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
of reply such answers and authorities as he thinketh make for his purpose S. R. Nothing done against our will is sin but diuer actes of concupiscence be such Ergo no sinne T. B. Sinne as the holy Apostle defineth it is Anomia that is to say iniquity or transgression of Gods law Here we see what sinne is Let vs proceed The eternall law saith Saint Austen is the reason or will of God commaunding the naturall order to be kept and forbidding the same to bee perturbed Thus doth S. Austen describe Gods law So then whatsoeuer is against Gods Lawe is sinne and whatsoeuer is against Gods will is against the law Ergo whatsoeuer is against Gods will is sinne Let this foundaon thus laid bee remembred for by it all Obiections will soone be answered I therefore deny the proposition of the Iesuites Argument when he saith nothing doone against our will is sinne and they are enforced to confesse the same against their willes in Children not regenerate For as the Popes law teacheth vs Children dying without Baptisme are damned and therfore they are not buried in any Church-yard with the Papistes Now must they tell me eyther what sinne they did with theyr will or else confesse with mee that some thing doone against mans will is sinne And the reason is yeelded already which I wish the Reader euer to remember viz that whatsoeuer is against the will or law of God is sin whether it be voluntary or not voluntary For Saint Iohn placed not voluntary in the definition of sinne S. R. In regeneration either we remaine guilty of damnable sinne or become guiltlesse of all such sin If we remaine guilty then is not our sin forgiuen For it is impossible to be guilty of sin and to haue sin forgiuen T. B. I distinguish the proposition The regenerate are guilty by nature and in respect of sin which still remaineth for which they might iustly be damned and yet guiltles by way of acceptation in Christ Iesus for whose sake and merits God doth not impute sinne vnto them And this is Saint Austens mind when hee saith The concupisence of the flesh is forgiuen in Baptisme not so that is remaine not but so as it is not imputed for sinne In which wordes Saint Austen sheweth plainly That concupiscence remaineth though not imputed for sinne It followeth in S. Austen Non ergo aliquid remanet quod non remittatur Not any thing therefore remaineth which is not forgiuen Where the Reader must well obserue that he saith not nothing is sin that remaineth or thus no sinne remaineth but thus Not any thing remaineth which is not remitted or forgiuen As he had said Sinne indeede remaineth still in the baptized but shall not be imputed to the faithfull S. R. A iustified or regenerate man cannot be guilty of damnation because there is no damnation to them who are in Christ Iesus T. B. It is one thing good Iesuite not to be damned or not to receiue damnation another thing to bee guilty of damnation for Gods elect Children may bee guilty of damnation that is deserue damnation as Dauid Peter and Paule did but there is no damnation to such because they shall neuer be damned S. R. Bell confesseth that a man cannot be iustly condemned for sinne remitted T. B. I grant it What then Albeit originall sinne truely remaine in the elect yet because it is forgiuen and not imputed to them they shall neuer bee condemned for it for otherwise God should be vniust and vnfaithful in his promise S. R. If involuntary acts done against our will bee true sins much more the acts of fooles and mad men yea of beasts which are not done against will but onely without will and they true Malefactors and Sinners before COD and men which I thinke none but a mad man will grant T. B. There is great disparitie by your leaue good Mayster Fryer in these subiects which you name For Gods commaundements were neuer giuen to the brute beasts neyther were they euer made capable of doing the same But all men were once enabled to haue kept Gods ordinances euen in the protaplast Adam in whom wee all vvere originally And the Pope and his Iesuites must needes confesse so much or else condemne God of iniustice in punnishing eternally the vnregenerate Infantes for that sinne which they neuer consented vnto neither possibly could auoide And therefore grauely saith Saint Austen that euery sinne is voluntary eyther in the act or else in the Originall S. R. Saint Austen is so farre from thinking that we sinne by inuoluntary motions of the flesh that hee saith if wee consent not vnto them we need not say forgiue vs our trespasses T. B. Saint Austen saith not if wee consent not vnto them we need not say forgiue vs our sins but if we were thorowly renewed and were as Adam was in Paradise before his fall we should haue no debts to be forgiuen consequently haue no neede to say forgiue vs our sins But our case is otherwise because that perfect renouation cannot bee had in this life but onely in the World to come And for this cause doth the ancient councell Mileuitaâ— accurse him that saith he is so holy that he neede not say the Lordes prayer for himselfe but for others S. R. Saint Austen saith if concupiscentiall disobedience be without fault in the body of one sleeping how much â—ore in the body of one not consenting T. B. I aunswere that Saint Austen and other Fathers doe comparatiuely as it were extenuate and excuse innate concupiscence but not simply make it no sinne When they seeme to make it no sinne then they so speake eyther for that it is not imputed to the regenerate who manfully fight against it or else because it is an ingrafted prauity of Nature and not a voluntary transgression of Gods law Breefely the Fathers call it sinne yet not simply but comparatiuely in respect of actuall sinnes Saint Austen in the place which our Iesuite citeth disputeth against the fond opinion of some persons who to auoyde those sinnes to which they thought their original raging concupiscence would drawe them resolued to commit one sinne for all in murthering themselues and so be deliuered from many sinnes to which they feared their concupiscence would allure them Saint Austen therfore disswading from such heynous crimes encourageth such timorous consciences by way of extenuation telling them that concupiscence is without fault in those that striue against it do not consent vnto it Not for that it is no sin in it selfe but because it is not imputed to the godly For as we haue heard already and as I haue proued at large in the Downfall of Popery whatsoeuer deflecteth or swarueth from the will of God the same is most properly sin The reason is euident because not to bee correspondent and agreeable to Gods will is the very intrinsecall reason essence and nature of sinne Yet so
