not be cruell to the Christians Propter discordiam Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum for the variance of Ecclesiastical opinions For amongst the Pagans there vvere more then three hundred sects To come now to succession doth not Bellarmine your Pythagoras teach that it prooueth not alwaies a church Secondly Atheists Heretikes Sorcerers and a woman haue beene Pope and that interrupteth your succession Thirdly your plurality of Popes during your two and twenty schismes disanulleth the same Lastly many Popes haue not beene Canonically elected To proceed to antiquitie see your selues stripped of it in this my treatise and yet you are not greatly vvise men to alleadge bare antiquitie for as Lactantius saieth in his 2. booke and 7. chap. Tanta est apud insipientes authoritas vetustatis vt in cam inquirere scelus esse ducatur Amongst fooles antiquitie hath that authoritie that it is counted a hainous thing to inquire into it Lastly concerning your miracles I say with Augustine in his book de vnitate Ecclesiae cap. 16. Let them not say it is true because Donatus or Pontius or any other man hath done these these miracles Againe whether they hold the church or no let them shew no otherwise but by the Canonical bookes of holy Scriptures I will not spend any time in painting out of the odious and infamous lifes of Papists but come to a conclusion namely that seing those thinges that they were wont to bragge of are taken from them let them embrace the truth let not the world seduce them against their owne consciences For what are vngodly rich men but as Plutarch saith asini ligna ferentes asses bearing burdens The Lord open your eyes to see the truth To the Christian reader ALthough I had many motiues to set forth this my treatise in latin yet regarding the good of those that are ignorant in that tongue I haue written it in English with as much shortnes and breuitie as I could possibly I confesse I might haue made a great volume of it if I had insisted vpon the amplification of euery reason but for diuerse respects I haue comprehended it in this small manuall And as I haue disswaded men from popery by these twelve seuerall reasons so did I once thinke to haue adioyned more but for causes known to my selfe I haue yet concealed them Their senselesse paradoxes and witlesse arguments with which their bookes are fraught haue caused me so to abhorre their religion that I may protest in simplicitie of a good conscience I could neuer read any argument to perswade me to papistrie yet haue I read their writers without any praeiudicate opinion at all being neuer forestalled with this religion in which through Gods grace nowe I stand And Bellarmines corrupting of fathers his foolish distinctions his cōtradictions with himselfe with other Papists his sencelesse sophismes his wresting of holy writte haue in them as I thinke this force to perswade his readers from his religion Now it remaineth Christian reader to desire this of thee to weigh these my motiues with an indifferent mind and if thou receiuest any good by them to be thankefull to God and to commend me in thy praiers vnto him Catalogus authorum ALcoranus franciscanorum Alexander de Ales. Alphonsus de castro Ambrosius Aquinas Arias montanus Arnobius Augustinus Bellarminus Bernardus Buckingerus Catalogus testiū veritatis Censura Coloniensis Catechismus Coloniensis Clemens Alexandrinus Chrysosthomus Cusanus Cyprianus Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Duraeus Durandus Epiphanius Erasmus Euripides Eusebius Fasciculus temporum Freculphius Gratianus Gregorius Episcopus Romanus Gregorius Nazianzenus Gregorius Martinus Hentenius Herbranaus Hierom. Hugo Cardinalis Index Expurgatorius Irenaeus Iuellus Iustinus Lactantius Lombardus Lyra. Macrobius Maierius Mathaeus Paris Melchior Canus Origines Picus Miranaula Plautus Polidorus Virgilius Psalterium Romanū Rhemenses Roffensis Ruffinus Scotus Sleidan Socrates Tertullianus Tullius Turrianus Wolfgangus Hermānus Zozomenus THE FIRST REAson of Antichrist IN times past Christiā Reader the question was whether Christ appointed the Pope to be heade of this church but now blessed be God it is not without cause demanded whether he be Antichrist or no. From which as the title of servus servorum that is the seruant of seruants will not excuse him beeing indeed the title of cursed Cham and so fit in Gods iust prouidence for the man of sinne so these circumstances following beeing laide together will firmely conclude the same The 1. Circumstance Antichristianisme is a mysterie 2. Thess cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The mysterie of iniquity doth now worke out of which place of holy writte I argue that neither the open blasphemous haeretiks nor