another place thus If thou O Lorde straightly markest iniquities O Lorde who shall abide it But with thee is mercie that thou mayest be feared Againe in another place thus Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified So then as wee haue in one Psalme that Dauid did keepe Gods commaundements so haue wee in many other Texts of holy writ both in the Psalmes and else where that neither himselfe nor any liuing can perfectly keep the same What must we now do One scripture is not contrary to another The spirite of God speaking in Dauid saith in one place That he kept Gods Lawe in another place he saith That neither hee nor any other can keepe his Commaundements How stand these two together This is the resolution and true sence of holy writ Dauid as euery childe of God in like maner is truely saide to keepe Gods Commaundements when he hath an inward feruent desire to do the will of God and chearefully applyeth his heart and all his affections to that end so farre foorth as standeth with mans infirmity and the state in which we liue although he be a greeuons sinner indeed and Trangresse Gods law many waies This I prooue to be so by many arguments first because the sinnes of the faithful are not imputed to them for the merits of Christ Iesus Therefore saith the Apostle Being iustified by faith we are at peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. Again thus Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lorde will not impute sin By these places it is cleare that Gods children are said to keepe his Commandements not because they keepe them exactly and perfectly but for that the want and defect is not imputed to them This is it that S. Austen saith in these golden words Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non sit ignoscitur All the Commandements are then reputed as done when whatsoeuer is not done Is of mercy forgiuen Again the same S. Austen in another place hath these words Beatus vir cui nō imputauit dominus peccatū Hoc prestant viae domini ac per hoc quoniā ex fide iustus viuit ab ista via domini illa alienat miquitas quae est infidelit as In hac antē via domini id est in fide pia quisquis ambulat aut peccatum non operatur aut si quid à deuiante committitur propter viam non imputatur tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur Blessed is the man to whome the Lord hath not imputed sinne This the wayes of our Lord performe and by reason heereof because the iust man liueth by faith that iniquity estraungeth from this way which is infidelity For in this way of the Lord that is in a godly faith whosoeuer walketh he either sinneth not or if any thing be done amisse it is not imputed by reason of the way and is so taken as if he had not done it Thus writeth this holy father vppon that very Psalme out of which our Iesuite hath borrowed certaine Textes which as S. Austen sheweth plainely are altogether applyed contrary to the Prophets meaning and to the truth of the matter in hād For therfore as we see by S. Austens Testimony is not only the Prophet Dauid but also al the children of God thoght to keep Gods commandements because they aplying thēselues chearfully with hart voyce and all their power to keepe them the defect and want is not imputed to them Briefely by Gods grace not of our selues we keep his Commandements though not in such perfection as his Iustice requireth yet in such measure as he of his mercy in Christ accepteth Secondly because the sonne of God hath truly appeased the wrath of God by once offering vppon the Altar of the Crosse a perfect sufficient and absolute satisfaction for the sinnes of all the faithfull and elect people of God and as a Creditor hauing receiued the iust and full paiment of that which was due vnto him though by the hands of another yet in behalfe of him who was the debtor cannot with Iustice require the same at the Debtors hands no more can GOD almighty who is not onely iust but iustice it selfe in the abstract iustly require satissaction of his elect for their sinnes for whose transgressions he hath receiued a most perfect absolute and consummate satisfaction and attonement for euer at the handes of his deare Sonne In whom he is euer well pleased This is it that one of the Elders said to Saint Iohn These are they which came out of great tribulation and haue vvashed their long Robes and made them white in the bloud of the Lamb. Thirdly to acknowledge our sinnes and to confesse our selues to bee grieuous Sinners and not to trust in our owne righteousnesse which is none at all indeed but in the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ who as the Apostle teacheth vs Is our Wisedome our Righteousnesse our Sanctification and our Redemption is in the scripture to be righteous to keep Gods commandements Therfore saith S. Iohn That if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs. But if we knowledge our sinnes he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs our sins and to cleanse vs from all vnrighteousnesse Loe to confesse our sinnes and to acknowledge our selues to be Sinners is to be righteous in Gods sight and to keepe his Commaundementes This Saint Hierome confirmeth in these Golden wordes Tunc ergo iusti sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex dei consistit misericordia Then therefore are wee iust when wee confesse our selues Sinners and our righteousnesse consisteth not in our owne merite but in Gods mercy Thus writeth this holy and learned Father shewing most euidently to all that haue eyes to see it that we may both be breakers and Keepers of Gods Commaundementes at once both Sinners and Righteous at one and the same time though not in one the same respect Sinners in respect of our selues and our corrupt Nature Righteous in the sight and iudgment of God who of his great mercy pardoneth all penitent Sinners and for Christs merits doth not impute their sins vnto them S. R. I omit Moyses Aaron Samuell Dauid Iosue Zacharie Elizabeth and the Apostles who are said to haue kept Gods Law and some of them in all their hart only Saint Paule I cannot omit because Bell graunteth that he was most free and innocent from Actuall sin therefore surely he kept Gods Law perfectly T. B. I answere First 〈◊〉 all these holy men were in their life time sinners and Transgressors of Gods holy Lawes which I could easily prooue by many Texes of holy Writ if I deemed it needfull so to doe this onely shall suffice
So as it may truely be said that some sinnes are Mortall some Veniall though not in Popish sence and meaning For though sinnes be mortall in their owne Nature and not at all Veniall yet are all sinnes Veniall to the Faithfull by the great mercy of GOD who imputeth no sinnes to his elect Children wheÌ„ he beholdeth their Robes washed made white in the bloud of the immaculate Lamb. These I say must bee well marked and firmely imprinted in our remembrance viz Nonâ—n imputat his qui fideliter ei dicunt dimitte nobis debita nostra For hee doth not impute their sinnes to them who faithfully desire pardon for their sinnes Sinnes therefore are Veniall but to whom Not to Atheists denying God not to Pharisees boasting of their Condigne workes not to Infidels denying Christes merits not to impenitent persons who eyther dispaire or take delight in sinne but to the faithful who euer haue a feruent desire to do Gods holy will and to keepe his Commaundements And though of ignorance or frailty they often fall into sinne yet do they foorthwith bewayle their sinnes humbly craue pardon for the same and apply themselues wholly to woorthy fruites of repentance Fourthly that when we either want charity or haue it not in that degree and perfection which the Law requireth we forthwith commit sinne and become guilty in that behalfe Fiftly that we sinne euen in doing that which we can no way auoyd Hereof Saint Austen yeeldeth this reason viz that if we can auoid it then our present will is culpable in default if we cannot auoyd it theÌ„ will past was the cause thereof For as the same holy father saith elsewhere is to be seen in the Downefall euery such sin of ours is voluntary eytheir in the worke it selfe or else in the Originall that is to say in the Protoplast Adam whose will in Gods iust iudgement is reputed ours because we were in his loynes as in the beginning and root of all mankind To which I adde that though the Deuill cannot auoyde sinne yet cannot our Papists deny but he both sinneth heynously and voluntarily yea the Phylopher telleth vs That the drunken man deserueth double punnishment For we must euer haue in minde that our necessity of sinning is punishment iustly inflicted vpon vs as proceeding from our voluntary sinne in Adam I likewise adde for a complement and consummation of the doctrin which I now deliuer and defend that Celestine against whose errours Saint Austen wrote this Booke Deperfectionciustitiae defended Mordicus as a resolued vndoubted doctrine That vvhatsoeuer Man could not auoyde but doe of necessity could not truely bee called sinne nor for sinne be iustly imputed to him To whom Saint Austen answered that albeit wee cannot in this corruption of Nature liue wholy without sin but so farre onely as our nature is healed yet might we haue auoided sin perfectly and wholly before Adams fall which is enough to make vs truly and formally sinners in Gods sight Let his wordes bee well marked and remembred and this controuersie wil soone be at an end For it is all one as if S. Austen had sayde Though we cannot now liue without sinne but sinne of necessity yet are our sinnes iustly and truely imputed to vs because we sinned voluntarily in Adam and by that means most iustly brought this necessity vpon vs. This Doctrine the Papistes Volentes Nolentes must admit or else accuse God of Iniustice for condemning Infants eternally for that sinne which they cannot possibly auoyde For infants dying without Baptisme they affirme to perish euerlastingly S. R. As for Bels dilernma it is easily aunswered and might haue been better left out as himselfe writeth in the margent For though Infantes after they haue sinned and eaten the Apple in Adam cannot avoyde the guilt of Originall sinne but must needs contract it by origine from Adam Yet becautse as Infants sinned in Adam so they might haue not sinned in him but haue auoided the guilt of sinne falsely dooth Bell say they could not possibly auoyde it And I wonder why Bell hauing taught beefore that Concupiscence the effect of Originall Sinne is voluntary hee will now say that Infants could not possibly auoyde Originall sinne But it is his custome to gainsay himselfe T. B. I answere First that in the Downefall of Popery these words are written indeed in the Margent Omittatur haec clausula meo indicio But I protest that neyther did I write them neyther did they please mee when I espyed them Many like faultes are in many of my Books which I cannot deale withall If I had Money at my will as our Iesuite hath to defray my charges while my Bookes were at the Presse I could then so handle the matter as such faults should not offend his worship How this Marginall note crept into the place I may coniecture and bee deceiued This I am assured of that our Iesuites can do greater matters This euery child may know that I wrote it not but our lesuite will needes haue it so For if I would haue had it left out it was in my power to haue effected the same this supposed which I deny that it was mine owne act Secondly that our Iesuit killeth himselfe with his own sword For I contend against him that all sinnes are voluntary in Adam and the Law possible to haue bin kept in him which the Iesuite vnawares doth heere confesse against himselfe This is the maine point in Controuersie viz whether that which we cannot auoyd may bee sinne in vs or no. I hold the Affirmatiue out Iesuite the Negatiue I reply that infantes are guilty of that sinne which they could not avoyde and consequently that that may be sinne in vs which wee cannot avoyde But withall I constantly affirme that infants sinned voluntarily in Adam because they were in his loynes as also that we might haue kept the commaundements in innocent Adam though after corrupt Adam we cannot possibly performe the same This notwithstanding I deny that infantes could any way haue avoyded Originall sin For I cannot conceiue how a childe can avoyd that sin which was committed before he was borne For though it was once in Adams power to haue auoyded all sinne and so to haue freed all his posterity from all sinne yet was it neuer in any Infants power to haue caused Adam to keep Gods holy precept which seeing no Infant was able to performe neyther could any Infant possibly haue auoyded sin Our Iesuite therefore must learne to know that it is one thing to say that it was in Adams power not to haue transgressed Gods Lawe another thing to say that it was in our power before wee were borne to haue kept Adam from that transgression Which seeing it was neuer in our power neyther were wee euer able to haue auoyded the same and consequently neither to haue auoyded sinne Thirdly where our Iesuite saith it is
