Against Ierome Osorius Byshopp of Siluane in Portingall and against his slaunderous inuectiues An aunswere apologeticall: for the necessary defence of the euangelicall doctrine and veritie. First taken in hand by M. Walter Haddon, then undertaken and continued by M. Iohn Foxe, and now Englished by Iames Bell.

The residue aunswered by I. F. begynnyng where Maister Haddon left agaynst Osorius.

APelles the most famous Painter of the worlde,* 1.1 endeuouryng in most curious & exquisite maner, to expresse the fea∣ture of Venus, at Coe, in Greéce,* 1.2 cal∣led in Greéke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was preuen∣ted by death (as Plinie reporteth) whē as yet he had drawen but the halfe of y^e portrait, and thereby cōpelled to re∣linquishe the residue so vnperformed, that no man of the Arte, were he neuer so expert, durst at any tyme after presume with pencill to pursue the President. The like lot albeit in vnlike endeuour, that ouertooke Apelles amid∣des his blazing the beautie of Venus, seémeth to haue encoun∣tred our noble Gentleman, Walter Haddon, in displaying the veritie of the Gospell. For after hee had vndertaken the com∣mendable, and prayse worthy defence of the truth, agaynst Ie∣rome Osorius: albeit he neither obteined to beautifie the part, which he had begon, nor to accomplish his purpose in the rest, and yeldyng ouer to nature, was amyddes his race, constrai∣ned to surcease his exploite, yet hath hee so poolished that part, whiche hee left vnfinished, with Apelles Pencill, that is to say, hath framed so singular a Paterne in excellencie of Arte, that with the sight therof the whole posteritie, may be afrayde to set hand to the attempt. For determinyng with him selfe to aun∣swere the slaunderous Inuectiues of Ierome Osorius, compi∣led into threé bookes, although it was not graunted him to per∣forme the whole, yet hath he so singularely endited one booke, and the halfe of an other agaynst the same, & confuted the rea∣sons, which were none at all: discouered his lyes, whiche were most shamelesse: daunted his hauty pride, and vtterly discomfi∣ted his vaine glorious Peacocklike Rhetoricke, with such gra∣uitie, wisedome, and so well disposed stile, that if there were no supply made by any other, the truth of the Gospell beyng of it selfe otherwise vnuanquishable, might seéme to haue no

neéde of any other patronage.

Wherefore so long as we enioyed the lyfe of this excellent learned man, and him selfe endured amongest vs, as the Churche of Christ had a very worthy and valiaunt Captaine: So had Osorius also a couragious and puissaunt an enconte∣rer, and meéte conquerour for such a monster. But now sithence he is taken from vs, albeit the veritie it selfe haue no iust cause to dispayre, yet can not we chose but be vnderfully dismayed, if not for M. Haddons sake, yet for our losse chiefly. For as con∣cernyng M. Haddon, hee can not but be in most happy estate, whom Gods good prouidence hath mercyfully trāslated out of this furious wretched world into more blessed, & quyet calme: euen then especially, when as beyng conuersaunt in the race of perfect godlynes, he employed his vertuous endeuour in so sa∣cred a cause, where now neither Ierome Osorius, nor any o∣ther braulyng barker can from henceforth disquyet or molest him.* 1.3 There is greater cause rather to moue vs, & all the lear∣ned to much sorrow and grief of mynde, who haue lost so great and learned a ryngleader of learning, the losse of whom doth by so much more encrease our heauynes, in respect of this present entreprise vndertaken agaynst Osorius, chiefly, by how much we feéle our selues bereft of so singular a Patrone, and so alto∣gether dispoyled herein, that without wonderfull difficultie, scarse any person of knowledge wilbe founde able to supply the rest of the aunswere, with like successe, and commēdation: Not for that the matter is of so great importaunce, (for what can be more easie then to refell the reasons of Osorius, wherin is no substaunce at all? and his triflyng toyes, which are manifold, as also to despise his slaunders, wherewith he is ouerlauishe?) but bycause the person will not easily hee founde (I suppose) which after learned M. Haddon dare presume to entermedle in the cause, and to ioyne his owne deuises with M. Haddons writynges. So that I feare me, now M. Haddon is dead, the same wil come to passe in this discourse, that Plutarch maketh Relation of, of a certeine mā that was not well thought of: who rashly and youthfully seémeth to coūteruaile with the politicke prowesse of Themystocles.

What then? bycause we can not atteyne to M. Haddons ac∣tiuitie,

shall we therfore like dastardes fleé the field, and leaue the truth of the Gospell succourles in the campe of her enemy? (the quarell not so much apperteignyng to M. Haddon, as to almightie God him selfe) and suffer shame to preuaile more with vs, then pietie and godlynesse? or bycause one champion is takē from the Barriers, which was approued at all assayes, shall we therfore yeld ouer the conquest of the whole challenge to Osorius? And permit this glorious Thraso to triumph and treade downe our cowardize? or bycause we preferre our M. Haddon to the first onset in armes, shall we therefore beare no brunte of the battell? or shall not his valiaunt attempt ra∣ther teaze, and prouoke vs to pricke on with courage? And yet I neither speake, nor thinke in this wise, as though I did ei∣ther mistrust the tyme, or the wittes of our age, so plentyfully florishyng at this season especially, wherein I doe know very many that are skilfull enough to mainteyne the quarell, if they would either vouchsafe to yeld their endeuour thereto, or could be persuaded to thinke, that their trauaile would counteruaile their studies. And yet albeit happely may be founde some one, so nymble of mynde, and endued with learning, that can Iudge him selfe able enough to performe, yet scarse shall ye finde that mā, who beyng not otherwise exercized in weightyer affaires, will so litle esteéme the losse of his tyme, as in such vnprofita∣ble contention, snarlyng, and snatchyng, to spend one houre vpon Osorius,* 1.4 that is to say vpon so wayward, and melancho∣licke an aduersary, beyng nothyng els but a raylyng brabler. Whereby neither profite may redounde to the Reader, nor prayse to the victor.

There is no cause therfore (gētle reader) why thou shouldst require at our handes, that exact and absolute furniture in the supply that is commyng forth, & should haue bene perfited by M. Haddon, either bycause it is not so easie a matter to reach vnto that exquisite plot of his singular Presidēt, (as to the ta∣ble of Apelles) or els bycause the chiefest of our aduersaries ar∣guments haue bene by sondry persons long sithence crushte in peéces already, and are such in effect, as deserue rather with discretion to be scorned, then with reason to be scanned. I will touch onely certeine chief places of the controuersie scattered

here, and there, as they come in y^e chase, and seé to auayle most for his challenge, reteinyng my selfe within the lystes of Neoptolemus law, that is to say briefly, and in summary pointes to touch, and away. Neither doe I thinke it neédefull to stay long vpon the through debatyng of euery particular point, especially, bycause threé wordes onely may suffice to o∣uerthrow the whole Battrye of these threé Inuectiues, be they neuer so tedious. Forasmuch as the Authour hath vttered no∣thyng in all his confused worke els, but that which sauoreth of lyes,* 1.5 slaunders, and errours, what other reasonable aunswere may any discreét person require, then threé wordes onely, which when I haue spoken, I shalbe thought to haue expressed in few wordes, all what soeuer that huge rable of that scoldyng, and triflyng Sophister doth conteine.

1. Mentiris.

1. You doe lye.

2. Maledicis.

2. You do slaunder.

3. Falleris.

3. You doe erre.

And to the end it shall not bee sayd, that I charge him with a lewde deuise of myne owne imagination, cōtrary to the truth of the matter, I will alledge certeine euident proofes, although not all, (for it were can infinite labour to number the Sandes of the Sea) whereby the diligēt Reader may easily descry his wonderfull vanitie in lyeng, his execrable wickednes in slaun∣deryng, and his monstruous blindnes in Diuinitie.

And first of all this one place offereth it selfe to the viewe: wherein two especiall pointes full of haynous accusation are contained. That is to say, two detestable lyes whelped at one lytter (so pregnant is this worme) in the one wherof hee doth accuse Martin Luther, as though hee did wickedly teache ex∣treme Desperation, in the other, a bold & presumptuous Con∣fidence of Saluation. Truely this is a greuous and perillous accusation if it be true. Afterwardes out of these two monstru∣ous falsely forged propositions, he stampeth a conclusion forth with no lesse false thē malicious: wherein he exclameth against Luther,* 1.6 as the onely subuertour of all vertue, studious In∣dustrie, and carefull endeuour. Nor is this to be wondred, that Osorius doth argue in this wise. For whereas euen from

the very begynnyng of his booke, he hath accustomed him selfe to nothyng els but to a cōtinuall course of lyeng, I should mar∣uell more a great deale, if hee would now altogether chaunge his Typpet vnlyke him selfe, and begyn to speake any thyng truly. But the matter goeth well with Luther, that his workes are extaunt as yet, and are vsually frequented, whiche as are true witnesses of his doctrine, so cā testifie truely of their mai∣sters innocencie herein. Whereupon two thyngs may be easi∣ly coniectured, whereof the one of great likelyhode is to be sus∣pected either that Osor. hath neuer read those thynges, where∣at hee cauilleth: or that of very nature hee is a notably shaped Sicophaunt.* 1.7 Martin Luther (sayth he) doth teach extreme Desperation. I would fayne know where, or from whence you haue pyked out this? Luther preached many Sermons: Cōpi∣led many bookes: some published in his owne coūtrey lāguage: Many also turned into the Latine toung: The readyng & per∣using of the which hath recouered many persons (I doubt not) standyng vpon the very brincke of Desperation, & in greéuous anguish of mynde: amongest whom I do with an vnfained, sim∣ple, and humble conscience thankefully acknowledge before God, my selfe to bee one. But I did neuer heare of one person so much, that hath perished through Desperation, by readyng Luthers bookes,* 1.8 or hearing his doctrine: On the contrary part, diuers monumentes and histories are replenished with exam∣ples of such as haue runne headlong into vtter dispayre, which haue gaynesayd, or withdrawen them selues from the doctrine of Luther. As touchyng Frauncisce Spira, who reuolted from the participation of the doctrine, whiche he had once receaued by Luthers preachyng, bycause the Recorde thereof is some∣what old, I will for this present omit, what remaineth in hi∣story of him. I will more willyngly vse fresher examples of our later age, and yet not all ingenerall, for it neédeth not, neither is any one man able so to doe. But I will rehearse some of the most notable. And first of all a certeine mā called Iacobus La∣tomus, a man sometymes wellbe seéne amongest the Deuines of Louayne. I can not tell whether you your selfe knew him (Osorius) when he liued. This mā mainteinyng the same qua∣rell, wherein you do now turmoyle your selfe agaynst Luther,

is reported to departe this life in the selfe same Desperatiō, whereof you make mention: who at his very last gaspes bray∣eng out most horrible and feareful roaring noyse, vttered none other sounde in the eares of all men that heard him, but that he was vtterly damned, and forsaken of God, and had no hope of Saluation layed vp in store for him, bycause hee did wilfully resiste the manifest truth, which he knew before to be most true. I will couple two others with hym of the same fraternitie, Guarlacke Reader of Diuinitie Lecture amōgest the Gertru∣dianes, and Arnolde Bomelye Scholer to Tilman: of the first of whō it is sayd, that euen in the last panges before his death, he spake in this maner, that he had liued desperately, & could not endure the Iudgemēt of God, bycause he did acknowledge his sinnes to be greater, then that they could obteyne for geue∣nesse. The other (hauyng fully gorged him selfe with the doc∣trine of Desperatiō, wherein he was instructed by his Schoo∣lemaister of distrust) surprised at lēgth with intollerable gnaw∣yng of conscience practised first to kill him selfe with his owne Dagger, at the last beyng wholy swallowed vp of Despera∣tion, dyd cut his owne bowelles out of his body with an other mans knife.

