A challenge concerning the Romish Church, her doctrine & practises, published first against Rob. Parsons, and now againe reuiewed, enlarged, and fortified, and directed to him, to Frier Garnet, to the archpriest Blackevvell and all their adhærents, by Matth. Sutcliffe. Thereunto also is annexed an answere vnto certeine vaine, and friuolous exceptions, taken to his former challenge, and to a certeine worthlesse pamphlet lately set out by some poore disciple of Antichrist, and entituled, A detection of diuers notable vntrueths, contradictions, corruptions, and falsifications gathered out of M. Sutcliffes new challenge, &c.

CHAP. VI. A taste of Bellarmines vnsauoury falsifications.

I Would be loth to wrong any, especi∣ally in writing, where all that reade may be witnesses of the wrong, if a∣ny be offered. Wherfore to answere my aduersaries accusatiō, that saith, I haue slandered and infamed the wor∣thy prelate Cardinal Bellarmine, * 1.1 where I charged him, with falsifications and lies; I will nowe, godwilling, iusti∣fie my saying, and shewe, that his workes are not, as Ow∣lyglasse saith, the sworde of Gedeon; but rather the sworde of Goliath, whereby a man with labour and diligence may cut off both his owne head, and the head of antichrist. The same is also like a leaden sworde guilted ouer, and fayre in shew, but nothing trenchant in proofe. Hee might more fit∣ly haue compared them to Augias stable, that cōtained an in∣finit heape of dung, but to be purged, if learned men would take the paines to examine them. For my part, I doe testi∣fie before God, that they haue much confirmed mee in the truth, and truly affirme, that they are more tedious to read, then hard to refute, in matters especially that concerne vs. But now to come to the matter, I will offer to the reader a taste of his falsifications and lowde leasings, purposing to

adde more, if our aduersaries please to continew this course of examination of ours and popish authors writings. I will also ioyne with him his fellow Caesar Baronius with his x. le∣gions of lyes. Not doubting, but if they vnderstand their errours, their faces will turne crimsin. And why not their faces as well as their roabes, especially if they haue any remaynder of their pretended Virginall modestie?

[falsification 1] First he doth wilfully corrupt the sixt canon of the coun∣cell of Nice lib. 2. de pontif. Rom. c. 13. the canon beginneth thus, mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto, vel Lybia, vel Pētapo¦li. But Bellarmine maketh the canon to begin far otherwise. Obseruandum saith hée, in libris vulgatis d••esse initium huius canonis, quod tale est. ecclesia Rom. semper habuit primatum. but these last words are playnly forged, as may appeare by all the copyes of the actes of the Nicene councel. neither can it excuse him, that one Paschasius act. 16. concil, chalced. hath these words, or that Copus a counterfect c••mpagnion doth af¦firme, that a certaine Abbot called Dionysius doth so read this canon for Abbots may proue forgers as well as others, and little credit is to be giuen to the Popes agente in his owne cause. Further Paschasius his words so stand, that we may probably coniecture, that some latter falsary hath so set down the words of this canon, as we read them now in the t••mes of councels set out by Papists. Finally, all authenticall his∣tories testifie, that before the councell of Nice the Church of Rome was litle respected: and Aeneas Siluius doth in playne termes confesse so much. Neither can Parsons deny it, vn∣lesie he put on his visor of impudency.

[falsification 2] In his booke de pontif. Rom. c. 31. he falsifieth Hieromes words, and peruerteth his meaning to proue, that he called Damasus the foundation of the Church. Hieronymus saith he, in epist. ad D••masum de nomine hypostasis: super hanc petram ecclesiam aedificata•• scio. vbi Damasum petram ecclesiae vocat. But Hieremes words stand thus. ego nullum primum, nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae, id est, cathed••ae Petri cōmu∣nione consocior super ••am petram ecclesiam aedificatam scio. Whereby it appeareth that Hierome meant to follow none but Christ, and that he meant Christ, when he speaketh of the

Rocke. For so the pronoune Illam, that is referred to that which is further of, doth teach vs. But Bellar. to pro∣ue the Pope to bée the foundation of the Church, leaueth out Christ, and for the pronounce Illam, writeth hanc, like a cunning falsary.

