Cardinall by whose doctrin it is euident that S. Austen affirmeth the first motions of concupiscence which peruert reason and cannot be auoided to be condemned by S. Paul as sinfull and against the law of God Which doctrine of S. Austen doth so sting and confound all Papists that Bellarmine knoweth not in the world what hee shall answere to the same And therefore he addeth deceitfully in his exposition of S. Austens words this word Quodam modo after a sort which word for all that is neither in S. Austen nor yet agreeable to his meaning For S. Austen saith plainely simply and absolutely without all ands or ifs or other qualifications that such motions are forbidden by this commaundement non concupisces If I gentle Reader should thus deale in reciting or expounding my authors what exclamations what outcries wold be made against me all the cursed brood of Iesuites and Iesuited Papists would pursue me with hue and cry as if I were a rancke Traytor But S. Austens words are so plaine as no denyall or Legierdemaine can haue place for he sayth that Originall concupiscence with the involuntary motions thereof are forbidden by the last precept of the Decalogue and the consent to the same by that other precept Go not after thy concupiscence Heere S. Austen vttereth his owne meaning cōcerning this great controuersie For he plainly and flatly distinguisheth betweene originall concupiscence it selfe and the consent that is giuen to the same Hee telleth vs simply and resolutely that the concupiscence is prohibited by one precept and the consent to it by another Which the Iesuiticall Cardinall seeing to bee an inuincible Bulwarke against him and against the very essence of all Popish doctrine hee thought it stood him in hand to inuent some thogh neuer so miserable Legier demain to dazel the eyes of the reader withal and for this end he added to Saint Austen text this word Quodam modo in a sort Which In a sort though it bee graunted him yet will it not serue his turne For if it bee prohibited in a sorte and in a sort bee against Gods commaundement then must it needs followe that at least in a sort it is sinne and so the victory is mine owne Lastly it is a constant Axiome generally receiued of all Logitians in all Schooles that the cause beeing taken away the effect must needs be taken away also But death is the effect of originall sinne Ergo if Originall sin which is the cause be taken away in baptisme then death which is the effect thereof must be taken away with it Wherefore seeing both olde and young after Baptisme still dye as we daily see it is an euident Argument that the cause thereof which is originall concupiscence is not taken away S. R. If in regeneration wee become guiltlesse of all damnable sinne then haue we no such sinne in vs. For as Saint Austen saith to bee not guilty of sinne is to haue no sinne T. B. I answer that we are guilty in the nature of the thing yet guiltles freed by Gods mercy in Christ Iesus And I tell our Iesuite that he inverteth Saint Austens wordes as one that neuer read the same Thus writeth Saint Austen Hoc est n. Non habere peccatum reum non esse peccati For this is to haue no sinne not to be guilty of sinne And what is this Forsooth S. Austen saith he may be thought or saide to haue no sinne in him though his sinne remaine in act whose sinne is not imputed to him S. R. Sins remaine but by their guilt as adultery once committed remaineth in the committer onely because he is still guilty of the adultery that he did vntill it bee remitted T. B. Some sinnes as Adultery passe in acte when they are done and remaine in guilt Others passe in guilt and remaine in acte as originall concupiscence in the regenerate which remaineth in the vnregenerate both in guilt and in act S. R. Though it were true which Bell saith of the reprobates yet would it not follow thereof that concupiscence in reprobates is formall sinne but onely that originall sinne is not truely forgiuen in baptisme to any reprobate which is false T. B. I prooued by the testimony of the Rhemists that originall sin still remaineth in the baptized and consequently that it is sinne formally in the regenerate And so I haue my purpose viz that sinne still abideth in the regenerate though it be not imputed to them For if originall sinne be truely remitted in baptisme and bee not truely sinne indeede in the Baptised then can none bee iustly damned that are baptized For how shall they bee iustly condemned for that which is remitted It cannot be And this notwithstanding to grant that all baptized shall be saued is most absurd For larger discourse hereof I refer the Reader to the Downefall it selfe I study to be briefe S. R. When Saint Austen asketh why concupiscence is sin in the child if it be in the parent baptized without sin he supposeth that it is no true sin in the baptized contrary to Bels allegation T. B. S. Austen worthily demanded how concupiscence can be sinne in the Childe if it bee none in the baptized Parent For how can any man impart that to another which he