worthinesse in the workes them-selues but onely from Gods Promise and Merites of his Sonne This I challenge for a manifest vntrueth when as plentifull testimonies want not to prooue that Workes proceeding of Grace are Meritorious not onely for his Promise or Acceptation but also for the dignitie of the Workes Yea the Scriptures are euident in this poynt T. B. I answere that I haue soundly confuted in the Conclusions afore-going much more then the Fryer doth heere or is euer able to obiect Neuerthelesse I am content to answere in particular to whatsoeuer seemeth to carrie any colour of trueth though none in very deed B. C. Call the Worke-men and pay them their hyre where Reward is giuen to the Workes Whereof it followeth that Workes deserued it T. B. I answere First that the Pope may be ashamed to haue no better defenders of his Poperie For if the trueth were in their side better reasons would be giuen in defence of the same Secondly that all Worke-men do not alwayes deserue their hyre For many as experience teacheth are such idle loyterers and worke so slowly that their Maisters giue them ouer not thinking them worth halfe their hyre Thirdly that they who came but at the eleuenth houre and in the end of the day receiued as much hyre as they that came at the ninth sixt or third houre which plainely argueth that the hyre was not giuen for the worthinesse or condignitie of the Worke. Fourthly that they who doe nothing but which otherwise they are bound to doe do not worthily deserue hyre for doing of the same Fiftly that Johannes Ferus a learned Popish Fryer in his Commentaries vpon this text yeeldeth the same sense and meaning these are his wordes Docet haec Parabola primò gratiam esse non debitum quicquid a Deo nobis datur Omnes N. iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae Imò nè ipsae passiones quidem huius temporis sunt condignae ad futuram gloriam Quodsi aliquando mercedem audis polliceri scias non ob aliud esse debitum quam ex promissione diuina Gratis promisit gratis reddit Si igitur Dei gratiam et fauorem conseruare cupis nullam meritorum tuoruÌ„ mentioneÌ„ fac This Parable teacheth vs that it is Grace not Debt whatsoeuer God giueth vs. For all our righteousnesse is as filthy Cloutes Yea the very afflictions which we endure in this life are vnworthy of eternall life If then thou heare Reward sometime promised know that it is no otherwise debt saue only for the Promise which God hath made Freely he promised and freely he payeth the same If therefore thou wilt keepe Gods fauour grace make no mention of thy Merites Thus discourseth this learned Fryer out of whose wordes I obserue these worthy Lessons First that our workes deserue nothing condignely at Gods handes Secondly that whensoeuer we heare Reward promised we must then know that it freely proceedes of Mercie not of any worthines in our Workes Thirdly that God both without our Desertes promiseth and without our Desertes performeth the same Fourthly that we can not continue in Gods fauour if we doe but make mention of our Merites But doubtlesse if the mention of our Merites barely made be of force to take away Gods fauour from vs much more is the relying vpon our Merites and the challenging of Merite for the same able and of force to produce the same effect Againe in an other place the same Ferus hath these expresse wordes Non attendebant quod per ProphetaÌ„ dicitur Ego deleo peccata tua propter me propter me inquit non propter merita tua Solus Christus remittit peccata et quidem gratis nihil ad hoc faciunt merita nostra Non quod intermittenda sunt opera sed soli Deo gloria danda iuxta illud si seceritis omnia quae praecepta sunt vobis dicite serui inutiles sumus They regarded not what the Prophet sayth I put away thy sinnes for mine owne sake Hee sayth for mine owne sake not for thy Merites One and sole Christ doth forgiue sinnes and that freely our Merites helpe nothing thereunto Yet Good workes may not be omitted but the glory must be giuen to God alone according to that saying If ye shall doe all that is commaunded you yet say Wee are vnprofitable seruantes B. C. Likewise