wee eyther had done or could doe but for his owne good pleasure to the glory of his grace For as to doe any workes at all before we are borne is altogether impossible so to doe Goodworkes when we are borne seeing we are conceiued in sin born in sinne and by nature the Children of wrath is impossible in like manner Fiftly that all our Goodworkes are the effects and fruits of our predestination For if it be true as it is most true else the Apostle should be a lyer that wee were elected to be holy and to do Goodworkes it is also true it cannot be denyed that holy life and Goodworkes are the effectes and fruites of our election and predestination in in Christ Iesus For this cause saith the Apostle that predestination proceeds freely of Gods eternall purpose Iustification of predestination and glorification of iustification For first hee chooseth vs in Christ then he iustifieth vs in Christ. Thirdly and lastly he glorifieth vs for his owne names sake For this cause saith that famous Papist Nicholaus de Lyra in this manner Dicendum quod predestinatio diuina est preparatio gratiae in presenti gloriae in future ides cuÌ„sit aeterna sicut ab aeterno predestinauit alâ—queÌ„ ad beatitudineÌ„ ita preordinauiâ— moduÌ„ queÌ„ daret sibiillaÌ„ beatitudinem I answere saith this Popish Doctor that Gods predestination is the preparation of grace in this world and of glory in the World to come And therefore seeing it is eternall as hee hath predestinated any one from eternity to endlesse blisse or beatitude so hath he also fore-ordayned the meane by which hee would bring him to the same For this cause saith the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas that predestination includeth Gods will of bestowing both Grace and Glory And hee addeth these words Nam praedestinatio ect causa eius quod expectatur in futura vita à praedestinatis selt gloriae eius quod percipitur in presenti selt gratiae For predestination is the cause both of that which is expected in the life to come that is to say of Glory and also of that which the predestinate receiue in this life that is to say of Grace For this cause saith our Iesuite Bellarmine that Goodworkes follow predestination as effects follow their causes These are his expresse wordes Itaque sunt opera bona effectus praedestinationis Therefore Goodworkes are the effect of predestination Againe in another place thus Itaque illa propositio deus ab aetet no praedestiaaut hominibus dare regnum per opera bona praeuisa potest vera esse falsa Nam si illud per opera praeuisa referaetur ad verbuÌ„ praedestinauit falsa erit significabit n. Deum praedestinasse homines operaillorum bona praeuiderat si referatur adverbum dare vera erit quia significabit executionem futuram esse per opera bona siue quod est idem glorificationem effectum esse iustificationis operum bonorum sicut ipsa iustificatio effectus est vocationis vocatio praedestinationis Againe in another place thus Non ideo pendet praedestinatio ab operibus sed opera à praedestinatione Therefore predestination doth not depend of workes but workes depend of predestination Againe in another place thus Alia ratio est praedestinationis alia exequutionis constituit n. in praedestinatione regnum caeloruuÌ„ dare certis hominibus quos absque vlla oper uÌ„praeuisione dilexit tamen simul constituit vt quo ad exequâ—â—tionem via perueniends ad regnuÌ„ essent opera bona There is one reason of predestination another of execution for in predestination God decreed to giue the Kingdome of Heauen to certaine men whom hee loued without any fore-sight of workes Howbeit hee decreed withall that in respect of the execution Goodworks should be the way to come to the Kingdome For this cause say our Rhemists that our first iustification is of Gods Grace and not of our deseruinges because none of all our actions that were before our iustification could merite or iustly procure the Grace of iustification Out of this discourse of the famous Popish Doctours I obserue these memorable Lessons for the great good of the Reader First that all the Grace Faith and Goodworkes which we haue in this world and the glory which we expect in the World to come doe wholy proceed from Gods predestination without all deserts of man Secondly that as God prepared the kingdome of heauen for his elect before they were borne or had done any Goodworkes so did he also prepare the way and means by which he intended to bring them thither Thirdly that no works either done or foreseene to be doone did mooue God to predestinate any man to the ioyes of heauen Fourthly that Goodworkes are not the cause but the effect of predestination Fiftly that Goodworkes are the way and meanes which God ordained for the execution of predestination and for the accomplishment of glorification Sixtly that not onely predestination but also iustification proceed of Gods meere fauour grace and good pleasure without all deserts of man Seuenthly that our vocation our iustification and our glorification are the effects of predestination I therefore conclude that Good workes are not the cause vvhy Gods Children possesse Heauen as their inheritance seeing it is the effect of Gods predestination yet that they are the ordinary way and meanes by which God decreed in his eternall purpose to bring his elect to Heauen For as hee ordained the end that is to say the kingdome of heauen or eternall life so also ordained he the way and meanes to attaine the same that is to say vocation iustification faith and Goodworkes Secondly that there is great disparity betweene saluation and damnation and therefore that Goodworkes cannot merite Saluation though euill workes bee enough for damnation The reason is euident both in Phylosophy and Diuinity because as Saint Dionysius Areopagita saith and the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas approoueth the same Bonum ex integra causa existit malum ex quolibet defectu Good is of an intire and whole cause but euill comes of euery defect yea that more is required to good then to euill daily experience teacheth vs for one may soone do that hurt to his Neghbour which cannot without great cost and long time be cured againe This S. Austen well obserued when hee left in writing to be read of all posteritie that it is a greater thing to iustifie the wicked man then to make heauen and earth S. R. I proue the conclusion because Christ saith My yoke is sweete and my burthen light And Saint Iohn saith his commaundementes are not heauy Ergo they are possible Bell aunswereth that these words are not meant in respect of vs but of Christ whose keeping the Commaundements is imputed to vs. Which Saint Austen saith hee meant when he writ thus Then are all the Commandements reputed as done when whatsoeuer