Gods meere fauour grace and good pleasure without all desertes of Man Seuenthly that our Vocation our Iustification and our Glorification are the effectes of Predestination I therefore conclude that Good workes are not the cause why Gods children possesse Heauen as their inheritaunce seeing it is the effect of Predestination yet that they are the ordinarie way and meanes by which God decreed in his eternall purpose to bring his Elect to Heauen For as he ordayned the end that is to say the Kingdome of Heauen or Eternall life so also ordayned he the way and meanes to attaine the same that is to say Vocation Iustification Fayth and Good workes Yea euen among Men whosoeuer intendeth the Ende intendeth also the Meanes The 6. Conclusion Good workes in a godly sense very vsuall frequent in the holy Fathers may truly be sayd to be meritorious that is to say they please God and are so acceptable in Gods sight that of mercie he rewardeth them farre aboue their desertes This Conclusion is sufficiently prooued by the reasons alleadged in the first Conclusion I will here onely annexe the testimonie of Bernard that famous and learned Popish Abbot In one place he hath these wordes Sic non est quod iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cum audias apud Prophetam non propter vos sed propter me ego faciam dicit Dominus sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant merita So there is no cause that thou shouldest now aske by what merites we hope for Glorie especially since thou hearest the Prophet say I will doe it sayth the Lord not for your sake but for mine owne selfe It is enough to merite to know that our merites are not sufficient Againe in an other place the same Bernard hath these wordes Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas Noâ—â— meritum quod gratiam excludat Horreo quicquid de meo est vt sim meus nisi quod illud magis sorsitan meum est quod me meum facit Gratia reddit me mihi iustificatum gratis et sic liberatum a seruitute peccati It degenerateth from Grace whatsoeuer thou ascribest to Merit I will no Merite that excludeth Grace I abhorre whatsoeuer is of mine owne that I may be mine owne vnlesse perhappes that is more mine owne which maketh me mine owne Grace iustifieth me freely to my selfe and so deliuereth me from the bondage of sinne In an other place the same Bernard hath these wordes Iam vero de vita aeterna scimus quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam nec si vnus omnes sustineat Neque N. talia sunt hominum merita vt propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure aut Deus iniuriam aliquam faceret nisi cam donaret Nam vt taceam quod merita omnia Dei dona sunt et ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est quam Deus homini quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriaÌ„ denique quis melior est Propheta cui Dominus ipse tam insigne testimonium perhibet dicens Virum inueni secundum cor meum Veruntamen et ipse necesse habuit dicere Deo non intres in iudicium cum seruo tuo Domine Now touching eternall life we know that the sufferinges of this time are not worthy of the glory to come no not if one endure all For the Merites of men are not such that for them eternall life is due by right or that God should do some iniurie if he gaue it not For to let passe that all Merites are the giftes of God and so man is rather debter to God for them then God to man What are all Merites to so great Glorie In fine who is better then the Prophet to whom our Lord giueth so worthy a testimonie saying J haue found a man according to my heart howbeit hee had need to say to God Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord. Thus writeth the deuote and religious Abbot Bernard who though he liued in the greatest mist of Poperie and so was carried away with some errours of his time yet did he teach most Christian doctrine almost in all his workes And because he was reputed a great Papist and of high esteeme in the Church of Rome his testimonie is euer most forcible against Papistes the Pope and Church of Rome Out of this his most learned and Christian Discourse I obserue many godly memorable Lessons First that our best workes doe merite nothing Secondly that our greatest and best merit is this viz. to know that our supposed merites are not sufficient Thirdly that how much soeuer be it more be it lesse We ascribe to Merites so much doe we derogate from Gods grace And consequently seeing we may not derogate from the Grace of God in any respect it followeth of necessitie that we cannot challenge any thing of Merite Fourthly that Grace doth iustifie vs freely and consequently that our Workes doe not iustifie at all Fiftly that though one man could suffer as much as all men doe yet could not that man condignely Merite heauen Sixtly that eternall life is not