Controuersies handled in this booke 1. Of the Popes supremacie Article 1. through out 2. Of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Alter Article 2. chap. 1. 2. 3. Of the Sacrifice of Masse Art 2. chap. 3. 4. 5. 6. 4. Of the Popes dispensations Article 3. through out 5. Of Original sinne concupiscence Article 4. through out 6. Of merit of good workes Art 8. through out 7. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sinns Art 6. through out 8. Of the sufficiencie of the holy Scripture Art 7. cap. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9. Of the difficultie of Scripture Ibid. chap. 6. 10. Of the vulgar peoples reading of scripture in vulgar tonges Ibid. c. 7. 11. Of the translating of holy Scripture into vulgar tonges Ibid. c. 8. 12. Of Traditions Art 7. chap. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Of the authority of late general counsayles ibid. chap. 13. 14. Of the oathes of Bishops Ibid. chap. 14. 15. Of the possibility of keeping Gods commandments Art 8. through out TO THE MOST HIGHE AND MIGHTIE PRINCE IAMES By the grace of God King of great Britanie France and Ireland Defendor of the Faith YF S. Paul Most Gratious Soueraigne being accused of the whole Synagog of the Iewes by their Orator Tertullus of diuers heynous crimes both against Gods and the Princes lawes found notwithstanding such equitie in the heathen President Festus as that he answered his aduersaries that it was not the Romans custome to coÌ„demne Act. 2â— any man before he haue his accusers present and place to make his answer and also such fauour at the The like reporteth Plutarch of K. Alexan. the great Act. 26. Iewish King Agrippa his hands as he both licenced him to speake for him selfe afforded him fauorable audience Much more cause haue your Maiesties Catholique Subiects being accused of the ministers by a hyred spokesman Bel to expect the like yea greater fauor equitie at your Graces handes For if the Romans though Heathens thought it iniustice to condemne any particular man at the clamors of a whole nation before his accusers were present and his defence were heard And if King Agrippa albeit He killed S. Iames and emprisoned S. Peter Act. 12. a Iew persecutor of Christians deemed it notwithstanding a Princes part to geueÌ„ audience to one accused of that Religion which he both hated and persecuted How much more wil a Christian Prince forbeare to condemne the vniuersal cause of his Catholique subiects at the slaunders and outcries of ministers one hyred Proctor before their accusers be brought face to face and they haue time and place graunted to answer for them selues wherein we shal account our selues more happy then S. Paul because we shal plead our cause not before a Iewish but a Christian King such a one as better knowerh the questions and customes of the Christians then King Agrippa did of the Iewes VVherfore seeing that of late Thomas Bel a fugitiue once from Protestants religion as he is now from Catholiques hath not only accused but also malitiously slaÌ„dered the vniuersal Catholique cause in a booke which he hath dedicated to your Maiestie termed it the Dovvnefall of Poperie and withal challengeth dareth yea adiureth in which case our B. Sauiour Matth. 26. though with danger of his life made answer al English Iesuits Seminary Priests and as he speaketh Iesuited Papists to answer him I haue presumed vpon your Gratious fauour to accept his chaleng and am ready to performe it hand to hand if your Maiestie graunt licence and in the meane time to dedicate to your Name this my confutation of his arguments and slaunders VVherin I speake not for my selfe as S. Paul did before King Agrippa but for the religion of your owne Progenitors and Predecessors for the faith of our Forefathers for the cause of al Catholiques and for the good I dare say of your Maiesties owne person kingdoms For though Bel calumniate Christian Kinges and pag. 17. Emperors with opening the window to al Antichristian tyranny and Catholiques generally with thinking p. 1. 22. Christ to be killed a thousand times a day and the like yet especially he slandereth the Popes with vsurping power proper to God and to depose Princes and dispose of their kingdomes at his pleasure therby to alienate your mind from the Sea Apostolike wherin he not onely abuseth your patieÌ„ce with telling you vntruths but greatly harmeth and endamageth your selfe and Realme by endeuoring through Vir Apostata prauo corde machinatur maluÌ„ omni tempore iurgia Seminat â—ouer c. 6. his false slanders to auert your minde from the Popes who haue bene the most ancient most assured and most beneficial frends which the Kinges Realme of England euer had VVhich thing that I may make manifest vnto your Grace I humbly beseech you geue me leaue to set downe some praticular examples of the mutual amitie kind offices benifites which haue euer bene betwixt the Popes and the Princes of this land VVherein if I be somewhat longer then men in Epistles The loue benefits of Popes to England and Kings therof S. Peter P. vse to be I hope that the varietie and profit of the matter wil make requital Not long after the Apostolike Seat was settled in Rome S. Peter the first Pope about the 63. yeare of Christ came hither as not only Gretians but Metaphrast tract de Pet. Paul apud Lippoman Cambden in descrip Britanâ—â— p. 52. And Nicephor as he saieth Protestants also confesse stayed here a long time conuerted many Nations to Christs faith erected Churches ordered Bishops and Priests and being admonished of an Angel returned from hence to Rome to suffer Martyrdome Neither was this loue to our Countrie extinguished by death but as he promised to some so he had it 2. Pet. 1. also in mind after his death and miraculously assisted it in the greatest distresses So that truly wrote S. Sergius Malmesbur lib. 1. Pont. Angl. p. 209. 1. Pope vnto our Kings of England almost a thousand yeares agoe that S. Peter was mindful of them Pope Alexander 3. to King Henry 2. â—ugubin de donat CoÌ„st that England was vnder S. Peters protection euer since Christs name was glorified there For when our country about the yeare 611. began to Apostatate from the faith of Christ and the Bishops were determined to forsake the land S. Perer appearing to Sainct Laurence Arch-bishop of Canturbury did seuerly rebuke and scourge him because he would abandon the flocke which I said S. Peter coÌ„mitted vnto thee This miracle is so certaine as some ProtestaÌ„ts confesse it though Gadvvin in the life of S. Laurence some others wil not beleue it because they haue neither seene nor put their singers into S. Laurence his wounds yet it may suffice any indifferent man that it was auouched by S. Laurence beleeued by King Edbald his people lib. 2. hist
aduersary enter the field and like Vergils Bul. A Eneid 12. beates the winde withal his might And casting sand doth florish to the sight it is admirable For omitting particuler coÌ„tradictions almost in euery Article he flingeth down the very main point which he wold establish As art 1. he wold proue that the Pope hath no superiority ouer Princes nor power to depose them and yet affirmeth that some Kings and Emperors haue humbled pag. 17. them selues yeelded their soueraign rights to him and that Popes liued in duetiful obedience pag 2. vnder Emperors vntil the year 603. which he proueth by S. Gregory and yet no les then S. Fabian S. Innocent 1. Symmachus S. Felix 2. Anastasius 2. Vigilius six Popes did in that tyme excommunicate their Emperors S. Gregory was the first that decreed the deposition of Kings and Princes In the second article after he had talked long against the real presence and sacrifice of the Masse he falleth to cal the sacrificing of Christs flesh with Preists hands p. 26. 27. golden words and to say that if we wold be iudged by a doctrin of Bellarmins which a litle before he had said was the Popes doctrin the controuersy about the real presence wold be at an end In the fourth article after he had long labored to proue inuoluntary motions of the flesh to be formal sin and called the contrary damnable doctrin he both affirmeth and proueth such inuoluntary motioÌ„s in S. Paul to haue bene no sin because they pag. 48. were against his wil. In the fift Article after he had spent many leaues to fling down condigne merit at the last he auoucheth that if we wold be iudged by Bellarmins p. 78. 79. others doctrin published in print that controuersy wold be ended yet immediatly before he had affirmed that Bellarm. taught his doctrin of merit which is the very some which commonly al Catholiks hold after mature deliberation and graue consultation with al the best learned Iesuits in the world and with the Pope him self What is this but to confesse that in vain he impugneth the Popes doctrin of merit Such is the force of truth saith S. Austin that it is more forceable to Lib. cont Donat. post collat c. 24. pag. 81. wring out confession then any rack or torment In the sixt Article he admitteth the distinction of mortal and venial sin in a godly sense as he saith and yet streight after concludeth absolutly that al sins are mortal and saith that we flatter our selfs in our cursed deformed venials In the seuenth article after he had spent 27. leaues to fel down Traditions called them falshoods and vanities p. 93. and pronounced them accursed of S. Paul who receaue them at last him self p. p. 134. 135. 134. and 135. accepteth one Tradition about the Bible whither it be Gods word or no wherby he beateth down whatsoeuer before he had set vp against the Traditions of the Church In the last he graunteth that Gods commandements are possible to be kept in a godly sense and yet afterward absolutly concludeth that we can not possibly keep them Thus we see this silly fellow p. 149. as he hath bene of opposit religions and professions so playing ambedexter now the minister now the Priest now the Protestant now the Catholik what aduersary need such a challenger who is so great an aduersary to him self what successe is he like to haue of a mean aduersary who hath this euil euent of his own brauado He promiseth to subscribe if one argument pag. 31. Preface to Iesuits Seminary Preistes which he maketh vpon S. Austins words be answered or if any could conuince him ether to haue alleadged any writer corruptly or to haue quoted any place guilfully or to haue charged any other falsly But al this is fraudulently done only to gain credit with the simple and ignorant Reader of a sincere and inuincible challenger For himself wel knoweth how often that argument out of S. Austin hath bene solued by Catholiks against which solution because Bel cold not reply he wold quite dissemble it And his allegations of See S. Hilary lib. ad Constant S. Hierom cont lucifer vincent lyrin cont hereses Authors is too too shamful as shal appeare in the processe of this answer Scripture he alleadgeth but as the Diuel did when he brought it against our Sauiour corrupting ether the words or meaning Fathers he bringeth but quite against their wil and meaning and no maruel for he forbeareth not his professed aduersaries such as in our daies haue written against Protestants and wil make them wil they nil they turne Protestants as he hath done like the spider suck poison out of sweet flowers And I doubt nothing more then that if he find this answere to strong for him to impugne he wil ether proclaime me a Protestant as Daue of Recusancy pag. 22. his breethren do Bellarmin or procure him self as his Father Iewel did to be quit by proclamation against my book But Bel if thou didst meane sincerely to repent if thou beest conuinced remember whence thou Apoc. 13. art fallen and do penance or if thou intendest obstinatly to fight it out harken to S. Hierome Hieron apolog cont Ruffinum and take some shame becoming a man if thou wilst haue none belonging to a Christian and deale plainly set downe the Catholike doctrin truly alleadg Authors incorruptly cite the places rightly answer directly yea or no to euery thing obiected and then in Gods name verte omnes tete in facies contrahe A Eneid 12. quicquid siue animo sine arte vâ—les and I dare warrant thee it shal be answered But thee my dear Countryman seduced by Bel such like who walking in craftines adulterate Gods worde for whose sake al this 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. pain is taken I beseech for Christs sake haue some care of thy saluation consider how of late your Church seruice and discipline hath bene condemned by more then Petition exhibited in April 1603. a thowsand ministers of enormities abuses not agreable to Scripture and want of vniformity of doctrin al your English Bibles the very foundation of your faith adiudged to be il translated and some to contein very partial See Conference at Hampton Court vntrue and seditious notes and too much sauoring of dangerous and traiterous conceits and order taken to make a new translation Alas pag. 45. 46. 47. what certainty can you haue of that religion which more then a thowsand of your Ministers professe to haue no vniformity of doctrin and abuses contrary to Scripture what goodnes can there be in that faith which is builded of an euil foundation as by your owne iudgmeÌ„ts your Bibles hitherto haue bene yea what faith at al can there be in this mean tyme whiles the old Bibles are condemned as naught and a new not yet made If these Ministers
