calleth it iniquity and lib. 1. de nupt concupisc cap. 27. filthy and vnlavvful Hence Bel pag. 53. inferreth inuoluntary More required to formal sinne then to euil concupiscence to be formal and proper sinne but he is far deceaued For formal sinne beside euil and vnlawfulnes requiteth voluntarines as I shal hereafter proue and is euident in fooles and beasts who though they haue these inuoluntary acts are no formal sinners 5. Fourth Conclusion whensoeuer it is any way voluntary ether in it self or in any needles cause therof it is formally sinne This is euident because then it hath the whole essence or definition of sinne for it is a voluntary act against Gods law or right reason I say needles cause because if the cause be necessary or honest it excuseth the actual concupiscence following therof from fault 6. Fift Conclusion Habitual and actual Al Concupiscence may be called sinne vvhy Concupiscence whatsoeuer euen in the regenerate may be called sinne This is manifest out of that which hath bene said in the 2 and ◠conclusion For ether it is voluntary and then it is formal sinne properly so called or though it be vn voluntary it is the cause effect punishment or material part of sinne and any of these reasons suffice to make it figuratiuely be called sinne And they al are taken out of S. Austin For 1. de nupt concup c. 23. he saith Concupiscence may be called sinne because it is the effect of sinne as writing is called a hand And in the same place because it is the cause of sinne as coldnes is called sluggish because it maketh sluggish Likwise 1. Retract c. 15. he calleth it sinne because it is the punishment therof So Zachar vlt. v. 19. punishment of sinne is called sinne And finally lib. 5. cont Iulian. c. 3. he calleth actual concupiscence sinne because it is a disorderly act and it wanteth nothing of sinne but voluntarines and therfore may as wel be called sinne as a dead body is called a man And who wel remembreth what is said in these fiue Conclusions need no more to answer al Bels arguments For as we shal see he proueth no more then they containe 7. Sixt Conclusion Actual concupiscence Actual Cōcupiscence if inuoluntary is no formal sinne whensoeuer it is inuoluntary is no formal or proper sinne or offence to God This is against Bel in this whole Article But I proue it First because some acts of Concupiscence be but temptatiōs to sinne and are before sinne be brought forth Ergo such are no formal sinne The consequence is euident For what is but tentation to sinne and goeth before sinne be is no proper sinne The Antecedent I proue out of S. Iames saying Euery one is tempted by his Concupiscence S. Iames c. 1. v. 14. 15. See S. Austin lib. 6. cont Iul. cap. 15. to 7. behold an act but a tempting of vs to sinne aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceaued it bringeth forth sinne behold also an act of Concupiscence going before sinne be brought forth Willet saith nothing to VVillet controuers 17. q. 1. p. 558. the first part of tentation but to the second of bringing forth he answereth That it follovveth not Concupiscence to be no sinne because it bringeeh forth sinne because one viper may bring forth an other But we infer not Concupiscence to be no sinne because it bringeth forth sinne for we wel know that one sinne may bring forth an other but we gather that that act of Cōcupiscence which S. Iames tearmeth conceauing of sinne is no sinne because he affirmeth it to go before the bringing forth of sinne in saying Aftervvard vvhen Concupiscence hath conceaued it bringeth forth sinne and this could not be if it were sinne it self Caluin answereth this Caluin lib. 3. instit c. 3. paragr 13. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss grat stat peccat c. 7. argument otherwaies whom Bellarmin confureth 8. Secondly because whiles a man with the minde serueth the law of God he can not by sinne serue the dyuel But S. Paul euen when he had inuoluntary motions of concupiscence serued with the minde the law of God Therfore then he sinned not The Proposition is euident by the saying S. Math. 6. v. 24. S. Paul of Christ None can at once serue tvvo maisters The assumption S. Paul testifieth Roman 7. v. 25. saying I my self vvith the minde serue the lavv of God but vvith the flesh the lavv of sinne 9. Thirdly nothing inuoluntary or done against our wil is sinne diuers acts of Concupiscence be such Ergo no sinne Bel Bel pag. 50. Perkins refor Cath. tit Of original sinne wold gladly as some of his fellowes do deny the proposition and therfore streight after he had propounded the argument telleth vs though falsly that S. Austin proueth inuoluntary motions to be sinne indeed and towards the end of this Article auoucheth a man to be guilty of sinne in that pag. 57. vvhich he doth against his vvil and can not auoid yet at last resolueth rather to deny the Assumption pag. 51. wherfore I proue them both The proposition I proue out of that very place of S. Austin which Bel citeth to the S. Augustin to 1. contrary Sin saith he 1. Retract c. 13. is so far forth voluntary euil as it is no vvay sinne if it be not voluntary And this saith he lib. de vera relig c. 14. is so manifest as nether the fevvnes of learned no◠the multitude of vnlearned doth deny it And wil Bel now deny that which in S. Austins tyme nether learned nor vnlearned would deny Now let the 46. vntruth Reader iudge with what face Bel affirmed that S. Austin in the foresaid place 1. Retract proueth inuoluntary Concupiscence to be sinne where he most manifestly affirmeth nothing to be any way sinne if it be not voluntary and therupon laboreth to shew original sinne in infants to be some way voluntary And in an other place he S. Augustin lib. de duab animab c. 1◠tom 6. 1. Retract c. 23. to 1. S. Hierom. auoucheth it to be high iniustice and madnes that a man shold be guilty of sinne because he did not that which he could not do And S. Hierom. epist ad Damas de exposit fid Accurseth their blasphemy vvho say that God hath commanded any impossible thing as no doubt he hath if we sinne in that which we can not auoid See him dialog cont Pelag. S. Chrisostom S. Chrysost tom 4. S. Prosper S. Augustin tom 10. Tom. 7. hom 13 ad Rom. Prosper de vita contempl c. 4. S. Austin serm 61. de temp de nat grat c. 69. in psal 56. and others By reason also it is manifest For if inuoluntary acts done against our wil be true sins much more the acts of fooles and mad men yea of beasts which are not done against wil but only without wil and they true malefactors and sinners before
God and men which I think none but a madde man wil graunt And I doubt not but Bel would think him self vniustly executed if he were put to death for a thing done against his wil and which he labored al he could to hinder 10. The Assumption I proue because if If Concupiscence be not some tymes inuoluntary nothing is inuoluntary that be not inuoluntary wherof we giue no occasion nor consent vnto yea detest and hinder al we can as it hapneth oftentymes in the motions of Concupiscence I can not see what can be inuoluntary vnto vs. And if they be Papists as Bel tearmeth them pag. 51. who cal such acts of Concupiscence S. Paul S Augustin serm 43. de verb. Dom. See serm 3. 5. and 12. de verb. Apost Bel a Papist by his ovvn iudgment inuoluntary A Papist is S. Paul saying Rom. 7. v. 19. I do the euil which I vvil not And S. Austin when he saith I vvil not that Cōcupiscence couet we wold ther were no Cōcupiscences but wil we nil we we haue them Yea Bel him self no les then they thrice in this Article pag. 50. 