THE DOWNFALL OF POPERY: Proposed by way of a new challenge to all English jesuits and jesuited or Italianized papists: daring them all jointly, and every one of them severally, to make answer thereunto if they can, or have any truth on their side; knowing for a truth that otherwise all the world will cry with open mouths, Fie upon them, and their patched hodge-podge religion.  Psal. 116. vers. 10. 
Credidi, propter quod locutus sum.  
LONDON. Printed by A. Jslip, for Arthur johnson: and are to be sold at the sign of the White Horse, over against the great North door of Paul's. 1604.   

TO THE MOST PVissant, Wise, Virtuous, Learned, judicious, and Religious Monarch, James, by God's permission and holy ordinance, king of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the ancient Christian Catholic faith, and supreme governor within his said Realms, Kingdoms, Territotories, and Dominions, next and immediately under God, over all persons and causes, as well Ecclesiastical as Civil.  
THe Truth is of such force (most gracious and dread Sovereign) that it hath enforced the professed enemies of truth (the cursed brood of English traitorous jesuits and jesuited papists I mean) to testify the truth against themselves. The secular Seminary priests (the Pope's own dear vassals, who profess the self-same religion with the jesuits, and yield the self same obedience to the Pope,) tell us plainly in printed books published to the view of the whole world (a thing very rare and greatly to be admired) of such brutish, barbarous, cruel, villainous, traitorous, and most bloody dealing, practised not only by their dear brethren the Jesuits, but even by themselves also, though not in one or the same degree; that myself doubtless could never have given credit thereunto, if their own selves had not so written, and so testified against themselves. They affirm constantly, in many printed books published to the view of the whole world, that the jesuits by treacherous practices and most bloody complots, have long sought for the utter ruin and conquest of noble England, and that their own hearts and hands had sometime been embrewed with the same. They affirm against the jesuits: First, that they are great liars. Secondly, that they are proud men, richly appareled, furnished with coaches, and attended on with a great train of servingmen, as if they were Barons or Earls: Yea, it is constantly avouched, that the jesuit Gerard had two geldings in a gentleman's stable, at thirty pounds a gelding, besides others else where, and horses of good use. It is also set down in print, that a jesuit had a girdle and hangers of thirty pound price. Thirdly, that they troll up and down from good cheer to good cheer, commanding their chambers to be perfumed, and gentlewomen to pull off their boots. Fourthly, that they are great statesmen, and that matters of state, titles of princes, genealogies of kings, right of succession, disposing of sceptres, with other matters of like quality, are their chief studies. Fiftly, that they threaten a conquest, and promise great preferment to all that will execute their most traitorous designments. Sixtly, that they are cruel tyrants, and firebrands of all sedition. Seventhly, that they are thieves and murderers, and that the jesuit Percy stole seven and twenty pound of the common money, by the consent of the other his fellow jesuits. Eightly, that they have a mint of counterfeit miracles, with which they labour to seduce the world: Yea, that they endeavoured with a false miracle, to persuade Sebastian the late king of Portugal, to establish a settled law, That from thence forward none might be capable of the crown of Portugal, except he were a jesuit, or chosen by their society, as at Rome the Pope is chosen by the College of Cardinals. Nninthly, that the jesuits are right Machiavels', and that whosoever will adhere unto them, must depend upon the devil of hell. Tenthly, that the jesuits are flat cousiners; and that their religion is nothing else, but an hodge-podge of omnigitherum. And to knit up all in a word, that they are the wickedest men upon earth.  
They confess against themselves: first, that Sanders a secular priest, was the architect of religion, both in England and in Ireland. Secondly, that the same Sanders did too much extol the rebels, seeing they were executed by the ancient laws of our country, for high treason. Thirdly, that the jesuits came into England by the instinct of the devil, and were the chiefest instruments of all traitorous practices against our late Sovereign of most happy memory. Fourthly, that popish Seminaries are erected for treason. Fiftly, that the jesuits and the secular priests expected a change, which now they have indeed; but God be thanked, to their everlasting woe and grief. Sixtly, that the Seminary priests are sworn to be traitors against their dread Sovereign and native country. Seventhly, that all jesuited papists must depend upon the devil. Eightly, that popery is inseparably annexed with treason. Ninthly, that the hearts and hands of the secular priests, had sometime been as deep in treasonable practices, as the cursed crew of jesuits. Tenthly, that the laws of the land are justly made, both against the jesuits and themselves; and that they are not put to death for religion, but for treason. eleventhly, that long hidden treasons are miraculously revealed, God so appointing it to be done. All these asseverations to be true, (most dread Sovereign) I am ready to justify out of their own printed books, even upon the peril of my life: if any of them upon the like peril, will challenge me to have charged them falsely in that behalf. This notwithstandlng, the jesuits, Seminaries, and other jesuited papists, do still expect a toleration, to live as they list, within your majesties kingdoms and dominions; that is in plain English, to be rank traitors as they have been. For this end they never cease to buzz into men's heads and ears (so to withdraw them from their due allegiance, and to become popish vassals) that the next parliament, they shall not fail of their desire. Against this cursed brood, I have published many books; but to this day, could I not receive answer to any of them all. Neither can they allege for their excuse, that they have not seen my books, or else they would have answered the same. For, about a year ago the masked jesuit E. O. did publish a treatise against two learned writers of this age, 
Viz. Against M. D. Sutcliffe and M. Willet.  in which he taketh notice to the books which I have published against them, and their late upstart Romish religion; which by piece meal, and by little and little hath crept into the Church, as I have proved at large in my former volumes.  
These are the express words of the masked jesuit; 
In his Preface to the reader.  To these former, I was once determined to have adjoined a reformed brother of theirs, one Thomas Bell, who hath published certain books against the Catholic Church, and vaunteth mightily, and with insolent words braveth all Seminaries: but I altered my purpose, partly upon other considerations, but especially, because the confutation of his worthy works is already undertaken, and to be published, if it shall be thought necessary.  
Thus doth the jesuit write. By whose words it is very apparent, clear, and evident, that they have been many years buzzing about some answer, either to all or some one of my books; but never yet durst adventure to frame any answer to any one of the said books, and to publish it to the view of the world. Their silence in not answering my said books, hath reclaimed many a man from their popish faction: and therefore would they gladly have the the world to think, that they are in mind to answer my said books, but they seem to mean nothing less in deed: and why? he telleth us forsooth, That the confutation which hath been long undertaken, must be published, but with this addition, (If it shall be thought necessary.) What a jest is this? the jesuits and seminaries priests, have consulted now for the space of eight years and above, and have all that time devised how to frame some colourable answer at the least, to all or some of the said books; and in the end of the year, 1602, have undertaken the confutation of my worthy works (as they scornfully term them;) but for all that cannot yet tell, whether it be expedient to publish the said confutation, or no. Are these men the great Statists of the world? are these men the skilful Politicians that must manage all Europe? are these our learned Divines? are these they indeed, upon whose doctrine and guiding all laypapists do depend, and on their shoulders do hang their souls and salvation? doubtless, they may preach this goodly sermon to wise men, but only noddies and stark fools will believe them. In regard hereof (most dread Sovereign) and because I greatly desire once during my life, to receive answer to some part of my labours published against our English jesuited papists, that so we may valianly fight the combat, myself so having occasion to reply upon their answer, which would be to me melle & favo dulcius; I have compiled and couched in a small room, a few distinct articles: for answer whereunto, I once again challenge Robert Persons that traitorous jesuit; George Blackwell that seditious and late startup archpriest; and all other English jesuits, Seminary priests, and jesuited papists, whosoever and wheresoever, jointly and severally; daring them all jointly, and every one of them severally, to answer either all my books, or some one of them, or these few articles; or at least to confess plainly, that they cannot answer, because I hold and defend the truth. These my late studies (most gracious Sovereign) I have presumed to dedicate unto your Majesty, in congratulation of your most happy reign over us; whom God of his great mercy hath raised up in our greatest necessity, to continue his holy Gospel among us, and to abolish all idolatry and superstition out of his Church. It is not such a present I confess, as beseemeth your most royal excellency; yet such a one, as my small talon is able to afford: I most humbly beseech your Highness for to accept it, as our Lord jesus Christ did accept the two mites of the poor widow; and withal for to protect and patronize the same, against the traitorous jesuits and jesuited papists within your majesties Realms; who seek by might and main (as I am credibly informed) not only to impair my good fame and name with their malicious tongues, but also to take away my life with their bloody hands. The Almighty bless your Majesty with long, prosperous, and happy reign in this world, and with everlasting life in the world to come, Amen. From my study this fourteenth of januarie. 1603.  
Your majesties loyal subject, and faithful servant, Thomas Bell.   

To all English jesuits, Seminary priests, and jesuited papists, in England, Scotland, or wheresoever else.  
I Have written many times at large in larger volumes, 
In my Motives, book 2. chap. 1.  heartily and instantly desiring to have received some answer from you, either from all jointly, or from some of you severally. In my first book, published in the year 1593., I promised to yield, if any of you could convince me; either to have alleged any writer corruptly, or to have quoted any place guilefullie, or to have charged any author falsely: since that time I have challenged you again and again to answer me, but Ne gry quidem will be had; no answer can you make, or dare you make. In regard hereof, I have at this present compiled a few articles couched in a small room, challenging you once again, to frame the best answer you can unto the same: if you can sieceerelie and truly confute these articles, or any one of my former books, I promise herewith (and I protest before God to perform it) to subscribe unto your doctrine. If you therefore shall refuse to answer me, because you cannot, (for if you can, you will undoubtedly perform it) all wise men which have any care of their salvation, will without all peradventure after notice hereof made known unto them, cry, Fie upon you and your religion. Answer therefore o papists, if ye can; if ye cannot so do, then repent for shame, and yield unto the truth. Farewell.   

THE FIRST ARTICLE, of the falsely so supposed sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome.  
YOu Papists tell us, that your Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is above all powers and potentates on earth, that he can depose kings and emperors from their royal thrones, and translate their empires and regalities at his good will and pleasure. But this doctrine is false, absurd, and nothing else but a mere fable: and consequently, late Romish religion consisteth of mere falsehoods, fables, and flat leasings.  
The proposition, the jesuit Bellarmine that late Romish Cardinal, 
Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. pont. ca 7. col. 824.  setteth down in these words: Si ergo princeps aliquis ex oue aut ariete fiat lupus, id est, ex Christiano fiat haereticus, poterit pastor ecclesiae eum arcere per excommunicationem, & simul jubere populo, ne eum sequantur, ac proinde privare eum dominio in subditos.  
If therefore any prince, of a sheep or ram become a wolf, that is to say, of a Christian be made an heretic; then the pastors of the Church (the Pope forsooth) may drive him away by excommunication, and withal command the people not to obey him, and therefore deprive him of his dominion over his subjects. Thus we see, that when any prince is not, or ceaseth to be a Papist, for that (with this jesuitical Cardinal and all others of his brood) is to be an heretic; then the Pope forsooth may depose such a prince from his royal sceptre, and absolve his subjects from their allegiance to him. This is the common doctrine of all jesuited papists, as I have proved in my anatomy of Popish tyranny.  
The assumption is proved by the flat testimony of their famous Pope Gregory the great, 
Gregor. lib. 2. epist. 61. cap. 100  in these words: Ego quidem iussioni subiectus, eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmittifeci; & quia lex ipsa omnipotenti deo minime concordat, ecce, per suggestionis meae paginam, serenissimis dominis nunciavi; utrobique ergo quae debui exolui, qui & imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro deo quod sensi, minimè tacui.  
I being your subject, and at your command, have caused the same law to be sent through diverse parts of the land; and because the law itself doth not accord to Gods will, behold, I have signified so much unto your majesties by my epistle; and so I have discharged my duty in both respects, as who have rendered mine obedience to the emperor, and have not concealed what I thought in God's behalf.  
These are the words of Gregorius, who was himself bishop of Rome anno 603. and lived above six hundred years after Christ; for which time the Popes lived in dutiful obedience under the emperors, as is evident by his express words already alleged: For first, Pope Gregory freely and willingly acknowledgeth the emperor to be his sovereign lord.  
Secondly, he confesseth himself to be the emperors subject.  
Thirdly, he granteth that he oweth loyal obedience to the emperor, and for that respect he thought himself bound in conscience to publish the emperors law, though in some part it seemed to disagree with God's will; and that (forsooth) lest he should be found guilty of disloyalty toward his prince.  
Fourthly, this allegiance he acknowledged to the emperor Mauritius, who lived more than six hundred years after Christ's sacred incarnation. During which term of years, the bishops of Rome, now called Popes, lived in subjection to the emperors of Rome, as other bishops do this day to their lawful kings.  
S. Ambrose freeth kings from all laws made by man, 
Ambros. de apologia David, cap. 10. pag. 386.  these are his express words: Rex utique erat, nullis ipse legibus tenebatur humanis. Neque enim reges ullis ad poenam vocantur legibus, tuti imperij potestate. Homini ergo non peccavit, cui non tenebatur obnoxius.  
He was indeed a king, he was subject to no law of man: for kings being freed by royal prerogatives of imperial power, are not punishable by the laws of man. He therefore sinned not to man, to whom he was not subject. S. Hierome teacheth the same doctrine, 
Hieron. tom. 1. fol. 63. d.  if his words be well marked.  
Enthimius hath these words, Cum sim vex, 
Enthi. in Psal. 50.  & te solum commissorum à me scelerum judicem habeam, tibi soli peccasse videor, hoc est, tibi soli judici subijcior. Coeterorum enim omnium ego dominus sum, & ob potentiam meam licere mihi videntur, quaecunque libuerint.  
Seeing I am a king, and have thee only my judge over my sins, I seem to sin only to thee; that is, I am subject only to thee, as to my judge. For I am lord over all others, and in regard of my power and majesty, whatsoever pleaseth me, seemeth to be lawful for me.  
The Popish ordinary gloss singeth the same song, 
Glossa ordin. in Ps. 50.  these are the express words: Rex omnibus superior, tantum à deo puniendus est.  
The king is above all, and he can be punished of none but of God alone.  
Nicolaus Lyranus, 
Lyranus in Ps. 50.  a man of great reckoning with the papists, teacheth the same doctrine with the rest. These are his express words; Tibi soli peccavi, scilicet tanquam judici & punire potenti. Peccaverat enim contra Vriam, & alios occasione huius interfectos. Tamen quia erat rex, non habebat judicem superiorem qui posset eum punire, nisi deum.  
To thee only have I sinned; that is to say, to thee only, as to my judge, and to him that can punish me. For he had now sinned against Urias and others, whom he caused to be murdered by that occasion: yet because he was a king, he had no superior judge that could punish or control him, save God alone.  
Thomas Aquinas, 
Aquin. 1. 2. q. 96. ar. 5. ad. 3.  being as it were half a god with the Papists, teacheth the self-same doctrine, with Lyra and the rest. But I hasten to the verdict of a Cardinal of Rome.  
Hugo Cardinalis hath these express words; 
Hugo Card. in Ps. 50.  Tibi soli, quia non est super me alius quam tu, qui possit punire. Ego enim sum rex, & non est aliquis praeter te super me.  
To thee only, saith Cardinal Hugo, 
See S. Cyprians opinion in the sixth article following, in the first proposition and second reason; and note it well, because it is of great importance.  because there is not any above me but thyself alone, that hath power to punish me: for I am a king, and so besides thee, there is none above me.  
Thus gentle reader, it is clear and evident, as well by the flat testimony of the ancient fathers, as also of most famous and renowned Popish writers; that the Pope or Bishop of Rome is so far from having power to depose kings and emperors, that he himself ought to be subject to them, and hath no authority at all to punish them. What can be more plainly spoken? what testimonies can be more manifest? what doctrine can be clearer? for if none but God be superior to the king, if none but God can judge the king, if none but God can punish the king, (all which both ancient fathers and the Popes own dear doctors affirm) then doubtless cannot the Pope depose the king; then can he not absolve his subjects from their allegiance; then can he not translate empires and kingdoms, and bestow the same at his own pleasure. The good kings, joshua, David, Solomon, josaphat, Ezechias, and josias, knew right well, that they had authority above all the priests, and therefore took upon them, not only to command and control them, but also to depose and thrust them from their places and functions, yea even the high priests themselves, when their deserts did so require. Which thing is proved at large in my golden balance of trial. Yet here for better satisfaction of the vulgar people, I will propound a common objection, that much troubleth many of them; and that done, frame a plain and sincere solution to the same.  

The Objection.  
The empire was translated by the Pope's authority, and the emperors after their election are this day confirmed by the Pope: yea, many emperors have acknowledged the Pope's sovereignty over them, in so much as they have fallen down prostrate, and kissed his holy feet.   

The Answer.  
I answer, that many absurd things have been affirmed by Popish parasites, for the advancement of the primacy, as Franciscus à Victoria, a famous Popish school doctor, and Spanish friar, sometime professor of Theology in the University of Salmantica, 
Victor. de potest, eccles. relect. 1. sect. 6. p. 39  doth testify in these words; Sed gloss atores juris hoc dominium dederunt papae, cum ipsi essent pauperes rebus & doctrina.  
But the glossers of the Pope's law (saith this great doctor and zealous papist, for the truth itself enforced him to utter the truth) gave this dominion (and these lordly titles) unto the Pope, when themselves were blind bayards and beggarly fellows.  
Thus writeth their own Popish Friar, affirming that ignorance and poverty were the beginning of all lordly popery: and no marvel; for by reason of their poverty they flattered and sought to please the Pope, and by reason of their ignorance, they set abroach many things which they did not understand.  
johannes Gerson, a famous papist likewise, and sometime chancellor of Paris, reporteth much like stuff, and more lordly titles, ascribed to the Pope by his popish parasites. 
Gerson de potest. eccles. consid. 12 part. 3.  These are his express words; Sicut Christo collata estomnis potestas in coelo & in terra, sic eam Christus, omnem Petro suisque successoribus dereliquit. Sequitur; sicut non est potestas nisi à deo, sic nec aliqua temporalis vel ecclesiastica, imperialis vel regalis, nisi à Papa; in cuius foemore scripsit Christus, rex regum, dominus dominantium; de cuius potestate disputare, instar sacrilegij est; cui neque quisquam dicere potest, cur ita facis.  
As all power was given to Christ in heaven and on earth, so Christ left all the same power to Peter, and to his successors (the Bishops of Rome.) As there is no power but of God, so is there neither any temporal or ecclesiastical, neither imperial nor regal, but of the Pope; in whose thigh Christ hath written, the king of kings and lord of lords; of whose power to dispute, is as it were sacrilege; to whom no man may say, Why dost thou so?  
These are the words of this great learned doctor, who though he were a zealous papist, yet could he not conceal these Antichristian blasphemies within his breast. Nevertheless Pope Boniface, or (if ye will) Pope maliface, did not only acknowledge them, but with great pleasure practised the same, as witnesseth the said Gerson in these words; Hanc existimationem habuisse visus est Bonifacius octaws in quadam decretali; putatur ab aliis, 
Gerson ubi supra.  depositio unius regis franciae per papam Zachariam hic esse fundata; tanquam papa sit, qui transferre possit reges & regna.  
Pope Boniface the eight seemeth in a certain decretal to have had this opinion of his own authority. Others think, that the deposition of (Childericus) the French king by Pope Zacharie, was grounded in this (Antichristian and godless conceit;) as if forsooth the Pope were he, that could depose princes, and translate their kingdoms.  
By these authorities it is clear, that the late Bishops of Rome have taken upon them, not only to depose kings, and to translate their kingdoms; but withal have challenged more than human and royal power, even that power which is due and proper to God alone. So as we have not so much to consider what hath been done, as what ought of right to be done. I will therefore for perspicuity sake proceed by way of gradation, and set down the very steps of the ladder, by which the late bishops of Rome, did climb up to their usurped tyrannical primacy.  
1 The first step, was the departure of the emperor Constantinus from Rome to Constantinople, at what time (as the Pope's parasites tell us) the emperor gave large gifts to the Pope, even his whole power, dominion, and territories, both in Rome, Italy, and all the West parts: for thus is it written by Gratian in the Pope's own decrees: Constantinus imperator coronam & omnem regiam dignitatem, 
Dist. 96. can. Constantinus.  in urbe Romana, & in Italia, & in partibus occidentalibus Apostolico concessit. Sequitur, decrevimus itaque & hoc, ut ipse & successores eius diademate, viz. corona quam ex capite nostro illi concessimus ex auro purissime & gemmis pretiosis, uti debeat pro honore B. Petri. Constantine the emperor gave the Pope his crown and all royal dignity in the city of Rome, and in Italy, and in all the West parts. It followeth a little after in the next Cannon. We therefore have made also this decree, that the Pope and his successors shall for the honour of S. Peter, wear the crown of pure gold and precious stones, which we have given him from off our own head. Thus saith the decree. But Laurentius Valla, Raphael Voluteranus, Paulus Catthalanus, 
Bellarm. lib. 5. de rom. pont. cap. 9  Nicolaus Cusanus, and many other popish writers, repute the same as a fable. Yea our jesuit Bellarmine seemeth to doubt thereof, and of other like supposed donations, and therefore hath he invented a sovereign remedy for the same. These are his express words: Extant Romae authentica instrumenta harum & similium donationum. Sed etiamsi nihil horum extaret, abunde sufficeret prescriptio 800. annorum. Nam etiam regna & imperia per latrocinium acquisita, tandem longo tempore flunt legitima.  
There be extant at Rome authentical instruments of these and the like gifts. But if there were no such thing, yet would prescription of 800 years be sufficient: for even kingdoms & empires gotten by robbery, through continuance of time become lawful. Thus writeth our jesuit, who hath left nothing unsaid, that can be said for popery.  
The second step, was the fall of the empire in the West. For after the division of the empire, it begun daily to decline, and was utterly dissolved in Augustulus, in the year 471. 
A. D. 471.  of whom was made this epigram; Augustus romanum imperium condidit, 
Ar. Pontac. Burdeg. pag. 93.  Augustulus labefactavit. Augustus' set up the empire, but Augustulus pulled it down. For after Orestes his father was slain (who was never emperor but a captain under Nepos) the said Augustulus gave up the diadem, and betook himself to a private life. From this time the empire in the West was vacant about 330 years. By means whereof, the Pope's power did daily increase by little and little, and from step to step.  
The Vissigothes ruled in Spain, the Abienes in Guian and Gascoyn, the Frenchmen in the residue of France, the Vandals in Africa, the saxons in Britain, the Ostrogothes in Hungary, the Herules and Turdiling in Italy and in the city of Rome: only the name of the empire, remained with Zenon in the East. About the year 536. 
A. D. 536.  Totilas king of the Goths by force of arms and famine subdued well near all Italy, and after long siege took the city of Rome, and spoiled it with sword and fire, overthrowing the walls and towers even to the ground, and until Carolus magnus the Abiens and Barbarians possessed all Italy.  
The third step was the voluntary charter which Constantine the emperor of Constantinople made to Pope Benedict the second; viz. that whomsoever the clergy, people, and the Roman soldiers should choose to be Bishop, 
A. D. 684  all men should believe him to be the true vicar of Christ, without any tarrying for any authority of the emperor of Constantinople, or the deputy of Italy, as the custom and manner was ever before that day. Thus writeth Platina, 
Platina in vita Benedicti secundi.  who was the Pope's own dear vassal. This was a very gallant step: for as you see here, the Popes for the space almost of seven hundred years, viz. until this Bennet in the year 684. 
Vide Ar. Pontac. fol. 111. a.  acknowledged the emperors for their superiors and lords, without whose letters patents they could have no jurisdiction, nor be reputed the true Bishops of Rome: but now the Bishops of Rome by privilege granted from this emperor, wrested their necks from the emperors subjection. Let these words of Platina be well remembered; because he being a famous papist, must needs be of good credit against them. 
A. D. 607.  I let pass the petite step, when the emperor Phocas made Rome the head of all churches, which for all that, is of some moment.  
The fourth step, was the great amity between Zacharie then Bishop of Rome, and Pipine governor of France under Childerich the king: for Pipine purposing to defeat his lord and sovereign of the kingdom, and to invest himself therein, sent his ambassadors to Zacharie then Bishop of Rome, and his bounden friend, to demand this question of him, viz. Whether he were more worthy to be king, which was king only by name and natural succession; or else he, who bore the whole burden of the kingdom alone, & yet lacked the dignity of a king? The Pope understanding the parable right well, and respecting his own future advancement likely to ensue thereupon, answered roundly (I will not say clerkly, but like a right doctor of the Romish rout) that it was more rightful forsooth, that he which took the charge of all things, should be called king. 
A. D. 751.  Upon this judgement so clerkly yielded, Pipine forthwith presumed to depose Childerich, and made himself king: that done, saintlesse (not sackles) Zacharie the Bishop of Rome (that antichrists forerunner might be known) 
Geraes. 28. v. 12.  assoiled Pipine and the other Frenchmen of their oath of allegiance and fealty made to Childerich, and confirmed Pipine the traitor in the kingdom of France. This was indeed a step, not of Jacob's ladder, nor of Scala coeli, but of Scala inferni, Scala Antichristi, and of the ladder of the master devil of hell. Yet is not our jesuit and Cardinal Bellarmine (the mouth of all papists, 
Bellar. lib. 5. de Rome pont. cap. 8.  and of the Pope himself) ashamed to publish the same as a ground of the popish religion. For these are his own words: Childericum deposuit Zacharias, & in eius locum Pipinum Caroli magni patrem creari jussit. Cuius causa fuit, quia propter socordiam Childerici, & religioni & regno in Gallia extrema ruina imminere videbatur.  
Pope Zacharie deposed Childericke, and commanded to place and invest Pipine, father to Charles the great, in his throne: the cause whereof was this; because forsooth through the slothful and negligent government of Childericus, the kingdom and religion in France seemed to be in great danger. This is the deep divinity of the Pope and his clergy, by which we may learn many worthy lessons.  
1 First, that the Pope may set up and pull down kings at his pleasure by jesuitical doctrine and late Romish religion.  
2 Secondly, that the Pope and Jesuits are the grand-masters and architects of seditions, rebellions, and most bloody treasons.  
3 Thirdly, that it is very true which the secular priests have written, concerning the traitorous proceedings of jesuits and jesuited papists.  
4 Fourthly, that the Pope commanded to depose the Sovereign, and to inthronize the subject in his place.  
5 Fiftly, that all this was done, because forsooth the king did not rule after the Pope's fancy and pleasure. Hereupon I infer this necessary correlarie; viz. that it behoveth Christian kings to be vigilant, and in due time to expel all traitorous papists out of their dominions. And if the Bishop of Rome shall send any seditious popeling into their kingdoms and territories, with his thunderbolts, bulls, and excommunications; then to deal with the messengers, 
A. D. 1294.  as king Philip the fair dealt with pope Boniface his nuntioes in France; whom he committed to prison, and caused the Pope's bulls to be burnt in the fire. And as Charles the sixth, when Bennet the 13. did interdict his realm, 
A. D. 1408.  sitting in the throne of justice in his high court of parliament the 21 of May, in the year 1408. gave sentence, that the bull should be rend in pieces, and that Gonsalue and Conseleux the bearer thereof should be set upon a pillory, and publicly traduced in the pulpit. The story is set down at large by the French papists, in their book entitled the Jesuits catechism, and the same is recorded in my anatomy of Popish tyranny.  
The fifth step was the decay of the empire in the East about the year 756. 
A. D. 756.  For when Aistulphus, or (as some write) Aristulphus king of the Lombard's, besieged the city of Rome for the space of three whole months, exacting an huge tribute of the Romans; then Pope Stephanus the second, made suit to Pipinus king of France to stand their good master, and to defend the city from the fury of the Lombard's. King Pipine willing to gratify his good friend the Bishop of Rome, came with a mighty army against Aistulphus, and besieged him in Pavia; and then and there constrained him to appeal to his mercy, and to yield up the exerchate of Ravenna and Pentapolis into his hands. 
Manus manum fricat.  This being effected, king Pipine (whom Pope Zacharie of a traitor had made king, as is already proved) gave up the government of Italy into the Pope's hands. And the king had reason so to do: for as we know, one good turn requires another. So now the lieutenants of the emperors of Constantinople, ended their whole power in Italy, who aforetime had their seats at Ravenna: and now was he taken out of the way, who (as the Apostle telleth us) did hinder the coming of Antichrist: 
2. Thess. 2.  for Pope Stephen in way of gratitude confirmed the inheritance royal of the kingdom of France to the said Pipine and to his posterity for ever. Here began a new progeny of the kings of France: for Childericus was the last king of the stock of Meroneus, who was the first king Christian of France. This truth is apparent by the testimony of many renowned Chronographers, it cannot be denied.  
The sixth step, 
Bellar. tom. 3. col. 827.  was the translation of the Roman empire from the Greeks to the Frenchmen or Germans, in the person of magnifical Charles, as the jesuit Bellarmine termeth him. The truth is this, as popish Chronographers do record and testify to the world; viz. That when the Romans had driven from among them, Pope Leo the third, he appealed to Charles then king of France, who came to Rome, and examined the matter: and in the end appeased the Romans, and restored the Pope to his place and dignity again. For this good work and kind favour of the king, the Pope, and people of Rome, having now a long time in mind and affection, revolted from the emperor of Constantinople; and seeing a fit opportunity offered to accomplish their long wished desires, did with uniform consent and joyful acclamation proclaim Charles the great, the emperor of Rome, giving him the imperial names of Caesar and Augustus, and setting the royal diadem upon his head by the hands of Pope Leo. And for the better credit of mine assertion, I will here recount the very words of Sigebertus, a famous Chronographer and popish monk, 
A. D. 801.  who therefore must needs be of credit with the Pope and all his popelings. Thus doth he write: Romani qui ab imperatore Constantinopolitano iam diu animo desciverant, nunc accepta occasionis opportunitate, quia mulier excaecato imperatore Constantino filio suo eis imperabat, uno omnium consensu Carolo regi imperatorias laudes acclamant, eumque per manum Leonis papae coronant, Caesarem & Augustum appellant; Pipinum verò filium eius regem Italiae ordinatum collandant.  
The Romans, who a long time had in mind and affection revolted from the emperor of Constantinople, seeing now a fit occasion offered them, because a woman did govern them, her son the emperor Constantine being made blind, did all with one consent found out imperial and royal acclamations to king Charles, call him Caesar and Augustus, and crowning him by the hand of Leo the Pope: yea they collaud his son Pipine made king of Italy.  
Out of these words I wish the Reader, to observe these important points with me.  
1 First, that 800. years after Christ's sacred birth, the Bishops of Rome were subject to the emperor, as their own dear monk Sigebert telleth them; and as you have heard already, Pope Gregory acknowledged his fealty to Mauritius the emperor, in the year 603.  
2 Secondly, that the Pope and people of Rome endeavoured a long time, to shake off the yoke of obedience to the emperor, and in the year 801 put the same in execution.  
3 Thirdly, that the translation of the empire implied flat treason, in the Pope and all his Romish Popelings. For as Friar Sigebert telleth us, they surrendered up the right of their sovereign to an other man: and hence cometh it, that the jesuitical Cardinal Bellarmine appealeth to the law of perscription, affirming titles gotten by robbery to be lawful by that means. And indeed by stealth and robbery, it may well beseem a jesuit, to justify popish late start up regality.  
4 Fourthly, that the Bishop of Rome is not the true and lawful king of Italy: for the papists do not agree in their assertions, touching this counterfeit regality of their pope's. Bl●ndus and Platina write, that Pippine gave the exerchate of Ravenna and Pentapolis to Gregory; Regino referreth the donation to Steven; and Sigebert saith here, that Pippine in the year 801 had it in his own possession still. Yea, the same Sigebert saith further, that in the year 812 the emperor Charles imposed the imperial crown upon the head of his son Lewis, and made Bernard son of Pippine the king of Italy. But doubtless if Pippine were king of Italy in the year 801 and Bernard king thereof in the year 812, I see not how the pope was then, 
A. D. 727.  or that is now, any king at all. And therefore we may credit Bellarmine at leisure, when he telleth us out of Ado, that king Pippine gave Revenna and all Pentapolis to Saint Peter and Saint Paul: but it is well, that S. Paul is become coheir with Saint Peter. For by his means, other bishops must have as great a share, as the Bishops of Rome: there the reader must not forget, what friar Sigebert telleth us of Charles the great, 
A. D. 805.  after that he was enthronized in the empire. These are his express words; Carolus imperator etc. Charles the emperor, when the emperors of Constantinople had indignation against him, for the name of emperor given him by the Romans; suffered them with great patience and magnanimity: And because he was afraid of their mighty power, with often ambassades he procured them to be his dear friends: yet our jesuit Bellarmine would have us to believe, that the emperors of Constantinople did freely grant, that the Pope and the Romans had full right to translate the empire; but their own dear friend (as we see here,) affirmeth the contrary for a truth. Yea, both Bl●ndus and Platina affirm very constantly, 
Vide Ar. Poniac. fol. 122.  that Charles did agree first with the empress Irene, and afterwith the emperor Nicephorus, that he with their favours might rule over the West.  
The seventh step, was the constitution of the electors of the future emperor. 
Vide Philip. Bergemens. p. 277.  For Gregory the fifth being a German borne, and a near kinsman to Otho the emperor at that time, did by his favour and free grant, appoint seven electors of the empire for ever. 
Antoninus' 3. par. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 13.  viz. the archbishop of Mentz, the archbishop of Treverse, the archbishop of Colen, the marquis of Brandenburg, the county Palatine, the duke of Saxony, and the king of Bohemia. This goodly constitution was enacted by the Pope and emperor, 
A. D. 994.  (being both of them not only Germans but also kinsmen) that the empire might be established in their posterity, and their blood thereby advanced for ever.  
The eight and highest step of this ladder, did reach up even to the highest heaven, and to the very throne of our Lord jesus. For the Pope having now enlarged his sovereignty, by little and little, from step to step; was neither abased nor afraid to challenge the authority and royal right, 
A. D. 1294.  of both sword throughout the christian world: for he made a flat decree for the confirmation thereof, as is evident by the extravagant of Boniface the eight, (unam sanctam, de maioritate & obedienta) set down in the sixth book of the decretals. 
Dost. 22. can. omnes.  And as Gratianus reporteth, Pope Nicholas taught the same doctrine: these are the express words, Christus beato Petro aeternae vitae clavigero, terreni simul & caelestis imperij iura commisit.  
Christ committed to Saint Peter that beareth the keys of eternal life, the right both of earthly and heavenly empire. And the gloss, which the Pope's parasites have annexed to this decree, 
Gloss. F. caelestis.  hath these very words; Argumentum quod Papa habet utrunque gladium, & spiritualem & temporalem. An argument, that the Pope hath both the swords, aswell the spiritual as the temporal. And in the marginal note, it is there set down, Papa habens utrunque gladium transtulit imperium: the Pope having both swords, translated the empire. And appendix Fuldensis unfoldeth this cursed decree, in these most plain terms:  
Hic Papa (Bonifacius 8.) constitutionem fecerat, 
Appendix Fuldensis.  in quae se dominum spiritualem & temporalem in universo mundo asserebat. unde requisivit Philippum regem Franciae, ut a se regnum suum cognosceret, quod rex facere contempsit.  
This Pope (he speaketh of Boniface the eight) made a constitution, in which he affirmed himself, to be both spiritual and temporal lord in the whole world. Whereupon he would have had Philip king of France, to have acknowledged his kingdom from him: which thing the king scorned to do.  
Since this ladder was thus framed, the Bishops of Rome have tyrannised above measure in the world, and taking upon them that authority which pertaineth to god alone, they have disposed of kings and kingdoms, translated royal diadems, tyrannised over men's souls, and trodden all sacred sovereignty under foot. For, that popish canons ascribe plain divine titles to the Pope, it can not possibly be denied, because in the Pope's own decretals, 
Gloss. lib. 1. decret. tit. 7. cap. 3.  I find these express words; Sic (Papa) dicitur habere caeleste● arbitrium, & ideo etiam naturam rerum immutat, substantiam unius rei applicando alij; & de nihilo potest aliquid facere. So the Pope is said to have celestial arbitrement, and therefore doth he alter the nature of things, applying the substantial parts of one thing to an other; and so can make of nothing something. Thus the papists write of their Pope, and he is well pleased therewith. And yet the truth is, that as man can in some cases at some time make one thing of an other; so in all cases at all times, to make some thing of nothing, is proper to God alone.  
The Pope's parasites write thus of his power in general; 
Gerson. de potest. eccl●s. consider. 12. part. 3.  Sicut non est potestas nisia deo, sic nec aliqua temporalis vel ecclesiastica, imperialis vel regalis, nisi à Papa; in cuius foemore scripsit Christus, rex regum, dominus dominantium. Like as there is no power but of God, so is there neither any temporal nor ecclesiastical, neither imperial nor regal, but of the Pope; in whose thigh Christ hath written, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. Lo here gentle reader, two things are proper to God alone; the one, to be King of kings, and Lord of lords; the other, to be the author of all power: both which you see here ascribed to the Pope.  
The Pope himself from his own pen, 
Greg. 9 libr. 1. decr. tit. 33. cap. 6.  Gregory the ninth, delivereth us this doctrine, Ad firmamentum coeli, hoc est, univers alis ecclesiae, fecit deus duo magna luminaria, id est, duas instituit dignitates, quae sunt pontificalis authoritas, & regalis potestas sequitur; ut quanta est inter solemn & lunam, tanta inter pontifices & reges differentia cognoscatur. To the firmament of heaven, that is, of the universal church, God made two lights, pontifical authority, and power royal: that we may know there is as much difference between Popes and kings, as there is between the sun & the moon. The gloss setteth down precisely, 
Gloss. ibid.  how far a king is inferior to a Pope, that is, to any bishop of Rome, in these words; Restat, ut pontificalis dignitas, quadragesies septies sit maior regali dignitate. It remaineth, that the dignity of the Pope, is forty times seven times greater than the power of the king.  
Now touching the kissing of the Pope's feet, I answer that some Christian kings and emperors upon a blind zeal not grounded in knowledge, humbling themselves to the Bishop of Rome, and yielding up their sovereign rights to him, opened the window to all antichristian tyranny. For in short time after, (as is already proved) the Romish bishops became so lordly and insolent, that they took upon them to depose the emperors, to translate their empires, and to dispose at their pleasures of their royal sceptres and regalities. Much more might be said in this matter, but for that the Pope hath made it sacrilege to dispute of this, I will here only tell thee gentle reader, 
Sigebert. in anno, 1088.  what the Pope's dear friar Sigebertus hath written of his holiness. These are his express words; Vt pace omnium honorum dixerim, haec sola novitas, non dicam haeresis, nondum in mundo emerserat, ut sacerdotes illius, qui regnarefacit hypocritam propter peccata populi, doceant populum quod malis regibus nullam debeant subiectionem, & licet ei sacramentum fidelitatis fecerint, nullam tamen debeant fidelitatem, nec periuri dicantur, qui contra regem senserint; imo qui regi pa●●erit, pro excommunicato habeatur; qui contra regem fecerit, noxa iniustitiae & periuris absoluatur. To speak by the favour of all good men, this sole novelty, I will not say heresy, was not yet known in the world; that his priests who maketh an hypocrite to reign for the sins of the people, should teach the people, that they owe no subjection to wicked kings; and that although they have taken the oath of fealty, yet do they owe them no allegiance, neither are they perjured that think ill against the king: yea, he that obeyeth the king, is this day reputed an excommunicate person; and he that taketh part against the king, is absolved from the crime of injustice and perjury.  
This is our very case (gentle reader) this day in England, so lively painted out in best beseeming colours, as if the writer had been living even now amongst us. So then, we have to observe here for our instruction, That the Popes own monks and friars have thought as ill of the Pope's dealings in former times, as we think of his proceedings in these latter days: As also, That popish religion hath always been condemned, 
Answer o papists if you can: if not, repent for shame.  even of great learned papists that lived in the Pope's Church. Whereof none can be ignorant, that will seriously peruse my books of Motives and Survey. And this shall suffice for the first article: to which (if their hearts do not faint them, or their consciences condemn them) the papists will frame some answer undoubtedly.    