had once deceaued you in a mony matter you wold beware how you trusted them again and wil you beleeue them stil they hauing by their owne confession hitherto deceaued you both in your Church seruice Bible commending the one to you as diuine seruice and the other as Gods pure word and now condemning them both Open your eyes for the passion of Christ and seeing publike conference wil not be graunted where we might lay open vnto you the deceits of your Ministers help your selfs as wel as you may read with indifferency such books as are written for this purpose make earnest intercession to God to see the truth grace to follow it when you haue found it which God of his goodnes graunt Farewel 2. Februar 1605. Thy seruant in Christe IESV S. R. A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS ARTICLE I. Of the Popes Superiority BELS argument against the Popes superiority answered diuers his vntruths and dissimulations therin discouered Chapt. 1. The opinion of Protestants touching Princes supremacy set down Chapt. 2. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 3. The practise of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 4. Bels proofes of his assumption against the Popes superiority answered Chapt. 5. Bels answer to an argument of Catholiks for the Popes superiority confuted Chap. 6. Some of Bels slaunderous vntruths disproued Chapt. 7. Certain fals steps of a ladder which Bel imagineth the Pope had to clime to his superiority disproued Chapt. 8. The rest of Bels fals steps and slaunderous vntruths in this article disproued Chap. 9. ARTICLE 2. Of the Masse Bels reason against the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament answered his vntruth and dissimulation therin discouered Chapt. 1. Authorities alleadged by Bel against the real presence answered Chapt. 2. Masse proued Bels argumēt against it answered his manifold vntruths therin disproued Chap. 3. The rest of Bels arguments against the Masse confuted Chap. 4. Berengarius his recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered Chap. 5. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered and true contradictions in his communion shewed Chap. 6. ARTICLE III. Of the Popes Dispensations Chapt. 1.  ARTICLE IIII. Of original concupiscence in the regenerate The Catholike doctrin touching concupiscence explicated and proued Chap. 1. Diuers vntruths of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin of the former Chapter answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching concupiscence answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros S. Bede S. Thomas touching concupiscence answered Chap. 4. ARTICLE V. Of the merit of good vvorks Of the Protestanis enmity to good works and frendship with euil Chap. 1. Of Bels positions touching good works Chap. 2. The Catholiks doctrin touching merit particulerly set downe and proued Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Scripture against condigne merit answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit answered Chap. 5. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers against condigne merit answered Chap. 6. ARTICLE VI. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sins The true distinction proued and Bels obiection answered Chapt. 1. A text of S. Ihon epist 1. explicated Chap. 2. ARTICLE VII The Catholike doctrin touching sufficiency of Scripture propounded proued certaine vntruths of Bel disproued Chap. 1. Bels arguments out of the old testamēt concerning the sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of the new testament touching sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripturs and Traditions answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers touching sufficiency of Traditions and Scripture answered Chap. 5. Of the difficulty or easynes of Scripture Chap. 6. Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture Chap. 7. Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongs Chap. 8. Of Apostolical Traditions whether ther be any or none Chap. 9. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditiōs Chap. 10. Of the examination of Traditions Chap. 11. Bels arguments out of Fathers about the examination of Traditions answered Chap. 12. Of the authority of late general Coūcels Chap. 13. Of the oath which Bishops vse to make vnto the Pope Chapt. 14. ARTICLE VIII Of keeping Gods commandements The possibility of keeping Gods commandements explicated and proued out of Scripture Chap. 1. The possibility of keeping Gods commandements proued out of Fathers and reason Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of Scripture against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 4. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE POPES SVPERIORITY CHAPT I. Bels arguments against the Popes Superiority ansvvered diuers his vntruthes and dissimulations therin discouered BEL like a man in great choler and very desirous to encounter with his enemie beginneth his chalenge very abruptly hastily yet not forgetting his scholerschip or ministerie he geueth the onset with a syllogisme ful charged with vntruthes dissimulacions You Papistes saith 3. Vntruthes 2. dissimulations he tel vs that the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kinges Emperours from their royal thrones and translate their empires and regalities at his good wil and pleasure But this doctrin is false absurde nothing else but a mere fable And conseqently Romish Religion consisteth of meere falsehoods fables flat leasinges 2. Not without cause gentle Reader hath Bel proposed these bloudy questions of the Popes supremacie and deposition of Princes in his first article and placed them in the forefront of his battel for he hopeth that they wil be his best bulwarke and surest defense in the combate that in such lystes he shal not fight alone but assisted with the Princes sworde wherein he dealeth with Catholiques as Puritanes which Conference at Hampton Court pag. 82. 83. his Maiesty prudently obserueth doe vvith protestants vvho because they could not othervvise make their partes good against protestants appeale to his supremacie And as the old Arians Ambr. epist 32. victor lib. 1. de preste◠vandol did who euermore accused the Catholiques as iniurious to the Prince which they al learne of the Iewes who being vnable to disprooue Christs doctrine endeuoured to bring him into the compasse of treason and Matth. 22. v. 17. at last procured his death as enemy to Cesar Wherfore ymitating the example of our Sauiour when the like question was propounded to seeke his bloud I answere Bel briefelie That what is Cesars we ought to Luc. 20. v. 25. geue to Cesar and what is Gods to God and what is Gods Vicars to Gods Vicar Onely because Bel in his said syllogisme chargeth Catholiques most falsely withal dissembleth the opinion of protestantes touching the supremacie and deposition of Princes I wil disproue his vntruthes and discouer his dissimulations and afterward compare the opinion and practise of Protestants Catholiques touching this matter
mens merits which otherwhere he saith are great matters and to be crowned but to the men them selfs because as they haue merits to be crowned so they haue demerits to be punished which if they were punished without mercy woe should be to them Not because they should be sent to hel but to purgatory or as he calleth it sermon in psalm 37. Emendatory fyer and S. Austin there punished without mercy which fyer saith he is more greeuous then any thinge Confess lib. 9. c. 13. cit vvhich man can suffer in this life And to procure Gods mercy in this behalfe to his mothers soule he both prayed him selfe and requested others to pray for her Be myndful therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocal. 2. THE SIXT ARTICLE OF THE DISTINCTION OF MORTAL AND VENIAL SINNES CHAP. I. The true Distinction proued and Bels obiection ansvvered BEL perceauing that Catholiques do euidently proue that there is a difference betweene mortal and venial sinnes durst not deny it but proceedeth as he did in the former Article allowing in Bel pag. 81. words the distinction of mortal and venial sinnes in a godly sense which though he be ashamed to expresse yet doth he insinuate Bel admitteth venial sinnes in other tearms of regnant not regnant and meaneth as I suppose that voluntary euil acts are mortal inuoluntary venial which doctrine is already disproued in the fourth article Wherfore here he vndertaketh to proue that euery sinne is mortal of it owne nature and some become venial only for free acceptation mercy of God 2. Supposing therfore that some sinnes Mortal and venal sinnes are such of their ovvne nature are mortal and others venial I intend to proue by Scripture Fathers and reason that they are such of their owne nature The Scripture compareth such sinnes as are mortal and venial to things which of their owne nature are different as Math. 23. to a Math. 23. v. 24. Luc. 6. v. 42. Camel and a gnat Luc. 6. to a strawe and a beame Ergo these kinde of sinnes are different of their owne nature Likewise our Sauiour Luc. 12. 58. compareth some Math. 5. v. 27. sinnes to mites or farthings which of their nature are smal debts Moreouer God hath no where reuealed that some kinde of sins become venial only by his mercy Therfore we ought not to say so The Consequence is euident for none knoweth the pleasure of God but by his reuelation The Antecedent I proue for Protestants can neither name the sinnes which God hath made venial nor the place where God hath reuealed any such making of his Bel citeth Math. 12. v. 3. where it is said that VVe shal giue account of euery idle word And 1. Iohn 3. v. 4. where sinne is called iniquity But in neither place it is said that Gods mercy maketh any sinne venial and other like places cited by other Protestants rather proue that al sinnes notwithstaÌ„ding Gods mercy are now mortal then that any which of them selfe were mortal became venial by his mercy Likewise for venial sinne he nameth sinne not regnant wherby he vnderstandeth inuoluntary motions of concupiscence But for such inuoluntary motioÌ„s which Bel rightly calleth Bels beleefe of venial sinnes befydes Gods booke not regnant sinne but wrongly venial nether are they any true sinne as venial sinne is nor is it any where reuealed that they being of their nature mortal sins are made venial only through Gods mercy Therfore Bels beleefe of some sinnes made venial by Gods mercy is wholy besides Gods booke 3. Holy Fathers also in calling some sinnes Fathers litle sinnes light short least daily offences as S. Hierom in c. 5. Math. l. 2. in Iouinian S. Hierom. prope fin S. Austin to 10. 3. S. Chrysost tom 2. Conc. 3. in Lazar. to 2. S. Austin serm 41. de sanctis and in Enchir. c. 71. and S. Chrisostom hom 24. in Math. insinnuate that venial sinnes are such of their owne nature for they were neuer litle nor light if of their nature they were mortal and damnable as a wounde which of it nature is mortal and deadly could neuer be called a litle or light wouÌ„de though God of his mercy did cure it Likewise S. Hierom putteth a difference betweene S. Hieron dial 2. cont Pelag. S. Gregor 21. moral c. 9. S. Austin hom 19. de â—empore cacia and hamartia and S. Gregory and S. Austin betwixt crimen and peccatum yea S. Hierom epist ad Celant accounteth it a paradox of the Stoiks to put no difference betwixt scelus and erratum 4. By reason also this is euident For who seeth not that to steale a pinne is of it nature a smal offence And I would aske of Bel whither a sinne after it is by Gods mercy made venial reteineth the selfe same nature of offending God deseruing Hel and the like which it had before or it changeth it nature If it change it nature then aâ—ter Gods mercy of it nature it is venial and Gods mercy is only the cause of changing the nature of it If it retaine the selfe same nature how is it possible but God if he account of it truly according to truth as al his iudgements are Rom. 2. v. 2. should not account of it as a mortal sinne and deseruing hel Wherfore what Protestants talke of some sinnes becomming venial or no sinnes at al by Gods meere not imputing them for sinnes without any alteration in the sinnes them selfs is meere contradiction and contrary to S. Austin and reason as is shewed in the fourth Article c. 3. parag 4. 5. Againe infidels haue venial sinnes Ergo venial sins become not such only by Gods meere not imputing them for mortal The consequence is cleare out of the Protestants doctrine who put that not imputing only VVillet contrac 17. part 3. p. 560. towards the faithful regenerate The Antecedent I proue because they can doe al the sinnes which the faithful doe If one say that sinnes which in the faithful be but venial are in Infidels mortal This is contrary to reason because knowledge of Gods precept in the faithful rather encreaseth his fault for the seruant which knovveth the Luc. 12. v. 48. vvil of his maister and doth it not shal be beaten vvith many stripes and ignorance in infidels diminisheth their fault wherupon S. Paul said I haue gotten mercy because I did it ignoraÌ„tly 1. Timoth. 1. v. 13. in incredulity And I aske of Bel why God maketh sinne not regnant venial rather then regnant and either he must say that God doth it without any cause or because they are inuoluntary and these voluntary which is to say that by their different nature they are made mortal and venial 6. Finally some sinnes of their nature breake frendship with God and deserue his eternal hatred and punishment others do not Ergo some of their nature are mortal others venial The
