Gods most Holy most Wise and most Pure Decrees For which respect God telleth vs by the mouth of his Prophet that his wayes are not as ours For My thoughtes sayth Esay are not your thoughtes neither are your wayes my wayes saith the Lord. Gods Will is the Rule by which all mans thoughtes wordes and workes must be measured But Mans Will is no Rule or Law to measure Gods actions or to direct his most Iust most Holy and most Pure Purposes Ordinaunces and Decrees Secondly Man can but punish the body temporally but God can punish both body and soule eternally Man can but punish the outward actions of man but God can punish both the outward actes and the inward thoughtes Man can but punish the temporall iniurie done to man but God can punish both that and the eternall iniurie done to his most sacred Maiestie surpassing Omnipotencie and ineffable Deitie Offence done to Man is finite and limitted but offence done to God is infinite and illimited Thirdly Sinnes which are but small in respect of man are exceeding great in respect of God For example sake a reprochfull word spoken against a Meane priuate person is respectiuely a small offence the same word spoken against a Great personage of high place in Church or Common-weale is a farre greater Offence the same spoken against our Soueraigne Lord the King is the greatest of all three And consequently when we offende God whose person is of infinite Worthinesse of infinite Maiestie of infinite Power our offence obiectiuely must needes be infinite howsoeuer our Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes flatter themselues in their Venials Fourthly the thinges which are trifles in our Iesuites iudgement are great and heynous Sinnes in the tribunall of our Lord Iesus Adams eating of the Apple was one of our Iesuites trifles The looking backe of Lots wife was an other The sinne of Infantes in their natiuitie was an other For which respect sundry of their best learned Doctors haue inuented a third place beside Heauen and Hell for those Infantes which die without Baptisme Superfluous idle Wordes an other All which for all that are heynous and grieuous Sinnes with God And no maruayle seeing the Least sinne that can be named is against the infinite Maiestie of God and consequently of infinite deformitie And our Iesuite S. R. sheweth himselfe to be a very noddie while he publisheth these wordes For who will say that a little superfluous Laughter breaketh the order of Nature Marke well gentle Reader and thou shalt see Poperie stricken dead When our Jesuite S. R. was not able to answere the Authorities of the holy Fathers layd open by T. B. in the Downe-fall of Poperie which did euidently conuince that the Breaking of the order of Nature was against the eternall Law and Will of God hee was enforced to say as there is to be seene in the Page noted in this Margent that the Fathers S. Austen and S. Ambrose defined such Sinne as breaketh the order of Nature which also is Mortall Sinne not Veniall In which wordes he vnawares confoundeth himselfe For he truely sayth against himselfe That the Sinne which is against the Order of Nature is a Mortall sinne indeed But withall hee sayth vntruly That a litle superfluous Laughter breaketh not the order of Nature For if it be true as it is most true which Christ himselfe hath told vs viz. That euery idle and superfluous word breaketh the order of Nature in that it is against the Law eternall it followeth by a necessarie consequence that euery superfluous and idle Laughter breaketh the order of Nature in that it is against the Law eternall to which the Law and Order of Nature is subordinate To which I adde to second my former proofe that the order of Nature as Nature to weete of Nature afore not after Adams fall was pure free and voyde of euery spot bleamish excesse defect or other fault whatsoeuer and consequently of euery vaine idle and superfluous Laughter But perhaps our Fryer will say that idle and superfluous Laughter is besides the order of Nature not against the same as he before affirmed his Venials to be besides the Law but not against the Law of God If he so doe the confutation is at hand First because Christ sayth