[A treatise against the Defense of the censure, giuen upon the bookes of W.Charke and Meredith Hanmer, by an unknowne popish traytor in maintenance of the seditious challenge of Edmond Campion ... Hereunto are adjoyned two treatises, written by D.Fulke ... ] 1586 Approx. 1974 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 471 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A18441 STC 5009 ESTC S111939 99847199 99847199 12222

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A18441) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 12222) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 191:01) [A treatise against the Defense of the censure, giuen upon the bookes of W.Charke and Meredith Hanmer, by an unknowne popish traytor in maintenance of the seditious challenge of Edmond Campion ... Hereunto are adjoyned two treatises, written by D.Fulke ... ] Charke, William, d. 1617, attributed name. Fulke, William, 1538-1589. [1+], 359, 531 [i.e. 505], [4], 54 p. Thomas Thomas, [Cambridge : 1586] In two parts. Part 1 is an anonymous treatise (attributed to William Charke) against Parsons, Robert. "A defence of the censure gyuen vpon two bookes of w. Charke and M. Hanmner against E. Campian" (STC 19401). Part 2 consists of two treatises written by William Fulke, the one against Allen, William. "A treatise made in defence of the lauful power and authoritie of priesthod to remitte sinnes" (STC 372) and the other against Frarinus, Petrus. "An oration against the vnlavvfull insurrections of the protestantes of our time" (STC 11333). Register from part 1 to part 2a and from part 2a to part 2b is not continuous. Title page lacking; title from British Museum Catalogue. Imprint from STC. Part 1 caption title ([1st] page 43) reads: An overthrovve of the ansvvere to Master Charkes preface, touching Discerning of Spirites. Part 2a has separate title page ([2nd] page 1), readings: A confutation 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. By William Fvlke. Part 2b has separate title page (recto of first unnumbered leaf preceeding last pagination) reads: An apologie of the professors of the gospel in Fraunce against the railing declamation of Peter Frarine a Louanian turned into English by Iohn Fowler. Written by William Fulke. Part 2a is mispaginated; final page 531 is actually page 505. Imperfect; title page lacking. Reproduction of the original in University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610. -- Defence of the censure gyven upon two bookes of w. Charke and M. Hamner against E. Campian -- Early works to 1800. Allen, William, 1532-1594. -- Treatise made in defence of the lauful power and authoritie of priesthod to remitte sinnes -- Early works to 1800. Frarinus, Petrus. -- Oration against the unlawful insurrections of the protestantes of our time -- Early works to 1800. Campion, Edmund, -- Saint, 1540-1581 -- Early works to 1800. 2000-00 Assigned for keying and markup 2001-07 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2001-10 Sampled and proofread 2001-11 Rekeyed and resubmitted 2002-05 Sampled and proofread 2002-05 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-06 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
FAVLTES ESCAPED IN THE first Booke.

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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

FAVLTES ESCAPED IN THE second booke.

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.

TO THE READER.

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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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. Rewarde Apoc. 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, 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 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: 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 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 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 shameles See 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 plainlie see, that we stande for trueth against 〈◊〉 and heresie, and if anie do wauer in opinion vpon so manifest euidence of trueth, he 〈1 line〉 iudgement, without that we stand 〈1 line〉 of triall, that are readie to abide 〈1 line〉 stand with our duetie, and is 〈1 line〉 demonstration of trueth. As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you doe once againe require, that 〈1 line〉 obteine for you, whatsoeuer you 〈1 line〉 , 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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, then the Canons of the Apostles? which excommunicate Can. 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, 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 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 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, & eternall Ihon. 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 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, neither Luther 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 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: 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 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 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) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &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 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 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 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 ordinem Theodoret. 〈◊〉 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 was Luc. 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 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 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 & in iis locis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The garment of Iohn was wouen of camelsheares, like vnto that, which of camels we commonlie 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 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 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 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. 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, cating Catech. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth a rewarde, whether it be freelie giuen, or deserued by laboure. To him that worketh, saith Saint Paule, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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: 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, 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 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 (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 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 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 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 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, 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 the Cont. lib. 〈◊〉 . 2. c. 51 euill 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, 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 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 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 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 that Cont. 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 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 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 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.

AGAINST THE DEFENSE.

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 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 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, & 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 & 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 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, 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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, 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 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 is no sinne, but vnbeleefe, as our sauiour Christ sayth to the Pharisies, if you were blinde, you should haue no sinne; and of Ioh 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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: 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 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. 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; 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, 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 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 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 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 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: habitare Serm. 〈◊〉 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 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, 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 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 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 eximium Exegis. 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 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 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 neuer Such 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 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 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. 〈◊〉 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 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 eundem In epst. 1. Pet. 1. the saurum à Deo, bonaque omnia tam largiter quàm ipsi. Siquidem & ipsosnon secus atque nos renasci oportuit: 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 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 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 potuit Assert. art. 36. apertius dici? si via sua & gressus sui non sint in potestate hominis, quomodo via Dei & gressus dei erunt in potestate eius? 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 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 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. 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, 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 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? 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 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. 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. For Rash 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 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 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 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. Ibi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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 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 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 〈1 line〉 for him-selfe in the treatise often named, pag. 44. &c. 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. 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. 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 hath not communicated those thinges which he had, is condem ned. Basills wordes in Greek are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 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 aliter in 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 26 possibilia 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 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 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 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 differeth nothing in vehemency from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 carnis Lib. 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, 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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 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. 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 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, 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) 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 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 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 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 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. 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? (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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 〈1 line〉 . 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 〈◊〉 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, 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 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 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 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 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 compare the hereticall wresting, and detorting of scripture, vnso Orth. 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 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 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 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 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 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.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

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 (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 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 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 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.

LAVS DEO.

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.

BY WILLIAM FVLKE.

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. ALLEN.

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.

FVLKE.

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 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.

ALLEN.

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.

FVLKE.

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 word and Sacraments vpon earth.

ALLEN.

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.

FVLKE.

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 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.

ALLEN.

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.

FVLKE.

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 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.

ALLEN.

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- 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.

FVLKE.

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. 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.

ALLEN.

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, and Li. 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 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.

FVLKE.

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. 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.

ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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.

ALLEN.

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 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.

ALLEN.

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 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 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.

FVLKE.

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 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.

THE FIRST CHAP. ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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 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.

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.

FVLKE.

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.

ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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 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.

ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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 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,

ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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 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 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.

ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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, 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.

ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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 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 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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.

FVLKE.

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 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, 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, 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 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.

ALLEN.

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 (saith he) operatus est virtuies, dicens: Si ego in spiritu dei De 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, 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 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 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.

ALLEN.

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.

FVLKE.

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 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.

THE SECOND CHAP. ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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 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.

ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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, 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 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.

ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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 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 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, 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.

FVLKE.

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, 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, 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.

ALLEN.

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.

FVLKE.

Cyrillus telleth you there is none other graunt of the gouernment of mens soules, contained in these 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.

ALLEN.

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 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.

FVLKE.

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 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.

ALLEN.

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 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 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.

FVLKE.

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, 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 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 THIRD CHAP. ALLEN.

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 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 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.

FVLKE.

The commission that our sauiour Christ receiued in his manhood to preach remission of sinnes, was by him committed to his Apostles, but in such ample manner, as Christ had power to remit sinnes, it is not prooued, that Christ did communicate the same with his Apostles. The visible signe of breathing, by which our sauiour Christ testified, that he did giue them the holie Ghost, declareth that they were enabled with spirituall giftes, to exercise their function, the chiefe and principall end whereof, was to pronounce in his name remission of sinnes to the beleeuers of the Gospell, and condemnation to the contemners. And this authoritie of the Apostles, concerning the pardoning of our offences, I know no man that denieth. And therefore you spend vainlie the one halfe of your booke'in proouing that which no man doth denie, namely, that the Apostles and their lawful succesiours had, and haue power, by Christes graunt, to remitte or to retaine sinnes. The matters in question are these. 1. Whither Popish Priestes be the lawful successours of the Apostles. 2. What manner of power is this which is graunted. and thirdly, How it is to be exercised, by Preaching the gospell, or by Popish absolution and pardons. For we denie your shauelings, for the most part vnlearned, to be the Priests or elders of the Church of god, towhome this power is deriued from the Apostles: we denie an absolute power to be graunted, but a ministerie of testification, and assurance of that which God onelie doth properlie and principallie. Thirdly we deny that by Popish shrift, absolution, and pardons, this power is to be exercised, but by preaching of the Gospell, whereunto are annexed the sacraments, as seales of the doctrine. These questions would haue beene directlie handled, without such a tedious discourse, to prooue confuselie the power that is graunted by Christ to his Apostles, which is not denied: but the kinde of power about which you wander vncertainly, somtimes making it to be a meere ministery & seruice vnder god, the onelie worker therein: sometime more then obscurelie insinuating, that it is the verie same authoritie, and none other but the same, which Christ did exercise vpon earth, and now hath committed it ouer, or communicated it to Priestes, as though he were bound to stand to their sentence, in remitting or retaining sinnes, or that they might remit as well as he, and he must accept whatsoeuer they do in that case.

But seeing you wil not go directlie to worke, we must follow you in your crooked path, as well as we maie. And for the first part of your conference, where you are in good hope that no man wil deny, but Christ gaue them the holy ghost for no other purpose so much as to remit sinnes, I must say vnto you for my parte, that forasmuch as remission of sinnes is the principall scope of preaching the Gospel, they were indued with giftes of the holie ghost, especially to call men to repentance & forgiuenes of sinnes, and to assure the repentant and beleeuers of the remission of sinnes, by that authoritie and commission which they receaued of Christ. But if you meane, that Christ gaue them the holie ghost, for no other purpose so much, as that they should heare mens shrift, and giue them absolution in such forme of wordes, as your Popish Priests do vse, without preaching the gospell to them, and setting forth the grace of god in Iesus Christ, I denie that they receaued the holy ghost for any such purpose. The other two partes I graunt: but I know not what is your conclusion. If you wil conclude, that they haue power to remit sinnes, I graunt it, neither do I know anie man that denyeth it: But if you meane to conclude thus; because the holy Ghost which was giuen to the Apostles, is of power by nature, & proprietie to forgiue sins, therefore the Apostles did as properlie forgiue sins as god himselfe, I denie your consequence. And it seemeth you meane such a matter, when you saie, In the holie Ghost, there can be no let nor lacke, whose power is infinite, and his verie propertie to remit sinnes: which is verie true: but yet it followeth not thereof, that whosoeuer is endued with the holie Ghost, hath infinite power, and maie properlie remit sinnes. For the holie Ghost is giuen in measure to all men, not that his substance is diuisible, that it maie be apportionated, but that his gifts are distributed by him selfe, in such measure, as the wisdome of God seeth to be moste conuenient. His essence is infinit and incomprehensible, but he is said in Scripture to be present with them, or in them, on whome he bestoweth his graces and giftes. Therefore I see not what consequence can be made of the holy ghostes infinit power, and verie propertie to remit sins, to conclude that the Apostles, which receiued the holie Ghost, rereiued infinite power, or the verie propertie to remitre sinnes.

Where you will the discontented to ioyne in argument, why the Priest so authorized by Christ, and so assured of the holy Ghost may not either pardon, or giue penance, Thus I ioyne with you: For remitting of sinnes I see authoritie: but for giuing of penance, none: therefore I graunt the former, and denie the latter. For if by penance true repentance be vnderstood god onelie can giue repentance, who onelie can turne the heart of man to feare him. If you meane popish penance, that is enioyning of satisfactorie works or punishment, I denie that it is mentioned in the scriptures, neither can it be contained in retaining of sinne. Where you saie, that neuer man aduouched that high action vpon his owne authoritie, it is vntrue: for Antichrist, that lifteth him-selfe to be equall with God and Christ, auoucheth vpon his owne authoritie, although to cloke his manifest impietie, & that he might deceiue the simple, he pretendeth the name & authoritie of God & Christ. But that the Apostles and their true successours, by the warrant of Christ, & his power receiued by the holy ghost, maie as ministers & seruants remit or retaine sins, we do most willinglie consent and confesse. But then they practise this power as seruants, when they beinterpreters and declarers of the Lordes will and pleasure, and require not that God should followe their sentence, or attend how they be affected to forgiue or retaine, and so to subscribe vnto their doing: for that is an Antichristian vsurpation, farre from the meaning of that power. which Christ did graunt to his A postles.

ALLEN.

Some holie writers vpon this text of S. Iohn, in which the order of Christes authorizing his Apostles for the remission of sinnes is described, doe dispute of the difference of giuing the holie Ghost then to his Disciples, and afterward on Whitsondaie: some note the eternall ceremonie that our Master vsed, when he gaue them the holie spirit, which was by breathing on them, that such outward actions might both be an euidence to them of that excellent gift, which they inwardlie then receiued, and should further be an euerlasting instruction to the Church, that Gods grace and giftes be often ioyned to externall elements for the solace of our nature, that delighteth to haue our outward man schooled, as wel as the inward man nourished. These and manie things moe be of profitable remembrance and consideration, but not so much to our purpose. Therefore let vs see, whether the iudgement of the holie Fathers doe not wholie helpe our present cause, prouing the Priests ministerie, through the holie Ghostes authoritie, that our declaration standing on the plaine wordes of scripture with their vndoubted sense, maie obtaine inuincible force against the aduersaries, & worthie credit of the true beleeuers.

FVLKE.

If you had expressed what the writers are, that thus dispute or discourse vpon this text, we might better haue considred, how pertinent or impertinent their opinions are to our matter in controuersie. S. Chrysost. seemeth to allowe the opinion of some, and Euthymius plainely affirmeth the same, that the Apostles at this time did not presentlie receiue the holie ghost, but onelie were prepared, or made capable thereof, which if it were true, is contrarie to the title of your Chapter. I like better of Cyrillus iudgement. which thinketh they presentlie receiued the holie Ghost in some measure, but not so plentifullie, nor with such diuersitie of giftes, as on the daie of Pentecost. That the grace of God is testified, assured, and sealed vp vnto vs, for the help of our infirmitie, by outward signes, and externall elementes ioined thereto, we know & confesse: but as for the solace of our nature, or delight to haue our outward man schooled, I knowe not what they meane. It is great mercie of God to beare with our weakenes, but it agreeth not with the discipline of the Gospell, that we should delight in outward thinges, but rather to exercise our faith, in spirituall and heauenlie meditations.

ALLEN.

We will make our entrance first with Saint Cyrill, whoe debating with himselfe vppon the incomparable authoritie and power giuen to the Apostles for remission of sinnes, standeth first as in contention with him selfe, and with Christs words, how it maie be, that they being but men, should forgiue the sinnes of our soules, being sure of this, that it is the propertie onelie of the true & liuing god to assoile vs of our sinnes, against whom onlie all sins be properlie committed. And therfore being not of stomake, as men be now a daies, to denie that, which Christes words so plainelie do import, he made answere, that the Apostles were in deed deified, and made, as you would saie, partakers Cap. 50. l. 12. in Io interpre. Trapezun. of Gods nature to worke Gods owne office in the world. Qua igitur ratione (saieth he) diuinae naturae dignitatem ac potestatem discipulis suis saluator largitus est? Quia certè absurdum non est peccata remitti posse ab illis, qui Spiritum sanctum in seipsis habeant. Nam cùm ipsi remmittunt aut detinent, spiritus qui habitat in eis, remittit & detines. By what meanes did our Sauiour giue vnto the Apostles the preheminence and power of Gods owne nature? Surelie because it agreeth verie well, that they should rimit mans sins, that haue in themselues the holie Ghost. For when they assoile or retaine sins, it is the holie spirit that dwelleth in them, which by their ministery doth remit or retaine sins. Thus he. I maruell not now whie this same father termeth the Apostles sometimes protectores & curatores animarum & corporum, the protectors & curers both of bodies & soules: it is not strange whie S. Ambrose should call the order of priestood, Ordinem 〈◊〉 : Neither that he should terme, Officium Sacerdotis, munus S. S. The Lib. 6. cont. Jul. De Sacerd. Priests office, to be the function of the holie Ghost. No, I doe not wonder at some of our forefathers, that, in the admiration of Gods Maiestic, which they same to be so present in the execution of so high in office, they did simplie and plainely terme the principall Pastours of the Church halfe Gods, and not meere men: not hauing respect to their persons, which be compassed with infirmities as other the sinfull sort of people in the world be, but casting eie vpward to the holie and excellent function, which they practised by the spirit of God, which dwelleth in them, and deifieth their persons, to make them of habilitie to exercise the workes of God.

FVLKE.

Saint Cyrill is farre from that blasphemie, to saie that the Apostles were in deede deified, and made partakers of Gods nature, to worke Gods owne office in the world. For, ascribing to God that which is proper to him, & incommunicable to anie meere creature, he maketh this obiection: how our sauiour did graunt to his disciples the dignitie & power of his diuine nature: & answereth, that they were only made ministers & instruments In Ioh. Ho. 25. of the holy ghost, to expresse his power in remitting sinnes, by baptisme, and repentance: whereof S. Chrysostome also saieth vpon the same text, that the Priest giueth onelie his tongue, and his hand, but the Father, the sonne, and the holie Ghost doth all things in this case. I will rehearse the whole saying of Cyrillus, that his iudgement maie more fullie appeare vpon this text. Et certè solius veri Dei est, &c. And suerlie it pertaineth to the onelie true God, that he is able to loose men from their sinnes. For to what other person is it lawfull, to deliuer the transgressors of the law from sinne, but to the author of the law him-selfe? for so in mennes affaires we see it to be done. For no man without punishment doth reprooue the lawes of Kings, but the Kinges them-selues, in whome the crime of transgression hath no place. For it is wiselie said, that he is implous, which shall saie to a King, thou doest vniustlie. By what meanes then did our Sauiour graunt to his disciples the dignitie and power of the diuine nature? because trulie it is not absurde, that sinnes may be remitted by them, which haue the holie ghost in them-selues. For when they remit or retaine, the spirit which dwelleth in them, remitteth or retaineth by them. And that shalbe by them, as I thinke, by two meanes: first by baptisme, and then by repeatence: for either they induce men that beleeve, and are approoued for holines of life, vnto baptisme, and diligentlie expill from them that are vnworthie; or where the children of the Church doe offend, they rebuke them indeede, and pardon them that repent. As Paul did once commit the fornicator among the Corinthians, vnto the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit might be saued, and receiued him againe, lest he should be drowned with greater sorrowe. Therefore when the spirit of Christ, dwelling in men, performeth the worke of the true God, how shall he not be God by nature, which naturallie possesseth the power and dignitie of the diuine nature, when he hath so excellent authority vpon the lawe of God. This last argument of Saint Cyrill, by which he prooueth against the Macidonian heretikes, that the holie Ghost is verie God, declareth that he neuer meant to deifie Priests, with the same authority that is proper to god, by which it should follow, that the holie Ghost were not God, if men had that authority of remitting sin, that god hath: wherefore it followeth, that men are onely instruments by which the holie ghost speaketh & declareth his own will of remission of sins, & not that the holie Ghost is subiect to the Censure of man, which were intollerable blasphemie. And therefore if the same father did anie where cal the ministers of the Church, protectours an̄d curers both of bodies and soules, it cannot be drawne to anie such meaning, as though they were in deede deified, and made, as you would saie, partakers of Gods nature, to worke Gods owne office in the world, but the ministers of God, appointed to serue for the eternall saluation of the Elect, both in bodie and soule. Their order is diuine, and they exercise the office of the holie ghost, as S. Ambrose saith, but yet so, that nothing is communicated vnto man, that is proper to God. Who they were that did simplie and plainlie tearme the principall Pastours of the Church halfe gods, & not meere men, you do not expresse: perhaps you meane the Author of that blasphemous verse, writen to the the Pope, and by him not refused, Nec Deus es, nec homo, quasi neuter es inter vtrumque. Thou art neither god nor man, but a neuter between both. I finde in the scripture, that ciuil princes are called not halfe Gods, but whole Gods, because they execute some parte of Gods authoritie among men. Yet he that shall saie their persons̄ are therebie deified, might well be accounted a most blaspemous flatterer. We may now see, out of what pudle, the toades of the familie of Loue are crept, that vpon pretence of the spirit of god dwelling in men, moste blasphemouslie affirme, that it deifieth their persons, to make them of abilitie to exercise the workes of God. whereas the power of remitting of sinnes, is graunted euen to wicked Priestes, in which the holie Ghost dwelleth not, although he hath bestowed his giftes vpon them, to make them sufficient in knowledge and vtterance to preach the gospell.

ALLEN.

But Saint Ambrose helpeth our matter with a long discourse. all I will not now reporte: for the present purpose, thus he saith, disputing against the Nouarians, for the assertion of Priestly Cap. 2. l. 1. De poen. dignitie in assoyling our sinnes: Qui Spiritum sanctum accipit, sic enim scriptum est: Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis, & quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt. Ergo qui soluere peccatum non potest, non habet Spiritum sanctum. Munus spiritus sancti est officium sacerdotis, ius autem spiritus sancti in soluendis ligandis que criminib. est. He thatreceiueth the holy ghost (his meaning is in the taking of orders) receiueth therewith the power to binde and loose. For so is it written, Receiue you the holie Ghost: whose sinnes you doe forgiue, they are forgiuen them, whose sinnes you doe reseine, they are reteined. Therefore they which cannot forgiue mens offences, they haue not the holie ghost (that is to saie, they haue not the gift of the holie Ghost, which is giuen to the officers for their execution of their function in Christes behalfe) for the gift of the holie Ghost is the office of the priest: and proper right of remission of sinnes standeth in the holie Ghost. Thus wrote Saint Ambrose against the heretikes of his time, and both toucheth and ouer ouercommeth all the falsehoode of our daies, against the minesterie of man, which so ioyneth Gods spirit in all these diuine functions, that it cannot, without blasphemie and special contempt of God, be contemned.

FVLKE.

S. Ambr. helpeth your matter neuera whit, if you be not content with a mynistery, a seruise, a power subiect to the wil of God. But you wil be halfe gods, and more then men: you wil haue your persons deified, you wilbe able to exercise the proper works of God. For S. Ambr. reasoneth against the Nouatians, which would take vpō them to binde them that were fallen, but would not loose them, nor receue them againe into the Church vpon their repētance: signifying that the power of the one is as wel graunted to the Church, as of the other, & that it was as proper to God to reteine sinnes, as it was to forgiue them: so that if they renounced the one, they must renounce the other also, by the same reason: for it is the proper right of the holie ghost, to doe the one as well as the other. And the Nouatian heretikes were found transgressours of Gods commaundement, who willeth the repentant to be loosed, as well as the obstinate offender to be bound. Ambrose therefore sayeth nothing for the deifying of mens persons, but for the executing of gods commaundement of mercy, as well as of iustice.

ALLEN.

But I remember Saint Augustine, the Churches great Captaine against her aduersaries of those daies, did euer in Contra pelagianes, Manicheos, & Donatist. passim. disputation against the Pelagians and other like enemies of faith, make the greatest accoumpt of victorie, and their ouerthrow, when they were driuen to denie that, which euer before had beene not onelie acknowledged of all men for trueth, but also had beene vsed as a graunted trueth, ground, and principle, for the notable euidence thereof, to the impugning of other falsehoodes. For there can be no doubt, but that which our holie Fathers did vse without controlling and contradiction euen of their aduersaries, to impugne their aduersaries withall, there is no doubt, but that it hath in it selfe exceeding much light and force of trueth, as a thing hauing so litle neede of proofe, that it may be made and taken for a probation of other matters that be doubtefull and vncertaine. The matter which we haue now in hand is of that sort. For the authoritie and power practized of priests in the vertue of the holie Ghost, hath euer beene in it selfe bòth so plaine and so firme, that the holie fathers haue vsed it, as a ground, to prooue against heretikes of Eunomius, and Macedonius sectc, the Godhheade of the holie Ghost, the third person in Trinitie.

FVLKE.

You remember Saint Augustine, but you can rehearse nothing that he saith touching this matter, to confirme the deifying of your poeticall Popish halfe gods, the Popish Faunes, and Satyres, saue onelie the generall argument of vniuersall consent, and practize: which if it be denyed you, you are at a stale, til you can prooue it. You saide that priests as deified persons, halfe Gods, not meere men, had abilitie to exercise the proper workes of God. For otherwise the lawfull power, and practize of remitting sinnes, is so sufficientlie authorized by the words of the Gospel, that it neede not be vnderproped, with Saint Augustines generall argument, wherein yet he neuer placed so great force, as you affirme of him.

ALLEN.

S. Bernard is too young, good man, to name amongst these olde fathers of our new Church, els, perdie, with the vertuous, his wordes sound full sweetelie. Thus saith he to prooue the equalitie Serm. 1. Pentecost. of the holie Ghost with the Father and the sonne: Sicut in nobis interpellas pro nobis, ita a in patre: & delicta donatcum ipso Patre: & vt omnino scias, quòd remissionem peccatorum spiritus sanctus operatur, audi, quod aliquando audierunt Apostoli: Accipite Spiritum sanctum: quorum remiserit is peccata, remittuntur eis. In English thus: Like as in vs he maketh sute for vs, so in the father he pardoneth sinnes with the father: and that thou maiest vnderstande, that the holy Ghost worketh remission of sinnes, hear that which she Apostles once heard: Receiue you the holie Ghost: whose sins you doe forgiue, they are forgiuen. Thus he. And Saint Ambrose his auncient, to prooue the holie Ghost to be God, alledgeth, that he remitteth sins by the priests ministerie, which he could not in any wise doe, if he were not in all pointes equall and omnipotent God with the father and sonne: Let vs see, (saith he) Whether the holie Ghost doth pardon sinnes: and he answereth him-selfe thus: Sedhinc dubitari non potest: cùm ipse Dominus dixerit, Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorum remiseritis Lib. 3. de Sp. S. Cap. 19. peccata, remittuntur: ecce quia per spiritum sanctum peccata donantur, homines autem in remissionem peccatoris ministerium suum exhibent, non ius alicuius potestatis exercent. It is thus much to saie: There can be no doubt thereof, seeing our Lord saide, Receiue you the holie Ghost: whose sinnes you doe forgiue, they shalbe forgiuen: lookeye, that by the holie Ghost sinnes be forgiuen: men doe but exercise their seruice and ministerie, and claime not the right of power and principalitie therein. And Saine Basill vpon this assured ground Lib. 5. frameth in full forme against Eunomius this argument: Dominus sanctis Apostolis insufflans, inquit, Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorumcunque dimittetis peccata, dimittentur eis: siergo nullius est peccata dimittere, nisi solius Dei, dimittit autem spiritus sanctus per Apostolos: Deus ergo spiritus sanctus. Our lord breathing on the Apostles, said, take ye the holy ghost: for whose sinnes soeuer you shall pardon, they be pardoned: therefore if it be the onelie proprietie of God to forgiue sinnes, and the holie Ghost so doth by the Apostles: Ergo, the holie Ghost is truelie God.

FVLKE.

Saint Bernarde is not to be despised for his youth, where he agreeth with the most auncient and eternall truth, reuealed in the holie scriptures. His purpose is to prooue the equallity of the holy ghost with the father and the sonne, and prooueth it by his effects, because he forgiueth sinnes, which is proper to God. His saying, Hom. de Pentecost. 1. is mangled by you, I know not for what purpose, except you follow some Iesuites dictates, more then your owne reading. But in trueth, there is nothing which can prooue the deification of priests, but contrariwise, that it is the holie Ghost that properlie remitteth sinnes, of whose pleasure, according to the holie scriptures, the priestes are but interpreters and reporters.

As for the saying of Saint Ambrose, is flat against you, if you had not falsified it in translation. For you traslate, Exhibent ministerium, non ius alicuius potestatis exercent, They doe but exercise their seruice and ministerie, and claime not the right of power and principallitie. Where you should saie; men doe exhibit or yeald their ministerie or seruise, they exercise not the right of any power. And he addeth a reason which you omit. Ne que enim in suo, sed in patris, & filii, &. SS. nomine peccata dimittuntur. Isti rogant, diuinitas donat: humanum enim obsequium, sed munificentia supernae est potestatis. For sins are not forgiuen in their name, but in the name of the father, and of the sonne, & of the holie Ghost. These men do intreate, the godhead doth graunt: for the seruice is mans, but the bowntiful gift is of the highest power. Saint Basill also, if his wholl saying were recited, would appeare more manifest against you, as he maketh, vpon your owne report, no shew at all for you. His wordes are these against Eunomius. Lib. 5. Cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. It is proper to God to forgiue sinnes, he him-selfe affirming the same: I am he which putteth away thy sinnes: if your sinnes were as purple, I will make them as white as snow, and if they were as scarlet, I will make them as white as woll. Afterward when God, the sonne of God, Iesus forgiueth sinnes to the man sicke of the palsie, saying, sonne, thy sinnes are forgiuen thee, whereupon he was thought to blaspheme of the Iewes, which knew not that he was God, saying: that this man blasphemeth, for it perteineth to none to forgiue sinnes, but to god alone. But our Lord breathing vpon his holie Apostles said, receiue the holie ghost: whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen to them. If therfore it perteineth to none to forgiue sinnes (as it doth not) but onelie to God, and the holy ghost by the Apostles forgiueth, then the holy ghost is God, and of the same efficacie and power with the father and the sonne. In this saying of Saint Basil, you haue not onelie omitted the former parte, which ascribeth the power of forgiuing of sinnes as proper to God, but also haue gelded out these wordes, in that parte you alledge, both in your latine and English translation ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) as in deede it is not) of what purpose, let the indifferent reader iudge.

ALLEN.

Thus you perceiue that the ground of this our faith and assertion was of olde accounted so sure, that it was a singular aide and for tresse of faith against the vnfaithfull attemptes of most wicked persons in diuerse ages. The onelie practize that priests vse, by the Sacrament of penance to pardon sinnes, was a full proofe that the holie ghost was God, by whose authoritie and proper power, they did alwaies since Christs word was spoken, remitte the same. The which beeing true (as it cannot be false, that is so agreeable both to scriptures and to all our fathers faith) the heresy of our time must needes directly impugne the vertue and power of Gods owne spirit. For as the proofe of mans ministerie in this foresaid function induceth the true and euerlasting Godhead of the holy ghost, by whome they practize that power, so the denial thereof, and robberie of priesthoode of this their moste iust claime, doth directlie spoile God of his honour, and of the euerlasting right that he hath in remission of sinnes. So whiles these goodmen seeke to abase man vniustlie, they blaspheme God highlie, and together with mans ministerie, they bring vnto vtter contempt Gods owne authoritie.

FVLKE.

Your deifying of popish priests, doth altogether weaken the force of that argument, which our fathers vsed against the auncient heretikes, to prooue the diuinitie of the holie Ghost. For it were an easie matter for Eunomius, Macedonius, or anie other heretike, that was against his godhead, to replie, that by ministerie of God, the holie Ghost might as properlie forgiue sinnes, as Priestes do by the ministerie of Christ, and of the holie ghost: yea so farre forth, as thereby they are made halfe Gods, yea deified, and made Gods in deede. But you vtter repugnancie, when you saie, that, by Gods authoritie and proper power, Priestes do forgiue sinnes. Where you make it not proper to God, which is common to others with him. Therefore you should speake more properlie to saie, that God the holy ghost by his owne authoritie and power proper to the deitie, doth forgiue sinnes in their ministery, & men thereto authorized, do no more, in proper speach and sense, but testifie and declare what God doth: for which declaration, and testification, seeing they are the embassadours and messengers of God vnto the world, to declare his pleasure of reconciliation or condemnation, they are said to forgiue sinnes, or to retaine them which they do not properlie, but pronounce the sentence of God concerning the remission or retention of mens sinnes. And that this was the meaning of the Auncient fathers concerning the authoritie and power of Gods ministers, it is moste manifest by this argument, whereby they choke the enuier of the holie ghostes diuinitie: from which you cutte of all the sinnewes and force it hath to prooue it, when you communicate to men, that which is proper to God, and aduance men aboue the nature of meere men, when you deifie their persons, by meanes of the giftes of the holie Ghost giuen to them, and make them of abilitie to exercise the proper workes of God. As for the deniall and robberie that you ascribe, I can not tell to what heretikes of this time, we detest as much as ye, not seeking to abase man beneath the nature and condition of man, norseeking to extoll him, by robbing God of his glorie, and proper effects, to magnifie menne, to deifie the persoas of men, as you do in plaine termes. Whereby it is manifest we are as far from blaspheming god, or making mans ministerie contemptible, which he exerciseth in the name of God, as you are from sobrietie thus to iudge, if your meaning be of vs, or thus to reason, if you would defend the argument of the auncient fathers against the auncient heretikes.

ALLEN.

But for the readersease, and more light of our cause, I ioyne thus in argument with them againe, vpon the second part of Christes owne wordes and action had in the authorizing of his Apostles: Whatsoeuer the holie Ghost maie doe in this case by the proper power of his Godhead, that may the Apostles and Priestcs do by seruice and ministerie through the power of the holie Ghost: But the holie Ghost properlie and rightlie doth remit sinnes: Therefore the Apostles doe rightlie remit sinnes by their ministerie in the said holie Ghost. All partes of this conclusion stand vpright, and feare no falsehood: they be guarded on euerie side by Christes action, by wordes of scripture, by the Doctors plain warrant, and by all reason. With all which, whosoeuer is not contented, but will needes extinguere spiritum, extinguish Gods spirit, and violentlie take from the Church the greatest comfort of all mans life, 1. Thes. 〈◊〉 that in this infirmitie of our flesh, standeth in moste hope by his gift in remission of sinnes, for which especiall cause the said spirit was mercifullie breathed vpon the Apostles peculiarly, before the mare common sending of the same from heauen aboue. If all this reason and iust demonstration of trueth will not serue them, I will charge them with this graue conclusion of S. Augustine, vttered partlie against the Nouatians, & especallie against the desperate, that would not seeke for Gods mercie by the Churches ministerie in the sacrament of penance. To be briefe I will speake it in English. Whosoeuer he be Cap. 83. Enchir. that beleeueth no: mans sinnes to be remitted in Gods Church, and therefore despiseth the bountifulnes of God inso mightie a worke, if he in that obstinate minde continue til his liues end, he is guiltie of sinne against the holie Ghost, in which holy ghost Christ remitteth sinnes.

FVLKE.

I doe greatlie commend you, that you haue such regard of the readers ease, and it seemeth you haue good confidence of your cause, that you flie not the light of Logicall iudgement, by which the trueth shall more plainelie appeere to all sortes of men, then by anie discourses at large, vnder which many great errors may be often couered, vnder sophistical cloudes & ambiguity of words, which in a briefe syllogisme is soone and easilie espied. To answere your argument therefore, First I distinguish of your Maior: for if you meane by seruice and ministerie, the expressing and declaring of the will and pleasure of the holy ghost, wherunto they are authorized, I acknowledge your Maior proposition to be true: whatsoeuer the holie Ghost maie doe in this case, by the proper power of his godhead, that maie the Apostles and Priestes doe by seruice & ministerie through the power of the holie Ghost. But if you meane by seruice and ministerie, that the proper power of God is communicated to men, I denie your Maior, as false, and absurde. For the Apostles and Priests maie not by seruice and ministerie, through the power of the holie Ghost, forgiue sinnes properlie, which the holie ghost by proper power of his godhead may doe: for this is a proper power not com municable vnto any creature, but a declaration of the will of him that hath such power, is the ministeriall authoritie, by which men forgiue sinnes. Secondlie I answere, that your conclusion is deceitfull. For your Minor, Extreame, or Assumption is not perfectlie ioyned with your Maior or Proposition in the conclusion. For your Minor is, that the holie ghost properly & rightlie doth remit sinnes. So your conclusion should be, therefore the Apostles properlie and rightlie doe, remit sinnes by their ministerie: in stead of which word properlie, you craftelie conueigh in the worde truelie: so your wholl syllogisme, is a paralogisme, and may lawfully be denied. Notwithstanding your conclusion, as it is, we do graunt, that the Apostles do rightlie and truely remit sinnes, by their ministery in the holie ghost: but as it should be inferred vpon your premises, we denie it, which cannot be gathered, but vpon a false Maior. Whatsoeuer the holie ghost may doe properlie, in remitting sinnes, the Apostles may do by ministerie, as properlie. As for the comfort of mans life, taken away, by denying sinnes to be properlie forgiuen by Priestes, is a fond cauill, and meere slaunder. For we acknowledge it a singular comfort of mans life, that God hath appointed men, by their ministerie, to assure vs of his fauour, and reconciliation in the remission of oursins. And we beleeue with Saint Augustine that sinnes are forgiuen in Gods Church vpon earth, acknowledgeing the bountefullnes of God in so mightie a worke, anathematizing and detesting the Nouatians, and all other heretikes, that obstinatelie and willfullie mainteine the contrarie.

The power to remit sinnes is further prooued to be giuen to the Apostles by these wordes of Christ: Whose sinnes you do forgiue, &c. by the Doctors exposition of the same, and by conference of other wordes of scripture of the like sense.

THE FOVRTH CHAP. ALLEN.

HOw the priestes of Christes Church haue defended this right and calling for remission of sinnes, as wel by the commission that Christ first receiued of his father, and afterward bestowed vpon them, as by the assured receiuing of the spi rit of god from Christes blessed breath to the same and & purpose, I haue hitherto declared at large. Now the third part of the place before alledged out of S. Iohns gospel, concerneth the words of Christes promis and warrant made vnto his Apostles: out of which wordes distinctly vttered we must see what force may be further added vnto our Catholike assertion, for the pristes autho rity to remit and retaine sinnes. And surely if none of the former wordes of commission, nor any other mean or mention had beene made of the holy ghostes assistaunce herein, these onlie woordes vpon the credit that faithful men owe to Christ, had bin sufficient to haue assured the world of the authoritie of priesthood, & of the wholl cause that now is called in controuersie. For what can be said either of god or man more properlie or more playnlie then this: whose sinnes you shal forgiue, they be forgiuen: whose sinnes you shal retaine, they be retained? I must needes heree complaine of these vnfaithful and vnhappie times, that in the continuall lothsome bragges of the scripture, and Gods word, in perpetuall tossing and tumbling of the booke of the Bible, in endlesse contention and disputation of most high mysteries in them contained, haue wholie conuerted the cleerest and onely vndoubted meaning of such places specially, as moste touch the verie life and saluation of all mankinde, and which be of all other thinges in termes of scripture most open and euident, sull foolishlie and vnlearnedlie haue both the simple sort handled Gods word, as in such grosse ignorance of al thinges they needes must, and their new procured Masters also, in not much more knowledge and farre passing pride can not otherwise do, but whilest they plaie them selues in things of smaler importance, they are to be laughed at, rather then lamented: but if the deuil driue them farther, as he lightlie doth, wherere he se quietlie possesseth, and cause them to dallie, and delude the places of scripture, that principally concerne the state and saluation of vs al then we must with al force resist, lest we leese the fruite and good of our Christianitie. What can be of higher importance in the world, or touch our soules and saluation so neere, as the holie sacraments of Christ Church, by which grace and mercy through gods appointment be procured? & yet these blessed fountains especiallie euen these waters springing euerlastingly to our life and comfort, haue these men most infected.

FVLKE.

You fare as though we denied all power of remitting or retaining of sinnes: whereas we do moste gladlie imbrace all such power as Christ hath giuen vs, which we must so take, as it be not dishonourable to the godhead, that man should exercise that which is proper to God him-selfe. The power therefore we graunt, but what manner of power this is, we must inquire, whether an absolute power for priests at their pleasure (as you speake afterward in this Chapter) Sect. 6. to forgiue sinnes properlie, or a power to declare the same to be forgiuen according to the pleasure of God, to them that repent and beleeue the Gospell: and also, whether this power is to be exercised by preaching the Ghospel, or by auricular confession. You spend manie words therefore in vaine, to prooue the power and authoritie, whereof we stand in no controuersie with you: but what manner of power this is, and by what meanes it is to be exercised. As for the lothsome bragges of the scripture, and Gods word in perpetuall tossing and tumbling of the bookes of the Bible, doe argue, that you complaine of, sauoreth not of the spirit of Christ, which willeth the scriptures to be searched, as those which beare witnes of him. To glory in the truth of Gods word contained in his holie scriptures, is no vaine bragging, but such as Christians ought moste of all to delight in. The rest of your railing I passe ouer, as vnworthie anie answere, when, whatsoeuer you prate in generall, shalbe founde false in speciall, when you come to prooue the particulers.

ALLEN.

In the institution of Sacraments Christs wordes were euer plaine without colour or figure, as wordes that worke with singular efficacie, grace and vertue, and therewith giue to the ministers iust authoritie for the execution of Christes meaning: which could not be done in figuratiue speaches and parables without infinit error. Did God speake parables when he instituted the solemnitie of so manie sacrifices in the olde lawe? when he signified vnto Moses and Aaron euerie seuerall sorte of beast or creature with their sexe & kind & all the ceremonie thereunto belonging? Did he speake parables, when the sacrament of the lambe was to be instituted? Did he speake by figure Exod. 12. to Abraham, when he commaunded him to circumcise the male of euerie of his people? Did he speake by figure, when he instituted Gen. 17. Ex. 35. the Sabbath? Did he, to be breefe, euer in the olde lawe speake one thing, and meane another, when anie externall worke by the charge of his worde was to be practized for euer amongest the people? In common speach, in prophecying, in preaching, in similitudes, in examples vttered for the declaration of manie thinges, and for grace and varietie of talke, to stirre vp mans industrie in searching the secretes of the trueth, there figures of all sortes be vsed: but where, by externall wordes and actions, force of inward grace must be procured, or perpetuall vsages in the Church are in outward signes and elements to be instituted, or commission of great matters graunted, or charge of singular waight giuen to seruants in absense of their Masters, in all such cases plaine speaking by Gods prouidence was euer vsed, and by all reason must be vsed, or ells man falling into error in the execution of his commission, is sufficientlie to be excused, because he could not attaine to the meaning of his Masters wordes. And yet the wicked of these daies, haue found such light in scripture, that they haue made our Master Christ to speake one thing and meane the contrarie, in the very instiution of Sacraments, and haue found figures to delude & deseat the world of the necessarie fruit of them al.

FVLKE.

Since you were a Papist, you neuer vttered a more fase proposition, that in the institution of Sacraments Christs wordes were euer plaine and without colour or figure: nor yet a more foolish and vnlearnd assertion. For you oppose figure to plainenes and colorablenes. As for your Metaphor of colour, I will not meddle with it: but if you meane thereby, as it is commonlie taken for dissimulation, I protest that Christ in no speach euer vsed anie. As for plainenes, he sought, when he vsed figures, or rhetorical colours. Therefore as I graunt, that in institution of Sacraments, Christs wordes were euer plaine, so Ivtterlie denie, that in institution of sacraments Christes wordes were neuer figuratiue: and I holde him for a verie either ignorant, or impudent person, that dare affirme the contrarie. That the wordes of Christ could not worke with singular efficacie grace and vertue, and therewith giue to the ministers iust authoritie, for the execution of Christs meaning, being vttered in figuratiue speaches & parables, without infinite error, is a brutish affirmation, as afterward I wil shewe, by manie particular examples. In the meane time, that which commeth neare to this cause, what boie that learneth Moselanes figures will denie, that these speaches, of binding, of loosing, of the keies, of the kingdome of heauen, of Peter being a rocke, or stone, on which the Church is builded, are figuratiue speaches and parables, meaning not proper binding, loosing, keies, Rocke, or building, but parables, or thinges like vnto those? But against this you obiect, with interrogation, did God speake parables, when he instituted the solemnitie of so manie sacrifices, &c? Yea verilie, then did he moste of all speake parables. For then he signified, that reconciliation was onelie by Christs death, whereof all these sacrifices were parables, similitudes and figures, as the Apostle declareth, Heb. 9. verse 9. in plaine wordes. And yet it followeth not, that euerie word was figuratiue or parabolicall, which he vsed in the institution of euerie sacrifice, and therefore the seuerall sorte of the beast or creature, with the sexe and kinde, and other partes of the ceremonie thereto belonging, might be in proper tearmes, without iustifying of that monstrous paradox, that no figuratiue speaches were vsed in the institution of sacraments, or that in the institution of sacraments, Christs wordes were euer without figure. But you vrge vs farther, asking, whether he did speake parables, when the sacrament of the Lambe was to be instituted? I hope you plaie not the lad, to trifle about the distinction of parables and figures: but you meane that he vsed no figuratiue speaches, as your first proposition was. I answer you, he did, and that doe I plainelie prooue when he said, the Lambe so taken, prepared, and eaten with haste, is the Ex. 12. 11. Lordes passeouer, where indeede it was a sacrament, and signe thereof, and not the Lordes passeouer, in proper speach. Moses also reporting the Lords institution, biddeth the people to slaie the passeouer, and the people are willed to teach their yonge children, ignorant of Ex. 12. 21. the end and vse thereof, that it is the Lordes passeouer, and so diuerse times both in the 12. and 13. Chapters Ex. 12. 27. it is repeated, that the lambe so slaine, is the passeouer of the Lord. Therefore it is plaine, that God did vse figuratiue speach in the institution of the Sacrament of the Lambe, euen when he did teach the people the vse and end thereof: not to obscure the mysterie, but by similitude of passing ouer their houses, where the posts were sprinckled with the blood, more plainelie to expresse and set forth the same.

You aske the third time, whether God did speake by figure to Abraham, when he commaunded him to circumcise the male of euerie one of his people, Gen. 17? I answere you, yea, he did speake by figure. For when he begane to speake of that matter ver. 10. He said, this is my couenant betweene me and you, and betweene thy seed after the, which ye shal keepe: that euerie male among you be circumcised. Which that you should not doubt to be a figure, in the next verse following he expoundeth it saying: that circumcision shalbe a signe of the couenant that is betweene me and you, And verse 13. he saith, so shall my couenant be in your flesh, for a perpetuall couenant. And in the 14. verse, the soule of the vncircumcised male, shalbe rooted out from his people, because (saith he) he hath transgressed or made void my couenant. The like demaund you make of the institution of the Sabbaoth, which I knowe not whether you number among the sacraments or no. In Gen. 2. where it is said, that God rested from all his worke, which he had made, there is a figure, because he ceased onelie from creation, but not from gouernment and preseruation of those thinges which he hath made. And in the 35. of Exod. whereunto you send vs, if you take the wordes of the law, without anie figure (whosoeuer shall do anie worke on the Sabboth day, shal die the death) you condemne a great manie, whome our sauionr Christ doth excuse, not onelie from punishment of death, but euen from breach of the cōmaundement, Luke 13. & 14. Mat. 12.

To your last question I answere, that he neuer dissembled in the olde lawe, or the new: but if you vnderstand, by speaking on thing and meaning an other, figuratiue speaches, I saie he often vsed them, when anie externall worke was to be practized for euer by charge of his worde among the people, as is moste euident in the sacramentes of circumcision and the passeouer: therefore your distinction is falsc, & friuolous; for God hath vsed figuratiue speaches often times, in the institution of the sacraments, not to deceiue the people, that they should take one thing for an other, but the better to expresse the vertue and effect of them, according to the capacitie of the people. As in calling the Lambe the pascal, they were more liuely put in minde, both of the temporall benifit, and passing ouer, and also of their spirituall deliuerance. When circumcision is called the couenant, whereof it was a signe, the people were admonished, what was the spirituall meaning thereof, namelie, that they should cut of the olde man with all concupiscences of the flesh, which God requireth of all them, that shall accept him for their Father and mercisull redemer.

ALLEN.

There were some of olde that droue the mysteries of Christs incarnation and speaches that prooue his equalitie with his Father in Godhead, to figuratiue phrases, and sought for the defence of their folie the like phrases in other of Christes talkes but neuer none were comparable in this kinde to our new deuisers. For by the face and crake of gods word they haue brought to passe amongst fooles, that no one text of scripture which pertaineth to anie of the Sacramentes can haue his meaning, and such sense as the the verie word beareth, and the world hath euer taken and confirued of it. The blessed and moste soueraigne The B. Sacr. of the altar. sacrament of the altar, instituted in a solemne action, in moste carefull manner, amongst his moste secret seruants, the last almoste of all his workes in earth, in moste euident tearmes, with sore charge giuen to the Apostles of the continuance of his euerlasting memorie in the same, yet must Mat. 26. meane nothing lesse, then that which our Master made it, and must by a thousand figures be wrasted and writhen to what you list & like, so that is be not to importe that, which our Master said it did, and the Church hath euer beleeued of the same. Wordes of the like solemnitie were vsed for the ordering of the holie vse of Baptisme, to be done, as the worde doth also import, Baptisme. necessarilie in the externall element of water, with certaine most holie prescribed wordes, vnder paine and perill of euerlasting perishing to the neglecters thereof: yet in such plainnes figures are found out by these pernicious conueiers, that neither water is counted so much necessary, nor the wordes of such strength, but that one of these malapert fellowes was bolde to Brentius contra Petrum á Solo write, that it was much superstition to binde the Church to the same, as to the prescribed wordes of art Magike, sorcerie, and witchcrafie. Of the honourable act and sacrament of extream vnction, what can be said with more euidence of wordes then is Extreame vnction. Cap. 5. spoken of the holie Apostle Saint Iames? If any man be sicke amongst you, let him cal for the Priests of the Church, and let them annoynt him with oile: and yet so litle matter these men make of the Apostles spirit, word, and writing, that they haue condemned the whole vse thereof as superstitious, not helping them-selues by figures, but by openforce. Grace is Holle orders. 1. Tim. 4. Matrimony giuen to Timothie, as in a sacrament, when he toke orders of Paull: the Apostle saith so much in expresse tearmes: yet this grace and the whole sacrament of orders, these holie men reiect. Matrimonie to S. Paule is a great sacrament, and of our ministers not misliked, so faire as concerneth their fleshlie Eph. 5. coniunction, which they onelie lust after: but grace they list not receiue thereby, lest it should be a sacrament, whereby the vnitie of Christ and his spouse the Church, which in no sauce they can abide, might be fullie represented and signified.

FVLKE.

It is one thing ro drawe violentlie al things expressed in the scriptures vnto alligories & other figuratiue speaches, an other thing not to acknowledge any figures which yet be so vsuall in the institution of sacramēts. The face & crake of gods word, with the sequele thereof, that you speake of, so long as it resteth vpon your owne cracked credit, shalbe litle regarded by any wise man. But to examine the examples you bring, to iustifie your saying: first you begin with the Lords supper, where you saie, it was instituted in most euident tearmes. Wherebie you meane termes properlie vsed, and without figure, as though you had forgotten the wordes of our sauiour Christ, perteining to the institution of the cuppe, This cup is the new testament in my blood, Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Where I maruell whether you haue the face to saie, the wordes are not figuratiue which he vsed, or whether you will saie, the Euangelist and Apostle did expresse the words of Christ in more obscure tearmes then he spake them, or whether there be not the same sense of these figuratiue wordes, This cup is the new testament in my blood, and those other reported by the other Euangelists, This is my blood. In saying we wold haue the words of our Sauiour Christ meane nothing lesse then the sacrament that he made it, you slaunder vs without measure or cause. For we would haue the words of our Sauiour meane nothing more, nor lesse, but euen altogether as much as our sauiour Christ did meane to teach vs by them. And the hyperbolic all lie of a thousand figures, by which we should wrest them, may in respect of greater number of figures you make in your grosse and carnall exposition, be iustified of you, rather then of vs, whose interpretation maketh but one figure, and one meaning, and that warranted by the wordes of diuerse of the most auncient and Catholike Doctors.

In the sacrament of baptisme, who make the external element of water more necessary to be vsed? they that re quire water for the vse thereof, or els require that the external elemét be forborne, rather then that it should be chaunged into wine, milke, broth; or any othre more vile licour? of which kinde of questions & other mostrous cases your treatises of the sacraméts are ful. What Brentius hath written, I haue not to do to answer: yet it seemeth that the words of Brentius are wrested of you, to another meaning, rather then that he would haue them either altered, or the sense of them not reteined. Wherein for any thing that I can see, he varieth not from the iudgement of your Master of the sentences & al sententionaries, which allow baptisme ministred in the name of Christ, to be as good as in the name of the blessed trinitie. lib. 4. distinct. 3.

Of extreame vnction, we finde nothing in Saint Iames, but of a ceremonie of annointing with oyle, ioyned with the gift of healing, vsed in the primitiue Church, but not to be drawne into example of them that confesse, they are void of that mirarulous gift. The vse of which ceremonie, without the gift whereunto it was annexed, without any force or figure, we may be bolde to condemne, as superstitious. The grace that was giuen to Timothie, and the order of the Ecclesiasticall ministerie, distinct from the common people, we acknowledge and reteine. But that any gift of prophesie, or of any other grace, is dispensed by imposition of the handes of the presbyterie in these daies, as it was in the Apostles time, we cannot acknowledge, before we see it. for he that was voide of all spirituall giftes, before his taking of orders, remaineth as verie an asse among you, as he was before. Seeing matrimonie was instituted in paradise, before the fall of man, we cannot accoumpt it a sacrament of the new testament, by which we are assured of grace in the forgiuenes of sinnes: and yet we doe (howsoeuer it pleaseth you to raile vpon our ministers) acknowledge that great and excellent mysterie of the spirituall vnitie of Christ and his spouse the Church, which you saie in no sauce we can abide: as though wheresoeuer any mysterie is confessed to be, there muste needes follow a Sacrament of the new testament.

ALLEN.

These fellowes therefore that dare be so bolde to disturbe all the orders and sacramentes of Gods Church, and to mainteine their phantasies, dare brust the sacred bandes of expresse scriptures in such pointes as doe directlie touch the wholl policie of our Christian common wealth and ordered waics of our saluation, euen in those which Christ moste carefullie left to be practized for the vse of his louing slocke, by the warrant of wordes moste plaine, what shall we saie to such bold and impudent faces, that thus dare doe, and yet which I more mernaile at, in this their vncurtesie, and most vnhonest dealing, will not sticke to crie and call vpon Gods worde, as though they did that by scripture, the contrarie whereof they expresslie finde in scripture. And truelie where they be not holpen by the verte wordes, vaine it shallbe for them to stand with vs, and with all our Fathers, and with the practize of all nations, and with the very expresse iudgement of the Church of God, it shal not boote them, I saie, in their darke ignorance & infinite pride to stand with vs, hauing so many helpes for the true meaning, and the expresse text of the worde for our selues and side.

FVLKE.

He must needes haue an impudent face, and a wicked conscience, that so shamefullie slaundereth vs, to bereake the sacred bandes of the expresse scriptures, wherunto we seeme to attribute al credit: as though we denie any one word of expresse scripture, & do not affirme, whatsoeuer the scripture doth affirme in expresse words, or denie, whatsoeuer the holy scripture in expresse words doth deny, according to such sense and meaning, as the scripture must haue, as it is agreable to it selfe in all places. The expresse wordes of scripture touching the Lords supper are these: that it is the body & blood of Christ: we confesse and beleeue as much. The expresse wordes of scripture concerning the Apostles authoritie, in pardoning or reteining sinnes, are, as they haue beene often alledged. we beleeue they, and their successours (of whome there is no expresse word) haue power to remit or reteine sins. The expresse words of scripture concerning the Lords supper are also, The rocke was Christ: we beleeue that the rocke was Christ. The cup is the new testament: we beleeue that the cup is the new testament. Also by expresse words, to the Apostles there is graunted power to binde and to loose. We confesse and beleeue that they haue power to binde and to loose. And yet I trust we may be bolde to saie, without breaking the sacred bondes of expresse scriptures: The rocke was not Christ, in nature of his humanitie and diuinitie, but a sacrament of Christ. The cup is not the new couenant it selfe, but that which is in the cup is an holie signe or seale thereof. The Apostles had no power giuen them, to binde men with chaines or coardes, nor to loose the chaines & coards of them, that be bound by other: but a spirituall authoritie, to binde and loose spirituallie. In like manner we doe not breake the sacred bandes of expresse scripture, when we affirme that the Sacramentall bread and wine are not by transsbustantiation turned into the naturall bodie and bloode of Christ, or the bodie and blood of Christ in the sacrament are not corporallie receiued, but spirituallie. For the contrarie of these we finde not expresselie in the scripture. So when we saie, the Apostles had not power to remit sinnes properlie, which is peculiar onelie to God, but to aslure men in Christes name, whose embassadours they were, of the forgiuenes of their sinnes by Christ, we breake no bandes of expresse scriptures. For we confesle the wordes according to their true meaning, agreeable with other places of scripture, that teach it to be peculiar to God, to remit sinnes properlie. An embassadour is said to make peace or warre, when he declareth, according to his commission, his Princes determination of peace or warre. The Kinges Liuetenant hauing such commission, offereth or graun teth pardon to rebells or other offenders, where he doth onelie declare the kinges pleasure, in pardoning or releasing their offences. As for the Popish bragge of all our fathers, with the practize of all nations, and the verie expresse iudgement of the Church of God, to be for your assertion, how vaine it is, will easilie appeare, when you come to cite fathers, shew forth the practize of all nations, declare the iudgement of Gods Church, and when the contradictorie shall be manifestlie prooued and brough forth against you.

ALLEN.

Sometimes where it may appeare that the wordes and outwarde face of scripture serue not our assertions so plainlie as the holie traditions of Christes Church doe, there they call vpon vs with infinite clamours to abide the iudgement of the word, which they would be thought to esteeme aboue all mans meaning. But whether would they now runne thinke you, where all our sacraments stand vpon euident words, & more then words, vpon the verie expresse & notorious action of Christ him selfe? al instituted sincerelie to be practized of the Church after his de parture hence: all commended in knowne termes of greatest & moste efficacie that could be, not by way of preaching, in which he vsed sometimes figures, not at such time as he vsed other then common knowne speach, but after his resurrection, when he now vttered no more parables as he did before, that such as Mat. 13. Marc. 4. faw, should not see, and such as were of vnderstanding, might not vnderstand, but did open vnto his dearest their senses, that they might vnderstand scriptures, and more carefullie expressed his meaning for the instruction of his holie Disciples, to the better bearing of that charge which he meant to leaue them in, after his departure: whither will these men (I saie) where they see all thinges so enuironed with trueth, whither will they flie? The scriptures be plainlie ours, the Doctors they dare not claime, reason is against them, there is then no waie to beare it out, but with boldnes and exercised audacitie. Yet here we wil assay, by the notorious euidence of this one cause that we now haue in hand, to breake their stonie heartes to the obedience of Christs Church & word, for whose faith, if they haue seene great light & force of argument allready, & shal yet see much more, I trust they wil not stil with stand the knowen truth.

FVLKE.

We will runne no further for the vnderstanding of Christes wordes, concerning the institution and practize of his holie sacramentes, although we haue the consent of the moste auncient and approoued doctors of the primitiue Church, as witnesses of the same. That the sacraments are commended in knowne terms of greatest and most efficacie that could be, we cofesse: but therof it followeth not, that they were not in some part commended by figuratiue speeches, which are often and almost alwaies, if they be rightlie vsed, better knowne, and of greater efficacie, then proper tearmes. That you saie, the sacraments were not commended by way of Preaching, it is a grosse and impudent absurditie, when they were instituted and commended to be seales of the doctrine, that was preached, for confirmation of faith, which is builded vpon the hearing of Gods word preached. As also it is a brutish assertion, that Christ vsed no figuratiue speeches after his resurrection. For what are these but figuratiue speeches, feede my sheepe, feede my lambes? And what was that but a parable of Peters bandes girding him-selfe, and being girded, walking where he would, and led whither he would not, to signifie by what death he should glorifie God? Neither did he affect obscurity by parables before his resurrection. For his parables were vttered for better and more plaine vnderstanding of his obedient disciples, although to the reprobate contemners of his doctrine, they seemed hard and inexplicate, and were, as all things are vnto them, and as Christ him-selfe was, a stumbling block, and stone of offence, that they might fall and perish. That our sauiour Christ did open the senses of his Apostles, that they might vnderstand the scriptures, they were the better able to vnderstand figuratiue speeches, of which the scripture is full. But that he did more carefully expresse his meaning, for the instruction of his holie disciples, I do denie, for he had alwaies before as great care to expresse his meaning: and without care was alwaies hable to vtter his diuine pleasure, considering that he had appointed the doctrine, which he preached before his resurrection, to be committed to writing, for the publike and perpetuall instruction of his wholl Church. To the vaine insultation and boasting that followeth, I answer, as in the end of the last section before.

ALLEN.

All wordes then of institution of sacraments, being literallie to be taken, and things of so great charge not otherwise to be vnderstanded, then are both by act and word of Christ sincerelie vttered, we neede not doubt but the forme of Christes sentence, in which he giueth the Apostles power to remit sinnes, is plainly to be taken in that common sense, as the same by wordes importeth, and therefore that by force thereof, they maie remitte sinnes. And yet to make more proofe to satisfie all men, I will ioyne to these wordes of our sauiour that most properlie concerne the sacrament of penance, other his wordes touching our principall couclusion not vnlike, whereby in conference of the like sayinges together (which our aduersaries do alwaies, as they would seeme, well to allow) trueth maie trie it selfe. Therefore as our master here saith: whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they be forgiuen, And whose sinnes you retaine they be also retained: euen so said he twice before vnto the Apostles, expressing in other wordes almost the same meaning and sense: once to them altogether in the 18. of Saint Mathew, and an other time before that, in the 16. of the same Gospel to S. Peter alone.

To them in generall thus saith Christ: If thy brother haue committed anie offence towards thee, go to him & admonish him priuately betwixt him and thy selfe. If he take it well, thou hast wonne thy brother: if he regarde thee not, take one or two with the, that in the mouthes of two or three witnesses euerie word maie stand: if he regarde not them neither, then make complaint of him to the Church (that is to saie, as Saint Chrisostome expoundeth it, to the gouernours of the Church) and if he will not obey the Church, then take him for no better then a Heathen, and a Publicane. And straight Super hunc locum vpon these wordes, lest anie man should set light by the Church, or rulers thereof, Christ added (saith Saint Augustine) a wonderfull terrour of her seuere authoritie, saying: De side & operib. c. 3. Amen dico vobis, quaecunque alligaueritis super terram, erunt ligata & in coelo: & quaecunque solueritis super terram, erunr soluta & in coelo: Surelie I saie vnto you, what things soeuer you binde in earth, it shal be bound in heauen: And whatsoeuer you loose in earth, it shall be loosed in heauen. This text is cleere for the Churches claime in remission of sinnes, though it properlie pertaine rather to the outward power iudiciarie and court of external iudgement for open crimes and notorious contemptes, then for the sinnes of the people that be secret, and onelie subiect to power practized in the sacrament of penance, which now lightlie is close, and onelie vttered in secret to him, that hath charge of his soule. Neuerthelesse, if the Priestes of God haue receiued power to loose and binde, which is, to pardon and punish open notorious crimes and contemptes, which touching the guiltines of the fault, doth no lesse pertaine to the power of God, then the absoluing of secres sinnes doth: then, without question they maie pardon orretaine mans sinnes of al sortes, as well in the sacrament of penance, all that be confessed: as in publike iudgement, whatsoeuer is by witnesse prooued. And as in this, they maie at their pleasure, where iustice requireth, correct the open offender by most graue censures of Gods Church: so maie the Priestes giue due penance in the sacrament, for the chastisment of such sinnes as be to them confessed, and for the satisfying of Gods iustice by sinne violated.

FVLKE.

If al wordes of institution of sacramets must be taken literallie, then must these wordes be taken literallie, This cup is the new testament in my blood. The lambe is the Lordes passeouer, Circumcision is the couenant, and such like. But as for your conclusion, though inferred vpon a false principle, I confesse to be true, that the Apostles by force of the wordes of commission graunted to them, maie remit sinnes: but not properly, for that the wordes do not enforce. Both the places that you will ioyne to this, of Math. 18. and Math. 16. are parables and figuratiue speaches of binding and loosing, of the keies of the Kingdome of heauen, and of a stone, and buildilng of che Church thereupon: neuerthelesse the text Math 18. I do acknowledge to be cleere, for the Churches claime in remitting offences, and that it pertaineth more properlie to the discipline of the Church, then to the preaching of repentance, and remission of sins, whereunto the text of Iohn 21. moste properlie belongeth. That you saie, pennance is now lightlie close, and the sinnes vttered onelie in secret, to him that hath charge of his soule: you do closelie confesse, that otherwise lightlie you will not openlie acknowledge, that your practize is contrarie to the vse of the most auncient, and primitiue Church. But that the ministers of the Church haue authoritie to remit sinnes as well openlie, as secretlie, I am content it be without question: onelie this is the question, whether anie thing pertaining to the proper power of God, be made common to men. For we holde, that they do in such sorte remit sinnes, as they exercise nothing that pertaineth to the proper power of God, touching the release of the guiltinesse of sinnes, although in executing of discipline, they maie pardon the exercise of repentance, that is appointed for triall of the parties true penitencie, or some part thereof, which as it is enioyned, by the iudgement and discretion of men, so they may by the same release it, as vpon good cause, they thinke conuenient.

Where you say, that Priestes may pardon or retaine mans sinnes, of al sortes, as wel in the sarcrament of penance, al that be confessed, as in publike iudgement, You thrust in diuerse matters, whereof there is neither mention in the text, nor anie necessarie collection to be made of them, out of it: as the sacrament of pennance, whereof there is no outward element or signe instituted: then your kinde of penance which includeth some peece of satisfaction for sinnes & last of all your auricular and particuler confession: as though genetall confession and acknowledging of mens sinnes before God, might not obtaine remission of sinnes in his sight: And as though, if anie sinne be not remembred in shrift, the priestes remission extendeth not vnto it, or if it were remembred, and be hypocriticallie concealed, yet the remission were good & auaileable for al other sinnes that are confessed. Againe, it is an insolent power you giue them in open Iudgement, that they may at their pleasure, where Iustice requireth correct the open offender. For though you seeme to qualifie their pleasure by iustice: yet to ascribe that to their pleasure, which is laid vpon them of necessitie, what warrant haue you for it? For if they maie at their pleasure, they neede not, except it please them. Finallie, your argument holdeth not, that as in exercising of discipline, they maie chastice the offender, by the censures of the Church: so they may giue due punishment, for sinnes 〈◊〉 in shrift. Neither are those two endes you alledge, true. For the chastisement of sinnes pertaineth not to them, but to God, and the ciuill Magistrate: and the iustice of God violated by sinne, is satisfied by the obedience and suffering of our sauiour Christ. Wherebie also it should follow, that the power of remitting of sinnes were made void and frustrate, if men must endure due punishment, which you call penance, for the satisfying of Gods iustice, by sinne violated.

AILEN.

The other text of holie scripture, containing Christes wordes to Saint Peter seuerallie, by certaine notable circumstances of the letter, and by wordes of great graunt spoken singularlie to him, giueth the chiefe of all his Apostles in more ample termes and beneficiall clauses this power and perogatiue also. To him it was onelie said, thou art Peter (which is as much to saie as a rock: for our Master gaue him that name new at his first calling, in signification of further intent and purpose which he here vttered) and vpon this rocke will Ioh. 1. I set my Church: and hell gates shall not preuaile against it. That so said, he thus spake in plaine termes: Et tibi dabo claues regni caelorum. Et quodcunque ligaueris super terram, erit ligatum & in caelis, & quodcunque solueris super terram, erit solutum & in caelis: And to thee wil I giue the Keies of the Kingdome of heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde in earth, it shall be bound in the heauens, And what thou loosest in earth, it shall be loosed in the heauens. This promis made vnto Peter and performed no doubt after his resurrection, when he committed to him the feeding and gouernement of all his deare flock both Ibid. 21. yong and olde, doth exceedinglie import a wonderfull incomparable soueraigntie and-iurisdiction ouer mens soules. For a mortall man to receiue the keies of Christes Kingdome, and by them to binde & loose, to lock out and let in, before our Master Christ who had the full iurisdiction therein, it was neuer heard of. And when the holie Prophets do meane to set out the great and passing power giuen by God the father to his onelie sonne in earth, they vse to expresse the same often by the termes, of keyes, as when the Prophet Esaie saith: I will laie the keies of the house of Dauid vpon his shoulder: he shall shut, and there can none be hable to open, and he shall open so, that none can shut agiane. And Christ him-selfe Cap. 21. Apoc. 1. & 3. speaking to his beloued Iohn in the Apocalips saith: I am the first and the last. I am aliue, and was dead before, and I haue the keies of death and hell. The keies therefore, euer signifying power andgouernment of the houshold, was giuen to Christ, as to whom, being the principal and most excellent rectour of his owne Church that he bought so dearelie, they moste duelie belong. But he communicated vnto Peter, as to his speciall stewarde, the vse of the same, for the gouernment of our soules, with exceeding much preheminence both in binding and loosing. Yet I do not remember that anie of the olde writers do put anie great difference betwixt the authorities of Peter and the rest of the Apostles, concerning the remitting of sinnes, which is a thing perteining indifferentlie to the wholl order of priesthood, and therfore no more proper to the Pope or Peter, then to Priestes and Apostles: though Origen noted well, that the iurisdiction of Peter seemed by these words to be enlarged aboue the residue, by that our sauiour said to him, that, whatsoeuer he bound or loosed in earth, it should be loosed or bound in the heauens: where to the rest he spoke of heauen onelie in the singular number. I speake onelie of this latter clause of binding and loosing with the keies thereunto belonging. For there is no doubt, but great preheminence of rule and iurisdiction is promised before in the sametext now recited, and els where actuallie giuen vnto him, more then to the rest of his breethren. Neuerthelesse euen this power of binding and loosing, common to all the holie order, was in him first seuerally planted, for the commendation of vnitie and order, as Saint Cyprian sath, and so the same authoritie giuen De simplicitate Praelatorum. to other, might yet after a sort be deriued from his fullnes of power and perogatiue, as from a fountaine.

FVLKE.

The other text of scripture, containing the wordes of our sauiour Christ to Peter seuerallie, giueth to him (as you saie) this power and prerogatiue also. As for the not able circumstances of the letter, the wordes of great graunt spoken singularlie to him, the more ample tearmes, and beneficiall clauses, let vs examine, what they are, and whether they be of force to make him chiefe of all his Apostles. First, to him it was onelie said, thou art Peter, which is as much to saie as a rock: what then? ergo he was chiefe of all the Apostles? who is so madd to gtaunt the consequence? To the sonnes of Zebede onelie it was said, that they were Bonarges, that is, the Children of thunder, ergo they had greater authoritie then the rest of the Apostles. But of all the Apostles it was said, that they are the twelue rocks, or stones, the foundation of the walles of the new Ierusalem. Apoc. 21. 14. and the Church is builded vpon the foundation of all the Apostles. Eph. 2. 20. Secondlie you saie, the promis made to him, Ioan. 1. & Math. 16. was perfourmed no doubt after his resurrection, when he committed to him, the feeding of all his sheepe yong and olde. Ioh. 21. 2. We graunt as much, but that it doth exceedinglie import a wonderful incomparable soueraigntie, and iurisdiction ouer mens soules, greater or other then was equally graunted to the rest of the Apostles, we see not how it can be inferred of anie scripture. Euerie one of the Apostles being sent into all the world, to teach all nations, and to preach the Gospell to euerie Math. 28. Marc. 16. creature, hath as generall authority to feede the shepe of Christ, both olde and yong, as Peter. Thirdlie you saie, for a mortall man to receiue the keies of the kingdome of heauen, and by them to binde and loose, to lock out and let in, before our Master Christ, who had full iurisdiction therein, it was neuer heard of. But we read that the samekeies were committed to the scribes and Pharisees, and teachers of the law, which they did shamefullie abuse, and therfore are threatned by our sauiour Christ: woe be to you teachers of the law: for you haue taken awaie the key of knowledge, and neither you your selues do enter, and you forbid them that would. Woe be vnto you Scribes and Pharisees, ye hypocrites, for you shut vp the kingdome of heauen before men: For neither you your selues do enter, nor suffer those to enter that would enter. Luk. 11. Mat. 23. here you note inthese places the key of knowledge, by which the kingdome of heauen should haue beene opened, taken awaie, and the kingdome of heauen shut vp from them that gladlie would enter, if they knew which way? The keies in deede do signifie power and authoritie: but that onelie Peter hath those keies, and not the Church and euerie true Pastour of the same, or that Peter by them had greater power and authoritie, then the rest of the Apostles, which had them also, you shall neuer be hable to make demonstration. Your remembrance serueth you well, that all the olde writers do make no difference, betweene the authoritie of Peter and the rest of the Apostles, concerning the remitting of sins. But you do forget, that the power of bynding and loosing, was by our sauiour Christ graunted equallie to all the Apostles, and to their successours, though it were once singularlie vttered to one. The subtiltie of Origen, to make a difference betweene binding and loosing in all the heauens, and in one heauen onelie, beside that it is vaine in it selfe, yet is it not brought of Origen to dignifie Peter aboue all the Apostles, whome both vpon the place of Mat. 16. and this also, he confesseth to haue receiued equall power with Peter: but to prefer Peter and such as Peter was, before them that haue thrise reprehended offenders, and beeing not heard haue bound the sinner vpon earth, iudgeing him as an heathen or publicane: whereof he inferreth. Quanto melior fuerit, qui ligat. &c, how much better he is that bindeth, by somuch he that is bound is bound more then in one heauen, and how much better he is that looseth, by so much he shall be more happie that is loosed: for he is loosed in all the heauens. The greater preheminence of rule and iurisdiction, & the fullnes of power and prerogatiue deriued from Peter, as from a fountaine, be matters of bolde assertion, but void of all manner of proofe or demonstration.

ALLEN.

But we will not stand hereon now, nor yet to put difference betwixt these wordes and tearmes, loosing or remitting, binding or retaining, nor to dispute whether these two textes more properlie signifie the authoritie and iurisdiction giuen to the spiritual Magistrates, for punishing by temporal pain enioyned, and releasing by mercie, as they see occasion, the same appointed penance againe, or els it properlie concerneth the verie release of sinne it selfe, or retaining the sinne, which they vpon iust causes will not forgiue. These thinges would grow to ouer tedious a tale, and ouercurious for the simple, whome I would moste helpe in these matters: and I shall briefllie touch so much hereof, as is necessarie, hereafter when I shall dispute of pardons. For in deede these two textes of binding and loosing, as well spoken to Peter, as to the residue afterward, shall be the ground of our wholl discourse there, and therefore till then, we must touch these textes no further, but as in common pertaineth to remitting or retaining sinnes. For they are brought indifferentlie of the holie fathers with the foresaid wordes of Saint Iohn, in which, as I haue declared, the verie institution of penance and Priestes iudgement of our soules and sinnes, be moste properlie grounded. Theresore that by all these wordes, so often vttered by our sauiour, you maie well perceiue the verie literall and vudoubted meaning to be, that Priestes haue authoritie by Christes warrant to remit and retaine sinnes, I will recite one or two places of most auncient fathers, that they ioyning with such plaine wordes of sundrie places of scripture, maie make all most sure, to such as can by anie reason be satisfied. First Ialledge the saying of S. Maximus, Homil. In natali Petri & Pau. an olde author, & a blessed saint. He doth by conference couple together these textes whereon we now stand: thus hespeaketh verie pithely, therefore you shal heare his owne words: Ne qua vos, fiatres, de creditis Petro clauibus regni, more nostrarum clauium cogitatio terrena promoueat, Clauis caeli lingua est Petri, quam singulorum meritae censendo Aposiolus vnicuique regnum coelorum aut claudit, aut aperit: Non est ergo clauis ista mortalis artificis aptata manu, sed data à Christo potestas est iudicandi. Denique ait eis: quorum remiseritis peccata, remissa erunt, & quorum detinueritis, detenta erunt. Thus he saith in our tongue: Least anie earthlie cogitation mooue you to think of anie such materiall keies as we occupy in earth, when you heare of committing the keies of the kingdome to Peter, you must thus vnderstand, that the key of heauen is Peters word or tongue, because the Apostle weighing well euerie of our deserts, openeth or shutteth to euery man the kingdome of Christ. This key therfore is not made by mortal mans hand, but it is the power of iudgement giuen by Christ. To be briefe, he saith to them al: whose sins you shal forgiue, they shal be forgiuē, &c.Thus saith Maximus, ioyning together fitly two textes for one purpose, & out of both maketh a moste forcible argument, that the iudgement of our soules, which is a passing authoritie, and the verie letting in, and keeping out of heauen, is addicted by the keies to Peters, and the Apostles ministerie. For which cause also S. Gregorie calleth all Christes Apostles, and the iust occupiers of their roomes, the dores by which we must enter into heauē, or euerlastingly byde out: which is a feareful saying to al such as contemne their authority. His Ca. 16. l. 28. in Iob. wordes be these: Quid cuncti Apostoli, nisi sanctae Ecclesiae ostia, existunt? cùm eis dicitur, Accipite spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, &c. ac si illis apertè diceretur: per vos ingrediuntur ad me hi quibus vos ipsi panditis, & repellentur quibus obseratis. What are all the Apostles else, but the dores of holie Church? Seeing it is said of them, take you the holie Ghost. whose sinnes you doe forgiue, they be forgiuen: euen as though in plainer termes it had beene spoken thus: by you all must enter that will come vnto me, those, I saie, to whom you open the dore by loosing of thir sins, and those that be put backe, that you locke out. Hitherto Saint Gregorie. This wonderfull authoritie caused Saint Hilarie thus to make exclamatiō: De Trin. l. 6. O holie & most happie men! for the desert of your faith you haue obtained the keies of heauen, & now the whole right both of binding & loosing in heauen & earth is assuredlie in you. But that you maie fullie beholde their right herein, consider his notable words vpon the alledged place of S. Matthew: Ad terrororē metus maximi, quo in praesens omnes continerentur, Super Math. 18. Some read Confessione for concessione immobile seueritatis Apostolicum iudicium praemisit, vt quos in terrae ligauerint. i. peccatorum nodis innexos reliquerint, & quos soluerint, concessione scilicet veniae, receperint in salutem, in Apostolicae conditione sententiae, in caelis quoque aut soulti sint, aut ligati. That is to saie: To she terror and feare of all men, and necessarie keeping of them in awe and disctplne, Christ promised the immooueable iudgement of the Apostles seueritie, that whomesoeuer they hound in earth, that is to saie, left fast tied in the bandes of sinnes, and whome they loosed, that is to witte, by mercie receiued to the benefit of pardon, that the same persons so bound or so released, in the same case that the Apostles left them, should be in the heauens, either loose or fast. Thus farre S. Hilarie: by whome we euidentlie maie learne, in what carefull case all men be that passe this life not loosed by them, whose sentence in earth is so surely ratified in heauen aboue, and no leesse how the wordes of Christ vttered sometimes in termes of binding & loosing, other times in remitting and retaining, doe literallie signifie.

FVLKE.

If these two textes of binding and loosing, shalbe the ground of your whole discourse, when you come to the popes pardons, we maie see before hand vpon how feeble a ground you build. For they beeing brought as you confesse indifferentlie of the holie Fathers, with the other wordes vttered by Saint Iohn, in which you saie, the verie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of penance, and Priests iudgement of our soules and sinnes be most properlie grounded, do prooue that all Priestes haue equall power in giuing of pardons, as they haue in remitting of sinnes: When you conclude, that by all these wordes, so often vttered by our sa uiour, we maie perceiue the verie litterall and vndoubted meaning to be, that Priestes haue authoritie by Christes warrant, effectuallie to remit and 〈◊〉 sinnes, you ioyne together things that are of no necessary consequence, and in this case are to be disioyned. For we acknowledge that it is the vndoubted meaning of Christ, that his ministers should haue authoritie, effectuallie to remit or retaine sinnes. But the verie literall meaning (so you call the grammaticall sense) is otherwise then you take it. For in those two textes, binding and loosing are plaine Metaphors, as all men wil confesse, that can put a difference betweene proper and figuratiue speaches. And in the third, of remitting or retaining, either we must acknowledge a Metonymie, or els the Proper office & authoritie of God is made common to men. The places of the auncient fathers that you cite, make nothing at al to cleare the controuersie on your side, namelie whether Priestes forgiue sins as properlie as God him selfe. First the saying of Maximus, or whosoeuer was author of that Homelie, interpreting the keie, of the kingdome of heauen, to be Peters word or tongue, doth signifie, that by preaching he exreciseth that power of iudgement, by which he openeth or shutteth the kingdome of heaué, according as euery one receiueth, or refuseth his Doctrine. Againe, comparing this power of iudgeing, with the text of S. Iohn, he declareth that Peters keie is common to him, with all the Apostles, and their successours. S. Gregorie also comparing them to dores, meaneth not to take anie thing from our sauiour Christ, the onelie dore. Also in the same place he sheweth in plaine words, that they are dores, to let in and keepe out by preaching. Et quia Doctores sancti praedicatione quidem sequentibus 〈◊〉 sunt, authoritate autem suaresistentibus clausi, non immeritò ostia vocantur: id est, aperta conuersationi humilium, & clausa terroribus, superborum. Non immeritò ostia vocantur: quia & ingressum fidelibus aperiunt, & rursum sese perfidis ne ingrediantur opponunt. Pensemus quale Ecclesie ostium extitit Petrus, qui inuestigantem fidem Cornelium recepit, pertio quaerentem miracula Simonem reppulit, illi dicens: In veritate comperi, quoniam non est personarum acceptor Deus, secreta regni benignè aperuit: huic inquiens, Pecunia tua tecum sit in perditionem, per districtae damnationis sententiam, celestis aulae aditum claudit. And because holy teachers by preaching truelie, are open to them that followe them, and by their authoritie shut to them that resist, they are not vnworthelie called dores: that is, open to the conuersation of the humble, and shut to the terrours of the proude. They are not vnworthely called dores, because they do both open an entry vnto the faithsull, and againe oppose them. selues against the vnfaithfull, that they should not enter. Let vs consider what manner a dore of the Church Peter was: which receiued Cornelius searching out the faith, and kept out Simon seeking miracles for monie: saying to the one: Of a trueth I preceiue that God is not an acceptor of persons, he gentlie opened the secretes of the kingdome: saying to the other Thy monit with thee be vnto destruction, by sentence of straight damnation he shut vp the entrie of the heauenlie court. Then followe immediatlie the wordes by you cited. Quid cuncti Apostolie, &c. whereby it is euident that Saint Gregories iudgement is, that by preaching they remit or retaine sinnes, as by the same they are dores of the Church. The former place of Saint Hilarie, is vnfaithfullie translated by you. In neither is their anie admiration, or exclamationi in his wordes, in respect of their authoritie, neither saith he, that the whole right of binding and loosing is assuredlie in you. I will recite his words, whereby all men may see, how bolde you are to sttetch forth the Doctors meaning, when you will be so impudent with their wordes. The Apostles said, In hoc credimus, quia a Deo exîsti. Quae rogo haec verbi huius admiratio est, quod se exisse à Deo professus sit? Tanta & tam deo propria vos, O Sancti & beati viri, ob fidei vestrae meritum claues regni caelorum sortitt, & ligandi atque soluendi in caelo & in terraius adepti, gestacsse per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Dei filium 〈◊〉 , & ad id quod à Deo exisse dixit, nunc primùm vos veri intelligentiam assecutos protestamini? In this we beleeue that thou art come out from God. What admiration I praie you is this of this word, that he professeth that he came out from God? so great thinges and so proper to God, O ye holie and blessed men, which had obteined the keies of the kingdome of heauen, for the worthinesse of your faith, and haue obtained right of binding and loosing in heauen and earth, had you seene done by our Lord Iesus Christ the sonne of God: And doe you now first protest, that you haue obtained the vnderstanding of the trueth, as concerning that he said he came forth from God? In these wordes it is apparant, that all the Apostles haue the keies, as well as Peter, and right or authoritie of binding and loosing, but that the whole right thereof is in them, as though God had resigned his right to them, or giuen them equall right with him-selfe, S. Hilarie neuer said nor thought. The latter sentence toucheth not the cōtrouersy between vs. For we graunt the power of binding and loosing, forgiuing and retaining, to be ratified in heauen, but that the wordes of Christ be of an absolute power properlie to doe that, which is the office of God alone, we cannot learne by this, or anie other saying of Saint Hilarie.

ALLEN.

But I will adde S. Chrysostomes testimonie thereunto, the rather because our aduersaries doe abuse his wordes sometimes against confession, which necessarilie hangeth on the authority of Priesthood in remission and retaining sinnes, as anon I shal declare. That I be not ouer tediuose, I will report his saying in English onelie: Those (saith he) that dwelleth in earth and are conuersant amongst men, haue receiued power and commission Lib. 3 de Sacer. to dispose and dispense such thinges as be in heauen: yea these men haue receieud power, such as neither God either gaue to Angelles, for, it was neuer said to them, whatsoeuer you bind in earth it shall be bound in heauen, and whatsoeuer you loose in earth, it shall be loosed in heauen. Earthlie Princes in deed haue power to binde, but that pertaineth to the bodies of their subiectes onelie: but that which I now talke of, that is proper to the Priests, touching the verie soule it selfe, and is so ample, that it reacheth to the heauens aboue: yea & that so largelie, that whatsoeuer the Priestes doe beneath, the verie selfe same God wil allow and ratifie in heauen aboue, and so the Lord will confirme the iudgement and sentence of the seruants. Thus farre speaketh Chrysostome. His words be so plaine that to stand long on them, for farther proofe of my matter, then the verrie face of the sentence doth importe, it were vaine. For man maie here rather maruell to see such strange power vpon Christes wordes giuen to the holie order, and yet that to be so litle esteemed of wicked men and so litle regarded euen of the honester sort of simple folkes, that few either seeke after their iudgement in cause of their soules, or duelie honour that power in them which passeth all other prelacie, that euer either man or Angell receiued in this great contempt (I saie) of most holie things, wickednes is rather to be wondered at, and lamented, then by long reasoning to be confuted. The sequele of true thinges is so plaine in it selfe, the diuerse places of scripture so answere iustlie ech to other, the fathers so consonantlie confirme the knowne meaning of the same and the verie tearmes of so many scriptures writen at diuerse times by sundrie of the Euangelists, so fall vpon one vndoubted sense, that we may rightly conclude the power to be in all cases giuen to the Apostles of remission of sinne.

FVLKE.

The wordes of Chrysostome are large enough of themselues, although you had not augmented them, with your additions and explications, beside that you haue altered the number, in the text of Mat 16. where in lieth a mysteric. For Chrysostome by these wordes spoken in the singular number to Peter, prooueth the authoritie that is common to all Priests. What soeuer, thou shalt binde, & whatsoeuer thou shalt loose. The summe is, that the power and dignitie of Priests is exceeding great, which maketh a mortall man, to come neere to the blessed, and incorrupted nature of God, as he saieth before. But if an absolute and proper power of remitting sins were graūted to them, they come not one ly neere, but are translated in deede, into the diuine na ture, which is intollerable blasphemy. That the Lord ratifieth in heauen & confirmeth the sentence of his seruants giuen vpon earth, it is to be vnderstoode, that God approoueth the sentence which he before hath appointed them to pronounce. As if the Queene in England should protest that shee is content to ratifie and confirme whatsoeuer her embassadour doth in France, acding to his commission, and the instructions receiued from her, thee neither resigneth her authoritie to her embassadour, neither giueth him equall power with her selfe, but onelie maketh him the interpreter, and declarer of her will and pleasure, which shee is content to ratifie, and not otherwise.

ALLEN.

And vpon such knowne termes I make this argument against the aduersaries. They truelie and properlie doe remit sinnes, vpon whose sentence in earth the pardon of God immediatelie ensueth in heauen: but Gods pardon vndoubtedlie followeth the priests pardon in remission in earth (Claue non errante) Ergo they assuredlie remit sins. The Maior is manifest, the Minor hangeth vpon plaine scripture thrise tolde: which first appointed man to loose in earth, and then that God shall in the same instant forgiue in heauen: God shall confirme the sentence of his seruants, saith S. Chrysostome. Mans iudgement (saith Hilarie) shall be as a sentence preiudiciall to God in heauen. And thus farre for the wordes of Christ at this present, and farther strength shal more and more be gathered vnto them, by diuerse partes of all the processe following.

FVLKE.

You make such argumentes for your friendes, and not against your aduersaries. For what aduersarie would you choose vnto your selfe so simple, that could not espie these grosse faults of your syllogisme. For first your Maior is false, which you saie is manifest. But you haue not yet prooued that they doe properlie remit sinnes, vpon whose sentence in earth, the pardon of God immediately ensueth in heauen, that is, whose sentence on earth, is ratified & confirmed in heauen. That they doe truelie forgiue sinnes, it is graunted: but not that they doe properlie forgiue sinnes, beeing but Gods seruants appointed to declare his forgiuenes. Secondly your Minor bringeth in a fourth tearme, Claue non errante: beside that it is ambiguous, that you saie, Gods pardon followeth the preists pardon: for if by following, you meane succeading later in time, or depending vpon the priests pardon, your Minor is false, wtih Claue non errante: if you meane, as I haue explicated in your Maior, the worde ensueth, it is true. Last of all your conclusion ioyneth not your two extreames together as it ought to doe, but leaueth out the worde which is of most importance and question among vs, namelie this tearme Properlie. For you should couclude, that Priestes doe truelie and properlie remit sinnes, which in respect of the worde properlie, is false. But as you set it downe with the worde assuredlie, it is graunted. For we acknowledge, that the lawfull minister, elder, or priest of the Church, doth truelie and assuredlie remit sinnes, but yet not properlie. So you misse the cushion, and make a shew in your Maior, as though you would reason directlie: but in your Minor you giue backe, with Claue non errante, in your conclusion you fly quite from the question. Where you interpret your Minor, so that God in the same instant forgiueth in heauen, you rid vs of one doubt of the posteritie in time. But where you saie out of Saint Hilarie, that mans sentence shall be as a sentence preiudiciall to God in heauen, you giue vs to vnderstand that Gods sentence dependeth vpon mans sentence, which is horrible blasphemie: neither doe I beleeue that you are able to shew any such saying of Saint Hilarie: for out of the places before alledged, there is no such thinge to be seene or gathered.

That the same power of remitting and reteining sinnes, which was giuen to the Apostles, was nor bestowed on them in respect of their priuate persons, but as they were publike officers. and that therefore the like authoritie is committed by Christes graunt to all Priestes of Christes Church, whoe in this matter are the Apostles successours.

THE FIFT CHAP.

IF I had here to doe onelie with the learned, it were enough that is alreadie prooued for the power & preheminence giuen to the Apostles in remission of sinnes, thereupon to ground most assuredlie the like right in the same cause to perteine to all Bishoppes and priestes of Christes Church. But we studie to helpe such as cannot by this so farre consider, that the power giuen to his Apostles or to any of them is one eternall power, not ceasing in their persons, but during in their succession to the worlds ende. For I haue my selfe met with many such, as could be content, as they saide, to acknowledge vpon so plaine scripture the singular priuiledge giuen to the Apostles, and thereupon if they might haue had an Apostle, they would not haue sticked to haue made there confession and sute to him for the remission of their sinnes: but because I had not the like wordes of Christ spoken to all priests particularlie, they thought it was no reason that any such challenge should be made for them: nor any such charge to be giuen to others to confesse their sinnes vnto them. This simplicitie of the common sorte, or rather this rude frowardnes rising vpon contempt and disobedience to Gods Church, is mainteined euen of the more learned sort, whoe haue charged them-selues in all behauiour to be so populare and so plausible, that euen against knowne order of things they will drawe backe from the light of the trueth, with the common, rude, and vnlearned reasons of the people. For Iohn Caluine, a man borne to sedition and the Churches calamitie, Caluin. mainteineth the madnes of the multitude by this reason: The Apostles (saith he) had the holy ghost, whereof our priests haue no warrant. But enquire of them, whether they haue the holie ghost: if they saie yea, demaund of them further, whether the holie Ghost may erre: if they confesse, that the holy ghost can not erre, then they prooue themselues not to haue the holie Ghost, because it is well seene that they may erre, and doe erre, both in loosing and binding many, otherwise then Gods sentence will allow. But brieflie to satisfie all sides in this case, I shall declare the like power to be left by Christes meaning to al Bispopes and priests, no lesse then to the Apostles them-selues, to whome Christ then presentlie spake: that both the peoples lacke of vnderstanding may be corrected, and the false and craftie conueiance of their captaine may be, to his shame and the diuells, plainlie disclosed.

FVLKE.

It seemeth, that those which you met with, which would not acknowledge the same power to be in the ministers of the Church, that was in the Apostles, concerning remitting of sinnes, were some of your owne chickens, whome ignorance, the mother of Popish deuotion, had blooded vp in such phantasticall and soolish errors. But least you should seeme to fight onelie with the simple sorte, you saie, the same opinion is vpon popularitie and plausibilitie mainteined euen of the more learned sort, yea of Iohn Caluine him-selfe: but you dare not set downe where or in which of his writings, lest your impudencie should be manifestlie conuinced. In deede Instit. lib. 3. Cap. 4. Sect. 20. he denieth that ignorant Popish confessours, or shrift priests, haue the power of the keyes, which are voide of the spirit of God, that is, of the giftes of the holie ghost, that they may know who me to binde, & whome to loose: but he acknowledgeth, the power of remitting sinnes to be perpetuall in the true preachers, and faithfull ministers of the Ghospell. And therefore you take needelesse paines, to prooue this matter against him, vnles you will take vpon you, to defend the ignorance of your priesthoode, and answere the arguments that he bringeth against it.

ALLEN.

First this is plaine, that whatsoeuer Christ after his resurrection or before did institute for the commoditie of the people and weale of the wholl Church, that did not decaie in the persons of them to whome Christ presentlie spake the wordes: for ells all sacraments had beene ended, and all gouernment ceased at the death of them to whome in person that charge was first giuen by Christ. For example: Christ in his institution of the holie Sacrament of the altar spake onelie to his twelue, & to those present persons he onelie said presently, hoc facite, do 1. Cor. 11. this: yet in their persons, the Church was so instructed, and all priests so authorized, that the same soueraigne worke hath vpon that warrant beene truelie practized of the Church, and by vaine imitation followed by their aduersaries, euen till this daie. And in deede, the verie wordes of the instruction did importe no lesse: for it is said Mortem Domini annunciabitis, donec 〈◊〉 . You shall set forth Christes death till his comming: which could not be, if the ministerie had decayed with their persons, to whome Christ spake. So the charge both of preaching and babtizing was giuen to a fewe chosen men then present: but that al the world might preceiue, that of his wisdome & careful prouidence the charge & authoritie pertained to the gouernours of the Church for euer, no lesse then to them, whome he then called to that function, he added: I will be with you to the end of the world, meaning, that they should exercise that office in his name & assistance Math. vlt. to the daie of iudgement Which in their own persons was not true, but in their successours. For this cause, it is no doubt, but what authoritie soeuer Peter had alone aboue the residewe of his fellowes, that the same is by all reason to be diriued from him to all his successours: and that caused Chrysostome to saie, that Christ shed his 〈◊〉 to winne the sheepe, which he committed to Peter and his successours to feed: where Christ in person presentlie spake but to Peter alone: and yet because he knew the like gouernment was both necessarie after Peters death, as well as in his time, and no lesse by Christs appointement to be continued in the Church after, as before, the Doctours doubted not to enlarge Christes worde vttered to Peter alone, to al them that sis cceeded in the same roome. Vpon these most strong groundes euerie man plainlie may argue, the like power yet to be in the Church of God in euerie case, euen as Christ did institute at the beginning, when he gaue the charge to the Apostles first. For looke what forme of gouernement and order of the Church was thought vnto his wisedome to be best then, the same must needes be best now (I speake for the substance of thinges: for by diuersities of time and person some alteration may rise in the circumstances) Therefore if it were good at that time that one should be the generall Vicar of Christ, and pastour of all the sheepe, for which he shed his blessed blood, it is good yet also: if some had authoritie then to consecrate Christs body, some haue the same power till this time: if some then must needes baptize & preach, other some must now also do the same: finally if certaine then had commission by Christ, & the holie ghost giuen them to remit sins, & therewith power by his word both to pardon & punish, to bind & to loose, it must by force of the foresaide argument necessarilie be induced, that some at this date must haue the like office. For els Christ could not continue the same power & office in the Church which he for the Churches sake did first institute: & which he counted of his heauenlie wisedome moste necessarie for the Chucrhes gouernement. But I think no man hath yet so shaken of shame and feare of God, that he dare holde that Christ was not hable to mainteine all power, rule, and iurisaiction, with all kinde of functions which he instituted for the benefite of the people till the worldes ende, both him-selfe and the holie ghost promised to be present for that purpose till the generall iudgement. And that those functions were necessarie for his euerlasting common wealth, his solemne institution and carefull prouision of them doe declare: that he meaneth no lesse to establish the same which he then instituted, not onelie the foresaid reasons, but that saying of Saint Paull doth prooue: He gaue vnto the Church some to be Apostles, some to be Prophets, some to be Euangelists, some to be Pastours and Ephes. 4. Doctours: and all this to the worke and maintenaunce of the ministerie for the persiting of the Saints, and vpholding of Christes bodie, till the time of the acknowledgeing of Gods sonne. Thus doth Christ prouide for his deare Church in all manner of seruice and office euen til the last daie. Wherebie it is most cleare, that the power of remission of sinnes beeing once giuen to the Church can neuer cease, whiles man of his continuall frailtie ceaseth not to sinne. That which was then counted a necessarie refuge and remedie for sinnes committed, can not now perish in the worlde, where sinne is a great deale more rife, and the remedie more needefull.

FVLKE.

There was a certaine power committed to the Apostles, to haue a generall charge to preache ouer all the world, which ceased by their death, as that which was proper to the office of the Apostleship. But such power as they had for the building vp of particuler Churches, by preaching, administring the sacramentes, and exercising of discipline, is perpetuall, and died not with the Apostles. And this authoritie is deriued vnto them, immediately from Christ, and not from Peter. And therfore you abuse the name of Chrisostome, to make him witnes of your deriuation: for he acknowledgeth Christ him selfe, in the wordes by you alleadged, to haue 〈◊〉 feeding of his sheep to Peters successors, that is, to all preistes, which be successours of the Aposties, as Saint Hierome saith, no les, then vnto Peter him selfe: for they are not Peters commissaries, but Christes embassadours, ministers, and dispensers. That one should be general vicar of Christ, & pastour of al the sheepe, for which he shed his blood, it was neither good, not possible, and therefore he instituted many, and no one with such singular authoritie as is pretended. The bodie of Christ is of perfect holines, and therefore needeth no consecration of men: but there remaineth authoritie with the ministers of the Church, to consecrate breade and wine, to be the bodie and blood of Chist, that is, the sacrament, signe, or figure thereof. Likewise to preach and baptize, to excommunicate, and to receiue againe. And that for which you bring in the rest, to remit and reteine sinnes, according to the pleasure of God, reuealed in his holie Ghospell, whereof the true dispensours are appointed to be true and faithfull interpreters and declarers.

ALLEN.

But to conuince them plainlie that thinke contrarie let them tell me whether Thomas beeing not then present, as the Euangelist saith, and therefore the wordes not vttered to him in person, let them shew me whether he had not afterwarde, by force of that institution, power also to remit sinnes. If he had, as by reason I am sure they cannot denie, as full preheminence and power to doe all thinges, that then Christ charged his ten Disciples, which were present, to do in his name, then the power of remission of sinnes was not so streightlie limited, as the words might seeme to be vttered, by which no doubt a sacramen: was instituted to take force in the Church both then & afterward to the worlds ende: not that any man may of his owne head, vpon force onelie of Christs commission giuen at that time to his Apostles, take that high function vpon him: but that he which ordinarilie shall be called by receiuing of grace and the holie Ghost in externall sacrament by laying on of handes of Priesthoode, may likewise vpon his owne flocke and cure exercise that office, no lesse then those holie men might after Christes calling thereunto, occupie the same worke of binding and loosing of such sheepe of Christes folde, as to them were committed. And so did Saint Thomas, who then was not there: so did Saint Matthew who then was no Apostle: so did Barnabas, so did Timothie and Titus who were ordeined by Saint Paul, and so did Paul him selfe, of whome Saint Ambrose saith Lib. 1 〈◊〉 Poenit. Cap. 16. that he did remit sinnes without all derogation.

The good studiousereader must marke wel then, that al these holie functions or passing preheminencies, are not giuen to the priuate persons, in respect of themselues, neither of Peter, nor of Paul, nor any other, but they are bestowed vpon them for the vse of the Church which dieth in their persons, and therefore must be honoured with the same offices by other, after they be dead, by perpetuall succession they shall neuer cease. And that caused Saint Augustine, and other holie fathers to saie, the keies were giuen to the Church and authoritie to remit sinnes, De doct. Christ. lib. 1. c. 18. to baptize and to enioyne penance: not because the wholl Church, by gathering all her children together, must giue sentence vpon euerie sinner, or els the priests iudgement to be nothing, as some foolish seditious heades haue now to the distrurbance of the world deuised: but because it is our common wealth and house of faith, which is so beutified in her ministers, with all kinde of sacraments and good orders for the gouernment of her children, and because all men may see, it was the earnest loue and carefull prouidence for this his spouse, and not the persons of the Apostles in respect of them selues, which mooued his wisedome to the institution of such perpetuall offices in the Church.

FVLKE.

Your conclusion is true, that the power extended to al the Apostles successors; but it is not strongly prooued, by the example of Thomas, Matthew, Paull, and Bernabas, who were Apostles them-selues, in the highest degree: and therefore I like better the solution of Cyrillus, which vnderstandeth the intention of Christ, to haue beene of the wholl order of the Apostles, and their successours, although more then Thomas had beene absent, at such time as he gaue that power, alledging the examples of Eldad, and Meldad, which being of the number, that were chosen to be gouernours, to assist Moses, although they were not present with the rest before the tabernacle, yet they were indued with the spirit of prophesie, because they were of the number appointed. Where you saie, that no doubt a Sacrament was instituted by these wordes of Christ, and often haue so saide, you onelie saie it, and bring no proofe thereof. neither doe you declare what is the visible signe of the inuisible grace, nor what 〈◊〉 the element to which the worde commeth, that we might acknowledge a sacrament with you. That the keies are giuen to the Church, although it prooue 〈◊〉 that euerie member of the Church should execute them, yet it prooueth, that Peter had no soueraigne nor singular authoritie of the keies aboue the rest of the Apostles, but that the Pastour of euerie Church hath the same, not of the gift, graunt commission, or permission of Peter; but of the graunt and immediate commission from Iesus Christ him-selfe. Whether the power of excommunication perteine to all the Church, or to certaine chosen gouernours thereof, it is a question not incident to this to be handled.

ALLEN.

Hereupon therefore, and in consideration that the keies of opening and shutting heauen, by binding and loosing mans sinnes, shall euer remaine for the vse and honour of the Church, the saied holie Saint Augustine hath these wordes: Claues dedit Ecclesiae suae, vt quae solucrit in terra, soluta essent & in coelo: quae ligauerit in terra, ligata essent & in 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. c. 18. De doct. Christ. Christ deliured the keyes to the Church, that whoesoeuer shee loosed in earth, should be loosed in heauen: and whatsoeuer shee bound in earth, should be bound likewise in heauen. And Optatus his equall striuing with the Donatistes for all holie giftes which Christ bestowed vpon his Church, challengeth Lib. 1. & 2. cont. Donatist. all other sacraments, and namelie the keies for the Catholike and vniuersall Church, from the part of Donatus the heretike, as in the right of Peter. He saieth exceeding pithely: Claues darae sunt Petro, & non haereticis: And afterwade: Cathedram Petri, quae nostra est, per ipsam & caeteras dotes apud nos esse probamus. etiam sacerdotium. The keies are giuen to Peter, and not to heretikes: by the chaier of Peter which is ours: we prooue all other giftes of the Church to be ours yea euen priesthoode. Thus he hath in sense in diuerse places. By which we see, the inrisdiction and power giuen to the principall Apostle, yet to remaine, and by it all other the Churches notable preheminences, which he calleth Ecclesiae dotes, The douries of the Church, through his wholl discourse against the Donatists. So doth Epiphanius attribute the power of penance and pardon to the Church likewise, not onelie in baptisme, which he calleth the moste perfect penance, but also afterwarde vpon the parties relapse, in which case the heretikes called Cathari, affirmed that the Church had no authoritie to pardon them any more. Against which pernicious Cathari. sect he sayeth, If any man fall after his baptisme, the Church will not be vnmercifull to him: Dat enim reuersionem, & Lib. 2. To. heres. 59. post poenitentiam. For shee giueth him leaue to returne, and hath penance after penance. By which he noteth, that the Church hath two sacraments for remission of sinne, the one is baptisme, which he termeth perfect penance, with Saint Paul to the Hebrewes: And Saint Augustine doth call it in his En. chiridion, Magnam indulgentiam, a graund pardon. And Gap. 6. afterward, The Church hath an other kinde of remission, which Epiphanius calleth poenitentiam post poenitentiam: But of these two more shalbe said anon.

After this 〈◊〉 doth Lactantius 〈◊〉 to the true Church, confession, penance, and profitable healing of our woundes, and such sores as be found in our soules. By all which, euerie man Lib. 4. de Sap. cap. 30. may conceiue easelie, that this honour and commission of priesthoode, for the remission of our sinnes, did not decaie with the Aposties appointed by Christ, nor shall cease till Christes comming to 〈◊〉 the worlde.

FVLKE.

These testimonies needed not to be heaped vp in vaine, but that you would beare the ignorant in hand most iniurioslie, that Caluin and the better learned of the protestants do holde, that the power of binding and loosing ated with the Apostles, and continueth not in the Church. Saint Augustines wordes are as you cite them, but there followeth immediatlie an explication, which you haue omitted. Scilicet vt quis quis in Ecclesia eius dmitti sibi peccata non crederet, non eidimitterentur, quisquis autem crederet, seque ab his correctus auerteret, in eiusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus, eadem fide at que correctione sanareiur. Quisquis enim non cred it dimitti sibi posse peccata, fit deterior disperando, quasi nihil illi melius quàm malum esse remanear, vbi de fructu suae conuersionis infidus est. Christ deliuered the keies to the Church (saith S. Augustine) that whatsoeuer she loosed in earth should be loosed in heauen, and what soeuer she bound in earth should be, &c. that is to saie, that whosoeuer would not beleeue, that sinnes should be forgiuen him in his Church, they should not beforgiuen vnto him: but whosoeuer did beleeue, and being corrected, did turne him-selfe awaie from them, being placed in the bosome of the same Church, should be healed by the same faith and correction. For whosoeuer doth not beleeue that his sinnes maie be forgiuen vnto him, is made worsse by dispairing, as though nothing remained better for him then to beleue, when he is vnfaithful & vnbeleeuing of the fruite of his conuersion. These wordes of Saint Augustine do shew, that sinnes are forgiuen to the penitent, and faithfull, that beleeue the doctrine of repentance and forgiuenes of sinnes, which is preached in the Church. The place of Optatus vrging the vnitie of Peters chaire against the schismatikes that were deuided from the communion of the Catholike Church, ascribeth no greater authoritie to Peters chaire in exercising the keyes, or anie other power of the Priesthood, then to all other chaires. That Epiphanius allowethrepentance after baptisine against the Catharistes, it prooueth no more an other sacrament of penance, then that we do, euen as he, graunt that there is place of repentance before god, & reconciliation vnto the Church, for such as do daily fall after baptisme. But contrary wise it appeareth, that Epiphanius alloweth but one sacrament of repentance, which is baptisme. Andyet (saith he) we take not awaie the mercie of God knowing the preaching of the trueth, and the mercie of the Lord, &c, the pardonable nature, the vnstedfastnes of the soule, the weaknes of the flesh, the deepenes of the sense of manie men, because no man is void of sinne, and pure from filthines, though his life be but one daie vpon the earth. And perfect repentance in deede is in the lauer of baptisme but if a man fall, the holie Church of god doth not loose him, for it gran teth him a returne, and after that repentance an other repentance. The Greeke word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifying a sorowfullnes for that which is committed, by which the partie maie be brought to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the perfect repentance that he spake of before, that is, recouer the grace of forgiuenes of sins, confirmed vnto him in baptisme, which is the onelie sacrament of repentance, the fruite whereof endureth vnto our liues end, to make vs partakers of the fruite of regeneration, that is, life euerlasting. The examples that he bringeth of repentanee offered to Cain, and graunted to Peter, do Prooue that he speaketh not of any sacrament of rePentance, but sheweth that God receaueth them that fall after baptisme, vnto repentance, according to the preaching of trueth, and of the mercie of God. I muse what you meane, when you saie, that Epiphanius termeth baptisme perfect repentance, with Saint Paul to the Hebr. cap. 6. For the Apostle to the Hebrewes hath no such terme, either in that chapter, or in anie other place of that epistle: except you dreamed of such a matter, because he professeth to leaue the first principles of religion, as repentance from dead workes, &c. which pertaineth to the doctrine of baptisme, and Imposition of hands, and to grow to perfection. In the Catholike Church, as Lactantius saith, there is confession, because there is faith: there is also repentance, which wholsomlie healeth the sinnes and wound to which the weakenes of the fleshis subiect: by which it is prooued that there is remission of sinnes in the Church, continuing vntill the comming of Christ to iudgement.

ALLEN.

