of reply such answers and authorities as he thinketh make for his purpose S. R. Nothing done against our will is sin but diuer actes of concupiscence be such Ergo no sinne T. B. Sinne as the holy Apostle defineth it is Anomia that is to say iniquity or transgression of Gods law Here we see what sinne is Let vs proceed The eternall law saith Saint Austen is the reason or will of God commaunding the naturall order to be kept and forbidding the same to bee perturbed Thus doth S. Austen describe Gods law So then whatsoeuer is against Gods Lawe is sinne and whatsoeuer is against Gods will is against the law Ergo whatsoeuer is against Gods will is sinne Let this foundaon thus laid bee remembred for by it all Obiections will soone be answered I therefore deny the proposition of the Iesuites Argument when he saith nothing doone against our will is sinne and they are enforced to confesse the same against their willes in Children not regenerate For as the Popes law teacheth vs Children dying without Baptisme are damned and therfore they are not buried in any Church-yard with the Papistes Now must they tell me eyther what sinne they did with theyr will or else confesse with mee that some thing doone against mans will is sinne And the reason is yeelded already which I wish the Reader euer to remember viz that whatsoeuer is against the will or law of God is sin whether it be voluntary or not voluntary For Saint Iohn placed not voluntary in the definition of sinne S. R. In regeneration either we remaine guilty of damnable sinne or become guiltlesse of all such sin If we remaine guilty then is not our sin forgiuen For it is impossible to be guilty of sin and to haue sin forgiuen T. B. I distinguish the proposition The regenerate are guilty by nature and in respect of sin which still remaineth for which they might iustly be damned and yet guiltles by way of acceptation in Christ Iesus for whose sake and merits God doth not impute sinne vnto them And this is Saint Austens mind when hee saith The concupisence of the flesh is forgiuen in Baptisme not so that is remaine not but so as it is not imputed for sinne In which wordes Saint Austen sheweth plainly That concupiscence remaineth though not imputed for sinne It followeth in S. Austen Non ergo aliquid remanet quod non remittatur Not any thing therefore remaineth which is not forgiuen Where the Reader must well obserue that he saith not nothing is sin that remaineth or thus no sinne remaineth but thus Not any thing remaineth which is not remitted or forgiuen As he had said Sinne indeede remaineth still in the baptized but shall not be imputed to the faithfull S. R. A iustified or regenerate man cannot be guilty of damnation because there is no damnation to them who are in Christ Iesus T. B. It is one thing good Iesuite not to be damned or not to receiue damnation another thing to bee guilty of damnation for Gods elect Children may bee guilty of damnation that is deserue damnation as Dauid Peter and Paule did but there is no damnation to such because they shall neuer be damned S. R. Bell confesseth that a man cannot be iustly condemned for sinne remitted T. B. I grant it What then Albeit originall sinne truely remaine in the elect yet because it is forgiuen and not imputed to them they shall neuer bee condemned for it for otherwise God should be vniust and vnfaithful in his promise S. R. If involuntary acts done against our will bee true sins much more the acts of fooles and mad men yea of beasts which are not done against will but onely without will and they true Malefactors and Sinners before COD and men which I thinke none but a mad man will grant T. B. There is great disparitie by your leaue good Mayster Fryer in these subiects which you name For Gods commaundements were neuer giuen to the brute beasts neyther were they euer made capable of doing the same But all men were once enabled to haue kept Gods ordinances euen in the protaplast Adam in whom wee all vvere originally And the Pope and his Iesuites must needes confesse so much or else condemne God of iniustice in punnishing eternally the vnregenerate Infantes for that sinne which they neuer consented vnto neither possibly could auoide And therefore grauely saith Saint Austen that euery sinne is voluntary eyther in the act or else in the Originall S. R. Saint Austen is so farre from thinking that we sinne by inuoluntary motions of the flesh that hee saith if wee consent not vnto them we need not say forgiue vs our trespasses T. B. Saint Austen saith not if wee consent not vnto them we need not say forgiue vs our sins but if we were thorowly renewed and were as Adam was in Paradise before his fall we should haue no debts to be forgiuen consequently haue no neede to say forgiue vs our sins But our case is otherwise because that perfect renouation cannot bee had in this life but onely in the World to come And for this cause doth the ancient councell Mileuitaâ— accurse him that saith he is so holy that he neede not say the Lordes prayer for himselfe