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
for Christs sake and behold our Iesuite at a great Non plus I haue prooued both by the Scripture out of Saint Iohn and by the testimony of the holy Fathers and famous Popish Writers that the very Essence Nature and formality of sin is the transgression of Gods Lawe That Gods law is nothing else but his eternall reason or will decreeing what ought to be done or not to be done and consequently that euery sin is mortall as beeing against Gods reason Will and Law Now our Fryer being indeede at his wits end knoweth not what aunswere to make but saith at Randon that the Fathers onely define mortall sin He neither hath Rime nor Reason thus to say but we must if ye will admit his bare word for he is an honest man I warrant you his word is as good as no Obligation The Fathers define sin generally they make no exception at all yet our Iesuite will needs haue them to define onely mortall What a thing is this Who euer hath heard the like The Question is whether euery sin be mortall or no. I affirme euery sin to bee mortall and I prooue it because the holy Scripture the Auncient Fathers and the Doctors doe define sin to bee so yet our Iesuite thinketh it enough barely to aunswere that they all speak of mortall sin not of veniall O sweet Iesus Our Iesuite is either too too foolish or els too too malicious His fond answer is tearmed in Schooles Petitio principij the begging of the Question He will needes haue the Fathers to except veniall sins and to acknowledge such sins although they take no notice of such sins neither once name such sins but contrariwise affirme all sinnes without exception to bee mortall These Fathers saith our fatherly Iesuite define mortall sin not veniall Euen so sorsooth for why should they define that which is not The Fathers were wise they knew that euery sin in it owne nature deserued death and therefore defined sin accordingly They knew that Saint Paule saith The reward of sinne is death They knew what God saith by his Prophet Ezechiell The Soule that sinneth shall dye the death They knew what God saith by his Prophet Dauid Thou art not a GOD that loueth wickednesse neither shall euill dwell with thee They knew what Christ will say at the day of dome Depart from me ye cursed into euerlasting fire But our Iesuite saith that veniall sinnes breake not friendshippe with God Well let him stand in iudgment against God for his venials I will say with the humble Prophet Enter not into iudgement with thy Seruant O Lord for no flesh can be iustified in thy sight S. R. I admit that by sin Saint Iohn vnderstood all kinde of Actuall sin and deny that Anomia Iniquity is taken for wickednesse and perfect transgression of the Lawe but generally as it is common to perfect transgression only swaruing from the Law T. B. I answere First that Anomia is the transgression of the Law according to the nature and proper signification of the word as their most famous Linguist Arias Montanus graunteth Secondly that iniquity is perfect sin and wickednesse as the Prophet telleth vs Discedite à me omnes qui operamini iniquitate Depart from me all ye that worke iniquity So the Latin Vulgata editio readeth which the papists must approoue perforce because the Pope hath so inioyned them Heere iniquity must needes bee taken for mortall sin for as our Iesuite saith Veniall sinnes do not breake friendship with God and I may presume to affirme of holy Dauid that hee commaunded not them to depart from him who were in fauour with God No no God loueth not those that worke iniquity Thirdly that Saint Iohn speaketh of mortall sinne by our Iesuites owne confession Fourthly that Saint Bede Lyranus and Carthusianus do all three with vniforme assent expound it of mortall sin Fiftly that our Iesuite vnawares graunteth no lesse These are his wordes For iniquity requireth onely want of equitie and conformitie to Gods Lawe Loe hee graunteth iniquity to want conformity to Gods Law and so say I vnawares he granteth iniquity to be against Gods law seeing it is here confessed of our Iesuite that it wants cōformity thereunto for that is to be against Gods Law S. R. Durand and Angles I confesse did thinke veniall sins to bee against the Lawe but neyther is this a matter of Fayth neyther do they intend to fauour Bell any thing T. B. Here our Iesuite graunteth me the victory confessing that his owne deare friendes Durand and Angles defend mine opinion But he addeth two things for his defence as hee thinketh yet I deny them and so I thinke will the indifferent Reader to be very ridiculous and altogether childish First he saith it is no matter of faith What then good Sir Is nothing to be regarded but matters of Fayth Is it a matter of faith that your Pope cannot erre That he is aboue a general Councel That he can depose kings Nay that either he or your selfe be an honest man And what is a matter of fayth Forsooth whatsoeuer the Pope will haue a matter of fayth Secondly he saith Durand and Angles intend not to fauour mee This is brother-folly to the former How farre to London a pokefull of Plumbes S. R. All formall sin is formall iniquity but not contrarywise As Adultery or murther committed by a foole or madde man is iniquity but no more sinne then it is in Beasts T. B. First Iniquity is wickednesse and consequently sin as is already prooued Secondly Iniquity is formally against equity as our Iesuite hath graunted Thirdly it is formally transgression of Gods Law as I haue many wayes confirmed Ergo it is formally sin Fourthly If Adultery or murther doone by a foole or mad man be iniquity it is also sin for all iniquity is sin as is already prooued Fiftly to say that Adultery done by a foole or madde man is no more sinne then it is in beastes seemeth to me a beastly affirmation Our Iesuite barely sayth it hee prooueth it not I know his supposed ground because forsooth it is not voluntary But I would haue him to tell mee how it is not as well sinne in Fooles and mad men as Adams fault is sinne in Infants against their will Because saith he they cannot auoyde it The same say I of Infantes I adde that Beastes neuer hadde it in their power to auoyde sinne and sinnefull actes but Fooles madde men and Infantes were all at once enabled to haue kept the Lawe when they were in Lumbis Adae which is enough for their iust condemnation And it is confirmed because they may as well bee freed from Originall sin as from murther and Adultery It is a common saying that if a drunken man kill a man when hee is drunke hee must bee hanged when hee is sober Yea the Ethnicke Philosopher can tell vs that a murtherer