But he that listeth to see in what office, and by whome he holdeth this singular honour of remission of sinnes, he shall finde, not onelie the Apostles, who were called by Christ, but all other Bishops also, that succeede them in the Church, to be her ministers herein. Whereof let him reade the 26. Homely of Saint Gregorie, pertaining almost whollie to that purpose. I will repeat a few wordes onelie out of it, committing the rest to the diligence of the reader. Libet intueri (saith he) illi discipuli ad tanta onera humilitatis vocati, ad quantum culmen gloriae sint oeruecti. Ecce non solùm de semetipsis securi fiunt, sed etiam alienae obligationis, & relaxationis potestatem accipiunt: principatumque superniiudicij sortiuntur, vt vice Dei quibusdam peccata retineant, quibusdam relaxent. Ecce, qui districtum iudicium Dei metuunt, animarum iudices fiunt & alios damnant, velliberant, qui semetipsos damnare metuebant. Horum profectò nunc in Ecclesia Dei, Episcopi locum tenent, ligandi atque soluendi authoritatem sumunt: grandis honor, sed graue pondus est istud honoris. It is my meaning now, to beholde to what marueilous honour the Disciples of Christ be exalted, which before were called in their base state to great burden and troubles. For now, they be not onelie in assurance of their owne state, but they haue obtained power of binding and releasing other, and the verie soueraigntie of heauenly iudgement, that in Gods owne steade, they may some mans sinnes release, and other offencesreteine, Loe, those that once feared the straight sentence of Gods owne iudgement are made the iudges of other mens soules, to condemne or deliuer where they list, that before doubted of them-selues. And now truelie in these mens roomes are the Bishops of Gods Church, and receiue the authoritie of binding and loosing, and their owne state ofregiment. High surclie is their Chaire, but greater is their charge. S. Gregorie said so farre.

But Saint Augustine shall make vp this matter, with words of such waight, that I trust euerie man shall see the trueth, and almost feele the grossenesse of falsehood thereby. He writeth thus vpon this verse of the Psalme Eructauit, which is the 44. in number with him: Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij, constitueseos Principes super omnem terram: In place of thy parentes thou hast Children borne thee, them thou maist make the Princes of the wholl earth. The Apostles did beget thee, they were sent them-selues, they preached in their owne persons, and finallie they were thy fathers.

But could they alwaies corporallie abide here? And though one of them said, I would gladlie be dissolued and be withChrist, Phil. 1. yet for your sake I counted it more necessarie to tarie in flesh. Thus he said: but how long could his life last? he might not remaine til this daie, much lesse for the time to come. What then? is the Church desoiate after the departure of her parents? God forbid. In steade of thy parentes thou hast sonnes, saith the text: what is that to saie? Marie the Apostles sent by Christ are as fathers, and for them God hath raised vp children or sonnes, which be the holie Bishops of the world. For at this daie the Bishops that be throughout all Christendome, how rose they to that roome? The Church calleth them fathers, and yet shee did beget them, and she placed them in that roome of their fathers: Non ergo reputes desertam, quia non vides Petrum, quòd non vides Paulum, quòd non vides illos per quos nataes: de prole tua tibi creuit paternitas: pra patribus tuis natisunt tibi filij, constitues eos principes super omnem terram. Do not therefore think thy selfe desolate, because thou hast not Paull, because thou hast them not now present, by whome thou wast borne: of thy owne issue, fatherhood is growne to thee: and for thy fathers thou hast brought forth sonnes, them shalt thou make the rulers ouer al the earth. Thus much out of Saint Augustine. By whome you maie perceaue the great prouidence of God that euerlastinglie vpholdeth the ordinance of his sonne Christ Iesus, as well now by the children borne from time to time in the Churches lap, as before in the spring of our faith by the Apostles sent and appointed in person by Christ him-selfe.

FVLKE.

I suppose the title of your booke, will admonish you not to restraine this office onelie to Bishops, which so often you haue made common to all priestes. For Gregory also in the same homyly nameth often times all pastours of the Church, to whome the power of binding and loosing doth appertaine, which are many other beside Bishops. Moreouer, inueighing against the ignorance, and vnworthines of them that occupied such places, which take vpon them to loose, where God doth binde, and binde where God doth loose, he concludeth, that then the absolution of the gouernours of the Chuch is true, when it followeth the will of the eternall Iudge. By which saying, and more to the like effect in that place, he declareth his iudgement, of the kinde of power or authoritie which the Church hath, that it is not absolute, but subiect vuto the will of God, and is an expressing of Gods forgiuenes, or retaining, not a proper forgiuing or retaining. The saying of Saint Augustine prooueth in deede, a continuance of the ministery of the Apostles in the office of Bishops, but hereof it followeth not, that onelie Bishops, as they are distinct from priestes, haue this power: for not onelie Bishops be the children of the Church, but all faithfull men to whome the inheritance of the world is like wise appointed.

ALLEN.

And here you must know, that not onelie Bishops who succeede the Apostles in all kinde of power and regiment, but also all other inferiour Priestes to be compted with them, as successors in ministring diuerse sacraments, as baptisme, penance, the reuerend Sacrament of the Aultar, and such like: but looke what power either Apostle or Bishop hath in remission of sinnes, in consecrating Christes bodie, in baptizing, the same hath the wholl order of holie Priesthood by the right of their order, and maie practize the same vpon such as be subiect vnto them in all causes not exempted for reasonable causes, by such as haue further iurisdiction ouer the people. Wherof I will not now talke particularlie, the learned of that order know the limits of their charge and commission, better then I can instruct them, and the simpler sort must seeke for knowledge of their duetie, by the holie Canons of Councels and decrees of Bishops made for that purpose. I can not now stand thereon: meaning at this present onelie to defend the holie order, and challenge for it such right, as the scripture and Chistes owne word giueth, which in this contempt of vertue and religion is moste necessarie for all men to consider.

FVLKE.

There is no power or authoritie graunted by our sauiour Christ to preach the word of God, or to minister anie sacrament, but the same is common to euerie one of the Pastoures of the Church, and not onelie lawfull, but also necessarie for them, to exercise in their seuerall charges. Wherefore that ministering of some sacraments is permitted to them, and of other denied them, it is beside the word of god. Againe the word of god, that giueth them general power, whose sinnes soeuer, whatsoeuer you shal bind or loose, is directlie against al exempted cases, which sauor of nothing, but of Antichristian tyrannie. As for the cannons of Counceles, and decrees of Bishoppes, whether you send the simple, to learne the limites of their charge, can not restraine that Christ hath enlarged, and therefore if your meaning were, as your wordes professe, to defend the holie order, and challenge for it such right as the scripture and Christes owne worde geueth, you would enueigh against the pride, and ambition of the Pope, & other prelates that exempt anie cases from the Priests power and authoritie, which the holie scripture, and the expresse wordsof our sauiour Christ doth in such ample manner graunt vnto them.

ALLEN.

Therefore vpon our large discourses for this last point, I now deduct the particulars to this summe, which maie stand for a certaine marke, as well for the good to discerne the trueth, as for the aduersaries to shoote at whiles they liue. Alpower and euery iurisdiction or right of Christs Church, remaineth as amplie, and in as full force and strength at this daie, and shall till the worlds end so continue, as they were, by Christ graunted first in the persons of the Apostles or other, instituted. But the power of remission of sinnes, was giuen properlie and in expresse termes to the Apostles: Ergo the same remaineth still in Gods Church. Whereupon it is so cleare, that the Priestes at this day haue as ful power to forgiue sins, as the Apostles had. And this argument of the continuance of all offices and righte of the Church, is the moste plainest and readiest waie, not onelie to helpe our cause now taken in hand, but vtterlie to improoue all false doctrines and detestable practises of heretikes. For they must here be examined diligentlie what common wealth that is, what Church that is, in which Christ doth prescrue the gouernment giuen to the Apostles? where it is that the power not onely os making, but also of practizing al sacraments hath continued still? what companie of Christian people that is, wherein the Apostles, Doctors, preachers, ministers, through the perpetuall assistance of Gods spirit, be continued, for the building vp of Christes bodie, which is the number of faithful people? What Church that is, which bringeth forth from time to time sonnes to occupy the romes of their fathers before them. It is not (good reader) the pelting packe of Protestants? It is not, I saie, and they knowe it is not their petie congregations, that hath till this daie continued the succession of Blshoppes, by whome the world, as Saint Augustine saith, is ruled, as by the Apostles, and first Fathers of Religion. Surely our mother the Church hath hene long baren, if for her Fathers the Apostles, who died so long since, she neuer brought forth children til now to occupie their roomes, and great lacke ofrulers, if she haue made her onelie contemners to be her owne gouernours. No, these sellowes holde not by her, but they holde against her: these sit in no seat Apostolike, but they by all force dishonour the seat Apostolike: these are not they, qui pro patribus nati sunt tibi filij: but these are the sonnes, quos enutriuisti & genuisti, ipsi spreueruntte. If you aske of these men how they holde? they seeke no Fathers after whome they maie rightly rule: they seeke no large rew of predecessours in whose places they may sit: they aske no counsell of Gods Church, by whose calling they should gouerne: but they make a long discourse of statutes and temporall lawes, to couer their ambitious vsurpation, that in great lacke of Christes calling, their vniust honour may be approoued by mans fauour. Thereby let them holde their temporall dignities, their landes, their liuelihoodes, their wiues also, if ther can obtaine so much at the commō wealthes handes: but their spiritual functions, their ministering of Sacraments, their gouernance of our soules, and what els soeuer they vsurpe without the warrant of Gods Church, the longer they exercise them, the farther they be from saluation, and the neerer to eternall woe and miserie. But to come to our purpose: it is our Church Catholike, in which all holie functions haue bene practized after Christes institution euer since his ascension vp to heauen. And therefore this principall power of remitting and retaining sinnes, must needes be contained in the Church by her ministers and priests as it was begonne in the Apostles before.

FVLKE.

I like well your pretence after a large discourse to knit vp your whole entent, in a Syllogisme: which you set as a matke for vs to shoote at, while we liue. verilie your argument, if one word were awaie, I would willinglie graunt: but the word properlie, you are neuer able to prooue while you liue, nor all the papists in the world after you are dead: therefore in respect of that word, I denie your Minor. And yet I graunt, that you inferre vpon it your conclusion in such termes as you haue set it downe: that lawfull Priestes, Elders, or ministers of Gods Church, at this daie, haue as fullpower to forgiue sinnes in their seuerall charges, as the Apostles had in their gener all commission. But here you will needes examine vs, what Church that is, in which Christ doth preserue the gouernment giuen to the Apostles? The Catholike Church forsooth. 2. Where the power of ministring the sacraments (if you meane that, by your termes of making and practizing) hath continued still? in the Catholike Church. 3. What companie of Christ an people that is, wherein the Apostles, Doctours, preachers ministers through the perpetuall assistance of Gods spirit, be continued, for the building vp of Christes bodie, which is the number of the faithfull? Still I answere, the companie of the Catholike Church. 4. What Church that is, which bringeth forth from time to time, sonnes to occupie the romes of their Fathers before them. Here I answere, manie hereticall and malignant Churches: but onelie the Catholike Church hath continued from the beginning in such propagation. You answere your selfe and saie, it is not, it is not the pelting-packe, & petrie congregation of the Protestants, to your double negatiō, a single affirmation may serue. It is the Church of them you cal Potestantes in Europe, which is a part of the Catholike Church dispersed ouer all the earth: which Church of the Protestantes I see not, why you should so pelt at it, with your pettierhetorike. It is (God be thanked) as great, and as glorious at this time, in the eies of the world, as the Romish rable, except that the ministers thereof be not so prowde, nor so gorgeous. That whore of Babilon your dame, whome you would haue to be accepted for the Catholike Church of Christ, which boasted her selfe that she was no widow, is now of manie forsaken, & of her spirituall for nication begetteih but feew bastardes, in comparison of that she was wont to doe. Therefore it is not, no, no, that wil be able to pul vs out of the Apostolike chaires, in which we teach nothing but the Doctrine of the Apostles, consonant vnto the Doctrine of the Prophets. These Fathers we seek to holde of, and all other that holde of the same line, we hold with them: as for large view of predecessours, we know it must necessarilie insue the doctrine of the Prophets, and Apostles, because of the perpetuall continuance of the Church. And therefore we take not vp olde, mouldie, and mothen parchementes to seeke our progenitours names, but by consanguinitie of Doctrine with the Apostles, as Tertullian calleth it, knowe we are Apostolike, and set in Apostolike places. As for the long discourse of statutes & temporall lawes that you talke of, we claime no spirituall inheritance thereby: although we accept the confirmation of temporall lawes, for the better execution of our offices. What I pray you Sir? had not you Papists in Queene Maries time, as large a discourse of statutes and temporal lawes, as we haue, for the maintenance of your popish superstition, and all thinges thereto belonging? and yet you would procure enuie to vs, of statutes and temporall lawes, as though wee helde onelie by them. As for temporal dignites, landes lieuely hodes, I knowe not how they shoulde be mainteined, but by temporall lawes. Out wiues we holde by the law of God, against which there is no temporal lawe of the land, by infinit better right, then you doe hold your stewes, and other remedies of your incontinencie: and as for spiritual functions, we holde them by the same right, that they were first giuen to the Church and haue therein continued euen to this daie.

An answer to such as denie this power to passe from the Apostles to al other Priests, because many of them beeing euill men, may be thought not to haue the holy Ghost, whereby they should effectuallie remit sinnes.

THE SIXTH CHAP.

ANd to Caluin or other of his secte, that require the like vertue and force of the holie Ghostes assistance in all men that take vpon them to remit sinnes, as it was giuen to the Apostles, who first receiued that power, I answer: that the same gift of the holie Ghost is yet in the ministers of the same Sacrament, no lesse then in the Apostles. For though they had more plentifull sanctification whereby they were in all their life more holie, and more vertuous, then lightlie anie other, either Priestes or laie men, were after them, yet the giftes of the holie Ghost, touching the ministerie and seruice of Gods Church, which were not so much giuen them for their owne sakes, as for the vse of the common wealth, and for the right of practizing certaine holy functions requisite for the peoples sanctification, as they were also giuen to diuers that were neither good nor vertuous, and therefore lacked that, which properlie is that grace of the holie Ghost that is called of our schoole men, gratia gratum faciens, such a grace as maketh a man acceptable to God. Therefore, the holie Ghost breathed vpon the Apostles then by Christ, and giuen yet to Priests in their ordering by Bishopes; is a gift of God, and a grace of the holy ghost, not whereby man is made rertuous, or cunning, or happie before God, but it is a gift onelie of God, whereby man is called aboue his owne nature and dignitie, to haue power and authoritie, to doe and exercise anie function in Gods Church to the spirituall benefit of the people, which is not onelie not alwaies ioyned to vertue and holie knowledge, but it full often, by calling, due to them which are moste wicked persons, without anie impaire of their authoritie. And these kinde of giftes and graces of the holie Ghost, be called gratiae gratis datae, certaine giftes giuen to men for no desertes of their persons, but freelie, for the vse of other men, to whome they be beneficiall, euen there, where they be hurtfull to the bestowers. In which sense Saint Paule numbreth a great sorte, in the fourth to the Ephesians, and the first Epistle to the Eph. 4. Cap. 12. Corinshians: and he calleth them, not onelie the graces of the spirite, but also the diuisions of functions, and ministrations: as, the gift of working of miracles, the gift of tongues, the gift of prophecying, the gift of preaching, and so foorth: all which being the giftes and graces of the spirit for the Churches edifying, and of Saint Peter being called the holy Ghost, in the Actes, yet they were giuen to euill men often, Cap. 2. as well as to good, without all imparing of Gods honoure: yea with the great encrease of God glorie, that euen by the wicked is able to worke his wil and holie purpose for the benefit of his Elect. And in this sense, the spirite of God breathed vpon the Apostles, was a gift of the holie Ghost, whereby man should remit by lawfull power the sinnes of the people. In 20. cap Ioan Whereupon Theophilact sayeth, that, Potestatem quandam & donum spirituale dedit Apostolis, vs remittant peccata, ostendens quod genus spiritualium donorum eis dederit, inquit: quorum remiser it is peccata, remittuntur eis: that is to saie: Christ gaue to his Apostles a certaine power and spirituall gift, whereby they might remit sins: for he shewed what power of the spirit it was that breathed on them, when he said: whose sinnes you doe for giue, they be forgiuen.

Whosoeuer shall vndoubtedlie remit sinnes, and absolue sinners, must haue the same gift of the holie Ghost, which the Apostles had, whereby he cannot erre. And this gift no man denieth, but it maie be in a wicked and vngodlie man. For euen such an one may preach the doctrine of Christ, of remission of sinnes, publikelie, and priuatlie, if he haue the calling, that is required to that office. Neither doth Caluine, or any other that are of his iudgement, otherwise require the like force of the holie ghostes assistance, in al men that take vpon them to remit sinnes. For there is not onelie a power, but a knowledge required in him that shall assuredlie and vndoubtedlie forgiue sinnes. And therefore the papistes doe vnreasonably make a diuorse, of the keie of power, from the keie of knowledge: which power, if it be no guided by knowledge, doth nothing, but insteade of opening and shutting with the keies committed to the Church, throw forth the keies, as the blinde man casteth his staffe, which cannot happen so right in to the locke that they should open it, to the penitent sinners. For it is not the Priestes authoritie that can open the dore of comforte to a sinners conscience, except he can declare vnto him, out of the word of God, how and by what meanes, he maie be reconciled vnto God. That the holie Ghost is giuen by Bishopes to Priestes in their ordering, it is more boldlie affirmed, then euer it can be prooued: for Christ onelie hath authoritie to giue the holy Ghost, and therefore to declare, that it commeth from him alone among men, he breathed vpon his Apostles: which though the Bishops doe, vntill their longues ake, yet can they not furnish their parties by them ordered, with giftes meet for their calling, as Christ did his Apostles. They must make choise therefore, according to the Doctrine of the Apostle, of those that haue those gratious and necessarie giftes of God before, and to them they must commit the power and authoritie to exercise the same, to the publike benefice of the Church. But if they wil giue authoritie to them, that haue no wisdome to exercise the same, they make the most foolish iudges of all the world, and such are worthelie contemned. Therefore howsoeuer you distinguish grace, you must not seeke to winne credit to them, which haue nothing but pretense of authoritie, when they be voide of all vnderstanding, how to vse it, as manie hundreds, yea thousandes of your hedge Priests are, if their calling were neuer so good, as it is moste corrupt and vnlawfull.

ALLEN.

If our aduersaries be ignorant of these thinges, which be so common in schooles of diuinitie, yet we think they should remember, that Saint Paul did not dissalow the authoritie nor power of preaching, in such as were euil men, and taught Philip. 1. for emulation and not of sincere zeale of the Gospell, and that Christ him-selfe stopped not such as cast out deuilles in his Mat. 7. name, and therefore were not without the gifte of workeing miracles, though he professed, that manie of them at the date of iudgement, challenging some right of heauen vpou that acte, should not be receiued to glory: & how the gift of prophecy was common in the olde 〈◊〉 , not onelie to the wicked, but to such as willinglie would deceiue the people: And Caiphas Ioan. 11. he prophecied by the spirit of God, as by force of his office, being yet in purpose to worke wickednes against Christ himselfe, for whose trueth he then, by force of the spirit, prophecied. But of the Sacramentes of Gods Church euerie one, that they may beministred beneficiallie, to the receiuing in much wickednes of the giuer, there is no man can be ignorant. For it is a rule and a principle moste certaine, that God worketh his will in them by the ministerie of men, be they neuer so euill. For elle they were mans sacraments, and not Gods. and we could not be certaine neither of our baptisme, neither of right receiuing of Christes bodie in the holie sacrament of his eultar, nor of any other spirituall benefit that we now by mans ministery receiue in the Church. Much cōsort it were for al Christian people, to hauesuch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then soules, and such disposers of Gods mysteries, as would & could in all sinceritie and faithfulnes worke Gods 〈◊〉 , and that would alwaies vse the high power giuen them, to 〈◊〉 , and neuer to destroie: and that they would so doe, both S. Peter and S. Paule doe often exhort 1. Pet. 4. them. But neither the miserie of mans sinsull nature can suffer that, nor our wickednes can desirue so much. S. Peter Gal. 2. him-selfe was reprehensible in his gouernement: therefore let vs not maruell, that other which be not of so full spirit, as he was, either maie commit thinges worthie of reprehension amongst the good, or subiect to the malitious slaunder of the euill.

These things are not such high pointes of learning that your aduersaries need not to be ignorant in thē. Your distinction as common as it is in the schooles, yea & hath a good entēdement, yet it is vttered in such termes, as be coincident. For gratia gratum faciens, is also gratîs data. Although euerie grace or gift of God, doth not make a man acceptable, or beloued of God, yet is euerie grace or gift of God freely giuen, and not in respect of merites or desertes, and least of all that grace, by which we are made acceptable., and beloued of God. And touching your other point, we do not holde, that the sacraments, or anie other part of the administration of the Gospell dependeth vpon the vertue or vices of men, that exercise the same. And yet the first reason you vse to strengthen that point, is verie feeble. For you saie, S. Paul did not disalowe the authority nor power of preaching in such as were euill men, and taught for emulation, and not of sincere zeale, of the Gospell. Phil. 1. Whereas it doth no waie appeare, that he did allowe the authoritie of those men, who perhappes were not lawfullie called, and so it is most like, but reioysed, that Christ was preached, by what meanes soeuer, because God both can, and doth conuert the vnlawfulintentes and actes of wicked men, to serue to his glorie. Some other arguments you vse, that are not verie strong: but forasmuch as I agree with you in the summe of the matter, I will spend no time about them.

ALLEN.

And suerlie for our matter, beeing of such importance, Priests had need moste carefullie to studie, how to practize so high a function, which is proper to Gods owne iudgement and heauenlie courte. For though by Christ they haue vndoubtedly receiued commission aud power in the vertue of the holy ghost, when they toke holie orders, to forgiue and remit sinnes, yet cursed be they by Gods owne mouth, if they doe it either negligently, because it is the worke of our Lord, or with affection of pride and Pharisaical dominion, as though they were Lords of the sacraments and Christian Religion, and not ministers or seruitours of Christ in his Church. Whereof it seemed that Ieorm. in 16. Mat. S. Ierome in his daies, had some cause to complaine, nothing reproouing their authoritie, but correcting the abuse of their authoritie. Penance in those daies was so hardlie obtained, that it seemed to S. Icreme, that their austeritie grew to some spice of Pharisaicall regiment, that would lay importable burdens on other mens neckes, and not touch any at all them selues. Whereupon he taketh occasion to aduertise Mat. 23. them, that eucrie power of remission, and the office of absolution was properlie Gods, and theirs but by ministerie. And therefore that their mercie and iudgement ought to be tried and measured by his sentence, and not his by theirs. These thinges were to be admonished and reprehended then: but now the disease lieth on the other side, and they offende rather in ouer much lenitie. For as both be contemned of the wicked, so there is almoste amongst the good none left, but loosing now a daies, when men had rather be bound in sinne, then bound in penance for sinne. Therefore the office os binding and loosing requireth truelie good knowledge, much discretion, zeale and stowtnes in Gods quarell. For as it is moste high, so surelie it is moste hard and burdenous. It pitieth my heart to see it so litle esteemed, but much more, that it should be lesse esteemed through their ignorance or euill life, to whom the keies of remission be committed. The keie of remission and retaining sinnes, they had of God in their orders, but discretion, knowledge, vertue with other qualities, meete for the exercise of that office, they must by praier and industrie obtaine, lest whilest they profit other men to saluation, they become reprobate them selues, as Saint Paul said of him selfe in case of preaching.

But in deede, it is not so cömendable for vs, as the case standeth now, nor so needefull to prie into the Priests bosomes, or to vewe their lackes in ministring of this sacrament of penance which, if anie be, doe lightlie redound to their owne harmes & not so mech to mine, or to anie other which vse their office to our saluation. For though for counsell and comforte, and such other respectes, a descrete and learned man were rather to be wished for then a worsse, yet being assured that the partie is called by Gods Church to the function, and hath iurisdiction ordinarie, or graunted extraordinarilie by the appointintment of lawfull superiours, and if by schisme and excommunication or otherwise he be not suspended from the practize of the said functions, I need nothing to doubt for his other lackes, but much more for mine owne sufficience, or lacke of contrition, or some other like want in my selfe, why the fruit of the Priests absolution cannot be deriued vnto me, as else, if it were not my owne default, it should by force of the sacrament vndoubtedlie be.

FVLKE.

Except you haue no regarde of the propertie of speach, I maruell you can saie, this function is so proper to gods owne iudgement and heauenly court, and yet allowe the iudgement of Saint Ierome that all power of remission and absolution is properlie Gods, and mans but by ministerie: In which sentence, if you would continue, we should haue small controuersie with you, touching the argument of this first booke of your treatise. The wordes of Ierome vpon the 16. of Saint Mathewe are these: Et dabo tibi claues regni caelorum. Istum locum Episcopi & presbyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi de Pharisaeorum assumuns supercilio, vt vel damnens innocentes, vel soluere se noxios arbitrentur: cùm apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed reorum vita quaeratur. Legimusin Leuitico de leprosis, vbi iubentur vt ostendant se sacerdotibus, & si lepram habuerint tunc a sacerdote immundifierent: non quòd sacerdotes leprosos faciunt, & immundos, sed quòd habeant notitiam leprosi & non leprosi, & possint discernere qui mundus, quiuè immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi le prosum sacerdos mundum vel immundum facit, sic & hîc alligat vel soluit Episcopus & pres biter: non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxij, sed pro officio suo cùm peccatorum audierit varietates, rietates, scit qui ligandus sit, quiue soluendus. And to the I will giue the keies of the kingedome of heauen. This place Bishopes and priests not vnderstanding, doe take vpon them somewhat of the pride of the Pharises, that either they condemne innocentes, or thinke that they due loose guilty persons, whereas before God, not the sentence of priests, but the life of the parties accused in iudgement is enquired of. We reade in Leuit. of the Lepers, where they are commaunded to shew themselues vnto the priests, and if they haue the Leprosie, then they are made vncleane by the prieste. Not that the priests doe make men Lepers and vncleane, but for that they haue knowledge of a Leper, and of him that is no Leper, & can discerne who is cleane, & who is vncleane, Therefore looke how priest doth there make a Leper cleane, or vncleane, so here doth a Bishop or priest binde or loose, not them that are vnguiltie or guilty, but according to his office, when he hath heard the variety of sinners, he knoweth who is to be bound, or who is to be loosed. In this saying of S. Ierome diuerse things are to be considered: First that the gift of the keies & the power of binding & loosing graunted to Peter, by his iudgement and al mens in his time, peiteineth to euerie Bishoppe, elder, or priest of Gods Church. Secondlie that God onelie doth properlie and absolutelie forgiue sinnes: and thirdlie that the priests sentence vpon earth is but declaratorie, vpon his knowledge of the offendours of Gods sentence, as the priests authoritie to make a Leper cleane or vncleane, was onelie vpon certaine knowledge to pronounce that which God had wrought vpon him to his punishment or deliuerance, and according thereunto, either to seperate him, or to receiue him into the congregation. That penance in those daies was giuen greater then the fault required, you finde not in Saint Ierome, either in the one place, or in the other, that you quote. Onelie in the later vpon the text of Mat. 23. which you cite of importable burthens, he saieth. Hoc generaliter aduersus omnes magistros, qui grauiaiubent, & minora non faciunt. This is spoken generallie against all such Masters, as commaund burthenous things, and them-selues doe not lesser thinges. So that you would seeme to auoide Saint Ieromes iudgement vpon a false surmise. For Saint lerome findeth as much fault with the prelates of his time, for loosing them that are guiltie, as for binding them that are innocent. The contempt of your priests which you lament, is both for there ignorance, & vnlawfull calling. Whereas you assure them of the keie of remission and reteining of sinnes to be giuen them by God, in their orders, and then you send them to obteine discretion, knowledge, vertue, with other qualities meete to exercise that office by praier and industrie, you take a wrong course, and contrarie to that which the Apostle prescribeth: for he will haue men first, to be tried and then to minister. They must first by praier and other ordinarie meanes, seeke to be fit for their office, & afterwarde lawfully be admitted thereto. But where this order is peruerted, they may haue calling and admission by men, but I see not how, they can haue power and approbation of God. And therefore Saint Ieromes sentence standing, your conclusion of the fruite of an ignorant priests absolution is nothing worth, though there were no doubt of his calling.

ALLEN.

For this I dare be bolde to saie, that the lacke of the appointed fruite of any sacrament, ariseth a thousand times oftner, by the vnworthines of the subiect, and him that receiueth the sacrament, then vpon any lacke of the giuer and minister thereof, and namelie in this sacrament of the Churches discipline it chaunceth more often. For as Saint Basil saith: Potestas remittendi peccata non est absolutè data, sed in recipientis obedientia, & in consensu cum eo qui animae ipsius curam Quaest 15. Regula contract. gerit, sita est. The power of remitting sinnes is not absolutelie, without condition, giuen: but it standeth in the obedience of the penitent, and in his agreement with him that hath the charge of his soul. Therefore, for Christs loue, let vs cast perill oftner of our owne case, then vpon other mens states: for we are not so assured of the holie spirit, or his grace to qualifie vs for the worthie receiuing, as they are out of doubt for the right power of ministerie.

And to conclude against Caluin, and all other, that thinke the power of priestes either to be lesse for lacke of good life, or want of much learning, I alledge Saint Cyprian thus: Remissio peccatorum per baptismum, siue per alia sacramenta donetur, propriè spiritus sancti est, & ipsi soli huius efficientiae priuilegium manet. Thus in English: Remission of sinnes, whether it be by baptisme or by other sacraments giuen, it properlie perteineth to the holie ghost, and the preheminence of the foreceable effect is onelie his: the solemnitie of wordes, the inuocation of Gods name, and the externall signes prescribed to the priests ministeries, by the Apostles to make vp the visible sacrament: but the thing it selfe, and effect of the sacrament, the holie ghost worketh: and the author of all goodnesse putteth his hand inuisible, to the externall and visible consecration of Serm. de baptis. Chr sti. the priests. So saith Saint Cyprian, and maketh a farre long discourse how the diuersitie of the ministers desertes doe nothing Vidi August. 1. 5. contra Donatistas Cap. 20. Act. 1. alter the sacraments or the effect thereof, but beeing a like to all receiuers of fit capacitie and condition, by whomesoeuer they be serued and dispensed with iustice, authoritie, and calling thereunto. The Baptisine of Iudas Iscarioth, was no worsse then Simon Peters. For S. Peter saith, Connumeratus erat in nobis, & sortitus est sortem ministerij huius: He was counted as one of our number, & had the lotte of the ministerie. Nor the ministerie of Nicolas of lesse acceptation in it selfe, then the function of Stephen, being men of one office, but of unlike deseruings. The prophesie of Esate no more true then the prophesie of Caiphas: nor the prophesie of Balaam lesse true, then the prophesie of Baruc. If we were either absolued, or baptized in the name of Peter and Paull, or Iudas, or Apollo, then we might bragge, who were best baptized, or sureliest loosed from sinne, and euery one might so either crake, or be ashamed of his minister, whereof Saint Paull earnestly checked the Corinthians. But now euery one beeing both baptized, and loosed, and houseled, and annointed, and honoured in all other spirituall acts, in no other name, but in the name of Iesus, his father euerlasting, and the holie ghost proceeding from them both, all must needes receiue the like benefite that be like qualified thereunto, of whome soeuer the office is exercised, if he be lawfullie called, that is to saie, haue by the handes of priesthood, receiued the gift and grace of the holie ghost for his lawfull authorizing in that case, the which gift of the holy Ghost, being the selfe same that the Apostles receiued of Christ for the like functions, continueth with them still, though their life and desertes be neuer so euill, and their ignorance neuer so much: yea though they be by inst occasion, as for heresie, schisme, or notorious life, through the Censures of the Church imbaryed from the vse and exercise of that office of remitting sinnes, and such other the like spirituall functions.

FVLKE.

That the lacke of the fruit of any sacrament is most commmonlie in the receiuer, rather then in the insufficiencie of the minister, it prooueth that the minister doth not properlie giue the effect of the sacraments, but the outwarde seales thereof, as Saint Iohn Baptist doth moste wiselie distinguish them, saying, I baptize with water, but he that commeth after me, shall baptize with the holie ghost and with fire, Saint Basill in the place by you quoted, saying that the power of remitting of sinnes is not giuen absolutelie, but in the obedience of him that repenteth, &c. declareth what manner of power this is, contrarie to that you haue hetherto for the moste part maintained. As also that he sayeth within few wordes after, that the new testament doth promise remission of all sinnes to them that worthely repent, he concludeth plainlie against your long discourse, wherin you would haue it seeme, as though the priest had absolute power of remitting, and not an authoritie of declaring the sentence of God concerning such. And Saint Cyprian, or whoesoeuer is author of that worke, De cardinalibus Christi operibus, confirmeth that which I saide, that the minister doth not properlie giue the effects of the sacrament, but onelie the outwarde seales thereof, as Iohn Baptist doth testifie. His whol sentence I will repeate, because you haue not so fullie set it downe, not so truelie translated it. Veniebat Christus ad Baptismum, non egens lauacro, in quo peccatum non erat, sed vt sacramento perennis daretur autoritas, & tanti virtutem operis, nulla personarum acceptio commendaret: quoniam remissio peccaterum siue per Baptismum siue per alia sacramenta donetur, propriè spiritus sancti est, vt ipsi soli huius efficientiae priuilegium mancat. Verborum solennitas, & sacri inuocatio nominis & signa institutionibus Apostolicis sacerdotum ministerits attributa, visibile celebrant sacramentum: rem verò ipsam spiritus sanctus format, & efficit, & consecrationibus visibilibus inuisibiliter manum totius bonitatis author apponit, & plenitudinem gratiae vnctionis diuinae pinguedo sanctificationibus officialibus infundit, & remsacramenti consummat & persicit. Christe came to Baptisme not wanting that 〈◊〉 , as he that was free from sinne, but that perpetuall authoritie might be giuen to the sacrament, and that no respect of persous might commend the vertue of so great a worke: because remission of sinnes, whether it be giuen by Baptisme, or by other sacraments, is properlie the holie ghostes, and to him alone the priuiledge of this essectuall workeing remaineth. The solemnitie of wordes and the inuocation of the holy name, and the signes appointed for the ministery of the Preists by the Apostles doctrine and instruction, doe celebrate the visible sacrament: but the thing it selfe, the holie ghost formeth and worketh, and the author of all goodnes doth inuisiblie put his hande to the visible consecrations: and the fatnes of the diuine vnction doth power the fullnes of grace into the ministeriall sanctifications: and doth make consummate or make perfect the matter of the sacrament. That the ministers desertes doth nothing alter the sacramentes or the effect of them, it is no controuersie betweene vs, howsoeuer you would make the ignorant beleeue that Caluine is of another opinion, wherein his writings are moste manifest to the contrarie. Where you approoued him that is lawfullie called, to haue receaued the gift and grace of the holie Ghost, which is the selfe same that the Apostles receaued of Christ for the like functions, you take too much vpon you: for the ordinarie and externall calling, to exercise an outwarde ministerie, where of Cyprian discourseth, may be without receauing of the holie Ghoste. Againe no man hath authoritie to giue the holie Ghost, in ordaining, more then in Baptisme or anie other parte of the ministerie of the Gospell. Thirdlie, where you require lawfull calling and ordaining in the minister of the sacrament, that the receiuer being rightlie qualified, maie obtaine like benefit of whomsoeuer the office is exercised, you exclude lay men and women from ministring of the sacrament of Baptisme, which your doctrine doth admitte. Finallie, where you assure the minister of the continuance of his authoritie, by that gift of the holie Ghost, be his life and desertes neuer so euill, you saie verie much. For what if he be an Idolater, a persecutor of Christians, or degenerated into Mahometisme, wil you say his gift and authoritie doth still continue? nay, you saie it continueth, though he be neuer so ignorant. Then if he be a naturall foole, or a mad man, or one void of all Christian knowledge, either when he was ordained, or fallen since into such extremitie of ignorance, yet by your rule, he retaineth his gift. Nay, if he be for heresie, schisme, or notorious euill life lawfullie embarred from the vse and exercise of remitting sinnes, and other like spirituall functions, yet his gift of the holie Ghost continueth still with him. This is in deede an indeleble character, that is imprinted so deepe, that nothing can scrape it awaie, except perhappes a glasse or knife in degradation: For as I take it, you meane of him that is onely suspended from his office, as though the practize onelie, and not the authoritie for a time might be taken from him.

But to make an end of this matter, I turne Caluins reason against him selfe. He and his flocke be of that fond and blinde iudgment, that the whole text of the twentith of S. Iohn, wherin Christ giueth authoritie to the Apstoles to remit sinnes, is meant onelie of preaching the Gospell, for which function Christ gaue them the holie Ghost: Now sir, vpon this I vrge him with his owne reason: I ask him first, whether the ministers that by him cresent to preach the word of the holie ghost, as for example Beza that he sent into Fraunce first, or Richerus, whome he sent to Coligninia, or Hermam that came by the holie Ghostes sending vnto Flaunders & Brabant, had these the holie ghost, or no? If they saie yea, as I think they will (they be so bolde in an other mans house) then demaund of them further, whether the said spirit maie erre? If they saie no, as possiblie they will, then conclude against them thus: The holie Ghost can not erre, ergo you haue not the holie Ghost, and consequentlie you haue then no better right in preaching, then poore Priestes haue in remitting or absoluing. Therefore I leaue Caluine wrestling with his owne shadow, and will follow on my purpose and course of matter, which I haue in hande.

FVLKE.

Now we shall heare how cunninglie you can turne Caluins reason againste him selfe. First you saie, he and his flock be of that fond and blinde iudgement that the wholl text, wherein Christ geueth authoritie to his Apostles to remit sinnes, is meant onelie of Preaching the Gospell, for which function Christ gaue them the holie Ghost. But Caluinsaith notso, but that authoritie to remit sinnes, is graunted to be exercised by preaching. both priuatelie and publikelie: that is, to assure men, that God doth remit their sinnes, and that the giftes of the holie Ghost were graunted to the Apostles, that they might be inabled to exercise that high office and function: which giftes no man hath power to giue, but onelie God, neither doth anie man at this daie receiue them in such plentifull measure, but that he maie erre, of whomesoeuer he be ordeined, or sent to preach. Neither doth Caluin require that power of not erring, but onelie in them that arrogate vnto them-selues an absolute power to remit sinnes, as properlie as the holy Ghost doth forgiue them, who we knowe cannot erre, in binding him, that is to be loosed, or loosinge him that is to be bounde, as popishe pristes doe, which yet presumptucusly, and blasphe mouslie arrogate vnto them-selues such power and authoritie.

That it standeth well with Gods houour that mortall men should ren it sinnes, and that Nouatus the heretike was of olde condemned for denying the same, and that he was the father of this heresy which denyeth the Priests authoritie.

THE SEVENTH CHAP. ALLEN.

Now by all our former discourse, the right of remission of sinnes sufficiently prooued to pertain to priesthood, some will perhaps count it vaine labour, to make more declaration of that which is so plaine, or further to establish that by reason, which standeth so fast on scriptures. But if anie so thinke, they see net the wyde waies of heresie, nor the manifolde shifies that she attempteth euen there, where shee maie seeme to be fullie beaten. The simple and the sinfullstand moste in her danger, that can not in their lack of intelligence, compare reason to reason, nor gather one trueth of an other, and therefore to their mouthes we must chew all meates verie small, els there could be no great need of their further information, how this claime of remission of sinnes or the vsisall practize thereof, could stand with Gods glorie. For being answerable to his ordinance, it can not but be agreeable with his honour. But because in desperate cases our aduersaries haue taught their fellows there to wrangle vncurteouslie where they can not mantaine reason pithelie, I will not onelie serue my cause, but sometimes pursue their follie, though I doubt not but the wisdome of God shal more and more appeare, touch ing his meaning in our matter, not alonelie by our defence but a great deale the rather by their discontentation,

Now therefore intending to declare, that this preheminence of priesthood, doth nothing abase, or derogate to Gods aignitie, I think it not amisse to match our new doctours, of whome I heare often this complaint, with other their forefathers, that at once both trueth maie fullie be serued, and a yoke of aduersaries ioyntlie drawing against the Church and our saluation, may be almost with one breath refuted. Our yong masters may be glad, to grow so high in gods Church, as to be reprooued with them who were condemned thirteene hundreth yeares since: and though they be so modest, that lightlie they list not crack of their auncestours, yet we will not defraud them of that glorie, nor healpe our cause by dissimulation of their great antiquitie. It is their pusillanimitie, I know, that they will not often in distresse of their doctrine, call for aid of their forefathers, who were doubtlesse verie auncient, and manie of them within the first six hundred yeares. In other causes Vigilantius might healpe: in some Iouinian would attend vpon them: Manes might do them often high pleasure. Iulianus the apostata, a prince for their purpose, Simon Magus, one of the Apostles age, would stand by them: surelie if our aduersaries had 〈◊〉 , they would well neere winne of vs by antiquitie. And truelie I can not dissemble with them in this cause, that now is in hand: they haue one patron against vs, of yeares very auncient, and of reason much much like vnto themselues, Nouatus is his name, of whome the followers were called of the Church Nouatians, but them-selues liked to be called Cathari, that is to saie, cleane and vndefiled persons. Their opinion was, that such as did fall into anie mortall sinne after Baptisme, could not by anie man or meanes be assoiled thereof: and for that they dissalowed the Churches wholl practize of mercie and remission of sinnes in the sacrament of penance, nothing dissagreeing from Caluin, that condemneth the saying of Saint Ierome, as sacrilegious, where he writeth that penance is as a second beord of refuge, whereby after shipwrack a man may be saued. Neither did Nouatus denie, but himselfe might haue mercie, and giue pardon after mansfall, but the Church could not therein meadle, as he thought, without singular iniurie to Christ, and his onelie prerogatiue. And that he ioyneth in this matter fullie with our men, that they maie take more comfort on him, you shall perceiue by Socrates one of the writers of the Tripartit historie, who saith thus: Nouatus scribebat Ecclesus ne eos qui Daemonibus immolauerant, ad sacramenta susciperent, sed inuitarent quidem ad poenitentiam, remissionem verò Dei relinquerent potestati, cuius solius est peccata remittere. Nouatus wrote his letters to diuerse Churches, that they should not admitte anie man to the Sacramentes, that had sacrificed to Diuelles, but that they should onelie mooue them to doe Pennance, and committe to God the remission of their sinne, who onelie can forgiue mans offences. And therefore though in some other point Nouatus did ouerpricke his children, yet herein they fullie meet in one. Epiphanius writeth, that he denied saluation to those that did fal to greeuous crimes after their Christendome, and therewith did holde, that there was but one penance, which was done in baptisme, & after that the Church to haue none. How hansomelie he defended this error, and vnmercifull heresie, ye shall see anone by Saint Ambrose, who learnedlie followed and chased him or his followers in an wholl worke written for that purpose. In the meane time it were good for the more credit of the man and his cause, to note with the auncient Doctors of his daies, his conditions, his comming vp, his proceeding, and practizes. S. Cyprian, who was most molested with him, & knew him best, geueth him this praise: Nouatus was a man that delighted much in nouelties and newes, of insatiable auarice, a furious rauin, with pride and intollerable arrogancie almoste puffed past him selfe, knowen and taken of all Bishoppes for a naughtie packe, condemned by the common iudgement of all good Priestes for a faithlesse heretike, curious and inquisitiue them to betraie, for to deceiue, alwaies readie to flatter, in loue neuer faithfull nor trustie, a match euer fired to kindle sedition, a whirle winde and storme to procure the shipwrake of faith, and to be short, an aduersarie to tranquilitie, and an enimie of peace. These were his conditions then.

FVLKE.

In the latter end of the Chapter next before, you said in your brauerie, that you would leaue Caluine wrestling with his owne shadow, and follow on your purpose, and course of matter, a greate parte whereof is, as it appeareth, to wrastle with your owne shadowe. For no man ther is in these dayes, especially of them whome you count your aduersaryes in this cause, but doeth acknowledge, that it standeth well with gods honour, that mortall men should remit sins, according to that commission which they haue reccaued of him, who only hath power absolutely and properly to remitte sinnes. The heresie of Nouatus is also generallie condemned of all men, neither holde we anie error common with him, in denying the priestes authoritie, much lesse any heresie. To omitte therfore your impertinent declaration, who be moste in daunger of heresy, I acknowledge your argument to be good and found. Nothing that is answerable to Gods ordinance, can be disagreeable to his honour: the authoritie of the Church is agreeable to Gods ordinance: therefore not contrarie to his honour? But if your Priestes will claime further authoritie, then is answerable to Gods ordinance, as you do in their name, that is to saie, that they haue power properlie to forgiue sinnes, then they claime that which is not agreeable to Gods honour. For it is God alone that properlie taketh awaie sinnes. And Gods ordinance is, that they should be declarers, interpreters and expressers of his holie will and pleasure concerning remission of sinnes, not properlie pardoners, forgiuers, or remitters of sinnes, as though the sentence in heauen depended vpon the sentence in earth, and not rather the sentence of man, should be framed, and depend vpon the sentence of God. Your skornefull trifling in matching vs with auncient heretiks, and graunting vs some preheminence of antiquitie, as though we were not hable to prooue our do ctrine in all pointes of controuersie, more auncient then yours, I passe ouer, as needing no answere, except it were to such, with whome no answere will preuaile.

The heresie of Nouatus, of diuers writers is diuersly reported: some affirme that he vtterly denied allrepentance to them that had fallen after Baptisme: other that he denied only the absolution and admission into the Church vpon any repentance or submission of them, that for falling into idolatrie for feare of persecution, were excommunicated or excluded from the Church. As for the popish Sacramente of penance, was not instituted in his daies: but the power, that the Church hath in loosing them that werebound in such cases, or of assuring the penitent osfenders of remission of sinnes, he vtterlie denyed. But, you saie, he was nothing disagreeing from Caluin, that condemneth the saying of Hierome as sacrilegious, where he writeth that penance is a second borde of refuge, whereby, after shipwrack, a man maie be saued. In which affirmation you vtter manie vntruethes at once. For Caluine denyeth not with Nouatus, the benefit of repentance, absolution, loosing, or forgiuenes of sinnes after Baptisme, as you shamefullie slaunder him, but reprooueth the sophisticall papistes, which to the derogation of Baptisme, and the perpetuall fruite thereof, cal their pretended sacrament a second borde aftershipwrack, as though the benefit of Baptisme beeing lost, they should haue remission of sinnes by this counterfet sacrament of popish penance and absolution. Secondlie, Caluin simpliecon demneth not the saying of Ierome as sacrilegious, but saith, that whose saying soeuer it is, it can not be excused, but it is plainlie impious, if it be expounded according to their meaning. As though (saith he) Inst. lib. 4. c. 19. Sect. 17. by sinne Baptisme were cleane put out, and not rather that it is to be called into remembrance to the sinner, so often as he thinketh of remission of sinnes, that thereof he maie gather him-selfe together be comforted, and confirme his faith, that he shall obtaine remission of sinnes, which was promised to him in Baptisme. Now that which Hierome spoke hardlie and vnproperly, that by repentance Baptisme is repaired (from whence they fal, which deserue to be excommunicated from the Church) these good interpreters draw to their impietie. Therefore you maie saie moste aptlie, if you call Baptisme the sacrament of repentance, seeing it is giuen for a confirmation of grace and faith in them that think vpon repentance. These words of Caluin declare that he thought not so vnreuenthe of Saint Hierome as you would haue it seeme, but that he reprooued their impudencie, which to mainteine their sacrilegious opinion of their new found sacrament do draw his wordes, though in them selues somwhat hard, & vnproper, yet farre beyond his meaning. And certainlie whosoeuer shall reade the place it selfe where Hierome hath these wordes, in Esaie, cap. 3. shal plainly perceiue that he speaketh neither of Baptisme, nor of any other sacrament of penance or repentance, nor of anie exercise of repentance in the Church of Christ, but rather of them that were neuer baptized, thelews which impudently cryed, Crucifyhim, we haue no King but Caesar, or those elder Iewes, against whome Esaie prophecied. For vpon these wordes of the Prophet, They haue declared their sinne as Sodoma, &c. Et quomodo Sodomitae in omni libertate peccantes, & nec pudorem quidem vllum habentes in scelere, dixerunt ad Loth, Educforas viros, vt concubamus cum eis, sic & isti publicè proclamantes, suum praedicauerunt peccatum, nec vllam in blasphemando habuere vereeundiam: secunda enim 〈◊〉 naufragium tabula poenitentia est, & consolatio miseriarum impietatem suam abscondere. And as the Sodomites sinning with all licentiousnes, and hauing not so much as anie shame in their wickednes, said vnto Lot, bring forth those men that we maie lie with them, euen so these men haue declared their owne sinne, openlle proclaiming it, and in blaspheming had no shamefastnes. For the second borde after shipwrack is repentance, and a comfort of miseries to hide their owne vngodlines. The sense is manifest, that they which are not ashamed of their sinnes, are farre from repentance and in a desperate state. For they that haue made shipwrack of honestie and Godlines, haue no recouerie but by repentance. So that Hieromes saying, except it be violentlie wrested to those things, of which he neuer meant, soundeth nothing to the maintenance of anie patch of Poperie,

That Nouatus reserued to him selfe anie power of giuing pardon after mans fall, which he denied to the Church, I know not where you finde it. But Socrates must testifie, that he ioyned fullie with vs: yea though in some other point, he did ouerprick his children, yet herein they fully meete in one. Why sir? do we refuse to admit anie man to the sacramentes, which haue sacrificed to Deuilles? yea though they haue beene excommunicated from the Church fot their wickednes, do not we vpon repentance graunt them absolution, and assure them of remission of their sinnes? This is too intollerable impudencie to charge vs with Nouatus heresie, especiallie in that point, in which we are as directlie repugnant vnto him, as contradictoric sayings and contrarie doings may be. What Epiphanius writeth of his heresie, and Saint Ambrose confuted the same, is shewed before, as also how truelie Caluine is charged to iumpe with Nouatus in denying repentance after Baptisme, because he calleth baptisme the sacrament of repentance, as before him, the auncient writers vsed accustomablie, whereof you maie reade in his institution, the place before mentioned.

ALLEN.

Mary long before that his fall to heresie, S. Cornelius writein, that he was possessed in his youth with an euill spirit, for Epist. ad Pabianū exen. which he had to do great while with coniurers, & that he lacked all the holie solemnitie of Baptisme and confirmation, and consequentlie the Spirit of God, which by them he should haue receiued, and therefore tooke orders against the law vpon sinister fauour, and afterward by vnlawfull artes attempted to get abishopricke, with great othes protesting that he would not be a Bishop if he might. But when indeede he could not attaine to that holie dignitie, which he so inwardlie and intollerablie gaped for, he fell in despite of Gods Church to heresie, that he might get that without order, whch he could not obtaine, in the right manner of the Churches making. And for that purpose, he procured three base Bishops out of a straunge and remote part of Italie, who neither knew the case, the man, nor his manners, and them through ignorance he beguiled, and by force caused them to consecrate him Bishop, by the colour whereof (for true imposition of hands was it none) sodenlie he appeareth as a new creature & a Bishop of a strange stamp, apparuit Episcopus, velut nouum Plasma, saith Cornelius: And for this attempt one of the poore Bishops did great penance, the other two were deposed. In the meane time this mocke Bishop vendicabat sibi euangelium: challenged the word of the Lord for him-selfe, denied him-selfe to be a Priest, because he would not giue to the people (as Theodoritus Lib. 3. hereticatum Fabularnm, ca Nouat saith) in their extremitie, the remedie for their sinnes, which is nothing els, but to giue them absolution, which worke he could neuer abide. To be short, he was so incensed against his lawful Paslour and superiour the holie Bishop of Roome, that in the deliuerie of the blessed sacrament to the people, he would force them to take an oth by the blessed bodie which they had in their handes readie to receiue, that they should stick to him, and for sake the Bishop of Rome Cornelius.

All these thinges in sense hath Eusebius of Nouatus, the first patron of the Protestants doctrine concerning the impugning, Lib. 6. c. 33. Vide Aug. de heres. haer. 38. of the Churches title in remission of sins, of which her right he would haue robbed her in pretence of maintenance of Gods honour. Whereby he also abrogated the wholl Sacrament of penance. This falsehood, though it were streight with he author condemned in a great Councell holden at Rome, and afterward in diuerse Prouinciall Synodes, and by the holie councell of Nice it selfe repressed also, Yet it spred very sort, and cintinued long, and was not onelie by S. Cyprian, but also by Dyonisius Alexandrinus, Saint Amb ose, and Saint Chrysostome refused in sundrie workes written against the Nouatians. By whome and other, though the course of that false assertion was often broken in gods Church, yet in some partes they did knit againe, sometimes by certaine heretikes, of Nouatus daies called Tessarescedecatitae, qui auersabantur poenitentiam, saith Theodoritus, who did abhorre penance: and sometimes, by a sort called Iacobitae, 〈◊〉 whiles by wrcliffe & his, else, by the Waldenses, now and than, by the Anabaptistes, & latly by the Lutherans, & moste of the protestantes, & by the Caluinistes, eueryone.

All which blacke band, though they agree not at euery pinch of Nouatus heresit (for it is not possible, that such should euer fullie consent) yet all these knit tailes together in this, that there is no sacrament of penance after Baptisme, in which the priest may forgiue sinnes, and that it standeth not with gods honour, so to remit the peoples offences. Of other the like heresies which he lent our men, as of forbidding holie Chrisme, and annointing of such as were by him baptized, in so much that the holie fathers were glad, to make vp the lacke thereof, in all such as came from their heresie to the vnitie of Christes Church, I will not here speake: purposing onelie, because, that onelie concerneth our matter, to refute that olde heresie raised so long since against the prerogatiue of Gods priests, and onelie helpe of our sinnes, that at once both the author, and the ofspring may be fullie ouer throwen.

FVLKE.

Nouatus, as he is described by Cyprian, but that he came too soone before the open reuelation of Antichrist, had beene a man much more fit to make a Pope of the Church of Rome, whereof he was mockbishop, then a poore minister of the Church of England. And whatsoeuer you gatherout of Euseb. Theodoret, or any other writer against him, declareth that he was an execrable man, but maketh no resemblance of his heresie with our doctrine, concerning the power of remitting of sinnes. You saie that he lacked all the solemnitie of baptisme and confirmation, and consequentlie the spirit of God, which by them he should haue receiued Eusebius indeed out of the Epistle of Cornelius writeth, that after he was helped by exorcistes, he fell into dangerous sicknes, and being at the point of death, and not considering, he receiued baptisme in his bed, if it may be said that such a one receiued. For after he escaped his sicknes he obtained not therest, whereof he should haue bin partaker according to the canon of the Church, that is, to be sealed or confirmed of the Bishope, and hauing not obtained this, how obtained he the holie Ghost? By which wordes Cornelius meant, that he which was baptized in extreamitie, when he knew not what was done vnto him, and afterward when he was whole, had no care to approoue his baptisme by the Bishoppes iudgement, vpon his owne confession & acknowledging of Christian Religion, could not be taken for a right Christian, much lesse, according to the discipline of those daies, might be admitted vnto the ministerie. But being admitted by a singular, and if you will, a sinister dispensation, in time of persecution, he was so fearefull, that he denied himselfe to be a Priest, when he was desired to come vnto them, and onelie by wordes to confirme them that were stricken with the terrour of the tyrant, as Therdoret writeth. The oathe that he exacted of such as receiued the Sacrament of the Lordes supper at his handes, was more like the oath that the pope exacteth of all Bishopes at their consecration, then anie ministred in the Queenes Maiesties visitation. That Wickliffe, the Waldenses, Luther or Caluine, do denie repentance, or reconciliation of them, that are fallen after Baptisme, it is a meere slaunder, although they denie the Popish sacrament of penance, whereof there was no mention in the Chuch, manie hundred yeares after Nouatus. That the Nouatians did not anoint those that were by them Baptized, it seemeth they take it of their Master Nouatus, who because he had contemned: he ceremonie, vsed in that time of the Church, him-selfe taught his schollers to doe the same, left it should hawe beene reputed a want in him. Although not the omission of the ceremonie, but the contempt of the vsage of the Church, being not impious, in it selfe, was chiefelie condemned in him. For at such times as he was ordained Elder or Priest of the Church of 〈◊〉 , it was thought by the Bishope a matter that might be remitted in him, that for other respectes seemed meete for the office, neither was it thought necessarie, that he should receiue that cerimonie so by him omitted, but not yet, as it was thought, in despight of the Church refused. The Fathers oflater time (as Theodoret writeth) decreed, that such as came from his heresie, and would be incorporated into the Church, should by receiuing that cerimonie, which in time of their heresie they despised, declare that they were truelie conuerted from it, and willinghe. submitted themselues to the Catholike Church and her Doctrine. But of late daies when that ceremonie of anointing hath beene accounted a Sacrament, yea and a greater Sacrament then Baptisme, and thought necessary to eternall saluation, whereas yet it hath no institution of Christ set forth in the holie Scriptures: the reformed Churches haue iustlie abrogated that custome, according to that libertie, which the Church hath in all ceremonies, not commaunded by God, & according to the example of the Church in former ages, which hath abrogated manie ceremonies vsed of auncient times, aswell as that of anointing with oile them that are Baptized.

ALLEN.

And first, because generallie all the foresaid ioyne together against the trueth in this argument, that it is dishonour to god and great presumption in a mortall man, to claime the power so proper to God: let the studious reader well consider, that no function, power, ne dignitie, be it neuer so peculiar to God him-selfe by naturaii excellencie, but the same maie be occupied of man secondarilie, as by the waie of seruice, ministery, or participation, so that man challenge nor vsurpe it not as of him selfe, or when it is not lawfuliie receaued, nor orderlie giuen. All the workes that extraordinarilie and miraculouslie were wrought, either by Christ in his humanitie, or by the Prophets, or Apostles wordes, or by their garments, or by what other instrumēt so euer they were donne, were the works of god no lesse then to remit sins: yet al these things & other the like brought to passe by man, through the power of god that worketh by mans ministerie the same, nothing derogateth to gods glorie, but infinitelie augmenteth his honour: euen so the power of pardoning mans sins, being emploied by God the father vpon Christ his sonne, & by Christ vpon his Church & ministers, & practized by them, not of their owne might & heades, but in the 〈◊〉 of the holie ghost, which by the sonne of god was 〈◊〉 vpon them, this authoritie (I saie) is no derogation, but an euident signe of his mightie power of saluation, left for the faithfulls sake in the Church.

When the person that was lame from his birth begged of Peter and Iohn somewhat for his reliefe at the Temole dore, as his manner was, Peter answered him, that golde and siluer he had none to giue, but that which he had, he would willinglie bestowe, which was power to heale him of his incurable maladie: for proofe whereof, he bad him arise, and walke, and so he did at his word, in the sight of all that there Act. 3. were gathered: which being done, and the people wondering thereat, the Apostle thus instructed them: Brethren (faith he) why wonder you at vs, as though we had brought this strange worke to passe by our owne strength and power: it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Iacob, that hath glorified his sonne Iesus whome you refused, and betraied to Pontius Pilatus to be crucified: in his name and faith this poore man is recouered. Marcke well, that the same thing which peter said, him selfe had to giue quod habeo, tibi do, the same yet he professeth that he holdeth not as of his owne right, or might, but as of Christ Iesus, in whose name he willed the lame to walke: euen so the the power of pardoning sinner is truely and properly in the Priestes, as the power of working miracles is properly in Peters hands, neither the one noryet the other holden as of their owne might and power, but both practized for the glory of God in the name of Iesus of Nazareth, by their appointed ministery. And as truly as Peter might saie to the feeble in body, that which I haue, I giue thee: rise and walke, in the name of iesos of Nazareth, so surelie may the Priest saie to the sicke in souie, that which I haue, I giue thee, in the name of Iesus thy Ennes (my sonne) be forgiuen thee. No lesse is the one the peculiar worke of God, then the other: no more doth one dishonor god then the other.

FVLKE.

Nothing that is proper or peculiar to God, can be communicated to man, but it ceaseth to be proper to God. For it is against the nature of properties, to be made common to any other subiect, then to that whereof they are proper adiuncts. And yet I denie not but that which is proper to God, he doth exercise often times, by the seruice or ministery of men, in which they are but instrumental causes, & he him selfe is the principal efficient: otherwise man maie not occupie, or execute secondly, or thirdly, or last of all, by waie of participation, that which is proper or peculiar to God. So that it remaneth still an vndoubted truth, that God onelie doth forgiue sinnes properlie, and man doth not forgiue sinnes properlie, but is the instrument of God to vtter, and declare the good pleasure of God in forgiuing sinnes to all and euerie one that repent, and beleeue the Gospe ll. Your general negatiue, that there is no function, power, nor dignitie be it neuer so peculiar to God, by naturall excellencie, but it maie be occupied of man secondly, as by the waie of seruice, ministery, or participation, if it were vrged against you, would breed horrible absurdities. To omit all other, the power of creating thinges of nothing, by what meanes maie man be partaker thereof, occupie it, or exercise it? But let vs consider your induction, All Miraculous workes worught by Christ in his humanitie, the Prophets, or Apostles, were no lesse proper to God, then the power to remit sinnes. Yes verilie: for manie miraculous workes, that God did by Moses, the inchaunters of Egipt did the like, by the power of the deuill: whereby it appeareth, that although ail power be deriued from God, as from the first cause thereof, euen that power which the deuill hath, yet it is otherwise communicated to creatures, then the power of remission of sinnes is. For that remaineth onelie in the hande of God, and is not properlie executed by any other man, but onelie by our sauiour Christ, the mediarour of god and man. In which power he hath ordained man, but as a seruant, to doe nothing after his owne will, but onlie to declare and pronounce the will of God therof. In working of miracles it is otherwise, in which mā so exerciseth that power, either receiued of god, or of the deuil, that often times he causeth effects according to his owne wil, & contrarie to the wil of God reuealed in his word, though nothing can be contrarie to his absolute will. But the power of remitting sins no man can execute, contrarie to the reuealed wil of God: For Peter could not forgiue the sinnes of Iudes Iscariot, Smon Magus, Alexander the copper smith, or anie other that sinned against the holy Ghost, or that was not truly penitent for his sinnes, or that beleeued not the promise of God. Neither could Peter, or can anie man retaine the sins of him that repenteth, and taketh holde of Gods mercie by faith, but he shall haue remission of sinnes, though all the men in the world would saie the contrarie: so that man hath no power in reteining or remitting of sins, but by declaring the will of God, wherof he hath no warrant but out of his worde. For I aske this question of you, if two priests hauing heard one mans confession at the same time be in contrarie opinions, so that the one doth forgiue sinnes, the other doth reteine them, Whether of these sentences shal take place? No doubt but you will saie, that which is agreeable to the will of God. Then doth it follow of necessitie, that man doth onelie declare Gods will, and hath no absolute or proper power, to exercise this authoritie according to his owne will. But as Peter saide to the lame man, that which I haue, I giue to thee, and yet he had it not of his owne right of might, but from God: euen so saie you, The power of pardoning sinnes, is truelie and properlie in the priests, as the power of working mitacles is properlie in Peters hands. Idenie your consequence. For although the pow er of working miracles were properly in Peters hands, yet it followeth not, that the power of pardoning sins was properlie in him. For, as I haue shewed, there is great diuersitie betweene the one power, and the other. The power of miracles is graunted to Peter, to be exercised according to the direction of Gods holie spirit, agreeablie vnto the secret and absolute will of God: But the power of pardoning sinnes is not graunted to Peter, or any man, but as to a messenger, and declarer of Gods will as it is reuealed in his worde; beside which, if any presume to remit. he doth but spend his breath in vaine. But a wicked man hauing the power of miracles, maie sometimes abuse it, contrarie to Gods law, as to mainteine false doctrine, and Idolatry, to hurt or to murther innocents thereby: and yet wee may saie in some respect, that the power of working miracles is not properlie in Peters handes, both because it is not in him, to heale whome and when he will, but after as he hath a secret instinct of him that is the author of his gift, and also because he is but an instrument of God, whoe onelie doth great maruells properlie, Psal. 136. as he confessed in the healing of AEneas, Acts 9. saying, Christ Ie sus heale thee. So Acts. 3: His name hath made him strong, and the faith which is by him hath giuen him his perfect health. Where you conclude that the priests may saie likewise to the sicke soull, That which I haue, I giue thee, In the name of Iesus Thy sinnes, my sonne, be forgiuen thee. Although the sorme of speach be somewhat insolent and strange, yet you confesse that the priest hath nothing to giue him, but a declaration of Gods will, when he saieth, thy sins are forgiuen thee in the name of Iesus. Yea if he shall saie, in the name of lesus I forgiue thee thy sins, the sense were no more, but this, Iesus doth assure thee by me, his seruant and messenger, that he hath, satisfied for thy sinnes, and therefore they shall no more be imputed vnto thee, for God hath forgiuen them.

ALLEN.

And this worke of remitting sinnes is much more certain then the miraculous healing of the bodie, beeing ioyned by Gods promise to a sacrament that shall neuer cease in the Church, where miracles for most part ceased long since: yea the name and maiestie of God is a thousand parts more honoured, not onelie that God, in his owne person, but in the frailtie of hu ministers, is able to accomplish such mightie miracles, both in the cure of bodie and soull. But the fondnes of this heresie is so great, that it maketh those things to tend to Gods disgracing, which he hath appointed properlie and onelie in a manner, for the purpose, to set forth the name of his sonne Iesus. For if both sinnes of mans soull, and sores of his bodie could not visiblie by externall meanes be healed in the glorious inuocation of Gods name, it would surelie be forgotten in the Church of Christ, that such power is giuen by God the father to his onelie sonne, & mans minde would not reach to that inwardly, whereof he had no proofe nor assurance outwardelie. I beseech you, Sir, the working of strange miracles giuen to some, as well of the Prophets, as of the Apostles of Christ, were they any whit preiudicial to Gods honour, or were they giuento man aboue his naturall power, for the setting forth of God, honour, that the Prophets should see long before thinges that afterwarde did fall, which is the proprietie of God alone, and theirs onelie by gift and graunt of him, to who me onelie it doth belong, doe they dishonour God, or els was it not alwaies graunted to some men, for the glorie of God? That Eliseus could see the heart and inwarde thoughts of Giezi his seruant, which is Gods onelie propertie, did it dishonour God, or rather wonderfullie 4. Reg. c. 5. augment his glorie? The passing preheminence that Peter and the rest receiued, when they were hable by laying on of handes to giue the holie ghost, can it not be practized without Act. 3. the dishonour of God, or ells was it not principallse giuen to them to set forth the glory of God? This was so great power, that it was much more astonied at of the beholders, then either working of miracles, or remitting sinnes: in so much that Simon the forcerer, whoe was so glorious before, that he called him selfe the power of God, would haue giuen the Apostles money largely, that vpon whome soeuer he had practized the like laying on of hands, he might receiue the holie ghost also. Then if the power of giuing the holie ghost, or power of giuing grace, which 2. Tim. 4. both Peter and Paull practized in a visible sacrament, by a solemne ceremonie, in the sight of all the worlde, by laying on of their handes, if this passing worke, and moste proper to God, I dare saie, of all other actes that be exercised in Christes name in the Church, doth not onelie no whit abase Gods excellency, but was purposelie instituted to honour the maiestie of God in the face of all people, and to set out the glorie of his house, how dare any man for feare of Gods high indignation, controlle the worke of Christ in remitting mans sinnes, by such a visible sacrament, as to the honour of God is most conuenient, and to our saluation most necessarie? If they will not let pristes remit sinnes for feare of offending God, and dishonouring his name, then let them not baptize, not preach, not teach, not doe miracles, not giue the holie ghost, not correct faultes, not giue orders, nor doe any other functions. For these euerie one be no lesse proper to God, then remission of sinnes.

FVLKE.

You ground your argument vpon a sacrament, before you haue prooued any. The power of remitting sinnes is graunted to be perpetual in the Church, and nothing derogatorie to the honour of God. But that there is any other sacrament, whereby men are assured of the forgiuenes of their sinnes, by any externall ceremonie, except the sacraments of Baptisme, and of the Lordes supper, which is the cheife matter in controuersie, you goe not once about to prooue If Christs Church were like your Popish Church, wherein all thinges are taught by Images, & dumme ceremonies, and the worde of God neuerpreached, it might come to passe as you say, that it would be forgotten, that such power is giuen by God to Christ. But in the Church of God many thinges are remembered by meanes of preaching the Gospell, and word of God, whereof there is no visible sacrament or ceremony, although to helpe our weakenes, the mercy of God hath by his sacraments sealed vp the moste necessarie and generail pointes of doctrine of our regeneration, to be the Children of God, and of our spirituall feeding or norishment, to continue vs perpetuallie in the same. But whereas you saie, that if both sinnes of mans soull, and sores of his bodie, could not visiblie by externall meanes he healed in the glorious inuoration of Gods name, it would surclie be forgottenin the Church of Christ that such power is giuen by God the father to his onelie sonne, &c. I praie you what externall meanes haue you visiblie to heale the sores of mans bodie by inuocation of Gods name, lest it should be forgotten in the Church that the father hath giuen such power to his sonne? Will you now send vs to the mocke miracles, & lying signes regestred in your Legendes? wrought at your pilgramages, Idolls, or in an other worlde by the Iapponical Iesuites? These because they are not seene, mooue nothing the inwarde man, whose minde, you saie, ful learnedlie, will not reach to that inwardelie, whereof he hath no proofe nor assurance outwardelie. As though faith were not a substance of things that are hoped for, and an euidence of things that are Heb. 11. not seene. Where of the minde of man hath no assurance outwardelie. For the sacramentall seales, but by faith, make no assurance outwardelie. Can I gather an assurance, but by faith of Gods promise that my bodie being washed outwardelie, my soull is clensed inwardelie? Is it the receiuing of the outward elements in the Lordes supper, that assureth me of my spirituall nourishment to eternall life, or faith graunted vpon the worde, which comming to the elements, maketh them the seales of assurance of gods promises? The question you aske, of the Prophets foreseeing of things so long before things that afterwarde did fall, whether it was graunted with dishonour of God, or to his glorie? I answere that the propertie of God alone, to whome all things are present, was not, ne could not be communicated to men. But God to his glorie, by the instrument of their mouth did foreshew those things, which he had reuealed vnto thē by his spirit, in prophetical vision, or dreame. Neither could Elizeus see the heart & inward thoughts, of Gihezei his seruant, which is gods onelie propertie, but God did reueale, and declare vnto him, what hipocrisie was hid in the heart of Gihezei: so that Elizeus knew no more properlie what was in the heart of Gihezei then any other man, to whome Gihezei him-selfe might open his thoughtes, sauing that Elizeus knew more certenlie, and by 2 more wonderfull meane. For to man Gihezei might ly, but god who onely searcheth the heart & the reines, reuealed the truth to Elizeus. Neither was Peter and the rest hable by laying on of handes to giue the holy ghost, that is the visible gists of the holv ghost, but according to gods good pleasure & will. For Acts. 8. Peter and Iohn sent by the Apostles into Samaria, praied for them that were baptized, that they might receiue the holie Ghost, and after laide their hands vpon them, and they receiued from god the sensible graces of the holie ghost, as speaking with tongues, interpretation of tongues, healing of sicknes, casting out of deuills, and such like. Therefore in such wonderfull effects as followed laying on of hands, nothing that is most proper to god passed to men. But it pleased God, who is the onelie author of such graces and gifts, to bestow the same by his faithfull stewards, at their praier, whereunto they were mooued, and assisted by him, and with that visible sacrament or ceremonie. But such ceremonies we haue not for remission of sinnes, or reteining of them by Gods institution. Therefore no sacrament, but a doctrine of remitting or reteining of sinnes.

ALLEN.

O heresie most shamefull, that then goeth about to dishonour God most, when she most pretendeth gods honour, whereof shee is so tender and so carefull, that shee hath barred his owne spouse, of his blessed bodie, of remission of sinnes, of the spirit of God, of all sacraments, of all holie ceremonies, of memories, of miracles, of all holie functions, and to be short, of all gifts, and graces: and all this for Gods honour, so honourable a thing it is for Christ to be the king of so beggerlie a common wealth, as they make of the Church: such glorie it is for Christ to haue his onelie spouse robbed of the treasures of his giftes and graces: so comelie it is for Christ, to haue such sacraments, as neither conteine him-selfe, nor his grace: so worthie a thing it is, for Christ to haue ministers, that vpon his owne warrant can neither pardon nor punish mans misdeedes. Gloriosa dicta sunt de te Ciuitas Dei. Glorious thinges Pial. 8c. haue beene reported of thee, thou Citie of God, and how arte thou now so barrenne and so contemptible, that thy honour must needes redound to the dishonour of him, by whome all thy honour onelie standeth?

But I cease to pursue the Churchces enemies now in mine owne wordes, I will rather ioyne with the holie fathers, for their ouerthrow, whose, not onelie reason and sufficient answere to this their vaine replie founded on the pretence of Gods honour, but also, their onelie name and authoritie shall sufficientlie beate downe these mens boldnes. Saint Ambrose in this case is moste plaine, and standeth with the Nouatians, Ambros. de poen. l. 1. c. 2. as I doe now with the Zuinglians, euen in the verie same argument, in these wordes: Sed aiunt, se Domino deferre reuerentiam, cui soli remittend orum oriminum potestatem reseruent: imò nulli maiorem iniuriam faciunt, quàm qui eius volunt mandata res indere, commissum munus refindere: nam cùm ipse in Euangelis suo dixerit Dominus Iesus, accipite Spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, &c. quis est ergo qui magis honorat? Vtrum qui mandat is attemperat, an qui resistit? Ecclesia in vtroque seruat obedientiam, vt peccatism & alliget, & laxat. That is to saie: These Nouatians saie that they denie penance or power to remit sinnes in earth, in respect of the maintenance of such honour as is due to God, to whome onely they will reserue the pardoning of mans sinnes. But in deede none doe so much iniury to Gods glory, as those which breake his commaundements, and make a diuision of that charge and commission, which he giueth. For seeing our Lord Iesus by his owne mouth spake these words: Receiue ye the holy ghost, whose sinnes you doe forgiue, they be forgiuen, and whose sinnes you holde, they beholden, who in this case more honoureth God? He that obeieth his commaundement, or he that resisteth the same? The Church obeieth in both, as well in binding as in loosing. Thus there. And a litle after: Looke to whome this charge was giuen, and that person may lawfullie and with Gods good leaue vse the same. Au l therefore the Church may lawfullie both binde and loose: heresie and her attendants can rightlie doe neither. This right is onelie committed to priests, and therefore the Church rightlie challengeth that authoritie because shee hath lawfull priests: and so heresie cannot doe, because shee hath not the priests of God in her cursed congregation. Thus said Saint. Ambrose for the answere of the Nouatians in his daies, and so say I now in the Churches behalfe against the like affected enemies of Christs honour, which whiles they in face of scripture and Gods word would seeme to defend, they are become sworne aduersaries of his honour, and open contemners of his commaundements and holy ordinance. Saint Ambrose here taketh it for a ground, that it is Gods ordinance, that Priests should remit sinnes, he is bolde to call the contrarie doctrine, heresie, he maketh a principle of this, that it neuer dishonoureth God, that man should doe that which God giueth him either commaundement or commission to doe in his behalfe, he taketh it for a knowne trueth, that, as the Church of God hath true and lawfull priests, so shee may by them, vpon Christes warrant, bath loose and binde: and contrariwise, that heresie may well enough giue ouer that right of remission of sinnes, because shee hath lightlie no lawfull priests, by whome shee may practize the same.

FVLKE.

First, you make a vaine exclamation or outcrie, as though heresie hath spoiled the Church of her treasures vnder pretence of Gods glorie: but such rhetoricall vamties all wise men will deride. The Church is not spoiled of her treasures, when neither Christ, nor his grace is conteined in the sacraments: but when Christ, her onelie treasure, is spoiled of his glorie, of sole redemption and fatisfaction for our sinnes, or of any other parte of the office that belongeth to the mediator. Therefore it is her greatest honour that Christ may haue his true honour, in whome & with whome she hath al things, not to the glory of flesh & bloode, but to the glorie of God, to whome all glorie of right belongeth: what Saint Ambrose did write against the Nouatians, pertaineth not to vs, who denie neither the power of remitting nor of reteining of sinnes, but graunt both. But that Saint Ambrose did not meane of such a power as the Papists doe claime, I haue shewed before out of his owne wordes in the same place, where he saieth, that our Lord hath chosen such Disciples, as should be interpreters of their Lordes will. This power is graunted to all true ministers of the Church, that they are the Legates or embassadors of god, to declare his wil & pleasure vnto men, aswel for remitting, as for reteining of sins. And therefore Nouatus, or Nouatianus, did very absurdlie by Saint Ambrose his iudgement, that did arrogate vnto himselfe power to reteine sinnes, while he pronounced that they which fell into Idolatrie after Baptisme, might not be receiued into the Church vpon any trial of their repentance: and would not yeald that the ministers of the Church by the same authoritie might pronounce, that they which were truelie penitent of their former wicked behauiour, were forgiuen in the iudgement of God, which was to remit their sins vpon earth, with faith in Gods promise, that they shall be forgiuen in heauen. Thus the answere of Saint Ambrose vnto the Nouatians, doth nothing in the world make against vs, which denie no power that Christ hath graunted to his Church, vnder collour of maintenance of Gods honour.

ALLEN.

And surelie, it is a maruclous force of trueth, or rather the might of Gods prouidence, that driueth Heretikes to disdaine, destroie, and dissanull the graces and manifold giftes of Christes Church, that impugning them, where the verie right of such holie actes doe lie, they may plainlte confesse, and to their shame acknowledge, that they haue none such themselues, nor cannot by Gods warrant challenge any such giftes, which with all their might they would wholie if they could, together with Gods spirit and Church, extinguish.

Alas into what miserie hath this forfaken flocke willfullie cast them selues and their adherentes, which can forsake Gods house, vbi mandauit Dominus benedictionem, vpon which God hath bestowed his blessing, & abide there, where, by their owne confession, there is no Priesthood, no penance, no host, no sacrifice, no remission (where they can let) of sinnes, no grace in sacramentes, nor no gift of the holie Ghost. All other herisies lightlie by force of the Fathers Doctrine and iudgement, lost either their Priesthood, because they had no waie out of the Church to make Priestes, as Saint Hierome writeth of Hilarie the Deacon, or els the vse and function of Aduersus Luciferianos. Priesthood, by reason, the workes of God cannot be orderly nor benefi iallie vsed out of the house of God: and yet, they euer claimed to themselues, not onlie the order, but for moste parte all other functions that by Christ and his Church were annexed to that order: but ours (wherein they passe all their forefathers) in a manner willinglie giue ouer the wholl profession freelie and without compulsion, denie them selues, with Nouatus, to be priestes, denie to sacrifice, denie to enioyne penance, denie to giue the holie ghost, either by imposition of handes, or by Chrisme, or by any other solemne right of Gods Church. To be short, take nothing from these fellowes that belongeth to Christianitie, for they will giue all ouer them selues.

But briefllie to conclude vp the answere to their reason founded vpon Nouatus his principle touching Gods honour, thus I saie: That neuer derogateth to Gods honour, which is agreable to gods ordinance: but that priests should remit sinnes is the ordinance of God, as is declared: therefore the vse thereof doth not derogate any whit to gods honour. Againe: as great workes and as proper to god, as remission of sinnes, was practized by the Apostles, and yet is vsed by the Bishops of holie Church without all dishonour of god, giuing the holie ghost, and gods grace, by laying on of 〈◊〉 : Ergo remission of sinnes may be also practized of priests, without all iniurie to God and the onelie right therein.

FVLKE.

Whethersoeuer the force of trueth, or prouidence of God driue heretikes, we haue no purpose to follow them. The gifts which god bestoweth on his Church, and the ministers thereof, with all humilitie and thankefulnes, we acknowledge, receiue, and exercise to his glorie, and the benefit of his Church: although we arrogate nothing vnto our selues, either in them, or in any other thing that is proper to God. And therefore it is both a vaine and a false complaint, that the Church adorned with Gods blessinges is forsaken, and a congregation barren of all Gods giftes, imbraced. All offices of ministerie in the Church, that God hath ordained, we admit and practise, neither will we giue ouer anie thing for all your childish prating, whereof we haue warrant to enioie it, out of the word of God. To your syllogismes I answere, thus to the first, That to exercise the Power of remission of sinnes, in such sorte, as it is ordained of God, is no dishonour to God, but a great honour. To the second, I denie that anie thing proper to God, as remission of sinnes, giuing the holie Ghost and Gods grace, as it is proper to God, was or could be practised by the Apostles, or anie mortal man, properly: otherwise I confesse, that remission of sinnes, as Christ hath commaunded it, may be practised without all iniurie to God and his onelie right therein.

For further proofe of the forsaid matter, it is declared, that neither Christ, nor his euerlasting Father, nor the holie Ghost, doe giue ouer vnto man, or resigne the power of remission, or anie other holie function of the Church, but doe themselues continuallie worke all those graces by mans mynisterie and seruice.

THE EIGHT CHAP. ALLEN.

FVrthermore, we must here consider, that what worke soeuer God appointeth man to exercise in his Church, either in remission of sinnes, or giuing grace of Gods spirit, or what other holie action soeuer may in his name be done, for the benefite of the people, by the ministerie and seruice of man, either by the meanes and mediation of any other instrumentall cause, we must learne, that in these workes so wrought either by man, or through other creatures, God doth not resigne his right to the waies and workers thereof, and giue ouer the wholl title that is due to himselfe in the saide diuine acts. For then in deede mans practize should derogate from Gods power, and he should as it were succeed God in the right of his proper power, and euerlasting inheritance: which onelie to surmise, as heretikes do, were meere follie.

Christ is by euerlasting right made the head of the Church, and he resigneth not this office to anie mortall man. For if he did, then the partie that should by his graunt occupie for a season the same dignitie, were his fuccessour, and should holde in like right the same office as he did before. But that notwithstanding, he hath made his substitute and vicegerent, by whom in his corporall absence he ruleth now the Church, as he did before in his owne person, not giuing ouer his preheminence & supreame power therein, but now practizing that by another, which afore he exercised him selfe in his owne person. It had beene a great derogation to Christ that Peter should haue bin Christes heir and successour: for then Christ had lost the perpeiuitie, an other man gouerning after him in like right and preheminence as he had before. But, for Peter to rule the Church vnder him, in his steade, & as by his euerlasting right, with commission from him that holdeth that soueraigntie for euer, by whomesoeuer the Church shall be ruled till the worlds end in earth, this (I saie) is no derogation to God, nor his sonne Christ at all, but it much prooueth that Christ according to his manhood is the head of the Church for euer, because by man in earth he ruleth the same til his comming again, the whichman, Psal. 44. though he be his vicar & vicegerent, yet he is not his successour.

Saint Augustine did trimlie allude to the vse of the olde law, comparing the ministers of Gods Church to the yonger brethren who were charged to marrie the elder brothers wife, when he died without issue, in whose name they did practize the worke of mariage, and therefore could not call their children by their owne names, but by the name of their elder breethren. For as they raised seede to their brother, and for their brothers honour, so the Priests that haue taken vpon them (as it were in mariage) to gouerne Christes Church, and to bring forth children, not in their owne names, but in the name of their elder brother, and her departed Husband. As when they bring foorth children in Baptisme, as through the wombe of the Church, they bring them not forth as for them-selues, and in their owne names, but in the name of Iesus Christ, beeing their elder brother: euen so it is in remission of sinnes also, in which case Christ resigneth not his authoritie, as though he lacked that power him-selfe, but practzeth that mightie worke by the ministerie of man, which before he exercised in his owne person. And as the baptzing not in the name of Peter, nor Paull, nor Apolle, but in the name of Christ the first husband of the Church, after whome the Children be called Christianes, not Petrianes, nor Paulianes, doth much set foorth the honour of the eldest spouse: so it prooueth and augmenteth Christes euerlasting honour and moste iuste title in remission of sinnes, that till this daie, no lesse now in absence by the seruice of his Priestes, then before when he was present, by his owne worde and will, sinnes be, in his name and faith, fullie remitted: yea, euen the verie function of Preaching the Gospell, which they saie is meant by remitting of sinnes (although they say most foolishlie therein, and against the common sense of all the fathers) yet euen that function is Christs still, though it be vsed of man in earth.

FVLKE.

You are as plentifull in proofe of that which is confessed, as you are naked and barren in proouing that which is denyed. The title of your Chapter we will graunt you without proofe, and according thereunto, we are content to decide this controuersie. But you will no longer abide by it, then vntill you haue made a shew of trueth, and then straight giue it ouer, challenging a proper power, & properlie to remit sinnes, euen the power that is proper to God, and the same to exercise as properlie as God doth, with deification of your Priestes persons, and such other arrogant assumptions. Where you saie, that God doth not resigne his right to the waies and workes of anie diuine function, & giue ouer the wholl title that is due to him-selfe in the said diuine actes, I adde that he doth neither resigne his right nor his practize or exercise there of, he doth not giue ouer his wholl title, or anie parte or portion thereof. When you go about to demonstrate your proposition, you saie that Christ resigned his roome, but not his right. A pretie collusion of words, but a matter ful of her eticall meaning. For Christ resigned neither his roome nor his right, when he ascended into heauen, but set himselfe downe in the throne of magnificence, that he might fullfill all things, with his glorious an gracious presence, by which he continueth with his Church vnto the end of the world. Neither hath he neede of anie substitute or vicegerent, to exercise anie point of that office, which is proper to the vniuersall head of the vniuersall Church: neither can anie mortal creature exercise the office of the head of the whol Churh, because it is a meere diuine power, by euerlasting right, as you confes, proper to our sauiour Christ, that from him, as from the head, life and all powers of life should flowe into his wholl Church, and euerie true Eph. 4. member thereof. And therefore whatsoeuer from the beginning he hath exercised in his owne person, he doth not now practize by anie other, but still by himselfe and in his owne person. But the office of teaching which in his humanity he exercised and before his incarnation was exercised, by the Prophets and Priests, he hath committed to his Apostles, Euangelistes, Prophets, Pastours, and Teachers, vnto the end of the world: but that one man should rule his whol Church, either by doctrine, or discipline, whereunto it is not possible for him to haue an eye, and ouerseeing, Christ hath neuer appointed: but as he hath appointed seuerall teachers, so also hath he ordained seuerall gouernours. And no more possible it is, that one man should rule and gouerne al the Church, then it is possible that one man should teach al the Church despersed, as it is now, and hath been of olde, ouer al the face of the earth. But that Peter or anie other man should rule the Church in Christes steade, you saie it prooueth much, that Christ is head of the Church according to his manhood. That Christ, who is God and man, is head of his Church, it is a Christian confession: But that Christ is head of his Church according to his manhood, I see not how it differeth from flat Nestorianisme, or Arrianisme. For wholl Christ is head of his Church, according to that he was head thereof before his incarnation, and flesh assumpted, yet intended: and he is head of his Church according to that he filleth all in all, Ephes. 1. It is one thing to saie that Iesus Christ, or the man Iesus Christ is head of his Church, another thing to saie, that Christ is head of his Church, according to his manhood. Beside, I know not what humane head ship you ascribe vnto Christ, that make him head in respect of such externall regiment as may be exercised by man, and yet by no one man alone, but by manie men, at once, in this dispersion of the Church: all which acknowledge Christ to be their onelie head, because they must gouerne the Church by his word onelie, and by lawes framed agreeable vnto the same. That the Protestantes bring foorth children to Caluin or Luther, it is nothing but tailing without reason. For the Protestantes are willing to departe with anie pretence of right or honout, so that God maie haue his whol glory by such meanes as he hath appoin ted. Therefore according to Saint Augustines allusion, they beget children by preaching of the Gospell vnto Christ, and not to them selues. The function of Preaching. you saie, is Christes still. If you meane, that he is the author of the doctrine preached, and so the onelie master and teacher of his Church, it is true but this function the Protestantes claime not; but to be ministers appointed to declare this doctrine in the world. This function as a part of his humiliation, hath he cleane giuen ouer, since his ascension, and appointed in his stead, Apostles, Euangelistes, Prophets, Pastours, and teachers, to exercise the same function, to the edifying of his Church, vntill the end of the world. You charge vs to saie, that the function of Preaching is meant by remitting of sinnes: which we saie not: For Preaching extendeth further, then the remitting of sinnes. But we saie, that by preaching publiklie, or declaring priuatelie, as the case requireth, the grace and mercie of God in pardoning all penitent, and beleeuing sinners, the minister of God doth remit sinnes in the name of Christ, while the pardon pronounced by him, is of as great force to assure the re pentaunt sinner of remission of his sinnes, as if Christ him-selfe should declare it out of heauen: wherein we speake neither foolishlie, nor against the common sence of all the fathers, as by some of their writinges alledged before I haue plainlie declared.

ALLEN.

And they that are most tender in outward words of Godshonour, will yet seeme to occupie that his proper function with out all derogation to his right therein. But in deede their preaching, which is their remission of sinne, is not the power of God to saluation, but it is his permission for our great punishment. The lawful doctrine of Christs Church, is truely no lesse theproper work of Christ, then is forgiuenes of sinnes, & yet it is with out controlling of Nouatians & Heretiks, exercised by mans ministerie in earth. S. Augustine saith hereof thus: Christus est qui docet, Cathedram in coelo haber, scholaipsius in terra est De discipl. Christiana ca. vlt. & scholaipsius corpus ipsius est. It is Christ which teacheth, and he hath his pulpit in heauen, and his schoole in earth, and his schoole is his body the Church. Christ doth not then resigne vp his office in preaching, no more then he doth his authority of pardoning: no man succeeding him in either of the roomes, but occupieth both vnder him in his Church, which is his inheritance for euer: the which Churh holdeth by him as a schoole to teach trueth in, as a court and iudgement seat to pardon or punish sinnes in. Thus he.

FVLKE.

The proper function of Christ, which is to be the onelie author of the true Doctrine, that is taught in the Church, none of vs will presume to occupie; we leaue that blasphemie to the Pope, and the popish Church: but the Gospel which we preach, is the power of God vnto saluation in the remission of our sins, reuealed in this age by the singular mercie of God, to the vndoubted saluation of many thousands. The outward preaching of Christes Doctrine, is not the proper worke of Christ, but common to all his true and faithfull seruantes, the Prophettes, Apostles, and their successoures, Bishopes, Pastours, and teachers. It is Christ, as Austine saieth, that teacheth inwardly by his spirit from heauen, and is the author of the doctrine that is taught on earth: in which respect he saith, He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. But it is the voice of man that vttereth this Doctrine in the outward eares of men, and not the voice of Christ.

ALLEN.

But to beare downe the aduersaries of trueth fullly, we will ioyne with them touching the sacrament of extream vnction, the sacrament of baptisme, and such other, in which they cannot, nor doe not denie, concerning one of them, but man without all derogation to Gods honour, remitteth sinnes. And how can it here seeme strange, that in the sacrament of penance God should by mans office remit mortall crimes, seeing it cannot be denied, but God vseth, not onelie mans ministerie, but also the externall seruice of bare and base water, which is much inferiour by nature and dignitie to a Priest or anie other man, to take awaie sinnes both originall and actuall, in the sacrament of baptisme: in which sacrament, seeing aswell the Priest is the minister, as the water an instrument, whereby God remitteth all sinnes, be they neuer so many and grieuouse, whether they be committed by their owne acte, or by our fathers ofspring, why doth it dishonour God any more, that the Priest should be the minister of remission in the sacrament of penance, then it doth by as great an office almoste, in remitting of sinnes in the sacrament of baptisme? Againe, read the Epistle of S. Iamer, and you shall finde the Priest made a minister, the oile an instrument in the extreamitie of sicknes, Cap. vlt. to forgiue sinnes: how much more is the priest, without anie imparing of Gods power, the worker vnder him of our reconciliation, and pardoning in the sacrament of penance: in which especiallie the grace of God is giuen aboue all other sacraments, to that onlie end and purpose.

I may be more bold to vse this comparing of sundrie Sacraments together, because not onely Saint Ambrose refuteth the Father of this fond heresie by the same reason, but also because moste of the Doctors of the Church doe confesse, that she euer had these waies to remit mans sinnes by, without derogation to Christes soueraigntie herein, of whome onelie she holdeth her right, as well in the sacrament of penance, as in baptisme or extreame vnction. Saint Chrysostome saith Neque enim solùm cùm nos regenerant, sed postea etiam condonandorum De Sacerlib. 3. nobis peccatorum potestatem obtinent: infirmatur (inquit) inter vos aliquis? Accersat presbyteros Ecclesiae. Neither haue Priests power in baptisme onelie, but afterward also they haue good authoritie to forgiue our sinnes: Is any man feeble amongst you, saith he, Call for the Priests of the Church, let them saie praiers ouer him, annoint him with oile, and the praier of faith shall saue the sicke, and if he be in sinnes, they shall be forgiuen him. But this sacrament instituted by Gods word, and Christes authoritie, vsed of olde, and well knowne to all the Fathers, is now become nothing in our building. Sinne is now a daies so fauored, that no sacrament may be abiden for the release thereof. The verie expresse wordes of Scripture can take no place, where flattering of wickednes and phantasie ruleth to the contrarie.

FVLKE.

Touching extreame vnction, we shall speake anone: but of baptisme we saie, that to speake properlie, man baptiseth with water vnto repentance, as an outward seale of the forgiuenes of sinnes: Christ onelie baptizeth with the holie Ghost and with fire, actuallie, and effectuallie to purge and clense our sinnes. Of the sacrament of penance, we must first be resolued, before we can acknowledge any office of man to remitte mortal crimes therein. If Christ had instituted a sacrament of penance, as he hath of baptisme, we wold acknowledge the like effectes in the one, that we doe in the other. Concerning the anointing with oile, spoken of in Saint Iames, whereunto besides bodelie health, remission of sins was promised, it was a sacrament, while that special gift of healing continued, but no instituriō of perpetuall continuance. Chrysostome citeth this text of Saint Iames to prooue, that not onelie in the sacrament of regeneration, but afterwards also, the Priests hath power to remit sinnes, not onelie by teaching, and admonishing, but also by helpe of praier. But of anie perpetuall sacrament, there is no mention in him, neither was it instituted by our sauiour Christ, with anie commaundement of perpetuall continuance, as babtisme & the Lordes supper are, but onely so long as the gift should continue. Neither doth Saint Iames giue it in charge, as a perpetuall sacrament, but onelie admonisheth the Church to vse that benefit of healing, so long as it should remaine with men.

ALLEN.

There be some that affirme, this annoiling to haue beene a miraculous practise to take awaie the diseases of the sicke, and therefore that it did decaie with the working of other the like miracles, which after the spring of our religion were not vsual. But that is a fond glosse. For I aske of thē, whether the people then Christianed, were instructed, or rather commaunded, to call for the Apostles or others, to heale them miraculously of their diseases, or whether all Priestes had the gift of working miracles in the Primitiue Church? If they saie, yea, touching the first piont, then as well were they charged to send for them to reuiue them, after they were dead, because the Apostles so could doe when they same occasion, and so did by some. But that is plaine absurde and false, that euer Apostle gaue in charge to anie man, much lesse to make a generall precept (as S. Iames here doth) to seeke after miracles: for that were to tempt God. And for the second, they are not so vnreasonable to answere me, that all Priestes could worke miracles, which is a seuerall gift of the holie Ghost, from the power of their ministerie, and therefore Saint Iames would not haue charged the sicke persons to haue called indifferentlie for Priestes, to heale them miraculouslie, the gift of miracles being not common to them all, nor perpetuallie promised to anie of them all. Againe I would knowe of them, whether there was anie miraculous healing that had the remission of sinnes ioyned vnto it, or to the externall creature, by which they healed any person? If they saie yea: then it followeth, that the Priestes might by the office of that creature, heale a man of his sinnes, which they affirme to be blaspemie, and dishonour to God. But to what absurditie so euer you bring them, they will not confesse mortall men in externall Sacraments to remit sinnes.

FVLKE.

You are better aduised now, concerning Caluines iudgement, of the oile, where of Saint Iames speaketh, then you were when you wrot your defence of purgatorie: for there you were not ashamed to affirme, that Caluine did expound it for a medicinable salue, or ointment to ease the sicke mans sore. But now let vs see how you will prooue, his interpretation to be a fond glosse. First you aske, whether the people then christianed, were instructed, or rather commaunded, to call for the Apostles or others to heale thē miraculouslie of their diseases? I answere, they were admonished by the Apostles, that they might vse the benefit of that speciall gift of healing, and that is manifest by the wordes of Saint Iames. Secondlie you aske, whether all Priests had the gift of working miracles in the primitiue Church? I answere, I cannot tell of euerie one: but that in euerie Church some had the gift of healing, it is most probable, in the Apostles time. And therefore Saint lames willeth not one Priest, but all the Priests or Elders of the Church, to be called for. But against my first answer, you obiect that by like reason they were charged to send for them to reuine the dead, & that to seeke after miracles were to tempt God. I replie, the gift of raising the dead, was verie rare, insomuch as we read but of two that were raised by the Apostles them selues, Tabytha by Peter, and Eutycus by Paul. And Saint Iames willeth not the Apostles, which were not in al places hand, but the elders of the Church, which were in euery Christian congregation, to be sent for. Neither is it a tempting of God to seeke after miracles of healing, at their hands, to whome God hath giuen that gift. To your second obiection, I answere, that albeit euerie Priest had not that gift, whereof as I cannot affirme, so cannot you denie of certaintie, yet it is certaine that in euerie congregation ofthe dispersed Iews, to whome 〈◊〉 writeth, there were some that had that gift, as it is manifest by the promise that he maketh, that the praier offaith shall giue health to the sicke man, and the Lord shall raise him vp. But howsoeuer it be, if there were anie miracles of healing, that had remission of sinnes ioyned to it, or to the externall creature, the Priests might by that office of that creature, heale a man of his sinnes, which they affirme to be blasphemie, &c. I answere, Saint Iames his wordes are plaine, from whence remission of sinnes commeth properlie. The oile was a seale of assurance, both of bodelie health, and of remission of sinnes, with are the cause often times that man is visited which sicknes and bodelie infirmite, but not allwaies, as our sauiour Christ sheweth of the blind man: therefore he saith, if he haue committed sinne, it shalbe forgiuen, meaning if he had this bodely infirmitie laid vpon him for some greiuos sinne. For otherwise there is no man but sinneth. and whome God may iustly punish for his sinne, although he deal more mercifully, with his children, who though they want not his fatherly chastisement, yet he doth not alwaies laie vpon them the crosse of bodely affliction.

ALLEN.

In the sacrament of baptisme they will not stand with me openlie: for they will seeme to acknowldge the forgiuenes of sinnes thereby, and I thinke by the Ministerie of man to, though in their priuat schooles, yea and in their open blaspemoous bookes, the whole packe of Protestantes and Zuinglians denie that sacrament also to remit sinnes, both acknowledging that children may be saued and be receiued to heauen without it, & auouching that sinne remaineth still in the children after their Christendome, though God will not impute the same vnto them for the hinderance of their saluation. Which false Doctrine is the ground of their more subtill opinions touching onelie saith, and imputed iustice, and other their pelting paradoxes concerning mans iustification, which I cannot now stand vpon. Would God the ignorant sort of their followers could see through the dunghil of this confuse Doctrine. For these haue euer, besides the florish of their faith that they make abroad amongst fooles, an other more improbable which they keepe for the strong ones at home, that will no more be offended to heare the Turkish, then the christian faith. And so had the Epicure, as Tullie teacheth. For pleasure of the minde gathered by contentation and contemplation of heauenlie thinges was his chiefe God and extreame end of his endeuours abroade, but his dearlinge at home had the pleasures of the bodelie lustes, and wantonnesse for the end of all goodnes.

Well, but I will reason with them vpon the ground of their outward profession, that baptisme is a sacrament, in which truelie sinnes be remitted by the ministerie of men, and without all dishonour of God, seeing it was Gods owne ordinance & appointment. But heare S. Ambrose againe, I praie you, encountering Ibidem. in this matter with our mens masters: Cur baptisatis (saith he) per hominem peccata dimitti non licet? in baptismo vtique remissio peccatorum omnium est. Quid interest, vtrum per poenitentiam, an per lauacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent? vnum in vtro que ministerium est. Sed dices, quia in lauacro operatur mysteriorum gratia: quid in poenitentia? non Dei nomen operatur? Why do they baptize, if man may not remit sinnes? for surelie in Baptisme all sinnes be remitted: and what difference (I beseech you) whether Priestes chalenge this gift to be theirs in baptisme, or in pennance? The ministerie of man is like in both. But you will replie perchaunce, that in baptisme the grace of the ministeries worketh: And what worketh, I praie you, in penance? Doth not Gods name bring all to passe there also? Thus he. But here, good reader, marke diligently in this doctoures words, as also in other the like of all auncient Fathers, that penance is not here taken for anie vertue either morall, or theologicall, which is in a priuat man, when he amendeth or changeth his purpose, or former euill life to the better: whereof there was some shade amongst the heathen, & is now both commended in scripture, and giuen man by Christes graces not onelie afore the remitting of the sacrament of baptisme, if the party were in case of actuall deadly sinne, but also goeth alwaie, as a neccssary preparatiue, before sacramentali confession, and is called in our tongue properlie, repentance: this Doctor therefore speaketh not of this kinde of penitence, but of a publike act of the Church, touching the reconciliation or repayring of mans state defiled after his baptisme by greeuous crimes, in which by Priestes iudgement the sinnes committed be either pardoned, or punished. And this must be called repentance onely, or the amendement of life, as Heretiques do tearme it, to confound the Doctrine of Gods trueth & Sacraments: but it is an externall and visible act-on appointed by Christ in the 20. of Saint Iohn, to reconcile sinners by that forme of absoluing, which the Church vseth in the name and inuocation of God for that purpose. And therefore, hauing the grace of God and remission of sinnes ioyned vnto it by Christes promise, it must needes be a sacrament, as baptisme is: which all the fathers doe insinuate, when they make penance to be one prescribed ordinance of Christ, to forgiue sinnes no lesse then Baptisme is. Neither was it the preaching of the Gospell, nor the inward sorowfullnes or repentance of former sinnes, that Nouatus did condemne: but it was the sacrament of penance, and act of absolution, by the Priestes ministerie, which he so much abhorred, and meant wickedlie to remooue. For which cause as he was iustlie condemned of heresie by the Roman & Nicen Councelles, so were you, Master Protestants, both then in them, and since in your Masters, Wiclife, Luther, Caluine, and the like, accused by Gods Church and Councels.

FVLKE.

We will neuer graunt, that baptisme, or anie sacrament doth remit sinnes properlie: but God by sacraments ministered by man, doth assure vs, that he doth remit our sins. vnproperly, we may say the sacraments, and the ministers of them doe remit sinnes, because the one is the mouth of god, to declare his sentence of forgiuenes of our sins, the other are the seals of god, to confirme our faith in his promises of remission of sins. To holde that the children of Christian Parentss, in whome is no contempt or neglect of baptisme, cannot be saued, and receiued into heauen without it, is to abridge the power of God, as though he could not giue saluation without sacraments: neither hath he declared anie necessitie of his will to the contrarie. For the text of Iohn. 3. Except a man be borne againe of water, and of the spirit, pertaineth not to the externall sacrament of baptisme, more then the like saying of our sauiour Christ Iohn. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke hu blood, you haue no life in you, pertaineth to the sacrament of the Lordes supper.

That Originall sinne remaineth in the baptized, though it be not imputed to the elect, both the scripture and our owne experience teacheth. Saint Paull did see another lawe in his members, withstanding the lawe of his minde, and bringing him captiue vnder the law of sinne, which is in his members. The Doctrine of onelie faith iustifyng, Rom. 7. and of imputed iustice, although they be the Doctrine Rom. 3. 4. of the holie Ghost, your blasphemous spirit calleth, pelting paradoxes, as your slaunderous malice, not onelie imagineth, but stoutlie affirmeth, that we haue a secret Doctrine of Epicurisme, which we teach secretly to certaine strangers at home, &c. Whereof let God, who knoweth all secretes, be iudge and reuenger. Your argument of remission of sinnes in baptisme, confirmed by testimonie of Saint Ambrose, we graunt, that it is no dishonour to God, that man should remit sinnes, by that power which god hath graunted him. But whereas in his wordes, you would haue the good reader to marke, that poenitentia doth not signifie repentance, but your popish sacrament of penance, I will desire the good reader to marke the contrarie. For Saint Ambrose by making obiection doth plainelie distinguish mysteriorum gratiam, which is in baptisme, from panitentia, in which is onelie the inuocation of Gods name, or the name of God aduouched, for assurance of remission of sinnes: which whether it be in the solemne act of reconciling those which are open penitents, or in preaching: and declaring remission of sinnes to al trulie repentant sinners, it commeth all to one end. For there is not in that repentance mysterium gratiae, that is, a promise, adioyned to an outward sacrament, which spirituallie worketh that, which externallie it representeth. Yet you saie, there is an externall and visible action appointed by Christ 20. of Saint Iohn. to reconcile sinners by the forme of absoluing, which the Church vseth, &c. Here wanteth nothing, but proofe of that you saie. Here such syllogismes, as you make at the end of euerie Chapter, were necessarie to demonstrate this conclusion. For we can see no external or visible action inthese words, whose sins you retaine they are retained, & whose sins you remit, they are remitted, therefore no sacrament. But all the fathers, you saie, doe insinuat the same, when they make penance one prescribed ordinance of Christ, to forgiue sinnes by, no lesse, then baptisme. I denie this argument, for euerie ordinance of Christ whereby sinnes are forgiuen, is not a sacrament. But it was not the preaching of the Gospell, or repentance (saie you) that Nouatus did condemne, but the sacrament of penance, & act of absolution, by the Priestes ministerie. Epiphanius and others doe writ, that he denied remission of sins, to thé that had fallen into idolatrie, after baptisme, although they were repentant. Other more fauourablie write of him, that he denied onely the outward reconciling vnto the Church, or act of absolution by the priests ministerie, for them that had so fallen. But of the sacrament of penance, there is no mention in any auncient writer of those, or much later times. Therefore Wiclif, Luther, Caluin, and we all doe subscribe to the auncient Churches condemnation of Nouatus for an heretike, and his opinion for heresie.

ALLEN.

The doctours therefore, as I haue said, ioyne lightlie in talking of remission of sinnes, Baptisme, and penance, and some time extreame vnction also, that you neede not doubt but they tooke them all three for sacraments workeing remission of sinnes. For they doe not talke of inwarde repentance, but of an action solemlie exercised in Gods Church, whereof the priest, as you heare by Saint Ambrose and Saint Chysostome, is the minister. And therefore Epiphanius saieth, that the Church hath two penances, one for an other, insinuating thereby, the double act of the Church and sacrament, whereby sinnes be remitted. As Saint Augustine also saieth by the Nouatians, quòd poenitentiam denegant, that they denie penance. By Heres. 38. Lib. 4. Cap. 30. de Sap. which penance, Lactantius teacheth vs also a way to discerne the true Church from the false, as in which there is both confession and penance for the healing of mans frailtie. Whereby it is euident, that this penance which they speake of, was an vsuall ceremonie, and holy sacrament of the Church, whereby sinnes were remitted.

FVLKE.

Such a sacrament, such arguments: the Doctorsioyne lightlie in talking of remission of sinnes, baptisme, and penance, and sometime extreame vnction: Therefore you neede not doubt that they toke them all three for sacraments. And yet you haue not brought one Doctor, that speaketh of extreame vnction. For Chrysostome speaketh of the effect of praier made by the priest, to obtaine remission of sinnes, although the gift of healing be ceased in the Church. And it is manifest that Saint Iames speaketh not of extreame vnction, which you minister to none, but such as are ready to die, when he promiseth restitution of health to the diseased that were anointed in those daies. Againe his vnction was onelie with oyle, yours is with I cannot tell what slibbersauce cōsecrated by the Bishop. That anointing was not extreame, when it might be repeated, as sickenes might often take holde of men. Yours is not extreame, it may be repeated: if it may not be repeated, it is not the vnction that S. Iames speaketh of Of the sayings of Epiphanius, and Lactantius, we haue spoken before, which it were needeles here to repeate. That there was a ceremonie vsed in reconciling of publike penitents, I denie not: but that there was a sacrament of penance, you haue hetherto brought no good euidence. For your argument to prooue, that they talke not of inward repentance, but of an action solemnly exercised, because we heare that the priest is minister, is no good euidence: for the priest is minister of the worde, as well as of the sacraments.

ALLEN.

Which trueth Saint Cyrill vttereth most plainlie for our purpose, treating thus vpon the words of institution of this sacrament: Cùm ipsiremittunt aut detinent, spiritus qui habitat in eis, per ipsosremittit aut detinet: fit autem id duobus In 20. 10. Serm. de nupt. Christ. modis: primùm, Baptisme, deinde, Poenitenita. When the priestes remit sinnes, or reteine them, the holie ghost which which dwelleth in them doth remit or retein by them. Which is done two manner of waies: first in Baptisme, and then afterward in penance. Saint Cyprian also said, that the holie ghost worketh remission of sinnes, whether it be in baptisme, or by other sacraments. Whereby he cleerelie vttereth his meaning, that there should be moe sacraments then one, instituted by Christ for that purpose. In all which congruitie of Gods holie working, by diuerse sacraments, the remission of sinnes, we conclude against heresie, that the priesis power herein, derogateth no more to god nor our sauiour, in the sacrament of penance, then is doth before by baptisme, or after by extreame vnction: in none of al which, as I haue prooued before, Christ doth resigne his power and proper iurisdiction to the priestes, but continuing euerlastinglie in like preheminence and power as before, worketh his grace and remission of sinnes, in all these Sacraments, by the priests seruice and ministerie, that it maybe yet as truelie, as in his life time said, and so shall be to the worlds ende, Christ baptizeth, Christ shriueth, assoileth, and anointeth sinners, for remission of their offences: Although Iesus doth none of these now, nor much did in his life time, but his disciples then, and his disciples now, doe the same holie actions in his name.

FVLKE.

