1 That it is not impossible to keepe Gods commaun­dements.

BEfore I come to your proues & allegations, I must say a word or two of your coloured art and goodly shew you make in your first proposition. It is the fashion of Rhe­toricians (as you know) especially when their cause is not all of the best, & therfore misdoute the euent of their action, so to be­haue them selues in their Exordium, that they may at the least purchase thus much, y ^t they may be heard, some by one meanes, some by an other, the worst is not by pro­curing an euill suspicion too his aduerse partie. So is your dealing in this present case, to be better heard peraduenture or to make your cause séeme to bée better, you geue forth that in M. Goughes doctrine of the impossibilitie of kéeping Gods com­maundementes, he followeth the race of the Maniches and the Valentinians. A grée­uous [Page 30] accusation yf it were true and wor­thy to cause his doctrine to bee reiected, yf all that you speake were a Gospell. But peraduenture you thought you hadde the sexton of Paules in hand, when you pre­sented this your writing to the worships of these in déede worshipfull & godly gen­tlemen. The matter is thus, not many ye­res since, a good companion minding to re­create him selfe with the sexton, charged him selfe with a baskette heauy laden as he made the matter appeare, directing his way through Paules Churche, because it was the shorter: where he was mette of his mate: and demaunded why in that so­lemne time he passed thorough that place so charged, a thing not to bée endured, the circumstaunces beyng considered. This companion desired him to lette him passe, for that hée was heauye laden with cer­tayne plate, and therefore the gladder too take the shorter way. The sexton woulde not bée persuaded, but alleadging the Quéenes profite, caused him to sette downe his baskette, and sente imme­diatlye for suche as too whome it apper­tayned to haue the view of such matters: [Page] who thinking to haue found some▪ greate matter, as they had bin enformed by the sexton, willed the basket to be opened, and what found they? for a cupbourde of plate a basket of hornes. Thus had he his iest at the sexton: but you M. Fecknam, thankes be vnto God, haue not to do with a sexton: they doo well see your horny plate: but by­cause you your selfe deceyued your selfe, thinking it to be plate, they haue vsed this charitable way, that it may be shewed vn­to you, that they are in deede but hornes. And therefore this horne will nothing moue them as I trust, Aug. Ep. 95 vntill you bée able to shewe that the denying of frée will, to the establishing of the grace of God, wherby wée are iustified from sinne, and saued from infirmitie, is the doctrine of Maniche or Valentinian. Epiph. con. haeret. lib. j To. 2. cap. 31. This I remem­ber Valentinian and his say, that to vs, qui ab Ecclesia sumus, opera necessaria esse, aliter enim impossibile est seruari, which are of the Churche woorkes bée necessarie, for other­wise it is impossible to bée saued, and that teach you: s [...]ipsos verò non per opera, sed prop­terea quòd ex natura spirituales sunt, penitus & omnino saluari docēt, but they teach that [Page 23] they them selues are wholy & altogither saued, not by workes, but bycause of na­ture they bee spirituall: and this teacheth not M. Gough. Therfore that glose might well haue bin lefte out, yf you hadde more thought vpon the truth of the matter, how well you might haue alleaged it, than one­ly for a cloke of your self barely to alleage it. For to proue M. Gough a Manichean, or any of his fellowes in his heresies, it will bée hard for you, and as impossible as to fulfill the law: but to prooue you a Pela­gian, it is easie enough, and as easie as in Christ Iesus for M. Gough and vs to kepe the lawe. But to prooue you suche a one is not my chéef purpose: my mind is rather to conuince your heresie, and bring you to the flocke of Christ, yf it so please God too giue you the eyes of vnderstanding, and a hart to repent. Therfore to doo the dutie of good Christiās, let vs yeld our selues vnto God to be gouerned by his spirit, & submit our selues in hūblenes to his word, & with­out al vayne opinion of wel or euil defen­ding a question, arrest our selues vpon his Prophetes & Apostles, which haue and doo shew vs the way to walke in, and mini­ster [Page] vnto vs the true light, whereby wée may chase a way al these darknesses. This waye if wee take, no doubt he will shew vs the truthe: if we reiecte it, why should he not farther punish vs with blindnesse?

So then to come to your first position, That it is not impossible to keepe Gods commaundements, I wil aunswere youre places of the scripture alleadged and your Doctors, and there withall shewe oute of them both the contrarie, that it is impossi­ble, and so shall I shew I trust, that in that article M. Goughe hath taught no vngod­ly point of doctrine, and so will I do conse­quently with the residue. And that it may be more plainly and euidently done, that there may be no occasion of doubte in any braunche of my doctrine, I wil first shewe howe they are impossible, and by what meanes: and after, howe they are possi­ble, and howe they may be fulfilled. This done, I shall sufficiently aunswere youre places alleadged, and if GOD so will, take awaye this vayle from before youre eyes, which is a let vnto you that you can not sée.

Touching the firste, S. Paule dilating [Page 24] and amplifying his probation of the free iustification which we haue thorough the tender mercie of GOD in Christe Iesus, sayeth in this wyse: [...]. &c. Rom. 8. ver. 3. For that that was impossible to the Lawe in as much as it was weake bi­cause of the fleshe, God sending his sonne in the similitude of sinfull fleshe and for sinne, condemned sinne in the fleshe. The wordes are but fewe, and therefore easie to be remembred, nay therefore better to be considered: God sent his owne sonne: Why? To condemne sinne in the fleshe: Why so? Bicause it was impossible to the lawe: wherefore? in as much as it was weake bicause of the flesh. Why then we may conclude, Act. 15. vers. 10. that the Lawe is a burden, and so gréeuous a burden, that neither wée nor oure Fathers were able to beare, and that bycause of oure weakenesse. Hereof it is that he sayth in an other place, [...]. &c. For if there had bin a law giuē which could haue giuen lyfe, surely rightuousnesse should haue bin by the Lawe. It is the woorke of grace to saue and quicken, the receyuers whereof, althoughe they were extréeme [Page] enemies to the wholesome doctrine of the holy scriptures they become fréends. It is not the worke of the doctrine, which who­soeuer heare and reade without the grace of GOD, they are made worse enemies. Therefore the grace of God is not in the nature of free will and in the lawe and do­ctrine as the peruerse Pelagian dothe de­ceyptfully beleeue and teache: but at eue­ry moment it is giuen by his good wil and pleasure, Psal. 68. vers. 9. of whom it is sayd: Thou o God sendest a gracious rayne vpon thyne inhe­ritaunce. For we lost both frée wil to loue god by the greatnesse of our first sinne: Rom. 7. ver. 12. and the lawe also and the doctrine thereof, al­though it be holy and good and iust, yet it killeth if the Spirite do not quicken, by which spirite it commeth to passe that not by hearing, but by obeying, neither by rea­ding, but by louing, it is obserued. For the Lawe without grace, is but a letter, it re­maineth to conuince sin, but not to gyue saluation. So sayth the Apostle. For yf there had bin a lawe gyuen, Gal. 3. vers. 21.22. whiche could haue giuen lyfe, surely rightuousnes shuld haue bin by the lawe. But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne, that the [Page 25] promise by the faith of Iesus Christ should be giuen to them that beléeue. Of this let­ter he sayeth in an other place: The letter killeth, 2. Cor. 3▪ vers. 6. but the spirite quickeneth. Thou hast the letter but thou dost not fulfill the letter. And why dost thou not fulfil the let­ter? Bycause thou presumest of thy selfe, thou extollest thy workes, thou knowest not that the grace of the helper is necessa­rie, that the precept of the cōmaunder may be fulfilled. Behold, God hath cōmaunded thée, do that which be commaundeth: thou beginnest to do, as of thyne own strength, and thou fallest, and so remayneth the pu­nishing and not the sauing letter. Let vs a little more neare consider this question, what these woords importe, and what they meane, 2. Cor. 3. vers. 6. It is not impossible to fulfil the law: The Law and the Spirit are set as oppo­site, as killing and quickening, as Moses & Christ, therfore in playne woordes the que­stion is this: [...]h. 1, vers. 17 Whether it bée possible, with­out Christ: by the works only of the Lawe whiche we can perfectly and absolutely performe in suche order and manner as GOD hath commaunded, to be saued? And your position is, that wée can if wée [Page] list perfectlye as he commaundeth in all poinctes fulfill his Lawe, and so purchase lyfe vnto oure selues, without the quicke­ning spirit, without the grace of God. For if you saye not this, you saye nothing, as you shall hereafter more plainely vnder­stand. A preuenting grace and helping you graunt (whereof I will not defraude you) and after permitted to your owne willes you can do what you liste, and kéepe the commaundements, and purchase heauen, & as it foloweth, caste Christ away: Now then let vs ioyne togither: I say that thou O Man what soeuer thou arte, so setting Christe his death and passion a syde, of whose fulnesse we haue all receyued, Joh. 1. vers. 16.17. and setting asyde grace and truthe whiche commeth by Iesus Christ, I say that thou cāst not by any possibilitie, if thou shouldst lyue seuen hundreth yeares, fulfil the law of GOD, and so be saued. For if there had bin a Lawe giuen, whiche could haue quickened, iustice had bin by the Lawe, neither should a Sauiour bin sought for, nor Christ haue come, nor with his bloud haue sought his lost shéepe, as the Apostle sayeth in an other place. For if rightuous­nesse [Page 26] be by the Lawe, then is Christ dead in vayne. Let vs consider what is the best of vs, Salomon sayd at the dedicatiō of his Temple: 2. Reg. 8. vers. 46. Psal. 143. vers. 2. There is no man on the earth which sinneth not. Dauid sayeth, no man liuing shall be iustified before God. Saint Paule plainly affirmeth this, The fleshe coueteth ageinst the spirite, Galat. 5.17. Galat. 3.10. Deut. 27.26 and the spirite ageinst the flesh: and vseth no other rea­son to proue that all whiche are vnder the lawe are cursed, but this: Bicause it is written, Cursed be they that confirme or fulfill not al these words of this law to do them. And such were mē not in their time only, but such is oure nature at this day: ther is no time nor seasō, no houre or mo­mēt, in which we ought not to say, forgiue vs our trespasses, & where forgiuenesse is requisit, ther is no perfectiō, ther is no law fulfilled, there is no saluatiō wrought: nei­ther is it thus to be thought y ^t these & such like sentēces are spokē of men not regene­rate & assisted with y ^e grace of god: for Paul speaking of himselfe & of the contention & strife y ^t he felt, sayd: Noui non habitare in me, id est, Rom. 7.18. Beda. in carne mea, bonū: nā velle adest mihi, sed vt quod bonū est perficiā, nō assequor. [Page] Non enim facio bonum quod volo, sed malum quod nolo, hoc ago. For I know that in mée, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with mée, but I finde no meanes to performe that which is good. Here you may sée that the Apostle himself was fraile in body, & that he had as yet no rightuousnesse & perfection. That you may know that y ^e Apostle himself which would saue others, is yet in way of curing, that ye may know that he is yet a curing, if you e­steme his honor, marke what emplaister y ^e medicine hath layd to the swelling. Heare not me, heare himselfe confessing, that you may perceyue him teaching. Nowe may I say to the Apostle Paule: Be not proude thou holy Apostle: thou must take héede y ^t thou be not proud. What sayst thou to me saieth he. Heare thou also. Heare what I am, & be not high minded, but feare: heare how the little Lambe may goe in, where the Ramme is in such daunger. 2. Cor. 12.7 Ne excel­lentia reuelationum supra modum efferrer, datus est mihi surculus infixus carni. &c. Leste I should be exalted, sayeth hée, oute of measure thoroughe the aboundance of Reuelations, there was giuen vnto mée a [Page 27] pricke in the fleshe, the messenger of Sa­than to buffit me, bycause I should not be exalted out of measure. Let vs then by this example consider that we are men, let vs acknowledge that the holy Apostles were men, chosen vesselles, but yet frayl, as yet pilgrimes in this fleshe. No doubte but Paule and Dauid, and the residue of the most saincts that euer were, thought this eyther the chéefest or the only perfection, if they knewe them selues to be vnperfecte. And you, sayth he, when you haue done al, say we are vnprofitable seruants, Hiero. To. 1. ad [...]hesiph. cont Pelag. we haue done but what we ought to doe. If hée bée vnprofitable whiche hath done all things, what shal wée saye of him which could not fulfill. Therefore the Apostle sayd that he had partly receyued and partly comprehē ­ded, and yet was not perfecte, and that hée forgate things past, and auanced him selfe to things to come. Hée that alwayes for­getteth things past and desireth things to come, declareth him self not content with things present. But can you shewe mée any other that was better in this case, than the Apostle? You say the commaun­dements, of GOD are easie, and yet you [Page] can shew none that hath fulfilled them al. Aunswere me are they easy or harde? If they be easie, shew me who hath fulfilled them, and why Dauid saith in his Psalme &c. You know where I am. I cut it of be­cause I would be short, and yet must I say something: It followeth, But if they bée hard, why darest thou say that the cōmaū ­dements are easie, which no man hath ful­filled? Marke this by the way, whiche no man hath fulfilled. And if you think it per­aduēture faultie to reason Ab esse ad posse negatiuely, although I might wel answer you that in attributo specifico it is no fault, although it be in indiuiduali: yet haue I rather to giue you the aunswere of him which may preuayle more with you than myne, and God graunt it may do so. Di­citis his verbis. &c. You say in this sorte: It is an other thing to bée, and an other to may bée, or be possible to bée. To be con­sisteth not in our power, but to bée able to bée is spoken vniuersally. That although one be not, yet he may bée that will bée. I pray you, what kind of reasoning is this, y ^e thing may be which neuer was? that that may be done, which you witnesse that no [Page 28] man hath done? to attribute that vnto any man, who whither he shall be or no, you know not, & giue I can not tell to whom, that which you cā not proue to haue bin in the Patriarches & Prophetes & Apostles. Do not you perceyue that your assertions are contrarie within themselues? Either they are easie & a great nūber of men haue fulfilled them, or they are harde and you haue rashly sayd, that to be easie which is harde. You are wont to say this also: ey­ther the cōmaundements are possible and wel giuen of God, aut impossibilia & in his non esse culpam? or vnpossible, and no fault in thē which haue receiued the cōmaunde­mēts, but in him y ^t gaue those which were impossible. Nunquid Deus. &c. Hath god commaunded me to be that which God is, that there should be no difference betwixt men and the Lorde the Creatoure? that I should be higher than the Angels? That I should haue that which the Angelles haue not? Of him it is written as a proper­tie, whiche did not sinne, and there was no guyle found in his mouth. If this bée cōmō to mée with Christe, what had he proper? Otherwise your sētēce is destroyd of itself. [Page] If you think not this whole tretise which I haue alleaged, rightly cited against you, shew me wherin you differ. You say that the commaundementes are possible to be kept, you can shew none that hathe kept them either of the Patriarkes or of the Prophets, or Apostles. You say moreouer, that if God hath commaunded things vn­possible, the fault is in him and not in vs. Seing then y ^t you accord in al these points with them, you must either shew some far­ther reason, why S. Hierome may not be deriued against you, or else giue glory to God and cōfesse your error. For to alledge for your selfe that you there in differ from them, because they only graunted gratiam praeuenuntem, and you both that & adi [...]ā ­tem, it auaileth you not. For the patriarks had that, the Prophets had that, y ^e Apostles had that and in such sort, that god was vn­to them semper larguor, semper (que) donator, al­wayes a liberall giuer, and alwayes a frée giuer, and yet they could not as you there read. I could here bring in more allegatiōs both out of this father and other, but for feare of being to lōg, I leaue them. I trust these few may serue with the help of gods [Page 29] spirit to open your eyes & beleue. And thus haue I shewed how they are impossible.

