Pag. 2. lin. 37. Wylie. 15. 11. vainelie. 62. 21. renforce. 64. 35. come. 65. 8. the. 82. 8. runneth forth almost into ouer great. 90. in the marg. ad illumin. 91. 4. soone. 103. 28. immortall. 111. 16. litterallie. 118. 13. textes. 33. as expreslie. 124. 33. left. 126. 13. one of other. 130. 24. Spa­nianum. 156. 32. without confusion. 169. 26. brandes. 177. 29. which with. 184. 15. learned. 186. 5. contra. 206. 37. put out, that. 212. 8. hic. 29. fiat hoc. 215. 22. [...]. 228. 1. is. 237. 28. some. 239. 17. haue. 240. 30. a thought, & yet raueth. 256. 8. dare not. 274. 21. greatest fault. 279. 31. Pacianus. 280. 10. quotations. 282 5. remaineth. 299. read the 9. line before the 8. 309. 22 Ioh. 1. 321. 18. He faith 324. 23. [...] 333. 8. de gen. ad Lit. 336. 17. de Sp. S. 30. it is. 36. not whatsoeuer. 337. 36. suppose. 351. 3. euer. 352. in the marg. cont. 3. in margine. 353. 37. is the.


Pa. 4. l. 2. to. 7. 19. disorder. 22. 9. euer. 41. 12. to God. & 13. put out, to. 44. 33. to the. 49. 34. in the marg. put out, Allen. &. 37. where. 103. 16. For. 114 8. Matthie. 115. 1. thisplace. 128. 23. the. 138. 2. expound. 158. 6. grounded. 173. 30. at hand. 177. 24. strong ones. 184. 2. by himselfe, or by his saints, and therefore remission ofsinnes by himselfe. 186. 15. saide. 201. 35. of mutuall offence. 212. 5. but from. 222. 1. as [...] 35. eordes. 251. 36 Christes. 311. 2. demurre. 314. 3. that. [...] ters. 17. Monkes. 324. 28. delegaui. 325. 33. put out, [...]. 334. 14. both. 341. 1. halfe. 35. deemed. 342. 26. no [...] 345. 13. consortatiues. 346. 33. false. 350. 29. to the. 366. 27. [...] 30. I. 369 28. prostant. 398. 15. mony. 483. 30. put out, not. 521. 34 the marg 1. Ioh. 5. 529 2. and figures. In the answere to Prarine p. put out the note in the marg.


AGainst this Popish and trayterous defense of the proude Censures, giuen vpon Master Charkes and M. Hanmers bookes, there hath bene alreadie set forth an answere, conteining a maintenaunce of the creditte of those excellent Ministers, and El­ders of Gods Church, which this malitious slaunde­rer hath sought to deface (for staie of the simple rea­der) till Master Charkes booke come forth. There hath also bene printed and set forth by Doctor Fulke a briefe confutation of sundrie cauills and quarrel vttered by diuerse Papists against his writinges, and special­lie by this Censurer in this his booke of defense, where­by some parte of his vnhonest dealing is displayed, to the discredite of this defender, and to the shame of all Papists. Neuerthelesse, vnderstanding that Master Charke is not minded [...] set forth his answere, (although he haue it [...] written) before this de­fender hath [...] his wholl booke, as he promiseth; I haue thought it not amisse, to write a shorte treatis for the [...] [...] the matters of doctrine espe­cially which are in controuersie betweene M. Charke and the Censurer, either omitting, or but breiflie tou­ching the points handled more at large in the two [...] books. Neither do I thinke M. Charkes stay­ing to be misliked, for diuerse causes: First, to auoyd confusion, which might ensue, if the defender should replic vpon his answere to the first parte, before the confutation of the second parte were finished, & pub­lished: [Page 2] Secondlie to auoyd misunderstanding: for that diuerse pointes touched in the first parte, may be more at large, and otherwise handled in the latter parte, vpon vew whereof Master Charke would change his answere. And last of all, lest replying, and reioy­ning vpon the first parte, might be occasion that the latter parte should neuer be handled. For which rea­sons, and some other, perhaps better knowne vnto him-selfe, indifferent readers may gather, that it is expedient for him to staie, vntill he see the wholl charge of the aduersarie, and then more orderly and seasonablie he may publish his answere altogea­ther.

But now to the purpose taken inhande. Three tall fellowes step forth vpon this bulwarke of de­fense: the Corrector of the printe: the setter forth of the booke: and the graunde Captaine defender himselfe.

The Corrector commeth forth with his parte, to stoppe a gappe, or emptie place of a page, with the reall [...] of a nowne Heretike: and that presuming (as he [...]) without the authors knowledge: to wise a man belike to be made priuie of such gramaticall trifles. But whereas he weeneth that by reading his authors trea­tise, a man shall see the moste points verified in Master Charke and his companions, he is fouly beguiled. For there is no wise man, but seeth all the pointes of his newlie deuised declension throughly verified in his author and his Complices: who hath shewed himselfe to be, not in one, but in all cases, a proude maleperte Lyar, and an obstinate seditious Atheist: [...] hereunto an impudent heretike, and a malitious traytor. And if any man be so simple, that he cannot yet perfectlie be holde all these pointes in his owne treatise, yet in the answeres, and confutations thereof, he that will not acknowledge them to be verified in him, is like to proue a nowne of the same declension with him. Thus the Owlie Corrector hauing shotte his bolte out of the [Page 3] bulwarke, which by euil happe of a contrarie winde is caried backe against him selfe, and his owne freinds, retireth into a corner, and doth no more appeare, sa­uing that some notes of his negligence, here and there bewraying him, do declare that this was not the first time that he was ouerseene in his life, & that he should haue done his Master better seruise, if he had imploied the time he spent in deuising this grammatication, in being occupied more diligentlie about his office of Correction.

The setter forth of this booke hath the next place, who writing an epistle to Master Charke, minister, as he termeth him, and as he is indeede, of the Church of god in England, vnder colour of expostulation of some particuler matters, concerning the person of M. Charke taketh occasion to be a setter forth, not onelie of a se­ditious & slaunderous booke against the Church, but also of moste spitefull accusations against the prince, and Magistrates of the realme: a sin the particuler vew of this epistle shall moste manifestlie appeare.

First therefore he excuseth the long delaie of set­ting forth this defense of the Censure, which hath beene deferred more moneths, then the Censure was daies in writing, vpon such cause as is easie to iudge, and speciallie to Master Charke, which for the moste parte is priuie to the same. The meaning is, that the author is so quicke a dispatcher of his matters, partely by meanes of the weakenes of our cause, partelie by singuler dex­teritie of his owne wit and learning, that hauing fini­shed his Censure in eight or nine daies space at the moste, he coulde also in like proportionable time haue accom­plished his defense, if he had not by the cause preten­ded, beene stayed or interrupted. And here the au­thor is much beholding to the setter forth, that doth so cunninglie commende his facultie in expedition of such writings: which in a Papist must needes be an argument of great and wonderfull promptnes, both [Page 4] of wit & learning, though in a protestant it be gyrded at by the author him-selfe, with a scorneful reproche of rashnes and ignorance. But what is the cause, trowe ye, that hath stopped the force of these flowing streames of the authors eloquent style, that in so ma­ny monethes he hath not fullfilled that course, which without impediment he had beene able to haue dis­patched almost in as fewe daies. Euerie one (sayth he) may imagine how difficult a thing it is in England, for a ca­tholike man, to write any booke: where neyther libertie, nor rest, nor librarie, nor conference, nor being is permitted. But I praie you sir (if I may be so bolde to aske you) what greater libertie, rest, lybrarie, conference, or being, had your Catholike author in contriuing his Censure, which he wanted in writing his defense? Or rather what cause had he to complaine of the difficultie of the tymes, which with such facultie, in so shorte a tyme, could performe so greate and waightie a peece of worke, as by his owne iudgement (who you know is nothing partial in his owne cause) deserued to be cal­led by the honorable name of a Censure? vnles perhaps you thinke, that either the Prince, her Councell, or the Cleargie of the realme, should haue inuited him to write against the religion of God, and the state of the realme, with promis of libertie, rest, librarie, and all other thinges, the lacke whereof you pretend to haue hindred him.

And yet whatsoeuer you say in generall, you con­fesse in particuler, that all difficulties notwithstan­ding, the author had, soone after M. Charkes replie to his Censure, in greate parte dispatched his defense readie for the printe, but that by misaduenture your seditious printe was discouered, and taken with many things printed, or in printing, concerning your defense of trueth and equitie, against his falshoode, and violent oppres­sions. That you speake against M. Charkes falshoode, it is lawful for you to renew, if you can discouer any [Page 5] committed by him. As for his violent oppressions, being a man of noe power or authority out of the Church, al may know how vainly you charge him, or rather how lewdlie in speaking to him, you speake of the lawful proceedings of the Prince, and all her magistrates, against Popish traytors, terming them no bettet then violent oppressions, when God knoweth, you haue but in a few yet tasted of most iust condemnations, and ex­ecutions. Oflike stomach and style it is, that you say, the same print was so long sought, and much feared by him. By like he thought that your printe being taken, you had noe meane to publish your authors defense a­gainst him: as though you haue not printers enow in places beyonde the sea. How daungerous an vn­knowne printe within the lande may be to the state, if it be abused by seditious persons, no man of meane vnderstanding can be ignorant: and therefore mer­uell not if the magistrates haue beene carefull, to search for it, and diligentlie to suppresse it being founde.

But of this disturbance (as you tell vs) had like to haue come a greate losse: for the author had almost giuen ouer his enterprise of defense, not onely vpon these difficulties alleadged, but also because Master Charkes replie did seeme sufficientlie to answere it selfe. A pi­tifull case, but how did the replie answere it selfe so sufficientlie? He telleth vs, it was so obscure in many pla­ces, as moste men without the Censure might not vnderstande it. Admit it were so: is the obscuritie of a replie, a sufficient answere to it selfe? but why might not he that could not vnderstande it, haue recourse to the Censure, whereunto his replie had relation? Then he answereth for a second reason: It was so weake other­wise, as it needed litle confutation of others. This will best appeare by the authors doughtie defense, when both are compared, and examined together. A third reason. Campian the subiect of the Censure, being fallen in­to [Page 6] Master Charkes handes, it was looked for, that according to reason, and all his promisses, he should be disputed withall openlie, publikelie, and freelie: and so the matter without writing dispatched. No man is so simple, but he may well perceiue, that while the wordes are directed to Master Charke, they are ment against the Prince and state. For who can trulie say, that Master Charke had Campian in his handes? or that he had made promis, of open, publike, and free disputation, whoe knew full well that he was not able to performe such pro­mis if Campian had beene taken? or that any man of our profession, made any one such promis? what meaneth then our setter forth, by these his wordes, and all your owne promises, but thorough fayning of many promises, to slaunder vs of many breaches of faith and much falshoode. This is, in Poperie and Knauerie, a common practize, to charge men with a promisse where none was, that they maie ouercome modestie with impudencie; or at left to make her blush, beeing vniustlie accused of vnfaithfulnes.

But you will saie, it was according to reason, that Campian should haue beene so disputed withall, if there had beene no promise at all. Great reason forsooth, that a well knowne, vaine, light, runnagate person, challengeing all the graue, wise, and learned of the land to disputation, should so greatlie be regarded, that his chalenge should be taken. Nay that an arrant traytor, furnished with faculties from the Pope, the Queenes open enemie, whose banner of defiance at the same time was spread within her Maiesties domi­nions, should be admitted vnder colour of an open di­sputation, to stir vp the vnconstant people to tumult and sedition: as though the religion so long by lawe established, were now brought into doubte, and dis­ceptation. Finallie, it was small reason in wise mens iudgement, that such a lustie Champion as did first cast his gloue of defiance out of a secret corner, after [Page 7] he hath beene long sought for, & is at length drawne out of the bench holl, shoulde be set on the open stage to answere his challenge against al commers, with no smal glory of his foole hardy attempt, though he loose the daie, and be vanquished in the cause. Neuer the lesse it pleased them that had authoritie, partelie to represse the insolencie of the proud peeuish challen­ger, and his foolish fautors, that made no small ac­counte of such a glorious Thraso, pattelie to satisfie the weake mindes of such, as might surmize of his bragges, otherwise then they deserued, there was a conference or disputation graunted, wherin although Campians learning was well knowne before, to all them that knew his bringing vp and studies, yet was it then throughlie discouered to many others, which con­ceiued better of him before, then at that time shewed manefestlie to be in him. For besides his shamefull ignoraunce in the learned tongues, which he sought most rediculoussie to couer and hide, there appeared in him to all indifferent mens iudgements, no more then is writen of Catiline the Romane, whome he fol­lowed as well in practize, as he resembled him in qua­lities, Loquentiae multum, sapientiae parum, many words, little wisdome, impudent loquacity, smale learning, & lesse iudgement.

But when it came to the hearing of the worlde (sayth the setter forth) how courteouslie you had vsed this learned man with torments. The world here signifieth, the secretra­ble of trayterous papists, which giue themselues to no thing more then either to heare or inuent, most im­pudent lies against religion, & al mainteyners & pro­fessors of the same. For to omitte the common phrase of this epistle, wherewith all thinges that are done against the papists, are imputed to M. Charke, whom al reasonable men knowe to be one of the moste, that may doe lest in these cases: who is so farre from all sense or vnderstanding (if he know what racking [Page 8] meaneth) to beleeue that Campian endured such tor­ments of racking: whereof no signe could appeare in any part of his body, either before the conference, or after, whereby he should be lesse hable to dispute, as may be prooued by many hundred witnesses: yet the glorious foole, partly to boast of his sufferings, partly to excuse his impatience, and pusillanimity, which for feare rather then feeling of the racke, had discouered many of his friendes & complices, with his owne hand writting, immediately after his racking, was not asha­med on the day of the first conference, to complayne of his grieuous torments, vntil by testimony of Master Lieuetenant of the Tower, and others that were pre­sent, his impudencie was so restrained for that time, that he thought it not best to bragge any more of his intollerable racking. But in the conference (say you) he was handled without all indifferencie or law of reasoning. How so, I praie you? The questiones were taken out of his owne booke, in which he could not bevnproui­ded: he had as great warning of them, as any of his aduersaries: he required no booke to furnish his memorie, but it was prouided for him: the oppo­nents for the moste part, dealt with him in lawfull syllogismes, except when his owne lauish tongue, dis­coursing against the lawe of reasoning, enforced other manner of communication: he was neither threat­ned, nor reuiled, though he gaue great occasion by his insolent speach & gesture. He was pressed with no au­thority, but the booke was shewed him: & what other indifferencie or lawe of reasoning would you require?

But it is no maruell though you dare be bolde to quarrell at his handling in the conference, when you are not ashamed to speake so impudently of his open trial and condemnation, saying: Finally you made him away by cruel death, without any shew or shadow of particu lar crime committed by him, against Prince or countrey. This were more then barbarous immanitie, if it were true: [Page 9] but being false, what is it, but a most heynous, and sedi tious slaunder, whether you consider the matter, or the persons against whome it is vttered? Let vs begin with the persons. Who made Campian away? not M. Charke, I am sure: for all men would laugh at you, if you so should say: for immediatlie after, you distinguish him from that action, saying, and that your selfe Master Charke followed him in person: Then whoe can be vnderstoode to haue made him away by cruell death, but they by whose authoritie, in whose highe Courte, by whose order, he was brought to triall: by whome euidence, verdite and sentence was giuen, and execution com­maunded? Now let vs waigh the matter: was he not in dighted, & arraigned, found guiltie, atteinted, & iudg ed, according to the ordinarie & accustomable man­ner alwaies vsed in the case of hie rreason, according to the lawes of the realme? had he not leaue to an­swere for him selfe, to challenge the Iurie, or to vse a­ny other plea, that is permitted and allowed in such cases? was there noe shewe or shadowe of particuler crime conteined in the inditement, or in the eui­dence? The worlde knoweth it must needes be, & the recordes are yet to be seene. But there was nothing prooued, perhaps you will say, though much was al­ledged against him: he was slaundered by them that gaue euidence against him, he neuer did beare a tray­terous or vndutifull minde against the Prince, or the state. Well, admit for Campians sake, that the credit of sworne witnesses, and the wholl processe of so ho­nourable a state, as is of this lande, must stand in su­spense, and not prooue so much as any shew or shadow of treason committed by him: yet what shall his owne confession subscribed with his hande testifie, concer­ning his treasonable affection against her Maiestie? shall it not confirme the testimonie of such as gaue e­uidence against him, & prooue him moste manifestly to be guiltie of high treason? his owne confession ta­ken [Page 10] the first of August, 1581. subscribed with his hand, remaineth to be seene: in which, after certaine moste trayterous sentences were shewed him out of the bookes of Saunders and Bristow, concerning the Bull of Pope Pius, by which he tooke vpon him, by his Anti­christian sentence, to depriue her Maiestie of her re­galitie, and to discharge her subiects of all obedience, and dutie towardes her highnes: it followeth in these wordes: Edmund Campian being demaunded, whether he woulde acknowledge the publishing of these things before re­cited, by Saunders, Bristow, & Allen, to be wicked in the wholl, or in any parte, and whether he doth at this present, acknow­ledge her Maiestie to be a true and lawful Queene, or a preten­sed Queene, and depriued, and in possession of her Crowne one­lie de facto: he answereth, To the first, that he medleth neither to nor fro, and will not further answere, but requireth that they may answere. To the second he saith, that this que­stion dependeth vpon the fact of Pius Quintus, whereof he is not to iudge, and therefore refuseth further to answere.

Edmund Campian.

Answered and subscribed in the presence of

  • Owin Hopton.
  • Iohn Hammonde.
  • Robert Beale.
  • Thomas Norton.

Here except you will say, that it is no treason in a naturall borne subiect of this lande, though he refuse to acknowledge the Queenes Maiestie to be a true and lawfull Queene, and in possession of her Crowne de Iure: and though he will not in one worde disalow them that speake, write, & practize against her right, her Crowne, and dignitie, and seeke by all meanes they can, to depose and disposesse her of the same, there was neuer traytor more clearlie discouered by the testimonie of others, then Campian is displayed by his owne confession. I neede not here note the facul­ties graunted by the present Pope Gregorie the 13. to Campian, and his fellowe traytor Parsons, which were taken about one of their complices immediate­lie [Page 11] after Campians death, in which they desire of the Pope the explication or meaning of the Bull of Pius Quintus, giuen forth against our Souereigne La­dy Queene Elizabeth: and yet because they doe most plainelie conuince him of the same horrible crime, where of he was condemned, I will here set downe the same, as it is testified in the booke of execution of Pa­pists for treason, and not for religion.

Facultates concessae PP. Roberto Personio & Ed­mundo Campiano pro Anglia, die. 14. Aprilis, 1580.

PEtatur à summo domino nostro, explicatio Bullae de­claratoriae per Pium Quintum contra Elizabetham, & ei adhaerentes, quam Catholici cupiunt intelligi hoc modo, vt obliges semper illam & haereticos, Catholicos verò nullo modo obliget rebus sic siantibus, sed tum demum quan­do publica eiusdem Bullae executio fieri poterit. The an­swere to this and many other faculties by them re­quired is this, Has praedictas gratias concessit summus Pontifex patri Roberto Personio & Edmundo Cam­piàno in Angliam profecturis die. 14. Aprilis, 1580. prae­sente patre Oliuerio Manarco assistente.

Which is thus much in English.

Faculties to the two fathers Robert Persons and Edmund Campian for England, the. 14. daie of Aprill. 1580.

LEt it be desired of our most holy Lord the explication of the Bull declaratory made by Pius the fift, against Elizabeth, and such as doe adhere vnto her: which Bull the Catholikes desire to be vnderstood in this manner, that the same Bull shall alwaies binde her, and the heretikes: but the Catho­likes, it shall by noe meanes binde, as matters doe now stande: but hereafter when publike execution of that Bull may bee [Page 12] made. The highest Pontiff or Pope graunted these fore saide graces to father Robert Persons and Edmund Campian, who are now to take their iourneyes into England, the 14. day of Aprill. 1580. Being present the father Oliuerius Manarcus assistant.

These things knowne, & considered, it is euident that none, but as honest a man as Campian, could write that Campian was made away by cruell death, without any shew or shadow of particuler crime, committed by him against Prince, or countrey: or that Campian suffering for such horrible treason, is a Martyr of Christ: or that he and his fellowes died moste constant, pure, and innocent martyrs of their Lord and Master Iesus Christ. But for that Master Charke in person followed Campian to his execution, as a conqueror of his aduersarie, with bigge lookes, sterne countenance, proude wordes, and merciles behauiour, the author of the Censure was mooued to resume his answere, as well for the honour of Christs martyr, as for declaration of what value he is in reason, learning, and weight of argument by writing, which is so feirce and violent upon Gods saints in death, and torments, so pompous in gate and speach vnto the people, &c. Here are many greeuous accusations, but no proofe at all, but the common reporte, and that of trayterous Papists: for no honest man will charge Master Charke with these crimes. If he followed Campian, it was not to in­sulte vpon his miserie, but to exhort him to repen­tance. What bigge lookes or stearne countenance he could put on in that time and case, I cannot con­ceiue. I hope all men that know his face, will testifie, that he looked then no otherwise, then he doth at all times, except commiseration of the damnable state of those obstinate traytors and heretikes, did cause some tokens of heauines to appeare in his countenance. What his proude wordes and mercilesse behauiour was, in what pointe he shewed him selfe so feirce and vio­lent vpon those trayterous heretikes, in death and torments, when you can declare, but in three wordes, [Page 13] you shall receiue an answere. In the meane time you may not thinke that with any reasonable man it is sufficient for you to accuse him of pride in wordes, and crueltie in behauiour, when you bring no exam­ple nor proofe thereof. And sure I am, what wordes of his soeuer then vsed, you may wrest to make a shewe of pride, you are hable to alledge no action, wherein you may declare his vnmercifulnes, feirce­nes or violence. As for his pompous gate and speach, which you note in the last place, I doubt not but all they which know him, do laugh to heare you obiect it to him, as also that you note him afterwarde, to weare gorgeous apparrell, and therein to haue excel­led Campian. His valew in reasoning, learning and weight of arguments in writing, what they are, and how to be e­steemed, albeit his friendes know already, yet I hope his aduersaries also shall in their conscience acknow­ledge, especiallie after the smoke of your authors ca­uils be driuen away, by the cleare light of trueth.

As for the disturbance thorough searchers and perse­cuters, that you complaine of, which caused your au­thor to breake of in the middest, is but a shift of de­scant. For as your author, whatsoeuer he be, is still hidden, so in his hiding place, he may goe through, if it please him, or if he be weary of his enterprise, he may take his ease without controlement. For the ex­tremitie of the time is not such, though you whine ne­uer so much, but if he can abstaine from vndermy­ning the state, he may enioy more rest, then an here­tike deserueth to haue, or then Papists in time and places of their gouernement wil afforde vnto true Ca­tholikes.

But you (saith the setter forth) hauing gotten the starte before vs in the fauour of our Prince, you follow the same with such vehemency and streightnes, as you allow vs no one [...] either of curtesie, or humanity, or of reasonable indifferency. First marke how manerly he speaketh of our princes [Page 14] fauour, as a matter not bestowed by iudgement, but gotten by starte of that party that first steppeth vnto her. Secondly, how hyporbolically he describeth our vehemency: no one iot of curtesie, humanitic, reasonable in­differencie. Why sir? who are you with whome we deal so streightly, for whome we make search so diligently, and punish so extreamely? A wholl hundred of Papists and more be daylie in our sight, dwell in their hou­ses, and suffer not so much as the lest ordinarie pu­nishent which is appointed by law for them, which come not to Church. They be temporall men, you will say. Read the booke entituled the execution for trea­son, &c. and you shall finde a number of your cleargy men vsed with all curtesie, and humanity, that maie be shewed to men of a contrary religion. It remaineth then, that you are some rebeilious Iesuits, or semina­ry priests, which are sent hither by the Pope, and his Antichristian adhaerents, to alienate the princes sub­iects mindes, yea to steal away their hearts from obe­dience of their Lawfull Soueraigne: that you might by such meanes prepare a waie the soner for the pub­like execution of that blasphemous bul of Pius Quin­tus. And would you, wandring about with such in­tents and practises, haue curtesie and gentlenes shew­ed you? And yet when you are apprehended, there is no duety of humanity denied you. You haue the due triall of law, and many times the deserued execution is forborne. Such lenitie so lightlie regarded, nay so tragically inueighed against, as most barbarus cruelty, deserueth at the hands of God and man more sharp, and yet but iuste entertain­ment.

You exclude vs (say you) from speach, conference, writing, printing, disputing, or any other due trial of our cause. Stil you would haue your cause to be religion, when it is high treason. And as for triall due for treason, is neuer de­nied you, before you be condemned for it. As for [Page 15] speach, conference, writing, printing, disputing for trial of the cause of religion, when you will permit to be free, in places of popish regiment, you may expo­stulate with vs, for not allowing you the same in this Christian state of gouernment.

But what extremitie soeuer we vse, we are sure (say yow) allwaies to be answered by one meanes or an other. It may be as you saie: but you tell vs not when. For if you speake of answering our bookes, you scarse giue one for tenne. Neither do you so disquiet vs by your pretended claime, as you mainely boast, but we might sleepe on both sides, if we had none other busines then to confute your popish treatises. And if you had no greater hope in treasonable practises, as in your re­bellions, both in England, and Ireland, and in your Popes bandes and banners, your Saunders, your Fel­tons, your Someruils, your Parries, and such other ex­ecrable traitors and treasons, then you haue confi­dence in writing or reasoning, you would not looke to see the rooting out of our faith & religion, which you terme heresie, as you do vainly prognosticat and pro­phecie.

But our credit (you thinke) is greatly crushed in our owne conceiptes, seing we flie openly and without shame all kinde of quiet triall what soeuer, and with furie onely moue the magi­strate to violence against you. In deed you know your owne cause best, where you haue the magistrate obedient at your beck, how vnwilling you are to haue any other quiet conference for trial, but imprisonment, torment, fire, and fagot. And if the same measure were paied you home againe into your lapps, it were no more but good iustice, and such as you shall surely finde one day, according to the prophecy of the holy ghost. Re­wardeApoc. 18.her euen as she hath rewarded you, &c. when God shall put into the hart of Kings, to hate the Romish whoore of Babylon, to eate her flesh, and to burne her with fire. But as yet, God calling you to repentance, [Page 16] you haue no cause to repine against our seuerity, much lesse to condemne vs of violence, if you seeke not your owne bane, by practising of treason and se­dition. But how do you openlie and without shame, saie, that we flie openly and without shame all kinde of quiet triall? What lawfull kinde of quiet triall hath not bene offered to you? Would you haue confe­rence? was there not a moste solemne conference agreed vpon, in the beginning of her Maiesties reigne, where principall men of both parts haue beene chosen to confer, and all the states of the realme assembled in parliament readie to heare? And who did there openly and without all shame flie the triall? did not the pillers of popery, vpon a friuo­lus cauill, misliked by their owne Fecknam, giue ouer the combate? As for priuate confirence, it hath bene ma­ny times offered, and often practised with such of your heresie, as be in holde, but of them for the moste part misliked or reiected. Triall by writing of bookes, hath alwaies bene, and yet is open & free, in so much as many of your popish treatises being confuted by vs, are allowed to be inserted into our bookes, that the indifferent reader may iudge of both more freely and easily: a triall which you papists neuer yet durst enter into, and a manifest argument, that you flie the most indifferent kinde of triall. You haue bene open­ly challenged by Doctor Fulke to conclude the contro­uersies In his re­quest and protestati­on before his reten­tiue against Bristowes motiues. of religion that are betweene vs in the strict forme of syllogismes, both for your owne ease and for the clearnes and certainty of iudgement: and this rea sonable request, if you refuse to yealde vnto, he hath protested before God and the world, that you shew your selues thereby to be enemies of trueth, that you flie the light, and dare not abide the triall. And yet these foure yeares day, none of you all hath aduentu­red that most easie, certaine and necessary trial, which you cannot refuse, if you wil haue trueth to be thought [Page 17] to stand on your side. Let wise men iudge therefore, whether we refuse all kinde of quiet triall, and whether it be not a seditious kinde of triall, that you would haue, as appeared by Campians challenge: who although he were a person too contemptible for yeares, gra­uitie, learning, or honestie, to make so proude a cha­lenge, to all the learned and wise of the Church and common welth of England: yet when he was brought to light, he was conferred withall, by diuerse graue, and learned men, and tried in the defense of his owne treatise, in which God wot, he was quickly found to be none other, then his familiars alwaies knew him to be, that is more bold to challenge, then able to de­fend him-selfe: more ready to cauill like a childish so­phister, then to answere like a sober deuine.

And as for his constancie & patience (which you magni­fie with so many wordes) in his iust execution for trea­son, which you falsly terme martyrdome, for your false religion, there is smale cause you should boast of it: but that it is necessarie, where you cannot be borne out with trueth, to breake through with open lyes. For manie hundrethes of eie witnesses can testifie a­gainst you, that of his patience (which yet had bene perforce) there was no sufficient trial by torment, or sense of bodelie paine, at his death, other then is vsu­al to al that be strangled with an halter. But as for con­stancie or cherefull passage vnto his death, it appeared lesse in him, then in any of his fellowes, but rather great to­kens of deiection and consternation of his minde, be­wraied in his colour, countenance, voice, and gesture, plainly noted by such as knew his stomach, courage, & lusty behauiour when he was in prosperity. That he & his complices, would acknowledge no guilt of treason, whereof they were so cleerely conuicted, it maketh their death more detestable, & sheweth their hipocrisie more dam­nable: who seeing it was necessary for them to die as traitors, desired of their fautors to be honored as mar­tirs: [Page 18] declaring thereby intollerable rancor, and malice against the prince and the state, and no lesse pride & ambition in them-selues. Of such Martyrs boast as long as you will, you shall neither get credit by them, when their cause is knowne, nor terrifie vs with re­uenge of their blood, when their punishment was iust. HEtherto belike you haue spoken to al that abhorre Popery in general: for now you will speake aword or two to Master Charke, as to his owne person in particuler. And two things you tell him of, that in this matter do prin­cipally concerne him. The first is his writing, which, as shall appeare by this authors defense, doth conuince him of grosse ignorance, and that in verie common matters, both of diuinitie, and of Philosophie, wherein it is well knowne that Campian was moste excellent. But seeing the proofe of this conuiction resteth onely in the authors defense, the discreete reader will suspend his iudgement, vntill he see Master Charkes answere also. In the meane time it will appeare, by that which other men write in his defence likewise, that all is not grosse ignorance, which cauilling and malitious Papists, seeking to de­face him with a false accusation, are disposed to im­pute vnto him. As for Campians learning in these two sciences, I may be as bold to saie, it is well knowne, that it was but vulgar, and inferior to manie of his yeares and tyme of studie, which you commend to be in the superlatiue degree of moste excellencye. Some peece of his diuinity he shewed in the conference with in the tower of London. His knowledge in Philosophie, as it is not to be waighed in the controuersie of Religion, which we haue in hand, so it is not to be thought, that he so far excelled therein, but Oxford and Cambridge can aforde an hundreth Masters of Arte his iuniors in time, at the lest way his equalls, if not his betters therein

That Master Charke outfaced him in the towre of London, by reason of his high place, gaie apparell, great wordes, assi­stance [Page 19] of friendes, countenance of authoritie, and applause of Protestantes standing by, it is a poore excuse of Master Campians insufficiencie, which though it was manifest to the wise and learned, in euery of the former daies of conference, yet in that last daie of Master Charkes encounter with him, was apparant euen to the simple & ignorant: so that Campians impudencie, wherein he chieflie excelied, was so repressed at that time, as euen in the opinion of euerie man (albeit he was van­quished before) yet now at last he seemed to be cleane ouerthrowne. And this shamefull foile, you would faine haue to be thought to haue happened vnto him, as one ouermatched with M. Charkes highe place, gaie appa­rell, great wordes, &c. It is pittie your Champion was noe better armed aganst so weake arguments, but did suffer him self to be outfaced with such friuolous reasons, of place, garmentes, wordes, countenance, & multitude. verely they that knew his audacitie from a childe, mar­ueled to see him so greatlie daunted, but that it pleased God that day, to make him, and all the papists, in their foolish deuise of his impudent challenge, ridiculous to al the world. But if we maie examine these reasons, by which he seemed to be so much outfaced, what diffe­rence of place, I praie you, was there betweene the oppo­nents, and the respondent? were not there stooles of equall height? you would haue fooles imagine belike that Charke sat a loft in a throne, seauen stepps higher then Campian, or what meane you to prate of high place. As for gay apparell, men maie see Master Charke daielie how gorgeouslie he is araied, so that he turneth the eies of all men vppon him, which waie so euer he goeth: or els Campian had smale cause to feare him, for his gaie apparell. In trueth his apparell was of colour blacke, of matter wollen, of making such as the common sorte of Ministers in London commonly do vse to weare. But if Campian had bene stripped out of his rugge gowne, whereunder his ruffianlike garments [Page 20] were hidde, he would haue appeared in much gayer apparell for matter, colour, and fashion, then Master Charke was euer seene to weare, since he came into the ministerie. Neuertheles his gowne could not hide his to spots hat, which, if not on that daie, yet at all other times of the conference, it is certaine was the same, that was seene with the rest of his Iesuiticali robes, when he ridde through Cheap-side towards the tower of London: And therefore mee thinkes you neede not to haue spoken of Master Charkes gaie apparell. But what Sesquipeda­lia verba. were those greate words of his, a foote and a halfe long at the lest, that Master Campian might be outfaced with them? They that were present could obserue no affectation os wordes, but weight of matter, that bare downe Campians courage, especially when he was pres­sed to answere to syllogismes, which (as though no man but he could skill of) at the first he did scornefully call for. The assistance of friendes was a smale prerogatiue, when they were onelie hearers, and not helpers of his disputation. The countenance of authoritie litle auai­leth in conference, where each partie, by leaue of au­thoritie, may saie what he can for his cause. Last of all the applause of the Protestantes standing by, was no cause of Campians outfacing, but a consequent of his vn­sufficient answering. That vaine scoffe, of Campians comming within the reach of Charkes ministeriall power and authoritie, sauoreth of nothing, but of proude follie, and foolish malice. For all men maie easilie know, that when Campian was apprehended for mo­uing the Queenes subiects to sedition, and com­mitted to the tower, for imagining and practi­sing of high treason, he was not within the reach of anie Ecclesiasticall persons power, or authoritie, much lesse of poore M. Charkes iurisdiction, which is none at all, further then by commission might be graunted to anie of the state ciuill or Ecclesiasticall to examine him, or to conferre with him.

The second matter you haue to speake to Master Charks owne person, is of his false dealing, to deceaue: wher­in you graunt him principalitie, not onely aboue Campian, who had no talent at all therein, but euen aboue the chiefe ma­sters of his owne syde, most expert in that facultie. The terme of talent, being taken out of the gospell, and signify­ing some grace or gyfte of god, how vngraciouslie it is abused, not onely in this place, for a facultie of false dealing, but also by the auctor him-selfe asterward, for a custome of rayling, I wish the sober reader to ob­serue, and to consider what religious affection these men beare to the doctrine of Christ, that can finde no termes to play with all in their spitefull inuectiues, but such as are shamefullie detorted and abused from the holy vse, and phrases of the blessed scriptures. As for the crime of false dealing, let it appeare in Gods name, by the tryall and examination of both the par­ties writings, and rest where it shalbe found to be pra­ctized. In the meane time, we must a litle consider of these examples here brought for a taste, to shew his false dealings by Master setter forth: First M. Charke inueigheth against the Censurer verie sharpely, be­cause he chargeth Luther with an opinion, which he confesseth that sometimes he held, and afterward re­canteth, concerning the licensing of wiues to lie with their neighbour, when their husbands by naturall in­firmitie, were not hable to do their partes. This say you, seemeth a very reasonable defense: where is then the false dealing? Mary (say you) the words that imme­diately follow in Luther, declare that now he would doe worsse then before: for now he would compell the poore husbandes, to graunt their wiues that libertie, or els would he tugge them by the lockes of the heade. And can there be anie more shamelesSee after­ward in the answere to the defense more at large.dealings, &c. If Luther declare his opinion in the words following, to be as you say, I must needes confes that this was a great ouersight in Master Charke at lest, if it were not shameles dealing. But if Luthers meaning [Page 22] by the whole scope of that place be plaine, not to giue the wife licence to lie with an other man (the band of wedlocke continuing) but to compell such an insufficient husband to be deuorced from his wife, because she cannot haue the lawfull remedie of incon­tinency by his companie, do you not plaie the papist in graine, thus to exclame against Master Charks false dealing? As for the phrase of tugging by the Locks, be­ing a Dutch prouerb, signifying no more but inforce­ment (to vse your owne words) hath that man anie conscience, trow you, that will vrge it to colour such vnhonest and false accusations? Verily you had bene better to haue held your peace: for now you are, and shalbe more hereafter discouered, while you slaunder him vntruely to vse deceit, and do vse false plaie your selfe, and that most impudentlie.

Another example of his false dealing you bring, in the controuersie, Whether concupiscense in the regenerate without consent be sinne. Where Master Chark being sore oppressed by many places of Saint Augustines auctori­tie, brought by the Censurer, findeth no other reliefe of his credit with the reader, but to forge a place of Saint Augu­stine to the contrarie: in which to deceaue the reader, he foisteth in this word (sinne) reciting his words thus: Concupiscense is not so forgiuen in Baptisme, that it is not sinne. By which ad­dition of the word (sinne) the matter seemeth to stand cleere on his side. And this cannot be excused by ignorance: but sheweth open and wilfull malice in the man. Hasty iudge­ment. Peraduenture he may excuse the addition, by the Printers fault, and so it was neither ignorance, nor malice in him. But take it moste hardly, that Master Chark did purposely adde the word (sinne) vnto S. Au­gustines text (which yet in a strict translation, where there is no neede, is not alowable) if it be manifest that it is Saint Augustines meaning, the addition of a word, for explication of the sense, is neither forging, nor foisting. But it is most impudentlying in you, sir [Page 23] setter forth, to say, he findeth none other reliefe of his credit with the reader, but to adde this word (sinne) to S. Au­gustines text, when immediatly after this pretended forgerie, he bringeth a most cleere place of Saint Au­gustine, in which he doth expressly affirme, that concu­piseense, euen in them that haue the spirit of God, is sinne: which argueth, that he needed not at al to forge and foist, hauing Saint Augustines words so euident on his side, and that he findeth not onely another, but a farr better reliefe of his credit with trueth, then he could looke to gaine, if he had bene disposed to vse false dealing. Master Charkes wordes are these: Saint Augustines place making it no sinne in the regenerate without consent, is expounded by him-selfe afterward saying: Concupis cense is not so forgiuen in Baptisme, that it is not sinne, but that it is not imputed as sinne. For a cleere proofe hereof, in another booke he saieth plainly, it is sinne. and so shewing the oc­casion of his saying, citeth the place at large Cont. Iul. lib. 5. cap. 3. in which are these wordes. Concupiscense of the flesh, against which the good spirit lusteth, is sinne, be­cause there is in it a disobedience against the regiment of the minde. Where he saith, for a cleerer proofe, it is pro­bable that the word (sinne) in the formet text, was not added by him, at lest wise not to deceaue: for with the addition, you will confesse, it is as cleare, as can be for his parte. But if he added that word, as being of the plaine meaning of Saint Augustine, yet subiect to cauilling, because it is not in him expressed, to take awaie al colour of wrangling, about the terme, he ioyneth a moste cleere proofe, of Saint Augustines iudgement plaine, that concupiscense in the regene­rate is sinne in his owne nature, although because it is forgiuen, it is not imputed to them as sinne. So that the sense is manifest, that concupiscense in the rege­nerate is sinne, but sinne forgiuen, or sinne not impu­ted. And therefore although in some sense, a man may truely say, that sinne forgiuen, as adulterie, is no [Page 24] sinne, or sinne not imputed, is no sinne, because the guiltines there of is remoued from the [...] re­mission, couering, or not imputing, through Gods mer­cy, or satisfaction of Christ; yet it followeth not there of, that sinne of his owne nature is not damnable, be­cause mercy hath made it remissible: or that sin forgi­uen, as adultety, or such like, cannot be properly called sinne, because it is pardoned; but the cleane contrary doth follow of necessity: euen so is cōcupiscens, which is forgiuen in the regenerate, yet remaineth in them, not as a vertue, or an indifferent thing, but as an euil thing, as Augustine els where confesseth: yet no sinne able to condemne them, because it is not imputed to them, or because it is pardoned in them. Therefore except you wil say, that sinne forgiuen or not imputed ceaseth to be sinne in his owne nature, concupiscense in the regenerate is sin, although forgiuen & not im­puted to them. But of this matter inough at this time, seing it is to be handled more at large hereafter, and to be plainly shewed, that Saint Augustine, although in some sense, he say that concupiscense is no sinne, yet in another sense he doth as plainly affirme, that it is sinne, and such as would condemne vnto death, if it were not satisfied by Christ, and remitted vnto the regenerate.

Your third example, of his purpose to deceaue, is, that not hauing at hand the Censure of Collen it selfe, he re­porteth diuerse vntruthes against the Iesuites out of Gotuisus, concealing his name, quoting onely Censura Coloniensis, which he is sure cannot be seene, as not to be had in England, ando­mitting Canisius, whom his author Gotuisus doth likewise cite, which may be had, and red of euery man. This is but a bare surmise, without any sufficient reason to vphold it: of two he citeth one, Ergo he seeketh to deceaue. And as for the Censure of Collen, it is now as common to be had in England, as Canisius his Catechisme, although when Master Chark did set forth his first booke, it was [Page 25] not to be sold in the shops, yet many had it in their stu­dies. And it seemeth he did chuse to cite that which was like to be of greater authoritie among the Papists, as done by consent of a wholl Vniuersity. But it touch­eth him more neerely, that where Gotuisus did not bee­lie the Iesuites sufficiently, Master Chark without blushing will falsifie his wordes, to make them more odious: as where Gotui­sus his wordes are, that the Iesuites say, the scripture is, as it were a nose of wax, Master Chark saith their wordes are, the scripture is a nose of wax. This quarrell was obiected at the first by the Censurer, and answered by M. Charke in his reply, that protesting at the first, not to set downe the very words, but the meaning, he hath nothing va­ried therfro. For there can be no other sense of these words, the scripture is a nose of wax, and these, The scri­pture is as a nose of wax, seing no man would dreame of a transsubstantiation, but al reasonable men vnderstand a semblans or likenes, although the note of similitude (as) be not expressed. Therefore there appeareth no purpose of deceauing by this citing out of Gotuisus, when Paiua Andradius also excusing the same crime against Kemnitius, confesseth that the fathers of Collen, in a most apte similitude, called it a nose of wax: & Pighius the leaden rule of the Lesbian building, as Master Charke shew­eth, whose purpose is no more, but to prooue that this is an vnapt, and an vnworthie similitude, and therfore hath offered no wrong to the Iesuits or Censu­rers of Collen, nor vsed any fraude to deceiue the reader.

Now concerning his other behauiour towards M. Cam­pian in the tower of London, & els where, you mean not great­ly to stand vpon, because you cannot imagine what co­lour you should set vpon your slaunder, and yet some­what you must say, or els burst for spight. First his inci­uility in wordes vttered against Campian in his booke. These blasphemous heretiks, and arrant traitors, where they haue no authoritie, and most bloodie butchers of gods saints where they haue power, require to be reueren­ced, [Page 26] euen of them, whome by all possible meanes they persecute, and abuse, so that there may not an vn­gentle word be spoken against them, though it be not halfe so much as they deserue to heare, but they com­plaine forsooth, of greate inciuilitie vsed toward them. But what the Ceusure noted, the reply hath an­swered, and therefore to a generall charge, I neede make none other, but a generall answere. But that was nothing to the contemptuous vsage of so learned a man in open audience. Surely learning goeth very low among the English Papists, when Campian is made so learned a man, and euen with lothsomnes so often commen­ded for learning: in whome as we acknowledge there was more learning, then honesty, so they which either were priuy to his studies, or had trial of his knowledge, must needes confes, that there wasin him much more arrogancie, then learning. But what contemptuous vsage (I pray you) can you lay to Master Charks charge? Bar­barous threatening of that further crueltie which then he had in minde, and now hath put in execution vppon him. Is any man so simple to belecue this slaunder? hath M. Chark put any crueltie or punishment of iustice, either vpon Campian in execution? or had he any more to do in Cam pians punishment, then you? or was any greater cause thereof then you? nay verily, I maie thinke probably, that you, or at lest wise I may saie boldly, that some of his greatest friendes the Papists, were a much greater cause of Campians death, then any minister in England. For they knowing his proude stomach, & arrogant dis­position (which no man could be ignorant of, that was acquainted with Campian) chose him for a meete instru­ment to be sent into England, as a trumpet of sediti­on, with his traiterous faculties, which is in deede the right and true cause meritorious of such paine, as he suffered, & not Master Charks crueltie or malice: which if he had borne any against Campian, he is neither of authoritic, nor credit, to procure execution thereof, [Page 27] in such sorte as Campian was punished. Therefore this slaunder of Barbarous threatning, and contemptuous v­sage, is as the rest of your honest reportes, which nei­ther haue trueth, nor likely hoode of trueth in them.

But of all other things it seemeth to you most ridicu­lous, and fit for a stage, which yet Master Charke thought was excellent, and became him well: and that was his often tur­ning to the people, and requesting them to reioyce, and thanke the Lord that had giuen him such an argument: which when it came forth, prooued not worth three eggs in Maie, for that Master Campian dispatched it often times in lesse then halfe three wordes. Ofthis turning and requesting they that were present do saie, you lie in your throate, that anie such was vsed by Master Charke, as also where you saie, that when he was brought to a non plus, and thereuppon the people beginning to departe, he caused the dores to be shut, and no man to be let out, vntill they had ioyned with him in praier to thanke the Lord for his victorie, &c. But if it had bene true, that he had requested such thankesgiuing of the people, or caused the dore to be shut, that the wholl multitude of hearers might ioyne with him in prayer, is praier & thankesgiuing ridiculous, & meete for a stage? & doth the vse of them prooue a comicall exercise to get applause of the people? if the one or the other be so in the accompt of papists, surely they are otherwise iudged of among true christians. But it was the weak­nes of the arguments (you wilsay) which were so light­ly dissolued, in lesse then halfe three words, which made that preparation ridiculous. A maruelous dexteritie of the Champion, orels a ridiculous maruell of his pa­rasite, to saie, that he could dispatch arguments often times, and shew the infirmitie of them in one worde onelie, so that all men might laugh at the opponents follie. Of like credit it is, that Master Charke in the end was brought to a non plus, and thereupon the people began to depart: when as manie as were present can testifie, that the daie being farr spent, Master Liuetenant signi­fied [Page 28] that the time was past, whereupon Master Charke gaue ouer, and concluded with praier. In which if anie Papist, by reason the dore was shut by order of them which might commaunde it, were constrained like an hypocrite to vaile his bonet, or bow his knees against his minde, yet none was so hardie to protest that he would not ioyne in praier with him, but ouelie your grande Captaine Campian: which yet was so courtcous a gentleman, that he offered to ioyne hands with them in familiaritie, with whome he refused to ioyne his tongue in praier. A lack that treason and vaine glorie would not suffer him to liue: for otherwise manie thinke he would haue beene tractable enough in Re­ligion.

But it was to get applause of the people that Master Norton the rackmaster was at Master Charkes elbow, to repeate and vrge his arguments for him to the purpose, What els? ex­cept we might be bold with your worship, and tell you that you gable. Master Norton was there as a diligent and faithfull writer, as well of the arguments, as of the answeres: and when he repeated anie argument that he had written, it was that the opponent might ac­knowledge that he had taken it truely. As like wise he repeated Campians answere also, who often times when he misliked it him-selfe, either added, or detracted, or altered the same, so that he weried the writer not a li­tle, vntill it was set downe, as he would haue it stand, and as he would stand to it: otherwise it had bene smal matter of applause, that Master Charke should get, to haue an other man vrge his arguments for him to the purpose, as though he could not follow them him­selfe sufficientlie: so greate likeliehoode of trueth your surmises haue, which yet you set downe as absolutelie, as they were oracles of Apollo. For which cause also you had Master Norton the rackemaster, &c. But how well do you remember the rule of ciuilitie in wordes, whereof you are such a rigorous exactor in other men, that so [Page 29] reprochfully scoffe at M. Norton, who besyde his rare giftes of witte, learning, and wisedome, was of spe­ciall trust with other appointed by the Prince, and her moste honnorable councell, to examine such as were thought meete to be tried, or terrified with the racke, & therefore in respect of the authoritie, by which he dealt in those cases, neither in ciuilitie, nor in christia­nitie deserued the odious, and opprobious name of a rackemaster. Againe you pittie the case, that we durst not make those few disputations publike, where more men might haue laughed & bene witnesses of our folly &c. No no, if we had parted with Master Campian but at an euen hand, as we ioyned with him with all inequallitie, you shoulde haue had bookes of triumphset forth before now, & this secret of ours al the people of England doth knowe. What secret of ours? be like that we durst not make these disputations publiker by prin­ting the report thereof. For otherwise there were wit­nesses enow, at the hearing of them. But now all the people of England know that you lie impudently. For the report of that conference hath bene imprinted al­most this two yeares, and neuer a papist of you all, at home or abroad, hath aduentured to controll it, al­though there haue bene printed brags, that you would shortly set'it out your selues to our shame. You will say it is set downe by our selues, or our owne friendes, and consequently partially in reporte of Campians answers. Admit it were so (as in deede it is otherwise) for Cam­pians answers touching the substance of them, and in his owne wordes, are as trulie set doune, as the oppo­nents argumentes: yet because the matter is not the victorie against Campians person, but against his he­resies, if you thinke Campian, or your cause haue iniu­rie by the report of his answers, whie do not you shew, either what his answers were. or what they should haue bene, to the auoiding of those argumentes that then were brought against him? Which arguments as they were then propounded to Camipans person. so [Page 30] now by publishing of them in print, they are offered as a smal taste to al his fautors & abbertors, to answere them, if they can, better then Campian, but a young nouis in popish diuinity, was hable to doe. But I suppose it much more easie for you to laugh at them in cor­ners, and smile in your sleeues in open presence, then keeping the lawes of disputation, to auoide the force of them. As for the vaine glory whereof you dreame, that we be so greedie, you see by differring the publication of that conference so long, that we could wel haue for­borne it altogether, if vour insolent bragging, false surmising, impudent slaundering, and childish da­ring, had not in a manner extorted the setting forth thereof. The example you bring of our desire of praise, by Doctor Fulke, looking into Wisbige Castle, is by the same man sufficientlie answered, with all o­ther quarrells, that you picke against his writings, in a seuerall treatise annexed to his defense of the Eng­lish translations against Gregorie Martine, and therfore there needeth not anie other confutation of those slaunders and cauills, then is alreadie set forth.

But with what inequalitie did we ioine with Campian, by meanes whereof, he might be lesse hable to make his partie good? We know (you saie) the inequalitie, whereby we dealt with that man, being but one, vnbooked, vn­prouided, wearyed with imprisonment, and almost dismembred with the rack, threatened and terrified with death to come, ap­pointed onely to answere, and neuer to oppose: yea all this wee know, and the world both knoweth and marueileth at it abroad. The world maie maruell at his arrogancie, in making such a proude challenge, and at your impudencie, in defending his insufficiencie with such manifest vn­trueths. First you saie, he was but one, and the world knoweth there were but six, of more then six hundreth whome he challenged, hable to haue incountred with a greater giant, then he was, that at seuerall times had conference with him. He being but one, with ma­nifest [Page 31] note of intollerable pride, prouoked al the lear­ned of England: and do you complaine, that being but one, he was assaied by so few of so greate a number as he challenged? There was but one that challenged all, and therefore it was thought meete, that this one should be a litle discouered, partelie to represse the insolencie of him-selfe and of his friendes, partlie to satisfie the weakenes of some ignorant persons, that might imagine, there was some greate matter in his bold challenge, who shewed therein the greatest fol­lie that could be, if it had notserued for an other sub­till practize. Hewas vnbooked (you saie) but in deede he was licensed to haue what bookes soeuer he would call for. Canisius great Catechisme he required, and had, which he saide should be vnto him instar omnium. Vnprouided he could not be, being opposed in his owne booke, or at lest wise could not complaine of it, ha­uing as long time to consider of the questions, as his aduersaries had. His imprisonment had not bene so long before the conference, nor his keeping so straite, that his witts could be dulled, or his memorie quai­led in so short a time of fiue or six weekes. That he was either almost, or anie thing at all dismembred, or di­stracted in bodie with the racke, is a most false lie, and shamelesse slaunder, although he bragged as of his suffering by the rack, which he rather saw, then felt, as Master Lieuetenant told him. It is as false that he was threatened or terrified with death, by anie of the dis­puters. If he were terrified in minde with conscience of his treasons, to feare that death, which he knew he had deserued, there was none to blame but him-selfe. Otherwise his behauiour was not like one that feared death, as it was afterward when death in deede was present before his eies.

Finallie, that he was appointed onelie to answere, and ne­uer to oppose, it was noe disaduantage to him, if he had maintained a true cause, and had beene that man of [Page 32] learning, which he would seeme to be. For all men which know what belongeth to disputation, will con­fesse, that it is easier for a learned man to answere with commendation in defense of trueth, then to oppugne a true cause, with hope to winne credit. Wherfore the inequalitie was in the cause, not in the disputers parte, which was appointed to Campian. For if his positions had not bene false, by answering he had the aduan­tage against the opponents. Againe, Campian did first take vpon him the opponents parte in publishing his booke of tenne arguments against vs, which by our side was answered, and therefore it was meete, and a­greable to order, he should be appointed to answere, and our side to oppose, and that by the verie law of e­qualitie and indifferencie, although (as it is euident by the reporte of the conference) he was permitted som­time to oppose, and propounded such arguments as his weake cause could afforde him.

But you are sure and dare auowe to our faces, that we will neuer deale with you at euen hand, or vpon equall conditions, while we liue. You maie be sure that to maintaine your purpose of sedition, for which your challenge was made, that we will not deale with you at anie hand, or vpon anie conditions. But to shew your falsehoode, ignorance, and arrogancie manifest to the world, we are readie to ioyne with you in anie conditions, that our prince and magistrates will allow vs, and shall thinke maie stand with the quiet of the state: who, se­ing our religion after lawfull and solemne conference by vs offered, and shamefullie refused by your good masters, is by law established, will not rashlie admitt euerie vaine and ridiculous challenge of disputation, that is offered by such, as Campian & you are, who dare auow to our faces, and yet dare not shew your owne faces, before you be drawen out of your creeping cor­ners, and hiding holes, as Campian and his complices were.

Yet you are in the name of all your fellow Catholikes tore­new your bublike challenge of equall disputation. Who are you, and what Commission haue you from your fellow Papists, that we may credit you? If we knew either the one, or the other, we might the rather consider of your pretended publike challenge. Edmond Campian did more like a Champion, who when he cast downe his gloue of defiance, spared not his name, though he hid his head. But you, comming with so lowd a challenge, so large of­fers, so magnifical promises, not of your owne countri­men, but of straungers also, of matters not in priuate mens power, but of the graunt of Princes, & that in any kingdome and countrie, which you call Catholike; and moreouer, rather then you would faile of disputation, are ready to beare the expenses, not onely of our coun­trie-men, which are manie, but of all the learned Pro­testants of Europe, whome you giue vs leaue to call for our defense, must needs haue great intelligence & conference with all the popish states in Europe, and a wonderfull large commission from them all, which we would beglad you should shew, for our assurance, or els you shew your selfe the noblest foole in the world, to thinke that any man will credit you in so weightie mat­ters, vpon your owne bare worde, not knowing so much as whome to enquire for, or where to finde you, if we were disposed to confer with you, about anie conditi­ons of equalitie to be vsed in the pretended disputati­on, or about the time, place, or persons to be emploied in the same.

Neuerthelesse to shew your confidence, and desire of triall in all the haste, you tell vs, that albeit we thinke your cause to be greatlie weakened by the taking awaie, and dispatching (so you cal the iust execution) of Campian, & Sherwine, yet you are the same men you were before, yea much more disirous of this triall, then before. Indeede I am per­swaded you are no changelings, but euen as the deuill hardneth them whome he hath once in possession, so [Page 34] your obstinacie daylie encreaseth, both in herisie and treason. For the weakening of your cause, we neuer ac­counted any greate moment to be either in Campian, or Sherwine, more then to the strengthening thereof. They were of the ripest frie, that your seminarie could afforde, sparing the olde stores, and yet they were but frothe, for any sounde learning that was in either of them. You say, we were wante for more abasement of the other, to saie that M. Sherwine was farre better learned, then Campian him-selfe. It may be some haue saide soe, and they that haue had conference with both, doe affirme that is the learned tongues Greeke and Hebrewe, Sher­wyn had some litle sinacke, so that he could talke of them, whereas Campian was as blind as a betle in them both. Againe, Sherwyn in reasoning had for the most parte, the common shiftes and ordinarie answers of Papists, to the places that were cited out of the Do­ctors: Campian had nothing but friuolous distinctions, framed of his owne heade vpon the seddaine, seldome, or neuer vnderstanding the argument of the booke, or place of the Doctors, that he was pressed withall. So that it might casilie appeare, that Sherwin was better studied, & Campian quicker witted. In impudencie they were almost equall, sauing that Campian was impudent with arrogancie, Sherwine with more shew of humilitie. I wil note one example of Sherwins impudencie, and an other of his small knowledge in the Hebrewe tongue, wherein yet the Papists would beare vs in hand, that he was excellent. When after some priuate confe­rence had with him in M. Liuetenants lodging, within the tower of London, My Ladie Hopton chaunsed to speake somewhat against the licentious and abhomi­nable life of the Cardinals, and cleargie of Rome; Sherwin said, if any such thing were, they should answere for it themselues: but he tooke the eternall God to witnesse, that those eyes of his neuer saw in the citie of Rome, which he had often walkedouer, that could offend his harte, or conscience; which [Page 35] shamefull protestation of his, all that heard him did abhorre, seeing that, if Rome were the holiest citie that is in Europe, as it is wellknowne to be the moste sinfull in [...], yet noe honest and religious man, could remaine so long in it, but he should see some to­kens of pride, wantonnes, couetousnes, crueltie or vanitie, that must needes be a greife vnto his harte to consider. Now for the other matter. In the conference itselfe, he would haue taken vppon him no smal iudge­ment in the [...] ewe language by auouching that he wo [...] [...] [...] and notable corruptions in the Hebrewe text of the Bible. when an example was required, he brought forth the [...]7.v. of the 22 Psalme, which by like he had learned of Gregori [...] Martin as Martin had lear­ned of [...] here the Hebrew text (saide he) is C A­R I I, as a [...] my handes and my feete: but the truth is, as the v [...]lga [...]e [...] station hath, they have pearced my hands and my feete. Heere when it was answered, that of the Mazorites doe discharge this texte of corrupti­on testifying that the auncient reading was CAROV which signifieth they haue pearced; which Mazorites? said Master Sherwine. And so much touching the compari­son betweene Master Campian and Master Sherwine in whome as there was litle helpe for your cause, so we thinke you haue lost noe greate aduantage by their taking away out of this life.

But let vs see what be the wordes of your publike challenge. We request you, yea we coniure you, either for trueths sake, if you seeke it: or for your owne credits sake, if yee will retaine it, that you yeald vs after so much sute and supplication, some equall triall, either by writing, preaching, or disputing Although we should not yealde either to your requeste, or to your [...], we might haue that loue of trueth, and care of our credit, which be­commeth vs. For trueth hath bene so well and long [Page 36] tried to be on our parte, that our credit in mainteining thereof cannot be cracked, if we should altogeather refuse any new triall. For why should you be admit­ted after. 24. yeares to any new triall, which refused in the beginning so lawfull and solemne a triall, as the like in any memorie was neuer offered in this lande? what sute or supplication you haue made I knowe not, ex­cept you meane the seditious challenge of Campian, which was caste about as a lible, to erect and stirre the wauering mindes, of your inconstant disciples, in­to expectation of some great alteration, not lawfully, and orderlie deliuered to them, to whome it was inti­tuled, as an humble sute or supplication. Againe, there is noe reason, that vpon any sute or supplication, there should any further triall be graunted vnto you, that haue beene alreadie so often conuicted, & condemned in the cause, as though the matter were stil in question or doubt with vs; but onely in respect of some weake, and doubtfull persons, vnto whose infirmitie, in hope of their satisfaction and full resolution, something may be yealded. For what wise man would graunt to the Manichees, Arrians, Macedonians, and such other absurde heretikes (so long since condemned) at this time any new triall or iudgement by publike disputa­tion, preaching, or writing, although they did neuer soe importunatelie craue it, yea (as you doc) adiure and coniure them to it? And seeing you are so indif­ferent, as you pretend, to enter into any equal trial, either by writing, preaching, or disputation, what maketh you so ve­hement in calling for triall, when one of these waies neither is, nor can be denied vnto you, namelie triall by writing? yea you haue beene prouoked, and challen­ged to the most equal way of triall by writing, which is by syllogisme, to trie how you can vphold any of your heresies by vs condemned: whereunto you are now the rather to be called, because you complaine that Campian was not suffered to oppose. Set downe your [Page 37] syllogismes in the defense of any article of controuersy that you holde against vs, or in oppugning any point, of doctrine that we hold against you, either in writing or in print, so as they may come to our handes, & you shal receiue a speedie and a readie answere. This triall you may haue without daunger, sute, or charges, if it were triall, and not treason, that you sought to pra­ctize vnder pretext of publike trial, by preaching, or dispu­ting. Els what neede you be so importune for anie e­quall triall, when this the moste equal, the moste ea­sie, the moste profitable triall, or way of triall, for finding out, and iudgeing on which side trueth doth stand, neither is, nor can be taken from you.

There is noe reason in the world (you say) but onelie feare that may mooue vs to denie you this your request. But they that be wise can easilie iudge, that there is great reason to denie you anie such request, where your purpose is knowne to be sedition, and not triall: ne­uerthelesse your request of triall by writing is not de­nied you, as I haue saide before: vse it then when you thinke good, and make no more babling of triall, if you seeke nothing but triall, and be indifferent to take a­nie of these three kindes of triall.

The reason of the state (you saie) which is alleadged a­gainst your request, is mosts vaine. For what can a peaceable disputation graunted you for religion, indaunger our state, but onelie it may chaunce to discouer our errors, and so make the hearers detest our state of heresie? You carie peace in your mouthes, and swordes in your hartes. I haue touched some reasons alreadie: they that gouerne the state can saie much more. As for peaceable disputations vppon controuersies in religion, are dailie practized in our scholes, for excercise sake, in which all the ar­guments you can bring, are vrged as vehementlie, as you your selues can doe, in peaceable manner; and are so clearlie auoided, either by the answerer, or at lest by the moderator, as all reasonable hearers may [Page 38] plainlie see, that we stande for trueth against [...] and heresie, and if anie do wauer in opinion vpon so manifest euidence of trueth, he [...] iudgement, without that we stand [...] of triall, that are readie to abide [...] stand with our duetie, and is [...] de­monstration of trueth. As for the [...] [...] you doe once againe require, that [...] ob­teine for you, whatsoeuer you [...], is well knowne to be but a [...], for an other pur­pose then triall of trueth, whereof if you were so de­sirous, as you would seeme to be by your challenge, and so indifferent to accept anie of the three before named kindes of triall, as in wordes you did so latelie make shew, you would not be so importunate, for this kinde of triall by disputing, which is not like to be graunted vnto you, lest it might be surmised, that we would be content to bring our faith into doubte, and disceptation, & refuse the safest, the quietest, and the best kinde of triall, that is offered vnto you, which is by writing. You fare like a cowardlie russian, which knowing a man to be bounde to the peace, will make no end of bragging, and challenging him to fight: but if anie man that is at libertie offer to trie a blow or two with him, he is as colde to the combate, as he was before hotte to the challenge.

You offer your selues to the labor, charges, and perill of life, and yet you aske for your safeties such a warrant from her Maiestie, as the late councell of Trent did offer to all prote­stants of the world. If you offer your selues to the pe­rill of your liues, what need you anie warrant for your safeties: except you thinke her maiesties warrant is no better then such as is giuen by popish Councels and princes, which notwithstanding anie safecon­duits, leagues, truces, or warranties of safetie, are at their libertie to make contrarie Canons, and to exe­cute most cruell burnings, massacres, and murthers of Gods saints and innocent lambes, which haue com­mitted [Page 39] their liues into such faithlesse tyrants hands. But God be praised, her highnes honour hath neuer bene blemished with the least spotte of vnfaithful­nes, that you should seare notwithstanding her ma­iesties warrant, anie daunger to your liues, or boast that you offer your selues to perill of life, when you de­maund a warrant for your safeties, without the which you dare not so much as vtter your name, that be the challengers. And therefore it were a ridicu­lous sute for a warrant, that our ministers shoold com­mence in your behalfe, when they know not what you are, nor what warrant you haue, from any learned Papists to make such large offers, vponwarrant of your safteties: seeing it is knowne, that the best learned of your side in England, haue not only refused the same, but some also iudged al disputation to be vnprofitable.

Your offers I confesse are verie large, as that we shal appointe in what kinde and number, at what time, to what place, you shal come, either our countrey men onely, or strangers to dispute in our vniuersities before the learned onelie, that you giue vs leaue to call all the learned protestantes of Europe for our defence, you taking onelie our owne countrimen: That you giue vs leaue to oppose or defend, begin or end or vse anie prerogatiue that maie not impugne the indifferencie of triall. But when you aske, what we can alleadge why we should not accept this, We answere, that beside manie causes, not here needefull to be rehearsed, though before in parte touched, we alleadge for this present, that we do not beleeue that you are able to performe anie of these liberall offers, except we see matter of greater credit, then an epistle of an vnknowne pa­pist, written to Master Charke a priuate man. If you had shewed vs such warrant or commission, as wee might probablie haue beene perswaded of the per­formance of these promises, you might more reasona­blie haue required, what we had to alleadge, whie we did not accept them: but now there is noe reason in [Page 40] the worlde, that we should intreate with our Prince & Magistrates vppon these friuolous wordes of an ob­scure hedge-creeper, or boasting bench-whistler for a­nie thing we knowe: I am in the name of all my fellow Catholikes to renew, &c: Once againe I saie to you ministers, &c. We will giue you leaue, &c: and such like. But it is not sufficient that you are liberall at home onelie, ex­cept you be lauish abroade also: for if we had leuer make triall in other Countreies, we maie choose what Prote­stant state we liste, and procuring you safetie there, you will meete vs. Or if we please to come into anie Catholike King­dome or Countrie, you will procure what securitie soeuer reaso­nablie we will demaunde, and more then that, you will beare our expenses also, rather then so good a worke should remaine vnattempted: or anie other condition that we can denise, you will fulfill; Then you conclude, If we offer you reason, then deale somewhat reasonablie with vs againe. For all the world will crie shame and beginne to discredite you, if you will nei­ther giue, nor take, vpon so greate oddes as here are offered you. I answere, you offer vs great wordes, but no reason at all, because we knowe not what assurance you can make vs, to performe your wordes. If Master Charke, a man well knowne by his name, should make the like offer to you, by such an other printed epistle, or ta­king your offer, should promise you as great warrant as you require, at home or abroad, and moreouer to beare your expenses, rather then you should saile to appeare at anie time or place by him assigned, is your simplicitie so great, that you would keepe the appoin­ted daie, and place of disputation, vppon his pure pro­mise, without further assurance? And yet you can not misse to heare of him, & his dwelling place at London: whereas we know not to whome, nor whether to re­turnethe warrant, that it may come to you: except per haps youwould haue it proclamed with sound of trum pet, & sent into all partes of the realme, that you maie heareof it. It maie be you will alleadge, that it is great [Page 41] daunger for you to appeare without warrant of secu­ritie, and noe perill for vs, to procure you assurance of safetie. But all wise men maie see, that we should deserue noe lesse punnishment by procuring such a warrant for you, vppon so light a grownde, if you did not accepte it, as you should incur, appearing with­out warrant, for anie difference in religion, if you be not guilty of fellonie or treason. If you ment nothing, but peaceable disputation for trial of truth, you would not make your challenge in printed libels, and sediti­ous pamphlets, but rather seeke it at the handes of them that haue authoritie to graunt it, by intercession of those forreigne princes, with whome you pretend your credit to be so great, that you can procure what securitie soeuer reasonablie we can demaund, in their dominions. But to vse anie such lawful meanes, I trowe you will make no haste, when you wil not accept that quiet forme of triall by syllogismes in writing, which by Doctor Fulke so manie yeares agoe was offered vn­to you, and yet is free for you to take, if it please you, and that without sute, without daunger, and to the best and surest triall of the trueth.

But if we dare not venture with disputations, yet you re­quire vs to graunt you certaine sermons to encounter with vs vpon this matter. A verie reasonable request, I assure you. when you will graunt the like libertie of prea­ching in Spaine, or Italie, we will become suters for you to preach in England. Or if that also be to daun­gerous, we must procure you but a litle passage for your bookes, & speciallie Master Charke must obteine licence & free passage for this booke, vntil it be answered. Sir whenwe see what passage you can & wil procure for our bookes, at lest such as be not answered, vntill they be answered, in places where they are now restrained, we will endeuour, that you shall haue the like enter­tainement with vs. In the meane time, take what con­trouersie you will, or thinke you selfe best hable to [Page 42] prooue against vs, set downe such arguments as you haue to oppose against our assertion, in lawfull and lo­gicall syllogismes, and whether you send them writ­ten or printed, you shall receaue them againe printed with our answeres to them, and haue as free passage for your arguments, as shall be graunted for our an­swers. If you will replie against our answers, in like forme aforesaide, you shall haue our [...] in like manner set forth with your replie; and [...] the grace of God, you shall not faile of, toties, quoties, vntill you be non plus, or which we had rather will he, vntill you yeald to the trueth. This offer is so reasonable, that when the like was made to M. Mettham, one of the prisoners at Wisbeach, M. Fecknam of his equitie ac­knowledged that there could no more be required. Butas Mettham did then refuse it, so I am afraid will you. And yet it is more then you will doe for vs, to giue licence, that our bookes may be read of euerie man amonge you, with your confutations. And Do­ctor Windham then saide, that no wise state would suf­fer it. Neuerthe lesse our state, God be thanked, vpon conscience of trueth on our side, hath with no lesse wisedome, then good successe, alwaies permitted your bookes with our answers to them, to be read of all men to iudge indifferentlie, so they conteine nothing but question of religion, and not shamefull diffamati­ons and inuectiues against the prince, and the state of gouernement: which matters deserue to be answered with an axe or an halter, rather then with penne and paper. But to permitte your bookes vnconfuted to haue free passage (althoughe they passe with an hun­dred times lesse daunger, then ours maie doe among you) as you require, it were neither wisedome, god­lines, equitie, nor reason.

AN OVERTHROVVE OF THE ANSVVERE TO Master Charkes preface, touching Discerning of Spirites.

M. Chark beside the matter in question, &c.

IF this answerer beside the matter in question, had not made manie vn­necessarie, and vnpertinent digres­sions, the substance of his answere might haue bene contained almoste in as fewe lines, as nowe it filleth leaues. The triall of the Spirites which Saint Iohn requireth, that is, by the kinde of doctrine in teaching Christ, and not the qualitie of the teachers, Master I. Iohn, 4. Charke desireth, the aduersaries refuse, allowing no­thing finallie, but the onelie, and falselie named title of the Catholike Church of Rome for them-selues, and ac­cusations of the persons, some perhapes true, some vt­terlie false, against vs. To this practize so manie popish treatises, and this especiallie in hand, doe giue testi­monie. This is the summe of Master Charkes preface. Nowe commeth our answerer and because he had manie by-quarrels to deliuer, he taketh occasion to vtter them in this place, though litle or nothing per­taining to the direct confutation of Master Charkes preface. First he chargeth Master Charke to saie, that the Papists refuse Saint Iohns triall, which is false: for their bookes are extant, wherebie they haue called to triall all sectaries of our time: among whome he nameth Mun­ster, and Stancarus: against whome I neuer heard what Papists haue exercised their style, especiallie Stancarus, holding one principle, comming verie neare to their position of Christs priesthood, to be onelie according to his manhood: as Stancarus taught, [Page 44] that Christ was a mediatour onelie after his humanitie: but reade their bookes who shall, and he must needes confesse Master Charkes saying to bee true. For first or last, they draw all triall to Rome, and not to examine which doctrine giueth al glorie to God by Iesus Christ our onelie Sauiour, which is the scope of Saint Iohns triall.

But if wee had not desired triall of Spirites (saith he) wee would not haue laboured so much, to obteine the same of our aduersaries in free printing, preaching, or disputation. You speake of great labor, which none of vs euer heard that you tooke, except it were in spreading a fewe coppies of Campians seditious libell, not to the end of triall of spirites, for discerning of trueth: but to the stirring vp of mens bodies and mindes to treason, and Saunders treason in Ireland. rebellion; as the like labors, by the like messengers tooke effect, and make manifest demonstration in Ireland. But if free printing, preaching, and disputation be a goodway for discerning of Spirites, that Christ maie be knowne from Antichrist, whie doe not you Papists graunt the same in Spaine, Italie, and other countreis thrall to the Popes tirannie, yet assaulted by the doctrine of the gospell, as by the power of Christ a­gainst Antichrist? if it be not a good waie (as it seemeth you thinke, because you take it not your selues) how can you saie, that you require in those places this tri­all of spirites? No, no, it is an other triall, of the shar­pest swordes, that you meane, when you require such triall of Spirites.

You adde further of the aduenturing of your liues in comming and offering the same to vs at home, with so vne­quall conditions on your side, as you haue done and dailie doe, for the triall of trueth. There is no daunger of life a­mong vs, in offering the triall of Spirites, according to Saint Iohns rule; but in seeking to auerte the Queenes subiects from their duetifull obedience vnto her Maiestie, to make a waie for the execution of [Page 45] the Popes moste blasphemous, and traiterous Bull, Bull. Pij. 5. and this hath procured moste iuste, and necessarie execution of some fewe of you: and not, as you slaun­der, iustice; that offering to trie the truth, hath obtai­ned nothing hitherto, but offence, accusations, extreame rac­kings, and cruell death. Againe, these inequall conditi­ons, these daily offers, these manie petitions, and sup­plications that you speake of, whoe hath made? to whome haue they bene offered? when were they pre­sented? where were they seene, or heard? by whome were they refused? except Campians ridiculous chal­lenge be all in all with you. But what will a Papist spare to affirme, that he maie make falsehood haue some likly shape of truth? yet being admitted that you offer trial, it must be seene whoe doe offer best meanes of triall.

And here you will endeuour to shew, that all meanes of triall, which Master Charke and his fellowes will seeme to al­low in worde (For they offer none in deede) are neither sure, possible, nor euident; but meere shifts to auoide all triall: and that your selues do offer all the best, and surest waies of triall, that euer weere vsedin the Church, for discerning an hereticall spirit from a Catholike. Your indeuour is great, but your abilitie is small: for you shall neuer be able to de­monstrate either the one, or the other, howsoeuer with vaine sophistications, and wrested authorities, you seeke to dasell the eies of the simple. Let vs heare therefore howe you beginne. The onelie meanes of tri­all (you say) which Master Charke will seeme to allowe, is the scripture. But this is a shift common to all heretikes, especial­lie of our time. First you slaunder Master Charke, in say­ing that he alloweth the scripture to be the onelie meanes of triall of spirites, whereof he speaketh not at all in this preface, but of triall of spirites by the do­ctrine of Christ, which is moste plainlie and certenlie set forth in the holie scriptures, and therefore by the holie scriptures the doctrine maie best and moste cer­tenlie Ioh. 5. 39. [Page 46] be tried, and iudged. But that Master Charke by referring him selfe to the holie scriptures onelie, as suffi [...]n and [...]le to decide all controuersies of Re­ligion, doth denie, or exclude all other meanes of [...], whereby the true meaning of the scripture may be knowne, it is imp [...]dent he affirmed without either proofe, or likelihood of truth, as hereafter more plain­lie will appeare. Saint Augustine (as though he were an enimie of con [...]ing heresies by the authoritie of the scriptures onelie) is quoted in the margent de nupt. & Concup. lib 2. cap. 31 whose words are these. Non est mi [...]am, si Pelagiani dicta nostra in sensus [...] volunt, deto [...]quere cona [...]tur, quando de scripturis sanctis, non vbi obscurè aliquid dictum est, sed vbi clara [...]aperta sune testimonia, id facere consueuerunt, more quia [...] haere [...]icorum etiam caet [...]rorum. It is no maruel, if the Pelagians endeuor to wrest our sayings into what senses they will, when they are accustomed to do the same by the holie scriptures, not where any thing is spoken darkely, but where the testimonies are cleere and manifest, after the manner indeede of the rest of heretikes.. These wordes of Saint Augustine doe as aptelie agree to the Papists, as though they had bene by name vt­tered against them; as in that which followeth you shall see verified in this Papist, whoe both wresteth out sayings to such sense as himselfe pleaseth, and also the holie scriptures themselues, where they are most plaine and euident against him: a right pranek of olde herenkes. Note also by the waie that the scripture by Saint Augustines iudgement, containeth most cleere and euident testimonies; which though they be ne­uer so much wrested of herenkes, yet in the consci­ence of all that loue the truth, they doe manifestlie deliuer true doctrine, and confute false; and there­fore be not as a nose of wax, or a leaden rule, by which no Pighius.certentie maie be found, or anie sure triall had by them, as the Papists doe blaspheme.

The next quotation. l. 3. cont. Donat. ca. 15. is vncer­taine, because of diuerse treatises that S. Augustine did write against the Donatists: but I gesse he mea­neth his booke de Baptismo contra Donatistas: where yet is nothing to his purpose, or to anie purpose in hand: but that the scripture of the Gospell, If it be wholl, is the same, although it be alleadged by innumerable heretikes, according to the diversitie of euerie one of their opinions: and so Baptisme, ministred by heretikes, according to the institution of Christ, is the same, what opinion soever the heretikes haue of the wordes, by which it is consecrated and ministred. He saith also that the snares of heretikes and schismatikes, are therefore very pernicious to carnal men, because their pro [...]ting in know­ledge is shut from them, their sentence of vanitie being confir­med against the Catholike trueth and their sentence of dissention being con [...]med ag [...]in [...] the catholike peace. These things are true of obstinate heretikes, and consequentlie of Papists, but they make nothing against Master Chark, or for the triall of spirits, which is the question now debated betweene him & his aduersarie. But that the scriptures are sufficient to beate downe al heresies, and to reach all trueth necessarie to saluation, and the onelie sure and certaine triall, whereby all doctrine is to be examined and adiudged, the same Augustine doth plentifullie and in manie places of his workes declare, and euen in that same worke de Baptismo contra Donati­stas, lib. 2. Cap. 2. de vnitate Ecclesiae. cap. 2 & 3. & 16. de nup. & conc. lib. 2. cap. 29. de peccat. merit. & remiss lib. 3. cap. 7. de natura & gratia, cap. 60. &c.

Three causes there be (saith our answerer) of appealing onelie to scripture. The first, to get credit with the people by naming of scripture, & to seeme to honor it more then their ad­uersaries doe, by referring the wholl triall of matters vnto it. To winne credit by cleauing to the authoritie of God, expressed in his holie word written, and to honor it by acknowledging the sufficiencie thereof, for the tri­all of all matters of religion that maie comme in con­trouersie, [Page 48] is no shift of heretikes, or new teachers, but the auncient practize of the best and most approoued Catholikes. To pretend these things in shew, and not to accomplish them in deed, is the guise of hypocrites, what religion soeuet they would seeme to mantaine.

The second cause (saith he) is by excluding Councells, fathers, and aunciters of the Church (whoe from time to time haue declared the true sexse of scripture vnto vs) to reserue vnto them selues libertie and authoritie to make what mea­ning of scripture they please, and thereby to giue colour to eue­rie fansie they list to teach. But Master Charke and his fel­lowes, giuing the soueraigne authoritie to the onely scriptures, do not at all exclude councells, fathers, and aunciters of the Church, except it be in case, where they teach contrarie to the manifest scriptures of god, which doe either in expresse and plaine wordes, or els by moste easie and necessarie conclusion deliuer vnto the Church all things needefull to be credited, and knowne vnto eternall life, as both the Apostle testi­fieth. 2. Timoth. 3. and S. Augustine, a worthie Father & auncient of the Church consenteth. Ep. III. Fortunatiano. Ne (que) enim quorumlibet disputationes, quamuis Catholicorū & laudatorum hominum, velut scripturas canonicas habere debe­mus, vt nobis nonliceat, salua honorificentia, quae illis dcbetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare atque respuere, si fortè inuenerimus quòdaliter senserint quàm veritas habet, diuino adiutorio vel ab aliis intellecta, vel à nobis. Talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse intellectores meorum. Deni­que in his omnibus quae de opusculis sanctorum atque doctorum commemoraui, Ambrosij, Hyeronimi, Athanasij, Gregorij, & si­qua aliorū talia ita legere potui. For we ought not to accompt the disputations of all men, although they be catholike & praise wor­thie, as the Canonicall scriptures, that it should not be lawful for vs, sauing the reuerence which is due to these men, to disalow and reiect something in their writings if perhaps we haue found out, that they haue thought otherwise then the truth is, of things by gods helpe either vnderstood of others, or of our selues. Such one am [Page 49] I in the writings of other men, such would I haue other men to be vnderstanders of my writings. Finallie in all these which I haue rehearsed out of the workes of holie and learned men, Am­bros Hicrott. Athanasius, Gregorie, Andif I could so reade any like of other mens writings, &c. Also, Ep. 112. Pauline. [...] scripturarum, earum scilicet quae canonicae in Ec­clesia nominantur, perspicua firmatur authoritate, fine vlla dubitatione credendum est. Aliis verò testibus vel testimoniis quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur, tibi credere vel non credere liceat, quantum meriti ea admonentem ad facien­dam fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis. What sceuer is confirmed by the plaine & cleare authoritie of the holie scri­ptures, of those truelie which are called in the Church canoni­call, without all doubt is to be beleeued. But other witnesses or testimonies, by which anie thing is counselled to be beleeued, it is lawfull for thee to beleeue, or not, according as thou shale waigh what worthines, he that counselleth those things, hath to cause credit, or els hath not. Againe, De doctrina christiana, lib. 3. cap. 6. Magnificè & salubriter spiritus sanctus ita scri­pturas sanctas modificauit, vt locis apertioribus fami occurre­ret, obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret: Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur. The holie ghost hath magnifically and wholsomlie so tempered the holy scriptures, that with euident places he might satisfie hunger, and with more darke places might wipe awaie disdainfulnes. For nothing almoste is found out of those obscurities, which is not found els where most plainlie vttered. It were no hard matter to heape vp manie testimonies of the auncient fathers to this purpose, but that the va nitie of this answerer appeereth sufficientlie in all our bookes written against the papists, in which not onely by the manifest places of the scriptures, but also by most euident testimonies of the doctors of the church, we confute them in the most and greatest matters of controuersie that ate betweene vs.

But what saith our gallant answerer, that the councels, fathers, and anciters of theChurch, haue from time to timede­clared [Page 50] the true sense of the scriptures vnto vs? hath none of these at any time erred in expounding the scriptures, & may we safely beleeue them whatsoeuer they say? He wil (I warrant you) deny it, except the Pope of Rome do alow their interpretations. And therfore this flying from the only scriptures to the interpretation of Coun cels, fathers & ancetors of the Church, is nothing els, but an impudent shift, to reserue vnto the Pope liberty & authority to make what meaning of scripture they please, & thereby to giue colour to euery fansie they list, to father it vpon the authority of the holie scriptures.

The third cause he affirmeth to be, that by chalenging of onely scripture, they maie deliuer themselues from all ordinan ces or doctrines, left vnto vs by the first pillers of Christs Church, though not expressely set down in the scripture, &c. In deede to deliuer our selues from the burthen of mens traditions, the ordinances or doctrines of men, we af­firme 2. Tim. 3. the holie scriptures to be hable and sufficient to make vs wise vnto saluation by faith in Iesus Christ, as the Apo­stles and principall pillers of the Church haue taught vs: who haue left no such ordinances or doctrines, but they be either expressely set down in the holy scri­ptures, or by plaine and necessarie collection to be ga­thered out of the same. For how will our aduersaries prooue, that anie thing is receaued from the Apo­stles, which hath not testimonie out of the writings of the Apostles? who can be a sufficient witnes of such de liuerie, seeing manie things were of olde referred to the Apostles tradition, which euen our aduersaries do Euseb. li. 5. c. 26. not admit to be Apostolical? seeing the most auncient and immediate successors of the Apostles, as Polyear­pus, & Anicetus, can not agree about a ceremony recea­ued from the Apostles, namelie the celebration of Easter, what certentie can there be of anie other ordinances or doctines, fathered vpon the Apostles, without wit­nes of their writings, yea and some times directlie contrarie and repugnant to their writings?

But hereof, saith our aduersarie, they assume autho­ritie of allowing or not allowing, whatsoeuer liketh or serueth their turnes for the time: and hereof he bring­eth example: First of the number of sacraments, whereof some protestants haue written diuerslie, because the name of sacrament is diuerslie taken: sometimes large­lie, for euerie holie signe: sometimes strictlie, for such holie signes onely, as being instituted of God, are seales of the dispensation of his generall grace in the new te­ftament, perteining to euerie member of the Church: somtimes for al holy mysteries: or secrets, &c. But what doth it serue anie protestants turne, whether there be more, or fewer signes in number, that maie be called sa­craments? seeing all protestants agree about the things themselues, that are set forth in the scriptures to be visible signes of grace inuisible, and the name it selfe, Sacrament, in that sense we speake of, when we saie there are 2. 3. 4. or 7. sacraments, is not once vsed. This diuersitie therefore is but of a terme, and that not vsed in scripture: therefore it ariseth not of anie interpretation, or peruerse vnderstanding of the scripture, as our answerer would haue it seeme to be.

But let vs heare his example. Martin Luther, saith he, after he had denied all testimonie of man, besides himselfe, he beginneth thus about the number of sacraments. Principiò neganda mihisunt septem sacramenta, & tantúm tria pro tempore ponenda. First of all I must denie seauen sacraments, and appoint three for the time. Marie this time lasted not long: for in the same place he saith, that if he would speake according to the vse of onely scripture, he hath but one sacrament for vs, that is baptisme. In this sentence how manie lies and slaunders be packed together? First he saith, Martin Luther denieth all testimonie of man, which is false: for he alloweth all testimonie of man, that agreeth with the testimonie of God, expressed in the scriptures, and often citeth the testimonies of the auncient fathers [Page 52] for confirmation of the trueth, which he taught: in­deede he alloweth man no authoritie to institute sa­craments, or to make articles of faith, or lawes to binde the conscience of man: and he would haue all mans testimonies to be examined and iudged accor­ding to the word of God: but this is not to denie all testimonie of man, but to distinguish true testimonies of man, from false. An other slaunder is, where he saith, that Luther in denying all mans testimonie, excepteth him selfe: which is altogether vntrue. For he requi­reth none other credit to be giuen to his owne testi­monie, then he alloweth to the testimonie of other. Neither doth he arrogate any authoritie to him selfe, which he derogateth from other men. And namelie in this booke of the captiuitie of Babilon, he taketh not vpon him absolutelie to teach euerie point, but so farr forth as he did for the present vnderstand of them: pro­mising after greater study, & more diligent inquirie, to intreat of diuers of them more certenly: & euen in this verie place of the number of the sacraments, he saith, he will admit three onclie for the present time, intending to be further a duised whether there be fewer, or more, to be entituled with that name. Wherein our answerer offereth him the third iniurie, in translating, tria pro tempore ponenda, I must appoint three for the time, as though Luther had taken vpon him to appoint how manie sa­craments the Church should haue, or would challenge power to appoint more or Jesse at his pleasure; where as his wordes (if the answerer did not wilfullie corrupt them by false translation) do import no such thing, but onelie as farr as he did presentlie see, there were no more but three of those, that were commonlie called sacraments of the new testament, which were rightlie to be called by that name. The fourth slaunder is, that Luther hath but one sacrament for vs, which is Baptisme, if he would speake according to the vse of onelie scripture: yea this is a double slaunder: for neither doth Luther [Page 53] say, that he hath but one sacrament for vs, in that mea ning of the word sacrament, in which he is charged by the cauiller to alter his opinion so shortlie, but in an other meaning: neither doth he saie, that this one sa­crament is haptisme: in which I can but wonder at the impudency of this fellow, that forgeth this last lie in his owne braine, without all colour or shew of Luthers words: as though Luther would allow no sacrament of the Church but Baptisme. The wordes of Luther are these, of the number of sacraments. After he hath de­nied the number of seauen, & admitted for the present but three, namely Baptisme, penance, & the supper, all which he affirmeth by the court of Rome to be brought De cap. Bab. into miserable captiuitie, and the Church spoiled of all her libertie, he addeth: Quanquam si vsu scripturae lo­qui velim, non nisi'vnum sacramentum habeam, & tria signa sacrament alia, de quo latiùs suo tempore. Although if I would speake after the vse of scripture, I haue but one sacrament, and three sacramentall signes, whereof more at large in due time. This one sacrament, whereof he speaketh, is the ho­lie mysterie or secret of our redemption, or saluati­on by Iesus Christ; of which the other that are com­monlie called sacraments, are holie and mysticall signes: so that herein he changeth no opinion of the thing, but onelie speaketh of the diuerse taking of the worde.

Well, yet will our a duersarie replie, he alloweth three sacraments, so doth the confession of Auspurge, Me­lancthon fowre, and Caluine two: and all this by onelie scrip­ture. I haue shewed before sufficientlie, that this que­stion of the number of those signes that maie be called sacraments properlie, or vnproperlie, generallie or speciallie, is not determinable by the holie scriptures, because this name of sacrament is not found in them. Those holie mysteries, which by externall elements do testifie the inuisible grace of God workeing in vs, vnto our saluation by regeneration and preseruation, [Page 54] are plainlie set forth in the scripture, Baptisme, and the Lords supper, without naming them sacraments, which comprehend that whol mysterie of our saluati­on, which Luther calleth the onelie sacrament, by the vse of the scripture, according to which explication of the word sacrament there are but two, so rightlie, pro­perlie, and speciallie to be termed, according to the auncient vsage of the Latine Church, and no more ac­knowledged, by anie protestant of sound religion. For Luther, his enemies shall testifie, which were ap­pointed to gather out of his writings whatsoeuer they thought to be erroneous, to be obiected against him: & this is their Censure. Negat septem esse sacramenta, sed tantùm tria pro tempore ponenda, baptismum, poenitentiam, panem. Immo non nisi vnum esse sacramentum, & tria fig­na sacramentalia. Duo tamen in Ecclesia Dei esse sacramenta, baptismum, & panem. He denieth (say the collectors) that there are seauen sacraments, but that three onelie for the time are to be admitted, baptisme, penance, and the breade: nay rather, that there is but one sacrament, and three sacramen­tall signes: neuertheles there are two sacraments in the Church of God, baptisme, and the bread. Luthers iudgement thus appearing by the confestion of his owne aduersaries, that as baptisme and the supper are called sacraments, there are no more that rightlie and properlie can beare that name: The confession of Auspurge and Me­lancthon, which as our answerer saith, pretend and pro­fesse to follow Luther in all things, can haue none o­ther meaning in this matter of the number of the sa­craments of the new testament. And Melancthon ex­pressely discoursing of the term sacrament, sheweth how diuerslie it maie be taken, to comprehend two, three or fowre. And in the last edition of his common places, where he answereth the articles of the Bauaricall in­quisition, he holdeth but two properlie to be called sacraments, as Luther before him, in his Catechisme the greater, and the lesser. Wherefore this friuolous [Page 55] cauill is thus easilie discussed, to the shame of the ca­uiller, and to the attestation of our consent in the matter and substance of trueth,

The like brable of wordes he maketh of the title of heade of the Church, which Caluine and the Magdeburgeans doe mislike, and Caluine in King Henrie found to be Antichri­stian, but Caluines folowers in England do finde by onelie scri­pure to be moste Christian. Where all the dissention is in the terme, which being rightlie vnderstood, as by law it hath bene confirmed vnto the Prince, conteineth no other authoritie, then Caluine, and all other pro­fessors of the Gospell, do acknowledge to pertaine vnto the Christian magistrate, and is prooued to be moste Christian, not onelie by scripture, but also by testimonie of the moste auncient and Catholike Fathers of the Church, as it were easie to shew, but that it is here no place to decide these controuersies. The title of supreme head of the Church, graun­ted to King Henrie, Caluine saieth was blaspheomus, not as it was vnderstoode of the godlie at that time, but as it was applied by Stephen Gardiner: who in a conference at Ratisbone, cared not much for the testimonies of the scripture, but said, it was in the Kings power to abrogate decrees, and to institute new ceremonies, as to appoint daies of fasting, abstinence from flesh, &c. And not staying there, he proceeded further, to affirme, that it was lawfull for the King to forbid mariage vnto Priests, to forbid the laie people to drinke of the cup in the Lords supper; and generallie to commaund, or for bid in his kingdome what he would, because he had soueraigne authoritie. This authoritie, or the ti­tle in this sense, neither our princes do accept, nei­ther doth anie godlie man allow vnto them.

