A PROBLEM, PROPOUNDED by Francis Dillingham, in which is plainly showed, that the holy scriptures have met with Popish Arguments and opinions.  john 5.39. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think to have eternal life. 
LONDON, Imprinted by WILLIAM JONES, and are to be sold by ED. WEAVER.   

TO THE MOST REverend Father in God, George by the Divine providence, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate and Metropolitan of England, and one of his majesties most Honourable privy Council, Grace and peace.  
THE Apostolical times, from the Apostolical doctrine (Most Reverend) have incited me to write this Problem. It may seem strange to some, that future heresies should be thus prevented: but howsoever it seem strange to some, it is not strange to the enlightened and sanctified: for first, he that knew what was to come, indited the holy scriptures: he I say that knoweth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Quae sunt, et erunt, quaeque ante fuere.  
Secondly in those times in which the holy Scriptures were written, there were the same wits, the same corruption, the same enemy of mankind, namely the devil, which are in our times: therefore no marvel, if there be the same opinions, The heathen philosopher said that the same opinions in philosophy were renewed and so it is in divinity. the Anabaptists have renewed the opinions of the Enthusiastes. the Libertines defend Pelagius his opinions. and have not the Vbiquitaryes also brought Eutyches his opinion again upon the stage? Cut off Hydra's heads, and more will springe up. I will not answer this point in any more words. It remaineth then that I crave pardon, for that I have troubled your Grace with so small a Treatise: but your Lordship knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If therefore Been be in this book, and Well be in this work, it is certain that much is in the same. But this I leave to your Grace to judge of, as I do also to the Church of God. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. The Lord of Lords multiply his graces upon you to the good of his Church, and your everlasting Salvation.  
Your Graces in all duty: FRANCIS DILLINGHAM.   

A Problem propounded by Francis Dillingham, in which is plainly showed, that the holy Scriptures have met with popish arguments and opinions.  

Of reading the holy Scriptures.  
THe papists will not have the lay people, to read the Scriptures, because they may take hurt by reading of them. Bellarmine lib 2. de verbo dei cap. 15. the words of Bellarmine are these, quid quod populus non solum non caperet fructum ex scriptures, sed etiam caperet detrimentum, acciperet enim facillime occasionem errandi, tum in doctrina fidei, tum in praeceptis morum. The people not only receive no good out of the Scriptures, but hurt, for they would easily take an occasion to err, both in the doctrine of faith as well as in the doctrine of manners. Let us see how the Scriptures meet with this sottish objection. Revel: chap: 22. v. 10. And he said unto me, seal not the words of this prophesy, for the time is at hand. Now some men might say, the unjust will abuse this prophesy S. john answereth, he that is unjust let him be unjust still, and he that is filthy let him be filthy still. Hence it is plain that the cavil of Papists is met withal, who thus dispute, they which will abuse the scripture must not read the same, the lay people will abuse the scripture, ergo they must not read the same. S. john answereth by a distinction, some will abuse it some will not. He that is filthy, let him be filthy, he that is holy, let him be holy still. But I desire to know of the Papist, if the learned also will not abuse the scripture, it cannot be denied, it is but bad arguing from the abuse of a thing to take away the lawful use of the same. Many abuse meat and drink to surfeiting & drunkenness, yea the Sun and Moon to Idolatry, must these things therefore be taken away? Images are abused to Idolatry, yet will not the Papists take them away, which is a shameful thing. Nocturne vigils, were abused, being but the devise of men. therefore they were taken away: I wish the Papists would do so with Images, which are men's inventions, and not take away the reading of the Scriptures which is God's ordinance.   

A second objection answered.  
A Second objection against reading of the Scriptures is taken from the darkness and obscurity of the same: thus do the Papists argue. The Scriptures are obscure, therefore the lay people ought not to read them. This argument is answered by the Apostle, 2. Cor: 4. chap: 3. v. If our gospel be then hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds, that is of the infidels, that the light of the glorious Gospel, should not shine unto them. Thus standeth the objection. Many hear the gospel, yet are they not enlightened thereby, therefore the doctrine is not so clear as thou Paul makest it. Paul answereth the fault is not in the Gospel, but in men themselves & the Devil who blindeth their minds. Excellently writeth Picus Mirandula, Scriptura affibilitate parvos nutrit, altitudine superbos irridet, profunditate attentes terret, veritate magnos pascit, the Scripture doth nourish those that are small, by affability, it scorneth the proud by the loftiness, by the depth it terrifieth those that are atteent, and by truth it feedeth great ones.   

