaventure: these are all his fathers, etc. But say that confession doth not stand by the law of God, as Kemnitius would prove out of a certain Gloss, which yet the Catholics mislike. Bellarm. 1. b. of penance, cap, 11. pag. 79.   

Sixtly, Scotus confuted by Bellarmine.  

Neque Sco'us satis apt etc.  Neither is that aptly and well said by Scotus, that penance is the absolution of the penitent, done in a set form of words, etc. 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.   

Seventhly, Gropperus rejected by Bellarmine.  

Jnprimis null ●unt Catholicorum etc.  THere is no Catholic writer which makes the matter of this Sacrament to be only the action of the Priest, pronouncing absolution in a set form; save only Gropperus, or whosoever was the Author of the Enchiridion Coloniense; which sometimes seems to speak very unheedely. For Divines would either have it consist in absolution alone, or else they assign the matter to be on the behalf of the penitent; the form from the Priest: which indeed is the commonest opinion of almost all. Bellarmine 1. b. of pen. cap. 16. p. 98.   

Eightly, Scotists against Thomas, Bonaventure, and others: Vega, Ferrariensis, etc.  
THe Scotists object, 
Obijciunt tertio etc.  that absolution alone is the cause of grace, for that all the power of the Sacrament rests in the keys; which are the Priests, not the penitents: I answer first, by denying the consequent: the sacrament may consist of two parts, & yet work only by one: as a man consists of body & soul, & yet understands only by his soul: and this answer is followed by them, who place the virtue of the Sacrament in absolution alone, which was once the opinion of St. Thomas, and Saint Bonaventure, and other ancients upon 4. dist. Sent. dist. 18. and of the later, Andrea's Vega, Francis of Ferrara, etc. Farther, it may be answered, that absolution is indeed the principal cause of justification, not the only cause; but that is partly in the keys of the absolver, 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 division of Penance into contrition, 
Sequitur altera partitio, etc.  confession, satisfaction, there are two questions: One amongst the Catholics, the other with the Heretics. The former is not, whether these three be necessary, and absolutely to be used, but whether all be the true parts of the Sacrament: For it was the opinion of Durandus (upon 4. dist. 16. q. 1.) that only confession is the material 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 Divines, and of Saint Thomas (3. p. q. 90.) is, that all three of them▪ are the true material parts of the Sacrament of Penance: neither can now be doubted of, since it is flatly set down by two general Counsels of Florence and Trent, Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 104.   

Tenthly, Adrianus refuted by Bellarmine.  

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

DECAD. VII.  

First, Io. Maior, jac. Almain, Andr. Vega against Thomas, Scotus, Durand, Albert. Soto, Canus, etc.  
BUT in this our Catholic writers do not agree, 
Porro Catholici Scriptores in eo etc.  whether the purpose of a better life, and detestation of sin be expressly and formally necessary to true contrition, or whether it be sufficient to have it implicitly or confusedly, and virtually. The old Divines, 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 sin, and to purpose amendment: and though they distinguish not betwixt a formal and virtual purpose, yet they plainly show, they mean a direct, formal purpose; which was after more plainly taught by Pope Adrian. 6. in 5. quodl. art. 3. Tho. Caietanus, Dominicus a Soto, Melchior Canus: yet there have been some few, that have disputed against it, and contenting themselves with a virtual purpose, which is concluded in the hatred of their sins, have denied that other to be necessary. In this rank were Io. Maior, jac. Almaigne, in. 4. Sent. d. 14. Andr. Vega upon the Council of Trent, c. 21. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 157.   

Secondly, Capreolus, Dom. a Soto and others against Peter Lomb. Thomas, Albertus, Bonaventure, etc.  
IN this only do the Schoolmen seem here to disagree, 
Theologi Scholastici in eo solum etc.  That some will have the act of penance, as also the act of faith and charity, to be only a disposition to the remission of sins, and not to be any merit (either of work or congruity) of the forgiveness of them: Of this opinion is Io. Capreolus (upon 2. Scent 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 only a disposition towards, but a merit (by congruity) of our justification; which opinion is the Masters of Sent. (b. 2. d. 27.) and St. Thomas (upon 2. d. 27.) of Albertus, S. Bonaventure: Besides, of Scotus, Durandus, Gabriel, and others upon 2. dist 28. And of the later Writers Andreas Vega (8 b. upon the Council of Trent.) Bellarm. ibid. c. 12. p. 185.   

Thirdly, one Popish Doctor against the rest.  
THe Catholic Doctors with common consent, are wont to teach, 
●●quidem Catholici doctores etc.  that contrition if it be perfect, and have the desire and vow of the Sacrament of Baptism, or Absolution, reconciles a man to God, and remits sin before the Sacrament of Penance be performed. But there was of late a Catholic Doctor, who not many years since in a book 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 sins, 
Et Richardus Armachanus docuit, etc.  pardon could not be had, though the sinner should do whatsoever he could, for obtaining it. But this we affirm, not as probable, but as certain, and confessed of Catholics, that no multitude or heinousness of sin can be such, as may not be done away by true repentance. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 209.   

Fiftly, Bellarmine against Richardus.  
THat the sin against the holy Ghost is unpardonable, 
Secunda est Richardi in libello de spiritu blasphemiae etc.  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 temporal punishment (required to satisfaction) shall be forgiven. Bellarm. ibid. c. 16. Confuted by Bellarmine by 3. arguments, pag. 219.   

Sixtly, Rupertus opposed by Bellarmine.  
THat fear, 
Errat enim Rupertus Abbas l. 9 etc.  which is one of the four passions of the mind, is not in itself evil: See defended against Rupertus the Abbot, l. 9 de operibus spiritus, by Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 223.   

Seventhly, the Council of Trent against Petr. Oxoniensis, Erasmus, Rhenamus.  

Extitit etiam ante annos etc.  THere was about some hundredth year since, one Petrus Oxoniensis, which affirmed, that the particular, and special confession of our sins in several, is not required by any law of God, but only by some Decree of the universal Church. In our age have held the same error Erasmus Roterodamus, and Beatus Rhenanus, who hold, that secret confession of our several sins, both, was never instituted, and commanded by any law of God, and beside, was never in use with the ancient Church: Against all these mentioned errors, the Council 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 mind, 
Non ignoro Thomam Waldensem etc.  that he thought Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople, did simply abrogate the use of confession; and therein greatly offended: But I would not easily yield to that: And I know that some have thought this whole History feigned, and devised by Socrates; But I cannot be brought to believe, that a false History could be written by him of a matter whereof many living in the time, when, and where the thing was done, could convince him. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 320.   

Ninthly, all Doctors against Ru. Tapperus, and perhaps Thomas.  
Indeed Ruardus Tapperus a worthy Divine, 
Docet quidem Ruardus Tapperus insignis Theologus etc.  teacheth, that a man may satisfy God for his eternal guilt and punishment, by certain acts, which in order of nature follow the infusion of justifying grace, and go before remission of sins; and citeth Thomas for his opinion (upon 4. Sent. dist. 15. qu. 5) Neither is it certain, whether St. Thomas meant so, or no: It is enough for us, that all Doctors agree in this, that before this grace received, no man can satisfy God. Bellarm. l. 4. of Penance, c. 1. p. 341. Where also he endeavours to reconcile Andrea's Vega, in his opinion of our satisfaction to God, for the fault and offence of sin.   

Tenthly, Thomas, Durand. Paludan. against Adrian, Cajetan and Bellarmine.  
ALthough the opinion of Thomas, Durandus, 
Add quod licet sententia sit Valde etc.  Paludanus and others [upon 4 Sent. dist. 15.] be very likely, that satisfaction is not rightly made to God by works, which are otherwise due to be done, yet the opinion of Adrianus and Caietanus is not improbable; that we do satisfy God even by works, otherwise due to him; since the satisfaction we give to God doth not belong to justice only, but to friendship also. Bellarmine l. 4. cap. 13. pag. 402.    

DECAD. VIII.  

First, Scotus, Gabriel, and few others against Thomas, Richard, Durand, Paludan, etc.  
COncerning satisfaction enjoined by a Priest: 
Non concedit melior pars Theologorum etc.  the better part of Catholic Divines do not grant, that the party confessing may without sin 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 (upon 4. dist. 16.) hold, as we teach, That a Priest hath the keys, whereby he may not only absolve from guilt and offence, but as a judge, may in God's steed bind unto punishment, which the penitent cannot refuse, unless he resist the judge set over him from heaven, and by consequent God himself, Bellarm. li. 4. c. 13. pag. 402.   

Secondly, the better Popish Divines against the worse.  

Denique nemo Catholicorum d●cet, etc.  NO Catholic Doctor teaches, that works done in deadly sin do discharge from death. Indeed some say, that the works done in mortal sin, are satisfactory, if he which did the works, return again to the grace of God: But that they are so, whiles he continues in deadly sin, no man (that I know) affirmeth; yea our better Divines hold, that those works which are done in deadly sin, neither are, nor ever can be satisfactory. Bellarmine lib. 4. cap. 14. pag. 406.   

Thirdly, Ruardus, jansenius, Dominicus a Soto against Waldensis, and Alphonsus, etc.  
OF the place (Mar. 6.13.) we all agree not; 
De priore non omnes conveniunt.  whether that anointing which the Apostles used, were Sacramental, or only 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, jansenius, and Dominicus a Soto, and others. Bellarmine in his book of extreme Unction, cap. 2. pag. 6.   

Fourthly, Dominicus a Soto opposed by Bellarmine and all Divines.  
SOme Catholics, 
Quidam Catholici inter quos etc.  amongst whom is Dominicus a Soto, think that bodily health is an absolute and infallible effect of this Sacrament of anointing, etc. But this answer pleaseth me not, since that all Divines, and also the very Counsels of Florence and Trent directly say, that bodily health is promised in this Sacrament, only conditionally, if it may be expedient for the good of the soul. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 21.   

Fiftly, three dissenting opinions of Papists.  
THere is yet one question amongst our Divines: For what be those remainders of sin, 
una tantum est inter Theologos quaestio etc.  which are done away by this anointing? they do not all agree: Some would have them venial sins, but improbably, for they may be wiped away without any Sacrament. Others would have it to be, that proneness to sin, or habit which remains of sin; but that is yet more unlikely. But I say that the remnants of sin are double, both which are wiped away by this Sacrament. First are those, which sometimes remain after all other Sacraments, whether they be venial or mortal sins; for a man may after confession and communion fall into a mortal sin, and not know it, etc.  
Secondly, under the name of these remnants are understood that dullness, heaviness, anxiety which uses to be left of sin, and which may vex a man near his death, etc. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 8. p. 29. & 30.   

Sixtly, Waldensis, Dominic. a Soto, jansen. etc. disagreeing.  
HEre is yet one doubt, 
una est tantum hoc in loco dubitatio etc.  in that Pope Innocentius 1. in his Epistle 1. chap. 8. saith, that not only Priests but Lay-men in cases of their own, and others necessities, may anoile: which opinion Beda upon Mar. 6. recites in so many words, and the Council of Worms, Can. 72. though Waldensis answers, that Innocentius his words are to be understood of that time, and place where there are no Priests, and that then, and there, it is lawful for Layickes to minister this Sacrament: But this exposition is justly confuted of all Divines.  
Dominicus a Soto understands Innocentius to speak of the use of Oil, for healing of diseases, beside, and out of the business of the Sacrament: But that seems to be against the use and practise of the Church: Others, more truly (as jansenius) say, that Innocentius speaketh of the party to be anointed, not of the Minister. Bellarmine in the same book, cap. 9 pag. 31.   

Seventhly, the Council of Florence, Thomas, other Divines at variance.  
THere are two usual Ceremonies in this Sacrament: 
Duae sunt ceremoniae etc.  One, that the Litany and other prayers be read before the anointing. The second, that seven parts of the body be anointed; namely, the Eyes, Ears, Nostrils, Mouth, hands, because of the five senses; Then the reins, which are the seats of lust; and lastly the feet, which have the power of motion and execution: So is it prescribed by the Council of Florence. But some think that none of all these anointings, is of the essence of the Sacrament, but that it is sufficient (for that) if the sick man be anointed any where; the rest to be but for Rite and solemnity: But others hold, that all those several anointings are essential: But the common opinion (which also St. Thomas holds) is, That the anointing of the five senses only is enough for the essence of the Sacrament, and indeed respect of honesty seems to require we should forbear the anointing of the Reins in women, etc. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 10. p. 32.   

Eightly, old Schoolmen, and Dominicus a Soto against Petr. a Soto, Cajetan, Durand, Paludanus, etc.  

Ordinatio ● Episcopalis, etc.  ORdination of Bishops is a Sacrament, truly and properly so called: This opinion, though it be denied of some old Schoolmen, and amongst the new, by Dominicus a Soto (lib. 10. de Instit.) yet is affirmed by the ancient Fathers, and of the late, by Petrus a Soto, Cajetan; and of some old Schoolmen too, as Altisidoriensis, Io. Maior, Scotus, Durand, Paludanus: Though Durandus would have it one and the same Sacrament, with the Sacrament of Priesthood: and lastly, of all the Canonists almost, upon Ch. Cleros, dist. 21. Bellarmine in his book of the Sacram. of Orders, cap. 5. pag. 44.   