So as it may truely be said that some sinnes are Mortall some Veniall though not in Popish sence and meaning For though sinnes be mortall in their owne Nature and not at all Veniall yet are all sinnes Veniall to the Faithfull by the great mercy of GOD who imputeth no sinnes to his elect Children wheÌ„ he beholdeth their Robes washed made white in the bloud of the immaculate Lamb. These I say must bee well marked and firmely imprinted in our remembrance viz Nonâ—n imputat his qui fideliter ei dicunt dimitte nobis debita nostra For hee doth not impute their sinnes to them who faithfully desire pardon for their sinnes Sinnes therefore are Veniall but to whom Not to Atheists denying God not to Pharisees boasting of their Condigne workes not to Infidels denying Christes merits not to impenitent persons who eyther dispaire or take delight in sinne but to the faithful who euer haue a feruent desire to do Gods holy will and to keepe his Commaundements And though of ignorance or frailty they often fall into sinne yet do they foorthwith bewayle their sinnes humbly craue pardon for the same and apply themselues wholly to woorthy fruites of repentance Fourthly that when we either want charity or haue it not in that degree and perfection which the Law requireth we forthwith commit sinne and become guilty in that behalfe Fiftly that we sinne euen in doing that which we can no way auoyd Hereof Saint Austen yeeldeth this reason viz that if we can auoid it then our present will is culpable in default if we cannot auoyd it theÌ„ will past was the cause thereof For as the same holy father saith elsewhere is to be seen in the Downefall euery such sin of ours is voluntary eytheir in the worke it selfe or else in the Originall that is to say in the Protoplast Adam whose will in Gods iust iudgement is reputed ours because we were in his loynes as in the beginning and root of all mankind To which I adde that though the Deuill cannot auoyde sinne yet cannot our Papists deny but he both sinneth heynously and voluntarily yea the Phylopher telleth vs That the drunken man deserueth double punnishment For we must euer haue in minde that our necessity of sinning is punishment iustly inflicted vpon vs as proceeding from our voluntary sinne in Adam I likewise adde for a complement and consummation of the doctrin which I now deliuer and defend that Celestine against whose errours Saint Austen wrote this Booke Deperfectionciustitiae defended Mordicus as a resolued vndoubted doctrine That vvhatsoeuer Man could not auoyde but doe of necessity could not truely bee called sinne nor for sinne be iustly imputed to him To whom Saint Austen answered that albeit wee cannot in this corruption of Nature liue wholy without sin but so farre onely as our nature is healed yet might we haue auoided sin perfectly and wholly before Adams fall which is enough to make vs truly and formally sinners in Gods sight Let his wordes bee well marked and remembred and this controuersie wil soone be at an end For it is all one as if S. Austen had sayde Though we cannot now liue without sinne but sinne of necessity yet are our sinnes iustly and truely imputed to vs because we sinned voluntarily in Adam and by that means most iustly brought this necessity vpon vs. This Doctrine the Papistes Volentes Nolentes must admit or else accuse God of Iniustice for condemning Infants eternally for that sinne which they cannot possibly auoyde For infants dying without Baptisme they affirme to perish euerlastingly S. R. As for Bels dilernma it is easily aunswered and might haue been better left out as himselfe writeth in the margent For though Infantes after they haue sinned and eaten the Apple in Adam cannot avoyde the guilt of Originall sinne but must needs contract it by origine from Adam Yet becautse as Infants sinned in Adam so they might haue not sinned in him but haue auoided the guilt of sinne falsely dooth Bell say they could not possibly auoyde it And I wonder why Bell hauing taught beefore that Concupiscence the effect of Originall Sinne is voluntary hee will now say that Infants could not possibly auoyde Originall sinne But it is his custome to gainsay himselfe T. B. I answere First that in the Downefall of Popery these words are written indeed in the Margent Omittatur haec clausula meo indicio But I protest that neyther did I write them neyther did they please mee when I espyed them Many like faultes are in many of my Books which I cannot deale withall If I had Money at my will as our Iesuite hath to defray my charges while my Bookes were at the Presse I could then so handle the matter as such faults should not offend his worship How this Marginall note crept into the place I may coniecture and bee deceiued This I am assured of that our Iesuites can do greater matters This euery child may know that I wrote it not but our lesuite will needes haue it so For if I would haue had it left out it was in my power to haue effected the same this supposed which I deny that it was