It shall not be amisse to ioyne vnto those Sadolet Cardinall of Rome, who after sondry disputations mainteined agaynst Luther, gaue vp the ghost, not without horrible trembling and torment of conscience. I suppose also that you are not igno∣raunt of the like that happened to Cardinall Crescentius Le∣gate of the Apostolique Seé, and President of the Tridentine Councell, beyng astonyed with sodeine horrour, and trouble∣some abashement of mynde in the same Citie. 1552. of whom Iohn Sledan hath made relation in his Commentaries. What shall I speake of Castellane Archbyshop of Aurelia? & of Pon∣chere Archbyshop of Turone? who procured to them selues Gods indignation and vengeaunce, as appeared by the won∣derfull fearefull passiōs wherewith they were oppressed at the tyme of their death: not bicause they did heare Luther and read his bookes, but bycause they did cruelly persecute his doctrine. In y^e same Beadroll may be reckoned the remēbraūce of Iohn Eckius,* 1.9 whose whole course of lyfe as was nothyng els but a

continuall mortall combate agaynst Luther, so his yeldyng to nature was so altogether voyde of spirituall consolation, that euen in the last gaspes hee vttered no other wordes, but of mo∣ney, and certeine thousand of crownes. And what neéde I here rehearse out of the Recordes of aūcient Chronicles Minerius, Cassianus, Renestenses, Martinus, that miserable Mōcke cal∣led Romanus, Prattes, Lysettes, Rusius, Morines, who beyng horribly plagued by the seuere Iustice of God, may be sufficiēt Presidentes to teach you, what it is insolently to kicke agaynst the pricke of Gods vnsearcheable prouidence.

The History of the French kyng Henry y^e second,* 1.10 is yet but freshe in memory, and deépely emprinted, not in the myndes onely, but in the eyes also of all men: who extremely boylyng with inward hatred agaynst the same doctrine, receaued his deathes wounde in the selfe same eyes, wherewith he was de∣termined to view the execution of others: and was forced him selfe to become a manifest spectacle of Gods Iustice to all the world, before he could bathe his eyes in the bloud of y^e innocēt. And not long after the sayd Henry, followed also the kyng of Nauarre, who procured vnto him selfe most iust cause not one∣ly of Desperation, but of death also, through none other occa∣sion, but by persecutyng this doctrine, which you doe slaunde∣rously reproche to be the doctrine of Desperation. I could here make a Register of an infinite nōber, not in Englād onely, but of other Regions also, which after they had receaued wonder∣full cōfort out of y^e sweéte iuyce of this doctrine, which you call Lutherane, fell headlong into miserable anguishe and gnaw∣yng of conscience, by reuoltyng from this doctrine: who could neuer attayne one sparckle of quyet mynde, before they had re∣claymed them selues from their first Apostasie. Last of all, how many thousandes of men, wemen, and children young and old, can this our age truely recorde, who haue shewed them selues more willyng to yeld their carcasses to fier, fagottes, sword, rackyngs, and all maner of horrible Torture, rather then they would recante, and renounce that comfortable doctrine, where with they were enstructed: which I suppose they would neuer haue done, if they had suspected neuer so small embres of De∣speration to haue lurked therein. But I perceaue what Oso∣rius

doth meane by this word Desperation. If he could either expresse his mynde aptly, and distinctly, or were willyng to deale simply and playnly. To the ende therefore I may frame myne aūswere, hauing regarde to the meanyng of the man, ra∣ther then to his speach, I will examine the maner of his dispu∣tyng somewhat more aduisedly.

* 1.11Luther doth teach (sayth he) that no mā ought to place affiaunce of his righteousnes in merites and good workes. Goe to and what is concluded hereof? Therfore Luther doth teach the doctrine of Desperation. A very new founde and straūge maner of Argument, framed perhappes after the rule which concludeth from the staffe to the corner. I suppose men of Syluane vse this kynde of arguyng in their wooddy forrests. But I make this aunswere to the Argument. If God had de∣termined, that our Saluation should haue bene purchased through godly actions, and vertuous endeuour of mans life: it were not altogether without reason that Osorius doth speake. But for as much as our hope and confidence is limited within the boundes of the fayth of Christ, and the foundation thereof builded vpon this Rocke onely, I suppose surely, that the per∣son which doth allure vs home vnto Christ, from confidence of workes, and teacheth vs to repose our whole trust in him, as in the onely Sanctuary, and shoteanker of our Saluation, doth declare rather the true way to assured hope, then abolishe the same: Neither doth he by and by, rende in sunder the sinewes of mans endeuour, who doth but embace and disable that part from mās power, which doth properly apperteine to the sonne of God: I thinke that he discouereth rather the well sprynges of the comfortable glad tydynges of the Gospell. But lysten I pray you to Osorius disputation, and wonder a whiles at his deépe insight in Logicke. For in matters past recouery (sayth he) and in most assured confidēce, there is no man that wil∣be enduced to rayse vp his mynde earnestly to any vertuous endeuour. You haue here geuen vs a right Rhetoricall posi∣tion: now marke a concludyng determination more then Ca∣tholicke. Ergo (saith he) Whereas Luther doth partly dispoile vs of the hope of righteousnesse, and partly doth place the the same wholy in the righteousnesse of Christ, which hope

ought to be proper and peculiar to ech person, what doth he herein els then vtterly subuerte and extinguishe all due∣ties and endeuours of godlynesse in vs? Truely I do not de∣ny, but that in all maner of enterprises, which happen in vsuall and dayly practize, well conceauyng hope doth minister won∣derfull courage to the mynde of man: the whole force, and lyue∣lynes wherof, through Desperatiō or distrust, is many tymes vtterly daunted. But to what purpose is this alledged agaynst Luther? Whose teachyng & Lessons tende to this onely marke, not so much to instruct vs in the rules of good lyfe (which is the onely peculiar office of the law) as to lead vs to know, whether we ought in these good workes of ours to repose our affiaunce, or elles to ascribe the same wholy to the freé mercy of GOD, through Iesu Christ: not bycause godly endeuours and ver∣tuous workes are not prayseworthy, but whether our workes be of so great estimation, as may satisfie Gods iudgement, and deserue eternall lyfe, so establishe our consciēces in sauetie. This is the grounde, and principall point of the controuersie, which ought in this place to be decided.

For as much therfore,* 1.12 as there be two kyndes of Despera∣tion (as we haue sayd) it behoued you (Osorius) to haue distin∣guished the same, before you had raysed your Battrye agaynst Luther. There be some persons, which doe vtterly dispayre of forgeuenes of their sinnes, and of the mercy of God towardes them. As for example: the Desperation of Cain, Saul Esau, Antiochus, Iudas, Minerius, Latomus, Sadolete, and such o∣thers. And this kynde of Desperatiō belongeth properly to the vngodly and wicked, whiche are altogether estraunged from God, and nothyng agreable with Luthers doctrine. There is besides this an other kynde of Desperation: as in the attempt of any enterprise, if a man be wholy discomfited to attaine the Maistrie, and can not be the foremost, will not yet bee discou∣raged, but wil employ his abilitie as much as in him lieth, that he may be the second at the left:

For the Archer that shooteth somewhat neare the sticke, Deserueth his prayse though he hitt not the pricke,

In lyke manner we all, euery one of vs, doe marche on∣warde paynefully, in this warrefarre of Gods law, as it were

in a runnyng game, to trye Maistric, wherein albeit was ne∣uer founde man, whiche could in this lyfe assure him selfe to attayne the appointed goale: yet are we not therewith so throwen downe in conceite, as to bee in dispayre of our Sal∣uation. Neither ought we so to interprete the law, as though through the practise and guidyng thereof onely, and by no meanes elles, we could obteine euerlastyng lyfe. The law hath other purposes, and endes to direct vs vnto, whiche Oso∣rius might haue learned out of Paule and Augustine, and di∣uers others, if he would not wittyngly, and wilfully haue bene blynd.* 1.13 The first Rule and vse of the Law is, to represent vnto vs the inestimable righteousnesse of our creatour, after whose Image we are created. The next, to condemne our vnrighte∣ousnesse, and abate our pride. The other, to bee for a tyme in steéde of a Schoolemaister to lead vs to Christ: whiche albeit could not of her selfe geue full righteousnes to that people vn∣to whom it was deliuered first, might neuertheles in the meane space, through wholesome seueritie, hold them backe and keépe them in feare, and restrayne the vnbrideled licentiousnesse of their fleshe, in some orderly comlynesse, lest-they should runne headlong into all execrable, and wicked impietie. Truly these seéme to me bee the principall vses of the law, the absolute and exact perfection wherof, as neuer any man of that race he∣therto was able to satisfie, though vpholdē altogether with the gracious ayde of God: So if you (Osorius) can remember a∣ny one man, sithence that tyme (the sonne of God onely except) that hath throughly performed all, and euery part, and duetie required by the law, I beseéch you name him, or if you cā name no one of all the ofspryng of Adā, which hath perfectly accom∣plished the whole law, what moueth you so furiously to rage agaynst Luther, who teacheth that all our righteousnes is vn∣perfect? But be it, that he hath likewise affirmed (as the truth is) that our righteousnesse is not onely vnperfect, but had con∣demned all our righteousnesse to be more lothsome, thē the de∣filynges of a foule menstruous clothe? euen as Esay the Pro∣phet did? or what if accordyng to the saying of our Lord Iesus Christ, hee had adiudged not onely all our deédes, and wordes what soeuer, though neuer so precisely handled, not in the

tyme of the old law onely, but after the commyng of Christ al∣so, neither of vs alone, or the rude vnlettered multitude, but e∣uen of the Apostles them selues performed, to bee altogether vnauaylable to the purchasing of eternall lyfe? yea and that thē selues also were in no better plighte, and condition: then ser∣uauntes, and vnprofitable bondeslaues? what a sturre would this Da••••s haue kept? But now, sithence no man can be igno∣raunt of the most manifest sayings of Christ and the Apostles, either must Osorius cite these felowes vnto the Chapter house together with the Lutherans, or if he do acquyte them, he must not from henceforth quarell with Luther in the cause.

Agayne where the same Lord in the Gospell doth promise a teacher,* 1.14 the holy Ghost, Which should cōuince the world of sinne and of righteousnesse, what shall we thinke that he mente by sen∣dyng this teacher other, then that hee purposed to establishe those two thynges especially, which Osorius doth seéke chiefly to discredite? That is to say, that godly hartes beyng enlighte∣ned by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, may bee instructed to feéle their owne weakenesse, that from them selues as frō their owne power, they haue no hope of Saluation, and that for the attainement thereof nothyng wanteth in Christ Iesu: and how that without Christ, all that euer we haue, is but in dispayred case:* 1.15 but in him all thynges rest most safe, and assured. Out of the one wherof ariseth vnto vs a very cōfortable Desperation, out of the other floweth a most holy Affiaunce. A Desperation (I say) not such a one as doth exclude true trust in Iesu Christ, but which doth abrogate vayne confidence of our workes one∣ly. Neither doe I here meane the confidence, whiche doth let louse the reynes to licentious boldnes, and vnpunishable liber∣tie, but the same confidence which doth minister necessary and comfortable gladsomnes, to the godly & afflicted consciences.

But our Porting all can in no wise allow of this confidence, fearyng this thyng forsooth, Lest this way be to swift,* 1.16 and to easie to the attaynement of saluation, as that whiche will drawe awaye the variable mynde of man from labour to slouthfulnesse, and therfore it were much better, that euery man beyng vncertaine of his owne sauetie, should be hol∣den still in feare rather. And this perhappes he might seéme

to haue spoken not without some reason, if eternall lyfe were such a thyng, as did depend vpon any couenaunt or condition of workes. But whereas now it consisteth wholy, in the freé mer∣cy of God, whiche neither can deceaue, nor hath respect to the worthynesse of him that receaueth this grace,* 1.17 but resteth vpon the onely credite of hym, that promiseth: is not apportioned to our good workes, but freély geuen, not to them whiche de∣serue, but vnto them which doe beleue in him that doth Iustifie the vngodly: what remayneth, but that Osorius must either strippe the Scriptures naked of Gods promise towardes vs, or of necessitie, conclude our trust, and assured affiaunce vnder that promise: or that him selfe is vtterly ignoraunt, what that promise of the Gospell purporteth: and so bewraye his sin∣gular blockishnesse herein? whiche is rather likely to bee true. Now I would haue him first make me an aunswere vnto this. Whether God haue made vs any promise at all?* 1.18 Then, whe∣ther that promise be the law it selfe? or some other thyng ordei∣ned besides, and before the law. And hereof Paule seemeth to bee a very fitte interpretour: who reporteth that the promise was first of all geuen to Abrahā: Then, that after ii••. C. and xxx. yeares, the lawe was published, and therefore, that it could by no meanes make frustrate the Testament, which was geuen first: For if inheritaūce came of the law, then is it not now of promise:* 1.19 If we thinke good to beleue Paule rather then Osorius.