hath not himselfe and thereupon Saint Austen concluded that originall sin still remaineth formally in the baptized Parent though not imputed for sinne This reason is vnanswerable S. R. Saint Austen answered that by baptisme Non imputatur in peccatum It is not imputed for sin In which answer vnlesse he did by not imputing for sin meane making no sin he hadde not answered the question why concupiscence was no sin in the baptized Parent Therefore with him concupiscence not to be imputed to or for sin is to be made no sin T. B. If you Maister Fryer Iesuite or Iesuited Fryer may expound Saint Austen at your pleasure and without eyther Scripture Father Text Circumstance or Reason say this is his meaning it must bee as you say I shall in vain dispute against you But I hope the indifferent Reader will not afforde you that freedome The Question which Saint Austen mooueth is this Why originall concupiscence is sin in the Childe and no sin in the Baptized Parent And Saint Austen himselfe aunswereth himselfe because it is not imputed for sin in the Parent Thus standeth the case this is the question this is the aunswere The difficulty is this How the Childe can contract and receiue of the Parent that which is not in the Parent because no man can bestow and impart that which he himselfe hath not The answer to the difficulty is this that originall concupiscence is still in the Parent after baptisme receiued as truely and formally sin in it owne Nature as it is truely and formally sin in the vnbaptized Child and so the Child contracteth nothing of the Parent but that very same which was in him
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
reply is this First that to deny Iosue to be king is a vaine cauill and argueth lacke of matter in our Iesuites answere for Iosue had the thing though not the name he was the Ciuil independent Magistrate and had the chiefe and supereminent power ouer the Isralites his Subiects as Moses whom he succeeded had and the other Kings Dauid Salomon Iosaphat Ezekias and Iosias In regard whereof he was and may bee truely reckoned with and among the other kings But when good reasons cannot bee had such Beggerly cauils must supply the want Secondly that it is a most notorious slander against the holy Scripture and consequently á notable blasphemy against God himselfe to say and desperately to avouch in a printed Booke that no High-priest was deposed by any of the said Kinges These are the expresse wordes of holie writ Eiecit ergo Salomon Abiathar vt non esset sacerdos domini Therefore Salomon cast out or deposed Abiathar the high Priest that he should not be the Priest of the Lord. Again holy writ hath these expresse wordes Et Sadoc sacerdote posuit pro Abiathar and the King put Sadoc the Priest in the roome of Abiathar Loe the holy scripture telleth vs two things most plainly and expressely and that is done euen in that Latin Vulgaâ—a editio to which the Pope hath tyed all his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelings The one that King Salomon deposed Abiathar the High-priest The other that hee placed Sadoc the priest in Abiathars roome Thirdly that it is most absurdly auouched of our Iesuit that Salomon onely confined Abiathar to his house for a time Concerning this deposition and casting out of Abiathar from his place and putting Sadoc the priest in his roome our Iesuite is at his wits end what to say and why I pray you For this end doubtles because hence it is proued euidently and by a necessary consecution that Kings both haue and may depose priests euen the hie priests and greatest priests of all But it can neuer be proued out of the holy scriptures that any Priest deposed any King no not the meanest king in all the world The Iesuite contradicteth himselfe mightily For first hee saith that none of the Kings deposed any priest Secondly that Salomon deposed Abiathar Thirdly that Abiathar was not deposed but onely for a time confined to his owne house What horsâ—e would not breake his necke to heare this sweet melodie The scripture telleth vs that king Salomon deposed Abiathar and for confirmation heereof the same scripture addeth that Sadoc the priest was set in his roome Fourthly to say as the Iesuite doeth that Salomon deposed Abiathar not as King but as prophet is to speake at randon and to make of scripture a nose of wax for no one Text from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalipse doth iustifie this fond and sottish answer of the masked Iesuite albeit I know this to bee true that he wanted not the aduise and counsell of his best learned Brethren Whosoeuer desireth further in sight into this subiect and of the soueraignty of kings ouer priests and Byshops which are their subiects if he peruse my Golden ballance of tryall I hope in God it will satisfie his desire CHAP. 4. ¶ Containing a confutation of the sixt Chapter of the masked Iesuite THe Iesuite in his sixt Chapter and first article is wholly occupied in impertinent matters and foolish demaunds not once touching directly ought