The peace of Rome Proclaimed to all the world, by her famous Cardinall Bellarmine, and the no lesse famous casuist Nauarre. Whereof the one acknowledgeth, and numbers vp aboue three hundred differences of opinion, maintained in the popish church. The other confesses neere threescore differences amongst their owne doctors in one onely point of their religion. Gathered faithfully out of their writings in their own words, and diuided into foure bookes, and those into seuerall decads. Whereto is prefixed a serious disswasiue from poperie. By I.H.

DECAD. VII.

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

BVT in this our Catholike writers doe not agree,* 1.1 whether the purpose of a bet∣ter life, and detestation of sinne be expres∣ly and formally necessary to true contriti∣on, or whether it be sufficient to haue it implicitely or confusedly, and virtually. The old Diuines, as Pe∣ter Lombard, Alexander Alensis, S. Thomas, Scotus, Du∣randus, Albertus, and others, simply teach, that it is of the very essence of contrition, to detest our sinne, and to purpose amendement: and though they di∣stinguish not betwixt a formal and vertuall purpose, yet they plainely shew, they meane a direct, formall purpose; which was after more plainely taught by Pope Adrian. 6. in 5. quodl. art. 3. Tho. Caietanus, Domi∣nicus a Soto, Melchior Canus: yet there haue beene some few, that haue disputed against it, and content∣ing themselues with a virtual purpose, which is con∣cluded in the hatred of their sins, haue denied that o∣ther to be necessary. In this ranke were Io. Maior, Iac. Almayne, in. 4. Sent. d. 14. Andr. Vega vpon the Coun∣cell of Trent, c. 21. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 157.

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

IN this onely doe the Schoolemen seeme here to disagree,* 1.2 That some wil haue the act of penance, as also the act of faith and charity, to be onely a disposi∣tion to the remission of sinnes, and not to be any me∣rit (either of worke or congruity) of the forgiuenesse of them: Of this opinion is Io. Capreolus (vpon 2. Sent d. 4. q. 1.) Dominicus a Soto (2. b. of Nature and Grace, c. 4.) But other, and the most, hold those acts to be not onely a disposition towards, but a merit (by congrui∣ty) of our iustification; which opinion is the Masters of Sent. (b. 2. d. 27.) and S^t. Thomas (vpon 2. d. 27.) of Albertus, S. Bonauenture: Besides, of Scotus, Durandus, Gabriel, and others vpon 2. dist 28. And of the later Writers Andreas Vega (8 b. vpon the Councell of Trent.) Bellarm. ibid. c. 12. p. 185.

Thirdly, one Popish Doctor against the rest.

THe Catholike Doctors with common consent, are wont to teach,* 1.3 that contrition if it be perfect, and haue the desire and vow of the Sacrament of Baptisme, or Absolution, reconciles a man to God, and remits sinne before the Sacrament of Penance be performed. But there was of late a Catholike Do∣ctor, who not many yeares since in a booke which he wrote of charity, taught against this common o∣pinion. Bellarm. ib. c. 13. p. 191.

Fourthly, Armachanus confuted by Bellarmine.

RIchardus Armachanus in l. 9 quaest. Armen. cap. 27. taught it probable, that for some great sinnes,* 1.4 pardon could not be had, though the sinner should doe whatsoeuer he could, for obtaining it. But this we affirm, not as probable, but as certain, and confes∣sed of Catholikes, that no multitude or haynousnes of sinne can be such, as may not be done away by true repentance. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 209.

Fiftly, Bellarmine against Richardus.

THat the sinne against the holy Ghost is vnpar∣donable,* 1.5 Richardus teacheth to be, not in respect of the fault, but of the punishment; because if a man repent not of it, none of his temporall punishment (required to satisfaction) shall be forgiuen. Bellarm. ibid. c. 16. Confuted by Bellarmine by 3. arguments, pag. 219.

Sixtly, Rupertus opposed by Bellarmine.

THat feare,* 1.6 which is one of the foure passions of the minde, is not in it selfe euill: See defended against Rupertus the Abbat, l. 9. de operibus spiritus, by Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 223.

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

* 1.7THere was about some hundreth yeare since, one Petrus Oxoniensis, which affirmed, that the par∣ticular, and speciall confession of our sinnes in seue∣rall, is not required by any law of God, but onely by some Decree of the vniuersall Church. In our age haue held the same errour Erasmus Roterodamus, and Beatus Rhenanus, who hold, that secret confession of our seueral sinnes, both, was neuer instituted, and commaunded by any law of God, and besides, was neuer in vse with the auncient Church: Against all these mentioned errors, the Councell of Trent hath determined. Sess. 14. c. 5. and Can. 7.8. Bellarm. 3. b. of Penance, cap. 1. pag. 238.

Eightly, Bellarmine against Thomas Waldensis, and others.

I Know that Thomas Waldensis [in 2. Tom. c. 141.] was of this minde,* 1.8 that he thought Nectarius Bi∣shop of Constantinople, did simply abrogate the vse of confession; and therein greatly offended: But I would not easily yeelde to that: And I know that some haue thought this whole History feigned, and deuised by Socrates; But I cannot be brought to be∣leeue, that a false History could be written by him of a matter whereof many liuing in the time, when,

and where the thing was done, could conuince him. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 320.

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

INdeede Ruardus Tapperus a worthy Diuine,* 1.9 teach∣eth, that a man may satisfie God for his eternall guilt and punishment, by certaine acts, which in or∣der of nature follow the infusion of iustifying grace, and goe before remission of sinnes; and cyteth Tho∣mas for his opinion (vpon 4. Sent. dist. 15. qu. 5) Nei∣ther is it certaine, whether S^t. Thomas meant so, or no: It is enough for vs, that all Doctors agree in this, that before this grace receiued, no man can sa∣tisfie God. Bellarm. l. 4. of Penance, c. 1. p. 341. Where also he endeuours to reconcile Andreas Vega, in his opinion of our satisfaction to God, for the fault and offence of sinne.

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

ALthough the opinion of Thomas, Durandus,* 1.10 Pa∣ludanus and others [vpon 4 Sent. dist. 15.] be ve∣ry likely, that satisfaction is not rightly made to God by workes, which are otherwise due to be done, yet the opinion of Adrianus and Caietanus is not impro∣bable; that we doe satisfie God euen by workes, o∣therwise

due to him; since the satisfaction we giue to God doth not belong to iustice onely, but to friendshippe also. Bellarmine l. 4. cap. 13. pag. 402.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Porro Catholici Scriptores in eo &c.
• * 1.2

  Theologi Scho∣lastici in eo so∣lum &c.
• * 1.3

  ••••quidem Ca∣tholici doctores &c.
• * 1.4

  Et Richardus Armachanus docuit, &c.
• * 1.5

  Secunda est Ri∣chardi in libello de spiritu blas∣phemiae &c.
• * 1.6

  Errat enim Ru∣pertus Abbas l. 9. &c.
• * 1.7

  Extitit etiam ante annos &c.
• * 1.8

  Non ignoro Tho∣mam VValden∣sem &c.
• * 1.9

  Docet quidem Ruardus Tap∣perus insignis Theologus &c.
• * 1.10

  Adde quod licet sententia sit Valde &c.