There is nothing in Saint Cyrills wordes to prooue that there is a sacrament of repentance beside baptisme but that the holie ghost doth remit or reteine by his ministers by two waies, namelie by baptisme, & by repentance after baptisme. For if you will restraine the worde poenitentia, to your pretended sacrament, then this absurditie will follow, that seeing there are but two waies by which the spirit remitteth sinnes, they are not remitted without that sacrament, neither by true contrition of heart without any sacrament, not by receiuing the Lordes supper, nor by your extreame vnction. Therefore poenitentia in Saint Cyrill signifieth repentance, and is necessarilie required in them, that shall obteine remission of sinnes by participation of the Lordes supper, or by faith without any sacrament. That Cyprian maketh moe sacraments then one, instituted by Christ, to assure vs of remission of sinnes, it is true. For by the sacrament of the bodie and bloode of Christ worthelie receiued, we haue this assurance also, as well as by the sacrament of baptisme. To conclude, the power of Christ or of his ministers, graunted by him, we denie not, but the institution of the sacrament of penance we require, to be shewed out of the holie scriptures, if you will haue vs to beleeue it.

ALLEN.

To conclude this matter, I argue thus. It is no dishonour to God for the priest to remit sinnes, as well originall as actuall, of all sortes and grauitie in the sacrament of Baptisme, by the Protestantes owne confession, nor by extreame vnction, by the warrant both of scripture and Doctors: Ergo, remission of sinnes is not vnlawfull, nor dishonourable to God, to be giuen by the priest in the solemne sacrament of penance. And further I ioyne with them thus: The word of God is much more plaine and expresse for the priests warrant to remit sinnes in penance, then in Baptisme: but they may lawfullie doe it in Baptisme, Ergo they may doe it no lesse lawfullie in penance. Compare the wordes of institution of them both, and iudge your selues of your indifferencie and sinceritie, by what right you remooue the one, and reteine the other. I praie God, you seeke not 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 shortelie to baptize vs onely by your preaching, as you now will onelie absolue vs by the same. But truelie, I thinke you be in the case that Saint Ambrose tooke Nouatus your forefather to haue bene in, not onelie for that, that he saieth, Nouatus where he listed would admit power to priests of remission: But Vbi supra where he listed not, there the grace giuen to them must be dishonoured to God. So that of thinges equallie commended by scripture, and commaunded by God, the good man must haue choise for his tooth, not onelie in this point, I now compare our choise men, but much more in that which followeth in the saide Saint Ambrose of all Nouatians, whome he trippeth pretelie with this terme, delicati mei: My delicate gentlemen (saith he) with their lustie lookes, and swelling hartes, can not abide in their brauerie to looke vpon a poore caitisse weeping for his sinnes abundantlie, apparelled mourninglie, in sad and sorowfull companie, and so forth. And this surelie is the disease of our daies, which hath not onelie infected the vnfaithfull, but also hath made these holie thinges lothsome euen to the better sorte of Gods people. So much is mans will and pleasure pampered, where Gods worde and writing should be onelie followed. For the necessarie bearing with such frailtie, euen of the good, almost generallie, the Church of God hath sought and allowed much more gentle remedies, then the worlde had wont full gladlie to beare for their greeuous sinnes.

FVLKE.

We confesse that it is no dishonour to God, that the minister, lawfullie authorized, should remit sinnes in such sorte as he hath commission, namelie by declaring the wil of God, that they are by him remitted, and giuing the seales or sacraments of God for more full assurance of performance, as euen the Master. of the sentences teacheth out of S. Augustine, and other Doctors, whose words I wil set downe, that the indifferent Lib. 4. dist. 18. reader may see, how you agree with your owne principal piller and post of Poperie, who in this point, seemeth to be more sound yet then you. Cùm veraciter de bapt. contr. Don. lid. 6. ad Deum conuerso, peccata dimittuntur, ab iis dimittuntur quibus ipse veraci conuersione coniungitur. Spiritus sanctus ea dimittit, qui datus est omnibus sanctis sibi charitare cohaer entibus, siue se nouerint corporaliter, siue non. Similiter cum alicuius tenentur peccato, ab eis tenentur, quibus ille cordis prauitate disiungitur, siue notis corporaliter, siue ignotis. Omnes enim mali spiritualiter à bonis seiuncti sunt Ecce hic dicit peccata dimitti vel teneri à sanctis viris: & tamen spiritum sanctum ea dimittere dicit: & quod maiori consideratione dignum est, idem etiam dicit, quod Deus per se vel per sanctos suos, tantùm dimittit peccata, ait enim sic: sacramentum gratiae dat Deus etiam per malos, ipsam vero gratiam non nisi per seipsum vel pcr sanctos suos, & ideo remissionem peccatorum, vel per seipsum facit, velper ipsius columbae membra, quibus ait: si quibus dimiseritis, aimittentur. Ecce quàm varia à doctoribus traduntur super his, & in hactanta varietate quid tenendum? Hoc sane discere & sentire possumus, quod solus Deus dimittit peccata & retinet, & tamen Ecclesiae contulit potestatem ligands & soluendi: Sed aliter ipse soluit vel ligat, aliter Ecclesia Ipse enim per se tantùm dimittit pecca tum, quia enim animam mundat ab interiore macula, & à debito aeternae mortis soluit. Non autem hoc sacerdotibus concessit, quibus tamen tribuit potestatem soluendi & ligandi: id est, ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos vnde Dominus leprosū sanitati priùs per se restituit, deinde ad sacerdotes misit, quorum iudicio ostenderetur mundatus. When sinnes are forgiuen to him that is truelie turned to God, they are forgiuen by them, to whome he him selfe by true conuersion is ioyned. The holie ghost forgiueth them, which is giuen to all the Saints, which are knit together in charitie, whether they know one another corporallie or not. Likewise when any mans sinnes are reteined, they are reteined by them, from whome, he is disioyned by prauitie of heart, whether they be corporally knowne or vnknowne. For all euill men are spirituallie separated from good men. Beholde here he saieth, that sinnes are forgiuen or reteined by the Saints or holiemen: Ana'yet he saieth, that the holy ghost doth forgiue them, and that which is worthie of greater consideration, the same Doctor also saith: that God by himselfe or by his Saints onelie remittesh sinnes. For thus he saieth, The sacrament of grace god giueth euen by euilmen, but grace it selfe, not but by himselfe he causeth, or by the members of that doue, to whome, he saith if to any ye shal forgiue, they shal be forgiuen. Beholde how diuerse thinges are deliuered by the Doctors, concerning these matters, and in this so great variety what is to be holden? This truelie, we may saie and thinke, that onely God forgiueth sinnes and reteineth, and yet he hath giuen power to the Church of binding and loosing, but otherwise doth he him selfe bind and loose, otherwise the Church. For he him selfe by him selfe onelie forgiueth sinne, because both he clensith the soul from the inward spot, and looseeh from the debt of eternall death. But this he hath not graunted to the priests, to whome notwihstanding, he hath giuen power of binding and loosing, that is to saie, of declaring men to be bound or loosed, whereupon our Lord did first by him seifere store the Leper to health, asterwards sent him to the priests, by whose iudgement he might be declared to be clensed. Thus writeth the Master of the sentences, with more to this effect.

In your second argument brought to prooue, that penance is a sacrament, I denie the Antecedent, that there is any wordes of institution, to prooue your sacrament of penance. Where you feare vainlie, least we will shortly seeke to baptize by preaching, as we wil absolue you onelie by the same, you declare nothing, but your harde conceit of vs. For we are olde enough to know the difference of the ministerie of the worde, and the sacrament a sunder. To compare vs with Nouatus, either in the one point, or in the other, you haue no cause in the world, but your owne malicious and slaunderous humor. For we doe not admit the power of remission where we list, but wheresoeuer God hath graunted it, and in what manner soeuer, he hath appointed it to be exercised. We are readie to receiue the publike penitents, that with plentie of teares and other outward signes, doe testifie the inward sorowe of their hearts, conceiued for their greeuous and notorious sinnes. Yea we receiue them, whose offences being not openlie knowne, doe neuertheles secretlie bewaile their sinnes. And therefore that you saie of pampering mans will, and pleasure, where Gods worde and writing should be onely followed, seeke among your owne sect, where it may take place. For sinnes openlie committed, or knowne to be committed, we holde that they ought with open confession to be chastised, for satisfying the Church, that is offended by them: As for sinnes committed in secret, whereby our neighbour is neither hurt nor offended, it is sufficient that they be acknowledged, with hartie repentance before god, if the offendours conscience be not troubled with further doubtfulnes about them. In which case we holde that it is conuenient, that he should consult with the learned minister, for his further comfort and satisfaction, out of the worde of God, concerning the remission of his sinnes.

ALLEN.

And therefore the manner and order of Penance hath bin diuerse in sundry ages and countries: sometimes solemne, which could be but once taken in al a mans life somtimes not solemne, but yet open and publike, which might be iterated, as ofien as mans mortal sinnes so required: other times priuat onelie, betwixt the priest and the penitent: which is now vsed, and long hath beene, in a manner gencrallie thorough the wholl worlde. Of all which diuersities we will not now intreat, nor for our matter the consideration of them is virie needfull, seing that in all sortes, and in euerie of the sundry formes of doing penance this is a most firme principle, that the penitent had remission of sinnes, for which he did penance, no otherwise but by the ministerie of the Priestes. Therefore the substance of the matter being one, of the diuersitie of vse, and circumstances which maie be according to the time and manners of men altered, we need not much to care. Baptisme was once vsed with solemnitie, at two or three principall feastes of the yeare, for the time so required then, and the condition of the people, yet the same sacrament of Baptisme ministerea'now priuatlie as occasion serueth by the birth of euerie childe, is of the same force and grace now, that it was then. Wherein to reprehend the wisdome of Gods Church, that is assuredlie ruled by the spirit of God, is ouermuch wantonnes of will, and sedition not tolerable.

FVLKE.

There hath beene diuerse manners and orders appointed for the punishment of sins, and for triall of the offenders true repentance & conuersion vnto god: but all these prooue not any sacrament of penance. The manner which the Popish Church doth vse in the exercise of this pretensed sacrament, is partly tyrannical, while you inforce men to confesse their secret sinnes, to a popish Priest, where of there is no commaundement in the holie scriptures, and partlie it is an encouragement vnto securitie, & a pampering in sinne, while the fraile and foolish man is persuaded, that by the heard confession & absolution receiued of the Priest, he is cleerelie discharged of his sinnes, and may be toti es quoties, with a litle pretie penance enioyned him for satisfaction. But it is a firme principle (you saie) that in all formes of penance, the penitent had remission of his sinnes, for which he did penance, no otherwise but by the ministerie of the Priestes. A heauie case where the Priestes were straight laced, and would retaine sinnes, where God was readie to forgiue. What is this els, but to restraine the mercie of God to the ministerie of vnskilfull men. At what howre so euer the sinner doth truelie repent, the Lord remitteth his sinnes. But man can not allwaies see, or by outward tokens iudge of true and inward repentance. Therefore it is a firme principle, that God often times forgaue sinnes to the penitent, otherwise then by the ministerie of the Prieste. Men maie erre in exercising outward discipline, but Gods remission is not staied vpon mans error. Where you conclude that as the diuerse vse of baptisme hindreth not, but that in substance it is the same: so the sacrament of penance, notwithstanding the diuers formes, and manners, in which it hath or is now vsed, Your comparison is nought. For baptisme is a sacrament of Christes institution, your popish penance can neuer be prooued to be a sacrament. Therfore your argument à paribus is of no force. Whether the Church did well to restraine baptisme to certaine solemne feastes, I will not here dispute.

That remission of sinnes hath beene ioyned often, both in the law of nature and Moses, to some externall ceremonies and sacrifices, whereof in the olde law Priestes were appointed ministers.

THE NINTH CHAP.

LEt no man, vpon consideration of these thinges, either reprehend or maruatle at the counsel and ordinance of god, Fxternal sacraments or deined and mans ministerie vsed for good causes. that he being hable to gouerne his creatures, and amend or correct, pardon or punish euerie mans misdeedes by him-selfe, without all helpe and seruice of anie other his subiect natures, that it pleaseth his wisdome for all that, to forgiue sinnes no otherwise in his Church, but by externall orders ioyned to mans ministerie in sundrie sacramentes. In sober consideration of these thinges, mans reason maie well be satisfied, if he can conceiue, that it is the honour and estimation of our kinde with almightie God our maker, that he gouerneth not our affaires onelie by him selfe in his owne person, but also that we be ruled and led in the waies of Gods will, by one an other: that the maiestie of God, which most appeareth in regiment, and in remitting of sinnes, in correcting of 〈◊〉 and iudgement, might be cleerelie seene in our kinde amongst our selues, to our comfort, and Gods no disgracing nor dishonour at all. And therefore Saint Augustine saith of the like doubt of some in his daies, which would not be taught by man, but by Gods owne spirit: Abiecta esset humana conditio, si per homines hominibus In prefa. de doct. Christ. verbum suum Deus ministrare nolle videretur. Quomodo enim verum esset, quod dictum est: Templum enim Dei sanctum est quod estis vos, si de humano templo Deus responsa non redderet? Mans state were too base, if God would not, that his word should be ministred by one man to another. For how should this truelie be spoken: the temple of God is holie, the which temple you are, if God gaue not answers by mans temple? This is one great respect surelie, especialle since the second person in Trinitie tooke vpon him our nature. by whome the woorthines of mankinde is much increased, and more fit then euer before to serue ech other, as in the workes that be diuine, and properlie by nature belonging to God himselfe. An other respect why we should by externall sacraments and mans ministerie receiue grace and remission of sinnes, is the singular respect had by God of our infirmitie, as well of minde, as bodie. For the minde requireth in her assured deseruing of damnation some externall token, by which she maie haue good cause to hope of mercie and grace. For where I know and assure myselfe that originall sinne is remitted by baptisme, when I haue once receiued the same, then I am in no further doubt of my selfe nor anie damnation for that sinne, which by the promis of God I haue learned, shall be washed awaie thereby, as by an externall instrument in which he conueigheth that benefit to my soule, if my soule by indisposition and unaptnes do not hinder the assured fruit thereof: So where after Baptisme mans life is often defiled by greeuons sinnes, and God highlie displeased therefore, what an infinite treaskre it is, and how great a comfort to haue an assured helpe therof, wrought so by mans ministery in a visible action. that I maie know (sauing for mine owne lack of connenient disposition) my sinnes to be forgiuen, and Gods mercie and fauour to be obteined againe. We maie conceiue easily what a passing comfort it was to the parties that heard sensiblie, by the outward wordes of Christes owne mouth, thy sinnes be forgiuen thee. The said persons beleeuing in Christ, and lamenting for their sinnes past, might haue had some hope of remission by Christ, though he had said no such thing vnto them: yet he that perceiueth not, what comfort of conscience, what inward ioy of minde, what reioysing of the spirit they must needes haue, that had Christes testimonie and blessing in plaine termes, for the same purpose, he seeth nothing at all.

FVLKE.

That God hath vsed in all ages, to testifie and assure men, of his grace and mercie, to the forgiuenes of their sinnes, by outward signes, and sacraments, and that for diuerse good causes, we are allwaies readie to acknowledge. But that it pleaseth his wisdome, (as you saie) to forgiue sinnes no otherwise in his Church, but by externall orders ioyned to mans ministery, in sundry sacraments, we do vtterlie denie. For that were to tie the grace of God to the outward sacraments, which is most free to worke, either with them or without them. The penitent publicane, an example of persons, that seeke Luk. 18. iustification, had his sinnes forgiuen him, by the onelie grace and mercie of God, taken holde of by faith, without al external orders, ioyned to mans ministerie in any sacrament. For if we acknowledge our sins, he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs our sinnes, and to clense vs from all vnrighteousnes. And Iesus Christ is our aduocate 1. Ioh. 1. a. & 5. with the father, to obtaine remission of sinnes. And if anie man shal see his brother sinne a sinne not to death, he shall ask, & he will giue life vnto him that sinneth not vnto death. By all which testimonies, and an hundreth more, that are euery where to be found in the scripture, it is most cleere, that God forgiueth our sinnes otherwise, then by externall orders or sacramets. Againe the sacrament of Baptisme is a seale and assurance vnto vs of the forgiuenes of our sinnes, not onely such as are com mitted before baptisme receiued, but euen vnto our liues end, whensoeuer we are truelie penitent for the same. Also the sacrament of the Lords supper in which we are spirituallie fed with the bodie of Christ, which was giuen for vs, and with his blood, which was shed for the remission of our sinnes, is a sure pledge, token, and seale of the remission of our sinnes committed after baptisme, that we neede not the Popish sacrament of pennance for the same.

ALLEN.

As for my selfe good Christian Reader, I am not so free from sinne, wo is me therefore, nor so void of mans affection, but as often I heare in the sacrament of penance the Priest, who to me then is Christ in full power of pardoning, saying the wordes of absolution ouer me, me think truelie I heare the sweete voice of Christ saying with authoritie: thy sinnes be forgiuen thee. Whereof no mortallman shall euer forbid me to take hope and singular trust of remission of sinnes with the passing comfort that thereon ensueth. All these that are without Christes folde, seeke not to heare his voice, for all their load of sinne, from the heauenlie and intire ioy whereof they be as farre, as from the conceiuing of of the felicitie to come in heauen it selfe. But let them assure themselues, that Christ writeth with his holie finger all their sinnes, though to Christ they will not now confesse them, whiles they refuse the power ofremission that he both had, aud hath in earth to the worldes end: without which outward solemne act of penance, man should either dispaire of Gods mercie, and liue in feare intollerable of euerlasting perishing, which often fall to timerous consciences: or els, which is now of daies more common, men would liue in such passing presumption, and vaine securitie of heauen, that they should neuer, till the very last breath of their euill time, either be sorie for sinne, or seke to do any good worke at al.

This time shall testifie with me herein, and the verie diuersitie that is betweene these our corrupt conditions and the holy studies and endeauours of our forefathers shalltestifie: but the daies that yet are to come must need, most feele the smart of it, when these that now haue the direction of other mens steppes shall be gone, by whome for olde discipline, wherein they were brought vp. Some signes and remnantes of vertue be continued in the world. For when they be spent, and our yonkers that neuer heard of the Churches discipline, but haue had their full swinge in sinne, with the instruction of a most wanton doctrine, shall be the principall of the people, if this diuision so long continue (which God forbid) into what terms shal trueth and vertue be then brought? Me think I see before hand the lamentable state of things, and in a manner beholde the fruit of our onelie faith, of this bolde presumption of Gods mercie, of remouing the discipline of penance, of refusing the onely ordinance of God for remission of our mortall sinnes. Euil are we now, but a thousand partes worsse shal they be then, which in long nouseling in this naughtie learning of libertie shall be in perpetuall wo, and haue no feele nor sense thereof. And all this must needs follow vpon the lack of these outward acts & external waies of pardoning & punishing offences, and intended either for mans present comfort and solace, or els to keepe in awe the wantons of the world by the rodde of outward discipline, which in the Church hath euer especiallie beene obserued in the sacrament of penance.

FVLKE.

When we heare the authorized embassadours and messengers of reconciliation, pronounce in the name of Christ, according to the scriptures, and promises of God, that our sinnes are forgiuen vs, whensoeuer we be hartilie sorie & truely penitent for the same, we haue sufficient warrant out of Gods word, to assure our selues of remission of them, with inestimable ioy & comfort of conscience. But for the sacrament of penance, or the Priest to be Christ vnto vs, in fullpower of pardoning, or to haue anie wordes of absolution said ouer vs, because we haue no ground in Gods word, whatsoeuer imaginarie pleasure you haue therein, we finde nothing that is of force to staie a weake conscience, to comfort a troubled spirit, or to heale a broken heart. To confesse our sinnes to Christ, who onelie knoweth whether our repentance be vnfained, God forbid, that we should refuse. But to confesse them to a Popish Priest, or anie lawfull minister, if they be secret, there is no law or commaundement of God to require vs. If our conscience be not satisfied, about anie offence that we haue committed, how we should declare our vnfained conuersion, or repentance, we maie vse the aduise of the Godlie and learned pastor, who is able out of the word of god toresolue our doubts and quiet our conscience. That the want of Popish pennance will driue all men, either to desperation, or securitie and presumption, it is affirmed, without anie proofe. God be praised, experience cryeth out of the contrarie side. But rather the doctrine of poperie concerning the pretensed sacrament of penance, is manifest occasion of securitie, in them that are carnallie minded; of desperation, in them that haue a tender conscience. For the one thinketh he hath an easy remedy for his sinnes to discharge them into a priestes eare: the other considering the impossibilitie of confession, and vnsufficiency of the satisfaction, that be parts of this counterfet sacrament, can finde smal comfort in the priests absolution. Your blasphemous rayling at the doctrine of God iustifying by faith onely, which you cal the instruction of a most wanton doctrine, and the naughtie learning of libertie, is sufficiently confuted by the examples of many thousands of Gods Saints, who acknowledging that they are iustified in the sight of God, by faith onelie in the merites of Christ, are more fruitfull in good workes, then all the popish hypocrites in the world. Where you terme your popish penance to be the onely ordinance of god, for remission of our mortall sinnes, you vtter not onelie a grosse contradiction of the trueth taught in the holie scriptures, but also directlie contrarie to the doctrine of all Papists, and euen of your selfe. For what saie you, M. Allen, were you wel aduised, when you said, that penance is the onely ordinance of God for remission of our mortal sins: If it be as you saie, then the sacrifice of the masse is not the ordinance of God for remission of our mortall sinnes, as al Papists beside you do holde and mantaine: and extreame vnction, wherof you haue latelie affir med the contrarie, is not the ordinance of God for the remission of our mortall sinnes. The discipline of the Church, wherby wantons are kept in awe, is not excluded by remoouing the sacrament of penance, which is neither the discipline of the Church, nor the power of re mission of sins graunted to the ministers of the Church.

ALLEN.

It were too teadious, further to declare, how these externall meanes of working inward grace and remission of sinnes, be necessarie for the outward man, which is sometimes refreshed, otherwhiles bridled, by things answerable, as well outwardlie to the bodie, as inwardlie to the minde. It is needlesse also to treat at large, how it is necessarie for the one and visible common wealth of Christes Church, to agree together in all pointes thereof, and be notoriouslie knowne from all other sectes and sortes of peoples, that do not professe Christes name, by the outward practize of all holie functions, by which God hath promised to giue grace, remission, and sanctification to all his faithfull subiects. All these considerations with many the like maie serue and satisfie the quiet peaceable children of Christes Church, that haue learned to rest in Christes ordinance, though the causes thereof be not to them opened.

As for other, that are euer doubting, and neuer settelledin their faith, that alwaies be learning, and yet neuer attaine 2. Tim. 3. to knowledge: that had rather vnderstand much, then beleeue a litle, such fellowes I must not so much instruct, as by the scriptures and examples of all ages, controlle and confound, if I maie. Let them therefore be charged, that God hath not onelie vsed from the creation of man to bring vp al people that serue him, in some especiall waies of outward worshipping, but hath also, these manie worlds, deliuered man from originall and actuall sinnes, by externall sacraments and sacrifices, not without the priestes especiall procurement and ministerie therein. What did circumcision instituted by God in the law of nature, commaunded to Abraham and his seede, and continued so many ages, euen till Christes law tooke place? Did it not after a sorte remit sinnes? Was it anie other thing, but an externall worke in the face of the world? Was it ministred by man? Did it derogate anie thing to the honour of God, which by himselfe for his owne glorie and namesake was ordeined? And afterward in the law of Moses, which did draw neere vnto Christian vsages, by manie actions of sacrifices and solemne rites instituted purposelie to represent & foreshew the state of our present Church, there we haue plaine proofe of certaine outward orders instituted for procuring remission and pardon of sins: not without especiall mention of the priestes ministerie in euerie of the said actions. Whereof Saint Paul speaketh to the Hebrewes, in these wordes: Omnia penè in sanguine mundari, ac sine sanguinis effusione non esse remissionem. That all things Cap. 9. were in a manner clensed by blood, and that no remission could be had without blood. For so in the 17. of Leuiticus, they were charged to absteine from drinking of blood: Leuit. 17. because, sanguis animalium propiaculo est, the blood of beastes stood for an expiation and cleaning of sinnes. And therefore, amongst the diuers orders of sacrifice, mentioned Cap, 4. in the said booke of their ceremonies, there be diuers expresse waies by sacrifice to purge mens sinnes: some for the Priests sinnes, other for the Princes, and the third for the common peoples offences. And one wait for their sinnes committed of ignorance, an other for crimes wittinglie done. Finallie some for thoughtes, and other some for euill deedes, with manie mo diuersities, as you maie see in the said booke. In all which it is euer expressed, that the Priest is not onelie the minister in the said sacrifice (as needes must be) but also, with offering of the said oblations for sinne, that he must make praier especiallie for the offenders, and euerie of them seuerallie, that God maie pardon them of that sinne, for which they offer their sacrifice. For allwaies after the forme and manner of offering be prescribed, according to the diuersitie of the peoples offences, it is added. Rogabitque pro eo sacerdos, & pro peccato eius, & dimittetur ei. And the Priest shal pray for him, and for his sinne, and it shall be forgiuen him. And againe, Agat poenitentiam pro peccato, & offerat de gregibus agnam siue capram, orabitque pro ea sacerdos, & pro peccatis eius. Let the soule do penance, and offer a kidde of the flock, or an ewe lambe, and so the priest shall praie for that soule and the sinnes thereof.

FVLKE.

That the ministery of man in al ages of the Church and externall sacraments, haue beene instituted of God, as well for the exercise os men in his worship, as for the assurance of remission of their sinnes, it is euermore confessed of vs, and that now also the like be ordained since the comming of Christ in the flesh. Wher fore your long discourse to prooue, that we neuer denied, is vaine, except you meane it against the Anabaptistes, Libertines, Swinkfeldians, and such other condemned heretikes. That in all the sacrifices of the law that were appointed for sinne, the priest is ordeined the minister not onelie to offer the sacrifice, but also by praier to obteine remission of sinnes, it must be referred vnto the onelie high Priest, whereof the Iewish Priesthood sacrifices, aultars, &c. were sacramentall figures, and shadowes. And therefore by that the Priests had then to do according to the law, you do vnfitlie gather, that the like is to be donne by Priests vnder the Gospell. For that Iewish priesthood, is wholie translated vnto our sauiour Christ, who hath it perpetual and without anie passing from him to others. The ministerie of the Gospel hath no sacrifices to offer for sinnes, but to preach the onelie sacrifice of Christs death, and the propitiation of our sinne by him, and thereof to assure our infirmitie more plentifullie, to deliuer vnto vs the seales of our iustification by faith, instituted by God, the sacraments of baptisme, and the Lordes supper.

ALLEN.

All which, doth not onelie couuince, that Gods will was, that remission of sinnes should be had, by externall sacrifices, penance and oblation, and that not otherwise, but by the priests mediationn, but also that there was an order euen then often in thé olde law, that man should vtter his sinnes, with the greuousnes thereof and circumstances, that according to the difference of the faultes the diuersitie of sacrifices and expiation might be vsed, and that the priest seuerallie might praie for the remission thereof. In all which doing, I will not now dispute, whether a carnall Iew that then had no further respect: but to the present obseruation of those commaunded Ceremonies and sacrifices, did obtaine therby remission of sins, by which the soule is reconciled to God: or els onelie a freedome from some temporal punishment due to the same by law amongst the people, or otherwise by Gods appointment: but moste sure it is, that the spirituall sorte, which from those sacrifices did not separate, but include Christs blood, in respect whereof, all their sacrifices had their force, though not so full as ours now haue, nor with August. supra Num. 25. & Leo serm. 3. de nati. Domini. so ample promise of Gods grace: yet sure it is, that they by faith in Christ, and yet not without those obseruations, which it was necessarie that they should then keepe, were sanctified and purged verilie from their sinnes, nor without the ministery of the priest, whose praier and sacrifice was requisite for the same purpose.

Neither were all externall waies of Gods worship and remission of sinnes, abrogated by the Gospell, as some doe falselie faine, but, to the externall elements, that now euen in the new law be instituted for grace and remission of sinnes, Gods fauour is giuen and graunted a great deale more fullie, and sanctification more plentifullie. For els, let vs with penance reiect baptisme, and other waies of Gods seruice, that be not onelie internall, & separated wholy from outward elements of water, bread, wine, imposition of hands, oile and such like: which if they dare not do, how can they anouch, that God remitted not sinnes by externall sacraments? or, not by the handes of priesthood? seeing without that order, none of these holy actes can be duelie ministred. Seeing then that allmightie God of his passing wisdome and carefull prouidence towards man, hath remitted sinnes in all ages, as by the ministerie of man in outward solemne ceremonies, as by circumcision in the law of nature, and by the same in Moses gouernment, besides manie other sacrifices vsed and commaunded for diuers sinnes actual both greater and lesse: how can it be otherwise, but there should be sacraments ordeined in the new law: first for remitting of originall sinnes, and other of all sortes at our, first entrance into Christs house, & then an other, for more greeuous actual offences committed by relapse after baptisme? For els the law should not fullie in figure fore shew the truth, & great grace of our sacraments to come, whereof lightly, by Gods appointment it did beare a plaine and expresse resemblance.

FVLKE.

Al this doth conuince, that there was an order, that man should confesse and acknowledge his sins before God, but not in auricular confession to the Priestes, but by the open act of sacrifising. As for the vttering with the greeuousnes thereof, and the circumstances whereby you wold make a resemblance of your popish shrift, you finde not in the lawe anie thing, by analogie whreof you might commend it. Diuerse kindes of sacrifice indeed were appointed for diuerse states and persons of mé, as for the high Priest, the whole congregation, the Prince, or the priuat man, but no difference in the same state, or kinde of men, of sinnes, with the grieuousnes and circumstances thereof. Leu. 4. Neuertheles by faith in Christ, those sacrifices were seales and assurances vnto the godlie, of remission of their sinnes, as full as ours, and with as ample promise of Gods grace, as concerning the effect, which was the saluation of their soules, but not with so ful, ample, or cleare declaration, of the effectual meanes thereof as we haue. The ceremonies of the law were abrogated by the Gospell, not that we should be without all ceremonies, but that in stead of the multitude of darke, & obscure figures, the goodnes of god hath bound the societie of the Christian people, with sacraments, in number the feewest, in obseruation the easiest, in signification the moste excellent, as baptisme the sacrament of regeneration, and the Lordes supper, the sacrament of heauenlie and spirituall nourishment, and preseruation in the same state, of the children of God, into which we are sacramentally incorporated by baptisme, the onelie perpetuall sacraments, commended and commaunded in the new Testament, and which comprehend in them, the whole mysterie of the dispensation of God, for our eternall saluation, by which is sealed vp vnto vs, the doctrine of the remission of all our sinnes, committed either before baptisme or after, and of that naturall corruption, wherein we are al borne & conceiued, which we call originall sin.

ALLEN.

But besides these for said sacrifices, in which sinnes were after their manner remitted, there was another vsuall act practized by the Priestes, which did more properlie prefigur at and represent our sacrament of penance, and the Priests authoritie in the new law, concerning the iudgement of our soules, and the exact discussing of our misdeedes. For neither circumcision nor sacrifice of old had anie face of power iudiciarie, and therefore could not exactlie represent our Priests power giuen them by Christ, for the iudgement of our sinne. But the authority giuen them by the law to discerne, shut vp, and seperat the leprous and vncleane persons, from other the cleane of the people, did plainly represent our sacrament of penance: whereunto by the Doctors it is often resembled, wherein order is taken the 13. and 14. of Leuiticus, the authoritie and practize Leuit. 13. & 14. thereof being often alowed by our Master Christ, who obserued the lawes so humblie therein, that he alwaies, after be had healed anie such seperated persons, sent them for all that to the Priests afterward, to offer their oblations prescribed by the lawe for the same.

And that this power pronouncing the leapers to be sound or sore, to be seperated or admitted to the company of the faithful; did represent the power of priesthood, concerning the leprosie of our soules, not onely S Bede, but S. Chryso also doth declare. For he talking of confession of sins to the Priest, writeth thus: Quamuis leprae immunditiam iuxtalegem sacerdoti pandamus, atque ad eius arbitrium qualiter & quanto tempore iusserit, purificari curemus. The vncleannes of the more grieuous leprosie (he meaneth deadlie sinne) let vs open to the Priest, and according to his arbitrement, howsoeùer he commaundeth vs, let vs seeke to purifie our selues. And. S Ierome: Quomodo ergo ibi leprosum sacerdos mundum vel immundum fecit, sic & hîc alligat, vel soluit Episcopus & presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt velnoxy, sed pro officio suo cùm peccate rum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, quine soluendus. Looke therefore (saith he) how the Priest maketh there in the olde lawe a person cleane or vncleane, so here doth the Bishopor Priest binde or loose, not binding the innocent, nor loosing the guiltie: but when he hath heard the varietie and diuersitie of our sinnes, then he knoweth, whome to loose, and whome to binde. This place is verie plaine for confession and distinct rekening of euery of our mortall sinnes. The which the holie Doctor prooueth to be necessarie, because else the Priest of God could not doe iustice in punishing and pardoning, but should of ignorance either bind the good, or loose the wicked. In which case almightie God that knoweth exactlie the worthines and vnworshines of all persons, will not alowe the Priestes sentence that did proceed of ignorance, but will himselfe giue iudgement according to the partics deseruing. For the Priest is but a minister of his sacrament, and not the Lord and instituter thereof he must therefore conforme himselfe to Gods will, whose place he there occupieth. For as the Priest in the olde lawe could not make the cleane person to be vncleane, no more can the Priest of the new lawe bind the innocent, or absolue the person that continueth in sinne. Neuertheles the Priest worketh more properly vnder god, touching the remission of sinnes, because he is appointed the minister of grace and reconciliation, then the Priest in the olde lawe. For there in the making of any man whole of the leprosie, or other vncleanes, the Priest had not to do at all, but onelie when one was made whole by god, it was the priestes office to discerne the same, to shewe it vnto the people, and to admit him againe into the fellowspip of theresidue, after oblation made for that purpose. For to them it was not said, whome-soeuer you punish with leprosie, or make vncleane, or whome-soeuer you heale & make cleane, he shalbe whole: no such promise was made vnto them. For it was enough, that it might represent and haue resembling of our sacrament of penance, and of the maruelouse authoritte giuen in the new law to our Priestes, concerning the remission of sinnes. For to ours it was not saide, you shall discerne whome I haue loosed alreadie in heauen, and shewe to the world whom I haue retained bound, or not forgiuen in heauen: but, as Hilarie saith, the Priests sentence is made preiudiciall to God in heauen, not the Priestes forgiuing is first, and then Gods afterward, as two distinct actions in time, but because the Priestes, is prius quoad nos, as the Philosophers doe tearme such thinges, and by the Priestes worke, which is plaine to vs, we streight come to the knowledge of Gods like worke of remission in heauen, which is prius natura, because Gods action is the principall, and mans must necessarily depend theron. But eis both Gods worke and mans runne ioyntly together in remission of sins, as al infirmental & secondarie causes neuer make a seuerall action from the principal, but they concur ioyntly to euery effect, as it is most plaine in all sacraments, whereby god worketh grace, the which grace as it proceedeth from god, so it commeth by mans seruice, not by distinct operation of the principall, and the seruing and secondarie causes, but in one worke & vndeuided operation of them both. For in baptisme God worketh the remission of originall or actuall sinnes first, and then sendeth the partie to the fount afterward, that the Priest therein may declare what god hath wrought before, or to worke the same againe, that so the partie might haue a double grace of remission, first by Ggd, and then by the Priest: for that were foolish to surmise. But god by the Priests ministerie and the sacrament doth rewit sinnes so, that the action hereof, at once sitly may fall vpon them both.

FVLKE.

The power of remitting sinnes, as you saie, is often compared by the auncient Fathers, to that authoritie which the priests of the old law had, in discerning and pronouncing, who were lepers and who were cleane, which is to giue a sentence declaratorie, to pronunce, who was striken or healed by God, not a proper power to strike or heale, and yet the words of the lawe are, that the Priest should make him cleane, or vncleane: meaning that he should so declare him with authoritie, to be either seperated, or receiued as the case required, according to those directions, and descriptions, which he had in the lawe of God. For though other men by the instruction of the law, might descerne a leaper from a clean person, yet no man had authority to put him out, or to receiue him into the congregation but the Priest. In citing the authoritie of Saint Bede, and Saint Chrisostome, you vse such confusion, as I know not whose words you pretend to alledge, sauing that Bede hath written vpon Saint lames epistle, Chrisostome hath not. In cyting therefore of Saint Bedes testimonie, it may seeme that you follow some other mens dictates, collection, or notebooke, and not your owne reading. For Bedes wordes, vpon that place of the 5. of Saint Iames are these, differing both in wordes, and sense from your allegation, Si ergo infirmi in peccatis sint, & haec presbyteris ecclesiae confessi fuerunt, ac perfecto corde ea relinquere at que emendare sategerint, dimittentur eis: Ne que enim sine confessione emendationis, peccata qucunt demitti. unde recte subtungitur, Confitemini ergo alterutrum peccata vestra, & orate pro inuicem, & saluemini, In hac autem sententiailla debet esse discretio, vt quotidiana leuia que peccata alterutrum coaequalibus confiteamur, corumque quotidiana credamus oratione saluari. Porro grauioris leprae immunditiam, iuxta legem sacerdoti pandamus, atque ad eius arbitrium, qualiter & quanto tempore insserit, purificari curemus. Therefore if the sick be in sinnes, and shal confesse them to the elders or priests of the Church, and with perfect heart shall indeuour to forsake and amend them, they shall be forgiuen to them. For without the confession of amendment, sinnes can not be forgiuen wherupon it is rightlie added, Confesse therefore your sins one to an other, that ye maie be saued. Now in this sentence this diseretion ought to be, that we confesse, our daily light offences to our equalls, one to another, & that we should beleeue that by their daily praier, we are saued. But the vncleanes of the more greeuous Leprosie, according to the law let vs open to the priest, & according to his arbitrement, how, and how long time, he shall commaunde, let vs haue regard to be purified. In this testimonie of Saint Bede, though I doe not altogether allow his iudgement, and euerie man may see, how he restreineth in some case to the priest, that which the Apostle speaketh of confessing one to another in all cases mutual offered, yet we may see his sentence contrary to your citation, quamuis Leprae, &c. although you haue amended it in your translation. Also that it is confession, acknowledging, or purposing of amendment that Saint Bede counteth necessarie for them, that shall obteine remission of their sinnes, and not a particular declaration of all sinnes counted in a priests eare. Thirdlie that the text of Saint Iames is to be vnderstood directlie of mutuall confession, of one man to an other, although in cases of greeuous sinnes he allude to the law of Leprosie.

In translating the place ofIerome, you render for peccatorum, sinnes, where you should rather translate it sinners, that peccatorum may be the antecedent to the relatiue that followeth: but as for auricular confession, or distinct reckoning of euerie of our particuler mortall sinnes, this place maketh nothing in the worlde, as verie plaine as you say it is. The reason you adde of doing iustice in punishing or pardoning, is of your owne imagination. For Ierome saith, that by hearing the diuersitie of sinners (speaking of them that haue openly offéded) and finding some to be penitent, some to be obstinate, or dissemblers, he may know who is to be bound, and who to be loosed, which he cānot do by hearing the diuersity of their sins. For if their sins be as red as scarlet, if they be truelie penitent, they are to be loosed and if they seeme neuer so small, if they be not repentant, nor humblie contrite in heart for them, they are to be bound. While you seeke to make a difference betweene the authoritie of the minister in the Ghospell of pardoning sinnes more properlie, then the priest clensed the Leper, you declare that you are not content with the sentence of Saint Ierome, nor of so many of the auncient fathers as made the case all alike. And where you saie, it was not said vnto them, as vnto ours, whomsoeuer you punish with Leprosie, or make vncleane, he shal haue a Leprosie, you speake beside the booke. For this authoritie was giuen to them, that they should make cleane or vncleane, and whomesoeuer they made cleane, he was admitted into the congregation, and whomesoeuer they made vncleane, he was so accounted of all men. Yet properlie they made neither cleane, nor vncleane, but declared them so to be, according to the institution which they had of Gods law, in exercise whereof although they erred, and so the partie might be receiued or refused, according to their error, yet was he neither cleane nor vncleane in deede by their sentence, but by the work of God, and so be sinners. The blasphemie, that you ascribe to Saint Hilarie, I haue confuted before. Your distinction of prius natura, and quoad nos, is foolish sophistrie in this case. For except God first worke in our hearts by his holie spirit faith of forgiuenes, we can haue but small comfort, in the priests absolution. That God doth alwaies De bapt. cont. Don. 1. 4. c. 1. wörke at the instant in which Baptisme is ministred, it is false, if Saint Augustines doctrine be true, who reacheth that Baptisme may be receiued out of the Church, but cannot haue effect but in the Church, that is, if the partie came from heresie, and submit him selfe to the Catholike Church.

ALLEN.

And so it is in penance, where God the principall, and the priest the secondarie or seruisable cause ioyntlie forgiue together. For so the words of institution of this sacrament doe moste plainlie conuince: whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they beforgiuen, he speaketh in the present tence, as though he would saie: as you forgiue them, or reteine them, ipso facto, I forgiue them, or reteine them. And therefore, sauing the honour of the Master of the sentences, he had not good consideration when he did holde (as some other did after him) that first mans sinnes be remitted by God in his contrition and purpose to come to the sacrament, and afterwarde, the same remission to be declared by the priests, and as it were confirmed by his approbation in confession: being therein partlie deceiued by the saying of Saint Hierome before alledged, whome he tooke, perchaunce, to haue compared in all respects, the office of the olde Priest, for the viewe of the vncleane, and ours of the new law, in the iudgement vsed vpon mans sinnes: and partlie, as I take it, by a sentence of Saint Augustine, which compared together the receiuing of Lazarus by Christ, and the Disciples loosing his bandes, to Christes pardoning of sinnes first, and then the priests loosing the same afterward in the face of the Church. This, to be shorte, is a peece of Saint Augustines sentence: Quid ergo facit Ecclesia, cui dictum est: De verbis Domini. fed. 8. Quae solueritis in terra, erunt soluta? nisi quod ait Dominus, soluite illum, & sinite abire. What doth the Church then, to whome it was said: vhatsoeuer you loose, it shall be loosed? Marie, she doth that which our Lorde saied, loose him and let him goe. Wherein Saint Augustine meaneth nothing els, but that Christ is the principall agent, and that he properlie doth giue life to the soull, the Priest for all that, beeing his seruant and minister therein, and therefore by nature is a latter agent in the same worke, which els, as I haue prooued, ioynilie perteineth to them both, for that the effect of a Sacrament commeth not to any man till it be receiued, except it be in certaine cases of necessitie, where the parties can not obteine the externall rse of the appointed element, though they earnestlie desire the same.

But how the olde Priests office touching the Lepers of the law, representeth our sacrament of the priests ministerie in the new Testament, and how farre ours, which is the truth, excelleth that which was but a shadow of ours, Saint Chrysostome doth excellentlic declare: and therewith fullie may put out of doubt all men, that our Priests properlie worke remission of sinnes, as ministers in the same diuine action, and not as declarers or approouers of that effect, which before was wrought De Sacer. Lib. 3. by God himselfe. Thus he saith: Corporis lepram purgare, seu veriùs dicam, haud purgare quidem, sed purgatos probare, Iudaeorum sacerdotibus solis liccbat: at verò nostris sacerdotibus, non corporis lepram, verùm animae sordes, non dico purgatas probare, sed purgare prorsus concessum cst: Quamobrem mco iudicio, qui istos despiciunt contemnuntque, multò sceleratiores ac maiori supplicio digni fuerint, quàm fuerit Dathan vnà cum suis omnibus. That is to saie: To purge the Leprosie of the bodie, or ells to saie as it was in deede, not to purge, but to discerne who were cleane, was graunted onelie to the Priests of the olde law: but it is fullie graunted to our Priests, not to purge the bodilie lcprosie, nor to snew who are cleaner purged, but vtterlie to purge the verie filth of mans soull. Therefore by my iudgement, whosoeuer doe contemne or despise them, they are much more worthie punishment, then the disobedient Dathan with all his companie. Thus saith this holie Father, with many wordes moe, which were worthie all consideration, and rememberance in this case, if the matter were not so abundant, that it may not suffer ouer long abode in one place, lest iniurie be done to other braunches of the cause, no lesse necessarie to be knowne for full vpholding the truth thereof.

FVLKE.

Your argument taken of Christs speaking in the present tense is vaine, and of no force to prooue, that the forgiuenes or reteining of God and man concurre in one instant. For in the latter sentence of reteining the verbe is of the preterperfect tense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but in the same sense that the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the former sentence, which is of the present tence proouing Gods forgiuenes to goe before mans declaration thereof. The Master of the sentences is litle beholding to you, that doc so flatlie condemne him of error, whereas he did write nothing in this point, which was not commonly receiued in the Church of Rome in his time, and long after. For among the articles in quibus Magister non tenetur, there is no fault found with his sentence, of the Priestes power in binding and loosing. Gratian also declareth, that learned and religious men in his time, were in diuerse opinions about that point and other, concerning this popish sacrament of penance. whereby it appeareth that the sentence which you holde, was not accounted Catholike nor vniuersallie receiued in their times. If Peter Lumbard the Master of the sentences was deceiued by the sayings of Saint Ierome and S. Augustine, they were first deceiued themselues. for other sense out of their sayings, then the master of the sentences gathereth, no reasonable man can conclude. And it is but one onelie saying of S. Augustine that he citeth, not diuers: and not onely out of Augustine and Hierome but out of other writers also, as Ambrose, and Cassiodorus, and Gratian citeth maniemore: all which you must answere, if you wil take part against the two principall posts of poperie, Gratiane, and Lumbard, with all them that take their part. But you thinke one saying of Chrysostome inough to wipe awaie all their authorities and reasons, and to prooue that the priestes of the new lawe doe purge the fitlh of the soull, and not onely declare it to be purged, as the Priestes of the olde lawe did of the leprosie of the body. The meaning of Chrysostome is, that the Ministers of the Gospell haue power, not onelie to pronounce & declare the penitent sinner to be deliuered from the vncleanes of his soule, vnto other men, that he may be accepted into the congregation, if he haue bene excluded: but to assure the penitents conscience in Gods name, of the remission of their sinnes, wherein he doth much more for the benefit of his soule, then the priest of the olde law, who onelie declared vnto other men how the partie was to be taken, who knew in himselfe whether he were sicke or healed, before he came to the priest. Therefore where Chrysostome saith, It is graunted vnto the priests of the new testament, not onelie to trie & approoue the soule to be deliuered of the filihines thereof, but altogether to deliuer it, he meaneth of deliuering by assuring the conscience of the penitent sinner of Gods mercie and forgiuenes, whereby he is throughly, or altogether deliuered therfrom: whereas otherwise it were blasphemous, & conrrarie to Chrysostomes iudgement in many other places, if the wholl act of purging or deliuering the soull from filthines were ascribed to man, as the words seeme to sounde.

ALLEN.

Now vpon all this foresaid declaration, it maie be well vnderstood, that our aduersaries haue small reason in reprehending the ordinance of God, who is prooued in all ages and diusities of lawes, to haue giuen grace and remission of sinnes, not onelie by externall elementes, and actions of diuerse ceremonies, sacraments, and sacrifices: but also euer to haue dispensed the said benefites, by mans seruice and ministerie, without all dishonour of his personage, or diminishing his owne proper interest and right therein. And so much more hath he vsed in the new law of the Gospell, the ministerie of the priests and externall sacraments, to the procuring of the saied benefites, by how much more, our law, our sacraments, our sacrifices, and our priests, be glorified and preferred in respect of the olde, and Chrisost. ibidem. haue the more abundant blessing of the spirit, and Christs blood, which by these conduites, most largelie flowe to all mens fouls, that despise not the blessed benefit thereof.

Yet if they will not be satisfied herewith, because they surmise our new law to be so spirituall, that man may looke for nothing at mans handes, but all immediatelie of God and his spirit, for by him they will be taught the meaning of the scripture, by him they will be baptized, by him they must haue remission and absolution, and at length they are become Anabaptistes, and refuse to obey Prelates of the Church, and Princes of the world, because by God they wil onelie be ruled and In prolog. l. de doct. Christ. punished for their offences: Against such proud cogitations, as Saint Augustine tearmeth them, God hath purposelie, to teach humilitie and obedience one to another, both in temporal causes, and especiallie in spirituall matters perteining to mens sinnes and soules, he hath (I saie) for the nonst, not onelie instituted these waies of baser creatures vsed in the sacraments, to atteine his grace by, but also hath made man the master almost and executor of his meaning in the same, whose seruice he vseth so much for our saluation, that he sticked not to send his most chosen and dearest euen of those daies of grace and plentifulnes of the spirit, to be instructed by man, and made readie for his ministerie no otherwise but by man. A strange thing surelie, and to be well noted for this purpose, not onelie of our aduersaries for their confusion, but of the good studious readers for their instruction, how that Paul beeing prostrate, and miraculouslie called by Iesus Christes owne voice, was yet sent by Christ himselfe, to confirme the authority of his priests, to Ananias, of him to receiue as well instructions, as the sacraments of the Church, for his incorporation to the faithfull, and remission of his sinnes paste. And againe, that Cornelius, Act. 9. though his praiers were heard, and his almes acceptable to Ibid. 10. god, & an Angel sent vnto him to declare the same, which was a signe of high reputatiō, was yet charged to goe to Peter, of him not onelie to receiue the sacraments, but a so by his instruction to learne, what to beleeue, what to hope, & what to loue, saith S. Austine The Eunuch, might by god himselfe in his owne coun try, haue bene schooledor sanctified, & yet it pleased his maiesty Ibid. 8. so to vse the matter, that by Philip both the sense of scripture, & the sacrament of Baptisme should be vnderstanded & receiued at once. So hath God in all ages confirmed the authoritie of his holie priests and ministers, & so hath he euer checked by his owne holie examples the presumptuous temptation of man, who euer hath disdained mans office and ministerie for his owne saluation. Therefore let no man maruell, why Christ hath giuen authoritie to man to forgiue sinnes, seeing he hath from the beginning, not remitted ordinarilie otherwise then by mans seruice, nor any way ells, for the moste parte, but by externall acts of ceremonies, sacraments, and sacrifices, that we may learne thereby humility, & obedience to Gods ordinance, by the warrant whereof they all (as I haue prooued) challenge all manner of interest in the gouernment of our soules.

FVLKE.

That God by externall sacraments, and by the ministerie and seruice of man hath dispensed his spiritual benefits, it is prooued but so, that his grace was neuer bound, either to the one or to the other, but that he maie, and hath bestowed the same most freelie, according to the good pleasure of his will. The fansie of the Anabaptistes, that would seeme to looke for all thinges immediatlie from God, despising the sacráments and ministerie of man, we abhor and detest, no lesse then you. We maruaile not why Christ hath giuen authoritie to man to forgiue sinnes, whose ministerie he hath vsed in all times, both by preaching his worde, and by administring his sacraments, to dispense his misteries vnto the rest of his Church vpon earth: But that God doth not ordinarilie remit sinnes but by the ministerie of the priest, nor any way ells for the moste parte, but by externall acts, we maruel how you are able to prooue it, seeing God often times vseth many other occasions, then the priests ministerie, to bring men to repentance, and without all waies of externall acts or sacrifices, to assure men of the remission of their sinnes by faith. But this admiration altogether passeth the reach of our capacitie, to vnderstand how it may be conuinced, That all priestes by warrant hereof, may challenge all manner of interest in the gouernement of our soules. It were much to challenge any interest in gouernment of our soules, which is proper to our Sauiour Christ: but to challenge all manner of interest in gouernment, it sauoureth to stronglie of Antichristian presumption, that any Christian should abide it. The Apostles in exercise of their calling, acknowledged them selues, not onelie to be the seruants of God, but also of the Church: for we preach not our selues (saith the 2. Cor. 4. Apostle) but Iesus Christ, and our selues to be your seruants for Iesus Christ. It is a ministerie, and not a Lordeship, that we must exercise, not as temporall Princes, who although they may be saide after a sorte, to serue the common wealth, yet they are so seruants, as they are also Lordes. But the ministers of the Church in their spirituall gouernement, are seruants, and not Lordes, as Saint Peter testifieth: therefore they cannot iustlie challenge, all manner of interest in the gouernement 1. Pet. 5. of our soules. For if they might, we should haue many Lordes of our soules, and denie God, our onelie Iud. lorde, our Lorde Iesus Christ our onelie sauiour.

ALLEN.

Much more might be said out of diuerse holie fathers, much out of the decrees as well of Bishopes as Councells: the authoritie wherof no Christian Catholike did euer reiect. In Lateran, in Florence and in Trent Councells, Penance is decreed to be a sacrament, and of necessitie, to all such as fall into deadelie Can. 21. Tract de Sacra. De poen. sinne after Baptisme. The minister thereof by their holie determination, is a Priest lawfullie ordered: the remission of sins is in them all, challenged to be his right, not onelie by declaration that God hath or will pardon them, nor by the preaching of the Gospell, nor any other waies newlie deuised by the Deuill to delude Christes ordinance, and misconstrue his plaine wordes: But properlie is the priest prooued, to be the minister vnder God of reconciliation, and therefore may, by his wordes, absolue men, in the saide sacrament, of their sinnes, as in Christs owne steade, whose honourable iudgement seat, byhis commission, and the holie ghosts assistance, he doth lawfullie possesse. And so surelie, doe Gods ministers holde this power and preheminence, that no power or dignitie of man could euer be so well warranted and approoued by Gods owne worde, and practize of all ages and nations christened, as this is. All the Princes in earth, though they reigne full righteouslie, can not yet shew the tenth part of the euidence, that Gods priests can doe, for their title of remission of sinnes: and it booteth not mee in this my base state to admonish them, though I hartelie wish they would consider it, that the contempt of spirituall iurisdiction and the dignitie of priesthoode, salleth at length to the difobedience of all temporal power, and wicked contempt of ciuil gouernement also: as in these disordered daies, we may to our great griefe beholde, when, vnder pretence of religion and Gods worde, whereof they haue no more respect surelie then the Deuil him selfe hath they haue disobeied not onelie Peters keies, but also Cesars sworde: Neither let any man thinke, that, where the bands of conscience, the awe of gods maiestie, the feare of hell and damnation, the hope of heauen and saluation is remooued that there can be any ciuil obedience long. Feare of man is much, flatterie of man is more, but bond of conscience passeth them both. Thiu therefore haue Gods priests made account of their calling, and long practised power of remitting and reteining the peoples offences.

FVLKE.

Whatsoeuer you can saie out of any auncient fathers will not prooue your intent of shrift and pardons: your sacrament of penance, is but a young beginner that can shew no auncienter councells, for her authoritie, then Lateran, Florence, and Trent, the eldest of which is not much aboue 300, yeares olde: and yet in the place you send vs vnto, Confession is straightlie commaunded, but penance is not decreed to be a sacrament. Declaration of the pastour by preaching, that God wil pardon al penitent sinners, you count to be awaie newlie deuised by the diuil, to delude Christes ordinance, and misconstrue his plaine wordes, as though your deuelishand blasphemous witte and tongue, were hable to prooue out of Christes wordes your popish shrifts, penance, and satisfaction to be of Christes ordinance, whereas it hath beene the doctrine and practize of all the Prophetes and Apostles, to preach remission of sinnes to all that truelie repented, and were turned vnto God, and by authoritie of their commission receiued from God, to assure all such of perfect forgiuenes, of all their sinnes. To compare the euidence, wherby they holde this authoritie, with the right of princes wherby they holde their croune, & so farre to preferre it, is a point of antichristian and anabaptisticall presumption. For ciuill Princes haue as cleere euidence in the scripture to auouch al their lawful authority, as priestes haue to exercise that whereunto they be called. Otherwise the particuler calling of euerie priest must leane vpon aiust title, as well as the aduancement of princes into their throne, and much more, or els they haue not so great euidence, as you talke of. For a Prince being in the throne, by what right soeuer he possesseth it, is to be obeied: But a minister of the Church, except he be lawfullie called, is not to be regarded. You haue great cause to complaine of these daies, that vnder pretense of Gods word and religion, temporall and ciuill power is disobeied and contemned, where there is no such manifest examples of such disobedience & contempt, as in your popish Northern rebellion, and in an hundreth other vile attemptes, to wring the scepter out of the hands of Gods anointed, and your most lawful Prince, vnder pretense (in the Deuils name) of religion and the Catholike Church. But such religion, and such a Church, as aloweth in Italian Priest to depose anie Christian Prince from his throne, God of his infinite mercie deliuer this Ileland, and graunt all true subiectes of the same, to yealde their faithfull obebience to their Godlie Prince, not onely for feare, but alfo for conscience.

Here it is prooued, that b 〈1 line〉 mitting sinnes, the duety the right of the Priest in renecessarilie rife, for theie of all Christian people doth 〈1 line〉 him confession of euerie of their mortall sinnes vnto h: as the same is also prooued by the doctrine of the olie Fathers of Chistes Church.

THE TENTH CHAP. ALLEN.

ANd now I must aduertise my louing breethrenof the necessarie sequele hereof, which to some I know, seemeth so hard and vpleasant, that the verie consideration thereof hath driuen manie, that haue not felt the sweetenesse of Gods spirit, by which euerie of his commaundements, be they neuer so rough in apparance, are made easie and delectable, to the feare, misliking, and lothsomenes of the sacrament of penance. Which, as it is, for other causes manie, much abhorred of the wantons latelie departed out of the Church, and of some worldlie Catholikes to, that be not so zelouse in following trueth, as they be desirous to know trueth: so it is most lothed and feared, for that in it, there is required a distinct, simple, sincere and plaine confesfion to be made of euerie sinne that is knowne or suspected to be mortall, vnto a Priest, which is the lawfull minister of the same Sacrament, with such diligent and exact examination of our consciences, as a matter of such importance doth of reason require. This is the great offence and staie, that the weaklings of Christes Church do so earnestlie respect: and so long they shall be vexed and molested in minde with the sower remembrance thereof, as they do not prooue the sweete, gratious, and incomparable effect ensueing most assuredlie thereon: so long shall they stumble at so small a straw, as they do not feele the burden of sinne, feare the paines of hell, follow the quiet of conscience, foresee the dreadfull daie of iudgement: so long shall they be bashfull to submit them selues, to one mans most close, secret, meeke and merciful iudgement, as they feare not the infinite shame, open horrible confusion, and euerlasting rebuke before God, Angell, man, and Deuill, at the seat and sentence that shall be pronounced in the face of all creatures, which must fall to them, that close vp vnder couer and compas of their conscience, such a number of manifold sinnes, whereof in that daie both account and confession must be made, to their vttermost confusion. Finally, so long shal mans will and corrupted nature disobey Gods ordinance heerein, as he earnestlie and humbly seeketh not by praier at Christes handes the grace and gift of obedience and repentance. Fot as the fulfilling of euerie of Gods commaundements cannot otherwise be had, but by his speciall fauour, so saith Saint Augustine, or, as some thinke rather, Fulgentius: Firmissime tene, & nullatenus dubites, De fide ad Petrum. Cap. 31. neminem hic posse hominem panitentiam agere, nist quem Deus illuminauerit, & gratuita sua mis ratione conuertis. Hold this for an assurance, that no man can here do penance, except he be illumined and conuerted theseunto by his singular mercie. Neither doth this Doctour mean of anie otherway of repentance, then is vsed for mortal sinnes after baptisme in the sacrament of the Church, putting there, in a manner by expresse wordes, a double sacrament, one for originall sinne, that is in children onelie, and that he calleth Sacramentum fidei, that other for sinnes afterward committed, which he tearmeth, Poenitentiam, Penance.

FVLKE.

That auricular confession, or popish shrift is a necessarie sequele, of the power that Christ hath giuen to the ministers of his Church, to forgiue sinnes, we must now see in what sorre you are able to prooue In which argument, though most needfull for your purpose, you haue verie litle to saie, and that nothing to the purpose in deede, either out of the scripture, or out of the auncient fathers. First you saie, that shrift seemeth hard to them, that haue not felt the sweetenes of Gods spirit, by which euerie of his commaundements are made easie and delectable. Here therefore were conuenient place for you to shew, where in all the scriptures God hath commaunded men to confesse all their mortal sinnes, committed in thought, word, or deede, vnto a priest of your order. But now you are as drie as a kixe, and as barren of proofe as a pumisse stone of water. There be many other causes then you alledge, why popish shrift is so burthenous. And the principall cause is, because it is a tradition of man, to clogge the conscience with intollerable seruitude. And in stead of al the causes of the contempt thereof, that you alledge, so long shall euerie Christian man despise your auricular confession, as any thing necessary required of him, vntill you be able out of the holie scriptures, inspired of God, to prooue that it is such an ordinance of God, as you in many wordes to no purpose doe bragge of, before you bring forth the worde of God to prooue it. The saying of Fulgentius is verie Godly and grounded vpon the holy scriptures, but that he doth not meane of any other waie of repentance, then is vsed in your popish Church, what argument haue you to shew? He putteth there, you saie, in a manner, by expresse wordes, a double sacrament, calling the one, sacramentum fidei, and the other, poenitentiam, the sacrament of faith and repentance. This is a strange manner of expresse wordes, to prooue poenitentia to be a sacrament, because baptisme is so. yea it is manifest, by his expresse words, that he acknowledgeth no sacramentum poenitentiae, but baptisine, Cap. 30. Firmissimè tene & nullatenus dubites, exeptis illis qui pro nomine Christi suo sanguine baptizantur, nullum hominem accepturum vitam aeternam, qui non hîc à malis suis fuerit per penitentiam, fidem que , conuersus, & per sacramentum fidei, & penitentioe, id est per baptismum liberatus: & maioribus quidem necessarium esse, & poenitentiam de malis suis agere, & fidem Catholicam secundùm regulam veritatis tenere, & sacramentum baptismatis accipere. Paruulis verò qui nec propria voluntate credere, nec poenitentiam pro peccato, quod originaliter trahunt, agere possunt, sacramentum fidei quod est sanctum baptisma, quamdiu rationis oetas eorum capax esse non potest, sufficere ad salutem. Holde thou most stedfastlie, and nothing doubt, that except those, which for the name of Christ are baptized in their owne blood, no man shall receiue life euerlasting, which shall not be here conuerted from his euills, by repentance, and faith, and by the sacrament of faith and repentance, that is, by baptisme be deliuered. And for them that be of yeares, truelie it is necessarie, both to repent of their euills, and to know the Catholike faith according to the rule of trueth, and to receiue the sacrament of Baptisme. But for infants which neither can beleeue by their owne will, nor be penitent for the sinne, which they draw originally, the sacrament of faith, which is baptisme, is sufficient for them vnto saluation, so long as their age cannot be ca pable of reason. yea it semeth by this saying going imme diately before, that he speaketh in the next chapter of the first repentance that in men of discretion, might goe before baptisme, although it be true of all true repentance, and conuersion vnto God.

ALLEN.

And let no man think, that true repentance can be in anie or effectuall for the remission of sinnes, if he follow not the appointed ordinance of God for remission of sinnes. For I dare be bolde to saie, that, as since the time that our Sauiours wordes tooke place: Nisi quis renatus fuerit, Except a man be borne againe of water and the holie Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdome of heauen, that as since these words no man can be saued without baptisme: so likewise since Christ spake these wordes, Whose sinnes you do forgiue, they be forgiuen, I dare saie neuer man was saued, nor can be saued, that either contemneth or neglecteth confession, or earnestlie seeketh not for it, if he fall in relapse of deadlie crimes after his baptisme. I will speake it plainlie, because I would haue it thought on earnestlie. As no man ordinarilie can be saued without baptisme, so can no man that euer after baptisme committeth deadlie sinne, be saued without sacramentall confession, or the earnest desire and seeking for the same. This maie seeme sharpe to some, but this will prooue true to all contemners of Gods ordinance. For whensoeuer God worketh his giftes and grace among men, by anie ordinarie meanes appointed for the purpose, it is great sinne to seeke for the same eitherwithout it, or to presume to haue it at Gods handes, otherwise then he hath prescribed: But the sacrament of penance, and confession made to the priest, is the appointed meanes that God vseth in his Church for remission of mortall sinnes: therefore whosoeuer thinketh to haue remission immediatly at Gods hand, he shall first be voide of his purpose, and then further be charged of high presumption and contempt of his will and ordinance. The remission of originall sinner as properly pertaineth to God, as of mortall sinner: yet because Christ hath instituted a sacrament, as an instrument & meanes to conuey that singular benefit to man, he that would now claime the same immediatly at Gods owne hand, and therefore neglecteth the sacrament of baptisme, or would minister it to him selfe, without the Priests office, he should neuer obtaine remission of his originall sinne, but adde to that high persumption and disobedience of gods commaundement, which of it selfe without originall sinne were damnable.

FVLKE.

No wise man thinketh that true repentance can be in any, or effectuall for the remission of sins, if he dispise to follow the appointed ordinance of God for remission of sins: but you shalneuer prooue, that shrift, or auricular confession, is a necessarie, and generall ordinance of god, for al that shal obtein forgiuenes of sins committed after baptisme. How manie mortall sinnes are committed by children and others, where of they haue no remembrance, to confesse them, so that if confession were necessarie, remission of those sinnes for them were impossible. That you dare be bolde to saie that no man can be saued without externall baptisme of water, it argueth more boldnes then wisdome, except you were able to prooue that the wordes of Christ by you cited are necessarie to be vnderstood of the baptisme of water. And you are bolder, then Fulgentius, for he as you hard erewhile excepteth them that suffer martyredome for Christs name, before they be baptized in water. And Saint Ambrose is bolde against you, to affirme, that the Emperour, Valentinianus the yonger, who was slaine before he was baptized, was vndoubtedlie saued. For comforting his sisters, he saith to them in that seueral oration, which he made vpon the death of Valentinian the Emperour. Sed audiui vos dolere, quod nō acceperit sacramentū baptismatis. Dicitemihi, quid aliud in nobis est nisi voluntas, nisi petitio? Atqui etiam dudum hoc votum habuit, vt antequam in Italiam venisset, initiaretur, & proximè baptizari se à me velle significauit, & ideo prae coeteris carsis me accipiendum putauit. Non habet ergo gratiam quam desiderauit? non habet quam poposeit, & quia poposcit accepit? & vbi est illud, iustus quacunque morse praeuentus fuerit, anima eius in refrigerio erit? Solue igitur pater sancte munus seruo tuo: quod Moses dum in Siritu vidit accepit, quod Dauid, quia ex reuelatione, cognouit emeruit. Solue inquam, seruo tuo Valentiniano, munus quod concupiuit, munus quod poposcit sanus, robustus, incolumis. Si affectus aegritudine distulisset, tamen non penitus à tua misericordia esset alienus, qui celeritate temporis esset, non voluntate sraudatus: solue ergo seruo tuo, munus tuae gratiae, quam ilie nunquam negauit, qui ante diem mortis templorum priuilegia negauit insurgentibus, quos reuereriposset, astabat virorum catcrua gentilium supplicabat senatus. Non metuebat hominibus displicere in Christo: qui habuit spiritum tuum, quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam? Aut si quia solenniter non sunt celebrata mysteria, hoc mouet: ergo ne martyres, si catechumeni fuerint, coronentur, non enim coronantur, si non initiansur. Quòd si suo abluuntur sanguint, & hunc swa pietas abluit & voluntas. But I haue heard that you are greeued, because he receiued not the sacrament of baptisme. Tell me then, what other thing is there in vs, but our will, but our desire? But long since, he had this purpose, that before he came into Italie, he would be dedicated, and next he signified that he would be baptized by me. And therefore, before other causes, he thought that I was to be taken. Hath he not then the grace which he desired? hath he not the grace that he called for, & receiued it because he called for it? And where is then that saying, the iust, by what death so euer he be preuented, his soule shalbe in rest? performe therfore holy Sap. 4. Father, that gift vnto thy seruant, which Moses while he sawe in spirit receiued, which Dauid because he knewe by reuelation obtained, performe, I saie, vnto thy seruant Valentinian, the gift which he called for, being sounde, strong & in good health. If being stroken with sicknes, he had differred, yet he should not be vtterly estranged from thy mercie, which was depriued by swiftnes of time, not by his owne will. Performe therefore vnto thy seruant the gift of thy grace, which he neuer denied, which before the day of his death denied the priuiledges of the Idols temples to them that rose vp, of whome he might haue stood in awe. There stoode by a great rout of heathen men, the senat made supplication. Neuertheles he feared not for Christ to displease men. He that had thy spirit, how did he not receiue thy grace? Or if this doth mooue, because the mysteries were not solemnlie celebrated, therefore let neither martyres be crowned, if they haue not beene baptized, for they are not crowned if they be not didicated. But if they be washed in their own blood, this mans will & pietie also hath washed him. Againe he saith speaking in an Apostrophe to him. Quis dabit tefrater, fratrem mihi lactentem vbera matris meae? hoc est, non quicun que te, sed Christus illuminabit gratia spirituali, ille te baptizauit, quia humana tibi officia defuerunt. Who shall giue thee brother to be my brother, sucking the papes of my mother, that is, not euerie one, but Christ him selfe shall lighten thee with spirituall grace. He hath baptized thee, because the seruice of man was wanting to thee. By all which wordes it is manifest that S. Ambrose vnderstood not those wordes of our sauiour Christ of externall baptisme, as you doe, when he refuseth not them that haue a purpose and will to be baptized, and are preuented by necessity of time. But where you proceed, and dare be bolde to saie, that neuer man was saued, that either contemned or neglected confession, if you meane popish, auricular, and, as you after call it, sacramentall confession, I dare be bolde to saie, you speake vntrulie: because the word of God prescribeth no such confession, as necessarie to saluation. Confession of that we beleeue, and of our sins before God, I knowe to be necessarie to saluation. Neither can you prooue, that they which dispise popish shrift, be contemners of Gods ordinance: for the Minor of your syllogisme that followeth, is a lowd lie, that your popish sacrament of penance, and confession made to the Priest, is the appointed meanes, that God vseth in his Church, for remission of mortall sinnes: for God hath appointed no such sacrament or confession, as necessarie meanes, without the which remission of sinnes may not be obtained. Your similitude of baptisme will prooue nothing, except you can first prooue, your confession to be of Gods institution, as necessarie for doing awaie sinnes committed after baptisme, as baptisme is by Christs ordinance the seale of regeneration, by which we are assured of the remissiō of our sins.

ALLEN.

And yet me thinke, I heare alreadie the sounde of the deceitfull voices of our Preachers: It is Christes bloode that remitteth sinnes: Come to me all ye that are heauie loaden, and I shall refresh you. I am he, Mat. 1 1. Esa. 43. saith the Lord, that putteth awaie thy sinnes, with a thousand such like: as though Christes bloode did not stand with Christes ordinances and sacraments, as though they came not to Christ that keepe the waie of his will and sacraments to come vnto him: as though God did not remit those sinnes, which in his name, and in his sacraments, and by his appointed minister, be remitted. Protestant, saie plainlie, will thou refuse baptisme, because Christes bloode washeth awaie originall sinnes? If thou darest not openlie so preach, although couertly thou maie chaunce so intend, how darest thou deceiue the people, and draw them from penance and confession, because Christes blood doth remit sinnes? For if the one sacrament may stand with the honour of God, and with all those places that thou bringest so deceitfullie out of the scripture, why may not the other, seeing both are prooued alike to be instituted of Christ? For the same selfe sauiour which said: Come to me, ye that be loaden, and I shall refresh you: he, and no other, said, except you be borne of water and the holie Math. 12. Ioa. 3. Ghost, you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen. The same God that said: I am he that putteth awaie thy sinnes, saith now to the Apostles and Priestss whose Psal. 43. Ioa. 20, Psal. 105. Iac. 5. Origin. homil. 2. super Leui. Beda super hunc locum sinnes you doe forgiue, forgiuen be they. The same Spirit of God that said in the Prophet, Confesse your selues to the Lorde, for he his good, said now againe in the Apostle, confesse your sinnes one to another, that you maie be saued. By which he meaneth not, as Origen, venerable Bede, and other doe declare, so much brotherly acknowledging, sor counsellor other causes, the greefe of minde ech man to his fellowe, as he doth the order of sacramentall confession, to be made vnto gods Priests, as it may well appeere by the circumstance of the letter. For there he had willed them to send for the Priestes of the Church to annoile them, & streight after addeth this alledged text, of confession and praing ouer the sicke. The which place the heretikes sawe to sounde so manie waies, as well towardes the sacrament of extreame vnction, as the sacrament of confession, both which they haue vnworthilie abandoned, that they thought it not amisse, either to denie the Apostles authoritie and the wholl epistle, as no peece of holie scripture, as Luther and other did: or else, which was after thought more handsome conueiance, to corrupt the text, and write instead of, send for the Priestes of the Church, thus, call the elders of the congregation. For they thought it might sounde euill, to haue in one sentence, priestes, Church, confession, remission of sinnes, release of paines for sinne, annoiling, praying ouer the sicke, and so forth.

FVLKE.

It is no deceitfull voice of our preachers, to affirme, by these, and a thousand such like textes of scripture that it belongeth to God onelie to forgiue sins properlie, satisfaction being made for them by the bloode of Christ. And yet we derogat nothing from Christes ordinances, and sacraments, by which he worketh effectuall assurance of the same. We acknowledge the ministerie of the Apostles, and their lawful successours, for the remission and retaining of sinnes, both by preaching, and by ministering of the sacraments, instituted by our sauiour Christ. But we denie and dare stand to the deniall, with all the papists that hath beene, are, or shalbe, that popish penance, and confession, is anie sacrament, of our sauiour Christes institution: for he that said, whose sinnes you forgiue, forgiuen be they, hath not said, whosoeuer will haue his sinnes forgiuen by you, must haue some penance by you inioyned, for satisfaction of Gods iustice: yea there is nothing more contrarie to forgiuenes then satisfaction made by the partie to whome sinnes should be forgiuen. And he that said, confesse your offences one to another, and praie one for an other, that you maie be healed, saith no where, confesse all your sinnes vnto a Priest, that you may be saued: but willeth a mutuall acknoledgeing, and reconciliation of one Christian man to another, where there hath bin anie trespasse of such offences, as one man hath committed against another, and a mutuall acknowledging of our sinfullnes one to another, that we may be sturred vp to mutuall praier. By which textre the Priest is asmuch bounde to shriue himselfe to his parishioner, as the parishioner to the Priest. But Origen and Bede are alledged, to prooue that the Apostle meaneth not onlie of such acknowledgeing, nor so much thereof, as the order of sacramental confession. Verilie when the wordes of the scripture are plaine, & the sense 〈◊〉 to be gathered of the plaine words, we may not restin anie mans opinion that is contrary to the same. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , euerie man that hath but small knowledge in the tongue, doth know to signifie and require a mutual confession, aswell as a mutuall praier of one man for another. But yet let vs examine what your authorities doe containe. First Origen in the place by you cited, speaketh not a word of this text, confesse your offences one to another, but only of the two verses going before. For, making seauen meanes of remitting of sinnes, after his corrupt, & vnpure manner of teaching, By baptisme, by martyrdome, by almes, by forgiueing one another, by conuerting of sinners, by aboundance of charitie, he addeth the seauenth in these wordes; Est adhuc & septima, licet dura, & laboriosa, perpaenitentiam, remissio peccatorum, cum lauat peccator in lachrimis stratum suum, & fiunt ei lachrima suae pánes die & nocte. Et cùm non erubescit sacerdoti Domini indicare peccatum suum, & quaerere medicinam secundùm eum, qui ait, Dixi, pronunciabo aduersum me iniustitiam meam Domino, & tu remisisti impietatem cordis mei: in quo impletur & illud quod Apostolus dicit, si quis autem insirmatur, vocet Presbyteror Ecclesiae, & imponant ei manus, vngentes eum oleo, in nomine Domini, & oratio fidei saluabit 〈◊〉 si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei. There remaineth yet the seauenth, kinde of remission of sins, although it be verie harde, and painfull by repentance, When the sinner washeth his bed in teares, and his teares are made vnto him breade daie and night, and when he is not ashamed to declare his sinne to the Priest of the Lorde, and to seeke medicine acording to him which saith, I haue said, I will pronounce against my selfe my owne vnrighteousnes vnto the Lord, and thou hast forgiuen me the vngodlines of my heart. In which also that is fullfilled which the Apostle saith, if anie man be diseasedl, et him call the Elders of the Church, & let them lay hands vpon him, anoynting him with oile, in the name of the Lord, and the praier of faith shall saue the diseased, and if he shalbe in sinnes, they shalbe forgiuen vnto him. Thus much writeth Origen. Now it is to be vnderstood, that after his manner, he alligorizeth vpon the sacrifices of the lawe, comparing these meanes of remission to them. And lest you should thinke that by declaring of sinne to the Priest of the Lord, he doth meane confession to a popish priest, he himselfe expoundeth before, whom he meaneth by this Priest. In morali loco potest pontisex isse esse sensus pietatis & religionis videri, qui in nobis per orationem & obsecrationes, quas Deo fundimus, velut quodam sacerdotio fungitur. In morall place, this high Priest may seeme to be the sense of godlines & religion, which within vs by praiers and supplications, which we powre forth to God, exerciseth, as it were a certaine priesthood. And so likewise he taketh the place of Saint Iames alligoricallie, as his application of the seauenth waie of remission vnto the Iudaicall sacrifice, doth declare. Si autem in amaritudine fletus fueris, luctu, lachrimis, & lamentatione confect us, si carnem tuam maceraueris, & 〈◊〉 , ac multa abstinentia aridam feceris & dixeris, quia sicut frixorium confrixa sunt ossa mea, tunc sacrificium, similam à sartagine, vel à craticula obiulisse te 〈◊〉 . But if thou hast bene in the bitternes of weeping, consumed with sorowe, teares and lamentation, if thou hast afflicted thy slesh and made it drie with fasting, and much abstinence, and said, my bones are fried, as a frying pane, or a fire thing, then knowe that thou hast offered in sacrifice flower, of the frying panne, or of the gredeyorn. Origen therefore giueth a colour in words, but no substance in matter, vnto this popish confession. Concerning the opinion, and authoritie of Bede touching this matter, I haue spoken before, but by the circumstance of the letter, you saie it may well appeere, that the Apostle speaketh of sacramentall confession to be made to gods priests. How so, I praie you? forsooth, Because he had there willed them to send for the Priestes of the Church, to anoynt them, and streight after addeth this text of confession, and praying ouer the sicke. A simple reason god wot, because priests were spoken of in an other matter, therefore none but priests may be vnderstoode in that which followeth: nay rather the circumstances make against auricular confession, and popish anointing also. For what needes more priests then one to be sent for, to other of those popish purposes, or what papist sendeth for more, although there be neuer so manie priests in the Church. But the companie of elders in the primitiue Church, being chosen of the moste replenished with heauenly graces, that were in the congregatiō, both for the gift of healing, & for praier to be made ouer the sick man, were most conuenient to be sent for. But it is in vaine by couller of anie circumstances, to restraine the confession to priestes, when the verie wordes of the letter (as you call the text) doe make it generall, and mutual: and therefore here was no cause for Luther to denie the authoritie of the epistle, or for anie other to corrupt the text. But where you count it a corruption, to writ in stead of, send for the priestes of the Church, this, call for the Elders of the congregation, you doe either abuse the ignorant of willfull malice, to make them thinke the sounde of words being changed, the sense is anie thing altered, or else you ignorantlie quarell about the translation, which is word for word out of the originall greeke into English, as no man meanelie learned in that tongue can doubt. It is not the sounde of the wordes you rehearse that troubleth vs, for we both like, and vse them in their right sense our selues, but it sufficeth you to haue an accidentall sounde, when you cannot sinde a substantiall reason of your popish ceremonies, and sacraments, in the holie scriptures.

ALLEN.

But that thou maiest see, good Christian reader, the necessity of confession the better, and that it is not growne to such a generall practize and opinion of necessitie, vpon anie charge giuen by man or positiue lawes, marke well with me, that it dependeth directlie vpon Christes owne wordes, whose sinnes you doe forgiue, they be forgiuen, and whose sinnes you doe retaine, they be retained, And therefore sacramentall confession to be of Christes institution. For if Christ gaue power to Priestes, to forgiue, or retaine mens sinnes, then there must needes be some subiect to their power & iudgement: else in vaine were so long a confession of binding and lossing mens sinnes, if the right of the power did not necessarilie charge all men that haue such sinnes, to be subiect to their binding and loosing. Therefore this is a cleare case, that in the verie 〈◊〉 wordes, that the power was deliuered vnto them, the bond of obedience was also perscribed to vs. So that after that daie, no sinnes mortal could ordinariely be loosed, but by thē, & that sacrament, which in their ministery he then did institute.

FVLKE.

Now you come towarde the point, when you promis to let vs see, how your popish confession is of Christes institution. It dependeth, you saie, directly vpon Christes owne wordes, whose sinnes you doe forgiue, &c. That would we faine see how. For you your selfe, though you make a very disorderly syliogisme, cannot tel which way to infer it vpon your premises. But thus you reason, If Christ gaue power to Priestes to forgiue or retaine sinnes, then there must needes be some subiect to their power, and iudgement. I answere you, that euery power draweth not a iudgement with it, and therefore you foist in the word iudgement vnreasonablie, although I graunt also a kinde of iudgement vnto them, and that men are subiect to this power and iudegment of the ministers, by whome is declared the infallible sentence of God. Then saie you, it is a cleare case, that in the verie same words that power was deliuered to them, the bond of obedience was also prescribed to vs. Of what obedience, I pray you? that we should obay them in any thing they shal speake? or only when they speake in the word of the Lord? If the latter only, for no man wil graunt the former, shew vs if you be able, the Lords word, and commaundement for sacramental confessō, as you terme it, to be necessary. Your conclusion hangeth as wel by your premises, as confession dependeh vpon Christs words, That after that date no sins mortall could ordinarilie be loosed, 〈◊〉 by them and in that sacrament, which in their ministery he then did institute. All sin is mortall and deseruing death. The wages of sinne (saith the Apostle) is death. But your conclusion is confuted by your selfe afterward, graunting sinnes to be remitted Rom. 6. by baptisme: and as for other sacraments, I dare saie you will not exempt them, but that sinnes are forgiuen by them. And that which is the chiefe matter in controuersie, namelie that a sacrament was there, and then instituted, you alwaies affirme, but neuer are able to prooue. And whereas you affirme that the necessitie of auricular confession standeth not vpon positiue lawes, but by Christes institution, it is maruell, that this institution should so manie hundreth yeares be vnknowne in the Church: The Master of the sentences can saie nothing for it, but alledgeth diuers authorities to and froe, and in the end hath no certaine argument to perswade vs, that it is of Christes institution. Gratian likewise in his decrees, after diuers testimonies producted on both sides, whether it be necessarie or no, concludeth in these words. Quib authoritatibus, vel quibuslibetrationum firmamentis, vtroque sententia satisfactionis & confessionis innitatur, in medium breuiter exposuimus, cui autem harum 〈◊〉 adhaerendum sit 〈◊〉 is iudicio referatur, viraque enim 〈◊〉 habet sarientes & religi osor viros. Vpon what authorites, and what fundations of reasons, both the iudgement of satisfaction and confession doth leane, we haue briefely brought forth and declared. But to whether of these we ought chieflie to sticke, it is reserued to the iudgement of the reader, for either of both opinions, hath wise and religious men fauorers of it. If the Romish Church in Gratianstime, had receiued the opinion, of the necessitie of shrift to a Priest, to be grounded vpon the institution of Christ, neither he nor the Master of the sentences would haue bin in such a mamering about it wherfore it appeereth to be but young ware, the institution whereof was so vncertaine to those principal pillers of popery. In so much that the glosse vpō the 5. aistinct. In penitentia, was bolde to vtter these wordes, which should haue prooued him an heretike, if the popish Churh in his time, had held that confession was of Christs institution, and not vpon any positiue laws, In hac distinctione & in aliis duabus sequentibus, agitur 〈◊〉 de illa parte poenitentiae, que dicitur oris confessio, & operis satisfactio, quàm de aliis, & ider videndum est 〈◊〉 oris confessio fuerit instituta, virum, necessaria sit, vel 〈◊〉 voluntaria, qualiter sit facienda, & cui, et quando: dicunt quidam institutam fuisse in Paradiso 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peccatum, dicente Donino ad Adam, Adam 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 . ideo enim 〈◊〉 , vt ipso conficente peccatum, 〈◊〉 sorma aliis in posterum confitendi. Sed quoniam in ille interrogatione dominus minùs expressè videbatur adconfirendum 〈◊〉 , idro post exquisiuit á Cain fratricida expressi s, vbi est Abel frater tuus? Alij dicunt quód sub lege primò instituta, quando Iosua percepit A hor, rimen s um confiteri, •• lapidatus est 45. dist. secundum & illud. Alij dicunt quód in Novo testamento á Iacobo dicente, consitemini alter ••• um peccata vestra. &c. Sed melius dicitur eam institutam fuisse a qu d m vniuersale Ecclesiae traditione, potius quám ex nouo vel veteri testamento: authorit s & traditio Ecclesiae obligatoria est vt preceptum, ait 1.1. di. in his rebus: Ergo necessaria est confessio in mortalib. apud nos, apud graecos non, quoniam non emanauit apud illos traditio talis, 〈◊〉 nec confisiunt in 〈◊〉 , sed in firmentatis. 5. di cap. 1. si illud ergo 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 alteru rum peccata vestra, 〈◊〉 consilium primó, ali •• uin li oret et Grecos, non obstanto eor •• consuetudine. In this distinction, and the other two that follow, it is intreated as well of that part of penance that is called confession of the mouth and satisfaction of the worke, as of other partes. And therefore it is to be seene, when confession of the mouth was instituted: whether it be necessarie, or onelie voluntarie. How it is to be made, and to whome & when: Some say it was instituted in paradise immediately after sin committed, when the Lord saide vnto Adam, Adam, where are thou? for therefore he enquired, that he confessing his sinne, a forme of confessing should be giuen to others afterwarde. But because in that confession the Lord secmed not so expresselie to haue warned him to confession, therefore he enquired afterward of Cain, the murtherer of his brother, more expresselie, where is Abel thy brother? Other say, it was first instituted vnder the law, where Iosua commaunded Achar to confesse his fault, and he was stoned, 45. di. sed & illud. Other saie, that it was instituted in the new Testament by Saint Iames saying, confesse your sinnes, &c. But it is better to saie, that it was institutad by a certaine vniuersal tradition of the Church, rather then by authoritie, out of the new or olde testament. And the tradition of the Church is of authoritie to binde, as it is commaunded (ar. 11. di.) in these things. Therefore confession in mortal sinnes is necessarie with vs, but not with the Greekes, because such tradition hath not flowed vnto them. Like as they make not the sacrament, in vnleauened bread, but in leauened, 5. di. 1. cap. si. Therefore that saying of Iames, confesse your sinnes one to an other, was at the first but of counsel, or els is should binde the Greekes, notwithstanding the custome. That which followeth, in the glosse, that confession in some case may be made to a laie man, which also both Gratian & Lumbard doe holde, & that which Bede writeth of confession of sins to euery man, doth prooue that confessio to a priest is not of Christs institution by their iudgement. For if it were, it ought to be of all, & euery sin, as wel as of those you cal mortall, to a priest onelie. For if Christ instituted a sacrament in these words, whose sins you forgiue, &c. and ordeined a priest minister thereof, by no other meanes, but by hearing a sin ners particular confession, as you seeme to holde, what reason is there, that a laie man should be a hearer of confession, or an absoluer, or that any sin, be it neuer so small, should not be confessed?

ALLEN.

And that is yet more euident by the second parte of Christes sentence, where he saith: whose sins you do reteine, they be Hilar. super hunclocū. reteined. The which worde retinere, by Saint Hilarie signifieth, non soluere, or non remittere: to reteinis as much as not to loose, or not to forgiue. Whercupon, by Christes expresse wordes, it ensueth, that whose sinnes the priest doth not forgiue, they be not forgiuen, and therfore, that euerie man beeing guiltie of deadelie sinne in his conscience, is subiect to the priests iudgement, by the plaine tearmes of Christs owne wordes. Mary we must well note, that the priest hath in other sacraments, and namelie in Baptisme, a right in remitting sinnes both originall and actuall, but there, in the graund pardon of all that is past, he is not made a iudge, or a corrector: because the Church can not practize iudgement or exercise discipline vpon the penitents, for any things done before they came iinto the householde, and therfore can appoint the party no penance nor punishment, nor binde him according to the diuersitie and number of his faultes, nor can make search exactlie of all his secres sinnes by him committed, that the sentence may proceede according to the parties desertes, but onelie vpon his seeking that sacrament Concil. trident. Cap. 2. sess. 14. to minister it vnto him, according to Christs institution: whereupon without any sentence of remission giuen by the priest, as I absolue thee, or such like, a pardon generall of all his sinnes committed, if he come thether qualified, most assuredlie ensueth.

But now, in the other sacrament of penance, not onelie pardon Damas. de ortha. fidel 1. 4. cap. 9. of sinnes, but punishment for sinnes, is put in the Apopostles and priests handes, which can not be done without iudiciarie power and exact examination of the penitent: because Christ would, that, if any did greeuouslie sinne after Baptisme, he shold, as it were, be conuented before his iudgement seate in earth, in which, as in his roome, he hath placed the Apostles & priests, as is alreadie prooued. And therefore, mens sinnes must in this case be knowne, with diuersitie of their kindes, and encrease, by diuersitie of place, time, person, number, and intent. For withoout this particular intelligence, can neither the appointed iudges of our soules doe iustice, nor the penitent receiue iustice for his offences. Therefore it is euident, that seeing this holie order is authorized not onelie to remit sinnes generallie, as in Baptisme, but also placed with all power ouer vs as the iudges of our sinnes, we must needes by force of Christs institution be driuen to acknowledge and confesse all our sinnes to the Priest, so sitting in iudgement vpon the examination of our conscience. For no man euer tooke vpon him, not in any ciuil causes, to determine and giue sentēce in the matter, whereof he hath not by some meanes or other, persit and particular instruction, and in causes criminall much lesse, because the importance of the matter is much more. Then in Gods causes and cases of our conscience, and in things belonging directlie to mans euerlasting wealth or woe, which is the life or death perpctuall of our soules, there, if either negligence in the iudge in searching out of our sins, or consempt in vs in declaration, opening, confessing, or cleare vtterance of them, doe hinder the righteousnes of Gods iudgement executed by the Priests office, or driuing them to giue wrong sentence of deliuerie and remission, there the perill is exceeding great, and the daunger wel neare damnation perpetual.

FVLKE.

Although to reteine is somewhat more then not to loose, or not to forgiue, yet the conclusion is true, that whose sinnes the minister of the Gospell doth not forgiue, of them that heare the Gospell, they are not forgiuen. But herofit doth not follow, that euerie man is bound to shriue himselfe to the priest. If you meane that by being subiect, to the priests iudgement, the minister of the gospell denounceth damnation, to all impenitent and obstinate sinners: vnto this sentence he is subiect by the plain tearmes of Christs owne wordes, that is such a one. But if he be truelie penitent in the sight of God, he is absolued by the sentence of the minister, which pronounceth in the name of God, forgiuenes to all them, that be truelie conuerted vnto God. Wherefore here is no place for the necessitie of auricular confession, except you can draw it in by the wordes of demonstratiue syllogismes, which I suppose, to be impossible, and you your selfe shall in conscience confesse no lesse, whensoeuer you dare goe about it. As touching the difference you shew betwixt the priests office, in remitting sins by Baptisme and penance, it standeth altogether vpon your owne surmise, without any authoritie of the holie scriptures: For the minister of the ghospelis made as much a iudge, whome to admit and whome to refuse from the sacraments, as he is to pronounce, whose sins be forgiuen, and whose reteined. Other iudgement or correction, he hath not in the one nor in the other, neither is there any punishments put into the Apostles or priests handes, for those sinnes that are to be pardoned, nor pardon to those that are to be punished. The punishment is no lesse then the sentence of eternall damnation, vnder which all obstinate, and vnrepentant sinners doe remaine so iong as they continue in their obstinacie, and impenirencie. And therefore the power iudiciarie and exact examination of the penitent, and the conuention before Gods iudgement feare in earth, which should be the priest, is nothing but imaginary vanitie, without all ground of authoritie out of Christs institution. wherefore except you can prooue, that Christ by giuing his Apostles authoritie to sorgiue or reteine sinnes, did giue this inordinarie power that you speake of, and set vp this iudgement on earth like to the courts in ciuill iudgement, in canonicall causes, whatsoeuer you saie without warrant of Gods worde, is as easily by vs denied, as by you it is affirmed. Where you quote Damascene, I finde in him nothing for, nor any thing sounding that waie in the place by you noted. But in the tenth Chapter, where he speaketh of eight kindes of baptisme the fifte he maketh Baptisme by the holie ghost and fire. Which may be saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a punishing Baptisme, because of the fire to come: & immediatelie followeth the sixth kinde of baptisme, which is verie painfall, by repentance and teares. So that the one beeing distinct by the author from the other, I know not by what learning you doe confound to make it seeme as both were one.

ALLEN.

Neither may we thinke, that this authoritie and approoued power of priests, concerneth onelie the open offences, which by witnesse and proofe may be conuinced, and deferred to the publike Magistrates of the Church, as some Protestantes, confounding all places of like wordes and tearmes in scripture doe. Wherein they consider not, that the perfectnesse of the Gospell teacheth man willinglie to accuse, condemne, and iudge 1. Cor. 11. himselfe, that he be not iudged of our Lorde. Neither doe they weigh, that this iudgement of our sinnes, though it be ministred by man, is yet the seate and court of Christ, to whome it no lesse perteineth, to binde and loose our secret sinnes, then our open offences. And he without exception, committed remission of all manner of sinnes vnto the Apostles and priestes, saying: Like as my father sent me, so doe I send you: But Christ was sent to heale the contrite and sorowfull of al sinnes, priuate and publike: therefore al manner of offences, be they neuer so secret, belong to the priests not onelie pardon, but also correction and punishment, whereof, because they be men, they cannot iustlie discerne or determine, to remit or reteine, giue pardon or giue penance, except they be confessed by the parties penitent. Christ him selfe, perfectlie seeing all diseases both of bodie and soule, Marc. 10. & the inwarde sorow and sute of euerie mans heart, yet saied to the sicke man & blinde: Quid vis faciam 〈◊〉 ? what wouldest thou haue at my hands? And shal the priest being a mortall man take vpon him to giue sentence of the diseases of our soules before he knowe them, or pardō him that wil not shew vnto him, wherein & for what sin he asketh a pardō? Furthermore the sins of mans cogitation, that cannot be discerned by the priest, with out the confession of the partie, be often no lesse greeuous & dā nable before God, then the open offences: therefore there may be no doubt, but Christ hath ordeined mercie, as well for them, as other that be actuallie committed, and subiect to the sight of the world, but yet no otherwise, but by the sacramēt of penance, in which, without exception, the priests haue power to remit or reteine sinnes, as well priuate, as publike. Therefore the same secret sinnes beeing subiect to the Churches iudgement no lesse then the open, they must needes be vttered and confessed, or els they cannot be realesed, much lesse haue any enioyned penance for them.

But it is mecre wrangling of our aduersaries in so plaine a case, & follie in all other to doubt, whether secret offences, euen committed in thought onelie against the last two commaundements forbiding vnlawfull coueting and desires of the minde, be properly subiect to the Priests iudgement, seeing they can by no otherwise be released, but in the sacrament of penance, & sincere confession of them. For here is practized a iudgement. not of ciuile Magistrates, which onelie punish by laws of all nations actually committed faultes against the weale publike, but of soule and conscience, which properly pertaine to the cure of Priestes, as they properly occupie Christes owne roome, to whose pardon and punishment, not onelie open sinnes, but also priuate offences, either in deede or thought committed, doe in like perteine. For external penance, or publike, is rather vsed to satisfie the Church of her right, in which sinnes can not openlie be committed, but to the great offence of her children, and therefore must in her, by publike penance, be corrected, for the example of discipline, and prouiso of the like sinnes to come.

FVLKE.

I knowe no Protestantes, neither I suppose you can name anie writer of them, that doth think that the authoritie of sorgiuing and retaining sinnes, concerneth onelie open offences, and not secret. But it maie be that some protestantes haue written, as all I think do holde, and you your selfe in the end of this section do acknowledge, that open confession is most conuenient, fot the satisfaction of the Church which is offended, where and by whome open and notorious sinnes haue beene committed. But that secret confession made to a priest, is necessarie for the discharge of secret sinnes, all Protestants denie, neither can anie Papistes prooue it. For such reasons as you bring are verie weake and friuolous. The perfectnes of the Gospell, teacheth man, willinglie to accuse, condemne, and iudge himselfe, that he be not iudged of our Lord: Ergo, he is bound to shriue him-selfe to a Priest. Nay contrariewise, if he be made accuser, condemner, and iudge of himselfe, he neede not seeke anie other externall iudge, but in his owne conscience, accuse, examine, condemne, and iudge him-selfe before God. And this court of conscience, we acknowledge to be the seat, and court of Christ, where no priest or other mortal man hath authoritie to sit and iudge. Neither doth anie correction & punishment of our sins belong to priestes by reason that Christ sent the Apostles, and their successours, to Preach, as he was sent by his father: but they may remit or retaine sinnes, without hearing the particuler confession of euerie sinner, by declaring the mercie of God to all that repent, and his iustice, to all that continue in sinne without repentance. But it is a maruetlous strong argument, Iweene, to prooue the necessitie of confession, because our sauiour Christ caused the blinde man, by vttering his request in particuler, to declare his faith. Nay if he had caused all them whose sinnes he pronounced to be forgiuen, first to make particuler confession vnto him, it had beene more coloure, and yet no sufficient argument to prooue the necessity of confession to be made vnto other men, much lesse that he would haue the blind mā acknowledge, that he beleeued that he was able to giue him sight: wherfore vpon a Principle shamefully begged, that confession to a priest is necessary, you go about to proue that confessiō of secret faults, and cogitations of mans heart, is also to be made to a priest, & you accuse your aduersaries of wrangling in so plaine a case, and all men of follie, that doubt, whether such secret offences be subiect to the Priestes iudgement, seeing they can not otherwise be released but in the sacrament of penance, and sincere confession of them: but which of your aduersaries will graunt that they can not otherwise be released, or how will you satisfie them that doubt out of the holie scriptures of the institution of such a sacrament, and of auriculer confession as necessarie.

ALLEN.

Moreouer the sacrifices of the olde law were in manie cases done by the Priestes, as well for priuate sinnes as open; which could not be without the confession of the penitent: ergo, much more the secrets of our soules be subiect to our Priestes, to whom Christ hath giuen all iudgement. Yet all this notwithstanding there be some that keepe them-selues by vaine excuse of sinne, from the verie principall point and pith of this sacrament, which is the particuler examination of a mans sinnes committed by thought, word, or worke, and will yet draw back, and holde, that a generall confession is enough with tearmes vniuersall, acknowledgeing a mans selfe to haue sinnes by minde, word, and deede, though he expresse not the seuerall pointes thereof. But this opinion is confuted, both by all the fore said reasons, and other, as a moste absord and wilfull maintenance of sinne. For by this rule, he that killed and murdered thousandes, should confesse no more after his wicked actes then before, nor no more then the innocentest man that liueth. Dauids weeping and confession should haue beene one after his double deadlie sinne committed, as before in his innocencie. Peter should not haue more bitterlie went after his for saking of his master, then before. Neither should our confession then pertaine more to our selues then to other, who by like generall clauses maie truelie make the like and the same confession, as it is now in the Church of England. But the holie King Dauid confessed not sinnes common to him selfe and other men, but my sinne, my wickednes, my impietie, saith he, and this in confessing to God that know alreadie his sinnes: How much more now, where Gods iudgement is exercised by man, that can not discerne our faultes him selfe, must we confesse our sinnes, that he maie rightlie iudge thereof?

FVLKE.

The sacrifices of the olde law did in deede containe a confession of sinne, but no particuler declaration vnto the priest, of anie sin committed in secret, therfore your conclusion is naught, as also it is blasphemous that you saie therein, that Christ hath giuen to your priestes all iudgement. But confession by a generall clause, you do not allow to be sufficient to saluation, not answerable to Christes meaning. I praie you sit at the length, bring forth those words of Christ by which you know his meaning so well, that you dare deny saluation to them that make not a particuler confession to a priest. By this rule you saie, the murtherer of thousands should confesse no more then the innocentest man aliue: verily to a priest he is no more bound to confesse his murthers, then an innocent man his lester trespasses. But as anie mans sinnes are more heinous and greeuous, so ought he to bewaile and lament the same more earnestlie before God: So did Dauid and Peter, after their seuerall and greeuous falles, not to enforme God, which knew their sinnes more exactlie then they could make confession of them, but to stirre vp themselues to more earnest hartie sorrow, and repentance for them. That Gods iudgement is so exercised by priests as you meane, you must first prooue, & after vse for an argument, or els you begge and gette nothing.

ALLEN.

Penance must be donne for euery of our sinnes. So Peter prescribed Simon the sorcerer, when he attempted to haue bought the gift of Goddes Spirit, that he should doo penance for that especiall greeuous crime: Poenitentiam age, saith he, ab hac nequitia tua, Doe penance for this thy wicked Act. 8. attempte, if perchaunce God will forgiue thee this abhominable intent. The man was baptised not long before, and then no such Penance was prescribed for his most greeuous and blasphemous practises of Nicromancie and witchcrafte long exercised before. Wherein this naughty pack Simon Magus, is a thousand partes more religious then our newe maisters. For he desired the Apostles to pray to God for him, that this sinne might be forgiuen him: where these care no more for the priest or Apostle, concerning their sinnes, then they doo for dogges Againe, Saint Paule did not onely confesse his sinnes by a generall clause, but acknowledged his owne sinnes, wherein he in his owne person had offended, he confessed he was of al sinners the greatest, that he had obteined commission to attache them that beleeued in Christes name, and so forth. 1. Tim. 1. Act. 15. Such as were faithfull also at Ephesus, as we reade in the 19. of the Actes, came to the Apostles, Et confitebantur actus suos, and confessed their actes and misdees, In so much, that certaine which had followed vnlaufull artes, as Magike, Nicromancie, and such like curiositie, confessed their faultes, and burned their bookes before all the people.

FVLKE.

We must be poenitent for al and euerie of oursinnes, that we know or can call to minde: but that penance must be enioyned by a Priest, as you meane, for euerie sinne, let vs see how you can prooue it. S. Peter prescribed Simon Magus, that he should do penance for that greeuous crime: Therfore penance must be done for eucrie of our sinnes. Although the antecedent were true, yet the consequence is naught penance must be done for one open and hainous sinne, ergo, for all secret sinnes. But I denie that anie such penance as you meane, was enioyned vnto him by Peter. But that he exhorted Simon to repentance, if he looked to haue any forgiuenes of his sinnes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , repent, saith he, or change thy minde from this thy wickednes, and not as you translate, for this thy wickednes, as though repentance were a satisfaction for his sin. Moreouer I answere, you vse not to enioyne penance, before men haue confessed their sinne. But when Peter exhorted Simon to repent, he had not yet confessed his sinne, but was a couetous hipocrite. 〈◊〉 you dissent from your pupills of Rhemis which denie that doing of pennance, was prescribed to men before they were baptized. For they translate agite panitentiam, as well before baptisme, as after, to do penance, satisfaction for sinne. Where you saie that your new maislers care no more for the Priest or Apostle concerning their sinnes, then they do for degges, it is a saucic Censure, of a dogged Papist. For they whome you scorne, do reuerence all the ministers of God, as well in the power they haue to remitte sinnes, as also in al other partes of their office. An other argument on haue of Saint Pauls example, who confessed his owne sinnes, and namelie the greatest, of persecuting the Church of Christ. Yea but not his secret sinnes to a priest: but his open faultes before his conuersion, and Baptisme. And so likewise they that beleeued, Act. 19 made open confession of some of their deuilish practizes committed before they were Christians, and in detestation of their former wickednes, and signe of true repentance burned their bookes to a great value.

ALLEN.

If the priestes had nothing elles to doe with oursins, but as they had in the olde lawe to doo with the leprous persons, that is to say, should onely discerne, which were by God remitted or not remitted, they could not that doo, excepte they sawe the varietie of the saide sinnes, by mans confession. But now seeing they haue further interest in our matters, and must properly both pardon and giue iust penaunce for sinne, how is it possible they should doo this without exacte knowlege of entry of oure greeuous offences. In deed a general confession, such as is often made in diuine seruice to God or his priestes, such as be Catholik, doth some times take away the common infirmities of our sinfull life, that our light trespasses be not imputed to vs, or such, as we haue so forgotten, that we cannot by anie conuenient search, call againe to our remembrance: But other greater crimes and deadly sinnes, for which the sacrament of discipline was instituted, and the priestes iudgement seat erected in the Church, are not discharged before God, without seuerall contrition, and distinct confession, with readie in tent of the penitent to accomplish such fruites of penance, as by the priest shall be appointed for the satisfying for his sinnes.

And what a marucilous disorder is brought into Christes Church, by plaine flatterie of our selues herein, whiles we holde that this generall confession is sufficient, we see by experience of these our euill daies, where there is now put no difference betwixt small offenders and most greeuous sinners, no diuersitie of penance, no more sorrow in one then in other, no confession of the most wicked, no more then of the smallest sinner, or most honest liuer. A common murtherer, a filthie whoremunger, a dailie drunkerd, a false robber, a greedie extorcioner, confes as litle, do as litle penance lament as litle, yea a great deale lesse, then the honest sort of people do, for much more small and fewer faultes. All men repose them-selues now of daies so much in Christes passion, and there onelie no faith, that they will neither confesse to God nor man, neither sigh nor sorrow, nor do satisfaction for their sinnes. Well, let all men be assured, that God in the next world will not go by general Chapters, but will haue an accompt of all our proper works and misdeedes, till it come to our idle words and vaine thoughtes. The which iudgement, because Gods Church and ministers sentence, to whome Christ gaue all iudgement of our sinnes in earth, doth most cleerelie resemble, we maie be out of doubt, that the like particular discussing and examination of our owne selues, here before his ministers, must needes be had, that we 1. Cor. 11. be not iudged of our Lord in the life to come.

FVLKE.

By seeing the varietie of sinnes, though the Priest could see them as clearlie as he that committed them, yea though he were present at the doing of them, and did see all the circumstances of them: he could neuer discerne which were by God remitted, or not remitted, except he could see the repentance of the sins, according to which God doth either remitte, or retain sinnes: Therefore confession to this purpose is neither necessarie, nor profitable. For the further interest you claime, you must bring better euidence then he therto you haue shewed forth, or els we maie neuer yeelde it vnto you. And greatlie I maruaile how you can affirme, that the Priest can properlie pardon sinne, when he can not to anie man pronounce pardon of his sinne, except he be true lie contrite, and penitent before god. God onelie and the partie penitent are priuy to the con trition of his heart, which in an Hipocrit with a thousand confessions maie be dissembled. And I trow you will not saie that without vnfained contrition of the heart the priest maie pardon a sinner. The doctrine of your masters is but with condition, if the partie be contrite without counterfayting: therefore he that can not pardon absolutely, can much les pardon properlie. Where you make generall confession auailable, either for small and light offences, or else for greater sinnes forgotten, you speake without proofe, and therefore your authoritite may be denied without doubt.

The disorder, you speake of, for lacke of shrift, was greater when most mé went to shrift, and not fearing the iugdement seat of God, and thought they were sufficientlie discharged of their sinnes, if they had powred them out into a priests lape, or friers coule. God be praised, they that repose them selues moste in Christs passion, and by the merites thereof beleeue to receiue forgiuenes of sinnes by faith in his bloode, are more ready to confesse their vnworthines both before God & man, then any popish hypocrite that trusteth in the merit of his workes, and his owne satisfaction, for his sinnes, and doe more sigh and sorrow for their sinnes, although they be such as mans lawe cannot punish, although they were knowne, then they that whisper halfe an hower in a priestes eare, for the sinnes of one whole yeare, whereas one howers offences, if they were particularie called to minde, and repeated, would aske longer time to confesse them. We know that in the next world God will haue an account of al our misdeeds, euen to our idle words & thoughts, & therfore our wholl life ought to be a continuall meditation, and profession of repentance, & yet we know by his word and assurance ofhis spirit, that the same infinit multitude & heape of our sinnes shal not be laid to our charge, because out sauiour Christ is the lambe of God that hath taken them awaie, and satisfied the iustice of God for them.

That Christ hath giuen al iudgement of our sinnes in earth to his Church and the ministers thereof, you often affirme, & thereupon build vp your court of confession, but by what wordes this may be prooued you are neuer able to shew. For that text, whose sinnes you forgiue, &c. imporeth no such manner of iudgement, but an authoritie to pronunce a sentence declaratorie of Gods mercie, in pardoning all them that trulie repent, and of his iustice in punishing all them that obstinatly refuse the grace of God offered in the preaching of the Ghospel. The examining & iudgeing of our selues, whch the Apostle requireth, that we be not iudged of the Lord, vrgeth vs not to commit our selues to the examination & iudgement of othermen, but to a diligent discussing of our owne conscience before god, that we come not with hypocrisie or without dew regard of his presence and benefites to the participation of his sacraments.

ALLEN.