but for others S. R. Saint Austen saith if concupiscentiall disobedience be without fault in the body of one sleeping how much â—ore in the body of one not consenting T. B. I aunswere that Saint Austen and other Fathers doe comparatiuely as it were extenuate and excuse innate concupiscence but not simply make it no sinne When they seeme to make it no sinne then they so speake eyther for that it is not imputed to the regenerate who manfully fight against it or else because it is an ingrafted prauity of Nature and not a voluntary transgression of Gods law Breefely the Fathers call it sinne yet not simply but comparatiuely in respect of actuall sinnes Saint Austen in the place which our Iesuite citeth disputeth against the fond opinion of some persons who to auoyde those sinnes to which they thought their original raging concupiscence would drawe them resolued to commit one sinne for all in murthering themselues and so be deliuered from many sinnes to which they feared their concupiscence would allure them Saint Austen therfore disswading from such heynous crimes encourageth such timorous consciences by way of extenuation telling them that concupiscence is without fault in those that striue against it do not consent vnto it Not for that it is no sin in it selfe but because it is not imputed to the godly For as we haue heard already and as I haue proued at large in the Downfall of Popery whatsoeuer deflecteth or swarueth from the will of God the same is most properly sin The reason is euident because not to bee correspondent and agreeable to Gods will is the very intrinsecall reason essence and nature of sinne Yet so
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
it is that the Ataxia disorder and concupiscence in the regenerate is repugnant and disagreable to the will of God and consequently it must be sinne indeed And as for the opinion of Saint Austen I haue proued at large in the Downfall out of fiue seuerall places of his workes that it is both the punnishment of sinne the cause of sinne and sinne it selfe S. R. As blindnes of hart saith Bell out of Austen is sinne punnishment of sinne and cause of sinne so concupisence of the flesh is sinne punnishment and cause of sin But I aunswere that Saint Austen compareth concupisence with blindnesse of heart in the materiall disorder of sinne T. B. I answere that I know not whether I should pitty the ignorance of our Iesuite or exclaime against his mallice For first Saint Austen cannot bee expounded as Maister Fryer saith though Bellarmine his Brother hath lent him his solution For if Saint Austen had meant materially not formally he would neuer haue called it sin the thirde time after hee named it twice sinne matterially before viz when he called it the cause of sinne and the punnishment of sinne Yet after both these he addeth that it is sinne formally For else he had saide no new thing Secondly because our Iesuite confuteth himselfe vnawares when he writeth thus Saint Austen prooueth by the blindnesse of hart that it was not onely punishment and cause of sinne but also sinne that is naught cuill and disorderly because it is against the rule of reason which is to be sinne materially though it want the form of sinne which is voluntarines This is his answer Now I pray you Gentle Reader iudge indifferently between mee and this Fryer First hee graunteth that Originall concupisence is naught euill and disorderly Secondly that it is against the rule of reason and all that he can say for himselfe is this that it is indeede sinne materially but not formally Where if I may finde an indifferent Reader the victory is mine own GOD is my iudge I speake as I thinke For to be against the rule of reason is formally sinne Which Saint Austen as is already proued declareth euidently when he defineth the eternall law to be nothing else but the reason or will of God The reason is confirmed because Saint Austen compareth it with the blindnes of hart which as euery good Christian knoweth is sinne most formally For if master Fryer Parsons shall deny blindnesse of heart thorough which man beleeueth not in God to bee sinne formally he will be hissed out of all good schools howsoeuer our holy Father the Pope sitting in his chaire vppon men◠shoulders giue him ten hundred thousand yeares pardon for the same Nay I will yet say more to our holy Fryer maister Robert Parsons the Author of this fond presensed answere to the Downfall of Popery viz that in the last precept of the Decalogue or Ten commaundementes Thou shalt not lust is prohibited not onely actuall and voluntary concupiscence but the very Originall and Fountaine of all concupiscences with all her involuntary branches I prooue it first because that concupiscence actuall wherewith wee couet that that is another mans and not our own is forbidden by all the sixt seuenth and eight precepts of the second Table This doeth our maister Christ teach vs when hee saith That whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with hi◠in his hart The same doctrine