that I haue written but let vs heare him once againe and so proceed to another Chapter S. R. Because the question is not vpon what cause Kings and Emperors humbled themselues to the Popes but whether they did or no And because they haue so done as Bell confesseth Catholicks infer the Pope to be their superior Vnlesse perhaps Bell thinke blinde zeale to disanul euery fact or guift and so say the Iewes persecuted not the Church because they did it vpon blind zeale nor our Catholique ancestors gaue any liuings to Churches because they did it vpon blind zeale as Bell must thinke for maintainance of Papistry T. B. O shamelesse and impudent Iesuite Is the question only what was done Where is thy wit Where is thy faith Where is thy Religion Doth not your Angellicall Doctor Aquinas teach you that all morall Acts haue their specification of the end and finall cause Doth not Scotus Ockamus Gabriel Iosephus Durandus and all the rest approue the same Doctrine How sayest thou then O blind Iesuit that the question is not vpon what cause kinges humbled themselues to the Popes but whether they did or no ô Tempora ô Mores Doth not alms otherwise a commendable act degenerate into sinne when it is giuen for vaine glory And this onely because the ende and cause for which it is giuen is nought and vnlawfull Dooeth not Christs Apostle tell thee that whatsoeuer is not of fayth is sinne That whatsoeuer is done ought to bee done to to the glory of God Alas alas euery childe that hath but learned the rudiments of Christianity can roundly tel our Iesuite that we must not so much respect what is done as what ought of right to be done We may not reason as our Iesuite Parsons doth for he is the man the thing was don therefore lawfully done Kings yeelded supreame authority to the Pope therefore they did it lawfuly By that kind of Logicke or rather Legierdemain all theftes all robberies all Rebellions all mischiefes vnder heauen may bee iustifyed and defended You Iesuites and your Iesuited pope-lings do take part with the Pope against your annointed Soueraigne and so by this new no Diuinity the pope is our King and Superiour For thus you reason beecause Kings haue so done the Pope is their Superiour For the question is not vpon whose grounde they did so but whether they did so or no. For by your Theology if the thing be done it is lawfully done but what Bell perhaps thinkes that blinde zeale dissanulleth euery fact and so neither the Iewes persecuted the Church nor our papistes gaue any liuing to the Church because they did it as Bell must thinke vpon blind zeale O monster of al Monsters ô Child of perdition ô sonne of the Deuill Bell saith not that blind zeale disanulleth any act Bell saith not that papists gaue no liuings to the Church Bell saith not that the Iewes did not persecute the Church No no it is the deuill in our Iesuite that mooues him thus falsly to slaunder Bell. It is one thing to say the papists gaue liuinges to the Church vpon a blinde zeale another thing to say they gaue nothing at all The former I say the latter I denie therefore when you papists labour to proue the popes soueraignty ouer Kings because some Kings haue acknowledged it vpon a blind zeale I answer that your proofe is of no force not for that such thinges haue not bin done but because they were not done as they should ought to
it is that the Ataxia disorder and concupiscence in the regenerate is repugnant and disagreable to the will of God and consequently it must be sinne indeed And as for the opinion of Saint Austen I haue proued at large in the Downfall out of fiue seuerall places of his workes that it is both the punnishment of sinne the cause of sinne and sinne it selfe S. R. As blindnes of hart saith Bell out of Austen is sinne punnishment of sinne and cause of sinne so concupisence of the flesh is sinne punnishment and cause of sin But I aunswere that Saint Austen compareth concupisence with blindnesse of heart in the materiall disorder of sinne T. B. I answere that I know not whether I should pitty the ignorance of our Iesuite or exclaime against his mallice For first Saint Austen cannot bee expounded as Maister Fryer saith though Bellarmine his Brother hath lent him his solution For if Saint Austen had meant materially not formally he would neuer haue called it sin the thirde time after hee named it twice sinne matterially before viz when he called it the cause of sinne and the punnishment of sinne Yet after both these he addeth that it is sinne formally For else he had saide no new thing Secondly because our Iesuite confuteth himselfe vnawares when he writeth thus Saint Austen prooueth by the blindnesse of hart that it was not onely punishment and cause of sinne but also sinne that is naught cuill and disorderly because it is against the rule of reason which is to be sinne materially though it want the form of sinne which is voluntarines This is his answer Now I pray you Gentle Reader iudge indifferently between mee and this Fryer First hee graunteth that Originall concupisence