Of reading the holy Scriptures.

THe papistes will not haue the lay people, to reade the Scrip­tures, because they may take hurt by reading of them. Bellarmine lib 2. de verbo dei cap. 15. the wordes of Bellarmine are these, quid quod po­pulus non solum non caperet fructum ex scripturis, sed etiam caperet detri­mentum, acciperet enim facillime occa­sionem errandi, tum in doctrina fidei, tum in praeceptis morum. The people not only receiue no good out of the Scriptures, but hurt, for they would easily take an oc­casion to erre, both in the doctrine of faith as well as in the doctrine of manners. Let vs see how the Scriptures meete with [Page 2]this sottish obiection. Revel: chap: 22. v. 10. And he sayd unto me, seale not the words of this prophesie, for the time is at hand. Now some men might say, the vniust will abuse this prophesie S. Iohn answereth, he that is uniust let him be uniust still, and he that is filthy let him be filthy still. Hence it is playne that the cavill of Papistes is met withall, who thus dispute, they which will abuse the scripture must not read the same, the lay people will abuse the scripture, ergo they must not reade the same. S. Iohn answereth by a distinction, some will abuse it some will not. He that is filthy, let him be filthy, he that is holy, let him be holy still. But I desire to know of the Papist, if the learned also will not abuse the scrip­ture, it cannot be denyed, it is but bad arguinge from the abuse of a thing to take away the lawfull use [Page 3]of the same. Many abuse meate and drinke to surfetting & drunkennes, yea the Sunne and Moone to Idola­try, must these thinges therefore be taken away? Images are abused to I­dolatrie, yet will not the Papists take them away, which is a shamefull thing. Nocturne vigils, were abused, being but the deuise of men. there­fore they were takē away: I wish the Papists would doe so with Images, which are mens inventions, and not take away the reading of the Scrip­tures which is Gods ordinance.

A second obiection answered.

A Second obiection against rea­ding of the Scriptures is taken from the darknes and obscuritie of the same: thus doe the Papists argue. The Scriptures are obscure, therfore the lay people ought not to read them. This argument is answered by the Apo­stle, [Page 4]2. Cor: 4. chap: 3. v. If our gospell be then hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the mindes, that is of the infi­dels, that the light of the glorious Go­spell, should not shine vnto them. Thus standeth the obiection. Many heare the gospell, yet are they not enlight­ned therby, therfore the doctrine is not so cleare as thou Paul makest it. Paul answereth the fault is not in the Gospell, but in men thēselues & the Deuill who blindeth their mindes. Excellently writeth Picus Mirandu­la, Scriptura affibilitate parvos nutrit, altitudine superbos irridet, profundi­tate attentes terret, veritate magnos pascit, the Scripture doth nourish those that are smale, by affability, it scorneth the proud by the loftines, by the depth it terrifieth those that are atteent, and by truth it feedeth great ones.

Of prayer in an vnknowne tongue.

THe Papists teach and practise prayer in an vnknowne tongue. The Apostle hath prevented this error, 1. Cor. 14. chap. v. 15. what is it then, I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the vnderstanding also: I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing with the vnderstanding also. The ob­iection answered is this. Is it not therfore lawful to pray with the spi­rit. S. Paul answereth it is lawfull if it be vnderstood. Now by spirit as e­very man knoweth, is ment a strange tongue which the spirit did endite, So then, the Apostle hath plainly prevented the cauill for praying in a strange and vnknowne tongue; di­rectly affirming that men must not so pray except they vnderstand the tongue.

Of workes of Congruitie, that is, de­serving of Congruitie.

HO, every one that thirsteth saith Esa. 55. v. 1. come yee to the waters, and yee that haue no silver, come bye and eate: come I say bye wine and milke without siluer and without money.