51. and 57. in plaine termes calleth these motions inuoluntary 11. But to this argument he answereth Bel pag. 51. That they be voluntary in their origin and therto citeth S. Austin affirming original sinne of S. Austin 1. retract c. 13. tom 1. infants to be voluntary in their origin and calleth this the Gordion knot which Papists can neuer vntie and so clear and euident a solution of the argument as euery child may behold the weaknes falshood and absurditie therof But Bel is ignorant VVhat is to be voluntary in the origen what it is to be voluntary in the origen For this is nothing els but to be willed of him from whom we took our origin and whose wil is accounted ours As original sinne is voluntary to infants in their origin because it was willed of Adam in the eating of the forbidden Aple and his wil was in that fact accounted theirs And this ment S. Austin loc cit But as for actual motions 1. Retract c. 13. to 1. of concupiscence he neuer said they were voluntaty to vs in their origin nether can VVhy inuoluntary motions are not voluntary in their origen S. Gregory they both because Adam had no wil of cōmitting these acts as he had of leesing original iustice in eating the Aple as also because his wil was not accounted ours in any other act then in his keeping or first leesing of original iustice Besides as S. Gregory writeth l. 15. moral c. 22. Original sinne being blotted out children are not held by the iniquity of parents and therfore Adams wil can not make those acts in the regenerate to be sinne which of their nature are none 12. And though the forsaid motiōs were Inuoluntary motions though they vvere voluntary in their origen could be no sinne voluntary in their origen yet could they be nether original nor actual sinne Not original because they are acts and not common alike to al Nor actual because they haue no actual wil of the doer and as voluntary in general is essential to sinne in general so is actual voluntary to actual sinne Yea for an act now done to be formal sinne when it is done sufficeth not that it was actually voluntary in the cause done long ago if now it be against wil. For albeit when I gaue cause of an vnlawful effect which I did see wold after ensue I was guilty of the effect when I did the cause yet if after the cause done I repent be sory before the effect follow I do not sinne a new in the effect As if by some thing yesterday done I gaue occasiō that disordinate motiōs rise to day though I was then guilty of these motions rising yet if I since repented I do not sinne a new when they rise now against my wil. Els I should against my wil leese that grace which I got by repentance Wherfore wel wrote S. Gregory to S. Austin our Apostle S. Gregory epist ad Augustin Cant. c. 10. Oftentymes it is done without fault which cōmeth of fault And much les should inuoluntary motions be sinnes in vs though they were originally voluntary vnto vs only by the wil of an other Thus is this Gordion knot two waies vntyed But him selfe hath with his tong tyed so fast a knot for proofe Bel disproueth him selfe of my conclusion as with his teeth he wil not be able to loose For pag. 48. he affirmeth S. Paul to haue bene most free and innocent 12. Contradict touching actual sinne and he proueth it because he fought mightily against his raging concupiscence and did in no wise yeeld therunto which is both to confesse that S Paul had inuoluntary motions of the flesh which him selfe acknowledgeth Rom. 7. v. 15 17. 19. 23. yet to proue them to be no sinne in him because they were inuoluntary which is both my conclusion and reason 13. As for S. Austin he is so far from S. Augustin 10. 2. See S. Austin lib. 2 cont Iul. c. 3. 10. l. 5. c. 3. 15. thinking that we sinne by inuoluntary motions of the flesh as he saith epist 200. ad Asellicum That if we consent not to them we need not say Forgiue vs our trespasses which he repeateth againe l. de spit lit c. vlt. adding Tom. 3. that if we cōsented not to these act◠we should disproue that saying of S. Ihon If vve say vve haue no sinne vve deceaue our selfs and proueth it l. 1. de ciuit c. 15. thus If concupiscential disobedience Tom. 5. be vvithout fault in the body of one sleeping hovv much more in the body of one not consenting And l. 1. de nupt concupis c. 23. explicateth how it is called sinne vz as vvriting is called a hand or cold sluggish vvhich is figuratiuely improperly Nay he not only excuseth vs from sinne when we consent not vnto inuoluntary motions of the flesh but auoucheth that then we do much good a great Merit in resisting Concupiscence according to S Austin Tom. 7. Tom. 10. matter for vvhich vve shal be crovvned lib. 1. de nupt concupisc c. 29. He doth much good vvho doth that vvhich is vvritten Follovv not thy lusts And serm 5. de verb. Apost c. 6. It is a great matter for me not to be ouercome of concupiscence and cap. 9. who consenteth not doth much it is a great matter he doth And lib. 2. de Gen. cont Manich. c. 14. Somtyme reason Tom. 1. doth manfully refraine and bridle Concupiscence euen stirred vp vvhich vvhen it is done vve fal not into sinne mark Bel but vvith some striuing are crovvned Wherfore if they be Papists as Bel Contradict 13. saith pag. 46. and 49. who say we merit when we resist Concupiscence surely S. Austin is one Yea Bel himself if he account it
affirmeth ptoueth that we do not what we wil not And the A man rather doth not then doth vvhat his vvil doth not See S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 74. art 3. ad 3. reason is euident For as the commonwelth is principally the Prince Pieres and Magistrats which gouerne the rest so a man is principally his wil which commandeth the rest And therfore as the cōmonwealth doth not that which they do not though some of the commonalty do it so a man doth not what his wil doth not though some of his inferior powres do it If therfore S. Paul did but improperly say he doth what he wil not Bel can therof inferre but improper sinne Besides though it were a proper speech therof can be inferred no proper sinne for want of voluntarines And here by the way Bel straweth his Bel pag. 43. flowers of leasing saying That the cause why S. Austin epist 105. vvrote that God crovvned 52. vntruth nothing but his ovvne gifts vvhen he crovvneth our merits is because the regenerate by inuoluntary asts of Concupiscence sinne and become guilty of damnation For nether doth S. Austin speake there of inuoluntary acts nether any where S. August 2. de Cenes contr Manich c. 14. tom 1. doth he say they exclude merit or deserue damnation yea plainly auoucheth that vve are crovvned vvhen vve haue them against our vvil And the true cause of his speech shal be giuen in the next Article of merit and his very words conuince that our merits are no sinnes and much les deserue damnation VVhy merits are no sinne out of S. Austin for he calleth them Gods owne gifts and saith he crowneth them but God nether giueth nor crowneth sinne 5. Fourthly Bel alleadged the Apostle pag. 43. Cap. 1. parag 3. 4. 6. 13. 18. calling Concupiscence sinne Rom. 7. v. 14. and 20. But this we answered before Bel replyeth that it wil not suffice to say with Bellarmin 53. vntruth that it is called sinne only because it prouoketh to sinne as a mans vvriting is called his hand because 54. vntruth it is vvritten vvith his hand Here be two vntruths fathered vpon Bellarmin For nether doth he say Concupiscence is called sinne only because it prouoketh to sinne yea lib. 5. de amiss grat stat pec c. 8. he Bellarm. giueth an other reason out of S. Austin because it is the effect of sinne Nether doth he say that it may be called sinne because it prouoketh to sinne as writing is called a hand because it is made by a hand for so it is a cause and writing an effect but as cold is called sluggish because it maketh sluggards But let vs hear why S. Paul may not be vnderstood of improper sinne First because Bel pag. 43. the Maister of Sentences graunted Concupiscence to be sinne This is twise sod colworts set again before his reader for want of other meat but reiected before Secondly because it maketh a man to serue the lavv of sinne vvhich Sup. parag 1. seruice can neuer be but sinne Here the question it self is begged For the question it self is Bel assumeth vvhat he vvas to proue and yet concludeth nothing whither the seruice to the law of sinne done by the flesh not by the mynd as S. Paul speaketh Rom. 7. vers 23. be proper sinne or no and that Bel beggeth of vs to graunt But he must win it ere he get it And though we did graūt it to him yet could he no more infer therof that habitual Concupiscence which causeth it is sinne then he can infer the powre of our wil which is a gift of God to be sinne when it causeth sinne Thirdly saith Bel because the euil vvherof S. Paul speaketh he hateth and vvil not Bel hath wold not do it which must needs be meant of sinne True but of material and improper sinne For such also is to be hated and not to be willed 6. Bel hauing thus sillily proued his heresy Bel pag. 43. 