teacheth S. Iohn when hee sheweth the hatred of our brother to be agaiust this precept Thou shall not kill Secondly because if no other thing were prohibited in this commandement but actuall concupiscence there shoulde bee but nine precepts in the Decalogue seeing the last shoulde bee no newe Commaundement but only a bare recitall or repetition of the nine former precepts Thirdly because S. Paul granteth himselfe to be carnally sold vnder sin by reason of original concupiscence and not actuall against which he fought stoutly and neuer gaue consent vnto it Fourthly because that which the Saints of God detest call sin by the iudgement of the holy ghost must needs be sin properly But so it is that S. Paul in the name of all the Saints of God detesteth this Original cōcupiscence calleth it sin and mourning tearmeth himselfe vnhappy for it and desireth to be deliuered from it Ergo it must needs be sin properly Fiftly to say that it is called sin figuratiuely and vnproperly is against that generall rule which all Diuines haue deliuered when the scriptures must bee vnderstood properly and when figuratiuely viz that then they are taken figuratiuely whē the sence which the words in their proper signification yeeld do not agree with other scriptures and the Analogy of faith but are repugnant vnto the same Now no scripture can bee produced which denyeth that Originall concupisence with the involuntary motions thereof is properly sin Nay the Apostle aboue twelue times in one Chapter plainely and simply calleth it sin neither will it helpe to say that the scripture freeth Gods children from sinne For as saint Austen sayth they are not deliuered from sinne so that it is not in them but that it is not imputed to them And the Prophet teacheth the same doctrine when he pronounceth The man blessed not who hath no sin but to whom the Lorde imputeth no sinne And the Papists must either recall their doctrine in this point or else cry fire and faggot for their chiefe maister Petrus Lombardus sur-named the Maister of sentences whose Booke to this day is publikely Read in the schoole of Diuinity for thus doth he write Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus c. But touching our soules wee are redeemed in part not wholly from the sinne not from the paine neyther wholly from the sinne or fault For we are not so redeemed from it that it be not in vs but that it rule not ouer vs. Lo Maister Lombard that famous Writer graunteth first that we are redeemed in part but not in the whole Secondly that wee are not wholly redeemed from sinne Thirdly he telleth vs how we are redeemed from sin viz that albeit sin shall remain in vs yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs that it can enforce vs to consent therevnto Lo the greatest and best learned Papists teach the same doctrine that I do Sixtly Saint Austen affirmeth plainely that Originall Concupiscence is prohibited by this Precept Thou shalt not Lust and not onely the habituall concupiscence it selfe but also all the actuall involuntary motions thereof Thus doeth hee write as the Iesuire Bellarmine alleadgeth him These thinges saith Bellarmine are spoken after Saint Austens mind who by this precept Thou shalt not Lust vnderstandeth all the motions of concupiscence euen the involuntary to bee prohibited in some sort and that the consent to these motions forbidden by that other precept follow not thy concupiscence Thus writeth our Iesuiticall
for a constant position and sound Doctrine that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature our Doctrine therefore is the same which great learned Papists do defend And I must needs heere put the Reader in minde of the newnesse of late Romish religion viz that Venial Sinnes were neuer known to the Church vntil the late dayes of Pius the fift and Gregory the 13. that is to say about forty yeares ago O Popery thou art but a childe thou must neuer from this day be called the old Religion for heere our Iesuite confesseth thine Nonage and proclaimeth thee to bee the Nevv religion I must likewise insinuate to the Reader another point of great importaÌ„ce viz that the popes act is reputed the decree of the Church and that no part of Romish religion is a matter of faith vntill it please the Pope so to apoint it Now for Fisher and Gerson the one is a cannonized Popish Saint the other a Popish Byshop But these are not matters to stand vpon though they help our Iesuite to passe ouer the time and to dazle the eyes of the Reader S. R. He concludeth this Article with this goodly reason One stealeth iust so many Egges as are necessary to make a Mortall sinne another stealeth one lesse But there can be no reason why God may iustly condemne the one to hell and not the other Therefore they both sinne Mortally alike To this I aunswere by demaunding a reason why the Iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe peny and not him that stealeth one peny lesse If he answer because the law condemneth one and not the other I aske againe what reason was there