The aunswere.

If the copie of your title, as it came to my hande, was not peruerted, you shewe your self in your title, to bee a very per­uerse▪ and froward persone, that maie not vouchsafe to call the booke, as it is com­monly called. Especially whē you pretend to geue it the name, whiche commonly it beareth, for you are not ignorante, that it is called the booke of Common praier, and not the Common booke of praier. But a [Page 2] man maie easely, and peraduenture true­ly gesse, why you refused to cal it the boke of common praier, leaste any man should conceiue by the onely name, that com­mon praier, which is so necessarie for the Churche of Christe (a forme whereof that booke conteineth) is altogether wantyng in your Popishe Churche, where, in your Missalles, Processionalles, Hymnalles, Grailes, Antiphonalls, and Pontificalls, are not conteined common praiers, to the edification of all the churche, but idle, and vnprofitable ceremonies, to the maintei­naunce of ignoraunce, and superstition.

The aunswere.

The first consideration cōteineth two causes of your refusal, the one because the booke of Seruice, was repealed by Acte of Parliament, the other, for that Cranmer Ridley, and Latimer, were burned at Ox­forde for it. To the first I aunswere, that if you accompt the aucthoritie of the Par­liament of force to condempne it, why doe you not acknowledge th'aucthoritie of the same, in establishyng it, for anno. 1551. by all the states of the realme, that boke was allowed, and appoincted to bee vsed. Also by diuerse Actes of Parliamente, in the tyme of our soueraigne Ladies reigne, e­stablished, and cōfirmed. But it is no hard matter, to gather your traiterous mea­nyng, whiche is common to you, with all them of your religion. You accoumpte no actes of Parliament, passed in the tyme of kyng Edward, or Quéene Elizabeth, to be [Page 3] of any aucthoritie, beyng confirmed by the roiall assent of those, whom you esteme to be no lawfull Princes, seyng your father the Pope, hath pronounced sentence of de­priuation against them.

Your seconde reason, I will tourne v­pon your owne necke. Seyng Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, did so constauntly suffer death, for the confirmation of that doctrine, whiche thei hadde taught, it is a good argumente, that thei dissembled not with vs, but vttered that truthe vnto vs, wherein as thei liued, so thei were con­tent to dye. The text of the Apostle to the Hebres. 13. you applie verie straungely, as though wee should thincke well of none, that suffreth death by martyrdom, wher­as the Apostle meaneth cleane contrary, and exhorteth the Iewes, to followe the faithe of them, the ende of whose conuer­sation, thei had séen to be agreable to their doctrine, who, as thei had preached diligē ­tly, so did thei ende their liues by tormen­tes, in the same confession constauntely, and patiently.

The aunswere.

[Page 4]Your seconde consideration, is deter­minable, by suche as are skilfull in the la­wes of this realme, what persones muste concurre, in the Parliament, that it may be an Acte of Parliamente, and I doubte not, but the matter was so ordered, by the iudgemente of them that had knowledge, as was for the honour, and wealthe of the realme. But if any errour had been com­mitted, at that tyme you speake of, it was since by all three estates in Parlia­ment redressed, the same booke of seruice, by their aucthoritie being confirmed. But whereas you complaine, that the Shepe in that firste Parliament, tooke vpon thē against their shepherdes, I aunswer naie, but the Shepherdes againste the Shepe­biters, for your Cleargie consisted all of Wolues, and not of Shepherdes, where­fore it was the duetie of the Prince, with the nobles, and senatours of that Parlia­mente, to deliuer the Shepe out of their cruell tyrānie, and to banishe, and remoue all suche raueinous beastes, frō the flocke. And touchyng the booke, you saie thei ex­hibited, of what credite would you haue it to bee, when thei so shamefully refused [Page] conference, before the moste parte of the Parliamente, vpon a friuolous pretence, in Westminster churche. At whiche time al wise menne sawe, that their cause was naught, whiche durste not abide the triall in the open light.

The aunswere.

Your third consideration, standeth vp­pon a foolishe fallation of Sophistrie, cal­led petitio principij, whiche is, whē a man will take that as true, whiche his aduer­sarie will not graunte hym. As you doe in this your argument, where you take that for a true principle, whiche you shall ne­uer be able to proue, namely that we are Heretikes, and Schismatikes. And so you committe double folie. Firste, in prouyng that so diligentely, whiche no manne will deny (whiche is, that a manne ought not to communicate in religion with Hereti­kes) and secondly, in bringing no proofe at all, of that, which all your aduersaries wil deny, namely that thei are Heretikes, or Schismatikes. For you must first prooue that thei are suche, before you can proue, that you ought to auoide their societie.

The aunswere.

In your fowerth consideration, you should haue likewise considered, that suche thynges, as are graunted of bothe partes, nede small proofe, and that those matters, whiche are in controuersie, should be sub­stancially cōfirmed. As for example. How necessarie vnitie is for the Churche of Christe, no manne doubteth, so it bee in truthe, and not in falshed: for there is vni­tie emong the mooste wicked, but not in truthe, and honestie.

On the other side, that there be fiue sa­cramentes, more then the boke alloweth, that there is a carnall presence in the Sa­crament of the Lordes bodie, and bloude, that there is, or ought to be, a Sacrifice in the masse, ye bring not one worde of proof.

Concernyng Ceremonies, whiche you call traditions of the Apostles, you saie in deede a little, although to little purpose, and yet so confusely, and out of all good or­der, that you seme rather to confounde, then to instructe your simple reader, for [Page 8] what an hochpotte is this? in the middes of your Sacramentes, and Sacramental­les, to choppe in praiers for the deade, and inuocation of sainctes, whiche bée articles of doctrine, and not Ceremoniall obser­uations. Againe, when you haue rehersed by name, diuers Ceremonies, as oile, and chrisme in Baptisme, your maner of con­firmation, the signe of the Crosse, and all other your Sacramentalls, and Ceremo­nies, you bryng in certain broken, and vn­perfecte sentences of Doctours, whiche speake generally of Ceremonies, vsed in the churche in their age: and doe not shew that your Ceremonies were vsed then in suche maner, as you vse them now: which is a meere mockerie of your readers. For wheras you doe comprehende thē all, vn­der the name of Traditions of the Apo­stles, if you be a man of suche learning, as you would seme to be, I dare saie in your behalfe, you will bee ashamed to come to triall of this poincte, that you vse all those Ceremonies, that were vsed in the tyme of those doctors, whose names you alledge or that al your Ceremonies, were vsed in the tymes of those Doctours, vpon whose [Page] aucthorities you would seme to grounde. But to cōsider your groundes particular­ly, that Augustine, whom you call saincte Augustine, was an vnlearned Monke, as appereth by his questions, propounded to Pope Gregorie, that came into this land, to corrupte the sinceritie of faithe, whiche the Britons had receiued, euen from the Apostles, aboute sixe hundred yeres after Christe, and liued twoo hundred yeres at the least, after the aunciente father sainct Augustine bushoppe of Hippo in Affrica, of whose pride and folie, you maie reade in Galfridus Monumeth. Matheus Westmin. and others. And truthe it is, that muche superstition, and false doctrine, he brought in, and by tyrannie mainteined, as our sto­ries witnesse, but not all that you holde at this tyme, for your religion, in all poin­tes, is nothyng so old. And as for Beda, he liued longe after Augustine. But where you affirme, that all youre Ceremonies haue been alwaies approued, vsed, and al­lowed, throughout the vniuersall churche of Christe, I can no longer forbeare you, you saie more then all the Papistes in the worlde, will be able to proue.

[Page 9]Touchyng sainct Augustine, although the place by you alledged, is not to be foūd in his vndoubted writyngs, yet I confesse that he speaketh fauourably of Ceremo­nies cōmonly vsed, to be quietly suffered, and borne withall, rather then vnitie to bee broken. But what maketh this, for your Ceremonies, whiche you teache to bee necessarie for saluation, and meritori­ous: whiche if thei had been in saincte Au­gustines tyme, or that men had so taught of theim, there is no doubte, but he would haue vtterly misliked theim, as hereafter in place more conueniente, I shall plainly declare. In your next sentēce out of sainct Augustine also, I must néedes tel you, you plaie the suttle Marchaunt, to sett for the counterfeict ware, in steede of true mar­chandice, for Augustine neuer was of that opinion, that the Church hath the full au­cthoritie of her husbande Christ, and such gouernemente of the holy Ghost, that she cannot consente, but vnto true thynges, neither hath he any suche wordes in al his workes. For it is well knowen, that the boke de dogmaticis ecclesiasticis, out of which this sentence séemeth to bee borrowed, is [Page] not accompted among the Authenticall workes of Augustine, but forged of muche later time, and falsly fathered vpon S. Au­gustine, to steale credite from his name, whiche it could not obtain of it self.

And yet if this saiyng were graunted to bée true, it perteineth nothyng to your church, which is the Sinagoge of Sathan, and not the Churche of Christe. Concer­nyng your thirde testimonie of sainct Au­gustine, I can hardely thinke that saincte Augustine, would haue an vniformitie of Ceremonies, in praier, and administratiō of the Sacramentes throughout all the worlde, because I am able to shewe his aucthoritie to the contrary, as in his. 118. e­pistle to Ianuarius, he discourseth at large. And whereas you saie, that the chaunge of the maner of praiyng, hath broughte in chaunge of faithe in this lande, it is cleane contrary, for the diuersitie of faithe, tea­cheth vs to praie, otherwise then you vse, for inuocation commeth of faithe, as wit­nesseth sainct Paule. Roma. 10.

The testimonie of saincte Ambrose, al­though you declare not, where a manne should finde it, maketh little for your pur­pose. [Page 10] For we agrée with hym, that Schis­matikes are to be abhorred, but wée will not graunt to you, that wée are Schisma­tikes, as long as wée knowe, that wée are members of Christe. The testimonie of Tertuliane concernyng custome, if it bee faithfully rehearsed of you, I se not what it maketh for you. For although laudable customes, maie be obserued, without sear­chyng their beginnyng, what is that, to your Ceremonies, whiche containe ma­nifeste impietie? For you your self will not bee so madde, to allowe all customes, seyng many are contrary to the worde of GOD. And although Tertuliane was to muche addicted to the maintainyng of Ce­remonies, and customes in some places, yet otherwhiles he either expoundeth his meanyng, or correcteth his errour, as in his booke De virginibus velandis, where he writeth in these woordes. Hoc exigere ve­ritatem, cui nemo praescribere potest, non spacium temporum, non patrocinia personarum, non pri­uilegium regionum. Ex his enim fere consuetudo initium ab aliqua ignorantia vel simplicitate sortita, in vsum per successionem corroboratur, & ita aduersus veritatē vindicatur. Sed domi­nus [Page] noster Christus, veritatē se, nō consuetudinē cognominauit. Si semper christus & prior omni­bus: aeque veritas sempiterna & antiqua res, vi­derint ergo quibus nouū est, quod sibi vetus est.

Haereses non tam nouitas quam veritas re­uincit. Quodcū (que) aduersus veritatem sapit hoc erit haeresis, etiam vetus consuetudo. That is to saie. This the truthe requireth, againste whiche no man can prescribe, not the con­tinuance of tyme, not the defence of per­sones, not the priuiledge of any regions. For of these, custome takyng her begin­nyng, for the moste parte, through igno­raunce, and simplicitie, is confirmed into an vsage, by succession, and so is bosted of against the truthe. But Christ our Lorde called hymself the truthe, and not the cu­stome, if Christ were alwaies, and before all, truthe is, as eternall, and aunciente a thyng as he. Lette them bee well aduised therefore, to whom that is compted new, whiche of hym is coumpted old. Heresies (saieth he) not so muche their noueltie, as truthe doeth conuict, for what soeuer soū ­deth against the truthe, that shalbe an he­resie, yea though it be an old custome. By this testimonie of Tertuliane, euery man [Page 11] maie see, what he thought of old custome, when it was alledged to deface the truthe, and of what customes he speaketh, when he commendeth customes, namely suche as agree with the truthe, and not euery blinde, & superstitious Ceremonie, wher­of a greate nomber were inuented, many hundreth yeres after his death.

The aunswere.

In that you will not dissemble against [Page] your conscience, if you doe not dissemble, but speake as you thinke, you are to bee commended: but if your conscience, as you saie, is not yet perswaded, you are by no meanes to bée excused, for in this so cleare light of the Gospell, you could not bee so blind, if you did not obstinately close your iyes, from receiuyng the Sunne beames into theim.

And whereas you thinke it not reason, to departe from the vnitie of the churche, nor to condemne the vniuersall Churche vnheard, you stande vpon a false grounde, as you dooe alwaies, that the Popishe Churche, is that vniuersall Churche, but that you shall neuer be able to proue. For was the Popishe churche at any tyme, or is it nowe vniuersalle? But the Romishe churche, you will saie, is alwaies vniuer­sall, though it haue neuer so many ene­mies. But I can shewe you by saincte Au­gustines iudgemente, that the vniuersall Churche, maie bee without the Romishe churche. For writyng to Casulane. Epi. 86. he hath these woordes, speakyng of one that defended the Ceremonies, & custome of the Romishe churche, against the whole [Page 14] catholike Churche. Quod vtinam sic quaere­ret, aut sic affirmaret, vt toto terrarum orbe diffusam, exceptis Romanis & adhuc paucis oc­cidentalibus, apertissimè nō blasphemaret eccle­siam. that is to saie: whiche thyng I would he did seeke in suche maner, or so affirme, that he did not moste manifestly thereby, blaspheme the churche, dispersed through out the whole worlde, excepte the Roma­nes, and a fewe other Westerne Chur­ches. Doe you not here see, that when the Romishe churche, with a fewe other that agréed with her are exempted, the vniuer­sall churche of Christe still remaineth, by sainct Augustines iudgemente? and that if the Romishe Churche, departe from the whole Catholike Churche, the Romishe Churche is a Schismatike, as it is at this daie, and hath been a long time, euen since Antichriste sette vp his seate there, and made a generall departyng from the faith of Christ, which sainct Paule prophesieth should come to passe. ij. Thessal. ij. All the whiche tyme, though there were but few that continued in true faithe, and honou­ryng of God, yet those fewe, wheresoeuer thei were scattered in all the worlde, wer [Page] the true catholike Churche of Christ, and were alwaies ioigned together in Christe their heade, by vnitie of true religion.

And whereas you saie, your Churche is vnhearde, I maruaile what you meane, for what can the Pope, or any of her proc­tours, saie in her defence, but it hath been hearde, and confuted by the scriptures? Whiche thing hath caused, the most part of the regions of Europe this daie, to for­sake your Hereticall, Schismaticall, and Antichristian Churche of Rome, and to ioigne them selues to the true Catholike, and Apostolike churche of Christ, whiche approueth all her doctrine, out of the holie Scriptures, and by the same reproueth all your heresies, and erronious opinions: the iudgement, and triall of whiche holy Ca­nonicall scriptures, you neuer yet durst a­bide. It is not therefore any priuate con­demnation, whiche is pronounced out of Gods woorde, against heresies, whose au­cthoritie in all thynges is highest, and of al menne to bee obeied. Finally, where you affirme, that the churche of Christe, was not destitute of the holy Ghoste, I agree with you, but that your Churche, is the [Page 15] Churche of Christe, I maie in no wise ac­knowledge. And truthe it is, that the true Churche did alwaies reclaime, against the heresies of your church, as thei sprong vp and increased in the worlde, and receiued that reward, whiche true Prophetes haue accustomed to receiue of wicked tyrantes namely, persecution, imprisonmente, and cruell death, as appeared in Bertramus, Marsilius of Padua, Pauperes de Lugduno, Iohannes de Gandauo, Bruno Andegauensis, Iohannes Wickleue, Iohannes Hus, Hieroni­mus de Praga. &c. all whiche with many o­ther, in seuerall times, & places, reproued, and confuted your false Churche, and the errours thereof, some in Italie, some in Fraunce, some in Flaunders, some in Germanie, some in Bohemia, and some in Englande, and for the moste part, were either murthered, or otherwise cruelly persecuted for their labours. But yet the heresies of your church, did not escape vn­spoken against, and confuted by them.

The aunswere.

In your laste consideration, you doe in­considerately alledge, that you are not of our Churche, but shewe no sufficient rea­son, why you ought not to bee one of our Churche. You saie, we are departed from the churche, in whiche we were baptised, as though, if a manne were Baptised in a Churche of heretikes, he is bounde to re­maine in the same Churche, and heretical faithe of that Churche, in whiche he was baptised, so that if a manne were baptised in the Churche of Arrianes, Nouatianes, Donatistes, Pelagians, he might not for­sake [Page] the faithe, and Churche, in whiche he was baptised, to become a true Christian catholike. A childe of seuen yere old, maie see how slender a reason it is for a manne, to continue in any Churche, or Religion, because he receiued baptisme therin. For if a Papist maie not become a Protestāt, because he was Baptised in the Popishe churche, by the same reason, a Protestant must not become a Papist, if he were bap­tised in the Protestantes Churche, which you your self by no meanes will graunte.

The seconde reason you bryng, is of the diuersitye of churches, the Lutherane, the Zwingliane, & the Geneuian. As though the diuersitie of some opinions, not of the greatest importāce, maketh diuers chur­ches. The churche of Salisburie, the chur­che of Yorke, and the churche of Bangor, had some diuersitie in their maner of ser­uing God, and yet you will saie, thei were all one Popishe Churche. But to the pur­pose, you recite more names, then there be diuersities of opinions. For Zwingli­us, and Caluine, in the matter of the Sa­crament, whiche you shoote at, are all one, and Luther differeth from them. And yet [Page 18] the difference is not so great, but that thei bee all of one Catholike Churche, because thei agree in the onely foundation, Iesus Christe, and in all opinions, that are ne­cessary to Saluation, although Luther in his opinion of the Sacramente (as a man) was deceiued. And that diuersities of opi­nions (so longe as the principall groundes of faithe bee obserued vncorrupted) doeth not make diuersitie of churches, you maie easily see, by this example S. Cypriā and all the Churches of Affrica, were in this error, that such as were baptised by here­tikes, should be baptised again, which was a very perilous errour. Cornelius, & Stepha­nus the Bishops of Rome, with the Chur­ches of Europe were, in the contrary opi­nion. And yet no man euer refused S. Cy­priane, to bee a member of the Catholike churche, nor iudged the churches of Affri­ca, that followed his errour, to bee of any other thē of y ^e vniuersall church of Christ, emong whom were many martyres, and godly men which liued & died in the same error. Now cōpare Cypriane, & Luther, the one erring in the Sacrament of Bap­tisme, the other in the Sacramente of the [Page] Supper, if the errour of th'one, did not se­parate hym from the communiō of the ca­tholike church, no more cā the error of the other. Whiche thing, if it were well wei­ghed, would remoue that stōblyng blocke, that troubleth many weake persones, but can hinder no learned man, cōcernyng the controuersie of Luther, and Zwinglius.

The third reason is, that we are depar­ted, from the Churche of Geneua, because we ascribe supreme gouernement, in Ec­clesiasticall matters, to the Quéenes highnes. Firste, we must bee bolde to tell you, that as we reuerence, and honour all par­ticulare Churches, where true religion is established, so we doe not grounde our self vpon either the opinion, or custome, of a­ny one, but onely vpon the worde of God, and so farre foorthe to followe euery one, as thei come neare to the same rule. But whereas you would sette that excellente, godly Churche of Geneua, at variaunce with vs, aboute the supremacie, your chil­dishe quarrellyng, shall easily appeare to all menne. You alledge Caluine againste vs, in twoo places, one in his Institutions, an other in his Comentarie of the Pro­phet [Page 19] Amos. A man in deede, from whom we would bee lothe to dissente, excepte it were for a greate cause. A manne of suche godlie learnyng, and profounde knowe­ledge in diuinitie, as all the Papistes, that euer were, are not worthie to carrie his bookes after hym. But before I aunswer you, I muste admonishe you, that either your copies, whiche came to my handes, were verie muche corrupted, or els you haue recited those places by hearesaie, ra­ther then by your owne obseruatiō. Your copies sendeth me to the, viij. Chapiter of his Institutions, namyng no booke, and to the fowerth. Chapiter of Amos, whereas that you speake of the one place, is in the fowerth boke, and twelue Chapiter of his Institutions: the other in the seuen Cha­piter of Amos. So that in deede, it was more labour to seeke your places, then to make aunswere to them. Concerning the firste, I meruaile you were not ashamed, to alledge Caluine againste vs, where he saieth, that Kynges, and Princes, are sub­iecte to the discipline of the Churche, as Theodosius was content to be excommu­nicated by saincte Ambrose, for the mur­ther [Page] he had committed in Thessalonica, (which none of vs denieth) and doe not re­member, how substauncially he proueth, that godlie Princes haue aucthoritie, and ought to maintain true religion, by lawes decrees, and iudgementes, whiche is all the supreme gouernemente, that wee as­cribe to the Quéenes highnes.

And as for the place of Caluine vpon Amos, the truthe is this: Caluine findeth fault, not with kyng Hēry, but with those that did ascribe that title vnto hym, and sheweth for what reason, he misliked the same. Not that he denied his lawfull auc­thoritie, whiche was meant by that title, of all his godly, and true subiectes: but be­cause, Steuen Gardener bishop of Win­chester, by false vnderstandyng thereof, declared that he vnderstode nothing ther­by, but the tyrannie, whiche the Pope v­surpeth ouer the churche, to be translated vnto the kyng. And therfore at a solemne cōference, at Ratisbone in Germanie, af­ter the Popes aucthoritie by acte of Par­liament, was abolished out of the realme, he defended all Popishe religion, whiche remained vnreformed, to bee good, and [Page 20] godlie, because it was established by the kings aucthoritie, who was supreme head of the churche. He disputed not by reasons, neither cared he for the testimonies of scriptures, but saied, it was in the kynges power, to abrogate all Lawes, and esta­blishe what he thought good in the chur­che, as to forbidde Priestes marriage, to forbidde laie menne the vse of the Cuppe in the Churche, and all other suche mat­ters, he saied, were in the kynges auctho­ritie. This he saied of the Kynges power abroade, and howe he abused that noble Prince at home, to make the Acte of sixe Articles, and other thynges of like effect, there be many yet aliue, that can remem­ber. But seeyng this title of supremacie, dooeth so muche offende you, I praie you lette me demaunde one question of you. Who did first inuent it here in England? Or who did first ascribe it to kyng Henry? Was it not the whole Popishe Cleargie of Englande? when thei were caste in the Premunire, for mainteinyng the power Legantine of Cardinall Wolsey, and sub­mittyng theim selues vnto the Kynge, they flattered hym with that title, and [Page] offered hym a greate somme of money, for their pardon: as witnesseth Halle, and Grafton in their histories, and ther be yet aliue many, that can remēber it. So that if there were any faulte in it, you should blame them, and not vs for it. For so far­forthe, as beyng rightly vnderstoode, it de­clareth the lawfull power of the Prince, wee did, and doe yelde vnto it, but not in Steuen Gardiners sence, whiche Caluin in the place by you alledged, doeth cōfute.