And this particular discussing Saint Paull meant, when he commended vnto the Corinthians, and by them commaunded all Christian men to prooue, trie, and iudge themselues, especiallie afore the receipt of the blessed sacrament of Christes bodie and blood, which requireth moste puritie of life in the receiuer, that can be. For to attempt to receiue the holie bodie of Christ before we haue in contrite manner confessed our selues, and purged our consciences, by the iudgement of Christes Church, of the guilt of deadlie sinne, is exceeding damnable to vs, and much dishonour to Christes owne person. Which prouing and iudging of mans selfe, to be meant by the diligent dif cussing of our consciences, sinnes, and misdeedes, by contrition and confession of them to our ghostlie Father, the practise of the Church doth most plainlie prooue, which neuer suffered any greeuous sinner to communicat, before he had called him selfe to a reckning of his sinnes, before the minister of God, and so iudged him selfe, that he receiue not to his damnation that, which to euery worthy person is his life and saluation. Whereof S. Augustine, or the authour of the booke de Ecclesiasticis De Ecclesiast. dog. ca. 53. dogmatibus, set forth with his name, giueth vs good notice for his time. Quem mortalia crimina post Baptismum commissa premunt, hortor priùs publica poenitentia satisfacere, & ita sacerdotis iudicio reconciliatum, communioni sociari, si vult non ad iudicium & condemnationem sui, Eucharistiam percipere, sed & secreta satisfactione solui mortalia crimina non negamus. I exhorte euerie man (saith this holie doctour) that is burdened after his baptisme with mortall sinne, to satisfie for the same by publique penance, and to be reconciled by the priests iudgement, & to be restored to the communion of saints, if he meane to receiue the holy Sacrament, not to his iudgement and condemnation. And I denie not in this case, but deadly sinnes may be remitted by secret satisfaction. Thus he. By whose wordes you see, in what a damnahle state men now of daies stand, seeing that whosoeuer receiueth the sacrament of Christes bodie and blood, before he be reconciled by a priestes sentence, and assoiled of his sinnes, he doth receiue it to his euerlasting damnation. Vnto whose iudgement I ioyne Saint Cyprian in this same matter, complainig verie earnestly vpon certaine Conuersies in his daies, that would aduenture vpon Serm. de lapsis. Christes bodie and blood, ante exomologesim factam criminis, ante purgatam conscientiam, sacrificio & manu sacerdotis: Before their sinnes be confessed, and their consciences purged by sacrifice, and the Priests hand.

Al these thinges might be at large declared, and confirmed farther by the iudgement of mostauncient Fathers: but because I haue bene verie long, and enough alreadie maie seeme to be said for such as by reason will be satisfied, & a great deale more then anie Protestant will answere vnto, and also the scriptures them selues, giuing the Priest so plaine power of binding and retaining, as wel as of remitting and loosing, will do more with these that haue charged themselues with the beleefe of nothing that is not in expresse writing of Gods word, then the vniforme consent of all ages, and the moste notable persons in the same. In respect of their humor therefore, I will not saie much more for this point, then I haue said: onely my meaning now is, for the Catholikes comfort, to repeat a few such euident sentences out of moste authentique authors, by whom we take a 〈◊〉 not onely of their meaninges, which is much for the matter, but especiallie, of the Churches practise in all ages and moste countries christened, since the Apostles time, which I account the moste surest waie to touch & trie truth by, that by the example of al our forefathers, euery man may willingly learne to submit him selfe to the sentence of such as God hath made the iudges of his soule, and sinnes.

FVLKE.

Yf Saint Poul had meant Popish shrift, he could and would haue said, Submit your selues to the examination & iudgement of the Priest, and not as he hath said, Let a man trie him selfe: &, Iudge your selues brèthren. Yf auricular confession be necessarie, vnder paine of damnation, for euerie one that receiueth the sacrament of Christes bodie and bloode, immediately before it, many thousandes of your priests which saie masse euerie daie, without shriuing themselues, are in a damnable case. I or there passeth no day of mans life, without some deadelie sinne, if not in deede not word, yet at the least in thought: but that you popish hypocrites by your distinction of veniall sinnes, flatter your selues to be cleare, when you are moste foull and filthie. but the perpetuall practize of the Church, you saie, prooueth the necessitie of auricular confession, whereof you take witnes the author of the booke, de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus for his time, which you doe honestly not to father vpon Saint Augustine, being a man of much later time, lesse learning, and more corruption of doctrine: but you do fraudulentlie cut of his saying in the waste, because that which followeth declareth plainlie, that either he meaneth not of mortall sinnes, as the Popish Church now doth holde, or else his opinion for secret satisfaction is farre differing from that you would haue men weene that he meaneth: namely such as you vse to inioine in your confession, fiue Ladies Psalters, fiue fridaies fast, fiue pence, groates or shillings, to so many poore men in remembrance of the 5. wounds and such like stuffe: but these authors wordes require, another manner of satisfaction. Sed & secreta satisfactione solui mortalia crimina non negamus, sed mutato prius secularihabitu, & confesso religionis studio, per vitae correctionem, & iugi, immò perpetuo luctu miserante Deo: it a duntaxat vt contraria pro his quae poenitet 〈◊〉 , & eucharistiam omnibus dominic is diebus, supplex & submissus vs que ad mortem percipiat. Poenitentia vera est penitenda non admittere, & admissa deflere. Satisfactio paenitentiae, est causas peccatorum excidere, nec eorum suggestionibus aditum indulgere. But also that by secret satisfaction mortall crimes may be loosed we doe not denie, but so that the secular habite be first changed, and the studie of religion confessed by amendment of life, and by continuall, yea perpetuall sorow, God being mercifull: so onelie that he doe the contrarie things to those for which he doth penance, and humblie and lowlie receiue the Euchariste euerie sondaie to his dying day. It is true repentance not to committe things to be repented, and to bewaile such as are committed. The satisfaction of repentance is, to cut of the causes of sinnes, and to yeald no entrie vnto their suggestions. Wherefore it is plaine, that in this writers time there was no auricular confession, but an open confession, and publike penance for open and hainous offences, and that none was admitted to secret satisfaction, except he changed his habite, became a Monke, & performed other conditions by him required, by which it is manifest that the iudgement of this writer, though corrupt, yet is contrarie to the practize of the popish Church at this daie. But Saint Cyprian is a better witnes (I trow) for the necessitie of auricular cōfession of secret sins, sauing that he speaketh of them that had openlie fallen to Idolatrie, and without open confession of their fault and publike satisfaction of the Church, by some vndiscreete pastours, were admitted to the Lordes table: describing them he saith, Mortiferos Idolorum cibos adhuc pene ructantes, exhalantibus etiamnum scelus suum faucibus, & contagia funesta 〈◊〉 , Dominicorpus inuadunt, &c. Almoste yet belching out the deadly meates of their Idoles, the iawes as yet breathing out their owne wickednes, & sauoring of the deadelie infection, they set vpon our Lordes bodie. And immediately before the wordes by you cited, Plus modò in dominum manib, at que ore delinquunt, quàm cum Dominum negauerant. They doe more offende now against the Lord with their hands and their mouth, then at such time as they denied the Lorde. These wordes declare of what kinde of men, of what kinde of sinnes, of what kinde of confession, and of what kinde of satisfaction, this Doctor doth speake, whose vehemencie tendeth to the maintenance of discipline, being in great daunger of decaie, by the vntimelie and vngodlie lenitie of some flattering Church men in those daies, that would reconcile such vnto the Church by admitting them to the communion, which after their moste greeuous fall and deniall of Christ before men, had not giuen sufficient tokens and testimonies of their hearty repentance before God, without the which, the wrath of God iustly kindled against them for their henious offences, couldnot be appeased.

Hetherto therefore, for the necessitie of auricular confession, we haue seene nothing, that anie learned protestant might voutchsafe of anie answere: & as for the scriptures giuing the Priest so plaine power, as wel of binding and retaining, as of loosing and remitting, doe laie no necessity vpon anie man to confesse vnto them the particularities of his secret faultes, nor giue any authoritie vnto the priestes to exact the same, I saie not by expresse wordes, but not by any necessary illation or conclusion out of the expresse words of the scripture, which we holde to be of as great credit, as that which is contained in expresse wordes. As for the vniforme consent of all ages, and the mosie notable persons in the same, whereof you make your cómon vaunt, can neuer be shewed for the necessitie of auricular shrift, no nor for anie other point of poperie, though you would make choise of the eldest error that you holde. That you take the Churches practize in al ages, to be the moste surest way to touch and trie truth by, you declare what reuerent opinion you haue of the word of God, which our Sauiour Christ saith, is the truth, wherin he praieth his father to sanctifie al his disciples vnto the worldes end. Vnto which rule of truth al practize of mé must be exacted, and by it be tried. For what mad blasphemie were it to saie, that the word of God, which was before all practize the onelie trueth of touch, hath now lost his credit, or the best part thereof, if practize of men in all ages be now become the most surest waie to trie and touch trueth by, as if the manners of men were alwaies the best interpretation of the lawe.

That confession hath euer beene vsed, of all mortall sins, in all countries and ages since Christes time, it is prooued by the witnes of moste learned fathers, with an answer to such things, as out of the Fathers be sometimes obiected to the contrarie.

THE 11. CHAP. ALLEN.

I Am the longer in this approoued trueth, because I remember what Saint Chrysostome saith: And I see by De sacer. li. 2. these daies, that it is verie true which he writeth, Multa arie opus esse, vt qui laborant Christiani, vltrò sibi 〈◊〉 persuadeant, sacerdotum curationibus sese submittere: That it is a point of high wisdome and cunning, to bring to passe that Christian men which are sicke in soule, would persuade themselues to submit in all causes them selues to the priests curing. For indeede, in Nectarius his predecessours daies, there was such an offence arose in the simple sorte, and such a tragedie in Constantinople Church, by the naughtie fact of a deaton there, that their Bishoppe was glad to make the state of penance, which then was often published euen for priuat sinnes, to be a great deale more free then before. Whereupon, the people tooke occasion of such libertie and licentious life, that when their common Penitenciarie, by the commaundement of Nectarius was remóoued, they were exceeding loath to confesse, or doe iust penance for their sinnes actuall. Though that good man condescending to the peoples weaknes, meant neuer to take awaie that wholl order, wherein he had no authoritie, because it is no politike prouision, but Christes institution: but onely that the penance should not be publike, except the party listed, of those sinnes which were to the said Penitentiarie confessed in secret. Which fact of his, though perchaunce it was necessarie for that time, yet was not allowed of the writers of the same Historie. As a thing (saith Sozomenus) that brought much Lib. 9. cap. 35. tripar. histor. dissolute life, and alteration of the peoples manners into the Church. Yet our aduersaries are in such aistresse, for their maintenance of their contrarie assertion, against holie confession, that they be not ashamed to alledge this mans doubtfull example. Which if it were good and to be followed: yet made it nothing against shrift, which they cal now auricular confession, or if it did make against the whole Sacrament euerie waie ministered, yet it could not of reason be followed, being but one bishoppes compelled act, and that disalowed euen of the reporters them selues, and prooued to be euill, by the practize of all Churches christened to the contrarie.

FVLKE.

Chrysostomes wordes by you translated, if you had not falsifyed in translation, by adding of your owne, these wordes (in all causes) which are neither in the originall Greeke, nor in the latine version, make but a small shew for the necessitie of the auriculer confession. For in that place, Chrysostome sheweth how much more difficult the office of a spirituall shepard is, then the charge of a bodely herdman, by this, that the shepperd of vnresonable sheepe may both see the diseases of his cattell, and also compell them to take his medicines and diet: but the spirituall shepheard cannot alwaies see with what diseases his flocke are infected, neither can he compell them, but must exhort them, willinglie to submit them selues to his cure, whereby he meaneth his doctrine of admonition, reprehension, and such like. But because you make mention of a storie, and doe not expresse it, and yet excuse Chrysostome thereby in any thing that he hath written, sounding against the necessitie of confessing before men, of sinnes committed in secret: as though he durst not fullie set downe his iudgement thereof before the peo ple. I will set forth the storie as it is reported, by the Ecclesiasticall writers, Socrates and Sozomenus. Socrates, L. 5. C. 19. writeth thus. About the same time it was thought good, to take awaie those elders or priests of the Churches, which were appointed ouer publike repentance, vpon such cause. Since the time that the Nouatians were deuided from the Church, for that they would not communicate with them, that had fallen in the persecution, that was vnder Decius, the Bishops of the Church added vnto the Ecclesiastical canon or rule, a certeine priest or elder which should be ouer them that repented, that they which were fallen after baptisme, should confesse their sinnes before this appointed priest. And this rule holdeth still vnto this time in other sects. Onelie they that holde Christ to be of the same substance with his father, and the Nouatians which agree with thē in this faith, haue reiected this priest appointed ouer them that repent. The Nouatians in deede at the first, receiued not this additiō. But they which now hold the Churches, hauing obserued it for a long time vnder Nectarius, haue changed it, by occasion of this matter that happened in the Church. A certeine noble woman came to the priest appointed for repentance, and made particular confession of those sinnes she had committed after baptisme: the priest charged this woman to fast and praie cominuallie, that with her confession she might shew forth the worke that was meete for repentance. But the woman proceeding accused her selfe of another offence, for she declared that a certaine Deacon of the Church had line with her. This being declared, caused the Deacon to be cast out of the Church, but a tumult was raised among the priests: for they were sore greeued, not onelie with that which was done, but also because this fact tended greatlie to the slaunder and contumelie of the Church. So while cleargie men were in great reproch for these thinges, a certaine blessed elder of the Church borne at Alexandria gaue in councell to the Bishop Nectarius, to take awaie this priest, that was appointed ouer repentance and to permit euerie man according to his owne conscience to be partaker of the mysteries. For by that meanes onelie, he should haue the Church voide of slaunder. These thinges because I heard my selfe of that blessed man, I was 〈◊〉 to commit vnto this writing. For as I haue often said, I haue giuen all diligence to learne of euerie man that knew these matters, and exactlie to search them out, that I might write nothing beside the truth. But I saied vnto Eudemon or that blessed man: your counsell, Sir, hath, brought into the Church God knoweth what or no. But I see that you haue giuen occasion, that one should not reprehend an others sinnes, nor to obserue that precept of the Apostle, which saieth: Communicate not with the vnfruitfull workes of darkenes, but rather reprooue them. But of these matters sufficient. Sozomenus, Lib. 7. Cap. 16. reporteth the matter after this manner. About this time Nectarius, which gouerned the Church of Constantinople, was the first that would no longer permit that priest, which was appointed for them that repented. And him followed al most al other Bishops. Now, this matter what it is, or whence it began, or for what cause it ceased, diuerse men report diuerselie. I will declare what I thinke. For seeing not to sinne at all, it is a matter more diuine, then agreeable to mans nature, and that God hath commaunded to graunt pardon to them that repent, although they offend often times, and in refusing to confesse sinnes, the debt groweth more burthenous, as it is like, it was thought good among the priestes of olde time, that as it were in an open theater, vnder the witnesse of the multitude of the Church, men should declare their sinnes. And for this purpose they appointed a priest or elder of the best conuersation, continent of speach, & wise, to whome they came which had sinned, and confessed such things as they had committed in their life. And he according to euerie mans sin, after he had appointed a mulct what he ought to doe, or to abide, absolued them, when they had performed their penaltie by themselues. But as for the Nouatians, which made no account of repentance, needed not this matter. But in other sects of heretikes, it is obserued euen vntill this time. And it is diligintlie obserued in the westerne Churches, and especiallie in the Church of the Romans. For there is a certein open place appointed, for them that are in exercise of repentance For they stand with heauie cheere and as it were sorowing. And when the seruice of God is ended, being not made partakers of those things, that are lawfull for the holie ones, with weeping & lamentation, they cast themselues downe flat vpon the earth: the Bishop beholding them, runneth to them weeping and likewise falling vpon the earth, the wholl multitude of the Church is then filled with mourning and weeping. Then first the Bishop riseth vp, and lifteth vp the sinners that lie on the ground, & after he hath praied as it is meetes for the penitents that haue sinned, he dismisseth them. Then euerie one of them willinglie afflicting himselfe, either with fastings, or abstinēce from washings or certein meats, or with other things that are enioyned thē, cōtinueth a seaso, so long as the Bishop hath appointed vnto him. And at the time appointed, after he hath payed, as it were a certaine debt, he is released of the punishment of fin, and com meth into the congregation with the rest of the people. These things the priests of Rome obserue euen vntill our daies. But in the Church of Constantinople, the priest or elder that was appointed ouer the penitent, did exercise that office, vntill ā certein noble woman, being appointed by the priests to fast, and pray to God for those sinnes which she had declared, while she continued in the Church, for this purpose, confessed that shee had committed fornication with a Deacon, whereof the multitude hauiug vnderstanding, was sore greeued, for defiling the Church, and it was an exceeding great slaunder vnto the whol cleargie. Nectarius beeing in doubt how to handle this matter, that had happened, first depriueth the fornicator of his ministerie. And beeing counselled by certein men, to permit euerie man, as his conscience serued him, and as he might be bolde, to cōmunicate the mysteries, he caused the priest to giue ouer that was appointed for repentance, and from that time this custome taking holde, hath hetherto continued. Now I thinke the auncient grauitie and precisenes, hauing begon by litle and litle to fall awaie, into a diuerse and negligent custome, seeing before, as I suppose, the offences were lesse, both through shame of them which declared their owne transgressions, & through the precisenes of them that were appointed iudges in this case. And for the same cause I gather that the Emperour Theodosius prouiding for the good name & grauitie of the Churches, made a law that women should not be admmitted to the ministerie of god, except they had children, and were aboue threescore yeares old, according to the expresse cōmaundement of the Apostle, and to expell out of the Churches, those women that were shorne in the head, & to depriue such Bishops from their Bishoppricke, which did admit any such women. The storie beeing as I haue set it forth, out of the reporte of the Ecclesiasticall writers, now let vs see how sincerely you handle the matter, and report thereof at your pleasure. First you say, that Nectarius made the state of penance more free, then before: where as by the storie it is plaine, that he toke awaie altogether that publique forme, and triall of repentance, leauing euerie man to his conscience. Secondlie, you saie, the people tooke such occasion of libertie, that they were loth to confesse, or doe iust penance for their sinnes at all. It is not vnlike that the wicked sort, as they abuse all Christian libertie, so being left to the examination of their owne conscience, whereunto the scripture leaueth them, would be more dissolute: But the godly being deliuered from such a burthenous & vnnecessarie ceremonie and custome, would neuerthelesse confesse their sinnes before God, and be truelie penitent, and hartelie sorie for the same. Thirdlie you saie, Nectarius, neuer meant to take awaie that whole order, wherein he had no authoritie. But that he toke it wholie awaie, the storie is plaine, and that he had authoritie in an order, and decree of the Church, first made against the Nouatians, which was subiect to mutation, Socrates doth declare. And Sozomene reporteth the consent, & imitation, of all the Catholike Bishoppes of the East, which they, it is not like, would haue yealded vnto, if it had beene as you say, an institutio of shrist. That it was not alowed of the writer of the storie Sozomenus, it is a small matter, seing it was alowed of so many hundred bishops for so manyyeares before him, that were better deuines then he, & therefore you saie vntruly, that it was but one mans doubtfull example, & but one bishops compelled act, which was alowed of all the Bishops of the East, & followed. But if it were good, you saie, it maketh nothing against priuat shrift, yes verily. for a thousand times greater incōuenience hath come by auricular confession, then the abusing of one gentlewoman. To omit all other, the storie is famous and fresh in memorie, within these few yeares, when the Inquisitors in Spaine, charged al honest women & matrons that had beene sollicited by their ghostlie fathers vnto adulterie, to confesse the same before them, how the holie house was pestred with accusations, and how full the streates were of women repairing to the holie house, to declare the abuse of confession against their ghostlie fathers. Wherfore if one such a fact, as the old storie reporteth, were thought a sufficient cause vnto all the godlie and learned Bishops of the East, to abolish that vnnecessarie order & custome, of confessing and doeing open penance in the Church for secret faults, how much more so many & so shamefull abuses as haue ensued of this eare shrift, ought to haue mooued the Church of God in these dates, to put awaie the necessitie thereof: that I speake nothing of the vngodlie opinions that are helde therof, to the snare of mens consciences, which make it alltogether intollerable. Last of all, where you alledge the practize of all Churches christianed to the contrarie, how vntrue it is, the verie storie is plaine, and the custome of the Greeke Churches confessed by Gratian not to admit this kinde of confession, as beeing onelie a positiue decree of men, no necessarie institution of God.

ALLEN.

And sure it, is that Saint Crysostome, who succeeded Nectarius, hadmuch a doe to bring the people, made more licentious, by the foresaide graunt, to the distinct numbering of all their sinnes to the priest againe, which he knew to be necessarie by Christes institution: and therefore in exhorting them to Sermon. de poeniten. & confess. confession, he speaketh much of bashfulnes, which the people had in vttering their sinnes, and of feare of vpbraiding such things as they had confessed to the priests, and of comming forth as it were, to a publike stage to open their offences, as the vse was in his predecessors daies. Of all which things and other impediments of confession, this doctor doth discharge the penitents by a warranting of them, that priuate confession, which is made without witnesse, and to him that shall not laie any thing confessed to their charge, or open it to the world, is enough, though the open order vsed before, he counteth the more perfect and better, wherein he saieth, that Iob was not ashamed to confesse his faultes before the worlde, much lesse Christen men should be aboshed to open themselues to God, not meaning so by confession made to god, as though he discharged them of opening their sinnes in the close consistory of the priests iudgement, which he in deede did not, but he meaneth, as the Master first answered, and other schoole men of great and exact iudgement Magister quarto sententiarum. after him, that in steede of publike confession, made in the face of the Church, secret opening to the priest (who occupieth there the seat of God, and therefore would neuer shame him afore men) would serue.

Marie the truth is, that the late libertie that his people was set in through the disordered demeanour of the foresaid Deacon, made this cunning shepheard and expert preacher, so to vse his wordes, as they might winne moste of the worste, and be least offence to the weake. And therefore he speaketh so warelie and indifferentlie, that sometimes he biddeth them confesse to God, and yet with seuerall numbering of euery of their sinnes, and other whiles in the very same sermon, he saieth, at que oportebat maximè apud homines ea dicerc, and yet they should be opened to men, that so they might vnderstand his meaning, and yet not be able to reprehend his words, who were so weake, as I said, and so vsed to libertie, by the loosing of the law in Nectatius daies, that Saint Chrysostome had much a doe to make them submit themselues, and their sinnes, to the pastours of their soules. Wherein, not onelie his great obtestations in the beginning of his sermon, but also his continuall beating on this string, that they should not be confounded nor abashed to vtter their sinnes, prooueth plainlie, that his onelie purpose was, to bring them to confession & penance sacramentall, done by the priestes ministerie For there he chargeth them, that they did not weepe nor lament, which he could not doe rightlie, if those thinges were onelie inwardelie in cogitation & harte to be done. For how could be know, that they did not make confession to man, as we now know that no heretike maketh, confession, neither lamenteth, neither doth penance for his sinnes, because they haue remooued the way of Gods Church, wherebie such things had wont to be done. And by which Christ hath appointed is to be done: Otherwise they will saie, they confesse themselues dailie to God, and so did Saint Chysostomes flocke, I warrant you, but he counted that no sacramentall confessing, except they did it to God by the priestes ministerie, which is the waie of confession, which God hath appointed.

FVLKE.

So sure it is that Saint Chrysostome went about to bring the people to the necessity of auricular cōfession, that it standeth only vpon your owne assurance without any warrant of Chrysostomes wordes, which are cleane contrarie thereunto, euen in that sermon you quote, requiring confession of secret faultes to be made onelie to God, and not to men. Sed confunderis & erubescis peccata tua effari: Atqui oportebat maximè apud homines ea dicere, & inuulgare. Confusio enim est peccare, non est confusio confiteri peccata, nunc autem ne que necessariùm presentibus testibus confusio confiteri: Cogitatione fiat delictorum exquisitio, absque teste sit hoc iudicium. Solus te Deus confitentem videat: Deus qui non exprobat peccata tua, sed soluit peccata propter confusionem. Nunquid & sic grauaris, & retrocedis? verùm & ego scio, quòd conscientia non sustinet sua delicta. But thou art ashamed, and abashed to vtter thy sinnes. Yet thou oughtest moste of all to declare and publish them before men. For it is ashame to sinne, it is no shame to confesse thy sinnes. But now it is neither necessarie to confesse in the presence of witnesses. Let examination of thine offences be made in thought, let this iudgement be without a witnesse, let god only see thee making thy confession, god which casteth not thy sinnes in thy teeth, but too seth thy sinnes for thy shame: what? and arte thou greeued to doe so much, and goest backe? yet I know shy conscience cānot abide her owne offences: These wordes a man would thinke should be plaine enough, against the necessitie of auricular confession, but that you haue found out a moste impudent interpretation of them, to saie that by confessing to God, he meaneth the close consistory of the priests iudgement, who occupieth the seate of God, and of this exposition the Master of the sentences should be author, & other schoolemen should be approouers. Verelie whosoeuer inuented it, or whosoeuer haue alowed it, Chrysostome crieth out plainly, that it is not his meaning, which requireth the examination to be in thought alone, and the iudgement without witnes, which cannot be, if the priest doe heare it. And although he count it greater perfection to make open confession before men, yet he denieth it to be necessarie. Again in his commentarie vpon the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cap. 12. Hom. 30. more plainlie, after he hath exhorted men, to count all their sinnes seuerally, before God, and to make an hartie confession of our vnworthines, he addeth, Non 〈◊〉 tibi vt te prodas in publicum, ne que vt te a pud alios accuses, sed obedire te volo Prophetae dicenti, reuela domino taunt viam. Ante Deum ergo confitere peccata, apud verum iudicem cum oratione delicta tua pronuncia, non lingua, sed conscientiae tuae memoria, & tunc demum spera, misericordiam te posse consequt: sihabueris in mente peccata tua contiuuò, nunquam malum aduersus proximum in corde retinebis. I say not to thee, that thou oughtest to bewraie thy selfe abroad, nor that thou shouldest accuse thy selfe before other men. But I will haue thee obey the Prophet saying, open thy wait before the Lorde. Confesse thy sinnes therefore before God, prononnce thy offences before the true iudge with praier, not with thy tongue, but with rememberance of thy conscience, and then hope that thou maist obteine mercie: if thou shalt haue thy sinnes in minde continuallie, thou shalt neuer reieine euill in thy heart against thy neighbour. We must confesse our selues before the consistorie of that true iudge, where we neede not to pronounce with our tongue, but in our constience, our sinfull state: which is not the close consistorie of popish shrift, where without the tongue, the priest can know nothing. Yet again the same Doctor, vpon the 50. Psal. Hom. 2. writeth moste plainlie. Pecoata tua dictio vt deleas illa: si confunderis elicui dicere, quia peccasti, dicito eaquotide in anima tuas non dico vt confiter 〈◊〉 seruo tuo, vt exprobret: dicito deo, qui curateoe. Haec enim si non dixeris, ignorat ea Deus? nunquid à te vultea 〈◊〉 Cùm faciehas ea, practo erat, cùm admitteres 〈◊〉 are non erubuisti, & confiteri erubescis dicito in 〈◊〉 vs in illa requiem habeas, dicito ingemiscens & lachrimans. Declare thy sinnes, that thou maiest 〈◊〉 them out: if thou be ashamed to declare to any that thou hast sinned, declare them dailie in thine owne soule. I doe not saie that thou oughtest to confesse them to thy fellow seruent, that he may cast thee in the teeth: declare them to God, which doth heale them. For if thou shalt not declare them, is God ignorant of them? Or would he know them by thee? when thou didest them, he was present: when thou didest commit them he knew, Thou waste not ashamed to sinne, and art thou ashamed to confesse? declare thy sinnes in this life, that thou maist haue rest in that life, declare them groning and weeping. With what conscience could the Master of the sentences first, or any man after him, wrest these words of Chrysostome to so contrarie a meaning. But what durst they not doe, which had giuen ouer them selues whollie to mainteine the corrupt customes of the Romish Church, how concrarie soeuer they were, either to the holie scriptures, or to the testimonies of the auncient Doctors: But you haue an inuincible argument to prooue plainlie, that his onelie purpose was to bring men to confession and penance sacramentall, you meane to Popish shrift. For there he chargeth them (saie you) that they did not wcepe, nor lament, nor confesse their sinnes, which he could not doe rightlie, if those thinges were onelie inwardlie in cogitation and heart to be done. For how could he knowthat they did not make confession. Yes, Master Allen, beeing their pastour and ouerseer of their soules, he might know, by their outward, sinfull, and carelesse conuersation, that they did not weepe, nor lament, nor confesse their sinnes before God. For if they did dailie examine themselues, as he chargeth them, they would not haue bene so loose in life as they were, and therefore you haue not so much as obscurelie prooued your purpose, & lest of al that it was Chrysostomes onelie purpose, to driue his people to shrift, which if it had beene a necessarie institution of Christ, as you holde, he would not haue beene so daintie, for any offence of the weake, as you make him, to cal men vnto it, vpon necessitie of saluation. He that feared not openlie to reprehend the Empresse, would he haue beene afraide of the peoples displeasure? No, no, Master Allen, Gods institution, necessarie to saluation, maie not be concealed, though heauen and earth should runne together, about the publishing thereof.

ALLEN.

But whosoeuer list see the moste assured and vndoubted meaning of this holie Father touching confession to apriest, whereon I stand the longer, because our aduersaries would picke quarells with Gods Church vpon certeine particles of his sentence, let him read the second and third booke of the dignitie of priesthoode, where he doth not onelie attribute more dignitie to that order, then to any other creature vnder God, but also maketh the priestes to be as well the iudges as surgeons of our soules, as to whome the searching, the cutting, the burning, the hard griping, the opening or the closing of Lib. 2. de sacerdotie our woundes and sores of conscience, doth apperteine. In all which cases he saith. Quî igitur phramacum ei morbo adhibere quis possit, cuius genus nequaquam intelligat? How should a man salue that sore, the nature and kinde whereof he knoweth not? and to know it without confession of the partie, is not possible. For the things within a man none knoweth, but the spirit, which is in man. And truelie said the Countie Bonifacius to Saint Augustine: Ipse sibi denegat curam, qui suam Epist. 188. medico non publicat causam: He hindereth his owne health, that will not vtter his disease and the cause thereof to his Phisitian. And further if you will be assured of the said Chrysostomes minde, touching confession, read his exposition vpon the wordes of the institution of this sacrament, and of Christes breathing the holie Ghost vpon his Disciples, for their Super. 20. Ioannis. power to remit sinnes. Where he declareth, that these holie things committed to the priests charge, doe properlie apperteine to God, by whose speciall grace we obteine remission, euen then, when the priest doth absolue vs: where he also expresseth the verie manner of the Church, in giuing absolution, till this daie, saying: that the priest doth but, as you would saie, lende his voice, and his hande: Signifiyng, that the manner was then, as it is yet, to speake the wordes of absolution, and laie the hande vpon the penitents heade, in the sacrament of penance. So in sense saith Saint Chrysostome.

FVLKE.

Whosoeuer list to read that booke, shall finde nothing in the worlde, to prooue his iudgement, for the necessitie of auricular confession, but rather who so list to see Chrysostomes iudgement of the necessitie of shrift, let him consider what we haue cited out of his writings in the last section. For in this place by you cited, he speaketh not of confession, but of the difficulty of a Priests office, as I haue shewed before, to exact more knowledge, and diligence of them, because it is harder to be a shepheard of men, then of beastes. For the diseases of beastes maie moste commonlie be seene, and they compelled to take the remedie: the diseases of men are harde, and sometimes impossible to be knowne, and no waie either to compell men to discouer them, or to receiue medicine for them. Whereas, if confession were a necessarie institu tion of God, he might haue aptlie brought it forth in this place, to shew what waie the spirituall shephearde hath, to vnderstand the diseases of his sheepe. His wordes are these, after he hath spoken of the bodelie shephearde and his sheepe. But the diseases of man first it is not easie for a man to see. For no man knoweth those things that perteine to man, but the spirit of man which is within him. How wherefore should a man vse a medicine for that disease, the manner whereof he knoweth not: yea manie times he cannot know whether a man be sicke. But when that is made manifest, he hath more dissicultie about him. For he can not heale all men, with so great power, as the shephearde doth his sheepe. For there he may binde him, restraine him of meate, burne him, cut him. But here the power to receiue health, lieth not in him that offereth the medicine, but in the sicke person. For this that wonderfull man saw, when he saide to the Corinthians, not that we are Lordes of your faith, but we are helpers of your ioye. And moste of all it is not required in Christians by force to reforme the transgressions of them that sinne. But the forreine iudges when they take malefactors vnder the lawes, doe shew great power ouer them, and restreine them, against their will, to vse the same manners. But here not by compulsion, but by perswasion, we must make such a one better: for there is no such power giuen vs by the laws to restreine sinnes, neither if the lawes gaue such power, haue we where to vse it, seeing God crowneth not them which of necessitie abstaine from wickednes, but them that voluntaryly refraine from it. Therfore there is neede of great cunning, that they which are sicke may be perswaded willingly to submit themselues vnto the healing of the Priestes. Thus much Chrysostome, nothing fauouring the necessitie of auricular confession, but rather denying any means, wherby the inward disease of a man may be knowne, except it be by voluntarie & not extorted cōfession. The countie Boniface speaketh of a publike fact, which he cōmitted in taking a mā by force out of the Church, for which he was suspended by S. Augustine, vntil he did acknowledge his fault, and shew him selfe penitent. Therefore his saying can not be drawne to the necessitie of auricular shrift. Neither doth Chrisostome, vpon the 20. of Iohn, declare anie iudgement or opinion, that he thought it necessarie, for a man to shriue himselfe to a Priest. And where you vrge his wordes, that the Priest doth lend his voice and his hands, it is to farre of to prooue, that it is necessarie for euery man to confesse al his secret faults to a Priest. But I will set downe all that he saith, in that place, least anie man which hath not, or can not vnderstand the booke, may suspect there is further matter contained thererein, toward this purpose then in deed there is. Magna enim dignit as sacerdotum, Quorumoun que , &c. For great is the dignitie of Priestes. Whose sinnes you shall remit, saith he, they are remitted. Wherefore Paule saide, Obey your gouernours, and be subiect to them, that you maie doe them the greatest honour. For thou lookest to thine owne matter, which if thou hast well ordered, there is none other charge laide vpon the. The priest, if he doe dispose his owne life, and haue not diligentlie cared for thine, he shall be thrust with the vngodlie into 〈◊〉 : and sometime he is not damned for his owne deedes, but for ours, except he doe all things that perteine vnto him. Therefore seing you see the greatnes of the daunger, embrace them with much beneuocence: which Paule also signified saying, They doe watch, as those which shall giue an account of your soules, and therefore they are much to be looued. But if you shal insult against them, you shal not dispose your own things wel. For so long as the master of the ship is of good & cheereful minde, the Mariners also are in quiet. But if he begin to be hated of thē, & to be greeued, he cannot likwise watch, nor exercise his cunning & being greeued against his will, he shall trouble them with manie euills. Euen so the priest if he shall see, that the reuerence due to him is performed by vs, he shall be able to gouerne vs well. But if you shall kill him weakning his handes, although he be of neuer so great courage, you shall cast him into the waues together with your selues. Vnderstād what Christ saith of the Iewes, Vpon the chaire of Moses the Scribes and Pharisies did sit, do ye all things whatsoeuer they shall saie to you. Now we must not saie the priestes are set vpon the chaire of Moses, but vpon the chaire of Christ: for they haue receiued his doctrine: wherefore Paul saith, we are embassadours for Chist, as though Christ did exhore by vs: Doe ye not se that all men are subiect to the Princes of the worlde, and that often times the worse in birthe, life, and wisdome, are preferred before the better: Neuerthelesse, men consider the reuerence of the Prince that hath preferred them, not the persons whatsoeuer they be. so that if man appoint one ouer vs, there is so great feare: if God haue appointed anie man, we despise him, 〈◊〉 on him, and vexe him with innumerable contumelies: and whereas we are forbidden to iudge our breethren, we whet our tongues against the priests. Of what excuse are these thinges worthie, when we se not a beame in our owne eye, and iudge so seuerelse, a mote in our neighbours eye? Doest thou not know, that thou prescribest to thy selfe a more heauie iudgement, when thou so iudgest another? This I saie, not that I allowe vnworthie persons to be taken into the priestes office, but hauing compassion and weeping: For they are not therefore to be iudged by their subiects, although they liue euillie, and vitiouslie. But if thou looke well to thy selfe: thou shalt not affend end in anie'thing that is committed to them. For if he made an Asse to speake, and gaue spirituall blessinges by a southsayer, and wrought in a dumbe mouth, and the vncleane tongue of Balaam, for the stumbling Iewes: much more for you that be faithfull, although the priests be naught, God shall persorme all thinges by them, and send his holie spirite: for a pure minde doeth not therefore loose his purenes, but grace worketh all things. for all are yours, saith he, whether it be Paule or Apollo, or Cephas. For whatsoeuer the priest goeth about, it is the gift of God alone, and when he exerciseth mans wisdome, his grace appeereth lesse. Neither doe I saie this, that we might liue more slouthfullie, but least while they that are set ouer you liue slouthfullie, you that are committed to them, should at anie time procure euill to your selues. And what speak I of the Priest? Neither an Angell, nor an Archangell can bring anie thing to passe, in those thinges which are giuen by God. But the father, the sonne, and the holie ghost, doeth all things. The priest giueth his tongue, and his handes, for it is not iust, that for malice of an other man, they that come to our saluation should be offended. All which thinges considered, let vs both seare God, and greatlie reuerence his priestes, that honour being giuen both to our workes, and to them, we maie receiue great reward of God, by the grace and goodnes of our Lorde Iesus Christ, to whome with the father and the holie ghost be glorie for euer, and euer. Amen. These wordes of Chrisostome declare that the ministration of the worde and of the sacraments, in which the Priest lendeth his tongue, and his handes, are not defiled by the euill life of the Priest, so he sit in the chaire of Christ & preach the doctrine receiued by him, confirming the same by the sacrament of his institution. But of the popish sacrament of penance, or auricular confession, they speake nothing at all. Contrariwise they shewe by what meanes the Priestes doe execute the authoritie graunted them in remission of sinnes, namelie in the whole office of their ministerie, consisting principallie in preaching and ministring the sacraments, not in giuing priuate absolution, onelie, or principallie.

ALLEN.

But to leaue him, and fall to other of great antiquitie and learning, whose iudgements also will prooue, not onelie for the trueth of his doctrine, but also (which is much more) for the vniformitie of this open Ceremonie, which the Church of olde vsed, and therefore in the like trueth of thinges, yet keepeth: Theodoritus therefore, a Greeke author also, doth plainelie Diuinorum decret. Epi. cap. de poeniten. insinuate not onelie the whole sacrameut, but euen this Ceremonie of laying on handes in the acte of absolution. Sunt medicabilia (saith he) etiam quae post baptismum fiunt vulnera: medicabilia autem, non 〈◊〉 olim per solam fidem data remissione, sed per multas lachrymas, & fletus, & iciunium, & orationem, & laborem facti peccati quantitate moderatum. Quienim non sic affecti sunt, eos nec admittere quidem didicimus, nee diuina sunt manu impertienda. Nolite, inquit, dare sanctum canibus nec margaritas porcis. The woundes which are made euen after Baptisme, be to be healed: marie they cannot be remedied, as before in Baptisme, by remission obteyned by onelie faith, but they must nowe be cured by teares and weeping, by fasting and praying, and by penance measured after the quantitie and nature of the fault. For whosoeuer be not so qualified, we haue not learned to receiue them to grace, neither be the holie giftes to be bestowed vpon them, by our hand. Giue not, saieth he, holie thinges to dogges, nor precious stones to swine. Thus doth Theodoritus allude also to our manner yet vsed in the sacrament, where remission is giuen by the priestes worde, and hand. For which cause Saint Aogustine calleth this sacrament of reconciliation, sometimes, Imposition of hands, as he doth other sacraments moe also, where the priests, by this externall Ceremonie of laying on of handes, vse to giue grace,

FVLKE.

Theodoret which liued so long after confession was abrogated by Nectarius in the Greeke Church, speaketh nothing for it, but that repentance muste best be testified by manie teares, & weeping, fasting and praier, and such like labour, moderated according to the quantitie of the sinne committed, otherwise they are not to be admitted into the Church, nor to be made partakers of the holie communion. So that he speaketh of them, that for grieuous sinnes are excommunicated, whoe are not to be receiued but vpon their hartie repentance, nor the diuine mysteries to be deliuered vnto them. Wherefore there is no allusion in his wordes vnto the popish manner of absolution, with the worde and hande. For he speaketh of admission and deliuerie, with the hande. Which must be vnderstoode of them that were excluded, and debarred from receiuing, which are accounted dogges, and hogges. For I hope you account not all sinners, for dogges and hogges, before they be shriuen, if they be not by the sword of excommunication cut of from the Church. But Saint Augustine, as you saie, calleth this your sacrament, Imposition of handes. If you meane the place De bapt. contr. Donatistas lib. quinto, cap 20. Because there is no eight booke, whereunto your margent sendeth vs, he speaketh in deede of them, on whome handes are laide, which maie be them that are confirmed, or ordained to the ministerie of the Church, as well as of anie other, on whome handes were laide: but of the sacrament of penance, he speaketh not there or else where, in all his workes, nor of the necessitie of confessing of secret sinnes to a Priest.

ALLEN.

But to go forward in our matter, Saint Basill a greeke writer also, doth euidentlie shewe both his meaning, and his Churches practise, touching confession, both often els, & namelie Quaest. 288. regula conera. where he saith, vpon the occasion of a question mooued touching that matter, thus: Necessarium est, vt iis fiat confessio peccatorum, quibus dispensatio mysteriorum Dei 〈◊〉 est. Nam & hoc pacto qui olim inter sanctos poenitentiam egerunt, fecisse reperiuntur. It is necessarie (saith he) that our confession should be made to them, to whom God hath credited the disposing, & bestowing of his holy mysteries. For so the Saints did penance, as we reade. And he alledgeth more, that penance was vsed, & speciall sorowfulnes for sinnes with some kinde of confession of sinnes in baptisme, how much more then must we now vse the same, where it is more required, & where Christ hath instituted a Sacrament to that end, to remit suines committed by relapse after Baptisme.

And in deed the custome of Iohn the Baptist prooueth that there was a kinde of confession necessarie, or at the least conuenient, Mat. 3. & Mar. 1. before the institution of this Sacrament. For the Euangelisten doe saie: Baptizabantur ab eo in Iordane, confitentes peccata sua: Men were baptized of him in Iordane, and made confession of their sinnes. So that Iohn maie seeme to haue prepared the waie to Christes doctrine and Sacraments, not onely by his baptisme but also by the vsing of the people to confess their faultes: and yet it is not necessarie that his vsage of penance should be of like force, or shoulde containe an exact conconfession of euerie sinne, as the institution of Christ afterward did include, no more then this Baptisme maie be thought to be fullie answerable, either in manner of vsage, or force and efficacie, to the holie sacrament of Baptisme by Christ instituted, for the office of the newe lawe. And in an other place the saide S. Basill treateth how young Nuns and holie sacred Quaest. 110. Virgens should confesse themselues. And in an other place he admonisheth all men to be circumspect in choice of their ghostlie father, by whose sentence sinnes ought with singuler discretion to be iudged or examined. Whereby it is most manifest, that confession to the priestes was vsed, and counted necessarie in his daies.

FVLKE.

You saie well that S. Basill speaketh vpon occasion of a question that was mooued touching this matter, which question if it had pleased you to set downe, Saint Basill shoulde haue serued you for no shew or colour, of the necessitie of shrifte, or confession of priuate offences. The question is this O 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He that is willing to confesse his sinnes, whether ought be to confesse them to all men, whatsoeuer they be, or to certain men. By which question it is manifest that cōfession was not necessary but voluntarie. But if anie man will make confession, S. Basill saith, he ought to do it to them, to whome the dispensation of Gods mysteries is committed. For so they which repented of olde time, are found to haue done, vnto the holie men: for it is written in the Gospell, that they confessea' their sins to Iohn the Baptist: & in the Actes of the Apostles, all men confessed to them, by whome they were baptized. And we acknowledge as much, that if any man will confesse his secret sinnes, to be partaker of spirituall counsell, and comfort, for quieting of his conscience, he may & ought to confesse the same to them to whome the dispensation of Gods mysteries are committed. But what is this for the necessitie of enumeration of all sinnes vnto a priest. The same Basill in the Hom. 21. vpon Psal. 37. acknowledgeth in the person of Dauid, confession to God alone to be sufficient, yea the secret groning of the heart, without moouing of lippes, or vttering anie wordes, to suffice. In the 110. question, for which you haue placed question the 100. as there is somewhat to prooue that confession was vsed to the priest or Elder, so there is nothing to prooue, that it was counted necessarie in his daies. The question is this, whether as at such time a sister maketh confession to an Elder, the Elder women must be present. This question declareth, that priestes had not such familiar and secret shriuing of virgines in those daies, as they haue now among the papists. S. Basils answer is this. The confession shal be made more decentlie, and more reuerentlie, by the Elder woman vnto the Elder man, which is able wiselie to set downe the forme of repentance & reformation. This answer declareth that Saint Basell would not haue yong women to shriue them selues at all, vnto the Priest, but that if anie thing troubled their conscience, which they were disirous to vtter, they should first expresse it to an auncient woman, and she should make report thereof to the Priest, as in the colledges of virgines he prescribeth it moste conuenient, to be done by the matrone or Elder woman, that had the ouersight of the yonge sisters: and in the next question he affirmeth, that the said Elder woman, or gouernesse hath iust cause to be angrie with the Priest, if he appoint anie thing to be done by the sisters, that are vnder her charge, without her knoweledge. Whereby he declareth plainelie that he alloweth not that priestes should heare the secret confession of such yonge women, or appoint them anie penance, without the knowledge of their gouernesse. That men ought to make good choise of them to whome they wil confesse their secret offences, it prooueth not that confession is necessarie, whereupon we stand, or that it was accounted necessarie in Saint Basills daies. That Iohn Baptist made a preparatiō to shrift, it is a fond dreame, when you your selfe acknowledge, that your sacrament hath no place in them that are not babtized. That the institution of Christ doth include an exact confession of euerie sinne to the Priest, you can neuer be able to prooue. The Baptisme of Iohn was not instituted by man but by God: therefore of as great efficacie, as that which was ministered by the Apostles: for Christ was baptized for vs, not with the worse baptisme which was ministered by the hands of Iohn.

ALLEN.

Necephorus later then he, but a learned Greeke writer, declareth also vnto Theodosius a Monke, that the power of Niceph. 〈◊〉 cartophilax ad Theodos. binding and loosing sinnes was committed to bishoppes, by our mercifull Lord Christ Iesus, in so much (saith he) that once all men came and confessed their secret sinnes to them, by whom they either receued pardon, or were put backe. But now through the encrease of Christian people, and great tediousnes of the worke, they haue committed this busines much what to religious persons, such as be of tried conditions, for to be moste profitable to others. Thus saith he in sense.

FVLKE.

This Nicephorus is too late a Greeke writer, that we should approoue his iudgement, for the necessitie or perpetuall practise of auricular confession. Againe there is nothing but a fragment of an Epistle remaining, by which we cannot thoroughlie gather what his iudgement was. But this is manifest in him, that men ought no more to confesse them selues to an vnlearned man, then in sicknes to take counsell of one that is ignorant in phisike. Againe he saith not (as you report,) that once al men came, & confessed their sinnes to Bishopes. But he gathered vpon the commission graunted to Bishoppes, by those wordes, which were spoken to Peter, whatsoeuer thou shalt binde, shalbe bound, and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose, shalbe loosed: that olim omnes oportehat ad ipsos pontifices accedere, suaque illis occulta prodere, & sic vel reconciliationem, vel repudium ferre. Ignoro autem quî factum sit, cur haec minùs obseruentur, quamuis existmem pontifices negocij taedio frequenti que 〈◊〉 turbulentia defatigatos id operae ad Monachos transmisisse, eos scilicet qui verè probati sint aliis que valeant esse vtiles: nihil enim tale inexpertis & indoctis permiserunt. In times past it behoued all men to come to the bishoppes them selues, & to vtter their secretes vnto them, and so to receiue either reconciliation or refusall. But I am ignorant how it is come to passe that these thinges are not obserued, although I thinke that the Bishoppes being wearied by the tediousnes of the busines and the often troublesomenes of the multitude, haue set ouer that labour to the monkes, namelie those that are trulie appooued, and are able to be profitable vnto other: for to vnexpert and vnlearned men they haue permitted no such thing. In this writer there is nothing, but his owne collection and coniecture, which is not sufficient to 〈◊〉 mens consciences with a necessity of confessing all their secret sinnes to a Bishoppe or Monke, and lest of all to an ignorant and vnlearned priest, such as are and haue bene the moste rife, and readie confessors among the papists.

ALLEN.

These therfore and manie other do testifie for their Church, in what solemne vse sacramentall confession hath euer beene. Wherein we haue the lesse need to stand long, seeing the same Historie that our aduersaries doe sometime alledge, plainlie reporteth, not onelie in the Church of Constantinople, but also in the West Churches, and namelie at Rome, alwaies since Nouatus the Heretikes false opinion touching penance rose, a vertuous Priest, sadde, secret, and wise, was appointed to heare the sinnes of all men, and was called the Pnitentiarie then, as he and the like of that office he called yet. We call them Confessours, and of olde in Greeke, they were named Spirituall Masters or Fathers, as we now terme them in our Mother tongue, Ghostlie Fathers also, Quisecundùm vniuscuiusque culpam indicebant & mulctans. Who (saith Sozomenus) according to euerie mans fault, prescribed due penance. Which penance though it were often openlie done by the confessours appointment: yet the sinnes were not knowne, for which the penance was preseribed. For the confession was secret or auricular, as we call it now, as is plaine by the historie (else the Priest of that office should not haue beene charged with secrecie and silence) though the confession sometimes was also open, where the penitents deuotion or desire so required, as it maie be yet. For it is no matter for the substance of the sacrament, whether it be publike or priuate. And it is the condiscending to the peoples weakenesse, that, that should be so secret generallie, which often in olde time hath beene open. And yet I think no man was euer compelled by anie precept of the Church, to confesse in the publike face of the Church his sinnes that were committed secretlie. Though in Leo the greathis daies, there was a custome not allowable, that men Epist. ad Episc. Pice ni & Campaniae. were forced to giue vp a libell openlie of all their sinnes. Which rigorous custome, the said holie father afterward abrogated. Neuerthelesse the penance was of olde often publike, the forme whereof appeareth in Saint Ambrose, in Tertullian, who both Poenitētes. haue written seuerall bookes De poenitentia, in Saint Augustine in sundrie places, and in this present Historie of Sozomenus. And long after their daies there were called Poenitentes, Penitents, which were barred from the holie communion, & the secrets & soueraigne holie of the blessed mysteries of the Masse, so long as their prescribed penance indured, besides fasting, almes, and other like penalties inioyed And especially in Lent time, there were of these deuout publike penitentes, as appeereth by diuerse orders of the seruice in the Church, appointed & agreeing to them, who lightly were separated till the celebrating of the Lords supper & passion, in the holie daies next before Easter. Whereof yet in most Churches there remaineth a small signe, by discipline giuen to the people with roddes on the same daies. But now these manie yeares, the peoples feablenes considered, there is no publike penance giuen nor receiued in the Sacrament, much lesse open confession made of anie secret crimes, the Church being well assured, that this auricular confession sullie answereth Christes institution, and agreeth also with the often practise of the Primitiue Church herein, though the heretikes, and some of their faulters, as Beatus Rhenanus, or who else soeuer wrot the preface, that commonlie 〈◊〉 annexed to Tertullian, denie the same. And truly, seeing their wanton pleasure is, not to beare secret confession, I dare saie, they can much lesse awaie with publike penance or confession, which is a thousand times more burdenous.

FVLKE.

There hath hitherto no ancient writer bin brought, to testifie the necessitie of confession of secret sinnes, nor that there is anie sacrament, whereof such confession should be part. The storie before remembred testifieth of the abolishing of such confession in the Church of Constantinople, but that there was anie such Priest, or confession vsed in the Church of Rome, it maketh no mention, but onelie sheweth that they which did open penance, which was for open offences, for which they were excommunicated, were enioyned an exercise or triall, after the performance whereof they were receiued into the Church againe. As you thinke, that no man for his sinnes committed secretlie, was compelled to make confession in the publike face of the Church, so doe I thinke, that no man in those auncient and better times was euer compelled to make anie confession open, or secret, of all his secret faultes committed in thought, word, and deede. The publike penance mentioned in Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, was for publike offences. The ridiculous discipline giuen with rodds in the popish Church, by the verie name therof declareth, that it is a mockery of the old discipline, & no signe of anie sacrament of confession. And therfore as yet, nothing is brought to prooue auricular confessing of secret sinnes, to be a necessary institution of Christ, or agreeable with the practise of the Primitiue Church, or to disprooue Beatus Rhenanus, which denieth the same, accusing both the noueltie, and and the tyranie thereof, and the danger that mens consciences haue beene in through it, beside manie other knowne inconueniences.

ALLEN.

But now if you conferre with the Fathers of all ages and of euerie notable Church, touching this confession to Gods Priests, you may beginne if you list, euen at this daie, and driue vp both the trueth of the doctrine, and the perpetuall practise thereof, euen to the Apostles time. In the late holie Council holden at Trent, both the doctrine is confirmed, and declared Sess. 14. Cap. 5. de Confess. c. 3. & 6. with all grauitie, and also the aduersaries of that sacrament, and the misconstructers of Christes wordes of remission, to pertaine to preaching of the Gospell, & not to the verie act of absolution, be by the consent of all Catholike states of the Christian world, accursed & excommunicated. It was at Furence also decreed De Sacrament. Poeniten. in a most generall assemblie of both the Latine and Greek Church that as wel the whol sacrament of penance, as that especiall part which is called confession, was of Christes institution. In the great councell holden at Lateran, there is so plaine charge giuen to euerie Christian to confesse his sinnes, either to Can. 21. Omnis 〈◊〉 ; sexus. his owne ordinarie Parochian, or to some other Priest, that hath by him, or otherwise, authoritie and iurisdiction ouer the penitent, that Protestantes affirme, albeit verie false'y, that confession was first instituted in the said Councel: and this was more then three hundred yeares since. And foure hundred yeares before that in a Prouinciall Councell that was kept at Can. 7. Vormacia, there is a Canon made concerning the qualities of the priests, that are constituted to be confessours and Penitentiaries, where it is commaunded, that they be such. Qui possunt singulorum causas, originem quoque, & modum culparum sigillatim considerare & examinare, That can particularlie trie out and examine the causes of euerie offender, the manner and ground of their faultes.

FVLKE.

We are so well accquainted with your often bragges of Fathers, and Councells, that we neuer start for them: seeing we knowe, you haue nothing, but the drosse of the latter times, to cast at vs. For the Councell of Trentes decree, we esteeme it, as it is worthie, being made by a few buckeram Bishoppes of Italie, and some other Epicurian prelates of other countries to patch vp, rather then to repaire the ruines and decaies of the kingdome of Antichrist. In the late Councel of Florence, I remember nothing decreed of this matter, neither doe you note, where we should finde it. In the Lateran Councell, that was kept litle more then 300. yeares since, the Protestantes doe trulie affirme, that the necessitie of auricular confession was first imposed vpon men, of the Romish Church. For in the councell of Wormes, which you saie was 400 yeares elder, there is neuer a word of confession, or confessor, but of wife consideration to be had of them that did penance, by which are ment open offenders, that did open pennance: neither are you able to prooue the contrarie. Paenitentibue (saith the Canon) serundum differentiam peccatorum, &c. To the penitents or such as doe penance, let penance be decreed by the iudgement of the Priest, according to the difference of their sinnes. Therefore in giuing penance the Priest ought seuerallie to consider the causer of euerie one, the beginning also & manner of the faulies, and diligentlie to examine and manifestlie to know the affection and sighings of the offenders, also to consider the qualities of the times, & persons, of the places, & ages: that according to the consideration of the places, ages, or times, or according to the qualitie of the offences, & the groning of euery offendor, he turne not his eies from the holie rules. Thus sarre the Canon, after which follow the rules of penance to be apointed for diuers kindes of offences: as for him that hath killed a Priest, a pagane, his parents, or brother or for him that hath slain a man in his madnes, or against his will, and such like, whereby it appeereth that the Canon was made for penance to be enioyned to publike offenders, and not to compell men to confesse their secret sinnes.

ALLEN.

Which decree is borowed word for word almoste, out of the last Canon of Constantinople Councell, called the sixth generall, Can. 102. which was long before all the forsaid Synodes. Their discourse is long vpon the Priestes dutie, which shoulde sitte on confessions, whome they instruct by these wordes: Oportebit, qui facultatem absoluendi & ligandi à Deo receperunt, peccati qualitatem speculentur, & peccatoris promptitudinem ad reuersionem, vt sic medicamentum admoueant aegritudini aptum, ne si de peccato sine discrimine statuant, aberrent à salute aegrotantis. Those that haue receiued of our Lorde power to loose and binde, must trie out the qualitie of euerie fault, and the readines of the offender to returne vnto vertue, that they maie prouide a medicine meet to the maladie, lest if they should without distinct knowledge of their sinne giue iudgement, they should erre in poruiding health for the sicke person. By which Councell kept in Constantinople, you maie easelie gather, that neither confession was euer omitted by the lawe, nor the common Penitentiarie long abrogated out of Constaninople Church. And when I name these decrees of so manie generall Councels in diu rfe ages, I do not onelie call them generallie to witnesse for my cause, which were inough, seeing euerie determination there, passeth as by the sentence of the holie Ghoste and Christes owne iudgement, of whose presence such hotie assemblance is assured, but I appeale to eueric holy Bishop, Priest, and Prince of the world, that agreed to the same, and were there assembled, euerie of which was of more experience, learning, and vertue, or at the least of more humilitie, then all our aduersaries aliue. But now if you go to trie other the learned writers of all times, for the practize of this point, then our labour shall be infinite, but our cause more strong, and 〈◊〉 aduersaries sooner confounded. I need not for that practize, name the learned schoolemem, of excellent capacitie in deepe mysteries, because they were so late, and because Heretikes can not denie, but they are all vndoubtedlie against them, and euerie one for vs: Thomas Aquinas is ours, Dionysius is ours, I meane the Carthusian. If anie man doubt of Saint Bernard, let him reade the life of Malachie, whome he praiseth sor bringing into vre the most profitable vse of confession, In vitam Malach. Super 5. ca. Iacob. in the rude partes of Ireland. Saint Bede is prooued before, not onelie to haue allowed confession to the Priest, but to haue expounded Saint Iames wordes of confession for the sacrament of pennance, and vttering our sinnes to Gods Ministers. And he recordeth that in our Countrie of England, before his daies, confession was vsed to a Priest. Whereof, as also os pennance and satisfaction, there is an example or two in the fourth booke of his ecclesiasticall historie of our Church.

FVLKE.

The decree of the Constantinopolitan councell in sense is the same with the former, but not word for word, nay, almoste it hath neuer a word alike. But it is to be vnderstood of publike penitentes, to be bounde, or loosed according to their qualitie of the offence & the greatnes of their repentance. The words are these. It behoueth that they which haue receiued of god the power of loosing and binding, consider the qualitie of the sinne, and the readines of the sinner vnto returning, that so they maie vse a medicine fit for the disease, lest if they should determine of sinne without difference, they should erre from the health of the sick person. For the disease of sinne is not simple, but diuerse and of manie formes, and budding vp with manie hurtfull branches, by which the euill is spred farre and wide, and creepeth so farre, vntill at length it withstandeth the vertue of that which healeth. Therefore he that will shew what skill he hath in the spirituall art of healing, must diligentlie search out, how he that hath sinned is affected, whether he incline vnto health, or contrariwise, by those manners to which he is familiarlie accustomed, prouoke the diseased to looke against him, and whether he by him-selfe obeyeth his Master or whether the sore of the minde doth encrease by medicins that are laid to it: and so mercie is to be bestowed by equall measure. For there is great regarde both with God, and with the gouernour of this pastorall care, to bring home the wandring sheepe, and to heale it being wounded by the serpent, and neither to thrust it downe by the hedlonges of desperation, nor to loose the raines vnto dissolution of life, and contempt, but by all meanes as well by sharp medicines as by gentle, to withstand and striue, that the sore maie be healed, that he which knoweth the fruites of repentance, maie wiselie gouerne the man, being called vnto that heauenlie glorie. Therefore he ought to know both kindes of medicines, as well them that be of rigor, as them that be of pittie, and not to follow them, which haue taken in hand onelie the vpper face of figures that are deliuered as Saint Basill hath taught vs. In this Canon there is no worde of confession, or whereby the necessitie of confession maie be inferred vpon all men for their secret offences. Neither can it be prooued that the penitentiarie priest once abrogated by Nectarius was euer restored. The schoolmes opinion we are no more bound to follow in this, then in other pointes of poperie. Saint Bernard alloweth in deede confession made vnto the Priests, and ministers of God, but the necessitie thereof he doth not laie as a clogge on mens consciences. The like I saie of S. Bede, who in the booke and Chapter by you quoted, speaketh of one Adamanus a scot, who hauing committed some great wickednes in his youth, when he considered the greeuosnes of his fact, was in great distrust of minde: and comming to a priest, of whome he hoped that the waie of saluation might be shewed vnto him, he confessed his guiltines, and desired him to giue him counsell how he might auoid the wrath of God that was to come. After this manner to come to confession, we denie not, but it is most expedient for them that are not quiered in conscience but that al men are bound by this or any other example, to make a perticuler rehersall of their sinnes to a priest, before they can haue remission, Beda neither here, nor els where teacheth.

ALLEN.

Before him, S. Gregorie, so well liketh and knoweth this practize of sacramentall confession, that in his Pastorll, he Cap. 15. In Pastorall Gregorij. prescribeth the Priests of Gods Ghurch, manie waies how to seeke out the diseases of their peoples soules, and according to the varietie of the same, to admit or put backe, to pardon or to punish: yea so plaine he is in this matter, that he De Poen. dist. 6. Cap. de Sacer. 5. chargeth the Priest to be exceeding grieuoslie punished, that in anie case shall vtter the Penitentes confession or anie parte thereof. Againe farre aboue these, holy Leo the great amending the hard custome that in some places of Italie Epist. 80. & Campania, was vsed, touching publike confession of priuat sins, he saieth: Reatus conscientiarum sussiciat solis sacerdotib? indicari, confessione secreta. Quamuis enim plenitudo fidei videtur esse laudabilis, que propter Dei timorem apud homines Vide eundē ad Theo. dor. Iuli. 〈◊〉 . eruhescere non veretur, tamen quia non omnium huiusmodi suntpeccata, vt velint in poenitentiam ed publicari, remoueatur tam improbabilis cohsuetudo, ne multi à poenitentiae remedijs arceantur, dum aut erubescunt, aut metuunt 〈◊〉 sais facta suareserare, quibus possint legum constitutione per elli. Sufficit enim illa confessio, quae primùm Deo offertur, tunc 〈◊〉 saccrdoti, qui pro debitis confitentium precator accedit. Tunc enim demum piures ad poenitentiam potuerunt prouocari si populi auribus non publicetur conscientia confitentis. It is enough, that the guilt & offences of mans conscience be opened to the Priests alone in secret confession. For though the foruour of faith be verie laudable, which is content for Gods sake to be ashamed before men, yet because the sinnes of euerie man be not such, that the penitent would gladlie vtter openlie, let so raprobale custome be abolished, lest manie be holden from the remedies of penāce, whiles either they are ashamed, or feare to open their deedes to their enimes, by whom they might by order of law be punished. For that confession is sufficient, which is made first to God, and then to the Priest also, who will be an intercessour for the sinnes of them that confesse. For then might moe be prouoked to penance, if the secret conscience of the confessed be not published to the eares of the people. Thus saith Saint Leo, a man of that time and credit, as our aduersaries would wish. Let them saie now, that priuat confession began in the Lateran Councell, because that thing which euer was counted and vsed as necessarie, was there decreed for the amending of the peoples sloth, to be done euerie yeare once at the lest, before they receiued the blessed sacrament. As truly maie they saie, that the Euchariste and receiuing thereof, was begune in the same Councell, & by the verie same Canon. For as there is charge, that euerie man should be confessed, so there is commaundement giuen, that euerie man shall receiue once a yeare the blessed Sacrament. So litle care they haue, what they saie, so that they saie enough to beguile them, that can skil of nothing.

FVLKE.

Yf Saint Gregorie in his pastorall or els where, had written any thing that might but make a face of the necessitie of auricular confession, you would haue set downe some parte of his wordes, or at least quoted the booke, and Chapter: where we might finde them: but in trueth there is no such matter in all that worke conteining three partes and many Chapters, but he teacheth the behauiour of a pastour and preacher towardes alkindes of persons, both in his life, and in his doctrine: of auricular confession neuer a worde. Therefore you fly to Gratians decres, where Gregory in deed is cited for such a matter, but which Gregorie, it doth not appeare, therefore it is more like to be one of the later Gregories, then Gregorie the first: in whose workes long enough you can not shew that sentence: and where you saie, the priest may not in any case vtter the penitents confession, the glosse vpon the text is against you, who holdeth that he may lawfullie reueal it, to auoide excommunication, if the Bishop shall excommunicate all them that are priuie of such a fact. But Leo in deede speaketh of auricular confession, or at the least of confession made onelie to the priests, not vrging it as necessarie to saluation, nor requiring an exact numbering of euerie mortall sinne, as the Papists doe, which be the matters we stand vpon, and not whether it be lawfull for men to confesse their offences to their pastour, which we thinke to be moste expedient for them that are troubled in minde, about them, but not necesrie for all men, nor for all sinnes. The time and credit of Leo, although it be of better account then of his successours, yet it is not such, as wee would wish. For the time had manie corruptions and superstitions: the person was ouer careful to mainteine the dignitie of his sea, which by litle and litle after him was turned into the seat of Antichrist, and therefore his ambition was controlled by the generall councell of Chalcedon, which made the Bishop of Constantinople his equall in all primacie of honour and authoritie, although he by his Legates would haue withstoode it: but in vaine: for all the Bishops allowed it, except Lucentius and Pascasius his deputies. We may still saie that the necessitie of auricular confession came first from the Lateran Councel, for before it, you cannot prooue that it was inioyned vpon necessitie, although it was vsed voluntarily, and thought of some verie conuenient.

ALLEN.

But to holde on vpward, holie Prosper giueth good euidence for his time, touching the practize of Confession, and needefull recourse to Priests for the release of their sinnes. De vita con tempt. Sundrie remedies he sheweth for euerie sore of mans soule, and much he mooueth al Christians to confesse their sinnes, aduertising them of the daunger thereof, if they keepe them close. Thus he saith: Illi, quorum peccata humanam notitiam latent, nec ab ipsis confessa, nec ab 〈◊〉 publicata, si ea confiteri aut emendare noluerint, deum quem habent testem, ipsum habituri sunt & vltorem. Et quid eis prodest, humanum vitare iudicium, cùm si in malo suo permanserint, ituri sunt in aeternum 〈◊〉 retribuente supplicium? That is to saie, Those men, whose sinnes be secret, and be not confessed of themselues, nor lib. 2. c. 7. published by other men, if they will not confesse them or correct them, they shall haue God their iust reuenger, whome they haue now a record of their wickednes. And what are they the better to escape mans verdict, when, if they continue in wickednes, by the iust iudgement of God they shall goe into euerlasting punishment? And afterwarde in the same Chapter, which is exceeding much to be considered, he giueth all Priests carefull admonition, that if any of them hauing committed deadelie sinne, doe notwistanding without confession and vttering of the same holde on his ministery of the blessed Sacrament, because he would not in the sight of men be noted worthie, that in this case he damneth himselfe before God, whose heauie indignation he cannot auoide, whiles he is ashamed to vtter his sinnes vnto men.

FVLKE.

Prosper hath nothing for the necessitie of auricular confession, but rather against it. For he speaketh against them that will neither confesse their secret sinnes, nor amende their liues without confession to other men, shewing that if they continue in their sinne in vaine shall they auoide the iudgement of man, and fall into the eternall iudgement of God. It followeth immediatelie. Quòd si ipsi iudices fiant, & veluti suae iniquttatis vltores huius in se voluntariam poenam seuerissimae animaduersionis exerceant, temporalibus poenis mutabunt aeterna supplicia, & lachrimis ex vera cordis compunctione fluentibus restinguent aeterna ignis incendia. But if they become iudges themselues and as it were reuengers of their owne iniquitie, doe exercise hereupon themselues the punishment of moste seuere correction, with temporall paines, they shall change eternall punishments, and with teares flowing out of true compunction of heart, they shall quench the burning of eternall fire. These wordes declare by what meanes without confession of secret faultes men maie obteine remission and auoide euerlasting punishment. Which thing is yet more cleare in that carefull admonition, which he giueth to Priests, not to communicate without confession, or at least wise secret repentance, and punishment enioyned to themselues. His wordes are these. Quapropter Deum sibi facilius placabunt illi, qui non humano conuict iudicio, sed vltrò crimen cognoscunt, qui aut proprijs illorum confessionibus produnt, aut 〈◊〉 alijs quoles occulti sint, ipsi in se voluntariae excommunication is sententiam ferant, & ab altari cui ministrabant, non animo, sed officio seperati vitam tanquam mortuam plangunt, certi quòd reconciliato sibi efficacis poenitentiae fructibus Deo, non solùm amissa recipiunt, sed etiam ciues supernae ciuitatis effecti ad gaudia sempiterna perueniant. Wherefore those men, shall more easilie pacifie God vnto themselues, which being not conuicted by mans iudgement, but of their owne accord acknowledge there fault: which either bewraie the same by their owne confessions, or though other men know not what they are in secret, they themselues giue sentence of voluntarie excommunication against themselues, and being seperated not in minde but in office, from the altar which they serued, doe bewaile their life as dead, beeing certeine, that God being reconciled to them by the ftuites of effectuall repentance, they doe not onelie recouer that they haue lost, but also being made citizens of the heauenlie citie, they come into the eternall ioyes. By these wordes of Prosper it is euident, that confession of all particular sinnes, was not thought necessarie to saluation, but that a man confessing his sinnes before God, and enioyning vnto himselfe the ftuites of repentance without the knowledge of men, he might assure himselfe of remission and of eternall felicitie

ALLEN.

All this meaning hath Saint Prosper, and his equall in age Saint Augustine toucheth the disease of our daies verie sharpelie, saying thus: There be some which thinke that it is enough De visit. infirmorum 1. 2. cap. 4. for their saluation, if they confesse their faultes to God alone, to whome nothing is hid, and from whome no mans conscience is close. For they will not, or they are ashamed, or at the least they disdaine to submit themselues to the Priests, whom God hath giuen power vnto, to discearne the cleane from the vncleane. But I would thou shouldest not beguile thy selfe by false perswasion, or some respect of shame that thou hast to confesse vnto the priest, who is Gods Vicare. For I tell thee, thou must vnder his iudgement, whome God doth not disdaine, to constitute his Vicegerent. But this Doctour made a wholl worke of penance, and the waies of recouerie of Christian mans fall after Baptisme by the Priests iudgement, and sacrament of Confession. Of the which bookes if any man list doubt, yet let him be assured, that they be both auncient, Catholike, learned, and agreeable to the doctrine of Saint Augustines daies, whosoeuer made them. And our cause is so much more holpen, because not onelie Saint Austine, who is plaine in these matters, vpon Saint Matthwes Gospel, and els where, as it is declared alreadie, but also other of great antiquitie, confirme the same, and plainly confound the pride of our daies, in which men are not somuch ashamed of their sinnes, as they be disdainefull to confesse their sinnes vnto a poore priest, though he iustlie accupie the verie iudgement seat of God.

FVLKE.

You doe wiselie to deuorce vpon his meaning when you haue not his wordes to warrant you. For so you maie blinde the eyes of the ignorant, to beleeue that you haue som farther intelligence of meaning then can appeare euen by the words that you haue cited out of him. For the 〈◊〉 of condemnation, is not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them, which are ashamed to confes their faults to men, if they amend them before god, but against them that flie the knowledge and iudgement of men, and yet doe not repent before God. And therefore he saith, si ea confiteri aut emendare noluerirt, if they will not confesse them or amende them, and againe, si in maio suo permanserint, if they shall continue in their euill. But if they will amend their faultes, and not continue in sinne, he dare promise them forgiuenes and life euerlasting, as is declared in the last section. But now you charge vs with Saint Agustines authoritie, and yet you will not abide by it that it is Saint Augastines authoritie, wherein you deale more sincerely, then Papists are commonlie wont to doe, to acknowledge that these bookes you vouch are not admitted for Saint Augustines authoritie. Among so many great and large volumes, as are certeinlie knowne and generally receiued to be of Saint Augustines writing, where you can finde nothing but these bookes of vncerteine credit, to mainteine the necessitie of auricular confession, the indifferent reader may well gather how litle ground your purpose cā finde in that age of S. Austins. For that you haue declared alreadie out of S. Austine vpon S. Matthewes Gospel, & ells where, how plaine it is for these matters, let the reader iudge by that I haue answered in those seuerall places. But as touching the bookes de visitatione 〈◊〉 , being one of the two treatises that you cite, as it is certaine that it was not of S. Austines writing, so hath it no similitude with the doctrine of his time, or with the stile of anie learned or auncient father. The Censure of Erasmus vpon these bookes is this, Sermo locutulei, nec docti nec diserti. Quid habuerunt vel frontis vel mentis, qui talia scripta nobis obtruserunt nomine Augustini, &c. These bookes are the speach of a pratler neither learned nor eloquent. What shame or wit had they which haue thrust vpon vs such writings vnder the name of S. Augustine? Yet you dare assure vs that they be auncient, Catholike, learned, and agreeable to the doctrine of Saint Augustines daies. But the reasons of your assurance you spare to shewe, giuing vs nothing but your bare word, which is sufficient among vnlearned and sottish Papists, whose ignorance you knewe would accept whatsoeuer you brought, and therefore were carles what all the learned of the contrarie parte might iudge of your impudent and shameles assertions. Concerning the other whole worke of penance, which you affirme that this doctour made, although it were graunted that Saint Augustine was author of that worke of repentance, as it shall be easilie graunted, that if not Saint Augustine, yet some other auncient and learned father, was the writer of them: neuertheles there is nothing in them by which you are able to prooue the matter in controuersie, namelie the necessitie of confession of all mortall sinnes to a Priest. And therefore albeit you set a good face vpon the matter, you haue neuer a sentence to set downe, out of those bookes, that is able to giue but onely a glosse, or colour to your Popish confession. For if you had, you woulde not haue beene silent in setting forth the sentence of another beside Saint Augustine, as you saie, and as I thinke, of great antiquitie, who against them that be impenitent, and neither acknowledge their sinnes vnfainedlie before God, nor studie to amend and reforme their wicked life, writeth vehementlie, shewing three kindes of repentance, one before baptisme, in them that are of yeares, another after baptisme, which is dailie sorowing for our infirmities in saying the Lordes prayer, the third of heinous and notorious sinnes offensiue to the Church, of them that are excommunicated and are not to be receiued, without open confession and signes of humilitie. But the necessitie of confessing all thinges to a poore priest iustlie occupying the verie iudgement seate of God, there is no word in either of those two bookes, De medicina poenitentiae & de vtilitate poenitentiae.

ALLEN.

And Saint Ambrose, these mens auncient somewhat, did knowe this practise so well, and allow it, that he did sit in his Ambrosius ex Paulino. owne person on confession, as Paulinus doth recorde, whose behauiour in that diuine office, that all Priestes maie perceiue, and all the people note, I will report: Quotie scunque illi aliquis ob percipiendam poenitentiam lapsus suos confessus esset, it a flebat, vt ilium flere compellerat. Causas autem criminum, quas illi confitebaniur, nulli nisi Domino soli apud quens intercedebat, loquebatur, bonum relinquens exemplum posteris sacerdotibus, vt intercessores apud Deum sin: magis quàm accusatores apud homines. That is to saie: So often as anie man came vnto him to confesse his faultes and receiue penance, he so wept, that he made the Penitent to weepe also. But the faults themselues which they confessed, he vttered to no man, but to God alone, to whome for their sinnes he made sute, leauing a blessed example to all Priestes of the posteritie, to account themselues rather as intercessours to God for sinnes, then accusers of men before the worlde for their sinne. This saieth Paulinus of Saint Ambrose, whereby at once we see the iudgement of them both for our matter.

FVLKE.

The iudgement of Saint Ambrose concerning the necessitie of popish thrift, or auricular confession, we haue heard before out of his owne writinges. Neither doth Paulinus testifie anie other thing of him: nor any other thing then might be said of Luther and Caluin, whoe were no friendes of Papisticall confession. For if anie man did confesse vnto them his offences, that he might shew himselfe truelie penitent, and receiue comfort, and counsell for his amendment, no doubt but those holie men were greatlie grieued at his fall, which mooued the offendour to greater sorow for his sinne: and yet those faultes, as were discouered to them, being such as might with duetie to God, and the state be concealed, they would neuer vtter to aniebodie. What would this make to prooue, that they saie on confessions like popish Priestes, and required all men vnder paine of damnation to confesse vnto them their secret deadlie sinnes, as pop sh Priests doe. But popish prelates disdaine to doe that which they faine Saint Ambrose to haue done. Manie of them being such for their knoweledge, as you might rather seeke water out of a pumise stone, then the doctrine of comfort out of their mouthes, and for their liues and conuersations, such as deserue, if there were anie hope of amendment in them, to stand in the Church among open penitents, rather than to sit in the chaires of gouernment, and iudgement ouer other men. Wherefore by this citation we neither see the iudgement of Paulinus nor of saint Ambrose, for your matter of the necessitie of auricular confession. For that secret confession maie be made in some case we denie not: but that it is necessarie to be made of all deadlie sinnes, that man can remember, you haue not yet prooued.

ALLEN.

But to go forward, Saint Cyprians meaning is so plaine for confession of sinnnes, that he prescribeth the verie thoughtes of man, that be sinnefull and damnable, to be vttered vnto the Priestes, praising them, that vpon onelie intent and purpose Sermon de lapsis. of committing idolatrie, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes Dei dolenter & simpliciter confitebantur, did simplie and sorowfullie make confession thereof to the Priests of God. And now that we are for the practise and proofe hereof at S. Cyprian, which is high in Gods Church, we neede not staie here, though we be farre enough paste our aduersaries account in such cases, that laie it downe at I ateran Councell, a whole thousand yeares shorte of those daies. I will not much speak of Tertullian, whome Tertul. de poenit. Saint Cyprian calleth Master, his wholl booke writen of penance, doth make altogether for this sacrament, and for confession to be made to Gods Priestes, which he calleth exomologesin, & prosternendi atque humiliandi hominis disciplinam: and amongst other things pertaining to the act of confession and penance, which then was much more publike and seuere then it is now, he reckeneth this to be one, Presbiteris aduolui, to be humblie laid at the Priests fecte, where he also resembleth a man that is lothe to confesse his inwarde faultes, to him, that hauing a filthie botch in the secret partes of his bodie, had rather let it 〈◊〉 vp the member, then for foolish shamefastnes, vtter the griefe to his surgeane.

FVLKE.

You slaunder Saint Cyprian greatlie, to make him be so plaine of your meaning, that he perscribeth the verie thoughts of man, that be sinneful and damnable, to be vttered vnto the priests, although he praise them that vpon onelie intent and purpose of committing Idolattie did sorowfullie and simplie confesse the same before the priests of God. His wordes are these. Deni que quando & fide maiore & timore meliore sunt, qui quamuis nullo sacrificij aut libelli facinore constricti, quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitauerūt, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes dei dolenter & simpliciter 〈◊〉 exomologesin conscientiae faciunt, animi sui pondus exponunt, salutarem medelam, paruis licet & modicis vulneribus exquirunt, scientes scriptum esse: Deus non deridetur. Finallie seeing they are both of greater faith, and better feare, which although they be guiltie of no wicked fact of sacrifice, or libell, yet because they haue so much as thought of such a matter, they sorowfullie and simplie confesse the same, before the Priests of God, they make confession of their conscience, they declare the burthen of their minde, they seeke for wholsome medicine, although for small and litle woundes, knowing that it is writen. God is not mocked. What prescription is in these wordes, of anie necessitie of confession of all the sinnefull thoughts of men? his meaning is, that they shewe them selues more faithfull, and to feare God better, which voluntarilie, when there is no necessitie, offer themselues to open repentance. For their onelie purpose of sacrificing, to the better quieting of their conscience, then they which being polluted with libells as they called them (by which they professed to paie monie, that they might not be compelied to sacrifice to Idolls) yet would not acknoweledge that they were in anie faulte, which was necessarie for them to doe, before they could be admitted into the congregation. And therefore you haue neither practize nor proofe, of the necessitie of auricular confession in Cyprians time, which was 1000. yeares before the Lateran Councell, which decreed the necessitie thereof. That you will not speake much of Tertullian, it is because you haue litle, yea nothing at all in him to vpholde your purpose. His booke de Poenitentia is well knowen, to be written of open penance for such as were to be baptized, or els had openlie fallen with offence of the Church, but as for your popish sacrament of penance or confession before the priests, otherwise then before the whole Church, you haue nothing in that booke: and therefore among other thinges pertaning to that seuere discipline, of publike repentance, where he reckeneth Presbyteris aduolui to be one, he addeth immediatelie, & arie dei adgeniculari, omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis sue 〈◊〉 . And to kneele before the altars of God, to require all the brethren to praie for them. And immediately it followeth, haec omnia exomologesis vt poenitentiam commender, All these things confession requireth to set forth repentance. And as touching him that refuseth this discipline for shamefastenes, his wordes are these: Pleros que tamen hoc opus vt publicationem sui aut suffugere, aut de die in diem differre, praesumo, pudoris magis memores quàm salutis, velut illi qui in partibus verecundioribus corporis contracta vexatione conscteniam medentium vitant & ita cum rubescentia sua pereunt. Yet I suppose that many doe either eschew, or defer from day to daie this worke, as a defamation of themselues, being more mindeful of shamefastnes then of their health, as those men, which hauing gotten a vexation in the secret partes of their bodie do auoide to haue it knowne to them that should heale it, & so perish with their shamefastnes. This saying doeth not prooue the necessitie of confession of all our sinnes so often as we fall, but the necessitie of open confession for them that had openlie and notoriouslie fallen, in so much that the auncient Church did admit no man, but once in his life vnto this kinde of confession and open penance, and so the wordes of Tertullian are plaine of this austere worke of publike confession, which he calleth exomologesis by the greeke name. Haecigitur venena eius prouidens Deus, clausalices ignoscentiae ianua & intinctionis sera obstructa, aliquid adbuc permisit patere. Collocauit in vestibulo poenitentiam secundam, quae pulsantibus patefaciat: sediam semel, quiaiam secundó: sed amplius nunquam, quia proximè frustra. Non enim & hoc semel satis est? God therefore foreseing these poysons, (of the deuill) although the gate of pardon be shut vp, and the locke of baptisme be stopped, yet hath permitted something to be open. He hath placed in the porch or entrie, the second repentance which maie open to them that 〈◊〉 but now no more but once, because it is now the second time: but neuer hereafter, for the next time is in vaine. For is not this once enough? Habes quodiam non merebaris, amisisti enim quod acceperas. Thou hast now that thou didst not deserue, for thou hast lost that which thou hadst receiued. These wordes doe euidentlie declare, that this doctour speaketh not of the popish sacrament of penance, nor of popish confession, which is iterated often times, but of a rigorous kinde of discipline, vsed in the primitiue Church, if he doe not incline to the heresie of Montanus as in other places. But it appeareth by Augustine that this solemne kinde of penance before the Church, was admitted euen of the Catholike Church, but as for them that had greeuousely fallen in all their life, although they did not exclude offenders from repentance before God, and remission of sinnes, so often as they truelie repented.

ALLEN.

But of all other Origen is moste plaine. In one place he saith thus: Qui non priùs animae suae vitia, & peccatorum cognoueritmala, & proprij oris confessione prodiderit, purgari at que absolui non poterit. He that knoweth not perfectlie the sinnes Lib. 3. peri archon. of his owne soule and the naughtines of his offences, that he may vtter them by the confession of his owne mouth, he can not be clensed nor absolued of his sinne. And in an other place thus: there is one painefull waie of remission of sinnes, Cùm lauat super Leuit. homili. 2. peccator lachrymis stratum suum & non erubescit sacerdoti Domini indicare, & quaerere medecinam, sicut scriptum est, Iniquitaiem means pronunciabo. When the sinner watereth his coutch with teares, and is not ashamed to vtter al his sinnes to the Priest of God, and to seeke remedie, as it is written: I will confesse mine iniquitie.

FVLKE.

We had need of a plainer testimonie then we haue hard anie yet, and therefore let vs see now toward the ende what Origen hath for the necessitie of popish shrift to a Priest. The first place is Li peri archon. 3. Cap. 1. which I wil rehearse somewhat more at large, that the readers maie iudge how plaine it is, for the necessitie of auricular confession. His purpose is to declare, how men are saide to be forsaken of God. Hi verò qui nondum se tanta constantia neque tanto affectu offerunt Deo, neque parati sunt accedentes adseruitutem Dei, praeparare animus suos ad tentationem, derelinqui dicuntur à Deo, id est, non erudiri, pro eo quod ad erudiendum parati non sunt, in posterum sine dubio tempus eorum dispensatione, vel curatione dilata: qui vti que quid à Deo consequentur ignorant, nisi priùs ad beneficia consequenda per desiderium venerint: quod it a demum fiet, si quis ante seipsum cognoscat, & sentiat quid sibi desit: & quid sibi deest, à quo quaerere vel debeat, vel possit, intelligat. Qui enim non intellexerit prius infirmitatem, vel aegritudinem suam, medicum quaerere nescit, vel certè cùm receperit sanitatem, non egerit gratias medico, quoniam non priùs periculum sui languoris cognouit: It a & si qui non priùs animae suae vitia, & peccatorum suoruns cognouerit mala, ac proprij oris confessione prodiderit, purgari is, absolui que non paterit, ne ignoret sibi per gratiam concessum fuisse quod possidet, & diuinam liberalitatem proprium bonum putet: quae ret sine dubio arrogantiam generes & elationem, & denuo ei causa sit ruinae. Quodetiam de Diabolo sentiendum est, qui primitus honores suos proprios, & non à Deo datos esse credidit, quos habebat tunc cùm immaculatus erat: & impleta est in eo illa sententia quae dicit, quòd omnis qui se exaltat humiliabitur. But they which do not yet offèr themselues to God with so great constancie, nor with so great affection, neither are readie when they come to the seruice of God, to prepare themselues vnto temptation, are saide to be forsaken of God, that is, not to be taught, because they are not prepared to be taught, the disposing, or healing of them without doubt being deferred vnto the time to come: who trulie knowe not what they shall obteine of God, except they come first by desire vnto the obteining of benefits. Which thing at the length shall be brought to passe, if a man know himselfe first, and feele what is wanting to him: and vnderstande of whome, he ought or maie seeke for that which is wanting vnto him. For he that shall not first vnderstand his owne infirmity or sicknes, cannot seeke the Phisitian: so if there be anie also which shall not first knowe the vices of his soule and the euills of his sinnes, and bewraie them by the confession of his owne mouth, he cannot be purged and absolued, least he should be ignorant, that thing to be graunted to him by grace, which he possesseth, and thinketh the liberalitie of God to be his owne goodnes: which thing without doubt maie gender arrogancie and pride, and maie againe be cause to him of falling. Which thing also we muste thinke of the deuill, which at the first did beleeue that his honours which he had, when he was vndefiled were his owne, and not giuen by God, and that sentence was fulfilled in him which saith, euerie one that exalteth himselfe shalbe be brought lowe. What reasonable man out of this discourse woulde gather the necessitie of shrift to a priest, where it is certaine the writer speaketh of the acknowledgeing of our sinnes before God, without which we can obteine no pardon, or remission of them at his handes, and not of confessing them to a Priest, as he woulde haue the ignorant reader to surmise. But let vs examine the second place, and see if that be not more plaine, for the necessitie of auricular confession. Origen in that place in Leuit. Hom. 2. allegorizeth vpon the seauen kindes of sacrifices prescribed by the Lord for remission of sinnes, & saieth there are seauen kindes of remission of sinnes in the gospell, namelie. 1. In baptisme. 2. In martyrdome. 3. In almes giuing. 4. Inforgiuing to other men. 5. In conuerting a sinner. 6. In abundance of charitie. the seauenth he expresseth in these wordes, which you rehearse verie vnperfectlie, and translate falselie. Est adhuc & septima, licet dura & laboriosa, per poanitentiam remissio peccatorum, cùm lauat peccator in lachrimis stratum suum, & fiunt ei lachrimae suae panes die ac nocte, & cùm nou erubescit sacerdoti domini indicare peccatum suum. & quaerere medecinam, secundùm cum qui ait: dixi, pronunciabo aduersum me iniustitiam meam domino, & turemisisti impietatem cordis mei. In quo impletur & illud quod Apostolus dicit: Si quis autem infirmatur, vocet presbyteros Ecclesiae & imponant ei manus, vngenteseum oleo, in nomine domini, & oratio fidei saluabit infirmum, & si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei. There is yet a seauenth kinde of remission of sinnes, though hard and painefull by repentance, when the sinner washeth his bed with teares, and his teares are made to him his foode daie and night, and when he is not ashamed to declare his sinne to the priest of the Lorde, and to seeke medecine, according to him which saith: I haue saide, I will pronounce against my selfe mine owne vnrighteousnes vnto the Lorde: and thou hast remitted the vngodlines of my heart: wherein that also is fulfilled which the Apostle saith: if anie man be sick, let him call the elders of the Church, and let them laie their handes vpon him, annointing him with oyle, in the name of the Lord, and the praier of faith shall saue the sicke person, and if he haue bene in sins theyshal be remitted to him. These are the words of Origen, but you in your latine after indicare, leaue out pee catum suum, and translate it, and is not ashamed to vtter all his sinnes, to make the place seeme more pregnant for auricular confession. I passe ouer that you alter the wordes folowing, which are secundùm cum qui ait initio, sicut scriptum est, by which it appareth that you borowed this place out of some other mans allegation, or note-booke negligentlie gathered, and doe not cite it of your owne reading. But to the matter, I answere, that Origen is not plaine for anie necessitie of shrifte to obteine remission of sinnes, when he sheweth fiue other meanes to obtaine it after baptisme, beside this. Secondlie it is euident, that he speaketh of open confession to be made in the exercise of publique repentance, which is not necessarie for all men. For otherwise there is no remission of sinnes after baptisme, but vnto them that be penitent before God, althouh they suffer martirdome, giue almes, forgiue other men, conuert sinnes, abound in charitie, if they be not sory and repent for their owne sinnes, they shall not obtaine forgiuenes at the hands of God. He speaketh therefore of open repentance where there is open confession, which also maie be gathered by his allegation of the texte of Saint Iames, where not one priest for auricular confession, but the Elders of the Church are called for. The priest of the Lord also. that he nameth, by the text following of Dauides confession before God, maie be vnderstood of Christ, of whome the Leuiticall Priest, to whome Origen alludeth, was a figure, as I haue declared before: so that here is no plaine testimony, nor any certeine warrant for the necessitie of eare confession: For that confession maie be made for quieting of a mans conscience we denie not: but that it is necessarie to be made by all men of all their mortall sinnes, and that without such confession there can be no remission of sinnes, that (I saie) we vtterlie, and alwaies denie.

ALLEN.

S. Dionise also an Apostolike man, doth inuinciblie prooue vnto vs, that confession to a priest, and the sacrament of pennance was in vse in his daies, that is to saie, in the Apostles time, for he was S. Paules scholler. He checketh verie earnestly Epist. ad De mophilum. one Demophilus a naughty Monke, that you maie see Monkes be olde, when there was an euill one in S. Dionise daies, and yet there was an euill Apostle, before there was an euill Monke, that you maie see both orders be auncient, though, be they neuer so holie, they cannot be alwaies void of euill. But this Demophilus I saie, bare a great rebuke of Dyonisius, that he vsurped once a Priestes place and function, and that on a time he thrust backe from the Priest, and rebuked contemptuouslie a poore penitent that came to confession, and called the Prieste sitting on confession a wretch and a miser, that he durst take vpon him to make a sinner a iust man. Which wordes were verie fitte for Luthers mouth, an other. religious man of like humour and honestie. So soone was confession hated of the wicked, and so speedilie was it desended of the faithfull, as of Saint Dionise, who here calleth the orders & diuine actes of penance the decrees and institutions of God.

FVLKE.

Indeed we reade that one Dionysius Areopagita was conuerted by Saint Paul, but that the author of these bookes, which goe vnder that name, was an Apostolike man, we doe vtterlie denie. For Eusebius, S. Hierome, Gennadius woulde not haue omitted the mention of such a writer and such bookes, being so diligent sertchers of auncient monuments of the Church as they were, if anie such had bene heard of in their times, by the space of fiue, or sixe hundreth yeares after Christ. But concerning the matter, this Dyonise whosoeuer he be, saieth nothing for the necessitie of auricular confession, which is the matter in question, although he rebuke Demophilus for abusing a poore penitent, & presuming to raile vpon the Priest and to commaund him to auoide. Neither is there anie mention that the Priest did sit vpon confession, or that the penitent came in popish manner to shriue himselfe, but to seeke medecine for his sinnes, perhaps to offer himselfe to open penance for some hainous transgression openlie knowne, as it shoulde seeme by the wordes of Demophilus reported by Dyonisius. But thou as thine owne betters declare, didst thrust awaie with thy heeles, an vngodlie and sinnefull man (as thou saiest) euen when he was fallen downe before the priest. Thou being present against thy selfe, then did he intreate and confesse that he was come for the healing of his diseases. But thou wast not terrified, but increasing in boldnes, didst raile vpon the good priest, that he was a wretch in iustifying a penitent and an vngodlie person, and at length saidest vnto him, get the out, &c. These words prooue not although they were the wordes of Dyonisius the Areopagite himselfe, that it is necessarie, that euerie man is bound to confesse, euen his secret sinnes, to a Priest: And as for the sacrament of penance, which you say is inuinciblie prooued by this place, to haue bene in vse in his daies, here is no mention thereof. Finallie where you would build the antiquity of works vpon this mans authority, to be as high as the Apostles, I must tell you, that by this place you can not, albeit the Epiflle were graunted to be writen by the Areopagite: For he calleth not Demophilus a Munke, as Perionius translateth the word, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a seruant or inferior minister. I knowe that Maximus and Pachymeres, expound that worde to be meant of Munkes, and that this Dynoise also elsewhere nameth Monachos, that were in his time, but his time was farre vnder the Apostles, as is prooued inuinciblie by this argument, that neither Eusebius, nor Hierome, nor Gennadius maketh mention of anie such workes extant in their time, of Dyonisius Areopagita, and therefore it is certaine they were counterfaited long after, vnder his name.

ALLEN.

I can not stand vpon euerie point, which greeueth me much, my matter is so fruitfull, and one worthie witnes is yet behinde, S. Clement (I meane him that S. Peter made his successour. Si fortè (saith he) in alicuius cor vel liuor vel infidelitas, vel aliquod Epist. adfra trem Domini. malum labenter irrepserit, non erubescat, qui animae suae curam 〈◊〉 confiteri ei qui praeest, vt ab ipso per verbum & consilium salubre curetur, quò possit fide integra & bonis operibus, poenas aeterni ignis euadere, & ad perpetuae vitae praemia peruenire. If either enuie, or infidelitie, or anie other greeuouse sore priuilie possesse mans soule, let not him that hath anie care of his saluation, be ashamed to confesse it to him that is his Prelate, that through his word and counsell, he maie be healed of his sinnes, and that in true faith and good workes he maie escape hell, and attaine to euerlasting life. Thus Saint Clement.

FVLKE.

The points are not so manie that you should proue, but you might haue leasure enough to stand vpon them, your matter is so passing barren that for lacke of authenticall writers, you are driuen to praie aid of impudent counterfeiters, as of shameles and vnlearned asses, which counterfeyted the Epistles that goe vnder the name of Clemens and that without either wit, or learning, or likelihood of trueth. For who would thinke that the holie man Clemens could not write his minde in true latine? who would thinke, that such barbarous latine was written by the bishoppe of Rome at that time, when boyes and girles did speake a hundreth fold more pure latine? what wise bodie would thinke, that Clemens the Apostles schooler would take vpon him to teach the Apostle Saint Iames, and that such bables, as of keeping the sacraments from myse dong and rottennes, nay not onelie to teach him, but to giue him charge, à principio Epistolae vsque ad hunc locum de sacramentis deleganti bene intuendis, vbi non murirum stercora inter fragmenta dominicae portionis appareant, neque putrida per negligentiam remaneant clericorum. From the beginning of this Epistle vnto this place, I haue giuen in charge of the sacraments to be well looked vnto, where no mise urdes maie appeere among the fragments of the Lords portion, neither maie they remaine rotten through the negligence of clarkes. This is that worshipfull Clemens that prescribeth confession to a Priest. I besech thee reader (as Erasmus saith) what wit, shame, or honestie haue they, that will beare men in hand, these Epistles to be written by so auncient, so holy, so wise, & so learned fathers, in which is nothing but follie, barbarousnes, ignorance, and impudencie.

The conclusion of this treatise, remoouing the impediments of confessiòn.

ALLEN.

THus far in despit of heresie and al her abbettours hath trueth brought it selfe. By Christ power was giuen to the Apostles and Priests, to remit sinnes: by Christ confession was instituted: by the Apostles it was commaunded to all Christians: by their example all nations faithfull afterward haue vsed it: by generall Councells, which be of moste soueraigne authoritie, it hath bene both confirmed and commaunded: by all learned Doctors liked and allowed: by all Christian people frequented reuerentlie, as the onlie refuge after their relapse. Therefore whosoeuer shall see this case so cleare, and so consonant to all reason, to all learning, to all the examples of antiquitie, and to Christs owne institution, let him schoole his conscience as he thinketh good.

FVLKE.

As a cowardlie traitor that is fled out of the battell, wherin he had greater care to hid him selse frostrokes, then to fight, to attaine the victorie, when he thinketh him selfe to haue escaped daunger ceaseth not to brag and boast of his valiant actes, and strong aduentures in defence of his Prince or countrie: so it fareth with you. For as though you had fought vnder truthes baner, you boast of the victorie against heresie, whereas you haue serued heresie, & done your indeuor against the trueth, striuing for nothing so much, as that heresie might change names with trueth. But they which will you voutchsafe to consider, with how litle labour you haue bin encountred, and chased out of the field, will be able to discerne trueth from heresie, and to giue trueth her true name of trueth, and heresie her right name of heresie. But let vs see what great matters this Champion of trueth hath brought to passe. First, that by Christ, power was giuen to his Apostles, and their successours to remit sinnes, this victorie indeed is soone archiued, against them, which neuer withstood this tlitle. But what manner of power this is, and how to be executed, by sentence definitiue or declaratiue, according to the will of God, or man, and by what meanes it is exercised, by preaching the Gospell, or by murmering of words, wherein trueth controulleth heresie, you haue broughtnothing to fortifie your errors. Secondlie you saie, that confession was in. stituted by Christ, and yet haue no word in the scripture to prooue that popish confession to a priest, after your position, was either instituted, or allowed by him. The like I saie of the commendation of shrift to all Christians. Neither haue you prooued the necessitie of confession, by the example of anie faithfull nation, that vsed it, and allowed it, nor by anie Christian generall councel, before the Lateran councell gathered in the name of Antichrist, to maintaine his pride, and abominable heresies, neither hath anie one learned Doctor, for 500. or 600. yeares after Christ, liked, or allowed of confession, according to your popish definition thereof, much lesse that by all Christian people, it was reuerently frequented, & lest of al that confession is the onelie refuge, I meane confession alwaies to a priest, for Christians after their relapse, which most absurd proposition, I thinke few learned papistes will maintaine, sure I am manie of the Elder papists haue denied, holding that by contrition of heart men might obtaine remission of sinnes, without confession of the mouth to a priest. Wherfore he that seeth such an impudent brag, set vpon so false a matter, wherein he seeth neither Christs institution by his word, nor the example of antiquitie by anie credible report, nor practise of any Christian people, by any necessary ground, nor 〈◊〉 by learned witnes, nor reason by necessarie conclusions, to vphold and maintaine it, let him schoole his conscience according to the holie scriptures, and nothing be mooued with the vaine glosing of such shameles boasters.

ALLEN.

For if vpon consideration of this practise so approoued by all meanes possible, he can not charge him selfe with obedience to the trueth and the exercise of that in his lise and workes, which he seeth to be moste sure and certaine, as well by the Churches vsage, as Gods owne writing and will, moe words will not weigh with him, nor the persuasion of man shall euer much mooue him to that, which the continuall terrour of conscience, alwaies acknowledging that truth in minde, the practise wherof in outward fact he abhorreth, can not effectualliie force him vnto. Hard it seemeth, I knowe, to the wordlinges, and to the weake (and so hard, that neuer man could haue brought it into the Church, much lesse to haue continued it so long, if it had not proceeded from the precept of Christes owne mouth) to open the whole heart and minde to man. And it can not but be ioyned with some naturall bashfullnes, in this our frailtie, to vtter that to an other, which in it selfe, of what sort of sinne so euer it be, is moste filthie and lothsome. But knowing and feeling vndoubtedlie, that the continuall close keeping thereof in the court of our conscience, is much more great and greeuose torment, and therwith concerning Christes ordinance to be such, that no consideration of our imbecillitle, nor contrarie liking of our phantasie, maie or ought to withdrawe vs from that thing, which for vs all is accounttd moste conuenient and necessarie, let vs neuer by our disobedient willes, striue against Gods wisedome.

FVLKE.

When you can shewe Gods owne writing and will out of the same, that popish shriftis so necessarie, all good consciences will runne as faste vnto it, as now they despise and abhorre it. Such confession as the holie writinges of God doe require, all Christians wilbe readie to make. But that confession of all our mortall sinnes, as you tearme them, is of necessitie to be made to any man, we finde no scripture that doth charge our conscience with it. And where you saie, that no earthly power could haue established, or begun any such burthenous thing as shrift is, I agree with you, & yet it followeth not, that the force of Christes institution hath driuen the worlde thereunto. For the subtiltie of the Deuill hath more preuailed to deceiue the mindes of ignorant men, then any 2. Thess. 2. earthlie power against knowledge could haue preuailed. Yea God himselfe hath sent the efficacy of error into the worlde, that Antichrist (then whose tiranie nothing is more burthenous) might preuaile to the deceiuing of the reprobate, for punishment of their 〈◊〉 , which haue not embraced the knowledge of the trueth, to their saluation, that they might beleeue lies to their condemnation. Wherefore let no man maruell, that Antichrist hath laied so many, so heauie, and intollerable burthens vpon mens consciences, which no earthlie power could bring to passe: for his comming is foreshewed to be according to the effectuall workeing of Satan, in all power, and signes, and wonders of lies, and in all deceitfullnes of vnrighteousnes, in them that perish. Neither let any man be blinded with this foolish Sophistrie, and inconsequence of Allen: Neuer any earthlie power could haue established or begunne anie such burthenous thing, as Popish shrift is, therefore it hath the force of Christes constitution and ordinances, whereof there can no worde be brought out of the hol e scriptures.

ALLEN.

If the hurthen therefore of confession seeme to any man intollerable, as in deede it is not, but verie pleasant to all such as haue tasted how sweete Christ is, let him ease it with earnest consideration, that it is exceeding commodious to breake the pride of mans heart, and to make him know himselfe. And, if that any burthen of shamefastenesse appeare in the vttering of his sinnes, he may learne to take it gladlie as some worthie paine for his offences, and some peece of recompence and satistisfaction for the same. It pleased God at the first fall of our fathers, to ioyne shame and confusion to sinne, by which they were bashefull at the voice of God, and of their owne nakednes. Seeing that of his infinit wisedome, it pleased him to make it the first punishment for sinne, and to laie it vpon his owne sonnes moste innocent person, in his contemptible death and manifolde rebukes suffered for our sinnes and sakes, let vs not disdaine to beare some portion thereof in this sacrament of confession, for the release of our sinnes. That shamefastenes so much abhorred and so much respected shall often preserue man from further offending, whereof he knoweth after he must againe so soone before God and his minister be rebuked.

FVLKE.

To all wise and Godlie men, the burthen of Popish confession seemeth not onely intollerable, but also impossible. But to foolish hypocrites that would gladlie fall to a composition for their sinnes, it seemeth easie enough, especiallie since euerie man for a litle monie may choose his confessour, according to his owne conceite, into whose lappe he may vomit out the burthen of his seared conscience, and be assured of absolution, toties, quoties. Neither is pride much abated, nor shame greatly regarded, where one simple obnoxius person is made priuie of a mans faulte, who also, as it is holden, is bounde to conceale the same for euer. Neither were all the shame of the worlde sufficient to make satisfaction for the least of our sinnes, which deserue eternall confusion, & paines, for which the sonne of God, and none but he, was able to satisfie by temporall paine and shame, much lesse the shame of confession before one priest, and he commonlie an ignorant contemptible asse, may be any peece of recompence, and satisfaction for all our sinnes confessed to him. Iesus Christ the righteous, is the propitiation for our 1. Ioa. 1. 2. sinnes, and his bloode purgeth vs from all our sinnes, and therfore your Popish confession, with this opinion of some peece of recompence & satisfaction for our sinnes, is iustlie abhorred of all true Christians, who know that what peece soeuer of recompence or satisfaction for sinnes be ascribed to any other thing, so much is detracted from the glorie of Christes redemption, and the inestimable price of his bloode. As for the preferuatiue from sinne, that you imagine shrift should be, is but a foolish fantasie. for he that neuer feareth not shamerh to fall so often in the sight of the righteous God, will haue but a small regarde to bewraie the same to sinnefull man.

ALLEN.

But what should we talke of sosmall a let, where the comfort of opening our sores & woundes to man, that by nature is a like sinner, and by vse of hearing manie faultes, can not much maruell at oures, and by office there is moste secret, and carefull ouer vs, what should we talke of other impediments, where this comfortable motion is so great? What comforte can be more, then to haue such a friende, who, for that I ioyne with him, yea euen mine owne soule to his, after the dearest manner and moste secret sorte, must needes be to me a full staie of conscience, a witnesse of my sorowfull heart, an intercessour for my sinnes, a suretie before God for my amending, a minister in my reconciliation, and one that vnder Christ (as Saint Clement Clemens li. 2. costi c. 23. also saith) shall both beare my sinnes vpon himselfe, and take charge of me to saluation? in which case me thinke surelie, man is after a sorte set in maruelous quietnes, and almost discharged euen of himselfe, and his owne custodie, whiles he giueth ouer his owne aduise and iudgement, and whollie hangeth in earth vpon him, whome God hath appointed to be his pastour, and gouernour of his soule. Therefore, good reader, call vpon Christ for encrease of faith, and beleeue onelie this ordinance of God was of infinite wisedome and high prouidence prouided for thy sake, and it can not be burdenous vnto thee. Christ shal giue thee courage and heart to withstand the contrary temptations, and to serue him, though thou forsake thy selfe. To vs therefore confusion of face for our sinnefull life, and to him honour and glorie euerlasting. Amen.

FVLKE.

You doe well to confesse, that shame is but small ales, where a man is brought into a fooles paradise, of so easie remission of his sinnes, for so light a confession, before one man, as sinfull, and perhaps more sinfull then he, and bounde (as you saie) by office to secrecie. But the comforte you speake of is vaine and miserable, though all confessors were learned, and able to giue good counsel, as not one among an hundereth of your hedge Priests & fryers are. For how can he be a suretie before God for an other mans amending, when he cannot be surety for his owne reformation? He may well beare other mens sinnes vpon himselfe, and take charge of other mens saluation, to his owne damnation, when he preacheth not Christ the onely propitiation for our sinnes, but will so be a minister of reconciliation, that he will robbe Christ of his glorie, and the people of their saluation. In which case in deede you set men in a maruelous, and mischeuous securitie, and almoste discharge them euen of themselues, as youre owne wordes are, and of their owne custodie, while you make them giue ouer their owne aduise and iudgement, and wholly to hang in earth vpon you, & not vpon Christ, whome God hath appointed to be the Pastour and gouernour of their soules, euen ypon earth, though he be in heauen, and they vpon the earth. Therefore good reader, marke how blaspemoussie these Popish dogges would haue thee to hang thy selfe whollie vpon them in earth, as the onelie Pastours and gouernours of their soules, by which they exclude Christ altogether, from any feeding or gouerning of our soules vpon earth, and debar all Christians, not onelie from depending whollie vpon Christ, as they might, and doe, but from hanging any thing at all vpon him in earth, seeing they will haue men to hang wholly vpon their cōfessor on earth, as though god had made any such pastors & gouernours of mens soules, as should put Christ out of office, & challenge the whole trust of mens saluation vnto themselues. These be the right lims of Antichrist, that chalenge the chiefe honour of God vnto themselues which is faith and hope of saluation, to be reposed on them: for what other thing is it, that a man should quiet him selfe by, be discharged of himselfe & his owne custodie, and wholy hang vpon his gostlie Father, but to beleeue in him, to put his whole faith, hope, & confidence of saluation onelie vpon him, while he is vpon earth. And for this matter he is content to accept onelie faith, because he hath no other argument to perswade thee, but remember that faith commeth by hearing of the worde of God, which abhorreth and accurseth al confidence reposed in man. And therfore confusion of face be to al blasphemous papists, not onelie for their sinnefull life, but also for their abhominable heresies: and to god be al glorie, honour, and dominion in Christ Iesus our Lord, for euer & euer.

Amen.
THE SECOND PARTE OF THE TREATISE, CONCERning the Popes pardons.

The author by iust causes was mooued to beleeue the trueth of this doctrine of Pardons, before he knew the meaning of them and afterward found them of greater importance, then he toke them before to be.

THE FIRST CHAP. ALLEN.

