Iustice. Thirdly seeing Good Workes cannot so merite heauen as ill workes merite hell Fourthly seeing the best merits are nothing else but the meere giftes of GOD I must needes conclude that Workes are not condignely meritorious of eternal life S. R. Bell citeth Theophilact because he sayth Saint Paule called eternall life Grace and not a Reward as though he had sayd It is not the reward of our labors But this is nothing against vs who willingly confesse erernall life to be grace and not to proceede of our owne labours done by our selues but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ. T. B. Our Iesuite is so pinched and nipped by my Authorities and reasons that he had rather say any thing then acknowledge the truth that I defend Here as we see hee is become a Semi-pelagian Heretique for he affirmeth eternall life to bee wrought and doone of our selues yet not wholly of our selues but partly also of the holy Ghost And after such a silly manner he is enforced to answer all the rest viz euer against himselfe S. R. True it is that Augles as a follower of Scotus seemeth to thinke that the condignity of Good Workes riseth not of any equality which is in them vnto glory but of Gods promise to reward them T. B. It is well that ye wil once seeme to graunt a truth The truth is this that both Iosephus Angles and your Cardinall Bellarmine do freely grant being ouercome with the force of trueth that Good workes can merite nothing but by reason of GODS promise freely made vnto men I haue prooued the Controuersie so euidently that our Iesuite doth nothing else but weary both himselfe and his Reader in writing most friuolously against the same I referre the Reader to The Downfall it selfe where hee shall find euery Argument and peece of reason soundly answered before our Iesuite had published the same And therefore for mee to vse any further reply therein were but Actum agere For doubtlesse whosoeuer shall duly all partiality set aside peruse The Downfall as it came from my penne and lay downe this Iesuites aunswere to it in euery place and compare them together he will I am fully perswaded freely confesse that no further reply is necessary in that behalfe The sixt Article of the destinction of mortall and veniall sinnes S. R. ALl his proofes may be reduced to this Syllogisme What is against Gods Law is mortal sin all sin is against Gods law Ergo all sinne is mortall Beholde Bell here absolutely concludeth all sinne to be mortal and after calleth our veniall sinnes cursed and deformed which argueth that he thinketh all sin to be indeed mortal notwithstanding Gods mercy The propositioÌ„ he supposeth the assumption he prooueth out of scripture fathers and schoolemen T. B. This controuersie consisteth wholy in this viz whether euery sin be of it own nature moâ—al or no. I hold the Affirmatiue our Iesuite the Negatiue And for all that hee freely granteth vnawares as you see that I haue prooued mine opinion and doctrin both out of the holy scripture and also out of the fathers and schoole-Doctors S. R. Christ saith Bell telleth vs that we must giue account for euery ydle word and S. Iohn saith that euery sinne is Anomia that is Transgression of the law Saint Ambrose also defineth sin in generall to be transgression of Gods law and S. Austen describeth it to be euery word deed or desire against Gods law Yea Bellarmine arffimeth euery sin to be against Gods law The Rhemists also confesse that euery sin is a swaruing from the Law Likewise Iosephus Angles and Durandus teach venial sins to be against the law To this argument Catholicks answer differeÌ„tly some by denial of the proposition others by denial of the assumption Some say that euery sin which is against the Law is not mortall but onely that which is perfectly against it Others say that veniall sinnes are not against the Law but besides the Law T. B. Heere is an answere aunswerelesse For first our Fryer graunteth that I haue prooued by the Scripture by Saint Ambrose by S. Austen by Bellarmine their famous Cardinall by the Rhemists their learned bretheren by Iosephus Angles their religious Fryer and reuerend Byshop and by Durandus their famous Schoole-Doctor that euery sin more and lesse is against the Law of God and consequently mortall of it owne nature Secondly our Fryer freely confesseth that this argument of mine doth so trouble the Papists that they cannot agree among themselues how to answere the same Some sayth he deny the proposition some deny the assumption other some say they cannot tell what and our Iesuite himselfe standes amazed whether it is better to yeeld to the truth or to face it out desperately and impudently with Legierdemain iugling falshood and deceitfull dealing S. R. Yet better it is to say that veniall sinnes are beside the Law then against the Lawe T. B. Our Iesuite being in perplexity like as Buridanus his Asse what to answere to my argument resolueth to take the best way as he supposeth