44. out of S. Paul endeuoreth to proue it out of our doctrin thus Al reprobataes are reprobated both negatiuely and positiuely for original sinne Ergo Concupiscence is sinne euen after baptisme The Antecedent saith he is a maine vntruth 55. point and settled ground of Papists religion and he vvillingly graunteth it The consequence he proueth because some reprobates are baptized Answer First I deny the Antecedent For 1. Ansvver nether doth any Catholique affirme it to be any point at al of Popish faith much lesse a maine point or ground therof nether though some beleeue it as a school opinion is it true because original sinne being as truly forgiuen in baptisme to many reprobates as it is to predestinates they can be no more positiuely sent to hel for it then predestinates For as S. Paul saith Rom. 11. S. Paul v. 29. Gods gifts are vvithout repentance so that what sinne he truly forgiueth he neuer afterward punisheth in hel wherfore S Prosper S. Prosper in resp ad obiect 2. Gallor writeth that vvho goeth from Christ and endeth this life out of grace vvhat goeth he but into perdition yet he falleth not againe into that vvhich is forgiuen nor shal be damned in original sinne Only as al sinns are sayd to returne by Hovv reprobats may be sayd to be reprobated for original sinne ingratitude according to the parable of the vngrateful seruant Math. 18. because a sinne after others haue bene pardoned becometh greater by the ingratitude then otherwise it were so original sinne pardoned to some reprobats in baptisme may be said to returne to them through their ingratitude in sinning after the said pardon and they being positiuely damned for such sinne may in some sort be said to be positiuely damned for original sinne Secōdly though 2. Ansvver the Antecedent were true it could not follow therof that Concupiscence in reprobates is formal sinne but only that original sinne is not truly forgiuen in baptisme to any reprobat which though it be false perteineth not to this question For as for habitual Cap. 1. parag 2. 3. Concupiscence it nether before baptisme nor after is formal sinne but before only materially sinne and after only languor and weaknes as is before explicated But how Bel admitting al reprobates to be reprobated positiuely for sinne agreeth with his Maisters Caluin Beza and others Caluin Beza Rom. 9. teaching that they are reprobated for Gods pleasure and that he made them to damne and reprobate them let his breethren in Bel contradicteth his sellovv Ministers Bel pag. 45. the lord enquire Now to his places taken out of S. Austin whom he promiseth to shew to be so plaine for his doctrin as none can stand in doubt therof But who wel remembreth S. Austins words and Caluins Chap. 1. parag 13. 18. confession before cited can neuer stand in doubt but that Bel most braggeth wher he hath lest cause and
obedience And that Christ hath giuen him most ful powre as S. Cyril saith he teacheth lib. thesaur which proofe out of S. Cyril this honest challenger left out Austin of Ancona affirmeth Augustin do Ancona in summa p. 152. that The Pope as Christs vicar hath vniuersal iurisdiction ouer al Kingdoms and Empiers Did euer man see greater impudency what word is here of equal powre with God Nay expresse word of inequality if vicars be vnequal to principals deputies to Kings Did Christs humanity when it receaued most ful powre Math. 28. v. 18. and authority S. Mathevv ouer al kingdoms and bounds of the earth psal 2. v. 8. receaue equal powre to Dauid God And if the powre of Christ as man though neuer so ful and vniuersal were create and vnequal to Gods powre who can imagin the powre giuen by Christ as man to a pure man to be equal to Gods I omit Bels error in affirming that Austin of Ioan. 12. liued 956. August de Ancona 1305. Onuph in chron Ancona dedicated his booke to Pope Ihon the twelft who was dead almost 400. years before him But he shold haue said Ihon 22. and this error can not be laid vpon the Printer seeing the number is set downe not in cyphers but letters 2. His dissimulation is euident First because Dissimulati◠4. he concealeth that the opinion That matrimony only contracted may be vpon vrgent occasion dissolued is held but of some Canonists and of very few deuines who commonly hold the contrary But impugneth Bel impugneth an opinion of Canonists and of Protestants as a matter of faith 5. Dissimulation Surius Ann. 1540. Vid. Lindan l. de concordia Haereticor p. 69. it as if it were held of al Catholiques and as a point of their faith Secondly he imposeth the said opinion vpon Catholiques only dissembling that Protestants think not only matrimony contracted but also consummated by carnal copulation may be dissolued impugne Catholiques for not admitting any cause of dissoluing such matrimony 3. Luther the Protestants first Father writ a booke 1540. where he auoucheth it to be hard and vniust that the innocent person may not marry an other after separation made for adultery Caluin calleth it a Caluin 4. instit c. 19. paragr 37. most vniust law Likwise Bucer in cap. 19. Math. Melancht de loc tit de coniugio Kemnitius in 2. part exami And Willet in VVillet controu 15. q. 2. p. 526. 527. name of English Protestants Al these affirme that adultery is a iust cause why euen consummated marriage may be dissolued and a new contracted Luther addeth other Luther in c. 7. ad Corinth edit 1523. causes as the one persuading the other to sinne much debate betwene them and long absence of the one party which if it be done of malice seemeth iust cause to willet and therto he citeth Beza 1. Corinth VVillet sup 7. and other Protestants And this was practized in K. Edward 6. tyme when Syr Ralf Sadler hauing maried one Mathew Baro his wife in his absence though Baro had begotten children of her yet could not recouer her but by Parlament she was adiudged to Sadler Caluin addeth want of Caluin Bucer sup consent of parents if the parties be yong and Bucer addeth incommodious behauior of ether party to be a sufficient cause 4. Wherfore if the Pope by dissoluing Bel pag. 37. contracted matrimony which he doth very seldom and vpon vrgent occasion weighty cause challenge as Bel saith powre equal to God Surely Protestants by dissoluing consummated matrimony often and vpon so many causes wherof some are very smale and not sufficient to dissolue a meere ciuil contract do challenge powre aboue God But let vs see how he against some Catholiques and generally al Protestants proueth that contracted matrimony can not be dissolued but by God alone for any cause whatsoeuer 5. His reason is because Christ said Math. pag. 38. c. 19. v. 6. what God hath ioyned let not man seperate and Luc. 16. v. 18. Euery one that putteth away his wife and marieth an other committeth adultery And S. Paul 1. Corinth c. 7. v. 10. Those that are ioyned in matrimony command not I but our lord that the wife depart not from the husband but if she depart abide vnmaried or be reconciled to her husband To this the Canonists answer That Christ and his Apostle spake only of consummated matrimony because Math. 19. Christ forbiddeth seperation of such as immediatly before he had said to be made one flesh which is by consummation of matrimony And likewise Luc. 16. prohibiteth mariage after dismission of a wife carnally known as is gathered out of Math. 5. v. 32. where he vseth the same words and citeth the law of diuorce Deut. 24. v. 1. which speaketh of a woman carnally known saying If a man haue taken a vvife and had her and she haue not found fauor in his eyes for some filthines he shal c. And hereby are answered the words of S. Paul in which he referreth him self to the precept of Christ Besids that S. Thecla virgin was by him soluta à nuptijs losed from mariage as writeth S. Epiph. haer 78. which S. Epiphan fact S. Ambros lib. 2. de virg commendeth