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 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
circumcise haue gone from him and disobeyed his voice and therfore must haue their harts circumcised that they may returne to him againe serue him with their whole heart that is to say chearefully and vnfeignedly Whosoeuer can and will read S. Hierome in the place quoted in the Margent seriously and at large shall finde this controuersie so fully decided as hee can no longer stande in doubt thereof For euer must this Apostolicall Doctrine be holden for a most constant position In multis offendimus omnes We all offend in many things And this likewise for a receiued Axiome in the Schoole of all right Christians Non est homo qui non peccauit There is no Man that sinneth not If therefore our Iesuite sinne not hee is no man if his pope sinne not he is not man but either God or the Deuill GOD I am sure he is not if the Deuill God blesse vs from him In like manner it is saide of King Assa that his hart was perfect al his dayes and yet is he reproued both for resting vpon the king of Aram and for not seeking God in his disease The speech is Sinedochicall because he was vpright in many things S. R. Saint Hierome curseth this blasphemy of Bell God hath giuen vs those commandements which we cannot possibly keepe Likewise Saint Austen saith that God coulde not commaund any impossible thing because he is iust T. B. I answer first that the Symbole or Creed from whence our Iesuite will needs borrow a curse and father it vpon S. Hierom is not his as the censure vpon the same doth declare The like I may say of S. Aistens sermons de Tempore Secondly Saint Hieroms meaning S. Austens also is nothing else indeed but that Gods commaundements are possible to be kept of man as man though not of corrupt man after the fall of Adam This point is handled more at large in the Downefall of Popery That this is Saint Hieroms opinion indeede I haue already proued at large touching S. Austen these are his owne expresse wordes Certe iustus Deus negari non potest Imputat autm Deus homini omne peccatum Et hoc quoque confitendum puto quìa neque peccatumest quicquid non imputabitur in peccatū Et si est aliquod peccatum quod vitari non potest quomodo iustus deus dicitur si imputare cuiquam creditur quod vitari non possit Respondemus iam domini contra superbos esse clamatū beatus cui nō imputavit dominus peccatum Non. n. imputat his qui sideliter ei dicunt dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris Et iuste non imputat quia instum est quod ait in qua mensura mensi fueritis in eadem remetietur vobis Peccatum est autem cum vel non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quā debet siue hoc voluntate vitari possit siue non possit quia si potest presens voluntas hoc facit si autem non potest praeterita voluntas hoc fecit tamen vitari potest non quando voluntas superbalaudatur sed quando humilis adiuvatur God doubtlesse is iust it cannot be denyed He also imputeth euery sinne vnto man I also thinke that this must be granted because it is no sinne whatsoeuer is not imputed for sinne and if there be any sinne which cannot be auoyded how is God called iust if hee impute to any man that which cannot be auoyded We answere that of olde it was proclaimed against the proud Happy is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin For he imputeth not sin to thē which faithfully say to him forgue vs our debts as we forgiue our debtors And iustly he doth it not because it is iust which he saith In what measure your selues shall measure in the same shall it bee measured to you againe And it is sin when either there is not that Charity which ought to be or when it is lesse then it ought to be whether this can bee avoyded with will or it cannot for if it can be auoyded then present wil hath done it if it cannot be avoyded then wil past did it Againe the same Saint Austen hath these words Ante omniainquit interrogandus est qui negat hommē sine peccato esse posse quid sit quodcunque peccatum quod vitari potest an quod vitari non potest Si quod vitari potest potest homo sine peccato esse quod vitari potest Nulla n. ratio vel institia patitur saltem dici peccatum quod vitari nullo modo potest Respondemus vitariposse peccatum si natura vitiata sanetur gratia Dei per