plainely that Hee is against hâ—m whosoeuer is not with hâ—m Againe because Vega Durandus Almaynus Baius Gersorus and all the Popish Schoole-doctors of best esteeme do auouch plainely and resolutely That euery Sinne euen the least that can be named is against the Law Whereupon Vega that great Learned Papist a man of high esteeme in the late Councell of â—rent concluded egregiously and learnedly That the whole Law is impossible to be kept at once For albeit he graunt that euery part of the Law may be kept yet doth he withall confesse that while we keepe one part thereof we can not but breake an other Ninthly because our Fryer S. R. that Learned man as his brother Jesuite B. C. stileth him confesseth lustily though vnawares against himselfe that involuntarie Concupiscence is naught euill disorderly because it is against the rule of Reason and much more doubtlesse is superfluous voluntarie Laughter against the order of Nature rule of Reason and consequently it breaketh friendshippe with God as being quite opposite to the eternall Law which is his diuine Will and Reason Tenthly because the same Jesuite freely confesseth in an other place That the Least Sinnes want equitie and conformitie to Gods Law and consequently he must volens nolens confesse withall That his falsely supposed Venials are truely Mortals against Gods friendship and his eternall Law Now let vs heare our Jesuite speake for the honour of the Pope B. C. The common opinion most receiued and most sound is that some Sinnes of their owne nature be small or Veniall others great and Mortall Byshoppe Fisher and some foure other alleadged by Bell thinke that all Sinnes of their owne nature be Mortall and that it proceedeth from the Mercie of God that some be Veniall because he would not vpon diuers smaller Sinnes impose so great a punishment But notwithstanding this small difference neither B. Fisher nor any of the others denie Veniall Sinnes as Bell and his consorts doth T. B. I answere first that the Papistes themselues doe not agree in their Popish Fayth and Doctrine as the Jesuite heere confesseth to their confusion For he freely graunteth that the great Learned Papistes whom I named viz. Jacobus Almaynus Durandus Gersonus Michael Baius and Byshoppe Fisher doe all fiue constantly hold and defend that all Sinnes are Mortall of their owne nature And withall he telleth vs that the Pope and Church of Rome hold the contrary opinion Secondly that Small sinnes and Veniall sinnes are all one as our Iesuite heere teacheth vs. And my selfe will not deny that some sinnes respectiuely are small of their owne nature as
it is alreadie prooued in the third Conclusion To which I adde that the holy Fathers when they speake of Venial sinnes doe euer vnderstand Small sinnes respectiuely In which sense my selfe do willingly admit Veniall sinnes as also sinnes Veniall by the mercie of God But withall I wish the Reader euer to remember what Gersonus Almaynus Baius Durandus and Roffensis teach vs viz. that euery least Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature which is the flat Doctrine I heere defend Thirdly that the difference amongst the Learned Popish Doctors concerning Veniall sinnes is a matter of small importance which I exhort the Christian reader in the bowels of our sweete Redeemer neuer to forget For it doth plainely conuince if nothing else could be sayd in that behalfe that Poperie is the New religion What is Popish fayth a matter of Small moment Is it not necessarie to saluation If the Pope will say it I am ready to confirme it Roffensis Baius Almaynus Durandus and Gersonus all being both learned and zealous Papistes affirme constantly the force of trueth compelling them that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Contrariwise the Pope his Jesuites and Jesuited vassals affirme teach and beleeue as an Article of Popish Fayth that many Sinnes are Veniall euen of their owne nature This notwithstanding our Jesuite telleth vs roundly though nothing Clerkly that the difference is but small So then Articles of Popish fayth are small or great as it pleaseth the Pope His bare Will as we haue heard and seene is a warrant sufficient