After this, you require vs to shewe you a Churche, where vnto you maie resorte, whiche hath continued euen since Christ, whiche if it can not bee shewed, you con­clude in th'ende, that Christ had no chur­che, or els our Churche is not Christes Churche. Againe where our Church was fiftie, or sixtie yeres agon. If a manne had asked of Elias, where the churche of God was in his tyme, he could not haue made aunswere, and yet God had his Churche in Elias tyme. The Churche is not alwa­yes apparaunte, to the iyes of the blynde worlde, in whiche she is a straunger, but is compelled sometymes to flie into the wildernesse, out of the sight of men, by the [Page 21] persecutiō of the deuill, and his members, as it is Prophesied in the xij. Chapiter of sainct Ihons Reuelation. And yet for fiftie or sixtie yere agone, it had been no harde matter, to haue shewed you diuers mem­bers of our Churche, bothe in Englande, & in Bohemia, as th' historie of the church declareth at large. Also in Fraunce at Merindoll, and about Lyōs, but these you will saie, agreed not with vs in all poinc­tes, but I will aunswere you, thei agréed in the cheifest poinctes, necessary to eter­nall saluation. For whatsoeuer we are a­ble to shewe, for our Churche, I am sure you are neuer able, to shewe your self, for your churche, that whiche you require vs to shewe: namely a churche that hath con­tinued from this tyme vpwarde, vnto the Apostles, that taught vniformely, and in all poinctes, the doctrine that the Popishe Churche nowe teacheth. Whiche thyng when you haue performed, I will doe the like for oure Churche. In the meane time, that whiche is a sufficiente rule, to finde out the true Churche, by the iud­gement of Saincte Augustine, I will de­clare vnto you. In his booke the vnitate ec­clesiae. [Page] Capi. 2. Inter nos autem & Donatistat, quaestio est, vbi sit ecclesia. Quid ergo facturi su­mus? In verbis nostris eam quaesituri sumus, an in verbis capitis sui domini nostri Iesu Christi? Puto quod in illius potius verbis eam quaerere debemus, qui veritas est & optimè nouit corpus suum. Betwene vs, and the Donatistes (saieth saincte Augustine) the question is, where the churche should bée. What shall we doe then? shall we seke her in our wor­des, or in the woordes of her heade, our Lorde Iesus Christ? I thinke that rather in his wordes, we ought to seke her, which is the truthe, and beste knoweth his own bodie. And in the. xvj. chapiter of the same booke, he writeth thus of the Donatistes Vtrum ipsi ecclesiam teneant, non nisi diuinarū scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant. That is, whether thei haue the churche on their side, let theim shewe none otherwise, but by the Canonicall bookes of holy scriptu­res. Many other suche testimonies are in S. Augustine, by whiche it is plaine, that he geueth this infallible rule, to knowe the true churche, to examine the doctrine therof, onely by the scriptures. But wheras you saie, that Anabaptistes, Libertines [Page 22] and Arians, pretende the word of god, and the primitiue Churche, what meane you therby? that we should forsake the worde of god & the Primitiue churche, by whiche all heretikes haue béen cōfuted, what soe­uer thei pretended. For though heretikes pretende the scriptures, yet onely by the scriptures thei are to be cōfuted, & though thei appeale to the iudgemente of the pri­mitiue church, yet by the primitiue church thei are condemned for heretikes. I maie as well say, that Arianes, Libertines, and Anabaptistes, boste them selues to be the true Catholike Churche, therefore wee must not allowe the true catholike chur­che. It is pitie to see menne, that would be coumpted wise, and learned, to reason so fondly, and vnlearnedly. For of all other reasons, it is the vainest, and feeblest shift that the Papistes vse, to flie frō the scrip­tures, to the aucthoritie of the Churche, in confutation of heresies. For there was neuer yet heresie did arise, but there was as greate controuersie, of the Churche, as of the opinion: for euery heretike, boasteth as well of the Churche, as of the scriptu­res, but when all is dooen, his bragges of [Page] bothe, muste bee beaten doune, onely by the scriptures. But because you make so proude vauntes, that you will so plainlie proue, that our Churche hath none agre­ans with the primitiue churche of Christ, in discourse of that controuersie with you, I will sette for the bothe what is the Pri­mitiue churche, and how we agree there­with, and I doubte not, but that I shalbee able by the grace of God, bothe to iustifie our cause, againste your false accusations, and also to ouerthrowe youre falshodde, whiche you haue heaped vppe, to ouer­whelme the truthe.

And as I haue confuted your sixe consi­derations, which vnto you seme of greate importaunce, so by Gods helpe I shall a­uoide all other youre calumniations, in whiche with some subtiltie, but more im­pudencie, and moste of all impietie, you goe aboute to intangle the consciences, of suche as bee ignorante, and vnlearned, to withdrawe their obedience▪ from the god­ly lawes of this realme, whiche are esta­blished, for the mainteinyng of Gods true Religion, and the abolishyng of all Idola­trie, and superstition.

The aunswere.

The very title of your argumentes de­clareth, of what force youre argumentes are. Your reasons are tenne in noumber, whiche if thei were all graūted to be true yet foloweth not this conclusion, that our Churche hath no agreance, with the Pri­mitiue Churche of Christe, excepte you would affirme, that all the doctrine of the Primitiue Churche, were comprehended in these tenne poinctes. Again your owne Popishe Churche differeth, in these tenne poinctes, as muche from the Primitiue Churche, as ours, therefore by your owne Logike, I will conclude, that your Popish churche, hath no agreance with the church of Christ. 1. For neither you haue all thin­ges common, 2. neither dooe you sell your houses, and landes, to putte the price in common. 3. Neither doe you make diuisi­on to euery manne, accordyng to his ne­cessitie. 4. Neither are all mēbers of your [Page] Churche so prouided for, that none dooe begge. 5. Neither doe you baptise onely in the name of Christe. 6. Neither dooe you giue the holy ghost, by laiyng on your han­des. 7. Neither dooe you restore theim to health, whom you annoincte with oile, be­yng sicke. 8. Neither dooe you make open confession of your synnes. 9. Neither dooe you celebrate the Sacramente, after sup­per. 10. Neither dooe you abstaine from bloodde, and strangled, therefore by your owne reason, you haue no agreance with the Primitiue Churche of Christe. Or if you maie haue any agreance, these diffe­rences notwithstanding, why maie not we the same differences, nothyng lettyng vs, haue sufficient agremente therewith? You see that either your argument is no­thyng worthe, or els you haue as little a­greance with the Primatiue churche, as we. Your only refuge is this, that it is not necessary for you, to haue any agreance with the primitiue Churche. And that is the opinion of all Papistes, whiche is dili­gently to be noted, that you disclaime of al title of the Primitiue Churche, whiche you holde, was but an infante, and by ad­dition [Page 24] of your doctrine, and Ceremonies, is growne to bee of womannes state. As though Christ maried his Churche, when she was vnder age, and so the matrimonie was not ratified, and consumated, before the Pope had nourtured her in his schole, vntill she came to yeres of discretion. For it is as lawfull for me, so to inferre vppon your allegorie, as for you so to allegorise of her.

But that you maie the better vnder­stande, what we meane by the primitiue Churche, I putte you out of doubte, that none of vs doeth attribute vnto her, suche long limites, as you doe in your argumen­tes, gathered out of the Doctours: where you alledge the seconde counsaill of Nice, as a determination of the primitiue chur­che, whiche was holden almoste eight hū ­dred yeres after Christe. Of whiche thing you were not ignoraunt, but you thought it was sufficiente, to fill vnlearned eares, with greate blastes, voide of all reason, or truthe. Wherefore, when wee appeale to the Primitiue Churche, wee meane the Churche of the Apostles, and their succes­sours, so longe as thei continue in the doc­trine [Page] of the Apostles, whereof triall is to be made, by the Canonicall writynges of the Apostles. That wheras you accuse vs for departyng frō your churche, as though we were of no Churche, wee defende our selues to be of the true churche, seyng wée retaine the faithe, and doctrine of the pri­mitiue Churche, whiche without all con­trouersie, was the true churche. Now as I haue shewed you, what we accompte to bee the primitiue churche, so muste I de­clare, in what thynges wee are bounde to consente, and agree with the same. For whiche purpose, we must marke this dif­ference, whiche I suppose, no Papist is so farre paste shame, to deny: namely, that in the primitiue Churche, some thynges were necessarie, and immutable, some thynges againe were temporall, and vari­able. Of the firste sorte is the doctrine, and Sacramentes, of the latter sorte are Ce­remonies, and politike constitutions. To the doctrine no manne maie adde, no man maie diminishe, no manne maie alter, a­ny thyng thereof. The Sacramentes be­yng, as Augustine calleth theim, the visi­ble woorde, bee of the same nature with [Page 25] the doctrine. On the other side, Ceremo­nies, and publike constitutions, mate bee reteined, or chaunged, as thei make beste for edificatiō, for order, and for comelines. And of this latter sorte, are all those thin­ges, whiche you alledge, in which we dif­fer from the primitiue churche. But yet, so longe as we holde still the same faithe, and the same Sacramentes, whiche are lefte to vs by the primitiue Churche, all reasonable men will iudge, that notwith­standyng your reasons, wee haue suche a­greance with the primitiue Churche, as may proue vs to be members of the same. For it is the vnitie of faithe, and Sacra­mētes, not of Ceremonies, and constitu­tions, that ioigneth vs vnto the bodie of Christe, as witnesseth sainct Paule to the Ephesi. iiij. One faithe, one baptisme, one God. &c. Now let vs particularly consider your tenne differences.

The aunswere.

Firste, it it is a sporte to see, howe to make a shewe of a greate multitude of di­shes, and to fill vp the noumber of tenne, you diuide one matter into fower quar­ters, whiche is of the cōmunitie of al thin­ges, that was in the primitiue Churche, whiche should haue been serued all in one mease, but for fashiōs fake. That thei had all thynges common, one while in Hieru­salem, it is very true, but that thei had so alwaies, and in all places, it is most false, for saincte Paule exhorteth the Corinthi­ans, to giue almose to the poore liberally. j. Cor. xvj, and he willeth Timothe, that he charge thē that be riche, in this worlde, to be ready to distribute vnto y ^t necessitie of their brethren. j. Timoth. vj. which ne­ded not all, if all thynges had been com­mon. This was therefore a variable or­der, and constitution, whiche continued but a shorte tyme, neither was it profita­ble, but onely then, when the noumber of the disciples was but small, in compari­son, and liued all in one place at Hierusalē.

The aunswere.

This is all one with the former, for how could thei haue had all thynges com­mon, if euery man had reteined his hou­ses, and landes, to his priuate vse. And yet no manne was compelled to this commu­nitie, for Peter saieth, plainlie, to Anani­as, that he neded not to haue sold his land, neither to haue brought the price, but of his free will. But whereas you accoumpt it a perfection to haue all thynges cōmon, I muste bée bolde to tell you, ye sauour of Anabaptistrie, for although it was then expediente for thal tyme, emong a fewe, yet it were not tollerable to bee vsed as a pefection emong all the churche of Christ But would bryng a meere confusion, and disorder of all thinges, beside that it is vn­possible, that all Christian men, in all pla­ces, should haue all thynges common.

The aunswere.

The Apostles kepte not that gouerne­ment long in their handes, but committed it ouer to the Deacons, as it is declared [Page 27] in the sixte chapiter of the Actes, by which it is manifeste, that it was no perpetuall order, whiche in so shorte tyme, was alte­red. For in suche thynges, the Churche maie institute, and chaunge, as often as it shall seme expediente. But whereas you charge our Prince, to bee a spoiler of the churche, by withdrawyng the landes, and gooddes thereof, by takyng firste fruictes, tenthes, and subsidies, you shewe your self what an honest subiecte your are. We for our partes, acknowledge, that it is in the Princes power, to increase, or diminishe the stipend of the ecclesiasticall ministers as shalbe thought expedient, and that it is our dueties, to paie all suche taxes, tribu­tes, and subsidies, as by lawfull aucthori­tie, are laied vpon vs. But I meruaile why you should accuse our princes, for ta­king of subsidies, as though Popishe prin­ces, doe not take subsidies of their Clear­gies also, and moste of all when the Pope who hath no aucthoritie, to demaunde one penie, hath extorted suche infinite som­mes of money, for annates, firste fruictes, palles, pardons, and suche other trompe­rie: whereof how greate complaintes the [Page] Cleargie of Englande hath made, you maie reade in Mathewe of Westminster in the liues of diuers kynges, and namely of Henry the thirde, and Edward the first. One historie is notable, that the Pope fente a Legate called Otto, with a letter, complainyng of the greate pouertie of the Churche of Rome, whiche was the cause that she was compelled, to pille, and polle poore suters, that sued to the Courte of Rome, in remeadie whereof, he demaun­ded of euery Cathedrall churche two pre­bendes, and of euery Religious house, so much as the portiō of two Mōkes, or cloi­sterers came to by yere. But the Cleargy would in no wise graunte it. The same re­queste was made in Fraunce, but could not bee obteined. Wherefore euery man maie see, how maliciously you slander the prince, whiche hath aucthoritie to take for necessarie affaires, of the realme, so longe as a competent liuyng, remaine vnto the Ministers

The aunswere.

This diuision lasted not longe emong the Apostles at Hierusalem, for saincte Paule from the Churches of the Genti­les, receiued almose, to supplie the neces­sitie of the poore sainctes at Hierusalem, and by Peter, Iames, & Ihon he was ex­horted so to doe, as you maie reade, in the seconde to the Galathians, and the second to the Corinth. viij. and. ix. And as for your Cleargie, if any of theim bee broughte to beggerie, it is through their owne igno­raunce, and frowardnesse, whiche either will not forsake their heresies, or are not able to minister in the Churche of Christ, if any worthie menne bee neglected, it is the faulte of some priuate persones, and not of the whole Churche.

The aunswere.

That any of the Apostles, Baptised, onely in the name of Iesus Christe, exclu­dyng the name of the father, and of the holy ghost, it is a detestable sclaūder of the holy apostles. Who as thei had an expresse commaundement, of our sauiour Christe, to baptise in the name of the blessed Tri­nitie, the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, so there is no doubt, but thei did al­waies obserue it, which is easily to be ga­thered, out of the. xix. chapiter of the Actes where certain disciples of Ephesus, beyng vnorderly baptised, by some preposterous disciples of Ihon: aunswered thei knewe not, whether there were an holy ghost or no, sainct Paule then doeth demaunde in­to what thei were baptized, as though he should saie, if you had been rightly Ba­ptized, you could not haue been ignorante of the holy ghost, but by their aunswere, [Page 29] he perceiued, that thei were baptised into the name of Ihon, and not of Christe, as though Ihon had béen the head of their re­ligiō, and not christ. Then after S. Paule had declared y ^t Ihons doctrine & baptisme, was to bee referred altogether to Iesu Christe, thei were baptised into the name of Iesus Christe, that is to acknowledge Iesus Christ to be the heade and aucthour of their Religion, not that in the forme of their Baptisyng, the name of the father & of the holy ghost was excluded. And so are all other places to be expounded, where it is saied, that any are baptised in the name of Iesus Christ. And in no place is it said, that any manne was baptised onely in the name of Iesus Christ. Wherfore this ca­uillation as it vnproffitable for your pur­pose, so is it slanderous, and blasphemous against the Apostles.

The Aunswere.

Although I wil not contende with you, on what parte of mens bodies, the Apost­les laide their handes, yet it is boldly af­firmed of you, that thei laide their handes on mens heades, whiche you reade not in any place of the scripture, but concernyng the substance of the matter, the Apostles by the ceremony of imposition of handes conferred the holy ghost, that is to saie, the visible graces and giftes of the holy ghost, as the gifte of tongues, the gift of prophe­cie, the gifte of healyng and suche like, whiche giftes, as they were temporall in the Churche, to beutifie the ministery of the gospell, in the firste publishing therof, and nowe are ceased, so the ceremony by whiche thei were conferred, is rightly ab­rogated. For now the ministers by laiyng on their handes, can not giue those exter­nall graces of the holie ghoste, wherefore thei ought not to vse that Ceremonie. An other imposition of handes, was vsed by the Apostles, on those that were Bapti­sed, beyng infantes, which after thei came [Page 30] to yeres of discretion, professed their faith before the Churche, to whiche thei were Baptised, and so were receiued onely by imposition of handes, whiche was there­fore called confirmation. Not that it was a Sacramente, or a signe of Gods fauour, suppliyng that which wāted in baptisme, but that it was a testimonie of the Chur­ches allowing, of those that were so Bap­tised, and after learned the principles of their faithe. And this Ceremonie, we re­taine in our churche, not as a Sacramēte, whiche is a visible signe of an inuisible grace, betwene God and vs, but as an ex­ternall approbation, and receiuyng of the persone, in suche sorte Baptised. As for your Oile and Chrisme, that you occupie in your Popishe confirmation, hath none institution of Christe, and therefore is no Sacramente.

The aunswere.

In the primitiue Churche, the Elders of the Churche, had the gifte of healyng, and therefore, when any man was sicke, thei vsed to sende for the Elders of the Churche, who praied for hym, and anoin­ted hym with Oile, in the name of the Lorde, by whiche Ceremonie, it pleased GOD, to restore the partie to healthe, as you maie read in the v. Chapiter of sainct Iames. And in the sixte of saincte Markes Gospell wee reade, that the Apostles be­yng sente abroade of Christe, to preache, and woorke miracles, vsed by the same ceremonie, to heale many that were sick. But now whē the gifte of healyng, conti­nueth not in the Churche, it were a verie ridiculous thyng, to vse that Ceremonie. And as for your extreme vnction, by no meanes can be accompted that vsage, of the Apostles, for you anoint none almost, but suche as are past hope of recouerie, so farre you are frō restoring any to healthe by your beggerly ceremonie.

The Aunswere.

It is straunge to see, vnto how narrow shiftes, you are driuen, to make vp a num­ber of argumentes. Haue you nothing but open confession, to proue your priuate and auriculer confessiōs God be thanked, ther are many also in our churche, that make open confession, and declaration of their former life, led in blindenes and supersti­tion, of their falling in time of persecutiō and other like offences, but what is this to your popishe Sacramente, of auricular cōfession? or what likelihode hath it with the same? Firste the faithfull bringyng [Page] forthe certeine examples of their actions, acknowledge how they were seduced by the deuill before they embraced the faith: the popes law compelleth men to reherse all their deedes, wordes, and thoughtes. These men made their cōfession once, the popes law requireth eche man to confesse euery yere once at least, these came forth to this confession of their owne accorde, the pope compelleth all men vppon neces­sitie of saluation. Againe the text saieth, that many came, but not all, the popes lawe excepteth none, these Ephesians made open confessiō, before al the church, as you your selfe acknowledge, the pope commaundeth euery man to whisper his confession, into a préestes eare. Let al men iudge, what agrement this their confessi­on, hath with your auricular confession. And wheras you saie, we deny the Sacra­ment of penaunce, and all the partes ther­of. The truth is, we preache repentance, as we are commaunded, by the woorde of God, but no Sacrament of penance, dooe wee finde in the Scripture, what you meane by the partes of penance, I cannot well tell, but if it be those three, that bee [Page 32] commonly sette forthe in writers of your dunsical diuinitie, contrition of harte, con­fession of mouth, and satisfactiō of worke, you shall here, what wée thinke of theim. Thei are suche, as a verie limme of the Deuill, maie performe, and yet goe to the Deuill, when he hath dooen. Example in Iudas Iscarioth, who hadde contrition of harte, as the Scripture teacheth, when he was sorie for his facte. And he made con­fession of mouthe, to the priestes, when he saied, I haue synned, in betraiyng of in­nocente bloode. Finally, he made satisfac­tion of woorke, when he restored the thir­tie siluerlynges, whiche he receiued for his treason. And when he had so dooen, wente and hanged hym self in despaire. You see, that Iudas lacked none of youre three partes of penaunce, but he lacked faithe, without the whiche, all contrition, confession, and outward satisfaction is no­thyng auailable. And therefore you teach a verie wholsome kinde of penaunce, in whiche faithe in the bloode of Christe, is no parte at all. Neither is it necessarely required thereto, by your owne doctrine. For Sacramentes (you teach) giue grace [Page] [...] [Page 32] [...] [Page] ex opere operato, that is, of the woorke wroughte, so a manne dooeth not with­stande the receiuyng of them, whiche you call ponere obicem. And therefore penaunce beyng one of your Sacramentes, and ab­solution of sinnes, maie be receiued with­out faithe, in the merites of Christ. Ther­fore kepe your penaunce for your frendes we can not skill of suche Sacramentes.

The aunswere.

You are not able to proue, that any suche order was established, in the primi­tiue Churche, that the Sacrament of the bodie, and bloode of Christe, should bée re­ceiued after Supper. Although it was by our Sauiour institited after his laste Supper. Not appoinctyng any tyme, in whiche it ought of necessitie to bee recei­ued, no more then the Sacrament of Ba­ptisme, [Page 33] is bounde either to Mornyng, or Euenyng, daie, or night, or to any tyme of the daie, in whiche it was firste ordeined. And whereas you alledge the aucthoritie of saincte Paule for your purpose, you doe hym greate wronge, for he reproueth the Corinthians, for confoundyng drunken, and prophane bankettes, with the holie Sacrament of the Lordes Supper. i. Cor. xj. And as for the tyme, place, and other like circumstances, perteinyng to the mi­nistration of the Sacramentes, thei are in the discretiō of the churche to appoinct, as thei maie beste serue for order, comeli­nesse, and edification. But ouer the sub­staunce of the Sacramentes, the Churche hath no power, as to take the cuppe from the laie people, whiche none but the chur­che of Antichrist would presume to doe.

The aunswere.

The Apostles in that Counsaile, made not a perpetuall lawe, to binde any man­nes conscience, but onely a temporall de­cree, to auoide offence of the weake Ie­wes: who were accustomed to abstaine from suche thinges, and this decree, as oc­casion serued, was broken, and altered. But where you saie, wee can admitte no fastyng from meates, and drinkes, at all. You shall vnderstande, that we compte it no fastyng, to abstaine from one kinde of meate, and to fille your beallie with an o­ther kinde, as to refraine fleshe, and to [Page 34] glutte your stomack with fishe. Or as the Maniches abstained from liuyng creatu­res, and riotted in fruictes, spices, and de­licate confections. Neither did the Apo­stles, by that decree commaunde any fa­styng, but onely abstinence from bloode, and strangled beastes, whiche was offen­siue to the Iewes. And for suche ende of auoidyng offences, or for ciuile pollicie, we can, and doe admitte abstinence, from some kindes of meates, and drinkes, but not for Religions sake, neither accoump­tyng any suche abstinence to bee fastyng. But true fastyng, to tame the bodie, and to bryng it into subiection, to humble our selues, to make vs more apte to praie, we commende, and exhorte menne vnto it, although we make no tyrannicall lawes, to entangle any mannes conscience with all. Your féeble kinde of reasonyng, should not incurre so greate reprehension, if you had not as well in your title, as in youre conclusion, made so bolde bragges, of your plaine proofes, whiche be so plaine in dede that euery manne maie see, thei haue no force at all in theim. And whereas you threaten to shewe, that wée dooe all thyn­ges, [Page] contrary to the primitiue Churche, you doe well to sate, it shall bée performed in suche sorte, as you haue proued already, that wee haue none agreaunce with the same. For he that hath experience, howe pithely you haue reasoned out of the scrip­tures, can not but hope, that you will di­spute, euen as profoundly out of the Doc­tours.

The aunswere.

A man maie easely perceiue, that you delight in greate nombers. For as before in your former argumentes, one matter was cutte into fower partes, to fill vp the nomber, so likewise in these argumentes without order, or dispositiō, diuers things are twise or thrise repeated. As dipping in baptisme, oile, and Chrisme, and crossyng whereas if you would haue followed any order, all these should haue made but one argument of Ceremonies, or Traditiōs. [Page 35] Or if you would néedes diuide theim into their particulers, you should haue made thirtie, or fourtie argumentes of theim, and not tenne onely. But now, how well you difine the primitiue Churche (as I haue touched before) a manne maie mer­uaile to see: sometyme, you alledge twoo hundreth, somtyme three hundreth, som­tyme fower hundreth, sometymes sixe hundreth, and at length you come almost to eighte hundreth yeres after Christe, when you alledge the seconde Counsaile of Nice, whiche was holden in the yere of our Lorde, seuen hundred eightie and one. So that the greater halfe of all the tyme, that hath passed from Christes ascention, vntil this daie, you would haue vs to take for the primitiue churche. But you know full well, that none of vs, would allowe all that tyme, for the primitiue Churche, especially when wee speake of that state, whiche we woulde haue to bee a paterne and example to all churches. Onely your purpose was, to amase your vnlearned frendes, to whom you made this apology, with the names of so manie aunciente fa­thers, as you rehease, and yet like a wise [Page] man, you note but fewe places, where a man should finde their aucthorities, as you alledge theim, lest you should happen to be discredited. Whiche must needes be compted fraudulent dealyng, because you note some wherof no learned manne will doubte, and passe ouer so many, whiche séeme somwhat straunge, that any suche thinges should be, to those that parhappes haue reade, as muche of the aunciente do­ctours as you. But vnto all, your tenne as gumentes, I wil first oppose one answere whiche is sufficiente, to take theim all awaie, namely that suche thinges, as you bringe in, to haue been vsed, of the primi­tiue churche, were not in the first churche of the Apostles, whiche is moste properly called the primitiue churche, but in the latter and more corrupte age, and the fur­ther from the Apostles, the farther from sinceritie. Beside that of Ceremonies, not manifestly impious vsed in the aunciente churche, after the Apostles, the churche at al tymes after hath power, to abrogate or alter theim, as they growe to bee abused, or cease to be profitable, & therefore diuer­sitie of Ceremonies, maketh not diuersi­tie [Page 36] of Churches.