our Sauiour sayth Come yee blessed of my Father possesse you the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world For I was an hungred and you gaue mee to eate Where our Sauiour signifieth that Heauen was giuen to Good workes for in more vsuall significant wordes it can not be spoken that Heauen is giuen as a Reward to the workes of mercie T. B. I answere first that the word For is not heere taken causaliter but consequatiuè to speake as the Schoole-doctors doe that is to say it doth not connotate the cause but the euent so as the sense is not that they did merite Heauen for giuing Meate to Christ but that by doing such charitable Workes which are the effectes of a true iustifying Fayth they shewed them selues to be the Children of God and the heyres of his Kingdome And this sense is clearely deduced out of the very text it selfe For seeing the kingdome of Heauen as Christ heere auoucheth was prepared for them before the foundation of the world and consequently before they were borne and so before they could doe any Good workes it followeth of necessitie that their Workes could not merit Heauen but onely intimate to the world that the inheritaunce of Heauen was due vnto them as to the children of God the heyres of the same For as the Apostle sayth If we be Sonnes then are we also Heyres Heyres of God and ioynt-Heyres with Christ. Yea as the same Apostle saith in an other place As he chose vs in him before the foundation of the World that we should be holy immaculate in his sight through loue Againe in an other place thus teacheth vs our Sauiour himselfe Non vos me elegistis sed ego eâ—egi vos et positi vos vt â—atis et fructum afferatis You haue not chosen me but I haue chosen you I haue put you that yee may goe and bring foorth fruit In another place the Apostle hath these wordes Whom he did predestinate them also he called whom he called them also he iustified whom he iustified them also he glorified Johannes Ferus that learned popish Fryer writeth in this manner Ego inquit elegi vos potest autem verbum hoc intelligi vel de electione ad Apostolatum vel de electione aeterna ad salutem Vtrobique N. gratia est non meritum vtrumque per Christum fit In ipso siquidem et per ipsum elâ—git nos Deus ante munâ—i constitutionem Sequitur Ego inquit qui Deus sum â—c propterea nullius inâ—igens ego qui
Promise which he freely without all our desertes made vnto vs. These are his expresse wordes Manifestum est autem quod inter Deum et hominem est maxima inaequalitas in infinitum N. distant totum quod est hominis bonū est a Deo Vnde non potest hominis a Deo esse iustitia secundum absolutam aequalitatem sed secundum proportionem quandam in quantum scz vterque operatur secundum modum suum Modus autem et mensura humanae virtutis homini est a Deo et ideo meritum hominis apud Deum esse non potest nisi secundum praesuppositionē diuinae ordinationis ita scz vt id homo consequatur a Deo per suam operationem quasi mercedem ad quod Deus ei vertutem operandi destinauit It is manifest that betweene God and man there is exceeding great inequalitie for they differ infinitely All the good that man hath is of God Wherefore mans iustice receiued of God can not be according to perfect and absolute equalitie but after a certaine proportion to weet in as much as either worketh according to his condition Now man hath the measure and condition of his Vertue from God and therefore mans Merite can not be with God saue onely according to the supposall of Gods holy ordinaunce so to weet that man may attaine that at Gods hand by his working as reward to which God hath appoynted his power of working Thus disputeth the graund Papist Aquinas whose Discourse doth vtterly ouerthrow all Popish Merite as the late Popish Councel of Trent hath defined the same For first marke well my wordes Aquinas teacheth vs the trueth viz. that where there is no perfect equalitie there can be no Merite properly Secondly he graunteth that there is infinite inequalitie betweene God and man Thirdly he confesseth freely that mans iustice is not absolute but imperfect Fourthly he acknowledgeth as