A third example he bringeth of burning of here­tikes, wherein he saith: The Protestants a greate while by onelie scripture, defended against the Catholikes, that no he­retikes might be burned, or put to death, whereof large bookes are written on both partes: Now they haue found by euident scri­pture, [Page 56] that they maie be burned. As though there were not controuersies enow, betweene the Papists and the Protestants, this man will needes make more, as this of putting blasphemous heretikes to death, which was neuer denied, the scripture of stoning blasphemers, false Prophets, and Idolaters, being so manifest. A. nabaptists indeede, and such like sectaries, are lothe that heretikes should be punished with death. But there hath bone long bookes (saith he) written thereof on both partes. If you aske him by whome, he biddeth you in the margent looke Eckius in Encher. and Luther contra Latom. de incendiariis. Would you not thinke this follow had read these treatises, for burning of heretikes, pro & contra, whereunto he sendeth vs, to iustifie his say­ing of large bookes written on both partes? but in truth he either neuer saw the bookes, or els he is the moste impudent forger, that euer was heard of: for Fckius in his litle booke, called Encheridion, loco 27. de hereticis Comburendis, which is but a short section or Chap er, doth not charge Luther with this opinion, of heretikes not to be burned; but the Donatists, whose fansie is re­newed againe in the Anabaptists, and Libertines. As for Luther Contra Latomum deincendiariis, handleth not this controuersie at all, but onelie expostulateth with the deuines of Louane, which burned his bookes with­out examination, or Conuiction of them, out of the word of God. Manie men haue complained, and that moste iustlie, of the crueltie of the Papists in burning as heretikes, the true saints, martyrs, and members of the Church, whose faith and religion they were neuer hable to conuince of heresie, by the authoritie of gods word. But that no blasphemer or obstinate heretike, maintaining blasphemie against the expresse and ma­nifest trueth of God, is to be punished by death, I am persuaded he can bring no booke or author of any ac­compt, that so holdeth.

Fourthlie, he addeth, that Luther by onelie scripture, [Page 57] found the sacramentaries to be heretikes. D. Fulk by the same scripture findeth that both parties are good Catholikes. But as Luther erred in his opinion of the sacrament, so he was ouer rash in condemning those whome he cal­leth sacramentaries: neuerthelesse seing he erred of ignorance, and inconsiderate zeale, he hath found mercie with God, and is not to be adiudged as a blas­phemous heretike. For neither the error he maintai­ned is blasphemie in it selfe, neither did he hold it con­trarie to his knowledge, but as he was ignorantlie persuaded with zeale of trueth, though deceiued with error. How Doctor Fulke prooueth this not onelie by scripture, but also by example of auncient fathers, er­ring in like cases, and yet not to be condemned for heretikes, you maie reade in the place by this an­swerer quoted, and in his confutation of Popish quarrels.

His last example is of manie things which Master Whit­gift doth defend against Thomas Cartwright, to be lawfull by scripture, as Bishops, Dcanes, Archdeacons, officialls, holy daies, and an hundreth more, which in Geneua are holden to be flat conirarie to the scripture. There are manie things law­full by scripture, which yet are not necessarie to be v­sed. The forme of external gouernment and discipline of the Church is not so expreslie set downe in holie scriptures, but that euetie particulare Church hath li­bertie, and must of necessitie appoint manie things for order, decencie, and gouernment, which are not in ex­presse termes conteined in the scriptures, euen as god shall giue them grace to see what is moste expedient, according to the difference of times, places, and per­sons, for the building vp of the Church, in trueth and loue. Wherefore although the Church of Geneua in the forme of outward regiment, rites, and discipline, differing from the Church of England, do not vse the same things that we do, yet it followeth not that they holde them to be flat contrarie to the scripture, nei­ther [Page 58] is our answerer hable soundlie to prooue, that he doth so boldlie asseuere.

To proceede, he telleth vs what aduantage herctikes haue by onelie scripture: they make them-selues therebie iudges of Doctors, Councels, histories, presidentes, cusiomes, pre­scriptions, yea of the bookes of scripture, & sense it selfe, reser­uing al interpretation to them-selues. But this is nothing so, for howsoeuerheretikes take vppon them to control al things, according to their fantasie, yet haue they noe aduantage by onelie scripture, but therebie maie be, & are confounded, when they come to examination & tri all. And as for the professors of the Gospell, which ac­knowledge the scriprure to be sufficiente to teach all Ioh 5. thinges needful to be knownevnto saluation, although they are by god him selfe made Iudges of the spirits of al men, by exacting them vnto the trial of the word of Iho. 17. god, which is the onelie certaine rule of truth, yet doe they not by priuate authoritie iudge of Councells, do­ctors, fathers, customs, &c. But by that charge, which is laide vpon them to iudge, & cōdemne, euen the Angels Gal. 1.from heauen, if they should bring anie other Gospell, then that which the Apostles haue preached; without al arrogancie or insolencie against the Angels, Councels, Doctors, Fa­thers, & whatsoeuer: but in giuing god the glorie, to be onely true, & al men to be liers, & no Angel to be credi­ted, except they speake by the spirite of God; of whose speach we haue no certaine demonstration, but in the holie scriptures, & whatsoeuer is agreeable vnto them. The discerning of the bookes of scripture, & of the true sense of them, is also committed vnto the Church, & the faith­ful members thereof, that doutful bookes be iudged by those that without doubt are indited by the holy ghost, & deliuered to the Church by faithfull witnesses & in­struments of the holy ghost, to be of soueraigne and perpetual authority in the Church, and so are knowne and taken of the true Church from time to time, in such sorte, that although the same truth maie be found [Page 59] in other bookes, yet (as Saint Augustine saith) they are not of the same authoritie, because there is not such certentie of trueth. As for the sense and interpretation of the holie scriptures, it must be taken out of the scrip­tures them-selues, which are alwaies the best and su­rest interpretation of them-selues, in all points ne­cessarie to be knowne, with the aide of the gift of tongues, the gift of knowledge, the gift of interpreta­tion, in them that haue labored in finding out the sense thereof, according to the analogie of faith, which is comprehended in the scriptures, and that in places so plaine and euident, as they neede no interpretation, and therefore cannot be wrested by damnable here­tikes without great impudencie, and against their owne conscience: for which cause Saint Paul willeth an heretike after the first & second admonition to be auoided, as one who though he will not acknowledge the truth, yet he is condemned in his owne conscience, and sin­neth vnto eternall damnation. Wherefore Councells, Fathers, Doctors, customs, examples, are by vs admitted, but not hand ouer head, without distinction, but such, & so farre forth, as they be true and faithful interpreters of the scripture, by matters and places plaine, & certen­ly knowne, opening matters & places obscure and vn­knowne. Which is the office of an expounder, & not to determine by his owne authority of anothers mean­ing, whereof, as among men, euetie man is the best in terpreter of his owne, so is the holy ghost of him-selfe, in the scriptures by him inspired: of whose meaning, where they be hard to be vnderstood, no man can be certaine, but either by his own plaine wordes, or by plaine & necessary conclusion out of his plaine words.

Now touching the Papists, whome our answerer saith to be restrained from chopping and changing, affirming and denying at their pleasures, because they binde them-selues to other things beside the scriptures (to which they giue souereigne authoritie) as to councells, auncient fathers, traditions of the [Page 60] Apostles, and primatiue Church, with the like, the matter is farre otherwise. For whatsoeuer they prate of the soueraigntie of the scriptures, of the authoritie of councels, auncient fathers, traditions of the Apostles, and primitiue Church; they binde them selues to no­thing, but to the present Popes authoritie and determi nation in thinges, which he may choppe and chaunge at his pleasure, against which they admitte nei­ther scripture, Councell, Fathers, nor Church. For ex­ample brieflie. The scripture moste plainlie forbiddeh the worshipping of Images. will they giue soueraigne au­thoritie to the scriptures? All the primitiue Church for six hundred yeares after Christ, condemned the worshipping of Images, euen Pope Gregorie that al­lowed the vse of them: shall the authoritie of the pri­matiue Greg. ep. lib. 7. ep. 109. Se reno. & lib: 9. ep. 9. Sere­no. Theod. dial: 2 Gelasius cont. Eutych Church, or of Pope Gregorie in this point ouer­rule them? No, I warrant you: they will set them al to schoole, and learne them a new lesson. Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus, and Gelasius Bishop of Rome, doe in plaine wordes affirme, that the substance of bread and wine doth remaine in the Lordes supper after consecration: doth either the antiquitie of these fathers, or the de­termination of the Bishop of Rome, which otherwise they affirme neuer to erre in doctrine, preuaile with them against their new here sie of transsubstantiation? The councells of Constantiople the first, and of Chal­cedon decreed, that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall authoritie and dignitie with the Bishop of Rome. The councells of Constans and Basill determined, that the Councell is aboue the Pope. The councels of Constan­tinople the sixt and Nice the second, condemned the Pope for an heretike: will the Papists of these daies, trow you, stand to the determination of these Councells? you maie be assured they will not. But the traditions of the Apostles they holde fast, and binde them-selues vnto: yea verilie, as long, and as much as they list. What beareth a greater shew of the Apostles traditi­ons, [Page 61] then the Canons of the Apostles? which excommuni­cateCan. 6.a Bishop, priest or deacon, that putteth away his wiffe vn­der pretence of religion: which excommunicate anie of the cleargie that is present at the communion, & doth not commu­nicate,Can. 8.except he shewe a cause whie he doth not. Which admmitted him, that is maimed in his eie or other partes of his bodie, being otherwise worthie, vnto the office of a Bishop, be­cause the maime of the bodie doth not pollute a man, but the Can. 77. filthines of the soules. These & such like traditions of the Apostles, how are they regarded of our Traditioners? euen as much as they list; and that is neuer a whit at this time: and yet these men binde them selues to Councells, Fathers, traditions, primitiue Church, you see how farre. Yea you see, that while they raile vp­on vs, for appealing to onelie scriptures, they them­selues relie vpon the present Popes authoritie onelie. Let all indifferent men therefore iudge, whether it be more safe for a Christian man, to bind him-selfe to the authoritie of scriptures onelie; or to the Popes au­thoritie onelie? and whether claime a priuiledge of ease, they that will admitte no testimonie irrefraga­ble, but onelie the scripture; or they which chattering of many other things, in the end conclude vpon the Church onelie, which when it commeth to triall, is no­thing els but the Pope onelie: for if all the Church saie it, and the Pope denie it, it is nothing worth with them: and if the Pope affirme it, thoughe all the Church denie it, it must stand for paiment.

But seeing the sense and interpretation of scripture, is the cheefe matter we haue to speake of, let vs consi­der, whether Master Charke be iustlie charged by our answerer, to haue abused that scripture by interpre­tation, which is the chiefe ground of his preface, and which he saith, is a full and plaine rule, whereby to discerne and trie the spirites: namelie the text of Saint Iohn. 1. Iohn. 4. Euerie spirite which confesseth Ie­sus Christ being come in the flesh, is of God: and euerie spi­rite, [Page 62] which confesseth not Iesus Christ being come in the flesh, is not of God, and this is that spirit of Antichrist, &c. This text Master Charke doth so expound, as that it conteineth a confession, not onelie of the person of Christ, but al­so of his office, for which office sake, that wonderfull person of God and man, Iesus Christ, was ordeined, and sent into the world, to be a Prophet alone to teach, a King alone to rule, a Priest alone to sanctifie vs, and to reconcile vs to his father, by the obedience of faith. And if any spiritte shall teach, that Christ is not our onelie teacher, by his Gospell, but that we must ad­mitte vnwritten beleefe, and traditions, from we know not whome, to be of like authoritie with the written worde: Secondlie, if any spirite make not Christ a­lone our King, and head to rule vs by his holie spirite, but teach, that a mortal and sinfull man must sit in our consciences, and for hatred or gaine (which is his pra­ctise) binde or loose at his pleasure: lastlie, if anie spi­rite impeach the all-sufficiencie and entire vertue of Christes sacrifice, offered vp once for euer, and teach that themselues must enforce it from day to day, by the continuance of their daylie sacrifice of the Masse, offered for the quick and the deade; it appeareth ma­nifestlie that such spirits are not of God, &c. This in­terpretation of Master Charke (saith the answerer) con­teineth manie absurdities. For first the auncient fathers did expound this place (as of it selfe it is moste euident) against the Iewes, which denied Christ to haue taken flesh, also against Ebion, Cerinthus, and other heretikes, that denied the God­head of Christ. Note here by the aduersaries confessi­on, that some places of scripture are of them selues moste euident, whereof this is one against the Iewes & other heretikes, that deny the godhead of Christ. And I hope you shall see it shortly as euident against the Papists, that denie his offices. To this interpretation of the auncient fathers we agree, that whosoeuer denieth the person of Christ, or any thing proper to his person, is [Page 63] of Antichrist. But none of the auncient fathers doe affirme, that this text is to be vnderstood against such enemies onelie, as denie the Godhead or manhoode of Christ. For Augustine and Oecumenius do interpret it against all heretikes and schismatikes, which, although they confesse this matter in wordes, yet denie it in deedes: and Oe­cumenius against all wicked persons, which haue not the spirite of Christ, mortifying their vngodlie lustes, which carie not the mortification of Christ in their bodie, &c. Augustine also expoundeth the place against all that breake cha­ritie. [...]. Ioan. Tract. 7. Omnes negant Iesum Christum in carne venisse, qui vi­olant charitatem. All they denie Iesus Christe to haue come in the flesh, which doe breake or violate charitie. & whie so? be­cause not onelie the person that came, but the end whie he came must be considered, in the interpretati­on of this place (as Saint Augustine rightlie iudgeth) or els all heretikes will after a manner in tongue and wordes confesse, that Iesus Christ came in the flesh. But, Quaeramus (saith he) quare venerit in carne Christus, & inueniemus qui eum negant in carne venisse. Let vs in­quire wherefore Christ came in the flesh, and we shall finde who they are, which denie him to haue come in the flesh: For if you giue heede to their tongues, you shall heare manie here­tikes confessing, that Christ came in the flesh: but the trueth conuinceth them, wherefore came Christ in the flesh? was he not God? was it not saide of him, In the beginning was the worde, and the worde was with God, and the worde was God? did he not feede the Angells, and doth not he him-selfe feede the An­gells? did he not so come that he departed [...] fromthence? did he not so ascend, that he did not forsake vs? Then wherefore came he in the flesh? Because the hope of resurrection ought to haue bene shewed vnto vs. He was God, and he came in the flesh, for God could not die, the flesh could: therefore he came in the flesh, that he might die for vs. And how died he for vs? No man hath greater loue then this, to giue his life for his friendes: therefore loue brought him to the flesh. Whosoeuer therefore hath not loue, denieth Christ to haue come in the [Page 64] flesh. It is manifest now by this discourse of Augustine, vppon some particuler causes of Christ comming in the flesh, that his cheife and principall offices can­not be excluded in the right interpretation of this text, and therefore Master Charke hath rightlie infer­red, that whoesoeuer denieth the offices of Christ, or any parte of them, is no lesse confounded by this scripture, then they that denie his person, or anie parte, or essentiall propertie thereof: and that by the consent of the auncient fathers exposition, without the which also the text is euident of it selfe. For the verie names of Iesus and Christ doe comprehende his offices, which whoesoeuer denieth, although in wordes he confesse his person and names, doth make but an Idoll of Iesus Christe, whoesoeuer there­fore confesseth not Christ to be a Sauiour, Prophet, King, and Priest, is not of God, but of Antichrist: he whosoeuer confesseth not that he is a wholl and one­lie Sauiour: Prophet, King, and Priest, is of the same spirite of Antichrist, that denieth Iesus Christ being come in the flesh: or, as the vulgare translation hath, that dissolueth Iesus. For whoesoeuer setteth vp anie other Sauiour, Prophet, King, or Priest in that sense, that these offices pertaine vnto Iesus Christ, dissol­ueth Iesus, denieth Iesus Christ to haue come in the flesh, whoe came to be our onelie Master-teacher, accor­ding Mat. 23. 8. to the manifest texts of scripture, which hath taught vs all thinges, likewise our onelie spiritual King, & e­ternallIhon. 4. 25.and high priest, whose office both kinglie and priestlie, being confirmed to him by an othe, passeth Psa. 110. Heb. 7. 2. 24. Ioh. 18. 37. 1. Tim. 6. 5. Apoc. 17. 14. 19. 16. not from him vnto anie other in succession, but re­maineth alwaies the onelie mightie Prince, King of Kinges, and Lord of Lordes. Whoesoeuer therefore derogateth from Christ anie parte of these dignities, & offices, denieth Iesus Christ comming in the flesh, and so doe the popish Catholikes, or papistes, by their doctrine of traditions, Popes authoritie, sacrifice of [Page 65] the Masse and such like.

Nay, saith the answerer, Martine Luther interpreteth this place, to be vnderstoode of M. Charke and his fellowes, Tom. 7. Wit­temb. Fol. 414.saying, That spirit is not of God, but of Antichrist, which dis­solueth Christes flesh in the sacrament. It cannot be denied but Martin Luther was in this case to rash and pre­sumptuous, in condemning other men for holding this, contrarie to that wherein he erred him-selfe. But this answerer is too impudent, to faigne sayings & wordes of his, yea and to applie that which he saied further then Luther him selfe doth. For first these wordes that are alleadged as Luthers saying, are none of his, but forged by the answerer. Secondlie that which Luther saieth, founding to such a matter, can not be drawne against M. Charke and his fellowes, who maintaine no such absurditie, as Luther in that place oppugneth. The very wordes of Luther in his booke in­tituled Defen: verb: Caenae, Accipite, &c. are these. Qua­re in superioribus dixi hunc spiritum non esse bonum, ne (que) per istos fanaticos homines quicquam boni machinari: quanquam existimem hos concionatores, contra quos haec scribuntur, nondum mali quicquam in animo habere. Sed bone Deus, non sunt sui ipsorum compotes. & continentes, à [...] [...] & captiui tenentur. Quare eis nimium sidendum non ect. Nam spiritus qui Christi carnem dissoluit, non est à Deo, inquit Ioannes, idq (que) probam spirituum vult esse. Hic spiritus verè dissoluit carnem Christi, cùm cam inutilem, pereuntem, & prorsus communem carnem affirmat, qualis est bouis aut vitu­li. Wherefore I saide before that this spirite is not good, nei­therLuther spea keth a­gainst the rebellious rustical bou res princi­pallie, and the Anabap­tistes.goeth about any good thing, by these fantasticall men (the rebellious boures) although I suppose these preachers, against whome these thinges are now written, as yet to haue none euil thinge in their minde. But good God, they haue no power nor holde of them selues, they are blinded and holden cap­tiue by a spirite, wherefore they must not be trusted too much. For that spirite which dissolueth the flesh of Christ, is not of God (saith Saint Iohn) and that he will haue to be the triall of [Page 66] spirites. This spirite in deede dissolueth the flesh of Christ, when it affirmeth, that it is vnprofitable, perishing, and alto­gether common flesh, such as is the flesh of an Oxe or a calfe. This is Luthers saying: now it is certein that M Charke and his fellowes doe neithet thinke, nor speake so vn­reuerentlie of the flesh of Christ, animated with his spirite, which they acknowledge to be verie true meate, wherewith we are fed vnto eternall life. They had some smacke of Nestorianisme therefore, against whome Luther vttereth these wordes, from which M. Charke and his fellowes, God be thanked, are free.

But now commeth our answerer, after he hath for­ged a place of Luther, and hammered it out against Master Charke, to maruaile that these men can finde so many absurdities vpon one sentence of scripture: and first he would aske, whether Master Charke thinketh, that the Papistes doe exclude Christ, when they allowe Prophets, to teach vnder him, Kinges to raigne vnder him, Priests to sanctifie vnder him, or no. As though there were no waie for Papists to be guiltie of Antichristianisme, except they did exclude Christ altogether; whereas it hath bene prooued, that whosoeuer doth not acknowledge the wholl, and euerie part of his offices, is of Anti­christ. As for Prophets, Kinges, and Priests, to teach, reigne, and sanctifie vnder Christ, is not the matter in question, but to teach, reigne, & sanctify beside Christ, to claime like authotitie in teaching, gouerning, & sanctifying with him: as to be fellow Prophets, fellow Kings, & fellow priestes with him, to teach that Christ taught not, to make articles of faith, to dispense a­gainst Gods commaundements, to make lawes to binde the conscience of men, to sanctifie them by their worke, whome Christ by his onelie oblation hath made perfect for euer. They that holde these points, denie Christ to be a perfect Prophet, King, and Priest. But these be deepe mysteries of puritanisme, saith the answerer, Christ is a Prophet alone, a King alone, a Priest alone: the ouerthrow of all gouernment. No, sir, no: [Page 67] to acknowledge Christe to be our onelie Prophet, king, and priest, ouerthroweth not, but establisheth all power, that is ordeined vnder him to teach, go­uerne, and sanctifie. The scripture in deede Eph. 4. & Acts. 5. doth allowe Prophets and teachers in the Church, but not authors of new doctrine, no makers of new ar­ticles of faith, no traditions beside the Gospell of Christ, which is written, that we might beleeue, and be­leeuing haue eternall life in his name. The scripture allow­eth Ioh. 20. 31. Kinges, and rulers, 1. Pet. 2. Act. 2. but the scripture giueth no authoritie to any king or ruler, to dispense against the lawes of God, nor to any Prophet or priest, to discharge subiects of their oth made to their lawfull Prince, to binde the conscience of man with new con­stitutions, as necessarie to saluation, &c. But whereas you aske, whether Priests may not sanctifie by the word of god, 2. Tim. 4. you are neare driuen for proofes. For to omitte that the Chapter you quote, hath neuer a word either of priests or sanctifying, and to take your meaning to be of 1. Tim. 4. verse. 5. the Apostle spea­keth not of the Priest, or ecclesiasticall ministers pow­er of sanctifying, but of euerie Christian man, and wo­man, to whome euerie creature of God, in the right vse thereof, is sanctified, by the word of God and praier: and against them that forbid thinges conse­crated and allowed by God (as matrimonie, and meates sanctifyed by his worde, that hath giuen them to be receiued with thankesgiuing, and by the praier of the thankefull receiuer, as a mean to obtaine san­ctification Apoc. 15. 4. from God, whoe onelie is holie, and there­fore hath onelie power properlie to sanctifie) and to inioyne, as more holie by their owne making, and not by Gods sanctification, virginitie then matrimonie, fish then flesh, yca take vpon them to sanctifie Gods creatures in an other vse then God hath appointed them, as water, fire, garments, boughs, flowers, bread and such like, for religion, and sanctifying of Christi­an [Page 68] men.

Againe he asketh, what doe the traditions of Christ and his Apostles (for of those onelie they talke, when they compare them with scripture) impeach the teaching of Christ and his Apostles? I answere, there are no traditions of Christ and his Apostles, pertaining to a Christian Ioh. 20. 31. Luk. 1. 3. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Act. 24. 14. Act. 26. 22. mans dutie to obtaine erernall life, but those that be comprehended in the holie scriptures, as the spirite of God in the scripture, which cannot lie, doth testi­fie. And therefore, they are the traditions of men, and not of Christ and his Apostles, that areso called, vn­der which title all heresies & fansies may be brought in, without testimonie of the written worde of God. Wherefore such traditions doe greatlie impeach the office of Christes teaching, reproouing his Apostles and Euangelists of imperfection, if they haue not comprehended the summe of all that Christ taught, and did for our saluation which Saint Luke in the be­ginning of his Gospell, doth professe that he hath done and that verie exactlie. And further it is false, that our answerer saith, they talke of the traditions of Christ and his Apostles onelie, when they compare them with scripture. For they compare the decrees, of their Pope, and of their generall councells allow­ed by him, to be of equall authoritie with the holie scriptures, as well as traditions.

Secondlie he asketh: what doth the spiritual authorttie of the Pope vnder Christ, diminish the Kinglie power, and authoritie of Christ? I answere, the Pope hath no spiri­tuall authoritie vnder Christ, by anie graunt of Christ, but he vsurpeth authoritie aboue Christ, when he will controll the lawes and institutions of Christ, as de­nying the cuppe of blessing vnto the laie people, and in taking vpon him to make newe lawes, and to in­ioyne men to obserue them in paine of damnation, as be his lawes of abstinence from mariage and meates, for religions sake, which Christ hath left free for all [Page 69] men, euen for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the Church, and in an hundred matters beside.

Last of all he asketh, How doth the priesthood of men, as from Christ, or the sacrifice of the altar instituted by Christ, disgrace Christs priesthood, or his sufficient sacrifice once for all offered on the crosse? I answere, the priesthood of recon­ciling by sacrifice, doth not passe from Christ to anie man, because he hath by one sacrifice made perfect for euer, all that are sanctifyed, and liueth for euer to make intercessi­on for vs, therefore hath (as the Apostle saith) [...], a priesthood that passeth not to any other in suc­cession, Heb. 7. 24. as Arons priesthood did, whereby he is able to saue for euer, those that come vnto God by hym. Againe, I denie that Christ did institute that sacrifice of the altar, whereof there is no worde in all the scripture, and therefore a new priesthood, and a new sacrifice must needes be blaspemous against the eternal priesthood, of Christ, and that one sufficient sacrifice which he offered, and therebie found eternall redemption.

The texts alledged by Master Charke. Heb. 7. & 9. he saith doe not impeach this dailie sacrifice of theirs, because they graunt that sacrifice once offered, &c. in that manner, as it was then done, meaning bloodelie, whereas they offer it vn­bloodelie, &c. But the wholl discourse of the Aposile throughout the wholl epistle almoste, excludeth all repetition of that sacrifice in any manner. For there­petition of the same sacrifice, should argue imperfection in it, Heb. 10. 11. Heb. 9. 22. Heb. 9. 25. 26. Heb. [...]. 25 as it did in the Iewish sacrifices, and without shedding of blood there is noremission of sinnes. Is Christ shoulde be often offered, he should often suffer. All which being impossible, it remaineth that as Christ offered himselfe but once, and not often; so no man hath authoritie or power to offer him anie more: neither is there anie neede he should be more then once offered, seing by that one ob­lation, he hath made perfect for euer, all that are sanctified, Heb. 9. 12. Heb. 10. 14. and hath found eternall redemption for all that beleeue in him. But for proofe that there must be such a daylie sacri­fice [Page 70] in the Church, vntill the end of the world, he alledgeiu the prophecie of Daniell. 12. & Malachie 1. whereas Daniell speaketh of the dailie sacrifice of the Lawe, which should cease in the persecution of Antiochus, and be Dan. 9. vtterly abolished by the death of Christ. And Mala­chic of the sacrifice of praise and thankesgeuing, which by all nations is offered, as a pure sacrifice, and Heb. 13. 15. acceptable to him, through Christ. The former expo­sition is allowed by S. Ierome to be verified of Antio­chus in a type of Antichrist, whoe shall forbid culium Dei, the worship of God, which doth not require any Dan. 12. such sacrifice, neither is the worde sacrifice in the He­brew text of Daniell. And therefore it is an vnlikelie place to prooue a sacrifice propitiatorie of the bodie of Christ in the Masse. The prophecie of Malachie by ge­neral consent almost of all auncient fathers, is ex­pounded as I haue saide, of the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing, which is offered at al times by the faith full: and especiallie in the celebration of the Lords supper. But most cleerelie Instinus Martyr in his Dia­logue against the Iewes, speaking of the verie same text of Malachie, and the sacrifices that are offered in al places by the gentiles, that is the bread of thankes­giuing, and the cuppe of thankesgiuing: hath these wordes, [...] &c.For I my selfe doe affirme, that praiers, and thanksgiuing made by worthie persons, are the onelie perfect and acceptable sa­crifices to God. For these are the onelie sacrifices that Chri­stians haue receiued to make, to be put in minde by theire drie and moist nourishment, of the passion, which God the sonne of God, is recorded to haue suffered for them. If praiers and thankesgiuing be the onely sacrifices, which Chri­stians haue receiued to offer, and are the onelie per­fect, and acceptable sacrifices to god, as Iustinus in plaine wordes affirmeth, where is the vnbloodie sa­crifice of the naturall bodie and blood of Christ, yea of Christ him-selfe vnto god his father? If praiers and [Page 71] thankesgiuing be the onelie pure sacrifice prophecied by Malachie, then is not the naturall bodie of Christ offered in the Masse; neither hath the Church anie such sacrifice. And although the auncient fathers, often times doe call, the celebration of the Lordes supper a sacrifice, yet you see by the iudgement of Iu­stinus, how they are to be vnderstood, of a spirituall sacrifice, of praier and thankesgiuing for the death of Christ on the crosse, and our perfecte redemption therebie: which also they called an vnbloodie sacrifice Indeclar. A­nath: 11. O­rat. In Iul. sometimes, as Cyrill and Nazianzen in the place by the answerer quoted, but either in the same places, or some other of their workes, they doe euidentlie de­clare, that they meant no sacrifice propitiatorie of the naturall bodie of Christ, but of praise and thankes­giuing, for tbe onelie insacrificable sacrifice of Christes In sanct. pas­or at. 4. passion, as Gregorie Nazianzen doth call it. Saint Augustine also in the place by the answerer quoted, Cont. Faust l. b. 20 Cap. 21. sheweth plainlie, that this sacrifice of praise is cele­brated, by the sacrament of rememberaunce of the slesh and blood of Christ, which in truth it selfe was offered in the passion of Christ. Sed quid agam, &c. But what shall I do, and when shall I make demonstration to so great blindenes of these heretikes, what force that hath which is song in the Psalmes: The sacrifice of praise shall glorifie me, and there is the waie where I will shew my sauing health? The flesh & blood of this sacrifice, before the comming of Christ, was promised by oblations of similitudes: in the passion of Christ by the trueth it selfe it was yealded: after the ascension of Christ by the sacrament of rememberance it is celebtated. Whoe seeth not here, a manifest opposition betweene yeal­ding by the truth it selfe, and celebrating by a sa­crament of rememberance.

But that the sacrifice of the Masse, is the same that was of­fered on the crosse, differing but in the vnbloodie manner of oblation, Saint Chrisostome (saith out answerer) doth prooue at large vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes. Hom. 17. whome if [Page 72] Master Charke and his fellowes would not disdaine to reade, and beleeue, they would be ashamed to cauill and blaspheme gods mysteries, as they do. The place of Chrisostome hath bene often alledged on both partes: by the Papists, for a shew and a colour of the matter: by the other side, for a ma­nifest demonstration, that Chrisostome (as he doth in­terpret him-selfe) maketh nothing for the Popish sa­crifice of the Masse, but altogether against it. His wordes are these, after he hath shewed the imperfe­ction of the legall sacrifices, by the often repeating of them, Then what do we euerie daie? do we not offer? yes we offer, but we make the remembrance of his death: and this is one sacrifice, and not manie. How is it one, and not manie? Seeing it was once offered, it was caried into the holie of holies. This thing is a figure or type of that sacrifice, & this sacrifice of that. For we offer the same alwaies, not now an other, but alwaies the same. Therefore it is one sacrifice by this reason: otherwise because it is offered in manie places, are there manie Christes? Not so, but one Chrisi euery where, both here full and perfect, & there full and perfect. one bodie. Therfore as being offered in manie places, it is one bodie, and not manie bodies, so is it one sacrifice. He is our high priest, which offered that sacri­fice, which maketh vs cleane. the same do we offer now also, which then was offered, which can not be consumed. This is now done in the remembrance of that which was then done. For do ye this (saith he) in remembrance of me: we do not offer an other sacrifice, as the high Priest, but the same alwaies: but rather we worke the remembrance of a sacrifice. These words of Chrisostome declare, that the name of sacrifice, is vn properly giuen to the celebration of the Lords supper, which is rather a remembrance of a sacrifice, then a sacri­fice indeede. Secondlie, that reteining the name of a sacrifice, there is great difference betweene it, and the sacrifice of Christ: for the thing here offered, is a type of that which was offered there, and this sacri­fice, is a figure of that sacrifice. Thirdlie Christ offe­red the onelie sacrifice propitiatorie, that purgeth a­waie [Page 73] sinnes: this oblation is but a remembrance of that, to stur vs vp to thankfullnes for that, and to con­firme our faith in our spirituall nourishment, by that bodie and blood which was once offered for all, neuer to be repeated. So that Master Charke and his fellowes haue not Chrisostome their aduersarie in this place, but receaue great light by this exposition of the name sa­crifice, which is not properlie so to be called, but ra­ther a remembrance of a sacrifice. And it is not to be doubted, but that other auncient fathers vsed the name of sacrifice in the same sense that Chrisostome did.

The answerer referreth his reader further to The­odoret, and Saint Augustine, who handleth this que­stion, whie Christians do now vse to sacrifice, seeing the old law with all sacrifices were abolished, by the one sacrifice of Christ. You maie see by this that our answerer hath more care to point his margent with quotation of the Doctors, which the ignorant can not reade, then he hath iudge­ment to consider what the Doctors write. For this place of Theodoret is cleane contrarie to the sacri­fice propitiatorie of the Masse. The wordes are these of the translation of Gentianus Heruetus, a man not to be suspected of Papists: Siergo & Sacerdotium quod est ex lege, finem [...], & Sacerdos qui est secundùin or­dinemTheodoret. [...] ep. ad heb. cap. 8.Melchisedech, obtulit sacrificium, & effecit vt alia sa­crificia non essent necessaria, cur noui testamenti Sacerdotes, mysticam liturgiam seu sacrificium peragunt? Scd clarumest iis qui sunt in rebus diuinis eruditi, nos non aliud sacrificium offerre, sed illius vnius & Salutaris memoriam peragere. Hoc enim nobis proecepitipse dominus. Hoc facite in meam re­cordationem, vt per figurarum contemplationem, earum quoe pro nobis susceptoe sunt, perpessionum recordemur, & in bene­factorem beneuolentiam couseruemus, & futurorum bonorum perceptionem expectemus. [...] therefore the priesthood which is of the law, hath receaued an end, and the Priest which is af­ter the order of Melchisedech hath offered sacrifice, and brought [Page 74] to passe, that other sacrifices should not be necessarie; why do the Priests of the new testament celebrate a mysticall liturgie or sacrifice? But it is cleare to them that are instructed in diuine matters, that we do not offer an other sacrifice, but do celebrate a remembrance of that one and helthfull sacrifice. For this our Lord him seife commaunded vs, Doyee this in remembe­rance of me, that by contemplation of the figures, we might re­member the passions that were suffered for vs, and continew good will towards our benefactor, and waite for the fruition of good things to come. This saying of Theodoretus, is a full and large answere in deede to the obiection by him made, of the vnproper terme of sacrifice, whereby the celebration of the Lords supper was commonlie cal­led in his time, but it is nothing fauorable to the Po­pish sacrifice of the Masse, yea rather it sheweth the right vse and end of the sacrament, which is an holie memoriall of Christs sacrifice, not the same sacrifice it selfe, nor anie sacrifice propitiatorie, but onelie eu­charistical, of praise and thankesgiuing. The other au­thor, to whome our answerer referreth his reader, is Saint Augustine. Ep. 23. ad Bonifacium, who proposeth this doubt (saith he) how we sacrifice Christ euerie day vp­on the altar, seeing he is said to be sacrificed once for all vpon the crosse. But in deede the question he answereth, is, how the godfathers in baptisme answere, that the infants do beleeue, whereas they do neither beleeue in deede, and it is vn­certaine whether they will beleeue: for resolution of which question, he bringeth in example of the Lords supper, called the bodie of Christ, and a sacrifice, whereas it is not properlie either of both, but a signe, sacra­ment, and memoriall of those things: so is baptisme called faith, and infants said to beleeue, when they are baptised: his wordes are these, often alledged a­gainst the Papists: Nempe saepe it a loquimur, &c. Verie­lie we do often times speake so, that when Easter is at hand, we saie, to morow, or the next daie after, is the passion of our Lord, whereas he hath sufferrd so manie yeares passed before, and [Page 75] that passion was suffered but once in all. For on the verie Son­daie we saie: This daie our Lord arose againe, whereas there are so manie yeares passed since he arose againe. Whie is no man so foolish, that would charge vs to haue lied, when we speak after this manner, but because we name these daies, according to the similitude of those daies, in which these thinges were done. So that the daie is called the same, which is not the same, but in reuolution of time like vnto it, and the thing is saide to be done on that daie, for the celebration of the Sacra­ment, which is not done that daie, but was done long before? was not Christ once offered in him-selfe? and yes in the sacra­ment, not onelie in euerie solemnitie of Easter, but euery daie he is offered for the people, neither doth he make a lye, which be­ing asked the question, shall answere that he is offered? for if Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things, where of they are sacraments, they should be no sacraments at all: And of this similitude for the moste part, they take the names euen of the things them-selues. Therefore euen as after a certaine manner the sacrament of the bodie of Christ, is the bodie of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ; so the sacrament of faith is faith. And to beleeue is nothing els but to haue faith. And by this, when it is answered that the child beleeueth, which as yet hath not the effect of faith, it is answered that he hathfaith, because of the sacrament of faith, & to conuert him-selfe to God, because of the sacrament ofcon­uersion, because the answere it selfe perteineth to the celebra­tion of the sacrament. As the apostle, of baptisme it selfe saith, we are buried with Christ by baptisme vnto death. He saith not we signifie his buriall, but plainlie, we are buried with him. Wherefore he called the sacrament of so great a matter by none other name, then of the verie thing it selfe. This answer of Saint Augustine, how full and large it is, in that sense the Papists defend their sacrifice of the Masse, or ra­ther how directlie contrarie to the same, I referre to the iudgement of anie indifferent reader, that with a­nie conscience will consider it. Neither hath Eusebius. [Page 76] Demonstr, Eua. lib. 1. cap. 6, or 10. nor Theophilact, al­though a late writer, in cap. 5. ad Heb. anie thing that maie vpholde the Popish propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse. Eusebius verilie hath these wordes, to cleare him both of the heresie of transsubstantiation, and of the masking sacrifice, after he hath spoken of the dig­nitie and sufficiencie of the sacrifice of Christs passion. Hauing receaued to celebrate the remembrance of this sacrifice at the table, by the tokens or signes of his bodie and healthfull blood, according to the rites of the new testament, we are a­gaine instructed by the Prophet Dauid to saie, Thou hast pre­pared a table in my sight against mine enemies, &c. By which words it is manifest, that Eusebius acknowledged no sacrifice of the naturall bodie and blood of Christ in the sacrament, but a memorie of that onelie sacri­fice celebrated in the symbols or tokens of his bodie and blood. Likewise in the exposition of the prophecie of Malachy he saith, That God by the voice of the Prophet hauing refused the sacrifices after Moses, doth by oracle declare what should be done of vs, saying, For from the rising of the sunne vnto the going downe of the same my name is glorified a­mong the gentiles, and in euerie place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice: wherefore we sacrifice to god that is aboue all, the sacrifice of praise. we sacrifice a diuine, reuerent, and holie sacrifice: we sacrifice after a new manner, according to the new testament, a pure sacrifice: and the sacrifice to God is said to be a broken spirit, for a contrite and humbled heart God will not dispise: and we doe burne also the propheticall in­cense, offering to him the sweete smelling fruite of the moste ex­cellent diuine contemplation, by those praiers that are sent vp vnto him. Thus much Eusebius of the sacrifice of Chri­stians. As for Theophylact, in the place by him quo­ted, wherein either his Printer, or his note booke hath deceiued him, hath nothing touching this mat­ter in question, but vpon the 10. Chapter, he hath the verie words of Chrisostome, which I haue sette downe at large before. Suboritur hîc quaestio, &c. Here [Page 77] riseth a question, whether we also do offer vnbloodie sacrifice: whereto I answere that we do certainlie: but we keepe a memo­rie of the Lords death, and it is one sacrifice, and not mante, see­ing he was offered vp once for all. For we offer vp the same alwaies, but rather we keepe the memorie of that oblation wherein he offered him felfe, as if it were done euen now. Thus none of the auncient writers, to whome he doth referre the reader, for defence of his Popish sacrifice, do speake anie thing for it, and some of them do write directlie against it.

And now the answerer thinketh he might haue en­ded his preface, but that he promised to shew, that they of­fer most reasonable meanes of triall, and that we in deede admit none at all. Of both these partes we haue spoken alrea­die, sufficientlie to the conscience of all reasonable men, yet must we further answere to such matters, as he can obiect against vs. And first he saith, All the con­trouersie being not of the words, but of the sense of the scrip­tures, we admit no Iudge but our selues. To this I answere first, that all the controuersie is not about the sense onelie, but some about the wordes also; where we al­ledge the interpretation of them out of the originall tongues, and they wil admit none, but the vulgar tran­slation, which in manie places is false, in some places also corrupted from the integritie in which it was first written. Secondlie, that we admit no Iudge of it, but our selues, it is false of vs, and true of them. For they admit no interpretation of the scripture, but that which their Church alloweth, which alloweth no­thing, but that the present Pope alloweth, whome they make Iudge of all interpretation, and to whose Iudgement they will all stand: Conttariewise, we take vpon vs no iudgement, but that which is common to all men, by reason and learning to waigh all thinges that are brought vnto vs, the cheife Iudge or rule to Iudge by, being the holie scriptures, in places of them selues euident and confessed, or to be confessed by [Page 78] right reason, of all that acknowledge the authoritie of the scriptures, by them to finde out the obscurities of such places as are hard, and haue neede of interpre­tation.

But if they bring scripture (saith he) neuer so plaine, yet will we shift it of, with some impertinent interpre­tation, whereof he bringeth two, or three examples, in which you shall plainlie see, how like a Papist he han­dleth him-selfe, in all kinde offalshood and treache­rie. The first example is this. The moste of the auncient fathers write bookes in praise of virginitie aboue wedlock, and vsed to prooue it by the saying of Christ: There be Eunuches which haue gelded them-selues for the kingdome of heauen: he Math. 19. that can take it, let him take it. Also by the words of Saint Paul, he that ioyneth his virgine in mariage doth wel: and he I. Cor. 7.that ioyneth her not, doth better. Which words being alledged against M. Luther, who preferred marriage (yea though it were of a vowed Nunne) before virginitie, he answered it thus, That Christ by his words terrified men from virginitie, and con­tinencie,Lib. de vot. Monast. in [...].and Saint Paul by this speech did disswade them from the same. Now what could be replied (saith he) in this case trow you? He beginneth with a lie, and so he holdeth on. For the moste of the auncient fathers haue not written bookes in praise of virginity aboue wedlock, neither is he able to prooue, that the one halfe of them haue wri ten bookes of that argument, although manie of them haue in their writings mentioned that comparison. Secondlie, in the state of the controuersie, he offereth vs shamefull iniurie: for we all confesse, that in the re­spects named by our Sauiour Christ, and his Apostles, virginitie is better then marriage, in such persons, as haue the gist of continencie: but not in all respects, and namelie not in such respectes, as the Papists do preferre it, of merite for them-selues and others, &c. nor in persons that lack that rare gift of continencie. For neither Christ nor Saint Paul do saie, that virgini­tie meriteth more then mariage, or the profession of [Page 79] virginitie in all men, though they haue not the gift of continencie, is better then a chaste life in holie matri­monie. Wherefore that which we affirme against the Papists, is against that which they affirme, more then Christ or S. Paull spake, and is more then by anie law­full demonstration can be prooued out of their words. Thirdlie, in rehearsing the text, against the plainnes whereof he bringeth Luthers interpretation, he frau­dulentlie leaueth out those wordes, whereupon the exposition of Luther is grounded, namely these words non omnes capiunt, &c. All men are not capable of this say­ing, Math. 19. but they to whome it is giuen. If you aske, of what say­ing? the text is plaine, his disciples said vnto him, If the cause of aman and his wife be so (that he may not be di­uorced but for adulterie) it is not expedient to marrie: but all men, saith Christ, doe not receiue, or cannot take this saying. For there be three kindes of Eunuches, or gelded men, the third onelie being voluntarie, and for an excellent end, is commendable, so it be giuen vnto him, that he maie take it. He that can take it, let him take it. Is it not euident by this text, that Christ ter­rifieth all such men from this high attempt, to whome it is not giuen, and exhorteth them onlie which haue the gift to vse it. Now to come to Luthers inter­pretation: First he saieth, that Luther preferreth Marriage before virginitie, yea though it were of a vowed Nunne. This as it is simplie set downe, is a lowd lie: for Luther acknowledgeth the preferment of vir­ginitie before mariage, in persons hauing the gift, and for the end and respects by Christ and Saint Paull named, as by his owne wordes in diuerse places of his workes is manifest, and most plainlie, Exege. ad. Cap. 7. Ep. ad Cor. 1. Nam sicubi coniugium quis cum coeli­batu conferat, praestantius certè donum est coelibatus. For if a man compare mariage with virginitie, virginitie verilie is a better gift. Concerning the mariage of a vowed Nunne, if she haue the gift of continencie, and will renounce [Page 80] the superstitious and blasphemous end, for which she vowed virginitie, and vse it to the glorie of God, you shall heare Luthers iudgement. Nec ideo caelibatum & virginitatem reprobare mihi [...] est, nec inde quenquam ad iugale vinculum inuitare: quisque pro dono suo diuinitus impartito vt potest feratur. For all this my minde is not to re­iect sole life & virginitie, nor to allure anie person from thence vnto wedlocke: let euerie man according to the gift giuen him of god, be carried as he maie. But if your vowed Nunne haue not the gift of continencie, Luther is not af­fraid to preferre chaste marriage before vnchaste sole life, or the vow of virginitie that is not kept: and this he learned of Saint Ierome and Epiphanius, against Ad Demetri­adem. Cout. Aposto­lic. H. 61. whome you maie take your action, if yon cannot away with Luthers opinion.

By this the indifferent reader maie gather, how these wordes of Luther are to be vnderstood, out of which our answerer bringeth example of absurd inter­pretation. De vot. mon. At virginitas & caelibatus, &c. But virginitie & sole life is a Counsell, Christ him-selfe plainlie did not coun­sell it, but rather feared men from it: he onely shewed it, and praised it, while he saide to the mentioned Eunuches, he that can take it, let him haue it: and againe, all men are not ca­pable of this saying: are not these the wordes of him that ra­ther calleth backe and fraieth from it? for he doth not inuite & call any man, but onelie sheweth it. Yet Paul saith, I giue counsell: but neither doth he inuite anie man, but rather de­terreth and calleth backe while he saith, but euerie one hath his proper gift of God, he doth neither perswade, nor disswade, but leaueth it indifferent and free. but our vncleane wiuelesse men vnderstand nothing else by counselling, but inui­ting, exhorting, calling, and perswading vnto sole life, also to disswade, dehort, call awaie, fraie awaie from mariage, which thing they doe in all their sermons and writinges. Vnderstand Luther here according as he expoundeth him-selfe, that men void of the gift of continencie are disswaded from professing of virginitie, and other [Page 81] which haueit, be at their liberty to vse it without com­pulsion, and there is not anie absurditie in this inter­pretation, but the verie pure and naturall meaning of our sauiour Christ and his Apostles sayings.

The second example he taketh, is touching S. Iohn Baptist, his being in the wildernes, his apparel of Camels heare, his meate, locusts & wilde honie, of which the olde fathers do ga­ther a singular & great austeritie of [...], & do affirme that E­remites & Monks & other religious people, did take their pat­terne of straight liuing from him. In this example are two things, the austeritie of S. Iohns life, & the patterne of Monkes. The former we al confesse, the second can not be prooued out of this place, because the calling of S. Iohn was singuler, neither do all, or moste of the olde fathers in exposition of this text affirme this pat­terne, & they that do affirme it, speake of the solitarie men of their time, not of the false and counterfeit Ere­mites, Monkes, and Friers of these times, whome proudlie & schismaticallie he calleth religious people: who neither in austeritie of life, nor exercises of god­linesse, nor in the end of their profession, are anie thing like the other, but in name onelie: and yet we can not defend the other in all points. Now what saith our answerer vpon this example? For this cause (saith he) Saint Chrisostome doth often call S. Iohn Baptist, Monachum, & principem vitae Monasticae, a Monke, & Prince of Monasticall life, which Protestants being not able to abide, do rage marueilouslie against Saint Chrisostome, condemning him of rashnesse and falshoode for vsing those termes. I praie you note his liberall speeches: Saint Chrisostome doth often cal Iohn Baptist a Monke, and Prince of the Monasticall life, yet he noteth not so much as one In Mar. ho. 1. place where he so calleth him. He quoteth in deede the Centuries, Cen. 5. C. 6. pag. 711: who note one place where he calleth him the Prince of Monkes, but Mona­chum, & principem vitae Monasticae, I know not where, and I am persuaded, that no where Chrisostome hath [Page 82] these words of Saint Iohn Baptist. But how doe the Protestants rage so marueilouslie against him? The words of the Centuriastes be these: Similia, immo fere, &c, The like, yea more superstitious things doth Chrisostome reporte of Monkes, and first he maketh Iohn Baptist Prince of al Monkes, in deede somewhat rashlie, and against the trueth of the thing. H. 1. in Eua Mar. Againe, H. 69. in 21. Mat. he commeth forth a [...] into great commendation of them. For he saith, they dwell in hills and vallies, and being vnmaried, do leade an Angelike life, and talke freelie with God, that their soul is without all griefe and passion, and their bodie is such as Adams was, before his sinne, and this contrarie to the doctrine of originall sinne. The rest that he reporteth of them are good and godlie, and not to be found in the bastard Monkes of these daies, yea he would haue all married men to leade their life in obe­dience of Christs commaundements, saying, that Christ hath not commaunded men to seeke godlinesse in the mountaines, and wildernesse. Ne (que) enim Chri­stus it a praecepit, &c. For Christ hath not so commaunded. But how? let your light shine, saith he, before men, not before mountaines, nor before the wildernesse or secret places from the high waies. And this saying, I doe not detract from them that keepe the mountaines, but I lament the inhabitantes of ci­ties, because they haue banished vertue out of them.

But how do Protestants interpret the words of scri­pture against the austeritie of Iohn Baptist? Marie first, saith he, by the desert, wherein he liued, vntill he began to preach, is vnderstood nothing els but his priuate life at home in his fathers house. For this is quoted, Sarcerius in 1. cap. Luc. & Cent. 1. l. r. cap. 20. How impudentlie he belieth Sar­cerius, you shal see by his owne words in the place quo­ted, vpon this text, Et erat in desertis. Tam de vita, quàm de loco, intelliges deserta: nam & certum est Iohannem in deserto vixisse, fortassis vt vel loco ostenderet, atque ip sa vita, qualis suaforet doctrma: aliâs Iohannem fuisse in de­serto, est Iohannem priuatum vixisse, & educatum fuisse. [Page 83] And he was in the wildernes, &c. Thou shalt vnderstand the wildernesse as well of his life, as of the place: For both it is certaine that Iohn liued in the wildernesse, peraduenture that euen by the place, and by his kinde of life, he would shew of what manner his doctrine should be: otherwise Iohn to haue bene in the wildernesse, is Iohn to haue liued and bene brought vp priuatelie. How saie you? doth Sarcerius vnderstand nothing els but his priuate life in his fathers house, when he expresselie vnderstandeth the word desert both of the place, and of his solitarie or priuate edu­cation? But what saie the Centuriastes? euen to the same effect. Adolesientiae & Iunentutis studia, &c. The exercises or studies of his childhood and youth are not put in writing: Onelie Luke doth rehearse, that being a childe he re­mained in the wildernesse, vntill the time of his open shewing, which is not to be vnderstoode of some denne, altogether seque­stred from the conuersation of men: as though he had lurked there like a beare, and an hater of mankinde, estranged from all humanitie, as in latter times Eremites, and such like men fained vnto them-selues superstitious seruice, but he wasLuc. 1. 65.brought vp vnder the discipline of his parents, which dwelled in a place, lying in an hillie region, which was commonlie called the wildernesse: as we also speake in our vulgare lan­guage. To dwell by the forest Hercinia, am hartzowonen, that is, to dwell in townes neere to the mountaines. So afterward he baptizeth in the wildernesse, that is, in places neere Iordane, where the mountaines are not farre of: and yet euerie where there were townes and villages. Thus it is plaine, that the Centuriastes do vnderstand by the wildernesse, not onelie a priuate life in his fathers house, but also his dwelling in the wildernesse. Except our answerer (perhaps) doth thinke, that as soone as Iohn Baptist was circumcised, he was cast out into a desert place, and not nourished in his fathers house, nor by them in­structed in godlinesse. The words of Lake are plaine, Immediately after his circumcision. The childe grew, and was strengthened in spirit, and was in the desert places, vntill the [Page 84] daie of his open shewing vnto Israel. by which desert pla­ces, if he will vnderstand none other, but a vaste wildernesse, void of all conuersation of men, he must needes place him there in his infancie by the text, be­fore he could go, speake, or helpe him-selfe anie more, then a childe of eight daies olde. Againe, he must tel vs where this wildernesse was, into which Iohn was so translated: for the land of Israel, as it had manie wilde and solitarie places, as euerie countrie hath, yet had it no such wildernesse, as is imagined, but that was in­habited with townes and villages, and the groundes thereof occupied and frequented. Finallie, he is mean­lie reade in the scriptures, which knoweth not, that the word desert often signifieth the countrie, as it is oppo­site to the citie, and frequence of men, and not all­waie a barren forsaken land, as the desert of Arabia, through which the children of Israell passed from E­gipt to Canaan.

Now touching his apparell, how is it expounded by Protestants? The answerers wordes are these. And for his apparell (saie they) of Camells heare, it was not strange apparel, but vsuall to Mountain men, that is vndulata, saieth another, water-chamlet, handsome and decent, albeit somewhat plentifull in that countrie. For this is quoted, Marlorate in cap. 3. Mat. & Chytraeus in cap. 3. Math. The wordes of Marlorate are these: Hoc Euangelista non memorat, &c. The Euangelist doth not rehearse this among his princi­pall vertues, that being addicted to a rude and austere forme oflife, he auoided euen meane and vsuall neatnes, but be­cawse he had said before, that he was a man of the mountaines or wildernesse, now he addeth, that his victuals and his appa­rell was agreeable to his dwelling. And this he reciteth, not onelie that we maie know, that he being content with rusticall victuals and apparell, sought after no delica­cie, but that in this base and contemptible habit, he was of great estimation, euen among them that were delicate and gallant. It satisficeth not the Papists, that he vsed a [Page 85] garment of small price, and great hardnesse, except it were of a strange and disguised fashion, such as no man vsed the like. And therefore in stead of a gar­ment made of Camells heare, they cloth him in their Imagerie, with a camells skinne halfe naked, some­times with the taile hanging betweene his leggs, as Hercules in his Lyons skinne is pourtraicted of the gentiles: although the expresse restimonies of the auncient writers are to the contrarie. Therefore the Centuriasts write thus ofhis apparel, to whome per­haps our answerer would be referred, because his quo­tation is before, &c. Fuit & vestitus & victus ratio pecu­liaris: His apparell, and manner of liuing was peculiar: which as in Prophets sometimes hath betokened the greatest matters, so also in this Iohn his garment was wouen of camells heare. Neither is it agreeable to trueth, thatraw hydesweere so ioy­ned together, as some thinke, but he wore an vsuall kinde of garment, such as they were clad in, which dwelled in those hil­lie places, namelie base and rusticall, lest anie man should suspect, that he desired the greatest honours or the life of noble men, &. Againe, Horridior quidem paulò, &c. His garment of Camells heare was somewhat rough, but yet strong and du­rable. You see these men acknowledge his garment to haue beene base, rusticall, and rough, farre from the daintinesse, and brauerie, that is commonlie desired in apparell, although they thinke it was vsuall vnto poore bowers of the countrie, that dwelled in the de­sert mountaines, where he had his abode. But what is he, that saith his garment was of water-chamlet, handsome and decent, albeit somewhat plentifull in that countrie? Chytreus is noted on the 3. of Mathew, whose wordes are these: vestis Iohannis er at contexta ex pilis Cameli, similis ei quam hodie vulgo à camelis vocamus Kamelet, vel Shamlodt, Latinè vndulatum. Non fuit sordida vestis, ne (que) etiam valde pretiosa, sed mediocris, & [...] & in iis locis [...]. The garment of Iohn was wouen of camelsheares, like vnto that, which of camels we common­lie [Page 86] call chamlet, in Latine vndulata. It was no filthie garment, nor againe veric precious, but meane, and decent, and in those places easie to be gotten. Let vs examine this saying, which soundeth moste like to our answerers charge. First, he saith not simplie, that it was water chamlet, but like vnto that, which is commonlie called chamlet, because it is made of the same stuffe, that is camels heare, yet differing much in finenesse, and price, as hempen sackcloth differeth from silke sackcloth, and yet is wouen like vnto it: or as course cloth of towe, differeth from fine holland and camebrike, and yet is made of the same flax, and wouen after the same manner. For of the fine and soft heares, of some cal­led Non de la­na camelina Chrysost. in opere imper­fect. in 3. Mat. hom. 3. the wooll of camells, is made fine chamlet, gro­graine, and such like: of the course, hard, and briste­lie heares, is made a comse cloth, like to the other, but ofsmall price, and for the vse of rusticall persons. Such one meaneth Chytraeus, that the garment of Saint Iohn was. That he saith, it was not a filthie, or ill shapen garment, but decent, he speaketh it against the grosse deuise of the Papists, which in their pictures, do apparell the Baptist, in a rawe camells skinne, and that not shaped to couer his bodie, but that his armes, and his legs are bate. Saint Hicrome in Marc. saith, that by the camels heares, the riches of the gentiles are signified. Euthinius vpon Marke also saith, that he was cloathed in camells heares, non simpliciter incompositis, not simplie disordered, but wouen together, which seemeth to argue, that although there weere no costlienesse, or delica­cie, yet there was decencie and comehenesse in the apparell of Iohn Baptist.

Now commeth our answerer to his diet with these wordes: And lastlie, touching his diet of locusts and wild ho­nie, it was no hard fare (saie they) for the locusts were cre­uises, cast awaie by the fishers of Iordane, as vncleane by the law, but eaten of Iohn by the libertie of the Gospell. First we will speake of the locusts, and afterwarde of the wilde [Page 87] honie. For the locusts he quoteth, Magd. Cent. I. lib. I. Cap. 4. &. 6. where he reporteth the Protestantes, to saie it was noe hard fare, he vseth his accustomable bold­nesse of impudent lying: for the Magdeburgianes, whome he citeth, saie not so, but cleane contrarie. For when they haue spoken of his apparell, and di­et of locusts, and wilde honie, Cent. I. lib. I. Cap. 10. p. 357: they conclude in these wordes, Tendebant autem ea om­nia huc deni (que), vt constaret, Iohannem non captare imperia huius mundi, neque Christum: & vt haec vitae simplicitas & austeritas testaretur, non ob corporaliahuius vitae commoda, Christum accipiendum, qui spirirualia & [...] bona largi­retur. All these thinges tende to this ende, that it might be manifest, that neither Iohn nor Christ did seeke the Empires of this world, and that this simplicitie and austerine of life might testifie, that Christ is not to be receiued for corporall commodities of this life, which giueth freclie spirituall and eternall good thinges. The Magdeburgians doe here acknowledge a simplicitie, and austeritie of life: they doe not saie, it was no hard fare. But if they inter­pret those locusts to be creuises, which are a delicate fishe with vs, it could not be hard fare, whatsoeuer they saie, as our answerer thinketh. Let vs then heare their owne wordes: but where shall we finde them? Cap. 4. which he quoteth, conteineth 50 great leaues, or more, which he that hath leysure maie reade ouer, and tell what he findeth to the purposeithe sixt Chap­ter hath euen as much, sauing that in it they saie, that, Albeit Iohn Baptist lined in the wildernesse by Iordane, yet was he no Monke, neither did he institute anie Monkish or solitarie kinde of liuing. For he tooke his iournie freelie about those places whether he would, and did preach the doctrine of Messias to the people, that flocked to him dailie. That which perteineh to this purpose of locusts, is in the tenth Chapter, where their wordes are these. Cibus erat mel siluestre, &c. His meat was wilde honie, which the woodes neare hand did bring forth aboundantlie, as Samuel. 14. and [Page 88] locusts. But what manner of liuing thing this was, it is doubted among learned men. Some thinke it was a kinde of Crabbe, somewhat like the locusts in shape, which the Iewish fishers at Iordan did cast on the bankes, as meat forbidden by God. Le­uit. II. Such also are certaine Crabbes that are bred in the Sea, of meane bignes, hauing a shell armed with manie sharpe prickes, wanting armes, and hauing somewhat longer legges. If that be so, Iohn also did exercise an example of the libertie of the Gospell in that meat, which vsed fishes that were for­bidden, that all men might know, that this Lawe of Moses was now abrogated. Other vnderstand it of the land locuste, the eating whereof is expresselie permitted. Leuit. II. Diosco­rides, lib. 2. cap. 44. writeth, that there is a certaine kind of locust, which is called Asiracos or Onos, which the people called Aphei dwelling about Leptis, doe eate plentifullie. Plinius li. II. cap. 29. saith, that locusts are a pleasant meat vnto the Parthians, and that they are found in some places three foote long. It is manifest the Centuriaters do not affime that these locusts were creuises, but onelie they report the iudgement of some men that so thought, them-selues, rather allowing the common opinion, that they were land locusts, and in the end concluding, that whe­thersoeuer you take it, these matters declared a sim­plicitie and austeritie of his life. For admit they were fishes, yet to eate nothing, but such fishes, and wilde honie, though it were neuer so sweete honie, would be compted but hard fare of my Lord fatte Abbot, and his couent of Popish Monkes. And it appeareth by the testimonie of Plinie, that the land locusts are as pleasant in tast, as the shrimps or creuises. Saint in Mat. 3.Ierome vpon his diet noteth no more but this. Habita­tori solitudinis, &c. For an inhabitant of the wildernes, it is meete not to followe the daintines of meates, but to satisfie the necessitie of the humane flesh. A small repast to sustaine nature, though it be of pleasant meate, and alwaies the same, will prooue no delicacie in any man. The elder writets were not all agreed what these locusts [Page 89] were. Euthimius reporteth that some affirmed, that they were the stalkes of hearbs, some that they were a certaine herbe called locusts, and other that they were the insect or flying vermine. Yet he him-selfe holdeth the first. It is, I weene, no wrong interpreta­tion, sometimes to declare the diuers opinions of learned men, vpon matters whereof question may be: wherefore neither the Magdeburgians, nor Chy­treus, who reporteth the like opinion of the creuises, are to be charged with absurd interpretations, when either they leaue the matter to the readers iudge­ment, or els they declare their owne, without preiu­dice of other.

Now touching the honie, our answerers words are these. And the wilde honie was noe vnpleasant thing, as the fathers doe imagine, but it was (saie Cossius and Strige­lius) that pleasant Manna, which Apothecaries vse to keepe in their shoppes: so that according to these men, all that austeritie of life which the scriptures so particulerlie doe re­count, and all antiquitie doth wonder at, in Saint Ihon Bap­tist, commeth but to this, that he was brought vp priuatelie in his fathers house, cladde in Chamlet, and fed with creuises and sweet Manna. what great hardnes was this? First, where he saith, the fathers do imagine that the wilde honie was an vnpleasant thing, he bringeth none for proofe, neither doe I think he can bring in any more then Eu­thimius, In3. Mat. noe verie auncient father, who saith in deede that this wilde honie was made in the clefts of rocks, by wild Bees, and was bitter and vnpleasant. But it is against all experience, that honie (though of wilde Bees) should be bitter or vnpleasant. Of honie that is Plin. poisonous, we haue read in them, that haue obserued the diuersities thereof, but not of bitter hony. And the moste auncient fathers rooke this wilde honie to be sweet, and pleasant in tast, and thereof gather allego­ries, analogies, & anagogies. As Hilarius, which saith, that the locusts, are we the gentiles, before flitting, In Math. ca. 2. [Page 90] vnprofitable, &c.But now are the food of the saints, and the filling of the Prophets, being chosen together with wild [...], to giue most sweet meate, of our selues, not out of the hyues of the law, but out of the stockes of wilde trees. Likewise Chrysostome vpon Marke saith, that, Honie is a token Hom. 2. of pleasure and sweetnesse, and commeth not onelie of flowers, but of euerie volisptuous thing, and therefore was not offe­red in the law, but now eaten of Iohn, not in the Church, but without the Church. The author of the imperfect worke hath these wordes: Et qui agrestium gentiuns, &c. And he which teaching the sweetnesse of faith of the wild gentiles Hom. 3. in 3. Mat. that should be, &c. did eate wilde honie. Saint Ambrose speaketh of it thus: Ecclesiae quo (que) gratia praefiguratur, &c. Also the grace of the Church is prefigured in wilde honie,In Inc. lib. 2. In cap. 3.not found within the hiue of the lawe, of the swarme of the Iewish people, but powred forth in the fieldes and leaues of the wood, by error of the gentiles, as it is written, we haue found it in the fieldes of the wood. And he trulie did eate wilde honie, preaching that the people should be filled with honie out of the rocke, as it is written: he filled them with honie out of the rocke. Adde hereunto Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, whose wordes are these. Thou seeft how excellent a man he hath chosen to be guide of this graet, possessing nothing at all, a louer of the wildernesse, but not voide of humanitie, ca­tingCatech. illust. min. 3.locusts and preparing winges for the soule, eating honie and speaking thinges more sweete and profitable then honie. This testimonie is the rather to be noted, because this man, being Bishop of Ierusalem manie yeares, might easilie know, whether there were any bitter ho­nie made in the wildernesse about Iordan, where Iohn liued. But he acknowledgeth none but sweete honie. Beda also is a witnesse of good antiquitie, for the sweetenesse of the honie, that Iohn the Baptist did In Marc. 1. lib. 1. eate. Locustas & mel siluestre edebat, quia dulce quidem, &c. He did eate locusts and wilde honie, because his preaching sa­uoured sweetelie vnto the multitude, while the people iudged, and all men thought in their hartes of him, whether he were [Page 91] not Christ. But this opinion soone had an ende, when his hea­rers vnderstood, that he was not Christ, but the forerunner and Prophet of Christ. For in the honie there is sweetenesse, in the locusts swift flying; but some falling doune. Last of all, as latest in time, I will ioyne to these Theophilacte: who vppon Matthew sheweth, that wild honie is cal­led that, which is made of wilde Bees, and is found in trees and rockes, which no man will suspect to be bit­ter. But in the first of Marke he maketh the wilde hony to signifie the spirituall foode of the people, which is the scriptures, &c.Quodammodo igitur & mel. After a sort also the people did eate honie, which being made by the Bees, the Prophets, not gotten with any husbandrie, nor domesti­call, which was well vnderstood, sought out and comprehended. The Hebrews truelie had the scriptures, as a kind of honie, but they did not husband them, nor search them. This cloude of witnesses doth prooue most euidentlie, that the greatest parte of the auncient fathers did not imagine that the wilde honie was vnpleasant of tast, as our an­swerer would haue it be thought; but that it was as honie, naturallie sweete of it selfe, although the con­tinuall eating there of did make it not delectable, as experience sheweth, that the most daintic meate of­ten eaten, is lothsome. Now whether it were honie made of Bees, or dewhony, called in the Apothecaries shoppes Manna, it skilleth not much, seeing the one is as sweete as the other. But where our answerer citeth Cossius, either his notebooke deceiued him, orels good­man corrector was studying of his declension, when he should haue looked to his office, wherein he hath failed in quotation, three or foure times together. There is one Lossius in deed, who vpon Mar. 1. thinketh the wilde hony was this dew hony which falleth vpon the leaues of trees, and at this daie is brought from the countrie neere vnto Iordan. Chytreus and others thinke the same, citing Gallen. lib. 3. de alim. facult, and Diodor, Sicul. pag. 691. to shew the plentie of it in those [Page 92] partes. But what of this? doth Lossius hereof gather that it was no hard fare? his wordes are cleane con­trarie in the same place. Describit Euangelista singula­rem continentiam, & duritiem vitae Iohannis. The Euange­list doth describe (saith he) the singuler continencie, and hardnesse of the life of Iohn. Last of all, are Lossius, Strige­lius, and the Protestantes of this time (thinke you) the first authors of this opinion, that wild honie is the dew honie vpon the leaues of trees? No verilie. For Ambrose (as we haue heard before) maketh mention of honie spreadde on the leaues of the woods. And In3. mat. lib. 1. Beda vpon Matthew is verie plaine that it was so. Por­ro mel syluestre, folia sunt arboris, mirae dulcedinis, quod doctri nae Iohannis nimiam suauitatem ostendit. Now the wildehonie are leaues of a tree of merucylous sweetenesse, which sheweth the exceeding great sweetenesse of Iohns doctrine. So that Lossius, and Strigelius, are not the first wryters that brought this opinion into the Church, which obtei­ned many hundered yeares, before they were borne, as our answerer might haue knowen, if he had beene as well read in the auncient Doctos, as he is bolde to crake of all antiquitie, whereof he neuer tasted, but in notebookes, Dictates, or common places, of some other mens partiall gathering, as it maie easilie ap­peare, by many experiments of his skill in auncient writers. But marke his conclusion: According to these men (saith he) all the austeritie of life, which the scriptures doe so particularlie recount, and ali antiquitie doth wonder at in Saint Iohn Baptist, commeth but to this, &c.

You haue heard, that all these men, doe acknow­ledge the hardnesse and austeritie of Iohns life, which consisteth not onelie, in the place where he liued, the kindes of garment, and meates which he vsed, but al­so in his great abstinencie, and fasting, which the scri­ptures Mat. 9. Marc. 2. Luk. 5. Mat. 11. Luk. 7. do els where record of him, and his continuall thinne and spare vse, euen of those things which he re­ceiued. Iohn came neither eating, nor drincking, but with [Page 93] a mournefull song: wherefore though his honie was sweete, and his locusts pleasant in eating, whether they were fish, the infect, or the herb so called, or the buds of trees, his course garment comelie, & his education from the time of his circumcision, in rusticall houses, rather then in the open ayre, or in the dens of wilde beastes, yet was his bringing vp veric hard, re­maining alwaies in the wildernes, and not in the Ci­ties, or ciuill places, considering the nobilitie of his birth, being descended from the stocke of the high priestes, and allied vnto the famlie of the Kings: his apparrell rough and hearie, after the example of the olde Prophets, his dyet thinne and vnpleasant, not in respect of the ill tast of the thing he did eate, but of the continuall vse of them, without seeking of Luc. 1. varietie, and especiallie his great and often fasting, his perpetuall abstinencie from wine and strong drink, his dailie excercise of praier, and contemplation, when he was alone, his diligent and zealous prea­ching and baptifing, when the multitudes came to him, his free and earnest rebuking of all mens sinnes, euen those that were greatest in credit, the Pharises, the Saduces, the high Priests, and the King him-selfe. All these ioyned together, are such arguments of au­steritie and seueritie of life, as not onelie all antiqui­tie, but all ages past, present, and to come, may wor­thelie wonder at: as for the place, the garment, the dyet, be not matters of so great admiration of them­selues, neither so wondred at of all antiquitie, as he bableth, not yet followed of his Mocke-monkes, and false Eremites, that either the wildernes is their dwelling, or the Camels heare their weede, or the lo­custs and bitter honie their diet, or anie thing answe­ring to these in hardnes. Their Monkes dwell in palaces, their Eremites in fine houses, neere to cities and great townes; their apparell, though in fashion disguised, yet neither rough, nor hearie, nor of smalest [Page 94] price; their dyet like Princes, and noble men: the life of the greatest parte of them idle, and lasciuious. Therefore to their owne shame, they may account Ihon Baptist the Prince or first author of their Mon­kish order, whome they follow as neare in austeritie of life, as they much come behind him in course of time. I trust all reasonable men may now vnderstand, what these vnlearned quarrels come vnto, when they be discussed and examined, howsoeuer they seeme to be bolstred out with impudent asseuerations, multitud of quotations, false cauillations, and vnnecessarie collections. In the rest therefore, I wil be more briefe, because my purpose is not to handle common places of controuersies at large; but shortlie to discouer the vanitie and pride of this answerer, and leaue such matters to other treatises, where they be fullie answered.

A third example he taketh, of our impertinent inter­pretation, about the controuersie of the reall presence in the sacrament: which is nothing els, but a beggerlie cra­uing of a matter still in question, which can beare no shew of of anie lawfull example, except it were cleere against vs, that our exposition were beside the text, or contrarie to it. But peraduenture this fellow will bring some new matter, that hath not beene heard of in this cause, to conuince vs of absurd interpre­tations. First he saith, they haue these wordes of scripture repeated in foure seuerall places: This is my bodie. If we 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Mat 26. Marc. 14. did vtrerlie denic the sacrament to be the bodie of Christ in anie sense, it were somewhat that he saith a­gainst vs: But we graunt it to be the bodie of Christ, in such sorte as Christ did meane, by those wordes. Contrariewise we shew the one part of the sacrament to be six times called bread, after the consecration, in the scripture, the other part, twise or thrise to be cal­led the fruite of the vine, yet your gare interpreters the Papists, do vtterlie denie the one to be bread, the o­ther [Page 95] to be wine in anie sense, but monstrous and im­perceptible, and that against the iudgement of all antiquitie, and the plaine wordes of diuerse auncient doctours. But all antiquitie (to our answerer, a great antiquarie, as you shall sec by and by) are so cleere for the Popish reall presence, as no man might without great offence doubt thereof, as the wordes of Saint Ambrose and Saint Cyrill are. These bookes that he quoteth of lib. 4. de sacram. C. 5. for Ambrose, and Catech. 4. for Cyrill, are not so without controuersie acknowled­ged to be so auncient, as those fathers, whose names they beare: and yet they saie nothing in this cause, of not doubting, but we are readie to saie the same: Namelia, that Christ hauing said, this is my bodie, no man ought to doubt, but that it is his bodie. They haue also other wordes to declare, that their mean­ing was not of the popish manner of presence, but the spirituall manner of eating of Christs flesh, where of the externall sacrament is a figure, and similitude: as Ambrose, de sacr. lib. 4. cap. 4. & 5. de iis qui my ster: init: cap. 9. The same Cyrill also, though much to be suspected for his antiquitie, as verie latelie come into light, yet saith in the same place, that the bodie of Christ is to be receiued by fatih, not as the Capernaites imagined, which thought they had been prouoked to the cating of a mans flesh. But that same Cyrill, saith our answerer in another place, prooueth at large, that to aske onelie, quomodo, how it may be, is the parte of an vnbelecuing Iewe, & quoteth lib. 4. in 10. cap. 13. In deed Cyrillus Alexandrinus affir­meth, and we subscribe vnto him, that to aske, how God can doe, that he said he wil doe, commeth of Iew­ish incredulitie. He saith not, that it is a part of an vnbeleeuing Iewe, to ask how Christs words are to be vnderstood, figuratiuely, or properlie, carnallic, or spi­rituallie. Neither doth he speake in the place alled­ged, of Christes reall presence in the sacrament, but of the question of the Iewes, how Christ could giue his [Page 96] flesh to be eaten, which we beleeue verilie he doth, not one lie in the sacrament, but euen to infants, which neuer receiued that sacrament, or els we must ex­clude them from eternall life, according to his words, except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his blood, you shall haue no life in you.

But now you shall plainlie see, how skilfull this an­swerer is in all antiquitie, whereof he talketh so often and so confidentlie (as bayard is alwaies the boldest horsse) The same Cyrill saith he (speaking of him vnder whose name are caried those my stagogical catechesis) is he that wrote vpon Iohns gospell, &c. whereas the one was Bishop of Ierusalem in Palestine, the other of A­lexandria in Egypt: the one not much nearer in time to the other, then the prouinces where they were Bishops are in place. For Cyrill of Ierusalem was a verie olde man, in the time of the second generall Constantinopolitane councell. Cyrillus of Alexandria was president of the third generall councell of Ephe­sus the first: betweene which two Councels there was aboue fortie yeares distance in tyme. By which note of grosse ignorance, it is manifest, that this scorneful proude answerer hath neuer seene the workes of the one Cyrill, nor of the other, but one lie the quotations and collections of other men, which he vseth as vaun­tinglie, as they were all of his owne reading: yea, if they be not pregnant inough for his purpose, he will make no bones to falsefie their sayings, cleane contra­rie to their meaning, as he dealeth with Epiphani­us, whome he affirmeth to saie, That albeit the hoste see­meth to vs of arounde forme, and insensible, yet whosoeuer beleeueth it not to be the true bodie of Christ, is fallen from grace and saluation: whereas Epiphanius saieth expresse­lie, it is of a round shape, and insensible, as concerning power, and yet it is the same that Christ said it to be, & we beleeue the same. The whol discourse of the Do­ctor in that place, is contrarie to the error of the car­nall [Page 97] presence; where he sheweth, that the sacrament is the Image of Christ, as man is the Image of God, though he be not equall with God, as the sacrament is not equall with Christ, but an insensible thing: yet neuerthelesse by grace is called, and beleeued to be that which Christ said of it. This saying of Epipha­nius do we allow, and vse as an inumcible argument against transsubstantiation, and the carnal manner of presence, as was well tried, when in the conference at the tower, it was opposed vnto your client Campi­an, who had nothing but vaine wordes to anoide it, being a place, which he neither vnderstood in the authors tongue, nor after it was expounded in English, could tell the argument, or occasion of it.

To the places cited out of Chrysostome I answe­red, that albeit they be sometimes hyperbolicall, yet as he vnderstood them, and doth manie times ex­pounde him selfe, we confesse them to be true, and yet no carnall presence prooued by them, as In Mat. H. 83. which our answerer citeth in these wordes: Sed quoniam ille dixit, hoc est corpus meum, credamus, etiamsi sensui absurdem esse videatur. Because Christ hath said, this is my bodie, we must beleeue it, although it seeme absurd to our sense. The saying is good and catholike, but yet it is not altogether Chrysostomes, neither in this ho­milie, nor in the Hom 60. ad Pop. Antioch. which also he quotech for it. The wordes of Chrisostome in Math. Ho. 83. of the translation of Trapezuntius, be these: Quoniam ergo ille dixit, hoc est corpus meum, nulla teneamur ambiguitate, sed credamus, & oculis intellectus id perspi­ciamus. Because then he hath said, this is my bodie, let vs not be holden with anie doubtfulnesse, but let vs beleeue, and behold it with the eies of vnderslanding. And ad pop. Antioch. Ho. 60. of Germanus Brixius translation, these are his wordes: Quoniam igitur verbum dicit, hoc est corpus meum, & pareamus, & credamus, & intellectualibus ip­sum occulis intueamur. But because the word saieth, this is [Page 98] my bodie, let vs borh obey and beleeue, and beholde him with the eies of vnderstanding. A third place he cyteth out of this father in I. Cor. ho. 24. in these wordes: Hoc idem corpus, cruentatum, lancea vulneratum, & quod in caelum extulit. This is the verie same bodie, whose blood was shed, and which was wounded with the speare, and which he carried vp with him. We graunt as much, that we receiue in the sacrament, the verie same bodie of Christ, that was crucified, wounded, dead, and caried into hea­uen, yet not comming downe to vs, but we (as Chri­sostome saith in the same homelie) by faith made E­gles, and ascending vp into heauen, where Christ is: yet the wordes be not altogether, as our answerer citeth them, for immediatelie after the word vulneratum, followeth, Fontes sanguinis & aquae [...] so orbi saluta­res scaturiuit: Flowed forth [...] of bloode and water healthful to all the world. But he were to be pardoned, that hath nothing of his owne reading, but is faine to cite all out of other mens notes, if he were not such a proude and malepert censurer of other men.

To proceede, after these quotations, and ci­tations of the auncient Doctors, he commeth to his aduersaries, to shew how contrarie they are, in vnderstanding of this text of scripture, This is my bodie: they haue found out (saith he) a new exposition, affirming that it must be construed: this is onelie the signe of my bodie, for which they haue neither scri­pture, nor auncient father, for warrant, or example. But which of your aduersaries (good sir) giueth this con­struction? This is the signe of my bodie, some do inter­pret it, and for that, you maie haue warrant of aun­cient Doctors more then euer you read, if you durst denie it. but this is onelie the signe, by which you meane a bare signe, to exclude all true feeding vpon Christ in his supper, none of the Protestantes your aduersaries, did euer affirme. What Libertines, Ana­baptists, and other fantasticall heades haue ima­gined, [Page 99] we haue nothing to doe with it, no more then with the eight seuerall expositions numbred by Luther, or those 84. gathered by Claudius de Xanctes: from all which we disclaime, and from all other, sauing from one, which is the true interpretation. And yet it is certaine, that Luther, an enemie to this trueth, strei­neth much, & Claudius ten times more, the words of the Christian Protestants, to so great numbers of in­terpretations. Among whome if eighty more do vtter the same sense in diuers wordes, you will make no lesse then 80. interpretations. But because M. Chark acknow­ledgeth Luther to be illuminated singularlie by the holie ghost, and he is compared to Elias, by the com­mon phrase of all Protestants, our answerer taketh paines, to repeat diuers bitter sayings of his, against our interpretation of those wordes of Christ, as which he had reuealed to him by his holie spirite. A wife matter: as though Luther being singularly illuminated by the ho­lie ghost, is made a Pope, by M Charke, that he can not erre in anie thing, or being compared by some Protestants, and in some respects (for it is a lowd lie that he is compared by al Protestantes) to Elias, may not be deceiued in anie point, as Eliashim-selfe was.

But doth our answerer, trow you, cite more true­lie out of Luther, then he did of late out of the olde wri­ters, that we might thinke, perhaps he hath read the latter more diligentlie, although he hath beene litle conuersant in the former? I will giue you a taste, by one or two places. and first, that which he citeth out of Luthers epistle ad Argentinenses: wherein he clippeth and geldeth out diuerse wholl sentences, at his plea­sure, or rather as his note booke did lead him. So that it is plaine, he hath read no more in Luther, then in the auncient Doctors. The wordes are these. Hoc dif­fiteri nec possum, nec volo, &c. This can I not. nor will de­nie, but if Carlostadius, or anie manels, could for fiue yeares past haue persuaded me, that there had bene nothing in the [Page 100] sacrament, but bread and wine, he should haue bound me to him, by a great good turne. For I haue taken great care, and anxietie, in discussing this matter, and haue endeuoured with all my power, and synowes siretched out, to ridde my selfe of the same. Seeing I did well perceiue, I might verie greatlie and e­speciallie hurt the papacie. ( [...] [...] [...], &c. More­ouer Papatui. Answ. the pope. I had two men, which did write vnto me of this matter more rightlie and sharplie then Carolostadius, nor sowresting That which is enclosed in the paré­thesis is left out by the answerer. () the wordes after the capacitis of their owne [...]) But I do se my selfe captine, no waie being left to escape. For the text of the Gospell is too plaine and strong, and such as cannot easilie be o­uerthrowen by anie man, and much lesse by words and glosses deuised by a fantasticall head. (Quod si et i am bodierno die. &c. Yea and if at this date it could be, that anie man by strong testimonie of scriptures were able to prooue unto me, that there that which is enclosed in the paré­thesisis left out by the answerer. () is not anie thing in the sacrament but bread and wine, yet there is no neede that anie man should set vpon me with so bit­ter minde) for I am alas to much inclining to this part, as farre as I canperceiue the nature of my olde Adam. (But by such furies as Carolostadius rageth and is mad about this matter, it () omitte 1 by the an­swerer. mooueth me so much, that in defending my opinion, I am made more stubborne.) In these wordes Luther being in an heat against Carolostadius, a vaine tumultuous per­son, acknowledgeth his owne weakenes of both sides. But by our answerer he is charged with his honestie, as labouring to peruert the sacrament, thereby to hurt the Pope. Yet neither anie desire of peruerting the sacrament, or end of hurting the Pope is confessed in those words. For Luther laboured not to peruert the sacrament, but to finde out the trueth, if he might: not to hurt the Popes person, but to oueithrowe the papacie, which is the Kingdome of Antichrist: al­though he acknowledgeth, that his affection is ca­ried sometimes on the one side, sometimes on the o­ther side, contrarie to his persuasion. Wherein he is an honester man, to confesse his owne infirmitie, then the answerer is, to quarell and cauill with him there­fore. [Page 101] For the saying which he citeth out of his epistle ad Ioh. Heruagium, Printer of Argentine, he sendeth vs to seeke it in Gesners Bibliotheca, where is onelie the title at the moste: but where it is to be found a­mong Luthers printed workes, neither he nor we can tell: and therefore how honestlie he hath dealt with it, I can not saie. But to this he ioyneth certaine o­ther sentences of Luthers, taken out of a treatise cal­led a defense of the wordes of the supper against the phanaticail spirits of sacramentaries: in which trea­tise, it cannot be denied, but Luther, as he erred in the matter, so was he caried farre beyond the bondes of charitie, and modestie, in declaiming against the contrarie parte: yet not also much, as the answerer would haue men think, by falsifying his wordes, and mangling his sentence, after his vsuall manner. As in the first clause, he maketh Luther to saie, accursed be their char. tie and concord, where his wordes be, Illa cha­ritas & concordia, that charitie and concord, vnder pretense of which (as he vntruely gathered) gods trueth should be defaced.

The second sentence, in which he derideth the di­uers expositiones of Carolostadius, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, more by happe, then by cunning, he hath hit vpon Luthers wordes, who yet els where con­fesseth, that the interpretation of Zuinglius, and Oe­colampadius came both to one end: As for Carolo­stadius fantasie, is as much reiected of vs, as of Luther and the papists.

Now come we to the third place, wherein it is som­what long to shew the fooletie of this answerer, which wil take vpon him, out of another mans notebooke to set downe Luthers wordes, as though he had read thē himselfe, euen as he plaieth with al other writers say­ings almoste, that come thorough his fingers, olde & new. Yet, to discouer his vaine pride, and to shame his fellow papists, that boast of his great learning, [Page 102] and much reading, I will set forth the matter some­what more at large: this is the answerers saying. p. 22. And againe in the same worke, he hath these wordes. To ex­pound the wordes of Christ, as the sacramentaries do (this is the signe of my bodie) is as absurd an exposition, as if a man should interpret the scripture thus: In the beginning God made hea­uen and earth, that is, the Cuckow did eate vp the titling or hedgesparow, together with her bones. Againe, in S. Iohn. And the word was made flesh, that is, a crooked staffe was made a kite. This saith the answerer: but in deede Luthers wordes are farre otherwise, and to another end, then to shew the absurditie of our exposition, although he haue the wordes of a Cuckow, and a crooked staffe, a titling, and a kite, as you shall see plainlie: Age verò, audiamus quo pacto verbis Christi, &c. Goe too, let vs heare how they take awaie our sense from the wordes of Christ, and thrust in their owne. They affirme, that the word (is) is all one with the word (signifieth) as Zuinglius writeth. And the word (my bodie) is the same that (the signe of my bodie) as Oe­colampadius writeth. The words therefore, and minde of Christ, after the text of Zuinglius, do sound thus: take ye, eat ye, this doth signifie my bodie. & after the text of Oecolampadius, take ye, & eate ye, this is the signe of my body. Now they are as cer­taine that these sentences are true, & they do as stedfast lie per­sist in them, in their hartes, as a reede is wont to do, being sha­ken hither and thither of the winde, as I said. Therefore by and by they glorie, that we haue no testimonie of scripture, that the bodie of Christ is in the Lordes supper, but a litle while after, they humble them selues againe, and desire to be taught, and promise that they will followe vs, if we shall prooue by scripture, that the bodie of Christ is present in his supper. And truelie they doe a great and earnest matter: but the same thing commeth to passe, as if, when I had a litle before denied, that God created heauen and earth, and had subscribed to the opinion of Aristotle, Plinie, & other ethnikes, of the eternitie of the world, and some man setting him-selfe against me, should bring forth that saying of Moses: In the beginning [Page 103] God created heauen and earth, and I now to confute mine ad­uersarie, should expound the wordes of Mosesthus: God, that is the Cuckow, created, that is deuoured, heauen and earth, that is the titling all and wholl together with the bones and fethers, and so should fayne this sentence of the wordes of Mo­ses: In the beginning the Cuckow deuoured the titling all and wholl together with the bones and feathers, and should vt­terlie cast awaie that, In the beginning God created heauen and earth: would not this seeme to be a peece of cunning? Yet truelie, not vnworthie, nor vnknowne of Iesters. Also it should be like, as if I would denie the sonne of God, to be made man, to him that should laie against me that saying of Saint Ihon. 1. The word was made flesh: I would answere, the word signi­fieth a crooked stafe, and flesh a kite; and the sentence is, a crooked stafe is made a kite. But if my conscience did reprooue me, and crie against me, Master Martyne, you expound the text too peeuishlie and crookedlie, but, &c. and I should keepe in that (but) vntill shame died my cheekes with redde, and yet would say, fie on the false traytor, take awaie thy (but) & holde thy peace, that no man euer perceiue, or smell out, that I haue so euill a conscience. And afterward should set forth my selfe lustilie, and clapping my handes together with full mouth should sing: Hei, how, the Christians haue not anie place of scripture, which affirmeth and prooueth that the word is made flesh. And yet at the last, I should submitte my selfe againe, and desire to be instructed and taught, how they could prooue it out of the scripture, which I before had rent in peeces. If this were leife and lawfull for me to doe, O mortall God, how great businesse and trouble might I cause in the olde and new testa­ment, as well to the Iewes as Christians! These are the verie wordes of Luther in deede. Now the ende why he v­seth these fond comparisons, he sheweth afterward. Quisquis enim vult verba scripturae aliter quàm sonant, in­terpretari, is tenetur ex textu eiusdem loci, aut ex aliquo fi­dei articulo probare. For whoesoeuer will interpret the wordes of scripture, otherwise then they sound, he is bound out of the text of the same place, or out of some article of faith, to prooue [Page 104] it. Which rule in deede, or the like, if it be notkept, there will be no ende of vaine, & licentious interpre­tations. But Zuinglius and Oecolampadius out of the text of the same place, where the cuppe is called the new testament in his bloode, and out of the article of Christs incarnation, and true manhoode vnconfoun­ded with his godhead, doe prooue, that their inter­pretation must needes be true: therefore these simili­tudes doe not shew, that their exposition is absurde: also Luther him selfe denyeth, that his meaning was to deface them by those grosse similitudes & absurdi­ties. Deus nouit, &c. God knoweth (saith he) that with these grosse similitudes, I studdie not to deface Zuinglius, and much lesse Oecolampadius, vnto whome God hath giuen manie gifts aboue many other men whose case I doe lament from my heart, neither with such wordes doe I bend my pen against them, but rather against the Deuill, proudlie and bitterlie [...] vs, which hath circumuenied and deceiued them, that I might fulfill the lust of my minde against him, to the honour of God, &c. These sayings of Luther declare, that albeit he stood too much in his owne conccyt, touching this sa­cramentarie matter, and was verie hastie and rash of iudgement, in condemning them, that helde the truth against him; yet he was not so voide of charitie, as the answerer gathereth by some vehement spea­ches of his, shewing here how he meaneth them, and would haue thē to be vnderstood, namely, not against the persons of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius, but a­gainst the deuill, who, as he falselie imagined, had de­ceiued them in this matter. So that the controuersie is still, betweene the true Catholikes and the Papists, which part prouoketh to the scriptures, in their true meaning, as the onelie sufficient rule to decide all controuersies of religion.

But which part alleadgeih the true meaning (saith our an­swerer) according to the councell of wise Sisinius to Theodosi­us the Emperour, we desire to be tried by the iudgement of [Page 105] auncient fathers, indifferent in this matter, for that they liued before our controuersies came in question. This he saith, but as I haue prooued before, and namelie in the exam­pled of transsubstantiation, they will not stand to the iudgement of the auncient fathers, further then their Pope shal alow them. As for vs, we refuse not the iudgement of the most auncient fathers, except it be in such matters, wherein it is manifest by the plaine texts, and necessarie collections out of the scripture, that they were deceiued as euen the Papists will con­fesse in some poyntes that they were. This wise Sisini­us, whose counsell he would haue followed, was a wise heretike, whoe first gaue the aduise to Nectarius the Catholike Bishop, by whome it was commended to the Emperour, and had good successe against all other heresies, saue the heresie of the Nouatians, who by meanes hereof came in credit with the Emperour, and had free libertie to vse their conuenticles openlie. By which it appeareth, that it is no perfect kinde of triall, which was first offered by an heretike, & where­bie he could not be conuicted of his heresie. Againe it was not vsed against the sufficiencie of the scripture, and the triall that maie be had therebie, but onelie to cutte of quarelous disputation of heretikes, which are alwaies more readie to contend, then to learne the truth. Last of all, where he saith, the auncient fathers are indifferent, for that they liued before our controuersies came in question, it is no sufficient argument, seeing the aun­cient fathers erred them-selues in some points, and no man is an indifferent iudge in that case, wherein he is deeeiued him-selfe. Againe, the auncient fathers are not all of one antiquitie, but commonlie the most auncient, the purest and furthest from all smacke of Antichristian errors; the later more sauouring of the infection of the times; drawing toward the apostasie. Euen as water, the nearer the spring, is purer, but running further of, through vnpure soyle, receiueth [Page 106] some taste thereof. So the Councell of Sisinius in re­spect of the most auncient fathers, that were before the heresies of those times, was better to be vsed in his time, then in these daies, when they that liued fiue hundred yeares after Sisinius, maie be counted aunci­ent fathers in respect of vs, yet their iudgement not so weightie, nor so meete to be imbraced, as those first fathers of the primitiue Church, to whose iudge­ment, if all matters of controuersie were referred, the Papists should get but small aduantage.