for he thinketh as felons Traytors standing at the barre in their arraigment that it is the best to plead not guilty But I must tell him two things The one that to be beside the Law and against the Law is al one in effect For as our master Christ saith Hee that is not with him is against him and consequently if he do besides Christs commaundement hee doth against the same The other that Durandus and many Popish Schoole-Doctors confesse resolutely that euery sinne is against Gods law And Iosephus Angles affirmeth constantly that Dwrands opinion is now adaies the Doctrine of theyr Schooles Where I wish the Reader to note by the way the mutability of late start vp Romish Religion Read the Downefall where this point is set downe at large S. R. Therefore if Bell graunt indeede as he doth in words that by Gods mercy some sins are made veniall he must also confesse that by Gods mercy they are not against his charity and friendship T. B. I graunt that as all sinnes is mortall of their owne nature which I haue prooued copiously in The Downefall euen by the testimony of very famous Papists so are all sins veniall by Gods mercy for the merits of his sonne Iesus to the regenerate his elect children and consequently though all sins bee against Gods friendship who hateth and detesteth all sinne in their owne nature yet are all the sins of Gods elect reputed not onely as veniall but none at all in Christ Iesus they receiued into Gods fauour for Christs sake S. R. Bell prooueth out of Saint Ambrose that sin is defined the transgression of the law And out of S. Austen that it is diuine reason or the will of God commaunding the order of nature to be kept and forbidding it to bee broken But these Fathers define onely mortall sin T. B. Mark
for Christs sake and behold our Iesuite at a great Non plus I haue prooued both by the Scripture out of Saint Iohn and by the testimony of the holy Fathers and famous Popish Writers that the very Essence Nature and formality of sin is the transgression of Gods Lawe That Gods law is nothing else but his eternall reason or will decreeing what ought to be done or not to be done and consequently that euery sin is mortall as beeing against Gods reason Will and Law Now our Fryer being indeede at his wits end knoweth not what aunswere to make but saith at Randon that the Fathers onely define mortall sin He neither hath Rime nor Reason thus to say but we must if ye will admit his bare word for he is an honest man I warrant you his word is as good as no Obligation The Fathers define sin generally they make no exception at all yet our Iesuite will needs haue them to define onely mortall What a thing is this Who euer hath heard the like The Question is whether euery sin be mortall or no. I affirme euery sin to bee mortall and I prooue it because the holy Scripture the Auncient Fathers and the Doctors doe define sin to bee so yet our Iesuite thinketh it enough barely to aunswere that they all speak of mortall sin not of veniall O sweet Iesus Our Iesuite is either too too foolish or els too too malicious His fond answer is tearmed in Schooles Petitio principij the begging of the Question He will needes haue the Fathers to except veniall sins and to acknowledge such sins although they take no notice of such sins neither once name such sins but contrariwise affirme all sinnes without exception to bee mortall These Fathers saith our fatherly Iesuite define mortall sin not veniall Euen so sorsooth for why should they define that which is not The Fathers were wise they knew that euery sin in it owne nature deserued death and therefore defined sin accordingly They knew that Saint Paule saith The reward of sinne is death They knew what God saith by his Prophet Ezechiell The Soule that sinneth shall dye the death They knew what God saith by his Prophet Dauid Thou art not a GOD that loueth wickednesse neither shall euill dwell with thee They knew what Christ will say at the day of dome Depart from me ye cursed into euerlasting fire But our Iesuite saith that veniall sinnes breake not friendshippe with God Well let him stand in iudgment against God for his venials I will say with the humble Prophet Enter not into iudgement with thy Seruant O Lord for no flesh can be iustified in thy sight S. R. I admit that by sin Saint Iohn vnderstood all kinde of Actuall sin and deny that Anomia Iniquity is taken for wickednesse and perfect transgression of the Lawe but generally as it is common to perfect transgression only swaruing from the Law T. B. I answere First that Anomia is the transgression of the Law according to the nature and proper signification of the word as their most famous Linguist Arias Montanus graunteth Secondly that iniquity is perfect sin and wickednesse as the Prophet telleth vs Discedite à me omnes qui operamini iniquitate Depart from me all ye that worke iniquity So the Latin Vulgata editio readeth which the papists must approoue perforce because