Ninthly, Durandus and Cajetan opposed by Bellarmine and other Divines.  
IT is very probable, 
De diaconis valde probabile est.  that the Ordination of Deacons is a Sacrament, though it be not certain, as a matter of faith: that it is very probable, appears, first because it is approved by the common opinion of Divines: Only Durandus there is, which holds, that only Priesthood 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 certainty as of Deaconship, 
Jam vero de Subdia conantu etc.  for neither is it mentioned in Scripture, neither hath the Ordination thereof any imposition of hands, as appears by the fourth Council of Carthage, Can. 5. etc. But yet it is very probable, that this Order is a Sacrament also: Only Durandus and Caietanus deny it. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 7. pag. 52.    

DECAD. IX.  

First, the old Schoolmen, and some new against Durand.  
OF the lesser Orders, 
Denique de minoribus Ordinibus etc.  it is less probable that they are Sacraments, then of the Sub-deaconship: yet it is the more probable opinion, that holds them all to be Sacraments, then that which denies it: First, because all the old Schoolmen affirm it, excepting only Durandus, and the graver sort of the new, as Franciscus de victoria, Petrus a Soto, etc. Bellarmine. ibid. cap. 8. pag. 53.   

Secondly, Dominicus a Soto, and some others against Petr. a Soto, Ledesmius, Hosius, etc.  
THe third Controversy is, 
Sequitur tertia Controversia etc.  of the matter and form of this Sacrament: for whereas in the Ordination of the Priest and Deacon, there are two external signs, imposition of hands, and reaching forth of an Instrument, as of the Chalice & Patin in the Priesthood: The book of the Gospels in the Deaconship. The question is, whether of these two signs are the essential matter of this Sacrament. Some think, that imposition of hands is only accidental, and that the reaching forth of the Instruments is only essential. So holds Dominicus a Soto (Dist. 24. quaest. 1. art. 4.) and some others: But the more probable and true opinion is, That not only the reaching out of the Instruments, but the imposition of hands also, is the essential matter of this Sacrament: So affirms Petrus a Soto, Martinus Ledesmius, Cardinal Hosius, etc. Bellarmine ibid. cap. 9 pag. 54.   

Thirdly, Durandus against the rest.  
OF the Catholic writers there is only Durandus, 
Ex Catholicis unus est Durandus.  who (upon 4. Dist. 26. qu. 3.) holdeth, that Matrimony cannot be called a Sacrament, save only Equivocally: whom Chemnitius brings for his part; forgetting, that by Durandus own confession, all our Divines teach the contrary. Bellarmine of the Sacram. of Matrimony, c. 1. p. 66.   

Fourthly, Alphonsus a Castro and Petr. a Soto against the Council of Florence and Trent.  
THere are some Catholics which hold, 
Non desunt Catholici qui admittant, etc.  that Matrimony is not properly a Sacrament of the new Law, but that it was so in the old Law amongst the jews, and so not instituted, but only confirmed by Christ: So teaches Alphonsus a Castro 11. book against Heres. Petrus a Soto Lect. 2. of Matrimony, and some others. But I see not how that can be safely defended; for the Council of Florence reckons up Matrimony amongst the Sacraments of the new Law; and the Council of Trent Sess. 24. Can. 1. in flat words, 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 etc.  COncerning carnal copulation, are two opinions of Catholics: Some teach, that it neither is the Sacrament, nor part of the Sacrament, but only an act or duty of Matrimony; and therefore only accidental in respect of the Sacrament of Matrimony: Others would have it a part of the Sacrament, yet not an essential part, but integral; and therefore before copulation the Matrimony is ratified, but not consummate. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. p. 91.   

Sixtly, three different opinions of three ranks of Papists.  
SOme hold (as Petrus Paludanus, 
Respondent aliqui ut Petrus etc.  Io. Capreolus, Io. Eckius) that those married persons which are converted to Christianity, aught after their baptism to be married together again, and then that their marriage is made a Sacrament: Others, as Tho. de Argentina, and Paludanus, etc. say, that without any new contract, that Matrimony which before Baptism was no Sacrament, strait after baptism become a Sacrament. But how ever it be, the common opinion of Divines is, that the marriage of Infidels may be true and lawful, but not ratified nor indissoluble: but if both be converted, and baptised, their marriage becomes both ratified, and indissoluble, and consequently a Sacrament. Bellarm. ibid. c. 5. p. 102.   

Seventhly, Canus confuted by Bellarmine.  
MElchior Canus while he strives for the defence of his new and singular opinion, 
Canus autem dum pro sua opinion etc.  unwisely useth those arguments, whereby the Heretics of our time might vex the Church; for in his 8. book of Theolog. places, chap. 5. he affirms, that not every marriage lawfully contracted betwixt Christians, is a Sacrament, but that only, which is celebrated by an Ecclesiastical Minister in set and solemn 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 prove that there is no true sacrament of Matrimony in the Church. pag. 103.104 etc.   

Eightly, divers opinions of their Doctors.  
SOme teach, 
Quidam enim docent, etc.  that the patriarchs had but one lawful wife, and the rest were their Concubines. Others not only teach, that those women were the true and lawful wives of the patriarchs, but also hold, that this was not forbidden, save only by the positive law of the Gospel, which they would have the opinion of St. Jerome and Augustine. There is a third opinion common in the Schools, that the patriarchs might by God's dispensation marry more wives than one: but of this are divers conceits, some think that the several patriarchs had a peculiar inspiration from God for this dispensation: Others hold it enough that this dispensation was made known by inspiration to the first patriarchs, etc. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 11. pag. 136.   

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

Eandem sententiam etc.  ERasmus in his notes upon 1. Cor. 7. goes about largely to show, that in case of fornication the Innocent party may marry again: And these notes were set forth by Erasmus in the year of our Lord 1515. two years before Luther's faction arose. And there are two other Catholics, which are possessed with the same error: Ambrose Catharinus and Caietanus; for Catharinus concludes in his notes upon Cajetan, as from him; That from the Gospel it cannot be gathered, that in case of fornication it is not lawful to marry again; but that this is forbidden by divers 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 etc.  DOminicus a Soto upon 4. Sent. Dist. 26. quaest. 2. affirms, that in his time there were some which began to defend, that the essential form of this Sacrament of Matrimony, are those words of the Priest, I join you together, but yet that there was none, which durst commit this Opinion to Writing; whence it follows, that the Opinion of Canus is new and singular, etc. Bellarmine in his first Book of Matrimony, cap. 7. pag. 110.   

divers opinions of Divines acknowledged: Canus Confuted.  
THat which Canus saith, 
Quod vero ille dicit, etc.  that our Divines write no certainty of this Sacrament, that they are distracted into divers opinions, helpeth his cause nothing at all; for though our Divines follow divers opinions of the matter of this Sacrament, yet of the form and minister of it, they disagree not. See the confutation of Canus at large, Chap. 8. etc. Bellarmine the same book, cap. 7. pag. 111.    

DECAD. X.  

First, Pet. Lombard, Bonaventure, Rich. Dominicus a Soto, against Thomas, Scotus, Duran. Palud. Abulensis, etc.  
IT is a question among our Doctors, 
Quaestio est inter doctores, etc.  whether Divorce so granted to the jews, as that after it they might marry again, were yielded to them as lawful, or as a lesser evil: Master of Sentenc. Dist. 33. Lib. 4. and Bonaventura, Richardus, Dominicus a Soto, and others hold it was ever unlawful, but only tolerated with impunity, for the avoiding of a greater evil: But the contrary opinion (I must confess) ever seemed to me most probable, which is defended by Saint Thomas, Scotus, Durandus, Paludanus, Abulensis, Eckius, Dominicus a Soto. Bellarmine the same book, cap. 17. pag. 192.   

Secondly, Erasmus and Gropperus against the rest.  

Primus videtur Erasmus etc.  ERasmus was the first that called this matter into Controversy: Whether the consent of Parents be required to the essence of Matrimony; but the Catholic Doctors are so far from doubting of this point, as that they never number the want of Parent's consent, amongst the impediments of Matrimony, and the Council of Trent accurses them which shall hold marriage, without consent of Parents void, or voidable by parents. All the old Divines, and amongst them St. Tho. in 4. d. 28. and the most of the learned new writers, as Ruard. Petr. and Dominic. a Soto, and others, teach, that Matrimony without consent and knowledge of parents, is not only true marriage, but also a true Sacrament: Indeed Gropperus denies this Clandestine Matrimony to be a Sacrament, wherein he is manifestly deceived, and contradicts both St. Thomas and all sounder Divines. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19, & 20. pag. 201.202. etc.   

Thirdly, Thomas, Bonauent. Albert. Richard. Durand. Dominicus a Soto, against Scotus, Paludan, Cajetan, and all Canonists.  
IT is a Controversy among Catholics, 
Quaestio igitur etc.  by what Law a solemn vow dissolveth that Matrimony, which is contracted after the said vow; whether by the Law natural and Divine, or only Ecclesiastical and positive: For many, and those grave Divines Saint Thomas, Saint Bonaventure, Albertus, Richardus, Durandus, and Dominicus a Soto hold, that a solemn vow dissolves Matrimony by the Law of GOD and nature: but many deny their grounds, as Scotus, Paludanus, and Cajetan, and all the Interpreters of the Canon law, as Panormitanus witnesseth: who thinketh, that this dissolution is only warranted by the Decree of the Church. Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. pag. 217.   

Fourthly, Caietane against the common opinion.  
COncerning these four forbidden degrees, 
De his quatuor gradibus etc.  some Doctors have 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, etc.  

Non desunt quidem Theologi.  THere be some of our Divines, which separate Original justice given to our first Parent, in his Creation, from that Grace which we call (Gratum facientem) and which teach, that Adam received indeed at first a certain habit, which subjecteth the inferior part of the soul to the superior; but not this saving Grace, which makes us the Sons and friends of GOD, and is necessary to the earning of eternal life; Of which opinion were Peter Lombard, 2. Sent. Dist. 24. and after him Io. Scotus and certain other. We follow Albertus Magnus, Saint Thomas and others, which conjoin Original justice with the said Grace, etc. Bellarmine in his book of the grace given 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, etc.  differed no otherwise from his estate in his pure naturals, than a stripped man from a naked, neither is man's nature ever a whit the worse, if you only take away his Original fault; neither is more ignorant and weak, than it would have been in his mere naturals: therefore the corruption of nature is not of the want of any natural gift, or the addition of any ill quality, but only from the loss of his supernatural gift, from Adam's sin, which is the common opinion of Schoolmen, both old and new: neither did we learn this which we teach from Dominicus a Soto only: neither hath Saint Thomas and other approved Authors written the contrary (as some otherwise very learned men do hold) but as I said, this is the commoner Opinion, as shall appear by the testimonies following. Bellarmine in his book of the grace given to our first parents, cap. 5. pag. 21.   

Seventhly, Bellarmine against Eugubinus.  
THE Pelagians held, 
Prior fuit Pelagianorum etc.  that man should have died though he had not sinned: to which error Augustinus Eugubinus comes very near in his notes upon Genes. 2. Bellarmine in the same book of the grace given to mankind in our first Parent, cap. 8. pag. 46.   

Eightly, Franc. Georgius refuted by Bellarmine.  
SOme of the Ancients have turned all that History of Paradise, the Rivers and Trees, 
Non defuerunt ex veteribus etc.  into mere Allegories, as Philo, Valentinus Haeresiarcha, Origenes: But in our age Franciscus Georgius, 1. Tom. of Problems, and in his Harmony of the World, Cant. 1. Tom. 7. chap. 21. hath gone about to receive and defend this opinion, long since condemned by the fathers. Bellarm. ibid. c. 10. p. 53.   

Ninthly, Aug. Eugubinus, Hier. de Oleastro, Vatablus, jansenius rejected by Bellarmine.  

Quaerta opinio est recentiorum. etc.  THe fourth opinion is, of some later Writers, Augustine Eugubinus, Hierome de Oleastro, Francis Vatablus, Cornelius jansenius 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 show of a Paradise, and therefore now there is no more guard of the Angel, or flaming sword: But for many causes I cannot like this opinion. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 12. pag. 62.   

Tenthly, the later Papists against the ancient.  
Howsoever the later writers, which we cited before; Eugubinus, 
Et quidem recentiores illi etc.  jansenius and others, hold the contrary; yet since I never read any of the ancient, which have held the earthly Paradise to be perished, either by waters or by any other cause: And I have found many that affirm it is yet extant, as almost all the Schoolmen (upon 2. Sent. d. 17.) and Saint Thomas: beside, Iren. Hierom. Augustine, Theodoret, Bede, etc. and others: I dare not dissent from so common and received an opinion, Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 68     

THE PEACE OF ROME. THE THIRD BOOK OR CENTVRY.  

DECAD. I.  

First, Bellarm. against S. Tho. and other Schoolmen.  
IT is held by Io. Damascenus, 
Et quidem Johannes Damascenus, etc.  St. Thomas, and other of the Schoolmen, that men only, and not brute creatures should have had place in Paradise, if man had not sinned; But the authority of Saint Basill and Saint Austin, which teach the contrary, prevaileth more with me: See the confutation. Bellarmine the same book, cap. 15. pag. 71.   