truely as constantly that man doth merite nothing in Gods sight saue onely by way of his free acceptation Marke well and forget not these wordes Nisi secundum praesupposuionem diuinae ordinationis Saue onely according to the supposall of Gods ordinaunce Fiftly he plainely auoucheth that eternall life is not hyre properly but as it were hyre Marke the wordes Quasi mercedem as hyre for they are emphaticall and wholly opposite to condigne Merite of mans Workes These argumentes doe plainely conuince and yet to gratifie our Iesuite whose fauour I greatly desire in Christ I will adde for a supplement a double testimonie of two very learned Fryers th' one is Josephus Angles a Popish Byshop and Franciscan Fryer th' other is Robertus Bellarminus a Jesuiticall Fryer and Romish Cardinall Angles hath these expresse wordes Eodem etiam modo considerantes omnes alij doctores sancti naturalem solūmodo bonorum operum valorem et illum a valore et iusta vitae aeternae astimatione longissime distare perpendentes prudenter dixerunt opera nostra non esse meritoria aut digna vitae aeternae Ex lege tamen siue conuentione siue promissione facta nobiscum opera bona hominis cum adiutorio gratiae Dei fiunt aeternae vitae digna et illi aequalia quae seclusa illa Dei promissione quae passim in sacris literis reperitur fuissent tanto premio prorsus indigna All other holy Doctors also considering after the same manner the naturall value onely of Good workes and perceiuing that it is exceeding farre distant from the value and iust estimation of eternall life sayd wisely that our workes are not Meritorious nor worthy of eternall life Yet for the Couenant and Promise made to vs the Good workes of man with the helpe of Gods grace are worthy of eternall life and equall to it which for all that the Promise of God which is frequent in the holy Scripture set apart were altogeather vnworthy of so great reward Thus discourseth our Popish Byshop our holy Fryer euen to the Pope himselfe after the humble kissing of his holy feete to vse his owne wordes Who though he bestirre himselfe more then a little to establish the condigne Merite of mans workes yet doth he in his owne kind of dispute vtterly confute and confound himselfe For first he freely graunteth that S. Chrysostome and all the rest of the holy Doctors with him affirme constantly and vniformely with one voyce and assent a testimonie almost incredible to proceede from the mouth of a Papist so neare and so deare to the Pope that Good workes neither are meritorious nor worthy of eternall life Secondly hee graunteth freely that the best Workes considered in their owne nature and kind are vnworthy of eternall life Thirdly hee graunteth willingly and telleth the Pope roundly but after the kissing of his holy feete that Good workes euen as they proceed of grace and assistaunce of the holy Ghost are altogeather vnworthy of eternall life if Gods Promise and free acceptation be set apart Which three poyntes doubtlesse are all that we desire to be graunted concerning the Doctrine of Good workes And consequently though the Papistes neuer cease to impeach accuse slaunder and condemne vs in this behalfe yet doe wee indeed defend nothing herein as is euident to the indifferent Reader but that very doctrine which their best Doctors in their printed Bookes haue taught vs yea in those selfe-same Bookes which are dedicated to the Pope himselfe The conceites which the Fryer Byshoppe alleadgeth to make good the late decreed condigne Merite of Works are very childish too too grosse and friuolous For first where he affirmeth the Fathers and Doctors to speake of Good workes only in respect of their naturall value as he tearmeth it I answere that that sillie Glosse Exposition is onely inuented by him and his fellowes so to salue their beggerly doctrine if it possibly could be For not only the holy Scripture euery where contradicteth it but the Doctors also teach the flat contrary For first Durandus saith plainely that Meritū de condigno is properly of the worthy to which that is simply due which is equall by vertue of the worke Yea he addeth that God