But our aduersaries (saith the answerer) will allow no exposition but their owne, wherebie it is easie to defeat, whatso­euer is brought against them, scripture, or Doctor. In deede this which he saith, is moste true of the Papists, as I haue prooued before, but vntrue of vs: for we allowe all interpretations, that are not contrarie to the ana­logie of faith, and are agreeable to the plaine words, & necessarie circumstances of the place of scripture, & not repugnant to anie other euident text of scripture. According to which rules, we must examine all expo­sitions of all men, since the Apostles time: yea the A­postles them-selues were content that their doctrine should be examined by the scriptures of the olde te­stament: but so are not the Papists: for they holde o­pinions, Act. 17. 11. altogether beside the scriptures. But our an­swerer, to iustifie that, which he hath saide against vs, bringeth examples of shifting scriptures and Doctors: all which (except one) are gathered out of diuerse writings of Doctor Fulke, for answere of which, seeing he hath set forth a speciall treatise, I referre the rea­der Confutati­on of Pa­pists quar­rells. thereunto. pag. 38. 39. 40. That one example which he could father vpon no man, I will examine here. The like euasion (saith he) they haue, when we alleadge the wordes of Saint Paull, Qui matrimonio, &c: he that ioyneth his virgin in mariage, doth well, and he that ioyneth her not, doth better. Whereof we inferre, that virginitie is more accep­table and meritorious before God, then mariage, although [Page 107] mariage be holie. No saie our adversaries, Saint Paull mea­neth onelie, that he doth better before men, and in respect of worldlie commmodities, but not before God. If you aske him, which of his aduersaries doe saie so, he is not able to name one: for in truth we neuer saide so, not thinke so. But that which he saith, they doe infer vpon the text, that virginitie is more meritorious before God, the mariage, we doe vtterlie denie, and we saie furthet, that all the Papists in the world shal neuer be able, by lawfull and true arguments, to infer so much, vpon these wordes of the text, or to iustifie this kinde of inferring; virgi­nitie is better before God, ergo it is more meritorious. for the antecedent, which we graunt, doth not prooue the conclusion, which we denie. Therefore when out of the circumstances of the text he prooueth, that virginitie is better in respect of God, as a more ex­cellent gift of God, he taketh more paines then he needeth. For we confesse as much, that he that ioy­neth not his virgin doth better, not onelie in respecte of worldlie commodities, or before men: but also that shee maie be holie before the Lord, in bodie and spi­rit, &c. then he that ioyneth her in mariage: but that he doth better in respect of merite, & reward in the life to come (as the answerer saith) it doth not follow thereof. I meane for the merite. As for the reward, which God bestoweth of his meere mercie, doth not prooue anie merite or desert of the partie rewarded. For he which vseth the gift of God well, by the power and strength which he hath of God, shall of Gods goodnesse, not misse of his reward; but he cannot therebie claime reward of dutie, or of merit; neither doth the text al­leadged by him prooue any such thing: Some Eu­nuchs Mat. 16. haue gelded them-selues for the kingdome of heauen, therefore they haue deserued the kingdome of heauen therebie. Such licentious kinde of infer­ring, will not onelie make poperie to stand, if it were lawfull, but also might be able to iustifie all heresies, [Page 108] that euer were, by scripture. But bring these illations or inferrings to the iudgement seate of Logicke, and they will easilie appeare to be voluntarie glosles, and not true expositions or necessarie collections. Yet these new doctors (saith our answerer) doe contemne and [...] all authoritie, antiquitie, wit, learning, sanctitie of our fore­fathers, and of all men: yea of their owne new doctors, and masters, when they come to be contrarie to any new deuise, or later fansie of theirs. Because we may not receiue eue­rie interpretation, or opinion of euerie of the fathers, he maketh this hideous outcrie against vs. And yet we are alwaies readie to shew, and haue often per­formed the same, that in the most and greatest con­trouersies, the auncient Doctors, are against them, & verie cleere on our side. Therefore it is an impudent slaunder that we reiect or contemne all authoritie, antiqui­tie, witte, &c. of our forefathers: as it is a ridiculous ar­gument, that he bringeth, of our dissent from our late doctors and masters, as he termeth them: be­cause we follow not the error of Luther, about the re­all presence, and the vse of Images: as for the number of the sacraments, and bookes of the Bible, we holde Cateth. Lu­ther. edit. 1530. Surius som. [...] 1530. with Luther in his last iudgement, when he was best instructed in those cases.

The order of seruice is free for euerie Church, to vse diuerselie, as maie serue best for edification. The popish Churches haue diuers vses of seruice, as Sa­rum, Yorke, Bangor Hereford, in England they had: how manie then diuers orders abroade? But Caluine (he saith) is reiected about the head of the Church in England, which is a manifest vntrueth: for Caluin is euen of the same iudgement, concerning the Princes authoritie in causes, & ouer persons Ecclesiasticall (as is euident in his Institutions) that we are in England; onelie he misliked the terme supreme heade, as offen­siue, though not euill, as it was vnderstood of the god­lie: and that terme is forborne in England, for the [Page 109] same cause, and another of supreme gouernour vsed, which signifyeth as much, as was ment by the other, when it was rightlie vnderstoode. As for the gouern­ment of the Church in Geneua, Caluine did neuer binde all other Churches to vse the same: what other pointes are reiected in Beza, he hath no leisure to tell vs. But that all the Churches of the Protestants, as he calleth vs, in Europe, do agree in the chiefe and prin­cipall articles of Religion, the Harmonie of their con­fessions, latelie set forth in print, doth giue ful & moste sufficient testimonie. Ceremonies and for me of exter­nall gouernment, were neuer in gods Church ac­counted necessarie to be all one, in euerie particular Church. And some men maie haue their priuat opi­nions, sometime perhapes vntrue yet retaining the vnitie of faith, in the chiefe grounds and foundation of Religion, with them that dissent from them, either iustlie or vniustlie. Wherefore our answerers finall conclusion doth not followe, that Protestants will haue onelie that to be taken for trueth, which they last agree vpon, and their wordes must be the one ie proofe thereof. whereas the worlde can testifye, that the holie scripture is our ground, and from thence we challenge the best proofe: not refusing any other lawful proofes, that wil stand with the iudgement of holie scripture, where it is most plaine, and easie to be vnderstoode, euen without anie interpretations.

The bookes of the scripture we receiue, which the Church of God, among the Iewes before Christ, and the moste auncient Church of the Gentiles since Christ, hath receiued and allowed: the sense we take euen out of the same bookes, and bring no foreine sense vnto them: all writtings of men olde and new, we examine according to the same, praising God for such helpe, as we haue by his giftes in them, to vn­derstand his word: yet leauing to them, without re­proch, such things as proceeded from them selues, [Page 110] without the warrant of that worde: and this haue all true Catholikes alwaies done, and no heretike is able to doe, albeit he woulde professe neuer so much to doe.

To the former slaunders, our answerer will haue vs adioyne this, that our aduersaries (saith he) notwithstanding all request, sute, offer, or humble petition that we can make, will come to no publike disputation, or other indifferent and lawfull iudgement: but doe persecute, imprisone, torment, and slaughter them which offer the same. Touching anie law­ful request, sute, or humble petition made in due man­ner, to them that haue authoritie to graunt, I neuer hard of anie, onelie the seditious challenge of Cam­pian is all the request, sute, offer, and humble petition, that he is able to prooue, was euer made by them, for anie such matter, before the publishing of this an­swere of his. As for them that persecute, imprisone, torment, and slaughter them which offer disputation, which he calleth their aduetsaries, it is well knowne, that Master Charke, and the ministers of the Church, are none such, neither haue they anie such authoritie. It remaineth then, that he accounteth the Prince, her councell, magistrates, and ministers of Iustice his aduersaries; who indeede haue good cause so to be, not onelie in respect of their heresyes, but also in regard of their manifolde, and almoste infinite pra­ctises of treason, against the Prince and realme; for which, some of them haue suffered moste iustlie, and not for offering of disputation, as this traiterous here­tike, euerie where, moste slaunderouslie, doth a­vowe.

But nowe for their partes, he saith, they offere the best, surest, and easiest meanes that can be deuised, or that haue bene vsed in Gods Churches, for triall, and they are manie in number. The first is, the bookes of Scripture, receiued vpon the credit of the auncient Church, of which we are content (saith he) to accept for [Page 111] canonicall, and allowe all those, and none other, which an­tiquitie in Christendome hath agreed vpon. But this is false: for to omit that they receiue for canonicall, such as the Church of God before Christ neuer receiued, they receiue also such, as the greatest, and best an­tiquitie in Christendome receiued not: as the Church in Origens time, witnesse Eusebius, more then the Hist. lib. 6. e. 18. Church of Rome, receiued in Saint Ieromes, witnesse Ierome himselfe, prologo Galeato. and Ruffinus in Expos­symb. more then the Councell of Laodicea did receiue for canonicall, as is manifest by the 59. canon.

The second way of trial, is the expresse & plaine words of Scripture, wherein they must needs be farre superior: for what one expresse plaine text haue they (saith he) in anie one point or article against vs, which we doe not acknowledge liberallie, as they doe, and as the wordes doe lie? yes we haue manie, but a fewe shal serue: for example, God saith, Exod. 20. Thou shalt not make to thy selse anie grauen image, &c. thou shalt not fall down to thē, nor worship them. Againe Matt. 4. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onelie shalt thou serue: Which are moste plaine, expresse, and manifest against worshipping of Images, and other creatures, in anie vse of Religion. Christ saith, drinke ye all of this, they be expresse and manifest wordes, a­gainst the popish sacriledge of the cuppe. The 14. to the Corinthians the first Epistle, is expresse and plaine against publike praiers, homilies, lessons in a straunge & vnknowne tongue. 1. Tim. 4. in expresse and plaine wordes the spirite pronunceth, the forbidding of mar­riage and meates, to be the doctrine of deuilles. And Heb. 13. Mariage is honourable in all men. And 1. Tim. 3. Tit. 1. a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon must be the husband of one wife, beside a great number more. But the papists (saith our answerer) haue infinit texts against vs, which we cannot admit without glosses, and fond interpretations of our owne. A bolde speach, as alwaies he vseth: but it shall al­waies be founde, that if we doe in anie text departe [Page 112] from the grammaticall sense, there is necessarie cause why: as if it be a figuratiue spcach, which is tried either by circumstances of the same place, or by o­ther texts of scriptures, & for the most parte, hath the iudgement of the most auncient writers agreing with our interpretation. But the most of these examples he bringeth, haue nothing in shewe, that the expresle wordes of scripture are with them, or against vs, but by their fonde, false, vnreasonable collections, and such as they can neuer conclude in lawful & true syl­logismes: as for example. We haue it (saith he) (for the supremacie) expresselie saide to Peter, that signifieth arocke, vpon this rock will I builde my Church. We answere, that we might followe the interpretation of the most auncient and approoued fathers, that the rocke here spoken of, is Christ, whom Peter confessed but graun­ting them, that they could neuer euict, we confesse that the Church is builded vpon the foundation of Peter the Apostle, but not vpon him alone, or more principallie, then vpon all the Apostles, who are all rockes, or stones, vpon whose foundation, as also vpon the foundation of the Prophets, the Church of Christ Eph. 2. 20. Apo. 21. 14. is builded. Neither is it possible to prooue the supre­macie of the Pope, out of those wordes of scripture, or anie other. But they haue further expresselie (tou­ching the Apostles) he that is great among you, let him be as the younger Luk. 22. We haue no where, there is none grea­ter then other among you. Neither do we holde, that none ought to be greater then other among vs, but that Mar. 10. 43. 44. 1. pet. 5. 3. the greatest among the ministers, ought to be ser­uant of all the rest, and that none ought to exercise Dominion ouer the Lordes inheritaunce: yet the pri­macie of order we graunt, euen among the Apo­stles, according to which Iames was president of the Councell at Ierusalem, Peter the cheife Aposlle of Act 15. 19. Gal. 2. 7. the circumcision, Paull of the gentiles: all which will not serue one whit, to maintaine the popish tiranny. [Page 113] For Paul was nothing inferiour to the highest Apo­stles. But for the reall presence, they haue expreslie: 2. Cor. 12. 11. This is my bodie: we haue no where, this is the signe of my bo­die. Neither doe we denie the sacrament to be the bo­die of Christ, neither doe we affirme, that it is a bare signe. But that this is a figuratiue speach, we haue ex­preslie. This cuppe is the newe Testament in my blood, and Luc. 22. 1. Cor 11. 1. Cor. 10. as expreslie the Apostle speaking of the same sacra­ment, the rocke was Christ: which prooueth that it must be vnderstoode in a sigue, and after a spirituall man­ner, and so doe al the olde Doctors interpretit, as hath beene often shewed. We haue expreslie (saith he) The bread that I will giue you, is my flesh. Iohn. 6. they haue no­where, It is but the signe of my flesh. And we confesse as much: for we neuer saide, that the signe of Christs flesh was crucified for vs, but his verie naturall bodie, which he promiseth in that text, to giue for the life of the world, which by faith and the spirit of God, is made the spirituall foode of all the elect children of God, and without eating of which, none can be saued, Ioh. 6. 53. But they haue expresly, A man is iustified by works, and not by faith onelie. Iames. 2. we haue no where, a man is iustified by faith alone: no, nor that he is iustified by faith with­out workes, talking of workes that followe faith. First, we confesse the text, that a man is iustified by workes. As Abraham was, when he offered his sonne: and as Rahab was, when she receiued the spies: that is, a man is declared to be iust in the sight of men. For Abraham was iustified before God, by faith, before he offered his sonne, whome God did not trie, to enforme him­selfe, Gen. 15. 6. Rom. 4. 3. but to declare vnto men, by the fruites of obedi­ence, that Abraham was a iust man: euen so by faith, the harlot Rahab perished not, with the vnbelee­uers, when the receiued the spies in peace, but by re­ceiuing them peaceablie, she was declared to be iust, or iustified in the sight of men. Therefore there are two kindes of iustification: the one by faith before [Page 114] god, the other by works before men: therefore a man is not iustified by faith only, but by works also: which say­ing of S. Iamesis not repugnant to that we holde, that a man is iustified before god, sola fide, by faith alone, or by faith without the workes of the lawe, as S. Paule saieth, which is alone: which comprehendeth al good works, Rom. 3. 28. as also the examples of Abraham and Dauid, in the 4. Chapter to the Romanes, doc plainelie declare, where the Apostle speaketh expreslely of circumcisiō, which was a worke of obedience, following the faith of Abraham. And Dauid pronounceth the blessednes of a man, to whome the Lord imputeth righteousnes without workes: which Rom. 4. 6. must needes be vnderstood, euen of workes following faith, because Dauid speaketh of himselfe, and of all men generallie, that shall obtaine blessednes by the grace of god, without merite of workes. For, to him that worketh, reward is not imputed according to grace, but accor­ding to debt. Againe, the Apostle writing to the Gala­thians, Rom. 4. 4. which were faithful, speaketh generally. It is ma­nifest, that by the lawe no man is iustified before god: for the iust shal liue by faith. By which texts, & many more, the con­clusion Gal. 3. 11. is moste necessarie, that before God, workes following faith, doe not iuslifie, but faith alone without workes: yet not a dead, but a liuing faith, which worketh by loue. Further (he saith) they haue ex­presselie for absolution: whose sinnes ye forgiue, are forgiuen, whose sinnes ye retaine, are retained. Iohn. 20. but we haue no where, that Priests cannot forgiue, or retaine sinnes in earth. But the controuersie is not, whether the Ministers of God haue power to forgiue, or retaine sinnes; for we beleeue that they haue such power; but whether absolute power, properlie to forgiue sinnes, and how the same is to be exercised, is the question. For we be­leeue, that God onelie hath power, absolutelie & pro­perlie, Marc. 2. 7. Luc. 5. 21. Iob. 14. 5. Esa. 43. 12. to remit sinnes, according to the scripture, man by declaring Gods will & pleasure. Yet againe, they haue expresselie, The doers of the lawe shall be iustified. Rom. 2. [Page 115] And we saie euen as much: but because none is found a doer of the lawe, we saie with the same Apostle, that Gal. 3. 11. it is manifest, that no man is iustified before God by the lawe. But our answerer inferreth moreouer, that we haue no where, that the law required at Christians hands is impossible, or that the doing therof iustifieth not Christians. yes we haue it expressely, That which was impossible of the law, Rom. 8. 3. in as much as it was weake by the flesh, God sending his sonne in the similitude of sinfull flesh, &c. If there had beene a lawe giuen, that had bene able to giue life, righteousnes in deede had bene of the lawe. but the scripture hath concluded all vnder Ga. 3. 21. 22. sinne, that the promis by the faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen to them that belecue. Againe, by the workes of the lawe no flesh shalbe iustified before him: therefore no Christi­ans Rom. 3. 20. by the workes of the lawe shalbe iustified before him. Moreouer, we are saued by grace through faith, not of workes. Ergo Christians (for none els are saued) are iu­stified through faith without workes. Yet againe, they haue expresselie, Psal. 75. Vowe ye, and render your vowes: we haut no where, vowe ye not, or if you haue vowed, breake your vowes. we confesse, the Prophet willeth the people to vowe, yet he meaneth onelie thinges lawfull, and in their power to performe: we bid no man to breake his vowe, if it be lawful and possible: but if he haue vowed to goe a pilgrimage, which is Idolatrie, or to liue vn­maried, which is not able to liue continentlie: we ex­hort him to repent of his wicked, or vnaduised vowe, & Num. 30, to serue God, as he hath appointed, or to vse the re­medie that God hath prouided. They haue againe expres­lie, I. Cor. 7. Keepe the traditions which ye haue learned, either by worde or epistle. 2. Thess. 2. we haue no where, the Apostles left noe traditions to the Church vnwritten. Saint Paull willeth the Thessalonians to keepe the traditions or doctrine, which he had deliuered vnto them, either by word of mouth, or by his epistle. This prooueth not that the Apostles left any traditions, which are no where written in the holie scripture, because they [Page 114] were not all written in the epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians. But we haue expresselie, that the holie scriptures are able to make vs wise to saluation, to make the man of God perfect, and prepared to all 2. Tim. 3. 15. good works: which things seing we haue fufficientlie in the holie scriptures, we neither regard, nor receiue any other doctrine vnder name of tradition of the Apo stles, or of Angels from heauen. Still they haue expresse­lie: If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commaundements: and (when he said he did that already) if thou wilt be perfect, go & sel all thou hast, & giue to the poore, & follow me. And we haue no where, that either the commaundements of God cannot be kept, or that we are not bound vnto them, or that there is no de­gree of life one perfecter then another. We graunt, that who so by good deeds will seeke to enter into life, as that yong man did, must doe the deedes of the commaun­dements, which if he can doe, he shal liue by them: but albeit he boasted, that he had kept the commaunde­ments, yet it followeth not, that he did keepe them in­deede, and as god required, but was a blinde hipocrite, and sought to iustifie him-selfe, according to the he­resie of the Pharisies. That we are not bound to keepe the commaundements, as neere as God will giue vs grace, is no article of ours, but a slaunder of his. Finallie, we denie that anie mortall mans life is per­fect, yet we graunt, that some mens liues come neerer to perfection then other some. Neither doth our Sa­uiours words include perfection, in selling his goodes, nor in giuing them to the poore: for if a man bestowe all his goodes, to feede the poore, and haue not loue, he is nothing: but he addeth, that he must followe Christ, and take vp his crosse: and so by Christs grace I. Cor. 13. he shal attaine vnto perfection, which he falselie ima­gined, that he he had obtained by a pharizaical obser­uation Marc. 10. of the lawe: this fauoreth not Monkes and friers, more then hipocrites, and liers. Beside this: They haue expresselie, worke your owne saluation with feare [Page 115] and tremhling, Phil. 2. we haue no where, either that a man can worke nothing toward his owne saluation, being holpen with the grace of God: or that a man should make it of his beliefe, that he shall be saued without all doubt or feare. The saying of Saint Paull we acknowledge, that men should worke out their owne saluation with feare and trembling: together with the next verse following: for Phil. 2. 13. it is God that worketh in you, both to wil, and to be hable to do, for his owne good pleasure. whereupon we conclude that though a man is willed to worke his owne saluation, by walking in that waie, which god hath appointed for them that shalbe saued, yet he can doe nothing by his owne strength, but all that he doth, is of the grace of god: for by grace you are saued, through faith, & that not of Eph. 2. 8. your selues, it is the gift of God. To be short, we make not the grace of God an helper onelie, but a wholl doer and bringer to passe in vs of our saluation, and of all thinges tending thereto. For we are not apt of our selues, as of our selues, to thinke anie thing belonging thereto, but our aptnes is of God. Nor I, saith Saint Paul, but the grace of God which is with me. Againe, we 2. Cor. 3. 5. 1. Co. 15. 10 Rom. 8. 38. 2. Cor. 5. 6. &c. 1. Ioh. 5 10. 1. Ioh. 4. 17. &c. haue infinit places of scripture, to prooue, that a man ought not to dout of his saluatiō, in respect of the truth of Gods promises: although we ought to feare, & trem ble at Gods iudgements, and although we cannot be alwaies voide of feare, in respect of our own weakenes. Furthermore they haue expresselie, doe ye the worthie fruites of penance. Luc. 3. we haue no where that faith onelie is sufficient, without all satisfaction, and all other workes of penance, on our partes. The fruites worthie of repen­tance, we acknowledge to be necessaire, to declare vnfained repentance, but not for satisfaction of Gods iustice, which is blasphemous against the satisfacti­on of Christes death. But that a faith which is fruit­les, or voide of the workes of repentance, should be sufficient to saluation or Iustification, we doe vtterlie deny, as a thing contrary to the scriptures. Yet againe [Page 118] they haue expresselie, that euerie man shalbe saued ac­cording to his workes. Apo. 20. we haue no where, that men shalbe iudged onelie according to their faith. We con­fesse as the text is, that euerie man shalbe iudged according to his workes, and so perhaps he would haue saide, if the corrector had done his part: neither doe we af­firme, that men shalbe iudged onelie according to their faith: for triall of their faith shalbe made by their workes. Once againe, they haue expresselie, that there remaineth aretribution, stipend, and paie to euery good worke in heauen. Marc. 9. 1. Cor. 3. Apoc. 22. Ps. 118. we haue (as he saith) no where, that good workes done in Christ do merite nothing. In the 3. text, quoted out of the new testament, is all one word [...], which signi­fieth a rewarde, whether it be freelie giuen, or de­serued by laboure. To him that worketh, saith Saint Paule, [...], rewarde is not accompted according to grace, but Rom. 4. 4. according to debt. But God is debter to no man. Neither is there anie merit of good workes once na­med in the scriptures, but against the merit of good workes, Christ saith epxresselie, when you haue done all thinges that are commaunded vnto you, saie we are vnprofi­table Luc. 17. 10. seruants: and the paie, wages, stipend, merite or desert of an vnprofitable seruant is shewed, Matt. 25. 30. Cast out the vnprofitable seruant into vtter darke­nesse: there shallbe weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is ther­fore the grace, mercie, and trueth of Gods promise, whereby we claime rewarde, and not the merites, desert, or debt of our good workes. To that he saieth, they haue expresselie praier and sacrifice for the dead in the second of the Maccaebees, We answer, that booke of Ma­cabes to be no holie Scripture, out of which he might haue expresselie a man commended for killing him­selfe. Whether Angels present good workes and almes­deedes before God, and whether Saintes departed do praie for them that are aliue, which he gathereth out of the Apo­criphal bookes of Tobie, and the Maccabes, we make [Page 119] no question, as of matters not reuealed in the cano­nicall scriptures. But if they were graunted to be so. yet it followeth not, that men aliue must, or may praie to Angels or Saintes departed. Last of all, out of the canonicall scripture he saieth, they haue expresselie, that the affliction which Daniell vsed vpon his bodie, was accepta­ble in the sight of God. Dan. 10. and we haue no where, that such voluntarie corporall afflictions are in vaine. But which of vs saith, that such voluntarie corporall affliction, as Daniell vsed, and to such end as he did vse them, are in vaine? No man verilie. You see therefore that while he boasteth of expresse words of scripture against vs, he is driuen either to glose vpon the text, or to faine some opinion vnto vs, which we holde not at all, and that all his bragges are but winde and wordes, with­out matter, as of one that-fcareth no shame, because his heade is hidden.

The third waie of triall is, necessarie collections, made and inferred vpon the scriptures: which we are willing to ac­knowledge and admitte, to be of as great authoritie, as the expresse words of the scripture. But to discerne, what is necessarie collection, and what is not necessa­rie collection, when there is no expresse wordes of scripture, there is no certaine waie, but the iudge­ment of Logicke: for that onelie is necessarie colle­ction, which out of expresse words of scripture, or ar­ticles of faith, or other groundes confessed to be ne­cessarilie gathered out of the holie scripture, may be rightly concluded in a true and lawfull syllogisme: & whatsoeuer cannot be so concluded, is no necessarie collection. But our answerer saith, we must referre our selues to the auncient primitiue Church, for this meaning: and his reason is, For it is like, they knew it best: for that they liued nearer to the writers thereof, then we doe, who could well declare vnto them, what was the meaning of the same: we doe willinglie yeald, to consult with the aunci­ent primitiue Church, to be holpen with their col­lections: [Page 120] but to admit all their collections without ex­amining them, were to admit many errors, that euen the Papists doe condemne for errors, and which are reprooued by the scriptures them-selues. Let one ex­ample serue in stead of manie. S. Ierome collecteth out of this scripture, It is good not to touch a woman, that therefore it is euill to touch a woman. Euerie man doth see that this is an vnnecessary collection; and so are many other in the auncient fathers writings. Wherefore we must vse the gift of knowledge of right gathering and concluding, which God hath giuen, not to be vnpro­fitable vnto his Church, but to be both beneficiall, and necessarie. Againe, marke the feeble reason, vpon which our answerer groundeth his saying: It is like they knew it best: he cannot say, it is necessarie that they knew it best: then how prooueth he, that it is like? because they liued neerer to the writers, then we doe, who could well declare the meaning vnto them. In deede if we had the writings of them that liued so neere vnto the Apostles, that they might heare their meaning of their owne mouthes, it were some likeliehood, and yet no necessarie proofe of necessarie collection; For Logicke would stil iudge, whether such meaning could be necessarilie gathered out of such wordes. Seeing we are not bound to creditte any writings, since the diuine inspired scriptures, but so farre, as they agree with the scriptures, and receiue the light of trueth from them. But those auncient writers, to whome he would haue vs to referre our selues, liued so many hun dred yeares after the Apostles, and Euangelists, the writers of the new testament, as they could no more declare to them, then to vs, their meaning in their writings: and therefore those auncient fathers, which ground purgatorie, prayer to saintes, sacrifice of the altar, vse of the crosse, &c. (beside tradition) vpon the scriptures (as the answerer saith) must shew the necessarie collection of them, by the iudgement of de­monstration, [Page 121] seeing they neuer sawe the writers, neuer heard them speake, nor possiblie could, liuing so long after them, or els they can carie no credit of necessa­rie collection, outof the expresse wordes of holy scri­pture. As for tradition, without scripture, since God hath giuen the holie scripture, is as good as the credit of men may be, without a warrant from God.

A fourth waie of triall of spirites with him is, Councells, by which olde heretikes haue beene tried, and they are content to referre themselues to all the Christian Councells, that euer haue beene since Christ died. We acknowledge Christian councells to be a godlie meane to exa mine and trie the spirites, but according to the scriptures onelie, for matters of faith; as in the example of the first Councell of Christendome, Act. 15. where the que­stion was determined by authoritie of the scriptures. But that the Papists dare abide the triall by al Coun­cells, it is false: for they admit none, but by the Popes consent, they admitte nothing in them, but that the present Pope doth allow. Many Councells in Aphrica forbad appellations to Rome: the general Councell of Chalcedon, made the Bishop of Constantinople of equal dignitie with the Bishop of Rome: the Bishop of Constantinople condemned and accursed a Pope sor an heretike: the Pope of that time confirmed it, yet now it is not holden for Catholike. But I will spare examples vntill this lustie gallant dare aduenture the triall, whereof he maketh the challenge. But seeing there are many points of controuersies betweene vs and the Papists, which in no auncient councell came in question, he bobs vs with the last most learned, God­lie, and generall Councell of Trent, which was gathered of purpose for triall of hercticall spirites, whereunto all safe con­duct being offered, we refused to come for triall. As though the Catholikes would haue come to the Councell of Nice, if nothing might haue beene therein deter­mined, but that which pleased Arius; or to the Coun­cell [Page 122] of Constantinople, if nothing might haue beene concluded, but that Macedonius would allow; Or to the Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon, if when all had beene saide, that which liked Nestorius and Eutiches, must haue bene holden for Catholike. Such is our case, we accuse the Pope to be an heritike, yea and to be Antichrist: the Pope will admit no coun­cell, but where he him selfe is iudge: nor any to haue any voice determinatiue, but onely such as are sworne to maintaine his heresies and ambition. It is great pitie, but the Protestants must come to such a coun­cell. Such were many councells holden of olde time by heretikes, but for the most part, not frequented by the Catholikes. Some of our profession were at Trent, but what entertainement had they? euen such as their aduersaries could afforde them: they were not permitted to haue any speach, but as pleased their e­nemies, wherefore when they saw noe equitie vsed, as they could looke for no better, before they came, they left the heretikes to consult among them-selues, by example of auncient fathers in like Chapters of he­retikes.

The sift waie of triall, is to referre the matter to the olde Doctors, which liued before the controuersies began, of which we haue spoken latelie, and this we haue often vsed, and still vse against the Papists, in most controuersies, although the authoritie of man is no certaine rule to trie, which is the truth of God. Augustine against Iu­lian vsed this waie rightlie, first confuting the Pela­gians by the authoritie of the holie scripture, and then by the testimonie of the auncient fathers also. Theo­dosius also in a case determined by the holie scripture, did politikelie circumuent the heretikes, after the ad­uise of Sisinius the Nouatian, by the suggestion of Ne­ctarius the Catholike, to put them to a foile, which had good successe, because the others cause was naught. But Epiphanius hath a hard saying against vs [Page 123] (as our answerer thinketh) It is enough to say against all heresies, the catholike church hath not taught this, the holy fa­thers haue not admitted this. But I wene Epiphanius doth, not meane, that it is enough to saie so, except men can prooue it to be so. For els it is aseasy for heretikes to saie so against Catholikes, as for Catholikes against heretikes. And here out answerer voucheth Epipha­nius, quoting onelie, lib. 2. contra haere: but no Chapter of so long a booke: wherebie, knowing him to be a common foyster, we maie well suspect his honestie in this voucher, vntill he shew vs, in what Chapter we shall finde it.

The sixtwaie of triall with him is, to consider which is the Catholike or vniuersall Church, or great multitude of Christi­ans, out of which the other part first departed. But to consi­der which is the Catholike or vniuersal Church, is no waie of triall, but the matter to be tried. And the des­cription that he maketh of the Church, is as vncerten: the great multitud of Christians, out of which the other part first departed. For the Catholike Church is not alwaies the greatest multitude. When the East Church was deui­ded from the West, the one was as great a multitude, as the other; yea considering the number of pro­uinces of the East, and the largenesse of them, it was the greater. And one heresie some times departeth out of another, as the Rogatians from the Donatists, the Eunomians from the Arrians, the Iacobites from the Eutichians, &c. Neither doth Saint Augustine a­gainst the Manichecs, make the consent of people, and the name of Catholike, of them-selues, to be a sufficient waie of trial, but among many thinges, which altogether held him, beside the authoritie of Cont. epist. Fund. cap. 4. the holie scriptures, he accounteth these, which with the truth, are a good confirmation, but can be no pre­iudice against the manifest truth, as he confesseth in the same place. To the iudgement of Vincentius we will subscribe, to holde that, which euerie where, which [Page 125] alwaies, which of all hath beene beleeued: so hath no point of Poperie. Hoc est etenim verè propriè (que) Catho­licum (quòd ipsa vis nominis ratio (que) declarat) quod omnia ve­rè vniuersaliter comprehendit. For that is truelie and pro­perlie Catholike (saith Vincentius) which thing the verie force and reason of the name declareth, which truelie comprehendeth all thinges vniuersallie. These wordes in rehearsing the saying of Vincentius, our answerer could not beare, and therefore left them out, bragging of vniuersalitie, antiquitie, and con­sent, whereby his aduersaries spirit might quicklie be tried. But let him once attempt to trie anie one peece of Poperie by this rule of Vincentius, and so shew it to be Catholike, as he describeth Catholike, and he shall finde it an harder matter to performe, then to talke of, examining his point by the authenticall writings of the most auncient doctors, for. 200. yeares after Christ.

The seuenth waie of triall is, succession of Popes, in the seate of Rome, wherein the successor alwaies teaching the do­ctrine of his predecessor, it must needes be a strong argument, to prooue the descent and continuance of one & the same faith from the Apostles time. This argument is vsed by Saint Augustine and Optatus, against the Manichees and Donatistes. But this waie of triall he knoweth his ad­uersaries will not admit. But he is deceiued: for see­ing he ioyneth succession in doctrine with succession in place, let him make triall when he dare, and prooue that Peter, and all the Bishops of Rome, that liued for foure, fiue, or six hundred yeares after Christ, did holde all points of Poperie, and had none other faith, then the Papists haue now. Some of the later mightholde some few, and of the best errors. But let them shew all in euerie one, and take all: but that shall thev neuer be able to doe, brag they of successi­on, as long as they list.

The eight waie of triall is, to examine what part doth [Page 114] holde any olde condemned heresie: for the true Church can ne­uer admit, or defend any heresie: for otherwise she could not be the piller of truth The true Church may erre, in matters which are not of necessitie to saluation, & yet be the piller of trueh, so long as she holdeth al truth necessarie to saluation, yea some true Church may be 1. Tim. 3. seduced for a time, with hereticall opinions, as the Churches of Corinth, and Galatia, but not ob­stinately defend them, nor continue in them. For of a particuler Church, as the Church of Ephesus, the A­postle speaketh, wherein Timothie had his conuersa­tion.

But we beleeue (saith the answerer) with holie Atha­nasius in his creede: that he which holdeth not the faith whol­lie in all points, shall perish eternallie: howsoeuer our aduer­saries doe salue the matter in their Prophets, Berengarius, Husse, Wicklife, and Luther, whome they saie to haue bene holie men, and yet to haue erred in diuerse pointes offaith, and to haue held their errors obstinatlie to the daie of their death. And we beleeue with holie Athanasius, that whoeso­euer shall not holde that Catholike faith (which he, or whoesoeuer vnder his name setteth downe in that Symbole or creed) wholl and vndefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternallie. But not euerie one that er­reth in any small point of doctrine or faith, which is not of the foundation of our religion. For so doth not Athanasius saie, and our aduersarie falsisieth both his wordes, and meaning, to drawe him to that sense of his. Now if Berengarius, Wicklife, Husse, Luther cannot be conuinced of any heresie contrarie to A­thanasius Creede (though they erred in other points) they are not subiect to his sentence of eternall dam­nation, more then Cyprian, Augustine, Hierome, whoe erred also in some points of doctrine, yet are rightlie accounted saints, and elect of God, as they which held the foundation, and all articles of faith necessarie to saluation. But where he chargeth vsto [Page 126] saie, that Berengarius, Husse, &c. did erre in diuerse points of faith, meaning thereby diuerse articles of A­thanasius Creede, he doth vs and them great iniury: for that we neither saie, nor thinke: neither saie we, that they did obstinatelie holde those errors, wherein they were deceiued, although they did stiflie holde them, not as heretikes which are condemned in their owne conscience, but as men deceiued with zeale of truth, euen in those points wherin they were deceiued. But we beleeue, saith he, the contrarie, by which beliefe he will condemne the best and most auncient Catho­like fathers, who, as men, helde euerie one of them, Epiph. lib. 1. Tom. 2. in praefat. Epiph. H. 38 Epiph. H. 42. for the moste parte, one error, as hath bene shew­ed: But whoesoeuer coulde shew, saith he, but one confessed heresie to be defended by our Church, there needed no more disputation about the matter. It will be a hard matter to make the Papists confesse, that their Church hol­deth any heresie: but it hath beene often shewed, that the Popish Church holdeth many things, of olde time condemned for heresie, as worspiping of the Image of Christ, in the Carpocratites, and Gnostikes; Inuoca­tion of Angels, in the Caianes, licensing of women to Bap­tize, in the Marcionites; worspiping of Angels, of men, and women, that are dead, in the Collyridians, and such like.

But for the right vse of this triall, he requireth two conditions to be obserued: The first is, that the partie do in deede holde that which is obiected, and not a certaine like­lyhood of it: in which point he chargeth vs to slaunder them with the heresie of Pelagius, concerning free will, who held, that men without the helpe of Gods grace, by the power and force of nature, could worke well, but they require that a man should be preuen­ted, and holpen with the grace of God. In trueth we do not obiect vnto them, all articles of Pelagius heresie, but yet they are not free; for Pelagius held that by the power of nature men might keepe Gods [Page 127] law, but more easelie by the help of Gods grace: the, former the Papists holde not, but they holde the lat­ter, that a man holpen with Gods grace, hath free­will, and power to keepe Gods law. Their doctrine also of merite ex congruo, of workes preparatorie before grace, and such like, are nothing els, but branches of the Pelagian heresie. The like iniurie, he saith, we do them, in objecting the heresie of those that did sacrifice to Epiph. h. 79.our Ladie, which they do not. A great iniurie, I promise you: the Collyridians offered cakes onelie to her, the Papists offer candels, ouches, and brouches, monie and Iewels: The Collyridians did garnish a charret where her Image was, the Papists adorne taberna­cles (as they call them) yea chappels, altars, and Churches, to worship her: Epiphanius condemneth the studie of making her Image, and the Images of dead saints, as a deuellish attempt. He inueigheth most seuerelie, against the worshipping of the virgine Marie, of Angels, and of saintes departed, yetall this is Catholike among the Papists, and we offer them iniurie, to charge them with this olde heresie, be­cause they do not offer cakes, as the Collyridians did.

The second condition is, that the heresie obiected, be ac­counted & condemned for an heresy in the Primitiue Church, & not onelie held by an heretike: for heretikes held manie trueths together with their heresies. And here he com­plaineth that Doctor Fulke doth them wrong, in saying that praiers for the dead, is an heresie, because the Montanistes, which were heretikes, did holde it. But he rather doth offer manifest wrong to Doctor Fulke, whovseth not Pag. 41. to reason so looselie: But rather concludeth that prai­er for the dead is an error, because it was first inuen­ted and practized by an heretike. For all trueth hath an higher and more auncient spring, then anie here­tike or heresie. But for so much as he hath answered this wholl obiection sufficientlie, in his confutation of Popish quarrells, I will send the reader thither, [Page 128] where he shall finde, that which maie satisfie him in this matter.

The last kinde of triall, whereof he will speake at this time, is to consider the manner of olde heretikes, and to compare the same with ours. And here he would haue the two former con­ditions obserued; To wit, that we consider such qualities one­lie, as were accounted hereticall in them, and to examine them truelie in our selues. The maners of heretikes, is no sure way of trial: for heretikes come often times in sheepes clothing, pretending greater holinesse in conuersa­tion, then true Catholikes do. But let vs see how he will prooue vs heretikes, by this kinde oftriall. For example, saith he, Saint Augustine, doth note it, as an he­retcall propertie in the Donatistes, to hate the sea of Rome, and to call it the chaire of pesttlence. Doth this agree to the Protestants, or to vs? as also defaming of the said sea for theCont. lib. [...]. 2. c. 51euill pretended life, of some particular men. But here he breaketh his owne conditions. For Petilian did not hate the sea of Rome, as the sea of Antichrist: For the Donatistes had their mock-Bishop at Rome also. But he railed vpon all the chaires or sees of all Ca­tholike Bishops, and on the Bishops them selues, that were not of his schisme and heresie; and on the Apo­stolike chaire of Ierusalem, as wel as on that of Rome. Againe, the Donatistes called the chaire of Rome the chaire of pestilence, when it was the chaire of a Ca­tholike Bishop: we call it the chaire of pestilence, now that it is the seat of the beast, and great whore of Ba­bilon, Esa. 1. Antichrist. As Esay calleth Ierusalem an harlot, which yet sometime had bene a faithful citie. Where­fore the example of the Donatistes maketh nothing against vs.

Another hereticall tricke Augustine noteth in them, to per­suade the people, that the visibie Church had erred & oppres­sed the true Church, banishing her from the sight of the world. Doe not our aduersaries, saith the answerer, saie the verie same. No sir, we haue nothing to doe with the Dona­tistes, [Page 129] whome the Papists doe resemble, more then Dē vnitat. eccles. c. 12. we. For in the place quoted, there is no talke ofthe visible Church, as you note in your example. But this is the matter. The Donastites affirmed, that the Church was vtterlie lost in all other partes of the worlde, and remained onely in Africa, and in the part of Donatus. So the Papists affirme, that the Church was lost in all other partes of the world, and remained onelie in Europe, and in the part of the pope. But we holde, that the Catholike Church of Christ is dispersed ouer all the wholl world, where the name of Christ is called vpon, as Saint Augustine in the same place sheweth out of the scripture, that it must be euen among them, that either know not, or els acknowledge not the Bi­shop of Romes authoritie. That he chargeth vs, for condemning all the Church for the faultes of some, as the Donatists did, we do not. But rather the an­swerer faulteth herein, with the Donatistes, who vpon shamefull slaunders, inuented to deface the godlie life, of Luther, Caluine, Beza, and such like, laboureth to bring the trueth of their Doctrine in discredite, as the Donatistes did, by charging the Bishop of Carthage, and others with treason against Cont. lib. [...]. 3. Cap. 4. Christ, in deliuering the bookes of his Gospell to the gentiles to be burned.

But yet moreouer he noteth against the same heretikes (saith he) for hating, and condemning the life of Monkes, as also for drawing nunnes out of their cloistures, and ioyning them-selues with the same, in pretended wedlock. To re­prooue the life of them that were innocent, was a point of hereticall malice: but to hate, and con­demne the life of detestable hypocrites, and abhomi­nable liuers, as the moste of the Popish monkes and nunnes were, and are, is an argument of Godlie zeale: an hypocrite and an holie man, an heretike & a Catholike, maie doe the same actions oftentimes, which differ not in the kinde of action, but in the [Page 130] end, purpose, cause, and manner of doeing. But where findeth our answerer the Donatistes noted (as he saith) for hating and condemning the life of Monkes, draw­ing Nunnes out of cloistures, and ioyning them with them­selues, in pretended wedlock. His quotation sendeth vs to the second booke against the epistle of Parme­nian, cap. 9. and Ep. 169. ad Eusebium. But in neither of both places, is this noted in them: for they hated not the life of Monkes and Nunnes, which had such of their owne, as in the former place Saint Augu­stines words are. Annon cum mach is particulam suam po­nunt, qui greges ebrios sanctimonialium suarum, cum gregi­bus ebri is circumcellionum, die noctu (que) permixtos vagari tur­piter sinunt? Do they not put their parte with adulterers, which suffer the dronken flockes of their owne nunnes, with the dronken flockes of the circumcellions, daie and night ming­led together, to wander about filthelie? This is all that he writeth there, of monkes or nunnes, which whether it do more neerelie touch the life of Popish nunnes, & lymiting friers, then the conuersation of Protestants, let the indifferent reader iudge.

In the epistle to Eusebius, he complaineth of one [...], which sometime had beene a Subdeacon of the Church of Sanianum, who when he was forbidden to haue such accesse vnto the nunnes, as was against the discipline, and despised or­derlie and wholsome precepts, he was remooued from the cleargie, and being him-selfe stirred vp against the disci­pline of God, he remoued him selfe vnto them, and was rebaptized. Also two nunnes with their tenants, out of the ground of the Catholike Christians, whether the same man remooued, or whether they followed him them selues, yet were they rebaptized, and were with the flockes of Circum­cellions, among the wandring flockes of women, which there­fore would haue no husbands, lest they should haue discipline. The proud fellow boasteth him-selfe in the madde banquets of detestable drunkennesse, reioycing that a moste broad license of naughtie conuersation is opened vnto him, from whence in [Page 131] the Catholike Church he was prohibited. Here is neither the hatred, and condemning of Monkes liues, nor drawing of nunnes out of cloistures, nor ioyning them in pretended wedlock, noted in the Donatists. But two light nunnes, by a quondam clearke, either con­uaied by their consent, or following him out of the ground of Christian Catholikes, into the sect and groundes occupied by the Donatistes, &c. In the same epistle also, he speaketh of the daughter of a certaine tenant of the Church, that was caried awaie by the Donatists, against her parents will, so that she was among them baptized, and tooke vpon her the forme of a Nunne, whome her father would by force and stripes haue compelled to returne to the Catho­like Church, but he was forbidden by S. Augustine to vse such force, if she would not come with a good will. This maie touch Papistes also, which haue and do professe nunnes, monkes, and Priestes, yong vn­discret persons, against the consent of their parentes; but how it should be applied against vs, I cannot see. But here the notebooke was to blame, to quote these places, for such purposes: the answerer, I hope, is not so impudent, that if he had read the places him-selfe he would for shame haue noted them against vs, or els haue added as he doth. Finally, he noteth it as heretical in the Arrians, to appeall from traditions to onelie scripture lib. 1. Contra Maximinum. In all which booke there is no such matter: for neither doth Maximinus appeale from traditions, neither is he noted for so doing, by Saint Augustine. In deede he often times boasteth of the authoritie of holie scriptures, and in that conference, he manie times calleth for testimonies of holie-scripture, and professeth that he is, & wilbe a disciple of the holie scriptures. But for this, he is not reproued of Saint Augustine, but still pressed with the authoritie of holie scriptures, whereof he falselie boasted, and when he doth but once call to witnes [Page 132] the councell of Ariminum. Saint Augustine in his answer, telleth him plainlie, that he ought not to alleadge with a­nie preiudice that Councell against him, as neither him selfe the Councell of Nice against the Arrians, but requireth thatCont. Max. l. 3. C. 14.the matter be decyded by authority of the scriptures, which are common to bothe partes. But Irenaeus in deede doth note it as hereticall in the Valentinians, to appeale from the holie scripture to traditions, without the which they affirmed, that the trueth could not be found in the scriptures, which they accused to be diuerselie or doubtfullie written, as the Papists do, in comparing them to a nose of wax, or a leaden rule: So the con­trarie to that he falselie saith, was noted as hereticall by S. Augustine, is in trueth noted as hereticall by S. Irenaee.

But Optatus before Saint Augustine (saith he) noted it as hereticall in the Donatistes, to breake altars, whereupon Optatus. Con. Donat. lib. 6.the bodie and blood of Christ were kept, as the wordes of Op­tatus are. You must vnderstand, that these altars were communion tables, made of wood and remooueable, couered with a linnen cloth in the time of celebrati­on, of which, in spite of Catholike Religion, some they brake, and some they seraped onelie: for which follie they are derided by Optatus. So plaied the Pa­pistes with the communion tables in the beginning of Queene Maries raigne, calling them in despite oister bordes, and breaking them with as great furie, and without lawfull authoritie, as the Donatistes did. The like parts they plaied with the communion cups, of which he also complaineth, as also challenging to them-selues the Church yeardes, that the bodies of the Catholikes, might not be buried in them. So did the Papists in Queene Maries time. But the wordes of Optatus are (saith our answerer) that the bodie and blood of Christ were kept vpon those altars. He would haue vs thinke that the sacrament of the altar was kept in a pixe, as among the Papistes. But the wordes of [Page 133] Optatus are not so. For albeit he calleth the com­munion table an altar, as it was commonlie called at that time, yet he saith not, that the bodie and blood of Christ was kept vpon it: his wordes are: quid est enim altare, nisi sedes, & corporis & sanguinis Christi? For what is the altar, but the seat, both of the bodie and blood of Christ? And lest you should thinke that it was a per­manent seat, wherein the sacrament was kept, as it is among the Papistes, he saith further, speaking of the breaking, and scraping of these wooden altars; Quid vos offenderat Christus, cuius illic per certa momenta corpus & sanguis habitabat? what had Christ offended you, whose bodie and blood at certaine moments of time did dwell there? By which wordes he sheweth, that the sacra­ment of the bodie and blood of Christ, taried no lon­ger there, then vntil the time of the distribution of the same vnto the communicants. As for breaking downe of Idolatrous altars, and prophaning of all in­strumentes belonging to them, we haue the word of God as a sufficient warrant, so that we cannot iustlie Deut. 7. 5. be likened to the Vandales, that were Arrians, or to Iulian the Apostata, which defaced the Religion of the Christians, so long as our Religion, by the scriptures, can not be conuinced of heresie, or Apostasie. For as heretikes and ethnikes destroied the Religion of Christ, with the places and instruments vsed in the exercise thereof, so did the Christians serue the Tempells of Idolls, and all other monuments of gentilitie, and heresie. The Papists do no more spare our holie Bibles, then we do their prophane bables. They breake our tables and cuppes, as we do their altars, and challices: they burne our bo­dies, as we doe their Idolls. Finallie, it is the Religion that must iustifie, or condemne these actions: the actions are no sufficient trial of the trueth of Religon.

Here againe he appealeth to publike disputation, or to any [Page 134] other indifferent waie of triall, that we dare afford him. As for publike disputation, we dare, if the Magistrates thinke it conuenient: but a most in different waie of triall, by writing their arguments in syllogismes, Doctor Fulke offered for certaine yeares agoe, before Campian crept forth with his seditious challenge: the offer still remaineth, take vp his gloue, you Papists, if ye dare. As for the seditious commendation of Campian, and Sherewyn, condemned and executed for high treason, where with he hath neuer done, I will omitte. That all heresie is beggerrie, which he laboureth to prooue out of Saint Augustine, and that the Maiestie of the Catho­like cause, is greater, then heresie can oppresse, we doe wil­linglie graunt. Onely let not the maiestie of Christian religion be esteemed, by the multitude, or wordlie pow er of them which professe it, wherein yet the Prote­stantes are not much inferiour to the Papists, at this time, but by the riches, and glorie of Gods truth re­uealed in his holie word, wherein Poperie, whensoe­uer triall is made, sheweth it selfe like a moste filthie roge, and miserable beggar, though she seeke cloakes of eloquence, learning, authoritie of men, or any such like things to couer her. And among all, that in these times haue taken vpon them to defend her, there is not a more beggerlie marchant, then this proud an­swerer, who hauing no reading of his owne, nor any other good quality of a defender, but a brasen face, & an heape of scornefull words, is faine to scrape all his patches of learning, out of some other mens notes, or suggestions, in which he is as voyde of knowledge, as a beggar is of honor or riches. The causes that he alled­geth of setting downe his proud censure, might seeme somewhat probable, if he had set downe Master Charks replie also. Which seeing he durst not doe, he cannot boast that all thinges shalbe made cleere, by putting downe the censure onelie, and ioyning thereto his owne defence thereof, when there is more lacke of [Page 135] Master Charkes replie betweene, then there would haue beene of his censure before it. But he pleased him­selfe (as arrogant fooles doe commonly) so much in his owne brood, that he thought it was neuer suffici­ently seene, when all wise men were cloyed with it al­readie. How well he performeth his brags, of answe­ring all the substance of Master Charkes replie, the thing itselfe would shew to them that shall read both the treatises together, without partialitie.


THe defender in the last wordes of his answere to Master Charkes pre­face, promising, to omit nothing of substance, which Master Charke saieth, nor to let it passe without due examina­tion, doth neuerthelesse omit more then two whole leaues of Master Charkes replie, vntouched, and that in the verie be­ginning, where there is more matter of substance, to discouer the false and fraudulent dealing of him, and his fellowe papistes, then he might abide to examine, meaning to continue his lewde purpose, lest he should be driuen to discouer some part of his owne vnhonest practises. And yet he is not ashamed to saie, that the replier, euen at the veric entrance, lceseth his patience, for that the papistes require short triall in disputa­tion. How so, good sir? for sooth because he asketh, whoe [Page 136] is Campian, or the seedemen, that they shouldpresume, to make so shorte worke, in auowing the popishe reli­gion, which hath nothing but tyrainnie, lyes, hypo­crisie, and rebellion, to defend it, or restore it. Which, as it may be saied with trueth, so it maie be saide with pacience, & without anie feare of the name of disputation: in which Master Charke by Gods grace did quit him selfe so well against your Champion, as if euer a proud hypocrite were apalled, you may haue shame of your bragging Iesuite, howsoeuer you would turne it ouer vnto Master Charke, and saie that Campians quiet behauiour cooled him with shame. Where contrari­wise, Campian being put out of his byas of loose and lauish talke, by that order which was taken (to haue his answeres written, and read vnto him, to be ac­knowledged of him) was so amazed at the waight of Master Charkes arguments, which he perceiued could not be answered with bare wordes, wherein he vsed to applaude vnto him selfe before, that he was enfor­ced to a quiet behauiour, much like a quarelling Ruf­fian, which when other men are quiet, is challenging of al men, but when he seeth himselfe ouermacthed, can learne to be quiet and calme enough. As for the reproches, iniuries, and tormentes, that you saie Campian tooke so patiently at Master Charkes handes, al men may see how falselie you charge him, with such matters as do nothing appertaine vnto him, while vnder the name of Master Charke, and the rest of his fellow Ministers, you thinke you maie more largelie raile against the Prince, and Magistrates, for execution of iustice a­gainst Campian, and his traiterous Complices.

Master Charke next to his question, Who is Campian, &c. addeth another. Where haue these disputers staied so long time? But to this you make no answer, and yet a matter of substance, that after more then twentie yeares, staying from challenge of disputation, now you come forth, on a soddaine, as though you desired [Page 137] nothing so much as disputation. To the third question you would seeme to answer. What can they get by renew­ing the battelles, so often, and so latelie refused by their Cap­taines and fathers, &c? Here, because the names of Do­ctor Watson, and Master Fecknam, are noted in Master Charkes margent, you conclude, that nothing els is ment, but that which is contained in the litle pam­phlet of the conference in Wisbeach, for which, so much as concerneth Doctor Fulke, answere is made by him-selfe, in his confutation of papistes quarelles, pag. 16. 17. 18. 19. &c. but that Master Charke meaneth not onelie of that, you might well enough perceiue by his wordes, so often, and so latelie refused. That of Wis­beach was but one refusall, whereas to the same per­sons, and other of like quallitie, the conference hath bene often offered, and neuer accepted, whether they were challenged priuatlie, as in those Bishoppes hou­ses, where they remained daintie prisoners, or els by commaundement from the Magistrats, as at wisbeach more then once, they were offered to haue confe­rence, if it had liked them to consent thereunto. And who knoweth not the most solemne & publique confe­rence at Westminster, in the first yeare ofher maiesties raigne, with too too much shame of the popish pre­lacie, giuen ouer and refused. Yet you saie, that at the verie same time (of Wisbeach conference) and both before & since, both you, and they haue sued by all meanes possible, to be admitted to a lawfull, equall, and free disputation, either in Cambridge, or anie place els that shall be appointed. Name the pesons that sued, and them to whome they sued, and all the possible meanes you vsed, and bring good proofe of your saying for any such disputation, before the time of Campians challenge, or els we must be faine to thinke, and bolde to saie, that you faine with­out colour, and lie without measure. Our offers, and your refusal haue bene publike and notorious, besides many priuat offers, able to be prooued by sufficient te­stimonies, [Page 138] & I thinke not denied by the persons them selues, while they liued. You bring nothing but a se­ditious libell of Campian, of all the possible meane of suit, and yet you aske Master Charke, what proceeding is this? Where are now the lies and hypocrisie? As though they were not manifest one your part.

As for tyrannie (being an odious word) you will say nothing, nor turne it to vs againe. Let racking & quartering of those that offered disputation (saie you) be accounted scholasticall rea­soning, with you. A pretie ieste, for men wot well, that Campian was racked for nothing els, but for offering dis­putation, and quartered for the same. Although his owne letter conuinced him to conceale some secret, which he promised neuer to vtter, come racke, come rope, and much other plaine euidence prooued him to be a ranke traytor, besides his answeres subscribed with his owne handes to these interrogatories; Whether he doth acknowledge the traiterous writting of Saunders, Bristow, and Allen, to be wicked, in wholl, or part? and whether he doth acknowledge her Maiestie to be a true and lawfull Queene, or a pretensed Queene, and depriued, &c. To the first his answer was, that he medleth not to nor fro, and will not further answer. To the second, that this que­stion dependeth vpon the fact of Pius Quintus, where­of he is not to iudge, and therefore refuseth further to answere. Let this be the answere of a loyall subiect with you: if Campian or any of his complices were racked and quartered for offering disputation, onelie, or at al.

But this you must say to vs Ministers, for our good, that it were farre better we confessedour feare in plaine wordes, then so much to manifest it in deedes, and thereby io discredit the rest of our sayinges. What feare (I praie you) and by what deedes doe we manifest it so much? be like the Ministers of England racked and quartered Campian, for feare lest he should ouercome them in disputation, as the popish Priests torment, and burne them, whom they are not able to stand against in disputatiō: we will [Page 139] confesse in plaine words, that we are perilouslie afraid of you in deede, where you may practise your malice against vs, by massacres and martyring of our bo­dies, with al kinde of cruel torments, & bloodie perse­cution, euen vnto death, & that by fire: but of your lear­ning, art of disputing, or anie thing that you can bring in the waie of disputation, either to maintaine your heresie, or to oppugne the trueth of our religion, we neuer shewed our selues fearefull, or made daungerous to ioyne with the proudest of your part in publike disputation, though it cost some of vs their liues, for none other crime, but because you could not van­quish them in disputation, to make them yeald vnto your falsehood, or to denie the trueth: and therefore there is no reason we shoulde be afraied of your dispu­ters, when we liue vnder the protection of a moste gratious Prince, who is readie to defend both our per­sones from iniurie, and our Religion from contempt and contumelie: you must therefore seeke out other manner of deedes, wherein we so much manifest our feare of you, then the racking or quartering of popish traitours (which all men, and your selfe doe know, to be no actes or deedes of the ministers, but of the Magistrates) as also that the same punishment is not laied vpon them, for anie cause of religion, much lesse for offering disputation, but for horrible and heinous treason, or els al men wil account you to be but a wod­den disputer, to charge vs with feare shewed in deeds, whereof you can shewe none, that is oures, or can argue the like feare in them, whose deedes they are.

The rest of the matter contained in this defence, of the first section of the Censure, and of the next, is so good stuffe, that it needeth none other confutation, then Master Charkes replie, against which it defendeth the Censure. Where the Censure said, there can nothing be had from them but wordes, Master Charke for him­selfe referreth men to his answere, and for Master [Page 140] Hamner, he saieth that he hath brought more rea­son with his wordes, then the Censurer will be able to answer. But that is not the Censurers purpose, in respect of the desired disputation, and the disired disputation is a seditions challenge, as hath beene plainlie prooued. For otherwise, what arguments so euer for your parte haue beene brought by the Cen­surer, haue bene by Master Charke, & Master Hanmer, fullie answered: which is a sufficient acceptation of disputation offered (if no surther matters were in­tended) and a more profitable kinde of disputation, then that you desire, the printed bookes extending far and neere, & carying a certaine and vndoubted rela­tion, as well of the argumentes, as of the answers: whereas in your desired disputation, it may well be thought, that you hoped to triumph rather in multi­tude of boasting wordes, to be vttered with impudent audacity by your brabling sophisters, and in the false reportes, spread by your lying sicophants, then to ob­taine anie victorie by sound arguments, or sufficient answeres: which thing wel appeared in the disputation that was graunted to Campian, and other of your sect, with Master Charke and the rest of the Godlie learned, that had conference with them.

But now because of that which Master Charke hath saide of Master Hanmer, bringing matter with his wordes, you will binde him to defend euerie syllable in Master Hanmers booke, & are not ashamed to charge him that he will needes take vpon him the auochement of Master Han­mers doings, with what reason, euery man that hath but a crum of reason, may iudge. Therfore such matters as you require Master Charke to answere for, he maie if he thinke good in his next writing, satisfie your request, although he haue by no promise bounde him-selfe thereto, and Master Hanmer is sufficient to answere for him selfe, and therfore by me they shal be passed ouer with silence, being but quarrells and cauills, what the [Page 141] Iesuites hold or holde not. The like I saie to your col­lection of the effect of Master Hanmers booke, which is performed so wiselie, and pithelie, that you seeme to haue found out a verie compendious and easie kinde of confutation of any booke that misliketh you.

Although the same briefe kinde of declaring the ef­fect of Master Charkes booke, doth not satisfie your minde, and therefore you passe ouer his replie with­out examination, promising to verifie all that you haue saide and he denieth, in their particuler places, because in deede M. Charkes replie doth so clearelie discusse the smooke of your vaine cauillations, that you are ashamed to bring them againe into open light, & therefore referre them to seueral corners; ne­uerthelesse, I wish that all indifferent readers, as in all places, so in this, wil vouchsafe to read M. Charkes re­plie, betwene the censure, & the defence, or at lestwise, after the defence, in which for the moste parte, they shall see the defense ouerthrowne, touching the sub­stance thereof, before euer it was written, or deuised.

Touching the order, and diuision of the booke, that you will needes make, we must be content to fol­low you, although no wise man doubteth (whatsoe­uer you pretend to the contrarie) but it had beene more easie both for your selfe, and for the replier, of whome you would seeme to haue a friendlie care, and moste of all for the vnderstanding of the reader, that you had followed Master Charke from point to point, ashe followed Campians challenge, if your bad cause could haue abidden the light of so cleare a method. As for the long and bitter inuectiues of spitefull and contu­melious speeches, odious accusations, light suspitions, insuffi­cient collections, vaine surmises of treasons, rebellious dissi­mulations, practises, &c. which you pretend to haue bene the occasion of changeing the order, in so short a treatise as Master Charkes is, could be no reaso­nable cause thereof, but rather if anie such had bene, [Page 142] they had ministred great aduantage to you and your cause, if you had orderlie confuted them.

How indifferentlie, and without choler, you offer your foure points to be examined, both in your cen­sure, and in the defense of the same, each man of what humor soeuer he be, maie with a meane iudge­ment be able to consider.

The first parte, touching the societie of Iesuites, and the first section, intituled by him, Ofrailing.

YOu would conuince Master Charke of rayling, by his owne confession, because he acknowled­geth his labour imployed in certaine vehement spea­ches, by you gathered together, to bring the Iesu­ites in discredit, whose infections are well knowne abroade, and are now entred to worke treason in the land. Also, because he graunteth the speaches, which in all hatred of Po­pish practizes, so directlie attempted against the maiestie of God, and the peace of this noble kingdome, he vttered, in diuerse places of his answere. But if you had not o­mitted the reasons, which he setteth downe, of his ac­knowledging, and graunting of those vehement spea­ches, they had beene sufficient in any reasonable mans opinion, to discharge him out of that crime of rayling. For you your selfe confesse afterward, that euerie hotte word, vttered in Catholike bookes, by occasion of matter, is not to be taken for rayling. Now Master Charke standeth to the defence of his booke, to be Christian and Catholike, and him-felfe to be a true member, and Minister of the Catholike Church of Christ, and for occasion of matter, he alledgeth the infections of the Iesuites, well knowne abroad, and their late [Page 143] entrie to worke treason in the land: Also those Popish pra­ctises, against which he vttered those speaches, to be directlie attempted against the Maiestie of God and the peace of this noble kingdome, so that such sharpe speaches (and yet but sparinglie vttered, in comparison of so many reproches, as you haue belched out against him and our religion) are not to be charged with the preiudice of rayling, neither in regard of the person, whoe did vse them, or of the matter, that did occasion them. At the least wise, vntill you had disprooued him to be a Catholike, or discharged your Iesuites of the crimes of heresie and treason, intended against them: nei­ther doth he with slaunder deuised against their per­sons (as the manner of the Papists is) seeke to discre­ditte their doctrine, but in detestation of their false doctrine, attribute such termes vnto the men, as for their doctrines sake they deserue.

But you are gratious to graunt him pardon, for that he confesseth hatred to haue beene the cause: as though ha­tred, not of the persons, whome he wisheth to repent vnto saluation, but of the practizes, which he know­eth to be against God, and the peace of the realme, may not be a iust cause of more vehement inuectiues, then he hath anie expressed. And yet you see not how any learned, or common honest man, and much lesse a preacher, can iustifie such vnciuill and outragious termes against his brother, by any pretence of Christianlike or tollerable hatred. I will not say how mány foule re proches be included in this one sentence, taking it according to your mea­ning: for I will graunt that you saie to be true, if it may be vnderstoode, of him that is a brother in deede. But that Iesuites are brethren to Master Charke, and such preachers as he is, I thinke neither the Iesuites, nor you your selfe (if you be demaunded, when you are a­wake) will acknowledge. Therefore being such as M. Charke had before described them by their infections, treasons, practizes against God and the realme, he [Page 144] was not to imbrace them as bretheren, but to detest them, as heretikes and traytors.

The turning backe of the crime of railyng, which he vseth vnto you, was not for any excuse of the crime committed by him selfe, for he doth not at all excuse, but iustifie & defend those speaches (which you cal rai­ling) as fit words against the wicked Monkish fryers, or fryerlie Monks, affirming, that if he were disposed to place your ordinary and extraordinary rayling in a ranke, he might gather of your reproches, more then can come into ten leaues: but this you saie is neither to the purpose, nor trewe: not to the purpose, because you were prouoked by his example, and iniurie, who be­gan without example: He might answere you, that he began not with you, but you with him: neither did he prouoke you by any priuate iniurie, but if you count the cause of the Iesuites to pertaine vnto you, as a publike iniurie, then iudge in differentlie, whe­ther the heresies and treasons of the Iesuites, doe not minister iust cause to him, of his hatred, and bitter speaches against them.

But that he could gather ten leaues of your ray­ling, you say it is a licentious lie: For as Printers count leaues (that is wholl sheetes) there are but halfe ten in your booke, and albeit they be counted as they are folded, yet ten leaues are a greater part thereof, then can be filled with rayling termes onelie. So you saie and seeme to saie somewhat to your purpose; but Master Charke hauing tolde you before (vnto which your silence may stand for a confession) that almost eue­rie line soundeth loud with some foull reproch, who cannot see that it were easie to gather almost out of euerie line so many foull reproches, as would fill more then ten of your folded leaues. For of Printers large count, no reasonable man would vnderstand him, ex­cept you would allow him also, to make as large let­ters, and as fewe lines, as Printers sometimes vse to [Page 145] doe, in such large leaues of their account.

But this matter you may not so soone passe ouer, for that you thinke it of importance, to descrie she spirites of vs, that are aduersaries in this case. Rayling in deed is a fault, in whomsoeuer it be found: but it had beene requisite, that you had first defined what is rayling, that we might haue agreed vpon the matter in question. You tell vs afterward, what is not rayling, namelie, euerie hotte word, vttered in Catholike bookes, by occasion of mat­ter, is not railing, nor the thing in question: for both Christ & his Apostles, and many holy fathers aster them, vsed the same sometimes vpon inst zeale, especially against heretiks. So that vntilyou haue prooued Protestants to be noe true Ca­tholikes, & discharged papists from being heretikes, e­uerie hotte worde in our bookes, vttered against Pa­pistes, can not iustlie be accompted railing. Naie, if Catholikes by heate of zeale in a iust cause, or in a case that they thinke to be iust, be caried somtimes in vehemencie of speech beyond the bandes of mode­stie, as they maie be iustlie reprooued therefore, so they maie not straightwaie be condemned for heresie in so doing. Iames and Iohn were so farre deceiued with zeale, and in a cause that they thought to be cleare, and iust, that they would haue praied, that fire might come downe from heauen, by example of Helias, and destroy the Samaritanes, that resused to Luk. 9. receiue their master Christ, and were otherwise here­tikes, for which they weere reprooued, but yet as they which knew not, or had forgotten of what spirit they were, yet not by and by reiected for heretikes. The contention was sharpe betweene Paull and Barnabas, Act. 5. and there was a fault betweene them, yet both holie Apostles. Saint Ierome is misliked of manie, for im­moderat vehemencie of speech against Rusfinus, as good a Catholike as him-selfe, yea he is not to be excused in heat against Saint Augustine. Vigilantius and Iouinian he handleth more hardlie in termes, [Page 146] then the cause of either of them did deserue; al­though the one were in some fault, the other for sawe the seedes of superstition and Idolatrie then in sow­ing, better then he: yet are not Saint Paul, Barna­bas, Ierome, hereby noted for heretikes. But for rai­ling (saie you) and foule scurrilitie, such as Protestants vse ordinarilie against vs, and among them selues, when they dissent, I dare auow to be proper to them and their ancetora onelie. All this while, you tell vs not what you call rai­ling, and foule scurrilitie, except you meane, that the verie same odious termes, which are lawfull or tollerable in you, be railing and foule scurrilitie in vs, onelie because you accompt vs heretikes: and then we must accompt you to be trifling sophisters, which to conuince vs of railing, can bring none other ar­guments, but that which is the wholl matter in contro uersie betweene vs, namelie whether we or you be the heretikes; and yet you dare auow railing & foule scurrility, such as Protestantes vse against you, not onelie to agree to vs, but also to be proper to vs & our ancetors, by whom you vn derstand none but heretiks. Othe modesty of Papistes! among whome no one person can be found, that euer vsed railing or scurrilitie, if this be true, that you dare auow of the propertie of heretikes, and of all them whome you take for such.

But it is good to examine your reason, by which you would prooue railing to be proper vnto gospellers (as you terme them) and thereby easilie take a scantling of the diuersitie of their spirits from Popish Catholikes. First, the mouth speaketh according to the aboundance of the heart, which is trew, in such sense, as it is spoken of by our Sauiour Christ: for wickednesse is first bred in the heart, before it breake forth of the mouth: but it fol­loweth not thereof, that you conclude, when you saie, I meane a man maie be knowne by his speach: for then the wickednes of euerie hypocrite might appeare by his talke, which is vntrue. But Saint Peter said vnto [Page 147] Simon Magus, vpon his onelie speech (saie you) I see thee to be in the verie gall of bitternes, &c. yet was it no rai­ling speech, which Simon Magus vttered, nor dissem­bled speech: for he plainlie professed, that he was desirous to buie the gift of the holie ghost; and last of al, it was not onelie speach: for the text saith, he offe­red Act. 8. mony for his march andise: for otherwise his onelie words, as they are reported by Saint Luke, were not sufficient to discouer so great wickednes of his heart: giue vnto me also this power, that vpon whomsoeuer I laie my handes, he maie receiue the holie ghost: it might haue bene thought, vpon this onelie speech, that Simon latelie baptized, was desirous to haue beene a Minister of the dispensation of the holie ghost, to the benefit of gods Church, by the graunt of the Apostles, if he had not profered monie also, by which his couetous­nes, and other wicked blasphemous opinions of the holie ghost, were plainlie discouered. You shew your selfe therefore to be a man mightie in the scriptures, that can bring no better example or proofe, that one, by his onelie speech sometime, maie be sufficientlie conuicted, of the wickednes of his hart, then this of Peter, and Simon Magus; where onelie speech was not vsed, and the speech that was vsed, was not of it selfe able to discouer the heart of him that spake. In matters of greater controuersie betwixt vs, perhaps you are better exercised, or els we are like to finde feeble arguments on your behalfe. To proceede, you saie, the scripture is plaine in this point. what point? that a man maie be knowne alwaies by his speech: for that he maie sometime thereby be abundantlie conuin­ced, we doubt not. well, what saith the scripture? he Rom. 8. that hath not the spirit of Christ, appertaineth not to Christ. This is most true of the spirit of adoption, which also sheweth it selfe in the fruites of mortification, and re­nouation. But hereof we maie not conclude, thatall thinges in them, that haue the spirit of Christ. are [Page 148] perfect, so that they neuer offended, no not in wordes; or that in whomesoeuer appeereth anie thing, which proceedeth not from the spirite of Christ (as in the best there do manie things) they are therefore to be iudged void of the spirit of Christ. And therefore we maie see what sound diuinitie you teach, and how well you vnderstand the scriptures, vpon which you conclude as followeth: Now then if we consider the quiet, calme, and sober spirit of Christ, and of all godlie Christians from the beginning, and the furious, reprochfull, and vnclean spirit of Sathan, and all heretikes from time to time, and do compare them with the writings of both partes at this daie, we maie easilie take ascantling of the diuersitie of their spirites. Verilie it shall be found as hard a matter, as it was before you made this demonstration. for notwithstan­ding we acknowledge the quiet, calme, and sober spirit of Christ and Christians, yet you confesse, and the scripture is plentifull, to prooue, that Christ and his Apostles against the wicked and obstinate enemies of the trueth, vsed most hott, vehement, and sharpe speeches, and they which haue trueth on their side maie vse the like in like causes, by their examples: So that by vehemencie of speech, the cause can not so easilie be discerned, neither is your scantling right to be taken thereby. Those kinde of speaches, for the moste parte, are to be accompted furious, reproch­full, and vncleane, which are vttered of malice against the trueth, when the same being spoken of zeale a­gainst falsehood, maie wel stand with the quiet, calme and sober spirit of Christ. Yet are there also certaine vncleane, reprochfull and scurrilous speaches, which serue not so much to describe falsehood and sinne, to the detestation thereof, as they seeme of them-selues to bewraie the hatred, and intemperate heate of them that vse them against the persons of other; and these in no case are commendable, but to be reprooued, whether they be found in Papistes, or Protestantes, [Page 149] as neither of both perhapsmaie be cleerelie excused of this falt. By this it may be gathered what railing is properlie, not euery hot worde (as you saie) but such as are vsed in an euill cause against trueth & iustice, of malice commonlie, sometime of immoderate zeale, & such as be offensiue, in what cause soeuer, or of what zeale soeuer they be vsed, and such railing I dare a­uouch you shall not be able to prooue, that it is pro­per to Protestantes, no nor to heretikes. For there be heretikes which not with railinges, and reproch­full speeches, make diuisions in the Church, beside the Doctrine of Christ, but with faire, smooth, & flate­ring Rom. 16. talke deceiue the harts of the simple: therfore rai­ling is not a proper, and perpetuall note of heretikes.

Now as concerning your examples, first you begin with Master Charke, asking what more venemous wordes can be imagined then these of scorpions, poysoned spiders, and the like vsed by Master Charke against reuerend men. Here except you can first discharge your Iesuites of herisie, and treason, the wordes of scorpions, and venemous spiders, are no railing termes, but apt to expresse their venemous and poisonous practises: for they are vsed in scripture to describe the like mischeuous workes, as Apocal. 9. Esa. 59. 5. The rest of his speaches, haue ei­ther the same, or the like phrases iustified in the scrip­tures, against corrupters of Religion, and enimies of publike peace, as we shewe your Iesuites to be, for the former, and their practises, to the confusion of some of them, haue beene discouered for the latter. With Master Hanmers termes I will not meddle, who is to answer for him-selfe, when you haue confuted his ar­guments, or els when he shall see it conuenient. Do­ctor Fulke, the next man, whom you condemne to be of a ruffianlike spirit, because he saith (shew me Allin if thou canst for thy guttes) as though you raile not more of him, in your ruffianlike terme, then he in speaking of Allens guttes, whatsoeuer the cause or affection [Page 150] were, hath answered alreadie in his own behalfe, & in such sort, as more shame redowndeth to you that haue gathered together his vehement and sharpe speaches, vttered in manie bookes, and to those whome you complaine by him to be abused, while he giueth a rea­son of his speaches, then all the eloquence you haue wil be able to wipe away in a larger treatise, then your defense of the Censure as yet appeareth to be. Con­fut. of Topish quarrelles: page. 20. and so forth in 16. or 17 pages. If it were no more but your marginall note, Docter Fulkes talent in railing, wherein you abuse an ho­lie phrase of scripture, like an Italian Atheist, to mooue Sardonicall laughter, it were much more able to conuince you of a ruffianlike spirit, then anie terme that D. Fulke vseth, seeing such vnreligious allusions vnto the termes and matters of holie scripture, can­not be defended in anie man, cause, or manner. The like you haue of Primitias spiritus, and Luthers lying with a Nunne in the Lord, all which argue a prophane spirite and a licentious, intemperate, and almoste blasphe­mous tongue, or penne, in anie that vse them or the like.

When you haue almoste done with Doctor Fulke, you take vpon you to shew the like rayling in the Ma­sters (as you terme them) that you haue done in the schol­lers, and beginning with Iohn Caluin, you saie that his ordinarie terme, especially against Bishoppes and such like, as are his superiours, is to call them Nebulones, knaues: which beside the foull gall whence it proceedeth, is vnseemelie. For this you neither note nor quote anie one place, where he vseth that terme in such sort, as either his gall might thereby be espied, or the same signfying light persons, might not fitlie be applied vnto them, vpon whome he bestowed the terme. As for your popish Bi­shoppes, are not his superiours, but for the most part deserue sharper termes, then Nebulones, euen such as were fitte for Annas, Caiphas. Ananias, and the rest of [Page 151] that race, which were as great prelates as they? Ha­uing nothing more against Caluin, you passe ouer to Luther, who in his booke against King Henrie the eight of England, ministreth vnto you larger matter to triumph against him: where in it maie be doubted, whether you had greater pleasure in discouering of Lu thers intemper at stile; then in displaying those odious and long since buried reproches, against that noble Prince, so great an enimie to your Romish Antichrist; which as they were vnseemelie in respect of either of their persons, him that did write, & the Prince against whom he did write; so they were afterward misliked of Luther himselfe, who in as great humilitie, as before he did write in disdaine, craued pardon at his handes, not for the matter & substance of his booke, but for his vn­reuerent Ep. ad Reg. Angl. handling of the same, against a King of so great nobility, & of so good expectation. the cause that mooued him to such destemper was, for that he sup­posed, that the booke was not endited by the King him selfe, but by some enimie of his, to procure his disho­nour, as he writeth in the same booke, Crederes ab insigni hoste regis hunc librum editum in perpetuam regis ignomini­am. You would thinke, that his booke was set forth by some no­table enimie of the Kinges, to the perpetuall shame of the King. And in his Epistle of submission he declareth, that he suspected cardinall Wolsey to be the author thereof, which made him the bolder to write as he did against it. And in the storie of Sir Thomas Moores life, writ­ten by his sonne in lawe Master Roper (which I haue seene) it appeareth, that Kinge Henrie tooke great displeasure against Sir Thomas Moore, for the edi­tion of that booke, by which he receiued more dis­honour, then by anie thing in all his life. Luther ther­fore writing against him, that did abuse the name of the Kinge, in defence of an euill cause, thought he was not bound to spare him, because of the Kinges title, but that he might so much the rather be free to [Page 152] inueigh against him. But this, to saie the trueth, might be some part of an excuse, though not a sufficient de­fense of his doing neuerthelesse it followeth not here of, that he could not be an elect vessell of God, or that he had no part of Gods spirit, or that he was herein worsse then anie russian or rakehell, as our seuere Censurer saith, without either malice or railing spirit, I warrant you. For Gods elect children, & they that haue a great part of his spi­rit, do sometimes fal into far greater crimes then this, and yet by his grace are brought to repentance, as Luther was for this vntemperat stile, and thereof made open confession in his epistle of submission. againe, he erred by immoderat zeale, yet in defense of the truth, which is not the cause that mooueth ruf­fians and rakehelles to rage. Wherefore it is well with Luther, that hath alreadie answered the matter, be­fore a more wise and merciful iudge, and standeth not at the curtesie of our solemne Censurer.

But it is more to your purpose, that you bring in Luther inueighing against the Caluinistes, where he had not (by our owne confession) a good cause, & the Caluinistes againe as bitter against him: a tast where­of though you refer the matter to another place, you wil needes giue vs here, by citing of one place in stead of all the rest, and that is, of the Church of Tygurine against Luther, Tygur. [...]. 3. contra supermam Luthe­rij confessionem: whole wordes you promise to rehearse, out of what edition I cannot tell, for the edition of Ti­gure by Froshere. 1545. of Gwalters translation, repor­teth their wordes somewhat otherwise, and therefore I thinke in this place, as in diuers other, you are but a broaker of other mens ware, to put forth that you ne­uer sawe your selfe, but gather out of some other mans notebooke, which reported not al thinges either with such diligence, or faithfullnes, as had beene requisite, to be found in so glorious a Censurer. The verie words indeede of the edition beforesaid are these: Nos dam­natam [Page 153] & execrabilem sectam vocat, ipse viderit ne iracundis istis & à Christiana religione alienissimis sermonibus sibi ipsi damnationem acceleret, & ne sectarum authorem vel consortem sese faciat, dum cum iis conuenire non vult, qui Christum & fatentur & docent. Quàm admirabilem verò Lutherus hîc quoque cum Diabolis suis sese praebet? quàm impuris verbis, quae Diabolis farcita tument, vtitur? Sic enim ait: Inuisus ille Di­abolus in ipsis agit & nunc, & in posterum, si habent (quis e­nim latinis verbis haec exprimat) ein y [...]geteiiflet, iiberteii­flet, vnd durchteiiflet lesterlich hertz, vnd Lugenmaull. Blas­phemum. n. cor & o [...] mendax habent, in quo, super quod, & per quod diabolus diffufus est & regnat. Multa huius generis ab o­mni Christiana religione aliena verba non sine grauib. & iustis causis praeterimus. quis verò vnquammortalium istiusmodi ser mones exratione vtentibus, nō furiosis & Demoniacis audiuit? He calleth vs a damnable & execrable sect. Let himselfe take heed, lestwith those angry speaches, and most far from Christian Religion, he hasten condemnation to himselfe, and lest he make him selfe an author or a companion of sectes, while he will not agree with them, which both confesse and teach Christ. And how wounderfull a man doth Luther here also shewe him-selfe, with his deuilles, how vnpure wordes, which euen swell, being stuffed with deuills, doth he vse? for thus he saith: that hatfull deuill worketh in them both now and hereafter. they haue (for who can expresse these termes in latine words (an indeuilled, ouerdeuiled, & through deuilled, blasphemous hart, and lying mouth; that is, they haue a blasphemous hart, & lying mouth, in which, vpon which, & through which the deuill is diffused, & raigneth. Many words of this kinde farre from all Christian Religion, not without waightie and iust causes we passe ouer: now what man euer heard such speach of men that vse reason, being not ma [...] and possessed with the deuill? In stead of these wordes you bring vs an other report, and saie, their words are these. Nos condemnatam & execrabilem vocat sectam, &c. Luther calleth vs a damnable and execrable sect, but let him looke that he doe not declare him-selfe an archhe­reticke, seeing he will not, nor cannot haue anie societie with [Page 154] those which confesse Christ. But how marueilouslie doth Luther here bewray himselfe with his deuilles? what filthie words doth he vse, and such as are replenished with all the deuilles in hell? for he saith, that the deuill dwelleth both now and euer in the Zuinglians, and that they haue a blasphemous brest insathani­zed, supersathanized, persathanized, and that they haue be­sides a most vaine mouth, ouer which sathan beareth rule being infused, perfused, & transfused to the same: did euer man beare such speaches passe from a furious deuill him selfe? Hether­to (saie you) are the wordes of the Tigurine Calui­nistes, which how faithfullie they are reported, by comparing them with the latine, and the true English of the same, euerie simple reader may perceiue. Now touching such matter as you gather out of them: first where they saie, how wonderfull doth Luther shew him selfe with his deuilles, you conclude in the margent, Ergo Lu­ther had deuilles, which Master Charke denieth: a fine and proper conclusion. The Tygurines speake of the terme of deuilles, which Luther so often repeateth against them, therefore he was possessed of deuilles actuallie: which is the thinge that Charke denieth.

Secondlie you saie, these wordes of the Tygurynes may easilie confute Master Charkes shameles lyes in defense of Lu­ther, as after shall be shewed: well hereafter commeth not yet, and therefore you might haue spared your curteous terme of shameles lyes, vntill you had shewed vs what they are. Yet I may not say that you haue a rayling spirite: but that euen as your Pope, though he be neuer so great an heretike, hath a prerogatiue that he cannot erre; so you haue a priuiledge that you doe not rayle, though you vse neuer so foull reproches, and giue no reason of them. More then this, here you wouldhaue the reader to consider with what conscience Charke doth call Luther a holie and diuine man, and M. Whitaker a man of holy memorie, seeing the Tyguryne Caluinists (who are their Masters) doe call him an arch-heretike and a furious deuill. Peter was iustlie reprehended of Paull for dissi­mulation, [Page 155] and as one that did not tread rightlie accor­ding to the trueth of the Gospell, and of Christ him­selfe Gal. 2. he was called Sathanas, and tolde that he was an Mat. 16. offence, and that he sauoured not those thinges that are of God, but of men: the same Peter did thrise denie Mat. 26. Christ, yea swore and forswore, curse and banne, that he knew him not. Thinke you then that M. Charke & Master Whitaker, with any conscience might call him an holie and diuine Apostle, or an Apostle of holie memorie? verilie I would haue the Reader consider, both here, and almost euerie where, what a subtil Logician (for I wil not meddle with his conscience, wherofperhaps he hath small feeling) we haue to be our Censurer, which maketh such infallible conclusions, as no man, except he had more ouerweening of his witte, then vse of his reason, would make in a sophisme among chil­dren in the vniuersitie. And yet when you haue cryed out; Is not this open dissimulation and blinding of the people? where doe the Tygurynes call Luther, an arch-here­tike, and a furious deuill? For although Luther in deede did breake all Christian modestie, as one caried away with immoderate zeale, and that in a wrong cause; yet doe the Tygurynes thoroughout all their wholltreatise speake both charitablie of Luther, and as reuerentlie as was conuenient, to one which so much forgatte his owne creditte, while he inueieth against them. They bid him take heed that he make not him-selfe an author or a companion of sectes. Ergo by your Logicke, doe they cal him an arch-heretike? Nay let vs vse your own friendlie translation, let him looke that he do not declare him selfe an arch-heretike: who but you may conclude of these wordes that they do call him an arch heretike? They admonish him of the danger, wherein he was like to fall, if God did not keepe him, while he will not agree with them, which both confesse and teach Christ in all necessarie points vnto saluation, as well as he. Secondlie I aske, where they do cal Luther a furious deuill? They aske in [Page 156] deed who did euer hear such speaches vttered by men that vse reasō, which are not mad, or possessed with the deuil? wherof you can gather no more rightly, but that such speeches, wherein the deuil is so often repeated, are more like to proceede from mad men or demo­niackes, then from a modest Christian: yet do they not cal him either mad man or demoniacke, much lesse a furious deuil: yea in the ende after they haue protested their hatred of the deuil, & al his waies, they conclude, Deus faxit ne Listhero iuxta domini verbum eueniat, Ex abun dantia cordis os loquitur, God graunt that it may not come to passe vnto Luther, according to the Lords sayings, Of the abun­dance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Now whether these be shameles lyes, that the Tygurynes do cal Luther an arch heretike, & a furious deuil, let the readers iudge.

The second section, intituled Of sects and sectaries.

FIrst you complaine, that the answer is somewhat confuse, and vnorderlie, because Master Charke saith, the examples of Elias, Elizeus, Daniell, and Saint Iohn Baptist are no lesse wickedly, then vnlearnedly alledged, to auow the Iesuites order, which hot entrance (saie you) is ioyned with a manifest cauil, because these examples are not alledged to auow the Iesuites or­der absolutelie, but in one point of differen: life, from the com­mon sort, which maketh them no sectaries. But in deed Master Charke keepeth good order, speaking first of the name of a sect, then the definition of sectaries, & thirdlie to such reasons as are alledged, to prooue the Iesuites to be no sectaries, namelie these examples, which with­out anie cauil (as you surmise) he denied to be suffi­cient, to auow the order or companie of Iesuites to be no sectes, & so followeth the matter of confusion vntil the end of it. And now we wil marke his reason, as you bid vs. He demaundeth what you are able to bring [Page 157] out of the word of God, why Elias should after more then two thousand yeares be brought in for a patron of friars? you an­swer, these examples are brought by the censurer, to prooue that different apparell, diet, or straight order of life, doe not make sectaries, as Master Charke hath affirmed, and now cannot defend, and therefore hauing nothing els to say, ma­keth these vaine and idle interrogations in steade of proofes. Hear you not how confidentlie he speaketh what Ma­ster Chark hath affirmed? how boldely he pronounceth, that he is not able to defend, that he hath affirmed? and last of all how scornfullie he concludeth, that he hath nothing but vaine & idle interrogations, in stead of proofes? would ye not thinke, that he which so late­lie charged Master Charke with shamelesse lyes (though he shewed none) had a care, that he himselfe should speake nothing but the trueth? And which in the end of the former section was so busie with the conscience of Master Charke and Master Whi­taker, that he burdened them with open dissimula­tion, and blinding of the people, is it like, that in the beginning of the next section he would make an open and moste impudent lie him selfe? for beleue me reader if thou wilt, or els read ouer Master Charkes answere to Campians seditious pamphlet thy selfe, and thou shalt finde my wordes to be true, that Master Charke doth no where affirme, in all that booke, that different apparell, diet, or straight order of life, doe make sectaries: I saie, neither in this forme of wordes, nor in any other to this effect or sense. Then iudge according to thy conscience, what a sincere Censurer this Papist is to Master Charke, and what a doughtie defender he is of his owne Censure.

But now to returne to you, sir defender, whom I may not accuse of lying, lest you charge me of rayling, although I take you in a manifest vntruth: was this the cause why ye found fault with M. Charkes method, to iumble together thinges that were in good order, [Page 158] that you might fumble out such an open slaunder, & be couered with the dust of disorder, that you your selfe had raised? you shew now of what spirit you are, euen of his that was a lier, and a false accuser from the beginning, and the father of the same things. But to that idle interrogation of Master Chark, as you terme it, what was there in Elias, Elizeus, or Daniel, that maie liken them to Iesuites? you answere there was to your pur­pose now in hand a different sort of life from the common sort, which made them no sectaries, as Master Charke would haue the Iesuits to be for that cause. I haue said before, for that cause onelie Master Charke would not haue them, neither doth he therebie go about to prooue them to be sectaires, although there is great difference in the singulare examples of those Prophets, and in multitudes of men, that seuer them-selues from the common sorte of true Christians, and that for re­ligions sake, therefore those examples were idlelie brought in by the censurer, to prooue that lesuites are no sectaries. But to this you adde, which is more then you neede (as you saie) and in deede more then is for your purpose, to iustifie the Iesuites that dwell commonlie in the greatest cities, That Saint Ierome pro­ueth plainlie, that Elias and Elizeus were the beginners, cap­taines and patrones of Monkes, and monasticall life, whome he calleth for that cause Monkes of the olde testament, ep. 13 ad Paulinum, & ep. 4. ad Rusticum. For Saint Ierome in the former place prooueth not at all, but onelie saith. Noster Princeps Elias, &c. our prince is Elias, ours is Elizeus, our guides are the sonnes of the Prophets, which dwelled in the fieldes, and desert places, and made them ta­bernacles neere the streames of Iordane. The like he saith of the sonnes of Rechab, which dranke no wine, or strong drink, and dwelled in tentes: & this he saith, to approoue the dwelling of solitary men that were giuē to studie, and contemplation in desert places, by ex­ample of these holy men commended in the scripture, [Page 159] which extendeth not to Popish Monkes, or Iesuites, which thrust in them selues especiallie into places of most frequencie of people. In the epistle to Rusticus, he speaketh neither of Elias, nor Elizeus, but exhorteth Rusticus likewise to leaue the citie, and to get him into some solitarie place, if he will be in deede, that he professed him selfe to be called, Monachus, a solitarie man. He bringeth in deede the example of Iohn Bap tist, and the sonnes of the Prophets, Filij Propheta­rum (quos Monachos in veteri testamento legimus) aedifica­bant sibi casulas propter fluenta Iordanis, & turbis vrbium derelictis polenta & herbis agrestibus victitabant: the sonnes of the Prophets whome wereade to haue beene Monkes or soli­tary men in the olde testament, did build themselues litlecoteges neere to the streames of Iordan, and hauing for saken the throng of cities, liued with potage and wilde hearbs. In the same e­pistle he saith, mihi oppidum carcer, and solitudo paradisus est: quid desideramus vrbium frequentias, qui de singularita­te censemur? vnto me the towne is prison, and the solitarie place is a paradise: what do we desire the frequencie of cities, which haue our name of being solitarie? These wordes of Saint Ierome do shew, that in the principall point of profession there is great odds betwixt your Iesuites, & the solitarie men, of the olde testament. Sozomenus in lib. bist. 1. cap. 12. the place by you cited, after he hath commended the Philosophie or contemplatiue life of the solitarie men in those daies, hath these wordes: of this excellent Phi­losophie was the beginner (as some saie) Elias the Prophet, and Iohn Baptist: so that it is not so absolute as you sett it downe, but as some saie, and it is of a Philosophicall studie and life, in which if comparison be made with Popish Monkes, for one thing which they haue like, they haue three things vnlike, or contrarie to the profession and practise of those auncient Monachi, which might haue some resemblance with the man­ner of Elias life in some thinges, and were more agree able to the example of the sonnes of the Prophets [Page 160] which were students in diuinitie, as those olde Monks of the primitiue Church, readie to serue in the place of teachers, whensoeuer they were called.