The second Article, touching the erroneous doctrine of the Popish mass.  

The first member. Of the impossibility of their supposed real presence.  
AQuinas, the jesuit Bellarmine, the council of Trent, Melchior Canus, josephus Angles, and the rest of the Romish brood, hold constantly as an article of their christian faith, 
Conc. tri. sess. 3. can. 1. Aquin. 3. p. q. 76. ar. 1. joseph. Angles, in 4. 1. p. q. 4. de euchar. Bellar. de euch. libr. 1. cap. 2. col. 468. B.  That the true, organical and natural body of Christ jesus, which was borne of the Virgin Marie, which was crucified and nailed on the cross, which rose again the third day from death, and is circumscriptively and locally in heaven; is also truly, really, and substantially, under the form of bread and wine, in the sacrifice of the popish mass, But this is impossible, as which implieth flat contradiction; and consequently, late romish religion consisteth of impossibilities, falsehoods, and contradictions. The doubt hereof is only in the assumption; for proof whereof, I set down this supposal with our Cardinal Bellarmine, viz. That we are not bound to believe any thing which implieth contradiction. 
Bellarm. de euchar. lib. 3. cap. 19 col. 748. A.  And because I will proceed sincerely, ye shall hear his own words: thus doth he write; Neque fides nostra ad id nos obligat, ut ea defendamus, quae evidenter implicant contradictionem. Neither doth our faith bind us so, that we must defend those things which imply evident contradiction. But so it is, that the popish imaginary being of Christ's body in a little round cake, implieth in itself evident contradiction, and cannot possibly be brought to pass. For example, no power upon earth or in heaven can bring to pass that a body being three cubits long and one cubit broad, remaining still so long and so broad, shall be contained in another body of two cubit's length, and half a cubit breadth. The reason hereof is evident, because so to contain and be so contained, implieth flat contradiction. And this is the case now in controversy, concerning Christ's supposed being in the round popish cake. 
Aquin, 3. p. q. 76 ar. 4. contra.  For if Christ's natural and organical body be there, as popish faith avoucheth: then must the papists believe evident contradictions, contrary to jesuit Bellarmine's resolution; yea, contrary to all power, all Logic, all reason. All the papists in England are not able to solve this reason. I challenge them all, and advise them to consult together, and to crave help of their friends elsewhere, and then to let me have their speedy answer hereunto.  
Cardinal Cajetan affirmeth boldly, 
Apud joseph. Angles, in 4. sect 1. p. pag. 144.  that no text in the whole Gospel doth prove effectually, and convince the reader to understand these words properly (This is my body.) For which respect friar joseph adviseth gravely, to read their Cardinal (caute) warily.  
Aquinas affirmeth constantly, 
Aquinas, in 4. s. d. 10. q. 1. art. 1.  Corpus Christi non esse in pluribus locis simul, secundum proprias dimensiones; that Christ's body is not in many places at once, according to the proper dimensions thereof: whose assertion is my flat position. For Christ's natural body cannot be without those dimensions which naturally pertain unto it. Durandus holdeth the very same opinion.  
S. Austin saith plainly, 
Aug. epist. ad Dardan. in fine.  that Christ's true body can be but in one only place of heaven. Vbi totum presentem esse non dubites tanquam deum, & in codem templo dei esse tanquam inhabitantem deum, & in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum. Thou must not doubt (saith S. Austen) that Christ is wholly present every where as God, and in the same temple of God, as God inhabiting it, and in some one place of heaven, for the manner of a true body. Lo, this grave father telleth us, that Christ as God is every where; but yet in respect of his true body, he is only in heaven, and in some certain place of heaven. Only in heaven, because the Scripture saith, That he shall be there till the world's end, in some certain place of heaven, to declare the nature and verity of a true body indeed. So then, if he were present as the papists would have him, his body should lose the nature and verity of a true body indeed.  
Again in another place S. Austen hath these words; 
Aug. de consecr. dist. 2. can. prima quidem.  Donec seculum finiatur, sursum est dominus, sed tamen etiam hic nobiscum est veritas domini; corpus enim in quo resurrexit, in uno loco esse oportet; veritas autem eius ubique diffusa est. Our Lord is above until the world's end, but yet his truth is with us here; for the body of our Lord, wherein he rose again, must needs be in one place; but this truth is diffused every where.  
Again, 
Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 20. ca 11. to. 6  the same S. Austen writing against Faustus the Manichee, hath these express words: Secundum presentiam corporalem, simul & in Sole, & in Luna, & in cruse esse non posset. According to his corporal presence, it was not possible for him to be both in the Sun, and in the Moon, and on the cross, at one and the same time. O papists, answer if you can; if not, recant for shame.   

The second Member. Of the Sacrifice of the Popish Mass.  
THe Papists teach and believe as an article of Christian faith, 
Conc. tried. sess. 6. can. 2. die 17. sep. Bellar. li. 1. ca 12 Aq in. 3. p q. 82 art. 4.  That in their mass Christ's true and real body is truly and really sacrificed to God the father, under the form of bread, as also his true and real blood under the form of wine. Yet this implieth horrible impiety and brutish cruelty, as shall be proved: and consequently, popish Mass is to be abhorred.  
First, where the Apostle telleth us, that Christ rising again from the dead, henceforth dieth no more, because death hath no more dominion over him; the papists tell us a contrary tale, that Christ dieth every day, nay, a thousand times a day, in the daily sacrifice of their mass: for with them all priests (the Pope, Cardinals, and some others excepted) do ordinarily say mass every day, and three masses upon every Christmas day. Which being so, and three hundred jesuits and seminary priests being this day in England and Scotland, as the Jesuits tell us; an huge multitude of masses must be said daily in these realms, and many times must Christ be put to death, so far forth as in them lieth, though they pretend to honour him thereby.  
For, 
Note this reason.  as Cardinal Bellarmine granteth freely, a sacrifice implieth intrinsically, the consumption of the thing that is sacrificed. I will not avouch any untruth upon any man (gentle reader) these are his own words: Sacrificium enim preter oblationem, requirit mutationem, & consumptionem rei quae offertur. 
Beller. de missa, lib. 1. cap. 2. col. 957.  For, saith Bellarmine, a sacrifice besides the oblation requires an alteration and a consumption of the thing which is offered.  
Again, 
Vbi sup. col. 697.  Bellarmine in another place telleth us, that the body and blood of Christ are offered in the mass, verè & propriè, truly and properly, under the forms of bread and wine.  
Again, 
Vbi sup. col. 1015.  Bellarmine saith in another place, that flesh and blood are not fit for meat, nisi prius animal moriatur, unless the beast first die (and be slain.)  
Again, 
Bellar. de missa. lib. 1. cap. ult.  the same Bellarmine teacheth the same doctrine, yet more plainly in another place. Thus doth he write: Sacrificium enim verum & real, veram & realem occisionem exigit, quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificij. For a true and real sacrifice requireth a true and real kill, seeing that the essence of the sacrifice consisteth in the kill thereof. 
Hebr. 9 ver. 17, 25, 26, 27, 28.  And in very deed, this is that constant doctrine which S. Paul doth inculcate to the Hebrews.  
So then, we see it clear and evident by popish faith and doctrine, that jesus Christ our sweet redeemer, must first be killed, then offered, lastly torn and consumed by the teeth of the sacrificing mass-priest; or else the popish mass cannot be perfect, as their most perfect doctor telleth us.  
For confirmation of this popish doctrine, it is a constant position and generally received axiom in the popish church, that by virtue of their consecratory words, Christ's body is put apart from his blood, and his blood apart from his body; and so Christ is there slain by force of their consecration, though he still live indeed, because the priests words have not so much force as they imagine. You shall hear Bellarmine's own words; 
Bellar. de missa, lib. 1. cap. 12. col. 1015. a.  Nam inprimis ideo in coena seorsim consecratur corpus, & seorsim sanguis, ut intelligamus presentiam corporis & sanguinis in coena, esse ad modum occisi & mortui corporis. For first, therefore is the body consecreate apart in the supper, and the blood asunder, that we may understand the presence of the body and blood in the supper, to be there after the manner of a body slain and dead. These are his words, and this which he thus delivereth, is the constant doctrine of the Popish Church. Whereupon it followeth of necessity, that if any papist should have said mass, in triduo mortis Christi, during Christ's death; then Christ's body by virtue there of should have been dead in one place, and his blood in another place: for otherwise, Christ should have been both quick and dead at once, which implieth contradiction. Aquinas granteth this illation, these are his words: Ideo si in illo triduo mortis fuisset hoc sacramentum celebratum, 
Aquin. 3. p. q. 76. ar. 1.  non fuisset ibi anima Christi. Therefore during Christ's death, if this sacrament had been celebrated, the soul of Christ should not have been in it.  
Secondly, if this popish kind of doctrine were true, these absurdities and gross impieties must perforce follow hereupon, viz. that Christ the night before he was crucified, was both sitting at the table, and borne in his own hands, both living and dead, both visible and invisible, both long and short, both broad and narrow, both light and heavy; that he was a sacrifice for our sins, before he died for our sins; that his sacrifice was either unperfect in the former oblation in his last supper, or else that it was needless in his bitter immolation upon the altar of the cross. 
Hebr. 9 v. 27.  For as the Apostle telleth us, Christ was not to offer himself often, as the high priest did, but once to the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of himself. These are his words, as the papists (our English Rhemists I mean) have put them down; and as it is appointed to men to die once, and after this the judgement: so also Christ was offered once, to exhaust the sins of many. Lo, Christ died but once; and that one oblation was sufficient to take away all sins in the world. The word (exhaust) which the Rhemists use, doth significantly express so much. But the words of S. Paul in another place are most manifest, and do plainly convince this truth: In the which will (saith S. Paul) we are made holy, 
Hebr. 10. v. 10.  even by the offering of the body of jesus Christ once for all. Again thus: But this man, 
ibid. v. 12.  after he hath offered one sacrifice for sins, is set down for ever on the right hand of God. 
ibid. v. 14.  Again in these words: For with one offering hath he made perfect for ever them that are sanctified. Lo, gentle reader, Christ, saith Christ's apostle, made but one oblation; Christ, say the papists, hath made many, and still maketh more oblations. Christ, saith Christ's Apostle, died but once on the cross; Christ, say the papists, dieth every day in the mass. Christ, saith Christ apostle, made perfect, finished, and consummated man's redemption, with one only sacrifice. Christ, say the papists, doth perfect and consummate his, with the daily sacrifice of the mass. Now, whether Christ's apostle, or our papists be of better credit, let the indifferent reader judge.  
Thirdly, the cup is the new testament in my blood saith Christ, 
Luke, 22. v. 20.  which is shed for you. But a testament is not of force without the death of the testator, 
Hebr. 9 v. 17.  as S. Paul teacheth us. And consequently either Christ's body was not really offered in his supper, or at least it was a sacrifice of no force, value, or efficacy at all; for that it was not yet ratified by the death of the testator. Hereupon it followeth of necessity, 
Luke 22. v. 20.  that when Christ saith in S. Luke, This cup is the new testament in my blood: 
Math. 26. v. 28.  and in S. Matthew, This is my blood of the new Testament: the sense is all one, most plain, and clear, viz. that the cup is a sacrament of the blood of Christ, and of the new Testament confirmed thereby; but indeed is no more really the blood of Christ itself, than it is really the new testament itself. For the express mention of remission of sins, is referred to the blood of Christ shed upon the cross, and not to the sacrament of his blood; seeing his blood was not shed in his supper, but in his bitter passion.  
Fourthly, the Apostle saith flatly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is not henceforth any oblation for sin. 
Hebr. 10. 18.  But if Saint Paul say truly, that there is no oblation for sin, after Christ's death on the cross; then doubtless the papists must needs say falsely, that they have a daily propitiatory sacrifice in their popish mass. Neither will it serve their turn to answer, that it is the self-same sacrifice of the cross, but offered in another manner; for if that were true, then should their masse-sacrifice be of infinite value: which for all that, no papist dareth avouch. Nay, Bellarmine saith in plain terms: Valour sacrificij missae finitus est. 
Bellar. de missa, lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 1076.  The value or worth of the mass, is finite, not infinite. And yet, if the value of the mass be not infinite, then doubtless, that sacrifice cannot be the son of God, for he is of infinite power, of infinite majesty, of infinite value. Yea, whosoever denieth Christ's body and blood, subsisting in the person of God by hypostatical union, to be of infinite value, he is become a flat Arrian, believing Christ to be pure man, and not God. And consequently, the papists, howsoever they think or speak of their mass, yet in making it a sacrifice, they must perforce be blasphemous against the son of God. Again, Bellarmine confesseth against himself unawares, and against an article of popish faith, That their popish mass is not verè & propriè, 
Bellar. de missa, lib. 2. cap 4. col. 1076.  truly and properly propitiarie: Quod Christus nunc immortalis, nec mereri, nec satisfacere potest. Because, saith Bellarmine, Christ now being immortal, can neither merit nor satisfy. But I am well assured, that their holy late council of Trent teacheth otherwise. These are the words: Et quoniam in divino hoc sacrificio, quod in missa peragitur, 
Conc. tried. sess. 6. can. 2. die 17. sep.  idem ille Christus continetur, & incruentè immolatur, qui in ara crucis semel seipsum cruentè obtulit, docet sanctasynodus sacrificium istud verè propitiatorium esse. And because in this divine sacrifice which is made in the mass, that same Christ is contained, and offered unbloodily, who on the altar of the cross once offered himself bloodily, the holy council teacheth it to be a propitiatory sacrifice truly & indeed. Lo, how the papists say and unsay: one while it is truly a propitiatory sacrifice; another while it cannot truly be so called. Well, the Pope hath allowed Bellarmine's doctrine, and he hath also allowed the Council; and yet wise men can see how they flatly disagree, and that in the highest point of their melody.  
Fiftly, the Popes own decrees do seal up this truth against the Pope, these are his words: Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui Christi caro est, 
De consecrat. dist. 2. can. hoc est  suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius viz. quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale, in cruse positum est; vocaturque ipso immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio; non rei veritate, sed significant mysterio; sic sacrum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est. As therefore the heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, is after it manner called the body of Christ, when indeed it is the sacrament of Christ's body, of that body which is visible, which is palpable, mortal, and nailed on the cross: and that oblation of flesh which is made by the hands of the priest, is called Christ's passion, death, crucifixion, not in the truth of the thing, but in a mystery, which signifieth the thing: so the sacrament of faith, by which baptism is understood, is faith.  
Thus saith the text. Let us now hear their own gloss upon the same text, these are the express words: Coeleste sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie, unde dicitur suo modo, sed non rei veritate, sed significate mysterio: ut sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus, id est, significatur. The heavenly sacrament which representeth Christ's flesh truly, is called the body of Christ, but unproperly, wherefore it is said, suo modo, after it manner, but not in the truth of the thing, but in the mystery of the thing signified: that this may be the sense, it is called Christ's body, that is to say, it signifieth his body.  
Out of these golden words, delivered as God would have it by the pens of papists, to the confusion of all papists, I note first, that the holy and blessed bread of the Eucharist or Lords supper, is called the body of Christ. Secondly, that it is also called the passion & death of Christ. Thirdly, that it is not Christ's body truly, properly, and in the truth of the thing. Fourthly, that it is Christ's body, as the sacrament of baptism is faith. Fifthly, that it is not Christ's body in truth, but in signification. Sixtly, that it is only called Christ's body, because it is the sacrament of his body; as baptism is called faith, being only the sacrament of faith. Seventhly, that it is Christ's body, impropriè, suo modo, significate mysterio; improperly, after a sort, in the mystery of the thing, signified: which words must be well remembered and marked. Lastly, that it is said negatively, non rei veritate: it is not Christ's body, in truth, in deed, or in the verity of the thing. These words are the very upshot of the controversy, they can admit no solution. For if Christ's body were in the sacrament really and substantially, with body, flesh, blood, sinews, bones, and quantity, as the papists say and believe; then doubtless he should be there in rei veritate, in the truth of the thing, even in that true body which was borne of the blessed virgin, the true mother of true God and true man. Answer papists, if ye can, or else come home, and yield to the truth for shame.   

The third Member. Of the barbarous and plain villainous proceeding against Berengarius, for denial of the abovenamed popish sacrifice.  
POpish decrees tell us a long tale of one Berengarius, sometime deacon of a church in Gaunt, who held a doctrine surely grounded upon the holy scriptures, but wholly opposite to the late popish faith; viz. That the bread and wine in the holy Eucharist, 
De consecrat. dist. 2. can. Ego Berengarius.  after Christ's words uttered, which they call consecration; are only the sacrament, and not the true body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ; and that they cannot sensuallie or sensibly, (for so their own word sensualiter signifieth) be handled or broken with the hands of the priests, or torn with the teeth of the faithful. For this opinion so settled upon God's word, as all the cursed Romish brood, are not able in truth to gainsay the same; Pope Nicholas with his Romish synod, did so cruelly proceed against the silly deacon, as he must needs either abjure and renounce the truth, or else betake himself to be burnt with popish fire and faggot out of hand. In regard whereof, the poor deacon overcome with human frailty, yielded at least in show of words, to their most wicked, cruel, and very barbarous, or rather villainous suggestion. Then the Pope and Council set down the form of words, which he should pronounce, the sum whereof I have already alleged: who as list may read the words at large, in the place quoted in the margin. I omit the words, because they are long and tedious: only I wish the reader to observe seriously with me, (for this reason can never be answered till the world's end) that it is an article of popish faith, (oh horrible blasphemy) That the true and real body of the son of God, which was borne of the vigin Marie, and sitteth at the right hand of God the father omnipotent and all sufficient, is torn in pieces with the teeth of the faithful, and broken asunder with the hands of the priest, in their idolatrous mass. For these are the words of the popish synod; Manibus sacerdotum frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. Which words are so fully farced with blasphemy, and repugnant to the truth, that neither Melchior Canus, nor the popish gloss, nor Bellarmine, can tell how to shuffle up the same, but with shame enough, they pass it over as they can. Bellarmine, who is as it were the Popes own mouth, writeth in this manner; 
Bellar. de con. lib. 2. cap. 8. d.  Respondeo, nunquam fuisse quaestionem, an Christi corpus vere ut est in se, frangeretur manibus, & dentibus tereretur; certum enim est, & semper fuit, Christi corpus incorruptibile nunc existens, non posse frangi & teri, nisi in signo sive sacramento: ita ut dicatur frangi ac teri, cum signum eius, id est, species panis frangitur, & teritur. I answer (saith the jesuit) that question was never made, if the body of Christ as it is in itself, were truly broken with hands, and torn with teeth; for it is and and ever was certain and sure, that Christ's body being now incorruptible, cannot be broken and torn, save only in a sign or sacrament; so as it may be said to be broken and torn, when the sign thereof, that is to say, the form of bread is broken and torn.  
Out of these words I note first, that by the Pope's own doctrine, (for the Jesuits doctrine is the doctrine of the Pope, seeing the Pope hath approved it,) Christ's body cannot be broken or torn, truly and indeed. I note secondly, that the Pope and his Council decreed the contrary doctrine, and that as an article of popish faith; when they compelled Berengarius, to confess it with his mouth, and to believe it with his heart, and did also publish the same, per urbes Italiae, Germaniae, & Galliae, through the cities of Italy, France, and Germany: for so saith the decree, Ego Berengarius. I note thirdly, that it is truly said, Christ's body is broken; because the form of the bread is broken, as popish doctrine teacheth us. For we see here, that this is all that the papists can say for themselves: and upon this strong foundation, and invincible bulwark, I infer this golden and evident corollary; viz. That if it be true to say, Christ's body is broken and torn, because the sign of his body is broken and torn; then truly may we say, and truly do we say, that Christ's body is in the Eucharist, because the sign of his body is there, because the sacrament of his body is there, because the representation of his body is there. And much more truly might Christ himself say, This is my body, when he gave the sign and sacrament of his body. I note fourthly, that it is the constant doctrine of the church of England (which also many other reformed churches approve therein) that Christ's body is received, broken, torn, and consumed with mouth and teeth, figuratively, significantly, mystically, sacramentally. And consequently, if the papists would be judged by this doctrine, which by the pen of the jesuit Bellarmine they here deliver, the controversy would soon be at an end. But I must needs tell the reader, what the Popes own gloss teacheth us: 
Gloss. de Cons. dist. 2. cap. ego Berengarius.  it is singular and worthy to be noted, these are the words: Nisi sane intelligas verba Berengarij, in maiorem incides haeresim, quam ipse habuit; & ideo omnia referas species ipsas, nam de corpore Christi partes non facimus. Unless thou understand the words of Berengarius sound, thou shalt fall into a greater heresy than he had; and therefore thou must refer all things to the forms, for of Christ's body we make no parts. Mark these words, gentle reader, for they are important: They teach us plainly, that it is a most dangerous thing to rely upon popish decrees, even then when they pretend to reform the church, and to condemn heresies.  
S. Austen confirmeth the doctrine, which the Pope compelled Bellengarius to abjure, 
August. in joan. tract. ●9.  and that in many places of his works; one only assertion I will now set down. These are his words: Illi manducabant panem dominum; ille, panem domini contra dominum. They (the other Apostles) are the bread, that was the Lord, he (judas) ate (not our Lord, but) the bread of our Lord, against our Lord.  
Note these words, gentle reader, and mark them seriously. S. Austen telleth us, that the bread which the other Apostles ate, was our Lord; yet that which judas received, was but the bread of the Lord. This assertion confoundeth the papists. For, if our Lord and maker be present really, in flesh, blood, and bone, under the accidents of bread; and that so long as the same accidents remain uncorrupt, as the popish faith holdeth: then doubtless judas should have received his redeemer; them perforce judas should also have received panem dominum them judas could not by any possibility have barely received panem domini, which yet S. Austen affirmeth most constantly. For first, if it were true, that after popish supposed consecration, the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christ's natural body, as it truly consisteth of flesh, blood, and bone: and again, if it were also true, that the self-same body remained under the form of bread, until it were corrupted, then let all the papists in England, with the best advise of all their adherents and brother papists elsewhere in Europe, tell me how judas could receive (panem domini) the bread of our Lord, and not (panem dominum) the bread which is the Lord, as S. Austen plainly avoucheth, that is, how judas could receive the form, with the flesh, blood, and bones, of Christ's organical and natural body hidden under the same; and for all that, not receive Christ himself, and panem dominum, as the other Apostles did. Let them I say tell me this, and I herewith promise to subscribe, and never henceforth to write against them or any part of their popish doctrine. If they will not this do, because they cannot (for if they can do it, all the world must think they will do it, for their own credit and the credit of their cause) then doubtless, if the fear of God be before their eyes, they will acknowledge the truth, and with open mouth confess the same. Cord enim creditur ad justitiam, & ore confessio fit ad salutem. 
Rom. 10. v. 10.    

The fourth Member. Of the apparent contradictions in the Popish mass.  
FIrst, the papists tell us, that Christ's body in their mass, is the self-same body that was nailed on the cross. And withal they tell us, that it is a figure of the same body. That it is a flat contradiction, their own dear Cardinal Bellarmine shall tell them: These are his words: 
Bellar. de Eucharist. lib. 1. cap. 3. col. 474.  Figurae necessario, inferiores esse debent rebus figuratis. Figures of necessity must be inferior to the things figured by them. And this doctrine is most true indeed, as S. Paul discourseth to the Hebrews. 
Hebr. 10.  Now would I know of the papists, if they can say aught for the life of their mass, how Christ's body in the mass being the self-same body numero, as they teach and believe, can be inferior to Christ's body on the cross; how it can be both inferior and superior to itself; how it can be both of greater and lesser value than Christ's body on the cross, being ever the self-same body on the cross.  
Secondly, the papists tell us, that Christ's natural body is contained in a little round cake, or under the accidents and form of bread. Now would I know of the same papists, how the bigger can be contained of the lesser, how a bushel can be couched in a peck, how a great ox can be closed up in a little calves belly. For all these imply evident contradiction.  
Thirdly, 
Bellar. de Eucharist. lib. 1. cap. 2. col. 472.  the papists tell us, that Christ's body is truly broken. For these are the jesuit Bellarmine's words: Denique in concilio Romano sub Nicolao 2. compulsus est Berengarius confiteri, Christi corpus sensualiter sacerdotum manibus tangi & frangi. Finally, in a council at Rome under Pope Nicholas the second, Berengarius was compelled to confess, that Christ's body is sensuallie touched and broken with the priests hands.  
Now would I know, how it can be true, that Christ's body is broken, and also true, that it is not broken, speaking of the same body at the same time. Let all papists answer, and tell me if they can, how it implieth not contradiction. For to say, that not the body but the accident of bread is broken, is too too childish and frivolous. The reason is evident, because Berengarius (o cruel impiety) was compelled to confess, that Christ's body was sensually broken.  
Fourthly, the papists tell us, that the pronouncing of these words by a priest (This is my body) do make Christ's body present in their mass, and also in other places: insomuch (mark well gentle reader what I say) that if a popish priest come into a great market place, where there is great store of wheat bread, though a thousand or more loaves in number, and there looking on the bread, shall pronounce the said words, with intention to consecrate, than forthwith every loaf is God almighty, and the people must adore the same. Trial hereof was once made de facto in Italy, as myself being in Rome, heard from the mouth of a jesuit. For, as the jesuit reported, a priest being degraded and designed to die, as he passed in the street by a bakers house, beheld a great quantity of wheat bread, and recited these words (Hoc est corpus meum) and told the people, that he had consecrated the said bread. 
This is a great wonderment, and extreme popish sollie.  Whereupon consultation was had out of hand among the learned, and sentence given, that every loaf was God almighty: and the bread was carried away with great solemnity, reverence, and such adoration as was due to the son of the everliving God. Now would I know, when the priest hath pronounced three of the said words, viz. (hoc est corpus.) what is become of the bread afore him. For if they answer, that it is Christ's body: then will it follow to their shame, that one of the words of their consecration is of no force; which to die for it, the papists may not admit. If they say, that a part of Christ's body is then wrought really, by virtue of the said words, then will it follow to their greater shame, that Christ's body is really torn in pieces, by force of their bloody and most cruel mass. If they say, that nought is indeed effected, until the last syllable of the last word be pronounced; then will it follow to their confusion, that of four words wherein consisteth their whole consecration, three are of no virtue, force, or efficacy, but stand as ciphers to fill up the place, and to make a show of that which is not.  
fiftly, Durandus telleth us, that only the form of bread is changed, and that the matter of bread remaineth still in the Eucharist. Rupertus the popish Abbot holdeth, that the bread is united hypostaticallie to the son of God. Caietanus, Henricus, and Capreolus, are of another opinion: johanncs Parisiensis held also that the bread was assumpted, but in a different manner from the opinion of Rupertus. Another opinion, affirmeth the annihilation of the bread: but the jesuit Bellarmine holdeth with their Council of Trent, that the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ.  
Sixtly, the papists tell us, that when the priest is at mass, than all spectators must adore that which he holdeth over his head, and constantly believe it to be their maker and redeemer of the world: and if any hold contrary opinion, or teach the contrary doctrine, that person must be burnt with fire and faggot for his pains. But yet for all this the popish faith telleth us, that if either the priest want intention to consecrate, (which often chanceth, or at least may chance, by reason of wandering imaginations) or of purpose meaneth not to consecrate, or of negligence omitteth, or miscalleth any word of consecration; then by popish doctrine, faith, and religion, the thing adored for God almighty, is but pure bakers bread; and consequently, the adorers there of become idolaters, worshipping a piece of bread for the everliving God.  
Seventhly, the papists tell us, that many priests are appointed at once to pronounce the words of consecration, in the Romish Church Lateran when they are made priests. But they cannot tell us, how many gods, or how many times God is made in one and the same piece or cake of bread, in and at that mass of the newly made priests. For they are all appointed to consecrate, they do all pronounce the words, they are all bounden to have intention, and they all have the fit and requisite matter to work upon: but when the principal actor and chief agent, to wit, the bishop, is at the last syllable; then some of the rest be in the midst, some toward the end, some in one place, some in an other, never one jumping with other in that instant, in which they should their breadgod make. For of this dreadful mystery, there are three solemn dissonant opinions. 
joseph. Angl. in 4. s. pag. 180.  Pope Innocentius holdeth, that they all do consecrate: Durandus avoucheth, that that priest only consecrateth, which with greatest speed first cometh to the end: but Cardinal Caietanus hath a different consideration. Now would I know, how these so different popish opinions, in a matter of so great importance, can be reconciled and salved from contradiction. Answer papists if you can, or else relent and yield to the truth for shame.    