giueth not eternall life of iustice but of meere liberalitie in that he freely accepteth our workes Secondly Aquinas affirmeth cōstantly that man can not possibly haue any Merite with God saue onely according to the supposall of his holy Ordinaunce He saith further that Eternall life is not properly a Reward but as it were a Reward Thirdly Abbot Bernard auoucheth Christianly that God may iustly deny eternall life to the best Workes of all and yet doe no iniurie to any man no not to the holyest liuer vpon earth Fourthly Fryer Bellarmine lately made Cardinall for his stout and learned defence of Poperie doth not onely quite ouerthrow the friuolous distinction of Fryer Angles but also vnawares turneth Poperie vpside downe For he approoueth the sentence and opinion of Durand and teacheth plainely That the best liuers can not
but perforce abhorre and detest Poperie as a New Religion by litle litle crept into the Church The Jesuites like Gypsies haue inuented a tricke of fast and loose assigning to their Pope a double person Priuate and Publique As a Priuate man they graunt he may both be deceiued himselfe and also deceiue others But that he can erre as a publique person or as Pope of Rome they vtterly deny For if they should once graunt this poynt which is a manifest and knowne truth Poperie would soone be turned vp-side downe Howbeit my saluation I gage for the tryall Fryer Alphonsus decideth the controuersie so plainely as all the Jesuites and Jesuited Papistes in the world are not in trueth able to withstand or gainesay the same Alphonsus sayth constantly and plainely without all And 's and Ifs that Pope Celestine erred not as a Priuate man but euen as Pope and publique person O sweete Iesus ô mercifull God! ô most louing Father how great is the malice and blasphemie of Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes against thine euerlasting Trueth and holy Name With what face can the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine tell vs that Pope Celestine erred onely as a Priuate man and not as Pope or Publique person When the Papistes like the Popes Decrees then they say hee defined as Pope and Publique person and that none may withstand his definitiue Sentence or once examine the same as is alreadie prooued to their euerlasting shame But when their Pope is conuinced to haue erred so grossely that they know not possibly how to defende him then they are not ashamed to say that hee erred but as a Priuate man Thirdly that the Pope erred in a poynt of great consequence euen in a matter of Popish Fayth viz. that Matrimonie was so dissolued by reason of Heresie that the faythfull man or woman might marrie againe the Hereticall partie lyuing Which thing sayth Alphonsus was manifest to euery one to be an Heresie and their late Councell of Trent hath defined it to be so Fourthly that this Decree and Definition of Pope Celestine was in those dayes enrolled in the Popes Decretals Fiftly that Alphonsus saw and read the same Sixtly that the sayd Decree can not this day be found amongst the Popes Decretall Epistles Where I note by the way and heartily wish the Reader to obserue the same that the decrees of our holy Fathers the Popes haue bin such so much against lately hatched Poperie as they are this day ashamed to bring the same to light But let this be our comfort herein that God hath at all times stirred vp some learned Papistes otherwise deuoted to the Pope who haue boldly vsed their Pennes and Wittes such is the force of trueth to discouer and lay open to the view of the world the deceit coozenage liegerdemayne and cunnicatching tricks of wicked Popes Jesuites all Iesuited Papistes so farre foorth I euer meane as is necessarie for the common good of his Church Now whether our Jesuite be a most notorious lyer or noe let the Reader iudge For if Alphonsus say that the Pope can not erre as Pope and Publique person I am content to be the lyer But if he constantly hold and defend the contrarie as the vndoubted trueth then iudge and censure our Fryer in this as in many other thinges for a shameles and impudent lyer best worthy of the