That antiquity onely should let the Prophets to be examples of monasticall life, it is your owne vaine collection, and as vaine is your comparison of Adam, to be a paterne of marted men, Abel of sheepherdes, Caine of husband men, &c. For M. Charke asketh what you are able to bring out of the word of God, why Elias should after more then two thousand yeares be brough in for a patrone of fri­ers, which for so manie yeares could neuer be espied in the Church, either of the Iewes, or of the Christians. As for the estate of maried men, sheepherds, husband­men, citizens, Tentdwellers, musitians, smithes, &c. is either necessarie or otherwise commendable, then by the examples of those auncients, of which some in res­pect of their antiquitie are not to be followed at all, as Cain, and the rest of his cursed line, who yet were in­uenters of profitable artes by the gift of God, and not by the worthines of the persons. As for the slate of the Munkes and friers, such as we striue about, is neither necessarie, nor profitable to the Church, but a great infection, and poison of the same. Nowe whether Iohn Baptist were a president to Monkes, whome Master Chark saith to haue beene an extraordinarie, and per­petuall Nazarite, whose example is not now laid vpon them that teach in the Church; you answere, that he doth wilfullie mistake the question; for that you af­firme not, that such extraordinarie austeritie is laid vpon anie man of necessitie, but that it is lawfull, and maketh no sect, when it is voluntarilie taken and vsed. You do wilfullie omit the pith of Master Charkes argument, who is not ignorant of your pretense, of voluntarie, but addeth that the seuerall offices of those that teach in the Church are expressed in the word of God, and there­fore there can be no new order of Ministers by anie title or voluntarie assumption: but it is a suspitious [Page 161] sect, howsoeuer seuerall persons maie as they see iust cause more or lesse, prescribe vnto them-selues, some extraordinarie austeritie of life for their priuate ex­ercise or chastisment. That Saint Iohns austeritie was for the moste parte voluntarie, and not of necessitie of the vo­cation of a Nazarite, it is fondlie proued of you, by ex­ample of the superstitious sect of the Essenes descri­bed by Plinie, and Iosephus, of which Plinie speak­eth verie little, but Iosephus at large, and in some points of austeritic noteth them to exceede any thing that we read in scripture of Saint Iohn Baptist; as of their continuall exercise in labour of their handes, their forbearing to spitte in the assemblies of men, their forbearing to ease their bodies on the sabboth daie, and such like superstitious toies.

Now the austeritie of Saint Iohn, in that he did wil­linglie, and not by compulsion vndergo it, maie be called voluntarie: otherwise, in that it was appointed by the wisdome of god, whose spirit directed him, it was necessarie, and especially for the forerunner of Christ, to sing the dolefull song, and to call the people to repentance, and therefore, not without presumpti­on, drawne into example by them that are neither led with the same spirit, nor called to the same office and so no example nor platforme for the superstitious or­der of Monkes, and friars, albeit they alwares kept as great austeritie in deede, as they professe in wordes. But it is a wonderfull argument for your Monkes, that the Nazarites did make a religious vow for their dedication to God, as your religious people do also vse. For it were some­what Num. 6. that you saie, if you could bring as good warrant for the vowes of your Popish votaries to be prescribed and accepted of God, as you bring for the vow of the Nazarites: otherwise it maie be said vnto you by God, as he speaketh by the Prophet, quis requisiuit, &c. who, required these things at your handes? which if it were said Esa. 1. 12. of those things, which in some manner, and to some [Page 162] end were required, how iustlie maie it be spoken of these, that in no manner, nor to anie end, are by God required at your handes? but that Saint Iohn was a Monk of the new Testament, and a patron of monasticall life (al­though you confesse it to be more then you were bound to prooue) so manie fathers as you name, do testifie with one con­sent. And what if he were an example followed of those Monkes, that liued in moste of those fathers times, is he therefore a patrone to your Popish Monkes, of these late daies, and new orders? it will be more then hard for you to prooue that. Now let vs consider your authorities, which you affirme to testifie, that Saint Iohn was a Monk of the new testament, and a patterne of monasticall life.

First, Gregorie Nazian. orat. de. S. Bas. 1. hath this testimonie. onelie he compareth Basill with Saint Iohn Baptist, as resembling him in some thinges, as he doth with Peter, Paul, Iohn the Euangelist, and Stephan: except you will saie theese were all Monkes. Chrisostome in deed, Hom. 1. in Mark. calleth Saint Iohn prince of the Monasticall life, but not a Monke of the new testament, as I haue shewed before in answer to your preface. Neither doth Saint Ierome epist. ad Eustoch. saie that Saint Iohn was a Monke, and pat­terne of Monasticall life, but speaking of the life of an Anachoret, which liued by him-selfe alone in the wildernesse, he saith: huius vitae auctor Paulus, illu­strator Antonius, & vt ad superior a conscendam, princeps Not the A­postle, but the Hermit. Iohannes Baptista fuit. Of this life Paul was the author, Anthonie the beautifier, and that I maie ascend higher, the Prince or cheefe was Iohn Baptist. Where is Iohn Bap­tist the Monke, or patterne of your Papisticall monk­ish life, when they liued not in the wildernes, but in cities, & populous townes, not in caues, and tents, but in gorgious palaces? Although Saint Iohn be the cheife of them that liued in the wildernes, the same Ierome in the life of Paule the Heremite whome be­fore [Page 163] he calleth the author of the Anachorites life, hath these wordes: Inter multos saepe dubitatum est, à quo potissimùm monachorum eremus habitari caepta [...] quidam enim altiùs repetentes, à beato Helia & Iohanne sumpsere principium, quorum Helias plus nobis videtur fuisse quàm Monachus, & Iohannes antè Prophetare caepisse, quàm natus est. alij autem, in quam opinionem vulgus omne consentit, asse­runt Antonium huius propositi fuisse caput, quod ex parte verum est. It hath beene often douted among many, by which of Monkes especiallie the wildernes began to be inhabited: for some fetching the matter somewhat high, haue taken the be­ginning of blesseá Elias and Ihon, of which two Elias seemeth to vs to haue beene more then a Monke, and Iohn to haue pro­phecied before he was borne: but other (into which opinion all the common sorte consenteth) affirme that Antonie was the heade, or cheefe of this purpose, which is partlie true. By these wordes it is euident, that Saint Ierome counteth He­lias and Ihon Baptist to be of a higher calling, then that they could be called Monkes or patterns of Mo­nasticall life: ascribing the beginning of them rather to Paul and Antonie, then to Helias, and Iohn Bap­tist, although they both, for some time, did lead an austere life in the wildernes. the same doth your next author Cassianus, Collat 18. Cap. 6. neither doth he once call Iohn Baptist a Monke, or patterne of monasticall life, but onelie sheweth that the Anachorites desi­ring to encounter openlie with the deuill, feared not to pearse into the vast solitarie places of the wil­dernes, ad imitationem scilicet Iohannis Baptistae, to the i­mitation of Iohn Baptist, who ledd his life in the wilderens: so doe not your Popifh Monkes, but lie in their warme nests in the cloysters.

What Sozomenus saith, I haue shewed a little be­fore. Isodorus agreeth with Saint Ierome, and Cassia­nus, that the Anachorites which liue alone doe follow Elias, and Iohn Baptist, where as the Coenobites, which liue in companies (in that point more like your [Page 164] Monks) do follow the Apostles. As for Theoph. in c. 1. Lu. which you note next, hath nothing sounding towards the name of monkor monastical life, except you meane where he saith that Iohn liued in the wildernes, as Eli­as did. The last author you quote, Nicephorus Hist. li. 8. c. 39. hath nothing more then the verie words of Sozo­mene, that some men said that Elias was the beginner of that solitarie life of Christians, some that Iohn Baptist. And among all your authors, there is not one that saieth, Iohn Bap­tist was a Monke of the newe Testament, or a patern of such monasticall life, as you defend, that there should be so great consent there, of that matter, where of you bragge so much. But names, and quotations of Doctors are sufficient, either for you, that by all like­liehood neuer turned the bookes your selfe, or for your sottish schollers, that accept all your wordes without examination and triall.

After this followeth a vaine strife of words cōcerning the signification of this terme sect, which of M. Charke is taken for a schisme, as it is manifest by the example he bringeth of the 1. Cor. 1. The Censurer sometime tak­eth it in good part, and sometime in euill: sometime he maketh it equall with the terme of heresie, some­time more particulare: which contention seeing it is vnprofitable for the readers, I do willinglie omit, re­ferring them that list to vnderstand ofit further, to the comparison ofboth their writings, where they shall finde, that Master Charke in effect preuenteth all his ca­uillations, by saying that the names of heresie and sect areoften times confounded: which to prooue, the Censurer busieth him-selfe in vaine. It is somewhat materiall that he saith, the Corinthians erred in a point of faith, estee­ming the vertue or power of Baptisme, not to depend onelie of Christ, but of the dignitie of the Baptizer. And surelie there muste be some opinion touching faith, where there is a schisme, in the Church, though there be not a dissent in the necessarie articles of faith: but a [Page 165] schisme or sect may be, where neither the generall do­ctrine, nor the societie of the Church is forsaken, as inthe example. 1. Cor. 1. which is contrarie to the de­scriptionof the censure. Sectaries are such as cut themselues of in opinion of religion from the general body of the Catholike Church: for so did not the Corinth. 1. Cor. 1. (howsoe­eur they had an opinion of some excellencie in the minister of Baptisme) nor the 1. Cor. 11. 18. where Saint Paul likewise chargeth them with schismes, when they came together to celebrate the communion, which text being likewise quoted by M. Chark, is cleane omittedby the defender. But now you would cleare your sectes of Monkes and Fryers from the example of the Co­rinthian schismatikes, by a fond similitude, supposing our ministers should saie in a contrarie sense of libertie, I will luie vnmaried after the order of my Lord of Canterburie. I will bem aried after the platforme of my Lord of London: I will haue two wiues together, after the fashion of Master Arch­deacon of Salisburie: I will haue a wife, and a wench, after the custome of some other Archdeacon and preahcer. Concer­ning your example, if any Archdeacons be of such fa­shion, as you describe them, I would they had such pu­nishment as to such fashions belongeth, and if you be hable lawfullie to conuince them thereof, I doubt not but they shal. As for the other 2. of being maried & vn­maried, be matters in deede of Christian libertie, that euerie minister may choose that which he findeth to be most expedient for him, but if any minister should glorie of his continent life out of mariage, by hauing my Lorde of Canterhurie for his patterne, or of his chaste life in mariage, by following my Lorde of Lon­dons platforme, he might iustlie be noted for a schis­matike, as Saint Paull doth the Corinthians when they saide, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas, and I of Christ. For the platforme, order, patterne, or exam­ple of men in these cases, must not be their warrant, but the worde of God; which text is plaine, that in [Page 166] profession of Religion we may not be called by the names of men, no nor by the name of Christ, or Iesus, therebie to make a diuision or seperation of our selues in excellencie from other, to whome Iesus Christ is common, as well as to our selues.

For euerie one of your sects termed of Benedict, Augustine, Frauncis, Dominike, Iesus, &c. although in the generall doctrine of Poperie they al agree, yet haue they their seuerall opinions each one of the excellencie of thier orders, and patrons, which maketh a schisme, and of­ten times hath broken forth into great brawling, and open contention. It is too manifest, that the Monkes commonlie hated the Fryars, the Dominicans and Franciscans were at deadlie feede, the not obser­uants enuied the obseruants, and they despised the children of their owne father Frauncis, as bastardes in comparison of them selues: and now the Iesuites are hated and inuicd of all other sects of Monkes, and especiallie of Fryars, whome they bring into great contempt, wheresoeuer they plant them-selues, in so much that the Fryers in some places haue slirred vp sedition against them, & caused them to be expelled. It remaineth therefore that the Iesuites are a sect or schisme euen in Popery, as they are a detestable kinde of heretikes against the Catholike faith, which is common to al obstinate Papists, and it is true likewise, which Master Charksayeth, that the Pharises were a no­torious sect, ver did they not cut of themselues from the religiō of the Church, nay they bare the greatest sway in the Church: & albeit some of thē held great here­sies, yet they professed to imbraceal the doctrine of the Church: and so did the Saduces, in so much that some of them climed vp euen to the high priests office: yet were they a detestable sect, but of a bastarde Church, as the Iesuites are of the Popish Church of Rome.

His definition also (if you did not cauill and trifle about words) is true, that a sect is a companie of men, that differ from the rest of their religion, in matter, or forme of then [Page 167] profession. Whether you deriue the Etimologie à secando, of cutting, or à sequendo, of following, although I thinke Master Charke meaneth it of cutting, the absur­dities you gather are wilfull cauillations For Bi­shopes, ministers, lawyers, iudges, &c. though they differ in auctoritie, apparell, state, and forme of life, yet they differ not in forme of profession of religion from the rest of our religion. They be diuerse offices, and lawful callings in one profession of religion, but so are not Iesuites, and other orders of Monkes, and Fryers: for they, albeit they hold one religion with the rest, yet doe differ in the sorme and profession of that religion, beeing no necessarie offices or callinges in­stituted by God, but seuerall professions begonne by men, whose imitation soeuer they pretend. Therefore no wise man, but such a quarreling Censurer, woulde haue made the cases of Bishopes, iudges, lawyers, like in this point with Dominicans, Franciscans, Iesuites. Like wisedome and grauitie you shew in flouting of. Master Charkes definition, with your ridiculous compa­risons, where he sayeth, a sect is a companie of men. For when, you haue sported your selfe, vntil you haue wea­ried your selfe, and your reader, in the end you con­fesse that you are not ignorant, that in common speach this word sect may improperly signifie the mē also, which professe the same, but not in a definition, where the proper nature of each word is declared. Whether it be properlie or improperlie so taken, because it is a brable of wordes, I will not contend, but if you exclude all improper or figuratiue speaches, whose sense is commonlie knowne, as this of sect, from definitions, you will driue them into a straight roome. For we may not saie, Logicke is a sci­ence, or arte bene disserendi, which in common speach signifieth to dispute well, because disserere in latine, doth properlie signifie to sow, or set in diuerse places: and seeing the worde sect in common speach, may sig­nifie the men that professe such a seperation, why may [Page 168] there not a definition be giuen of the terme according to that signification?

Now whether the Iesuites be a sect, according to Master Charkes definition, you will examine: after you haue tolde vs, that his conclusion is like that he made in the Tower against Campian, which was to dispatch him at Tyburne, nothing following of the premises: which fond comparison I passe ouer, seeing all men: knowe that conclusion was not of Master Charkes making, by which Campian was hanged at Tyburne, and all men may see what was Master Charkes disputation in the Tower, and how it was answered by Campian.

But to the matter in hand, you aske what is in M. Charkes illation, that can make the lesuites a sect, if it were all graunted to be true? the Iesuites receiue a peculiar vow to preach as the Apostles did, euerie where of free cost. First, to dedicate a mans life by vow to Gods seruice, you saie it is alowed in scripture, Numbers. 6. &. Ps. 131. yea, that is euery mans dutie: but Master Charkes illation is of a peculiar vow, which by no scripture is allowed, but of such things onelie as God accepteth to his seruice, and are in our owne power to performe, as the vow of a Nazarite, the vow of sacrifices, of thankesgiuing, &c. Other be either superstitious, or vnlawfull vowes. Se­condlie, to preach euerie where and at free cost, you thinke he should be ashamed to saie that it maketh a sect, seeing Christ commaunded his Apostles to preach euerie where freelie, and Saint Paul glorieth, that he had taught the Gospell of free cost. Yes Syr, this maketh a sect, for them to vow to exercise the office of Apostles, which are not called by Christ to be Apostles: the vow is vnlawfull, and the votaries are sectaries, not of the Apostles, but of that pseudo Apostle Laiolas, that was of his own ordinati­on. Againe, where you saie, that the Apostles were com­maunded to preach the Gospell in all places freelie, it is false, for that precept, Mat. 10. giue freelie, as you haue receiued freelie, either is ment of the graces of healing, or if you [Page 169] ioyne it with the other preceptes that follow, of not possessing golde, nor siluer, nor monie, garments, &c.& other prouision for the iournie, it is as they are par­ticular for that viage, and not generall for all time of their Apostleshippe. For otherwise the Apostles should haue greeuouslie offended, in not preaching in all places of free cost, and Saint Paull in taking of double wages of somme Churches, that in some other he 2. Cot. 11. 8. might preach freelie. Therefore as vpon good consi­deration in some place the Apostles did preach of free cost, and so may men at this daie: yet for any man to vow, that in al places, and at al times, he wil preach at free cost, the vow is vnlawfull, because it is contrarie to the ordinance of God, which hath ordained and appointed that they which preach the Gospell, should liue of the Gospell, 1. Cor. 9. 14. And it cannot, but be to the iniurie, & such as will procure contempte, and neg­lect vnto them that preach the Gospell, and liue ac­cording to the ordinance of the Gospell, in taking the stipende for them appointed, that there should be a sect or company of men, which should professe alwaies and in all places to preach of free cost.

You proceede and aske, what then maketh them secta­ries? to whippe and torment them-selues, if it were true? seeing Saint Paull chastened his owne bodie, and caried the bonds of Christ in his flesh: and the scriptures talke much of mortifying our members, of crucifying our flesh, and the like, and neuer a word of pampering the same. As though there could be no chastening of the body, bearing of Christs markes, mortifying the members, or crucifying the flesh, except men whippe and torment them-selues: or that whosoeuer doth not whippe him-selfe, doth pamper his flesh. Saint Paull did chastise his bodie, with abstinence and fasting: he did beare in his bodie the markes of Christ, by suffering imprisonment, stoning, whipping, not of his owne hand, but of the persecu­tors of the Gospell. As for mortifying our members and [Page 170] crucifying our flesh, be higher matters, then any volun­tarie exercise: and extend much farther in ouercom­ming our whol corrupted nature, which it seemeth you little knowe or practise, for al your whipping, and tor­menting of your selues, by your comparing of them to exercises of bodelie chastisement. Moreouer, the seue­rity of S. Iohn Baptists life, and of other Saintes of the new Testament, & the olde, mencioned in the scripture, fa­uoreth not your superstitious whippings. For albeit they did willinglie sometime abstaine from pleasures that are lawful, & were tormented by other, yet none of them was a tormentor of himselfe. And as for the great store of examples, that you promise the reader in one Chapter of Marcus Marulus, lib. 3. cap. 10. of Saintes cha­stizing their bodies with whippes, there is in deed some store of examples of voluntarie, not onelie chastening, but also tormenting of the bodie, but we haue smal warrant either that they were all Saintes, or that anie Saintes in such examples of tormenting their bo­dies pleased God: yet is there verie fewe examples of them that whipped them selues. The first is of Fraun­cis, the father of graie- friers, which being assaulted with the thoughtes of marriage, being angrie with him selfe there­fore, did beat him-selfe verie hardlie with the corde wherewith he was girded. But when stripes litle preuailed, he tumbled him-selfe naked a great while in the deepe snow, and afterward binding to his wholl bodie the shapes of men made of snow, he spake vnto him-selfe, by the waie of rebuking, and said, loe Francis, here is thy wife, loe, here be thy children; either cloath them, that they be not so frozen for colde, or els forsake al things, and serue the Lord onelie. So (saith your author) at length he tamed the wantonnes of his flesh with whipps, and quenched the burning fire of lustes by embracing colde snow with his naked breaste. But the holy ghost, wiser then Francis, prescri­beth marriage, which he did fight against, and not I­mages of snow, which he embraced, to be a remedie to quench burning Iust. I. Cor. 7. But of whippers [Page 171] there are three more examples; Elizabet anunne of Co­magie, whipped her selfe certaine houres euerie daie. Maria Decegnies, that was married against her will, by often praiers, fasting, and whipping of her-selfe, mooued her husband to vow chastitie with her, where your author saith Naufragium, &c. she had made ship­wrack of virginitie, being committed to the waues of Matri­monie: but while she leaneth to the board of fasting, praier, chastisment, vnhurt and vntouched she swamme out vnto the hauen of saluation. But the holie ghost giueth an o­ther Portum sa­lutis. rule to them that be married, that the wife be not separated from her husband, except it be for a time of fasting and praier, and then to returne againe together, lest Sathan tempt them through incontinencie, and that they which are maried, should not seeke to be loosed. 1. Cor. 7. ver. 10. 5. 27. Beside these, there is a Dukes wife of Thuringia called He­lizabeth, that commaunded her maides to whippe her in her priuie Chamber: and these are the goodlie exam­ples of Saintes that vsed whipping of them-selues. Manie of the rest are wearing of haireclothes, as Thomas Becket, Maiorus, Bishop of Sarina, I wot not where, in the ile of Britanie. Medericus Eduensis Abbas: Lewes the 5. King of Fraunce: Cecilia, and Rade­gundis wife of Clotharius King of Fraunce, vntill she had obtained the dissolution of the band of mar­riage, by binding her-selfe to chastitie, agreea­ble to the doctrine of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. as well as white and black resemble each other. Edmunde of Canterburie ware a coote of maile, wouen with leade. Macharius Abbat of Alexandria bare on his shoulders a sacke full of sand. A Monke in Saint Hie­rome, being commaunded by his elder, caried a great stone eight yeares together, twise in the daie, by the space almost of fiue miles. Hierome to Eustochium testifyeth, that he cried often day and night together, and ceased not beating of his brest vntill by the Lords rebuking, quietnes returned. An example more meete [Page 172] to be followed of them that seeke the like cause, then any we haue had yet, which is confirmed by authori­tie of the Scripture, Psal. 22. Psal. 32. and 42. Bonifa­cius Archbishop of the nether Missia, ryding barefoot in winter, his feete were frozen to the stirop, and thowed with hotte water. Hospitius Monke of Nu­ceria vsed an Iron girdle: Philoramus a Priest liued enclosed in a stonie denne, being bound hand and foot with iron bandes, and the last daie of his life con­fessed (if you will beleeue the storie) that he omitted no moment of time, in which he thought not some­what of God: he had beene better occupied, to haue attended on the flocke of the Church, whereof he was a Priest or elder. Martin a Monke of Massick in Campania had bound his foote in a chaine fastened to a rock, but being bidden by the Abbat Benet to beware that the iron chaine did not holde him there more then the chaine of Christ, he vnloosed the bandes, but would neuer departe further. Iohn a Monke stood three yeares vnder a hollow rock of a mountain, that his leggs thereby swelled, and broke into vlcers. Pacomius an Abbat walked barefoot tho­rough the brambles and thornes, and returned into his celle with his feete all bloodie. Simeon a Monke tooke a rope from a bucket, and wound it about his bodie, vntill his flesh were eaten with it, and putrifi­ed, till stinke betrayed the secret: then the rope beeing loosed, he was expulsed out of the Abbey for his follie: but afterward being sought for by his Abbat, which was troubled with terrours in the night, he was found in a drie pitte in the desart, and brought back againe. Last of al, Sara an Abbesse in Scithia, by the space of 60. yeares, would neuer looke out at a window to beholde the water that ranne by, or the pleasant meddow. I praie God she were not worsse occupied within, then she might haue beene in beholding Gods creatures a broad. And these (except Saint Paules chastening [Page 173] of his bodie, which he nameth first) are all the store of worthie examples, gathered, as you saie, out of all an­tiquitie: and yet Paull being the first, Thomas Becket is the next: and although there be some of greater an­tiquitie, yet, out of all antiquitie, you would not haue said, if you had read the Chapter your selfe, except you care not what you saie.

You adde further that Saint Hierome testifieth of him­selfe, by an occasion giuen to a secret friend of his, that his skinne was well neere as blacke, with punnishment, as the skinne of an Ethiopian, Epist. 22. ad Eustochium: And that Iohannes Cassianus, that liued about the same time, hath infi­nite examples of the practize of the fathers in this point. Saint Hierome in deede writing to the noble virgine Eusto­chium, testified how litle he preuayled with such im­moderate austerity, to subdew the lust of his slesh, vntil by importunitie of prayers, he obteined rest of his vn­quiet minde from Christ. Although his wordes be not, as you haue set them downe, that his skinne was as blacke as an Ethiopian: but his deformed skinne was growen o­uer with the hearines, or scurffe of an Ethiopians flesh, squalida cutis situm aethiopicae carnis obduxerat. In the mar­gent you note that we will saie, Saint Hierome was noe Protestant. I answere, although we cannot allow Saint Hierome, or any man, that by hurting his bodelie health, with immoderate rigour of austere life, brin­geth his natural life in daunger: yet doe we imbrace S. Hierome, as a member of the true Church of Christ, whoe trusted not in any merite of such chaistisment, but onelie in the mercie of God by Iesus Christ. The like we say of any examples of godlie men, that are brought by Cassianus, whoe is not altogether so olde as you make him. Your rayling, and seoffing at Peter Martyr. I omitte, as meete for such a Censurer: but where you charge him to iest at Saint Basill and Saint Gre­gorie Nazianzen, for hard handling of their owne bodies, in cap. 16. lib. 3. Reg. your note boke deceiued you: for in [Page 174] his comment vpon the Chapter he hath no such mat­ter. His iudgement els where may be to this effect, That notwithstanding the examples of the auncient godlie fathers, yet it is neither lawfull nor expedient, for a man with such rigour to handle his bodie, as it be not able to serue him in his calling. For as cha­stisement of the bodie to bring it in subiection, is some­time necessarie: So weakening of the bodie, to make it vnable to serue the spirit in such outward actions, as re­quire the vse of the bodie, is neither wisedome, nor god­lines, what examples soeuer be pretended. For as it is not lawfull for a man, vnder any pretense of mortifying his flesh, to kill him selfe; so it is not lawfull for any man to torment his bodie, aboue the strength thereof; wherby sicknes must needes follow, and death may ensue. For against all examples of godlie men, that can be alledged to the contrary, we will oppose the wisdome of the holy ghost, in his elect vessel S. Paul, whoe calleth Timothie from such austeritie, wherebie his health was impaired, vnto a moderate vse of gods creatures. Drink no more water, saith he, butvse a litle wine, because of thy sto­mach, and often infirmities, 1. Tim. 5. 23. According to the proportion of which rule if many of the examples be­fore remembred were exacted, they may perhapes de­clare a zeale in the persons, but such as is not guided by knowledge of Gods will, reuealed in the scriptures.

Where you saie, If the Ministers of England would vse this cooling phisick, there should be fewer Eatons, and Hyn­ches openlie punished, or flie the countrie, for incest & rape, you would insinuate, that for lacke of chastisement of mens bodies, so great enormites breake out, and in part it may be true, so you touch none but such as are guilty, who when they be discouered, by your owne confessi­on, are not winked at in our Church, but openlie puni­shed, what discipline soeuer you vse when anie of your Iesuites are ouertaken with such offences. The num­ber God be thanked of such offenders among vs is not [Page 175] great, how small chastisement soeuer you thinke the Ministers doe vse, and therefore no cause why you should amplifie them in the plurall number, as though for one Eaton, or one Hynch, there had beene ten of each sorte at the least. Too manie, we confesse, of one, but fewer then one there could not be, except there had beene none. Howbeit we praise God that so fewe haue geuen such offence in so long peace of the Church, and praie God they be the last. Yet are they a small matter for you to insult against vs, if you looke homewarde, where for two, you may easilie finde two hundred, and for two poore Ministers, manie of your great prelates, yea your Popes, by confession of your owne historians, haue not beene behind any examples of incontinencie, and filthines.

But if we will not practise this remedie our selues, for con­tristing, or making sad the holie ghost within vs (which you saie is our phrase) yet you will vs not to impute it as schisme, and heresie to them, which vse it moderatlie, as we maie ima­gine the Iesuites will, being not fooles, nor hauing iron bodies, but sensible as ours are. Hereto I answer, that the remedie of incontinencie we learne out of the scriptures, and haue no neede of your instruction for such matters, if God geue vs grace to practise that which we learne out of his word. The phrase whereat you scoffe, is not ours, but vsed by the holie Ghost him-selfe, though in a Eph. 4. 30. farre other sense, then you ascribe it to vs, in which meaning you will sooner be hanged for a traitour, then you are able to prooue, that anie approoued Minister of ours hath euer vsed the same in speach or writing. Among the familie of loue perhappes, which are ca­tercosins with you Papistes, you may finde such blas­phemous abusers of holie phrases of scripture. The imputing to schisme or heresie, ariseth of the Iesuites profession, and practise, which in such doinges pretend a greater merit, and perfection, then God requireth of Christians. Otherwise we doubt not but many of the [Page 176] Iesuites can fauour them-selues wel enough in their vo­luntarie whipping, especiallie those of our nation, or of anie other, except the Spaniardes, among whome the reliques of the olde whipping heretikes haue continu­ed so ranke in some, that they haue beene seene in England to endure greeuous whipping for other mens sinnes, that liked not to suffer such penannce in their owne persons. The following of one mans rule (you sate) can make no diuision, because it is but a particular direction of life, and manners, grounded one the seriptures and practise of the fathers, and alowed by the superiours of the Church. But here you assume more then wilbe graunted: for neither is the rule of Laiolas grounded one the scriptures, nei­ther haue the gouernours of the Church authoritie to allowe anie such rule: and last of all, it is so newe, that it hath no practise of the auncient fathers to shadow it. The first is prooued before, the second dependeth vpon the first, and the last of the newnes is manifest of it selfe.

But all this while you haue supposed, that Master Charkes reportes of the Iesuites life and vocation, were true, which is false: for there was neuer anie that tooke a vowe to whippe them-selues, and much lesse to doe it after the example of a sect, called by the name of whippers, condemned long agoe. Here, beside a double cauill, is nothing worthie the an­swering, for Master Charke meaneth not, that their vowe is to followe the condemned whippers: but that this whipping is after the example of that condemned sect, in that they wippe, and torment them-selues. Whereof if there be no perticular vowe expressed, yet seeing they vowe to followe the rule of Layolas, which includeth whipping of them selues, as you cannot de­nie, Master Charke hath not belied the Iesuites, as you note in your margent. And as concerning the sect of here­tikes, called whippers, you referre vs to Prateolus and Gerson, to prooue that they helde manie wicked opini­ons, for which they were condemned, and aske what [Page 177] doth this make against the sober & moderat chastisment which good men vse in secret, vpon their owne bodies, at such times, as they esteeme them-selues for mortification to neede the same. I answere, there is no neede that any man for morti­fication should whippe him-selfe, or els it is neede for al men so to whippe themselues, except Iesuites haue more vntamed bodies, then all other men. And therefore it is but ethelothreschia, a voluntarie Religion, or a superstition, after the precept and Doctrine of men, in colour of humilitie, and not sparing the bodie, described by Saint Paul Col. 2. 23. and as for Gerson, to whom you send vs, doth not Tract. cont. slagiliantes. onelie condemne the hereticall opinions of those whip­pers, but also their whipping of them-selues, and that for diuers causes, of which I will rebearse some. First he accounteth it a tempting of God, to laie such a burden vpon men, as you do, which make whipping needfull for mor­tification: Act. 15. whereby it followeth that it is needfull for all men, as mortification is, & not for Iesuites onelie. Se­condlie he saieth, that the law of Christ, ought no lesse in his seruice, to auoide the superstitions of the Gentilles, and Idola­tours, espiciallie these that are cruell, and horrible, then the olde law, in the which yet there is expresse prohibition, Deu. 14. where it is said, be ye seruers of the Lord your God: you shall not cut your selues: where the glosse is, you ought not in anie thing, to be made like to Idolatours: and in the hebrue it is, you shall not teare or rend your selues: Againe he saith, (for I doe but translate his wordes) lex Christi, &c. the law of Christ is giuen sufficientlie in the tenne commaunde­ments, the keeping of which good simplicitie, and plaine faith, is enough to saluation, especiallie of laie men and common peo­ple, without anie new imposition of moste greeuous burdens, according to the saying of Christ: if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commaundements. Neither is it anie thing worth, if it be said, that the people doe voluntarilie take vpon them such whippings, without any other commaundement, while it is found that there-vpon they doe more licentiouslie contemne Gods commaundementes in manie thinges. For the nature of [Page 178] man is stubburne, which since it is forsaken of the state of originalliustice, it is caried more greedelie vnto those things that are of mans inuention, then those that are of Gods bid­ding. And this is one degree of pride, which Bernard saith is found among Religious men, while they reioice more in absti­nence, or particular voluntarie praier, then in all the regular discipline. Againe, the law of Christ, being set forth sufficiently, by the Apostles and holie Doctors, is not found to haue appoin­ted such nouelties of men, whipping them-selues, either by preaching, or otherwise, but rather to haue reprooued them, as moste suspect and daungerous, and which may growe to the slaunder of Christianes among the Iewes, Saracens, and Pa­ganes, as though the lawe of Christ were austere, cruell, and nourished in blood, not in mercie,

Afterward he setteth downe reasons, to dissuade this superstition, as he calleth it. Let diligent and ear­nest exhortation be made, touching the praises of patience, which hath her perfect worke, preferring it before such vo­luntarie whippings, as Augustine saith agreeablie to Seneca, that the aduersities of this world, are not so much to be laid vp­on vs, as when they happen, patientlie to be suffered, make­ing thorough patience a vertue of necessitie. I am not so madde (saith Seneca) that I would be sick, but if I must be sick, I will beare it patientlie. Therefore there must be reckened vp diligentlie, and seuerallie, the diuers tribulationes, some­time temporall, sometime spirituall, which daielie do giue and offer to vs, whether we will or nill, matter of patience, such as are sicknes, pouertie, &c, and who is able to number all such tribulations? which are such and so manie, that we must not bring vpon our selues new sorowes: for the valiant suffering of such dailie tribulations is enough for the purging of greater sinnes, especiallie if contrition be encreased, and humble con­fession, in deede, or purpose, &c. Yea the same Gerson saith farther, Imò sicut non licet, &c. As it is not law­full for a man of his owne authoritie to mayme, or gelde him-selfe, excepte it were for the healthe of the whole bodie. So it is not lawfull, as it seemeth, that a man should [Page 179] violentlie draw blood of him-selfe, except it be for bodelie Physick: or els by the like reason a man might burne him­selfe with an hotte iron, which no man hath held or graun­ted hitherto, except perhaps idolaters, or false Christians, such as are found in India, which thinke that they ought to be baptized with fire. Finallie, Gerson alloweth no whip­ping, except it be enioyned as penance, and that it be executed by another man, and that moderatelie, and without offence giuing, or ostentation, and last of all without drawing of blood. And this booke of Gerson, as you wotte, is in print, to answere your que­stion, was there euer honest man but Master Charke, that would haue obiected so impertinent a thing in Print, as is the whipping of men by them-selues, vppon anie falselie pretended neede of Mortification? But Master Charke maketh you laugh, when he saith the sect of whippers was con­demned long agoe. You aske how long, and by whome? For they began anno 1273. vnder Pope Gregorie the 10. and were condemned both by him, and his successours, by which authority Luther and Caluine are likewise con­demned. An high point in a low house: as though the authoritie by which men are condemned, is all the matter, not the cause for which. Adultery is condem­ned by Mahomet, and by the same authoritie the Gospell of Christ: is it not lawfull to approoue the one condemnation, except a man allow the other? No maruaile though you laugh at this matter: for indeed it is verie ridiculous, as moste of your collections be. And whereas you affirme, that Pope Gregorie the 10. did condemne these Flagellantes, I suppose you are not able to bring any author of credit, that so doth write. For in his time they sprang vp, and continued almoste fourescore yeares, without anie solemne condemna­tion. For anie thing that Prateolus, or who so wri­teth most diligentlie of here sies, can testifie. Prate­olus out of Carion sheweth, that 1343. they came to Spire in Germanie, when the diet of the Empire was [Page 180] kept, and through opinion of great holines, had good entertainment. Tandem verò damnata est. At length, saith he, this sect was condemned and extinguished with fire and sword.

Concerning the name of Iesuites, it is a friuolous quarrell of your censure, seeing you confesse it to be giuen to them by common speech, and think it lawfull for your selfe to vse, yet you taxe Master Charke for vsing it. That the Iesuites are not onelie a sect, but also a blas­phemous sect, Master Charke prooueth, because they abuse the moste blessed name of Iesus, for a colour of their blasphemous practise, which is to roote out the Gospell of Iesus, and to bring in the heresie, and superstition of poperie. For this you will call him an angrie gentleman, with whome euerie thing is blasphemie, though it be but the wagging of a straw. But heare his reason (you saie) They draw to them selues alone the comfortable name of Iesus, which is common to all. But his reason I haue sette downe before, gathered truelie out of his owne wordes: that he speaketh of the name of Iesus, is after this sorte. This also encreaseth the offence, that they draw to themselues alone the moste gracious, and comfortable title of our fellowshippe and vnion in Christ Iesus, which is [...] to all that do beleeue, without aniè diuision or distinction. You answere; no (Sir William) you maie haue your parte, if you exclude not your selfe. In deede we doubt not but we shall haue our parte, notwithstanding the Iesuites praesumptuous claime. But yet you will iustifie their claime by an euident example, as you terme it. For when anie man (you saie) leaueth all other cares and busines, to serue the Queene onelie,. and professeth the same by some speciall name of her Maiesties [...] seruante, doth he in­iurie other subiectes hereby? or doth he take from them anie interest in her Maiestie? It is somewhat you saie, if the man whome you speake of for examples sake, haue his name lawfullie regestred in her Maiesties checker role, or can shew good testimonie of her Maiesties [Page 181] appointing him to such speciall office, as he taketh vp­pon him to exercise. But if anie man, or speciallie if anie companie of men, should arrogate vnto them­selues without lawfull appointment the speciall name of hir Maiesties seruantes, and take vpon them to ex­ercise such an office, as her highnes hath not commit­ted to them, I suppose they deserued rather to haue their eares cut of on the pillarie, then to receiue any honour, that is due to the Queenes ordinarie ser­uantes, or officers. And this is an euident example of the vsur pation of the Iesuites, who haue not recei­ued the calling of Apostles, which is immediate from Iesus him-selfe, and yet professe to exercise the office Gal. 1. of Apostles in preaching the Gospell euerie where, & of free coste, which is more then the Apostles did at all times. As for Eldertons iest of raising the dead, cu­ring the lame, blinde, &c. I maruaile you do not an­swer by the Iaponical miracles, which are done so thick in another world, in both the Indies, by your Iesuites, rather then in this point to make them of no greater power, then anie, that are called Christianes. But it is an easier matter, to lie of thinges farre of, then to shewe a wonder in presense of them that can examine such a matter.

The third section, entituled, Of religious men, and their vocation of pouertie.

YOu defend the title of religious, claimed, and giuen to Monkes, and Nunnes, because they were not called religious by antiquitie, for that they onelie had re­ligion in them, but that they made profession of more perfect following of Christian religion, then others, by remooving [Page 182] worldlie impedimentes, according to the counsell of Christ touching perfection, Mait, 19. 16. & Esay. 56. where chastety, voluntarie pouertie, and abnegation of our owne will, are com­mended, and counselled to perfection, and the contraries there­of in other places of scripture shewed to be great impedimentes. But first you prooue not, that they were so called of the first, and reuerend antiquitie, by anie such singular name of religions, as they are called in the Popish Church. Secondlie, where you count abnegation of our owne will to be onelie commended and counselled to perfection, you declare what a profound diuine you are, when the verie text which you cite, is ma­nifest, that it is necessarie for all the disciples of Christ, and that in paine of damnation: If anie man will follow me, saith he, let him denie him-selfe, and take Mat. 16. vp his crosse, and follow me: for he that will saue his life, shall leese it, &c. Thirdlie, I saie that the perfection of Christian Religion standeth not in virginitie (for that you meane by chastetie, as though the marriage bed also which is vndefiled, were not to be accompted chastetie) and wilfull pouertie. For all men are in scripture commaun­ded to endeuour vnto the perfection of Christian Re­ligion, but no man is comaunded to liue vnmarried, or to renounce his worldlie possessions, Mat. 5. 48. 2. Cor. 7. 1. Ephe. 4. 13. Phil. 3. 12. Col. 1. 28, &c. Neither is marriage, or priuate possession of earth­lie goods, of it selfe, anie impediment vnto the per­fection of Christian Religion. And if it were graun­ted, that the perfection thereof did stand in such pro­fession as you speake of, yet doth it not follow, that such professours should haue that praerogatiue, to be called absolutelie Religious: seeing they that make no such profession, maie be neuerthelesse sufficientlie Religious vnto saluation: neither do your examples iustifie this proud vsurped terme. For the name of learned men doth truelie agree to them that are so in deed, whereas to them that haue but smale learning, [Page 183] it doth not absolutelie agree, but with addition of something, smallie, meanely, pretilie, or such like. For no man can saie truelie of him, that knoweth onelie a litle grammer, latine, logick, &c. that he is a lear­ned man: but of euerie true Christian man, we maie trulie saie, that he is a Religious man, although some be more religious then other. The name of Cleargie also, as it was vsed by the Fathers of olde time, maie be defended, and warranted by example of the scrip­ture, in respect of the especiall lot, whereunto the Ministers of the Church are called, as the tribe of Leui was, notwithstanding that all true Christi­anes Luk 6. 13. are the lotte or inheritance of the Lord. The name of Apostles, being giuen by our Sauiour Christ him-selfe, vnto his speciall embassadoures, he were a madde man that would controule, though other also were sent. What like warrant haue Monkes, and Nunnes to be called religious? verelie by these ex­amples it appeareth, that which you saie of Master Charke to be verified of your selfe, this man waieth not what he saith, so he saie somewhat.

Concerning the second point, Master Charke wri­teth plainlie, if you were disposed to vnderstand him, that he misliketh Popish Monkes, and Nunnes, not onelie for the abhominable life of the greatest parte of them, but speciallie, for their superstitous, hypo­criticall, and Idolatrous profession, wherein they dif­fer from the virgines of the primitiue Church, as much as in their lewd life, and loose conuersation. And therfore neither he nor Doctor Folke do vse any hereticall sophistrie, to condemne all for the ill life of a fewe, or to condemne a lawfull calling, for the misbehauiour of them that are in that vocation, and much lesse, for that men liue not so perfectlie in the same, as they did in the primitiue Church, about which hereticall consequences manie words are spent in vaine.

But now let vs heare what you answer to such diffe­rence, as Master Charke maketh betweene the olde monkes, and the newe. His wordes you recite in this manner. It is a plaine iniurie, saith he, to match those aun­cient Monkes of the primitiue Church, with those of the popish orders: for the olde Monkes liued in their house without vowes, as studentes in diuinitie in Colledges: they were holie, painefull, learned, they laboured with their handes. Their societies were nources of good learning and godlie life, to fur­nish afterward the Church: whereto being once called, they ceased to be Monkes, and left their monasteries. Here first you charge him with bolde slaundering, as though he said that all Monkes and sriers are vnlearned, vnpain­full, and vnholie, whereas he saith not so, knowing that some are vnlearned, though neither all, nor the moste part, no not in this learned age: manie friers also take paines in preaching, which with more commendation and credit might holde their peace. Yet fewe Monkes labour that waye. As for labouring with the handes (saie you) though it be not necessarie to anie, if they be occupied in greater matters, yet their is no monasterie wherein some doe not exercise that function. But Saint Augustine in his booke, deopere [...], holdeth it to be necessarie for all Monkes to labour, and admitteth not the excuses of praying, singing of Plalmes, reading, or preaching the word of God, for anie to be priuiledged altogether from not labouring with his handes, cap. 17. 18. That some in euerie monasterie with you are appointed to that function, as you saie, it is but a mockerie of the olde la­bour of Monkes, and left for a shadow of some simi­litude with antiquitie, and not taking awaie the diffe­rence set downe by Master Charke. That manie Bishoppes are chosen out of monasteries, and that Pius 5. chose 70. Bi­shoppes out of one order, it is litle to the purpose. For the olde monkes were not onelie chosen to the office of rich and statelie Bishoppes, but to serue in the painefull of­fice of teachers, and pastours, and were, as Master [Page 185] Charke saith, the nources of good learinng, of the mi­nisterie of the Church, as your popish orders are not, out of which they may not depart to serue the Church, without a dispensation, and capacitie, as they call it. Your iest of his poore benefice by London, and the bar­barres shoppe, are both a like, and the latter as well agreeth vnto him as the former, seeing it is wel knowne he neuer had anie benefice, rich or poore, in London, by London, or farre from London.

The first difference you confesse to be the greatest; although you speake of it last, where you saie he affir­meth, that the Monkes of the primitiue Church made no vowes, the contrarie whereofyou prooue by manie te­stimonies of the auncient fathers, and in the end you conclud against Master Charke, asking what he will saie to this, and much more that mighr be brought for this matter? And maie he not blush (saie yon) to haue made (In saing that the religion of the primitiue Church made no vowes) so open and manifest alie? But may not all modest Papists blush in your behalse, seeing your owne fore­head, as it seemeth, is hardned against shamefastnes, for that you haue made so open, and manifest a lie, in saying that Master Charke affirmeth, that the Monkes of the primitiue Church made no vowes? whereas he saith not so, but farre otherwise: for these are his words, they liued in their houses without any superstitious vowes. Is it all one to saie they made no vowes, & to saie they made no superstitious vowes? the like impudence you shew, in charging him with cogging, and foisting, for placing his quotations of Saint Augustine in the margent, right ouer against the matter of vowing, which is both false, and vniustlie laide to his charge: the Printer had set them a litle wrie. For the quotation beginneth right ouer against the name of Austen in the leafe, or text, although the taile of it extende to the line in which he speaketh of vowes. The places that are quoted for vowes are speciallie against the mariage of them [Page 186] that haue vowed sole life, yet haue we good testi­monie of the fathers, that such as are not able to keepe those vowes rashlie made, ought to be­take them-selues to the lawfull remedie of mariage. Epiphanius Cat. Apostolic. Haer. 61. Hieronymus ad Deme­triadem, &c.

Where M. Charke denieth Saint Augustine to be a Frier; First you cauill, which Austen he meaneth, the Bi­shoppe of Hippone, or of Canterburie: and both, you say, were Monks, and the later you make our first Apostle in Eng­land, yet was he an Apostle from Gregorie, not from Christ. What Doctor Fulke hath written of him, he an­swereth in his confutation of Popish quarrels, Pag. 43. But how prooue you that the elder Austen was a Monke, as monkes were termed in his time? you cite, Ep. 89. & tract. 1. de com. vita clericorum, and Possidius, or Possidonius in his life. To the first quotation I answere, that Saint Augustine in that epistle confesseth not that he was a Monke; onelie he acknowledgeth that he once solde all that he had, and gaue it to the poore. But that he had priuate possession when he was Bishoppe, Pos­sidonius doth plainlie declare. The second quotation is of no worke of Saint Augustines, but of I know not what bable rule, of some impudent counterfeiter, whose style is as like Augustines, as an asse is like a Ly­on. To the third I answere, that the writer alledged saith, that Austine when he was made prieste, or elder, of the Church of Hippo, did institute a colledge or monasterie of studentes, with in the Church, which were especiallie ap­pointed to serue afterward in the Church, as they also that were afterwarde brought vp in other monasteries, set vp by his schollers. But neuertheles he neither calleth Augustine, nor any of his schollers Monkes. For these Monaste­ries by Augustine him-selfe, are called diuersoria, ho­stelles, or Innes, Demoribus eccl. Cath. lib. 1. cap. 33. be­ing distincte from Monkes, which in those daies were onelie Anachorets, or Caenobites, both liuing in the [Page 187] wildernes, whereas these liued within cities, yet in streighter discipline, then the common sorte, vnder the gouernement of a verie Godly, and excellent lear­ned man, in Christian charitie, holines, and libertie, not in superstitious vowes, & are called by Augustine none otherwise, but a laudable kinde of Christianes. And all this maketh him neither Monke nor Frier. You say he was not called so in English, but in latine, Frater, and Monachus. For the name of Monachus, I haue answered, that you are not hable to prooue it by authenticall author or testimonie. And I doubt not, but he was called brother, as all Christians are called one of an other, but not as Friers are called fratres. You adde further out of Saint Ambrose, that he ware a blacke hoode, and a girdell of lether, Ser. 94. so that nothing wanted in him to the verie habit of an Augustine Frier. But seeing there are of Ambrose his sermons numbred in all but 93. this bastarde bable where this of the hood and the girdle is written, must be set out for a wrangler, and he had beene worthy to be set one the pillerie, that fayned such a sermon vnder the name of Saint Ambrose, to giue creditte to the Augustine Friers. Pos­sidonius testifieth that his apparell, shooes, and bedding were of moderate, and competent habit, neither too fine, and costlie, nor too verie abiect, or contemptible; In which he kept the meane. As for the blacke hoode, and lethern belte, he that liued 40. yeares with him (as you say) can tell vs nothing of thē, so that you haue neither the weede, nor the profession of Friers in S. Augustine.

Where the example of Christ is alledged, to vp­holde the institution of Iesuites, which Master Charke affirmeth to be blaspemous against his Ma­iestie, you confesse that Christ did not whippe him selfe, be­cause he had no rebellion in his flesh, as you haue, and there­fore vse mortification of your bodie, according to Saint Paules counsell, Coll. 3. You shew how wiselie you vnderstand mortification, which you referre to the bodie onelie, [Page 188] where Saint Paul commandeth vs to mortifie our mem­bers, which are vpon earth. And least you should thinke he meaneth your head, your armes, or your shoulders, he addeth, fornication, vncleanes, lust euill concupiscence, couetousnes, and such like, which be the members of the olde man, that must be mortified, & not the natural bo­dy of man, or the partes thereof. But though you haue no example of Christ whipping himselfe, yet you haue of long fasting, praying, and lying all night one the ground, which notwithstanding you thinke we ministers wil not imitate: for prayer, and fasting we know it to be our dueties, hauing not one lie the example, but also the commaun­dement of Christ for it. But for lying all night on the grounde, we finde no example of Christ. The E­uangelist Luke. 6. which you quote for it, saith, that Christ continued all night in prayer: but that he lay all night on the grounde, he saith not so: you declare your selfe, as well by this, as by many other things, to be verie well studied in the scriptures. Where Master Charke saith that Christ came eating and drinking, did fre­quent the publicke assemblies, and was sometime en­tertained at great feastes, he sheweth the forme of Christes life, differing from Iohns the Baptistes, which was more austere, whose example is more like your profession, then that example of Christ, although your vocation be nothing answerable to his.

Concerning pouertie, Master Charke asketh, what worldly blessing giuen vnto Christ by his father, did he at any time abandon? how doth his example recommend wilfull po­uertie to you Iesuites, or to any, except you would by vertue of the example haue all men be of your order, because all should be followers of Christ, and holde it as commaunded or recommen­ded for an example to be followed of all, whatsoeuer he hath done before? And then the Pope aboue all other by his owne claime, must be the poorest of all, and become a brother of your beggerlie order. To this you an swere, by asking, if it were not wilfull pouertie, for him the [Page 189] was Lord of all to liue of almes? Yes verilie he did willing­ly 2. Cor. 8. 9. forbeate, to challenge that which was his owne: ne­uertheles it was necessarie for his office, to become poore, that he might inrich vs with his grace: so is it not for Iesuites, or any other to whome God hath gi­uen such benefites, as they should not neede to liue of almes. You aske further, if he that counselled men, tore­nounce all they possessed, for his service, and to giue all to the poore, that would be perfect, did not he recommend voluntarie pouertie, though he commaunded it not? Surelie if the ne­cessitte of his seruice doe require it, there is no doubt, but that it is euerie mans durie to renounce all that he possesseth. But what necessitie compelleth the Ie­suites to any such seruice of his, but that they may liue of their owne, and eare their owne breade? As for the place you quote Luk. the 14. is verie Anabap­tisticallie applied to actuall forsaking of mens posses­ons: whereas it is manifestlie to be vnderstood, of renouncing in affection, & is not counselled onelie to some, but commaunded of necessitie to all: euerie one of you (saith he) which renounceth not all that he possesseth cannot be my disciple. For euen as bearing his crosse is ne­cessarie for all Christians, so is willfull pouertie: and it is impossible for anie rich man to enter into the king­dome of heauen: which places if they be vnderstood a­gainst [...] actuall possession of worldlie goods, what fol­loweth but Anabaptisticall confusion? For they are expresse commaundements, and denialls, to all, not lost to the choise of a fewe. It remaineth therefore that they be vnderstood of the minde, loue, affection, and truste in wordlie riches, not of budelie vse, or ha­uing eiuill proprietie in them. Neither doth it follow that the perfection of a Christian life consisteth in wil­full pouertie, because our sauiour said vnto the rich yonge man, that boasted that he had fullfilled the [...] commaundements, If thou wilt be perfect, goe sell all that thou haste, &c. For by perfest, he meaneth such a one [Page 190] as the yong man professed him-selfe to be, in whome nothing wanted. Againe, he was further commaunded to follow Christ, as his Apostles did, and to take vs the crosse. Therefore it was no generall counsell to all that desire perfection, but a speciall discouerie of that mans worldely affection, and hypocrisie, which prefer­red temporall things, before eternall felicitie, and yet boasted that he had kept the commaundements from his youth. And Luke. 12. where he willeth his dis­ciples, to sell their possessions, and giue almes, he sheweth the dutie of all men, which is not to spare their owne patrimonie, but euen to sell their possessi­ons, rather then the poore shoud perish for lacke of necessaries, yet not to make our selues beggers, or to be pinched, that other might haue ease, but that e­qualitie might be obserued, as the Apostle saith, 2. Cor. 8. 13. So that hetherto we haue not willfull pouertie, such as is that of the Iesuites, by Christes example or counsell, commended vnto vs.

But you adde further, If the Apostles left all proprietie, and did liue in common, as the seripture noteth, &c. But the Apostles left not all proprietie, allthough they for­sooke all thinges. For Peter retained the proprietie of his house. Matthew made agreat feast, of his owne Mat. 8. 14. Luk. 5. 29. Ioh. 19. 27. goodes I warrant you: Iohn receiued the virgine Mary into his owne, to prouide for hir. Neither had the A­postles and Christians in the primitiue Church any other communitie of goodes, then ought to be among all Christians, alwaies, namelie that no man should account any thing to be his owne otherwise, then the necessitie of the Church requiring, he should be con­tented to sell, euen his landes, and possessions, to re­leeue the poore. Neither was Ananias and Saphira punished, for breaking of their vow of pouertie, but Act. 5. for lying against the holie ghost, as the text is plaine, what­soeuer any man say to the contrarie. And yet Ierome ad Demetriadem, whome you cite, saith not that they [Page 191] were punished for breaking their vow of pouertie, or that they vowed pouertie, but that after they had vow­ed the wholl price of that land, they did reteine part, as if it had beene their owne. In Basill I finde nothing to such in­tent. Serm. 1. de inst. monach. vel de iudicio Det Praefat. But that Ananias, and Saphira were punished so seuerelie, because they sinned with an high hand, & proudly contemned the Lord in their hypocrisie. Neither doth Ma­ster Charke affirme that the Apostles forsaking of their goodes is Anabaptisticall, condemning of pro­prietie, as you slaunder him, but that the example of Christs voluntary pouertie, if it be to be followed, bind­eth al men alike, and speciallie the Pope, who claimeth to be Christs owne vicar generall, and therefore ought most to follow Christ. It is to no purpose therefore that you will him to reade the places of the doctours, to chaunge his opinion. For first Hierome in the 19 of Mat­thew, is not content, that he which seeketh to be per­fect, sell all his goodes, but he must giue them to the poore: and then, not liue idlelie of other mens goodes, but of his owne labour, as the auncient Monkes did, with many other conditions, that are wanting in Popish votaties. Basill. inter. 9. in reg. fus. expl. hath nothing to this purpose, but that men which for­sake their goodes to professe monasticall life, must not leaue them negligentlie, but dispose them to the glo­rie of God. What Saint Chrysostome saith vppon the saluting of Prilca, it were good you read ouer your selfe, and then tell vs wherefore you would haue Ma­ster Charke read it; for I finde nothing to alter his iudgement therein Last of al, Saint Augst. de ciu. lib. 17. cap. 4. saieth not, that the Apostles votum paupertatis vouerunt. For these are his wordes, Dixerunt enim po­tentes illi, Ecce nos dimisimus omnia, & secuti sumus te: hoc votum potentissimi vouerunt. Sed vnde hoc eis? nisi abillo de quo continuò dictum est, Dans votum vouenti. For these mightie had said, behold we haue left all, and followed thee: this vowe those most mightie had vowed: but whence came thie [Page 192] to them, but from him, of whome it is saide immediately, geuing the vow to him that [...]. Now I haue prooued before that the Apostles leauing all things to follow Christ, was not a renouncing of any propertie in their goods, except in such case as they could not reteine them, and doe the seruice of Christ: wherein if you will not beleeue me, you are an obstinate heretike, by the sen­tence of Pope Iohn. 23. which declared al them to be obstinat heretikes, that affirmed Christ and his disciples to haue had no­thing priuate or proper. He condemned also a glosse of Friar Peter, a minorite, which had incouraged a cer­taine couent of a third order to follow the pouerty of Christ, of which number many were condemned and burned. Platin. in Ioan. 23. How your doctrine and his doth agree, looke you vnto it, for one of you is greatly deceiued. That you conclude the vse of al wordlie bles­sings to be lawfull, it is well. That you charge Master Charke or our ministers to allure, dandle, or smooth men in them, to serue their owne bellie, &c. it is a slaunder that needeth no confutation, seeing their open, and zealous preaching of repentance, and mor­tification is a sufficient discharge for them before God, and all that heare them.

The forth section, which he intituleth, of Loialas and Luther.

IN this section, you saie, litle defence needeth, because the replier hath nothing, beside a railing sentence, or two against the Iesuites, saying that they eate the sinnes of the people, Whereas these men, neither taking anie charge of soules vpon them, nor receiuing anie tithes, or other commodities for the same (both which things M. Charke doth) the reader may iudge whether he, or they stand in daunger of the sentence. But that which M. Charke saith, of eating the sinnes of [Page 193] the people, he meaneth not of the Iesuits only, or chiefly, but of them that giue pardons for money, of which the Iesuits are sometimes marchants, wherein they may with the Pope, eate the sinnes of the people, although they haue no benefices, which you meane by charge of soules, and tithe taking. And sure it is, they liue not all of Angells food, neither are they maintained altogether by pure almes, but by an artificiall kinde of cousonage, vnder pretence of restitution; as their predeceslours, the Pharisies, vnder pretext of long praiers, deuoured the houses of poore widowes: and if no man eat the sinnes of the people, but they that haue benefices, Master Charke is out of daunger of the sentence: for he neither hath charge of soules, nor tithe, or commoditie for the same, as you vnder­stand the matter.

Whether Paull the third, or Paull the fourth, did first allow the sect of Iesuites, it is a trifling matter, not worth the strife about it. It is sufficient for Ma­ster Charkes reporte, that Paull the fourth did con­firme it, and there is no more reason that we should beleeue Andradius, then that you should credit Kem­nitius. you haue litle to do, that prosequute such fruit­les contentions.

The fift section, entituled, Of Luther and his doctrine.

MAster Charke first chargeth you, with plainevn­trueth, in that you saie, he doth contemptuouslie, or contumeliouslie cal Loialas a souldier, where as he doth nei­ther with honour, nor with disdaine, nor anie waies in all his answer, call him a souldier: to this charge you are mumme, And whereas he doth vnioint your [Page 194] two arguments, and manifestlie discouer the insuffici­encie of them, you denie that you made such argu­mentes: whereby you acknowledge, that you brought in these matters, of the life of Laiolas, and Luther, vainlie. The slaunders of Papistes against Luthers life you think must be credited, because they be matters of fact: As though the testimonie of enimies, must needes be taken in a matter of fact. And that they which are obstinate enemies to the Gospell, will care for feare, either of damnation, or open shame in the world, to inuent, or brute abroade moste impudent slaunders, against the professours of the trueth. Concerning Sleidans eleuen thousand lies, there is no wise man, but laugheth to heare of the number of them. And if one Sleydan a Protestant, hauing publike recordes, and writings to iustifie his storie, could yet write eleuen thousand lies against the Papistes, as you affirme, is it not possible trow you, that Coclaeus, Hosius, Lindanus, Xanctes, Staphilus, Bolsec, and such like, being Papistes, might write eleuen score lies against Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Caluine, Beza, and the rest?

Concerning the reporte of Prateolus, that Luther should be begotten of a deuill, you saie Master Charke greatlie bewraieth his fasehoode, and after you haue set downe the reporte of Prateolus vnperfectlie. you praise his modestie, and blame the bolde impudencie of William Charke, in saying he auoucheth that, which he a­uoucheth not. But where doth William Charke faie, that Prateolus doth auouch it? his wordes are of a slaunder laid downe against Martin Luther, how he was begotten of a deuill, which you confesse, that Prateo­lus reporteth, as he doth in deede out of Coclaeus; and Cocleus out of other mens writings: whether Prateo­lus him-selfe doth credit it altogether, or no, it skil­leth not; this slaunder among other he laieth downe against Luther, and fauoureth the reporte of other so farre, that he woulde haue it seeme credible: [Page 195] but as for saying that he auoucheth it, Master Chark speaketh not one whit. Let the Reader therefore iudge who bewraieth his falsehood in this point, and vppon whome the reproch of bolde impudencie maie iustlie be laid. But Master Charke sheweth as great fullie, as im­pudencie (if we beleeue you) in making mention of such a foule matter, whereupon at the least remaineth a shamefull suspicion. In deede it is the triumph of slaunderers, if they cannot kill with their stroke, yet to leaue a scarre where the wound is healed. Although the slaun­der of a matter so impossible, leaueth no suspition in anie mans head, that hath anie witte or vnderstan­ding in it, but discouereth the malice, and follie of the inuenters of such monstrous slaunders; yet you af­firme that the probabilitie of the thing seemeth to haue beene so great in those daies, as Erasmus beleeued it. But here you go asfarre beyond the modestie of your author Pra­teolus, as ere while you charged Master Charke to be runne. For his wordes are these. Adhans historiam al­ludere alicubi Erasmum non est à vero alienum. to this story it is not altogether vnlikelie or straunge from the trueth, that Erasmus doth in some place allude: he saith not that Eras­mus did beleeue it; No he is not able to prooue that Erasmus did obiect it. For the speech of Erasmus is, onelie of certaine vncleane speeches. where with he complaineth, that he was vniustlie charged by Lu­ther, in that vnmodest epistle which you translate drunken.

Now (saie you) if Master Charke will stand vpon the de­niall, not so much of the fact, as of the nature of the thing it selfe, as impossible that spirites can so abuse lewd women, that will consent to their lustes; you will oppose against him S. Augustine,Lib. 15. de ciu. det, c. 2.which saith it were impudencie to denie it, and Ludouicus viues vpon the same place. Sir Cauiller, the thing in question, is not, whether foule spirites maie abuse the bodies of lewd women: for beside the autho­ritie of Saint Augustine, who standeth moste vpon te­stimonies, [Page] we haue the testimonie of Wierus, a man verie expert in such matters, who maketh reporte of diuers Nunnes so abused, by vncleane spirites, yea of diuers Nunneries, in which manie were so dealt with all, and namelie a notable nunnerie in the borders of De praest. dae. lib. 3. c. 9. tertiae editio­nis. the prouince of Collene; where the deuill in the like­nes of a dogge in the daie time, was seene to fall vp­pon them in moste beastlie manner, about 26. yeares agoe. Also the Nunnerie of Nazareth in Collen, An­no. 1564. where the Nunnes in most filthie manner Cap. 11. suffered the same illusion, oftentimes in the presence, and sight of manie. But the matter in controuersie is, whether Luther were begotten of a Deuill: in deniall where, of Master Chatke doth stand, becuase it is impossible, that although the Deuill should abuse the bodie of a woman; yet that a man should be borne, or gotten by such illusion, which neither, Augustine affirmeth, nor Ludouicus Viues. And if you dare auouch that the de­uill can begette a childe (as it seemeth you would draw your argument to prooue the probabilitie of Lu­thers conception by such deuillish abusement) we will be bolde to saie, that you are worthie to be whipt out of the Schooles of Philosophers, Phisitians, and Di­uines: if you dare not abide by it, to what end do you oppose Saint Augustine and Ludouicus Viues against him?

Touching the matter of the thunderbolte, you saie Master Charke denieth it stoutlie, confidentlie, and I knowe not how. But in trueth Master Charke saith, that it is of it selfe vncredible that you saie, Luther was stroken with a thun­derbolte, which would haue taken awaie life, or lefte a marke behinde it. Neuertheles you williustifie your saying by testimonie of Malancthon; who saith he suf­feted great terrors that yeare, in which he lost his com panion, slaine I know not by what chaunce; and by Luthers owne confession, that he was called by ter­rours from heauen, and for feare of death vowed to be [Page 197] a frier: yet neither of these doe prooue, either that he was ouerthrowne, or striken with a thunderbolte. The reportes of Lindane, Prateolus, and such like, you can­not enforce vs to beleeue, who sought by all meanes to deface both the person, and doctrine of Luther. But whether he were ouerthrowne, by lightning, as Prateolus saith, or by feare, seeing his fellow flaine by the same, and so vowed a superstitious vow, it is not greatlie materiall. That the deuill cried out of his mouth, we hold it still for a verie fable, vntill you bring better proofe, then the report of Luthers ad­uersaries, Lindane, and his fellowes. Your ribaudrie termes of Luther coping with a nunne, and your blasphe­mous scoffing ofhis lying with a nunne in the Lord, I cōmit to the vengeance of him, that is the instituter of holie matrimonie. That many of the auncient fathers iudged it vn­lawfull, for vowed persons to marrie, it is not denied of our parte; but then it is to be vnderstood of them, which maried not for necessitie, but for wantones; and for such as made vowes aduisedly, not rashlie; volunta­rilie, and not by compulsion. For of them that could not conteine, after they had vowed virginitie, I haue shewed before the plaine testimonies of Saint Hie­rome and Epiphanius.

Now are we come to those nine articles of Doctrine, with which you haue charged Luther: how iustlie, we shall see by & by. The first is, that you affirmed Luther to teach, that there is no sinne, but incredulitie, neither can a man damne him-selfe, doe what mischeefe he can, except he will refuse to beleeue. To this Master Hanmer answereth; that all sinnes proceade of the roote of incredulitie, as al good workes from the roote of faith: but this you will not vnderstand, and bring in a contradiction of Master Charkes, which doth pronounce, that in wordes and matter, you reporte an open vntruth. And so you doe, for any thing that you bring in your defense. For Lu­ther saieth not absolutely, but in comparison, that there [Page 198] is no sinne, but vnbeleefe, as our sauiour Christ sayth to the Pharisies, if you were blinde, you should haue no sinne; and ofIoh 9. 41.the obstinate Iewes; If I had not come and spoken vnto them, they should haue had no sinne. If I had not done those workes, among them, which no other could doe, they should haue had Ioh. 15. 22. 14.no sinnes. Luthers meaning is therefore, that vnbeleefe is the greatest, and onelie sinne, that damneth a man, because all other sinns are forgiuen to him that belee­ueth & is baptized, according to the promise of god. Se­condlie, where Luther speaketh expresselie of a Christi­an baptized, you say simplie, a man: where he saith, with any sianes, how great soeuer; you sate, doe what mischeefe he can. And as for your blasphemous collection, that a man cannot leese his saluation, if he would neuer so faine, &c. and that he may doe what he will, so he fall not into incredulitie; Luther him-selfe in three wordes, sheweth how farre it is from his meaning, in his answere to the gathe­rers of errours out of his doctrine, which delt more ho­nestlie with him, then you. For they said, Baptizatum etiam volentem, &c. that the baptized man, though he be willing. cannot leese his saluation: Luther answereth, Quia fides tollis omnia peccara, & facit volentem non pecca re. Rom. 1. because faith taketh awaie all sinnes, and maketh a man willing not to sinne. For euen in his booke de captiui­tate Bab. he addeth this condition, which you doe fraudulentlie omitte. Siredeat, vel [...] fides, if faith doe returne or stand. For by the same faith or rather the trueth of Gods promise, all other sinnes are swallowed vp; because God cannot denie him selfe, if thou shalt confesse him, and cleaue faithfullie vnto him that promiseth. To conclude, faith and good workes be vn­seperable: and the faithfull man, although by corruption of nature, he is apt dailie to fall away from God, into most greeuous sinnes, yet by grace he is either preserued from heinous sinnes, or els he is brought to repentance, and sorrow for the same. So that Luthers doctrine of faith and vnbeleefe, if it be [Page 199] vnderstood rightlie, as he doth often expiicate him­selfe, is full of comfort to a troubled conscience, yet giueth not bridle to sinne or carnall libertie. And ther­fore, howsoeuer you wrest his wordes from his mean­ing, you shew yourselfe no lesse an impudent liar, then the false witnesses, that deposed against our sauiour Christ, that he said: destroie this temple, and within three dayes I will raise it againe: which wordes in deede he spake, but not in that sense, they deposed: and ther­fore are condemned by the holie ghost, as liars, and false witnes bearers. Luther saith, onely infidelitie is the trouble of the conscience: because there is nothing but sinne and damnation, where there is no faith: you conclude, that nothing is sinne, but vnbeleefe. whereas in vnbeleefe there is nothing but sinne: and being iustified Rom. 14. 23. Rom. 5. 1. Rom. 8. 1.by faith, we haue peace with god. And there is no condemna­tion to them that are in Christ Iesus, who walke not after the flesh, but after the spirit. Againe, where 'Luther saith, that nothing maketh a wickedman, but infidelitie, because it is the roote of all wickednes, and bringeth with it all wicked­nes, you conclude, that no other sinne maketh a man wicked: which is true, if it be vnderstood of him that hath faith. & is truly penitent for his sinne, & hath it pardoned by Gods mercie. For to such one, though his sinns were as Esa. 1. redde as scarlet, they are made as white as wol, neither is he to be called Prauns, a wicked man, but rectus, or iustus, a right or a iust man, who shall liue by his faith.

The second doctrine is so manifest a cauill, that you doe in a manner acknowledge a satisfaction, both by Master Hanmer, and Master Charke, onelie you would haue it considered, how these wordes of Luther do sound in the eares of the people. The: enne commaun­dements appertaine nothing to vs. As though Luther did sette downe this Aphorisme so barelie, that he did not plainlie declare his meaning. For this he saith in his sermon, intituled, how the bookes of Moses are to be read with fruite. Doctorem sanè, &c. truely we doe receiue and ac­knowledge [Page 200] Moses as a teacher, of whome we learne much pro­fitable doctrine, as after shal be said: but we do not acknow­ledge him to be a law giuer or a gouernour, sithe he him-selfe restrained his ministerie to that people onelie. Againe in an­swer to this question, Why the tenne commaundements are to be obserued of vs, Seeing Moses pertaineth not vnto vs, he saith. Sed inquis, &c. but thou saiest, certainlie the commanndements of Moses (that is of God) are these, not to haue straunge Gods, to feare god, to trust him, and obeie him, not to abuse his name. to giue honour to parentes, not to kill, not to steals, not to commit adulterie, not to beare false witnesse, &c. is it not necessarie that we obserue these things: I answere, they are to be oserued of all men, and they pertaine to all men, not because they were commaunded by Moses, but because these lawes, that are rehearsed in the tenne commaundements, are written in the nature of men. For God hath imprinted these notices in all men, euen in their creation. Wherefore euen the gentiles, to whome Moses was unknowen, and to whome God hath not spoken, as to them, do know that God is to be o­beyed, God is to be called vpon, parentes are to be honoured. men must adstaine from murther and iniurie of others, &c. be­cause these thinges displease God, and are punished of him. In the end he concludeth thus: Dico igitur seruanda esse hee [...] decalogi, &c. 1 saie therefore, that these ion commaundementes are to be obserued, not because Moses hath [...] them (which thing pertained to that people one. lie) but because all men haue these knowledges imprinted in nature, with which Moses also agreeth. If this be not sufficient, to declare his iudgement to be farre from abolishing of the morall law, I reporre me to you. Now whether the ten commaundements appartaine more to Christians, then to gentiles, or Iewes, we will not [...] at this time. Howsoeuer it be, Luther saith not (as you conclude) that by this meanes they should no more appertaine to vs, then to gentiles, in whose nature also they were written: But rather the contrarie maie be con­cluded by good Logick, out of Luthers reason: If they [Page 201] did appertaiue to the gentiles, because they were wri­ten in their nature: much more to Christians, in whose heart they are written also by the spirit of god. What shall I saie more? the Lord shall destroy all deceit­full lippes, and the tongue that speaketh proudiie. Psal. 12.

Thirdlie, you reporte that Luther said: It is a false opinion, and to be abolished, that there are. 4. Gospels. For the Gospell of Iohn is the onelie faire, true, and principall Gospel. For this you cited his preface in nouum Testamentum. which Master Charke cannot finde, nor anie man els that I heare of, in latine. You saie, it is not your fault. At the least it is your fault, that in so straunge a report you haue not sette downe his wordes in latine, if euer you sawe the preface your selfe. As for the cor­rupt edition, or often chaungeing of Luthers workes by him-selfe we haue not to do with it: for whie might not Luther reforme his owne workes, if ought in them were erronius or offensiue? But it is a cauill that you adioyne, of the confession of Auspurg, whereunto the Ger­manes perhaps ascribe too much, as Alasco writeth: For though there be diuers editions thereof, differing in wordes, yet are they not contrarie in sense, as appeareth by the harmonie of confessions, latelie set forth at Gencua. Now sir, so much as we finde sounding toward your reporte, I will sette downe, that the rea­der maie iudge, how vprightlie you do charge Luther with denying three of the foure Gospells. Enarrat. in epist. Petri argumentum: Primùm omnium notandum, &c. First of all it is to be noted, that all the Apostles do handle the same doctrine, for which cause it is not well done, that men do number but onelie foure Euangelistes, and foure Gospells, whereas whatsoeuer the Apostles haue left written, is one Gospell. For the Gospell signifieth nothing els but the preaching, and publishing of the grace and mercie of God, by our Lord Christ deserued, and purchased to vs by his death: and that thou maiest take it properlie, it is not that which is conteined in bookes, and is comprehended in letters; [Page 202] but rather a vocall preaching, and a liuing worde, and voyce, which soundeth into the wholl world, and is so openly blowen out like a trumpet, that it may be heard euerie where, neither is it a booke, which conteineth a law, in which are many good do­ctrines, as it hath beene commonlie taken heretofore: for it doth not commaund vs to worke any thing, where by we may be­come iust, but it sheweth vnto vs the grace of God freelie, and giuen without our meritte, namelie that Christ hath beene our mediatour, and hauing made satisfaction for our sinnes, hath abolished them, and made vs iust, and saued by his workes. Now whoesoeuer doth either preach, or write these thinges, he tea­cheth the true Gospell, that which all the Apostles, and peculi­arlie Saint Paull, and Saint Peter in their Epistles haue per­formed. Therefore whatsoeuer is preached of Christ, is one Gos­pell, although one handle it after one manner, an other man af­ter another, & in diuerse manner of wordes, do reason of it. For the matter may be handled, either in long, or in short speach, and be described either streightlie, or largelie. But seeing all perteineth to this end, to teach Christ, to be our sauiour, and that we are made iust, and saued by faith in him, without our workes, it is one word, it is one Gospell, as there is but one faith onelie, and one baptisme in all the Church of Christ. Therefore thoureadest nothing writen by any of the Aposties, which is not conteined in the monuments of the other Apostles. But they which haue handled this point especiallie, and with greater di­ligence, that faith alone in Christ doth iustifie, they are the best Euangelistes of all. And in this respect you may more rightlie call the Epistles of Paul the Gospel, then those which Matthew, Marke, and Luke haue written. For these men describe not much beside the storie of the Acts, and miracles of Christ. But the grace which is wrought vnto vs by Christ, none doth sette forth more fullie, or more rightlie, then Saint Paul, especiallie in the Epistle to the Romanes. Now seeing there is much more moment in the word, then in the factes, and miracles of Christ, and if we should want the one, it were much better to lacke the Acts, and history, then the word and doctrine; it followeth that shose bookes are to be had in highest price, which handle the [Page 203] doctrine cheeflie, and the wordes of our Lord Iesus Christ. See­ing that if there were no miracles of Christ extant, and we were altogether ignorant of them, the words were sufficient for vs, without the which we could not so much as liue. Therefore hereof it followeth, that this Epistle of Saint Peter is to be ac­counted among the most excellent bookes of the new testament, and is the true, and pure Gospell, as in which he doth nothing els, but that which Paul, and the other Euangelists do, teaching sincere faith, that Christ is giuen vnto vs, which hauing taken away our offences, doth saue vs, &c. This that he speaketh, naming Matthew, Marke, and Luke (say you) signifieth some tooth against these three Gospells. And what tooth I pray you? because these three Gospells speake too much of good workes. As though S. Paul in his Epistles, and namelie in that to the Romanes, doth not speake as much of good workes, as all those three Gospells: and Saint Peter, though breeflie, doe not speake as much in ef­fect. But in the preface in question, you affirme that Luther hath these wordes: The Epistles of Paul, and Pe­ter, doe farre passe the Gospells of Matthew, Marke, and Luke, which yet more prooueth Luthers euill opinion of those three Gospells. I doubtnot (albeit I neuer sawe the pre­face my selfe) but Luther doth plainlie expresse, in what respect the Epistles of Paul and Peter doe ex­cell the histories of the Gospell, written by Matthew, Marke, and Luke, euen as he doth in this preface vn­to his exposition of Saint Peter: Because these Epi­stles are more occupied, in setting forth the Grace of Christ, and the fruit, and benefit of his passion; which no more prooueth his euill opinion of those three Gospells, then when Christ preferreth Iohn the Baptist before al the Prophets, it prooueth his euil opinion of all the Prophets: or when he preferreth him, that is least in the kingdome of heauen, before Iohn Baptist, it prooueth his euil opinion of Iohn Baptist. These brutish Papists thinke all men voide of common sense, when they make such impudent conclusions.

As for your first charge, that it is a false opinion, and to be abolished, that there are foure ghospels: For the ghospell of S. Iohn is the onely faire, true, and principall ghospell: when you can alledge the words of Luther in latine, to iusti­fie your report, and, because we know not how to come to the sight of that preface, will set downe two senten­ces, that goe before them, and as manie that followe them, you shall receiue a reasonable answere. But vn­till you haue thus much performed, I am perswaded, you wil be as farre to seeke, as Campian was for his re­porre of Luther, that he should call the Epistle of Saint Iames Stramineam, strawie, or like strawe. And yet you take vppon you to shew the intollerable impudencie of Ma­ster Chark, and his fellowes in the Tower, against Master Cam­pian, for that he could not presentlie shew out of their bookes, where these wordes are written by Luther; especiallie of Ma­ster Whitaker (whoe to the admiration, and laughter of all o­ther nations) hath set forth in latine, that Luther neuer called the Epistle of Saint Iames Stramineam. And I pray you good sir, where doth Luther so call it? For admitting your reporte of his wordes (Iacobi autem epistola pre illis straminea est: the epistle of Iames in comparison of those of Peter, and Paul is like strawe, or but strawie) we finde not yet that he doth so call it absolutelie, but in compari­son; which may be done without contempt, or re­proch: As when the Apostle saith, the law hath but a Heb. 10. shadow of good thinges to come; he meaneth not, that the law to alintents, & purposes, is nothing but a shadow, for then it should be a vaine thing, but in compari­son of the truth exhibited in the Gospell. The intolle­rable impudency therefore is yours, and your fellows, and the laughter, and admiration of all nations (if all nations may heare of your shameles follie) may be a­gainst you, rather then Master Whitaker, that blush not to say absolutelie, Luther called the epistle strawy, when he spake onelie in respect, and comparison of greater plentie, of more waightie matter, in the Epi­stles [Page 205] of Peter, and Paul, then in that of Iames.

But the matter presseth Master Whittaker verie heauily, for that he being a reader in diuinitie, could not choose but haue read those wordes alledged by learned men, aboue a hund­dred times, against Luther. As though he is bound to be­leeue, whatsoeuer he readeth by papistes alledged a­gainst him. In deede this siaunder of Luthers reie­cting that Epistle, and calling it strawie, is often thrust in, by Popish writers, yet without alledgeing the place where, or the wordes in which it is written. Prateolus out of Lindane of late hath sette it forth in Lib. 10. these wordes: eam non modò reiecit epistolam ceu canone in­dignam, sed contumeliosissimè quo (que) appellauit. Praealiis ve­rè stramineam, quòd nihilipsius iudicio haberet Euangelicae indolis. He did not onelie reiect that episile, as vnworthie to be in the Canon, but also moste contumeliouslie, hath called it in comparison of other, verilie of strawe, because in his iudge­ment it had nothing of Gospellike nature in it. In the pre­face in Dutch whereof you speake, we neither finde this word verilie, or truelie, nor anie reiection of this epistle, or anie such iudgement of Luther expressed, that should containe in it nothing that sauoreth of the Gospell. You see therefore what credit is to be giuen to Popish writers in their reports against Luther. Now whether Saint Iohn did speake lesse of good workes in his Gos­pell, then the other three Euangelistes, you handle a vaine question, when you confesse, that Iohn writing by the same spirit, could not but haue manie thinges to the same effect. Neither are you hable to sette downe those wordes of Luther. our of which it maie be proo­ued, either that Luther affirmed, that the Gospell of Iohn was the onelie true Gospell: or that the other three were to be reiected, or mishked, because they spake too much of good workes: so that you remaine stil, forany defense you haue brought, a famous liet, & animpudent slaunderer.

The fourth doctrine of Luther you reported to be this: [Page 206] If anie woman can not, or will not proue by order of the lawe the insufficiency of hir husband, let her request at his handes a diuorse, or els (by his consent) let her priuelie lie with his bro­ther, or some other man. Master Charke answered, that this was Luthers counsel, while he was a Papist, which he reuoked after his conuersion. For this you charge him with such wilfull and shamefull dishonestie, as can not be excused: and aske how he will looke his owne friendes in the face hereafter? with such fonde insultation against him, as was vsed in the preface, whereunto hath sufficientlie beene answered, to dis­couer your impudencie. For Luther would not reuoke his former counsell, saie you, but do farre worsse, namelie take the man by she lockes, and touze him, except he did it. Wher­as in plaine trueth, Luther meaneth nothing els, but to compell such a man, to an open diuorse, as I shew­ed in answer to the preface, and as the woll discours of Luthers wordes shall make plaine, euen to a partiall reader. Serm. de matr, speaking of the causes of diuorse, Priores autem quos Christus ex matris vtero, &c. The former sort, whome Christ saith to be borne eunuches from their mo­thers wombe, are those, which are called impotent, which by nature are vnable for procreation, and multiplying, In whome coldnes, and infirmities do exceede; or els are so affe­cted in bodie, that they are not meete for the life, that is in ma­trimonie: such as a man maie finde both men and women. These as exempted by God, and so created, as they are not par­takers of the blessing of generation and multiplying, are to be put awaie. For in them there is left no place for that word of God, increase, and multiplie: euen as if God had made some lame, or blinde, which are free from walking, or seeing. Con­cerning such, a great while a goe, I committed to writing a counsell for confessours, which they should vse, if the husband or wife came to them, to aske counsel what they should do, for as much as their yoke fellow is not able to render the due bene­uolence; and yet the other partie can not be without it, when he feeleth sufficientlie, that the creature of God in him-selfe to [Page 207] be of habilitie. Then they slaundered me that I taught thus: that if the husband can not satisfie his wiues wantonnes, she ought to flie from him to another. But I suffered those froward triflers to lie. The sayinges of Christ and his Apostles were peruerted, and made worse: what maruaile if the same thing happen to me? But who shal be hurt thereby, they them-selues shall see at the length. Therefore after this manner I gaue counsell. If to a woman meete for the matter, there do happen a husband that is impotent, and she can not openlie be marri­ed to another man, and she vnwillinglie went against the com­mon vsage, and would not haue her credit and fame to be ob­scured, whereas in this case the Pope requireth without cause manie witnesses, that she should speake to her hus­band after this manner; Beholde my husband, you cannot ren­der vnto me the due beneuolence, and you haue deceiued me, and my youthfull bodie, beside this you haue brought me into perill of my good name, and health, or saluation, neither is there before God anie matrimonie betweene vs. Fauour me I praie you, that I maie contract a secret matrimonie with your brother, or your next of kinne, so that you may haue the name, that your goodes maie not passe to strange heires, and suffer your selfe willinglie to be deceiued by me, as you haue deceiued me, against my will. I proceeded also further, that the husband in this case ought to assent vnto his wife, and by that meanes, to yeelde vnto her the due beneuolence, and hope of issue. And if that he refused, that she by secret flight should prouide for hir owne safegarde, and goeing into an other countrie, be married to an other man. Such counsell I gaue euen them, when as yet the feare of Antichrist did holde me. But now my minde were to giue farre other counsell, and to such a husband which should with such craft beguile a woman, I would laie hand on his lockes, and pull him vehementlie, as the prouerb is. And the same I iudge of the woman, although it be more rare, then in men. For it auaileth not anie thing to defraud the neighbour, in such waightie causes, as touch the bodie, substance, credit, and happines: it were needfull, that he should be commaunded no tably to pay for such deceitfulnes. [Page 208] Thus farre Luthers wordes truelie translated. How say you now? is not this sufficient to declare Luthers minde, that he would reuoke his former counsell of priuie contract, or flying awaie, and compell the par­tie to an open diuorse?

But if anie man thinke this is not sufficient, you shall heare what he writeth further, concerning this matter, while he rehearseth how many causes in Po­perie are allowed for diuorces? Decima quarta est, quam supra recensui, simaritus & vxor impotentes, & euirati: at (que) haec estynica inter octodecim illas causas, que admatrimonium dissipandum sufficit, quanquam & ipsa [...] obstringatur legibus, priusquam tyranni earn permittant. The fourteenth cause is that which I rehearsed before, if the husband, and wife be impotent and vnapt for generation: and this is the one­lie cause among these eighteene cause, which is sufficient to dissolue the matrimonie, although the same also be bound with many conditions, before the tyrantes will permit it. And yet againe speaking of those causes, which he him-selfe allowed for diuorcement, he saieth: Quae nune personae segregari queant intersese, videbimus. Tres ergo causas no­ui, ob quas diuortium fieri potest, prima, quae iam & in superi­oribus recitataest, cùm marious & vxor impotentes ad rem fuerint, membrorum, aut naturae causa, &c. Now what per­sons may be separated one from an other, we will see. Three causes I knowe for which there may be diuorce. The first, when the husband and the wife are impotent, and vnhable for the matter, through cause of their members, or nature, howsoeuer that may be, of which sufficient hath beene spoken. Is not all this as plaine as can be, that Lutherspeaketh of a di­uorce necessarie to be had in that case? As also in the same sermon afterward he teacheth, that all diuorces are to be made by publike authoritie, and with the knowledge, and consent both of the common wealth, & of the Church, or of one of them at the least. There­fore that I maie rightlie vse your owne wordes against you, which you doe vniustlie abuse against M. Charke; [Page 209] Can this be excused from extreame impudencie, and most will­full falsehoode against your owne conscience? Defend this if you can, with all the helpes, and deuises of your fellowes: er els let the reader, by this one point of open dishonestie discouered, iudge of the rest of your dealings, and slaunderings of vs without all conscience, both in your sermons, and in your bookes, &c.

Now whether he were a Papist or noe, when he gaue this first counsell to such as heard shrift, you moue the questi­on, and conclude against his plaine wordes (as it seemeth) that he was none. Well, let vs heare your rea­sons. First, you saie, that many yeares after his conuersion, he sloode in feare of the Pope, and said nothing against con [...]es­sion. How many yeares, I beseech you? For as soone as the Pope excommunicated him, and condemned his writings, to be burned at Rome, he did open lie burne the Popes Canon law at Wittemberge, which was, An­no Dom. 1520. before that time he acknowledged the Popes authoritie, and humblie submitted him-selfe to his Censure, if either the grosse abuse of pardons might haue beene reformed, or he him selfe con­uinced by the scriptures to haue erred. But from that time, he neuer stoode in awe of the Pope, as that o­pen fact declared, and there had passed but foure yeares before, since he first began to inueigh against the abuse of pardons.

Your second reason is, that it appeareth evidentlie, by his wholl discourse in the place alledged, where he saith plain­lie (beside other things) that the Papists did seeke advantage against him for this opinion of his, and to that ende did misre­porte his wordes. The wholl discouse I haue set downe, that you may see how euidentlie it appeareth. For that the Papists did slaunder him, it is graunted, but there­bie it doth not euidentlie appeare, that Luther at that time was no Papist. For doth not one Papist slaunder another sometime? was there not spight and malice betweene friers of other orders, against them of that order that Luther was of, & especially the Dominicans, [Page 210] which might cause them to peruert his words & mean­ing. As for other things beside, and seeking aduantage against him for this opinion, you sucked out of your fingers ends: for in the wholl discourse there is no such matter.

Your third reason is, that Papists teach no such doctrine, but cleane contrarie: as though some Papists haue not their priuate opinions, which are not generallie re­ceiued. Neither is there any thing in substance, but in circumstance, contrary to the Papists doctrine, in that counsell of Luthers. For the Papists in the case of im­potencie, or frigiditie, doe graunt a diuorce, which Luther thought, without triall of law, might be made by priuate consent, or in case of the impotent persons dislent, by voluntarie departing of the other: so that this reason disproueth him not to haue beene a Pa­pist at that time, any more then the rest.

The fourth reason is, that putting such a thing in writing, he should haue beene resisted presentlie, if he had bene of your Church. But that followeth not, especiallie if the writing were not publike, but priuate to a fewe gostlie fathers, perhaps of his owne order, and house, and his aduise, or opinion onelie, not a matter obsti­natelie defended. And yet it appeareth, that is was notwel brooked, whē his enimies had an inkeling of it.

Your last reason is, that it appeareth by his owne wordes, and the computation of time, when he wrote this booke, that he had left Papistrie a good while before. In deede if you can conuince vs by his owne wordes, that he had left Pa­pistrie, when he gaue this counsell, you haue some ad­uantage against Master Charke; but that is yet to come. As for the computation of time, in which he wrote this sermon of Matrimonie, wil not helpe you to prooue, that he was no Papist, when he wrote the shrifte aduise. For he speaketh of it as of matter that was verie olde, olim, he saieth, long agoe. For the booke was written much about the time of his mariage, which was fiue yeare after his open renouncing of the [Page 211] Pope; before which time, he was a Papist, though in some points he began to espie the grosse errors of Pa­pistrie.

But as though you had not done him iniury enough alreadie, you adde, that in an other place he sayeth, that if a man haue ten wiues, or more fledde from him vppon like cau­ses, he may take more: and so may wiues doe the like in hus­bandes. Whereupon Alberus, one of your owne religion no­teth, that Iohannes Leidensis, tooke many wiues, and one Knipperdolling tooke thirteene for his parte, so that this do­ctrine was not onelie taught, but also practized vpon Luthers authority. I wil here like wiseset down the whol discourse of Luther, in the place by you quoted, Exegesi ad c. 7. ep. 1. ad Cor. that the world may see, whether there be a sparke of honestie, or shamefastnes in Papists, that make such impudent reports, which may so easilie be disprooued. For that which Luther speaketh of ten wiues fled from him, is in a farre other cause, then the cause of impotencie, and nothing in the world fauou­reth the pluralitie of wiues, practized by the Anapab­tistes, whatsoeuer Alberus, or any other hath written, of whome there is iust cause to dout what he bath writ­ten, because you are so false, almost in all your reports of writers of our side. As for the Anapabtistes, it is cer­taine they practised not their polygamie vpon Luthers authoritie, whome they did vtterlie abhoore, and in o­pen printed books accounted him for a notable false teacher. Againe, it is not like, that Alberus beeing a Lutherane, would father so grosse a lie vpon Luthers authoritie.

But let the reader marke what Luther writeth vp­pon these wordes of the text, but if the vnfaithful depart, let him departe: a brother or sister, is not in bondage subiect to such. Hoc loci Paulus (saith he) fidelem coniugatum sen­tentiam pro illo ferendo liberat, vbi infidelis compar dis­cesserit, aut concedere non vult vt Christum sequatur, ei (que) co­piare facit iterum cum alio matrimonium contrahendi. Quòd [Page 212] verò hic diuus Paulus de Ethnico compare dicit, idem & de falso Christiano intelligendum est, vs si alter coniugum alterum ad impietatem adigeret, necilli permitteret Christum vita imitari, tum liber hic sit & solutus, vt quicum libuerit se despondeat. Quòd si hoc Christiano iure non liceret, cogere­tur fidelis infidelem suam comparem sequi, vel inuitus repug­nante natura & viribus suis caelebs permanere, magno cum animae suae periculo. Id ipsum D. Paulus his denegat, inquiens: Quòd si eiusmodi frater, aut soror, seruituti non sit obnoxius, ne (que) captus, ne (que) venundatus sit: ac si dicat, in aliis causis, v­biconiuges vnâ commorantur, vt in debita coniugij beneuo­lentia, & id genus similibus, alter alteri obligatus est, nec sui [...] est. In [...] vbi alter alterum ad impiam vitam cogit, vel ab altero discedit, ibiverò non est captiuus, ne (que) [...] isti adhaerere porrò. Quòd si captiuus non tenetur, libera­tus & manumissus [...], despondere se alters potest, velutisi matrimonio coniuncius sibimortem oppetiissit. Quid, si & [...] coniugium non opportunè cederes, vt alter alterum, maritus vxorem, vel è contra, gentium in morem, adeo (que) im­piè viuere cogeret, vel si alter ab altero fugeret, donec tertium, [...] quartum coniugium attingeretur, dareturne viro toties [...] ducere, quoties alia eiusmodi (vt iam dictum est) esset, vt decem, velplures [...] viuentes transfugas haberet? Et rursum, licebitne vxori dectm, aut plures, qui iam omnes [...], esse maritos? Responsio: D. Paulo non possumus ob­struere os, ne (que) cumillo [...] eius doctrina: quoties neces­sum fuerit, vti volunt, verba eius aperta sunt, Fratrem aut sororem liberos esse a coniugij lege, si alter discesserit, vel cum hoc habitare non consenserit. Ne (que) vt semeltantùm stat hoc, dicit, sed liberum relinquit, vt quottes res postularit, vel per­gat, vel consistat. Neminem enim incontinentiae discrimine couictum vult, vt eo captus teneatur alienae temeritatis & malitiae causa.