S. Ambros and it argueth that the Apostle tought vnconsummated mariage might be dissolued 6. Against this answer Bel bringeth many replies in number but none of force 1. That if contracted matrimony were not de iure pag. 38. diuino the greatest Popish Doctors vvold not deny the Popes dispensation therin Lo here when it maketh for his purpose he confesseth the greatest Catholique Doctors to think contracted matrimony to be indissoluble Why then doth he impugne the contrary as an Article of our faith To his argument I answer that though al Catholiques beleeue the institution of contracted matrimony to be of God and Deuines for the most part probably thinke the continuance also therof to be iure diuino and commanded by God yet neuertheles Canonists do probably teach that the continuance of it is not absolutly and in al cases commanded by God but may vpon great and vrgent causes be dissolued by the Church 7. Secondly he replyeth that Christ speaketh absolutly and maketh no mention of copulation or popish consummation Answer Though in that verse he spake absolutly yet immediatly before he made mention of copulation And wil Bel forbid vs to expound a sentence of Scripture by the antecedents or consequents But I maruel much why he tearmed consummation or copulation popish Me thinketh he shold rather cal it Ministerish For Papists can say with S. Austin lib. de bono coniug c. 13. tom 6. VVe S. Austin see lib. 5. cont Faust c. 9. haue many brethren and companions of the heauenly inheritance of both sexes vvho are continent ether after experience of mariage or are free from al such copulation such are innumerable But for Ministers their first
when consent is not giuen vnto it to vnlawful acts And soone after But in a certain kind of speech it is called sinne and he giueth there two reasons of this figuratiue speech because saith he it was made of sinne and maketh sinne if it ouercome Again So is Concupiscence called sinne because it was made by sinne vvheras novv in the regenerate it selfe is no sinne mark again as speech which the tong maketh is called a tong writing a hand vvhich a hand maketh So also it is called a sinne because it maketh sinne if it ouercome as cold is called sluggish because it maketh sluggards Can any Catholique now speak more plainly In these few words al in one chapter he twise denyeth concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne once affirmeth it to be improperly so called and giueth two reasons and two examples of such figuratiue speech The S. Augustin to 7. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss Grat. stat peccati c. 8. same doctrin he teacheth l. 1. contr duas epist Pelag. c. 13. and l. 2. cont Iulian in al his tomes as Bellarmin sheweth So that whatsoeuer Bel hereafter shal obiect out of S. Paul S. Austin or others calling concupiscence S. Austin hath preuented al Bels obiections sinne I need not answer my selfe but referre the Reader to these words of S. Austin wherin he explicateth both why and how S. Paul him selfe and others meane not properly but improperly and figuratiuely when they cal concupiscence sinne Yet because Bels arguments containe diuers vntruths requisite to be taxed I wil answer them al in such order as he proposeth them CHAP. II. Diuers vntruthes of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin in the former chapter ansvvered BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 41. the rest with vntruths 1. That S. Paul in vntruth 47 the whole 7. chapter to the Romans proueth original concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne This is not so for he doth not proue it to be any sinne at al but supposing it to prouoke to sinne calleth it sinne 2. That Papists vntruth 48 can not abide the Apostles doctrin Forsooth because we can not abide Bels exposition 3. That the cause of our denying Concupiscence to vntruth 49 be sinne is because it ouerthroweth our holy so supposed iustification thus blasphemously he denyeth Bel blaspbemeth iustification iustification to be holy our inherent purities condigne merits works of supererogation This is vntrue for it might be such sinne as Bel wold haue it to wit venial and destroy Bel art 6. p. 81. none of al these But the true causes are Scriptures Fathers reason before alleadged and Bel confesseth that the reason pag. 50. which we euer haue in our mouth is the inuoluntarines of concupiscence 4. That the Maister of Sentences vtterly condemneth vs in calling vntruth 50 3. sent d. 19. concupiscence culpam But he meaneth improperly as is euident by his owne words 2. dist 32. Concupiscence after baptisme saith he is only mark Bel punishment of sinne but before baptisme both punishment and fault 2. Thus hauing made his way with vntruths Bel pag. 42. he proueth cōcupiscence to be sinne out of S. Paul Rom. 7. v. 25. saying I my selfe with the mynd serue the law of God but with the flesh the law of sinne And hence noteth that the regenerate do serue the law of sinne But he forgot to note that it is but with the flesh and that with the mynd without which Ibid. there is no formal sinne they serue the law of God He also noteth That the best liuers can not merit grace and glory ex condigno because by sinne they deserue death VVhich because S. Austin saith he at the first could not disgest he vnderstood S. Paul in the 7. chapter to the Romans only 51. vntruth of the vvicked not of the godly But remitting Bel forgetteth his matter the matter of merit and desert of sinne to their proper places art 5. and 6. false it is that S. Austin changed his opinion about the vnderstanding of those words of S. Paul Rom. 7. I am a carnal man solde vnder sinne and the like because he saw that iust men sinned For as him selfe testifyeth 1. Retract S. Austin c. 23. and Bel wrongly cited 22. he reading other expositors found that the foresaid words might be vnderstood of the Apostle him selfe as the word carnal may be verifyed of him in respect of his body not yet spiritual and the word sinne in respect of concupiscence which is sinne vz improperly as the same S. Austin explicateth Lib. 1. de nupt concupis c. 23. l. 1. cont duas epist Pelag. c. 13. in the books to which he referreth vs and we cited them before Wherby we see that S. Austins error was in vnderstanding the foresaid words of formal and proper sinne as Bel doth and corrected it by vnderstanding them of improper sinne And yet euen when he was in that error he was so far from thinking as Bel doth that the best liuers in rigor deserue eternel death that then he wold in no wise thinke the Apostle to speak of a mā in grace assuring him selfe that no such man is solde vnder sinne that deserueth eternal death 3. His second proofe is out of the 23. Bel pag. 42. verse of the same chapter where S. Paul writeth I see a lavv in my members subduing me to the lavv of sinne VVhat saith Bel can he Bel forgetteth vvhat he is to proue merit who is prisoner to the law of sinne But beside that Bel for got what he was to proue vz. Concupiscence in the iust to be sinne not their merit to be none S. Paul by the word me vnderstandeth only his flesh as he had expounded him selfe before v. 18. when he said There dvvelleth not in me that is in my flesh good And S. Austin interpreteth 1. de nupt concupis c. 30. and 31. And v. 23. saith that he vvas prisoner to the lavv of sinne in his flesh and in his mynd serued the lavv of God what maruel then that one prisoner in flesh but free in mynd from which al our merit or sinne proceedeth may by seruing Gods law merit 4. His third proofe is out of the 19. verse Bel pag. 43. where as he citeth S. Paul saith The euil vvhich I vvold not that I do Omitting the false False translat 3. translating of on thelo and Nolo I vvold not as though S. Paul had not had a present and absolute wil not to lust but an imperfect velleity which euen the wicked haue and in english we signify by vvold and vvold not I answer that S. Paul improperly saith He doth that which he wil not and therfore in the very next verse as it were correcting that speech saith If I do that I vvil not I vvorke v. 20. it not wherin he both