The third Article. Of popish dispensations.  
Antoninus' sometime archbishop of Florence, coming as ambassador from the Pope, telleth us, if we may believe him, 
Antoninus, 3. par tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 8.  that the Pope is Christ's vicar upon earth, and hath equal power with God almighty. These are his own express words; Come auten vicarius Christi sit Papa, nullus potest seipsum subtrahere ab obedientia eius de iure, sicut nullus de iure potest se subtrahere abobedientia Dei. Et sicut recepit Christus a patre ducatum & sceptrum ecclesiae gentium ex Israel egrediens, super omnem principatum & potestatem, & super omne quodcunque est, ut ei genua cuncta curuentur; sic ipse Petro & successoribus eius, plenissimam potestatem commisit. For seeing the Pope is the vicar of Christ, none can lawfully withdraw himself from his obedience, as none can lawfully withdraw himself from God's obedience. And as Christ received of his father, the dukedom and sceptre of the Church of the gentiles arising of Israel, over all principality and power, and above every thing that hath being, that to him every knee may bend: even so Christ hath committed most full power to Peter and his successors.  
The famous popish friar, 
Aug. de Anch. in summa, pag. 152.  Augustinus de Ancona, in that book which he dedicated to Pope john the twelft of that name, singeth the same song, and affirmeth the Pope to have the same power. These are his express words; (Papa) tanquam vicarius Dei filii caelestis imperatoris, jurisdictionem habet universalem super omniaregna & imperia. The Pope, as he that is the vicar of the son of God the heavenly emperor, hath universal jurisdiction over all kingdoms & empires.  
Many other papists have the like testimonies, but they are needless, seeing the Pope is a sufficient witness against himself, having often reduced their assertions to actual execution. For the Pope hath often by his wicked and execrable dispensations taken upon him to dissolve that matrimony which is firm and stable by Christ's own institution. The former part is proved by their learned canonist Martinus Navarrus, 
Navar. in Euchar. cap. 22. par. 21.  in these express words: Dividitur (matrimonium) ante consummationem, per dispensationem papae justa de causa factam. Matrimony is dissolved before consummation, by the Pope's dispensation upon just cause granted. Now to prove that the Pope may this do, Navarre taketh it for a good ground, that the Pope hath practised the same. Thus doth he write: Quorum opinio adeo obseruatur, 
Navar. ubi sup.  quod etiam ter vel quater ad petitiones consilio meo antequam in urbem venissem oblatas, Paulus 3. & Pius 4. per suas dispensationes, dissoluerant quaedam matrimonia omnino clandestina nondum consummata, in remedium animarum alioquin probabiliter periturarum. Whose opinion (he speaketh of the Canonists) is so observed, that three or four times before my coming to Rome, upon petitions made by mine advise, Pope Paulus the third, and Pope Pius the fourth, with their dispensations dissolved certain secret matrimonies not yet consummate, for the safeguard of souls, which by likelihood would otherwise have perished.  
And another famous popish Canonist Covarruvias affirmeth, 
Covar. to. 1. cap. 7. par. 4. n. 13. col. 1  that Pope Paulus the fourth and julius the third dispensed in like manner. These are his words: Necme latet Paulum quartum summum ecclesiae pontificem, anno 1558. hac usum fuisse dispensatione quibusdam excausis, quas iustissimas esse idem summus ecclesiae praesul existimavit. Idem Paulo ante julius tertius fecerat in eodem matrimonio, cum ecclesiae universali praesiderit. Neither am I ignorant, that the Pope Paul the fourth put this dispensation in practice, for certain causes which the same Pope thought to be most just. julius the third, when he was Pope, in the like case granted the like dispensation. Thus we see the former part of mine assertion to be most sufficiently proved, viz. that Pope taketh upon him to dissolve lawful and perfect matrimony. Now for proof of the latter, viz. that wedlock before consummation or copulation, is firm and perfect, and cannot be dissolved by the power of man: Christ's own words are a sufficient ground. 
Matth. 19 v. 7.  Quod deus coniunxit, homo non separet. That which God hath conjoined, let not man put asunder. And in another place Christ hath these words: 
Luke, 16. v. 18.  Omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam, & alteram ducit, moechatur. Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery.  
S. Paul upon the same argument delivereth the like doctrine in these words: 
1. Cor. 7. v. 10.  His autem qui matrimonio iuncti sunt, precipio non ego sed dominus, uxorem à viro non discedere; quod si discesserit, manner innuptam, aut viro suo reconciliari, & vir uxorem non dimittat. Those that are married command not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband: but if she shall depart, then to abide unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband.  
Thus saith S. Paul, and thus saith Christ himself, that man and wife joined by Christ, must abide during life together, or live unmarried, and not be severed by the Pope's dispensation.  
And it will not help the Pope to say as the jesuit Bellarmine doth, and others with him, That Christ only speaketh de matrimonio consummato, and that matrimonium ratum, with which the Pope dispenseth, is not de iure divino.  
For first, if matrimonium ratum were not de iure divino, the greatest popish doctors would not deny the Pope's dispensation therein.  
Secondly, Christ speaketh absolutely, and maketh no mention of copulation or popish consummation at all.  
Thirdly, matrimony with papists is a divine sacrament, and consequently, it both is perfect without carnal copulation, and also indispensible by the power of man. 
Canus de locis, lib. 8. ca p. 246.  For as their own famous doctor Melchior Canus saith: Sanctus spiritus & sacramenti gratia, per coitum non datur. The holy ghost and the grace of sacrament is not given by copulation.  
Fourthly, it followeth hereupon, that matrimony is not fully perfect in the popish church, because copulation followeth a good while after.  
Fiftly, because it is absurd to say, that it beginneth to be a sacrament by carnal copulation, and was not a sacrament by the priest's action.  
Sixtly, it followeth hereupon, that there was not perfect matrimony between Adam and Eve, for their matrimony was in the state of innocency, and before all carnal copulation.  
Seventhly, because if matrimony be not de iure divino, even before copulation, there is no cause why both parties agreeing together, may not release the bargain, and quite dissolve the contract. For as the law saith, Quisque potest suo iuri cedere. Every man may yield up his right: which thing, all, as well Canonists as Divines, admit for good in sponsalibus.  
Eightly, it followeth hereupon, 
Matth. 1.  that the marriage between the blessed virgin and S. joseph, was not perfect matrimony: for there doubtless wanted carnal copulation; but the angel of God feared not to call her Joseph's wife.  
S. Ambrose hath these words: Non enim defloratio virginitatis facit coniugium, 
Ambros. de instit. virg. cap. 6.  sed pactio coniugalis. For not the deflowering of virginity maketh wedlock, but the conjugal covenant.  
S. Austin's judgement herein is most clear and evident. 
August. de consens. evang. lib. 2. cap. 1. to 4.  These are his words: Cum igitur ipse narret, non ex concubitu joseph, sed ex Maria virgine natum Christum, unde eum patrem eius appellat, nisi quia & virum Mariae rectè intelligimus sine commixtione carnis, ipsa copulatione coniugij. When therefore he telleth us, that Christ is not borne of Joseph's copulation, but of the virgin Marie; upon what ground doth he call him his father, but only for that we do rightly conceive him to be Mary's husband without the commixtion of flesh, by the very copulation of wedlock.  
The same father writing to Valerius, discourseth of this matter at large, 
Augustin. de nup●ijs & concupisc. lib. 1. cap. 11. tom. 7.  and among many other notable sentences setteth down these words: Quibus vero placuit, ex consensu ab usu carnalis concupiscentiae in perpetuum continer, absit ut inter illos vinculum coniugale rumpatur. Secquitar neque enim fallaciter ab angelo dictum est ad joseph, noli timere, accipere Mariam coniugem tuam. They that were content by mutual consent to abstain for ever from the use of carnal copulation, God forbid, that between them should be dissolved the bond of wedlock. For the Angel did not speak deceitfully to joseph, when he willed him not to fear to take Marry his wife unto him.  
Thus we see it clear, that the pope taketh upon him that power and authority which is proper to God alone: for he practically avoucheth (as I have proved by his own dear doctors) that his dispensations are of force to unmarrie and put asunder those persons whom God himself hath joined together in holy wedlock. And chose (as I shall prove unto you) he practically hath taken upon him to join in wedlock those persons, to whom God himself hath forbidden marriage. I will omit known examples, and allege one only not known to many; which as it is rare and notorious, so is it able to provoke all that hear it, to exclaim against the execrable practice of the Pope.  
Antoninus, 
Antonin. 3. p. tit. 1. cap. 11. prope fin.  a man of no small credit (for he was an archbishop of the popish stamp, and by the Pope reported for a saint) hath these very words: Reperitur tamen papa Martinus quintus dispensasse cum quodam, qui contraxerat & consummaverat matrimonium cum quadam cius germana. Nevertheless, it is known, that Pope Martin the fifth did dispense with one who had contracted and consummate matrimomonie with his own natural and full sister, 
Fatetur Durandus olim papam dispensando errasse. lib. 4. sent. dist. 7. q. 4. in fine.  of the same father and same mother, for so much the word (Germana) doth import. Behold here, gentle reader, the excellency of holy popery: and if thou desirest more of such melody, thou mayest find it in my book of Motives. But this here is a sufficient antepast for all our English jesuits and jesuited popelings. None are so ignorant, but they know that only God can give licence to marry a man's own natural sister. Answer papists if ye can, or else yield unto the truth for shame.   

The fourth Article. Of original concupiscence in the regenerate.  
SAint Paul throughout the whole seventh chapter to the Romans, 
Rom. 7.  proveth original concupiscence in the regenerate to be sin. But the papists cannot abide to hear this doctrine, 
Psal. 58. v. 6.  they stop their ears against the charmer, though he charm never so wisely. And why, I pray you? because forsooth it overthroweth their holy so supposed justifications, their inherent purities, their mutual satisfactions, their condign merits, their pharisaical supererogations. And yet Petrus Lombardus their famous master of sentences (whose book to this day is publicly read in their schools of divinity) utterly condemneth their damnable doctrine in this point. 
Lombard. lib. 3. sent. dist. 19  These are his express words: Secundum animas vero iam redemptisumus ex part, non ex toto; à culpa, non à poena, nec omnino à eulpa, non enim ab ea sic redempti sumus, ut non sit, sed ut non dominetur. But touching our souls, we are redeemed in part, not wholly, from the sin, not from the pain, neither wholly from the sin or fault. For we are not so redeemed from it, that it be not (in us) but that it rule not (over us.) Thus writeth the worshipful popish master, 
Now must the papists perforce either recant their doctrine, or else cry fire and faggot for their chief master.  our reverend father Lombard: out of whose words we may gather with facility so much as will serve our turn against the papists. For first he saith we are redeemed in part, but not in the whole. Secondly, that we are not wholly redeemed from sin. Thirdly, he telleth us how we are redeemed from sin, viz. that albeit sin still remain in us, yet hath it not such dominion over us, that it can enforce us to consent thereunto. Lo, this doctrine is not mine, but the flat doctrine of the papists, which I learned of that great papist, who for his learning was surnamed the master of sentences, and to this day is publicly read in their divinity schools.  
Touching S. Paul, 
Rom. 7. v. 25.  he saith first in this manner: I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin. Out of these words I note first, that the Apostle speaketh of the regenerate throughout this whole chapter, because he nameth himself, who was Gods chosen and elect vessel. For which respect, and the like expressed in the seventh chapter to the Romans, S. Austen changed his opinion, and granted S. Paul to speak here of the regenerate. 
Aug. li. 1. retract cap. 22. p. 23.  I note secondly, that the elect and regenerate do serve the law of sin. I note thirdly, that the best livers are so far from meriting ex condigno, grace and glory, that they deserve in rigour of justice, eternal death, because death is the reward of sin. Which for that S. Austen could not well digest at the first, he thought that S. Paul's words were to be understood of the reprobate, and not of the elect and godly sort: but when he had pondered the Apostles discourse and words more seriously, he changed his opinion. This is confirmed in the self-same chapter in these words: But I see another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, 
Rom. 7. v. 23.  and subduing me unto the law of sin, which is in my members. By these words it is evident, that albeit S. Paul were the child of God, yet could he not merit any thing in God's sight: but rather in rigour of justice provoke Gods heavy displeasure against him: For where or what could be his merit, who was prisoner to the law of sin? 
Rom. 7. v. 19  Again, the same is confirmed in these words: For I do not the good which I would, but the evil which I would not, that do I. Thus saith S. Paul. And doubtless, since he did the evil which he would not, he sinned, though he were regenerate: and in that he sinned, he was guilty of damnation, because death is the stipend of sin. 
August. epist. 105. pag. 301.  For this cause gravely saith S. Austen: Cum deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat, quam munera sua. When God crowneth our merits, he crowneth nothing else but his own gifts. Again, the same is confirmed in these words, For the law is spiritual, but I am carnal sold under sin. 
Rom. 7, v. 14.  Thus saith S. Paul of himself. And yet it is most true, that one under the buthen of sin can merit nothing save hell fire and eternal pain. Again, the same is confirmed in these words: If I do that I would not, 
Rom. 7. v. 20.  than it is not I that doth it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Lo S. Paul granteth that to be sin in himself, which yet himself consenteth not unto. And that he speaketh of original concupiscence, which remaineth in the regenerate after baptism, it cannot be denied. And it will not serve the turn, to say as Bellarmine doth, viz. that original concupiscence remaineth after baptism, but is no sin at all: and, that it is called sin only in this respect, because it provoketh a man to sin; as a man's writing is called his hand, because it is written with his hand. For first, their own master Petrus Lombardus granteth it to be sin, even as S. Paul doth. Secondly, it causeth man to serve the law of sin, which service can never be but sin. Thirdly, S. Paul saith, he doth that ill which he would not, and that which he doth hate. All which must needs be meant of sin.  
That concupiscence remaining after baptism, is truly called sin, the papists themselves confess unawares in a main point of doctrine and settled ground of their religion. Mark well gentle reader what I shall deliver in this behalf.  
God chose all in Christ that shall be saved before the foundation of the world: and likewise reprobated all both negatively and positively (that I may use their schoole-tearmes:) but positively, for the foresight of original sin. For the proof hereof, it will suffice to allege the words of our papists at Rheims, 
Rheims test. in Rom. 9 v. 14.  in their notes upon the new testament. Thus do they write: So likewise, God seeing all mankind, and every one of the same, in a general condemnation and mass of sin in and by Adam, delivereth some and not othersome. These are their own words: and that which they teach, is the common doctrine of the Romish church. 
Rhem. Rom. 9 v. 11.  Again, the same Rhemists in the chapter afore quoted have these words: by the same example of those twins, it is evident also, that neither nations nor particular persons be elected eternally, or called temporally, or preferred to God's favour before others by their own merits: because God when he made choice and first loved jacob, and refused Esau, respected them both as ill, and the one no less than the other guilty of damnation for original sin, which was alike in them both. And therefore where justly he might have reprobated both, he saved of mercy one. This is that strong foundation, whereon the papists think predestination to be built: the which I willingly do admit, as which will make good my position even against themselves. For seeing as they grant. That God beholding all in a general condemnation for original sin, 
Mark well this Dilemma.  saveth the elect of mercy, and justly decreeth to condemn the reprobate for original sin: it followeth of necessity, that either some reprobate shall be saved, which the papists neither dare nor may avouch, or else that concupiscence remaining after baptism, is sin indeed, 
Junò per actualia, & propria sua peccata quid ni?  which is the doctrine I defend. The consecution and illation is evident. For if original sin be truly remitted in baptism, and be not truly sin in the baptized, then can none be justly damned that are baptized: for how shall they be justly condemned, for that which is remitted? it cannot be. And to grant that all baptized persons shallbe saved, is most absurd; neither can I think any papist so senseless, as to affirm the same. For to name one for all: their Pope Boniface the eight, who (as their own dear friar Caranza saith) entered into the popedom as a fox, 
Caranza in summa conciliorum. fol. 369.  reigned in it as a wolf, and died in the end as a dog; is not I trow a saint in heaven; and yet must we think he was baptized, or else a terrible vae vobis will fall upon our papists.  
Now because the papists use to boast, that S. Austen is on their side, I will prove at large, that he defendeth this my doctrine here delivered: and that I purpose in God to do so plainly and evidently, as none can stand in doubt thereof, that shall seriously ponder my discourse.  

The first place of Saint Austen.  
SIcut caecitas cordis, quam solus removet illuminator Deus, & peccatum est quo in deum non creditur; 
Aug. lib. 5. cont. julian. cap. 3. tom. 7.  & poena peccati, qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur: & causa peccati, cum mali aliquid caeci cordis errore committitur; ita concupiscentia carnis, adversus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus, & peccatum est, quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis: & poena peccati est, quia reddita est meritis inobedientis; & causa peccatiest, defectione consentientis, vel contagione nascentis. Like as the blindness of heart, which only God the illuminatour doth remove, is sin, through which man believeth not in God; and the punishment of sin, wherewith a proud heart is justly chastened; and the cause of sin, when through the blindness of heart any evil is committed; even so concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit coveteth, is sin, because there is in it disobedience against the government of the mind: and also a punishment of sin, because it was rendered to the merits of the disobedient: and it is also the cause of sin, by defection of him that consenteth, or by contagion of the child that is borne.  
In these words, Saint Austen expresseth three things precisely; first, that concupiscence in the regenerate, is the punishment of sin; secondly, that it is the cause of sin; thirdly, that it is sin itself. Which three, S. Austen doth not only distinguish, but withal he yieldeth three several reasons for the same: and that he speaketh of the regenerate, it is evident in this; because he speaketh of that concupiscence, against which the good spirit striveth. Most impudent therefore are the papists, when they avouch with open mouth, that Saint Austen only calleth it sin, because it is the cause of sin. And the gentle reader may here also observe, that S. Austen compareth concupiscence of the flesh, with that blindness of heart which breedeth infidelity in man: which how great a sin it is, every one can tell.   

The second place of Saint Austen.  
NEque enim nulla est iniquitas, cum in uno homine vel superiora inferioribus turpit●r serviunt; 
Aug. contr. julian. lib. 6. cap. 8. to. 7.  vel inferiora superioribus contumaciter reluctantur, etiam si vincere non sinantur. For it is some iniquity, when in one man, either the superior parts shamefully serve the inferior; or the inferior parts stubbornly strive against the superior, although they be not suffered to prevail.  
These words of Saint Austen are so plain, as the papists cannot possible invent any evasion at all. For he saith in plain and express terms; that the rebellion which is between the flesh and the spirit, is sin; yea, that it is even then sin, when it is resisted, and cannot prevail. At which time and in which respect, the papists will have it to be merit, but no sin at all. Behold a flat contradiction, it is sin, saith Saint Austen: it is merit and no sin, say the papists.   

The third place of Saint Austen.  
SI in parent baptizato potest & esse & peccatum non esse, 
August. de. nuptijs & concupis. lib. 1. cap. 25. to. 7.  cur eadem ipsa in prole peccatum est? ad haec respondetur, dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum non imputetur. Sequitur, non ergo aliquid remanet quod non remittatur, cum fit sicut scriptum est, propitius dominus omnibus iniquitatibus nostris; sed donec fiat & quod sequitur, 
Ps. 103. v. 3.  qui sanat omnes languores tuo, qui redimet de corruption vitam tuam: manet in corpore mortis huius carnalis concupiscentia. 
It remaineth sin by nature, and so passeth by regeneration, from the parents to the children.  If concupiscence can both be in the baptized parent, and withal be no sin, why is the self same made sin in the child? to this, this is the answer: that the concupiscence of the flesh is forgiven in baptism, not so that it remain not, but so that it is not reputed for sin. Not any thing therefore remaineth, which is not forgiven, seeing that is done which is written, God is merciful to all our iniquities: but until that be done also which followeth: which healeth all thine infirmities; which redeemeth thy life from corruption: carnal concupiscence abideth in the body of this death.  
Saint Austen in these words showeth plainly, that concupiscence remaineth aswell in the baptized parent, as in the unbaptised child; yet with this difference, that it is sin in the parent, though not for sin imputed; but in the child it both is sin, and is also so reputed. And the reader must not forget, that Saint Austen saith, Nothing remaineth which is not forgiven. He doth not say, Nothing is sin that remaineth; or thus, No sin remaineth: but thus, Not any thing remaineth, which is not remitted. As if he had said, sin indeed remaineth still in the baptized, but shall not be imputed to the faithful. Mark well gentle reader, the phrase which Saint Austen here useth. It is forgiven that still remaineth, saith Saint Austen; or, not any thing remaineth, which is not forgiven. Therefore he must needs mean, that something remaineth which is sin, though pardoned and not reputed sin. For nothing hath need of forgiveness, but that which is sin indeed.   

The fourth place of Saint Austen.  
I Deo apostolus non ait facere bonum sibi non adiacere, 
August. de nupttijs & concupis. libr. 1. cap. 29.  sed perficere. Multum enim boni facit, qui facit quod scriptum est; post concupiscentias tuas non eas; sed non perficit, quia non implet quod scriptum est; non concupisces. The apostle therefore saith not, that he hath not power to do good, but that he cannot perfect that which is good. For he doth great good, who doth that which is written; Follow not thy lusts: but he doth not perfect his well doing, because he doth not fulfil that which is written, Thou shalt not lust.  
Out of these words of Saint Austen, I note many memorable documents. First, that Saint Austen speaketh these words of the regenerate; for they only can do this good, whereof the apostle speaketh. Secondly, that though the regenerate can do good, and strive against lust; yet can they not do that good so perfectly, but it is always annexed to sin, and chained with it, as with an heavy yoke-fellow. Thirdly, that the tenth commandment (mark well my words) prohibiteth not only actual lust done with consent, but also original lust committed without consent; and consequently, that concupiscence remaining in the regenerate, is sin properly and formally. I prove it, because Saint Paul could not perform this precept, as Saint Austen truly and learnedly observed: who for all that touching actual sin, was most free and innocent. For he fought mightily against his raging concupiscence, and did in no wise yield thereunto. He was therefore guilty by reason of original concupiscence, which abode in him against his will. Therefore most absurd is the exposition of the Rhemists, 
Rom. 7. v. 7.  who bear the reader in hand, that Saint Paul speaketh not of the habitual concupiscence, or sensual desire and inclination to evil, when he forbiddeth to lust. For if only the consent of our reason and mind, to obey and to follow the lusts thereof, were sin indeed; then should Saint Austin's exposition be very childish and too too absurd, who telleth us plainly in express terms, That S. Paul could not fulfil that precept, although he did not yield his consent unto it, neither did obey or follow the desires thereof. No, no, Saint Paul had no such meaning; he named it sin, as it is indeed. He saith, he had not known lust to be sin, 
Rom. 7. v. 7.  except the law had said, Thou shalt not lust. But he could never be ignorant, that concupiscence with consent was sin; seeing the very heathen men did know, and confess the same. Again, that actual concupiscence which our Rhemists speak of, 
Matt. 5. v. 22.  is forbidden in the sixth, seventh, and eight commandments; as Christ himself expondeth them. And consequently, the tenth commandment forbiddeth, the very habitual and sensual desire, or inclination to sin, and the evil fruits thereof; that is, wicked, vicious, and injurious thoughts, though we resist and strive against them. This is the express doctrine of Saint Austen in another place, 
August. de nupt. & concup. lib. 1. cap. 27.  which he delivereth in these words; Agitenim aliquid concupiscentia carnis, & quando non exhibetur ei vel cordis assensus, ubi regnet, vel membra velut arma, quibus impleatur quod jubet: agit autem quid, nisi ipsa desideria mala & turpia? Non enim si bona & licita essent, eye obedire prohiberet apostolus. For concupiscence of the flesh worketh something, even when there is not given unto it, either the consent of the heart, 
Rom. 6. v. 12.  where it may reign; or the members as weapons, which may accomplish what it appointeth. And what doth it, but the very wicked and filthy desires? For if they were good and lawful, the apostle would not forbid to obey them.  
Mark these words gentle reader; for they fortify that which is already said, and give a deadly blow to the papists: two things are cleared by this testimony of Saint Austen, the one, that concupiscence to which consent is not given, bringeth forth ill desires: the other, that the said desires are unlawful, and prohibited by the law of God. And so we have it evidently proved, by many invincible reasons; that concupiscence habitued, to which the regenerate yield no consent, but stoutly resist the same; is so far from being meritorious, as the papist teach, that it is sin formally, and properly so called. Neither will it serve their turn, to object that which is ever in their mouths, that it is involuntary, and can no way be avoided, and so no sin at all. This objection I grant, carrieth a majesty with it; and it seemeth to many men, to be insoluble. But God willing, I shall make it so clear and evident, as every child may behold with facility, the weakness, falsehood, and absurdity thereof.  
Saint Austen proveth at large in sundry places of his works, 
Aug. lib. 1. retract. cap. 13. pag. 13.  that involuntary motions of concupiscence are sin in deed, and truly so called. In his first book of retractations, he hath these words; Illud quod in paruulis dicitur originale peccatum, cum adhuc non utantur libero arbitrio voluntatis, non absurdè vocatur etiam voluntarium; quid ex primi hominis mala voluntate contractum, factum est quodammodo haereditarium. Non itaque falsum est quod dixi, usque adeo peccatum voluntarium malum est, ut nullo modo sit peccatum si non sit voluntarium. That which in infants is called original sin, when as yet they use not free arbitrement of will, is not absurdly called voluntary; because being contracted of the evil will of the first man, it is become in a sort hereditary. It is not therefore false which I said, 
Aug. retract. lib. 1. cap. 15. pag. 16.  sin is an evil so voluntary, that it is no way sin, if it be not voluntary.  
Again, in an other place S. Austen hath these words; Quod si quisquam dicit etiam ipsam cupiditatem nihil esse aliud quam voluntatem, sed vitiosam peccatoque seruientem, non resistendum est, nec de verbis, cum res constat, controversia facienda est. Sic enim ostenditur sine voluntate nullum esse peccatum, sive in opere, sive in origine. But if any man say, that concupiscence is nothing else, than a will that is vicious & serving sin, there is no resistance to be made; neither must controversy be in words, when the thing is clear & evident. For so we prove every sin to be voluntary, either in the act, or else in the original.  
Again, he hath these words; 
August. ubi sup pag. 17.  Propterea non perturbat de paruulis questio, quia ex illius origine rei tenentur qui voluntate peccavit, quando libero & ad faciendum, & ad non faciendum motu animi non carebat, eique ab opere malo abstinendi summa potestas erat. Therefore let no man be troubled with the question about infants, because they are guilty by reason of his original, that sinned voluntarily; having free motion of mind both to do & not to do, as also full power to abstain from evil.  
Thus we see most evidently, that the unvoluntary motions of concupiscence, so termed of the papists, are both sinful and voluntary: sinful in their nature, and voluntary in the original. And the papists may as well deny concupiscence to be sin in the infants unbaptised, as in them that are baptized, upon this their falsely supposed ground. For it is as unvoluntary in the one, as it is in the other; neither can it be any more avoided in the one, than in the other. This is the gordian knot which the papists are never able to lose, or untie.  
Bellarmine himself is enforced to confess, 
Bellarm. tom. 3. col. 400. vide Aug. de spiritu & litter. cap. ult. tom. 3.  that Saint Austen acknowledgeth all the motions of concupiscence, even those which be involuntary, to be properly sin, and flatly condemned by the tenth commandment. These are his express words; Haec dicta sunt ad mentem S. Augustini, qui precepto, non concupisces, intelligit prohiberi aliquo modo motus omnes concupiscentiae, etiam involuntarios; assensum vero his motibus, prohibere docet illo alio precepto: post concupiscentias tuas non eas. These things are spoken after Saint Austin's mind, 
Eccles. 18. v. 30.  who by this precept, (Thou shalt not lust) understandeth all the motions of concupiscence, even the involuntary, to be prohibited in some sort; and that the consent to these motions, is forbidden by that other precept; Follow not thy concupiscence. Thus writeth the jesuitical Cardinal: by whose doctrine it is evident, that Saint Austen affirmeth the first motions of concupiscence: which prevent reason cannot be avoided to be condemned by Saint Paul, as sinful and against the law of God. Which doctrine of Saint Austen doth so sting and confound all papists, that Bellarmine knoweth not in the world what he shall answer to the same. And therefore deceitfully he addeth in his exposition of Saint Austin's words, the word (quodammodo, after a sort;) which word neither is in Saint Austen, nor yet agreeable to his meaning. For Saint Austen saith plainly, simply, and absolutely, without all and's, or ifs, or other qualifications, that such motions are forbidden by this commandment, (non concupisces.) And for the consummation of this doctrine, (which overthroweth the best part of popery,) I will here add to Saint Paul's doctrine, and the exposition of Saint Austen; the flat testimony of Saint john an other Apostle, who singeth the same song with Saint Paul.  
Saint john in his first epistle, 
1. joan. 3. v. 4.  hath these words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Every one that sinneth, transgresseth the law. And sin is the transgression of the law. These are S. john's words truly translated out of the original Greek. But before we proceed any further in the discourse hereof, 
Rhem● test. in the notes in 1. joan. 3. 4.  let us take a view of that doctrine, which our papists of Rheims have sent us. These are their words; Iniquity is not taken here for wickedness, as it is commonly used both in Latin and in our language, as is plain by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying nothing else, but swerving or declining from the strait line of the law of God, or nature. So that the Apostle meaneth, that every sin is an obliquity or defect from the rule of the law: but not contrary, that every such swerving from the law, should be properly a sin, as the heretics do untruly gather, to prove that concupiscence remaining after baptism is a very sin, though we never give our consent unto it. Thus they write. Out of whose words, I gather two notable documents; the one, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a defect and swerving from the law, but not properly a sin: the other, that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be proved to be sin properly, then will it also follow of necessity by S. john's doctrine, that concupiscence in the regenerate is properly sin. Let this doctrine be well marked, as which is no less apparent than important. Now, it only remaineth for the victory, & truth of this article, That I prove against our papists the Rhemists, that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify sin properly: behold the proof.  
A very famous papist and great linguist, 
Arias Montan. in 1. joan. 3.  Ben. Arias Montanus, saith plainly in express teams, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is transgressio legis, the transgression of the law. Now, that the transgression of God's law is properly sin, none is so sottish, that he doth not understand it; none so impious, that he will deny it; none so peevish, that he will not acknowledge it. But I prove the same.  
S. Ambrose hath these words: Quid est enim peccatum, nisi prevaricatio legis divine, 
Ambros. de parad. cap. 8. tom. 4.  & coelestium inobedientia preceptorum? For what is sin, 
Vide Ambros. in 7. cap. ad rom. & in sine huius articuli.  but the transgression of God's law, and disobedience to his heavenly precepts? Lo, sin (saith S. Ambrose) is nothing else but the transgression of God's law, that is to say, nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. john termeth it, and as Arias Montanus doth interpret it.  
S. Austen hath these words: 
August. de consensu Euangel. cap. 4. tom. 4.  Peccatum est transgressio legis. Sin is a transgression of the law. Lo S. Austen concludeth with S. Ambrose, and they both agree with S. john.  
The same S. Austen in another place defineth sin in this manner. 
Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 22. cap. 27. tom. 6. pag. 281.  Peccatum est dictum, vel factum, vel concupitum aliquid, contra legem aternam. Sin is a word, deed, thought, or desire, against the eternal law (of God.) And what the eternal law is, he showeth in these words next following in the same place: Lex aeterna est ratio divina vel voluntas Dei, ordinem naturalem conseruari iubens, 
Vide Bernard. de advent. dom. serm. 6. to. 1. p. 16.  perturbari vetans. The eternal law is the reason or will of God, which commandeth the natural order to be observed, and forbiddeth the same to be perturbed.  
Thus writeth this ancient, grave, and learned father; by whose judgement it is properly sin, whatsoever is against the will of God. So then, Gods will is that law and rule, by which every sin must be measured and tried. And consequently, whatsoever deflecteth, declineth, or swerveth from the will of God, the same is most properly sin. The reason hereof is evident, because not to be correspondent and agreeable to God's will, is the very intrinsical reason, essence, and nature of sin. But so it is, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disorder, and concupiscence in the regenerate, is repugnant and disagreeable to the will of God: and consequently, it must be sin indeed.  
S. Bede, 
● Beda in 1. joan. 3  who for his learning and virtue was renowned throughout the whole Christian world, and thereupon surnamed venerabilis, hath these express words: Virtus huius sententiae facilius in lingua Graecorum, qua edita est epistola, comprehenditur. Si quidem apud eos iniquitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocatur, quod significat quasi contra legem vel sine lege factum. Si quidem lex Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellatur sequitur; sed & latinum nomen eidem rationi congruit, quod iniquitas quasi aequitati adversa nuncupatur. Quia quicunque peccat, contarius nimirum aequitati divinae legis peccando existit. The force and efficacy of this sentence is more easily perceived in the Greek tongue, in which the epistle was written. For iniquity with them is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth, As done against law, or without law. For the law is called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Latin word also agreeth to the same reason, because it is called iniquity, as being against equity: for every one that sinneth, is by reason of sin, contrary to the equity of God's law. See more to this effect in the eight article following.  
Dionysius Carthusianus, 
Dionys. Carthus. in 1. joan. 3.  a famous papist, hath these words: Lex autem divina est aequitas ipsa; sicque mortale peccatum est iniquitas, id est, non aequitas, utpote violatio aequitatis. The law of God is equity itself: and consequently, iniquity, that is, not equity, to wit, the transgression of equity, is a mortal sin.  
Nicolaus de Lyra, 
Lyr. in 1. joan. 3.  another famous popish writer, hath these words: Peccatum est transgressio legis divinae. Lex autem divina est ipsa aequitas; & ideo in omni peccato mortali est equitatis corruptio, & per consequens, iniquitas. Sin is the transgression of the law divine, and therefore in every mortal sin there is corruption of equity: and consequently, there is also iniquity.   