In this place Paul setteth at libertie the faithfull maried person, geuing sentence one his side: where the vnfaithfull match shall departe, or will not graunt, that the other may follow Christ, and giueth him leaue to contracte matrimony [Page 213] with another. And that Saint Paul here sayeth of a heathen yokefellow, the same is to be vnderstood of a false Christian, that if any of the maryed persons, would compell this other to impie­tie, and not permit to follow Christ in life, then is the party free to match in maryage with whome he listeth. Which thing if it were not lawfull by Christian right, the faithfll man should be compelled to followe his vnfaithfullmate, or els against his wil, his nature and strength repugning, to remaine vnmaried with great daunger of his soule. But that Saint Paull here denieth, saying, in such, a brother or a sister is not subiect to bondage, nor captiue, nor solde as a slaue: as if he said: in other causes, where man and wife dwell together, as in the due beneuolence of mariage, and such like cases, the one is bound to the other, and is not at libertie. But in such, where the one compelleth the other to impietie, or departeth awaie, there the other is not captiue, nor compelled to cleaue to this person anie longer. And if he be not holden as a captiue, he is set at libertie, and made free, he may betroth himselfe to an other, as if the other party, that was ioyned in matrimonie to him, were dead. But what if the second mariage fall not outrightly, that the one would com­pell the other, the husband the wife, or contrariwise, to liue af­ter the manner of the Gentiles, and that impiouslie, or if the one fledde from the other, vntill the third or forth mariage were come vnto, should the husband haue license so often to mary a new wife, as the other is such a one, as we haue said alreadie, so that he should haue tenne, or more wiues [...] awaie from him, & yet liuing? And againe, shall it be lawfull for the wife to haue tenne or more husbands which are all come awaie from hit? The answer. We cannot stoppe Saint Paules mouth, nor wrestle against him they that will vse his doctrine, his words are plaine, that a brother, or a sister are free from the lawe of wed­lock, if the one depart, or do not consent to dwell with the other. Neither doth he say, that this may be done once onelie, but lea­ueth it free, that as often as the case shall require he may [...] proceede, or stay. For he will haue none to be cast into the daun­ger of incontinencie; that he should be holden in [...] thereby, through cause of the rashnes, or malice of another.

By this long discourse of Luthers own words, let the reasonable reader iudge, what occasion the Anabap­tistes might iustlie take, to defend their beastlie keep­ing of many women together, vnder the cloake of ma­riage, by his authority, or what carnall liberty of mari­age Luther graunteh, otherwise then the Apostle allow­eth, in the case of the infidels departure. Albert he put the case of the second, third, fourth, tenth, or more, be­inginfidelis, or false Christians, which is altogether vn­likely, and almoste vnpossible to come to passe. For he that is once ridde of an vnfaithfull match, being him­selfe a good Christian, will not [...] take a wife, but of Christian Religion, and if he be deceuid twise, it were mōstrous that he should be deceiued in his third choise. But if he should wilfullie and wittinglie match with so manie knowne heathen women, it would breed another case then Luther speaketh of, and he were worthie to be cut of from the congregation of Christi­ans, as one that sheweth him-selfe to be a dissembling hypocrite, rather then a faithful Christian.

The fift doctrine that you reported of Luther is, that if the wife will not come, les the maide come. Which M. Chark hath answered sufficientlie to be spoken of a third cause of diuorce, when the woman shall obstinatelle refuse hir husbandes companie, But this you saie cannot be ex­cused, either by M. Hanmers shameles denial, or by M. Charks impertinent interpretation. For you saie, that this was practised in Germanie, to all kind of lasciuiousnes, yea among the Ministers them selues, as Sebastian Flaske, sometime a Lutheran Preacher doth testifie. Here is vpon the testimo­nie of a lewd baudie knaues confession of his owne fil­thines, for which it is like that he was banished frō the Church, and so becam a papist, a slaunder raised vpon the wholl ministery, yea vpon the wholl nation of Ger­manes, that professe Luthers Doctrine, that by autho­ritie of Luthers writting, they vse to call their maides to bed, when their wiues will not come, &c. But to iu­stifie [Page 215] Master Charkes interpretation, and to let the reader see the intolerable impudencie of this wret­ched defender, I will set downe, as I haue done in the rest, Luthers wordes concerning the matter in questi­on more at large; by which it may appeare, that Ma­ster Hanmer might iustlie denie the wordes to be Lu­thers, where they were drawne so farre from his mea­ning. After he hath shewed three causes of diuorce, in his iudgement, the first being impotencie, the second ad­ulterie, & the third desertion, or forsaking, he speaketh ofit in these words: Tertia ratio est, vbi alter alteri sese subdux­erit, vt debitam beneuolentiam persoluere nolit, au: habitareSerm. [...] trimon.cum [...]. Reperiuntur enim interdum adeò pertinaces vxores, quae etiamsidecies in libidinem prolaberetur mari­tus, pro sua duritia non curarent. Hic [...] est, vt ma­ritus dicat, Si tunolueris, alia voler: si domina nolit, adueni­at ancilla: it a tamen, vt antea, iterum, & tertiò vxorem ad­moneat maritus, & coram aliis eius esiam pertinaciam de­tegat, vt publicè, & ante conspectum Ecclesiae, duritia eius, & agnoscatur, & reprehendasur. Situm renuat, repudiae eam, & in vicem Vasthi, Esther surroga, Assueriregis exemplo. Porro hîc tu Diui Pauli. 1. Cor. 7. imitaris verbis, mari­tus proprij corporis potestatem non habet, sed vxor. Et vxer sui corporis ius non habet, sed maritus. Ne fraudetis vos mu­tuò, niss vterque consenserit. Ecce [...] hîc fraudem [...] Apostolus. Nam in desponsione, alter alteri corpus [...] tradit, ad matrimonij obsequium: vbi ergo alter debitum ob­sequium negat, tum alteri corpus [...] deditum spoliat, & vi aufert, quod propriè coniugij repugnat iuri, immo & coniugi­um dissipat. Igitur hanc vxorem cohihere magistratus est, at­que interimere. Hoc si [...] magistratus, imaginandum est marito suam [...] vxorem à Latronibus raptam, & interfe­ctam esse, confiderandumque vt aliam ducat. Ferendum est aliquando, vt [...] [...] tollatur, spolieturque corpus, & tollerandum non est, si vxor sese marito ipsademat, & praede­tur, aut ab aliis adimatur. The third way is, when the one with­draweth himselfe from the other, so that he will not pay the due [Page 216] beneuolence, or refuseth to dwel with the other. For there are found women sometimes so obstinat, that although their hus­bands should ten times fall into filthie lust, such is their hard­nes that they would not care. Here now it is good time for the husband to saie, if thou [...] not, another will: if the mistres will not, let the maide come: but yet so, that the husband before do admonish his wife, the second, and third time, and discouer her [...] also before other men, that openlie, and before the sight of the Church, her hardnes may be knowne, & repre­hended. If then she refuse, be thou deuorced from hir, and in steed of Vasthi, take Ester, by the example of King Asuerus, and in this case thou maiest leane vnto the wordes of Saim Paule 1. Cor. 7. the husband hath not the power of his owne bodie, but his wife, and the wife hath none authoritie of hir owne bodie, but hir husband. Doe not defraud one another, ex­cept it be by consent of both. Beholde the Apostle here forbid­deth fraud one both partes. For in their betrothing they de­liuer their bodies one to the other, to the seruice of matrimo­nie. Therefore where the one denieth the due seruice, then he robbeth, & taketh away by force his body, which he hath giuen to another, which is properly repugnant to the right of mariage, yea and dissolueth the mariage. Therefore it is the Magistrates dutie to bridle his wife. yea and to put hir to death. This if the magistrat omit, the husband must imagine that his wife is stollen awaie and slaine by theeues, and consider how to marie another. Is it to be borne at any time, that a man should be spoiled, and robbed of his owne bodie? and is it to be tollera­ted, if the wife doe take awaie, and steale hir selfe from hir husband, or be taken awaie by other?

Now (reader) it is thy part to iudge, whether Master Charke haue made an im pertinent interpretation of Luthers wordes, and whether any practize of such las­cuiuiousnes as was touched, can be defended by this do­ctrine of Luther. Last of all, whether there be anie ho­nestie in the defender, that faseth out the matter still, as though Luther spake not of a cause of diuorce, but of licentious lecherie, to be committed with the maid, [Page 217] so often as her mistres should chaunce to refuse her husbandes companie, vppon anie occasion: yea he rubbeth his forehead hardlie, and saith to Master Charke, when you are not ashamed to defend the doctrine, ye are more bolde then the Lutheranes them-selues, who for verie shame do suppresse the Germaine booke, wherein it was written, as Cromerus a Germane testifieth.

If the Lutheranes had beene so ashamed of the do­ctrine, as you saie they were, whie suffer they the latine booke to be so often printed? As for suppressing of the Germane booke, for verie shame, you are not a­ble to prooue it: for how could they suppresse it, if it were once printed, aud distracted? if they haue kept it in, being neuer sette forth, whie did they not as well in translation resorme so grosse an ouersight? But it sufficeth you, that anie Papist hath belied Luther: for such a testimonie is sufficient euidence with you to con demne him. And yet this opinion of Luther, that such obstinacie of the wife is a sufficient cause of diuorce, is not de­fended by Master Charke, more then by Smideline. aud whether Luther did euer retract it or no, I know not. And albeit he did not, yet is it not so grosse, as that of the Papistes, which you defend, as true and al­lowed by al laws of nature, ciuill, & Canon, that he which mar­rieth a bonde woman vnwittinglie, may be diuorced from her. When our sauiour Christ acknowledgeth no cause of diuorce, detweene persons apt for mariage, butone­lie adulterie.

The inconueniences, that you alledge, of her bodie in bondage, her issue bonde, whereof the father can not haue the education, &c. are better auoided by buying the bond­woman of her Lord, then by breaking of Christes law so expresselie, and peremptorilie sette downe in the Gospell. Vnto which saile the Lord maie be compel­led, by the Christian magistrate. But in case he be not vnder a Christian gouernour, or the husband not able to pay the price, he were better be in bondage [Page 218] him-selfe, yea leese his life, then so wilfullie to com­mit adulterie, by marrying another. The other cause of diuorcement, for couetousnes or other greeuous sinne, which is spirituall fornication, you answer, that it was but the saying of one man: as though Luther were manie men, or the master of the sentences were not as great a man among you, as Luther is with vs.

Where you conclude out of Thomas Aquine, that the knotte of mariage is not dissolued, because Lum­bardes wordes are, demittere eam, that is, dismisse her from his companie, you make a sound arguments for the verie same word he vseth in the case of a bond­woman, which you confesse to dissolue the knotte: his words are these, Si nescitur esse seruilis conditionis, liberē potest dimitti. If it be not knowne that she was of seruile con­dition, [...]. 4. dist. 36.she maie be freelie put awaie. And in the 39. distin­ction, he expresseth his minde plainlie, in what case the knotte is dissolued, and in what case it is not.

The last foure doctrines you huddle vp together, vpon a false pretense, that Master Charke doth graunt The sixt pointe. them as they lie, and think them sound inough to stand with the Gospell. For touching the first, that matrimonie is much more excellens then virginitie, Master Charke in deede noteth certaine thinges, in respect whereof mariage excelleth virginitie; which you can not con­fute: yet refuseth to stand vpon the comparison, say­ing, they are both good: yet neither good for all, but mariage for him that can not conteine; and virgini­tie in some respectes, as the Apostle noteth, which Luther also doth acknowledge. Wherefore, seeing the Apostle in some respects preferreth virginitie, he were amadde man, that would affirme the contrarie. But seeing the Apostle in all respectes doth not pre­ferre virginitie, he is a foolish wrangler, that quarel­leth against him, that denieth mariage in all respects, to be inferior to virginitie. For we haue nothing to [Page 219] do with Iouinian, Heluidius, Basilides, or whomesoeuer you can name, that was condemned by antiquitie, for affirming matrimonie, paris esse merits cum virgini­tate, to be of equall dignitie with virginitie in all respectes-neither did Luther euer so affirme, but the contrarie, as his owne wordes shall testifie for him. At quis (que) (in­quit) suum donum habet, alius sic, alius verò sic. Hîc profitetur [...] votum impleri non posse, ne (que) velle deum cuique eximiumExegis. ad cap. 7. Epist. 1. ad Cor.illud impartiri donum. Atque hunc textum tu in intimis pe­ctoris tui penetralibus recondas, pleraque enim in se comple­ctitur, ne (que) minus continentia matrimonium praedicat. Nam sicubi coniugium quis cum caelibatu conferat, praestantius certè donum est [...]. Attamen matrimonium itidem Dei donum est (inquit hoc loci Paulus) vt continentia. Mas etiam faeminae praestat, attamen aequè vtille, opus dei haec est. Coram deo enim omnia sunt aequalia, quae inter sese alias di­stant. Quicquid is condidit, suum eum [...], & crea­sorem appellat, & dominum, ne (que) quicquam alio sublimius eum nominat, siue magnum, siue paruum fuerit. Sic idem va­let coram illo matrimonium & virginitas. Nam vtrunque est donum & creatura dei, tametsi alterum alteri antecellas, si quis inter se conferat. But euerie one (saith he) hath his proper gift, one man after this manner, another man after that. Here he professeth that his desire can not be fulfilled, and that God will not bestow vpon euerie man that excellent gift. And this text lay thou vp in the innermoste closet of thy brest, For it comprehendeth manie thinges in it, and setteth forth mari­age, no lese then continencie. For if a man shall compare ma­riage with virginitie, certainlie virginitie is the more ex­cellent gifte. Neuertheles, mariage (saith Paule in this place) is the gift of God, as well as continencie. A man also is more excellent then a woman, yet is shee the worke of God, as well as he: for all those thinges are aequall before God, which otherwise do differ among them-selues. Whatsoeuer he hath made, it calleth him the maker, the creatour, and Lord there­of, neither doth anie thing name him more highlie, then an­other thing, whether it be great or smale. So before him ma­trimonie [Page 220] and virginitie be of equall value: for both is the gift and creature of God, albeit the one more excellent then the o­ther, if they be compared one with the other. These wordes of Luther are plaine inough, to shew his opinion of the excellencie of virginitie aboue matrimonie, in some respects; allthough in regarde that they are both the gifts of God, he affirme them to be equall. For the giftes of God maie be the one more excellent then the other, (as he confesseth of virginitie) yet is not the one more the gift of God, then the other.

But all this is litle worth (you maie saie) if that, which you bring in next against him, be true. For se­ing the auncient writers did write whole bookes in the commendation, and preferment of virginirie, a­boue all other states of life, What would they haue said (saie you) If they had heard the base, scurrile, and impious wordes of M. Luther, de natura statuum inter se, as his owne explication is: that is, of the verie nature of these two states in them selues, without respect of abuse, or good vse, to affirme matrimonium esse velut aurum, the state of matrimonie to be as golde: and the other state of virginitie and continencie to be, vtî stercus ad impietatem promouens, like stinking doung promoting to impietie. Can anie thing be spoken more abiect, or more contradictorie to the scriptures and Fathers, then this? Can hell be more opposite to heauen, then the carnali­tie of this Apostata to the spiris of all saintes? See you not how this fellow insulteth? how he chafeth? how he raileth? but will you see also how he lieth, how he fal­sifieth, how he slaundereth? For Luther saith not: that mariage in comparison of virginitie, is as golde, he saith not that the state of virginity and continencie is as stinking dong, &c. But the comparison he maketh is betweene the state of matrimonie, and the popish Exeg. ad cap. [...]. ep. 1. adcor. spirituall or Ecclesiasticall state: of which he saith, de vsu, vel abusu, &c. of the vse or abuse of the states at this present, we saie nothing, but of the condition and nature of the states in them-selues, and doe conclude that matrimonie is as gold, but [Page 221] the spirituall state (meaning of the popish Church) is as doung, because that setteth forwarde to faith, this vnto impietie. And lest you doubt, what spirituall state he speaketh of, he calleth it expresselie in the same discourse, spiritualis status in papatu, the spirituall state in poperie. And for a more manifed discouerie of this impudent slaunderer, I will set downe his wordes in the same place, more at large yealding reasons, why he doth so highlie prefer mariage, before that popish state, speaking nothing of virginitie, or continencie, or true chastitie; as this shameles cauiller doth crie out. Nemo igitur (obiicies) tua sententia coelelis permanebit, sed quis (que) matrimonium con­trahet, quaeres huic Paulino textui aduersaretur? Respondeo. De spiriiuali nunc statu loquor ad matimonium comparato, non de coelibatu. Status spiritualis nulli prorsum rei accommo­dus est, sed perditissimus, praestaret (que) neminem spiritualem, & quemque coniungtam esse. Porrò coelibatus & vera continen­tia aliud est ac spiritualis status: de hoc nihil omnino hîc Pau­lus agit: de vera. n. castitate loquitur. Nullus enim statuum impudentior, & ad libinem promptior est, Ecclesiastieo & spi­rituali statu, vt hodiernus dies contestatur. Quòd siex illis coelibes quidam essent, non tamen vtuntur calibatu, ad Pau­li institutum & normam, vt nequaquam castitas esse queat, cuius hîc [...] mentionē facit. Isti enim ex castitate meri­tum, iactantiam & magnificentiam coram Deo & hominib, faciunt, & in eafidunt, idquod cūfide pugnat. D. Paulus verò exeafacilitatem quandam & seruitutem ad verbum Dei & fidem effecit. Spiritualis verò status, non ex labore suo viuit, Arcadico iumento segnior, &c. Thou wilt obiect by thy sentēce, therefore, shall no man remaine continent, but euerie one shal marie, which thing is contrarie to the text of Saint Paule? I answer, I speake now of the spirituall state, being compared to matrimonie, not of continencie or virginitie. The spirituall state, or the spiritualtie, is good for nothing in the world, but is moste wicked, and it were better that there were neuerSuch a spi­ruall man.a spirituall man, and that all were maried. But as for virgi­nitie & truecontinency, it is an other thing then the state of the [Page 222] spiritualtie of which Saint Paul in this place speaketh no­thing at all, for he speaketh of true chastitie. For no state in the world is more shameles, and more prone to filthie lust, then the ecclesiasticall and spirituall state, as this daies experience doth testifie? And if anie of them were continent, yet they vse not their continencie to the purpose and rule of Saint Paull: so that it can not be that chastitie, whereof Saint Paull ma­keth mention in this place. For these men of their chastitie do make a desert, a boasting, and magnificense before God and men, and put their trust therein, which is contrarie to faith. Whereas Saint Paul thereof hath made a certaine easines, and seruice vnto the word of God: but the spirituall state liueth no of their labour, being more slow then an Asse, &c. Thus hast thou (reader) Luthers iudgement out of his owne sayings; by which thou maist & must needes acknow­ledge, what iniurie this falsarie hath donne vnto him in saying, that Luther affirmeth the state of virginity or con­tinencie to be as stinking dung promoting to impietie, when Luther speaketh of the Popish spiritualtie, whose do­ctrine and manners are blasphemous and wicked, like the olde heretikes called Apostolici and Origeniani tur­pes, Epi. hae. 61. & 63. August. in Catal. her. 40. which boasted of continencie, and performed no­thing lesse, as Epiphanius and other do testifie.

The second of these last 4. that Christ and Saint Paull did not counsell, but dissuade virginitie vnto Christians: You The seauenth pointe. aske if anie thing can be more contrary to Christs and Saint Paules sayings? Master Charke answereth you sufficientlie: the counsel pertaineth not to all, but vn­to those, that haue the gift; the rest are dissuaded from the attempt. And for them that haue the gift, Ma­ster Charke saith, it is more profitable for them manie waies to absteine. Luther saith: Nec ideo coelibatum & virginitatem reprobare mihi animus est, nec inde quenquam ad iugale vinculam inuitare. Quis (que) pro dono suo diuinitut impertito, vt potest, feratur. Neither is it my minde to reiest continencie, and virginitie, nor to prouoke anie man from thence vnto wedlock. Let euerie man beare him-selfe accor­ding [Page 223] to the gift, that he hath receaued of God, as he can. What would you saie more? that all men are here ex­horted vnto virginitie, euen those that haue not the gift of continencie? it seemeth you would, by alledge­ing the saying of Saint Ierome. Quasi hortantis, &c. it is the voice of our Lord, as it were exhorting, and stirring In Mat. c. 19 vp his souldiers to the rewarde of chastitie: he that can take it, let him take it, he that can fight, let him fight, conquerre and triumph. And whome doth Ierome meane by his soul­diers? all men in differently? or those onely, whom God hath armed with the grace, & gift of continencie? If you [...] say all, S. Ierome in the wordes going imme­diatelie before in the same place, will tel you another tale. Qui potest capere, capiat, vt vnusquis (que) consideret vires suas, vtrum poffit virginalia & pudicitiae implere praecepta. Per se enim castitas blanda est, & quemlibet ad se alliciens. Sed considerandae suntvires, vt qui potest capere, capiat. He (saith he) that can take it, let him take it, that euerie man maie consider his strength, whether he be hable to fulfill the precepts of virginitie, and chastitie. For chastitie in deede of it selfe is pleasant, and alluring euerie man vnto it. But men must consider their strength, that he which is hable to take it, maie take it. You see here, that Christ exhorteth none but them that are hable, by his grace, and that all haue not strength to containe: those that haue the strength Luther also exhorteth to vse it: they that haue it not, are commaunded by the Apostle to marrie.

The third doctrine, touching the necessitie of a wife to e­uerieman, to be as great as the necessitie of eating, drinking, The eight point. or sleepeing, which importeth that he maie not welmisse her 24. houres together, you maruaile Master Charke was not asha­med to maintaine. But neither Luther, nor Charke, do maintaine it necessarie for euerie man to haue a wife, but onelie for them that haue not the gift of continen­cie, which cannot auoide sinne without mariage, as the text of the Apostle is manifest. Where you inferre, 1. Cor. [...] [Page 224] that then he maie not well misse her 24. houres toge­ther, it is a fond conclusion. For the like necessitie of thinges, bindeth not to the like often vse of the same thinges. As if I should saie, meate and drinke is as ne­cessarie for the life of man, as breathing, it followeth not, that a man must eate and drinke euerie moment, because he must breath euerie moment. Correction, we saie commonlie, is as necessarie for children, as meat and drinke, and yet I trow it followeth not, that children must of necessity be beaten once in 24. hours. Letting of blood, or sweating, for some bodies, is as necessarie, as sleepe: therefore must they be lette blood, and sweate allwaies once in 24. houres? But you maruaile especiallie, if that sentence of Luthers be ad­ded to the former serm. De matrim. Verum est profectò, it is true verilie that he must needes be a baud that flieth matri­monie, seeing God hath created man & woman for copulation and [...] sake. This you saie is a wise reason of a [...] Apostata, for euerie man must either couple and marie, by this, or be a baude. But in trueth we maie saie, this is a slaunderous conclusion of an impudent lier. For Luther in the place quoted speaketh against them that differ, and flie mariage, that they might liue more licentiouslie in whoredome: as his wordes going before are plaine: Plerique ideo matrimo­nium & differunt & fugiunt, quòd primùm satis ad tempus aliquod vsque scortari velint suamque explere voluptatem, & [...] vbi saturi fuerint, honestatise item dedere. sed bonae verba quaeso, &c. Manie do therefore differ and flie mari­age, because they will first for a certaine time committe whordome inough, and take their pleasure to the full: after­ward when they are glutted, they will giue them-selues to ho­nestie also: but suft I praie you, &c. and so proceedeth to inueigh against such purposes, and at length com­meth to these wordes cited by our defender, and other that follow. Verum profectò est, eum lenonem esse oportere, quimatrimonium fugiat, & quî aliter eueniret? posteaquam [Page 225] marem & foeminam commixtionis & multiplicationis causa condidit. At quare scortatio matrimonij statu non anteuerti­tur? Nam vbi praecipua gratia non excipiat, necessum est na­turam feruere & multiplicaeri. Si [...]d in matrimonio non con­tingat, vbi aliâs quàm in fornicatione, aut peioribus pecca­tis accideret? It is true in deed, that he must needes be a baude, which flieth matrimonie. And how can it be otherwise? seing he hath created man and woman for copulation, and multipli­cations sake. But whie is not whordome preuented by the state of mariage? For where speciall grace doth not except a man, nature must needes boile, and be multiplied, if that happen not in mariage, where should it happen els, but in fornicati­on, or worse sinnes? Yea the saying which I cited in an­swer to the next point before, doth follow, necideo coe­libatum, &c. neither doe I reiect continencie, or virgi­ninitie: let euerie man vse his gift, as he hath receiued it of God. All which I suppose is manifest to de­clare, that Luther compted not all men baudes, that liued vnmaried: but those onelie, that had not the gift of continencie, and which by flying holie mariage, fall into greeuous sinnes of fornication, and vn­cleannes.

The last Doctrine, that al Chrstians are as holie, & as iust as the mother of god, & as the Apostles were, if it be vnderstood as Luther meaneth, containeth no ab­surditie; neither is it any badge of intollerable pride. For Luther meaneth of the holines & iustice of Christ, communicated vnto vs, by which we are made holy & iust, as Christ is made equallie to al Christians, iustice and holienes, not of the effects of this grace, which 1. Cor. 1. 30. worketh inequallity of holines & righteousnes, as the image of God is more or lesse restored in euerie one. And this his words declare. Quia verò renati sumus, filij at (que) haeredes Dei, pari sumus in dignitate & honore D. Pau­lo, Petro. S. deiparae virgini, ac diuis omnibus. Habemus enim eundemIn epst. 1. Pet. 1.the saurum à Deo, bonaque omnia tam largiter quàm ipsi. Siquidem & ipsosnon secus atque nos renasci oportuit: [Page 226] quare non plus habent, quàm quilibet reliqui Christiani. Be­cause we are borne againe the sonnes and heires of God, we are equall in dignitie and honour to Saint Paul, Saint Peter, to the virgine mother of God, and to all the Saints. For we haue the same treasure of God, and all good thinges, as largelie as they. For that was necessarie for them also, no lesse then vs, to be borne againe. Therefore they haue no more then all other Christians. By these wordes it is euident, that Luther maketh this equallitie in the grace of regeneration, & the common effects thereof, not in the speciall gifts that follow, according to the seueral measure of grace, that God giueth to euerie one, and therefore it is out of season to dispute here, of the degrees of rewardes, or the excellencie of Gods giftes, in some more then o­ther: no nor of the merit of good works, except you wil saie, that the grace of regeneration is giuen according to merit. Although the terme of merit, vsed often times in the Fathers, which you doe gladlie vsurpe, sig­nifieth not the desert of good workes, as the Papists take it, but the praise, commendation, or honor of ver­tue, and sometimes vertue, and good deedes them­selues. Finallie, to compare with the Apostles, and the virgine Marie, in holines and righteousnes of life, it is neither the meaning of Luther, nor of the Ministers of England, but to acknowledge that we haue receiued the like pretious faith, in the righteousnes of our God and Sauiour Iesus Christ, by which we are made holy & righteous in him, Saint Peter will warrant vs. 2. Pet. 1. For the ligittimation of Dyonise, falselie surnamed the Areopagite, you would faine bring the authoritie of generall Councelles, but your note booke deceiued you. For you quote Concil. Const. Act. 4. can. 2. both [...] your page, and in your correction: but in deede [...] which is saide of him, is in Concil. Constantinopol. 6. [...] vndecima. Which was holden almoste 700. yeares after Christ, where oue Sophronius, Patriarch of [...], writing to the Councell, maketh mention [Page 227] Dionysius the Areopagite, and his writtings, as he supposed, not counterfeit. But where lay the bookes of Dionyse for 600. yeares, that none of the writers, that gathered the monumentes of such auncient Fa­thers, could once heare of them? I meane Eusebius Hierome, Gennadius. The other testimonie out of the second of Nice, which you quote as fondlie, I will not stand vpon, seeing it is of later time, and lesle cre­dit, among such a number of bastardes made legitimat, to set vp Idolatrie. How well you haue iustified your nine slaunders, and prooued Luthers Doctrine to be licentious, and carnall. I will not spend time in repe­ting: let the reader iudge of that which hath beene brought on both sides.

The fift section, entituled, Other doctrines of Luther, and of Caluine, and Beza.

VVHat other absurdities you are able to bring out of Luther, you haue giuen vs a sufficient taste, in the former section, in which you handle the matter of licentious libertie: by which the indiffe­rent reader may esteeme of the rest. For ribaudrie, scurrilitie, and thameles falsehood, of which you say you haue examples more, infinit, and without num­ber, when we heare of them, you shall receiue answer, either of confession, defense, or excuse. But in the meane time you will note vs one or two thinges of impietie, as they lie together in one treatise, that we haue in England, which he desendeth obstinatelie, after they were condemned by the Church, being such positions, as cut the verie sinewes of all vertue, and so open the high waie vnto all dissolution. The first example is, when he holdeth that the verie iust man, in euerie good worke, doth sinne mortallie: by which (saie you) how doth he discourage all men from doing good? I answer, whatsoeuer Luther hath written to that [Page 228] effect, as not to discourage men from doing good, but to dissuade them from trusting in their owne doing, when it is at the best. And seeing there is so great im­perfection in the best deedes of men, he encourrageth men to labour more toward perfection. He teacheth men therefore, to a scribe to the grace of God, that which is properlie his and to acknowledge their owne infirmity, which without his grace can do nothing but euill: which grace secing it is sufficient for vs, in that his power is made perfect in our weakenes, there is no discouragement, either vnto faith, or good workes: for the sufficiencie of his grace shall comforte vs in faith, and the strength of his mercie, shalbe glorious in our infirmitie. Wherefore this Doctrine of Luther, doth no more discourage men from doing good, then he that saith, whosoeuer hitteth not the pricke, doth misse the marke, doth discourage men from shooting as nighe as they can. The second example of impietie is, when he saith, A man hath not in his power to doe euell. Whereby (saie you) how doth he encourage all lewde people to wicked­nes, deliuering them from the fault thereof? But Luther doth neither of both. For albeit he say, that it is not in the power of man, to make his waies euill, because noe man hath anie power to do anie thing, but from God, Act. 17. 28. in whome we liue, mooue, and haue our beeing: yet doth he not deliuer the wicked man from the fault of his wickednes, because he sinneth willinglie, though he can do nothing els but sinne, being destitute of the grace of God, and therefore sinneth necessarilie: for proofe whereof Luther alledgeth Augustine de spiritu & litera. cap. 4. saying, Liberum arbitrium sine gratia non valet, nisi ad peccandum, &c. freewill without grace auaileth not, but to commit sinne, &c. And further he saith, Ieremias quo (que) cap. 10. sic dicit: Scio Domine quoniam non est homi­nis via eius, nec viri est vt dirigat gressus suos. Quid potuitAssert. art. 36.apertius dici? si via sua & gressus sui non sint in potestate hominis, quomodo via Dei & gressus dei erunt in potestate e­ius? [Page 229] Via enim hominis est ea, quam ipsi vocant naturálem virtutem faciendi quod est in se. Ecce haec non est in arbitrio hominis, seu liberi arbitrij. Quid ergo liberum arbitrium est, nisires de solo titulo? Quomodo potest sese ad bonum praepa­rare, cùm nec in potestate sit suas vias malas facere? Nam & malaopera in impiis Deus regit, vt prouerb. 16. dicit. Om­nia propter semet ipsum operatus est Dominus, etiam impium addiem malum. & Rom. 1. Tradidit illos deus in reprobum sensum, vt faciant quae non conueniunt, &c. Ieremie cap. 10. saith thus: I know O Lord, that a mans waies is not in his owne handes, neither is it in man to direct his owne steppes. what could be said more plainlie? if a mans owne waie, and his owne steppes be not in his owne power, how shall the waie and steppes of God be in his power? for the waie of man is that, which they call the natural power of doing that which is in him. Beholde this is not in the will of man, or of freewill. What is free will then, but a thing of title and name onelie? How can a man prepare him selfe to good, when there is not in his power so much as to make his wates euill: for God gouerneth euen the euill workes in the vngodlie, as he saith in the 16. of the Prouerbes. God hath made all thinges for him-selfe, euen the wicked man against the euill daie, and Rom. 1. God hath deliuered them into a reprobate minde, to do those thinges which are not conuenient. All power of doing is of God, whether it be good or euil that is donne. For the mur­therer could not liue, nor lift vp his hand, but by the power which he hath of God; who also ordereth euen the wickednes of the murtherer to good, either for the punishment of him that is slaine, or for his reward, if he be slaine for the defence of his trueth, and in a good cause, and euermore turneth it to his glorie. Yet is not the malice of the murtherer from God, nor the murtherer deliuered from the fault of his wickednes; because he doth not intend therein to serue God, but his owne crueltie. And this is that which Luther doth both saie and meane, far from the slaunderous reporte [Page 230] of this malitious cauiller, as his owne words do beare witnes.

The third example of impiety is, that Luther teach­eth, that to fight against the Turke, is to resist God him-selfe: whereby (saie you) what a path maketh he to the empire of infidelitie? But in truth, Luther teacheth not that it is vnlawfull simplie and absolutelie, to fight against the Turke, but to fight against the Turke vnder the Popes banner. The article is better gathered by the Colle­ctors, then by you sir defender. Praeliari aduersus Tur­cas, [...]. 34.&c. to make warre against the Turkes, is to resist God, visiting our iniquities by them. And this article I do ap­prooue (saith Luther) by a double experience of our infelicity. The two experiences are these. First, that all praiers and Counsells of preuailing a­gainst the Turkes, haue beene hither to frustrate, and the strength of the Turke is increased by our warres. The second is, that vnder pretext of making warre against the Turke, the Popehath vsed to rake mony to gether for their pardons: And he concludeth, that without repentance and the ouerthrow of the Popes tyrannie, there is no hope to preuaile in warre against the Turkes, because God is not on our side, butiustlie incensed against vs. Quantòrectius (saith he) faceremus &c. How much better should we do, if first with our praiers, yea rather by changeing the wholl course of our life, we reconcile God vnto vs? And then that the Emperours & the princes would restraine that Idole of Roome, from tyrannie, deceit, and destroying of souies. For that I also maie once prophecie, al­though I know I shall not be heard. Except the Pope of Rome be brought vnder, all Christendome is vndonne. Let him flie, as Christ hath taught, into the mountaines, he that can; or with confidence let him offer his life to death, vnto the Ro­mish murtherers. The Popedome can worke nothing, but sinne and destruction, what will you more? But who shall sub­due the Pope? Christ by the brightnes of his comming, and none other. Lord who hath beleeued our preaching? he that [Page 231] hath eares to heare let him heare, and let him absteine from the Turgish warre, while the name of the Pope preuaileth vn­der heauen. I haue said. By this you maie see, that Lu­ther fauored not the empire of infidelitie; but sheweth by what meanes it maie be resisted. Againe, he forbid­deth not defense against the Turke, but inuasion of the Turke, when we maie be at peace with him. For that it is lawfull to fight against the Turke in our owne de­fense, he sheweth his opinion, in consut. Rat. Latomi­anae, where he derideth the follie of Latomus, and the diuines of Louane, which racked the decree of Pope Leo to this sense, that it was needles to answer the ad­uersaties of religion: which is as great wisedome of the schoole of Louane in proceeding against Luther, as if when the Turke doth set vpon vs, which is no waies lawfull for him, and yet he will not be staid, we should send the diuines of Louane embassadors vnto him, which should saie vnto him, It is not lawfull for thee to fight, and if thou do, we will con­demne thee, and so suffer him to raunge at his pleasure, and yet boast that we haue gotten the victorie. Nay (saith he) let vs laie aside praiers and all spirituall armour, and cease to resist the deuill, denouncing vnto him, and saying: It is not lau­ful for thee to trouble the Church of God. So that Luther by these wordes declareth his iudgement, that it is as lawfull for vs, and as necessarie, with bodelie armour to defend our selues against the Turke assailing vs, as it is to fight against the deuill, with spirituall armour, and to confute enemies of the trueth by the word of God.

For a fourth example of impietie, you adde, when he reprehended the Pope, for defining beside scripture, that the soule is immortall, and calleth it a monster of the dunghill of Rome, what ground of impietie doth he not laie? In deed if Luther should denie the immortalitie of the soule, as Pope Iohn the, 23. did, and was therefore conuicted, and condemned in the Counsell of Constance, wee would accurse Luthers memorie, as much as the Popes. Sess. 11. [Page 232] But if Luther reprehended the Pope, for deliuering that vpon the creditte of his owne definition, and authori­tie, which is manifestlie grounded vpon the autho­ritie of holie scriptures, what a slaunderous penne haue you? He was charged by the Collectors, art. 37. to haue saide thus. Certum est, in manu Ecclesiae, &c. It is certaine, that it is not in the hand of the Church, or of the Pope at all, to decree articles of the faith, nay nor yet lawes of manners, and good workes: To this article Luther answereth thus. Probo hunc sic, &c. This article I prooue thus. 1. Cor. 3. No man can lay any other foundation, beside that which is alreadie laide, which is Iesus Christ. Here thou hast the foun­dation laid by the Apostles: but euerie article of faith is part of this foundation: therefore none other article can be laid, then is alreadie laid? There may be builded vpon, as the same A­postle saith. And therefore the Pope ought to be laide, and builded vpon the same foundation, but not to lay any founda­tion: for all things to be beleeued are fully set forth in the scri­ptures. Yet I permit that the Pope may make articles of faith to them that beleeue in him: such as these are; That the bread and wine are transsubstantiated in the sacrament: That the essence of god doth neither beget, nor is begotton: That the soul is the substantiall forme of the bodie: That he him seife is the Emperour of the world, & King of heauen, and an earthly God: That the soull is immortall. And all those infinite monsters in the Romish dunghill of decrees, that such as his faith is, such may be his Gospell, such his beeleeuers, & such his Church, and that like lippes may haue like lettice, and the cup a couer meete for it. But we which are Christians, and not Papanes, doe know that there is nothing pertaining either to faith or good manners, which is not abundantlie set forth in the holie scriptures: that there is neither authoritie nor place for men to decree any other thing. These wordes declare, that what doctrine is true, and needefull to be knowne, must be receiued from God by the holie scriptures; not from the Popes decrees, or from any mortall mans au­thoritie. It is maruaile you doe not charge Luther, [Page 233] with holding the pluralitie of Gods, because here pre­hendeth the Pope, for defining, that the essence of god can neither beget, nor be begotton, as wel, as with de­nying the immortality of the soul. both which articles are to be taken out of the holie scriptures, not from the authoritie of the Popes definition. For though the Pope define any thing which is true, yet it must not be receiued vpon his creditte, but vpon the authoritie of Gods worde. And seeing the Popes decrees doe containe such a number of vntruethes, the articles of faith from the Popes decrees may receiue dis­credit, rather then authoritie. But all thinges must be examined according to the worde of God wri­ten, which is the truth, yea euen the scripture com­ming from the mouth of the deuill. Againe, I wish the reader to consider, how truelie you saie, that Luther cal­leth that opinion of the immortalitie of the soule, a monster of the dunghill of Rome, when he speaketh of the infinite monsters of falsehoode, that are found in the dunghill of the Popes decrees, where of he maketh no expresse mention in answere to this article.

The last example of impiety is, when Luther affirmeth, and mantaineth, that neither man, nor Angell on earth, can laie any one lawe vpon any one Christian, further then he will him-selfe. What foundation (say you) doth not he ouerthrow of all Christian commmon wealthes. Luthers short answere to this, is. Hoc non de ciuilibus legibus, sed de Ecclesiasticis dixi, & est sententi a Pauli. Coll. 2. This I speake not of ciuill lawes, but of Ecclesiasticall lawes, and it is the sentence of Saint Paul, Coll. 2. What foundation now doth he ouer­throw, or teach, of any Christian common wealth, when he speaketh of the freedome of conscience, from all constitutions of men? These be the great monsters of impiety, which cut the sinewes of al vertue, & do open the high way to all dissolution. Wil you neuer be ashamed, to slaun­der their doctrine, which you are not hable to confute?

But now for the bodelie and sensible conference of Luther [Page 234] with the deuill, you wonder with what face Master Charke can denie it: & we wonder with what mouth you can affirme it. That the Tygurines giue testimonie of it, is a lie, as I haue shewed before. And the wholl discourse of Luthers wordes shall make manifest, that his confessi­on is onelie of a spirituall fight in minde, & no bodelie conference, as Master Charke answered at the first. His wordes in his booke, de missa priuata, & vnctione sacerdo­tum, are these. Sed forsitan agnoscatis quàm firmis nitatur columnis vestra causa, si in horam incidatis tentationum. Eg o coram vobis reuerendis & sanctis patribus, confessionem fa­ciam: date mihi absolutionem bonam, quae vobis opto quàm minimum noceat. Contigit me semel sub mediam noctem subitò expergefieri. Ibi Satan mecum caepit eiusmodi disputationem. Audi, inquit, Luthere doctor per docte, nostietiam te quinde­cim annis celebrasse missas priuatas quotidie: Quià si tales missae horrenda essent idololatria, &c? But peraduenture you may acknowledge vpon how sure pillers your cause leaneth, if you fall into the howre of tentation. I will make my confession before you reuerend & holy fathers: giue me good absolutition, which I wish may hurt you least. It happened that once I waked sodainlie about midnight. There Satan began this disputation with me. Hearken, saith he, thou verie wel learned Doctor Lu­ther, &c. thou knowest also, that thou hast saide the priuate Masse by the space of, 15. yeares, almost euerie daie: what if such priuate Masses were horrible idolatrie, &c? These words are manifest that Luther speaketh of a spirituall temptation, such as euen good men are subiect vnto, in which Sathan obiecteth vnto the conscience of men, such things wherein they haue offended God moste greeuouslie.

The atguments that the deuill layeth against him, are not so much against the Masse, as against Luthers sinne, to bring him in dispaire for saying masse, being a sinfull man, as appeereth by these wordes which he attributeth to the deuill. Prome vbi scriptum est, quód ho­mo impius, incredulus, possit assistere altari Christi, & [...] ac conficere infide Ecclesiae: vbi iussit ac praecepit hoc de­us? [Page 235] Bring forth where it is written, that an vngodly man, an vnbeeleeuer may stand at the altar of Christ, and consecrate, and make the sacrament in the faith of the Church: where hath God bidden or commaunded this? For Luther had defen­ded him-selfe, and sought to quiet his conscience, be­cause he was an annointed priest, because he celebra­ted in the faith of the Church, although he was vn­worthie in respect of the weakenes of his owne faith, & the multitude of his sinnes. But this you clippe, as your note booke serued you, which was not of your owne gleaning, Agè, prome vbi scriptum est, vbiiussit aut praece­pit hoc Deus. Goe to now, shew me where the masse is written in scripture, where hath God commaunded it; and scoffe at the Protestants fashion of disputation, and conclude, that Luther not beeing able to answere, finallie yelded to banish the masse, vpon the deuills appointment, which is a tale of a tubbe: for there is no such conclu­sion, but that Luther by faith in the merites of Christ, ouercame this temptation. For after his conflict de­scribed thus, he proceedeth: Hîc respondebunt mihi san­ctissimi patres, hîc ride bunt & dicent, tune es doctor ille cele­bris, & non nosti respondere Diabolo? An ignoras Diabolis esse mendacem? papè! vestro merito vobis gratias ingentes ago, pro tam suaui consolatione in re tanta. Has tres voculas (Dia­bolus est mendax) ignorassem ego [...], nisi monuissetis vos eximij theologotati. Si papista essem omnium tentationum ruàis, quem securum & [...] Satan negligeres, vt ipsos negligit indulgentes suis cupiditatibus, &c. etiam talis gigas essem, contra absentem hostem alacer & fortis. Sed si vobis sustinendi essentictus Diaboli, & audiendae disputationes, non diu essetis cantilenam de Ecclesia, & veteri recepto more can­taturi: equidem satis video in Dauid, & reliquis Prophetis, qu àm grauiter luctentur & ingemiscunt in his certaminibus & similibus, contra diabolum, & horribilem impetum eius. Et Christus ipse quamuis sine peccato, propter nos in quantis lachrimis, in quibus angustiis agonizauit, in his agonibus con­tra satanam? Vrget enim in immensum corda, nec [...] niss [Page 236] repulsus verbo dei. Et ego planè persuasus sum, Emser um, & Oecolampadium, & similes, his ictibus horribilib. & quassatio nib. subitò extinctos esse. Nec. n. humanum cor horrer dum hunc & ineffabilem impetum, nisi deus illi adsit, perferre potest. Sa­tan enim in [...] oculi repente totam mentem terr oribus ac te. nebris adobruit, & si nihil quàm hominem inermem, & verbo no instructum inuenit, quasi digitulo totum [...]. Verum qui dem hoc est, quód mendax sit, sed eius mendacia non sunt sim­plicis artificis, sed longè callidiora & instructiora ad fallendum, quàm humanus captus assequi possit. Ipse sic adoritur, vt ap­prehendat aliquam & solidam veritatem, quae negarinon pos­sit, at (que) eam adeo callidè & versutè vrget & acuit, & adeo speciose fucat suum mendacium, vt fallat velcautissimos, &c. vtî cogitatio illa, quae Iudae cor percussit, vera, Tradidi san­guinem iustum: hoc Iudasnegare non poteratised hoc erat men­dacium, ergo est desperandum de gratia Dei. Et tamen diabolus hoc mendacium, hanc cogitationem tam violenter vrsit, vt Iudas eam vincere non possit, sed desperaret. Proinde bone fra­ter, domine papista, non mentitur Satan, quando accusat aut vrget magnitudinem peccati; ibi enim habet duos inconuin­cibiles graues testes, legem dei, & nostram propriam conscien­tiam. Non possum negare, quòdreus summortis & damnatio­nis, &c. Sed ibi mentitur Satan, quando vltrà vrget, vt de­sperem de gratia: Sicut Cain dicebat, maius est peccatum me­um, &c. Et ibi tum opus est in tali agone diuino & caelesti auxilio, vt vel srater adsit, qui te consoletur promissionibus gratiae foris, velintus in corde, spiritus sanctus verbum fra­tris erigat, ac animet, ac sustentet cor tuum, vt possis sic apud [...] statuere, Confessus quidem sum (Lege dei conuictus) coram diabolo, me peccasse, me damnatum esse, vt Iudam. Sed verto me ad Christum cum Petro, & respicio eius immensum benefi­cium & meritum, &c. ille omnem horrendam damnationem damnauit. Here those most holie fathers will answere me, here they will laugh and say, art thou a famous doctour, and knowest not how to answere the deuill? Dost thou not know that the deuill is a lyer? how say you by that? I giue you great thankes, as you are worthie, for so sweete comforse, in so weightie a mat­ter. [Page 237] These three wordes (the deuill is a lyar) I should not haue knowne, vntil now, except you most notable diuines had taught me. If I were a Papist, vnexpert of all temptations, whome Satan would not neglect, beeing carles, and snorting, as he neglecteth them that follow their lusts, &c. I should be such a Giant also, stout and valiant against the enemie, that is ab­sent. If you should beare the stripes of the deuill, and heare his disputations, you should not longsing the song of the Church, & after the accustomed manner. I verilie doe see sufficientlie in Dauid, and the rest of the Prophets, how greeuouslie they wrestle and groone in those combates, and such like, against the deuill, and his horrible violence. And Christ him-selfe (al­though without sinne) in what aboundance of teares, and an­guish, did he siriue for vs, in those conflictes against Satan For he vrgeth mans heart exceedinglie, & ceaseth not, except he be driuen backe with the word of God. And I am plainlie perswaded, that Emser and Oecolampadius, and such like, were sodendlie slaine wieh these horrible stripes, and shakings. ForRash iudge ment.the harte of man cannot abide this horrible and vnspeakeable violence, except God be with him. For Satan in the twinckling of an eie, sodendlie ouerwhelmeth the wholl minde with terrors and darkenes, and if he finde nothing but a man vnarmed, and not instructed in the word, as it were with a litle finger, he o­uerwhelmeth him all at once. It is true in deed, that he is a lyar, but his lies are not of a simple craftes man, but much more craftie, and prepared to deceiue, then mans capacitis can comprehend. He doth in such sort set vpon a man, & take holde of him, and that sound truth which can not be denied, and that he vrgeth, and sharpeneth so craftelie and subtillie, and coue­reth it so cunninglie, that he may deceiue them, that take the best heede of him, &c. As, that cogitation, which strake the heart of Iudas, was true: I haue betraied innocent blood, this could not Iudas denie. But this was a lie, therefore I must de­spaire of the grace of God. And yet the deuill vrged this lie, this cogitation so violentlie, that Iudas was not able to ouercome it, but despaired. Therefore good brother, Sir Papist, the de­uill doth not lie, when he accuseth or vrgeth the greatenes of [Page] sinne. For thereby he hath two graue witnesses, that are vn­reproouable, the law of God, and our owne conscience. I can not denie but I haue sinned, I cannot denie my sinne to be greate, I cannot denie that I am guiltie of death and damnation, &c. but there Satan lyeth, when he vrgeth further, that I should dispaire of grace: As Cain said, my sinne is greater, &c. And in this conflicte thou hast neede of the helpe of God from heauen, that either some brother be present, which may comforte thee outwardlie with the promises of God, or that the holie ghost in­wardlie in thy heart, through thy brothers word, do lift vp, and encourage the, and comfort thy heart, that thou maist deter­mine thus with thy selfe, I haue in deede confessed before the deuill, beeing conuicted by the law of God, that I sinned, that I am condemned as Iudas: but I turne my selfe vnto Christ with Peter, and looke backe to his infinite benefite, and merit, &c. he hath condemned all horrible condemnation, &c. Now I reporte me to euerie indifferent reader, whether Luther doe not speake here of a spirituall con­flicte, or tentation vnto desperation, for his saying of priuate masse, after he knew that it was idolatrie, not of any bodelie conference, about the abolishing of the masse. Secondlie, that Luther doth not yeald to the perswasions of the deuill, wherewith the defender confesseth, that both good and euill men are assaulted, but according to the difference by him obserued, resi­steth the assault, and obtaineth victorie thorough Christ.

But now let vs heare what arguments our defender bringeth, to prooue this bodelie conference. First, the confession of the Tigurine Caluenists. but that is false. The Tigurines did onelie reprooue Luther for his intem­perat inuectiues, and naming of deuilles so often; our wise defender concludeth, ergo Luther had deuilles. Secondly, he saith, it is euident that this conference was more then spirituall, by the deuilles preface, wherein he calleth the frier, right learned Doctor, according to the vaine of pride, wherewith he saw him puffed vp, &c. But what reasonable [Page 239] man seeth not, that this presace of his title, was but a bitter scorne of the deuill? no flattering speach, to make him readie to receiue his impressions, as the defender saith. As for the sound of Satans voice, described in the place alledged in the Censure, there is none such. For the booke demissa angulari, so often alledged by the pa­pists, is none other, but this, de missa priuata, & vnctio­ne sacerdotum, as appeareth by the verie wordes, noted by the Papists, in lib. de missa angulari, which are found here in this boke, de missa priuata, &c. Therefore the sound of Satans voice, is but some papists dreame vp­on the matter, which our defender would now hide, vnder the title of de missa angulari. The third reason is, for that Luther confesseth some of his fellowes to haue beene slaine by this conference. What he saith in his rash iudge­ment of Emser, and Oecolampadius, where of the one was a Papist, the other a Protestant, you heaue hard in his own words, which prooueth no bodely conference. For those terrible blowes and shakinges, where of he speaketh, are no more bodelie, then the busfeting of Satan, where of Saint Paul speaketh. And who doubt­eth 2. Cor. 12. 7. but that by such spirituall buffeting of Satan, a man that is ouercome with exceeding sorrow, may sudden­lie die? except he be assisted and comforted by the grace of Christ, as Saint Paul was. Finally, the bushell of de missa an­gulari. sault (saith our defender) which Luther confesseth him­selfe to haue eaten together with the deuill, prooueth that he had bodelie conference with him. First, the booke is not extant, and if any such were, yet it prooueth no bodelie conference. For no man is so madde to thinke, that the deuill and Luther did corporallie eate salte together. But the eating of busshelles of salte with one, is a prouerbe, signifying long experience of him, as Tullie in his booke de amicitia vseth that say­ing, that a man must eate manie bussheles of salte with one, before he ioyne in friendshipe with him, that is, know him, and trie him throughlie. And this [Page 240] (if Luther speake of eating of salte, with the deuill) his meaning is, that he had long experience of the as­saults and temtations of the deuil: as Saint Paul saith, we are not ignorant of the deuises of Satan, nor of any bodelie conference, such as Prateolus out of Lindanus 2. Cor. 2. 11. doth report on these wordes. Nec defuere virifide dignis­simi, qui sibi visum demonem corporaliter cum Luthero con­uersari adfirmarent. Neither haue there wanted men most worthie of credit, which did affirme, that they haue seene the de­uill corporallie conuersant with Luther. O pleasant inuen­tion. At lest they should haue told vs their names, the place, the time, the manner, the shape in which they sawe the deuill conuersant with Luther: and if he were not in anie strange shape, how they know that it was the deuill. But there is no lie so incredible, that nee­deth anie further proofe to slaunder Luther, then that Censure. Defense. some papists haue affirmed it.

Concerning Luthers death, which the papists af­firme to haue died. dronken, and slaine by the deuill, our defender saith, (as it is thought) and (as it is con­iecturrd) but the wordes of Hosius, as they are cited by Lindanus and Prateolus, are absolute. Tandem sub vitae finem, Prateol. in Luther.(inquit Hosius) reipsaeuenit. Probè. n. potus & hila­ris, postridie manè in lecto repertus est mortuvs. At length toward the ende of his life, saith Hosius, it came to passe in deed (namelie that he was in a moment slaine by his familiar de­uill) for being well tipled and merie, the next daie in the morning he was found dead in his bed. The defender be-like being ashamed of the matter, doth qualifie it with thought, and a coniecture, raueth against Master Charke, for opposing Sleidan onelie against three popish witnesses, whome he quoteh: as though one writer, receiuing information of the manner of Luthers death, from them that were present, is not more to be credited, then an hundred Papists, which faine of malice, or receiue of malitious rumors, with­out anie one witnes of credite, whatsoeuer may sound [Page 241] to the slaunder, and the defacing of Luther. For the credit of Sleidans storie, I referre men to his owne Apologie, in which he declareth, that the chiefe sub­stance thereof, is taken out of publike writings and re­cordes; which is sufficient to iustifie him against all Papists in the worlde, from any purpose of lying or faining, especiallie seeing he doth not interpose his iudgement of matters in controucrsie, as Historians commonlie vse to doe; but onelie reporteth them as he found them in publike monuments. And therefore deserueth more credit with all indifferent men, what­soeuer Latomus bableth of eleuen thousand lies, or Lindane reporteth of Charles the Emperour, which Surius ascribeth to Iulius Pflugius Bishoppe of Num­burge, although he affirme the like of Charles the Emperour.

But now you wil beare vs down with a sound testimo ny of Iustus Ionas, that was present at Luthers death, and was his deare friend, & his cooke, to prooue that he was drunk. But why do you cal Iustus Ionas Luthers cooke. It is wel knowne, that Iustus Ionas was a reuer end learned man, and a Doctor in Diuinitie, he had as litle skill in cookerie as you. Your answere will be, that Ponta­cus the Popish Chronicler so calleth him. And surelie I should meruaile what monster were meant thereby, but that I reade in Surius, that his name was Iustus Cocus, and that he called him-selfe (as he saith) Iu­stus Ionas. For Papists can tell euerie mans right name better then him-selfe. So they trifle with the names of Caluine and Luther. But to the purpose. What saith Iustus Ionas, or Ionas Cooke, if you will haue his name so? Forsooth that Luther, a litle before his death, said to him, and Coelius, and certaine other, that were present, Orate Deum pro Domino Deonostro, & eius Euangelio. Praie to God for our Lord God, and his Go­spell. Surius addeth further; vt ei bene succedat, &c. that it may haue good successe, because the Councell of Trent, and [Page 242] he abhominable Pope doe set them-selues against it. Here (saie you) Luther praied for Christ at his death, which either you must ascribe to drunkennes, or to some worse affection, he beeing in his perfect wittes, as the author affirmeth. And is it with you a signe of drunkennes, to praie that the King­dome of Christ vpon earth, and his Gospell may haue good sucesse? You would haue beene as angrie, as the high priests and scribes were, if you had beene in their time, with the children, that cried in the temple, Osan­na to the sonne of Dauid, that is, Lord send health or pro­speritie to the sonne of Dauid, blessed be the King­dome of our father Dauid, that commeth in the name of the Lord. You might cauill as well, that Christ hath taught vs to praie for God the father, when he taught vs to praie, that his name might be sanctified, his king­dome come, his will be done. If Luther had said sim­plie, praie to God for our Lord and God Christ, It had beene an hard construction, to inferre vpon those onelie wordes, that he was drunke: but now when he expresseth, that he would haue them praie for the successe of Christes Gospell, which was oppugned by Antichrist, and his blaspemous Chapter of Trent, no man, except he were madde with malice, would con­clude, that this speach proceeded of drunkennes. The Apostles Act. 4. doe pray vnto God to stretch forth his hande vnto healing, that signes and wonders may be done in the name of his holie sonne Iesus: doth this praier argue any euill affection in the Apostles, against the diuini­tie of Christ, which had giuen them power to worke miracles in his name. None but an Arrian would so gather. Noe more of this praier of Luther, that God will defend the Gospell of Christ, against the enemies thereof, any reasonable man would conclude, that Luther was drunke. Prateolus out of Lindane against the testimonie of Iustus Ionas, Michaell, Caelius, and Ioannes Aurifaber, which were present, with manyo­ther learned and noble persons at Luthers death, hath [Page 243] nothing to oppose, but tamen haud temere, R. P. Hosi­um literis prodidisse credas, Lutherum bene potum & hilarem, &c. Yet belecue thou not, that the reuer end father Hosius hath rashlie committed to writing, that Luther beeing well tippled and merie, was the next day found dead in his bedde. So these impudent Papists, will haue one enemy of Luther, be­ing absent many hundred miles from the place of his death, bringing noe witnes, argument, or probabilitie of truth, but his bare worde, to be credited before so many learned and noble persons, as were present, and eie witnesses, concerning the rumor of Martine Lu­thers departure out of this life. But Hosius was a Bi­shoppe and a Cardinall forsooth: as though a maliti­ous Papist, when he hath a white rochet put on his backe, or a redde hat clapt on his head, were sopriui­leged by his titles, that he must needes be credited though he lie neuer so impudentlie.

Touching the dissention of Luther with others, that profes­sed the Gospell, Master Charke doth graunt that in some points he disagreed from them, and yet he saith, there was a singular care among them of the vnitie in the Gospell. But this our defender taketh in so euill part, that he calleth it in tollerable impudencie, speciallie that for profe thereof, Master Charke citeth the acte of concorde agreed vpon at Marpuge, Anno. 1529. vpon the reporte of Brentius (which since hath shewed him selfe an obistinate heretike, and author of the opinion of the vbiquitie of Christes bodie) who reporteth that the Zuinglians were vanquished, and yet he giueth them this testimonie, that they desired with teares to be called bretheren, which Luther re­fused. But what the agreement was, the booke of Acts printed both in Latine and Dutch doth testifie vnto the worlde. The 15. Chapter of which conuention, con cerning the matter in controuersie was this:

Credimus & profitemur omnes, de caena domini nostri Iesu Christi, Vsum illius sub vtra (que) specie (iuxea Christi institutionem) obser­uandans [Page 244] dum esse. Quod (que) missanon sit vllum eiusmodi opus, quo alto alteri qutsquam (siue mortuo, siue viuo) gratiā consequi possit. Quod item sacramentum altaris, sit sacramentum veri corpo­ris & sanguinis Iesu Christi: Et quòd esus spiritualis eius [...] corporis & sanguinis, sit vnicui (que) Christiano homini in­primis necessarius. Adhaec quòd vsus huius sacramensi (per­inde at (que) verbum ipsum) à Deo opt. max. sit institutus, at (que) or­dinatus ad excitandas ad fidem infirmas hominum conscienti­as per spiritum sanctum. Quanquam autem inter nos hacte­nus, non planè potuit conuenire, num verum corpus & [...] sanguis Christi pani ac vino corporaliter insit, debebit nihilo­minus tamen vtra (que) pars altera erga alteram declarare Christi anam charitatem, quatenus idomnino cuius (que) conscientia ferre potest. Et vtra (que) pars deum. opt. max. diligenter precabiturrot is nobis per spiritum suum verum eius rei intellectum consta­bilire dignetur. Amen.
  • Martinus Lutherus.
  • Ioann. Brentius.
  • Iustus Ionas.
  • Ioan: Oecolampadius.
  • Philippus Mclancthon.
  • Huldricus Zuinglius.
  • And. Ostander.
  • Martinus Bucerus.
  • Stephan. Agricola.
  • Gaspar Hedio.

We all beeleeue and profes concerning the supper of our Lord Iesus Christ, that the vse thereof in both kinds accor­ding to the institution of Christ, is to be obserued. And that the masse is not any such work, whereby any one man may ob­taine grace for another, whether he be dead or a liue. Also that the sacrament of the altar is the sacrament of the true body & blood ofIesus Christ. And that the spirituall eating of the same his body & blood, is very necessary for euery Christi­an man. Moreouer that the vse of this sacrament, euē as the word it selfe, is instituted & ordeined of almighty God, to stir vp vnto faith the weake consciences of men by his holie spi­rite. And although it could not hetherto be altogether a­greed amongst vs, whether the true bodie, and true blood of Christ, be in the bread and wine corporallie: yet neuer [...] both parties ought to declare Christian charitie one towards [Page 245] the other, so farre as euerie mans conscience can beare. And both partes shall diligentlie pray vnto almightie God, that he by his spirite may vouchsafe to establish vnto vs the true vn­derstanding of that matter. Amen.

Martine Luther, &c.

The subscriptionof their names appeareth before.

You heare how farre forth they agreed, and to a full [...] indeed, the Lutherans could neuer be brought, nor Luther himselfe, who in this point was out of mea­sure hard & intractable. which seeing it is not denied by Master Charke or any of vs, it is altogether need­les, that our defender spendeth two leaues, and more in citing testimonies of his dissent from the rest that professe the Gospell, which he calleth Zuinglians, and Caluinists. And to make the matter more large, he [...] the writings of Brentius, Stankatus, Ochinus, men fallen from the truth into open errors, condem­ned of all pattes, against the professors of the truth. But what care the godlie had to maintaine the vnitie of the Gospell, may appeere by the harmonic of con­fessions of so manie diuerse Churches, in the somme of Christian Religion, and doctrine, of the most necessa­rie points of faith vnto eternall saluation, thoroughlie agreeing within them selues, and against the heresies of the Papists, and all other sectaries, both olde and new. That the Lutherans, notwitstanding continue still their vncharitable iudgement against the other, it is in deede to be lamented, but yet noe cause for Pa­pists to reioyce, whoe whether it be by vs or them, in al other points of their heresies, are beaten downe and brought to confusion. And still that remaineth true that Master Charke saide of Oecolampadius, Bucer & others, although in some pointes they disagreed from Lu­ther, and other of his side, yet was there among them a singular care of vnitie in the Gospell. The entercourse of louing letters, that you so earnestly require, may be seene among Caluins epistles, where there are louing letters [Page 246] betweene Caluine, Melancthon, Vitus, Theodorus, and other.

And now we are come to the odious inuectiues against the liues of Caluine, and Beza, taken out of a vile libell, written by Ierome Bolsec, an vnlearned, vngodlie, and vnshamefast knaue; who once was a Carmelite frier, and flying from his cloister, came first aud deceiued the Dachesse of Ferrara for a time, but his knauerie being knowne, and he espied, he was ba­nished from her; and then within three daies studie, he professed him selfe to be a Phisition, and came to Geneua; where being contemned of the learned in that science, he would take vpon him to be a diuine, & openly inueighed against the doctrine of prae destinati­on, not as a Papist, out as a meere Pelagian, for which he was condemned and banished the Citie, and after for like troubles, he was twyse banished the territorie of Berna. After that, when he thought the Churches of Fraunce should haue continued in peace, he fai­ned repentance, and sought reconciliation of the Church of Geneua, labouring ambitiouslie to be ad­mitted into the ministery: but when warre & persecuti­on befel vnto the Church, contrary to his expectation, he returned to his leech craft, and reuolted againe to Poperte: and in satisfaction of his Apostasie hath for­ged, and refined these lies against Caluine and Be­za. Anp this is that reuerend man whome our defen­der commendeth, for wisedome, learning, and hone­stie. Whose impudent slaunders with noc indifferent man can finde anie credit, seeing all law and com­mon equitie, alloweth exception against such a vile person to be a witnesse, much more to be an ac­cuser, witnes, and iudge him-selfe alone. The law of God will haue no man condemned, but vnder two or three witnesses: and the discipline of the Gospell will not haue anie accusation to be admitted against an el­der of the Church, vnder two or three witnesses: much [Page 247] lesse ought the slaunder of such an impudent aduersa­rie, being a most vile and absurd person, to be recea­ued to the condemnation of so excellent learned tea­chers, whose life in publike vew and fame, where they haue liued, hath alwaies bene blameles, and vn­reprooueable. Wherefore, the accuser being thus no­toriouslie knowne, by open factes and iudgements a­gainst him, there needeth none other detence of the persons slaundered, but their simple deniall of the crimes obiected; whose nay by al reason must be better, then his yea: seeing no man is by lawe presumed to be euill, before he be lawfullie conuicted. Beside this the particular slaunders haue bin so diligentlie confuted by him that first answered this lewd defense, for that pur­pose principallie, that I shall not neede to spend anie longer time, in declaring the vanitie and fasehood of them.

But because our defender will needes make a briefe recapitulation of the matter, and tell vs that there were six reformers of all our English Religion, it shall not be amisse to consider what waightie matter he can bring. The first (saith he) was Luther him-selfe, who con­fesseth expressely him-selfe without glose, that the first motion thereof came from the diuill him-selfe in proper person, lib. de missa priuata & vnctione sacerd. How false and slaunde­rous this reporte is, the reader maie see, by Luthers owne wordes, before sette downe. The second, Carolo­stadius (saith the defender) was by Luthers procurement, as vnworthie to liue among Christians, banished out of all the do­minions of the Duke of Saxonie and so ended his life misera­bly in labouring the ground, as your owne Historiographer Slei­dan writeth, lib. 5. Sleidan in deede doth write, that he was banished, as one that seemed to fauour the Ana­baptistes: but he writeth also, that by Luthers procure­ment, he was admitted to purge him-selfe of that crime. But that he ended his Life miserabliein labouring the ground, Sleidan our owne historiographer doth not [Page 448] write, and it is an impudent lie, as it is manifest by your owne Historiographer Surius, who in Anno 1530. writeth, that Carolostadius of an Archdeacon of Wi­temberge, became a deacon of Zurich, and after the death of Zuinglius, he remooued to Basile, and there in the ministerie of a Zuinglian Church (as he saith) ended his miserable life miserablie. Certaine it is that Carolostadius was a vaine man, and had great im­perfections, yet it is a shame to lie vpon the deuill.

The third, you saie, Oecolampadius, was so lewd a man, as by Luthers affirmation, he was slaine by the deuill him­selfe: lib. de missapriuata & vnct. sacerd. or as some other thinke, killed him selfe with his owne handes. Lind. dial. 3. dubit. It is true that Luther vttereth his rash and falle sentence of Oecolampadius vpon occasion ofsome fly ingtale, that he had heard of the soden death of Oe­colampadius. She like he affirmeth in the same place of Emser the Papist: if his authoritie be good for the one, whie is it not for the other? But the trueth is, that Oecolampadius as he liued holilie and vp right­lie, so he made a Godlie and quiet end, and was sicke in his bedde 15. daies before he departed, as is te­stified in the storie of his death, set forth by that reue­rend learned man Symon Grinaeus, who was present, and saw, and heard all that he writeth, with manie more witnesses of sufficient credit. In his sicknes he was vi­sited by all his friendes, both of the Senators of the v­niuersitie, and of the people. So that it is a most shame­les fiction, either that he died sodainlie, or that he kil­led himselfe, as that malitious Papist Lindan writeth.

The fourth reformer, saith our defender, was Zuinglius, who hauing receaued the proofes of his new doctrine of the sacra ment, from a spirit in the night (as him-selfe writeth, and con­fesseth that he knew not whether he were black or white) liued in such sorte, as he was detested by Luther, and finallie stir­ring vp the Suitsers his countrimen to fight, was slaine him­selfe in the field, and his bodie burned. That Zuinglius was [Page 249] flaine in the field, and his bodie burned by the Papists, it is confessed: but that he stirred vp his countriemen to battell (which were prouoked by intollerable iniu­ries) it is false. He went with his countriemen as a Preacher, according to their custome, and it pleased God, that he was martyred by the enemies of the trueth. As for the proofes that he receaued from a spirit in the night, you shall heare the wholl matter in his owne words. lib. de subsid. Euchar. But first you must vnderstand, that he rehearseth the whole storie con­cerning the abolishing of the masse at Zurich, & shew­eth that a certaine scribe opposed him-selfe against it, the 12. of Aprill, and obiected that those phrases (vnto which Zuinglius compared the wordes of the in­stitution, This is my bodie) the seede is the word of god, the fielde is the world, the enuious man is the deuill. &c. were spoken parabolically. Zuinglius maintained that neuertheles, there was in those sayings the same trope or figure, that is in the wordes of the supper: so the decree was made concerning the abolishing of the masse. After this he writeth after this manner.

Restabat adhuc haud minimus conatus, quo scilices exem­pla proderemus, quae nulla cum parabola coniuncta forent. Caepi­mus ergo cogitare omnia, omnia reuoluere, attamen aliud ni­hil exemplorum occurrebat, quàm quod in commentario pro­ditum est, aut quod occurrebat erat illorum simile. Cùm verò decima tertia Dies adpeteret, vera narro, adeo (que) vera, vt cae­lare volentem, conscientia cogat effundere, quod Dominus im­pertiit, non ignorans, quantis me contumeliis risibusque expo­nam. Cùm inquam decimatertia Aprilis lux adpeteret, visus sum mihi in somno, multo cum taedio denuo contendere cum aduersario scriba, sicque obmutuisse, vt quod verum scirem, ne­gante lingua beneficium suum, proloqui non possem: qui me angor, vs solent nonnunquam somnia fallaci ludere nocte (ni­hilenim altius quàm somnium narramus, quod ad nos attinet, tametsi leue non sit, quod per somnium didicimus, gratia Deo in cuius solius gloriam ista prodimus) vehementer turbare vi­debatur. [Page 250] Ibi [...] visus est monitor adesse (ater fue­rit, an albus, nihil memini, somnium enim narro) qui diceret: Quin ignaue respondes ei quod Exod. 12. Est enim Phase hoc est transitus Domini. Protinus vt hoc Phasma visum est, si­mul expergefio, & èlecto exilio. Locum apud 70. primùm vndique circumspicin, ac de eo coram [...] concione pro virili dissero: qui sermo vbi acceptus est, quemadmodum paulò pòst dicemus, omnibus sacrarum literarum candidatis, qui adhue nonnihil propter parabolae obstacula haerebant, omnem nebu­lam discussit, &c. There remained yet not the lest endeuour; namelie that we should bring forth examples which wereioined with no parable. Therefore we began to thinke of all that we could, to vnfolde all that we could, but yet none other example, came to minde, but that is set forth in our commentarie, or els whatsoeuer came to minde, was like vnto those examples. But when the 13. daie drew neere, I tell the trueth, & that so true, that though I would conceale it, my conscience compelleth me to vtter that which the Lord bestowed vpon me, being not igno­rant to how great reproches, and scornes I lay forth my selfe; when (I say, the 13. daie of Aprill drew neere, me thought as I was a sleepe, that with great tediousnes I was againe disputing with the scribe my aduersarie, that my mouth was so stopped, that my tongue denying her office, I was not able to speake out that which I knew to be true: which trouble, as dreames are wont sometimes to mocke men in the deceitfull night (for here I declare no higher matter then a dreame, as cōcerning my selfe, although it is no light matter that I learned by this dreame, thankes be to God to whose onelie glorie I vtter these thinges) which vexation (I saie) seemed to trouble me vehementlie. Then sodainlie there seemed an admonisher to be present with me (whether he were blacke, or white, I do not at all remember, for I tell a dreame) which said, why dost thou not thou coward answere him, that which is written Exod. 12. For it is the paschall which is the passeouer of the Lord. Immediatlie as this sight appeered, I awoke withall, and leapt out of my bed. And first I considered the place in the Seauentie Interpreters on eue­rie side: and thereof before the wholl congregation I preached [Page 251] as well as I could, Which sermon when it was heard, as soone after we shall declare, draue awaie all mist, or want of vnder­standing from all those that were studentes in the holie Scrip­tures, which vnto that time did somewhat doubt, because of the obiection of the parable.

Thus farre Zuinglius, by whose wordes you may easelie perceiue, what proofes he receiued of his Do­ctrine, of the Sacrament, of a spirit by night; as our defender saieth, when he sheweth onelie that he was admonished by Gods prouidence in a dreame, ofthat example Exod. 12. in which the trope or figure is ma­nifest, being also in the doctrine & institution of a sacra­ment, whereunto the Lords supper doth most properly answere, which is vsed in the words of the Lords supper: this is my body, without anie such parable, as was obie­cted vnto him in the other examples. Where he saith, that he remembreth not whether the aduertiser were white or blacke, he meaneth no more, as all men that know the prouerbe must confesse, but that he remem­breth not what he was, whether knowne to him, or vn­knowne, of whom he dreamed that he receiued that ex­ample. The same prouerbe he vseth not long before, in the same discourse, of him that disputed against him, who, whether he was white or blacke, that is, what manner of man he was, he would not describe. Surius quarelleth a­gainst An. 23. him, that he would attribute so much to a dreame when otherwise he will admit nothing but holie scrip­tures, whereas euerie reasonable man may see, that he admitteth no Doctrine vpon the bare credit of a dreame or of the admonisher, were he whit or blacke, but is onelie put in minde by a dreame of a place of ho­lie Scripture, that serued to stoppe his aduersaries mouth, and to remooue all doubt from them, that were nouices in the studie of the scripture. And this is a thing that manie times commeth to passe, that a man which earnestlie studieth of anie matter, shall in his dreame be admonished of some better waie, then [Page 252] he could thinke of waking. Which when he hath con­sidered to be the best, for anie good purpose, he neede not to doubt, but that it came vnto him by the pro­uidence of God, without being afraide to follow it, be­cause he thought of it first in a dreame. What Luther thought of Zuinglius, it skilleth not, seeing as he was stiffe in his error of the carnall manner of presence, so he was apt both to thinke and speake worse, then the trueth was, of all them that held the contrarie.

The last two were Caluine and Beza, of whome it is needles to saie anie more then hath alreadie beene setforth in their defense in print these two yeares, with out replie of anie papist. Although God be praised the Church of England dependeth neither vpon these, not vpon other men, further then they were faithfull interpreters of the worde of God, according to which our faith is framed, and not after the decrees of men.

Concerning the death of Martine Bucer, welknown in England, whome the papists abroad (as they doe of the rest) imagine to haue died a foule death, our defen­der quarrelleth with Master Charke, for belying of Lindan, and charging him to saie, that Lindan auoucheth it, where he onelie reporteth as he hearde of certaine worshipfull Marchants of Colene. But in trueth Master Charke saieth not, that Lindan doth auouch it, but on­lie, that by vttering his false reports, he maketh Bucers death as horrible and monstrous as may be suspected. Pontacus the popish historian, vttereth a like report, as the defender confesseth, that he died a Iew, denying the Messias. Surius addeth another tale, that he circumcised his sonne. begotten of I know not what woman. Thus these ly­ing papists, heape lies vpon lies, and when they haue neither sufficient author, nor probabilitie of trueth to beare them out, then certaine worshipfull Mar­chauntes, then a certaine graue, and most excellent Lindan Surius Pontacus learned man, then some of Bucers owne disciples are [Page 253] the reportes, vnder which cloake it is an easie matter to forge anie slaunder and turne ouer the enuie of it to the man in the moone, in the meane time to burthen men with suspicion of infamie among credulous per­sons, where no proofe of their false accusations can be demaunded and obtained. Touching Bucers inconstancie, The defender out of Surius, and other of that stampe, gathereth manie thinges, peruerting to vnstedfastnes of iudgement, what soeuer Bucer did saie, laboring to make vnitie betweene Luther and Zuinglius. Charging him also to recant the article of the baptisme of infants to be vnnecessarie, as he had written before vpon the third Chapter of Saint Mathewes Gospell, and vpon the 26. of Mathew to aske pardon of God, and of the Church, for that he deceiued so manie with the heresie of Zuinglius, as he calleth it. Both which matters are meere forgeries, for in those com­mentaries vpon that Gospell which we haue seene, there is no such matter.

Finallie, where he affirmeth, that Caluine differed from Zuinglius (which Master Fulke in all his writings most impu­dentlie denieth) he [...] 15. articles of heresies which An­dreas Zebedeus Preacher of Nion, & Ioannes Angelus prea­cher of Burtin, both Zuinglians, did take vpon them to prooue against Caluine at Berna (Caluine being present) vpon paine of burning, whereupon proceeded the decree of those magi­strates, in the yeare 1555. April. 3. that none of their domini­ons should communicate with Caluine at Geneua. Pontac. in anno 1555. The trueth is, thatby instigation of that hereticall varlet Bolsec, diuerse Preachers neere vn­to Geneua, quarreled against Caluins doctrine of gods eternall predestination, charging him to affirme, that god is the author of euil, with such like impudent slaun ders, whereupon Caluine by license of the Senate Beza in vita Caluini. of Geneua, so purged him-selfe before the Bernates, that one Sabastian and Bolsec were banished their do­minion And Andrew Zebedey not manie yeares after, al­beit he were then the most earnest accuser of Caluin in [Page 254] his death bed at Nouidune, foure miles from Geneua before the chiefe men of that towne, reuoked his er­rors, detested all those his actes against Caluine, and commaunded all his papers to be burned in his fight. So that whatsoeuer was offered to be prooued, nothing was prooued in deede, to shew such dissent betweene Caluine and Zuinglius, as Master Fulke might not iustlie denie anie dissent betweeneCaluine and Zuing­lius in the substance ofChristian religion, which was truelie taught by them both: notwithstanding any ca­uills, that quarrel-pickers, or fault-finders haue deui­sed against Caluine.

The sixt section, intituled, Of the Iesuites doctrine.

MAster Charke being charged to haue falsified the Iesuites wordes, defendeth his reporte by testimony of Donatus Gotuisus, out of whose treatise con cerning that matter, he professed at the first to rehearse their wordes. And that it is lawfull for him to charge them vpon an other mans reporte, he bringeth exam­ple of the Censurer, who reporteth intollerable slaun­ders of Luther vpon the credit of Lindan, Cocleus, Hosius. This replie the defender thinketh not sufficient, be­cause he bringeth three witnesses, and Master Charke but one. As though three false witnesses were of more credit, then one that speaketh the trueth, after it is tried and knowne. For what Luther affirmeth, his owne writinges do declare, so that if a thousand Papistes would sweare against him, that he hath written other­wise, then he did, his writinges being open to al mens vew, the world might condemne them al of falsehood. And if Gotuisus haue reported vntruelie, the blame is [Page 255] his, and not Master Charkes, who citeth his reporte. But in the end it shall appeare, that Gotuisus hath done the Iesuites no wrong, but either in their owne words, or in their meaning, truelie deliuered the substance of their doctrine, howsoeuer they maie cauill to cloake the matter, as the defender here compareth Master Charke to a bird taken by the legge for lying, and seeking euerie hole to escape.

The first is, that he chargeth the Censurer with foure lies in one sentence: this the defender calleth most ridiculous accusations, and asketh if men do not pitie the poore minister, that stoopeth to so miserable helpes for his re­liefe: so he laugheth at his lies, when he can not iustifie them, and turneth the woll matter to a scoffe, when he hath not one word to answer for him-selfe. he think eth not the matter worthty he defense, because the lies are madein no waighty causes. And yet a man may iust­lie note how looselie he writeth, that hath no more re­gard of trueth, the nto rappe out four lies in so short a compas of time and place. What wil he do in maters of greater importance? I neede not aske: for you may see how often he hath beene taken in most impudent and shameles assertions, such as maketh me often to thinke that he is no professor of diuinitie, which hath anie grounded knowledge him-selfe, but some cosening Copesmate chosen out for his impudencie and verbo­sitie, to broch such stuffe for vnlearned readers, as the note gatherers were ashamed to put forth vnder their owne names.

But to returne to our starting holes, the second saith sit defender, is, that Master Charke and his fellowes, draw all matters against the state, as Pasie the madde man dealt with his Master to defend him-selfe, when he was neere a shrewd turne, for some prankes plaid with his compani­ons: and here by name doctor Fulk is charged with this pra­ctize, and with parasiticall and palpable flatterie, who an­swereth [...] for him-selfe in the treatise often named, pag. 44. &c. [Page 256] But in trueth Mastet Charke needed not any coards to draw matters against the state out of your writinges: for you offer frankelie more, then it would be your ease to answer, if you durst shew your face. And truelie he said that you charge the Magistrates and Bishoppes, as if they were careles, what doctrine is deliuered to the people, when you ask what he and his fellowes dare auouch in their sermons, speeches, and dis­courses, which they are sure shall neuer come to exami­nation.

The third hole is, by laying all his lies vpon one Gotuisus: where his falsehood appeereth, in that he did not in all his whole discourse so much as once name, or quote his auther Gotuisus, either in text or margent. MasterCharke answered before, that the authors name is quoted in the most bookes, & so it is to be seene, in the margent ouer against those wordes of the text, out of a treatise concerning this matter I haue enterlaced their owne wordes, as they are to be found in the same booke. Where the quotation is Donati Gotui­si, lib. de fide Iesu & Iesuitarum. This being to be read ofeuetie childe in manie hundred copies, of what metrall is his face made of, that doth so confidentlie denie it, because (as he saieth, beleeue him ifyou list) he could neuer happen vpon anie copies, that had him quoted. And if somehad it, he asketh why al had not? as though he were ignorant, that a fault, or an omission escaped in a fewe copies, maie be reformed or added in the rest, when it is espied. The other surmises that follow, whie Master Charke should not quote his author Gotui­sus, are vaine, seeing he hath quoted him, as also the other charges of treacherie, and malitious meaning, for so much as there is no proofe of them, but his bare word, are as easilie denied by vs, as they are by him affirmed. If in the particulars that follow, he be ha­ble to bring anie substantiall matter, to confirme anie one of them, it maie be considered, as the cause shall require, and occasion be offered.

The 7. section entituled, Of the nature and difinition of sinne.

THe first article of the Iesuites doctrine, you say, is this: It is not sinne whatsoeuer is against the worde of God. Here you charge Master Charke with guile­full dealing, and that you take vpon you to shew, by an example of a lawyer that should saie, it is not treason whatsoeuer is against the Prince and common wealth, which soundeth odiouslie, as though nothing committed a­gainst the Prince and common wealth, were treason. But in what asses eares should it so sound? when euerie reasonable man must needes vnderstand, that there be offences against the Prince and common wealth, as fellonie, misprision of treason, Mayhem, and such like, which yet are not offences in so a high a degree, as treason is. The thing in question you confesse, that there is something that doth repugne the law of God, and yet is no sinne at all, if it be without will or consent, as the first motions of concupiscence are. Another cauill you haue, that his authors haue not onelie these wordes, but somewhat more, as when they saie, Sinne is not, whatsoeuer repug­neth the law of God, but, &c. If Master Chark had denied the rest, it were somewhat that you saie: but seeing you graunt they haue all that he rehearseth, he is without blame, and whether it be part of a definition, it skilleth not, seeing it is part of their affirmation. A third cauill is, that he chaungeth the place of the negatiue, which in fra­ming propositions altereth often the sense: as for peccatum est non quicquid, he saith, non est peccatum quicquid. If Master Charkes chaunging in this place did alter the sense, you would haue tolde vs of it: but seeing the sense is all one, the chaunge is no fault. Lastlie, for repugneth the law of God (you say) he putteth, it is against the worde of God. [Page 258] But here by your leaue you make a peece of a lie, for in his first answere he saith, it repugneth the law of God, which when he repeateth in his replie, it is against the worde of God, it can haue none other sense, then before. That you will admit as much, as the Iesuites in word or sence haue vttered, it is as much as Master Charke re­quireth.

Now to the obiection against the Iesuites definiti­on, made by Master Charke: you saie that to prooue that sinne is no act, he obiecteth that iniustice is a sinne, and yet no act. He were a poore sophister that could not espie your paultrie in this place. Master Charke doth not prooue that sinne generallie taken is no act: but he affirmeth that there is some sinne which is not an act. And there­fore the Iesuites in their definition haue not geuen the right Genus or materiall cause of sinne. Now for iniu­stice (to passe ouer your knauish example of the exe­cution of Campian and his fellowes, so innocent and learned men, by great iniustice) You take vpon you to teach Ma­ster Charke an high point of learning, Of the difference betweene a vice that is an habite, and a sinne that is a singu­ler fact, which perhapps (you weene) he learned not before, & yet euerie young sophister in Cambridge knoweth it well enough. But Master Charke speaketh of generall iniustice (as his wordes are plaine) which is a sinne in not doing the thing commaunded, because it is a ma­nifest transgression of the lawe of God, whoe com­maundeth the wholl and euerie part to be fullfilled, and is the sinne of omission, which you make the se­cond obiection. But euerie omission, you saie, includeth an act, which is a grosse absurditie, meaning such an act as is sinne. For I maie doe a good act, while I omit a better: the omission of a better act is sinne, the doing of a good act is no sinne. To tith mint and anise, is a good act of it selfe, for it was commaunded by God, & must not be omitted, yet was it sinne to omit mer cie and iustice, as the wordes of Christ are plaine; this you Mat. 23. 23. [Page 259] ought to doe, and not to omit the other. The examples you bring of one resoluing not to goe to Church, Helie deter­mining not to punish his children, and the watchmen not to sound the trumpet, where the determination and resolution as the cause, is the principall part of the sinne, are foolish. For there maie be omission which is sinne, where there is no resolution, and determination to the contrarie, of that which should be done, but negligence, or forget­fullnes: yea there is omission which is sinne, where there is no power in vs to performe that should be done, as in all the reprobate and vnregenerate, and in the regenerate also in part, which neither doe, nor can in this life, loue God and their neighbour in such perfe­ction as the lawe of God requireth. There is omission also through ignorance of Godes lawe, which is sinne, and deserueth stripes, and yet ignorance the cause thereof, is no act, but the lacke of knowledge.

But being ouercome by scripture and reason, you flie to the authoritie of the auncient fathers, and first you quote Chrysost. Homil. 16. in Epist. ad Eph. moste im­pudentlie, where by scriptures, reason, & examples, he Luc. 12. 48. teacheth the cleane contrarie, that omission of dutie, is sinne though there be no act to the contrary, as when Christ shall saie, I was an hungred, &c. and concludeth: Nihilenim boni facere, hoc ipsum est malum facere: to doe no good, euen that is to doe euill, or to sinne. The like he saieth. Hom. de virtut. & vitiis, Satis est igitur mali hoc ipsum, ni­hil fecisse boni. Euen this is euill inough, to haue done noe good. Ambrose hom. 18, hath nothing to the purpose, or if you meane 81. which is translated out of Basils hom. which you quote nexte, he hath nothing to your pur­pose, but rather against it. For vpon the wordes of Christ Math. 25. I was an hungred, and you gaue me not to eat, he writeth thus; Neque enim in his verbis, qui aliena inuasit arguitur, sed is qui non communiter vsus est iis que ha­buit, condemnatur. For in these wordes he is not reprooued which hath laid bolde vpon other mens goodes, but he which [Page 260] hath not communicated those thinges which he had, is condem ned. Basills wordes in Greek are [...]. For the extorcioner is not Hom. in illud. Luce. destru­em horrea.there accused, but he that doth not communicate is condemned.

Last of all you charge vs with that definition of Saint Augustine contra Faust. lib. 22. cap. 27. Peccatum est factum, vel, &c. Sinne is something done, or said, or coueted against the eternall lawe. But if this were a perfect definitiō, what needed the Iesuites to frame another, according to whose definition, this of Saint Augustine is larger then the word defined, and in respect of the sinne of omission, it is streighter then the terme of sinne: yet it serued Saint Augustine for his purpose in hand, con­cerning the facts of the Patriarches, mentioned in the scripture, which were to be praised, and which to be dispraised. As for Ambrose in the place by you quoted, lib. de paradiso, cap. 8. hath another definition, then Au­gustine, and a more perfect, taken out of Saint Iohn. Quidest enim peccatum (saith he) nisi praeuaricatio legis di­uinae, & coelestium inobedientia praeceptorum. For what is sin, but the transgression of the lawe of God, and a disobedience of the heauenlie commaundements? This definition of Am­brose is perfect, and maketh flatlie against you: for he that doth not that which god commaundeth, sinneth, although in the meane time, he doe some other thing that is good, or not euill, yea although he sleepe and doe nothing.

Where Master Charke doth distinguish the crea­tures and ordinances of God, which are good, from the: corruption, and preuarication that is in them, which is euill, you picke a fond quarrell to him and make him to saie, that deuills and euill men doe not repugne against the law of God, and that they doe not sinne proper­lie: Which is false, for he saith no such thing: but that euill men, as they are the creatures of God, are not against the law, but the euill in men, and so of the rest: yet euil men doe sinne properlie, and repugne [Page 261] against the law of God, by the euill that is in them: as in your owne example, the Phisitian cureth his pati­ent, not as he is a man, but as he is a Phisitian, and by knowledge of Phisicke, which is in him. And as for the repugnance of contrarietie, whereof the question is in the definition of sin, it is not in the creature of god, but the corruption of that good crearure. A blacke horsse is not contrarie to the colour of white, but the colour of blacke; so not an euil man, but sin of an euil man is con­trary to the iustice of Gods law: So a Phitisian driueth away an ague, yet aPhisitian is not contrary to an ague, but thevertue of the medicine, which he ministreth. When euerie childe may vnderstand your cauilling, it is no meruaile, though you charge M. Chark with such absurditie, and ignorance, yea with heresie: and that out of Augustine, Tom. 8. fol. 665. not telling vs of what edition you speake, so that it were harde to finde (if it were worth the search) that which you talke of: but you are to be pardoned, for your note was vnperfect, & did not expresse in what homelie, vpon what Psalme.

The second fault of the Iesuites definition, is, that they call it an humane or reasonable action, Master Charke would rather saie, a beastly or vnreasonable action, of a man indued with reason. Here you take on, and aske whether Master Charke be so vnlearned in all foundation of Philosophie? And Aristotle, and Saint Augustine are called to witnes, that sin proceedeth from the minde indued with reason: and what other thing I beseech you, doth Master Charke saie? his wordes are plaine, as I haue set them downe, and the same that you cite Tom. 6. defide. cont. Man. c. [...]. 9. & 10. out of Augustine. Now if you will defend, that sinne is an action agreeable to right reason, because it procee­deth frō a reasonable man, he giueth you a weapon to play with al against your next encounter, otherwise he hath better reformed the wordes of your definition, thé you haue either wit, or grace to vnderstand. It hath. a better colour that you obiect, of the morall workes [Page 262] of iustice, temperance, & other vertues in the gentils, which M. Chark wil acknowledge to be sin, and yet they seeme to be agreeable to right reason; & so they are in part, so far forth as they be directed by that light, which is left in men, proceeding fró the eternal word of god: but in so much as that light shineth in darkenes, and the darkenes comprehendeth it not, no acceptable worke to God can be brought forth therebie. Yea for so much as all the morall workes of the gentiles, re­spected not the right ende of obedience, and glorie of God, whome they knew not, their wholl actions were Psa. 109. 7. Pro. 15. 8. therebie vitiated, and corrupted, so that they may iu­stlie be called sinne. Euen as praier is turned into sin, and the sacrifice of the vngodlie is abhomination to the Lord. And M. Charke faith truelie, whatsoeuer is not of faith is sin, be it reasonable as you speake, or against rea­son. And in deede against right reason it is, that the gentiles in their morall workes, sought not to obey God according to his lawe, and therefore euen their best workes of iustice and temperance were sinne. But this is so iumpe (you saie) that an horse might be a sin­ner, for that his actions proceed not of faith. In deed if Saint Paul had spoken of the actions of brute beastes, as your Saint Francis (witnes your Legend) did preach to brute beastes, you had iumped neere the matter: but when none but an asse would vnderstand Saint Paul to speake of any other actions, then such as proceede from men, you iumpe as neere as Germans lippes, that were nine mile a sunder. But you will answere to Saint Paul with S. Ambrose, that he meaneth whoesoeuer doth a thing against that, which faith prescribeth, that is against a mans own conscience, and iudgement, he sinneth. The words of S. Ambrose are these. Rectè peccatum appellat quod ali­terin ep. ad Rom cap. 14.fit quàm probatum est. He doth rightlie call that sinne which is done otherwise then is allowed. Now this allowance or approbation, is not referred to euerie mans corrupt conscience, or ignorant iudgement as you expound it, [Page 263] but is measured by faith, which is a certaine know­ledge and perswasion, grounded vpon the worde of God, as Saint Paul sheweth in the 14. verse of the 14. Chap. I know & am perswaded by our Lord Iesus, that nothing is vncleane of it selfe: which faith when the Gentiles had not in their workes, their works were sinne. And therfore you abuse S. Ambrose by your glose, to restreine the prescription of faith onelie to that which a man doth against his conscience and iudgement.