Secondly, the Schoolmen opposed by Bellarmine.  
St. Austin whom the Schoolmen in this do follow, 
una sancti Augustini quem Scholastici etc.  holds, that the tree of life was appointed to defend that death, which useth to ensue upon old age: the opinion of many other Fathers, and I think very agreeable to Scripture, and reason, is quite otherwise; namely, that this Tree had this power, that once tasted of, it could give perfect immortality, such as we shall have after our resurrection, etc. This I confess I like better of the two. Bellarmine ibid. c. 18. pag. 74.   

Thirdly, Bellarmine against Alphonsus de Castro.  
I Marvel what Alphosus de Castro meant, 
Quocirca valdè mirum est etc.  to write that Saint Jerome never ascribed this error of the equality of sins to jovinian, for in many pages in his second book against jovinian, he both names him, and answereth his Arguments for this purpose. Bellarm. in his first book of the loss of grace and State of sin, cap. 4. pag. 97.   

Fourthly, Io. Gerson and Io. Rossensis against Lombard and the rest, and jacob. Almain.  

His omnibus erroribus contraria est sententia Theolog. Catholicorum etc.  THe Catholic Divines in the Master of Sent. 2. B. Dist. 42. and Saint Thomas out of the consent of almost all writers teach, that some sins of their own nature (without all respect to Predestination, or reprobation of the state of the regenerate, or unregenerate) are deadly, and others venial, and that by the first, man is made unworthy of God's favour, and guilty of death; by the other liable only to some temporal punishment, and fatherly chastisement: Only Io. Gerson, 3. p. Theol. Tract. 3. and Io. of Rochester in his refutation of 32. Art. of Luther, and jacobus Almain must be excepted, which differ somewhat herein from the common opinion of Divines. Bellarm. ibid. c. 4. p. 102.   

Fiftly, Bellarmine and Thomas against Scotus and Bonaventure.  
THE common opinion of Catholic Divines is, that eves first sin was pride, 
At sententiae communis etc.  yea S. Thomas holds, that the first sin of both our first Parents was pride, 2.2. quaest. 163. S. Bonaventure and Scotus hold, that Adam's first sin was inordinate love to his wife, not of concupiscence, but of human kindness. The other opinion is to be received rather: See the confutation of Scotus and Bonaventure, cha. 5. Bellarm. 3. book of the loss of grace, etc. c. 4. p. 278.   

Sixtly, different opinions of ancient Fathers, maintained by some Papists.  
SOme think, that Eve believed not, 
Aliqui docent etc.  that death should follow upon the eating of the forbidden tree, but rather believed, that GOD had lied to them, and upon envy forbade that so excellent and wholesome fruit. So teach Cyrill, Chrysostome, Augustine, Rupertus, Rabanus, and many others. Others think, that Eve believed that the same fruit was not indeed forbidden by God, and that she and her husband had mistook the words of GOD: This opinion is noted by Augustine book 11. Gen. ad literam, cap. 30. and by Epiphanius in the heresy of Cainites. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 290.   

Seventhly, Scotus and some few others against Thomas, Albert, Bonaventure, Richard, Durand.  
SOme there are which think, that the first sin of our first Parents might have been venial: 
Et quidem non desunt.  So holds Scotus (upon 2. Senten. Dist. 21.) and some few others which follow him: But the greater Divines teach contrary, as Saint Thomas, Albert, Saint Bonaventure, Richardus, Durandus, Egidius, and others, upon 2. Sent. Dist. 21. and Alexander Alensis in Sum. Theol. p. 2. q. 104. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 8. pag 298.   

Eightly, Bellarmine against the Schoolmen, with Chrysostome.  

Et quidem S. johannes Chrys.  SAaint Chrysostome directly teacheth, that the sin of Eve was more heinous than adam's, which opinion most of the Schoolmen follow, upon 2. Sent. Dist. 22. Contrarily, Saint Ambrose by many Arguments, proves, that the man sinned worse than the woman: Saint Austin so speaks, as if he thought the sins of both equal: Bellarmine allows Chrysostom's opinion for probable, but yields rather to Ambrose, and concludes, that absolutely the man sinned worse than the woman, though in respect of some acts, the woman sinned equally to him. Bellarm. ibid. c. 9 p. 299.   

Ninthly, three ranks of Popish Doctors dissenting.  
COncerning the Traduction of Original sin, 
Explicandus est modus etc.  Saint Austin holds thus: That either both Body and Soul is corrupted in the derivation of it, (according to their Opinion, which hold the Soul propagated) or that the Soul is corrupted in the Body, as in an unclean vessel, according to them which hold the Soul created by God, and only 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 sin, as August. in his first book De peccat. meritis, & 1. B. De nuptijs & concup. But this opinion, if it be taken as the words sound (as it is indeed understood by Peter Lombard, Gregory Ariminensis, and Gabriel) seems not to be suffered. Others hold, that the Soul is defiled with the Body, because the flesh destitute of Original justice, and grown rebellious to reason, draws away the soul, and inclines it amiss: so think Alexander Alensis and S. Bonaventure: but this opinion is confuted by the same arguments. There is another opinion, which I doubt not is the truest, of Saint Anselm, Saint Thomas, Scotus, Durandus, and others upon 2. Sent. dist. 31. That to the traducing of Original sin, nothing is required, but that a man be by true generation descended from Adam, for in that he was in Adam's loins when he transgressed, he did communicate with his sin. Bellarmine's 4. book of loss of grace, cap. 12 pag. 400.   

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

Quod ad priorem etc.  ALl hold, that no sin could have been traduced to mankind, if Eve alone had sinned: But in this they differ, that some think from eves sin alone; there would have grown a necessity of dying to her sons, and the other inconveniences that follow mortality: Others hold, that neither sin nor necessity of dying would have followed: This latter opinion is Saint Thomases, 1.2. q. 81. and without doubt very true. Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 402.    

DECAD. II.  

First, all Divines against Thomas Aquin.  
THe common opinion is, 
Communis sententia est si primus, etc.  that if the first man had not sinned, whosoever else should sin, his offence should have been personal 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 evil, 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 Catholics hold, 
Tametsi non desint. inter Catholicos, etc.  that opinion to have some more inclination to the truth, which exempts none but Christ from the state of original sin, yet even those Authors do not condemn the contrary opinion as erroneous, neither indeed can, unless they will resist the Decrees of the general Council of Trent, and of Sixtus 4. and Pius the 5. Popes, which if they did, they should not be reckoned for Catholics; and of this opinion were Capreolus, Caietanus and others. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 15. & 16. pag. 409.   

Thirdly, Bellarmine against some nameless 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 evil, was given to our parents for themselves and their posterity, except the Virgin Marie; which opinion seems to me not safe to be defended. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 16. pag. 418.   

Fourthly, Hofmeisterus and Viruesius confuted by Bellar.  

Ex nostris Ioha●nes etc.  OF our writers john Hofmeisterus, and Alphonsus Viruesius do scarce acknowledge, there is any difference in this article of Original sin, betwixt us and the heretics; but if it be well considered, there is a double difference in our doctrine. Bellarm. l. 5. of the loss of grace, cap. 4. p. 460.   

Fiftly, the Council of Trent against Pighius and Catharinus.  

Non unum in omnibus etc.  THe Council of Trent hath defined, that original sin is not as one, and the same in all; but that every man hath his own proper birth-sin, against the false opinion of Pighius and Catharinus. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 472.   

Sixtly, two ranks of Popish Doctors opposed by Bellarm.  
THere do now remain two incommodious opinions of Catholics to be confuted. 
Nunc refutand●e sunt duae etc.  Some therefore of our authors, would have original sin to be nothing but concupiscence: that is, a faulty quality in the mind, evermore stirring up 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 Gregory; that Henry holds, that evil quality of the Soul, to be a proneness to all evil: Gregory restrains it to the inclination unto that thing, which is carnally delightful. This opinion (me thinks) cannot be defended. (And a little after) In all this we agree with Peter Lombard, Henricus, Gregory and the rest: Only here lies the question, Whether this faultiness of nature be a positive quality, or not: and whether it be properly and formally original sin: they affirm both, we deny both. Bellarm. ib. c, 15. p. 548   

Seventhly, Albert Pighius, and Catharinus, and some ancient confuted by Bellarmine.  
LAstly remains to be confuted, 
Restat ultimus error.  the error of Albertus Pighius, Ambrose Catharinus, and some of the ancient, as Pet. Lomb. reports; which is, that original sin is nothing else but the first disobedience of Adam, whereby the precept of God, for not eating of the forbidden tree was broken, etc. but it is false and heretical, that original sin is nothing else, besides the first actual transgression of Adam, etc. Bellarm▪ ibid. cap. 16. pag. 555.   

Eightly, four sorts of Popish Doctors at irreconcilable variance.  

Quinque numerantur sententiae etc.  THere are five opinions of the estate and punishment of Infant's unbaptised, after this life: first of those which durst promise the Kingdom of heaven to them; though they denied not, that they were borne in original sin: 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 heaven, but yet yield them an eternal and natural blessedness, free from all sorrow and trouble, out of the Kingdom of the blessed, and far from the prison of the damned: so did the Pelagians hold, as August. b. of heresies, chap. 88 near to which opinion are Ambrose Catharinus Albertus Pighius, and Hierome Savanarola. The third is, that Infants dying without baptism are damned in hell to eternal death, but yet so punished with want of the vision of God, as that in the mean time they suffer no pain, neither inward nor outward: so teacheth S. Thomas in q. 4. of evil, art. 1.2. etc. and some other School Doctors [upon 2. Sent. d. 23.] The fourth opinion exempts such infants from the torment of the fire and worm, whereof we read (Mar. 9) but not from an inward sorrow, for the loss of their eternal blessedness. So teaches Peter Lombard (upon 2. Sent.) and after him some others, as S. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, and Gregory Ariminensis, and others report. The fifth, which is the severest opinion, teacheth, that Infants for their original sin, are perpetually tormented in hell, with both sorts of punishment, of loss, and of sense: to which opinion incline Gregorius Ariminensis, Io. Driedo. Bellarm. 6. b. of the loss of grace. c. 1. p. 174▪ 175.   

Ninthly, two sorts of Popish Writers opposite.  
THe place wherein such Infants do, 
Locus in quo paruuli degunt etc.  and shall live, is the prison of hell; a place dark and horrible, as almost all the school-divines teach, Saint Thomas, S. Bonaventure, Scotus, Durandus, Richardus, Capreolus, and others upon 2. Sent. dist. 33. and beside, Alexander Alensis, and Albertus. This difference only there is betwixt these old Divines, that some place Infants in the higher part of hell, which they call Limbum puerorum, the verge of Infants: others say, they have one common place with the damned. Thus the fathers of the Florentine Council teach, etc. Bellarm. ibid. c. 2. p. 582.   

Tenthly, Durandus, Thomas, Bonaventure, Richardus differing.  
SOme of the old Schoolmen have held, 
Aliqui veterum Scholasticorum.  that those infants shall therefore have no sorrow, for the loss of blessedness, because they shall not know they have lost it, which may be done only by faith: this reason is approved by Thomas in qu. 2. de malo, but himself reproves it in 2. Sent. dist. 33. quaest. 2. Durandus upon the same place defends it. Bonaventure hath devised another reason: Thomas a third: and Richardus upon the same place, seeing that the foresaid reasons did not give satisfaction, adds a fourth, and saith: that infants know they are fallen from happiness, and yet are not sad, it comes to pass by a singular providence of God which removes sorrow from their minds. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 609.    

DECAD. III.  

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

Ad hanc sententiam accessit Albertus etc.  THat no part of justice stands in any quality or habit of ours, but all wholly in Gods free acceptation, is held by Calvin, Kemnitius, Heshusius: and to this opinion of the heretics comes Albertus Pighius (otherwise a Catholic Doctor) but in some questions (as Ruardus Tapperus noted before us) miserably seduced by reading of Calvin's books: for thus Pighius writes in his fifth book of free-will: We will fetch the divers acceptions of grace from the Scriptures, not from the Schools; for in them commonly they imagine, that the grace of God is some quality created in our souls by God, etc. all which I think false and feigned, and to have no authority from scripture: thus Pighius. But the common opinion of Divines constantly teacheth, that a supernatural habit is infused into us by God, whereby the soul is garnished and perfected, and so made acceptable to God. For though Peter Lombard in 1. Sent. dist. 17. seem to say, that charity is not an habit, but the very holy Ghost himself, yet it appears in the same book dist. 37. he meant, that the spirit of God dwelleth not in them only, which know and love him, but even in Infants by some habit: wherefore Io. Scotus holds, that Peter Lombard's opinion may well be expounded and defended; but St. Thomas and other Divines reprove his opinion, as if he denied the habit of charity. Bellarm. of grace and free-will, l. 1. cap. 3. pag. 50.   

Secondly, four divers opinions of Popish Doctors.  
WHether the habit of grace be the same with the habit of charity, 
Vtrum habitus gratiae.  there are four opinions of Divines: for some would have this justifying grace (gratum facientem) to be an habit, in nature and respects different from charity, as St. Thomas, Capreolus, Caietanus, Ferrariensis, Dominicus a Soto. Others make not a real, but a formal distinction betwixt them, as Albertus Magnus, Alexander Alensis, and perhaps St. Bonaventure upon 2. Sent. dist. 26 Others hold them neither in deed nor formally, but only in certain respects different; and this is the judgement of Alexander Alensis, who belike changed his opinion, Richardus, Scotus, Mayro. Gabriel, Maior, Henry of Gaunt, and Andreas Vega. Others hold, there is no difference at all betwixt them, save in name only. So Durandus upon 2. dist. 26. q. The third opinion seems to be most probable, and more agreeing to Scripture, Fathers, and Council of Trent. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 63.   