Now to come to my second mēber, and to shewe you how they are possible & may be fulfilled, I will not stray far away, nei­ther séeke very wide, for that I néede not: I will come home to my first Allegation which suffiseth for dissoluing of this dout: and therefore I chose it moued thereunto, because I sée S. Ierome vse the same order: and in eschuing of prolixitie, our rule is good: frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora: that is vainely done by a longer way, which may be done by easie and short meanes. Let vs then sée how the Apostle dissolueth this dout. For that that was im­possible to the law in as muche as it was weake because of the fleshe, Rom. 8.3. [...]. GOD sending his owne sonne in the similitude of sinful flesh and for sin condēned sin in the flesh. Col. 2.13.14 And in an ther place [...] &c. & ye which were dead in sinnes, & in the vncircūcision of your flesh hath he quickened together w ^t him, forgeuing you al your trespasses, and putting out the hand wryting of ordinan­ces that was against vs, which was cōtra­ry [Page] to vs, he euen toke it out of y ^e way & fastned it vpon y ^e crosse. &c. Now to cōdemn sin in the flesh, to fasten y ^e hād writing vpon y ^e crosse, to spoile principalities & powers, to triūph ouer thē in y ^e cros, what other thing doth it import, than perfect rightuousnesse gotten, than a performing of y ^e law? if it be alredy performed, then was it a good cōse­quēt to say it might be performed, & herein we agrée. By whō y ^e Apostle teacheth you, by Christ Iesus, & by him onely, for so is Paules cōsequēt in these words. For that y ^t was impossible to y ^e law, in as much as it was weake because of y ^e flesh, God sen­ding his son. &c. For y ^e cause why God sent his own son, was the weaknes of our flesh by reason wherof the law could not be ful­filled, & his anger appeased. So then this causeth vs with confidence to say, O death where is thy sting, O hell where is thy vi­ctorie? there is no cōdēnation to thē which are in Christ Iesus. And in that, y ^e Christe is our iustification, our sanctification, our peace, wée may say y ^t we fulfil the law, & y ^t no one iote passeth vs nor one pricke in y ^t he forgiueth what wée can not do. Aug. li. j. re­ [...]. cap. 19. And so you haue an other way how the commaū ­demēts [Page 30] are possible. Therfore to come vn­to you, I say as you say: y ^t the commande­ments are possible, & how these words are to bee vnderstād that elect vessel doth most playnly teach vs as I alleaged. For that y ^t was impossible, &c. & again, [...]x operibꝰ legis, by the works of the law no flesh shalbe iu­stified. And y ^t wée may not thincke it onely spoken of the law of Moyses, & not of al the cōmandements which are cōprehended in the name of the law, the same apostle wit­nesseth saying. Rom. 7.22. Consentio legi Dei. I delight in y ^e law of God cōcerning y ^e inner mā, but I see an other lawe in my members rebel­ling, &c. O wretched mā y ^t I am, who shall deliuer me frō y ^e body of death. Gratia dei ꝑ Iesū Christū dn̄m nostrū: it is y ^e grace of god through Christ Iesus M. Feck. For as we are cast doun by one, Rom. 5.17. so must y ^e gift of righ­tuousnes be by one, y ^t is by Iesus christ: and why it cā be but by Christ, y ^t this fulfilling of y ^e law, Rom. 7.14. this righteousnes must be, y ^e Apo­stle sheweth, in an other place [...] for we know y ^t the law is spirituall, but I am carnal sold vnder sin. For I alow not y ^t which I do: for what I wold that do I not, but what I hate that doo I: and so forth as [Page] it foloweth in the whole text. The nature of the most godly of all is such, that he can not do as he would. By the spirite he may doo muche, but as long as he is compassed with this body of death, he can not doo all. So sayeth the Apostle in this place. Non e­nim facio bonum quod volo. I do not the good thing which I would. Hierom. ad Ch [...]t. aduer. P [...]lag. Do not burden vs, as you haue done in the beginning Master Gough, with the errour of the Manicheans and such like whiche trouble the Churche with their wicked phantasies, saying, that that nature is naught, whiche can not bée changed by any meanes, and impute this not to me but to y ^e Apostle, who knoweth y ^t God is one, & man another: the frailnesse of the flesh is one, and the strength of the spirite an other. For the fleshe desireth a­gainst the spirite, and the spirite ageynst the flesh: and these do so striue and contend eche with other, that wée can not doo such things as wée would doe. You shall neuer heare of me y ^t nature is naught, but how the fragilitie of the flesh is to bée reasoned of, let vs learne of him whiche teacheth, Aske him why he sayde, for that whiche I would do, Rom. 7.19. that I do not, but the euil which [Page 31] I hate, that do I. What necessitie hindreth his will, what force commaundeth him to do things so hatefull, so that, not that which he would, but that which he hated and would not, he is constrayned to doo. He wil aunswer [...] you: O man, what art thou, Rom. 9.20.21. Beda. that so aunswerest God? shall the clay say vnto the potter, why hast thou made me so? hath not the potter power ouer his claye, to make of one lumpe a vessell to honour, and an other to disho­nour? Concerning iustice and grace, it may bée well sayd of the giltie whiche is absolued, and of the giltie whiche is con­demned. Take that whiche is thine, and go thy wayes, I will giue this man that which is not due vnto him. Is it not law­full for me to do what I liste? Mat. 20. vers. 15. Is thy eye naught, bycause I am good? Héere yf he should say and why not to me? he shall worthely heare, O man, what art thou that so aunswearest God? whome thou séest towardes one of you to bee a moste bountifull bestower, and towardes thée a most iust exactor, and yet in nether of you vniust. Seing that he should be iust, yf he punished eyther, he whiche is deli­uered [Page] hath to giue thankes, he which is condemned hath not to reprehend. Sure it is, that our flesh is frayle, that our na­ture is corrupt, and so corrupte, that it letteth vs, that we can not do our dutie, let vs not séeke howe it is so, but as S. Paul him self did, how ye may be deliue­red from it, and still cry with our selues, Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius, Ro. 7.24. who shall deliuer me out of the body of this death? you stand vppon the possibili­tie of the law: there are diuersitie of gifts as you knowe, can you attaine to all of them? there are many sciences, as Gram­mer, Rhetoricke, Logike, &c. Who is he of all vs, bée he neuer of so excellent a wit, that can bee a perfect Gramarian, a perfect Logician, a perfect Rhetorician, a perfecte Philosopher, Hie. li. j. c. Pelag. a perfect lawyer, a perfecte Phisician? the excellent orator & lawyer he sayeth, There are few which attayne one, but both no man can. You sée, then that God hath commaunded a possible thing, and yet that whiche is possible, no man can performe by reason of our na­ture. He hath giuen therfore diuers pre­cepts and diuerse vertues which wée can [Page 32] not haue all togither. To bée shorte and to make an ende of this parte, the olde saying is true, non omnia possumus om­nes, there is none of vs all can doo all things: and there is none or very rare is that riche man, whiche in all his sub­staunce possesseth all thinges equallye. God hath commaun [...]ed possible things, I graunt it. But all these possible things, wée can not euery one haue, not for the weaknesse of nature (that is, as it was firste made of God) least you slaunder God, but for the wearinesse of minde which can not haue all vertues togither, and alwayes. And thus much touching these twoo partes, wherby you may vn­derstande, how wee say that the kéeping of the law is possible. And how it is vn­possible. This considered, I come to your argumentes.

Your first is taken out of the eleuenth of Mathew: and your woordes are these. Contrarie to this doctrine, is our Sauiour Christ, where he willeth vs to take his yoke vppon vs, because it is light. Tollite iugum meum super vos, iugum enim meum suaue est▪ [Page] & onus meum leue. Take my yoke vppon you, for my yoke is sweete, and my bur­den is lighte. If it bee a light burden, M. Goughs heauy example, hath not a peny worth of good skill.

This is neyther contrarie to his do­ctrine, M. Fecknam, neyther is his hea­uy example voyd of skill. But that which causeth you to thincke it to bée contrarie, is that you deceyue your selfe, and make a Paralogisme as the Logicians call it, à fallacia accidentis, which I shall bée able to shew you by your doctours. For you doe not reason with M. Gough in sensu vniuo­co, and in his proposed matter. He taught you in his sermon that to fulfill the law was impossible, you oppose and lay for an aunswere, that the yoke of Christe is easie. S. Ierome vppon the same place tea­cheth you that here bée subiecta diuersa, & therfore in your disputation there is no vniuocatio. Your subiectes are Lex and Euangelium, the lawe and the Gospell, of which two he sayeth thus. Quo modo le­uius lege Euangelium: quum in lege homici­dium, in Euangelio ira damnetur? Qua ratio­ne Euangelij gratia facilior, quū in lege adul­terium, [Page 33] in Euangelio concupiscentia puniatur? In lege multa precepta sunt, quae Apostolus non posse compleri plenissime docet. How is the gospell lighter than the law, séeing y ^e mur­der is condemned in the law, and anger is condēned in the gospel? How is the grace of the gospell easier, seeing that in the law adulterie, and in the gospell concupiscence is punished? Many things are commaūded in the law, which y ^e Apostle sheweth most plainly, that they can not be accomplished. In y ^e law works are required, which who soeuer doth, shal liue in thē. In the Gospel y ^e will is required, which although it haue not the effect, yet it léeseth not the reward. So that by this Doctor, here is a compari­son betwixt the law and the gospel, and as farre difference there is betwixt your two arguments, as is betwixt velle and facere. And marke then, is this a good argument. Non possum facere, ergo nō possum velle, I am not able to do, therefore I am not able to will: or this, Possum velle, ergo possum facere, I am able to wil, therfore I am able to do. Take which you wil, these are your argu­ments. I am sure you sée how little holde there is in them: therfore cōfesse the truth, [Page] giue glorie to God, and be not ashamed to haue erred, but be ashamed to remayne in your error. The gospel sure is easier than y ^e law, y ^e grace of Iesus Christ forpasseth & surmounteth the letter. If you will cōsider your heauy burden and come vnto Christ, & craue pardō for your sins, & haue a mind to walke in his pathes, and where you fall downe desire him to lift you vp, to cloth your nakednesse with his garmente, you shall find reste and refreshing. and this is an easie yoke. But yf you will néedes doo, when he requireth the will, you will bur­den your self with an heauie yoke. I could alleage vppon this same place of Mathew Theophilact, and Glossa ordinaria, whiche neyther of them take the place as you do, but I passe them ouer because I would be short. You your self may read them.

1. Iohn. 5.Your second argument is of like force. Where you say thus. S. Iohn to this ef­fect sayth. Quod mandata eius grauia non sunt. That his cōmandements be not hea­uy, yf they be not heauy, they be far vnlike M. Goughs lump of lead, impossible to be taken vp and remoued.

It is I say of like sorte, as Nicholas de Lyra interpreting the place of Mathew [Page 43] doth alleadge out of Augustine, where he sayth thus. Mandata gra [...]ia non sunt, quod exponens Aug. dicit. s. amanti: The com­maundementes are not heauy, which S. Augustine expounding sayth, that is, to the louing. S. Iohn sayth so him self in ef­fecte [...] &c. For all that is borne of God ouercometh the world. For in déede the commaundements beyng tempered. Au. [...]et. 1.1 [...] with the mercie and good­nesse of our heauēly father accepting then all donne, when that is pardoned which is not done, Psal. 130. vers. 4. and as Dauid sayth, &c. Chy im­mecha haselichach. For with thée is par­don that thou mayst bée feared. Then to the child of God, to him that hath the vic­torie of y ^e world, that hath Emunah, a sure and a stable faith, that beléeueth in Christ Iesus the son of God, Psal. 19.1 [...]. to him the commāde­mēts are not gréeuous: nay they are ham­nechmadim mizahab more desirous than gold, vinethukim middebasch ▪ and swéeter thā honie, & this is y ^e true sense of y ^e place.

Your third is this. Rom. 2. S. Paule in rebuking these idle hearers of the law, which say that they can heare it, but not doo it, and ful­fill it, writeth. Non enim auditores legis [Page] iusti sunt apud Deum, sed factores legis iusti­ficabunt [...]r. For not the hearers of the lawe be iust with God, but the doers shall be iu­stified. If they doe the law, then it may be done, then it is possible. Ab esse ad posse is a good argument. They do works of the law, therfore they may be done.

First touching the scope of the Apostle, you are deceiued. Pardon me, I speake it not of malice or to taunt I protest, but for the truth of the matter. The Apostles pur­pose is not there to rebuke idle hearers of y ^e law, & say that they can heare it, but not fulfil it: But he goeth about to conclude al vnder sinne, and shew that euery one hath néede of the glory of God: and therfore ma­keth this occupation. The Iewes can not exempt them selues from this sentēce, bi­cause they had the law amongst them. Nō enim qui audiunt legem. &c. For not they, which heare the law are iust with God. &c. And they did not the lawe as it appeareth in the same place. Therefore I maruaile how you conclude out of these words your so strong argument, Ab esse ad posse. If you wil néedes folow your owne sense & muse vpon these wordes, Factores legis iustifica­buntur, [Page 35] the doers of the law shall be iustifi­ed: Heare what you haue in Glossa ordina­ria. Iustificabuntur .i. iusti deputabuntur: vel iustifient a Deo, vt sint factores. Non qui an­te erant factores, post iustificabuntur: vt si di­ceretur, homines creabuntur, quia ipsa creatio­ne sit vt sint homines. Sic ipsi non qui ante e­rant factores iustificabuntur quia etiam gen­tes. They shal be iustified, that is, they shal be accompted iust: or they shalbe made iust of God: that they may be doers: not which were doers, shalbe iustified. As if it should be sayd, men shalbe created: bicause by the creation they are made men. So likewise not they which were doers before, shall be iustified, bicause the gentiles also. This would I repeat vnto you, as a thing which you know well inoughe, bicause I thinke you haue often read it, for that he sayeth wel and truely, and according to the scrip­tures, although not verye fit to this place, to the end that you may see how litle it ser­ueth for you, if you be not mynded to fo­low my first answer, which I thinke and hope you will, if you will looke vppon the place. And here I beseech you in y ^e mercies of Christ Iesus to consider with your selfe [Page] your owne state: I thinke the best of you, I think you haue not the Bible and other books about you: If you had you would ne­uer alleadge places in such sorte, so farre from the purpose of the holy ghost, so little to purpose. I speake it with griefe of hart, the Lord knoweth. I am sorie to sée you in such blindnesse: right glad would I be to sée the glorie of god appéere in you to your health and saluation, [...] not to your destru [...]ction. Wel the Glosa interlinealis goeth far­ther. Non enim auditores legis .i. pro auditu legis, sed factores .i. gratia iustificat eos vt ad­impleant legem, quia non faciunt vt iustificē ­tur, sed iustificantur vt faciant: For not the hearers of the law, that is, for the hearing of the law: But the dooers, that is, Grace iustifieth thē that they may fulfill y ^e lawe, bicause they do not the law that they may be iustified, but are iustified that they may do it. I shall not néede to stand vpon these wordes ( vt adimpleant legē, that they may fulfill the Lawe) for by that whiche I haue sayde before, I trust you vnderstand howe they are to be taken. Well let vs go to your fourth Argument.