Of prayer in an unknown tongue.  
THe Papists teach and practise prayer in an unknown tongue. The Apostle hath prevented this error, 1. Cor. 14. chap. v. 15. what is it then, I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing with the understanding also. The objection answered is this. Is it not therefore lawful to pray with the spirit. S. Paul answereth it is lawful if it be understood. Now by spirit as every man knoweth, is meant a strange tongue which the spirit did indite, So then, the Apostle hath plainly prevented the cavil for praying in a strange and unknown tongue; directly affirming that men must not so pray except they understand the tongue.   

Of works of Congruity, that is, deserving of Congruity.  
HO, every one that thirsteth saith Esa. 55. v. 1. come ye to the waters, and ye that have no silver, come buy and eat: come I say buy wine and milk without silver and without money.  
All that are a thirst are here called to the waters, that is to God's graces. Now they might say we have no merits or deserts, ye that have no silver (saith the Lord) come buy and eat, I say buy wine & milk without silver and without money. Touching this text thus writeth Bellarmine lib. 5. de insti. ca 5. Wine & milk signify not everlasting glory, but, the grace of this life: we do confess, that the grace of God is not gotten by our merits, but freely given, although not without our work and labour, for to come and to buy, note our labour, without money and without change, note that reconciliation is not due but flatly free, O Bellarmine why then dost thou teach merits of congruity lib. 1. cap. 21. I end this point with the Lords speech Esai 43. v. 25. I, even I am he that putteth away thine iniquities for my own sake, and will not remember thy sins.   

Of meriting Heaven.  
They Papists teach, that a man by his good works may deserve heaven, behold how the Scripture hath anticipated this ungodly opinion psalm 130. thus doth the servant of God pray, Lord hear my voice, let thine ears attend to the voice of my prayers, the Lord might say unto him, thou art not worthy to be heard, it is true saith he, for if thou O Lord straightly markest iniquities, who shall stand, but mercy is with thee that thou mightest be feared, to proceed, thus likewise doth David pray psal. 143. Hear my prayer O Lord, and hearken unto my supplication, answer me in thy truth and righteousness. The Lord might say unto him thou hast no merits, nor deserts, it is true saith he therefore I pray, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man that liveth be justified. Hear some may say, if good works deserve not heaven, what is the use of them, the scripture is plain for the use of them, 2. Ephe: 10. v. For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Now the Ephesians might have said, we acknowledge thus much, but do not our works coming from grace deserve? No saith the Apostle, not of works lest any man should boast himself, what is then the use of good works? it followeth, for we are his workmanship created in Christ jesus unto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them. To this suiteth the speech of Barnard, Opera sunt via regni, non causa regnandi, Good works are the way to the kingdom of heaven, not the cause. S. Peter also excellently setteth out the use of good works, 2. Pet. 1. v. 10. In these words, Wherefore brethren give rather diligence to make your calling & election sure; for if these things be in you, you shall never fall: for by this means an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly, into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord jesus Christ. And christian reader, what need the Papists plead for merits, seeing Bellarmine writeth thus, lib. 5. de justi. ca 14. Ius habemus, We have right to an everlasting inheritance, before we begin to do good works? further, Infants baptized, by that grace alone before all good works are saved, and therefore Christ hath merited for us the inheritance, seeing he hath merited for us the grace of regeneration & adoption. And again in the 17. chap. Infants merit, not by the merits of works, but by the merits of the person. Now what are infants merits but God's mercies, as Barnard saith, Meritum meum miseratio Domini, My merits are the Lords mercies? I conclude this therefore with the saying of S. Barnard, 68 serm. in cant. Nam et de meritis ecclesia quid sit sollicita, cui de proposito Dei, firmior suppetit securiorque gloriandi ratio, why should the Church be careful touching merits and deserts, seeing it hath a more firm and sure matter to boast of, to wit the purpose of God?   