Whetstone I wish he may haue it weare it about his necke as a testimonie of his condigne desertes The 9. Chapter Of the condigne so supposed merit of Good workes FOR the clearer manifestation and illustration of the trueth of this Controuersie I thinke it not amisse to proceed therein by way of Conclusions Which being soundly effected I purpose in God to answere and confute a thing very easie to be done the childish cauils ridiculous euasions and cunnicatching trickes which our Fryer vseth in pleading for the life of their New Religion The first Conclusion The Regenerate doe Good workes which are acceptable in Gods sight and receiue reward farre aboue their Condigne desertes This Conclusion is prooued by many textes of holy Writ Iob is enrolled among the Godly and those that feared God euen by the testimony of God himselfe Abel was slaine of his brother Cain because he feared God and did Good works The Scripture sayth that Noe was a iust man and perfect who therefore with his Familie found fauour in Gods sight in time of the generall Deluge The Angell of God saluting the blessed virgin Marie pronounced her holy aboue all Women Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both iust walked in all the Commaundements of God Abraham Moses Dauid Gedeon Sampson Samuel and many others did Workes acceptable in Gods sight Cornelius is highly commended in holy Writ for the Good workes he did Thus much for the former part And for the latter part the Scripture is likewise plentifull Christ himselfe promiseth to reward Good workes so liberally that he will not suffer so much as a Cuppe of cold Water giuen in his name to passe without reward For which cause Moses is said to haue had respect vnto reward And S. Paul teacheth vs that the passions of this life are not worthy of the glory to come In briefe the Popish Fryer Iohn de Combis a very learned Papist in his Theological Abridgement affirmeth it to be a maxime with God euer to reward vs aboue our well doinges and to punish vs lesse then our euill demerites These are his expresse wordes Et hoc pates quod Deus semper remunerat supra meritum sicut punit citra condignâ—m And this is euident because God euer rewardeth aboue our merites and punisheth vs lesse then we be worthy Where I may not passe ouer in silence the blasphemie of the Rhemistes against the effect of Christes Passion while they affirme Christ not to haue so fully satisfied for our sinnes but that wee are still bound to satisfie each man in particular for his owne sinnes For most true it is as I haue prooued in sundry places of this Discourse that Christ hath so sufficiently satisfied for all his Elect and so answered the iustice of God for punishment of their sinnes as they are freely discharged thereof Yet must they willingly suffer to be made conformable to Christ in Suffering as they looke to be like him in Glorie Their sufferings are indeed a condition required to their Glorification but neither a Cause thereof nor any Satisfaction for their sinnes The case is cleare the Scriptures doe euery where insinuate the same They are onely Conditio sine qua non of our Glorification and the necessarie and infallible effectes of our Predestination which they euer follow as Fruites doe the Tree for the afflictions of Gods children though they be a cause working eternall Glorie in the sense afore touched as they be the way by which God hath appoynted them to passe to Glorie yet neither are
Concupiscence which remayneth in vs till the houre of death excludeth vs from God and prepareth Hell for vs. The same Bernard in an other place hath these wordes Necesse est primò omnium credere quod remissionem peccatorum habere non possis nisi per indulgentiaÌ„ Dei. Deinde quod nihil prorsus habere que as operis boni nisi et hoc dederit ipse Postremò quod aternam vitam nullis pâ—tâ—s operibus promereri nisi gratis detur et illa First of all thou must beleeue of necessitie that thou canst not haue remission of thy sinnes vnlesse God will giue thee a pardon for the same Then thou must beleeue that thou canst not haue any Good worke at all vnlesse thou receiue it