the Turke can be that Antichrist because they are not dissembled but plaine and open enimies to Christ Yet as Hierom saith on the 24. chapter of Mathew Omnis Haeresiarchia est Antichristus Euery Arch-haeritike is Antichrist but not Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that singular Antichrist Maruell not then though all men perceiue vnderstand him namely the Pope not to be that Antichrist seeing it is a mysterie for as fewe knowe the Gospell because it is a mysterie so likewise little is the flocke to which this Antichrist is revealed pray therefore with Dauid to open thine eyes that thou maist behold the secrets of God for as Augustine saith Epistola 11 2. Qui didicerunt à Domino Iesu esse humiles mites in corde plus proficiunt or ando quà m audiendo legendo that is They that have learned of Christ meekenesse of minde and humility of heart profit more by prayer then by hearing and reading The second Circumstance Antichrist is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an aduersary to God although he doth band himselfe against him but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an aduersary to Christ in aemulatiō of like honour For he arrogateth to himselfe those things that are propper to Christ as namely remissiō of sinnes which I prooue out of Bernard who saith 11. sermon ad Milites Vnde scimus quòd Christus potest dimit tere peccata quia deus est vnde scis quod deus est miracula probant That is Howe do we knowe that Christ can remit sinnes because he is God How dost thou knowe he is God his miracles prooue the same Out of which testimony I frame this syllogisme he that remitteth sinnes is god but the pope remineth sinnes therefore he is god and by consequēt Antichrist The third Circumstance Those things which the Papists write concerning Antichrist are ridiculous First the Rhemists say and affirme that he shall come of the tribe of Dan which opinion Bellarmine strongly refuteth by this reason Namely because the tribes are so confounded that no man can say this man is of this or that Tribe Secondly they say Antichrist shall be the Iewes Messias but he must spring of the tribe of Iudah ergo Antichrist the Iewes Messias cannot descend of Dan. Thirdly they teach he shall be one singuler man
mors before man is life and death These three arguments are all answered by Aquinas and yet they are the papists pillers of free-wil as euery man knoweth if it were needfull I might quote the authors that vse them The 19. Contradiction Alexander de Hales parte 4. quaest 24. denieth that confirmation was instituted by Christ his reasons are these two Quia Christus quando instituit aliquod Sacramentum determinat elementum when Christ doth institute any sacrament hee determineth of the element and matter of the Sacrament but hee hath not done so in this Sacrament Ergo it was not instituted of him Secondly in Sacramentis vna forma est in the Sacraments there is one forme of words but in this there is not one forme of wordes for in diuers churches they haue diuers formes Ergo it was not instituted of Christ Hence it may be concluded that it is no sacrament because all Sacraments were ordained by Christ Iesus as Aquinas holdeth 3. parte quaest 72. art 1. resp adprimum where also wee may see that some held as Alexander de Hales holdeth namely that it was not instituted of Christ and by consequent it is no Sacrament The 20. Contradiction The Contradictions about the Sacrament of the alter and reall presence are so manie that I will not enter into them because I eschew tediousnesse onely I will set downe Aquinas his opinion in his supplement 83. quaest art 3. responsione ad quartum namely that on body cannot bee locally in two places at one time for it implyeth a Contradiction but now the Papists care not for Contradiction so they may make the bodie of Christ present locally in the Sacrament Many more Contradictions might I haue set downe as namely the certaine knowledge that a man is in grace and such like taught by Papists but it shall suffice to haue proued that in the weightiest points of controuersie the Papists are on our side Let them now bragge no more of vnitie for the spirite of dissention is sowen amongst them Did euer the Caluinists teach the weightiest points of poperie as the papists do the greatest opinions of Caluinisme I know they doe not Thus leauing this reason to the indifferent reader to iudge of euery man may see what cause there is to disclaime and renounce the Romish religion The twelue reason of the Originall of many things taught held in Poperie FOr asmuch as in one of my former reasons I haue by sufficient testimonies proued the practise of the primitiue Church to bee repugnant to Poperie in many weightie matters I shal not