etiam involuntarios These thinges are spoken after the minde of Saint Austen who vnderstandeth all the motions euen those which bee involuntary to bee forbidden in some sort by this Commaundement Thou shalt not Lust. VVhere wee see that not onely Bellarmine theyr Cardinall but Saint Austen that woorthy Piller of the Church affirmeth both Originall concupiscence and the involuntary Motions thereof to be forbidden in this precept Where I may not forget to tell the Reader that though Bellarmine to make his matter good if it would addeth to Saint Austens wordes In some sort yet dooth Saint Austen write very simply and sayth flatly that they are prohibited and addeth not Quodam modo In some sort That is Bellarmines addition it is not in Saint Austen Secondly that habituall Originall Lust is not idle but woorketh ill desires in vs continually agaynst our vvill So sayth S. Austen in these words Agit n. Aliquid concupiscentia carnis c. For concupiscence of the flesh worketh somthing euen when there is not giuen vnto it either the consent of the heart where it may raigne or the members as VVeapons which may accomplish what it appointeth And what doth it but the very wicked and filthy desires For if they were good and lawfull the Apostle would not forbid to obey them Marke these wordes gentle Reader for they are of great consequence and giue a deadly blowe to the Papistes Two thinges are cleered by this Testimony of Saint Austen the one that Concupiscence to which consent is not giuen bringeth foorth ill desires the other that the sayde desires are vnlawfull and prohibited by the Law of GOD. And so wee haue euidently prooued that habituall Concupiscence to which the regenerate yeelde no consent but stoutly resist the same is so farre from beeing meritorious as the Papists would haue it that it is sinne formally and properly so called And wee haue further that habituall concupiscence worketh ill desires in vs against our will and therefore that those desires are truely called originall because vvee doe them not but rather suffer them to bee doone in vs. Thirdly that though the Law in saying Thou shalt not lust seemeth by the force of the word which signifyeth action to prohibite onely the voluntary act of concupiscence yet dooth it forbidde the very Originall Concupiscence it selfe withall the braunches effects and involuntary motions thereof as is already prooued at large Yea Saint Austen doth vnderstand it as Bellarmine himselfe doth grant Heere for the help of the Reader I note that a threefold Concupiscence is forbidden by the tenth Commandement The first is meerely called Originall This is that vvhich vve all contracted of Adam and which is the Fountaine of all concupiscences and sins and therefore truely called of the Apostle sin The second is partly Originall and partly Actuall Originall because it yssueth naturally from the Originall prauity of our nature Actuall for that we couet in act albeit against our wil and because it is against our wil it is more properly truly called Originall then actuall The third is meerely actuall because it is voluntary S. R. I must note Bels important vntruths First that Pope Vrban and Pope Innocent confirmed Saint Thomas his doctrine for authenticall Secondly that Pope Vrban gaue it the first place after cannonicall scripture T. B. This Fryer seemeth to bee framed of lying and as hee hath vsually spent his whole dispute so in the end of the article he closeth it vp with leasing Whosoeuer shal pervse The Downfall of Popery wil soon espy how this Fryer loadeth my back with slaunderous speeches and false reports I will heere in regard of breuity onely set downe the Testimony of a famous Papist Augustinus Hunnaeus by name in that Epistle which he sent to Pope Pius the fift These are his words Vrbanus c. Vrbanus that worthy Prelate of the Apostolique sea admiring the excellent doctrine of this man he speaketh of Aquinas beholding it as fallen from heauen to driue away the naturall mist of ignorance from mens minds doth grauely exhort to the study thereof and commaundeth the vniuersity of Tholouse to follow it as the cheefe in all their disputations and aunsweres concerning faith and manners Innocentius the fift of that name esteemed the same mans Doctrine so greatly that hee doubted not to giue it the first place after the Cannonicall scripture Thus writeth Hunnaeus By whose words it may appeare in what reuerence the Doctrine of Aquinas is with the Papists as also that our Iesuite cannot answere me but by lying And thus I will end this article with these words of our Iesuite Habituall cōcupiscence includeth not only pronesse to euill but also difficulty to do good and want of habibituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill Thus writeth our Iesuite who after he hath long wearied himselfe in struggling against the truth doth at the length vnawares confesse the same For doubtlesse when he graunteth that habituall Concupiscence in the regenerate includeth want of habituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill he graunteth in substance in the truth of the matter as much as I desire He denyeth in wordes that Originall concupiscence is formally sinne but in effect and substance hee graunteth the very same Whosoeuer shal seriously ponder both my discourse heere and in the Downefall especially concerning the Nature definition and essence of sinne he will perceiue with all facility that the Iesuite woulde say as I write if hee were not affrayde to displease the Pope The fift Article of the merite of Good workes S. R. BEls first position containeth two partes the first is that good workes neither do nor can goe before Iustification Behold Bell euen where he would proue himselfe a friend to good workes sheweth himselfe to be an enemy and excluding them from any going before or any way concurring to iustification to which they so concurred in Saint Mary Magdalen as our Sauiour saide Many sinnes are forginen her because shee loued much making her loue a kind of cause viz disponent of her Iustification T. B. Our Iesuite wold gladly perswade his reader that I am an enemy to good workes The best mean he hath to defend himselfe and Popery withall is cogging lying and false dealing I must needs be an enimy to Good workes because I will not admit euill workes for good I say with S. Austen Sequuntur iustificatum non precedent iustificandum Good Workes follow him that is iustified but they go not before him that is to be iustified Behold here gentle Reader that S. Austen is the same enemy to Good workes that I am He affirmeth them to follow iustification and so doe I. Hee denyeth them to goe before iustification and so doe I. What a thing is this Our Iesuite dareth not call Saint Austen an enemy to Good Workes and yet doth he call mee so
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
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
iustification was neuer knowne to any of the holy Fathers nor to any ancient counsel so wil their saluation neuer bee knowne to Gods elect vnlesse they repent and reuoke this their damnable Doctrine Fourthly that God worketh our Good Workes in vs. Fiftly that God hath ordained Good Workes for this end that we walke in them This doctrine is confirmed by the same Apostle in another place where he hath these wordes Not by the Workes of Iustice which wee did but according to his Mercy hee hath saued vs. Loe the holy Apostle is still constant in his former position viz that We are not saued by the Workes of Iustice but of mercy grace For this cause saith S. Austen Woe vnto the best liuer vppon earth if God examin his life his mercy set apart For this cause saith S. Chrisostome si millies moriamur c. Though we die a thousand times and though we accomplish all vertues of the minde yet do wee nothing woorthy of those things which we receiue of God For this cause saith S. Theophilact Seruauit nos aeternum non ex operibus c. Hee hath saued vs eternally not of the workes which we haue done that is neither haue we done the works of Iustice neither are wee saued by them but his goodnes and his clemency hath wrought our saluation wholly Yea for this cause saith their highly renowned Abbot Bernardus Sic non est c. So there is no cause that thou shouldst now aske by what merits we hope for glory especially since thou hearest the Prophet say I will do it sayth the Lord not for your sake but for mine owne It is sufficient to merite to know that our merites are not sufficient Thus write these holy fathers with the famous popish Abbot whose words are so plaine for the truth which I defend as euery childe may with facility discerne the same For I did not say as our Iesuite woulde deceitfully perswade his Reader that Good Works are an impossible mean to come to heauen No nor that the young man did enquire of an impossible way to heauen For I know and I haue constantly affirmed the same in the Downfall that Goodworkes are a meane and the way that leadeth to heauen But withall I said then and now againe that neither can the best liuer on earth keepe the Commandements so exactly as the law requireth neither can any man for any works he doth condignly merit eternal life And this is the point indeede which I defend against the Papists Whosoeuer shall with a single eye pervse the Downfall will find it to be so For it is one thing to say that Good Workes are a meane or the way to heauen another thing to say that a man can fulfill the Law and by his Workes condignely merite heauen The former I graunt willingly the latter I deny constantly neither is any Papist able to answere my reasons in that behalfe For example the Pope Boniface sicke at Rome of his meere good wil bequeathed by his Testament 7000. crownes of Gold to Robert Parsons the Iesuite lame of hands and legs at Paris his lamenesse not knowne to the Pope to be giuen to the said Parsons whē he cōmeth to Rome in his own person to demand the same Now the said Parsons hauing inteligence of the said Legacy