of reply such answers and authorities as he thinketh make for his purpose S. R. Nothing done against our will is sin but diuer actes of concupiscence be such Ergo no sinne T. B. Sinne as the holy Apostle defineth it is Anomia that is to say iniquity or transgression of Gods law Here we see what sinne is Let vs proceed The eternall law saith Saint Austen is the reason or will of God commaunding the naturall order to be kept and forbidding the same to bee perturbed Thus doth S. Austen describe Gods law So then whatsoeuer is against Gods Lawe is sinne and whatsoeuer is against Gods will is against the law Ergo whatsoeuer is against Gods will is sinne Let this foundaon thus laid bee remembred for by it all Obiections will soone be answered I therefore deny the proposition of the Iesuites Argument when he saith nothing doone against our will is sinne and they are enforced to confesse the same against their willes in Children not regenerate For as the Popes law teacheth vs Children dying without Baptisme are damned and therfore they are not buried in any Church-yard with the Papistes Now must they tell me eyther what sinne they did with theyr will or else confesse with mee that some thing doone against mans will is sinne And the reason is yeelded already which I wish the Reader euer to remember viz that whatsoeuer is against the will or law of God is sin whether it be voluntary or not voluntary For Saint Iohn placed not voluntary in the definition of sinne S. R. In regeneration either we remaine guilty of damnable sinne or become guiltlesse of all such sin If we remaine guilty then is not our sin forgiuen For it is impossible to be guilty of sin and to haue sin forgiuen T. B. I distinguish the proposition The regenerate are guilty by nature and in respect of sin which still remaineth for which they might iustly be damned and yet guiltles by way of acceptation in Christ Iesus for whose sake and merits God doth not impute sinne vnto them And this is Saint Austens mind when hee saith The concupisence of the flesh is forgiuen in Baptisme not so that is remaine not but so as it is not imputed for sinne In which wordes Saint Austen sheweth plainly That concupiscence remaineth though not imputed for sinne It followeth in S. Austen Non ergo aliquid remanet quod non remittatur Not any thing therefore remaineth which is not forgiuen Where the Reader must well obserue that he saith not nothing is sin that remaineth or thus no sinne remaineth but thus Not any thing remaineth which is not remitted or forgiuen As he had said Sinne indeede remaineth still in the baptized but shall not be imputed to the faithfull S. R. A iustified or regenerate man cannot be guilty of damnation because there is no damnation to them who are in Christ Iesus T. B. It is one thing good Iesuite not to be damned or not to receiue damnation another thing to bee guilty of damnation for Gods elect Children may bee guilty of damnation that is deserue damnation as Dauid Peter and Paule did but there is no damnation to such because they shall neuer be damned S. R. Bell confesseth that a man cannot be iustly condemned for sinne remitted T. B. I grant it What then Albeit originall sinne truely remaine in the elect yet because it is forgiuen and not imputed to them they shall neuer bee condemned for it for otherwise God should be vniust and vnfaithful in his promise S. R. If involuntary acts done against our will bee true sins much more the acts of fooles and mad men yea of beasts which are not done against will but onely without will and they true Malefactors and Sinners before COD and men which I thinke none but a mad man will grant T. B. There is great disparitie by your leaue good Mayster Fryer in these subiects which you name For Gods commaundements were neuer giuen to the brute beasts neyther were they euer made capable of doing the same But all men were once enabled to haue kept Gods ordinances euen in the protaplast Adam in whom wee all vvere originally And the Pope and his Iesuites must needes confesse so much or else condemne God of iniustice in punnishing eternally the vnregenerate Infantes for that sinne which they neuer consented vnto neither possibly could auoide And therefore grauely saith Saint Austen that euery sinne is voluntary eyther in the act or else in the Originall S. R. Saint Austen is so farre from thinking that we sinne by inuoluntary motions of the flesh that hee saith if wee consent not vnto them we need not say forgiue vs our trespasses T. B. Saint Austen saith not if wee consent not vnto them we need not say forgiue vs our sins but if we were thorowly renewed and were as Adam was in Paradise before his fall we should haue no debts to be forgiuen consequently haue no neede to say forgiue vs our sins But our case is otherwise because that perfect renouation cannot bee had in this life but onely in the World to come And for this cause doth the ancient councell Mileuitaâ— accurse him that saith he is so holy that he neede not say the Lordes prayer for himselfe but for others S. R. Saint Austen saith if concupiscentiall disobedience be without fault in the body of one sleeping how much â—ore in the body of one not consenting T. B. I aunswere that Saint Austen and other Fathers doe comparatiuely as it were extenuate and excuse innate concupiscence but not simply make it no sinne When they seeme to make it no sinne then they so speake eyther for that it is not imputed to the regenerate who manfully fight against it or else because it is an ingrafted prauity of Nature and not a voluntary transgression of Gods law Breefely the Fathers call it sinne yet not simply but comparatiuely in respect of actuall sinnes Saint Austen in the place which our Iesuite citeth disputeth against the fond opinion of some persons who to auoyde those sinnes to which they thought their original raging concupiscence would drawe them resolued to commit one sinne for all in murthering themselues and so be deliuered from many sinnes to which they feared their concupiscence would allure them Saint Austen therfore disswading from such heynous crimes encourageth such timorous consciences by way of extenuation telling them that concupiscence is without fault in those that striue against it do not consent vnto it Not for that it is no sin in it selfe but because it is not imputed to the godly For as we haue heard already and as I haue proued at large in the Downfall of Popery whatsoeuer deflecteth or swarueth from the will of God the same is most properly sin The reason is euident because not to bee correspondent and agreeable to Gods will is the very intrinsecall reason essence and nature of sinne Yet so
Iustice. Thirdly seeing Good Workes cannot so merite heauen as ill workes merite hell Fourthly seeing the best merits are nothing else but the meere giftes of GOD I must needes conclude that Workes are not condignely meritorious of eternal life S. R. Bell citeth Theophilact because he sayth Saint Paule called eternall life Grace and not a Reward as though he had sayd It is not the reward of our labors But this is nothing against vs who willingly confesse erernall life to be grace and not to proceede of our owne labours done by our selues but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ. T. B. Our Iesuite is so pinched and nipped by my Authorities and reasons that he had rather say any thing then acknowledge the truth that I defend Here as we see hee is become a Semi-pelagian Heretique for he affirmeth eternall life to bee wrought and doone of our selues yet not wholly of our selues but partly also of the holy Ghost And after such a silly manner he is enforced to answer all the rest viz euer against himselfe S. R. True it is that Augles as a follower of Scotus seemeth to thinke that the condignity of Good Workes riseth not of any equality which is in them vnto glory but of Gods promise to reward them T. B. It is well that ye wil once seeme to graunt a truth The truth is this that both Iosephus Angles and your Cardinall Bellarmine do freely grant being ouercome with the force of trueth that Good workes can merite nothing but by reason of GODS promise freely made vnto men I haue prooued the Controuersie so euidently that our Iesuite doth nothing else but weary both himselfe and his Reader in writing most friuolously against the same I referre the Reader to The Downfall it selfe where hee shall find euery Argument and peece of reason soundly answered before our Iesuite had published the same And therefore for mee to vse any further reply therein were but Actum agere For doubtlesse whosoeuer shall duly all partiality set aside peruse The Downfall as it came from my penne and lay downe this Iesuites aunswere to it in euery place and compare them together he will I am fully perswaded freely confesse that no further reply is necessary in that behalfe The sixt Article of the destinction of mortall and veniall sinnes S. R. ALl his proofes may be reduced to this Syllogisme What is against Gods Law is mortal sin all sin is against Gods law Ergo all sinne is mortall Beholde Bell here absolutely concludeth all sinne to be mortal and after calleth our veniall sinnes cursed and deformed which argueth that he thinketh all sin to be indeed mortal notwithstanding Gods mercy The propositioÌ„ he supposeth the assumption he prooueth out of scripture fathers and schoolemen T. B. This controuersie consisteth wholy in this viz whether euery sin be of it own nature moâ—al or no. I hold the Affirmatiue our Iesuite the Negatiue And for all that hee freely granteth vnawares as you see that I haue prooued mine opinion and doctrin both out of the holy scripture and also out of the fathers and schoole-Doctors S. R. Christ saith Bell telleth vs that we must giue account for euery ydle word and S. Iohn saith that euery sinne is Anomia that is Transgression of the law Saint Ambrose also defineth sin in generall to be transgression of Gods law and S. Austen describeth it to be euery word deed or desire against Gods law Yea Bellarmine arffimeth euery sin to be against Gods law The Rhemists also confesse that euery sin is a swaruing from the Law Likewise Iosephus Angles and Durandus teach venial sins to be against the law To this argument Catholicks answer differeÌ„tly some by denial of the proposition others by denial of the assumption Some say that euery sin which is against the Law is not mortall but onely that which is perfectly against it Others say that veniall sinnes are not against the Law but besides the Law T. B. Heere is an answere aunswerelesse For first our Fryer graunteth that I haue prooued by the Scripture by Saint Ambrose by S. Austen by Bellarmine their famous Cardinall by the Rhemists their learned bretheren by Iosephus Angles their religious Fryer and reuerend Byshop and by Durandus their famous Schoole-Doctor that euery sin more and lesse is against the Law of God and consequently mortall of it owne nature Secondly our Fryer freely confesseth that this argument of mine doth so trouble the Papists that they cannot agree among themselues how to answere the same Some sayth he deny the proposition some deny the assumption other some say they cannot tell what and our Iesuite himselfe standes amazed whether it is better to yeeld to the truth or to face it out desperately and impudently with Legierdemain iugling falshood and deceitfull dealing S. R. Yet better it is to say that veniall sinnes are beside the Law then against the Lawe T. B. Our Iesuite being in perplexity like as Buridanus his Asse what to answere to my argument resolueth to take the best way as he supposeth for he thinketh as felons Traytors standing at the barre in their arraigment that it is the best to plead not guilty But I must tell him two things The one that to be beside the Law and against the Law is al one in effect For as our master Christ saith Hee that is not with him is against him and consequently if he do besides Christs commaundement hee doth against the same The other that Durandus and many Popish Schoole-Doctors confesse resolutely that euery sinne is against Gods law And Iosephus Angles affirmeth constantly that Dwrands opinion is now adaies the Doctrine of theyr Schooles Where I wish the Reader to note by the way the mutability of late start vp Romish Religion Read the Downefall where this point is set downe at large S. R. Therefore if Bell graunt indeede as he doth in words that by Gods mercy some sins are made veniall he must also confesse that by Gods mercy they are not against his charity and friendship T. B. I graunt that as all sinnes is mortall of their owne nature which I haue prooued copiously in The Downefall euen by the testimony of very famous Papists so are all sins veniall by Gods mercy for the merits of his sonne Iesus to the regenerate his elect children and consequently though all sins bee against Gods friendship who hateth and detesteth all sinne in their owne nature yet are all the sins of Gods elect reputed not onely as veniall but none at all in Christ Iesus they receiued into Gods fauour for Christs sake S. R. Bell prooueth out of Saint Ambrose that sin is defined the transgression of the law And out of S. Austen that it is diuine reason or the will of God commaunding the order of nature to be kept and forbidding it to bee broken But these Fathers define onely mortall sin T. B. Mark