Iesum C. D. N. In tantum n. sana non est in quantum id quod faciendum est aut caecitate non videt aut infirmitate non implet dum caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum spiritus aduersus carnem vt ea quae non vult homo faciat He saith Celestine that saith man cannot liue without sinne must first of all bee demaunded what he will haue sinne to be whether that which can be auoyded or which cannot be auoyded If that which can be auoided man may be without that sin which can bee auoyded For neither reason nor Iustice suffereth that to bee called sinne which no way can be auoyded We answer that sinne may bee auoyded if corrupt Nature bee healed by Gods grace through Iesus Christ our Lord. For infomuch it is not healed by hovv much it either through blindnes sees not or through infirmity fulfils not what ought to bee doone while the flesh lufteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh so as man doth the things he would not Thus discourseth this holy and learned Father the most Noble Champion of Christes Church Out of whose Doctrine these excellent obseruations may be gathered First that that is no sinne which GOD imputeth not for sinne and consequently that when GOD doth not impute our sinnes to vs then are wee truely saide to bee without sin In Gods acceptation euer vnderstand although sin be still inherent in vs. Secondly that they are to be condemned for proud arrogant persons who thinke themselues to bee without sinne Thirdly that our mercifull God imputeth no sinnes to his faithfull Children who in the Lords Prayer humbly desire pardon for the same This is a point of great moment it must bee well remembred and neuer forgotten The Papistes most desperately and damnably affirme that some sinnes are Veniall of their owne Nature whereas the truth is this indeede viz that albeit all sinnes bee mortall and deadly of their owne Nature as I haue proued in the Downefall yet are all sinnes as Saint Austen grauely and Christianly in this place vnfoldeth Veniall to Gods Children who in true Faith inuocate his holy Name and humbly craue pardon for the same
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
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
in the Scripture which concerne either faith or manners Fiftly that our Iesuite granteth al things to be written of Christs both sayings and doings which Christ would haue vs to read Marry hee addeth three worthy exceptions First that though all Christs sayings and dooings be written which Christ would haue vs to read yet not all which he would haue vs to beleeue As thogh forsooth Christ would haue vs beleeue something which we may not read What a fond saying is this Nay what a fond Religion is Popery All things necessary for vs are written saith our Iesuite and yet he telleth vs withall that we must beleeue things which are not written And consequently we must beleeue thinges which are necessarie for vs. Nay which is more that Articles of the Christian fayth are not necessary for vs. Loe Popery is a very strange Religion Secondly that we must beleeue Traditions which Christ would not haue vs to read and consequently that Christ would not haue vs to read our beliefe Lord haue mercy vpon vs and keepe vs from this doctrine Thirdly that we must beleeue many vnwritten Traditions of the Apostles which are neither contained in Christs sayings nor in his dooinges But the holy Ghost came downe from Heauen not to teach the Apostles new Reuelations saue those thinges onely which Christ had foretold them and which they did not perfectly vnderstand But the comforter the holy Ghost saith Christ whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things and bring all thinges to your remembrance whatsoeuer I haue saide vnto you so is the Originall in Greeke Panta ha eipon humin But the Latine Vulgata editio to which the Pope hath tyed all Papists readeth thus Whatsoeuer I shall say vnto you And hence it is that they would establish their vnwritten Traditions But the truth is as we haue seene viz that Christ hath commanded his Apostles to writâ— all things both of his myracles and of his Doctrin which he would haue vs know and beleeue as also that Christs Apostles receiued no new Reuelations of the holy ghost but the perfect vnderstanding of those thinges which Christ afore had taught them and heere we may note by the way that Aquinas vnderstandeth Saint Iohns words These thinges are written aswell of Christes Doctrine as of his Myracles S. R. Bell citeth an Apocryphall sentence out of Esdras 3. 