* 1.20These thinges beyng now graunted, I demaunde further, (if this Gentleman will vouchsafe to teach vs) What kynde of couenaunt that was of the promised inheritaūce vnto vs? whe∣ther he will confesse the same to be freé, or not freé? If he deny it to be freé, then will S. Paule forthwith cry out agaynst him, who doth ascribe all that promise made vnto Abraham of the blessyng, of the seéde, of the inheritaunce, of the kyngdome, of eternall lyfe vnto grace, and not vnto the law yea: and so also not onely before the law, but euen when hee was not as yet in Circumcision. But if he will confesse (as he neédes must) that the bare promise proceéded not of any couenaunt made in res∣pect of our workes, but was freély offred by the freé goodnesse of the geuer onely, what reason will Osorius render vnto vs, why we should not receaue the same with all assurednesse, and most

certeine assuraunce called in Greéke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For if fayth, as Osorius hath described it in his bookes entituled De Iusti∣tia, bee deriued of hauyng affiaunce: vpon whom may a man settle his affiaunce more safely, then vpon God? or when, more assuredly, then when he promiseth simply without condition: or what can be of more certeintie, then that which is promised by God the Father almightie, to all men, without exception, freé∣ly, and of his owne accorde, yea and that through fayth onely? Freély (I say) whereby the bountifull mercy of God poured vp∣on all fleshe, may shyne more liuely to the comfortable cheare∣fulnesse of afflicted consciences. Through fayth I say, bycause all thynges depende vpon this one condition. That is to say,

That we all should beleue in the sonne of God, in whom all the pro∣mises of God, are yea and Amen.

* 1.21 I adde also, fayth onely, not bycause I will exclude good workes from her company, simply, as though they should not be put in vre, but in such sort, as that they shall not be esteémed to bee of such valewe, as to be able to Iustifie: not that beyng Iustified, we should not exercise our sel∣ues in them: But that we geue not vnto them, the chief prehe∣minence in Iustification: not bycause we should let lowse the reynes to voluptuousnesse, and treade the tract of vnbrideled lust, or dissolue the seueritie of auncient godly discipline: nor that we should vtterly extinguish all vertuous endeuours, blot out the glory of honest actiōs, or choke vp the light of true Re∣ligion and vndefiled sinceritie: finally not to the end we should defile the commendable prayses of worthy renowne, vnder co∣lour of vnpunishable libertie of sinnyng: in deede these are the paynted florishyngs of Osori. forge, & glorious glytteryngs of his Sophisticall talke. Wherin this our Simme suttle, doth nothyng at all degender from the slye craftinesse of his prede∣cessours. Neither is this any new deuise, or practize of those, whiche, when they are ouercharged with argumentes, whiche they can not resolue, cast vp presently, such smocky, and con∣fused mistes of wordes and slaunderous reproches, of purpose to dazell the eyes of the Readers, that they may not seé the o∣pen light. After the very same fashion Tertullus the Aduocate of the Iewes did behaue him selfe agaynst Paule.* 1.22 Whose do∣ctrine when hee could by no meanes emproue, he rusheth vpon

him like a Iolye Sycophaunte, with slaunders and reproches, vttered in smoathe and delicate order of speache with lyes, vn∣true reportes, forged accusations and outcryes, exclaimyng a∣gaynst him that he was a troublesome man, seditious, a raiser of new sectes, & a defiler of the Temple. For euen with all the selfe same cōtumelies Tertullus did then reproch S. Paule be∣fore Foelix then Presidēt, like as now this our Tullian Tertul∣lus with like vanitie; and no lesse impudencie doth accuse Mar∣tin Luther: of all whiche generally hee is as innocent and cleare now, as Paule was at that tyme of his araignement. Surely good consciences wayeng the matter indifferently, cā not be ignoraunt, nor Osorius him selfe (I suppose) will deny, if he bee willyng to yelde to the truth, but that neuer any such braynesicke thought dyd enter into Luthers head, as to geue any scoape to the vngodly to pursue wickednesse: but rather that hee was alwayes of this mynde, to comfort afflicted con∣sciences, and to discouer the most sure founteines of consola∣tion in Christ Iesu Crucified for vs.

Whereby you may perceaue most vayne glorious Tertul∣ly, what maner of Desperation, and what kynde of Affiaunce Luther doth teach, not that Affiaunce which is enemy to Sal∣uation, but that necessary and vndoubted Confidence, which is able to approue it selfe allowable by the infallible promises of God, and most assured testimonies of holy Scriptures. For o∣therwise if Christian fayth had no other fortresse whereunto it might safely trust,* 1.23 I would then fayne know of you, where that peace, where that reioysing in Christ Iesu is, whereof Paule doth certifie them, Whiche beyng Iustified by fayth, haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ? wherein we stand assu∣red, and reioyce in the hope of the glory of God. Rom. 5.* 1.24 Where is that accesse with confidence and boldenesse, through fayth in him? Ephe. 3.* 1.25 Where is that accesse to the throne of grace with assured Affiaunce? Hebr. 4.* 1.26 To what ende doth our Lord so oft in the Gospell encourage vs to conceaue couragious boldnesse? vsing this reason, That he alone had ouercome the world for the behofe of all people? Iohn. 16.* 1.27 If as yet euery one of vs must be enfor∣ced to purchase to him selfe, the victory by his owne endeuour, Where is that fulnesse of ioye in the holy Ghost? If employeng our

seruice after the maner of bonde seruauntes, not as children, we must lyue vnder the law, and hope to attayne the possession of our inheritaunce, as a rewarde of our workes, and not tho∣rough freé adoption rather?* 1.28 Where is then that Spirite of Adop∣tion, cryeng in our hartes, Abba Father? Wherof S. Paule doth so oftentymes make mention? or if you be not yet satisfied with these sentences, what aūswere shall we make to Esay the Pro∣phet,* 1.29 Where he foresheweth euerlasting ioye vnto them, which be∣yng redeemed by Christ are cōuerted in Syon?* 1.30 Where is that chere∣fulnesse of hart? Comfort in steede of mournyng? glory in steede of Ashes? the oyle of gladnesse in steede of the spirite of sadnesse?* 1.31 Pro∣mised in y^e behalfe of the Messias, that was yet to come? More ouer where the same Prophet doth wonderfully commende the feéte of those, which should preach peace to the people: what o∣ther thyng els doth he note in these wordes, then that most ex∣cellent glory of the Churche, which should aboundauntly flow through affiaunce of the Mediatour, vpon all that should be∣leue on him? what meaneth that chearefull Prophecie of Iere∣mie concernyng the commyng of the Messias, and the comfor∣table consolation of the Gospell to come?* 1.32 In those dayes (sayth hee) Iuda shalbe saued and Israell shall dwell with confidence. A∣gayne the same Prophet. And I will make them to dwell in Sa∣uetie. Whereunto accordeth likewise the saying of the Pro∣phet Ezechiel: who prophecying of the raysing vp of a She∣pheard, and of the blessednesse of that age, euen in the same phrase of speache almost, doth promise,* 1.33 That it should come to passe, that men should dwell and rest in securitie, without all feare. &c. Now remayneth to learne of you (Osorius) what this say∣eng, to dwell in securitie without all feare doth emporte? whiche for as much as your selfe will not confesse to haue relation to the fleshe, then it must follow of necessitie, that we interprete the same to bee spoken of the Spirite. But in what sorte shall it appeare that this saying must bee applyed to the confidence of the Spirite? whenas ye shall defraude the Christian fayth of assurednesse of Affiaunce, as though ye would dispoyle the world of the benefite of the Sunne? Finally what certeinetie of confidence shall remayne, if the same doe depende (as you say) wholy vpon workes, and not vpon fayth of the promise,

& freé mercy of him that doth make the promise? If you graunt thereunto, one of those two ye must neédes confesse, either that you ought to obteyne so much by the vprightenes of your wor∣kes as shall aūswere and satisfie the Iudgement of God: which you can neuer doe: or els that the variablenesse of your mynde shall alwayes stagger hether, and thether, in perpetuall ama∣zed vncerteinetie. Doe ye not perceaue (Osorius) into what streightes this your Diuinitie forceth you? Goe ye to therfore Maister Tertullus, & thinke with your self whether of you two, either Luther, or Osorius with your Tullianisme doe more stiffely maintaine the doctrine of Desperation? Surely S. Paule will teach you a lesson farre vnlike this: who abro∣gatyng all cōfidence in workes, which is none at all, or at the least most vnassured, doth cōclude all thynges vnder fayth one∣ly.* 1.34 Therefore through fayth (sayth hee) that it may be knowen to proceede accordyng to grace. That thereby the promise may be as∣sured, to the whole seede. And wherefore I pray you so through fayth? forsooth bycause if the proportion of affiaunce must bee measured by the deseruynges of our workes: It is so farre of that any man may possibly conceaue neuer so litle hope of sal∣uation, that he shalbe forced rather to procure vnto him selfe a headlong downfall into the bottomles gulfe of Desperation.

* 1.35And therfore S. Paul discoursing vpō both sortes of righ∣teousnesse aswell of that of the law, as that other of fayth: after that hee had very exquisitely distinguished the one from the o∣ther: bycause of the mutuall contrarietie or disagreément be∣twixt them wherewith they do varie eche from other, doth con∣clude at the length: That the Principall substaunce of the whole matter dependeth vpō fayth, wholy accordyng to grace. And wherfore accordyng to grace? verely bycause hauyng a∣bandoned all the righteousnes that commeth by the law, which worketh indignation, and therfore engendreth vncerteinetie, y^e soule might be established in Grace, & takyng holdfast of the promise, through fayth, might attende for nothyng els, from whence she should conceaue any other assurednesse of hope, to attayne euerlastyng lyfe. For as it is an vsuall custome a∣mongest men earnestly to awayte for due performaūce of these thynges that are promised, so contrariwise such thyngs as are

graunted conditionally, are then, & neuer till then assured, but when the conditions are obserued. Now if the conditions were such, as might bee throughly accomplished accordyng to that absolute perfection of fulnesse, wherewith they are limited: thē no doubt, the law were of it selfe effectuall enough to Salua∣tion.* 1.36 For hee that doth keepe the Commaundementes shall lyue by them. But as the case standeth now, for as much as we are all (will we nill we) subiect to the breache of the law: and that no creature can bee founde whiche dare affirme him selfe able to performe all the conditions annexed to the law of God (that I may be so bold to place your Maistershyp one of the number) then must we all of necessitie, seéke the meanes of our Salua∣tion not from the law, but from somewhere els: bycause this eternall lyfe must be ascribed to an other mans death, and not to our lyfe: neither after the opinion of our workes, but vnto the freé mercy of God, Whiche doth onely ouercome when hee is Iudged. Wherein for examples sake, let vs heare, how Dauid him selfe though neuer so well beloued of God, doth as it were tymorously humble him selfe in his prayers, beseéchyng God that he will not enter into Iudgement with his seruaūt.* 1.37 And where with was hee dismayed I pray you? Bycause (sayth he) no fleshe shalbe Iustified in thy sight.

If so be then,* 1.38 this so noble a Kyng, and worthy a Prophet, standyng to be arrayned before almightie God, durst not com∣mit the protectiō of his cause to the deseruyngs of his workes, shall then Osorius, or Hosius, dare bee so bold to doe it? We read what remayneth in Recorde of Barnarde, beyng other∣wise a prayseworthy man, that when her foresawe the ende of his lyfe to approche, and that he was then Summoned to ap∣peare before the Iudgement seate of the eternall God, that he began to expresse a wonderfull fearefulnesse, and to bee very much dismayed in his mynde: whom as his frendes standyng about him would haue recomforted, and encouraged to cheare him selfe with confidence of the good lyfe that hee had lead:

in deéde (sayth he) I perceaue,* 1.39 I may seéme to bee in such estima∣tion amongest you: but I feare me, least the Iudgement of God is farre vnlike the Iudgement of men.