for Christs sake and behold our Iesuite at a great Non plus I haue prooued both by the Scripture out of Saint Iohn and by the testimony of the holy Fathers and famous Popish Writers that the very Essence Nature and formality of sin is the transgression of Gods Lawe That Gods law is nothing else but his eternall reason or will decreeing what ought to be done or not to be done and consequently that euery sin is mortall as beeing against Gods reason Will and Law Now our Fryer being indeede at his wits end knoweth not what aunswere to make but saith at Randon that the Fathers onely define mortall sin He neither hath Rime nor Reason thus to say but we must if ye will admit his bare word for he is an honest man I warrant you his word is as good as no Obligation The Fathers define sin generally they make no exception at all yet our Iesuite will needs haue them to define onely mortall What a thing is this Who euer hath heard the like The Question is whether euery sin be mortall or no. I affirme euery sin to bee mortall and I prooue it because the holy Scripture the Auncient Fathers and the Doctors doe define sin to bee so yet our Iesuite thinketh it enough barely to aunswere that they all speak of mortall sin not of veniall O sweet Iesus Our Iesuite is either too too foolish or els too too malicious His fond answer is tearmed in Schooles Petitio principij the begging of the Question He will needes haue the Fathers to except veniall sins and to acknowledge such sins although they take no notice of such sins neither once name such sins but contrariwise affirme all sinnes without exception to bee mortall These Fathers saith our fatherly Iesuite define mortall sin not veniall Euen so sorsooth for why should they define that which is not The Fathers were wise they knew that euery sin in it owne nature deserued death and therefore defined sin accordingly They knew that Saint Paule saith The reward of sinne is death They knew what God saith by his Prophet Ezechiell The Soule that sinneth shall dye the death They knew what God saith by his Prophet Dauid Thou art not a GOD that loueth wickednesse neither shall euill dwell with thee They knew what Christ will say at the day of dome Depart from me ye cursed into euerlasting fire But our Iesuite saith that veniall sinnes breake not friendshippe with God Well let him stand in iudgment against God for his venials I will say with the humble Prophet Enter not into iudgement with thy Seruant O Lord for no flesh can be iustified in thy sight S. R. I admit that by sin Saint Iohn vnderstood all kinde of Actuall sin and deny that Anomia Iniquity is taken for wickednesse and perfect transgression of the Lawe but generally as it is common to perfect transgression only swaruing from the Law T. B. I answere First that Anomia is the transgression of the Law according to the nature and proper signification of the word as their most famous Linguist Arias Montanus graunteth Secondly that iniquity is perfect sin and wickednesse as the Prophet telleth vs Discedite à me omnes qui operamini iniquitate Depart from me all ye that worke iniquity So the Latin Vulgata editio readeth which the papists must approoue perforce because the Pope hath so inioyned them Heere iniquity must needes bee taken for mortall sin for as our Iesuite saith Veniall sinnes do not breake friendship with God and I may presume to affirme of holy Dauid that hee commaunded not them to depart from him who were in fauour with God No no God loueth not those that worke iniquity Thirdly that Saint Iohn speaketh of mortall sinne by our Iesuites owne confession Fourthly that Saint Bede Lyranus and Carthusianus do all three with vniforme assent expound it of mortall sin Fiftly that our Iesuite vnawares graunteth no lesse These are his wordes For iniquity requireth onely want of equitie and conformitie to Gods Lawe Loe hee graunteth iniquity to want conformity to Gods Law and so say I vnawares he granteth iniquity to be against Gods law seeing it is here confessed of our Iesuite that it wants cōformity thereunto for that is to be against Gods Law S. R. Durand and Angles I confesse did thinke veniall sins to bee against the Lawe but neyther is this a matter of Fayth neyther do they intend to fauour Bell any thing T. B. Here our Iesuite graunteth me the victory confessing that his owne deare friendes Durand and Angles defend mine opinion But he addeth two things for his defence as hee thinketh yet I deny them and so I thinke will the indifferent Reader to be very ridiculous and altogether childish First he saith it is no matter of faith What then good Sir Is nothing to be regarded but matters of Fayth Is it a matter of faith that your Pope cannot erre That he is aboue a general Councel That he can depose kings Nay that either he or your selfe be an honest man And what is a matter of fayth Forsooth whatsoeuer the Pope will haue a matter of fayth Secondly he saith Durand and Angles intend not to fauour mee This is brother-folly to the former How farre to London a pokefull of Plumbes S. R. All formall sin is formall iniquity but not contrarywise As Adultery or murther committed by a foole or madde man is iniquity but no more sinne then it is in Beasts T. B. First Iniquity is wickednesse and consequently sin as is already prooued Secondly Iniquity is formally against equity as our Iesuite hath graunted Thirdly it is formally transgression of Gods Law as I haue many wayes confirmed Ergo it is formally sin Fourthly If Adultery or murther doone by a foole or mad man be iniquity it is also sin for all iniquity is sin as is already prooued Fiftly to say that Adultery done by a foole or madde man is no more sinne then it is in beastes seemeth to me a beastly affirmation Our Iesuite barely sayth it hee prooueth it not I know his supposed ground because forsooth it is not voluntary But I would haue him to tell mee how it is not as well sinne in Fooles and mad men as Adams fault is sinne in Infants against their will Because saith he they cannot auoyde it The same say I of Infantes I adde that Beastes neuer hadde it in their power to auoyde sinne and sinnefull actes but Fooles madde men and Infantes were all at once enabled to haue kept the Lawe when they were in Lumbis Adae which is enough for their iust condemnation And it is confirmed because they may as well bee freed from Originall sin as from murther and Adultery It is a common saying that if a drunken man kill a man when hee is drunke hee must bee hanged when hee is sober Yea the Ethnicke Philosopher can tell vs that a murtherer
for a meer vndoubted truth It followeth therefore by a necessary consecution that the quantity of Christs body to be in the Popish Masse is an article of popish faith S. R. Let vs see therefore how Bell disproueth it Forsooth because it implyeth contradiction for a greater body as Christs is to be contained in a lesser as in a Cake Behold the foundation of Bels faith We bring Christs expresse wordes that what he gaue to his Apostles at his last supper was his body giuen and his bloud shed for remission of sinnes T. B. Our Iesuite flyeth quite from my argument because it striketh him dead and laboureth to proue that Christes body is in the Sacrament But all in vaine For first that is not now in question Againe he is to answere me and not to wander about impertinent matters Thirdly I haue answered all that he obiecteth here as also all that can be obiected on their behalfe in my Suruey of Popery many yeares ago to which no Papist durst euer frame an answer vnto this day Fourthly I willingly grant the holy bread in the blessed Eucharist to be Christes body and the holy wine to be his bloud yet not really and substantially as the Papists hold but mystically and sacramentally according to the truth of Gods word And I retort the Iesuites reason out of Christes wordes against himselfe For if Christ had not meant that his body was then giuen sacramentally and not really he would haue said which shall be giuen not which is giuen in the Present tense I proue it because if Christs body had then beene giuen really and his bloud then shed really for the sinnes of the world no other Sacrifice attonement satisfaction or reconciliation had beene needfull on our behalfe which how absurd it is euery childe can discerne Christs meaning therfore is this This is my body sacramentally Or this is the sacrament of my body and bloud but not This is my naturall body and my reall bloud He that desireth the profe hereof at large I refer him to my Suruey of Popery S. R. But to come to Bels reason How proueth he it to bee contradiction for a greater bodie to bee contayned in a lesse T. B. Heere our Iesuite bestirreth himselfe to proue if it wold be that Christs body is not both contained and not contained in their Sacrament but all in vaine For his proofes if they were true as they be falfe would onely conclude this and nothing else viz. that God is able to do it S. R. For albeit it be contradiction for a greater body occupying a place proportionate to it greatnes to be conteyned in a lesse for so it should both be contained and not contained in the lesse yet no contradiction at all it is for a greater body retayning it greatnes to be so coarcted by Gods omnipotency that it fill a place farre lesse then is naturally due or proportionate to it greatnes For in this case it followeth not that it should both be contained not contained in the lesser bodie as in the former case but contained onely And thus we say hath Christ disposed of his bodie in the Sacrament Wee proue it by manie waies T. B. I aunswere with all subiection and due reuerence vnto Gods omnipotent power that God cannot doe any thing which eyther implyeth contradiction in it selfe or imperfection in God Not because there is any defect in GOD himselfe God forbid wee should so thinke but because there is defect in the thing that should so be done By reason of the former God cannot make a dead man remayning dead to be liuing albeit he can raise a dead man to life againe So neyther can God make a blinde man remaining blinde to see nor a deafe man remaining deafe to heare nor a dumbe man remaining dumbe to speake albeit he can restore seeing to the blinde hearing to the deafe and speech to the dumbe By reason of the latter God can neyther make another God nor any creature equall to himselfe nor commit any sinne nor faile in his promise nor repent of any thing that he hath done Now to coarct a great body so retaining it greatnes still that it may be conteined in a lesse body implyeth flat contradiction not for the reason which our Iesuite bringeth but because it is against the intrinsecall