due to mans Merites Ex iure that is to say Condignely and of right Seuently that God should doe no man wrong if he gaue it not But doubtlesse if Good workes did merite Heauen God should doe wrong to many a man in not giuing it For to withhold and keepe a mans right from him is a notorious and knowen wrong Eightly that a Man is more indebted to God then God to Man And this reason my L. Abbot Bernard yeeldeth for the same viz. Because Heauen or Eternall life is the free gift of God The 7. Conclusion Good workes euen by Popish doctrine without the mercie and promise of God in his Sonne and our onely sauiour Christ Iesus doe not condignely merite Heauen This is soundly prooued by all the reasons of the third Conclusion But I will prooue it by other euident meanes S. Augustine hath these expresse wordes Vae eâ—iam laudabili vitae homiâ—â—m si remotu misericordia â—iscautias â—am Woe euen to the best liuers on earth if thou extend not thy Mercie to them For this cause doth the holy Prophet desire God Not to enter into iudgement with him And he addeth this reason Because 〈◊〉 mâ—n liuing can 〈◊〉 iustified in his sight Againe the same Prophet confesseth in an other place That if God deale extreamely in punishing what is done amisse none lyuing no not the best of all iâ— abâ—e to endure his iustice Abbot Bernard hath these expresse wordes Peccatum separans inter nos et Deum penitus auferri non poterit donec liberemur a corpore The sinne that separateth vs from God can not wholly be taken away while we remaine in this world He speaketh of Concupiscence euill desires Loe originall
speaches of Pope Leo against him B. C. The Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon made suite to the Pope to confirme their Decrees T. B. I answere first that this Epistle is like to the other of the Nicene Fathers that is to say a bastard and counterfeite This is soundly prooued in the fift Aphorisme in the first sixt and seauenth Obiections Let them be well remembred Secondly that the suite which the Fathers of the Councell made to Pope Leo did argue onely a prerogatiue of Honour not any soueraigntie of Power Which I prooue by a triple meane For first these are the wordes of the request Rogamus igitur et tuis Decretis nostrum honera iudicium We therefore desire you to honour our iudgement with your Decrees Hee was the chiefe Patriarch and Byshop of that Citie which at that time raigned and was reputed Caput mundj and so his consent was of great authoritie in that behalfe Secondly his Messengers would not agree to that prerogatiue of honour which the Councell had confirmed to the Byshoppe of Constantinople and therefore they requested him to consent thereto because the Emperour Theodosius had so commaunded them Thirdly the Fathers say plainely that the Emperour confirmed the Councell these are the wordes Opportunum credidimus esse honoris eâ—us confirmationem ab vniuersalj Concilio celebrarj Wee thought it meete and conuenient that the whole Councell should celebrate his Honours confirmation To which I adde that seeing the Fathers of this Chalcedon Councell did approue and confirme the Canons both of the Nicene and of the Constantinopolitane Synode in which Synodes this pretended Prerogatiue is condemned it must follow of necessitie that the sayd Epistle or relation is a counterfeit B. C. It can not truly be called a Decree of the Councell which was not confirmed by the Head no more then that an Act of Parliament which is not confirmed by the King T. B. I answeere first with the famous popish Byshoppe Melchior Canus that it is not in these affaires as in humane assemblies Which the holy Prophet doth plainely insinuate while in the person of God he vttereth these wordes For my cogitations are not your cogitations neither are your wayes my wayes sayth the Lord. Secondly that there is great disparitie betweene the Pope and the King concerning the subiect now in hand For first the King hath a sacred soueraigntie ouer all the people within his dominions as ouer his naturall Subiectes and loyall Seruantes But the Pope hath no soueraigntie ouer transmarine and forraigne Christians as I haue already prooued Secondly the King though negatiuely he forbid Lawes to be enacted yet doth he not make any new Lawes affirmatiuely to tie all his Subiectes without the consent of his Lordes spirituall Lordes temporall and the Commons of his Kingdomes But the Pope challengeth Power though most impudently and against sacred Canons to make Lawes to tie all Christians in the whole world no way subiect to him Thirdly the King taketh not vpon him solely of himselfe to abrogate cassiere or disanull any act of Parliament to which he formerly gaue his consent But the Pope taketh roundly though fondly vpon him solely of himselfe to abrogate cassiere disanull any Decree of Councell though