the Pope hath so inioyned them Heere iniquity must needes bee taken for mortall sin for as our Iesuite saith Veniall sinnes do not breake friendship with God and I may presume to affirme of holy Dauid that hee commaunded not them to depart from him who were in fauour with God No no God loueth not those that worke iniquity Thirdly that Saint Iohn speaketh of mortall sinne by our Iesuites owne confession Fourthly that Saint Bede Lyranus and Carthusianus do all three with vniforme assent expound it of mortall sin Fiftly that our Iesuite vnawares graunteth no lesse These are his wordes For iniquity requireth onely want of equitie and conformitie to Gods Lawe Loe hee graunteth iniquity to want conformity to Gods Law and so say I vnawares he granteth iniquity to be against Gods law seeing it is here confessed of our Iesuite that it wants cōformity thereunto for that is to be against Gods Law S. R. Durand and Angles I confesse did thinke veniall sins to bee against the Lawe but neyther is this a matter of Fayth neyther do they intend to fauour Bell any thing T. B. Here our Iesuite graunteth me the victory confessing that his owne deare friendes Durand and Angles defend mine opinion But he addeth two things for his defence as hee thinketh yet I deny them and so I thinke will the indifferent Reader to be very ridiculous and altogether childish First he saith it is no matter of faith What then good Sir Is nothing to be regarded but matters of Fayth Is it a matter of faith that your Pope cannot erre That he is aboue a general Councel That he can depose kings Nay that either he or your selfe be an honest man And what is a matter of fayth Forsooth whatsoeuer the Pope will haue a matter of fayth Secondly he saith Durand and Angles intend not to fauour mee This is brother-folly to the former How farre to London a pokefull of Plumbes S. R. All formall sin is formall iniquity but not contrarywise As Adultery or murther committed by a foole or madde man is iniquity but no more sinne then it is in Beasts T. B. First Iniquity is wickednesse and consequently sin as is already prooued Secondly Iniquity is formally against equity as our Iesuite hath graunted Thirdly it is formally transgression of Gods Law as I haue many wayes confirmed Ergo it is formally sin Fourthly If Adultery or murther doone by a foole or mad man be iniquity it is also sin for all iniquity is sin as is already prooued Fiftly to say that Adultery done by a foole or madde man is no more sinne then it is in beastes seemeth to me a beastly affirmation Our Iesuite barely sayth it hee prooueth it not I know his supposed ground because forsooth it is not voluntary But I would haue him to tell mee how it is not as well sinne in Fooles and mad men as Adams fault is sinne in Infants against their will Because saith he they cannot auoyde it The same say I of Infantes I adde that Beastes neuer hadde it in their power to auoyde sinne and sinnefull actes but Fooles madde men and Infantes were all at once enabled to haue kept the Lawe when they were in Lumbis Adae which is enough for their iust condemnation And it is confirmed because they may as well bee freed from Originall sin as from murther and Adultery It is a common saying that if a drunken man kill a man when hee is drunke hee must bee hanged when hee is sober Yea the Ethnicke Philosopher can tell vs that a murtherer
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
is done is forgiuen But this is easily refuted for Saint Iohn spake in respect of vs assisted by Gods Grace when he saide This is the Law of God that we keepe his Commaundements and his Commaundementes are not heauy He saith not Christ but We must keep Gods Commaundements T. B. I answere First that whosoeuer readeth and marketh the Downefall will soone perceiue that our Iesuite is at a Non plus for there were these his silly Obiections solued and refuted before they came to light Secondly that our Iesuite belyeth me after his wonted manner when he saith that I affirme the wordes to be meant in respect of Christ and not of our selues For after I had proued by many arguments drawn out of holy Writ that the yoke of Christ is sweet to the faithfull I added these words This being so we may truely say that in Christ we fulfill the Law Because he is our righteousnes our sanctification and our Redemption because hee hath ouercome death because he hath clothed vs with his righteousnes because he hath couered our nakednes with his garments because in him we haue gotten the victory ouer hell death and damnation Thus I answered in the Downfall Now I referre my selfe to the censure of the indifferent Reader how sufficiently I haue refuted the Iesuite and how vniustly he hath slandered me For it is one thing to say we fulfill the Commaundements in Christ another thing to say the wordes are spoken in respect of Christ not in respect of our selues The latter are his the former are mine viz that in Christ we