like aâ—prating petty-fogger cryeth lowdest when he hath lest proofs CHAP. III. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching Concupiscence ansvvered THE first place he alleadgeth out of S. Bel pag. 45. Austin is tom 7. l. 6. contr Iulian. c. 3. where he writeth As blindnes of hart is sinne punishment of sinne and cause of sinne So coÌ„cupiscence of the flesh is sinne punishment and cause of sinne Answer S. Austin compareth concupiscence with blindnes of hart in the material disorder of sinne For as sinne is against the rule of reason so disordinate lust not in formality of sinne Nether say I this only but can proue it And omitting that other where he Lib. de Spir. â—it c. vlt. l. 1. de nupt concup c. 23. l. 1. con duas epist Pelag. c. 13. plainly auoucheth it to be no formal sinne as is before shewed I proue it first by his reason where with he proueth it to be sinne vz because it is disobedient to the rule of reason which conuinceth it to be material sinne and a disorderly and euil thing but not to be formally sinne for want of voluntarines which him selfe necessarily requireth to formal sinne as is before shewed Secondly because it sufficed to S. Austin to â—ap 1. parag 9. proue concupiscence to be material sinne for to disproue Iulian the Pelagian against whom he there disputed who taught as S. Austin there and other where testifyeth Lib. de nupt concup c. 34. to 7. l. 6. cont Iul. â— â—â— that it was laudable good against whom he there proueth by the example of blindnes of hart that it was not only punishment and cause of sinne but also sinne that is naught euil and disorderly because it is against the rule of reason which is to be sinne materially though it want the forme of sinne which is voluntarines 2. Next he bringeth these words Some Bel pag. 46. iniquity is in man when the inferior parts do stubbernly S. Augustin tom 7. striue against the superior albeit they be not suffered to ouercome And quoteth for them l. 6. contr Iulian c. 8. as he found it through the Printers error falsly quoted in Bellarm Bellarm. l. 3. de amiss grat stat pec c. 9. Bels chaleÌ„g nothing but Bellarmins obiections Sup. c. 1. parag 3. 4. but they are l. 6. c. 19 which added to that that almost al he saith is found in Bellarmin conuinceth that he made this boasting challenge out of his obiections As for S. Austin his meaning when he calleth concupisceÌ„ce iniquity is sufficiently explicated before And the very word Some argueth that he thinketh it not to be formal sinne but in some sort vz materially Besides that him selfe l. 2. contr Iulian c. 5. expoundeth the like words out of S. Ambrose of no sinful iniquity 3. The third place cited by Bel is l. 1. de pag. 46. nupt concupis c. 25. where S. Austin S. Augustin tom 7. writeth If concupiscence can both be in the baptized parent and be no sinne vvhy is the selfe same no sinne in the child To this I ansvver saith S. Austin That concupiscence is not so forgiuen in baptisme that it is no more but that it is no more imputed to sinne Item There remaineth not any thing vvhich is not remitted Wherupon Bel inferreth both that concupiscence is formal sinne els it need not be forgiuen that it is true sinne as wel after baptisme as before though it be not imputed to sinne after baptisme and biddeth vs mark that S. Austin said not Nothing is sinne that remaineth or no sinne remaineth but not any thing remaineth vvhich is not remitted Answer The forme VVhat is the essence of habitual sinne Cap. â—â— essence of habitual sinne is the guilt of actual sinne before done according to S. Austin in the same book and next chapter as the forme of habitual sinne of adultery is the guilt of actual adultery before committed the forme of that habitual sinne which we haue by origin is the guilt of Adams actual eating the Aple which guilt Hovv Concupiscence needeth for giuenes being annexed to Concupiscence maketh it formal sinne and to require forgiuenes but that guilt being taken away by Gods forgiuing the sinne as the same holy Doctor teacheth in the same place and lib. 6. S. Austin contr Iulian. c. 17. and lib. 1. Retract c 13 Concupiscence need no more forgiuenes as the same B. Saint writeth lib. de spirit To. 3. 1. lib. 1. contr duas epist Pelag. c. 13. lit c. vlt. and epist 200. Nor remaineth any more true sinne more then the body remaineth a man after the soule is departed And in this very place which Bel citeth when he asketh why Concupiscence is sinne in the childe if it be in the parent baptized and be no sinne in him euidently supposeth that it is no true sinne in the baptized 4. As for that of not imputing sinne what S. Austin meant therby we wil rather VVhat noâ— imputing of sinne is vvith S. Austin learne of himself then of Bel he therfore in the very words which Bel citeth hauing asked why Concupiscence is not sinne mark Bel in the parent baptized as wel as in the childe vnbaptized answered that by baptisme non imputatur None but an infidel vvil say sinne is not taâ—eÌ„ avvay in baptisme S. August l. 1. cont duas epist Pelag. c. 13. to 7. in peccatum it is not imputed for sinne In which answer vnles he did by not imputing for sinne meane making no sinne he had not answered the question why Concupiscence was no sinne in the baptized parent Therfore with him Concupiscence not to be imputed to or for sinne is to be made no sinne And cap. 32. he saith that Concupiscence to be imputed is to haue the guilt vz of Adams actual sinne which it hath with it and consequently to be not imputed is to haue this guilt taken away but to haue no guilt is to haue no sinne as him self saith c. 26. therfore with him Concupiscence to be not imputed is to be made no sinne Nether indeed can God otherwise not impute sinne but by taking it away For his iudgment is according to truth Rom. 2. v. 2. and therfore if ther be sinne S. Paul in vs he must needs impure it to vs and account vs sinners els he shold not accouÌ„t vs as we are and according to truth And albeit S. Austin did not in this place say in plaine tearms Nothing is sinne that remaineth or No sinne remaineth yet he manifestly supposed the first when he asked why concupiscence is not sinne mark Bel as wel in parents baptized as in the child affirmed them both in equiualent tearms when he answered that by not imputation concupiscence became no sinne in the baptized as is already shewed And otherwhere plainly affirmeth That al sinnes are forgiuen in baptisme and S. Austin
in no wise consented vnto it which is in plaine tearms to confesse that inuoluntary motions of the flesh are no sinne because they are not voluntary O force of truth which breakest out of thy professed aduersaries mouth Surely Protestants may haue great ioy of such a challenger And no maruel if he be desirous of an aduersary to fight withal who for want of one falleth thus to fight with him self and maketh his aduersaries sport to laugh moueth his friends to compassion and shame But let vs see more of his pastime 9. S. Paul had not known lust to be sinne except Bel pag. 49. Rom. 7. v. 7. the law had said Thou shalt not lust But he could not be ignorant that Concupiscence with consent was sinne seeing the very heathens did know and confesse it Againe voluntary lust is forbidden Math. 5. v. 22. in the sixt seuenth and eighth cōmandement as Christ him selfe expoundeth them Therfore the tenth forbiddeth the very habitual desire and inclination and fruits therof though not consented vnto Ansvver S. Paul was so far from knowing by the law that natural inclination to sinne is formal sinne as nether he nor any man of iudgment could imagine it til Bel See S. Austin serm 4. de verb. Apost c. 4. 