[falsification 3] In the same booke and chapter he falsifieth the actes of the councell of Chalcedon. septimum est saith hée, caput ecclesiae, quo vtitur concilium Chalcedonense in epistola ad Leonem. qui but tu ve••ut caput membris praeeras. These words I say are falsely alledged. For first it cannot bee prooued, that this epistle was written by the councell, as Surius hath recor∣ded Act. 3. Concil. Chalced. Secondly, admit the whole e∣pistle was not forged; yet there is no mention made of the heade of the Church, as Bellarmine affirmeth▪ for the worde Caput, in these words, quibus tu velut Caput membris prae∣cras: is referred to certeine Priests of Leoes order, in which ranke he sheweth himselfe principall. Bellarmine therefore to make some shew, leaueth out both the words going before, and the words following after, which playnly shew, that the authors of that epistle neuer meant to cal him the head of the Church. His falshood may appeare by the words, as they follow in that epistle Act. 3. concil. Chalced. set out by Surius. Si vbi sunt duo aut tres congregati in nomine eius say they ibi se in medio eorum fore perhibuit, quantam circa sacerdotes peculiaritatem potuit demonstrare, qui & patriae & labori suae confessionis notitiam praetulerunt? quibus tu quidem sicut ca∣put membris prae eras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem, beneuo lenriam praeferens: imperatores vero ad ornandum decenti∣ssimè praesidebant. The Latin is rude and barbarous sauoring of a monkish humor. But by the words we may sée, that the authors of that epistle made Leo heade of preestes, and men of his cote, and not of the Church, nor councell, Wherein emperors most decentely did praeside, and sitte as cheefe moderators: as the fathers of that councell teach vs.

[falsification 4] Likewise reckening vp the names and titles of the bi∣shops of Rome, he saith that Eusebius in his cronicle anno. 44. doth giue them the title of Pontifex Christianorum. Which is a

mere forgery. For not the bishops af Rome, but to Peter only, is that title giuen, if it be not thrust into the text. But what belongeth, and is peculierly giuen to Peter, may not be claymed by euery bishop of Rome. For I hope euery one of them will not be called Simon, nor an Apostle, nor the cheefe or first Apostle. Nor will they, I suppose, write, as Peter did, in his second epistle: Simon Petrus seruus & apostolus Iesu Christi. Finally I hope Clement the 8. will not write. Clemens octauus alter Simon Petrus, & seruus & apostolus Ie∣su Christi.

[falsification 5] In his booke de Monachis. c. 6. We read these words. Dicit (Lutherus) & saepissime repetit & inculcat, Paulū cū ait, se potuisse circumducere sororē mulierem 1. cor. 9. voluisse dicere, se potuis∣se ducere vxorem. that is, Luther doth say, and often repeat, and inculcat, that Paule, when he sayd; he might leade aboute a sister, a woman, as it is. 1. cor. 9. meant, that he might mary a wife. But he doth falsifie Luthers words. For Luther saith onely, that the words 1. cor. 9. do not compell vs (to beleeue, that Paule had no wife) but rather shew, * 1.2 that he had a wife, and would not lead her about with him. for speaking of this place, and of those, that collected out of it, that Paule was vnma∣ried: hoc saith he, non cog it, verum multo magis indicat, eum habuisse vxorem, sed eam circumducere noluisse. He doth also impudently affirme, that Luther doth repeate, & inculcat that often which he is not able to shew to haue béene once vttred by him. He speaketh also very improbably. For séeing Luther affirmed that Paule had a wife already, it is very vnlikely, that he should say, and that often, that Paule might mary an o∣ther wife. If then he will not be condemned both as a falsary, and a lying fellow, let him set downe Luthers words, where that is often repeated.

[falsification 6] He alledgeth also in the same place these words, as taken out of Luther; Voueo castitatem paupertatem, & obedientiam▪ dicit saith Bellarmine, formam vouendi hanc esse debere, si piè vouendum sit, voueo castitatem, paupertatem, & obedientiam vsque ad mortē liberè, id est, vt mutare possim, quando volo. y^t is, Luther saith, that this is the best forme of vowes, if we will make godly vowes; I do vowe chastity, pouerty, & obedience

vnto death, but freely or conditionally, that is to say, that I may change, when I please. But Luther speaketh not one word, of the vowe of pouerty and monasticall obedience, nor euer thought, that any godly man might make a vowe concer∣ning either; nor doth he speake, or place his words so ridicu∣lously, as Bellarmine doth report. All that Luther saith to this purpose is this. Videtur forma voti apud deum sic habere, * 1.3 vo∣ueo castitatem, quam diu possibilis fuerit, si autem seruare nequi ero, vt liceat nubere. That is in effect thus much. That forme of vowe seemeth most pleasing to God, that is thus vttered: I vowe chastity, as longe as I am able to containe, if I be not able, then that it may be lawfull for me to mary. Doth it not ap∣peare, that Bellarmine hath falsified Luthers words & made him, contrary to his owne doctrine, to allowe vowes of pouerty and monasticall obedience, and to speake ridicu∣lously, and foolishly, and far otherwise, then euer he spoke or wrote?