mine owne act Secondly that our Iesuit killeth himselfe with his own sword For I contend against him that all sinnes are voluntary in Adam and the Law possible to haue bin kept in him which the Iesuite vnawares doth heere confesse against himselfe This is the maine point in Controuersie viz whether that which we cannot auoyd may bee sinne in vs or no. I hold the Affirmatiue out Iesuite the Negatiue I reply that infantes are guilty of that sinne which they could not avoyde and consequently that that may be sinne in vs which wee cannot avoyde But withall I constantly affirme that infants sinned voluntarily in Adam because they were in his loynes as also that we might haue kept the commaundements in innocent Adam though after corrupt Adam we cannot possibly performe the same This notwithstanding I deny that infantes could any way haue avoyded Originall sin For I cannot conceiue how a childe can avoyd that sin which was committed before he was borne For though it was once in Adams power to haue auoyded all sinne and so to haue freed all his posterity from all sinne yet was it neuer in any Infants power to haue caused Adam to keep Gods holy precept which seeing no Infant was able to performe neyther could any Infant possibly haue auoyded sin Our Iesuite therefore must learne to know that it is one thing to say that it was in Adams power not to haue transgressed Gods Lawe another thing to say that it was in our power before wee were borne to haue kept Adam from that transgression Which seeing it was neuer in our power neyther were wee euer able to haue auoyded the same and consequently neither to haue auoyded sinne Thirdly where our Iesuite saith it is
etiam involuntarios These thinges are spoken after the minde of Saint Austen who vnderstandeth all the motions euen those which bee involuntary to bee forbidden in some sort by this Commaundement Thou shalt not Lust. VVhere wee see that not onely Bellarmine theyr Cardinall but Saint Austen that woorthy Piller of the Church affirmeth both Originall concupiscence and the involuntary Motions thereof to be forbidden in this precept Where I may not forget to tell the Reader that though Bellarmine to make his matter good if it would addeth to Saint Austens wordes In some sort yet dooth Saint Austen write very simply and sayth flatly that they are prohibited and addeth not Quodam modo In some sort That is Bellarmines addition it is not in Saint Austen Secondly that habituall Originall Lust is not idle but woorketh ill desires in vs continually agaynst our vvill So sayth S. Austen in these words Agit n. Aliquid concupiscentia carnis c. For concupiscence of the flesh worketh somthing euen when there is not giuen vnto it either the consent of the heart where it may raigne or the members as VVeapons which may accomplish what it appointeth And what doth it but the very wicked and filthy desires For if they were good and lawfull the Apostle would not forbid to obey them Marke these wordes gentle Reader for they are of great consequence and giue a deadly blowe to the Papistes Two thinges are cleered by this Testimony of Saint Austen the one that Concupiscence to which consent is not giuen bringeth foorth ill desires the other that the sayde desires are vnlawfull and prohibited by the Law of GOD. And so wee haue euidently prooued that habituall Concupiscence to which the regenerate yeelde no consent but stoutly resist the same is so farre from beeing meritorious as the Papists would haue it that it is sinne formally and properly so called And wee haue further that habituall concupiscence worketh ill desires in vs against our will and therefore that those desires are truely called originall because vvee doe them not but rather suffer them to bee doone in vs. Thirdly that though the Law in saying Thou shalt not lust seemeth by the force of the word which signifyeth action to prohibite onely the voluntary act of concupiscence yet dooth it forbidde the very Originall Concupiscence it selfe withall the braunches effects and involuntary motions thereof as is already prooued at large Yea Saint Austen doth vnderstand it as Bellarmine himselfe doth grant Heere for the help of the Reader I note that a threefold Concupiscence is forbidden by the tenth Commandement The first is meerely called Originall This is that vvhich vve all contracted of Adam and which is the Fountaine of all concupiscences and sins and therefore truely called of the Apostle sin The second is partly Originall and partly Actuall Originall because it yssueth naturally from the Originall prauity of our nature Actuall for that we couet in act albeit against our wil and because it is against our wil it is more properly truly called Originall then actuall The third is meerely actuall because it is voluntary S. R. I must note Bels important vntruths First that Pope Vrban and Pope Innocent confirmed Saint Thomas his doctrine for authenticall Secondly that Pope Vrban gaue it the first place after cannonicall scripture T. B. This Fryer seemeth to bee framed of lying and as hee hath vsually spent his whole dispute so in the end of the article he closeth it vp with leasing Whosoeuer shal pervse The Downfall of Popery wil soon espy how this Fryer loadeth my back with slaunderous speeches and false reports I will heere in regard of breuity onely set downe the Testimony of a famous Papist Augustinus Hunnaeus by name in that Epistle which he sent to Pope Pius the fift These are his words Vrbanus c. Vrbanus that worthy Prelate of the Apostolique sea admiring the excellent doctrine of this man he speaketh of Aquinas beholding it as fallen from heauen to driue away the naturall mist of ignorance from mens minds doth grauely exhort to the study thereof and commaundeth the vniuersity of Tholouse to follow it as the cheefe in all