formerly approoued by himselfe Fourthly no text of holy Writ no Canon of any auncient Councell no Father of approoued antiquitie denyeth to Kinges sacred soueraigntie within their Kingdomes Territories and Dominions ouer any persons whatsoeuer borne within the precincts thereof But all the foure first most famous generall Councelles of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon all which S. Gregorie reuerenced as the foure Gospels denie the Popes falsely pretended Primacie in all forraigne and transmarine Kingdomes and confine his iurisdiction to the Citie of Rome and to the suburbican territories of the same All which is soundly and plentifully prooued in the Conclusions and Aphorismes next aforegoing B. C. But it may bee Bell will say that the confirmation of the Councell belonged not to the Pope It is not possible that he dare offer it T. B. I answere first that seeing the Pope as is alreadie prooued taketh vpon him to change the nature of thinges by applying the substantiall partes of one thing to an other to make some thing of nothing the proper action of God in creation to depose Kinges to translate Empires and to bestow the same at his good pleasure to make it Sacriledge to dispute of his power to terrifie men so with Fire and Faggot and with thunderboltes of cursing Excomunications that though hee carry thousandes to Hell yet may no man say Why doest thou so It may seeme no maruell if Bell poore soule be afrayde to anger his Holinesse Neuerthelesse because the trueth is neuer ashamed but will in time preuayle Bell post deosculationem pedum and to prooue our Jesuite in this as in many other thinges a most impudent and notorious lyer dare boldly tell the Pope that the Confirmation of Councels belongeth not vnto him Yea Bell will not barely say it but he will produce such strong arguments such waightie authorities and such inuincible reasons as will make the Popes eares to tingle when hee shall read or heare the same Marke well this my Discourse vnto the end I purpose in God to proceed by way of Sections for the better illustration of the businesse now in hand The first Section of reasons in generall concerning the subiect now in hand I haue alreadie prooued in my Booke of Motiues that euery Monarch hath supreame soueraigntie ouer all Persons and causes within his Dominions and consequently that no Lawes can be of force in his Kingdomes without his royall assent approbation and confirmation of the same King Josaphat appoynted in Hierusalem Leuites Priestes and Princes of the families of Israel that they should iudge the iudgement cause of the Lord to the inhabitants thereof And he commanded them saying Thus shall ye doe in the feare of the Lord faythfully and with a perfect heart Yea he distinguished limitted the offices and functions both of Zabadias the ciuill Magistrate and of Amarias the Hie Priest thereby insinuating euidently that the chiefest power iurisdiction rested in the King not in Amarias the Hie Priest The same King to gather the Church which was decayed sent Preachers into sundry partes of his Kingdome appoynting Noble-men to accompany assist theÌ„ to couÌ„tenance their ministerie to compel the people to heare theÌ„ K. Asa vsed his authority in coÌ„manding Iudah to seek the Lord threatning them with death that should refuse so to do King Josias after he had abolished Idolatry compelled all his Subiectes to serue the true God to liue in his feare Ezechias commanded all Israel Judah to come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem there to keepe the Passeouer which had been a long neglected and not obserued in such sort perfect maner as God had
neque N. hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Wee must not regard what any before vs thought should be done but what Christ first did who is more to be respected then all others Againe in an other place thus Nam Consuetudo sine Veritate vetustas erroris est propter quod relicto errore sequamur Veritatem Custome without Trueth is the antiquitie ef Errour wherefore let vs leaue Errour and follow the Trueth Pope Gregorie is consonant and plainely auoucheth the same Trueth Vsus qui Veritati est contrarius est abolendus Vse contrary to Trueth must be abolished Sixtly that where there is Law Custome can haue no place For Custome I finde thus defined in the Popes owne Decrees Consuetudo est ius quoddam moribus institutuÌ„ Custome is a certaine Law instituted by the frequent actions of men It followeth in the same Decrees Quod pro Lâ—ge suscipitur cum deficit Lex Which is receiued as Law when Law can not be had And in the Glosse I finde this exposition Hic videtur quod tunc demum recurrendum est ad Consuetudinem cum Lex deficit et sic est argumentum quod nunquam secundum Consuetudinem est iudicandum si ius contrarium praecipiat Heere it