need to be long in the Original of the Romish religion certaine it is that it was not all hatched at once Teâ— de pâ—escâ—â—p and that it it not a thing necessarie to shew the beginning of euerie point in poperie seing that ipsa Papistarum doctrina cum Apostolis comparata ex diuersitate contrarietate sua pronunciabit neque Apostoli alicuius authoris esse neque Apostolici The Popish doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostles will by the varietie and contrarietie that is in it pronounce that neither Apostle nor any Apostolicall man was the author of it Notwithstanding both because it helpeth much for the satisfying of some and also because diuerse abuses are noted by Papists theÌ„selues I will set downe some things concerning the Originall of poperie and first heare what Bucchingerus an arch Papist in his Ecclesiastical history writeth pag. 217. Res est plena horroris vel legere vel meminisse tantam tyrannidem inter se exercuisse mutuò Pontifices Romanos ô quantum degenerarunt à maioribus suis fieri non potuit in tanta crudelitate vt pietatis Christianae ratio haberetur ne cui mirum sit interim siqui abusus perversae opiniones in Ecclesiam irrepsêrunt It is a thing full of horror either to reade or to remember the great tyranny the Bishops of Rome haue practised one toward another ô howe are they degenerate from their auncestoures and it cannot be that in such crueltie their should be had any regard of Christian piety let no man then marueile if some abusâ—s and badde opinions haue crept into the church Loe here three things noted by a Papist him selfe First the cruelty of the Romish Bishops 2. their degeneratioÌ„ from their auncestours and thirdly that certaine badde opinions by this meanes are crept into the Church For proofe of this last point I will beginne with purgatory because that it hath warmed the popes kitchin Concerning which let Roffensis a papist speake artic 18. contra assert Lutheri fer in iniâ—sed Graecis etiam adhunc vsque diem non creditum est purgatorium esse legat quicunque velit Graecorum veteruÌ„ commentarios nullum quantum opinor aut quà m rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes huius rei veritatem concepêrunt rursus non absque maxima spiritus sancti dispensatione factum est quod post tot annorum curricula purgatorii fides indulgentiaruÌ„ vsus ab orthodoxis generatim sit receptus quandiu nulla fuit de purgatorio cura nemo quaesivit indulgentias nam ex illo pendet omnis indulgentiarum existimatio The Greeks to this daie doe not beleeue that there is purgatory reade who list the Commentaries of the auncient Graecians and he shall finde either very seldome mention of purgatory or none at all Neither did the Latin Church conceiue the trueth of this thing at one time And againe neither was it done without the great dispensation of the holy ghost that after so many yeares Catholikes both beleeued purgatory and receiued the vse of pardon generally so long as there was no care of purgatory no man sought for pardons for of it dependeth all the aestimation that we haue of pardons Out of this testimony I gather first that the Greeke Church acknowledgeth no purgatory Secondly that the auncieÌ„t Latin Church did not beleeue it Thirdly that these opinions grewe by little and little in the Church Fourthly and lastly that pardons depende vpon purgatorie and so are newe deuises of mans braine Therefore let pardons purgatory pickpurse goe From purgatory I passe to the Popes primacy which is an after invention as I prooue out of Socrates in the 7. booke of his Ecclesiasticall historie and the 11. chap. Episcopatus Romanus non aliter atque Alexandrinus quasiextra sacerdotii fines egressus ad saecularem principatum iam erat ante delapsus The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria going beyond the limits of priesthood vvent into a secular worldly dominioÌ„ For proofe of this when Victor as Eusebius writeth lib. 5. cap. 23. Ecclesiastic histor would haue excommunicated the Churches of Asia he was resisted by Iraeneus To passe ouer that Policarpus would not yeeld to Amcetus We know that before Boniface the first no Bishop of Rome was called vniuersal bishop Lastly as testifieth Fasciculus temporum anno 704