The aunswere.

The primitiue churche obserued in the sacramēt, that, which in drinking of wine, they commonly vsed, that is to put water among the wine, to allaie the strength of it, in whiche thyng, there was no harme, so long as superstition, and opinion of ne­cessitie was awaie, but that it should bee as you saie, lex Euangelica & traditio domi­nica, the lawe of the Gospell, and the tra­dition of our Lorde, I suppose, you are not able to proue, by aucthoritie of those Doc­tours, whose names you recite. In deede Cypriane, verie earnestly vrgeth the law of the Gospell, & the institution of Christ, for wine to bée vsed therein, againste cer­taine heretikes, of his tyme, whiche con­tended, that it should be ministered onely with water. And so he writeth lib. 2. Epist. [Page] 3. to Caecilius. Admonites autem nos scias, vt in Calice offerendo, dominica traditio seruetur, ne (que) aliud fiat à nobis, quam quod pro nobis do­minus prior fecit. Vt Calix qui in comemorati­onem eius offertur mixtus vino offeratur. Nam cum dicat Christus, ego sum vitis vera, sanguis Christi non aqua est vti (que), sed vinum. That is. Knowe thou, that wee are admonished, that in offeryng the Cuppe, the tradition of our Lorde be obserued, and that none o­ther thyng be doen of vs, then that which our lorde before did for vs. That the cuppe whiche is offred in remembraunce of him be offered mingled with wine. For seyng that Christe saieth, I am the true Vine, not water truely, but wine is the bloude of Christe. By this testimonie, it is mani­feste, that Cypriane vrgeth wine, and not water, to be of the institution of Christe, and the lawe of the Gospell. But I mar­ueile how any Papiste can bee so shame­lesse, to accuse vs for takyng awaie water out of the Cuppe, whiche was no parte of Christes institution, when thei them sel­ues are so bolde, to take awaie the cuppe altogether, whiche is the one halfe of the Sacramente, of Christes owne instituti­on, [Page 37] and continued in the Churche 1400. yeres after Christe, vntill the late Coun­saile of Constance, whiche was but. 155. yeres agoen. Thei maie robbe the people of the bloodde of Christe, whiche Christe appoincted for theim, and we are heinous heretikes, for not vsing water in the Cup, whereof as there is no vse, so was there none institution. This is the iudgemente of those, that bée blinded with their owne pride, to espie a mote in an other mannes iye, and not to see a beame in their owne.

The aunswere.

Our sauiour Christ, commaundeth vs to Baptise, in the name of the Father, and of the Soonne, and of the holie Ghoste, [Page] whiche, whether it bée by dippyng the bo­die into the water, or by powryng water vpon the bodie, the misticall signification of washyng, is sufficiently expressed, and so longe the Baptisme is right, as for the nōber of dippinges, is nothyng materiall. We read in the scriptures, diuers formes of washing. The Eunuche, was Baptised by Philip, goyng in naked into a Riuer or Brooke. And so Baptised Ihon in Iordan. Other that were Baptised in their hou­ses, it is moste like that water was pow­red on them, as Cornelius, and them that were with hym. And the keper of the pri­son, with his housholde. Actes. xvj. And as for the Ceremonie of thrise dippyng, al­though it was vsed of many, to signifie the Trinitie, yet was it not generall, nor of any necessitie. For in the fowerth Coun­saile of Toledo, it was determined, that all was one, whether a childe were Bap­tized with three dippynges, or with one, alone. And yet it was there decreed, vpon a good consideration, that in Spaine thei should vse but one dippyng. The woordes are these, in the fowerth Counsaile Tole­tane, and the fiueth Canone. Ne tamen hae­reticis [Page 38] videamur consentire, qui tertio mergum, dum eorum morem seruamus, cautum est ne in Hispaenia, fiat baptismus, nisi in vna mersione. that is to saie. Least we should seme to a­gree with heretikes, whiche vse to dippe thrise, while wee reteine their maner of baptisyng, it is decreed, that no Baptisme in Spaine, bee ministered but with one onely dippyng. In this decree of the Coū ­saile, twoo thynges especially are to bee noted. Firste, that the three dippynges was not alwaies, and in all places obser­ued, as a necessarie matter: and therefore your argumente is fallen to the grounde, Secondely, that it is profitable to alter, and chaunge suche Ceremoeies, as are v­sed of heretikes, that wee seme not to a­gree with theim in any thyng, in whiche it is lawful for vs to disagree. And for this consideration, doe we refuse to dip thrise, because we would not seme to agrée with you, whiche are heretikes, although wee acknowledge, that of it self, it is a thyng indifferente, to dippe twise, or thrise, or ones, or not at al to dip, but onely to poure on water, in signe of that spirituall ablu­tion, whiche is represented by that Sa­cramente [Page] of Baptisme. Wherefore, you haue a verie quicke sight, that can espie a knotte in a Rushe, and of so small a gnat, to make so great an Elephante, as though all Christianitie stoode in thrise dippyng of a child in Baptisme, whiche I haue pro­ued not onely, not to haue been alwaies obserued, but also by decree of a Counsaill to haue been expressely forbidden. Which Ceremonie, although it bee noumbred e­mong the canons, commonly called of the Apostles, yet hath he a meane iudgement in antiquitie, that can not descerne theim from Apostolike writynges. But because you bryng in the Tradition of the Apo­stles, you muste nedes giue me leaue, to presse you, with the same aucthoritie, and to shewe that you your self, obserue not the Traditions of the Apostles. In the vj. Canon of the Apostles, it is commaunded that no Bishoppe, Prieste, nor Deacon, shall put awaie his wife, vnder colour of religion, and thei that doe so shall be exco­municate. And in the ninthe, and tenthe Canons it is decreed, that whosoeuer is presente at the Communion, and dooeth not communicate, that he should bee ex­communicate. [Page 39] How these Canons of the Apostles (if you will needes haue them so called) be obserued in your Popishe Cler­gie, and your priuate Masse, what nede I to rehearse? And yet you agree with the primitiue Churche in all thynges, and we haue none agreaunce therewith at all.

The aunswere.

In the Primitiue Churche, there was not so many diuerse Sacramentes as you speake of, but onely the Sacramente of Baptisme, and of the bodie and bloode of christe, and in neither of these, was there any institution or vsage, of oile & chrisme. And although, in the later tyme, ceremo­nies increased, that oyle was vsed in bap­tisme, yet was there not so many Sacra­mentes, [Page] for Augustine saieth, vnto Ianuae­rius Epis. 118. Vnde Sacramentis numero pau­cissimis, obseruatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis▪ societatem noui populi colligauit, sicut est Baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecra­tus, communicatio corporis Christi, & sangui­nis ipsius, & si quid aliud in scripturis canonicis cōmendatur. Wherfore (saieth Augustine) God hath bounde the societie of his newe people, with Sacramentes in number fe­west, in obseruation easiest, in significatiō most excellent, as is baptisme consecrated in the name of the Trinitie, the commu­nion of the bodie and blood of Christe, and if any thing els be commended in the Ca­nonicall scriptures. The same Augustine and Chrisostome also vpon the water and blood that issued out of Christes side, do ga­ther, that the Sacramentes of the church, flowed out of his side, namely Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. Aug. Hom. in Ioann. 20. Chrysostom. ad Neophytos. Augu­stine also in the thirde booke, de doctrina christiana Cap. 9. rehearseth but these twoo Sacramentes, speakyng of those that are properly called Sacramentes, for other­wise both he and other auncient writers, [Page 40] extende the name of Sacrament, to al ce­remonies. And yet Gregorie accompteth washyng of feete to be a Sacramente, as Baptisme and the Supper, whiche is no sacramente with you. And as for the cere­monie of annointyng in baptisme, it is as lawfull for vs to abrogate, as for you to o­mitte the drinke of milke and Honie after baptisme, & other such ceremonies, which you knowe were vsed as well as oyle and Chrisme. But our Sauiour Christe, the night before his Passion, did ordeine and sanctifie. Oyle and Chrisme for suche pur­poses: I meruaile what Cipriane dare be so bolde to affirme it, séeyng the Euange­listes make no mention thereof, and here againe if you hadde noted the place of Ci­priane, wee might better haue considered of his aucthoritie. Diuerse writinges are set forth in his name, whiche were neuer any of his workes.

The aunswere.

In this your fowerth argumente, if it [Page 41] maie bee called an argumente, you huddle vp a number of Ceremonies, together, all whiche out of Basile, you would proue to bee Traditions of the Apostles. In deede Basile in the. xxvij. Chapiter of his booke De spiritu sancto, is driuē to this shifte, that either he must acknowledge many suche vnfruictfull Ceremonies, as in his tyme were crepte into the churche, to be vnpro­fitable, or els to flie to the tradition of vn­written verities. The same in effecte cea­ceth Augustine, and yet neither of bothe, was so ignoraunte, but that at suche time as thei did throughly consider, either the dignitie of the holie scriptures, or the na­tures of suche humaine Traditions, thei iudged otherwise of the whole matter. For Basile in his moralles Diffinit. xxvi. saieth. [...] &c. that it beho­ueth euery woorde, and deede, to bee auc­thorised by the testimonie of the scripture inspired of God, bothe for the certaine per­swasion of the good, and the confusion of the euill. And in the 8. diffini. [...]. &c. If all that is not of faith, is synne, as the Apostle saieth, and faithe is of hearyng, and hearyng by the woorde [Page] of God, what so euer is beside the diuine scripture, beyng not of faithe, is synne. V­pon whiche conclusion, a manne maie in­ferre, that all suche Traditions, as Basile before defended, beyng beside the scriptu­res, ar sinne. The same Basile in his brief diffinitions to this question, whether it be profitable for theim, that come newlie to the faithe, immediately to bee instructed out of the scriptures? Maketh this aun­swere. [...]. &c. It is bothe conueniente, and necessarie, that e­uery manne far his necessarie vse, should learne out of the diuine scriptures, bothe that he maie bee certainely perswaded in his Religion, and also, that he bee not be­fore accustomed to humaine Traditions. Let this therfore suffice for sainct Basile to aunswere hymself.

Saincte Augustine also in his 118. Epi­stle, where he speaketh moste fauourably for Traditions, hath these woordes. Sed hoc nimis doleo, quod multa quae in diuinis li­bris saluberrimè praecepta sunt, minus curantur & tam multis praesumptionibus, sic plena sint omnia, vt grauius corripiatur, qui per octauas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit, quam qui mē ­tem [Page 42] vinolentia sipelire est. But this (saieth Augustine) dooeth greue me to muche, that many thinges, whiche in Gods boke, are moste wholsemly commaunded, are lesse regarded, and all thynges are so full of presumptions, that he is more sharpe­ly reproued, whiche hath touched the yearth with his bare foote, in tyme of his vtas, then he that hath buried his mynde with dronkennes.

And in the same place he saieth, of Tra­ditions: Quamuis enim ne (que) hoc inueniri pos­sit, quomodo contra fidem sint: ipsam tamen re­ligionem, quam paucissimis, & manifestissimis celebrationum Sacramentis, misericordia dei esse liberam voluit, seruilibus oneribus premunt, vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaeorum qui etiam si tempus libertatis non agnouerint, legalibus tamen sarcinis, nō humanis praesumptionibus sub­ijciuntur. that is to saie. For although this can not bee founde, how thei are contrary to the faithe, yet thei oppresse with scla­uishe burdeins, the religion it self, whiche the mercie of God, would haue to bée free, with moste fewe, and manifeste Sacra­mentes of celebrations: So that the state of the Iewes, is more tollerable then [Page] ours: for although thei haue not acknow­ledged the tyme of libertie, yet thei are subiecte to burthens laied on theim by the lawe, not to humaine presumptions.

By this you see Augustines right iud­gemente, of suche vnprofitable Ceremo­nies, and Traditions. Whiche althoughe Basile, and he cōiecture, and gesse to haue béen receiued of the Apostles, because thei knewe none other originall of theim, yet it dooeth not followe, that thei were deli­uered by the Apostles in deede. For many of theim (if your owne aucthours dooe not lye) were instituted by diuers Popes of Rome, long after the age of the Apostles. And some it is plaine, were inuented by heretikes. For the firste that we read of, in any auncient, and authenticall writer, that hadde in reuerence the signe of the Crosse, were the Valentiniane heretikes as witnesseth Irenaeus, libri primi. Capit. 1. whiche thei called Oron crucem confirmati­uam, the strengthenyng Crosse. And abu­sed the testimonies of sainct Paule, as you Papistes doe, where he saieth verbum cru­cis. &c. The woorde, or preachyng of the crosse, & mihi non eueniat gloriari. &c. God [Page 43] forbidde that I should reioyce, but in the Crosse of Christe. But afterwarde true Christians vsed that signe, to testifie vn­to Heathen menne, that thei were Chri­stians, and were not ashamed of the igno­minious death of Christ, whiche the Gē ­tiles did dispightfully caste in their teeth, and at length it grewe to a meare super­stition, and laste of all, to moste horrible Idolatrie, when the Image of the Crosse was worshipped, sensed, and praied vnto.

Praier towarde the Easte, was vsed of the Christians, in the aunciente Church, to testifie, that thei differed from the Ie­wes, who praied towarde the West, least thei should seem to worshippe the Sunne risyng, as the Gentiles did. And although woordes of inuocation were vsed, at the shewyng of the bread, and the Cuppe, yet was there no inuocation, of the Sacra­mentall breade and Cuppe, but of God.

Of the other Ceremonies, of anoinc­tyng, and thrise dipping, hath been spoken before. That the Apostles vsed no suche blessyng of the water of Baptisme, as you doe, it is manifeste, when thei Baptised in euery Riuer, and Brooke that thei came [Page] to. In dedè thei did cōsecrate the water for that time, when they vsed it to serue for y ^e holy vse, but did putte no holines into it which should remain after that baptisme was ministred with it, as you doe. As for the stipulatiō of renouncyng the deuill. &c. is in dede y ^e doctrine of the Apostles. Hebr. v. (whiche we retain) although you saie in the ende, we do not. As for salte, spettle, & cōiuration, or exorcisme, thei ar altogeher superfluous, at this tyme. Of exorcisme, there was some vse in the auncient chur­che, but of salte, & spittle, which neuer are not mentioned in that place of Basile. As there were many possessed with Deuills, so there was some, that that had this po­wer of the holie ghost, to caste out Deuils whiche were called exoreistes, as witnes­seth S. Cypriane in his fowerth boke, and Epis. vij. ad Magnū. Quod hodie etiā geritur vt per exorcistas, voce humana, & potestate di­uina, flagelletur et vratur, et torqueatur diabo­lus. Et cū exire, et hoēs dei dimittere saepe dicat, & in eo tamē quod dixerit fallat, & id quod per Pharaonē prius gestū est eodem, mendacio obsti­nationis, et fraudis exerceat: Cū tamen ad aquā salutarē, at (que) ad baptismi sanctificationā veni­tur, [Page 44] scire debemus & fidere, quia illic diabolus opprimitur, & homo dicatus diuina indulgentia liberatur, that is: Which thing also, is doen at this day, that by the exorcistes, through the voice of a man, and the power of God, the deuil is scourged, burned, and tormen­ted. And although he saith oftētimes, that he goeth out, & letteth go the men of God, and yet in so saying deceiueth, & practiseth the same thing, that was dooen before by Pharao, with the same lye of obstinacie, & deceipt: yet whē we come to the wholsom water, and sanctification of Baptisme, we muste knowe, and beleue, that there, the Deuill is oppressed, and the man, whiche is there dedicated, is by the mercie of god deliuered. This one testimonie emong a number is sufficient, to declare bothe, that there was in the Churche, menne indued with the gifte of castyng out Deuilles, whiche visibly, and sensibly did possesse menne: and that Exorcisme at Baptisme, was vsed for none other ende, but to deli­uer suche as were possessed, and could not be deliuered by the Exorcistes, before thei were baptised, not y ^t euery persone which was Baptised hadde neede of exorcisme, [Page] but onely suche as were vexed with vn­cleane spirites. And seyng that gifte of ca­styng out Deuilles, doeth no more conti­newe in the Churche, and thei that are to be Baptised, are not possessed with De­uilles, it were not onely vngodlines, but also méere madnesse, for such to take vpō them that power, whiche haue it not, or if thei had it, to exercise it, where there is no neede of it.

The aunswere.

[Page 45]For buildyng of Churches in any sum­ptuous maner, the primitiue church was not careful, but vntil Constantines time, continued in such places as thei could get, sometimes & most commōly in caues vn­der the yerth, when thei were persecuted and durste not assemble in open places. And we at this time, if we had not conue­niēt places for the holie assembles would and wher suche conuenient howses lacke doe builde, Churches and Oratories. But not in the honour of Sainctes and Aun­gels as you doe, whiche thing the primi­tiue and auncient Churche, did not, but iudged it to be meare Idolatry, sacriledge, and blasphemie. As Basile in his. 141. Epi­stle proueth the holy ghoste to be God, be­cause he hath a temple, so doeth Didymus in his treatise de spiritu sancto, because no creature but God onely, can haue a tem­ple S. Augustine de vera religione, Cap. 55, saieth, concernyng sainctes. Quare honora­mus eos charitate, non seruitute, nec eis Templa cōstruimus. &c. Wherfore we honor theim with loue and not with seruise, neither doe we build churches vnto theim, for thei will not be so honoured of vs. Likewise in [Page] the. 8. booke. 27. cap. de ciuitate dei, he saith, that christians builde no temples to Mar­tyres, and in verie many other places, he writeth to the same effecte. And as for Al­ters and Sacrifies, the primitiue churche vsed none, more then wee. The auncient churche in deede, nameth Aulters and sa­crificyng, but they meaned nothyng lesse, then suche Aulters and sacrifices, as the Papistes vse. For the fashione of their al­ter, whiche was the Communion Table, & so called of them also, is to be seen in the Panegyricall oratiō made before Paulinus Bishop of Tyrus, wher also the fashion of their Temples is described. Euseb. lib. 10. Cap. 4. There was but one Aulter in all the Churche, whiche stoode not againste the furthest wall, at the East ende of the Churche, as your Aulters, but in the mid­dest of the Churche, and was compassed rounde aboute with Grates or Lattesses of woodde, which were called Cancells, the Chauncel, with in whiche place so incloa­sed, the Communion was ministred, and at the time of the ministration, the Mini­sters and Deacones, stoode round aboute the Aulter, whiche is a manifest proofe, [Page 46] that it was not an Aulter against a wall, like youres, but a Table standyng in the middest as ours is. Laste of all, what they vnderstode by the name of sacrifice, I will discloase by one Testimonie of Chriso­stome, whiche shalbe in steade of a greate number. For this he writeth vpon the. x. chapiter to the Hebrues. Hom. 17. Spea­king of the sacrifice, whiche the Churche doth offer. Hoc autem quod facimus in come­morationē quidem fit eius quod factum est. Hoc enim facite inquit in meam comemorationem. Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex, sed ip­sum semper facimus, magis autem recordationē sacrificijeperamur. This Sacrifice (saieth he) that we doe, is done in remembrance of that whiche was doone. For he saied, doe this in remembraunce of me, we dooe not offer an other Sacrifice, as the high Prieste, but wee offer the selfe same al­waies, or rather we exercise the remem­brance of that sacrifice. By this testimony of Chrisostome, it is euident, that the olde writers, when thei spake of Sacrifice, did not meane the Popishe sacrifice of the Masse, but onely the remembrance of the sacrifice of Christe, which is the ministra­tion [Page] of the Communion. The Testimo­nie of Beda, concernyng Augustine the Monke, that came into Englande, which you alleged, is neither aunciente, beyng aboue sixe hundred yeres after Christe, neither yet of auctoritie to bee followed, the same Augustine beyng a superstitious proude, cruell, and vnlearned Monke. For his superstition, Bede testifieth, his pride and crueltie is set forthe in our Englishe histories, his ignoraunce, in doubtes and questions, whiche he propoundeth to Gre­gorie B. of Rome.

The aunswere.

In the Actes are mentioned those, that were contente to giue their gooddes in common, but no vowe spoken of, that thei might neuer haue any proprietie of good­des. Our sauiour Christe also speaketh of some, that had made theim self chaste, for the kyngdome of heauen, hauyng the gift of continencie, but noe vowe, that thei were bounde vnto. Saincte Paule to the i. Corinthians. vij. chapiter, commendeth Virginitie, in suche as haue the gifte, but he bindeth none with any vowes, for if a Virgine marrie, he saieth she dooeth not synne. But in the firste of Timothe. v. he entreateth of widowes, whiche as thei [Page] were nourished by the Churche, so thei did minister vnto the Churche, and these made no vowe to God, but a promise to the churche, that thei would continue vn­married, that thei might attende to their charge, beeyng free from housebandes, whiche saincte Paule would not haue to bee chosen vnder sixtie yeres of age, when carnall luste is paste. What is this to yonge girles, that are professed Nonnes, at fiftene, or sixtene yeres of age, before thei knowe, whether thei are able to liue chaste, without any housebande, or no? As for your fable of Iphigenia, and Hirtacus out of your newe founde olde doctour Ab­dias, we giue small credite vnto it: the ve­rie names dooe sufficiently bewraie, the forgerie, whiche sounde nothyng like to the Aethiopian language. The Canons cōmonly called of the Apostles, doe excō ­municate, a bishop, or a clearke, that doth putte awaie his wife vnder colour of Re­ligion, as I haue shewed before. The coū ­saile of Chalcedon Canon, xiij. forbiddeth Clerkes to marrie wiues of a contrary Religion, as Iewes, or Paganes. But not simplie forbiddeth thē, muche lesse would [Page 48] allowe theim, to putte awaie their lawe­full wiues. But when you proceade fur­ther, and saie, that all the aunciente fa­thers, dooe prohibite Priestes marriage, you are to generall: For I can bryng you some proues to the contrary. In deede the moste of the later sorte of aunciente wri­ters, are verie muche addicte to the praise of sole life, yet was not marriage cleane taken awaie from priestes, for more then a thousande yeres after Christe. You re­hearse certaine aunciente writers, and e­mōg them Dionysius Areopagita, of whō I must admonishe the vnlearned reader, that he is not that Dionysius whō saincte Paule at Athenes conuerted, but one of muche later tyme. For the reste of the Doctours, if you had alledged their saiyn­ges, as you dooe their names, I should haue saied some thyng vnto theim. But that all aunciente fathers as you saie, doe not forbidde marriage of Priestes, and suche as haue vowed virginitie, you maie knowe by these examples.

First, Tertullian was a married man, and writeth a booke to his wife. Epipha­nius rehearseth many heretikes, whiche [Page] forbadde marriage. Also of suche as had vowed virginitie, and could not keepe their vowe, he writeth Contra Apostolicos libr. 2. Tom. 1. haeres. 61. Melius est ita (que) vnum peccatum habere, & non plura. Melius est la­psum à cursu, palam sibi vxorem sumere secun­dum legem & á virginitate multo tempore poe­nitentiā agere, & sic rurssus ad ecclesiam indu­ci, velut qus mala operatus sit, velut lapsum & fractum, & obligatione opus habentem, & non quotidie ocultis iaculis sauciari ab improbitate quae à diabolo ei infertur. Sic nouit ecclesia prae­dicare, haec sunt sanationis medicamenta. It is better therfore, to haue one sinne and not manie. It is better for hym, that is fallen from his course, opēly to take hym a wife, accordyng to the lawe, and to repente a­long tyme, for his virginitie, and so againe to be brought into the church, as one that hath doone euill, as one that is fallen and brused, and hath neede to bee bounde vp, and not to be daily wounded with priuie Dartes, through the improbitie which is wrought to hym by the Deuill. So the Churche knoweth to preache, these are the medicines of healyng. You see here that Epiphanius, woulde haue suche as [Page 49] could not keepe their vowe of virginitie, rather to marrie, then to burne, according to the doctrine ef sainct Paule.