5. to 10. with a new kinde of philosophy taught vs that habits are acts and inclinations actiōs But to the argument I deny the assumption For he might be ignorant that lust which Concupiscence indirectly voluntary knovvne of S Paul by the lavv to be sinne is only indirectly voluntary and in the cause because it is not preuented is sinne and this he might know by the law nether can Bel shew that euer any heathen knew this Yea he might be ignorant that Concupiscence directly voluntary when it is not put in execution is true sinne learne this by the law For if Iosephus and Kimhi Iosephus l. 12. Antiquit. c. 12. Kimhi in psal 66. though they had the law and were great Rabbins in it yet thought such concupiscence no sinne and Iosephus reprehended Polybius for condemning it as a sinne why might not the Apostle haue bene ignorant of this if the law had not taught it him Neither doth Bels reason cōuince the contrary For though some Heathen by great study in moral philosophy came to know this truth yet perhaps S. Paul could not or rather as he saieth did not And Bel as we shal see hereafter citeth a place out of S. Ambros where he writeth that the Apostle S. Ambros in cap. 7. ad Rom. thought Concupiscence no sinne because it delighted and seemed a harmles thing to couet yet better it is to say as I haue already that S. Paul meaneth that by the law he came to know al voluntary concupiscence though it be but indirectly voluntary to be sinne and this nether he nor any Heathen could haue known but by the law or by Gods reuelation 10. Bels second reason maketh against him self For if inuoluntary motions be as true sinnes as voluntary why are not they forbidden as wel in the sixt seuenth and eighth cōmandement as these And albeit voluntary motions were implicitly forbidden when the external acts were prohibited yet it was necessary to forbid them expresly in the last commandement for to inculcat it into the hard hartes of the Iewes nether yet with this expresse forbiddance wold some of them beleeue voluntary concupiscence without the fact to be sinne as appeareth by the example of Iosephus Kimhi and diuers Iewes Math. 5. v. 29. After this Bel alleadgeth a place of S. Austin wher he calleth desires of Concupiscence il filthy and not lawful which haue bene explicated before and are verifyed of Chapt. 1. parag 2. 3. inuoluntary Concupiscence because it is materially sinne wanting nothing to be Chapt. 1. parag 2. 3. formally so but voluntarines which Bel here goeth about to proue that they want Chapt. 1. parag 11. not but his proofe hath bene refuted before 11. After the said ptoofe he auoucheth Bel pag. 51. Bellarmin to confesse that S. Austin acknowledgeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de amiss grat stat pec c. 10. vntruth euen inuoluntary motions to be properly sinne and flatly condemned by the tenth Commandement and in the margent biddeth vs see S. Austin lib. de spirit lit c. vlt. because Bellarm in writeth that S. Austin teacheth al kind of motions of Concupiscence to be aliquo modo in some sort prohibited by that lavv Thou shalt not couet Wheras Bellarmin professeth That S. Austin not only Bellar. sup c. 8. no where in plaine words saith al Concupiscence is properly sinne but also affirmeth the contrary in al the tomes of his works and in the words cited by Bel is so far from saying that S. Austin thinketh al motions to be flatly condemned as he wold not absolutly say they were condemned but only with this limitation in some sort vz as far as they lye in our powre which limitation though Bel without proofe cal deceitful and contrary to S. Austins meaning yet haue we before shewed Sup. parag 6. it out of S. Austin to be his true meaning And I wold Bel had seene that place of S. Austin to which he sendeth vs for there should he haue heard S. Austin teaching him that inuoluntary Concupiscence is so far from sinne as if we consent not to it we need not say in our lords prayer Forgiue vs our trespasses And thus much of his proofs out of S. Austin CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros S. Bede S. Thomas touching Concupiscence ansvvered AFTER his proofs out of S. Austin Bel pag. 52. Bel very methodically forsooth returneth to Scripture citing a sentence of S. Ihon in greek pas ho poion hamartian cai ten ano mian poiei cai he hamartia estin anomia and translateth it thus Euery one that sinneth transgresseth the lavv and sinne is the transgression of the law This place he citeth againe art 6. to proue al sinne of it selfe to be mortal and for that purpose it hath some shew of Be◠forgetteth his matter proofe but how it proueth al kind of Concupiscence to be proper sinne passeth my intelligence For suppose that al sinne were transgression of the law which he laboreth much to proue wil neuer performe what is this to proue That al Concupiscence is sinne And lest of al it concerneth habitual cōcupiscence For S. Ihon speaketh only of actual sinne as appeareth by those words poiei amartian poiei anomian committeth sinne committeth iniquity And yet spendeth he fowre leaues in nothing but in prouing anomia to signify transgression of the law and euery sinne to be transgression of the law saith that Papists are put to a non plus about the pag. 58. doctrin of concupiscence in the regenerate for both anomia and adicia is truly and fitly tearmed iniquity But what shal a man say to such vanity Be
also for the euil vve suffer And hom 1. de Resur tom 3. VVhat care saith he vvil he haue of vertue vvho expects no retribution of labours And hom 15. in Math. that we haue God our debtor when we do any good and may exact vsury of him And the like speeches he hath hom 3. and 36. in Math. and 42. in Gen. and in Philog and other where which alone might assure vs that he meaneth not to deny eternal life to be a true reward of our supernatural labors But ether by labors he vnderstandeth natural labors done as he speaketh there by our ovvne streÌ„gth of which labors doubtles eternal life is is no reward debt or retribution Or rather by eternal life he there vnderstood not heauenly glory but only iustificatioÌ„ which he may cal eternal life because it causeth eternal life as our Sauiour for the same cause calleth faith so Iohn 17. v. 3. and for S. Ihon. the contrary sinne is called death and this doubtles is no reward debt or retribution of any labour at al of ours That this is his meaning I proue it I because he saith eternal life was called grace to shew that they were not deliuered c. Therfore by eternal life he vnderstandeth some thing which had deliuered the Romans already from some thing vz. from sinne 2. because he saith that they to whom S. Paul wrote had receaued that eternal life wherof he speaketh but they being yet aliue had not receaued eternal glory but only iustification And S. Chrisostom being thus expounded speaketh not against him selfe other where nor against Scripture and truth 7. Thirdly he cyteth Origen saying Bel pag. 63. Origen in c. 6. ad Rom. Deum vero non erat dignum militibus suis stipendium quasi debitum aliquod dare sed donum gratiam quae est vita aeterna which Bel thus englisheth But it was not a thing worthy beseeming God to giue stipends to his soldiers as a due debt or wage but to bestow on them a gift or free grace which is eternal life Here Bel translateth donum a gift and False translat A. 5. gratiam free grace albeit before he preferred the word donatio which is al one in this matter with donum before gratia because it better insinuateth the freenes of the gift But if you aske him wherfore he translateth gratia free grace he can giue no better reason then his Grandsier Luther did when he translated fides iustificat faith alone iustifyeth vz Sic volo sic iubeo stat pro ratione Surius Ann. â—530 voluntas As for Origen he meaneth nothing els but that it beseemed not God to giue a stipend so due to good works as saith he the king of sinne payeth stipends due to them that obey his tyranny which is most true For although S. Austin ep 105. to 2. S. Anselm Rom. 6. the iust by good works deserue life yet not so iustly as the wicked by sinne deserue death nether is life so due to them as death to these as is euident by what hath bene said before and Willet in affirming vs VVillet controu 17. q. 3. art 3. p. 587. to teach the contrary sheweth a trick of his Ministery 8. S. Ambrose he also alleadgeth but pag. 63. S. Ambros Rom. 6. his words are rather against him for he saith As the followers of sinne get death so the followers of Gods grace that is the faith of Christ which forgiueth sinnes shal haue eternal life What is here for Bel or rather not against him