Of fulfilling Gods commandments.  
THe Papists teach, that a man regenerate may fulfil God's commandments: the Apostle taketh it for granted, that no man can do so. Gal. 3. v. 10. For as many as are of the deeds of the law are under the curse, for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. In which words the Apostle doth thus reason, They which cannot fulfil the law are under the curse: but no man can fulfil the law, ergo by the sentence of the law every man is under the curse: If this be not the Apostles Assumption, the Galathians might have answered Paul, that they could fulfil the law, and so cut the sinews of the Apostles reason. To this argument Bellarmine in his 4. book of iustifis. & chap. 14. answereth, that this is the Apostles Assumption: No man by his own strength without faith and grace can keep the whole law: but alas, in the 2. chap. and last verse, thus doth the Apostle reason, If righteousness be by the law, than Christ died without a cause. Now if the Galathians clean justled out Christ from justification, than it had been no absurdity for them to have said, Christ died in vain, for by nature we can do these things which the law requireth. Again, who knoweth not that the Galathians were Christians? chap. 6. v. 1. and chap. 3. v. 3. therefore would they utterly exclude Christ from justification? It is impossible to believe. In the same place, it is worthy to be marked, that this text being objected, In many things we offend all. Bellarmine confesseth that Vega and those that hold venial sins to be against the law, cannot answer this argument: therefore he saith, that venial sins are not against the law, but besides the law. But I would know whether venial sins be sins or no.  

Sin is every breach of the law.  
Venial sin is sin.  
Ergo It is a breach of the law.   
Bellarmine himself in his first book of the loss of grace chap. 9 proveth venial sins out of these words in the 5. chap. of Matthew, He that is angry with his brother unadvisedly, is culpable of judgement. Now our Saviour showeth, that these degrees of anger are forbidden in the commandment of murder. Hence I thus dispute: 

That which is forbidden in the commandment of murder, is against the law.  
But this venial sinew of anger is forbidden in the commandment of murder.  
Ergo It is against the law.    
Christian reader, I desire thee to read the 4 book & chap. 10. there he confesseth out of Augustine that venial sins are forbidden in this commandment thou shalt not covet, This commandment commandeth perfection, for saith he, Eius generis est, ut simul media et finem comprehendat, It is of that kind that it comprehendeth both the means, and the end. Again, These things are spoken according to Augustine his mind, who in the precept, Thou shalt not covet, doth understand that all motions of concupiscence are forbidden, even those that are not voluntary after a sort.   