4. vnder the name of the wise man as if it were Salomons T. B. If our Iesuite were not at a Non plus he would neuer be so friuolously occupied I name the wise man of whome I spake euen Esdras as our Iesuite graunteth If our Fryer denie all men to bee wise Salomon only excepted then doubtles not onely himselfe is a foole as it well seemeth by his Writing but his Pope also for he is not Salomon and so all Papists must bee ruled by a Foole and beleeue that a foole cannot erre And in the end they shaâ—l haue a fooles Bable and a Foxe taile for their paines S. R. Bell citeth Victoria thus I am not certaine of it sayth Victoria though all Writers affirme it which is not contayned in the scripture But Vistoria meaneth of thinges spoken not by Tradition but by propable Opinion as the conception of our Lady without Originall sinne and such like or he meaneth of thinges neyther actually nor virtually contained in Scripture as Traditions bee according to our second conclusion T. B. If I should answere fully to all our Iesuites fonde sentences my reply would grow to a bigger booke then is the great Bible For our Iesuite thinketh himselfe a verie wise man though before hee would haue none wise but Salomon First our Fryer telleth vs that Victoria meaneth not of Traditions but of probable opinions yet secondly hee graunteth that hee cannot tell what Victoria meaneth But perhaps sayth hee he meaneth of thinges neyther actually nor virtually contained in scripture Loâ— heere Gentle Reader Popish Traditions be neyther virtually nor actually contained in the Scripture Ergo say I they are no points of Christian fayth And I prooue it by our Iesuites owne expresse words All points sayth our Fryer of Christian faith are virtually contained in scripture Thus I nowe frame an Argument against Popish vnwritten Traditions to which when our Iesuite shall aunswere soundly I will thinke him woorthy to bee Pope of Rome All pointes of Christian fayth are virtually contained in the Scripture but Popish vnwritten Traditions are not contained virtually in the Scripture Ergo Popish vnwritten Traditions are no pointes of Christian fayth The consequence is good and cannot bee denyed It is in the second figure and moode called Baroco The assumption is the Iesuites owne in the Page quoted in the Margent viz 329. The proposition also is the Iesuites in another place viz Page 290. and so I inferre this Golden and ineuitable Corollary viz that Popisâ— vnwritten Traditions are no pointes of Christian fayth Well therefore may they bee partes of Turcisme of Iudaisme of Atheisme but partes of Christianity they cannot be Apage Apage they smell of Infidelity S. R. Bell againe citeth Victoria who sayth That for Opinions we no way ought to depart from the rule of scriptures What is this to the purpose Let Bell prooue that wee eyther for Opinions or any thing else depart from Scripture T. B. Bell hath proued your departure from the holy scripture in many of his Bookes many yeares ago published to the view of the world yet to this day this is the first answer the last and al that euer came from your pens But to satisfie your itching eares a little I must put you in minde what lately you haue heard in this short reply First that the Greekes neuer beleeued your Popish Purgatorie as which cannot bee prooued out of the Scriptures Secondly that the Byshoppe of Rome to challenge power to depose Kings is against the holie Scripture Thirdly that to acknowledge sinnes Veniall of their owne Nature is to depart from the scripture Fourthly that to giue Pardons as the Pope doeth is to depart from the scripture Fiftly that to establish Workes of condigne merite is to depart from the Scripture And so in the rest as I haue both heere and else where prooued at large For the Reading of Holy Scripture and the facilitie thereof touching thinges necessary for saluation our Iesuite bestirreth himselfe more then a little but the bare pervse of the Downefall will bee a sufficient reply to the same Once let vs heare him in this point S. R. The first point is not against vs who graunt that in Reading the Scripture wee may find all things necessary T. B. You told vs euen now Good Sir Fryer that your popish vnwritten Traditions are neyther actually nor virtually contained in the Scripture Ergo by your Doctrine now deliuered they are not necessarie Beholde heere Gentle Reader howe vncertaine Popish Doctrine is and into what