wanton against Christ beeing warme idle and well fedde and so lust after husbands what doe many papists more warme more idle and better fed then those poore widows were that S. Paule speaketh of What doe they I say lust after but with them this diuinitie is currant si non castè cautè tamen if not chastly yet warily Fiftly the papists teach that the pope may giue pardon de paenitentijs iniungendis Fulk aganst Allen. that is of penance to be performed Ergo a man may haue a pardon before he sinne which is to open a gappe to all sinne yea the rich man may boldly transgresse because he is able to giue largely for pardons Sixtly Ferus vpon Matth. confuteth it Aquin. 22.25 q. 9. ar they teach that the loue of a mans enemie is counselled by our sauiour Christ not commaunded so that a man is not bouÌ„d to loue his enemie by Gods commandemeÌ„t O carnal liceÌ„tious libertines what is more easie for man then to loue his friende what is more against the proud spirit of a man theÌ„ to loue his enemie And so from dissolutenesse of doctrine I come to the discomfort of the same No man ought to be assured of his saluation by faith Cens colâ—â— but by hope saith the papist resting vpon his owne merits which is to racke and torment a christian soule for euery on must say with Hierom in his dialogue against the Luciferans Credo Domine tamen secundum fidem meaÌ„ fieri nolo sic enim peribo I beleeue Lord yet let it not be according to my beleeue for then I perish and with Augustine 10. lib. con 29. tota spes mea non nisi in valde magna misericordia tua my whole hope is only in thy great mercy but more of this in another motiue and therefore I oppose their own Catechisme against them which excellently confuteth this desperate doctrine Cat. col profecto nequè in aignitatem fidei ne que operum meorum vt me certum faciaÌ„ rectè respexero Verely for certainty that god is mercifull to me I must neither looke to the dignitie of my faith or of my works sed in passionem tuam ô Christe oculos mentis defigam but O Christ I will fasten the eyes of my minde vpon thy passion cum defecerit virtus mea non diffidam quia si sanguis tuus interpellet pro me salvus ero when my goodnes is eclipsed I will not distrust for if thy bloode entreat for me I shall be saued Secondly they teach that by contrition sorrow for sinne Stapl. A. quae 7. ar 2. the guilt of sinne is wholly taken away but because a man can not be assured of the sufficiencie of his sorow therefore he must both confesse and satisfie Gods iustice for his sinnes O hellish deuice of man If no man can be assured of the sufficiencie of his contrition and sorrow how can he certifie his soule that his Confession and Satisfaction are sufficient if he can not be assured of one he cannot likewise be assured of the other and so must needes be swallowed vp in the gulfe of despaire Hold this therefore Christian soule that thy reconciliation dependeth not vpon sufficient confession contrition and satisfaction but vpon the merit of Christ and say as the glosse doth vpon Gratian pag. 376. that these doe not cause and deserue forgiuenes of sinnes but onely Gods mercie is the cause thereof and that true sorrow is a signe to thee of the forgiuenes of thy sinnes And as the doctrine of Satisfaction is desperate so it is a most loose and dissolute doctrine for Si dederis marcas eis impleveris areas Culpâ solvêris quacunque ligatus eris that is If thou fillest the Popes coffers with mony thou shalt be loosed from all thy faults Alas alas what will not a man giue for the redemption of his soule Iob 2. Mich. 6. thousands of riuers oyle yea he had rather cause his sonnes to passe through fire then to performe true repentance The sixt reason of Idolatrie IN Philosophie there was almost no opinion so voide of reason but it found some patron and as it was in philosophie so now it is in Diuinity for else how could the Papists defende the worship of images Of these popish idolaters I say with Lactantius Lib. de orig erroris cap. 3. Venia concedi potest imperitis ijs qui se sapientes non fatentur his vero non potest qui sapientiam professi stultitiam potius exhibent The ignorant may be pardoned but to those that professing wisdome manifest their follie pardon cannot be granted But let vs see how they excuse their idolatrie First Bellarmine maketh a difference betweene an idol and an image Lib. 2. cap. 5 de Imag. an idol is an image of that which is not but an image is a figure of that which is to take his graunt I will first conclude out of his owne wordes that the Papists are idolaters and then by inuincible arguments disprooue this distinction They which worship images of those things that are not extant are idolaters but the Papists worshippe the images of those things that are not extant Heerbrantâ— com ergo they are idolaters The assumption I thus prooue Christopher George and Katherine were neuer extant but they worship their images ergo they worship images of thinges that neuer were For the disproofe of his distinction I will vse his owne arguments and confession against himselfe First saith he the Scripture neuer calleth any true image an idoll this I disprooue out of his 13. chap. where he confesseth that the Iewes worshipped God in an image or idol That in which the