reason and the very Essence of quantity which is to haue partē extra partem one part without another And consequently our Iesuits supposed coarctation implyeth flat contradiction For it is impossible to conceiue or vnderstand how a body eight cubits long and eight cubits broad remaining so long so broad hauing euery part without other to be contayned of another body being but seuen cubits long and seuen cubits broad It implyeth as flat contradiction as to make a deafe man remaining deafe to heare It is therefore impossible to all power both create and vncreate to make Christs body to be contained in a little round cake in the Popish Masse S. R. First because Christs body in his natiuity opened not his Virgin-mothers wombe Ergo then it occupyed not a roome naturally proportionate to the greatnesse The consequence is euident and the antecedent is proued by many fathers T. B. I deny both the consequence and the antecedent The consequence because if it were as the Iesuite supposeth which I deny yet should Christes body haue occupied a roome naturally proportionate to the greatnes thereof And our Iesuite denying it vnawares affirmeth all Children to be vnnaturally in their mothers wombes The antecedent because Christ opened his mothers wombe as other children do For first Christ was presented to the Lord according to the Law as the Holy-ghost dooth record yet the Lawe required such presentation onely of them which opened their mother wombe Secondly Christ was made like vnto his Brethren in all things sin onely excepted Thirdly the auncient Fathers Tertullian Origen Ambrose and Hierome are of the same opinion Their expresse words are set downe at large in my Suruey of Popery And it will not serue the turne to say as some do that though Christ was borne of a Virgin yet should she haue bene corrupted no Virgin if her wombe had beene opened in the byrth of Christ. For first not onely holy writ but the auncient Fathers also and other learned Deuines are to be heard before all Physitions in the misteries of our faith Secondly Fernetius maketh nothing for the Papistes as who speaketh only of the dilatation of the Matrice that after the naturall and ordinary course Thirdly albeit it be most true as all holy Writers with vniforme assent do contest that Christs holy Mother the blessed Virgin Mary was euer a pure Virgin before his birth in his birth and after his birth yet it is likewise true that her wombe was opened in his byrth as is already proued For as their owne Angellicall D. sayth whose Doctrine sundry Popes one after another haue confirmed Virginity is
it is that the Ataxia disorder and concupiscence in the regenerate is repugnant and disagreable to the will of God and consequently it must be sinne indeed And as for the opinion of Saint Austen I haue proued at large in the Downfall out of fiue seuerall places of his workes that it is both the punnishment of sinne the cause of sinne and sinne it selfe S. R. As blindnes of hart saith Bell out of Austen is sinne punnishment of sinne and cause of sinne so concupisence of the flesh is sinne punnishment and cause of sin But I aunswere that Saint Austen compareth concupisence with blindnesse of heart in the materiall disorder of sinne T. B. I answere that I know not whether I should pitty the ignorance of our Iesuite or exclaime against his mallice For first Saint Austen cannot bee expounded as Maister Fryer saith though Bellarmine his Brother hath lent him his solution For if Saint Austen had meant materially not formally he would neuer haue called it sin the thirde time after hee named it twice sinne matterially before viz when he called it the cause of sinne and the punnishment of sinne Yet after both these he addeth that it is sinne formally For else he had saide no new thing Secondly because our Iesuite confuteth himselfe vnawares when he writeth thus Saint Austen prooueth by the blindnesse of hart that it was not onely punishment and cause of sinne but also sinne that is naught cuill and disorderly because it is against the rule of reason which is to be sinne materially though it want the form of sinne which is voluntarines This is his answer Now I pray you Gentle Reader iudge indifferently between mee and this Fryer First hee graunteth that Originall concupisence is naught euill and disorderly Secondly that it is against the rule of reason and all that he can say for himselfe is this that it is indeede sinne materially but not formally Where if I may finde an indifferent Reader the victory is mine own GOD is my iudge I speake as I thinke For to be against the rule of reason is formally sinne Which Saint Austen as is already proued declareth euidently when he defineth the eternall law to be nothing else but the reason or will of God The reason is confirmed because Saint Austen compareth it with the blindnes of hart which as euery good Christian knoweth is sinne most formally For if master Fryer Parsons shall deny blindnesse of heart thorough which man beleeueth not in God to bee sinne formally he will be hissed out of all good schools howsoeuer our holy Father the Pope sitting in his chaire vppon men◠shoulders giue him ten hundred thousand yeares pardon for the same Nay I will yet say more to our holy Fryer maister Robert Parsons the Author of this fond presensed answere to the Downfall of Popery viz that in the last precept of the Decalogue or Ten commaundementes Thou shalt not lust is prohibited not onely actuall and voluntary concupiscence but the very Originall and Fountaine of all concupiscences with all her involuntary branches I prooue it first because that concupiscence actuall wherewith wee couet that that is another mans and not our own is forbidden by all the sixt seuenth and eight precepts of the second Table This doeth our maister Christ teach vs when hee saith That whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with hi◠in his hart The same doctrine teacheth S. Iohn when hee sheweth the hatred of our brother to be agaiust this precept Thou shall not kill Secondly because if no other thing were prohibited in this commandement but actuall concupiscence there shoulde bee but nine precepts in the Decalogue seeing the last shoulde bee no newe Commaundement but only a bare recitall or repetition of the nine former precepts Thirdly because S. Paul granteth himselfe to be carnally sold vnder sin by reason of original concupiscence and not actuall against which he fought stoutly and neuer gaue consent vnto it Fourthly because that which the Saints of God detest call sin by the iudgement of the holy ghost must needs be sin properly But so it is that S. Paul in the name of all the Saints of God detesteth this Original cōcupiscence calleth it sin and mourning tearmeth himselfe vnhappy for it and desireth to be deliuered from it Ergo it must needs be sin properly Fiftly to say that it is called sin figuratiuely and vnproperly is against that generall rule which all Diuines haue deliuered when the scriptures must bee vnderstood properly and when figuratiuely viz that then they are taken figuratiuely whē the sence which the words in their proper signification yeeld do not agree with other scriptures and the Analogy of faith but are repugnant vnto the same Now no scripture can bee produced which denyeth that Originall concupisence with the involuntary motions thereof is properly sin Nay the Apostle aboue twelue times in one Chapter plainely and simply calleth it sin neither will it helpe to say that the scripture freeth Gods children from sinne For as saint Austen sayth they are not deliuered from sinne so that it is not in them but that it is not imputed to them And the Prophet teacheth the same doctrine when he pronounceth The man blessed not who hath no sin but to whom the Lorde imputeth no sinne And the Papists must either recall their doctrine in this point or else cry fire and faggot for their chiefe maister Petrus Lombardus sur-named the Maister of sentences whose Booke to this day is publikely Read in the schoole of Diuinity for thus doth he write Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus c. But touching our soules wee are redeemed in part not wholly from the sinne not from the paine neyther wholly from the sinne or fault For we are not so redeemed from it that it be not in vs but that it rule not ouer vs. Lo Maister Lombard that famous Writer graunteth first that we are redeemed in part but not in the whole Secondly that wee are not wholly redeemed from sinne Thirdly he telleth vs how we are redeemed from sin viz that albeit sin shall remain in vs yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs that it can enforce vs to consent therevnto Lo the greatest and best learned Papists teach the same doctrine that I do Sixtly Saint Austen affirmeth plainely that Originall Concupiscence is prohibited by this Precept Thou shalt not Lust and not onely the habituall concupiscence it selfe but also all the actuall involuntary motions thereof Thus doeth hee write as the Iesuire Bellarmine alleadgeth him These thinges saith Bellarmine are spoken after Saint Austens mind who by this precept Thou shalt not Lust vnderstandeth all the motions of concupiscence euen the involuntary to bee prohibited in some sort and that the consent to these motions forbidden by that other precept follow not thy concupiscence Thus writeth our Iesuiticall
etiam involuntarios These thinges are spoken after the minde of Saint Austen who vnderstandeth all the motions euen those which bee involuntary to bee forbidden in some sort by this Commaundement Thou shalt not Lust. VVhere wee see that not onely Bellarmine theyr Cardinall but Saint Austen that woorthy Piller of the Church affirmeth both Originall concupiscence and the involuntary Motions thereof to be forbidden in this precept Where I may not forget to tell the Reader that though Bellarmine to make his matter good if it would addeth to Saint Austens wordes In some sort yet dooth Saint Austen write very simply and sayth flatly that they are prohibited and addeth not Quodam modo In some sort That is Bellarmines addition it is not in Saint Austen Secondly that habituall Originall Lust is not idle but woorketh ill desires in vs continually agaynst our vvill So sayth S. Austen in these words Agit n. Aliquid concupiscentia carnis c. For concupiscence of the flesh worketh somthing euen when there is not giuen vnto it either the consent of the heart where it may raigne or the members as VVeapons which may accomplish what it appointeth And what doth it but the very wicked and filthy desires For if they were good and lawfull the Apostle would not forbid to obey them Marke these wordes gentle Reader for they are of great consequence and giue a deadly blowe to the Papistes Two thinges are cleered by this Testimony of Saint Austen the one that Concupiscence to which consent is not giuen bringeth foorth ill desires the other that the sayde desires are vnlawfull and prohibited by the Law of GOD. And so wee haue euidently prooued that habituall Concupiscence to which the regenerate yeelde no consent but stoutly resist the same is so farre from beeing meritorious as the Papists would haue it that it is sinne formally and properly so called And wee haue further that habituall concupiscence worketh ill desires in vs against our will and therefore that those desires are truely called originall because vvee doe them not but rather suffer them to bee doone in vs. Thirdly that though the Law in saying Thou shalt not lust seemeth by the force of the word which signifyeth action to prohibite onely the voluntary act of concupiscence yet dooth it forbidde the very Originall Concupiscence it selfe withall the braunches effects and involuntary motions thereof as is already prooued at large Yea Saint Austen doth vnderstand it as Bellarmine himselfe doth grant Heere for the help of the Reader I note that a threefold Concupiscence is forbidden by the tenth Commandement The first is meerely called Originall This is that vvhich vve all contracted of Adam and which is the Fountaine of all concupiscences and sins and therefore truely called of the Apostle sin The second is partly Originall and partly Actuall Originall because it yssueth naturally from the Originall prauity of our nature Actuall for that we couet in act albeit against our wil and because it is against our wil it is