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
Octauianus to the Popedome Was not the oth accomplished and bee named Iohn Was he not a great hunter and a man of licencious life Did he not keepe women openly to the notorious scandall of the Church Did not some of the Cardinals write to Otto King of the Saxons to come besiedge Rome so to afflict him for his sins Did not the Pope perceiuing it cause the Cardinals nose to be cut off that gaue the counsel his hand that wrote the letter Martinus Polonus a Popish Arch-Bishop sometime the Popes owne Penitentiary affirmeth this to bee a constant truth Did not Pope Siluester the second a French-man borne Gilbertus by name promise homage to the Deuill so long as he should accomplish his desire Did he not so often expresse his deâ—ire to the Deuill as he made homage vnto him And was he not first made Archbishop of Rhemes then of Rauennas at the last Pope of Rome Did not the Deuill knowing his ambitious mind bring him to honor by degrees When he was made Pope was hee not desirous to know of the Deuill how long he should liue in his pontificall glory Did not the Deuill answere him so long as he said no Masse in Hierusalem The story is long he that can read and desireth to know it at large may find it in Martino Polono aboue named Did not Pope Benedict the eyght appear corporally after his death as it were riding on a blacke Horse the Deuill Did he not desire the Bishop that saw him to cause some Mony to be giuen to the poore because all that he gaue afore time was gotten by robbeâ—y and extortion Petrus Damascenus affirmeth it Was not Pope Formosus a periured person Did not Pope Iohn degrade him after he had been Bishop of Portua Did he not take him sworn that he neither should be Bishop nor euer returne to the city of Rome Did not Pope Martine absolue him of his oath Came hee not to Rome and shortly after was made Pope Did not Pope Stephanus the sixt persecute Pope Formosus Did hee not cause his dead body to be brought forth into his consistory the papall ornamentes to bee taken away a laical habit to be put on the dead corps two fingers of his right hand to be cut off and so his body to bee put into the graue Did not Sergius the third cause Pope Formosus who now had beene dead almost ten yeares to be taken out of his Tombe and to bee set in a Chaire with pontificall attire vpon his backe and then his head to bee cut off and cast into Tyber Platina Carranza and Polonus affirme it for a constant and knowne truth Did not Pope Vrbanus the second absolue subiects from their fidelity and alleageance which was dew vnto their Soueraigne so that whosoeuer obeyed the King was reputed excommunicated and they that took part against the King were resolued from the â—â—ime of periury and Iniustice Did not Pope Boniface the eight challenge the right of both Swordes Did hee not depriue Phillip the French King and giue his Kingdome to him that could get it Sigebertus and Nauclerus proclaime it to the World If I should enter into the full discourse of these Mysteries time would sooner faile me then matter whereof to speake Let it suffice for the present to call to mind the ladder of eight steppes by whch the late Bishop of Rome did climbe vp to their tyrannicall primacy the killing of Christ in the Popish Masse the pluralities of bodies ascribed vnto him the sensible touching breaking and chewing of Christs Reall and naturall bodie without teeth the absurdities impossiblities and contradictions which necessarily insue vpon their falsely and fondly imagined reall presence their intollerable and blasphemous dispensations the Brother licenced to marry his owne naturall Sister persons ioyned in wedlocke by God himselfe and dissolued by the Pope Saint Pauls flat doctrin of Concupiscence to bereiected Condigne merits of Mans workes established damnable sinnes to be made Veniall Bishops not to haue voyces in Counsels vntill they first sweare to deâ—end the Pope and his damnable decrees that Papistes can keepe