in euery thing as who can change the nature of thinges if we will beleeue him and of nothing make some thing Fourthly that my selfe hold no Opinion teach no Article of Fayth defend no Position but such Opinions Positions and Articles as the best learned Papistes haue holden taught and defended before mee For my woonted maner euer hath been is and shall be to wound the Papistes with their owne Weapons and to conâ—ound the Pope with his best Learned Proctors B. C. This being so let vs consider what a notable vntrueth the Minister offereth to the view of his Readers when he sayth Almaynus Durandus Gerson Baius and other famous Papistes not able to answere the reasons against Veniall sinnes confesse the trueth with the Byshop that euery Sinne is Mortall Hee doth cunningly abuse them in leauing out those wordes of it owne nature which ought to be added after their opinion and himselfe likewise doth adde in citing of Roffensis immediately before T. B. I answere first that the vntrueth our Fryer speaketh of proceedeth from his owne lying lippes as by and by it will appeare Secondly that our Fryer doth falsely peeuishly vnchristianly and impudently abuse both his Reader and mee when he chargeth me to abuse my Authors in leauing out their wordes What wordes sir Fryer haue I left out These wordes forsooth of it owne nature sayth our Iesuiticall Fryer O malitious Jesuite Where is thine Honestie where is thy Christianitie where is thy Fayth where is thy Conscience Art thou become a flat Atheist art thou at defiance with true dealing Thou seemes to make thy soule saleable for the Popes pleasure Doth not thine owne Penne condemne thee when thou grauntes that I added the same wordes in citing of Roffensis immediatly before Let the indifferent Reader be an indifferent Iudge betweene vs. I added the wordes immediatly before as our Fryer truely sayth it therefore had been an irkesome tantologie to cite them againe in the next wordes following especially seeing I affirme the Popish Doctors Almaynus Durandus Gersonus and Baius to hold and defend the selfe same opinion that Byshoppe Fisher affirmeth to be the trueth Againe the Controuersie consisteth precisely in this speciall poynt viz. Whether euery sinne be Mortall of it owne nature or no. I defende the affirmatiue the Iesuite the negatiue And consequently I must perforce speake of Sinnes as they are in their owne nature O worthy defender of late start-vp Poperie Thou perceiuest right well that Poperie is the New religion indeed and not able to withstand the truth nor to answere mine inuincible reasons and groundes Thou fleest from that which is in question to impertinent extrauagant and friuolous cauils so to dazell the eyes of thy Readers least they behold the newnesse of late Romish Religion Out vpon such beggerly Religion as which can not be defended but by cauils coozenage lying and deceitfull dealing B. C. After this vntrueth immediatly followeth another Yea the Jesuite S. R. quoth hee with the aduice of his best Learned friendes in his answere to the Downefall of Poperie confesseth plainely and blusheth not thereat that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. which was not fiftie yeares agoe In which wordes he blusheth neuer a whit to slaunder that Learned man and wholly to corrupt his meaning Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Venial vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the 13. as this licentious cast-away corruptly fathereth vpon him For he knew well that to beleeue Veniall sinnes was an Article long receiued before the times of those Popes But he affirmeth onely that to hold Veniall sinnes onely to be such by the mercie of God was censured and condemned by those Popes Why did Sir Thomas his sinceritie cut away these wordes by the mercie of God Forsooth because that without lying and corruption he can obiect nothing against Catholike doctrine T. B. I answere first that our impudent Fryer lyeth egregiously when he chargeth mee to slaunder S. R. his learned Brother For vpon my saluation I auerre it I deale christianly honestly and sincerely I neuer change adde or take away any one iote of that which I finde in