The Corollary.  
Now gentle reader, thou hast heard the express words and plain testimonies, as well of the ancient fathers, S. Ambrose, S. Austen, and S. Bede, as also of the two famous popish writers, Carthusianus, and Lyranus, concerning this great question and most important point of doctrine, in which the very life of popery doth consist.  
I have proved first even by the testimony of S. Paul, and of S. Austen, expounding his words, as also of the jesuit Bellarmine granting the same, that concupiscence remaining after baptism in the regenerate, is both called sin, and is properly sin indeed.  
Secondly, that the first motions of concupiscence which are connatural to the corrupt man, and can no way be avoided, are flatly forbidden by this commandment, Thou shalt not covet.  
Thirdly, that though the said rebellious motions be involuntary in the work; yet are they voluntary in the original: which is sufficient saith S. Austen.  
Fourthly, that Cardinal Bellarmine not able truly to answer S. Austin's words, hath in his explication added deceitfully, this word (quodammodo) after a sort: Which word cannot be found in S. Austen, neither is it agreeable to his meaning. But such beggarly shifts and silly evasions are the props and stays of late Romish religion.  
Fiftly, that by S. john's doctrine every deflection from the eternal law, is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consequently, it is properly sin.  
Sixtly, that S. Ambrose, S. Austen, and S. Bede, do all three affirm constantly and with uniform assent, that sin is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a transgression of the law of God.  
Seventhly, that by the flat doctrine not only of Saint Bede, but also of two famous popish writers (whose authority is ever most forcible against papists) Dionysius Carthus. and Nicholaus Lyranus, iniquity is a mortal sin, because it is against the eternal law, which is equity itself, and the will of God.  
Eightly, that our papists of Rheims do confute themselves unawares, while they tell us, that every sin is a declining and swerving from God's law: but withal deny, that every such swerving from God's law, is properly sin. For, seeing God's law is nothing else but his will, as is already proved, the papists must either confess, that to serve and decline from Gods will is properly sin; or else, that to decline and serve from God's will, is consonant and agreeable to his will: which to hold, is not only most absurd, but withal implieth flat contradiction.  
Against this discourse of original concupiscence in the regenerate, nothing in truth can be alleged for the papists. Yet, 
Rhemists in 1. John 3.  to take away all wrangling, I will truly put down the upshot of our Rhemists, and frame my answer to the same. Thus do they write, Though in the 5. chapter, verse 17. the Apostle turn the speech, affirming every iniquity to be sin; yet there the Greek word is not the same as before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By which it is plain, that there he meaneth by iniquity, man's actual and proper transgression, which must needs be a sin. These are their words, to which I answer in this wise.  
First, that though the Greek word be different, yet is it equivalent, and so the sense all one. This to be so, S. Austen will testify with me in these words: Nemo dicat, aliud est peccatum, 
August. in epist. joan. tract 4. tom. 9 pag. 412.  atque aliud iniquitas. Nemo dicat, ego peccator homo sum, sed iniquus non sum. Omnis qui facit peccatum, & iniquitatem facit. Let no man say, sin is one thing, and iniquity another thing. Let no man say, I am a sinful man, but not unrighteous. For every one that committeth sin, committeth also iniquity. Thus writeth S. Austen, and what he saith, the same say Beda and Oecumenius. Who as we see here, doth plainly and expressly affirm, sin and iniquity to be all one. So that whatsoever is sin, must also be iniquity; and whatsoever is iniquity, the same likewise must be sin. Neither is it to the purpose to iterate their usual song, because, as is already proved, Saint Ambrose telleth them in another place, that this sin is committed against the will of man. 
Ambros in 7 cap. ad Roman. p. 205  These are his words: Numquid quia invitum hominem dicit peccare, immunis debet videri à crimine; quia hoc agit quod non vult, pressus vi potestatis? Non utique. Ipsius enim vitio & desidia haec caepta sunt. Quia enim mancipavit se per assensum peccato, iure illius dominatur. Is therefore a man clear and free from sin, because he saith man sinneth against his will? because he doth that which he would not do, being pressed with the violence of power? No truly: for these things began through his fault and negligence. For seeing he consented to be a slave unto sin, sin by right hath dominion over him. Lo, a man is guilty of sin, yea even of that sin which he doth against his will, and cannot avoid the same, that is, of original concupiscence. And S. Ambrose yieldeth a reason hereof, because this impossibility came of man's default. And this is the very case of infants, as is already said. Let the reader here observe seriously with me, 
Involuntary in the act, yet voluntary in the cause.  that S. Ambrose calleth this involuntary concupiscence, crimen, a crime or mortal sin.  
Secondly, that S. Bede affirmeth not only all to be sin which is iniquity; but also reputeth the very corruption of innocency, which cometh of infirmity, to be sin in God's sight. These are his express words: Omnes qui peccant, praevaricationis rei sunt; 
Beda ubi supr.  hoc est, non solum illi qui data sibi scriptae legis scita contemnunt, sed & illi qui innocentiam legis naturalis quam in protoplasto omnes accepimus, sive infirmitate, sive negligentia sive etiam ignorantia corrumpunt. All that sin, are guilty of prevarication or transgression of the law; that is, not only they which contemn the precepts of the written law given them, but they also, which either of infirmity, or of negligence, or of ignorance, corrupt the innocency of the law of Nature, which we all receive in the Protoplast (Adam.)  
S. Ambrose in another place jumpeth with Bede in these words: 
Ambros. in 7 cap ad Roman. p. 203  Non discrevit concupiscentiam hanc à peccato, sed miscuit, hoc significans, quia cum nec suspicio quidem esset istud non licerè apud deum, cognovi inquit, esse peccatum. Sub sua persona, quasi generalem agit causam. Lexitaque concupiscentiam prohibet, quae propterea quod oblectamento est, non putabatur esse peccatum. He hath not discerned this concupiscence from sin, but hath coupled it with sin, signifying thereby, that when there was not so much as any suspicion, that this thing was not lawful before God, I knew, saith he, that it is sin. Under his own person, he pleadeth as it were the general cause. The law therefore forbiddeth concupiscence, which because it delighteth, seemeth not to be sin. Thus writeth S. Ambrose; whose words cannot possibly be understood of any other concupiscence, than of that which is involuntary and original.  
Thirdly, that their own vulgar Latin text, (which the late council of Trent preferreth before both the Hebrew and the Greek, and commandeth all papists to use it as authentical, and none other) hath the word (iniquitas) in both places; and doth call as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ininiquitie: these are the express words; omnis iniquitas peccatum est: All iniquity is sin. Lo, their own translation (to which all papists are tied as a Bear to a stake) doth flatly confound them all, and saith plainly and expressly, That every iniquity is a sin. And yet the papists of Rheims bluntishly and impudently defend the contrary, crying out with open mouths, That some iniquity is not sin. The truth is this, that they are driven to a non plus, and cannot tell in the world what to say against this doctrine of concupiscence in the regenerate. For both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is truly and fitly termed iniquitas or iniquity. Which (but that I study to be brief) I could show by a thousand testimonies, out of S. Austen, S. Ambrose, and S. Bede. Answer therefore o papist if ye can, or if ye dare not, because ye cannot, then reclaim yourselves, and yield unto the truth for shame. I challenge you, and adjure you, if your hearts fail you not, and if your own consciences condemn you not, to send me an answer to this short challenge, which I have compiled very briefly, so once to provoke you to the open combat, which I have now many years expected at your hands, and could never yet find so much courage in any of you all. Wherhfore to seal up the verity of this article, as an undoubted truth, I will here add for the complement, as a most delicate post-past, to satisfy the longing appetites of the jesuit Parsons, the arch priest Blackwell, and all the traitorous crew of that jesuited brotherhood; the flat testimony of their saint Thomas Aquinas, whose doctrine they are bound to defend, believe, and approve, and may not in any case refuse or deny the same: 
Aquinas. 1. 2. q. 74. art. 3. 3.  these are his express words; Dicendun quod illud quod homo facit sine deliberatione rationisnon perfectè ipse facit; quia nihil operatur ibi id quod est principale in homine, unde non est perfectè actus humanus, & per consequens non potest esse perfectè actus virtutis vel peccati, sed aliquid imperfectum ingenere horum. unde talis motus sensualitatis rationem perveniens, est peccatum veniale, quod est quiddam imperfectum in genere peccati. We must answer, that that which man doth without the deliberation of reason, he doth it not perfectly, because that which is the chiefest in man, worketh nothing there: wherefore it is not perfectly man's act, and consequently it cannot be perfectly the act of virtue or of sin, but some unperfect thing in this kind. Whereupon it cometh, that such a motion of sensuality preventing reason, is a venial sin, which is a certain imperfect thing in the nature of sin.  
Thus writeth Aquinas, out of whose words I note these important observations. First, that this Aquinas is a popish canonised saint. Secondly, that for his great learning he was surnamed, Doctor Angelicus, The Angelical Doctor. Thirdly, that Pope Vrbanus the fourth, and Pope Innocentius the fifth, did so admire and reverence the excellent learning of this famous school-doctor (who was a learned clerk indeed) that they confirmed his doctrine for authentical, and gave it the first place after the canonical Scripture. Fourthly, that this great doctor, so highly renowned in the Romish church, that no papist may deny or gainsay that which he hath written, graunteeths freely, teacheth plainly, and avoucheth constantly, that the inordinate motion of sensuality which goeth before reason is properly a sin, though but a venial sin, as he termeth it. For it is one thing, to be a sin perfectly, another thing, to be a sin properly. A venial and little sin is as well and as truly a sin, as a mortal and great sin, as the papists term them. For he is as truly and properly a thief that stealeth a lamb or a goose, as he that stealeth an ox or a horse, though not a thief in so high degree. For mortal and venial sins (as the papists term them) do only differ, Secundum magis & minus, according to more and less. But in truth, every sin is mortal, as I have already proved in my book of Motives. 
Add to this the sixth article, & note it well  Answer o papists, if ye can; if not, repent for shame.    

The fifth Article. Of the condign so supposed merit of works.  
THe papists either of ignorance or of malice, do most unchristian slander the professors of Christ's Gospel, as though they were enemies to good works: when in deed, they both think, preach, and write, more Christianly, more religiously, and more sincerely, than the papists do, of and concerning godly actions and good works. In regard hereof, before I come to the main point of that, which I purpose to oppugn in this article: I grant first of all, that though good works neither do nor can go before justification; yet they ever follow (as the fruits follow the tree) the persons that are freely justified by God's mercy in Christ jesus, for his merits and condign deserts.  
I grant secondly, that though good works go not before justification; yet do they so necessarily go before salvation, that no man without them can attain eternal life, when possibility is granted to do them.  
I grant thirdly, that good works are the true effects of predestination; by which the children of God make their salvation sure unto themselves, and manifest unto the world. Yet this notwithstanding, I hold constantly, believe steadfastly, and affirm christianly, that albeit good works are the effects of predestination, and necessary fruits of faith and justification; yet neither are they the cause of predestination, nor of justification, neither do they or can they merit ex condigno, eternal life or glory. I say (merit ex condigno) because I willingly grant with the ancient writers and holy fathers, that good works in a godly sense may be said to merit; that is to say, to impetrate favour and reward at God's hands, for his mercy and promise sake, who hath promised not to leave unrewarded, 
Matt. 10. v. 42. lac. 1. 12.  so much as one cup of cold water given in his name: but they can never truly be said to merit, for any worthiness or condign desert of the works that are done. Against which last part, I contend with the papists at this present; and namely, against the late decree of the late Romish Counsel of Trent, 
Concil. Trid. sess. 6. die 13. jan. can. 32.  whose express words are these; Si quis dixerit hominis justificati bona opera ita esse dona Dei, ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justificati merita, aut ipsum justificatum, bonis operibus quae ab eo per Dei gratiam & jesu Christi meritum, cuius membrum viwm est, fiunt, non verè mereri augmentum gratiae, vitam aeternam, & ipsius vitae aeternae, si tamen in gratia decesserit, consecutionem, atque etiam gloriae augmentum, anathema sit. If any shall say, that the good works of the justified man are so the gifts of God, that they be not also the good merits of him that is justified; or that the justified man, by his good works which he doth by the grace of God, and merit of Christ jesus, whose lively member he is, doth not truly merit the increase of grace, eternal life, and the consecution of the same eternal life, if he shall depart hence in grace, and also the augment of glory, let him be accursed.  
Here we see the flat doctrine of the Romish Church; which whosoever will not believe steadfastly, must be damned everlastingly, and with fire and faggot be sent packing speedily. Yet that this doctrine is most absurd in itself, most blaphemous against the free mercy of God, and most injurious to the inestimable merits of our Lord jesus; I undertake by God's assistance, to prove by such clear and evident demonstrations, as shallbe able to satisfy all indifferent readers, and to put the papists to silence for ever in this behalf.  

The first reason, drawn from the holy Scriptures.  
THe first place of holy scripture, is contained in these words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the gift of God is life everlasting, 
Rom. 6. v. 23.  in Christ jesus our Lord. This text of scripture doth plainly convince, that life eternal cannot be condignly achieved, by the works of man; for being the free gift of God, it can no way be due to the merit of man's work. The Rhemists to extenuate the clearness of this text, and as it were to hide and conceal the evidency thereof, do translate, for the Gift of God, the Grace of God, following their old vulgar Latin edition. Which translation though in this place it mae be admitted, yet doth it not sufficiently express the efficacy of the original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth a gift freely bestowed; for which respect, their own famous linguist Arias Montanus, who was the only man chosen as most sufficient, for the translation of the old testament out of the Hebrew, and of the new out of Greek, and employed by the king of Spain for that only end, did not translate gratia, but donatio; not grace, but donation (or free gift.) Now, let us see and view the judgement of the holy fathers, upon this portion of holy writ. Saint Theodoret hath these words; Hic non dicit mercedem, 
Theod. in cap. 6. add Roman.  sed gratiam: est enim Dei donum vita aeterna, & si quis enim summam & absolutam justitiam praestiterit, temporalibus laboribus aeterna in aequilibrio non respondent. He saith no there reward, but grace; for eternal life is the gift of God: For although one could perform the highest and absolute justice, yet eternal joys being weighed with temporal labours, are nothing answerable.  
Saint Chrysostome hath these words; 
Chrysost, in cap. 6. add Roman.  Non eundem servat oppositorum ordinem. Non enim dicit, merces benefactorum vestrorum vita aeterna, sed donum Dei vita aeterna; ut ostenderet, quod non proprijs viribus liberati sint, neque debitum, aut merces, aut laborum sit retributio, sed omnia illa ex divino munere gratuitò acceperint. He doth not observe the same order of opposites. For he saith not, eternal life is the reward of your good works; but, eternal life is the gift of God: that he might show, that they are not delivered by their own strength or virtues; and that it is not a debt, or a wages, or a retribution of labours, but that they have received all those things freely of the gift of God.  
Origen writeth thus, 
Origen. in cap. 6. ad Rom.  upon the same words; Deum verò non erat dignum militibus suis stipendia, quasi debitum alique dare; sed donum & gratiam quae est vita aeterna, in Christo jesu domino nostro. But it was not a thing worthy beseeming God, to give stipends to his soldiers, as a due debt or wage; but to bestow on them a gift or free grace, which is eternal life in Christ jesus our Lord.  
Saint Ambrose hath these words; 
Ambros. in cap. 6. ad Rom.  Sicut enim sequentes peccatum acquirunt mortem, ita & sequentes gratium Dei, id est, fidem Christi quae donat peccata, babebunt vitam aeternam. For as they that follow sin, gain death: so they that follow the grace of Christ, that is, the faith of Christ which forgiveth sins, shall have eternal life.  
Theophilact hath these words; 
Theoph. in cap. 6. Rom.  Gratiam autem, non mercedem dixit à Deo futurum, perinde ac si inquiat; non enim laborum accipitis premia, sed per gratiam fiunt haec omnia in Christo jesu, qui haec operatur & factitat. He said grace, not wages, was to come from God; as if he should say, for ye receive not rewards of labours, but all these things are done by grace in Christ jesus, who worketh and doth them.  
Anselmus and Photius have the same words in effect, which I omit in regard of brevity.  
By these manifold testimonies of the holy fathers, the doctrine which I defend, is clear and evident; viz. that eternal life is the free gift of God, and is not merited or purchased by desert of man; that eternal life is not a due debt, a deserved wages, or retribution of man's labours, but proceedeth wholly and solely of the free mercy and grace of God; that man's works weighed in the balance, with the joys of heaven, are nothing at all answerable unto them. To which fathers, I will add the verdict of Paulus Burgensis, 
Paulus Burgen. addit. 2 in 6. ca ad Rom.  a very famous popish Spanish Bishop. These are his words: Noluit ergo dicere, stipendium justitiae vita aeterna: sed maluit dicere, gratia Dei vita aeterna: quia eadem merita quibus redditur, non a nobis sunt, sed in nobis à Deo facta sunt per gratiam. He would not therefore say, eternal life is the stipend of justice: but he had rather say, eternal life is the grace of God: because the same merits to which it is rendered, are not of ourselves, but wrought in ourselves by God through grace.  
The second text of holy scripture, is contained in these words: 
Rom. 8. v. 18.  I count that the afflictions of this present time, are not worthy of the future glory which shall be revealed toward us. Lo, all our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all our passions, afflictions, and penalties, that we are able to endure in this life, are so far from being meritorious of eternal life, that they are in no wise comparable to the same.  
Theoderetus doth lively express this verietie, in these most golden words: 
Theodor. in cap. 8. ad Rom.  Superant certamina coronae, non comparantur cum laboribus remunerationes labor enim parvus est, sed magnum lucrum speratur. Et propterea non mercedem, sed gloriam vocavit ea quae expectantur. The conflicts of the crown do remain, the labours are not comparable to the rewards: for the labour is small, but the gain hoped for, is great. And therefore the things expected, are not called a reward, but glory.  
Anselmus hath these words; 
Anselmus in 8. cap. ad Rom.  Hoc est, si quis pateretur omnes paenarum acerbitates, quae in tempore presentis vitae sufferri possunt; non essent omnes illae passiones dignum meritum ad consecutionem futurae gloriae, quae ablato omni velamine revelabitur in nobis. If one should suffer all kinds of torment, which can be endured in this life: yet would not all those afflictions, torments, or passions, be a sufficient and condign merit, to attain the future glory; which, when every vail is taken out of the way, shallbe revealed in us. Mark well these words in this famous popish writer, because they are most important: for, seeing he was a great papist, his proof must needs be good against the papists. Again, his words are so clear and manifest, that no evasion can have place. For, he saith in plain and express terms; that all which is possible to be done or endured in this world, can not be a worthy or condign merit of eternal life. No answer in truth, can be made hereunto, it jumpeth in deed; with the true sense and meaning of Saint Paul.  
The third place of holy scripture, 
Tit. 3. 5.  is contained in these words: Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to his mercy he hath saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghost. These are the Apostles words, even as our Rhemists have alleged them. By which words it is most clear and apparent, that we are not only justified, but also saved of mere mercy and the free gift of God. And consequently, that eternal life hath no merit on the behalf of man. For after salvation once accomplished, all merit is vain and needless.  
Anselmus hath these golden words; 
Anselmus in tit. cap. 3.  Tunc saluos nos fecit, qui nostris meritis eramus perditione digni: non enim ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos, processit haec salus, quia nulla opera justitiae feceramus, unde salutem meruissemus; sed ipse secundum misericordiam suam saluos nos fecit, non secundum merita nostra nobis hanc salutem dedit. Then did he save us, who by our own merits deserved perdition. For, this salvation came not from the works of justice, which we have done, because we had done no works of justice, by which we should merit salvation: but he according to his mercy saved us, and not according to our merits gave he us this salvation.  
The famous papist Dionysius Carthusianus, 
Dionys. in tit. 3.  expoundeth Saint Paul even as Anselmus did. These are his words: Non ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos: id est, non propter merita nostra quae nulla fuerunt, quia predictis peccatis eramus obnoxij sed secundam suam misericordiam saluos nos fecit, à potestate diaboli & reatuaeterui tormenti, merito suae conversations & passionis. Not of the works of righteousness which we have done; that is, not for our merits which were none at all, because we were subject to the afore named sins: but according to his mercy hath he saved us, from the power of the devil and guilt of eternal torment, by the merit of his holy conversation and passion. Lo, our salvation cometh not of man's merits, but of the merits of the son of God. This shall suffice for the first reason, which is drawn from the authortiie of holy writ.   

The second reason, drawn from the authority of the holy fathers.  
SAint Austen hath many excellent testimonies in his works, which do evidently approve and confirm this my doctrine, against the popish supposed condign merit of works; but I will content myself, with one or two at this present. 
Aug. ad Hieron. epist. 29.  Thus doth he write; Virtus est charitas, quaid quod diligendum est diligitur: haec in aliis maior, in aliis minor, in aliis nulla est; plenissima vero, quae iam non possit augeri, quandiu hic homo vivit, estin nemine: quandiu autem augeri potest, profecto illud quod minus est quam debit, ex vitio est. Ex quo vitio non est justus in terra qui faciat bonum, & non peccet. Ex quo vitio, non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis vivens. Propter quod vitium, si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos met ipsos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est. Propter quod etiam quantum libet p●ofecerimus, necessarium est nobis dicere; dimit nobis debita nostra, cum iam omnia in baptismo dicta, facta, cogitata, dimissa sint. Charity is a virtue, with which we lout that that aught to be loved. This in some is more, in others less, in others none at all; but the perfect charity, which cannot be increased while a man here liveth, is found in none: so long as it can be increased, that doubtless which is less than it should be, proceedeth of sin; by reason of which sin, there is not one just upon earth, that doth good and sinneth not: by reason of which vice, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us: by reason of which sin, how much soever we profit, yet must we say of necessity. Forgive us our trespasses, even after that all our thoughts, words, and works, are forgiven in baptism. Thus writeth Saint Austen, that mighty pillar of Christ's Church: out of whose most golden words, I note sundry excellent documents to the great comfort of the faithful, and to the everlasting confusion of all impenitent papists. For first Saint Austen saith, that no man can have charity in that perfect degree, which the law requireth. Secondly, that the want thereof, proceedeth of that vice that is inherent in us. thirdly, that by reason of this vice, every man is a sinner. Fourthly, that by reason thereof, none living can be justified in God's sight. Fiftly, that by reason thereof, whosoever saith he hath no sin, is a flat liar. Sixtly, that how virtuously soever we live, yet must we desire God to forgive us our sins, by reason of this inherent vice. seventhly, that we must thus pray, even after all sins be forgiven us in our baptism.  
Again, 
August. in epist. Joan. tract. 4. tom. 9  the same Saint Austen in another place hath these words; justitia modo nostra ex fide, justitia perfecta non est nisi in angelis, & vixin angelis si Deo comparentur; tamen si qua perfecta justitia anim arum & spirituum est, quos Deus creavit, in angelis sanctis, justis, bonis, nullo lapsu aversis, nulla superbia cadentibus, sed manentibus semper in contemplatione verbi Dei, & nihil aliud dulce habentibus, nisi à quo creati sunt, in ipsis perfecta justitia est, in nobis autem ex fide coepit esse secundum spiritum. Our justice is now of faith, there is no perfect justice but in the angels, and scarce in the angels, if they be compared to God. Yet if there be any perfect justice of souls and spispirits which God hath created in the holy Angels, just, good, by no lapse averted, by no pride falling, but ever abiding in the contemplation of the word of God, and thinking nothing sweet, but him only which created them: in them justice is perfect, but in us (it is not perfect) it is only begun of faith according to the spirit. Thus saith Saint Austen, telling us very plainly, that there is no perfect justice in man: but doubtless, where no perfect justice is, there can be no condign merit of eternal life.  
S. Ambrose is consonant to S. Austen, 
Ambros. lib. 10. epist. 84. tom. 3.  who writeth in this manner: Caro contra spiritum, & contra carnem spiritus concupiscit; nec invenitur in ullo hominum tant a concordia, ut legi mentis lex quae membris est insita, non repugnet. Propter quod ex omnium sanctorum persona accipitur, quod joannes Apostolus ait; si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, & verit as in nobis non est. The flesh (saith S. Ambrose) coveteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: neither can there be found in any man such concord or agreement, that the law which is engrafted in the members, fighteth not against the law of the mind. And for that cause Saint john's words are taken as spoken in the person of all Saints; If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us.  
Thus writeth S. Ambrose; out of whose words I note first, that concupiscence moveth rebellion against the spirit, in the holiest man upon earth. Secondly, that this rebellion is sin in every one: for S. john speaketh of sin indeed. Thirdly, that no man living is free from sin; and consequently, that none living in this pilgrimage of mortality, can condignly merit eternal life.  
S. Chrysostome is consonant to S. Ambrose and S. Austen: these are his words; Etsi millies moriamur, 
Chrysost. de conpunct. cord. lib. 2. nom. 5. col. 592.  etsi omnes virtutes animi expleamus, nibil dignum gerimus adea, quae ipsi percepimus à deo. Though we die a thousand times, and though we accomplish all virtues of the mind; yet do we nothing worthy of those things which we receive of God.  
Theophilact saith in this manner: Seruavit nos aeternum, 
Theophil. in 3. cap. Tit.  non ex operibus quae fecimus, hoc est, neque secimus opera justitiae, neque per haec conseruati sumus, sed universam salutem bonit as ipsius atque elementia operata est. He hath saved us eternally, not of the works which we have done, that is, neither have we done the works of justice, neither are we saved by them, but his goodness and his clemency hath wrought our salvation wholly.  
Now, to knit up this reason with all consents in one, I will here set down the flat and plain report of a famous Friar and popish bishop, in that book which he dedicated to Pope Sixtus the fifth: 
josephus Angles in 2. lib. s. pag. 103.  Post humillim am sanctorum pedum deosculationem. These are the words: Eodem etiam modo considerantes omnes alij doctores sancti naturalem solum modo bonorum operum valorem, & illum à valour & justa vitae aeterae aestimatione longissimè distare perpendentes, prudenter dixerunt, opera nostra non esse meritoria aut digna vita aeterna. Ex lege tamen, sive conventione, siue promissione facta nobiscum, opera bona hominis cum adiutorio gratiae dei fiunt aeternae vitae digna, & illi aequalia; quae seclusa illa dei promissione, quae passim in sacris literis reperitur, fuissent tanto premio prorsus indigna. 
Lo, this Friar granteth, that all the holy fathers are against the papists.  All other holy doctors also, considering after the same manner the natural value only of good works, and perceiving that it is exceeding far distant from the value and just estimation of eternal life, said wisely, That our works are not meritorious nor worthy of eternal life. Yet for the covenant and promise made unto us, the good works of man with the help of God's grace, are worthy of eternal life, and equal with it; which for all that, that promise of God which is frequent in the Scripture, set aside, were altogether unworthy of so great reward.  
Thus saith our popish bishop, our holy Friar, even to the Pope himself, after the humble kissing of his most holy feet. Who though he bestir himself more than a little, to establish the condign merit of man's works, yet doth he in his own kind of dispute and reasoning; utterly confute and confound himself. For first, he granteth, that not only S. Chrysostome, but all the rest of the holy fathers with him (mark well, gentle reader) affirm constantly and uniformly with one voice and assent (a testimony almost incredible to proceed from the mouth of a papist, so dear to the Pope) That good works neither are meritorious nor worthy of eternal life. Secondly, he granteth freely, that the best works considered in their own nature and kind, are unworthy of eternal life. Thirdly, he granteth willingly, and telleth the Pope roundly (post deosculationem pedum, but after the kissing of his feet) that good works, even as they proceed of grace and assistance of the holy ghost, 
The papists grant as much as we desire.  are for all that altogether unworthy of eternal life, if God's promise and free acceptation be set apart. Which three points doubtless, are all that we desire to be granted, concerning the doctrine of good works. And consequently, though the papists never cease to impeach, accuse, slander, and condemn us in this behalf: yet do we defend nothing herein (as is evident to the indifferent reader) but even that which their own best doctors in their printed books do teach us; yea, in those very books which are dedicated to the Pope himself, and that with the solemn and religious deosculation of his holy feet. The conceits which bishop Friar joseph allegeth, to make good his imagined condign merit of works, are very childish and too too frivolous. For first, where he saith, that the fathers speak of good works, only in respect of their natural value, as he termeth it; I answer, that that silly gloss is only invented by him and his fellows, to save the life of their beggarly doctrine, if it would be. For no such thing can be found in any one of all their books. Nay, our Friar bishop confuteth himself unawares (of such force is the truth) when he granteth, that good works done in grace are utterly unworthy of heaven, if Gods promise be set apart. Where I wish the reader to observe seriously the word (prorsus, utterly) which is indeed his own, and most emphatical against himself.  
Their highly renowned Abbot and cononized saint Bernardus shall tell them the truth, and give the upshot of the game: 
Bernard. serm. 1. in annune. B. M. V. pag. 160. tom. 1.  these are his express words: jam vero de aeterna vita scimus, qu●non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, nec si unus omnes sustineat. Neque enim talia sunt hominum merita, ut propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure, aut deus iniuriam aliquam faceret, nisi eam donaret. Now touching eternal life, we know that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come; no, not if one man could sustain all. For the merits of men are not such, that for them eternal life is due by right, or that God should do some injury, if he gave it not.  
The same Bernard in another place hath these express 
Bernard. in eam. serm. 67. p. 1003 tom. 1.  words: Dost gratiae, quicquid meritis deput. 13. Nolo meritum, quod gratiam excludat. Horreo quicquid de meo est, ut sim meus; nist quoth illud magis forsit an meum est, quod me meum facit. Gratiae reddit memihi justificatum gratis, & sie liberatum à servitute peccats. It derogateth from grace, whatsoever thou ascribest to merit. I will have no merit that excludeth grace. I abhor whatsoever is of mine own, that I may be mine own, unless perchance that is more mine own which maketh me mine own. Grace justifieth me to myself freely, and so delivereth me from the bondage of sin.  
The same Bernard in another place hath these express words: 
Bernard. in cant. set. 68 p. 1006.  Sic non est, quod iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona, presertim cum audias apud prophetam; non propter vos, sed propterme ego faciam, dicit dominus. Sufficit admeritum, scire quod non sufficiant merita. Sed ut ad meritum satis est, demeritis non presumere; sic carere meritis, satis ad judicium est. So there is no cause, that thou shouldest now ask by what merits we hope for glory, especially, since thou hearest the prophet say, I will do it, saith the Lord, not for your sake, but for mine own. It is sufficient to merit, to know that our merits are not sufficient. But as it is enough to merit, not to presume of merits, so to want merits, is enough to judgement.  
Out of the most excellent testimonies of this famous papist, I note many worthy lessons for the benefit of the reader. First, that nothing which man can do or suffer in this life, is worthy of the joys of heaven. Secondly, that heaven is not due to any man for his own deserts. Thirdly, that God should do no man wrong, no, not the best liver on earth, if he should debar him from the joys of heaven. Fourthly, that whatsoever is ascribed to man's merit, the same is derogatory to God's grace. Fiftly, that Bernard renounceth all merit, which excludeth grace, that is to say, all merit of man's works whatsoever: for so himself expoundeth himself. Sixtly, that he abhorreth whatsoever is his own, and so he denieth any thing within himself to be meritorious, or worthy of eternal life. Seventhly, that the most sufficient merit in man, is this, viz. to know and confess, that our merits are no merits indeed. Eightly, that to want merits, is enough for man's condemnation. Which last observation doth fitly expound that which I uttered in the beginning of this article, to wit, that the word (merit) in that sense in which the fathers use it, is not to be rejected, though in these our days it commonly be abused. For to want merits in their sense (as Bernard here declareth evidently) is to have no good works: which good works I affirm willingly, both with the old and late writers of best account, to be so necessary to attain eternal life, as the usual, ordinary, and undoubted means, by which God decreed from eternity freely for his own name sake, to bring his chosen and elect to salvation; that without the same, none have been, are, or shall be saved world without end; if, as I said in the beginning, time be granted to do them.   

