who defend and holde the same doctrine that Saint Austen doth Nay how is it possible to haue Good Workes before wee haue fayth Seeing as the Apostle teacheth vs Without faith it is vnpossible to please GOD. Who so listeth to pervse my Suruey of Popery shall there find euery thing soundly aunswered whatsoeuer can bee sayde for Popery in this kinde of subiect But our Fryer will proue Good workes to go before iustification because Christ sayde to Mary Magdalen Many Sinnes are forgiuen her because shee loued much I answere that Christs Argument is not drawne from the cause but from the effect As if Christ had sayd wee may know by her great loue that great gifts are bestowed on her that many sins are forgiuen her For that no remission of her sinnes proceeded from her loue but her loue of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes appeareth by the similitude of the debters For Christ tolde Peter of two debters whereof the one ought fiue hundered pence the other fifty and that when they had not wherewith to pay the Creditour forgaue them both Hee therefore demaunded of Peter whether of the Debters loued the Creditour more Peter aunsvvered that he to vvhom more vvas forgiuen Christ approued Peters ansvver and concluded therevpon that seeing Mary Magdalen loued more he might know that she had more forgiuen her because saith Christ To whome little is forgiuen the same loueth little Neyther is it possible to draw any other meaning out of christs words The reason is euident because christ saith plainly that the debts were freely forgiuen the debters who were not able to pay the debts For otherwise Maries forgiuenesse shoulde haue no coherence with the similitude of the debters The second part of his position is that good works euer follow as fruits the tree the persons that are freely iustified This is most manifestly falfe in infants whereof many iustified in baptisme dye before they do any good worke And if his comparison of the tree be good some iustified neuer do good worke and al want them long time some giue ouer doing good as some trees are barren some cease to beare fruit and none beare alwayes T. B. This Fryer thinketh he can daunce in a net naked and yet no man see him but I weene euery indifferent Reader doeth easily espy his manner of dealing viz that he hath nothing in him but Cauils Slanders and notorious leasings Good workes sayth he cannot euer follow iustified persons as fruits follow trees because some trees neuer do good and all want a long time and none beare alwayes Is this Fryer trow ye wel in his wits Hath not malice so blinded him that he cānot see wood for trees Hath the Pope dispensed with him to say what hee list Good workes say I euer follow persons freely iustified as fruits follow the Tree by Gods mercy in Christ Iesus for his merits and condigne deserts Now what doth our Iesuite he aplies himselfe wholy to cauils extreme folly He perceiueth that truth wil preuail therfore strugleth with cauils and deceitfull dealing against the same First he leaueth out GODS mercy and the merites of Christ Iesus Secondly he inferreth a fond conclusion of his owne making and beareth the Reader in hand that it is mine Thirdly he triumpheth before the victory boasting that hee hath confuted my position when indeede hee hath onely confuted himselfe and fought the combate with his owne folly For I do not say that Good Workes do euer and continually without all interruption follow persons freely iustified Let the Reader duely and truely pervse my wordes and then tell me if our Fryer Iesuite be not a notorious lyar I say Good Workes do euer folow but not simply absolutely at all seasons but as fruites follow trees Now I pray you gentle Reader how doe fruits follow trees Our Fryer telleth vs. Some trees neuer haue any fruit sayth he some want a long time and none beare fruit euer Alas alas what a fond fryer-Iesuit is this Robert Parsons Where were their wits that made him the Prouinciall of England If good workes follow persons iustified no otherwise but as fruits follow trees which is my position then doubtlesse are they not to be expected euery hour but when the due circumstances of time place and persons do require For good trees do not euer bring forth their fruits but in due times and seasons S. R. His first argument is taken out of Saint Paule Rom. 6. 23. But the gift of GOD is life euerlasting in Christ Iesu our Lord. He argueth in this manner Eternall life is the free gift of God therefore it can no way bee due to the merit of mans workes I aunswere that the Antecedent is false and neyther heere nor any where else taught by S. Paule T. B. Our Iesuite shall aunswere and confute himselfe for these are his owne words a little after Because sayth our Iesuite as workes are rewarded euen aboue their virtual proportionate equality as Diuines say vltra condignū no maruell if S. Paul called eternall life rather Grace or Gift then Stipend seeing it hath much more of Grace then it hath of Iustice yet he no where calleth it meere grace Beside that as Saint Austen writeth he might haue called it a Stipend as hec calleth Death in respect of Sinne but forbore least wee should thinke it were so iustly deserued by Good Workes as death is by euill Thus discourseth our Fryer Where we haue first by his owne free graunt that Workes are rewarded aboue their desert Albeit before hee called them condigne and of condigne merite These are his wordes Good workes saith he done in Gods grace are condignely meritorius of eternall life Secondly that Saint Paule calleth eternall life rather Grace then Stipend because it hath much more of Grace then it hath of Iustice where vnawares he confuteth himselfe doubtlesse because where there is more of Grace then of Iustice it is vnpossible to establish condigne merite For as the Apostle teacheth vs To him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of Grace but of debt or duety And the same Apostle declareth it more plainely in another place For by Grace saith he you are saued throgh faith that not of your selues for it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast himselfe And again in another place thus Not by the works of righteousnesse which we did but according to his mercy he saued vs. Thirdly that the Apostle calleth eternall life rather grace then stipend as S. Austen writeth because it is not so iustly deserued by Good Workes as death is by euill workes No no S. Austen saith plainly Cum Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua Whē God crowneth our merites he crowneth nothing els but his owne giftes First therefore seeing Good Workes are rewarded aboue their deserts Secondly seeing Good Workes haue more of grace then of