[Page 36] The Euangelist Saint Luke of these do­ers of the Lawe, Luc. 1.6. bringeth a full example, writing thus of Zacharie and Elizabeth: Erant ambo iusti ante Deum. &c. They were both iuste before God, walking in all the commaundementes and iustifications of the Lorde without blame. If S. Luke had the Spirit of truthe, when he sayd that those twoo walked in al the commaunde­ments, then M. Goughe by his deniall and impossibilitie put thereof, must needs haue the Spirite of erroure and lying. 1, Ioh. 2. vers. 4. Saint Iohn sayeth: Qui dicit se nosse Deum, & manda­ta eius non custodit, mendax est. Hee that sayeth he knoweth God and keepeth not his commaundements, is a lyer.

No doubt, M. Fecknam, but Sainct Luke had the Spirite of truthe, and yet hath not M. Goughe the Spirit of errour and lying. He teacheth no contrarie doc­trine why you should so conclude. Well let vs examine the woordes and so shall wée sée. Vide Hiero [...] lib. 1▪ cont. Pelag. They were both iust, [...] before God. Not y ^e god had nothing to lay to their charges putting Christs deli­uerāce a syde, not that he had nothing in their liues to find fault withal, his mercie [Page] being put a parte, Nō est qui faciat bonum, non est vs (que) ad vnum: there is not one that doth good (in such sorte) not one. I truste you will not so say. Well how then [...] .i. Before God? You knowe M. Fecknā which are learned in tongues, that this phrase is borowed of y ^e Hebrewe tongue, biphne Iehouah, and that is so to walk in y ^e sight of the Lord, as in the eyes of God. As he sayd: Si Deos, homines (que) ce­lare possum, If I could or might hyde this from Gods and men. &c. meaning that hée and she walked vprightly, not as dissem­bling Hipocrites, not in a faire shewe to the world as others, but their iustice was such as which is done in the sight of God, playn and sincere, without al dubblnesse. And that is, be leb hatum, and not▪ be leb tahur. And this doth partly note vnto you both Theophilactus and Lyra, vpon this place. I referre you to y ^e places: I néed not to recite the words. Let vs goe forward: Walking in all the commande­ments: Non quod nō procauerint sayth your Glossae interlinaris. &c. Not bicause they sinned not, but bicause that thei being wa­shed [Page 37] with the grace of God left to sinne. I trust you wil not stumble here neither, as though they sinned no more. For if we say so, veritas Dei non est in nobis, the truth of god is not in vs: the last word is [...] inculpate blamelesse. How this is to be vn­derstanded I refer you to Iustinus Martyr, in Solu [...]q. 141. where he hath in effect these words. Iustus ex lege dicitur, [...]. qui cùm p̄cauerit in ijs quae possunt cōdonari, sàcrificio­rū oblatione & delicti redemtione, remissione accepta mundus efficitur, & a crimine liber. He is said to be iust by the law, who after he hath sinned in those things which may be forgiuen, hauing remission by the offe­ring of sacrifice & redemption of y ^e offence is made cleane & frée from fault, and so are Elizabeth & Zacharie said to be [...] blamelesse. Touching your last place of s. Iohn. chap. v. I haue sayd sufficient before [Page] in the place of y ^e .j. Iohn. chap. v. This wil I adde by the way, y ^t in déede the knowledge of God can not be without efficacie, and therfore they that brag them selues to be the childrē of God and to haue a fayth, and walke not in his commaundementes, are but lyers. Nowe to your authorities of S. Hierome and Augustine.

Tom. 4. in [...]pos. Symb▪ ad Damas. & [...]o. 1. in dia­log. contra Pel. li. 1. &. 3. S. Ierom wryting of these teachers which sai that it is impossible to kepe the law, hath these words: Execramur eorū blasphemiā, qui dicunt impossibile aliquid homini à Deo prae­ceptum esse, et mandata eius non a singulis sed ab omnibus in communi posse seruari: That is: we detest their blasphemie which say that God hath commaunded man to doe any thing impossible: and that the commaun­dements of God may be kept, not of euery one in particular, but of all in generall. He witnesseth that Gods commaundementes may be obserued of euery one in particular, and that God commaundeth nothing im­possible: for he detesteth the contrarie do­ctrine, and calleth it blasphemie, and ther­fore I haue little cause to like it.

I will not say as other do, & as I might [Page 38] wel, that this is suspect: I haue his mind in the same question, when he was vrged with the same argument of the Pelagian. Possibilia inquit, A Cresiph. adu. Pelag. mandata dedit Deus: Et quis hoc negat: Sed quomodo haec intelligen­da sit sententia. &c. God gaue, sayth he, cō ­maundementes which are possible: and who denyeth it. But how this sentence is to be vnderstode, the chosen vessell dothe plainly declare. Rom. 8.3. That which was impossi­ble to the law in as much as it was weak bicause of the flesh, God sending his owne sonne in y ^e similitude of sinful flesh. &c. and in an other place he sayth, Possibilia praece­pit Deus. &c. God commanded things pos­sible, and I graunte it: but all these possi­ble things, we can not euery man haue. Not for the weakenesse of nature, least thou slaunder God, but for the wearinesse of y ^e minde, which can not haue al vertues togither and always. Therefore if these be both Ieromes, and Ierome be not con­trary to him selfe, you muste thus vnder­stand youre place that he is to be detested which sayeth that God hath commaunded mā to do any thing that was impossible in it self to be fulfilled, had not y ^e frailnesse [Page] of mans nature other wayes bin a let: and them also that say that euery one in particular, beyng a true beleeuer, can not fulfill them in him, Iohn. 1.16. of whose fulnesse wée all receyue, and whose Iustice is ours by his gifte and grace. And in thus taking of it, I trust you will neyther re­iect my aunswere, neyther condemne M. Gough as one of that sort. Now to your place of S. Augustine.

To. 10. ser. 61. de tem­pore. S. Augustine likewise to the same ende sayth. Deus neque impossibile aliquid potuit imperare, qui iustus est, nec damnaturus est hominem pro eo, quòd non potuit vitare, qui pius est. That is: God neyther could com­maund any thing that is impossible, who is iust: neyther will he condemne any man, for that which he could not auoyd, who is mercifull. The contrarie whereof to mayn­taine doth blasphemously argue God, both of iniustice and impietie. VVhen he com­maundeth vs to do, which M. Gough saith is impossible and condemneth vs. For that, which he sayth, we could not auoyde.

This place of Augustine is easie e­nough, and hath in it self sufficient to an­swere you, not swaruing a whitte from [Page 39] the state which I haue made you, and the true meaning of M. Gough. He exhorteth them ther vnto charitie, and reprehendeth withall the folish tergiuersations and re­sistances which they made against y ^e scrip­tures. But a man will say, sayth he, I can by no meanes loue mine enimies. In all the Scriptures, God sayth vnto thée that thou canst: thou on the contrary part an­swerest that thou canst not. Marke nowe whether should a man beléeue thée or God. And therefore bicause the truthe can not lie, let mannes frailenesse now leaue his vain excuses, Quia nec impossibile. &c▪ Bi­cause he could neither cōmaund any thing which is impossible, who is iust, neyther will condemne man for that that he could not eschue, who is mercifull, it foloweth. Why dost thou resist in vaine? Nemo enim quantum possumus. For no man knoweth better what we can do or may do, than he that hath giuen vs (ipsum posse) that we may. Therefore if the commaundements in themselues are not impossible, but by reason of our weakenesse, and God dothe giue vs abilitie in this our defect in suche sort as I haue declared before, it must [Page] néedes follow that his iustice ageinst those that do it not is good and iust: and this M. Goughe teacheth. He saith also in the be­ginning of his Epistle. In reliquis operibus bonis &c. In other good works a man may sometimes pretend some maner of excuse: but in hauing charitie no man can excuse him selfe. A man may say vnto me, I can not faste: Can he saye, I can not loue? A man may say for the infirmitie of my bo­dye I can not absteine from wine & flesh: can he say, I can not loue? A mā may say, I can not kéepe my selfe a virgine: A man may saye, that he can not sell all his sub­stance and giue it to the poore, can he say, I can not loue myne enemies and forgiue thē which haue offended ageinst me? Let no man deceyue him selfe (deare brethren) for God deceyueth no man. For although there be many things, which for the fragi­litie of mans nature we can not corporal­ly fulfill, yet without any doubte we may haue charitie in oure hartes God so inspi­ring it if we will in déed. Thus you sée by this place, what we may doe, when God giueth that which he commaundeth, when he worketh that in vs that he requireth, [Page 40] and yet that wée of oure selues can not do so much as kéepe a virgine, as sel our sub­stance, as giue to the poore. And so haue I briefly aunswered your Obiections, with­out all prolixitie of farther Allegation of moe authorities: desiring you rather to rest your selfe vppon the scriptures, wher­on we may surely ground our selues, than vpon the wauering iudgement of men in whom you sée verified the common say­ing, Quot capita, tot sensus. So many vn­derstandings as be heads: and I woulde it were not so in euery one of them.

2 That the holie Angels and Sainctes of heauen may heare our prayers.

AS touching this question (M. Feck­nam) to saye what I thinke, it is but fond and curious, as sought forth and in­uented rather to be some stay and ground to a scisme, thā to edifie the church of God. [Page] For no doubt had it bin necessarye for vs, the holy Ghost would haue made some ex­presse mention of it in the canonical scrip­tures, wheras I am sure you are not able to bring one direct place. But suche is the nature of man, readyer to seeke out things of no profit, & whiche serue to nothing but to strife & dissention, than to folow y ^• which is left vnto them for their profit. The cause of this search hath bin to maintaine your prayer to the saincts, which how it folow­eth of it, if it be to be graunted, we shall sée héereafter. As for that error of Vigilantius I had rather erre w ^t him, than go straight with Hierome, if you can shew me no bet­ter proofe. To be short in this fond matter, omitting the varietie of many opinions, as Augustines in his booke de spiritu & am­ma, where he sayth thus: Ibi siquidem sunt spiritus defunctorum, vbi non vident, ne (que) au­di [...]nt▪ &c. There are the spirits of y ^e dead, where they neither sée nor heare &c. and in diuers other places, & also other mennes: also letting passe other questions which ensue hereof: how farre they heare? And what they heare? with such like, I will lay downe this onely which I reade in [Page 41] Hazzohar, His wordes in the Syrian tong sound thus woord for woord. Tantum sciunt Angeli de rebus nostris, quantum illis datū est & traditum vt sciant. the angels know so much of our affaires as is giuen and de­liuered to them to know. What that is, & when it is, neither you can tell, neither a­ny of yours, that you may make your con­clusion auaileable. And for such an vncer­taintie whereby your consciences can not be staid to leaue a certaintie and an vnfal­lyble anker, Inuoca me in die tribulationis, cal vpon me in the day of trouble. Vnus est mediator dei & hominum homo Christus Ie­sus, there is one mediator of God and mā, the man Christ Iesus. Quaecun (que) petieritis paetrem meum in nomine meo dabit vobis: What so euer you aske my father in my name he will giue it you: To leaue I say these sure holdes & such like, for that dout­ful change, what ouersight is it, what con­tempt of Gods word? As for the consequēt you make hereof. The angels hear vs, ergo we may or must pray vnto them. I know not how you thinke in your owne consci­ence, but to my iudgement it is so strange as the Doctrine it selfe, yea rather more [Page] [...] [Page 41] [...] [Page] strāge. When you shalbe able to make me this a good cōsequent, I wil say as you say: but sooner may you bring heauen & earth together, sooner may you cause the East & the West to meete, than to bring it to any rule of a good cōsequent. I am sure M. Fek. y ^t audire et precari, that is, to hear & to pray, are two accidents, disparata, y ^t is vnlike & seperated one frō y ^e other, which depēd not either of other, vllo aut praedicationis aut na­turae vinculo, either ratione sui, or ratione subiecti. And as good a cōsequent is this, to say, Craesus est diues, Ergo Philosophus, y ^t is, Crae­sus is rich, therfore he is a Philosopher, as Angeli audiunt, Ergo angeli sunt inuocandi, that is, Angels heare, therefore they are to be called vpon. And vnlesse this cōsequent be admitted, you haue no grounde for this poinct of doctrine. I am loth, I ensure you to s [...]and in this poincte. For any man that shal either heare or reade this, will think rather I speake it to triūphe ouer you (as God knoweth I do not, I wishe you bet­ter) bicause the matter is more playn, thā that it néedeth any suche demonstration. But lesse I could not speak, bicause you so make the collection in your first allegati­on. For my parte I doo as gladly let passe [Page 42] things not necessarie & of small moment, as other men coulde bée content to haue them buried. Well, for inuocation it self ether of Aungels or sainctes, let vs say a worde or two (for to speake much of it at this present it néedeth not, for that it hath bin freshly handled by others, & you haue séene it or may) and dispatch this trifling question, whiche bréedeth more dissention thā it bringeth profit. First we haue this, that inuocation is a peece of Gods seruice due onely to his honour, inuoca me in die tribulationis, call vppon me in the day of trouble, and of this he is ielous. Honorem meum non dabo alteri, my honour I will gyue to none other, & such a peece of Gods seruice it is, that it carieth a beleef with it in him on whome ye call, quo modo inuoca­bunt, in queas non crediderunt? Ro. 10.14. how shall they call on him in whom they haue not beleeued? in whom you must beléeue, you are not I trust to learne in this age, but thus much by the way, he muste bée God, in quem credis, in whom you beléeue. It is not cui, nor de quo to whom you gyue cre­dit, nor of whom you beleue well. But [...] in quem that is, in whome If you can [Page] find any other inuocatiō but this, I would gladly sée it: non quaero exemplum, quaero▪ au­thoritatem, I séeke not or demaund of you an example or facte, but authoritie. I de­maūd no more of you, than you may iustly of mée: of our rest and certeyntie, I gyue you these: Inuoca me in die tribulationis, cal on me in the day of trouble. And oure Sa­uiour Chryst, when you will praye, praye thus: Oure father &c. Not that no other forme of prayer may be vsed, but shewing to whom the prayer must be directed. And ageyne, whosoeuer calleth be schem Ieho­uah, vpon the name of the Lord, he shalbée saued. And howe this is to be taken if we neither lerne of Christe nor Christian, an old Iewe will teache vs, Rabbi Iodan. Rabbi Iodan, god giue vs al this cōfessiō. His words recited in Midrasch tillim be mizmor 4 are these Basar vadam iesch lo pitron higiay lo yeth tzarah eno nichnas lephanau pithom ella ba veyamad al pethach pitrono ve kore le abdo vehu omer, peloni al happethah: ve hacchadosch baruch hu eno chen. higia eth tzara le Israyl lo iehe kore lo le Gabriel, ve lo le Michael, ella kore otho, veh one otho hare hu daamar, colascher ikra be schem Iehouah [Page 43] immalet. That is, flesh & bloud hath a patron in y ^e time of his necessitie, he will not streightway go into his presence, but commeth and standeth at the dore of his patrone, and calleth his seruant, & he tel­leth his Maister that there is one at the dore. But with God we must not so do. At what time Israel is in affliction or neces­sitie, he must neither call to Gabriel nor to Michael, but he must call vppon God, and he heareth him: and this is if that is sayd: whosoeuer calleth on the name of y ^e Lord, he shalbe saued. But as I sayde, I will not be long herein bicause it were but Actum agere, to do that is already done: my pur­pose is but to run ouer your Arguments.