consequence is euident The Antecedent I proue because he is no wise person who wil fal out and be offended for euer with his friend for euery trifle as the taking vp of a straw nor he is a iust Prince who should inflict death for stealing a pinne I beleeue Bel would thinke him selfe vniustly haÌ„dled if he were so dealt withal Wherfore if God should do this we should neither account him a wise friend nor a iust Prince Now let vs heare what Bel obiecteth against this so manifest truth 7. Al his proofs may be reduced to this Bel pag. 81. 82. syllogisme what is against Gods law is mortal sinne al sinne is against Gods law Ergo al sinne is mortal Behould Bel here absolutly coÌ„cludeth al sinne to be mortal after calleth our venial sinnes cursed deformed which argueth that he thinketh al sinne to be indeed mortal notwithstanding Gods mercy The Proposition he supposeth The Assumption he proueth out of Scripture Fathers and Schoolmen Out of Scripture because Christ said Math. 12. v. â—â— that we shal giue account for euery idle worde and S. Ihon 1. c. 3. v. 4. telleth vs that Euery sinne is anomia that is transgression of the lavv S. Ambrose also defineth sinne in general to be transgression of Gods law And S. Austin describeth it to be Euery worde deed or desire against Gods law Bellarmin affirmeth euery Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 21. Rhemist 1. Io. 3. v. 4. Angles 4. sent p. 21â— Durand 2. d. 42. q. 6. sinne to be against Gods law Rhemists also confesse Euery sinne to be a swaruing from the Law and doubtles saith he what swarueth from the law is truly against the law Likewise Angles and Durand teach venial sinnes to be against the law 8. To this argument Catholiques answer differently some by denyal of the Proposition others by denial of the Assumption Some say that euery sinne which is against the Law is not mortal but only that which is perfectly against it so that it destroleth the end of the law which is Charity this venial sinnes do not And if I should answer thus Bel were by and by at a Non plus Others say that venial sinnes are not against the law because they are not against the end of the law but besides the law But this difference is rather in words then in matter al agreeing that venial sinne destroieth not Charity nor breaketh friendship 1. Timoth. 1. v. 5. with God which is the end for which the law was made Yet better it is to say that venial sinnes are beside the law then against VVhy venial sinnes are not against the lavv the law because what is not contrary to the end but may stand with out breach of it is not contrary to the meanes but may stand without breach of them but venial sinnes are not contrary to Charity the end of the law but may be without breach of it Ergo neither are they contrary to the law but may be without breach of it And as a man trauailing though he steppe out of his way is not said to goe contrary to his iourneys end so a man walking to heaueÌ„ though by venial sin he steppe out or besides the way yet doth he not goe the coÌ„trary way to hel The Proposition of myne argument is euident for what can stand with the end can not be contrary to the meanes necessary to that end The Assumption both Catholicks graunt and Hereticks can not deny if they Bels arguments aâ— much against him self aâ— against Catholiques admit that there are indeed any venial sins For venial sins whence soeuer they come to be such breake not friendship with God And therfore if Bel graunt in deed as he doth in words that by Gods mercy some sins are made venial he must also confesse that by Gods mercy they are not against his Charity and friendship and so must answer his owne argument which indifferently proueth that there are no venial sins at al whither they be said to be such by their owne nature or by Gods mercy for the argument assumeth not that al which is sinne of it owne nature is against Gods law but absolutly al which is sinne is against Gods law And therfore if Bel thinke venial sinne notwithstanding Gods mercy to be true sinne he must as wel answer his owne argument as I. 9. Admitting therfore his Proposition I deny his Assumption and to his proofe out of S. Mathew I answer that we must giue account for euery idle worde not because they be a against Gods law but because they be beside it And Bel wil beate his horse not only when he turneth backe but also when he starteth out of the way As for the text of S. Ihon he telleth vs not as Bel auoucheth that euery sinne is anomia but absolutly Sinne is anomia and may wel be vnderstoode of only mortal sinne which antonomastice is so called This answere might suffice to what he bringeth about this text in this Article yet because art 4. he brought out of their due place many things about the greeke words anomia and adicia vsed by S. Ihon which we remitted to this place we wil here answer them at large and afterward the rest of his proofs concerning this Article CHAP. II. A text of S. Ihon epist 1. explicated S. Ihons words he citeth in Greeke pas ho poion ten hamartian cai ten anomian Bel pag. 52. poiei cai he hamartia estin hâ— anomia and translateth them thus Euery one that sinneth transgresseth 1. Ioan. 3. v. 4. the law and sinne is the transgression of the law And hereupon inferreth that Euery sinne is transgression of the law and consequently mortal Catholiques answer twoe waies First that S Ihon in this place by sinne vnderstandeth only such sinne as c. 5. v. 16. he calleth sinne to death vz. mortal sinne And this I proue First because in the next verse but one vz. v. 6. he speaketh only of mortal sinne when he saith Euery one that remaineth in him Christ sinneth not and v. 8. who doth sinne is of the Diuel and v. 9. Euery one that is borne of God committeth not sinne because his seede remaineth in him In these verses it is euident S. Ihon spake only of some certeine kinde of sinne which as S. Austin S. Austin tract 5. in 1. Iohn tom 9. saith one borne of God can not commit vz. of mortal sinne wherfore of the same did he meane v. 4. when he in some sorte described sinne by iniquity Both because els it should seeme a kinde of equiuocation as also because if he had described sinne in general it is likely he would haue afterward discoursed of the same and not of one only kind of sinne Secondly because when a worde principally signifyeth one thing it is not to be extended to an other which secondarily it signifieth vnles such extention be gathered by some circumstances of the speech seeing
therfore the worde Sinne doth principally signify only mortal sinne and secondarily venial sinne according to S. Thomas 1. 2. S. Thomas 4. 88. ar 1. there is no circumstance here conuincing it to be extended to signify venial sinne but rather to the contrarie as hath bene shewed it is not to be extended to venial sinne And this is confirmed because Scriptures Fathers and Catholicke writers by Sinne vnderstād ordinarily only mortal sinne as appeareth by their attributing of death losse of grace and heauen guilt of hel seperation from God and the like to Sinne and by defyning it to be against Gods law or trāsgression of the law which agree only to mortal sinne 2. Thirdly because S. Bede vnderstandeth S. Beda 1. Io. 3. it of such sinne as either is of contēpt of the written law or corrupteth the innocency of the law of nature And the gloford followeth his very words also glos interlin vnderstandeth it of sinne contrary to equity of Gods law which he tooke of S. Bede loc cit Lyra expressly expowndeth Lyra 1. Io. 3. it of mortal sinne and defyneth it to be transgression of the law and the same doth Carthusia and to this purpose serue al Bels proofs that anomia signifyeth transgression of the law for if that be so then sinne is taken for mortal sinne Nether against this exposition see I any obiection more then that the worde Sinne may signify venial sinne and that also it is taken for it c. 1. v. 8. where he saith If we say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selfs But we may answer that though it may signify venial sinne yet ordinarily it doth not and therfore it is not wel inferred that here it doth especially seeing that there are diuers circumstances to the contrary And though it signify sinne in general c. 1. v. 8 yet seeing it doth signify only mortal in this same chapter v. 6. 8. and 9. better it is to gather the signification of a worde out of the next vse therof then out of the further of And if one wil thus expownd the place of S. Ihon as to me it seemeth S. Ihon meaneth onely of mortal sinne best Bel were straight at a Non plus For he supposeth that the worde sinne is taken for al kinde of sinne and only proueth that the worde anomia iniquity is taken for perfect sinne and transgression yet because I wil giue him al the scoape he can aske I admit that by Sinne S. Ihon vnderstood al kinde of actual sinne and deny as many Catholicks do that anomia Iniquity is taken for wickednes and perfect transgression of the law but generally as it is common to perfect transgression and only swaruing frō the law Now let vs see how Bel improueth this 3. His first proofe is because Arias Montanus pag. 52. Arias Montan 1. Io. ◠saith that anomia is transgression of the law But this is not against vs because we graunt that it may signify so only we deny that to be the proper signification of the worde as is euident by the etimology therof which is as much as sine lege without the law and not contra legem against the law yet because al acts against law are also without law the worde may be vsed for acts against law and so signify transgression of the law It sufficeth vs that the propriety of the worde is for vs not for Bel and therfore we better expownd it of swaruing from the law then Bel or any other doth of transgression of the law 4. His second proofe is that S. Ambros Bel pag. 53. S. Ambros S. Austin de Parad. c. 8. and S. Austin l. 2. de consen euang c. 4. and l. 22. cont Faust c. 27. defyne sinne to be preuarication or transgression of the law or to be a thought worde or deede against the eternal law which saith S. Austin is deuine reason or the wil of God commāding the order of nature to be kept and forbidding it to be broken But these Fathers define only mortal sinne because Catholicks ordinarily vnderstand only that sinne when they absolutly speake of sinne as men when they speake of a thinge meane of substance As also because S. Ambros had before spoken only of mortal sinne vz. of Adam and Iudas his sinne And S. Austin in the first place speaketh of sinne against the tenne commandements which no doubt is of it nature mortal and in the second place he plainly defineth such sinne as breaketh the order of nature which also is mortal sinne not venial for who wil say that a litle superfluous laughter breaketh the order of nature Besides it followeth not that if S. Ambros and S. Austin defined sinne to be transgression of the law therfore S. Ihon did so cal it in this place 5. His third proofe is out of S. Bede But S. Bed 1. Io. 3. he is rather against him For he saith that anomia signifieth quasi contra legem vel sine lege factum as it were against law or without law He saith not against but as it were against which more plainly he explicateth saying Or without the law Lyra and Carthusia whom he citeth seeme by anomia and iniquity to vnderstand wickednes but then by sinne they vnderstand only mortal sinne and so fauour Bel nothing But because the Bel pag. 56. Rhemist 1. Io. 3. Rhemists as preuenting an obiection write that The worde iniquity is otherwise taken 1. Io. 3. v. 4. where sinne is said to be iniquity then c. 5. ver 17. where iniquity is said to be sinne which they proue because though the latine worde be al one yet the greeke is differēt vz. adicia which signifyeth iniustice Bel replyeth very wisely forsooth out of S. Austins words S. Augustin to 9. trac 4. in 1. Io. to 9. Let none say sinne is one thing and iniquity an other Euery one that sinneth committeth iniquity As if the question now betwixt the Rhemists and him had bene whither sinne and iniquity were al one and not whether anomia and adicia be al one Better therfore he replieth afterward pag 58. where he proueth anomia and adicia to be al one because the vulgar latine translateth them both Iniquitas But the Rhemists answere That the worde Iniquitas is vsed in a different signification and proue it by the different greeke words for which it is vsed And against this Bel saith nothing But being at a non plus him selfe and not able to reply against this answer and reason he cryeth out that his ansvverer is at a non plus impudently denyeth euery iniquity to be sinne 6. But as for the Rhemists euident it is that herein they are neither impudent nor at a Non plus seeing they giue a reason of what they say against which Bel can not reply And as for iniquity and sinne though Psalm 50. 118. alibi sup they be oftentymes confounded both by Scriptures Fathers yet if we