OF the high power of remission and pardoning of sinnes, giuen by Christ to his onelie spouse the Church, in the Church, in the persons of her holy Bishops and priests, as a thing annexed to the wholl order, and to be exercised in the sacrament of penance, vpon all men that be of their seuerall iurisdictions, and humblie shall submit themselues by confession of their faultes to their iudgements, I haue alreadie spoken so much, as may suffice for the satisfying of the sober, and iust reproofe of the contentious. And now because, as well the course of my former matter, as the speciall neede of these daies driueth me thereunto, I will make further search and triall of the right of that challenge, which as well the high priest, as other principall Pastours and Bishops make, by the force of their Prelacie and keye of iurisdiction, ouer and aboue the power of orders, touching Pardons and Indulgences. Whereof whiles I doe intreate, the more attention and heede I require of thee (gentle reader) because here all the lamentable tragedie and toile of this time first did begin, and here haue al those that perished in the late contradiction of Core principallie fallen. And in no article of Christian faith euer more offence hath bin receiued of all sortes almoste euen of the wise, then in this one of the Popes pardons.

FVLKE.

WHen you haue heard what were these iust causes which he pretendeth, you shall plainlie see, that the authors faith was not grounded vpon Gods word, but vpon humane presumption, and therefore deserueth to be called rather a fansie then a faith. Likewise, when you shall haue read ouer the whol treatise to the ende, you shall perceiue though you read no confutation, that he hath not any warrant either out of the holie scriptures, or out of the auncient fathers, for any Popes pardons, such as he should take vpon him to defende. For that the Church of God and pastours therof, haue power to release them that are bounde, and vpon perswasion of their repentance, to remit or pardon some part of the triall appointed for them, it is no question betweene vs: but of the popes pardons, graunted vnder his Leaden Bulls for remission of sinnes, but a poena & culpa, from the paine and from the fault, some plenarie of al their sinnes, some partial of part of their sins, some for a number of daies, some for many thousands of yeares, which euery one that paieth mony for them, shall haue the benefit of them, or which he giueth to such an hospitall, gylde, or brotherhoode, or to him which saith such a praier, or goeth on such a pilgri mage, & such like, wherunto may be added his dispensations, absolutiós, exemptions, lycenses, these are the popes pardons of which the controuersy is between vs, & of which he cānot prooue, that there was either vse, or approbation, no not in the Church of Rome for a wholl 1000. yeares after Christ. And these when he hath saied, as much as he hath learned to saie for them, out of the decretalls, Clementines, and Extrauagants, you shall finde to be by his & their owne determination, nothing ells but as they are called in Latine, Bullae Bubles, great in appeerance, but altogether emptie and voide of profit. The attention of the gentle reader I do likewise require, beccause he may see, what good occasion Luther had to seperate himselfe from the Popish Church, as from the whore of Babylon, Apocal. 16. which so obstinately defended such abhominable blasphemies, which all wise and reasonable men haue either abhorred, or as he confesseth, beene offended at them. And yet let the reader marke, how boldlie he calleth this article of the popes pardons, an article of Christian faith, whereof the Church of god neuer heard for a thousand yeares & more since Christs assension, before the loosing of Satā out of the bottomles pit, when Antichrist was bolde to set abroad al his impieties, and to sit not in a mysterie of iniquitie, but openlie in the sight of al men, in the temple of God, and to exalt him-selfe aboue all that is called God or worshiped.

ALLEN.

And to be plaine in the matter, where sinceritie is moste required, two causes mooued me to beleeue, like, and allow of the power of pardons and indulgencies, long before I either knew the commodities of them, or had sought out the ground and meaning of them. The first was the Churches authoritie, which I credited in all other articles before I knew any of them, or could by reason or scripture mainteine them. Whose iudgement to follow by my Christian profession in all other pointes, and to forsake in this one of Popes pardons, had beene meere follie, and a signe of phantasticall choise of things indifferent, which is the proper passion of heresie. Neither did I then know, that the Church of Christ had allowed such thinges, because I had read the determination of any generall Councells, or decrees of some chiefe gouernours of the saide Church, touching such pardons, or because I had by histories and note of diuerse ages seene the practize of the faithfull people herein, by which waies her meaning of doubtfull things is most assuredlie knowne, but onelie I deemed that the Church allowed them, and misliked the contrarie, because such as bare the name of Christian folke and Catholike did approoue them, and sometimes lamented the lacke of them. And surelie for an vnlearned man, I count it the briefest rule in the worlde, to keepe him selfe both in faith and conuersation euer with that companie, which by the generall and common calling of the people, be named Catholikes. For that name kept Saint Augustine himselfe in the trueth and Contra Epistolam Ma nicgaei quā vocant fundament. Cap. 4. true Church, much more it may doe the simple sorte, who is not hable to stande with an heretike, that will challenge the Church to himselfe, by Sophisticall reasons, from the Christians, that for lacke of learning can not answere him. Well, this companie of Catholikes brought me to know the Church, and my creede caused me to beleeue the Church no lesse concerning the Popes Pardons, then any other article of our Christian profession, which though it were not of like weight, yet it was to me of like trueth, and all in like vnknowne at that time.

FVLKE.

Your pretence of plainnes, & sinceritie, is but craft and sub tiltie, to deceiue the simple and ignorant, that they might please themselues in their blindenes, and by your example thinke themselues at ease in their ignorance. For what reasonable man will be perswaded, that you could beleeue, like, and allow that thing, whereof you know no vse, nor whence it came, or what it meaned. But here you shew what faith is accounted among the Papists, a fond perswasion of any thing that is tolde them by their teachers, although they neither knowe what commoditie it bringeth, nor what ground of trueth it hath, nor finallie what it meaneth. But howsoeuer it was, two causes mooued you, whereof you professe that hearing of the worde of God was neither. The first was the Churches authoritie, which you credited in all other articles, before you knew any of them, or could by reason, or scripture, mainteine them. So by your owne confession you did as many papists doe, beleeue you knew not what, which faith would neuer bring you to eternall life, which consisteth in knowledge of God and Iesus Christ according to that which is writen, that Ioh. 17. & 20. wee might beleeue and be saued. But seeing you could neither by reason, nor by scripture, mainteine those articles to be true, which you beleeued, how could you be perswaded that this companie was the Church of Christ, the piller of trueth, rather then the Church of Antichrist, the mother of heresies and errors? For all swarmes of heretikes challenge vnto themselues the name of the Church, and require credit to be giuen vnto them: and the more heretikes the lesse care they haue to make any triall of their doctrine to be trueth: what had you more to perswade your conscience, that you were in the right waie, then a lew or a Turke hath, which crediteth the companie amongst whome he is bred and borne, without examining by reason, or the scripture, whether those thinges which they teach them be the trueth or no? But it had beene a signe of phantasticall choyce of thinges indifferent (you saie) which is the proper passion of heresie, to follow the Churches iudgement in all other points, and to forsake it in this one of Popes Pardons. Where you saie the phantasticall choice of things indifferent is the proper passion of heresie, I know not what you meane, except you thinke that heretikes are deceiued onelie in the choise of thinges indifferent, or that whosoeuer maketh some phantastical choise of thinges indifferent, is an heretike: neither of which opinions, I trowe, you are able to mainteine. For though some heretikes make a phantasticall choise of thinges indifferent, I suppose it is not proper onelie to heretikes: for some schismatikes that be not heretikes, make such a phantasticall choise; and the phantastical choise of heretikes is most occupied about principall groundes, and articles of faith, not about thinges indifferent onelie. Moreouer I would know, whether you account the Popes pardons to be things indifferent, or necessarie for the Church: for if they be but thinges indifferent, you doe not wiselie, to be contentious about them. Finallie, seeing a companie of heretikes maie erre in one article, and teach soundlie in all other, as the Arians, Donatists, Nouatians, and such like, a man maie followe the iudgement of such a companie, in all other points, and without follie or signe of fantasticall choise, departe from them in that one wherein they erre. And therefore your faith was as good, as his, that beleeueth there is a man in the moone, because he heareth manie men saie so, whome he dare credit in other matters, and is loth to forsake them in this' one. But your Christian profession, mooued you to follow the Churches iudgement in all things. And what heretike will not saie as much, without triall or proofe, which is the Church, or what is Christian profession? Therefore what ground had you that your profession was Christian, or your felowship the Church of Christ? You confesse you had neither the determination of generall councells, nor the decrees of the chife gouernours of your Church, nor the practise of the people in diuers ages, by which waies you saie the Churches meaning of doubtfull thinges, is moste assuredlie knowne: but onelie you deeme the Church allowed them. So that you, because such as bare the name of Christian folke and Catholike men did approoue them, had nothing but the bare name of Christian folke, and Catholike men to ground your deeme vpon. And is the bare and onelie name of Christian and Catholike men, so sure a ground to build faith vpon, without either the authoritie of the scriptures, reason, determination of general councels, or decrees of the chief gouernours of the same, or the practise of the faithful in auncient times? then surelie Iet all heretikes content themselues, where they are, and dwell togither: for there they shall haue the name of Christian folke and Catholike men: which you account to be the breefest rule in the worlde for an vnlearned man, to keepe himselfe both in faith, and conuersation, with that companie, which, by the generall and common calling of the people, be named Catholikes. The rule indeed is verie briefe, and you saie in the margent also, that it is good. But who I praie you prescribeth this rule, doth God the author of trueth? where finde you it in his worde? shall the generall and common calling of the people be the vnlearned mans rule to direct him to the Church, which is the piller and staie of truth? then surelie the vnlearned Grecians, Aethiopians, Armenians, and other that dissent from the Church of Rome, and from the truth it selfe, haue a good and briefe rule to holde them where they are, for by the generall and common calling of the people in those partes of the world, they be named Christians, and Catholikes. Yea the rule serueth them ten times better then you Papists, the forgers of it, for they haue the more generall and common calling of the people, to be Catholikes in those places, then you haue here in Europe, by a hundred parts. For there no man calleth them otherwise then Christians and Catholikes, here you haue (God be praised) many hundreth thousandes of the people, that commonlie call you Papists, heretikes, antichristians, Cacolikes and such other names, agreeing to your heresies. If you will cauill that by the generall and common calling of the people, they be not named Catholikes, because you Papistes doe neither so call them, nor count them, they maie answere you by the same reason, that you are not by generall & common calling of the people named Catholikes, because neither they nor we doe so call you, or account you. But it is fufficient belike that you call your selues, so and the rule is to be restrained to people of these partes of the world, and among them to Papists onelie; and so it is as good a rule, as that, aske my fellow if I be a theefe. A good rule indeed for vnlearned Papists, because draffe is good enough for swine, which had rather sleepe in the myre, and puddle of ignorance, then come to the knowledge of the truth by searching the scriptures, in which Christ the waie, the truth, and the life, is to be Ioh. 14. 6. Ioh 5. 39. 1. Pet. 3. 15. found, and out of which all Christians ought to gather knowledge, that they maie be able to giue account of that hope that is in them.

But Saint Augustine (I wene) should be author of this rule, for vnlearned men, although he himselfe were not vnlearned, Contra epistolam Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti, Cap 4. This is great impietie to faine so absurd a rule, and then to slaunder so godly a father, to be either the author or approouer therof. For Saint Augustine indeed, against the Maniches, which were a particuler sect of heretikes, confesseth that among manie other thinges, the name of the Catholike Church did holde him in the bosome thereof: but not that the onelie name of Catholikes was a good rule for vnlearned men to know the Church by. But protesting to reason the matter with them, without anie preiudice, and to trie the trueth without anie rashnes, as one willing to yeald vnto thē, if they can perswade him with trueth, so that they shall not require him to yeald, before they can giue him a cleere reason without anie darkenes, of allthinges pertaining to the saluation of his soule, thus he beginneth; In Catholica enim Ecclesia, vt omittā, &c. For in the Catholike Church, that I maie omitte that moste sincere wisdome, vnto the knowledge where of a fewe spirituall men doe come in this life, that they maie knowe it, but of the lest part, because they are men, but yet without doubt: for the rest of the multitude not the quicknes of vnderstanding, but the simplicitie of beleeuing doeth, make moste false: Therefore that I maie omitte this wisdome, which you beleeue not to be in the Catholike Church, there are manie other thinges which maie moste iustlie holde me in her lappe. The consent of people and nations holdeth me, the authoritie begunne with miracles, nourished with hope, increased with charitie, confirmed with antiquitie, holdeth me: The succession of Priests from the verie seate of Peter the Apostle, to whome our Lorde after his resurrection commended his sheeepe to be fedde, vnto this present bishoprike doeth holde me: last of all the verie name of Catholike Church doth holde me, which not without cause among so manie heresies, this Church alone hath so obtained, that whereas all heretikes would haue themselues to be called Catholikes, yet to a straunger that asketh, where men meet at the Catholike Church, none of the heretikes dare shewe either their owne Church or house. Therfore these so manie & so great most deare bondes of Christian name, doe rightlie holde a man that beleeueth in the Catholike Church: although for the dulnes of our vnderstanding, or the desert of our life, the tructh doth not yet shewe it selfe moste openlie. But among you, where none of these things is that maie inuite or holde me, there soundeth nothing but the promise of truth, which indeed if it be shewed so manifest, that it cannot come in doubt, it is to be preferred before all those things, by which I am holden in the Catholike Church. But if it be onelie promised, and not exhibited, no man shall mooue me from that faith, which bindeth my minde with so manie and great knottes vnto Christian religion. Let vs see therfore what Maniche doth teach me, &c. These wordes declare that setting aside the wisdom of the Church grounded vpō the scriptures which the heretikes would not acknowledge, there were manie other things that might iustlie holde him in the Catholike Church, among which the name of Catholikes was but one, and serued onelie at that time, when the Catholike religion was moste commonlie imbraced: therefore he denied not that the name of Catholike onelie was sufficient to teach a man to knowe the Church, and the trueth by it: but acknowledgeth that all these motiues of vniuersalitie, consent, miracles, succession, name of Catholike, must giue place to the trueth, when it is plainlie shewed out of the canonicall scriptures, as in the chapter following he vrgeth them to shew out of the gospells of Christ, wher it is writen, that Manicheus was an Apostle of Christ, as his sect affirmed, and his epistle pretended. As for the reason you alledge, that vnlearned men are not able to stand with heretikes in disputation, which wil challenge the Church to themselues, is of no force. for the vnlearned man ought to know the Church by the true notes thereof, conteined in the scriptures, which is sufficient for to satisfie his conscience, although he can not cunninglie auoide all the Sophisticall arguments that the aduersarie bringeth: whereas theonelie name of Catholikes can breede no true faith, or quietnes of minde, which is not obteined by the peoples iudgement, but by authoritie of the worde of God. And seing the people are commonlie deceiued in many matters of difficultie, and moste of all in misnaming of things, what assurance shall the vnlearned haue, that they be not deceiued in this so weightie a matter, and wherein their speach may so easilie be abused. But howsoeuer it was, the common calling of the people, brought you to know Catholikes, Catholikes to know the Church, and the creede taught you to beleeue the Church rules in Popes pardons, then in other articles. Thus is your faith builded altogether vpon humane presumptions, the ladder whereof is this. you beleeue Popes pardons, because the Church of Rome alloweth them, you beleeue the Church of Rome, because it is the Catholike Church. you beleeue that it is the Catholike Church, because the people commonlie call it so. But of Christian faith, Saint Paull describeth another ladder, faith commeth by hearing, hearing by the worde of God, preached by ministers Rom. 10. sent of God: so that against the authoritie of god, who giueth both his worde and preachers, and by them true faith, you haue the generall and common calling of men, which giue authority to that companie to be the Church, which is surnamed Catholike, which company so called may cause you to beleeue what they list, and this indeed is the ground of al your heresies, if you had gone one step lower, that the Deuill inspireth ignorant, and wicked men, to call his fowle blouse the Romish synagogue, by the name of the beautifull spouse of Christ his Catholike Church.

ALLEN.

The second cause that mooued me to reuerence the power of pardoning in the high Bishup, and to like his Indulgences, was the verie persons of them which first reprooued the same. In whome because I saw the worlde to note and wonder at other manie moste blasphemous and inexcusable heresies, I verilie deemed (though I was then for my age almoste ignorant of all thinges) that this opinion and impugnation of Pardons, could neither be of God, nor of good motion, that first began in them, & begate such a number of most wicked & cōtentio is opinions, as streight vpon the controlling of the Churches power herein did ensue, not onelie against Christs officers in earth, but against his Saints in heauen, & against himselfe in the blessed Sacrament. This extreame & intollerable issue mee thought verilie could haue no holie entraunce, and therfore, with the other named cause stayed me in the Churches faith, euen then when I had no feeling nor sense in the meaning of these matters.

FVLKE.

You were a wise young man in those daies, when being almost ignorant of all things, as you confesse, you would follow the iudgement of the worlde, in condemning the persons of them that reprooued pardons, and were not able to iudge whether they were iustlie condemned of other blasphemous & inexcusable heresies. Nay at this presēt time as great a cleark as you are taken to be among your friends, you are not able to conuince thē of such blasphemous & inexcusable heresies as you prate of. And yet if you had bin thō as able iustly to haue reproued thē by the scriptures of such monsters as the world did wonder at in them, yet you staied vpō a weake staffe, except this be a good atgumēt with you: heretiks hold manifest false opinions, therefore they holde no true opinions. Much more wiselie and soundlie you should haue sought the true Church, as Saint Augustine teacheth, out of the scriptures, and thereby iudged of the worldes noting and wondring, which because it consisteth moste of wicked men, doth commonlie condemne Christ and his Gospell. Out of the same scripture you should haue learned, who were Christes officers, and whoe the limmes of Antichrist, what honour is due vnto the saints in heauen, and what manner presense there is of Christ vpon earth. But as your faith was thē grounded vpō simple sophistrie, in supposing that which no wise man will graunt: so is it not now much differing from the same, although you haue learned with more craft, to peruert a few scriptures, and to wrest the sayinges of some dctors, for a florish, hauing no more substance of true faith which is builded vpon the word of God, then you had before. For if your shameles principle be denyed, that you are the Church of Christ, then you come back to these beggerlie motyues, as in your articles, and Bristowes motyues is manifest, being not able either to finde the notes of the true Church in the synagogue of Rome, nor to iustify the doctrine of the Church of Rome, to be builded vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, when triall is to be made by their writings.

ALLEN.

But afterwad, reading the historie of the pitifull fal of our time, and there considering the sinister intent and occasion of the first improofe of Pardons, and all the strange endeuours of Luther (whose name is cursed to all good men) who first in all mans memorie, sauing one Wicleffe, who was condemned in Constance Councell for the same, was so bolde onelie vpon contention and couetousnes to condemne that, which himselfe in Conscience knew to be true and lawfull, I could not but much be confirmed in my faith thereby. And yet all this while though the matter of pardons seemed to me to be more and more sound in it selfe, and as true as the Spirit of God is true, who was the author thereof in the Church, yet I did not then consider of it, as a thing of anie great importance, but I conceiued it to be a small matter, subiect to a certaine iugling in reason, such as wicked men lightlie make their close and craftie entrance by, to more mischiefe, and further attemptes against the common faith of the Church: I could not then conceiue, which I after ward so plainlie, and now more and more by the better surueie of the cause do perceiue, that in this one falsehood there was couertlie conteined the verie pith of falsehood, and improofe of the greatest matters which life and faith doth stand vpon.

FVLKE.

Your first motiues to this faith of yours were not more feeble, then your confutations in the same were fond and foolish. You did reade the storie of the alteration in religion that hath fallen in our time. But of whose writing I praie you? euen of such as were proctors for the Popes pedlarie ware, or pillers of his pretensed power, which was none other, but according to the prouerb before mentioned, aske my fellow if I be a thiefe. If you had read the storie written indifferentlie, without partialitie to either partie, you might haue iudged better of the wholle matter. Some perhapes are liuing that can testifie of the things that were done, & publike monuments are extant totestifie the same, so much more intollerable is your arrogancie, to iudge vpon the onelie sinister report of the aduersaries of Luther (of holie and blessed memorie, with all true Christians) that onelie contention and couetousnes mooued him to condemne that, which himselfe in conscience knew to be true and lawfull. Like boldnes you shew in affirming, that Luther was the first in all mans memorie, sauing one 〈◊〉 that despised pardons, forgetting the Waldenses, that were long before Wiclefe, and the Bohemians that were after him before Luther, who condemned popish pardons as much as Wiclife or Luther. For they condemned the Pope to be Antichrist, as much as these did. But now let vs examine the storie as it is knowne to be moste true in Saxonie where Luther first found fault with pardons. When Pope Leo. 10. had sent abroad his pardons, which were preached by Terelius a Dominike frier in such impudent manner, that they seemed to serue for no end, but the Popes couetousnes, and the licentiousnes of the people: Luther at that time hauing a zeale of God, but not according to knowledge, did mildelie and modestlie admonish the people of the deceites and abuses of pardons and pardoners, which long before his time were reprooued, in the Councells of Latrean, and Vienna, he complained to the Archbishoppe of Ments, to the Bishop of Branderburg, to the prouinciall of the Augustine friers, and to the Pope him selfe: in all thinges submitting him selfe to the Pope, and Church of Rome, so it were not against the holie scriptures. When he could finde no equity, nor redresse of these abuses, In suppl. Nau. which euen Surius the papist, confesseth to haue bene iustlie complained of by him, and vniustlie manteined, or dissembled by the prelates, he proceeded farther, as God gaue him knowledge; and at length compelled by intollerable iniurie, and neglect of manifest trueth and reformation of lise, did cast of the Anrichristian yoke of the Popes obedience. Now whereas you charge him with contention, and couetousnes, the world your iudge before, maie gather whether Luther, if against his conscience he would haue set forth the Popes pardons, especiallie at such time as the Pope had great neede of monie for warre against the Turkes, might not haue made a more easie waie, for him selfe, to honour and ri hes, then by setting himselfe against them. But howsoeuer it was your fault, faith was thus confirmed, and that to such blasphemous boldnes, that without authoritie of the holie scriptures, the matter of pardons, seemed to you, as true, as the spirit of God is true, and hauing none other arguments to perswade you, but that Papistes called them selues the Catholike Church, and condemned Luther of manie heresies, and write in their stories that Luther was mooued by contention and couetousnes, to oppose him selfe against them, you nothing doubted but that the spirit of God was author of popes pardons in the Church. Beeing now resolued of the substance, you were not yet perswaded of the quantitie, but thinkeing the matter at the first was but small, at length you came to a perfect knowledge, how great and weightie it is, and how it draweth with it all other waight, in so much that the verie pith of the greatest matters of popish life and faith doe stand vpon it. If then the pith ofthe greatest matters of poperie doe stand in Popes pardons, and this pith hath no ground either in the scriptures, or the fathers of the Church, for a thousand yeares after Christ, we maie the more easily see, that the plant of poperie, whereof pardons is the pith, is not of Gods owne planting, and therefore shalbe plucked vp by the rootes.

ALLEN.

Thou wouldest not thinke, I dare saie, into what a summe and abridgment heresie hath by the Deuilles deuise and Luthers seruice drawne her selfe into. For by this one false conclusion, and for maintenance thereof, this man and his posteritie haue taken awaie all penance and satisfaction for sinne, haue spoiled the Church of her iust and and moste necessarie discipline, controlled Gods owne holie vsage incorrection of his children, haue entered into his secrets of the next world, and there abandoned the place of his iustice and iudgement for sinnes that be remitted, but not enough to his wisdome and will corrected, haue robbed the holie Saints of all their merites, that is to saie, Christ of his giftes and grace, whereby onelie they besosoneraigne and satisfactorie, haue imbarred the bodie mysticall of Christ, of the benefit which the wholl and euerie member thereof should receiue by the satisfaction and holie workes of the common head, which is Christ, haue broken the communion of Saints, and the sweet felowship of all the holie members of Gods Church, and the benefit which riseth frometh to other, by mutuall participation of their good works and desertes, and to be short, haue by this one falsehood preached against pardons, done iniurie to Christ, to his Church, to his Saints, and to his sacraments, and haue mightelie shaken the whole frame of Christian religion and doctrine. I doe not here riot in wordes to ouerrunne my aduersaries in talke, or to make more of the matter then it is: but assuredlie without destruction of all these so necessarie articles of our faith, there can no man defend Luthers doctrine against Indulgences. I knowe he fumbled at the beginning otherwise then his fellowes and followers to disgrace the same, sometimes by holding the pardons to be lawfull, but not profitable: other whiles, to be deceites, but yet inuented for holie purposes, now by avouching they could not stand with Gods iustice, if they shoulde remitte anie part of the appointed paine for sinnes, and else when that there was no paine for remitted sinnes at all, whereupon the indulgences should not be needfull but vaine and friuolous: with such other inconstant stammering, as lightlie is common to them that seeke to vp hold falshood against their owne skill and consciences.

But his followers, as well of the Protestants, as Zuinglians and Caluinistes, to make the waie of wickednes more easie and plaine, haue boldlie denied all penance and temporall paine for sinne remitted, whether it be by Christs or the Churches enioyning, haue taken awaie Purgatorie, haue bereued Priesthood of all power, and the Church of all her treasure of Christes copious and abundant redemption. Whereupon I cannot otherwise iudge, but that doctrine which else can not be refelled, but by the waste of so manie vndoubted articles, should stande exceeding fast, and be grounded moste surelie vpon all these foresaide truthes, without the destruction whereof it can not be of anie force ouerturned.

FVLKE.

As no man would thinke any such matter, if you had not put it in their heades: so no wise men can thinke otherwise of Pardons, then he did before you tooke in hande their defence, sauing that all reasonable men may thinke them so much the worsse, because you are able to defend them no better. And if all the principles of popery (as you saie) be contained in the matter of pardons, as in a summe, or abridgment, the children of God maie behold the prouidence of god, more clearelie, in setting Luther first against them, at such time as he knewe no such matter, neither had anie purpose but to disswade the moste grosse abuses, and palpable impostures which were that time mantained about them, alowing the pardons still as good and lawful. But for the mantainers of this conclusion, you say, he and his, haue taken awaie all penance, and satisfaction for sinne, &c. Naie they haue established and restored the true vse of repentance and shewed that the death of Christ, is the onelie satisfaction for sinnes: the discipline of the Church, from a batbarous antichristian tyrannie, they haue reduced within the limmites of the scriptures, and the practize of the primatiue and pureit age of the Church: the chastising that God vseth, for correction of his children, they haue taught out of the scriptures, how it is to be taken patientlie as an admonition for amendement, not an amends for our misdoing, which sauoreth as much of pride, as their doctrine doth of humility. The secrets of the next world not reueiled in the scriptures, they leaue vntil the time of the general reuelation of al secrets, and therfore they presume not to allow purgatorie paines, for the clensing of those sinnes, which the scripture teacheth to be purged, by the bloode of Christ, in whome all our sinnes are thorowlie punished, to the full satisfaction of the iustice and wisedome of God. They haue left to the saints al their merits, which is nothing els but the grace of God, sufficient for their saluation, not placing the workes of saints in the place of Christes passion which is onelie of it selfe soueraigne and satisfactorie for all men. The mysticall bodie of Christ, and the holie cōmunion of saints, they beleeue to receiue all vertue and power of life from Christ the head, and euery member to exercise that office, which by his grace is assigned vnto it, therefore they haue done no iniurie to Christ, his Church, his saints, sacraments, or his holy Religion, but their dutie in purging the doctrine ofChrist, his Church, his saints, sacraments, and Religion, from error, falsehood, heresie, and blasphemie. You tell the reader that you doe not riot in wordes to ouerrunne your aduersarie: but if he be wise, he will remēber, that a crafty orator, doth sonest deceiue, when he pretendeth moste plainenes. What Luther thought, and taught, at the first of pardons his writings are extant in print to declare, in which he confesseth that he did fight in the darke, yet it pleased God by the importunitie of his aduersaries, to sturre him vp to search the trueth out of the holie scriptures. Neither hath Zuinglius or Caluine, or anie of the Protestants taught otherwise of repentance, satisfaction, power of priesthood, or the tresure of the Church, then Luther did, after God had reueiled the trueth vnto him, and he openlie preached the same. Seeing therefore the matter of pardons cannot stand, but vpon the blasphemous heresies, which the popish antichristian Church doth teach, against the glorie of the onelie redemption of Iesus Christ, our onelie and whole sauiour and reedemer, it must needs be one of those pestilent poisons, which Sathan, after his loosing out of, the bottomeles pit, hath powred forth into the world the defacing of the glorie of Christ, and the destruction of manie ignorant soules.

ALLEN.

Therefore, least any man by making smaller accompt of so litle a braunch of the Churches faith, then he should do, fall further vnto the mistrusting of other many of knowen importance, I thought it good, to debate the question of Indulgences, which be now commonly called the Popes Pardons, though not onely he, but also other Prelates of Christendome haue their seuerall right, eche one according to the measure of the Churches graunt, and his iurisdiction therein. In which matter, because most men of smaler trauail haue erred, rather by misconstruing the case, & mistaking the state of the cause, then for any lacke of sufficient proofe of the matter after it were wel vnderstanded: I will studie first clearly to open the meaning of that, whereon we stande, and then to go through the whole question with as much light and breuitie as I can: tempering my selfe, as much as I maie, from all such 〈◊〉 , as the depth of so grounded a conclusion, and the learned disputation of Schoolmen might driue me vnto. Wherein I am content, rather to followe the desire and contentation of the reader, then to satisfie my owne appetite, which I feele in my selfe, to be somewhat more greedie of matter sometimes, then the common people, whome I studie moste to helpe, can well beare: and yet if they thinke it anie vantage to knowe trueth, and the necessarie Doctrine of their faith, they must learne to abide the orderlie methode, and compasse of the cause, and further I shall not charge them.

FVLKE.

You come to late after the vanitie. treacherie, and blasphemie of pardons hath beene so long set abroad, and knowen to the world, and bringing no better stuffe then you do, to suppose that you shalbe able to restore pardons, into the auncient credit they had, within these foure score yeares, euen with the simplest papist in Europe. You would make the matter more plausible, by communicating the right of pardons, to all prelates of christendome, as wel as to the Pope, whereas indeed your popish Church keeping no proportion, aloweth none of thē aboue 40. daies at once, except it be at the dedication of a Church, & thē he hath but one yeare: & this authoritie also pinched with diuers restraintes, whereas the pope smelling the sweetnes of them, since the Laterane councel, in which his modesty is comended, that though he had fulnes of power, yet he vsed it not, to be ouerlauish in graunting of pardons, hath bro ken al banks of moderation, & graunted 10000 20000. 40000. 100000. yeares of pardon, yea generall pardons ofIubelie, à poena & culpa, from all sinnes and penances due for them, whether men haue erred by misconstruing the case, and what orderlie method you haue obserued with regard of the peoples capacitie we shall consider in that which followeth.

For the true meaning of Pardons, and to remooue some vntrue surmises touching the same, it is declared that the Pope neuer tooke vpon him by pardoning to remit deadlie sinne, much lesse to giue anie man license to sinne.

THE SECOND CHAP. ALLEN.

FOr the vnderstanding therefore of the tearme, Pardon, or grace, or Indulgence, let it be oansidered, that proper lie they import not the remission of anie deadlie crime considered in them-selues, and as seperated from the sacrament of penance, nor yet signifie anie release of eternall damnation or euerlasting punishment, which onelie allwaies is remitted when the deadlie sinne, for which it was due, is forgiuen. For there can no power in earth be so great, nor any mans iurisdiction so simple, that he maie forgiue mortall offences, since the institution of the sacrament of penance, except he vse the confession of the partie with his contrition and sure intent neuer to commit the like againe, yea and with purpose to satisfie the iustice of God, by Christes grace, as he maie, according to the enioyning of his iudge therein. For God him-selfe, because he is righteous and true, can not forgiue anie man his sinnes, either by this sacrament of penance, or otherwise, being of yeares and time of discretion, except he be penitent for the same: that is to saie, except he be both contrite, and at the least willing to confesse his offences, if it be after relapse, and to suffer due correction therefore. And seeing God can not pardon anie man of his deadlie sinnes, except he be thus qualified, much lesse maie a mortall man, be he neuer so great in dignitie or calling in the Church, take vpon him to forgiue or pardon him that is guiltie of deadlie sinne and damnation, without the confession and submission of the penitent, as is premised. All this trueth hangeth orderlie vpon the necessitie of the sacrament of Penance, and Christs ordinance therein, whereby he hath made deadly sinnes onely remissible in that sacrament, by the confession of the partie to a Priest, who hath in his order receiued power to remit them, as is sufficientlie prooued in the former parte of this treatise, and it is onely a Priest, whether he be of base state, or high dignitie, that can lawfullie loose mens sinnes, as by the key of his order, as they terme it, with sufficient iurisdiction ouer the penitent, for the secret discussing of his conscience in this sacrament of Confession.

FVLKE.

This wholl Chapter conteineth nothing but positions, without any ground of authoritie of scripture, or testimonte of Doctours, as though it were sufficient onely to affirme them: which if they be not graunted, all that followeth of Pardons is nothing worth. The first is, That Pardons do not properly importe the remission of any deadly crime, or the punishmēt due for the same. The reasons that followe serue to prooue, that pardons for deadlie sinnes, and the paine due for them, are vnprofitable, but they prooue not, that they doe not import such remission, either by the Popes intendement, or by the pardoners preaching of them, or in the opinion of the purchasers, and receiuers of them. The glosse vpon the Clementine. l. 5. de poenitentiis, & re missionibus. c. 2. yealding a reason why the Pope reproueth the pardoners which toke vpon thē to graunt ple nary remission of sins, & to absolue men à poena & culpa, hath these wordes: à poena & culpa ista est plenissima peccatorum remissio, quae conceditur cruce signatis pro subsidio vltramarino, &c. quam solus papa concedit. From the paine and the fault, this is a moste full remission of sinnes, which is graunted to them that are marked with the crosse, for aide beyond the sea, which the Pope alone doth graunt: by which it appeereth, that the Pope taketh vpon him iustlie, to graunt pardon of all sinnes, mortall and veniall, which the pardoners vniustlie presumed to do, without sufficient warrant. So doth Pope Boneface the 8, the inuentor of Iubilie pardons, graunt, Non solùm plenam & largiorem, immo plenissimam omnium suorum veniam peccatorum, not onelie a full and large pardon, but a most full pardon of all their sinnes. If the pope speake vnproperlie, when he vttereth such emphatical and superlatiue speeches, how shal plaine men vnderst and what he meaneth. I know that some of the Canonistes, who haue more care that his decrees should hang together, then the Pope him self, when he graunteth pardons for aduantage, do interpret the word peccatorum to signify paines due for sins, & yet by this cursed glosse, that corrupteth the text, release of eternal paine due for deadly sinne is not excluded. The author of the glosse confesseth, that this epistle was verie grosly made. Haecepistola satis grossè fuit composita, and therefore it must be healped by glosses, for their sakes that can dispute against it, but for the common people it is good enough in the literal sense. In so much that the glosse saith vpon the word plenissimam. Sed quomodo ista compatiuntur plenā, largiorem, & plenissimā? Dico Papam interpretatum fuisse in consistorio me presense, hane indulgentiam adeo plenam, prout clauium potestas se extendet, quod intelligo prout verba patiūtur. But how do these words hang together, & the one abide the other, a ful, a more large, & a most ful pardon? I say that the pope in the consistory in my presense, did interpret this pardon, to be so ful as the power of the keies doth extend it selfe, which I do vnderstand as the words doe suffer. Whereby it is manifest that the Pope restraining the fullnesse of his open pardon, sent into all the world by his priuie interpretations in his consistorie, doth nothing els but delude the world by his pardons, as it shal more plainly appeare by the rea sons that are afterward brought forth to defend them from the pretended slaunders of their impugners. But further to prooue, that the Pope hath taken vpon him, by pardon to remit deadlie sinne, I alledge a Bul of confirmation graunted by Pope Leo the tenth anno. 1513. Sept. id. martij, Pontif. anno primo, the copie wherof is printed, with the subscription of two publike notaries, to testifie that it agreeth with the originall: which Bull was graunted, Hospitali Sancti 〈◊〉 in Saxia almae vrbis. In which is an approbation of all pardons graunted by his predecessours to the saide hospitall and the members thereof. Whereof there are rehearsed, that Innocent the third graunted to the faith and deuotion of the faithfull, and the saluation of their soules, to all that visit the said hospitall and the members thereof, from the feast of the natiuitie of our Lord, and euerie day vnto the octaues thereof, two thousand and 800. yeares of pardons. The same Innocent graunted to the said hospitall and the members thereof in euerie festiuite of the Apostles 2000. yeares of pardons. The same Ionocent graunted to the said hospitall, and the members thereof, euerie daie of the wholl yeare, one yeare, and 40. daies of pardon. Also Pope Alexander the fourth, graunted to the saied hospitall, and the members thereof, from the feast of the holie ghost, in the moneth of Ianuarie, euerie daie vntill the octaues of the same feast foure thousand yeares, and eight hundred Lents of pardon, & remission of the seuenth part of al their sins. And on the Sundaie in which there is song, for the introite of the Masse, Omnis terra, the said Alexander graunted to the saied hospitall, and to all and euerie the members thereof, the first Sondaies of euerie moneth of the yeare 3000. yeares, and as many Lentes, and remission of the third part of all their sinnes. The same Alexander graunted to the saide hospitall and the members thereof, from the feast of Corpus Christi euerie daie vntill the octaues 2000. yeares, and remission of the seuenth part of all their sinnes. Pope Celestinus the 5. graunted to the saide hospitall and the members therof, from the feast of the Epiphany vnto the octaues euerie daie, a hundreth thousand yeares of Pardons. The same Celestine graunted to the saied hospitall, and the members thereof, from the feast of the natiuitie of the Virgin Marie, and in the octaues euerie daie thirtie thousand yeares of Pardon, & as many Lentes. Also Pope Clement the 5. graunted to the said hospitall and the members thereof, from the feast of the resurrection of Christ vnto the octaues thereof, euerie daie, two thousand and eight hundreth yeares of Pardon. Item Pope Boneface the 8. graunted to the 〈◊〉 hospitall, and to the members thereof, from the feast of the ascension of Christ vnto the octaues 2500 yeares of Pardons. Item Pope Clement the sixt graunted to the said hospitall, and to all the members thereof, from the feast of Pentecost vnto the octaues thereof euerie daie 8000. yeares & 8000. Lentes, & full remission of all their sinnes. Item Pope Innocent the 6. hath graunted to the said hospitall, and to the members thereof, from the feast of the assumption of the blessed Marie, vnto the octaues thereof, euerie daie, 2000. yeares and 2000. Lentes of Pardons, Item Pope Benedict the 12. hath graunted to the saide hospitall and the members thereof, from the feast of all Saints, to the feast of Saint Leonard 3000. yeares, and as many Lentes of Pardons. The summe of the daies of pardon graunted by Popes, and by 60 Archbishops, and by 70. Bishops, in the consistorie of Lateran confirmed by the authoritie Apostolike, maketh 700. yeares and as many Lentes. The summe of the Masses of the wholl order by the yeare, maketh thirtie two thousand, and as many psalters of the bretheren which are of the order.

In these liberall grauntes, where there is not onely thousandes of yeares and Lents, by which you vnderstand paines, & penances, inioyned, or due for sinne, what meaneth the remission of the seuenth part, of the third part of all their sinnes, yea full remission of all their sinnes? except the Pope meane either to mocke men, that receiue his pardons, or els tooke vpon him to remit deadly sin, as the words sound, & can haue none other sense, seeing there is not onelie the vniuersall particle, all their sinnes, but also remission of sinnes is distinct from paine of penance due for sinnes. Againe, what should neede so large pardon for veniall sinnes, which may so easilie be remitted without pardon, except the pope meaneth to release the paines, due for deadlie sinnes? Doe ventall sinnes, which may be washed away with holie water, deserue so many hundred thousand yeares of penance or punishment, as are conteined in these pardons? Finallie what shal we saie to those pardons that are graunted for saying of certeine praiers, wherof diuerse printed bookes are full, in which is expresse mention of pardon, for mortall sinnes. As for example, Pope Alexander the sixt, graunteth to him that saieth a certeine praier deuoutlie in the worship of Saint Anne, and the Virgin Marie, and her sonne Iesus, ten thousand yeares of pardon, for deadlie sinnes, and twentie yeares for veniall sinnes, tottes, quoties. The praier with the indulgence, is to be found in a booke printed at Paris, no longer agoe, then in anno. 1534. fol. 85. in horis sanctae virginis. What face then hath this proctor for the Popes pardons to affirme, that the Pope neuer tooke vpon him by pardon to remit deadlie sinne?

But now let vs consider his reasons, how he prooueth that the Popes pardons doe not properlie import remission of any deadlie crime, &c.Since the institution of the sacrament of penance, no man can forgiue deadlie sinne without confession of the partie, and purpose to satisfie the iustice of God. Here are three positions assumed, without proofe, alwaies denied of vs, namelie the institution of the sacrament of penance, the necessitie of Popish confession, or of the purpose of satisfying the iustice of God, which no man can satisfie in any part, but onelie Christ hath fullie satisfied the same for vs: and therefore it is open blasphemie to saie that God can not forgiue a man his sinnes, except he be willinglie to suffer due correction therefore. For Christ hath once suffered for vs and found eternall redemption: That God requireth 1. Pet. 3. Heb. 9. 10. repentance in them that receiue forgiuenes of sinnes, beeing of discretion, that is such as heare the worde and beleeue it, is not so to be vnderstood, as though God were restrained of his power, by the impenitencie of man, but that God giueth repentance to all such as whose sinnes he forgiueth: For except he conuert vs we cannot repent. Therefore it is a presumptuous saying to affirme, that god cannot, because he is righteous, forgiue a man without he be penitent. For his righteousnes is thoroughlie satisfied in Christ, before we were borne. And if it be his pleasure to forgiue a man his sinnes, he will also giue him repentance, and faith to apprehend Christ, to his iustification. But the Pope, who is not able to giue repentance, is no more able to forgiue sinnes. If this matter hang (as you saie) vpon the necessitie of the sacrament of penance and confession to a Priest, neither of both those necessities beeing prooued, it hangeth in the aire, and is concluded without proofe. Now if God onelie by the ministerie of euerie priest, with the conditions by you required, doe forgiue sinnes, it followeth that the Popes pardons are nothing, but mere delusions, to promise that which he cannot performe, or which euerie hedge Priest of his Church, is able to performe to his subiects, as largelie as the Pope, concerning the remission of deadlie sinnes.

ALLEN.

Vpon which ground you may well perceiue, that the Popes remission and pardon, beeing a publike act of the key of his iurisdiction and rule ouer the flocke of Christ, and not an exercise of his power of order, which onelie is occupied in ministring the sacraments, and such like, you may well perceiue (I saie) that his Pardon or assoyling out of the Sacrament, cannot extend in any case so farre, as to forgiue sinnes without confession of the penitent, yea although he be otherwise sorowfull for the same: much lesse may he release any offences without all repentance of the partie. And therefore it is a great slaunder, to say as manie doe that for mony ye maie obteine of the Pope a free Pardon before hand, of any greeuouse sinnes that you commit afterward, as of robberies, murders, misbehauiours in bodie, or such like, which were no pardon of sinnes, but a wicked protection and license to commit sinnes. There was neuer Bishop of Rome, or of other place, that euer gaue or could giue any such pardon. Naie, not onelie they take vpon them no such thing, but they neuer gaue pardon to this intent to remit mortali sinnes at all, by force of the Pardon onelie, and without the confession of the partie, were they of neuer so large or liberall graunt. For euerie Indulgence hath this clause in it, either expresselie, or necessarilie, and by course to be supplied: Confessis, & contritis, to the confessed and contrite: and sometimes this clause of like importance, to all as be in state of grace. Whereby it is euident, that the giuer meaneth not, to make any man partaker of the Indulgence, grace, or pardon, and that the partie cannot haue any benefit thereby, if he be not released of his sinnes before, and by the sacrament of penance, set in state of saluation. Whereby also you see, that the Pope taketh not vpon him to forgiue anie their sinnes (I meane alwaies deadlie sinnes in this case) by his pardon. For the Priest before hand, that heareth his confession, doth forgiue him in the sacrament, and so needeth not of any Pardon for those offences them selues, which belong to the Priests office to remit, and therefore be alwaie in the said sacramentall manner forgiuen. And if he be vnworthie of forgiuenes and loosing by the iust iudgement of his ghostlie father, then cannot the pope or any other power in earth forgiue him by any grace or Indulgence, which taketh onelie place from such as be alreadie loosed from their mortall crimes.

FVLKE.

The second position is, that the Popes pardon cannot extend to forgiue sins without the confession of the partie, much lesse release sinnes without all repentance of the partie. We do easilie graunt, that the popes pardons, is of no validitie at al, and therfore you maie pinch it and straine it in, at your pleasure. But where you saie, it is a great slaunder to saie as manie do, that for monie men maie obteine pardon afore hand, &c. You should haue done well, to haue set downe, who saith so, or what impugner of pardons so slaundereth them or the Pope. And yet it is manifest, that although no such pardon go forth in such forme of wordes, the Popes pardons dispensations and absolutions, tend to that effect: seing they are openlie prostrate for all men that will giue monie for them. For what skilleth it, If a man can not haue a lycense to commit murther, periurie, adulterie, &c? If he be sure before hand to haue a pardon, dispensation, or absolution for the same, he will not be greatlie affraid to commit anie of them. And seeing the Pope taketh vpon him to dispense against the commaundement of God, in manie cases, and to graunt absolution for anie crime neuer so great, the Pope is not greatlie slaundered, if he be called a protector of sinne, and a graunter of license to committe the same. Neither can he be excused by requiring contrition, confession, and satisfaction in the parties, seeing he graunteth pardon for the defaults of euerie one of them, and that which is the chiefest, of satisfaction, which according to your learning, must be greater or lesser, as the contrition is more or lesse, according to the priestes simple discretion. For the glosse vpon the Bull of Pope Boneface the 8. saith, that the contrition of him that confesseth may be so great, that not onelie the fault, but also the paine, maie be cleane taken awaie without penance: but because men can not iudge of that, some satisfactorie penance must be enioyned, by the Priest or Pope, &c. Now if the Pope by his pardons, as you saie, forgiueth no sinnes, but such as be forgiuen before by the priest, in the sacrament of penance, then doth he nothing but plaie mockholiedaie with his moste full pardons, à poena & culpa, with the pardons of the third part or of the seuenth part of mens sinnes, and so is he no better then a co ener, to sel his pardons for monie which conteine nothing but that men haue before they bought them. Thus while you go about to excuse the popes pardons of presumption, you condemne them of cosening, and declare them to be meerelie vnprofitable, which promis pardons of deadlie sinnes, yet take place onely vpon such as be alreadie loosed from their mortal sinnes.

ALLEN.

Then hereupon the Reader must learne, and diligentlie consider, that we attribute a great deale more power to anie simple and base Priest, in this case, and by force of the sacrament, then we do to the highest Pope or Patriarch in the world, out of the sacrament, working onelie by the right of his iurisdiction and gouernance of the people. The cause is, that the effect of remission of sins proceedeth from Christ more abundantlie in the grace of sacraments, which be ministred by the priest, principallie by his power of orders, then it doth by the high iurisdiction and key of gouernment of any man without the sacrament. I trust euerie man vnderstandeth, that there is in the Church a double key (for so the Doctours and schooles follow Christ in that Metaphore, and himselfe the Prophets) the one of order, which is the power annexed or giuen in the order to worke anie holie function, by ministring of sacraments, or other things to them belonging: as to consecrate the Sacrament of the Altar, to absolue in penance, and so forth in the rest, to worke in euerie of them according to their institution.

FVLKE.

The metaphore of the Keies is well knowne, to the Doctors, as vsed by Christ, & the Prophets, but this diuision of the keies, if the auncient Doctours had knowne, you would not haue spared to make vs partners of their knowledge in the keies, and yours in the Doctors. The schoolemen in deede be authors of that double keie you speake of, namelie the keie of iurisdiction or gouernment, and the key of order. But the auncient Doctors knew no such distinction. The keies of power or auctoritie & the keie of knowledge the Scripture speaketh of, and so doe the auncient doctors. How be it euen as your fathers the Scribes & Pharises & lawier did take away the keies of knowledge, and shut vp the kingdom of heauen from men, neither entring in them selues nor suffering Math. 23. 5. Luk. 11. other that would: so do you: for you haue taken away the key of knowledge of the Scriptures, by which as Chrysostome saith, in opere imperfecto the kingdom of Hom 44. in c. Matt. 23. heauen is opened, & in steed thereof forged a key of straunge and tyrannicall iurisdiction, which neither Christ nor Peter, nor any of his godly successors did know or exercise. This ancient writers words are these. Regnum coelorum est beatitudo coelestis, ianua autem etus est Scriptura, per quam introitur ad eam. Clauicularij autem sunt Sacerdotes, quibus creditum est verbum dicendi, & interpretandi Scripturas. Clauis autem est verbum scientiae Scripturarum, per quam aperitur hominibus ianua veritatis. Adapertio autem est interpretatio vera. The kingdome of heauen is the heauenly blessednes, the gate thereof is the Scripture, by which men goe into it: the key-keepers are the priests, to whome is committed the word of preaching and interpreting the Scriptures. And the key is the word of the knowledg of the Scriptures by which the gate of truth is opened vnto men. The opening is the true interpretation of the scriptures. These two keies of authoritie and knowledge, will make a sufficient minister of the Gospell, that is able to open, and shut, binde and loose, forgiue and retaine sinnes, and where these want, or either of them, there can be no good minister of Christ to open the kingdome of heauen, that men maie enter therein. But now let vs see the reason you giue, why you attribute more power to a simple priest in remitting of mortal sinnes in shrift, then to the Popes high iurisdiction by pardons. The cause is (saie you) that the effect of remission of sinnes, proceedeth from Christ, more abundantlie in the grace of sacraments, then by the high iurisdiction without the sacraments. This is nakedlie affirmed, without anie proofe in the world, as other positions before and after. But in deed there is no reason that the effect of remission of sinnes, shoud proceede more large from the sacrament of penance, as you call it, then from the iurisdiction of the Pope, if it had the same foundation which you would beare men in hand it hath. For if Peters and the Popes iurisdiction be builded vpon Tu es Petrus, and to thee I will giue the keies, and what soeuer thou bindest or loosest, shall be bound in heauen, &c. Why should not all mortall sinnes be subiect to his iurisdiction, as well as to the priestes power in penance. The wordes be as ample to Peter, Math. 16. as to the Apostles. Ioh. 20. If Peters key of iurisdiction papall be not grounded vpon this text, as you aduouched lib. 1. cap. 4. Sect. 7. tell vs where he hath it anie where els committed vnto him. If it be committed by this text, certainlie the key of iurisdiction is as large as the key of orders. Therfore either he forgiueth mortall sinnes by his iurisdiction, or els his iurisdiction is no greater then anie other mans, that hath anie key committed vnto him.

ALLEN.

There is another key of Regiment and rule of the Church or some principall portion thereof, which is called the key or power of iurisdiction. Now by this power of regiment and rule, as no man can take vpon him to consecrate, so no man out of the sacrament of penance, can take vpon him to absolue anie man of deadlie sinnes and damnation due therefore. For though some do thinke, that Saint Paull did absolue the incestuous Corinthian both of his sinne and damnation, with all temporall punishment due therefore, after assured repentance of the partie, out of the sacrament of penance: yet I cannot agree in anie case thereunto, because the sacrament of confession hath euer beene of necessitie since Christes institution thereof, and because the remission of sinnes is so proper a worke vnto God, that no creature could euer worke the same absolutelie without sacramēt, sauing only the humanitie of Christ, to which the acts, of diuinity, as being vnited to the godhead, were communicated, vpon which it is certaine, that Christ our sauiour might remit sinnes absolutelie out of all externall sacraments, by his word and will onelie, which beeing the power of excellencie, was, as Diuines do thinke, communicated to no other creature, in what iurisdiction or preheminence soeuer he should be placed: and in the act of absolution & remission of sinnes proceedeth ioyntlie from that one excellent person, beeing both God and man. Neither is it to be thought that Saint Paull did pardon the foresaid Penitent anie other waies, then by the handes of the ministers and Priestes of the Corinthian Church. For though the confession and penance of the partie were publike, as the sinne it selfe was open, yet the vsage of the Apostie, and open practize of the Corinthian Church towards him, was no lesse a sacrament then, then it is now beeing secret. Therefore I doubt not, but Saint Paull spake especiallie to the Priestes of the Corinthians, when he willed them to confirme their charitie towards the sinner, and to forgiue him by their ministerie, whome he thought in absence worthie to receiue the grace and pardon at their handes, whereof we shall speake more hereafter in place conuenient. We do not then exalte the Pope or Bishops in this case anie thing so farre as heresie seemeth, or the simplicity of manie men conceiueth, whereas they maie wel vnderstand, that we giue more authoritie to the most simple Priest aliue, in respect of his order, and because of the sacrament, by which he worketh, then to the Pope or highest Potentate in the world, considering but onelie his iurisdiction. And therfore Saint Peter him self, who receiued both the keies, as also other Apostles and Bishops, hauing as well the keie or power of Orders, as the keie of iurisdiction, and regiment of their subiects, maie do the actes of both the keies, that is to saie, maie as well lawfullie minister sacraments of all sortes, as also exercise iurisdiction vpon their subiects in such thinges, as we hereafter shall declare. But out of the sacraments onelie by the vertue of their iurisdiction, to absolue men of mortall sinnes, though they be subiect vnto them, they can not, nor, as I think, euer Pope or Prelace tooke vpon him anie such preheminence. And therefore let this be the first point of our consideration: that the Popes Pardons or Indulgences, which he giueth in respect of his iurisdiction, which also, as moste men do thinke, he might giue when he were once elected, before he were a priest or anie other bishop in like case, according to the compasse of this regiment: let it be first noted, I saie, that such pardons, howsoeuer they be giuen out of the sacraments, do not forgiue sinnes that be deadlie. And if anie man thought before, that the Pope might or did vse to giue such liberall graunts or pardons, wherby without the sacrament of penance or consession anie man might claime full remission of all his deadlie sinnes, let him correct the misconstruing the matter in him-selfe, and assuredlie know, that it is not sothought of gods Church, nor so meant by the giuer, nor so expressed in any pardon.

FVLKE.

Stil you follow your positions without probations. The Pope dispenseth with othes, with vowes, with 〈◊〉 de auco: de potestate Ec. quaest. 49. 52. killing of men, &c. without the sacrament of penance; which things if they were donewithout this dispensation, I think you will accompt to be mortall sinnes, and this he doth by his key of iurisdiction: therfore he may as well by the same power absolue men of periutie, breach of vowes, killing of men: or if his key be naught in absolution, it can be no better in dispensation. Cettaine it is that Saint Paul with the Church of Corinth, did release and absolue the incestuous man, as largelie as he had bound him. For so his words are plaine, Whatsoeuer you do pardon I also pardon. But you can not agree 2. Cor. 2. 10 thereto, in anie case, although other men be of that minde; and Saint Paull saith as much him selfe. Peraduenture you will rather beleeue Chrysostome, who vpon the former wordes of Saint Paul, thus writeth: Ne redderet illos elatos, quasi huius negotij authoritas penes ipsos esset, ita que fieret vt non absoluerent hominem, 〈◊〉 adigit illos ad hoc, dicens sese quoque ills condonasse. Least he should make them to proude, as though the authoritie of this matter were wholie in their power, and so it might be that they would not absolue the man againe, he driueth them to this, saying that he also hath pardoned him. Againe he speaketh inthe person of Saint Paul. Ego iam condonaui, qui in priore epistola condemnaueram. I haue already pardoned him, which in my former epistle had condemned him. This is Chrysostomes iudgement, whereto in any case you can not agree. The reason you adde of the necessitie of the sacrament confession, and institution thereof, is nothing, except you prooue them out of the scriptures, as you neuer shall be able the one or the other. That remission of sinnes is so proper a worke to God, as it is incommunicable to anie creature, to graunt the same absolutelie, you saie true, whether it be with sacrament or without sacrament. For remission of sinnes followeth not the external administratio of the sacraments: but the sacraments as seales of his worde, follow the pleasure of God therein. Wherefore your determination of Gods absolute power in remission of sinnes, as also your discourse which followeth, of Christes humanitie vnited to the Godhead remitting sinnes, is cleane contrarie to your former deliberate assertions, conteined in the first booke, Chapter the 1. 2. as appeareth by the verie titles of the chapters, and in the latter end of the 4. Chapter, where you make your syllogisme, the maior whereof is this: They truelie and properlie do remit sinnes, vpon whose sentence in earth, the pardons of God immediatlie doth insue in heauen. Thus you dangle vp and downe, looking onelie vpon your purpose in hand and forgetting how your matter should hang together, which euerie meane reader will finde out of himselfe though you do not admonishhim therof. You returne againe to Saint Pauls absolution, which although the text, and the doctors interpretation vppon the text, be most manifest, that Saint Paull as a principall partie in his excommunication, doth also as principall minister restore him, yet you will haue him to be, but onelie an exhorter or counseller of other men, what they should do. But the text is plaine, he did not onelie iudge him worthie, to receiue pardon at the hands of priestes or Church of Corinth; but he also did for his parte, and according to that interest he had ouer the Churchof Corinth, himselfe pardon him & that in the person or presens of Christ. But hereof you admonish vs that we shal haue occasion to consider more hereafter. In the meane time while you would make the Popes pardons seeme more tollerable to ignorant persons, you go about to persuade them, that you do not exalt the Pope so farre, but that you giue to euerie simple priest authoritie, in respect of his order, more then to the Pope, and repeat againe, that the Pope can not absolue men of mortall sinne, and yet hath the Pope as I haue prooued, taken vpon him to absolue men of mortall sinne. If he did contrarie to the Popish Churches 〈◊〉 , let the Popish Church expostulate with him: if his meaning were otherwise, then might be gathered by his wordes, then was he a shamefull dissembler, cosener, and deceiuer.

ALLEN.

Notwithstanding, the power of iurisdiction sometimes ioyneth with the sacrament of penance and the power of orders: as when anie indulgence is geuen forth by the Pope, in which is expressed, that whosoeuer shall be partaker thereof, must confesse him-selfe, and be contrite for his sinnes past, and therewith receiue the holie sacrament of the Altar, and such like, by this pardon so ioyning with the sacrament of remission, or in a manner including the same, a full forgiuenes is had of all sinnes and paines therfore, which in that case maie be called, as it is, a plenarie remission or a pardon à poena & culpa, from both the fault, and the paine due therefore.

FVLKE.

Howsoeuer you ioyne or disioyne the Popes pardons to or from the singlesoled sacrament of popish confession, the Popes pardons for mortall sinnes will prooue no better then fooles bables, by your owne confession. For without the sacrament of confession, you saie, they are not able to forgiue deadly sinnes, and in the sacrament of confession you holde that deadlie sinnes maie be forgiuen without the Popes pardons: therefore either with it or without it the Popes pardons for deadlie sinnes, are not worth a rotten nutshell. So that while men paie monie to the Pope or his pardoning questors, for leaden bulles, they are made leude Calues, to buy that for mony at his hands, which their Parish priests are bound to giue them freelie without monie. The Pope therefore in graunting plenarie pardons, à poena & culpa, both from the fault and the paine, due therefore, doth nothing els but deiude the world, seing he can neither graunt pardon for anie mortall fault, as you confesse, and when he pretendeth to pardon such faultes, he pardoneth no more then was pardoned before, or which might receiue pardon without his pardon.

ALLEN.

There be also certaine greeuous crimes which euerie Curate or Priest Parochian can not remit, because they be reserued to the audience of the higher Pastours. For in the sacrament of penance there is a power iudiciarie, and therefore can not be practized lawfullie, but vpon subiect persons, and causes not exempted from their iudgement, and excepted from their audience. In which cases the persons of higher iurisdiction, to whome by right and law the cognition of those reserued sinnes belong, do sometimes vpon occasion giuen, communicate their power to the said simple priestes, and do license them to exercise their iurisdiction vpon persons and causes not properly pertaining vnto them: as when the Popes Indulgence giueth the sinner leaue to choose his ghostlie father, and by him that he maie be assoiled euen from such sinnes as be reserued to the supreame power of the Church. In this matter also, the Indulgence ioyneth with the ordinarie sacrament of penance, and the minister receiueth iurisdiction by the Indulgence. to heare and assoile the Penitent of such sinnes, as before were not subiect to his peculiar regiment: and therefore this is also called a pardon from sinne, and the paine for sinne, and a full remission.

FVLKE.

You haue hitherto held hard, that neither the Pope nor anie Bishop can giue pardon of anie mortal sinne: but by reseruation of cases it appeareth, that the Pope challengeth this prerogatiue, that he onelie may giue absolution and pardon in these greeuous crimes, that be called cases papall, and the Bishop in cases episcopall. Now let vs see how this geare hangeth together. The Pope hath this prerogatiue in respect of his high iurisdiction, for in the sacramēt of penance euery priest, by order, as we heard before, hath as much authority as he. Then if these cases be reserued to the Popes iurisdiction, this reseruation doth prooue, that the Pope taketh vpon him to pardon the most greeuous sinnes, by his iurisdiction onelie, or els he deceaueth them that seeke for absolution of them at his hands. And whereas you would cloake the matter by saying, the Popes indulgence doth graunt, that the priest in confession maie assoile a man from such sinnes, as be reserued to the supreame power of the Church, it is to no purpose: For the Priest in this case, is but the popes deputie, to exercise the Popes iurisdiction (as you saie) as well vpon persons as causes, not properlie pertaining to him, but by the Popes license; whereupon it followeth, that the Pope may do in his owne person, that which he doth by his deputie, but by his deputie he taketh vpon him to remit most deadlie sinnes: therefore the Pope taketh vpon him to remit deadlie sinnes, by his iurisdiction onelie. If you saie, the absolution commeth from the sacrament, and not from his iurisdiction, then shew vs out of the scriptures, how the Pope hath authoritie to restraine the grace of sacraments in respect of the person that ministreth them, or els your reseruation of cases and exemption of persons, will prooue no better then an Antichristian tyrannie. For if Christ haue giuen power to euerie Priest to remitte all sinnes, as you haue often affirmed, vpon the text Ioh. 20. whose sinnes you remit, &c. what is he but Antichrist, exalting himselfe aboue all that is called God, which controlleth the liberall graunt of Christ, exempting both persons, and sinnes from their power, without al ground or war rant of Gods word?

ALLEN.

That thou be not deceiued herein, vnderstand, good Reader, that euerie Priest in his taking Orders, and by Christes graunt, hath full power to remit all sinnes, and all men of their sinnes that be penitent, and yet that this power can not be practized by the law of nature indifferentlie vpon all, because this sacrament, and none other, is iudiciall, and therfore profitablie can be extended no further, but to them that be of their subiection and regiment. Wheresoeuer the Priest consecrateth, it is effectuall: whomesoeuer he baptizeth, he is lawfullie Christianed: whomesoeuer the Bishop ordereth, he standeth trulie ordered, and so forth, though they should not herein meddle in other mens cures, without speciall licence, sufferance, or necessitie. But no man can assoile anie person at all, that is not subiect vnto him, either ordinarilie or otherwise, because it is an act of iurisdiction, and therefore though his power of orders be in it selfe sufficient, yet by that onelie he can not absolue anie man, but in necessitie, except he haue withall authoritie ouer the person, and in that case, wherein the penitent requireth his sentence, which iurisdiction he maie haue, either ordinarilie, as vpon all those that be of his charge, or els extraordinarilie, by some special graunt of the superiour, as Bishop, or Pope, as we maie see in the formes and course of Indulgencies diuers times. And thus considering of the matter, you see that the Popes pardons, as they be onelie proper to the act of iurisdiction, separated from the power of priesthood, and sacramentall confession, can not remit the sinnes them-selues, neither damnation due for their reward, though, because licence commeth and proceedeth by them, to the inferiour Priestes, to remitte sinnes in all cases, they maie be called, as I said, plenarie and most liberal graces and graunts, to assoile man both from sinne, and the punishment that is due therefore.

FVLKE.

You pretend as though you would render a reason, why all Priestes haue not equall power ouer all men, and to remit all sinnes, and for the former you saie somewhat, though not sufficient, but for the later you saie nothing at all. First you confesse that euerie Priest rightly ordered, hath by Christes graunt power to remit all sinnes, and all men of their sinnes that be penitent. But this power can not be practized, you say, by the law of nature, indifferentlie vpon all. Then belike Christ hath graunted, and they receiued, an vnprofitable power: for why haue they power to remitte all sinnes, and al mens sinnes, and yet maie practize the same, but vpon some sinnes, and some mens sinnes onelie? In truth Christ hath giuen ful power to al his ministers, according to the measure of euerie one of their charges. the Apostles ouer al the world, their successors the bishops pastors, & teachers within the compasse of their seuerall cures: and therefore you saie well, that God hath so ordered the case, that no man maie intermedle in an others cure, without licence, sufferance, or necessitie: the Pope then doth wickedlie to exempt anie man from his laufull pastor, to whome the charge of his soule is by Christ committed The reason you giue, wherfore this power can not be practized, vpon all, is friuolous, because this sacrament, and none other is iudiciall. For who will graunt you that the power of remitting sinnes in repentance is more iudiciall then in baptisme, or in the Lordes supper? For the minister ought to haue a iudgement whome he baptizeth and whome he admitteth vnto the Lords table. If the children of Turks, or Iews, be offered to baptisme, without the conuersion or consent of their parentes, by what warrant shall he receiue them? If Turkes, Iewes, or Gentiles that be of yeares of discretion, offer them selues to baptisme, before they be instructed in Christian beliefe, shal they be baptized? If children, naturall fooles, and such as can not examine themselues, notorious offenders, that haue giuen no signes of repentance, men knowen to be in malice, &c. shal present thēselues to the Lords table, must they without al iudgement, or discretiō be accepted or repulsed? By this therefore it appeereth that there is nothing more iudiciall in receiuing of sinners to repentance, if that were a sacrament, then in the only true sacraments of baptisme and the Lords supper. Wherefore, there is no reason that the Pope should restraine anie man of that power, which you confesse he hath by Christes graunt, ouer all persons of his charge, by exempting anie of them, or giuing them libertie to chuse their gostlie Father, according to their owne appetite, and much lesse, that he should reserue vnto him selfe, the absolution from the greatest sinnes, the power whereof was graunted by Christ to euerie Priest, as you confesse, ouer his owne parishioners, for which reseruation you bring not so much as the shadow of anie reason to shroud him from the the note of Antichristian tiranie.

ALLEN.

The Popes Pardons also maie wellreach so farre, as to take awaie veniall and dailie infirmites, which be of their nature punishable, but by some temporall paine and correction, because they be remissible manie waies out of the sacrament, both here in this life, and in the next. For the merites of Christ maie be applied sufficientlie to the offenders in such light manner of trespaces, without the especiall grace of a sacrament: as by saying our Lordes praier (saieth Saint Augustine) and by almese, and by the holie Sacrament of the aultar, either receiued, or deuoutlie adored, by sacrifice now of the holie Masse, much more then in olde time in the sacrifices of the lawe, and by the holie peace or blessinges of Christ and his Apostles, and Bishoppes after them, and by their Pardons. Therefore to him that is free from greeuous sinnes, or pardoned of the same, all these thinges shalbe commodious towards the remission of his lesser infirmities: but if he be in state of damnation, and out of Gods fauour, which grace must be procured onelie by the Sacraments of Baptisme or penance, he can not obtaine anie Pardon at the popes hands neither aliue nor dead, nor none was euer meant vnto him.

FVLKE.

Seeing veniall sinnes maie so easilie be pardoned as you doe shewe, and by so manie meanes, you make great fooles of all them, that trauell to Rome, for a plenarie Pardon of Iubelie, or that will paie one halfepenie for anie at home, when without trauell, without expences, without daunger, he maie so lightlie obtaine forgiuenes of them. But howsoeuer you plaie, and blear mens eies, with veniall sinnes, the worde of trueth saieth, that euerlasting death is Rom. 6. 23. the reward of sinne, if it be not pardoned through the merites of Christes death, applied to vs by faith. The grace of God is all one, whether it be testified by his 〈◊〉 , or by a sacrament. But you would haue it seene, that Saint Augustine is an author of this distinction, of veniall and mortall sinnes and sheweth these meanes by which veniall sinnes maie be wiped awaie, without the grace of a Sacrament: but you peruert his wordes, farre from his meaning. For his purpose is to shewe, that a man cannot be purged from his greeuose sinnes by almes, except he be heartelie penitent and carefull, neuer to commit them againe: but of smaller sinnes, without the which a man can not lead his life, he cannot determine that he will forsake them, but must continuallie craue Pardon for them, and auoide them, as much as he can. His wordes are these. Sanè cauendum, ne quisquam existimet infanda illa crimina, qualia qui agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt, quotidiè perpetranda, & eleemosynis quotidiè redimenda. In melius quippe est vita mutanda, & per eleemosinas de peccatis praeteritis, est propitiandus Deus, non ad hoc emendus quodam modo, vt ea semper liceat impunè committere. Nemini enim dedit laxamentum peccandi, quamuis miserando deleatiam facta peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negligatur. De quotidianis autem breuibus leuibusque peccatis, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur, quotidiana oratio fidelium satis facit. Eorum est enim dicere, Pater noster qui es in coelis, Quiiam patri tali regenerati sunt, ex aqua & Spiritu Sancto. Delet omninò haec oratio minima & quotidiana peccata. Delet & illa, à quibus vita fidelium sceleratè etiam gesta, sed poenitendo in melius mutata, discedit. Si quemadmodum veraciter dicitur, Demitte nobis debita nostra, quoniam non desunt quae dimittantur, ita veraciter dicatur, sicut & nos dimittimus debitorib. nostris, id est, fiat, quod dicitur, quia ipsa eleemosyna est, veniam petenti homini ignoscere. Suerlie we must take heede lest anie man thinke those wicked crimer, which they that committe them, shall not possesse the kingdome of God, are dailie to be committed, and dailie to be redeemed by almes. For the life must be changed into better, and God is to be intreated through almese, for sinnes past, he is not to be bought after asort, for this end, that it maie be lawfull to commit them alwais without punishment. For he hath giuen to no man licence of sinning, although by his mercie he doe wipe awaie sinnes alreadie committed, if meet satisfaction be not neglected. But for daily, short, and light sins, without which this life is not ledde, the daily praier of the faithfull doth make satisfaction. For it pertaineth to them to saie, Our Father which art in heauen, which are alreadie regenerat to such a father by water and the holie Ghost. For this praier doth altogether wipe awaie these least and dailie sinnes. It wipeth awaie also those, from which the life of the faithfull, hauing beene wickedlie passed, but by repentance being changed into better, doth depart: if, as it is trulie saied, forgiue vs our debtes, because there want not dets to be forgiuē, euen so it may be truly said, as we also do forgiue our debters, that is to saie, if that be done which is spoken. For that is also almes, to giue pardon to a man which desireth it. First of receiuing the Sacrament of the altar, or adoring the same, of the sacrifice of the Masse, of the Bishops blessing, & of their pardons, here is no mention. Secondly he sheweth that great crimes are pardoned also by saying the Lordes praier, if changeing of life do followe: by which it is manifest, that by satisfaction he meaneth the fruites of repentance, which as the offences are greater, or lesser, so it is meete they be shewed accordinglie, in small offences. contrition of heart and humble acknowledging of them before God is sufficient: in great offences, the change of life into better, must be manifest euen to the Church, and the sinnes repented of, must be forsaken: which in lesser offences, it is not possible altogether to auoide. But while you make the sacrifice of the Masse, &c. to serue onelie for veniall sinnes, you doe more dishonour to it, then your aduersarie would haue thought you could. But confession, the great cousonage of the world, is so precious, for all your popish purposes, that in respect of it, you make light of all pointes of poperie beside.

That the popes pardons properlie pertaine to the remissiō of temporall paine due for mortal sinnes, remitted before in the Sacrament of penance, whereupon the full meaning of pardons, is opened.

THE THIRD CHAP. ALLEN.

THe Popes holines then, being disburdened by most iust meanes from all causes of enuie rising vpon the surmise or open sclaunder, that he would forgiue mens sinnes euen before they were committed, as though he should graunt further a licence, for men to commit notorius crimes, yea, being prooued to be so farre from the fact, that he taketh not vpon-him by his pardons, so much as to release anie mortall sinne at all, and therefore, that he neuer arrogated so much vnto him selfe in these matters, in respect of his iurisdiction onelie, as is iustlie graunted to the simplest priest aliue that is lawfully ordered: the case standing then before God and all the world so cleare with him, let vs see what he claimeth by his iurisdictiō, and in what sense his Pardons do remit or release anie thing to man, seeing in matters of mortall sinne, otherwise then by ioying with the sacrament of penance, he doth not intermedle with remission at all.

ALLEN.

Truelie to be plain and briefe, they that be the gouernours of Gods Church doe challenge nothing ells, nor meane nothing ells by their Pardons, but the release and pardoning of such punishment as is often due after the sinnes be remitted in the sacrament of Confession, that is to saie, they pardon the penance enioyned by the holie Ghostlie Father, or that should haue bene enioyned by the rigour of their Canons, and by the law, according to the quantitie of the sinne confessed: And what lesse can they, beeing the appointed pastours of our soules and gouernours of the Church, what lesse can they challenge, then to forgiue that punishment, or some part thereof, which the lawes did prouide, whereof they were the makers or executors themselues, and consequentlie to remit such punishment as might ensue for the lacke of fullfilling thereof? There is no temporall Prince, but he may by his Princelie Perogatiue pardon any seuerall fault committed either against his owne person, or the commonwealth, that is to saie, discharge the offendour, of that paine, which by the law he should suffer. And why should we thinke it strange, that those men, to whome by expresse wordes of Christ more preheminence is giuen for their iurisdiction spirituall, then to any Prince aliue is giuen by law or nature for their Regiment? why should we thinke it strange, that they should pardon or release the paines and penaltie appointed by the Ghostlie Father, or prescribed by the law, or due to the sinne it selfe by Gods iustice, if there were no law for the case, or order taken of the Church past?

FVLKE.

The Popes pardons beeing not onelie prostrate as common harlotts, to euerie man that will paie for them, but also his dispensations against the commaundement of God, which are of the same nature with his pardons, as readie to be solde, wherebie he taketh vpon him to make periurie, incest, and many other horrible crimes lawful, as in discharging subiects from their oth of obedience to their lawful princes, in licensing the Vncle to marry his Neece, yea the brother to marry his sister, for Augustinus de Ancona excludeth no degree from his dispensatiō, but the mariage of the parents with their owne children, his execrable holines De potest. Eccle. quest. 53. quod libetina. is not yet discharged, from that shamful Antichristian tyranie, which he is iustlie accused to vsurpe: as also it hath beene shewed plainly, that howsoeuer some Canonists haue restreined the force of his pardons, from remitting of deadlie sinne, yet are his pardons extant to be seene, wherein he promiseth full remission of all sinnes. In which if he delude men, he is so much the more wicked to promise pardon of all sinnes, and yet is not able to remit so much by his pardon, as a Parish Priest may doe without his pardons. Wherefore your impudencie is the greater, to affirme so often, they challenge nothing ells, nor meane nothing ells, but the release of penance, or punishment due. I haue before prooued both by the glosse of their law, and by the verie wordes of their pardons, that they challenge this authority to release not onelie the paine, but also the saultes. If they meane otherwise, then they write and speake, then are they detestable dissemblers. But howsoeuer some Canonists to salue their matter of shrift, haue expounded them to perteine onelie to the punishment due for sinnes, remitted in the sacrament of penance, yet their exposition can by no meanes stand, with the wordes of many pardons. But seeing you will needes haue it so, let vs see what you saie to prooue it. First you aske, what lesse, they beeing appointed pastours of our soules, and gouernours of the Church, can challenge, then to forgiue the punishment, which the law, whereof they were makers or executors, doth prouide? To this we answere, that we neither acknowledge them to be pastors, or gouernours of gods church, nor if they were, to haue authoritie, to make lawes to intangle mens consciences, and then to streine them or loose them at their pleasures. Christ gaue power to remit or retaine, to binde or loosethe penitent or vnpenitent, but not to binde the penitent to punishment, whose sins are loosed and remitted. The example of temporall Princes pardoning or releasing the punishment of transgressours, will not serue. For the pastours of the Church must doe that which Christ hath commaunded, and no more, which are so gouernours of the Church, that they be not Lordes and Princes thereof, but seruants of the Church and of Christ. But lest of all can any Pastour of our soules, or gouernour of the Church, release any punishment due to sinne it selfe by Gods iustice, which none but God of his mercie can doe, his iustice, beeing before answered in Christ our Sauiour.

ALLEN.

And that it is the punishment onelie, which they meane to pardon by their Indulgences, it may be euident both by that we haue said before, and also by the wordes of course in moste Indulgences, in which lightlie you see this clause, De poenitentijs iniunct is, we assoile them from the penance of so many daies or yeares, as may be seene planlie in the holie Councell of Lateran, and in the decrees both of Innocentius the third and the fourth. The sinne it selfe is not measurable Can. 62. De penitent & remission Cap. quod autem. by times and yeares, for it is a simple and indiuisible act or affection of minde or man, as our schooles speake in such matters, and therefore a man can not be assoiled from part of his sinne, and bound in the other part, but he that forgiueth the guilt and faulte of sinne, which the Prophet calleth iniquitatem Psal. 31. peccati, he releaseth no daies or yeares, but he forgiueth the verie fault it selfe. Neither is there any eternall punishment, which can be eased by any number of daies, were they neuer so many. Take you from an infinite and endlesse thing, how much you list, and it shalbe eternall still. Then it is onelie temporal punishment, which before God and the world is limited by certaine proportion of the wickednes committed, and of that satisfaction which gods iustice requireth at the partie penitent which can be released by daies or yeares, in part, or in whol. And therefore the Popes or Bishops Pardons onelie forgiue temporall punishment enioyned, or at the left due for answere of Gods righteousnes to be enioyned. Wherein also the Magistrates of the Church haue such care and consideration, that they remit not so much as any one daie of enioyned penance or deserued punishment, but by recompence of the lacke of mans satisfying, with some portion of Christes abundant desertes applied by the vse of their keies, to the reliefe of such as doe lacke, and for their zeale and deuotion, are not worthie to receiue benefit by the singular treasure of the common wealth, to helpe them in their priuate neede. But for this matter looke for more toward the end of the booke.

FVLKE.

This first reason is verie feeble, some pardons haue this clause, de poenitentys iniunctis, of penance inioyned, therfore in al other pardons in which is expresse mention, not onelie of penance inioyned, but also of pardoning of sins, either al, or some part of them, the temporall punishment onely is meant to be pardoned. The second reason is as good. Sinne is vndiuisible, and so is the punishment for sinne and eternall, therefore it is onelie temporall punishment, which is released by daies and yeares. But what saie you then to moste full pardons of all sinne and all punishments, where there is no limitation of daies nor yeares? what saie you to the release of the third part or the seuenth part of all sinnes, beside many thousand yeares of punishment remitted, as I haue shewed before in the Pardons of Alexander the fourth confirmed by Pope Leo the tenth within these eightie yeares?

The third argument is, that the magistrates of the Church, remit not so much as one daie of punishment due to Gods iustice for sinne, but by recompensing the want of mans satisfaction, with some portion of Christs abundant desertes, applied by the vse of the keies, &c. But what intollerable blasphemie is this to applie the merites of Christ but onelie in defaulte of mans satisfaction, whose bloode is the onelie purgation of our sinnes, whose righteousnes is the wholl propitiation for our iniquities, whose redemption by his death purchased is eternall for all them that are sanctified? Againe what an horrible blasphemie is it, to make a marchandise of the merites of Christ our sauiour, as the Pope doth in the saile of his pardons? And finallie, what scripture giueth anie dispensation of Christes merites vnto anie mortall man, and lest of all to the Pope the man of sin? if it be lawful thus to imagine, implie, applie, forge and faine, without al ground of the holie scriptures, religion shal be nothing, but as it pleaseth men to make it, as it is plaine in the Popish synagogue.

ALLEN.

And now vpon the fore said declaration, let this be as it were agreed vpon, and let the aduersaries well vnderstand, this to be the meaning of the Catholike Church, that an Indulgence or pardon is nothing els but a remission in parte or in whole of the bond of that punishment which is enioyned or deserued, after the mortall sinnes be remitted, Gods iustice being otherwise for the said sinnes recompensed by the common treasure of Christ and his Saints satisfaction, which is applied vnto the parties vse by the keis of iurisdiction graunted to such, as Christ made the Stewards of his household, the disposers of his mysteries. For the Church of God and her Pastours, though they be mercifull & inclining to remission, rather then rigour, yet they take not vpon them, neither in the sacrament of penance to remit sinne and damnation, neither out of the sacrament to release anie paine or parte of punishment enioyned, without recompence thereof by Christes copious redemption, and the communion of holie workes, that is betwixt the head and members of this mysticali bodie of Christ.

FVLKE.

So often as you repeat this vntrueth, so often it must be tolde you, that it is false, that the popes pardon by the meaning of the giuer, and receiuers, is nothing els but a remission of punishment, enioyned, or deserued, after mortall sinnes be remitted: when it is expressed in the same, that it is either for all sinnes, at well as paines, or els for some parte of the sinnes as well as some part of the vaines: except you will accuse the Pope of manifest falsehoode and cosonage, to promise that which he meaneth not to giue, and wotteth well is not in his power to giue. Againe, where you saie, that Gods iustice is otherwise recompensed, we know his iustice is throughlie satisfied, by the obedience and suffering of Christ, as wel for al our sinnes, as for the punishment due for the same, therefore Rom. 3. 5. your Popes pardons are needles where God forgiueth our sinnes, & iustifieth vs freely for Christes sake. But where you ioyne the satisfaction of saints, vnto the common treasure of Christ, it is exceeding blasphemous against the sufficiency of his satisfaction, and the grace of Gods free iustification: For all haue sinned, and are destitute Rom. 3. 23. of the glorie of God, beeing freelie iustisied by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus, whome God hath set forth to be a propitiation, by saith in his blood. But admit all these lies and blasphemies, hetherto aduouched, were graunted, who gaue the Pope authoritie to applie the same by the key of iurisdiction? How prooue you the key of iurisdiction, to extend so farre? For the keies of the kingdome of heauen, whatsoeuer Mat. 18. Iohn. 20. they are, be committed to the wholl Church, and not to one person onelie, as Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostome, Ierome, and all the auncient Doctors agreablie to the scriptures do confesse. And God hath made all the Pastors of the Church stewardes of his household and dispensers of his mysteries. And if euerie Pastour ouer his charge be a steward and dispenser of Gods mysteries, as you seem to graunt, why hath he not authoritie to release the penance by him-selfe inioyned, or the punishment due for sinne remitted, as well as the Bishop, or the Pope? Why hath he not the key of iurisdiction ouer his parish, in as large and ample manner, as the Bishop hath ouer his dioces, or the Pope ouer all men, seeing the keies are not giuen to one, but to the vnitie, as the auncient fathers teach? Whie should the Bishop, and the Pope haue two keies, and they but one? resolue vs these matters out of the holie scripture, and you shall come somewhat nearer your purpose of pardons. As for the communion of holie works, which is betweene the heade and the members, if you meane thereby the workes of men ioyned with the satisfaction or merites of Christ, either shew vs where it is taught in the scriptures, or giue vs le aue to denie it, vntill you can prooue it.

ALLEN.

Perchaunce some Protestant will here call vs back, and require proofe, that there should be anie paine or tempor all correction remaining for those persons, which hauetheir sinnes forgiuen by God in the sacrament of Penance, or otherwise by the onelie faith of the partie penitent, as he maie perhaps surmise. If he list to be satisfied in this case, let him turne backe and make a short view of the works of God since the beginning, and there consider well, whether God him-selfe hath not commonlie visited his children receiued to mercie, with some correction answerable in respect of his iustice to the greeuousnes of the crime forgiuen. Who is so froward or so rude, but he may well discerne betwixt the sault of our first Father, and the punishment of euerlasting damnation deserued thereby? His sinne was one thing, his deserued punishment an other thing, his sinne was disobedience, his punishment correspondent to that, was euerlasting death. Yet whensoeuer one of these two is forgiuen, the other must needes be forgiuen also, because he can neither be subiect to damnation, whose sinne, for which damnation was ordeined, is forgiuen, neither his fault be forgotten, whose euerlasting punishing is pardoned, which is the rewarde of sinne. But now, both these being once, through Christ remitted to Adam, as we read in the booke of wisedome, who perceiueth not, that he was for all that long afterward Cap. 10. subiect to temporall death and manie other miseries both of this life and of the next, beeing onelie punishments appointed by God for the ful satisfying euen of those sinnes, which were forgiuen him.

FVLKE.

Out of all peraduenture, we require proofe not onelie of this point, but of manie more positions, which you haue barelie affirmed, to build your popish pardons vpon them. And touching this point we do require proofe, not onely that after sinnes and eternal paines remitted, there are temporall paines remaining to satisfie Gods iustice, but also if there were anie such remaining, by what authoritie you should release them. I know that often times, after sinne remitted, God sendeth or suffereth a temporal paine to remaine, but that is not for satisfaction of his iustice; but for a mercifull chastisement, of his fatherlie discipline. The punishment due to Gods iustice is eternall damnation for euery sinne, as euen the glosse vpon the Extrauagant of Boneface the eight doth acknowledge. Extraua. 〈◊〉 lib. 1. de poenit. & remissi. Cap. 1. And when God doth freelie remit the sinne, he doth as freelie remit the punishment, due for the same. For what remaineth to be punished when the sinne is remitted? Temporall paines therefore satisfie not his iustice, but admonish his children of their ductie, and make them carefull not to commit sinne, which by his chastisment they are put in minde to be displeasing vnto him. The temporall death and miseries that Adam was subiect vnto, through his disobedience, remained in him and his posteritie, not as a satisfaction of Gods iustice, for his sinne remitted, and satisfied by Christ, but as a monument, and example, of his iustice for sinne; and therefore they remaine not onelie in the elect, but in the reprobate: for an admonition to beware of sinne, vnto the Godlie; and to take excuse awaie from the wicked, of ignorance of Gods punishment for sinne. yet are all those punishments vnto the Godie turned into blessings, being either made his fatherlie chastisments, for their amendment, or els occasions of their eternall 〈◊〉 , as aduersitie by humbling of them, death by deliuering them into the possession of eternall life: and therefore is blessednes pronounced both of the one and of the other. But Mat. 5. Apoc. 14. that Adam was subiect to anie miseries after this life, or in this life, as being onelie punishments appointed by God, for the 〈◊〉 satisfying euen of those sinnes, which were forgiuen him, we denie vtterlie. For the obedience of Christ was 〈◊〉 full satisfaction for the disobedience of Adam, both for him and all Gods elect ofhis posteritie. For if by the transgression of one, manie haue died, much more the grace of Rom. 5. 15. & caetera. God and the free gift in grace, which is of one man Iesus Christ, hath abounded vnto manie. For if through the transgression of one death hath raigned by one, much more they which receaue the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousnes, shall raigne in life by one Iesus Christ. For as by the disobedience of one man manie were made sinners, so by the obidience of one man manie shall be made iust. This and much more hath the Apostle to prooue, that the redemption of Christ was more bountifull toward them which are iustified thorough faith, then the transgression of Adam was rigorous to their condemnation: which could not be, if anie parte of Gods iustice remained to be satisfied by the punishment of the partie after his sinnes were remitted, and he made iust by the redemption and iustification of Christ. Therefore the temporall paines, whereto Gods children are subiect after their sinnes remitted, are not left for the satisfiing of the iustice of God. Or if you will needes contend that they are so left, and that the Pope out of the treasure of the Church, hath authority to pardon all such punishment, or anie parte thereof, let him make triall ofhis power, in such corporal punishments as God laieth vpon his children, for their corrections let him by his pardon release anie man of his sicknes, age, death: if he can do none of these, then either these are no punishments due to satisfie Gods iustice, or els he hath no such power as is bragged of, by dispensing of the treasure of Christes copious redemption, to pardon men of all their punishment due to the iustice of God for sinne. For if he had such power, euerie sick man that receiueth a ple narie pardon, à poena & culpa, should presentlie recouer of his disease: yea I maruell how he should die, if death be a penaltie due to the iustice of God for sinne, which hath such a plentiful indulgence of all paines inioyned or deserued by sinne. But if he cannot release one fit of an ague, with all the pardons, I maruell how he should release a man of all his paines of purgatorie, yea spoile all purgatorie at once of all them that suffer paines therin: except it be because he hath power onelie ouer that prison, which is of his owne building, and all that come therin, but hath no power at all ouer them vpon whom God laieth any affliction, either bodilie, or spirituallie.

ALLEN.

Looke at the Prophet Dauid, whether God corrected him not with temporall scourge, after he had expresselie forgiuen him by the warrant of the Prophet Nathan, his greeuous 2. Reg. 12. sinnes. Consider the case of all Gods elect people, how sharpelie they were visited for sinne, after it was in them pardoned. Exod. 32. Marke whether Marie Moises his sister was not punished and Num. 12. separated seuen daies, as it were for penance, after her brethren had procured her pardon at Gods handes. Thus hath God of respect not onelie to mercie, but also partlie to iustice, so alwaies pardoned, that he had consideration of iudgement and righteousnes. Now whome should the Church follow in remitting of sinnes, but him by whofe power and warrant she doth remit sinnes?

FVLKE.

We see that god did chastise the Prophet Dauid and his posterititie with a rodde of man, and with a fatherlie correction, but his mercie and louing kindnes, he neuer tooke from them. Neither punished them to satisfie his iustice for their sinne remitted, but to make them, and other by their example, more carefull not to commit sinne in time to come. The case of Gods elect people was somewhat otherwise. Exod. 32. where, although he receiued to mercie the wholl people, that they should not be destroied from the face of the earth, yet he might of his iustice punish a number of particular persons that were moste rebellious, and authors of the defection and Idolatrie. Marie the sister of Moses, was also punished of God, first to humble her, and bring her to repentance: and that punishment was continued on her for a few daies, partlie to exercise her in earnest, and hartie repentance, partlie to admonish the people by her example, to beware of murmuring against Gods ministers, their lawfull magistrates, not in respect of anie satisfaction of Gods iustice, which can receiue none but a ful & sufficient satisfaction, in his beloued sonne Iesus Christ. Wherefore if the Church will follow God in remission of sinnes, she must remit them freelie, as God doth in Iesus Christ forgiue vs: for so Saint Paull meaneth that men should forgiue one another their trespasses, and not to remit the fault and retaine Eph. 4. 32. the paine, except it be in case where men are appointed by God to execute paines, as the Magistrates are, or to practize discipline, as the Church is, in which case the Church may not think to satisfy Gods iustice, but to seek reformation of the offender, and to prouide for the example of others.

ALLEN.

Seeing God then him-selfe after he hath by his owne means and absolute power pardoned mans faultes, and discharged him of the sentence of death and damnation, had yet enioyned penance, as when he said to Adam: In the sweate of thy browes thou shalt prouide for thy liuing: And to Eue. Thou shalt in paine bring forth thy Children: And to them both, that they should die the temporall death, though they might escape by his mercie euerlasting miserie: seeing this, we neede not to doubt, but temporall punishment often remaineth after the sinnes be remitted, and that the Church of God doth imitate moste conuenientlie the saied mercie enioyned with iustice, in all her most righteous practize of pardoning and punishing sinne in Christes behalfe, by whose iurisdiction she herein holdeth. But for the further proofe of the matter, I haue saide much in the defense of Purgatotie, and this question properlie of Purgatotie, and this question properlie perteineth to 〈◊〉 place.

FVLKE.

That temporall punishment is laied vpon men often times, although their sinnes be remitted, it is no question, but whether such punishment be a satisfaction to the iustice of God, or a fatherlie discipline of his mercie, that is the matter in controuersie. The Church therefore in exercising the discipline of God vpon offendours, may and ought to imitate the example of god, but then shee must beware of two things, the one that she laie no other burthen of punishment vpon the offendours, then the worde of God will warrant: therefore penance is not arbitrarie, as the Canonists doe saie, but to be directed by the worde of God. Secondlie shee must take heede that shee release no more punishment, then shee is able to laie on. And therefore shee must be assured by the worde of God, whether shee can eioyne penance to be suffered in Purgatorie, before shee take vpon her to remit any such punishment: touching which matter, as you haue saied more in the defence of Purgatorie, so haue I answered sufficientlie to the ouerthrow of Purgatorie, and all that dependeth thereupon.

That Christ gaue by his expresse worde authoritie to the pastours of Gods Church, to binde and loose not onely the sinnes themselues, but also the temporall paine or penance remaining.

THE FOVRTH CHAP. ALLEN.

BVt now for the iurisdiction that Gods Church hath in releasing the same punishment which remaineth after the fault be forgiuen, it standeth, no doubt, vpon that high commission which Christ receiued of his Father, and did communicate moste amplie to the Apostles, and by then to all Bishops for euer. For the father did not onelie honour Christ his sonne, according to his humanity, with the power of priesthoode, or with other soueraignitic, for the institutious of sacraments, or such like, but with all regiment of that bodie, whereof he is the heads, as he is man. By which keye of iurisdiction he corrected sinners with great Maiestie, and pardoned them at his pleasure, not onelie of sinne and euerlasting paine, where the penitencie of the partie did so require, but also of such correction, as the law had prescribed for sinne, or Gods iustice had enioyned for the same.

FVLKE.

That the Church hath any iurisdiction in releasing that punishment, which remaineth after the faulte for giuen, for a satisfaction of Gods iustice, it hath not hetherto beene prooued, nor euer shall be prooued by authoritie of the holie scriptures, which teach the contrarie, that Christ alone hath by his one sacrifice made perfect for euer, those that are sanctified. And therefore it is vnreasonable, to seeke whereupon it standeth. For neither did Christ receiue any such commission, in his humanitie, neither did he deliuer ouer, any such iurisdiction vnto his Apostles, to release temporall punishment due to Gods iustice vnsatisfied, by his death and passion. For by one oblation once offered by his eternall spirit, he made perfect for euer, those that are sanctified. Heb. 9. & 10. And the power of Priesthoode, and soueraigne authoritie, to institute sacraments, and to be head of his Church, he receiued not as man onelie, but as our mediatour, God and man. The Lorde said vnto my Lorde (saith Dauid) sit thou on my right hand, Thou art a Priest Psal. 110. for euer, &c. Which offices & authorities can not beseparated from his diuinity, without Nestorian impiety. Christ is head of his Church, & a Priest for euer, as he is Dauids Lord, but as he is Dauids Lord, he is not onelie his sonne, but his God, therefore he is heade of his Church, and a priest after the order of Melchisedeeh, not as he is man onelie, but as he is God & man: neither did he pardon any man of sinne and euerlasting paine, whome he also punished for the same sinne with temporal paine, as a satisfaction to the iustice of God, which none could satisfie, in part or in wholl, but he onelie by his obedience and suffering.

ALLEN.

And this iurisdiction and power of regiment he gaue to Peter principallie, when he bestowed on him the keies of heauen Mat. 10. & 18. & vpon the rest of the Apostles with him the power of binding and loosing, which is moste principallie and properlie meant of enioyning penance or punishing by sharpe discipline the sinners euill life, either before they forgine his sinnes, or afterward. For as the place of the 20. of Saint Iohn properly concerneth the power of pardoning, reteining or forgiuing penance for satisfaction in the sacrament by the right of Priesthoode receiued in their orders, though it may somewhat concerne the iurisdiction of the high Magistrates also: so the place of Saint Matthew rather perteineth to the chastisment of the wicked by the Cap. 〈◊〉 . open discipline, as they haue the regiment of al our affaires, then it doth to the sacramentall remisstion or satisfaction enioyned. For ligare there doth signifie some bond of punishment, wherewith the partie is tied and charged for his correction, and not onelie bonde of sinne, wherewith the Church bindeth no man, no more then God himselfe doth, but euerie man onelie bindeth himselfe in his owne sinnes. And the Church or her ministers doe properlie then binde, when they punish by their iurisdiction the sinnes committed, not for the damnation of them that did fall, but for their correction and amendment. And the plaine mention of excommunication, which there is expressed to be giuen to the Apostles for the chastisment of such, as by more gentle admonition will not amend nor obeie the Church, doth prooue that to binde in that place, namelie importeth power of punishment, to be executed on the offenders, which way of chastisment is an open exercise of discipline giuen to the Apostles, to be vsed at their discretions for the edifiyng of Christs Church. Therefore as to binde there is as well an act of the proper power of iurisdiction, as it is a function of prie sthoode, to be exercised in the sacrament of penance, so to loose, soluere, in that place, though it may signifie to remit sinnes in waie of sacramentall confession, yet it is more aptlie correspondent so the words that went before, of binding, which was not sinne, but the paine and punishment for sinne: whereby it must needes fillow, that as to binde, doth fignifie to charge that penitent person with some temporall paine, so to loose must also meane to dissolue the bande, which before was laied on him for present correction

FVLKE.

Christ gaue no more iurisdiction or power of regiment, to Peter pricipallie, when he bestowed the keies of the kingdome of heauen vpon him, then vpon the rest of the Apostles, vnto whome he gaue the like and equall power of binding and loosing, of opening and shutting the kingdome of heauen, as he did to Peter. The same thing verilie, saith Saint Cyprien, were the rest of the Apostles that Peter was, indued with the same fellowspip Tract. 3. de simplicit. 〈◊〉 . both of honour and of power. That the power graunted in the 18. of Matthew pertaineth moste properlie and principallie to the chaistisment, or reconcilement of open offendours, by discipline, the circumstance of place affordeth no lesse, as the text Iohn the 20. ratifieth the effect of their message, in them that imbrace or refuse the doctrine of the Gospell. And that the gouernours of the Church, haue power by excommunication to binde, and by absolution to loose, vpon good ground and cause, in both cases, you neede not halfe these wordes to prooue it: for we doe acknowledge and practize no lesse in the Churches of Christ, where we haue gouernement, likewise that the Church hath authoritie for triall of the parties repentance, to enioyne some exercise of humiliation, and to release the same, or part thereof, beeing satisfied with the manifest signes of repentance and submission, it is also out of controuersie. But of your sacrament of penance Whsoeuer you shall binde &c. whose sins you forgiue or satisfaction for sinnes, by either discipline established, Matthew the eighteene, or power of remission of sinnes, graunted in the text Iohn the twentie, we shall neuer be agreed, vntill you can make plaine demonstration out of the holie scriptures, that either God hath instituted the one, or alloweth the other which you shall neuer be able to doe.

ALLEN.

For this is a rule moste certein, that all the bandes, which the Church laieth vpon any offender be medicinable, if the partie list to take them, and may be loosed by the same power of the Church, by which they were bounde before. And therefore euer as mention is made in scripture, of binding, or which is all one, punishing of sinnes, there is also mention of the like power of loosing: for Christ would not giue power to the Church to binde or correct sinnes, but much more he would haue the Church resemble himselfe, being her head, in mercie, and therefore gaue her alwaies power, to loose that kinde of punishment, which shee by her ministers had bounde or inoyned before. For these two actes beeing answerable in conference and contrarietie, muste necessarilie follow ech other, and properlie to the like power and prerogatiue. Then the one beeing giuen to the Apostles euen out of the sacrament of penance, the other muste needes also by the like right be receiued.

S. Ambrose rebuketh much the Nouatians, because they would haue the Church enioyne penance, but they liked not Lib. 1. de poenit. Cap. 2. that he should mercifullie release the same againe, nor the penitents sinnes neither. Dominus (saith he) par ius soluendi esse 〈◊〉 & ligandi, qui vtrumque pari conditione permisit: ergo qui soluendi ius non habet, nec ligandi babes. Our Lord would haue the right of losing & binding to be like: for equally he gaue the power of both. Therfore whosoeuer hath not power to loose he hath no power to binde. If anie man then list follow the Nouatians, he maie holde at his pleasure, that it preteineth to the Churches iurisdiction to binde that, which she can not loose againe, contrarie to Christes expresse graunt made vnto her, first in the person of Peter, and then in the right of all the Apostles, to whome when he had promised as well the keies of order, as iurisdiction, he said vnto them: whatsoeuer you shall binde in earth, it shalbe bound in heauen: and whatsoeuer you loose in earth, it shalbe loosed in heauen: first giuing them thereby authorititie to punish, and then to pardon. And therefore as the sacrament of penance, wherein sinnes be released or retained, was grounded vpon the wordes of Christ spoken to the Apostles after his resurrection, whereof we talked so much in the former treatise, so the power of giuing pardon or punishing out of the sacrament, by the vertue of the iurisdiction, as the Pope and other Bishoppes now doe, and alwaies haue done, is founded moste fast vpon this place of Saint Matthew, spoken first and principallie to Saint Peter, and then to other Apostles vniuersallie. Cap. 16. & Cap. 18.

Now, if anie list be assured by the Doctours interpretation, that the wordes of our Sauiour of binding and loosing doe directlie giue power to the pastours of his Church, to punish the offenders, and release their sentence of seueritie againe, let them read Saint Augustines 75. Epistle, where they shall finde much of this matter, and thus amongst other thinges: spiritalis Ad Auxilium Episcopum. poena, de qua scriptum est, Quae ligaueritis in terra, erunt ligata & in coelo, ipsas animas obligat. The spirituall punishment, whereof Christ spake when he said, what-soeuer you binde in earth it shall be bound in heauen, do fast binde the soules themselues. And Saint Chrysostome disputing excellently vpon these wordes of binding or loosing, compareth the iurisdiction of Princes temporall vnto the spirituall power herein, and maketh this to excell that, as farre as heauen passeth the earth, and the soule in dignitie surmounteth the bodie. If anie King (saieth Chrysostome) should giue vnto some subiect such authoritie vnder him, that whome whosoeuer he would he might cast into prison, and againe release him when Tib. de sacer dot. he list, all men would account that subiect moste happie. But he that hath receiued, not of an earthlie King, but of God him selfe a power that passeth that other, as farre as heauen is from the earth, and the soule excelleth the bodie, I trow him euerie man must both wonder at, and highlie reuerence. Thus farre said the Doctor acknowledging, that as some by Princes grauntes maie prison or pardon the bodies: so the Priestes maie punish mens soules, and loose or pardon them againe. For the proofe whereof, he applieth fitlie both the woordes of Christ spoken to S. Peter, aud the like afterward to all the Apostles, concerning binding and loosing.

FVLKE.

Whether all the bands of the Church be medicinable, if the partie list to take them, Doctors doe dour, seing there is a sin vnto death not to be praied for. And S. Paul layed such a band vpon Alexander the copper smith, that he desired the Lord to requit him according to his workes, which 1. Iohn. 5. 2. Tim. 4. Heb. 12. could be no lesse then eternall damnation, without hope of true and faithfull repentance, for which Esaw found no place, though he sought the blessing with teares. For true repentance is not a matter of mens list, but an excellent gift of God. That case excepted, it is out of question, that the Church hath power as well to loose as to binde, what or whome soeuer, and God in heauen doth ratifie that, which the Church, vpon good cause, doth on earth. And therefore to prooue this, whereof there is no doubt, there needed neither Ambrose, Augustine, nor Chrysostmes authoritie to be cited, except it be to shew how prodigall you are of proofe where there is no neede, and howe drie and barren, where there is most necessitie, vnlesse you will haue your wordes and sayings go without al warrantize: as euen in this section, that this power or iurisdiction, as you call it, is giuen principallie to Peter, that the sacrament of penance is grounded vpon Christes words spoken to his Apostles after his resurrectiō, which of the Doctors affirmeth? Contrariwise Chrysostome in the place by you cited, as you your selfe confesse, doth fitlie applie the words of Christ spoken to Saint Peter, and the like to al the Apostles, concerning binding and loosing, vnto all priests alike: therefore no principalitie in Peter. For these and such like matters of controuersie, the Doctors serue not your true: but you would haue the ignorant suppose, that as you can cite the Doctors full and direct for manie thinges, whereof we doe not contend, so in all matters of contention the Doctors are full on your side. But if anie papist haue but halfe an eie, he will or maie espie your insirmitie, though you doe neuer so cunninglie dissemble it.

ALLEN.

Againe Saint Cyprian and other holy bishoppes of Affrike, Epist. 2. Lib. which had inioyned long penance to certaine that had fallen in time of persecution from their faith, for flatterie or feare of the worlde, and had thought to haue giuen them anie Indulgences, peace or pardon (for that then they called, dare pacem, which we now tearme, to giue a Pardon) til the houre of death came: Statueramus (saie they) vt agerent diu plenam poenitentiam: we had verilie determined, that they should haue done out all their full inioyned penance: but now vpon other great respectes we doe agree to giue peace of pardon to those, that haue earnestlie done some penance alreadie, and lamented bitterlie their former fall. But marke well here, by what authoritie they chalenge this power, and what they doe chalenge. They chalenge, pardie, power to giue penance to the offenders, and they claime by right the release thereof. Againe they clearelie take vpon them, in consideration of the fault, to inloine what they list, and how long they list, and vpon like iust respect by their wisdomes, to pardon some peece of the same againe, either after death, or else, if good matter mooue them, long before.

But by what Scripture doe they claime such iurisdiction that they maie giue discipline to offenders, euen without the 〈◊〉 of penance, onelie by their iurisdiction and right of regiment, and then by their onelie letters to giue them in absence peace and pardon of their inioyned penance againe? Saint Cyprian and all his honorable fellowes shall answere you in the same place: for there they giue a reason of that their proper right: Quia ipsepermisit qui legem dedit, vt ligata in 〈◊〉 is etiam in coelo ligata essent, solui autem possent illic, qui hic prius in Ecclesia soluerentur. That is to saie, he doth permit vs, who made this lawe, that whatsoeuer we bound on earth, should be bound in heauen, and those thinges should be loosed in heauē aboue, which the Church here beneath releaseth before. Let vs therefore be bolde also, to answere our aduersaries with the said holie Fathers, if they aske vs by what right the Pope or Bishoppe giue pardon, or what is that he doth forgiue by his pardon, let vs answere for them, and for our Mother the Church, that they pardon onelie the penance inioyned, or other paine due for greeuous sinnes, after they be remitted in the sacrament of penance. And that they maie so doe by good authoritie, we alleadge Christes owne worthines with the named holie Fathers: whatsoeuer you binde in earth, it shal be bound in heauen: and if you loose it in earth before, it shall also be released in heauen. But vpon this practise of Gods Church, I will charge them further hereafter.

FVLKE.

This authoritie of Saint Cyprian is no more necessarie, then the former of Chrisostome; Augustine, Ambrose. For we doubt not, but the Church with the gouernours thereof, haue sufficient power by Christes graunt, to release such time of penance, or parte therof, as is enioyned to offenders, to prooue their repentance, and to make satisfaction to the Church, when there appeereth iust cause so to doe. But let vs see how manie vntruthes you do boldlie aduouch, which are besides this authoritie. First, that these Bishops had thought not to haue giuen peace to them that had fallen, till the houre of death came. But that is not so: for they saie onelie, they had determined, that they should haue performed the penance that was enioyned for a long time vnto them, vnto the ful, except danger of infirmitie required to giue peace at the point of death. Their wordes are these: Totheir brother Cornelius Bishoppe of Rome. Statueramus quidem iampridem, frater charissimè, participato inuicem nobiscum consilio, vt qui in persecutionio 〈◊〉 supplantati ab aduersario & lapsifuissent, ac sacrificiis se illicitis maculassent, agerent diu poenitentiam plenam, & si periculum infirmitatis vrgeret, pacem sub ictu mortis acciperent. Nec enim fas erat, aut permittebat paterna pietas, & diuina clementia, ecclesiam pulsantibus claudi, & dolentibus & deprecantib. speisulutaris subsidium denegari, vt de saculo recedentes sine communicatione, aut pace domini dimitterentur, cùm permiserit ipse, qui tegem dedit, vt ligata in terris, etiam in Coelis ligata essent, solui autem possent illic, que hîc prius in Ecclesia soluerentur. Sed cum videamus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infestationis appropinquare coepisse, & crebris atque assiduis ostensionibus admoneamur, vt ad cert 〈◊〉 quod nobis hostis indicit armati & parati simus, plebem 〈◊〉 nobis diuina dignatione commissam exhortationibus nostris praeparemus, & omnes omnino milites Christi, qui arma desiaerant, & praelium flagitant, intra castra domini colligamus necessitate cogente censuimus, eis qui de Ecclesia domini recesserunt, sed poenitentiam agere & lamentari, ac dominum deprecari, à primo lapsus sui die non destiterunt pacem dandam esse, & eos ad praelium quod imminet armari & instrui oportere. We had decreed indeed long since moste deer brother, by aduise taken amongst our selues, that such as in the trouble of persecution were supplanied by the aduersarie and fallen, and had defiled themselues with vnlawfull sacrifices should doe full penance a long time, and if daunger of infirmity did vrge, they should receiue peace at the point of death. For it was not lawfull, neither did the Fatherlie pietie and clementie of God permit, that the Church should be shut vp to them that knocke, and that aid of healthfull hope should be denied to them that sorrowed and praied for it, that departing out of the world they should be sent awaie without anie communicaiion or the Lordes peace, seeing he hath permitted which made the lawe, that those things that are bound in earth should also be bound in heauen, that those things also might be loosed there, which were loosed here in the Church. But for as much as we see, that the daie of another trouble beginneth to approch, and are admonished by often and dailie shewings or visions, that we should be armed and prepared vnto the battell, which the enemie doth denounce vnto vs, we should also prepare the people by gods voutsafing committed vnto vs, with our exhortations, and should gather in anie wise all the souldiers of Christ which call for armour, and desire to fight, into the Lordes campe, necessity compelling vs we haue thought good, that peace is to be graunted to them which haue departed out of the Lords Church, but from the daie of their falling haue not ceased to shew repentance, and to lament, and to intreat our Lord, and that they also ought to be armed and furnished against the battell which is at hand. These are the words of Cyprian, & his fellow Bishops, which you haue abridged at your pleasure, if your note booke did not deceiue you, to set down, that you haue done, as the very words of the epi stle. Out of which you gather, beside that I haue noted before, power to inioyne penance, and to release the same againe. But where you saie, they take vpon them cleerelie to inioyne what they list, and how long they list, that is not so, but what is iust and conuenient, and so likewise vpon iust cause they release the same, or some parte thereof. Againe, you slaunder them, in saying they take vpon thē to pardon after death: for there is no such word or matter in all the Epistle. They released and receiued them to the communion, being in daunger of death, but after death, they receiued no man to the communion. Nay, they decreed, that whereas Geminius Victor, who had made Geminius Faustinus a clergie man his executor, contrarie to the decrees of their synods, there should be no oblation made for his falling a sleepe, nor anie praier frequented in the Church in his name. So farre of was it that they would pardon anie man after death, when no repentance auaileth. The scripture they doe rightlie applie for the establishing of the discipline of excommunication & receiuing againe into the fellowship of the Church such, as were fallen, vpon their repentance: as for the sacrament of penance, you say wel, they exercized discipline without it: for such a sacrament they knew not, but they claimed no iurisdiction to receiue offenders without good tokens of their repentāce, as their words be manifest. Where you saie, they claimed iurisdiction by their onelie letters, to giue them in absence peace & pardon of their inioyned penāce, as though their letter did resemble the Popes pardons in writing, you speake beside the booke: for they doe not giue peace by these letters onlie, but signifie vnto Cornelius what they thought necessary to be done, & vpō what reasons left they might be thought to light in loosing the sinews of discipline toward so notorius offenders. Your conclusion follow eth not vpon this example, Cyprian and his fellow Bishope did vpon necessary cause release the time of penāce enioyned to certaine greeuous offenders, and receiued them to the communion vpon certaine perswasion of their répentance, therefore the Pope and his popelings maie giue pardon of paine due for sinnes remitted, where hone is due, and in the sacrament of penance, when no such sacrament can be prooued out of the scripture: neither doe you rightlie alledge Christes wordes, as those holie Fathers did: for they alledged them for the discipline of excommunication, and absoluing, which is necessarie to be vsed in the Church, but you to maintaine a tirannical iurisdiction, to loose that which other men haue bound, without good cause, as they did, but for manie often times, as they did neuer. Therefore there is as great oddes betweene their practize of discipline, and these Popes pardons, as there is distance betweene their ages, which is more then a thousand yeares.