seemeth that then we must haue recourse vnto Custome when Law is wanting and so we haue an argument that we must neuer iudge according to Custome if Law commaunde the contrary Sequitur in Glossa resp quod non secundum consuetudinâ—m sed secundum iura est iudicandum I answere that Iudgement must not be giuen according to Custome but according to Law And consequently I conclude against Pope Nicholas and against all Jâ—suites and Iesuited Papistes that seeing the sacred Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Aphrican yeelded no prerogatiue to the Byshoppes of Rome saue onely in respect of Custome and seeing withall that Pope Sozimus Celestinus and Bonifacius did challenge their falsely pretended Primacie and Prerogatiues onely by the Canons of the Nicene Councell as I haue alreadie soundly prooued and for that end Pope Sozimus falsified the same Canons and the other Popes vrged the same for the furtheraunce of their falsely pretended Title Primacie and Prerogatiues but were therefore in the ende roundly controlled and vtterly reiected of the Fathers of the Aphrican Councell the Popes or Byshoppes of Rome must hold them selues contented and satisfied with that iurisdiction which the holy Synodes haue allotted them B. C. The true meaning therefore of the Canon is that the Byshoppe of Rome before the definition of any Councell vsed to commit the gouernment of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis to the Byshoppe of Alexandria as Pope Nicholas the first doth expound T. B. The Iesuite should haue named the Pope that first gaue such gouernment to the Byshoppe of Alexandria and in what yeare it first beganne Which doubtlesse hee would haue done if possibly hee had been able to performe the same The trueth therefore is as I haue prooued euidently and Pope Nicholas is like to Sozimus and others of that vngodly 〈◊〉 They 〈◊〉 neither tell where when or by what Pope such gouernement was first committed to the Byshoppe of Alexandria and yet doe they neuer cease to demaunde the like of vs but I hope this Catholike Triumph will stop all their mouthes Yea two other Canons of the Nicene Councell are flatte contrary to Pope Nicholas his expositioÌ„ for the seuenth Canon giueth honour to the Byshop of Hierusalem yet not by reason of any Commission from the Byshop of Rome but for an old Custome Tradition The same seuenth Canon in like maner ascribeth a proper dignity to euery Metropolitane And the fourth Canon auoucheth constantly that nothing done in any Prouince is of any force or strength vnlesse the same be confirmed by the Metropolitane As for the Popes Vniuersall soueraigntie no Canon yet extant in rerum natura neither of the Councell of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon or Aphrican maketh any mention thereof B. C. The word Superroyall I suppose slyly mocketh at that which venerable antiquitie confesseth I will content my selfe with the testimonie of S. Chrysostome who speaking not onely of Byshoppes but inferiour Clergie-men instructeth them how to deale with secular Potentates comming vnworthily to the Sacramentes in this manner If a Duke quoth he if a Consull if hee that weareth a Crowne come vnworthily stoppe and hinder him thou hast greater power then hee And the Minister denieth that the late Queene might preach the Ghospell or administer the Sacramentes Which functions notwithstanding other of their Clergie might execute whereof it ensueth that in these Spirituall poyntes their power was aboue that of the Queenes and so truely in a good sense may be called Superroyall which so much his superscoffing grauitie seemeth to deride and taunt T. B. I answere first that the Superroyall counterfeite Power which I deride in your Pope is the deposing of Kinges the translating of Empires the making of some thing of nothing the applying of the substantiall partes of one thing to an other the aduauncing of himselfe aboue euery thing that hath beeing and such like whereof I haue spoken and intreated very plentifully in the Conclusions of this present Chapter Secondly that albeit in the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacramentes the chosen Minister hath onely the charge and authoritie to execute them yet hath Gods annoynted Prince the supreame charge and soueraigne authoritie to commaunde the execution thereof as also to correct and to punish the Minister for the neglect of his duetie in that behalfe For though the execution perteyne to the Ministers yet the prouision direction appoyntment care ouersight which is the Supreme gouernement indeed perteyneth onely solely wholly to the Prince For which cause King Ezechias highly renowned in holy Writ though he were but very young in yeares did for all that in regard of his prerogatiue Royall Supreame authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall call the Priestes Leuites his Sonnes charging them to heare him and to follow his Commaundement for so are the wordes of the Text. Yea Josias that famous King did sundry times commaund the Hie Priest But of this subiect I haue intreated so copiously in other Bookes as it is heere a thing needlesse to stand longer vpon the same Thirdly that I graunt freely willingly that Ministers in the action of their Ecclesiasticall function Church-ministerie are aboue all Christians aboue Queenes Kinges and Monarches representing the person of God teaching admonishing rebuking them as others following the godly example therein of S. Iohn the Baptist. Yea I further graunt that if the vices of Princes Kinges and Monarches be notorious scandalous to the whole Church then the Byshops may denounce such Potentates to be enemies to the trueth aduersaries to God and no true members of the Church but to be holden for forlorne people and as
whole care industrie and diligence to see what helpe might be had in that behalfe his best resolution is to say with the old doting man of Carlton That it is either one thing or other For first he freely confesseth that it is not in the Old law Secondly that it is not in the Scripture of th'Apostles Thirdly that we must either hold this or that but he can not tell whether Fourthly that how soeuer we thinke or say of this Popish Auricular confessioÌ„ this perforce we must resolue to be the trueth viz. that it is grounded vpon Vnwritten tradition without all maner of Scripture This is it which our Papistes must euer flie vnto as to their best and last trumpe For which respect their learned and canonized Martyr the late Byshoppe of Rochester confessed plainely that the holy Scriptures will not serue their turne these are his expresse wordes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum Hareticis nos also subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam quam scriptura sacra Therefore when Heretiques contende with vs we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture Thus writeth Byshoppe Fisher the Popes canonized Saint and glorious Martyr a Learned man indeed who as we see for all his Learning was not able to defend Poperie by Gods word and therefore he fled from the holy Scriptures to vnwritten Traditions as Scotus did afore him And for the same respect Couarruuias a famous Popish Bishoppe and a great learned man confessed and published to the whole world that howsoeuer the trueth was that which their Pope did must of necessitie be defended These are his expresse words Nec mâ—latet c. Neither am I ignorant that S. Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation that the Byshoppe of Rome can not with his Dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne Vow of Chastitie This notwithstanding wee must defend the first opinion least those thinges which are practised euery where be vtterly ouerthrowne Behold here gentle Reader that howsoeuer the Popes opinion be whether true or false that skilleth not the same wee must defende of necissitie And why I pray you must this be done Because forsooth sayth Couarruutas otherwise Poperie will be turned vpside downe Sixtly because their famous Cardinall Caietanus affirmeth roundly that Auricular and Secret confession is against Christes institution as also the Precept that vrgeth vs to the same For albeit hee approoue Confession as instituted by Christ yet doth he adde a double restriction First that it was Voluntarie then that it was neither Secret nor of All sinnes Which twaine for all that the late Byshoppes of Rome affirme and vrge as necessarie to Saluation Marke well the next Conclusion out of the Popes owne Decrees The Seuenth Conclusion Popish Auricular Confession was not an Article of Popish Fayth for the space of 1215. yeares I prooue it because their famous Fryer and reuerend Popish Byshop Iosephus Angles affirmeth peremptorily and without all And 's or Ifs that none were Heretikes for the deniall of the necessitie of Popish confession vntill the Decree of their late Councell of Latheran which was holden 1215. yeares after Christ. And the Fryer Byshoppe yeeldeth this reason for the same viz. Quia nondum erat ab Ecclesia declaratum Because the Church of Rome had not before that time declared it to be so To which I adde for the complement of this controuersie that the Holy Auncient Fathers those stout Champions and mighty Pillers of Christes Church were neuer acquainted with Popish Auricular confession I prooue this by a double argument First by the fact of the holy Byshop Nectarius then by the ioynt-testimonies of Nicephorus and Rhenanus Concerning Nectarius that holy and worthy Byshoppe of Constantinople hee abolished the Law made for Confession so to auoyde the great Vices which ensued therevpon Where the Reader must