at Gods hand Last of all thou must beleeue that thou canst not merite eternall life by any Workes vnlesse it be freely giuen of Mercie The famous Papist and great learned Schoole doctor Durandus disputeth this difficultie so soundly and plainely as euery Child may with all facilitie perceiue the trueth thereof These are his expresse wordes Tale Meritum de condigno inuenitur inter homines sed non est hominis ad Deum Quod patet quia quod redditur potius ex liberalitate dantis quam ex debito operis non cadit sub merito de condigno strictè et propriè accepto Sequitur quod si quis dicat quod quamuis Deus non constituatur nobis debitor ex aliquo nostro opere constituitur tamen debitor ex sua promissione quam exprimit scriptura non valet propter duo Primum est quod promissio diuina in scripturis sanctis non sonat in aliquam obligationem sed insinuat meram dispositionem liberalitatis diuinae SecunduÌ„ est quod quod redditur non redditur ex debito operis sed ex promissione praecedente non quod redditur ex merito operis de condigno sed solum vel principaliter ex promissu Et ita non est illud debitum de quo loquimur Et sic patet quod meritum de condigno strictè et propriè sumptum viz. pro actione voluntaria propter quam operanti debetur merces ex iustitia sic quod si non reddatur ille ad quem pertinet reddere iniustè facit et est simpliciter et proprièiniustus non est hominis ad DeuÌ„ Et ideo propter tale meritum cum sit homini simpliciter impossibile non est necesse in nobis ponere gratiam vel charitatem habitualem Such condigne Merite is found among men but is not betweene God and man Which hereby is cleare because that which is rendered rather of the liberalitie of the giuer then of debt due to the worke falleth not vnder condigne Merite properly so called If any say that though God become not our debter by reason of our Worke yet is he made our debtour by reason of his Promise whereof the Scripture maketh mention that answere is of no force for two respectes First because Gods Promise in the holy Scriptures doth not sound to any Bond but insinuateth the meere disposition of Gods liberalitie Secondly because that which is giuen is not giuen for the debt arysing of the Worke but of promise that went before not that it is rendred for the condigne Merite of the worke but onely or principally for his Promise sake And so there is not that debt of which we speake And so it is cleare that condigne Merite properly so called viz. for a voluntary action for which reward is due of iustice to the worker so that if it be not rendred hee to whom it apperteyneth to giue it doth vniustly and is simply and properly vniust is not betweene God and man And therefore for such a Merite seeing it is simply impossible to man there is no need to put in vs grace or charitie habituall Thus disputeth M. Durand out of whose golden periods I gather many memorable Obseruations First that condigne Merite can not be betweene God and man Secondly that eternall life is the free gift of Gods liberalitie not proceeding of any debt or duetie due to the best Workes which we doe Thirdly that God rewardeth vs principally for his Promise sake and not for any thing wee either haue done or possibly can doe Fourthly that condigne Merite is so farre aboue mans capacitie and reach that no man can by any possibilitie haue it And consequently that late Popish condigne Merite of Workes is ridiculous absurd and impossible Gregorius Ariminensis Thomas Waldensis Paulus Burgensis Marsilius and Etkins fiue most zealous Papistes doe all with one assent affirme very constantly that mans Workes are not meritorious of eternall life how holy soeuer the man be All this is prooued at large in my Suruay of Poperie Dominicus Soto a zealous Monke and famous Popish writer telleth the Papistes roundly and peremptorily and teacheth them grauely that no pure man is able to make condigne satisfaction for his sinnes and so a fo tiori against his will and meaning that no man can by condigne Merite attaine eternall life These are his expresse wordes Perfectâ— satisfactio est â—lla cuius vâ—â—â—r es pratium totum emanat a