holiday is double. Bellarm. ibid. c. 10. p. 356. (tom. 2. BOOK I. col. 881.)

Ninthly, Gulielm. Occam against the common opinion.

&c.

THE second thing required to a Sacrament of the new Secundum law, is a sensible sign. For there are some invisible signs, est ut hoc, 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 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, 1. i. c. 9. p. 34.

Tenthly, Three divers opinions of Popish Doctors.

sententia,

CONCERNING the definition of a Sacrament, there are Tres sunt three opinions of Doctors. Some hold, that a Sacrament doctorum cannot properly be defined; as Occam, Major, Richardus. &c. 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.

BOOK II.

SECOND CENTURY OF DISSENSIONS.

BOOK II. Sunt enim

DECADE I.

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

THE definition of a Sacrament is so canvassed by Bellarmin, as that he rejecteth two of Augustin's, seconded plures defi- also by Hugo, book i. part 9. chap. 2; Bernard in his nitiones &c. Sermon of the Lord's Supper; Tho. Waldensis, tom. 2. chap. 20; as altogether imperfect: also, Hugo's definition, as too long; Gratian's (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 infolding it: and allows only the definition of the Council of Trent, as most accurate (definitio pulcherrima est); Bellarm. de Sacram. in Genere, 1. i. c. 11. p. 43, 44, &c.

Duæ sunt

rum sententia.

Secondly, Albert, Thomas, Bonaventure, and others, against Thomas, Dominicus à Soto, Ledesmius, &c. HERE be two opinions of Divines. The first of the Theologo master of Sentences, book iv. 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, part iii. q. 60. art. 1. (for he manifestly changed his opinion) as also of Dominicus à 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. p. 45.

Thirdly, Dominicus à Soto and Cajetan, Thomas, Durand, Adrian, Alexand. Alensis, Dominicus à Soto, all opposite.

BOOK II.

torum sen

THERE be divers opinions of Doctors: the first, of cer- Sunt igitur tain of our late writers, who hold, that properly the matter varia Docand 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 à Soto, upon 4. dist. 1. q. 1. art. 1; and Cajetan 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, part iii. q. 60. art. 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, quæst. 2. of Baptism. Others teach, that all Sacraments of the new law consist of things and words: so Alexander Alensis, part iv. q. 8, &c. 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 à Soto, upon 4. dist. 1. q. 1. art. 6. Bellarm. ibid. c. 18. p. 84.

Fourthly, Paludanus against Thomas. against Dominicus à Soto.

Bellarmin

&c.

THAT which Paludanus saith, upon 4. dist. 3. q. 1, Itaque, quod that the Sacrament is not ever made void, when a man Paludanus, intends to bring in a new rite, is true; but not against Saint Thomas, as perhaps he thought: but that which Dominicus à Soto saith; namely, that the Greeks do truly baptize, with those words, "Let the servant of Christ be baptized," because the Church of Rome tolerates that fashion, &c.; but if the Church of Rome should detest that rite, then they should not baptize truly; is not altogether true, &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. P. 118.

Fifthly, Hugo, Peter Lombard, Alensis, Bonaventure, &c. against the common opinion, and Bellarmin.

OUR adversaries teach these two things: That the Adversarii Sacraments which they hold only two, were instituted by duo quædam Christ: namely, Baptism and the Lord's Supper: and that docent, &c.

BOOK II. the rest were not appointed by Christ: so teach Calvin and Chemnitius: and with them, (whom they cite) Cyprian, Hugo, Peter Lombard, who deny, that all Sacraments were instituted by Christ: they might have added Alexander Alensis, St. 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. vii. 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, &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. pp. 127, 128, 129, &c.

Nova hæresis

Sixthly, Bellarmin against Catharinus.

THERE is a new heresy arisen in our time; that the nostro tem- intention of the Minister is not necessary in the Sacrapore, &c. ment... To this opinion of the heretics Ambrosius Catharinus cometh very near: neither can I see, wherein he differs from the opinion of Chemnitius and other heretics, saving that in the end of his work, he subjects himself to the See-Apostolic, and to the Council, both which they deride. Bellarm. ibid. c. 27. p. 155.

Responderi

esse Theolo

gorum sententias.

Note, the same which he condemns for heretical in Catharinus, he grants to be held by his St. Thomas, in the chapter following, p. 169.

Seventhly, Cajetan and Ledesmius against Thomas and others.

HERE are two opinions of Divines. For some, as debet, duas 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 it is only in the Sacrament: (so Thomas is thought to hold, part iii. q. 64. art. 1.) and that the Minister concurs only by applying the Sacrament. Bellarm. same book, chap. 27. p. 163. (tom. iii. col. 98. Paris, 1613.)

Eighthly, Bellarmin against Ambrose Catharinus.

BOOK II.

THE fourth argument is of Catharinus, from the autho- Quartum rity of St. Thomas, Chrysostom, and Pope Nicholas. argumenOf St. Thomas, who saith, that the intention of the tum est CaChurch, 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, &c.

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 Bellarm. ibid. c. 28. p. 169.

Ninthly, Bellarmin against Ledesmius, Canus, Bonaventure, Scotus, Durand, Richardus, Occam, Marsilius, Gabriel.

tharini, &c.

THAT the Sacraments are true causes of justification; but Sacramenta moral causes, not natural (as he that commands a murder esse veras is the true cause of it, though he touch not the party causas, &c. murdered), is defended by Ledesmius and Canus in Relect. 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. book ii. chap. 11. p. 225; (tom. iii. col. 137, 8.)

Tenthly, the Master of Sentences against the common

opinion.

&c.

THERE is therefore one question, whether the old Una igitur Sacraments (excepting Circumcision) did justify actually quastio est, by the very work wrought. And there are two opinions. One, of the Master of Sentences, in 4. dist. 1, which denies it; for he saith, that those Sacraments do 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. p. 239.

VOL. IX.