Iewes worshipped God is an idol but the Iewes worshipped God in an image ergo an idol is an image Secondly saith he the scripture calleth Idolls elilim that is Nothing and vseth other names to the same purpose If this reason be good then because the scripture calleth Idols pesilim by other like names it must of necessitie follow that they represent something if any demaund why the scripture calleth Idols nothing and vanitie and lies I answere because of their effects so saith Kimhi dabar she eno mognil that which profiteth not is called elil for in truth they neither helpe the worshippers of them nor can they helpe them and so are meere vanity and by this reason is answered his argument taken out of the Corinthians 8 chap. where an Idol is called nothing nothing it is in regard of profitte and commodity yet may it represent somthing His fourth reason is because the Fathers called Heresies Idols as an haeresie is a false immagination so saith he is an Idoll a false Image thus indeede the fathers speake out of which I thus dispute Hierom. Hosea 4. An heresie is an false opinion and imagination of some thing whereof there is a trueth Epiph. Haer. 50. as for example the Anthropo
except we knowe whether we must runne 2. 2 q. 44. art 8. So doth Aquinas vse the very same answer by which it is apparent to all mē that God commaundeth impossible things and therefore by this blasphemy must be more cruell then any tyrant but this might haue beene better borne withall if they had vttered no moe blasphemous arguments The Rhemists vpon the first of Timoth. chap. 4. wanting reasons for their prohibition of meates and marriages know not how to defend their practise but by an argument à pari taken from equalitie God in paradise did commaund abstinence from one certaine tree and also did forbidde in the time of the Law certaine degrees of marriage ergo so may the Pope doe O vnanswerable nay rather blasphemous consequents if ye thus dispute without all peraduenture in the ende ye shall haue the victorie From Bellarmine and the Rhemists I come to their angelical Doctour who in his supple 25. quae art 1. concludeth thus Christus potest Ergo Paulus potest Ergo papa potest Christ can doe it therefore Paul can doe it therefore the Pope can doe it Make the syllogisme and then the argument will be of greater force whatsoeuer Christ can doe that can Paul doe and whatsoeuer Paul can doe that can the Pope doe but Christ can doe this therefore Paul and the Pope can doe it But why are Paul and the pope ioyned together seeing his authoritie is deriued from Peter when Peters keies will not serue then Pauls sword must saue To let passe these sensles disputers heare what is written in the first part of the 6. booke of Decretalls and 6. title de electione fol. 44. Papa non est homo sed vicarius Dei expressius acus The pope is not a man but Gods vicar more expressely God In the proheme of the Clementines and 3. folio I finde the notation of the pope to be this Papa id est admirabilis nec deus es nec homo quasineuter es inter vtrunque The pope is called so because he is wonderfull thou art neither god nor man but as it were a neuter betvvixt both Againe in the Extravagants fol. 16. tit 3. Supposit a plenitudine potestatis iuxta quam papae dici non potest Domine cur ita facis Presupposing the plenarie power by which no man may say to the pope Master why doest thou so no not though as it is in an other place he leade innumerable soules with him by heapes to the deuill of hell Nowe let Panormitan play his part Papa Christus faciunt vnum consistorium The pope and Christ make one consistorie excepto peccato omnia potest quae deus excepting sinne he can do al that God can doe Also papa potest quicquid vult the Pope can do what he wil and therfore cōtra novū testamētū potest dispensare he may dispense against the new testament From the Canonists I come to the Alcorā of the Franciscans taken out of their booke of Conformities nihil fecit Christus quod Franciscus non fecit imo plura fecit quà m Christus vngues Francisci tentationem propellunt Christ did not any thing but Frances did the same yea more then Christ the nailes of frier Frances driue away temptations Sicut Ade Deo non parenti omnis creatura libellis extitit Sic Frācisco omnia praecepta diuina implenti creatura omnis famulata est omnia Deus subiecit sub pedibus eius c. As euerie creature rebelled against Adam disobeying God so all of them serued Frances who fulfilled gods commandemēt God hath put all things vnder his feete he hath made him ruler ouer all the workes of his handes and he may most worthily say that which is written in the Gospell All things are giuen mee of my father Can the diuel himselfe speake more spitefully against the God of