The third reason, drawn from the doctrine of best approved Papists, and their renowned schooledoctors.  
THomas Aquinas (whose doctrine no papist may gainsay or refuse) hath these express words: 
Aquinas, 12. q. 114. art. 1. in corp.  Manifestum est autem, quod inter deum & hominem est maxima inaequalitas, in infinitum enim distant; totum quod est hominis bonum, est à deo; unde non potest hominis à deo esse justitia secundum absolutam aequalitatem, sed secundum proportienem quandam; in quantum scilicet uterque operatur secundum modum suum. Modus autem & mensura humanae virtutis homini est à Deo, & ideo meritum hominis apud deum esse non potest, nisi secundum presuppositionem divinae ordinationis; ita scilicet, ut id homo consequatur à Deo persuam operationem quasi mercedem, ad quod Deus ei virtute operandi destinavit. It is manifest, that between God and man there is exceeding great inequality, as which do differ in infinite; all the good that man hath, is of God. Wherhfore man's justice received of God, cannot be according to absolute equality, but after a certain proportion, to wit, in as much as either worketh according to his condition. Now, man hath the measure and condition of his virtue from God; and therefore man's merit cannot be with God, save only according to the supposal of God's holy ordinance; so forsooth, that man may attain that at God's hand by his working, as a reward, to which God hath designed to him the faculty and power of working.  
Thus writeth their grand master papist Aquilias, who utterly overthroweth all popish merit, as it is this day defended and believed in the Church of Rome. For first Aquinas telleth us (mark well, for this is a weighty point) that where there is not perfect equality, there can be no merit properly. Secondly, he granteth freely, that there is infinite inequality between God and man, as every child knoweth to be true. Thirdly, he freely confesseth, that man's justice is not absolute, but imperfect. Fourthly, he granteth willingly, that man doth merit nothing in God's sight, save only by way of his free acceptation. Fiftly, he confesseth in like manner, that eternal life is not properly hire, but as it were hire, quasi mercedem; and that, by reason of the same free acceptation.  
Durandus, 
Durand. in 2. s. dist. 27. q. 2. in med.  a very famous popish school-doctor, hath these express words: Tale meritum de coniligno invenitur inter homines, sed non est hominis ad deum. Quod patet, qu● quod redditur potius ex libe alitate dantis, quam ex debito operis, non cadit sub merito de condigno strictè & propriè accepto. Sequitur; quod si quis dicat, quod quamuis deus non constituatur nobis debtor ex aliquo nostro opere, constituitur tamen debitor ex sua promissione, quam exprimit scripturu; non valet propter duo. Primum est, quod promissio divina in scriptures sanctis non sonat in aliquam oblig ationem, sed insinuat meram dispositionem liber alitatis divinae. Secundun est, quod quod redditur, non redditur ex debito operis, sed ex promissione precedente; non quod redditur ex merito operis de condign, sed solum vel principaliter ex promisso. Et it a non est illud debitum, de quo loquimur. Et sic patet, quod meritum de condigno strictè & propriè sumptum, viz. pro actione voluntaria, propter quam operanti debetur merces ex justitia, sic quod si non reddatur, ille ad quem pertinet reddere, iniustè facit, & est simpliciter & propriè iniustus, non est hominis ad deum. Et ideo propter tale meritum, cum sit homini simpliciter impossibile, non est necesse in nobis ponere gratiam, vel charitatem habitualem. Such condign merit is found among men, but is not between God and man. Which hereby is clear, because that which is rendered rather of the liberality of the giver, than of debt due to the work, falleth not under condign merit, properly so called. If any say, that though God become not our debtor by reason of our work, yet is he made our debtor by reason of his promise, which the Scripture expresseth: that answer is of no force for two respects. First, because Gods promise in the Scriptures doth not sound to any bond, but insinuateth the mere disposition of God's liberality. Secondly, because that which is given, is not given for the debt arising of the work, but of promise that went before; not that it is rendered for the condign merit of the work, but only or principally for his promise sake. And so there is not that debt of which we speak. So than it is clear, that condign merit, properly so called, viz. for a voluntary action, for which reward is due of justice to the worker, so that if it be not rendered, he to whom it appertaineth to give it, doth unjustly, and is simply and properly unjust, is not between God and man. And therefore for such a merit, seeing it is simply impossible to man, there is no need to put in us grace or charity habitual. Thus saith M. Durand; out of whose words I note first, that condign merit cannot be between God and man. Secondly, that eternal life is given of God's free liberality, not of any duty due to the works that we do. Thirdly, that God rewardeth us principally for his promise sake, and not for any thing we either have done or can do. Fourthly, that condign merit is so far above man's capacity, that no man can by any possibility have it. And consequently, that late popish doctrine is impossible.  
Gregorius Ariminensis, 
Apud joseph. Angl. in 2. s. dist. 27. ar. 2. p. 105.  Marsilius, Thomas Waldensis, Paulus Burgensis, and Eckius, five most zealous papists, do all with one assent affirm very constantly, that man's works are not meritorious of eternal life, how holy soever the man be.  
Dominicus Soto a zealous monk and famous popish writer, 
Soto, de nat. & great. lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 138.  telleth the papists roundly, and teacheth them gravely, that no pure man is able to make condign satisfaction for his sins; and so à fortiori, against his will and meaning, that no man can by condign merit attain eternal life. These are his express words; Perfecta satisfactio est illa, cuius valour & pretium totum emanat à debitore, nulla vel p●●ueniente, vel interueniente gratia creditoris; taliter ut sit redditio aequivalentis alias indebiti voluntaria. Perfect satisfaction is that, whose value and price proceedeth wholly from the debtor, without either preventing or interuenting grace of the creditor; so as the voluntary reddition be of that which is equivalent, and not otherwise due. This is true doctrine which our friar Soto delivereth to the world: he teacheth us four things. First, that the satisfaction must proceed wholly from the debtor. Secondly, that there must be no preventing nor interuenting grace of the creditor. Thirdly, that there must be equivalent restitution. Fourthly, that that equivalent reddition must be a work, which is otherwise not due. These four conditions (which our popish M. Soto and Dominican friar requireth in every satisfaction) when any papist can find in any one of their merits or satisfactions, I will be their bondman, neither shall the pope's holiness be excepted. But to come to this bondage upon this covenant, I am in no fear at all: For the ethnic philosopher Aristotle, 
Aristo. in 8. ethic. cap. 7.  perceived by the natural discourse of right reason, That no man can ever make condign compensation to God and his natural parents. For which respect, 
Aquinas, 12. q. 114. ar. 1. 3. m.  Aquinas affirmeth constantly, that God is not simply and truly said to be debtor to us, but to himself and to his own promise, which he freely without all our deserts made unto us. And their great schooledoctour josephus Angles, after he hath disputed this question of condign merit too and fro, pro & contra, doth in the end though unawares, 
josephus Angles, in 2. sent. pag. 107.  plainly confess the self same doctrine, that I now intent to prove. He telleth us forsooth, that the price of every thing may be equal to the value and worth of the same thing, two ways; first, of the nature of the thing; secondly, of the pact, covenant and promise of him that doth promise the same thing: for saith he, if one penny be the full value answerable to the labour; yet if a greater reward be promised, which far exceedeth the worth & value of the work wrought, than that reward is also due by covenant. He addeth the reason thereof; viz. because the law of nature teacheth to keep promises which far exceed the value of the thing. And hereupon this great learned doctor concludeth roundly, that though our good works come far short of eternal life, if we respect the worthiness thereof: yet do they condignly merit the joys of heaven, if we respect the free promise of Christ jesus. And this condignity of works, our friar bishop, or bishopfrier, (as you will) calleth aequalitas ex promissione tantum, equality of promise only. Now, I pray thee gentle reader, what childish wit is not able to penetrate the very bowels of this deep divinity? and yet is it the main point and only foundation, to which all papists do and must appeal, in this weighty and most important question. For example sake, if thou wouldst wish me to lend thee my cloak, to defend thee from a shower of rain, and promise to give me an hundred pounds for the loan; then doubtless were it true to say, that after such loan an hundredth pounds were due unto me: yet withal would it be most true also, that such loan of my cloak were not the condign merit of that hundredth pounds; but that it proceeded principally of the free gift and promise made unto me, far above my merit and desert: neither could my act be any way rightly termed, the condign merit of that reward. And yet it is evident, that thus standeth the state of the question, between the condign merit of man's works, and the excellency of the joys of heaven. For I willingly grant, that eternal life is due to the works of Gods elect, and that it is as well the crown of justice, as of mercy: but withal I constantly affirm, 
2. Tim. 4. v. 8.  that God bestoweth it on his elect freely for his own name sake, 
jac. 1. v. 12.  and not for any merit, 
Rom. 8. v. 18.  worthiness, or condignity of their works.  
For this cause, 
Rom. 6. v. 23.  their own dear friar joannes de Combis, 
Ps. 103. v. 4.  teacheth this golden lesson: 
Ps. 145. v. 9  Meritum condigni dicit aequalitatem meriti ad remunerationem: 
jac. 2. v. 83.  dico autem aequalitatem, non arithmeticam, sed geometrieam: 
Joan. de Combis lib. 5. theolog. verit. cap. 11.  id est, non quantitatis, sed proportionis. Et hoc patet, quia Deus semper remunerat supra meritum, sicut punit citra condignum. Condign merit doth connotat the equality of merit, to the thing that is merited; I say equality, not arithmetical, but geometrical, that is, not of quantity, but of proportion: And this is evident, because God ever rewardeth above our merits, as he punisheth less than we deserve. Out of these words we see two things cleared: the one, that we deserve greater punishment for our sins, than God inflicteth upon us for the same: the other, that for our well doing we receive greater reward, than our works do or can deserve. And consequently, that we do not condignly merit eternal life.  
For this cause saith their famous popish doctor, Nicolaus de Lyra, in this manner: Salus enim aeterna, 
Lyra in 3. ca●●it.  excedit totaliter facultatem naturae humanae. Propter quod non potest eam attingere, nisi ex largitate divinae misericordiae. For eternal life doth far surmount and wholly exceed the faculty and power of man's nature. Wherhfore man can no way attain unto it, 
Carthus. in 6. cap. ad Rom.  but only by the liberality of God's mercy.  
For this cause saith another popish doctor, Dionysius Carthusianuns, in this manner: Ex gratia seu per gratiam Dei, datur justis pro praemio vita aeterna. Non hoc dicitur merita excludendo, sed ut insinuctur, quod principaliter ascribendum sit gratia Dei, qui etiam premiat ultra condignum. Eternal life is given for reward to the just, of grace or through the grace of God. This is not said to exclude merits, but to insinuate, that reward must principally be ascribed to the grace of God, who rewardeth us above our deserts. Lo, this great papist laboureth with main and might, to 'stablish popish condign merit of works: who affirming more boldly than wisely, that the elect do merit eternal life; telleth us with one breath, that the reward is above our merits and deserts. And so unwittingly and unwillingly he confuteth himself, and refelleth that doctrine, which he gladly would confirm.  
To conclude, our jesuit and renowned Cardinal, friar Bellarmine, who after mature deliberation and grave consultation had with all the best learned jesuits in the world, and with the Pope himself (whose faith judicial cannot fail, say they) saith all that possibly can be said for the life of popery, doth with great gravity and prudent sagacity in the name of all papists, deliver this doctrine unto us; 
Bellarm. de justify. tom. 3. col. 1296. & col. 1298.  Quod vero attinet ad rem ipsam, Durandi sententia, si nihil aliud vellet, nisi merita nostra non esse ex condigno, sive ex justitia absolutè, sed tantum ex hypothesi, id est, posita liberali Dei promissione, non esset reprobanda, sequitur; respondeo, absolutè non posse hominem á Deo aliquid exigere, cum omnia sint ipsius; tamen posita eius voluntate & pacto, quo non vult exigere à nobis opera nostra gratis, sed mercedem reddere juxta proportionem operum, verè possumus ab eo mercedem exigere; quomodo servus non potest absolutè a domino suo ullum premium postulare, cum omnia quae servus acquirit, domino suo acquirat; tamen si domino placeat donare illi opera sua, & pro ijsdem tanquam sibi non debitis mercedem promittere, iure mercedem pro suis operibus postulabit. Touching the matter itself, Durands opinion, if he had no other meaning, but that our merits are not absolutely just and condign, but hypothetically in respect of Gods liberal promise, were not to be rejected: I answer, that man cannot absolutely exact any thing of God, seeing all things are Gods own; nevertheless, his will and covenant being made, that he will not exact our works of us freely, but will reward them according to their proportion: we may truly require higher of him, like as a bondman cannot absolutely require any reward of his lord, seeing every thing which the bondman gaineth, is gotten and gained to his master: yet for all that, if it shall please his master and lord to bestow his works on him, and to promise reward for the same, as if they were not due unto him, then may the bondservant justly demand reward for his works.  
Thus saith the jesuit Bellarmine; and consequently, this is all that all papists say, or can say, for the life of popish doctrine. Out of whose words I note first, that his brother Durands opinion hath put him to his best trump. Secondly, that Durands opinion (as is already proved) is this; viz. that the merit of works in the best liver upon earth, cannot truly and properly be called meritum ex condigno, condign merit; but only merit in way of acceptation, and in respect of Gods free mercy, and promise made unto man without all deserts. Thirdly, that Bellarmine granteth this opinion in this sense: For he saith plainly, If Durand admit merit in respect of God's promise, his opinion cannot be reproved. Fourthly, that our jesuit maketh good that doctrine, which I here defend, as which is the self same, that Durand holds. And consequently, if Bellarmine and his popish fellows and followers, would stand constantly to their own doctrine, which they publish in printed books; we and they should soon agree, and these great controversies would have an end. Fourthly, that man cannot absolutely exact any thing at God's hands, because all things are Gods own. Fiftly, that in respect of Gods good pleasure and covenant freely made to man, we may truly require reward of God. Yea, myself grant, that we may not only truly, but also justly require reward at God's hands, in regard of his promise freely made unto us. But I ever deny withal, that any reward is due to our best works; for any condign merit or desert of or in our works, Gods free acceptation, mercy, and promise set apart. For as Saint Austen gravely saith; 
Aug. lib. 9 confess. cap. 13.  Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum, si remota misericordia discutias eam. Woe even to the best liver upon earth, if thou examine his life, thy mercy set apart. Answer o papists, if ye can; and if ye cannot, then repent, and yield unto the truth for shame. I challenge you, I provoke you to the combat; I adjure you all jointly, and every one of you severally, for the credit of your cause, for the honour of your Pope, and the life of popish doctrine, which now lieth bleeding, and will shortly yield up the Ghost, if some sovereign remedy be not speedily provided for the same.    

The sixth Article. Of the Popish distinction of mortal and venial sins.  
ALthough it be true, that all sins are not equal, but one greater than another: and although it be also true, that in a good and godly sense, some sin may be termed mortal, and some venial; which yet may more fitly be called, sins regnant, and not regnant: nevertheless most true it is, to the everlasting confusion of all impenitent papists, that every sin is mortal of it own nature, and only venial by way of God's free acceptation and mercy, for his own name sake, and merits of his dear son our Lord jesus.  
I prove it first both briefly and evidently. For Christ himself telleth us in his holy Gospel, 
Matth. 12. v. 3.  that we must give a strait account of every idle word in the general day of judgement. And for no other end doubtless must this account be made, but only, because every idle word is flatly against the law of God. This the papists can never deny, it is evident to every child. And yet must they likewise confess, that idle words be those sins which they call venials. And consequently, they must confess against their wills, and against their professed Romish doctrine, that all sins are mortal, that is to say, against the law of God.  
This doctrine of our Saviour Christ jesus is confirmed by the testimony of S. john his beloved Apostle, 
1. joh. 3. v. 4.  where he telleth us, that every sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the transgression of God's law, as is already proved at large in the fourth article of concupiscence. And the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth a declining from the right way, doth plainly confirm the same.  
Secondly, because our popish Rhemists confess in plain terms, 
Rhemists in 1. Joh. 3. v. 4.  that every sin is a swerving from the law of God. For doubtless, that which swerveth from the law, is truly said to be against the law, but not agreeable to the law.  
Thirdly, because the famous popish Friar and Romish bishop josephus Angles teacheth the same doctrine in his book dedicated to the Pope himself. These are his own express words: 
josephus Angles in 4. sent. p. 215.  Omne peccatum veniale est alicuius legis transgressio. Patet, quia omne veniale est contra rectam rationem, & agere contra rectam rationem, est agere contra legem naturalem, precipientem non esse à regula rectae rationis deviandum. Every sin venial is the transgression of some law. This is clear, because every venial sin is against right reason; and to do against right reason, is to do against the law of nature, which commandeth us not to depart or serve from the rule of right reason. Lo, every venial sin is against right reason, and against the law of nature, which is given to every one in his creation, in his birth or nativity.  
Fourthly, because Durandus, another famous papist, confuteth the late received popish opinion of Thomas Aquinas, which the Pope and his jesuits hold, to wit, that venial sins are preter legem, non contra: Besides the law, but not against the law. 
Duran. in 2. sent. di●t. 42. q. 6.  These are Du●ands own words: Ad argumentum dicendum, quod omne peccatum est contra legem dei naturalem, vel inspiratam, vel ab eis derivatam. To the argument answer must be made, that every sin is against the law of God, either natural, or inspired, or derived from them. And this opinion of M. Durand, is this day commonly defended in the popish universities and schools. So saith Friar joseph, these are his words: 
Jos. Angl. in 2. s. pag. 275.  D. Thomas & eius sectatores tenent, peccatum veniale non tam esse contra legem, quam preter legem. Sequitur; Durandus tamen & alij permulti hanc sententiam impugnant, affirmantes peccata venialia esse contra mandata. Et haec opinio modo in scbolis videtur communior. S. Thomas and his followers hold, that a venial sin is not so much against the law, as besides the law. But Durand and many others impugn this opinion, avouching venial sins to be against the commandments. And this opinion seemeth now adays to be more common in the schools.  
Here I wish the reader to note by the way, out of the word (modo, now adays) the mutability of Romish religion. For in that he saith (modo, now adays) he giveth us to understand, that their doctrine is now otherwise than it was of old and in former ages. A note worthy to be remembered. For the old Roman religion was catholic, pure, and sound, and with it do not I contend: but I impugn late Romish faith and doctrine, which the Pope and his Romish Schoolmen have brought into the Church.  
Fiftly, because their canonised martyr john Fisher, the late bishop of Rochester, teacheth the same doctrine so plainly, as every child must needs perceive the truth in that behalf. 
Roffensis art. 32. a●u. Luth.  These are his express words: Quod peccatum veniale solum ex dei misericordia veniale sit, in hoc tecum sentio. That a venial sin is only venial through the mercy of God (and not of it own nature) therein do I agree unto you. Thus saith our bishop. And as he telleth me, that he agreeth with Luther therein: so do I tell our Jesuits, that I agree with him, with Durand, Almain, and the other papists, that teach the same doctrine.  
Sixtly, because Gerson, another famous popish writer, holdeth the same opinion. These are his express words: Nulla offensa dei est venialis de se, 
Jo. Gers. de vita spiritual. lect. 1. part. 3. in 1. corol.  nisi tantum modo per respectum ad divinam misericordiam, qui non vult de facto quamlibet offensam imputare ad mortem, cum illud posset iustissimè. Et ita concluditur, quod peccatum mortale & veniale in esse tali, non distinguuntur intrinsecè & essentialiter, sed solum per respectum ad divinam gratiam, quae peccatum istud imputat ad poenam mortis, & aliud non. No offence of God is venial of it own nature, but only in respect of God's mercy, who will not de facto imputa, every offence to death, though he might do it most justly. And so I conclude, that mortal and venial sins, as they be such, are not distinguished intrinse cally and essentially, but only in respect of God's grace, which assigneth one sin to the pain or torture of death, and not another.  
Thus writeth this famous popish bishop, who was a man of high esteem in the counsel of Constance. Whose only testimony (if his words be well marked) is able to confound the papists, and to strike them dead. For first he telleth them plainly, that every sin is mortal of it own nature. Secondly, that no sin is venial, save only in respect of God's mercy. Thirdly, that God may most justly (iustissimè) condemn us for the least sin we do. Note seriously, gentle reader, the word (iustissimè.) Fourthly, that mortal and venial sins are the same intrinse cally and essentially, and differ but accidentally, that is to say, they differ in accident, but not in nature; in quantity, but not in quality; in mercy, but not in deformity; in the subject, but not in the object; in imputation, but not in enormity; save only, that the one is a greater mortal sin than is the other. For (as Gerson avoucheth) we may justly be damned for the least sin of all, howsoever other papists do flatter themselves in their cursed deformed venials.  
Seventhly, because sin in general is the transgression of God's law, as S. Ambrose defineth it, yea, every word, deed, or desire against God's law, as S. Austen describeth it, Their words are set down in the fourth article of this discourse.  
Eightly, because the jesuit Bellarmine unawares confesseth the same against himself. These are his own words: Respondeo, 
Bellar. t●m. 1. pag. 804.  omne peccatum esse contra legem dei, non positivam, sed aternam, ut Aug. rectè docet. Omnis enim justa lex, sive à deo, sive ab bomine detur, ab aterna dei lege derivatur. Est enim aterna lex, ut malum sit viol are regulam. I answer, that every sin is against the law of God, not positive, but eternal, as Austen teacheth rightly. For every just law, whether it be given of God, or of man, is derived from the eternal law of God. For the eternal law is, that it is evil to offend against the rule. These are our jesuits own words, which (as every child can easily discern) do evidently confute himself and his Romish doctrine. For first, under every sin must needs be contained their venial sins, or else some sins shall be no sins; which implieth flat contradiction. Secondly, he tel●eth us, that every sin, and consequently venial sins are against the eternal law of God. Thirdly, he granteth, that they are not only besides the law, sed contra legem, but even against the law. Fourthly, hence it is clear and evident, that the law eternal is the chief and principal law of all other laws, seeing from it all other laws are derived.  
Ninthly, because the papists cannot possibly yield any sound reason, why in the sins of theft one shall be mortal, and another venial. For example sake, let us suppose one at one time to steal so many eggs as will make a mortal sin by Romish doctrine; another at another time to steal so many as will make a venial sin by the same doctrine: then I demand of our papists, Why God cannot justly condemn the thief to hell that stealeth but so many eggs; and for all that can justly condemn him to eternal torment, that stealeth but one only egg above the said number. For this must they do, and a good reason here of must they yield (which I am well assured they can never do) or else confess every sin to be mortal, and so against their wills to subscribe to mine opinion. Answer o papists if ye can; if ye cannot then repent for shame, and yield unto the truth.   

The seventh Article. Of popish unwritten traditions.  
THe papists bear the world in hand, that many things necessary for man's salvation, are not contained in the holy scriptures of the old and new testament: and consequently, that none can be saved, but such as believe their unwritten traditions, and what their Pope telleth them. For the exact knowledge whereof, I put down these propositions.  

The first Proposition, with the first reason.  
THe written word or holy scripture, containeth in itself, every doctrine necessary for man's salvation. I prove it, by the manifold texts both of the old and new testament; by the authority of the holy fathers, and by the the testimony of renowned and best approved popish writers.  

Ex testament veteri.  
Locus primus. 
Deut. 4. v. 2.  Ye shall not add to the word which I speak unto you, neither shall ye take any thing away from it. Again thus, 
Deut. 12. v. 32.  That which I command, that only do thou to the Lord. Neither add any thing, nor take any thing away. 
jos. 1. v. 7.  Again thus, Only be thou strong, and of a valiant courage, 
jos. 23. v. 6.  that thou mayest observe and do according to all the law, which Moses my servant hath commanded thee. Thou shalt not turn away from it, neither to the right hand nor to the left. Be careful that ye keep all things which are written in the book of the law of Moses; that ye decline not from them, neither to the right hand nor to the left.  
By these manifold texts we may see evidently, that the holy scriptures are most perfect, and that nothing may be taken from them, neither any thing added to them. But doubtless, if all doctrine necessary for man's salvation, were not sufficiently contained in them, then of necessity, many things should be added to them. Bellarmine (the mouth of all papists) answereth to these and the like places, that they are not spoken of the written word precisely, 
Bellarm. tom. 1. col. 183. A. B.  but of God's word generally, which is partly written, and partly unwritten. Non ait, inquit ille, ad verbum quod scripsi, sed quod ego precipio. He saith not, (quoth our jesuit) to the word which I have written, but which I command. But doubtless, this is a miserable shift, and a very childish answer. For first, God himself wrote his own words in two tables of stone, 
Deut. 5. 22.  and then delivered them to Moses. Yea, after Moses had broken the said tables, in his vehement zeal against Idolatry; 
Deut. 9 17.  God commanded Moses to hew two other tables of stone like to the first, in which he writ again the words that were in the first tables, 
Deut. 10. v. 1. 4.  and commanded Moses to put them up in an ark of wood. 
Deut. 1. 5.  Secondly, Moses expounded the law of God to the Israelites at large. Which large explication of the law, God himself commanded him to write, 
Deut. 31. v. 19 24.  and to give the same to the Israelites; that they might put it in the side of the ark of the covenant, and there keep it for a witness against them. Thirdly, God commanded joshua to keep and observe all things, which were written in the book of the law, 
jos. 1. v. 8.  which Moses had delivered to the Levites: charging him to meditate therein day and night, that he might do according to the same. Fourthly, Moses telleth us expressly, 
Deut. 9 v. 10.  that the two tables written with the finger of God, contained all the words, which the Lord spoke to them in the mount out of the midst of the fire, in the day of the assembly. Fiftly, God commanded that the king of the Israelies, so soon as he should be established in his throne, 
Deut. 17. v. 18.  should write out the deuteronomy (or law repeated) in a book; according to the example, which the priests of the Levitical tribe should give him, that he might meditate therein all the days of his life. Sixtly, joshua made a covenant with the people, 
jos. 24. v. 25, 26  and gave them a law in Sichem, and wrote all the words in the book of the law. Which words were nothing else but a repetition of the covenant written by Moses; which covenant joshua was commanded to observe so strictly, 
jos. 1. v. 7.  that he might neither decline to the right hand, 
Deut. cap. 1. per totum.  nor to the left. And the same law contained all those precepts, 
Deut. 11. 1.  ceremonies, and judgements, which God commanded Moses to teach the people of Israel.  
Locus secundus. Ne addas quicquam verbis eius (Dei) ne forte arguat te, & inveniaris mendax. Thou must add nothing to God's words, 
Prou. 30. v. 6.  lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. This text Saint Hierome understandeth of the holy scriptures, to which no man may add any thing, be it more, be it less. The scriptures therefore are most perfect and absoute, and contain every doctrine needful for us to know.  
Locus tertius. 
Esa. 8. v. 20.  Ad legem magis, & ad testimonium: Quod si non dixerint juxta verbum hoc, non erit eis matutina lux. To the law, and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, there is no matutine or true light in them,  
Lo, they that refuse to be taught of God's prophet, who is the mouth of God; and seek help at the dead, which is the illusion of Satan; are here reproved as men void of knowledge, and as blind leaders of the blind. And withal they are charged to seek remedy in the word of God, where his will is declared. They and we must ever in all doubts and difficulties, have continual recourse to the law of God; which law is here termed the testimony, because it is the testification of Gods will toward man; because there is set down, what God requireth of us; because we may find in it, whatsoever is necessary for us to know. For the Prophet joineth the testimony with the law, not as a thing distinct from it, but as an explication of the same. As if he had said, ye must in all doubts have recourse to the law of God, because it is the testimony of his holy will. 
Hier. in 8. cap. Esa.  Saint Hierome yieldeth the like sense; and interpretation of this place; these are his words. Si vultis nosse quae dubia sunt, magis vae legi & testimonijs tradite scripturarum. Quia si noluerit vestra congregatio verbum domini quoerere, non habebit lucem veritatis, sed versabitur in erroris tenebris. If ye will know the things that are doubtful, ye must have recourse to the law, and to the testimonies of the scriptures. For, if your people will not seek God's word, they cannot attain the light of truth, but shall walk in the darkness of error.  
Locus quartus. Mementote legis Mosis servi mei, quam mandavi ei in Horeb ad omnem Israel. 
Mal. 4. v. 4.  Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded to him in Horeb to all Israel. Mark these words seriously, because they prove evidently, the question now in hand. For this Malachias being the last of God's Prophets, and foreseeing by the spirit of God, that the Israelites should be without Prophets a long time, even till the coming of Christ; doth here exhort them diligently, to be mindful of the law of Moses. As if he should say; the time is at hand, when ye shall be destitute of Prophets, and therefore ye must mark well what the law saith, and do according to the prescript rule thereof. But what is the reason, why he maketh no mention of the Prophets? doubtless, because all things (as you have already heard) are fully comprised in the written word of the law. For, although the law and the Prophets were until john; 
Matt. 11. v. 13.  the one foretelling Christ's coming by word, the other by types and figures: yet was the doctrine of the Prophets nothing else in deed, but an explication of the law; and consequently, Malachi willing the Israelites to remember the law of Moses, doth thereby sufficiently insinuat the doctrine of the Prophets, as who are nothing else but the interpreters of Moses. For from the law they might neither turn to the right hand, nor to the left. That the law containeth the whole Christian doctrine, necessary unto salvation, 
Lyra. &. Corth. in 23. cap. Mat.  two famous. popish doctors (Lyra and Dionysius Carthusianus,) do testify: whose words shall be alleged expressly, when I come to the places of the new testament.   

Ex novo Testamento.  
Locus primus. 
Ioh 20 v. 30.  Haec scripta sunt, etc. These are written, that you may believe, that jesus is Christ the son of God: and that in believing ye might have life through his name. Here the reader must observe seriously with me, that this Gospel was written after all other scriptures of the old and new testament; even when the canon of the scriptures was complete, perfect, and fully accomplished, viz. almost an hundred years after Christ ascension into heaven, about the fourteenth year of the reign of Domitianus then emperor. Which observation being well marked, all the sottish cavils of the papists will easily be avoided. Now let us see, how the ancient fathers do understand this place of scripture.  
Saint Cyrill hath these words; 
Cyrillus lib. 12. in johan. cap. ult.  Non omnia quae Dominus fecit, conscripta sunt, sed quae scribentes tam ad mores quam ad dogmata sufficere putarunt; ut recta fide & operibus ad regnum coelorum perveniamus. All things which our Lord did, are not written: but those things only, which the writers deemed sufficient, as well for manners as for doctrine; that by a right faith and good life, we may attain the kingdom of heaven.  
Saint Austen hath these words; 
Aug. in. johan. tract. 49. tom. 9 in initio,  Cum multa fecisset dominus, non omnia scripta sunt: electa sunt antem quae scriberentur, que saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. When our Lord had done many things, all were not written; but so much was chosen out to be written, as was thought to be sufficient for the salvation of the faithful.  
Lo, gentle reader, so much is comprised in the holy scriptures, as is necessary for our salvation, as well in those things which concern our life and manners, as in things concerning faith and doctrine. Which if the papists will grant us, they may keep their unwritten traditions, until God's people have need thereof. For I see not, why they should enforce us to admit them, except they were necessary, either for faith, or at the least for good manners: both which notwithstanding, not the scriptures only, but the fathers also do deny.  
Locus secundus. Non enim subterfugi, 
Act. 20. v. 27.  quo minus annuntiarum vobis omne consilium Dei. For I have not spared to show unto you, the whole counsel of God. This portion of scripture, is understood of things pertaining to our salvation; as two famous popish writers, Nicholaus Lyranus and Dyonisius Carthusianus, do contest with me.  
Carthusiaws hath these words; 
Carthus. in 20. cap. act. apost.  Sed cum alibi scriptum sit; quis consiliarius eius fuit? sapiens quoque dixerit; quis homini poterit scire consilium Dei; quomodo potuit Paulus omne consilium Dei annuntiare hominibus? & respondendum, quod non simpliciter de omni consili●● Dei intendit, sed de omni consilio Dei, quantum ad humanam spectai salutem. Quemadmodum etiam ait salvator; 
Rom. 11. 34. sap. 9  omnia audivi à patre meo, nota feci vobis. But seeing it is written else where; who hath been his counsellor? and seeing the wise man also saith; what man can know the counsel of God? how could Paul show unto men, all the counsel of God? answer must be made, that he meaneth not simply of all the counsel of God; but of all the counsel of God, so far forth as appertaineth to man's salvation. As our saviour also saith; all things which I heard my father, I have notified unto you.  
Lyra teacheth the very same doctrine, 
Lyra. in 20. cap. act. apost.  I omit his words, for the regard I have to brevity. By whose judgement it is most evident, that the whole counsel of God touching our salvation, is contained in the holy Scriptures. And it will not help the papists to answer or say, that all the counsel of God was preached, but not written. For first, the Apostle saith, he was called to be an Apostle, severed into the Gospel of God, 
Rom. 1.  which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures. Secondly, he avoucheth plainly, that he taught none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come to pass. 
Act. 26. v. 22.  Thirdly, Lyranus and Carthusianus, two renowned papists, tell us, that all necessary doctrine is contained in the precepts of love. Carthusianus hath these words: Omnia precepta, 
Carthus. in 22. cap. Matt.  documenta, & hortamenta legis ac prophetarum, ordinantur ad horum obseruantiam mandatorum, & virtualiter continentur in cis, sicut conclusiones in primis principijs. All precepts, documents, and exhortations of the law and the prophets are ordained to the keeping of these commandments, and are virtually contained in them, as conclusions in the first principles.  
Lyranus hath these words: 
Lyra in 22. cap. Matt.  Propter hoc omnia mandata legis & monitiones, non sunt nisi quaedam explicationes istorum duorum mandatorum. Quia omnia ordinantur ad dilectionem dei & proximi; & similiter doctrina prophetarum ad hoc ordinatur. For this cause all the commandments of the law, and all admonitions, are nothing else but certain explications of these two commandments. Because all things are ordained to the love of God and of our neighbour: and in like manner, the doctrine of the prophets is referred to the same end.  
Fourthly, the jesuit Bellarmine telleth us, that the books of the prophets and Apostles are the infallible rule of faith. 
Bellar. tom. 1. col. 2.  These are his express words: Illud in primis statuendum erit, Propheticos & Apostolicos libros juxta mentem ecclesiae Cath. & olim in Conc. 3. Carthag. & nuper in Conc. Trid. explicatam, verum esse verbum dei, & certam ac stabilem regulam fidei. This must be set down for a ground and sure foundation, that the books of the prophets and Apostles, according to the mind of the Catholic Church declared aforetime in the third counsel of Carthage, and of late in the counsel of Trent, is the true word of God, and the sure and stable rule of our faith.  
The same jesuit in another place hath yet more manifast and clear words, 
Bellar. tom. 1. col. 4.  which are these: Quare cum sacra scriptura regula credendi certissima tutissimaque sit, sanus profecto non erit, qui ea neglecta spiritus interni●soepe fallacis, & semper incerti judicio se commiserit. Wherhfore, seeing the holy Scripture is the most certain and most secure rule of faith, he is not well in his wits doubtless, who having neglected the same, shall commit himself to the judgement of the internal spirit, which often deceiveth, and never is sure or found.  
These words of our jesuitical Cardinal (if they be well marked) will not only confound himself, who elsewhere teacheth the contrary doctrine, but also evidently prove the controversy now in hand. For first, he saith, that the books of the Apostles and Prophets rightly expounded, are the infallible rule of faith. Secondly, that the holy Scripture is the most safe and most secure rule how to believe. Thirdly, that he is mad, whosoever will give credit to the inward spirit, and not stay himself upon the written word. All which doubtless confound him and his jesuitical brood; as who will not rely upon the written testimonies of God's truth, but seek after unwritten falsehoods and vanities, and ground their faith upon the same.  
Fiftly, S. Austen teacheth the self-same truth, when he telleth us flatly, that nothing is contained in the Gospel and epistles of the Apostles, which is not also comprised in the law and the Prophets. These are his express words: In eo tanta praedicatio & prenuntiatio novi testamenti est, 
August. contra Adimant. cap. 3. tom. 6. pag. 121.  ut nulla in evangelica atque Apostolica disciplina reperiantur, qua●uis ardua & divina proecepta & promissa, quae illis etiam libris veteribus desint. In the old testament, the new testament is so largely preached and foreshowed, that nothing can be found in the discipline or doctrine of the Gospel and of the Apostles, although they be hard and divine precepts and promises, which are wanting in those old books. This being so, it followeth of necessity, that all things needful to salvation, are contained in the Scriptures. For S. Paul preached all the counsel of God; S. Paul's preachings are contained in the doctrine of the prophets; the doctrine of the prophets is contained in the law; the law was written with the finger of God; Ergo à primo ad ultimum, all things necessary for our salvation, are contained in the written word of God.  
Locus tertius. Because from thine infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, 
2. Tim. 3. v. 15.  through faith which is in Christ jesus. Thus saith S. Paul. But doubtless, if so much be written as is able to make us wise to salvation; we stand in need of no more, it is enough. Let the papists keep their unwritten traditions to themselves, let us rely upon the written truth. Let us be wise unto salvation, contenting ourselves with that which it pleased God to reveal in his written word, and let them be presumptuous and curious to follow man's inventions, and to believe unwritten vanities.    