All that are a thirst are here called to the waters, that is to Gods graces. Now they might say we haue no merrits or desertes, ye that haue no silver (saith the Lord) come bye and eate, I say bye wine & milke without silver and without money. Tou­ching this text thus writeth Bellar­mine lib. 5. de insti. ca. 5. Wine & milke signifie not everlasting glorie, but, the grace of this life: we doe confesse, that the grace of God is not gotten by our merits, but freely given, although not without our worke and labour, for to come and to bye, note our labour, with­out money and without change, note [Page 7]that reconciliation is not due but flatly free, O Bellarmine why then doest thou teach merits of congruitie lib. 1. cap. 21. I end this poynt with the Lords speech Esai 43. v. 25. I, even I am he that putteth away thine iniqui­ties for my owne sake, and will not re­member thy sinnes.

Of meriting Heaven.

They Papistes teach, that a man by his good works may deserue heaven, behold how the Scripture hath anticipated this ungodly opi­nion psalme 130. thus doth the ser­vant of God pray, Lord heare my voyce, let thine eares attend to the voyce of my prayers, the Lord might say vnto him, thou art not worthy to be heard, it is true saith he, for if thou O Lord straightly markest iniquities, who shal stand, but mercy is with thee that thou mightest be feared, to proceed, thus [Page 8]likewise doth David pray psal: 143. Heare my prayer O Lord, and harken unto my supplication, answer me in thy truth and righteousnes. The Lord might say vnto him thou hast no merits, nor deserts, it is true saith he therefore I pray, Enter not into iudgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man that liveth be iustified. Heere some may say, if good workes deserue not heaven, what is the use of them, the scripture is plaine for the use of thē, 2. Ephe: 10. v. For by grace are yee saved through faith, and that not of your selues: it is the gift of God. Now the Ephesians might haue sayd, we acknowledge thus much, but doe not our workes comming from grace deserue? No saith the Apostle, not of workes least any man should boast himselfe, what is then the vse of good workes? it follo­weth, for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus unto good workes, which God hath ordayned that we should walk [Page 9]in them. To this suteth the speech of Barnard, Opera sunt via regni, non causa regnandi, Good workes are the way to the kingdome of heaven, not the cause. S. Peter also excellently setteth out the use of good workes, 2. Pet. 1. v. 10. In these wordes, Wher­fore brethren giue rather diligence to make your calling & election sure; for if these thinges be in you, you shall ne­ver fall: for by this meanes an en­trance shall be ministred unto you a­bundantly, into the everlasting king­dome of our Lord Iesus Christ. And christian reader, what neede the Pa­pistes pleade for merites, seeing Bel­larmine writeth thus, lib. 5. de iusti. ca. 14 .Ius habemus, We haue right to an euerlasting inheritance, before we begin to doe good workes? further, In­fantes Baptised, by that grace alone before all good workes are saued, and therefore Christ hath merited for us [Page 10]the inheritance, seeing he hath meri­ted for us the grace of regeneration & adoption. And againe in the 17. chap. Infants merit, not by the merites of workes, but by the merits of the person. Now what are infants merits but Gods mercies, as Barnard saith, Me­ritum meum miseratio Domini, My merits are the Lords mercyes? I con­clude this therefore with the saying of S. Barnard, 68. serm. in cant. Nam et de meritis ecclesia quid sit sollicita, cui de proposito Dei, firmior suppetit se­curiorque gloriandi ratio, why should the Church be carefull touchinge merits and deserts, seeing it hath a more firme and sure matter to boast of, to wit the purpose of God?

Of fulfilling Gods commandements.