mine Authors Would to God our Iesuites did so deale with mee Secondly our Fryer lyeth impudently when he vttereth these wordes Hee sayth not that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth For these are S. R. his expresse wordes True it is that Byshoppe Fisher and Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it was since by Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth In which wordes the Jesuite S. R. telleth vs two memorable poyntes of Doctrine Th' one that Fisher and Gerson were in an Errour Th' other that the Errour was before the Church had condemned it So it onely remaineth duely to examine what the supposed Errour was The Iesuite B. C. heere telleth vs plainely if wee may beleeue him that the Popes Pius and Gregorius condemned that opinion onely which holdeth Venial sinnes to be onely such by the mercie of God I admit the Assertion I like the Narration I onely reiect the Popes friuolous vnchristian and
plaine hereticall condemnation For I pray you sir Fryer are not those sinnes Mortall of their owne nature which are onely Veniall by mercie and fauour Doth not Veniall onely by Mercie exclude Veniall by all other wayes and meanes For doubtles whatsoeuer is Veniall of it owne nature can not be Veniall onely by Mercie Onely our fond Iesuiticall Fryer not able to defend Poperie from being the New religion is forced for want of matter to say it The nature of euerie thing is intrinsecall and essentiall to the thing and can not be taken away from the thing without the vtter destruction of the same But euerie meane Logitian euerie young Gramarian euerie wittie Ploughman and euerie Boy of discretion is able to teach and tell our Jesuite that Mercie is extrinsecall and meere accidentall to the thing and may be added or taken away from the thing without the destruction of the same Ergo whatsoeuer is Veniall not any other way but by the Mercie of God onely is vndoubtedly Mortall of it owne nature And consequently seeing all Sinnes were Mortall of their owne nature vntill the dayes of Pius and Gregorius as our Jesuites freely graunt it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable illation that Veniall sinnes of their owne nature were neuer knowne to the Church of God vntill the irreligious and plaine hereticall Decrees of Pius the fift and Gregorie the thirteenth that is to say for the space of one thousand fiue hundred threescore and fiue yeares after Christ. For the supposed errour of Roffensis Gersonus Almaynus Baius and Durandus who all were verie learned Papistes and for all that taught and defended euery Sinne to be Mortall of it owne nature was not condemned as we see and heare it freely confessed by our Aduersaries vntill the time of Pius the fift of that name The trueth therefore is this viz. that the Church for the space of 1565. yeares after Christ beleeued euerie Sinne to be Mortall of it owne nature For as we haue seene alreadie in the first Conclusion of this Chapter God may most iustly condemne euerie least Sinne to eternall Death and Hell fire Yea as M. Gerson learnedly writeth he that holdeth the contrarie must perforce hold withall that in some case Sinne may be done lawfully and be no Sinne at all And it is but a very childish and friuolous cauill to say at our Fryer heere doth viz. that it was an Article of Popish Faith long before Pius the Pope to beleeue Veniall sinnes For such Venialles were of necessitie such either of their owne nature or else of mercie onely If our Jesuite graunt the latter I haue my desire it is the trueth which I defende If the former a double refutation is at hand First because the opinion of Almaynus Roffensis Baius Durandus and Gersonus was verie currant in the Romish Church vntill the dayes of Pius and Gregorius as our Iesuite S. R. affirmeth and the Fryer B. C. his deare Brother willingly admitteth Againe because to be Veniall both by Mercie by Nature implieth contradiction The reason is euident both for that sinnes Veniall of their owne Nature stand not in need of any Mercie and also for that Mercie mittigateth that punishment which by the Nature of the subiect might iustly be inflicted O miserable Poperie What sillie