that the Law was made against the one and noâ— against the other And if Bell can find a reason in this he wil find one in his owne Question The reason of both is because such a quantity is a notable iniury to our neighbour and consequently it is against charity and so breaketh the Law and a lesse quantity is not T. B. The destinction betweene Mortall and Veniall Sinnes lately inuented by the Pope doth so trouble our Iesuite after his consultation with his best learned friendes that hee can shape mee no aunswere touching a few Egges Gladly he would seeme to say something yet after hee hath wearied himselfe with strugling against the truth he is where he first began Not knowing how to answere he demaundeth two Questions and that done hee telleth me I must answere my selfe This notwithstanding after better aduisement and consideration had of the matter he pretends to shew a reason of both his owne questions But howsoeuer that be which is indeed a meere mockery he leaueth my argument vntouched Let vs suppose for explication sake that Egges worth thirteene pence halfe peny makes a Mortal sinne and that God may iustly condemne him that stole them as also a Mortall Iudge amoÌ„g Mortall men Let vs likewise suppose for example sake that neyther the Ciuill Iudge nor God himselfe can iustly condemne him that hath stollen but so many Egges as are woorth twelue pence halfe penny Nowe this is my Question Nay this is mine assertion that there can no good reason be yeelded why God may iustly condemne the one to Hell and not the other To answere as the Iesuite doeth after hee hath deepely pondered the matter that one is a notable iniury to our neighbor not so the other is too teo childish and friuolous For if thirteene pence halfe peny be a notable iniurie so is also twelue pence One penny doubtlesse cannot make Mortall and Veniall difference neyther is it to the purpose to say as our Iesuite doth viz. that the ciuil Iudge cannot condemne the theefe that stealeth one peny lesse The reason is euident because the ciuil Iudge is vnder the law and subiect to it but God Omnipotent is aboue his Law and may dispense with it at his good pleasure So did Christ aunswere the Pharisees on the behalfe of his disciple The sabboath sayth Christ was made for man and not man for the sabboth Therefore is the sonne of Man Lorde of the sabboth also The Iesuites reason thus reiected as friuolous and nothing to the purpose let vs examine the matter to the bottome for it is a point of great consequence First then this is an vndoubted truth that the supreme ciuill Magistrate may as lawfully appoint death for stealing of twelue pence as for 13. pence halfe peny for the penalty of death is wholly arbitrary to the iudge He must frame his laws as serue best for the peaceable gouernment of his people Whereupon it commeth that in diuers countryes diuers punishments are designed for the same faults and all agreeable to Gods law This is likewise an vndoubted truth in Popery viz that some Sinnes are Veniall of their owne nature other some mortall Against this false ground of Popery doe I now contend We haue seene already that a theefe may as wel be condemned to dye for twelue pence as for more euen so then God à fortiori may as iustly condemne one for a Popish Veniall sinne as for a Mortall for euery sinne deserueth death of it owne nature bee it more be it lesse Yea if any sinne should of it owne nature be Veniall theÌ„ should Originall sinne in an infant be Veniall most of all because the Infant neyther can auoyd it neyther hath any will to do it I therefore conclude that it is against all sence and reason to say that God may iustly condeme a man for stealing so many Egges as in Popery make a Mortall Siâ—nâ— let them name what number they will and that he cannot likewise condemne him that stealeth but one Egge lesse And it is absurd to say or thinke that the least sinne that can be named doth not breake off amity and friendship with God if wee respect the sin in it owne Nature I proue it because the least sinne that can be named doth auert and turne the doer from the face of God Ergo from the amity and fauour of God I proue the Antecedent for the consequence is good and cannot bee denyed No sinne whatsoeuer more or lesse can be referred vnto God who detesteth all sinne Ergo euery sinne bee it neuer so small turneth vs away from the fauour of God Truely therefore wrote Byshop Fisher and Maister Gerson that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature And so is that proued which I defend The seuenth Article of Vnwritten Traditions THe Iesuite vseth many impertinent digressions and needlesse Taâ—tologies in this Article I standing to bee breefe will onely aunswere to such allegations as shall seeme necessary for the contentation of the Reader referring him for the rest to the Downfal where he may find all necessary pointes virtually confuted though not in expresse termes S. R. All such points of Christian fayth as are necessary to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though hee