The second reason, drawn from the authority of the holy Fathers.  
DIonysius Areopagita, who lived in the days of the Apostles, 
De divinis nominib. cap. 1. in initio.  doth lively deliver this truth unto us in these express words: Omnino igitur non audendum est, quicquam de summa abstrusaque divinitate aut dicere aut cogitare, praeter ea quae nobis divinitus scripturae divinae countiarunt. In no wise therefore may we make bold to speak or think any thing of the most high and ineffable divinity, save that only which holy writ hath revealed to us from heaven.  
S. Augustine, that glistering beam and strong pillar of Christ's church, avoucheth plainly, that all things necessary for our salvation are contained in the written word, as is already proved in the former reason: and he confirmeth the same doctrine in another place, where he hath these express words: In his enim quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt, 
Aug. de doctrina Christ. li. 2. cap. 6 & cap. 9 tom. 3.  inveniunter illa omnia, quae continent fidem moresque vivendi; spem scilicet atque charitatem. For in those things which are plainly set down in the holy Scripture, all things are found which contain faith and manners, that is to say, hope and charity.  
The same S. Austen in another place hath these express words: Credo quod etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset, 
Aug. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. ult. tom. 7.  si homo sine dispendio promissae salutis illud ignorare non posset. I believe, that even in this point also we should have most clear testimony of holy writ, if a man could not be ignorant thereof, without the loss of his salvation.  
S. Irenaeus hath these words: Non emim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus, 
Irenae. li. 3. cap. 1  quam per eos, per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem tunc preconiaverunt, postea vero per dei voluntatem in scriptures nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum. For we know the dispensation of our salvation, by them only by whom the Gospel came to our hands, which Gospel they first preached: but afterward by God's appointment they delivered the same unto us in writing, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.  
Tertullianus an ancient writer, 
Tertullian. contra Hermogen. pag. 373.  (who lived above 1300 years ago) hath these express words; Adoro scripturae plenitudinem, quae mihi & factorem manifestat, & facta. An autem ex aliqua subiacenti materia facta sint omnia, nusquam adhuc legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis offiicina: si non est scriptum, timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum. I reverence the plenitude, fullness, and perfection of the scripture; as which showeth to me, both the maker, and the things which are made. But that all things are made of some subjacent matter, I never could yet read any where. Let Hermogenes his shop show us, where it is written. If it be nowhere written, let him be afraid of that woe which is provided for them that add or take away from the Scripture.  
Lo (gentle reader) these three most ancient fathers do teach us many very excellent documents. First, that we know the dispensation of our salvation by Christ's Apostles. Secondly, that we received the Gospel from them. Thirdly, that they first preached the mysteries of our salvation, delivering the Gospel by word of mouth. Fourthly, that afterward they committed the same to writing. Fiftly, that the Scripture was written by Gods own appointment. Sixtly, that it was written for this end and purpose, That it might be the pillar and foundation of our faith. Seventhly, that we may not speak or think any thing of God, which we find not written in God's book. Eightly, that the holy Scripture is perfect, and containeth all things necessary for us to know. Ninthly, that all such as teach or believe any doctrine not contained in the Scriptures, must drink of the cup of eternal woe for their pains. Let us proceed and see, what other fathers of later times tell us.  
S. Cyprian (who lived about 249 years after Christ, 
Cyprian ep 74. add Pompeium. cont. epist. Steph. col. 229.  viz. above 1300 years ago) hath these words: unde ista traditio? Vtrumne de dominica & evangelica authoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum mandatis & epistolis veniens? Ea enim facienda esse quae scripta sunt, deus testatur, & proponit ad jesum Nave dicens; Non recedet liber legis huius ex ore tuo, sed meditaberis in eo die ac nocte, ut observes facere omnia quae scripta sunt in eo. Si ergo aut evangelio precipitur, aut in Apostolorum epistolis, aut astibus continetur, obseruetur divina haec & sancta traditio. From whence came this tradition? Did it descend from the authority of our Lord, or his Gospel? Or came it from the mandates of the Apostles, or their epistles? For, that those things must be done which are written, God himself doth witness, and propose to jesus Nave, saying: The book of this law shall not depart from thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein night and day, that thou mayest observe to do all things which are written in it. If therefore it be either commanded in the Gospel, or be contained in the Epistles, or in the Acts of the Apostles, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.  
Thus writeth S. Cyprian, showing plainly, that all traditions ought to be examined by the written word, and nothing to be admitted, which is not contained in the same, or grounded thereupon. Where I note by the way, for the help of the reader, that though Cornelius, than bishop of Rome (whom now the papists term Pope and his holiness) together with the whole national synod of all the bishops of Italy, had made a flat decree touching rebaptisation: and though also Pope Stephanus his holiness had confirmed the same decree, and commanded it to be observed: and thirdly, though our papists of late days do obstinately affirm, that their Pope cannot err when he defineth judicially. Yet this notwithstanding, S. Cyprian teacheth and telleth us plainly and roundly, 
Euseb. lib. 7. hist. cap. 2, 3, 4.  that in his time the bishop of Rome had no such authority, as this day he proudly and antichristianly taketh upon him: for he roundly withstood the decree of Pope Stephanus, who then was bishop of Rome, and both sharply reproved him, and contemned his falsely pretended authority. And for all that, S. Cyprian was ever reputed an holy bishop in his life time, and a glorious martyr being dead. But, if the bishop of Rome had been Christ's vicar, and so privileged, as our papists bear the world in hand he is, then doubtless S. Cyprian must needs have been an heretic, and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of God. For, if any Christian shall this day do or affirm as S. Cyprian did, or publicly deny the Popes falsely pretended primacy in any place, country, territories, or dominions, where popery beareth the sway, then without all peradventure he must be burnt at a stake, with fire and faggot for his pains.  
S. Athanasius hath these words: Sufficiunt sanctae ac divinitus inspiratae scripturae, 
Athanas. contrae gentes, seu idola.  ad veritatis iuditionem. The holy scriptures inspired of God, are sufficient, for the discussion and manifestation of the truth. Where the reader must observe with me, that Athanasius contending against the Gentiles, that their idols were not gods; and proving that Christ was true God and true man by the Scriptures; and withal avouching, that the Scriptures were sufficient to decide and determine the controversy; should have made a very foolish argument, and have concluded nothing at all, if any necessary truth had been wanting, and not fully contained in the holy scriptures.  
S. Epiphanius hath these words: 
Epiph. haeres. 65.  Nos uniuscuiusque quaestionis inventionem, non ex proprijs ratiocinationibus dicere possumus, sed ex scripturarum consequentia. We cannot show the invention of every question out of our own proper reasons, but by consequence of the scriptures.  
S. Cyrill hath these words: 
Cyrillus lib. 2. de recta fide ad regin. tom. 2.  Necessarium nobis est divinas sequi literas, & in nullo ab earum prescripto discedere. It is necessary for us to follow the holy scriptures, and not in the least jot to depart from the prescript rule thereof.  
S. Chrysostome hath these words: 
Chrys. in Ps. 95. tom. 1. prope finem.  Si quid dicatur absque scriptura, auditorum cogitatio claudicat, nunc annuens, nunc haesitans, & interdum sermonem ut frivolum adversans, interdum ut probabilem recipiens. Verum ubi è scriptura divinae vocis prodijt testimonium, & loquentis sermonem, & audientis animum confirmat. If any thing be spoken without the scripture, the cogitation of the auditors faileth, sometime yielding, sometime staggering, and sometime rejecting the speech as frivolous, sometime receiving it as probable. But, so soon as the testimony of God's voice is heard out of the scripture, it confirmeth both the word of the speaker, and the mind of the hearer.  
The same S. Chrysostome in another place hath these words: 
Chrysost. hom. 41. in Matt. 22. in opere imperf.  Quicquid quaeritur ad salutem, totum iam adimpletum est in scriptures. Lo, these holy fathers and ancient writers (who all of them lived above a thousand and one hundred years ago) teach the self-same doctrine with the former fathers. They tell us first, that the holy scripture is sufficient to decide all controversies. Secondly, that we must affirm or hold no doctrine, but that which we find in the scriptures. Thirdly, that we must not in the least point of doctrine depart or serve from the rule of holy scripture. Fourthly, that in the holy scripture is fully comprised whatsoever is necessary for man's salvation. But let us yet hear the verdict of some others.  
S. Ambrose hath these words: 
Ambros. de fide ad Grat. lib. 1. cap. 4. tom. 2.  Non negamus, imò potius horremus hanc vocem. Sed nolo argumento credas sancte imperator, & nostrae disputationi. Scripturas interrogemus; interrogemus apostolos; interrogemus prophetas; interrogemus Christum. We deny not, but rather abhor the word. Yet, holy emperor, I would neither have you believe our argument nor our disputation. Let us ask counsel upon the scriptures; let us ask the Apostles; let us ask the Prophets; let us ask Christ himself, and so know what is the truth.  
S. Basill hath these words: Si quicquid ex fide non est, 
Basilius in ethicis, definite, ult. prope finem.  peccatum est, sicut dicit apostolus; fides vero ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum dei; ergo quicquid extra divinam scripturam est, cum ex fide non sit, peccatum est. If whatsoever is not of faith, be sin, as the Apostle saith; and if also faith come by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; then doubtless, whatsoever is not in the holy scripture, the same is sin, because it is not of faith.  
The same S Basill in another place hath these words: 
Basilius ad Eustath. medieum, epist. 80.  Stemus arbitratu in spiratae à deo scripturae; & apud quos inveniuntur dogmata divinis oraculis consona, illis omnino veritatis adiudicetur sententia. Let us be judged by the scripture, which came from God by inspiration; and whose doctrine shall be found consonant to God's Oracles, let the truth be judged to be on their side.  
S. Hierome hath these words: 
Hier. in cap. 23 Matth. Vide Paul. Burgens. in 1. cap. Osee.  Hoc quia de scripturis non habet authoritatem, eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur. This opinion is as easily rejected as it is affirmed, because it hath no authority from the scriptures.  
The same S. Hierome in another place hath these words: 
Hier. in Psal. 86.  Quomodo narrabit? non verbo, sed scriptura. Videte quid dicat qui fuerunt, non qui sunt: ut exceptis Apostolis quodcunque aliud postea decatur, abscindatur, non habeat postea authoritatem. Quamuis ergo sanctus sit aliquis post Apostolos, quamuis disertus sit, non habeat authoritatem. Quonian dominus narrat inscriptura populorum, & principum horam qui fuerunt in ea. How shall he show it? not by word, but by the holy scripture. Mark what he saith, who were, but not who are; to the end, that the Apostles being excepted, whatsoever other thing be afterward spoken, it must be rejected, it must have no authority at all. Wherefore, though a man be holy, though he be learned, yet seeing he cometh after the Apostles, let him be of no authority. For our Lord speaketh to us in the scripture of his people, and of the princes that were therein.  
The same Saint Hierome in an other place hath these words; 
Hier. in lere. cap. 9 tom. 5.  Erog nec parentum, nec maiorum error sequendus est, sed authoritas scripturarum, & Dei docentis imperium. Therefore we must neither follow the error of our parents, nor of our ancestors, but the authority of the scriptures, and the commandment of God teaching us.   

The third reason, drawn from the authority of famous popish writers.  
IOhn friar the late bishop of Rochester, 
Roffencis, art. 37. advers. Luther. pa, 411.  one highly renowned amongst the papists, and with them canonised for a Saint and glorious Martyr, so as his authority must perforce be of credit against them, hath these express words; Scriptura sacra conclave quoddam est omnium veritatum, quae Christianis scitu necessaria sunt. The holy scripture is a certain storehouse of all truths, which are needful to be known of Christians.  
In another place the same famous papist hath these words; 
Roffens. advers. art. Luther. verit. 4.  Contendentibus itaque nobiscum haereticis, nos alio subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam, quam scripturae sacrae. Therefore when heretics contend with us, we must defend our cause by other means, than by the holy scripture. These are the very express words of their own famous popish bishop, of their holy Saint, of their glorious matyr; who laboured with might and main for the Pope's usurped sovereignty, and defended the same in the best manner he was able. And yet for all that, he hath bolted out unawares and against his will, (such is the force of truth, which must needs in time prevail) so much in plain terms, as is sufficient to overthrow all popery for ever, and to cause all people that have any care of their salvation, to renounce the Pope and his abominable doctrine to their lives end. For first, our popish bishop telleth us plainly, and without all dissimulation, (his mouth being now opened by him that caused Balaams' ass to speak) 
Numer. cap. 22. v. 28.  That in the holy scripture, as in a plentiful storehouse, is laid up for us and our instruction, all knowledge necessary for man's salvation. Again, the same popish bishop, Saint, and Martyr, (of papists so esteemed and reputed) telleth us roundly, That they must not (because forsooth they cannot) defend and maintain their popery by the authority of the scripture, but by some other way and means, to wit, by man's inventions and popish unwritten vanities, which they term the Church's traditions. Now gentle reader, how can any papist (who is not given up in reprobum sensum for his just deserts) read such testimonies against popery, 
Rom. 1. v. 24.  freely confessed and published to the world by papists, even when they bestir themsulues busily to maintain their Pope and his popish doctrine; and for all that continue papists still, and be carried away headlong into perdition; believing and obeying that doctrine, which cannot be defended by the written word of God, which is the storehouse of all necessary knowledge; 
2. Thes. 2. v. 12. Rom. 1. v. 24.  They doubtless are either very senseless, or so blinded for their former sins, that they cannot behold the sun shining at noon tide: me thinks they should be ashamed, to hold and believe that doctrine; in defence whereof, they can yield no better reasons. But let us yet hear what other renowned popish writers tell us; who doubtless will not bewray their own cause, but against their wills. Howbeit as the wise man saith, Magnaest veritas, & praevalet; The truth is of such force as it must needs prevail, 
3. Esdr. 4. v. 42.  and in time have the upper hand.  
Melchior Canus another popish bishop, 
Melch. Canus de llocis theolog. lib. 7. cap. 3.  and a very learned school-doctor, hath these express words; Cum sit perfectus scripturarum canon, sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat; quid opus est, ut ei sanctorum & intelligentia iungatur, & authoritas. Seeing the canon of the scripture is perfect, and most sufficient of itself to every end, and in every respect; what need have we to join therewith, either the exposition or the authority of the fathers. Thus writeth this great learned papist, not denying the sufficiency of the holy scripture, but requiring the commentaries of the fathers, for the better understanding of the same. Whose opinion I do approve and commend in that respect, as is evident to all that shall peruse my book of Motives.  
Thomas Aquinas, 
Aquinas, p. 1. q. 36. art. 2. ad primum.  (whom the Pope hath canonized for a Saint, and his doctrine for authentical) teacheth us not to believe any thing concerning God, saving that only which is contained in the scripture expressly, or at least significantly. These are his own words: Dicendum, quod de Deo dicere non debemus, quod in sacra scriptura non invenitur, vel per verba, vel per sensum. We must answer, that nothing is to be verified of God, which is not contained in holy writ, either expressly, or in sense.  
The same popish doctor in an other place hath these words: 
Aquinas, p. 3. q 42. art. 4. ad primum.  Quicquid enim ille (Christus) de suis factis & dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit. For whatsoever Christ would have us to read of his doings and sayings, the same he commanded his Apostles to write, as if he had done it with his own hands. Lo, in these words Aquinas avoucheth very plainly, that all things necessary for our salvation, are contained in the scriptures. For in Christ's deeds, are contained his miracles, his life, his conversation: in his sayings semblably, are contained his preaching, his teaching, his doctrine; and consequently, whatsoever is necessary for us to know. If then this be true, as it is most true, (for the papists neither will, 
See the jesuit Beauties doctrine, in the end of the sercond exposition, and note it well.  nor can deny the doctrine of Aquinas) that whatsoever Christ would have us to know, of his miracles, of his life, of his conversation, of his preaching, of his teaching, of his doctrine, the same is now written in the scriptures: no man doubtless, but he that will cum ratione insanire, can deny all things necessary for our salvation, to be contained in the holy scriptures.  
To this doctrine delivered by Aquinas, agreeth their own renowned professor, and most learned school-doctor Franciscus a victoria, 
Victor. de sacra. pag. 120.  that Spanish friar. His express words are these; Non est mihi certum, licet omnes dicant, quod in scriptura non continetur. I do not think it certain and sure, although all writers affirm it, which is not contained in the scripture.  
The same popish doctor and friar, 
Victor. relect. 8. de augment. charit p. 308.  in another place hath these words: Propter quas (opiniones) nullo modo debemus, discedere à regula & synceritate scripturarum. For which opinions we must by no means depart from the rule and sincerity of the holy scriptures. Lo (gentle reader) our popish friar will believe no doctrine, which is not contained in the scripture; although all writers teach the same. Mad men therefore may they be deemed, that will believe whatsoever the Pope telleth them, though it be never so repugnant to the scripture. 
Vide tu Anselm. in 2. tim. cap. 3. & Lyran. in matt. 19  Anselmus and Lyra two other famous popish writers, do teach us the self same doctrine.   

The second Proposition.  
All persons of what sex, state, call, or condition soever they be, may lawfully, and ought seriously to read the holy scriptures; as out of which, even the simplest of all may gather so much as is necessary for their salvation. This I say, against that popish, ridiculous, unchristian, and very pestilent abuse, where the Pope delivereth to the people, as it were by was of apostolical traditon; the scriptures, sacraments, and church-service, in a strange tongue to them unknown. Which to be flatly against the practice of the primitive Church, I have proved copiously in my book of Survey. Here therefore I will only show, that it is both lawful and necessary for all sorts of people that desire to attain eternal life, to read diligently the holy scriptures.  
S. Chrysostome discourseth at large of this subject in many places of his works; 
Chrysost. in proaemio epist. ad. Rom.  but I will content myself with some few for the present. In his commentaries upon Saint Paul he hath these words: Et vos itaque, si lectioni cum animi alacritate volueritis attendere, nullo alio preterea opus habebitis. Verus enim est sermo Christi, cum dicit; quaerite & invenietis, pulsate & aperietur. Verum quia plures exijs qui huc convenere, & liberorum educationem, & uxoris curam, gubernandaeque domus insesereceperunt, atque ideo non sustinent totos se labori isti addicere, saltem ad percipienda quae alij collegerunt, excitamini: tantum iis quae dicuntur audiendis impendite diligentiae, quantum colligendis pecunijs. Tam etsi enim turpe sit non nisi tantum a vobis exigere, tamen contenti erimus, si vel tantum prestetis. Nam hinc iunumera mala nata sunt, quod scripturae ignorantur. Hinc erupit multa illa haereseon pernicies; hinc vita dissoluta, hinc inutiles labores: quemadmodum enim qui luce ista privatisunt, recta utique non pergunt: ita qui ad radios divinarum. Scripturarum non respiciunt, multa coguntur continuò delinquere, utpote in long peioribus tenebris ambulantes; quod ne nobis usu veniat, occulos ad splendorem Apostolicorum verborum aperiamus. If therefore you will read the scriptures with alacrity of mind, you shall need no other help at all. For Christ's word is true, when he saith: Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. But because many of you are charged with wives, children, and domestical regiment, and so can not wholly addict yourselves to this study: yet at the least be ready to hear what others have gathered, and bestow so much diligence in hearing what is said, as you do in scraping worldly goods together. For albeit it be a shame to require no more of you, yet will I be content, if ye do so much. For, the cause of infinite evils, is your ignorance in the scriptures: From hence springeth the manifold mischief of heresies; from hence, dissolute life; from hence, vain and unprofitable labours. For, even as they that are bereaved of this light, cannot go the right way: so they that do not behold the beams of the holy scriptures, are enforced inconintently to offend in many things, as walking in far greater darkness.  
This is the golden censure of Saint Chrysostome, rightly surnamed the golden mouthed doctor. Out of whose doctrine, I gather these worthy observations: First, that whosoever studieth the scriptures seriously, and with alacrity, shall find therein, and understand so much, as is necessary for his salvation. And consequently, that our disholy father the Pope, debarreth us of the ordinary means of our salvation; when he upon pain of excommunication, inhibiteth us to read the scriptures in our vulgar tongue, unless we have his licence and dispensation so to do. And he hath I confess, some reason thus to deal: because forsooth popery would have a short reign, if every papist might freely read the holy scripture, and other godly books written for their instruction. But alas, they are so bewitched with his blessings, that they think they shallbe damned, if they do but read this my discourse, or any other opposite to popery, not having his licence so to do. But all his priests are licensed; and so they can pretend no excuse, if they do not frame some answer hereunto.  
Secondly, that it is a very shame, for men charged with wives, children, and families; that they do but only hear sermons, and do not withal study the holy scriptures; and consequently, that it is much more shame for others that be more free, not to read them diligently; and greatest shame of all for a bishop, to approve or commend them that will not so do,  
Thirdly, that heresies, dissolute life, and all other evils, do proceed of ignorance, and of not reading the holy scriptures.  
The same Saint Chysostome in an other place hath these words. 
Chrysost. in 9 ca genes. hom. 29. to. 1.  Propterea obsecro, ut subinde huc veniatis, & divinae scripturae lectionem diligenter auscultetis; nec solum cum huc venitis, sed & domi divina b●blia in manus sumite, & utilitatem in illis positam magno study suscipitc. Sequitur Paulo inferius. Tantum igitur lucrum oro, ne per negligentiam amittemus, sed & domi vacemus divinarum scriptur arum lectioni, & hic presentes non in nugis & inutilibus colloquijs tempus decoquamus. I beseech you therefore, that you will come hither now and then, and attend diligently the reading of the holy scriptures; neither that only when ye come hither, but at home also take the holy bibles into your hands, and with great study embrace the profit contained in them. I pray you therefore, let us not negligently lose so great gain, but when we are at home, let us then apply ourselves to read the holy scriptures: and being here, let us not spend our time idly and vainly.  
By these testimonies, (to omit many others) we may perceive most evidently, how grievously Saint Chrysostome lamenteth, that the people in his time were so negligent in reading the holy scripture. What therefore would that holy father say, if he lived in these our days, in which the Pope burneth such scriptures, as the people understand in their vulgar tongue: In which he commandeth all church-service to be in strange and unknown language: In which he excommunicateth all say-people be they never so well learned, 
6. decret. lib. 5. cap. quicunque.  that reason of matter of faith, or dispute of his power? What would he say, if he heard priests pronounce absolution in their popish sacrament of penance, which neither the penitents, nor the priests themselves do often understand? Nay, what would he say, if he were this day in popish Churches, where they do not only read their Churchseruice in Latin, but also Latin homilies or sermons unto the vulgar sort; which yet they term an exposition of the scripture: which manner of proceeding is practised every festival day of nine lessons, in the time of their matins? In fine, what would he say, if he knew the rude vulgar sort, who are commanded to hear the Gospel read in Latin, and withal should see them listening with their ears, lest any word should not be heard, though impossible of them to be understood? would he not, and might he not justly say with the holy Apostle, 
1. Cor. 14. v. 24.  that they were mad? Yes doubtless, it cannot be denied.  
Origen, who lived above a thousand and three hundred years ago, doth not only exhort the people seriously to read the scriptures, but withal showeth plainly, that in his time they were read in the vulgar tongue. These are his words: 
Origen hom. 4. poe super leuit. pro finem.  Certè, si non omnia possumus, saltem ea quae nunc docentur in ecclesia, vel quae recitantur, memoriae commendemus. Doubtless, if we cannot bear away all things contained in the scriptures, yet at the least let us remember those things which are taught and read in the Church. Lo, in these golden words he speaketh not only of sermons, but also of the Gospels, Epistles, Prayers, Lessons, and histories of the Bible. For sermons are contained in the word (docentur, which are preached;) and the rest in the word (recitantur, which are read or rehearsed:) but certes, if such things had been read in a strange and unknown tongue, the vulgar sort could not have committed them to memory. And consequently, to no end or purpose should Origen have made this exhortation. And the objection which is common in the mouths of our papists, That Saint Peter affirmeth the scriptures to be obscure and hard to be understood (notwithstanding the great brags and insolent vaunts of our Rhemists) is too too foolish, 
Rhemist. in 2. Pet. cap. 3.  and of no force at all. For first, Saint Peter saith not, that the whole scripture is hard to be understood, but some things in S. Paul's Epistles. Secondly, he speaketh not solely and barely of the unlearned, but of the unlearned which are unstable. Thirdly, he speaketh not generally of all readers of the scripture, but of those wicked ones, which deprave not only S. Paul's Epistles, 
Vide D. Chrysost. in proemio epist. ad Rom. in in●io.  but also all other scriptures, to their own perdition. Howbeit, to debar all the godly, who with all humility and reverence desire to read the scriptures; and to abandon one only particular evil, by taking away the good wholly and generally; may well be resembled to those unskilful physicians, who cannot deliver their patients from any particular disease, except they take away their lives. But wise Solomon was of another mind, 
Prou. 8. v. 8, 9  when he affirmed all the words of wisdom to be open and easy to every one of understanding, that is, which have a desire to the truth, and are not blinded of the prince of this world. For, as by the fool, he meaneth every wicked man: so by a man of understanding he meaneth every one that is godly. Hereupon it is said, 
Psal. 25. v. 9  that God revealeth his secret counsels to all that fear him: 
john. 7. v. 17.  That whosoever will do the will of God, 
john. 8. v. 31: 32  the same shall know his doctrine: That they which abide in God's word, shall know the truth: 
Matth. 11. v. 25.  That God revealeth his will unto the simple and unlearned ones, and hideth his secrets from the wise and prudent: 
Ps. 119. v. 105.  That the whole body of the scripture, from the head to the foot thereof, is termed a lantern to ourfeets, and a light unto our paths: That God's word is like a candle, shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in our hearts: 
2. Pet. 1. v. 19  That the spiritual man doth understand all things which are necessary for his salvation: 
1. Cor. 2. v. 15.  for so Lyra and Dionysius Carthusianus, two great learned papists, do expound the place. And consequently, if God's word be hidden to any, it is hidden to those that perish, to those whose understandings the God of this world hath blinded, 
2. Cor. 4. v. 3, 4.  that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, should not shine unto them.  
S. Chrysostome hath these golden words: 
Chrys. in 2. Thes. cap. 2. hom. 3.  Quid opus est concionatore? Per nostram negligentiam necessitas ista facta est. Quamobrem namque concione opus est? Omnia clara sunt & plana ex diviais scriptures; quaecunques necessaria sunt, manifesta sunt. What need is there of a preacher? Our negligence hath caused this necessity. For to what end is a sermon needful? All things are clear and evident in the holy scriptures, what things soever are necessary, the same are manifest.  
The same S. Chrysostome in his Commentaries upon the Epistle of the Colossians, 
Chrys. in Coloss. hom. 9 col. 1290.  hath these words: Audite quotquot estis mundani, & uxoribus prae estis ac liberis, quomodo & vobis potissimum precipiat scripturas legere; idque non simpliciter, neque abiter, sed magna diligentia, Sequitur Paulo inferius. Audite obsecro seculares omnes. Comparate vobis biblia, animae pharmaca. Si nihil aliud vultis, vel nowm testamentum acquirite, Apostolum, Acta, evangelia, continuos ac sedulos doctores. Si acciderit maestitia, huc veluti apothecam pharmacorum introspice. Hinc tibi sume solamen mali, sive damnum evenerit, sive mors, sive amissio domesticorum. Imònon introspice solum, sed omnia iterum atque iterum versa, menteque illa contine. Hoc demum malorum omnium causa est, quod scripturae ignorantur. Iterum; doce puerum tuum Psalmos illos canere Philosophiae plenos. Hearken all ye that are encumbered with worldly affairs, and have charge of wives and children, how you specially are commanded to read the scriptures, and that not simply nor slenderly, but with great diligence. Hear I pray you, all secular persons. Provide and furnish yourselves with bibles, the sovereign medicines of your souls. If you will have no other thing, at the least provide the new Testament, the Apostle, the Acts, the Gospel, the continual and diligent doctors. If any grief come, turn thine eye unto the scripture, as to the Apothecary's shop full of medicines. From hence receive solace of evil, whether damage, or death, or loss of worldly goods chance unto thee. Yea, look not only to the scripture, but volue and revolve all things contained therein, and keep the same in mind. For this is the cause of all manner of evils, that men are ignorant in the holy scriptures. Teach your children to sing Psalms, which are full of Philosophy.  
Thus writeth this holy father, teaching us at large, how necessary and needful a thing it is for every one to study and read diligently the holy scriptures. For first, he telleth us plainly, that all necessary points of doctrine are so plain and manifest, as one may understand the same without the preacher. Secondly, that they who are charged with wives, children, and worldly affairs, are specially and more than others, commanded to read the scriptures: The reason hereof he yieldeth in another place; because the more they are encumbered with the cares of the world, the more need they have to enjoy the helps of the holy scripture. These are his words: Quid ais homo? 
Chrysost. conc. 3. de lazaro, tom. 2. col. 1340.  Non est tui negotij scripturas evoluere, quoniam in numeris curis distraberis? Imò tuum magis est, quam illorum. Neque enim illi perinde scripturarum egent presidio, atque vos in medijs negotiorum undis iactati. What sayest thou o man? Is it not thy part and duty to read the holy scriptures, because thou art encumbered with many worldly cares? yea, it is so much more thy charge than it is theirs: For they have not so great need of the help of the scriptures as you have, who are tossed in the midst of the waves of worldly troubles. Thirdly, that all secular persons of both sexes must furnish themselves with the holy Bible. Fourthly, that they must not only read the scriptures barely and slenderly, but that they must do the same with great diligence. Fiftly, that the scriptures do minister comforts for all sorrows, and sovereign medicines for all sores. Sixtly, that the ignorance of the scriptures is the cause of all evils. Seventhly, that parents must teach their children to sing Psalms, yea, even those Psalms which are replenished with Philosophy.  
S. Austen teacheth in the same manner, 
August. de doct. Christ. li, 2. cap. 9  that all things necessary for man's salvation, are plain and easy to be understood. These are his express words: In his enim quque apertè in scriptura posita sunt▪ inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem moresque vivendi. For in those things which are plainly set down in the holy scripture, are found all things concerning faith and manners.  
The same S. Austen in another place hath these words: 
August. de doct. Christ. li. 2. cap. 6.  Magnifice igitur & salubriter spiritus sanctus ita scripturas sanctas modificavit, ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret. God hath so tempered the holy scriptures, that by manifold places he might provide against famine, and by those which are more obscure, he might cleanse the loathsomeness of our stomach. And his reason hereof followeth in these next words: Nihil enim fere de illis obscurit atibus eruitnr, quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur. For almost nothing is contained in obscure places, which is not most plainly uttered in some other place.  
The same father in an other place hath these words; Nec solum vobis sufficiat, 
Aug. de tempor● ser. 55.  quod in ecclesia divinas lectiones auditis, sed etiam in domibus vestris aut ipsi legite, aut alios legentes requirite, & libenter audite. Let it not be enough for you, only to hear God's word in the Church; but also read it yourselves in your houses, or else procure others to read it, and hear you them willing.  
Out of these words of this holy writer, and ancient father, we may learn many godly lessons. First, that all things needful for our salvation, are plainly set down in the scriptures. Secondly, that things which are obscurely touched in some places, are plainly handled in other places. Thirdly, that the scriptures are obscure in some places, to exercise our wits, and to cleanse the loathsomeness of our stomachs. Fourthly, that we must read the scriptures at home in our houses, & not hear them read in the Churches. Fiftly, that if we cannot read them ourselves, then must we procure others to read them to us, and mark diligently what they read, and hear them with desire and alacrity of mind.  
Saint Hierome is consonant to Saint Austen and Saint Chysostome, 
Hieron. in Ps. 133.  affirming, that in his time (which was about 1200 years ago) both monks, men, and women, did contend who could learn more scriptures without book. These are his express words; Solent & viri, solent & monachi; solent & mulierculae hoc inter se habere certamen, ut plures ediscant scripturas; & in eose putant esse meliores si plures edidicerint. Men, women, and monks, use to contend one with another, who can learn more scriptures: and herein they think themselves better, if they can learn more.  
The same Saint Hierome in an other place, speaking of the education of a young maid of seven years old, hath these words; 
Hieron. ad Gaudentium, tom. 1. fol. 44. B.  Matris nutum pro verbis ac monitis, & pro imperio habeat. Amet ut parentem, subijciatur ut dominae, timeat ut magistram. Cum autem virgunculam rudem & edentulam septimus aetatis annus exceperit, & caeperit erubescere, scire quid taceat, dubitare quid dicat; discat memoriter psalterium, & usque ad annos pubertatis libros Salomonis, evangelia, Apostolos, & prophetas, sui cordis thesaurum faciat. Let her mother's beck to her, be in steed of words, admonitions, and commands. Let her love her as her parent, obey her as her lady, and fear her as her mistress. And when the rude and toothless girl shall be seven year old, and shall begin to be bashful, to know when to be silent, and when to speak; then let her learn the Psames by heart, and without book: and till she be twelve years of age, or marriageable, let her make the books of Solomon, the Gospels, Apostles, and Prophets, the treasure of her heart. Thus writeth Saint Hierome: out of whose golden words I note these golden observations. First, that both men and women in his days, did study and read the scriptures, as diligently and painfully as the monks. Secondly, that in his time they thought themselves the happiest people, who could con by heart the most texts of holy scripture: Whereas amongst the papists they are deemed most holy, that can by heart no scripture at all, but abstain from the reading thereof, as from the poison of their souls. Thirdly, that young women being but seven years of age, must be acquainted with the holy scriptures, & learn by heart the book of Psalms. Fourthly, that from seven years upward until puberty, that is to say, until the twelft year of their age, they must read seriously the books of Solomon, the Gospels, Apostles, and Prophets, and set their whole delight therein. And the same holy father in his Epistle to the godly matron Celantia, 
Hieron. ad Celant. tom. 1. fol. 50. A.  doth persuade her for the best course of her life, to be continually conversant in the holy scriptures. These are his words; Sint ergo divinae scipturae semper in manibus tuis, & iugiter mente voluantur. Let therefore the holy scriptures be always in thy hands, and let them be uncessantly tossed or rolled in thy mind.  
Saint Theodoretus telleth us with good liking thereof, 
Theodor. lib. 5. de Graeca, affect. curate. pag. 521.  that in his time the scriptures were translated into all manner of languages, & that they were not only understood of doctors, & masters of the Church, but even of the lay-people, and common artificers. His express words I will allege, which are these; Hebraici vero libri, non modo in Graecum idioma conversi sunt, sed in Romanam quoque linguam, Aegyptiam, Persicam, Indicam, Armenicaque, & Scythicam, atque adeo Sauromaticam, semelque ut dicam, in linguas omnes, quibus ad hanc diem nationes utuntur. Sequitur paulò inferius, fossoresque adeo ac bubulcos invenias; plant arumque consitores de divina trinitate, rerumque omnium creatione discertantes. The Hebrew books are turned not only into the Greek tongue, but also into the Roman language also, into the Egyptian, Persian, Indians, Armenian, and Scythian, as also into the Sauromatick tongue, & to speak all in a word, into all tongues, which this day are in use amongst nations. And after he hath told us, that the Church-doctrine, is known to all manner artisans of both sexes; he addeth, that we may find ditchers, deluers, neatheards, and gardiner's, disputing even of the blessed trinity, and of the creation of all things. Whereupon it is evident, that in the ancient Church, and in the time of old religion, (as the silly foolish papists call their Romish inventions, which is in deed a newly invented religion, as I have proved in my Survey of popery) every nation had the holy scriptures in their vulgar language: and that in those days, all the Christians did read the holy scriptures so seriously, that both men and women, of all trades and conditions, were able to dispute of the holy trinity, and of the creation of the world. Which two points doubtless, are the most difficult, obscure, hard, and intricate articles, in the whole course of theology.  
The jesuit Bellarmine, (a wonderful thing to be heard, and a most incredible, saving (that the truth must needs in time have the upper hand) confesseth so much unawares, as is able sufficiently to prove and conclude my intended scope and proposition. 
Bellar. tom 1. ed. 191. lib. 4. de verbo Deiscrip. to. cap. 11. a.  These are his express words; His notatis, dico illa omnia scripta esse ab apostolis, quae sunt omnibus necessariae, & quaeipsipalam omnibus vulgo praedicaverant; alia autem non omnia scripta esse. These observations being marked, I answer, that all those things were written by the Apostles, which are necessary for all men, and which the Apostles preached openly to all the vulgar people; but that all other things were not written. Thus writeth our skilful jesuit, who in the name of all papists, (being as it were their mouth) saith all that can be said, in defence of late Romish religion. Out of whose words I note first, that all thing necessary for all men and all women, old men, young men, maids, and babes, rich and poor, noble and ignoble, are set down and contained in the holy scriptures. Secondly, that all things contained in the written word, are necessary for all people. Thirdly, that those things which are not contained in the written word, were never preached openly to all people, but secretly to some few persons in secret corners; peradventure to our jesuits and jesuited popelings, saving that their sect was not then hatched, as which is not yet eighty years old. Fourthly, that those things which are not contained in the scriptures and written word, are not necessary for all people, but only for jesuits and papists, to bring them to perdition. Fiftly, that seeing on the one side, all things needful for all men and all women, for young and old, rich and poor, noble and ignoble, are contained in the scriptures; and seeing withal on the other side, that all things in the written word are necessary for all people, (mark well what I say, gentle reader, for I build my work upon that foundation which the jesuit hath laid) it followeth by necessary consecution, that all people ought seriously to read the holy scripture: as also that they may safely contemn all unwritten traditions, as nothing needful or pertaining to them. But let us hear our Cardinal jesuit once again speak for himself and for the honour of this holy father the Pope. 
Bellar. de verbo dei, lib. 3. cap. 2. tom. 1. col. 129.  These are his express words: At in novo testamento, quia Christus implevit figuras & prophetias; etsi multi non intelligant sententias scripturarum, intelligunt tamen ipsa mysteria redemptionis, etiam rustici & mulieres. But in the new testament, because Christ hath fulfilled the figures and the prophecies; although many do not understand the sentences of the scriptures, yet do they understand the mysteries of our redemption, even the common country fellows and the very women.  
Thus writeth our jesuit, affirming, that even women and the very rustics of the country, do understand the scriptures, so far forth as pertaineth to the mysteries of their redemption: and I pray you, why then doth the Pope debar them from the reading thereof? What more knowledge is needful over and beside the mysteries of man's redemption? It is all the knowledge which Saint Paul desired to have: 
1. Cor. 2. v. 2.  who (as he saith of himself) esteemed not to know any thing among them, save jesus Christ, & him crucified. I therefore conclude by our jesuits own free grant, that it behoveth all men and women, children and maids, diligently to read the holy scriptures, seeing they may understand therein all the mysteries of their redemption, viz. all knowledge necessary for their salvation. Which knowledge is so necessary, as nothing can be more. 
Deut. 11. v. 18, 19, 20.  Ye (saith God by the mouth of his servant Moses) shall lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as a frontlet between your eyes. 
Deut. 6. v. 8, 9  And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thine house, 
Deut. 4. v. 9  and upon thy gates. But our papists object against us, that when the fathers exhort all men and women to read the scriptures, 
Rhine▪ testament in prefatio, sect. 15.  they speak as pulpit-men agreeably to their audience, and the people's default; but not as teachers in the school, making exact and general rules to be observed in all places and times. To which I answer first, that the truth must be spoken as well in the pulpit as in the school. Secondly, that the doctrine in pulpit is and aught to be as exact, absolute, and necessary, as the doctrine in school: The sole and only difference is or aught to be this, viz. that the pulpit hath ever the prick of exhortation annexed, which the school wanteth. For the preacher may not speak at random in the pulpit, but even there must he have the girdle of truth about his loins. Thirdly, that holy David regarded no such popish distinction, 
Psal. 119. v. 9  when ask, whereby a young man shall cleanse his ways? he answereth thus: By study, meditation, and keeping of the law of God. Neither the godly men in Berhaea, 
Act. 17. v. 11.  when they daily searched the scriptures, even to examine the doctrine of the Apostles by them. Our papists object likewise, 
1. Tim. 2. v. 12.  that S. Paul will have women to live in silence, and not to chat and prattle of the scriptures. I answer, that though S. Paul will not permit women to teach publicly before men; yet doth he neither forbid them to read the scriptures, nor yet to teach privately, when due circumstances do occur. For the same Apostle 
Tit. 2. v. 3.  elsewhere commandeth mothers to teach godly things to their children. So Solomon, the wisest child that ever was among the sons of Adam, one Christ ever excepted, confesseth plainly and humbly, what doctrine his mother Bethsheba taught him. 
Prou. 31. v. 1.  So Priscilla, wife to Aquila the jew born in Pontus, expounded the scriptures to the jew Apollo, 
Act. 18. v. 26. 2. Tim. 1. v. 5. & 2 Tim. 3. v. 15.  borne at Alexandria, a very eloquent man. So Timothy was thoroughly instructed in the scriptures by his mother Eunice, and by his grandmother Lois. By which notable example it is evident and clear to every one, that neither mothers must forbear to teach, nor yet young babes forbear to learn the holy scriptures.   