Chrysostome, whose name also you re­herse in his second Homelie vpon the first Chapiter of the Epistle to Titus, hath these woordes. Obstruere prorsus intendit haereticorum ora, qui nuptias damnant, osten­dens eā rem culpa carere, imo ita esse pretiosam, vt cum ipsa etiam possit quispiam ad sanctum▪ Episcopatus solium euehi. That is to saie. He purposeth vtterly to stop the mouthes of heretikes, which condemne mariage she­wyng how that thing is without faulte, yea to be so pretious a thing, that with it any man maie be aduaunced to the holy sée of a Bishopricke. Chrisostome therfore is not so whole on your side, as you make hym, no more is any of the auncient fa­thers, though it please you to abuse there names for a shewe. But who amonge all the olde writers was either a greater ad­mirer of virginitie? or a more defacer of matrimonie, then Ierome was? and yet he writeth thus of virgines, that haue vo­wed continence, ad Demetriadem: Sanctum virginum propositum, & caelestis angelorum (que) [Page] familiae gloriam, quarundam non bene se aegen­tium nomen infamat. Quibus apertè dicendum est, vt aut nubant si se non possunt continere, aut contineant si nolunt nubere. That is, the ill name of some, that behaue not theim sel­ues well, dooth slaunder the holy purpose of virgines, and the glorie of the heauenly family of aungelles, to whom it is openly to be spoken, that either thei doe marie, if thei can not conteine, or els that thei must conteine, if thei will not marrie. By these witnesses it is apparant, that all auncient fathers, be not of your iudgement, if wee shall beleue their owne writinges, rather then your saiynges. And cōcerning them, that haue vowed continence, if they haue any conscience of their vowe, and are able to performe it, none of vs exhorteth them to breake it. But suche as are not able to performe honestly, that whiche thei haue vowed rashely, we teach accordyng to the doctrine of sainct Paule, that it is better for them repentyng of their rashe vowes to marie, then to burne in concupiscens, then to committe fornication, and vnclea­nes. And this we doe not without the con­sent of olde writers, as partly I haue she­wed, [Page 50] and more coulde shewe if neede re­quired.

The Aunswere.

It is a proper Primitiue Churche, whiche you alledge of the seconde Coun­saile of Nice, whiche was seuen hundred eightie and one yeres after Christe, hol­den by a multitude of Idolatrous, flatte­ryng, and vnlearned Prelates, whiche to feede the humor of that wicked Empresse Irene, were gathered together, not in the name of Christ, but against Christ, whose expresse commaundemente, thei did im­pugne. And with suche leude, and vnsen­sible reasons, and wrestynges of the scri­ptures, that if a manne of purpose, to mocke the Idolaters, woud inuente ar­gumentes to laugh at, hee coulde not di­uise more ridiculous matters. God made manne after his owne Image, ergo wee muste make Images, God is meruailous in his sainctes, ergo we must make Ima­ges. (Theodofius of Amorie reasoneth, whatsoeuer is written, is written for our learnyng, ergo wee must haue Images to teache vs.) No manne lighteth a candell, [Page 51] and putteth it vnder a Bushell, ergo I­mages must bee sette on the Alters, with a hundreth suche substanciall proofes. And to make the matter mooste manifeste, Theodorus bishop of Myre, proueth that Images must be worshiped by his Arche­deacons dreames, and so dooeth other by dreames, and miracles, and at laste, Tha­rasius Archebishoppe of Constantinople, with the whole Synode concludeth, that Angelles haue bodies, and mennes soules also be bodily, and therefore thei maie bee paincted. Againste this Idolatrous, vn­learned, and blasphemous Counsaile, Ca­rolus Magnus wrote a booke, whiche is extante, in whiche he confuteth the grosse heresie, of adoration of Images.

As for the primatiue churche of Christ, regardyng the seconde commaundement of God, did make no kinde of Images, to bee had in any vse of religion, but vtterly forbad them. As for the Image of Christ, whereof Eusebius speaketh, if it were true, was onely a monumente of the hi­storie, sette vp in the streate, in remem­braunce of the miracle, not in the churche to bee had in veneration, or worshipped. [Page] [...] [Page 51] [...] [Page] Neither was there any Image receiued into the Churche, for three hundreth ye­res after Christe. The Epistle of Epipha­nius, translated by saincte Hierome, is a notable testimonie.

Cum venissem ad villam quae dicitur Ana­blatha, vidissem (que) ibi praeteriens lucernam. &c. When I came to a village, whiche is cal­led Anablatha, and sawe there as I pas­sed by, a candell burnyng, and inquiryng what place it was, and vnderstandyng that it was a Churche, I entered in, to praie, and founde there a vaile, or linnen clothe, hangyng at the doore of the saied churche, stained, and painted, and hauyng an Image as it were of Christ, or of some saincte. For I dooe not well remember, whose Image it was. Therefore when I sawe, this thing, that the Image of a man was hanged vp, in the Churche, contrary to the aucthoritie of the Scriptures, I did rende it in péeces, and gaue counsaile to the kepers of that place, rather to wrappe it about some poore bodie that was deade, to burie hym with all. Contrariwise, thei murmured, and saied. If he would néedes rende it, it were reason, he should giue vs [Page 52] an other vaile for it, and so chaunge it. Whiche thing when I heard, I promised, that I would giue theim one, aad sende it shortlie. There passed not long tyme, but that I sought to sende theim a verie good vaile for it. For I thought that one shoulde haue been sente me out of Cy­pres. And nowe I haue sente suche a one, as I could gette. And I praie you to com­maunde the Elders of that place, to re­ceiue that Vaile of this bearer, whiche is sente by vs. And to giue theim charge, that hereafter in the Churche of Christe, suche vailes bee not hanged vp, whiche are contrary to our Religion. This writeth Epiphanius to Ihon bishoppe of Hierusa­lem, by whiche it is euidente, what was thought of Images, at that tyme, when a painted vaile, might not bée hanged be­fore a Churche doore, to keepe out the winde, or for some suche purpose, and not in any respect of religion, or worshipping. The same Epiphanius, emong the here­sies of Carpocrates rehearseth, that he made priuilie the Image of Iesu, & Paule Homer, and Pithagoras, and worshipped them. Also he inueigheth sharply against [Page] the Antidicomarians, and Collyridians, for vsyng, and worshippyng the Image of Marie the Virgine. As for your testimo­nies, out of Gregorie Nyssene, and Chry­sostome, serue nothyng to the purpose, for Gregorie speaketh not of the historie of Christes passion, as you vntruely report, but of the oblation of Isaac, by his father Abraham. Conc. Nicen. 2. actione. iiij. But this picture was in some priuate place, not in the Churche, and place of worship­pyng.

And Chrysostome in his saiyng, con­cludeth not, that therefore we must haue Images of GOD, and of Christe in the Churche, but he that doeth iniurie to any manne, that is made after the Image of god, or disobeieth a Magistrate, which re­presenteth the persone of God. &c. He doth iniurie to God. For he that maketh any Image of God, doeth God greate iniurie, transformyng the glorie of the inuisible GOD, into the shape of any corruptible creature. Rom. j. But what Chrysostome and diuers other godlie fathers, thought of the vse of Images, in the churche, is ex­dressed in the counsaile of Ephesus, which [Page 53] condemned Images before the Counsaile of Nice, whiche restored theim. And the Counsaile Elibertinum, fower hundreth yeres before that, vnder Constantine the greate, made this decree. Capt. xxxvi. Pla­cuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus depinga­tur. That is. It is thought good, that pictu­res ought not to bée in the Churche, leaste that thyng, whiche is worshipped, and ho­noured, should bee painted on the walles. To conclude, that whiche you alledge out of Beda, concernyng Dan Augustine the Monke, I will aunswere by the aucthori­tie of sainct Augustine the Bishoppe: who in his boke De consensu Euāgelistarum libr. i. Capit. 10. Speakyng of certaine Heathen aduersaries, whiche noumbred Paule e­mong the twelue Apostles, that were with Christe, while he liued, writeth in these woordes. Credo quod pluribus locis si­mul eos cum illo pictos viderunt, quià merita Petri, & Pauli etiam propter eundem passionis diem celebrius, & solemniter Roma commendat. Sic omnino errare meruerunt, qui Christum, & Apostolos eius, non in sanctis codicibus, sed in pi­ctis parietibus quaesierunt. I beleue that in [Page] many places thei sawe theim painted to­gether with hym, because the Citie of Rome, commendeth the worthinesse of Peter, and Paule, more notably, and so­lemnely, because of the same daie of their sufferyng. So altogether thei were wor­thie to bée deceiued, whiche sought Christ and his Apostles, not in the holie scriptu­res, but in painted walles. And so all thei that followed your Augustines supersti­tions, were iustely blinded, and deceiued, because thei sought not Christ in the scri­ptures, but in painted Tables, whiche is the punishemente due for Idolatrie, as sainct Paule testifieth. Roma. j.

The aunswere.

Concernyng Fastyng, I haue spoken sufficiently, in aunswere of your tenth ar­gumente, out of the scriptures, where you make mention of fastyng also. Euseb. lib. v. Capit. xviij. Testifieth that Montanus the heretike, was the firste that prescribed lawes of fastyng, whom you followe al­together. And especially the heretikes call Archontici, of whom Epiphanius wri­teth lib. i. Tom. iij. Here. 40. whiche preten­ded fastyng, but obserued none in deede, and the Manichees of whom S. Augu­stine testifieth, that vnder colour of absti­nence, [Page] thei refrained from eatyng of any liuyng thyng, and from drinkyng wine, yet did thei glutte, and pamper theim sel­ues with delicate frutes, and spices, with drinke made of the iuice of Dates, &c. such was your Popishe faste: on Fridaies at Dinner, to eate no fleshe, but as muche fishe, as the beallie would holde, with good store of wine, at night to eate no liuyng creatures, but Figges, Reasons, Almon­des, Wardens, and Quinces baked, Suc­kette, and Marmelade, and other fruites conserued with good wine, or Hipocras to helpe digestion. This was a straight kind of faste, yet this was Catholicke enough, so long as greate Prelates vsed it.

The aunswere.

I must needes confesse, that praier for the deade, is one of the oldeste heresies, that the Papistes doe maintaine, and yet hath it no aucthoritie of Gods worde, nor of the primitiue Churche, for twoo hun­dreth yeres after Christe. Thei vsed in deede, to make mention of theim, at the celebration of the Communion, and to giue God thankes for them, whiche some tyme is called a Sacrifice offered for thē, as of Cypriane. Lib. iiii. Epist. v. Speaking of Martyres, of whom none doubteth, but thei were in heauen, and neded no praiers to bee made for them. Sacrificia pro eis sem­per vt meministis offerimus, quoties martyrum passiones & dies anniuersaria commemoratione celebramus. That is: Wee offer Sacrifice for theim alwaies, as you remember, so often as wee celebrate the passion, or da­yes of the Martyres, by yerely comme­moration. But this vnproper kinde of speakyng, and bolde attemptes, without scripture to name the deade in the Com­munion, [Page] did bréede in the posteritie, many errours, as praier for the deade, the Sac­rifice of the Masse for the deade, Purga­torie, and suche other. But in this nineth argumente, you bewraie your fraudulent dealing in the other, for here you note the places of the doctours, whiche you knowe no manne will denie, and in other places, where you affirme, that none of vs will graunte, you alledge their names onely, without quotyng the places.

The aunswere.

You leape to, and fro, backwarde, and forwarde, more like to one that daunseth, then that disputeth, Haue wée not hearde enough before, of crossyng, and blessyng, of Oile, and Chrisme? But thei must now be repeated againe, whiche if thei were graunted to you, and vsed of vs, as thei were in tyme of those doctours, whose na­mes you recite, what had you gained ther by? It is your blasphemous doctrine, that me doe moste abhorre, and your Ceremo­nies, we hate the more, for your doctrines sake. You should therefore stande to the [Page] defence of your doctrine, and not fight so egerly for your Ceremonies, if you would vse good pollicie. Nowe for these obserua­tions, I haue aunswered before sufficien­tly, by whiche, as by the reste of myne an­sweres, I truste it shall appeere, to euery manne of indifferente iudgemente, that notwithstandyng, all your twentie ar­gumentes of bothe sortes, our Churche hath suche conformitie, and agremente with the primitiue Churche of Christe, that she maie bee truely compted a mem­ber of the same, and partaker in the com­munion of all the sainctes of God.

The aunswere.

Before you had spoken of the force of those matters, you should haue doen well to haue considered the force of your argu­mentes, whiche, howe stronge so euer those thinges bee, are to weake to proue that, whiche you propounde, name­ly. [Page 57] that our Churche hath none agreaunce at all, with the Primitiue Churche of Christe. But seyng you will needes sette for the dignitie of these matters, wee will seuerally consider, all these fower ar­gumentes.

The aunswere.

Although I knowe what to thinke of vnwritten Traditions, yet if you bee able to proue, that al these thinges wher­of you speake, the vniuersall Churche of Christ, doeth, and hath alwaies obserued, I will yelde to you, that thei are the Tra­dition of the Apostles, accordyng to your testimonie, whiche if you canne not doe, (as I am well assured, you will neuer bee able to dooe it) by your owne reason, and aucthoritie, we neede not holde theim for [Page] Traditions of the Apostles, nor yet de­crees of generall Counsailes.

The aunswere.

The Scripture hath determined of all necessarie articles of faithe, and againste all superstitious opinions, and Ceremo­nies. And these thynges you speake of, we proued to bee suche, therefore in theim by Saincte Augustines rule, neither the cu­stome of people, nor the decrees of elders muste take place, but the aucthoritie of Goddes woorde. But of suche thynges as bee variable Ceremonies, for edification, [Page 58] order, and comelinesse sake, diuers parti­culer Churches, maie make particuler de­crees, whiche are nothyng preiuditiall to the vniuersall Churche of Christ, whiche is the principall argumente that saincte Augustine handeleth, in that 86. Epistle to Casulanus, where he defendeth the cu­stome of the moste parte of the Churche, againste the custome of the Churche of Rome. As I haue touched before, whiche thyng, of you will in no wise bee allowed. And as concernyng the Sacrifice he spea­keth of, to bee celebrated on Sondaie, he meaneth not the propiciatorie Sacrifice of the Masse, as perhaps you would seme to inferre. But the celebration of the communion, for thus he writeth in the same Epistle against Vrbicus. Dicit cessisse pani pecus, tanquam nesciens & tunc in domini mensa, panes propositionis poni solere, & nunc se de agni immaculati corpore partem sumere, dicit cessisse poculo sanguinem, nō cogitans etiam nunc se accipere in poculo sanguinem. He saith that the Shepe hath giuen place to the breade, as though he were ignoraunt, that then also the Shewbread, was vsed to bée sette on the Lordes boarde, and that now [Page] also he taketh parte of the bodie of the im­maculate Lambe: he saieth that bloodde hath giuen place to the Cuppe, not consi­deryng that now also, he receiueth bloode in the Cuppe. These woordes declare, bothe that the Sacrifice was nothyng but the Communion, and also that the wine is none otherwise called bloodde, then the bread is called a lambe, and that the bread in nature, and substaunce is suche, as was the Shewbreade, in whiche was no tran­substantiation, and thirdely, the necessitie of the Communion in both kindes, if this analogie of Augustine must stande, wher­fore sainct Augustine in this Epistle, ma­keth little for your purpose.

The aunswere.

This testimonie in effecte, is the same with the former. Sainct Augustin would haue suche Traditions, as haue alwaies been vsed in the Churche, to bee supposed, that either thei came from the Apostles, or from the generell Counsailes: but here wee haue, diligently to consider, that wée admitte not all suche thynges, as are cal­led Traditions, but onely suche as are v­niuersally, and haue been alwaies vsed in the Churche. Secondely, that thei bee not contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles, conteined in the holie scriptures, for then it is moste certaine, thei are no Traditi­ons of the Apostles, for thei did not deli­uer one thyng in writyng, and a contrary thyng in Tradition. Thirdly, that what­soeuer Tradition of the Apostles, is not conteined in the scriptures, although wee knewe it came from the Apostles, it is lawfull vpon good consideration to alter it. For seyng that all necessarie matters, [Page 60] are conteigned in the scriptures, whatso­uer thei deliuered, whiche is not contei­ned in the scriptures, was but temporall, & might be chaunged, aswell as the decree De sanguine et suffocato, of blood, & strangled.

And that we ought not to receiue, whatsoeuer is commended to vs, as a Traditiō of the Apostles, maie appere by these exā ­ples. Irenaeus was a manne that liued nere to the age of the Apostles, for he sawe, as he hymself doeth testifie, Polycarpus the di­sciple of sainct Ihon. And he declareth that it was a Tradition, commonly receiued in Asia, as of sainct Ihon the Apostle, and of other of the Apostles, that our sauiour Christe liued fiftie yeres, whiche is con­trary to the truthe of the Gospell. Irenaeus libri. 2. Cap. xxxv. If suche a fable could bee credited, for an Apostolike Tradition, so sone after the Apostles departure, what maie bee iudged of those, that in two hun­dreth, three hundreth, fiue hundreth, sixe hundreth, eight hundreth yeres after the Apostles, were not heard of, but sodainlie were sette out in the worlde, as Traditi­ons of the Apostles. Eusebius also repor­teth, libri. v. Cap. xviii. that it was alledged [Page] as a Traditiō of the Apostles, that Christ commaunded theim, not to departe from Hierusalem, twelue yeres after his ascension, whiche is manifestly contrary to the the historie of the Actes of the Apostles. Tertuliane after he was fallen into the er­rour of the Montanistes, voucheth the Tradition of the Apostles, against the Catho­likes, whom he calleth Psychicos, that is, animales, naturall men, and not spirituall.

Ieronime in Euangel. Math. libr. 4. Cap. xxv. declareth that it was a Tradition e­mong the Iewes, that Christ should come at midnight, whervpon he gathereth, that the Tradition of the Apostles was deri­ued, that on Easter eue, the people should not depart out of the churche, before mid­night, but tary there for the commyng of Christ. A likely matter, that the Apostles would make a Tradition, of the erroure of the Iewes. The same Ieronyme vpon the firste Chapiter of Agge saieth verie well of the Apostolicall Traditions: Sed & alia quae abs (que) auctoritate, & testimonijs scri­pturarum quasi Apostolica traditione sponte reperiunt at (que) confingunt, percutit gladius dei. But other thinges also (speakyng of here­tikes) [Page 61] whiche thei finde out, and feigne of them selues, without the aucthoritie, and testimonies of the scriptures, as it were by Tradition of the Apostles, the sworde of God dooeth strike. By these examples, and testimonies, it is manifeste, that wée must not by and by, receiue what soeuer is saied, to be a Tradition of the Apostles.

The aunswere.

Wée agree with sainct Augustine, that suche Ceremonies as are instituted for order, and comelinesse sake, beyng diuers in diuerse churches, if thei be not contrary to the Scriptures, are to bée obserued of suche, as remaine in those Churches. And what this should make, either for you, or againste vs, I dooe not sée at all. For your Ceremonies, are voide of edifiyng, vnor­derly, vndecent, for the churche of Christ, and then the opinion of merite, and satis­faction, that you ioigne vnto them, beyng contrary to the Christian faithe, and the aucthoritie of the Scriptures, maketh thē to be vtterly abhominable. Furthermore when you make them essentiall partes of the religion, and worshippe of GOD, our sauiour Christe hym self, out of the Pro­phete Esaie, doeth vtterly condemne thē. For GOD will not be worshipped, with the doctrine, Traditions, and preceptes of menne. Matth. xv. Thus neither your ten reasōs, out of the scriptures, nor your ten [Page 62] argumentes out of the doctours, nor your fower bulwarkes out of S. Augustine, are able to defende your Popishe churche from ouerthrowe, whiche if she take vpon her, to encounter with the truthe, muste needes bée discomfited, and come to vtter destruction.

The aunswere.

Besides that your Rhetorike in rai­lyng on our Churche, is verie vnreasona­ble, your Sophistrie it self, in quarellyng againste vs, is voide of sufficient subtiltie: not onely to defende it self, but at leaste wise, to hide it self. For what impudente kinde of arguing call you this: by enume­ration of a fewe particulers, to conclude any vniuersall proposition? These newe reformators deny twentie thynges, whi­che the Papistes affirme, ergo, their reli­gion standeth onely of negatiues. Maie not I likewise reason, the Papistes denie [Page] fourtie thynges, that the Protestauntes affirme: Ergo the Religion of Papistes, standeth onely vpon negatiues. Further­more, whē euery affirmatiue proposition implieth a negation of his contradictorie, and euery negatiue propositiō, importeth an affirmation of his contradictorie, you maie as well saie, that it standeth altoge­ther vpon affirmatiues, as you dooe, vpon negatiues. Like as in the tenne commaū ­dementes of GOD, onely twoo are affir­matiue, and eight are negatiue, wherein all the duetie of a Christian manne con­sisteth, you might reason, that Gods com­maundementes stande almoste all of ne­gatiues, as though God did onely tell vs, what we should not doe, and did not teach vs, what wée should dooe, like as you con­clude afterward, vpō the sale of Clare the Butchers horse: but that right reason tel­leth vs, that the prohibitiue Commaūde­mentes, are also preceptiue, and the pre­ceptiue commaundementes, are also pro­hibitiue, for he whiche forbiddeth adulte­terie, commaundeth a chaste life, and he whiche commaundeth to honour our pa­rentes, forbiddeth vs to disobey the same. [Page 65] But because faithe, whiche is the founda­tion of religion, is an affirmation of those thinges, whiche are beleued, to proue that our Religion standeth not all vpon nega­tiues, but chiefly vppon affirmatiues, it shall bée sufficiente to declare that we be­leue, and affirme all the articles of the Christian faithe, and what soeuer is affir­med in the woorde of God as truthe, like as wee denie all falshode, and vntruthe. We beleue, and affirme, that there is but one GOD: wée affirme that in this God-heade, there are three persones distincte, but not diuided. Wee affirme that the sonne of God was conceiued by the holie Ghoste, borne of the virgine Marie, and so foorthe, as it followeth in the Crede, by whiche it is manifeste, that our Religion standeth not all in negatiues.

The aunswere.

I will not stande in argumente with you, whether this be a full difinition of re­ligion, whiche you alledge out of Saincte Augustine. It is not by and by, a diffinitiō of Religion, whiche maie bee truely saied of Religion. But what should moue you to thinke, that our Religion teacheth not menne to worshippe God? When we onely teache, the right kinde of Gods seruice, sette forthe in his woorde, whereas you, [Page 64] and all other heretikes, worshippe God after the preceptes of menne, which is no religion but superstition. You saie our re­ligion doth not consist in any action or ser­uice, more nowe vnto God then was be­fore, but howe true this is, let euery man iudge, when we ascribe all religious ser­uice, obedience, honour, faieth, inuocation, and thankes geuyng, onely to God by our sauiour christe: wheras you giue the grea­test parte thereof to creatures, some to I­mages, some to sainctes departed, some to your owne merites, some to your begger­lie Ceremonies. Let euery man therefore iudge, whether our religion giue not more to God in Christ then you, when we giue all to God, the onely aucthour of all good­nes, and Christe our only mediatour of all benefites to bee receiued of God, and you giue him but parte of al the seruice that is due to hym, and make so many media­tours beside our sauiour Christe. Finally, wher as you charge vs, with the subuersiō of the preceptes moral, ceremonial and iu­diciall, of Gods lawe it is a straunge mat­ter to see your boldnes. What morall pre­ceptes of God doe we gainsaie? doe wee [Page] not teache menne to obserue all the tenne Commaundementes? And what Cere­monial lawes remaine there, to vs which were not vtterly abrogated by Christ? As for the iudiciall preceptes of the Iewishe lawe, who euer required the christians to be bounde vnto theim? The onely propi­ciatorie sacrifice of Christes Passion, wee embrace, & al Sacramentes of christes in­stitution. Wherfore we neither stande al vppon negatiues, neither denie we anie thing, that we ought to affirme as true.