But Saint Augustine (you say) prooueth at large against Master Charke, that the morall good workes of infidels were not sinne. lib. de spiritu & litera, cap. 26. 27. 28. In truth S. Augustine though he call such workes iustice, liberali­tie, wrought by infidels, as we doe commonlie, good workes, yet his iudgement is none other, then I haue before expressed, and that he declareth in the latter ende of the 27. Chapter, for in the 26. he hath nothing sounding that wase. Speaking of infidels. Quaedam ta­men fact a vel legimus, vel nouimus, vel audimus, quae secun­dùm iusticiae regulam non solùm vituper are non possumus, ve­rumetiam meritò recte (que) laudamus: quanquam si discutiatur quo fine fiant, vix iuueniuntur quae insticiae debitam laudem defensionemue mereantur. Yet some deedes we either reade, or know, or heare of, which according to the rule of righteousnes, we cannot, not only dispraise, but also we do worthily & rightly praise them, although if it be discussed with what end they are done, they are scarslie found, which deserue the praise or de­fense dew to righteousnes. But most cleerelie his iudge­ment is for Master Charke against you (sir defender) as well for the allegation of the text, Rom. 14. where you scornfullie iumped in your sinfull horse, as for the matter in question, that the morall workes of Gen­tiles are sin before God. Contra Iulianum Pelagianum lib. 4. cap. 3. towarde the ende in these wordes. Si Gentilis in­quis, nudum operuerit, numquid quia non est ex fide peccatum est? prorsus: in quantum non ex fide, peccatum est: non quia per se ipsum factū, quod est nudum operire, peccatum est: sed de [Page 264] tali opere non in domino gloriari, solus impius negat esse pec­catum. If an heathen man (saiest thou) doe cloath the naked, is it sinne, because it is not of faith? yea, out of doubt, in as much as it is not of faith, it is sinne. Not because the deede it selfe, which is to cloath the naked, is sinne, but not to reioyce in the Lord of such a worke, none but an vngodlie man will denie to be sinne. This and much more to this effect, hath Saint Augustine in that place against the Pelagians, which with the papists denied that such workes of the infidels were sinne. But albeit Saint Augustine be directlie a­gainst you, yet Saint Ierome (you thinke) may helpe you in Ezechiell: cap. 29. whoe saith thus. Caeterùm ex eo quòd Nabuchodonoser mercedem accepit boni operis, intelligimus e­tiam ethnicos, si quid boni fecerint, non abs (que) mercede Dei iu­dicio praeteriri. But of this that Nabuchodonvser receuied are­warde of good workes, we vnderstand that euen the gentiles, if they haue done any goood thing, are not passed ouer without re­warde by the iudgement of God. To this I answere, that God rewardeth vertue in the gentiles, it prooueth not their morall workes are not sinne, in as much as they are not done of faith, as S. Augustine at large teacheth in both the bookes and places last cited. For those good facts are of the reliques of Gods image, not al­together blotted out, which God doth reward as his owne worke in them: but in as much as they doe not those good deedes well, they are sinne in the doers, as Saint Augustine saieth: and therefore neither Saint Augustine, nor Saint Ierome, are against Master Charke in this cause.

The third fault of your definition Master Chark saith is, that you restraine sinne onelie to voluntarie action. Against which you oppose Saint Augustine in manie quotati­ons, where he repeateth these words so often, Sinne is an euill so voluntarie, as it can be by no meanes sinne, except it be voluntarie. But what his iudgement was of those wordes, appeareth best in his retractations which you quote lib. 1. cap. 13. & 15. In the former he saith, patest vi­deri [Page 265] falsa haec definitio, sed si diligenter discutiaiur, inueni­eiur esse verissima. Peccatum quippe illud intelligendum est, quod tantummodo peccatum est, non quod est etiam paena pecca­ti, &c. This difinition maie seeme to be false, but if it be di­ligently discussed, it shall be found to be most true. For that sinne is to be vnderstood therein, which is onelie sinne, and not also the punishment of sinne, as I haue shewed before, when I rehearsed certaine thinges out of my third booke of free will. Although euen those sinnes, which not vnworthelie are cal­led sinnes not voluntarie, because they are committed either by them which know not, or which are compelled, can not be committed altogether without the will, because euen he which sinneth of ignorance, sinneth willinglie, when he thinketh that to be donne, which ought not to be donne. And he which doth not those thinges which he will, the flesh lusting against the spi­rit, Gal. 5. lusteth truelie vnwillinglie, and there in doth not what he will: but if he be ouercome, he consenteth to concupiscence wil­linglie, and therein doth not what he will, being free from Iustice, and a seruant of sinne. And that which in children is called originall sinne, when as yet they vse not the free choise of will, is not absurdlie called also voluntarie, because being drawne from the euill will of the first man, it is made as it were comming by inheritance. The same in effect he saith C. 15. answering that he had set downe, de duabus animabus c. 14. Propterea vera est, &c. That definition is true for this cause, for that, that sinne is defined which is onelie sinne, and not that sinne which is a punishment of sinne. Againe he saith. sine voluntate nullum esse petcatum, siue in opere, si­ue in origine: that there is no sinne without will, either in the worke, or in the beginning. By which sayings Saint Au­gustines iudgement is plaine, that in the particular worke, there are sinnes, that are not voluntarie; as those that come of ignorance, or compulsion, or as concupiscence & original infection, yet al these may be called voluntarie in respect of the first mans offence, in whome was freedome of will, which Master Chark graunteth, and therefore that childish insultation [Page 266] needed not, but to shew your pride in contempt of o­thers, as though al learning had beene bred with you, and were like to die, if you did not plant it in vs. Saint Augustine therefore is cleere, that that sinne which is a punishment of sinne, is not voluntarie, and that his definition (as he calleth it) was onelie of sinne, which hath none other consideration, but as sinne: his disputation being against the Manichees, which deriued sinne from an euill God, and not from the free will of man, or deuill, first created good, by the onelie good God. But you haue scripture to prooue euerie act or omission which is sin to be voluntarie: because Christ him selfe saith, that those things which do defile a man, do come from the heart, as though nothing might come frō that cor­ruptroote, the heart of man, which is not voluntarie. You your selfe affirm, that euil thoughts are not volun­tary, which he saith come from the heart. Mat. 15. 19.

Now concerning the obiection of originall sinne, there hath beene inough said out of Saint Augustine concer ning the other obiection of manslaughter, donne without consent of will, which you affirme to be innocencie, God defend euerie good Christian from such innocencie. At least wise you might haue made such a fact com­mitted by error, a voluntarie sinne, by the first mans sinne, that was of free will, which if it had not beene, no man should haue erred in that case, or anie other. But the text (you tel vs) calleth him an innocent man, liberabitur innocens, &c, the innocent shall be deliuered from the hand of the reuenger So great a Rabbin as you would seeme to be, by your quotations out of Rabbi Isaac, Rab­bi Mose, and Rabbi Leui, should not be ignorant, that in the hebrew text the word is harotzeach, that is the killer, & not the innocent, which yet is adiudged to escape pu­nishment Num. 35. 25. of death, by the politike law, because in re­spect of mans iudgement, he hath not offended: for which cause also Deut. 19. his blood is called innocent. Yet his flying to the citie of refuge, and imprisonment [Page 277] there, vntill the death of the high priest, argueth as Master Charke saith, that there is somthing in his fact or the error, by which he committed the fact that hath neede of forgiuenes by Christ, wher of the high Priest was a figure. Neither was the citie of refuge appointed one­lie for the triall of the slaughter, whether it were willinglie or vnwillinglie committed (as you saie) but also for a kinde of punishment, and detestation of manslaughter; so that if the sleaer were found out of the City, before the death of the high Priest, the auenger of blood might kill him, and not be charged with his blood, Where you refuse the mysterie of Christes death in the death Num. 35. 27 of the high Priest, and flie to the fantasies of the Iewes, you declare that you care not what you bring, so you maie obtaine your purpose. But Chri stian diuines as Cyrillus, Maximus, and others, of the death of the high priest in that place, gather deliue­rance by the death of Christ. Saint Ambrose also is Cvrill. & a­liorum col­lect. ex deut. cap. 15. de fuga Jecu­li. cap. 2. cleere, that the high Priest in this place, signifieth Ie­sus Christ, and confuteth the politike reasons, by you rehearsed, out of R. Mose, and R. Leui, for that in causis paribus there was impar euentus, In equal causes vnequall end. For the high Priest might die (saith he) the next daie after the manslaier hath taken his refuge. Againe he ad­deth, that Christ is exors omnium voluntariorum & acci­dentium delictorum: void of all offences voluntarie and chaunceable, by which he acknowledgeth vnwilling manslaughter to be an offence. Saint Ierome also, Dialog. aduers. Pel. lib. 1. is plaine in that wholl case and sinne of ignorance, and that he which is fled to the citie, must tarie vntill the high Priest die, that is vntill he be redeemed by the blood of our Sauiour. Be­da also vpon this place by his allegorie, sheweth how in deut. c. 15 he thought of that kinde of sinne. Also Theodoretus in lib. Num. quaest. 51. declareth both the mysterie of the high Priests death, and sheweth, that such vn­willing manslaughter is sinne. Cur ad obitum Pontifi­cis [Page 268] praescribet eireditum, qui nolens interfecit? Qnia [...] Pontificis secundùm ordinem Melchisedech, erat humani pec­cati solutio. Whte vntill the death of the high Priest, doth he prescribereturne vnto him, which hath slaine a man vn­willinglie? Because the death of the high Priest after the or­der of Melchisedech, was the loosing of the sinne of man: and so forth to the same effect. And if all the politike rea­sons be graunted, of the mans tarying vntill the high Priest die, yet the mysterie of Christes death, is not thereby taken away, whoose blood clenseth vs from all sinne voluntarie, or vnuoluntarie.

The last fault of the definition is, that the Iesuites acknow­ledge not the sinne of ignorance: you answer, they do, of that ignorance, whereof a man him-selfe is the cause, but not of that ignorance, which the schoolemen call inuincible, which is not in the doers power to auoid, nor he fell into it, by his owne defaulte as in the example of the Queenes subiect, being in his Princes affaires in India, and commaunded by proclama­tion in Westminster to appeare there, at a certaine daie: in which cause his absence is excused by inuincible ignorance. This case graunted betweene the Prince and his sub­iect, prooueth not that ignorance excuseth before God, because there is not the like reason: seeing no such ignorance, whereby a man should transgresse the law of God, is in man, but by voluntarie and witting transgression of the first man, and his owne negligence which maketh his fact sinfull, because he is cause of his ignorance by negligence, or in the sinne of Adam, in whome you confesse that all men sinned. At least wise if originall sinne be voluntarie, by the sinne of Adam, so also is the transgression of gods law, in these cases of inuincible ignorance, wittinglie committed by the same sinne of Adam. Augustine, whome you quote for De libet. arb. lib. 3. cap. 22. your purpose, speaketh of naturallignorance, and in­firmitie, which is in insants, not of that whereby men fall into error, and so transgresse Gods law. For that he calleth penall ignorance and difficultie, which is iust­lie [Page 269] laid vpon them that neglected to seeke knowledge, and is sinfull, therefore cannot excúse sinne. Chriso­stome, whome you quote likewise, is manifestly against you. his wordes are these. Quòdsi ea ignoraueris quae scriri non possunt, praeter culpam eris: siverò quae scitu & In epist. ad Rom. hom. 26possibilia sunt, & facilia, extremas poenas merito dabis. If thou be ignorant of those thinges which are not possible to beknowne, thoushalt be blamles: but if they be possible, and easie to be knowne, thou shalt worthelie suffer extreame pu­nishment. As in the cases of Abimelech with Abrahams wife, and Iacob with Lea, who if they had made diligent Gen. 20. Gen. 29. inquirie, needed not to haue beene deceiued through ignorance. Neither doth God excuse Abimelech from sinne altogether, as you saie, albeit he pardoned his ignorance, and kept him from the fact of adulterie, & acknowledged his minde to haue beene free from the purpose of Adulterie. For the punishmeut laid vpon him, argueth what he deserued by his ouer hastie pur­pose of mariage with Sara, and Abimelech confesseth that Abraham had brought vpon him and his King­dom a great sinne. Also when God saith to him, I haue kept thee thatthou shouldest not sinne against me, he decla­reth plainlie, that if Abimelech had lien with Sara, vpon that ignorance, he had sinned against God. But of Iacobslying with Lea, in steade of Rachell, you mooue a greater contention, and alledge Saint Augustine in Cont. Faust. lib. 2. cap. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52 his defense. But whosoeuer gaue you your notes, through your negligence in not reading the places your selfe, made you erre through ignorance. For S. Augustine doth notin all those Chapters once touch the question, whether Iacob sinned, in that he did not regarde what woman was laid in his bedde, by which negligence, as Master Charke saith, he might haue committed most horribleincest with his mother, aunt or daughter. Onelie he defendeth his Polygamie, by the custome of that time, and the contention of his wiues for their lodgeing with him, and last of all, al­legorizeth [Page 280] vpon the wholl storie, drawing the error of Iacob and all the rest to a mysterie. Nor yet de ciuit: dei lib. 16. c. 38. doth he defend his negligence, rehear­sing onelie, how he came to haue foure wiues, when he went into Mesopotamia for one onelie, adding that because he had lyen with Lea vnwittinglie, he did not put her awaie, lest he might be thought to haue mocked her. Neither hath Iustinus Martyr lib. de verit. Christ. rel. anie defense of Iacobs innocencie, or excuse of his negligence in this fact, but sheweth onelie what Dyal. cum Tiyobon. in Gen. quest. 84. mysterie maie be gathered of his marriages, as Saint Augustine doth. Finallie Theodores your last aunci­ent witnes, agreeing with the rest, saith that Iacob be­trothed onelie Rachell, and beside the purpose of his will, had to doe with Lea. But immediatelie assoone as he perceiued the deceit, he tooke it heauilie and complained to his father in law. what word of defense, or excuse of his fact com­mitted through ignorance & negligence, haue you in this saying? yet you conclude after your vaunting mannner. And what one worde can Master Chark now peepe against all this?

O you papists, that with sinceritie of Religion, haue not caste of all humane honestie, doe you not, blush at the impudent ignorance, of this your defender? And yet he is not ashamed to gather Master Charks absurd positions, not one according to his meaning, and but one onelie agreeable to his wordes. First that sinne is no action, where he holdeth that all sinne, as the sinne of omission, is no action. Secondlie, that no euill men doe sinne, but the euill in men: which he saith not, but that man, as he is the creature of God, is not against the lawe, but the euill in man. Thirdlie, that sinne is not voluntarie, which he saieth not generally, but of some sin, speake­ing properlie. Forthlie, that sinne, is no humane or reaso­nable action. which he saieth, rather to be a beastlie and vnreasonable action of a man endued with reason. Fiftlie, that it requireth neither will nor knowledge in the [Page 281] doer. where he saith, that the transgression of Gods law is sin, in some case and sort, which is without the will and knowledge of the doer. Last of all, that fooles, and madde men may as properlie commit sinne as others: but this he saith not at al, but that the infirmites of follie and madnes shal not excuse sin, and that if a madde man, or a foole kil a man (in the Censurcrs iudgement) it is properly no sinne. Whereof you may inferr, that it is sinne properlie, but not that it is as properlie sinne, as in others. But if madde men and fooles coulde not commit sinne pro­perlie, whie are they punished for sinne? To conclude where you saie, that Master Charke reiecteth Saint Au­gustine about the definition of sinne, it is false. For these are his wordes. Howsoeuer you alledge Austen to approoue your definition, it is no waie so large, as sinne, and iherefore a most vnlearned definition. These words of his declare, that he reiecteth not Augustine in this matter, but your false and fraudulent allegation of him, which is manifestly shewed before, by Augustines sound iudgement, in his retractions.

The eight section, Of sinne.

MAster Chark hauing said out of the definition of Saint Iohn, which also Saint Ambrose doth vse, as I haue shewed before, that all transgression of the lawe is sinne, was charged by the Censurer with transposition, because the Apostles wordes lie thus in the text, Sinne is trans­gression 1. Ioh. 3. 4. of the law. Master Charke defendeth him-selfe, al­ledging that these wordes sinne, and the transgression of the law, are as the definition, and the thing defined, which are mutuallie verified the one of the other. The defender bringeth nothing to prooue, that this is no [Page 272] definition, but that which he hath saide in the section before, which is ouerthrowne. Onelie he quarrelleth, that Master Charke said, the Gospell is as generall, as the power of God to saluation, whereas Christ also is called the pow­er 1. Cor. 1. 24. of God to saluation. As though the Gospell did not include Christ. For when it is said, the Gospell is the pow­er of God to saluation, you must vnderstand, the generall matter, namelie the doctrine or the preaching. That transposition of wordes is sometimes lawfull, M. Charke sheweth by an example, God is a spirite, where the wordes lie in the text, a spirite is God. The defender wrangleth, that it is not alwaies lawfull, which shall be graunted vnto him, without controuersie. That in this question it is not lawful, he hath nothing to prooue but a beggerlie demaund of that in question, that trans­gression of Gods lawe is larger then sinne. Where Master Chark alledgeth out of 1. Iohn. 5. 17. that euerie iniquitie is sin, he maketh no small adoe, because the greeke word in that text is [...], in the other [...],, which if they be not all one in sense, let him enter an action against the vulgar interpreter, which in both places transla­teth iniquitas. Yea, let him quarrell with Saint Augu­stine, 1. Ioh 3. 4. Tr. 4. which vpon the place in question, writeth thus. Nemo enim dicat, aliud est peccatum, at (que) aliud iniquitas: ne­mo dicat ego peccator homo sum, sed iniquus non sum: omnis qui facit peccatum, & iniquitatem facit, Peccatum iniquitas est. quid ergo faciemus de peccatis nostris & iniquitatibus? Let no man saie, sin is one thing, iniquitie is an other thing: let no man say, I am a sinful man, but I am not vniust: euery one that committeth sin, doth commit iniquity: for sin is iniquity: what then shall we do with our sinnes, and iniquities, &c? You see here that S. Augustine accounteth sin & iniquitie or vniustice to be all one. So doth he in 1. Iohn. Tr. 5. And where the Apostle vseth the word [...], which is vnrighteuosnes, what say you? meaneth he generall in­iustice, or speciall? If he meane generall, as you must needes say for shame, then it is as large as sinne, and it [Page 273] is manifest, that the Apostle vseth the worde Iustice, as contrarie to sinne, therefore iustice must needes be the same that sinne. If you can make a diuersitie be­tween general iniquity, & general iniustice, you are wi­ser then the vulgar interpreter, speciallie if he speake in this latter place of great sinnes onelie, as you say, where­as iniquitie in the former place, may signifie such small trans­gression, as is no sinne at all. Verelie Oecumenius is against you, and saith, Simpliciter tanquam à genere peccati facit [...], & [...], omnis iniquitas peccatum est, hoc est, siue sit ad mortem, siue non. He maketh a plaine diuision of sinne, as it were from the generall, and saith, all inquitie is sinne, that is, whether it be vnto death, or not. And vpon 1. [...] 3. he saith. Sciendum autem quòd [...], &c. We must know that sin is a falling from that which is good, [...] or [...] is an offence against the law: and both of them hath, this beginning, namelie sinne, the [...] from that which is good, iniquitie, to doe against the law that [...]. And they agree the one with the other, and are about the same thing. For he which sinneth, erreth from the marke which is according to nature, and in nature is selfe. For the scope or marke [...] nature, is to liue according to reason, farre from vnreasonablenes. Likewise he that doth [...], offendeth about the lawe giuen in nature, beeing affected intemperate­lie. Rectè ergo discipulus domini [...], inidem [...]. Therefore the disciple of our Lorde, hath rightlie vsed the one for the other. Here iniquitie is as large as sinne. Against this what haue you to saie? Aristotell in praedicam. qual. For which I send you to Aristotell. Eth. lib. 5. c. 1. But [...] euery iniquitie is not sinne, you haue Saint Augustine lib. 2. cont. Iulian cap. 5. When you can set downe his wordes, you shall receiue an answere; in the meane time as you saie, Master Charke reserued a sure carde for the ende. I may thinke you haue prepared this as a bumme carde to wine the game. That S. Auustine saieth, concupiscence in the regenerate is not sinne, I graunt, so you wil confesse that he saith also, that it is sinne. When he saieth, it is not [Page 274] sin he meaneth either because the guilt is forgiuen [...] because it is not actuall sinne, as Saint Iames doth di­stinguish sinne from concupiscence. But that it is of it selfe sinne, and damnable, if it be not remitted, he affir­meth cont. Iul. Pel. lib. 5. c. 3. & lib. 6. cap. 5. he saith it is e­uill alwaies, and cap. 3. he condemneth it as the Pela­gians heresie that [...], it is not to be blamed.

Where Master Charke chargeth you with alteration of the text, when you translate, omnis qui facit peccatum, euerie one that sinneth, where you should saie, euerie one that doth sinne, you make sporte afteryour manner, and aske what difference, whether a man saie, your wife spinneth, or your wife doth spin? where you shew your selfe to be a verie good Grammarian, that can make no difference in our tongue, betweene the signe of the actiue mode, doth, and the Greeke worde [...], & think that [...] differeth nothing in vehemency from [...], which M. Chark told you, you should haue translated, to expresse the force of the phrase in our tongue, euerie one that committeth sinne. But this you count smal game, and I would it were the greatest that you haue committed in your censure. You cannot afford M. Chark to say, that he knoweth he serueth the Lord, because he hath not that knowledge by Aristotles demonstrati­ons (you are sure) which yet are the onelie meanes of certaine science properlie. So that the doctrine of the scriptures, & the testimonies of the holie ghost, are no meanes of certaine science properlie. Yet without them and A­ristotles demonstrations also, you are sure, that Master Charke hath no certaine knowledge, that he serueth the Lorde. Or if you suppose you can gather your sure­nes [...] Aristotelicall demonstrations, it maie please you to thinke, that Master Charke may by the same kinde of demonstrations gather the certaintie of his knowledge, hauing the maior in the holie scriptures, and the testimonie of his conscience, and of the holie spirit, for the minor and conclusion. The examples [Page 275] you obiect, of Luther and Bucer altering their opinions, are not like the matter in question. For as men may [...], so maie they be deceiued in their opinion of [...] God: yet it followeth not, that no man maie be cer­taine that he serueth God trulie. Where you saie that Luther had beene a protestant manie yeares, when he saide he did knowe there was a purgatorie, it is false; sor at the same time he acknowledged the Popes authoritie, [...] hu­mano, by the lawe of men, as in the time of the Canstans Councell, it was the opinion of manie Papists.

The ninth section, intituled, Of Concupiscence. Art. 2.

THe doctrine of the Iesuites as Gotuisus repor­teth is, that Concupiscence remayning in the regene­rate, although it be against the law of God, yet is it not [...] properlie in it selfe, or of his owne nature. Here you will not accept the excuse which layeth the addition of these wordes, although it be against the law of God, vpon [...], because Master Charke might haue seene them wan­ting in Canisius. As though he was bound to examine the reporte of Gotuisus, which he promiseth to re­hearse by Canisius. But Master Charke telleth you, the excuse is needeles, because those words must of ae­cessity be vnderstood. For the question isof none other concupiscence, but that which is against the law. Se­condlie you slaunder him, when you saie he doth assure his Reader, that you doe vnder hand graunt concupiscence to be some kinde of sinne, when you denie it to be mortall sinnes for his sentence is disiunctiue: namelie, either you graunt, &c. or els you loade, and disguise your sentence. with waste wordes, which is true: for to what purpose should you denie that to be deadlie sinne, which you [Page 276] do not acknowledge to be anie sinne: as if one should saie, an Asse is not a wise man, he should speake fond­lie, seing an Asse is no man. That concupiscence by Saint Paul is called sin vnproperlie, as S. Augustine saith, because it is the cause of sinne, Master Charke denieth, yet with­out anie malepertnes (as you charge him) or contu­melie neuer so litle vnto Saint Augustine, but with that libertie which he himselfe graunteth to all men, that shall reade or examine his writings: Neither is Saint Augustines iudgement alwaies the exposition of the primitiue Church, when both he diffenteth from o­thers, and from himselfe also, now and then.

But now let vs see, how you cauill at Master Charkes exposition of Saint Paul to the Romanes, where he [...]. 7. calleth concupiscence sinne. First he saith, though the Lawe stirrcth vs to sinne, yet is it no sinne: and that maketh for you, for so you may conclude of concupiscence. But then your conclusion shalbe false, and your reasoning weaker, then that you reprehend in Master Charke, as weake reasoning, where he saith: If the lawe that is holie doe come in question of sinne, for that it prouoketh our corrupt nature to sinne, how much more concupiscence, which is vn­cleane of it selfe? This prooueth nothing (say you) but from the place, à disparatis, where children and distra­cted men take their arguments. I will enter no logicall disputation with you, of what force the argument à di­sparatis is, if it be rightlie vsed: but I maruell you could not see, the argument à comparatis, from the lesse to the more. If the holie lawe maie come in question of sinne, much more the vncleane lust. But you woulde haue men thinke, that Master Charke meant by this compa­rison to conclude, that lust is properlie sinne, wher­as he onelie prepareth a waie to that conclusion, by this comparison. But the antecedent (you saie) is false, that the law stirreth vs to sinne, or the lawe prouoketh our cor­rupt nature to sinne. Which Master Charke saith not abso­lutelie, but that through our rebellion, the law giuing [Page 277] no occasion, but the occasion beeing altogether taken by our corruption rebelling against the commaunde­ment. You replie, that the lawe doth no waie stirre to sinne, but by discouering, as a glasse doth spottes, and that Saint Paul hath no such meaning, as Master Charke saith. But the text is too plaine to be denied, That sinne taking occasion through the commaundement, hath wrought in me all concu­piscence, the commaundement comming, sinne reuiued. Sinne Rom. 7. 8. 9. 10. 13. taking occasion thorough the commaundement hath decei­ued me, &c. that sinne might be made exceedinglie sinnefull. Now to prooue that Saint Paul meaneth voluntarie concupiscence, whereunto consent or delectation is yelded, where he saith, he had not knowne concupiscence, if the lawe had not saide, thou shalt not lust: you cite S. Au­gustine lib. 1. de nupt. & concup. cap. 29. where he hath the cleane contrarie iudgement. Multum boni facit, qui fa­cit quod scriptum est, post concupiscentias tuas non eas, sed non perficit, quia non implet quod scriptum est, Non concupisces. He doth much good, which doth that which is written, goe not after thy lustes, but he maketh not his good perfect, because he fulfilleth not that which is written, Thou shalt not lust. These wordes and the wholl Chapter prooueth that Saint Augustine vnderstandeth the tenth commaundement of concupiscence, whereunto no consent is added. Againe, lib. de spir. & lit. cap. vltimo, he saith, that this com­maundement, Thou shalt not lust, perteineth to the life to come, because no man can fulfill it in this life: but the other, Goe not after thy lustes, perteineth to this life, because men may restreine, by Gods grace, consent and dele­ctation in lust. Your third quotation is, lib. 19. Cont. Fau­stum, cap. 7, where Saint Augustine saith no more for you, then in the rest, sauing that he saith. That for as much as it is hard for vs to fullfill in euerie respect, that which is written in the law, thou shalt not lust, Christ beeing made a prieste, by the sacrifice of his flesh obteineth pardon for vs, euen so fulfilling the law, that by his perfection might be recouered that, which by our infirmitie we could not. In which [Page 278] saying, except you will cauill vpon the terme of diffi­cultie, which in other places he maketh a flat impossi­bilitie, there is no shadow for your assertion. In your fourth quotation, Cont. 2. ep. Petil. lib. 3. cap. 7. or in steede of Petil. as I gesse, you would saie Pelagianorum, is no­thing sounding to the matter, but rather the contrarie; that perfection cannot be in this life, because there cannot be perfect iustice or fulfilling of the law. Where fore I can but wonder at your impudencie in these quotations. And yet as though you had found a great [...], you saie it is most worthie of laughter which Master Charke for filling vp of a page, discourseth of S. Pauls estate, when he saith, Paul compareth his estate before his knowledge of the tenth commaundement with his state afterward, &c. Verelie the Greeke prouerbe hath place in you [...], &c. A foole lauheth when there is nothing worthie of laughter. You aske how he could be ignorant of that commaundement, considering his education, & yet be able to [...] other sinnes by the light of naturall reason. But Master Charke saith he knew other sinnes by the law, and light of nature. He knew also by his bringing vp that it was written in the law, thou shalt not lust, but he vnderstood it not otherwise, then the Pharises did, which thought they were able to keepe the law. But af­ter he learned what originall sinne, and the lust there­of proceeding was, he sound himselfe condéned by the tenth commaundement, which he could not doe by the other nine, from which it is perfectlie distinct, nor by the light of reason: for the philosophers could ne­uer atteine to vnderstand that sinne. But concupis­cence with consent, and delectation, they could per­ceiue to be vitious, and sinfull. So that your sardoni­call laughter may be staide and turned to weeping, if [...] had grace to know that commaundement, as Saint Paul had, whereof it appeareth you are as igno­rant, as euerhe was.

Concerning the similitude of the latine tongue, whereof [Page 279] the tongue is onelie an instrumentall cause, as it answereth not the effect of originall sinne, so being a contention of termes, I will not stand vpon it. Againe, I confesse it is not necessarie, that euerie effect of originall sinne should be sinne in the regenerate, as hunger, sicknes, &c. but originall sinne is not so the efficient of these, as of actuall sinnes: for the iustice of God, is the good, proper, and principall next efficient of those punish­ments, sinne is the cause moouing the iustice of God to punish: but original sin is the immediat, euil, & materi­al cause of actual sin. That the guilt of original sin is taken­away from theregenerate, in and by baptisme, we do not de­nie: yet remaineth the sin after baptisme, though it be not impured as sinne vnto condemnation in the chil­dren of God. That Christ is called sinne, because i. e is a sacri­fice to take awaie sinne, maie prooue, as you saie, that some­thing is figuratiuelie called sinne, which properlie is no sinne. But that concupiscence should as vnproperlie be cal­led sinne, you can not prooue, because it is a matter and increaser of sinne. Your false quotation Rom. 8. where Christ is called sinne, you would iustifie by the 3. verse, where there is no such matter, but that God sent Christ in the similitude of sinfull flesh, and of sinne condem­ned sinne in the flesh. But if the text will not serue, you send vs to the commentaries, which can not alter the text, howsoeuer some do compare this place with that of 2. Cor. 5. 21. and other some do take it otherwise.

Touching the auncient Fathers [...] in the Censure to testifie, that concupiscence is not sin in the regenerat, if consent be not yealed, &c. you saie, he hath passed ouer Cyprian, and Pacacius, without anie word vnto him. The cause is, for that they saie nothing to him, in the matter contro­uersed beteweene him and you. For Cyprian, in both the places sheweth, that baptisme by the spirit of God, lib. 2. ep. [...] de latio [...]purgeth a man and washeth him cleane from all spots of sinne. Which Master Charke confesseth, as concerning the guilt, because concupiscence, though it remaine, is [Page 280] not imputed for sinne in the regenerated. But the question is, what concupiscence of it selfe deserueth, [...] in the regenerated, if it were imputed by Gods iustice, as it is forgiuen by his grace. Albeit he be not bound to take all that Cyprian writeth for Gospel, espe­ciallie in that Sermon de ablutione pedum, if it be Cypri­ant. As for Pacianus, he saith not all so much. If you haue anie wordes in the Fathers, that maie enforce your meaning, set them downe plainlie, and mocke vs no longer with dumme questiones. Ambrose, and Cle­mens Alexandrinus (as Master Charke telleth you) haue not your wordes, nor sense: for whatsoeuer they saie of the purenes of them, that are regenerated, we acknowledge with them, in respecte of the remission of their sinnes, not that the regenerated are voide of al sinne, or natu­rall corruption, more then they be voide of infirmitie and mortalitie.

Where Clemens saith, that concupiseence alone is adultrie, you labour in vaine to adde, consent, for the worde [...] alone doth exclude what soeuer you can adde vnto it. Where you cauill that he exhorteth the Gentiles to resist these motions of concupiscence, and would prooue there­by, that they are not the first motions, which are vnauoidable, it is a tale: for he exhorteth the Gentiles to Christi­anitie, where they should finde remission of all sinnes, and all honnstie oflife. Gregorie Nazianzen, hath an oration, or homilie intituled of holie baptisme, but not de S. Iana, as your Censure had in the first edition: and in that oration he prooueth not your purpose, teaching onelie, that we are consecrated, or made perfect by baptisme, which is true in respect of sanctifi­cation, and remission of sinnes, but prooueth not that concupiscence, which you confesse to be an euil thing, remaining in the regenerate, is chaunged in nature to be no sinne, although it be forgiuen and shall not be imputed, to the elect. For the wrong quoting of Augu­stine do [...]. & concupiscent. You were best quarrell with [Page 281] your printer: for Master Charke hath instlie charged your booke with error, in the first edition, whereunto he answered, which you will not vnderstand, but charge him with ignorance, quarreling, and impuden­cie, whereas your quotation was twise, lib. de nupt. & con­cupiscent. And not, as you saie now, lib. 1. de nupt. & con­cupiscent. You with that you were with Master Charke, to see if he would blush at his ignorance by you disco­uered, and cal backe your wish, for feare of purseuants. But I looke not at all, that your brasen face should blush, either at so small a fault, or at so false a defense thereof, which are not ashamed of a great number of more wrong, and impudent quotationes, then that is, for which though no purseuantes shall attach you, yet the reproch of them shall pursue you, to the vtter con­fusion of your proude and arrogant Censure, and more impudent, and vnlearned defense. Finallie, Am­brose lib. 1. de voc. gent. c. 5. hath not one worde to prooue that concupiscence in the regenerate is no sinne of it selfe.

But where Master Charke rehearseth not the verie wordes, but the meaning of Saint Augustine, expoun­ding him-selfe, in what sense he saith, that concupis­cence is not sinne, you set abroad all the sailes of your rayling, and venemous tongue and penne against him. Saint Augustines words are, dimitti concupiscentiam car­nisLib. 1. de nupt. & conc. cap. 25.in baptismo, non vt non sit, sed vt in peccatum non imputetur. Quamuis autem reatu suo iam soluto, manet tamen, do­nec sanetur omnis infirmitas nostra, proficiente renouatione in­terioris hominis, de die in diem, cúm exterior induerit incor­ruptionem: non enim substantialiter manet, sicut aliquod cor­pus, aut spiritus, sed affectio est quaedam malae qualitatis si­cut languor. Concupiscence of the flesh is remitted in baptisme, not so that it is not, but so that it is not imputed to sinne. And albeit the guilt thereof be loosed, yet it remaineth, vntil al our infirmitie behealed, the renuing of the inward man profiting from daie to daie, when the outward man shall haue put on in­corruption, [Page 282] for it remaineth not substantiallie, as a bodie or a spirit, but it is a certaine affection of euill qualitic, as a sicke­nes. These words declare, that concupiscence being an affection of euill qualitie (which is as much to saie, as sinne) remaning in the regenerate, although it be not imputed to them as sin, for that if they [...] against it, it shall not preuaill against them to condemne them. A sinne not imputed, is a sinne of his owne nature. The sinnes of Gods elect are not imputed to them, they are forgiuen, the guilt is taken awaie, they are wash­ed awaie in the blood of Christ, they are as white as wooll, and as snowe: yet of their owne nature they are foule, abhominable, and detestable transgressions of Gods lawe: so is concupiscence against the lawe, thou shalt not lust, as Augustine often confesseth, therefore of it selfe sinne, euen in the regenerate, to whome it is remitted. The similutude of a sickenes also, whereun­to Augustine doth often compare it, sheweth the same. For a sicknes if it be not healed, either by strength of nature preuailing, or by medicine, doth either cause death, or remaineth as long as life: so concupiscence of itselfe, would kill, if the medicines of Christs redemp­tion did not ouercome the malice of it, and in the ende take awaie the disease from the rootes.

But for a cleerer proofe, Master Charke alledgeth, that Saint Augustine in an other place saith plainlie, it Cont. Iul. lib. 5. cap. 3. is sinne. You answer, that he saith onelie of concupiscence in generall, that it is sinne, and not of concupiscence in the regenerate, But that Saint Augustine speaketh of con­cupiscence in the regenerate, it is manifest by this rea­son, for that he saith, concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit lustesh, which is onelie in the regenerate. Cont. Iul. lib. 6. cap. 11. As he him selfe saith in an other place, by you quoted. Non enim rectè cuiusquam spiritus concupisceret aduersue carnem suam, nisi habitaret in illo spiritus Christi. For no mans spirit should rightlie lust against his fiesh, except the spi­rit of Christ did dwell in him. But that concupiscence without [Page 283] consent is properlie no sinne, you saie, Saint Augustine proo­neth by the wordes of Paule him-selfe, who calleth it sinne in the chapter last remembred: but that is false: he only retaineth Gal. 5. his vsuall acception of the word sinne, for actualsin, as Saint Iames doth, whose termes of conception, and bringing forth also he vseth: yet he concludeth that concupiscence without consent is euill, is to be cha­stised, to be brideled, to be fought against, to be ouer­come, which prooueth sufficientlie, that it is sinne, though not actuall sinne, yet properlie sinne, from which we can not be deliuered, but by the grace of Christ: sinne of another kinde, sinne in another de­gree, called sinnne in the scripture, and therefore without controuersie (except we will trifle in vaine contention of termes, and childish sophismes, where the matter is plaine) sinne in deede, and properlie, which of his owne nature deserueth death, but that it is purged by the blood of Christ, as all other sinnes, of what sort or degree soeuer they be, in those that are saued. That Saint Augustine vseth other whiles the termes of veniallie, and mortallie, when he speaketh of sinning, it can not defend your distinction, wherebie you holde, that there be some sinnes so smale, as of their owne nasure they deserue not damnation: contrarie to the scripture, that saith generallie, the reward of sinne is death. Whereas Saint Augustine meaneth onelie de­grees of sinnes, whereof some are lesse, some are hai­nous, yet all deserue death. For Saint Augustine must be vnderstood according to the scripture, but the scri­pture must not be racked to agree with Saint Augu­stine.

Hitherto concerning the doctrine of the Iesuites, that concupiscence in the regenerate without consent is not sinne. Against this doctrine Gotuisus opposeth the wordes of our Sauiour Christ, Mat. 5. 28. whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her, he hath alreadie committed ad­ulterie with her in his heart: which text you confirme as [Page 284] you said before to be alledged ignorantlie, and against him-selfe, because here is a manifest consent of the heart expressed, to make concupiscence adulterie. And for that purpose you cite Saint Augustine: and to all this you aske, what sir William replyeth? and answer your selfe, Surelie nothing, but maketh a long idle speake, of praedicatum and subiectum, as pertinent to the matter, as Cha­ring crosse to Billings gate. If William Charkes booke, might be had no where, but in your report, you would make miserable matter of it. But they that list to see how impudentlie you lie, shall finde in his booke, first that he confesseth, that the effect of concupiscence, which is adulterie by consent, is a breach of the 7. commaundement. For which he doth not alledge the place as you misconster him. Secondlie that Christ v­seth a word, which in greeke is [...], which signifi­eth to beholde, that is more then to see, or to vse the sense of sight: which beholding with concupiscence alone, he denieth to be sinne in the first degree, that with consent of heart is made sinne in so high a degree as adulterie. And Augustine him selfe in the place by you cited, maketh three degrees to actuall sinne: suggesti­on, delectation, and consent. The first he compareth to the deuills temptation, which when it was without man, was not sinne in man: but now that euerie man is tempted of his owne concupiscence, how can you say it is not sinne in man, as it was in the deuill? Third­lie the long speake of subeictum & praedicatum, that Ma­ster Charke maketh, is comprehended in lesse then three lines. And last of all, whereas you saie, that to quit the Lord moste carefully from sinne, he alledge­eth Saint Iames, you peruert, and that wilfullie, both his saying, and his meaning, and scoffe at him in your doggs eloquence, as you are accustomed. But he saith expresselie, that Saint Iames doth carefullie quitte the Lord, from being a sinfull cause of sinne, when he turneth vpon man the whole worke, and all the blame of sinne, from the first [Page 285] sinne of tempting, to the ripe and full birth thereof: saying that a man is tempted of his owne lust, and therewith drawne away, and as it were with a bait entised. Which things (saith Master Charke) can not be in bare concupiscence, ex­cept it were sinne, and a sinfull cause of sinne. And in deede, if euery thing conceaue, and bring forth a crea­ture of the same kinde, that the damme is of, what should the mother of sinne be but sinne? Concupis­cence conceiueth, and bringeth forth sinne, therefore it is sinne it selfe

But Caluine is condemned of your Church, as you af­firme, for this impietie, that he maketh God author of sinne. But Caluine appealeth from your Church, to the Ca­tholike Church of Christ, before whome let vs see what you canne alledge, to iustifie this horrible crime. You aske if he doth not holde that God is the author of sinne, in diuerse places of his works: namelie lib. 1. Inst. cap. 8. 17. 18? I answer no: but directlie maintaineth the con­tradiction of that blasphemous slaunder, namelie that God is not the author of sinne: answering all ob­iections, that are made to the contrarie, both by au­thoritie of scriptures, and by testimonie of the fathers. You demaund further, doth he not condemne Saint Augu­stine by name, for holding the contrarie, lib. 2. Inst. c. 4? I an­swer as before, noe. Onelie he misliketh Saint Augu­stine in one place, where he saith, that induration, and excecation pertaine not to the working of God, but to his foreknowledge, where the scripture expresse­lie saith, God doth harden, God doth blinde, not as an euill author, but as a iust punisher, as Augustine els where confesseth, for which he is cited cont. Iul. lib. 5. where he prooueth at large, that some sinnes are not onelie of Gods permission or patience, but of his pow­er, that former sinnes might so be punished. What is this to make God the author of sinne? Yet further you aske, whether Peter Martyr his scholler, do not holde the same. in com. lib. 1. Reg. cap. 2? And I answer as before, [Page 286] that he neuer held that opinion, but the contrarie, that God is not the author of sinne, as it is sinne, al though no fact can be committed without his power, in whome we liue, mooue and haue our being. But this is a common slaunder of vnlearned Papistes, when they that be learned, if they come to entreat of Gods power, prouidence, predestination, reprobation, &c. can not speake more reuerentlie then Caluine, Mar­tyr, and all other learned Protestants do write of those high mysteries of God.

The tenth section, intituled, Of the first mo­tions of concuptscence.

THe Iesuites holde, that the first motions of lust, are without hurt of sinne. Of this you thinke you haue said inough before, because it dependeth wholie of that which goeth before. Yet two places of Saint Au­gustine you adde, and both fraudulentlie. The former cont. Iul. lib. 2. circa finem, you cite thus. We might be alwaie without sinne, if we neuer did yeald consent to our concupis­cence to sinne. But Saint Augustines wordes are other­wise, Quantum enim ad nos attinet, sine peccato semper esse­mus, donec saneretur hoc malum, si ei nunquam consentiremus ad malum. For as much as concerneth vs, we should be alwaies without sinne vntill this euill were healed, if we did neuer con­sent vnto it vnto euill. He saieth not absolutlie, we should be without sinne, but as much as concerneth vs, because that euill is in vs, without our will or consent, which maketh actuall sinne. Otherwise not manie lines before, he calleth it, vitium mortuum, a vice dead, but yet to be buried, that is throughlie healed.: and addeth further, Quo­modo igitur mortuum dicimus hoc peccatum in baptismo, & How then doe we saie, that this sinne is dead in baptisme (as this man also saith) and how doe we confesse, that it dwelleth [Page 287] in our members, and worketh manie desires against our wills which we resist by not consenting (as this man also confesseth) but because it is dead in that guilt in which it held vs, and till it be healed by perfection of buriall, it rebelleth euen being dead. Although now it is not called sinne, after the same man­ner, in which it maketh guiltie, but because it is made by the guilt of the first man, and because, by rebelling, it laboureth to drawe vs to guiltines, except the grace of God doe helpe vs. This place of Saint Augustine shewteh that it is sinne. and whie it is so called, although it differ much from actuall sinne. Againe when he saith, it is dead vice, in respect that it is remitted to the renegerate in bap­tisme, yet it is as a stinking carcase of the enimy, which vntill it be buried will infect: by which it appeareth what a pestilent thing it is, of it selfe, though by grace it be ouercome, and must be buried in vs, till it be vt­terlie abolished.

The other place, lib. 2. de gratia, cap. 40. you cut very short, and vtter in these wordes. Quibus sinon consen­titur, nullius peccati reatus contraehitur. Vnto which nation if we giue no consent of heart, no guilt of sinne is contracted by them. But you conceale craftelie that he calleth these first motions vitious desires, which is as much as we require, and sheweth how the guilt is taken awaie, namelie by remission of sinnes in baptisme. His words are these, Non solùm peccata omnia, quorum nunc remis­sio fit in baptisme, que reos faciunt, dum desideriis vitiosis consentitur, [...] peccator, verumetiam, ipsa desideria vi­tiosa, quibus si non consentitur, nullus peccati reatus contrae­hitur, quae non in ista, sed in alia vita nulla erunt, eodem la­uacro baptismatis vniuersa pur gantur. Not onelie all sinnes whereof there is no we remission in baptisme, which make men guiltie, while they consent to vitious desires, and to sinne: but euen those vitious desires also, to which, if consent be not yealded, no guilte of sinne is contarcted, which not in this life, but in the other life, shall be none at all, are altogether pur­ged in the same lauer of baptisme. Now whether a Christian [Page 288] man neede to saie, forgiue vs our debtes, for his vitious or wicked desires, although he consent not vnto them, you define out of Saint Austine, that he neede not. And quote Ep. 200. ad Asell. where he saieth that, if we did not at all follow our concupiscence, and although the desires of sin be in vs, while we are in this mortall bodie: yet if we giue consent to none of them, there were not for which we should say to our Father, which is in heauen, forgiue vs our debtes. Yet should we not be such, as we shall be after this mortall hath put on immortallity: for then there shal be in vs no desires of sinnes. Secondly you quote. conc. 3. in Ps. Where he answereth this question, in these words: Quantum quidemegs sapere possum, &c. As farre as I can perceiue, the whole guilt of the disease and infirmitie, from whence those vnlawfull desires are mooued, which the Apostle calleth sinne, is loosed by the Sacrament of baptisme, with all those that obeying it, we haue done, saide, or thought: neither should this disease hereafter hurt vs, though it be in vs, if we yealded obedience to none of the vnlawfull desires thereof at anie time, either in worke, speach, or secretassens, vntill the sicknes it selfe be healed, when that which we pray for, is fullfilled, either when we say, thy king­dome come, or when we saie, deliuer vs from euill. Thirdlie you quote de perfect iustisiae, c. vltimo. Where against the Pelagians, which holde that a man might be iust with­out actuall sinne, although he could not be without concupiscence, which is called sinne, because it is sin to consent vntoit, and is mooued against our wil, he hath these words: Subtiliter quidemista discernit, &c. He that so saith, discerneth these things subtillie, but let him be aduised what is done in the Lordes praier, where we saie, for giue vs [...] debtes. Quòd nist fallar, which except I be deceiued, it were no neede to saie, if we did neeur consent, neuer solitle, to the de­sires of the same sinne, either in slipping of tongue, or in delight of thought, but onelie we should saie, Lead vs not into temp­tation, but deliuer vs from euill. Lastlie you quote Cont. [...] Epist. Pel. lib. 1. cap. 13. Nec propter ipsum, [...] iam, &c. Neither for this concupiscence, whose guilt is alreadie [Page 273] confumed in the lauer of regeneration, the baptized saie in their praier, forgiue vs our debtes, &c Out of all these pla­ces this I may gather: First, that Saint Augustine doth not so constantlie affirme, as you saie, as a Doctrine most certaine, but modestly deliuereth his opinion, say­ing, as farre as my wisdome serueth, and, except I be deceiued. Secondliehe speaketh not of those motions, that be in vs, which consent to some, though not to al of thē; but in case we neuer consented to anie of them. Thirdly he rende­reth his reason, because they he alreadie forgiuen, to there­generate in baptisme. And sorthlie, he calleth them vn­lawfull desires of sinne, against which we praie to be deliuered. So that all thinges weighed, as you haue Saint Augu­stine in some sort fauorable, to the wordes of your as­sertion in this piont, yet he is not so ranke, and full one your side, in the sense of the matter, as you would bear vs in hand.

Now followe a number of cauillations against M. Charkes wordes, which I will brieflie runne ouer. First where he saieth. Are not all the first motions of iust meerely naturall, and euer more of some cause giuen by vs, and dwell­ing within vs, namelie the corruption of Adam? This fonde [...] (saie you) includeth two contraries: for of they be meerlie naturall, then are they not of anie cause giuen by vs. This fonde argument (saie I) hath two faultes. One is ambiguitie, sought where it needes not, in the word meerelie naturall, which Master Charke shew­eth to be by corruption of nature, and then the conse­quent followeth not: for to that corruption, cause is giuen by vs, and in vs, in the sinne of Adam. Secondlie you saie, that it is false that all first motions of iust are meerely naturall: for in lewde men they are often voluntarie. Iump, as you are wont to saie. For if will goe before them, then are they not first, we speake of motions, which goe before will, and therefore are called first motions: wherefore your example of awaking a madde dogge, and distinction of naturall in the roote, and voluntarie in the [Page 290] branch, doe not excuse, but increase your heape of waste words, as when you be awake you maie perceiue.

Another cauillation you haue, that Master Charke de­ceitfully auoideth the simulitude of first motions with the pulse, because they be not like in all thinges, which is vntrue, but because they are not like in qualitie, in the which they are compared. For the first motions vnto sinne are e­uill, vitious, vnlawfull, as Saint Augustine calleth them, so is not the motion of the pulse: therefore not like. But while he reasoneth against your example of the pulse, he vttereth three foúle absurdities, & most grosse errors, if we beleeue you. Which are they? saie on, & take heed you lie not. The first is, that he placeth concupiscence of the flesh (whereof we talke) in the resonable part of the minde, and [...] in the sensitiue parte. That is false: for his wordes are, you cannot conclud from that part of our soule, whereby we haue life and sense onelie, to that part where in our reason and affe­ctions are placed. In these wordes he denieth not con­cupiscence vnto the sensitiue part, but extendeth it to the reasonable parte, where also the affections are, where vertues and vices haue their seat, in as much as the reasonable soule is distinguished into two pars, the one that vseth reason, the other that should obeie reason. And therefore you speake verie grosselie, and falselie, when you saie, The first motions are nothing els, but the rebellions of our sensitiue partes. And your reason is as grosse in diuinitie, as your position is in philoso­phie, because it is called flesh, and the concupiscence of the flesh, &c. where flesh signifieth the whole corruption of man, as it is manifest by the workes of the flesh, re­hearsed by Saint Paull in the text you quote, Gal. 5. where there is not onelie whordome, glottonie, drun­kennes, and such like, but Idolattie, witchcraft, here­sie, &c. which are sinnes against faith, and knowledge, and doubtles haue thir first motions, as well as other sinnes, that are principallie committed with the body, as adultrie, drunkennes, &c. and may haue their first [Page 921] motions both in the body, & in the minde, but chiofly in the minde. Therefore while you charge Master Chark with intollerable ignorance, you bewraie intollerable want of knowledge, in one that would be taken both for a philosopher, and a diuine.

The second absurditie, you saie, is greater, in affir­ming that the sensuall parte of man is not so much corrupted by originall sinne, as the reasonable parte. But master Charke saith, the former (that is, that parte of our naturall soule where bie we haue life and sense onelie) is not in the same sorte cor­rupted as the second: neither doth sinne so worke in naturall life, and sense, as it doth in the heart, by the corruptions and guiltines of the soule. Now these words do declare a com­parison in qualitie, not in quantitie: for the question (if you be remembred) was of a similitude, which is a comparison in qualitie, not in quantitie. But if he hadmade comparison in quantitie, I thinke there is no wise man, but feeleth temptations against the know­ledge of God, and faith, greater and more dangerous, then to commit sinne in the abuse of any of the senses. And seeing all that defileth man commeth first from the heart, I maruell how you place concupiscence in the sensitiue part, except you place the sensitiue parte in the heart. Although it is not without fraud, that you change Master Charkes wordes, who speaketh alto­gether of life and sense, and you onelie of the sensitiue part, in which you include the inward senses, as well as the outward, where as Master Charke speaketh of the outward onelie, as his examples of smelling, seeing, hearing, and feeling declare.

The third absurditie is ioyned with flat Pelagianisme, where he saith, that the necessarie actions of life and sense, remaine now in man, as they were before his fall. For which is alled­ged a saying of Saint Augustine de Eccles. dogm. cap. 38. that if anie man shall affirme, that man both in bodie and soule, is not chaunged into worse, he is deceiued with Pelagi­anisme. But Master Charkes wordes are, that the ne­necessarie [Page 276] actions of life, as eating, drinking, &c. and of sense, as smelling, ate of them selues all free from sinne, remaining as they were in man before his fall, he doth not denie that they are changed into worsse, but that of them selues, they are not sin. It is not sinne to eate, but a man may easilie sin in eating: it is not sinne to see, but by sight a man may easily fall into sin. Neither doth your author saie, that the actions of life & sense, are sinne, but he speaketh against them that thought by the fall of Adam, the bodie onelie was subiect to corruption, the liberue of the soule being vnhurt. Now if you holde that the simple, and necessarie actions of life and sense, are sinne, I wounder how you can deny the first motions, and vnlawfull desires of sinne, to be sin. But you [...] them from sin, because they be not volun­tarie, which is serase true of the senses, for a man need not to see except he will, seeing he maie close his eies. But against this point of voluntarie, you say, he obiecteth ori­ginall sinne, which is answered before, and shewed how it is vo­luntarie. And I answere, that the first motions are voluntarie, by the same reason. Secondlie he obiecteth, that god saieth in Genesis, euerie cogitation of mans heart is euill euermore. To that you answer, that it inclineth to e­uill, by reason of concupiscence left in vs. Thus God and you agree not. He saieth, it is euill, you saie, it inclineth to e­uill, Gen. 5. but yet is not that inclination sinne without consent. But God saieth, it is onelie euill, and that alwaies. Thirdlie you saie he obiecteth the commaundement, Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, &c. Whereby the first motions, being against the great cōmaundement, must needes be sin. But that you saie is false. For though we be stirred by this commaundement to all perfection, that we can in this life, yet no more is inioyned vs thereby, vnder paine of sinne and damnation, but onelie that we doe not yealde consent to sin. If you say, that god imputeth not vnto vs, that are his children, all breach of this commaundement to our condemnation, I would agree with you. But that [Page 277] anie man in this life can keepe this commaundement, or that no transgression thereof, except it be with con­sent, is damnable sinne, I doe vtterlie denie. Yet you make Saint Augustine author of your interpretation. First, lib. de spirit. & lit. cap. vltimo. Who both affirmeth, that this commaundement is not fullfiled by anie man in this life, and also that there is no perfect iustice in this life, but that man hath profited moste, which knoweth how farre he is from perfection of iustice. Againe, that there is no iustice in this life, but by faith, & therefore walking by faith, he may be saide not to sinne against the iustice of this commaunde­ment, seeing he is not to be blamed, if he loue not God so perfe­ctlie, as when he shall knowe him perfectlie. But all this is to be vnderstood of the new man, so farre forth as he is re­formed, according to the Image of God. And therefore he concludeth in the end, that of what qualitie soeuer, or of what quantity soeuer, we can define iustice in this life, there is no man voide of sinne, and it is necessarie for euery man to praie for remission of sinnes, and to presume of no iustice of his owne, but of the grace of God. Secondlie you lib. 1. de doct. Christ ca: 2. quote lib. 1. de doct. Christ. cap. 2. where there is nothing to the purpose. Thirdlie, de natura & gratia, cap. 69. where he saieth, this commaundement is not heauie, where there is that loue, whereby faith worketh, where this loue is not, it is heauie. But that the breach of this commaun­dement is not sinne, where we yeald no consent, he saieth not one word. Lastlie, you quote lib. 2. de pecc. merit. cap. 6. where this commaundement is not once mentioned. Thus you thinke to carie awaie the mat­ter with dumme quotationes, when in the places quoted, there is nothing to vpholde your assertion.

Next followeth a question, whether Protestantes or pa­pists do represse the raines of lusts, which he knoweth best, that searcheth the heart, & the raines. But the doctrine of the protestantes (saie you) doth take awaie both raines and bridle out of our handes, while they teach the first motions to be naturall, and that we cannot let their effect, but that they [Page 294] worke sinnes in vs, whether we consent or not. But that is false, for we saie, that by the grace of God, we maie resist their effect, which is to worke actuall sinne, if default be not in our selfe: yet we saie they are sinne of them selues, for which we ought to sigh and grone, with the Apostle. And where you saie, we haue no hope of vi­ctorie, because we sinne, though we consent not, and thereof Rom. 7. 24. [...]. Co. 12. 7. 8. make manie wordes in vaine of the excellencie of po­pish doctrine, it is moste vntrue: for we haue a most cer taine hope by the grace of god in Iesus Christ, to haue deliuerance frō the one, & victory of the other, & that to the obtening of the crowne of euerlasting glorie.

Now are we come to the tenth commaundement, which is contrarie to the Iesuites doctrine, which you say, the Censure, out of S. Augustine expoundeth to be meant of consent. lib. 1. denupt. & conc. cap. 23. where S. Augustine doth not so expound this cōmaundement, thou shalt not lust, but sheweth as he doth in other pla­ces before noted, that it is not fullfilled in this life.

Next to this, you saie, it pleaseth Master Charke to put downe foure manifest lies, saying, As the Papists make of the tenth commaundement two commaundements, so this fellow maketh of two seuerall breaches of two diuerse commaunde­mentes, but one sinne. And both these you saie are slaun­ders. But how both these, if they were slaunders, should make foure lies, I doe not yet see, except it be by mul­tiplication. Your answere is, first that the Catholikes make but one of the tenth commaundement: but the question is which is properlie and distinctlie the tenth commaundement. Verie well, if it be a question, and such a question as you conclude not to be defined in your Church, you doe ill to make it an argument to conuince him of slaunder. For if that opinion be true, that maketh but one commaundement against coueting, which few pa­pists doe follow, and yet many auncient writers doe holde, as you confesse; then doe the rest make two commaundemetes of that one, against coueting. Yes [Page 295] Saint Augustine, you saie, contendeth in diuerse places, that these two clauses, thou shalt not haue strange Gods, and thou shalt not make any grauen Idoll, are but one commaunde­ment, and therefore, that the two other of coueting, make two distinct commaundementes. That S. Austine liketh that di­uision, I denie not; but that he contendeth for it, is vn­true. And you your selfe note six auncient writers, namely Origen, Procopius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Hesychius, S. Ambrose, & S. Ierome, that follow our diuision, assigning foure preceptes to the first table, and six to the second. To which may be added Greg. Nazianzen, decalog. Mosis carmine, & Augustine or whoesoeuer was author of those books, called quaestiones ex veteri &. N. T. quaestione 7. Beside the authority of those olde fathers, reason is against it. For whereas you saie, this clause, Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife, is the ninth commaundement, and the rest the tenth, Moses is against you, Exod. 20. placing, thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house first, and then, thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife, which were a confusion, if that which is in the second place were the ninth, & that which is in the first, were the tenth: beside the transposition, that part of the tenth commaundement should be ioyned with the ninth. Therefore, seeing the same Moses placeth the coueting of the wife, Deu. 5. in the first place, it is manifest, that both those clau­ses make but one commaundement, els should it be vncertaine, which is the ninth, and which the tenth. Againe, where you saie, it is moste conuenient that the twoe 1. Ioh. 2. generall internall consentes vnto the two lusts, of carnalitie, and couetousnes, called by Saint Iohn concupiscence of the flesh, and concupiscence of the eie, should be expresselie and particularlie forbidden by two distinct commaundements, I answere that it is more couuenient, that concupis­cence of all sinnes against the second table, should be forbidden in one generall commaundement. And it is meruaill how in Saint Iohn you forgotte the pride of life, which he ioyneth with the concupiscence of the eies, [Page] and of the flesh: which was as needefull to be forbidden as the other two: though you saie the internall temptati­ons against the other commaundement are neither so frequent, nor so daungerous as those two. Yes verely, the temptations to ambition, rebellion, disobedience, malice, lying, & such like, are both as frequent, and as daungerous, as vnto bodelie lust, and couetousnes.

To that you sate, they are sufficientlie forbidden by the wordes set downe in the commaundements them-selues, it may be answered, so are the other two; and therefore, all lust with consent, is forbidden in euerie one of them, as lust vnto adulterie, in the commaundement prohibiting adulterie, desire of reuenge in the commaundement prohibiting murther, by our saui­our Christs owne interpretation and authority, by like reason, ambition, or lust of disobedience, in the com­maundement that biddeth parentes to be honoured, couetousnes in that which forbiddeth theft, the lust of lying, or slaundering, in that which forbiddeth false witnes. Therefore the commaundement of lust bee­ing one and general, must needes be the tenth, and the comaundement of hauing no gods but one, & the true God, the first: the commaundement of not making, nor worshipping Images, the second: which are two perfectlie distinct preceptes, the one commaunding the true God to be honoured alone: the other com­maunding the worship of God to be spirituall, and forbidding all carnall imaginations of Gods worship, as by Images, or any other thing of mens deuise, wherebie they chaunge the glorie of the immortall God, into the shape of a mortall man, beastes, fouls, or any other thing. Therefore he that worshippeth Ba­all as a God, breaketh the first commaundement, he that worshippeth Iehoua in the calfe that Aaron made, or the calues that Ieroboam set vp, or by offering in­cense to the brasen serpent, offendeth against the se­cond commaundement. This diuision therefore is [Page 281] both most conuenient, as that which distinguisheth all good workes, and all sinnes, by their proper precepts, and also necessarie, as that which maketh tenne com­maundements, euerie one perfectlie distinct from the other, and that sheweth all men all manner of sinne, as well that which is in act, as that which is in desire, not onelie that which is with consent, but euen that also which proceedeth of the corruption of nature, and is resisted by the spirit of God. Therefore that which you saie vntrulie, of the first two braunches, is true of the last, that they conteine but one thing, namelie a prohibition of concupiscence, against any of the other five preceptes of the second table.

But it is a weightie argument that the 70. interpreters doe recite them distinctlie, as two commaundementes in their Greeke translation. How shall we know that? You an­swere, Ex. 20. & Deut. 5. by repeating the verbe twise. But that is a slender proofe, for the verbe is twise repeated in the Hebrew text, and in Deut. 5. once changed. In the twoe first commaundements, there are foure verbes denied: there shalls not be, thou shalt not make, thou shalt not bow downe, thou shalt not serue. Yet these two, you will haue to be one. But whie doe you flie from the authority of your vulgare latine interpreter, which in both places, maketh the prohibition of concupiscence one com­maundement, in Exod. by adding the copulatiue which is not in the Hebrew, but a pure negatiue, Non concu­pisces domum proximi tui, nec desiderabis [...] eius, &c. Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house, neither shalt thou desire his wife, &c. In Deut. by leauing out the verbe, which is in the Hebrew. Non concupisces [...] [...], non domum, non agrum, non seruum, non accillam, non bo­uem, non asinum, & vniuersa [...] illius sunt. Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife, not his house, not his field, not his seruant, not his maide, not his oxe, not his asse, and whatsoeuer thinges are his. By this translation your interpreter sheweth plainlie, that he acknowledged but one com­maundement [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 298] against concupiscence, although the sinne were set foorth in diuerse wordes. And it is as great reason to make a seuerall commaundement for euerie worde that followeth, as to make the concu­piscence of the house one, and of the wife, another. But you doe better to acknowledge the matter doubt­full, as beeing no matter of faith, and not defined by your Church, because of the authority of so many aun cient fathers against you: yet you haue no colour, to shift of your Idolatrous woshipping of Images, except you confounde the two first commaundements in one: neither can you exclude the commaundement against concupiscence without consent, except you deuide the tenth commaundement into two, reteining the distinction that ought to be of euerie precept from other, and making the law perfect, which prohibiteth all sinne, as I haue shewed before.

But it is a greater slaunder, I weene, that the Protestantes charge you to leaue out the second commaundement against I­mages, where you doe but include it in the first. As though you haue not in your English primers, & other bookes where you set forth the tenne commaundements, al­together left out that precept, as ten thousand bookes wil testify against you. And as for your including, is but a crafty hiding of it from the common people, lest they should learne to detest your grosie Idolatrie, and for­sake your malignant Church, as the mother of all ab­hominations against God, and his true worship. Your distinction of mentall adulterie, from actuall adulterie, and of mental theft from actual theft, to make foure commaun­dements of two, is grosse, & vnlearned. For why should not mental murther, mental disobedience or rebellion, mentall slaunder or lying, require enerie one a seueral commaundement, distinct from actual murther, actu­all rebellion, disobedience, or treason, actuall slaunde­ring or lying? And so in the wholl we should haue thir­teene commaundements at the least. Or els Master [Page 299] Charke hath truelie charged you, to make the seue­rall breaches of two diuerse commaundements but one sinne, and the breach of one commaundement to make two seuerall kindes of sinne: as you doe in the breaches of the commaundements against adulterie and theft. Where our sauiour Christ saith expresselie, that the looking on a woman, with desire of lust, is adulterie, which he should rather haue saide, according to your where is forbidden in the seauenth commaundement, distinction, it is sinne against the ninth commaunde­ment, which you saie is against mentall adulterie. And so he should haue saide no more in effect, but mentall adulterie, is mental adulterie. But our Sauiour Christ referring that sinne to the commaundement against adulterie, sheweth that concupiscence without con­sent, is an other sinne, and not onelie in an other de­gree of the same kinde, as mentall and actuall adulte­rie are, and as anger, racha, thou foole, are against the sixt commaundement.

The last reason of the censure, to prooue that the first motions to lust are not forbidden, is, because they are not in our power. where the scripture saith, This comaunde­ment, Exod. 30. which I giue the this daie, is not aboue thee. Master Chark replieth, that the assumption of this argument (which is, to resist the first motions, is not in our power) is false. You rehearse his wordes thus: Our first motions are not altogether out of our power, for that the gift of conti­nencie doth more and more subdue them. Here you cauill, that albeit good men do cut of infinite occasions and causes of motions and temptations, yet can they neuer subdue all moti­ons. But Master Charke said, It is neither true, that all these first motions are altogether out of our power, &c. neither doth it follow, that we are not subiect to the lawe for such of­fences, as we can not resist, the fault being ours through cor­ruption, whie we can not resist them. So that in the first part of this saying, he confesseth some motions to be out of our power to resist, some not out of our power, which [Page 284] you also acknowledge: and therefore your assumpti­on, if it be general, is false: if it be particuler, the con­clusion cannot be generall, that to resist all the first motions of lustes is not commaunded: orthus, the law forbiddeth no first motions.

To the second parte of Master Charkes saying, you answer nothing, that is of the consequence of your as­sumption: namelie that the fault being ours through corruption, and such as our first father did willinglie bring vpon him and vs all, our wante of power to resist offences, can not exempt vs from the iustice of God. This was so strong, that you had not so much as a cauil against it. But as though you saw it not, you runne by, into your vsuall path of girding our Ministers: who, you saie, talke of continencie and mortification, (ech one hauing his yoke mate readie for his turne) as good fellows do of fasting, that sit at a full table. And yet I think it is more praise, to keepe temperance at a full table, then to abstaine where there is hunger, and nothing to eate. But I pray you sir, doth continencie and mortification belong onelie to vnmarried men? You are as good to saie that no maried man can be a true christian, seing mortifi­cation is necessarie for all Christians, and continen­cie also, not from the vndefiled bedde, but chastitie from all vncleannes is commaunded generallie to all true members of Christ: How the wiueles votaries in poperie performe continencie, and mortification, but euen of that one earthly member of vncleanes, the world is to full of examples, and the iustice of god will one daie make manifest.

To the place of Moses Master Chark saith the tran­slation is false, and corrupt, which saith, the commaun­dement is not aboue thee, where Moses saith, it is not hidden from thee. And that the place is so to be translated, and to be applied to the reuelation of the Gospel, it is eui­dentlie declared by the plaine text, and by the appli­cation thereofin the epistle to the Romanes. cap. 10. 6. [Page 285] To this you answer, that he prooueth it neitherby the words of text, nor by Saint Pauls application. O wretched shift. when he quoteth the Chapter and verse, where the A­postle beginneth to speake of this place of Moses, in these wordes: The righteousnes which is of faith, saith thus: Say not in thy heart who shall go vp into heauen? that is to bring downe Christ: or who shall go downe into the deepe? Deut. 30. 14. that is to cal Christ from the dead. But what saith the scripture? The word is neere in thy mouth, and in thy heart: this is the word of faith which we preach. Here is the application of the text to the Gospell, and not to the lawe. But the text (you saie) is not so euident: for Saint Ierome either the author, or the corrector of this translation, knew what the he­brew words importe, and how they are applied by Saint Paul, as well as William Charke. Here is a vaine and an odious comparison, without neede or cause. For who will graunt vnto you, that S. Ierome was either author, or corrector of the vulgar translation, that we now haue? None surelie that fauoreth the credite of Saint Ierom, who though he haue some in this age, as well Papists, as Protestantes, better learned in the hebrew, then he was, yet was he farre better learned, then that he would haue suffered, either in translation, or in corre ction such grosse faults, as be in that vulgar translation which we now haue. As for Saint Pauls application of that parte of the sentence, which he toucheth, (you saie) make eth wholy for yow, as after shall be shewed. Well, when you shew it, we shal shape you an answer. But now to the ve­ry words of the text itselfe. Niphleth, which, as you con­fesse, that it fignifieth to be hidden so you affirme, that it signifieth also, to be maruelous, to be hard and difficult, as appeareth, Psalm. 13 9and 2. Sam. 1. which we do not deny, so you vnderstande to be difficult and hard for want of knowledge, and not for want of power. For you are not hable to bring an example, where this verb Phala, which most properlie signifieth to be hidden or vn­knowen, is taken in that sense you would haue it here, [Page 302] namelie to be harde or difficulte for lacke of strength. That it signifieth to be meruelous, it is because mer­ueling is vpon causes, that are hid or vnknowen. The Chaldee and Greeke must either be answerable to the Hebrue, or els they are to be reiected as vntrue or vn­proper translations. Although the Chaldee word sig­nifieth the same that the hebrew: whereunto if you ad the signification of separation, yet it must be separati­on from knowledge, and not from strength, or els it answereth not vnto the originall. As also the greeke word [...], which signifieth (as you saie) exceeding, immeasurable, greate, passing all meane, &c. must be vnder­stood for exceeding measure in knowledge, or els it is not right: and so maie your latine, suprate, be vnder­stood also, as Saint Ierome translateth the same verb, Ps. 139. where it is manifestlie taken for maruelous, in respect of the want of knowledge. And therfore none of these three wordes, vsed in the three auncient tongues, hauing a negation before them, do expresse so much as you would gather by the vulgar translation, the law is not aboue thy strength. Wherefore you may take bayard whome to your owne stable, that make such ignorant and impudent conclusions, as an Arca­dian beast, that had learned but a while vnder Apulei­us, would not make for shame.

But if Saint Ierome will not satisfie vs, you bid vs take Saint Austen, who (saie you) handleth both the wordes al­ledged of Moses, and also the application vsed by Saint Paul of parte of the sentence: and prooueth out of both the very same conclusion that we do, to witte, that the law is not aboue our a­bilitie to keepe it: and for confirmation thereof he addeth mae­nie other textes of scripture, as, my yoke is sweete, and my bur­then light: also, his commaundements are not heauie, and the like, concluding in these wordes, we must beleeue most firmelie, that God being iust and good, could not commaund impossible thinges vnto man. That you maie vnderstand how ma­nie waies he mocketh vs, with his dumme quotations, [Page 303] and shameles collections, I will sette downe the wholl Chapter which he quoteth. De natura & gratia. c. 69. Valde autem bona sunt praecepta, &c. The commaundements are verie good, if we vse them lawfullie. Far euen by the same whereby it is moste firmelie beleeued, that God being iust and good could not commaund thinges impossible, hereof we are ad­monished, both in easy things what to do, and in hard things what to craue. For all thinges are made easie to loue, to which alone the burthen of Christ is light, or that alone is the selfe same burthen which is light. According to this it is said: And his commaundements are not heauie, that he to whome they are heauie, maie consider, that it could not haue beene said of God, they are not heauie, but because there maie be such an affection of the heart, to which they are not heauie, and may aske that which he lacketh, that he maie fulfill that which is commaunded. And that which is said vnto Israel, in Deutro­nomie, if it be Godlie, if it be holylie, if it be spirituallie vnder­stood, signifieth the selfe same thing: for when the Apostle had rehearsed this testimonie, The word is neare in thy mouth, & in thy heart (which this man hath in thy hands, for in the heart are spirituall hands) this saith he, is the word of faith, whih we do preach. Euerie one theresore being conuerted, as there is commaunded, vnto the Lord his God, with all his heart, and all his soule, let him not accompt the commaundement of God to be heauie: For how is it heauie, when it is the commaunde­ment of loue? For euerie man either loueth not, and therefore it is heauie, or he loueth, and then it can not be heauie. He lo­ueth, if, as Israel is there admonished, he be conuerted to the, lord his God, with all his heart, & with all his soule. I giue you, saith he, a new commaundement, that you loue one another: and he that loueth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law: and, loue is the fulfilling of the law: according to this is that also spoken, If they walked in good pathes, they should haue found the pathes of righteousnes to be light. How then is it said, Because of the wordes of thy lippes, I haue kept hard waies? but because both is true. They are hard to feare, and liht to loue. Therefore loue begonne is iustice be gonne, loue proceeded, is iustice pro­ceeded, [Page 288] great loue is great iustice, perfect loue is perfect iustice, loue I meane comming out of a pure heart, & a good conscience, and out of faith not fained, which then is greatest in this life, when for it the life it selfe is contemned. But I maruell if it haue not wherein to increase, when it is departed out of this mortall life. But where soeuer, and whensoeuer it is so full, that nothing can be added vnto it, yet is it not spread in our hearts by the workes of nature, or will which are in vs, but by the he lie ghoste, which is geuen vnto vs, which both helpeth our in­firmitie, and worketh with our health. for that is the grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. to whome with the father and the holie ghoste be ascribed eternitie and goodnes for euer. In this discourse of S. Augustine is declared, that the commaundements of God are made possible, and not heauie to be fulfilled by the grace of God, nor by the strength of man, either of nature or will, and that by two meanes, faith and loue. Faith, by which we craue & obtaine forgiuenes of our imperfection, and loue by which we cherefully endeuour to accomplish in work, so much as we can, which we can not do perfectly in this life, in as much asno mans heart is pure in this life, & no mans loue is perfect in this world. yet faith purify­ing our harts, that by themselues are vnclean, obtaineth, as the sameS. Augustine saith, that which the law commaundeth. But how far is this from the popish assertion, to wit, The law is not abooue our abtlitie to keepe it.

The cursse that you cite out of Augustine, Serm. 191. and Ierorme explan: Symb. ad Damasum, is but a crack of a broken bladder in stead of a thunderbolte. For both the sermon, and the explanation are counterfeit stuffe, being all one word forword, except a litle [...] flue in the beginning and the end, and yet are most impudent­lieascribed both to Augustine and Ierome. But that ne ther of both is author of that sentence, I wil prooue by [...] of Saint Ierome, who expresselie affir­m ah that, which the sermon and explanation accur­seet. We cursse the blasphemie of them (saie the counter­feiters) [Page 305] which saie, that anie thing impossible is commaun­ded by God to man, and that the commaundements of God cannot be kept of euerie one, but of all in common. Saint le­rome dialog. aduers. Pelag. lib. 1. saith: Possibilia prae­cepit [...], & ego fateer. Sed haec possibilia cuncta singuli habere non possumus, non imbeciliitate naturae, ne calumniam. facias deo, sed animilassitudine, quae [...] simul & sem­per non potest habere virtutes. God commaunded things pos­sible, and that I confesse. But all these possible thinges euerie one of vs can not haue, through weakenes of nature, lest thou shouldest slaunder God, but through wearines of minde, which can not haue all vertues together, and alwaies. And his whole discourse in that dialogue is, to prooue that no man can be without sinne, the contrarie whereof is flat Pelagianisine. He expoundeth also at large, how the commaundements of God are possible, and how vnpossible, which maie be seene of anie man that will read his writings against the Pelagians: and therfore it is very iniurious vnto him, to make him a patrone of that sentence, which he put posedlie and plentifullie impugneth. To conclude, Chrysostome and Basile meane not, that a perfect obseruation of Gods law is possible in this life, but that God geueth grace in some measure to keepe them, to those that are borne [...] in Christ, in whome onelie is performed that which was impossible by the law, as the A postle saith. These fathers and diuerse other, whose authority the Pela­gians abused, as you do, to vpholde their heresie, by such speeches, meant to accuse the negligence and slothfulnes of men, in keepeing Gods commaun­dements, not to extoll the power, and abilitie of mans free will to keepe them, as Saint Augu­stine prooueth by manie testimonies taken out of their writinges, in his treatises against the Pelagians.

The eleuenth section, of de facing the scri­ptures, and doctrines by tradition.

THe Iesuites, you saie, do not vse these termes of defa­cing: that the scripture is imperfect, maimed, or lame: and thereof I will not contend: but the same in effect they holde, as Master Charke saith: when they affirme that all things necessarte to saluation are not contained in the scripture. Your similitude of a marchant leauing his com­maundements partelie in writings, and partelie by word of mouth, and referring the resolution of doubtes vnto his wife, is not sufficient in this case. For our Sauiour Christ li­ueth for euer, whereas his seruants and the men of whome his Church, which is his spouse, consisteth, are changed in euerie generation. So that there can be no certaintie of his commaundements, but onelie by his writings: which if they containe not all thinges necessarie to saluation, they are imperfect, lame, and maimed. And where you saie, that Saint Augustine prooueth the contrarie at large, lib. 1. cont. Cresc. c. 32. it is vtterlie vntrue. For he saith expresselie, concerning the question of rebaptising them that were baptized by heretikes, Sequimur sanè nos in hac re etiam Canonica­rum authoritatem certissimam scripturarum. We truelie doe follow in this matter also the most certaine authoritie of the Canonicall scriptures, whereunto he adioineth the con­sent of the Catholike Church after some disceptation about the matter, whose counsell agreeable to the ho­lie scripture, no man doubteth bur it is to be follow­ed. Theverie same doctrine (you saie) teacheth the said fa­ther, lib. de side & operibus cap. 9. and also ep. 66. ad Don. In the former is no worde to the purpose, he speaketh of the Eunuch whome Philip baptized, whose confes­sion [Page 307] of Christ being verie shorte, some thought to be sufficient for anie man that should receaue baptisme, whereas there is a more distinct knowledge, and par­ticuler explication of this faith, in other places of scri­pture set downe, that is to be required of them, that are catechised and come to baptisme. In the last quo­tation I thinke there is a faulte, either in your Printer, or in your notebooke, which setteth downe ep. 66. for ep. 166. which is directed to the Donatistes, whereas the other is to Maximus. But in this epistle to the Do­natistes there is nothing that prooueth this matter, that the scriptures containe not all things necessarie to saluation. Onelie he exhorteth the Donatistes to vnitie, shewing that out of the same scriptures, which teach Christ to be the head, his bodie the Church, is to be discerned and learned.

Touching the twelue pointes of doctrine set downe by the Censure, as not conteined expresselie in the scripture, and yet to be beleeued, Master Charke answereth, that seuen of them are in scripture, the rest not necessarie to be be­leeued. But here you saie, the question is of expresse scrip­ture, and not of any farre fet place, that by interpretation may be applied to a controuersie. If you meane by expresse scripture, that which is expressed in so many wordes, as the thing in cōtrouersy, we deny that we haue anysuch question with you. For we holde that any thing, which by necessary demonstration can be concluded out of the scripture, is as true, as necessary to be beleeued, as that which is expressed in plaine wordes. And so we meane when we saie, all thinges necessarie to saluation are conteined in the holie scriptures. And as for your exam­ples of inuocation of Saintes, praier for the dead, purgatorie, and the like, if you can winne them either by manifest wordes, or by necessarie conclusion, we are content you shall weare them, and we also wilyeald vnto them: otherwise you prate without proofe, of expressed in the scripture, trifling vppon the terme expressed, which [Page 308] either we vse not in this question, or els we meane ther­bie, certainlie declared, and taught in the scriptures, either in expresse wordes, or by necessarie conclu­sion.

But now let vs see how Master Chark is distressed in an­swering these twelue particulers. For the first of the seauen, which he acknowledgeth to be contained in the scrip­scripture, which is, that there is two natures, and two wills in Christ, he citeth these wordes, Rom. 1. of his sonne, which was made vnto him of the seede of Dauid, according to the flesh. Also Math. 26. not as I will, but as thou wilt. here you saie, that the interpretation of the Church being set aside, and the bare text onelie admitted, these places cannot conuict an heretike. yes verelie, the onelie authoritie of the textis sufficient to confit me faith, and to conuince an heretike. For the former point thus. The diuini­tie and humanitie are two natures: in Christ is diuini­tie and humanitie: ergo two natures. The maior is ma­nifest: the minor is plaine by the text, the sonne of God one nature, the seede of Dauid an other nature. For the fecond point. The will of God, and the will of man, the one contradictorie to the other, are two willes. In Christ was the will of God contradictorie to the wil of man: ergo two wills. The minor is prooued out of the text, not as I wil, but as thou wilt, seeing Christ was both God & man. That the Monothelits in the 6. Councill of Costantinople could not be conuinced out of the scriptures, it is an intollerable slaunder of that reuerend assemblie: for euen by this text, and manie other, their error was made manisest: wherunto albeit the consent of the aun cient fathers was added, yet is there no word in all that 4. action, which you quote, to prooue that they were not sufficientlie confuted out of the holie scri­ptures.

The second point is, the proceeding of the holie ghost from the father, and the sonne equallie: for which Master Chark quoteth Ioh. 15. 26. When the holie ghoste shall come, which [Page 309] I will send you from my father, the spirit of trueth, which pro­ceedeth from the father, &c. Against this you cauill that it prooueth not the proceeding equallie, and cite Cyril for your witnes in 15. Ioh. who out of this place prooueth that (e­qually) as wel as the proceeding, seeing the heretikes might be ashamed to say, that the spirit of the father, was sent by the son, as by a minister: which also if they should saie, he disprooueth, for that if the sonn were as a minister, he should be of an other substance then the father, and the spirit proceeding from the father, being of the same substance with the father, should be greater in nature then the fonne, whereas the sonne saith plainlie of the holy ghoste, he shal glorifie me, &c. An other cauil you haue, that this place telleth not, whether he proceeded by generation, or without generation, from the fa­ther. But it is sufficient that neither this place nor any other place of scripture teacheth, that the holie ghoste is begotten, therefore we beleeue without generation.

The third point is, the vnion of the word vnto the nature of man, and not to the person of man. which because you Pet. Lumb. Lib. 3. dist. 5. did set downe obscurelie, M. Charke did not rightlie vnderstand: yet the text that the quoteth. 1. [...]. 14. The word was made flesh, includeth that assertion also: seeing there was no person of the man, when the vnion was made vnto the nature of man, but the word in taking vpon him the nature of man, did vnite him selfe to it, & in vniting tooke it, as it is euident, Luk. 1. 35. Mat. 1. 20.

The fourth doctrine is, the baptising of infants, for which Master Charke quoteth. Gen. 17. 12. the in­fant of eight daies shall be circumcised. Against this you haue manie trifling cauills, that baptisme is not expres­sed, of the sexe, of the eight daie. Against which I oppose the authoritie of Saint Augustine, which lib. 1. cont. Crescon. Grammat. cap. 31. confuteth the rebaptization of such as were baptized by heretikes, by example of them that were circumcised, by the Samaritantes, whose circumcision was not to be repeated: to [Page 310] whome the like might be obiected. But it is sufficient, that wherein baptisme answereth to circumsion, the reason is one in both. Circumcision was the sacrament of regeneration, as baptisme is: the one giuen to in­fantes, ergo the other. The cerimonie of the eight day, had an other reason, not needefull to be obser­ued in baptisme. The distinction of the sexe is taken awaie by Christ, in whome there is neither male, nor female. That Beza was striken dumme with this question, in the conference at Poyssie, it is a slaunder of Cla­dius de Xanctes, confuted by Beza him-selfe. But you had rather followe Saint Augustine, who contendeth and prooueth, that baptizing of infantes is onelie a traditi­on of the Apostles, and not left vs by anie written Scripture, lib. 10. cap. 23. super Gen. ad lizeram. So you write, but I will set downe Saint Augustines wordes, that the rea­der may see, what contention and proofes he vseth, hauing protested of his ignorance, how the reasonable soule commeth into the bodie, he concludeth that the baptisme of infantes fauoreth their opinion which thinke, that soules are procreated of the parentes. And of the baptisme of infantes thus he writeth. Consuctu­do tamen matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis nequaquam spernenda est, neque vllo modo superflua de putanda, nec om­nino credenda, nisi Apostolica esset traditio. Habet enim & il­laparua aet as magnum testimonij pondus, quae prima pro Chri­sto meruit sanguinē fundere. Yet the custome of our mother the Church in baptizing of infantes is not to be despised, nor by any meanes to be thought superfluous, nor to be credited at all, if it were not an Apostolike tradition: for euen that litle age hath greate weight of testimonie, which first obteined to shed blood for Christ. You see that here is neither contention, not profe, that it is onelie a tradition, & not leftin writing: for he alledgeth one testimonie out of Scripture, of gods acceptation of that age to martirdome, much ra­ther to baptisme: and manie other testimonies might be brought for the same purpose, as Matt. 19. 14. [Page 311] 1. Cor. . 7. 14. &c. As for Origen, he doth onelie make mention of the baptisme of infants, according to the obseruance of the Church, to prooue originall sinne. But whether it stand onelie vpon tradition, and not vpon the scripture, he saith not one word.

The 5. Doctrine is, the changeing of the Sabbath into Sondaie. M. Charke quoteth Apo. 1. 10. I was in the spirit on the Lordes daie. Here you cauill that there is no mention of Saturdaie or sondaie, much lesse of celebration of either, and least of all of the changeing of the Sabbath into an other daie. But if it please your Censurship, are you ignorant what day of the weeke is called dies Dominicus, the Lordsday? whether saturdaie or sondaie? if it be sondaie, as al pro­fessors of Christes name confesse, here is as much mention thereof, as is needfull for the daie into which the change is made. Or if that be not sufficient, you maie haue further, Act. 20. 7. 1. Cor. 16. 2. And whie is the first of the Sabbath called the Lordes daie, but in respect of the celebration there of, in honour of the re­demption of the world by Christ? For otherwise, all daies of the weeke are the Lordes daies, in respect of their creation. Thirdlie, seeing the Lordes daie was one daie in the weeke, vsed for the assemblie of the Church, for their spirituall exercises of Religion, it is certaine, that the change of the Iewish Sabbath was made into that daie, except you would be so waywatd; to saie there were two daies in euerie weeke, appoin­ted by God to be celebrated whereas the lawe of God requireth but one, and giueth libertie of bodelie exer­cise in sixe daies. So that the change of the Sabbath daie is sufficientlie prooued out of the Scripture, into the Lordes daie.

The sixt point is, about foure Gospells, and the Epistle to the Romanes, which Master Charke saith to be proo­ued out of the scripture, but yet he quoteth no place of scripture, where onelie he saith the inscription expres­seth the names of the writers. But what a mocker is this? [Page 312] (you saie) Are the bare names of the Apostles sufficient to prooue that they were written by them? who can prooue by scri­pture that these names are not counterfet, as in the Epistle to the Laodiceans, in the Gospells of Bartholomew and Tho­mas, &c. But abide you sir: your question hath two bran­ches, the one, that the 4. Go spells are true Gospells: the other, that the epistle to the Romanes was written by Saint Paul, and not that to the Laodiceans. To the former it is answered, that they are prooued, by other vndoubted bookes of the scripture, both of the olde te­stament, and the new: secing they declare that to be fullfilled of Christ, which was spoken in the lawe, in the Prophetes, and in the Psalmes. To the other it is answered, that admitting the Epistle to the Romanes to be scripture, the inscription of his name is suffici­ent to prooue that it was written by Saint Paull. And so of therest. Although the name of the writer is not materiall vnto saluation, when the booke is receiued to be Canonicall as diuers bookes of scripture are re­ceiued, whose writer is vnknowne. That Epistle which is called to the Laodicians, is not receiued, and therefore the inscription is vnsufficient, as the Gospelles of Bartholomew, and Thomas, and such like, which are knowne to be countefet, by the dissent they haue from the other canonicall scriptures. Whereas you require one place of Scripture to prooue all the foure Gospelles to be canonicall, you declare your wrangling, and way­ward spirit. But name you anie one point of Doctrine writen in anie of those foure Gospells, and the same shall be aduouched by other textes of scripture, and so maie eucrie point conteined in them, if neede were. But you affirme, that Origen saith, he reiecteth the Gospell of Saint Thomas, onelie for that the tradition of the Church receiued it not. Which is false. He saith, he hath read the Gospell after Thomas, after Mathias, and manie other, Sed in his omnibus nihil aliud probamus, niss quod Ecclesia, idest, quatuor tantùm euangelia recipienda. But [Page 313] in all these, we allowe nothing els, but that which the Church alloweth, that is, that onelie foure Gospells are to be receiued. In these wordes he affirmeth, that he approoueth the iudgment of the Church, he saith not, that the iudge­ment or traditions of the Church was the onelie cause whie he reiected those Gospells: for he said before, they were receiued of heretikes: and wherefore? but in maintenance of their heresie, which is con­trarie to the holie scriptures. That all counterfet Go spells were reiected by the Church, it is confessed: but the Church had this iudgement of discretion con­firmed by the canonical scriptures, against which Epi­phanius saith nothing. But when Faustus the Manichie lib. 1. cont. Hebion. & lib. 1. haer. 46.denied the Gospell of Saint Mathew (saie you) saith not S. Augustine, Mathaei Euangelium probatum aduersus Faustum Manichaeum per traditionem? The Gospell of Mathew was al­leged against Faustus the Manichie by tradition. August. lib. 28. Cont. Faust. c. 2. If you aske me, I saie no, he hath no such wordes. Yet doth he auouch the Gospell of Saint Mathew in that Chapter, by testimonie of the Church from the Apostles, by continuall succession euen vnto his time, against the Maniches, but in far other words then you haue set downe in steed of Saint Augustines wordes, by which the reader maie once against per­ceiue how impudentlie and ignorantlie you ailedge, whatsoeuer the note booke, which was neuer of your own gatheriug, because you vnderstood it not, did mi­nister vnto you. For these are the wordes of the colle­ctor of your notes, & not of S. Augustine. Maie not the papists haue great ioie of such a Cenfure, & defender? Yet you triumph like a Iustie champion, and aske, what can be more euident then all this, to prooue our opinion of the necessitie of tradition, & to confound the fonde madnes of this poore Minister? Alas poore defender, what waightie eui­dencethou hast brought to prooue the necessity of tra­dition which prooueth thee to be a blind beggerlie, & yet a bolde brocher of other mens notes, which thou [Page 314] vnderstandest not thy selfe.