[falsification 7] In the same booke chap. 31. He saith, that Chrysostome in his commentaries (vpon the 19. of Math.) teacheth vs, that Christ by the similitude of Eunuches would proue, that it is easie and profitable to absteine from mariage. facile & vtile esse abstinere a nuptiis. But like a falsary where Chrysostome hath possible, there he placeth facile. But many thinges are possible, that are not facile, and easie.

[falsification 8] Likewise in the same booke chap. 27. he falsifieth a place of Saint Chrysostome homil. 15. in priorem ad Timoth. He re∣hearseth Chrysostomes words thus, & vidua in uiduitatis pro∣fessione christo consentit, id est christo nubit. But these words id est Christo nubit, are added by Bellarmine, and that per∣uersely. For Christ is the spouse of the Church, and not of eue∣ry capriccious nonne,

[falsification 9] In his booke de notis ecclesiae. c. 9. he maketh Luther to speake thus: non alia via potest homo cum deo conuenire, aut agere, quam per fidem. opera ille non curat. But Luthers words, as they are set downe in his booke de captiuitate Baby Ionica. c, de Eucharistia, which booke with y^e rest of his workes were set out at Wittemberge, are these. nec alia via potest ho∣mo cum deo conuenire, aut agere, quam per fidem, id est, vt

non homo operibus suis vllis, sed deus promissione sua sit author salutis; vt omnia pendeant, portentur, seruenturque in verbo virtutis suae. So it appeareth, that Bellarmine cutteth off the ende of Luthers sentence, and addeth these words: opera ille non curat, to make his doctrine odious.

[falsification 10] In the same booke and chapter likewise Bellarmine falsifi∣eth another place of Luther, making him to speake thus. tam diues est homo Christianus, vt non possit perire si velit, quan∣tumcunque malè viuat. But Luthers wordes in his booke de Capt. Babyl. c. de baptismo, of the edition aboue mentioned, stand thus: tam diues est homo Christianus, vt volens non pos∣sit perdere salutem suam quantiscunque peccatis, nisi nolit cre∣dere. These wordes quantumcunque malè viuat, are added by Bellarmine, to make Luthers doctrine seeme contrarie to good workes.

[falsification 11] He would make his reader beléeue, that Caluin should say, that God is cause of sinne. * 1.4 The place quoted instit. lib. 1. c. 18. doth acquite Caluin, and shew Bellarmine to be a falsary. for he doth not teach any such matter, nor hath any such words.

[falsification 12] These wordes he setteth downe as taken out of Caluins instit. * 1.5 lib. 1. c. 18. §. 2. non solum permissu, sed voluntate dei homines peccant, ita vt nihil ipsi deliberando agitent, nisi quod deus apud se decreuerit, & arcana directione constituit. but he forgeth these words, quod dei voluntate homines peccant, and altereth the latter end of the sentence.

[falsification 13] Lib. 3. instit. c. 23. §. 24. dicit Caluinus saith Bellar. lib. de notis ecclesiae c. 9. dei non solum praeuisione, & permissione, sed etiam voluntate in peccatum lapsum esse Adamum. But these wordes are no where to be found in Caluin. for he hath onely these wordes: lapsus est primus homo, quia dominus ita expe∣dire censuerat.

[falsification 14] Likewise he affirmeth that Caluin hath these wordes lib. 3. instit. * 1.6 c. 24. §. 14. quod aliqui verbum dei audire contemnunt, ipsorum est prauitas, sed in hanc prauitatem à deo addicti sunt. but these words à Deo are Bellarmines addition.

[falsification 15] Speaking of Philip Melancthon: dicit saith he, ita fuisse o∣pus dei Iudae proditionem, * 1.7 ac Pauli conuersionem. and these wordes saith he, are found in his commentaries vpon the eight

Chapter of the epistle to the Romans. But the place viewed doth declare his falsehood. for he hath not the word ita, nor v∣seth this frame of sentence.