of al the learned men and Bishops of al Nations or els remaine desperate condemned before God and man As the Apostles say they though assisted by God yet thought it necessary to cal a Councel for decyding a controuersy rysen in their daies I omit three other points touched here by Bel. That the general pag. 128. Councels is aboue the Pope can and hath deposed him because he neither proueth them nor they concerne any matter of Catholique faith And are lardgely and learnedly handled of Bellarmin lib. 2. de concil And thus much of Bels seauenth article Be myndful therefore Bel from whence thou art fallen and doe Apocalip penance Apoc. 2. THE EIGHT AND LAST ARTICLE OF KEEPING GODS COMMANDEMENTS CHAP. I. The possibility of keeping Gods commandements explicated and proued out of Scripture GODS children can by his grace keepe his cōmandements This Bel absolutly denyeth pag. 143. 148. 149. and 152. though in the very beginning of this article he were a shamed to deny it plainly but admitteth it saith he in a godly sence and in some sort and only denyeth it in a Popish sence But this godly sence is so vngodly and the sort so sory as he is ashamed to vtter it For as S. Hierom writeth of the S. Hieron epist ad Cresiphontem Iren. lib. 1. cap. 35. Pelagians to haue discouered the opinions of Protestants is to haue ouercome them the blasphemy is manifest at the first yet may we gather his meaning by that he saith pag. 149. That God hath giuen vs those commandements which we can not possibly keep and pag. 144. that euery breach of them is of it nature deadly The mistery therefore of his counsel is that Gods children can not possiblie euen with his grace keepe his commandements but that they must needs oftentymes breake them deadly This kinde of keeping Gods commandements he tearmeth imperfect and vnexact keeping But indeed it is no keeping at al nor a point of Gods children but of the diuels and a true breaking of them For how are they Gods children if they loue him not how loue they him if they damnably offend If you loue me saith Christ Ioh. 14. S. Ioh. v. 15. keepe my commaundements how can they keepe them if they damnably and deadly breake them can true keeping and true breaking stand together 2. God commaunded his precepts to be kept not so sillily as Bel would so as they be oftentimes deadly broken but as Dauid saith Nimis Sphodra Psal 118. v. 8. God saith Psalm S. Austin vpon that place conc 4. hath very S. Austin much commaunded his precepts to be very much kept And according to S. Iames who offendeth S. Iames 2. v. 10. in one is guilty of al. Wherfore deadly breaking of one of Gods lawes can no more stand with keeping them then thefte or murder can stande with keeping the Princes lawes Nor they who oftentimes deadly breake Gods lawes be his children whilest they doe so more then theeues and murderers be good subiects And as for the Luther sermon de natiu B. Mariae maketh al Christians as holy as the mother of God Popish sence it is not as Bel falslie imposeth that we can keepe Gods commaundements so perfectly as we be free from sinne For so as S. Iohn saith we should deceaue our selues and as Bel confesseth we doe daily acknowledge our sinnes but so Bel p. 150. as we be free from deadly sinne which destroieth The Apostles vvere cleane and yet had need to haue their feete vvashed Ioh. 13. ver 10. 11. S. Hierom. dialog 2. cont Pelag. S. Gregor 21. moral c. 9. S. Augustin hom 19. de temp to 10. lib. 1. contr duas epist Pelag. c. 14. to 7. enchirid c. 69. charity the end of the law and keepe the commaundements in al great though not in smal matters For as S. Hierom saith we may be without cacia though not sina amartia or as S. Austin and S. Gregory gather out of S. Paul sine crimine though not sine peccato that is without great sinne though not without smal sinne without mortal though not without venial And to keepe Gods commaundements in this sort is substantially to keepe them because we breake not the end of them which is charity and yet not perfectly exactly as who stealeth but trifles keepeth the Princes lawes though not perfectly but if he steale great matters he is said no more to keepe 1. Timoth. 1. 7. 5. but to breake them And in this sence doe Catholiques defend the foresaid cōclusion which though I might proue many waies yet wil I content my selfe with such proofes as Bel vndertaketh to answer and in that order as he propoundeth them 3. First therfore I proue it because a young man tolde Christ he had kept al the Math. 19. v. 20. commaundements from his youth Bel answereth that S. Hierom saith he lyed and S. Austin Bel p. 150. thinketh he spake more prowdly then truly S. Augustin epist 89. neuertheles more probable it is that he spake truly because not only our Sauiour did not rebuke him as likely it is he would haue done if he had tolde him a lye but as S. Marcke testifieth beheld him loued him Marc. 10. v. 21. and said one thing is wanting to thee goe sel whatsoeuer thou hast and giue it to the poore and come and follow mee If the mans speeche had bene a lye it would not haue prouoked Christs loue but his offence and if he had broken Gods commaundements Christ would haue aduertised him whome he loued rather of keeping the things which he commaunded then which he counselled as is the giuing al we haue to the poore Wherfore S. Chrisostome hom 64. in Math. S. Chrysost saith this man was no dissembler And S. Hierom. dialog 2. contra Pelag. affirmeth S. Hierom. that Christ loued him because he said he had done al omnia fecisse se dicit quamobrem amatur à Domino he said that he had done al things wherfore he was also loued of our lorde which euidently conuinceth that his speeche was true for Christ could not loue him for a lye Neither wil Bel I hope maruel that we expound S. Mathew rather by S. Marcke then by S. Hierome and S. Austin especially seeing S. Hierome alrered his opinion ad S. Austin spake but doubtfully saying I thinke Neuertheles because some fathers haue thought that the mans speeche was not true Catholiques rely not vpon this argument 4. Secondly S. Paule saith For not the Rom. 2. v. 13. hearers of the law are iust with God but the Doers of the law shal be iustified Ergo there are some Doers of the law and it is possible to be done Bel answereth that the pag. 151. Apostle spake not absolutly but vpon supposal of a thinge which saith he is impossible that there were doers of the law for such saith Bel should be iustified by
imputed to vs which S. Austin saith he meant S. Augustin lib. 1. retract c. 19. tom 1. when he wrote Then are al the commaundements reputed as done vvhen vvhatsoeuer is not done is forgiuen 9. But this is easily refuted For S. Iohn spake in respect of vs assisted by Gods grace when he said This is the law of God that we keepe his commaundements and his commaundements are not heauie He saith not Christ but we must keepe Gods commaundements to animate vs thereto he addeth that they are not heauy vz. to vs. And cap 2. v. 2. he giueth vs a signe to try if wee know God vz. if we keepe his commaundements Bel either keepeth Gods commaundements or knovveth not God and v. 3. affirmeth that who keepeth not his coÌ„maundements knoweth not God wherfore either Bel keepeth the coÌ„mandements or he knoweth not God Likewise Christ meant his yoake was sweete and his burthen light to vs. For immediatly before he Cap. 11. v. 29. said Take vp my yoake vpon you learne c. and you shal finde rest to your soules For my yoake is sweet and burthen light To whom meaneth he it is light but to vs whom he biddeth take it vp and whom he promiseth shal finde rest by it or what reason had it bene for Christ to exhorte vs to take vp his yoake and tel vs we should finde rest by it because it is sweet to himselfe As for S. Austin he said our defectuous keeping S. Augustin sup to 1. is counted a ful 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 keepe not the commaundements ad vnum apicem as he saith to the last ioat or title But through venial sinnes haue need to say Forgiue vs our trespasses which venial trespasses being pardoned we are accounted to doe al Gods commaundements 10. An other answer Bel putteth in the pag. 152. margent and in latine That Christ meaneth not of the yoake and burthen of the law when he calleth it sweet and easy but of the Ghospel That Christ meant of the law of the Ghospel I graunt with S. Hierom S. Hierom. dialog 2. contr Pelag and is proued out of these wordes my yoake my burthen But what is this to the purpose Is Bel become a libertine thincking as his father Luther did that the tenne commaundements Luther belong not to Christians or that the Ghospel commaundeth only faith Did Math. 5. v. 19. Christ come to dissolue the law of nature and to exempt vs from al law but of belieuing in him If Bel be of this minde let him vtter it plainly and say Christ came not to fulfil the law but to dissolue it that his Rom. 3. v. 31. faith establisheth not the law but destroieth it Or if he thinke that the law of the ghospel Besides the precepts of faith includeth at least the law of nature let him confesse that the tenne commaundements and al that God bindeth vs vnto is not only possible but easy and sweet vz. to such as Psalm 118. v. 32. Omnia facilia sunt charitati cui vni Christi sarcina leuis est Aug. donat grat c. 69. to 7. see the place S. Iohn loue God as was Dauid when he said I haue runne the way of thy coÌ„maundements when thou didst dilate my hart And hovv sweet are thy speeches to my iawes aboue hony to my mouth The law of thie mouth is good to mee aboue thowsands of golde and siluer For as S Iohn saith 1. c. 5. v. 3. this is the loue of God that wee keepe his commaundements If Bel say that it is impossible to loue God as we ought to doe This is reproued because he loueth God as he should doe who loueth him withal his hart al his Deuter. 6. v. 5. soule and power But Iosue so loued God of whome it is written 4. Reg. 23. That he 4. Reg. 23. returned in al his harte in al his soule and al his strength Likewise Dauid sought God Dauid in al his hart Psalm 118. and followed him in al his harte 3. Reg. 14. And God hath vers 8. some seruants that walke before him in al their hart with whome he keepeth his couenant and mercy 2. Paralip 6. v. 14. And Deuter. 30. v. 6. God promiseth to circumcise the Iewes harts that they might loue him in al their harts and al their soule And thus much for proofe out of scripture now let vs goe to the Fathers CHAP. II. The possibility of keeping Gods commaundements proued out of Fathers and reason MANY holy Fathers I might alleadge for this verity but I wil content my selfe with two only whome Bel obiecteth against him selfe and vndertaketh to answer S. Hierom. See S. Hierom in cap. 5. Mathei S. Hierom dialog 1. contr Pelag. we confesse saith he God hath giuen possible commaundements lest he should be author of iniustce Beholde our conclusion both affirmed and proued And Dialog 2. I say a man may be without vice which in greeke is called cacia but not anamartyton that is without sinne which is as much as if he had said He can be without mortal but not without venial sinne Againe God hath not commaunded impossible things but hath ascended vp to such height of patience as for their great difficulty he may seeme to haue commaunded almost impossible things Againe we curse their blasphemie who saie That God hath commaunded to man any impossible thing This Bel alleadgeth out of his 3. fourth booke pag. 153. against Pelagians whereas he wrote but one epistle and three bookes or Dialogues against Pelagians But it is in his epistle to Damasus de exposit fidei And therein S. pag. 149. S. Austin See S. Austin in Psal 56. tom 8. vvhere he saith the Apostles did that charity then the vvhich none can be greater Hierom curseth this blasphemy of Bel God hath giuen vs those commaundements which we can not possibly keepe Likewise S. Austin ser 61. de temp God could not commaund any impossible thinge because he is iust The same he repeateth lib. de natur grat cap. 69. and lib. 2 de pen. mer. remiss and in psal 56. I can not doubt saith he that God hath neither commaunded any impossible thinge to man nor that any thinge is impossible to God to helpe wherby it may be â—one which he commaundeth 2. For auoiding these authorities Bel deuiseth three shiftes First that Gods commaundements were possible to vs before Adams fal Secondly that they were possible to Christ whose keeping them is accounted ours Thirdly that euen to vs they are now possible to be kept imperfectly though not perfectly which is saith he the doctrine of Aquinas yet seeing that S. Thom. 2. 2. quaest 44. art 6. vntruth none of these shiftes would serue he falleth to proue that we may be
Figuratiue exposition vsual shift of heretiks art 2. c. 1. parag 9. 10. First Protestants haunted of Diuels art 2. c. 1. per â—ot Formal obiect of faith art 7. chap. 9. paragâ— 24. G. GOds precepts both possible and easy to them that loue him art 8. c. 1. paragr 10. God how he can put a great body into a litle how not art 2. c. 1 parag 13. 14. 1â— 16. God not imputing sinne taketh it away art 4. c. 3. parag 4. Gods worde by it selfe can not be discerned as easely as light art 7 c. 9. parag 13 Gods worde how an explication of the two precepts of loue art 7. c. 1. parag 8 Gods worde why called a light lanthern art 7. c. 9. parag 17. Good gotten of Protestants by English bibles art 7. c. 8. parag 1. Good workes are condigne merit art 5. c. 3. parag 2. 4. Good workes follow not euery parson iustifyed art 5 c. 2. parag 1. Good workes giue no security of saluation art 5. c. 2. parag 3. Good works possible and vsual meane to saluation art 8. c. 1. parag 7. Gods worde not knowne at first to Samuel Gedeon Manue S. Peter art 7. c. 9. parag 13. Ghospel a supply of the ould testament art 7. c. 2. parag 3. S. Gregory a saint with Luther and Caluin a Papist with Bel art 1. c. 5. parag 5. S. Gregory accounted Kinges subiect to him and how he called the Emperour lord art 1. c. 5. parag 2. 