Thirdly, Thomas and all Divines against Peter Lombard.  

Operae precium esse duximus. etc.  WE thought it meet to confute the opinion of them, which teach, that charity whereby we love God, is not any created habit, but the very person of the holy Ghost, which useth to be accounted Lombard's opinion. But we must think Pet. Lomb. was not gross, and dull, to think the very act of love, which we ourselves produce, is the very holy Ghost: but this was it, that Lombard taught, that the very next immediate cause, or ground of the love of God, is the spirit of God in us, and not any created habit, as of faith, hope, and the rest; which opinion all Divines confute in their Commentaries (on the 1. book Sent. dist. 17.) especially Saint Thomas (in 2.2. q. 23.) and in his questions, who answereth 24. objections that might be made for Lombard's opinion. Bellarm. ibid. c. 8. p. 77.   

Fourthly, three ranks of Popish Writers at variance.  
WHence grace proveth effectual, 
unde sumatur efficacia gratiae etc.  are three opinions: The first of them, which hold the efficacy of grace to stand in the assent and cooperation of man's will: and therefore these hold it in man's power to make grace effectual, which otherwise in itself would be but sufficient. The other of those, which think effectual grace to be the natural action of God, which determines the will, to will and choose that good, which was inspired to them by exciting grace: This opinion seems either the same with the error of the Caluinists and Lutherans, or very little different; The Abettors of this opinion like it, because they think it is Augustine's: but that it was not his, may be showed by four arguments, etc. The third, is the mean between both these extremes. Bellarmine ibid. c. 12. p. 97.98. etc.   

Fiftly, Popish Divines divided.  
MAny Catholic Divines, and almost all, teach, 
Theologi Catholici quam plurimi etc.  that every man hath sufficient grace given him for the place and time, and yet without preventing grace no man can desire or receive it. So Alexander Alensis, Albertus Magnus, S. Thomas, Bonauent. Scotus, P. Adrian, Io. Roffensis, etc. Bellarm. l. 2. of grace and free-will, c. 1. p. 116.   

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

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

Seventhly, Thomas, and Cajetan, and Bellarmine against other Doctors.  

Disputant quidem Theologi etc.  Divines indeed dispute, whether predestination belong rather to the understanding, or to the will: But I like the opinion of Cardinal Cajetan and St. Thomas, who hold it rather of the understanding; and the rather, because it is Saint Augustine's in his book De bono perseverant. cap. 17. Bellarm. ib. c. 9 p 154.   

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

Sed explicemus paulo fusius, etc.  BUT let us more at large expound that principal place out of Rom. 9 because Ambros. Catharinus, and some other new Writers take it amiss. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 10. pag. 157.   

Ninthly, some nameless Authors confuted by Bellarm.  
THE distinction which some Catholics make betwixt predestination and election; 
Propter hoc argumentum non defuerunt etc.  that predestination is before election; predestination is the means, election respects the glory itself; predestination is free, election depends on the praevision of our good works. See by Bellarmine (the same book, cap. 15. p. 186.) confuted, as disagreeing from Scripture and reason.   

Tenthly, eight several opinions of Popish Doctors.  
THe first opinion is, 
Sunt autem de hac re multae Theologorum sententiae etc.  That free-will doth consist properly in our act, not in any habit, etc. so teacheth Herueus (1. quodlibet. q. 1.) who places free-will in those acts of the understanding and will, which go before deliberation, or the conclusion of deliberation. The second is, bonaventure's opinion, who placeth free-will in a certain natural habit, arising from reason and will (upon 2. Sent. Dist. 23. art. 1.) The third is Albertus opinion, that free-will it is a power of the soul, perfected by a natural habit. The fourth, that free-will is an universal power, or faculty, containing under it all the powers of the understanding and sensitive soul. This opinion is reported without name by Saint Bonaventure and Saint Thomas. The fifth is, of Alexander Alensis, which teacheth, that free-will is a particular power or faculty of the soul, and distinct from reason and will (in p. 2. Sum. q. 74. etc.) The sixth is Durandus (upon 2. Sent. d. 24. q. 3.) who teaches, that free-will is the very power of reason and will, but more especially of reason. The seventh is the opinion of Henricus and Scotus (in 2. Sent. dist. 25.) who hold, that free-will is but one particular faculty, even the will itself; and that it is so free, that it doth not depend so much as upon the practical judgement of reason. The eight is the opinion of S. Thomas (1. part. Sum. q. 83.) and (in 1.2. q. 13. etc.) Richardus Capreolus, Conradus, Caietanus, and others, which hold, that free-will is indeed one particular faculty, even the will itself (as the former opinion) but they add, that the root of this freedom is in reason, and that the will wholly depends upon the last judgement of practical reason, which opinion seems to me to be the truest. Bellarm. l. 3. cap. 7. pag. 221.    

DECAD. FOUR  

First, Occam against the common opinion.  

Tametsi Gul. Occam in l. 3. Sent. q. 13.  ALthough Gul. Occam write, that the object of the will is any thing that hath being, whether it be good or evil; so that it can be set upon evil, as it is evil: yet the common opinion of Divines is contrary, etc. and amongst the rest of Saint Thomas in 1. part, q. 20. art. 1. etc. Bellarm. ibid. c. 12. p. 248.   

Secondly, three ranks of Popish Divines disagreeing.  
ABout the object of free-will, 
Tres de hac re sententiae etc.  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 free-will.  
The second of Gregorius Ariminensis (upon 1. Sent. d. 39) which thinks, that the entering into an action, even for the present, may be free, but that some continuance, is altogether necessary.  
The third is more common in Schools, and more true, which is declared and defended by Io. Scotus, Capreolus, and Hersubcus: that free-will hath in his power, not only future, but present actions, and not only 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 only passive, as Capreolus and Saint Thomas (by Capreolus report) or whether thirdly, it be efficiently of the will, but yet of God as the author of it: as following upon that natural inclination, which God hath set in the will, as Cajetan, Ferrariensis, and Saint Thomas. See Bellarmine same book, cap. 14. pag. 256.   

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

una solum controversia remanet.  ONe Controversy 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 special help of grace: but almost all Divines, and especially Saint Thomas, teach the contrary; who doubt not to call that opinion erroneous. Bellarmine in his fourth book of grace and free-will, c. 2. p. 277.   

Fiftly, Durandus against all Divines: some other nameless against the rest.  

Duo siquidem contrarij errores etc.  OF actions natural, or civil, or manual (without consideration of any moral good or evil in them) whether they could be done of us, by the only power of nature, there have been two contrary errors: for some have taught that man as well as other things, can do his works without any help of God, whether general or special. So Origen seems to hold, as Saint Thomas noteth: so also the Pelagians, and amongst others Durandus upon 2. Sent. dist. 1. quaest. 5. Others have held in an other extreme, that God doth so immediately and properly work all things, that the second causes do just 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 Divines is between both. Bellarmine the fourth book, cap. 4. pag. 285.   

Sixtly, Saint Thomas, Gregory, Gabriel, Buridan, Andreas de Castro, Laurent. Valla, in three ranks against one another.  
ONe of the main Controversies of this matter is, 
Tertia quaestio quae una ex principalibus etc.  whether man have free-will in natural and civil actions, whereof are three opinions: First, of well near all Catholics, that not only man is of free-will in the foresaid actions, but that this is evident, both in the light of nature and doctrine of faith, as Saint Thomas (above others (in quaest. 6. de malo) and Gregory, Gabriel, and others upon 2. Sent. d. 25. The second of some Catholics, which hold it certain by the doctrine of faith, not by the light of reason, that man hath this free-will. So teach Io. Buridanus 3. Ethic. q. 1. Andr. de Castro, 1. Sent. d. 45. cited by Ruardus, etc. The third opinion, or heresy rather, is of Laurentius Valla in his book of free-will, etc. and Bucer, who teach, that man hath not free-will in any thing, in this state of his corrupted nature; no not in things indifferent and civil. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 5. p. 289.   

Seventhly, Cajetan, Durandus, and another sort un-named against each other, and Bellarm. against all.  

Concordiam istam liberi arbitrij etc.  THE cooperation of God's providence with man's free-will, Cajetan thinks cannot be expressed: Contrary, Durandus thinks he hath sufficiently unfolded it, when he teacheth, that there is no concourse of Gods will with second causes; but that the natures and virtues of themselves are sufficient: and that God as he hath made them, so should preserve 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 man's 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, Bonaventure, Scotus, Richard Durandus, etc.  

Quidam Theogi, etc.  SOme Divines hold, that no moral truth can be known by man, in the state of his corrupted nature, without the special aid of God's spirit so teach Gregorius Ariminensis, johannes, Capreolus, Gaspar Cassalius. Contrarily, all Divines almost think by the mere power of nature, and by a general aid of God, some moral truth may be known. So Albertus, S. Bonaventure, Scotus, Richardus, Durandus, Dominicus a Soto, S▪ Thomas, etc. This latter opinion seems the truest, which we do the rather defend, because it so much displeaseth our adversaries, and Io. Calvin especially. Bellarm. 5. book of grace and free-will, cap. 1. pag. 337.   

Ninthly, Scotus, Durandus, Gabriel, Gregor. Ariminensis, Capreolus, Marsilius, Alexander, Albert, Thomas Bonavent. opposite to each other.  
ALl Catholics agree, 
Conueniunt Theologi Catholici, etc.  that no works meritorious of grace, can be done by the only power of nature; and secondly, that all our works before justification are no sins: within these bounds some dispute for free-will, perhaps more freely and lavishly then were meet, as Scotus, Durandus, Gabriel, upon 2 Sent. d. 28. Others again give less to it then they should, as Gregorius ● Ariminensis, Capreolus upon 2. Scent d. 28. and Marsilius. We will follow that, which the greater and graver sort of Divines teach, namely, Alexander, Albertus, S. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, etc. Bellarm. l. 5. c. 4. p. 351.   

Tenthly, two sorts of nameless Doctors opposed.  
PErhaps those authors which say, 
Fortasse conciliari possunt.  that without the help of God no tentation can be overcome, and those which hold, some may be vanquished without it, may be reconciled; yet their opinion and speech is more agreeable to Scriptures and Fathers, which say, no tentation can be overcome without God's aid. Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. p. 363.    

DECAD. V.  

First, Bellarmine with Saint Thomas and Bonaventure against some nameless Doctors.  

Dictum iliud commune Scholarum, etc.  FOr the common saying in Schools (To the man that doth what he can, God denies not grace) I answer, that this is well expounded of St. Thomas in 1. 2. q. 109. and Saint Bonaventure in 2. Sent. dist. 28. grace is not denied to him that doth his utmost, when a man doth it by working together with God's grace, whereby he is stirred; not when he worketh only by the power of nature: certainly those which teach that man by doing what he may, is by the only strength of nature prepared to grace; either think that he may thereby desire, and ask grace, which is the Pelagians heresy, or hold, that man by his own strength may keep all the moral law, etc. and this also is Pelagianisme, confuted in the former book. Bellarm. l. 6. of grace and free-will, c. 6. p. 508.   

Secondly, Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto.  
SOme Catholics, and especially Dominicus a Soto, 
Aliqui etiam ex Catholicis, etc.  2. b. of not. and grace, c. 14. deny, that our dispositions towards justification, can by any reason be called merits, and to be justified freely, they hold to imply a justification, without any merit whatsoever: But I cannot understand, why we should not in that case use the name of merit (especially with that addition of congruity) when we speak of works done by the preventing grace of God. Bellarm. of justification, l. 1. c. 21. p. 103.   

Thirdly, Albertus Pighius and the Divines of Colen against the Council of Trent and Bellarmine.  
NOt only Martin Bucer, 
In eandem sententiam five potius, etc.  but Albertus Pighius (with some others, as namely the Divines of Colen) in his second controversy, held this opinion, or error rather, that there is a double justice, whereby we are formally justified, one imperfect, which is in our inherent virtues: the other perfect, which is Christ's righteousness impured, whose opinion is rejected by the Council of Trent, Sess. 6. c. 7. Bellarm. l. 2. of justification, c. 1. & 2. p. 124.   

Fourthly, Gropperus, Catharinus, Saint Thomas, Bonaventure, Scotus, in three opinions.  
OF this matter, 
De proposita igitur quaestione etc.  concerning certainty of salvation, there are 3. opinions, or rather falsehoods: The first, of the heretics of this time, that the faithful may have such knowledge, as that by a sure faith they may know their sins forgiven, etc. The second is, of the Author of the Enchiridion Coloniense, which holds, that a man both may, and aught to be certain his sins are forgiven, but yet he denies, that he is justified by faith alone: But this book is in many other things worthy of the censure of the Church. The third is of Ambrose Catharinus, who holds, that a man may be certain of his own grace, even by the assurance of faith: Contrary to these errors is the common opinion of almost all Divines, Saint Thomas, S. Bonaventure, Scotus, Durandus, Roffensis, Alphonsus a Castro, Dominicus a Soto, Ruardus, etc. Nicholas Saunders, Thomas Stapleton, etc. that no man by any certainty of faith be assured of his justice, except those which have special revelations. Bellarm. l. 3. of justice, c. 3. p. 206.   