shiftes and childish cauils are inuented to defend thee from being the New Religion If any shall hencefoorth call or thinke thee the Old Religion that shall heare thine age truely discouered I shall thinke him so wise as not to know when to come out of the raine Thirdly that our Iesuite sheweth himselfe more impudent then Impudencie it selfe while he beareth his Readers in hand that I haue cut away these wordes of mine Author the Iesuite his Learned brother By the Mercie of God For I referre my selfe to the expresse wordes of the Iesuite in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie which I haue truely recited in the Tryall of the New religion as I will answere at the dreadfull day of doome But our Jesuite not able to defend Poperie from being the New Religion addicteth himselfe wholly to forgerie falsehood and lying for otherwise both hee and all his Jesuited crew are at a Non-plus and haue nothing at all to say B. C. The same Catholike writer noted him in the place cited by himselfe of two vntruthes The one for calling Byshoppe Fisher the Popes Canonized Martyr the other for styling Gerson a Byshoppe Neither of which be true but he skely passeth ouer them as not knowing poore wretch what to say in his owne defence into such straites doth this dominering Doctor driue himselfe by his talent of ouerlashing T. B. I answere first that the Pope may haue a cold heart when he seeth Poperie bleeding vnto death and no Popish Doctor able to stanch the same Our controuersie is of the Nature and Essence of Sinnes whether euerie Sinne be Mortall of it owne nature or no Our Jesuite being confounded and not able to prooue any sinne to be Veniall of it owne nature answereth me thus That neither Fisher is a Popish canonized Martir nor yet Gerson a Popish Byshoppe O worthie defender of the Pope and of the late Romish Religion I demaunde of our Fryer Iesuite how farre it is to London Hee forsooth answereth a Pokefull of Plumbes I aske him What hee saith to his learned Popish Doctors Almaynus Baius Roffensis Durandus and Gersonus who all with vniforme assent affirme resolutely as the Fryer hath confessed that euerie Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature The Fryer almost frighted out of his wittes telleth mee roundly and blusheth not thereat That neither Gerson is a Byshop nor Fisher a Canonized Martyr Is not this a Learned and Clerkly answere trow yee Hath not the Jesuite much to say for the antiquitie of Poperie when he fleeth to such miserable shiftes pitifull digressions sillie cauils and ridiculous euasions What if Byshoppe Fisher were not a Popish canonized Martir What if M. Gerson the famous Chauncellour of Paris were not a Byshoppe yee know the Prouerbe Cucullus non facit Monachum Your selues can not denie that both Fisher and Gerson were verie learned Popish Writers and so it skilleth not whether the one was a Byshoppe and the other a canonized Martir or no. Secondly that our Jesuite belieth mee heere as his wonted manner is else where I referre the censure hereof to mine Answere in the Downe-fall it selfe Thirdly that M. Gerson was in his old dayes the Byshop of Paris as a litle Treatise published by the Doctors of Paris and sometime printed or bound in one volume with the Maister of Sentences plainely auoucheth to the Reader Fourthlie that Fisher was Canonized priuately at the least as Alphonsus the rector of the English Colledge at Rome did Canonize Campian in my time with a White Surplesse on his backe himselfe then singing a collect of Martirs and
well for Christes sake See Suruay part 3. chap. 6. and marke it well A.D. 250. See the Tryall chap. 5. and marke it well O braue Purgatorie the Greeke Church neuer beleeued thee The Iesuite hath as many lyes as words For this see the Anatomie of Popish Tyrannie His first lye His second lye His third lye His fourth lye His fift lye No vntrueth but what proceedes froÌ„ the Iesuiâ—es penne A.D. 250. I speake of the late Byshops of Rome O sweete Iesus who seeth not Popery to be the new Religion It is already prooued that the Fryer is a most impudent lyer The Iesuite snatcheth at this peece that peece but toucheth not the principall