The third Proposition.  
Traditions must be examined by the holy scriptures, which is the true touchstone of verity; and then only admitted, when they are found to be consonant to the same. For proof of this proposition, the very name or word (Canonical) is of itself sufficient. For (Canon) is a Greek word, which signifieth a rule, and there upon those books are called the Canonical scriptures, which are the rule of our faith. And consequently, whatsoever is not consonant to the scriptures, the same aught to be rejected, as pernicious and swerving from the rule of our faith. For this cause doth the Prophet Esay send us to the law, 
Esae. 8. v. 20.  and to the testimony, there to try the truth. For this cause doth the Prophet Malachi exhort the people ever to be mindful 
Mal. 4. 4.  of the law of Moses. For this cause doth the Prophet David tell us, That God's word is a lantern to our feet. 
Psal. 119. v. 105  For this cause saith S. Peter, That God's word is a light shining in dark places, 
2. Pet. 1. v. 19  until the day-star arise in our hearts. For this cause did Christ himself exhort the jews to 
john 5. v. 39  read seriously the holy scriptures. For this cause said Christ, That the pharisees erred, 
Matt. 22. v. 29.  because they knew not the scriptures. 
Act. 17 v. 11.  For this cause did the men at Berhaea try the truth of S. Paul's doctrine by the scriptures. For this cause doth S. john exhort us not to believe every spirit, 
1 john 4. v. 1.  but to try the spirits, if they be of God. For this cause doth S. Paul pronounce him accursed that preacheth any doctrine not contained in the scriptures. 
Gal. 1, 2.  For both S. Austen and S. Basill do expound that place of the written word. 
Aug cont. literas Pet l. li. 3. cap. 6. tom. 7.  And the truth thereof is already proved, because the Apostles taught no needful doctrine, which they did not after commit to writing.  
S. Cyprian would not yield to Stephanus then bishop of Rome, in the controversy concerning rebaptisation; but sharply reproved him for leaning to tradition, 
Cyprian epist. ad Pompeium. 74.  and demanded of him, by what scripture he could prove his tradition. For, in his days it was not enough to allege tradition for the proof of any doctrine. And much less was it a rule in Saint Cyprians time to follow the bishop of Rome's definitive sentence, in matters of faith and doctrine. Though our sottish and blind papists in these latter days do admit and reverence his sentence, even as the holy Gospel. See S. Cyprians words in the first proposition.  
When the Arrians would not admit the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) because it was not found in the scriptures, the fathers of the counsel did not then allege traditions for proof thereof; neither did they say, that many things must be believed which are not written: but they answered simply, That though that word were not expressly written, yet was it virtually and effectually contained in the scriptures. This assertion is evident by the testimony of Saint Athanasius, 
Athanas. de decret. nic. synod. tom. 2. prope finem.  whose words are these: Sed tamen cognoscat quisquis est studiosioris animi, has voces tametsi in scriptures non reperiantur, habere tamen eas eam sententiam quam scripturae volunt. Although the express words be not found in the scripture, yet have they that meaning and sense which the scripture approveth and intendeth, as every one that studieth the scripture seriously, may easily understand.  

Origen in Matt. hom. 25. & hom. 1. in 1. cap. jer.  Origen giveth counsel to try all doctrines by the scriptures, even as pure gold is tried by the touchstone. His words are set down at large in my book of Motives, and they are well worth the reading.  
Tertullian hath these words: 
Tertull. advers. praexe. in principe.  Id esse verum, quodcunque primum; id esse adulterum, quodcunque posterius. We must know, that that it is the truth, whatsoever was first; and that that is counterfeit, whatsoever cometh after the first.  
S. Austen 
Aug. de vint. eccles. cap. 10. non long ab initio, 10. 7.  hath many golden sentences and worthy testimonies to this end and purpose. One only I will here recount, where he hath these words: Nemo mihi dicat, o quid dixit Donatus, aut quid dixit Parmenianus, aut Pontius, aut quilibet illorum: quia nec Catholicis episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas dei scripturas aliquid sentiant. Let no man say to me, oh what said Donatus, or what said Parmenianus, or Pontius, or any of them; because we must not consent even to Catholic bishops, if it so fall out, that they err in any point, and speak against the canonical scriptures.  
Saint Chrysostome, 
Chryso. in 2. Cor. 7. hom. 13. in fine.  surnamed the golden mouthed doctor, agreeth uniformly unto the other fathers in many places of his works. One only period shall for the present suffice, where he hath these golden words; Quomodo autem non absurdum est propter pecunias aliis non credere, sed ipsas numerare & supputare, prorebus autem amphoribus, aliorum sententiam sequi simpliciter; presertim, cum habeamus omnium exactissimam trutinam, & gnomonem, acregulam, divinarum inquam legum assertionem. Ideo obsecro & (oro omnes vos, ut relinquatis quidnam hinc vel illi videatur, deque his àscripturishaec etiam iniquirite, et veras divitias difcentes eas sectemur, ut & aeterna bona assequamur. How can it but be absurd, that in money matters we will not credit others, but will tell the money ourselves; and for all that in affairs of greater importance, (which concern the health and salvation of our souls) we can be content simply to follow the judgement and opinion of others; especially, when we have the most exact balance, squire and rule of all things, I mean the plain testimony of God's laws. I therefore pray and beseech you all, that you will reject what this man or that man thinketh, and search the truth out of the scriptures; that learning true riches, we may follow them, and so attain eternal life. Behold here (gentle reader) a most excellent and Christian exhortation, a very godly and golden adviso, given us by this holy father. If we will not (saith he) trust others to tell our money, but for sureness will tell it ourselves; much less should we trust others, and much less depend upon their judgements and sayings, in matters touching our salvation: but ourselves must learn and know such things, by diligent reading of the holy scriptures. Neither must we believe what this or that man saith, but what we find to be true, by painful study of the holy scriptures. Now let us hear attentively, what the best approved papists teach us, concerning this important and most weighty controversy.  
Franciscus à victoria, 
Victor. de augm. charitat. relect. 8. pag. 308,  a learned schoolman and Spanish popish friar, yields his opinion in these express words: Propter quas (opiniones) nullo modo debeà us discedere, à regula & synceritate scripturarum. For which opinions we may in no wise depart from the rule and sincerity of the scriptures.  
Again, 
Victor. de sacra. pag. 120.  in another place he hath these words: Non est mihi certum, licet in hoc conveniant omnes, quia in scriptura non habetur. I do not think it sure and certain, although all writers agree thereunto, because it is not to be found in the holy scriptures.  
Melchior Canus, another learned school-doctor and renowned popish bishop, confirmeth the same doctrine in these words: 
Canus de lecis, lib. 3. cap. ult.  Fatemur non audiendos esse sacerdotes, nisi docuerint juxta legem domivi. We grant, that we must not give ear or hearken to the priests, except they shall teach us according to God's law.  
Lo, the papists affirm plainly, that no doctrine is sound, or to be received, but that only which is tried to be true by God's word. Neither may we believe the doctrine of any popish priest, unless it be agreeable to God's law. Now doubtless, if the Pope will be tried and judged by this doctrine, which his best doctors have published to the world (the spirit of God having enforced them thereunto) we shall soon agree in all controversies of religion. And certes, this their doctrine is so certain and evident, that the jesuit Bellarmine singeth the same song with them; which myself could not easily have believed, if I had not read his own testimony in his own book. 
Bellar. de conc. lib. 2. cap. 2. in fine.  These are his express words: Sine dubio singuli episcopi errare possunt, & aliquando errant, & inter se quandoque dissentiunt, ut nesciamus quisnam eorum sequendus sit. It is without all doubt, that all bishops severally may err, and sometime do err, and do so disagree among themselves, that we cannot in the world tell which of them we may safely follow. Thus you see even by the jesuits verdict, that in the popish Church, all their bishops do so err, and sometimes so dissent one from another, that no papist can tell indeed which of them it is best to follow. To which doctrine I will very willingly subscribe, advising this jesuit and all other jesuited papists to remember well this doctrine, and not to hang their souls henceforth upon their jarring and doting popish fathers; whom (as their dear jesuit and renowned Cardinal Bellarmine telleth them) they may not safely follow. And lest the jesuit or some for him shall answer me or say in his defence, That albeit all popish bishops may err severally, and dissent among themselves, as is already said; yet can they not err, when they are called together in a synod or counsel, and the same confirmed by the Pope. This is all doubtless that posibly can be said in defence of popish doctrine: And consequently, if I shall once prove this to be a rotten foundation, then must all popish buildings raised upon the same, fall down, and be even with the ground. Mark (gentle Reader) my sincere reply, which I shall pithyly and plainly set down in this behalf. Wherein for perspicuity sake, I will proceed by way of conclusions.   

The first Conclusion.  
The Pope was never present at the counsels in the East Churches, by himself and in his own person. This conclusion is freely confessed by the jesuit Bellarmine, 
Bellar. de conc. lib. 1. cap. 19  who allegeth two reasons for the Pope's absence: The one forsooth, because it was not convenient, that the head should follow the members: The other, because the emperor would ever sit in the highest place. Out of whose words, I must needs note two important points by the way: The one, that in the ancient Church the highest place in the counsels, was ever reserved to the emperor: The other, that the East Churches did never acknowledge the Pope's primacy, which he this day arrogantly challengeth over all kingdoms and regalities. To which twain, this pleasant adjunct perforce must be annexed, viz. that our humble father the Pope (who calleth himself hypocritically servus servorum dei) would never come to the counsels, because forsooth he could not endure to see the emperor sitting in the highest place.   

The second Conclusion.  
The Pope staying at home himself, sendeth his legates to the counsels, to supply his place, to whom for all that he cannot commit his authority. This conclusion must needs seem strange to a great many; but I will confirm it with the testimony of such a worthy and renowned papist, that all whosoever shall once hear or read it, cannot but give credit to the same.  
Melchior Canus is the man, from whose pen I received it; the case is evident, 
Canus lib. 5. de authoritat. cone. cap. 5. pag. 102.  these are his words: Decreta quae à legato contra sedis Apostolicae traditionem approbantur, non habent Romanae ecclesiae authoritatem; nec aliter se habent, quam si à concilio sive legatis prodnissent. Sequitur; solidam auctoritatem quam in confirmandis & fratribus & dogmatibus Petrus habet, in legatos transferre non potest. The decrees which the legate shall approve against the tradition of the Church of Rome, have no authority from the Church of Rome; neither are they of any more force, than if they had proceeded from the counsel without the consent of the legates. The sound authority which Peter hath in confirming his brethren and decrees, he cannot transfer unto his legates. These are the express words of Canus, that worthy bishop, and strong pillar of popish doctrine. Out of whose words I note first, that decrees of counsels be of no force, when they have not the consent of the Pope's legates. Secondly, that the decrees of counsels, even when they have the consent of the legates, are of no force at all, if the legates shall agree to any thing which is against the Pope's mind. Thirdly, that the Pope cannot translate or give his authority unto the legates. And consequently, that the Pope abuseth the whole world shamefully, when he calleth together all bishops in the Christian world, to decide and determine controversies in religion; and for all that, will approve nothing that they do or decree, unless it be agreeable to that which himself decreeth apart in his chair at home.   

The third Conclusion.  
General popish counsels in these our days are even as a nose of wax; and the decrees thereof are as uncertain as the wind. I prove this conclusion by very strong and irrefragable reasons. The jesuit Bellarmine hath these words: Nos dicimus, 
Bellar. de council. lib. 1. cap. 18. to. 1.  concessum episcoporum in concilijs legitimis esse verum indicum concessum; & corum decreta & leges, necessario sequendas. We say, that the consistory of bishops in lawful counsels, is the true assembly of judges; and that their decrees and laws must be observed of necessity.  
But in another place the same Bellarmine singeth another song in these express words: Idem enim est, 
Bellar. de council. lib. 2. cap. 11.  sive pontifex express concilium reprobet, sive concilium agat contra pontificis sententiam. For it is all one, whether the Pope disannul the counsel expressly, or the counsel do against the Pope's mind.  
Again, the same Bellarmine in another place avoucheth, that the greater part of voices must bear the sway in counsels. These are his own words: Non potest fieri, 
Bellar. de council. lib. 1. cap. 21.  ut aliquando ad finem controversiarum deveniatur, nisi detur locus maiori parti suffragiorum. It cannot be, that there should ever be made an end of controversies, except the greater part of voices may have the upper hand.  
Again in another place, 
Bellarm. de conc. lib. 2. cap. 11.  he hath these words; Est autem verumdecretum concilij, quod fit à maiori part; alioqui nullum esset legitimum concilij decretum, cum semper aliqui dissentiant. It is the true decree of the council, which hath the consent of the greater part: for otherwise there should be no lawful decree made at all, seeing some do evermore dissent.  
This notwithstanding, their famous bishop Melchior Canns, 
Canus de locis lib. 5. cap. 5. pag. 164.  doth roundly tell us another tale. These are his express words. Non itaque quod in humanis conccssionibus fit, plurimum apud nos sententia praevalet; & paulo post; non enim numero haec indicantur, sed pondere: pondus autem concilijs dat summi pontificis, & gravitas & authoritas. Quae si adsit, centum patres satis sunt, sin desit, nulli sint satis, sint quamlibet plurimi. It is not therefore with us, as it is in human assemblies, where more voices ever do prevail. For these matters are not to be judged by number, but by weight. And the counsels receive their weight, from the gravity and authority of the Pope. Thus writeth our popish bishop Canus. Now who seeth not, that the decrees of popish counsels, are as uncertain as the wind? For the jesuit telleth us, that more voices must needs prevail. But Melchior their renowned bishop, is of another mind: that be they many, be they few, what part soever the Pope liketh, that same shall be true. For after the fathers have fasted long, prayed, much, consulted gravely, deliberated maturely, decreed soberly, commanded strictly, and accursed severely; neither others, nor yet themselves can tell, what shall be of force therein. For all must be as shall best content the Pope's humour, sitting right stately in his chair at Rome.   

The fourth Conclusion.  
No bishop can in these our days have voices in counsels, but such as will first swear obedience to the Pope, and promise to defend his cannon law. This conclusion though it contain gross absurdities, yet is it so clear, as Bellarmine that jesuitical Cardinal cannot deny the same, 
Bellarm. de conc. lib. 1. cap. vit.  These be his words. Istud juramentum non tollit episcoporum libertatem, quae in concilijs necessaria est. jurant enim se fore obedientes summo pontifici, quod intilligitur donec pontifex est, & dum jubet ea quae secundum Deum & sacros canones jubere potest: sed not iurant se non dicturos quod sentiunt in concilio, vel se no● posituros eum, si haereticum esse convincant. This oath taketh not away the liberty of bishops, which in counsels is necessary. For they swear that they will be obedient to the Pope; which is to be understood, so long as he is Pope, and while he commandeth those things, which he may command agreeable to God, and to the holy cannons; but they swear not, that they will not speak what they think in the council, or that they will not depose the Pope if they prove him to be an heretic.  
Thus writeth Bellarminus, whose only testimony is most sufficient in all popish affairs: as who is the Popes sworn and tenderly beloved vassal, and whose books are dedicated to the Pope himself. Out of his words I note first, that all clergy men admitted to give voices in counsels, are sworn simply wholly to obey the Pope's constitutions.  
Secondly, that the said persons are sworn to believe, that the Pope cannot err in his judicial decrees of faith and manners; that no counsels are of force, without the Pope's confirmation; that counsel confirmed by him, are approved by the holy Ghost; that he can excommunicate and depose, all emperors, and empresses, all Kings and Queens, all bishops and archbishops in the Christian world; that he can by his pardons deliver all souls out of purgatory, and go himself to the devil. For all these and a thousand like things, are strictly comprised in his canons, and consequently in their most lamentable oath.  
Thirdly, that they are sworn to admit his decrees, who (as they freely grant) may for all that be an heretic.  
Fourthly, that they are sworn to reverence and obey his judgement in all matters of faith, whom they may judge and depose for heresy.  
Fiftly, that their fundamental article, by which they make the Pope judge over all controversies; is quite overthrown, and turned upside down, in this Bellarminus his explication. For when he saith (While he commandeth &c.) he granteth every bishop freedom to examine and judge, when the Pope commandeth things agreeable to God and the canons. Which liberty, if the papists would constantly perform, all true Christians and perfect Catholics, would soon agree with them. For none that believe aright, will deny obedience to the Pope, when he preacheth, teacheth, or commandeth any thing which is agreeable to God and holy canons. But good Christians finding his canons to be disholy, and his decrees to be against God; do think as Bellarmine here teacheth them, that they are not bound to obey him. And that the reader may fully understand the abomination of the oath which all popish bishops swear unto the Pope; I will here set down the express words, as I find them verbatim in the Pope's own decretals; 
Decret. libr. 2. tit. 24. cap. 4.  Ego N. episcopus, ab hac hora fidelis ero S. Petro, sanctaeque Romanae ecclesiae, dominoque meo papae N. eiusque successoribus canonicè intrantibus. Sequitur; papatum Romanae ecclesiae, & regulas sanctorum patrum adiutor ero, ad defendendum & retinendum contra omnes homines; sic me Deus adiwet, & haec sancta evangelia. I (john Watson) bishop, will be faithful from this day forward, to Saint Peter and to the holy Church of Rome, and to my L. (Boniface) the Pope, and to his successors elected canonically; and I will be an helper to keep and defend against all people, the Popedom or papal sovereignty, and the rules of the holy fathers; so God me help, and the holy Gospel.  
Lo here gentle reader, open and flat rebellion is required, and by evangelical oath confirmed, of subjects against their sovereigns. For, the bishops of every country, are the subjects of the kings of the same countries; and yet do they swear to defend the Pope's usurped jurisdiction, and most bloody tyranny, against their natural dread sovereigns. For they swear to defend the Pope's usurped authority, against all people, without exception. Which his diabolical usurped primacy, (as I have proved at large else where) extendeth itself to the translation of empires, kingdoms, and regalities.  
These conclusions being well marked and remembered, the answer to the mighty objection, which is as the foundation of popery, will be plain and easy, viz. that popish bishops may as well err, when they are assembled together in a general council, as when they preach, teach, or write asunder. For first, the Pope himself will not show his face in any council, because the emperor must sit above him, as is evident by the first conclusion. secondly, when the Pope sendeth his legates to counsels to supply his place, he doth but delude the world by that fact; seeing he cannot impart his authority unto them, as by the second conclusion is apparent. Thirdly, popish counsels and synods in these after ages, are flexible as a nose of wax, and as uncertain as the weathercock, as is clearly proved in the third conclusion. Fourthly, no bishops of late ages can have voices in popish counsels, but such as will first swear obedience to the Pope, and promise by oath to defend his usurped power, and most execrable canon law, as by the fourth conclusion will appear. Fiftly, that decree is true and just, which is concluded by the gerater part of the bishops there assembled; and yet the Pope sitting at Rome in his chair, will reject such decrees at his good pleasure, and define the sentence of fewer voices to be of force. This observation is evidently confirmed, by the due proofs of the third conclusion. Sixtly the decrees of counsels must needs be obeyed, as the papists tell us; and yet the Pope may reject them, and disannul them at his pleasure, even dreaming in his chair at home, or riding abroad on his white palfrey. This to be so is evident to every one, that shall seriously peruse the third conclusion. Yea, our papists of Rheims in their commentary upon the new testament, 
Rheims test. in act. 15.  tell us plainly and roundly; that the determinaon of counsels is needless, because the Pope's judgement alone is infallible. Wherhfore they add this clause to salve the Pope's proceedings, That counsels are called not for necessity sake, but for the better contentation of the weak. I therefore conclude against the popish supposed bulwark, that seeing all bishops may err severally, as the jesuit Bellarmine hath taught us; and seeing also that the constitutions in popish counsels are nothing else in deed, but the bare decrees of one only bishop, as is already proved; it followeth of necessity, and cannot be denied, that all bishops in the popish Church may err egregiously; and that as well jointly as severally, as is to be seen at large in my Golden balance of trial: to which treatise I refer the reader for better satisfaction, both touching the Pope's double person, and concerning his private and public errors, In the interim, I must needs tell the papists; that a general council is above the Pope; that a general council hath power to depose the Pope; that a general council did de facto depose john the 12 long sithence, and john the 13 of that name; as I have proved at large by sound popish testimony, in my Anatomy of popish tyranny. And thus have I proved, that the sole and only scripture inspired from heaven, is the infallible rule of truth; and that all traditions must be examined by the same, and then addmitted when they be consonant thereunto, not otherwise: howsoever antiquity be pretended in that behalf.   

The fourth Proposition.  
Popish unwritten traditions are so uncertain and doubtful, 
Ratio. prima.  that the best learned papists are at great contention about them, and cannot possibly be accorded therein. For the proof of this proposition, it were enough to call to mind that great and endless strife, which was in the Church about 1400 years sithence, between Victor then Bishop of Rome and the bishops of Asia. The controversy was among them, concerning the keeping of Easter. Tradition apostolical was alleged earnestly, and both sides did stoutly defend the same.  
The same tradition was in controversy afore Polycarpus the bishop of Smyrna, 
Euseb. li. 5. hist. cap. 23. & cap. 24. per totum.  and Anicetus the Bishop of Rome. But neither could Polycarpe persuade Anicetus, nor Anicetus persuade Polycarpus; albeit they both agreed as dear friends. The story is set done at large, by Eusebius a learned father and most famous historiographer. But Victor the Bishop of Rome dealt so furiously in that controversy, that Ireneus and other bishops of Gallia, did sharply reprove him for the same. What need more be said for the variety and uncertainty of traditious: For first, the bishops that thought and taught thus diversly of tradions, did all of them live within 200 years after Christ; at which time the Church was in in good estate, and stained with very few or no corruptions at all. Secondly, the one side doubtless, must needs be seduced with false and unsound traditions: For apostolical doctrine was uniform and constant, and could not possible be contrary to itself. Thirdly, Saint Policarpe, Polycrates, and the other bishops, did in those days make no more reckoning of the bishop of Rome's opinion, than they did of another man's. Fourthly, they all were so far from acknowledging the bishop of Rome, to be the supreme head of the Church, and that he could not err; that they all with uniform assent affirmed him to defend a gross error, and to hold a false opinion; that they all reputed themselves his equals, touching government ecclesiastical: that they all very sharply reproved him, and with might and main withstood his proceedings. Whereas this day, if any bishops, magistrates, or other potentates in the world, (where popery beareth the sway) should do the like; they might all roundly be excommunicated, and not only deposed from their jurisdiction, but also be burnt with fire an faggot for their pains. Fiftly, if Saint Polycarpe had cause in his time, being the flourishing age of the Church, to doubt of romish traditions; much more doubtless have we cause, at this day to stand in doubt thereof; in these doleful days I say, in which iniquity hath gotten the upper hand; in which the bishops of Rome have brought an huge multitude of errors into the Church, and seduced a great part of the Christian world.  
Another controversy touching traditions, 
Ratio secunda. Chrisost. hom. 47. in mat. col. 405.  is for and about the keeping of Lent. For albeit Saint Chrysostome tell us plainly, that Christ did not command us to imitate his fast, but to learn of him to be humble and meek in heart; yet do the papists this day mordicus defend it, to be an apostolical tradition; yea, many of them are so blinded and besotted with unsavoury traditions and superstitious illusions, that they deem it a greater sin to eat flesh in Lent, than to commit adultery, murder, or perjury.  
Of this unwritten tradition, falsely supposed apostolical, 
Euseb. lib. 5. hist. cap. 24.  Eusebius Caesariensis, a famous historigrapher of great antiquity, writeth in this manner. Non solum de die paschae agiter controversia, sed & de ipsa specie ieiunij. Quidam enim putant uno tantum die observari debere ieunium; alij, doubus; alij vero, pluribus; nonnulli etiam, quadraginta. Quae varietas obseruantiae non nunc primum, neque nostris temporibus coepit, sed multò ante nos: ex illis ut opinor, qui non simpliciter quod ab initio traditum est, tenentes, in alium morem, vel per negligentiam, vel per imperitiam, postmodum dicidêre. The controversy is not only touching the day of Easter, but alos concerning the very king or manner of fasting. For some think, they must only fast one day, some two days, others more days; and there be that think, they should fast forty. Which variety of fasting did not now begin first, neither yet in our days, but long before our time; I think by them, who keeping not simply what they received from the beginning, did afterward fall to another manner, either of negligence, or else of ignorance.  
Socrates in like manner reporteth hystorically, that they differed no less in their manner of eating, than they did in their days of abstaining. For some (saith he) would eat no living thing; othersome of living things, ate only fish; 
Histor. tripart. lib. 9 cap. 38.  some together with fish, did eat also birds; but some ate only bread, and others at night ate all kind of meats without difference. Yea, he telleth us in the same place, that the Romans fast three weeks before Easter, besides the Sabbath and the Lords day. And that the Illyrians and Alexandrians do fast six weeks, and yet do they all term their fasts Lent. By which testimonies every man may easily perceive, how doubtful and uncertain unwritten traditions be.  
Thirdly, 
Ratio tertia.  there was another endless controversy concerning traditions, between the Greeks and the Latins; whether the Eucharist ought to be celebrated in leavened or in unleavened bread.  
Fourthly, Irenaeus a very ancient father, affirmeth out of Apostolical tradition; 
Ratio quarta. Irenae. lib. 2. cap. 39  that Christ was forty years old, when he suffered his bitter passion. Papias another father, saith upon the like tradition, that Christ should reign 1000 years after the general resurrection. 
Euseb. lib. 3. cap. ult. Andrad. de trad. lib. 2. p. 126  Basilius another holy father saith, that Zacharias the son of Barachias, slain between the altar and the temple, was father to S. john the baptist. These absurdities the papists are this day ashamed to hold; and yet did these fathers receive them by Apostolical so supposed tradition, as their own famous doctor Andradius granteth willingly.  
Fiftly, popish tradition telleth us, 
Ratio quinta.  that all the bishops of Rome one after another have taught succesively the self-same doctrine with S. Peter. Howbeit their own dear doctor and religious friar Nicholaus de Lyra, avoucheth plainly, roundly, and boldly, to the whole world, that many bishops of Rome have fallen away from the faith, and become flat Apostates. And lest this my narration be thought strange unto many, that our holy fathers the Popes should be Atheists or Apostates, and that their own dear brethren, in high esteem among them, would never so write of them; I will deal plainly in this important point, and after my wont manner set down his own express words. 
Lyranus in cap. 16. mat.  Thus doth he write: Ex quo patet, quod ecclesia non consistit in hominibus ratione potestatis vel dignitatis, ecclesiasticae vel secularis; quia multi principes, et summi pontifices, et alij inscriores, inventi sunt a side apostatasse. Propter quod ecclesia consistit in illis personis, in quibus est notitia vera, et confessio fidei et veritatis. Whereby it is evident, that the Church doth not consist in men by reason of power or dignity, either ecclesiastical or secular; because many princes and Popes, and others of the inferior sort, are found to have been apostates, and to have swerved wholly from faith. For which cause, the Church consisteth in those persons, in whom, there is true knowledge, and confession of the faith and of the truth.  
Thus writeth this learned papist (whom their own so supposed martyr sir Thomas Moor called a great clerk, as he was indeed) whose words are well worthy to be engraven in marble with golden letters. For by his judgement it is clear and evident, that not they who sit in S. Peter's chair, are ever the true and lawful successors of S. Peter, but they only and solely that confess and preach S. Peter's faith and doctrine: as also that their received maxim (ubi Papa, ibi Roma; ubi Roma, ibi ecclesia catholica) is false, vain, and frivolous. We therefore this day impugn nothing in popish proceedings, but the self-same indeed, which famous popish doctors reproved afore our time, and that in their public writings published freely to the whole world. Which thing, whosoever will seriously ponder as myself have done, that man must perforce detest and abhor all popish superstitious trumpery. But of this argument I have discoursed at large in my book of Motives.  
Sixtly, 
Ratio sexta.  popish tradition telleth us, that the blessed virgin Marie, the true mother of true God and true man, was conceived without original sin, and that the bishop of Rome did for that end ordain a festival day of her conception, to be kept upon the eight of December. But by your leave, 
Aquinas p. 3. q. 14. art. 3. ad primum. Bernard. epist. 174. p. 207.  Aquinas their own Angelical Doctor affirmeth resolutely, that she was conceived in original sin. Yea, their other holy doctor and dear friar Bernard doth very sharply reprove the Cathedral Church of Lions, because they observed the feastivitie of the conception of the blessed virgin; and the calleth that their practice, the novelty of presumption, the mother of temerity, the sister of superstition, and the daughtet of levity. That done, he addeth these words: Hoc non est virginem honour are, sed honori detrahere. This is not to give honour to the virgin, 
A. D. 1475.  but to take honour from her. Yet Pope Sixtus the fourth did institute the feast of the conception.  
Seventhly, 
Ratio sept.  popish tradition telleth us, that the emperor Constantine, worthily surnamed the Great, was baptized at Rome in a font, there remaining to this day, myself have seen the same. Howbeit, Hieronymus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoritus, Sozomenus, Cassiodorus, and Pomponius, do all affirm very constantly, that he was baptized at Nichomedia.  
Eightly, 
Ratio octava.  popish tradition hath brought flat idolatry into the Church, teaching to adore them as saints and Gods friends, who were known heretics, and professed enemies to God and his Church. This to be so, their own dear friend, and brother Platina will tell them, when he affirmeth the dead corpse of Hermannus to have been worshipped for a saints relics at Ferrara, 
Platina in vita Bonifacij octavi, vide Martinum so. onum▪ pag. 237. in append.  the space of twenty years together; who for all that was an heretic, as the same Platina avoucheth. Where two special things are to be observed seriously: first, the uncertainty of unwritten traditions: secondly, the danger in giving credit to the same. Now, it remaineth for the better contentation of the reader, to make answer to such objections in defence of popish traditions, as the papists have ever in their mouths, and boast of them, as if they were insoluble.   