THe Papists teach, that a man re­generate may fulfill Gods com­maundements: the Apostle taketh it [Page 11]for granted, that no man can doe so. Gal. 3. v. 10. For as many as are of the deedes of the law are vnder the curse, for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to doe them. In which words the Apo­stle doeth thus reason, They which cannot fulfill the law are vnder the curse: but no man can fulfill the law, ergo by the sentence of the law eve­ry man is under the curse: If this be not the Apostles Assumption, the Galathiās might haue answered Paul, that they could fulfill the law, and so cut the sinewes of the Apostles rea­son. To this argument Bellarmine in his 4. booke of iustifi. & chap. 14. answereth, that this is the Apostles Assumption: No man by his owne strength without faith and grace can keepe the whole law: but alas, in the 2. chap. and last verse, thus doeth the [Page 12]Apostle reason, If righteousnes be by the law, then Christ dyed without a cause. Now if the Galathians cleane iustled out Christ from iustification, then it had bin no absurditie for thē to haue sayd, Christ dyed in vayne, for by nature we can do these things which the law requyreth. Againe, who knoweth not that the Galathi­ans were Christians? chap. 6. v. 1. and chap. 3. v. 3. therefore would they vt­terly exclude Christ from iustificati­on? It is impossible to beleeue. In the same place, it is worthy to be mar­ked, that this text being obiected, In many things we offend all. Bellar­mine confesseth that Vega and those that hold veniall sinnes to be against the law, cannot answer this argu­ment: therefore he saith, that veniall sinnes are not against the law, but be­sides the law. But I would know whe­ther veniall sinnes be sinnes or no.

• Sinne is every breach of the law.
• Veniall sinne is sinne.
• Ergo It is a breach of the law.

Bellarmine himselfe in his first book of the losse of grace chap. 9 proveth veniall sinnes out of these words in the 5. chap. of Mathew, He that is an­gry with his brother unadvisedly, is culpable of iudgment. Now our Savi­our sheweth, that these degrees of anger are forbidden in the com­mandement of murther. Hence I thus dispute:

• That which is forbidden in the commande­ment of murther, is against the law.
• But this veniall sinue of anger is forbidden in the commandement of murther.
• Ergo It is against the law.

Christian reader, I desire thee to reade the 4 booke & chap. 10. there he confesseth out of Augustine that veniall sinnes are forbidden in this commandement thou shalt not couet, [Page 14]This commandement commandeth perfection, for saith he, Eius generis est, vt simul media et finem compre­hendat, It is of that kinde that it cō ­prehendeth both the meanes, and the end. Againe, These thinges are spoken accordinge to Augustine his minde, who in the precept, Thou shalt not covet, doth understand that all motions of concupiscense are forbid­den, even those that are not voluntary after a sort.

Of Images.

THe Papist teacheth, that Ima­ges of God are not forbidden, Bel­larmine de sanct. Imag. lib. 2. cap. 8. and that they are meanes to put vs in minde of God. Let vs see how God preventeth this remēbrance. Deut: chap: 4. v: 23. Take heed lest you for­get the covenant of the Lord your God [Page 15]which he made with you. Now might the people say, we will not forget, for we will make an Image of God to re­member him: this cavill is cut off in the next wordes, And lest you make you any graven Image or likenes, of any thing as the Lord thy God hath charged thee: and in the 15. verse, Take heed to your selues, for yee saw no Image in the day that the Lord spake vnto you in Ho­reb out of the midst of the fire. Now where as God (saith Bellarmin) may be painted imperfectly I would faine knowe how God can be so painted, seeing he hath reuealed himselfe in the blessed Trinity. Thus writeth Bellarmine, vbi tamen notandum etc. Where notwithstanding it is to be no­ted, that such Images are not to be mul­tiplyed, neither is it to be suffered that Paynters dare of their owne heads faine Images of the Trinitie, as when they paynt one man with three faces, [Page 16]or one man with two heads, and in the midest of them a Doue. These are mon­sters, and doe rather offend by their de­formitie, then helpe by their simili­tude. Thus farre Bellarmine: and tru­ly by the same proportion so are all other Images of God, wherefore I say with Durand, lib 3. distinct: 9: quaest: 2. It is impietie to Paynt that which is Divine, and if any man say that the holy Ghost did appeare in the forme of a Doue, we must say, that those formes were not taken into unitie of person, wherefore no reuerence is due to them. This hath Durand written with many more words, which I haue omitted for brevitie sake. God teach vs to remember him aright & to detest our owne inuentions. I deale onely with the scriptures, and therfore I medle little with humane testimonyes.