their disputations and aunsweres concerning faith and manners Innocentius the fift of that name esteemed the same mans Doctrine so greatly that hee doubted not to giue it the first place after the Cannonicall scripture Thus writeth Hunnaeus By whose words it may appeare in what reuerence the Doctrine of Aquinas is with the Papists as also that our Iesuite cannot answere me but by lying And thus I will end this article with these words of our Iesuite Habituall cōcupiscence includeth not only pronesse to euill but also difficulty to do good and want of habibituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill Thus writeth our Iesuite who after he hath long wearied himselfe in struggling against the truth doth at the length vnawares confesse the same For doubtlesse when he graunteth that habituall Concupiscence in the regenerate includeth want of habituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill he graunteth in substance in the truth of the matter as much as I desire He denyeth in wordes that Originall concupiscence is formally sinne but in effect and substance hee graunteth the very same Whosoeuer shal seriously ponder both my discourse heere and in the Downefall especially concerning the Nature definition and essence of sinne he will perceiue with all facility that the Iesuite woulde say as I write if hee were not affrayde to displease the Pope The fift Article of the merite of Good workes S. R. BEls first position containeth two partes the first is that good workes neither do nor can goe before Iustification Behold Bell euen where he would proue himselfe a friend to good workes sheweth himselfe to be an enemy and excluding them from any going before or any way concurring to iustification to which they so concurred in Saint Mary Magdalen as our Sauiour saide Many sinnes are forginen her because shee loued much making her loue a kind of cause viz disponent of her Iustification T. B. Our Iesuite wold gladly perswade his reader that I am an enemy to good workes The best mean he hath to defend himselfe and Popery withall is cogging lying and false dealing I must needs be an enimy to Good workes because I will not admit euill workes for good I say with S. Austen Sequuntur iustificatum non precedent iustificandum Good Workes follow him that is iustified but they go not before him that is to be iustified Behold here gentle Reader that S. Austen is the same enemy to Good workes that I am He affirmeth them to follow iustification and so doe I. Hee denyeth them to goe before iustification and so doe I. What a thing is this Our Iesuite dareth not call Saint Austen an enemy to Good Workes and yet doth he call mee so
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
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
Cardinall by whose doctrin it is euident that S. Austen affirmeth the first motions of concupiscence which peruert reason and cannot be auoided to be condemned by S. Paul as sinfull and against the law of God Which doctrine of S. Austen doth so sting and confound all Papists that Bellarmine knoweth not in the world what hee shall answere to the same And therefore he addeth deceitfully in his exposition of S. Austens words this word Quodam modo after a sort which word for all that is neither in S. Austen nor yet agreeable to his meaning For S. Austen saith plainely simply and absolutely without all ands or ifs or other qualifications that such motions are forbidden by this commaundement non concupisces If I gentle Reader should thus deale in reciting or expounding my authors what exclamations what outcries wold be made against me all the cursed brood of Iesuites and Iesuited Papists would pursue me with hue and cry as if I were a rancke Traytor But S. Austens words are so plaine as no denyall or Legierdemaine can haue place for he sayth that Originall concupiscence with the involuntary motions thereof are forbidden by the last precept of the Decalogue and the consent to the same by that other precept Go not after thy concupiscence Heere S. Austen vttereth his owne meaning cōcerning this great controuersie For he plainly and flatly distinguisheth betweene originall concupiscence it selfe and the consent that is giuen to the same Hee telleth vs simply and resolutely that the concupiscence is prohibited by one precept and the consent to it by another Which the Iesuiticall Cardinall seeing to bee an inuincible Bulwarke against him and against the very essence of all Popish doctrine hee thought it stood him in hand to inuent some thogh neuer so miserable Legier demain to dazel the eyes of the reader withal and for this end he added to Saint Austen text this word Quodam modo in a sort Which In a sort though it bee graunted him yet will it not serue his turne For if it bee prohibited in a sorte and in a sort bee against Gods commaundement then must it needs followe that at least in a sort it is sinne and so the victory is mine owne Lastly it is a constant Axiome generally receiued of all Logitians in all Schooles that the cause beeing taken away the effect must needs be taken away also But death is the effect of originall sinne Ergo if Originall sin which is the cause be taken away in baptisme then death which is the effect thereof must be taken away with it Wherefore seeing both olde and young after Baptisme still dye as we daily see it is an euident Argument that the cause thereof which is originall concupiscence is not taken away S. R. If in regeneration wee become guiltlesse of all damnable sinne then haue we no such sinne in vs. For as Saint Austen saith to bee not guilty of sinne is to haue no sinne T. B. I answer that we are guilty in the nature of the thing yet guiltles freed by Gods mercy in Christ Iesus And I tell our Iesuite that he inverteth Saint Austens wordes as one that