more properly truly called Originall then actuall The third is meerely actuall because it is voluntary S. R. I must note Bels important vntruths First that Pope Vrban and Pope Innocent confirmed Saint Thomas his doctrine for authenticall Secondly that Pope Vrban gaue it the first place after cannonicall scripture T. B. This Fryer seemeth to bee framed of lying and as hee hath vsually spent his whole dispute so in the end of the article he closeth it vp with leasing Whosoeuer shal pervse The Downfall of Popery wil soon espy how this Fryer loadeth my back with slaunderous speeches and false reports I will heere in regard of breuity onely set downe the Testimony of a famous Papist Augustinus Hunnaeus by name in that Epistle which he sent to Pope Pius the fift These are his words Vrbanus c. Vrbanus that worthy Prelate of the Apostolique sea admiring the excellent doctrine of this man he speaketh of Aquinas beholding it as fallen from heauen to driue away the naturall mist of ignorance from mens minds doth grauely exhort to the study thereof and commaundeth the vniuersity of Tholouse to follow it as the cheefe in all their disputations and aunsweres concerning faith and manners Innocentius the fift of that name esteemed the same mans Doctrine so greatly that hee doubted not to giue it the first place after the Cannonicall scripture Thus writeth Hunnaeus By whose words it may appeare in what reuerence the Doctrine of Aquinas is with the Papists as also that our Iesuite cannot answere me but by lying And thus I will end this article with these words of our Iesuite Habituall cōcupiscence includeth not only pronesse to euill but also difficulty to do good and want of habibituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill Thus writeth our Iesuite who after he hath long wearied himselfe in struggling against the truth doth at the length vnawares confesse the same For doubtlesse when he graunteth that habituall Concupiscence in the regenerate includeth want of habituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill he graunteth in substance in the truth of the matter as much as I desire He denyeth in wordes that Originall concupiscence is formally sinne but in effect and substance hee graunteth the very same Whosoeuer shal seriously ponder both my discourse heere and in the Downefall especially concerning the Nature definition and essence of sinne he will perceiue with all facility that the Iesuite woulde say as I write if hee were not affrayde to displease the Pope The fift Article of the merite of Good workes S. R. BEls first position containeth two partes the first is that good workes neither do nor can goe before Iustification Behold Bell euen where he would proue himselfe a friend to good workes sheweth himselfe to be an enemy and excluding them from any going before or any way concurring to iustification to which they so concurred in Saint Mary Magdalen as our Sauiour saide Many sinnes are forginen her because shee loued much making her loue a kind of cause viz disponent of her Iustification T. B. Our Iesuite wold gladly perswade his reader that I am an enemy to good workes The best mean he hath to defend himselfe and Popery withall is cogging lying and false dealing I must needs be an enimy to Good workes because I will not admit euill workes for good I say with S. Austen Sequuntur iustificatum non precedent iustificandum Good Workes follow him that is iustified but they go not before him that is to be iustified Behold here gentle Reader that S. Austen is the same enemy to Good workes that I am He affirmeth them to follow iustification and so doe I. Hee denyeth them to goe before iustification and so doe I. What a thing is this Our Iesuite dareth not call Saint Austen an enemy to Good Workes and yet doth he call mee so
in his drunkennesse is worthy of double punishment First for his drunkennesse then for the sinne that followeth vppon the same For though the sinne consequent be not voluntary in the act and deed done yet is it voluntary in the cause S. R. Bell noteth the Romish Religion of mutability confessing that the olde Romaine Religion was Catholique sound pure with which he will not contend But seeing you haue granted the old Roman Religion to be pure and Catholique and slander the late I bring an action of slaunder against you and charge you to bring good witnesse when wherein and by whom the late Romaine Religion corrupted the purity of the old T. B. This is the point indeede that seduceth the silly ignorant sort throughout the ChristiaÌ„ world For the Pope his flattering Parasites beare them in hand that the late start vp Romish doctrin is the old Roman religion which S. Peter and Saint Paule preached to the Romanies in their life time But my life and saluation I gage for the triall it is not so No no It is a New Religion crept by little and little into the Church of Rome To which doctrine if the vulgar people would once hearken all partiality and sinister affection set apart they would vndoubtedly vtterly forsake the Pope and detest from their hearts all Popish faction Here our Fryer Iesuite threatneth me to bring an action of the case against mee for that as hee saith I slander their Religion He would haue me to tell him and his Pope when wherein and by whom the late Romish Religion corrupted the purity of the old I answer first that I desire to know our Iesuites name because we may perhaps agree without suite in Law Secondly that I haue in a printed Booke published many yeares ago to the view and iudgment of all the Christian world shewed in plaine and expresse tearmes at what times in what points by what persons the old Roman Religion taught by Saint Paule as holy Writ telleth vs and by Saint Peter as Histories Ecclesiasticall doe relate was successiuely corrupted errours embraced superstition nourirished ignorance countenanced and false Doctrine decreed for the truth This Booke is intituled the Suruey of Popery published about tenne yeares agoe in the yeare of our Lord God 1596. I haue challenged all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists ioyntly and seuerally to answere it and all my other Bookes They haue oftentimes in many of theyr slaundrous Libels made mention both of the Suruey and of my other Bookes and promised aunswers to the same but while the Grasse growes the Horse dyes This is the first answer that euer I receiued to this day Which how silly it is let others iudge For their late forerunner did but snatch here and there and aunswered directly nothing at all Our Iesuite heere insinuateth something which hee cannot well tell how to shuffle vp I also alleadged out of Iosephus Angles a famous Popish Schoole-Doctor and Byshop that the Popish Doctrine daily altereth in their Schooles S. Thomas sayth he and his followers hold That a Venâ—all sin is not so much against the Law as besides the Law But Durand and many others impugne this opinion and auouch Veniall sinnes to bee against the Commaundements And this opinion sayth hee seemeth now adaies to be more common in the schooles Here I wished the Reader to note by the way out of the word Modo Now adayes the mutability of the Romish Religion S. R. Angles insinuateth Schoole opinions to be mutable Bell applyeth it to the Romaine Religion as if it consisted of Schoole opinions which may be held Pro contra with vnity of Faith T. B. If Schoole opinions be mutable then Popish Religion is mutable of necessity For how dare the Schoole-Doctours teach publiquely contrary to the Popes minde VVas not your famous Doctour Michael at Louain threatned to frame his opinion to the Popes liking or else yee wâ—â—e what would haue followed Did not the Pope send Toledo the Iesuite to conferre with him and tell him what the Pope thought and therefore he must and so forth You know it was so Be not grieued I pray you to heare Beatus Rhenanus one of your deare friends speake a truth of your Schooles and Schoole-Doctouâ—s These are his wordes Thomas Aquinas Scotus c. Thomas Aquinas and Scotus men too much delighted with subtilties haue brought confession this day to such a pâ—sse that Ioannes Geilerius a Graue and reuerend Diuiâ—e and a Preacher a long time at Argentoraium sayd many a time to his friendes that it was impossible for a man to make his confessioÌ„ according to their Traditions Thus writeth Rhenanus Out of whose words I note First that the vain curious destinctions of the Schole-doctors haue brought much mischeefe into the Church of GOD. Which thing if a Papist had not spoken it would seeme incredible to the world Secondly that it is impossible for a Papist to make his confession acording to the Popish law and consequently that all Papists by Popish doctrine must perish euerlastingly Marke well my words Gentle Reader the Papists teach vs to hold for an article of our beleefe that we are bound to make our confessions as the Popish law prescribeth that is as Aquinas and Scotus haue set downe the same And for all that Gielerius a Papist himselfe a great diuine complained often to his frends that no man could possibly performe the same Now then since on the one side Popish confession must be made vnder pain of damnation and since on the other side none possibly can make the same as it is required it followeth of necessity by Popish Doctrine that all Papistes must be damned eternally O miserabie Popery coufounded by thy selfe O late start-vp Religion patched like a Beggers cloke Thine own Doctors O Popery such force hath the truth haue bewrayed thy treachery to the world Thirdly that many likewise among the Papists do externally obey the Popish Law who for all that in their hearts detest the late hatched Romish Religion This is euident by the secret complaint of the learned man Gielerius who tolde that to his trusty frends which he durst not tell the pope S. R. Their canonized Martyr Byshop Fisher sayth he and their Popish Byshop Gerson wrote that Veniall sinnes were such onely by the mercy of God Heere Bell for one truth vttereth two vntruths True it is that Byshop Fisher Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the church as it was since by Pius the v. Gregorius 13. Neyther did they account involuntary motions of Concupiscence for Veniall sinnes as Bell doth but such as Catholickes account Veniall But vntrue it is that eyther Byshop Fisher is cannonized or Gerson was a Byshop T. B. Heere our Iesuite graunteth freely that both the famous learned Byshop Fisher and that excellent Doctour Gerson of high esteem in the Counsell of Constance helde
