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. III.

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

* 1.1THat no part of iustice stands in any quali∣ty or habite of ours, but all wholly in Gods free acceptation, is held by Caluin, Kemnitius, Heshusius: and to this opinion of the heretikes comes Albertus Pighius (otherwise a Catholike Doctor) but in some questions (as Ruar∣dus Tapperus noted before vs) miserably seduced by reading of Caluins bookes: for thus Pighius writes in his fift booke of Freewill: Wee will fetch the di∣uers acceptions of grace from the Scriptures, not from the Schooles; for in them commonly they im∣magine,

that the grace of God is some quality crea∣ted in our soules by God, &c. all which I thinke false and feined, and to haue no authority from scrip∣ture: thus Pighius. But the common opinion of Diuines constantly teacheth, that a supernaturall habite is infused into vs by God, whereby the soule is garnished and perfited, and so made acceptable to God. For though Peter Lombard in 1. Sent. dist. 17. seeme to say, that charity is not an habite, but the very holy Ghost himselfe, yet it appeares in the same booke dist. 37. he meant, that the spirit of God dwel∣leth not in them onely, which know and loue him, but euen in Infants by some habite: wherefore Io. Scotus holds, that Peter Lombards opinion may well be expounded and defended; but S^t. Thomas and o∣ther Diuines reproue his opinion, as if he denied the habite of charity. Bellarm. of grace and freewill, l. 1. cap. 3. pag. 50.

Secondly, foure diuers opinions of Popish Doctors.

WHether the habite of grace be the same with the habite of charity,* 1.2 there are foure opini∣ons of Diuines: for some would haue this iustifying grace (gratum facientem) to be an habite, in nature and respects different from charity, as S^t. Thomas, Capreolus, Caietanus, Ferrariensis, Dominicus a Soto. O∣thers make not a reall, but a formall distinction be∣twixt them, as Albertus Magnus, Alexander Alensis, and perhaps S^t. Bonauenture vpon 2. Sent. dist. 26 O∣thers

hold them neither in deede nor formally, but onely in certaine respects different; and this is the iudgement of Alexander Alensis, who belike changed his opinion, Richardus, Scotus, Mayro. Gabriel, Maior, Henry of Gaunt, and Andreas Vega. Others holde, there is no difference at all betwixt them, saue in name onely. So Durandus vpon 2. dist. 26. q. The third opinion seemes to be most probable, and more agreeing to Scripture, Fathers, and Councell of Trent. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 63.

Thirdly, Thomas and all Diuines against Peter Lombard.

* 1.3VVE thought it meete to confute the opinion of them, which teach, that charity whereby we loue God, is not any created habite, but the ve∣ry person of the holy Ghost, which vseth to be ac∣counted Lombards opinion. But we must thinke Pet. Lomb. was not grosse, and dull, to thinke the very act of loue, which we our selues produce, is the very ho∣ly Ghost: but this was it, that Lombard taught, that the very next immediate cause, or ground of the loue of God, is the spirit of God in vs, and not any created habite, as of faith, hope, and the rest; which opinion all Diuines confute in their Commentaries (on the 1. booke Sent. dist. 17.) especially Saint Thomas (in 2.2. q. 23.) and in his questions, who answereth 24. obiections that might be made for Lombards opini∣on. Bellarm. ibid. c. 8. p. 77.

Fourthly, three rankes of Popish Writers at variance.

VVHence grace proueth effectuall,* 1.4 are three opinions: The first of them, which hold the efficacy of grace to stand in the assent and co-o∣peration of mans will: and therefore these hold it in mans power to make grace effectuall, which other∣wise in it selfe would be but sufficient. The other of those, which thinke effectuall grace to be the natu∣rall action of God, which determines the wil, to will and choose that good, which was inspired to them by exciting grace: This opinion seemes eyther the same with the error of the Caluinists and Lutherans, or very little different; The Abettors of this opini∣on like it, because they thinke it is Augustines: but that it was not his, may be shewed by foure argu∣ments, &c. The third, is the meane betweene both these extremes. Bellarmine ibid. c. 12. p. 97.98. &c.

Fiftly, Popish Diuines diuided.