Of persevering in grace, whether faith and righteousnes be proper to the elect, and whether saving faith being once had, may be wholly and finally lost. The papists hold that it may be lost. Bellar. lib. 3. de iustif. ca. 14.

SAint Peter in his first Epistle cap: 1. v. 3. Thus writeth; Blessed be God even the father of our Lord Iesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten vs againe vnto a liuely hope by the resurection of Iesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheri­tance immortall & undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserued in heauen for you. Thus farr S. Peter. Now some might obiect and say as the papists doe, we may leese this hope & inhe­ritance. Nay, saith S. Peter, in the next wordes & verse it is not so, we are kept by the power of God thorough faith, unto saluation, which is prepa­red, to be shewed in the last time, So [Page 18]then, the power of God preserveth vs thorough faith, if our Saluation were suspended vpon our owne selues, then no doubt we might leese the same. The same S. Peter in his 2 epistle 1 chap. 10 verse. exhorteth the dispersed Iewes to make their cal­ling and election sure. Some might say and cavill, it cannot be so, for we may wholly and finally fall: nay saith S. Peter, that cannot be, For if you doe these things ye shall never fall: He doth not meane they shal not sinne, but they shall not wholly or finally fall from grace: all the Saints sinne, yet a true Saint cannot totally & for ever fall from grace. And as S. Peter hath met with these cavills, so like­wise hath S. Iohn, 1 epist. chap. 2. v. 19. They went out from us, but they were not of us, some might say that it is not so, for they might be both: nay saith S. Iohn, that is not so, For if they had [Page 19]ben of us they had remayned with us, but this commeth to passe that it might appeare they were not of us. In the same Epist. cap. 3. v. 9. it is thus writ­ten, Whosoever is borne of God sinneth not, for his seed remaineth in him. I but (saith the papist) it is true, so long as charity is in him, but he may lose it: nay saith S. Iohn, Neither can he sinne, because he is borne of God. And whereas they say, faith is not peculiar to the elect, I marvell that they will not see these plaine scrip­tures. Titus 1. v. 1. Paul a servant of God & an Apostle of Iesus Christ accor­ding to the faith of Gods elect. And Act. 13. v. 48. As many as were orday­ned to eternall life beleeved.

Of Purgatory.

THe papistes teach Purgatory, a place after death, in which the godly must be purged from their [Page 20]sinnes, having not perfectly satisfied in this life. Now let vs see how the Scripture meets with this conceite: In the 7. chap: of the Romans, Paul cryeth out after this manner, O wret­ched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death! I thank God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Some might say, Paul, if thou beest so miserable, then thou art in the state of damnation; marke how the Apostle answereth this doubt: Now then, there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus, which walke not after the fleesh but after the spirit. Nay saith the Apostle, though I am miserable in my selfe, yet am I happy in Christ Iesus, and not only I, but all that are godly. And heere by the way let vs obserue a poynt in Divi­nity we teach that sinne is euery breach of Gods law deseruing the curse. This must be vnderstood with [Page 21]this exception, except a man be in Christ Iesus: sinne of it self deser­ueth the curse, but in Christ it is ta­ken away. To proceed, as this place preuenteth purgatory, so doth ano­ther place also in the 2. of the Cor. 5. Chap. 1. vers. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle be dis­solued, we haue a building giuen of God, that is, an house not made with hands, but eternall in the heauens. In the 17. v. of the former chapt. these are S. Paul his words: For our light affliction which is but for a moment, causeth unto us a farre more excellent and eternall weight of glory. Some man might demand, when shall we haue this glory? the Apostle answe­reth, when our earthly tabernacle is dissolued. But heere some will say, why did the Fathers pray for the dead? although I haue answered this obiection in another treatise, yet [Page 22]here I will speake somewhat of it. Hil­debert in his 4 epistle being exhorted by his friend to pray for a Queene, saith that he did preuent his exhor­tation: Oratis (saith he) quidem orari pro ea, sed credimus eam plus posse suis adiuuare, quàm agere nostris precibus adiuuari. We beleeue that she rather helpeth vs by her prayers, then that she neede be helped by our prayers. Yet (saith he) Vestram tamen praecessi­mus exhortationem, We preuented your exhortation, ergo, they pray­ed for those that were in heaven. Alcuinus in his booke De diuints offi­ciis, cap. 43. hath these words, Ali­quibus in locis generaliter pro omni­bus defuncttis omni tempore, exceptis Penticostes et festis diebus, oratur in officio vespertinali. At evēing pray­er in some places they pray gene­rally for all the dead at all times, ex­cept the dayes of Pentecost & festi­vall [Page 23]dayes. Ergo, prayer for the dead being made for all, establisheth not Purgatory; for I am sure all the dead are not placed by Papistes them­selues in Purgatory.