Of Images.  
THe Papist teacheth, that Images of God are not forbidden, Bellarmine de sanct. Imag. lib. 2. cap. 8. and that they are means to put us in mind of God. Let us see how God preventeth this remembrance. Deut: chap: 4. v: 23. Take heed lest you forget the covenant of the Lord your God which he made with you. Now might the people say, we will not forget, for we will make an Image of God to remember him: this cavil is cut off in the next words, And lest you make you any graven Image or likeness, of any thing as the Lord thy God hath charged thee: and in the 15. verse, Take heed to yourselves, for ye saw no Image in the day that the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire. Now where as God (saith Bellarmin) may be painted imperfectly I would feign know how God can be so painted, seeing he hath revealed himself in the blessed Trinity. Thus writeth Bellarmine, ubi tamen notandum etc. Where notwithstanding it is to be noted, that such Images are not to be multiplied, neither is it to be suffered that Painters dare of their own heads feign Images of the Trinity, as when they paint one man with three faces, or one man with two heads, and in the midst of them a Dove. These are monsters, and do rather offend by their deformity, then help by their similitude. Thus far Bellarmine: and truly by the same proportion so are all other Images of God, wherefore I say with Durand, lib 3. distinct: 9: quaest: 2. It is impiety to Paint that which is Divine, and if any man say that the holy Ghost did appear in the form of a Dove, we must say, that those forms were not taken into unity of person, wherefore no reverence is due to them. This hath Durand written with many more words, which I have omitted for brevity sake. God teach us to remember him aright & to detest our own inventions. I deal only with the scriptures, and therefore I meddle little with human testimonies.  
Of persevering in grace, whether faith and righteousness be proper to the elect, and whether saving faith being once had, may be wholly and finally lost. The papists hold that it may be lost. Bellar. lib. 3. de justif. ca 14.  
SAint Peter in his first Epistle cap: 1. v. 3. Thus writeth; Blessed be God even the father of our Lord jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance immortal & undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you. Thus far S. Peter. Now some might object and say as the papists do, we may lose this hope & inheritance. Nay, saith S. Peter, in the next words & verse it is not so, we are kept by the power of God through faith, unto salvation, which is prepared, to be showed in the last time, So then, the power of God preserveth us through faith, if our Salvation were suspended upon our own selves, than no doubt we might lose the same. The same S. Peter in his 2 epistle 1 chap. 10 verse. exhorteth the dispersed jews to make their calling and election sure. Some might say and cavil, it cannot be so, for we may wholly and finally fall: nay saith S. Peter, that cannot be, For if you do these things ye shall never fall: He doth not mean they shall not sin, but they shall not wholly or finally fall from grace: all the Saints sin, yet a true Saint cannot totally & for ever fall from grace. And as S. Peter hath met with these cavils, so likewise hath S. john, 1 epist. chap. 2. v. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us, some might say that it is not so, for they might be both: nay saith S. john, that is not so, For if they had been of us they had remained with us, but this cometh to pass that it might appear they were not of us. In the same Epist. cap. 3. v. 9 it is thus written, Whosoever is borne of God sinneth not, for his seed remaineth in him. I but (saith the papist) it is true, so long as charity is in him, but he may lose it: nay saith S. john, Neither can he sin, because he is borne of God. And whereas they say, faith is not peculiar to the elect, I marvel that they will not see these plain scriptures. Titus 1. v. 1. Paul a servant of God & an Apostle of jesus Christ according to the faith of Gods elect. And Act. 13. v. 48. As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.   

Of Purgatory.  
THe papists teach Purgatory, a place after death, in which the godly must be purged from their sins, having not perfectly satisfied in this life. Now let us see how the Scripture meets with this conceit: In the 7. chap: of the Romans, Paul crieth out after this manner, O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death! I thank God through jesus Christ our Lord. Some might say, Paul, if thou be'st so miserable, than thou art in the state of damnation; mark how the Apostle answereth this doubt: Now then, there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ jesus, which walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. Nay saith the Apostle, though I am miserable in myself, yet am I happy in Christ jesus, and not only I, but all that are godly. And here by the way let us observe a point in Divinity we teach that sin is every breach of God's law deserving the curse. This must be understood with this exception, except a man be in Christ jesus: sin of itself deserveth the curse, but in Christ it is taken away. To proceed, as this place preventeth purgatory, so doth another place also in the 2. of the Cor. 5. Chap. 1. verse. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building given of God, that is, an house not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens. In the 17. v. of the former chapped. these are S. Paul his words: For our light affliction which is but for a moment, causeth unto us a far more excellent and eternal weight of glory. Some man might demand, when shall we have this glory? the Apostle answereth, when our earthly tabernacle is dissolved. But here some will say, why did the Fathers pray for the dead? although I have answered this objection in another treatise, yet here I will speak somewhat of it. Hildebert in his 4 epistle being exhorted by his friend to pray for a Queen, saith that he did prevent his exhortation: Oratis (saith he) quidem orari pro ea, sed credimus eam plus posse suis adiware, quàm agere nostris precibus adiwari. We believe that she rather helpeth us by her prayers, then that she need be helped by our prayers. Yet (saith he) Vestram tamen praecessimus exhortationem, We prevented your exhortation, ergo, they prayed for those that were in heaven. Alcuinus in his book De divints officiis, cap. 43. hath these words, Aliquibus in locis generaliter pro omnibus defuncttis omni tempore, exceptis Penticostes et festis diebus, oratur in officio vespertinali. At evening prayer in some places they pray generally for all the dead at all times, except the days of Pentecost & festival days. Ergo, prayer for the dead being made for all, establisheth not Purgatory; for I am sure all the dead are not placed by Papists themselves in Purgatory.   