neuer read the same Thus writeth Saint Austen Hoc est n. Non habere peccatum reum non esse peccati For this is to haue no sinne not to be guilty of sinne And what is this Forsooth S. Austen saith he may be thought or saide to haue no sinne in him though his sinne remaine in act whose sinne is not imputed to him S. R. Sins remaine but by their guilt as adultery once committed remaineth in the committer onely because he is still guilty of the adultery that he did vntill it bee remitted T. B. Some sinnes as Adultery passe in acte when they are done and remaine in guilt Others passe in guilt and remaine in acte as originall concupiscence in the regenerate which remaineth in the vnregenerate both in guilt and in act S. R. Though it were true which Bell saith of the reprobates yet would it not follow thereof that concupiscence in reprobates is formall sinne but onely that originall sinne is not truely forgiuen in baptisme to any reprobate which is false T. B. I prooued by the testimony of the Rhemists that originall sin still remaineth in the baptized and consequently that it is sinne formally in the regenerate And so I haue my purpose viz that sinne still abideth in the regenerate though it be not imputed to them For if originall sinne be truely remitted in baptisme and bee not truely sinne indeede in the Baptised then can none bee iustly damned that are baptized For how shall they bee iustly condemned for that which is remitted It cannot be And this notwithstanding to grant that all baptized shall be saued is most absurd For larger discourse hereof I refer the Reader to the Downefall it selfe I study to be briefe S. R. When Saint Austen asketh why concupiscence is sin in the child if it be in the parent baptized without sin he supposeth that it is no true sin in the baptized contrary to Bels allegation T. B. S. Austen worthily demanded how concupiscence can be sinne in the Childe if it bee none in the baptized Parent For how can any man impart that to another which he hath not himselfe and thereupon Saint Austen concluded that originall sin still remaineth formally in the baptized Parent though not imputed for sinne This reason is vnanswerable S. R. Saint Austen answered that by baptisme Non imputatur in peccatum It is not imputed for sin In which answer vnlesse he did by not imputing for sin meane making no sin he hadde not answered the question why concupiscence was no sin in the baptized Parent Therefore with him concupiscence not to be imputed to or for sin is to be made no sin T. B. If you Maister Fryer Iesuite or Iesuited Fryer may expound Saint Austen at your pleasure and without eyther Scripture Father Text Circumstance or Reason say this is his meaning it must bee as you say I shall in vain dispute against you But I hope the indifferent Reader will not afforde you that freedome The Question which Saint Austen mooueth is this Why originall concupiscence is sin in the Childe and no sin in the Baptized Parent And Saint Austen himselfe aunswereth himselfe because it is not imputed for sin in the Parent Thus standeth the case this is the question this is the aunswere The difficulty is this How the Childe can contract and receiue of the Parent that which is not in the Parent because no man can bestow and impart that which he himselfe hath not The answer to the difficulty is this that originall concupiscence is still in the Parent after baptisme receiued as truely and formally sin in it owne Nature as it is truely and formally sin in the vnbaptized Child and so the Child contracteth nothing of the Parent but that very same which was in him
for the present that the Apostle saith The best Liuers of all offend in many thinges And that the Prophet Dauid telleth vs That none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight Secondly to Saint Paule I answere as in the Downefall That the raging vnvoluntary motions of Concupiscence were sinne in him although he did not actually yeelde his consent vnto them And thereupon I inferred then and now againe That that sin which Saint Paule lamented in himselfe affirming himselfe to bee sold vnder sinne was truely and properly sinne indeede but not Actuall because hee gaue no consent vnto it Ergo hee must needes speake of Originall This point I deliuered so plainly in the Downfall of Popery as none but eitherfooles or malicious Readers can be ignorant thereof Of other Actuall sinnes I spake not S. R. Christ saith Bell being asked what good a man should doe to attaine eternall life aunswered If thou wilt haue eternall life by doing good workes then must they keepe Gods commandemēts but this is impossible saith Bell. Here is most shamefull abuse of Gods word and this sheweth Bell to haue a scared conscience For neither in the mans Question nor in Christes aunswere is there any word how a man should come to Heauen by this way or that way viz by beleeuing or by working or by both but only what was the meane in generall to come to Heauen which the man supposing to bee good asked what good he should doe to come thither Which Question of his is common either to Faith or Works or both foral include doing good And our Sauiour answered him If thou wilt enter not this way nor that way but absolutely Into life Keepe the Commaundements T. B. What a one is this Fryer Hee chargeth mee to haue a seared conscience which may more iustly bee imputed to himselfe I willingly acknowledge my selfe to be a great Sinner GOD forgiue mee yet may I stand at defiance with this Iesuite and withal the Iesuites in the World for any corrupt or falfe dealing either in the Scripture or in the Fathers Councels Histories Chronicles or other Writers whosoeuer they are alike to charge me withall Nay in this very point wherein he desperately accuseth me I am able to charge him too deeply and iustly