obserue two thinges with mee th' one that in the Auncient church Publike Penaunce was inioyned to those who publikely denyed the Fayth in time of Persecution And that some were so zelous and so highly esteemed the sacred Ministerie that although they did not denie the Fayth publikely yet for that they had some doubtes therein and were troubled in their mindes they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefes to Gods Ministers humbly desired their Godly aduise submitted themselues to doe what was thought expedient by those Ministers whom the Church had placed to inioyne Penance for publike sinnes Th' other that notwithstanding the whoredome of the Deacon and other vices neither would that holy Byshop Nectarius euer haue attempted to abolish Confession if it had been Gods ordinance neither would so many famous Byshops haue imitated his fact And yet is it most certaine as shal be seene by and by that all for the most part Easterne-Byshops did follow his opinion Yea euen S. Chrysostome who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople that goodly Patriarchall seate of the World Concerning Nicephorus and Rhenanus their owne expresse wordes shall heere be layde open to the Reader Nicephorus after he hath told vs what Nectarius did immediatly addeth these wordes Quem etiam ferè Orientales Episcopi omnes sequuti sunt Whom almost all the Byshoppes of the East did follow and imitate Againe he addeth toward the end of that Chapter these wordes Itaque de quorundam maximè vero Eudaemonis Ecclesiae eius Presbyteri patria Alexandrini Consilio ne postea in Ecclesia Presbyter paenitentiarius esset Nectarius statuit suadentibus illis vt cuique permitteretur pro conscientia et fiducia sua communicare et de immaculatis mysterijs participare Therefore Nectarius being aduised by sundry especially by Eudaemon an Elder of that Church borne in Alexandria made a Decree through their perswasion that from that day no Priest should heare the Confessions of the penitentes but that euery one should be permitted to communicate and to be partaker of the holy Mysteries as his owne Conscience and Fayth did mooue him Beatus Rhenanus after he had discoursed at large how the Auncient Church appoynted Priestes ouer the penitent that they might giue them counsaile how to make satisfaction according to the Canons which themselues did not vnderstande and withall had prooued out of S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Bede Tertullian Hesychius Theodulphus Theodorus Bertramus Rabanus and Nectarius all which he alleadged for his opinion he deliuered his owne iudgement in these wordes Non aliam ob causam complurimi hic testimonijs vsi sâ—mus quam ne quis admiretur TertullianuÌ„ de clancularia illa admissoruÌ„ confessione nihil loquutum quae quantum coijcimus penitus id temporis ignorabatur For no other cause haue I heere vsed the testimonies of so many Writers but least any should maruell that Tertullian spake nothing of that secret Confession which as I thinke was vtterly vnknowen at that time Loe Tertullian spake not one word of Auricular confessioÌ„
arbitrij excusatam se putat quando ignorantiae non voluntatis videtur esse quod peccat Secundum hanc excusationeÌ„ inexcusabiles dicet Scriptura diuina quoscunque sciences peccare conuincit Dei tamen iustum iudicium nec illis parcit qui non audierunt quicunque N. sine lege peccauerunt sine lege peribunt Et quamuis se ipsi excusare videantur non admittit hanc excusationem qui scit se fecisse hominem rectum eique obedientiae dedisse praeceptum nec nisi eius quo malè vsus est libero voluntatis arbitrio etiam quod transiret in posteros manasse peccatum Neque N. damnantur qui non peccauerunt quandoquidem illud ex vno in omnes pertransijt in quo anâ—e propria in singulis quibusque peccata omnes communiter peccauerunt Ac per hoc inexcusabilis est omnis peccator vel reatu originis vel additamento etiam propria voluntatis siue qui nouit siue qui ignorat siue qui iudicat siue qui non iudicat quia et ipsa ignorantia in eis qui intelligere noluerunt sine dubitatione peccatum est in eis autem qui non potuerunt poena peccati Ergo in vtrisque non est iusta excusatio sed iusta damnatio For the pride of man presuming of the force of Free Will doth thinke himselfe excused when that wherein he sinneth seemeth to proceed of ignorance rather then of Will According to this excuse holy Writ pronounceth all those inexcusable that sinne willingly Howbeit the iust iudgement of God spareth not those which neuer heard the truth For whosoeuer haue sinned without Law shall perish without Law And although they seeme to excuse themselues yet he admitteth not this excuse who knoweth that he made man right and commaunded him to be obedient as also that that sinne which infected all posterities came no otherwise but by his Free