Of satisfaction for sin.  
SAtisfaction for venial sins, is stoutly maintained by papists. Let us see how the holy Scripture hath prevented this fearful doctrine. My babes (saith S. john) 1. epist. 2. chap. v. 1. these things writ I unto you, that you sin not; Now they might say, alas, we cannot choose but sin; what must we do then? must we despair? must we make satisfaction for our sins? No, saith S. john, we have a remedy against both these. For if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the just. We need therefore neither despair nor satisfy. This resolution of holy scripture is firm and sure to all true Logicians & Rhetoricians, wherefore, I doubt not to call this text the hammer of Popery, and a wire whip, to scourge the doctrine of Satisfaction.   

Of Transubstantiation or turning the bread into the body of Christ.  
IT is held by Pseudocatholiks', that the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christ, and there remain only accidents & shows of bread. The Scripture rightly resolved, meeteth with this monstrous fantasy. Math. 26. v. 26. When they had eaten jesus took bread, and when be had blessed it, he broke it, & gave it to his Disciples saying, take, eat, this is my body. The Disciples might have said, We have supped, what should we do with bread? Christ answereth, this bread is not ordinary bread, but it is my body: now bread cannot properly be the body of Christ, Ergo it signifieth the body of Christ: the same likewise may be said of the Cup, for this is my blood (saith Christ) when he had said, drink ye all of this. They might have replied, what need that, seeing we are not thirsty? we have lately supped; Christ answereth, this Cup is not ordinary wine, but it is my blood, namely, the blood of the new Covenant which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. Christ answering thus plainly signifieth, that he doth not give them drink, to quench corporal thirst, but to quench spiritual thirst. Wherefore, although the Papists would exclude all tropes out of the supper, yet mark how many they make, first eat, there is one: for Christ's body cannot properly be eaten. To this Bellarmine answereth, that eating is nothing but conveying from the mouth to the stomach, by natural instruments, for else old men and children should not eat. I answer, then let drinking be eating; for drink is conveyed to the stomach by natural instruments: and touching children and old folks, although they chew not with teeth, yet their solid meat is somewhat chewed with their gums, and their liquid meats are not properly eaten, but conveyed to the stomach, being (as I may speak) drinkable meats. Secondly, they cannot deny but the Cup is put for the contents in the Cup. Thirdly, thus doth Bellarmine expound these words, This is my body, Under these shows is my body. Fourthly, Do this in remembrance of me, that is, saith Bellarmine, in remembrance of my passion and death. Christ is put for the death of Christ. Thus are they constrained to make tropes, and yet they will not allow the Protestant's any.   

Of the Sacraments.  
THe Papists teach, that the Sacraments give grace of the work wrought. Mark how the Apostle meeteth with this error, Rom. 4.9. Came this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then imputed? when he was circumcised, or when he was uncircumcised? not when he was circumcised, but when he was uncircumcised. Some might demand, to what end then was he circumcised? Paul answereth in the next verse, After he received the sign of circumcision, as the seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had. Now whereas the Papists reply, it is not so in our sacraments as it was in circumcision; they bid open war and battle to the Apostle who doth thus dispute, 

As Abraham was justified, so are all men justified:  
But Abraham was justified without the Sacraments:  
Ergo all men are so justified.   What then is the use of the holy Sacraments? They serve to confirm and strengthen our faith. I might allege another place of Scripture to this purpose, but I study for brevity, therefore I omit it.   

Of prayer unto Saints.  
THe Papists teach, that a man may call upon & invocate Saints departed: the Scripture clean overthroweth this opinion, Psal. 65.2. Because thou hearest the prayer, saith David. What then, some men might say? He answereth as followeth, Unto thee shall all flesh come. The occasion why all flesh shall come to God, is, because he heareth prayers. Hence I thus conclude: 