for a constant position and sound Doctrine that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature our Doctrine therefore is the same which great learned Papists do defend And I must needs heere put the Reader in minde of the newnesse of late Romish religion viz that Venial Sinnes were neuer known to the Church vntil the late dayes of Pius the fift and Gregory the 13. that is to say about forty yeares ago O Popery thou art but a childe thou must neuer from this day be called the old Religion for heere our Iesuite confesseth thine Nonage and proclaimeth thee to bee the Nevv religion I must likewise insinuate to the Reader another point of great importaÌ„ce viz that the popes act is reputed the decree of the Church and that no part of Romish religion is a matter of faith vntill it please the Pope so to apoint it Now for Fisher and Gerson the one is a cannonized Popish Saint the other a Popish Byshop But these are not matters to stand vpon though they help our Iesuite to passe ouer the time and to dazle the eyes of the Reader S. R. He concludeth this Article with this goodly reason One stealeth iust so many Egges as are necessary to make a Mortall sinne another stealeth one lesse But there can be no reason why God may iustly condemne the one to hell and not the other Therefore they both sinne Mortally alike To this I aunswere by demaunding a reason why the Iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe peny and not him that stealeth one peny lesse If he answer because the law condemneth one and not the other I aske againe what reason was there that the Law was made against the one and noâ— against the other And if Bell can find a reason in this he wil find one in his owne Question The reason of both is because such a quantity is a notable iniury to our neighbour and consequently it is against charity and so breaketh the Law and a lesse quantity is not T. B. The destinction betweene Mortall and Veniall Sinnes lately inuented by the Pope doth so trouble our Iesuite after his consultation with his best learned friendes that hee can shape mee no aunswere touching a few Egges Gladly he would seeme to say something yet after hee hath wearied himselfe with strugling against the truth he is where he first began Not knowing how to answere he demaundeth two Questions and that done hee telleth me I must answere my selfe This notwithstanding after better aduisement and consideration had of the matter he pretends to shew a reason of both his owne questions But howsoeuer that be which is indeed a meere mockery he leaueth my argument vntouched Let vs suppose for explication sake that Egges worth thirteene pence halfe peny makes a Mortal sinne and that God may iustly condemne him that stole them as also a Mortall Iudge amoÌ„g Mortall men Let vs likewise suppose for example sake that neyther the Ciuill Iudge nor God himselfe can iustly condemne him that hath stollen but so many Egges as are woorth twelue pence halfe penny Nowe this is my Question Nay this is mine assertion that there can no good reason be yeelded why God may iustly condemne the one to Hell and not the other To answere as the Iesuite doeth after hee hath deepely pondered the matter that one is a notable iniury to our neighbor not so the other is too teo childish and friuolous For if thirteene pence halfe peny be a notable iniurie so is also twelue pence One penny doubtlesse cannot make Mortall and Veniall difference neyther is it to the purpose to say as our Iesuite doth viz. that the ciuil Iudge cannot condemne the theefe that stealeth one peny lesse The reason is euident because the ciuil Iudge is vnder the law and subiect to it but God Omnipotent is aboue his Law and may dispense with it at his good pleasure So did Christ aunswere the Pharisees on the behalfe of his disciple The sabboath sayth Christ was made for man and not man for the sabboth Therefore is the sonne of Man Lorde of the sabboth also The Iesuites reason thus reiected as friuolous and nothing to the purpose let vs examine the matter to the bottome for it is a point of great consequence First then this is an vndoubted truth that the supreme ciuill Magistrate may as lawfully appoint death for stealing of twelue pence as for 13. pence halfe peny for the penalty of death is wholly arbitrary to the iudge He must frame his laws as serue best for the peaceable gouernment of his people Whereupon it commeth that in diuers countryes diuers punishments are designed for the same faults and all agreeable to Gods law This is likewise an vndoubted truth in Popery viz that some Sinnes are Veniall of their owne nature other some mortall Against this false ground of Popery doe I now contend We haue seene already that a theefe may as wel be condemned to dye for twelue pence as for more euen so then God à fortiori may as iustly condemne one for a Popish Veniall sinne as for a Mortall for euery sinne deserueth death of it owne nature bee it more be it lesse Yea if any sinne should of it owne nature be Veniall theÌ„ should Originall sinne in an infant be Veniall most of all because the Infant neyther can auoyd it neyther hath any will to do it I therefore conclude that it is against all sence and reason to say that God may iustly condeme a man for stealing so many Egges as in Popery make a Mortall Siâ—nâ— let them name what number they will and that he cannot likewise condemne him that stealeth but one Egge lesse And it is absurd to say or thinke that the least sinne that can be named doth not breake off amity and friendship with God if wee respect the sin in it owne Nature I proue it because the least sinne that can be named doth auert and turne the doer from the face of God Ergo from the amity and fauour of God I proue the Antecedent for the consequence is good and cannot bee denyed No sinne whatsoeuer more or lesse can be referred vnto God who detesteth all sinne Ergo euery sinne bee it neuer so small turneth vs away from the fauour of God Truely therefore wrote Byshop Fisher and Maister Gerson that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature And so is that proued which I defend The seuenth Article of Vnwritten Traditions THe Iesuite vseth many impertinent digressions and needlesse Taâ—tologies in this Article I standing to bee breefe will onely aunswere to such allegations as shall seeme necessary for the contentation of the Reader referring him for the rest to the Downfal where he may find all necessary pointes virtually confuted though not in expresse termes S. R. All such points of Christian fayth as are necessary to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though hee
those that were to be healed in the absence of the Apostle that they might thereby know and perceiue that the gift of healing which God for his own glory had bestowed on him was not tyed to the presence of his body The like may be said Of touching Christs Garment and of the Clay which Christ vsed in restoring the blind man to his sight For the vertue was not in the garments but in Christ himselfe Christ said not Vertue is gone out of my Garments but as Saint Luke addeth I perceiue that vertue is gone out of mee And all men know that Clay was rather an hinderance then a furtherance to effect that was wrought in the blind man For if we respect the nature and operation of Clay wee shall finde it more apt to destroy sight where it is then to restore sight where it is not But it pleased Christ this way to try the faith and obedience of the blind man For there can bee no better tryall of true faith then when a godly mind being content with the simple word of God doth promise that vnto it selfe which otherwise seemeth incredible Much more might be saide but the Reader if he shall ioyne this with the Downefall shall find sufficient matter for the full confutation of the Fryer And now I proceed in Gods holy name to bicker and grapple with the Iesuite concerning the last Article beeing the eyght in number The eyght and last Article of the impossibility of keeping Gods Commandements in Popish sence S. R. WE daily acknowledge our sins as Bell confesseth but so as wee be free from deadly sinne which destroyeth charity the end of the Law and keepe the Commandements in all great though not in small matters As who stealeth but trifles keepeth the Princes Laws though not perfectly but if he steale great matters he is said no more to keepe but to breake them T. B. I answere First that I haue prooued sufficiently euery sin of it owne nature to bee mortall and flatly against Gods Commaundements Secondly that whosoeuer stealeth but those thinges which with our Iesuite are trifles transgresseth both Gods Lawes and the Lawes of his Prince Gods Laws because God absolutely without exception forbiddeth to steale The Princes Laws because he that stealeth but our Iesuites trifles must be stocked and whipped for his paines that is inflicted by due execution of the Princes Lawes But our Iesuites are so acquainted with notorious Treasons that stealing with them is but a trifle yet not only their Angelicall Doctor Aquinas but S. Austen also writing to Consentius affirmeth most christianly that an officious lye which is the least lye that can bee committed and one of our Fryers trifles may not bee made to saue the whole world And our Maister Christ telleth vs in his holy Gospell That wee shall giue account of euerie ydle word Well howsoeuer our Fryer flatter himselfe in stealing strifles or in trifling stealing yet whosoeuer vnlesse perhaps a Iesuite breaketh the Popes Law by eating an Egge in Lent committeth a deadly sinne Yea that man or that woman that shall tell a hundred lyes in one day shall not be so hardly censured with the Papistes as one godly Christian eating an Egge in Lent with thanksgiuing to God for the same Note that our Iesuite here emboldeneth to steale trifles affirming it not to be against the Princes law S. R. First therefore I proue it because a young man tolde Christ Hee had kept all the Commaundementes from his youth Bell aunswereth that S. Hierom saith he lyed and S. Austen thinketh hee spake more proudly then truely Neuerthelesse more probable it is that he spake truely because not onely our Sauiour did not rebuke him as likely he would haue done if he had told him a lye but as S. Marke testifieth beheld him and loued him T. B. I answere first that our Iesuite is so troubled with the Downefall of Popery that he begins to proue when of right he should answere but in truth can performe neyther of them both Secondly that where I haue proued in the Downfall by the Testimony both of Saint Austen and S. Hierom that that the young man lyed when he said hee had kept the Commaundements our Iesuite returneth this answere that it is probable hee spake truely Because forsooth S. Marke saith Christ behelde him and loued him But this answere is not to the purpose to say nothing of our Iesuits pride who so roundly reiecteth both S. Austens and S. Hieroms opinion because S. Mark speaketh only of externall shew of loue and not of true loue indeede The like Phrase we haue in S. Mathew where Herod is saide to be sorry when he was glad indeede And therefore doth S. Hierom censure him in these words In face tristitiā in corde habebat laetitiam In his face sorrow but gladnes in his hart Our Sauiour Christ as hee prospered the Midwiues and made them houses not for their lying but because they feared him euen so did he looke chearefully vpon the young man and in louing manner set before his eyes what a vaine conceit he had of himselfe not for the lye which he boldly auouched but because he had a desire to go to heauen Our Iesuite addeth that S. Chrisostom saith the young man was no dissembler and that S. Hierom saith Christ loued him because he said he had done all But our Iesuite is addicted to lying and falsly surchargeth the holy Fathers Their assertions are truly cited in the Downfall of Popery S. R. Secondly S. Paule saith not the fearers of the Lawe 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 T. B. This obiection I both propounded and answered in the Downefall so as our Iesuite may well struggle against it but neuer truely confute it He maketh a gallant shew of many verses cited out of the 119. Psalme that the commandements may be kept and were actually kept of the Prophet Dauid I haue not saith the Prophet declined from thy Law I haue kept thy law I haue not declined from thy iudgements I haue not erred from thy Commandements I haue not declined from thy testimonies But to al these the like I answer with all facility that the selfe-same Prophet Dauid confesseth freely that neither himselfe nor any mortall man is able perfectly to keepe Gods law When the Prophet Nathan told him of his Adultery and murder he humbly confessed the same and presently receiued remission at Gods hands Againe in many Psalmes hee confesseth his owne sins and withall constantly affirmeth that none liuing can be iustified by his best workes Haue mercy on me O God wash me from my sinnes and clense me from mine iniquity I know my sinne and mine iniquity is euer before me I was borne in sinne in sinne hath my Mother conceiued mee Againe in