Of satisfaction for sinne.

SAtisfaction for veniall sinnes, is stoutly maintayned by papists. Let us see how the holy Scripture hath prevented this fearefull doc­trine. My babes (saith S. Iohn) 1. epist. 2. chap. v. 1. these things write I unto you, that you sinne not; Now they might say, alas, we cannot chuse but sinne; what must we doe then? must we despaire? must we make satisfac­tion for our sinnes? No, saith S. Iohn, we haue a remedy against both these. For if any man sinne, we haue an advocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the iust. We need therefore [Page 24]neither despaire nor satisfie. This resolution of holy scripture is firme and sure to all true Logitiās & Rhe­toricians, wherfore, I doubt not to call this text the hammer of Popery, and a wyer whippe, to scourge the doctrine of Satisfaction.

Of Transubstantiation or turning the bread into the body of Christ.

IT is held by Pseudocatholiks, that the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christ, and there remayne only accidents & shewes of bread. The Scripture rightly re­solved, meeteth with this mōstrous phantasie. Math. 26. v. 26. When they had eaten Iesus tooke bread, and when be had blessed it, he brake it, & gaue it to his Disciples saying, take, eate, this is my body. The Disciples might haue sayd, We haue supped, what should we doe with bread? Christ answe­reth, [Page 25]this bread is not ordinary bread, but it is my body: now bread cannot properly be the body of Christ, Ergo it signifieth the body of Christ: the same likewise may be sayd of the Cup, for this is my blood (saith Christ) when he had sayd, drinke yee all of this. They might haue replyed, what need that, seeing we are not thirstie? we haue lately supped; Christ answereth, this Cup is not ordinary wine, but it is my blood, namely, the blood of the new Cove­nant which is shed for many, for the remission of sinnes. Christ answering thus plainly signifieth, that he doth not giue them drink, to quench cor­porall thirst, but to quench spirituall thirst. Wherefore, although the Pa­pists would exclude all tropes out of the supper, yet marke how many they make, first eate, there is one: for Christs body cannot properly be ea­ten. [Page 26]To this Bellarmine answereth, that eating is nothing but conveying from the mouth to the stomacke, by na­turall instruments, for else old men and children should not eate. I answer, then let drinking be eating; for drink is conveyed to the stomacke by na­turall instruments: and touching children and old folks, although they chew not with teeth, yet their solid meate is somewhat chewed with their gums, and their liquid meates are not properly eaten, but conveyed to the stomacke, being (as I may speake) drinkable meates. Secondly, they cannot deny but the Cup is put for the contents in the Cup. Third­ly, thus doth Bellarmine expound these words, This is my bodie, Vnder these shewes is my bodie. Fourthly, Do this in remembrance of me, that is, saith Bellarmine, in remembrance of my passion and death. Christ is put for [Page 27]the death of Christ. Thus are they constrained to make tropes, and yet they wil not allow the Protestāts any.