He to whom all flesh cometh, he heareth the prayer.  
But only to God all flesh must come.  
Ergo only God heareth the prayer of all flesh.   Christian Reader, give me leave here to answer an argument of the Papists: The living do invocate the living; Ergo they may call upon the dead. This argument (saith Bellarmine) the adversaries cannot answer. I pray thee therefore Christian Reader, let me answer it. The Saints living before the coming of Christ, did desire the prayers one of another, yet did they not pray to the dead. Furthermore, one Saint living may not invocate another. Thus do the Papists pray to the virgin Marie: Marry the mother of grace, the mother of mercy, defend us from our enemies, and receive us at the hour of death. I but, saith Bellarmine, the meaning is, that Marie is the mother of grace by prayer only. Alas, could simple people that prayed in Latin, thus distinguish? They knew not what they prayed, and could they thus distinguish? Though Bellarmine a cunning Sophister can so distinguish, yet I think some scholars amongst the Papists cannot. Yea what blasphemy may not men thus excuse? We may call the virgin Marie God, and thus excuse it, because she was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, she brought forth him that was God, namely Christ jesus who is both God and man, and therefore she may be called God. But I would feign know how this prayer may be salved: O felix puerpera, no strapians scelera, iure matris impera redemptori: O happy virgin that purgest our sins, command the redeemer by the right of a mother.   

Of the Pope's temporal dominion.  
THe Pope's temporal dominion is known to the world; the Scripture hath flatly forbidden it, Math. 20.25. Ye know that the Lords of the Gentiles have dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority over them, but it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant. Bellar. lib. 4. de Ro. Pont. c. 10. answereth, that the Lord doth institute merely Ecclesiastical Princes, and teacheth them that as they are such, they ought to rule, not after the manner of Kings, but after the manner of fathers and shepherds: as though Kings ought not to be fathers and shepherds to their subjects. The speech of Cyrus in Xenophon in his eighth book, is excellent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. the works of a good shepherd and good King are very like. And I am sure a King in Homer, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the shepherd of the people. Let us hear Langius a Papist concerning the Pope's temporal dominion: Eodem anno, saith he, The same year, namely 1407. the Romans offered to Innocentius the Pope the keys of the City, with branches of Palms, and granted him all the temporal dominion of the city of Rome; but unjustly and uncommendably: for the store of temporal things do no little hurt to spiritual. With many more words to the same purpose. Secondly saith Bellarmine, Christ forbiddeth tyranny. for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I answer, S. Luke hath met with this cavil; for he useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any composition: yea the compound is with force and power to rule men whether they will or no, not with wrong and injury to oppress them. But let us hear Bernard lib. 2. de consid. ad Eugen. Planum est, Apostolis interdicitur dominatus: i ergo tu & tibi usurpare aude aut dominans apostolatum, aut apostolicus dominatum; plane ab alterutro prohiberis: It is evident that rule is prohibited the Apostles, go thou therefore and usurp, if thou darest, being a ruler the Apostleship, or being an Apostle rule; thou art plainly forbidden one of them. Again, in his first book he hath these words, In criminibus, non in possessionibns potestas ves●ra, Your power is in crimes, not in possessions; for them and not for these, you have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, excluding sinners, not possessors of lands. In his third book, thus boldly speaketh he, Pro libitu agere, quid tam bestiale? To do all things after his own pleasure, what is so beastly as this? To conclude, in his fourth book saith he, In his successisti non Petro sed Constantino: In these things thou hast not succeeded Peter but Constantine. But it may be the Pope's authority will prevail, let Gelasius therefore speak, tom. 2. Concil. pag. 442. Some were before the coming of Christ, Kings and Priests typically, but when the true King and high Priest came, than neither doth the Emperor take to himself the name of an high Priest, neither doth the high Priest challenge royal authority. Many more words he hath to the same purpose. The same thing in effect hath Pope Nicolas the first, in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor. Cassiodore upon the fiftieth Psalm thus writeth, Si quis de populo erraverit, & Deo peccat & Regi: nam quando Rex delinquit, soli Deo reus est, quia hominem non habet qui eius facta diiudicat●; merito ergo Rex, Deo tantum se dicit peccasse, qui solus erat qui eius potuisset admissa discutere: If any of the people err, he sinneth against God and the King: when the King sinneth, he is guilty only to God, for he hath no man that may judge his deeds: worthily therefore doth the King say, that he sinned only against God, because he alone could discuss his offences. To conclude, 

That which the Apostles requested, is forbidden them.  
But they requested temporal dominion.  
Ergo it was forbidden them.   I do not deny but they were somewhat ambitious in ask temporal dominion, but mere ambition was not forbidden them, but temporal rule, as I have made manifest and plain.   