Will who vsed it amisse for they are not damned that sinned not seeing that sinne passed from one to all in which all commonly haue sinned before they had euery one seuerally any proper sinnes of their owne and hence commeth it that euery sinner is without excuse either through originall guilt or els by the act of his owne proper Will added thereunto Whether he hath knowen or is ignorant Whether it be he that iudgeth or hee that iudgeth not because in those that would not vnderstand ignorance is sinne without all peraduenture but in those that could not it is the punishment of sinne therefore in them both there is iust damnation but no iust excusation Againe the same S. Augustine in an other place hath these expresse wordes Qui vero suis meritis praemia tanquam debita expectant nec ipsa merita Dei gratiae tribuunt sed viribus propriae voluntatis sequitur nos inquit non spiritum huius mundi accepimus sed Spiritum qui ex Deo est vt sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis ac per hoc et ipsum hominis meritum Donum est gratuitum nec a Patre luminum a quo descendit omne datum optimum boni aliquid accipere quisquam meretur nisi accipiendo quod non meretur They that expect rewards as due to their merites doe not ascribe their merites to the grace of God but to the strength of their owne will We saith the Apostle haue not receiued the spirit of this world but the Spirit which is of God that we may know what God hath giuen vs and so that the merite of man is the Free gift of God neither can any man receiue any good from the Father of Light from whom descendeth euery good gift by way of merit vnlesse hee first receiue that which he doth not merite Thus discourseth S. Augustine out of whose Wordes I obserue these memorable Doctrines First that whosoeuer expecteth reward as due to his merites doe greatly derogate from the grace of God Secondly that mans merite vnproperly so called is the Free gift of God Thirdly that no man can merite any reward at all vnlesse hee first receiue that freely of meere mercie which he can no way merit To which I adde for further explication sake that S. Augustine speaketh of merit vnproperly as Abbot Bernard and other Fathers doe in that sense and meaning which is plainely insinuated and clearely prooued in the sixt Conclusion in which sense my selfe willingly grant that euery good Worke is meritorious but withal I constantly affirme that the best good Worke of the most Holy man on earth neither is nor can bee properly and condignely meritorious of Eternall glory This is soundly and clearely prooued in the seuenth Conclusion of this present Chapter I prooue the same in like manner out of S. Augustines expresse Words afore going For first hee calleth it arrogant pride to challenge Eternall life as due to the merites of any man Secondly he flatly denyeth the best Liuer on earth to haue that iustice to which Eternall life is due Thirdly hee plainely auoucheth that they derogate more then a little from Gods grace who do but expect reward as due vnto their merits Fourthly that all the merite of man is Gods meere and Free gift Fiftly that when God rewardeth mans merits then doth he onely reward his owne free gifts and consequently that when S. Austen speaketh of mans merite he euer vnderstandeth merite vnproperly so called as also Abbot Bernard and other Fathers doe yea Gregorius Ariminensis Thomas Waldensis Paulus Burgensis Eckius Doâ—â—inicus Soto Thomas Aquinas Durandus and Iosephus Angles doe all with one vniforme assent speake of merit in the same sense and meaning with S. Austen and other holy Fathers Marke well the seuenth Conclusion with the rest and this trueth will soone appeare B. C. In this Paragraph hee citeth Iosephus Angles who saith That good Workes proceeding of grace without the promise of God are wholy vnworthy of Eternall life Thus he alleageth as though it were moâ—â—â—all doctrine to us whereas if himselfe were this day at Rome and cleare in all other things neuer would he be called in question about that point T. B. I answere First that if my selfe were this day at Rome as our Fryer seemeth heere to desire and wish it is very probable or rather most certaine sure that the Pope his Jesuites with their accursed Iesuited crew would deale with me as the Philistims did with Sampson if happily they would afford me so much fauour Secondly that our Iesuite giueth himselfe a mortall wound in that he approueth that Doctrine which Iosephus Angles hath published to the veiw of the world For whatsoeuer is wholy altogether vnworthy that doubtlesse can be no way worthy The case is cleare but let vs heare and seriously ponder Angles his owne wordes Eodem itiam modo considerantes omnes alij Doctores sancti naturalem solummodo bonorum operum valorem et illum a valore et iusta vlta â—â—erna â—stimatione