Act. 20. V. 27. Act 26. V. 22. Lyr. in 20. cap. Act. Apost Carthus ibid. Ioh. 5. V. 47. Aug. contra Adriantum cap. tom â— pag. 121. Polydor. libr. 6. cap. 1. The Iesuite B.C. p. 67. graunteth that Scotus is of the same opinion S. R. pag. 284. S.R. pag. 285. S. Austin tract 49. in Iohan. to 9. S.R. pag 286. S. Cyril lib. 11. in Ioan. cap. 68. Chrysosto 2. Thesâ— ho. 3. Epiphan Haeres 65. nos â—quidem vniusâ—uiusque quaestionis inuentionem non ex proprijs ratiocinationibus dicere poâ—â—imus sed ex scripturaruÌ„ consequentia Popish confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor by his Apostles Ex Leone Papa de paenitent dist 1. cap. quamuis Loe wise and religious Papistes hold that Confession was ordained by the law of man Syluest de Confes. secundò part 4. Couarruv â—om 1. par 1. pag. 155. Scotus in 4. libr. sent dist 17. q. 1. Loe Popish Confession is either one thing or other this or that they can not tell what The Papists cannot endure the written testimonie of Gods trueth Roffensis art 37. adâ— Luth. Pag. 11. Couar to 1. part 2. Cap. 7. Par. 4.11.14 in med what the Pope holdeth that must be defended Caietan cap. 20. in Iohan. Ponder well the next Conclusion A.D. 1215. Ab Innocentio 3 et â—â—is Angles in 4. S. paâ—â— 1. pag. 255. Popish auricular confession was not heard of in old time Nicephor lib. 12. cap. 28. f. Nicepho lib. 12. cap. 28. Auricular Confession is not necessary Rhenan in annot in lib. Tertul. de pae Loe Auricular Confession not heard of in the auncient Church Popish Confession is vnpossible euen by the confession of Papists Marke well for Gods sake Who will not be at defiance with Popery that deepely pondereth these thinges Out vpon Poperie it is flatâ—e Heresie Suruay part 3. cap. 12. pag. 504. Scotus can not tell what to say of their Popish Confession Lay away vnwritten Traditions and Poperie is at an end De Paenit Distinct. 1. cap. quamuis De paenit dist 1. cap. quamuis Ios. Angl. in 4. S. part 1. pag. â—54 Ios. Angles vbi supra pag. 255. The best learned Papistes doe vtterly condemne Popery for the New religion Ezech. cap. 18. vers 4. Rom. 6.23 Ar. Mont. in 1. Ioh. 3. Beda in 1. Ioh. 3. Carthus in 1. Iohn 3. Lyr. in 1. Iohn 3. Deut. 27.25 Gal. 3.10 Roffensis art 32 aduers. Luther p. 32â— Gers. de vit spiâ— lect 1. pag. â— Popish mortall Veniall sinnes are not distinguished essentially Marke this poynt well for it is of great consequence Mat. 12. v. 36. S.R. Pag. 268. O sawcie Fryer thy impudencie is intollerable Aug. de cons. Euang. lib. 2. C. 4. cont faust lib. 22. cap. 27. Ambros. de parad C. 8. Iosephus Angles in 4 S.P. 215. Iose. Angles in 2. sent pag. 249. Marke well this Popish Doctrine for it confoundeth the Pope Deut. 27.25 Gal. 3. v 10. Iacobi 2. v. 10. This Argument striketh dead Mat. 12. v. 30. Durand in 2. sent Dist. 42. q. 6. Ios. Angles in 2. sent pag 275. The Romish religion changeth often See and note well the Iesuites Antepast P. 109. et pag. 119. I highly reuerence the old Romane Religion Away with Popish workes of Supererogation Vide Bellarm. tom 3 â—0 l. 1216. Mat. 5. V. 22. Mat. 10. V. 15. There is great nequalitie in mortall sinnes Luk. 10. V. 14. Note Chap. 28. Esa. 59. V. 2. 2. Cor 6. V. 15. Psal. 5. V. 4.7 S. R. pag. 270. pag. 271. S.R. pag. 271. Ioh. 14. V. 23. Ioh. 15. V. 10.14 Ioh 14 V. 21. S.R. pag. 27â— Ioh. 15. V. 14. Deu. 27. V. 25. Gal. 3. V. 10. Mat. 12. V. 36. In prima Figura et modo Barbara Nauar. in Euchirid Cap. 21. Nu. 34. No sinne so small which breaketh not Gods fauour For we must neither turne to the right hand nor to the left Deut. 5.32 Caiet in 20. cap. Iohan. Mat. 12. V. 36. S.R. pag. 271. God will beatâ— our Iesuites for starting out of the way of his Commaundementes Psal. 5. v. â— Ioh. 15. v. 14. Nullum omâ—ino peccatum potest in Deum referri S.R. Pag. 268. O horrible Blasphemy what will not Iesuites write Marke well my wordes Esa. 55. v. 8. Rom. 9. v. 20.21.22 Rom. 11. v. 33. â—4 55 Mat. 10. v. 28. Genes 3. v. 6. Gen. 19.26 Limbus Puâ—rorum pontifiâ—ius Euery sin is of infinite deformitie â—altâ—m obiectiue S. R. Pag. 277. Euery Child of God will say it seeing it is against gods Law S. R. pag. 276.277 The Iesuite