debitore nulla vel prae â—â—niente vel interueniente gratia creditoris taliter vt sit redditio aequiuâ—lentis alias indebiâ—a voluntarâ—â— Perfect satisfaction is that whose value and price proceedeth wholly from the debtour without either preuenting or interuenting grace of the creditour so as the voluntarie reddition be of that which is equiualent and not otherwise due Thus writeth the Popes zealous and learned Fryer Sotâ— whose Doctrine I admit for the trueth and willingly subscribe thereunto Hee teachâ—th vs foure things First that the satisfaction must proceed wholly from the debtour Secondly that there must be no preuenting nor interuenting Grace of the creditour Thirdly that there must be equiualent restitution Fourthly that that equiualent reddition must be a worke which otherwise is not due These foure conditions which our Popish M. Soto the Dominican Fryer requireth in euery Satisfaction when any Papist can find in any one of their Merites or Satisfactions I will be his bondman neither shal the Popes holinesse be excepted But to come to this Bondage vpon this Couenant I am in no feare at all For the Ethnicke Philosopher Aristotle perceiued by the naturall discourse of right Reason that no man can euer make condigne Satisfaction to God and his naturall Parentes For which respect Christ himselfe teacheth vs to acknowledge our selues vnprofitable seruantes euen when wee haue done the best we can For which respect S. â—amos assureth vs that the best liuers offend in many thinges For which respect the Popish angelicall and chiefest Doctor Aquinas whose Doctrine two seuerall Popes haue confirmed for Authenticall telleth both the Pope and vs very constantly that God is not simply and truely sayd to be debtour to vs but to him selfe and his owne
well for Christes sake See Suruay part 3. chap. 6. and marke it well A.D. 250. See the Tryall chap. 5. and marke it well O braue Purgatorie the Greeke Church neuer beleeued thee The Iesuite hath as many lyes as words For this see the Anatomie of Popish Tyrannie His first lye His second lye His third lye His fourth lye His fift lye No vntrueth but what proceedes froÌ„ the Iesuiâ—es penne A.D. 250. I speake of the late Byshops of Rome O sweete Iesus who seeth not Popery to be the new Religion It is already prooued that the Fryer is a most impudent lyer The Iesuite snatcheth at this peece that peece but toucheth not the principall Act. 20. V. 27. Act 26. V. 22. Lyr. in 20. cap. Act. Apost Carthus ibid. Ioh. 5. V. 47. Aug. contra Adriantum cap. tom â— pag. 121. Polydor. libr. 6. cap. 1. The Iesuite B.C. p. 67. graunteth that Scotus is of the same opinion S. R. pag. 284. S.R. pag. 285. S. Austin tract 49. in Iohan. to 9. S.R. pag 286. S. Cyril lib. 11. in Ioan. cap. 68. Chrysosto 2. Thesâ— ho. 3. Epiphan Haeres 65. nos â—quidem vniusâ—uiusque quaestionis inuentionem non ex proprijs ratiocinationibus dicere poâ—â—imus sed ex scripturaruÌ„ consequentia Popish confession is neither commaunded by Christ nor by his Apostles Ex Leone Papa de paenitent dist 1. cap. quamuis Loe wise and religious Papistes hold that Confession was ordained by the law of man Syluest de Confes. secundò part 4. Couarruv â—om 1. par 1. pag. 155. Scotus in 4. libr. sent dist 17. q. 1. Loe Popish Confession is either one thing or other this or that they can not tell what The Papists cannot endure the written testimonie of Gods trueth Roffensis art 37. adâ— Luth. Pag. 11. Couar to 1. part 2. Cap. 7. Par. 4.11.14 in med what the Pope holdeth that must be defended Caietan cap. 20. in Iohan. Ponder well the next Conclusion A.D. 1215. Ab Innocentio 3 et â—â—is Angles in 4. S. paâ—â— 1. pag. 255. Popish auricular confession was not heard of in old time Nicephor lib. 12. cap. 28. f. Nicepho lib. 12. cap. 28. Auricular Confession is not necessary Rhenan in annot in lib. Tertul. de pae Loe Auricular Confession not heard of in the auncient Church Popish Confession is vnpossible euen by the confession of Papists Marke well for Gods sake Who will not be at defiance with Popery that deepely pondereth these thinges Out vpon Poperie it is flatâ—e Heresie Suruay part 3. cap. 12. pag. 504. Scotus can not tell what to say of their Popish Confession Lay away vnwritten Traditions and Poperie is at an end De Paenit Distinct. 