Youre firste is this: To this opinion is cleane repugnant the saying of our Sauior Christ when he teacheth that more ioy shal be in heauen before the Angels of God v­pon one sinner doing penance, than vpon nintie and nine iust men which neede no penance.

First, not to medle with the sense of the place, whiche Christe expresseth by these wordes of ioy, applying his doctrine vnto our capacitie, I may wel answer you with [Page] a simple denial. The cōsequent is naught, Angels shal reioyce vpon the conuersiō of a sinner, ergo Angels do heare and knowe whatsoeuer we aske and pray: A futuro ad praesens in meris contingentibus, you knowe non valet argumentum. And it is not a con­sequentibus as you take it. For those Ar­gumentes must be in pari tempore. As for Example: Haec mulier pariet, ergo con­cipiet, this woman shall bring foorth, ther­fore shée shall conceyue. And it is naught to saye pariet, Ergo concepi [...], she shal bring foorth, therefore she hath conceyued: vn­lesse there be limitatio temporis, a limitati­on and restrainte to the certayne time in which she conceyued: and y ^t in ijs quae sunt ex necessitate materiae. But in [...]erè cōtingen­tibus, they must be always [...]iusdem tempo­ris ▪ at one selfsame time, as [...]ras pluet, ergo [...]ras nubes erunt, to morowe it shall rayne, therfore to morowe there shalbe cloudes. But to saye [...]ras pluet, ergo hodie nubes sunt, to morow it shal rayne, therfore there are clouds this day, this is no reasō. For agrée­ment of time being set posito antecedente, sequitur cōsequens etiam in contingētibus. If one reioyce it is a consequent that he hea­reth [Page 44] or hath heard, but to say, he shall re­ioyce to morow, ergo, he heareth to day. I can not tell how this consequent hangeth togither. What if I answer you, facta re­uelat [...] Deus, nō facienda: that is to say, God reuealeth things done, & not to be done. What cā you then say? Your place impor­eth, y ^e God wil make manifest to Angels, how a sinner hath repēted, not that he wil shewe to them that they shall repent. And so had youre Argument ben good: He will make them reioyce for the cōuersion of a sinner, therfore he wil shew thē y ^e conuer­sion of a sinner. I say vnto you, your place doth importe this, y ^t facta reuelat Deus, non facienda. They shall reioyce for a sinner retourned, not for a sinner that shall re­tourne. I knowe that God hath reuealed vnto his seruaunts things past and things to come, but when he doth it, or whether he doth it alwayes, I say you knowe not, and therefore your collection is naughte. Where you say, neyther yf they knowe our penaunce, shall they bee ignoraunt of our petitions: I saye your collection is naught, although I touch not y ^e false kind of reasoning, which is à conclusione hypo­thetica [Page] ad categoricam, in materia cōtingēti. And therfore you are mad men in praying vnto thē, vnlesse you haue some more sure and certaine groūd than this: and they are no mad men which make them so ignorāt: for vnlesse god doth reueale it vnto them, they know in a manner no more than we do: and when he doth reueale it vnto them and how muche, and in what cases, when you can certifie me and others, we wil be­leue it. In the meane season if we suspend our faith vntil we haue a better rest for it, I pray you do not call vs mad men. But now for the sense of the place. Doth he not in those thrée parables set forth vnto vs y ^e [...]are that he hath of his churche, in that he of his singular loue séeketh vs whē we go astray from him: He laboreth to finde vs, when we be lost: and is ready to receyue vs when we turne vnto him: and thereby also aduertise vs of our duetie, to seeke the helpe and safetie of eche other, not to con­demne the wāderers which go astray but by his example to séeke meanes to bring them vnto Chryst, that in so doing being members bothe of one body, we may re­ioyce togither and glorif [...]e God, we may [Page 45] haue that cōsolation & comfort, which bre­thren ought to haue, and especially those which are the childrē of God? To moue vs to this duetie, he setteth before vs y ^e doing of that part of the church which is better, & which is in heauen, he setteth before vs I say the doing of the Angels, who as they be mēbers of this body, so do they reioyce, when they see that cōsent and conformitie in the members, which ought to be in so pretious a body. If then they be ioyous and glad that sinners do repēt, what ought we to do, which are present with them, & see­ing their infirmities may cōsider our own, and by mercy shewed to them, be more cō ­firmed in the graces of God? This I say is the sense of the place. Now then bicause we are here instructed of the charitie and loue, which is and ought to be in y ^e churche of God and members of Christes body, bi­cause there is a true ioy and gladnesse eche with other, when God bestoweth his gra­ces, which before séemed to be shut vp: bi­cause this [...] that is, natural and mutuall agréement, is not only in the mē ­bers on the earth, but in those also which are in heauen: will you therfore conclude [Page] that things done here on earth, and words spoken, are heard and knowne vnto them at all times and seasons, as yf they were heades and not members, Gods and no Aungels? For to sée our harts & thoughts, to heare our sighes and wordes is a pro­pertie of Gods nature, gyuen vnto no An­gell, but when he reuealeth it vnto him: & that not alwayes, but as he shall thinke it expedient both for them and vs: and as for such reuelations, this place sheweth it not, this only is here declared, what chari­tie and loue there is in the true members of Christe his body, and the fruict therof, God working as well in them as in vs a knowledge of things done, and gladnesse therefore. And thus muche touching this place of Luke .xv. whereof you can ney­ther cōclude that thei do continually héere vs, neyther yf they did, that we shuld pray therfore vnto them.

Your next argument is out of Tobie, 12. This also is refelled by the saying of the Angell Raphaell vnto Tobie. Quando ora­bas cum lachrymis & sepeliebas mortuos, &c. When thou prayedst with teares, and bur­riedst the dead, and forsokest thy dynner, [Page 46] and hiddest by the day dead folkes in thy house, and buriedst them in the night, I did offer thy prayer vnto the Lorde. All these things the Angell Raphael did know, when Tobie thought lest hereof: and what? shall wee aduenture to say, that the Angel knew it onely, and affirme that no other Angell doth knowe the like, or shall the Aungels knowe it, and not the glorified sainctes of God, when he promiseth of them, that in the resurrection they shall be like Angels? Matt. 22.

I muse at this kind of dealing (M. Feck­nam) I might say vnto you, vna hirundo non facit ver, one swalow maketh not sō ­mer: but that is not the matter: to see all things that are done of vs, or to heare vs, is it natura Angelorum, the nature of the Angels? or is it speciale donum, a speciall gift. What kind of reasoning is this, in ac­cidentibus commumbus to reason ab vno in­diuiduo ad speciem, or à specie ad genus. Were this a good argumente to say, So­crates Philosophus verè sentit de summo bono, Ergo, omnes Philosophi verè sentiunt de sum­mo bono? Socrates the Philosopher iudgeth truely or a righte of the chéefest good, [Page] or happinesse, therfore all Philosophers iudge and thinke truely therof. Yours is the same. Raphaell saw his doyng, ther­fore all y ^e Angels saw Tobie his doings, & per consequentiam, cōsequently, they sée ours. I sée not (Master Fecknam) why I may not deny consequentiam & conse­quens, that is, both your conclusion and that which you woulde inferre thereof. For neyther doth it folow, yf Raphaell saw Tobie, therfore all did see him, ney­ther yf they sawe his doyngs, therefore they see ours. For as I sayd, it is neyther the nature of an Angel, neyther the pro­pertie of an angell: of whiche two there must bée one to make an argument good à specie ad genus, or by an induction. Thus much touching your kind of reasoning, in groūding an article of religion, which hath no other ground of scripture for his warrant. I maruayle that the aungell whiche appeared to Cornelius made no­thing to your purpose. Act. 10. ver. 3 For he sawe him in a vision, and declared vnto him how his matters went. Therefore you might haue concluded some thing. But wil you know, why he is out of your rolle? Be­cause [Page 47] he sayd, thy prayers and thine al­mes are come vp into remembraunce before God: & did not say, I did carie vp thy prayers. And yet I wisse you might haue as well concluded by this, ergo the angels know what wée do. Euen both a like, when God sendeth them, when god openeth vnto them, I thinke they know. And surely to bée noted it is, that the aungell sayth not, I knew, I saw, I caried thy prayers: but, thy prayers are come, to gyue vs to vnderstande that as they are but messengers, so we can not, nor ought assure our selues more of thē than their master willed them to reuele vnto vs. Now to your author, who as you alleadge is Tobie, whose authoritie cited as scripture I deny it, I finde no such author in my Bible. I meane not the Geneua Bible, That is, the 5. bookes of Moyses, the first Pro­phetes, the last Prophetes, the litle vo­lumes, the holy wry­tings. whereat diuerse of you list to ieast, but I would you could shewe a better in our tongue, or iustly correct it: I meane that Bible, which is deuided into these partes, CH. CH. T. NR. NA. MG. Hac: Yf he were in this nūber, I would not, neyther could I re­iect him as not scripture, as not written [Page] with the singer of God: but bicause I finde him not, I dare not be so bolde as to make him felow with y ^e holy ghost, to groūd my faith vpō him as vpon the holy scriptures: & how you ought to read him & such others and vse him Hierom doth teach you, I néed not repeate it. And this for Tobie. Now touching your allegatiōs out of y ^e 4. Reg. 6 of the reuelation y ^t was giuen to Elizeus, touching the secretes of the king of Syria, and Act. v. the reuelation to Peter of y ^e se­crete thoughts of Ananias, I know not to what purpose they make touching your question: these places & many mo shew vn­to vs how boūtifully God hath poured his spirit vpon his seruants the Prophets and Apostles at diuers & sundry times, for the helpe & comfort of his church: but to proue either an intelligence continual y ^t the An­gels haue of our affaires, or for vs to pray vnto them, they serue nothing at all. I be­seeche you what wil you conclude: God re­ueled the secretes of the king of Syria to E­lizeus, and of Ananiss to Peter. Therfore he reuealeth to y ^e Angels our doings, ther­fore we must pray to them and to the Sainctes? What dealing is thys? You [Page 48] heape here an other place of S. Augustine to as much purpose Si Prophetae, To. 5. de ci­uit Dei, lib. 20. cap. 22. nondum facta nosse po [...]uerunt, per hoc quod erat Deus, (quantulucum (que) erat) in eorum mortalium mentibus, quo modo immortales sancti, iam f [...]cta, tum nescient, cùm erit Deus omnia in omnibus? If the Prophetes coulde know things before they were done, by this that God was (how much so euer he was) in the mindes of them as yet beyng mortall, how shall they not know then things that bee done already beyng, immortall sainctes, when God shall bee in them all in al? You sée euidently y ^t he speaketh here howe & in what case they shal be in the latter daye, when indéed y ^t shal be rightly verified, y ^t he shall bée all in all. And what doth this im­pugne y ^e saying of M. Gough? who denieth not y ^t in y ^e latter day wée shall see God face to face, we shall most fully sée & know that which neyther eye hath séen, neyther eare hath heard, neyther at any time hath it en­tred into y ^e hart of man. A more ful know­ledge, a more ample sight, a better vnder­stāding thā this you cā not haue. This we graūt, yours we deny. We graūt this also, y ^t we may make an end, & come to your ar­guments) [Page] that the angels which God hath commaunded to waite vppon vs, Heb. 1.14. Psal. 91.11. Psalm. 34.7 to guide vs in all our wayes, to be round about vs, to admonish vs and comfort vs, [...]o watche perpetually for our sauegard, these angels sée and know what we do, frō the vtmoste action, to the inwardst thought, if God so dispense vnto them, and make them his ministers, who is the sole and only sear­cher of hearts and raines, knower of thou­ghts and mindes: and yet foloweth it not, that we must pray to them: neither yet, that other Sainctes do know what we do or thinke. I say the dead, the saincts, do no more know what we do here while it is in doing, than we know what they do: and when they know any thing, it is by after information, or by the ministerie of the Angels, as in like case they minister vnto vs. So that certaintie you can haue none to found your prayers vpon: for while you are praying, they do not knowe.

And although you may alledge me som visions which may séeme to confirme your purpose, putting the case I should graunt them: yet can you no more proue that they knowe and vnderstand our doings, [Page 49] than if in your dreame you should haue a thing opened vnto you by one which was sléeping when you slept, & nothing thought of you. What if they haue care for vs be­ing there, as requisite too, for that they bée mēbers with vs, and charitie ceaseth not: Do they therfore know what wée doo? we haue care of them also, and yet wée know not what they doe. We loue them as whē they were here, we laude and magnifie God, that he hath dealt so louingly with thē, we reioyce that they are already par­takers of that, whiche we looke & hope for, running the same race of faith and feare of God. This care I saye we haue of them, thus in charitie wée are affectioned to­wardes them, & yet knowe we not what they doe: no more do they, what we doe. Wel, nowe lette vs come to youre Argu­ments of Doctors.

Mayster Gough, say you, to proue that no Saints being dead can heare vs, alleadged the saying of the Prophet Isai. &c. Abrahā nesciuit nos. &c. That is, sayth M. Goughe, Now after they be dead they haue no ma­ner of knowledge of vs, but be cleane igno­rant of things done here vpō the earth. But [Page] S. Hierome hath an other interpretation, which I thinke I may prefer before master Goughs saying, Abraham nesciuit nos .i. A­braham non agnouit nos pro filijs. Abraham hath not knowue vs, that is, Abraham hath not allowed or acknowledged vs for hys children: and why? Quia te offendimus: bi­cause we haue offended thee, saith S. Ierom. He saith not, quia Abraham & Israel mor­tui sunt. Bicause Ahraham & Israel be dead, as if thereby they coulde haue no longer knowledge of them?