Fiftly, the Divines of Lovan and Paris against Catharin.  

Nam Parisiensis & Lovaniensium vero, etc.  HOw Bellarmine presseth Catharinus with the authority of the Universities of Paris and Lovan, and the flat words of the Council of Trent; and Catharinus his answers and elusions of all, See Bellarm. ibid. cap. 3. pag. 208.   

Sixtly, Bellarmine against Catharinus.  
CAtharinus his exposition of those places of Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus, job for his purpose, see largely confuted by Bellar. Bellar. ib. c. 4. & 5. p. 211.212.   

Seventhly, Catharinus and two ranks of Popish Divines differing.  
I Say there is no Catholic writer holds, 
Dico nullum Catholicum Scriptorem etc.  that a man should ever doubt of his reconciliation with God; for there are three opinions amongst Catholics: One of Ambrose Catharinus, which doth not only exclude all doubt, but adds, that the just man may have an assurance of his justification, by the certainty of a Divine faith. Another goes not so far, yet holds, that perfect men are wont to attain unto that security, as that they have no fear of their justification, as we believe without all doubting that there was a Caesar, an Alexander, etc. though we saw them not, but this opinion I confess, I like not. The third, which is more common in the Church, takes not away all fear, but yet takes away all anxiety, and wavering doubfulnes. Bellar. l. 3. of iustific. c. 11. p. 264   

Eightly, Andr. Vega against Thom. and other Catholics  
ANdr. Vega in his 11. book upon the councils, 
Ab hoc argumento etc.  c. 20. holds, venial sin to be properly against the Law: But venial sins (without which we cannot live) are not simply sins, but imperfectly, and in some regards, and are not indeed against the law, but besides it, as St. Thomas teaches well in 1.2. q. 88 Bellarm. l. 4. c. 14. p. 359.   

Ninthly Robert Holkot against Saint Thomas and the common opinion.  

Quamuis non desint etc.  ALthough some have taught, that freedom of will is not necessary to merit, as Robert Holkot held (witness Io. Picus in his Apology) yet the common opinion of Divines is contrary, as it appears out of St. Thomas 1.2. quaest. 114. and other Doctors, upon 1. Sent. d. 17. etc. Bellarm. l. 5. of justification, c. 10. p. 432.   

Tenthly, a certain nameless Author against Pius 5. Peter Lombard, and others.  

Fuit opinio cuiusdam etc.  IT was the opinion of a certain late Author, which was in many points condemned by Pius 5. that eternal life is due to good works, for that they are the true obedience to the law; not for that they are done by a person advanced by grace, into the state of the Son of God; so he holds, that meritorious works may be done by a man not regenerate by Baptism, etc. The contrary opinion is received and allowed in the Schools of Catholic Divines: See Pet. Lombard, and the Divines upon 2. Sent. dist. 24. Bellarm. l. 5. of justification, c. 12. p. 438.    

DECAD. VI  

First, Guliel. Altisidoriensis against all Popish Doctors.  
IT was the singular opinion of Gulielm. 
Fuit singularis opinio Gulielm. etc.  Altisidoriensis (l. 3. Tract. 12. c. 1. etc.) that merit doth more principally depend upon faith, than charity; which opinion of his doth not a little favour the heretics of this time: But in truth Scripture is so pregnant against him, that I wonder so worthy a man could be so far deceived. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 454.   

Secondly, Bellarm. against many of their grave Authors.  
THough there be some grave Authors which hold, that every good work of a just man, 
Et quamuis non desint gravissimi, etc.  and a man endued with charity is meritorious of eternal life: yet I hold it more probable, that there is further required to merit, that the good work should in the very act of it proceed from charity, and be directed to God, as the supernatural end, etc. Bellarm. l. 5. cap. 15. pag 456.   

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

Catholici omnes agnoscunt etc.  ALL Catholics acknowledge, that good works are meritorious of eternal life: but some hold that these words (of congruity and condignity) are not to be used: but only that we should say absolutely, that good works by the grace of GOD do merit eternal life: So teacheth Thomas Waldensis, Tom. 3. of Sacraments. chap. 7. Paulus Burgensis in Psalm 35. Others will have them to merit by condignity, in a large manner: So teach Durandus and Gregorius. The common opinion of Divines doth simply admit a merit of condignity. Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 16. pag. 459 Where note, that Bellarmine finds Durandus to hold the same in this point with us. pag. 460. lin. 5.   

Fourthly, Bellarmine against some of their acute Distinguishers.  

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

Fiftly, Caietane and Dom. a Soto, Scotus, Andr▪ Vega, Tho. and Bonaventure with Bellarm▪ differing.  
SOme hold, that the good works of the just merit eternal life upon their very worth, 
Non desunt qui censeant opera etc.  in regard of the work: though there were no such agreement betwixt God and us: So hold Caietane (in 2.2. quaest. 114.) and Dominicus a Soto (3. book of Nature and Grace, chap. 7.) Others contrarily, think that good works proceeding from grace, are not meritorious upon the very worth of the work, but only in regard of God's covenant with us, and his gracious acceptation: Thus holds Scotus in 1. Sent. d. 17. q. 2. whom other of the old Schoolmen follow: and of the later Andrea's Vega: yet this opinion differs far from the heresy of the Lutherans, etc. But to me the mean opinion seems more probable, which teaches, that good works are meritorious of eternal life upon condignity, in respect of the work and covenant together, which opinion I doubt not is agreeable to the Council of Trent, and the chief Divines, as St. Thomas and Bonavent. Bellarm. l. 5, c. 17. p. 464.   

Sixtly, Thomas and Bonavent. against Andr. Vega and the Doctor of Lovan.  
THe last question is, 
Postrema restat quaestio. etc.  whether God reward good works of his mere liberality, above their worthiness: the common opinion constantly affirms it, as is plain in Saint Thomas, S. Bonavent. Scotus, Durandus, etc. But Andr. Vega, and that Doctor of Lovan (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.   

Seventhly, some Popish Doctors against Chrysostome confuted by Bellarmine.  

Vtrum autem operibus. etc.  whether God do give punishment to evil works, beyond the worthiness or condignity of them, is not so certain. St. Chrysostome seems to patronage the affirmative part, but Saint Austin rather tolerates than approves it: some others defend the negative by four testimonies of Scripture, answered by Bellarm. lib. 5. cap. 19 pag. 472.   

Eightly, Caietane against Dominic. a Soto and Bellarm.  

Quamuis Cardinalis Caietanas. etc.  THough Cardinal Cajetan teach, that those Clerks and Monks sin not deadly, which choose the Roman Breviary, and neglect that Breviary 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 works in particular, l. 1. cap. 18. pag. 96.   

Ninthly, Bellarmine against Panormitan.  
WE answer, 
Respondemus iure Divino etc.  that Clerks and Monks are by God's law bound to pray and praise God more than others: but unto this form of prayer and praises which is now in use, they are only tied by the determination of the Church; as for that which Panormitanus (otherwise a learned Lawyer) holds, that the number of seven hours for Divine service is determined by God's law, when David saith, seven times a day do I praise thee, it is very sleight, etc. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19 p. 102.   

Tenthly, some Popish Doctors opposed by Bellarmine and Pius 5. and Concil. Lateran.  
Whatsoever some Doctors have formerly thought, we say, 
Quicquid olim Doctores. etc.  that now doubtless those Clerks which do not their Divine offices, either aught to want the fruits of their Benefices, or if they have received them, to restore them again for common Alms, or reparations of their Churches: and there is a flat Decree for this in the Council of Lateran, Sess. 9 Statuimus, and in the constitution of Pius 5. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19 p. 103.    

DECAD. VII.  

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

A●tera sententia est Johannis Cassiani etc.  ANother opinion for Lent, is that of Io. Cassianus, who teaches, that in the Primitive Church, the Fast was alike all the year long: after, when devotion grew cold, it pleased all the Priests to appoint the Fast of Lent, and to establish it in a firm Law. But this opinion is built on a false ground. The third opinion is of them, who refer the institution of Lent to Pope Telesphorus etc. But the only true opinion is, that the Lent fast was ordained by the Apostles of Christ: and enjoined 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 etc.  THough the precept of Alms belong not properly to the ten commandments, since therein only are contained precepts of justice: Yet Divines use to reduce all moral precepts to those ten. And some (as Albertus upon 4. dist. 15. art. 16.) reduce the precept of Alms to that commandment, Thou shalt not steal, Others as Saint Thomas in 2.2. quaest. 32. etc. Honour thy father and mother: which opinion is more probable. Bellarmine the third book, cap. 6. pag. 233.   

Thirdly, some grave Divines against St. Thomas, Albertus, Richardus, Paludanus, etc.  
ALthough there be grave Divines that hold the contrary, 
Quamuis non desint graves Theologi etc.  yet I hold that the truer and safer opinion, which teaches, that no superfluous riches can be retained in our hands without sin: whether we meet with extreme necessities of the poor, whereon to bestow them or no, which opinion follows S. Thomas, in 2.2. quaest. 6●. Art. 7. and besides him, Albertus, Richard, Paludanus, and others upon 4. Sent. dist. 15. In which place S. Thomas writes, that this is the common opinion of Divines. Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. pag. 236.   

Fourthly, the old Schoolmen against the common opinion and Bellarmine.  
SOme of the old Schoolmen, 
Non defuerunt ex Antiquis Theologis etc.  though they admitted indulgences, yet doubted of the spiritual treasure: as Francis Mayro (upon 4. Sent. d. 19) makes question of the treasure of the overflowing satisfactions of Christ, laid up in the Church, and Durandus (upon 4 dist. 20. q. 3.) doubteth, whether the satisfaction of Saints pertain to the treasure. But the common opinion of Divines both old and new, St. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, and others, acknowledge both. Bellarm. l. 1. of Indulgences, c. 2. p. 8.   

Fiftly, Pius 5. Gregory, 13. Clem. 6. Leo. 10. against some Divines of Lovan.  

Non desuerunt aliqui ex recentioribus etc.  SOme of the new Writers, especially the Doctors of Lovan, have taught, that the sufferings of Saints are not so by Indulgences applied, that they become true satisfactions for us: but that they be motives only to induce God to apply to us Christ's 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, Antonius, Pope Adrian, Sylvester, Thomas, Franciscus Mayro, Cajetan, Dominicus a Soto, etc. disagreeing.  

Non defuere qui indulgentias etc.  SOme there have been, which would have pardons nothing else but a payment, or discharge of punishments, out of the treasure of Christ's merits and the Saints, applied to us by the Pope: So held Durandus (4 dist. 20.) Saint Antonius, P. Hadrian 6. Sylvester, and S. Thomas as it seems (upon 4. d. 20. q. 1.) Contrarily, Francis Mayro in the place forecited, will have pardons nothing but a judiciary absolution: which opinion seems to be favoured by the examples of the ancientest Counsels. But the late Divines have on better consideration defined, that in Indulgences there is both an Absolution, and a payment, etc. Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, Petrus a Soto, Martinus, Ledesmius, and others. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. pag. 34.   

Seventhly, Pope Sixtus 4. and Bellarmine against Petrus Oxoniensis.  
WHerefore the opinion of Petrus Oxoniensis was justly condemned of Pope Sixtus 4. 
Quaere merit● damnata est etc.  and the Council Complutense, which held, that the Pope could not pardon to a man living upon earth, his punishment of purgatory; and that by contrition alone our sins are done away: See Alphonsus de Castro his book of heresies, the word Confession. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 37.   

Eightly, Archidiaconus and Sylvester, and some others against Sotus, Navarrus, and the common opinion.  
SOme have held, 
Non defuerunt qui negaverint etc.  that the pope or other Bishops are not partakers of those pardons, which they give to others in common: so teaches the Archdeacon in chap. of Indulg. and cities some few others of his judgement. sylvest in summa verb. Indulg. But all other Divines hold contrary (upon 4. dist. 20) and Sotus d. 21. and the Canonists, with Navarrus in his Tract of the jubilee. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 6. p. 39   

Ninthly, Caietane and Richardus against Saint Thomas and Bellarmine.  

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

Tenthly, Petrus Paludanus against the common opinion.  

Videtur quidem Petrus etc.  PEtrus Paludanus (upon 4. dist. 20.) seems to hold, that the faultiness of venial sins, though not of mortal, is taken away by pardons: but the common opinion of others is more probable, that nothing is taken away, but the guilt of temporal punishments, which remains after the fault is discharged. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 7. p. 41.    

DECAD. VIII.  

First, Saint Thomas and others against some of the ancient Divines.  
THat Pardons deliver a man from punishment, 
Indulgentiae liberant etc.  not only before the Church, but before God, was cenyed by some of the ancient Divines, whose opinion is related and confuted by S. Thomas upon 4. dist. 20. and others: and now at this day is denied by Luther and Calvin. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 7. p. 43.   