Truely this was aptly remembred of Barnarde: Who albeit knew it well e∣nough

before paraduenture, yet as then beyng at the pointe of death, he perceaued much more effectually: Euen as we seé to haue chaunced to many others of this Popishe brood: Who though they delite, and flatter them selues neuer so much in the glory of their merites, and vprightnesse of their workes, yet when death knocketh at the doore of their consciences, and willeth them to bidde adiew to the worlde, then forthwith ca∣styng away all trust of merites, and as it were accordyng a re∣cantation of y^e doctrine, they shrowde them selues wholy in the death of Christ, and hereupon fasten the chiefest shooteanker of sauety, as it were in the most assured hauen of perfect blessed∣nesse. Whereby you may vnderstand (ye Porting all Prelate) how all that your frame of righteousnesse, which you builded vpon the deseruynges of workes, is vnioynted, and shaken in peéces: the force wherof was neuer yet of such efficacie, and va∣lew in any creature, as could not onely not abyde the incompre∣hensible vnmeasurablenesse of Gods Iudgement, but also bee so wholy appalled, at the encoūtryng of death, that it can not endure the sight thereof, but must neédes yelde as throughly vanquished.

* 1.40Moreouer sithence this place offereth it selfe to debate of vertues, I would wish you to cōsider aduisedly with your selfe, what that wellknowen saying of Augustine doth purporte, and how farre it doth dissent from this your contentious quarell of righteousnesse: whereas treatyng of vertue, and charitie, he speaketh in this wise.* 1.41

Uertue, sayth he, is a kynde of charitie, wherewith we loue that thing, which ought to be beloued: This charitie appeareth more in some, in others lesse, in some also nothyng at all. But the fulnes thereof whiche can not be incre∣ased, whiles man liueth in this world, was neuer seéne in any: for as lōg as it may be encreased, truely all what soeuer is lesse then ought to be, & will admitte a supply, commeth of default: through which default, all flesh can not be Iustified in his sight:

wherein pause a whiles I pray you with me, & debate through∣ly with your selfe, whether if that charitie, whiche is in Chri∣st••ans, though it be neuer so apparauntly discernable, yea after their regeneration also, be lame, and defectiue, what may be thought of them, in whom scarse appeareth any meane resem∣blaunce

thereof? but what shalbe iudged of your selfe Osorius chiefly, amongest all other, in whom not one sparcke so much of true charitie, nor any iote so much of humanitie can be seéne? in so much, that who so shall read those Inuectiues of yours, may easely coniecture, that he heareth not the modestie of Osorius a Christian Byshop, but rather some Tragicall Orestes furious∣ly ragyng vpon some Stage. But to returne to Augustine, of whose iudgement in Diuinitie I know not how well Osori∣us will allow: truely what small accoumpt he made of the wor∣thynesse of our righteousnesse, he could neuer haue more vehe∣mētly vttered then in these wordes:* 1.42 wee be to the most vpright life of mā (sayth he) if God examine the same settyng mercy a∣side: In like maner Gregory doth very litle varie from Augu∣stine in wordes, though nothyng in sence. But altogether dis∣senteth from you (Osorius) where expoundyng the sayeng of Iob in their.* 1.43 Chapter, videl. Man can not bee iustified beyng compared to God.

The holy man (sayth hee) doth perceaue that all the deseruynges of our best workes are faultie, if they be wayed in the righteous ballaunce of the iust Iudge.* 1.44 And by and by in the xi. Chapter, as it were redoublyng the selfe saying of Augustine. Bycause (sayth he) if excludyng mercy, workes be examined, the lyfe of the most righteous wilbe founde to folter and faynte vnder the burthen of Sinne.

Hereunto may be an∣nexed the consent of Barnarde (of whom we made mention be∣fore) worthy to be noted,* 1.45 touchyng the same matter. Who ma∣kyng a long discourse of the vnrighteousnesse of mans righte∣ousnesse, demaundeth a question at the last, of what valew all our righteousnesse may be in the sight of God?

Shall it not be reputed filthy (sayth he) lyke vnto a foule menstruous clothe ac∣cording to the saying of the Prophet? and if strickte and narrow examination be made therof, shall not all our righteousnesse be foūde vnrighteous & nothyng worthe? at the last, as though the matter were confessed, and without all cōtrouersie, he cōcludeth saying: And what shall become then of sinne whenas righteous∣nesse it selfe hath nothyng to alledge for defence?

For as much therefore as it is so, and that this doctrine is so manifold, so manifest, confirmed by so many, and so famous Authours, emprinted in holy writte, allowed with so many in∣uincible

testimonies of sacred Scripture, published by the ap∣proued writynges of the best learned interpretour, established with the vnuanquishable authoritie of the holy Ghost, ratified with the common consent of the auncient primitiue Church, fi∣nally so manifestly knowen by experience of all ages: where is then that haynous crime,* 1.46 that cruell offence, that shameles trespasse, and that intellerable facte (as you say) not to bee suffered in Luther? Nay rather to speake as the truth is, from whēce, or out of what puddle haue you sucked y^e shameles impu∣dencie (Osorius) singular foolishnes, vnmeasurable Sycophā∣ticall rage, frantique tragicall furye, and so cruell and vnrea∣sonable a custome of raylyng agaynst your Christian brethren, without all cause, or reason, who haue rather deserued well, thē euill at your handes? I know not whether this proceéded from any cankred malice lurkyng within you, or through corruption of your nature. Sure I am that you neuer learned that insolen∣cie out of holy Scriptures, or out of the rules of the Gospell, or by ensuyng the example of Christ and his Apostles, or their mylde and curteous conuersation. But perhaps Osorius hath determined with him selfe, to leaue to y^e posteritie some especiall Iewell, as a monument of his eloquence: as Cicero did his In∣uectiues called Phillipica. &c.* 1.47 Yea it had bene more cōuenient for him, to haue chosen some other Methode to treate vpon, and farre more seémely to haue bent the rage of his penne agaynst some others, rather then agaynst Luther, Bucer and others the lyke. For if he were willyng to confesse the truth simply, what other doctrine doth Luther, Bucer, Haddon and all others, (who discourse vpon one selfe same Gospell) teache, then the ve∣ry same matter that S. Paule in so many his Epistles, doth so earnestly enforce? That is to say. That we should ascribe all y^e hope of our saluatiō in Iesu Christ onely, and in him alone re∣pose all our whole ankerhold of righteousnesse, not in our sel∣ues, but in y^e sonne of God: not in the law of workes, but in the law of fayth: not in the preceptes of godly lyfe, as Augustine witnesseth,* 1.48 but in the fayth of Iesu Christ: not in the letter, but in the spirite: not in the merites of good deédes, but in the mer∣cy of God: Finally after that sorte in his mercy, that we should not accoumpt this mercy, to be mercy at all, accordyng to the

saying of Augustine, vnlesse it bee altogether freély geuen. How now? are Christiās now a dayes straighted in such bram∣bles, that it may not be lawfull to speake franckely in the con∣gregatiō the selfe same, which the Prophetes, Apostles, Christ him selfe, the holy Ghost and the purest Authours of auncient antiquitie haue set downe in writyng, but that the partie so do∣yng shalbe forthwith detected as though hee practized to sub∣uert all honestie, and vertuous endeuour? and shalbe constray∣ned to pleade for him selfe, as if he were arrayned a cōmō Bar∣retour, and had committed some haynous horrible, and execra∣ble fact more detestable then high Treason?

Neither are these all the crimes yet wherewith this Ter∣tullian rayler doth rage in his raylyng: but crawleth foreward by enceasing degreées of amplificatiō. For beyng not satisfied to haue accused Luther, as an vndermyner of all honestye, and vertue: to haue cutte in peéces the very sinewes of godly exer∣cise, and vertuous endeuour: besides this horrible accusatiō he chargeth him also, with a crime passing all measure intollera∣ble. And what is that? Bycause (sayth he) hee doth wrest the mynde and wisedome of Paule to serue his owne lust.* 1.49 And redoublyng the same agayne in other wordes, bycause he will not seéme to be an vnskilfull Ciceronian, hee addeth further. And he doth abuse the testimonies of holy Scriptures to e∣stablish his owne vnshamefastnesse. &c. Where Syr I pray you? For sooth in sundry places of the Apostle, and especially in the Epistle written to the Romanes. Wherein bycause it shall not onely bee conceaued in mynde, but also perceaued by the viewe, how disorderly Luther the Standard bearer of all he∣ritiques, and his Cabbenmate Haddon, and all the counter∣faites of this new Gospell haue alwayes hetherto in the inter∣pretation of that Epistle, gropyngly lyke nightowles lumpred in darkenesse: Let vs all and euery of vs open our eyes, & eares now, and lysten to this new starte vp Prophet, whiles this our most elegant Tertullus sittyng at high deske, may instruct vs all blockyshe Asseheades, and as it were an other Archyme∣nides with lyne vpon the sande, chalke vs out a way, and set vp some speciall markes, whereby we may finde out the lyuely & naturall sence, mynde, and meanyng of that Epistle.

* 1.50And first of all concernyng the Gentiles (bycause he may begyn with them as Paule doth) he sayth, that it is euident e∣nough, that they were enlightened with a singular gift of nature, endued with excellent vnderstādyng, adorned and beautified with wonderfull ornamentes of Nature. Who hath euer denyed this? Goe to what followeth hereof?* 1.51 Where∣fore for asmuch as this so great force of nature, excellencie of vnderstandyng, knowledge in learnyng, yea so great worthynesse of reason and capacitie, could auayle nothyng at all with the Gentiles to perfect and righteous liuyng: (for they did exceede in all iniquitie and outragious lust) thereby appeareth playnely, that nature was voyde of all ayde and helpe to attayne the righteousnesse of eternall lyfe. And this much by the waye touchyng the Gentiles. From whom after the Apostle had remoued away all con∣fidence, whiche was vsually ascribed to the law of nature, he turneth his speach forthwith to the Iewes. And bycause the Iewes them selues did in lyke maner place their whole affiaunce in those shadowes and outward ceremonies: The Apostle likewise, yea more sharpely also inueyeth agaynst them, declaryng that all those Ceremonies of the law, and Ordinaunces prescribed by Moyses did profite them no∣thyng at all, whereby they might bee any iote more re∣strained from running headlong into all kynde of wicked∣nesse, nothyng lesse enclined to all filthynesse of conuersa∣tion, neither any myte lesse estraunged from vertuous en∣deuour then the prophane Gentiles: whereby appeareth that the effect of Paules Conclusion tēdeth to this end: To make this manifest, that neither nature, nor the Ceremo∣nies of Moses law, that is to say, washyngs, Sacrifices, clen∣singes, Circumcision, and such like corporall ordinaunces, (with the cōfidence wherof that people did swell and were puft vp in pride) did take away sinne, or did any thyng at all auayle to righteousnes. By this discourse of Osorius, I doubt not (gentle Reader) but that thou doest sufficiently vn∣derstand, if thou bee of any capacitie, what the meanyng of Paule, and the whole sence and disposition of his doctrine in this Epistle to the Romanes doth purporte, accordyng to O∣sorius

his Diuinitie. That is to say. That we may learne, how that we may not hope for any ayde towards our Saluatiō, frō nature, or any ordinaūces of the old law: which beyng graūted, it remaineth further to learne out of this Oracle of our great Maister, from whence we ought at length to seéke for the true way of Saluation, and in what poynt it chiefly consisteth: for∣sooth in righteousnes (saith he) that is to say as Osorius doth define it.* 1.52 In Eschewyng sinne, and earnestly embracyng all godlynesse, vertue, and pietie: vnto the which righteous∣nesse onely we ought to referre all surety, and ankerhold of our saluation. And hereupō is coyned a new Oracle, not from Delphos in Boeotia, but forged by Osorius in the wildernes of Syluain, worthy to be Registred to eternitie of all people and tounges.* 1.53 For righteousnesse onely (sayth he) doth reconcile God to mankynde. The man hath spoken.