What if S. Hierom haue an other, is M. Goughes therefore naught? Nay, but you had rather prefer S. Ieromes. Do you think that M. Gough hath no authoritie for his? Do you thinke that he hath not as good as S. Hierome? If you think so, I wil giue you to vnderstand the contrary. If you do not thinke so, why do you conceale the truthe, and stand rather vpon man than vpon the word of God? This is the miserie that you haue, that whilest you will not hearken to the scriptures, but what this man or that man sayth, you wauer vp and down, now alleaging one man, now an other, not knowing wel where to stand. Wel, I wil [Page 50] bring you two, neither to be misliked in such cases, the one comparable to Hierome in all respectes. First Kimki on this place sayth: al derech, abi ve immi. &c. On this sort is it spoken in an other place, Pater meus & mater mea dereliquerunt me, Do­minus autem assumpsit me. Quamuis enim pater noster. Abraham multis iam preterlap­sis seculis mortuus sit, & pater carnalis non nouerit filium aut nepotem suum nisi dum vi­uit, tu tamen pater noster viuis & duras de seculo in seculum, ita vt opus non sit nobis cla­mare nisi ad te, & per omnes aetates tam quae preterierunt quàm quae futura sunt, tu es pater noster, tu redemptor noster ex omni afflictio­ne & in perpetuum nomē [...]uum erit super nos: That is, my father and my mother haue forsaken me, but y ^e Lord hath gathered me vp. For although our father Abrahā were dead many many yeares agoe, and a car­nall Father doth not know his sonne or his nephew but while he liueth, yet thou O father liuest and remainest for euer, so that we haue no néed to cry vnto any other but vnto thée, & through out al ages as wel forepassed as to come, thou art our father, [Page] thou art our redéemer out of all trouble, & thy name shall be vpon vs for euer. The other is S. Augustine, Cap. 13. whome you néed not to haue concealed, if you had mynded the truth. But if you shuld haue alleaged them bothe, you could not haue tolde which way to haue gone. Giuing his definite mynd & sentence vppon these matters and questi­ons, he sayth thus: vt volet accipiat quis (que) quod dicam. &c. Let euery man take as he listeth, that which I will say: If the soules of the departed did meddle with the affairs of the liuing, & did speake vnto vs when we sée them in visions, to hold my peace of other, my louing mother would no night forsake me, which folowed me by Sea and by land, that she might liue with me. For God forbid that she should be made with a happie life so cruel, that when any thing gréeueth my heart, she should not comfort hir heauie sonne, whom she would neuer sée sad. But surely that is true which the godly Psalme sayeth: My father and my mother haue forsaken me, but the Lord hath gathered me vp. Therfore if our fa­thers haue forsaken vs, how do they com­municate with our cares and affairs? and [Page 51] if our Parents do not communicate or do not meddle, what other are there of the dead, which know what we doe, and what we suffer? Esay the Prophet sayeth, for thou art our Father: For Abraham hathe forgotten vs, and Israell doth not knowe vs. If so great Patriarkes did not knowe what was done to the people begotten of them, to whome beléeuing God, the people was promised of their stocke, how do the dead know and helpe the affaires and do­ings of others? How say we y ^t they were well dealt withall, which died before ad­uersitie came, which folowed their death, if so be that also after death they féel what so euer things come to passe in the cala­mities of mannes lyfe? Or peraduenture we erre in so saying, and we thinke those quiet whome the vnquiet lyfe of the ly­uing doth grieue. And so forth alleaging as you knowe to the same purpose the promisse made to Iosias, and so conclu­ding sayeth thus. Ibi ergo sunt spiritus de­functorum, vbi non vident quaecun (que) agun­tur, aut eueniunt in ista vita hominibus. Therfore the soules of the dead are there, where they sée not whatsoeuer things are [Page] [...] [Page 50] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 51] [...] [Page] done or come to men in this lyfe. Thus then you neaded not haue in such sort cast off Master Gough, as though it were a heauie comparison betwixt him and Hie­rom. He is as you sée, as wel to be thought of as Hierome, in that he hath for his part the whole Scriptures, these two learned men. Other I do not recken vp, you your selfe acknowledge in your selfe that I might bring more: But in this varietie of men, what certaintie cā you haue for your conscience, if you do not at the lēgth come to the Scriptures? Wherein you can not find one word well taken, whereby you may proue that the dead doe know our doings, vnlesse it be by espetiall Reue­lation, or worke of GOD, which you can neuer drawe to a rule.

As for the prosecuting of that manner of speache, I doe not know you, for, I doe not acknowledge you: I thinke there is no man so enuyous, but will graunt you that truthe. Sed quorsum illa, to what pur­pose is that? Although it be so taken in very many places, yet why it should be so taken there I sée no reason. I speake [Page 52] what I thinke, I knowe there be inter­preters as well one way as other. But the circumstance of the text in my minde draweth that way. You go further.

If this vvill not satisfie master Gough, To. 4. de cura agend. pro mort. cap. 16. let him heare Sainct Augustine: vvho she­vveth vppon occasion of thys place, in vvhat manner the Sainctes doe heare vs. Per diuinam inquit potentiam Martyres viuorum rebus intersunt. &c. By diuine po­vver the Martyres are heere present in the dooings of those that be alyue, for being dead by their ovvne proper nature to bee present in the doings of those that be a­liue, they can not.

Nowe you some thing chaunge your state, and make Duo predicata, where before you made but one. Your first con­clusion was, That the Sainctes and An­gels may or doe heare our Prayers: Now you put in may by diuine power heare our Prayers: And so you committe a fault which is called, A secundum quid ad simpliciter. Againe in Accidentibus com­munibus a specie ad genus, saying thus. The Martirs do heare vs: therfore al Sainctes. [Page] For your Doctor in your owne place al­leaged, maketh a difference betwixt them in this matter and sayeth. Non igitur ideo putandum est viuorum rebus, quoslibet inter­esse posse defunctos, quoniam quibusdam sa­nandis vel alliunandis martyres adsunt: sed ideo potius intelligendū est, quod per diuinam &c. Therfore it is not for that cause to be thought that euery one that is dead, can be present in the doynges of those that bee a­lyue: because the Martyres are present in healing and helping of some. But therfore rather it is to bée vnderstoode, that by the deuine power the martyres are present in the doyngs of those that bée aliue, because the dead by theyr owne proper nature can not bée present in the doyngs of those that bée a lyue. He concludeth a cleane contra­rie position to yours, saying that the mar­tyrs are presente, because the saincts can not bée. And how the Martyres be present he sheweth in these woordes, per diuinam potentiam, by diuine power. For this is not orderly, but as he sayd before, verū ista diuinitus exhibentur, longe aliter quàm sese habet vsitatus ordo singulis creaturarum ge­neribus attributus But these are exhibited [Page 53] from God far otherwise, than the accusto­med maner is, whiche is giuen to all kind of creatures. For not bycause that water was sodaynely turned intoo wine when God would: therfore we ought not to dis­cerne what water is in the proper order of elementes, from the singularitie and strangenesse of this heauēly worke. Take the beste of this for your purpose, yet can you not come to that you woulde, to make any certayne rule, no not in the very mar­tyres. And so likewise touching this mat­ter, he confesseth of him self, that it passeth his vnderstanding. Leaue therefore these vayne speculations, and content your self with that whiche God hath taught you: you are sure that Christ dooth & will heare you, when soeuer you call on him in truth and veritie: you are sure that what so euer you aske in his name, Ioh. 14. it shal be giuen you, that the Father may bée glorified: why then, rest vppon this suretie, go not a stray when you may go right: differre not your self to the night, when you may walke in the light.

After this you descend from debating the matter by scripture and reason & au­thorities [Page] ad factū, what thei did (as though this question betwixt vs and you were fa­cti, what hath bin done, and not rather as it is in déed, iuris, what of right & lawfully may and ought to be done) to whiche pur­pose you alleadge twoo places oute of Au­gustine, one out of Gregorie Nazianzene, one out of Origine, one out of Ephrem, one of Hierome, one of Chrisostom, whose doo­ings bicause they haue no ground in gods woord, neither better and more sure reasō than S. Augustine alleageth, which are not sufficient for mée to rest my conscience v­on: Cap. 14.15.16. De cura pro mor. ag. & yet your promises being graūted, y ^e conclusion is very wyde. I wishe you bet­ter to consider the case you stand in, & par­don me that I disalowe them. For this I learne by Augustine, that to speake in ge­nere of the departed, nescire quidem mortuos quid hic agatur, That the dead can not tell what is done here, whilest it is doing, & if they know, it is after by relatiō (saith he) of thē which go frō hence vnto them: & yet not all, but such things as they are suffe­red to tell, and whiche they were suffered to remember: and suche as they ought to heare, to whome they tell them, or else by [Page 54] the Angels whiche are here present with vs, & at oure doings, they may heare some thing which he thinketh méete and conue­nient to whom all things are subiecte. If therefore he himself teache vs this, that they do not know or they know after, and not all, but such as are necessarie for them to knowe, and as he thinketh expedient that is master of all: If he do contrarie to his doctrine commend his prayers to thē whiche as yet heare him not, and when they shall or whither they shall at all, he knoweth not: you must giue me leaue to followe his doctrine, if I thinke it better than his example. His doctrine importeth some thing, his example nothing. Do as they teach you which sitte in Moses seate, but do not as they do. And thus much tou­ching this question. God giue vs eyes to sée, and hartes to vnderstande, that if you be out of the way (as you shewe your selfe to be) you may come in: If I my selfe (as I am perfectly persuaded I am not) that he will giue me grace to conuert. And so pray I for vs both.

3 That onely fayth doth not iustifie.

MAster Gough likewise in few wordes, woulde vehemently haue persuaded, lyke as others heretofore him, that sole fayth or onely fayth doth iustifie vs. So did long agoe teache Eunomius of that fayth which he professed, as S. Augustine reci­teth in his 6. Tom. de Haeresibus. Haeres. 54.

In so doyng as others haue done before him▪ as Moyses, as Christ, as Paul, as all the Prophetes and Apostles in teaching the Iustification of fayth onely, yf you ex­pound him not amisse, he did the part of a faythfull Minister and preacher of Gods woord. But you are disposed in this mat­ter, as in others, to carpe and cauill, euill construing that which is wel spoken. You ioyne your woordes in this sorte, sole faith or only fayth. There is great difference in these two kindes of speaking: What a sole faith is. a sole fayth is a barren, an vnfrutefull, a wicked, a di­uelish fayth: which in déede is no fayth, it hath but the glistering and shew of fayth, it is but a lippe fayth: and where so euer it [Page 55] is, I warrant you, there is Corde non cre­ditur, no beléef in hart. Fayth only is an other manner of thing, it is that which the Hebrewes cal Emunah that is, a faith stable and sure, Exod. 17. as it is sayd of Moyses, [...], & manus eius erant firmae & stabiles vs (que) ad occasum solis, & his handes were steady and stable vntill the goyng downe of the sun. Hebr. 11. So doth Paule terme it vaiehi iadan emunah the cōmon translation hath substantia: it is that quod facit vt extent quae sperātur, which maketh those things to exist which are hoped for. This fayth can bée no more withoute fruytes, than can the body bée without the soule, to be a liuing body, so that ther be time: for wée knowe that vocation is diuerse, some in the morning, some at noone, some at night are called, and these laste because they are so soone cutte of, that they could not but beleeue, and not glorifie God before vs, wée muste not therefore condemne them. This fayth I say most florishing and decked with gor­gious workes, as shining both before God and man as the lilie, doth only iusti­fie, doth only apprehend the iustification [Page] of God giuen in Christ Iesus oure Saui­our, doth trulie bring Christe into vs, and vs into him. So the faithfull man séeing himselfe purged from all his former sins and offences, walketh in newnesse of lyfe in the wayes that God hath ordeyned for him: that before men he may glorifie his father which is in heauen. This faith Eu­nomius did not teache: he was in his opi­nion a naughtie and wicked man, as were many moe in the time of S. Augustine, & are now: God make them fewer. He wri­teth of him and others in this wise. I wil laye his wordes before you, that you your selfe may iudge, whither you do rightly burdē vs with Eunomius or no. Apostolus predicans iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, non bene intellectus est ab eis, qui sic dictum acceperunt, vt putarent cùm semel in Christū credidissent, etiāsi malè operarētur, & facinerosè, flagitiose (que) viuerent, saluos se es­se per fidem posse, that is, The Apostle prea­ching that a mā is iustified by faith with­out workes, was not well vnderstoode of them which tooke his saying in this sorte, Lib. ques. 83 that they thought they might be saued by faith, whē they had once beléeued in christ, [Page 56] although they did wickedly, although they liued most detestably and villenously. And in an other place, De fide & op. Cap. 16. Tom. 4. Non cogimur dicere iniu­stis, non subditis, scelestis, contaminatis, parri­cidis; matricidis; homicidis, fornicatoribus, masculorum concubitoribus; plagiarijs, men­dacibus, periuris, & si quid aliud sanae doctri­nae aduersatur, quae est secundum Euangeli­um gloriae beati Dei, si tantum in Christum credatis & sacramentum Baptismi eius acci­piatis etiamsi vitam istam pessimam non mu­taueritis, salui eritis. We are not constray­ned to say to the vniust, to the rebellious, to the wicked, to the defiled, to the murde­rers of father & mother, to manslayers, to fornicators, to buggers, to mē stealers, to lyers, to y ^e periured, & if there be any other thing which is contrarie to the wholsome doctrine whiche is according to the glori­ous Gospell of the blessed God, if you be­léeue onely in Iesu Christe, and receyue his Sacrament of Baptisme, althoughe you chaunge not this wicked lyfe, you shal bée saued. This was Eunomius opi­nion and his fellowes, it is not oures. Our Preachers teach that faith only iusti­fieth, & yet not that a sole faith iustifieth, [Page] therefore in so expounding his woordes as you do, you do deceyuablie commit an E­leuche which we cal fallatia accidentis. For whereas we say fayth iustifyeth only, that is, no other thing doth apprehend the iu­stice which GOD doth giue vs, but oure faith: you turne it and make this sense, a bare faith voyde and destitute of all good­nesse doth attayne to the mercies of God. Which in déed is an heresie. For as the o­ther is good & allowable, according to the scriptures, There is no condemnation to them whiche are in Christe Iesus, Ro. 8.1.13. whiche walke not after the fleshe, but after the Spirit: so is this wicked and naught. For if we liue after the fleshe, we shall dye. And thus much to shewe that we are no Eunomians. Now to your Arguments.

To confirme his opinion out of the scri­ptures, he brought the saying of the Apo­stle: Rom. 3. Arbitramur iustificari hominem per fi­dem sine operibus Legis. We thinke or de­termine that a mā is iustified by faith with­out the workes of the Law. Concluding by this testimonie of S. Paule, that workes do in no manner of wyse iustifye vs, not onely those which go before fayth, but also those [Page 57] which do folow faith: for touching any iu­stification of works, he maketh the like cō ­dition of them both.

His allegation was good and his argu­ment good. For it foloweth wel, we are iu­stified by faith: Therfore workes done be­fore do not iustifie, neither workes after. This consequēt you wil not deny simply, for all your allegaciōs you bring, do proue that workes before do conferre nothing to iustification. Beda. For the Apostle preaching to the Gentiles, saith: When he sawe them that came to the lord iustified by faith, that now they which did beleue, should worke, and do good dedes, and not because they had done well, they deserued to beleue, he cried out and said boldly, That man may be iu­stified by faith, without the workes of the law. Your sticking is vpō workes that fo­low: as in déede, not knowing what dif­ference is betwixt iustification and sancti­fication, you should doubt whether sancti­fication were a piece of iustification, or an effect of iustification. Let vs then sée, whe­ther workes that follow doo con [...]erre any thing to the Iustification. Marke I pray you the controuersie betwixt you and ma­ster [Page] Goughe. The question is not whe­ther good woorkes are necessarie to walke in? Whether we are. bound to walke in the feare of GOD, after that he hath ma­nifested vnto vs his election, and called vs to embrace his frée mercy and Iustifi­cation? I say, the question is not, whe­ther we ought to do well that GOD may be glorifyed by vs? But whether a man being already iustified, his woorkes afterward may giue encrease of Iustice? I pray you Sir after that Quéene Ma­rie had made you Abbot of Westmin­ster, dyd you the office of an Abbot, that you would be a more Abbot, or to do your duetie, to the which the Quéene of hir grace hadde called you. For therefore shée bestowed it vpon you, that you should doe the duetie, and not dy doing the due­tie to become a more Abbot.