1. cap. quamuis De paenit dist 1. cap. quamuis Ios. Angl. in 4. S. part 1. pag. â—54 Ios. Angles vbi supra pag. 255. The best learned Papistes doe vtterly condemne Popery for the New religion Ezech. cap. 18. vers 4. Rom. 6.23 Ar. Mont. in 1. Ioh. 3. Beda in 1. Ioh. 3. Carthus in 1. Iohn 3. Lyr. in 1. Iohn 3. Deut. 27.25 Gal. 3.10 Roffensis art 32 aduers. Luther p. 32â— Gers. de vit spiâ— lect 1. pag. â— Popish mortall Veniall sinnes are not distinguished essentially Marke this poynt well for it is of great consequence Mat. 12. v. 36. S.R. Pag. 268. O sawcie Fryer thy impudencie is intollerable Aug. de cons. Euang. lib. 2. C. 4. cont faust lib. 22. cap. 27. Ambros. de parad C. 8. Iosephus Angles in 4 S.P. 215. Iose. Angles in 2. sent pag. 249. Marke well this Popish Doctrine for it confoundeth the Pope Deut. 27.25 Gal. 3. v 10. Iacobi 2. v. 10. This Argument striketh dead Mat. 12. v. 30. Durand in 2. sent Dist. 42. q. 6. Ios. Angles in 2. sent pag 275. The Romish religion changeth often See and note well the Iesuites Antepast P. 109. et pag. 119. I highly reuerence the old Romane Religion Away with Popish workes of Supererogation Vide Bellarm. tom 3 â—0 l. 1216. Mat. 5. V. 22. Mat. 10. V. 15. There is great nequalitie in mortall sinnes Luk. 10. V. 14. Note Chap. 28. Esa. 59. V. 2. 2. Cor 6. V. 15. Psal. 5. V. 4.7 S. R. pag. 270. pag. 271. S.R. pag. 271. Ioh. 14. V. 23. Ioh. 15. V. 10.14 Ioh 14 V. 21. S.R. pag. 27â— Ioh. 15. V. 14. Deu. 27. V. 25. Gal. 3. V. 10. Mat. 12. V. 36. In prima Figura et modo Barbara Nauar. in Euchirid Cap. 21. Nu. 34. No sinne so small which breaketh not Gods fauour For we must neither turne to the right hand nor to the left Deut. 5.32 Caiet in 20. cap. Iohan. Mat. 12. V. 36. S.R. pag. 271. God will beatâ— our Iesuites for starting out of the way of his Commaundementes Psal. 5. v. â— Ioh. 15. v. 14. Nullum omâ—ino peccatum potest in Deum referri S.R. Pag. 268. O horrible Blasphemy what will not Iesuites write Marke well my wordes Esa. 55. v. 8. Rom. 9. v. 20.21.22 Rom. 11. v. 33. â—4 55 Mat. 10. v. 28. Genes 3. v. 6. Gen. 19.26 Limbus Puâ—rorum pontifiâ—ius Euery sin is of infinite deformitie â—altâ—m obiectiue S. R. Pag. 277. Euery Child of God will say it seeing it is against gods Law S. R. pag. 276.277 The Iesuite confoundeth himselfe while he graunteth euery sinne against the order of nature to be mortall Mat. 12. V. 36. The order of Nature before Adams fall Mat. 12 V. 30. Euery sinne is against Gods Law Away therefore with Popish works of supererogatioÌ„ No no prinâ—ipaliter S. R. pag. 186. S. R. pag. 278. Loe the Iesuite vnawares graunteth the trueth against his Pope and himselfe Fiue great learned Papistes are of Bels opinion Note well that the Fathers call small sinnes Veniall respectiuely See Chap. 2. Conclus 7. The Popes Fayth is confuted by Popish Doctors Poperiâ— without lying can not be defended O lying Frier there is no trueth in rotten newly inuented Poperie The maine poynt of the Controuersie Poperie is a beggerly Religion O most impudent Iesuite The Authors Protestation S. R. Pag. 281. Marke the falsely supposed errour Sinnes onely Veniall by mercie are mortall of their owne nature Nature and Mercie are farre differens This Ergo girdeth the Pope Vixit Pius A.D. 1565. Vixit Gregor A.D. 1572. Concl. 1. huius cap. ex Gersono et alijs The Romish Church beleeueth it can not tell what S. R. pag. 281. Veniall by Mercie can not be Veniall of it owne nature Tertiò Principaliter S. R. pag. 281. Out vpon rotten Poperie it consisteth of lying and forgerie See and note the tryall The Iesuite truely is at a Non plus A Poke full of Plumbes is the defence of Poperie Egomet tum eram testis oculatus Their Blood Bones Haire and Apparell are reserued honoured as the Reliques of Gods Martirs See and marke well the 29. and the. 30 Chapters The appeale of the Priestes is compared to the appeale of Alexander Martinus Polonus in Chronicho Polonus vbi supra