the Commandements and adde thereunto works of supererogation These and many like execrable assertions the Gentle Reader shall finde in this small Volume to be truely iustified against the Pope and his Iesuited Popelings Many years are expired since I first wrote against the Papists They haue desperately aâ—firmed that my Bookes were answered many yeares agoe yet this is the first answere indeede that euer was published against any of my Books which was pretended to be such a worthy thing that it must needs haue a fore-runner to come before it to exhort Men to prepare themselues worthily to receiue it as if forsooth this saucy Rebell S. R. were Christ himselfe and his fore-ruâ—ner Saint Iohn the Baptist. VVhat hee hath performed in his supposed aunswere and my selfe in this my Reply I refer it to the iudgement and censure of the indifferent Reader The worke such as it is I haue Dedicated vnto your Honour as an externall signe of thankefulnesse for the Honourable fauours receiued at your Lordships hand The Almighty increase your Christian zeale towardes his Gospell and so blesse your faithfull seruice to your Prince and Countrey as your most Honorable place and calling doth require Your Honors Seruant in Christ Iesus Thomas Bell. The first Article Of the Popes falsly supposed SOVERAIGNTY Chapter first Of certaine Aphorismes for the better instruction of the Reader Aphorisme 1. MAny reasons might be alledged why so many at this day doe so greedily though foolishly and vndiscreetly embrace the late Romish religion but these few to giue a tast shall suffice for the present The first reason is because they expect a day as prophane Esau did when they may kill their true and naturall Soueraigne Gods sacred and annointed Lieutenant as I haue proued elsewhere at large and so aspire and be aduaunced to great wealth dignitie But let them remember proud Hammons end least they be hanged on the gallowes which they intend and prepare for others The second because our gratious Soueraigne as did his noble predecessors K. Edward and Queene Elizabeth of famous memory laboureth to win Papists with lenity and long sufferance and by reading preaching to bring them to the light of Christes Gospell whereas the Pope neuer ceaseth to burne burne with fire and fagot whosoeuer holdeth and defendeth any one article contrary to his late hatched Religion yea if one passe by an Image or their house of Inquisition which they terme the Holy-house and do not reuerence thereunto it is enough to cast that man into the sayde disholy prison Which kind of punishment if it were vpon iust cause executed within his Maiesties Dominions shortly few or no disloyall subiects would be found within his kingdomes Which is not my bare opinion onely but euen Saint Austens in the like subiect
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
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
Glos. lib. 1. decrâ—tâ—tit 7. ca. 3. Anton. 3. pag. tit 22 cap 5 §. 8. In the downefall of popery Page 16 Mas. 7 15 Page 92 Pag 95 Page 96. Luk. 2 23 Exod. 13 2 Num. 8 15 Heb. 2 17 4 15. Suruey page 474. Aquin. 22 q. 52. ar 1. ad 3 Aug. lib 1 de ciuit dei cap. 18 Pag 99 Mat. 19 24 Galat. 1 8. Vide tu Theophil in humo locum Page 99 Dan. 3 35 â—o Ang. in 4 sent part â—â— pag. 144. Page 20 Page 102 An argumeÌ„t vnstable Mat. 28 6. Mat. 28 6. Page 103 Aug. epist. 57. tom 2 Page 108 Page 10â— Page 110. Tom. 2. col 1063. A. Vbi supra D. Vbi supra D. Vbi supra D. Tom. 2. col 1063. Page 111. The Papists haue two Gods and two Christs Page 113. Page 115. O horrible blasphemy Page 126. Page 127. Read the Downfall The Iesuite is striken dead Page 132. See the Downefall Tâ—m 2. p. 474. Acts 3. v. 21. For these matters see my Suruey Page 136. Heb. 1. v. 3. Heb. 1. 3. Haymo in hunc locum Lyr. in hunc loc Gen. 5 ver 3. Page 139. Aquiâ—as part 3. q. 75. art 4. art 7. â—â— Page 142. Luke 12 5 48 Ezech. 3. 18. 1. Reg. 13. Page 114. He speaketh of the counsell of Trent Pa. 142 et 143 See the Popes funerall Page 186 Pape 165. 1. Iohn 3 4. Aug. de cos evang cap. 4. Tom. 4. Page 173. Aug. de nup. et concupisc li 16 cap 25 tâ— 7 Page 173. Rom 8 1 Page 173. Page 167. Omnes erâ—â—uâ— in Adamo seâ— in principio â—adice totius humani 〈◊〉 Aug. retract lib. 1. cap. 15 Pag. 16. Page 170 Aug. ep 200 Tom. 2. Conc. Mileu can 7. 