So fareth it with the children of God: Of this whole lumpe of earth which he made of this masse, which we call Adam: he of his free mercie and goodnesse hathe chosen some whereby he will bée glori­fied in this world, by the good woorkes [Page 58] which they shall do before the face of men. When this election of his beginneth to be manifest to euerye chosen, when he moueth the hearts of his after they haue long slept in sinne, to remember that they are hys, that he hathe slayne hys Sonne for them, that they are deliuered from the whole cursse of the lawe: Is it not requisite thinke you, that they walke worthie his vocation? That they make sure their vocation? Naye doe they in this their course, in any parte delyuer them selues from the cursse of the lawe? Doe they pay that raunsome which was paide before? What is the iustice or Iu­stification of GOD? Redemption and remission of sinnes in the bloud of Christ. Was then the bloud of Chryst answea­rable to all the Lawe, did there remaine no parte vnpayde? For whome then did he all this? Not for him selfe, for there was no guile found in his mouthe: For whome then? For the faithfull, to whome God dothe giue this Faith, Act. 18.17. not of merite, but of grace. Haue they then all the iustice of Christe, haue they that, which Christe [Page] dyd in his bodye, put vppon them? May they say, as he sayde, Death where is thy sting, Hell where is thy victorie? May they say, death is swallowed vp in victo­rie? May they say, there is no condemna­tion to vs whiche are in Christe Iesus? what remayneth then? that they walke according to the Spirite, not according to the fleshe: that they glorifie God before men, whiche hath already made them the children of God. Not to do ageyn y ^• which is done alreadie, for that is impossible: not to ioyne a piece to Christes, as thoughe it were not perfect. For he left no piece vn­payed. But to receyue by faith that iustifi­cation that God doth giue them, without the workes of the lawe. For workes se­quuntur iustificatum, non praecedunt iustifi­candum: they followe a man iustified, and goe not before him that is to be iustified: Effectus autem non praeiudicat causae as you knowe: The effect neuer preiudiceth the cause. Thorough al the course of our liues we worke, bicause we are iustified: and we do not worke that we may be iusti­fied. And this is the meaning of the Apo­stle in this place: not as thoughe workes [Page 59] were to be ioyned with faith, to deserue some thing: For then should wée receyue reward due, and not grace. And thus much touching M. Goughe his argument. Now to your Obiection.

Firste, I maruayle that M. Goughe will allowe this terme, Only: when it is not ex­pressed in Canonicall scripture. Next I am sure that there is nothing equiualent vnto it: for faith without the workes of the lawe and fayth onely, or fayth simplie withoute workes, be not of one like condition.

You néede not maruayle much, if you would rightly consider it: Paules whole disputation standeth vpon twoo Subiecta, & one Praedicatum, as the people are twoo to whō he addresseth his doctrine, and must agrée in one. The subiecta are these, works or the Law, fayth or Christ: The Praedi­catum is Iustification. If then reasoning à diuisione, the one be put away, what re­mayneth? If I reason thus, Of all liuing creatures there is one that is risibile, apte to laugh: it is not Brutum any brute beast: Therefore it is Homo, man. If I reason thus I say, is not this consequent compre­hended in Consequenti: Therefore onely [Page] man is risibilis. So likewise Paule reaso­neth: there is one thing which iustifieth. It is not works, therfore it is fayth. Doth it not nowe folow that being but one, and that one faith: that we may wel conclude that faith only iustifieth? And so adde we nothing to the scripturs, which you séeme to lay to M. Goughes charge, by a taunte, but finde it in y ^e verie letter although not literallie. And in so doing we make no new inuentiō. So taught before vs The­ophilact: Theoph. in Cap. 4. ad Rom. whose wordes are these, vt au­tem haberi pro comperto queat, posse hunc de­um, qui impiè vixerit, non solum à tormentis eximere, sed iustum reddere, illud subdit, cre­denti autem in eum qui iustificat &c. Num igitur est & hic quippiam allaturus? Fidem duntaxat: that is, But that it may be cer­taynely knowen that God can not onely deliuer frō torments, but also iustifie him which liued wickedly, he addeth that, but to him that beléeueth in him which iusti­fieth. &c. Must he therfore also bring some thing? Origi. Ro. 3. Faith onely▪ And Origenes vppon this same place whiche M. Goughe allea­ged, sayeth thus: Nunc tam velut conclu­sionem suarum assertionum ponens, in hoc [Page 60] loco dicit: Vbi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclu­sa est▪ per quam legem? operum? Non, sed per legem fidei: Arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis: & di­cit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem, ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur, etiam­si nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum. Nowe, making as it were a conclusion of his as­sertions sayeth in this place, where is then thy reioysing? it is excluded. By what law? of workes? No, but by the lawe of faith: for we suppose or conclude that mā is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law: and he sayeth, that the iustifica­tion of only faith is sufficient, so that a mā beléeuing onely may be iustified although that no work be don of him. I will not al­leage here Hierom on y ^e 4. of this Epistle: Hierome. Conuertentem impium, and agein, vt omnes qui ex Gentibus. Ambrose. &c nor Amb. j. Cor. xj. hoc constitutum est à Deo. &c. nor Bernard. ser. 22. super Can. Bernard. Quamobrem quisquis pro pec­cati [...] [...] in all which you find these wordes, Sola fides ad iustitiam reputatur: per solam fidem iustificat▪ Deus, saluus fit sine opera, sola fide, et solū iustificatus per fidem, that is, only fayth is accompted vnto rightuousnesse: [Page] By only faith God iustifieth, that he may be saued without worke, through onely fayth, and beyng iustified only by fayth. As for the works which follow, as I sayd before, we condēne them not, we prayse them, as God did in Abraham, Abraham beléeued God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnes, and he was called the friend of God. In that he beleued God, within in his harte, it consisteth in fayth onely, concerning that he lead his sonne to sacrifise him, in that without feare he armed his right hande, in that he would haue stricken had he not bin witholden, surelie it was a great fayth, & the worke also was great, & God praysed the worke when he sayd, bycause thou obeyedst my voyce. Wherfore then sayth the Apostle Paule, wée conclude that man is iustifi­ed by fayth without the workes of the law: and in an other place. It is fayth whiche worketh by charitie? how doth fayth worke by charitie? & how is a man iustified by fayth without the workes of the lawe? This séemeth hard that a man shall bée iustified by fayth onely, and yet that fayth must worke by charitie. Not [Page 61] at all: for in that, y ^t it is sayd to iustifie, it sheweth what thou haste receyued of God, in that it is sayd to worke by chari­tie, it sheweth what thou owest to God. For so muste iustification stand, that it may bee applyed vnto all men, whether they be called in y ^e morning, or at noone, or at night? There is one that beléeueth, he hath receyued the sacrament of faith, and is dead, he hadde no time to worke, what shall wée say? that he is not iusti­fied? we say playne that he was iustified, because he beléeued in him whiche iusti­fieth the wicked. Therefore this man is iustified, & did not worke. The sentence of the Apostle is fulfilled: I conclude that a man is iustified by fayth without the workes of the law. The théef which was crucified with Christ beléeued in hart to Iustice, and confessed by mouth to salua­tion. For fayth which worketh by chari­tie, although it haue not wherein it may worke externally, yet is it kept feruent in the harte. If then fayth in these & such like doth iustifie, why shall it not in o­thers? Because one man lyueth longer than an other after his vocation, shall [Page] therefore the rightuousenesses of God be changed? shal therefore▪ man be made fel­lowe with God in the worke of his salua­tion, bicause he hath bestowed a greater benefite of longer lyfe vppon him? Is this the thank that GOD shall haue at oure hands, for giuing vs space to glorifie him, to vse it as a meanes that we oure selues may glorie? For surely if we deserue any thing, we haue wherein to glorie. But when all is done, it is but an euil fauored glorie, for it is not with God. But let vs goe farther.

S. Paule excluding workes of the Lawe, meaneth workes that goe before fayth; which do not iustifie. S. Iames in the exam­ple of Abraham forbidding that fayth on­ly doth iustifie, speaketh of workes that fo­lowe fayth, whiche doe also iustifie, that is, giue encrease of iustice. Abraham pater noster nónne ex operibus iustificatus est, offe­rens Isaac super Altare? Abraham our Fa­ther was he not iustified by workes, when he offered his sonne Isaac vppon the Al­tare?

If workes before fayth do not iustifie, much lesse works after fayth: before man [Page 62] had néede, and after he hath no néede: then is a benefite requisite, when a man is in pouertie: but when he is riche, it is not néedfull. To be shorte bycause I haue handled this before, workes do neuer goe before iustification. Rom. 11. For the Scripture is playne. If it be grace, then not of works, otherwayes were grace nowe no grace. And this is as well for youre workes af­ter as before. Aug. de spir. & lit. 26. ca. Tom. 3. As for that that is sayde of­ten tymes, and you alleage it before, Fa­ctores legis iustificabuntur, the dooers of the lawe shall bée iustified. It is so to be vn­derstanded, to wit, that they could not o­therwise be dooers of the law, vnlesse they be iustified. So that Iustification cōmeth not to the dooers, but iustification goeth before the dooers of the Law▪ For what o­ther thing doth this meane, Iustified, but made iust? that is to say, of him which iu­stifieth y ^e wicked, that he may become iust of wicked. For sanctification goeth not be­fore Iustification, but Iustification before Sanctification. Touching the place of S. Iames, there is no such matter in it as you make. You maye sée by the whole course of the chapter, that he speaketh not [Page] how man is iustified before god, but how they ought to shew before men, that they are iuste before God. So that he beateth downe the vayne opinion of them, which thought that yf they beléeued, it belonged not to them to do well, and therefore con­temned good workes, as who would say they were not bound to glorifie God be­fore men, who had glorified them with him self. And touching the example of A­braham, yf you conferre the scriptures togither, as Genesis with Iames: you shall sée that Abraham was iustified be­fore, and this is but the shew of his obe­dience vnto God, y ^t all the worlde might know he nothing misdouted the promise of God, although his onely sonne must go to bée offered, and this do your doctors teach, which you heare recite.

Lib. 83. q. 9.76.To this effect S. Augustine reconcileth these two Apostles. Non sunt contrariae duorum Apostolorum sententiae Pauli & Ia­cobi [...]cum dicit vnus iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, & alius dicit, inanem esse fidem sine operibus, quia ille dicit de operibus quae praecedunt fidem, iste de his, que fidem se­quuntur. These sentences of the two Apo­stles, [Page 63] Paul and Iames, be not contrarie vnto them selues: when the one saith, that a man is iustified by fayth without workes. The other sayth, that fayth is vayne and ydle without workes, for Paule speaketh of workes that goeth before faith, Iames spea­keth of those that follow fayth.

I doe not sée to what great purpose this place is alleaged, bée it that this re­conciliation is good, can you cōclude that Augustin teacheth or Iames eyther, De side & ope. cap. 14. De sp. & lit. ad Marcel. cap. 26. that workes iustifie before God? that can you neuer prooue. The place you bring, he hath in many places, yet in none of them doth he conclude as you do. But in euery one he teacheth this, y ^t therefore Iames writte this Epistle and likewise, Peter his, to shewe that after sayth receyued, works of rightuousnesse ought not to be contemned: & that what soeuer workes they doo, they are of a iustified man, and not to iustifie a man. For when it is sayd that the doers of the law shall bée iusti­fied, what other thing is sayd, than this? Let [...] that is righteous, be righteous stil. For the doers of y ^e law are iust. And therefore it is as much as yf it should bée [Page] sayd. The doers of y ^e law shall be created, not because they were, but that they may bée. You go foreward against M. Gough.

Luk. 8. An other place he brought to expresse by scripture this worde, Onely, that fayth onely doth iustifie: alleaging the saying of Christe vnto Iairus Prince of the Synago­gue. Crede tantùm, Beleeue onely. A place verie fitly applied: as yf Christe there had spoken of the Iustification of Iairus, and not rather of the corporall reuiuing of his daughter.

As for M. Goughes alleaging of the place, I do not thinke, but he sawe what was principally done in that place, and that Christ was reuiuing of his daughter: yet not withstanding he might note vnto you, in what sorte wée ought to béehaue our selues towardes y ^e receyuing of Chri­stes benefites and graces, that although things séeme vnto vs desperate, voyde of all hope and comforte, yet wée should not cease, but to beléeue in Christe, that he is able to doo whatsoeuer wée demaunde in feare and truth. And this hope and fayth is sufficient, and he requireth nothing els at our handes. This I say, why might he [Page 64] not note vnto you touching onely fayth, hauing twoo suche notable examples be­fore his face as the woman with the flux, Iairus with his dead daughter. And so might he make his argument. As fayth onely is sufficient to the curing of an vn­curable sore, and the raising of the dead, so is it sufficient to the remission of sinnes. Neyther is he voyde of authoritie for his interpretation. Theo. in Luk. 8. Theophilacte sayth thus: Ne timeas, tantùm crede: respice ad mulie­rem hanc, quae sanguinis profluuio laborauit, illam si imitatus fueris non aberrabis. Feare not, onely beléeue: Behold this Woman whiche was sicke of the fluxe, yf thou fol­lowe her, thou shalt not doo amisse. Ney­ther is Iames cleane contradictorie (as you say) to Master Gough in this sense, where he sayeth, Videtis quoniam ex operi­bus iustificatur homo, non ex fide tantùm. You sée that of workes man is iustified, and not of fayth onely.

There is you knowe Oppositio in ter­minis, opposition in woordes, and oppositio realis, opposition in matter. As for the first ye knowe also it is nothing, and so may [Page] these two be, fides tantum iustificat, fides tā ­tum non iustificat, fayth only dothe iustifie: [...]ayth only doth not iustifie. As for y ^e other, there must be vniuocatio in terminis, the Subiectum and the Praedicatum must be ta­ken in one sense in both. Otherwise there is no opposition, For both may be true. As in this, fayth only iustifieth, the woord (Iu­stifieth) is taken in this sence, Iustifieth be­fore God. In the other, Fayth only doth not iustifie: the woord (Iustifieth) is taken hauing respect to men. And so they be not opposite. Of the sense of the place I spake before. Likewise of the place of Luke. viij. I haue sayd my mind what M. Gough his meaning was: I was not at his Sermon, & I promisse you I haue not talked with him therin, I skant know the person.

Cap. 14. S. Augustine in his booke de fide & ope­ribus, sheweth the beginning and foundati­on of this muche like heresie to haue bin in the Apostles time, vpon the misconstruing of Paules Epistles, saying: Quoniam haec o­pinio tunc fuerat exorta, aliae Apostolicae e­pistolae Petri, Iohannis, Iacobi, & Iudae, cōtra eàm maximè dirigunt intentionem, vt vehe­menter astruant fidem sine operibus nihil pro­desse. [Page 65] That is bicause this opinion was then sprōg vp, other Apostolicall epistles of Pe­ter, Iohn, Iames & Iude, do bend their drift and purpose most of all against that opini­on, that they may boldely and vehemently affyrme faith without workes to auaile no­thing. If it be fayth only, it is fayth without works: If faith only auaileth nothing, faith only can not iustifie.