is done is forgiuen But this is easily refuted for Saint Iohn spake in respect of vs assisted by Gods Grace when he saide This is the Law of God that we keepe his Commaundements and his Commaundementes are not heauy He saith not Christ but We must keep Gods Commaundements T. B. I answere First that whosoeuer readeth and marketh the Downefall will soone perceiue that our Iesuite is at a Non plus for there were these his silly Obiections solued and refuted before they came to light Secondly that our Iesuite belyeth me after his wonted manner when he saith that I affirme the wordes to be meant in respect of Christ and not of our selues For after I had proued by many arguments drawn out of holy Writ that the yoke of Christ is sweet to the faithfull I added these words This being so we may truely say that in Christ we fulfill the Law Because he is our righteousnes our sanctification and our Redemption because hee hath ouercome death because he hath clothed vs with his righteousnes because he hath couered our nakednes with his garments because in him we haue gotten the victory ouer hell death and damnation Thus I answered in the Downfall Now I referre my selfe to the censure of the indifferent Reader how sufficiently I haue refuted the Iesuite and how vniustly he hath slandered me For it is one thing to say we fulfill the Commaundements in Christ another thing to say the wordes are spoken in respect of Christ not in respect of our selues The latter are his the former are mine viz that in Christ we fulfill the law and I learned them of Christs holy Apostle and chosen vessell S. Paule Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat I can do all thinges saith he in Christ that strengthneth me Againe in another place the same Apostle telleth vs That as by the disobedience of Adam many becam sinners so by the obedience of Christ many shall be made righteous Againe in another place thus That I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes which is of the Law but that which is through the saith of Christ the righteousnes which is of God throgh faith Again in another place thus They being ignorant of Gods righteousnes and seeking to establish their owne were not subiect to the righteousnesse of God Againe thus Hee made him sinne for vs which knewe no sinne that we might be the righteousnes of God in him Herevpon S. Austen that worthy pillar of Christs church giueth this glosse and true meaning of these words of Saint Paule Christum pro nobis peccatum fecit Deus cuireconciliandi sumus hoe est sacrificium pro peccatis per quod reconciliari valeremus Ipse ergo peccatum vt nos iustitia nec nostra sed dei nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non sâ—um sed nostram nec in se sed in nobis constititutum similitudine carnis peccati in qua crucifixus est demonstrauit God made Christ sinne for vs to whom we are to be reconciled that is a sacrifice for sinnes by which we might be reconciled He therefore was made sinne that we might be made Iustice not our Iustice but Gods Iustice neither in vs but in him as hee declared sinne not to bee his but ours not placed in him but in vs by the similitude of sinfull flesh in which he was crucified Thus writeth this ancient holy and learned Father Out of whose graue Testimony together with the Texts of holy scripture produced already I obserue these memorable documentes for the comfort of the well affected Reader First that albeit wee are not able of our selues nor in our selues to fulfill the Law of God and to keepe his commandements yet are we able to keepe them and to fulfill the Law in our Lord Iesus Christ. Secondly that as we were made sinners by the disobedience of one euen Adam so are we made righteous by the obedience of one euen Christ Iesus Thirdly that our formall righteousnes is not inherent in our selues but in God for the obedience of Iesus Christ his onely sonne and our onely sauiour Fourthly that as the sinne for which Christ suffered was ours not his in vs not in him euen so that iustice by which we are made righteous is not ours but Gods not in vs but in him I therefore conclude that we fulfill the Lawe in Christ not in our selues And I adde with S. Austen to the euerlasting confusion of our Iesuite and al Iesuited Papists in the world that that Iustice by which and with which wee are formally iustified in Gods sight is not inherent in our selues but in God not ours but his not in vs but in him and yet ours by imputation as our sinnes by imputation were his So as all the faithfull may ioyfully say with the Prophet Dauid Blessed are they vvhose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne And with the Apostle Paul As many by the disobedience of Adam were made sinners so many by the obedience of Christ are made righteous And heere I wish the reader to marke well that to be iustified by imputation is to bee made iust truely and indeed though not by Iustice inherent in our selues but by the Iustice of Christ. For as our sinnes were truely and indeed imputed to him so is his Iustice truely and indeed imputed to vs. I also admonish the Reader to remember well these words of S. Austen Ipse ergo peccatum vt nos iustitia c. He was made sinne that we might be made iustice not our Iustice but Gods iustice neither in vs but in him To remember well I say these words beecause they are words of great consequence For they proue euidently that our formal iustice is not inhereÌ„t in our selues but in God which confoundeth the Papists and striketh them dead They conuince mans inherent Iustice to be imperfect and their supposed condigne merit of Workes to be plaine Hypocriticall S. R. S. Iohn giueth vs a signe to try if we know God viz if we keepe his commandements and verse 3. affirmeth That who keepeth not his Commaundements knoweth not God Wherefore eyther Bell keepeth the Commandements or he knoweth not God T. B. I answere first that Bell humbly acknowledgeth himselfe a great sinner and desireth pardon for his sins with the poore Publican Howsoeuer our Iesuite like the Pharisee glory in his condigne merites and Workes of Supererogation Secondly that as we know God vnperfectly so do we keep his commandements vnperfectly If our Iesuite say that hee knoweth God perfectly S. Paule condemneth him for an arrogant fellow If hee say hee keepeth Gods Commandements perfectly S. Iames reproueth him as a proud Pharisaicall Fryer S. R. As for S. Austen he said our defectuous keeping is counted a full
keeping when the defect is pardoned which is a farre different thing from saying that Christs keeping is counted our keeping And he meaneth that our keeping is defectuous because we keep not the commandements ad vnum apicem as he saith to the last iot or title but thorough Veniall sinnes haue neede to say Fogiue vs our Trespasses which Veniall Trespasses being pardoned we are accounted to do all Gods Commandements T. B. I answere first that it is a meer calumny to charge me with saying that Christs keeping is our keeping I onely said then and now say againe that wee fulfill the Law in Christ which is such a truth as you are neuer able to refute the same Secondly that I haue proued already that euery sinne is deadly of it owne nature and consequently that it is too great arrogancy in our Iesuite to expound S. Austen after his owne fancy hauing neyther authority nor reason so to do Thirdly that when our Iesuite confesseth that their Veniall sinnes are pardoned he vnawares confesseth that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements I prooue it because God either hath forbidden their Venials or is well pleased with them If he be well pleased with them then are they no sinnes at all for God is not well pleased with sinne If hee haue forbidden them then are they against his precept and consequently seeing the Papistes graunt that they cannot liue without their Venials they must also graunt of necessity that they cannot keep Gods holy Precepts And therefore it is time for all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists to say with S. Iames Wee all offend in many things And with the Prophet Dauid Enter not into Iudgement with thy seruants O Lord for none liuing shall be iustified in thy sight I therefore conclude with Saint Austen that all the Commandements are then reputed as done when whatsoeuer is not done Is of mercy forgiuen And with S. Hierome that the true wisedome of man is to know that he is vnperfect S. R. Saint Hierome confesseth that God hath giuen possible Commaundements least he should be Authour of Iniustice He saith likewise that he is to be detested as a blasphemer that saith God hath commaunded any impossible thing S. Austen also saith that God could not command any impossible thing because he is iust T. B. This Obiection is as a Bulwarke for Popish supposed Condigne Merite of vvorkes I therefore both proposed it in the Downefall and answered it in the same place My answere is there to bee seene at large to which I referre the Reader This is the summe and effect thereof viz that God commaunded nothing which was eyther impossible in it selfe to be done or to bee doone of man as man The same ie there prooued at large Touching S. Hierome I will adde a little because our Iesuite affirmeth him to be on his side The truth is this that S. Hierom in 3. whole books against the Pelagians hath no other scope purpose or intent saue onely to proue against them out of the holy Scriptures that none liuing doth keepe Gods Commaundements which hee prooueth no other vvay but because all haue sinned and done euill in Gods sight Three thinges therefore are cleere and certaine with S. Hierome First that all haue sinned and cannot bee iustified but by the mercy and fauour of God These are his wordes In multis offendimus omnes Non pauca peccata sed multa non quorundam sed omnium posuit Omnes n. quae sua sunt quaerunt non ea quae dei sunt We all offend in many things He put not a few sinnes but many not the sinnes of some but of all For all seeke the things that are their own and not the things that are Gods Again thus Neque n. homo potest esse sine peccato quod tua habet sententia sed potest si voluerit deus hominem seruare sine peccato immaculatum sua misericordia custodire Hoc ego dico quod deo cunctâ— possibilia sunt homint autem non quicquid voluerit possibile est maxime idesse quod nullam â—egeris habere creaturam For man cannot be without sinne as thou thinkest but God is able if it please him to preserue a man from sinne and to keep him immaculate by his mercy This I also grant that all thinges are possible to God but it is not possible for man to doe whatsoeuer hee would especially to bee that which thou hast not read any Creature to haue Againe thus Hec cuncta percurro vt oftendam à nullo legem esse completam per legem mandat a omnia quae continentur in lege Sequitur ergo non liberi arbitry potestate sed de clementia conseruamur I runne ouer all these thinges to shew that none hath fulled the Law and by the Law all the Commaundements contained in the Law Ergo we are preserued Or saued not by the power of free will but by the clemency Or mercy of God Secondly that all the elect people of God though they be sinfull in themselues by transgressing Gods law yet are they iust by the mercy of God in Christ Iesus The former pâ—rt Saint Hierome prooueth thus Non est homo iustus c. There is none iust vppon the earth none that doth good and sinneth not Againe There is no man that sinneth not Againe Who knoweth his sinnes cleanse mee from my secret faults Againe Enter not into iudgement wâ—th thy seruant for none liuing can bee iustified in thy sight These and many like places saith S. Hierom are euery where in the Scriptures by which it is manifest that none liuing can be without sinne The latter part the same holy Father prooueth thus Audi eundem euangelistam si confiteamur peccata nostra sidelis instus est vt dimittat nobis peccata nostra mundet nos ab omni iniquitate Tunc ergo iusti sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sedex dei consistit misericordia conclusit n. â—â—eusoâ—ma sub peccato vt omnibus misereatur Et haec hominis summa est iustiâ—a quicquid potuerit habere virtutis non suum putare esse sed Domini qui largitus est Heare the same Euangelist If wee confesse our sinnes he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs all our sins and to cleanse vs from all iniquity Then therefore are wee iust when wee confesse our selues and our Iustice doth not consist of our owne merite but of Gods mercy For GOD hath shut vp all vnder sinne that he may haue mercy on all Againe in another place thus Haec est hominis vera sapientia imperfectum esse se nosse atque vtit a loquar cunctorum in carne iustorum imperfecta perfectio est This is the true wisedome of man to know that hee is vnperfect and that the perfection of all the iust in the flesh is