Secondly, Thomas Elysius against Cajetan, Dominicus a Soto, Ledesmius, etc.  
WHen in the form of the pardon it is said, 
Cum in forma Indulgentiae etc.  that there is granted remission of the penance enjoined, it is not to be understood of that penance, which the Priest enjoins in the Sacrament of confession: against some that hold, all penance to be meant under the name of penance enjoined, 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, Navarrus, Cordubensis, Sylvester, Gabriel, etc. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 7. p. 46.   

Thirdly, Alex. Alensis, Durand. Paludan. Adrian Pope, Petr. a Soto, etc. against S. Thomas, Maior, Sylvester, Dominicus a Soto etc.  

Cum non fit mentio etc.  WHen a Pardon is absolutely granted without mention of penance enjoined, it is to be understood, that all penances are pardoned in it: whether already enjoined, or that might be enjoined. This proposition is against very grave Authors, Alex. Alensis, in Sum. p. 4. q. 23. Durandus, Paludanus, Adrian the 6. pope: Petrus a Soto, Card. Cajetan, who hold, that pardons are never given but for enjoined penances: But our opinion hath neither fewer nor less worthy patrons, S. Thomas upon 4. dist. 20. Io. Mayor, Sylvester, Dominicus a Soto, Michael, Medina, Ledesmius, Anthon. Cordubensis, Navarrus, Panormitan, Io. Andreas, and Cajetan confesses this the common opinion. Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 7. p. 47.   

Fourthly, Bellarm. against Cajetan, and Dom. a Soto etc.  

Porro Caietani definitio etc.  THose definitions which Cajetan and Domin. a Soto have made of pardons: see rejected by Bellar. l. 1. cap. 8. pag. 52.   

Fiftly, Dom. a Soto against Palud. Adrian, Navar. etc.  

Existit autem hoc loco etc.  HEre it is in controversy: Whether the pardon of so many days and years in this life, answer to so many in purgatory: for Dominicus a Soto holds, that one day spent in purgatory, takes more of the guilt of punishment due to our sins, than many years in this life, spent in the sharpest penance. But the common opinion holds the contrary, as it is to be seen in Paludanus, Adrian, Navarrus, Cordubensis and others. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 9 p. 54.   

Sixtly, Bellarm. against Gerson, and Dominicus a Soto.  
THere have been some of our Writers, 
Non desunt qui negent etc.  which have held, that all those pardons which contain the release of many thousand years penance, were not given by any pope's, but only feigned by their pardoners for commodity: So hold john Gerson in his Tract, of Absolute. Sacram. and Dominic. a Soto upon 4. d. 21. The contrary is maintained by Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 9 pag. 56.   

Seventhly, Popish Doctors disagreeing.  
WHether he that receives a pardon in the point of death, as is supposed, after recovering, 
An qui indulgentiam. etc.  may receive it again, when he comes to the point of death, our Doctors disagree. See Navar. de jubil. notab. 30. nu. 3. and Cordubensis q. 39 etc. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 9 p. 57   

Eightly; Antonius against Navarrus and Cordubensis.  

Si quis tempore jubilei. etc.  IF a man upon the hope of a jubilee to come, shall willingly and purposely fall into a sin reserved; the doubt is, whether he may be absolved from that sin: some say he cannot, as Antonius' 1. p. Tit. 10. c. 3 but others think the contrary, Navar. in Tract. de jubil. and Cordubensis, q. 37. de Indulg. Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 10. pag. 60.   

Ninthly, Bellarmine and other nameless against Felinus, Dominicus a Soto, Navar. Cordub. etc.  

De conci●io generali quaeri potest etc.  WHether a general Council may grantfull pardons, is questioned: for Felinus, Dominic▪ a Soto, Navarre▪ Cordubensis, affirm it etc. And though I have not read any that expressly denies, that a general Council can do it, yet all those Authors seem to hold thus, which write, that this Authority belongs to the Pope alone, and I think 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 etc.  Upon what law Bishops may give pardons, it is questioned, for some hold, that they may do it by God's law, others deny it. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 11.    

DECAD. IX.  

First, Angelus, Bartholm. Fumus, Innocentius, Panormitan against the common opinion, and Canon law.  
ANgelus (in summa) and Bartholomaeus Fumus hold, that all Parish-priests, 
Denique Angelus in summa.  or what Priests soever may hear confessions, may also in that Sacrament of confession grant 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 (under a Bishop) may give pardons, unless by commission from the Pope or Bishop: and there is an express text in the law for it. Chap. Accedentibus, de excess. praelatorum. Bellar. l. 1. c. 11. pag. 64.   

Secondly, Thomas, Durandus, Paludanus, Antonius Turrecrem. Sylvester, etc. against Bonaventure, Adrian, Cajetan, Maior, etc.  
FOr the cause of a pardon-giving, some hold, 
Ad iustam causam requiri etc.  there need not be any proportion; but that it is enough, that the cause be honest and holy: that is, that pardon be not granted upon an evil work enjoined, or a work merely temporal and vain, etc. But such a one as pertains to God's glory, and the profit of the Church. Thus hold St. Thomas, Durandus, Paludanus, S. Antonius, Io. de Turrecremata, Sylvester, Io. Tabiensis, and our Gregory de Valentia. Others hold, that to make the cause just, is required some work, that may be proportionable to the pardon. So teach of the old Schoolmen, Saint Bonaventure, Richardus; Aug. de Ancona, Io. Gerson, Gabriel, and of the later, in our age, Pope Adrian, Card. Cajetan, Mai●r, Ledesmius, Dominicus a Soto, Petrus a Soto, Navarrus, Cordubensis, to which add Innocentius and Felinus. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 12. p. 68   

Thirdly, Bellarm. against Io. Gerson, Dominicus a Soto, Vega, etc.  

●icu●●roban●●n non est quod etc.  AS it is not to be allowed, that some upon a good zeal, but perhaps overhote, have spoken with some reproach of pardons granted upon slight causes, as Io. Gerson, Dominic. a Soto, Andreas Vega, &c: So Clement 8. is justly to be praised, which hath received and urged the Decree of the Lateran Council, of moderating indiscreet pardons, etc. Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 12. pag. 71.   

Fourthly, Cajetan, Petrus a Soto etc. against Paludanus, Antonius, Cordubensis, etc.  

An requiratur status gratiae etc.  FIrst it is questioned, whether the state of grace be required in a man at that time, when the pardon is received, or rather when the works enjoined are done, or when the pardon is first pronounced, or the letters there of delivered. For Cajetan, Petrus a Soto, and others hold, that the state of grace is then required, not only when the pardon is received, but when the work enjoined is performed, not when it is published, etc. Other very grave Authors, as Petr. Paludanus, S. Antonius, Anthon. Cordubensis, and others hold contrary. Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 13. pag. 75.   

Fiftly, some nameless Doctors against Antonius Adrian, Cajetan, etc.  
IT is thirdly questioned, 
Tertia quaestio est de confession  whether confession (which commonly is one part of the work enjoined) be required in deed, or purpose only. The answer is, That if the form of the Pardon do flatly set down, confession to be made within so many days, than it is to be required in deed, and actually, else not: yea though a man have mortal sins; it is probable, that contrition alone with a purpose of confessing, will serve the turn; so hold Paludanus, Sylvester, Panormitanus, Felinus. But yet it is more safe and probable, that confession is actually required, and not in purpose only: when a pardon is granted under the terms of rightly penitent and confessed, as teach Saint Antonius, Adrian, Cajetan, Navarrus and the Gloss. Bellarm. lib. 1. Indulg. cap. 13. pag. 77.   

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

Nam Cardinali● Caietan. etc.  Carded. Cajetan teaches, that besides fulfilling of the works enjoined, he that would receive pardon, must have a purpose to satisfy God, by his own works, 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. Neither did I ever read any that followed Caietane in it, but Bartholm. Fumus in Summa. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 78.   

Seventhly, Ostiensis and Gabriel against the common opinion.  

Ex Catholicis Ostiensis.  NOt only the heretics, but also amongst the Catholics Ostiensis (in summa. l. 5. Tit. de remiss.) and Gabriel (lect. 57 in Can. miss.) have taught, that pardons do no whit profit the dead. But it is a most certain thing, and undoubted among all catholics, that by pardons the souls in purgatory may be helped. Bellar. l. 1. c. 14. p. 80.81.   

Eightly, Michael Medina against Bonaventure, Richard. Gabriel, Maior, etc.  

De modo quo indul. etc.  IT is questioned how pardons may help the dead: For Michael Medina, dis. 7. c. 34. holds, that the souls of the deceased belong to the jurisdiction of the Pope, and that they may receive pardon from him, by way of absolution. But almost all writers hold the contrary, as St. Bonaventure, Richardus, Gabriel, Io. Maior, Cajetan, Dominicus a Soto, Petrus a Soto, Navarrus, etc. Cordubensis. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 14. pag. 82.   

Ninthly, three different opinions of Papists.  
HOw pardons do help the dead, 
Quid significet per modum suffragij etc.  by way of suffrage: see controverted in three opinions, and two of them confuted by Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 14. p. 85.   

Tenthly, Dominicus a Soto, and Navarrus against Cajetan, Petrus a Soto, Cordubensis.  
THe hardest question of all is, 
Difficillima omnium ea est etc.  whether pardons do help the dead, upon any justice and worthiness, or only upon mere favour of God, and congruity: some hold it is in justice and condignity, as Dominicus a Soto upon 4. d. 21 Navarrus de jubil. not. 22. Others hold it merely upon the mercy, and bounty of God, and therefore only of congruity. So Cajetan, Petrus a Soto, Cordubensis. Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 14. pag. 86.87.    

DECAD. X.  

First, Bellarmine against Cajetan.  

Requiritur ex sententia Caietani etc.  Cajetan holds, that he that would be helped in Purgatory by suffrages, must have been not only in the state of grace, but devoted to the keys of the Church, and studious, and careful to help others, while he was alive by his suffrages. But this opinion of Cajetan, though it be profitable and godly, yet it is not true, and confuted by every one. Bellarmine, l. 1. cap. 14. pag. 90.   

Secondly, Bellarmine against Praepositinus.  

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

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

Remelius considerata etc.  WHereas Bellarmine in his 4. book de Christo, chap. 16. had said: It is probable, that Christ's soul went down to all the places of hell: and had confuted S. Thomas his answer of his descending in effect and virtue: for so (saith he) we might with Durandus say, that Christ did descend to no place otherwise then in effect: Now upon better consideration he saith, he holds Thomas his opinion, and some other Schoolmen rather to be followed. Bellarm. Recognitions, pag. 11.   

Fourthly, Bellarmine against himself and Pighius.  
I Approve not, that I said with Albertus Pighius, 
Non probo quod etc.  that Saint Paul appealed to Caesar as to his lawful prince: The first answer therefore is to be stood in, that S. Paul appealed to him de Facto not de jure, as the supreme judge of judea, not as his superior. Bellarm. Recognition, pag. 17.   

Fiftly, Bellarmine against some not named.  
WHereas we said, 
Vbi dicimus senten●iam etc.  that the opinion of those which teach, that infallibility of judgement is not in the pope, but in the general Council, is not altogether heretical, but erroneous and near to heresy: Now it seems to us so erroneous, that it may justly by the Church's judgement be condemned as heretical. Bellarm. Recognition, pag. 19   

Sixtly, Durand. against S. Thomas and Bellarm.  
I Do not like that I said, Infidel princes cannot by the Church be deprived of the Dominion, 
Non approbo quod dixi. etc.  they have over the faithful, except they go about to turn their subjects from the faith of Christ: for though Durandus, whom I followed (upon 2. Sent. dist. 44, q. 3,) do probably dispute this against Saint Thomas, yet the authority of Saint Thomas ought justly rather to prevail. Bellarm. recognition, p. 44.   

Seventhly, St. Thomas, Dominicus a Soto, Navar. opposed by some new Writers.  

Docuimus hoc loco, etc.  I Wrote, that civil power in Kings and Princes is not immediately from God, but mediately from the council and consent of men: And because this is the common opinion, I did not strive to prove it: But now since of late some have written, that the civil power of Kings is no less immediately from God than the power of the pope: I hold it necessary to add 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 Navarrus, etc. Bellarm. recognition, p. 57   

Eightly, Suarez against Bellarmine.  

Reprehendit utrumque etc.  HOw Franciscus Suarez reprehends Bellarmine concerning Rupertus his error of Impanation, See Bellarmine recognition p. 80.   

Ninthly, some nameless Papists against Bellarmine.  
THE exceptions taken by Catholics against Bellarmine, 
Dixi conversionem etc.  for saying that the conversion of the bread is adductive not productive, and his defence, See Recognition, pag. 81.   

Tenthly, Fr. Suarez against Bellarmine and john of Lovan.  
Franciscus' Suarez, 
Videtur reprehendere Io. de Lovan & me.  disp. 41. de Euchar▪ reproves Bellarmine and Io. of Lovan for teaching that Christ gave the Sacrament in the form of bread, in the time of his legal supper, and the wine when Supper was ended, after many other businesses and actions: How Bellarmine clears himself, See Recognition pag. 84.   

First, Bellarmine against Gropperus.  
I Cited the Enchiridion of john Gropperus which he is said to have written under the name of the Council of Colen: 
Posui inter libros Catholicos etc.  but though Gropperus himself were a Catholic, yet in that book there are no small errors, as we have showed: and therefore it is not without cause put into the number of books prohibited. An. Dom. 1596. Bellarm. Recognition pag. 87.   