This mystery beyng exquisitely piked out of the hiddē my∣steries of Diuinitie, sithence Osorius requireth so earnestly to be graunted him without contradiction, what shall become of that Fayth onely, wherewith those Lutheranes and Bucerans do prattle so much, them selues to be iustified by? Nay rather what shall become of any Fayth at all (Osorius) if the onely righteousnesse of workes, doe accomplish the absolute fulnesse of our Iustification? Oingenious head, and wonderfull deépe conclusion, framed through conference of reasons, and apt ap∣plication of the middle proposition with the first, and Clarcke∣ly concludyng, and shuttyng vp the same into one knotte toge∣ther. Unlesse this our deépe Deuine had cunnyngly culled this Argument out of the closet of the Popes own breast, as out of some horsepoole, within whose bosome all knowledge of God, and man is enclosed: or vnlesse this Endymyon had soundly snorted in Aristotles Ethickes, as it were in the hill Parnas∣sus: can any man doubt, whether hee could euer haue bene able so happely, to haue pearced into the inward, and hidden mea∣nyng of the Apostles doctrine, with so great sharpenesse and force of witte, and vnderstandyng? or haue euer descried the sence therof so effectually? and discouered it so aboundauntly? Why doe we not triumphauntly reioyce in this happynesse of learnyng in this blessed estate of the Catholicke people, & this

our age? & be ioyfull for y^e good successe of that notable Realme of Portingall especially? Which beyng otherwise renowmed for the great treasure of their trade in Marchādizes, is yet be∣come most fortunate in respect of this inestimable Iewell of y^e world: which except in this great darkenesse of vnderstandyng had gratified vs w^t this wonderfull Deuine, who might restore vnto lyfe all pietie & Religiō suppressed by Luther, who could w^t such singularitie expresse the meanyng of Paule, beyng sini∣sterly corrupted after the sensualitie of naughtie packes: and could so exquisitely haue hitte y^e nayle on the head: all men might iustly haue doubted, lest Diuinity should haue growē into great perill of vtter vndoing, & haue bene throwē into an vnrecouera∣ble downfall. For what mā in the world would haue interpreted Paules Epistle in this wise, if he had not heard this mā before?

Truely I for my part and others like vnto me, beyng not inspired with so profoūde & deépe capacity, did alwayes hereto∣fore conceaue of the matter after this maner: That the Apo∣stles whole endeuour and trauaile in that Epistle tēded to none other end, then by makyng men behold the greatnesse of Gods wrath first agaynst sinne, hee might the better enduce them to perceaue and feéle how all nations and people, aswell Heathe∣nishe, as the Iewes also them selues chiefly, continuyng in the profession of Gods law, were yet concluded vnder sinne: and so might dispoyle them all of all matter to glorye vpon, and so hauyng humbled, and brought them into subiection before God, might rayse agayne their comfort in Christ, by denoun∣cyng vnto them firme assured hope, wherewith who soeuer did as then, or would beleue in him afterwardes, should ob∣teine euerlastyng lyfe: not through the merite of any worke, but by the especiall grift of the freé promise: not for our worthy∣nesse, but for our faythes sake simply, without workes: that the promise might be infallible, not through any our merite, which is none at all, but by the mercy of God: not accordyng to the proportion of that singular righteousnesse whiche is of our sel∣ues, and peculiar to euery of vs, but accordyng to that righte∣ousnesse, whiche is through the fayth of Christ Iesu, whiche is of God: euen that onely righteousnesse which is through fayth.* 1.54 I haue bene alwayes hetherto persuaded that this was the ve∣ry

naturall meanyng and sence of Paules doctrine:* 1.55 and this the right rule of Iustification: neither could I euer gesse, that when Paule pronounceth vs to bee Iustified by fayth without deédes of the law, that part of the law was excluded onely which did treate of Ceremonies, and had relation to the body, and ap∣perteined not to the soule. But I accordyng to my grosse dul∣nesse rather, did conceaue of his saying in this wise: and not I alone, but many other good men iarryng alwayes vppon the same stryng, mistooke the note as I did, and were of opinion, that Paule by that his exemption, did not exclude the Cere∣moniall, and shadowishe law onely, which serued the letter one∣ly, but that most absolute and perfect part of the law also indif∣ferently, whereof he maketh his whole discourse in that Epi∣stle: the whiche also he doth note by name, to be spirituall, and sayth that it procureth wrath: which was common to the Iewes and Gentiles all alyke. Euen the same part of the law whiche commaundeth that thou shalt not lust:* 1.56 by examination whereof Sinne is discerned:* 1.57 Finally the same handwrityng conteyned in the tenne Tables written agaynst vs,* 1.58 which was fastened vpon the Crosse of Christ.* 1.59 Bycause all those sayinges could not bee refer∣red to the Ceremoniall law, but to that part of the law whiche was conteyned in the preceptes of maners, we could neuer o∣therwise interprete the sense & meanyng of the Apostle then by such comparison of his owne wordes together, vntill this new Doctour had published to the world this new light of Expositi∣on. Cōsideryng therfore the matter is in this plight: It remay∣neth now (gentle Reader) that I appeale to thy Iudgement, and abyde thy verdite herein: whether it may seéme to theé that Lu∣ther haue wrested the mynde and wordes of the Apostle after his lust, or Osorius rather haue peruerted the same to his owne folly. But goe to: I thinke good now to note the Argumentes wherewith Osorius iudgeth him selfe to be strongly fenced.

If Paule (sayth he) had sayd,* 1.60 that the Iewes were commē∣dable for their integritie and innocencie of lyfe, and yet that those deedes of godlynes did nothyng auayle them to attayne righteousnesse, and so had concluded after∣wardes, that they were not iustified through the workes of the law, the matter would then haue opened it selfe,

that by the name of workes, he did meane the best acti∣ons and dueties of vertue.

Here is a strong foundation enough (I suppose) of an infallible Sillogisme deliuered vnto you, attende now the other propo∣sition of the same.

But this (sayth hee) is not founde in that whole discourse of Paule, nay rather hee doth condemne them as guiltie of all wickednesse and crueltie.

This groundworke beyng this layd, it remayneth that we rāme fast this buildyng vp with some good morter, which in the ma∣ner of a conclusion, is applyed in this wise.

Therfore Paule doth rightly conclude, that where he af∣firmeth no man to be iustified through the deedes of the law, he meaneth, that the Ceremonies, shadowes, and Cleansinges of the law, which consisted in outward ob∣seruation, dyd nothyng at all profite to the attaynemēt of Righteousnesse.

O passing pearcyng witte of Chrysippus. O miserable Lu∣ther vtterly ouerthrowen with this Argument. But goe to, let vs ayde Luther somewhat, and helpe to vnloose this Gordian knotte if it bee possible. And although we may vtterly deny the forme of this Argument at the first choppe, bycause it contei∣neth more in the cōclusion, then was spoken of in the premisses: yet either pardonyng, or wynking at this escape: Let vs exa∣mine the substaunce of the first proposition. If Paule (quoth he) had perceaued the life of the Iewes to haue bene vndefiled, and all the endeuoures and workes of their lyfe sincere and perfect: and then had concluded that no man had bene Iu∣stified by the workes of the law. &c. In deéde (good Syr) I confesse the same to bee true. If the Apostle had perceaued this at the first, and then had added that also that you speake, it might happely then in some respect haue followed as you haue conclu∣cluded. But it could not bee possible Osorius, that the Apostle would euer speake after that sorte. For it is euident by Gods Scripture, that it is impossible but that he which performeth the Commaundementes shall liue by them.* 1.61 Wherfore if their conuer∣sation had bene voyde of all blame, and with like integritie could haue aunswered and throughly satisfied the perfect law of God

vnto the vttermost title thereof: it can not bee doubted but that Paule would neuer haue denyed that those should be iustified by the workes of the law, who do lead a perfect and vpright life. Yea rather he would haue affirmed this that he spake there, which is most true:* 1.62 Glory, honour, and peace bee vnto euery one that wor∣keth righteousnesse, to the Iewes aswell as to the Gentiles. &c. But now when as he foresaw, that the Iewes did swell with a certeine Pharisaicall opinion of their workes, and proudly vaunted them selues vpon them, disdaynefully detestyng all other as Heathe∣nish, vngodly, in respect of them selues, neither seémed to stand in any neéde of the Mediatour: Therfore to the end he might shake away from them that pestilent persuasion of their owne righte∣ousnesse, and force them to seéke succour at Christ: hereupon he did vtterly dispoyle all workes of abilitie to Iustifie: that is to say, he so taketh away all Affiance of our workes beyng of all partes vnperfect, bycause hee may ascribe it wholy to fayth onely, and repose the same in Christ alone.

Therfore that I may orderly and distinctly make aūswere to that your Maior, beyng Hypotheticall, & Copulatiue which you doe so intricately entangle, and miserably choake vp with obscu••e speach. First of all we must remember that the obseruation of the law hath a double vnderstandyng:* 1.63 for after one sorte Christ dyd obserue the law of his Father: but mortall men obserue it after an other sort: Christ most perfectly and absolutely: but we weak∣ly and rawly, yea I know not if we performe any portion there∣of very meanely. Whereupon ariseth a double consideration of righteousnesse: the one perfect, and is peculiar to Christ, and is onely of valew with God: the other vnperfect, & lame which pro∣perly apperteineth to man, and perhappes carryeth some resem∣blaunce of holynesse in the opinion of men, but is of no estimation before God, nor sufficeth to Saluation. Moreouer to the pur∣chasing of that first and sincere righteousnesse, man must bee fur∣nished with two principall Tallentes: the one, that hee so accom∣plish the whole law, that no part thereof be defectiue: The other, that hee so throughly performe euery part thereof, that nothyng may be added to absolute perfection. Or els hee may heare what the Scripture threateneth.* 1.64 Cursed be he that persisteth not in all the wordes of the law to doe them. &c.* 1.65 Agayne, He that breaketh

the least of them, is guiltie of them all.* 1.66 Now for as much as ne∣uer any man was able to bryng that thyng to passe but Christ onely, it is out of all controuersie, that all other mortall men, as well Iewes, as Gentiles, are fast holden vnder the curse: Whereupon the Apostle, after long debatyng of the matter, con∣cludeth: That no man can bee Iustified by the workes of the law. Which sentence is not yet so to be taken, as though no deédes of the law beyng sincerely, and, perfectly done, accordyng to the prescript rule of lawe, could profite any thyng at all towardes Saluation, for the very same was performed in the person of Christ, whose life being of all partes, freé altogether, from all ble∣mish of Sinne, could not be attaynted with that saying of Paule, That no man could bee Iustified by the workes of the law, for that he was iustified through his owne workes, especially. With as good right also, might we mainteine our lyke challenge therein, if our infirmitie were able to rayse it selfe, to that perfection of Christ. Whereupon we heare the Apostle very aptly arguyng in this wise.* 1.67 If that law (sayth he) had bene deliuered, that could haue geuen life, then no doubt righteousnesse had come by the law. Gallat. 3. But wherefore is it sayd that the law can not geue life?* 1.68 Not bycause the law wāted her efficacie to geue life, but by∣cause we were destitute of sufficient power to accomplish the per∣fection of the law. For otherwise what can bee of more force to righteousnesse, then the law? or what more effectuall to eternall life, then righteousnesse? if at the least the same were perfect, or that our nature were capable of that righteousnesse absolutely. But now beyng enuironed with so great weakenesse of the fleshe, and of all sides beset with Sinnes, yea and sold vnder Sinne, when all our endeuour is yet so vnperfect, that we neither per∣forme the whole law, neither comprehend any small portion ther∣of with duetyfull and exact righteousnesse. Therfore that saying of the Apostle may rightely be applied vnto vs, wherein hee affir∣meth That no man is Iustified by the workes of the law.

* 1.69For as to that, which Osorius with his crooked conueyaunce doth wrest these deédes of the law to the Ceremoniall law, is alto∣gether fonde, friuolous and worthy to be scorned, as beyng ouer∣throwen with many sounde reasons. First, besides that it doth manifestly appeare, by the whole discourse, and phrase of that E∣pistle

it selfe, that Paule treated there, of none other law, then the morall law, it is to be approued chiefly in these wordes, where the Apostle doth not onely testifie him selfe, of what law he made men∣tion in that place, but also of what part of the law: he doth reason in this wise, of the selfe same law. For that whiche the law could not bryng to passe, euen in that part, wherein it was weake by rea∣son of the infirmitie of the flesh. &c. But this part surely consi∣sted not in the Ceremoniall law, but in the Morall law of the ten Tables: whereupon we doe argue agaynst Osorius in this wise:

No man is bereft of righteousnesse, but in that part onely, wherein offence is committed.