The aunswere.

It shal not be néedefull our doctrine, be­yng so commonly knowen to the worlde, to make a large discourse, vpon euery one of these negatiues, but onely to declare briefly, how we denie them, and to shewe a reason of our deniall. We denie in deede that it is possible for any manne, excepte Christe onely, to keepe the morall precep­tes of God. Which is not suche a straunge paradoxe, to any man that is not a starke hypocrite, but his owne conscience will [Page 65] testifie the same vnto hym. The morall preceptes are conteined in these twoo poinctes, as our sauiour testifieth: Thou shalte loue the Lorde thy GOD, with all thy harte, with all thy soule, with all thy strengthe, and thy neighbour as thy self. Who is so paste all feare of God, that he dare affirme, that he is able to performe this? Againe, what is the cause, that the scripture dooeth so often pronounce, that no man can be iustified by the woorkes of the lawe? but because no manne can ful­fill the lawe. Whiche if a man could per­forme, he should liue therein, and haue e­ternall saluation without Christe, but no man can bee saued without Christ, there­fore no manne can fulfill the lawe. For the lawe was giuē, to shewe vs our wea­kenesse, and so to bring vs to Christ.

The aunswere.

The high courte of conscience, is Gods owne iurisdiction, the iudgement where­of, perteineth neither to Prieste, nor laie [Page] manne, but to God alone. But in causes spirituall, to iudge according to the worde of God, wee dooe not deny, but it pertai­neth to Ecclesiasticall persones, from whiche rule of iustice, if any of theim de­parte, he is subiecte to the correction, and punishemente of the Ciuile Magistrate, As Aaron had his aucthoritie of iudgemēt in Spirituall causes, yet was he reproued by Moises. And Abiathar the high Priest, was deposed by Salomon, and Sadoc sett vp in his place. And should not Ahaz, if he had been a godlie Prince, haue deposed Vriah, for makyng the prophane alter?

The aunswere.

Wee denie all kinde of Ceremonies, that are of mannes inuention, to worship God, or to merite saluation by them. For in the worshippe of God, wee muste dooe onely that he commaundeth vs. Other Ceremonies that are onely for order, and decencie, ordeined in the Churche, wée re­ceiue, as I haue often shewed before.

The aunswere.

The Sacrifice propitiatorie, that one­ly taketh awaie the synnes of the worlde, is the Sacrifice, whiche Christe offered ones for all, vpon the aulter of the crosse, and thereby makyng perfecte for euer, those that are sanctified, can not be repea­ted, without horrible iniurie dooen vnto the Passion of Christe, and the merites thereof. Hebr. vij. ix. x. and almost through out the whole Epistle. In deede the Sa­crifice of the Masse▪ if it bee the Sacrifice ye meane, wée vtterly deteste, as blasphe­mous, and abhominable. For whiche you haue neither commaundemente, nor ex­ample of Christe, what soeuer you pre­tende, by these woordes of our Sauiour, Dooe this in remembraunce of me. For besides that, to celebrate the remēbraunce of Christe in the Sacramente, hath no­thyng to dooe with a Sacrifice, by those woordes it is easie to proue, that you can offer vp no Sacrifice, in the celebration of the Sacramente. For by this woorde of Christe (dooe this) you can dooe no more, [Page] but that whiche Christe then did. But Christe did then offer no Sacrifice of his bodie, therefore you can offer no Sacri­fice of his bodie. That Christe did then of­fer no Sacrifice of his bodie, is manifeste by the Apostle to the Hebrues, whiche of­ten tymes testifieth, that he offered hym self but ones, whiche was on the Crosse, Chapit. vij. ix. x. therefore he did not offer hym self on the table at his supper, as you moste falsely surmise.

The aunswere.

Wee receiue the Sacramente of Ba­ptisme, and of the Lordes Supper, which onely wee finde in the scripture, the other fiue, whiche you call Sacramentes, be­cause we finde theim not in the scripture, instituted of Christe, in the nature of Sa­cramentes, we dooe not receiue theim as Sacramentes. Matrimonie, Confirmati­on, election of Ecclesiasticall ministers, with their aucthoritie, as wee finde theim by the woorde of God, so wee retaine the pure institution of theim, refusyng the [Page 67] corruption, and superstition builded vpon them, by Antichriste. Extreme vnction, is an idle Ceremonie, and nothyng pertai­nyng to our tyme, as I haue declared be­fore, & for that cause is iustely abrogated.

The aunswere.

Wée dooe not denie the reall presence of Christes bodie, to the faithe of him that receiueth worthely. But the carnall, and grosse immagination of transubstanciati­on, whiche is contrary to the scriptures, whiche teacheth that the bodie of christe, is like vnto our bodies, in all thynges, synne excepted, and therefore can not bee in diuerse places at one tyme, and is also contrary, to the doctrine openly taught in the Churche, for seuen or eight hundreth yeres after Christe. For Bertramus did write his treatise, as some thinke, to Ca­rolus Caluus, whiche liued eight hundreth yeres after Christe.

The aunswere.

We denie, that the Churche of Christ is visible, to the worlde, at all tymes, be­cause our sauiour Christ prophecieth, that the moste parte of the worlde should bee deceiued by false Prophetes. Math. xxiiij. and S. Paule prophesieth, of the generall apostasie, that should bee made by Anti­christe. Sainct Ihon also in the Reuelati­on sheweth, that the Churche should flie into the wildernesse, and all the worlde should worshippe Antichriste. Apoca. xij. and. xiij. Wherefore the Churche is not alwaies in sight of the worlde, although it bee sometyme deliuered from suche ex­treme persecution, as it is, God bee than­ked at this tyme.

The aunswere.

Wée affirme, that Adam by his falle, loste the fredome of his will, bothe in him self, and from his posteritie. So that a mā hath nowe no freedome of will, so muche as to thinke a good thoughte. ij. Corin. iij. [Page 68] much lesse to do we any good of our selues. Whiche seeyng it is the iuste iudgemente of God, vpon Adam, and his posteritie, for synne, we make not God aucthour of euil, as prophane dogges doe barke against vs, or rather against God, but iuste in all his iudgementes, and holie in all his waies. But of free wille, I shall haue occasion to speake more hereafter, toward the latter ende of your discourse.

The aunswere.

Wée affirme with saincte Paule, that a manne is iustified before God by faithe, without the deedes of the lawe. Rom. iij. not that deade faithe, whiche saincte Ia­mes speaketh of, but a liuely, and fruicte­full faithe, that woorketh by loue. But of iustification, I muste speake more here­after.

The aunswere.

Wee affirme, that all good woorkes, shall be rewarded by God, for his promise sake, but neither for worthines of them, nor for the worthines of vs. For the wor­thinesse of theim, deserueth nothyng, be­cause thei are vnperfecte. And our worthi­nesse in doyng theim, dooeth merite no­thyng, because thei proceade of God, and not of vs, and secondly, because our synnes are many more in noumber, then our good deedes. And when we haue dooen all that wee are bidden, wee are vnprofitable seruauntes, Luke the. xvij. therefore wee deserue nothyng by theim, but that GOD of his infinite mercie, vouchsaueth for his promise sake in Christe, to accepte them, and reward them.

The aunswere.

To teache men to abstaine from mea­tes, and marriage, is the doctrine of De­uilles. j. Timo. iiij. Otherwise true faste we deny not, but affirme, and commende [Page 69] as hath been declared ones, or twise be­fore.

The aunswere.

We deny the superstitious obseruati­on of daies and tymes, but wee affirme, allowe, and vse certaine daies, and tymes appoicted for praier, and godlie exercises. By watches, if you meane your vigiles, of sainctes daies, you your selues vse onely the name, and not the obseruatiō of those watches. Whiche although thei were v­sed of olde in the Churche, yet for diuers inconueniences, thei were lefte of, and by decree of the Counsaile Elibertinū abroga­ted Can. 35.

The aunswere.

We doe not denie the obseruations of any lawfull promises, made vnto GOD, that are possible to bee kepte of those that make theim. But wee teache menne, not [Page] to bee rashe in makyng promises, before thei bee sure, that thei are able to per­forme them. And if thei haue made a rash or vnaduised vowe, as to abstaine from Marriage, whiche thei are not able to ob­serue, but by committyng fornication, and vncleannesse, wee counsaile theim to re­pente of their rashenesse, and to retourne to the ordinaunce of GOD, whiche is the remeadie of incontinence, rather then to leade an abhominable life, in fil­thinesse.

The aunswere.

We affirme, that chaste life appertai­neth to all menne, and especially to Eccle­siasticall ministers. But we do not compt marriage an vnchaste life, as you doe, but holie, and honourable in all menne, and the marriage bedde to be vndefiled. Hebr. xiij. And seeyng that the holie ghoste by sainct Paule, in his Epistles to Timothe and Titus, describyng the beste qualities required in Bishoppes, and Deacons, al­lowed marriage, wee dare not presume to [Page 70] disalowe it, or to forbidde any man from it, leaste wee should teache the doctrine of Deuilles, as you doe.

The aunswere.

Howe shall wee call vppon theim, in whom we dooe not beleue? Roma. x. We beleue onely in God, therefore wee call v­pon God onely. We acknowledge no me­diatour of God and men, but onely Iesus Christe. j. Timoth. ij. Neither of redemp­tion, nor intercession: For the Apostle in that place speaketh purposely of interces­sion, saiyng, I besech you therfore brethrē, that praiers, supplications, &c. bée made for all men. And as for honour that should be due to sainctes, we acknowledge none, beyng taught by so many places of Scrip­ture, that al honour, and glorie, belongeth onely to God: who is a ielous GOD, and will not giue his honour to any other. Wherefore as Augustine saieth, honora­mus eos charitate, non seruitute, wee honour theim with loue, and not with seruice, by whiche testimonie of that godlie manne, [Page] your blinde distinction of latria, and doulia is ouerthrowen, for what is doulia, but ser­uitus? Whiche kinde of honour, sainct Au­gustine, doeth vtterly deny to be giuen to sainctes. August. De vera religione. Capi. 55. The same Augustine dooeth also declare, wherein their honour doeth consist, namely, in followyng of their example. Hono­randi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem. Thei are to be honoured for imitations sake, not to bée whorshipped for religions sake. And you your self diffi­ned religion before, to be cultus diuinus, the seruice due vnto GOD, howe would you then that true Religion, should dooe any seruice to menne, or Angelles, whiche are but creatures of God.

The aunswere.

We affirme accordyng to the scripture, that the deade whiche die in the lorde are blessed, for they reste from their labours, and therefore to praie for theim that are happy, were superfluous. And as for those that die not in the lorde, thei are accursed, [Page 71] and therefore no praier is to bee made for theim: and al that die, doe either die in the lord, or not in the lord, for betwene cōtra­dictories ther is no meane. Apo. 14. Our sauiour christe testifieth of theim that be­leue in God, that sent hym, that thei haue life euerlastyng, and come not into iudge­ment, but passe from death to life. Iohn. 5. And if any hadde neede to bee pourged for satisfaction (as you teache, that men must be in purgatorie) the holy theef, that was crucified with Christe, shoulde haue béen one especially, but our sauiour christ made him assurance of felicity immediatly, this daie (saieth he) thou shalte bee with me in Paradise. Luke. 23. And séeyng the Scrip­ture neither commaundeth nor commen­deth Praier for the deade, it is vntollera­ble presumptiō for any man, to vse it. And as for oblations, wee finde none in Gods woorde apoincted for the deade, that wee shoulde offer: no not in the oulde lawe, where there was so manie diuerse kindes of Sacrifice, no one was appoincted for the deade. Wherefore the example of Iudas rehearsed by the aucthour of the seconde booke of Machabées is neither to bee al­lowed, [Page] nor followed, because he hadde no warrant of Gods lawe to offer any suche Sacrifice.

The seuententh negation was altoge­ther lefte out in the copie which came first to my handes, I suppose by negligence of the writer, but in another copie I finde it thus.

The Aunswere.

Accordyng to the worde of God, and the consente of the primitiue churche, wée de­nie the vse of Images in the Churche, whiche are the doctrine of vanities and li­es, as the Prophet witnesseth Abac. 2.

The aunswere.

Wee are not so carefull for the buriall of our deade bodies, to dispute where they muste bee laied, so that dewe reuerence without superstition be vsed in their Se­pulture, nether dooe wee refuse to burie theim in the Churche yerdes and places of [Page 72] comon buriall, although we thinke no ho­lines to bee more in one place then in an other.

The aunswere.

Of hallowyng the water of baptisme, I haue spoken sufficiently before, as for oile Palmes, Asshes, and suche other beggerly Elementes of the worlde, that haue no woorde of GOD to comende them, wee haue no vse of theim in our religion: but in their Ciuile vse, all the creatures of god are hallowed to vs by the woorde of God and praier. Gal. 4. Coll. 2.1. Tim. 4.

The aunswere.

As this twentieth differeth from the ninetenth only in wordes, so one answere shall serue bothe. These weake and beg­gerly Elementes of the worlde, christian religion needeth not, hauyng Christe in whom dwelleth all fulnes and perfection, wisedome, iustificatien, sanctification. And generally, of all Ceremonies as is often saied before, wée admitte none as parte of Gods whorshippe, whiche are instituted of menne: onely suche as bee accidentall, and mutable, if they be ordeined for edificatiō, order, and decencie, and be voide of super­stition, we obserue theim. But so that no mannes conscience bee bounde to theim. And that when soeuer occasion serueth for better edification and more comely or­der, it is lawfull to abrogate them, and to institute newe in their places.

The aunswere.

You conclude your matter, as it is ve­rie mete, with a merie tale, I had almoste saied of Robin Hoode, and little Ihon, but I should saie of maister Molande, and Clare the Butcher of Oxforde. Where­by a manne may perceiue, you were plea­sauntely disposed, that in so shorte a trea­tise, [Page] wold néedes thruste in so long a tale, and the same to dilate with all the cir­cumstaunces, whereas you had no leasure to note the places of your Doctours, that ye alledge in good earneste. But now sir, (sauyng your tale) and to applie it to the purpose. If maister Molande, as he reher­sed some faultes, of whiche perhappes his horse was free, so he had recited all the faultes, that maie be in any horse, and de­nied theim all to bee in his horse, might not Clare the Butcher, haue boughte a good horse, of him by negatiues? But ma­ister Molande like a subtile Sophister, re­peateth a many of his defaultes, and sup­presseth as many, or more, and so he begi­leth poore Clare the Butcher. And this Sophistrie of maister Molande, is youre Logike throughout all your treatise, of a fewe particulars, to inferre an vniuersal. And this your Iade belike, you thoughte to sell vnto some, as simple as Clare the Butcher, that could no more discerne of your diuinitie, then Clare the Butcher, could sée of maister Molandes Sophistrie. Or els if you mente good faithe, as you do pretende, I must nedes saie, to quitte your [Page 74] tale, that if Clare wer not a better But­cher, then you shewe your self to be a Lo­gicien, or diuine, you might bothe procede in one facultie, and maister Molande bee your presenter. For as he solde his horse by negatiues, so you haue proued, that all our Religion standeth wholie vppon ne­gatiues, that we denie all thinges, and af­firme nothyng.

The aunswere.

It must néedes be a clerkely disputatiō, wher you maie be both opponent, & respō ­dent your self, wher you maie make argu­mētes for vs, and make answere for your self. But as he that aunswereth, if he gett [Page] the victorie, ouerthroweth him that oppo­seth: so you taking vpon you to oppose, and aunswere your self, you can ouerthrowe none, other but your owne self. But ne­uer a one of these fiue obiections, is hol­den of vs, in maner and forme, as it is pro­pounded of you. And therfore I would de­sire you henceforwarde, to defende youre owne matters, aswell as you can, for you shall gette neither money, nor thankes, to plaie the Proctor for vs.

The aunswere.

We affirme that it is vnlawfull, that any manne should bee bounde to sole life, whiche hath not the gifte of continence. And that marriage is as honourable in ec­clesiasticall ministers, as in al other men, whether thei were married before thei were called to that office, or to whether thei marrie afterwarde. Hebre. xiij. j. Timoth. iij. and Tite. j.

The aunswere.

Wee affirme, that who soeuer hath made a rashe, and vnaduised vowe of con­tinence, whiche he is not able to keepe, ought to repente him of his rashenes, and rather to marrie, then to burne. j. Cor. 7.

The aunswere.

Wee affirme that thei, whiche are lawfully deuorced for adulterie, are no more housebande, and wife. For the knot of marriage by lawfull deuorsemente, is cleane dissolued, and therefore a manne so deuorsed, maie marrie, and not haue twoo wiues at ones, accordyng to the doctrine, [Page] and right vnderstandyng of our Sauiour Christes wordes. Math. v. and xix.

The aunswere.

Wee affirme accordyng to the scriptu­res, and faithe of the Churche, for a thou­sande yeres after Christe, that breade and wine remaine in the Sacrament, and are necessarie there to remaine, that it maie bée a Sacramente, for the woorde muste come to the Elemente, and so make it a Sacrament. But we doe not affirme, that breade, and wine is the whole substaunce of the Sacrament, but the bodie and blood of Christe, receiued by faithe, is the prin­cipall parte thereof, as in Baptisme the outward Element is water, but the prin­cipall part thereof, is the pourgyng of our sinnes, by the secrete, and wōderfull wor­kyng of the holie ghoste.

The aunswere.

Wee affirme, that the free mercie of God in Christ, is the efficient cause of our iustification, whiche mercie we apprehēde by none other hande, or instrumente, but by faithe. But that either faithe dooeth procure, or purchase Gods grace, or mer­cie, by any whorthinesse of it, wee vtterly denie, as also that onely faithe is sufficiēte for a christian man: when we teache that this faith, by which we are iustified, is not a solitarie faith, but of necessitie accompa­nied with many vertues, & good workes, although by receiuyng Goddes mercie, no workes, but onely faithe doeth iustifie vs.

The aunswere.

But euen nowe, in the latter ende of the firste obiection, you confesse, that wee affirme many other thynges, beside these fiue, whiche you haue rehersed. And now as though, we had no other affirmations, you conclude, (as your maner is) that no one of our affirmatiōs, maketh any thyng ad cultum diuinum to gods seruice, and that all our affirmations doe include a negati­on, of a farre better thing, then is brought in by them. So that when wee affirme all the articles of the Crede, none of theim perteineth to Goddes seruice, but rather include a negation of a farre better thing. When we affirme, that Christe onely is the heade of his vniuersall Churche, wee doe it not to the honour of Christ, but wée include y ^e negation of a farre better thing, that is the supremacie of the Pope. Whi­che by your assertion, is a farre more bet­ter [Page 77] thyng, then the supremacie of Christ. So when we affirme, that onely the scri­pture must bee the rule of true Religion, it maketh nothyng for Religion, to wor­shippe God as he hath commaunded, but it includeth a negation of vnwritten ve­rities, whiche are farre more better thin­ges, then the scripture. When we affirme that we must put our trust in God alone, we doe no honour to God therby: but we denie y ^t men muste put their trust in crea­tures, which by your rule, is a farre more better thyng, then to putte our truste in God alone. When wee affirme, that wée must praie to God alone, it perteineth no­thyng, to Gods seruice, but includeth the negation, of praiyng vnto sainctes, whiche is a farre more better thyng, then to pray vnto God. And when we affirme, that the onely Sacrifice of Christes passion, is suf­ficiente for our saluation, we yelde no ho­nour to God thereby, but denie the Sa­crifice of the Masse, whiche is a farre bet­ter thyng, then the Sacrifice of Christes passiō. And thus if I had leasure, and plea­sure, as you haue, to number examples by tennes, and by twenties, I might reherse [Page] a whole hundreth of the like sorte.

The aunswere.

Wee so affirme marriage of Ecclesia­sticall ministers, as an honourable, and a chaste life, neither doe wée denie continēs to those that haue the gifte thereof. And whereas you vouche sainct Paule to wa­rantie. I aunswere, that saincte Paule in no place, dooeth require virginitie of Ec­clesiasticall persones, and wheresoeuer he commendeth it, he praiseth it, no more in priestes, then in laie menne. I would all menne were, saieth he, as I am, but euery one hath his proper gifte of God, some of one sorte, and some of an other. j. Cor. vij.

The aunswere.

[Page 78]Wée denie not the obseruation of any promises, or vowes, whiche are lawfull for menne to make, and possible for them to performe. Neither doeth saincte Paule at any time commende any suche vowes, or allowe them to bée kepte, but geueth a generall rule, that to auoide fornication, lett euery manne haue his wife, and eue­ry woman her housebande. j. Cor. vij. And if a virgine marrie, she sinneth not: so that if you would vnderstande virgines in that place, for vowed Nonnes, you should ma­nifestely contrary your self, that coumpte it so heinous a matter, for a Nonne to marrie. And as for the widowes, whiche (as I said before) made no vowes to God, but promises to the churche, if you would needes vnderstande theim for Nonnes, Sainct Paule saieth, it is better for them that are vnder three score yere old to ma­rie, and beare children, then to vowe cha­stitie. j. Timo. v.

The aunswere.

Concernyng diuorses, if that whiche wee wishe, might take place, all contro­uersies should bee cutte of. For we wishe that adulterers, accordyng to the lawe of God, should be punished with death. But if the Ciuile Lawe dooeth faile in that poincte, the nexte remeadie for the inno­cente partie, is diuorcemente, and after deuorcement, marriage, if he can not liue vnmarried. For our sauiour Christ excep­teth the case of fornication, as well for marriage after deuorcemente, as for the diuorcemente it self. Math. xix. And for a­mendemente of the partie offendant, the Ecclesiasticall sworde of Excommunica­tion, muste bee drawne out: whiche muste continue so longe vpon the offendour, vn­till his vnfeigned, and hartie repentance, doe sufficiently appeare to the Congrega­tion. Whiche in that case, maie not refuse to receiue him againe. The partie then so receiued, bothe of god, and the church, and [Page 79] not beyng able to leade to a continente life, is at libertie, to marrie also in the Lorde. For the firste marriage by the diuorce­mente, is as clearely dissolued, as if it had neuer been. And as concernyng the recon­ciliation sainct Paule speaketh of, he mea­neth not betwene them, that are lawful­ly diuorced. But betwene those that se­parate them selues, without a sufficiente cause, whiche is onely fornication. Like as our sauiour Christ, when he saith, that who so marrieth her, that is putte awaie, committeth adulterie, vnderstandeth of her that is vnlawfully putte awaie, for a­ny other cause, beside fornication, in all whiche causes (the case of adulterie onely excepted) she continueth still wife to hym that did putte her awaie so that he whiche marrieth her, marrieth an other mannes wife, and so committeth adulterie. But she that is diuorsed for adulterie, is no mannes wife, and therefore he that mar­rieth her, committeth none adulterie.

The aunswere.

Wée do not so affirme bread, and wine in the Sacrament, that we denie the pre­sence of the bodie, and bloud of Christe, to the faithe of the worthie receiuer. But that grosse, and carnall presence, whiche you dooe faigne to bee receiued, as well of wicked menne, as of Godlie: whiche im­magination beyng of fleshe without the spirite, our Sauiour Christe affirmeth, to be altogether vnprofitable. For if you did not separate it from the spirite, it muste nedes giue life to those that receiue it. As Christe hymself affirmeth, whosoeuer ea­teth his fleshe, and drinketh his blood, hath life euerlastyng. Ihon. vj. Againe you fei­gned presence, is vnpossible to the nature of his humaine bodie, whiche he hath in al poinctes like to ours, sinne excepted. Heb. ij. and. iiij.

The aunswere.