confoundeth himselfe while he graunteth euery sinne against the order of nature to be mortall Mat. 12. V. 36. The order of Nature before Adams fall Mat. 12 V. 30. Euery sinne is against Gods Law Away therefore with Popish works of supererogatioÌ„ No no prinâ—ipaliter S. R. pag. 186. S. R. pag. 278. Loe the Iesuite vnawares graunteth the trueth against his Pope and himselfe Fiue great learned Papistes are of Bels opinion Note well that the Fathers call small sinnes Veniall respectiuely See Chap. 2. Conclus 7. The Popes Fayth is confuted by Popish Doctors Poperiâ— without lying can not be defended O lying Frier there is no trueth in rotten newly inuented Poperie The maine poynt of the Controuersie Poperie is a beggerly Religion O most impudent Iesuite The Authors Protestation S. R. Pag. 281. Marke the falsely supposed errour Sinnes onely Veniall by mercie are mortall of their owne nature Nature and Mercie are farre differens This Ergo girdeth the Pope Vixit Pius A.D. 1565. Vixit Gregor A.D. 1572. Concl. 1. huius cap. ex Gersono et alijs The Romish Church beleeueth it can not tell what S. R. pag. 281. Veniall by Mercie can not be Veniall of it owne nature Tertiò Principaliter S. R. pag. 281. Out vpon rotten Poperie it consisteth of lying and forgerie See and note the tryall The Iesuite truely is at a Non plus A Poke full of Plumbes is the defence of Poperie Egomet tum eram testis oculatus Their Blood Bones Haire and Apparell are reserued honoured as the Reliques of Gods Martirs See and marke well the 29. and the. 30 Chapters The appeale of the Priestes is compared to the appeale of Alexander Martinus Polonus in Chronicho Polonus vbi supra
Byshoppe which hee was bold to present to the Popes Holynesse where it found kind acceptation and therefore is and must be authenticall though it giue our Holy Father a deadly blow Out of which learned Discourse I obserue these worthy Lessons First that euery Veniall sinne is against right reason Secondly that euery Veniall sinne is the transgression of some Law Thirdly that to doe any thing against right reason is to doe against the law of Nature Fourthly that the law of Nature commaundeth not to decline from the rule of right reason Fiftly that the temporall rule with which the goodnesse of our actions is measured is the right reason of our vnderstanding which is giuen to euery one in his creation birth or natiuitie Sixtly that the eternal rule with which the goodnesse of our actions ought to be measured is the Will of God Seuenthly that therefore our thoughtes wordes and workes are against right reason because they are against the Will of God which is the law Eternall Which Obseruations if they be duely pondered doe euidently prooue and plainely conuince that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature Fiftly because euery one is accursed which keepeth not euery iote of the Law Sixtly because Christes blessed Apostle S. Iames telleth vs plainely That whosoeuer shall keepe the whole Law and but offende in any one precept is guiltie of all Seuenthly because God will destroy all manner of Liers and all workers of Iniquitie Odisti omnes qui operantur iniquitatem perdes omnes qui loquuntur Mendacium Thou hatest all workers of Iniquitie thou wilt destroy euery one that is a Lyer Thus saith the holy Prophet of God in the spirit and person of God Out of which wordes I obserue two poyntes of great consequence First that where all are comprised there not one among all is excepted and consequently the sacred Text is to be vnderstood euen of euery least Sinner and of euery least Lyer Secondly that where Destruction is for Punishment inflicted there Gods Law doubtles is transgressed and so is euery Popish Veniall sinne against the Law Eightly because Christ himselfe teacheth vs That besides the Law against the Law is all one in rei veritate in the trueth of the matter Qui non est mecum contramâ— est et qui non congregat mecuÌ„ spargit He saith our Maister Christ that is not with mee is against mee and hee that gathereth not with mee scattereth Ninthly because Durandus a famous and learned Popish Writer confuteth the fondly inuented distinction of their Popish