But the Iewes offended nothyng in the Ceremoniall law, onely they sinned in the Morall law.

It is manifest therfore, that Paule spake not there of the Ceremoniall law, but of the law of the tenne Tables.

Moreouer whereas Paule did discourse of that Law whiche procureth wrath. Rom. 4.* 1.70 Which was geuen that sinne might be more sinnefull. Rome. 5. Which is sayd to be written in the hartes of the Gentiles. Rom. 2. Whiche doth discouer the knowledge of Sinne. Rom. 3. Which forbiddeth to lust, which is called holy, and is spirituall, by the whiche Sinne doth shewe it selfe more aboun∣dauntly to purchase damnation. Rom. 7. From whiche law we be deliuered by the death of Christ. Rom. 7. Which is called the law of righteousnesse. Rom. 9. Finall the full accomplishing whereof is loue. Rom. 13. These and many other places if you haue not perused in Paules Epistles I desire you to vouchsafe to read them. If you haue read them, then I beseéch you to aunswere me, whether to your Iudgement these sayinges seéme to con∣cerne the Ceremoniall law, or that part of the law especially, which consisteth in the actiōs and dueties of maners, and com∣mon conuersation of lyfe?

But you say that the Iewes dyd put ouer much confi∣dence in their Ceremonies:* 1.71 And therefore to driue away the confidence whiche they reposed in them, the Apostles meanyng was to aduertize them, that they should ascribe true righteousnes to those outward Ceremonies shadowes and cleansinges. What a iest is this? as though the Iewes did settle their cōfidence in the Ceremonies onely? and did not

much more rather glory in their Race? in their Parentage? in their worshippyng and callyng vpon God? in their Prophetes? in Gods promises? in the deédes and workes of holynes? Fur∣thermore whereas this Epistle was not written to the Iewes, but to the Romaines, what aunswere will Osorius make here? Were the Romaines also instructed to the obseruation of those Ceremonies? or did they rest so much vpon them, that it behoo∣ued the Apostle of necessitie, to forewarne them in his letters written vnto them? But what better weapon shall I vse in this conflict agaynst Osorius then one taken out of his owne armo∣ry? for thus he speaketh.* 1.72 If the Apostle had first praysed the Iewes for their vertues, and good deedes, and afterwardes had sayd that those vertues and good deedes were of no valew towardes the purchasing of righteousnes, and then at last had concluded, that they could not haue bene Iusti∣fied through the workes of the lawe, then the matter had bene cleare that Paule had not excluded the Ceremoniall law onely, but the Morall law also frō righteousnes. Marke well gentle Reader, and note aduizedly what hee speaketh. If Paul had first praysed the workes of the Iewes, & afterwardes had derogated Iustification from these workes. &c. Uery well: and what if out of the same Nation I doe name some men, whose singular integritie of lyfe and study of righteousnesse Paule could by no meanes reproue, yea whose godly endeuour & vpright dealyng procured them no droppe of righteousnes notwithstandyng? what will this Sophister say then?

* 1.73And first of all let vs behold the workes of that most holy Patriarche Abraham, who for his inestimable godlynesse, can neuer be condignely enough commended of any of vs. And yet will ye heare (Osorius) the testimonie of the Apostle touchyng the same Patriarche?* 1.74 What shall we say (sayth hee) that our Fa∣ther Abraham did finde accordyng to the flesh? For if Abraham were Iustified through workes, he hath wherein he may glory, but not in the sight of God. Rom. 4. What then? did he not obteine of God to bee called righteous? Yes veryly: but let vs seé by what meanes, not through workes sayth the Apostle: but by the com∣mendation of his fayth, which onely maketh vs appeare worthy in the sight of God.* 1.75 For Abraham beleued God, and it was Im∣puted

vnto him for righteousnesse. It is manifest therefore that he was accoumpted righteous, but by what meanes? forsooth not simply nor in respect of his workes, but by way of Impu∣tation onely. Now what soeuer commeth of Imputation, pro∣ceédeth from meére mercy of him that Imputeth, and is not ge∣uen in reward after the proportion of duetie, or of dette. For no man Imputeth that to an other, that is duely owyng vnto him. Now let vs here the testimonies of the Scriptures cōcernyng that whiche was Imputed. Not bycause hee did the thynges which he was commaunded (albeit he did many thynges won∣derfully well) but bycause he beleued God, this was sayd to be Imputed vnto him for righteousnesse. And why was not righ∣teousnesse imputed vnto him aswell in those respectes, bycause he did sacrifice vnto God? Bycause he forsooke his natiue coun∣trey? Bycause hee offred his onely sonne to be slayne? Neither doth the Apostle ouerskippe, or conceale those causes, especi∣ally bycause that he which was the Parente of the Posteritie, y^e same also should be the Authour of the doctrine. For why? this was written (sayth Paule) videl. That it was Imputed vnto him for righteousnesse, not for his sake onely, but for vs also to whom it shall likewise bee Imputed, that beleue in him, which raysed our Lord Iesus from death to life. &c. Rome. 4.* 1.76

And thus much concerning Abrahā, who though alone may suffice in place of all others, so that we neéde none other exam∣ple, yet let vs ioyne to this holy Patriarche, as holy a Kyng:* 1.77 Dauid with Abraham both beyng deare vnto God, both equal∣ly endued with like excellent ornamētes of godlynesse and ver∣tue. Whereof the one as he had nothyng whereupon to glory before God, so the other did so disclayme altogether from righ∣teousnesse, that he besought nothyng more carefully of God in his prayers,* 1.78 Then that hee would not enter into Iudgement with his seruaunt. And rendreth a Reason of his most earnest prayer. Bycause all flesh shall not be Iustified in thy sight. And what other thyng is meant by this, then that which Paule affirmeth in the selfe same wordes almost, That no man is Iustified by the workes of the law? Goe to then: And where are now those wonderfull fruites of workes? Where is that glorious shewe of righteous∣nesse? Finally where shall Osorius him selfe appeare with all

his cleannes? good disposition? temperaunce of mynde? singu∣lar humanitie? lenitie? patience? chastitie? vnfayned charitie? and with that absolute huge Chaos of bountyfull vertues so vnseparably vnited and linked together as it were chayned fast with yron ropes? When as Dauid so great a Kyng and Pro∣phet, a most choyse vessell, accordyng to Gods owne hart, dare not presume to offer him selfe to Iudgement?* 1.79 when as Iob a man commended of God for his singlenesse of hart, and appro∣ued holynesse, beyng asked a question of God, durst not aun∣swere one word.

* 1.80It will not be Impertinēt to the matter, if we speake some∣what here of Paule him selfe. Whose conuersation (whiche he led vnblameable, beyng as yet a Pharisie) Tertullus him selfe could not charge with any fault. The same beyng afterwardes engraffed into Christ, liued in that vprightenesse of conscience, that Osorius cā not iustly reprehende him, as worthy of crime. And yet all those so great and so many ornaments of holynesse, did so nothyng auayle him to righteousnesse, that hee him selfe accompted them for drosse. Wherefore consider here with me Christian Reader a good felowshyp, how much difference is be∣twixt Osorius and Paule: where as the same workes whiche Osorius doth with so glorious pompe of eloquēt wordes, gar∣nishe so gorgiously, Paule in playne termes, doth compare thē to durtie drosse and filthy dounge,* 1.81 whereby he may be found in Christ not to haue any his owne righteousnesse by the operatiō of the law, but that onely righteousnesse grounded vpon fayth which is through the fayth of Christ. &c.

* 1.82Cornelius of whom mention is made in the Actes of the A∣postles: was a holy man, and feared God, together which his whole houshold, dealyng much almes to the poore, and makyng continuall intercessions to almighty God. This was a great, and glorious commendation truely, of excellent godlynesse, which no sensible mā would say, ought to be referred to the Ce∣remoniall law, but to the Morall law rather. And yet the selfe same Cornelius, beyng neuer so notable for his commendable bertues, vnlesse by y^e aduertizement of y^e Aungell, had sent for Peter, which might haue endued him with the fayth of Christ, what profite had he gotten towardes the attaynement of righ∣teousnesse,

by all those helpes, and aydes of pitie?

What shalbe sayd of the riche yoūg man in the Gospell who beyng commaunded to keépe the cōmaundementes,* 1.83 made aun∣swere that hee had obserued the same all the dayes of his lyfe? What shall I recite the example of the Pharisaé prayeng in the Temple,* 1.84 who vauntyng him selfe proudly vppon trust of his workes, gaue thankes to God, that he was not as others were, that he lyued not of the spoyle, did not fraudulently deceaue a∣ny man by contractes, nor prodigally cōsume his owne goodes, nor defile his neighbours wife, committed not adultery, was not murtherer, or wrong doer to his neighbours, neither was of that sorte like vnto the Publicane, but fasted twise in the Sab∣both, gaue the tenth of his goodes, to the poore? &c. What neéde I to produce Nathanaell,* 1.85 whom Christ him selfe did both ac∣knowledge to be a true Israelite, and praysed him for his vnfai∣ned simplicitie? Do ye not perceiue that these persons, besides their duetyfull obseruaunce of the Ceremoniall law, did in vtter shewe expresse a certeine resemblaunce of good workes, and stu∣dious endeuour in the Morall law? all which notwithstandyng they were not y^e valewe of one myte more regarded in the sight of God. Albeit I do not alledge these things to the end I would extenuate the fault of the Iewes, whom S. Paule affirmeth to be inexcusable. But Osorius doth not seé the groūde of Paules accusation agaynst them. First of all the Apostle did very well forseé, that the law of God is of all partes most perfect, and that it requireth an exquisite, full and absolute obediēce to the same: which (as he conceaued) could not possibly be performed by any industry of mā. Neither was he ignoraunt of the vnmeasurable and arrogaunt pride of that Nation lynked with lyke vanitie: which beyng by a wonderfull farre way distant from the meane obseruation of the law, did yet swell, and were puft vp with a most false glaueryng conceite of their owne excellency and per∣fection, as though they had left no part therof vndone, persua∣dyng vnto thēselues saluation thereby, wherein they had much rather deserued vtter destruction. And so did incurre double of∣fence. First, bycause they did sundry wayes horribly dishonour and defile Gods most sacred law: Then, as though it were not materiall that they had not perfitely accomplished the whole

law: a man might iustly marueile, how wonderfully they flat∣tered them selues, and as though they had trimmely behaued them selues at all assayes, seemed in their owne conceite to bee prety holy men, despising with a certeine Pharisaicall hautines all other Nations besides them selues. Wherfore the Apostle indifferētly tenderyng the miserable errour of eche Nation as∣well Gentiles as Iewes, doth earnestly debate threé thynges chiefly in that place.* 1.86 First, that he might conuince the Iewes, as also the Gentiles indifferently, that they were sinners be∣fore God. Then, that he might remoue from them all false o∣pinion of Affiance. Lastly, that hee might emprinte into them the true way of Confidence. And in this last purpose of the A∣postle, Osorius doth openly bewray his blockishe ignoraunce, swaruyng and varyeng altogether from the entent of the Apo∣stle. For although his Iudgement bee sounde, and agreable with the Apostle in this, that the trust whiche the Iewes repo∣sed in the law of Moyses was no lesse vayne, and voyde of rea∣son, then the Confidence of the Gentiles, who framed their life after the law of nature: yet when question is moued touchyng the assignyng of true righteousnesse, Paule will teache one thyng, but Osorius an other.