3. S. Gregory first decreed deposition of Princes art 1. c. 5. parag 4. S. Gregory said Masse in honour of Martyrs art 1. c. 5. parag 5. S. Gregory Nazianz. discommended common peoples reading Scripture art 7. c. 7. parag 19. Greater authority may be contested by lesser art 7. c. 9. parag 23. H. HEretiks shift is to expound Scripturs figuratiuely art 2. c. 1. parag 9. Heretiks reiect Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 14. S. Hieroms high esteeme of the Popes definition art 7. c. 12. parag 1. S. Hierom whome and how he exhotteth to read Scripture art 7. c. 7. parag 17. Hatred of Masse whence it first rose art 2. c. 3. parag 3. I. S. Iames epistle contemned by Luther art 7. c. 9. parag 16. S. Iames c. 2. v. 2. meaneth of venial sinns art 8. c. 3. parag 1. Iewes added signes and words to the law according to Protestants a. 7. c. 2. par 2. Ignorance of it selfe no holines art 7. c. 7. parag 18. Ignorance what better then what knowledge art 7. c. 7. parag 18. Ignorance of Scripture not the whole cause of the Sadduces error a. 7. c. 11. par 3. S. Ihon what he bid vs try a. 7. c. 11. parag 5. S. Ihon c. 20. v. 30. meaneth of miracles art 7. c. 3. parag â— S. Ihon ep 1. c. 3. v. 4. meaneth of mortal sinne art 6. c. 2. parag 2. Impossible to be guilty of sinne to haue sinne forgiuen art 4. c. 1. parag 15. Imputing of sinne what with S. Austin art 4. c. 3. parag 4. not Imputation of Protestants meere contradiction art 6. c. 1. parag 4. Inclination to faith iustifyeth infants with Bel art 7. c. 1. parag 6. Iniquity formal sinne differ a. 6. c. 2. par 6. Iniquitas vsed in a different sense 1. Ioan. a. 6. c. 2. parag 5. Inuoluntary motions are not voluntary in their origin from Adam a. 4. c. 1. par 11. Inuoluntary motions though they were voluntary in their origen could be no sinne art 4. c. 1. parag 12. S. Ioseph called rather keeper then husband of our Lady art 3. c. 1. parag 11. S. Ireney his high account of the Romane Church art 7. c. 10. parag 4. Italy not al possessed of Barbars from 471. til Carolus Magnus art 1. chap. 8. parag 5. Iustice of man how imperfect art 5. chap. 5. parag 3. K. KEepers of the commandements auouched more then twenty tymes in one psalme art 8. c. 1. parag 5. Kings of Lombardy called Kings of Italy art 1. c. 9. parag 7. Kings not so much as ministerial heads of the Church with ProtestaÌ„ts a. 1. c. 2. par 1. L. OVr Ladies conception without sinne no point of faith art 7. c. 10. par 10. Latin sermons not readde to common people art 7. c. 8. parag 4. Law of the Ghospel includeth law of nature art 8. c. 1. parag 10. Law fulfilled by not consenting to Concupiscence art 4. c. 3. parag 6. Lay men when and how forbidden to dispute of faith art 7. c. 8. parag 4. Lent an Apostolical Tradition art 7. c. 10. parag 5. 6. Lent fast lawfully broken in diuers cases art 7. c. 10. parag 6. Loue of God as we ought possible to men art 8. c. 1. parag 10. Loue of God how imperfectly kept according to S. Thomas art 8. c. 2. parag 3. Luther begun Protestantisme art 7. c. 1. parag 16. Luther instructed of a Diuel by his owne confession art 2. c. 1. parag 2. Luther hated the word homousion art 7. c. 1. parag 5. Luther conuinced by Scripture to confesse the real presence art 2. c. 2. parag 1. Lutherans opinions of the Caluinists art 2. c. 1 parag 10. M. MAriage broken for six causes amongst Protestants art 3. c. 1. parag 3. Mariage contracted why it can not be broken by the parties art 3. c. 1. parag 10. Mariage a sacrament before consummatioÌ„ art 3. c. 1. parag 8. Mariage contracted is dâ—â—ure diuino and of the continuance thâ—reof a. 3. â— 1 parag 6. Mariage perfected by consummation art 2. c. 1. parag 8. Massâ— honored in the whole world art 2. c. 3. parag 5. Masse said of the Apostles and Saints art â— c. 2. parag 4. Mâ—n rather do not then do what is against their wil art 4 â— 2. parag 4. Men al sinners but not deadly a 8 c. â— par 4. Men can be wiâ—hout cryme not without sinne arâ— 8. c. 1. parag 2. Merit far different from impetration art 5. c. 3. parag 2. Mâ—rit no more iniurious to Câ—rists merit then prayer to his prayer a 5 c 3 parag 8. Merit why no sinne out of S. Austin art 4. c â— parag 4. Merit in resisting Concupiscence art 4 c. 1. parag 13. Ministers subscribe against their conscieÌ„ce art 1 c. 2. parag 2. More required to formal sinne then to euil art 4. c. â— parag 4. Mortal and venial sinns such of their own nature art 6. c. 1. parag â— N. NIcholas 1 words of earthly heauenly empire expounded a. â— c. 9. par 34. Not only predestinate do good art 5 c. 2. parag 3. None ought to deny any point of faith art 7 c 1 parag 1. Not to perfect good is not to siâ—nâ— art 4. c. 3. parag 5. O. Oâ—d Romane religion Catholik sound and pure art 6. c. 2. parag 8. Omission or alteration what doth hinder consecration art 2. c 6 parag 8 Original â—ustice what it is a. 4. c. 1. parag 2. Original sinne what art 4. c. 1. parag 2. Original lust made actual
when consent is not giuen vnto it to vnlawful acts And soone after But in a certain kind of speech it is called sinne and he giueth there two reasons of this figuratiue speech because saith he it was made of sinne and maketh sinne if it ouercome Again So is Concupiscence called sinne because it was made by sinne vvheras novv in the regenerate it selfe is no sinne mark again as speech which the tong maketh is called a tong writing a hand vvhich a hand maketh So also it is called a sinne because it maketh sinne if it ouercome as cold is called sluggish because it maketh sluggards Can any Catholique now speak more plainly In these few words al in one chapter he twise denyeth concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne once affirmeth it to be improperly so called and giueth two reasons and two examples of such figuratiue speech The S. Augustin to 7. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss Grat. stat peccati c. 8. same doctrin he teacheth l. 1. contr duas epist Pelag. c. 13. and l. 2. cont Iulian in al his tomes as Bellarmin sheweth So that whatsoeuer Bel hereafter shal obiect out of S. Paul S. Austin or others calling concupiscence S. Austin hath preuented al Bels obiections sinne I need not answer my selfe but referre the Reader to these words of S. Austin wherin he explicateth both why and how S. Paul him selfe and others meane not properly but improperly and figuratiuely when they cal concupiscence sinne Yet because Bels arguments containe diuers vntruths requisite to be taxed I wil answer them al in such order as he proposeth them CHAP. II. Diuers vntruthes of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin in the former chapter ansvvered BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 41. the rest with vntruths 1. That S. Paul in vntruth 47 the whole 7. chapter to the Romans proueth original concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne This is not so for he doth not proue it to be any sinne at al but supposing it to prouoke to sinne calleth it sinne 2. That Papists vntruth 48 can not abide the Apostles doctrin Forsooth because we can not abide Bels exposition 3. That the cause of our denying Concupiscence to vntruth 49 be sinne is because it ouerthroweth our holy so supposed iustification thus blasphemously he denyeth Bel blaspbemeth iustification iustification to be holy our inherent purities condigne merits works of supererogation This is vntrue for it might be such sinne as Bel wold haue it to wit venial and destroy Bel art 6. p. 81. none of al these But the true causes are Scriptures Fathers reason before alleadged and Bel confesseth that the reason pag. 50. which we euer haue in our mouth is the inuoluntarines of concupiscence 4. That the Maister of Sentences vtterly condemneth vs in calling vntruth 50 3. sent d. 19. concupiscence culpam But he meaneth improperly as is euident by his owne words 2. dist 32. Concupiscence after baptisme saith he is only mark Bel punishment of sinne but before baptisme both punishment and fault 2. Thus hauing made his way with vntruths Bel pag. 42. he proueth cōcupiscence to be sinne out of S. Paul Rom. 7. v. 25. saying I my selfe with the mynd serue the law of God but with the flesh the law of sinne And hence noteth that the regenerate do serue the law of sinne But he forgot to note that it is but with the flesh and that with the mynd without which Ibid. there is no formal sinne they serue the law of God He also noteth That the best liuers can not merit grace and glory ex condigno because by sinne they deserue death VVhich because S. Austin saith he at the first could not disgest he vnderstood S. Paul in the 7. chapter to the Romans only 51. vntruth of the vvicked not of the godly But remitting Bel forgetteth his matter the matter of merit and desert of sinne to their proper places art 5. and 6. false it is that S. Austin changed his opinion about the vnderstanding of those words of S. Paul Rom. 7. I am a carnal man solde vnder sinne and the like because he saw that iust men sinned For as him selfe testifyeth 1. Retract S. Austin c. 23. and Bel wrongly cited 22. he reading other expositors found that the foresaid words might be vnderstood of the Apostle him selfe as the word carnal may be verifyed of him in respect of his body not yet spiritual and the word sinne in respect of concupiscence which is sinne vz improperly as the same S. Austin explicateth Lib. 1. de nupt concupis c. 23. l. 1. cont duas epist Pelag. c. 13. in the books to which he referreth vs and we cited them before Wherby we see that S. Austins error was in vnderstanding the foresaid words of formal and proper sinne as Bel doth and corrected it by vnderstanding them of improper sinne And yet euen when he was in that error he was so far from thinking as Bel doth that the best liuers in rigor deserue eternel death that then he wold in no wise thinke the Apostle to speak of a mā in grace assuring him selfe that no such man is solde vnder sinne that deserueth eternal death 3. His second proofe is out of the 23. Bel pag. 42. verse of the same chapter where S. Paul writeth I see a lavv in my members subduing me to the lavv of sinne VVhat saith Bel can he Bel forgetteth vvhat he is to proue merit who is prisoner to the law of sinne But beside that Bel for got what he was to proue vz. Concupiscence in the iust to be sinne not their merit to be none S. Paul by the word me vnderstandeth only his flesh as he had expounded him selfe before v. 18. when he said There dvvelleth not in me that is in my flesh good And S. Austin interpreteth 1. de nupt concupis c. 30. and 31. And v. 23. saith that he vvas prisoner to the lavv of sinne in his flesh and in his mynd serued the lavv of God what maruel then that one prisoner in flesh but free in mynd from which al our merit or sinne proceedeth may by seruing Gods law merit 4. His third proofe is out of the 19. verse Bel pag. 43. where as he citeth S. Paul saith The euil vvhich I vvold not that I do Omitting the false False translat 3. translating of on thelo and Nolo I vvold not as though S. Paul had not had a present and absolute wil not to lust but an imperfect velleity which euen the wicked haue and in english we signify by vvold and vvold not I answer that S. Paul improperly saith He doth that which he wil not and therfore in the very next verse as it were correcting that speech saith If I do that I vvil not I vvorke v. 20. it not wherin he both
anomia or adicia what you wil be al sinne transgression of the law proue you that al concupiscence is formal sinne The question is now not what anomia or adicia or sinne is but what concupiscence is from which Bel flying into an other question sheweth him selfe to be at a non plus Wherfore remitting this place of S. Ihon with al which he bringeth to proue that euery sinne is transgression to the 6. article to which it belongeth and nothing concerneth this I wil answer only foure authorities which he abuseth to proue inuoluntary concupiscence to be sinne 2. The first is of S. Ambrose in c. 7. Bel pag. 56. S. Ambros Rom. where he saith that a man is not free from cryme because he sinneth inuitus vnwillingly or against his wil. Where Bel noteth that he calleth concupiscence cryme or mortal sinne And That a man sinneth in that which he doth against his wil. But besides that the Author of those commentaries is not S. Ambrose he meaneth not of concupiscence but of custome of sinning which begun in the sinner saith he by his owne fault and sloath and wherby he is laded and sooner yeeldeth to sinne then to the law and though he wold do good yet is he oppressed by custome And therfore when he saith that such a one is not free from cryme in sinning against his wil he meaneth not of absolute and resolute wil to the contrary for custome can not make a man to do a thing against his absolute wil but of an imperfect wil which diuers cal velleity which most sinners though neuer so accustomed to sinne haue to do good and against which kind of wil they sinne but are not therfore as that Author saith truly free from cryme because notwithstanding this imperfect wil of doing wel they haue an absolute and perfect wil to sinne And so this place concerneth nothing acts of concupiscence altogether inuoluntary and against both perfect and imperfect wil. 3. An other testimony he citeth out of S. Ambrose in the same place where he saith That S. Paul separated not this concupiscence from sinne but mingled it But he meaneth only of voluntary acts as is euident by the reason wherwith he proueth that this concupiscence seemed no sinne because saith he it delighted and seemed simplex causa a harmles matter to couet a thing of our neighbour 4. The third authority is of S. Bede Bel pag. 57. S. Beda 1. 10. 