heauen and earth I wonder howe the Pope can suffer those things seing he applyeth the same scriptures to his authority and therefore sayeth Omnis potestas mihi data est in terra all power is giuen me on earth To proceede in the same booke thus they speake of the masse Celebratio vnius missae tantum valet quantum Christi passio The saying of one masse is as profitable as Christs passion And againe si quis devotè audierit missam non incidit in peccatum mortale if any here masse with deuotion he cannot fall into mortall sinne if this be true why haue the priests so many harlots nay why are Popish geldings become stone horses These Christian reader are not the tenth of their blasphemies which they haue vomited but I dare not load thee with any more least I should he offensiue I will ende this reason in a word that religion is a blasphemous religion which maketh not God mercifull and iust in the highest degree but the Popish religion maketh not God mercifull and iust in the highest degree Ergo it is a blasphemous religion the assumption is thus prooued if the onely mercie of God be not the onely cause of the pardoning of our sinnes and the alone satisfaction of Christ aunswereth not to Gods iustice then may a finite thing as mans satisfactions answer the same so he shal neither be summè misericors nor summè iustus neither haue perfect mercy nor perfect iustice but the only mercy of God is not the onely cause of the forgiuenesse of our sinnes neither is his iustice fully satisfied by Christ but by our owne satisfaction and therefore he is neither perfectly mercifull not perfectly iust Let god be then as he is is most rich in mercy and absolute in iustice and the Romish religion cannot stand for it detracteth from his infinit mercy and iustice therfore without all controuersie is a blasphemous religion The eight reason of the Papists owne Confession AMongst the properties of truth this as I proued was one that it was great and preuaileth and indeed thorough Gods omnipotent power it is so great that the Aduersaries against themselues confesse the same so that I may say with the Orator in his oration pro Quinctio quis nostrae causae testis idem qui accerrimus aduersarius in hac re inquam adversarium citabo testem Who beareth witnes to our defence euen he that is the fiercest aduersary in this defence I say I will vse our aduersarie for a witnes for although I may say to him as the same orator doth in an other oration pro Fonteio Tuum testimonium quod in aliena re leve est in tua quoniam contrate est gravissimum esse debet Thy ovvne testimonie which is of small credit in another matter in thine owne because it is against thy selfe ought to be of exceeding great waight vpon these triumphs as it were the Christian Reader will be desirous to heare the Papists testimonie not to hold him therfore any longer in suspence this is Bellarmines confession in his 7. chap. 5. book of Iustification Propter periculum
chap. and 15. verse be penitent I will not stand vpon any moe places in the newe Testament but come to a fewe of the olde In the ninth of the Preacher and second verse they haue these wordes Omnia in futurum servantur incerta All things are reserued as vncertain for the future time there is no such thing in the Hebrew yet out of this place is prooued the vncertentie of saluation and finall perseuerance O most wretched and vile doctrine that must coyne scripture to defende it selfe In the 98. psalme and 5. verse they translate vvorshippe his footestoole for it is holy and from hence conclude the adoration and worshipping of creatures wheras it should haue beene turned at his footestoole he is holy lahadom the same thing being repeated in the last verse In the 8. of Genesis toward the ende of the chap. where it should be the thoughts of mans heart are euill in their translation it is prone to euill as if there were no difference betwixt prone to euill and euill If I should affirme a papist to be prone to euill and treason doe I say that he is euill and treason it selfe nothing lesse euen so there is a difference betwixt pronesse to vice and vice it selfe In the 14. of Genesis and 18. verse they haue it thus erat enim sacerdos dei altissimi for he was a priest of the most high God in fauour of their sacrifice where it is and he vvas a priest of the high God neither let them aunswere me that the coniunction vau doeth sometimes signifie for that is not the question but whether it so signifieth in this place And because they vaunte of antiquitie in this point Freculph in the first booke of his historie and 42 chap. saith that Melchizedech in refectionem ipsius Abrahae panem vinumque protulit Melchizedech brought forth bread and wine for the refreshing of Abraham I will follow