[falsification 16] Declaring vnto vs the heresie of the Eunomians: docebant saith he, non posse homini vlla peccata nocere, * 1.8 modo fidem habeat, vt testatur Augustinus lib. de haeres. c. 54. But he hath wronged Saint Augustine in reporting, that these are his wordes. Fertur (scilicet Eunomius) saith Saint Augustine, a∣deo fuisse bonis moribus inimicus, vt asseueraret, quod nihil cuique obesset quorumlibet perpetratio, ac perseuerantia pec∣catorum, si huius, quae ab illo docebatur fidei, particeps esset. Let indifferent men therefore iudge, whether Eunomius spoke absolutely of faith, or of his owne peculiar faith. And whether it is all one, to condemne good workes, and to say, that howsoeuer Christians are most carefully to walke in Gods workes; yet that they are not iustified by good workes, but by the grace of God communicated to them through faith in Christ Iesus.

[falsification 17] Origenis haeresis fuit, perdidisse Adamum imaginem dei, ad quam creatus fuit, saith Bellarmine. * 1.9 And this he saith is af∣firmed by Epiphanius haeres. 64. but he falsifieth Epiphanius, and belyeth Origen in this point. for his error was not, that he supposed man to haue lost the image of God through sinne, but that the soule did loose the same, being created and ioyned to the body. Illud secundum imaginem dicit Adam perdidisse: saith Epiphanius speaking of Origen, & inde dicit, corpus esse intelligendum, quando deus fecit vestes pelliceas, & illis induit illos. for so the gréeke text doth plainly teach vs.

[falsification 18] He saith also, that Origen taught; that hell was nothing, but the horror of conscience. * 1.10 and this he auoucheth vpon the cre∣dit of Hierome in epist. ad Auitum de erroribus Origenis. But in this point also he doth mistake Origen, and falsifie Hieroms wordes. For Hierome doth not set downe any such wordes, but onely sheweth, that Origen taught, ignem Gehennae & tormenta non poni in supplicijs, sed in conscientia peccatorum. He may therfore doe well to report Hieroms wordes the next time better, least those, that are of Origens heresie be therein confirmed by his false dealing.

[falsification 19] Of Caluin he affirmeth, that he taught, that the image of God was lost in Adam; and to prooue it, doth alleadge these wordes, as out of the 2. booke of his institutions c. 1. §. 5. per peccatum primi hominis obliterata est coelestis imago. But that which he saith of the loosing of the image of God in A∣dam, is a grosse lye. for Caluin neuer taught, that the image of God was quite lost, but blemished and much defaced. The words also are falsified. for he saith not, as Bellarmine repor∣teth quod imago obliterata esset, absolutely, but quod tan∣quam scriptura bella calamo transuerso obliterata esset.

[falsification 20] He affirmeth, that Epiphanius reporteth haeres. 64. that Proclus an heretike taught, * 1.11 that sinne did alwaies liue in the regenerat, and that concupiscence was truely sinne, and that the same was onely dulled by faith, and not taken away by bap∣tisme. He saith also, that Theodoret reporteth as much lib. 3. haeret. fabul. of the Messalians. But he doth abuse both E∣piphanius and Theodoret, and doth ascribe that vnto them, which they neuer taught. Theodoret lib. 4. haeret. fabul. cap. de Messalianis doth not so much, as mention concupiscence, or vtter any such words. but rather contrary to Bellarmines report of them he saith, that the Messalians taught, that bap∣tisme like a razor cut off all former sinnes.

[falsification 21] Haec est ipsissima sententia saith Bellarmine, Lutheri art. 2. & 31. * 1.12 &c. item Philippi in locis communibus c. de peccato O∣riginis, & Caluini lib. 4. instit. c. 15. §. 10. scilicet peccatum in renatis semper viuere. but in no one of these, can he finde, that sinne is said to liue in the regenerat. For our doctrine is con∣trary, and euery christian professeth, that he ought to morti∣fie his concupiscences and earthly members, and to be quicke∣ned in the spirit. Wherefore either the man lyeth intolera∣bly, or els he doth falsely alleadge the wordes of Luther, Me∣lancthon, Caluin. And that shall appeare more plainly, when Robert Parsons goeth about to iustifie his olde acquaintance Bellarmine.

