iustification was neuer knowne to any of the holy Fathers nor to any ancient counsel so wil their saluation neuer bee knowne to Gods elect vnlesse they repent and reuoke this their damnable Doctrine Fourthly that God worketh our Good Workes in vs. Fiftly that God hath ordained Good Workes for this end that we walke in them This doctrine is confirmed by the same Apostle in another place where he hath these wordes Not by the Workes of Iustice which wee did but according to his Mercy hee hath saued vs. Loe the holy Apostle is still constant in his former position viz that We are not saued by the Workes of Iustice but of mercy grace For this cause saith S. Austen Woe vnto the best liuer vppon earth if God examin his life his mercy set apart For this cause saith S. Chrisostome si millies moriamur c. Though we die a thousand times and though we accomplish all vertues of the minde yet do wee nothing woorthy of those things which we receiue of God For this cause saith S. Theophilact Seruauit nos aeternum non ex operibus c. Hee hath saued vs eternally not of the workes which we haue done that is neither haue we done the works of Iustice neither are wee saued by them but his goodnes and his clemency hath wrought our saluation wholly Yea for this cause saith their highly renowned Abbot Bernardus Sic non est c. So there is no cause that thou shouldst now aske by what merits we hope for glory especially since thou hearest the Prophet say I will do it sayth the Lord not for your sake but for mine owne It is sufficient to merite to know that our merites are not sufficient Thus write these holy fathers with the famous popish Abbot whose words are so plaine for the truth which I defend as euery childe may with facility discerne the same For I did not say as our Iesuite woulde deceitfully perswade his Reader that Good Works are an impossible mean to come to heauen No nor that the young man did enquire of an impossible way to heauen For I know and I haue constantly affirmed the same in the Downfall that Goodworkes are a meane and the way that leadeth to heauen But withall I said then and now againe that neither can the best liuer on earth keepe the Commandements so exactly as the law requireth neither can any man for any works he doth condignly merit eternal life And this is the point indeede which I defend against the Papists Whosoeuer shall with a single eye pervse the Downfall will find it to be so For it is one thing to say that Good Workes are a meane or the way to heauen another thing to say that a man can fulfill the Law and by his Workes condignely merite heauen The former I graunt willingly the latter I deny constantly neither is any Papist able to answere my reasons in that behalfe For example the Pope Boniface sicke at Rome of his meere good wil bequeathed by his Testament 7000. crownes of Gold to Robert Parsons the Iesuite lame of hands and legs at Paris his lamenesse not knowne to the Pope to be giuen to the said Parsons whē he cōmeth to Rome in his own person to demand the same Now the said Parsons hauing inteligence of the said Legacy prouideth a good Gelding a strong man-like fellow and so taketh his iourney towards Rome where he no sooner demaundeth the saide 7000. Crownes but he in friendly manner receiueth the same acording to the true meaning of the Popes will In this case the Gelding the tall fellow and the iourney it selfe were good necessary meanes to receiue and possesse the said Crownes Howbeit neither did they merite the said Crownes neyther were they the cause of bequeathing them Euen so in our case Eternall life as the Apostle saith is the free gift of God it is of grace not of Workes neuerthelesse Goodworkes as the same Apostle telleth vs are the way which God hath ordained for vs to walke in and the vsuall ordinary vndoubted meanes by which God intendeth to bring his elect to heauen This notwithstanding this must euer bee a constant and vndoubted position with all the children of God viz that none not the best liuer vpon earth is able exactly to keepe Gods commandements and by the merit of his works to enter into heauen S. R. Will not Christ say in his last sentence Come ye blessed of my father possesse the kingdom prouided for you from the constitution of the world I was hungry and ye gaue me meate As well as he will say Go you from me you cursed into euerlasting fire For I was hungry and ye gaue me not to eate T. B. I answere first that the word For is not heere taken Causaliter but Consequutiue to speake as the Schoole-doctors do that is to say It doth not Connotate the cause but the euent as was saide before of Mary Magdalen So that the sence is not for giuing meat to Christ when hee was hungry or drink to him being thirsty they did merit heauen but that by doing such charitable works which are the effects of a true iustifying faith they shewed thēselues to bee the children of God and the heyres of his kingdome And this sence is deduced out of the very text it selfe For