Of the Sacraments.

THe Papists teach, that the Sa­craments giue grace of the work wrought. Marke how the Apostle meeteth with this error, Rom. 4.9. Came this blessednesse then vpon the circumcision onely, or vpon the vncir­cumcision also? For we say, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righte­ousnesse. How was it then imputed? when he was circumcised, or when he was vncircumcised? not when he was circumcised, but when he was vncir­cumcised. Some might demand, to what end then was he circumcised? Paul answereth in the next verse, Af­ter he receiued the signe of circumci­sion, as the seale of the righteousnes of the faith which he had. Now whereas [Page 28]the Papists reply, it is not so in our sacraments as it was in circumcision; they bid open warre and battell to the Apostle who doth thus dispute,

• As Abraham was iustified, so are all men iustified:
• But Abraham was iustified without the Sacraments:
• Ergo all men are so iustified.

What then is the vse of the holy Sa­craments? They serue to confirme and strengthen our faith. I might alledge another place of Scripture to this purpose, but I studie for bre­uitie, therefore I omit it.

Of prayer unto Saints.

THe Papists teach, that a man may call vpon & invocate Saints departed: the Scripture cleane ouer­throweth this opinion, Psal. 65.2. Be­cause thou hearest the prayer, saith Da­uid. [Page 29]What then, some men might say? He answereth as followeth, Vnto thee shall all flesh come. The occasion why all flesh shall come to God, is, because he heareth prayers. Hence I thus conclude:

• He to whom all flesh cometh, he hea­reth the prayer.
• But onely to God all flesh must come.
• Ergo onely God heareth the prayer of all flesh.

Christian Reader, giue me leaue here to answer an argument of the Pa­pists: The liuing do inuocate the li­uing; Ergo they may call vpon the dead. This argument (saith Bellar­mine) the aduersaries cannot answer. I pray thee therefore Christian Rea­der, let me answer it. The Saints li­uing before the comming of Christ, did desire the prayers one of ano­ther, yet did they not pray to the dead. Furthermore, one Saint liuing [Page 30]may not invocate another. Thus do the Papists pray to the virgin Marie: Marie the mother of grace, the mother of mercie, defend vs from our enemies, and receiue vs at the houre of death. I but, saith Bellarmine, the meaning is, that Marie is the mother of grace by prayer onely. Alas, could simple peo­ple that prayed in Latin, thus distin­guish? They knew not what they prayed, and could they thus distin­guish? Though Bellarmine a cun­ning Sophister can so distinguish, yet I thinke some schollers amongst the Papists cannot. Yea what blasphemy may not men thus excuse? We may call the virgin Marie God, and thus excuse it, because she was [...], she brought foorth him that was God, namely Christ Iesus who is both God and man, and therefore she may be called God. But I would faine know how this prayer may be [Page 31]salved: O felix puerpera, no strapians scelera, iure matris impera redemptori: O happie virgin that purgest our sins, command the redeemer by the right of a mother.

Of the Popes temporall dominion.