prouideth a good Gelding a strong man-like fellow and so taketh his iourney towards Rome where he no sooner demaundeth the saide 7000. Crownes but he in friendly manner receiueth the same acording to the true meaning of the Popes will In this case the Gelding the tall fellow and the iourney it selfe were good necessary meanes to receiue and possesse the said Crownes Howbeit neither did they merite the said Crownes neyther were they the cause of bequeathing them Euen so in our case Eternall life as the Apostle saith is the free gift of God it is of grace not of Workes neuerthelesse Goodworkes as the same Apostle telleth vs are the way which God hath ordained for vs to walke in and the vsuall ordinary vndoubted meanes by which God intendeth to bring his elect to heauen This notwithstanding this must euer bee a constant and vndoubted position with all the children of God viz that none not the best liuer vpon earth is able exactly to keepe Gods commandements and by the merit of his works to enter into heauen S. R. Will not Christ say in his last sentence Come ye blessed of my father possesse the kingdom prouided for you from the constitution of the world I was hungry and ye gaue me meate As well as he will say Go you from me you cursed into euerlasting fire For I was hungry and ye gaue me not to eate T. B. I answere first that the word For is not heere taken Causaliter but Consequutiue to speake as the Schoole-doctors do that is to say It doth not Connotate the cause but the euent as was saide before of Mary Magdalen So that the sence is not for giuing meat to Christ when hee was hungry or drink to him being thirsty they did merit heauen but that by doing such charitable works which are the effects of a true iustifying faith they shewed thēselues to bee the children of God and the heyres of his kingdome And this sence is deduced out of the very text it selfe For seeing the kingdome of heauen as Christ heere auoucheth was prepared for them before the foundation and consequently before they were borne and so before they could doe any Good Workes it followeth of necessity that their workes could not merite heauen but only signifie to the world that the inheritance of heauen was due vnto them as to the children of God the heyres of the same For as the Apostle sayth If we be sonnes then are we also heyres heyres of God and ioynt-heires with Christ. Yea as the same Apostle saith in another place As he chose vs in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight through loue who hath predestiuated vs into the adoption of children by Iesus Christ vnto himselfe according to the good pleasure of his will To which I must needs adde that which the same Apostle saith yet in another place Whom he did predestinate them also he called and whom he called them also he iustified and whom he iustified them also he glorified Out of this holy discourse of the Apostle of our Lord Iesus I obserue these golden lessons First that we are the sonnes of God not by nature for so we are his enemies and the children of wrath but by grace and adoption in Iesus Christ. Secondly that God chose vs to be his Children before we were borne Thirdly that he chose vs not because wee were holy but that we might be holy and immaculate in his sight Fourthly that he predestinated vs to bee his Children by adoption not for any Goodworkes
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
the iudge thereof No more thē hee who conferring Scripture with Scripture expoundeth one place by another Which kind of exposition S. Austen preferreth before all other S. R. Bell saith canonicall Scripture may bee discerned of it selfe as light from darke He prooueth it because Gods word is called a light and a Lanthorne which shineth to Men. Because spirituall men iudge all things because the vnction teacheth Gods children all things And Christes Sheepe both heare and know his voyce But this is easily refelled First because though Samuell were a faithfull and holy man and God spake thrice to him yet he tooke his word for mans word vntill Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods word Gedeon was faithfull and yet knew not at first that it was God that spake vnto him by an Angell and therefore demanded a Miracle in confirmation of it Likewise Saint Peter was faithfull and yet at first he knew not that it was an Angell that spake and deliuered him Secondly Gods word consisteth in the sence and meaning which the faithfull oftentimes doe not vnderstand Thirdly the distinction of Scriptures from not Scriptures is not so euident as the distinction of light from darknesse is for then no man could erre therein T. B. This aunswere of our Fryer is friuolous and childish That which hee obiecteth of Samuell Gedeon and Peter is not to the purpose For as I haue prooued out of Melchior Canus and others euery one of the faithfull knoweth not euery thing but onely so much as is necessary for his saluation to know neyther is such their knowledge at euery houre