MAny Catholike Diuines, and almost all, teach,* 1.5 that euery man hath sufficient grace giuen him for the place and time, and yet without preuenting grace no man can desire or receiue it. So Alexander Alensis, Albertus Magnus, S. Thomas, Bonauent. Scotus, P. Adrian, Io. Roffensis, &c. Bellarm. l. 2. of grace and freewill, c. 1. p. 116.

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

* 1.6ALthough sufficient and necessary ayde to rise from sinne, be not wanting to any man for the time and place, yet it is not present at all times: This proposition is not mine onely, but it is confirmed by Abulensis, Adrianus 6. Caietane, Roffensis, Driedo, Tap∣perus. But Andreas Vega saith, that sinners may be at any or euery time conuerted, yet he addes, that they cannot at euery time bring that their possibility to effect: so he partly affirmes, and partly denies it. Bel∣larm. l. 2. c. 6. p. 131.

Seuenthly, Thomas, and Caietane, and Bellarmine against other Doctors.

* 1.7DIuines indeede dispute, whether predestination belong rather to the vnderstanding, or to the will: But I like the opinion of Cardinal Caietane and S^t. Thomas, who hold it rather of the vnderstanding; and the rather, because it is Saint Augustines in his booke De bono perseuerant. cap. 17. Bellarm. ib. c. 9. p 154.

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

* 1.8BVT let vs more at large expound that principal place out of Rom. 9. because Ambros. Catharinus,

and some other new Writers take it amisse. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 10. pag. 157.

Ninthly, some namelesse Authors confuted by Bellarm.

THE distinction which some Catholikes make betwixt predestination and election;* 1.9 that pre∣destination is before election; predestination is the meanes, election respects the glory it selfe; predesti∣nation is free, election depends on the praeuision of our good works. See by Bellarmine (the same booke, cap. 15. p. 186.) confuted, as disagreeing from Scrip∣ture and reason.

Tenthly, eight seuerall opinions of Popish Doctors.

THe first opinion is,* 1.10 That freewill doth consist properly in our act, not in any habite, &c. so tea∣cheth Herueus (1. quodlibet. q. 1.) who places freewill in those acts of the vnderstanding and will, which goe before deliberation, or the conclusion of delibe∣ration. The second is, Bonauentures opinion, who placeth freewill in a certaine naturall habite, arising from reason and will (vpon 2. Sent. Dist. 23. art. 1.) The third is Albertus opinion, that freewill it is a po∣wer of the soule, perfected by a naturall habite. The fourth, that freewill is an vniuersal power, or faculty, conteining vnder it all the powers of the vnderstan∣ding and sensitiue soule. This opinion is reported

without name by Saint Bonauenture and Saint Tho∣mas. The fift is, of Alexander Alensis, which teacheth, that freewill is a particular power or faculty of the soule, and distinct from reason and will (in p. 2. Sum. q. 74. &c.) The sixt is Durandus (vpon 2. Sent. d. 24. q. 3.) who teaches, that freewill is the very power of reason and will, but more especially of reason. The seuenth is the opinion of Henricus and Scotus (in 2. Sent. dist. 25.) who hold, that freewill is but one particular faculty, euen the will it selfe; and that it is so free, that it doth not depend so much as vpon the practicall Iudgement of reason. The eight is the o∣pinion of S. Thomas (1. part. Sum. q. 83.) and (in 1.2. q. 13. &c.) Richardus Capreolus, Conradus, Caietanus, and others, which hold, that freewill is indeede one particular faculty, euen the will it selfe (as the former opinion) but they adde, that the roote of this free∣dome is in reason, and that the will wholly depends vpon the last iudgement of practicall reason, which opinion seemes to me to be the truest. Bellarm. l. 3. cap. 7. pag. 221.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ad hanc senten∣tiam accessit Albertus &c.
• * 1.2

  Vtrum habitus gratiae.
• * 1.3

  Operae precium esse duximus. &c.
• * 1.4

  Vnde sumatur efficacia gratiae &c.
• * 1.5

  Theologi Catho∣lici quàm plu∣rimi &c.
• * 1.6

  Auxilium dei sufficiens &c.
• * 1.7

  Disputant qui∣dem Theologi &c.
• * 1.8

  Sed explicemus paulo fusius, &c.
• * 1.9

  Propter hoc ar∣gumentum non defuerunt &c.
• * 1.10

  Sunt autem de hac re multae Theologorum sententiae &c.