keeping when the defect is pardoned which is a farre different thing from saying that Christs keeping is counted our keeping And he meaneth that our keeping is defectuous because we keep not the commandements ad vnum apicem as he saith to the last iot or title but thorough Veniall sinnes haue neede to say Fogiue vs our Trespasses which Veniall Trespasses being pardoned we are accounted to do all Gods Commandements T. B. I answere first that it is a meer calumny to charge me with saying that Christs keeping is our keeping I onely said then and now say againe that wee fulfill the Law in Christ which is such a truth as you are neuer able to refute the same Secondly that I haue proued already that euery sinne is deadly of it owne nature and consequently that it is too great arrogancy in our Iesuite to expound S. Austen after his owne fancy hauing neyther authority nor reason so to do Thirdly that when our Iesuite confesseth that their Veniall sinnes are pardoned he vnawares confesseth that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements I prooue it because God either hath forbidden their Venials or is well pleased with them If he be well pleased with them then are they no sinnes at all for God is not well pleased with sinne If hee haue forbidden them then are they against his precept and consequently seeing the Papistes graunt that they cannot liue without their Venials they must also graunt of necessity that they cannot keep Gods holy Precepts And therefore it is time for all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists to say with S. Iames Wee all offend in many things And with the Prophet Dauid Enter not into Iudgement with thy seruants O Lord for none liuing shall be iustified in thy sight I therefore conclude with Saint Austen that all the Commandements are then reputed as done when whatsoeuer is not done Is of mercy forgiuen And with S. Hierome that the true wisedome of man is to know that he is vnperfect S. R. Saint Hierome confesseth that God hath giuen possible Commaundements least he should be Authour of Iniustice He saith likewise that he is to be detested as a blasphemer that saith God hath commaunded any impossible thing S. Austen also saith that God could not command any impossible thing because he is iust T. B. This Obiection is as a Bulwarke for Popish supposed Condigne Merite of vvorkes I therefore both proposed it in the Downefall and answered it in the same place My answere is there to bee seene at large to which I referre the Reader This is the summe and effect thereof viz that God commaunded nothing which was eyther impossible in it selfe to be done or to bee doone of man as man The same ie there prooued at large Touching S. Hierome I will adde a little because our Iesuite affirmeth him to be on his side The truth is this that S. Hierom in 3. whole books against the Pelagians hath no other scope purpose or intent saue onely to proue against them out of the holy Scriptures that none liuing doth keepe Gods Commaundements which hee prooueth no other vvay but because all haue sinned and done euill in Gods sight Three thinges therefore are cleere and certaine with S. Hierome First that all haue sinned and cannot bee iustified but by the mercy and fauour of God These are his wordes In multis offendimus omnes Non pauca peccata sed multa non quorundam sed omnium posuit Omnes n. quae sua sunt quaerunt non ea quae dei sunt We all offend in many things He put not a few sinnes but many not the sinnes of some but of all For all seeke the things that are their own and not the things that are Gods Again thus Neque n. homo potest esse sine peccato quod tua habet sententia sed potest si voluerit deus hominem seruare sine peccato immaculatum sua misericordia custodire Hoc ego dico quod deo cunctâ— possibilia sunt homint autem non quicquid voluerit possibile est maxime idesse quod nullam â—egeris habere creaturam For man cannot be without sinne as thou thinkest but God is able if it please him to preserue a man from sinne and to keep him immaculate by his mercy This I also grant that all thinges are possible to God but it is not possible for man to doe whatsoeuer hee would especially to bee that which thou hast not read any Creature to haue Againe thus Hec cuncta percurro vt oftendam à nullo legem esse completam per legem mandat a omnia quae continentur in lege Sequitur ergo non liberi arbitry potestate sed de clementia conseruamur I runne ouer all these thinges to shew that none hath fulled the Law and by the Law all the Commaundements contained in the Law Ergo we are preserued Or saued not by the power of free will but by the clemency Or mercy of God Secondly that all the elect people of God though they be sinfull in themselues by transgressing Gods law yet are they iust by the mercy of God in Christ Iesus The former pâ—rt Saint Hierome prooueth thus Non est homo iustus c. There is none iust vppon the earth none that doth good and sinneth not Againe There is no man that sinneth not Againe