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

He that cannot resist the will of God, is not to be blamed.  
But a hardened heart cannot resist the will of God.  
Ergo a hardened heart cannot be blamed.   The Apostle denieth the proposition by a reprehension, O man who art thou that pleadest against God? And here, by the way, Christian Reader, judge of their argument who thus dispute touching Adam's fall: If God decreed Adam's fall, than he fell necessarily, and so God was the cause thereof. O man, what art thou that disputest with God? I beseech thee, Christian Reader, adore the mysteries of election and reprobation, search them not curiously, but lay thy hand upon thy mouth and be silent, be not a querist, but let God be righteous, and let the whole world perish: wonder that God should choose any one to salvation: wonder not if thousands be damned: better far is faithful ignorance, then rash knowledge. Paul calleth them unsearchable ways of God: and wilt thou search them? Whosoever is not satisfied with this answer, let him seek for one better learned than I am, but let him take need that he find not a more presumer. Thus much may suffice for this argument of sinning necessarily. Here I might enter into the question of free-will, but I say with Augustine concerning this point, Ser. 2. de verbis Apostoli: Work your salvation, saith the Apostle. Now lest they should attribute any thing to themselves, it followeth, It is God which worketh in you both the will and the deed, of his good pleasure.   

Of justification.  
THus doth the Apostle reason touching justification: If Abraham were justified by works, he hath therein to rejoice, but not with God. The Papists answer, that S. Paul speaketh of the first justification. This answer the Apostle taketh away in the next words: Abraham believed in God, and it was imputed or counted to him for righteousness. This testimony is alleged out of the fifteenth chapter of Genesis. And if there were any second justification, it must needs be understood of the same: for Abraham was justified before. In the 12, 13, and 14 chapters, the notable works of Abraham are recorded, as that he obeyed God in going out of his country, that he built an altar, that he talked familiarly with God: besides Heb. 11. the Apostle putteth this amongst the praises of Abraham, that by faith he went into a place which he knew not. And if S. james speak of a second justification, then doth S. Paul likewise: for S. james allegeth the same text chap. 2. ver. 23. But this vain distinction is also prevented by S. james, who allegeth the example of Rachab, vers. 25. Likewise, was not Rachab the harlot justified through works, when she received the messengers, and sent them out another way? It is certain that Rachab was an infidel, until that time that she received the spies: wherefore by her example it is evident that S. james nor S. Paul knew any second justification. I conclude with Bellarmine his speech lib. 2. the justif. cap. 7. Si solum vellent, nobis imputari Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, et possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris, quoniam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi, recta esset corum sententia: If they meant only this, that Christ his merits were imputed to us, because they were given us, and because we may offer them to God the Father for our sins, seeing Christ took upon him the burden to satisfy for us, and to reconcile us to God the Father, their opinion was right. Thus far Bellarmine. Now let us mark how the Apostle reasoneth: Rom. 5. v. 10. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shallbe saved by his life. Excellently writeth Bernard, Fateor non suum dignus, nec propriis possum meritis, regnum obtinere caelorum; ceterum Dominus meus, duplici iure illud possidens, haereditate patris, et merito passionis, altero ipse contentus alterum mihi donat. I confess and acknowledge that I am not worthy, neither can I obtain by my merits the kingdom of heaven, but my Lord possessing it by a double right, by his Father's inheritance, & by the merit of his passion, being content with the one himself, giveth me the other. Thus Christian reader I have showed thee, how the holy scriptures meet with popish cavils, in the weightiest controversies betwixt them and us. God almighty open men's hearts to see the clear truth which in great brevity & simplicity, I have here propounded. I doubt not but other learned men may add much unto this small Treatise which I have written, to excite men to study the Scriptures. and eschew popery. And as I have written it with this mind, so I doubt not, but that God will give a blessing to it. Amen Lord jesus.  
FINIS.