is naught euill and disorderly Secondly that it is against the rule of reason and all that he can say for himselfe is this that it is indeede sinne materially but not formally Where if I may finde an indifferent Reader the victory is mine own GOD is my iudge I speake as I thinke For to be against the rule of reason is formally sinne Which Saint Austen as is already proued declareth euidently when he defineth the eternall law to be nothing else but the reason or will of God The reason is confirmed because Saint Austen compareth it with the blindnes of hart which as euery good Christian knoweth is sinne most formally For if master Fryer Parsons shall deny blindnesse of heart thorough which man beleeueth not in God to bee sinne formally he will be hissed out of all good schools howsoeuer our holy Father the Pope sitting in his chaire vppon men◠shoulders giue him ten hundred thousand yeares pardon for the same Nay I will yet say more to our holy Fryer maister Robert Parsons the Author of this fond presensed answere to the Downfall of Popery viz that in the last precept of the Decalogue or Ten commaundementes Thou shalt not lust is prohibited not onely actuall and voluntary concupiscence but the very Originall and Fountaine of all concupiscences with all her involuntary branches I prooue it first because that concupiscence actuall wherewith wee couet that that is another mans and not our own is forbidden by all the sixt seuenth and eight precepts of the second Table This doeth our maister Christ teach vs when hee saith That whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with hi◠in his hart The same doctrine teacheth S. Iohn when hee sheweth the hatred of our brother to be agaiust this precept Thou shall not kill Secondly because if no other thing were prohibited in this commandement but actuall concupiscence there shoulde bee but nine precepts in the Decalogue seeing the last shoulde bee no newe Commaundement but only a bare recitall or repetition of the nine former precepts Thirdly because S. Paul granteth himselfe to be carnally sold vnder sin by reason of original concupiscence and not actuall against which he fought stoutly and neuer gaue consent vnto it Fourthly because that which the Saints of God detest call sin by the iudgement of the holy ghost must needs be sin properly But so it is that S. Paul in the name of all the Saints of God detesteth this Original cōcupiscence calleth it sin and mourning tearmeth himselfe vnhappy for it and desireth to be deliuered from it Ergo it must needs be sin properly Fiftly to say that it is called sin figuratiuely and vnproperly is against that generall rule which all Diuines haue deliuered when the scriptures must bee vnderstood properly and when figuratiuely viz that then they are taken figuratiuely whē the sence which the words in their proper signification yeeld do not agree with other scriptures and the Analogy of faith but are repugnant vnto the same Now no scripture can bee produced which denyeth that Originall concupisence with the involuntary motions thereof is properly sin Nay the Apostle aboue twelue times in one Chapter plainely and simply calleth it sin neither will it helpe to say that the scripture freeth Gods children from sinne For as saint Austen sayth they are not deliuered from sinne so that it is not in them but that it is not imputed to them And the Prophet teacheth the same doctrine when he pronounceth The man blessed not who hath no sin but to whom the Lorde imputeth no sinne And the Papists must either recall their doctrine in this point or else cry fire and faggot for their chiefe maister Petrus Lombardus sur-named the Maister of sentences whose Booke to this day is publikely Read in the schoole of Diuinity for thus doth he write Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus c. But touching our soules wee are redeemed in part not wholly from the sinne not from the paine neyther wholly from the sinne or fault For we are not so redeemed from it that it be not in vs but that it rule not ouer vs. Lo Maister Lombard that famous Writer graunteth first that we are redeemed in part but not in the whole Secondly that wee are not wholly redeemed from sinne Thirdly he telleth vs how we are redeemed from sin viz that albeit sin shall remain in vs yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs that it can enforce vs to consent therevnto Lo the greatest and best learned Papists teach the same doctrine that I do Sixtly Saint Austen affirmeth plainely that Originall Concupiscence is prohibited by this Precept Thou shalt not Lust and not onely the habituall concupiscence it selfe but also all the actuall involuntary motions thereof Thus doeth hee write as the Iesuire Bellarmine alleadgeth him These thinges saith Bellarmine are spoken after Saint Austens mind who by this precept Thou shalt not Lust vnderstandeth all the motions of concupiscence euen the involuntary to bee prohibited in some sort and that the consent to these motions forbidden by that other precept follow not thy concupiscence Thus writeth our Iesuiticall