retort that agianst himselfe which he would most falsly and vniustly impose vpon me He auoucheth most impudently that there is not any word neither in the mans question nor in Christs answere how a man should come to Heauen this way or that way Let vs therefore ponder the mans words seriously and then yeeld our censures according to the truth S. Matthew hath these wordes Good Maister what good thinge shall I doe that I may haue eternall life Saint Marke hath these wordes Good Maister what shall I doe that I may haue eternall life Saint Luke hath these words Good Maister by doing what shall I possesse eternall life Now I pray thee Gentle Reader whosoeuer thou art to be an indifferent Iudge betweene the Iesuite and me Thou seest euidently that the man demaunded of Christ what he should doe to possesse and inioy eternall life For he said plainely What shall I do by doing What shall I possesse eternall life Doth not he aske to go to Heauen this way or that way who asketh to goe thither by doing Goodworkes Yes doubtlesse it cannot be denyed For to go to Heauen by doing this or that to go to heauē this way or that way is al one in effect So likewise he that saith shal I go to Heauen by doing this or by doing that and he that saith shal I go to heauen this way or that way saith one the same thing in effect Truly therfore did I answer to the Obiection by my selfe propounded cut of the Gospell viz that our Sauiour Christ did not shew in that place how men may attaine eternal life but shewed plainly vnto the man who trusted much vnto his workes and good life that perfect obseruation of the Law is required of him that thinketh to bee iustified by the workes of the Law The man did not say how shall I go to Heauen Or how shall I attaine eternall life But thus by doing what shall I haue eternall life Christ therefore aunswered directly to his manner of demaunding If thou trust so much to thy works and thine owne doings that thou thinkes thou canst go to Heauen by doing then do I tell thee that thou must looke well vnto the matter and see thou keep the Commandements This answere is directly and cleerely deduced out of the very text it selfe S. R. Bell saith that Goodworkes are so necessary to attaine eternall life as the vsuall ordinary vndoubted meanes by which God decreed from eternity freely for his owne name sake to bring his elect to saluation and that without them none haue beene are or shall be saued if time be graunted to doe them How are they now become an impossible meane to come to Heauen How did the man enquire of an impossible way to heauen by Goodworkes What need this challenger any aduersary who thus ouerthroweth himselfe T. B. If our Iesuite had either eyes to see eares to heare or wit to vnderstand he could not but both see perceiue that he confoundeth himselfe in his owne dispute For albeit the best liuer vpon earth cannot for any merit of his best workes by any possible meanes attaine eternall life for it is the gifte of God not of workes yet hath GOD decreed to bring vs to heauen by good workes which he of his great mercy freely worketh in vs. For these are the Apostles expresse wordes as the Rhemists haue put them downe For by Grace you are saued by Faith and that not of your selues for it is the gift of God not of workes that no man glory for we are his worke created in Christ lesus in goodworks which God hath prepared that we should walke in them Thus writeth the Apostle euen as our Papists alledge his words Out of which holy discourse of the chosen vessell of our Lorde Iesus I obserue these golden lessons First that we are saued By grace Secondly that saluation followeth not onely our first iustification so called of the Papists which they confesse to be of Grace but their second falsly supposed iustification also which they wold haue to come of Works For as we see here our saluatiō which is after al maner of iustification if ther were as many as the Papists imagine is only of grace not of Workes You are saued saith Saint Paule marke wel the word Saued He saith not you are iustified by grace which goeth before saluation but you are saued by grace which followeth your iustification Thirdly that the Apostle saith Negatiuely We are not saued of Workes and consequently that he confoundeth our Papistes who say that their second iustification and their saluation come of their works But as their second falsly so named
is done is forgiuen But this is easily refuted for Saint Iohn spake in respect of vs assisted by Gods Grace when he saide This is the Law of God that we keepe his Commaundements and his Commaundementes are not heauy He saith not Christ but We must keep Gods Commaundements T. B. I answere First that whosoeuer readeth and marketh the Downefall will soone perceiue that our Iesuite is at a Non plus for there were these his silly Obiections solued and refuted before they came to light Secondly that our Iesuite belyeth me after his wonted manner when he saith that I affirme the wordes to be meant in respect of Christ and not of our selues For after I had proued by many arguments drawn out of holy Writ that the yoke of Christ is sweet to the faithfull I added these words This being so we may truely say that in Christ we fulfill the Law Because he is our righteousnes our sanctification and our Redemption because hee hath ouercome death because he hath clothed vs with his righteousnes because he hath couered our nakednes with his garments because in him we haue gotten the victory ouer hell death and damnation Thus I answered in the Downfall Now I referre my selfe to the censure of the indifferent Reader how sufficiently I haue refuted the Iesuite and how vniustly he hath slandered me For it is one thing to say we fulfill the Commaundements in Christ another thing to say the wordes are spoken in