Secondly, Bellarmine against Abulensis, Adrian, Cajetan, etc.  

Allegantur multi authores etc.  WE said, that many Authors held, that sufficient help is not given at all times to rise from sin, but only in respect of time and place: as Abulensis, Adrianus, Caietan. But we are to note, that these Authors do not only say that which we say, but somewhat also which we say not: That unto some men for the greatness or multitude of their sins, God in his certain Decree denies help in the rest of their life. So Abulensis quaest. 12. upon 4. Exod. Adrian quaest. 3. de paenitentia. Caietanus jentaculo. 8. q. 1. which three Doctors seem to be borne out by three holy Fathers: Saint Anselm in Comment. upon 12. Matt. Saint Isidor. lib. 2. de summo bono. Saint Austen. For me, as I dare not reprove so great Authors, so I hold it an holy course, thus to think of God in his goodness, that there is no men, which while they live, are not in time and place visited by the regard of his divine grace. Bellar. Recognit. p. 105.   

Thirdly, Popish Doctors disagreeing.  

Quia dum haec recognoscer●m etc.  BEcause while I writ this, there is great controversy amongst our writers about the Kingdom of Christ, I thought good to explain myself further: I hold therefore that heed is to be taken of godly men, lest they so uphold Christ's temporal Kingdom, that they deny his poverty. That his Kingdom therefore was not temporal but spiritual, besides the ancient, is well taught by two accurate Interpreters, Cornelius jansenius, and Adamus Sasbout, etc. Bellarm. Recognit. pag. 25.     

THE PEACE OF ROME. THE FOURTH BOOK CONTAINING ABOVE THREESCORE different opinions of Papists, in that one point of Confession, all (saving 5. or 6. of the last) confessed by Navarrus.  

DECAD. I.  

1. The Gloss and Gratian against Navarre and the common opinion.  

Quamuis. Glossa etc.  THough the Gloss (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 thoroughly contrite, he is not of necessity in due time to confess, which they prove by divers Authorities from the 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 actual confession, our sins are remitted, yet that he to whom they are pardoned, is bound in due time (if opportunity can be had) to confess them, Navarrus in his Commentaries upon the seven distinctions of penance, abridged by Gregory Sayrus chap. 4. of his Summa Sacram. paenitentiae, printed at Venice with Privilege. An. 1601. p. 6.   

2. Navarre against some nameless.  

Confess. Sacram. non esse in Paradiso etc.  THat Sacramental confession was not instituted in Paradise, nor brought in by the law of nature, see defended against some of their nameless Writers by Navar. Sum. paenit. cap. 5. pag. 11.   

3. The same Author against other Catholics.  

A nullo puro homine etc.  THat confession was not instituted by any mere man, or any human law, but only by Christ himself, and that it was not instituted by josuah to Achan, against the error of some nameless Catholics, is maintained by Navar. Sum. paenit. c. 5. p. 11.   

4. Some nameless Catholics confuted by Navar.  

Errasse etiam eos.  THe errors of those, which held the Sacrament of Penance was instituted by Saint james. chap. 5. see also confuted. Sum. Paenit. cap. 5.   

5. The Gloss, Panormitan, Decius, against Durandus, Maior, Navarre.  
further it follows necessarily that the Gloss (Summa de paen. dist. 5.) erreth, which teacheth, 
Infertur errasse Glossam etc.  that the full confession of sins was not instituted by any authority of the old or new Testament, but only by the Tradition of the universal 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. Navar. against Cajetan.  
IT is further implied that Cajetan erred, 
Errore Caietanum.  who upon john 20. teaches, that Sacramental confession was instituted by Christ, but not commanded. 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 etc.  that Petrus ab Osma erred, who in the time of Sixtus the fourth, at Salmantica, & other places of Spain taught, that Sacramental confession began by human institution, and the Tradition of the Church: and that mortal sins both for their fault and punishment in another world, might be done away without confession, by the only contrition of the heart, etc. All which were condemned by Sixtus 4. Sum. paenit. cap. 5. pag. 12.1.   

8. Navarre against the Canon.  

Infertur falli Canonem etc.  THe Canon is deceived, which (in Relect. de Sacram,) teaches, that penance and outward confession was necessary to salvation, not only under the time of the Gospel, but of the law also, and under 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 Navar. and Scotus, etc. against the Gloss.  

Errasse Glossam  THe Gloss erreth (Sum. de paen. dist. 5.) that saith, that Sacramental confession was not in use in the Greek Church, as is largely taught by Scotus 4. d. 17. and the Council of Colen. Fol. 151. Sum. paenit. cap, 5. pag. 12.2.   

10. Navar. against Cajetan.  

Tenetur homo etc.  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 Sacrament of the Eucharist. Howsoever Cajetan teach the contrary in Sum. verb. communio, and upon 1. Cor. 11 who holds, that he sins not deadly which communicates upon contrition had, before he confess himself, though he have opportunity of confession, which opinion is condemned by the Tridentine Council. Sum. paenit. c. 6. p. 15.1.    

DECAD. II.  

11. Navar. against Paludanus, etc.  
NAuar holds, 
Non esse ullum etc.  there is no precept that ties us upon pain of sin, to confess before any Sacrament, save the Eucharist. Paludanus in 4. d. 7. q. 2. saith, that to the Sacrament of confirmation, of Orders, of extreme unction, an actual confession of our sins is necessary. Sum. paenit. cap. 6. fol. 15.2.   

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

13. Io. Mayor against Thomas, Paludanus, Gabriel, Anthoninus, Adrian, Cajetan, Prierias,  

Circumstantias quae aggravant.  We are not bound to confess those circumstances, which do aggravate the fault, but change it not into another kind of sin, as the common opinion teacheth, Saint Thomas, Paludanus, Gabriel, St. Anthoninus, Adrian, Caietan, Prierias. The contrary opinion (which is defended by Io. Maior 4. d. q. 3.) makes the conscience full of scruples and fear. Sum. paenit. cap. 8. fol. 18.1.   

14. Thomas, Scotus, Maior differing.  

Difficile est autem etc.  IT is hard to know, what circumstances changes the action from one kind into another: whereof are three divers 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 Navarre: Navarre against Lyra, Maior, Anthoninus, Adrian.  

Non igitur circumstantia temporis etc.  THe circumstance of time is not necessary to be confessed; as that we have sinned upon an Holiday: whence Alensis is deceived, which holds, that a mortal sin upon an Holiday 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 upon 4. the confess. q. 4. are deceived, which teach, that in that precept of the Decalogue, only mortal sin is fobidden. Sum. paenit. c. 9 f. 24.1.   

16. Adrian, Maior, Sylvester, etc. against other nameless Divines: and Navarre betwixt both.  
IT is doubted by our Doctors, 
Dubium est inter Doctores etc.  whether he that sins mortally before other, and yet not with any purpose to give occasion of sinning to others, be bound to confess the circumstance of his scandal given: for Adrian in 4. the confess. q. 4. and Io. Maior 4. dist. 38. and Sylvester, say he must confess it: Others deny it. Navarre determines betwixt both. Sum. paenit. cap. 9 fol. 26.2.   

17. Navarre against Adrian.  
IT is a great difficulty among our Doctors, 
Difficultas est inter Doctores etc.  whether he that doth any thing that he thinks he should not do, or with any thing which he doubts whether it be a mortal sin or no, be bound to confess not only that he hath sinned, but that he hath sinned wittingly, or against his conscience. Adrianus in 4. the confess. quaest. 4. holds, that circumstance must be confessed, etc. But for all that, it is not necessarily to be confessed. Sum. paenit. cap. 10. fol. 27.2.   

18. Mayor against Thomas.  

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

19 Paludanus and Adrian against the common opinion.  

Neque confess. neque absolutionem fieri posse per procuratorem.  NO confession or absolution can be given or taken by a proxy, or messenger, nor by writing: for all Sacraments (except Matrimony) require our own person, and cannot be done by Deputies: But Paludanus in 4. dist. 17. q. 2. and Adrian in 4. the 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 Navarre.  

Quamuis in confesso sit, etc.  ALl Writers confess a lie to be ever a sin, but especially in confession: but they agree not what kind of sin it is, for Paludanus upon 4. d. 21. q. 2. saith, it is a mortal sin to lie in confession: and Saint Anthoninus p. 3. Tit. 13. c. 18. and Saint Thomas 2, 2. q. 69. art. 1. to the same purpose. Others more truly teach, it is not always a mortal sin to lie in confession. Sum. paenit. cap. 13 fol. 38.2.    

DECAD. III.  

21. Scotus, Paludanus, Gabriel, Maior, Cajetan, Concil. Florent. Io. Scotus disagreeing.  
THis matter concerning the examination of the conscience, is very doubtful, 
Res haec satis dubia etc.  and controversial amongst our Authors: for Scotus (in 4. dist. 17. q. 1.) and Paludanus (ibid. q. 2. art. 1.) holds, that such diligence is to be required in this business, as the penitent would use for the remembering of any other difficult matter. But Gabriel (upon the said dist. q. 1.) saith, that a man ought only to confess all that he can well remember. But Io. Maior (ibid. q. 3.) will have a man take such pains to find out and remember all his sins, as a Scholar would do, to get a Latin Oration by heart, which he should utter amongst learned hearers. Caietane (in verbo confess.) holds, he that believes, he hath made sufficient inquisition for his sin, though he have not done so, hath discharged himself, and need not reiterate his confession. The Council of Florence, only teaches us to confess what sins are in our memory, and speaks nothing of any diligence to recall them. Io. Scotus is too rigorous, etc. Sum. paenit. c. 15. fol. 43.2.   

22. Gabriels' Mayor, Sylvester, Thomas, Paludan against Innocentius, Hostiensis and the truer opinion.  

Quamuis S. Thomas etc.  St. Tho. (in 4. d. 16) & Palud (in 4. d. 21. q. 3) will have the third person revealed in confession: as Palud. instanceth, that a woman committing incest with her brother, aught to confess this, although her brother be known to the Confessor: which opinion is followed by Gabriel (ibid. q. 1.) and Maior (qu. 3. ) Arg. 80. and Sylvester verb. confess.. 1. q. 24. yet the truer opinion holds, that the person and his sin is to be concealed: so teaches Innocent. in cap. Omnis. Hostiensis ibid. col. 4. yea herein Io. Maior is contrary to himself. Sum. paenit. cap. 16. fol. 48.1.   

23. Navarre against Io Maior.  

Quoad casus reservatos etc.  AS for cases reserved, although an Inferior confessor cannot absolve the penitent, yet the penitent is bound to confess all his mortal sins to his own Parish-priest, whether reserved or other. The contrary is held by Io. Maior (in 4. d. 15. q. 5.) Sum. paenit. cap. 16. fol. 49.1.   

24. Navarre against Adrianus.  

unde fallitur Adrianus etc.  FRom whence it is plain, that Adrianus is deceived, who upon 4. q. 4. of confess. col. 9 teaches, that the absolution which is given by him which receives only the confession of sins reserved, is not Sacramental. Sum. paenit. cap. 16. fol. 50.2.   

25. Popish Doctors divided.  
TO heal, or advise him that hath none but mortal sins lawfully confessed, or venial sins, 
Ad medicandum & consulendum &c.  the Confessor hath no need of any knowledge or prudence, but only skill to pronounce the very words of the Sacrament: Because there is neither contrition necessarily required, nor confession indeed 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 Gloss and Paludanus against Innocentius: and Hostiensis and Panormitan betwixt both.  
THere is no small difference amongst our doctors, 
Non parva inter doctores etc.  whether in case our own Confessor be ignorant, it be sufficient to ask him leave to choose another, though he grant it not. Vrbanus 2. in d. c. placuit. and the Gloss 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) Decreed, it should not be lawful to confess to another, without the leave of our own. So Hostiensis and Panormitan (in d. cap. Omnis) and Adrian (4. the confess.) hold, that it is necessary, leave should be asked of our own, though not obtained, etc. Sum. paenit. cap. 18. fol. 55.2.   

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

Tertius casus est etc.  IN case a Parishioner remove his dwelling from one Town 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 St. Anthoninus par. 3. Tit. 17. cap. 9 hold, that his confession is to be made to him, in whose Parish he dwells when he is shriven. But it is the truer opinion, that in such case he may confess to either. Sum. paenit. cap. 18. Hostiensis, Raymundus, Godofredus hold, that he must confess to his own former Priest: but they are deceived. fol. 57.1.   

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

Parochianus delinquens, etc.  A Parishioner sinning in the Parish of another (saith Hostien.) is to confess to him in whose parish he sinned, not to his own priest: and the same opinion is held by Paludan. and Anthoninus, but falsely, as the Gloss in cap. placuit. 6. q. 3. and Panormitan in cap. Cum contingit. num. 26. etc. Sum. paen. c. 18. fol. 38.1.   

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

30. Bonaventure, Richardus, Panormitan, Hostiensis, Paludanus, Navarrus disagreeing.  
WHo should be accounted our own Priest in this business of confession, 
Quid tamen nomine proprij etc.  there are many disagreeing opinions: Saint Bonaventure (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 than three to be taken for our own Priest, and Navarrus in that place reckons up eleven. Sum. paenit. c. 19 fol. 59.2.    