who defend and holde the same doctrine that Saint Austen doth Nay how is it possible to haue Good Workes before wee haue fayth Seeing as the Apostle teacheth vs Without faith it is vnpossible to please GOD. Who so listeth to pervse my Suruey of Popery shall there find euery thing soundly aunswered whatsoeuer can bee sayde for Popery in this kinde of subiect But our Fryer will proue Good workes to go before iustification because Christ sayde to Mary Magdalen Many Sinnes are forgiuen her because shee loued much I answere that Christs Argument is not drawne from the cause but from the effect As if Christ had sayd wee may know by her great loue that great gifts are bestowed on her that many sins are forgiuen her For that no remission of her sinnes proceeded from her loue but her loue of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes appeareth by the similitude of the debters For Christ tolde Peter of two debters whereof the one ought fiue hundered pence the other fifty and that when they had not wherewith to pay the Creditour forgaue them both Hee therefore demaunded of Peter whether of the Debters loued the Creditour more Peter aunsvvered that he to vvhom more vvas forgiuen Christ approued Peters ansvver and concluded therevpon that seeing Mary Magdalen loued more he might know that she had more forgiuen her because saith Christ To whome little is forgiuen the same loueth little Neyther is it possible to draw any other meaning out of christs words The reason is euident because christ saith plainly that the debts were freely forgiuen the debters who were not able to pay the debts For otherwise Maries forgiuenesse shoulde haue no coherence with the similitude of the debters The second part of his position is that good works euer follow as fruits the tree the persons that are freely iustified This is most manifestly falfe in infants whereof many iustified in baptisme dye before they do any good worke And if his comparison of the tree be good some iustified neuer do good worke and al want them long time some giue ouer doing good as some trees are barren some cease to beare fruit and none beare alwayes T. B. This Fryer thinketh he can daunce in a net naked and yet no man see him but I weene euery indifferent Reader doeth easily espy his manner of dealing viz that he hath nothing in him but Cauils Slanders and notorious leasings Good workes sayth he cannot euer follow iustified persons as fruits follow trees because some trees neuer do good and all want a long time and none beare alwayes Is this Fryer trow ye wel in his wits Hath not malice so blinded him that he cānot see wood for trees Hath the Pope dispensed with him to say what hee list Good workes say I euer follow persons freely iustified as fruits follow the Tree by Gods mercy in Christ Iesus for his merits and condigne deserts Now what doth our Iesuite he aplies himselfe wholy to cauils extreme folly He perceiueth that truth wil preuail therfore strugleth with cauils and deceitfull dealing against the same First he leaueth out GODS mercy and the merites of Christ Iesus Secondly he inferreth a fond conclusion of his owne making and beareth the Reader in hand that it is mine Thirdly he triumpheth before the victory boasting that hee hath confuted my position when indeede hee hath onely confuted himselfe and fought the combate with his owne folly For I do not say that Good Workes do euer and continually without all interruption follow persons freely iustified Let the Reader duely and truely pervse my wordes and then tell me if our Fryer Iesuite be not a notorious lyar I say Good Workes do euer folow but not simply absolutely at all seasons but as fruites follow trees Now I pray you gentle Reader how doe fruits follow trees Our Fryer telleth vs. Some trees neuer haue any fruit sayth he some want a long time and none beare fruit euer Alas alas what a fond fryer-Iesuit is this Robert Parsons Where were their wits that made him the Prouinciall of England If good workes follow persons iustified no otherwise but as fruits follow trees which is my position then doubtlesse are they not to be expected euery hour but when the due circumstances of time place and persons do require For good trees do not euer bring forth their fruits but in due times and seasons S. R. His first argument is taken out of Saint Paule Rom. 6. 