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
Cardinall by whose doctrin it is euident that S. Austen affirmeth the first motions of concupiscence which peruert reason and cannot be auoided to be condemned by S. Paul as sinfull and against the law of God Which doctrine of S. Austen doth so sting and confound all Papists that Bellarmine knoweth not in the world what hee shall answere to the same And therefore he addeth deceitfully in his exposition of S. Austens words this word Quodam modo after a sort which word for all that is neither in S. Austen nor yet agreeable to his meaning For S. Austen saith plainely simply and absolutely without all ands or ifs or other qualifications that such motions are forbidden by this commaundement non concupisces If I gentle Reader should thus deale in reciting or expounding my authors what exclamations what outcries wold be made against me all the cursed brood of Iesuites and Iesuited Papists would pursue me with hue and cry as if I were a rancke Traytor But S. Austens words are so plaine as no denyall or Legierdemaine can haue place for he sayth that Originall concupiscence with the involuntary motions thereof are forbidden by the last precept of the Decalogue and the consent to the same by that other precept Go not after thy concupiscence Heere S. Austen vttereth his owne meaning cōcerning this great controuersie For he plainly and flatly distinguisheth betweene originall concupiscence it selfe and the consent that is giuen to the same Hee telleth vs simply and resolutely that the concupiscence is prohibited by one precept and the consent to it by another Which the Iesuiticall Cardinall seeing to bee an inuincible Bulwarke against him and against the very essence of all Popish doctrine hee thought it stood him in hand to inuent some thogh neuer so miserable Legier demain to dazel the eyes of the reader withal and for this end he added to Saint Austen text this word Quodam modo in a sort Which In a sort though it bee graunted him yet will it not serue his turne For if it bee prohibited in a sorte and in a sort bee against Gods commaundement then must it needs followe that at least in a sort it is sinne and so the victory is mine owne Lastly it is a constant Axiome generally receiued of all Logitians in all Schooles that the cause beeing taken away the effect must needs be taken away also But death is the effect of originall sinne Ergo if Originall sin which is the cause be taken away in baptisme then death which is the effect thereof must be taken away with it Wherefore seeing both olde and young after Baptisme still dye as we daily see it is an euident Argument that the cause thereof which is originall concupiscence is not taken away S. R. If in regeneration wee become guiltlesse of all damnable sinne then haue we no such sinne in vs. For as Saint Austen saith to bee not guilty of sinne is to haue no sinne T. B. I answer that we are guilty in the nature of the thing yet guiltles freed by Gods mercy in Christ Iesus And I tell our Iesuite that he inverteth Saint Austens wordes as one that neuer read the same Thus writeth Saint Austen Hoc est n. Non habere peccatum reum non esse peccati For this is to haue no sinne not to be guilty of sinne And what is this Forsooth S. Austen saith he may be thought or saide to haue no sinne in him though his sinne remaine in act whose sinne is not imputed to him S. R. Sins remaine but by their guilt as adultery once committed remaineth in the committer onely because he is still guilty of the adultery that he did vntill it bee remitted T. B. Some sinnes as Adultery passe in acte when they are done and remaine in guilt Others passe in guilt and remaine in acte as originall concupiscence in the regenerate which remaineth in the vnregenerate both in guilt and in act S. R. Though it were true which Bell saith of the reprobates yet would it not follow thereof that concupiscence in reprobates is formall sinne but onely that originall sinne is not truely forgiuen in baptisme to any reprobate which is false T. B. I prooued by the testimony of the Rhemists that originall sin still remaineth in the baptized and consequently that it is sinne formally in the regenerate And so I haue my purpose viz that sinne still abideth in the regenerate though it be not imputed to them For if originall sinne be truely remitted in baptisme and bee not truely sinne indeede in the Baptised then can none bee iustly damned that are baptized For how shall they bee iustly condemned for that which is remitted It cannot be And this notwithstanding to grant that all baptized shall be saued is most absurd For larger discourse hereof I refer the Reader to the Downefall it selfe I study to be briefe S. R. When Saint Austen asketh why concupiscence is sin in the child if it be in the parent baptized without sin he supposeth that it is no true sin in the baptized contrary to Bels allegation T. B. S. Austen worthily demanded how concupiscence can be sinne in the Childe if it bee none in the baptized Parent For how can any man impart that to another which he hath not himselfe and thereupon Saint Austen concluded that originall sin still remaineth formally in the baptized Parent though not imputed for sinne This reason is vnanswerable S. R. Saint Austen answered that by baptisme Non imputatur in peccatum It is not imputed for sin In which answer vnlesse he did by not imputing for sin meane making no sin he hadde not answered the question why concupiscence was no sin in the baptized Parent Therefore with him concupiscence not to be imputed to or for sin is to be made no sin T. B. If you Maister Fryer Iesuite or Iesuited Fryer may expound Saint Austen at your pleasure and without eyther Scripture Father Text Circumstance or Reason say this is his meaning it must bee as you say I shall in vain dispute against you But I hope the indifferent Reader will not afforde you that freedome The Question which Saint Austen mooueth is this Why originall concupiscence is sin in the Childe and no sin in the Baptized Parent And Saint Austen himselfe aunswereth himselfe because it is not imputed for sin in the Parent Thus standeth the case this is the question this is the aunswere The difficulty is this How the Childe can contract and receiue of the Parent that which is not in the Parent because no man can bestow and impart that which he himselfe hath not The answer to the difficulty is this that originall concupiscence is still in the Parent after baptisme receiued as truely and formally sin in it owne Nature as it is truely and formally sin in the vnbaptized Child and so the Child contracteth nothing of the Parent but that very same which was in him