DECAD. FOUR  

31. The opinion of Doctors, Panormitan, Andr. Sicul. Paludanus, Angelus, Sylvester, Gabriel, etc. against the Gloss.  

Quicquid Glossa etc.  Howsoever the Gloss require, that he which is chosen for our Confessor should have charge of souls, either ordinarily, or by Commission; yet the truer opinion of Doctors teacheth that whosoever hath leave to choose, may take what Confessor he lists, whether he have charge of souls or not: so teach Panormitan (in Clem. 1. de office. deleg) and Andr. Sicul. Paludanus (in 4. d. 17. qu. 4.) Angelus (verbo confess. 3. Sec. 4. ) Sylvester (verb. Confessor) Gabriel (in 4. dist. 18. ) Adrianus (in 4. the confess. dub. 1. ) Sum. paenit. cap. 20. fol. 62.1.   

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

Quamuis non nulli olim ut Glossa etc.  SOme have held, that though the Pope, or our own Bishop should give us leave to choose our Confessor, yet we might not do it without the consent of our own parish-priest: So Glossa 6. and Io. Andrea's, and Panormitanus in part. (upon cap. Omnis utriusque) But the truer and commoner opinion of Doctors is contrary, and Saint Anthoninus in 3. par. Tit. 17. cap. 9 says, that this opinion of the Gloss, Andreas, and Panormitan was condemned by Clement 4. Sum. paenit. cap. 21.   

33. Navarre against Paludanus and Anthoninus.  
THey are deceived, which hold, 
Quamuis viatores etc.  that the Bishop giving any manlibertie of pilgrimage, gives him liberty also to be absolved by that Confessor he chooseth, from cases reserved: 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 Sylvester against the common opinion.  

Quidam eius opinionis sunt etc.  SOme hold that a parish-priest is bound only upon necessity to hear confessions only at those times, when the parishioner is bound to be shriven: So teach Richardus (upon 4. d. 18. art. 2.) and Sylvester (verbo Confessor 1. qu. 1.) that is, once a year. But those teach truer, which hold him bound to take the shrift of his people, as oft as any of them will confess. Sum. paenit. cap. 23. fol. 70.1.   

35. Io. Mayor, Adrian, Cajetan, against Richardus and Sylvester.  

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

36. Felinus against Paludanus and all Divines etc.  

Laicus cui in articulo etc.  IF a penitent on his death-bed confess himself to a Lay man, though that Lay-man cannot absolve him yet he is bound to conceal his secrets by the seal of confession, saith Paludanus and all Divines upon 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, Navarre against the Gloss and the archdeacon.  

Quicquid olim Glossa etc.  THE Gloss teaches (1. A. in cap. placuit. de paenit. dist. 4.) that men may be tied to confess over again those sins, which they have once lawfully confessed: of which opinion also is the Archdea. (ibid. in verb. & consulo.) But they hold truer, which teach, that no human law can bind a man so to do, without his own consent, as Gerson (in Lect. 2. upon Marc.) Paludanus (in 4. dist. 17. quaest. 5.) Adrianus (in 4. the confess. q. 5.) S. Thomas (quodlib. 1. ar. 12. ) Sum. paen. 25 fol. 74.1.   

38. Io. 22. against Io. Poliacus.  
THe three heretical opinions of johannes Poliacus concerning confession, 
Tria illa diéta etc.  were confuted by pope john 22. in Extravag. vas Elect. Sum. paenit. c. 25. f. 74.1.   

39 Io. Mayor against the common opinion and Navar.  
IO. Mayor (in 4. d. 17. q. 6.) in defence of the Gloss holds, 
Jo. Maior qui maxime contendit etc.  this second confession of the same sins requisite for religious persons, but he dares not affirm it fit for all the people. Navar. Sum. paen. cap. 25. fol. 74.   

40. Caietane opposed by Navarre and others.  
COncerning the questions to be moved by the Confessor to the penitent before his shrift, 
Jnterrogatio praeambula etc.  see the disagreement betwixt Cajetan and Navar. Sum. paen. c. 26. fol. 78.2.    

DECAD. V.  

41. Navarre against Cajetan.  

Non sufficit autem ut putat Caietan. etc.  COncerning the sufficiency of knowledge required in a Confessor: See the difference betwixt Cajetan and others on the one side, which hold it enough in some cases if he know the form of absolution: and Navarre on the other, who requires somewhat more. Sum. paenit. cap. 28. fol. 88.1.2.   

42. Some nameless Doctors against the rest.  

Quicquid aliqui etc.  SOme hold, that under the seal of Confession we are bound only to conceal the very sin so confessed: But the common opinion of Doctors is, that not only mortal and venial sins, but all circumstances (which might bring the sin unto knowledge) must be also concealed. Sum. paenit. cap. 29. fol. 89.1.   

43. Navarre against Panormitan and Cajetan.  

Quicquid contrarium dicat Caietan.  COncerning particular cases, how far we may go in the revelation of things confessed: See the disagreement of Cajetan and Panormitan with P. Navarrus. Summa Paenitentiae cap. 30.   

44. Scotus, Bonaventure, Durand. etc. against Archidiac. both Cardinals, and the Canon etc.  
THat the Penitent may give leave unto his Confessor to reveal somewhat of his confession, 
Licentiam hanc dari posse etc.  only when it may tend to his own spiritual good, is held by Scotus in 4. dist. 21. Bonaventure and Durandus, Richardus and Angelus verb. confess. But it is truer that he may give his Confessor leave to reveal it for his own temporal good, or others, as is plain 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 Navar. Sum. paen. cap. 32. fol. 95.96.   

45. Alexander, Ostiensis, Io. Andreas, Panormitan, Petr. ab Anchor etc. against Thomas, Scotus, Paludan, Bonaventure, Hostiensis, Caietan.  

Aliqui saltem in aliis duobus etc.  SOme hold, in two cases confession should be revealed: first, in a case of heresy, which opinion the Doctors (upon 4. d. 21.) and Adrianus (in 4. the confess. post. 5.) and Cajetan (Tom. 1. opusc. tract. 21.) have rejected, and have condemned that old Latin verse, which maintains it as pestilent. The second, when a notorious crime to be committed, is confessed, as the burning of the City, etc. and the party confessing will not relent from his ill purpose: In such a case it is held by some that the confession may be revealed: So teach Alexander in 4. par. qu. 78. mem. 2. Ostiensis, Io. Andreas, Panormitan, Petrus, ab Anchorano, Decius, Angelus, Sylvester, which Authors grievously erred in this matter etc. All other therefore, as Saint Thomas, Scotus, Paludanus, Bonaventure in 4. dist. 21. and Hostiensis himself, in Summa. paenit. paragraph. in quo. Turrecremata in cap. Sacerdos. Caietane in Tom. 1. Opusc. Tract. 21. teach, it is utterly unlawful to disclose it. Yea Cajetan asked by another Cardinal, answereth, that a Confessor to whom is revealed a Treasonable purpose, to kill the King or the pope, may not reveal it. Sum. paenit. cap. 32. fol. 98. and 99   

46. Richardus and Navarre against Maior and Adrian.  

Quid facere debet confessarius etc.  whether a Priest traveling amongst thieves into a wood, hearing by one of them now before hand relenting, that they mean to kill him in that wood, be bound to go on into the wood, and die rather than reveal that which was confessed, see disputed betwixt Io. Maior in 4. dist. 21. and Adrianus in 4. the confess. post. 5. on the one side, which hold, he may return and save himself: and Richardus in 4. dist. 21. art. 4. on the other, who holds, (and Navarre with him) that he must rather go into the Wood, and manifestly hazard his life. Sum. paenit. d. 32. fol. 99.2.   

47. Navarre against some nameless.  

Confessarium quo ad confitentem etc.  THat which some hold, that a Confessor must so behave himself out of Confession toward the Penitent, as if he had never heard his confession, See confuted by Navar. Sum. paenit. cap. 32. fol. 103.1.   

48. Navarre against divers Confessors.  
Six several fashions of Absolution, 
Informa absolutionis.  used by the Confessors of his time, See confuted by Navar. Sum. Paenit. cap. 33. fol. 105.106. etc.   

49. Navarre against the common practice.  
THe imposition of hands upon every Penitent, 
Manus impositio super capite paenitentis etc.  is not necessary always, nor fit to be used, yea sometime evil: See defended by Navarre, As when the penitent is a woman, and perhaps sweetly beautiful, and delicately attired: according to Paludanus in 4. dist. 22. quaest. 3. Sum. paen. 33. fol. 107.1.   

50. Navarre against Angelus.  

Hinc infertur falli Angelum etc.  THat a Confessor may absolve his penitent from his sins, and after send him for absolution from his excommunication to his superior, unto whom that excommunication is reserved, is falsely taught by Angelus in ver. Confess. parag. 10. saith Navarrus. Sum. paen. 34. fol. 112.1.    

DECAD. VI  

51. Popish Doctors divided.  

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

52. Scotus and the Doctors of Paris against Thomas, Bonaventure, Richardus, Durandus etc.  

Quamuis mult. Doctores, etc.  ALthough many Doctors think, that no sacramental satisfaction done out of charity, avails any thing to expiate the punishment for sin, which we owe to God, because God accepts not his works, that is infected with mortal sin, and by consequent, is his enemy, for any satisfaction: as St. Thomas, Bonauent. Richard. Durand. upon 4. d. 15.16. Caietan Tom. 1. Opusc. Tract. 6. q. 1. Yet it is more truly held by Scotus (in 4. d. 15. q. 1.) and the Doctors of Paris in the same place, that he which is in mortal sin may satisfy for his temporal punishment, due to his sin wiped off by contrition. Sum. Paenit. 37. fol. 120.   

53. Navarre against Cajetan.  
CAietane holds (Tom. 1. Opusc. Tract. 6.) that a sacramental satisfaction takes not the like effect afterward, which it would have had, 
Quamuis Caietanus etc.  if it had been done in charity: But the contrary is truer, that such satisfaction by the addition of charity afterward, becomes as perfect as if it should have been done in it. Sum. paen. 37. fol. 120.2.   

54. Thomas, Paludanus, Maior. Almain, Roffensis, Anthoninus, against Cajetan and the truer opinion.  
IN this question so difficult and controversal amongst our Authors, howsoever Saint Thomas, 
In hac quaestione satis difficili etc.  Paludanus, and others (upon 4. dist. 20.) Mayor (in 4. dist. 17.) Almain (in 4. dist. 18.) Roffensis in his 5. Artic. against Luther and St. Anthoninus (3. p. Tit. 14. cap. 19) hold, that the Penitent is bound upon command to accept the penance imposed, and having once accepted, to perform it: yet the truer opinion is, that the penitent is not bound by precept before he be absolved, to accept the penance enjoined by his Confessor; But that it is free for him to accept or not accept it, and it is enough that he will either in this life, or in Purgatory satisfy for his sins. So Cajetan (in summa verb. Satisfactio) and Hostiensis (in summa de paenit, & remiss.) saith, that only the Lords prayer is to be enjoined to the penitent, to be said for penance, rather than he should be sent away not absolved Sum. paenit. cap. 38. fol. 121.1.2.   

55. Navarre against Richard. Anthoninus, Sylvester, etc.  
RIchardus (in 4. d. 17. art. 2. q. 8 ) Anthoninus (3. p. Tit. 14. cap. 19) and sylvest (verbo confessio) are deceived, 
unde falluntur Richard. etc.  which hold, that upon mere 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 confess venial sins, two opinions are reported by Thomas. (q. 6. art. 3. ) Franciscus de Victoria (Sum. Sacram. de confession art. 129.   

57 Innocentius, Archidiac. Adrian. Palud. Bonavent. against Saint Thomas, Fr. Vict. and other Doctors.  
THat a man is bound presently upon his sin committed to confess, is held by Innocentius (cap. Omnis) archdeacon (in cap. ille rex.) But Saint Thomas and other Doctors hold the contrary, and Franciscus de victor. ibid. art. 133. who adds Adrianus, Paludan. and Bonaventure, set down some cases wherein a man is bound presently to confess: but I believe them not. Artic. 136.   

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

59 Scotus against Pet. Lombard, Thomas, Durandus, Paludan, Richard, Gabriel.  
THat we may in an extremity confess our sins 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 citeth 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 Mayor and Fr. Victoria.  
THat any Priest may absolve us in the point of death, stands by the law of God, saith Paludanus (4. d. 20. q. 1) and Capreolus (d. 19 q. unica) and Durandus. It stands only by a positive law, saith Mayor and Fr. Victoria. art. 156.    

DECAD. VII.  

61. Io. Mayor, Bernardus de Gavaco, Capreolus and Cajetan in three different opinions.  
WHether an imperfect and inform confession be to be repeated, are three opinions; two extreme, and one mean: 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 calls an intolerable error: The second of Bernardus de Gavaco (in impugnat. Godofredi quodlib. 5) that how imperfect soever it be, it is not to be repeated. The third is more likely, of Capreolus (d. 17. q. 2.) and Cajetan, 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 denied in some cases by Durandus (4. dist. 17. quaest. 14 and 15.) affirmed by Fran. Victoria. art. 163.      
FINIS.