ALLEN.

And now to make vp this matter for the true meaning of the said text, which we now prooue to pertaine to the establishing Cap. 11. li. 2. de const. of the true title of giuing pardons, I will recite the saying of S. Clement him selfe, in time the Apostles equall, expert in their regement, and priuie to al their doings. He liuelie expresseth the dignity of the chiefe pastours & power of their gouernment, vnto which he applieth the power of binding and loosing in such sort as we haue said. But heare his owne wordes, as Carolus Bouius hath translatedthë: O Episcope, stude munditie operum excellere, cognoscens locum tuum ac dignitatem, tanquam locum Dei obtinens, eò quod praees omnib. Dominis, Sacerdotib. Regib. Principih. patrib. filiis, magistris, at que subditis simul omnib. sicque in Ecclesia sede, cùm sermomen facies, vt potestatem habens iudicandi eos qui peccauerunt: quoniam vobis Episcopis dictum est, quodcunque ligaueritis super terram, erit ligatum in coelo, & quodcunque solueritis super terram, erit solutum in coelo. Iudica igitur (o Episcope) cum potestate, tanquam Deus, sed poenitentes recipe. In English, O thou that art a Bishop, studie and endeuoure to excell other in the beutie of good works, in respect of thy place & dignitie: & consider thou sittest in Gods owne roome, being promoted aboue al Lords, Priestes, Kinges, Princes, Parentes, children, Masters, seruants euerie one. Therfore so sit in the Church, when thou doest speake, as one that hath power to iudge al those that haue sinned. For to you Bishops it was said: whatsoeuer you binde in earth, it shal be bound in heauen, and whatsoeuer you shall loose in earth, it shalbe loosed in heauen. Iudge then (O Bishop) with power and maiestie, as God, but yet haue mercie on the penitent. Thus saith S. Clement. By whose wordes you may preceiue, Gods right to be in a manner conferred vpon his ministers by the tearmes of binding & losing, not onlie giuen for the remitting or retaining of sins in the sacrament of penance, but also for the correcting or giuing pardon, by supreame iurisdiction, out of the said sacrament.

FVLKE.

And now to make vp a number and a shew of antiquity, S Clements constitution is alledged, which is neither authenticall, nor any thing to the purpose in controuersie, if it were as auntient, as he whose name it beareth. For watsoeuer is said in this whole clause, if it be rightly vnderstood, is true of the dignitie of Bishops in their spirituall authoritie, and power of preaching the worde, and exercising of discipline. But for that blasphe mous conclusion that you draw out of it, Gods right to be in a manner conferred vpon his ministers by the tearmes of binding and loosing, with the rest that followeth, can neuer be gathered of these premises. Gods right remaineth whole and absolute vnto him selfe, for any power of binding or losing that he hath committed to his seruantes. As for the sacrament of penance, and giuing pardon by supreame iurisdiction out of the said sacrament, how can they be deduced out of the wordes of this pretended Clemens?

ALLEN.

Now then let Caluine, or his auncient Luther come sorth and denie all spirituall iurisdiction of holie Bishops, touching temporall punishment, or release of paines appointed for sinnelet them writh the plaine place both of binding and loosing, to the preaching of the ghospel, as their fashion is, rather thē they would graunt this soueraignty to the Church of Christ: let them saie, that Christ, when he whipped out the vnlawfull occupiers of marchandies in the temple, did nothing else but preach the Marci. 12. Gospell: let them hold that this was a sermon, and not an act of iurisdiction, when he said to diuers, thy sins be forgiuen thee, or when he with power and terror gaue to Iudas the soppe, by which it is thought, that he excommunicated him and gaue Lucae. 5. Ioan. 13. him vp whollie to the Deuill, and seperated him from the companie of the Apostles, and from his Church. For then the Deuill entred into him, and he went out, as the gospell saieth. But (saie Master Luther) was this the power of preaching only, or an exercise of moste high iurisdiction, giuen him of his father euerlasting, as he was he head of the Church? No, no, vaine fellowes, this is no preaching which you would haue onelie to be the Churches propertie, that you might, being void of all other authoritie in Gods Church, compare with his Apostles, in your prating, because your glorie amongst the people standeth on your glafe tongues. Cores had a ticling tongue, and Moses tongue was tied: yet God gaue sentence on his seruants side, and reuenged the disobedience of the contrarie. No, no, I tellyou, if all the Bishoppes and Priestes of the Christian world were as rude & as simple in their preaching, as you thinke your selues eloquent, yet their onelie iurisdiction, and Maiestie of their power, assisted by Christ perpetuallie, by whome it was giuen them, shall beare you downe, and your vaine name of preaching the word. And God be thanked, beside the right of the cause, there be in the Churchmany that are honoured with the gift of true preaching, to whome God giucth the worde in deed with great and vnspeakeable force and encrease of the truth, and daily decaie of your vaine shade of preaching. His name be blessed for euer, that hath giuen such a guard to his Church, that hell gates, nor the eloquence neither of man not Angell shall preuaile against her.

FVLXE.

Now then let Allen or al his auncients, & punies the papists in Rome or Rhemes shew out of either Caluines or Luthers writings anie place, where they or either of them, denied all power of binding and loosing, other, then by preaching of the gospell: where they affirmed, that excommunication and receiuing againe into the Church, was nothing but preaching of the gospell. If Allen be not able to prooue with all his complices, that Caluine and Luther denied the discipline of the Church, or haue not established the same in the Churches, by them reformed, then is he an impudent slaunderer, and detestable deceiuer, to beare simple men in hand, that they acknowledge not discipline, either in binding or in releasing of open offendours, but preaching of the gospel. His further storming and malitious rayling, as also his vaine bragging and threatening, I passe ouer, as vnworthie of anie other answere then silence, as bewraying sufficientlie the sincerity, wisdome, & honesty of the author. Neither wil I disrusse that waighty argument, of giuing the soppe to Iudas, whereby the prooueth the exercise of Christes iurisdiction, as head of the Church. Wise men may easely see what arguments he hath to prooue things in question, when he hath no better demonstration of a matter out of all controuersie.

The Apostles & bishops haue euer, besides the preaching of the Gospel, punished mens sinens and practized iudgement vpon mens soules, both in binding & loosing.

THE 5. CHAP. ALLEN.

CHrist then hauing not only the preaching of the Gospel to punish & pardon by, but iurisdiction also to giue discipline, and to release the same, in that he was made the supreame gouernour of al Christian people, did communicat both functions at once, and gaue the Magistrates of the Church not onlie by preaching to threaten or exhort men to vertue, or promise them release of their sinnes by only faith, as men haue now plained the waie to heauen, but also by force of their regiment, to giue great penance, as we haue prooued, & greatpardon againe, as to their wisdomes, and for the Churches edifying may seeme most conuenient. Of this great power of Christ communicated to his Apostles, we haue practize, as well for punishing sinners, as pardoning them: For vpon this soueraigne iurisdiction it rose, that the Apostles mightelie ministred iustice vpon offendours, as well by afflicting their bodies, with enioyned long fasies, and large almoses, as by excommunicaton, & other meanes. Which thing whsoeuer well weigheth in the manifolde examples of Gods worde, they shall not wonder, that the holie Bishops of Christs Church may giue a pardon of penance enioyned. For by this authoritie did S. Peter, who first receiued Act. 5. the keies of iurisdictiō & power ouer the Church, kil both Ananias and Saphira his wife, which is as great a bodilie punishment for sinne, as may be: By this authoritie did he excommunicate Simon the Sorcerer: by this power did S. Paull offer to reuenge disobedience, by this did he threaten tocome to the faithfull with a rodde of discipline: By this he prescribed to 1. Cor. 4. 2. Tim. 1. 3. Tim. 1. Timothie, whom he consecrated Bishop, how he should heare accusations, and behaue himselfe in rebuking sinne, & correction of diuerse states. By this power did he mightely deliuer vp some to Sathan, and bodelie vexation: By this power did he strike blinde Elimas the witch, and released him at his pleasure Act. 13. againe.

FVLKE.

That the ministers of the Church haue authoritie not onelie to preach the worde of life moste comfortablie, to al penitent sinners, and moste terribly to all reproba tes and impenitent persons, but also to exercise discipline of correction vpon offendours, and to release the same vpon hope and apparance of their amendment, it is at all times and in all places by vs willinglie confessed and acknowledged. Wherefore this discourse is altogether needelesse, but that you muste interlace some trueth not denied, among so manie vnpropable and vnreasonable propositions, that of no wise men will euer be graunted. The waie to heauen is no other wise plained by vs, in promising men release of their sinnes by faith onelie, then it was by Saint Paul. Rom. 4. and before him, by Dauid psal. 32. That the Apostles ministred iustice vpon offenders, as well by afflicting their bodies with enioyned long fastes & large almes, as by excommunication and other meanes, when you prooue it out of the scriptures, we will yeelde vnto you. We finde they did excommunicate, and that they exhorted men to fasting and almes, but that they enioyned any prescript fastes or almes, such we finde not And yet we doubt not, but they esteemed fasting, praying, and sorowing for sinnes, almes, and other Godlie exercises, to be fruites of true repentance: in beholding of which they were mooued to receiue againe into the Church, such as for their offences were iustlie cast out. Neither did Saint Peter by the same keies of iurisdiction, as you call them, kill Ananias and his wife, by which he did excommunicate Simon the sorcerer, if that denuntiation of Gods iudgement maie be called an excommunication. Neither did Peter properlie kil Ananias, who was stryken immediatelie of God for lying against the holie ghost: neither hath anie successour of his authoritie to kill mens bodies, howsoeuer you would insinuate, that your Antichrist the Pope haththe power of both the swords, to slaie mens bodies with the one, as he murdereth their soules with his pestilent heresies. That the Apostles deliuered some to Satan to be vexed in their bodies, it prooueth no ordinarie 1. Cor. 5. 12. iurisdiction of punishing mens bodies, for that it was onelie a miraculous power they had, which goeth not by succession vnto their posteritie, like as the example of Saint Paul striking Elimas with blindnes, can not be drawne to discipline, which is practized onelie vpon the members of the Church, whereof that Sorcerer was neuer anie parte: neither did Saint Paull release him at his pleasure, but at the time appointed by God.

ALLEN.

By this power haue holie Bishops excommunicated mightie Emperours, suspended manie from the sacraments, disgraded diuers spirituall men from their functions, interdicted wholl Realmes, and to be short, by this power hath the Church of God prescribed a due punishment for euerie deadlie sinne, iustlie respecting the greeuousnes thereof, and continuance therein. As we maie see in the penitentiall booke of I heodotus Vide decret Iuo par. 15 and Bede, the cannons whereof be translated into the booke of decrees, which is the 15. intituled De poenitent. And namelie in the most auncient Councell of Ancyre, which was holden well neare 1300. yeares since, in the most pure time of Christian religion, when I trow our aduersaries dare not saie that the faith was corrupted. There the Priests and deacons that relented Cap. 1 &c. 2 in persecution were suspended from the executing of their seuerall functions. Such as supt in the temples of Idols, and sacrificed Cap. 4. to false Gods, were charged, beside absteining from the sa craments, with 3. yeares penance: those that committed brutish Cap. 15. sinnes & vnnatural, should do 25. years penance for adultery 7 yeares penance: for women that destroied their birth, 10. years. Cap. 20. for murtherers 7. if it be not voluntarie: if it be wilfull, til the endof mans life: for superstitious southsaiers or dreame readers, Cap. 21. or sorcerers, and witches, fiue yeares. Finallie for rape, 10. yeares Cap. 22. were prescribed. The like were made for diuers crimes in the Cap. 23. councell of Nice. But it is inough that we know though the eternall Cap. 24. paines deserued by dcadlie sinnes be forgiuen with the sinnes them-selues, and yet there remaineth for the satisfying of Gods iustice, some temporall scourge, to preuent which, the Church enioyneth paine for faults remitted, that both Gods mercie be followed in the remission of their sinnes, and his iustice partlie answered in the punishment of the same, the which debt of deserued paine, being not here fulfilied or released, it must in another world be answered.

FVLKE.

By power receaued from Christ, holie Bishops haue practized christian discipline, in excommunicating euen Emperours, and great estates, separating from the sacraments and displasing of ecclesiasticall persons from their functions. But I neuer read that anie holie Bishop did interdict wholl realmes, but onelie Antichrist of Rome. Victor of olde time did take vpon him to excommunicate all the Churches of the East, for not celebrating of the feast of Easter, as he did: but he was counter maunded and reprooued by his fellow Bishops, not onelie of the East, but euen of the West, which agreed not with him in that ceremonie, as by Ireneus Bishop of Lions in Fraunce and other. That the Church of great antiquity prescribed a certaine time of punish ment, for euery kinde of heinous sinne, it was partly to reforme the facility of som Bishops, that were to easie in graunting reconciliation to greeuous offenders: partlie to meete with the hyporisie of manie sinners, which vpon hope to be easily receiued, made lesse account to become offenders, & cast out of the Church. Andhereof came those seuere canons of the Ancyrane councell, which were soone afterward somwhat mitigated in the Nicen councell, and charge giuen to the Bishop, to deale more gently with them that shewed great tokens of repentance before their time of penance expired. Abomnibus verò illud praecipué obseruetur, vt animus eorum & fructus poenitentiae attendatur. But let this be chiefelie obserued of all men, that their minde, and their fruite of repentance be considered. Wherby they declare for what cause such time of penance was prescribed, namelie by the fruites of repentance to make triall, whether men were truelie penitent for their sinnes, and meete to be receaued againe into the congregation or no. The councell of Carthage aster that perceiuing manie inconueniences to arise by those certaine prescript times of penance, decreed, Vt poenitentibus secundùm peccatorum differentias, episcopi arbitrio, poenitentiae tempora decernantur. That times of repentance, by the discretion of the Bishop, should be appointed vnto them that doe penance, according to the differences of their sinnes. but that there remaineth for the satisfying of Gods iustice some temporall scourge, after eternall paines by deadlie sinnes deserued be forgiuen with the sinnes themselues, we know not out of the scriptures, but the contrarie, namelie that these sinnes being forgiuen, and Gods iustice throughlie satisfied in Christ, there remaineth no temporall punishment due for the sinnes forgiuen, but sometimes a mercifull and fatherly chastisment, which is not in anie mans power to release or remit, but when it pleaseth the father of his wisdome and clemency to take it awaie.

ALLEN.

And therefore S. Augustine saith of the Churches vsage in prescribing penance thus: Sed neque de ipsis criminil us quamlibet magnis remittendis in Sancta Ecclesia, Dei desperanda est misericordia, agentibus poenitentiam secundùm modum sui cuius que , peccati: & auia plerun que dolor alterius cordis occultus est alteri, rectè constituuntur ab iis qui Ecclesiae praesunt tempora poenitentiae, vt fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae, in qua peccata remittuntur. Euen for sinnes being neuer so greeuous and great, we maie not dispaire of Gods mercie, nor of reneission to be had in the Church: marie alwaies presupposed, that the offenders must doe penance, according to the quantitie and greeuousnes of their offences. And because often it chaunceth, that the sorrow of mans hart, wherein much standeth, is vnknowne to other men, it is verie reasonable that the Church should limite their penance by her gouernour, to be accomplished in certaine times and appointed seasons, for the answere of the Churches right, in which onelie all sinnes be remitted, as out of her lappe none at al be forgiuen, for any benefit to the partie. So saith this doctour of publike penance.

And of secret satisfaction, which nowe is more vsed after confession, lest anie man should feare, that that were not sufficient to satisfie for the remnant of debt due for mortall sinnes forgiuen, thus saith the author of that booke de Eccles. dogm. set forth with Saint Augustines name: Sed & secreta satisfactione solui mortalia crimina non negamus: Neither we doe denie, but mortall sinnes maie be loosed by secret satisfaction. Feare nos the worde satisfaction, as though it derogated anie thing to the redemption which is in Christ Iesus. It is here and in manie places of S. Augustines workes most common, and no lesse vsed of all Catholike writers since Christes time, who knew right well, that the fruites of Christian penance done in the vertue and force of Gods grace, doe applie Christes satisfaction effectuallie to our benefit, and not remooue the vse therof from vs. But they haue a faith so solitarie now a daies, that it will alpne apprehend what ye list, and reach so farre into Christes iustice, that her fautors shall haue no need of Christian workes, or fruitfull repentance.

FVLKE.

Saint Augustine saith to verie good purpose, but nothing to the maintenance of your purpose, for which you alledge him: namelie that temporall punishment is due to Gods iustice for sinne remitted, whose saying I maruell why you do so geld, that you recite it not whollie, as he hath written, but that either you would not haue men certainlie know that he speaketh of open penance, done for great crimes committed, or else you haue cited the place of some other mans credit, rather then of your owne reading. After he hath said, that some man maie liue without crime, but no man without sinne, his wordes be these; Sed neque deipsis criminibus quamlibet magnis remittendis in sancta Ecclesia, Dei desperanda est misericordia, agentibus poenitentiam secundùm modum sui cuius que peccati. In actione autem poenitentiae vbitae lecrimen commissum est, vt is qui commisit, a Christi etiam corpore separetur, nōtam consideranda est mensura temporis, quàm doloris: cor enim contritum & humiliatum Deus non spernit. Verùm quia pierunque dolor lterius cordis occultus est alteri, neque in aliorum notitiam per verba vel quaecunque alia signa procedit, cùm sit coram illo cui dicitur, gemitus meus à le nō est absconditus, rectè constituuntur ab iis qui Ecclesiae praesunt tempora poenitentiae, vt fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae in qua remittuntur ipsa peccata, extra eam quippe non remittuntur. Ipsa namque propriè Spiritum Sanctum pignus accepit, sine quo non remittuntur vlla peccata, ita vt quibus dimittuntur, consequantur vitam aeternam. But neither of those crimes, be they neuer so great to be remitted in the holy Church, the mercie of God is to be dispaired of, to them that repent according to the measure of euery mans sinne. But in the doing of penance, where such a crime is committed, that he which hath committed it, is also to be separated from the bodie of Christ, the measure of time is not so much to be considered, as of the sorrowe for God dispiseth not a contrite and an humbled heart. But because often times the sorrow of one mans heart is hidden to an other and commeth not into the knowledge of other men by wordes, or other signes whatsoeuer, although it be knowne before him, to whome it is said, my groning is not hid from thee, there be rightlie appointed by them that gouerne the Church, times of repentance, that the Church also maie be satisfied, in which those sinnes are remitted: for whithout they are not remitted. For she hath properlie receaued the pledge of the holie Ghost, without whome no sinnes are remitted, so that they to whome they are remitted doe obtaine eternall life. In these wordes Saint Augustine sheweth plainely that times of penance or repentance were enioyned, not to recompence Gods iustice, but to make satisfaction to the Church; which is not to graunt remission in those cases, but vpon good hope of the parties true conuersion and inwarde and vnfained repentance. But as Augustine speaketh here of open satisfaction not to Gods iustice, but to the Churches iudgement, so you haue his authority or as good, for secret satisfactiō which is now more vsed, lest any man should feare that were not sufficiēt to satisfy for the remnant of the debt, due for mortall sinnes forgiuen. I know not whether to impute it to ignorance, or impudencie, but most intollerable presumption it is, to make that author, whatsoeuer he was, a faulter of your popish secret satis faction, now vsed to be prescribed in your secret shrifts. For this writer, as I haue before declared, aloweth no secret satisfaction for the loosing of mortal crimes, but vpon a verie hard condition, namely, sed mutato priùs saeculari habitu, &c. but so that the secular habit be first changed, and the studie of religion be confessed by correction of life, and continuall and perpetuall sorow, thorough the mercie of God, but so onelie that he doe contrarie things to them, for which he repenteth, & euery Sundaie humby and submmissiuelie vnto his death, he receiue the Eucharist, &c. This is not to say, pater noster in rememberance of the fiue wounds, or to giue fiue pence, grotes, or shillings, to fiue poore men, or to fast fiue frydaies, or such single satisfaction, as your Popish priests in shirst doe enioyne. Touching the worde satisfaction vsed by this Monkish Augustine, it is neuer vsed by the right, & autentike Austine, to graunt that the sufferings, or doeings of man can satisfy the iustice of god, who is satisfied by Christs obedience onelie, and by none other meane; the vertue of whose satisfaction is communicated vnto vs by the holie Ghost, whereof we are assured by faith onelie, but not by a solitarie faith, as this heretike doth slaunder vs, but by a faith accompanied, fruiteful, huelie, effectuall, and workeing by loue, as the holie scripture teacheth vs, whatsoeuer these blasphemous dogs barke against it.

ALLEN.

Now to this ende haue we saied al this, that the faithful may vnderstand perfectlie, what the Pope may by right remit thorugh his Pardon and Indulgence. For looke what the officers of Gods Church may binde, that without all doubt may they vpon good consideration release againe. Therefore if they may enioyne penance for yeares and daies, both openlie out of the sacrament, and also in priuate satisfaction after Confession, then may they release certaine daies and yeares of the same penance which was prescribed before. For loosing and binding pertaine by reason, law, & Christs owne graunt, as to one act of iurisdiction, that the one beeing lawfull, the other must needes so be also. If the Church be of right power and authoritie to prescribe penance of seuen yeares, she hath the like right to remit vpon iust respect, either all those yeares, or some part of the same, especiallie hauing meanes otherwise, to supplie the lacke of fatisfaction of Gods iustice in the partie penitent.

FVLKE.

There is no faithfull man can perceiue by any thing that you haue saide, what right the Pope hath to remit by his pardon, and indulgence, that which is enioyned by an other. It is out of doubt that the officers of the Church vpon good consideration, may release that which they binde, except for in emissibie sins they binde with insoluble bandes. And therefore they may release daies or yeares appointed for triall of the repentance, if the Church can be satisfied, in shorter time. But for priuate satisfaction of Gods iustice, or any satisfaction of his iustice, they can neither binde nor loose, enioyne, nor release. Therefore if the Church be of power to enioyne and prescribe penance for seauen yeares, shee is of power also to release seuen yeares, or part of the same: but shee hath no meanes to supplie the satisfaction of Gods iustice, which is fullie satisfied in Christ, whose satisfaction is not to be disposed according to the iudgement of men, but is applied to all the elect of God, according to his will and pleasure. Now whereas you speake of seauen yeares penance, and the streightest Canons of Ancyre prescribe but 25. yeares for the greatest crime, whereto serue so many thousand yeares of Pardon? If therefore all that you haue saide tende to this ende, that men may vnderstand that the Pope hath power to release times of penance enioyned, seeing no councell euer enioyned a thousand yeares penance nor any penance beyonde the time of a mans life, in so much that the Councell of Nice decreed that they which departe out of the world, should be receiued into the communion, although their time were not expired, why doth the Pope take vpon him to graunt an hundred thousand yeares of pardon at a clap, as I haue shewed before out of a pardon imprinted and confirmed by Leo 10? But if the Pope haue authoritie to graunt pardon for so many thousand yeares of penance, enioyned by the right of binding and loosing, which you saie by reason, law, and graunt of Christ pertaine to one act of iurisdiction, that the one beeing lawfull, the other must needs be so also, Then may euerie priest enioyne an hundred, 50. 40. 10. or 7. thousand yeares of penance to them that come to shrift, as wel as the Pope giue pardon for so many thousand yeares: for hundreds be but beggerly things to talke of, where thousand be so rife. If you answere, that the Pope doth pardon not onelie yeares of penance enioyned, but also of yeares due to be enioyned; the difficultie is nothing auoided: for if thousands of yeares be due, the priest may enioyne thousands of yeares. But then he shal exceede al the Canons penitential, that euer were made in any councel, and yet be forced to graunt pardon at the houre of death.

ALLEN.

And therefore I ioyne in argument and open reason with our aduersaries thus: To giue pardon in moste common and Catholike sense of that worde, is to release some part, or all the enioyned penance for sinnes remitted: But the Pope, because he is the principall gouernour of Gods Church, may release any penance enioyned, vpon iust considerations: Ergo, the Pope may lawfullie giue Pardons. The Minor, wherein the aduersaries may perchance giue backe, I prooue thus: That which was bound by the Churches or Popes authoritie, may be lawfullie loosed by the same authoritie againe, because Christ himselfe ioyned in his graunt both these acts togetber, and they are prooued to be proper to one iurisdiction: But the Church by the Decrees of Bishops and Councells hath appointed such penance, and so many yeares of correction for sundrie faults: therefore the same Bishops, or such as be of the like authoritie, when they see occasion, may remit the penance of the saied yeares or some part of it, by limitation of daies or seasons, as the state of the penitent requireth, or the time it selfe doth mooue them.

FVLKE.

These arguments I like well, for they bewraie your infirmitie moste of al. And now for answere, I saie, that your Maior is false, as weil as your Minor: for the common Popish sense of pardons is as the wordes of them pretend, that is, to giue pardon not onelie of penance enioyned, but also of sinnes. Againe the gouernours of the Church (as your Maior should haue beene framed, but that you dare not come within the compasse of a lawfull, syllogisme) haue no power either to enioyne penance for sinnes remitted, or to remit penance enioyned for sins remitted, but of time of penance enioyned for satisfaction of the Church, as we heard latelie out of Saint Augustine, when the Church may be satisfied in shorter time. Your Minor, which you knew would not be admitted, you take vpon you to prooue, but you come nothing neere the matter: for this is the point of your Minor, which we denie, that the Pope is the principall gouernour of Gods Church, yea, that he is any gouernour of Gods Church. But if he were a Bishop of Rome, as many were, whose successour he claimeth to be, he might be allowed in his Church of Rome to binde and loose, enioyne and remit, so farre as Christian discipline will beare, but not to claime tiranie ouer all Churches, as he doth. Now you in your mishapen syllogisme, in which you fumble diuerse matters together, to deceiue the ignorant, prooue that the Church and gouernours thereof haue power to release that which they haue power to enioyne, which is not the matter in controuersie. But whether they haue power to enioyne penance for sinnes remitted, to answere Gods iustice, or whether the Pope be a lawfull gouernour of the Church, these and such like be matters of controuersie, which you are neuer able to conclude in any lawfull and true syllogisme.

ALLEN.

And this argument shal be vnmooueable, except they reiect with the Popes Pardons all manner of discipline, as well of excommunication, as other lesser satisfactions, whereof we haue allreadie spoken, as in deede to mainteine their falsehoode they must needes doe, as also they shall be enforced to reprooue both the Councell of Nice, all the holie Fathers, and the generall practize of the Church, and with them the expresse scriptures, in which the worthie fruites of penance, sharpe discipline, Math. 7. 1. Cor. 11. Heb. 13. Mat. 16. 18. 〈◊〉 . Tim. 1. iudging our selues, obedience to our Prelates, binding & reteining of sinnes, excommunicating and deliuering vp to Sathan, be so often condemned. It must needes be a miserabe doctrine of these Protestants which cannot be vpholden but by so shamefull shiftes, and when we driue them into such straites, in a matter where they thinke most may be saied for themselues, and lest for our defence, where shall they stand in our plaine causes, in which almost our aduersaries confesse vs to haue the vantage of antiquitie, and the preheminence of all 〈◊〉 Councells in the world? But surelie, I thinke falsehood hath so litle holde in all matters, that it standeth onelie vpright, whiles the contrarie is not seene, or not vnderstanded, which shee seeketh euer by all meanes shee may, to couer and keepe close. For the night shee loueth, and in darkenes shee delighteth. Doe but open the true sense of anie article by them impugned, and it is more then halfe prooued, and the enemies without argument, vpon the sight of trueth, in a manner discomfited. So it fareth with them in our present cause, which they haue long toyled and troubled in the mist of their phantasies, and vpon false interpretation discharged amongst the simple sorte, that that thing, which in this sense, as Gods Church, that hath the ruling of the matter, taketh it, is so sure and so cleare in it selfe, that I thinke they shall neuer be hable with honestie, to speake against in any one parcell thereof.

FVLKE.

A boy that hath studied Logicke halfe a yeare may be ashamed to make such syllogismes, and yet you are not ashamed to affirme before the worlde, that this argument is vnmooueable, except we reiect with the Popes pardons all manner of discipline. And though it be manifest vnto the worlde, that we practize all Godlie discipline, which is according to the scriptures, in requiring the worthie fruites of repentance, iudgeing of our selues, obedience to Christian Prelates, practizing also the binding and reteining of sinnes, excommunication, and deliuering vp to Satan, giuing that reuerence we ought to the holie Councell of Nice, to all holie fathers, and to the generall practize of the Church yet you blush not to write, that we shall be enforced to reprooue all these. It is not these beggerlie arguments, M. Allen, that shall enforce vs to these absurdities. If you haue any better stuffe in store for Pardons, bring it out for shame, or ells talke no more of enforcement, except it be in shrift, where no man can controll you. The rest to the ende of this Chapter, conteining nothing but generall rayling, and arrogant boasting, after your accustomed manner, I passe ouer, as needelesse to be answered, 〈◊〉 wise then it doth discouer it selfe, in any wise mans iudgement.

That there be diuerse waies of temporall punishment remaining after sinnes be remitted, euery of which waies may be in some cases released in parte, or in wholl, by the Pardons of Popes and Bishops.

THE SIXT CHAP. ALLEN.

ANd yet to giue more light to the matter, and the greater ouerthrow to falsehood, let vs driue the cause forward, and weigh with our selues the wholl state of things in this order. First that there be three waies of punishment of mans sinnes after they be released in the sacrament of Penance (besides the fruites of repentance which man chargeth himselfe withall, and besides the punishment appointed for offences by the ciuill or temporall lawes, whereof I now speake not) the first & the easiest is that penāce, which is in secret confessiō inioyned by our Confessor, which is lightlie (as these times be) much lesse then the nature of the offence, for which it was prescribed, requireth. Yet because it is taken obedientlie, and by our iudges prescription, and in a sacrament in which God alwaies worketh much more grace, then he doth by the selfe same things without the sacrament, and because the penitent is readie to take more if more had beene prescribed, in all these respects, it standeth often, if it be any thing correspondent to the crimes for which it was inioyned, for a ful satisfaction before god, when it is accomplished.

FVLKE.

In the first Chapter of this booke you charged the reader to abide the orderlie methode and compasse of this cause. but the methode you follow is such, as becommeth your cause, namelie the methode of deceitfulnes, which is that you call the compasse of your cause. For true methode requireth to proceede from things more & better knowne, to things lesse knowne, as it were to build vpon a good foundation, but your manner is to assume that which is the chiefe matter in controuersie, and thereupon to builde as it were vpon an imaginarie fundation, & afterwarde to make a florish in wordes, and a vaine 〈◊〉 of confirming your foundation. As in this cause it had beene moste necessarie, if the compasse of your cause could haue borne it, to haue first prooued substantiallie that there remaineth temporall punishment after sinne remitted to satisfie the iustice of God. Then that the iustice of God not satisfied by the act of Christs sacrifice, on the crosse, may be satisfied afterward. Thirdlie the meane wherby it may be satisfied, which you cal the treasure of the Church. fourthly that dispensation therof belongeth to the pope: & these things once prooued, the way had beene plainner to bring in the Popes pardons, for proofe of which to be good, you haue plaide the proctour all this while. But these matters must be daintelie touched, the compasse of your cause can not abide to haue them thoroughlie handled. And therefore it is sufficient to affirme them, for other proofe you haue none of them. And yet as though you brought with you noe worsse then mathematicall demonstrations, you blow the trumpe afore hand to giue more light to the matter, the greater ouerthrow to falsehood, to driue the cause forward, and weigh the wholl state of things. And what saie you to the purpose? forsooth, you tell vs, that there be three kindes of punishment of mans sinnes after they be remitted. But sir, wee beleeue you not, where is your demonstration? Why? Is it not sufficient that M. Allen saith so? what an vnrea sonable man are you, that will not learne to abide the orderlie methode, and compasse of the cause? well, seeing we muste haue none other proofe of your sayings let vs see what you say: first, the fruites of repentance, which man chargeth himselfe with all, are none. What those be I know not, except it be some superstitious vowes, and such like matters: but the fruites of repentance, which God chargeth a man withal, be so necessarie to be brought forth, that otherwise the repentance is fained, and thereof followeth no remission. Againe ciuill punishment is none, and yet nothing is more like to prooue that purpose. what is it then? The first & easiest is that penance which is enioyned in secret confession. In deed that is easie, and such as may encourage men to commit sinnes, for which they make so easie satisfaction, toties, quoties. But what is the effect of this satisfactió? It standeth for a full satisfaction before God, when it is accomplished. What alwaie? Nay often times if it be any thing correspondent to the crimes. Then is there no certaintie in this matter, but in steede of a quietnes of conscience, a torment followeth vpon it, if the sinner be not assured that his penance enioyned will goe for paiement or satisfaction. Well when this easie penance is a full satisfaction, whence taketh it so great force? you answere, small workes by force of the sacraments are verie effectuall. But to prooue this patch of Poperie to be a sacrament, what daie wil you take? for that which is the grounde of al your disputation is denied of vs as you know. So that hetherto, but by petion of principles, you get nothing.

ALLEN.

The second way of punishment is appointed by the Canons generallie, for such faultes as be committed after Baptisme, that is to saie, by the lawes of the Church, or Decrees of Bishops and chiefe Magistrates thereof, and is called Canonicall satisfaction. Which is much more sparpe and greeuous then the other, that in priuate penance is commonlie giuen, and a great deale more answerable to Gods iustice and the greeuousnes of the crimes committed. And so the Canons were not onelie prescribed, as some iudge not right of them, for open offences, to satisfie the Church and the offence of the people, but also euen for secret sinnes, as we may perceiue by Saint Augustine, Tertullian, and other that haue written of penance. And this waie prescribed satisfaction by the auncient decrees of Councells, which lightlie appointed seuen yeares of penance for euerie deadelie sinne, was almost a rule for such as heard secret confessions to moderate their penance by, which they lightlie gaue to the penitents euen after the limitation of the saide decrees & auncient Canons. Now to giue so many yeares or daies of penance, signifieth the iniunction or prescriptions of fasts by certaine weekelie thoroughout the said prefixed times, or continualfasting from moste meates euerie daie in all those yeares of penance, other then would suffice for susteining of nature, as bread and water, and such shinne diet, which 〈◊〉 bodie, in this fall of our strength and manners, could now scarse beare, & with this continuall mourning in outward behauiour of countenance, speach and apparell, and, which was the greatest of all, necessarie abstinence from the holie sacrament, till the said penance was accomplished. And this great penance was in the Primitiye Church prescribed by the Canons, not onelie for cautell and prouision for the like sinnes afterward to be committed (then when the Church had her punishment for sinnes, seuerall from the paines appointed by the ciuill lawes for the same) but also for the satisfiyng of gods iustice for the penitents sinnes, the burden whereof, then was counted (as indeede it is) so intollerable, that neither the Church spared to enioyne great satisfaction, nor the offenders refused to receiue and accomplish the same with humilitie. This therefore is the second waie of punishment or prescription of penance for mortall sinnes remitted, or in waie to be remitted, by the penance of the partie. In which kinde, you may account also the seuere punishments which concerne the soull moste, although sometimes they are ioyned vnto some corporall afflictions, as excommunication, suspension, degradation, & such like: for al these were vsual in the beginning of Christian daies for correction of sinne.

FVLKE.

Canonical punishment, as we heard latelie in the next Chapter before, was, vt satis fait Ecclesiae, to make satisfaction to the Church, and not to the iustice of God, who accepteth a contrite and an humble heart thorough the vertue of Christs death and passion, as a full satisfaction to his instice. You saie, the Canons were not onelie prescribed, as some iudge not rightlie of them for open offences to satisfie the Church, & the offence of the people, but also euen for secret sinnes. But how is this prooued, that you saie? you tell vs that we may perceiue it by S. Austine, Tertullian, and others that haue written of penance. If it be as you saie, why be not their sayings set downe, and we with them that iudge not rightlie conuinced by them? At lest why be not the places quoted, where we may perceiue such a matter? belike the compasse of the cause cannot abide it, as also you sate, this fal of our strength and manners could scarse beare such streight penance, as by the Canons is prescribed. You ioyne two things together of diuerse natutes. If the strength of mans bodie be so greatly fallen as they are not able to endure such hard punishment, the Church should of dutie initigate the rigor of those Canons, and not send men to secke pardons for them. Whereas many a man that hath needc, lacketh either monie or other occasions, to purchase pardons: but if the manners of men be so dissolute as they like not streight penance, they are more dissolute vnto sinne, and so had need of the bitte of streighter penance to keepe them in, then the raine of pardons, and easie penance to let them runne. You repeat againe that this penance Canonicall was appointed, not onelie for cautele and prouision against the like sinnes, but also for satisfying of Gods iustice. But hereof no proofe at all, but a bare affirmation.

ALLEN.

The third waie of punishment of temporal sinne, is by Gods owne hand, as when he striketh some by sickenes, 〈◊〉 by temporal death, or by the paines of Purgatorie, which 〈◊〉 a place of temporal satisfaction & correction of the soule only in the next life. Thus were diuers of the Corinthians cast into infir mites, manie striken dead, and further also punished in the next world in the place of iudgement there, not eternal, but transitory because they would not iustly iudge and correct themselues. 1. Cor. 11. And, which is much to be noted for our purpose, the Apostles also had authoritie giuen them, to punish the offendours often by bodelie vexation, and death sometimes, that they might thereby make true shew and proofe to all the world, that they and their successours had iurisdiction ouer the soules of men, whiles they made it euident by manifest signes wrought in the face of all the world, euen vppon the bodies themselues, which are not so properlie subiect to the gouernours of the Church, as the soules of the faithfull be, though their bodies to, for the soules sake, be subiect to the said power. And not withstanding the same miraculous force in correcting sinners did cease afterwardes, yet the like power, ordinarilie to be exercised by giuing penance and seperating from the Sacraments, remaineth in the Churches right still.

And here we maie not thinke, that the killing of diuers, as well by Gods owne hand amongest the people of Israell in Moset time, Exod. 32. Num. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . 16. 1. Cor 11. Act. 5. Hier. in Cō ment. Ezechiells. c. 20 as of other that died of diseases, for punishment of vnworthie receiuing the Sacrament in Saint Paules daics, or sleaing of Ananias and his wife by S. Peters hand, manie moe perhapes whereof there is no talke in the text, we maie not deny, I saie, that these were all killed either of God or Christes Apostles, to eternall damnation, but rather for their temporall correction and the auoiding of Gods iudgements to come, especiallie where anie of them did repent them of their fault, before their deserued death came vpon them.

FVLKE.

That God striketh by sicknes or temporal death his children sor their chastisment and example of others, it is verie certaine; but that he sendeth anie into purgatorie or punisheth for satisfaction of his iustice, I must stil denie, vntil I see it plainly proued. Neither do I finde that the Corinthians which neglected to iudge themselues in this life, were punished with anie transitorie punishment in the next world. That the Apostles had authoritie to aftlict mens bodies, prooueth not that they or their successours had iurisdiction ouer mens soules. But their spirituall power is otherwise sufficiently testified, as well in retaming sinnes, as in casting out of the Church, such as teeme by gentler discipline incorrigible, Concerning all those that haue bin or be striken with the hand of God with temporall death, we leaue the iudgement to him selfe. If they did trulie repent before their death, we haue sure testimonie, that God hath receiued them to mercie. But hereof it followeth not, that their temporall punishment was a satisfaction of Gods iustice, neither-saith Saint Hierome anie such thing.

ALIEN.

Now by these three diuers waies of correction for sinnesremitted no doubt the Pardons of Gods ministers must be limited and vnderstanded, so that whosoeuer giueth a pardon lawfully, he must either discharge the penitent of the punishment which his Ghostlie Father enioyned him, or that the olde lawes of most holie Councels charged the like offenders withal, or that God himselfe enioyned sometimes in this world, but especiallie in the next life, where god more exactlie & properlie punisheth both for sins remitted & not remitted. If the pardō be large, it taketh awaie the whole pain, if it be otherwise, it determineth the number of daies, and releaseth not all, but part of the pennance onelie: that is to saic, so manie daies or yeares, as in the Indulgence is mentioned. Whereof no man can now be ignorant, if he doe but marke, that the penance which the Pope taketh vpon him to remit, was also limited by yeares of fasting, praying, abstinence from the Sacraments, and such 〈◊〉 as if your Confessour had giuen you in penance, to fast euerie fridaie bread and drinke onelie, for some notorius sinnes confessed vnto him, then the Pardon for twentie daies, would discharge you of so manie daies, from your said bond, as be named: and if it be a free and plenarie Indulgence, it shall discharge you of the bond of all the daies or yeares appointed, which you haue not before the receit of the said pardon accomplished. And this is exceeding plaine for the two first kindes of punishments, which we said were adioyned for satisfaction by the Churches lawes, and by the confessours prescription. For they stood vpon daiet and yeares, so the remission of the same must needes keepe the like forme. For which cause you shal see often expressed De Poenitentiis iniunctis, in the Indulgence. And that forme of graunt & remission was vsed alwaies in gods Church. For S. Cyprian did remit a great peece sometimes De poenitentiis De poen. iniunctis. inunctis, of the enioyned penance, when he gaue peace to such as fell in time of persecution, long before they had fulifilled their prescribed penance: and so did S. Paull to the Corinthian that had committed incest. And so doth Nice Councel prescribe to Bishops that they should or might at the lest, Humaniùs agere, deale more gentlie with those that denied their faith in the persecution of Licinius, & that they might pardō Can. 11. them before, if they saw cause, though seauen yeares penance was prescribed vnto them. In which places, that the Church now calleth a Pardon or Indulgence, was tearmed sometimes, donare aliquid in persona Christi, to giue or graunt something to the offender in Christes person: and so called Saint Paull it: sometimes it was called Dare pacem, as Saint Cyprin termeth it in manie places of his workes, sometimes it was called Humaniùs agere, To deale gentlie with sinners, or to shew vnto them humanitie, and so doth Nicen and Ancyran Councells terme it: Licebit etiam Episcopo humanius circa aliquid cogitare, It shall be lawfull for the Can. 11. Cap. 5. Bishop to deale more curteouslie with them, saith the holie Councell.

FVLKE.

First you tell vs, that the pardon must discharge men, either of al, or some part of these three kindes of punishment. Secondlie you assure vs, If the pardon be large, it taketh awaie the whole paine: then it followeth that if God punish a man for his sinnes, with the goute, or anie other bodelie sicknes, a large pardon would take awaie the whole paine thereof. Surelie if you would become suter to his holines, for a large pardō that would take awaie the whole paine of bodelie sicknes, you might doe an acceptable deede, and be well paied for your paines. But if the Popes pardon be not able to take awaie the paine of one scabbe or flebiting, you wil hardlie perswade vs, that it can take awaie all the paine of purgatorie, if it were prooued that anie such paine or place were after this life. But if the pardon (saie you) determine the number of daies, or yeares, then it releaseth but part of the penāce onlie, as you bring exampls of 20. daies pardon: but if the pardon determine the number of yeares, to an hundred thousand yeares, then this explication is insufficient: yet you haue an other quirke to helpe it afterward, by stretching it into purgatorie, your imaginarie prison. But the auncient canons neuer inioyned so manie yeares penance, nor neuer did anie Catholike Bithoppe graunt pardon of so manie yeares. Saint Cyprian, as we heard before, with his colleagues determined to release some parte of the appointed time vpon good hope of the amendement of the parties, and great signes shewed of their heartie repentance, and for daunger of present persecution at hand. Saint Paull receiued the incestuous person vnto the fellowship of the Church, vpon his repentance. The Councel of Nice also willed the Bishops in seeing the fruits of repentance ripebefore the time, assigned by the Canons, to deale more gently with the lapsed persons. But all these haue no resemblance with the Antichristian pardons of the Pope, which are not graunted vpon like cause, nor by a person of like authoritie, nor to persons of like qualites, nor to the like end, nor onelie of penance enioyned, but of such as no man would enioyne, beside remission à culpa & pana, or if not for all sinnes, yet for some third or seauenth parteof sinnes, or else full remission of all sinnes, beside 8000. yeares, and 8000. Lentes, as in the pardon of Clement the sixt, confirmed by Leo the tenth, it is to be seene.

ALLEN.

Whereby we see this pardoning of enioyned penance, is an auncient vsage and counted moste holie of all the Church, whereof we make this assured ground and foundation of our Pardons, and for the trueth of them we make this argument Saint Paul did remit enioyned penance in Christs person: Saint Cyprian and al the Bishops of Affrike did remit penance enioyned: Nicē Councel giueth licence to bishops to remit penance prescribed by the law: Therefore the Pope by their example, & as in the person of Christ may remit enioyned penance, & there fore may lawfuilie giue a Pardon. The paine prescribed by the law he may release, because he is the principal executer of the law: the penance appointed by the inferiour priest in confession, he may likewise remit, because that, which is prescribed by the inferiour may by good reason be, vpon considerations, altered by the superiour, especiallie where the Magistrate hath good meanes to prouide, that neither the common wealth suffer damage thereby, nor the partiē to whome it doth perteine to be loosed or bounde in penance, receiue any losse thereby. By like authoritie also doth a Pardon change sometimes a sharper & longer paine enioyned into some more gentle penance and more fit and needeful workes for the time and state then beeing, as his power, that is the chiefe gouernour may be exceeding benefi ciall to the worlde in such cases, which euer ought to be practized for edifying, & neuer for destruction. For it is to be considered, that the high Pastour vsualite graunieth no release of the debt of good workes, or the bond of deserued punishment, but by prescription of some other holie worke to be accomplished before the partie obteine the benefit of his remission. 〈◊〉 when a penitent hath enioyned him to punish his bodie by continual fasting or long peregrination, or other exceeding much temporall pain, according to the grieuousnes of his desertes, the freedome of a Pardon of tentimes turneth the saide due paines enioyned into some easier worke of Christian charitie, yet beeing much more to the glory of god. & beneficial to the Church, as the time standeth, then the other could be. As when the Turke, or other enemies of Christianitie, doe inuade any Christian kingdome, it is more beneficiall to put to our helping hand in with standing his crueltie, either by resisting him in our owne person, or contributing anie peece of our goods towardes the same, then anie priuate Penance that maie concerne our persons. Therefore the gouernours of the Church often, to mooue the people to such necessarie denotion giueth them a release of all paine due for their sinnes, or at least, of the bonde of their enioyned penance onelie vpon respect of some smal furtherance in such a good and Godlie purpose.

FVLKE.

We acknowledge that pardoning of ecclesiastical pu nishment, commonly called penance, is very auncient. And being graunted by them that had authoritie, vpon good consideration is very necessary. But it is very yong and new, that the Pope should take vpon him, though he proceeded no further then pardon of penance enioy nedto release the penance enioyned by the gouernours of other Churches, to persons whose repentance he knoweth not, & for other causes, then of auncient were allowed, and especiallie for money. But now vpon this auncient, and accustomed practize of Gods Church, let vs see what Antichrist can claime: and that is set forth in an assured argument. Saint Paull did remit; S. Cyprian, with the Bishops of Afrike, and the Nicene councell doth allow remitting of penance prescribed; therefore the Pope by their example maie remit enioyned penance, and lawfullie giue a pardon. Call you this an assured argument for pardons, where there wanteth one leg, and that the better leg of the argument to stand vpon? Aristotle doth well admonish that in an Enthimeme lightlie the weaker part is hidden, and not expressed. For this argument euerie man maie lawfullie denie, except you adde the Maior, that whatsoeuer Saint Paull, Saint Cyprian with his fellowes, and the Nicene coun cell lawfullie did, and allowed, the Pope doing as they did, maie lawfullie do. But then this Maior will be denied, and so the conclusion will not holde. For the Pope is neither anie gouernour, nor yet any member of the Church of Christ. But if he were a lawfull Bishop he might do within his owne charge, as Saint Paul, Saint Cyprian, and the rest with the Nicen councell did and allowed to be done. And yet if he were allowed to be a Bishop, and would graunt such pardons, as he doth, to men of other Churches, and vpon such occasions as he doth, this argument would not defend him, because the Minor would not follow him: for neither Saint Paull, Saint Cyprian, nor the councell of Nice graunted such pardons, to such persons, and for such causes, as he doth: therefore he followeth not their example, but his owne presumption. Yet let vs see how this argument is fortified. First the paine prescribed by law he maie release, because he is the principall executor of the law. But who will allow him anie such principalitie in the Church, that is no member of the same? Secondlie he maie remit the pennance enioyned by the Priest, because he is superiour to all piestes, which is nothing but a miserable begging of that which is in controuersie. The like is to be said of his changing of penance, whereby he challengeth the like authority. Although his changing of sharpe pe nance into easie paiment, doth bewray what is the end of such permutation: money is intended, whatsoeuer is pretended. Vrbanus the 2. in the councell of Claremounte, exhorting men of al nations to the warre of Ierusalem, began that release of penance, for seruing in that cause, which his successours afterward haue vsed, as a gaie and gainfull pretense, when they were disposed to enrich their coffers, and mantaine their priuate quarrels.

ALLEN.

The like they do also often, to set forward other workes of charitie, to the benefit of Gods people, as for the relieuing of Hospitals, of Churches, of high waies, and such like. Sometimes againe, they extende their power, which Christ gaue them, to edifie his Church. and increase religion and deuotion in the people, as when thy giue pardon for so manie daies to such as shall receiue the blessed Sacrament, faste and praie, that heresie maie cease in the Church, that the enemies of Christianitie maie not preuaile, that infidels, Iewes, and heretikes maie be conuerted, and Schismatikes knit them-selues obedientlie to the fellowship of Chistes folde. So doth the Pope for the encrease of zelous deuotion and aduancing Gods honour, giue daies of remission or full pardon, to such as shall vsuallie haue meditations of Christes passion and death by certaine holie praiers appointed, or by visiting places in which there be seene some liuelie sieppes, memories, and expresse tokens of Christe miraculous workes, or his Saintes. Thus to helpe vp the dulnesse of praying and seruing God in our daies he geueth grace and pardon to such as shall freauent the Churches at the times of their dedication, or on certaine principall Feastes, there either to be confessed and receiue the 〈◊〉 sacrament, or els to ioyne in praier and deuotion with other the faithful people that thither at those daies haue principall recourse. Hereof we haue example not onelie in the storie of the institution of the solemne. Feast of Corpus Christi, but also in the great generall councell holden at Laterane. For this cause also, and the like maintenance Can. 62. of holie praier, by which the Church of God moste standeth, hath he mercifully & with singular wisdome, giuen a pardon of certaine daies or years to such as should deuoutlie occupie such beades, books, or praiers: in all which things orderlie giuen, & reuerentlie receiued, I see not what can be reprehended of anie, but such as are offended with all workes and waies of mercie, charitie, and deuotion. The power and iurisdiction is prooued lawfull, the causes, why he should exercise his authoritie herein, be verie vrgent, & Gods honour with the peoples commodite exceeding well respected: all thinges here do edify, and nothing at all destroy: all things do stande by good reason, nothing can be reprooued either with rea son or good religion.

FVLKE.

You tell vs, what the Pope doth; but neither by what authoritic of the holie scriptures, nor by what example of the holie auncient Church. He could neuer sit in the Temple of God, boasting him-selfe to be God, except he had some religious colour, to blinde the eies of the world, which submitteth vnto his antichiristan power. And yet all the world knoweth, that monie obtained, for hospitalles, Churches, beades, bookes, and such baggage, all the pardons in a manner that haue beene graunted. As for the pretense of setting forward the workes of charitie, fasting, praing, &c. is not onelie hypocriticall, but also wicked. For neither men muste be hired to the workes of charitie, and other Christian exercises, by pardon of their punishments; but exhorted and charged for the loue of God, and vpon their duties neither should a sale be made of that which ought to be freelie graunted, if the Church had such authoritie. For freely (saith he) you haue receiued, therefore freely you ought to giue. Therefore, though you cannot see in this filthy nundination, what is to be reprehended, we can see nothing that can be defended, where neither the power is proued lawfull, nor the causes reasonable, nor the end godlie, whatsoeuer is pretended: nor meanes by the worde of God or example of the Pimitiue Church allowable.

That not onelie the penance enioyned in the sacrament, otherwise by canonicall correction, but also such paine as God him selfe prouideth for sinne, may be released by the Popes Pardons, and that Purgatorie paines may especiallie be preuented by the same remissions.

THE 7. CHAP. ALLEN.

BVt now because some may by course of our matter, looke that I should declare, whether the Popes Pardons may release any whit of that paine, which God himselfe putteth the penttent vnto, after his sinnes be forgiuen; I must somewhat stand hereupon, the cause is weightie, and much misliked of our aduersaries, and some other perchance to, that see not so farre into the matter as they should doe, before they giue anie iudgement thereof, That the gouernours of the Church, should remit Canonicall correction, and priuse satisfaction, with the bonde of penance, either enioyned, or els which by the lawes spirituall might be enioyned, manie will confesse. But that their power should reach to the remitting of that paine, which Gods hand hath laied vpon the offender of temporall correction, that they vnderstand not. Truely, for this they must be instructed, first, that the temporall punishment, which God taketh on sinners that be penitent, though it standeth by the law of nature, aud was practized of the laws of nature, and was practized of God himselfe before anie mans lawes were made for puuishment of sinnes, yet now it riseth prin cipallie, vpon lack of punishing of our selues, or the accomplishing of such penance, as the Church of God prescribeth. For if the Church punish her childrens faults by sharpe discipline, doubtles it satisficeth Gods righteousnesse, and he will not punish bis in id ipsum, twise for one fault: or if man earnestlie and sufficientlie iudge him-selfe, God hath promised by S. Paul, that he will not iudge him also, that is to saie, that he will not correct him with more heauie discipline of this life or the life to come, for that signifieth this word iudicare, as the Apostle him-selfe doth interpret it. Then it followeth, that the bond of anie temporall punishment to be inflicted by God him-selfe doth not now binde man otherwise, then for the lack of necessarie discipline to be taken in this life, and therefore that Purgatorie bindeth no man, but in respect of satisfying Gods iustice, which was not answered here before, either by our selues, or by the Churches correction and enioyned penance.

FVLKE.

The cause you confesse to be waightie that the gouernours of the Church should release that paine, which Gods hand hath laid vpon the offender, for his temporall correction, and therefore you must stand vpon it: but as long as you stand you bring neither authoritie of scripture, testimonie of antiquitie, reasonable argument, or sensible experience. For first the ground of al your disputation is vtterlie false; that God punisheth for sinnes remitted, to satisfie his iustice. And therefore though I graunt your first consideration (which is, that God punisheth vs for sinne the more, because we punish not our selues) yet I may not graunt your conclusion, the argument whereof is nothing, but your asseueration: if the Church punish her childrens faults by sharpe discipline, doubtles it satisfieth Gods righteousnes. For no punishing, or suffering of punishment can satisfie Gods iustice, or anie part thereof, but the punishment suffered by Christ, who was beaten for our faults and striken for our offences: and therefore his suffering is a full satisfaction for our vnrighteousnes. Neither doth Saint Paull speak of anie discipline in the life to come, when he exhorteth vs to iudge ourselues: but sheweth that the punishment, or iudgement, which God executeth in this world vpon his children, is a cha stisment, that we be not condemned with the world, as they that neither by doctrine, nor by punishment are brought to repentance. your next conclusion is, that the bond of anie temporall punishment to be inflicted by God him selfe, doth not binde man, but for lack of necessarie discipline, to be taken in this life. But this conclusion you your selfe do afterward denie, when you affirme, that bodelie punishment commeth vpon men for manie other causes, then for correction for sinne onelie, or a purgation of a mans life past. Finallie, if purgatorie do binde no man, but in respect of satisfying gods iustice, so long as it is certaine, that Gods iustice is satisfied toward al his elect, in the death and obedience of Christ, it is out of doubt that purgacorie hath nothing to do with anie of Gods elect, to whome Christ is giuen of his father to be wisdome, righteousnes, holines, and redemption, that as it is written, he that reioyceth, maie reioyce in the Lord.

ALLEN.

Consider secondlie that he thatfully is discharged of the bond of satisfaction in this life, whether it be iust accomplishing of his due aud deserued penance, or by remission of Gods Church and answering otherwise his lack therein, the same person must of necessitie be also charged of Purgatory, and alpaine in this life which els God could haue enioyned for sinne, because this debt of Purgatorie rose vnto the penitent for the answer of Gods iustice, and lack of paiment in this life, the which being discharged to the honour of God, and the reliefe of the partie, there remaineth no bond of paine to come. For debt is discharged properlie either by remitting it freelie, or by paiment iustlie. and I speake rather of 〈◊〉 , then of other painer enioyned by God in this life, because that is euer appointed to man, onelie as a recompence of Gods iustice, and as due correction for sinne remitted, when of all other paines in this world, whether it be sicknes or death, no man can assuredlie saie, that this or that bodelie punishment came vpon anie man as a correction for his sinnes onelie, or as a purgation of his life past. For somtimes suchthings folow the necessary of our corrupted nature, sometimes they be for our proofe and exercise, and sometimes for other causes. But those kindes of punishments which God laieth vpon man onelie for correction and satisfying for his sins, neuer fal vpon him after he be either iudged by his owne teares, or the Churches sufficient satisfaction enioyned, or els vpon reasonable cause remitted. The like afflictions maie continue in anie person, after the bonde of them be remooued, or maie be giuen afterward: but for the satisfaction of his owne sinnes, or anie debt proceeding thereof, they be not, because the debt is discharged: in so much, that I dare be bolde to saie, if anie man were sick by Gods appointment, for that cause onelie, to satisfie for his sinnes remitted before in the sacrament, that he should straight recouer vpon the discharge of the debt which he did owe to God for his iustice, if that into mitie were for no other cause but that onelie, as it maie be for manie mo, wherof no man can casilie iudge.

FVLKE.

He that is fullie discharged of the bond of satisfaction, in this life, by free remission of his sinnes, through the satisfaction of Iesus Christ, must needes be dischar ged of Purgatorie, except you will saie, that accomplishing of penance, and remission of the Church is of more force, then the suffering of Christ, and the remission of God. For debt, as you saie truelie, is discharged properlie, either by remitting it freelie, or by paiment iustlie. But God sorgiueth our sinnes freelie, and Christ hath paied the redemption for them iustlie, as all the scriptures do testifie. Therefore there remaineth no bond of paine to come. But now you render a reason, why you speake of purgatorie, rather then of other paines enioyned by God in this life. And that is this; that purgatorie is neuer suffered, but sor satisfying for sinne onely: where other paines of this life maie be for other causes. Marke how this geare hangeth together. First you haue no shew of proofe, that there remaineth anie paine due to satisfie Gods iustice for sinnes remitted, but the afflictions of this life: and now you confesse, that they maie be, and often are for other causes. How prooue you then, that euer they be for this pretended cause, namelie for satisfying of Gods iustice for sinnes remitted? Well, let that passe. Seeing the afflictions of this life were brought to prooue that there be three diuerse waies of temporal punishment remaining after sinnes be remitted, euerie of which waies maie in some cases be released in parte, or in wholl, by the Popes pardons, how happeneth it, that we can haue no experience of the Popes pardonsin releasing any man of the temporall afflictions of this life, as sicknes, imprisonment, &c, You answer that these bodilie afflictions maie be for other causes, & so flie quite from your holde; yet that you may stand in a corner, & pelt your enemies, you turne again & say. that you dare be bold to say, if any man were sick by gods appoint ment, for that cause onely, &c. that he should straight waie recouer vpon the discharging of that debt which he did owe to gods iustice: but a pardon wil discharge that debt: therfore a pardō wil make him recouer. This I confes, is boldly said of you, But where is the experience: shew one man that euer recouered by the Popes pardon among so many 1000. sick persons, as haue receaued the Popes pardon: was neuer none sick by gods appointment, for satisfying of his iustice onelie? But admit he were sick for other causes, as welll as for that, should not the popes pardon at the least take away some parte of his sicknes, namelie so much as was laid vpon him for that cause onelie? Let the Pope, if he will make triall of his power to the confusion of his abuersaries, graunt a generall pardon to all Papistes, as he maie easilie do, and then let it be tryed whether anie one shall straight recouer of his bodelie sicknes, or other affliction, or how manie shall be eased in their bodilie or wordly affliction. Prouided alwaies that we haue no counter fait crankes, that shall step vp sodenlie recouered of that disease, whereof they were neuer sick. But if you dare be bolde to saie, that the Popes pardon can cause anie man to recouer straight vpon the recept of it, you must also be bolde to say that the popes pardon can worke miracles: for no man can sodainlie recouer of any disease which is not come to the period, without miracle, if the naturall cause thereof be not first taken awaie. But alas who doth not see your miserable startinghole, if that infirmitie were for none other cause, but that onelie, as it may be for manie mo, wherof no man can easilie iudge. A wretched clout to hide your infirmitie, where no one example among so manie thousand as are sick in the world, can be shewed. So that purgatorie paines, and the release of them, are grounded vpon temporall afflictions, whereof noe man can iudge, for what cause they are, no man can shew one example of the release of them by pardons.

ALLEN.

And therfore, not onelie Christ him-selfe, as I shall declare hereafter, but Aaron also healed in the olde law the infirmities of thousands, which came vpon them onelie for temporall punishment of sinnes. And in the sacrament of extreme vnction the Apostle Saint Iames affirmeth, that our Lord shall vpon the priestes praier lift vp the penitent, or ease him of his sicknes, whichhe meant onely or chiefely of that sicknes, which commeth vpon the partie by Gods hand, as a punishment of those sinnes, which be remissible in the sacrament for such like means. As Saint Chysostome sheweth also a passiing power in lib. 3. desacerdot. the ministers of God, Church, saying, That they maie keepe mans soule from perishing, and maie charge him with more easie paine euen at his passing hence, besides that they maie ease his bodelie infirmitie also by their holie praiers in the act of extreame vnction: in this sense speaketh he thereof,

FVLKE.

Said I that no man can shew one example of the release of bodilie afflictions? Master Allen sheweth here examples of thowsands, healed not onelie by Christ, but by Aaron also, of infirmities, that came vpon them for temporal punishment of sinnes, as he will declare hereafter. But I replie, what miracles Christ or Aaron wrought in his name, they be no examples of the Popes pardons, by which if he can prooue that anie man receaueth recouerie of his sicknes, it is somewhat to the purpose. The llke I saie of annointing with oile, by which the elders of the primitiue, and Apostolike Church endued with the miraculous gift of healing, cured manie of their bodilie infirmities: but that anie extreame vnction restoreth anie man to health, or euer did, I vtterlie denie; and therefore we will not dispute of what sicknes they heale them. Neither doth Chrysostome saie, that the Ministers of Gods Church haue such a passing power, that they maie ease bodilie infirmitie by their holie praiers, in the act of extreame vnction, neither hath his words anie sense thereof: and therefore you deale fraudulentlie, to tell vs of the sense, when you rehearse not the wordes. Plaine dealing becommeth an honest cause: but when neither wordes nor sense can helpe you, you must faine a sense, which can not be prooued of the wordes: which are these, De sacerdotio lib. 3. cap. 6. preferring the ministers of the Church before bodelie parents, by so much as the life to come excelleth this life for they truelie do beget vnto this life, but these vnto that to come. And they truelie can not so much as deliuer them from bodylie death, nor driue awaie sicknes that falleth vpon them: but these have often saued the soule that was stck and readie to perish, causing some to haue a gentler punishment, suffering some not to fall from the beginning, and helping them not onely by teaching and admonishing, but also by praiers. For not onelie when they regenerate vs, but after warde they haue power to forgiue sinnes. It anie man sick among you? saith he, let him call for, &c. Where the text of Saint Iames is alledged onelie to prooue that they haue power to obteine forgiuenes of sinnes by praier, and neither for healing of bodylie sicknes, nor for extreme vnction. The ceremonie whereof, with the miracle, whereunto it was annexed, was ceased long before Saint Chrysostomes time.

ALLEN.

But, as I said, because no man can well iudge, when man is afflicted onelie for temporall discipline or satisfaction, or when far other purposes to vs vnknowne, the Church of God that vseth high wisdome and moderation in all things, medleth not directly in pardoning by her iurisdiction, with any such bodily afflictions as god chargeth man with alin this life, which maie be to the forsaken as a beginning of their eternall damnation, as Saint Augustine saith, as well as a temporall correction, and therefore not effectuallie remissible in the Church. But the bond of Purgatorie, that, I saie, in the Church maie be released, and is released, at euerie time that man worthilie receiueth a full and plenarie remission of all penance enioyned, & due to be enioyned by the law of the Churches decrees. I do not speake now, of the deliuerie of anie person from the paines of purgatory, which alreadie is actuallie there, or for the Churches power in releasing of their painet, after they be in the course of Gods iudgement for the same: I am not so farre yet: but I speak of the discharge of the bond thereof, or some portion of the same, now before the partie do passe hence, which is a great deale more proper to the Churches power, and more easie to be brought to passe, then when the penitents soule is alredy in iudge ment there, to which place, the Churches iurisdiction (as some suppose) doth not extend. If the simple vnderstand me not, let him marke my meaning by an example: The paines of hell can not, neither by God, nor man, ordinarilie be helpen or released, after man be in the same: but the debt of Hell which is due for euerie mortall sinne, is discharged allwaies at our repentance, in so much that the priest in the sacrament of penance, with the sinne euer remitteth the bonde of Hell, and preuenteth Gods iudgement in the same. So if Purgatory could not at al belong to the iurisdiction of the Church, nor 〈◊〉 person therein, yet in the life of the party some peece of the debt thereof, oral may be released afore hand, whiles the partie is in the power of the Church and her discipline: ad so it must needs be at euerie time that the Church pardoneth the partie of all satisfaction, or anic portion there of recompensing the same by application of Christes satisfaction and his saints. For the bond of Purgatory riseth, as I haue said, vpon some satisfaction and penance to be fulfilled or done in this life, the which 〈◊〉 bue either by our paines accomplished to the satisfying of Gods righteausnes, or o therwise pardoned, there is no debt or bond of purgatorie at all, the which is so cancelled by thy Church our Mother, that it can not be required of God our father.

FVLKE.

The Popish Church 〈◊〉 more sabtillie, if shee take not vpon her at all, either directlie, or indirectlie, to heale bodilie sicknes by pardons, not because men can not iudge so well for what cause they are laid vpon the diseased, but because shee knoweth right well that though shee may in the darke bregg of such a matter, yet hath shee in deede no such power, nor authoritie, neither in the fortaken or reprobate, nor in any of Gods elect. But the bonde of Purgatorie, where of there is neither argument, nor experience, shee may be bolde to deale with al at her pleasure, either in preuenting, or releasing: Wherein I maruell you make the matter so deintie, seeing it is holden on 〈◊〉 side, that the Pope hath authoritie by his pardon, 〈◊〉 onelie to release some out of the paines of purgatorie, but 〈1 line〉 also to spoile all Purgatorie, and to leaue it 〈◊〉 . Your example, of the paines of hell, that can not neither by God, nor man be helped, or released, hath an instance in your owne schoole, of the Emperour Traiane eased of hell paines at the praier of Saint Gregorie, if the tole be true. Beside Augustinus de Ancona disputeth earnestlie, that the Pope hath power in hell, to mitigate quest. 34. or release the paines of the damned, or at the lest of some of them, and that the Church praieth for that ende. Wherfore you agree not with your fellowes, nor with the Popish Church, which praieth for the deade, vt liberentur de ore Leonis, & de profundo lacu: that they be deliuered from the mouth of the Lion, and from the deepe lake. But be it as you saie, yet your argument of the similitude of hell and Purgatorie is of no force, because we know certainlie by the scriptures, that there is hell: but Purgatorie we finde not in the holie scriptures, as Saint Augustine saith of any third place. But by the scripture Cont. Pelag hypognost. lib. 5. we finde, the ende wherefore Purgatorie is imagined, to be forged, false, & blasphemous against the sacrifice of Christ his death and satisfaction, which was once perfectlie performed by himselfe, and not committed to the application of any other man. Heb. 9. & 10

ALLEN.

And this mooued alwaies the Church of God diligentlie to prouide of her tender mercie toward her louing Children, that they should neuer departe out of this life in any debt of penance, knowing well, that the residue not satisfied here, should be required at their handes afore God in the next life. And therefore though many yeares of penance were prescribed to all such as did notorious crimes, yet there was made euer lightlie a prouiso, that at the houre of their extremitie they should haue peace and pardon, and the Churches blessing in the holie sacrament, and so departe free from bond of the Churches discipline, & as far as in her laie, might be also discharged of the temporall scourge in the next life, as no doubt they were, if their remained no other impediment in thēselues. Can. 12. Lib. 3. Epist. 17. So doth Nice Councell moste mercifullie prouide, and so doth Ciprian and other fathers of the Primitiue Church, that saw in their high wisedome, the temporall paine to come, much to hang on the parties satisfaction, and the bond of the Churches enioyned penance. And euen at this daie prouision is also made, that no penance be giuen, but vpon condition of his recouerie, to any man that lieth at the extremitie of death, lest he depart hence, Ligatus, bounde, as Saint Augustine tearmeth Epist. 180. it, whereby the debt of his enioyned satisfaction, might be required in Purgatory. And nothing in the world prooueth more the Churches doctrine of purgatory & Pardons, then doth the continuall concorde and moste agreeable practize of these holie acts of binding and loosing vsed in her gouernement.

FVLKE.

The auncient Church in deede not acknowledging that shee had any authority to release any punishment to be suffered after this life, determined alwaies the times of Canonicall penance with the ende of mens liues, as I haue shewed before, & now you do acknowledge no lesse. But if the Church had power after men were deade, to release them of any paines, shee needed not to haue beene so carefull in that point, as shee was willing to comfort the penitent offenders at their depar ture: as for the cancelling of all debt, due for the satisfying of gods righteousnes, which you did ascribe vnto the Church, was the proper office of our sauiour Christ, who performed that most necessarie worke to our eternal benefit, once for all, when he did put out the handwriting that was Col. 2. 15. against vs in decrees, and vtterlie abolished it, nayling it to his crosse. Finallie if nothing in the worlde prooueth more the Popish Churches doctrine of Purgatorie and pardons, then the continuall practize of binding and loosing, iustlie vsed in gouernement, as you doe constantlie affirme, it will easilie appeare, that nothing in the world can prooue at all your blaspemous heresies, of Purgatorie, and pardons, seeing the right vse of that power can be none other, then according to the authoritie graunted by our sauiour Christ of binding and loosing: but neither purgatorie, nor pardon out of that authoritie in any lawful forme of argument can euer be concluded, howsoeuer in loose talke, or scribling, ignorant men may be caried awaie with the flow of wordes where there is no pitho argument.

How the practize of pardons of these late hundred veares, differeth from the vsage of the primitiue Church, and in what sense such great numbers of yeares and daies be remitted by the Popes pardons.

THE 8. CHAP. ALLEN.

BVt here we muste note some diuersitie in giuing Pardons, and preuenting Purgatorie paines, betwixt the primitiue Church of olde, and ours of these latter hundred yeares, which did moste iustlie rise vpon the alteration of ment manners & state of things. For in the primitiue Church enioyned penance was so large for euery mortal crime, that it might seeme verie answerable vnto the nature of the faulte. And doubtlesse it may not otherwise be thought, but the spirit of God did limitate satisfaction by the Canons, as agreeable in all pointes to the debt of sinnes forgiuen, which God required for answere. And therefore when they gaue a Pardon of the enioyned penance, there could be no great doubt, but the penitent beeing in zeale and deuotion qualified thereunto, was therwith fullie pardoned of Purgatorie, and the bonde of all paines to come in the next life.

But now of daies when penance and large satisfaction (our nature declining euer to the worsse, and deuotion continuallie decaying) is not enioyned according to the olde Canons, and but a small signe thereof, remaining onelie in secret satisfction, which is not of it selfe in this exceeding flow of sinne any thing agreeable to the faultes committed: in this case, to remit onelie the enioyned penance, were not enough commonlie to preuent Purgatorie paines, or to discharge the penitent of all satisfactory correction to come. Whereby the Church by instigation of Gods spirit dealeth so much more mercifullie now then before, because the people had neuer so much neede, to hang on pardon, as when their sinnes be greatest, and their recompense lest. Neuerthelesse, such is the frowardnes of our time, that they had rather take away penance contemptuouslie, then haue it released by the power of god lawfullie. For the great infirmitie of this world was the manifolde 〈◊〉 vsed, and yet the meekenes of the Church, which by the motion of God shee applieth her selfe vnto, for the distresse of these daies, and for the sinners sake, is yet moste of sinners now commonlie contemned, and of verie many, that haue full great neede thereof, as meere follie laughed at. Yet the Church for her childrens reliefe bestoweth mercie still, and a great deale lesse it is offended on that side, then the other, as no doubt the holie ghost guiding her affaires, she standeth vpright on both sides.

FVIKE.

You doe not amisse, to note a diuersitie betweene the practize of the auncient primitiue Church, from the late Popish Church, touching the Popes pardons, and purgatorie: for the moste auncient primitiue Church, knew neither the one nor the other. But you will haue the difference to arise moste iustlie vpon the alteration of mens manners, and state of thing's. Touching the state of things, it is so large a tearme, that I know not what you meane thereby. And I maruell what state of things that should be, that should bring in a new religiō into the church of Christ, as this of Popes pardons, & purgatorie is. But the alteration of mens manners, if it require another forme of discipline, the change of manners from better to worsse, requireth a discipline to be changed from milder, to sharper, and not as your Popish Church pretendeth to haue done, from sharper, to mil der, and from milder to none at all. For Canonicall penance & satisfaction, you haue changed to arbitrary penance & satisfaction, which you confes to be but a signe of the Canonicall, & nothing agreeable to the faultes committed. And of the same arbitrarie satisfaction, with all the desertes thereof, you haue set the release to sale, in your popes Pardons; which in effect is nothing else, but to sel a lisentiousnes of sinne, when you haue taken awaie all feare of punishment therefroe: eternall by shrift, and temporall by pardons, and pelting commutations, without exacting true repentance, and the true fruites thereof, which appeere in amendment of life. But to follow your vaine, you say the penance enioyned in the primitiue Church, was so large, that it might seeme very answerable to the nature of the fault. It is true, that as the faultes were greater, so the discipline was harder for satisfying of the Churches iudgement: in accepting the offenders repentance, and reconciliation to the Church. But there was no meaning to satisfie the iustice of god, vnsatisfied in the sacrifice of Christes death, howsoeuer you make it a doubtles case, as also you vse to doe euerie thing, by bolde and stout asseueration, which you are not able to prooue by anie sound or probable argument. Well, if it were, as you saie, there was no vse of pardons in the primitiue Church, nor feare of purgatory paines, which is a true conclusion, although it be brought in vpon false principles. But now, you saie, the Church by instigation of Gods spirit, graunteth manie great Pardons, because the people in respect of their great sinnes, and small or no penance and satisfaction for them, had neuer so much need to hang on pardon. In deed the greater mens sinnes be, the more need they haue that grace and mercie should abound for the release of them: but then they must haue recourse to the fountaine of mercie and onelie ground, where grace groweth, euen the God of all consolation reconciled in Iesus Christ, vnto all them that trulie repent of their sins, & purpose vnfeinedlie to lead a new life agreeable to his lawes, and commandements. But whereas the popish Church taking awaie in a manner all sorrow for sione, and feare of punishment, by offering satisfaction of pardons, openeth a wide field vnto all wickednes, and beside teacheth men to depend vpon the pardon of a man, who commonlie selleth the same for aduauntage, and disposeth it at his pleasure, it is out of doubt she doth this by the instigation of the Deuill, and not by the spirit of God. For the spirit of God is the spirit of trueth, of purenes & of holines, giuing no licence, encouragement, or consent to continue in sin, as the doctrine of pardōs doth most manifestly; the blasphemie of which is more to be detested, then the follie to be laughed at, of al them, that be zelous of Christes glorie, & saluation of his people.

ALLEN.

She seeing therefore, that remission of the enioyned penance could not discharge vs of the bond of the transitory paine to come, & being sure that it is no les lawfull to remit the paines due by the canons, is enioyned effectually, by the canons, she giueth now 〈◊〉 not onely de 〈◊〉 penitentus, but also, de iniun 〈◊〉 , of such penance as by the nature of the fault before god, or the decrees of Councells should or had wont to be enioyned. For there is no man that hath in penance prescribed either of fasting or praying or such like a 1000. or moe years, and yet it is knowen, that many such pardons are, and haue been giuen long, Neither could the 〈◊〉 of Purgatory wholy be discharged now, as it was of old by the pardons of the primitiue Church, in which onelie there was remission of the penance appointed (because al penance thought reedful was then appointed) except there were releasing also sometimes of al the penance, or a great peece of the penance that shouldby law and reason haue beene inioyned.

FVLKE.

The man of sinne, supreame head of the synagogue of Sathan vpon earth, seeing that his glorie, power, and profit ariseth principally by the increase of the peoples sins, hath first taken away al bridles of canonical repentance, & auncient discipline, & secondly giuen pardon, not onelie of penance inioyned, which is nothing in effect, as you confes, but also of penance to be inioyned, wherby he hath set the sinner out of feare of al discipline, & so at liberty to commit what wickednes he will, without punishment. Whereby it appeereth how true it is that you said, that the pope was slaundered by them that said, that for monie you maie obtaine of the Pope a free pardon before hand of any greeuous sinnes that you commit afterward, when you now doe acknowledge that he giueth pardons not onlie de iniunct is poenitentiis, but also de iniungendis, of penance to be inioyned, which you extend further by interpreting it of penance, that should or ought to be inioyned, though it be not inioyned at all. So that it is all one in effect whether a man haue a pardon before hand of anie greeues sinne, or whether he hath a pardon aforehand of all punishment due for the same, or a pardon of course as they terme it, for his monie, after he hath committed the sinne.

ALLEN.

And this is the Churches meaning, in giuing somanie daies and yeares, as be often times expressed in pardons, in titles of praiers, or vse of certaine sanctified creatures, made holie by Gods word and praier. Of which, because we see not the originall, and because by vnlawfull practize of Printers or writters, the grauntes of diuers Bishops for multiplication of the yeares, may be ioyned together, against the meaning of the giuers there may be some forged, & not authenticall, yet we will not stand in that point, because it is certaine, that such be indeed graunted diuerse times, by them that haue lawfull authority in the Church. The vndouted sense whereof, though euerie man maie easelie vnderstand by the premises, yet fullie to open the case which is now so common in moste mens mouthes, & not well considered of manie; Looke how manie daies or yeares a man maie deserue to be punished in this life, if his sinnes were to the vttermoste taxed, and the appointed penance of the Church fullfilled, so manie yeares may the gouernours of the Church remit, and forgiue by a Pardon. But manie a man may, and God knoweth, often times doth commit so manie 〈◊〉 offences, continue so long in sinne, liue so wantonlie and so careleslie, in all manner of wicked 〈◊〉 euen to his liues end alalmoste, that being conuerted by Christer grace, and so departing hence in his fauour, as it often through much mercie falleth, he must needes be in exceeding great debt for so long a life so euill spent. And, I thinke, if you call him to account for all his common and dailie offences, for all his daies vnthriftilie wasted, for euerie of his idle wordes, for euerie of his vaine thoughtes, for so manie occasions of good workes omitted, which he ought to haue done, for often fellowship in other mens misdeedes besides his owne, all this willriseto a great debt in a mens case that neuer required in all his time effectuallie, to haue his debtes forgiuen him, and therefore he must needes stand much bound, euen for his veniall trespasses: which, though they deserue not of their nature damnation eternall, yet beeing not remitted, they binde man to transitorie punishment, according to the number, time, and waight of them.

But now if you sit on the audit of the greater matters of this mans conscience, where euerie of his sins deserued by the Churches limitation, for correction onelie, after they be remitted, necre hand seuen yeares penance, and some manie moe, where he hath done nothing els all his euill and long time, but heaped sinne vpon sinne, where infinite sacrilege boldlie hath bin committed, where his flesh was neuer satisfied of most vnlawfull lustes, where his minde was euer full of greedie gaine, where his handes or heart were allwaies imbrued with innocent blood, were no parte of his minde or bodie hath beene free from what iniquitie you can name; in all this corrupt case of manie a mans life, where no good works (that I maie vse Saint Chrysostomes wordes) are found, by which there maie be anie hope of release, where there is abundance of all sinnes without anie satisfaction in this lamentable state of a life so euill spent, how manie years penance (if it were possible for the partie to liue so long) were he by the Churches iudgement, by the waight of his wickednesse, or by Christes iustice, to be chardged with all? Surelie if his life were not onlie a thousand years (for so long almost aid some of the olde Fathersliue) but if it were ten thousand yeares, he could not fatisfiefor so much temporall paine and bebt of sinnes, as reason law, and Gods iustice would, and well might charge him withall, though the great debt of euerlasting damnation by Christes grace, were mercifully remitted in the Priests absolution at his confession before. Threfore, whether the partie liue or die, he is in debt for such penance, if rigour were shewed, as so great sinner deserued. And if he liued ten thousand yeares, he were bound in his life time, and in his body, to accomplish as he might, the due penance for his desertes: and if he die straight vppon his repentance, he is not lesse bound by suffering paine and punishment in the next world to fullfill the same. For gods iustice leeseth no right, because man leeseth his life.

FVLKE.

As priuie as you make your selfe to the Churches meaning, the popish Church could haue no good meaning in graunting pardon for so many thousand years, yea for so manie hundreth thousand yeares, which the Church of Christ, for a thousand yeares after Christes ascension, neuer heard of Some part of the fault is laid vpon printers, and writers, which for lucre haue increased the numbers; but in the end the greater numbers are coufeised, for otherwise the bulles of lead, as dumme as they be, would crie out against you. But whereas these yeares be expressed in pardons, in titles of praiers, or vse of certaine creatures, the last of these are said to be sanctified, and made holie by Gods worde and praier. Why Sir? All the creatures of God are sanctified, in the lawfull vse of them, by the worde of God and by praiers, as the Apostle teacheth vs, to which no such pardon is annexed. Who is he then that despising the holines giuen by God to all his creatures, in the ordinarie vse of them, taketh vpon him to adde agreater holines to certeine creatures, to applie them to another vse, and ioyne not onelie holines vnto them; but also remission of sinnes, and of paine due for sinnes to the vse of them, for which he hath no word of God to warrant him, and therefore can haue no praier to helpe him? surelie this can be none other, then he that exalteth himselfe aboue God, which can make Gods creatures more holie then God hath made them. But now for this number of yeares, wherof you make your Audit at your pleasure, valuing mēs offences in a heauy ballāce to make your popes pardons seeme more probable, & saleable, your account neuertheles will fall short of many thousand yeares, by your former reckoning. You confessed in the beginning of this Chapter, that the satisfaction limited by the Canons was agreeable in all points to the debt of sinnes forgiuen, which God required for answer of his iustice. Further you must remember, that the Canons did limit times of penance, not onelie for an act of sinne, but also for customable continuance in such sinnes, as you may see in the decrees of Iuo quoted by you before, and in the Ancyran Councell. Now if you will faine a man to be such a monster, as that he haue committed all these sinnes, for which the Canons doe limit times, and haue continued in them also accustomablie, yet by those Canons he could not deserue so many thousand yeares of penance as the Pope graunteth of pardon. Nay if you make your Audit of the times limited sor all offences, adding all the daies, yeares, and Lents prescribed in the Canons together, you shall not finde the sūme of one thousand yeares of penance due to be inioyned, if a man had commited al those sinnes. Whereof it followeth, that so many 1000 yeares as haue bin ordinarily graunted by the Popes pardons, can haue no such meaning, as your dreame of Audit and account surmiseth, and so it remaineth, that these numbers of yeares were multiplied onelie to set a greater price of the pardons, & so to robbe both the purses of the people, and deceiue their soules. For the old Canons neuer appointed anie time of penance for anie time, exceeding the time of a mans life: but 7. yeares 14. yeares, 24. yeares, &c, or to the end of a mans life at the most, and alwaies the partie to be receiued at his end, though he had not accomplished his time perfixed. It is not the time appointed by the old canons therefore, that can excuse so manie thousand yeares of pardon for paine to be suffered in purgatorie, seeing you acknowledge the time by them limited, to be limited by the spirit of god, as agreeable in all points to the debt of sinnes forgiuen, which God requirerth for answer of his iustice. But blessed be god, who hath taken sufficient satisfaction to answer his iustice in the obedience & suffering of Iesus Christ, which is our iustice, in whome seeing we are made the iustiee of God, we neither feare Allens Audit for purgatorie, nor desire the Popes mercie for pardon.

ALLEN.

Neither is it necessarie for the due paiment of that great debt of so manie yeares, that the paine of purgatorie should endure so long, or so manie yeares, as had bene necessarie for the accomplishing of his penance in this life. For the might, the force,, the hougenes, the excesse, and the nature of the paine in the next world, is so fearefull and so great, as Saint Augustine often noteth, that a great deale lesse time sufferance of the same, is answerable to much more in the world and this Super psal. 37. present life. For what comparation is there berwixt a daies fasting here, & a daies punishment in purgatorie? better it were surely to suffer a hundred yeares such penance as the Church prescribeth in this mortall life, that hath in it much worldlie ease, and comfort for the release of the inioyned paine, then to abide one daie or wecke in so greeuous a torment, as the holie Doctours and all the Church holdeth Purgatorie to be. Therfore to forgiue such a greeuous sinner in the latter end of his life receiued to mercie, as we haue now spoken of, a thousand or two thousand yeares of penance, is as much in effect and nature of the termes, as to remit and release him of so much punishment, or the debt and bond of so much punishment in purgatorie, as is proportionall and correspondent to so manie daies or years Origen in Num. limp. Hom. 11. of penance, as the penitent in this life was bound vnto by the Canons of the Church, or the iust inioyning of his Ghostlie Father. For the Pardons measure the matter, not by the limites of Purgatorie, the bonds, borders, or waie of limitation, whereof the Church knoweth not, but by the yeares and times of penance prescribed to sinners by the holie Canons, vpon the bond wherof, Gods iustice temporall in the next world, doth, as I haue prooued, much depend. To be short then & plaine, to giue a pardon of a 10001. or 2000. yeares or moe, if the graunt goeth so, is as much to saie, as to forgiue so much punishment as might be answerable for so great penance, not fullfilled in this life. As if I were behinde with the Church and indebted to God hard before my death of a hundreth daies fasting, in which case, I cannot recompence, if my Bishoppe then, or the chiefe head of all the Eccle siasticall Hierachie doe forgiue me twenty of the said daies, then my punishment shalbe so much lesse in Purgatorie, not by twenty daies, I saie, of Purgatorie paines, but by as much as in force of satisfaction there, is answerable to twentie daies fast here. So that, the Church measuring her mercies, by the yeares of penance deserued by the law in this life, or else where, taketh effect, not onely in this life, where there cannot be so manie daies in our short time, but especially in preuenting Purgatorie paines, where there may well be punishment answerable in a verie short time, to all the daies prescribed by the measures of the lawe, and discipline of our present daies in the world.

FVLKE.

If the fire of Purgatorie be so much hotter, then this elementall fire, as this is hotter then a fire painted on a wall, as some of your owne Poetes haue fained, you maie adde this imaginarie proportion, of greatnes of paine against length of time. And whoe can let you to imagine what you list? seeing you require to be credited vpon your bare worde, without authoritie of scripture, or witnes of the auncient Doctors. But the holie Doctors, you saie, and all the Church holdeth purgatorie to be so greeuous a torment, and Saint Augustine noteth it often, namelie in Psal. 37. Verilie Saint Austen in that place saith, that the fire, by which some that builde strawe, hay, &c. vpon the fundation Christ, shalbe more greeuous, then anie thing that anie man can suffer in this life, but else where he can say nothing of certaintie of the fire of Purgatorie, whether anie such fire after this life be, or no, as de fide & operibus, c. 6. de oct. dulcit. qu. 1. as I haue shewed more at large in confutatiō of your booke of purgatorie. You quote Origen also, but I knowe not how, nor what to finde by your quotation: but certaine it is, that Origen knew not the Popes purgatory; although he allegorize of a certaine purgatory, which neither the papists themselues do alow and it teacheth the heresie wherewith he is charged, that the deuills and all wicked persons at length shallbe saued. To conclude, the old canons graunting remission to euerte man that is preuented by death at his last end, had no meaning of anie recompence of yeares, and daies in Purgatorie, as without all proofe or authoritie you doe so confidentlie affirme.

ALLEN.

And yet I talke not now of taking or deliuering anle man out of Purgatory, so much sooner as so many daies release doth import, when he is in it alreadie, but I meane (as I often saie for the simples sake) of him, that is yet aliue, and in the Churches iurisdiction, and therefore may haue by the keies of the Church a pardon of his dets, either all, or part, to preuent the paines of Purgatorie, or discharge the debt thereof, before that terrible daie come, when it shalbe actuallie required. And in this sense vndoubtedly are the great number of yeares & daies to be taken, which be exceeding necessarie to procure mercie in these euil times, wherein we may behold the pitifulwaste of Christian workes euerie where, and litle penance to be done, no not of the better sort of Christan people. As for the other disobedient children, that euerie way laugh their mother to scorne, whether she vse sextritie of discipline, or lenitie in remission, they haue no part, neither of the Churches blessing, nor of the holy workes of Saintes, nor of Gods owne peace and pardon. Our Lord giue them the grace of repentance, that they may haue a tast, either of the Churcher discipline, or of her mercy and lensty.

FVLKE.

You talke and meane that men should make haste while they are aliue, to take their pardons, whereof perhapes you are a proctor, or pettie marchant vnder the Pope, not regarding so much, what the Popes iurisdiction is ouer poore soules in Purgatorie, as how to get monie out of liuing mens purses, for pardons and dispensations, to mantaine you in your traiterous popery. Your complaint of litle penance done, is vaine & hypocritical, seeing you your selfe, by mantaining of pardons, are occasion that none at all need to be done of them that haue mony to paie for them. God open the eies of the simple, if it be his will, to see your treacherie, and either giue you true repentance, orels that which your treasons, heresies, & hypocrisie haue long agoe deserued.

It is prooued as wel by sundry examples of the old law, as by Christs one often fact & his Apostles, that inioyned or deserued punishment may be released by the gouernours of the Church in their pardons.

THE 9. CHAP. ALLEN.

Some may here maruel perchance, that such power should be giuen to mortall men, as to remit such great portion of penance, as by iustice ought to be enioyned, or such a number of yeares, as are appointed for satisfaction & correction of former misdeeds, thereby to remooue from the partie the heauy hand of god prepared for iudgement, who would not wonder much hereat, if they considered that the debt of hell paines and eternity of punishment, which incomparablie exceedeth manie thousand yeares, might by the Priestes office, and alwaies is in the due execution of the sacrament of penance, fully remooued from the partie penitent. And where mercy putteth away deserued damnation, there may much lesse force of grace turne awaie the punishment of Purgatorie, being not transitorie, and equivalent onelie to the penance of a number of yeares prescribed. In which case, if the Church of God should haue no preheminence now after the incarnation of Christ, since which time the waiet of mercie towardes mankinde must needs be much enlarged, our state & gouernment should be much inferiour to the regiment and to the priesthood of the old law, which trulie did in al things, but as a shadow and figure, resemble the Maiesty of our Churches prcheminence, especiallie there, where mercy & grace were to be shewed, which came by Christ Iesus.

Behold then some sleppe of this most excellent power giuen to our chiefe Priestes, in the persons of Moses and Aaron, whoe are noted in the booke of Exodus and Numbers meruelouslie to haue procured Gods mercie, and sometimes by force of sacrifice, praier, and singular zeale, to hauereleased some great portion of the paines and punishment which God himselfe by his owne mouth and determination had laied vpon the people. With what meruelous confidence of his office, and pitie of the afflicted sort, did one of them crie out vnto god to holde his hand, and pardon the people, after they had deserued se great punishment for worspiping the golden Idoll of the Calfe in the wildernes? Lord (saith Moses) this people hath committed an horrible sinne, and they haue erected golden Gods. Forgiue them this sinne, Lord, or ells if thou wilt not, dash me out of thy booke to, which thou hast written. This gouernour and this priest, praied not after a common sort for pardon of the peoples punishment, but he claimeth it wish confidence, and in a manner requireth it as by his iurisdiction and office. Such was the force of praier and priesthood, before Christs spirituall souer aignitie was honoured in the worlde, otherwise then in a figure. And yet, god in a manner, was at that point with them then, that he would pardon & punish at their pleasures. For when the sinne was exceeding greeuous, he maketh as it were meanes to Moses, that he should not stay him, nor his anger, from punishing of the offendors, Let me alone Moses (saith our Lord) & suffer me to be angrie. Ibid.

FVLKE.

Men may iustly maruell, that you professing methode, doe set the Cart before the horse, and frame of your building, the roofe, before the foundation: but if they consider that this way you take is of more force to confounde a simple witte, then to teach a matter plainlie, they maie cease to maruell; and acknowledge that the compasse of your cause, whereof you speake in the beginning, will abide none other order. But to the matter and argument of this Chapter it hath bin answered before, that in the discipline of the Church, the gouernours thereof haue power vpon good consideration, and triall of the offenders repentance, and not otherwise, at their pleasure to release enioyned time of repentance, which was enioyned for none other end so much, as to bring the party to repentanes and thereof to assure, or satisfie the Church. But as the discipline of the Church militant, serueth for the onelie time of her warfare in this life, so the gouernors of the Church haue no authoritie either to inioyne, or to release, out of the compas of this life. And therefore this power of binding & loosing vpon earth, cannot be extended to anie purgatorie paines, or rather pickpurse, after this life, and consequentlie it can be no shadowe to couer the filthie and blasohemous nundination and chaffering of the Popes pardons, for thousands and hundreth thousands of yeares. What authority the ministers of the Church haue in remitting sinnes, hath beene handled sufficientlie before. They are Gods messengers, to declare his forgiuenes to them that trulie repent, and so they are to release the bande of discipline in open offenders, where the fruites of repentance doe appeare. Your argument, that the priesthood in the new law is of more power to purchase mercie, then in the olde lawe, to prooue that the Popes pardons extend vnto purgatorie, is verie farre fett. For the priest hood of our sauiour Christ, hath succeeded to the priesthood of the lawe, as the bodie to the figure or shadow thereof. But purchasing of mercie perteineth not to the ministers of the Church, but preaching and declaring of Gods mercie: wherein they excell the preaching office of the priests of the lawe, in more large, plaine, and cleare demonstration thereof, in Christ exhibited, borne, suffered, raised from deade, and ascended into heauen, not in the matter of mercie, or the onelie meane meritorius to obtaine it, which is Iesus Christ. As for the discipline of the Church now, is not vnlike to the discipline then, neither is there anie cause in respect of Christ exhibited, that it should be anie Iooser now, then it was then. For the grace of God which bringeth saluation to all men hath appeered, instructing vs that we should vtterly denie vngodlines and worldlie lustes, and liue soberlie, iustlie, and godly in this Tit. 2. 11. &c. world waiting for the blessed hope, and glorious appearing, of the great god, and our sauiour Iesus Chist, which hath giuen himselfe for vs, that he might redeeme vs from all iniouity, and purge vs a peculiar people vnto himselfe, zelous of good works. Thus the holy Ghost describeth the end and effect of the mercie of God in Christ exhibited, chargeing Titus to speake and exhort to these thinges, to reprehend with alearnestnes, and suffer no man to contemne him. There is no cause therefore why the sinnews of discipline in the Church of Christ, should be loosened, or rather cutte in sunder by the Podes pardons, which taketh vpon him to release all time of repentance appointed by the gouernours of the Church, vnder pretense of greater mercie showed by Christ, then was shewed in the olde law. But Maises and Aaron, you saie, procured mercie and pardon for the people, and then you bring in the example of paid no breined for worshipping the golden Image of a calse, where Aaron him selse was so deepe in, that he was no meete person to make intercession for others. But in the example you prooue not anie power or iurisdiction of priesthood, which doth ser forth onelie the effect of the praier of the faithfull, as Saint Iames suth of Helias, that he was a man and yet obteined great thinges by his praier. Neither doth Moses pray with confidence of his priest lie office, which he had not: for Aaron was priest, both by the law of nature, as the elder, and afterward by Gods especiall appointment, but Moses praieth vpon confidence of Gods promises, which were these, that the people shoulde be brought into the lande of Chanaon, and that Christ should come of the tribe of Iuda, which could not haue had their effect, if all the people had beene destroied, though a great nation had beene made of Moses. He strengthneth his faith also, by two other reasons in his praier, the one of the glorie of God, which should be blasphemed by the Egyptiens, if the people were destroyed in the wildernes, the other of the benefites of God alreadie bestowed vpon the people, which should be in vaine, if the people shoulde thus sodenlie be consumed. But of claiming it with confidence of his priesthood, and requiring it, as by his iurisdiction and office, there is no mention. For what iurisdiction or office could he haue to controll God in his iudgements? And therefore it is a horrible blasphemous saying, that God in a manner was at that point with them, that he would pardon and punish at their pleasures. Where your meaning is yet more biasphemous, that God should much rather he at that point now, to pardon and punish, at the Popes pleasure, which is nothing els, but to exalte Antichrist aboue God, when his iustice and mercie should depend vpon that deuill incarnates pleasure. Yet for reason to excuse this blasphemie, you saie, that God maketh as it were meanes to Moses, that he shoulde not staie him, nor his anger from punishing of the offenders: Let me alone Moses (saith our Lord) and suffer me to be angrie. But who is so meanlie exercised in the scriptures, that he doth not acknowledge, that this speech of God, as a thousand more in the scriptures, is vttered after the affection and infirmitie of man, whereof God is moste free, yet condescending to the weakenes of mans vnderstanding, often vseth so to speake? Of which phrases of speech, who so shall conclude as you doe, maie inferre an hundred horrible heresies, and more. The true sense therefore of those wordes is, that the people indeede had deserued to be destroied, but that he had otherwise determined at the praier of Moses, and for those causes, which his spirit instructed Moses to vtter, whome by this speech he prouoketh and stirreth vp to pretie for the people, he was purposed to pardon and spare them, not that he euer was of minde to submitt his iustice and mercie to mens pleasure, in such sorte as he shoulde be driuen to make meanes to men, that he might execute his iudgementes, and shew his mercie, both which he doth according to his owne moste free wil, moste excellent wisdome, and incomparable glorie.

ALLEN.

So when his sister Marie was punished by a leprosie for enuying at her brothers authoritie, he cried vnto our Lorde and Num. 12. said: Lorde God heale her againe of this disease, and of his mercie so he did, inioyning onelie vnto her seuen daies separation. Aaron also procured pardon for the people by the Num. 16. like force of his praier, and prieslhood, when by sedition the people had highlie offended God: yea he did as it were limitte and moderate Gods appointed punishment, that his wrath should extend no farther, but to the deslruction of a certaine number. For when God said vnto Moses and Aaron, depait you hence from amongst this people, for euen now will I consume them. Vpon which worde streight the destruction began and grew verie sore, a flame of fire pitifullie consuming them. But Aaron out of hande with his incense, ranne to that parte where the plague of Gods ire wasted moste, and there censed vp towardes heauen, and carnestlie requested for the people, and so placing him euen iust betwixt those that were slaine, and the residue that were aliue, the wrath and indignation of God ceassed.

FVLKE.

Moses by his praier obteined of God that he did heale his sister of her Ieprosie, Ergo the Pope by his pardons maie release men of the punishment laide on them by God. when in his pardons he vseth not humble praiers, but standeth vpon his power and iurisdiction, vpon the power of Peter and Paul, and in paine of their indignation, beside Gods wrath, and sometimes moste presumptuouslie commaundeth the angels to execute his pleasure. But whereas God enioyned to Marie seuen daies separation, you should haue made your argument somewhat more probable, if you could haue shewed out of the scripture, that Moses by his pontificall iurisdiction, released those daies, or anie part of them. The example of Aarons intercession, as he was the high priest, shewed the effect of Christes priesthood, of whome he was a figure, whose perfect sacrifice represented in the incense, was a sweete sauour of reconciliation vnto God, for the preseruation not onelie of the Israelites, but of all Gods elect both from temporall and eternall destruction. This example of Aarons incense therefore is as farre differing from the Popes pardons, as Aarons office differeth from Antichristes presumption.

ALLEN.

But it were to long to make rehersall of all such punishments as God hath afflicted his people with all for sinne, and yet hath beene either wholie put of, or much thereof abated by these priestes euen of the olde lawe, when they had no warrant, promise, nor commission in sacrament or otherwise, either to binde or loose, as by iurisdiction, or anie otherwise, but by their praiers: where ours of the newe law and testament haue expresselie receiued a full power and commission concerning the same. Therefore now in the new lawe and in the daies of grace, where mercie and iudgement be met together, truth and peace be ioyned, we shall finde expresse examples of iustice and iudgement on the one side, and grace and mercie on the other, Psal. 84. not onelie in the gouernment of Popes and Bishops, but in Christes owne regiment and his holie Apostles, from whome to our priestes, all this power prooceedeth. In them then, of whome heresie and falshoode doe stande in awe, let vs see whether anie examples maie be found of pardoning the paine due for sinne. The seuen deuils possession of one womans bodie, was no small punishment for sinne: yet when it pleased Christ, he both forgaue her the sin, & discharged her of that horrible punishment for the same: & she had a graund pardon & a plenarie Indulgence, because she loued much. Yea a woman thae had committed adulterie, and therefore by the law subiect to Lucae. 7, & 8 death, was pardoned by Christ, not onelie of her sinne and damnation, but of that penaltie which by Gods law shee was subiect Ion. 8. vnto for the same sin, wherby he declared that he had full power, not onelie to remit sinnes, but also to giue pardon for any temporall punishment prouided by law for sinne. Where are they, woman, that doe accuse thee? quoth Christ: Here is none here, said she, Lord. If none haue condemned thee, goe thy waie therefore, and sinne no more. And this is the 8. of Saint Iohns Gospell.

FVLKE.

Yf the Priests of the old law had no warrant, promise, or commission, to binde, or loose, any waie, but by their praiers, for as much as the dutie of praier is not proper to priests, but common to al faithfull persons, you can prooue no shadow of the power of Priests in releasing Gods punishment by their putting of or abating such punishment by praier onelie. Although you saie vntrulie, that they had no warrant of binding and loosing in sacrament, or otherwise. For they had power and commission to separate the cleane from the vncleane, to exclude from the participation of the Sacraments and sacrifices, to cast out of the sinagogue, and to receiue againe. But thereof I will not dispute at this time. That is a greater matter, you speake of, that Christ himselfe gaue a pardon. Who doubreth but that Christ had fullnes of power, to pardon according to his diuine pleasure. Yf the Pope may doe whatsoeuer Christ did, let him caste out Deuills, clense the Lepers, raise the deade, yea let him make another worlde. But where you saie, that the adulteres, Iohn. 8. was pardoned by Christ of the temporall penaltie, that shee was subiect vnto by Gods law for her sinne, that was stoning to death, you speake beside the Gospell, for there is no one worde to prooue it, but rather Christ sheweth that he had not to do with ciuil punishments, as when he refused to deuide the inheritance betweene the brethren, and discouereth the hypocrisie of the Pharisies, who when they had no authoritie to execute any offendour by death, beeing restreined by the Romane lawes and power, come to tempt him, that either he should giue sentence of her, against the law of God, or ells seeme cruel in pronouncing sentence of death against her, whose life the ciuill authoritie did spare. What is here like the Popes pardons? or what hath any pardon of Christ like to the Popes pardons?

ALLEN.

Which example I alledge the rather, because Saint Augustine noreth it as a strange power and iurisdiction, that should remit the punishment enioyned by the law it selfe for a publike Epist. 54. crime, where the person was taken with the manner. Yea he applieth it to the Priests, and Bishops, and prooueth, that it becommeth them at the lest to make intercession to the temporall officers, by occasion, for the release of offendours, even where they be subiect vnto the appointed punishment of the lawes. Wherein, he saith, that though they cannot by their authoritie commaund their release, yet that it behoueth the Ciuill Magistrates to release the paine, where they doe make request. For which cause Macedonius a Magistrate had challenged Saint Augustine, or rather asked him the question, why Bishops did so much intermedle in the temporall iudgement for procuring pardon to offendours, in so much that they would not take it well, if they obtained not the remission of the parties punishment, for whome they made intercession. To whome Saint Augustine answereth trimelie and largelie: where amongest other things he saith, Ipse Dommus intercessit, ne lapidaretur adultera, & eo modo nobis commendautt intercessionis officium. Our Lord himselfe made intercession for the woman taken in adultery, & by that fact commended vnto vs the office of intercession. And Saint Augustine excommunicated Countie Bonifacius, that he tooke from the Church an offendour, and put him to execution, Epist. 187. when he came to the Church for mercy & pardon. So prone hath Gods Church euer beene to remit the paine for sinne deserued, not onelie where she had full authoritie to pardon at her pleasure, but euen there where it could not otherwise be had, but by intercession to other men who had to doe therewith.

FVLKE.

You quote Saint Augustines epist. 54 ad Macedonium, as though he should note it a strange power and iurisction, that should remit the punishment inioyned by the law it selfe for a publike crime But there is no such note of any such strange power and iurisdiction in all that Epistle. In deede he supposeth that this dutie of intercession for offendours, is commended to the Ecclesiasticall persons by this example, and that Magistrates are to be mooued with pitie, to pardon offenders at their request. But he speaketh not of any power or iurisdiction in this intercession, but of humble petition. Our Lord him selfe, saith he, was a meane among men, that the adulteres should not be stoned, and by that means commended to vs the duetie of intercession, sauing that he did it by terrifying, that we do by petition. For he was the Lord, and we are his seruantes, yet he so terrifyed, that we all ought to feare. For which of vs is without sinne? which when he had said to them, by whome the sinner was offered to be punished, that he which knew him-selfe to be without sinne should first cast a stone at her, their crueltie fell downe by trembling of their conscience. For then they slipping awaie out of that congregation, left the poore wretch alone to him that is mercifull. Let the pietie of Christians giue place to this sentence, to which the impietie of the Iewes gaue place: let the humilitie of them that are obedient giue place to that, to which the pride of persecutors gaue place: let the confessiō of the faithful yeld to that, whereto yeelded the dissembling of the tempter. What haue we here for this strange iurisdiction? or for the Popes pardons in this example, or in the example of Saint Augustine excommunicating or suspending of Bonifacius for violating the priuiledge of the Church in taking awaie a man worthie to die, that fled thether for succour, when he did not execute, as you saie, but restored him vnhurt to life, as appearerh by his answere. The pronnesse of Ecclesiasticall persons vnto mercie and pitie, may be gathered by this example, but no argument to prooue the Popes pardons to be good, that I saie not, it may be doubted whether such clemencie standeth with Gods iustice, that commaundeth the murtherer to be drawen euen from his aultar & to be executed. And Augustine himselfe in his Epistle of intercession commendeth the punishing mercie, and con demneth Exod. 21. 14. the pardoning crueltie: beside that, we muste liue according to laws, and not according to examples. Macedo. 54.

ALLEN.

Againe Christ deliuered in the fift of Saint Iohn, one that had beene feeble eight and thirtie yeares long for a punishment of his sinnes: and that he might vnderstand, that, that sicknes came vnto him for correction of his former offences, he said vnto him after in the temple: Lo, thou art made wholl, looke thou sinne no more, least a worse thing happen vnto thee. Neither is it vnlike, but the partie had his sinnes remitted long before Christ healed him of his corporall infirmity, by the sacrifices of the law, and by ordinarie meanes of that time, through the faith in Christ Iesus. Whereby you may perceiue, that our high Bishop Christ hath giuen pardon to many, not onelie of their sinnes and euer lasting damnation, but also of the temporall paine and punishment, either prescribed by the law, or enioyned by Gods owne appointment. Then we neede not wonder, that the Churches officer, holding by his right both the title to pardon and to punish, should be by his example so prone to mercie, which of the two is alwaies moste commended in spirituall regiment.