Who knoweth his sinnes cleanse mee from my secret faults Againe Enter not into iudgement wâ—th thy seruant for none liuing can bee iustified in thy sight These and many like places saith S. Hierom are euery where in the Scriptures by which it is manifest that none liuing can be without sinne The latter part the same holy Father prooueth thus Audi eundem euangelistam si confiteamur peccata nostra sidelis instus est vt dimittat nobis peccata nostra mundet nos ab omni iniquitate Tunc ergo iusti sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sedex dei consistit misericordia conclusit n. â—â—eusoâ—ma sub peccato vt omnibus misereatur Et haec hominis summa est iustiâ—a quicquid potuerit habere virtutis non suum putare esse sed Domini qui largitus est Heare the same Euangelist If wee confesse our sinnes he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs all our sins and to cleanse vs from all iniquity Then therefore are wee iust when wee confesse our selues and our Iustice doth not consist of our owne merite but of Gods mercy For GOD hath shut vp all vnder sinne that he may haue mercy on all Againe in another place thus Haec est hominis vera sapientia imperfectum esse se nosse atque vtit a loquar cunctorum in carne iustorum imperfecta perfectio est This is the true wisedome of man to know that hee is vnperfect and that the perfection of all the iust in the flesh is
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
as it doeth and may appeare to the indifferent Reader in his learned Epistle to Vincentius the third because for the better successe and more free passage of the late Romish Religion the laicall people are commanded by Popish canon-Canon-law vnder paine of Excommunication not to reason at all in matters of Faith and Religion and the learned semblably not to examine or discusse how farre the Popes power doeth extend whatsoeuer or howsoeuer he command them to beleeue For the Popes law hath made it Sacriledge to dispute of his power or to call it into question so writeth their owne deare Doctor and popish Fryer Franciscus à Victoria the first man that brought the Popish School-doctrine into Spaine yea the Popes owne decrees are consonant to the same these are the expresse wordes Similiter de iudicio summi pontificis alicui disputare non licet In like maner no man may dispute of the iudgment of the Pope or high-priest The fourth because neyther any of the layty nor yet of the Cleargy can vnder paine of Excommunication read eyther the olde or the new Testament translated into the vulgar tongue or any other booke of Controuersie or Diuinity set forth by any not professed Vassall vnto the Pope vnlesse such person or persons be especially licenced of the pope so to doe Aphorisme second The multitude of the vulgar and rude people become Papists vpon this false and sandy foundation supposed of them to be a receiued Theologicall Maxime viz that the late start vp Romish Doctrine is the auncient Catholike faith and the olde Roman religion And therefore when soeucr they speake of any Papist meaning to expresse his sect and profession they tell vs he is one of the old Relion but they are grossely deceiued herein they may haue zeale I grant with the Apostle but not acording to knowledge For the doctrine this day taught and defended by the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Papists is indeed the new Religion and farre different from the true catholick and olde Roman religion Would to God all simply seduced Papists would deepely ponder this point and seriously meditate vpon the same I doe with all my heart reuerently receiue and admit the old Roman religion preached by Saint Paule and S. Peter in their daies at Rome but withall I vtterly abhorre and detest that Doctrine which the late Popes and Byshops of Rome deliuer for the same In regard hereof I neuer in any one of my Bookes oppugne simply and absolutely the Roman faith and religion but the late Romish faith and doctrine Where I wish the Reader to obserue and marke attentiuely this word Late for it doth significantly declare a cleere difference betweene that doctrine which is novv taught in the church of Rome and that which S. Paule and S. Peter deliuered to the Romans in their life time Which because the common vulgar sort of people cannot distinguish such is their ignorance they are perforce carried away with the sway of the time Marke the next Aphorisme Aphorisme third We know and the Papists knowe that theyr reformed Franciscans now commonly called Capuchenes can tel right well that their other dissolute Franciscans haue swarued from their auncient order albeit they can neither tel wheÌ„ where nor by whom that dissolution first began yet they proue it à posteriori by their auncient rules euidently And euen so do we proue by the holy scriptures the true touch stone of truth that the Papistes haue swarued from Apostolicall doctrine albeit we could not as yet we can assigne the time place and persons when where and by whom such Antechristian alteration first