What opinion that was (M. Fecknam) & how vnlike vnto our assertion I shewed you before out of y ^e same place, and it was this, as you haue it in the beginning of the chapter. Bene autem viuere & bonis operibus viam dei tenere neglexerint, and they con­temne to liue well, and to kéepe the way of God in good works. He sayth not, & bo­nis operibus incrementum iustitiae addere, and with good woorkes to giue encrease of iustice ▪ Which péece you stand for, & which you shal neuer be able to shew out of Au­gustine, and so we deny it. As for your col­lection, if faith only auaileth nothing, faith only can not iustifie: we deny y ^e consequēt. For as I said before, ther is not vniuocatio in terminis. We say true, that nothing else but faith doth iustifie: and yet say, y ^e faith [Page] [...] [Page 62] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 64] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 65] [...] [Page] which is dead & sole is nothing worthe: for it is not that which we say doth iustifie.

15. cap. 18Likewise he saith in his boke de trinitate very briefly and pithily: sine charitate fides quidem potest esse, sed non & prodesse. With­out charitie faith may be, but without cha­ritie, it can nothing auaile.

This is very wel said, we graūt al this, he speaketh according to y ^e scriptures, 2.20. [...]1.13. you néed not haue gon so far. S. Iames, s. Paul, could haue taught you y ^e same. But to your purpose it serueth very little: yea nothing at al. Now touching your tretise of works done in faith, wheras you are misgréeued with M. Gough so far, that you cal it a pre­posterous way, and a blasphemous doctrin, to say that our workes are as filthie cloutes, vnto which Christ promiseth a rewarde so great as euerlasting life, if you would iustly consider with your self the duetie that god requireth of vs, & the default that is in vs, the integritie, the puritie y ^t we are bound to by his commandement, & the imperfec­tion, y ^e impuritie y ^t is in vs, you coulde not iustly cōdemne him: god cōmaundeth vs to serue him with all our harts, with all our soule, with al our strēgth: what is he vpon [Page 66] the earth, that doth employ these wholy, y ^t hath not alwayes y ^e flesh pricking against the spirit? then the work y ^t is done of such, is it not as a menstruous cloth? could it be acceptable before God, were it not for his mercy? If it please him of the same mercy, to giue me lyfe euerlasting for my halfe dayes, nay for my one houres worke, doth it folow that my worke is worthy of it, when all the workes of the world be not worth lyfe euerlasting, Chrystes death ex­cepted?

Then touching your other cauil of faith only: How only? without baptisme? with­out repentance? without feare? without hope? without charitie? You may vnder­stand of that I haue sayd before, howe all these must folow and an hundreth more, and yet fayth only must iustifie, what so e­uer he be that casteth these away in that respect that he is iustified by faith, he decei­ueth him selfe and he is not iustified: He is a dead trée, he is a thorne that bryngeth forth grapes, he is a thistle that bryngeth forth figges, and when the Lord commeth, he shall cut downe this trée, and cast it in­to the fire that shall neuer be put out. [Page] But hée that hath a true fayth, hath a these frutes, they follow him as his hand­maydes, he serueth himselfe of them, and serueth his léege Lorde with them: he is baptized, he is penitent, he stādeth in awe, he hopeth, he loueth, and all for the glorie of his Maister: and yet not without his owne profit. He deserueth nothing, yet shall he haue great reward: he meriteth not a myte, yet shall he haue thousandes: So standeth fayth amongest her damsels, and yet she is singular: She walketh with great companie, and yet is she alone. And this to your third question.

4 That euerie sinne is not mortall.

MAister Goughe towardes the ende of his sermō, did verie cōstantly affirme, that euery sinne committed by a Christian man, is deadly and mortall sinne: and that no sinne is veniall, no not an idle thought, as light as men made of it. Much like vnto the old heresie of Iouinian, which to make [Page 67] all sinnes equall, made euery sinne lyke­wise a deadly sinne. Whome S. Augustine condemned more than a thousande yeares agoe, as appeareth in his 6. Tom. de Haeres. Haer. 82.

How S. Augustine cōdemned Iouinian, and wherefore, it is manifest there in the place you recite and in his Epistles, for making all sinnes equall in déed: But not for saying that all sinnes deserue death, and therefore are mortall: That you can not finde in S. Augustine or any other: There is great difference betwixte these twoo, propositions, Omnia peccata sunt ae­qualia, and Omnia peccata sunt mortalia: Al sinnes are equall, and all sinnes are mor­tall. For you can not conclude, They are all mortall, therefore they are all equall. Although contrarie after a certayne man­ner it may be sayde they are all equall, therefore they be mortall. We saye, that who soeuer is angrie with his brother without a cause, shall be culpable of iud­gement: We saye to, whoso sayeth foole to his brother, shal be punished with hell fire: We saye the lyke of murder, we say the like of the sinne of Sodome, and [Page] yet say we not that these offēces be a like: that it is all one to saye, foole, to thy bro­ther, and all one to be a Sodomite, a man­slayer, an adulterer. Although that y ^e ma­iestie of God be offended in them all, yet in some of them, thou sinnest ageinst nature, thou sinnest ageinst heauen and earth, the sonne it selfe is ashamed to behold thy vil­lanie, and thou ashamed to shewe thy selfe in light: in some, thy sin is so horrible, y ^t if man do winke, yet y ^e earth will cry out for vengeāce. For some, Cities & towns, fieldes, euen paradises, for some, y ^e whole world hath bin destroyed as you reade, w ^t other god hath more mercifully dealt. And shall we say, that bicause the long pati­ence and mercie of God doth giue vs time to repentance, therfore these sinnes y ^t wée cōmit deserue not punishment? That by­cause he soone pardoneth them to his, ther­fore their reward is not death: For so you and yours say veniale peccatum de sui na­tura est venia dignum, Raym. tract. 4 De poeni [...]. veniall sinne of his nature is worthy pardon. A sinne it is, an erring & wandring frō the will of God, a deturning from his ways (for so doth this worde Chot signifie) and yet forsoothe he [Page 68] [...] stand in his owne iustice with God? and say vnto him, I am worthy to be par­doned? A wound which néedeth not to bée wrapped, a sore ful of corruption y ^t nedeth no emplaster: a swelling that nedeth not to be mollified with oyle, a sick mā which néedeth no Phisitiō? wel we shal haue fur­ther occasiō to speak of these more at large hereafter. We wil now come to your rea­sons you bring to confirme your doctrine.

Let vs conferre herewithall two sayings of the Scripture: 1. Iohn. 2. the one of S. Iohn which sayeth as well of himselfe and of euery iust man, as of the sinner. Si dixerimus. &c. If we say that we haue no sin, we deceyue our selues, and the truthe is not in vs: meaning that the iustest man a lyue is not without sinne. Nowe, if this sinne be as M. Goughe teacheth, deadly, mortal and damnable sin, whiche separateth the soule of man from God, and condemneth it to hell fire, let vs see how a mā may be called iust, which day­ly committeth such damnable sinne.

This place maketh more ageinst you, than with you, you wil not say I thinke y ^t S. Iohn was one of y ^e most grieuous sin­ners, y ^t he was an adulterer, a dronkerd. &c. [Page] And yet was he a sinner as the iustest mā is, yet sinned he .vij. tymes, and lacked the glorie of God. And of the same sinnes, he spake in that sentence, of the same spake he in the sentence before, saying: And the bloud of Christ his sonne clenseth vs from all our sinnes. And in the sentence after: If we acknowledge our sinnes, he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs our sinnes, and to clense vs from all vnrighteousnesse. He cō ­prehendeth him selfe in the number and sayeth, clense vs from all, forgiue vs all our sinnes. Then belike the sinnes of S. Iohn had néede of it: If they had néede, why was it? Was it not, bicause that stipendium pec­cati mors est? the wages of sinne is death? But peraduēture he did not acknowledge these for any sinnes. Then by your conclu­sion he had no sinne. Take héede of that, if you say so, he wil answer you straight, you are a lier. But you can not sée, how a man may be called iust, which daily cōmitteth such deadly sinne. You cā not sée how Da­uid sayth. Beati quorū remissae sunt iniquita­tes & quorum [...]ecta sunt peccata, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered? And yet, ne intres [Page 69] [...]n iudicium cum seruo tuo, Domine, quia non iustificabitur, in conspectu tuo omnis viuens, enter not into iudgemēt with thy seruant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall none lyuing be iustified. Dauid telleth you in an other place, the iust man falleth, but he riseth vp again. He repenteth him self, and flyeth to the mercy of God, and he doth forgiue him. After this you come againe to the place of Luke cōcerning Zacharie and Elizabeth: touching which place bicause I haue an­swered it before, I wil say nothing: but be­sides I there alleaged both out of Glossa or­dinaria Theophilact and Iustinꝰ Martyr, I will now also refer you to Ierom aduersus Pelag. ad Chte. where you shal sée, whether any such thing be to be concluded or no, & take héede you be not a Pelagian in that poinct. As for the contradiction you there speake of, which foloweth of these two places conferred togither, if M. Goughs expo­sition do stand: there is none, more thā fo­loweth of your words. For as you say here after, peraduenture against your will, bi­cause Augustin enforseth you thither, you must say for the least sin you can deuise, forgiue vs our trespasses: if you did trespasse [Page] him, you were not without blame. So you make a contradiction against your self, for that you say, a iust mā is without blame, & yet he must say forgiue me. The truthe is as I said (M. Fecknam) there is no contra­diction, to say a mā sinneth damnably, and therfore in consideration of his own doing worthy to be condemned: yet being pardo­ned by the frée mercy of Christ, he is with­out blame. Rom. 8.33. As the Apostle sayeth, who can lay any thing to our charge? not respec­ting that, that we are, but that, that we re­ceiue. And so I trust I haue sufficiētly an­sweared you for that place.

Iac. 1. To this may bee added the place of S. Iames: where he describeth concupiscēce to make a sin in vs beside mortall sin, saying. Concupiscentia cùm conceperit, &c: cōcupis­cēce when it hath conceiued, bringeth forth sinne, but sinne whē it is finished: begetteth death. Signifying hereby that sinne is then mortall & deadly, when a man cōmitteth it with a ful consent & other circūstāces. For if a light passion or a carnall thought stealeth vpon a man by sodein delectation without consent, the same is not a sinne, which en­gendereth death, but a veniall sinne.

[Page 70]S. Iames his purpose is not as you say, to shew how cōcupiscence maketh a sinne besides mortal sinne, neither cā you proue, by this place, that which you graunt that concupiscence is a sin (although it be true.) S. Iames goeth not about here to shewe, when sinne beginneth to be a sinne, to be taken and estemed so before God: But to shew, when it commeth forth, and whence it proceadeth, that he might against the false surmises of others, shewe, that their sinne and tempting, procedeth not from God. His order is this, The consummati­on of sinne procureth Death euerlasting: sinne procedeth from vnordinate desires, vnordinate desires from concupiscence. Therefore in that, that men are condem­ned for their sinnes, they receiue but the frute which they brought forth thē selues: and therefore can they not cast any fault on God. Can you now thē proue by this place, that either concupiscence is a sinne which I deny not) eyther that it is not a mortall sinne? Out of thys place I ga­ther, that my condemnation is of my self: I canne not gather that Concupiscence is a Sinne, but onely by a consequent, [Page] because it bringeth forth sinne. For such as the fruyte is, suche is the tree, and so may I conclude agayne. The fruyte is damnable, therefore the trée. But here I do gather it. Exod. 20. Nō cōcupisces. Thou shalt not couet, and so bicause it is a sinne, I con­clude it is mortall, Eze. 18.20. Anima quae peccauerit ipsa morietur. The soule that shall offend or erre, the same shall dye. For the word the Prophet there vseth hachoteth signi­fieth but a missing and an erring from that he is directed vnto, whiche is. Thou shalt loue the Lorde thy GOD with all thy harte, with all thy Soule, &c. so read wée in the scriptures, Iudi. 20.16 all these could fling stones at an haires breadth, ve lo iachati, Rom. 7. and not fayle. And Paule al­so speaking of him selfe, and not sinning any other mortall sinne, sayth. Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius, who shall deliuer me from the body of this death? Whether you make your veniall sinne a fayling or no, Sum. Ray­mundi tract▪ 4. de poenitentia. I referre it to your consci­ence. Some of you wryters say thus. Peccatum veniale est quod cum voluntatis deliberatione inordinata homo committit, ve­niall sinne is that, which a man commit­ [...]eth [Page 71] by an vnordinate deliberation of his will? what they are he rekeneth vp there, as when a man eateth and drinketh more than he néedeth yf it bée by chaunce, when he speaketh more than he ought, or holdeth his peace more than is conuenient: when he vexeth the poore desiring almes out of time. The vse of a mans owne wife other­wise than the institution of God is: drun­kennesse, yf it bée not to often. § Integra. For of na­ture it is no deadly sinne, & such like. And as you put in a lighte passion or a carnall thought, stealing vppon a man by sodayne delectation. These and suche others are your veniall sinnes, such sins as are wor­thy pardon of their owne nature. Is drun­kennesse but once done worthy of pardon by nature? Is making whoredome of ma­riage a sinne worthy pardon euen of na­ture? Is vexing the afflicted, a sinne to bée pardoned euen of nature? is the enimitie of God, a sinne worthie pardon euen of nature? Paule sayth that a drunkerd, an adulterer shall not inherite the kingdome of Heauen. What Christe aunswereth them that are suche too the poore. Ite male­dicti in ignem aeternum, goe ye cursed into [Page] euerlasting fyre, will tell you: That, that is of the flesh displeaseth God, the scripture telleth you also: what the dis­pleasure of God is, the whole scriptures teach you. Do not you fayle thinke you in these and suche like, from the will of your heauenly father? S. Augustine sayth that these things pertayne ad corruptio­nem Templi Dei, Ser. 34. de voca. Pau. Ap. to the corruption of the temple of God: not onely the more gree­uous sinnes, but the least, Si qua vobis immoderatio de vsu isto concessarum rerum vitae humanae infirmitate irrepserit, yf any immoderatenes by the vse of thinges permitted vnto you, do créepe into you by the frayltie of mans lyfe. Quoniam pertinet ad corruptionem Templi Dei, 1. Cor. 3.17 Be­cause it pertayneth to the corruption of the Temple of God, tenete, hold you, &c. And make you a small thing of the mar­ring of the temple of God? Qui templum Dei corrumperit, corrumpet illum Deus. &c. sayth he. He that marreth the temple of God, God will marre him. What mea­neth that, corrumpet illum Deus, God will marre him? I thinke it bée not very farre from death. Well let vs sée what you [Page 72] bring out of Augustine.

To this place alludeth S. Augustine, To 7. lib. 2. contr. Iulianum. pag. 985. col. 1. where he speaketh of concupiscence that remayneth in those whiche bee regenerate, saying: Ab illo rebellante, & si non laetaliter, sed venialiter tamen vincimur. That is, of that sinne concupiscence rebelling against vs, we be ouercomed, although not deadly, yet venially. It followeth, & in his contra­himus, vnde quotidie dicamus, dimittae nobis debita nostra. And in these (veniall sinnes) we gather, by meanes whereof we may say daily. Forgeue vs Lord our trespasses.