FVLKE.

Christ healed many that suffered punishment of bodelie diseases for their sinnes, to shew that he was appointed of god to be the heauenly phisitian to heale the diseases of our soules by pardoning our sinnes. But that the partie whereof you speake, had his sinnes remitted long before Christ healed him of his corprall infirmitie by sacrifices of the law, and ordinarie meanes of that time, through the faith in Christ Iesus, though you saie, it is like, yet it is verie vnlike. For he had laien eight and thirtie yeares in the portch of Siloam, waighting for the miraculous manner of healing, that God shewed at certain times vppon them that first entred aster the water of the poole was mooued. All which time it is not like, that he could be partaker of the sacrifices, or ordinarie meanes, by which remission of sinnes thorough faith in Iesus Christ was testified to the participants of those meanes. But rather, as his owne wordes sound, it is like he was onelie attentiue to the vsuall meane which God shewed to attein health of bodie thereby, not caring for true repentance, and conuersion to god, yet it appeareth he had small taste of spirituall doctrine, when he knew not of whome he receiued the benefit of health, and so was vnthankesull vnto him for it. But what is concluded out of this example? that the officers of the Church in spirituall regiment, ought to be prone to mercie. Many examples prooue that more directlie: but that the officers of the Church haue power to punish and pardon as Christ had, this example prooueth not.

ALLEN.

Neuerthelesse we meane not, that the priest hath alwaies such power as Christ had in remoouing of bodelie sickenes, not onelie because they know not when it is the deserued paine for sinne, as he did, but also because, as Saint Augustine saith, Remissio in Ecclesia magis fit propter futurum iudicium: Pardoning in the Church hath more respect to the iudgement of the next worlde: he meaneth by the temporall iudgement, and for that he alledgeth out of Saint Paull, that the iudgement, which he willeth vs to preuent by punishing our selues, is the correction of such as God loueth, lest, they be damned with the worlde, which cannot signifie the euerlasting iudgement. Wee meane not then, that the Pardons of the Ecclesiasticall Magistrates should perteine to the releasing of bodelie paines duely deserued for sinne, or for other causes appointed, because Christ so did not vnto all, but vnto some, as it pleased his wisedome: but this we saie, that as he of his mercie tooke away and released the sinners of certaine temporall afflictions, as well appointed by the law of Moses, as enioyned by Gods owne hand, and so gaue a Pardon of that which both Moses and his owne Father appointed: euen so maie the Apostles and their successours, pardon anie man, that is worthie of that benefite, of some parte or all such penance, as their owne lawe prescribed, or the iustice of God, vpon the bonde of their decrees, and the debt of the sinners, hath in the next life prepared. Although, as I haue once noted before, not onelie the Apostles miraculouslie, but also Gods Priests dailie doe heale in the sacrament of extreame vnction and praiers, not onelie sinnes, but the penitent of their sickenes and infirmity, where the disease especially came of sin, as I suppose, or otherwise, when it is expedient to the partie, and glorious to Gods name.

FVLKE.

You were bolde to saie before, that if any man were sicke by Gods appointment, for that cause onelie to satisfie for his sinnes remitted, that he should streight recouer by the Popes pardon, which is to graunt him such power as Christ had in remoouing ofbodelie sicknes suffered for the cause aboue specified. That the priest wanteth this power, because he knoweth not when bodelie sickenes is the deserued paine for sinne (as though there were any paine that were not deserued for sinne) it is no reason. For an empirike healeth by vertue of his medicines oftentimes, though he know not the cause of the sickenes, and so should the priest by laying to his plaister, if he had any such: but none euer recouered sodainlie by the Popes pardon, or the priests power, therefore it is a fained for gerie that they haue any such power of healing bodelie diseases. It is a better reason that you alledge out of Saint Augustine, that remission of sinnes in the Church respecteth the iudgement to come, but that he speaketh there of any temporal iudgement after this life, you are not able to prooue. Neither doth the citing of the text of Saint Paull. I. Cor. II. helpe you, which he citeth to prooue. that temporall paines are laide vpon men, in this life, to them whose sinnes are done awaie, that they should not be reserued to the ende, as his wordes are plaine in that wholl Chapter. Magis enim propter futurum iudicium fit remissio peccatorum. In hac autem vita, &c. For remission of sins ie made rather for the iudgement to come. For in this life it preuaileth so much which is written: a heauie yoke vpon the sons of Adam, from the daie of their comming forth of their mothers wombe, vnto the day of their buriall into the mother of all: thus we see euen litle children after the lauer of regeneration, to be tormented with the affliction of diuerse euills: that we may vnderstand, that all which is doue by the healthfull sacraments. doth pertaine rather to the hope of good thinges to come, then to reteining or obteining things present. Manie euills also seeme to forgiuen heere, and to be reuenged with no punishments, but the paines of them are reseruea vntill afterwarde. For not in vaine is that called properlie the daie of iudgement, when the iudge of the quicke and the deade shall come. As on the contrarie side, some things are reuenged heere, and yet if they be remitted, verilie in the worlde to come they shall not hurt. Wherfore of certaine temporall paines, which are laid vppon sinners in this life, in them whose sinnes are done awaie, that they should not be reserued vnto the ende, the Apostle saieth: for if we iudged our selues, we should not be iudged of the Lord, but when we are iudged of the Lord, we are chastened, that we should not be damned with this worlde. Thus it is plaine by Saint Augustines iudgement, that Saint Paull speaketh of temporall paines, laied vppon sinners in this life, to bring them to repentance, not of temporal iudgement to be exercised after this life. But you meane not that Popes, or Bishops pardons, should alwaies take away bodelie sicknes, because Christ did not so vnto ai. Nay rather because they are not able to heale a sore finger in any one man. For Christ healed as many as he would: if the Pope haue Christs power, why should he not as well heale whome he will? Your similitude, that as Christ tooke away temporall paines, so may Popes and priests, holdeth not: for there is great odds betweene Christ, and his seruants. he did what he would, they may doe no more then he hath giuen chem power and charge. And for releasing of times of repentance, appointed to satisfie the Church, they may by power giuen from him: but for the releasing of debt to be paied in the world to come, he gaue them neither authority, nor cōmaundement. That the priest doth dailie heale in your sacrament of aneling, it is an impudent lie. For first, they anoint none in their dailie practize, but such as are in dispaire of life: of whom if any recouer by the wilof God, it is sacriledge to impure it to the power of the priests anointing, who hauenot the gift of healing, as the elders of the Apostles Church had, whome S. Iames willeth to be sent for, to heale the diseased.

ALLEN.

But in Saint Paull we haue inuincible proofe of the authoritie and iurisdiction of Bishops and princivali pastcurs, touching as well the power of enioyned pename and satisfaction for sinnes committed, as the lawfull power of pardoning the same which before was enioyned, and so in one fact of the Apostle a cleare practize of binding and loosing. He first bound him by excommunication that had so greeuouslie offended, and to shew what a terrible torment this kinde of panishment is, and how much it is to be dred, he maketh it euident by a slraunge corporall vexation, that all Chrillian men might conceiue the miserie of those persons which be excommunicated hereafter, when the externall signe and miraculous torment should ceasse in the Church. I wili reporte the matter fullie: There was amongst the 1. Cor. 5. Corinthians one of reputation, that kept vnlawfullie his fathers wife, the which being knowne to their Apostle Saint Paul, who then was absent srom them, and being accounted of him, as in deede it was, an exceeding grieuous fact and notorious, he gaue in charge to the Church of Corinth, to take the person that had so offended, as excommunicated, that is to saie, to be separated from the sacraments, the seruice, and common fellowship of Saints. But see with what a maiestie and might of operation, with what force of wordes, and authoritie of his calling, with what a kinde of punishment Christes officer here correcteth the offender. Thus runneth his determinate sentence, on the offender, that all the worlde may take heede and wonder at the Churches authoritie, and condemne the vaine voices of them that doe restraine the power of Gods ministers onelie to the preaching of the Gospell. I beeing absent in bodie, but present in spirit, haue alreadie giuen iudgement, as well as if I were present, that the person, that hath thus wickedlie wrought, should be deliuered vpto Sathan, in the vertue of our Lorde Christ Iesus, you there being gathered with my spirit in the name of our said Lord Christ Iesus, and all for the vexation of his flesh, that his soull may be safe in the daie of our Lord Iesus Christ. This in effect, is the Apostles sentence on that incestuous person, wherby he was temporallie tormented by the force of Saint Pauls power of binding sinners, giuen by Christ, and exercised no otherwise, as you may see, but in Christs vertue & holie name. Where it may be noted for a strange 〈◊〉 of mans word, that the deuill himse fe should be therby appointed to torment a sinners bodie, not as he would, but as far as the diuine Magistrate shall limit him. Diabolus enim, quia ad hoc paratus est, vt auerses à Deo 〈◊〉 in potestatem, audita In 1. cap. 1. ad Tim. sententia, corripit eos. The 〈◊〉 (saith Saint Ambrose) who is alwaies readie to take them to his power, that are turned from God, sireight as soone as he heareth the sentence pronounced vpon sinners, he doth afflict and correct them. As it may also appeere by our Sauiours wordes in the Gospell, of a woman that had spiritum infirmitatis, the spirit of infirmitie, whome the deuill had eighteene yeares together fast bound in sickenes for Luc. 13. her sinnes, to whome also Christ gaue a pardon by imposition of his holie handes. Where we may haue an other example of his mercie, in loosing the temporall band and punishment appointed for sinne.

But let vs turne to Saint Pauls patient, whome we left by the key of the Apostles iurisdiction so fast locked and bound for his wickednes, and let vs consider whether by the sime iurisdiction, he may not receiue pardon and be loosed, by which he was bound and punished before: Yea let vs not doubt but it stoode in Pauis pleasure, to padon the man sooner or later. as he thought moste conuenient for the Churches edifying, and the parties profit, and therefore might haue tied him for twenty yeares together either in Sathans bondes, or other enioyned penance, or conirarie, if he had thought expedient, might haue loosed him within one houre, and so haue giuen him so many daies of pardon as he list, and ment to recompence by Christes satisfaction and the communion of Saintes, in which, the lackes of certeine may be supplied by the abundance of others. Thus Saint Paul meaning to pardon the penitent, giueth the Church of Corinth to vnderstand his pleasure touching the saide sinner, that there 2. Cor. 2. stoode in the bandes of penance, vpon his former sentence. Lot his 〈◊〉 and checke giuen him of many, be enough. And now rather, it were expedient that you did forgiue him and comfort him, lest perhapps, he be drowned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with excessiue sorow. Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , renew and confirme your loue towardes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mooue you in this matter to prooue, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you be obedien in all things. And where you 〈◊〉 , there doe I forgiue also. In deede as for me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is for your sake, and in the person of 〈◊〉 , that we be not circumuented of the deuill, whose meaning (in such matters) I well vnderstande. That you 〈◊〉 did the Apostle punish, and thus did he remie againe, 〈◊〉 the moderation of the Churchs discipline in his 〈◊〉 , so far as his iurisdiction did extend amongest Christes people, whose obedience in all such matters be claimed, as you may perceiue by his owne wordes, yet not without great respect and consideration of the offenders case, and especiall care of the Churches edifying. For full 〈◊〉 Saint Augustine said: In actione autem poenitentioe, vbi tale crimen commissum est, vt Cap. 65. Enchir. is qui commisit à Christi etiam corpore separetur, non tam consideranda est mensura temporis, quàm doloris: In the docing of penance, where the sinne is such that, it deserueth excommunication, there is not so much respect to be had of the time, as of his sorowfullnes that committed the fact.

FVLKE.

So long as you will gather nothing but the exercise of Christian discipline, in binding & loosing, excommunicating and absoluing, inioyning of Canonicall 〈◊〉 , and pardoning of the sinne, out of this example of Saint Paul, you haue an inuincible proofe of the authoritie or iurisdiction of the gouernours of the Church of Christ, against which we will neuer contend. But when you will vrge more then the text will aford, you can gaine no victory at our hands. As first, that the deuist was is aopointed to torment the sinners bodie, it is not prooued by this text. And Saint Ambrose, whome you cite vpon Timothic, speaking of the punishments of Hymineus and Alexander, who perhapes were tormented for their blasphemie, doth not so thinke vpon this very text, but expoundeth this deliuerie vnto Satan to the destruction of the flesh, to be his casting out of the Church, which is the kingdome of god, into the power of Satan, as one that had deserued destruction both of bodie and soule, that his carnall lust might be ouer come or mortified: which Saint Augustine expoundeth also in like manner, and more plainelie. Quidergo agebal Apostelus? nisi vt per interitum carnis 〈◊〉 spiritual, 〈◊〉 , vt siue aliqua poena 〈◊〉 corporali, sicut Ananias & vxer 〈◊〉 ante pedes Apostole Petri ceciderunt: siuè per 〈◊〉 , quoniam Satana traditus erat, interimeret in se sceleratam carnis concupisientiam quia ipse 〈◊〉 dicit, 〈◊〉 membra vestia quae sunt super terram, inter quae & for nicationem commemorat. Et iterum, Si enim Cont. Epist. 〈◊〉 . c. 3. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 carnem vixeritis, moriemini, &c. For what did the Apostle? but that by destruction of the flesh, he might prouide for his spirituall health: that whether by some temporall paine or death, as Ananias and his wife fell downe before the Apostle Peters seet, or whether by repentance, because he was deliuered to Sathan, he might kill in himselfe the wicked concupiscence of the flesh. For he saieth also, Mortifie your members which are vpon earth, among which he rehearseth fornication. And againe, for if ye shall liue according to the flesh, yee shall die. By this you may see, the opinion of corporal torment in this discipline of S. Paul, is not necessary. Againe where you saie, it stood in Pauls pleasure, to pardon the man, sooner, or later, and he giueth the Corinthians to vnderstād his pleasure touching the said sinner, you would perswad the ignorant, that the gouerners of the Church vere bound to no lawe, or rule in these matters, but might doe what pleased them. Although in the former you mittigate the matter, by adding, as he thought moste conuenient, for the Churches edisying, and the parties profit, which is well said, if by his thought you meane a sounde and right iudgement. For the matter is not left to euerie man: thinking, more then to their pleasure, but to a Godlie and necessarie consideration. And therefore it stood not in Paulles pleasure to pardon the man, sooner then he sawe in him the fruites of repentance, nor later, then he had certaine intelligence thereof. Neither might he haue tied him for twentie yeares, but vpon condition to release him immediatlie vpon his true repentance, neither haue loosed him within an hower, except within the space of that hower he had sufficient arguments of his repentance, and satisfaction of the Churches offence and iudgement. The reasons that he alledgeth, why he iudged him now to be pardoned. doe shewe no lesse, lest he be swallowed vp by too much sorrowe, lest we be intercepted by Sathan. It was not lawfull for the Apostle, to suffer the penitent to be ouercome with too much sorrowe, not the Church to be circumuented by Satan. Therefore it was not lawfull for him to haue differred his loosing anie longer. As for the recompencing by Christs satisfaction & the communion of Saints, which is the blasphemous dispensation of the imaginarie treasure of the popish Church, is not mentioned in this text, nor in anie text of the bible, nor in anie auncient Father, but was lathe deuised, to set a glosse vpon the popes pardons, and practizes in purgatorie. In the end you saie well, both, that the Apostle had great respect of the offenders case, and care of the Churches edifying, which prooueth, that without neglecting that consideration and care, he might not sooner or later haue loosed him, nor tied him, otherwise then he did. And the saying of Augustine doth prooue wel, that the prescript times of penance, limited before his age, were not so conuenient, as the liberty of time, where in the parties repentance might be iudged best, as it was in the Apostles.

That the Church of God meaneth not to make all men partakers of the pardons which would seeme to be rel eued thereby, but such onelie, as be of sit disposition therefore, and how they ought to be qualified, that must be partakers thereof.

THE 10. CHAP. ALLEN.

IT is here necessarie therefore that we should aduertise al men, that the Popes and Bishoppes of holie Church, though they haue not onelie by Christes expresse worde, but also by the warrant of the Apostles, and practize of their predecessours, authoritie to binde and loose, yet cuerse of their Pardons or releasing of penance, not alwaies to be beneficiali to euerie one that shall claime benefit thereby, either in the world present, or the next. For the holy sacraments themselues doe not at all times attaine to that effect in man, for which they were instituted by Christ, through the vnworthines of the partie that should receiue them. Therefore to make the Pardons beneficiall, at there must be good consideration and respect in the giuer, so the receiuer must, by especiall loue, zeale, and deuotion, be made fit and apt to be par taker of so singular a treasure.

The giuer of the Pardons, because he is man, may haue sinester respect to the parties person, whome he seeketh to pleasure, either for kindred, for frindship, for feare, for ritches, for honour, and such like: and they which required them, maie for slouthfullnes, because they lost not doe penance for their sinnes, or for delicatenesse whiles they refuse to absteine from thinges that be pleasaunt, for recompence of their pleasures past: in these and such other cases, some Popes may give by the abuse of their keies & authoritie, or by error, proceeding on false suggestion, a pardon, as the penitent may also receiue in the face of man. But let them assure them-selues that so be affected, that God himselfe, who cannot be deluded, nor by sinester affection caried from iust iudgement, will not here confirme the sentence of his seruant, who was in this matter either himselfe to blame, without cause to bestowe so pretious a pearle of Gods mercie, or else the partie vnfit, that required to be partaker of that grace, whereof, afore God he is prooued vnworthie. Though the preheminence be neuer so great, yet as 〈◊〉 the keie of order may erre through the fault of one partie in remitting sinnes in the sacrament, as the keic of iurisdiction may erre, in pardoning the inioyned penance out of the sac 〈◊〉 . Therefore it is not good for 〈◊〉 man to leaue his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vndore, or to omie such necessarie workes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , at whereby he shalrather be unworthie to be partaker of a 〈◊〉 .

FVLKE.

If the poopish Church haue another meaning, then the Pope, the heade in meaning is deuided from the body. The Popes meaning is 〈◊〉 by his wordes, which he vseth in his Pardons. If the Pope also haue a contrary meaning to his words, what is he then but an impupent dissembler, which 〈◊〉 great thinges, and deceiueth them that pay for them, which suppose, that their ware is as good as it seemeth to be? But by your determination, the matter is altogether mistaken. Your first reason to prooue that pardons are not alwayes beneficiall to the receiuers, is, that the sacramentes haue not alwaies their effect, thorough the vnworthines of the receiuers. But if the receiuer be disposed according to the conditions expressed in the pardon, he is capable of it by the iudgement of the canonists. Your second reason, is the sinister respect, or error that may be in the giuer. But it is not right, that the receiuer being a capable person, especiallie hauing paied for his ware, should leese his benefit thorough the default of the giuer, if he be such a one as hath autority to giue. That slouthfulnes or delicatnes should exclude a man from the benefit of his pardon, that is in state of grace, as they terme it, I suppose you are not able to prooue by any groundes of popery. The glosse vppon the Bull of Iubileie first graunted by Pope Boniface 8. saith, that the Pope declared consistorially, that penances inioyned before, are also taken away by commutation of the satisfactotic worke in this pardon prescribed, and that vowes also, except the vow of Ierusalem, are taken away by this paidon, not onely those vowes which were inioyned for commutation of penance, as for satisfaction of sins, but also those vowes that haue no such respect, as if a man being in daunger of the sea, or in siknes, doe vow to goe to S. Ieames. So that if a man wil performe such penance or vowes it is but a worke of supererogation. But if the Pope may so easily erre in occupying of his key of iurisdiction as here you pretende, no man can haue confidence in any pardon, or dispensation of the Pope, because he can not be assured, whether the keie did erre in that pardon or iurisdiction: likewise seeing the key of order may so easilie goe awrie, what trust may a poore Papist haue, that his sinnes be forgiuen him, that must hang vppon the hitting or missing of tow so vncertaine keyes?

ALLEN.

Christ our Lord pardoned Mary Magdelen of manie sinnes, and by all likelihood forgaue her all the paine due for her greeuaus offences, both eternall and temporall. Marie she was wonderfully well framed and apt to receiue such a singular benefit, for shee loued exceeding much, and therefore much was forgiuen her. She washed Christes feet with her Luc. 7. teares, and with her heare of her head she wiped them againe. She honoured Christes bodie with ointment of price towardes his buriall, with other such expresse tokens of passing loue of our Lord, which did winne her a pardon of so manie sinnes. For of loue it is written, Charitas operit multitudinem peccatorum, Charitie couereth a number of faultes. And yet 1. Pet. 4. after all this large remission, if we beleeue histories of the Church, shee ceased not all her life to doe passing pennance.

FVLKE.

It is certaine that Christ pardoned the sinnefull woman, whereof Saint Luke speaketh, as well of Luc. 7. 48. all paine, as of all sinne. And shee was wonderfully wel framed to receiue his pardon by the grace of God, by which shee was endewed with faith, as he himselfe acknowledgeth, saying vnto her, thy faith hath saued thee. And this her faith was not idle, but wrought thorough loue, which shee acknowledged, ought to be the greater, as shee had receiued the greater mercie, & so gaue forth great tokens therof. But her loue was not cause of her pardon, or forgiuenes of her sinnes: but because manie sinnes were forgiuen her, therefore shee loued much, as shee had greater cause, for he to whome litle is forgiuen, ioueth litle, as it is manifest by the parable of the two debters. Neither doth charitie couer manie sins, by winning a pardon for them, but as S. Peter citeth the prouerbe, out of Salomon, whoe declareth that it is the effect of loue to hide our neighbours Prou. 10. faultes, where hatred contrariwise breedeth contention and exprobration of mens sinnes. Of penance done by Marie Magdelen no auncient authenticall florie doth testifie, and if it did, it were hard to prooue, that this sinnefull woman was Marie Magdelen.

ALLEN.

Indeed if we speake exactlie, a Pardon doth not so much remit to the penitent anie good worke, either freelie done, or charged vnto vs by others appointmrnt, as it doth release the bonde or debt of penance: that where before I was of necessitie bounde to satisfaction for penance of my sinnes, I maie now after the debt be remitted, paie my penance freely, that I maie not appeere vnworthie of other mens reliefe, whiles I refuse not to worke also my selfe as a poore member in the wholl mysticall bodie of Christ, in the knot whereof his mercie commeth vnto me. And if it then so fall out, that I by reason of sicknes or short life, can not fulfill my penance, I shall then departing hence, be free by the grace of Christ, graunted me in the Indulgence, and so be whollie free of such debt, as I els should haue supplied in purgatorie, in my soule. Let no man therefore, doe lesse penance for anie pardons sake, if his habilitie serue thereunto, which is neuer giuen to hinder the fruites of good workes and repentance. But where there is before God and our consciences iust cause, whie we can not fulfill such necessarie and requisite satisfaction, as is enioyned or deserued, there we maie be in assured hope, that God will confirme the sentence of his seruants Otherwise, as Saint Cyprian saith, if anie man not thus qualified, seeke deceitfullie for a peace or pardon, he deceiueth himselfe and Gods priest to, who seeth the faces outwardlie of the penitents, but the hearts of them God onelie beholdeth, and accordieg to the behauiour Lib. 1. Epist, 2. & l. 4 Ep. 2. of their mindes and meanings shall iudge them in the next worlde, and amende in their punishment the sentence of his priests.

FVLKE.

If you spake exactlie before, anie good worke that is inioyned as a penance, and satisfaction for sinne, is released by a pardon. And the Popes declaration, which I did latelie set downe, out of the glosse, affirmeth no lesse vpon his pardon. But now to couer the shamefull abuse of the Popes pardons, you extenuate the force and validity of them almoste as much, as els where you magnified them. Canonicall penance, which you saide, ought to be a rule of secret and shrift penance, bindeth no man longer then his life. For the Canons graunte a pardon of course at the houre of Conc. Nicen. Can. 12. death, euen to them that were excommunicated: whereof it followeth, that if the Popes pardon release not penance in this life, it is good sor nothing. As for cases of necessitie, are dispensed with all by God himselfe, without the Popes or anie mortall mans pardon. For no inioyned penance can be of greater band, then the rest of the sabbath, which yet for necessitie maie be broken, as our Sauiour sheweth, by the example of Dauid, eating the shewe bread, which otherwise, Mat. 12. then in the case of necessitie, had beene sacriledge for him to doe. Saint Cyprian speaketh of hypocrites, which counterfaiting repentance, desired to be receiued into the Church, from which they were iustlie excluded, which if they deceiued the Church by fained repentance, yet shoulde not they escape the iudgement of God. He speaketh not of receiuing the Popes pardons, Iubeleies, dispensations, absolutions, and such like baggage.

ALLEN.

God, Church, though shee be much inclined to mercie, yet shee crieth not with the flatterers and false preachers of the worlde, peace, where there is no peace And of our mother the Church it may well be verified, that Saint Augustine spake Enchir. c. 70 of God himselfe in the like case. Nemini dedit laxamentum peccandi (saith he) quamuis miserando deleat iam facta peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negligatur. She hath giuen no man a frreedome to sinne, though by mercie she remitteth sinnes alreadie past, if competent satisfaction be not neglected. So that a Pardon can not well be beneficiall to anie man that neglecteth penance, or without all cause omitteth his 〈◊〉 in fulfilling the same, though it be exceeding commodious and profitable to him that lacketh time and space to satisfie, where of good will and deuout intent he is readie thereunto.

Therefore I would aduertise all such, as haue a Pardon or Indulgence vpon iust and true suggestion obteined, for release of their inioyned penance, or other deserued paine, and thereupon omitte to doe their said satisfaction, that they helpe the lack thereof otherwise, where their habilitie is the better. As if they can not through feebleres, or other notorious perceiuing of harme thereby fast for satisfaction of their sinnes, then let them supplie that by more liberall almes, and charitable reliefe of such as be in necessitie. For that kinde of charitie Christ 〈◊〉 charge to the Pharisies for the purging of their sinnes, 〈◊〉 signifiesh the recompence of the residue of their paine, and necessarie clensing of the remnants of their faults and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the remission of the same. For almes will not purge deadlie sinne, and the verie iniquitie thereof, as Saint Augustine well noted in the place last out of him alledged. Of the paine temporall then Christ saide, giue almes, and all is cleere with you. But if you can not that waie for lack and insufficiencie, then be earnest in praier, and continuallie crie out in Pater noster, forgiue vs our debtes, dimitte nobis debitae nostra: and by the Orison not onelie veniall sinnes, but also the temporall debt that remaineth for deadlie crimes, aster they be remitted and repented for, be forgiuen.

In this case also, it is verie good to helpe both by counsell & trauell to turne the wicked sinners from their euill waies, and to call Heretikes and Schismatikes home to Gods Church and Christes faith. For of that worke it is written, that it couereth a multitude of sinnes. Againe, to be daylie and deuoute at the blessed sacrifice of the Masse, there with zeale and loue to embrace with Marie Magdalene the holie bodie of our sauiour, and often to receiue the same with Zacheus into our house and temple of our bodie, in the holie sacrament: This moste excellent acte of religion doth wonderfullie diminish the deserued paine for sinne, and make vs fitte to receiue fruitfullie, the Pardons giuen by the Magistrates spirituall in the person of Christ. Or if this, in these dismall daies, may not be had, yet learne at the least, as well to lameut the lack of it, as to be sorowfull and conirite for thy sinnes: for earnest vnfained teares proceeding of loue and deuotion haue purchased many one a pardon. Peter wept bitterlie, and loued hartelie, and therefore he was restored to grace and mercie, and after Christ had punished, as in way of penance, his three denials, with a triple demaund of his loue, as though he had doubted of his heart towards him, as Saint Hilarie, Saint Cyrill, and other doe inscrpret it, he not onelie gaue him a pardon of all that was past, but made him his substitute in earth and chiefe pastour of all his flock.

FVLKE.

If a pardon can not take awaie penance, then you recant that you defended before so egerlie. If the debt of penance maie be taken awaie by the Popes pardon, as you tolde vs oft before, he can not iustlie be saide to neglect penance, which doth not performe it, because that is pardoned, which he was content to haue performed, if he had not bene pardoned. If he be charged for omitting his dutie that performeth not his pardoned penance; then were he as good to haue no pardon at all. If a pardon serue onelie for them that lack time, and space to satisfie, then no man can haue benefite of a pardon in this life. Beside the pardons are false, that promise to all men, that goe on such voyage, or pilgrimage, or saie such a praier, or praie on such beades, or giue to such a building or hospitall, full remission à poena & culpa, or so manie yeares or lents of pardon de penitentiis iniunctis & iniungendis, of penance inioyned, or to be inioyned. Beware therefore left while you vrge so earnesthe the necessitie of penance to be performed, you fight against Popes pardons, which you tooke vpon you to maintaine. And whereas you take vpon you by your aduertisement, as it were to inioyne or commute penance, where the Pope hath pardoned the sinne, you doe in effect make frust rate the Popes pardon: as the glosse vpon the bull of Pope Boneface 8. doth shewe, where he saith. That the Pope declared consistorialiter, that his penitentiarie ought to inioyne nothing more, then is inioyned in his pardon: for ets (as he saide) the pardons should be made frustrate. And whereas you presume to prescribe, the change of one penance into another, the Pope doth that alwaies in his pardon, or els it is not of force, as the same glosse teacheth, that there must 4. thinges 〈◊〉 as principall, to make a pardon effectuall. Authoritie in the graunter, capacitie in the receiuer, godlines in the end, & profitablenes in the worke. Now this worke into which the Pope chaungeth all penanceremitted, though it be neuer so small, yet being profitable to the honour of God, or the exaltation of faith, is sufficient without anie other supplie, because in a pardon (saith he) not the quantitie, but the kinde of the worke is considered, by reason that a pardon principallie respecteth grace, and not merite, or els it should not be called a pardon. For which cause also they that dwelled at Rome, and visited the Churches in Rome, appointed by the Popes pardon, had as great Indulgence, as they that came with great cost and trauell out of the furthest partes of Scotland, or Ireland. If this that the glosse writeth be currant poperie, then doth your aduertisement differ from the iudgement of the Popish Charch, and of the Pope himselfe. But whereas you affirme, that Christ gaue the Pharistes in charge, to purge their sinnes by almes, and that almespurgeth ventall sinnes, you speake more then the text alloweth. For Christ teacheth not the Pharisies to purge anie sinnes with almes, but after he hath rebuked their hypoctisie, that were carefull to make cleane the outside of the cuppe or platter, when the inward parte of their heart was full of rauine and wickednes, he prescribeth them the contrarie practise, to purge the inward man by repentance, and to testifie the same by almes, which is contrarie to rapine, & spoyling, and then all the creatures of God should be cleane vnto them, although they vsed no such superstitious washing with water. And if it be as you saie, that not onely veniall sinnes, but also the temporall debt that remaineth for deadly crimes, after they be remitted, be forgiuen, by saying the Pater noster: who is so foolish to paie anie monie for a pardon, or what meaneth the Pope to make such a bragge of his pardons, which can remiit no more, then euerie man maie obteine at home, by saying his Pater noster? As for hearing of Masse, & taking their rightes, if it be no more worth, but to make men fit to receiue fruitfullie the Popes pardon, they be litle worth, sceing the pardon it selfe, as in all this chapter you labour to prooue, is but of small profite, and the Pater nosier saying, is as good as anie pardon. Finallie where Saint Hilarie, & Saint Cyrill saie, that Christ caused Peter to wipe away the blot of his treble denying, with a treble confession: neither of them both saie, that Christ made him his substitute on earth, & chiefe pastor of all his flock, otherwise then he made euerie one of the other Apostles.

ALLEN.

If it stand thus therfore with the partie penitent, then the Popes pardon shall vndoubtedly be beneficiall vnto him, & otherwise either not at all, or els nothing so much as they seeme so sound. For although it be an old saying, quod indulgentie tantum valent, quantum sonant, that Indulgencies be of as great force and valour, as the forme of their wordes do import, yet that is not otherwise to be vnderstoode, then there, where there maie seeme iust cause of graunt to the giuers, and not euill disposition in the receiuers. For as Adrianus that once Adrianus. was Pope himselfe reasoneth: If the magistrates of the Church may not without iust cause giue dispensation cōcerning vowes, othes, fastes, mariages, or such like, nor dispose the temporall treasures of the Church without reasonable cause; then may not surelie the Byshops be lauish of the treasure of Gods house, which is much more pretious, whereof there can be no man partaker, that is an vnprofitable member of the bodie.

FVLKE.

If the partie penitent be so qualified, as he need not the Popes pardon, then it shall vndoubtedlie be beneficiall to him. But the Pope will not haue the power of his pardons to be so much extenuated, nor his liberalitie restrained to so fewe persons, nor to so narrowe a case. And that olde saying, Indulgentiae tantum valent, quantum sonant: pardons be of as great valour, as the forme of the wordes doe import, shall be taken for a good principle in the Popes consistorie, when you with your new prouisoes, shall be taken for a curious and a daungerous Papist. The glosse vpon the first pardon of Iubelie, graunted by Pope Boneface the 8. determineth idoneitie, or capacitie in the receiuer, that he be a member of the Church, and purged from the fault. Oportet quòd capax indulgentiae sit purgatus à culpa, quòd sit in contritione: ille ergo est habilis indulgentiam recipere, qui est verè penitens & confessus, It behooueth that he which is capable, or meet to receiue a pardon, be purged from fault, which is brought to passe in contrition: he therefore is able to receiue a pardon, which is truclie penitent and confessed. The like saith Depot. eccles. qu. 3. Augustinus de Ancona. Ex parte recipientis requiritur quòd habeat fidem in intellectu, quia non nist homini Christtano indulgentia potest dari, qui firmiter credat Papam posse dare, & se posserecipere, & habeat charitatem in affectu vt sit verè contritus & confessus. Of the parte of him that receiueth ae pardon, it is required that he haue faith in vnderstanding, because a pardon cannot be giuen, but to a Christian man, which steadfastlie beleeueth, that the Pope is able to giue, and he able to receiue, and that he haue charitie in affection, that he be truelie contrite and confessed. More then this, beside the fulfilling of the cause, for which the pardon was graunted, he doth not require. In so much that he alloweth, that a man maie receiue a pardon for his father and mother, whether they be liuing or dead, if the Pope doe so applie his pardon, that he which will goe ouer the sea, or to S. Iames in his fathers, or mothers name, shall inioie it for them, and the receiuer doth performe as much for them. The iust cause of graunt in the giuers, is determined by the glosse aforesaid, to be the honour of God, and the exaltation of faith, by such profitable workes, as are expressed and required in the pardons, as pilgrimage, saying of such a praier, giuing to such a fraternitie, &c. in which not the quantitie, but the kinde of the worke is to be considered: so that for a verie small worke maruelous large pardon maie be graunted, if it please the Pope; to whome the dispensation of the treasure of the Church is principallie committed (for Bishops, which are able to giue, but fortie daies out of that treasure, are but pettie baylies) whome if you will accuse for lauishing the treasure, in graunting of ouer large pardons, you break the Canon lawe, which telleth you, that you must not call him to an account for his doings.

ALLEN.

Neuertheles the causes of giuing indulgencies may be more or lesse reasonable, according to the state and varietie of thinges, which to the wisdome of Gods Vicar in earth is best seene, whome Christ so ruleth in that case, that he maie be most beneficiall to his holie houshold: in so much, that it is not to be doubted, but in these daies and in this great contempt of deuout and religious exercises, the moouing onely of the people, to prayer, to holie peregrinations, to the obedience of the Church, may be a sufficient cause, why there should be to praiers said vpon bookes, beads, or sanctified creatures, for such purpose annexed great remission. For looke what thinges be moste condemned of heretikes, those things must Christian men be induced to reuerence with moste singular zeale & religion. Neither can there be anie thing in the worlde so necessarie for vs christian men of these times, that be so voide of good workes, as by deuotion and entire zeale to ioyne with our elders, that in the holy communion of Sainctes, we may be partakers of their vertuous deedes. And that is the verie ende of all the Popes Pardons, to make vs, in our lake of satisfaction for our sinnes, felowes and coparteners of the abundance that was in Christ first, and then by him in our holy brethren departed before vs.

FVLKE.

Throughout this chapter hitherto, you haue disputed against the power of the Pope, and the force of his pardons: now it is time for you, to coie him againe and to raise vp his pardons, which you haue pressed downe so lowe. Now the wisdome of Gods vicar is sufficient to iudge the causes of giuing indulgences, and Christ so ruleth him in that case, that he maie be moste beneficiall to his houshold, in so much that it is not to be doubted, but in these daies the Popes large pardons, for litle workes, may be of great force. Then belike your former discourse serueth not for these daies, that men muste fulfill their penance if they maie, notwithstanding anie pardon; that a pardon doth not remit anie good worke inioyned in penance, that if a man lack power to fulfill this penance, he must supplie it with other workes counteruailable, or els the Popes pardons shall not be beneficiall to them at all, or nothing so much as they seeme to sound. But why saie you, that in these daies, Christ ruleth his Vicar in this case, that he maie be most beneficiall to his holie houshold? Hath not Christ as great care of his holy houshold the Church, in all times, and in all cases, as in these daies, and in this case? Yes verilie. But Christ hath not alwaies, and in all cases, ruled the Pope, as it might be moste beneficiall to his Church: for then his key of iurisdiction should neuer haue erred, nor his life bene wicked, to the great hurte, and shame of his Church, that I speake not of his criors in doctrine, which you will not graunt, as you doe the other. Therfore it followeth that the Pope is not Christes vicar in earth, appointed for the most benefite of his Church. Your principle, that thinges which heretikes doe hate, must be moste reuerenced, is false. For nothing is to be esteemed more, then the nature of the thing requireth, whether it be loued or hated of heretikes. The Anabaptists hate the wearing of armour: it followeth not therefore that the wearing of armour should be counted a religious thing, or more reuerenced, then as a lawfull vsage, and sometimes necessarie among Christians. The verie end of the Popes pardons, is well known to be the maintenance of the Popes pride, and couetousnes: the pretended end is wicked, & blasphemous, derogating from the sacrifice of Christs death, which is a full satisfaction, and purging of all our sins: the participation wherof is through faith wrought in our hearts, by the spirite of God: and not by the Popes application, or coupling of anie Saintes merites, with the onelie, and omnisufficient sacrifice of Christ.

ALLEN.

Vpon all which it is verie plaine, that euerie man can not beneficiallie receiue the fruite of a Pardon, this at least being requisite in euery man, that listeth to attaine benefite thereby, that he be in state of grace, aud in earnest intent to continue in the knot of Christ his Church, with loue and liking of the holie workes of his Christian brethren, and accomplishing at least, that small worke, which commonlie now is ioyned to the Pardon, for increase of Christian deuotion. The continuance of which deuotion, that more and more decaieth, maketh the Pardons to be more common at this daie & of late yeares, then they were in the primitiue Church, when moste men in the spring of Christian religion and feruour of faith, sought to satisfie exactlie the debt of the penance, or else, which was a common case then, recompensed it by Martyrdom? though S. Gregorie the first of that name more then nine hundered yeare Vide chor na Pandadalion Lutherani. since, in the ordering of the slations at Rome, is knowne to haue giuen Pardons for yeares or daies, in like forme as now is vsed. And cleare it is, that the thing it selfe being found lamfull, & no Protestant aliue can euer be able to shewe me the first vser therof, much lesse that it was euer controlled by any man that euer was counted Catholike, it may be measured according to the necessitie of the time, and so, as the Church may be most edified.

FVLK I.

The qualification that you now prescribe, differeth not a litle from that seueritie of your former exacting of penance, or at the least a counterpoise thereof, to make pardons beneficiall. That the decale of deuotion should make pardons more common in these latter times, there is no reason, but rather that pardons should cause deuotion to decaie. For the nature of men is, to be best affected to that, which is moste easilie obteined, and where there is hope of impunitie, to be lesse carefull in offending. But you would haue pardons seeme to be as olde as Gregorie the first, by authoritie of Pantaleon, a Lutheran: who could not know what Gregorie did, but by relation of other stories: why doe you not therefore cite some auncient credible storie, that iustifieth as much of Gregory? For Pantaleon doth not aduouch what Gregorie did, but what the late popish writers ascribe vnto him. But though it be not auncient to graunt such pardons, yet you saie, it is cleare, that the thing itselfe is lawfull, although of this clearenes you haue as yet made no demonstration. You saie further, that no Protestant is able to shewe you the first vser thereof. If that were true, yet thereby pardons are neither prooued auncient, nor lawfull. But what if Gregorie were named, (For I will not name Boneface the eight, seing you make challenge of Gregorie) whome can you shewe, that vsed to graunt such pardons, before him. Although in trueth you are not able to prooue that Gregorie graunted such pardons, oranie Pope after him, for 400. yeares. Your third assertion, that these manner of pardons were neuer controlled by any man that euer was accounted Catholike, is a sophisticall caption, and petition of the principle. For manie are true Catholikes, that are not so accounted, and the Pope with his papists challenge to be accounted the onely Catholikes, which of all other are the greatest heretikes.

ALLEN.

And thankes be giuen to God, the effect of the loue of Indulgences, and the contrarie issue of the contempt thereof. doe well prooue the Churches good meaning therein. For if you view both parties well, you shall perceiue more profitable deuotion, more Christian charitie, more furtherance of common wealthes causes, in that side that feareth paines for their sinnes, with the Prophet Dauid, euen after they be remitted, and therefore seeke for all meanes moste humblie by mans ministerie to receiue mercie: in one yeare you shall see in these deuoute persons more fruites of repentance, then in a wholl old mans life can be found in all the other side, that contemptuouslie disdaine or scornfullie deride the moste profitable vsage both of penance and pardons in Gods Church. Therefore in so great proofe of the benefite that proceedeth Vide tit. de poenitent. & remis. from this kinde of remissions (for so Alexander the third aboue foure hundereth yeares since termed Pardons vsed then to be giuen in dedication of Churches) and vpon moste assured groundes, that it well agreeth both with Gods worde, and practise of the primitiue Church, and neuer condemned of anie, but of such as be themselues worthely condemned of other great heresies and errors, the Magisirates will shew mercie still in Christes behalfe, and all the holie Byshoppes succeeding lawfullie the Apostles of Christ, will giue peace and benediction Math. 10. to such as humblie aske it at their handes, and if the parties be worthie, their peace by Christes promise shal rest vpon them: if they either contemne it, or be vnworthie of it, then no harme done, it will returne to the giuers againe.

FVLKE.

Although this argument of the effectes, especialie when they are assigned to a wrong cause, is no sufficient proofe of the lawfullnes of a thing, where an euent is taken instead of an effect, yet doe we vtterlie denie this assumpt, that more profitable deuotion' more Christian charitie, more furtherance of common wealthes is in them that holde of pardōs, then in them that vpon true confidence of Christs satisfaction doe despise them. Let the experience of the six yeares of Kings Edwards reigne, and the fiue and twentie yeares of her Maiesties moste Godlie and prosperous royall gouernment, make triall, & decide the controuersie, in the erection of of hospitalls, prouiding for the poore, setting vp of schooles, and amplifying of the vniuersites, relieuing of straungers, redeeming of captiues, & such other workes of Christian charitie, & fruites of repentance: in which although it must be cōfessed to our shame, that we haue bene more slacke, then our holy profession requireth, yet will we giue ouer the aduantage offered of one yeare, against fourescore and ten, which is an olde mans age, and ioyne issue vpon equall time, of Queene Maries reigne, or any other time of Poperie since pardons haue beene in price. Prouided, that the maintenance of superstition and Idolatrie, in which the worlde hath alwaies beene mad, be not accounted a Christian worke, or fruite of repentance. Ad hereunto, that such workes as haue beene done by ours, proceeded of a free loue to God, and thankefullnes for his mercy, not of a seruile feare, or couetous desire of reward, wherin mē shew the loue of themselues, more thē the loue of god. That Alexander the 3. who was somwhat aboue 400. yeares ago, calleth pardōs vsed to be giuen in dedicatiō of churches remissions, it prooueth no more the fulnes of thē, then that it is not lawful for the pope to tread vpon the Emperors necke, as the said Alexander did vpon the Emperor Frederike, before the gate of S. Marks church at Venice. But by the same rescript or de cretal epistle of Alexander the third, in which mention is made of remissions, it appeareth, that such pardons were then but new come vp, because the Archbishop of Canterburie could not resolue himselfe, neither by his owne learning, nor by the clergie of all Englands iudgement, how farre they did extend, & therfore was faine to send to the Pope of Rome for the resolution. It is in the decretals of Gregory in the title by you named, cap 4. inscribed, Arch: episcopo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Quòd autem consisluisti, vtrum remissiones quae siunt in dedicationibus Ecclesiarum, aut conferentium ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , aliis prosint, quàm his qui remittentib. subsunt, hoc volumus tuam fraternitatem senere quòd cùm à non suo indice 〈◊〉 nullus raleat, vel absolui, remissiones predict as illis prodesse 〈◊〉 modo 〈◊〉 , quib. vt prosint propris indices spiritualiter vel specialiter indulsirunt. To the Archbishop of Canterburie: Whereas thou didest aske me counsel, whether remissions which be graunted in the dedication of Churches, or to them that confer to the building of bridges, doe profit any other, then them which are vnder their iurisdiction that doe remit, this we will thy brotherhoode to holde: that where is none can be bound or absolued, but of his owneiudge, we thinke that the foresaid remissions doe profit them onelie, to whome that they might profit, their owne iudges haue spirituallie or speciallie graunted. Also the glosse vpon this decretall, the author whereof liued after the Later an Councell, saith: that it was an olde complaint, and yet in his daies verie doubtfull, to what purpose these remissions or pardons were profitable: remissiones ad quid valeant, vetus est querela, adhuc tamen satis dubia: and rehearseth foure seuerall opinions concerning the validitie of them. Some saie they auaile onelie towarde God, but not toward the church. Secondlie, other saie that they auaile toward the Church, but not toward God. Thirdlie, other saie that as they are giuen, they auaile both toward God, and toward the Church. And the fourth saith that they auaile onclie to the remission of that penance, which is negligentlie omitted. To which the glosse addeth his opinson, agreeing fullie with none of them all, nor with the later Canonists. Among which opinions you haue patched vp your wauering sētence of the validity. or inualidity of pardons in this Chapter. This diuersity of opinions among the Papists themselues argueth, that the doctrine of pardons was verie raw, and not halse digested in those daies. The agreeablenes thereof with the worde of God, and the practize of the primitiue Church, when it shallbe shewed, we shal thinke better of them, in the meane time you must bring better proofe out of the scriptures for them, then you doe for Popish Bishops blessing, out of the 10. of Saint Matthew, or ells we shall haue litle cause to esteeme them more then it

ALLEN.

Truelie, that holypeace which Christ gaue to his Apostles at his comming into them, at his departure from them, and ells as 〈◊〉 entreth vpon any holie action, signified nothing ells but an Ioan. 20. agreement and peace of mans soull with God, and did no doubt purge them from their dailie infirmities, which we call veniall sinnes, and the bonde of all paine, as it may be thought, due for the same, that in the presense of Gods maiestie sinne might cease, and the parties appeere cleane afore his face, that had nospot of sinne in himselfe at all, as by the saied peace yet giuen to the worthie receiuers by holie Bishopps ministerie, some like effect doth surelie ensue. I vse this terme of peace, when I speake of pardons, not because they are preciselie meant in the action of giuing peace, common to Christ & his Apostles, but because I see the olde fathers lightlie call that peace, which we now call pardoning: and perchance they did allude to that which Christ willed his Disciples to bestow on euerie householde for a kind of blessing. Which no doubt was some great benefite, and so great, that our Master signified vnto Math. 10. them, that many should be vnworthie of it, and that the fruite thereof, should redound to them-selues. Which caused both Bishops of olde (for Saint Augustine maketh mention therof) De ciui. De i li. 23. Gap. 8. to giue their blessings, and euerie man humblie to require the same on their knees, whereby surelie some spirituall grace was receiued, and remission either of veniall trespaces, or paine due vnto for̄mer sinnes, giuen. Let apish Camites here mocke and mow at their Mother, as they customablie doe, whiles the obedient children, the discreete and deuout of Gods Church thinke it an high point of wisedome, onelie to consider the maruelous direction of our fathers waies, in the doctrine of discipline, and awe of Gods relgion.

FVLKE.

That peace which Christ gaue to his Apostles, was the quietnes of conscience reconciled to god, and discharged of all sinnes, and the paine due to satisfie gods righteousnes for them, and the same peace did Christ send his Apostles to offer, preach, and wish to all them that would receiue it, which if they refused, became vnprofitable to them. But the Popish Bishops blessing, which consisteth in shaking his fingers, and murmering some wordes, perhapps not vnderstood of the people, whome they neuer teach, what the peace of conscience meaneth, is no better then a vilde mockery of the peace that Christ gaue, and willed his Apostles to offer where they became. Whereas you alledge Saint Augustine for the antiquitie of the Bishops blessing, it is a friuolous matter. For he maketh no other mention, but that after earnest praierhad bin made for patience and constancie of faith in one that was the next daie with daunger of his life to be cut for a fistula, both by the partie himselfe, a Bishop, and many other Godlie persons then present, that they arose from praier, & accepta ab episcopo benedictione, discessimus, and hauing receiued blessing of the Bishop, we departed. How can the superstitious blessing of Popish Bishops be resembled to this, but onelie in the name of blessing? For here is no requiring of it on knees, nor any opinion of remission of sinnes by it, but onely a Christian salutation, or farewell by praier mentioned, which all Godlie Bishops and elders doe in our Church vse euen at this daie, speciallie in dimission of a Godlie congregation gathered to heare the preaching, to praier, or participation of the sacraments, or such holie purposes: which all Christians do esteeme as it becommeth them without making an Idoll of the minister, or trusting in the ceremonie, confirming their faith in God by the praior and blessing of his seruants in his name, in whome is all their hope, trust, and ioye reposed.

That the Bishops beeing the highest ministers of Gods Church, and namelie the Pope, as the principall of the rest, may onelie lawfullie giue Pardons, and in what sense the soules depatted may be releiued by the same.

THE 11. CHAP. ALLEN.

OF the necessarie disposition of them that should effectuallie receiue benefit by the pardons of the Church, and of the right intent of them that should giue the same, wee haue already sufficiently spoken. And now perchance some may thinke it necessarie, that it should be opened brieflie, in whome this authoritie of releasing the paines inioyned for sinne doth principallie consist. Whereof I shall with better will bestow a few wordes, because we shall haue occasion thereby to open the common sense of a wholl Councel both learned and godly, touching the matter of Pardons, in the iudgement whereof, assuredlie proceeding from the holy ghost, we may with safetie take our rest.

Of the lawfull minister therefore of these remissions, the scripture in precise tearmes prescribeth nothing, though the power of binding and loosing, whereupon the matter standeth, is prooued properlie to be an act of the keie, namelie of iurisdiction and externall regiment, which agreeth not to the simple Priestes, hauing no further iurisdiction, but in the secret court of mans conscience. Wherupon, as also by the vsage of all ages, and by the prescription of the lawe, it is prooued, that Bishops onely or such as haue their authority for the execution of their office, may lawfullie giue remission of satisfactions appointed for sinnes remitted. Neither were it conuenient, that the release of deserued penance should be had of euerie inferior priest, lest the discipline of the church should so become contemptible, the release thereof being made common to so manie.

And it is the high prouidence of God, that the waie to remit 〈◊〉 allie sinnes, which is of necessarie to our saluation should be neere vs in euerie place, and by the common ministers of the Church at al times to be obtained, where the remission of the Churches discipline being more necessarie to be fulfilled, and neuer or verie seldome necessarie to be whollie released, should not be so easely obtained, but hardlie had at the handes of a sex, and them of excellent authoritie and reuerence in Gods Church.

FVLKE.

Throughout this booke he therto you haue ioyned the Bishops with the Pope, in graunting of indulgencies, as though their power in pardoning had beene somewhat proportionable vnto his. But now you beginne to shake them of, and it will appeere plainelie, that hetherto you haue concealed, how litle a peece of pardoning power is allotted to bishops, and infinit authoritie left with the Pope: wherem either the popish councell of Laterane, too much abased the bishoppes, or else the Pope too much hath aduanced his practize. But in the argument of the Chapter you doe well and honestlie confesse that the scripture prescribeth nothing of the lawful ministers of these remissions: & by the same reasō you should confesse, that the scripture prescribeth nothing of such kinde of remissions. For God neuer graunteth anie power or authoritie, but he appointeth also who shall be the laufull exercisers, and executors of the same. And if simple priests, as you cal them, haue authoritie to inioyne penance, which is to binde by the plaine wordes of Christ, they haue authoritie also to remit, which is to loose. But the iurisdiction, and externall regimens of the Church (you saie) agreeth not to them which haue no further iurisdiction, but in the secret court of mans conscience. Let that be as you saie, yet it were reason that as farre as their iurisdiction extendeth, they should remitte and loose in the secret Court of mans conscience, where they did binde, although they gaue no publike pardons. Neither can the vsage of anie auncient time be alledged against this that I saie, nor the prescriptions of the auncient Canons, which were made and practized of publike penance openlie inioyned, in which the inferior priestes were prohibited to reconcile or remit without the knowledge of the Bishoppe. But as there was no penance priuatlie inioyned by Priestes, so there was no prohibition that it should not priuatlie be remitted of them, by whome it was appointed. The reasons that you alledge of the inconuenience of releasing of penance by euery inferior Priest, are of no valewe: for the discipline of the Church should be no more contemptible in releasing of tempor all penance, then in releasing of eternall 〈◊〉 , which power you allow to euerie hedge Priest. Againe the punishment of so manie thousand yeares in purgatorie, should not with such difficultie be obtained, if either crueltie or couetuousnes in the Pope did not prohibit. Where you saie, the Church discipline is neuer or seldome to be wholy released, you reprooue the Popes often Iubilies, and dailie plenarie Pardons, graunted of course to anie man that will buy them.

ALLEN.

And not onely that, but also the nature of the act of pardoning, doth wholie chalenge this function of the higher Magistrates of Christes common wealth. For it standeth not onelie vpon the remission of debt, but also vpon recompence of reparing againe the band thereof, by the common treasure of the whole housholde of the faithfull, which can not be by reason despensed and bestowed vpon anie man that lacked, by any, but such as are principall stewardes and rulers of some whole portion of the said familie, as Bishoppes lawfullie succeeding the Apostles are known in this case to haue receiued the keies of Christs kingdome, and the dispensing of his holy mysteries, and therefore maie instly dispose the treasure of Christ and his Saintes satisfactions to the benefit of the faithfull, in whose lardge cures, it can no otherwise be thought, but there be the merits of diuers holy and blessed men laied vp in store before God, for the releefe of their brethren, which maie be disposed at the Blshoppes wisdome, to such namelie as be of his owne charge and regiment. But of particular parishes, it cannot be certaine, that there should alwaies be some sufficiencie of aboundant satisfactions, to remaine without decaie, for the continuall bestowing vpon some of the said small circuit, and that is it, which the schoole diuines saie, In particulari Ecolesta merita non sunt indeficientia: merites of Sainctes be not vnspendable in particular Churches.

But the communion of Saintes being the generall benefit of the wholl common wealth of Christes Church, continueth for euer by the aboundance of manie holy workes, which may satisfie for other mens sinnes, according to the disposition of such as be the gouernours and guiders of our soules, that the ouerplus and aboundance of one sort, maie euer releeue the lackes of an other sort, as S. Paull speaketh in the like matter.

FVLKE.

The next argument to prooue that priestes cannot pardon, is, because the disposition of the treasure, out of which the paiment goeth, by reason pertaineth to none, but to such as are principall stewardes, and rulers of some wholl portion of the familie, as bishoppes, &c. But are not priestes also stewards, and rulers of their owne parishes, which are also wholl portions of the familie, and consist of many partes? Whie maie they not then be dispensers of that vnknowne treasure you speake of? You answer that in the large cures of bishoppes, it cannot otherwise be thought but there be the merites of diuerse holy and blessed men laid vp in store to be bestowed by the Bishop, to such as be of his own regiment: but merites of Saints be not vnspendable in particular Churches. Marke this reason well: for hereof it followeth, that the super abundance of Christes satisfaction, which you make to be the ground of this imaginarie treasure, is not of force of it selfe, without the helpe of the merites of saints. Secondlie the communion of Saints, whereupon you would ground another parte of this treasure of satisfaction, being limited by diocesses, and not by parishes, leeseth the nature of a communion, which extendeth it selfe vnto al, vnto whome it is common. For if the merit of Christ were sufficient to ground a pardon vpon, the priest in his parish, beeing a steward of Christes satisfaction, might graunt a pardon: but because he lacketh perhapes the merites of Saints, he maie not presume so much vppon Christes satisfaction alone. Againe, if the merites of Saints were founded vpon the communion of saints, why should not the merits of the saints of the wholl diocesse, yea of the whole world, be auaileable, and appliable to euerie man of euerie parish, by the particular gouerner and guider of the soules of that parish? so well hang to gether these blasphemous dreames of Saints merites and Christes satisfaction seperated from the act of his passion, claimed to be at the Popes, and prelates disposition.

The aboundance of one releiuing the lacke of another, whereof Saint Paull speaketh, is no communication of merites, nor anie thing like vnto it: but a participation of the gifts of God in this life. As for merites of Saintes, what should we speake of thē, or whence should they haue them, when mercie is their crowne, as Saint Ambrose saieth? Finallie, howsoeuer you abase the dignitie and authoritie of inferrior ministers in graunting of pardon, the auncient Church admitted them to reconcile in the absence of the Bishoppe, or in case of necessitie, as diuerse Cannons doe shew. Wherefore if this power of pardoning were anie such a thing as the auncient discipline, the popish Priestes should not be wholie excluded from it.

ALLEN.

And yet the Bishops themselue, haue not in this case so full power and prorogatiue, being but rulers of portiones of Christs Church as he hath whome Christ appointed to be his owne Vicare through his whole dominion. For as Christ tht head of the whole bodie is annointed farre more plentifullie, then all his bretheren, so doubtles he that occupieth his seat of iudgement throughout the whole earth, to whome not onelie the affaires of all priuat men, but also the confirmation and gouernement of all his brethren Bishops, of what dignity so euer they be doth belong: Vpon whome Christ hath laide the foundation of his Church, and to whome he seuerallie gaue the keies of heauen with moste ample authoritie both to loose and binde, feede and gouerne all the sheepe of his folde: It is this man, no doubt, that hath the full treasure of the holie communion of Saints to bestow, with maruelous authoritie ouer mans soule, with wonderfull might in binding, and exceeding grace and mercie in loosing. This is the man of whome Saint Bernard saith: alluding to Iosephs preheminence in Pharos Ad Eugenium. house, constituit eum Dominum Domus suae, & Principem omnis possessionis suae: He hath made this man the Lord of all his house, and the Prince of his wholl possession. This man therefore representing Christs owne person through the wholl Church, and hauing the cure and regiment of euerie one of Christs sheepe, may moste lawfullie, donare aliquid in persona Christi, shew mercie to any man in Christes behalfe, 2, Cor. 2. none being exempted from his iurisdiction, nor any of the churches treasure restreinea from his disposition.

FVLKE.

The Pope graunteth to the Bishops as it pleaseth him, a shadow of this power of pardoning, reseruing the rest to himselfe, for his owne aduantage, and pre ferment. The reasons here alledged to prooue that no Bishop hath so great preheminence in pardoning as the Pope, are all petitions of principles: which as they are here barelie affirmed; so it shall be sufficient for me flatlie to denie them, as that the Pope is Christs Vicar, heade of the Church, occupieth Christs seate of iudgement, hath the foundation of the Church laied vpon him, hath the keies of heauen seuerallie, and so of all the rest. Neither is S. Bernard a late writer sufficient to giue the Pope the steuardship of Gods house, as Ioseph had of Potiphar the Egiptian, & therefore he hath no more power to pardon, then any other Bishop, admitting he were Bishop of Rome, and not Antichrist, which hath no power at al, but vsurped tyrannie ouer Gods house.

ALLEN

But because I cannot ground this my meaning better, then vpon a generall Councell, I will reporte the decree of the moste holie assemblie holden at Lateran more then three hundreth yeares since, vnder Innocentius the thirde by which not onelie this doctrine of Pardons is approoued, but also the superfluttie thereof, and such disorder as was therein through couetousnes of euill persons, or lacke of authoritte in the giuers, is Can. 62. corrected, with a declaration who be the onelie lawful ministers in such remissions of inioyned penance. Thus goeth the decree: Quia per indiseretas indulgentias at que superfluas, quai quidam Ecclessarum Praelati facere non verentur, & claues Ecclesiae contemnuntur, & poeniientialis satisfactio eneruatur: decernimus, vt cum dedicatur Basilica, non extendatur indulgentia extra annum, siue ab vno solo, siue à pluribus Episcopis dedicetur: ac deinde in anniuersario dedicationis tempore, quadraginta dies de iniunctis poenitentiis, indultaremissio non excedat. & intra hunc quoque dierum numerum, indulgentiarum literas praecipim is moderari, quae pro quibuslibet causis aliquoties concedantur, cùm Romanus Pontisex (qui plenitudinem obtinet potestatis) hoc in talibus moderamen consueuerit obseruare. That is to saie: Because the keies of the Church be contemned, and sacramentall satisfaction is much weakened by certain indiscreete and superfluous Indulgences, the which certain Prelates of the Churches are ouer bolde to bestowe: we decree, that hereafter at the dedication of any Chappel no pardon be giuen more then for one yeare whether it be dedicated by one bishop or moe, & the that there be noremissions afterwarde in the yearelie celebrating of the said dedications, more then of fourtie daies of enioyned penance. The like also to be obserued in all other common instruments, by which for other good causes and holie purposes pardons shall be giuen, seeing the Bishoppe of Rome himselfe, who hath the fullnes of power herein, vseth customably so to moderate the letters of pardons that proceede from him.

By which holie Councell you may perceiue, not onelie that the Bishoppes of Gods Church may giue pardons, but that the Bishoppe of Romesright is much more ample in this case, then theirs can be: and especiallie how carefull the Church euer hath beene, to purge all corruption of doctrine or vsage, crept into the worlde thorough the disorder of mans misbehauiour, & how wicked the indeuours of some euill disposed persons be, who cease not vnhonestlie to attribute that to the Church of Christ, which shee hath euer sought to redresse in the euill manners of them that haue disgraced the doctrine of trueth, and made contemtible the moste profitable practize of holie thinges, by their misuse of the same.

FVLKE.

Seeing you can ground your meaning no better, as you your selfe confesse, then vpon this popish Lateran Councell; all indifferent readers may see, how weake, and latelie laid ground, and foundation it hath. To omit your translation of Basilica, for a Chappell, which rather signifieth a Cathedrall or Princelie Church, I will consider what you gather out of this Councell. First that Bishops may pardon. nay rather that Bishoppes then did pardon. Secondlie that the Bishop of Romes right is more ample: nay rather that euerie Bishoppe of olde did graunt larger pardons, then the Pope vsed to graunt, who vsed not to passe one yeare in dedication, and 40 daies in all other occasions. For according to that moderation the Bishop of Rome did vse, all other Bishops are restreined to that measure. By which it appeereth, that euen in that time which was litle more then three hundreth yeares agoe, the large pardons of so many thousand yeares were neither knowen nor thought needfull. For if they had, it had beene great iniurie to driue men of all partes of the world, to seeke for that at Rome, which they might haue had neere hand of their owne Bishops. Thirdlie you would haue vs consider the care of the Church in purging of corruptions. But rather by the sequele we may gather, that this was nothing ells, but the ambition and couetousnes of the Pope, vpon whose sleeue the Councell was pinned to bereue other Bishops of their accustomablie practized power, all the worlde of their benefite, and to rake vnto himselfe all the profit that might come by pardons: as for the shamefull corruptions of pardons and pardoners, hath beene an hundred times worsse since that time, then euer it can be prooued that it was before.

ALLEN.

But he that list fullie to see, how litle the Catholike Church liketh the abuse of wicked men in these matters, and yet how seuerelie shee accurseth all the contemners of this holie function in the right vse thereof, let him reade the Decree of the last generall Councell touching as well the vse of holie pardons, Consilium Triden. Sess. vlt. as the earnest consideration had of reforming all disorder there in, and he shall fullie be satisfied in this article, if he haue learned so much, as to giue ouer the preiudice of all priuate opinion, to the common iudgement of Gods Church. Being now thus far in our matter, that it is well knowen the Bishoppes of Gods Church principallie to haue this binding and loosing by the keie of their iurisdiction to be exercised in the open court of the Church, and that the power of the Bishoppe of Rome, not onelie by speciall priuiledges giuen by Christ, but also by law and prescription of all antiquities, passeth in this point, as in all other gouernement, the tearmes or seuerall limites of all his brethren, it shall not be needefull to dispute, whether the keie of iurisdiction onelie separated from the keie of order proper to priesthoode, be sufficient to giue remission of inioyned penance by. Commonlie it is holden, that as excommunication, and other like acts of iurisdiction, may be exercised by the Bishops Legates or Substitutes being no priests, or by themselues being elected Bishops, and yet neither consecrated nor ordered: euen so many Indulgences be also profitablie graunted. Whereof I will not now talke, because it is not much materiall, seeing commonlie they be not graunted otherwise but of Bishops, neither so oft of other as of the Pope, and neuer any otherwise, but by his or other Bishops authoritie by whomesoeuer the function is executed

FVLKE.

The Councell of Trent, vnto which you send vs, is as much the common iudgement of Gods Church, as the Pope is the head thereof: who when he is accused not onelie to be an horrible heretike, but also to be Antichrist himselfe, will stand to the determination of no Councell, but such as he himselfe shall allow. The grosse & impudent cosenage of pardons being discouered to all the world more then 40. yeares before, the Pope Pius. 4. not able to iustify before his owne papists that haue but mother witte, giueth leaue to those 100. thing pages of Tient, to restraine the immoderate largnes of them, which few or none doth esteem, and to stay the sale of them which none wil voutchsafe to buy. O goodlie reformation: O great care of the popish Church; which being challenged for the abuse of pardons can not finde time to redresse them in more then 40. yeares, and in more then 2. yeares consultation in popish Councell. Touching the other question it is not worth the deciding, whether the keie of ivrisdiction separated from the keie of order can do anie thing, seing both those keies in the popish Church are false, and counterfet, hauing no power to open the kingdome of heauen, or to shut it.

ALLEN.

But this I know will be required rather at my handes, the course of the matter giuing occasion thereunto, how farre the limites of the Popes iurisdiction, who hath the soueraigntie herein, doth extend, and whether the benefit of anie Pardon maie perteine to anie person that is alreadie appointed to suffer in his soule the paines of the next life, and is at this present in the course of Gods correction in Purgatorie: and finallie, whether, the graunt of an Indulgence may release them there of some peece, or all their paines, as it might haue done whiles they were in this present life.

To all this I answer brieflie, that the Pope may doe it lawfullie, whereof there can be no more doubt, then there is of the other, of which we haue made the plaine argument alreadie, though in the waie & meanes of applying the Churches remission or the Saints satisfaction vnto them, there may be some diuersitie, not such as may any thing hinder the trueth of the cause, which of all catholike men is moste certainlie agreed vpon, but such as may stirre vp mans industrie in the moderat search of Gods trueth and mysteries. For the soules departed and being assured to be saued, must needs be of the same body mysticall and felowship of Saints, that the faithfull be of aliue: & therefore, they may according to their aptnes more or lesse be profited by the holy works and satisfaction of their head & fellow members, because in euerie lawfull Pardon there is made by the keies of iurisdiction & application of Christs holy merits & his Saints, in that respect as they be satisfactorie, to the vse of their inferiour members, that doe lacke that wherein the other doe abound. Whereupon it standeth with plaine reason and meaning of Gods word, touching binding and loosing, that the soules in Purgatorie should sometimes be partakers of this blessing no lesse then other that be yet aliue. For the deniall of which catholike assertion Leo the tenth accursed and condemned Luther by his letters patentes, as euer since his memorie hath beene condemned most worthely of all good men continuing in Bulla cō dem. Luth. in the vnitie of Christes Church.

FVLKE.

A question meet to be handled by the popes proctor for purgatorie, seeing in purgatorie the Popes prison is all his iurisdiction. For it is meet that he should beare rule ouer his owne creature. But in heauen no man hath authoritie but God: because it is the seat of his maiestie, and the reward of his blessed, and beloued in his sonne Christ Iesus, whoe hath opened the same to all faithfull. and shut vp the same from all vnbeleeuers; of whose will and pleasure he hath commaunded his seruants, the true ministers of his Church to be interpreters vnto the world. The question you assoile, as you doe all other of popery, that whatsoeuer the Pope, and popish Church hath once allowed, must needes be good, although it haue no warrant out of the word of God, nor testimonie of the auncient Church. First you saie therfore, that the Pope may lawfullie graunt pardons to them that be in Purgatorie, whereof, you saie, there canbe no more doubt, then there can be of the other. In deede they be both of like certaintie, sauing that for this later question, it must first be prooued, whether there be any purgatory, before it be demanded whether the Popes pardons extend to purgatorie. Saint Augustine somewhile doubted whether there were any such place, and saith it may be doubted of, and perhapes be found, perhapes neuer be founde: other while he vtterlie denieth any Ench. ad laur. cap. 69. Cont. pel. hy pognost. l. 5. third place, because he findeth it not in the scriptures, neither shal the pope be able euer to finde such fictions in the scriptures. The like I saie of his power of application of the merites of Christ, or his Saints, or that the saints haue any merits for themselues, much lesse for other men. Wherefore it standeth neither vpon reason, nor vpon any meaning of Gods word, whereof there can no wordes be shewed, including or importing anie such meaning, that the Popes pardons should reach to the release of purgatorie paines, if anie such were, which cannot release the lest paine that any man suffereth vpon the earth. That Leo the tenth did excommunicat Luther, it proueth no more the Popes doctrine to be true, then that Caiphas condemned Christ, prooueth Caiphas to haue bin an honest man.

ALLEN

Marie whether the Indulgences take place so often vpon the dead, as vpon the liue, that is not so well knowen, because the persons departed be not in case to make themselues more apt to take benefit thereby, then they were at their departure hence: And therfore if they were not with singular zeale and deuotion so qualified in the end of their life, they cannot now any whit abetter their own case, or otherwise dispose themselues to attaine the fruit of those singular remissions. And more then that, no Indulgence, is lightlie graunted, but vpon the fullfilling of some appointed worke of pietie, and the departed not hauing alwaies in this life such friends as will accomplish competently the worke prescribed by the Pardon, nor himselfe now in case to doe the same, he often misseth the benefit of the Churches remission which else he might haue had by the meaning of the giuer. Whereupon it seemeth to some to be no surer, how far the departed may be relieued by the keies of the Church then it is of other holie suffragies and good workes either of priests or priuate persons, all which doe assuredlie relieue them that be in Purgatorie, but without anie limitation of benefit, which whollie is vnknowne to the liuing, without speciall reuelation, in what state they stand.

FVLKE.

Two causes you assigne why it is not knowne, whether indulgences take place, so often vpon the deade as vpon the liuing The first, because the soules there can take no benefite of pardons, but according to the merites of their life. But this reason is confuted by authoritie of the glosse, vpon the first bull of Iubilie, which saith that pardons respect grace, and not merite; which if it be true, not the merits of the receiuer, but the power and will of the giuer were to be obserued. The second reason is, that pardons lightlie require some worke to be fulfilled. But that worke is neuer so laborious, as the paines already by them susteined in purgatorie, if we beleeue you, which if it will not serue for a recompence, or commutation of penance, you will hardelie perswade men, that saying of such a prayer, giuing of such an almes, visiting such an Idoll, should be sufficient to make the Popes pardon auaileable. But it is a pitifull case that poore soules in purgatórie, which lacke nothing for their release but such a trifling worke to be performed for them and haue no friend in this life, that will accomplish it for them, should lie still broiling in the frying panne and be so litle regarded of the Pope, that he will not appoint that his clergie at the least of their charitie should take paines for them, although they haue no penie for their Pater noster. That some among you thinke the profite of pardons, is no surer, then of other suffrages and workes to them in purgatorie, which are auaileable, but you know not how much; first it sheweth the certaintie of your faith, which leaneth vpon such helpes, as you know not whereto they will serue you. Secondlie it sheweth that you are not agreed among your selues of such articles as you thrust vpon other men to be credited. And thirdlie, that euerie one among you being not resolued of the Popes keies of iurisdiction, some thinke that the Pope hath arrogan the abused his keies, when he hath taken vpon him to dzale further in purgatorie, then they are perswaded he hath authoritie. For certaine it is, the Pope hath pretended by his pardons not onelie to release soules out of purgatory, but also to giue other men power to release three or foure a peece whome they will choose.

ALLEN.

And therefore vpon this consiacration, the learned diuines doe teach, that the Pope doth, and lawfullie maie applie vnto the soules departed, by his keies, some parte of the Churches treasure, which consisteth of Christes satisfaction and other his Saints, by which they departed, as they haue neede and be in competent termes to receiue benefite by the merits of their head or fellowes, maie be released from some parte of their paines: but yet they will not charge anie man with necessitie of belceuing, that the Pope or Church should vse meere iurisdiction ouer them, that be in an other worlde. To be plaine for the peoples vnderstanding, the meaning is, that in a pardon there are two thinges: the one is a sentence of absolution definitelie pronounced vpon anie person penitent: the second is the recompence of the debt of sinne remitted by the saide absolution through the application of the Churches treasure by the power of the officiers keies. Both these two iointlie can neuer be exercised vpon anie person not subiect, though the one maie. Absolution can not properlie be giuen nor fruitfullie, to anie man not subiect to the giuers regiment, but the application of the treasure may be made by the keies to procure mercie for them that be not vnder their power, but that is not by proper iurisdiction but by aide of request made by iust offers why the partie should be receiued vnto mercie. In this sense then the Pope absolueth no man departed absolutelie. But onelie offereth in the person of Christ for the reliefe of him that is in Purgatorie to God his mighti iudge there the abundant price of Christs passion and the satisfaction of Saints: And no doubt for his reuerence and representing Christes, person, he is more often heard then anie priuate man offering onelie his owne almes and praier for the soule departed. And for that cause, in this sense the Popes pardon worketh onelie per modum suffragij, as by aide of sute, and not by regiment or iurisdiction, which manie suppose doth not extend past the compasse of this worlde, and therefore that he cannot exercise the acte of binding or loosing which be proper to his power and gouernment ouer anie in the next life, though to make sute for them before God he maie applie some portion of Christes copious redemption, and Saints satisfaction, by the vse of his keyes, which there make forcible intercession, though they cannot giue iudiciarie absolution.

FVLKE.

If the Pope haue not meere iurisdiction in Purgatorie, how could Clement graunt the release of soules to be at other mens arbitrement, by his pardon. Againe how could he be able to spoile all purgatorie, which is affirmed to be possible to his absolute power. But for plainer vnderstanding, of this mysterie of iniquitie, and abhominable blasphemie: you consider two thinges in a pardon, the absolution, and the application: which later (you saie) maie be made for them, that be not vnder their power: whereof it will follow, that all Bishoppes hauing the dispensation of the treasure committed vnto them, as well as the Pope, maie graunt pardons to them, that be none of their iurisdiction, which by application maie be profitable to them, though they be not by absolution. But what is, this application? You answere, it is not by regiment, but by aide of sute. A grosse deuise, to turne a pardon or remission, into a sute or request for a pardon; when in the pardon, there is no wordes of praier or request, but of concession and graunt. But by this pardon (you saie) the Pope offereth to God the price of Christes passion, and the satisfaction of Saints. Then haue we a new oblation neuer before heard of, proper to the Pope in graunting of pardons. Or if it be a prerogatiue of the Pope, that he maie be saide to praie, when he doth graunt or commaund, and offer a bargen ofre compence, where he can doe no more but entreate the iudge to accept it, (no passe ouer all other blasphemies conteined in this chaffer with god) I demaund why the Popes praier should be heard rather then the praier of other Byshops and priests. You answere, no doubt for his reuerence, blasphemouslie applying to the Pope, that which according to the volgar translation is alledged to be the cause, why Christ was heard of his father, You 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because he representeth Christes person. Why? how farre is Christ from Gods presence, that he hath need to be represented by the Pope. The scripture indeed doth often allow that the minister of Christ doth represent the person of Christ vnto men, because his person is not visible, nor his humanitie present vnto them. But that anie mortall man should represent the person of Christ before God, and by the vertue of that representation applie the merites of Christ, otherwise then he applied by his passion, it is straunge and intollerable blasphemie, and such as none but a limme of Antichrist would vtter. As also it is hòrrible to heare, that the Popes keies in porgatorie should make forcible intercession, where they can not giue iudiciarie absolution. Before we had but two keies, the one of order, the other of iurisdiction. Now commeth in the third keie of suffrage, by application, which is rather a picklock, then a keie, because it maketh a forcible entrie, where the key hath no lawfull Iurisdiction.

ALLEN.

And al this, that the follie os manie men so much wondereth at, is nothing else but to set before God the Father, the death of his owne Sonne, and his grace in all Saintes, for to procure mercie for their poore breethren in miserie in the next life: as the like is done with great pietie in manie other holie actes of religion continuallie practised in the Church for the mutuall helpe one of another. And in deede, the Church hath vsed these manie yeares to put this clause in such Indulgencies as did in unie parte concerne the departed (per modum suffragy) as Sixtus the fourth, Innocentius the eight, and now of late both Pius the fourth and the fifte, and all other lightlie in the like grauntes. Whereby it is plaine that we are not charged by the Church further to beleeue, then that the Pope maie assuredlie release the departed of some parte of their paines, or all, by the waie of suffrage and sute, as other holie workes of Christianitie applied vnto them by their brethren aliue, maie doe. For it were no reason, that priuate persons should as it were communicate and send vnto them their fastes almes, and praiers for the release of their paine, and he that representeth Christes person, should not in Christes name and the wholl Churches, applie vnto them some part of the common wealthes treasure, to sue for their deliuerie and help to satisfie for them in their lacks. This therefore they call a Pardon, per modum suffragy, as by way of aid of request. Which doctrine is most true in it selfe, and agreable to the practise of the Church and forme of Indulgences alwaies vsed, and maie assuredlie relieue such as departed hence in grace and zeale of Gods house, which I count disposition enough in the partie, and haue friendship in the world of such as for their sakes will be content to accomplish the appointed worke of the Pardon.

FVLKE.

So long as you maie be allowed to saie, what you list, without profe, you may say all this is nothing els, but to set before God, &c. or what you will beside. The clause you speake of, per modū suffragy, hath not bin added of many yeares seing Sixtus the fourth the first that added it, liued not 100. yeares before you did wright of this mat ter. The cause of this addition, was a certaine booke set forth by one Petrus Oxoniensis doctor of diuinitie in the vniuersitie of Salmantica in Spaine containing diuers conclusions contrarie to the Popish Churchs doctrine, which by the Archbishop of Toledo, Alphonsus Cirillus were committed to be disputed & discussed, in a congregation of 52. doctors in diuinitie & Canon law. The first of which conclusions was, that deadlie sinnes, as touching the fault, and the punishment of the other world, are put away by only cōtrition of the heart, without order vnto the keies. The fift, that penitēts are not to be absolued before their penance inioyned be performed. The sixt, that the Pope can not pardon any mā aliue, the paine of purgatorie. The discussing of these conclusions, caused Pope Sixtus, & the rest to deuise this new clause & interpretation of their pardons, per modum suffragii, whereas before, there was neither any such words, nor meaning in their pardons, but the contrarie to be gathered verie plainlie: that the pope had iurisdiction in purgatory: in so much that Augustinus de Ancona, which liued before this time, doubteth not to conclude, that the Pope by his absolute De potestate Eccles. quest. 32. iurisdiction, may spotle all purgatorie of all those persons, which are subiect to his iurisdiction: which are all, except they that lack merit conditionall, and such as may do for them those things, for which pardons are ordeined to auaile: and except them that lacke merit sacramentall, which are saued immediatelie by the grace of God, which is not bound vnto the sacraments. But it were no reason (you saie) that priuate persons should communicate and send to the soules in purgatorie, there fasts, almes, and praier, for the release of their paine, & he that represents Christs person, should not applie some part of the common treasure for their deliuery, &c. I answere wee acknowledge no such communication, sending or lending by priuate persons, for any such purpose or to any such effect into Purgatorie. But if that were graunted, yet were it no reason, that the Pope, where he hath no authoritie, should by any colour doe more then a priuate man, of the same worthines or merit. And when the Pope is a wicked man of life, as you will not denie but many haue beene, what should his sute or suffrage preuaile? whereas, if he were twise as great in office, as you faine him to be, yet where his office extendeth not, he should by sute preuaile no more then priuate men of such behauiour. That this pardon, per modum suffragij, is agreeable to the practize of the Church, and forme of pardons alwaies vsed, you saie, without proofe, but I haue prooued the contrarie before. That you require in the partie to be benefited, by this new kinde of pardons, not onelie that he departed hence in grace and zeale of the Church but also frendship in the worlde, of such as will be contended to accomplish the appointed worke of the pardon, you declare that the Popes pardons, goe not as Gods pardons, without respect of persons, but with a necessarie respect of worldlie frendshippe: so that the soules of poore men, & such as lacke frendship in this world, are in nothing so good a case, as the soules of rich men that with their pens are able to purchase frendship enough in the world. So that with you the poore, whome Christ pronounceth happie, are most miserable: the rich, euen they to whome Christ maketh the entrance of heauen impossible, may haue soonest dispatch, out of purgatorie, for the old prouerbe was alwaies true in the Popish Church, no pennie no paternoster. No frendshippe in the worlde no helpe of the Popes pardons, for poore mens soules, for whome yet the redemption of Christ is as plentifull and effectuall, as for the scules of rich men. Whatsoeuer the Deuill, or the Pope hath imagined to deface the glorie thereof, and to make the frendship of the world which is enmity with God, to be necessarie for the applying of his moste free grace, generall pardon, and vndeserued reconciliation.

A declaration of the Churches meaning touching the common treasure, which is saide to remaine in her store for the recompense of such iniovned penance, as she releaseth by her pardons, with the conclusion of the wholl matter.

THE 12. CHAP. ALLEN.

BVt now if you aske me here how it standeth with the iustice of God, thus to forgiue the paine and debt of satisfaction, which either God or the Church inioyneth, for the recompence of the former sinnes especiallie seeing the Catholike Church doth holde that it perteineth to Gods iustice, no lesse to punish sinnes with some temporall scourge after it be forgiuen, then it doth perteine to his mercy to forgiue the saide sinne and the debt of euerlasting damnation. Now if it stand not with his iustice, to let a sinner escape whollie without correction or satisfaction, then it may much more appeere to be against his iustice also, that any power of man should remit & release that bonde of satisfaction, which Gods instice required, and was to the offender inioyned. For the answere and perfect vnderstanding of this doubt, it is to be knowne and well weighed, that in deede no release could be had of such inioyned penance or deserued paine for sinnes past, if Gods instice were not otherwise recompensed, and the lacke of the parties punishment, supplied againe by the abundance of satisfaction made by Christ vpon the Crosse, eueric drop of whose innocent bloode and stroke laid vpon his blessed bodie, were hable of the infinite & inestimable worth and force thereof, to satisfie for all debt due to all the sin in the worlde, whether it be death and euerlasting damnation or tempor all paine and purgation. By which abundant price of his passion, and copious ransome, the Church for whose sake this precious price, was paied, doth not onelie holde her selfe to be redeemed from death and damnation, and so saued by Christ her head, for he is the sauiour of his bodie, saith Saint Paull, but shee holdeth the ouerplus (as a man wouldsaie) of so abundant copious, and infinite redemption, to be a treasure in the house of God, to relieue her childrens lackes, to release their paines, to worke with them in satisfying for their sin, and to worke mercie for them also for lack of satisfying for their offences: that want being founde in our penance towardes the recompensing of our euill life paste, may be supplied by the treasure of Christsdeath that remaineth yet of full force and strength, to be applied vnto vs in such our necessities, as shal be thought meet vnto Christs, Vicar generall in earth, & other his holie appointed ministers, with whome (as Saint Paul saith) he left the bestowing of gods mysteries. For although the holie and precious treasure of Christes paine and satisfaction be of it selfe sufficient to relieue the lackes of all men without exception, not onely of those which shall be saued, but also for the damned and for the wholl worlde (saith Saint Iohn) yet no man may be so hardie, to claime the benefit thereof otherwise, then through such meanes as he hath appointed, and by the ministery of such men as he hath placed ouer his householde and familie, to giue the Children meat and sustenance in due season not as they shall inordinatlie craue it, but as he shall discreetlie finde to be meere for them. Therefore where this wise stewarde of Christs holie householde, to whome he gaue the kcies of the treasure, and sufficient authoritie to fceae and gouerne his wholl flocke, where he shall orderlie iudge the offender meete, and of good congruitie, worthie of grace and mercie, there he may pardon, and recompense the residue that can not be fulfilled of the partie penitent, with some peece of that inestimable treasure of Christs redemption, which remaineth in the Church impossible to be wasted, and so shall remaine to the vnspeakeable benefit of the faithfull.

FVLKE.

This dreame of the Churches treasure & the power of dispensing of the same, resting infinitlie in the Pope, in comparision of a few small crummes left vnto the Bishoppes, should haue beene first handled, as the foundation of popish pardon, if the compasse of your cause and the method of deceit, could haue abidden it, which if it had beene done, manie a one that had seene the foundation to be no surer would neuer haue taken paines to vew the rest of the building. But as it was last inuented (for none of the auncient Church, for a thousand yeares and more euer heard of it) so you haue done well to thrust it vnto the last end of your booke. And first you beginne with an obiection, vpon your owne ground, that for answering of Gods iustice, there remaineth a temporall paine after sinne remitted. But because the obiection is such as you are neuer able to answer (so well your principles of popery hang one vpon another) you couer the hardest point and will not let it appeare, namelie that Gods iustice requireth punishment of the partie him selfe, that offended, for satisfying his iustice, which was not satisfied by the death and obedience of Christ: which if it be true, then can there be no remission by any other meanes (sauing the iustice of God) but by the parties owne suffering. Yet let vs see how you auoid the obiection io fauourablie set downe for your seife to answer. you saie that Gods iustice is otherwise satisfied by the aboundant satisfactiō made by Christ, vpon the crosse and by the merites of his saints. If this be true, then is the other principle false, that Gods iustice requireth temporall punishment of the partie: for the recompence of Christs satisfaction, and saints merites, is not the parties owne punishment. wherefore as in the obiection you runne from Christes most perfect satisfaction, so in the answere you runne from the obiection, which is no answer, or satisfaction. The scripture is plaine, that the blood of Christ purgeth vs from all sinne: and, Christ by one oblation hath made perfect for euer, 1. Iohn 1. Heb. 10. Heb. 9. those that are sanctified he hath once entred into the holie place by his owne blood, and found eternall redemption. The satisfaction for sinne, the purging of vnrightcousnes, the perfecting of the saints, and euerlasting redemption, can abide no reseruation of punishment, either temporall, or eternall, in which the iustice of god is throughlie answered by the obedience, and suffering of Christ: whose stripes hauing healed vs, there remaineth no suffering of our part for satisfying of his iustice. And you confesse that there is a sufficient value in the suffering of Christ, for the taking awaie of all temporall punishment, if it be well applied by the Pope. So that Christes redemption was but a power of redeeming and not an act of redemption, & a power depending vpon the will of man, to applie according to his pleasure, as you were wount to speake, and not according to Gods determination, and eternal election; And so you robbe Christ of the effect of his death & passion, by which he obteined eternal redemptiō for al gods elect, to enrich the pope with a treasure infinit, and vnspendable (for that word youlent me before) which he might bestow and dispense at his pleasure. But let vs a litle enter into your storehouse, & see what tresure there is, and how you came by it. First you tell vs, of the infinite abilitie and the inestimable valew of euerie drop of Christes bloode, &c. to satisfie all debt due for all sinne, and al paine for the same: and yet you alow to the act, and effect of his bloodie sacrifice, the value but of halfe a drop, denying the same to haue satisfied Gods iustice for temporall paine: all the rest you claime for the treasure of the Popish Church; which dreame was neuer hard of, before the Iubilie graunted by Boneface the 8. in the glosse wherof it was first deuised. where it is saied, that pardons are founded vpon the merits of Christ and taken out of it. Passio namque Christi excessiua fuit vnde & excessus vocatur in Luca: vbi dicitur, quod in transfiguratione Christi apparuerunt Moses & Elias cùm eo, & dicebans excessum quem completurus erat in Ierusalem, vnica enim guita sanguinis tam preciost, suffecisset pro redemptione totiu, mundi. Nam propter coniunctionem humanitatis cùm diuinitate: 〈◊〉 passio Christi perpessa pro redemptione nostra habebat precium infinitum. Noluit autem Christus quod excessus isie frustra fuisset, & quod de nihilo nobis 〈◊〉 : sed volait quod esset Thesaurus Ecclesiae per suum vicarium Ro pontificem pro fidelibus loco & tempore dispensandus: dispensatur autem, cum eis indulgentiae conceduntur. For the passion of Christ was excessiue, whereof also in Saint Luke it is called an excesse, where it is said, that in the transfiguration of Christ, appeered Moses and Elias with him: and they spake of the excesse which he should fullfil at Ierusalem. For one drop of so precious blood, might haue sufficed for the redemption of the wholl worlde: For because of the coniunction of the humanity with the diuinitie, neuer so small a suffering of Christ, suffered for our redemption had an infinit price. But Christ would not that this excesse should be in vaine, and that it should serve vs for nothing, but he would that it should be the treasure of the Church to be bestowed by his vicar the Bishop of Rome, in time and place for the faithfull, and it is bestowed when pardons are graunted to thē. Marke vpon what text this treasure is grounded, and how clarkely it is expounded. Moses and Elias talked with Christ of his departure out of this life, which he should finish at Ierusalem: this departure being termed in the Greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Latine, excessum, this Doctor interpreteth to be an excesse, or superfluitie of the passion of Christ: the ouerplus whereof lest it should be in vaine, and serue for nothing, is made the treasure of the Church, to be dispensed by the pope. But who wil graunt such excesse or superfluitie of the passion of Christ, as you imagine? or that neuer so small a suffering of Christ, had beene sufficient for the redemption of the wholl worlde, which if it were graunted, seeing Christ from his infancie snffered many things for vs, euerie one of them might haue beene our redemption, and so the sacrifice of Christs death was vnnecessarie for our redemption. So that his blood shed in his circumcision, and much more in his scourging & crowning with thorne, had bin infinitely more thē enough, although he had not suffered death, and shed his blood on the crosse. Againe as it doth moste excellentlie set forth the iustice and mercie of God to the euerlasting comfort of the faithfull, that Christ by his obedience and suffering, did moste perfectlie satisfie the one, and moste plentifullie purchase the other, to the eternall redemption and euerlasting felicitie of all Gods elect: so it is against the iustice of god, that he should require that his sonne should suffer infinitlie more, then was needeful to answere his iustice, & work a perfect redēption, as this glossary dreame of the Popish Churches treasure, doth imagine. Neither doth the argument of the coniunction of the humanitie with the diuinitie prooue anie such matter. But if that were graunted, by what scripture is the infinite ouerplus made a treasure of the Church? the glosse thinketh that it should be in vaine, if it should serue vs to no purpose: as though if any such thing were, & might stand with Gods iustice, it might not serue to set forth the glorie and riches of Christes incarnation. Ad hereunto, that the ouerplus were needeles for vs, if the value of one drop be sufficiēt for the perfect redemption of the whol world, it might also be sufficient to take away all temporall paine. But if we should further admit that there were such a treasure of the Church, who made the Pope generall stewarde of it, and other Bishops to haue so small a portion of so infinite a treasure? You answere, that Saint Paull saith, that Christ left to his Vicar generall, and other his holie appointed ministers, the beslowing of Gods mysteries. But Saint Paull speaketh of no Vicar generall, but of all Gods ministers, which be not onelie bishops (I trow) that they be stewardes of his mysteries, which mysteries are his holie word and sacraments, or if this treasure were parte of them, the dispensation of it perteineth to priests, as well as vnto Bishoppes. To proceede, this treasure beeing so plentifull, as you saie, no man notwithstanding may claime the benefit of it, otherwise then through such meanes, as God hath appointed, and by the ministrie of the man that he hath appointed. But neither this treasure, nor the meanes, nor the man are appointed of God, as farre as we can learne out of his written worde, neither is the Pope any such steward, to whome Christ would commit the keies of so inestimable a treasure, which considereth not the worthines of the person, but of the price which he receiueth for his pardons, as the greatest practize of them hath beene euer since they were inuented. Againe, if the offendour be meete, and of good congruitie worthie of grace and mercie, what neede any peece of his treasure to be laide out aboute him? for Gods iustice is as much bounde vnto congruitie, as vnto condignitie. Neither can he deny pardon to any, that in any respect is worthie to receiue it; sauing that grace is no grace, where their is the worthines of the partie to deserue it, but the rewarde is accounted according to debt, and not according to grace.

ALLEN.

And such a perfect knot there is, now since Christes incarnation, of euerie member in Christes mysticall bodie, which is the Church and companie of faithfull, with him beeing the heade of the said bodie, that his merites, workes, suffering and satisfaction maie well be applied to serue and supplie all wantes of ech member thereof: yea more then that, the holie suffering and tribulation of holie Saintes, as of our blessed Ladie Christes mother, and the holie Apostles, with numbers of constant Martirs, Confessours, and Virgines, helpe to supplie our lack also, and encrease the huge treasure of the Church, for the satisfying for our sinnes, which yet notwithstanding, as they were meritorious to the sufferers, be fullie rewarded by the glorie of Christes kingdome and eternall felicitie, which farre exceedeth not onelie the merites of all Saintes, but sufficientlie rewardeth the incomparable humilitie and obedience of Christ to his father, in suffering death vpon the crosse, though his workes as they be satisfactorie for vs, are not yet answered in vs nor can not be till the worldes end.

ALLEN.

That knot of communication of the benefites of Christes death, was as effectuall before his incarnation as since, although it became effectual by meanes of his incarnation, euen as the effect of his death extended to the saluation of his elect before his death. But you doe well to follow your author at the harde heeles, the writer of that glauering glosse vpon Pope Bonefacius Bull, which: immediately aster the words by me last cited addeth. Nam propter vnionem capitis & membrorum, meritum capitis attribuitur membris: & quia sic per alienum meritun, non per proprium meritum liberantur à poena, ideo quantum ad ipsos talis liberalior dicitur remissio, seu indulgentia: licet quoad Christum qui hoc nobis meruit vocetur redemptio copiosa. For because of the vnion of the heade and the members, the merit of the head is attributed and applied vnto the members: and because they are so deliuered from paine by the merit of an other, and not by their owne merit, therefore in respect of themselues such deliuerance is called a remission or pardon, although in respect of Christ which deserued this for vs, it is called a plentifull redemption. We know that by meanes of the vnion of the head vnto the members, the redemption wrought by the head perteineth to the members: but the application thereof, is by the spirit of God, and not by the Popes pardon, or any ministrie of man in speaking properlie, which extendeth no further then the outwarde senses in speaking the worde of God to the hearing, in washing with water, or deliuering the bodelie foode, in signe of baptizing with the holie ghost, and feeding with the bodie and blood of Christ. But more than that (you saie) the holie suffrings, and tribulation of Saints doe helpe to supplie our lacke, and increase the huge treasure of the Church. Your wordes found as though your meaning were, that the suffring of Saints doth more supplie our lacke, then the infinite treasure of the passion of Christ. But that I may not take you at the worst, you meane at the lest, that they ad vnto it, & you say plainly, they increase the treasure of the Church. But you forget the infinite valure of Christes, bloodwhich you spake of before, which can no more receiue any increase, then it can be diminished: for there is no proportion of that which is infinite, tò that which is finit. But if the treasure of the Church which is infinite by Christs merit, may be made greater by the merit, of Saints, which are finit, then the quantitie thereof must be greater by so much, or so manie partes as are added: and so there shall be proportion of finit to infinite, or ells the treasure of Christs merit shall not be infinite. This grosse and impossible absurditie therefore came in after the first deuise of the Churches infinite treasure by Christs merit. For Clemens the fixt which brought the Iubelie yeare, from euerie hundred, to euery 50. as he learned of Aug. de Ancona, that liued in this time, ioyneth in his bull the merits of all Saints, to increase the infinite treasure of Christs merits. Of what value the merits of Saints be, we shall heare in the next section.

ALLEN.

And for Christ in this case our aduersaries perchance would not much sticke with vs, but for the remaine of Saints satisfaction, they can not abide. And if Saint Paull in expresse words did not vtter this my meaning concerning the trauaile of holie Saints for Christes bodie, which is his Church, the litle kolie ones of these daies would haue spurned at these kinde of speaches, for feare of doeing iniurie to Christ, of whose honour the good men make themselues so tender. These wordes then doth Colos. 1. Saint Paull vtter of his trauaile taken for the Churches sake: Now I doe reioyce in my passions or tribulations, taken for your sake, and I fullfill those things that doe want of Christ passions, in mine owne flesh, for his bodie which is the Church. Thus said Saint Paul. Wherby you see, that not onelie the want of one member may be supplied of the heade of the bodie, but that ech member may helpe the insufficiencie of an other member. Whereby for all that, we may not conceiue, that there is any lacke or insufficiencie on Christs parte or passion, which was so full and abundant of it owne valure, that by it selfe alone without the helpe of all mans merits or other creatures, it was a sufficient price for the sinnes of all the worlde, and moe if moe might be. But the lacke that this his passion was not in effect so forcible and so fullie in all mens cases, was the want of some paines and passion in his bodie the Church, by which she and euerie of hers were bound to conforme them-selues vnto Christ, by taking paines in their flesh and suffering together with Christ their head. For so long Christes passion wanteth his due effect in vs, (though it were neuer so full and sufficient in it selfe) as we do not conforme our selues to his paine & tribulation taken for vs. Therfore, though Christ in his owne person suffer now no more, yet he doth suffer, and dailie shall suffer till the worlds end in diuers members of his holie bodie: as the heade, saith Saint Augustine suffereth when the finger aketh, and as Christ him selfe charged Saint Paul that he persecuted him, when he onelie molested his members. And so long as the Church militant trauailesh here in earth, so long hath Christ our Maister somewhat to suffer to Act. 8. make his passion effectuall in such as shall be saued, and in that sense some peece of his passion, in euerie of the faithfulls bodies must be supplied. By all which holie paines of the head himselfe principallia and of the holie members of his bodie, who wrought not onelie for themselues, but expreslie meant to benefit other by their workes, as the Apostle confesseth of himselfe, we neede not to doubt, but the lacke of many a poore member of this blessed incorporation, is dulie supplied, and the want of worke satisfactorie in some, recompensed by the abundance of paines and penance of others. For this is the blessed cause of such as be in the Church of God, in the fellowshippe of the faithfull, in the knot of those members, whereof our sauiour is the head, that is to saie, in the holie communion of Saints, in which as some do lack so other some by Christs gift do abound and are able to procure mercie for the needie, and to satisfie God for their poore breethrens sinnes. And yet all this entercourse 1. Cor. 8. of benefits and mutuall helpes passeth not from the head to the members, nor from one member of the bodie to another, but by the ordinarie meanes of Christes appointment, as by sacraments, sacrifice, and sundrie waies of his seruice, and that not without the ministerie of men, in whome he hath out the word of his reconciliation, to whome he hath committed his keies to keepe, his sheepe to feed, his mysteries to dispose, and to whome finallie he hath giuen full power both to binde and loose.

FVLKE.

Of all the auncient doctors, and learned of the Church whose writinges haue come to our hands, it is great maruell no one could see the increase of the Churches treasure in this texte of Saint Paull. But seing they saw not all thinges, let vs consider in what expresse wordes Saint Paul vttereth your meaning. Where is mention of the treasure of the Church in this texte? where is mention of the merit of Saintes? where is mention of the remaines of Saints satisfaction ouer and aboue their owne necessitie? where is mention of the wante of satisfying Gods iustice for temporall paines?? If there be neuer a worde of all these thinges; in what expresse wordes doth Saint Paul vtter your meaning. First he reioyceth in his afflictions, which he suffered for their sake, because they tended to the confirmation of their faith, and example of Constancie. Secondlie he sulfilleth those thinges that want or remaine, of Christs passion in his owne bodie: this argueth no insufficiencie of Christes passion (you confesse) for his parte, but the wante of some paines in his bodie the Church, so farre wee agree with you: for Christ was to suffer in his members the saints, and they are by suffering to be made conformable vnto him, that they might reigne Rom. 8. 17. 2. Tim. 211. 3. Cor. 4. 10. with him: but that these sifferinges were satisfactions vnto Gods righteousnes for temporall paine, to make the passion of Christ effectuall to themselues, or vnto other, Saint Paull saith not in expresse wordes, neither shall you euer be able to prooue by a true syllogisme out of this place, or anie text in the scripture that he meaneth. But Saint Paull saieth he suffereth for Christes bodie which is his Church: namelie to confirme the faith of the Church, as all the olde Fathers doe expound it, and as he doth a best expound: himselfe. 2. Cor. 1. 6. but to satisfic for paine not satisfied by Christes death, he neuer saith, ne meaneth. In tribulationibus (saith S. Ambrose vpon this text) quas: patiebatur exultare se satetur, quia profectum 〈◊〉 videt in side credentium, Saint Paull acknowledgeth that he reioiceth in the affictions which he suffered, because he seeth his profit in the faith of the beleeuers. And the words of S. Paul are plaine, when he saith, that he suffereth for the Church according to that dispensation, which was committed vnto him, which was to edifie the Church in the faith, not to redeeme the Church by his sufferings: S. Augustine speaking of the suffering of martyrs, and the effecte Tract. 84. In Ioan. of them, and comparing them with the passion of Christ, thus writeth. Ille nobis non 〈◊〉 nos saluos saceret, nos sine illo nihil possumus facere: ille se nobis palmitibus praebuit vitem, nos habere preter illum non possumus vitam. postremo etst fratres pro fratrib. moriantur, tamen in fraternoruam peccatorum remissionem nullius sanguis martyris funditur, quod fecit ille pro nobis: neque in hoc quid imitaremur sed quid gratularemur. He had no neede of vs that he might saue vs, we without him can do nothing. He hath giuen himselfe to be a vine to vs the branches: we be side him can haue no life. Finallie although breethren do die for their breethren, yet the bloood of no martir is shed for the remission of his brcethrens sinnes, which he did for vs, neither hath bestowed vpon vs herein anie thing that we should follow, but that we might reioycein, In these wordes Augustine denyeth that Christes passion wanted the paines aud pas sions of martirs to be fullie effectuall in all mens cases, that no man can follow Christ herein, that his blood should be shed for remission of sinnes, or the paine due for the same. And verie excellentlie writeth Leo the first Bishop of Rome against the blasphemies of Nestorius and Eutiches, concerning the effect of martirs Epist. 97. Leont. August. cap. 2. suffrings in these wordes. Dicant quo sacrificio reconciliati: dicant quo sanguine sint redempti. Quis est vt ait Apostolus qui tradidit seipsum pro nobis oblattonem & hostiam Deo in odorem suauitasis? Aut quod vnquam sacrificium sacratius fuit, quam quod verus & aeternvs pontisex, altari crucis, per immolationem fuae carnis, imposuit? Quamuis enim multorum sanctorum in conspectu domini pretiosa mors fuerit, nullius tamen insontis occisio redemptio fuit mundi. Acceperunt iusti non dederunt coronas, & de for titudine fidelium exempla nata sunt patientiae, non dona iustitiae. Singulares quippe in singulis mortes fuerunt, nec alterius quisquam debitum suo fine persoluit, cum inter filios hominum vnus solus dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui verè erat agnus immaculatus extiterit, in quo omnes crucifixi, omnes mortui, omnes sepulti, omnes sunt etiam suscitati de quibus ipse dicebat: Cum ex altatus fuero à terra, omnia traham ad meipsum. Fides enim vera iustificannimpios & creans iustos, ad humanttatis suae 〈◊〉 a participem in illo acquit it salutem, in quo solo homo se inuenit innocentem, liberum habens per gratiam deide potentia eius gloriari, qui contra hostem humani generis in carnis no sirae humilitate congressus, his victoriam suam tribuit, in quorum corpore triumphauit. Let them tell by what sacrifice they be reconciled: with what blood they be redeemed, who it is (as the Apostle saith) which gaue himselfe for vs an oblation and sacrifice of sweete sauour vnto God? or what sacrifice was euer more holie then that which the true and eucrlasting high Priest laid vpon the altar of the crosse, by the sacrificing of his owne stesh? For although the death of manie Saintes hath beene precious in the sight of the Lord, yet the slaughter of no giltles person was the redemption of the world. The iust men haue receiued, they haue not giuen crownes, and of the valeantnes of the faithful are growne examples of patience, not gifts of righteousnes. For the deathes in euerie one were singular, nei ther did anie man by his end paie the debt of another, seeing among the sonnes of men there was but one alone, our Lord Ie sus Christ, which was truelie the immaculate lambe, in whom all are crucified, all dead, all buried, all also raised againe. Of whome he himseife said, when I shall be exalted from the earth I will draw all things vnto my selfe. For true faith which iustifieth vngodlie men, and maketh them iust, being drawne to the partaker of his humanitie, obteineth saluation in him, in whome alone man findeth himselfe innocent, hauing libertie by the grace of God to boast of his power, which encountring with the enemie of mankinde in the basenes of our flesh, giueth the victorie to them, in whose bodie he triumphed. If the Romish Antichristes that followed Leo the Bishop of Rome in place, had followed, and allowed this his doctrine, they would neuer haue deuised nor manteined this encrease of their treasure by the merites and sufferings of Saints: whose martirdome profited the Church, by the examples of patience to the confirming of faith, not communicating of Iustice to the en crease of merite. Whose deathes were singular, and proper to them-selues to receaue the crownes of glory which Christ had merited for them: not common by waie of desert, to gaine crownes for other, or to satisfie for the debt of other, For that was the power efficacie and effect of the onelie sacrifice of our sauiour Iesus Christ, to satisfie for the sinnes of his people, and to purchase the crowne of eternal glory for them.

The conformitie therfore of the members vnto the head in suffering, and the suffering of Christ in his members, prooueth no satisfaction necessarie to be wrought by the members to make the passion of the head effectual for them, that are saued; and much lesse the want of workes satisfactorie, in some to be recompensed by the aboundance of paines & penance in other: neither doth Saint Paul confesse anie such thing, whose sufferings did otherwise benefite the Church, then by satisfying for the paine due to other, that wanted workes satisfactorie. Neither doth the communion of Saints, fauour anie such in which all power of spirituall life by ioynts and sinewes is conueied from the head to the members, & euerie member yeldeth to the rest the dutie of loue and seruice which is appointed vnto it. But to satisfie for an others sinnes, is not the office of anie member of the Church, neither hath S. Paul where you quote, or anie where els, either the wordes or meaning of anie such merite or satisfaction of anie man for himselfe, much lesse for other. The ordinarie ministrie of men for such end & purposes as it is ordeined of God, is to be thankefully embraced: but he hath no where appointed men to sacrifice, or satisfie his iustice for sinne, albeit he hath committed to men the worde of reconciliation, the keies of the kingdome of heauen to keepe and exercise, his sheep to feed, his mysteries to bestowe, and full power to binde and loose according to his worde, and not according to their affection will and pleasure.

ALLEN.

Let no man maruell, that in such a face of Gods iustice, as we see by the inioyning of great penance in the Church after sinnes be remitted, and by Gods own often scourgies temporal both in this world and the next, let no man (I saie) maruell, that yet there be waies of Gods mercie, and meanes through the ministerie of man to turne awaie the wrath of our Lord, and by other helpes to satisfie his iustice againe. Onelie let the partie in all his insufficiencie be zealous, deuous, and diligent as he maie, and God himselfe will a thousand waies seeke of his owne mercie to satisfie himselfc with his sonnes paines applied by the trauaile of other the faithfull that haue beene and be in his Church, to the helpe and releife of that member that hath nothing left but loue, and the felowship of holie Saints, whereby he maie craue mercie and pardon. Let them consider that doubt of this point, howe often God hath, as it were, determined to plague the people of Israell, which he chese to be his peculiar, and yet in the midst of his decree and iustice, hath giuen mercie and grace at Moses and Aarons requests. Yea, how often he hath, as it were, procured the iust to stand betwixt him and the people whome he meant to punish. Mansuetum habemus dominum, solùm occastonem arripere vult, & mox omnem praese fert misericordiam, saith Saint Chrysostome. We Homil. 10. de poenit. haue a meeke master, he onelie taketh occasion, and sireight he sheweth himselfe whollie to be giuen to mercie. He appointeth to punish, that they maie see, what of iustice their sinne requireth yet he seeketh meanes himselfe, that their high priestes and guides maie turne awaie the iniovned plague, that they maie learne (said the saide holie Doctor) that they had their pardon, not of their owne merites or deseruings, but by Moses Patronage and praiers. That you maie see thereby how one member relieueth, through Gods mercie, his sellowe member that lacked. Whereby there appeareth both exceeding iustice, & much more mercie. All his waies truelie be mercie and iudgement, to such as loue his testimonies.

FVLKE.