respect of Christ not in respect of our selues The latter are his the former are mine viz that in Christ we fulfill the law and I learned them of Christs holy Apostle and chosen vessell S. Paule Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat I can do all thinges saith he in Christ that strengthneth me Againe in another place the same Apostle telleth vs That as by the disobedience of Adam many becam sinners so by the obedience of Christ many shall be made righteous Againe in another place thus That I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes which is of the Law but that which is through the saith of Christ the righteousnes which is of God throgh faith Again in another place thus They being ignorant of Gods righteousnes and seeking to establish their owne were not subiect to the righteousnesse of God Againe thus Hee made him sinne for vs which knewe no sinne that we might be the righteousnes of God in him Herevpon S. Austen that worthy pillar of Christs church giueth this glosse and true meaning of these words of Saint Paule Christum pro nobis peccatum fecit Deus cuireconciliandi sumus hoe est sacrificium pro peccatis per quod reconciliari valeremus Ipse ergo peccatum vt nos iustitia nec nostra sed dei nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non sâ—um sed nostram nec in se sed in nobis constititutum similitudine carnis peccati in qua crucifixus est demonstrauit God made Christ sinne for vs to whom we are to be reconciled that is a sacrifice for sinnes by which we might be reconciled He therefore was made sinne that we might be made Iustice not our Iustice but Gods Iustice neither in vs but in him as hee declared sinne not to bee his but ours not placed in him but in vs by the similitude of sinfull flesh in which he was crucified Thus writeth this ancient holy and learned Father Out of whose graue Testimony together with the Texts of holy scripture produced already I obserue these memorable documentes for the comfort of the well affected Reader First that albeit wee are not able of our selues nor in our selues to fulfill the Law of God and to keepe his commandements yet are we able to keepe them and to fulfill the Law in our Lord Iesus Christ. Secondly that as we were made sinners by the disobedience of one euen Adam so are we made righteous by the obedience of one euen Christ Iesus Thirdly that our formall righteousnes is not inherent in our selues but in God for the obedience of Iesus Christ his onely sonne and our onely sauiour Fourthly that as the sinne for which Christ suffered was ours not his in vs not in him euen so that iustice by which we are made righteous is not ours but Gods not in vs but in him I therefore conclude that we fulfill the Lawe in Christ not in our selues And I adde with S. Austen to the euerlasting confusion of our Iesuite and al Iesuited Papists in the world that that Iustice by which and with which wee are formally iustified in Gods sight is not inherent in our selues but in God not ours but his not in vs but in him and yet ours by imputation as our sinnes by imputation were his So as all the faithfull may ioyfully say with the Prophet Dauid Blessed are they vvhose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne And with the Apostle Paul As many by the disobedience of Adam were made sinners so many by the obedience of Christ are made righteous And heere I wish the reader to marke well that to be iustified by imputation is to bee made iust truely and indeed though not by Iustice inherent in our selues but by the Iustice of Christ. For as our sinnes were truely and indeed imputed to him so is his Iustice truely and indeed imputed to vs. I also admonish the Reader to remember well these words of S. Austen Ipse ergo peccatum vt nos iustitia c. He was made sinne that we might be made iustice not our Iustice but Gods iustice neither in vs but in him To remember well I say these words beecause they are words of great consequence For they proue euidently that our formal iustice is not inhereÌ„t in our selues but in God which confoundeth the Papists and striketh them dead They conuince mans inherent Iustice to be imperfect and their supposed condigne merit of Workes to be plaine Hypocriticall S. R. S. Iohn giueth vs a signe to try if we know God viz if we keepe his commandements and verse 3. affirmeth That who keepeth not his Commaundements knoweth not God Wherefore eyther Bell keepeth the Commandements or he knoweth not God T. B. I answere first that Bell humbly acknowledgeth himselfe a great sinner and desireth pardon for his sins with the poore Publican Howsoeuer our Iesuite like the Pharisee glory in his condigne merites and Workes of Supererogation Secondly that as we know God vnperfectly so do we keep his commandements vnperfectly If our Iesuite say that hee knoweth God perfectly S. Paule condemneth him for an arrogant fellow If hee say hee keepeth Gods Commandements perfectly S. Iames reproueth him as a proud Pharisaicall Fryer S. R. As for S. Austen he said our defectuous keeping is counted a full