S. Augustine in déede speaketh of such remnaunts of originall sinne as re­mayne in the elect after they bée regene­rate, whereof S. Paule spake. Caro con­cupiscit aduersus spiritum. The flesh coue­teth agaynst the spirite: and sayth, that wée are ouercome of this remnaunt not deadly, but venially. The reason is in S. Paule. Because there is no con­demnation to them whiche are in Christ Iesus, and that that relique is not able to bringe foorth any suche Sinne in the electe, whereby he may bée condemned, [Page] yet notwithstanding, least we shuld think ourselues not to be indetted or endaunge­red by this meanes vnto God, thus much we get, sayth he, that we must néedes say euery day, forgiue vs our trespasses. And he sheweth not in this place, what it is in it selfe, but what it is in the electe. S. Au­gustine in an other place calleth these le­uia peccata, light sinnes, not simplie but comparatè, by comparison. Of the sinnes of this lyfe, sayth he, Quaedam grauia & mor­tifera sunt, quae nisi per vehementissimam mo­lestiam humiliationis cordis, & contritionis spiritus, & tribulationis poenitentiae non re­laxantur. Haec dimittuntur per claues Eccle­siae. Some are greiuous and deadly which are not released but by most vehement sorowe of humilitie of the harte, and con­trition of the spirit, and tribulation of re­pentāce. These are remitted by the keyes of the Church. Sunt autem leuia peccata & minuta, quae deuitari omnino non possunt, quae quidem vidētur minora, sed multitudine prae­munt: There are light sinnes and small, whiche can be eschewed by no meanes, whiche trulie séeme to be lesse, but they o­uercharge by reason of the multitude. [Page 73] And marke this by the way, a most playne contradiction to your first question: Aug. ser. 3 [...]. hoc dicit Moses. Quae deuita [...]i non possunt, which cā not be esche­wed: and sine quibu [...] non potest ista vita du­ci, without the whiche this lyfe can not be lead, and yet you say, the cōmaundements may be fulfilled. Posse implere Legem, to be able to fulfill the Lawe: is, Posse non con­cupiscere, to be able not to couet or lust. Nō potes non [...]oncupiscere, thou art not able not to couet or lust, Ergo, non po [...]es Legim im­plere, therefore thou arte not able to fulfill the Lawe. Luk. 18.27. And so might you haue had re­gard to Christes wordes, [...]uae apud homines impossibilia sunt, apud Deum possibili [...] sunt, those things whiche are impossible with men, with GOD be possible. And a little after: Sic ergo quàmuis minuia sunt ist a peccata, tamen quia multa sunt, vt con­gregata aceruum faciant, quo te pr [...]mant, bo­nus est Deus qui etiam ipsa dimittat, sine qui­bus non potest ista vita duci: So then al­though these be little sinnes, yet bycause they be many, that thei being gathered to­gither make a heape to ouerpresse thée, God is good who forgiueth thē also, with­out which this lyfe can not be passed. You [Page] sée by this place, that remission is giuē to them both, and debtes they are both. But bicause he is more readie to forgiue the one than the other, he calleth them in this place, grauia & leuia, grieuous or weigh­tie, and lighte: in other places venalia & laetalia, venial and deadly. I wis you know that these wordes be of comparison, and not de simplici existentia, as the Philoso­phers call them, that is, to declare what those smaler faults be of their own simple existence, or proper nature. I can not tell how little you make of remissiō of sinnes. But by his similitude he bringeth, they would kill you, if remission came not the sooner. And in the ende, (as I alleaged be­fore) of his sermon, he concludeth that by­cause they destroy the temple of God, they should take héed and be readie to cry and call, Forgiue vs our trespasses.

Ageyne, in his Booke de Spiritu & lite­ra, he writeth thus of veniall sinnes: Aug. To. 3. desp. & lit. Cap. 28. Sicut non impediunt à vita aeterna iustum. &c. Lyke as some veniall sinnes doe not let a iust man from lyfe euerlasting, withoute the which this life is not led: So some good workes, do nothing profite a wicked man [Page 74] vnto life euerlasting without the which the lyfe of euery naughtie mā is hardly found.

You may sée by this place and by the cō ­parison he maketh, that bothe this place & the other you alleaged before, are so to bée expounded and taken as I haue sayde. For surely no sinne is able to cast the childe of God, whom he hath elected & chosen, out of the fauour of God, out of the kingdome of heauen, which is his inheritance gotten & giuen him by Christe. For the counsels of God are without repentance. So likewise it shall auayle the wicked nothing at all, y ^t he hath some good workes. For he is the child of wrath, the sonne of perdition. As for the faulte of youre reasoning, I let it passe: you may thinke with your self how well you deale making such Arguments: these sins are not deadly to the elect & iust: Therfore they are not deadly: à secūdo ad­ [...]acēte ad primū negatiuè: Socrates nō est Ph [...] ­losop. academicꝰ, ergo, nō est Philosophus: So­crates is no Academical Philosopher, ther­fore he is no philosopher, or M. Feknā was not Abbo [...] of Osne, therfore he was no Ab­bot, for you haue brought neuer a place di­rectly prouing what they are in thēselues. [Page] What you could bring oute of Luther, I know not, when I see it, I will answer it if I cā. Non iurau [...] in verba Lutheri, I haue not sworne to credit euery woord y ^t Luther writeth. And sure it is, some thinges he writte extāt in print, before he was well persuaded in many points of soūd doctrine. Now, touching y ^e austeritie of M. Gough, GOD make vs all ageinst vice austere, and not to flatter our selues in our concu­piscences: we can not hate sinne to much, nor cōdemne sinne to grieuously. I would I might, I, by the worde of God persuade my selfe that sin were no sinne, mē might liue more at libertie. But yet I think my selfe blissed that he hath called me to the libertie of his Gospell, What the li­bertie of the Gospel is, & wherein it consisteth. which is frée remis­sion of my sinnes & sinful lyfe in the bloud of Christ Iesus, and a calling to walke af­ter the spirite and not after the fleshe. It is time and highe time for vs (M. Feck­nam) to beate downe sin, and not to séeke meanes howe we may cloke sinne. Let it appeare in his owne nature, that we may be ashamed of him: put not a Lyons skin vppon an Asse. Call white, white: and blacke, blacke: good, good: and bad, bad. [Page 75] So shall we take héede, that we fall not to often: and if it can not otherwise be, but we must fall seuen times, yet that we may learne to feare thereby, and not to make a fleabyting of it. If we do so, we shall bée more like to Abell than Cayne: to Isaac, than Ismaell: to Iacob, than E­sau: to Iohn, than to the Pharisies: to Simon Peter than to Simon Magus: to Iohn than Iudas: in no miserable state, in no euill condition, in state of saluation not perdition, Christ of his mercie relea­sing our infirmities. If the iuste man did fall only, if there were no more but so, that he sinned & sinned deadly: then were he no iust man, thou were he in as euill case as Paynimes and heathen people. But in that he falleth and ryseth vp ageyne, as Dauid teacheth vs; Ps. 37.24. he is better than Pay­nymes, better than the Heathen: as good as Habel, as Isaac as Iacob, as Iohn, as Si­mon Peter, and Iohn ageyn: he is, I say, notwithstanding al these falles, the felow of Angelles, the child of God, & inheritour of the kingdome of heauen. Why? By­cause he hath spoken by the mouth of hys Prophete: Psal. 37.24. Ippol, lo iutall. He shall fall [Page] but he shal not be cast away: and as y ^e wise mā sayth, Scheba ippol tzaddik vakam▪ sep­ties cadet iustus, sed surget: the iust man shal fall .vij. times, but he shall rise. As for this word Naphal, to fall, it caryeth with it a more weightier signification than you al­ledge. All these things being considered, it is no euill way to preach repentance, and yet say that all sinne of it selfe is damna­ble: to exhort to good woorkes, and yet to teach a man not to presume of his owne works as to giue part of his saluation, se­ing that the whole is wrought by Chryst his death, and applied to vs by only faith: to exhort all men to pray for eche other, & yet not to spoyle Christ of the office of his mediatorship, which is taken away by the prayer to Sainctes & to exhort men to kéepe Gods commaundements, and yet to teach y ^t they be impossible: that séeing our owne weaknesse through our owne sinne, we may flie to his mercy, and say: Da quod, iubes, & iube quod vis, giue what thou cō ­maundest, and commaūd what thou wilt. So sound Doctrine as this is, God giue grace to all his ministers to preach, & you to embrace: that they with their preching, [Page 76] and you & I with our folowing may glori­fie our father which is in heauen.

Thus haue I in few wordes answered your cauilling arguments and counterfet stuffe as time did serue me: if not so amply as I might, yet sufficient for those you brought, framing my answere shortly to your argumēt. And as you vniustly lay to M. Goughs charge contradiction to y ^e holy scriptures, to the fathers, and to haue no­thing to stād vpon but old heresies reuiued, as of the Maniches, Eunonius, Vigilantius, & Iouinian: I haue and do lay to your charge iustly, contradiction to the scriptures, false alleaging of doctors to no purpose, such slē ­der, such childishe, so against all arte & rea­son in forming of your talke, as any Boy might haue bin ashamed to haue vsed the like. I haue, and do, I say, lay iustly to your charge your false burdning him with those foresaid heresies, as vnfit as vnaptly layd against him, as any thing could be. I can not see why in these cases you myght not as well haue blamed him to be an Ar­rian, a Sabellian, and what you will: as a Mani [...]hean, an Eunonian, a Vigilantian, a Iouinian.

[Page]Now when you haue done all this, as though you had atchieued a notable feate, you require of their worships a thing rea­sonable (as you wold make it) y ^t you might not be enforced to come to sermōs: a thing as you say, against all former example, a thing as true as the residue. Did you ne­uer read Augustine to Vincentius, Epist. 48. against the Donatists concerning this matter? If you did not, I pardon your ignorance: If you did, I wil not spare but tel you of your vntruth. Do you not read in his Epistles, cum haereticis esse v [...] agēdum, Epist. 50. that heretikes must be dealt with by force? Do you not remember that he sayth, it did good to the Churches in his time. That the Donatists were constrained by authoritie to the em­brasing of christian religion, and there re­heasreth diuers of their gratulations Do you not remember that he sayth, not to do it is malum pro malo reddere, to requite euil for euill? Do you not remember, that he sayeth, A [...]elius est cum seueritate diligere quam cum lenitate decipere? Better it is to loue with seueritie, than to deceiue with lenitie? And that it pertaineth to princes? Do you not remēber how he an­swereth [Page 77] that obiection, bicause there was none in the Apostles time? Do you not re­member the example of Nebuchadnezer, which he sayeth signified the state of the Church in the Apostles tyme, & this now? When he constrained to Idolatrie, howe the Apostles were persecuted? When be­ing turned to God, decreed in his kingdom that whosoeuer blasphemed y ^e God of Sy­drach, Misach and Abednego shuld be wor­thely punished, what prynces ought nowe to do? For then saith he, that scripture was verified, Quare fremuerunt gentes. &c▪ why did the Gentyles tumultuously rage. &c. But now is fulfilled that, & principes erūt nutrices tuae, and Princes shall be thy nur­ses. Do you not remember how he sayeth, capitale [...]u [...]icium, punishmēt of death was appoynted by the law of the Emperors a­gainst y ^e sacrifices of the Paganes? Do you not remember when he sayth of that, quis nostrum quis vestrum non laudat? Which of vs, which of you doth not praise it? Do not you remēber how he sayeth, that Con­stantine did decrée vt conuictorum res fis [...]o vendicarentur? that the goods of the conuic­ted should be chalenged to the common [Page] treasure? Do yée not remember, that he was once in that errour, that they should not bée constrayned vntill he was conuic­ted by examples of the profite it did? Do you not read in the same, that in matters of religion: Mansuetudo quae perdit homi­nem crudelitas est seueritas quae castigat im­probum charitas est? gentlenesse which de­stroyeth a mā is crueltie, seueritie, which chastiseth a wicked mā is charitie? do you not remember the similitudes he vseth? Do you not remember that he sayth, Epi. 68. ad Ianuar. the Church of Christ doth persecute, shewing it in the example of Sara? doo you not re­member, poenam decem librarum auri ab Imperatoribus consti [...]u [...]am, that by Empe­rours was appointed or decréed a punish­ment or penaltie of ten pounds in golde, agaynst the Donatistes? But yf it bée a thing so straunge, agaynst all exāple: why did you so then vse it in Quéenes Maries time, and so farre, that you contented not your selues to cast them in pryson, to hale them to Masses, but to burne them also? yf it had bin no more but your owne ex­ample, you might haue bin ashamed, to [Page 78] giue forth this reason. You in your doings coulde bée called defensores pacis, prouisores Ecclesiae, defenders of peace, and gardians of the Churche. The Quéenes grace that now is and her Lieuetenaunts are cruell vexers and oppressours. But you shewe your selfe as you are, a righte Donatist both in profession nowe, and in dooyngs then. As they, when they accused Caecilian, the Bishop of Carthage to Constantine, and required to haue him punished, then were they defensores pacis & prouisores Ec­clesiae ▪ defenders of peace and gardianes of the Churche: but when they were serued with theyr owne sause, then they coulde cry out and saye: Non esse vt agendum, that there oughte too bée no dealing by constrainte. Suche were your doynges in Queene Maries time, this is your demaund and talke nowe▪ What is this other, than as Tychonius one of theyrs, and your Master, sayde of you bothe? Quod volumus, hoc sanctum est. That is holy that wée will haue. As for our owne men, you name Luther, Bucer, Bul­linger, &c. (not citing or coting any theyr [Page] woordes or one place of their writings,) you might haue thus thought. That they were of a more gentle spirite than you were, and yet would they not haue an ob­stinate hereti que, mainteyned neyther. Their moderation is good as they lear­ned of Augustine and others, in case theyr gentlenesse might bée vsed. But séeing you will not embrace y ^t, yf you had the smarte you coulde, not complaine of contrarietie to our owne men, neyther of iniurie. As for example wée haue of you. Wée deale otherwise with you, than you dealt with vs. Wée follow that good rule that Augu­stine giueth, you did it not. Si terrerentur, & non docerentur, improba quasi dominatio videretur, yf they should be feared and not taught, it might séeme as a wicked gouer­nance. You haue bin taught, & are taught. No more with ours but from pryson to fire. Therefore as wée do that, so must wée do that foloweth. Sed rursus si docerentur & non terrerentur, vetustate consuetudinis ob­durarentur. But againe yf they should bée taught and not feared, they would be har­dened with oldnesse of custome. So that what is done is but well done: and not a­gaynst [Page 79] example, as you say: yf worse were shewed, wee haue example to, both of Au­gustine and your owne doings. But this do not I wish for, neyther woulde haue it shewed, God knoweth what I speake, yet so much must I say, because you prouoke it, seming vnto me rather to scoffe at these worshipfull men, than otherwise hauing iust occasion to complayne. God gyue you grace to enter into your selfe, that ye may remember how you goe a stray, not wal­king in such wayes as he hath appointed for you, that at the last you may séeke vnto him, you may repayre home­ward, after this your peregri­nation, and he receyue you as a most ioy­full Father. Amen.