began Let the Reader marke this point well that that Sect of Papistes which is called Franciscans doe boast of their succession continuance and by reason of their antiquity will needes be the true Franciscans but the Capuchens which are nothing but reformed Franciscans tell them that they are the true Franciscans who haue â—ely put away and abolished all superstition and dissolution which by little and litle crept into their order Euen so say we that we are the olde and true Catholickes or Romans who keepe stil that saith and doctrine which saint Paule preached to the Romans and haue only put away and abolished that superstition Idolatry and erroneous doctrine which by little and little crept into the Church They will needes be the true and olde Catholicks as is said of the dissolute Franciscans but we tell them as their Capuchens tel their disordered Franciscans that they are the deformed bastard Catholicks vnworthy of the name of Catholicks And that we are the reformed and legitimate Catholicks who keep still and hold fast all Apostolicall doctrin and haue onely abolished out of the church of God al Superstition Idolatry and errors contrary to the scriptures and the Gospell which the Apostles preached and left in vvriting to all posterities Obserue diligently the next Aphorisme Aphorisme fourth First Popish primacie began in the yeare 607. Secondly Priestes mariage was neuer prohibited till the yeare 385. Thirdly Popes pardons were neuer heard of till the yeare 1300. Fourthly popish Purgatorie tooke no root in the Romish Church till the yeare 250. Fiftly inuocation of Saintes adoration of Reliques was not known till the yeare 370. Sixtly Popish pilgrimage began in the yeare 420. Seuenthly the merite of Workes de condigno was disputeable about the yeare 1081. Eightly the communion vnder both kindes was neuer thought vnlawfull till the yeare 1414. Ninthly the Popes Bulles were not authenticall till the yeare 772. Tenthly Auricular confession was not established till the yeare 1215. Eleuenthly Generall Councels were euer summoned by the Emperours That all these heads of Popish doctrine crept into the Church by little and little in the yeares aboue named I haue proued at large ten yeares agoe in my Booke of the Suruey of Popery as also partly in my Booke of Motiues to which bookes I referre the Reader for better satisfaction therein This creeping of late Romish religion into the Church by little little Victoria a Popish fryer famous school-Doctor witnesseth in these wordes Paulatim ad hanc c. By little and little we are brought to these inordinate dispensations and to this miserable state where we are neyther able to endure our owne griefes nor remedies assigned for the same and therefore must wee perforce inuent some other way for conseruation of the Lawes Giue me Clements Lines Siluester and I will commit all thinges to theyr charge But to speake nothing grieuously against these latter Popes they are doubtlesse inferiours to Popes of old time by many degrees Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer who if he durst haue spoken plainly would haue told vs mirabilia But it sufficeth that Popes were worse and worse and that errors by little and little crept into the Church Aphorisme fift The vsuall practise of Papists in their Commentaries Bookes and Glosses haue beene such and so intollerable in
and Testimony but rather to them then to Witches of whom he had immediately forbidden vs to enquire T. B. I answere that our Iesuite maketh no conscience how hee interpret the Scripture so he may any way make it seeme to serue his turne For hee desperately heere affirmeth without all reason and authority that by Testimony is vnderstood the vnwritten Word Whereas indeede it is the written Lawe added onely for explication sake as if he had sayde Ye must not seeke helpe at the dead which is the illusion of Sathan but yee must seeke remedie in the word of God where his will is reuealed ye must in all doubtes and difficulties haue recourse to the Law of God which is the testification of Gods will towards man In it ye shall find whatsoeuer is necessary for you to know Breefely as if he had sayde Ye must euer haue recourse to the Law as to the Testimony of Gods holy will Saint Hierom yeeldeth the same exposition of this place in these words Si vultis noscere quae dubia sunt magis vos legi Testimoniis tradite Scripturarum If ye will know the thinges that are doubtfull yee must haue recourse to the Law and to the Testimony of the Scriptures Loe hee ioyneth the Testimony with the Law not as a thing distinct from it but as an explication of the same This reason is confirmed by the coronation of King Ioas who receiued at his coronation these three things Vnction the Testimony or the Law and the Diademe or Crowne Where the Latin Vulgata editio to which the Pope hath tyed all Papists expoundeth the Testimony to be the Law Which glosse striketh our Iesuites exposition dead So then by the Popes own approbation the Testimony is taken for the written word