moment but then onely and in such measure when and in what degree it pleaseth God to giue it Some of Gods children are effectually called at the first hour some at the third some at the sixt some at the last For though al Gods children be elected and predestinate before all time yet are they al called both generally and effectually in time some sooner some later according to the good pleasure of the caller who calleth freely without respect of persons Now where our Fryer denyeth the distinction of Gods word from mans word to be so euident as the distinction of light from darkenes because then none as he saith could erre therein I answere that as he that is blinde corporally cannot discerne colours nor behold the bright beams of the sinne so neither can he that is blind spiritually discerne Gods word frō mans word nor behold the brightnes of eternall truth For as the Apostle teacheth vs. If Christs Gospell be hid it is hidde in them that perish in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which beleeue not least the light of the gospell of the glory of Christ should shine vnto them And the same Apostle telleth vs else-where That the spirituall man iudgeth all things but the naturall man perceiueth not the things which are of God S. R. Saint Iohn sayth Bell affirmeth that the Vnction teacheth vs all thinges which wee deny not but no where saith he that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church which is it that wee deny and Bell should proue T. B. I haue proued at large euen out of your owne reuerend Byshop Melchior Canus that as the well affected tast can easily discerne the differences of sauours so can the good affection of the minde discerne the Doctrine of saluation And therfore as the testimony of the church is not necessary to the one no more is it to the other Yea if that sence of our Fryer had beene the truth of the text all the graue expositors of S. Iohn woulde neuer haue omitted the same But our Fryer coulde bring no expositor for himselfe and therefore no reason that we should admitte this bare denyall against the plaine wordes of the Text. S. R. That of the Spiritual man is not to the purpose both because all the faithfull are not spirituall but some carnall and therefore may we better inferre that the Gospell is not euident to all the faithfull as also because Saint Paul explicateth not by what meanes the spirituall man iudgeth all things whether by the euidency of the thinges as Bell woulde haue him to Iudge scripture or by some outward Testimony T. B. I answere first that all the faithfull rightly so tearmed are spirituall and not carnall neyther do the places quoted by our Iesuite proue any thing for his purpose For if he will haue none to bee spirituall that are sinners then must he deny the Apostles of our Lord to haue beene spirituall For as S. Iames granteth freely They all sinned in many thinges Secondly that if the Apostle had not explicated by what meanes the Spirituall man iudgeth all things as he did indeed yet would it not follow thereupon that our Iesuite may expound it to his best liking Thirdly that the Apostle sayth plainly in the words afore going That the spirituall man iudgeth by the spirit of God that is in him Fourthly that our Iesuite belyeth Bell heere as he doth many times else-where For Bell would not haue the spirituall man to Iudge the scripture by the euidency of the things but by the spirit of God which is euer at hand euen within him to teach him all necessary truth S. R. Bell alledgeth the Scripture That Christes Sheepe heare and know his voice which no man doubteth of But the question is whether they heare it of himselfe alone or of his church T. B. This is but irkesome Tautologie it is answered againe and againe First the late Romish Church is not the church that cannot erre this is already proued Secondly I haue proued euen out of their owne Cardinall Tolet That Christes sheepe know him because hee first knoweth them Yea the Text doth plainly yeeld that sence I knowe my sheepe saith Christ and they know mee As if he had said My Sheepe therefore know mee because I first know them Christ therefore not the church maketh his sheep to know and discern his voyce Thirdly the church is an outward help as is the preaching of the word To beget a kind of morral certitude or humane faith in the hearers but neither of them eyther doth or can beget faith Diuine in any man Paule may plant and Apol'o may water but only God can giue the increase Experience may confirme this to be so For no testification of the Romish church can make the Turke or Iew bebeleeue or acknowledge Christs Gospel If it were otherwise 10000. Iews this day in Rome would becom christians I wil say more and it is S. Austens Doctrin Many come to the Church and heare the word of God read and preached vnto thē but beleeue it not as their liues declare for euery good tree bringeth forth good fruits as our master christ telleth
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