THe Popes temporall dominion is knowne to the world; the Scripture hath flatly forbidden it, Math. 20.25. Ye know that the Lords of the Gentiles haue dominion ouer them, and they that are great, exercise authoritie ouer them, but it shall not be so among you: but whosoeuer will be great among you, let him be your ser­uant. Bellar. lib. 4. de Ro. Pont. c. 10. answereth, that the Lord doth insti­tute meerly Ecclesiasticall Princes, and teacheth them that as they are such, they ought to rule, not after the manner of Kings, but after the manner of fa­thers [Page 32]and shepheards: as though Kings ought not to be fathers and shep­heards to their subiects. The speech of Cyrus in Xenophon in his eighth booke, is excellent, [...], &c. the workes of a good shepheard and good King are very like. And I am sure a King in Homer, is called [...], the shepheard of the people. Let vs heare Langius a Papist concerning the Popes temporall dominion: Eo­dem anno, saith he, The same yeare, namely 1407. the Romanes offered to Innocentius the Pope the keyes of the Citie, with branches of Palmes, and granted him all the temporall domi­nion of the citie of Rome; but vniustly and vncommendably: for the store of temporall things doe no little hurt to spirituall. With many moe words to the same purpose. Secondly saith Bellarmine, Christ forbiddeth tyran­nie. for the word is [...]. I an­swer, [Page 33] S. Luke hath met with this ca­uill; for he vseth the word [...] without any composition: yea the compound is with force and power to rule men whether they will or no, not with wrong and iniurie to op­presse them. But let vs heare Bernard lib. 2. de consid. ad Eugen. Planum est, Apostolis interdicitur dominatus: i ergo tu & tibi vsurpare aude aut do­minans apostolatum, aut apostolicus dominatum; plane ab alterutro prohi­beris: It is euident that rule is prohi­bited the Apostles, go thou therfore and vsurpe, if thou darest, being a ru­ler the Apostleship, or being an A­postle rule; thou art plainly forbid­den one of them. Againe, in his first booke he hath these words, In cri­minibus, non in possessionibns potestas ves [...]ra, Your power is in crimes, not in possessions; for them and not for these, you haue receiued the keyes of [Page 34]the kingdome of heauen, excluding sinners, not possessors of lands. In his third book, thus boldly speaketh he, Pro libitu agere, quid tam bestiale? To do all things after his owne pleasure, what is so beastly as this? To con­clude, in his fourth booke saith he, In his successisti non Petro sed Constan­tino: In these things thou hast not succeeded Peter but Constantine. But it may be the Popes authoritie will preuaile, let Gelasius therfore speake, tom. 2. Concil. pag. 442. Some were before the coming of Christ, Kings and Priests typically, but when the true King and high Priest came, then nei­ther doth the Emperour take to himself the name of an high Priest, neither doth the high Priest challenge royall autho­ritie. Many mo words he hath to the same purpose. The same thing in effect hath Pope Nicolas the first, in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor. [Page 35] Cassiodore vpon the fiftieth Psalme thus writeth, Si quis de populo erraue­rit, & Deo peccat & Regi: nam quando Rex delinquit, soli Deo reus est, quia hominem non habet qui eius facta di­iudicat [...]; merito ergo Rex, Deo tantum se dicit peccasse, qui solus erat qui eius potuisset admissa discutere: If any of the people erre, he sinneth against God and the King: when the King sinneth, he is guiltie onely to God, for he hath no man that may iudge his deeds: worthily therefore doth the King say, that he sinned onely against God, because he alone could discusse his offences. To conclude,

• That which the Apostles requested, is forbidden them.
• But they requested tēporal dominion.
• Ergo it was forbidden them.

I do not denie but they were some­what ambitious in asking temporall dominion, but meere ambition was [Page 36]not forbidden them, but temporall rule, as I haue made manifest and plaine.

Of sinning necessarily.

THus do the Papists dispute tou­ching sinne, Aut peccatum est ne­cessarium, aut voluntarium, sinne is either necessarie or voluntarie: if it be necessarie, then it is no sinne. The Apostle Paul, Rom. 9.19. hath cut the sinewes of this argument: Thou wilt say then, Why doth he yet complain? for who hath resisted his will? The A­postle answereth, But O man, who art thou that pleadest against God? To lay open the obiection, thus it standeth:

• He that cannot resist the will of God, is not to be blamed.
• But a hardened heart cannot resist the will of God.
• Ergo a hardened heart cannot be bla­med.