Bels custome to gaine-say himselfe if it may please his reuerence to put Iesuite for Bell the truth then will be on his side S. R. Gods Children as long as his seede abideth in them sin not nor offend deadly in any one point but abide both in the whole Law and in euery point therof Saint Iames speaketh of deadly sin and of offending deadly But there he Veniall sins which Bell denyeth not in the which iust men may offend and not breake Gods Law deadly T. B. I ansvvere first that euery sinne is mortall of it ovvne nature which I haue already proued Secondly that all sinnes are Veniall and pardonable which is all one to Gods children and faithful seruants not of their own nature but of Gods great mercy and fauour towardes them who for Christs merites and satisfaction in whom hee is euer well pleased pardoneth all their offences imputeth no sin vnto them This is the constant doctrine of S. Austen whose words are these Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur All the Commaundements are then reputed as done when what soeuer is not done is Of Mercy forgiuen The famous Popish Abbot Bernardus is consonant to S. Austen These are his wordes Omne quod natum est ex deo non peccat sed hoc dictum est de praedestinatis ad vitam non quod omnino non peccent sed quod peccatum ipsis non imputetur All that is born of God sinneth not But this is spoken of the predestinate to life not because they sinne not at al but for that sinne is not imputed to them Againe in another place he sayth thus Vtique quod factum est non potest non fieri ipso tamen non imputante erit quasi non fuerit Quod Propheta quoque considerans ait beatus vir cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum The sinne doubtles that is done cannot bee vndone yet because God doth not impute sinne vnto vs we shall be as if we had not sinned Which the Prophet considering saith Blessed is the man to whom God shall not impute sinne Out of these wordes this Corollary is clearly deduced viz that the regenerate are saide not to sinne not because they do no sinne indeed or haue no sin in themselues for that were against the flat Doctrine of S. Iames but because God of his meere mercy for the merits of Christ Iesus doth not impute their sinnes vnto them S. R. It is an vniust law which is impossible and to punnish the breakers were against right and equity As Bell himselfe would graunt if vppon paine of death he were bid to flye to heauen and executed if he did not T. B. I answere First that the Commaundements of God are not simply and absolutely impossible but accidentally Per accidens They are not impossible in themselues because Christ himselfe kept them neyther impossible to man as man because Adam might haue kept them Onely they are impossible to cortupt man which impossibility commeth Per accidens and not Ex natura rei Man hadde free will to haue doone Gods will to haue kept his Commaundementes and to haue liued without sinne perpetually thorough whose disobedience wee are solde vnder sinne and brought to that necessitie that we cannot possibly avoyd sinne Neuerthelesse wee are iustly punnished for our sins because the necessity and impossibility which was befallen vs was brought vppon vs thorough our owne default when that we were in the Loynes of Adam Secondly that our Iesuites argument of my flying to Heauen is both vnchristian and very childish Vnchristian because it doth equalize mans precepts with Gods childish because it was neuer in my power to slye to heauen as it was once in mans power to keepe Gods commandements Our Iesuite accuseth God of iniustice in condemning infants for Originall sinne S. R. After the fathers he bringeth two reasons The one out of the Lords prayer where we are taught to ask forgiuenes But saith he Where pardon must be demanded there the Law is not exactly obserued The other is out of our daily confessions where we acknowledge our faults and most great faults I Answere as the petition of forgiuing our sins dooth euidently conuince that wee do not so exactly keepe the Lawe as that we neuer swarue from it so the other petition of doing Gods will heer on Earth as it is in Heauen euidently conuinceth that wee can do it without deadly breaking it As for our confessions wee do not confesse that our daily offences are most great faults but daily confesse our most great falts whether done then or before T. B. I answere first that our Iesuite graunteth as much as I desire as euery childe may perceiue For his wordes are plaine that they do not keepe the law so exactly as they neuer swarue from it Hold thy selfe here good Fryer and we shall soone agree For if you swarue from the Law then doubtlesse ye doth not keepe it This is all that I require at your hands viz that ye wil confesse that ye swarue from the Law and keepe it not Secondly that the other petition proueth not that you Papists can keepe Gods commandements and liue without sin as the Saints do in heauen For euery meane Logician can tell you that the worde As doth Connotate a similitude but not an Identity viz. that as the Angels Saints do Gods will in heauen and liue altogether without sinne acording to the condition of the perfect state so wee may do his will in some measure and proportion according to the imperfect state in which we liue And thus much the word as doth import vnto vs so often as as say the Lords Prayer Thirdly that your answere is so Aenigmaticall as my slēder capacity is not able to penetrate the depth therof You freely grant that you daily confesse your most great faultes but not that your daily offences are most great faults O the depth of Iesuiticall wit Qui potest capere capiat The great God Apollo must come downe from Heauen to vnfold this high mistery Well seeing it will bee no better let vs make the best of it we can Let vs holde fast that which is freely graunted vs viz that our Iesuites commit most great faults sometimes though not euery day Let vs likevvise hold this fast viz that our Iesuites confesse those most great faultes euery day which they commit sometimes but not euery day This done let vs out of these two assertions plainely and freely confessed inferre these two most Golden and memorable Corollaries First that seeing our Iesuites freely graunt that they commit sometimes most great faults though not dayly it followeth of necessity that sometimes they break gods holy commaundements though not daily and consequently that sometimes they sinne damnably though not euery day as also that they are so farre from louing Condigne Merites of Glory as they woorthily