8. Dâ— ciuit lib. 1. cap. 25. See the Downefall of Popery Page 185. Page 186. August vbi supra Mat 5 29 I. Iohn 3 5 15. Rom 7 14 5 19 20. Romans 7. August vbi supra Psalme 32 2. Lombard lib. 3 sent dist 19. c. Bellarâ— tom 3. col 400. vide Aug. de spir liter cap vlt. tom 3. Let this bee wel marked Ablata causa tollitur effectâ—s Rom. 6. v 23 Page 173. Lib. 1. de imp concu cap. 26. tom 7. Page 177. Page 184. See the Downefall Page 188. Pape 189. Marke for the lesuite is striken dead Page 189. Apoc. 22. 20. Luke 9 58 Psal 143 2. Aug. conf libr. 9. cap. 13. Mat 18 24. 1 Cor 1 30 Tit 3 5. Mat 3 17. Mat 18 28 Page 193 Bellarm. tom 3. col 400. Aug. de spir liter cap. vlt. tom 3. Aug. de nup. et concup lib. 1. co 2. 27. Rom 7 Page 202. Page 161 Page 212 Luke 7 47 Aug. de fide oper cap. 14 tom 4. Heb 11 6 Luke 7. 47 Page 22â— Page 230 Page 221 Rom 4 4. Ephes 2 8 Tit. 3 5. Aug. Ep. 105. tom 2. Page 236. Page 247 Page 269 Vbi supra Page 270. Mat 12 30. Page 271. 1 Cor. 6 11 Ephes 1 7. 1 Cor. 1 30. 2 Cor 5 21. Page 276. Rom 6 23 Eze 18 20 Psal 5 4 Math 25 41 Page 271. Psal 143 2 Page 275. Psal. 6 9. Page 273. Page 278 Page 280. Page 278. Page 278 Ignorantia iuris diuini vel naturalis non excusat cans 17. q. 4. cap. siquiâ— Aristotle libr. 3. ethic cap. 5. §. 72. Page 280. 281. Ios. Ang. â— â—2 s. Page 175. Page 280. Rhenan in annot ad libr. Tertul. Loe Papistes dare not say al they thinke Page 281. Behold the Oâ—iginall of Venial Sinnes An Dom 1566. Veniall sinnes were hatched Page 281 Marke 2 27. Psal 5. 4 Psal 6. 8 Page 284. Page 285. 〈◊〉 in Ioan. tract 49. to 9. Page 286 Aug. de peci mer. lib. 2 c. vlt tom 7. Ciril in Iob. lib. 12. cap vlt. Chrisost. in 2. Thes. Hom. 3. Page 291 Epipha heres 65 Heres 61. Page 293 Page 134. Aug ad Iamâ—ar ep 118 Page 295 Prou 30 6 Page 284 285. Page 301. Esa 8 20. Hier. iu hune locum 2. Par. 23. 11. Page 301 This is done in the Downfall of Popery Page 304. Aquinas vnderstandeth these words both of Christes sayings and doings P 3. q. 42. art 4. ad primum Mar 16 20 Page 308 Page 284. Page 285 Page 286. Page 230. Page 285. Page 284. Page 314. Page 315. Cypr. lib. 1. ep 3. Page 319. Page 318. Page 324. See my Motiues in the 7. Preamble Page 328. Page 278 Page 286. Iohn 14 16. Iohn â—0 31 Page 327. Page 329 Page 290 A sillogisme vnanswerable 2. Figura Baroco Page 329 Page 290 Page 239 Page 34â— Page 329 Page 364. Page 284. 285. 286. 290. 291. Page 385. Page 385. Page 364. Page 292. Page 386. See the place Page 129. Page 389. Dist. 8. cap. si consueâ—udine Can. 65. â—postlop Conc. constuÌ„â— can 55. Page 393. Ioh. 11. 51. Page 394. Platin. in vita Bonifacij 8. Martin polon p. 237. in append Page 398. Reade the Downefall Page 284. Page 285. Page 286. Mat. 15 9 2 Tim 3 15. Page 285. Page 400 1 Iohn 4. Page 399. Acts 17 11. Mat 7 15. Iohn 5 39. 1. Thes. 5 21 1 Iohn 4 1. 1 Cor. 2 15 Page 40â— Page 403. In summa Page 152. Aquin. in sup q. 25. art 1. Silv. de indulg 33. Grat. dist 22. can omnes Lyr. in 16. cap. Mat. Carranz in tom 1. concil Dist 40. cap. si papa Page 409. Page 411. Page 415. Page 413. Page 121. Page 416. Page 416. The Popes doctrine must be obeiâ—d though he be an Hereticke Page 419 Mat 23 3 In the Golden Ballance of Tryall Gers. in serm de pase page 3 〈◊〉 3. cap. 17 fol 182. Alphons â— Castro lib. 3 advers hoer prope fineÌ„ Alphons lib. 1. cap. 4. adu haeres This point stâ—keth dead Canus de locâ— lib. 6 cap. â— in fine pagina 189. Mat 23 3. Dist. 40. cap. multi sacerdotes Page 418. Alphons lib. 1. cap. 2. fol. 4. c. Page 365. Page 365. Ioh. 14 16. 1 lâ— 3. 15. Alphon. adu haer lib. 1. c. 6 Panor de elect cap. signif Caus. 24. q. 1 cap. à recta Page 36â— Page 367. Alphons aduers haerâ—s lib. 1. ca. 8 Psal. 119 105. 2. Pet. 1. 19. Iohn 10. 27. Iohn 10 14. Tâ—â—â—t in Iâ—han cap. 10. 1 Cor. 2 15 Carthus in 1. Cor. 2 Lyran. in hunc locâ—â— Aquinas in 1. cor 2. Hosmeist in 1. cor 2. 1. Ioh. 2. 27. Camâ—â— de lo. cis theol lib. 2. cap. 8. fol. 29. b. et fol. 30 â— 1. Iohn 2. 27. De diuinis nomiâ—â—bâ—ca 7 Aquinas 22. q. 1. art 1 Aug. in Ep. Ioh tract 3. tom 9. Page 387. Canus de Iocis lib. 3. ca. 4 Page 101. 2. Peter 1. 21. 1. Cor. 11. 23. Rom. 1. 12. Apoc. â— 10. Luke 16. 29. Luke 24. 44. Luke 16 13 15 25 27. Page 369. Page 387. 2. Peter Iohn 2. 3. Iacob Apocal Euseb. libr. 3. cap. 19. Page 370. A very fond saying Aug. de