Men must needs maruell at yourimpudencie, that will defend a necessitie of temporall paine to be suffered by the partie whose sinnes are remitted for satisfying of Gods iustice, and yet will haue the same be released without the parties suffering, and Gods iustice be answered without the paine of the soule that offended. For otherwise the passion of Christ we know is sufficient and effectuall to take awaie all paine, because Gods iustice is throughlie satisfied by him. You graunt it sufficient, and denie it to be effectuall, because Gods iustice requireth temporal paine of the partie that offended, as well as satisfaction for the sinne 'and eternall paine thereby deserued, which hereticall assertion cannot stand with anie pardon or satisfaction by an other, how soeuer you goe about the bush in words, and shewe of setting forth Gods mercie to reconcile them. Neither doth inioyning of ponance by the auncient Church, nor Gods owne temporall scourges in this life prooue anie necessitie of suffering for satisfaction of Gods iustice vnsatisfied by the passion of Christ. The temporall scourges after this life, you must first prooue that there be such, before you can conclude any thing by such. Neither hath God a thousand waies to seeke, to satisfie him-selfe with his sonnes paines, but the onelie mediation, and propitiation of his sonne, is the waie to satissie his iustice sor sin: Neither requireth he the trauell of any man other 1. Tim. 2. 1. Ioh. 2. 2. then the externall ministerie of the Church, to applie the paines of his sonne vnto the benefit of sinners, which ministerie consisteth in preaching his worde, deliuerie of his sacraments, and exercising of discipline, not in meriting and making satisfaction for sin, or in deseruing that Christ satisfaction should be auaileable to take awaie sinne, or any paine due sor the same. That God hath often giuen mercie and grace at Moses and Aarons request, it prooueth not his iustice to be satisfied by Moses or Aarons workes; but onelie by Christ, in whome all praiers of the saints are effectual, or to obtaine mercie, either for them selues, or for others. And when he stirreth vp the iust to stand betwixt him and the people, when he should punish, he Ioh. 5. setteth not mans iustice or merites betweene his iustice and the offenders, but prouoketh them to seeke mercie and forgiuenes for Iesus Christes sake, the onelie Mediator of God and man. And that is the meaning of Chrysostome, whose wordes you cite, and translate at your pleasure: but thus they are, hom. de penit, & confess. Mansuetum habemus dominum, solùm occasionem arripere vult, & mox omnem praese fert misericordiam. Nam ne peccantes & inulti manentes nos efficeremur deteriores, non remisit nobis supplicium, sed vidit hoc manifestè, quòd peccatis ipsis non minus damnosum sit non puniri: propter hoc imponit poenam, non exigens supplicium de peccatis, sed ad futura nos corrigent. Et vt discas quod hoc sit verum: audi quid dicatad Mosem: dimite me, & iratus delebeos: dimitte me, non quod Moseseum retinuerit, ne que enim loquutus erat ad eum, sed silenter astabat sua pro illis oratione: non autem supplicacionem ei dare vo lebat, quonamilli digna suppliciis comiserant, suppliciisque ineuitabilibus, punire autem volebat sed miserecorditer: quod eos segniores reddebat. Vira que autem fecit, & vs paenam non inferres, neque illos faceret ignauiores paena non irrogata. Discebant. n. quod non sue merito, sed Mosis patrocinio, iram dominicam effugerint. We hau a gentle Lord, he onelie wil take an occasion and streight he sheweth forth al mercie. For lest we sinning and abiding vnpunisbed should be made worscr, he hath not remitted the punishment vnto vs, but this he saw manifestlie, that it is no lesse hurtful then the sinnes themselues, not to be punished, for this cause he layeth on vs a paine, not exacting punishment for sinnes, but correcting vs for the time to come. And that thou maiest learne, that this is true, heare what he saith to Moses. Let me alone, and in mine anger I will destroie them. Let me alone (saith he) not that Moses did holde him, for he had not spoken vnto him. But stoode with silence in his praier for them. But he would giue him no supplication, because they had committed things worthie of punishment, and of punishmēt vnauoydeable. He meaned to punish, but mercifully, which made thē more slouthful. But these two things he did, both that he should not lay punishmēt on them, nor make thē more slouth ful because punishmēt was not taken. For they learned that not by their own merit, but by patronage of Moses they escaped the Lords anger. These words of S. Chrysostom do manifestlie declare, that the temporall punishment that God laieth vpon his people, are not satisfactions of his iustice, but corrections of his mercie. The patronage of Moses in this place signifieth not the merits of Moses, but his praiers and intreatie made for them, which are heard for Christes sake, and not for the worthines of him that praieth. For no man hath accesse to God, but onelie in the worthines and merits of Iesus Christ: in whome Ioh. 14. 6. God hath set forth his wonderfull glorie of mercie & iustice, to the eternall saluation of all his saints, which loue his testimonies, and vnto whom al his waies are mertie and truth, as the Prophet saith Psal. 25. 10.

ALLEN.

And it fareth with our Lord God, as it doth with a wise and discreete master towards his seruants, or with a father towards his louing children for they will often shew themselues to be rigorous & bent to chastice, the faults of their seruaunts & children, and yet themselues of their owne accord will often procure some other to hinder their intended punishments, and to take from them as it were by force their children or other offenders: euen so standeth it betweene God & the children of his chosen Church, who though he often iustly shew himselfe angrie, and bent to correction, neuer the lesse he doth not onelie mercifully remit, but procureth him selfe, other, either patrons, or intercessours for whose sakes he maie iustlie & by good reason remit, After manie threatninges of the citie and people of Ierusalem he thus mooueth himselfe to mercie: Circuite vias Ierusalem, Hiere. 5. & a spicite, & considerate, & quaerite in plateis eius, an inuenias virum facientem iudicium, & quaerentem fidem, & propitius ero ei. Looke round about the citie, and veiw the streets thereof and haue good consideration whether anie one maie be found there that doth instice, and studeth after faithfullnes, and I will haue mercie on the Citie. In the fift of Ieremie. Where you maie perceiue that God wil forgiue all, for ones desertes, and that the good workes of one, maie by Gods iustice supplie the lacke of manie other, not yet to deliuer anie man from euerlasting damnation that is impenitent, and therefore in case and state of eternall death. For the worke of the faithfull can not extend to do good to such as be for euer separated from their fellowship, and therfore can be no members of the common bodie, in the firme knot whereof onelie, their is mutuall health and healpe, among such as partlie lacke and partly do abound, for release of the rodde of temporall correction, that is often laied vpon the children, and not of anie eternall punishment, that onelie happeth to such as be separated and cut of effectuallie from Christes bodie, which is the Church, for euer.

FVLKE.

You continue still in Chrysostomes argument, but you follow neither his wordes nor his meaning: for he speaketh neither of meriting nor satisfying. For his wordes are these immediatlie following that which I haue last rehearsed? Haec & nos Saepe facimus & famulos qui peccauerunt dignos suppliciis nolentes punire, ne que à supplicij metu liberari, anico, iubemus, vt illos è nostris eripiant manibiat que vt ita timor illorum in eis crescat, & nostra effugiant verbera. Hoc & Deus fecit. Et quòd hoc sit verīs ex ipsis verb is manifestum est. Dimitte me inquit & irascar. Etenim nullus remittit qui punire vult: tuncenim irascimur: Ipse autem dicit dimitte me & irascar: vt scias quodirain Deo non sit affectio, sed pana in nos eo vocabulo nominetur. Quando igitur audis Mosem dicentem, siquidem dimittis pecceatum dimitte: prae seruo Dominum obstupesee, quod ipse fibi ipsi miserecordiae occasionem quaerit. Non hîc autem solum hoc fecit, sed & ad Ieremiam, & ad Ezechielem idem hoc dicit: circuite & videte in viis Hierusalem, num sit qui faciat iudicium & insticiam, & miserieors ero cis. Vidisti misericordiam? Multietiam impij vnius virture simul fruuntur. Multorum autem malitia quamuis vnus sit qui rectè agat in medio magni populi non 〈◊〉 . Sed vnes quidem homo rectè viuens populum integrumeri pere potest ab ira Dei. Ciuitas autem integra per nersaque in suam poenam & supplicium attrahere bene viuentem, & dietecre non potest. Et hoc de Noe manifestum. Pereuntibus enim omnibus, solus seruatus est. Et de Mose clarum est. Solus enim potuit tanto populo impetrare veniam. This doe we also oftentimes, and being nether willing to punish our seruants worthie of punishment which haue offended, nor to deliuer them from the feare of punishmēt, we bid our friends that they should deliuer them out of our handes, and that so their feare maie increafe in them, and they maie auoide our stripes. This did god also, & that this is true it is manifest out of the verie wordes. Let me alone (saith he) and I will be angrie. for no man relenteth that will punish: for then we are, angrie. But he saith, let me alone and I will be angrie: that thou maiest know that anger in God is no affection, but punishment toward vs is named by that terme. Therefore when thou hearest Moses saying. If thou doest forgiue this sin, forgiue it, wonder at the Lord in comparison of the seruant, that he him selfe seeketh vnto him selfe occasions of mercie. Neither did he this thing here onelie, but also vnto Ieremie, and Ezechtel he saith the same thing, go round about, and see in the waies of Ierusalem: whether there be anie that doth iudgement and iustice, and I will be mercifull vnto them. Hast thou seene his mercie? manie also vngodlie persons enioy the vertue of one man together. And by the malice of manie although there be but one that doth well in the middest of a great people, he doth not fall. But one man truelie liuing well, maie deliuer a whole people from the wrath of God: but a wholl communaltie that is peruerse, cannot draw into their paine, and punishment him that liueth well, nor cast him downe. And this is manifest of Noe, for when all perished he alone was preserued. And of Moses it is cleere. For he alone was able to obteine pardon for so great a people. In all these wordes, here is no mention or meaning of merit or satisfaction, but onelie of mercie, as appeereth in the example of men requiring their friendes to deliuer their seruants from punishment: where not the worthines of the friendes can be the cause, but the mercie of the Master. Againe he speaketh of the auoiding of temporall plagues in this life, whereof euen the vngodlie, and they that perteine not to the communion of Saints, often times are partakers, which proceedeth of the loue of God towards his children, and not of their merite, which you confesse can not extend to them, that be for euer separated from their fellowship.

ALLEN.

Neither doe the desertes onelie of the liuing helpe the necessitie of their fellow members being yet aliue, but such as bedead also, doe communicate in their workes with their brethren yet abiding in this world. And God of his singular mercy is often contented, to be answered by them for their poore fellow seruants that be indebted so far in the Church, that they be not hable in their owne persons to dscharge their owne debt Sermon de poeniten. & confess. nor come out of the same, whereof the said Saint Chrysostome doth excellentlie well consider in these wordes of his sermon de poenitentia: mihi autem (saieth he) aliud maius est diuinae misericordiae iudicium, quod dicam. Cum enim non inuenis homines viuos, & fiducia praeditos, qui possint intercedendo veniam obtinere, confugit ad defunctos, & per illos inquit, se remissurum peccata. Ezechiae enim dicit, protegam ciuitatem hanc propter me, & propter Dauid puerum meum. Olim enim mortuus erat Dauid. That is to saie: I haue yet a plainer and greater token of Gods mercie, which I will shew you. For when he findeth none aliue that be of confidence, which might by intercession procure pardon, he turneth to the departed, and saieth he will remit sins for their sakes. For he spake to Ezechias thus: I will defend this citie for my owne sake, and my child 4. Reg. 10 & Esa. 57. Dauids sake and yet Dauid was dead long afore.

FVLKE.

This place of Chrysostome followeth immediately after his wordes set dowen in the section last before: in which he speaketh neither of the deserts of the liuing, nor of the deade, able to answere his iustice for other: but altogether of the mercie of god, which taketh occasion euen of his loue, which he beareth towards his Saints that are departed, to shew compassion vpon them that are aliue: & this for his couenants sake: although Chrysostome seemeth to speake of the intercession of them that are departed, which yet prooueth no merit or satisfaction. For to become an humble suter for a benefit, or a pardon, is not to deserue a benefit, or to satisfie for an offenders trespace. And this benefit he giueth (saieth Saint Cyrill vpon this text) vnto the memorie of holie men, that sometime he forgetteth the euills which their posteritie haue committed. In Esa. l. 3. To the like effect speaketh Saint Hierome, that which God giueth of his mercie is no merit or satisfaction to his iustice.

ALLEN.

And suerlie if in the daies of olde, where neither so much grace nor mercie was to be found, nor Christ which is the fountaine of all pardon, was not yet offered vp to paie the debtes of his brethren sinnes, nor the communion of Saint was yet so fullie established, whereby the merits, of one might redound to an other, nor the Church so honoured with the gift of Gods spirite for remission of mans offences, nor the priesthood of God so credited with the keies of the kingdome: if afore all these things were no otherwise wrought, but in base figurse, such waies were found out, and that by Gods owne procurement of mercie and grace. in the midest, of intoyned penance and punishment, what neede we to doubt, but their now be many meanes made in this happie societie of Saints, so to remit the bond of satisfaction to some, that Gods iustice maie be answered againe by other of this happie household in the aboundance of their holy workes, which the Church holdeth moste holilie for to be a perfect and euerlasting treasure, to satisfie Gods righteousnes and procure mercie to the needie, which by loue, zeale & deuotion do deserue the same? If God remitted of olde, temporall paine vnto his people at the call of Moses and Aaron, and for his childe Dauids sake that was dead, what will not he mercifullie forgiue by our high priests procurements, whose pardons and punishments Christ hath solemnlie promised he woulde ratifie and allowe in heauen aboue? What will he not do in respect of the paines and aboundant passions of his own childe Iesus, that hath yet in the Catholike Church his death so duely represented for the remission of our daily debts? what can be denied to the intercession of so manie Saints, to the chast combate of so manie Virgins, to the bloodie fight of so manie Martyrs, to the stout standing of so manie Confessours? what mercie maie not the Church craue and doubtles obteine for anie of ber children, either in penance' in this world, or in paine in the next: that hath in her treasure such abundance of satisfaction, first in our head Christ Iesus, through whose gratious workes all other mens paines, are become beneficiall either to themselues or their bretheren, and then in the store of al holy saints trauilles not yet wasted in procuring mercie for others, besides moe waies of grace and remission, that our mother the Church hath in readines to relieue her children that doe continue in her happie lappe and in the societie of her communion, with humble submission of themselues to the powers ordeined of Christ for the gouernment of their soules, with request for this pardon, at their handes, to whome be giuen the bestowing and disposing of the inestimable treasure of so blessed a ministerie?

FVLKE.

The grace and mercie of God in Iesus Christ, was as largelie to be found for the saluation of his people in the daies of olde, as in these daies. Iesus Christ was yesterdaie, and to daie is the same, and for euermore. And the Lambe was slaine, from the beginning of the worlde Heb. 12. 8. as touching the effect of his death vnto all Gods elect: and the communion of the Saints was as fullie established, to the receiuing of al vertue of life from Christ their heade, and to the mutuall seruice of loue, and ministring of gods gifts one to another: but not to merite at all, either for themselues, or for other. Such meriting is dishonorable to the heade, from whome euerie member receaueth life, and all power and offices thereof, ac cording to the measure of euerie member, to the encrease, and Eph. 4. 1. 6 building vp of the wholl bodie in loue. The Church of olde had also the ministerie of remission of sinnes, and the keies of the kingdome of heauen, and that not in base figures onelie, but insufficient effect, to the euerlasting saluation of Gods people. And therefore to saie, that all these things were none otherwise wrought, but in base figures, is to denie the saluation of all the fathers that died before the incarnation of Christ. For base figures could haue but base effectes: base figures could not worke eternall life. The ministerie figures of the law separated from Christ, are in deede the weake and beg gerlie elements of the worlde: but beeing referred to Christ, and made effectuall by his death through faith in the partakers, they are of the same power and riches vnto euerlasting saluation, that the ministerie and sacraments of the new Testament. But admit that nothing was wrought to them but in base figures; yet it followeth not, that after the incarnation and actuall death of Christ, there should be any more meanes to remit the bond of satisfaction, by answering Gods iustice, then in that onelie sacrifice obedience, and suffring of Christ, or that the Church should haue such a store house of mans merites to satisfie Gods righteousnes, or that men by loue, zeale, and deuotion, may deserue Gods mercie: these popish positions can neuer be prooued. Againe whatsoeuer God remitted at the praier of Moses and Aaron, and for his couenant made with Dauid, or whatsoeuer he gaue to the memorie of that holie man, he remitted, and gaue for Iesus Christs sake, in whome onelie his iustice was satisfied, and he well pleased. But your high priest with his Antichristian pardons, and punishments, which are grounded vpon the merites of men, or coloured with the merites of Christ, which yet are rent and rorne from the effect of his death, Christ will destroy with the breath of his mouth, and abolish with his glorious appearing. For the death and passion of his sonne Iesus Christ, God wil be merciful to his seruants that by faith take holde of the power of his death: but neither by masses nor pardons doth he bestow the vertue thereof. The good workes and sufferings of the saintes, be examples of vertue and patience, not merits or gifts of righteousnes. The death of Christ answering Gods iustice, and reconciling vs to his fauour, hath made that good workes of his saintes, which are the giftes of his grace though vnperfect, as they proceede from vs vnpure and vnworthie vessells, yet neuerthelesse to be acceptable before God vnto rewarde, which he giueth of meere mercie, and not of merite or deserte. Therefore there is no shadow for Popish pardons, to shroude themselues vnder the winges of the good workes of Saintes, which are the fruites of faith, to declare them to be iustified, not anie cause by which in the sight of God they can appeare iust, and much lesse be able to iustifie other.

ALLEN.

Would God euerie man could feele, how happie a thing it is, to dwell as brethren together in the house of God vnder the appointed Pastours of that familie, in which onelie Gods fauour is euerlastinglie found, that they might therewith be partakers of all their workes that feare God, & might haue some sense and taste of that holie ointment of Gods spirite, and gift Ps. 132. In Psal. 132. of his grace, that first was vpon the head of this householde, our Master Christ Iesus, and then dropped downe abundantly to his beard, euen to the verie beard of Aaren, whereby (as S. Augustine saith) the holie Apostles be signified, and by them is ishued downe to the homme of Christes coate, and imbrued all the borders of his garments, that euerie one of the felowship might receiue benefite, and feele the verdure thereof. Quoniam 〈◊〉 mandauit Dominus benedictionem, & vitam vsque in seculum. For in this happie felowship onlie our Lord bestoweth his manifold blessinges, and life for euermore. Amen.

FVLKE.

Who so looketh for sense, from anie other fountaine or beginning, then from the head alone, shall feele no more then a stone. But who so thorough faith is become a liuelie member of the mystical body of Christ, by the operation of his holie spirite, shall vndoubtedlie haue a moste sweete feeling of that moste happie & spirituall coniunction of himselfe, first vnto the heade which is Christ, then vnto his bodie, which is the Church, and maie cheerefullie sing with Dauid: Beholde how good and pleasant a thing it is, that breethren dwel together. But such is the abundance of grace and vertue in the head Christ, that he seeketh not for merite or desert in himselfe, or in anie of his fellow members, although he receiue the gracious ointment of spirituall doctrine, as S. Augustine doth expound it, flowing from Christ to his Apostles, and from them into all parts of his Church: by which he is not taught to trust in himselfe, or to depend vpon other mens merits or pardons: but to repose the wholl hope of his saluation & deliuerance from the wrath of God in the merites and satisfaction of Iesus Christ his heade: towhome with the father and the holy ghost be euerlasting praise of our redemption, reconciliation, saluation, glorification in his holie Church, and felowship of Saints throughout all generations, & world without ende,

Amen. God be praysed for euer.

AN APOLOGIE OF THE PROFESSORS OF THE GOSPEL IN FRAVNCE AGAINST THE RAILING DECLAMATION OF PEter Frarine a Louanian turned into English by Iohn Fowler.

Written by William Fulke.

AN APOLOGIE AGAINST THE RAILING DECLAMATION OF PETER FRARINE.

IT is pitie, that the president of the Quodlibeticall disputations of Louane, had no more discretion, then to propounde in steede of exercises, of learning, a question perteining to the estate, and doeings of other people, with whome, neither the speaker, nor the hearers had any thing to doe, neither were hable by knowledge of their affaires to discearne the cause, nor by authoritie of their place, to decide the controuersie. But seeing they are disposed, otherwise then wise men woulde be, to be curious in a foraine common wealth; and Fowler hath fantafied, that the same also may apperteine to England, which in Flaunders was de claimed against Fraunce: Let vs see what Peter Frarine bringeth, which may concerne the comon cause of religion, where in they of France, against whome he hath shot his bolt, doe agree with vs in England. First he saith, as moste wicked persons, they haue disturbed religion, and peace. A grieuous accusation. But where is the proofe? The question of religion, he leaueth to be handled of others, the deciding whereof neuerthelesse, would purge the persons accused, for the most part of the other crime of disturbance, of peace. Well, the respōdent is not to be blamed, that standeth vpon that question which according to the custome of the schoole, was propounded to be the argument of his talke at that time. And therefore he wil open & declare, first that there was no cause, or iust occasion why these men should rise, and make insurrection. Then that they tooke weapon in hand without authoritie, contrarie to law, and in dispite of all Magistrates and Rulers. Last and finallie, that they vsed themselues to cruellie, & handled their sworde to bloodelie, to the greatest dammage, hindrance, and losse, that euer was felt in Christendome. These are the diuisions of the circle, with in which the orator hath inclosed himselfe. But al these points, so farre as they concerne the troubles in France, are fullie and directlie confuted, by all the edictes of pacification, giuen forth to the knowledge of the world, by Charles the ninth, and Henrie the third, Kings of Fraunce: in which they haue alwaies acknowledged, that the Protestants vpon iust cause, with sufficient authoritie, and in their seruice, and to their honour, haue put them selues in armes, and done whatsoeuer the necessitie of warre lawfullie taken in hande, hath inforced them to doe. Then iudge, whether against the publike testimonie of two Kings, whome the matter moste concerned, and that more then once, or twise repeted, I need to stand in the cōfutation of Peter Frarines petty & priuate declamation. Notwithstanding although I haue with one hatchet hewen a sunder the wholle stoke, of this rayling oration, yet I will not spare to brattell out the bowes, and branches thereof, in answering to euerie particular quarrell, and cauil of the same.

There was not anie good or reasonable cause (saith he) why the founders, and brokers of this new Gospell, should be driuen to put them-selues in armes, against the Catholikes. See how the vaine declaimer, which refused before, to handle the question of religion, now taketh vpon him most arrogantlie to decide the same. For if the Protestantes be founders and brokers of a new Gospell, and the Papistes be good Catholikes, there is no cause, why they should once open their mouthes against the Papistes, much lesse arme them-selues, (as he said they did) against the Catholikes. But if this matter pertaine to the question of religion, the debating whereof is not presentlie intended, let vs pardon him these preiudiciall tearmes, as well now, as hereafter, and consider onelie, what reasons he bringeth, to prooue his purpose. No lawes ought to be chaunged, with out great cause, least of all the lawes of religion. So farre we both agree: but there is great cause to change lawes ofreligion; when Antichristes decrees haue displaced the lawes of God, the onelie rule of true religion. Yet (saith he) there can neuer be anie reason, or sufficient cause alledged, that innouation of religion, should be attempted by force of armes, by warre, and rebellion, by fier, and sword, by murder, and blood shed, of good and faithfull subiectes, Let this also be graunted: for this nothing toucheth the cause of them, which, to mantaine a law made for religion, and to defend them-selues from the crueltie of priuate persons, are required by the gouernours of the realme to arme themselues, for defence of the King his lawes, and their owne liues.

The lawe of the Locrensians pleaseth him well: that the procurer of anie alteration, should preach with a rope about his necke, wherewith he should be strangled, if the audience misliked his deuise. The rope had neede to be in wise mens handes, where that lawe should be practised; or els the Apostles, and first preachers of religion in the world, might haue bene hardlie handled, before they had halfe vttered their message. And therefore the Princes, and rulers of the word in this our time, are wiser then Peter Frarine, or Iohn Fowler, in not establishing, and practising of this Iawe, as these men would wish they had. But the default thereof (saith he) hath caused so lamentable an estate of all thinges, warres, tumults, slaughters, ruines, Churches, and townes ouerturned, &c. Admit these were the effectes (as they are nothing lesse) of the Protestants preaching; what woulde the lawe of the Locrensians haue staied in this case; when with the good liking both of the Prince, and of the people, these preachers haue bene heard, and their doctrine receiued? It greeueth him, that it was free for these preachers, without anie feare of the rope frankelie and boldelie to perswade with the people. And thinketh he that feare of the Locrensians rope woulde haue restrained them, whome the terror of Antichristes fire, and tragicall torments, neuer discouraged to publish the message of Christ their master? Naie they went further, from wordes to woundes, and blowes, they attempted reformation, by ciuill warre and rebellion. There was a companie of desperate persons that ranne about the strcetes of Parris, with naked swordes in their hands, and cried out, the gospell, the gospell, (as Claudius de sanctes, an vtter enemie of the gospell, beareth witnes) But I praie you M. Frarine were these preachers that so ranne and cried, that beside varnished wordes disbursed woundes and blowes? If they were not preachers, (as your author Claudius cannot saie they were) how hangeth your talke togither? Must the preachers be charged with euerie disorder of their hearers. Then let the Popish preachers answere, for all thefts, murders, treasons, incests, rebellions, and other offenses, of papists; but if anie such desperate persons ranne about, as you saie, how prooue you, that they were disciples, of the protestant Preachers, and not rather futious firebrands, of the popish friers, and Sorbonicall teachers, by whose seditious sermons, they were incensed to murder the Protestants, and true professors of the Gospell; for how like is it, that so smal a number of the Protestants, as was neuer able to afford but an handfull of fighting men in Parris, would attempt to arme themselues, against such an infinite multitude of zealous, & mutinous Papists, as were in that Citie? Where the verie Croisters and common porters, (that I speake nothing of so manie thousand artificers) had bene able, not onlie to haue withstood their attempt, but also to haue chased them out of the citie. Notwithstanding, if you willneedes vrge your Authors reporte, that they were Protestantes, why doe you not tell vs how manie they slewe with those glistering swordes? At least wise name one whome they wounded with those weopons in their handes, when they cried out, The gospell, the gospell.

Contrariwise how thirstie of bloode the Papistes & their preachers haue beene, it is an easie matter to make manifest proofe. For that I speake nothing of the horrible massacre most cruellie executed not onelie in Paris; but throughout al the realme of France: the crueltie whereof would ouer whelme at once, and swallow vp whatsoeuer can be fained of the Protestantes seueritie. There be manie hundreth witnesses aliue, which can reporte, that in the latter end of the reigne of King Henrie the second, the Popish preachers perceiuing how greatly he fauoured their cause, stirred vp the people in their dailie sermons vnto sedition, affirming that it was a thing acceptable vnto God, and meritorious, if anie man should kill a Luthe rane: whereupon insued manie horrible murders, of which some are perticularlie recorded in historie. In the Church yeard of Saint Innocents immediatlie after a sermon, when two were brawling as the people came Comment. de statu lib. 1. forth of the Church, and the one more of spite, then of anie cause, called the other Lutherane, the people streight waie ranne vpon him, and pursued him into the Church, whether he fled for sanctuary. A certaine gentleman passing that waie, with his brother, which was a Popish Priest, hearing that a man should be slaine of the people, in deuoureth to pacifie their mindes with faire words, to deliuer the pore man from their hands. A hedge Priest by and by crieth out, that this gentleman was the man whome they sought for, which durst defend a Lutherane. The people immediately set vppon the gentleman. The priest his brother began to speake for him: but thereby they were more inraged. To be short, after they were both drawne out of the Church, the gentleman hardlie escaped into the Curats house: The poore priest with manie woundes was cruellie murdered, saying his Confiteor, by which it did sufficientlie appeare he was no Lutherane. Not manie daies before that, a certaine Sorbonist (whom they called the Picardes soule, a common trumpet of sedition in those daies) to inflame the people against the Lutheranes, vsed often to beate vpon this point, that it was an holie thing to shed the Lutheranes blood. The slaughter of whome, as of the Cananites of olde time, was verie acceptable to God, and that the handes of the godlie Catholikes should so be consecrated. Acertaine student, which came to heare one of his sermons, chaunced to smile vpon his fellow which sat by him: an olde woman that espying, cried out, that there was a Lutherane which mocked the preacher. The brutish people no sooner heard that voice but without further enquirie, they drue that student out of the Church, and most cruellie digged out his eies, and dinged out his braines.

The indiferent reader may reasonablelie by these examples gather, what hauocke was made of them that were knowne to be Protestants indeede; when vpon so light occasions, they that were not, knowen, nor iustlie suspected, were so suddenlie murdered: when the Priestlie apparell could not defend the priest, who fauoured the Lutherans no further, then to speake a worde for his owne brother, who was in manifest daunger of beeing murdered, while he sought no more, but by honest perswasions, to deliuer a thirde person from murder. against whom there passed no sentence, to conuict him of Lutheranizme, but the malitious reproch of his enemie, who by all likelihoode was as much a Lutheran as the other, and perhapes, neither of them both either of religion, or of honestie. These preachers of Paris most worthy not of the Locrensians rope, but ofa much greater torment, as procures of so wilfull murther, should M. Frarine call vpon with the saying of Christe vnto Saint Peter: put vp thy sword into thy sheath: rather then the preachers of the Gospell, whoe neither drew anie sworde themselues, nor euer were authors or councellers to anie man, of murther and cruell bloodshedyea to the pope himselfe which vaunteth that he is Peters successour, this text should be moste aptlie applied, when he not onelie stirreth vp Princes to make wars, one against an other, but he himselfe also maketh bloodie battelles, not for defence of religion, but to maintaine his one worldly quarrels, not to hold his own right, but to inuade other princes dominions. Put vp thy sword into thy sheath (said Christ vnto S. Peter) the sworde of Paull, saide Iulie the second, shall defend vs, when yonder keie of Peter will no longer serue vs. But Frier Luther is called to witnes, that it was not the Gospell, which the Protestantes tooke in hand to mainteine, by these bloodie wars: who saied in the assemblie at Lipsia. (Neither was this matter euer begonne for Gods quarrell, neither shall be ended for Gods sake.) Hereupon follow great outcries: but who is witnes, that these were Luthers wordes, which euerie Papist doth so spitfullie gnawe vpon? None but Luthers enimies Emser and Eccius, and the Legate: yet was there present manie other, not onelie his frends, but more indifferent persons, then his professed aduersaries: yet none of them can beare witnes of this speach. But admit the words were spoken in the onelie hearing of his enemies, doth it follow that they must needs haue no other sense, but that which the Papists do most malitiouslie imagine of thé? Might not Luther meane of that cause, & matter, which his aduersaries had begone against him? or is it proable to anie reasonable mans iudgement, that Luther would deny, that the contention which he then maintained against the popish heresie, was euer begone for Gods quarrell, or should be ended for his sake? If thē this malitious sense cary with it no likelihood of truth, wherto serueth that exclamation? O noble, sentence, &c. & the rest that follow eth. What warres did Euther euer make or mooue, that he should be called sorth by Frarine, to shew his comission from god for soul doings? Yea if at were true, that Luther both spake & meant as you falsty charge him: & had bin as great: an hipocrite, as he was a sincere preacher, were those onely word sufficient to carrie away the wholl cause of the Gospell, from the Protestants to the papists, and to prooue that no other protestant had commission or authoritie from God, if Luther confessed he had none? See I praie you what weightie arguments the papists leane vnto while they accuse the protestants to haue made warre without iust cause. But P. Frarine dissembleth no this aduersaries obiection, that faith was well nigh querched and out of the Church, which the Protestantes purposed to reforme. Neither may we dissemble his answere. Christ praied (saith he) for S. Peter, that his faith should neuer faile, and wil you saie that he praied in vaine? No verilie: for we beleeue that S. Peters faith, neither in that most greeuous temptatiō, against which he was comforred by these words of our sauiour Christ, neither in any other to his liues end did euer faile. But what doth that appertaine to the pope or popish Church? Againe he saith, hath not the holie Ghost taught the Church all trueth, for which cause he came downe from heauen? we beleeue the holy ghost taught al trueth to the Apostles according to Christs promis, and vpon the foundation of the Prophetes and Apostles the Church is builded to continue foreuer. If the popish synagogue host of the holie Ghost without the foundation of the Prophetes and Apostels, who shall beleue that she is the Church of Christ?

But if your purpose was (saith Frarine) to reforme the Christian faith, when you could not perswade the people by reason, did you thinke it the best waie with gonneshot and beetles to driue the faith into their heads? You are greatlie deceiued: the minde maie be induced by reason, it can not be compelled by stripes. No sir: they neuer had purpose to perswade faith by blowes and battell, neither did they euer put on armour for such purpose; but constrained by injury, and allowed by authoritie to defend themselues. Neither did they euer thinke, that the vicious manners of men, were to be reformed by anie other meanes, then by preaching of Gods worde, Christian discipline and godlie lawes. And therefore to terme them but fling-braines and light Lacke strawes, and all their doinges nothing but a bloodie butcherie, a heinous wickednes, a deuilish dealing an impietie neuer to be pardoned (as Frarine doth) it is the sentence of a light, and lauish orator, & not of a graue and lawfull iudge. What would this man haue tearmed the massacre of Parris, and the executioners there of? where not in painted words, but in moste cruell and lamentable deedes, more then ten thousand persons of all degrees, ages, and sexes were murdered in one daie, without anie examination, processe, or sentence; but being called togither vnder the pretence of 〈◊〉 , league, and marriage.

But to proceede in our matter, you that accuse the papistes (saith Frarine) for their euill life, are the worke men and naughtiest liuers that euer trode on earth. And that did Luther himselfe, (whome he calleth the third Elias) plainlie confesse, that the manners of men were far more vitious vnder his Gospell, then euer they were before vnder the Popedome. But I praie you Master Frarine, saith Luther so much of all that professed the Gospell, which he preached: or of some hypocrits, whose wickednes was grea ter after knowledge receiued, thē it was in ignorance? Thé truth is, Luther neither flattereth the vngodlie, which out wardlie professed the Gospell, nor yet accuseth al true professours, for the wickednes of some hypocrites. What then doth Luthers testimonie make for Frarines slaunder? that they which accuse the papists are the worst men in the worlde. But if anyof the disciples (saith he) dare deny this matter the adulterous beds, the smoke of burnt houses; the earth yet moist with blood, theirpurses swelling with spoile, beare witnes against thē. These generall acusations deserue no answere, except they be exemplified by particulers. And therfore he calleth forth Martin Luther, being readie to charge him if he dare shew his face, with rebellion, sedition, sacriledge, impietie, heresie, and all manner of wicked vices, and heinous offences that can raigne in a man, by the testimonie of Charles the Emperour, Henry the eight, King of England, and Sigismonde King of Pole, in their seuerall edicts, and publike writings. And as though he had him bounde with inuincible chaines of this argument, he asketh him, what he can laie against these witnesses? As though it were not the easiest thing in the worlde to answere, that all these (though the noblest, the best, and worthiest of credit in their time, yet were to far distant from the place where he liued, to be eie witnesses of his naughty behauiour. And therfore whatsoeuer they did write, must needes proceede from the false suggestion of his enemies. Where otherwise it is not credible, that the Duke of Saxonie vnder whom Luther liued, if he had known him to be so vile a person, would haue suffered him to liue, much les would haue reformed religion according to his preaching. From Luther thus summoned to appeare, he taketh vpon him, as the Pythonesse plaied with Samuell, to call vp Caluine out of hell, to confesse, that he kept a Nunne fiue yeares in his chamber, vntill she was great with childe by him, and that he married her to an Apostata channon that dwelled at Lausanna. And this (he saith) that all the world knoweth. If you aske him, by what testimonie? he produceth a slaunderous libellintituled passauant Parisien printed at Paris 1559. Against the falsehood whereof, which neuer deserued credit with anie reasonable man, the wholl citie of Geneua is readie to giue testimonie, vnder their common seale, if neede were, that there was neuer any colour of such a slaunder, so impudentlie deuised: which in deed sufficientlie confuteth it selfe: that in so manie yeares, and among so manie, enemies as Caluine had both in that city, and abrode, it could neuer be broched, vntill the yeare 1559, which was 24. yeares, after his comming to Geneua, which vile slaunder Fowler in the description of his infamous, picture, setterh forth, with blasphemous abusing of the holy name of the Gospell, to signifie the most vile and filthie act of lecherie.

From Caluine our Frarine passeth to Beza, whome with like impudencie he burdeneth with two hainous crimes: and yet so confidentlie, that he doubteth not to speake vnto him in these wordes. Denie if thou dare Theodore Beza, denie if thou canst for shame: Would you not thinke, he had manifest proofes of the crimes in such sorte obiected? Let vs heare then, what they are. First he chargeth Beza, to haue sold his eccleslasticall liuinges (which he had in Fraunce) before his departure to two diuers men for readie monié. For which double dealing he was denounced excommunicate, and so proclaimed in all the market places of Parris. To prooue this crime, he quoteth in the margent, the preface of Bezaes confession. But in that preface Beza indeed cōfesseth, that the reuenewes of those Church liuinges (which his friendes had procured for him) were a great let to him for a long season, to make open confession of his faith, from the sweetnes of which gaine, as a filthie dogg from greasie leather, he could hardlie be driuen awaie, vntill almightie God by an extreame sicknes, so waked him out of that securitie, that immediatlie after his first recouerie, he left at once his countrie, Parents, and friendes, and departed with his wife vnto Geneua. But of selling his benefices in such an vnhonest manner, there is no mention: but contrariwise in the same preface, he defieth all the world, for any other crime of dishonestie, then the setting forth of certaine wanton verses, which were made when he was a child, and printed while he was vnder the age of twentie yeares. The second crime obiected is: that he maried an other mans wife, who was a tailor, dwelling in Harpe street at Paris: whome Master Charkes Censurer out of Bolsec, affirmeth to haue dwelt in the Calender street (that you maie know how wel the witnesses agree togither) with further slaunderrs: as that shee was called of Beza Mistres Candidae or mistres Bewtie in his bawdie verses. Whereas it is well knowne, that Beza in that poeticall fiction, deuised after the imitation of auncient Poets, meant no special person; and least of all could meane his wife: for that in those verses he commendeth Candidae, being great with childe to the Gods, Whereas his wife neuer had anie childe by him. Further he saith that shee fled to the stewes, because her husband hauing taken her in adultery had giuen her a gash with a knife in the hippe. A pretie inuention, if the gash had bene in her face, or in anie other part of her bodie, that might haue bene seene with honestie; some or other should haue beene witnes of the scarre: and therefore it is placed, where none for shame, might demaund the sight for triall. An other cause of her flight vnto the stewes was (as he saith) because she had bene put in prison, for that she fetched a friscoll when she was dawnsing in a tauerne with her customers, & said. Hoigh one leape more for all Christian soules. A sorie cause why she should flie to the comme stewes, because shee had beene imprisoned. Is it not more like if any such thing had beene, or if shee had beene willing to depart from her husband, that shee hauing so many customers, as this tale pretendeth, and specially Beza, who could spend seuen hundred crownes by the yeare, (as he confesseth) would not haue sought aid of him, or them, rather then to haue cast her selfe into a place of such publike infamie. But all this fable is vtterlie denied of Beza, as containing no sparke of trueth: for his wife (whom he maried priuilie in Paris, in the presence of one or two onelie of his friendes) was of so godlie and honest behauionr, that she would not consent to the match, but vpon expresse promise and condition, that assone as he could conuenientlie, al impediments set asside, he should carie her into the Church of God, and openlie confirme the matrimonie betweene them, and also that in the meane time he should enter into none of the Popish orders: both which conditions he faithfullie performed. Here isnothing therefore brought against Beza, or his vertuous wife, but accusations without witnes, slaunders without proofe, lies without colour or shew of trueth. The like I saie of that generall railing which followeth, both against the schollers of this gospellish congregation (as he scornefullie termeth them) and the Mistres of the same: whose wickednes in all kinde of horrible sinnes he affirmeth to be so great that if the lot had bin betweene the Protestantes and the papists (which order of iustice he wisheth had bin obserued) that whether haue most wickedly trāsgressed gods and mans laws, should haue gone first to the gallowes, there had not beene one Protestant left aliue to holde warre against the Papists. I am ashamed to vse any wordes in confutation of such a monstrous a lie, which no eninmie of the Protestantes being in his right wittes, doth thinke in his conscience to bere any credit, or similitude of trueth. Many called Protestantes haue beene wicked liuers: but that all should be condemned in capitall crimes, beyond the moste wicked of the Papists, it is too beyond measure, a moste pestilent, but yet a riduculous slaunder. But yow (saith he) that can be are with no mans faultes but your owne, did not subscribe to the crime, as the law ordeineth, to binde your selues to the punishment of the faults, which you could not prooue against other. Yes verelie, either for the generall crime of heresies laide against Antichrist, and his sinagogue, or the particular crimes, against the persons of many Papists, the reachers of this learning, which we professe, and many professours also haue put to their names, and subscribed with their owne handes. And although they failed not of proofe, if they had beene heard before indifferent iudges, yet haue they beene cruellie tormented, and put to death, for the testimonie of the trueth: whereas if Frarine should haue beene bounde to the ordinance of the law, which he prescribeth to others, if he had as many liues, as Hydra is fained to haue heades, his bodie would not haue sufficed, to the execution which he hath deserued, both for his particular slaunders against some men, and for his last generall accusation of all Protestantes. But yet more impudentlie you behaued your selues, and more contrarie to all order and forme of lawfull proceeding: for in this your monstrous iudgement of reformation, you were accusers, witnesses, Iudges, and hang men yourselues. Howe much more rightlie, might he haue vttered this against the Pope, who beeing accused of heresie and blasphemie, would be his owne iudge, and tried by no witnes, butof his owne allowing: wheras the Protestantes neuer refused the arbitriment of a free, and lawful councel, the auncient remedie to decide the controuersies of the Church, where the word of God should be the highest Iudge, against which no conuocation of men haue power to define any thing.

But it maie be saith Frarine) that your vow of chastitie which you were not suffred to break by mariage (which he calleth bathing their bodies in the stinking pudle of carnall pleasures) was the cause of your vprores. How vnfitlie this quarrell of vowes is alledged against Caluine and Beza, the principall teachers of the french nation, who neuer made that vow; all wise men maie laugh to consider. Yet he followeth the matter verie whotlie, and saith: that faith and promise to a mortall enemie is to be kept: much more made to almightie God. I would this eloquent orator had beene aliue in the time of the councell of Constance, that he might haue persuaded the Popish Church to haue kept the publike faith, and safe conduite graunted to Hus and Hierome, which was shamefullie violated, vnder colour, that faith was not to be kept with heretikes: or in the time of the slaughter of Varni, which drew with it the destruction of the noble realme of Hungarie, that he might haue diswaded the pope, from stirring vp the king of Hangary to breake the faith, and league of peace, made with the great Turke, vpon pretence, that faith is not to be kepte with infidels. But as for vowes made to god, except they be of things vnlawfull, or which are not in our power to performe, who doubteth but they are inuiolablie to be obserued. The vow of chastitie in such as are not able to conteine, is not kept, by not marrying; But rather dailie broken in burning. The remedie whereof, by the iudgement of Epiphanius, and Saint Hierom, and the Catholike Church of their times, is mariage: and not the common stewes, and brothell houses, light women, maried and vnmaried, and Nuns fallen from their profession; which Frarine doth leaue vnto them, as a lesse euell then mariage. But where are those common stewes, and brothel howses, which (he saith) are open at all times, and euerie where at mens pleasures? Are there any to be shewed vnder such Christian Princes & Magistrates, as manteine the doctrine of the Gospell? no verilie: but where poperie reigneth, & where the Pope setreth himselfe at Rome. No maruell though such grosse impietie. be not onely suffered to be vnpunished: but also by the Popes proctors to be desended, as conuenient. Yet some townes are so well ordered, that votaries can not be suffered to haue a misteris Harding contra Apoligiam. Candida, for a vessell of easement, which (he saith) is Couerdales phrase (yet sheweth no place where) he demaundeth then, whether that were a sufficient quarrell, to bidde battaile, to manteine the kingdom, and Gospell of Venus in euerie place (so chast & religious his phrases be) while he carpeth at Couerdales phrase: whome perhappes he belieth, in such sence as he meaneth. I answer there was no such cause: For if they had beene as greatlie addict to Ladie Lecherie, as he faineth of them: those well ordered townes are not so manie in Poperie, but that they might with much more ease, haue remooued to Cyties of greater licence: then to haue taken in hand, and indured so great and dangerous warres. And if the satisfying of lust, without regard of conscience had beene the marke they shot at, they needed not so to haue bound themselues to one woman in mariage, which bringeth manie cares, and troubles with it, when they might without controllement haue had their change and choice (as you confesse) by the common stewes euerie where, euen to the cloying of carnall lust, if they had continued still in Poperie.

But yet further searching out the cause of these warres taken in hand, he obiecteth, that some of our 1. Tim. 5. side suffered for the words sake, for so (saith he) ye cal that cursed Gospel of yours. Doubtles we cal the word of God, and no Gospell of ours, but the Gospell of Christ, by that tearme, which we finde vsed in the holie scriptures, & therefore are not afraid of it. Nay but you suffered worthilie (saieth he) for barking at prelates, & Princes, for working al means to wring the sword out of their hands for troubling and disordering the state of common weales, for blaspheming the sacrament of the alter, and therfore they were no Martyrs, but rather Diuelles. This lastcrime dependeth vpon that controuersie of doctrine, whether that which he tearmeth a sacrament, be not rather a sacriledge, & detestable Idole, as it is vsed in poperie. The other crimes are vtterlie false, and manifestlie confuted, by the quiet behauiour of those professors, in all places, where they be not assaulted with intollerable iniuries, and by the florishing estate of those kingdomes, & common wealthes, where this doctrine, by publike autoritie, hath long time bene receiued. But was it meete (saith he) that because they could not freelie preach the worde, therefore they should, by and by, laie hand on the sworde. The Apostles were went to suffer, and not to strike. But O Master Ministers, your word is verie hard, you speake gunnestones, you preach fire, and powlder, you ride to preach on barbed horses, you put on your corpsiet, not of faith but of iron. Al your proceedings and teachings are contrarie to Christ, and his doctrine. What wise man may not laugh, at this vaine rhetorike, who hath sene or hard the modest and Christianlike behauiour of our preachers (that I speake nothing of their doctrine) yea Christ) saith he) was content to ride on an Asse, the Apostles to goe barefot, in planting the Gospell. But whereon 〈◊〉 the pope, and how be his Cardinals feete surbaighted, in going barefote, to preach the Gospell? Although, I knowe not where he findeth in holie scripture, that the Apostles went barefote, in planting the Gospell. Their trauell was great into all partes of the world, though they had bene well shood, yea booted, and ridden on horsebacke. But if the comparison be made, between the ministers of the Gospell, and Antichrist the Pope, and his proud prelates, whether in pacience, humility, and mildnes of behauiour, be more like to Christ, and his Apostels: we doubt not our cause, though the triall were before verie partiall iudges. Well, howsoeuer it were, you should haue suffered Martyrdome, rather then to haue resisted and murthered other, but that you would not, for you sought to liue licentiouslie, and had no hope of eternall life after this. Among so manie thousand as suffered martyrdome most quietlie without resistance, when they were imprisoned, tormented, and condemned, by those which had power to kil their bodies, he can finde no examples of pacience, and hope of eternall life, except all the Protestants in the world will giue there throtes to be cut, and suffer themselues to be murthered, contrarie to lawe, and liberties established by lawfull authoritie, and that by priuat persones and bloodie Tirants: as the poore Christians were by the Duke of Guyse, at Vassi: and so should all the rest in Fraunce haue beene, if God had not stirred vp diuers Princes and noble men, at the request of the Queene Mother, to oppose themselues against the furious and trayterous attempts of that bloodie tyrant: who abusing the minoritie of the King, whome he toke captiue, with his mother, vsurped moste vnlawfull power against the King, the Queene, the estates, and all the realme.

Frarine therefore fareth with vs, as that seditious Ruffian of Rome, who sued an action against his enemie, whome he had wrongfullie wounded, because he receiued not his weapon deepe enough, to death. Christ himselfe the paterne of patience, saide to the seruant, which moste iniuriouslie smote him, when he stoode in iudgement before the high priest, why smitest, thou me? if I haue spoken euill, beare witnes of euill, that is deale with me as order of iustice requireth. And Saint Paule his faithfull disciple, could not forbeare that painted wall Ananias, who pretending to sit in iudgement, according to the lawe, did (contrarie to the lawe) commaund him to be smitten: and should the Protestants in Fraunce hauing both authoritie, and power to defend themselues, suffer the Duke of Guyse, a priuate man, and a straunger with his complices, to smite of all their heades, as it were with one stroke? and not rather, to oppose themselues against his furie; not onelie for defence of the gospell, but also for the maintenance of the lawe, and the libertie of their nation? There resistance therefore, was not treason, rebellion, crueltie, (as this declaimer raueth) butobedience, iustice, and authoritie, to withstand treason, crueltie, and rebellion. Yet againe he repeateth, that lack of libertie, was no iust cause of these warres, seing euerie where they might fill their paunches, carrie a sister wife, about with them, toule Nuns out of cloysters, & filthilie abuse them, still he speaketh as though none were Authors, Captaines or Souldiers of these warres, but such licentious ministers, or as though so manie princes, noble men, gentlemen, and valiant souldiers, as serued in those warres, had no other quarrell, but to maintaine the gluttonie and lecherie of a fewe lewde ministers; of which sort yet he is not able to name one: Neuertheles he saith that moste commonlie euerie Apostate Monke, had his Nun at his toile: and holie Kate hir holie mate: Although the worlde knoweth that this might better be verefied of Clauster all Monkes and Nunnes, of limiting friers, and their holie sisters. But srier Luthers pleasure was (if we beleeue this man) that his Ladie Venus court should be franke and free, if the wife (saith he) will not doe it, let the maide supplie her place. The will of God commaundeth and necessetie bindeth, as well to haue carnall copulation as to eate and drinke. See how malice draweth all wordes to the worste meaning. Luther in his booke of Babilonicall captiuitie, speaking in the person of Assuerus, taking Hester his maide to wife, when Vasti refused to come to him; hath some such wordes as he reporteth: If the wife will not, let the maide come, and possesse her place, meaning nothing els, but the diuorcing of Vasti, and the marrying of Hester: but nothing (as the Papists cauill) that a man hauing a wife, maie abuse his maide. The other saying of the necessitie of carnall copulation, is spoken onelie of them, that haue not the gift of continencie, for whome marriage is the lawfull and necessarie remedie, ordained by God, to auoide sinne.

To conclude this first part, he saith, it was neither religion, nor gospell, nor Gods quarrell, they meant to further, but malice against the pope. as Luther in an epistle ad argentin: confesseth. But Luther neuer confessed any such matter, he might well acknowledge his iust hatred against the Pope, as the enemie of Christ, and so doe all true Christians. And if the estates of France had raised warre for malice against the Pope, they would haue sent a power into Italie to haue annoyed him, or his possessions, there, as Charles the 5. and Philip, his Catholike sonnes haue done for the loue they bare to the Pope. As for the restitution of Christian faith wel neere worne out, there was no neede (he saieth) to laboure. For the Church of God, the seat, and piller of truth, had alwaies without force, & battaile kept that most recurently. Then it followeth the Church of Rome was not the Church of God, for which Christ praied Ihon. 17. To which he promiseth the holie Ghost Ihon. 14. In which are foūd so few sparkes of true faith, & which mainteineth so many grosse errours, eontrarie to the expresse wordes of God, conteined in the holie scriptures, as often and moste cleare demonstrations hath beene made. To be short, if the cause of these warrs taken in hand be demaunded (which he calleth Tragicall and cruell doinges) you shall haue a short answear (saith he) with Mum Budget, except they will alleadge perhappes the ambition, auarice, boldenes, wantones, of certaine loose Friers. as though he could be ignorant of the publike protestation of the Prince of Condy, and a great part of the nobilitie of Fraunce, set forth when they beganne the first Comment. de stat Relig. & Rei. part. 2. Lib. 4. warres: In which they neither alledge the fond surmised causes by Frarine, nor mumble them ouer in Mum Budget, but plainlie declare the reasonable sufficient, and necessarie causes which mooued them to that attempt. The copie whereof is yet extant in storie, to be seene and read.

Now is he come to the second part, wherein he will prooue that as without iust cause, so without authoritie and commission they haue made warres. And first he saith, though Kinges for light or no iust causes making warres are greatlie in fault, yet the soldiours are excusable because they obeie lawfull authority. But in these warres, where no Magistrate biddeth them strike, all are priuate men, or rather all 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 , and most cruel murtherers, & so with many needles words, he runneth out into the common place of treasō, & rebelliō, in which whatsoeuer cause be pre tended, the war is vnlawful, because it wanteth lawfull authority. But such was not the cause of the protestāts warres in France, where the King being vnder age, and brought into captiuitie against his wil by a traitor, by Edict of Ianuar. whōe also the edict made by the authority of the three estates of the Realme was violated, witha moste barborous, and cruel slaughter, ofinnocent men, being in exercise of their Religion, as it was lawfull for them to doe, by the Princes of his bloode, and other nobles, called also thereunto by the often letters of the Queene his mother to deliuer him and her from captiuitie, was sought to be set at libertie, his lawes to be obserued, and the publike quiet of the realme to be restored. and so Frarines question is answered, whence came you? who sent you? by what authoritie doe you all these things.

The princes and noble men that ioyned in leagu to withstand the tirannie of the Guisians haue declared their commission in a publike instrument set forth to the vew of the world, the copie of the Queene mothers letters are set forth in storie for euerie man to reede. The originalles remaine with the prince of Condyes heires and haue beene seene of manie, But what shall Guise answer, if he be called to shew his commission, by what authority he slew the poore people at Vassie: by what authoritie he seased vpon the persons of the King and the Quene his mother, against their willes, as was manifest by the Queenes great pro testation against the violence, and iniurie, and the yong Kings teares. By what authoritie he remooued them from the pallace of Fountaine de Bleu first vnto the 〈◊〉 . de 〈◊〉 . rel. & 〈◊〉 . part. 2. 〈◊〉 . prison of Melun castle, and afterward to Paris, a place indeed more meere for a King, if the violence of the enemy had not made that also a prison. For not somuch the place as the restraint of libertie maketh a prisoner. It is certaine that Guyse had no commission, no authoritie, no lawfull power to doe these thinges, nor whatsoeuer he did afterward, abusing the name of the captiue King, and the authoritie of the King of Nauarre contrarie to the edict, and true meaning of them that laide gouernment vpon him. As for Beza and the ministers of the reformed Church, (whome he faineth to haue beene dombe) when they were demaunded by the Cardinall of Lorraine in the assemblie at Poysie answered for their vocation, first to the Sorbonist Espensius (who proponed those questions) that they were lawfullie called, and approoued in the Churches, where they serued. And the next daie more at large, to the shame and confusion of the Popish cleargie, and their vnlawfull and simoniacall vocation, contrarie both to the olde Canons of the Church, and to the authoritie of the holie scriptures. declaring also that as the ceremonie of imposition of handes by the ordinaries (as they call them) is not allwaies needfull in an extraordinarie 〈◊〉 . prim. lib 〈◊〉 . calling. So miracles are not alwaies necessarie to approoue an extraordinary vocation: as the examples of Esay, Zacharie, Amos, and others of the Prophets declareth. But Martin Luther (whome Frarine maketh our chiefe Apostle, and patriarch) he taketh vpon him to know verie well, what he was whence he came, and what authoritie he had. First his name was not Luther, but Luder, which signifieth a slaue or knaue, but that for shame he changed that filthie name of his. He would make vs beleeue that he was driuen to do the same, that Pope Os porci, or Hogges snowte did, which turned his name to Sergius, of whome all Popes since, saue one, haue taken the custome to chaunge there names: which thing if Luther had done, he had done, no worse, thē the pope had giuē him example, to do. It is a folish quarrel, that is picked against a mans name which he hath receiued of his elders, although the name of Luther, being of honest Luther in duch signifi eth pure or cleare. Luther M. of people signification, needed no such change for who will thinke that Luther knewe not his owne name, as well as Frarine. But it it is a greater matter, that he was begotten of a spirit Incubus, as the common report goeth, saith Frarine. For that he was borne at Islebium in Saxonie, I trust it is no reproch to him, more thē for Frarine to be borne at Antwerpe in Brabant. But is Frarine such a great philosopher to beleeue the common report of Luthers conception by a spirit Incubus, which is impossible? And whoe should be the authors of such a report? But such impudent wretches, as shewed more malice then wit, in deuising such a monstrous lie, as neuer was, nor euer could be. And yet what papist is there, of any acount, which fauoreth not this foolish fable: which although in their conscience they know, it neither was, nor can be true, yet are not onelie content that it runne among fooles, as a currant argument: but also offer it in their writinges to the ignorant, as a matter sufficient to discredit Luther, and all his teaching. But to proceed, that he studied the ciuill law, when he was yong: that he was mooued to become an Augustine frier, by terror of his companione slaine with thunder or lightning: if it were neuer so true, what needed it to be rehearsed: seeing it maketh nothing to the lawfullnes of his calling, or to the discredit of his doctrine. But at last (saith he) he was made Doctor with shame enough, for he came to that degree, with the monie that was bequethed vnto an other man, whom with the helpe of his prior he be guiled. If Luther were not sufficientlie knowne to the world, to haue beene excellentlie well learned, he would insinuate, thathe were like a doctor Bullatus which bought his doctorshippe of the Pope for mony. But seeing for the solemnitie of that degree in schooles, their is vsuall some expences, he chargeth Luther at the least, to haue come by that monie wrongfullie, and as it were by theft. They that write the storie of his life affirme, that the Prince his soueraigne, did beare the charges of his cōmencement. And this slaunder of Frarine, as it is void of profe, so hath it not so much as anie likelie hood of truth. For Luther being at that time a frier, could possesse nothing in proper, no more could anie other frier possesse anie monie, that was bequeathed vnto them. Now if the prior of the house did defraie the charges of Luthers commencement, with the legacie that was giuen to anie other of his bretheren, it was all one, as if he had done it out of there common boxe: for friers possesse nothing in proper, but in cōmon, the dispositiō wherof pertaineth to the head of the house. But if he will saie, this other man was no frier, then he must shewe what he was, whoe was the testator, what fraude Luther and his Prior vsed to deceiue him, and bring good proofe thereof, or els who is bound to beleeue him?

But to goe forward: other estate, or degree, or Apostleshippe he knoweth not, that Luther had anie. what then? was not this sufficient calling for him that was a Doctor of the Popish Church, to preach against the abuses and errors thereof? and when his doctrine and conclusions were vndoubtedly agreeable to the holie scriptures, might he not iustlie affirme that they were from heauen? And that he was sent from heauen to teach the Germanes the trueth of the Gospell, which of long time had beene hidden from them. For that he was their first Apostle or that before his daies, they neuer had any true religion or Christian doctrine, he neuer said. Neither did he make more account of himselfe, then of Saint Augustine, and all other Fathers of the Church, although in the booke quoted, by Frarine he preferreth that doctrine, which is agreeable to the holie scriptures, before the iudgement of Augustine, and all men that euer were. As for the familiar conference and talke with the Deuill, which Frarine affirmeth that he reporieth of himselfe. And that Cocleus and al his enemies doe gnaw so much vpon, to prooue, that he was set on by the Deuil, to gainesaie the masse: Is nothing but a ridiculous cauill. For Luther speaketh of a spirituall conflict that he had with Sathan, for saying masse so long, which at length he acknowledged to be blasphemous against the death of Christ. Not of any bodelie appeerance of the Deuill or familiar talke with him, as the malice of the Papists doe expound him. Next Luther, our Orator will examine Caluins vocation. Caluine (saith he) was borne at Nouiodunum in Picardie. What of that? He was banished from his countrie for his wicked behauiour. That is false. For he liued in his countrie in good credit, both of learning and honestie, till the crueltie of the Papists caused him to seeke the libertie and profession of religion abroad, which he could not haue at home. That he was the veriest vnthrist, & naughtiest varlet of all his companions, when he was in his countrie, is an impudent slaunder: for at Orleans, Beza in 〈◊〉 Caluini. he red the lawe lecture oftentimes, in the place of Petrus Stella, the publike reader, and was so well accounted, both for his learning, and vertue, that the degree of Doctorship in that facultie, with full consent of all the teachers was offered him, without anie expences, as one that had verie well deserued of the vniuersitie. Afterward, at Paris, he set forth that notable commentary of his, of Seneca de Clementia. He was of great familiaritie with Nicolaus Copus, Rector of the vniuersitie of Paris: and in good credit with the Queene of Nauarre, sister vnto King Frauncis: He had conference with Iacobus Faber Stapulensis in Aquitanes and after he had set forth that worthie booke of his, called Psychopanuchia, at Orleans, against them which taught, that the soules departed doe sleepe vntill the resurrection, without sense of good or euill, he came to the Citie of Basill. This course of his life, as it is written in his storie, with much more to this effect, doth witnes, that he was, euen from his youth, a man indued with singuler modestie, temperance, and godlines, whatsoeuer his aduersaries, without all proofe, or shewe of truth, are not ashamed to inuent, and brute against him. When he was at Basill he did not hide his head, as the slaunderer saieth, but desired in deed to be priuate, that he might better applie his studies, and especiallie the Hebrew tongue. But such was his excellencie, that he could not be hid from the principall learned men of that vniuersitie: and so litle was he hid, that there he first set forth his Institution, dedicated to King Frauncis. Our declaimer saith, that from Basile he passed to Strasburg, and there began to shew his head, and preach to the Runnagats. But that is false, for from Basill he went into Italie, to visit the Duchesse of Ferrara: from whence he returned into Fraunce, where hauing set all his affaires in order, he brought away his onely brother, AntonieCaluine, intending to settle him selfe either at Basill, or at Strasburg. But al other passages being stopt, he was forced to trauaile thorough Sauoye: and comming to Geneua, onely to visite Farellus and Viretus, by whose zealous & earnest labours, Popery being banished, and the Church there reformed, he was staied by the terrible obtestation of Farellus) and by the Presbyterie and Magistrates, chosen to be a teacher and intepreter of the Scriptures, in that Church. But that he put out the deputie of the citie, expelled the Bishops, and Popish cleargie, reigned there like a conquerour by the law of ireason, and force of armes (as Frarine saieth) it is a moste impudent lie, though an hundred Lindanes had sworne, that it was true. For the Bishoppe with his Popish cleargie was departed out of the citie, and the Religion reformed, by publike authoritie receiued, long time before Caluines first arriuall thether. Of like trueth it is, that Beza, in his baudie, and filthie epigrames (as it pleaseth Frarine to call them) farre passeth the wanton Pagan Poetes, Martiall, and Tibullus. For in the moste licentious of these epigrames, first condemned by Beza himselfe, there is not one word of obscenitie, although they were made in a fained argument, after the immitation of those Poets. And if they had bin as full of baudie tearmes, and matters, as Martiall himselfe: Yet, so long as Beza cōtinued in popery, where they were freely printed, & selde, they were catholike enough. What should I speake (saith he) of Bernardinus Ochinus, the preacher of Polygamie? Verelie there is no cause why he should speake of him, seeing both the man, and the doctrine are detested in our Churches, and by our writings confuted. He nameth also Bernard Rotman, and Iohn of Leyd, authors of the Anabaptisticall sedition at Monster, as though wee had any thing to doe with them. Yes (saith he) they conquered the field against the Lutheranes, by pretence of scripture onelie, as Rotman before vanquished the Papists. The storie is written, who list to reade, wherein may be found they vsed other craftes, beside force of armes, then pretence of scripture onelie, to compasse their diuelish attempts. And what if they had vsed the pretence of scripture onelie, as the diuel did in tempting our sauiour Christ, was the scripture onelie of lesse force to confute their false pretence, then when it was vsed by our Sauiour Christ against the Deuill? He telleth vs of Hosiander, reprooued of vs for heresie & of Carolostadius, who thorough folly & madnes became a ploughnian. The names also of Peter Martyr, Illiricus, Musculus, Farellus, Viretus, and Bucer, a gainst whom he hath nothing to say, besides I know not what Marote, & Malote. And that these should vsurpe a lordly authoritie, and imperiall souer aignitie, he knoweth not by what right except it be from sathā. But we know, that frō sathā the first father of falsehood come these shameles lies of their vsurpation of Lordship, or affectation of imperiall soueraignitie. Wel yet he proceedeth and saith, the Bishops doe excommunicase them, and the Princes banish them, God sheweth no signe for them, except it be a miracle to make the liue, starke dead, while they faine that they are able by the vertue of there gospell to restore the dead to life, as one Mathias did in Polonia. And the like is reported of Caluine credibly in Geneua. Touching the excommunication and banishment by the Prelates of Antichrists Church, and Princes thrall vnto the same: it ought to be no more preiudice to the preachers of the Gospell now, then the condemnation of the high priestes of Pilate, and Herod, was to the author of the Gospell of olde. As for miracles they are not to be required, where the same doctrine is taught, which so long agoe hath beene confirmed by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles, and those fables of raising vp dead men by Caluine and others, are like the tales of Robin Goodfellow, which are reported to be done in so many places, that no wise man thinketh them to be done in any. Next this followeth a wholl floode of tedious rhetoricall railing, in generall accusations of schisme, heresie, tumulis, sedition, rebellion, contempt of Princes and lawes, order, and honestie. At length he desireth to be excused of his bitternes, in respect of the cursed mouthes of them which raile against Princes and Prelates. Yet bringeth no example, but of Luthers penne, whome many men wish in deede to haue vsed a more temperate stile, sometime, especiallie against Princes, & temporall estates, and he himselfe did openlie acknowledge his faulte therein, especiallie his immoderate inuection against King Henrie the 8. But as For the Pope and his wicked cleargie of heretikes (the vngodlie enemies of Christ and his Gospell) it were a hard matter to exceede measure in vehemencie against them, so lies & slaunders be alwaies auoided. If Luther saied that the Turke in suffering all religions is wiser then Popish Princes in persecuting the gospell: I see not that his saying is greatlie to be misliked. For it is more wisedome, to follow Gamaliels councell in letting all alone, then to fight against god, against whome they are sure not to preuaile. That Luther diswaded al men to obey the vngodlie decree of the Emperour, proclaimed at Wormes: who can iustlie be offended, which knoweth, that the obedience to Princes may not be yealded with manifest disobedience vnto God? But here a great matter. Luther saied in hearing of the Emperour at Wormes, vpon those wordes of our Sauiour Christ in the Gospell (I came not to send peace, but the sword.) That it ought to be a thing wished for, as moste acceptable to Christistian men, and especiallie vnto him that strife and contention should rise and grow about the worde of God. The witnes of this report is Lindane, who farseth his Dialogues of dubitantius, with al manner of fables that he can heare, sounding to the discredit of Luther, and the Protestants. Although I see not what great harme should be in these words, being vnderstood according to the saying of our sauiour Christ: that seeing all men will neuer agree to imbrace the word of God; it were to be wished, that many men would contend against the impugners, for it; then that al men should agree to withstand it. But Luther is charged, to haue set out to the view of the wholl worlde, seditious, and heresicall bookes, wherein he laboured to abolish all due obedience, and to perswade the people torebellion, robbing, murth er, sacking and burning of Citties, and Churches. I hope there is no man so farre caried beyond all iudgement of reason, that he will beleeue this slaunder to be true, seeing it is not possible, that such a monster (as he faineth him to be) should haue beene so much fauoured and cherished by Princes and estates, as Luther was. Neuerthelesse you shall heare his proofes. First, Wicelius, Luthers enemie reporteth, that he saied, that men should wash their handes in the bloode of the Romish cleargie. If this reporte were true, it prooueth not the former accusation. For allbeit the Popish cleargie were all slaine, by lawfull authoritie, in detestation of there blasphemie and idolatry. The gouernment both of the Church and common wealth, should neuer the more decay: but how are we bound to beleue Wicelius without proofe in this, or in any other matter. Then saith Frarine, he affirmed in his writinges, that it was the verie nature of the Gospell to mooue and stirre vp warre & sedition, that there ought to be no Magistrate, no superiour at all among Christian men. For which he quoteth Epist. ad frat. infer. Ger. which is an impudent fiction. For he neuer writte anie such epistle, or taught anie such doctrine; but the cleane contrarie, of the necessitie of Magistrates in al Christian common wealths. Secondlie he chargeth him to haue written, lib. de Potest, seculari, that men ought to pray to God, that the vplandish men obey not their Princes, nor goe to warre against the Turke, the title of which booke finde not in his workes. And sure I am, no such matter is conteined in anie booke, of what title soeuer, but contrariwise he writeth, many treatises against the rebellious Bowres, verie earnestlie condemning their disobedience and sedition. Thirdlie he quoteth lib. contr. duo edict. Caesaris, that men shoulde contribute nothing towardes the charges of the warres against the Turke: which is malitiouslie construed, as though he denied tribute to the Emperour, whereas he commendeth the iudgemét of the slates of Germany (which when the Emperour would yelde nothing to their requestes for the libertie of religion) denied to graunt him a subsidie or contribution. which he required vnder a pretence to resist the Turke, when his purpose seemes rather to be bent against the French King, and perhaps euen against them, whose monie he defireth to be giuen him. He warneth them also that they attempt not rashly to warre vpon the Turke, who in councell and moderation doth farre excell these Princes, and liuing as they did might hope of no victory. Forthlie he noteth lib, de bello contra Turcam, and Luther assert artic. 24, that it was not lawfull for Christian men to warre against the Turke, and whosoeuer did fight against the Turke, fought against Gods punishment. Whereas Luthers meaning was in anie such writings, that those Christians which were vnder the Turkes dominion and had free libertie of there religion, should not rebell against him, although they were otherwise grieuouslie oppressed.

Last of all he alledgeth out of his booke de 〈◊〉 . Babil. that neither man nor angell, had anie authoritie at all to make anie law or one syllable whereunto Christian men should be bound to obey more or longer then it pleaseth them. For we are (said Luther) free from all thinges, and there could be no hope of reformation, except all lawes of men were abolished, and the Gospell of libertie 〈◊〉 home, with much more to the like effect: whereupon Fowler the wise man con cludeth in the margent, that Luther chiefe preacher of that Gospell would haue beene king alone him selfe, and of those his pardoxes sprang the rebellion of Muntzer and the Boores. But good God what shame haue the Papistes in slaundering? Luther in that booke speaketh of the spirituall freedome of conscience, which Christ hath purchased for vs, and which ought not to be entangled with anie traditions or preceptes of men: against ciuill lawes and ordinances he writeth not one sillable. But whereas the false Prophet and traitor Muntzer, boasted that he did fight the Lordes battells: Frarine calleth Melancthon to witnes, that Luther affirmed the same, namelie that God him selfe did rise and stand against the estates of Germanie and their tyrannie. And who doubteth but (how wicked soeuer the attempt & doings of those seditious persons were) that God vsed them as a scourge to punish the sinnes of the rulers. That Luther prophecied of the victorie of the rebells, it is a fable as manie others are, which Frarine reporteth but contrar iwise in his writing against them, he threatneth them destruction both of bodie and soule except they gaue ouer their diuelish enterprices. After the discourse of the Muntzerian rebelles, he commeth to Luthers marriage with a Nunne, against which he inueigheth in two respectes. First of the time which was immediatlie after the calamitie of Germanie. And then of the person which was a Nunne, stolne with eight others out of the Nunnerie of Nimike, vppon good frydaie by his Bawde Leonard Knoppen. after which time shee was broken with wanton toies and lecherous recreations, by the space of two yeares among the schollers of wittenberg: yea Luther tooke it no scorne, to daunse and drinke carouse, &c.and all for verie penance and sorow of these mischiefes whereof he himselfe was author. Though manie men misliked Luthers mariage with a Nunne, which he perhaps did the rather to confirme by his owne act the libertie of matrimonie in them, that had made a rash vow, which they were not able to performe: yet no wise man, I hope beleeueth, that he made no better choise then Frarine affirmeth, or that he was of so light behauiour to daunse, & drinke carouse; of all which slaunders there is no proofe brought, but Frarines bare affirmation, whose bould lying els where, & dogged scorning here, let indifferent men iudge what credit it deserueth. But whereas Luther did write most vehe mently against the seditious Boores, by which the impudent slaunders of Frarine are most manifest he conuicted, he now faineth that Luther turning with the blast of fortune, when they were ouerthrowne did write most bitterlie against them, affirming that the nobles might winne heauen by shedding the blood of such traiterous rebelles, whereas it is manifest that Luther hauing diuerse times before by his writings at their first attemptes, diswaded them from rebellion, and exhorted them to obedience, when by no meanes they would yeelde to his Godlie persuasions, did at fleidan 1. 5. the last most sharplie inueigh against them, and denounce their vtter destruction, but yet at such time as they were in the ruffe of their rebellion, & when they were moste terrible to all good men, after they had cō mitted many horrible outrages: yet may Luther the traiterous Cateline of our time be thanked for al these bloodie tragidies, & not of them onlie, but for the turkish wars also. For he citeth out of Stoltius in somnio Luth, &c. that Luther came in fauour with Soliman the great Turke by such practises: yea Solyman wrote in plaine wordes, but he sheweth not to whome, that he wished Luther long life, that he hoped the daie should come that Luther should finde him his good ma ster. Doth any man beleeue these vanities? yet Fowler in his infamous picture would haue it seeme, as though the Turke by his letters was called to make warre vpon Christendome. But Frarine saith more craftelie that by occasion of debate about the Lutherane Gospell, and so through Luthers meanes the Turke conceaued hope to conquer all Germanie, when he came to the Citie of Vienna beeing the key of Christ endome, with such a huge great host. What if this be graunted, is Luther (which preached the Gospel of Christ) the cause of the Turkes inuasion, or they that will not embrace the trueth of God by him reueiled?

But he cleane omitteth by whose good seruice that noble Citie of Vienna was defended against the Turke, that worthy prince Phillip the Palesgraue a fauerour of the religion reformed. As also it is certaine that Solyman by the prouocation of Iohn the vaiuode made by his embassadour Ierome Laske an Hungariā was called into Hungarie & Austrige against the Emperor and his brother Ferdinande, by whome he was debarred to enioy sleidan 1. 6. that right which he pretended to haue to the kingdom of Hungarie: so true it is, that Luther was the onelie cause of Solymans inuasion of Christendome. Likewise where Charles the fift without iust cause made war vpon the princes and states of Germanie that were entred into the legue of Smalcalde, as the stories of that warre and the protestation of the states sufficientlie declare, to satisfie the Popes crueltie, and oppresse the libertie of Ger many, Frarine maketh a great matter of their resistance, saying, that Germanie should haue obeyed him at a beck: as though the king of Spaine were made Emperor of Almaine, not for the defence of Germanie, according to the auncient priueliges and liberties thereof, but to the vtter ouerthrough and destruction of the same. But his victorie pleaseth Frarine well: and no cause why it should displease vs, seing it pleased god so to punish the securitie of Germanie, and to shew how vaine it is to trust in the strength of men. Albeit Charles caried not this victorie cleare, for while he keepeth no couenantes with the conquered, and against the laws of armes deteined the Lantgrane prisoner, who of his owne accord came vnto him to entreat of agreement, his vniust dealings prouoked euen those, whome he had most aduaunced, to seeke reuenge of his falsehood Duke Moris of Saxonie Marques of Brandenburg. by meanes where of he susteined more ignomine in the end, then euer he gat glorie in the beginning of those warres.

But if Frarine thinke it so necessarie for Germanie to be at the Emperours beck in all cases, whie did he not perswade the Louanians, and all other Popish states of the lowe countries, to be obedient at a beck to all the commaundements of the Spanish King their sufferaigne? But if the King of Spaines sufferaignetie was not so absolute, but that it was limited within the compasse of certaine conditions, against which they were not bound to obey: let him not doubt but Germanie hath better ground of their doings, then all the young Oratours of Louane haue witte to controll. As for the warre of the Heluetians, it is a wonder to see how he termeth it sedition and insurrection stirred vp by Zuinglius: whereas it is certaine, that the fiue Cantones of the Popish faction by intollerable iniurie prouoked them of Zurek and Bernes to lawfull warres: whose cause if it had bene neuer so vniust, yet might it not be termed insurrection; because they were states of themselues, and ought no obedience to the other.

The rebellion of Wiat, and practises to kill Queene Marie, were neuer allowed by the teachers of the gospell in England. And Knookes his booke was misliked, and forbidden to be solde, euen at Geneua where it was put in print. But the Pope (the head of the Popish faction) hath not onelie 〈◊〉 vp rebellion against the moste honourable Prince of Europe Queene Elizabeth Hebellion in the North. in England, but also hath sent his standard and Souldiers to inuade her dominions in Ireland. And to omitt the traiterous writing of Saunder & Bristow, what is more vile, then that beastlie Bull of Pius the fiste, against our saide moste noble soueraigne, confirmed by that hypocrite, which now sitteth in the chayre of Pestilence at Rome, with a faculty graunted to Parsones, and Campiane, by which he licenseth the Papists to dissemble their obedience, vntill publike execution of that Bull maie be had: that is to be priuie Traitours till with hope of successe, they maie be open rebells. The Scottish Queenes behauiour hath so much dishonoured her Person, that Frarine is to be pardoned, if he spake any thing in her praise, before the vttermost of her reproch was made manifest to the worlde. The rebellion of the gentlemen in Sueuia, and of the commons in Denmarke I passe ouer, (as Frarine doth) seing if it were vnlawfull, our religion alloweth it not: if it were vpon iust cause, and by sufficient authoritie, it is vniustlie called rebellion, and vprore. But he cannot omitt the late treason, and cruell conspiracie of the Hugonites in Fraunce, whereof Caluin was dictatour, and generall, Beza lieuetenant, Othomannus, and Spisamius petie captaines? whoe can refraine laughing to heare these pleasant deuises, but least you should thinke he iested, he saith these were the chiese doers indeed, though they vsed the names and seruice of certaine of the Nobilitie to beare out the brunte, whilest they slept as the Knaues in the stocke and as for the other, they were but their trumping cardes. Such pesantes he maketh all the Princes and Noblemen, which tooke armes, to deliuer the King and his Mother from captiuitie, his lawe from oppression, and his subiects from cruell murther, and tyrannie. Yet he confesseth, this tragedie had a peaceable beginning, for they gat a lawe by force and extorsion (saith he) against the King, and Magistrates will and pleasure, Marke how probablie he speaketh. A lawe was made whereunto none gaue assent, that had authoritie to make a lawe. But their consent was enforced, for the Parliament of Paris made answere at the first, we cannot, we will not, we ought not. But afterward they were compelled to let the bill passe, and so the edict of Ianuarie was made. Here is force, here is extorsion, and compulsion alledged, to elude the authoritie of the lawe: but by what persons, what meanes, and in what manner, it is not shewed in one word. And indeed it is vnpossible to be shewed, that neuer was: for in truth, the edict was made by the consent of the three estates in Fraunce, in time of peace, when their was not so much as any feare or suspition of warre, but of policie to maintaine peace, and to auoide all troubles that might insue thorough controuersie of religion.

The quiet and peaceable behauiour of the Protestantes in the conference at Poysie was so notorious, that our Oratour being not able to denie it, saieth it was dissembled, that they might more easilie obtaine a lawevnder shadowe whereof, they might banish all lawe, and religion out of the world, roote out all ciuill order and pollicie of all temporall affaires, out of all Christian realmes, countries & cites. A moste wicked purpose. But howe is it prooued? First they made a conspiracy to robbe & spoile al the Churches in Fraunce in one night, witnes hereof Claudius de sanctes, a man verie like to be made priuie of such a conspiracie, an vtter enemie of all true religion, and the professors thereof; But the execution in Gascoine and diuers other places doe testifie of this conspiracie. Indeede by some more zealous then wise, at Turon and Bloise the Popish Churches were bereued of their Idolls, which fact because Comment de stat. rell. & reip. part. 2. Lib. 4. it was contrary to the edict, the prince of Condie, forthwith gaúe charge to the kinges officers, that the authors thereof should be diligentlie sought out, and seuerlie punished, according to the edict. Cōpare with this fact, the horrible murther of the faithfull by the Guisians at Vassie, by which the edict was first broken, whereas these men in time of the warre without the hurte of anie mans person, did onely breake a fewe stockes and stones by which God was dishonered. Neuerthelesse the punishment of the offenders confuteth the pretended conspiracie, which to saie the truth, hath not so much as the shadowe of trueth in it? For how was it possible for them to spoile all the Churches of Fraunce in one night, where they were not of power to spoile the tenth part, if they had so cōspired? But it is a greater matter which followeth, that at Challone in Burgundie, they made a Synodicall decree that euerie man should endeauour to his power to driue three vermines out of Christendome: The Church of Rome, the Nobilitie, the publique order of iustice. And this if you denie (saith he) your names are to be seene yet in the recordes of the high court of Parliament at Paris: where manie of you were accused for it, by the rulers and estates of Burgondie. A sufficient proofe no doubt, that the names of them that were accused are extant in recorde. It is sufficient proofe among the Papists that men be accused, and that by their malitious aduersaries, yea the verie accusation is a condemnation. But it seemeth the Parliament of Paris had more regard of lawe and iustice, then to giue sentence against them vpon a bare accusation: for if it be sufficient to accuse, no man shall be innocent. If the court had condemned them, he would haue alledged the sentence and lawfull processe remaining in record against them. But almightie God knoweth that the Protestantes haue not onelie bene free, but haue alwaies abhorred such Anabaptisticall conclusions, and laboured by al meanes to establish the authoritie and obedience due vnto Princes, which the Pope by his pretended supremacie, shamefullie vsurpeth against them; as though the charge of feeding & spirituall gouernment were graunted onelie to the Pope by those wordes of Christ to Peter, Or if it were, that vnder colour of feeding and spirituall gouernment, Iohn. 21. he had authoritie to commaund Princes at his pleasure, yea to commaund their crownes of their heades, and their scepters out of their handes as euen at this present, that vile Antichrist ceaseth not to practise against the moste lawfull and Christian Queene of England.

But by what scriptures (saith Frarine) did you conspire at Geneua, like villaines & traitorous to murther king Frauncis, and the scottish Queene his wife, his mother, brethren and all the nobles, and Catholike osficers of Fraunce? Surelie I know not what conspiracy he meaneth: I remember not, that I haue hard of anie in the time of Frauncis, but that wherof ensued the tumult of Amboyse, neuer allowed at Geneua, as the letters of Caluine to his friendes doe testifie, nor heard of vntill it was on foote and suppressed. The beginning where of; was at Nantes in Britanie. The purpose was to remooue the Guisians from gouernment.

The articles of which diuers were these. That nothing should be done against the King, the Princes of his blood, and the state of the realme. That their dignitie and the liberty of their country, should be defended as much as might be frō the violence of straungers. But if you aske Frarine how he knoweth all this, he answereth by a book set out in print, vnder the kings priuiledge, intituled. Defence Reg: & Relig. As though all must needes be as true as the Gospell which is printed with priuiledge: where it were more reason, that he should giue credit to the kings owne edict of pacificatiō, signed with his hand, printed with priuiledge, and proclamied with sound of trumpet in all cities of his realme, in which he cleareth the princes and them that tooke armes for his libertie against the Guisians, and the mantainance of the edict of Iaunarie, of all crime of treason, and sedition, and acknowledgeth that they did all thinges in his seruice, and to his honour. But Frarine being at Orleans in the time of that warre, did see with his eies a seditious sibell, printed in the name of all Hugonites, wherein was nothing but impudent bouldnes, threatning, and weason. Neuerthelesse he confesseth that this libell was not allowed of the Prince, and states, when he saieth, the printer was kept and feasted a few daies with the officers of that towne, within their houser instead of a prison. Belike the libell was not so harnous (as Frarire affirmeth) else it is not to be thought, but that the printer should haue had greater punishment. Cō cerning Goodmans booke, being of the same argument and ume with that of Knoxe before mentioned, shall need no other answer then I set downe before. But a greater accusation is behinde. When the Emperour Charles was entangled at Oenipont, the great Turk was requested to make warre in defence of there Gospell, and the Bassa of Bude to set vpon his brother Ferdinande in Hungarie. Who affirmeth this? Staphilus the runnegate which neuer, lied, or rather which seldome spake the truth. tush saith Frarine, the letters of that conspiracie were taken, their treason by no coloure can be cloked. Whose letters Frarine? by whome were they taken, by whom were they sent? to whome were they directed? If you answere nothing, we saie, it is as easie for you or Staphilus, to faine the taking of letters, as the conspiracie with the Turk. The next complaint is of abolishing the laws of the Imperial chamber, that all things may be decided with fire & sword, (as Brunus saith) which is an impudent slaunder. For Germanie was neuer in greater peace & quieines since the reformatiō, of the vnreasonable customes of that court, more then thirtie yeares agoe. As for the abro gating of the ciuill lawes, and making of a new policie of their owne, deuise which he saith, appeareth by manie bookes, & libelles, is a foolish slaunder, not worthie of any answer, seeing he nameth no author of those bookes, by which it might appeare, that the Protestants had such fantastical coies in their heades. Vnto the last place he reserued the weightiest matter of all, and that is: their contempt of the councell of Trent, in railing at all the Prelates & Princes, & in refusing to come thether vnder sufficient safe conduct. As for Princes, which are no part of the councel, it is false that they contemned them: but Antichrist, and his rable of Idolatrous Priestes and prelates deserue a worse thing then contempt. that they refuse to come to the Chapter of Trent among manie reasons they haue two most euident to defend thē. For the tragedie of Constance councell doth admonish them, that no safe conduct can be sufficient among papistes. And where he which is chiefly accused of heresy & Idolatry wil be the only iudge of al cōtrouersies, what should it auaill them to be heard in such a councell, in which is an hundreth times lesse equitie, then was shewed in anie hereticall councell of Arrianes, Nestorianes, Eutichianes, or anie other auncient heretikes.

And now he is come to the third and last section of his circle, to declare how cruellie they haue behaued themselues in their wars, & what hurth ath come by them, in which part, after much vain babling & general accusing of all faith, religion, iustice, chastitie, deuotion, learning, nurture, goodnes, & godlines, banishea from many places & persons, & planting of Turkish, hethenish, Iewish, & vnsensible blindnes, at last he touch eth particulares that Lu ther by that verse of his (Host is erā 〈◊〉 , moriens tua mors ero Papa) Thine enimie I was liuing, and thy death O Pope I wil be dying, attempted the vtter ouerthrow both of the spiritualtie, and of the Empire, by what reason I know not; for I see no consequence but as the rising of the Pope was by the decaie of the Empire: so the falling of the pope, whose enimy Luther threatned to be quick and dead, would be the establishing, and aduancement of the Empire. After this he reckoneth the expences, trauayles and care of minde. that Charles the fifth was put vnto by fighting against them. For answere whereof, it maie be said, that Charles the fift, with more gaine, les labour, & thought of minde, first and last, might haue suffered them to inioie their religion, according to the libertie of Germanie. and not to haue made such cruell warre vpon them, for no iust cause, as he did. Further our Orator czieth out, how manie cities, castler, Abbies, Hospitalles, schooles, colledges, Pallaces, gentelmens houses, and cloisters, hath this gospelish rebellion quite ouerthrowen and sacked. All which damages, who seeth not are to to be ascribed to their fault, who were authores of vniust warres, and not of the Protestants, whoe were either defenders of their liberty, or reuengers of intollerable iniarie? It is a pleasant iest with Frarine, when he saith, their gospel is both negatiue, & destructiue of al goodnes. As if it were not as easy for vs to say that papistrie, is both affirmatiue, & extructtiue of al wickednes. God be thanked we affirme al that the holy scripture affirmeth, the rest we are bolde to denie, & we are willing to build, both spiritually, and bodilie, whatsoeuer appertaineth to the glorie of God, and the pro fit of the common wealth. Besides this he imputeth to those warres the Turkes gaine of Hungary, and whatsoeuer calamitie insued thereupon. As though the first miserie of Hungary beganne not at the breath of the league with the Turke, whereof the Pope was cause. The next, which fel in Luthers time, when Belgrade was taken, was long before any wars were mooued by the Protestantes or against them, and so was that ouerthrow, in which Lewes the King was ouerthrowen and slaine. Al other inuasions of Hungarie by the Turk haue beene by occasion of the claime which Ferdinande the Emperours brother, made to that kingdome, wherein be was resisted by the Vaiuode of Transiluania. The cō quest against the Turk (that Frarin dreameth of) might be atchiued by occasion of his ouerthrow at Malta, (were not these dissentions in religion) I passe ouer, as a thing to be wished for, rather then loked for, vntil God se the good time. When all was Poperie, and no appearance of dissention in religion, the Turke neuerthelesse gained and Christendome went to wracke. Therefore moste vnreasonablelie is the Turkes gaine and our losse, imputed to the Protestants warres, whoe mooue none, but such as are necessarie, for defence of religion, and the common wealth, when they are lawfullie called thereunto. Likewise the shutting vp of the schoole dores, and the solitarines of diuerse vniuersities in Fraunce, which is an vsuall effect of warre, must be laied to the charge of them, whose oppression, crueltie and tyrannie inforced those warres. That Luther despised the vniuersitie of Louaine, and called it a stable of Asset, stewes, and schoole of the diuell, it was not for hatred of good learning; but in contempt of those Barbarous doltes, which in those daies opposed them selues against the light of the truth. (Erasmus whome all men knewe to haue deserued verie well of good learning) writeth as hardlie of the vniuersitie of Louaine in respect of the multitude of Epithal. Pet agid vnlearned sophisters, which were in that time, as Luther: saying, there was no place for the muses there, where so manie hogges grunted, where so manie asses routed, so many Camells blattered, so many Iaies chattered, so many pies prattled. But doctor Cox is chardged to answer, why the schooles in Oxford were suffered to go downe in King Edwardes time, and the ordinarie disputations in Logick and Philosophie were left of. Not for contempt of learning I warrant you: but either because the Papistes his predecessers, had so wasted the vniuersitie stock, as it was not sufficient to set them vp, or els because those litle celles were thought to be vnsufficient, for so famous an vniuersitie: and therefore they hoped that through liberalitie of the king, or of the nobles, a more magnificall building, able to receiue the multitude of that vniuersitie, should haue beene erected. In the meane time the exercises of learning ceased not in euery colledge, no nor yet the ordinary disputations inlogick and philosophie were left of, but remooued to a more publike place, namelie to Saint Maries Church, where Master Warde, the great professor of philosophie, in the hearing of manie yet a liue, did exercise the same: by meanes of which, good learning was as much promoted in King Edwardes time, as euer it was before or since. Naie saith Frarine, they haue set their heades together, and fullie agreed among them selues, to banish the greeke, and latine tongues quite and cleane out of the country. O monster of impudencie: who hath more deserued, of the Greeke, Latine, Hebrew, Caldy, Syrian, and Arabique tongues, then such as haue bene professours of the Gospell? Who are found in all places better learned in the tongues then they? who haue more care to instruct youth in the knowledge of the tonges, then they? I knew the vniuersitie of Cambridge in Queene Maries time; and this I dare be bolde to saie, there are more good Grecians in one of the litle colledges now; then was in those daies in the wholl vniuersitie. But it is a great confirmation of Frarines or Fowlers senslesse slaunder, that a preacher in the diocesse of Sarum, beeing ignorant in the Latine tongue, thanked God, that he had neuer learned that Romish, and Papisticall tongue. If any such thing were, it shewed the folly of one man, which might be requited with an hundred mery tales, of Sir Ihon Lacklatines in poperie, if a man were disposed to blot paper with such bables. But their ouerthrow of schooles and vniuersities (saith he) they excuse, by bringing all knowledge into the mother tongue, and by inuenting, a compendious order of teaching, wherby children in short time may profit more, then auncient men in many yeares of olde time. True it is that much knowledge is brought into the vulgare tongue, for the benefit of them, which haue not studied the learned languages; and the methode of teaching, hath found an easie waie in shorte time to great knowledge & learning: but it is vtterlie false, that any such excuse is made, for the ouerthrow of schooles and vniuersities, which the professours of Christiā religion desire by al meanes to be mainteined and increased, as there is manifest experience in all places where our religion is imbraced by publike authoritie. When Luther burnt certeine bookes of the Canon law, he meant no decay of good learning, but protested Epit hal. Pont. aeg. against the heresie & blasphemie of the Pope, of which those bookes were full. who neuerthelesse most iniuriouslie condemned Luther vnhard, & burnt his bookes vnconfuted. Whatsoeuer Corolostadius did against good learning, seeing Frarine confesieth it was misliked by Luther, what should the blame therof extend any further then the offendour? But Frarine wisheth they had beene satisfied with burning of bookes, and had not proceeded to burning of men, cutting of throtes, tearing, & chopping in peèces, with much foolish amplification of their crueltie in generall tearmes. All which might be exemplified more truelie of Popish tyrannie in time of peace, then it can be verified of any outrage committed in time of warre, & allowed by the Princes and captaines of the fielde, or by the preachers and teachers of the Gospel. But at length he descendeth to some particulars, & calleth forth Beza to tell him, why he went vp to the pulpit in Orlians with his sword by his side, and a pistolate in his hand, and exhorted the people to shew their manhood, rather in killing the papists, then in breaking of images, al which was reported to him at Orlians. Although in time of warre it were not much to be wondered, if the peacher especiallie in such places where be manie traiterous enimies (as were that time in Orlians) should be armed as well as other men: yet it hath bene reported vnto me, by them which heard dailie Beza preaching at Orlianes, that there was no such matter. But if he exhorted soldiers to exercise their manhoode against their enimies, rather then vpon stokes and stones, seing the warre was lawfull and necessarie, I see not whie he should be reprehended. The rest which followeth, wherein he is charged with murther of Magistrates, selling of townes, spoiling the countrie, pulling downe of Churches, giuing the spoill to straungers, prophaning of Churches with his whores, and laying vp of armour, and lodging of soldiers, robbing of all Churches in which he came, is nothing but generall slaundering vnworthie of any wise mans answer, other then a flat & general denial of al. In like manner, that he saith was reported vnto him, by Caluines schoolefellowes in lawe, that he stole the 〈◊〉 , crosse and vestimentes which were committed to his custodie, when he departed from Orleanes, is thorougly confuted by the publike decree of the vniuersity, wherby the degree of doctorship was freely offered vnto him at his departure: and by his continuance afterward in diuers Vniuersities of Fraunce, where this sacriledge should haue bin required at his hands, if euer any such had bene. Also that Beza in Champanie tooke many Priestes prisoners, sat in iudgement vppon them, condemned some to dongeons, some to be hanged, some to be burned, other to be beheaded, so that his mouth was sprinkeled with the bloode and braines of those that were murdered at his feete: Is any man so madde, that he will beleeue it? That many priestes were slaine in time of that warre, it is not altogether vnlike. For the enemies spared not to murder the preachers of the gospel moste cruellie, wheresoeuer they found them: yet of certaine and true reporte we heare not of many, beside those two which were hanged at Orleans, of which Parson Guisent beeing a cruell in quisitor, had cast the president of Orleanes in prison, and they both had beene extreame persecutors of the Gospell in time of Popish tyrannie. Yet had not this example of seueritie beene shewed vpon them, if the Papists by hanging vp of Augustine Marlorate, and other learned and Godlie preachers at Rone, after they were taken prisoners, contrarie to the law of armes, had not inforced the Prince and estates vnto this warlike kind of reuenge, vpon two which had well deserued it, to teach them to vse more clemencie toward such of the religion, as might afterward happe to fal into their handes.

What outrage soeuer was committed by the Soldiers, without commaundement and consent of the Princes and Captaines, no wise man will impute to the wholl state of Protestantes, as Frarine doth: and yet he bringeth nothing but flying tales, such as in time of warre are blowne abroad on both sides. I haue giuen some diligence to enquire of them which liued in Fraunce at that time, and they can saie nothing, that they heard of anie such examples of barbarous cruelty committed by the Soldiers of the Protestants campe, as Frarine hath heaped together: except the reporte of one, which made him a chaine of Priestes cares, who for his crueltie (when he required to be of the Church of Geneua) was not receiued & yet it followeth not that he killed all those Priestes whose eares he cut of. Neuertheles they confesse, that although the discipline of warre was as well looked vnto, as in that state of thinges it could be, yet manie things were done by vnrulie Soldiers: which neither the captaines, nor the Preachers could thinke well of. If anie that fled out of Orleans to carrie newes to the enemies, were hardlie dealt with all, it is the lesse maruaile, seing within the citie keeping them-selues quietlie, they might haue continued without anie man hurting them, as a great number of the Popish priests liued there euen to the end of the warre. whereby it appeareth that those reportes of crueltie deserue lesse credit. that Priestes were dragged with ropes about their neckes in the streete, bound to trees, and shot at with gunnes for exercise: that their guttes were wound about a staffe, and drawne out of their bellies, and cast about the house, that they were hanged vpon the roode in the Church, that their eies were put out, their noses cut of, the toppes of their fingers cut of, the skinne of their crownes pared, their priuie members cut of, rosted, & they compelled to eate them, & afterwards their bellies ripped to see how they could digest such meate, and such like monstrous inuentions, which if they had bin true, should haue found some Papist of Fraunce, that would haue committed them to writing, & set them forth with all the circumstances, that they should not stand vpon the onelie light report of an Orator of Louane, who bringeth no testimonie, but report of one prebendarie of the Cathedrall Church of Orleans, whose name he hath forgotten which laie hidde in a bench hole, and through the chinkes of the bench saw, while the butchers cut of a priests members, pulled out his guttes, and cast his entralles all about the house. But what if the poore prebendarie was so ouercome with feare, that he imagined he saw through the narrowe creuisses that which was neuer done, nor intended? For what similitude of truth hath it, that the souldiers would so beraie that house with blood and bowells, wherein they themselues lodged? peraduenture a hogge or some other beast was killed & dressed for the Souldiers supper, which he in the bench hole thought to be the Curate of the towne. The cutting of litle children in peeces at one stroake with a sword, the burning of children in a Church at Patte, not farre from Orleans, who will thinke they were like to be true, when Baldwine in his inuectiue against Beza, could finde no such matter to obiect vnto him, although he obiected a great manie thinges more then were true? But these and such matters, if they had beene committed (as they are impudentlie fained) by barbaous and outragious souldiers, why shoulde the reformers of religion beare the blame of them? you will saie perhaps, they should reteine no soldiours, of so cruell and wicked a disposition; and certaine it is, that willinglie and wittinglie they did not: but such is the necessitie of warre, that souldiors be not alwaies saints. Dauid for his necessarie defense, was faine to reteine such as came vnto him, which as the scripture describeth them, were scarse honest men, but a sight of male contents, which for debt and desertes could not abide to ta rie in their countrie. And yet was Dauid the lords annointed, and vsed that bande both for his owne defence, for annoiance of his enemies and for obtaining of his right in the kingdome. Let not the crueltie therefore & outrage of souldiers, if any such were, as none is prooued, be obiected against the preachers, and procurers of reformation. Other dammages and losses he rehearseth, the rasing of the Kings house, and diuerse Churches in Orleanes, filling vp the ditches, throwing downe the bulwarkes, making the walles plaine and passable, destroying the suburbs and vines about the citie. All which things who is so madde, that he will not acknowledge to be the act of their enemies for the moste part, except that the necessitie of warre requireth some places in such townes to be rased for fortification? He cōplaneth of the Image & tombe of king Lewis the eleuenth, broken downe, his bodie burned with the Church, wherein he was buried, ouerthrowne at Cleris, foure leagues from Orleans, which is like to haue beene in detestation of idolatry there committed. For otherwise if it had beene in hatred of his monument and memorie: the Protestants being so long in possession of the towne of S. Dennis, two leagues frō Paris, would not haue spared so manie monuments of the kings, as are there yet to be seene vntouched. The burning of K. Frauncis the 2. his heart at Orleans, whome he suspecteth to haue bene poysoned by the Gospellers, is a fond fable. For which he citeth Claudius de sanctes, a lying frier of Paris, where as if anysuch thing had bin, Frarine might haue learned the trueth when he was at Orleans himselfe. As for the crime of poysoning was neuer obiected by the papistes themselues of Fraunce, neither is there any likelihood, seeing it is certaine that he died of an aposteme in his head, where of grew an intollerable paine in his eare, which after it tooke him, being readie to take his iournie, left him not, vntill life so iooke him.

The impouerishing of manie welthy townes in Fraunce, the slaughter of men, and all other incommodities of warre: how vniustly he obiecteth vnto the Protestants, which were no cause of the warres, all indifferent men may iudge, though I saie nothing. But the pouertie of S. Peter and the riches of our preachers gotten with sacrilegious spoile of Churches, were more meete to be obiected to the pope, and his proud prelates, which by the spoile, both of Churches and tounes, haue made them selues, Lordes of the earth. Yet is it most certaine (saith Frarine) that Beza and his companions stole out of the Churches at Towres 2000. markes in syluer, and 1000. markes in gold, besides precious stones, chaynes, and Iewells of greate value, and and in so great aboundance of treasure were so gredie, that they left not a naile behinde them. Which wickednes he doubled, by burning the shrine, and casting the ashes of Saint Martine into the riuer. But Beza himselfe, when the like was obiected vnto him by Baldwine the apossata, answered, that all this is a moste impudent slaunder. For he was then at Orleans, when the treasure of the canons of Towres was taken, not spoiled, before sufficient witnesses, a goldsmith weighing al things, the notaries writing all things, by the commaundement of the most Noble Prince of Condie, and that for most iust Beza respons. ad 〈◊〉 . causes, as they themselues will testifie, which moste misliked that sight. All which thinges are testified in publike acts, and were alowed after by the kings counsel, that no reasonable person may saie, that any thing was done vniustly, or vnlawfully in so necessary a time. And as for the dispersing of S. Martins reliks, for which he declameth so tragically, Beza confesseth that he aloweth the same by the exampell of the brasen serpent in like manner destroied, when it was abused to Idolatry. As were thereliques also of S. Iraene, & S Hylarie, to the great dishonour of God, and ignominte of those holy men: and this supposing, they were true reliques. But to the intent all men may know, what manner of reliques they were, the abolishing where of he so pitefullie bewaileth: Beza bringeth two or three examples. There was at Towres a siluer crosse, set with many precious stones, which there was worshipped, with shameful superstition. Among which stones there was an Acates of auncient and curious grauing, which after it was brought to Orleans, and vewed in his hands which had brought it, there was foūd the image of Venus bewailing the death of her minió Adonis slaine with a bore. And this stone was that, which on goodfridaie was moste deuoutlie kissed of them, that crept on their knees to the croslc, as the Image of the blessed Virgine Marie. There was also brought forth a siluer arme, as the case of an holy relique of the Saint, which when it was vnclasped in the presence of the Canons, themselues by the goldesmith, & that which was hidden within with maruelous foulding of silkes, was brought forth, there was 〈◊〉 first a paper, which conteined a baudie song, written in olde Rithme, and within that a Carde, commonly called the knaue of Picques or Diamondes. At an other place, that is at Biturige, in an other case of reliques, there was found a stick thrust into the naue of a woodden wheele, with this magicall or foolish verse written in partchement.

Quand cesteroüe tournera.

Celleque i aime in aimeraidest.

When this wheele shalbe turned, she that I loue, shal loue me. and these thinges Beza offereth to proue by fiue hundred witnesses, and affirmeth moreouer, that a large volume will not suffice to rehearse such shamfull dishonour to God, and dilusions of the people. Let Frarine therefore crie out as long as he wil, against the destruction of Idolatrie, & compare it with the cruelty of the Panimes mentioned in Eusebius, which for hatred of Christian religion, raged against the bodies of the saines whom they murdered: yet al reasonable men must acknowledge a wonderfull great difference, not onely in the facts of them, and these: but also moste speciallie in the ends.

But yet againe to returne to Orleans, Frarine rehearseth the vncomelie stripping of an honest maide, and shamefull groping of her to search, if she had hid anie monie aboue the rate of the proclamation, to carie priuilie out of the towne about her: a foule fact surelie if it were true, and worthy to be punished: for they might rather haue committed the search of her to honest women. But a thousand times more detestable was the violent rauishing of a maid in Picardie by that Popish captaine Monsieur de pontes, whose soldiers held the maide til the captaine forced her: for indignation whereof, shee slewe him with a knife. The souldiers slew her with their gunnes. And the Pesants of the countrie destroied the souldiers, as is testified by a Pamphlet set forth in French and English. And yet more monstrous, euen in time of the first warres in Fraunce (wherof Frarine speaketh) was the rage of the Popish women of Prouince, against their owne sexe; which hauing cast of-al womanhood, yea all humanitie, like furies of hell, ranne about in the night spoiling the houses of the faithfull, and such women as they found, they dragged through the citie, with manie stripes vnto the place which they had appointed for their diuelish crueltie, and there they hanged them by the heeles, and by thrusting a staffe in their priuiest parts (a thing moste shamefull to be rehearsed or heard of) in that most beastlie maner murdered Comment. de stat reip. & rell. l. b. 5. them. Of this hellish. practise the cities of Marciles and Aix are witnesses. What witnes Frarine hath of a Traitour, as he calleth him by Angiers, which to saue his fort from gun-shot, hung a noble woman out in a basket. I know not: but if anie such thing were, it was a stratageme or pollicie of warre, the like whereof in such cases hath often heretofore bene vsed. But that there full purpose was to robbe and spoile all, he prooueth by the wordes of Gabuston, Master of the watch at Paris, whoriding into the high alter of Saint Medardes Church, cried to his Spoile all. mates in Barbarous french, Pilla tout, pilla tout. What words he spake I know not, but all men know it is a foolish argument, to prooue the purpose of all the Protestants, by the wordes of one captaine vttered in heate, in time of shamefull sedition mooued by the Papists, for while the congregation of the faithfull was hearing the sermon in the suburbs of S. Marcell, in the place appointed by the King for that purpose, the priests of S. Medardes Church thereby, kept such a tangling with their bells, that the preacher could not be heard; whereupon two of the companie went and gentlie desired the Priests to staie their bells, but they being garded with a number of men, fel vpon those two, and the one they slewe in the Church, the other escaped by flight. The priests then went vp into the steeple, and rang the bells backward, which they call Tocksaine, whereupon the people of the suburbs flocked rogither, and disturoed the audience with stones. I he seruant of the Magistrate was sent in his masters name, to commaund them to cease their tumult, and keepe peace: But with stones and arrowes he was compelied to returne, whereupon the sermon being broke of, the multitude of the Protestants hasting to the Church, brake open the dores; where finding the dead bodie of him that was slaine, maruell not if they were mooued with indignation: and therefore some of the armed Priests with their complices they apprehended, the rest fled into the stecple, from whence with staues, logges, arrowes, and such like matter, which they had prouided for the purpose; not sparing to throw downe their Idolls, which they had caried vp least they should haue beene destroied by the Protestants, they defended themselues a great space, stil ringing the Tocksaine, till at the last being threatned that the steeple should be fired, they ceased, about fourtie of them being wounded, and 15. taken and committed to the officer. And that their coulde be no great spoyle made in the Church, the priests had before prouided, for they had caried out Comment. de stat. Rel. & retp. lib. 4. all their massing stuffe, and other trumperie, as chalices, basens, vestiments that were of anie value before they attempted this sedition. The next daie the furious people hauing other priests to their captaines, came into the house appointed for the assemblie of the faithfull, brake downe the pulpit and the stooles, and fired the house in manie places, vntil by the saide captaine of the watch they were put to flight. This is of trueth the some of that sedition. The cause whereof was yet so handled by the Popish iudges, that the Papists were acquitted, and certaine of the Protestantes committed to prison for it. The moste hainous fact of al, except one perhaps, is yet behinde, and that is, the prophaning of the precious bodie of Christ him selfe, which with furious and outragious impietie, was cast on the ground, trodden vnder feete, hurled into the fire, and into the water, and so despert elie all to be pricked with their swordes, and carried vpon the toppes of their speares. This he meaneth of their Idol of the altar, called of the french men Jean blanke, which of old time (if we beleeue the fables of the Papistes, still auouched by great plentie of miraculous hostes and blood to be shewed in diuers places) was so moodie, that if he had bene prickt but with kniues of Iewes and Miscreantes, he yelded forth not onely great streames of blood, but also was auenged by fire or other meanes, of those that so abused him. But where are now those miracles? where is one droppe of blood? where be the examples of his vengeance, aginst so manifest and spitefull contemners? I suppose it was no more but a thing forgotten. For otherwise he might haue fained miracles, blood and vengeance, as wel as all the rest, wherein he hath impudentlie lied and counterfaited. The greatest matter of all thinke, is reserued to the last place, that is, the Traiterous murthering of the Duke of Guise, by conspiracie of that vilecaytife Beza, inuentor of all these mischiefes, bondslaue of all bawdie, lust, and all detestable sinne and vice. You know Frarines eloquence, in handling such matters. The crime obiected (to omit his ruffinlike railing, and whorish scoulding) he prooueth by Poltrotei confession: but Beza euen by the same confession, prooueth that it is false & forged. For therin Poltrote is made to confesse, that Beza shoulde counsaile him to commit that fact, as a worke verie meritorious, whereas the wiser sorte of Papists know full well, that Beza woulde neuer vse anie such persuasion. And Poltrote himselfe at his death; howsoeuer that pretended confession was either forged, or by torture enforced, did cleare both Beza, and the Admirall of beeing a counsaile with the enterprice, affirming that it was his owne onelie deuise. And yet I see not how that fact of his should be counted treason in the Admirall, if he had bin of counsaile thereof, seing Guise was an open enemie, and slaine in time of war, by one also, who ought him no seruice, or alledgeance. howsoeuer it was, it was a iust plague of god vpon him, & a great benefite to the whol Realme of Fraunce. For his end made an end of the lamentable warres for thattime. The rest that foloweth in two or three leaues to the end, conteining nothing, but either tedious repetitions of matters handled before, or els odious amplifications of generall accusations without proofe, or likelihood of truth, I will spare to trouble the Reader withall, trusting that euerie man, which with indifferent iudgement shall consider these matters, will confesse, that Frarine (hauing taken in hande to prooue three points, in his oration) is able to iustifie none of them all, bringing nothing but accusations without proofe, Reports without witnes, lies without truth, and words without matter.

God be praised.