The seuenth doctrine which is required to be proo­ued out of the scripture, is, that God the father begat his sonne onelie by vnderstanding him-selfe. Here Master Charke in steede of these darke wordes out of Thomas, how the father begat the sonne, wisheth cleare, and perfect wordes in so high a mysterie: which you saie, are plaine and vsuall to those which haue studied any thing in diuinitie. As though there were no diuinitie in the ho­lie scriptures, and so many of the auncient fathers, which haue neither this question, nor these wordes, but that al diuinity were included in the brest of Tho­mas Aquinas, and such doctors as he was. That he quoteth a place or two of the scripture, to prooue that Christ was the onelie begotten sonne of God, you make smal account of, seeing the question is of the mā ­ner how this generation maybe, which the Church de fendeth against the aduersaries. And here you insult a­gainst M. chark as ignorant in those high points of di­uinitie, whereas Catholiks know what the Church hath deter­mined herein against heretikes and infidels, as though ei­ther of both: cared for the Churches determination, if the one were not vanquished by scripture, the other by right reason, whereunto scripture is consonant. And here you swell as much as anie to ade, in the opinion of your deepe knowledge in these matters. Neuerthe­les we ignorant and vnlearned Protestantes, thinke it more safe to be ignorant of the manner of the sonnes generation with Saint Ambrose, then to determine beside the scriptures thereof, with Thomas Aquinas. When Saint Ambrose was pressed with the same que­stion, that you set downe, of the aduersaries, how can God, beeing a spirit, beget a sonne, and yet the same not to be after his father in time or nature, but equall with him in both, and how doth the father beget? he answereth thus, De side ad Gratian. lib. 1. cap. 5. Quaeris à me, quomodo sifilius sit, non priorem habet patrem? quaero item [Page 315] abste, quando aut quomodo putes filium esse generatum? Mihi impossibile-est generationis scire secretum. Mens deficit, vox silet, non meatantùm, sed angelorum. Supra po­testa [...] supra angelos, supra Cherubin, supra Seraphin, supra omnem sum est, quia scriptum est, pax autem Christi quae est supra ennem sensum. Si pax Christi supra omnem sen­sum est, quemadmodum non est super omnem sensum Gal. 5. tanta generatio? Tu quo (que) manum ori admoue: scrutari non li­cet superna mysteria. Licet scire quod natus sit, non licet discu­tere quemadmodum natus sit. Illud negare mihi non licet, hoc quaerere metus est. Nam si Paulus ea quae audiuit raptus in tertium coelum, ineffablia dicit, quomodo nos exprimere possumus paternae generationis ercanum, quod nec sentire potu [...]mus, nec audire. Thou askest of me how if he be a sonne, he hath not his father before him? I ask likewise of thee, when or how thou thinkest that the sonne was begotten? For to me it is impossible to knowe the secret of his generation. The minde faileth, the voice stayeth, not of me [...], but euen of the Angells. It is aboue powers, aboue [...], aboue Cherubim, aboue Sera­phim aboue all vnderstanding, because it is written, The peace of Christ which is aboue all vnderstanding. If the peace of Christ be aboue all vnderstanding, how is not so excellent a ge­neration aboue all vnderstanding? Thou also holde thy hande before thy mouth, it is no [...] lawfull to search these high myste­ries, it is lawful to know [...] [...] begotten, it is not lawful to discusse after what manner he is begotten. That to denie, it is not lawfull for me, this to inqu [...] of, I am afearde. For if Paul saith, that those things which [...], being taken vp into the third heauen, were unspeake [...], how can we expresse the se­cret of the fathers generation [...] we could neither vnder­stand, nor heare, &c. If th [...] determination were no lesse to be beeleeued, [...] other mysteries of the trinitie, that are expressed in the scripture, as you af­firme, Saint Ambrose was short in his faith of the trini­tie, as euerie man may see by his answere. Neuerthe­les, whatsoeuer is obiected, that the soone should not be equall in time and nature with the father, whereof ensueth the pluralitie of Gods, is manifestlie confuted [Page 316] by al those scriptutes that affirme one onelie God, and Iesus Christ to be God, and the onelie be gotten [...] of the father, which must needes argue the [...] [...] in nature & time or eternity. How this may be, [...] [...] the scripture affirmeth that it is, Christians [...] [...] ought not, or neede not to inquire. If infidels in [...], they are not to be answered by authoritie of [...] scriptures which they beeleeue not, & much lesse [...] the Church, which they know not. And then the [...] is out of the matter in cōtrouersy, whether [...], things that are to be beleeued necessarie to [...], be conteined in the holie scriptures. Neuerthelesse [...] to infidels, that Philosophicall answer may be giuen, how the gene­ration of the sonne by the father [...] be without ine­quality in time or nature: but [...] it is, or must be one­lie by vnderstanding of him selfe, he thinke it for all your bragges you are not able to [...] the determination of your Church, to auow it; [...] for all is not defined by your Church, that the [...] haue wearied their heades to dispute of. But if you could prooue it of necessitie to be so, the scriptures that affirme Christ 1. Cor. 2. 24. Ioh. 1. 1. Luk. 11. 49. to be the wisedome of the father, the word that was in the be­ginning with the father, &c. would giue as much light for the manner of his generation as is possible, and profitable for man to know.

Beside this of the [...] of the sonne, you haue other questions of [...] aduersaries: what meane they (you saie) to holde, that the [...] ghost proceedeth from the father, and that the sonne [...] not, but is begotten? To this I answere, That the [...] ghost proceedeth from the father, the text of [...] is plaine, Iohn. 15. 26. that the sonne is begotten of the father. Iohn. 1. 14. That the sonne proceedeth not from the father (albeit he is begotten) it is heresie and blaspemie to affirme. For he him selfe affirmeth Iohn. 16. 28. I proceeded from the father, and came into the world. and Ioh. 8. 42. Another question you haue like vnto this: whie is it heresie to say, [Page 317] that the sonne proceedeth from the father, or that the holie ghost is begotten? I aunswere, to saie the holie ghost is begot­ten, it is heresie, because the scripture teacheth, that the sonne is the onelie begotten of the father. But to saie, that the sonne proceedeth from the father, is no here­sie, but the contrarie is heresie, because it is against the expresse words of Christ, as I haue shewed before. And Saint Augustine affirmeth expressely, that what­soeuer Cont. Max. Arr. lib. 3. cap. 14. is begotten, proceedeth, so that you cannot de­nie the proceeding of the sonne from the father, ex­cept you denie his begetting: Neuertheleles although the sonne and the holie ghost do both proceede, yet not both alike, as the same Augustine sheweth, de trin. lib. 5. cap. 14. vbi & illud elucescit, vtpote quod solet multos mouere, cur non sit filius etiam Spiritus Sanctus, cum & ipse à patre exeat, sicut in Euangelio legitur. Exiit enim, non quo modo natus, sed quo modo datus, & ideo non dicitur filias, quia ne (que) natus est sicut vnigenitus, neque factus, vtper Dei gra­tiam in adoptionem nasceretur, sicutinos. Where that also is made cleare, which is wont to moue manie men, why the holie ghost also is not the sonne, seeing that he also proceedeth from the father, as it is read in the gospell. For he proceeded not as begotten, but as giuen, and therefore he is not called the sonne, because he is neither begotten, as the onely begotten, nor made that by the grace of god he might be borne into adoption, as we. Here you see that proceeding is common to both the persons, yet one manner of proceeding proper to the sonne, and another to the holie ghost. A third que­stion you haue: what difference is betweene these speaches: namelie of proceeding and begotten: which question you saie with the rest, though Master Charke seeme ignorant in them all, and not to vnderstand so much as the verie [...] themselues, yet Catholike diuines know what the Church hath determined herein. But concerning this question Saint Augustine shall answere for our ignorance. Cont. Max­imin. lib. 3. cap. 14. Quid autem inter nasci & procedere in­cersit, de illa excellentissima natura loquens, explicare quis [Page 318] potest? Non omne quod procedit, nascitur, quamuis omne proce­dar, quod nascitur. [...] omne quod bipes est, homo est, quam nis bipes sit omnis qui homo est: haec scio. Distinguere autem inter illam generationem, & hanc processionem, nescio, non valeo, non sufficio. Ac per hoc, quia & illa, & ista est ineffabi­lis, stcut Propheta de filio loquens alt, Generationem eius quis enarrabit? ita de spiritu sancto verissimè dicitur, processionem eius quis enarrabit, &c. What difference is betweene begot­ten & proceeding, speaking of that moste excellent nature, whoe is able to expresse? Not all that proceedeth, is begotten, al­though al proceedeth, that is begotten. As not euerie two legged thing is a man, although euerie one is two legged that is a man. Those thinges I know. But to distinguish betweene that generation, and this procession, I know not, I am not able, I am not sufficient. And for this reason, because both that and this is vnspeakeable, as the Prophet speaking of the sonne saith, whoe shall declare his generation? so of the holie ghost it is saide moste trulie, whoe shall declare his procession? This is Saint Augustines iudgement of this question. Yea this is the Master of the sentences iudgement also, as well of this question, as of the proceeding of the sonne from the father against you. Yet you saie of these as wel of as the other, they are no lesse to be beleeued, then other mysteries of the trinitie, wherewith your conclusion is, that you would not haue troubled Master Charke, if you had supposed him so grosse therein, as by examination you finde him, Alacke poore Sir William. A lacke for pitie, what high points of lear­ning you haue shewed, which in the Master of the sen­tences, & whome soeuer he wil, of an hundred schoole­men, that wrote vpon him, euerie sophister may finde mooued, debated, and defined in lesse then one daies studie. no meruaill then if Master Charke be so grosse in them, as you by examination finde him. But while you in your owne imagination are so subtile in them, that you thinke your crest perceth the clowdes, you haue bewraied more shamefull proude ignorance, then any of vs would haue suspected that it might be [Page 319] found in such a great Champion of the Papistes, such a Lorde he censuter, such a doughtie defender. When in some of the questions propounded by your selfe, you neither know the doctrine of the scripture, the iudge­ment of the auncient fathers, the determination of your Church, nor the conclusion of your owne schoole doctors, in whole mysteries neuertheles you would seeme to be an other Mercurie.

For the rest of the handes, that you draw against Doctor Fulke, you are answered in this consutation of popish quarrelles, from pag. 48. vntill pag. 55. And where you saie, that euerie litle gesse at our pleasure is suf­ficient to prooue what we will, whereas no testimonies of your part will serue, except they be so plaine and euident, as by no waits they maie be auoyded, and thereupon charge vs to be Lordes of the scriptures, it is as manie other of yours, a de­testable slaunder. For as I haue shewed before, in mat­ters necessarie to saluation, we admit no gesses, but ei­ther manifest wordes of scripture, or els that which is necessarilie concluded out of manifest wordes, and principles confessed: and such if you haue anie, bring them forth, and we will hearken vnto them.

Ouer against the article of punishing heretiks by death, which, (you saie) was a long time denied by our selues to be allowable by scripture, you note in the margent Luther against Latomus de incendiariis, of burners. For what pur­pose I maruell, seeing in that booke he complaineth of the Louanistes, not for burning heretikes, but for bur­ning of his bookes. For the mention which Saint Paull is thought of some to make of an Epistle written to the Laodicenses, you are not a litle netled, that Master Chark condemneth both you and Saint Ieromes tran­slation of ignorance. You saie he should not obiect igno­rance so peremptorilie to you, you ought not so rigorously to haue beene reprehended, and you name a great manie aun­cient writers, which may be sufficient, to wipe awaie Ma­ster Charkes bitter reproch against you. But let vs see howri­gorously, [Page 320] and bitterly he hath delt with you, yea how peremtorilie he obiecteth ignorance to you by his own wordes. The Episile to the Laodiceans, although manie make mention of it, Paull maketh none: so that either you ig­norantlie passed ouer the greeke, or willfullie addicted your selfe to the olde translation, being in this place plainlie corrup­ted. For by the originall Paull speaketh of an Epistle from Laodicea, and not writen to the Laodicenses, as you vntrulie assirme. Here is all that he saieth: you are a daintie Parnell that count your selfe so rigorouflie reprehen­ded, and so bitterlie reproched in those wordes, where ignorance is not peremptorilie obiected, as you saie, but either that, or willful addiction to the olde transla­tion, which I know not vpon what ground, you doe so peremtorilie call S. Ieromes translation. Master Charke hath more cause to complaine of you, for that you af­firme, that he saith, the greeke text hath of an Epistle writ­ten by S. Paull from Laodicea. For he saith not, an Epistle written by Saint Paull, but from Laodicea, by whome so­euer it was written. Where you cite manie that thought mention to be made of one written by Saint Paull to the Laodiceans, he confesseth as much.

But it is more against Master Charke, that you haue two Greeke editions, the one of Pagnine, the other of Plantine which make for you, as you affirme. But what if you be deceiued in them, as great a clarke as you would seeme to be, that maie not be touched with the least suspicion of ignorance. The most of the co­pies, both printed and written haue [...], the Epistle from Laodicea. Your two editions leaue out the preposition, and then it must be translated that Epistle Col. 4. 16. of Laodicea, which it seemeth your vulgar interpreter followed in sense, though not in wordes, which saith: eam quae Laodicensiumest, that which is of the Laodiceans. Where is there now in anie of these that which maketh for you? that Saint Paull speaketh of an Epstle writ­ten by him, to the Laodicenses. For the Epistle of Lao­dicea, [Page 321] which your two greeke editions haue, and the Epistle of the Laodicenses which your vulgar translati­on hath, cannot signifie an Epistle written to the Lao­dicenses, but from Laodicea, or from the Laodiceans, which in sense maie be al one with the most vsuall rea­ding, that expresseth the preposition from. Therefore it is true that Master Charke saith, by both the edi­tions, and by the vulgar Latine text also, that albeit manie make mention of an Epistle, written by Saint Paull to the Laodiceans, he him selfe maketh none.

The 12. section, Of the Scriptures missalled­ged for the contrarie by M. Charke.

THe text is 2. Tim. 3. 16. & 17. The wholl Scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable, &c. The Censure had cauiled against his translation, which it was ne­ssarie for him to defend, against which defence you haue nothing to replie, and therefore begin with the first reason, about profitable and sufficient. Hetahis profitable, sometimes shall import sufficient, and not barelie pro­fitable: as for example, when some reason is adioyned, why it should be profitable, & nothing els applied or seruing to that ef­fect: as when the Apostle writeth, that godlines is profitable to al things, hauing the promises of this life, and of the life to come. where profitable, importeth sufficient, for the obtaining of all good thinges of both liues. Against this you tri­fle: First, that it is but a slender argument to inferre one par­ticular of an other. But if your eies were matches, your might see a particular inferred of an vniuersall. Wher­soeuer some reason is alledged, whie a thing should be so prositable, that nothing els is necessarie for the ef­fect, there profitable importeth sufficient, as in that ex­ample godlines is profitable for all thinges &c. But so it is in the text in question, therefore in that text profitable [Page 322] importeth sufficient. Neuertheles in your opinion M. Charke is vttrerlie deceiued in this example of godlines, which by the [...] of Saint Ambrose, Saint Ierome, and Saint Augustine, importeth no more, but that godlines hath her pro­mises of reward in all actions, whether they be about mat­ters of this life, or of the life to come. So that the meaning is, that pietie meriteth in all actions, but is not suffici­ent to the obtaining of all good thinges of both liues. First concerning Saint Ambrose, reade him who will vpon this text, and he shall finde the contrarie. Pietati operam dandam commonet, quia grandem habet presectum. Qui enim misericordiae student, senioribus [...] reddentes parentibus, & in presenti vita auxilia Dei non [...], & in [...]. He admo­nisheth to labour in godlines, because it hath greas profit. For they that are mercifull [...] their olde Parents loue, they shall [...] mant the helpe of God in this present life, and in the world to come, they shalhaue immortalitie with glorie. Againe, omnis enim [...] discipline [...] in misericus dia & pietate est. All the summe of our discipline is in [...] and pietie. Now pietie, as you confesse, comprehendeth charitie, and the loue of God. And therefore in the end Saint Ambrose, after he hath shewed, that bodelie exercise, taken for fasting, and abstinence without godlines, shal haue [...] punishment, concludeth, that fasting and abstinence, of men that are spirituall, be­ing to the end of pietie, is comprehended therein. S. Ieromes wordes vpon this text are no more but these. Et [...] tempus, & in futurum: nam & ipsa vidua & in presenti casta est, & merces eius manetinea. Godlines is profitable, &c. both for the present time, & for the time to come. For euen the widow her selfe is both chast in the present time, & her reward abideth in her. What is here against the suffi­ciencie of pietie? S. Augustine de morib. Eccles. lib. 1. c. 33. hath onelie these wordes [...] to this text, spea­king of the godlie life of Christians, liuing vnder dis­cipline in citties. Ita pietatem sedulò exercent: corporis [Page 323] verò exercitationem, vt ait idem Apostolus, ad exiguum tem­pus [...] nouerunt. So they exercise godlines diligentlie, as for corporall exercise, as the same Apostle saieth, they knowe to pertaine but to a short time. Where is here, either the vn­sufficiencie, orthe merit of godlines? for the promise of reward is of mercie, not of merit. This reason therefore of Master Charkes for the safficiencie of the Scripture standeth im mooueable seeing the Scripture is so profi­table, to all points of doctrine, that nothing els is requi­red to perfection.

The second reason, you saie, he frameth in these wordes, That which is profitable to all the partes, which maie be required to perfection, cannot but be sufficient for the perfection of the wholl: but that the Scripture is profita­ble in such manner, the Apostle doth fullie declare in re­hearsing all the particular partes which are necessarie, and ad­ding also after generallie, that the man of God maie be perfect, [...] the Scripture is [...]. Here of your charitie you praie God to helpe Master Charke, [...] him that he is a simple one to take controuerfies in hand. And then you aske, what boie in Cambridge would haue reasoned thus. And whie all this? forsooth, euery boie knoweth there is a cause sine qua non, which is not onelie profitable, but also necessarie to all partes, whereof it is such a cause, and yet it is not sufficient alone, either to the partes, or to the wholl: as the head is [...] for all the actions of this life, as to sing weepe, dispute, yet is it not sufficient alone to per­forme these actions. Therefore it followeth not that whatso­euer is profitable to all particular partes, should be sufficient to all. Dij te Damasyppe [...] verunrob consilium [...] tonsore, Or, as we saie in English, the vicar of fooles be your Ghosllie father. Did you learne when you were a boic in Cambridge orOxford, to repeate your aduersaries pro­position by halfes, & then to confute as much there of as you list? Looke backe & you shall finde, that his pro­position is not, what soeuer is profitable to all particu­lar parts, is sufficient for the wholl, but whatsoeuer is [Page 324] profitable to all the partes, which maie be required to perfection, is sufficient for the perfection of the wholl, or whatsoeuer is so profitable to euery part, as maketh the wholl perfect, is sufficient to the wholl. Against these propositions, if you haue anie thing to obiect, perhappes we shall haue it in your next replie, for he­therto you haue said nothing, and his argument stand­eth still.

His third reason is taken of the wordes of S. Paull immediatlie before, where he saieth vnto Timothie, That the holie Scriptures, which he had learned from his in­fancie, were able to make him wise vnto saluation. So the ar­gument is this, that which is able to make a man wise vnto saluation, is sufficient: the holy scriptures are of ability to make a man wise vnto saluation: ergo they are sufficient. But this you denie. What I praie you? for I hope the [...] be rightlie framed. In effect the minor, which is the very wordes of Saint Paull. For as though either you knew not, or cared not for the originall text, which saith [...], which are able to make thee wise, you harpe onelie vpon the word, of instructing, which the vulgar interpreter vseth, not sufficient to answere the greeke verb [...]: and yet if it be rightlie vnderstood, as perhappes he meant, it signifieth to furnish, and not to teach properlie: so the sense might be, that the scripture is able to furnish thee with knowledge to saluation: and that [...] a sufficiencie.

Now to your pelting cauilles. You aske, if the Scrip­tures, which can shew Timothie the waie to saluation, and bring him also to it, if he will follow them, be sufficient for the wholl Church, so that all Doctrine by tradition is superfluous? I answere, yea. For there is but one waie to salua­tion for all the Church. But you obiect, that euerie Epistle of Saint Paull enstructeth a man to saluation, yet it not sufficient for the wholl Church. I answere, that euerie Epistle of Saint Paull is not sufficient to instruct a [Page 325] man to saluation, or to make him wise vnto saluation. But that which Saint Paull spaketh, is of the wholl scri­pture, not of euery epistle. For you might as well obiect, that euery chapter and verse instructeth a man toward saluation, rather then to saluation, but not suffici­entlie: yet the wholl is able to make a man wise vnto saluation. Your second obiection is, that the Apostle speaketh principallie of the olde Testament, and will Master Charke saie that the olde Testament is sufficient to Christian men for their saluation, without anie other writt? Yea I war­rant you: for there is no Doctrine in the new, but it was taught in the olde. Saint Paull affirmeth that he said nothing, but that which the Prophetes, and Moses had spoken of thinges to be performed. The new Testament hath no other Doctrine then the olde, onelie it testifi­eth the performance of those thinges in Christ, which the olde Testament foreshewed to be performed. A­gaine, because you grate so much vpon the exclusion of other writt, Saint Paull addeth by faith in Iesus Christ, which containeth all that is written in the new Testa­ment, concerning the storie of performancet, and seales of this faith. And if the olde were sufficient, how much more is the olde & the new together, a rich & a­boundant Doctrine. The [...] that you make against his translation, of the wholl Scripture, which you would referre to euerie Scripture is answered before: the translation must be according to the circumstance of the place. Euerie Scripture, which is euerie seuerall booke, or euerie seuerall Chapter, or euerie seuerall verse, is not able to make the man of God perfect, and perfectlie prepared to euerie good worke: but the wholl is: therefore the translation must be, the whole scriptures, and not, euerie scripture.

But now to your tow reasons. In the first you saie, that Saint Paull could not meane to Timothie of all the scrip­tures together, which we now vse, for that all was not then writ­ten. To this you confesse that he answereth, there was inough [Page 326] written then, for the susficient saluation of men of that time, and therest is not superfluous. But this, you saie, is from the pur­pose. Yea is? how so, I praie you? you answere, it was sufficient with the supplie by worde of [...] vnwritten: but that is contrarie to the purpose for Master Charke telleth you, that from the time that any, [...] was written, that scripture contanied sufficient [...] to saluation, without anie supply of anie other Doctrine, that was not in that Scripture comprehended, although preaching and other meanes were necessa­rie to reach men, which is beside the purpose. Before the scripture was written, the same doctrine in sub­stance was deliuered by reuelation, that afterwarde was written. The continuance thereof was not onelie by bare tradition, but also in euerie age renewed by re­uelation. Againe, the age of men was lo long, that there remained alwaies faithfull and ceratine witnes­ses of the doctrine aliue, so that it could not be corrúpted, but it was easie by those witnesses to be refuted. But when the age of man was drawne into the streights of 70. yeares, or litle more, as Moses Psal. 90. 10. sheweth, the Doctrine of the Church was committed to writing, euen as much at the first, as was sufficient for the instruction of the people vnto saluation, with­out anie supplie of traditions. The [...] of the Prophetes, and Apostles writinges, is a more full, and plentifull declaration of thesame Doctrine of salua­tion, not anie addition of anie new Doctrine, or waie to saluation.

Your second reason is, that [...] partes of scripture be wanting now, which were in Saint Pauls time. But that you are not able to prooue. For although there is men­tion in the olde testament, of diuerse bookes written by Prophets, which are not now extant, yet it follow­eth not; that those were extant in Saint Pauls time. And if any were, yet were they but explications, and interpretations of the bookes of Moses, which [Page 327] are extant euerie syllable, and pricke, and shall be to the ende of the world. But Epiphanius affirmeth, that all thinges cannot be taken from the scripture; wherefore the Aposties [...] somethings in writing, and somethings in tradition. To this I answere, first, that Saint Paul is greater then Epiphanius. Secondlie, that Epipha­nius saith not, that anie thing necessarie to saluation cannot be taken out of the scripture. For he speaketh onelie of this opinion, that it is sinne to marrie, af­ter virginitie decreed, which neuertheles, maie be ta­ken out of the scripture, if the vow were aduisedlie ta­ken and no necessitie of incontinencie requiring ma­riage. But of tradition we shall haue further to consi­der in the next section.

The thirteenth section, intituled, Of teaching traditions besides the scripture. Art. 5.

GOtuisus reporteth the Iesuits, to saic, that the want of holie scriptures muste be supplied by peecing it out by traditions, Cens. f. 220. Here you repeat your olde friuolous quarrel, that the Iesuites haue no such vnreuerent words. Master Chark chargeth you out of Hosius, with a farre worseisaying: that if traditions be reiected, the verie Gospell it selfe seemeth to be reiected. For what els are traditi­ons, then a certaine liuing Gospell? But thereto you an­swere not one worde, and the meaning of those words, reported by Gotuisus, you mainteine egerlie, thorouh­out this section, as you did in parte in the 12. section, that the scriptures are not sufficient, and that there must be traditions receiued beside the scripture. To what ende, but to supplie the want, and insufficiencie of the holie scriptures? Nay, saie you: Though both parts [Page 328] of Gods worde, that is, both written, and vnwritten, be ne­cessarie vnto Gods Church: yet both of them do stand in their full perfection, assigned them by God, neither is the one a maime, or impeachment to the other. You meane, they are as perfect, as God made them, not that the writ­ten word is sufficient to teach all trueth, vnto the per­fection of the man of God. And so for all your vaine compasse of wordes, the sense is all one. The scri­pture is but a part, or a peece of Gods worde, and tra­ditions are an other peece: and this peece must be ad­ded to that, or els it is not, a perfect or sufficient instru­ction of itselfe for Gods Church.

The comparison you make of ioyning S. Lukes Gos­pell to that of Saint Matthew, or Saint Paules epistles to them both, to resemble your patching of traditions to the written word of God, is both odious, and vnlike, and, without begging the wholl matter in question, gai­neth nothing. For the adding of the writings of one Euangelist to another, or of an Apostle to the Euan­gelistes, is but the heaping of heauenlie treasure, to the further inriching of the Church in all light of spirituall knowledge: so the accession of the bookes of the new testament, is as it were the vnfolding, or laying open of the same diuine riches, that was perfectlie contayned in the olde testament, for the saluation of all Gods elect, that, liued vnder that dis­cipline. But your traditions (as you maintaine them) argue an insufficiencie of the holie scriptures, which allso you confesse your selfe, and are not a more plaine, or plentifull application of the mysteries comprehended in them. Therefore though you can for manners sake, otherwhile, forbeare odi­ous speeches aginst the dignitie of holie scriptures, yet euen that odious conclusion gathered by Gotui­sus must needes follow of your doctrine, concerning the insufficiencie of scriptures, and the necessitie of traditions.

That your traditions are Gods word, and of equall authoritie with the scriptures, you promise to shew more largelie in the twelft article, together with certaine meanes how to know, and discerne the same. Sed haec in dicm minita­ve Parmeno. You haue taken a pretie pause of three yeares long, since you were interrupted (as you [...] in the end) by a writte de remouendo. But the daie will come that shall paie for all. Whether anie cause or matter hath beene ministred by you, of odious speeches against the dignitie of holie scriptures, Ma­stet Charke declareth by one example out of Hosius, which with all the rest that he saith, you omit to an­swer, as trifling speech to litle purpose. So whatsoeuer by anie colour of reason you can not auoid, by your censorious authoritie you maie contemne, and passe ouer.

But his conclusion seemeth worthie the answer, which he maketh in these wordes, To conclude it is a great iniquitie, to adde traditions, or your vnwritten veri­ties, to the written word of God, whereunto no man maie adde,Apoc. 22.because nothing is wanting: from which no man maie take, be­cause nothing is superfluous. But to him that addeth, shall the curses, written in the booke, be added for euer. Against this conclusiō, you note in the margent, great iniquitie to adde one veritie to another, or to beleeue two verities together. A fine ieste: but a grosse begging of the wholl cause. For who shal graunt that your vnwritten vereties be truth, and not falsehood, falselie by you termed verities vn­written. There is no veritie of matters necessarie to be knowne vnto saluation, which is not written in the holie scriptures, that are hable to make vs wise vnto sal­uation. 2. Tim. 3. But good Lord, what a sturre you keepe, be­cause M. Chatk noteth in the margent, Apoc. 22. & ask how this place is alledged against you, &c. As though that which is true of one booke, yea of euery booke of the scripture, maie not iustlie be verefied of the wholl bodie, and boke of the the Bible. Because adding to the [Page 330] word of god, argueth imperfection in the word of god. Your stale obiection of Saint Iohns Gospell written af­ter the Reuelation, is alreadie answered. For al bookes of scripture, that haue beene written, since the fiue bookes of Moses, are no addition to the word of God, but a more cleere explication of the [...] first com mitted to writing by inspiration of God. Neither do they teach an other waie of saluation, then Moses did, but set forth the same more plainlie by demonstration, by examples of Gods iustice, and his mercie, by threa­tenings, by exhortations, by explication of his promises, by shewing the accomplishment, and the manner of perfourmance of them in Christ and his Church. And this they do moste absolutelie, suffici­ently, and plentifully, to the saluation of Gods people. These things, saith S. Iohn, are written, that you should Ioh. 20. 31.beleeue that Iesus is Christ, the sonne of God, and that belee­uing, you maie haue euerlasting life in his name. Here you maie as well cauill, that not onelie the Gospell of Saint Iohn, or the miracles written in the same, is necessarie to be beleeued vnto saluation, but all the rest of the scripture also, foolishlie opposing thinges that are no waie repugnant, but the one including the other. For the beleeuing of Saint Iohns Gospell, doth not exclude, but in­clude, all other bookes, and partes of holie scripture, which teach the same meane of saluation, or any thing thereto pertaining. But how holdeth this argument (saie you) no man maie adde to the booke of Apocalips, ergo no man maie beleeue a tradition of Christ, or his Apostles. Maie we not as well saie, ergo we maie not beleeue the actes of the Apostles? No sir, for we make our argument in this man ner, No man maie adde to the booke of the Apoca­lips, much lesse may anie man adde to the wholl Bi­ble, of the olde, and new testament. And consequent­lie, there are no traditions of Christ, and his Apostles, to be credited, as needefull to saluation, which are not [Page 331] contained in the holy scriptures. Thus we alledge scri­ptures, and thus we argue vppon them, not as it plea­seth you to deseant vpon our allegations, and to dissi­gure our arguments.

But it is lamentable (you saie) to see the [...] dealings of these men in matters of such importance. It is verie true, vnderstanding you, and your complices, to be the men that vse such fleightes in [...] waightie causes. As for our doctrine is plaine, & without any seame, that the scri­ptures are sufficient to saluation, & therfore al traditi­on, besides them, are [...] to that purpose. But let vs see who [...] sleightes by your iudgement. First you aske Master Charke what he [...] by adding? Who doth adde? Or in what sense? as though his meaning, and sense of adding were not manifest, as also his accusa­tion, that the I suites, the Papistes do adde, to the word of God, their traditions, a necessarie to saluati­on, yet not expressed, or contained in the word of God. But if God (saie you) left anie doctrine by tradition vnto the Church, and our ancetours haue deliuered the same vuto vs, especiallie those of the [...] Church, what shall we do in this case? Shall we refuse it? It seemeth dangerous, and I see no reason. The question is not, whether we should refuse anie thing that God hath left: but whether God hath left anie such tradition to be beleeued vnto salua tion, which is not contained in the holie scriptures. But if our ancetours of the primitiue Church, haue deliuered anie such tradition vnwritten, as left by Christ, what shall we doe? you see no reason to refuse it. But if you will learne reason, when it is shew­ed, you maie see more then you do now. Are your ancetors of the primitiue Church greater then Saint Paull? Is there anie testimonié of man, greater then the witnes of an Angell from heauen? yet if Saint Paull him selfe, or an Angell from hea­uen, should preach an other Gospell then Saint Paull had preached, and is contained in the holi [Page 332] scriptures, that false Gospell were to be resused, and the author thereof to be accursed. Now that Saint Gal. 1. 8. Paull preached nothing, beside the doctrine, contei­ned in the scriptures, he is a sufficient witnes him­selfe. Act. 26. 22. But why see you no reason to refuse such traditions so obtruded? Forsooth because the same men, that deliuered vnto you the scriptures, and saide this is Gods writen worde, and saide of other forged scriptures, this is not Gods written worde, the same deliuered to you these doctrines, saying; this is Gods wordes vnwritten. So that by this reason, you haue no other foundation of your faith, but the testimonie of men: who as they may speake the truth in one matter, so they may lie, or be deceiued in an other. As euen by your owne reason the Grecians, the Armenians, the Georgians, the Moscouites, and all other sectaries are bound to be­leeue all that to be the word of God vnwritten, which the same men affirme to be such, that deliuered the canonicall scriptures to them, and said it was the word of God written. But in steade of this vnsure, and sandie ground, the children of God haue a more firme rocke, to builde their faith vpon: namelie the spi­rit of trueth, sealing in their heartes the testimonie of men, concerning the truth of Gods worde written. In which the same spirit also testifieth of the sufficiencie of the word written vnto saluation in such sort, as if we receiue the word written for truth, we must needs con­demne for false, what word soeuer speaketh either the contrarie, or addeth any thing as wanting, and not set forth in the word written. And this I say, not as though the primitiue Church, or the godlie fathers of the same, haue brought in any thing vnder the name of tradition of Christ, or his Apostles, as necessarie to saluation, although some of them in matters of rites, & ceremonies, haue alledged tradition beside the scri­ptures, yet in such things as are now for the most part abolished, either because they were not deliuered by [Page 333] the Apostles, as it was pretended, or els because such matters are mutable, and not perpetuall, though they were receiued from the Apostles.

But let vs examine the examples that you ioyne to your reason. First, Saint Augustine, and Origen doe teach vs, that baptizing of infantes is to be practized in the Church, onelie by tradition of the Apostles. For which you quote. August. lib. 10. ad gen. lit. cap. 23. Origen. in cap. 6. Epist. ad Rom. What Saint Augustine saieth and how the baptisme of infantes is practized by autho­ritie of the scripture, I haue shewed before, sect. 11. As for Origen, in the place quoted, hath neuer a word to any such matter. But of these impudent allegations, we haue had too many examples alreadie. The second example is, Saint Hierome and Epiphanius tell vs, that the faste of the lent, and oher the like, is a tradition of the Apo­stles, Hierom. Epist. 54. ad, Marcella. Epiphann. Haer. 7. 5. Hieromes wordes are these against the Mon­tanistes. Nos vnam quadragesimam secundùm traditio­nem Apostolorum, toto anno, tempore nobis congruo, ieiuna­mus, [...] tres in anno faciunt quadragesimas, quasi tres passi sunt saluatores, non quòd & per totum annum, excepta pentecoste, ieiunare non liceat; sed quòd aliud sit necessitate, aliud voluntate munus offerre. We fast one lent or fourtie daies according to the tradition of the Apostles, in the wholl yeare, in a time conuenient for vs: they make three lentes, or fourtie daies fast in a yeare, as though three sauiours had susse­red: not but that it is lawfull all the yeare long, except in the pentecostor fiftie daies, but that it is one thing to offer a gift of necessitie, an other thing to doe it of free will. Here Hie­rome saith, that one fourtie daies fast, is of the tradi­tion of the Apostles, but other writers say otherwise. For Damasus in his Pontificall saieth, that Telesphorus Bishope of Roome did institute this seauen weekes faste, before Easter. Telesphorus him-selfe, in his decretall Epistle, saith, that he, and his fellow Bishop­pes gathered in a Councell at Roome, did ordeine this [Page 334] fourtie daies faste, onelie for clerkes, and contendeth in manie wordes, that there must be a difference be­tweene clerkes, and laie men, as well in faste, as in o­ther thinges. If you saie, these authorities, are coun­terfet [...], as I thin [...] you may truelie, though Eccles. [...]. l. 5. cap. 26. you will not willinglie, yet what saie you to [...], an elder witnes then Hierome, whoe testifieth out of yeares, that two hundered [...] before his time there was great controuersie betweene the next successours of the Apostles, concerning the daie of the celebration of Easter, and that the coutrouersie was not onelie of the daie, but also of the fast: some fasting one daie, some two dates, some more. So that of the Apostles tradition, we haue no certaintie in any monument of antiquitie. Againe it is to be noted, that Hierome holdeth it vnlawfull to faste betweene Easter, and Whitesontyde, which he calleth Peatecoste, by the same tradition of the Apostles, which yet in the Popish Church is not obserued at this daie: for beside the fridaie fast, they haue also the gang weeke fast in that time, which in Saint Hieromes age was accounted vnlawfull to fast in. Your other wit­nes Epiphanius speaketh not of your fourtie daies lent, but of a shorter, and yet a streighter. For these are his wordes: Aquo verò non assensum est in omnibus orbis ter­rarum regionibus, quòd quarta, & prosabbato ieiunium est in Ecclesia ordinatum. Siverò etiam oportet constitutionem A­postolorum proferre, quomodo illic decreuerunt quarta & pro­sabbato ieiunium per omnia, excepta pentecoste, & de sex dieb. paschatis quomodo praecipiunt nihil omnino accipere, quàm panem, & salem, & aquam, qualemque diem agere, & quo­modo dimittere in illucescentem dominicam, manifestum est. And of whome is it not agreed in all regions of the world, that one wednesdaie and fridaie fast is ordeined in the Church: But if we must also bring forth the constitution of the Apostles, how they haue there decreed one the wednesdaie, and fri­daie a fast, thoroughout all except pentecost, and of the six [Page 335] daies of Easter, how they commaund to take nothing at all, but bread, and salte, and water, and how to spend the daie and how to giue ouer against the dawning of the Lords daie, it is ma­nifest. Here he speaketh but ofsixe daies before Easter daie, and of an other manner of diet, then the Po­pish Church holdeth to be necessarie. Secondlie, he speaketh of the fourth daies or Wednesdaies fast to be appointed by the tradition of the Apostles which yet neuerthelesse the Romish Church doth not obserue. Thirdlie, that the Pente cosse or fiftie daies, by the tradition of Apostles, are exempted from the Fridaie fast, which tradition is not kept in the Popes Church, except you will saie that Pentecost is taken for whit­son weeke, and then the custome of the PopishChurch is directlie contrarie to the tradition of the Apostles: for Wednesdaie and Fridaie that weeke are [...] daies. And as for the Wednesdaie fast, as well as the Fridaie, Epiphanius is so earnest, that he addeth fur­ther, Deinde verò, st non de eodem argumento quartarum, & Prosabbatorum, ijdem Apostoli in constitutione dixissent, eti­amaliter vndi (que) demonstrare possemus: Attamen de hoc ex­actè scribunt. Assumpsit autem ecclesta, & in toto mundo assen­sus factus est, &c. And moreouer if the same Apostles in their constitutions had not spoken of the same argument of wednes­daies, & Fridaies, we could otherwise throughly make proofe of it. But they write exactly ofit, and the Church hath taken it vp, & assent hath bin geuen in al the world. You see he al­ledgeth not onely a decree of the Apostles, but also the consent of all the world, for the wednesdaie fast, as well as the Fridaie fast. So that if the Apostles tradi­tion beside the scripture be necessarie for lent, whie is it not also for wednesdaies fast? And if wednesdaies faste is not necessarie, no more is lent fast.

Further you affirme, that Dionystus and Tertullian saie, that praiers, and oblations for the dead, are traditions of the Apostles, De Eccles. hier. c. 7. de corona milit. but Dionystus, al beit we do not acknowledge him for a man of such an­tiquitie, [Page 336] as the papists would obtrude him, yet hath not any mention of traditions of the Apostles, in that Chap ter touching praier for the dead, but either of tradition in scripture, orels at large endeuoring to prooue that he saith by scripture. Tertullian in the place quoted, speak­eth onelie of oblations for the dead in that yearelie day, which maie signifie thanksgiuing, as pro nataliliis, for their birth, doth in in the verie same clause. Not de­nying yet, but Tertullian, when he forsooke the Church, and became a Montanist, yealed to praier for the dead, as a thing reuealed by the spirit, aud new prophecie of Montanus.

Last of all you saie, Saint Basill teacheth that the conse­cration of the fant, before baptisme, the exorcisme vpon those that are to be baptized, their anointing with holie chrisme, and diuerse like thinges, are deliuered to vs by prescript of Christ and his Apostles, lib. de. spi. 5. cap. 27. Of consecration or blessing of the water to the holie vse of baptisme & of those that are to be baptized, there neede no tradi­tion to be alledged, the scripture is sufficient in the in­stitution of baptisme, whereby both the water, and the perfon are dedicated to God, aud his holie worke of regeneration. The anointing with chrisme, seemeth at the first to haue beene the signe of the giftes of the holie Ghost, which were wont to be graunted with bap­tisme: which though it had beene vfed by the Apostles in baptisme, yet that particular grace being ceased, which to signifie it was vsed, it hath no longer anie pro­fitable vse in the Church. As for exorcisme vpon those that are to be baptized. Is is your owne addition, for Saint Basill hath it not. But where you saie, he hath diuers like thinges, as deliuered by traditian, it is verie true, and among them this sor example, that it is necessarie for the children of the Church, to praie standing, on the Lords daie. But this necessitie, euen in the popish Church, is notacknowledged: therefore whatsoeuer he saieth, is a tradition of the Apostles, is necessarieto be kept of all [Page 337] Christians, although all the Church in his time belee­ued it, as that which Epiphanius reporteth of the wed­nesdaies fast before spoken of.

You demaund, vpon what ground you shall discredit, or reiect these traditions, deliuered by such fathers, cheife Doctors, and pillers of the Church? Euen by the same ground, that you giue ouer other traditions, deliuered by the same persones, either because they are not true traditions, or els because they are not necessarie for the Church, al­belt they were deliuered (as no doubt some ceremoni­all matters were) euen by the Apostles them selues. Your other reasons are friuolous: That they were nee­rer the Apostles then we. For the neerest, and moste immediat successours to the Apostles, Policarpus, and Anicetus, could not agree vpon the tradition of the A­postles, one of them building vpon Iohn, the other vp­on Peter, as is testified by Eusebius, out of Irenaeus in lib. 5. c. 10. Eccl. bsst. [...] the place before cited. An other reason is, that they were honest men, and would not deceiue vs willinglie. And so much we acknowledge: yet might they be deceiued, in ascri­bing the common practise of their time, to Apostolike tradition, and so deceiue vs vnwittinglie: nor be con­trolled, because the custome, & generall acceptation of that ceremonie restreined men. Which things conside­red, it is a great iniquitie, as Master Charke saieth, to adde traditions to the written word of God, as if of it selfe it were not sufficient to instruct the Church in all thinges necessarie to saluation. That which follow­eth of Doctor Fulkes handling the olde Fathers about traditions, is answered by himselfe in his confutation of popish quarrells from pag. 55. to pag 61.

After this you cite foure seuer all Doctors in de­fence of traditions vnwritten: whereunto as some of auncient writers were too much inclined, so haue you not so sure ground out of them for your popish traditi­ons, as you purpose. And to beginne with Basill, who by lib. de sptr, Sanct. c. 27. Apostolike traditiō defendeth the custome of the Church, which [Page 338] was to sing, Glorie be to the Father, and to the sonne, with the holie Ghost, whereas the heretikes would haue it, in the ho­lie Ghost, and cauilled that the other forme was not in the scriptures, Saint Basil mainteineth it as agreeable to the scriptures, by authoritie of auncient tradition, al­though it were not expressed in so manie wordes in the scriptures, as manie other thinges are, which haue like force vnto pietie, with those that are dilinered in expresse wordes: as for example, he alledgeth the con­fession of the faith in the [...], which no man doubteth to be sufficientlie tanght in the scriptures, al­though the verie wordes of our creed are not expressed in such for me. As we rehearse our creede. I omit [...] things (saieth he) the verie confession of faith, in which we be­leeue in the father, the sonne, & the holie Ghost, in what scrip­ture haue we it? Againe, And if they doe reiect the manner of glorifying of god, as not written, let them bring forth demonstra­tion in writing of the confession of faith, & of other things that we rehearse. By which it is manifest, that the traditions he speaketh of are of two sortes: the one necessarie to sal­uation, not expressed in so manie wordes, and syllables, yet in full sense contained, and to be plainlie conclu­ded out of the holie scriptures, and these we receiue to be of as great credit as anie thing, that is expresselie contained in the scriptures. The other kinde of traditi­ons, was rites and cerimonies, which are not necessary to saluation, but are in the Churches power to alter, as it maie stand best with edification. Among which. S. Basill rehearseth some, that long since are abolished, as the rite of standing in praier one the Lords daie, and betweene Easter and Whitsontid, which of it selfe is a thing indiffe­rent, as also that manner of glorifying, in which they said. with the holy ghost, whereas al the Church long since, hath said neither in the holie Ghost, nor with the holie Ghost, but to the holie Ghost. To beleeue that the holie Ghost is to be glorified equallie with the Father and the sonne, it is necessarie to saluation, but in what forme [Page 339] of wordes, that shalbe song in the Church, it is indiffe­rent, and the later Church hath vsed her libertie here­in, to alter that forme which Saint Basill saith was de­liuered by the Apostles themselues without writing. By this I hope it is manifest, what kinde of traditions are of equall force, or authoritie with the scripture, euen they which haue their ground in the scriptures, and none other. For as the same Basill affirmeth, Euerie Moral. reg. 26. & Reg. 80.word or deede ought to be confirmed by testimonie of the holie Scriptures. Againe, For if all that is not of faith is sinne (as the Apostle saith, and faith is of hearing, and hearing by the word of God, whatsoeuer is beside the holie Scripture, being not of faith, is sinne. Thus Basill whatsoeuer he speaketh of vn­written traditions, he meaneth not against the insuffi­ciencie of the holie scriptures, except you will saie he is contrarie to him-selfe, in manie places beside these that I haue noted. Tr. de vera & piafide. Epist. 80. in Reg. Breu. Inter. 1. &. 65. 68. de ornatu Monachi.

Your next testimonie is out of Eusebius, lib. 1. Eu. Demonst. cap. 8. whole wordes you mangle after your manner, leauing out at your pleasure, more then you rehearse. Eusebius hauing shewed the excellencie of Christ aboue Moses, declareth also that there are two manners ofliuing in Christianitie, the one of them that are strong and perfect, the other of them that are subiect to manie infirmites, and that whereas Moses did write in tables without life, Christ hath written the perfect preceptes of the new Testament in liuing mindes, & his disciples following their Masters minde, considering what Doctrine is meete for both sortes, haue committed the one to writing, as that which is necessarie to be kept of all, the other they deliuered without writing, to those that were able to receiue it, wich haue excelled the common manner of men in knowledge, in strength, in abstinence, &c. And this is the meaning of Eusebius in that place, not of a­nie traditions necessarie to saluation of euerie man, [Page 340] which are not taught in the holy scriptures, but of cer­taine precepts, tending to perfection, not enioyned to all, but written in the heartes of some.

The third man is Epiphanius, who (you saie) is more earnest then Eusebius, writing against certaine heretikes cal­led Apostolici, which denied traditions, as our Protestantes do. Which is but a tale: for they were more like to Popish monkes and friers, then Protestantes: For they professed to abstaine from marryage, & to poslesse no­thing, and such other superstitions they obserued. But what saith Epiphanius for traditions? He saith that we must vse tradition. For all thinges can not be taken out of the scripture: wherefore the holie Apostles deliuered somethings in the scriptures, and something in tradition. Mine answer to Epiphanius, is the same that it was to Basilius, Namelie, that such things as were not expressed in plaine wordes in the scripture, were approoued by tradition, being neuertheles such thinges as were to be concluded necessarilie out of the scripture. As in the question, for which he alledgeth tradition, it is manifest: Tradiderunt, &c. the holie Apostles of God (saith he) haue deliuered vnto vs, that it is sinne after virginitie decreed, to be turned vnto marriage. This the Papistes doubt not, but that they are hable to prooue out of the scripture, except where the Pope dispenseth. And we acknowledge, that where the vow was made a duisedly, to a Godlie purpose, and abilitie in the partie to per­forme it, that it is sinne to breake it, neither can the Pope dispense with it. In the other place, where he rehearseth manie examples of traditions, he speak­eth [...]. 75. of rites, and ceremonies, as is before declared, wherof manie are not obserued in the Popish Church, neither is there anie of them necessarie to saluation. But Epiphanius (you saie) prooueth it out of scripture, 1. Cor. 11. 14. 15. vhere Saint Paulsaith, as I deliuered vnto you. And againe, so I teach, and so I haue deliuered vnto the Churches. and, If you holde fast, except you haue beleeued [Page 341] in vaine. To the first, I answer, that it prooueth no tra­ditions necessarie to saluation, which are not contai­ned in the scriptures: as is more manifest, by the se­cond and third text: for where Saint Paul saith, so I teach in all the Churches of God. 1. Cor. 14. 33. he saith im­mediatelie before, that God is not the God of sedition, but of peace. & 1. Cor. 15. 1. 2. 3. the Apostle speaketh manifestlie, of the doctrine of the resurrection, wher­of he him-selfe in that place writeth plentifullie, and in manie other places of scripture, the same article is taught moste expresselie. You see therefore how sub­stantiallie Epiphanius prooueth tradition vnwritten, out of the scripture, to be necessarie to saluation: which is our question.

But with Epiphanius (saie you) ioyneth fullie and ear­nestlie 2. Thess. 2. Saint Chrysostome, writing vpon these wordes of Saint Paul to the purpose. Stand fast, and holde traditions: out of which cleere wordes Saint Chrysostome maketh this illation. Hinc patet, &c. Hereof it is euident, that the Apostles deli­uered not all by epistle, but manie thinges also without wri­ting, and those are as worthie credit as these. Therefore we think the tradition of the Church to be worthie of credit, it is a tradition, seeke no more. The sense of these wordes is, that the Apostles, in their preaching, did expresse manie things, more perticularly then in their epistles: not that they preached anie thing necessarie to salua­tion, but that the same was contained either in their epistles, or in other bookes of the holie scrip­ture. And so I saie of the tradition of the Church which is a doctrine contained in the scriptures, though not expressed in the same, or in so manie wordes: as the three persons, and one God in trinitie, and tri­nitie in vnitie to be worshipped, &c. is of equall cre­dit with that which is expressed in the scriptures: be­cause the ground of our faith, standeth not vppon the sound of wordes, but vppon the sense, and true meaning of thinges them-selues. And this is Chri­sostomes [Page 342] meaning, not of traditions altogether with­out the compasse of the scriptures, and yet held ne­cessarie to saluation. For of the sufficiencie of the scri ptures he speaketh in diuers places, and namelie vp­pon that cleere text. 2. Tim. 3. Hom 9. of the scripiure he saith. Siquid vel diseere, velignorare opus sit, illic addisce­mus. If anie thing be needefisli to know, or not to know, in the scriptures we shall learne. But because you saie, those wordes of Saint Paulare cleere. 2. Thess. 2. for vnwritten tradititions, I praie you, what argument can you con­clude out of them? Saint Paul deliuered to the Thessa­lonians, something by preaching, and something by writing, ergo he deliuered something that is not con­tained in the holie scriptures, written either by him­selfe, or anie other of the holie men of God, appoin­ted for that purpose. Who is so childish, thinke you, to graunt you this consequence? therefore for anie thing you haue brought or can bring, or anie thing that the fathers haue said or can saie, the word of God writ ten is perfect, and hable to make a man wise to saluation, by faith in Iesus Christ, which is to be had sufficientlie in the holie scriptures, as Christ him-selfe doth witnes. Iohn. 5. 39. And so the former conclusion doth still stand. It is great iniquitie to receiue traditions alto­gether beside the holie scripture, as necessarie to sal­uation, which must needes argue the holie scriptures of imperfection, and vnsufficiencie. Neither doth the consent of Antiquitie refute this assertion of Master Charke, seeing the auncients, as it is said, spake either of doctrine not expressed in word, but contained in deede, in the scriptures, or els of rites, and ceremo­nies: the perpetuall obseruation where of is not neces­satie to eternall life, as is prooued by the discussing of manie of them, which the elder fathers do father vpon the tradition of the Apostles, as much as anie o­ther that they name. And if you saie, they were decei­ued, in such as are abolished, how shall we know that [Page 343] [...] not in such as are retained? For in their [...], they were all generallie receiued as [...] [...], as well such as are discontinued, as those [...] remaine.

[...] if any man will aske you, what be these Apostolicall [...] in particuler, you could alleadge him testimonies [...] auncient fathers, for a great number: But you referr [...] Saint Cyprian, Serm. de ablut. pedum. Tertullian [...]. milit. and Saint Hieron. dialog. contra Luciferianos: [...] say, he shall finde store. Belike your note booke [...] you thither, although you listed not to take so [...] [...] your selfe, but turne it ouer to your [...]. Howbert he that is disposed to read the sermon [...] Cyprian, shall finde no store at all, but of the ne­cessitie of washing offcete, which ceremonie was ta­ken by the example of Christ, yet is not thought ne­cessarie in the Popish Church at this daie. Tertullian in deede hath some prety store, yet not to mantaine po­pish traditions so much, as to ouerthrow them. For he [...] some things, that are taken out of the scripture; as to renounce the deuill in Baptisme, &c. some that are growne out of vse manie hundred yeares agoe: as that the baptized should taste of milke and honie: that they should abstaine from washing seauen daies after. That men should signe their forheade at euerie steppe and proceeding going forth, and comming home, at putting on of apparell, and at pulling on of shooes, at washings, at table, at lighting of candells, at beddes, at stooles, at all times and places. Saint Hierome also in the person of the heretike, rehearseth traditiones, and among them, such as Papistes do not obserue, namelie the mixture of milke and honie geuen to them that are newlie baptized. On the Lords daie, and during the wholl time of Pentecoste, neither to kneele in prai­ers, nor to fast. These are parte of those Apostolical tra­ditions in particular, which if they had beene neces­sary to saluation, must haue beene perpetuallie conti­nued. If they were vntruelie ascribed to the Apostles, [Page 344] what wartant can we haue of any other, seeing the most auncient writers commend these as much as anie o­ther, for Apostolicall traditions.

Yet a few other examples, you wil adde out of Saint Augustine, whoe prooueth baptisme (you sare) by tradition of the Church. lib. 10. de. gen. ad lit. cap. 23. to this answere hath beene made sufficientlie in the 11. section, that Saint Augustine doth not defend baptisme of infants onelie by the custome of the Church, but also by the scriptures. Likewise you saie he prooueth by the same tradi­ons, that we must not rebaptize those which are baptized of heretikes, lib. 2. de bapt. capt. 7. & lib. 1. cap. 23. & lib. 4. cap. 6 It is true, that he perwsadeth him selfe, that this custome of not rebaptizing, came from the Apostles tradition, yet doth he by many arguments out of scrip­ture prooue, that such are not to be baptized againe, which haue beene once baptized, although by here­tikes, and therefore he saith of the same matter, Hoc planè verum est, quia ratio & veritas consuetudini praepo­nenda est. Sed cùm consuetudini veritas suffragatur, nihil oportet firmius retineri. This is plainlie true, that reason, and truth is to be preferred before custome: but when truth consen­teth with custome, nothing ought more steadefastlie to be [...]. You see therefore, that he buildeth not onelie vp­pon custome, or tradition, which is the matter in question, but vppon trueth and reason, which is foun­ded by the holie scriptuers. Your middle quotation, de bap. lib. 1. cap. 23. you may correct against your nextre­plie, for there are but 19. Chapters in that booke.

Againe, you saie, He prooueth by tradition the celebra­tion of the Pentecost commonlie called Whitsontide. ep. 11 &c. 1. If it were as you saie, it is but a matter of ceremony, not necessarie to saluation, but in the power of the Church to alter, as many like, which are abrogated. But in trueth he prooueth it not, as you say, by traditi­on. For these are his wordes. Illa autem quae non scripta, &c. But those thinges which are kept, beeing not written, but [Page 345] deliuered, which are obserued thoroughout all the worlde, it is giuen to be vnderstoode, that they are retained as commended, and decreed, either by the Apostles them-selues, or by generall Councells, the authoritie of which is moste whollesome in the Church, as that the passion of our Lord, and his resurrection, & ascension into heauen, and the comming of the holie ghoste from heauen, are celebrated with yearelie solemnitie. You see by his owne wordes, that he is not certaine whether he should laie this ceremoniall celebration vpon de­liuery of the Apostles, or vpon decrees of general coun cells. And whencesoeuer they came, the matter is not great in such thinges, as of their owne nature are in­different, and therefore alterable by discretion of the Church in all times. Whether the Apostles were baptized, which is the next matter, that you saie, he prnoueth by tra­dition, it is a question not so needefull to be decided, al­though it may be prooued out of scripture that some of Math. 3. 5. 7. them which were Iohns disciples, were baptized by him, and so it is like were all the rest: seeing Ierusalem, and all Iurie, and all the coast neere vnto Iordan were bap­tized Luk. 3. 12. 14 by Iohn, euen to the Pharisees, and Saduces, Pub­licans, and souldiers, it is not probable, that the Apo­stles, whoe before their calling by Christ, were of ho­nest, and deuout conuersation, did neglect that diuine institution, which all men, that would seeme to be re­ligious, made hast to receiue.

Furthermore, you saie, he prooueth by tradition the ce­remonies of baptisme, as deliuered by the Apostles. lib. de. fide & Oper. cap. 9. The question is, whether the Eunuch whome Philip baptized, made such profession of his faith, &c. renouncing of the deuill, as is required of them that are baptized, when the scripture maketh mention onelie of a short confession, that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God. Where Saint Augustine sheweth that the holie ghost would haue vs to vnderstand, that althinges were fulfilled in his baptisme, which though they be not expressed in that scripture, for breuities [Page 346] sake, yet by order of the tradition we know that they are to be fulfilled. Where tradition is not taken for that which is altogether beside the scripture, but that which according to the scripture deliuereth what is to be obserued, concerning the celebration of that sacra­ment, which is the seale of mortification, and regene­ration. That the Lordes supper should be receiued before other Epist. 118.meates, he thinketh of it as of other ceremontall mat­ters, that it came either from Apostolike tradition, or from de­crees of generall councell, yet is it a thing not necessarie alwaies to be obserued: for your selues doe housell sicke folkes, at all times of the daie, or night, without respect, whether they haue tasted any thing or no: o­therwise as a matter of order, and decencie, it is obser­ued of vs also, to minister that sacrament before din­ner, and to them that be fasting, if the case of necessity require not the contrarie.

Yet againe, you saie, he prooueth by tradition the exor­cisme of such as should be baptized. l. de nupt. & concu. cap. 20. & l. 6. cont. Iulian. c. 2. But the truth is, that by the cere­monie of exorcisme, exsufflation, and renunciation, that is vsed in baptisme, he goeth about to prooue, that infantes before baptisme be in originall sinne, and in the power of the deuill: as is euident by both the pla­ces, which prooue not exorcisme to haue beene recei­ued by tradition, but by the end of that ceremonie (vp­on what beginning soeuer) vsed in the Church at that time that infants are borne in originall sinne, and sub­ject to the power of Sathan, before they be baptized. The wordes of the former place are these. In veritate ita (que) non in falsitate, &c. In truth therefore, not in falsehoode, the deuils power is exorcised in infants, and they renounce him by the heartes and mouthes of their bearers, because they can­not by their owne, that beeing deliuered from the power of darke nes, they may be translated into the kingdome of their Lorde. Here is neuer a word of traditiō. The second place hath these words: Sedetsi nullaratione indagetur, nullo sermone [Page 347] explicetur, verum est tamen quòd antiquitas &c. But although it (originall sinne) may be sought out by noe reason, by no speach it may be expressed, yet is it true that by true Catholike faith from auncient time is preached, and beleeued thoroughout the wholl Church, which would neither exorcise, nor exsufflate the children of the faithfull, if shee did not deliuer them from the power of darkenes, and from the prince of death. Here the auncient doctrine of original sinne is confirmed by the olde ceremonies of exorcisme, and exsufflation, which were vsed in baptisme, to signifie that infants were by that sacrament deliuered from the guilt of originall sinne, by which they were vnder the power of darkenes and death. But that these ceremonies were Apostolike traditions, he saith not, or that they are of necessitie to [...] vsed in baptisme, when the one of them, namelie [...], is not vsed at this day, for ought I know, in the Popish forme of baptisme. The Moscouites, in place of it (as it seemeth) vse excreation. For when the Godfa­thers, and Godmothers, answere that they renounce the deuil, they spit out one the earth, as it were in signe of detestation. In Saint Augustines time they vsed to blow out.

In the last place you saie, he prooueth by the same tradi­tion, that we must offer vp the sacrifice of the masse for the dead: lib. de cura pro mort. agenda. cap. 1. & 4. serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli. Of the sacrifice of the Masse Saint Augustine speaketh nothing, but that praiers were offered for the dead at the celebration of the Lordes supper, which he calleth sa­crifice: he saith, it was by authoritie of the whol Church, which was notable in that custome, and that the wholl Church obser­ued it, as deliuered from their fathers. But seeing the elder Church for more then an hundred yeares after Christ had no such custome nor doctrine, and especiallie, see­ing the same custome is against faith, taught in the holie scriptures, that the dead in the Lord are blessed, that iudgement followeth immediatelie after death, &c. The au­thoritie of faith and trueth is to be preferred before [Page 348] the tradition, and custome of men. Neither is it to be thought, to haue proceeded from the Apostles, which is disprooued by the writings of the Apostles, the one­lie certaine witnes of the doctrine deliuered by them, which is necessarie for vs to beeleeue, and follow. And therefore this new sir Censurer doth greatlie abuse the olde saints, whome he would haue patrones of his vnwritten verities, partely in charging them to referre vnto tradition many things that they doe not, partlie in drawing to doctrine necessarie, that which they speake of ceremonies mutable, & not the least in pick­ing out one or two ouersightes to be pardoned, vnder colour of them to maintaine all the grosse heresies of Poperie, that are intollerable.

The fourteenth section, Whether the Ie­suites speake euil of scripture. Art. 6. in­tituled, Nose of waxe.

IF you had ser downe Master Charkes replie be­tweene your Censure and your defense, as reason would you should haue done, for men to iudge indiffe­rentlie betweene both, you might haue spared more then two pages, which you haue spent in charging him with a slaunder of the Iesuites, where he reporteth, that they saie, the scripture is a nose of waxe, when they saie, it is as a nose of waxe. For no reasonable man can make any other sense of those wordes, the scripture is a nose of waxe, but euen the same that you confesse, to be the saying of the Iesuites: the scripture is as a nose of waxe, as Master Charke telleth you. And moreouer that Paiua saith, the fathers of Colene, in a moste apt similitude called the scripture, a nose of waxe, and Pighius the leaden rule of the Lesbian building. But now concerning the matter it selfe: You would shift it of, by saying: The Iesuites doe [Page 349] compare the hereticall wresting, and detorting of scripture, vn­soOrth. expl. lib. 2. pag. 104.the bowing of a nose of waxe, vpon certaine circumstances; which are these. First not in respect of the scripture it selfe, but in respect of heretikes, and other that abuse it, and that before the rude people, that cannot iudge: thirdlie to the ende to flat­ter Princes, or the people in their vices. Thus much was said before in the Censure. But it was replied that An­dradius confesseth the fathers of Colene doe saie: that the holie scripture is as a nose of wax. So doth Pighius: and it is a thing more commonlie knowen, then that it can be denied. Therefore the wresting of the scripture is not compared by them, to the bowing of a waxen nose, but the scripture it selfe to a nose of wax, as that which is as easie to be drawne into any sense, as a nose of wax may be turned euerie waie. The wordes of Pighius are plaine. Sunt enim scripturae velut caereus quidam nasus, qui sicut Cont. 3.hor sum illor sum (que) facilè se trahi permittit, & quo traxe­ris haud inuitus sequitur, ita & illae se flecti, duci, at (que) etiam in diuer sam sententiam trahi accomodari (que) ad quid-uis pati­untur, nist quis veram illam inflexibilem (que) earundem amussim, nempe Ecclesiasticae traditionis authoritatem, communemque sententiam ilsdem adhibeat. For the holie scriptures are as it were a certaine nose of wax, which as it easelie suffereth it selfe to be drawne this waie and that waie, and whether soeuer you draw it, is followeth not vnwillinglie: so also they doe suffer them selues to be bowed, to be led, and also to be drawen into a contrarie meaning, and to be applied vnto what you will, ex­cept a man lay vnto them that true, & inflexible rule of them, namelie the authoritie, and common vnderstanding of the Churches tradition. These wordes declare (if the sense of all Papists be the same) that the Iesuites do not one­lie compare the scripture it selfe, but also that they make this comparison in respect of the scripture it selfe, which suffereth it selfe as easelie to be wre­sted, and abused, as a nose of wax abideth to be bowed: nor before the rude and ignorant onelie, nor to flatter Princes, and people in their vices alone, but before a­ny [Page 350] persons, or to any purpose whatsoeuer: and that there is not in them a certaine and infallible sense, to iudge of the Churches doctrine, or to finde out the true Church from all false congregations, by the trueth taught in the scriptures, but that the authoritie and common vnderstanding of the Popish Churches tra­dition, is the onelie true sense, & inflexible rule of the holy scriptures. wherebie also it is manifest, though you denie it neuer so stoutlie, that you doe impute the wresting of the scriptures, vnto the imperfection of Gods worde set forth in them, and not onelie to the malice of the wrester. For if the will of God be but as well expressed in them, as the will of princes is in their written lawes, and proclamations, the one maie as well be found out, by reading and weighing of the holie scriptures, as the other may be out of prophane writings, especially where the spirit of God, graun­ted vnto the praiers of the elect, openeth their vnder­standing, not onelie to conceiue, as the naturall man maie, by studie, and ordinarie helpes, the true scope and purpose of God vttered in them, but also to beleeue, and embrace whatsoeuer the Lord their God hath propounded in them. Therefore though the scripture may be wrested to the destruction of the vngodlie, as Saint Peter sheweth, yet Master Charke telleth you, that it cannot so be wrested, but that still it remaineth the light vnto our feet, and the lan­terne vnto our steppes: and euerie parte thereof, is like the arme of a great Oke, which cannot be so wreste, but that with great force it will returne into the right posi­tion, to the shame and perill of the wrester, which an­swere of his you doe so dissemble, as though you had neuer seene it. And you doe wiselie, seeing otherwise, then by silence, you could not auoid it.

But howsoeuer Master Charke storme, you will de­fend your blasphemie of the nose of waxe, not onelie in a kingdome, where the Ghospell is preached, but also in [Page 351] the kingdome of vs ministers, where the letter of the scripture is worsse wrested by vs to all errors and licen­tiousnes, then euerie waxen nose was yet bended, to diuerse fashions. O ye senseles papists, had you neuer a man of moderat iudgement, to set forth against vs, but this loosetongued Gentelman, which so he maie raile with full mouth against vs, hath no care how his slaunders maie be coloured? Doe we peruert the scrip­tures to all errors? then surelie, we holde no trueth: there neuer was anie heresie, neither can there be anie heresie, but that with manie errors, it maintaineth and holdeth manie truethes. Yea the Deuill him-selfe the father oflies, beleeueth some truethes, and for shame dare not professe the maintenance of all errors. We thinke verie hardlie of Antichrist, and his brood the papists, yet we maie not saie, that they wrest the scrip­tures to all errors, and licentiousnes: for if they so did, they should not deceaue so manie by shew of trueth in errors, except they did professe some articles of trueth in deede. As for the wresting of the Scripture to all licenti­ousnes, let God and all the world of reasonable and in­different men iudge, how iustlie we maie be charged therewith. If we be licentious in our liues, God will finde it out, and let man, where he findeth it, punish vs. But if we wilfully peruert the scriptures to the mainte­nance of all licentiousnes, the Lord reward vs accor­ding to our deedes, and be not mercifull to them, that sinne of malicious wickednes.

But it is no fault in the scriptures (saie you) that they may be abused. For Christ him-selfe was called, the rocke of offence, and the stone of scandall, not for anie faulte or imperfection in him, but through the wickednes of such as abuse that benefit. So if the Iesuites had said no more, but that the scrip­ture maie be abused, no man could haue found fault with them. And Christ is called a stone of offence or stumbling, not altogether in respect of the wicked that abuse him, for he is called a stone moste precious, and necessarie to [Page 352] build vpon, of stumbling, to those that refuse to build vp­on him, which meeting with him, must either stumble and fall, or els if it fall vpon them, they must be ground to pouder. But the the scripture is compared to a nose os wax, because it is in their imagination, that vse the compari­son, as pliant to follow euerie waie, and to yeald as pro­bable a sence one waie, as an other, as a nose of wax is easie to be turned and shaped on euerie side or sort, which if it were so, must needes be a great fault in the scripture it selfe. A hundred positiue lawes and sta­tutes in England are so well penned, as all the sophisti­cal heads in christendome cannot finde a starting hole in them by anie peruerse interpretations, but thatall they, which haue but a meane skill in the lawes, will laugh them to scorne. And tha I we think so vnreuerent­ly of the holy scriptures, giuen by inspiration of god, that euerie foolish heretike maie turne them about, like a nose of wax, but rather that in his said attempt of tur­ning, his folly shal be made manifest to al men? Pighius, Cont. 3. saith expressely, the scriptures are dumbe iudges, as though Godspake not in them, and by them vnto vs: whose pro­phane comparison of the holie scriptures with pro­phane lawes, which require Magistrates, and iudges to punish the offenders of them, euerie Christian man may perceiue to tende to the derogation of the maiesty of them. As also euerie childe that hath studied lo­gike but halfe a yeare, maie vnderstand his beggerlie petition of the principle, when appealing from the iudgement of the scriptures, he will be iudged by none, but by papists, in controuersies and questions that we haue against the papists. As for the blacke Gospell, and Inkie diuinitie babled by Eccius against the written Gospell. If Iesuits can maintaine as Catholike: surelie Christians can not heare it without horror of blasphemie.

If there be no fault or imperfection in the scriptures, Cont. 3. math. how saith Pighius, that euery man may euidently know without [Page 353] the scriptures, in what order the Church is appointed, by her author. Againe, of what moment is the holy scripture, if it be not necessarie, to decide all doubtes and con­trouersies in the Church? for thus saith Pighius: If we receaue the authoritie of the Churches tradition, quam si reci­pimus, omnis facilè etiam sine scriptur is inter nos compone­tur concertatio & controuersia, cùm de singulis nonfuerit ad­modum operosum inuenire, quid Catholica ab initio Ecclesia senserit. Which if we receiue, all strife and controuersie be­tweene vs may easilie be compounded, euen without the scrip­tures. Seeing it is no very hard worke to finde out, what the Ca tholike Church from the beginning hath thought of euerie que­stion. Thus the Ecclesiasticall tradition is set a loft, and the holie scriptures excluded, as superfluous and vn­necessarie, seeing all questions may easilie be decided without them.

But to giue a better colour to your nose of waxe, you In cap. 1. ep. ad Gal. saie, Saint Ierome doth call the scriptures alledged corruptlie by Marcion and Basilides, the diuells Gospell, because the Gospell consisteth not in the words of scripture, but in the sense. But so doth not Christ call the scripture, when it was alledged by the deuill: neither doth Saint Ierome so call the scripture, but the false sense feined by here­tikes. His wordes are these. Grande periculum est in Ec­clesia loqui, ne fortè interpretatione peruersa, de Euangelio Christi hominis fiat Euangelium, aut quod peius est, Diaboli. It is great perill to speake in the Church, least perhappes by peruerse interpretation, of the Gospell of Christ, be made the Gospell of man, or that which is worse, of the deuill. And it is true which he saith, The Gospell is not in the wordes, but in the sense of the scriptures. Yet it is also true, that the sense of the scriptures is expressed in those wordes of the scriptures, and not included in the Popes breast, as the Papists would haue vs thinke, that al labour bestowed in seeking the sense of the scriptures, is in vaine, except we take the interpretation of the Popish Church, which sthe iudgement of the Pope, as the sure rule to guide [Page 354] vs by. But Saint Augustine (you saie) calleth the scripture the bowe of heretikes. Which is not so: for he compareth In Psal. 10. their wresting of the scriptures, to the bending of a bowe. Ecce, inquiunt, peccatores tetenderunt arcum: credo scriptur as, quas illi carnaliter interpretando, venenatas inde sententias emittunt. Beholde, say they, the sinners haue bent the bowe: the scriptures I beleeue, which while they interpret car­nallie, they send forth poysoned meaninges from them.

Further (you saie) Irenaeus compareth it abused by here­tikes [...]. 1. cap 1.to a Iewel stamped with the forme of a Dogge or Fox. Ire­naeus speaketh not of the bodie of the scriptures, but of wordes, sentences, and parables of scripture rent not onelie from their sense, but also from their place, and patched together with olde wiues fables, to make a shew for heresie: which is all one, as he saith, as if a man should breake an excellent Image of a king, and when he hath fashioned the peeces, beeing pearles or precious stones, into the shape of a Fox, or Dogge, he would yet be so impudent to saie, this is that excellent Image of the king, which was made by a not able work­man. This soundeth nothing like the nose of waxe.

Likewise you saie, Gregorie Nazianzen compareth the [...] Nicob.scripture to a siluer scabberd with a leaden sworde in it. The comparison you speake of, is in his poemes which I ve­relie am perswaded, that you neuer read, but were mocked by your notebooke, as many times before. For Gregorie compareth not the scriptures, as you slaun­der him, but an hipocrite, a man that hath nothing, but an externall shew of religion, to a leaden sworde in a siluer scabberde: his verses are these, if you could haue construed them.


To these that you might seeme bountifull, though In praescrip. Cont. baer. you be a verie begger of your owne reading, you adde Tertullian, and Vincentius Lirinensis, of which the for­mer [Page 355] (you saie) compareth the scripture to the deceitfull or­naments of harlottes, the other to poysoned hearbs couered in the Apothecaries shops with faire titles. Wherein you slaun der them both: for they compare not the wholl scrip­ture, as you doe in your nose of waxe, but the hereticall bragges of scripture, which as they may abuse a peece for a shew, so are they confounded by the wholl, when the same is rightlie weighed. Therefore the compari­sons of these auncient Doctors, are no more like to your nose of waxe, then your nose of waxe is like to the ho­lie scriptures. Neither doth the example of Luther, calling the scriptures the booke of heretikes, expounding him selfe why he so calleth it, namely because it is depra­ued by heretikes, defend the Iesuites, which to the de­prauation of the scriptures vse that similitude, as Lu­ther did not in his, albeit he might as well haue for­borne that title, as his rash iudgement, against those whome you call sacramentaries: for as the one was vn­profitable, so the other was vniust.

But if the Iesuites (saie you) had reiected any one booke of the scripture, as the Protestantes doe many, we might iustlie ac­cuse them. It is as great a fault to adde to the worde of God, as to take from it. The Protestantes reiect no booke of the canonicall scripture, which was receiued by Christ, and his Apostles, and the primitiue Church long after them. But the Papists adde of their owne au­thoritie, to the holie canon, and therefore, as much are they subiect to gods curse, as if they did take away. Nei­ther doth Luther discredit or deface the whol epistle of Saint Iames as (you saie) although in comparison of some other bookes of scripture, by a similitude, he ma­keth it farre inferior to them What Doctor Fulke and Fulk con­fuse of Po­pish quar­rels, fol. 61. Whittak. Cont. Dur. Master Whitaker haue written, the one of the booke of Maccaebees, the other of Tobie, they haue sufficientlie maintained in their replies, whereunto I remit the reader: and for Master Charkes reuiling of Iudith, to the reporte of the disputation, in which your impudent [Page 356] slaunder is confuted.

Where you conclude that no man in the world euer spake more reuerentlie of holie scripture, then Iesuites do, you ouer reach very much, as you do very often. They which teach that the holyscripture is sufficient to make vs wise vnto saluation speake more reuerently, then the Iesuits, whichdeny the sufficiency of the scripture, for the instru ction of the Church. Last of al the Censure ridiculously charged M. Charke with fraudulent translation of this worde Immaculata, when he alledgeth this text psal. 19. as oppo sit to your nose of waxe. The law of the Lord is perfect, out of the original tongue, & the best translations, from which the greek in sense dessenteth not, & not out of the olde latine translation. Now you trifle to no purpose, about the Hebrew, Greeke & Latine termes, which to those that are but me anelie learned, are well enough knowne what they signifie. And first, if you should graunt al that M. Chark said, you thinke he had gained nothing. For you also con­fes, that the law of the Lord is perfect, but not in that sense, wherein M. Chark vsech it, to wit, that because the law of the Lord is perfect, therefore the scripture cannot be wrested. And afterward when you haue tolde vs, that these wordes, vnde filed, irreprehensible and perfect (which answer the latine greeke, and Hebrue wordes) [...] not much in sense (for what­soeuer is irreprehensible, and vnspotted, may also be called per­fect) you conclude that this doth not prooue the scriptures to be perfect in sense, in such sort, as it maie not be wrested or peruerted. You say true, but it is false, that Master Chark maketh anie such illation, as you charge him. For thus he inferreth, the lawe of God is perfect, ergo it cannot be wrested as a nose of wax, or as his owne wordes are, the scripture is perfect, and manteineth her perfection a­gainst all corruptions, as a right line sheweth it selfe, & bewraieth that which is crooked. The lawe of a wise man (as hath beene said before) may be so perfect, as it cannot be wrested like a nose of waxe, into anie sense that the wrester wil imagine, but that his vaine cauilla­tion [Page 357] shall be odious, and ridiculous to al men. Much ra­ther is the lawe of God so perfect, as though all the de­uilles in hell should breake their braines to wrest and peruertit, yet can they neuer wrest it like a nose of wax, to euerie side or shape, but that the perfect sense of the scripture remaineth ful constant, and manifest to them that haue the spirit of God: yea euen to them that will iudge but indifferentlie according to right reason. Cont. Max. Arr. lib. 3. cap. 14.

By the waie you charge Master Charke with railing, and inueighing, against your olde translation, and with run­ning he careth not whether, forging he careth not what, and reprehending he careth not whome. yet in all that dis­course he hath no more wordes of it, but these: your olde translation doth goe alone. In which wordes what ray­ling, running, forging, reprehending, inueihing, may be conteined, let ihe wiser sort iudge, and fooles learne to be wiser. But where he saith, that the best transla­tions differ from the olde translation, you aske, what best, or better, or other good latine translation hath he then the olde? As though none might be good, but your olde translation. I perceaue you would not acknow­ledge any good of them that were set forth by Munster, Leo, Iude, or anie other professed protestant: yet what saie you to the translation of Vatablus, a famous and learned reader of Paris? How dare you condemne the translation of Pagnine of the olde testament, and Erasmus of the new testament, as naught, which the Pope allowed as good? Finallie what exceptions can you take to the translation of Isidorus Clarius censured and approoued, by the deputies of the Councell of Trent? maie none of these be good, better or best, but that your olde translation hath the prerogatiue in goodnes in all degrees, that it leaueth all other be­hinde it, as nought? O waightie censure of a wise Pa­pist. But let vs see wherein the excellencie of the olde translation doth consist, as you suppose. First you saie, it was in vse in Gods Church aboue 13. hundred [Page 358] yeares past, as maie be seene by the citations of the fathers which liued then. But euen those verie citations doe prooue the contrarie, at the least, that it was not in generall vse in the latine Church. Saint Augustine in the place by you quoted, for the bowe of heretikes, where In Psal. 10. ver. [...]. your translation hath in obscuro, did reade in obscura luna, and standeth much vpon exposition of the darke moone. Yea throughout the wholl Psalter, whosoeuer wil compare the text which Saint Augustine vsed, with your olde translation, shall finde great difference be­tweene them. But this your olde translation (you tell vs) was afterward oueruewed, and corrected by Saint Ierome. we know verie well, that Saint Ierome did oueruew and correct a certaine auncient translation of the septua­ginta, that was vfed in his time. But how are you ha­ble to prooue, that this your vulgar translation is the same, either corrected, or vncorrected? For it appea­reth by the citations of diuerse of the latine Church, which liued after Saint Ierome, that they vsed an o­ther text, then this translation, euen vntill the daies of Bernard. When you saie, that this your olde translati on was highlie commended by Saint Augustine, you make such a shameles [...], as you obiect without shame to M. Charke, when he saith, that the Septuaginta agree with the hebrue, in signification of the word perfecte: for they saie irreprehensible, which must needes be per­fect: but so is not your latine [...], vnspotted, or vndefiled, which you your selfe in your censure do e­gerlie contend to be differing from perfection. You name the translation of Erasmus and Luther, of which the one translated onelie the new testament, which Leo. 10. and Clemens. 7. did both allow, the other translated not the Bible at all in latine, except per­happes some partes, vpon which he wrote com­mentaries.

Here your Printer will make vs beleeue, that you were remooued with a writ de remouendo, so as you could proceede no further: but now there is a writ de renouando, sued against you, if you dare abide by your censure, to renew your defence, or els to pas on to the rest of the confuta­tion, of the rest of Master Charkes replie, and so to take his an­swer altogether.



A CONFVTA­TION OF A TREATISE MADE BY WILLIAM ALLEN IN DEFENCE OF the vsurped power of Popish Priesthood to remit sinnes, of the necessity of Shrift, and of the Popes Pardons.


Imprinted by THOMAS THOMAS Printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge.

A CONFVTA­TION OF A TREA­TISE MADE BY WILLIAM AL­LEN IN DEFENCE OF THE VSVR­ped power of Popish priesthood to re­mit sinnes, &c.


BEcause the vniust clyame and chalenge of anie power not giuen doth highlie displease God, from whome onely all preheminence of man proceedeth, no doubt all Priestes & Bishops, who haue so long practised pardoning and punishing of sinne, if they hold not the right of the excellent function of Gods owne graunt, they haue built this manie hundreth yeares towardes hell, and can neither auoid the heauie indignation of god, in wose office and prerogatiue they haue vniustlie inter­medled, nor yet maruell at their disdaine amongest men, seeing it is said, that the vsurper of power is worthielie hated: Qui Eccl. 20. potestatem sibi sumit, iniustè odietur.


IF the rest of your arguments were as good as this, we should not neede to write anie confutation of your trea­tise: for true it is, that they which v­surpe so great a power without Gods owne graunt, deserue condemnation of him, and hatred of men, neither of which (except they repent) they can be able to auoid. Neither are they in better case, which though they pre tend to haue some colour of graunt, yet abuse the same, peruerting the right meaning of the graunter to a farre other end, and exersize the same, after a farre other sort, then their commission, by which they claime au­thoritie, in anie wise doth import. And such is the case [Page 4] of popish priesthoode, which vnder pretence of power of remitting or retaining of sinnes committed against the Church of Christ, and the true pastoures thereof, arrogate vnto them selues, which are but Idolles, and therfore not the persons authorized, an absolute auto­ritie of pardoning, according to their owne iudge­ment, not a ministerie of reconciliation, according to the will of God, by a certaine deuised forme of wordes, or writing, and not by preaching of the Gospell. For which causes and manie other, although the graunt of Christ be neuer so ample vnto his Church, yet it inclu­deth not them, which be his aduersaries, which for their owne glorie, and luker, vnder shadow of Christian au­thoritie of binding and loosing, doe practise antichri­stian tyrannie, to be Lordes of mens conscience, and to make marchaundise of their soules.


But if that most holie order, doe by good right & reason, and by the sonne of God Christ Iesus his owne warrant and spe­ciall commission, occupie the seat of iudgement, erected in the Church for the gouernment of our soules and needfull search of our secret sins, then it standeth lamentablie with the disobedient captains of this contempt, through whose continuall call to sedi­tion, so manie haue beene caried awaie, from that cbaisance that is due to the soueraing power geuen to Gods annonited.


But when neither the popish order of priesthood hath any institution of God, neither hath the sonne of God erected anie such seate in the Church for gouern­ment of our soules, and needefull search of our secret sins, as is pretended & practised: they which cal men, not one lie to the contempt, but also to the detestation of such vsurped tiranny, are vniustly charged with sedi­tion and disobedience against Gods annointed, seeing they purpose and practise nothing, but the honour of Christ, the Lords anoninted with the oile of gladnes aboue all other, & the due estimation of those his ser­uantes, whome he hath appointed to be the true dis­pensers of the graces, and heauenlie treasures of his [Page 5] word and Sacraments vpon earth.


They remember well (such is their exercise in the worde) how that disdaine of Moses & Aarons [...] ouer the people that then God chose to be his peculiar, mooued his Maiestie to so great indignation, that he droue downe Core and all his confe­deracie to the depth of hell both body & soule, themselues aliue, & all the people looking on their fall so fearefull. The example had bin of lesse respect, if his heauie hand had staid vpon the principal of that prowd sort: but it did not. For there perished, by strange fire, of the accessaries to that Schisme, two hundreth & fiftie moe. And the grudge, alas, of the people not ceasing so, God sent fire from heauen, and wasted 14. thousand and 700. of them at once. And all this saith Moses, Vtsciatis quia blasphemauerint Dominum, that you maie be well assured, that they blaspemed our Lord God. So neere doth the contempt of Gods ministers touch his owne person, that in dis­daine of the one, there is account made of horrible blasphe­mie of the other. This Cores, as Iosephus writeth, was a man that had a cast in talke to please the people, as the seditious often haue: and this was a great flowre of his perswasion of the people to sedition & disobedience, as holie write reporteth, Cur eleuamini super populum Domini? It is sufficient for our purpose, that the whole multitude is sanctified, and the Lord is in them: whie doe you exalt your selues aboue the people of God? Thus said the seditious a­gainst Gods Priests then: and now truelie, both the people and the preacher doe pipe Cores note of cur eleuamini, in euerie plaie and pulpit, neuer hauing in minde their lamentable fall, whose steppes they like so well to follow.


The example of Cores rebellion, if we had for­gotten, by so manie treasonable deuises of the papists, against the Prince, and Religion, breaking forth into sundrie actuall rebellions, both in Ingland and Ireland, we might easelie be put in remembrance, whose often disapointed purposes, and sometime punished practises, if at length they mooue nothing to surcease from their wickednes, let them remember, that the Lordes long [Page 6] suffering so much contemned, will adde infinite tor­mentes to their endles damnation, which sleepeth not, although the execution be deferred. As for the ap­plication of Cores example, which Allen maketh, is verie ridiculous, while the papists dauncing after the Popes seditious pipe, charge vs for piping, and that in euerie plaie & pulpit, Cur eleuamini, as though either they had prooued themselues to be Gods Priests, which be rather the deuills paragons, or we refused to yeald any honour, which to anie of Gods ministers, either Ecclesiasticall, or Ciuill, by his appointment apper­taineth.


Mary I cannot tel wel, whether the cases be comparable, though I nothing doubt but ours is much worse: For. S. Chryso­stome saith, that the disobedience of Dathon and the rest of that consederacie, rose rather vpon the affectation of so high a fun­ction. De sacer. lib. 3. with admiration of their dignitie, then vpon anie con­tempt of that power, in which the priest of god were placed. But the dishonour and the derogation that now is done to the much more excellent office, st anacth vpon vnfaithfullnes, mistrust of Gods promise, loue of sin, liking of libertie, loth somnes of truth, and vnminde fullnes of saluation. In which case though neither the heauens yeald fire for the present punishment, nor the earth open for their speedie passage to eternall paine, yet the perpetuall fight which they keepe against Gods ordinance, their disordered life, and disobedience, their darknesse of vnderstanding in such light of approoued trueth, and the con­tinuall course of the Church, which inmarucilous miserie they doe willinglie susteine, doth, me thinke, fullie resemble the la­mentable slate of the damned and for saken sorte, and therefore being yet a liue, in goodliking, and libertie, I feare they wit­tinglie and wilfullie perish.


And we nothing doubt but the contempt of the ministers of the ghospel, is a greater offence, thē theirs which despised the ministers of the Lawe. 2. Cor. 3. But that our neglect of popipsh shrist, for which we are so heinouslie accused, should stand vpon vnfaithfulnes [Page 7] or mistrust of Gods promise, it is verie incredible: but for that the faithful trust of gods promises, without any such ordinance of man, offereth vs free remission of our sinnes, we are bolde to reiect it. And that loue of sinne, and liking of libertie therein, should mooue vs to refuse popish absolution, it is altogether vnlikelie. For where absolution maie be bought for a litle mo­nie at the hands of men, who is so madde to present him selfe before the Iudgement seat of God? and who that delighteth in sinne, will not thinke to haue libertie therein, when he maie compound with his iudges for a trifling matter, in such cases as deserue eternall dam­nation? As for the hell, in which Allen placeth vs aliue, is like the purgatorie, in which he teacheth men to be placed, when they are dead. For what ordinance of God doth he dreame of, against which we should fight? popish priesthoode, shrist, and pardons, they are not yet, nor euer shalbe prooued to be gods ordinance. And what discord seeth he in our life, more then the com­mon frailtie of mortall men, which neuer be free srom sinning? or greater then euerie man maie see in the liues of popish Priests and people? Touching disobedi­ence, lettreason and rebellion speake, whether they be found in vs, or in them. Finallie our darknes of vn­derstanding, in so great light of Allens approoued trueth, when it appeareth, shall either argue vs to be verie blinde, or Allen to dreame when he is awake. And the continuall course of the Church, if it bring not Allen into a confused case, worse then purgatorie, before he can shew it, for popish shrift and pardons, we refuse not to lie in such an hell, as he placeth vs, vn­till he and his fellowes of their charitie, will say maste, to bring vs out of it.


And yet I am not so void of all hope of their recouerie, that I would refuse to conferre with them, touching that aut ho­ritie of remission of sinnes, or other preheminence, which the Priests of Christes Church doe clayme, and they so ear- [Page 8] they so earnestlie controll. Though the rather I would do it, for the helpe of the more humble sorte, which in these daies of disobedience, be rather driuen out of the waie by force of the common tempest, then by malice or misbehauiour towards the ministerie, whome in Christes name I must aducrtise to consi­der carefullie, in what doubt and daunger they and all their dearest do stand, in this pitifull vacation and long lack of the practize of priesthood for the remission of their sinnes and other needefull succour of their soules. For if Christ, by whose blood we obtaine pardon of our offences, haue by his ordinance made man the minister of our reconciliation to God, and the bestow­er of his mercie in remission of sinnes, then doubtles whosoeuer neglecteth to walke the knowen waie of saluation, and re­fuseth the ordinarie meanes of mercie, which Christ meaneth to be applied to our vse none otherwise, but by the office of mor­tall men, he liueth in sinne perpetuallie, he dieth in sinne without hope of recouerie, and for sinne without doubt shall pe­rish euerlastinglie.

Therefore the matter of so great importance, standing on so doubtfull termes, it were no wisdome to sleepe so soundlie in such present peril, nor to continue without care and singular respect of most dreadefull state. In which, if we passe our daies with­out hope or possibilitie of Gods mercie, because we refuse mans ministerie, then all our life and studies, all our paines or pleasures, all our workes and waies doe nothing els, but driue vs in disobedience to extreame death and despe­ration.


Though I haue small hope of your recouerie, which so long haue bin frosen in the dregs of popish heresie: yet wil I not refuse to confer with you after this manner, or anie other that is conuenient, both to iusti­fie such contempt of Popish priesthood and pardons, as we teach, and also to let the doubtfull sorte plainlie see, that such vsurpation, as you pretende to maintaine, hath no good ground either in scrip­ture, or in the moste auncient writers, or practize of the eldest and syncerest primitiue Church of Christ. [Page 9] As for that point, which you take such pains to prooue, that the contempt of mans ministerie, for reconcilia­tion vnto God, and remission of sinnes bringeth dam­nation, is no matter of controuersie betweene vs: for we beleeue, confesse, and teach euen as much, and in as manie wordes, readie to subscribe, and sweare to the same, if it were lawfullie required of vs. But whe­ther it be the ordinance of Christ, that Popish priestes, Bishoppes, and Pope him selfe, should exact auricu­lar confession, as they do, and giue absolution and pardon in such manner as they vse, this, I saie, is that, which you should occupie your style in: for this is that, which we denie.


I make the more matter hereof, for that not onelie such as be led into folly & falsehood by the persuasion of some, to whose teaching and lyking they haue vnaduisedlie addicted them-selues, but also diuerse, euen of the faithfull, that be not fallen (thanks be giuen to God) so farre as to contemne the Church, and Christes appointed ordinance, are not yet so touched, as in such case of extreame miscrie, Christen men should be. For heresie is such a creeping and contagiouse can­ker, that albeit she vtterlie (through mercie and Gods grace) kill not all, yet she dulleth the conscience, drieth vp the zeale, and infecteth the mindes of moste. The like lack of Christi­an comforte hath beene often els amongest the people in such stormes of the Church: but so litle care and consideration ther­of, I do not lightlie remember.

In the persecution of the Vandalles and Arian Gothes in Affrike, the people of God were siuered from their pastours, and thereby wanted succour of their soules, as we now do: but there­of they conceaued such greife and heauines, that it is surelie lamentable to remember. The storie is recorded by Victor, andLi. 2. de de persecut. Vandal.the wordes of the sorowfull people vitered in the waies, as their holie Bishops did passe towards their banishment, he re­ported thus: A meruailous preasse of faithfull people, that the high waies could not receaue, came downe the hills with ta­persin their handes, and laid their deare children at the Mar­tyrs [Page 10] feete (so they termed the witnesses of Gods trueth then) and pitifully complained thus; Alas to whome do youleaue vs so desolate, whiles your selues go to the crowne of martyrdome? who shall now baptize these poore babes, in the fountes of liuelie water? who shall loose vs tied in the bandes of our offences, by pardon and reconciliation? who shall prescribe to vs the due of penance for our finnes past? For to you it was sure­lie said: whatsoeuer you loose in earth, it shal likewise be loosed in heauen. Such you see was the carefulnes of the people then, in that litle lack of so necessarie a thing: where now in so long desolation of moste holic thinges, and our great­est comfort, few there be that take anie griefe of so much mi­serie at all, and, that hartelie lament the case, almost none. If we assuredlie beleeued (as it is surelie true) that all which passe this present life in the bondes of mortall sinne, shoulde­uerlastinglie perish without all hope of mercie, and then to be vndoubtedlie bound in their offences, whome the priestes of the holie Church had not loosed in this life (excepting onelie the case of extreame necessitie, where by no means possible mans ministerie can be obtained) then truelie, besides the feare of our owne dangerous state, our hartes would bleede for pitie and compassion of so manie that depart this present world, in the debt of eternall damnation, not onelie of our Christian breethren commonlie, but of our deerest and best beloued particularlie.


That heresie hurteth much, where it destroieth not altogether, it was cleerelie seene in the blinde time of Antichristes greatest exaltation, ioyned with so sharpe persecution and strong delusion: in which although there were manie, whose hearts were not infected with that deadlie poison, yet there were few, which open­lie shewed their full detestation of it: which you should lesse maruaile at, in so generall a plague as that was, considering how few you do acknowledge to be found on your side, in this short time of small trou­ble, and weake meanes (as you count them) of persua­sion. [Page 11] The pitiful complaint of the Christians in Africa for the banishment of their Catholike Bishopps (al­though the time were such as all things were not sound therein) yet maketh it no resemblance with your case, which are not banished by tyrantes and heretikes, as they were, but rather being tyrantes and heretikes, do wilfullie withdraw your obedience from a Christian Catholike Prince, and from the execution of her God­lie lawes.