* 1.87For whereas Paule doth bende the whole force of his dis∣putation to this onely marke, that excludyng all other deédes, workes, and endeuours, whether they apperteine to the Cere∣moniall or Morall law, or to the rule and doctrine of maners, hee might referre the summe of our Iustification, and hope of Saluation wholy, and onely, in the fayth of the sonne of God. What other thyng els doth this Ciceronian Tertullus dis∣course in those bookes entituled `De Iustitia? Wherein he play∣eth so much the Philosopher, as though he were in y^e Schoole of Morall Philosophie, what els doth he breath, practize, and and so greédely mainteine? then to persuade vs, that wheresoe∣uer S. Paule doth exclude workes from Iustification,* 1.88 he doth exempt nothyng els but the Ceremoniall law: And so for con∣clusion, that true righteousnesse is not that righteousnesse in the sight of God, whiche Christ doth Impute to the beleuers through fayth, but that righteousnesse, which euery man doth properly procure, and make peculiar to him selfe, through his

owne vertue, sinceritie, innocencie and good conuersation: Of∣fryng the combate pardy to Paule: whether in this quarell of Iustification, S. Paule shall with more probable Arguments exclude Confidence from workes, or Osorius driue fayth into vtter exile: vnto the which fayth in all his bookes he leaueth no maner of place, truly yeldeth very litle credite thereunto. Nei∣ther is it any maruell:* 1.89 For if the matter be as Osorius doth re∣porte, That we ought to be iuste before God, and not Iusti∣fied before God:* 1.90 And if righteousnesse onely doe procure the fauour of God and Reconcile God to mākind, wherein onely we ought to settle all our sauety and worthines: And if no man an be righteous but hee that keepeth the lawe. That is to say: if the iuste mā shall now liue but by workes and not by Fayth. Iudge I beseéche theé (gentle Reader re∣deémed with the bloud of Iesus Christ) of what efficacie either Christes bloud shed for theé may be, or of what estimation thy fayth towardes Christ must be. Truly by this meanes Osorius w^t his glorious eloquence, may aswell plucke downe Christ out of heauen, banish Fayth out of the earth, snatche Paule out of our handes, roote the Gospell out of our hartes, and all com∣fortable consolation from our consciences: Finally despoyle the world of the light of the Sunne, that we may all together lumper and groape in darkenesse, after this blynde guide and Capteine of darkenesse.

But here are one or two places of Paule obiected agaynst Paule him selfe, whereby Osorius may y^e better mainteine his challenge agaynst Paule with Paules owne weapons.* 1.91 What? had not Paule (sayth he) a most sharpe cōflict with the Iewes alwayes touchyng the Ceremonies? What hereof thē? Doth he not in his Epistle to the Galathians, protest in this wise? If ye be Circumcised, Christ doth nothyng profite you: I confesse this to bee true. In lyke maner writyng to the He∣brues, doth he not say that the lawe doth auayle nothyng to perfection, meanyng the Ceremoniall law? Conclude at the length therfore Osorius in despight of Logicke though she be neuer so angry. Ergo, wheresoeuer Paule doth make mē∣tion of abandonyng the law in the treatie of our Saluatiō, there we must of necessitie interprete the same to be spokē

onely of the Ceremoniall law, and in no wise of the Morall law. Ueryly I would not much sticke with you herein good sir, if accordyng to your Logicke it may be lawfull to deriue a con∣clusion from the part to the whole.* 1.92 But what kynde of Argu∣ment is this? or who instructed you to frame an Argument in this sorte? In some places Osorius sporteth bitterly enough, vsing his Rhetoricall digressiōs, and is sometymes very plea∣sauntly disposed to play with Haddones Schoolemaister his nose, who soeuer hee were that enformed him in the principles of Rhetoricke, when hee was young: but how much more iust cause might I take here, if a man would vse the offered occasiō, to geue the counter scoffe agaynst your own Maister quareller, whosoeuer he was whiche nooseled your youth in Logicke,* 1.93 and taught you so foolishly and senselesly to make bald Argumēts, and to fetche a Conclusion from an vnsufficient numbryng of partes to affirme y^e whole? For this is your disordered order of arguyng in this place. Paule once or twise, or perhaps spea∣kyng oftentymes of the law, hath relation to the Ceremoniall law. Ergo, wheresoeuer hee maketh any discourse about the law of God, there his meanyng tendeth to the same constru∣ction, euē through his whole discourse, and in all his Epistles: Nay rather, if you did vnderstand Paule throughly, and would not crookedly wrest his meanyng after your owne grosse sen∣sualitie: Ye should easily perceaue,* 1.94 that by way of Negatiue, hee doth orderly proceéde, after the surest maner of arguyng, from the whole, to the partes, and from the vniuersall, to the particular: For if the vniuersall proposition may iustly be de∣nyed, it followeth of necessitie, that the particular propositiōs may not be admitted. As where he doth say. No workes at all of the law do Iustifie, ye may duely conclude hereof. Ergo, nei∣ther the Ceremoniall, Morall, Naturall, Politicke, Ciuill, nor any other law doth worke Iustification.

And marke here Osorius how much I doe beare with you when as I doe cut of so much of myne owne right vnto you, whiche you could neuer bee able by Argument to wynne at my handes. For to admit the foundation of your Argument, which is otherwise altogether false, we will yet for this present tyme graunt it to seéme true, as you would your selfe it should bee:

that when Paule doth reason of the law, he doth chiefly meane thereby the Ceremoniall law. Yet what a monstruous Argu∣ment is this, whereby ye trauaile to cōfirme the affirmation of one part, by y^e nagation of y^e other part, in this wise: Paule doth deny that y^e Ceremoniall law doth Iustifie y^e Iewes. Ergo, the Morall lawe doth Iustifie them. Nay rather how much more soundly should you haue reasoned turning your cōclusion back∣ward? If y^e Ceremoniall law which was y^e principall substaūce of Moyses law doe not Iustifie, Ergo, neither any other part of the law doth Iustifie. Albeit I will not deny, but that in the very swathlyng cloutes of the primitiue Church, many doubts arose amongest the Disciples them selues, touchyng the retei∣nyng of Moyses Ceremonies, in so much that Peter him selfe durst not be so bold as to receaue Cornelius the Captaine into the felowshyp of the Gospell, before he was cōmaunded by the heauenly Oracle. Neither could the strife about the Ceremo∣niall law, be yet so appeased amongest the brethrē: for the false Apostles, and such as were of the Circumcision, did stiffely, as it were, with tooth and nayle,* 1.95 defende the obseruaunces of the Ceremoniall law, neither would geue their consent, that the Gentiles should be receaued into the cōgregation, vnlesse they would be Circumcized after Moyses law, and endeuoured all that they could to charge the Christians with y^e yoke of the Ce∣remoniall law, Vntill in a Counsell holden at Ierusalem the holy Ghost did determine, that the Gentiles, should not be charged with any Iudaicall Traditions, except a very fewe onely. And it is not to be doubted, as Osorius doth say, that Paule had much adoe in euery place, about this Ceremoniall law, yea and dealt oftētymes therein, not without manifest pe∣rill of lyfe. Yet all this whiles, appeared not so much as one sparckle of dissention, or doubtfulnesse, nor any one question was raysed amongest the brethren, agaynst the Morall law, the keépyng whereof was yet adiudged most necessary. The con∣trouersie remayned as yet about the Ceremonies & customes of Moyses law. At the last, when this question was decided, further enquirie began to be made afterwardes of that part of the law, which seémed to challenge chief authoritie and especi∣all gouernement ouer the consciences of men.

* 1.96And euen here through the inestimable benefite of GOD sprang vp vnto vs S. Paule. Who first of all did call backe the controuersie of this question, from the speciall, or particu∣lar, to the generall or vniuersall: disputing not onely of the out∣ward Ceremonies, but of the whole doctrine of the Morall law also. Whereunto I suppose hee was moued not without great cause. For he had an incklyng surely, that the very same thyng would ensue thereof, which afterwardes came to passe. That the Ceremoniall law beyng once made altogether vneffectuall, many persons would wrongfully ascribe their freé Iustification purchased with the bloud of Iesus Christ, to the workes of the Morall law: which thyng as Paule did foreseé in the false Apo∣stles, the selfe same wee may easily perceaue now to happen in our Pharisaicall Rabbynes in these our dayes: and amongest all other in this our Osorius chiefly, at this present: wherfore it is not to be doubted, but that S. Paule was raysed vp by the speciall prouidence of God, euen for this purpose: who discour∣sing throughly vpon the whole law, and vpon the effect, vse, of∣fice and end of the law, doth fully describe vnto vs, how much we ought to attribute to our workes, and how much we ought to yelde to the grace of God: & herein discouereth the very well-sprynges of sounde doctrine: finally declareth vnto vs, whiche is the false, and which is the true righteousnesse in the sight of God: and wherein the same doth consist. Likewise whereunto it ought not be referred:* 1.97 Not to workes (sayth he) for no man li∣uyng shalbe Iustified by workes. Well then: if not by workes, how then?* 1.98 Through Fayth (sayth he) in Iesu Christ. Yet is not this all that he speaketh: But adding thereunto a proofe, he yeldeth this reason.* 1.99 Bycause if through workes (sayth he) then is it not now of promise. After this maner teacheth Paule both learnedly, and playnly. But our Osorius practizeth to wype away this nega∣tiue proposition of Paule with a trimme shift, as though Paule in all those places, where he dischargeth workes from Iustifica∣tion, did meane nothyng els, but that no man should repose trust of assured sauetie in the Ceremoniall law onely. Uery well: then is it reason that he teach vs whereupon we should grounde our Aff••aunce. Veryly in Fayth, sayth the Apostle Paule, and so in Fayth, that if in workes, then not in Fayth at all. This is truely

spoken by the Apostle. But what sayth Osorius? in the Cere∣monies of y^e old law? no, not so: for that were altogether Iewish: in Fayth therfore? neither yet so in any wise, for this is the very doctrine of Luther. Uouchsafe therfore a good felowshyp (Oso∣rius) to escry out one safe Hauen for vs, wherein we poore for∣lorne abiectes may cast Anker, & saue our selues frō shipwracke.

Forsooth in workes (sayth Osorius) and in keépyng the pres∣cribed rules of vertuous lyfe.* 1.100 That is to say, in Innocencie, in chastitie, in modestie, in abstinence, in vprightnesse of mynde, in holynesse of Religion, in feruentnesse of the spirite, in aboū∣daunce of the loue of God, in earnest endeuour of godlynesse, in deédes of righteousnesse, dueties of pietie, in geuyng much almonesse, in obedience, in keépyng peacible vnitie, and such like ornamentes & treasures wherof Osorius in many wordes maketh a long rehearsall. Of all whiche vertues, there is not so much as one croome, or sparckle in these Lutherans, and Bu∣ceranes, and these new Gospellers: thē which kynde of people nothyng can bee named more wicked, nothyng thought vpon more pestiferous, nothyng more troublesome in the common wealth, nothyng more readyly armed to rayse maliciousnesse, to sow contentious quarelles, strife, & enemitie, nothyng more pernicious to procure the destruction of Princes, none more geuē to bloudsuckyng and Treason, who beyng embrued with all wickednesse, licentiousnesse, libertie, lust, with all manner shamelessenesse, crueltie and madnesse, outragiously rushe into all places, whereby they may thrust their Gospell in place, and defile all thynges with filthy stenche: wheresoeuer they make neuer so litle abode, they corrupt the land with trecherous vil∣lanies: finally they doe poyson the ayre, they doe abandone cha∣stitie, geue full scope to voluptuousnesse, roote out all feare of Gods law, and mans law: and in all this outrage they promise vnpunishable libertie. On the contrary parte,* 1.101 I meane in the Court of Rome, and in all that most sacred Citie florisheth a farre other maner of countenaunce and Maiestie of seuere di∣scipline, and vertuous lyfe. And first of all in that most royall hygh and chief Prelate, and most renowmed Monarche of all Prelates, sittyng in Peters owne chayre. In those Reuerend estates of the Tridentine Councell, in the worshypfull Masse∣mongers