fulfill the law and I learned them of Christs holy Apostle and chosen vessell S. Paule Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat I can do all thinges saith he in Christ that strengthneth me Againe in another place the same Apostle telleth vs That as by the disobedience of Adam many becam sinners so by the obedience of Christ many shall be made righteous Againe in another place thus That I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes which is of the Law but that which is through the saith of Christ the righteousnes which is of God throgh faith Again in another place thus They being ignorant of Gods righteousnes and seeking to establish their owne were not subiect to the righteousnesse of God Againe thus Hee made him sinne for vs which knewe no sinne that we might be the righteousnes of God in him Herevpon S. Austen that worthy pillar of Christs church giueth this glosse and true meaning of these words of Saint Paule Christum pro nobis peccatum fecit Deus cuireconciliandi sumus hoe est sacrificium pro peccatis per quod reconciliari valeremus Ipse ergo peccatum vt nos iustitia nec nostra sed dei nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non sâ—um sed nostram nec in se sed in nobis constititutum similitudine carnis peccati in qua crucifixus est demonstrauit God made Christ sinne for vs to whom we are to be reconciled that is a sacrifice for sinnes by which we might be reconciled He therefore was made sinne that we might be made Iustice not our Iustice but Gods Iustice neither in vs but in him as hee declared sinne not to bee his but ours not placed in him but in vs by the similitude of sinfull flesh in which he was crucified Thus writeth this ancient holy and learned Father Out of whose graue Testimony together with the Texts of holy scripture produced already I obserue these memorable documentes for the comfort of the well affected Reader First that albeit wee are not able of our selues nor in our selues to fulfill the Law of God and to keepe his commandements yet are we able to keepe them and to fulfill the Law in our Lord Iesus Christ. Secondly that as we were made sinners by the disobedience of one euen Adam so are we made righteous by the obedience of one euen Christ Iesus Thirdly that our formall righteousnes is not inherent in our selues but in God for the obedience of Iesus Christ his onely sonne and our onely sauiour Fourthly that as the sinne for which Christ suffered was ours not his in vs not in him euen so that iustice by which we are made righteous is not ours but Gods not in vs but in him I therefore conclude that we fulfill the Lawe in Christ not in our selues And I adde with S. Austen to the euerlasting confusion of our Iesuite and al Iesuited Papists in the world that that Iustice by which and with which wee are formally iustified in Gods sight is not inherent in our selues but in God not ours but his not in vs but in him and yet ours by imputation as our sinnes by imputation were his So as all the faithfull may ioyfully say with the Prophet Dauid Blessed are they vvhose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne And with the Apostle Paul As many by the disobedience of Adam were made sinners so many by the obedience of Christ are made righteous And heere I wish the reader to marke well that to be iustified by imputation is to bee made iust truely and indeed though not by Iustice inherent in our selues but by the Iustice of Christ. For as our sinnes were truely and indeed imputed to him so is his Iustice truely and indeed imputed to vs. I also admonish the Reader to remember well these words of S. Austen Ipse ergo peccatum vt nos iustitia c. He was made sinne that we might be made iustice not our Iustice but Gods iustice neither in vs but in him To remember well I say these words beecause they are words of great consequence For they proue euidently that our formal iustice is not inhereÌ„t in our selues but in God which confoundeth the Papists and striketh them dead They conuince mans inherent Iustice to be imperfect and their supposed condigne merit of Workes to be plaine Hypocriticall S. R. S. Iohn giueth vs a signe to try if we know God viz if we keepe his commandements and verse 3. affirmeth That who keepeth not his Commaundements knoweth not God Wherefore eyther Bell keepeth the Commandements or he knoweth not God T. B. I answere first that Bell humbly acknowledgeth himselfe a great sinner and desireth pardon for his sins with the poore Publican Howsoeuer our Iesuite like the Pharisee glory in his condigne merites and Workes of Supererogation Secondly that as we know God vnperfectly so do we keep his commandements vnperfectly If our Iesuite say that hee knoweth God perfectly S. Paule condemneth him for an arrogant fellow If hee say hee keepeth Gods Commandements perfectly S. Iames reproueth him as a proud Pharisaicall Fryer S. R. As for S. Austen he said our defectuous keeping is counted a full