seeing the kingdome of heauen as Christ heere auoucheth was prepared for them before the foundation and consequently before they were borne and so before they could doe any Good Workes it followeth of necessity that their workes could not merite heauen but only signifie to the world that the inheritance of heauen was due vnto them as to the children of God the heyres of the same For as the Apostle sayth If we be sonnes then are we also heyres heyres of God and ioynt-heires with Christ. Yea as the same Apostle saith in another place As he chose vs in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight through loue who hath predestiuated vs into the adoption of children by Iesus Christ vnto himselfe according to the good pleasure of his will To which I must needs adde that which the same Apostle saith yet in another place Whom he did predestinate them also he called and whom he called them also he iustified and whom he iustified them also he glorified Out of this holy discourse of the Apostle of our Lord Iesus I obserue these golden lessons First that we are the sonnes of God not by nature for so we are his enemies and the children of wrath but by grace and adoption in Iesus Christ. Secondly that God chose vs to be his Children before we were borne Thirdly that he chose vs not because wee were holy but that we might be holy and immaculate in his sight Fourthly that he predestinated vs to bee his Children by adoption not for any Goodworkes
etiam involuntarios These thinges are spoken after the minde of Saint Austen who vnderstandeth all the motions euen those which bee involuntary to bee forbidden in some sort by this Commaundement Thou shalt not Lust. VVhere wee see that not onely Bellarmine theyr Cardinall but Saint Austen that woorthy Piller of the Church affirmeth both Originall concupiscence and the involuntary Motions thereof to be forbidden in this precept Where I may not forget to tell the Reader that though Bellarmine to make his matter good if it would addeth to Saint Austens wordes In some sort yet dooth Saint Austen write very simply and sayth flatly that they are prohibited and addeth not Quodam modo In some sort That is Bellarmines addition it is not in Saint Austen Secondly that habituall Originall Lust is not idle but woorketh ill desires in vs continually agaynst our vvill So sayth S. Austen in these words Agit n. Aliquid concupiscentia carnis c. For concupiscence of the flesh worketh somthing euen when there is not giuen vnto it either the consent of the heart where it may raigne or the members as VVeapons which may accomplish what it appointeth And what doth it but the very wicked and filthy desires For if they were good and lawfull the Apostle would not forbid to obey them Marke these wordes gentle Reader for they are of great consequence and giue a deadly blowe to the Papistes Two thinges are cleered by this Testimony of Saint Austen the one that Concupiscence to which consent is not giuen bringeth foorth ill desires the other that the sayde desires are vnlawfull and prohibited by the Law of GOD. And so wee haue euidently prooued that habituall Concupiscence to which the regenerate yeelde no consent but stoutly resist the same is so farre from beeing meritorious as the Papists would haue it that it is sinne formally and properly so called And wee haue further that habituall concupiscence worketh ill desires in vs against our will and therefore that those desires are truely called originall because vvee doe them not but rather suffer them to bee doone in vs. Thirdly that though the Law in saying Thou shalt not lust seemeth by the force of the word which signifyeth action to prohibite onely the voluntary act of concupiscence yet dooth it forbidde the very Originall Concupiscence it selfe withall the braunches effects and involuntary motions thereof as is already prooued at large Yea Saint Austen doth vnderstand it as Bellarmine himselfe doth grant Heere for the help of the Reader I note that a threefold Concupiscence is forbidden by the tenth Commandement The first is meerely called Originall This is that vvhich vve all contracted of Adam and which is the Fountaine of all concupiscences and sins and therefore truely called of the Apostle sin The second is partly Originall and partly Actuall Originall because it yssueth naturally from the Originall prauity of our nature Actuall for that we couet in act albeit against our wil and because it is against our wil it is more properly truly called Originall then actuall The third is meerely actuall because it is voluntary S. R. I must note Bels important vntruths First that Pope Vrban and Pope Innocent confirmed Saint Thomas his doctrine for authenticall Secondly that Pope Vrban gaue it the first place after cannonicall scripture T. B. This Fryer seemeth to bee framed of lying and as hee hath vsually spent his whole dispute so in the end of the article he closeth it vp with leasing Whosoeuer shal pervse The Downfall of Popery