23. But the gift of GOD is life euerlasting in Christ Iesu our Lord. He argueth in this manner Eternall life is the free gift of God therefore it can no way bee due to the merit of mans workes I aunswere that the Antecedent is false and neyther heere nor any where else taught by S. Paule T. B. Our Iesuite shall aunswere and confute himselfe for these are his owne words a little after Because sayth our Iesuite as workes are rewarded euen aboue their virtual proportionate equality as Diuines say vltra condignū no maruell if S. Paul called eternall life rather Grace or Gift then Stipend seeing it hath much more of Grace then it hath of Iustice yet he no where calleth it meere grace Beside that as Saint Austen writeth he might haue called it a Stipend as hec calleth Death in respect of Sinne but forbore least wee should thinke it were so iustly deserued by Good Workes as death is by euill Thus discourseth our Fryer Where we haue first by his owne free graunt that Workes are rewarded aboue their desert Albeit before hee called them condigne and of condigne merite These are his wordes Good workes saith he done in Gods grace are condignely meritorius of eternall life Secondly that Saint Paule calleth eternall life rather Grace then Stipend because it hath much more of Grace then it hath of Iustice where vnawares he confuteth himselfe doubtlesse because where there is more of Grace then of Iustice it is vnpossible to establish condigne merite For as the Apostle teacheth vs To him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of Grace but of debt or duety And the same Apostle declareth it more plainely in another place For by Grace saith he you are saued throgh faith that not of your selues for it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast himselfe And again in another place thus Not by the works of righteousnesse which we did but according to his mercy he saued vs. Thirdly that the Apostle calleth eternall life rather grace then stipend as S. Austen writeth because it is not so iustly deserued by Good Workes as death is by euill workes No no S. Austen saith plainly Cum Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua Whē God crowneth our merites he crowneth nothing els but his owne giftes First therefore seeing Good Workes are rewarded aboue their deserts Secondly seeing Good Workes haue more of grace then of
be neuer so simple are actually contained in scripture eyther clearely or obscurely T. B. This doctrine is good I approue it with all my heart and willingly subscribe vnto it with my pen. If our Iesuite will stand to this Doctrine we shall soone agree S. R. For surely the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrin for our remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to be actually known of euery one especially seeing they haue written many thinges which are not so necessary And this thing teacheth S. Austen when he sayth those thinges are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull T. B. This Doctrine I likewise approue it is the verie same that I defend Keepe thee heere Iesuite and we shall not contend S. R. Methinks S. Austen plainly auoucheth that God hath procured euery thing to be clearly written which to know is necessary to euery mans saluation The same teacheth S. Syril saying Not al things which our lord did are written but what the writers deemed sufficient as well for manners as for Doctrine that by right saith and workes we may attaine the kingdome of Heauen S. Chrisostome sayth what things soeuer are necessary the same are manifest out of the scripture T. B. This doctrine I still approue as which the Reader may find to be taken out of the Downfall And so our Iesuite doth heere subscribe vnto my Doctrine though hee take vpon him to oppugne the same For the truth is mighty will in time preuaile This being so I haue no neede to stand long vpon this point For as the Reader seeth the Iesuite approoueth that Doctrine which I in the Downefall do defend S. R. Truly said Saint Ephiphanius that we may tel the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scriptures He saide not out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as himself writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause T. B. This also is sound Doctrine and the very same which I defend in the Downfal And consequently the very weapons which our Iesuite hath put into our hands are sufficient to defend vs and our cause against him For if the Reader shal remember these grounds and these positions freely of him granted and withall haue recourse vnto the Downfall he shall be able with all facility to answere to all that the Iesuite obiecteth in this Article S. R. All points of Christian faith cannot be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of scripture For there is no place of all the scripture which sufficiently proueth all the rest to be cannonicall our B. Lady to be a perpetuall Virgin and. the Sabboth to be lawfully translated from Saturday to Sunday T. B. Now our Iesuite forgetteth himselfe and what doctrin he hath already deliuered It were a sufficient answere to tell him that hee heere confuteth himselfe But for the Readers helpe I will breefely aunswere his particulars To the first I say it is soundly and largely answered in the Downfall of Popery In regard of breuity I referre the Reader to the place quoted in the Margent To the second I answere first that I willingly acknowledge the most blessed Virgin to be the Mother of true God and true man and to haue bin a perpetuall Virgin both before Christs byrth and in his byrth and after his byrth Secondly that albeit I defend as our Iesuite