3. whom he confesseth to haue bene renowned through out the christian world for learning and vertue And if he thinke as he writeth he thinketh Papistry to be true piety For S. Bede was a notorious Papist approuing Masse honoring of reliques images prayer for the dead purgatory and other such points of Papistry as is euident out of his Ecclesiastical history Bel alleadgeth him because he saith They sinne who of frailty lat infirmitas corrupt innocency What is here to the purpose who deny that sinne may be done as wel of frailty as of malice For seeing none is so fraile but he is assisted by Gods grace in which he may do al Philip 4. v. 13. and is not suffered to be tempted S. Paul aboue his powre 1. Corinth 10. v. 13. if he sinne of frailty he sinneth voluntarily 5. His fourth authority is out of S. Thomas Bel pag. 59. S. Thom. 12. q. 74. art 3. saying That what a man doth without deliberation of reason he doth it not perfectly because the principal thing in man doth it not and therfore it is not perfectly a humaine act and so perfectly nether vertue nor sinne but imperfectly VVherfore such a motion of sensuality preuenting reason is a venial imperfect sinne Out of these words Bel noteth these important obseruations as he calleth them 1. That S. Thomas is a Popish Saint 2. That for his great learning and Bel to pag. 132. his confusion confesseth him to haue bene a great Cleark indeed he was surnamed the Angelical Doctor 3. That P. Vrban 4. and Innocent 5. confirmed his doctrin for authentical and gaue it the first place after Cononical Scripture How wel these three notes are gathered out of S. Thomas his foresaid words let euery one be iudge But Bel can gather quodlibet ex quolibet water out of a flint stone 6. But I must note out of Bels important obseruations diuers important vntruths 1. vntruth 57. That P. Vtban 4. and P. Innocent 5. confirmed vntruth 58 S. Thomas his doctrin for authentical 2. That P. Vrban 4. gaue it the first Vrban in Confirmat doctrinae S. Thomae place after Canonical Scripture Indeed P. Vrban 4. highly admired his doctrin as if it were sent from heauen P. Innocēt in a Innocent in sermo Ecceplusquam Salomon hic sermon as a preacher by way of exaggeratiōn gaue it the first place after Scripture but neither did they confirme it as authentical nether did both of them giue it the next place after Scripture The 3. vntruth which vntruth 59. he repeateth twise in this page very often in his booke is That we are bound to defend and beleeue S. Thomas his doctrin and may not in any case refuse or deny it This is a manifest vntruth For albeit S. Thomas be and that worthely of the greatest authority amongst schoolmen yet his doctrin may and is often denyed in schools as Bel hath heard many tymes where it concerneth no matter of faith yea Bel him selfe art 7. pag. 133. affirmeth Contradict 15. him to be commonly denyed about the conception of our Lady And P. Vrban 4. commanded only the vniuersity of Tholouse to teach and follow especially saith he his doctrin Wherby we see he commanded them not to follow his doctrin only and none others but chiefly his nor as an infallible truth but as most probable Other vniuersities and Catholiques are left to their liberty to follow excepting matter of faith wherin al agree or only erre of ignorance what schoolmen they please 7. And this is so notorious as when we obiect to Protestants their dissention in matters The disagreement of Schoolemen far different from that of Protestants S. Austin of faith they returne vpon vs the disagreement of schoolmen But there is a great difference For the disagreement of schoolmen is in things wherin S. Austin l. 1. contr Iulian. c. 6. The learnedest and best defenders of Catholique verity may salua fidei compage disagree and one say better and truer then an other And if of ignorance any of them erre it is alwaies with readines to submit them selues to the iudgment of the Catholique Church Wheras Protestants disagree about matters which belong as S. Austin speaketh ad ipsa fidei fundamenta Sup. And omitting those notorious dissentions amongst them about the real presence the number of Canonical books Christs suffering the paines of hel his discent into hel the like I wil propose a few other points Dissentions
of Protestants touched in their late Conference of dissention amongst them gathered out of the conference at Hampton court as 1 whether baptisme by vvoemen be allowable pag. 8. 14. 15. 17. 18. 2. vvhether confirmation be lawful pag. 10. 3. vvhether baptisme be necessary pag. 16. 4. vvhether after receauing the holy Ghost we may totally depart from grace pag. 28. 5. vvhether the communion booke contradict the 15. article of their faith pag. 25. 6. vvhether there ought to be any Bishops pag. 36. 7. vvhether the intention of the Minister be essential to the Sacrament pag. 38. 8. vvhether a man once iustifyed remaine truly iust before God whatsoeuer sinne he commit pag. 41. and 14. 9. vvhether a iustifyed man falling into greeuous sinnes shal be saued without repentance for them 16. 10. vvhether the English Byble be truly translated pag. 45. 46. 11. vvhether the communion booke corrupt the Byble in two places pag. 63. 12. vvhether the Crosse be to be vsed in baptisme pag. 65. 13. VVhether the Church can institute an external significant signe pag. 67. 14. vvhether the Churches institution can bynde in conscience pag. 70. 15. VVhether the communion booke containe errors repugnant to Scripture pag. 59. 8. Moreouer more then a thousand Ministers In their Supplicatiō exhibited in April 1603. Ansvver to the Supplication whom the whole vniuersity of Oxford calleth their brethren and fellovv laborers in the Lords haruest in the supplication to his Maiestie exhibited in April 1603 professe That there is not in their Church an vniformity of doctrin This the Oxonians deny against their owne knowledge and the knowlege of al England For what vniformity is there where a thousand Ministers their fellow laborers professe them selues to disagree in points of religion from the rest yea his Maiestie witnesseth him selfe to haue receaued Conference p. 5. 22. many complaints through the dissentions in the Church and purposeth as he saith to setle an vniforme order through the vvhole Church and to plant vnity Wil now the Oxonians say there are no dissentions wil they make his Maiestie actum agere in setling vniformity and planting vnity where none wanteth And in like sort of the Scottish Church he testifyeth That there is such dissention euen in Conference p. 44. the Catachisme doctrin as vvhat vvas Catachisme dostrin in one congregation vvas scarsly accepted as sound and orthodox in an other And this dissention amongst Protestants about matters of religion is with such obstinacy as notwithstanding proclamations disputations conferences and decrees or Canons of their Church it remaineth stil amongst them and wil as long as heresy remayneth in them which teacheth them to expound Scriptures according to their priuate spirits and to recant nothing because as his Maiestie Conference p 102. saith of the Scottish Ministers it standeth not vvith their credits 9. The fourth note which Bel gathereth out of S. Thomas his words is more to the purpose vz. That motions of concupiscence preuenting reason are venial sinnes But if Bel had amongst his important obseruations obserued also that S. Thomas spake immediatly before of deliberate reason he might haue noted that he meant only of such motions as preuent perfect but not imperfect deliberation and therfore are as he saith imperfect or venial sinnes VVherfore be myndful Bel from vvhence thou art falne and do penance Apocalip 2. THE FIFT ARTICLE OF THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKES CHAP. I. Of the Protestants enmity to good vvorks and friendship vvith euil BEL beginneth this Article Bel pag. 60. with a greeuous complaint against Papists who saith he most vnchristianly slander the professors of Christs Ghospel as though they vvere enemies to good vvorks of vvhich they thinke speak teach and vvrite more christianly and more religiously then Papists do Both these points he proueth no otherwise then with an I say I say saith he that good vvorks though they can not go before yet do euer follovv iustification are necessary to saluation and true effects of predestination As if Bel were al the new Ghospellers or they al agreed with him concerning good works We alleadge their words produce their deeds shew the fruits and effects of their enmity to good works and Bel thinketh to answer al this with an I say Surely he presumeth of beneuolous and partial iudges or he wold neuer answer thus He with an I say may slāder Popes Princes Papists whatsoeuer and an I say yea manifest proofe to the contrary wil not suffice him Such force his I sayes haue Dixit facta sunt But Syr I both say wil proue by words and deeds that both you and your Ghospellers are not only enemies to good works but great frends to euil works And as for enmity to good works 2. First they bid vs beware of good works Let vs bevvare saith Luther of sinne Luther sermon de nouo testamēto seu de Missa Colloquiū Attenburg but much more of lawes and good works And some of his schollers in the conference of Altenburg teach vs to pray that we perseuer vnto the end in faith vvithout good vvorks 2. they teach good works to be harmful Good vvorks said the forsaid Lutherans are pernitious to saluation Againe Christians vvith good vvorks belong to Sathan And as Surius Surius comment Ann. 1564. Staphil in Apolog. Staphilus and others report a Minister was not allowed in Saxony because he beleeued not this 3. because they say al good works are sinne and vnciean so Luther art 23. Caluin 3. instit c. 14. parag 9. 11. c. 15. parag 3. and 4. whitaker contr Durae l. 1. p. 49. Bucley answer to 8. reasons p. 111. and 109. Perkins tit of merit and Bel art 4. pag. 48. teacheth that sinne is alwaies annexed to Epicur◠vvold seeme to loue vertue though he made pleasure his end good works 4. They teach that good works of their nature deserue damnation There was neuer saith Caluin lib. 3. instit c. 14. parag 11. any work of a godly man which if it were examined by Gods seuere iudgment were not damnable How can Protestants Habentes speciem pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes 2. Timoth 4. v. 5. now be friēds to good workes which they bid beware of account hurtful sinne and damnable Surely their friendship can be no better then Ioabs was to Amasa when he kissed him but withal thrust his dagger into his body 2. Reg. 20. 3. And on the contrary side their friendship Frendship of Protestants to euil vvorks to euil works is manifest 1. because they teach that euil works make not an euil man nor any can damne a man but incredulity this Luther teacheth in plaine Luther tearms lib. de libert Christian and lib. de capt Babil c. de baptis 2. because they make God author of sinne Zuinglius saith Zvvinglius sermon de Prouidentia ad Principem Cattorum 1530. c. 5. Caluin in playne termes maketh God author of sinne
v. 17. immediatly before said that we shal be coheirs with Christ if we suffer with him lest we should be vnwilling to attaine to such glory by sufferance he addeth in the verse cited that sufferances are not condigne that is not comparable in greatnes or continuance to future glory which meaning of his he vttereth in plainer tearms 2. Corinth 4. v. 17. saying our tribulation which presently S. Paul is momentary and light worketh aboue measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in vs. Where he saith our tribulations are momentary and light and the glory is eternal and weighty which he meant when he said here they are not condigne to future glory And hereby are explicated the words both of Theodoret and S. Anselme vpon this place For Theodoret saying the Crovvns exceed the conflicts and the labour is not comparable to the revvard compareth them not in the respect of desert and reward but in greatnes of paine and pleasure for saith he the labour is litle and the gaine great And the same comparison in bitternes of paine and greatnes of pleasure made S. Anselm when he S. Ansolm Rom. 8. said Al the bitternesses of al the paines of this life should not be a digne merit to future glory For doubtles the bitternes of al the paines of this life is not so great as the pleasure of heauēly ioyes But this worthy Champion who challengeth al Papists to combat sheweth him selfe ignorāt in translating Theodorets words Superant certamina coronae thus Bel vvanteth latin The conflicts of the crovvne remaine taking the nominatiue case for the accusatiue and the genitiue for the nominatiue and perhaps superant for supersunt both contrary to the latine and to sense For who heard of conflicts of a crowne or that conflicts remaine in heauen Surely this challenger should rather be set to schoole to learne latine then to challenge Deuines to disputation rather taught to construe the Fathers then to dispute out of them But as S. Hierome wrote S. Hieron epist ad Euagr. Imperitia confidentiam parit None so bold as blinde Bayard 11. The third text he cyteth is out of S. Bel pag. 65. Paul Tit. 3. v. 5. Not by vvorks of iustice which we haue done but according to his mercy he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost By which vvords saith Bel it is most cleare that we are not only iustifyed but also saued by meere mercy and consequently eternal life hath no merit vpon the behalfe of man Omitting that before our good works were merit in a godly sense now there is no merit on mans behalfe I answer that the Apostle meaneth only of sauing from sinne vz iustification First because speaking of him selfe and others then aliue he saith God hath saued vs Secondly because hauing said in the third verse VVe vvere somtymes vnwise incredulous c. he addeth v. 5. and God according to his mercy hath saued vs vz. from the foresaid sinnes Thirdly because explicating by what means God had saued them he saith it was by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost which most plainly expresseth iustification And no doubt but saluation from sinne proceedeth of Gods meere mercy but this is not to the purpose And of this saluation speaketh S. Anselme vpon this place whose words Bel curtailed leauing out these words By the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost that is by baptisme because they clearly shew of what saluation this holy Saint did meane And of the same meant Dionis Carthus vpon rhis Carthus place as is plaine by his explicating what the saluation was vz. from povvre of the Dyuel and guilt of eternal torment And thus much of Bels first reason out of Scripture now to his arguments out of Fathers CHAP. V. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit ansvvered S. Austin he alleadgeth epist 29. ad Hieron Bel pag. 66. whose words I wil set downe at S. Augustin tom 2. large that the Reader thereby may see how falsly Bel auoucheth him to confirme his doctrine Charity saith he is a vertue with which we loue that which is to be loued This is great in some in others les in others none at al but mostful charity which can be no more encreased is in none whiles a mā lyueth here but whiles it may be encreased surely that vvhich is les then it should be is ex vitio of vice Bel translateth sinne by reason of vvhich vice thereis no iust on earth which doth good and sinneth not by reason of which vice no liuing man shal be iustifyed in Gods sight For vvhich vice if vve say we haue no sinne we sedute our selfes and there is no truth in vs. For which also though vve haue profited neuer so much we must of necessity say Forgiue vs our trespasses euen when our vvords deeds thoughts are already forgiuen in baptisme 2. Hence Bel gathereth 1. That S. Austin pag. 67. vntruth 61 saith that no man can haue charity in that perfect degree which the lavv requireth This is vntrue for he only saith that no man hath in this life that most ful charity which can not be encreased 2. That the want therof proceedeth of vice This is true but of what kinde of vice he meant him selfe had explicated a litle before in the same place saying VVho therfore is without some vice that is without some fomite or as a roote of sinne Wherfore he meant not that the want of most ful charity proceedeth of formal sinne but of that which is cause and roote of sinne to wit concupiscence And by this are answered al the rest of Bels notes out of this place As that by reason of this vice euery man is a sinner none iustified before God if we say we haue no sinne we be lyers we haue need to aske God forgiuenes euen after baptisme For al these things are verifyed of Concupiscence not formally but effectiuely that is Concupiscence which S. Austin calleth vice because it is the roote and cause of formal vice causeth sinne in vs which sinne maketh vs formally sinners not iustifyed before God and to neede forgiuenes euen after baptisme And hereby are explicated Bel pag. 68. the like words of S. Ambrose which S. Ambros epist 84. to 4. prope finem hereafter he citeth That by reason of the rebellion of the flesh that is vnderstood of euery one which S. Ihon saith If we say we haue no sinne we seduce our selfs 3. But suppose that S. Austin had said al Bel forgetteth his matter that Bel inferreth though it would proue Concupiscence to be formal sinne yet would it not proue that our workes are no condigne merit which is the question now in hand For though Concupiscence were as Bel rhinketh venial sinne which he art 9. calleth sinne not regnant yet might other supernatural works of
wil speake exactly and properly more is required to formal and proper sinne then to formal iniquity For iniquity requireth only want Difference betvvixt formal sinne and iniquity of equity and conformity to Gods law formal sinne besides this requireth voluntarines so al formal sinne is formal iniquity but not contrarywise As adultery or murder committed by a foole or mad man is iniquity but no more sinne then it is in beasts Hereupon S. Austin l. 2. contr Iulian. c. 5. S. Austin distinguished two iniquityes one which is sinne and blotted out in baptisme an other which is the law of sinne infirmity remaineth is yet iniquity because saith he iniquum est that the flesh should rebel against the spirit l. 6. c. 19. calleth lust against wil some iniquity yet oftentymes denyeth it to be true sinne nether doth he say in the place which Bel citeth that iniquity sinne is al one but that sinne is not a different thing from iniquity but that who cōmitteth sinne committeth iniquity which how it is true is euident by that which is said Albeit when he saith that al iniquity is blotted out in baptisme he confounde iniquity with sinne as before is cited out of Scripture which argueth that wel may the worde iniquity be taken in a different sense Iohn 5. and 3. as Iohn 5. for voluntary iniquity and proper sinne as appeareth by the greeke worde adicia and c. 3. for iniquity in general as appeareth by the worde anomia which is cōmon to volūtary or inuolūtary 7. The places of S. Ambros and S. Austin are already answered for they define only mortal sinne And of the same vnderstandeth Bellarmin when he saith al sinne is against the law for venial sinnes he proueth not to be against the law tom 3. lib. 1. de amiss grat stat pecc cap. 11. Nether followeth it as Bel thincketh that some sinnes are no sinnes but only that Some sinnes are not perfectly sinnes as Bellarmin proueth loc cit As for the Rhemists doubtles it is false which Bel addeth that what Sup. c. 2. parag 8. swarueth from the law is against it as I haue proued against his bare assertion of the contrary Durand and Angles I confesse did thincke venial sinnes to be against the law but neither is this a matter of faith neither do they intend to fauour Bel any thing but answer his argument an otherway as hath bene shewed before 8. But pretty it is to see how that because Bel pag. 82 Angles 2. sent p. 275. Angles writeth that it seemeth now to be the commoner opinion in schooles that venial sinnes are against the law Bel noteth the Romish religion of mutability confessing that the olde Romane religion was Catholique Olde Roman religiō Catholique sound and pure sownde and pure with which he wil not contend Beholde the ytch which this fellow hath to calumniate the Romane religion Angles in sinuateth Schoole opinions to be mutable Bel applieth it to Romane religion as if it consisted of schoole opinions which may be helde pro contra salua fidei compage with vnity in faith as S. Austin speaketh But seeing you haue graūted S. Augustin l. 1. cont Iul. c. 6. to 7. the olde Romane religion to haue bene Catholique and pure slaunder the late I bring an action of slaunder against you and charge you that you doe not like dolosus versari in generalibus but to bringe good witnesses when wherin and by whome the late Romane religion corrupted the purity of the olde knowing that otherwise to vse your phrase al the world wil cry with open mouth Fye vpon you and your slaunderous Ministery But in the meane tyme let vs proceed with him here 9. Their canonized Martyr Bishop Fisher Bel pag. 83. Ruffens art 32. cont Luther Gerson de vit spirit lect 1. part 1. saith he and Popish Bishop Gerson wrote that vental sinnes were such only by the mercy of God Here Bel for one truth vttereth twoe vntruths True it is that B. Fisher and Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it 75. vntruth was since by Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. neither did they account inuoluntary motions of Concupiscence for venial sinnes as Bel doth but such as Catholiques account venial 76. vntruth But vntrue it is that either B. Fisher is canonized or Gerson was a bishoppe who Trithem in Gersone was only Chauncellor of the vniuersity of Paris 10. Finally he concludeth this Article pag. 85. with this goodly reason one stealeth iust so many egges as are necessary to make a mortal sinne A reason not vvorth a rotte◠egge an other stealeth one les but there can be no reason why God may iustly condemne the one to hel and not the other therfore both sinne mortally alike To this I answer by demanding a reason why the iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe penny and not him that stealeth one penny les If he answer because the law condemneth one and not the other I aske againe what reason was there that the lawe was made against the one and not against the other And if Bel can finde a reason in this he wil finde one in his owne question The reason of both is because such a quantity is a notable iniury to our neighbour and consequently is against charity so breaketh the law and a les quantity is not Be myndful Apocalip therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocal. 2. THE SEVENTH ARTICLE OF VNVVRITTEN TRADITIONS Bel intituleth this seuenth article of traditions though therein he handleth diuerse other matters as of the sufficiencie and perspicuity of Scriptures and of the readinge them in vulgar tongues and by the common people of the authoritie of Councels and oathes of Bishops But these he handleth so confusedly so tediously being almost as longe in this one article as in al the rest as I founde much more difficultie to gather togither what he saied of euery point in different places and to bringe them to some methodical order for the healpe of the readers memory then I had to frame an answere first therefore I wil entreate of Scriptures next of Tradition then of Councels and lastly of Bisshops oathes CHAP. I. The Catholique doctrine touching sufficiency of Scriptures propounded and proued certayne vntruthes of Bel disproued ALBEIT euery one be forbidden to deny any point of the Christian faith yet are not al cōmaunded to know actually euery point thereof but to some it sufficeth that they beleeue the fundamental pointes conteyned in the Apostles Creede and such like and to be so desposed in minde as they woulde beleeue the rest if they knewe them which is to be beleeue them implicitely or virtually Moreouer one thinge may conteyne an other either actually as fyer doth conteyne heate and the sunne light or virtually
because S. Paul the seed of God is in them neither sinne nor can sinne 1. Ioh. 3. vers 9. and consequently S. Iohn auoyd the foresaid curse Neither doe their venial sinns incurre the curse for it is pronounced only against heynous crimes namely Idolatry incest murder and the like as is euident by the 27. of Deuter. Deuâ—â— from whence the Apostle reciteth the curse But Bel who confesseth him selfe to incurre the crime accursed by the law must needs confesse him selfe to be vnder that curse or say that he is not bound to Gods lawes made against Idolatrie Incest murder and the like 3. The like text he bringeth out of S. pag. 144. Iames. 2 v. 10. whosoeuer shal keepe the whole law and offended in one is made guilty of al. This place also maketh rather against Bel. For it supposeth that al the law may be kept as wel one point as the whole and only teacheth that the keeping of the whole law wil not saue if one point thereof be deadly broken But this is nothing against Gods children who as long as his seed abideth in them sinne not Ioh. 3. v. 9. S. Ioh. nor offend deadly in one point but abide both in the whole law and euery pointe thereof 4. Diuers other places Bel alleadgeth to proue that al men are sinners and that the iust doe sinne which no Catholique denyeth as Bel might learne out of the Tridentine Councel But how followeth it Concil Trident sess 6. cap. 11. thereof that the Iust whiles they are Iust sinne deadly or cannot auoyd al deadly sinne This is the marque which Bel should pag. 143. shoot at and hoped in the beginning of this article to hit the naile on the head but as S. Hierom said to a Luciferian whiles he S. Hierom. dialog contra Lucifer followeth his vaine of gainsaying he hath mist the question as some rather praiers then speakers vse to doe who not knowing to dispute yet cease not to quarrel CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commaundements ansvvered FIRST out of S. Austin he alleadgeth pag. 145. S. Augustin lib. 1. de doctrin Christ c. 22. to 3. that God commaunded vs to loue him with al our hart soule and mynde and thereby left no part of our life vacant to take fruition of any other thinge But S. Austin in these words meant nothing els but that wee must loue nothing as our end and for it selfe but Gods for so he vseth the worde fruition and therfore addeth which Bel left forth But what other thing commeth to our mynde to be loued let it be carried thither whither the whole current of loue runneth 2. Other words he citeth our of lib. de pag. 146. perfect iusti ratiocin 16. but they are in 17. cap. 8. where S. Austin writeth That as long as there is any thing of carnal concupiscence which may be bridled by refrayning God is not loued omnimodo altogether with al the soule And yet though none in this life haue that perfection it is commaunded because it is not wel runne if it be not knowne whither to runne Answer What S. Austins meaning is herein himselfe explicateth saying that the precept of louing God withal our soule is not omnimodo altogether fulfilled whilst we haue inordinate motions He denyeth not substantial fulfilling which auoideth sinne yea lib. de spir liter cap. vlt. affirmeth S. Augustin tom 3. that though wee did not loue God withal our harts and soule so as we had no motions of lust yet if wee did not obey them we need not to aske God forgiuenes but only denyeth omnimodam impletionem which in the place cited he called most supereminent perfection of louing God and saith not it belongeth to this but to the next life vz. to bee perfectly perfourmed Wherfore when he saith such perfection is commaunded in this life he meaneth not that it is commaunded as a thing which we are bound to perfourme but only as an end to which we should runne For though saith De perfect instit loc cit he no man perfourme it yet we runne not wel if we knovv not vvhither to runne and hovv should we knovv if it vvere shevved by no precept 3. Next he citeth S. Thomas only because pag. 147. S. Thomas â— 2 q. 44. art he vseth the words perfectly and imfectly But how coutrary to Bels meaning hath bene before explicated which reproueth his vntruth in affirming himselfe to teach the selfe same doctrine with Aquinas What hath bene said to S. Austin and S. Thomas is to be applied to S. Bernarde S. Bernard hom 50. iâ— Cant. when he saith in the like sort that the precept of louing God can not be fulfilled in this life And that God in commaunding impossible things made not men preuaricators but humble For beside that S. Bernard as himselfe speaketh this only if the precept of loue be vnderstood of affectual charity or charity in worke and graunteth that so it is fulfilled if it be perfectly obserued as said he a litle before it may be in this life by Gods grace Besides this I say immediatly before the words which Bel cyteth he graunteth that initium perfectumque the beginning and perfection of charity may be experienced by Gods grace in this life If perfection be had surely the precept is fulfilled For as himselfe saith sone after doest thou not thincke is sufficient to the fulfilling the precept of louing thie neighbour if thou obserue it perfectly And Bel pag. 151. graunteth that who perfectly obserueth the law shal be iustifyed 4. And though he differ or as he speaketh defend the consummation of charity to the next life and therefore accoumpt the precept of charity impossible as far forth as it imbraceth the consummation yet he meaneth not that it imbraceth consummation as a thinge needful to be perfourmed which he saith shal be our reward in heauen but as the end to which men ought to endeuour vt scirent saith he ad quem iustitiae finem pro viribus niti oporteret that they might know to what end of iustice they ought to endeuour withal their power Behoulde he saith not that we ought to attaine to the said end but to endeuour al that we can and therefore God in commaunding that end in such sort as he doth maketh men no finners though they attaine not to it 5. After these fathers he bringeth two pag. 150. reasons The one out of our Lords prayer where we are taught to aske forgiuenes But where pardon is demaunded ths law is not exactly obserued The other is out of our daily confessions where we acknowledge our fault and most great fault Answer As the petition of forgiuing our sinns doth euidently conuince that we doe not so exactly keep the law as we neuer swarue from it So the other petition of doing Gods wil in earth as it is in heauen euidently