wil soon espy how this Fryer loadeth my back with slaunderous speeches and false reports I will heere in regard of breuity onely set downe the Testimony of a famous Papist Augustinus Hunnaeus by name in that Epistle which he sent to Pope Pius the fift These are his words Vrbanus c. Vrbanus that worthy Prelate of the Apostolique sea admiring the excellent doctrine of this man he speaketh of Aquinas beholding it as fallen from heauen to driue away the naturall mist of ignorance from mens minds doth grauely exhort to the study thereof and commaundeth the vniuersity of Tholouse to follow it as the cheefe in all their disputations and aunsweres concerning faith and manners Innocentius the fift of that name esteemed the same mans Doctrine so greatly that hee doubted not to giue it the first place after the Cannonicall scripture Thus writeth Hunnaeus By whose words it may appeare in what reuerence the Doctrine of Aquinas is with the Papists as also that our Iesuite cannot answere me but by lying And thus I will end this article with these words of our Iesuite Habituall cōcupiscence includeth not only pronesse to euill but also difficulty to do good and want of habibituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill Thus writeth our Iesuite who after he hath long wearied himselfe in struggling against the truth doth at the length vnawares confesse the same For doubtlesse when he graunteth that habituall Concupiscence in the regenerate includeth want of habituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill he graunteth in substance in the truth of the matter as much as I desire He denyeth in wordes that Originall concupiscence is formally sinne but in effect and substance hee graunteth the very same Whosoeuer shal seriously ponder both my discourse heere and in the Downefall especially concerning the Nature definition and essence of sinne he will perceiue with all facility that the Iesuite woulde say as I write if hee were not affrayde to displease the Pope The fift Article of the merite of Good workes S. R. BEls first position containeth two partes the first is that good workes neither do nor can goe before Iustification Behold Bell euen where he would proue himselfe a friend to good workes sheweth himselfe to be an enemy and excluding them from any going before or any way concurring to iustification to which they so concurred in Saint Mary Magdalen as our Sauiour saide Many sinnes are forginen her because shee loued much making her loue a kind of cause viz disponent of her Iustification T. B. Our Iesuite wold gladly perswade his reader that I am an enemy to good workes The best mean he hath to defend himselfe and Popery withall is cogging lying and false dealing I must needs be an enimy to Good workes because I will not admit euill workes for good I say with S. Austen Sequuntur iustificatum non precedent iustificandum Good Workes follow him that is iustified but they go not before him that is to be iustified Behold here gentle Reader that S. Austen is the same enemy to Good workes that I am He affirmeth them to follow iustification and so doe I. Hee denyeth them to goe before iustification and so doe I. What a thing is this Our Iesuite dareth not call Saint Austen an enemy to Good Workes and yet doth he call mee so
So as it may truely be said that some sinnes are Mortall some Veniall though not in Popish sence and meaning For though sinnes be mortall in their owne Nature and not at all Veniall yet are all sinnes Veniall to the Faithfull by the great mercy of GOD who imputeth no sinnes to his elect Children wheÌ„ he beholdeth their Robes washed made white in the bloud of the immaculate Lamb. These I say must bee well marked and firmely imprinted in our remembrance viz Nonâ—n imputat his qui fideliter ei dicunt dimitte nobis debita nostra For hee doth not impute their sinnes to them who faithfully desire pardon for their sinnes Sinnes therefore are Veniall but to whom Not to Atheists denying God not to Pharisees boasting of their Condigne workes not to Infidels denying Christes merits not to impenitent persons who eyther dispaire or take delight in sinne but to the faithful who euer haue a feruent desire to do Gods holy will and to keepe his Commaundements And though of ignorance or frailty they often fall into sinne yet do they foorthwith bewayle their sinnes humbly craue pardon for the same and apply themselues wholly to woorthy fruites of repentance Fourthly that when we either want charity or haue it not in that degree and perfection which the Law requireth we forthwith commit sinne and become guilty in that behalfe Fiftly that we sinne euen in doing that which we can no way auoyd Hereof Saint Austen yeeldeth this reason viz that if we can auoid it then our present will is culpable in default if we cannot auoyd it theÌ„ will past was the cause thereof For as the same holy father saith elsewhere is to be seen in the Downefall euery such sin of ours is voluntary eytheir in