also hath granted all things necessary to be beleeued vnto saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures yet do I not deny but willingly graunt and reuerently admit many things receiued by the perpetuall consent of the church and not repugnant to the written word as true wholesome and godly For I am perswaded with S. Austen that whatsoeuer is neyther against Fayth nor against good manners may indifferently be obserued for their society amongst whom we do conuerse Againe it is one thing to say that all necessary points of fayth and Doctrine are contained in the holy scriptures another thing to say that nothing not contained in the scripture hath bin receyued by tradition may be admitted for a truth It cannot be convinced out of the scriptures and therefore no matter of fayth that Saint Peter and S Paule dyed together at Rome yet do I admit it for a truth as receiued by Tradition from the Primatiue Church and testified by vniforme consent of al approued antiquity To the third I haue already said inough both in my Booke of Suruey and also in the Regiment of the Church For in things indifferent the Church may determine what is most expedient for the due circumstances of times places and persons S. R. God sayth Bell forbiddeth vs to adde to his word I answere that such places make nothing against Traditions which are necessary to mans saluation because such are indeed Gods word though vnwritten T. B. I answere our Iesuite with his owne words which follow immediately and are these for the two first places onely forbid adding to Gods word any thing of our own heade or which is mans word as may be proued by the reason of the forbiddance viz least we be disproued found lyars as no doubt we might by adding mans word which is subiect to lye but not by adding Gods worde which neuer can proue vntrue though it be not written Thus writeth our Iesuite confuting himselfe so sufficiently as more needs not be required In these words he telleth vs two things the one quite opposite to the other First he truly saith confuting himselfe that the Scripture forbiddeth to adde of our owne head any thing which is but mans word and subiect to falshood and lying This is good But secondly hee addeth that to adde Gods word though vnwritten is a lawfull thing but this is a silly begging of the question as the Schooles tearme it For I deny that vnwritten Word to bee Gods Word which our Iesuite should prooue but cannot And our Iesuite hath already confessed that all necessary pointes of faith are contained in the Scriptures written Word And consequently it is to late to tell vs now of adding or admitting the vnwritten Word I admit his former assertion as consonant to the Scriptures this latter I reiect as childish vaine and friuolous I proue it because euery word of God is to be admitted as a matter of faith and yet all matters of Faith are written as is already proued and granted This therefore not being written must be hissed out of the Schoole of Christians S. R. Bell alleadgeth the Prophets words To the Law rather and to the Testimony This place maketh nothing for him First because the Prophet nameth not onely the Law but Testimony also which comprehendeth Gods vnwritten word Secondly because Esay doth not absolutely bidde vs recurre to the Law
vs. And what is the cause Forsooth saith S. Austen because they onely heare a sound in their outward eares but not the heauenly Preacher sounding in their harts S. R. Well saide S. Austen I would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto This place so stingeth Bell as he windeth euery way to auoyd it T. B. Howsoeuer in your opinion it stingeth me yet haue I so sufficiently aunswered it in the Downfall as there is no need heere to adde any thing in defence thereof Neuerthelesse some few Annotations I will adde for explication sake First when S. Austen saith I wold not beleeue the Gospel vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto He meaneth of himselfe as being a Manichee not as being a christian As if he had said If I this day were not a Christian but a Manichee as I once was I woulde not beleeue this Gospell which I wish thee to embrace vnlesse the Churches Authority did moue me to the same For these are S. Austens own words Si ergo invenirem aliquem qui Euangelio nondum crèdit quid faceres dicenti tibi non credo Ego vero Euangelio noÌ„ crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commâ—veret authoritas If therefore I shoulde finde one that yet beleeueth not the Gospel what wouldst thou do to him saying to thee I beleeue it not I doubtlesse would not beleeue the gospell vnlesse the authority of the Catholicke church did mooue mee therâ—unto Loe he speaketh of him that beleeueth not the gospell and of himselfe not being a christian not of himselfe or any other that professeth the gospell Where I am to admonish the Reader that here as in many other places of my Bookes this period last recited is vnperfect in the Downefall For my selfe being absent from the Presse as dwelling farre