By affirmyng that onely faithe doeth iustifie, we neither denie the Sacramen­tes to be receiued, nor any good worke to be exercised, as GOD and all the worlde doeth knowe. For ascribyng to faith, that whiche is her peculier office, wee dooe not deny the offices of any other thinges, that belong vnto theim. As if I affirme that onely the eye doeth see, I doe not de­nie the eare to heare, or the tounge to tast, or the hande to handle, or the foote to goe, but I denie that the eare, or any other member dooeth sée, saue onely the iye. So affirmyng, that onely faithe dooeth iusti­fie, wee dooe not denie, the Sacramentes [Page 82] to be seales of Goddes promises, nor good woorkes to be fruites of our iustification, by whiche God is glorified, and our electi­on in vs established, and yet we deny, that the Sacramentes, or good woorkes, or a­ny other thyng in vs, dooeth iustifie, saue onely faithe, that taketh holde of Goddes mercie, by beleuyng Gods promises. As it is written of Abraham, not for hym onely (as saincte Paule testifieth) but for vs also, Abraham beleued God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse: so that faithe doeth not iustifie vs by the merite, or worthinesse therof, but by Goddes im­putation of righteousnes therevnto. For to be iustified before GOD, is not to bee righteous by any qualitie that is in vs, but to be accoumpted righteous of GOD for Christes sake, hauing our synnes pur­ged by his passion. But whereas you take vpon you, to talke of iustification, and that so substancially, that you wil tell vs what all learnyng agreeth thereof, you declare that youre learnyng, and discretion are bothe a like. For it were enough for you, to speake of all your owne learning, whi­che you knowe, and not of all learnyng in [Page] generall, whiche you knowe not. It is not by and by all lernyng, that the Maister of the Sentence, and after hym all the sen­tenciaries, and whole rable of Papistes also doe holde. There is some learnyng of the olde writers, and there is some lear­nyng of the newe writers. And the Pro­testantes I trust, bee not voide of all lear­nyng. It were sufficiente for you, to chal­lenge truthe, though you did not boaste of all learning. But seyng all learnyng is on your side, as you saie your self, will you giue a poore manne of small learnyng, leaue, to aske you one question, concer­nyng that diuision, whiche all learnyng dooeth agree of? Is this your diuision, of the worde of iustification? Or of the thing it self, whiche is Iustification. If it be one­ly of the woorde iustification (sauyng the correction of all learnyng) I finde in scrip­ture three other diuerse kindes of iustifi­cation, of whiche neuer a one, can be com­prehended in any of your three kindes of iustification. The firste is, in the. Lj. Psalme. Vt iustificeris in sermonibus tuis, & vincas cum iudicaris. That thou maiest bee iustified in thy saiynges, and gette the vp­per [Page 83] hande, when thou art iudged. The se­conde, is in the eleuenth chapiter of sainct Matthew. Iustificata est sapientia a filijs suis. Wisedome is iustified of her own childrē. The thirde is. j. Timo. iij. Deus manifesta­tus est in carne, iustificatus est in spiritu. &c. God was shewed in the fleshe, iustified in the spirite. &c. Loe heare, are three seueral iustifications more, then your learned di­uision dooeth conteine. But if you vnder­stande your diuision, not of the diuerses acceptions of the worde, but of the thyng it self, I would demaunde by what kinde of iustification, the Publicane was iusti­fied, of whom our sauiour Christe dooeth testifie, that he departed iustified, rather then the Pharisie. Luke. xviij. The firste kinde you saie, is by Baptisme, but he was not baptised, the seconde you make by pe­naunce, but he receiued no penaunce: and by the thirde kinde, he could not bee iusti­fied, for he came thether a Publicane, and a synner, Therefore all learning hath left out one kinde of Iustification, whiche Christe hymself doeth teache. And that is the onely true iustification, whereof wee meane, when our synnes beyng pardoned [Page] by the free mercie of God in Christe, wée are accoumpted righteous before hym, whiche is confirmed to vs, when wee be­leue his promises therof. And this is that iustification, whereof sainct Paule dispu­teth at large, in the Epistle to the Romai­nes. By whiche it maie appeare, what a clearkly diuision you haue made, that ex­cludeth the onely true iustification, which is the thing we cōtende of, and is so moste properly called. But now to consider righ­tly, the partes of your diuision. You saie, the firste kinde of iustification, is when of an vngodlie manne, is made a godly man. Whiche if it were rightly vnderstoode, is the same iustification, that we speake of, when we saie onely faithe dooeth iustifie. But when you restraine it to Baptisme of infauntes, you are farre wide from our vnderstandyng, and from the truthe. For what is Baptisme to vs, more then Cir­cumcisiō was to Abraham? but Abraham was not iustified by Circumsition, as S. Paule proueth at large, therefore neither are we iustified by Baptisme. But Abra­ham was iustified by faithe, and receiued Circumsition, as a seale of his iustificati­on, [Page 84] So we beyng iustified by faith, receiue Baptisme, as a seale of our righteousnes, whiche is by faithe. Thus we doe not de­nie the Sacramente of Baptisme, as you moste shamefully doe slaunder vs, but we shewe the right vse, and profite thereof, out of the scriptures. For when wee haue receiued by faithe, the promises of Gods fauour, and mercie, in whiche our salua­tion dependeth, we doe not refuse the sea­les, whiche are the Sacramentes, whiche GOD hath added for confirmation of our faithe. But whereas you restraine this iustification to infauntes, you shewe your ignoraunce in the Scriptures, for he that ex impio fit iustus, that is, of a wicked man is made righteous, muste beleue in hym that iustifieth the vngodlie manne, as it is in saincte Paule. Roma. iiij. and so his faithe is imputed, or accoumpted to hym for righteousnesse, and in suche sorte, that it is without respecte of woorkes, whiche is nothyng els, but that wee affirme, an vngodlie manne is iustified by faithe one­ly, for what woorkes canne he haue, that should cōcurre with faithe, to iustifie him, whiche is an vngodly manne, before he be [Page] iustified, and therefore Augustine saieth verie well of good woorkes. Sequuntur iu­stificatum, non praecedunt iustificandum. Thei followe hym that is iustified, thei goe not before hym that is to bee iustified. Seyng therefore, that faithe is necessarie in this iustification, and infauntes (to speake pro­perly) haue no faithe, this iustification can not bee restrained to Baptisme of infan­tes, which if thei dye before thei heare the worde of God preached, that thei maie be­leue, are saued by election, if thei bee the children of God, and not by faithe. For as the doctrine of faithe, perteineth to theim onely, that liue to heare the Gospell prea­ched, to whiche thei maie giue credite, and bryng for the fruictes of good woorkes ac­cordyngly, to the praise of Goddes glorie: So the doctrine of Iustification, by faithe onely, pertaineth to theim, and not to in­fantes. And therefore your assertion, that infantes are iustified by Baptisme, com­meth nearer to the errour of the Anabap­tistes, for bothe you, and thei require faith necessarie, to bee in all them that shall bee Baptised, wherevpon springeth twoo he­resies, the one of the Anabaptistes, deni­yng [Page 85] the Baptisme of infātes, because thei haue no faithe: the other of the Papistes, fantasiyng that thei haue faithe, and ther­fore are iustified by Baptisme. Whereas the saiyng of our sauiour Christe, whiche is misunderstoode of you bothe (he that be­leueth, and is baptised, shalbe saued) must with all equitie, be expounded, accordyng to the matter whereof he speaketh, accor­dyng to the wordes goyng before. Which are, Goe into all the worlde, and preache the Gospell to euery creature. Mat. xxviij. Mark. xvj. So that where preachyng hath gone before, their faithe is necessarie to saluatiō, and necessarie to be required, be­fore a manne bee Baptised. For we must remember, that our sauiour Christ, doeth not in that place, institute Baptisme, but shewe how it must bee added, as a seale of the Gospell, for confirmation of the bele­uers, and for a testimonie of their professi­on. But seyng that God hath also a secret operation in Baptisme, whereby the chil­dren of GOD are regenerate, by his holy spirite, and that the fauour of God, exten­deth by his promise, not only to our selfes, but also to the seede of vs that are faithe­full, [Page] we minister the Sacrament of Bap­tisme, to our infantes also, because thei are comprehended within the compasse of Gods couenaunte, and therefore ought to haue the seale, and cognisaunce of Goddes couenaunte sette vpon them. And yet not bindyng the grace of GOD so straightly, to the outwarde Elemente, but that, he maie saue the children of the faithfull, without Baptisme, whom he taketh out of this life, before thei can receiue this sa­cramente in the churche, accordyng to his holie institution.

And this iustification by faithe onely, we doe not make to be an inconstant qua­litie of righteousnes, that should be with­in vs, whiche is abolished so often as wee fall into synne, but a perpetuall accepta­tion of God, wherby he imputeth not our synnes vnto vs, but accoumpteth vs righ­teous, for the righteousnes of Christe, ac­cordyng as sainct Paule difineth iustifica­tion by faithe, without workes, out of the xxxj. Psalme. Blessed are thei whose ini­quities are forgiuen, and whose synnes are couered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lorde dooeth not impute his synne. [Page 86] Roma. iiij. For whom God dooeth iustifie by faithe, he dooeth not iustifie them for a daie, or a yere, but for euer, as S. Paule testifieth, whom he hath iustified, he hath glorified. Roma. viij. Whereby it is easie to see, what a vaine iustification that is, whiche you make to be your second kinde by penaunce, whiche is loste, by euery fall into deadly synne, of whiche kinde of iu­stification, the scripture speaketh not one woorde, but it is a fantasie of youre owne braine, to sette vp a Butcherie of mennes consciences, and to make your selues Lor­des, ouer their consciences, by binding thē vpon necessitie of saluation, to your beg­gerly Penaunce. For although a manne that is regenerate, and iustified of God, is not onely subiecte to infinite falles, as the scripture testifieth (the righteous manne falleth seuen tymes a daie, and riseth a­gaine) but also sometymes falleth into greate, and notable crimes, as Dauid into murther, and adulterie, yet can he neuer fall from the fauour of God, but that he is called to repentaunce, and his synnes are forgiuen hym. For this foundation shall neuer faile, the Lorde knoweth who are [Page] his, and whom soeuer he hath knowen be­fore all tyme, theim he will call in tyme thought conuenient to his wisedome, and theim whō he hath so called, he hath iusti­fied, and whom soeuer he hath iustified, he will glorifie eternally. Roma. viij. And in this iustification, whereby God receiueth vs into his fauour, and pardonyng our sin­nes, imputeth rightousnes vnto vs, there is no degrees, for whē he doeth iustifie vs, he maketh vs his children, and so his chil­dren, that wee are his heires, and heires by adoption, annexed with Christe his onely begotten soonne by nature. Roma. viij. Wherefore althoughe faithe, and good woorkes, the one beyng the instru­ment to receiue, the other beyng the frui­tes to shewe our iustificatiō, maie, & ought to increase daiely in vs, that are iustified: Yet our iustification before GOD, is not thereby increased, who imputeth righte­ousnesse vnto vs, for Christes sake alone, and not for our owne worthines. Wher­by it is euidente, how vnlike youre thirde kinde of iustification, is to the iustification of God, who iustifieth not the righteous, but the vngodlie manne, that beleueth in [Page 87] hym. And as for the testimonie that you alledge, out of the Apocalipse, although it maie haue a true meanyng, that he which is iuste, maie bee made more iuste, and he that is holie, maie bee made more holie, whiche is of the increase of vertues, and not of iustification: yet the beste interpre­tation, accordyng to the Greke phrase, is rather of continuance, then increase, and so it is beste translated, he that is righte­ous, lette hym be righteous still, and he that is holie, let hym be holie still. Wher­fore, you se vpō how weake a foundation, youre thirde kinde of iustification dooeth leane, namely vpon a corrupte translati­on. But admitte it bee so, as you dooe take it, there is greate difference betwene a iuste manne, and a manne iustified. For a iuste manne, is he, that is indued with the vertue of iustice, whiche maie increase, or diminishe in hym: But a iustified manne is he, whose synnes are forgiuen hym, and he accoumpted rightous, not for his owne worthinesse, but for Christes sake, there­fore, although the vertue of iustice, which is a qualitie in hym, may increase, yet, be­cause in Goddes sight, there is no respecte [Page] of his worthines, his iustification can not increase therby. For what can he be more then the soonne of GOD, and inheritour with Christ, of the kyngdome of heauen. If you saie, he maie haue greater reward, that hath greater vertues, I will not con­tende againste you, so that this bee remē ­bred, that his vertues are rewarded, not as his merites; but as Gods giftes, for his promise sake. So that a iuste, or righteous man, is he that exerciseth hymself, in the kepyng of Goddes commaundementes, so neare as God shall giue hym grace, and the infirmitie of mannes corrupt nature, will admitte. But a iustified manne, is he that hauyng no iustice, or righteousnesse in hym before, is accepted of God for iust, his iniquities being pardoned, and his sin­nes couered. And for them that be simple, an example will make the matter plaine. There are twoo menne standyng before a prince, the one that hath not transgres­sed the princes lawes, whiche maie be called a iuste manne: The other that hath greuously offended, and is pardoned of the prince, whiche maie well bee termed a iu­stified manne. But this difference there [Page 88] is to be noted, in this example, that before God, none can bee iuste, or righteous, but he that is firste iustified, neither can any manne be so iuste, but that he offendeth in many thynges, and hath neede of greate mercie. Thus it is cleare, how impertinē ­tly the increase of faithe, and good woor­kes, with tertes of Scripture belongyng thereto are of you drawne to iustification before God. Wherefore by our affirmati­on, that onely faithe iustifieth, we neither denie the exercise, and commoditie of chri­stes Sacramentes, nor yet the studie, and practise of all good woorkes, commaunded of God, but rather established them: when we teache, that the Sacramentes are sea­les, and confirmation of this faithe, and good workes, are the fruites of the same: firste to the glorie of God: secondly for the example af others: and thirdly, for assu­raunce of our election to vs warde, and in­crease of our rewarde before God. And as for that, whiche you alledge out of saincte Augustine, whiche of all other writers, is moste cleare of our iudgemente, for elec­tion, iustification, and sainctification, ma­keth nothyng in the worlde againste vs. [Page] For wee dooe not teache (as I haue often saied) that a bare faithe alone, whiche is voide of good woorkes, is sufficiente for our saluation, but that a true, liuely, and fruitefull faithe, onely dooeth iustifie vs before God, that GOD maie haue all the glory, of our saluation in Christ: And that sanctification, or good woorkes, of neces­sitie must followe a iustified man, where­by God maie bee glorified, his neighbour profited, and himself rewarded, not of me­rite due to his woorkes, but of mercie, ac­cordyng to Goddes promise.

And that whiche sainct Iames speaketh of faieth, that it dooeth not iustifie, alone, he meaneth, as he himselfe expoundeth, of a deade faithe, whiche is voide of good woorkes, of an historicall faith, that there is one God. &c. whiche the diuell beleueth, not of a liuely faithe, whiche worketh by charitie, nor of a iustifiyng faithe, whiche embraceth the mercie of God set forthe in his promises. So that this saiyng of sainct Iames, a man is not iustified by faithe on­lie, is all one with this, a deade faith or an historicall faieth doth not iustifie, whiche we doe alwaies affirme. And whereas he [Page 89] speaketh of iustification by woorkes, hee meaneth of argumentes proues, and cer­teine signes to the worlde, of iustification before God, as it is manifest by his exam­ples. For Abraham was iustified before God by faith, without respect of his wor­kes, as sainct Paule doth testifie, when he beleued the promise, and that the scrip­ture saied his faithe was imputed to hym for rightousnes, whiche was long before he offered his soonne Isaake: but this his obedience, was a triall and manifest testi­monie, of his iustification by faithe, to all the worlde, whereuppon as saincte Iames concludeth, it was euident to al men, how this scripture was fulfilled: Abraham be­leued God, and it was imputed to hym for righteousnes. Likewise the harlot Rahab, as witnesseth the Apostle to the Hebrues the. 11. was iustified by faith, when she be­leued the worde of God, concernyng the destruction of her Countrie, and all them that did not ioigne theimselues to the peo­ple of god: but she shewed the fruict of this faith, when she enterteined and dismissed the spies, that came to her house. So that by this distinction, of faithe and iustifica­tion, [Page] sainct Iames agréeth with S. Paule, whiche without it, can neuer by reconci­led. For that confusion of faithe and wor­kes, which the papistes make to concurre in iustification, can neuer make theim a­gree, for sainct Paule doth flattly exclude workes from that office. Wee determine saieth he, that a man is iustified by faithe without the workes of the lawe. Rom. 3. But this is the iudgement of both the A­postles, that a liuely faithe alone doth iu­stifie. The one affirmeth, that nothing is required to iustifie but faithe, the other affirmeth, that faithe whiche onely is re­quired as sufficient to iustification, is not deade, solitary or vnfruictfull, but liuely, fruictfull, & accompanied with manie ver­tues, & good workes. For he that acknow­ledgeth his sinnes to be forgeuen of God for Christes sake, and that he is receiued of God as his childe (whiche is to be iusti­fied) must needes loue God, and all theym that loue God, muste néedes haue a desier to obeye God, honour God, to be thancke­full to God, and to profette all theim, that God hath commaunded hym to loue. And this is the worste effecte of onely faithe [Page 90] iustifiyng. But because you make it so straunge a matter, as though it had neuer been heard of in the worlde before nowe, that faithe alone or onely faithe doth iusti­fie, I will rehearse you the sentences of a fewe doctours, that I haue readde, whiche in plaine wordes affirmed the same, ma­ny hundred yeres before you and I were borne. Not doubtyng but they, that haue redde more then I, are able to bring forth a greate deale more then I haue brought.

Origines, though otherwise a verie vn­pure writer, yet for iustification by faithe onely, speaketh very plainly, although not in all poinctes truely, vpon the Epistle to the Rom. lib. 3. Cap. 3. Dicit sufficere solius fi­dei iustificationem, ita vt credens quis tantum­modo, iustificetur etiamsi operis nihil ab eo fue­rit expletū. Imminet igitur nobis qui integram esse scripturam Apostoli conamur asserere, & ordine suo cuncta constare, vt requiramus, quis sine operibus, sola fide iustificatus sit. Quantum igitur ad exemplum pertinet. &c. S. Paule saieth that the iustification of faith alone, doth suffice, so that he whiche beleueth on­lie, maie bee iustified, although he haue doen no good worke. Wherefore it stan­deth [Page] vs vppon, that take in hande to de­fende the writyng of the Apostle, to bee perfecte and all thinges therein to stande with good order, to enquire who was iu­stified by faithe onely without woorkes. Therefore for examples sake, I thinke that theife is sufficiente, whiche beeyng crucified with Christe, cried to hym from the Crosse. Lord Iesu remember me whē thou comest into thy kyngdome. Neither is there any other good woorkes of his de­scribed in the Gospell, but for this faieth onely, Iesus saide to hym, verily I saie to thee, this daie thou shalte bee with me in Paradice. Thus far Origine. Neuertheles wee muste remember, as I haue saide be­fore, that although this thief was iustified by faithe onely, yet this faithe was fructe­full of suche good workes, as the tyme suf­fered hym to expresse, as inuocation, re­pentaunce, reprehension of his fellowe. &c. The same Origene saieth. Idem enim ipse de­us, ex vtro (que) populo non circumcisionis, aut prae­putij priuilegio, sed solius fidei contemplatione iustificat. The same God out of bothe the people, not by priuilege of Circumcisiō, or vncircumcision, but by the contemplation [Page 91] of faith alone, dothe iustifie. And in the. 4. booke and. 4. Cap. Initium iustificandi à deo fides est qua credit in iustificantem, & haec fides cum iustificata fuerit, tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo. &c. Faithe is the beginnyng of iustifiyng before god, which beleueth in hym that iustifieth, and this faithe after it is iustified, as a roote that is wattered with a showre of raine, aby­deth faste in the grounde of the soule, that when it beginneth to bee dressed and del­ued by the lawe of God, the boughes arise in it, whiche bring forthe the fruicte of good workes. And in diuers other places Origē, sheweth himself to be of the same minde. Sainct Cypriane ad Quirinum. Cap. 4. In nullo gloriādum quando nostrum nihil sit. We haue to bost of nothing, seyng nothing is our owne. Where bee then our merites? Againe. Cap. 42. Fidem tantum prodesse, & tantum nos posse, quantum credimus. He affir­meth that faithe onely doth profitte, and that so muche as we beleue, so muche we maie obtaine. Wherein he agreeth with our sauiour Christe saiyng, all thinges are possible to hym that beleueth. Also in his booke de duplici Martyrio, he writeth thus. [Page] Non credit in deum, qui non in eo solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam. He doothe not beleue in God whiche dooeth not place in him alone the assurance of all his felicitie. In whom then doe Papistes beleue, that truste in their owne merites and in crea­tures? Sainct Hilarie agreeth in the same sentence de Trinitate. lib. 2. Et cum sola fide expleri quae praecepta sunt oporteret. &c. Seing that these thinges whiche are commaun­ded, must be accomplished by faithe onely, that is to worshippe the father, and with hym to honour the soonne, and to abounde in the holy ghoste, wee are inforced to ex­tende the basenes of our speache, to those thinges that are vnspeakable. Also wry­tyng vppon Mathewe Canone. 21. he hath these wordes Nam inuiti licet confitētur quis obsecutus sit voluntati iunior scilicet, filius obe­diens professione licet non efficiens in tempore. Quia fides sola iustificat, at (que) ideo publicani & meretrices in regno coelorum erunt priores, quia Ioanni crediderūt. For thei confesse though it be againste their will, who hath obeied the fathers wil: namely the yonger, sonne obedient in profession, although not per­forming in time. Because faith alone doth [Page 92] iustifie, and therefore the Publicanes and harlattes shalbe sooner in the kingdome of heauen, because they beleued Ihon. &c. And in the. 8. Canon hee hath this plaine conclusion. Fides sola iustificat, faithe alone doth iustifie. Therefore wée are not alone that teache so. Gregorius Nazianzenus in his Oration. 22. de modestia in disceptationi­bus. Prope te ait verbum est, thesaurum hunc in­tellectus habet, & lingua, hic quidem credens, il­la vero cōfitens, quid his opibus succinctius, quid dono hoc facilius? Confitere christum, & credas eum à mortuis suscitatum esse, ac saluaberis: si­quidem & credere solum iustitia est, salus autem perfecta confiteri, loquendi (que) libertatem addere scientiae. The worde saieth he, is neare vn­to thée, and this treasure thine vnderstan­dyng, and thy tongue hath, the one bele­uyng, the other confessing, what can bee more shorte, then these riches? what more easie then this gifte? Confesse Christ and beleue that hee is raised from death, and thou shalte be saued. For to beleue onely is rightousnes, and perfecte saluation to confesse and to adde fréedom of speache to knowledge. The same Gregorius carmine de rebus suis, speaking in the person of the pu­blicane [Page] that praied with the Pharisie. Nō opera me saluabunt, tua autem gratia, tuaeqús misericordia, mihi stillet profano, quam solam miseris rex praebuisti spem peccatoribus. Woor­kes shall not saue me, but lette thy grace and thy mercie droppe vppon mée profane man, which onely hope, O Kyng thou hast geuen to miserable sinners. From hym dissenteth not Basilius Magnus de humi­litate hom. 51. Haec enim est perfecta, ac integra gloriatio in deo, quando neque ob iusticiam suam quis se iactat, sed nouit quidem seipsum verae iu­sticiae indigum esse, sola autem fide in Christum iustificatum esse. This is a perfecte and full reioysyng in GOD, when a manne doeth not boast hymselfe of his owne rightous­nes, but knoweth hymselfe to be voide of true rightousnes, and to bee iustified by faithe onely in Christ. The Papistes now adaies saieth it is greate pryde and pre­sumption whiche Basile acknowledgeth to be true humilitie.