the worke it selfe or else in the Originall that is to say in the Protoplast Adam whose will in Gods iust iudgement is reputed ours because we were in his loynes as in the beginning and root of all mankind To which I adde that though the Deuill cannot auoyde sinne yet cannot our Papists deny but he both sinneth heynously and voluntarily yea the Phylopher telleth vs That the drunken man deserueth double punnishment For we must euer haue in minde that our necessity of sinning is punishment iustly inflicted vpon vs as proceeding from our voluntary sinne in Adam I likewise adde for a complement and consummation of the doctrin which I now deliuer and defend that Celestine against whose errours Saint Austen wrote this Booke Deperfectionciustitiae defended Mordicus as a resolued vndoubted doctrine That vvhatsoeuer Man could not auoyde but doe of necessity could not truely bee called sinne nor for sinne be iustly imputed to him To whom Saint Austen answered that albeit wee cannot in this corruption of Nature liue wholy without sin but so farre onely as our nature is healed yet might we haue auoided sin perfectly and wholly before Adams fall which is enough to make vs truly and formally sinners in Gods sight Let his wordes bee well marked and remembred and this controuersie wil soone be at an end For it is all one as if S. Austen had sayde Though we cannot now liue without sinne but sinne of necessity yet are our sinnes iustly and truely imputed to vs because we sinned voluntarily in Adam and by that means most iustly brought this necessity vpon vs. This Doctrine the Papistes Volentes Nolentes must admit or else accuse God of Iniustice for condemning Infants eternally for that sinne which they cannot possibly auoyde For infants dying without Baptisme they affirme to perish euerlastingly S. R. As for Bels dilernma it is easily aunswered and might haue been better left out as himselfe writeth in the margent For though Infantes after they haue sinned and eaten the Apple in Adam cannot avoyde the guilt of Originall sinne but must needs contract it by origine from Adam Yet becautse as Infants sinned in Adam so they might haue not sinned in him but haue auoided the guilt of sinne falsely dooth Bell say they could not possibly auoyde it And I wonder why Bell hauing taught beefore that Concupiscence the effect of Originall Sinne is voluntary hee will now say that Infants could not possibly auoyde Originall sinne But it is his custome to gainsay himselfe T. B. I answere First that in the Downefall of Popery these words are written indeed in the Margent Omittatur haec clausula meo indicio But I protest that neyther did I write them neyther did they please mee when I espyed them Many like faultes are in many of my Books which I cannot deale withall If I had Money at my will as our Iesuite hath to defray my charges while my Bookes were at the Presse I could then so handle the matter as such faults should not offend his worship How this Marginall note crept into the place I may coniecture and bee deceiued This I am assured of that our Iesuites can do greater matters This euery child may know that I wrote it not but our lesuite will needes haue it so For if I would haue had it left out it was in my power to haue effected the same this supposed which I deny that it was mine owne act Secondly that our Iesuit killeth himselfe with his own sword For I contend against him that all sinnes are voluntary in Adam and the Law possible to haue bin kept in him which the Iesuite vnawares doth heere confesse against himselfe This is the maine point in Controuersie viz whether that which we cannot auoyd may bee sinne in vs or no. I hold the Affirmatiue out Iesuite the Negatiue I reply that infantes are guilty of that sinne which they could not avoyde and consequently that that may be sinne in vs which wee cannot avoyde But withall I constantly affirme that infants sinned voluntarily in Adam because they were in his loynes as also that we might haue kept the commaundements in innocent Adam though after corrupt Adam we cannot possibly performe the same This notwithstanding I deny that infantes could any way haue avoyded Originall sin For I cannot conceiue how a childe can avoyd that sin which was committed before he was borne For though it was once in Adams power to haue auoyded all sinne and so to haue freed all his posterity from all sinne yet was it neuer in any Infants power to haue caused Adam to keep Gods holy precept which seeing no Infant was able to performe neyther could any Infant possibly haue auoyded sin Our Iesuite therefore must learne to know that it is one thing to say that it was in Adams power not to haue transgressed Gods Lawe another thing to say that it was in our power before wee were borne to haue kept Adam from that transgression Which seeing it was neuer in our power neyther were wee euer able to haue auoyded the same and consequently neither to haue auoyded sinne Thirdly where our Iesuite saith it is