But most clearly doth S. Ambrose S. Ambros confound Bel immediatly before the words cyted VVho from hence forth saith he absteine from sinne receaue a stipend eternal life And serm 7. in psal 118. affirmeth that Dauid could say to God I am a souldier I exact a stipend of my captaine 9. He citeth also Theophilact because Theophilact Rom. 6. he saith S. Paul called erernal life grace and not a revvard as if he should say for ye receaue not revvards of labours but al these things are done by grace in Christ Iesus who worketh and doth them But this is nothing against vs who willingly acknowledge eternal life to be grace and not to proceed of our owne labours done by our selfs but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ After this he citeth Anselme and Photius but alleadgeth not their words yet confesseth that in effect they are the same with others and therfore seeing S. Anselme vpon this place S. Anselme of S. Paul teacheth plainly that eternal life is a stipend of iustice and that S. Paul might haue called it so we may be assured that in effect other Fathers do cal it so as he after S. Ambros and S. Austin doth in expresse S. Austin ep 105. S. Ambros Rom. 6. Bel pag. 64. vntruth 60 words Wherfore vainly doth Bel boast that it is manifest by the foresaid testimonies of holy Fathers that eternal life is the free gift of God for rather the quite contrary is manifest because none of them say it is a free gift or any thing whereof it may be iustly inferred and some of them expresly say it is a Vt Retributionem non vt gratiam sed plane debitum occupas S. Greg. Nazianz orat â— in sanctum lauacrum Burgens addit 2. in c. 6. Rom. stipend and such a one as a souldier may exact of his captaine such as death is to sinne which are euidently no free gifts Wherfore to helpe vp this matter he addeth these wordes of Paulus Burgens He would not therfore say eternal life is the stipend of iustice because the same merits to which it is rendred are not of our selfs but wrought in vs by God through grace These words make not any thing for him but rather against him For in that he saith eternal life is rendred to merits he insinuateth it to be no free grace and in saying S. Paul chose rather to cal it grace then stipend insinuateth that he might haue called it a stipend and in saying it is grace because it is repaid to merits which we do by grace he affirmeth it to be partly grace which no Catholique denyeth 10. The second text of Scripture Bel bringeth out of Rom. 8. v. 18. and translateth â—hus I account that the afflictions of this False translat 6. present tyme are not worthy of the future glory Answer Here is euil translation for where the Apostle saith afflictions are Non condignae ad futuram gloriam ouâ— axia pros ten mellousan doxan are not condigne to the future glory Bel translateth are not worthy of the future glory And the Apostles meaning is not to tel there whether sufferances of this life be condignely meritorious of future glory or no but intendeth to say that they are not comparable to future glory ether in greatnes or in continuance which hindereth not their condigne merit as is euident in Christs sufferances For hauing
v. 17. immediatly before said that we shal be coheirs with Christ if we suffer with him lest we should be vnwilling to attaine to such glory by sufferance he addeth in the verse cited that sufferances are not condigne that is not comparable in greatnes or continuance to future glory which meaning of his he vttereth in plainer tearms 2. Corinth 4. v. 17. saying our tribulation which presently S. Paul is momentary and light worketh aboue measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in vs. Where he saith our tribulations are momentary and light and the glory is eternal and weighty which he meant when he said here they are not condigne to future glory And hereby are explicated the words both of Theodoret and S. Anselme vpon this place For Theodoret saying the Crovvns exceed the conflicts and the labour is not comparable to the revvard compareth them not in the respect of desert and reward but in greatnes of paine and pleasure for saith he the labour is litle and the gaine great And the same comparison in bitternes of paine and greatnes of pleasure made S. Anselm when he S. Ansolm Rom. 8. said Al the bitternesses of al the paines of this life should not be a digne merit to future glory For doubtles the bitternes of al the paines of this life is not so great as the pleasure of heauēly ioyes But this worthy Champion who challengeth al Papists to combat sheweth him selfe ignorāt in translating Theodorets words Superant certamina coronae thus Bel vvanteth latin The conflicts of the crovvne remaine taking the nominatiue case for the accusatiue and the genitiue for the nominatiue and perhaps superant for supersunt both contrary to the latine and to sense For who heard of conflicts of a crowne or that conflicts remaine in heauen Surely this challenger should rather be set to schoole to learne latine then to challenge Deuines to disputation rather taught to construe the Fathers then to dispute out of them But as S. Hierome wrote S. Hieron epist ad Euagr. Imperitia confidentiam parit None so bold as blinde Bayard 11. The third text he cyteth is out of S. Bel pag. 65. Paul Tit. 3. v. 5. Not by vvorks of iustice which we haue done but according to his mercy he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost By which vvords saith Bel it is most cleare that we are not only iustifyed but also saued by meere mercy and consequently eternal life hath no merit vpon the behalfe of man Omitting that before our good works were merit in a godly sense now there is no merit on mans behalfe I answer that the Apostle meaneth only of sauing from sinne vz iustification First because speaking of him selfe and others then aliue he saith God hath saued vs Secondly because hauing said in the third verse VVe vvere somtymes vnwise incredulous c. he addeth v. 5. and God according to his mercy hath saued vs vz. from the foresaid sinnes Thirdly because explicating by what means God had saued them he saith it was by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost which most plainly expresseth iustification And no doubt but saluation from sinne proceedeth of Gods meere mercy but this is not to the purpose And of this saluation speaketh S. Anselme vpon this place whose words Bel curtailed leauing out these words By the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost that is by baptisme because they clearly shew of what saluation this holy Saint did meane And of the same meant Dionis Carthus vpon rhis Carthus place as is plaine by his explicating what the saluation was vz. from povvre of the Dyuel and guilt of eternal torment And thus much of Bels first reason out of Scripture now to his arguments out of Fathers CHAP. V. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit ansvvered S. Austin he alleadgeth epist 29. ad Hieron Bel pag. 66. whose words I wil set downe at S. Augustin tom 2. large that the Reader thereby may see how falsly Bel auoucheth him to confirme his doctrine Charity saith he is a vertue with which we loue that which is to be loued This is great in some in others les in others none at al but mostful charity which can be no more encreased is in none whiles a mā lyueth here but whiles it may be encreased surely that vvhich is les then it should be is ex vitio of vice Bel translateth sinne by reason of vvhich vice thereis no iust on earth which doth good and sinneth not by reason of which vice no liuing man shal be iustifyed in Gods sight For vvhich vice if vve say we haue no sinne we sedute our selfes and there is no truth in vs. For which also though vve haue profited neuer so much we must of necessity say Forgiue vs our trespasses euen when our vvords deeds thoughts are already forgiuen in baptisme 2. Hence Bel gathereth 1. That S. Austin pag. 67. vntruth 61 saith that no man can haue charity in that perfect degree which the lavv requireth This is vntrue for he only saith that no man hath in this life that most ful charity which can not be encreased 2. That