Saincte Ambrose in many places, she­weth hymself to bée of the same minde, as in his exhortation Ad virgines, speaking of the dowrie, that Christ requireth of vs, to ioigne with hym in marriage: Sola est fides [Page 93] vtri (que) indiscreta sexui, census virorum dos vir­ginum. It is faithe onely, whiche is indiffe­rente to bothe sexes, the substance of men the dowrie of virgines. Also in the same worke. Nam vnde mihi tantum meriti est cui indulgentia pro corona est? For whēce should I haue so greate merite, when mercie is my croune. And againe, Non ex operibus sed ex fide vnusquis (que) iustificatur à domino. Not by workes, but by faith is euery one iusti­fied of the lorde. And in his Epistle. 82. Ad Vercellenses: Sola vos comitabitur fides. Erit sanè etiā iustitia comes si fides praeuia sit. Onely faithe shall beare you compaignie. And righteousnes also shalbe your companion, if faithe goeth before. Also in Lucam lib. 2. Capit. 2. Nihil in hoc censu verearis terribile, nihil immite, nihil triste, sola vnumquem (que) fides signat. Feare nothyng in this taxyng, that should bee terrible, nothyng cruell, no­thyng sadde, or heauie: onely faithe doeth marke euery manne? But these places, you will saie, are somewhat darcke: You shall haue therefore, them that are plaine enough. Vpon the Epistle to the Romai­nes. Chapit. iij. vpon these wordes. Iustifi­cati gratis per gratiam ipsius, that is, Beyng [Page] iustified freely by his fauoure, he writeth thus: Iustificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operan­tes, ne (que) vicem reddentes, sola fide iustificati sunt dono dei. Thei are iustified freely, because without any woorkyng, or requitynge, thei are iustified by faithe alone, by the gifte of God. And vpon the iiij. Chapiter Quomodo ergo Iudaei per opera legis iustifica­ri, se putant, iustificatione Abrahae, cum vide­ant Abraham non ex operibus legis sed sola fi­de iustificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem iustificatur apud deum secundum propositum gratiae dei. Sic decretum dicit à deo vt cessante lege solā fidem gratia dei posceret ad salutem. That is. How dooe the Iewes thinke, that thei maie bee iustified through the woorkes of the lawe, by the iustification of Abraham, when thei see that Abraham, was not iustified by the woorkes of the lawe, but by faithe alone? Therefore the lawe is not necessarie, see­yng the vngodly manne, is iustified before GOD, by faithe onely, accordyng to the purpose of the grace of God: for so he saith it is decreed of God, that the lawe ceasyng the grace of God requireth faithe alone to saluation.

[Page 94]And in the same Chapiter, Beatos dicit, de quibꝰ hoc sanxit deus vt sine labore et aliqua obseruatione, sola fide iustificentur apud deum. He saieth thei are blessed, of whom GOD hath decreed this thyng, that without la­bour, and any obseruation, thei should bee iustified before God, by faithe alone. And againe: Manifeste beati sunt, quibus sine labo­re, vel opere aliquo, remittuntur iniquitates, & peccata teguntur. Nulla ab his requisita poeni­tentiae opera, nisi tantum vt credent: It is ma­nifeste, that thei are happie, to whō their iniquities are forgiuen, and their synnes hidde, without any laboure, or woorke of theirs, and no workes of repentaunce, re­quired of them, but onely that thei should beleue.

And in the. 10. chapiter. Nullum opus di­cit legis, sed solam fidem dandam in causa Chri­sti. He saieth, that no woorke of the lawe, but onely faithe muste bee giuen in the cause of Christe. And in the eleuenth cha­piter. Et quoniam versutia aduersarij cumula­ri peccata coeperunt, vt per interdictum magis reus homo constitueretur: deus clementia bonita tis suae semper, homini procurans, vt & quod sine lege erat peccatum, & in lege non possit de­leri, [Page] hoc decreuit, vt solam fidem poneret, per quam omnia peccata abolerentur, vt quia nulla spes per legem omnibus hominibus erat, dei mise­ricordia saluarentur. And because through the subtiltie of the aduersarie, synnes beganne to bee increased, so that through the forbiddyng, a manne was made more giltie, God prouidyng alwaie for manne, by the mercie of his goodnes, so that, that whiche was synne without the lawe, and by the lawe could not bee putte awaie, he decreed this, to prepare onely faithe, by whiche all synnes should be taken awaie, that because there was no hope to all men by the lawe, thei might bee saued by the mercie of God. And vpon the j. Cor. Cha. j. Datam dicit gratiā, à deo in Christo Iesu, quia gratia sie data est in Christo Iesu, quia hoc con­stitutum est à deo, vt qui credit in Christum sal­uus sit sine opere, solae fide gratis accipiens re­missionem peccatorum. He saieth, that grace is giuen from God, in Iesus Christe, be­cause grace is so giuen in Christe Iesus, for that it is so appoincted of God, that he whiche beleueth in Christe, shall bee sa­ued without workes, receiuyng forgiue­nesse of his synnes freely, by faithe alone.

[Page 95]And vpon the ij. Cor. Chap. iij. speaking of the lawe of the Gospell. Haec lex dat li­bertatem solam fidem poscens. This lawe gi­ueth libertie, requiryng faithe alone.

And in the Preface before the Epistle to the Galathians. Si ergo haec dicta intellige­rent, à lege recederent, scientes à praedicatione Ioannis Baptistae, legem iam cessare, vt sola fi­des sufficiat ad salutem abbreuiata ex lege. If therefore thei did vnderstande these sai­ynges, thei would depart from the lawe, knowyng that since the preachyng of Ihō the Baptiste, the lawe is now ceased, and faithe alone sufficeth, whiche is an abbrid­gemente of the lawe. Also vpon the third Chapiter of the Epistle to the Galathiās Sed aliud aduersum improuida praesumptione defendunt, putantes iustificationem sine operi­bus legis prouenire non posse, cum sciant Abra­ham qui forma eius rei est, sine operibus legis per solam fidem iustificatum. But thei maintaine an other contrary thyng, by vnskil­full presumption, thinkyng that iustifica­tion, can not bee obteined without the workes of the lawe, whereas thei knowe that Abraham, whiche is the example of that matter, was iustified by faithe onely [Page] without the woorkes of the lawe.

And againe. Manifestatis enim peccatis suis conclusi sunt vt se excusare non possent, sed quaererēt misericordiam vt veniens qui promis­sus erat Abrahae, solam fidem ab eis posceret, quam habuit Abraham. For when their synnes were made open, thei were con­cluded, so that thei could not excuse theim selues, but were faine to seeke mercie, that when he came, whiche was promised to Abraham, he might require onely faith of theim, whiche Abraham had. And vpon the v. Chapiter. At (que) per hoc ne (que) praeputium valet quiquam neque Circumcisio. Sed sola fides opus est in charitate ad iustificationem. And by this, neither Circumcision, nor vncircum­cision is worthe any thing, but onely faith in loue, is necessarie to iustification.

Chrysostome also, although he dooe of­ten saie, that faithe alone is not sufficient to saluation, he meaneth it of a deade, and an historicall faithe, whiche is not fruicte­full of good workes, as sainct Iames doth: But that he acknowledgeth a true, and liuely faithe, to iustifie alone, maie suffici­ently appeare by these testimonies. First vpon Math. Chapiter. j. Hom. i. Non enim [Page 96] laboribus nostris, ne (que) sudoribus, non doloribus & arumnis, sed per dei in nos tantūmodo chari­tutem, tā grādia haec promissa suscepimus. Not by our labours, nor our trauailes, not by our sorowes, and griefes, but onely by the loue of God toward vs, we haue receiued these greate promises. And in the twelue Homelie. I am non visibili specie qua vti (que) non egemus, cum nobis pro cunctis sola fides sufficiat. We haue not nede now of outward shew when onely faithe sufficeth vs for al thin­ges. And vpon the Actes Home. xxx. Vide quomodo vbi (que) omnia tribuunt deo. Hos & nos imitemur. Nihil nostrum esse putemus, quando­quidem & ipsa fides non est nostrum opus. See how thei ascribe all thynges, euery where to god. Lette vs then followe theim, lette vs thinke nothyng is our own, seyng that faithe it self is not our woorke. And again Home. xxxij. A sola fide (inquit) illa assecu­tisunt, & non operibus, vel circumcisione. Thei obteined (saieth he) those thinges by faith alone, not by workes, or Circumcision. A­gaine De prodit. Iud. Speakyng of the pe­nitente Thiefe, whether he had any good woorkes, or were Baptised. Ne (que) enim de hoc contenderim ego, sed illud vmim asseueraue­rim, [Page] quod sola fides per se saluū fecerit. Of that matter I will not contende, but this one thyng I will affirme, that onely faithe by it self, made hym to bee saued. Also vppon the Episto. ad Roma. Home. ij. Speakyng of righteousnesse. Non enim sudoribus, & labori­bus, illam comparabis, sed ex diuino gratiae don [...] quod ex supernis est gratis vt accipias oportet. Vnum hoc solum adferens de tuo, vt credas. Thou shalt not obtaine it by labours, and trauailes, but thou must receiue it freely, by the gifte of Gods grace, whiche is from aboue, bryngyng this one thyng onely of thyne, that thou beleue. Againe, Hom. vij. Hîc virtutem dei ostendit, quod non solum sal­uauit, sed & iustificauit, & in gloriationem in­duxit, nullis ad hoc vsus operibus, sed fidem tan­tum exigens. Heare he sheweth the power of God, that he hath not onely saued vs, but also iustified, and brought vs into a re­ioysyng, vsyng here to, none of our woor­kes, but requiryng faithe onely. And a­gaine. Quam primum homo credidit confestim iustificatus est. So sone as a manne hath be­leued, immediately he is iustified. And Hom. viij. Ne enim quis dicat quid vetat quo­minus, & fidem habeam, & legem interim ser­uem, [Page 97] ostendit fieri non posse. Fidei siquidem vir­tutem de honeflat, quisquis legem vt velut sal­uantem seruat. And least any manne should saie, what letteth, but that I maie haue faith, and kepe the lawe also? He sheweth it can not be, for he dishonoureth the ver­tue of faithe, who so keepeth the lawe, as able to saue hym.

And in the 9. Hom. Nos solam fidem attu­limus, we haue brought faithe alone. And in the same Homelie Apostolus cum dicit spes non confundit, non recte factis nostris, sed dile­ctioni dei rem omnem acceptam fert. When the Apostle saith, hope doth not confound, he ascribeth the whole matter, not to our good deedes, but to the lawe of God. And in the. 14, Hom. Vnum enim hoc tantummodo donum dei obtulimus, quod futura nobis promit­tenti credimus, at que hac sola viae saluati sumus. This onely gifte we haue offered to God, that when hee promiseth vs thinges to come, wee beleue hym, and by this onelie waie we are saued. Also vpon the Epistle ad Galath. Cap. 2. Scientes quod non iustificabi­tur homo ex operibus legis, sed tantum per fidem Iesu Christi, knowing that a man shall not be iustified by the workes of the lawe, but [Page] onely by saieth of Ieseus Christe. And vp­pon Cap. 3. Tum enim valet fides, cum nihil ac­cesserit exlege. Then faieth is of force, whē nothing of the lawe is added to it. Also speakyng of Abraham. Quod si is ante gra­tiam ex fide iustificatus est, id (que) cum & operibus bonis floreret, multo magis nos. Quid igitur illi detrimenti attulit, quod nō esset sub legee? nihil, sed sufficiebat ei fides ad iusticiā. If he before the time of grace, were iustified by faithe, and that whē he florished in good workes, muche more we. What hurte was it then to hym, that he was not vnder the lawe? none at all. But his faithe was sufficiente to hym for righteousnes. Again. Rursum illi dicebant qui sola fide nititur execrabilis est, hic contra demonstrat, qui sola fide nititur, eum be­nedictum esse. They saide, hee that trusteth vnto faith alone is accursed, but he saieth, contrariwise, he that trusteth vnto faithe alone, is blessed. Quū enim lex esset infirmior quam vt posset hominem ad iusticiam perducere, repertum est non leue remedium, nempe fides, quae quod legi erat impossibile, per se redderet pof­fibile. For whē the law was of lesse force, then that it was able to bring a manne to righteousnes: a remedie of no small fores [Page 98] was founde out, namely faieth, whiche by herselfe, shoulde make that possible, which was impossible to the lawe. Also vpon the Epi. ad Ephes. Hom. 5. Ex sola quippe fide nos saluauit. For he saued vs by faithe alone. And vpon the Ep. ad Colloss. Hom. 5. Appa­ret quidem & in reliquis magna mysterij huius gloria, verū multo magis in istis. Hoēs enim la­pidibus stupidiores ad angelorū subito dignita­tem simpliciter nudis verbis, sola (que) fide fine om­ni operum adminiculo euehere reuera gloria est, ac misterij huius diuitiae. The greate glorie of this misterie truely appeareth in the rest, but muche more in these. For to aduance men that are more doltishe then stones, sodenly to the dignitie of Angelles, simplie with bare woords, and faith alone, with out all helpe of workes, is glorie in deede, and the riches of this misterie. And in the 6. Hom. Per fidem operationis dei qui exitauit eum ex mortuis. Benedixit, totum enim fidei est. Credidistis deum exitare posse, atque ita exita­ti estis. By faith of the operation of God, which raised him from the deade. He hath saied well. For it is all of faithe. You haue beleued that God can raise you, and so you are raised. Againe, In decretis (inquit) quibus [Page] decretis fide: satis est credere, non operibus ope­ra, sed fidei adiunxit opera. In the decrées (he saieth) whiche decrees? In faithe for it is sufficiet to beleue, he ioygneth not works to workes, but workes to faithe. Also vp­pon. 2. Thess. Hom. 4. Quo modo in salutē? vt sanctificaret nos per spiritum. Ab istis namque salutis nostrae summa dependet, nusquam ab ope­ribus, nusquam à recte factis, sed per fidem veri­tatis Howe vnto saluation? that he might sanctifie vs by his spirit. For herof depen­deth the sume of our saluation, not at al of woorkes, not at all of good deedes, but by faithe, or belefe of the truth. Also vpō the 1. Tim. Hom. 3. Id solum inquit attulimus nos quia credidimus christū nos posse saluare. This onely saith he haue wee brought, namely, that we haue beleued, that christ is able to saue vs. And in the. 4. Hom. Quid igitur est? ita cui difficilis habebatur fides, quod inimici, quod peccatores, quod hi qui in lege non iustifi­cantur, neque per opera, hi continuo ex fide sola primas partes meritorum consecuti sunt. &c. what is it ihen? so that to whom faiethe seemed a harde matter, because that eni­mies, because that sinners, because that they whiche colde not bee iustified by the [Page 99] lawe, nor yet by workes, these immediat­ly by faithe, alone obtained the chief wor­thines. And in the same place. Incredibile e­nim videbatur, siquidem homo qui omnem prio­rem vitam frustra, atque inaniter consumpsisset, duxisset (que) per mala opera, post modum ex fide sola saluandus diceretur. For it séemed an in­credible thing, that a manne, whiche had spent all his former life vainely and to no purpose, but passed it awaie in euill wor­kes, shoulde afterwarde be saide to be sa­ued by faith alone. Also the Epistle to Ti­tus. Hom. 3. Si enim credis fidei, cur alia infers quasi fides iustificare non sufficiat sola. If thou truste vnto faithe., why bryngeste thou in other thinges? as though faieth alone were not sufficient to iustifie. Likewise vppon the Epistle to the Hebrues Cap. 4. Hom. 7. Accedamus cū fiducia petentes. Tan­tum fidem adferamus, & omnia tribuet. Lette vs approache neare with confidence ma­kyng our petition, let vs bring foorth faith onely, and he geueth all thinges. These testimonies dooth aboundauntly declare, what Chrisostome thought of iustificatiō by faith alone. Let vs now sée what sainct Ierome wil saie to the same matter. First [Page] therfore against the Pelagians. lib. 1. Hee writeth thus. Ergo iusti sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur, & iustitia nostra nō ex pro­prio merito, sed ex dei consistit misericordia. Then are we rightous, when we confesse our selues to bee sinners, & our vnrighte­ousnes consisteth not of our owne merite, but of the mercie of god. And in the. 2. boke of the same worke. Manifestè ostendit non in hominis merito, sed in dei gratia esse iusticiā, qui sine legis operibus credentium suscipit fidem. He sheweth manifestly, that rightousnes is not in the merite of a manne, but in the grace of God, whiche receiueth the faieth of beleuers without the woorkes of the lawe. Also in his Commentarie vppon Marke Chap. 14. Gratia non meritis saluati sumus à deo: we are saued of God by grace, and not by merites. And oftentymes els where he speaketh to the same effecte, but especially in the Commentarie vpon the Epistle to the Romaines, whiche beareth his name. Cap. 4. Conuertentem impium per solam fidem iustificat deus, non opera bona quae non habuit. God iustifieth the vngodly man when he conuerteth by faith alone, not by good workes whiche he had not. And Cap. [Page 100] 10. Ignorantes quod deus ex sola fide iustificat, & iustos se ex legis operibus, quā nō custodiebant putantes. &c. Not knowyng that God doth iustifie by faithe alone, and thinking them selues iuste by the woorkes of the lawe whiche they did not kepe: Againe. Talis est ille qui Christum credidit die qua credidit, qua­lis ille qui vniuersam legem impleuit. He that beleueth in christ, is such a one y ^e first daie in which he beleueth, as he is, y ^t hath fulfil­led all the lawe. And againe Moyses distin­xit in leuitico inter vtram (que) iusticiam, fidei scili­cet atque factorum, quod altera operibus, alterae sola fidei credulitate accedente fiat. Moses in Leuiticus made distinction of both kindes of righteousnes, namely of faith & of dée­des, that the one is brought to passe by workes, the other by onely beliefe of faith commyng vnto it: yet againe in the same Chapiter. Ergo si fides sufficit ad iusticiam, & confessio ad salutem, inter Iudeum & Gentiles credētes, nulla est discretio. Therfore if faith suffice to righteousnes, and cōfession to saluation, there is no difference betwene the Iewe and the Gentile that are beleuers. And vpon the Epistle ad Gal. Cap. 1. Gratia vobis qua sola estis fide saluati. Grace to you [Page] by whiche alone through faithe you are saued. And Cap. 2 Non ex operibus legis, sed sola fide sicut Gentes, vitam in Christo inuenisse te nosti: He maketh Paule speakynge to Peter saiynge: Thou knowest that thou thy selfe, haste founde life in Christe, not by the woorkes of the lawe, but by faithe alone as the Gentiles haue. Again. Si enim gentes fides sola non saluat, nec nos, quia ex o­peribus legis nemo iustificatur. If faithe alone doth not saue the Gentiles, no more doth it saue vs, for no manne is iustified by the workes of the lawe. And vpon these wor­des of Paule. In fide vino filij dei. In sola fide quia nihil debeo legi antiquae. Abiecta enim est gratia, si mihi sola non sufficit. I liue saieth Paule by the faithe of the soonne of God, that is saieth Ierome by faithe alone, for I owe nothing to the olde lawe. For grace is cast awaie, if it alone bee not sufficient for me. And Cap. 3. Spiritum sanctū sola fide accepistis, qui non nisi à iustis accipitur: iustos autem sine legis operibus vos esse constat. You haue receiued y ^e holy ghoste by faith alone, whiche is not receiued but of righteous persons. And it is plain that you are righ­teous with out the woorkes of the lawe. [Page 101] Moreouer. Abraham eredidit deo, & reputa­tum. &c. Ita & vobis ad iustitiam sola sufficit fides. Abraham beleued GOD, and it was accoumpted to hym for righteousnes. So faithe alone is sufficiente for you also to righteousnesse. Furthermore in the same Chapiter. Quaeritur sane hoc loco si fides sola sufficiat Christiano, & vtrū non sit maledictus, qui Euangelica praecepta contemnet. Sed fides ad hoc proficit, vt in primitijs credulitatis acce­dentes ad deum iustificet, si deinceps in iustifica­tione permaneant. Caeterum sene operibus fidei, non legis, mortua est fides. It is in deede de­maunded in this place, if faithe alone bee sufficiente for a Christian man, and whe­ther he is not accursed, that shall despise the preceptes of the Gospell. But faithe profiteth thus farre, that in the beginning of beleuyng, it iustifieth those that come vnto god, if afterward thei cōtinue in iusti­fication. But without the workes of faith not of the lawe, faithe is deade. Also spea­kyng of the lawe. Quia nemo illam seruat ideo dictum est quod sola fide iustificandi essent credentes. Because no manne keepeth the lawe, therefore it is saied, that the bele­uers must bee iustified by faithe alone. Al­so [Page] so vt sola fide Gentès benedicerentur, in Christe sicut promssum est Abrahae, that the Genti­les might bee blessed, by faithe alone in Christe, as it was promised to Abraham. Also▪ Lex autem non est ex fide nam iustificat sola fides. The lawe is not of faithe, for faithe alone dooeth iustifie. Againe, necesse est sola fide saluari credentes. It is necessarie, that the beleuers should be saued by faith alone. Againe Aequaliter & Iudaei, & Gen­tes per solam fidem filij dei estis, qua credidistis Christo. Bothe Iewes, and Gentiles, you are a like the sonnes God, by faithe alone, by which you haue geuē credite to Christ. Also vpon the v. Chapiter. In sola fide cru­cis dico esse salutem, I saie, that saluation cō ­sisteth in faithe alone of the crosse: That is, of the death of Christ. And vpon the vj. Chapiter. In sola fide spes collocatur anima­rum, In faithe alone resteth the hope of soules. Also vpon the Episto. ad Ephes. ij. Gratia saluati estis, non meritis prioris vitae sed sola fide. You are saued by grace, not by merites of your former life, but by faithe alone.