off many faultes escape the Printer That this is the true meaning of S. Austen I proue it first because in the very same Chapter hee confesseth that the Authority of the Gospell is aboue the authority of the Church Secondly because in the Chapter aforegoing after he hath discoursed of many notable things in the church Consent Miracles Antiquitie and Succession he addeth that the truth of the Scriptures must be preferred before them all These pointes and reasons I cited before out of Saint Austen which because they confound our Iesuite hee impudently denieth them affirming that Saint Austen saith not so These therefore are S. Austens owne words in the first Chapter Quòd si forte in euangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu 〈◊〉 pâ—tueris infirmabis mihi catholicorum anthoritatem qui iubent non credam If happily thou canst finde in the Gospell any manifest thing of the Apostle-ship of Manichaeus thou shalt discredite the authority of Catholiques to mee who commaund mee not to beleeue thee Againe in the fourth Chapter he hath these wordes Apud vos sola personaâ— veritatis pollicitatio quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur vt in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor With you onely soundeth the promise of truth which if it bee prooued so manifest that it cannot be doubted of it is to be preferred before al those thinges that hold me in the catholique church Loe in the former place Saint Austen graunteth freely that the authority of the Scripture is aboue the authority of the church And in the latter that the truth of the Scripture must be preferred before all other things whatsoeuer Away therefore with our lying Fryer and giue hearing to his fables no longer Secondly the faith that proceedeth from the Church for TestificatioÌ„ is but humaine and not diuine For none saue God onely can beget faith diuine in vs. It pleaseth GOD to vse externall meanes and Ceremonies for the confirmation of our Faith but the grace power vertue is from himselfe alone The Law was giuen by Moyses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ. I prooue it First because a supernaturall effect must needes bee produced of a supernaturall cause and consequently diuine faith beeing a supernaturall effect cannot proceede from the Romish Church Secondly a corporall agent cannot ascend and penetrate a spirituall obiect as a materiall Sword cannot penetrate an immateriall Spirit and consequently neither produce an immateriall effect as is faith diuine Thirdly no immateriall and spirituall accident can bee receyued into any corporall subiect and consequently no corporall subiect is apt to produce a spirituall effect Fourthly Saint Austen saith plainly that it is a greater woorke to iustifie a man then to create the VVorlde but no power saith the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas which is vpon earth can concurre to creation Ergo neither to iustification and consequently neither to the producing of Faith diuine Thirdly when saith is wrought and begotten in vs we may not diuide the worke giuing part to God and part to the Church but we must ascribe the whole to GOD the true Author of the whole Therfore after S. Paule had tolde the Corinthians that he had laboured more aboundantly then all the Apostles hee forthwith added these wordes Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me For though maÌ„ be not in his actions as a brute beast or block but free from all coaction and constraint yet hath he no power but from aboue neither hath he any part more or lesse in producing Grace Faith or the supernatuall effects For though it be Gods pleasure to vse mans externall acts and operations for the exercise of his faith wheÌ„ he meaneth to produce supernaturall effectes yet dooth hee himselfe solely and wholy of himselfe produce the same effectes And heere I must tell the Reader of a great defect in the Latine Vulgata editio which the late Councell of Trent extolleth to the Heauens and withall Papists are bound to vse and beleeue It saith thus Yet not I but the grace of God with mee as if forsooth part were imputed to grace and part to the act and woorke of Saint Paule Whereas indeed the Apostle ascribeth the whole to God and vtterly refuseth to take any part to himselfe Which the Article â— in the Greeke left out in the Latine Vulgata editio maketh plaine and euident For after Saint Paule had saide That hee had laboured more then all the Aopostles he by and by addeth this correction Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me And heere because sensible things worke most in sensile persons let vs take an example of the Napkins and Partlets which were brought from Saint Paules body vnto the sicke for the Napkins by touching Saint Paules body receiued no inherent vertue to worke Miracles The Text saith plainely that God wrought the Miracles by the hand of Paule The Napkins and Handkerchiefes were but outward tokens to confirme the faith of
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