[Page 37]The Apostle denieth the propositiō by a reprehension, O man who art thou that pleadest against God? And here, by the way, Christian Reader, iudge of their argument who thus dispute touching Adams fall: If God decreed Adams fall, then he fell ne­cessarily, and so God was the cause thereof. O man, what art thou that disputest with God? I beseech thee, Christian Reader, adore the myste­ries of election and reprobation, search them not curiously, but lay thy hand vpon thy mouth and be si­lent, be not a querist, but let God be righteous, and let the whole world perish: wonder that God should chuse any one to saluation: wonder not if thousands be damned: better farre is faithfull ignorance, then rash knowledge. Paul calleth them vn­searchable wayes of God: and wilt thou search them? Whosoeuer is not sa­tisfied [Page 38]with this answer, let him seek for one better learned then I am, but let him take need that he finde not a more presumer. Thus much may suffice for this argument of sinning necessarily. Here I might enter into the question of Freewill, but I say with Augustine concerning this point, Ser. 2. de verbis Apostoli: Worke your saluation, saith the Apostle. Now lest they should attribute any thing to themselues, it followeth, It is God which worketh in you both the will and the deed, of his good pleasure.

Of Iustification.

THus doth the Apostle reasō tou­ching Iustification: If Abraham were iustified by works, he hath therein to reioyce, but not with God. The Pa­pists answer, that S. Paul speaketh of the first iustification. This answer [Page 39]the Apostle taketh away in the next words: Abraham beleeued in God, and it was imputed or counted to him for righteousnesse. This testimonie is al­ledged out of the fifteenth chapter of Genesis. And if there were any se­cond iustification, it must needs be vnderstood of the same: for Abraham was iustified before. In the 12, 13, and 14 chapters, the notable works of Abraham are recorded, as that he obeyed God in going out of his countrey, that he built an altar, that he talked familiarly with God: be­sides Heb. 11. the Apostle putteth this amongst the praises of Abraham, that by faith he went into a place which he knew not. And if S. Iames speake of a second iustification, then doth S. Paul likewise: for S. Iames al­ledgeth the same text chap. 2. ver. 23. But this vaine distinction is also pre­uented by S. Iames, who alledgeth [Page 40]the example of Rachab, vers. 25. Like­wise, was not Rachab the harlot iustified through workes, when she receiued the messengers, and sent them out another way? It is certaine that Rachab was an infidell, vntill that time that she re­ceiued the spies: wherefore by her example it is euident that S. Iames nor S. Paul knew any second iustifi­cation. I conclude with Bellarmine his speech lib. 2. de iustif. cap. 7. Si so­lum vellent, nobis imputari Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, et pos­sumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris, quoniam Christus suscepit su­per se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, nos­que Deo Patri reconciliandi, recta esset corum sententia: If they meant onely this, that Christ his merits were im­puted to vs, because they were giuen vs, and because we may offer them to God the Father for our sins, see­ing Christ tooke vpon him the bur­den [Page 41]to satisfie for vs, and to recon­cile vs to God the Father, their opi­nion was right. Thus farre Bellar­mine. Now let vs marke how the A­postle reasoneth: Rom. 5. v. 10. For if when we were enemyes we were recon­ciled to God, by the death of his Sonne, much more being reconciled, we shalbe saved by his life. Excellently writeth Bernard, Fateor non suum dignus, nec propriis possum meritis, regnum obti­nere caelorum; ceterum Dominus meus, duplici iure illud possidens, haereditate patris, et merito passionis, altero ipse contentus alterum mihi donat. I con­fesse and acknowledge that I am not worthy, neither can I obteyne by my merits the kingdome of heaven, but my Lord possessing it by a dou­ble right, by his Fathers inheritāce, & by the merit of his passion, being content with the one himselfe, gi­veth me the other. Thus Christian [Page 42]reader I haue shewed thee, how the holy scriptures meet with popish ca­vills, in the weightiest controuersies betwixt them and vs. God almighty open mens hearts to see the cleere truth which in great brevitie & sim­plicity, I haue heere propounded. I doubt not but other learned men may add much vnto this small Trea­tise which I haue written, to excite men to studie the Scriptures. and eschue popery. And as I haue written it with this minde, so I doubt not, but that God will giue a blessing to it. Amen Lord Iesus.