Also vpon these wordes, Legem manda­torum in decretis abrogans) per solam fidem, [Page 102] iustificans, moralia sola decernēs. Abrogatyng the lawe of preceptes, that was in decrees iustifiyng by faithe onely, and decreeyng the morall preceptes, onely to bee obser­ued. And vpon these woordes, Per crucem interficiens inimicitias) per solam fidem crucis, quae nullum deterret, non enim grauis aut diffi­cilis est, quam habere etiam latro potuit crucifi­xus. By his Crosse slaiyng the harted) by only faithe of his crosse which maketh no man afraied, for it is not heauie, or harde, whiche euen the Thiefe that was cruci­fied might haue. Finally, vpon the Epist. ad Philip. iij. Where saincte Paule saieth, that he hath not the righteousnes, whiche is of the lawe, but that whiche is by the faithe of Christ Iesus he noteth: Sed illam quae a deo pro pace, & sola fide collata. But I haue that righteousnesse, whiche is geuen properly of God, and by faithe alone, Ruf­finus also, whiche otherwise was a greate aduersarie of sainct Hieromes, yet in this poincte, he is his verie frende, and of the same iudgemente, as he was the iudger of al learned men at that time, excepte Pela­gius the arche heretike, and his fellowes. Ruffinus therefore, in his exposition of the [Page] Crede, vpon the Article of remission of sin­nes, writeth thus. Verum de remissione pec­catorum sufficere debet sola eredulitas. Quis e­nim causas, aut rationem requirat, vbi indul­gentia principalis est causa. But for remissi­on of synnes onely, beliefe ought to suf­fice, for who should require causes, or a re­son? where mercie is the principall cause? So that when iustification, is through re­mission of sinnes, as sainct Paule proueth out of the Psalme. xxxij And remission of synnes is obtained by faithe alone, who cā deny that iustificatiō is obtained by faithe alone. Sainct Augustine, although he doe not so often repeate the tearmes of faithe alone, yet no writer more often, nor more substancially setteth forthe the righteous­nesse by faithe alone, and as he had speci­ally more occasion, beyng troubled with the Pelagians, and Celestianes, in his confes­sions Libro. x. Capit. xxix. Tota spes mea, non nisi magna valde misericordia tua. Da quod iu­bes, & iube quod vis. All my hope is nothing els, but thy exceadyng greate mercie (O God) Geue that thou commaundeste, and commaunde what thou wilte. Also in his Epistle to Sixtus. 105. Restat igitur vt ipsam [Page 103] fidem vnde omnis iustitia sumit initium, prop­ter quod dicatur ad ecclesiam in Cantico Canti­corum venies, & transies ab initio fidei, non hu­mano quo isti extollūtur saluamus arbitiro, nec vllis praecaedētibus meritis, quoniā inde incipiāt bona quaecū (que) sunt merita, sed gratuitum donū dei esse fateamur, si gratiā veram id est fine me ritis cogitamus. It remaineth therfore, that we doe not ascribe to the frée will of man, whereof these menne are so proude, nor to any merites goyng before, that haue faithe it self, of whiche all righteousnesse taketh his beginnyng (for whiche it is said vnto the Churche, in the Canticle, thou shalt come, and passe by the beginnyng of faithe) because that hereof all good meri­tes, whatsoeuer thei be beginne: but that we confesse it to bee the free gifte of God, if we thinke of true grace, whiche is with out merites. Also in his 120. Epistle to Ho­noratus, speakyng of faithe: Ex hoc quippe in cipiunt bona opera ex quo iustificamur, non quia precesserunt iustificamur, For hereof be­ginne good woorkes, whereof we are iu­stified, wee are not iustified, because thei wente before. In his Enchiridion ad Lau­rentium Capite 99. Sola gratia redemptos dis­ceruimus [Page] cernimus à perditis quos in vnam perditionis concreuerit massam ab origine ducta causa com­munis. We discerne theim, that are rede­med from those that are loste, by grace a­lone, whom the common cause, deriued from the beginnyng, hath bredde into one lumpe of perdition. Also in his booke De fide, & operibus. Capit. 22. In illis duobus tota lex pendet, & Prophetiae, licet recte dici posset ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua sed viua illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur. In these twoo the whole lawe, and the Prophetes depēdeth, although it maie bee well saied, that the commaundementes of God, pertaine to faithe alone, if not, a deade faithe bee vn­derstoode, but that liuely faithe, whiche worketh by loue. And in his treatise Octo­ginta trium questionum. lxviij. Ipsa eutem gra­tia, quae data est per fidem, nullis nostris meri­tis data est. The same grace, whiche is ge­uen through faith, is geuen to none of our merites. Also Quest. lxxvi Quapropter non sunt contrariae duorum Apostolorum sententiae Pauli, & Iacobi, cum dicit vnus iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, & alius dicit inanem esse fidem fine operibus, quia ille dicit [Page 104] de operibus quae fidem praecedunt, iste de ijs quae fidem sequuntur, vt etiam ipse Paulus multis locis ostendit. Wherefore the sentences of the twoo Apostles, Paule, and Iames are not contrary, when the one saieth, that a manne is iustified by faithe, without wor­kes, and the other saieth, that faithe with­out workes is vaine, because the one spea­keth of woorkes goyng before faithe, the other of suche as followe faithe, as Paule hymself sheweth in many places. And that true faithe can not bee without good woorkes, he sheweth in his booke De fide & operibus. Capi. xxiij. Inseperabilis quippe est bona vita a fide, quae per dilectionem operatur. Good life can not be separated from faith, whiche worketh by loue. Also in his booke De natura, & gratia. Cap. xi. Fateor dilectioni vestrae, cum ista legerem repente laetitia perfusus sum, quod dei gratiam non negaret, per quam solam homo iustificari potest. Hoc enim in di­sputationibus talium maximè detestor & hor­reo. I confesse vnto your charity, that whē I reade these thynges, I was sodainly fil­led with gladnes, because he denighed not the grace of God, by whiche a lone, a man can bee iustified, for that thyng in suche [Page] mennes disputations, I dooe moste of all deteste, and abhorre. And in the Chapiter. xvj. Haec est fides ad quam praecepta compellū [...] vt lex imperet, & fides impetret, This is faith vnto whiche the commaundemētes doeth driue a man, that the lawe commaūdeth, and faithe obteineth. Also vpon the. lxvij. Psalme. Sine bonorum operum meritis per fi­dem iustificatur impius. The vngodlie man is iustified by faithe, without the merites of good workes. And vpon the 88. Psalme. Et quia sola fides in Christum mundat, nō cre­dentes in Christum soluti sunt ab emundatione. And because faithe alone in Christ doeth clense, thei that beleue not in Christe, are free from clensing. But what should I ta­ry longer, in rehearsyng sentences of Au­gustine, when so many bookes, Epistles, and Homelies of his are extante, whiche wholie, and purposely, were composed for the same matter, against the Pelagians? Paulinus also a learned manne, in saincte Augustines tyme, in an Epistle written to Augustine. Episto. 58. Hath these woor­des. Quid enim sis ad salutem quae sola fide quaentur, prodest in legis memoria, et meditatio­ne versari. &c. What doeth it profite them, [Page 105] to bee conuersante in the remembraunce, and meditation of the lawe, towardes sal­uation, whiche is sought by faithe alone. Marcus Heremita an aūcient gréeke wri­ter in his treatise, of them that thinke they maie bee iustified by their woorkes writeth on this wise, [...]. The Lorde willing to shewe that euerie commaundement is of duety, and that the adoption is of gifte by his owne bloode saieth. When you haue doone all thinges that are commaunded you, then saie you, we are vnprofitable seruauntes, and wée haue doone that whiche we ought to haue doone: Therfore the kingdome of heauen is not the rewarde of workes, but the free gifte of the Lorde prepared for faithefull seruauntes. Faustus also an auncient Bi­shoppe in Fraunce writyng a boke de gra­tia [Page] meritis & libero arbitrio, hath these wor­des. Tempus gratiae in quo redempti sumus, merita hominum non expectauit, opera penitus non quae siuit, sola deus fidei nostrae deuotione cō ­tentus fuit iuxta illud apostoli, credidit Abra­ham deo, & reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. The tyme of grace in whiche wee are re­demed did not tary for the merites of men, did not require woorkes at all. But god was content with the onely deuotion of our faith accordyng to the saiyng of the Apostle, Abraham beleued god, and it was imputed to hym for rightousnes. And al­though Claudianus Mamertus Bishoppe of Gallia Viennensis, for his error concernyng Angelles in whiche he followed sainct Au­gustine dooeth confute hym, and Ioannes Maxentius Archebishop of Constantino­ple, for his opiniō of grace and merites in whiche he disagréeth from S. Augustine, reproueth him in his answere against the Epistle of Hormisda Archbishop of Rome: yet for excludyng merites from iustifica­tion no man findeth faulte with him. For the same Ioannes Maxentius cōcerning the free will of man, whereupon all merites are grounded, hath this catholike confes­sion. [Page 106] Liberum autem naturale arbitrium ad nihil aliud valere credimus, nisi ad discernenda tantum, & desiderāda carnalia, siue saecularia, quae non apud deum, sed apud homines possunt fortasse videri gloriosa. Ad ea vero quae ad vitā aeternam pertinent, nec cogitare, nec velle, nec desiderare, nec perficere posse nisi per infusionē, & inoperationē intrinsecus spiritus sancti. We beleue that naturall free will auaileth to nothing els, but onely to discerne and de­sire carnal or worldly thinges, which may perchaūce séeme glorious before men, but not before god. But for those thinges that pertaine to life euerlastynge, that it can neither thinke of them nor will them, nor desire thē, nor performe thē, but by the in­ward infusiō & working of the holy ghost. And leste the iudgemente of this Ioannes should be doubted of, because he wrote a­gainste the B. of Rome. This is the same Ioannes, whose confession the same Hor­misida sent vnto the Bishoppes of Spaine as catholike and true. Albinus the schoole maister of Carolus magnus muche later in tyme, but in sentence all one with him, v­pon the. 119. Psalme part. 19. writeth in this maner. Definit in nullo homini esse prae­sumendum, [Page] nisi in sola dei pietate, quae ex mise­rit beatos facit, ex mortuis viuos. He determi­neth that a man must presume in nothing but in y ^e only mercie of god which of mise­rable maketh vs happy of deade mē aliue.

Another godly man of good antiquitie, not so famous in name whiche of purpose he suppressed to auoide vaine glorie in all his writinges, callyng hymself Idiota, is neuerthelesse of the same opiniō in diuers places of his workes, especially in Regulis sancti viri. Quinta regula, quod in illis duode­cim armis, nec in quocunque alio humano reme­dio confidas, sed in sola virtute Iesu Christi qui dixit, confidice ego vici mundum: & alibi, prin­ceps huius mundi eijcitur foras, quare & nos sola eius virtute confidamus, & mundum posse vincere, & diabolum superare. The fifte rule of a godly mā is, that thou doe not trust in those twelue peeces of armour, nor in any other humane remedie, but in the onely vertue of Iesus Christ, which saieth be of good corage, I haue ouercome the world, & in an other place, the prince of this world is cast out, wherfore lette vs trust by his vertue alone both to ouercome the world, and to vanquishe the Deuill. Also in his [Page 107] booke de conflictu carnis, & animae. Cap. 6. Tibi domine deus meus attribuitur quicquid pertinet ad potentiam: diuinam autem poten­tiam euidentius nihil manifestat, quam iustifi­care impium, hoc est trahere peccatorem, iuxta quod legitur, Deus qui omnipotentiam tuam parcendo maxime, & miserando manifestas, melius enim est iustificare quam creare, cum creando detur natura, iustificando autem, & auferatur culpa, & conferatur gratia. To thée O lorde my god is ascribed, what­soeuer perteineth to power, and there is nothing that setteth forthe the power of God more euidently, then to iustifie an vngodly man, that is to draw a sinner, ac­cordyng as it is redde (O God whiche she­west thine almightie power most of all in sparyng and shewyng mercie) for it is a greater mater to iustifie, then to create, whereas in creating nature is geuen, but in iustifiyng sinne is taken awaie, and grace geuen. I will conclude with Venan­tius in his exposition of the Crede, wherein he followeth Ruffinus vppon the Article of remissiō of sinnes, & vsing almost the very wordes of Ruffinus, saieth on this maner. Remissionem peccatorum nobis in hoc sermone [Page] sola cre dulitas sufficit, nec ratio requiritur vbi principalis indulgentia comprobatur. Onely beliefe in this speache is sufficient to geue vs remission of sinnes, neither is any rea­son required, where mercie is proued to be the principall cause. Seiyng therfore that wee are compassed (as the Apostle saieth) with suche a cloude of witnesses, I cannot but meruaile with what face the aduer­saries canne so cōfidently pronounce that the doctrine of iustification by faith alone, is newe doctrine neuer harde of in the Churche before this fortie or fiftie yeres. And for as muche as the witnesses are in nomber so many, in tyme so auncient, in learnyng so excellent, that of all men they are reuerenced, and séeyng their testimo­nies are so diuerse all to one ende, some affirmyng the doctrine in plaine termes, some yeldyng reasons therof, some shew­yng proofes and argumentes for it, some aunsweryng obiections made against it, and euery one of these in seuerall wordes phrases and maners of speakyng, I am suer though subtiltie canne deuise, star­tyng holes to elude some of theim, all the crafte of the Deuill cannot bée able to a­uoide [Page 108] theim al. And if the only admonitiō of August. be thought of you sufficient for both learned men and Christian menne, whiche is that a baren deade and vnstruct­full faithe is not sufficient for saluation, what thinke you so many admonitions of so sundrie, both learned and christian wri­ters, ought to woorke with all men, tea­ching that a true and liuely faith alone in the onely mercie of God by Iesus Christe doth iustifie? We agrée with Augustine, that a solitarie faith doth not iustifie, if you can as well agree with the scripture and almost all auncient Fathers, that a fruictfull faith alone doeth iustifie not by merite of the fructes, but by takyng holde of Gods mercie.

The aunswere.

It is a greate marueile to see you, and suche as you are, that boaste of your free will, to bee so obstinately blinde, that you will not see the truthe, but that wee dooe acknowledge the iuste iudgement of God in those that striue against him. But to a­uoide al your cauilling of free will, where by you goe about to amase the vnderstan­dyng, of suche as bee simple, I will firste shewe, what we teache of free will, and then aunswere your peuishe Sophistrie. And because the name of free will, is am­biguous, and of diuers significations, it is [Page 110] expediente, to sette foorthe the sonderie meanynges thereof. Free will is somety­mes taken as it is contrary to coacted or constrained will. Sometymes as it is contrary to a seruile, or bonde wille. And sometymes as it is, the election of that, whiche seemeth good, and is contrary to refusyng. But in the ambiguitie, of the twoo former significations, all the doubte of this controuersie dooeth consiste, wher­of we determine after this maner. That manne before his falle, had free will, in e­uery respecte: he might haue chosen freely without any lette, or compulsion, that whiche was good in deede, and acceptable to God: For there was in his nature, no­thyng to prouoke hym to euill. But man after his falle, bothe in hymself, and in all his posteritie, hath vtterly loste that free will, whiche I make the seconde meaning of the woorde, and hath his will, now al­together seruile, and bounde, so that he can will nothyng of hym self, that is good, and acceptable before God. And therefore the scripture saieth. Genesis the. vj. and viij. That all the immaginations of the thoughtes of mennes hartes, are onely [Page] euill continually. Our sauiour Christ also Matth. xv. teacheth, that out of the cor­rupte harte of manne, proceadeth all wic­kednesse. And saincte Paule. ij. Corin. iij. affirmeth, that we are not apte [...] of our selues, as of our selues, to thinke any thyng, that perteineth to the glorie of God. With an infinite noumber of places beside, to the same effect, through out the Scripture, declaryng that before we be regenerate, and borne a newe, wée can will nothyng but that whiche is well. Neuerthelesse, wee dooe not deny, that a manne hath free will in the firste mea­nyng, for although his wille is bonde, and slaue vnto synne, before it bee made free, by the grace of God, yet is it not compel­led, nor enforced by any externall coaction or Stoicall necessitie vnto euill, but volū ­tarily embraceth that, whiche is euill, and delighteth therein, and voluntarily doeth refuse goodnesse, and pleaseth it self in ille doyng. As for the thirde kinde of free will, whiche is an appetite, or election of that, whiche seemeth good, continueth in man after his fall (but yet subiecte to Gods prouidence) whereby he guideth all his [Page 111] externall actions, but this is vnproperly called free wille, and therefore maie bee well omitted in this disputation. The whole matter of doubte resteth therefore in this, whether a manne hath his will so free, and vncorrupted, that he can discerne any thyng in true godlinesse, and applie hym selfe to receiue it. And here in this your discourse, a manne can hardely per­ceiue, whether you defende free will sim­plie with the Pelagians, or partly with the Papistes. But this is the maner of you all, to shewe your self, where you dare for shame, plaine Pelagians in deede, for all your diuinitie of free wil, is out of Aristo­tle and not out of Gods woorde, but when you be pressed with the aucthoritie of scri­pture, to flie to some sorie shift of defence. But it is all one in a maner, to confute the Pelagians, and you, when it is proued out of the woorde of God, that the grace and goodnesse of God, woorketh all toge­ther, whatsoeuer is good in them that are regenerate. For it is neither of hym that willeth, nor of hym that runneth, but of GOD onely, that sheweth the mercie. Therefore it is no harde mater, to a­uoide [Page] moste of your cauillations, with that one distinction of free will, whiche is either free from coaction, and compulsion, or free from corruption, and bondage vn­to synne. As when you wrangle of the re­ceiuing of faithe, that no manne beleueth but he that will, I aunswere, no manne is compelled to beleue, but he that bele­ueth, dooeth beleue willingly, and of his owne accorde, but that he hath a wille to beleue, is not of hymself, but of God. For GOD dooeth not onely offer mercie to our wille, but also geueth vs a wille to receiue it. As saincte Paule testifieth, God woorketh in vs, bothe to will, and to performe whatsoeuer is good, and pertai­nyng to our saluation. Phili. ij. And where God giueth not a will, there menne can not beleue, though grace, and mercie bee offered vnto theim. As saincte Ihon testi­fieth in the. xij. Chapiter of his Gospell, that the Iewes after so longe preachyng, and so many miracles woorkyng emong thē, did not beleue in him, and thei did not beleue, because thei could not beleue in hym, for that God, accordyng to the Pro­phecie of Esaie, had geuen theim ouer, in­to [Page 112] a reprobate mynde. But if euery man had free will, as you defende it, it mighte not bee truely saied of any menne, thei could not beleue, because God had blinded their iyes, and hardened their harte. For you holde, that euery manne maie beleue that wille, and that euery manne hath this wille, in his owne power. And the firste parte of the sentence in some respect maie be graunted, that eche manne maie beleue that wille, but the seconde parte is altogether false, that eche manne hath this wille in his power. But those onely whom God hath appoincted to saluation, he maketh willyng to beleue, that thei maie bee saued.

And whereas you quarell, that Christe would haue gathered, and Hierusalem would not, it maketh nothyng to proue, that the Iewes had power of their wille, to receiue Christe, whiche sainct Ihon vt­terly denieth, saiyng, thei could not be­leue. And concerning the will of God, and Christe, you should not bee ignoraunte of that distinction, whiche youre Sentiaries dooeth acknowledge. That there is one will of Goddes determination, and an o­ther [Page] of his precepte, or commaundement, whiche thei call voluntatem signi. As when GOD commaunded Abraham, to kill his soonne, he declared one wille by his com­maundemente, and yet the ende declared that he willed not the deathe of Isaac. These diuerse willes, are not repugnant in God, neither dooeth he intende, contra­ry thynges by theim, but suche as maie well stande together. For he determined to saue Isaac, for his promise sake, and yet to trie the obedience of Abraham, by the commaundemente. So when Christe preached to Hierusalem, he determined to call those onely, that were elect of God, and yet to make the other inexcusable, when he offered mercie vnto theim, and they by no meanes would receiue it. The reste that you adde, of the consent of man­nes will, to bee necessarie vnto iustifica­tion, is so impertinent, that I muse what you meaned to speake one woorde of it. For who euer saied that God woorketh in the faithe of a manne as in a Stocke or Stone, or who euer denied the consent of a mannes will to be required in beleuing? This is no parte of the questiō. But whe­ther [Page 113] euery mā that is not predestinat of god to saluation, hath it in his power to consent vnto faith, that he maie bee iustified, and so be saued, which is cleane to ouerthrowe the election and predestination of God, which is the chief foundatiō of our faith, & consequēt­ly to ouerthrow the power, wisdome, glorie and aucthoritie of God ouer his creatures. For if euery able and scilful workeman, de­termineth of the ende and vse of his worke­manship, before he beginneth it: with what reason can we take that frō y ^e creator of all thinges, who as Salomon witnesseth, made all thinges for his owne glory, euen the wic­ked man for the daie of his wrath. Your con­clusion is verie clerkely, that we haue driuē all thinges to faith alone, & whē all is duely examined, wee haue no fathe at all. When Zeno had disputed longe that there was no mouynge, Diogenes walked vp and doune his scole, and beeyng demaunded, what he was doing, he aunswered I am confuting of Zeno his argumentes. In whiche behauour he shewed a dooble example of wisedome, first because he vouchesaued not to aūswere the subtilties of Zeno in so vaine a matter, & secondly for that his sensible action, did suffi­ciently confute the Philosophers vaine spe­culation. [Page] We will therefore holde our peace in this case, and let the matter it self speake for vs. If it were not that wee had faithe to Godward, why should we troble our selues in this controuersie of religion? If we sough riches, honour, pleasures, or whatsoeuer the outwarde man can wishe for, where should we sooner finde it, then in Popery? If wee sought any thing in this life by our professiō, why should we not leaue it in time of perse­cution? Let the life & death therfore of theim that haue suffered martirdome for our reli­gion, declare whether for maintenaunce of faithe and truste in God, or for confidence in the worlde, we haue taken this contention in hande. But seing you are disposed to dally with vs in deniyng our faithe, you shal geue me leaue to disproue in good earnest, your iu­stification. For if you haue none other but these thrée, which al learnyng (you saie) doth agree of, I suppose it not vnpossible by your owne learning, to cōuince that iustification in papistry, is either very vaine, or els none at all. And because your distinction is so pre­posterus of it self, it shal not be against order to begin with the last kinde firste, whiche is (you saie) when of a iust mā is made a more iust mā. If no man be iust, how can there be [Page 114] degrees in iustification? If the scripture teache (as I wene you wil not deny) that all men are sinners, and that no sinner is iust, then no man can bee made of a iuste manne more iuste. But because I promised to deale with you rather by youre owne learnyng, thē by scriptures, if I can disproue your two first kindes of iustification, the third muste needes vanishe awaie of it selfe. Iustificatiō by baptisme is your first kind, by penaunce, your second kinde. If a childe be iustified by Baptisme, & die in that state of iustification, he cometh not into purgatorie. And therfore néedeth neither Dirge nor Masse to be saide for hym: but by saiyng Dirge and Masse for such one, you acknowledge him to be in pur­gatorie, therfore you confesse he is not iusti­fied. And so your owne catholike doinges de­nie your learned saiynges of iustification by Baptisme. Lette vs see if iustification by pe­naunce be any thing surer. When a manne hath shryuen himself, & receiued absolution, I trowe you will saie hee is iustified by pe­naunce. But so soone as he is gone from the Prieste, if he fall into deadlie sinne, he is be­come lapsus again. And it is the doctrine of al the Sententiaries, y ^t euery euil desier, with consente is deadlie sinne, as if the partie, [Page] that is shriuen, when he cometh out of the church, seeth a faire woman, & lusteth after her, he hath cōmitted adulterie in his harte with her, if he méete his enemie, & desire re­uengement, he is a murtherer. If he behold any house, land, or other goods, & cattelles, that is not his, and couet it, he breaketh the x. commaundement, & so of the rest. Wher­fore, so so [...]e as euer hee thinketh an euill thought, after his absolution, all the fatte is in the fire, he hath loste his iustification. So that he must be shriuen ten thousand tymes in a yere, or els he must not tary, but a short while in his iustification. A miserable consci­ence or none at al, must that man haue, that trusteth to suche a iustification. But you wil saie, he needeth not to fall by concupiscence so often. But I saie, hee is a false hypocrite, that dare so saie, of hym selfe. Sainct Paule was not inferiour to any man, in the grace of regeneration, and yet he confesseth, that there was an other Lawe in his members, whiche was resistaunte to the lawe of his minde, & so far preuailed, that it brought him continually, captiue vnto the lawe of synne, in so much that it did wryng out of him, this pathetical exclamation: miserable man that I am, who shal deliuer me from this bodie of [Page 115] synne? And findeth no other comforte, but the mercie of GOD in Christe Roma. vij. Wherefore seeyng both the firste iustifica­tions faile, the thirde muste needes fall, and therefore excepte you canne finde another iustification you are like to haue none at all at lest wise of any value to make you right­ous by your owne learnyng.

The aunswere.

[Page 116]A man may doubte for al your protestatiō whether your wit, learnyng and conscience bee so persuaded of all the premisses, as you­pretēde: of which some be so absurde, that no man of any witte or learnyng canne be per­swaded in theim. And whereas you thinke you haue aunswered the common obiection that you haue nothing to saie, I suppose by the iudgemente of wise menne you haue rather confirmed the same, that either you haue nothyng to saie, or that which you saie is nothing to the purpose. Youre fidelitie in the allegations shoulde better haue appea­red, if you had noted the places at the firste, which either must bee imputed to fraude or to lacke of bokes that it was omitted, but by notyng of some places it shoulde seeme you wanted no bookes, and your streight keping I suppose is not suche, but you might haue had bokes if you list. You cōclude your Apo­logy with an odious diffamatiō of the whole state of our princes gouernemente, which if it haue failed in anie poincte, it was in ouer muche clemencie shewed towardes suche as you are. It cannot be denied, but menne of good profession are oftentymes wicked in li­uyng, and many of no profession be a slander to those of true religion. But howe soeuer [Page] menne be malicious and vngodly bente, the state alloweth theym not, but punisheth theim, that by order of lawe are conuicted to be suche. Wherfore to make suche an outcrie, as though nothing but murther oppres­ssion, filthines and all kinde of vngodlines, yea nothing els but a confusion of al wicked­nes were openly mainteined: it sauoureth neither of truthe, nor of the spirite of God, nor of the affection of a good subiect. If Nero Domitian or Heliogabalus raged in the world, with what other Rhethorike would you haue painted out their regiment then this that you haue abused againste this pre­sent gouerment? the praise whereof if the present age enuie, the posteritie will mer­ueile at it, when neither in memorie nor in monumentes beyng compared without af­ffection, the like shall euer be founde before it. God geue all true Subiectes grace to bee thankefull for it, and so to behaue them­selues therein, that through his mercie it maie be many ye­res more, most happe­lie continued.