imperfect Out of this discourse of this holy and learned Father I obserue these worthy documents First that all men euen the best liuers vpon earth haue committed not a few but many sins Secondly that wee neuer read of any man who neuer had done any sin Thirdly that it is not possible for any man to lead his life without sin Fourthly that no man can be saued by his free will holy life but by the mercy of God Fiftly that no man fulfilleth the Law nor keepeth the Commaundements contained therein This is a point of great consequence it would be remembred Sixtly that though all men bee Sinners in respect of themselues yet are the faithfull iust in respect of Gods mercy who imputeth not their sins vnto them Seuenthly that man is thē iustified when he acknowledgeth himselfe to be a Sinner and then perfect when he acknowledgeth his own imperfection This is a most excellent and golden Lesson For here we see how Sinners are iust and perfect in Gods sight Marke well gentle Reader None saith Saint Hierom can fulfill the law none can keepe the Commaundementes none can liue without sinne and yet the greater Sinner the more iust man if hee with the lowly Publican doe humbly confesse his sinnes For as Saint Hierome telleth vs to acknovvledge our imperfection is our perfection before GOD and to confesse our selues sinners is our iustification before him in Christ Iesus Away then with all Popish inherent iustification away with al Popish falsly supposed satisfaction away with all Popish Condigne merits away with all Popish supererogations S. R. Saint Iohn saith This is the loue of GOD that we keepe his Commaundements and his Commaundements are not heauy He saith not Christ but We must keep Gods Commandements and to animate vs thereto he addeth that they are not heauy Viz to vs. T. B. This is answered already where I prooued out of Saint Austen that all the Commaundements are then reputed done when whatsoeuer is not done is Of mercy forgiuen Neuerthelesse it shall not be amisse to adde Saint Hieroms censure to the latter member for explication sake These are his wordes Vis audire facilitatem preceptorum dei Ausculta quod dicitur quam arcta via Angusta est quae ducit ad vitam pauci sunt qui inveniunt eam Non dixit quigradiuntur per eam hoc n. difficillimum est sed qui inveniunt eam Pauci n. inveniunt multò pauciores ingrediuntur per eam Sequitur hac dico iterum iterumque ac per singulaingeram vt erubescas ad sententiam tuam facilia esse dei mandata Wilt thou heare how easie Gods Commandements are Hearken what is saide Strait and narrowe is the way which leadeth vnto life and few they are that finde it He said not which go by it for that is a very hard thing but which find it for few doe finde it and farre fewer enter in by it These things I say and will vrge them againe and againe seuerally that thou maist bee ashamed to say that Gods commaundements are easie Thus writeth this holy and most learned Father Out of whose doctrine I note thus much First that the way to heauen that is to say Gods commaundements is very straight and narrow not wide and long or casie Secondly that it is so straight and so narrow that few find it and fewer enter in by it Thirdly that this way of Gods commandements is so very hard that in S. Hieroms opinion and iudgement he may be ashamed that saith it is easie Our Iesuite therfore may be ashamed of his Doctrine and twice ashamed to make S. Hierom a Patron of the same S. R. If Bell say that it is impossible to loue God as wee ought to doe this is reproued because hee loueth God as he should do who loueth him With all his heart all his soule and all his power But Iosue so loued God of whom it is written that hee returned in all his heart in all his soule and all his strength Likewise Dauid sought God in all his heart and followed him in all his hart And God hath some seruants that walk before him in all their hart with whom he keepeth his couenant and mercy and God promiseth to circumcise the Iewes harts that they might loue him in al their hearts and all their soule T. B. Bell saith so and that truely and is already proued in this discourse and more at lage in the Downfall Now to your particulars King Iosias whom our Iesuite falsly nameth Iosue returned to God in al his hart al his soul and al his strength Which is nothing else indeede but that hereturned to God with a sincere heart and vnfainedly not Hypocritically Not that he was pure and free from sin no part of his hart or soul defiled with corruption which our Iesuite might haue perceiued to be implyed in the word Returne For from what did he returne saue only from sinne If he had euer beene with God in all his heart all his soule and all his strength then doubtlesse could he not haue returned to him For hee that is euer with one cannot be truly saide to returne to him But the scripture decideth the Controuersie when it telleth vs that Iosias hearkened not vnto the wordes of Mecho king of Aegipt which were of the mouth of God but came to fight in the valley of Megiddo where hee was slaine for his paines K. Dauid likewise saith our Iesuite sought God in all his hart which must needs be vnderstood as I said of K. Iosias For he was both an adulterer a murderer thogh also the child of God This is already proued plainly cōfirmeth the doctrin which I defend The same may be saide of king Ezechias who was a great sinner and yet is saide to haue serued God with all his heart and to haue kept his commaundements The same answere serueth to the rest that God hath those that wil serue him with their whole heart that is vnfainedly and chearefully For as wee haue heard already out of the scriptures None liuing is without sinne Againe The faithfull are saide to keepe Gods Commandements and to serue him with all their heart Because to such as serue God vnfainedly and chearefully whatsoeuer is left vndone is of mercy pardoned and forgiuen It is the flat doctrine both of S. Austen and of S. Hierom as I haue already proued And heere I may not forget to put our Iesuite in mind that concerning the circumcising of the Iewish hearts it may please him to read the verses following for there shall he find his sillie obiection fully answered euen in the text it selfe These are the words Return thou therefore and obey the voyce of the Lord and doe all his Commaundements which I commaund thee this day Loe the Iewes whose hearts God promiseth to
Bels custome to gaine-say himselfe if it may please his reuerence to put Iesuite for Bell the truth then will be on his side S. R. Gods Children as long as his seede abideth in them sin not nor offend deadly in any one point but abide both in the whole Law and in euery point therof Saint Iames speaketh of deadly sin and of offending deadly But there he Veniall sins which Bell denyeth not in the which iust men may offend and not breake Gods Law deadly T. B. I ansvvere first that euery sinne is mortall of it ovvne nature which I haue already proued Secondly that all sinnes are Veniall and pardonable which is all one to Gods children and faithful seruants not of their own nature but of Gods great mercy and fauour towardes them who for Christs merites and satisfaction in whom hee is euer well pleased pardoneth all their offences imputeth no sin vnto them This is the constant doctrine of S. Austen whose words are these Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur All the Commaundements are then reputed as done when what soeuer is not done is Of Mercy forgiuen The famous Popish Abbot Bernardus is consonant to S. Austen These are his wordes Omne quod natum est ex deo non peccat sed hoc dictum est de praedestinatis ad vitam non quod omnino non peccent sed quod peccatum ipsis non imputetur All that is born of God sinneth not But this is spoken of the predestinate to life not because they sinne not at al but for that sinne is not imputed to them Againe in another place he sayth thus Vtique quod factum est non potest non fieri ipso tamen non imputante erit quasi non fuerit Quod Propheta quoque considerans ait beatus vir cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum The sinne doubtles that is done cannot bee vndone yet because God doth not impute sinne vnto vs we shall be as if we had not sinned Which the Prophet considering saith Blessed is the man to whom God shall not impute sinne Out of these wordes this Corollary is clearly deduced viz that the regenerate are saide not to sinne not because they do no sinne indeed or haue no sin in themselues for that were against the flat Doctrine of S. Iames but because God of his meere mercy for the merits of Christ Iesus doth not impute their sinnes vnto them S. R. It is an vniust law which is impossible and to punnish the breakers were against right and equity As Bell himselfe would graunt if vppon paine of death he were bid to flye to heauen and executed if he did not T. B. I answere First that the Commaundements of God are not simply and absolutely impossible but accidentally Per accidens They are not impossible in themselues because Christ himselfe kept them neyther impossible to man as man because Adam might haue kept them Onely they are impossible to cortupt man which impossibility commeth Per accidens and not Ex natura rei Man hadde free will to haue doone Gods will to haue kept his Commaundementes and to haue liued without sinne perpetually thorough whose disobedience wee are solde vnder sinne and brought to that necessitie that we cannot possibly avoyd sinne Neuerthelesse wee are iustly punnished for our sins because the necessity and impossibility which was befallen vs was brought vppon vs thorough our owne default when that we were in the Loynes of Adam Secondly that our Iesuites argument of my flying to Heauen is both vnchristian and very childish Vnchristian because it doth equalize mans precepts with Gods childish because it was neuer in my power to slye to heauen as it was once in mans power to keepe Gods commandements Our Iesuite accuseth God of iniustice in condemning infants for Originall sinne S. R. After the fathers he bringeth two reasons The one out of the Lords prayer where we are taught to ask forgiuenes But saith he Where pardon must be demanded there the Law is not exactly obserued The other is out of our daily confessions where we acknowledge our faults and most great faults I Answere as the petition of forgiuing our sins dooth euidently conuince that wee do not so exactly keepe the Lawe as that we neuer swarue from it so the other petition of doing Gods will heer on Earth as it is in Heauen euidently conuinceth that wee can do it without deadly breaking it As for our confessions wee do not confesse that our daily offences are most great faults but daily confesse our most great falts whether done then or before T. B. I answere first that our Iesuite graunteth as much as I desire as euery childe may perceiue For his wordes are plaine that they do not keepe the law so exactly as they neuer swarue from it Hold thy selfe here good Fryer and we shall soone agree For if you swarue from the Law then doubtlesse ye doth not keepe it This is all that I require at your hands viz that ye wil confesse that ye swarue from the Law and keepe it not Secondly that the other petition proueth not that you Papists can keepe Gods commandements and liue without sin as the Saints do in heauen For euery meane Logician can tell you that the worde As doth Connotate a similitude but not an Identity viz. that as the Angels Saints do Gods will in heauen and liue altogether without sinne acording to the condition of the perfect state so wee may do his will in some measure and proportion according to the imperfect state in which we liue And thus much the word as doth import vnto vs so often as as say the Lords Prayer Thirdly that your answere is so Aenigmaticall as my slēder capacity is not able to penetrate the depth therof You freely grant that you daily confesse your most great faultes but not that your daily offences are most great faults O the depth of Iesuiticall wit Qui potest capere capiat The great God Apollo must come downe from Heauen to vnfold this high mistery Well seeing it will bee no better let vs make the best of it we can Let vs holde fast that which is freely graunted vs viz that our Iesuites commit most great faults sometimes though not euery day Let vs likevvise hold this fast viz that our Iesuites confesse those most great faultes euery day which they commit sometimes but not euery day This done let vs out of these two assertions plainely and freely confessed inferre these two most Golden and memorable Corollaries First that seeing our Iesuites freely graunt that they commit sometimes most great faults though not dayly it followeth of necessity that sometimes they break gods holy commaundements though not daily and consequently that sometimes they sinne damnably though not euery day as also that they are so farre from louing Condigne Merites of Glory as they woorthily