conuinceth that we can doe it without deadly breaking it As for our confession we doe not confesse that our daylie offences are most great faults but daily confesse our most great fault whether it were done then or before Besides that humble and penitent mindes accompt themselues greatest sinners and their offences greatest faults So S. Paul 1. Timoth 1. v. 15. accounted S. Paul himselfe the chiefest sinner Yea good souls as S. Gregory saith acknowledge sinne where S. Gregor epist ad August Cant. cap. 10. Iob cap. 9. S. Gregor in Psalm 4. Paenitent none is and with Iob feare al their works And as the same holy Doctour noteth the reprobate accompt great sinns litle and the elect litle sinns grear and which before they thought were light straight they abhor as heauy and deadly And S. Hierom S. Hieron epist ad â—â—lant obserueth that it increaseth warines to take heed of litle sinnes as if they were great For with so much the more facility we abstaine from any sinne by how much more we feare it 6. And hence Bel may see why we in dayly confessions confesse our most great fault which I would God he would imitate and both confesse and amend his heynous fault of sinning against the holy Ghost and impugning the Catholique Church which he knoweth to be Gods Church Otherwise let him assure himselfe that shame wil be his end in this life and endles punishment his reward in the next Wel he may beat against this rocke but like the waues he shal without hurting it beat himselfe in pieces and be resolued into froth and foame Let him write books let him spend himselfe and make nets with the Spider of his owne guts they wil proue only spider webbes apt to cath or holde none but such as like inconstant and fleshly flyes are carrayed about with euery mynde of new doctrine and following their carnal appetites and licentiousnes seaze vpon fleshly baite And so Bel though he could become an other God Bel he should but be Beel zebub the God of flies Be myndful therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocalip 2. FINIS Al praise to Almightie God A TABLE Of the things coÌ„teined in this booke vvherin a signifyeth article c. chapter and parag paragraph ADDITION of one tradition as much forbidden as of many ar 7. c. 2. parag 1. Addition to Scripture which forbidden which not ar 7. c. 2. pareg Anomia how it may signify transgression of the law ar 6. c. 2. parag 2. Antichrists true hinderance meant by S. Paul ar 1. c. 9. parag 4. Antichrists hinderance not taken away in Pipius tyme a. 1. c. 9. parag 3. Angles falsly charged by Bel art 5. c. 5. parag 6. S. Antonin falsly charged by Bel art 3. c. 1. parag 1. and 13. Apostataes may teach true doctrine art 7. c. 10 parag 9. Apostles Creed conserued by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. S. Athanasius explicated and his reuerence of Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 9. S. Austin as a Christian said he wold not beleeue the Ghospel without the Church art 7. c. 9. parag 22. Sainct Austin wold not beleeue Maniche though he had had expresse Scripture ar 7. c. 9. parag 24. S. Austin how he compared Concupiscence with blindnes of hart art 4. c. 3. parag 1. S. Austins opinion of habitual Concupiscence art 4. c. 1. parag 18. S. Austins opinioÌ„ of inuoluntary motions art 4. c. 1. parag 13. S. Austin preuented Bels obiections art 4. c. 1. parag 18. S. Austin how he meant that we loue not God altogether art 8. c. 4. parag 2. S. Austin how he called our keeping the commaundements defectuous art 8. c. 1. parag 9. S. Austins teuerence and rule to know Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 3. S. Austin said the Apostles eat bread our lord art 2. c. 5. parag 8. S. Austin said Iudas eat our price art 2. c. 5. paragr 8. S. Austin why he said Iudas eat bread of our lord art 2. c. 5. parag 8. S. Austin wold not credit the Scripture if the Catholiques were discredited art 7. c. 9. parag 22. S. Austin and S. Prosper Papists out of Bel. art 2. c. 4. parag 13. B. S. Basil explicated and his reuerence of Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 13. S. Bede a Papist art 4. c. 4. parag 4. Bellarmins doctrin of merit the common doctrin of Catholiques a. 5. c. 6 parag 9. Beleefe in al points not prescribed at once art 7. c. 2. parag 7. Bel a right Apostata from Preisthood art 1. c. 9. parag 31. Bel against Caluin art 5. c. 2. parag 3. Bel admitteth Tradition a. 7. c. 9. parag 811. Bels answer about Tradition of the bible refuted art 7. c. 9. parag 5. Bel admitteth venial sinns art 6. c. 1. parag 1. Bels beleefe of venial sinne beside Gods booke art 6. c. 1. parag 2. Bel a Papist by his owne iudgement art 4. c. 1. parag 10. Bel against al Gods Church which liued in the first 200. years art 7. c. 10. parag 2. Bel alleadgeth authority against him selfe a. 7. c. 10. parag 5. Bel answereth not to the purpose art 7. c. 9. parag 7. Bels argument returned vpon him self art 2. c 6. parag 3. Bels blasphemy against God art 8. c. 2. parag 1. against his Church a. 7. c. 9. par 5. against iustification a. 4. c. 2. parag 1. Bels blasphemy accursed by S. Hierom art 8. c. 2. parag 1. Bels blindnes discouered art 1. c. 9. parag 6. Bel bound to recant art 3. c. 1. parag 13 a. 2. c 5. parag 9. Bels buckler the Princes sword art 1. c 1. parag 10. Bels challeng is Bellarmins obiections art 4. c. 3 parag 2. Bels complaint against Catholiques art 5. c 1 parag 1 Bel condemneth as blasphemy in the Pope which he iudgeth treason to deny to Princes art 1. c. 9. parag 23 Bels contradictions arâ— 1. c. 5. parag 4. c. 8. parag 5 a. 2. c 2. parag 4. a. 4 c 1. parag 12. 13. c. 2. parag 6. art 5. c. 3 parag 3. c. 5. parag 7. art 7. c. 7 parag 19 art 8. c. 1. parag 5 7. c. 2. par 4. Bâ—l câ—rrupted Scripture art 7. c. 2. parag 8 c. 7. parag 3. 12. corrupteth S. Ambros art 7 c. 4. parag 1â— Bel cursed of S. Paul by his owne iudgement art 7. c. 9 parag 8. Bel discredited him selfe art 1. chap. 9. parag 10. Bels dissimulation art 1. c. 1. parag 1. a 2. c 1. par 5 art 3. c. 1 parag 2. Bâ—l denyeth deuine faith to proceed from mans teaching art 7. c. 9 parag 20. Bel disproueth him self art 5. c. 6. parag 6. art 4. c. 1. parag 17. Bel exceedeth Pelagius art 7. c. 7. parag 1. Bels faith grownded vpon reason art 2. c. 1. parag 7. Bel slenderly grownded in faith art 2. c. 5. parag 6. Bels false translation art 2. c. 3. parag 8. c. 4. parag 13 a. 4 c. 2. parag 4. 7. 10. c. 5.
original sinne art 4. c. 2 parag 6. Reinolds proofe against him selfe art 7. c. 3. parag 3. Royal power far inferior to Pontifical art 1. c. 9. parag 31. Rome the top of high preisthood art 7. c. 13. parag 6. Romane religion aboue a thowsand years agoe out of Bel art 7. c. 10. parag 9. Romane Church alwaies kept the Apostles Traditions Rule of trying truth prescribed by the Councel of Trent art 7. c. 12. parag 4. S. SAbbath translation not warrented by Scripture art 7. c. â— parag 9. Sabbath translation warrented by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. Sacrament of Eucharist improperly called Christs body art 2. c. 4. parag 14. B Sacrament boâ—h a sacrifice and a testament art 2 c. 4. parag 6. Sacrifice requireth not killing a. 2. c. 3 par 8. Sacrificing of flesh by Preists hands allowed by Bel art 2 c. 4. parag 13. no Sacriledge to dispute oâ— the Popes power art 1 c 9 parag 34. Sadduces erred for ignorance both of Scripture and Gods power art 7 c. 11. par 3. Salâ—mon deposed not Abiathar art 1. c. 5. parag 10. Samuel cold not discerne Gods word from mans word but by Hely his teachâ—ng arâ— 7. c. 9. parag 13. Saints honor an Apostolical Tradition art 7. c. to parag 11. Satisfaction supposeth remission of sinns art 5. c. 6. parag 5. Search the Scripâ—urs explicated art 7. c. 11. parag 3. Scripturs and the Churches authority differ art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Scripture beleeued both for Gods and the Churches testimony art 7. c. 9. par 18. Scripture how of it selfe worthy of credit art 7. c. 9. parag 18. Scripture the storehouse of truth art 7. c. 5. parag 1. Scripture hath al points actually to be beleeued of euery one art 7. c 1. parag 2. Scripture conteineth virtually not actuâ—lly al points of Christian faith art 7. c. 1. parag 7. 9. Scripture can not sufficiently immediatly proue al points of faith a. 7. c 1. par 10. Scripture how able to make men wise to saluation art 7. â— 3 parag 8. Scripture no poison but food of liâ—e art 7. c. 7. parag 18. Scripture easy in things necessâ—ry to euery ones saluation art 7. c. 6. parag 1. Scripture absolutly hard ibid. Scripture more in sense then in words art 7. c 9. parag 14 Scripture not so clearly discerned as light from darknes art 7. c. 9. parag 15. Scripture why called a lantherne or light art 7. c. 9. parag 17. Scripturs vulgar reading what monsters it hath bred in England art 7. c. 7. parag 2. Seruice of God in the old law some tyme nether heard nor seene of the people art 7. c. 8. parag 3. Seruice in an vnknowne tong discommended only of idiots and infidels art 7. c. 8. parag 2. Sinne habitual what it is art 4 c. â— parag 3. Sinne some of it nature breaketh frendship with God some not art 6. c. 1 par 6. Sinne ordinarily taken only for mortal art 6. c. 2. parag 1. Socrates his error art 7. c. 10 parag 5. S. Steeuen P. defined not the controuersy about rebaptization art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Superior and inferior not contradictions but relatiues and may be verifyed of the same thing art â— c. 6. parag 2. T. S. Thomas how he called our keeping the commandements imperfect art 8. c. 2. parag 3. Traditions of three kinds art 7. chap. 9. parag 1. Traditions which impugned by Bel ibid. which defended in this booke ibid. Traditions ther are conteining things necessary to saluation art 7. c. 9. par 1. Traditions how they are explications of the law art 7. c. 2. parag 4. Tradition admitted by Bel art 7. chap. 9. parag 8. Traditions how they are additions to Scripture how not art 7. c 2. parag 3. 4. Traditions apostolical certain and vndoubted art 7. c. 10. parag 1. Traditions Apostolical not to be examined by Scripture art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions how they may be examined by the Church art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions how to be examined out of Tertullian art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions auouched by the Fathers art 7. c. 4. per tot Traditions defended by S. Paul and S. Ihon art 7. c. 9. parag 1. 2. Traditions in S. Cyprians daies sufficient proofe of doctrin art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Tradition of Easter certein a. 7. c. 10. par 3. Tradition of as equal force to piety as Scripture art 7. c. 4 parag 13. 14. Tradition reiected by old heretiks art 7. c. 4. parag 1. Treason disannulleth not the gift art 1. c. 6 parag 3. Truth euidently knowne to be preferred before authority art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Truth what and how to be tryed art 7. c. 12. parag 4. V. VAlew of the Masse art 2. c. 4. parag 9. Variety of fasting lent rose of ignorance or negligence art 7. c. 10. par 5. Venial sinns admitted by Bel art 6. chap. 1. parag 1. Venial sinne why not against the law art 6. c. 1. parag 8. Venial sinne such of his nature art 6. c. 1. parag 2. Voluntary in the origen what it is art 4. c. 1. parag 11. Voluntary motion of euil why expresly forbidden in the tenth commandement art 4. c. 3. parag 10. Vse and abuse of a thing to be distinguished art 7. c. 10. parag 11. W. VVItnesses sufficient of Gods truth by what made art 7. chap. 9. parag 6. Wemen ought to be instructed of men art 7. c. 7. paragr 5. Wemen may teach in case of necessity or perticuler inspiration art 7. chap. 7. parag 13. Words of consecration when and how they worke their effect a. 2. c. 6. parag 5. Worshipping an vnconsecrated host vpon ignorance no offence art 2. c. 6. par 8. Wiats rebellion defended and praised by Protestants art 1. c. 3. parag 6. X. XArisma wel translated by grace art 5. c. 4. parag 4. FINIS