Canonized Saint Aquinas which the Pope and his Jesuites hold for the maintenaunce of late start-vp Poperie to weete that Veniall sinnes are praeter Legem non contra Besides the Law but not against the Law These are the expresse wordes of Durandus Ad argumentum dicendum quod omne peccatum est contra Legem Dei naturalem vel inspiratam vel ab eis deriuatam To the Argument answere must be made that euery Sinne is against the Law of God either naturall or inspired or deriued from them And this opinion of M. Durand is this day commonly defended in the Schooles So doth Fryer Ioseph tell our holy Father the Pope these are his wordes D. Thomas et eius sectatores tenent peccatum Veniale non tem esse contra Legem quaÌ„ praeter Legem Sequitur Durandus tamen et alij permulti hanc sententiaÌ„ impugnant affirmantes peccata venialia esse contra mandata Et haec opinio modo in scholis videtur coÌ„munion S. Thomas and his followers hold that a Veniall sinne is not so much against the Law as besides the Law But Durand and very many others impugne this opinion auouching Veniall sinnes to be against the commaundementes And this opinion seemeth now adayes to be more common in the Schooles Heere I wish the reader to note by the way out of the word modo now adayes the mutabilitie of late start-vp Romish religion as also the dissentioÌ„ of popish Schoole-doctors in the misteries of their fayth and Doctrine For in that their Byshoppe the Fryer sayth modo now adayes he giueth vs to vnderstand that their Romish Doctrine is now otherwise then it was of old time and in former ages And in that he telleth vs of the great dissension amongest their Doctors he very emphatically layeth open to the Reader the vncertainty of Romish fayth and Religion For doubtlesse if their tyrannicall Inquisition and the dayly feare of Fire and Faggot were taken out of the way the Popes ridiculous and plaine Heathenish Excommunications with his Decrees and Definitions in matters of Fayth would be of small account and troden vnder foote This is a most worthy Note and must be well remembred For the Old Romane religion was Catholique pure and found and with it doe not I contend I onely impugne the late start-vp Romish Fayth and Doctrine which the Pope and his Romish Schoolemen haue brought into the Church Tenthly because Vega a great Learned Papist very famous in the Church of Rome doth not onely teach euery Veniall sinne to be against the Law but withall he constantly affirmeth that therefore none lyuing can possibly keepe the whole Law at once For albeit hee hold that euery part of the Law may be kept at some time yet doth he constantly denie that the whole 〈◊〉 kept at once because one partiâ—â—â—â—â— broken with Popish Venials against the Law while an other is kept The third Conclusion Albeit euery Sinne be Mortall of it owne nature yet are not all sinnes equall and alike but one greater then an other I prooue it first because our Lord Iesus doth distinguish the degrees of Sinnes while he affirmeth him that is angrie with his brother to be guiltie of Iudgement him that sayth to his brother Raca to be guiltie of a Councell him that calleth his brother Foole to be guiltie of Hel-fire Secondly because the holy Ghospell telleth vs that the Sinnes of the Sodomites and of the Gomorrhaeans shal be punished more remissely in the day of Iudgement then the sinnes of those Citizens who would not receiue the Apostles nor hearken to their preaching Thirdly because Tyrus and Sidon shall be more remissely dealt withall in iudgement then Corozain and Bethsaida The case is cleare I need not stand about it For euery Child can tell vs that it is a greater Mortall sinne to steale a goodly Gelding or a great fatte Oxe then it is to steale a fatte Calfe or a fatte Hogge Yea a greater sinne to kill a Man then to eate an Egge in Lent though Popish inflicted punishment doth not euer so insinuate But hereof more at large when I come to speake of Popish Lent The fourth Conclusion Veniall sinnes of their owne nature are against Charitie and doe breake friendshippe and amitie with God I prooue this Conclusion against the Pope his Iesuites and all Jesuiâ—ed Popelinges whether in England