It is not my timerous conscience, nor scrupulous cogitati­on, that raiseth this feare: but it is the graue sentence of Gods ordinance, it is Saint Augustines owne iudgement, that mooueth me of pitie tomooue, and of duetie to admonish my breethren and friendes, of a thing that pertaineth to all so neare. Saint Augustine, concerning the manifolde mise­ries of the Christian people in the absence of their true Pa­stours in times of persecution, doth liuelie set forth the godlie endeuours of faithfull folks in these wordes. Do we not consi­der, when the matter is brought to an extreame issue, and where it can not be by flight auoided, what a wonderful concurse of Christian men of euerie kinde, state, and age, is vnto the Church? where some crie out for baptisme, some for reconciliation or absolution (for so I interpret, ip­sius panitentiae actionem, which also maie meane a request to haue penance appointed of the Priest) and all generallie call for comfort, confession, and bestowing of the ho­lie sacraments? In which extremitie, if there lack such as should minister these thinges vnto them, Quan tum exitium sequetur eos, qui de isto seculo vel non regene­rati exeunt, vel ligati? quantus èst etiam luctus fidelium su­orum, qui eos secum in vitae aeternae requie non habebunt? what vtter destruction shall fall on them, that must passe this life, either not christened, or els fast bounde in sinne? And what passing sorow will it be for their faithfull friendes, which shall not haue their companie in e­ternall rest and ioy? Thus farre said he, for proofe that the Pastours should not forsake their flock: and thus saie [Page 12] haue forsaken their pastours: the lacke is like in both. But ours so much worsse, because it was procured willinglie, and theirs the more excusable, because it was both borne of necessitie, and lamented Christianlie.


It is neither your timerous conscience, nor Saint Augustines iudgement, but your traiterous affection towardes the state of your natiue countrie, and your ambitious desire to be aduanced in the multitude of your disciples, that mooueth you to complaine, that the flockes haue now forsaken their pastours, where as in olde time, the pastors did in times of heresie forsake their flocks. For admit you were, that you are not, name lie shepheardes, where as you are wolues, how haue the flockes forsaken you, rather then you forsaken them? should they haue followed you into Flaunders, Fraunce, or Italie? or els should they haue stucke to you man­follie, & haue by force defended you, that you needed not to haue beene chased awaie? although rather hope of preferment, by speadie alteration of the state, then feare of punishment in so milde a gouernment caused the greatest numbers of you to turne the soile.


Neither may we thinke our selues here much to be relieued, by them, that pretend the like practise of such thinges as nowe Note. we lacke. For that euer augmented the sorow and iust dolour of the faithfull. Much it is, God knoweth, to want their Pastours and priestes so deare, and with them for most part all the due of Christianitie: but to susteine in steade thereof, a kind of apish imitation of such holie functions, which in deede, by what pre­tence of holines soeuer it be vsed, is and alwaies hath beene accounted moste detestable, that is the great calamitie which wasteth moste in all tempestuous times of Gods religion. For the onelie vse, acquaintance, and familiaritie of this false face or resemblance of trueth and holy actions of the Church, driueth many into a kinde of contentation and rest in such things, as them selues otherwise do abhor, at least turneth away sheirearnest appettie and desire of those matters, which no man can without perill of damnation misse. It is not yet meant [Page 13] herebie, that euerie sacrament is frustrate alwaies that is by such made, or ministred, although for the moste they be so pro­faned, that they be not onelie nothing beneficiall, but also dam­nable, both to the geuer and receiuer: but my meaning is, that euen those sacramentes, which be of necessitie, that by Gods speciall mercie they maie be receiued of such as be not otherwise cōpetent ministers, where the present peril of any mans life for­ceth thereunto, that euen then when they may be beneficiall to other, that without schisme cal for the sacraments, yet they shal be damnable vnto themselues. For hereof let euery man be bold, that taketh vpon him any ministery in schisme & disorder, that so often he hath practized it, so often hath he prouoked gods ire towardes him-selfe, and procured, as much as in him lieth, his indignation to all that are partakers thereof. S. Basil the great complaineth hereof verie much in his daies, by these wordes: Epist. 70. In the doctrine of impiety & wickednes the Churches babes be now brought vp. For how can it be otherwise? Baptisme is ministred by heretikes, they helpe forth such as passe hence, they keepe visitation of the sicke, they haue comforting of the sorowfull, they take on them the ease of such as be burdened in all cases, and to be short, they minister the mysteries of holy com­munion: so that in time, though the libertie of Christes religion be restored againe, the youth shall take such li­king in heretikes practizes, to whome by loue and cu­stome, they are so fast knit, that it will be hard to re­duce them home to truth againe. Thus farre spake Saint Basil of his daies: and right good cause haue we no lesse to com­plaine of ours. They were then incumbred with Arians, and we with a legion of new deuises and bold practisioners of such high and heauenlie functions, as neither by God nor man they are rightlie and orderly called vnto. By these now onelie our soules seeme to liue, but by these alone we suerlie die euerlastinglie. In al which great desolation of Christian comfort and all spirituall vnctions this were some solace, if either the elder sort could consider what they haue lost, or the poore children, which are nurced in these nouelities, might learne what they lacked.


My meaning is therefore, to mooue al parties to the necessa­rie care and heede of the matter, by the treatise following: tru­sting that some one or other of my good brethren, whoe all be to me moste deare, will awake at my earnest call, and consider of the matter deepelie, how it fareth with him and other touching their soules, since the sacrament of penance hath beene banished, and the priesthoede of Gods Church spoyled of iurisdiction and right in remission of sinnes, and to helpe him in so necessarie and fruitefull aduise of him-selfe, and other, whome in such cases I meane alwaies to serue, I wil seeke out the ground of this authority, that hath beene so long practized of the priest, and honoured of the people, to the singular glorie of God, the notorious increase of vertue, weale publike of the whol Christian world, that both the good Catholike may haue reaso­nable proose of that, which to his immortall weale he hath so long both loued & reuerenced in Christs ministers, and also the contemners of so heauenlie power may learne in humblenes of heart to like and feare the excellent function, which by pride they did before vnaduisedly disprooue. It may please any man, that is doubtfull of this article, which is so necessarie to be knowne, to consider, & giue good attendance to the wholl course of my talke. I promise him as afore god (whoe will sharply iudge al sinister endeuours in causes of his honour) that I will deale sincerelie in all points and faithfullie: I will not couer my selfe nor the light of the cause in cloud of wordes, neither by any ar­tificiall sleight (as new doctors now a daies often doe) circum­uent the sense of him that is mosse simple, such indifferencie shall be vsed euerie where in trial of the truth, that I will seeme for his sake, to doubt of the matter my selfe. Though in deede (so god saue me in my common sense, and so god spare me for my sins) I cā neuer mistrust any point of that faith in which I was new borne & baptized. But that notwithstāding I wil not spare to rippe vp that, which men moste reprooue in gods Church and ministers, that al the disobedient children may see, how free they be from falsehood, and farre from beguiling the flocke of Christ to them committed to keepe, we will call the high ma­gistrates (though it be exceeding vnseemelie for subiectes) to [Page 15] account of their gouernent: the principal pastour must giue a reason of his pardons, and answere for the limitation of his indulgences by yeares, daies and times, both he and all other Bishopes shalbe accomptable for such graue censures exercised vpon mens soules, with them all inferior priests muste be posed for searching the secrets of our cansciences, for relea­sing mans misaeedes, enioyning penaunce, and requiring satis­faction for sinnes. Thus bold wil we be with truth, the rather therebie to deface falsehood.

And all this in that order, that may in least roome conteine most matter, with both breuitie and light, so much, as so deepe and large a cause can beare, from all contention I will so farre refraine, that euen the aduersaries themselues of Cristes truth and doctrine, albeit they be persons infamous, by law, and con­sent of al nations, shall not yet without meete and reasonable moderation be touched or talked of, requiring of them this cur­tesie againe, that they reprehend nothing in this discourse pri uily, which they can not, nor dare not answere to openlie. And of my louing brethren that be Catholike, I must farder require one thing (the sute is for them selues) that, when in a manner they sensiblie feele the trueth, they would not refuse to follow the same, that by outward worke they may declare their inward will. Here of I am more carefull, for that I see heresie and false­hoode to be of that countenance and colour, that it is often li­ked, before it be beleeued: where gods trueth, for terrour and bitternes that it beareth, is not alwaies followed, where it is wel knowne & trusted. But surelie truth is not profitably vnder­stood, till it be willinglie practized.

Therefore whoesoeuer acknowledged in his conscience the power of Gods Church and mynisterie for the remission of sins, and vseth not humblie con fession of his sinnes, that that power may redound to his saluati on, he is so much farder from God, by how much more he knoweth the right waie to come to God. Mans will must in all such cases of terrour and difficultie, geue ouer to Gods ordinance, whose commaundements, though they seeme to the worldlie burdenous, yet to the good and ghostlie, & paucis amantibus (saith Saint Augustine) they are [Page 16] sweet and exceeding pleasant. And this let euerie man assu­redlie know, that whosoeuer counteth confession so heaiue, he neither feeleth the waight of sinne, nor yet sufficientlie fear­eth the appointed paine for the same. Al these vntowardlie af­fections, that sinne and the world haue planted in vs all, let vt seke by loue and zeale of Gods trueth and ordinance, to amend: and ioyne with me (geucle Reader) I besech thee, in praiers, that our endeuours maie please God, and profit his people.


In that you allow no necessitie, that should driue any man to take any sacrament of such as you count he­retikes, but onelie the sacraments of baptisme and penance in present perill of death, and yet account the receiuing of sacraments so necessarie, you insinu­at whereunto you would bring the matter, if it laie in your power, and perswasion. Your late attemptes by ex­communcations and inuasion, haue made open your meaning. But he that sitteth in heauen shall laugh you to scorne, the Lord him-selfe shall haue you in derision: and all reasonable men shall thinke you ridiculous, while by declaming generallie against heresie, and the hurt that cometh thereby, you labour to bring your false­hood into credit, and the trueth into disdaine. It is a great part of popish rhetoricke in these daies, to enueie mightelie and eloquentlie against schisme, heresie, salsehood, errors, &c.& let the triall goe, whether partie maie be iustlie charged with these crimes. But Master Allen, albeit he liketh that kinde of disputing, and vseth it much him-selfe, yet his purpose is in this treatise to examine the matter so throughly, that men shalbe able, not onelie to vnderstand the trueth in their mindes, but also to feele it with their handes. Of which trueth he hath so great assurance, that he sweareth as deepe­lie as anie Christian man can doe, not onelie that he doubteth nothing, but also that he can neuer mistrust anie point of that faith, in which he was new borne, & baptized. How wel he performeth this large promise, as also of such moderation as he wil vse, in touching the in­mous [Page 17] persons of his aduersaries, the booke following will declare: wherein if auricular confession be so sensi blie prooued out of the holie scriptures, as he maketh vaunt it shalbe, I my selfe will ioine with him, that if it were ten times as burt henous as it seemeth to be, no Christian man ought wilfully to omit it in paine of eter nall damnation: but if the scriptures of God will afford no commaundement for it, and the moste auncient Catholike Church on earth neuer thought it necessa­rilie to be required, I maie reasonablie require, that such as thought it needles before this treatise was written, when they see as much as can be said for it, to be disprooued, they will acknowledge, that with­out tyranie to mens consciences, it cannot be impo­sed.

That Christ did forgiue sinnes, not onelie by proper power and nature, as he was God, but also by ministe­rie, as he was a man, and as he was a Priest, and head of the Church: and that vpon that ground the priests power, in remitting sinnes in the Church, doth stand.



CHrist Iesus the Sonne of the liuing God, being euerla­stinglie of the same substance, power, and nature, that his Father and the holie Ghost be of, as being equall and one God with them both, worketh mightelie all thinges in heauen and in eartb iointlie with them both: and therefore by excel­lencie of power, propertie of nature, and by full and perfect dominion ouer his owne creature, he remitteth mans sinnos by the same soueraingne right that they do. Who being thus in all excellencie equall with God, hath notwithstanding vouch­safed of his singular bountifullnes, ioined with maruelous hu­militis, to abase him-selfe to the receiuing of our nature: in [Page 18] which now he hath wrought the same thinges in earth, by seruice, sute, and commission, which before he onelie did by might and maiestie of his owne power procure, Euen the selfe same God, that by will and commaundement might most iustly both haue punished and pardoned whome he list, of loue and wisdome infinite (continuing alwaies in like excellencie as be­fore) became the minister of our reconcilement to God. In which state he offereth sacrifice as a Priest for sinne, he vseth sacramentes for the remission of sinne, he praied to God his Fa­ther for the sinnefull, he is made the head of the Church, the Gouernour of the Church, and the iudge of the Church. All which functions perteine to our Sauiour, in respect and consideration of his humane nature: according vnto which, power is giuen him of the Father, thorugh the holie Ghost, to pra­ctise the same.


THat the ignorant be not ouertaken with the subtiltie of this Sophister, which to deriue his popish absolution from the perso of our sauiour Christ, plaieth on while the Nestorian, ano­ther while the Eutichian, It shalbe good for them to remember, what they are taught in their Creed concerning the person of Christ, which is verie God and verie man, consi­sting of two moste diuers natures, so vnited into one person, as they maie neither be deuided, nor confoun­ded, without horrible blasphemie. In which person ech nature so retaineth the essentiall proprieties of it selfe vnconfounded, or destroied, that he is but one person our Lord and sauiour Iesus Christ. Whereupon it fol­loweth, that some actions arepeculiar to his godhead, some proper to his manhood, and some proceeding iointlie from him, as he is God and man. As God he Iohn. 5. 17. Mat. 9. 4. worketh euen as his Father, he knoweth the th oughts [Page 19] of mens heartes, he knoweth the last daie, whereof he is ignorant as man. Againe that he did eate, drinke, Mar. 13. 32. sleepe, sorrow, die, it was proper to his humanitie. Finallie that he preached the Gospell, wrought mi­racles, offered sacrifice for our sinnes, rose againe, &c. and such like thinges, he did as the Mediatour God and man. And although by reason of the vnitie of the person, that is often spoken of the whole person, which is peculiar to either nature, or of God, which is pro­per to man, or of man, which is proper to God: yet to preserue the essentiall properties of ech nature, we must wiselie distinguish, that which is proper vnto the diuinitie, from that which is proper vnto the humani­tie, whereof we see Master Allen hath small regard. while he affirmeth that all these functions of Christ, whereby he offereth sacrifice as a Priest, vseth sacra­mentes, praied to God, is made the head of the Church, the gouernour of the Church, and the iudge ofthe Church, pertaine vnto him in respect and con­sideration of his humane nature. For of the sacri­fice ofhim-selfe, the Apostle expresselie affirmeth, that it was made by his eternall spirit, which being offered by an inferior nature, could not haue beene accep­table vnto God. Heb. 9. 14. Also that Christ God and man, is the head of the Church, and aduanced in his humanitie, to be iudge of the worlde, it is in respect and consideration ofhis godhead, vnto which his hu­manitie is vnited. For as he is the image of the inui­sible God, by whome all thinges are created in heauen and earth, he is the head of his bodie the Church, Col. 1. 15. &c. And the Apostle Phil. 2. 10. shewing his exaltation from the base shape of a Seruant to be the most honorable iudge of the world, vsing the words of the Prophet Esaie, cap. 45. in which God challeng­eth the iudgement to him selfe, sheweth plainelie, that Christ hath this honour in respect of his godhead, which is proper vnto it.

[Page 20]

Andwhatsoeuer in holie scripture is read to be exercised of him through the might of Gods spirit, by the vertue of his an­nointing, by the finger of God, by the sending of the Father, by power receiued from aboue, by Priesthood, praiers or sacri­fice, by the Sonne of man, of the head of the Church, or iudge of the liuing and dead: whatsoeuer is in this sort said to be done, it is not otherwise lightlie meant, but in respect of Christs humanitie, by which and in which he worketh the same, not as by the proper and naturall power or force there­of, but as by iurisdiction receiued of the blessed Trinitie, and imploied vpon the sonne of man, for the procuring of saluation to his people, whereof he is become in our very nature the head.


This generall rule is so abridged with the excepti­on lightlie, that it is hard to bring anie instance a­gainst it: but Allen would haue his starting hole in it. Neuerthelesse seeing he concludeth the examples before remembred, to be included within this rule, we maie be bolde to charge him with a spice of Ne­storianisme, seeing those workes which are certaine to haue beene the workes of the Mediator God and man, he ascribeth to the onelie humanitie by iu­risdiction receiued from the blessed Trinitie: whereby it should followe, that the worke of Christe in this respect, should not differ from the workes of Moses, Elias, Dauid, or anie of the Prophets, whoe recei­ued iurisdiction from the blessed Trinitie, whereby they performed manie workes, which the same blessed Trinitie had appointed for the procuring of saluation vnto his people.


Therefore no Christian man maie doubt, but as our Sa­uiour, by the omnipotent power of his Godhead; might and did forgiue sinnes to the penitent, so likewise, that, as he was Priest, & the sonne of man, he might by the right of his office, vnction, and ministerie, in the vertue of the holie Ghost, re­mitte sinnes also. And for that cause principallie in the Pro­phet Esay it is said, Spiritus Dominisuper me, eò quòd [Page 21] vnxerit me, ad annunciandum mansuetis misit me, vt mederer contritis corde, & praedicarem captiuis indulgentiam, & clausis apertionem: The Spirit of the Lord vopn me, because he hath annointed me, and sent me to signifie vnto the meeke, that I should heal the contrite in heart, to preach pardon to the prisoners, and freedome to the closed. The which place of the Prophet our Sauiour applied vnto him selfe in the Church of Nazareth, and is to be vn­derstanded onelie of preaching, and pardoning, by the holie vnction of the Spirit of God, and his Fathers calling. And therefore, it must needes, according to Saint Augustines iudgement, concerne the shape of his seruice and manhood taken on him, in which he preached so, that yet it pleased him to affirme, that his Doctrine was not his owne, but his Fathers that sent him: and healed the contrite in heart, which is nothing els, but to forgiue sinnes to the penitent, af­ter such a sort, that it might well appeare to be receiued and practised by the vnction of the Spirit of God, and sending of his Father, whereby the Sonne of man might doe that as Gods minister in his manhood in earth, which both he, and his eternall Father, with the holie Spirit of them both, doe worke by their owne, one, and equall authoritie in heauen euer­lastinglie.


And seeing he willeth vs to note the ground of the cause, which is, that Christ as he was Priest, and the sonne of man, might remit sinnes by a ministeriereceiued by vnction of the holie Ghost, it is not lightlie to be passed ouer. That the sonne of man had power vpon earth to for­giue sinnes, he him-selfe affirmeth Mat. 9. 6. but this was the power of his godhead, which was not restrei­ned, nor abased, by the shape of a seruant, in which he appeered on earth. That he was authorized by vn­ction of the holie Ghost, to preach remission of sinnes vnto the penitent, it pertaneth indeede vnto him, in respect of his manhood, although Saint Augustine in the place by Allen quoted, saieth not so, but citeth the place of Esaie, to prooue that Christ, in respct of his [Page 22] humanity, was inferior to the holy Ghost, but that this is all the power, that Christ had vpon earth to remit sinnes, it is not prooued by anie argument. For this ministerie of reconciliation to remit sinnes, by prea­ching of the Gospell, doth remaine still with the Church: the other, that was proper to his Deitie, no mortall man without Sacriledge can arrogate, or v­surpe.


And though God hath neuer [...] mans fall, vsed the meanes and seruice of man, to his restore againe, and to the re­liefe of his lackes, and therefore hath giuen authority by his holie spirite and vnction, to diuerse of the olde law to offer sa­crifice, praier, and procure remission to the people of all their offences: and no lesse [...], occasion serued, and the matter requi­red, to correct their misdeedes by iudgement and iurisdiction giuen vnto them, for which soueraigne calling they were called the annointed of God, an externall ceremonie of anoyting being solemnelie annexed thereunto: yet our Lord an Ma­ster, whether you consider his high Priesthoode, by which in moste ample manner through commission receiued, he maie pro­cure our pardone, or his calling to be head of the Church, by which he ruleth and keepeth all the bodie in due subiection and order, or his ministerie of preaching, whereby, farre a­boue all the Prophets and preachers of the olde law, he open­eth to his flock the Church, the secret mysteries of Gods trueth; Christ, I saie, in all these respectes being man, is yet much more abundantlie blessed, and anointed without comparison, aboue all his fellowes and copartners, as the holy Pro­phet Dauid doth testifie. Vpon whose wordes touching that matter, Saint Hilarie writeth thus: Vnxit te Deus, De­us tuus oleo exultationis prae participibus tuis: non secundùm sacramentum aliud, quàm secundùm dis­pensationem assumpti corporis. Vnctio enim illa, non beatae, illi & incorrupt, & in natura dei man enti nati­uitati profecit, sed sanctificationi hominis assumpti. Nam & in Actis ait Petrus, vnxit illum Deus in spiri­tu sancto & virtute. Thus he meaneth in English: God e­tien [Page 23] thy God hath anointed thee with the oile of ioy, farre a­boue thy copartners, not in anie other meaning, but accor­ding to the dispensation of a bodie receaued. For that vnction could not be beneficiall to the holie, vnspotted, and euerlasting natiuitie in the nature of his Godhead, but onelie it was a­greeable to the mysterie of his manhood and flesh assumpted in his temporal natiuitie: whereof Saint Peter speaketh in the Actes, that God hath annointed him with the holie ghost and with power.

The holie Father also Saint Cyrill agreeth hereunto, con­fessing that all this honour, power, and authoritie, which the Prophets haue signified so long before by the annointing of the sonne of God, came vnto Christ in consideration of his man­hood: thus he saith, Quòd vnctio sit secundúm huma­nitatem, nemo qui rectè sapere solet, dubitabit, quia absque omni controuersia minus à maiore benedici­tur. That the annointing of Christ should be meant of his humanitie, no man doubteth that is of anie right vnderstanding. For without all controuersie the inferiour and lesse euer receiueth blessing of the su­periour and greater. There can be no question then, but all soueraigntie and supreme iurisdiction, which he exercised ouer the Church, being his bodie and spouse, in that respect that he was either Priest and Bishop of our soules, as Saint Peter calleth him, or els as he was out head and pastour, it is certaine, that all this came vnto him by his fathers sending, and the vnction of the holie Ghost, and the benediction of the holie Trinitie, to which he was inferiour accor ding to his manhood.


That our sauiour Christ by his vnction receaued no gift or blessing of God, but in respect of his hu­manitie, it is more cleere then it needed to haue beene declared, by the testimonies of Hilarius and Cyrillus: but that all soueraigntie and supreame inrisdiction, which he exercised ouer the Church in respect that he was Priest and Bishop of our soules, or as he was our head and Pastor, came [Page 24] onelie to his manhoode (as Allen maketh it certaine) it is vtterlie false, and blasphemous against his godheade. For vnto all soueraigntie and authori­tie, he hath full right in respect of his diuinitie. and therefore the Apostle Heb. 3. 5. &c. saith that Moses was faithfull in Godds house as a seruant, but Christ as the sonne ouer his owne house, which was builded by him­selfe, as God which hath made all thinges. For what cause Allen speaking of the soueraigntie of Christ ouer his Church vseth the time past, saying he was our Priest and Bishop, he was our head and pastour, it is easie to gesse, seeing he laboureth to establish such a soueraigntie and supreme iurisdiction on earth, as is derogatorie to the high authoritie of Christ in heauen. But the scripture teacheth vs, that he is an eternall Priest. Heb. 7. & 9. &c. that he is the shepheard and Bishop of our soules, 1. Peter. 2. that he is and shall be to the end of the world, the heade of his Church. Eph. 1,


If thou doubt of his Priesthood in this case, heare Theo­doretus: Christus autem, quód ad humanitatem qui­dem attinet, Sacerdos appellatus est, non aliam au­tem hostiam, quám suum corpus, obtulit: Christ Dialog. 1. (saith he) touching his humanitie, was called a Priest, and he offered no other hoste, but his owne bodie. But we maie haue more forcible testimonie hereof in Saint Paull him selfe, who in sundrie other places that are knowen, professeth euerie Bishop to be elected and chosen out a­mong a number of men, to offer sacrifice for sinne. Heb. 5. 5.

And that he is made the supreame gouernour & head of the Church in his humanitie, yea and in respect thereof, is ap­pointed to be the high minister of God the father in pardoning or iudgeing the world, it is an assured ground of our faith, ap­proued not onelie by the consent of all Doctors, but also by the Scriptures, euerie where protesting, that all power in heauen and earth is giuen to Christ: in so much, that the Apostle [Page 25] calleth him, the man, in quo viro statuit iudicare orbem tetratum: In which, or by which appointed man he will iudge the world. All these thinges, though they maie Act. 7. seeme to the simple to be farre from the matter, yet they be both neare our purpose, and necessarie to be laied vp in memorie for the further establishing of our faith in the Article proposed, and diuerse other profitable pointes of Christian beliefe now impugned.


We doubt not that Christ was a Priest, as touching his humanitie, as Theodoret saith, but we beleeue that he was a Priest, as he was the mediator, God and man. Fot as some ministeriall partes of that office did re­quire that he should be a man, áccording to which na­ture he might be subiect, so other parts of the same office required the authoritie of God. For none but God, hath authoritie to reconcile man, and to bring him into the holiest place, into the presence and sight of God, whereunto he hath full right of his owne na­ture and dignitie. The forcible testimonies that Ma­ster Allen citeth out of the Apostle, Heb. 5. & 9. haue no force to prooue, that Christ is not a Priest, as he is God and man, although they prooue that he is a Priest, as he is man. But contrariwise if these scrip­tures be well marked, which the Apostle doth alledge out of the second Psalme: Thou art my sonne, this daie haue I begotten the: and out of the 110. psalme, thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchiseàech, they will make euident proofe vnto vs, that Christ not onelie in respect of his humanitie, but also in respect of his deitie, is our eternall high Priest, as he is our sauiour, our mediator, our redeemer, as in o­ther places the Apostle sheweth more plainlie, and I haue argued purposelie, and plentifullie against the slaunderous note of the Rhemistes in my confutation of the Papistes quarreils against my writings. pag 64. vnto the end, whereunto I referre the reader for more full satisfaction. That Christ in his humani­tie [Page 26] is made the supreame gouernor and head of his Church, we do constantlie bleeue: but that he hath this excellent authoritie, in respect of his humanitie alone, and not in respect of his diuinitie, we can not acknowledge. For in respect of his diuinitie his person is capable of all honour, glorie, power, and authoritie, which in the onelie respect of his humanitie it were not. That he is appointed to iudge the world also, in his humanitie, we confesse according to the scriptures: but seeing I haue prooued before, that to be iudge of the world, is Gen. 18. 25. proper to the deitie, we must needes confesse, that the man Iesus Christ, is appointed to be iudge of the quick and the dead, not onely as an high minister de­puted of God, in respect of his humanitie, but as God him-selfe, of supreame authority in respect of his diui­nitie. For to holde that Christ, is no otherwise iudge of the world, but as an high minister, as kings and Princes are iudges of the earth, as high ministers by deputation onelie of Gods authoritie committed to them, and not by right of their nature, I see not how it can be excused from grosse Nestorianisme. The scrip­tures which protest, that all power in heauen and earth is geuen to Christ, are to be vnderstood in deede of the ex­altation of his humanitie, and crowning of his man­hood, with glorie and maiestie: but thereof it follow­eth not, that Christ enioyeth all that power, that is giuen to him, by the onelie right of his humanitie. For except Christ were God, as verilie as he is man, he were not able to receiue such a gift, which no creature can haue, except he be also creator and God himselfe, therefore Christ truelie as man, receiueth that which is giuen, but in respect and right of his godheade, he is able to receiue and exercise that power, which none can haue but God onelie. These thinges indeede maie seeme vnto the simple to be farre fetched, and farre from the question of priests power to remit sinnes, but they are much farther from the truth of our Catholike [Page 27] faith and Religion, that our sauiour Christ in respect of his Diuine nature, should be spoiled of his autho­rity, or els should thereby worke nothing in a manner, in the cheife & most necessarie partes of our redempti­on, that Popish priests might be made equall, or not farre vnlike him, in the power of pardoning sinnes.


For as the due consideration of Christes authoritie and ex­cellent office touching his manhood, will helpe vp the decaied honour and iurisdiction, that the guides of Gods Church, by the right of his high calling, do iustlie challenge: so it shall expresse the boldnesse of certaine miscreants of this age, who, to further their sundrie euil in tents, and detestable doctrines, haue dishonoured Christes dignitie, touching his incarnation and office of his redemption, exceeding much, both in him­selfe, and in persons of his Pristes and substitutes, some of them fearing (as I take it) lest the honour and office of Christes Priesthood might, by participation, descend to the Apostles and Priestes of the Church, letted not to hold that Christ was his fathers Priest according to his diuine nature: of which blasphemie Iohn Caluine was iustlie noted, wherein the wic­ked man, Vide Ori­chouii Chi­mer. whiles he went about to disgrace the dignitie of mor­tall men, became exceeding iniurious to the second person in Trinitie. One other of that schoole, and of his owne neast, denied that Christ in his manhoode should iudge the world, lest there might seeme to be some force of punishment and correcti­on of wickednes practized by mans ministerie in this life, for the resemblance of Christes iudgement to come. And so taught one Richerius, of a Carmelite a Caluinist. Other de­ny Vide Ville­gag. contra articulos Caluini. Ita Hartop. Monhem & alij. Heb. 7. Christ being now in heauen, to make praier for vs according to his manhoode, because it tendeth towardes the intercession, as Saint Paulin expresse wordes recordeth of him: Quòd sal­uare in perpetuum potest, accedens ad Deum per se­metipsum, semper viuens ad interpellandum pro no­bis. That for euer he is of power to giue saluation, ha­uing accesse to God by him-selfe, and alwaies Iiuing to make intercession for vs. Yea most of the Sacramentaries, for the aduantage of their vngodlie assertion, that Christ in his [Page 28] owne person as he is God and man should not be present in the sacrament, doe couertlie blaspheme the blessed and highlie Vide Ciril in Ioan lib. 3. Cap. 4. sanctified fleshof our sauiour, auouching it to be vnprofitable: whereby they vnaduisedlie dishonour the dreadfull incarnati­on of Christ, and all the workes wrought by the meane of his flesh and blood, and ministerie of his manhoode, for the remission of our sinnes, and purchasing saluation to his Church.


The due consideration of Christes authoritie, and excellent office touching his manhoode, will nothing helpe to restore the decaied honour and iurisdiction of Popish priesthoode, except you can both prooue your Popish priests capable of such honour and pow­er, as the sonne of God is, and also bring forth the re­cordes out of the holy scriptures, for that high calling, whereof you boast. That any faithful Christian, whome you to maintaine an Antichristian authoritie, call Miscreantes, haue dishonoured Christs dignitie, touch­ing his incarnation and office of his redemption, it is a slaunder stronglie aduouched, but slenderlie prooued. For first Caluine affirming Christ to be a priest in his wholl person, God and man, derogateth nothing from that dignitie, neither is he iniurious against the second person in trinitie: for Christ is an high priest after the order of Melchesidech, and our redeemer, not as a minister and seruant onelie, but as the sonne, as the King os peace and righteousnes, without father, without mother, without genealogy, hauing neither be­ginning of his daies, nor end of his life, al which things can not be restrained to the humanitie of Christ, but are proper to him as he is equall and eternall with his father. That Richerius should denie that Christ in his manhoode should iudge the world, it might well be a slaunder of that grosse potheaded Cyclops Villegag­non, which when he durst not abide the inuasions of the barbarous people in Gallia antarctica, where he had enterprised a conquest, he quarelled with Richerius, [Page 29] and other godlie persons, to haue a colour of returne, and a wellcome of the Papists. And as touching his slaunderous libell, that you send the reader vnto, I re­ferre you & them to the answere & confutation of Ri­cherius. Thirdlie that Christ doth make praiers for vs accor­ding to his manhoode, it is not sufficiently prooued by the text of the Apostle to the Heb. 7. because he may and doth make continuall intercession for vs, by the ver­tue and worthines of the sacrifice of his death, al­though he conceiue no prayers for vs, in forme of wordes. as men vse vpon earth. And if it be graunted that Christ so praieth for vs, yet it tendeth nothing towardes the intercession of Saints, but rather against it, because the interceffion of Christ is sufficient without them, yea if the intercession of Saints were prooued, it draweth not of necessity praier vnto Saints after it, and therefore there were smal purpose in them that denie Christ in such forme to praie for vs, to con­troul the inuocatiō of Saints, which thing being either graunted or denied, prooueth neither too nor fro, that Saints are to be praied vnto or [...]. That any one of those, whome you cal Sacramentaries, doth either ouert­ly or couertly blaspheme the blessed flesh of our Sauiour, a­uouching it to be vnprofitable (otherwise then our sauiour Christ himselfe auouched, if it were separated from his diuine, and quickening spirite, doth profitte nothing) you are not able to iustifie, and therefore you send vs in the margent to Cyrill vpon Iohn. lib. 4. Cap 14. whoe sheweth in deede that the flesh of Christ, as it is the flesh of the sonne of God, hath quickening vertue and power in it, to our eternall redemption, but otherwise affirmeth nothing thereof, that we all are not readie to subscribe vnto.


Let vs therefore Christianlie confes with the scripture and with the Church of Christ, that our sauiour not onelie by pow­er equall to his father concerning his diuine nature, but also by the sending and graunt of his father, and vnction of the holie [Page 30] spirit, beeing farre vnder them both in his humane nature, doth remit sinnes. Whereupon it orderlie followeth, that, who­soeuer denyeth man to haue authoritie, or that he maie haue power graunted him by God to forgiue sinnes, he is highlie in­iuriouse to our sauiours owne person, & dispensation of his flesh, and mysterie of his holie incarnation. For though there be great diuersitie betwixt his state and others, because in one per­son both God and man be perfectlie vnited in him, and there­fore much more prerogatiue might be, and doubtles was giuen to his humanitie, as to him that was both God and man, in re­spect of his baser nature, then to anie other of his brethren bee­ing but meere men: yet this is assuredlie to be beleeued, that he which could without derogation to his Godheade, communicate with the sonne of man, and graunt him, in consideration of his assumpted nature, the rule and redemption of his people, the assoyling of our sinnes, and to worke all wonders in the power, fin­ger, and force of the holie ghost, the same God, without all doubt, through his sonne and our sauiour, may at his pleasure without all vnseemelines or derogation to his eternall honour (andso it shall be prooued) that he doth giue power to the go­uernours of his Church and houshodle, to pardone and giue pe­naunce, to iudge and rule the people in the right of our said Sa­uiour, to the edefying of his bodie and making perfect of his saints.


We doe Christianly confesse according to the scrip­ture, and with the Church of Christ, that our sauiour Christ not onelie by power equall to his father, con­cerning his diuine nature, but also by graunt of God his father, in his humane nature, which is farre infe­riour to his father, doth remit sinnes absolutelie, and of soueraigne authoritie, in respect of his diuinitie, as the mediatour God and man and that he did the same vpon earth also, as a minister and preacher of repen­tance and reconciliation, according to his humanitie. But hereupon it followeth not, by any order, or neces­sitie of consequence, that whoesoeuer denyeth meere man to haue authoritie, or power to forgiue sinnes, is [Page 31] iniurious to Christs person, and the dispensation of his flesh, or mysterie of his holie incarnation. For al­though that man haue this authoritie which is God, yet it followeth not that such mē as are onely men, are capable of the same authoritie. The diuersitie betwixt the state of our sauiour Christ, and others is so great, that nothing can be communicated to others, which is proper to him in respect of his diuine nature. And such a thing is the absolute power to forgiue sinnes, for which he hath made satisfaction to the iustice of God, which, whensoeuer we speake of the remission of sins, may not be forgotten. For the mercie of god forgiueth no sinne, but that for which his iustice is thorouglie satisfied in the obedience and iustice of our Lord and redeemer Iesus Christ. Therefore as no other man hath the dispensation of his satisfaction, but himselfe, so no other man can giue absolute forgiuenes of sins but him-selfe. But as all his ministers haue power to pronounce forgiuenes of sins to the penitent, which is noe more but to expresse his will and pleasure, con­cerning the remission of sinnes, and in what sort and condition he bestoweth the same, so haue they power to teteine sinnes, not of them whome he will pardon, but of such as doe not repent, and therefore by his worde, are denied of forgiuenes: so that man in this case followeth the iudgement and authoritie of God, not God the iudgement and authoritie of man. For if a trew priest, elder, or minister, of the gospell, lawful­lie authorized, would forgiue the sins of an hypocrite, that faigneth repentance, they are not forgiuen be­fore God: and if man would reteine the sinnes of a true penitent, yet are they forgiuen before God. For to man is giuen no absolute power to forgiue sins, any more then there is giuen to man an vndouted iudge­ment, to discerne betweene hypocrites and true faith­full persons.

But where you saie, that God could without derogation to [Page 32] his godheade, communicat with the sonne of man, and graunt him in consideration of his assumpted nature, the rule & redem­ption of his people, the gouernment of our soules, the assoyling of our sinnes, &c. I must know how farre you extend your consideration. For if you meane therebie, that God in respect of, or according to this assumpted humane na­ture, did communicate to our sauiout Christ, none o­ther but such power as he might without derogation to his deitie, haue communicated vnto Moses, Samuel, or any other, which was a meere mortall man, for the redemption of our soules, and forgiuenes of our sins, I doe vtterlie abhorre your Nestorian, and worsse then Nestorian blasphemie but if you meane, that such pow er, as might without the derogation of his godhead be communicated to the sonne of man, is by him deliue­red to the ministers of his Church, which execute the office of shepheardes, and teachers in his place, I doe gladlie confesse, that without all vnseemelinesse and derogation to his eternal honour, the ministers of the Church haue power, by his graunt to reteine, and for­giue sinnes, that is, to declare the iudgement of God, in forgiuing or reteining of sinnes, according to such conditions as he hath expressed in his holie worde: which iudgement, according to those conditions, is so ratifyed by God him-selfe, that it is as certaine, as if it were pronounced, and vttered by his owne voice out of heauen. But where you speake of pardoning, and ge­uing of penance, I must once againe distinguish of your meaning. For if you meane, by your Popish terme of penance, repentance, so that you saie, man hath power to giue repentance, which is a conuersion of the heart vnto God, and a chaunge of the minde from sinne to obedience of God, I spit at your blaspemous saying. For it is proper onelie to God, to giue repentance to Israell, and to all true Israelites of the gentiles his elected children, as the holie ghost teacheth, Acts. 5. and 11. in which places, your pupills the Rhemists, [Page 33] durst not for gal of conscience, and shame of the world, translate the latine worde paenitentia (as they doe com­monly els where, except it be taken in the euil part) pe­nance, but repentance. Yet if by the word penance you meane a time, or exercise of trial of true repentance, which the aunciēt writers do sometimes metonimical­ly cal [...], and paenitentia, which was graunted by the elders of the Church, to such as had greeuouslie fallen, that they might haue some experience of their true conuersion, before they were admitted into the com­munion of the faithful, I may yeald to your terme. And further I will not denie, but that God hath geuen pow­er vnto the gouernours of his Church and household, to pardon such penance, thatis, to remit vpon due and good consideration, some part, or the wholl of that time, and exercise, which to such penitents by them is enioyned: but that any mortall creature hath pow­er to pardon penance, in such sorte, that the partie which is to receiue the pardon, neede not to be peni­tent for his sinnes, I stand still to the flat deniall.

Neither must we here make any great account of such as shal obiect to the priests of gods Church, as the Scribes did vn­to Christ him-selfe, when they saw him in expresse wordes ab­solue many of their sinnes, conceiuing in their heartes, as it is recorded by Saint Matthew in the historie of the healing of the man that had the palsie, that Christ did iniurie to God, and Cap. 9. committed blaspemie in taking vpon him to remit mans offen­ces. whose malitious mindes and cogitations, Christ did so reprehend, that they might well perceiue by his sight of their inwarde secrets, that he was verie God, whoe onelie by nature looketh into mans heart, and therefore did therebie well insi­nuate, that they could not iustlie reprehend his doings, seeing he was God in deede, and might as God pardon mans offences. Yet that notwithstanding, he stoode not with them then vpon the right of his Godhead for the doing of this ex­cellent function, which in deede by nature and propertie is onelie perteining to him, but he gaue this reason of [Page 34] his doeing, that the Sonne of man had power to remit sinnes in earth: wherebie me seemeth (wherein yet I submit my iudgement to the more learned) that he plainlie professed, that by power receiued, he might in respect of his manhoode and calling forgiue sinners, and that in earth, as meaning therebie to institute an order and waie, how to remit sinnes here in the worlde, either by him-selfe, or by his ministers, at whose sentence past in earth, the penitent should be frree by iudgement of God in heauen. For so our sauiour two or three times talking of mans ministerie, in the remission of [...], ter­meth it, loosing in earth, and the contrarie, binding in earth, as also he calleth Gods high sentence in the same cause, loosing and binding in heauen. Neither doth the in­terpretation of Saint Hilarie anie whit hinder my meaning, whoe vpon that place affirmeth Christ to haue remitted this Mat. 16. & 18. In explā. Mat. Can. 18 mans sinnes by the might of his Godheade: for it standeth well, that one worke should be wrought by the principall cause, and yet by the office and ministerie of some secondarie cause appoin­ted by the ordinance of God for the same vse, as we see in baptisme to the remission of the childes sinne, both the might of God, and the ministery of man to concurre at once, whereof we shall haue, I trust, better occasion to speake anon.


It is well that you can make such light account, of such as shal obiect against you, that it is not lawfull for mā to vsurpe any thing, which is proper to god, as is the absolute power to forgiue sinnes, which none can pro­perlie and absolutelie forgiue, but he against whome they be committed. Therefore there is a broad diffe­rence betweene the power of God, and the [...] of man, in forgiuing of sinnes. God doth absolutelie and properlie forgiue sinnes committed against his law, and maiestie. Man by his appointment doth assure the penitent sinners of his sinnes forgiuen by God: and therefore in some phrase of [...] is said to forgiue sins, as he is said, to saue mens soules, to whom he preached the saluation by Iesus Christ. The Scribes did rightlie affirme, that none could forgiue sinnes, but God onelie but they erred in that they did not acknowledge Christ [Page 35] to be God, whoe in the person of the mediator, euen in that state of humilitie, in which he was conuersant vpon earth was no whit abridged of his diuine authori­tie, but that he might by the same power forgiue sins, that he did heale diseases. And whereas he saith, that the sonne of man had power to forgiue sinnes vpon earth, he meaneth not that he had it, as meere man: but as God and man in one person, and that his man­hoode was no let vnto him, to exercise that power of his Godheade. Iohn. 3. he saith, the sonne of man came downe from heauen, and that the sonne of man is in heauen. But this is not to be vnderstood of the sonne of man, according to his manhood, but according to his God­head, as many other such speaches are in the scripture, which in respect of the vnitie of the person, ascribe to the one nature, that which is proper to the other, as Act. 20. to feede the Church of God, which he hath redeemed with his owne bloode. where redemption by his bloode is affirmed of God, which is proper and true, in respect of Christs humanity. Your modestie is commendable, that you doe submit your selfe to the iudgement of o­ther, in that your conceite of Christes meaning, there­by to institute an order, &c. for the order that he hath instituted, and the power that he hath giuen, of bin­ding and loosing in earth, is els where plainly, and pur­posedlie set forth, that we neede not such vnnecessary & vnlikelie coniectures to ground it vpon. And where­as you affirme, that the interpretation of Saint Hilarie doth not any whit hinder your meaning, because one worke may be wrought by the principall cause, and yet by the office and mini­sterie of some secundarie, I answere, the questions is not, what may be, but what was done in that case, whereof Saint Hilaries iudgement is flat against you. His words are, in Mat. com. Canon. 8. Mouet Scribas remissum ab homine peccatum. Hominem enim tantùm in Iesu Christo confiteban­tur, & remissum ab eo quod lex laxare non poteratifides enim [...] iustificat: deinde murmurationem eorum dominus intro­spicit, [Page 36] dicit (que) facilè esse filio hominis in terra peccata dimittere Verùm enim nemo potest dimittere pecoata, nisi solus Deus: ergo quiremittit, Deus est, quia nemo remittie nisi Deus: deus in ho­mine manens curationem homini praestabat, & nulla ei agen­di aut loquendi erat difficultas, cui subest totum posse quod lo­quitur. Porro autem vt ipse in corpore positus, intelligi possit esse, qui & animis peccata dimitteret, & resurrectionem corporibus prestaret, ait, vt siatis quoniam silius hominis habet potectatem in terra dimittendi peccata, &c. It mooueth the Scribes that sinne is remitted by a man. for they did beholde a man onelie in Iesus Christ, and that to be remitted by him, which the law could not release. For faith alone doth iustifie afterward our Lord looketh into their murmuring, and saith, that it is easie for the sonne of man on earth to forgiue sinnes. But none truelie can forgiue sinnes but God alone, therefore he which forgiueth, is God, be ause no man remitteth but God. God abiding in man performed healing to the man, and there was no difficultie to him of doing or speaking, who hath power so be able to doe all that he speaketh. But that he beeing placed in the bodie, might be vnderstood to be the same which forgi­ueth sinnes to mens soules, and performeth resurrection to their bodies, he saith, that you may know that the sonne of man, hath power on earth to forgiue sinnes, &c. Let the reader iudge whether Saint Hilarie doe any whit in these wordes hinder your meaning. And yet more plainlie Saint Chrysostome controlleth your meaning, and spea­keth expresselie, and directlie against it, in Mat. Hom. 30. entreating vpon this place. Illud verò non praetermit­tendum, quòd quando peccata paralytici dimisit non apertè po­testatem suam manifesiauit. Non enim dixit, dimitto tibi peccata tua: sed dimittuntur tibi peccata tua, inimicis autem vr­gentibus manifestius, suam potestatem oftendit. Ait enim, vt sciatis quia potestatem habet filius bominis in terra peccata di mittere: perpendisne quam longè abest, vt nolit aequalis patri putari? non enim dixit, potestatem habere à deo filium homi­nis, aut quia dedit sibi Deus potestatem, sed potestatem habet filius hominis: nec ad gloriam dico, ait, sed vt vobis persuadeam, [Page 37] quia non blasphemo, cùm meip sum patri aequalem faciam. But this thing, is not to be passed by, that when he forgaue the sins of the palsy man, he did not openlie manifest his power: for he did not saie, I forgiue thee thy sinnes, but thy sinnes are for­giuenthes. But when his enimies vrged him, hee showeth his power more manifestlie: for he saith, that you maie knowe, that the sonne of man hath power on earth to forgiue sinnes. Doest thou not marke howe farre of it is, that he would not bee thought equall to his father? for he saide not, that the sonne of man hath power from God, or that God hath giuen him pow­er, but the sonne of man hath power: neither, saith he, doe I speake it for to glorie in, but that I might perswade you that I doe not blaspheme, when I make my selfe equall with my father. The same interpretatiō hath Euthymius vpon the place. S. Ambrose also acknowledgeth the diuinitie of Christ to be prooued by forgiuenes of sinnes, in Luc. 5. Cognosce in­terioris hominis sanitatem cui peccata donantur, quae cùm Iu­doaei asserunt a solo Deo, posse donari, deum vti (que) confitentur, suoque iudicio perfidiam suam produnt, vt opus astruant, per­sonam negent, &c. Acknowledge the healing of the innar man to whome his sinnes are forgiuen, which when the Iewes doe af­firme that they can be forgiuen by God alone, they do confesse verely, that he is god, & by their owne argument bewray their falshoode, that they allowe his worke, and denie his person. Therefore euen of them the sonne of god receiueth testimonie of his worke, & requireth not the suffrage of their voice. For fals­hoode can confesse, but it cannot beleeue. Therefore there wan­teth no testimonie to his diuinitie, but faith is wanting to their saluation: for both it is more straunge for credit which they confesse vnwilling, and also more pernitious to their fauls that they denie, which are conuinced by their owne assertions. Great therefore is the madnes of the vnfaithfull people, that when they haue confessed that it pertaineth to God onelie to forgiue sinnes, they will not giue credit to God, when he doth forgiue sinnes. And a litle after, where he also acknow­ledgeth the power of remitting sinnes, which is graun­ted to men, he doth neuerthelesse affirme, that God [Page 38] onelie doth forgiue sinnes. Quamuis igitur magnum sit hominibus peccata dimittere (quis enim potest peccata dimit­tere, nisi solus Deus, quiper eos quo (que) dimittit, quibus dimit­tendi tribuit potestatein?) tamen multò diuinius est resurrecti onem donare corporibus. For although it be a great thing to forgiue sinnes to men (for who can forgiue sinnes but god alone, whoe also forgiueth by them, to whome he hath giuen power of for giuing?) yet it is a much more diuine worke to giue resurre­ction to mens bodies. This [...] of S. Ambrose, shew­eth not onelie, that Christ by his diuine power, as god, forgaue sinnes in this place, but that God onelie doth properlie [...], when he vseth the ministery of men: so that not [...] S. Hilarie, but euen the consent of al the auncient writers is a gainst your new imagination.


But to returne [...] to our [...]: when Christ had decla­red that the Sonne of man had in earth power to remit sinnes, he then by this farther proofe and argument ouerturneth the wholl cause of their [...] and inward [...] against him for the same: whether is it more easie to saie, thy sinnes be forgiuen thee, or to saie to the incurable person, take vp thy bed and walke? I due the one in all your sightes, and he is cured at my worde: why then mistrust you the other? It was no lesse the propertie of God alone to he all him sodainlie of his corporall infirmitie, that had beene desperatclie sicke so long, then to forgiue sinnes: but the one power though by [...] it was proper to him selfe, yet he gaue it in the sight of you all to the sonne of man in earth: why then mistrust you but he might well giue the other? This reason proceeding from the wisedome of Gods owne sonne, shall helpe our faith much touch­ing this article, and shall not a litle further the dignitie of the [...], whoe also after their masters example, may prooue the force of their authoritie vppon mennes soules, which cannot be open to our bodelie eyes, by the apparant power that their wordes shal be seene openlie to worke on mens bodies, especiallie if it be well weighed, that Christ wrought miracles also, not onelie by the excellent dominion and force of his godhead, but also, as Saint Augustine prooueth, by the spirts of God, in respect of his manhoode: In quo spiritu san­flo [Page 39] (saith he) operatus est virtuies, dicens: Si ego in spiritu deiDe Trin. lib. 1. c. 11.eiicto daemonia, certè superuenit in vosregnum Dei: In the pow er of which holie ghost Christ wrought miracles, according to his owne saying in these words: if I expel out deuils by the spirit of god, then surelie the kingdome of God wil come on you. The Iews therefore seing themselues thus ouercome in their cogitatiòns, waxed affraied, and glorified God, who gaue such power to men. For though no man euer had equall authoritie or like power to Christ, who was both God and man, yet of this plen­tifull spirit and vnction, manie of his brethren haue through his ordinance recciued part, as shortlie now is shall be prooued. In the meane time arme thy selfe against [...] with this approoued and certaine trueth, that not onelie God by his pas­sing prerogatiue, maie forgiue sinnes, but that he hath so so­ueraignclie [...] Christ our Priest and head, that as he is man, and occupieth the said functions in earth, he maie remit by the vertue of the holie Ghost our offences also.


That which before, but doubtinglie, and vnder cor­rection of better learned men, you propounded, to the end that like a subull serpent you might writhe in your head, now as a conquerer of the wholl cause, you thrust in your wholl bodie: and as though you had gained your purpose, you affirme steadfastlie, that al­though, it was no lesse the propertie of God alone to heale the man sodainelie of his corporall infirmitie, then to forgiue sinnes, yet as he gaue the one power to the sonne of man, which was proper to him-selfe, so he might well giue the other. Your argument in à posse adesse, which is not worth a strawe, among them that knowe that argumentes doe meane. That power which God might giue to meere mortall men, whoe doubteth but God might also giue to Christ his sonne, to exercise according to his humaine nature: but that he did exercise the same onelie as man, & not as God, by what argument is it prooued? we knowe that in cast­ing out of deuilles, he vsed his diuine authoritie, and in his owne name commaunded them to come forth, [Page 40] and they obeied. Marke. 1. 27. he raised the dead by his owne authoritie as God, and in his owne name, Luke. 7. 14. Saint Iohn restifieth, that of the eternall worde, which was made flesh, and dwelt among vs, he and his fellowe Apostles did see the glorie, as the glorie of the one­lie begotten Jonne of God, full of grace and trueth. From whence come you therefore, with a Ghospell, to teach vs that Christ did forgiue sinnes, heale the sicke, cast out deuills, and doe miracles, but as a man onelie, by power receiued from God? whereby you shew your selfe to be a good procter for the Arrians, if those works which were proper to Christ, in respect of his diuinitie, you wil draw downe to his humanitie, so that he raised the dead. clensed the leapers, &c. not otherwise thē by power receiued frō; god, as Elizeus did, or as anie of his Apostles, which did al things in his name: whose digni­tie you are so careful to further, that you care not how you abase the honour of their Master, & al to bring in a popish, that is, an Antichristian tyrannie ouer mens soules, which is blasphemous against the authoritie of God. For if the plaine text of the scripture, Iohn 20. 23. whose sinnes you forgiue, they are forgiuen, &c. would yeald you so much authority, as you would gladly excercise, you would not trouble your selfe, to make such imper­tinent, and inconsequent collections, by which you would haue it seeme, as though Christ in respect of his diuine nature, was vnoccupied, as concerning the worke of our redemption in the world, but that he did all thinges in respect of his humane nature, by power receiued from God. But Saint Augustine (you saie) proo­ueth, that by the spirit of God, in respect of his manhood, Christ wrought miracles, which although it be not the matter in question, yet you drawe S. Austen to another matter, then euer was in his meaning. For although it be true, that Christ did cast out Deuills in the spirit of God, as man, yet it followeth not, that he did not cast out deuills by his owne authoritie as God, seeing the [Page 41] workes of the Trinitie are vndeuided, and Saint Augu­stine, in the place by you quoted, distinguisheth be­tween those sayings that speake of him, as in the forme of God, and those that pertaine vnto him, in respect, of the shape of a seruant.

But an other argument you haue, of that the Iewes, which seeing themselues thus ouercome in their vaine cogita­tions, waxed afraid, and glorifyed God, who gaue such power to men. That the Scribes and Pharises which first moo­ued the question of forgiuenes of sinnes, were mooued with reuerence of our sauiour Christ, or yealded glorie God, I finde not: but that al the rest of the people glorifyed Math. 9. Mark. 2. Luk. 5. to god, which had giuen such power to men. What power saie you? to forgiue sinnes. The text saith not so, but of working such miracles, to heale the man sicke of the palsie, so that he was presentlie changed from ex­treame weaknes, to perfect strengh. whereof: as S. Luke reporteth) they said, we haue seene sirange things to day, and as S. Marke rocordeth it, they said, we neuer sawe it thus. But as for the ordinarie power of making attone­ment for sinnes, which the Priests vsed according to the lawe, it was no strange thing vnto them, and they had seene it often times before. These therefore are the best interpreters of S. Math. which did write by the same spirit. But because mans authority with you is many times preferred before god, you shal heare what S. Hilarie saith in that place, which ere while you affir­med to make nothing against your meaning: his inter­pretation of the text, Et honorificauerunt deum, quòd tantā dedit potestatem hominib. &c. is this. Conclusa sunt omnia suo ordine, & cessante iam desperationis timore, honor Deo red­ditur, quòd tantam dederit hominibus potestatem: sed soli hoc Christo erat debitum, solide communione paternae substantiae hoc agere erat familiare. All thinges are concluded in due or­der, and the feare of disperation now ceasing, honour is ren­dered to God, because he hath giuen so great power to men. But this was due onelie to Christ, to him alone it was familiar or [Page 42] accustomable to doe these thinges by the communion of his fa­thers substance. These wordes doe plainelie shew that Saint Hilary dissenteth euerie whit from your meaning: and that you arme your schollers with no armour of proofe, when you wil them to looke for the like power, of remitting sins in Christs humanity, which he did ex­ercise according to the authoritie of his diuinitie.


Let the proud cogitations of men here attend, that so high­lie disdaine the ministerie of mortall men in the remission of their sinnes: let them controulle the wounderfull wisdome of God, which would no otherwise saue the pitifull sores of our soules, but by the seruile forme of our owne nature, ioined meruelouslie in our person, to the worde and eternall Sonne of God the father: let them reprehend the vnsearchable secret councell of the holie Trinitie, which being of power infinite to worke their wil in al creatures, yet would not repaire the world, nor remit our sinnes anie otherwise, but by the seruice of the Sonne of man: let them mislike, that flesh, blood, and the soule of our blessed sauiour being al creatures, should ioyne with the onelie almightie creator of all thinger, in the remission of all our offences: let the presumptuose thus doe, and let vs hum­blie reuerence Gods ordinance, and glorifye him in his Sonnes high calling in our kinde, through whose singular prerogatiue we shall vndoubtedlie finde exceeding power to be giuen to his bodie and brethren in earth, to his moste deare spouse the Church.


The ministerie of mortall men in remission of sinnes, no man I hope is so madde to disdaine, when Christ him-selfe in so plaine termes hath authorized the same. But where you saie, that the wisdome of God, would no otherwise salue the pittifuli sores of our soules, but by the seruile forme of our nature, ioined meruelouslie in one person to the word and eternall sonne of God, I cannot but maruaile at your Nestorian blasphemie. For although it be moste certaine, that in the forme of a seruant, the wisdome of God preformed that, which to the glorie of his iustice was expedient, yet that the deitic was alto­gether [Page 43] idle, or vnoccupied, in the worke of our re­demption, yea that the godhead did not worke the principall and moste necessarie part thereof, it is too too abominable, and intollerable heresie. Out of the like stinking puddle it proceedeth that you saie, that the holie Trinitie, being of infinit power to worke their will in all creatures, yet would not repaire the world, nor remit our sinnes anie otherwise, but by the seruice of the sonne of man. That the seruice of the sonne of man was necessarie to be vsed, it is moste true, but that authoritie of the sonne of God, was not necessarie for so great a worke, as wel as the seruise of the sonne of man, it is such an impu­dent blasphemie, as I thinke the Pope him-selfe would condemne it, if his opinion without partialitie thereof might be knowne. As for the worke of Christes huma­nitie ioyned in one person to his deitie, and the com­mission graunted to his ministers to remit sinnes, are nothing hindred by acknowledging, that God onelie doth properlie and absolutelie forgiue sinnes, euen when his ministers, according to his commaunde­ment, doe forgiue sinnes, as S. Ambrose saith, and all an­tiquitie doth accord.

Here it is declared by the scripture, that the same power of remitting sinnes, which God the Father by commis­sion gaue vnto his Sonne, as he was man, was also by Christ bestowed on the Apostles after his resurre­ction.



IN what high reputation man hath euer bene with god his maker, it is not my purpose now to treat of: neither will I make anie tediouse talke, though it be somewhat more neere the matter, how estimation is encreased by the honoura­ble and most merueilous matching of Gods onelie sonne with our nature and kinde: whereof whosoeuer hath anie conside ration, he shall nothing wonder, I warrant him, at the [Page 44] soueraingtie of such, as be placed in the seat of iudgement and gouernement, for the rule of that comonwealth, where­of Christ is the head. These thinges, though they be well worthie our labour and deepe remembrance, and not verie far from our matter, yet so will I charge my selfe with continu­ance in my cause, that I will onelie seeke out the dignitie of priesthood, touching the right, that the order: laimeth in re­mission and retaining of mans sinnes. In all which cause, I take this a grounde, that our Masters messenger stood vpon, when his disciples grudged that Christ had his followers, and practized Baptisme no lesse then him selfe did, which is: That no man can rightlie receiue anie thing, that is Iohn. 3. not giuen him from aboue. Therefore if it may be suffici­entlie declared, that the order holdeth by good warrant this their preheminence of pardoning, or punishing of the peoples offences, and that by commission from him, who without al con­trouersie is the head of the Church, then the contrarie must learne to leaue their contentious reasoning, and vniust con­tempt of that order, which is honoured by power and preroga­tiue proceeding from Christ Iesus.


That God of his meere goodnes and mercie hath vouchsafed man of so great honour, that of him selfe deserueth eternall shame, it is more reason to wonder at Gods mercie, then to insinuate anie peece of mans dignitie or worthines. That it hath pleased god to ad­uaunce some men to the gouernment of his Church vpon earth, we haue cause to magnifie his maiestie, that disdaineth not our base condition, but putteth his honour and authoritie vpon them, driueth vs not from them by the excellencie of their nature aboue ours, but familiarly inuiteth vs to obedience of his wil, that we may attaine to his promis of eternal happines. The title of this chapter, That our sauiour Christ gaue vn­to his Apostles, the same power of remitting sinnes, which God the father by commission gaue vnto his sonne, as he was man, we do all agree: but that Christ did exercise a more so­ueraigne authoritie in forgiuing sinnes, then he did [Page 45] bestow vpon his Apostles, or their nature was capable to receiue, it is prooued sufficientlie in the Chapter going before. Neuerthelesse I will examin all partes of this chapter, and if in anie thing I dissent from you, I will shew that you dissent from the trueth. And first where you professe onelie to seeke out the dignitie of Priesthood, touching the right that the order clai­meth in remission and retention of mans sinnes, you should haue done better, to haue sought and set out the duetie of such persons also, to whome such dignity is committed, lest, as it falleth out in your bastarde Popish Priesthood, the dignitie be onelie sought for, the labour and duetie almost, or altogether neglected. The ground you take out of Saint Iohn, is infallible: Ioh. 3. and therefore your Popish priesthood doth blasphe­mouslie vsurpe a pretended power, to offer vp our sa­uiour Christ vnto his father, as a sacrifice propitiato­rie for the sinnns of the quick and the dead for graunt of which power from aboue, you can shew no warrant out of the written word of God, the onelie true record of Gods graunt, and sufficient euidence for so great an authoritie.


And of two or three places in holie scripture pertaining to this purpose, that shall be first proposed, which with moste force driueth downe falsehood, and most properlie pertaineth to the pith and principall state of the cause which we haue in hand. Thus then we finde of Christes wordes, will, and beha­uiour, concerning the commission graunted out to his holy Apo­stles for the remission and punishment of our sinnes, in the 20. Chapter of the Gospell of Saint Iohn. Where the Euangelist thus reporteth, that Christ after his glorious resurrection, came into a secret chamber, where his disciples were together, the dore being shut for feare of the Iewes, and there after he had gi­uen them, as his custome was, his peace, and his blessing, and she wed him self to their infinite comfort, that he was perfectlie risen againe in the same bodie that so latelie was buried, he then straight afterwarde, to make worthie entrance to so high [Page 46] a purpose, gaue them this peace againe, in manner of a solemne benediction, and therewith said: Sicut misit me Pater, & e­go mitto vos. Euen as the father hath sent me, so I do send you. And when he had so spoken, he breathed on them and said, Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata, re­mittuntur eis: & quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt. Re­ceaue you the holie ghoste: whose sinnes soeuer you shall forgiue, they are forgiuen them: and whose sinnes you shall retaine, they be retained. This is the place, lo, in which the iudgement and rule of our soules with all authoritie in correcting our sinnes, in moste expresse and effectuall termes, and in moste ample manner is giuen to the Aposiles and their successours. Christ him seife doth commu­nicate vnto them the iurisdiction that he receiued of his Fa­ther: he giueth them in a solemne ceremonie that same spirit of God, by which in earth him-selfe did remitte sianes: hema­keth them an assured promis, that whatsoeuer they pardoned or corrected in mans life, the same should stand in force before God.


Our sauiour Christ in this place, doth first of all au­thorize his Apostles, to execute the office of publike preaching of the Gospell in all the world, vnto the which he had before chosen & appointed them. Then doth he furnish them with giftes of the holie Ghost meete for so high and painfull a calling: last of all he ratifieth the effect of their ministerie, to be accom­plished in the remission of the sinnes, of all them that beleeue their preaching: and in the retaining of their sinnes, that do not obey the voice of the Gospell, to beleeue it. For the power of remitting sinnes, must not be separated from the office of teaching, whereun­to it is annexed by our sauiour Christ: who doth not giue his Apostles authoritie to remit sinnes, so that he would transferre into them anie thing that is pro­per vnto him-selfe. For it is proper to him to remit sinnes: which honour, so farre forth as it pertaineth to his onelie person, he doth not resigne to his Apostles, [Page 47] but commaundeth them in his name to testifie the for­giuenes of sinnes, that he might reconcile men to God by their ministerie. For I haue shewed before in the words of S. Hilarie, that to speake properlie, God one­lie by men remitteth sinnes, not following the sen­tence of man, but man following the iudgement of God, which is to pardon all penitent sinners, and to retaine the sinnes of vnbeleeuers, vnto eternall con­demnation. Therefore it is much more then the place doth afforde, that you affirme the iudgement and rule of our soules, with al authoritie in correcting our sinnes in most expresse and effectuall tearmes, and in moste ample manner is giuen to the Apostles, and their suc­cessors in this place. For Christ in this place doth con­stitute Apostles, and not Iudges, messengers and de­clarers of his good pleasure and will vnto men, not ru­lers of mens soules: he giueth them power to remit or retaine sinnes in his name, to the inestimable com­fort of all penitent sinners, and to the terrour and in crease of damnation of all vnbeleeuers: he giueth them not al authoritie, and that in moste ample man­ner in correcting our sinnes: neither are there in the place anie expresse or effectual tearmes, our of which such omnipotent authoritie can be concluded, as af­terward when we come to your syllogisme, we shall platnlie declare. Againe, there is no mention in the text, of anie iurisdiction communicated vnto them, but of the office of teaching, whereunto Christ was sent for a time, which he committeth to his Apostles and their successours. For these wordes of our sauiour (As my father hrth sent me, I also do send you) can not be enlarged generallie, to all such purposes as God sent Christ: but must be vnderstood, according to the mat­ter he speaketh of, that is, of the office of Preaching & teaching, which Christ at that time did cease to ex­ecute in his humanitie, remaining yet still the onelie doctor and teacher of his Church, because he is author [Page 48] of the doctrine that is taught, and by his holie spirit teacheth continually, in giuing effect to the labours of his Apostles, Euangelists, Prophets, Pastours, & teach ers, which he hath giuen vnto his Church, for the ex­ternal ministerie of instructing the same in al truth ne­cessarie to the eternall saluation of his elect: He substi­tuteth therfore his Apostles in that necessarie office of preaching the Gospell, he enableth them by his spirit, which he testifieth vntothem by an holy signe, to pro­ceed from him. He maketh an assured promis, that they should not labour in vaine, but that in pardoning & re­taining sinnes according to the doctrine of his Gospel, whatsoeuer they did, should stand in force before God.


What dignitie could euer be giuen more? in what tearmes more plain? by what order more honourable? for surelie if ei­ther Christ could remit sinnes, as we haue at large prooued that he could, by commission and sending of his father, or if the ho­lie spirit of God maie remit sinnes, or if Christes word will pro­cure man anie power to remit sinnes, then vndoubtedlie maie the Apostles remit sinnes: For they haue the expresse warrant of them all. Much said Paul, when he affirmed in the Apo­stles name and person of all Priestes, Quòd [...] erat in Chri­sto mundum reconcilians sibi, & posuit in nobis verbum re­conciliationis. 1. Cor. 5. Pro Christo ergo legatione fungimur: That God was in Christ reconciling the world to him selfe, and hath put in vs the word of reconcilement: therfore our calling is to serue as an Embasy in Christes owne stead. These wordes be of great waight, and exceedinglie set forth the vocation of the spirituall gouernours, as of those, that holde by the warrant of Gods sending, and thereby occupie Christes owne roome. Marie the place for all that appertain­eth to their calling generallie, as wel to preach, as otherwise to guide the people of God in the behalfe of their Master, to whome we al be subiect: but this present text, whereupon we now treat, doth properlie concerne the commission giuen to the A­postles for the sacrament of penance and remission of sinnes. For it doth in moste cleere and vndoubted sense giue to them the [Page 49] like right in that case, that Christ him selfe had by the sen­ding of God the father: that is to saie, the very same authority that he had in respect of his mediation and manhoode: A Equa­lem patri filium nouimus (saith Saint Augustine) sed bîc ver­ba Mediatoris agnoscimus: medium quippe se ostendit dicen­do, Super hune locum. ille me, & ego vus. We know the sonne to be equall with the father, but here we must acknowledge the wordes of a mediator. For he shewed him selfe to be as a meane, when he said: He sent me, and I send you. That is to saie (as Theophilact expoun­deth In Ioannena cap. 20. it) Take vpon you my worke and function, and doe it with confidence: For as my father did send me, so I send you againe, and I will be with you to the ende of the worlde.


There is no dout, but the Apostles had power to remit sins, but yet for al your thetorical interrogations, none other, then I haue expressed before; nor greater, then may stand with the glory of Christ, who maketh not men equal with him. when he authorizeth them as his seruants, to be ministers of his mysteries, and stew­ardes of his gracious giftes. And Paul trulie said much, when he affirmed, that god was in Christ recōciling the world to himselfe, not imputing to them their offences (which clause I know not why you haue omitted) & hath put in vs that word of recōciliation. We are therfore embassadours for Christ, &c. For he said, that it is proper to god to reconcile the world, to forgiue sins, or not to impute them, & that is but a ministery of reconciliation, which he hath geuen vnto men, & she weth how this ministerie is executed, namely by preaching reconciliation, as the embassa­dours of God, to desire men, to be reconciled vnto God: which only meane of preaching expressed in this place you (with a Marie for all that) fumble vp, with I cannot tell what guidance because you cannot content your selfe to be a minister, a seruant, a subiect: but you must be a Lord a Prince, a ruler.

But the other text of Ioh. 20. (yousay) doth properlie con­cerne the commission giuen to the Apostles, for the sacrament of penaunce, and remission of sins. But whether I praie you in [Page 50] the scripture shal we read of this your sacrament, or the institution thereof? what is the visible worde or ele­ment thereof? yet you saie, that this text doth in moste cleare, and vndoubted sense, giue to them the like right in that case, that Christ him-selfe had, by the sending of God the fa­ther: that is to saie, the verie same authoritie, that he had in respect of his mediation and manhood. So that be like Christ, as Mediator, hath no authority peculiar to himselfe, in respect of the excellency of his person, but that which is communicable vnto others, and is communicated to his Apostles. But that is a strange doctrine, neuer heard of before in the Church of God, except it were from the mouth of Nestorius, or any of his disciples. For our sauiour Christ receiued in his manhoode, that which no other man is able to receiue, because he one lie is God and man: he receiued the spirit, not according to measure, Iohn. 3. 34. as all men muste do that receiue it: therefore no man can receiue such power by the spi­rit in measure, which he receiued by the spirit infinite­lie or without measure. But Saint Augnstine is called to witnes, that this text doth giue theverie same authoritie to the Apostles, that Christ had in respect of his mediation, and manhoode. Whereas Saint Augustines words import no such thing, but onelie shew, that Christ, though e­qual to his father in respect of his Godheade, yet as he is our Mediatour, is sent of his father in respect of his manhood. But of the verie same authoritie that Christ had in respect of his mediation, giuen to the Apostles, he speaketh not a word. That you ioyne his māhood to his mediation, as though the mediator were nothing but man, or as though the man Iesus Christ, which is our onelie mediator, were not Immannell, that is, God with vs, it is not without some smack of Nestorian he­resie, wherebie you seeme so to separate the man from God, as though any thing might be verified of the man, which in respect of the vnitie of person, might not be verified of God, or as though there were not [Page 51] such a perfect vnion ofthe two natures in one person, that although they both continue vnconfounded, re­teining their essentiall properties, yet any part of the office and authoritie of Christ, which he exercised in his humanitie, might as latgelie, as fullie, and with the verie same authoritie, be committed ouer to any other mortall man, to be exercised, as it was by Christ him­selfe. But Theophilact is cited to be an interpreter of Saint Augustine, whoe saith vpon these wordes, as the father hath sent me, &c. in the person of Christ: take vpon you my worke, and be sure that I will be with you, meaning that he com­mitteth to them the office of teaching, whereunto he was sent by his father, but of equall authoritie with him, he speaketh no worde. Which place you haue verie licentiouslie translated, to draw it to your pur­pose. For the words are no more but these, as Philippus Montanus hath translated them: Meum opus, inquit, sus­cipite, & confidite quod vobiscum sum futurus. And in the ende he willeth men to consider the dignitie of priests, that it is diuine. For it perteineth to God to remit sinnes: so there­fore are they to be honoured, as God. For although they be vnworthie, what is that? they are the ministers of Gods giftes, and grace worketh by them, euen as he spake by Balaams asse. For our vnworthines hindreth not grace. so because by meanes of priests, grace is graunted, they are to be honou­red. Thefe wordes of Theophilact declare, that although he ascribe much to the dignitie of Priests, yet he doth not allowe them the verie same authoritie, that Christ had in respect of his mediation, but a farre inferior mi­nisterie.

And excellentlie to our purpose wrote the holie father Cyril, as well for the dignitie of the Apostolike vocation, as for the Super. 20. c. Ioannis. honourable legacie, in these wordes. Ad gloriosum Apostola­latum Dominus noster Iesus Christus Discipulos suos vocd­uit, qui commotum orbem firmarunt, sustentacula eius facti: vnde per Psalmistam de terra & de Apostolis dicit, quia ego firmaui columnas eius. Columnae enim & robur veritatis disci­pulisunt, [Page 52] quos ita dicit se mittere, sicut à patre ipse missus est, vs Apostolatus dignitatem ostenderet, & magnitudinem po­testatis eorum aperiret. These wordes and the residue following concerning the same purpose goe thus in english. Our Lord and master Christ Iesus promoted his disciple, to a glorious Apostle­ship: whoe becing made the proppes and staies of all the earth, haue established the wauering worlde: whereupon the Psal­mist sayeth thus of the earth and the Apostles: I haue surelie and firmelie set the pillers thereof. For the disciples no doubt be the verie pillers strength, and staie of trueth, whome Christ saith that he doth send, euen as his father did send him, that thereby he might declare to the worlde as well the dignitie of their Apostleship, as open to all men their excellencie and the might of their power: and no lesse signifie vnto them, what way they had to take in all their life and studies. For if they be so sent as Christ him selfe was sent of the father, it is requisite to consider, for what worke & purpose the father euerlasting sent his sonne in flesh to the worlde. And that him selfe els where declareth: saying: Non veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores ad poe­nitentiam: I came not to cal the iust, but sinners to repen tance: Math. 9. & in another place it is said. God sent not his sonne Ioan. 3. into the world to iudge the worlde, but that the worlde shold be saued by him: al these thinges and other he touch­ed brieflie in these few wordes: Sicus misit me pater, & ego mit­to vos. vt hinc intelligant vocandos esse [...] ad poeni­tentiam, [...] corpore simul & spiritumale habentes. Like as my father sent me, so I send you: that sinners should be called to repentance, and be healed both in bodie and soule. Thus farre spake S. Cyril of the excellent calling of the disciples, & of the cause of their large commission not restri­cted by any streighter tearmes, then Christs owne commission was, which he receiued from his euerlasting Father.


The wordes of Saint Cyrillus declare no more then I haue said before, that the Apostles were sent of Christ as Christ was sent of his father, to call sinners to repen­tance by their ministerie of preaching, not that they were sent with as large commission, in euery respect, [Page 53] as Christ was sent, to be our mediator and redeemer. The wordes of Cyrill which you haue mangled and chopped at your pleasure, I will recite wholl together, that the reader may see, how iniutiouslie you would draw to farre other meaning, then his saying wil yeald. In Ioh. lib. 12. C. 55. vpon these words. Dicit ergo eis iterum, pax vobis: sicut misit me pater, & ego mitto vos. He writeth thus. Ordinauit his verbis orbis doctores, &c. He ordeined thē by these words, teachers of the world, & ministers of the diuine mysteries, whome he sent as lightes, to the lightening, not of the region of the Iewes onelie, which according to the measure of the legall commaundement, extended from Dan to Bersebe, as it is written: but he commaunded them to lighten the wholl worlde. Therefore Paul saith truelie, that no man taketh ho­nour vpon him, except he be called of God. For our Lord Iesus Christ called his disciples vnto the glorious Apostleship, which staied the world that was moued, beeing made the pillers there­of. Whereof by the Psalmist, he saith, of the earth, and the Apostles,: I haue strengthned the pillers thereof. For his disci­ples are the pillers and strength of truth. Whome he saith that he doth so send, as he him-selfe is sent of his father: that also he might shew the dignitie of their Apostleship, and open to all men the greatnes of their power, and with all might shew, what way they ought to follow in their studies, and in their life. For if they be so sent, as Christ is sent of his father, how is it not ne­cessarie to consider, vnto what the father sent his sonne? for so, not otherwise, they may be able to follow him. But if expoun­ding to vs the cause of his sending many waies, one while he saide: I came not to call the iust, but sinners to repentance: an other while, The holl haue no neede of the Phisitian, but such as be diseased: And moreouer, I came downe from heauen (saith he) not that I might doe mine owne will, but the will of him that sent me: And againe, God sent not his sonne into the worlde, that he should iudge or condemne the world, but that the world might be saued by him. All which thinges he signifi­ed in most few wordes, saying that he doth so send them, as he was sent by his father: that hereof they might vnderstand, [Page 54] that sinners are to be called to repentance, that they which ar diseased might be healed both in bodie and in minde. And in the dispensation of thinges they must not doe their owne will, but the will of him that sent them, and that the world by prea­ching and the doctrine of faith must be saued. All which things with what great diligence they performed, you may learne with small labour, in the booke of the Acts of the Apostles & in the Epistles of Paul. Thus farre Cyrillus whose saying if you had not clipped and gelded for your aduantage, would haue made no colour for your purpose, but against it.


And truelie it was the singular prouidence of God, that be­forē the graunt of the gouernment of mens soules to his Disciples beeing but mortal men, mention should be made of his owne right therein, that the wicked should neuer haue face to disgrace the authoritie of them, that dependeth so fullie of the soueraigne calling, and commission of Gods owne sonne. This high wisedome was practized also, to the vtter confusion of the wicked and wilfull persons, at their calling to the office of preaching and baptizing. The which function lest any contemptuous person should in such base men disdaine, Christ alledgeth his owne power and preheminence, to which the dignitie of priesthoode is so neere, and so euerlastinglie ioy­ned, that euerie dishonour and neglecting of the one, is great derogation to the other. And therefore he saith: Omnis pote­st as data est mihi in coelo & in terra. All power in heauen and Math. 28. in earth is giuen to my handes. Therefore goe you forward and teach all natious, babtizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holie Ghost. Thus before the insti­tution of sacraments, whereof God him selfe must onelie be the author (as saith Saint Cyprian) Christ voutchsafed for the quiet instruction of the world, to declare his authoritie and Serm. de bapt. Christ prerogatiue, that all men might farther vnderstand there­by, that the ministerie and excllent founction in the vse of the same, did orderlie proceed of that authoritie and supreame power, that Christ hath receiued ouer all mankind.


Cyrillus telleth you there is none other graunt of the gouernment of mens soules, contained in these [Page 55] wordes, but to be teachers of the Gospell, and to be ministers of the diuine mysteries, to preach remission of sinnes to the penitent, and to seale it vp with the sacraments, to denounce vengeance to the impenitent & vnbeleeuers, & in all things to attend, that they do not their owne wil, but the wil of him that sent them. And in so doing their authoritie is exceeding great, deriued from God him selfe, the onelie author of their Doctrine, and of the sacraments they doe mini­ster. Wherein you seeme somewhat to forget your selfe, which hitherto haue mainteined, and still af­firme, that Christ did remit sinnes, and gaue his Apo­stles authoritie to doe the same, by power receiued from God in his manhoode, and that the holie Trini­tie would not remit our sinnes otherwise, then by the seruise of the sonne of man. But now you confesse with S. Cyprian, that God himselfe, must be the onelie au­thor of Sacraments. Wherefore if this power of remit­ting sins, be a Sacrament, as you holde, Christ must be the onelie author of it, as God himselfe, & not as man, by power receiued from God, by the holie Ghost.


And this sequel of Christes reason hath maruelous efficacie and force, if we will consider thereof: All power is giuen to me both in heauen and earth, therefore goe you and preach, and baptize, and remit sinnes. If a man would aske the Priest or Apostle, how he dare be so bold to exercise any of these functi­ons? he might vpon Christes word be so bolde to make him this answere: marie sir, I baptize, because all power is giuen to Christ: I preach, because all power is giuen to Christe: I remit sins, because all power was giuen to Christ. For in my ministerie he practiseth daielie all these functions: in his power I am be­come the lawfull worker of all actions, that are so proper to Christ him selfe. Therefore it was Christ (saith Saint Augu­stine) Supertract. 4. 5. & 6. that baptized, and had moe Disciples then Iohn: and yet Christ baptized not, but his Disciples onelie. So saie you to all contemners of Gods ordinance: it is Christ that pardo­neth and enioyneth penance for mans sinnes, and yet he doth [Page 56] it not him-selfe as in his owne person, but Christ doth it daily, by the power which he established after his resurrection, and which continueth for euer in the high ministerie and seruice of the Church. Thus (I saie) doth he remit sinnes: Hunt Act. 5. principem & Saluatorem exaltauit dextra sua ad dandam poenitentiam Israeli, & remissionem peccatorum. This our Prince and Sauiour hath God exalted with his right hand, to giue penance and remission to Israell of all their sinnes. This power hath our high priest de serued for his obedience, & ther­fore as he receiued it, so he hath left it in his Church: his owne holie wordes dot protest that same. For vpon his power and sending, which he did receiue of his father, all the Priestes doe euerlastingly hold the right of al holy functions, which ells, but by Christes owne commission and sending, they could ne­uer, nor neuer durst haue practized so long.


It were a more direct sequele, for a Priest or Elder of the Church, to maintaine and defend his power, that he practizeth in preaching, baptizing, and remit­ting of sinnes, by the calling of Christ; who hath all power in heauen and in earth: for otherwise it follow­eth not, because Christ hath all power, therefore man without calling, and authoritie receiued from Christ maie execute anie part thereof. But in your applicati­on, where you saie, that Christ pardoneth and enioineth pennance for mans sinnes, in the ministerie of the Church. I graunt he pardoneth, where the power which he hath giuen to the Church, is duelie executed. But for enioining penance, in that sense that papistes doe speake it, which is a peece of satisfaction for mens sinnes, you are neuer able to prooue, that Christ either in his owne person enioyned anie, or by meane, or mi­nisterie of anie man, doth enioine such penance: and therefore the text you cire Acts the 5. is wretchedlie writhen from the true meaning, and falselie transla­ted, as I haue shewed before, by testimonies of your owne translaters, the English Rhemists, who read it thus, This Prince and sauiour, God hath exalted with his [Page 57] right hand, to giue repentance to Israell, and remission of sins. Where the text is so plaine, of the [...] conuersi­on of the Iewes vnto Christ, that they were ashamed to turne the worde poenitentia as they doe moste com­monlie (penance) by which they meane some workes of satisfaction, which are enioined to them that com­mit sinne after baptisme. As likewise Acts. II. where it is said, God then to the Gentills hath giuen repentance vnto life. Where by as good reason, and in like sense you might saie, that God hath giuen penance to the gentiles, taking penance in your popsh meaning, or els you haue greatlie abused the scripture to prooue that Christ enioineth penance by popish Priests, by that saying of the Apostles Actes. 5. whereby they meane, that God hath exalted Christ to conuert the Israelites, from Iudaisme to the Gospell, and to giue them saluation in the free remission of sinnes, which of it selfe excludeth all other satisfaction, then such as Christ him-selfe hath made, to answere the iustice of God, whose obedience hauing satisfied for our disobedience, vpon our true and vnfained repen­tance, which will appeare by the fruites thereof, we are receiued into fauour, all our sinnes being freelie forgiuen for Iesus Christes sake.


And whosoeuer seeth not how the power & iurisdiction of so excellent actions passeth from God the Father to his onelie Sonne, and from him againe to such as he hath sent, and made the messengers of his blessed minde, and disposers of mysteries, he hath no feeling at al of the waies that he wrought for mans redemption: he can not atteine to the intelligence of Christs vnction, whereby he is made our head & priest: he, in the middest of the glorious light of the Church can not beholde In Epist. sua Canonica. the practize of so he auenlie mysteries, and therefore such things as he knoweth not, he blasphemeth, saith S. Iude. But to worke all in light and order, I will build vpon the for­said, the intended conclusion, that the a duersaries maie see and behold the force of our faith, and the singular weaknes of [Page 58] their assertions, I thus ioyne with them in arguments bare­lie and plainlie without couert. That power and commission which was giuen to Christ by his heauenlie Father, concerning remission or retaining of sinnes, was giuen to the Apostles at his departure hence: But Christ him selfe did truclie, effectu­allie, and in proper forme of speach, by his Fathers sending and and commission remit sinnes: Ergo, The ministers of Christ maie, and doe truclie and perfectlie remit sinnes. Or thus more briefilie: As Christ was sent of his Father, so are the Apostles sent by Christ: But Christ was sent to forgiue sinnes: Ergo, the Apostles be fent to forgiue sinnes also. The second part of the reasons, which is, that Christ had power of his Father to remit sinnes, and was sent for the same purpose, is sussicienlie prooued in the Chapter before. The first part of the argument standeth vpon the sure ground of Christs owne wordes, which be these. Like as my Father sent me, so I doe send you. Which wordes were so plaine and so deepelie noted for this intent, of Saint Chrysostome, that with admiration of the dignitie and excellent calling of Priesthood, he thus trim­lie discourseth vpon them. I will report his saying in Latin, as Germanus Brixius hath translated it: all that speaketh for De sacer­dot. lib. 3. that purpose hereafter shall be recited, but now no more but this: Quid hoc aliud esse dicas, nisi omnium rerum coelestium potestatem illis à Deo esse concessam? Ait enim, Quorumcun (que) peccata retinueritis, retenta sunt. Quaenam obsecro potestas hac vna maior esse queat? Pater omnifariam filio potestatem dedit: caeterùm video ipsam eandem omnifariam potesiatem à Deo filio illis traditam. Nam quasi iam in coelum translati, ac supra humanam naturam positi, atque nostris ab affectibus exempti, sic illi ad principatum istum perducti sunt. And in English thus it is: What e's canst thou make of this, or what lesse, then that the power and iurisdiction of all heauenlie things is by God graunted vnto them? for it is said: whose sinnes soeuer you doe holde or reteine, they be retained. For Gods loue, what power can be giuen in the world so great? the Father bestowed all manner of power vpon his Sonne, & I finde the verie selfe same power of all thinges to be deliuered to the [Page 59] Apostles by God the Sonne. For now as though they were al readie translated out of this life to heauen, and there promoted aboue mans nature, and discharged of all our feeble affecti­ons, they are aduanced to the Princelie soueraigntie, whereof we now haue said. Thus farre Chrysostome. So doth this worthie father helpe our cause, and so doth he thinke of the excellent au­thority giuen by the father to his Sonne, & deriued from him to the ministers of his holy will & testament in earth. Whose iuris­diction so highlie holden, so truely obteined, so neerely ioyned vnto Christs honour, and so dailie practized no otherwise but in his right & name, whosoeuer shall controlle or cōremne, they not onely irreuerently touch gods annointed, but they sacrilegiously laie handes on ipsum Christum Domini, euen on him that is an­nointed aboue all his fellowes. Well, I conclud vp this matter with these few wordes of Saint Ambrose: Vult Dominus pluri­mum posse Li 1. de poe­nitent. c. 7. discipulos suos: Vult á seruis suis e a fieri in nomi­nesuo, quaefaciebat ipse positus in terris. Our lordes plea­sure is, that his disciples should haue great prerogatiue: he will haue the same thinges wrought by his seruants in his name that him-selfe did in his owne person, when he was in earth.


He that seeth not the difference of the ministerie of man from the power of God in those actions, wherein God worketh by man, gropeth in the darke, & seeth no­thing as he ought to see. Therefore, let vs come to the light of your logick, and thereby consider, if we can, the distinction of the one from the other. If the maior or first proposition of your former syllogisme, be vnder­stood of a power or commission graunted to the man­hood of Christ, such as might haue beene graunted by God to anie other meere man, then your Minor is not true, that Christ by such a power and commission onelie, setting his Godhead aside, though truelie and effectuallie, yet not in proper forme ofspeach, by his fathers sending and commission remitted sinnes for then could he not be the author of remission of sinnes, but onelie a minister thereof: and therefore in proper forme ofspeach, he could not be said to forgiue sinnes, [Page 60] which is proper onely to god, but to preach the forgiue nes of sinnes, in Gods name, or to testifie that God did forgiue sinnes, as the ministers of the Church do. Butif the Maior be vnderstood, of such power & commission as was giuen to Christ, as the Mediator, in respect of his manhood, but yet such, as he couldnot receiue & exercise, but in respect of his godhead, & such as could not be graunted to any, but vnto that person which is God & man, such is the absolute & principall power of remission of sinnes, then I denie that such power was giuen to the Apostles at his departure. For when Christ him-selfe did truelie, effectuallie, and in proper forme of speech remit sinnes, he did it as God, hauing equal, and principall authoritie with the father, and the ho­lie ghost so to do. The conclusion of your second syllo­gisme, I graunt, that the Apostles were sent to for­giue sinnes, but retaining the former distinction, of the authoritie of God, and the ministerie of man. For as Christ was sent of his father to preach the remission of sinnes, so were the Apostles sent by Christ to preach remission of sinnes: therefore such power as he had, by preaching onely of remission of sinnes, to forgiue sinnes such power be graunted to his Apostles, whome he ordained preachers in his place: but the proper pow er of his deity he graunted not, nor any power which is proper to the person of the Mediator God and man. Theresore these wordes of Christ, As the father sent me, so send I you, must not be extended further then our sauiour Christ in that place meaneth. For els infinite absurdities might be concluded thereof, as that he sent his Apostles to redeeme the world, to die for the sinnes of the world, to be sauiours of the world, &c. or that he sendeth all ministers of the Church, to whome this commission extendeth, to clense leapers to raise the dead, to giue sight to the blinde, and to do all other miracles, that he was sent to do. According to this distinction, that Rhetoricall amplification of [Page 61] Chrisostome, is to be vnderstood: and doubtles won­derfull great is the authoritie, that man doth exer­cise in the name of God, although that which is pe­culiar to God, be not attributed to men. The simili­tude that Chrysostome vseth in the same chapter, Lib. 3. cap. 5. of a King graunting power to one of his sub­iects, to imprison men, and to release them, sheweth that he knew the difference of the Lord, from the ser­uant, who if he abuse the authoritie committed vnto him, deserueth sharpe punishment, and therefore hath not absolute authoritie, to do all things as his Lord, and can not transgresse in doing. And in the next Chapter he sheweth, that Priestes do exercise this power of forgiuing sinnes, by teaching, admo­nition, and by praier. Not onelie by teaching and ad­monishing, but also by the helpe of praiers: and a ma­nifest difference sheweth Saint Ambrose, when he saith, Christ would haue his disciples to do in his name the same thinges which he did on earth, partlie in his fathers name, and partlie in his owne name.

The power of priesthood touching remission of sinnes prooued by the solemne action of Christ, in breathing vpon his Apostles, and giuing them thereby the ho­lie Ghost.



THe commission and power that our Master Christ re­ceiued of his euerlasting father, being in moste ample manner communicated with the Apostles, made great proofe and euidence for the right that they claime in remission of sinnes: but the present power of Gods spirit breathed by Christ vpon them, and giuen vnto them for the ministerie and execu­tion of that function, helpeth our matter so much, that who­so euer now denieth this authoritie of the Apostles, concerning the pardoning of our offences, doth not so much sinne against [Page 62] the sonne of man, which of it selfe is greeuous inough, as he doth controll the worke of the spirit of Christ, which is the ho­lie Ghost, in whome both he and his Church doth remit sinnes. The more plaine and more exact our master Christ was in the bestowing of that power to remit and retaine sinnes, the more is our contempt in the disobedience and deniall thereof. He sendeth them [...] with his owne authoritie in this case: he giueth them the verie spirit of God, by whose diuine power they maie execute the function to which he called them: he giueth them the expresse warrant of his owne word, that sinnes they might pardon and punish: and yet we make doubt of their vsurpation. But how they might forgiue sinnes by Christes sen­ding, we haue alreadie said.

Now for the holie Ghostes power and prerogatiue in the same action, which was breathed on the Apostles, we must further conferre with such as call in question matters so plaine. And first I am in goodhope, that no man will denie, but Christ gaue them the holie ghost for no other purpose so much, as to remit sinnes: Secondlie, I doubt not of their faith and be­liese in this point, but they will confesse the holie ghost to be of power by nature and proprietie to forgiue sinnes: Thirdlie, I claime of their sinceritie thus much more, that Christ being as well God as man, was well able, for the furniture of their cal­ling, to giue them the holie ghost: all which being confessed of all men, and denied of no Christian aline, how the conclu­sion, so beset with all proofe on euerie side, standeth not, let the aduersaries tell me. In the Apostles there can be no lack touching that officie, for the execution whereof they receaued both Christes commission first, and the holie spirit of God af­terwarde: In Christ there can be no default, who was well able to giue, and in deade did giue the holie ghost: In the holie ghost there can be no let nor lacke, whose power is infinie, and his verie proprietie to remit sinnes. All thinges then standing on so safe and sure groundes, the giuer, the gift, and the re­ceiuer competent, and fullie answereable each to other on e­uerie side, let the discontented ioyne in argument, let him alledge, why the Priests so authorized by Christ, and [Page 63] so assured of the holie Ghost, maie not either pardon or forgiue penance. Neuer man auouched that he exercised the high a­ction vpon his owne authoritie: but, that he maie not, as a mi­nister and seruant, practize it vpon the warrant of Christ, and present power of the holie Ghost, that no faithfull person can affirme, nor anie reasonable man stand in.


The commission that our sauiour Christ receiued