this matter of translations no further at this time By this euery one may gather why they forsake the pure Hebrewe and Greeke fountaines and drinke of the corrupt Latin streames I come in the second place to the denial of plaine Scriptures In the 3. of the Galat. and 10. ver it is thus written for as many as are of the deedes of the law are vnder the curse for it is written cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to doe them in which words the Apostle doth thus reason They which cannot fulfill the law are vnder the curse But no man can fulfill the law ergo If this be not the Apostles assumption the Galatians might haue answered Paul that they could fulfil the law and therefore were not vnder the curse Yet the Papists teach that man may fulfil Gods law and so cut the sinewes of S. Pauls reason Secondly in the 4. to the Rom. and 11. verse circumcision is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith out of which place we gather that we are not iustified by the sacraments The Papists to elude the place answer it followeth not that it is so in all because it was so in the patriarchs this answer disioynteth the Apostles argument which is this As Abraham was iustified so are all men iustified But Abraham was iustified without the sacraments Therefore all men are so iustified In the 6. of the Rom. and 27. ver it is saide that the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. S. Pauls speach is corrected by the Rhemists saying the sequele of the speach required that as he saide death or damnation is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipende of iustice To see papists sit as it were in iudgement of the Scriptures to alow or disalow sentences at their pleasure is the most notorious example of Hereticall pride and miserie that can be Againe in the 6. to the Rom. and 12. v. concupiscence is called sinne yet denied by them to be sinne If the scripture had so said they might well haue expounded it as they doe namely the occasions and matter of sinne But caÌ„not one thing be properly sinne and the occasion of sinne let Augustine then be controlled who in his 5. book contra Iul. Pelag. and 3. chap. writeth thus Sicut caecitas cordis peccatum est poena peccati causa peccati it a concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati causa peccati As blindnes of heart is sinn and a punishment of sinne and a cause of sinn so likewise is concupiscence sinne because it disobeieth the rule of the minde and a punishment of sinne and a cause of sinne Augustines syllogisme is this That which is disobedience to the gouernment of the minde is sinne But concupiscence is disobedience to the gouernement of the minde Therefore concupiscence is sinne Also in the 5. of the Roman and 14. vers Paul prooueth all men to be sinners because of death yet is the virgin Marie exempted from sinne which strengtheneth Pelagius his opinion For he might denie the argument Infants die therefore they are no sinners because Marie died and yet was no sinner In the 1. to the Corinthians and 10. chap. S. Paul beateth downe the conceit of the Corinthians coÌ„cerning the sacraments For the Iewes did eate Christ in their sacraments Yet the Papists will haue our sacraments to giue grace ex opere operato of the worke wrought and so make the Apostles argument to be of no force For the Corinthians might haue replied our sacraments giue grace to them that receiue them therfore we cannot be dismaied with the examples of the Israelites Furthermore in the 9. of the Hebrewes the 25. vers Christ is said to haue offered himselfe but once because he suffered but once The Apostles reason is this Christ died but once Therefore he suffered but once Lastly Hebr. 10. and 8. ver the Apostles conclusion is seeing there is remission of sinnes there is no more offering for sinne Therefore it followeth inuincibly that the masse is not a sacrifice for sinne Yet the papists assertion must needes frustrate both these arguments of the Apostle From the deniall of scripture I come to the addition of the same which argueth extreame despeâ—atenes The Councell of Laodicea 59. canon reiecteth the books which we doe and commandeth ne aliqui praeterea legantur in authoritatem recipiantur that non besides be read and receiued into authority Ruffinus likewise in his exposition vpon the Creede reiecteth the same and will not haue them alleadged ad authoritatem fidei confirmandam for the confirmation of faith Cirill of Hierusalem in the 4. booke of his Catech. writeteth thus Lege scripturas sacras nempè viginti duos veteris testamenti libros read the holy scriptures namely the two and twentie bookes of the old testament I passe ouer Hieroms authority and Nazianzens with Eusebius Epiphanius and Lyraes