of Gods Law and his Iesuite hath here proued himselfe to be a very Daw. And where our Iesuite weeneth to find some helpe in the word Rather It seemeth to mee that it doth him hinder For if his sence bee admitted it will bee lawfull in some cases and times to haue recourse vnto Witches But I will leaue him to himselfe as a carelesse and fond Disputer S. R. Esay indeede bids vs go to Gods written word which we refuse not to do in all doubts wherein it resolueth vs but forbids vs not to go to any other which is as he saith agreeable to this word Wherfore either must Bell proue that the Churches Traditions are not agreeable to Gods written Word or he must know that God not onely not forbids vs but rather commands vs to seeke after them T. B. Heere our Iesuite seemes to correct himselfe and to grant that the Prophet speakes of the Written Word But he addes of his owne head that the Scripture will not resolue them in all thinges and that therefore they must haue recourse to their Vnwritten Traditions withall Yet like a good Fellowe hee makes one exception which is this Vnlesse I prooue their traditions not to be agreeable to Gods word Which thing God bee thanked is already done in the Downefall it selfe Touching the time when Saint Iohn the Apostle dyed seauen famous Chronologers will contest with me that he liued an hundred years after Christs sacred incarnation though the Printer negligently put downe Ascension amisse as many other things viz Eusebius Caesariensis Iohannes Nauclerus Rhegino Prumiensis Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus Pontacus Burdegalensis and Hermannus Contractus that Saint Iohn the Apostle was liuing almost 32. yeares after that our Iesuite saith hee was dead Now whether our Fryer bee skilfull in Chronology or no that will not I define let the Reader iudge Hee himselfe boasteth of his skill what hee hath perfourmed we see But whatsoeuer his skill be his lying is in the highest degree S. R. But omitting these errours as Testimonies of Bels ignorance in Histories which I regard not to his Argument I answere T. B. They are not mine errors but your owne lies You are full of boasting and bragging but truth haue ye none all good conscience from you is quite gone Let vs heare your graue answer S. R. I answer that those words These are written are meant onely of Miracles done by Christ and written by Saint Iohn to moue vs to beleeue that Christ was God T. B. It troubleth our Iesuite more then a little that I affirme Saint Iohn to haue written his Gospell about 100. yeares after Christs ascension into Heauen And for that end as we haue heard he hath addicted himselfe wholy to cogging falshood and lying in so much as he would needs haue Saint Iohn dead while hee was liuing and wherefore is al this huge Masse of lying forsooth because these wordes of Saint Iohn These aâ—e written are thereby proued to bee meant of the whole corps of the holy Bible For Saint Iohn writing after all when the Cannon of the scripture was compleate perfect fully accomplished must needes meane of all and that for two respects First because all the rest of the Scriptures tend to one and the same end which Saint Iohn aymeth at viz that wee may beleeue That Iesus is the Sonne of GOD. Secondly because Miracles alone without Doctrine are not able to worke the effect whereof Saint Iohn speaketh For Fayth is not grounded in Miracles but in the promises and word of God Mâ—racles cannot beget Faith they onely are helpes and meanes to confir me it in vs. Therefore saith Saint Luke The Apostles went forth and preached the word of God and the Lord wrought with their preaching and confirmed it with Miracles following And so do Saint Austen and Saint Cyrill vnderstand these words of Saint Iohn affirming all thinges necessary for saluation to be conteyned in the holy scriptures Theyr words are set downe in The Downefall of Popery S. R. We confesse scripture to be an infallible rule but not the totall rule but as Bellarmine saith the partiall rule T. B. What is this but to confesse Christ an vnperfect workman But to confesse Christ to haue set downe an vnperfect rule of Faith But to confesse that the Scripture containeth not all things necessary for saluation Which for all that you haue confessed again and againe As before like a Pelagian you said Eternall life was not meer grace nor the meere guift of God but dependeth partly to mans merit So now you say heere That the Scripture is not a totall rule of Fayth but must haue some helpe from mens Traditions But I will confound you with your owne wordes which before came from your owne Pen. Thus doe you write For surely the Prophets and Euangelistes writing their doctrine for our better remembrance would omit no one point which was necessarie to bee actually knowne of euery one especially seeing they haue written some thinges which are not so necessary Againe in another place you haue these expresse wordes All such points of Christian Faith as are
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