[falsification 22] The chiefe errour of the Nouatians saith Bellarmine, was, that there is no power in the church, to reconcile men to God, but by baptisme. And this hee goeth about to prooue out of Theodoret lib. 3. haeret. fabul. c. de Nauato. But Theodoret

doth conuince his false report both of his owne wordes, and of this heresie. For first he sheweth, that Nauatus did deny to reconcile those, that had fallen in persecution. And after∣ward, that his followers did vtterly deny the vse and grace of repentance. Poenitentiam a suo conuentu arcent penitus saith Theodoret speaking of the Nouatians. It is also appa∣rant, that they did not restraine remission of sinnes to bap∣tisme onely.

[falsification 23] Where he speaketh of the heresie of the Nouatians, he tel∣leth vs, that Cornelius witnesseth, that the Nouatians taught, * 1.13 that the Church had no power to reconcile men to God, but by baptisme, and that such as were baptized, were not by the bishop to be annointed with Chrisme. And this he saith is found in Eusebius his history lib. 6. c. 33. but neither hath Eu∣sebius nor Cornelius any such words.

[falsification 24] In his second booke de eucharistia c 9. he hath these words, Dixit (Cyprianus) latere sub specie visibili panis deum verum. but Cyprian saith onely, diuinam essentiam ineffabiliter se visi∣bili sacramento infundere. And there is no small difference betwixt these two propositions. for the diuine essence may worke in sacraments after an vnspeakable sort, albeit Christ God and man be not contained vnder the visible forme of bread in the eucharist, or water in baptisme: Especially af∣ter the forme imagined by papists.

[falsification 25] In the same booke chap. 12. he affirmeth, that Hilary doth often repeate these wordes, Christum naturaliter esse in nobis per sumptionem eucharistiae. But the same are not to be found in the 8. booke of Hilary de Trinitate, once, which he saith are found often.

[falsification 26] Likewise in the same booke chapt. 14. speaking of Cyrill he saith, Ibidem iubet vt flexo genu & in adorantium morem accedant ad eucharistiam▪ And these wordes he supposeth to bee in his fift mystagogicall and catechisticall instruction. But neither are the wordes there to be found, nor hath hee any such commandement, nor did he euer beléeue or teach, that the sacrament was to be worshipped after the po∣pish manner.

[falsification 27] Citing a place out of Saint Augustine de Trinit. lib. 3.

c. 10. he would make his reader beléeue, * 1.14 that our Sauiour Christ appeared to the eyes of mortall men in the formes of bread and wine. A matter neuer vttered, nor thought of by S. Augustine, nor to be found in that place, or otherwhere in his writings.

[falsification 28] Speaking of S. Augustine he saith, that in his 12. booke contra Faustum c. 10. he teacheth, that the faithfull receiue that bloud with their mouth, wherewith they were redeemed. And in the 20. chapter of the same booke, that they drinke that, which issued out of Christ his side. But S. Augustine hath not one word of receiuing of the bloud of our redemption with our mouth▪ neither doth he meane, that we doe pro∣perly and carnally drinke his bloud, or with corporeall in∣struments.

[falsification 29] Out of Hesychius lib. 2. in Leuit. cap. 8. he quoteth these wordes lib. 2. de eucharistia c. 32. sanctum altare esse locum, vbi sanctus sanctorum requiescit. but the same are falsely fa∣thered vpon that father, being neither to bee found in that chapter, nor otherwhere.

[falsification 30] * 1.15 Out of Chrysostomes homil. 79. ad populum Antioch. he citeth these wordes, altari assistens sacerdos, pro terrarum or∣be, pro episcopis, pro ecclesia, pro gubernantibus ecclesiam iu∣betur deo offerre. but Chrysostome hath no such wordes of the priests offering, but saith, that the people of Antioch doe pray for all these sortes of people.

[falsification 31] * 1.16 He affirmeth, that Chrysostome homil. 72. in Matth. saith, that the eucharist is offered, pro infirmis, pro sanis, pro terrae fructibus. but he hath no such like wordes, either there, or any other place: but he saith onely, that we pray in the cele∣bration of the eucharist for such as are possessed with diuels, for sicke persons, and such like.

[falsification 32] Hippolytus in his oration of the ende of the world hath these wordes, venite pontifices, qui purè mihi sacrificium die, noctéque obtulistis, ac pretiosum corpus, & sanguinem meum immolastis mihi quotidie. Bellarmine lib. 1. de missa c. 15. lea∣ueth out these words, qui purè mihi sacrificium die nocté{que} ob∣tulistis: least we should know, that he speaketh of spiritual sa∣crifices, & not of the masse, that is seldome said in the night.