The first Objection.  
We do not know, which books of the scripture are canonical, and which are not, but only by the unwritten traditions of the Church: And yet is this a matter of faith, and very necessary unto salvation.  

The answer.  
This is that mighty objection, wherein the papists glory and boast beyond all measure; and say more rashly than wisely, that it can never be truly answered. I therefore shall desire the gentle reader to ponder well my words, and then to judge of the matter, as right reason shall prescribe. My answer is this. First, there is great odds between the primitive Church and the Church of late days. 
Durand. in 3. s. d. 24 quaest. 1.  Which to be so, the famous popish doctor Durandus will contest with me. For the Apostles (as Durand saith wisely) heard Christ's doctrine, saw Christ's miracles, and were replenished with the holy ghost; and consequently, they must needs be fit witnesses of all that Christ did and taught. But these adjuncts cannot be rightly ascribed to the late bishops of Rome and their cursed jesuited brood. Secondly, the old testament was delivered by the jews, and confirmed by Christ and his Apostles; and therefore as the papists admit that tradition, and withal do reject their other manifold unwritten traditions, which the jews in their Talmud affirm to be of Moses; 
Bellarm. tom. 1. col. 187.  even so do we receive this tradition, and reject all unwritten traditions contrary to the same. Thirdly, the books of the new testament are but an exposition of the law and the Prophets; 
Vide Aug. tom. 6. pag. 184.  as I have already proved in the first proposition of this present article: And consequently, it may be discerned and tried by the same; 
Act. 17. v. 11.  as the godly Bereans tried S. Paul's preaching. Fourthly, when we affirm all things necessary for our salvation, to be comprised and contained in the scriptures; we then speak of them, as they are acknowledged and agreed upon, both among the jews for the old Testament, in the which the new is comprehended; and jointly for the old and new, throughout the Christian world. And so this tradition is not excepted, but virtually implied in our affirmation. Fiftly, the scriptures canonical are discerned from not canonical even of themselves, like as light is discerned from darkness, hardness from softness, and sweetness from bitterness. 
Psal. 119. v. 105, 2. Pet. 1. v. 19  Thy word o Lord (saith the Prophet) is a lantern to my feet, and a light unto my paths. We have a right sure word of prophesy (saith S. Peter) whereunto if ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, ye do well, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts. Yet most true it is, that the faithful only can discern it. 
2 Cor. 5. v. 3.  For as the Apostle saith, If Christ's gospel be hid, it is hid in them that perish: in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ should shine unto them. And the same Apostle elsewhere teacheth us, 
1. Cor. 2. v. 15.  that the spiritual man judgeth all things. Which text, two famous papists, Lyranus and Carthusianus do expound, 
1. joh. 2. v. 27.  of things pertaining to our salvation. S. john is consonant to S. Paul, affirming, that the unction which the faithful have received, doth teach them all things. Yea, Christ himself saith, That his sheep do hear his voice. 
joh. 10. 3. ibid. v. 4.  And he addeth, that they follow him, because they know his voice. But doubtless, if Christ's sheep, that is, the faithful and Gods elect people, do know his voice, and therefore do follow him; then by a necessary consequence, they can know Christ speaking to them in the holy scripture, and so can discern holy writ from profane fables or stories, Melchior Canus a famous papist, maketh this case clear; his words are set down in my Golden balance.  
Sixtly, the formal object of our faith is veritas prima, the first verity, 
De divinis nominib. cap. 7.  or God himself, as Dionysius Areopagita. telleth us. Yea, Aquinas that famous papist surnamed their angelical doctor, teacheth the self same doctrine. Non enim fides inquit, divina alicui assentitur, nisi quia est à Deo revelatum. 
Aquinas, 2. 2. q. 1. art. 1. 0.  For divine faith (saith Aquinas) will not yield assent to any thing, unless it be revealed of God. Which truth of doctrine, Saint Austen confirmeth in these golden words; 
Augustin. in epist. joannis, tract. 3. tom. 9 col. 408.  jam hic videte magnum sacramentum fratres, sonus verborum nostrorum aures percutit, magister intus est. Nolite putare quenquam hominem aliquid discere ab homine. Ad monere possumus per strepitum vocis nostra: si non sit intus qui doceat, inanis fit strepitus noster. Quam multi hine indocti exituri sunt? quantum ad 〈◊〉 pertinet, omnibus locutus sum, sed quibus unctio illa intus non loquitur, quos spiritus sanstus intus non docet, indocti redeunt. Magisteria forinsecus adiutoria quaedam sunt & admonitiones, Cathedram in coelo habet qui corda docet. Sequitur; interior Magister est qui docet, Christus docet, inspiratio ipsius docet. Vbi illius inspiratio & illius unctio non est, forinsecus inanit●r perstrepunt verba. Now brethren, behold here a great sacrament; the sound of our words pierceth your ears, but the master that teacheth you is within. Think not, that man learneth any thing of man: we (preachers) may admonish by the sound of words; but if he be not within that teacheth, in vain is our sound; how many will go hence untaught? For mine own part, I have spoken to all; but to whom that unction speaketh not inwardly, whom the holy Ghost teacheth not within, they go home untaught, as they came. The outward teachings are some helps and admonitions; but he sitteth in his chair in heaven, that teacheth the heart, The master is within that teacheth, it is Christ that teacheth, it is his inspiration that instructeth. Where his inspiration and his unction is not, there the outward noise of words is in vain: Thus writeth this ancient and learned father, with many more words to the like effect. By whose doctrine we may learn sufficiently, if nothing else were said: that howsoever men teach, how soever Paul plant, or Apollo water, yet will no increase follow, unless God give the same. I therefore conclude, that we do not believe this book or that book to be canonical, because this man or that man, or the Church saith so; but that the scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that it hath in itself that dignity, which is worthy to have credit; that the declaration of the Church, doth not make us believe the scripture, but is only an outward help to bring us thereunto; and that we therefore indeed believe the scripture, and this or that book to be canonical, because God doth inwardly teach us and persuade our hearts so to believe. For certes if we should believe, that this or that book is canonical scripture, because the Church saith so; then should the formal object of our faith, and the ultimate term into which our faith is resolved, be man, and not prima veritas, or God himself, as Areopagita and Aquinas teach us. And it will not help the papists to reply out of Saint Augustine, That he would not have believed the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church had moved him thereunto. For S. Austin's words are these; 
August. contra epistol. Manich. tom. 6. cap. 5. pag. 79.  Nisi authoritas ecclesiae me commoveret. I would not have believed the Gospel, if the authority of the Church had not jointly moved me thereunto. For we must note, that there is a great difference between movere and commovere. Movere is to move absolutely, and a part by itself; but commovere is to move respectively and together with another thing. So Saint Austin's meaning is nothing else indeed but that the authority of the Church did outwardly concur with the inward motion of the holy Ghost, to bring him to the faith of the Gospel. Now, Saint Austin's meaning is this and and none other; viz. that he maketh much more account of the universal Church, than of Manichaeus and his complices; because the Church did first move him to hear the Gospel preached, and to give some credit to the same. I say (some credit) because the Church's authority did only move him to believe the Gospel, fide humana, non fide divina: with human faith, not with faith divine. For this divine faith, with which we Christians do believe the Gospel, proceedeth not from the outward teaching of man, but from the inward instruction of the holy Ghost, as I have out of the same Austen already proved. Yea, the self same father declareth in the same chapter, that he speaketh of himself as being a Manichee, not as being a Christian. What (faith Saint Austen) wouldst thou say to him, that should answer thee, I do not believe it, but for the authority of the Church? And this sense is confirmed, because S. Austen confesseth in the very same chapter, that the authority of the Gospel is above the authority of the Church. 
Cap. 5. cont. epist. fundam.  And in the chapter aforegoing, after he hath told us what kept him in the catholic Church, and there hath reckoned up the consent of peoples and nations; authority begun with miracles, nourished with hope, increased with charity, established with antiquity: succession of priests from Saint Peter's seat, and the name of Catholic; he addeth, that though these things be great motives to keep him in the unity of the Church, yet must the truth of the scriptures be preferred before them all. In regard whereof, he promiseth to give more credit to Manichaeus than to the Church, and to yield unto his doctrine, if he shallbe able to prove it out of the scripture: In the mean while he must give him leave to prefer the credit of the catholic Church before his bare words, especially, seeing the Church, but not Manichaeus, was the outward means and external help, that brought him to the faith of the Gospel.    

The second Objection.  
The baptism of infants is a matter of faith, but not contained in the holy scriptures, ergo not all things necessary for man's salvation are therein to be found.  

The Answer.  
I answer, that it is contained in the scriptures, and I prove it by sundry reasons. The first argument is drawn from the covenant. For infants being within the covenant, ought not to be debarred from the sign and seal thereof. 
Gen. 17. v. 7.  I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. 
Gen. 15.  Again, you are the children of the Prophets, and of the covenant which God made to our fathers, 
Gen. 22.  saying to Abraham, even in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 
Act. 3. v. 25.  Again, repent, and be every one of you baptised in the name of jesus Christ, 
Act. 2. v. 38, 39  for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. For the promise was made to you, and to your children, and to all that are a far off, even so many as the Lord our God shall call. 
Rom. 11. v. 16.  Again, if the first fruits be holy, the whole lump also is holy: And if the root be holy, the boughs also. 
Matt. 19 v. 14.  Again, suffer the young children, and stay them not from coming unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven And where Saint Matthew hath little children, 
Luke 18. v. 17.  than S. Luke hath, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; infants, which can neither understand, 
1. Cor. 7. v. 14.  nor come. Again, your children are holy young children therefore must be baptized.  
The second argument is drawn from the analogy of the figure of the old testament. For circumcision to which baptism succeeded, 
Coloss 2. v. 11.  did pertain to both ages, as well to young as to old. In whom also ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh subject to sin, by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, in whom ye are also risen again through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him up from the dead. Thus saith Saint Paul: by whose words we may learn sufficiently, that baptism did succeed to circumcision, for the same end, use, and purpose: viz. that by it we may, putting off the body of sinful flesh, be buried together with Christ, and rise again with him through faith.  
The third argument is drawn, from the practice of the Church. 
Mat. 28. v. 19  For the Apostles of our Lord jesus were commanded to baptize all sorts of people without exception. Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy Ghost. Again, we read in the history Apostolical, that the whole house of Lydia was baptized, 
Act. 16. v. 15.  neither young nor old being excepted. 
Act. 16. v. 33.  Again, we may find in the acts, that the keeper of the prison at Philippos was baptized, & all they of his household incontinent. 
1. Cor. 1. v. 16.  Again in another place, we may read, that the whole family of Stepha●●s was baptized, not one at all exempted.   

The Objection.  
Infants have no faith, ergo they may not be baptized.   

The Answer.  
I deny the antecedent, because their faith and profession is this; to be borne of the faithful, in the unity of the Catholic Church. Again though they have not actual faith, 
Mar. 9 v. 42.  yet have they faith fundamentallie, and by inclination. In which sense our Lord jesus doth reckon them among the faithful, when he saith in this manner; Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. Infant's therefore, when they are baptised in the Church for faithful, are then deemed to believe after their manner. Who, albeit they have not faith in act, yet have they the spirit, and virtue, or foundation of faith, by God's operation in them. Neither ought this thing to seem strange unto us. For, if the infants of the wicked ones have infidelity and impiety, though not in act yet in inclination by nature, as writers grant; then truly may it be said, that the infants of the faithful have faith and piety, though not in act, yet in inclination by grace. For grace cannot be of less force through Christ, than nature through the fall of Adam. for God saith plainly; 
Gen. 17. v. 7.  I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee.    

The third Objection.  
We believe the trinity of persons in unity of substance, but this is not in the scripture, Ergo.  

The answer.  
I deny the assumption; for the trinity of persons is plainly avouched in the holy Gospel, where it is thus written; 
joh. 14. v. 26.  But the comforter which is the holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things. Thus saith our Lord jesus. In which words, we see mention made of three distinct persons; first, of the Father, which sendeth; secondly, of the holy Ghost, which is sent; thirdly, of the Son, in whose name he is sent. 
1. joh. 5. v. 7.  Again in another place it is thus written; There are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one Item Matth. 28. verse 19    

The fourth Objection.  
It is not to be found in the holy scripture, that Christ is consubstantial, and of the same substance which the Father. Ergo.  

The Answer.  
The antecedent is false. 
Zachar. cap. 13. v. 7.  For first, in the prophesy of Zacharias I find these words; arise O sword, upon my shepherd, and upon the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts. 
Esa. 9 6.  Secondly, in many places of the new testament. 
Joh. 10. 30.  First, in these words; I and my Father are one. Secondly, 
joh. 10. 38.  in these words; If ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, 
Phillip. 2. 6.  and I in him. Thirdly, in these words; Who being in the form of God, 
Heb. 1. 3.  thought it no robbery to be equal with God. 
Io. 1. 2.  Fourthly, 
Mat. 1. 21. & v. 23.  in these words; She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins. For this respect saith holy Athanasius, 
Athanas. de decret. Nic. synod. tom. 2.  that albeit the words be not expressed in the scriptures, yet have they that meaning which holy writ approveth, Answer o papists, if ye can; if not, repent for shame, and yield unto the truth.     

The eight Article. Of the impossibility of keeping Gods commandments, in popish sense.  
TOuching this article, the reader must seriously observe with me this adjunct, (in popish sense) because it is both emphatical and of great moment. For I will not affirm simply and absolutely, that God's children can not keep his commandments in a godly sense and Christian meaning; but this I constantly deny, and at this present intent in God to prove the same effectually against all jesuits and jesuited papists, That none have kept, do keep, or can keep God's commandments in popish sense and meaning. viz. that none are so pure, holy, and free from sin, that they can stand with God in judgement, and challenge eternal life, as of debt due unto them for their holy life. Mark well gentle reader, my discourse; for I hope in God to hit the nail on the head, and to set down that which will be as heavy to the papists heart, as a piece of lead.  
The Apostle telleth us in plain and very express words, That the best livers upon earth are sinners. In multis enim offendimus omnes. For we all offend in many things. But certes, 
jacob. 3. v. 2.  if it be true, as it is most true indeed, (for S. james being inspired with the holy Ghost cannot lie) That the holy Apostles committed many sins; then doubtless it is not in every one's power, to keep God's commandments; neither will it help the papists to distinguish after their wont manner, of mortal and venial sins. For, beside that I have proved already in the sixth Article, that every sin is mortal in it own proper nature; both the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth the transgression of the law; and also the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth a declining from the right way, do evidently convince the same. For it can never be truly said; that he performeth and keepeth the law, which transgresseth the law or swerveth from the same. It is the truth which S. Paul allegeth out of the law; 
Gal. 3. v. 10.  Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them. It is also the truth, which S. james saith; 
lac. 2. v. 10.  That whosoever keepeth the whole law, and yet faileth in one point, is become guilty of all. To which may be added innumerable texts, both of the old and new testament, that the best livers upon earth do sin, and transgress Gods commandments. Holy Moses telleth us in the first book of his Pentatench, That when God saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, 
Gen. 6. v. 5.  & that all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart were only evil continually, than it repented God that he had made man on the earth. job telleth us, That God found no steadfastness in his Saints; 
job. 15. v. 15. & 35. 5.  yea, he saith farther, That the heavens are not clean in his sight. And he addeth these words; How much more is man abominable and filthy, which drinketh iniquity like water. The kingly Prophet saith, that in God's sight, none that liveth can be justified. 
Psal, 143. v. 2.  Wise Solomon saith, that no man living is able truly to say, 
Prou. 20. v. 9  he is clean from sin. The same wise man saith in like manner, that the just man sinneth many times. 
Prou. 24. 16.  Esay saith, that all our righteousness is as filthy clouts. 
Esa. 64. 6  Esdras saith, he was ashamed for his own sins, 
Esdr. 9 6.  and for the sins of the people, because their trespass was grown up unto heaven. 
Rom. 3. v. 9 10. 12. 19 23.  Saint Paul showeth at large, that all men are sinners, and that no man is able to be justified by his works. All saith he, both jews and Gentiles are under sin. There is none righteous, no not one: they have all gone out of the way; they have all been made altogether unprofitable: there is none that doth good, no not one. Now we know, that whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them which are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be subject to the judgement of God. There is no difference, for all have sinned, and are deprived of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ jesus. Again in another place, he hath these words: 
Rom. 10. v. 3.  For they being ignorant of the righteousness of God, & going about to 'stablish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the rightness of God: the case is clear and evident. For as the Prophet saith, 
Psal. 130. v. 3. 4.  If God should mark our iniquities, and reward us after our deeds, none of us were able to endure it.  
Now, let us hear S. Austin's grave sentence, concerning this controversy. 
August. de doctrina Christ. lib. 1. ca 22. to. 3.  Diliges inquit, proximum tuum sicut teipsum: Deum vero ex toto cord, & ex tota anima; & ex tota mente, ut omnes cogitationes tuas, & omnem vitam, & omnem intellectum in illum conferas, à quo habes ea ipsa quae confers. Cum autem ait, toto cord, tota anima, tota mente, nullam vitae nostrae partem reliquit, quae vacare debeat, & quasi locum dare, ut alia ve velit frui. Thou shalt love thy neighbour, saith he, as thyself; but God with thy whole heart, with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind; that thou mayst confer upon him all thy thoughts, and all thy life, & all thine understanding, of whom thou hast received the self same which thou dost confer or give. But when he saith, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, he hath left no part of our life which may be vacant, and as it were give place, to have fruition of any other thing.  
The same Saint Austen saith again in another place; That this commandment of loving God with all our heart, cannot be perfecty fulfilled of any man in this life: These are his words; 
August. de perfect justit. ratioc. 16. col. 969. tom. 7.  In quae plenitudinc charitatis praeceptum illud implebitur: Diliges dominum Deum tuum ex toto cord tuo, & ex tota anima tua, & ex tota mente tua. Nam cum est adhuc aliquid carnalis concupiscentiae, quod vel continendo froenetur, non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus. Non enim caro sine anima concupiscit, quamuis caro concupiscere dicatur, quia carn aliter anima concupiscit. Tunc erit justus sine ullo omnino peccato, quia nulla lex erit in membris eius repugnans legi mentis eius, sed prorsus toto cord, tota anima, tota mente diligit Deum, quod est primum summumque praeceptum. Cur ergo non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio, quamuis came in hac vita nemo habeat? Non enim rectè curritur, si quo currendum est nesciatur. In which fullness of charity that commandment shall be fulfilled. Thou shalt love thy Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. For whiles any part of carnal concupiscence is remaining, which may be suppressed by containing, God so long is not in every respect loved with all the soul. For the flesh coveteth not without the soul, albeit the flesh be said to covet, because the soul coveteth carnally. Then shall the just be without any sin at all, because there shall be no law in his members rebelling against the law of his mind, but he shall love God wholly with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind, which is the first & chiefest commandment. Why therefore should not this perfection be commanded unto man, although no man can have it in this life? For they cannot run aright, who know not whither they should run.  
Out of these words of this holy father, and great learned writer, I gather these worthy lessons: First, that by God's holy commandment all men are bound to love God, with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all their mind: Secondly, that whosoever suffereth any part of his life to be vacant, and to have fruition of any other thing, cannot fulfil this precept of loving God: Thirdly, that this precept of love, cannot be perfectly kept in this life: Fourthly, that original concupiscence remaining in the regenerate, is the hindrance and breach of this commandment. Fiftly: that this perfection of love is lawfully commanded, albeit none living doth or can attain unto it. And consequently, that it is not possible to any pure mortal man, perfectly to keep God's commandments.  
Aquinas the Pope's great doctor and canonized saint, granteth freely and affirmeth constantly, That the precept of loving God with the whole heart, cannot be kept perfectly in this life. These are his own express words: Respondeo, 
Aquinat. 22. q. 44. art. 6. in corp.  quod praceptum aliquod dupliciter potest impleri. uno modo perfectè, alio modo imperfectè. Sequitur; intendit Deus per hoc praeceptum, ut homo Deo totaliter uniatur: quod fiet in patria, quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus, ut dicitur, 1. Cor. 15. & ideo plenè & perfectè in patria implebitur hoc praeceptum: In via autem impletur, sed imperfectè. I answer, that the precept may be fulfilled two ways; one way perfectly, another many unperfectly. God intendeth by this precept, to have man wholly united to himself; which shall be effected in heaven, when God shall be all in all. And therefore this precept shall be fulfilled perfectly and fully in the country, but in the way it is fulfilled unperfectly. (That is to say, perfectly in heaven, which is called our country; and unperfectly on earth, which is termed the way.)  
Out of these golden words of the famous schooledoctour Aquinas, (whose doctrine two Popes have authorized for authentical) I observe these points of great importance. First, that God by commanding all men to love him with their whole hearts, did intend to unite all men wholly unto himself; so as no part of their love should be left vacant, to be bestowed otherwise. Secondly, that this precept of loving God as we are bound, can be kept perfectly in heaven only. Thirdly, that it is not impossible in this life, to keep God's commandments in a godly sense and meaning; because we may keep them in some sort and measure, though not in that high and perfect degree which the law requireth at our hands. For our great popish doctor (mark well his words) saith plainly and constantly; In via impletur preceptum, sed imperfectè. The precept is fulfilled in the way, (or in this life) but unperfecty. So that, when the papists triumphing before the victory, cry out against us with open mouths, That we charge God with impiety, affirming him to have commanded to man things impossible: they may as well and with as much right and reason, exclaim against their own dear doctor Aquinas, and consequently against their own holy fathers the Popes, 
August. Hunnaeus in epist. ad Pium 5.  Vrbanus the fourth, and Innocentus the fifth; who have commanded and strictly charged to receive his doctrine as sent from heaven, concerning both faith and manners. For myself do here teach the self some doctrine with Aquinas, as his own express words very flatly purport. For my wont manner is, to confute popery by the testimonies of best approved popish writers.  
Bernardus the Pope's dear monk and reverend Abbot, jumpeth with Aquinas in these express words; 
Berner. in cant. serm. 50. tom. 1. col. 931.  Quomodo ergo iubenda fuit, quae implenda nullo modo erat? Aut si placet tibi magis de affestuali datum fuisse mandatum, non inde contendo, dummodo aquiescas & tu mihi, quod minimè in vita ista ab aliquo hominum possit, vel poterit ad impleri. Quis enim sibi arrogare id audeat, quod Paulus ipse fatetur non comprehendisse? nec latuit preceptorem, precepti pondus hominum excedere vires: sed iudicavit utile ex hoc ipso suae illos insufficientiae admoncri, & ut scirent sanè, ad quem justitiae finem niti pro viribus oporteret. Ergo mandando impossibilia, non prevaricatores homines fecit, sed humiles, ut omne os obstruatur, & subditus fiat omnis mundus Deo: quia ex operibus legis, non iustificabitur omnis caro coram illo. Accipientes quip mandatum, & sentientes defectum, clamabimus in coelum, & miserebitur nostri Deus; & sciemus in illa die, quiae non ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos, sed ecundum suam misericordiam saluos not fecit. How then was it commanded, which by no means could be performed? or if thou rather think, that the commandment was given of affectual charity, I will not contend with thee therein; so thou also wilt yield unto me herein, That no man in this life is able to keep and perform the same. For who dareth to challenge that to himself, which Paul confesseth he could never attain unto? neither for all that was the commander ignorant, that the weight of the commandment did surpass the power and reach of man; but he deemed it a thing profitable for them, that hereby they should be admonished of their insufficiency, and might know to what end of righteousness they ought with their best endeavours to apply themselves. Therefore by commanding things impossible, he made not men prevaricatours, but humble; that every mouth might be stopped, and all the world made subject unto God; because by the works of the law, no flesh can be justified in his sight. But after that we have received the commandment, and thereby perceive our own want, we must cry up to heaven, and God will have mercy on us; and then shall we know, that he hath saved us, not for the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his own (free) mercy. Thus writeth their own dear Abbot Bernardus: out of whose words, I observe many excellent documents. First, that God hath given us those commandments, which we cannot possibly keep and perform. Secondly, that God knew right well, that it is not in our power to keep his laws. Thirdly, that God commanded to us impossible things, that we might thereby acknowledge our own insufficiency, & wholly rely upon his favour, help, & mercy. Fourthly, that we might hereby know, that our salvation proceedeth of mercy, and not of the works of righteousness which we have done, and wherein the papists seek merit and justification. So then, the doctrine which I now teach, is not my doctrine only, but the flat doctrnie of Saint Austen; yea, and the self same doctrine which the best learned papists have taught before me.  
That it is not possible for man, to keep God's commandments perfectly in this life; no other proof is needful, save only the Lords Prayer. For in it, the best liver upon earth is taught, to ask forgiveness and pardon for his sins: and doubtless where pardon must be demanded, there the law is not exactly observed. The usual practice of all papists, 
Nota, quod ne veniale quidem peccaium potest in deum referri. Ergo avertit a fine ultimo. Ergo est peccatum mortale.  is consectary hereunto. For in their ordinary and daily masses, as also in their quotidian auricular confessions, they confess three several times their most grievous sins, in these words; Mea culpa, mea culpa, me a maxima culpa. In which public daily confession, they must either confess, that they deal hypocritically, dissemble damnably, and mock God most irreligiously; or else doubtless, that they cannot keep Gods commandments, as they bear the world in hand they do. Now it remaineth, that I answer to some popish objections, which the papists deem and repute insoluble.  

The first Objection.  
The young man told Christ, 
Mat. 29. v. 20.  that he had kept all the commandments, from his youth up. Whom Christ reproved not, as though he had not kept them indeed, but exhorted him to perfection, in selling all his possessions.  

The Answer.  
I Answer both with Saint Austen and Saint Hierome, That the young man answered untruely, when he said, he had kept all the commandments. Saint Austen hath these words; 
August. epist. 89. col. 264.  Ille quidem tristis, abscessit, qui viderit quemadmodum illa legis mandata seruaverat. Puto enim quod se arrogantius quam verius, seruasse responderat. He went away sorrowful, who knew how he had kept the commandments of the low. For I think, he answered more arrogantly then truly, that he had kept them. Saint Hierome saith plainly and roundly, Mentitur, He lieth. And the circumstance of the texts going afore and following, do purport no less unto us.    

The second Objection.  
Saint Paul saith, 
Rom. 2. v. 13.  For note the hearers of the law are just with God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.  

The Answer.  
Saint Paul meaneth nothing less in these words, than that a man in God's sight can be justified his works: But he goeth about to conclude all under sin, and so to have need of the glory of God; because none is able to perform and keep the law. For his whole scope and intent is this; to prove that the jews did in vain boast against the Gentiles that they had the law, seeing they did not keep the same. As if he had said; if ye will be justified by the law, ye must perform and keep the law, which ye do not. for not the hearers of the law, but the doers are just in God's sight. I willingly grant, and will it not deny; that if any of you papists can perfectly observe and keep the law, the same papist shall be justified by the merit of his works: but if any such papist could be found, (which I am sure is impossible) yet should that papist hear what Saint Paul saith of holy Abraham. For saith he, if Abraham were justified by works, 
Rom. 4. v. 2.  he hath glory, (or whererein to boast) but not before God.    

The third Objection.  
If thou wilt enter into life, 
Mat. 19 v. 17.  keep the commandments.  

The answer.  
Our Saviour Christ doth not show in this place, how men do attain unto eternal life; but he showeth what perfect observation of God's law is required of them, who look to be justified by the works of the law. This my answer is cleared, by the question proposed unto Christ, which was this; What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Christ answered; If thou wilt have eternal life by doing good works, then must thou keep God's commandments. 
Vide B. in. 3. cap. ad gall.  But this is impossible, as is already proved.    

The fourth Objection.  
Christ saith, 
Mat. 11. v. 30.  My yoke is easy, and my burden is light. 
1. john. 5. v. 3.  And Saint john saith, his commandments are not heavy.  

The Answer.  
The law of God is impossible to be kept in such perfection, 
Non lequitur hic de iugo & onere legit, sed Euangeli●.  as the same requireth at our hands, as I have already proved. Nevertheless, the yoke of Christ is sweet, and his burden light, to all them which believe in him. 
Act. 15. 10, 11.  For (as Saint Peter saith) The yoke of the law is such a burden, as neither we, nor our fathers were able to bear: but we believe to be saved by the grace of our Lord jesus. 
Gal. 3. 13.  Christ hath taken away the curse of the law: 
Rom. 8. 3.  Christ hath satisfied for our transgressions of the law: 
Col. 2. 14.  Christ sent by God in the similitude of sinful flesh, blotted out the hand writing that was against us, and nailed it upon the cross. There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ jesus. 
Rom. 8. 1.  Christ is our justification, our sanctification, and our redemption. By faith in Christ, we do overcome the world. 
1. Cor. 1. 30.  Christ is so merciful, 
1. joh. 5. 4.  that he refresheth all those which come unto him. 
Mat. 11. v. 28.  This being so, we may truly say, that in Christ we fulfil the law: because he is our righteousness, our sanctification, and our redemption; because he hath overcome death; because he hath clothed us with his righteousness; 
Col. 2. 14.  because he hath covered our nakedness with his garments; 
1. Joh. 5. 4.  because in him we have gotten the victory, 
Act. 15. 11.  over hell, death, and damnation.  
This is it that Saint Austen saith, 
August. libr. 1. retract. cap. 19  in these golden words; Omnia ergo mandata tunc facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoseitur. All the commandments are then reputed as done, when whatsoever is not done, is (of mercy) forgiven.    

The first Objection.  
Saint Hierome saith, 
Hieron. cont. ●●●lag. lib. 3. & 4.  He is to be detested as a blasphemer, that affirmeth God to have commanded any impossible thing. 
August. serm. 6. de temp tom. 10.  And Saint Austen saith, God can neither command things impossible, because he is just, neither condemn a man for that which he could not avoid, because he is merciful.  

The Answer.  
I answer first, that he is to be detested as a blasphemer, that affirmeth God to have commanded any thing unto man, which was either impossible in itself to be done, or to be done of man as man. I say (impossible in itself) because otherwise, Christ himself could not have fulfilled the law: which to hold, is flat blasphemy against the Son of God. I say (impossible to be done of man, as man;) because otherwise, the Protoplast Adam could not have kept the law: which to hold, is most absurd, and against all learning and learned men.  
Secondly, that he is to be detested as a blasphemer, whosoever affirmeth, that any man in particular being a true believer, cannot keep and fulfil God's commandments; in him, of whose fullness we have all received, 
joh. 1. 16.  and whose righteousness is ours, by his free gift and grace. 
1. Cor. 1. 30.   
Thirdly, that God's commandments may in some measure (that is to say, imperfectly) be kept even in this life, of all the regenerate. And this not my answer, but even that answer which the famous papist Aquinas maketh, 
Aquinas, 22. q. 44. art. 6. ad prim.  to the objection out of Saint Hierome: whose answer is very sufficient to stop the mouths of all papists, seeing his testimony is to them as if it were an oracle from Heaven. To Saint Austen the same answer is very consonant, as both by the precedent and subsequent words will appear. And if there be any papists, 
Omittatur haec clausula, meo judicio.  whose appetites this answer cannot satisfy: of those papist I would demand this one thing, 
This is a Dilemma which no papists can avoid.  Why infants not baptized before their death, are justly damned for original sin, seeing they could not possibly avoid the same?  
He that would know Saint Austin's meaning more fully, both touching this objection and others of like quality, may read the same holy Father in his book De Corrept. & gratia; and therein find much excellent matter for his contention in that behalf. 
August. de correp. & great. cap. 12. & 13. tom. 7.  Answer o papists, if ye can; if not, repent for shame, and yield unto the truth.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.