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. II.

First, all Diuines against Thomas Aquin.

THe common opinion is,* 1.1 that if the first man had not sinned, whosoeuer else should sinne, his offence should haue bin personall and particular, and therefore could not infect and defile his posterity: but yet S. Thomas seems to hold the contrary in his 5. quaest. of euill, art 4. but perhaps the place is corrupted. Bel∣larm. l. 4. c. 13. p. 403.

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

THough some Catholikes hold,* 1.2 that opinion to haue some more inclination to the truth, which exempts none but Christ from the state of originall sinne, yet euen those Authors doe not condemne the contrary opinion as erroneous, neyther indeede can, vnlesse they will resist the Decrees of the gene∣rall Councell of Trent, and of Sixtus 4. and Pius the 5. Popes, which if they did, they should not be recko∣ned for Catholikes; and of this opinion were Ca∣preolus, Caietanus and others. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 15. & 16. pag. 409.

Thirdly, Bellarmine against some namelesse Papists.

THere are that hold, the blessed Virgin sinned not in Adam;* 1.3 for, they say, that the law of not eating of the tree of the Knowledge of good and e∣uill, was giuen to our parents for themselues and their posterity, except the Virgin Marie; which o∣pinion seemes to me not safe to be defended. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 16. pag. 418.

Fourthly, Hofmeisterus and Viruesius confuted by Bellar.

* 1.4OF our writers Iohn Hofmeisterus, and Alphonsus Viruesius doe scarce acknowledge, there is any difference in this article of Originall sinne, betwixt vs and the heretickes; but if it be well considered, there is a double difference in our doctrine. Bellarm. l. 5. of the losse of grace, cap. 4. p. 460.

Fiftly, the Councell of Trent against Pighius and Catharinus.

* 1.5THe Councell of Trent hath defined, that origi∣nall sinne is not as one, and the same in all; but that euery man hath his owne proper birth-sinne, a∣gainst the false opinion of Pighius and Catharinus. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 472.

Sixtly, two rankes of Popish Doctors opposed by Bellarm.

THere doe now remaine two incommodious o∣pinions of Catholikes to be confuted.* 1.6 Some therefore of our authors, would haue originall sinne to be nothing but concupiscence: that is, a faulty quality in the mind, euermore stirring vp wicked de∣sires: so holds Peter Lombard (in 2. Sent. d. 31.) Henricus [b. 2. q. 11.] Gregorius Ariminensis; and of the later Io.Driedo: But this difference is betwixt Henry and Gregorie; that Henry holds, that euill quality of the Soule, to be a pronenesse to all euill: Gregorie restrains it to the inclination vnto that thing, which is carnally delightfull. This opinion (me thinkes) cannot be defended. (And a little after) In all this we agree with Peter Lombard, Henricus, Gregory and the rest: Onely here lies the question, Whether this faultines of nature be a positiue quality, or not: and whether it be properly and formally originall sinne: they affirm both, we deny both. Bellarm. ib. c, 15.p. 548

Seuenthly, Albert Pighius, and Catharinus, and some an∣cient confuted by Bellarmine.

LAstly remaines to be confuted,* 1.7 the errour of Al∣bertus Pighius, Ambrosius Catharinus, and some of the ancient, as Pet. Lomb. reports; which is, that origi∣nal sin is nothing els but the first disobedience of Adam, wherby the precept of God, for not eating of the

forbidden tree was broken, &c. but it is false and he∣retical, that original sinne is nothing else, besides the first actuall transgression of Adam, &c. Bellarm▪ ibid. cap. 16. pag. 555.

Eightly, foure sorts of Popish Doctors at irreconcile∣able variance.

* 1.8THere are fiue opinions of the estate and punish∣ment of Infants vn-baptized, after this life: first of those which durst promise the Kingdome of hea∣uen to them; though they denied not, that they were borne in originall sinne: so held one Vincentius of old, and now lately Zuinglius, and many of the Se∣ctaries of these times. The second of them which exclude them from heauen, but yet yeelde them an eternall and naturall blessednesse, free from all sor∣row and trouble, out of the Kingdome of the bles∣sed, and farre from the prison of the damned: so did the Pelagians hold, as August. b. of heresies, chap. 88. neare to which opinion are Ambrosius Catharinus Albertus Pighius, and Hierome Sauanarola. The third is, that Infants dying without baptisme are damned in hell to eternall death, but yet so punished with want of the vision of God, as that in the meane time they suffer no paine, neither inward nor outward: so teacheth S. Thomas in q. 4. of euill, art. 1.2. &c. and some other Schoole Doctors [vpon 2. Sent. d. 23.] The fourth opinion exempts such infants from the torment of the fire and worme, whereof we reade

(Mar. 9.) but not from an inward sorrow, for the losse of their eternall blessednesse. So teaches Pe∣ter Lombard (vpon 2. Sent.) and after him some o∣thers, as S. Thomas, S. Bonauenture, and Gregory Ari∣minensis, and others report. The fift, which is the seuerest opinion, teacheth, that Infants for their ori∣ginall sinne, are perpetually tormented in hell, with both sorts of punishment, of losse, and of sense: to which opinion incline Gregorius Ariminensis, Io. Driedo. Bellarm. 6. b. of the losse of grace. c. 1. p. 174▪ 175.

Ninthly, two sorts of Popish Writers opposite.

THe place wherein such Infants doe,* 1.9 and shall liue, is the prison of hell; a place darke and hor∣rible, as almost all the Schoole-Diuines teach, Saint Thomas, S. Bonauenture, Scotus, Durandus, Richardus, Ca∣preolus, and others vpon 2. Sent. dist. 33. and besides, Alexander Alensis, and Albertus. This difference on∣ly there is betwixt these olde Diuines, that some place Infants in the higher part of hell, which they call Limbum puerorum, the verge of Infants: others say, they haue one common place with the damned. Thus the fathers of the Florentine Councell teach, &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 2. p. 582.

Tenthly, Durandus, Thomas, Bonauenture, Richardus differing.

SOme of the old Schoolemen haue held,* 1.10 that those infants shal therfore haue no sorrow, for the losse

of blessednes, because they shall not know they haue lost it, which may be done onely by faith: this rea∣son is approued by Thomas in qu. 2. de malo, but him∣selfe reproues it in 2. Sent. dist. 33. quaest. 2. Durandus vpon the same place defends it. Bonauenture hath deuised another reason: Thomas a third: and Richar∣dus vpon the same place, seeing that the foresaid reasons did not giue satisfaction, addes a fourth, and saith: that infants know they are fallen from hap∣pinesse, and yet are not sadde, it comes to passe by a singular prouidence of God which remoues sorrow from their minds. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 609.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Communis sen∣tentia est si primus, &c.
• * 1.2

  Tametsi non desint. inter Ca∣tholicos, &c.
• * 1.3

  Non desunt qui existiment.
• * 1.4

  Ex nostris Io∣ha••nes &c.
• * 1.5

  Non vnum in omnibus &c.
• * 1.6

  Nunc refutan∣d••e sunt duae &c.
• * 1.7

  Restat vltimus error.
• * 1.8

  Quin{que} nume∣rantur sententiae &c.
• * 1.9

  Locus in quo paruuli degunt &c.
• * 1.10

  Aliqui veterum Scholasticorum.