[falsification 33] Lib. 2. de missa c. 9. speaking of the multitude of priuate masses, he endeuoureth to prooue the same by a most aunci∣ent custome, as he saith, and for this ende alleadgeth an epi∣stle of Telesphorus, and a testimony out of Gregory homil. 8. in euangel. but not only the epistle of Telesphorus is counter∣feit, but both the same, and Gregories testimony is falsely al∣leadged. for neither of them speake any one word of such a custome, or of the custome of saying three masses in one night. In the same place also prosper is falsely alleadged. For he speaketh not one worde of offering one sacrifice twise in a short time.

[falsification 34] To prooue the adoration of the sacrament lib. 4. de eucha∣rist. c. 29. he falsely alleadgeth Gregory Nazianzen in laudem Gorgoniae, Cyrill of Hierusalem Catechis. 5. mystagog. Euseb. Emissenus homil. 5. de Paschate. for not one of these speaketh one worde of adoration of the sacrament, as hee affirmeth most falsely.

It were infinite to touch all the places falsified by Bellar∣mine; and I suppose, that these are more, then our woodden Owlyglasse, alias Woodward will answere. And yet these are but falsifications of one kinde. but he hath also runne into diuers other kindes of falsifications. * 1.17 For whereas lawe doth declare them to be falsaries, that shall either suborne false witnesses, or father bastards vpon those, who are not their true fathers, or that shall in a testament adde a legacy supposed un∣truely to himselfe, or that shall commit any falsehood about coynes, or lawes; it is an easie matter in euery of these points to charge Bellarmine with falsification.

For first he hath produced infinite false witnesses, as for example Clement, Martialis, Anacletus, Africanus, Abdias, Amphilochius, Leontius, Paulinus, Simeon Metaphrastes, and such like false compagnions, that either write fables, or take on them false names.

Secondly, he hath fathered infinite base and paultry ser∣mons, and epistles, and other treatises vpon Cyprian, Atha∣nasius, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augu∣stine, Cyrill, and other fathers.

Thirdly, he hath alleadged diuers counterfeit decretales

vnder the name of Euaristus, Telesphorus, Alexander, Marcel∣lus, Syricius, Innocentius, Gelasius, and others, wherein they mention diuers prerogatiues due to the Church of Rome, and to themselues, setting downe as it were false legacies, with their owne false hands, in false and forged testaments or recordes.

Fourthly, for the originall scriptures he hath oftentimes alleadged apocryphall writings, and the olde latine transla∣tion, albeit differing from the originall text, corrupting after a sort, Gods eternall testament.

Fifthly, for the pure writings of the fathers, he hath often∣times giuen vnto vs the drosse of Peter Lombard, Thomas A∣quinas, and other schoolemen: and with them hath also ioyned the corrupt testimonies of legends, and such like trash.

Finally, he hath cited infinit false canons, and counterfeit councels, and actes of councels. And this I will iustifie by diuers thousands of examples, if the woodden detector, or any of his partakers will stand to the quarrel, which he and Rob. Parsons haue begun. I haue also in diuers treatises set out against Bellarmine, discouered diuers thousands of his cor∣ruptions. I hope therefore, that our aduersary hereafter wil say, that I haue not slandered that voluminous Cardinall Bellarmine: especially, when he shall haue perused the note following concerning his vntruthes and leasings. Which now according to my promise, I purpose sincerely, and truely to deliuer.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Praeface.
• * 1.2

  In. 1. cor. 7.
• * 1.3

  De votis monast.
• * 1.4

  De notis ec∣cles. c. 9.
• * 1.5

  Ibidem.
• * 1.6

  Ibidem.
• * 1.7

  Ibidem.
• * 1.8

  Ibidem.
• * 1.9

  Ibidem.
• * 1.10

  Ibidem.
• * 1.11

  Ibidem.
• * 1.12

  Ibidem.
• * 1.13

  Ibidem.
• * 1.14

  Lib. 2. de eu∣charist. c. 24.
• * 1.15

  Lib. 1. de mis∣sa. c. 19.
• * 1.16

  Ibidem.
• * 1.17

  ff. ad leg. Cor∣nel. de falsis.