the want therof proceedeth of vice This is true but of what kinde of vice he meant him selfe had explicated a litle before in the same place saying VVho therfore is without some vice that is without some fomite or as a roote of sinne Wherfore he meant not that the want of most ful charity proceedeth of formal sinne but of that which is cause and roote of sinne to wit concupiscence And by this are answered al the rest of Bels notes out of this place As that by reason of this vice euery man is a sinner none iustified before God if we say we haue no sinne we be lyers we haue need to aske God forgiuenes euen after baptisme For al these things are verifyed of Concupiscence not formally but effectiuely that is Concupiscence which S. Austin calleth vice because it is the roote and cause of formal vice causeth sinne in vs which sinne maketh vs formally sinners not iustifyed before God and to neede forgiuenes euen after baptisme And hereby are explicated Bel pag. 68. the like words of S. Ambrose which S. Ambros epist 84. to 4. prope finem hereafter he citeth That by reason of the rebellion of the flesh that is vnderstood of euery one which S. Ihon saith If we say we haue no sinne we seduce our selfs 3. But suppose that S. Austin had said al Bel forgetteth his matter that Bel inferreth though it would proue Concupiscence to be formal sinne yet would it not proue that our workes are no condigne merit which is the question now in hand For though Concupiscence were as Bel rhinketh venial sinne which he art 9. calleth sinne not regnant yet might other supernatural works of
mens merits which otherwhere he saith are great matters and to be crowned but to the men them selfs because as they haue merits to be crowned so they haue demerits to be punished which if they were punished without mercy woe should be to them Not because they should be sent to hel but to purgatory or as he calleth it sermon in psalm 37. Emendatory fyer and S. Austin there punished without mercy which fyer saith he is more greeuous then any thinge Confess lib. 9. c. 13. cit vvhich man can suffer in this life And to procure Gods mercy in this behalfe to his mothers soule he both prayed him selfe and requested others to pray for her Be myndful therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocal. 2. THE SIXT ARTICLE OF THE DISTINCTION OF MORTAL AND VENIAL SINNES CHAP. I. The true Distinction proued and Bels obiection ansvvered BEL perceauing that Catholiques do euidently proue that there is a difference betweene mortal and venial sinnes durst not deny it but proceedeth as he did in the former Article allowing in Bel pag. 81. words the distinction of mortal and venial sinnes in a godly sense which though he be ashamed to expresse yet doth he insinuate Bel admitteth venial sinnes in other tearms of regnant not regnant and meaneth as I suppose that voluntary euil acts are mortal inuoluntary venial which doctrine is already disproued in the fourth article Wherfore here he vndertaketh to proue that euery sinne is mortal of it owne nature and some become venial only for free acceptation mercy of God 2. Supposing therfore that some sinnes Mortal and venal sinnes are such of their ovvne nature are mortal and others venial I intend to proue by Scripture Fathers and reason that they are such of their owne nature The Scripture compareth such sinnes as are mortal and venial to things which of their owne nature are different as Math. 23. to a Math. 23. v. 24. Luc. 6. v. 42. Camel and a gnat Luc. 6. to a strawe and a beame Ergo these kinde of sinnes are different of their owne nature Likewise our Sauiour Luc. 12. 58. compareth some Math. 5. v. 27. sinnes to mites or farthings which of their nature are smal debts Moreouer God hath no where reuealed that some kinde of sins become venial only by his mercy Therfore we ought not to say so The Consequence is euident for none knoweth the pleasure of God but by his reuelation The Antecedent I proue for Protestants can neither name the sinnes which God hath made venial nor the place where God hath reuealed any such making of his Bel citeth Math. 12. v. 3. where it is said that VVe shal giue account of euery idle word And 1. Iohn 3. v. 4. where sinne is called iniquity But in neither place it is said that Gods mercy maketh any sinne venial and other like places cited by other Protestants rather proue that al sinnes notwithstaÌ„ding Gods mercy are now mortal then that any which of them selfe were mortal became venial by his mercy Likewise for venial sinne he nameth sinne not regnant wherby he vnderstandeth inuoluntary motions of concupiscence But for such inuoluntary motioÌ„s which Bel rightly calleth Bels beleefe of venial sinnes befydes Gods booke not regnant sinne but wrongly venial nether are they any true sinne as venial sinne is nor is it any where reuealed that they being of their nature mortal sins are made venial only through Gods mercy Therfore Bels beleefe of some sinnes made venial by Gods mercy is wholy besides Gods booke 3. Holy Fathers also in calling some sinnes Fathers litle sinnes light short least daily offences as S. Hierom in c. 5. Math. l. 2. in Iouinian S. Hierom. prope fin S. Austin to 10. 3. S. Chrysost tom 2. Conc. 3. in Lazar. to 2. S. Austin serm 41. de sanctis and in Enchir. c. 71. and S. Chrisostom hom 24. in Math. insinnuate that venial sinnes are such of their owne nature for they were neuer litle nor light if of their nature they were mortal and damnable as a wounde which of it nature is mortal and deadly could neuer be called a litle or light wouÌ„de though God of his mercy did cure it Likewise S. Hierom putteth a difference betweene S. Hieron dial 2. cont Pelag. S. Gregor 21. moral c. 9. S. Austin hom 19. de â—empore cacia and hamartia and S. Gregory and S. Austin betwixt crimen and peccatum yea S. Hierom epist ad Celant accounteth it a paradox of the Stoiks to put no difference betwixt scelus and erratum 4. By reason also this is euident For who seeth not that to steale a pinne is of it nature a smal offence And I would aske of Bel whither a sinne after it is by Gods mercy made venial reteineth the selfe same nature of offending God deseruing Hel and the like which it had before or it changeth it nature If it change it nature then aâ—ter Gods mercy of it nature it is venial and Gods mercy is only the cause of changing the nature of it If it retaine the selfe same nature how is it possible but God if he account of it truly according to truth as al his iudgements are Rom. 2. v. 2. should not account of it as a mortal sinne and deseruing hel Wherfore what Protestants talke of some sinnes becomming venial or no sinnes at al by Gods meere not imputing them for sinnes without any alteration in the sinnes them selfs is meere contradiction and contrary to S. Austin and reason as is shewed in the fourth Article c. 3. parag 4. 5. Againe infidels haue venial sinnes Ergo venial sins become not such only by Gods meere not imputing them for mortal The consequence is cleare out of the Protestants doctrine who put that not imputing only VVillet contrac 17. part 3. p. 560. towards the faithful regenerate The Antecedent I proue because they can doe al the sinnes which the faithful doe If one say that sinnes which in the faithful be but venial are in Infidels mortal This is contrary to reason because knowledge of Gods precept in the faithful rather encreaseth his fault for the seruant which knovveth the Luc. 12. v. 48. vvil of his maister and doth it not shal be beaten vvith many stripes and ignorance in infidels diminisheth their fault wherupon S. Paul said I haue gotten mercy because I did it ignoraÌ„tly 1. Timoth. 1. v. 13. in incredulity And I aske of Bel why God maketh sinne not regnant venial rather then regnant and either he must say that God doth it without any cause or because they are inuoluntary and these voluntary which is to say that by their different nature they are made mortal and venial 6. Finally some sinnes of their nature breake frendship with God and deserue his eternal hatred and punishment others do not Ergo some of their nature are mortal others venial The