of the Romish Church, in the great Doctours of that old Gospel, in Monasteries, and Dorters, the very forgeshops of most pure doctrine, in y^e most chast Selles of holy Nunnes, finally in all that sacred Senate, and Catholicke people, no such Presidentes of wickednesse, and abhomination may bee seene: no spotte so much of corrupt infection raigneth: no am∣bition, no lust, no insolencie, neither any kynde of malice, no quarellyng, no crueltie, no foule or vnseémely thyng sauoryng of any earthly contagion can be discernable amongest this ge∣neration: But whole heapes yea huge mountaines of godly and heauealy store doth florishe and abounde: no vnquietnesse or molestation of Empires, and Princely gouernement, no seéde plottes of mortall warres, no shew so much of bloudy battell, no Treason, no ouerthrowe of Kynges, and publicke authori∣tie, nor any seditious plātes of cōtentious discorde: finally no earthly thyng in the secret closettes of the Romishe Court, in so much that if Diogenes would in midday, with torche in hād, prye neuer so narrowly, he should no be able to finde in all the Citie of Rome, one Harlot, or strumpet so much: To conclude, it is not possible to heare amōgest that most sacred Catholicke conuenticle, any sounde of cauillation at all, no mutteryng of outragious slaunders, no blaste of cunnyngly forged lyes, wherof as all others of that sect are cleare, so are these bookes of Osorius chiefly most purely purged: wherein appeareth no smatche of brabling distempered affections, no lyeng slaunder, nor iarre of erronious doctrine, no significatiō of a mynde trou∣bled and seuered from the Castle of Reason. But all thynges are debated and expounded with peaceble gentlenesse, quyet tranquillitie of mynde, wonderfull lenitie and mildenesse, not with rigorous and malicious wordes, not with slaunderous & carterlike reproches, but with inuincible Argumētes, as forci∣ble as the dartes of Achilles, or Hector, discharged (I thinke) out of the very guttes of y^e Troian horse, nothyng vttered to y^e vayne ostentatiō of witte, or reuengemēt of spightfull hatred, as it were in Triumphe of victory (fie beware of that gentle Reader) but of a very simple & earnest desire to aduaunce ver∣tue & pietie, for this especiall cause forsooth, that those sparkes and Embres of honesty, and godlynesse, which Luther hath ra∣ked

vp, buryed and vtterly quenched out, might once agayne be quickened and florishe in that most sacred Seé of Rome.

These, euen these same,* 1.102 bee the workes (if ye will neédes know them Catholicke Reader) and good deédes of those men, wherewith they doe prepare an entyre to true righteousnesse, and furnish their iourney to heauen, and wherewith, as it were with ladders, they clymbe by steppe to the purchase of eternall inheritaunce. And how els? this euen this must bee the right way to heauen. But in the meane space with how many foggy, and thicke cloudes, hath S. Paule the seruaunt of God, & A∣postle of Iesus Christ, ouerwhelmed the Christiā people? And into how deépe, and darkened doungeons hath he drowned our senses? Who albeit was rapt into the thyrd heauen, had not as yet conceaued this incomprehensible wisedome out of the very forgeshops of mysticall Philosophy? Belike he could not escry throughout all the heauens, this hidden secret, that men are not Iustified by workes, but are made righteous by the Fayth of the sonne of God, & so by fayth, that in no respect by workes: Finally that the especiall meanes and singular substaunce of our Iustification, is in this sorte to bee wayed, as that it may not be attayned els where then in Christ onely, nor by any o∣ther meanes, then through Fayth onely in Christ. But if S. Paule had not receaued this doctrine from heauen, or had not taught vs the doctrine which he receaued from thence, or if you for your part (Osorius) had disputed after this sort as ye teach now, in any Paynyme common wealth, or before any Ethnicke Philosophers, or amongest the Iewes or Turkes, it might happely haue come to passe (I suppose) that this your Aristo∣tlelike Iustice might haue obteined at the least some resem∣blaunce of truth, or perhappes crept into some credite: nay ra∣ther it is not to bee doubted, but if the Iewes them selues, or Turkes, were now consederate with you in Portingall, in the same Argument, they could not scarsely alledge any other proofes then you bryng forth vnto vs at this present, neither would, I thinke, expoūde y^e same in any other phrase of words, then your selfe do vse. But now, for as much as we contend not together in Tullies Tusculane questions, nor in his Academy∣call probabilities, nor in Platoes common wealth, nor in the

Iewishe Thalmude, ne yet in the Turkes Alcaron, but in the Churche of Iesu Christ: surely ye ought to haue regarded the place chiefly, where you were when ye wrate this: and to know how you ought to haue behaued your selfe, whē you were there: what doctrine you ought haue published in so great an Audito∣rie, what personage ye doe represent in your countrey, not the person of a common Ruffian (I suppose) but of a Byshop: ma∣ry now you haue played so the part of a very rascall vnder the visor of a Byshop (pardon me I pray you speakyng the truth) that no common barrettor, nor Rogish Ruffian could vomitte out more shamelesse scurrilitie. S. Paule doth so little esteéme the credite of any other Gospell, That hee holdeth him no better then accursed, yea though an Aungell from heauen doe bryng a contrary one to this same. And shall we beare with this collouer∣thwarte Osorius like a vice in a play, with a new founde chaū∣gelyng, to make myngle mangle with the sacred worde of the Lord? and with such vnsauorie subtelties, to peruert the pure, and vndefiled sinceritie of the Gospell of grace? and like a wild Boare, to moyle vp by the rootes, the florishyng and most plen∣tyfull Uynearde of our blessed felicitie planted by the Lord him selfe? If that blynd bussardly Owle eyes of your mynde (Oso∣rius) be as yet wrapped in so darkened a cloude, that this cleare light of the gracious mercy of God, shynyng from aboue, can not pearce into those dull dazeled senses, to seé the manifest light of the truth: it should yet haue bene much more seémely for you to haue comforted them, whom the holy Ghost had enabled with better grace to teache the truth, & so simply to haue yelded to the same: Truely it behoued you to haue quallified your rage, and vsed more modesty at the least, towardes them that did dissence from you. And if your selfe were not willyng to pursue the true pathe to heauen, ye should not yet haue foreclosed the entrye to o∣thers, that were willyng to enter in: And knowyng your owne disabilitie in teachyng, ye should yet more, shamefastly haue be∣wrayed your vnskilfulnes, and made some end once at the lēgth, or at the least reteyned some reasonable order, from that rascal∣lyke raylyng, and immeasurable insolencie: and not so wilfully haue rushed into such Tragicall exclamations, before you had bene better acquainted with the cause. But as now you tosse and

turmoyle your selfe in these questions as though ye were of some other profession, and a meére straunger to the matter: wherein you scarcely sauour any thyng at all, surely vnderstand so little, so coldly and senselesly, as no man more brutishly, and with all vse your selfe therein so disorderly and outragiously, as the very furies of Hell could not more horribly.

You must pardon me (Osorius) if I spake playnly, & franck∣ly as I thinke, wherein I will not speake as moued of malice, or of any melancholicke affectiō, agaynst your person: whom I wish well vnto truly, and beseéke God hartely, to graunt a more sound Iudgemēt. But I feare me (Osorius) least within this Osorius dwelleth some other guest besides Osorius, & hee not all the best perhappes, whatsoeuer he be, that doth continually teaze, and pricke foreward those busie braynes of yours, to poysoned and pestiferous deuises: of whom I wish you to be well assured (O∣sorius) if you loue your soules sauetie. But if wholesome Coū∣sell of a wellwiller shall litle preuayle with you. I would aduer∣tize the tender vnskilfull youth of the posterite in the bowels of Iesus Christ,* 1.103 that they take diligent beédefulnesse to the rea∣dyng of Osorius his bookes, left beyng allured with sweéte poy∣soned bayte, as with Mermaydes melody (do vse the wordes of S. Ierome) they bee hooked vnwares, and carryed away into delusions and errours. I know how plausible, and easie a mat∣ter it is to the Iudgement of the flesh, learnedly and plentyful∣ly to preach of the payse, and commēdation of vertue, or righ∣teousnesse, of the rules and preceptes of mans lyfe, of Ciuill gouernement, of polliticque Statutes and ordinaunces, and of the excellencie of lawes. And there happeneth not for the more part in any other Theame, a more swifter readynesse of speach, a more sensible sharpenesse of deuise, or more vsuall ad∣miration of worldlynges:* 1.104 Wherein many notable Rhetorici∣ans, & most subtill Philosophers heretofore haue thought best to employ their endeuours, and whole force for their eloquence, not without great commendation of witte, and singular prayse of ingenious inuention: whole laudable trauaile therein, I ought and can not chuse but accompt prayseworthy, as men that were desirous to emparte to the posteritie most worthy mo∣••umentes atchieued through excellencie of learnyng, and nym∣blenesse

of capacitie, and seuere pursuyng of vertue and vertu∣ous discipline, wherewith they were wouderfully beautified. But I returne to Osorius, whose diligence also in Imitation I doe commende, for that he hath made his choyse of such especi∣ally, after whom he may direct his Imitation. But whereas he doth nothyng els but affect their Heathenishenesse, I doe not onely not prayse him, but vtterly disallow and refuse his order of study herein. These men hauyng none other so commendable an exercize, wherein they might bestow their tyme, as by all meanes possible to beautifie the giftes and ornamentes of na∣ture, and to allure men thereby to honest and seémely Ciuilitie, did worthely deserue the prayse of that, whiche they so earnestly pursued. And therfore M. Tullius Cicero hath of right obtey∣ned the garland of an honest Citizen, and learned Philosopher: who bendyng all the powers of his excellent vnderstandyng, in blazyng the dueties and offices of mens lyfe, and defence of ver∣tue agaynst the beastly and swynish pleasures of Epicure, esteémed that matter worthy his study and trauaile. Wherein he be∣stowed such diligence and actiuitie of witte, as that him selfe did neuer better in any other Theame, nor any man els could haue handled the same more aboundauntly. And euen the same dyd he as then, accordyng to the necessitie of the present tyme, with singular learnyng: for as yet, besides the orderly course of na∣turall doctrine, were not any other preceptes of purer disci∣pline, extaunt amongest those Nations, wherein the fine and nymble wittes might exercize them selues. And therefore it was no maruell if hee beyng a man endued with wonderfull in∣stinct of nature, did embrace that thyng, as the chiefest felicitie, worthy whereupon he might discourse, and whiche he sawe to be most notable, and had in greatest prize amongest all the workes of Nature: neither could rayse his mynde beyonde the limites of Nature, nor stretche out the force of his capicitie, further then to that outward righteousnesse, obteyned by speciall pur∣suite of vertue.

But now as the state of the tyme is altered from that which was then, so haue we now receaued an other Schoolemaister frō heauen, whose Maiestie, as surmounteth in glory all worldly state & condition, so his doctrine being not straighted within the

boundes of Nature, doth disclose vnto vs thynges farre passing the reach of all Nature, whose Scholer you ought to haue bene (Osorius) especially sithence ye be aduaūced to so high dignitie in the Church: for we haue receaued now not a M. Cicero play∣eng the Rhetoriciā in his Tusculane walkes, but the very sonne of God him selfe from out the bosome of the Father, who beyng sent downe into the earth may teach vs, not the hidden secretes of mans Philosophye,* 1.105 but make discernable the will of his Fa∣ther vnto vs: not define by reason, distinguish by Arte, and pro∣pose in order the Morall principles of prophane Phisolophye, (albeit he doth describe the same many tymes as occasion is of∣fred) but commeth forth with farre higher mysteries, instru∣structing vs of the kyngdome of God, of eternall life, and of true and euerlastyng felicitie, neither instructyng vs onely, but by his doctrine powryng also the same blessednesse into vs: obtey∣ned it by his death, confirmed it with his rising agayne, doth dispose it by his dayly raignyng ouer vs, doth enseale it vnto vs by his Sacraments, and promiseth it in his word. To conclude doth geue the same felicitie of his owne liberatie without all re∣spect of reward freély, to all that beleue vpon his name. Now therfore, since the tyme is altered, & the Schoolemaister chaun∣ged, the order of doctrine must likewise neédes be chaunged: not bycause we reiect those things in meane whiles as vtterly false, which the auncient Philosophers did in tymes past deliuer vn∣to vs, teachyng the preceptes of orderly liuyng, wherof you de∣bated earst concerning good maners and godly actions: But by∣cause the Euangelicall Philosophye doth call vs higher to farre deéper mysteries, the doctrine whereof consisteth in greater and better rudiments: Our study therfore must haue regarde to an other marke: That is to say. We must not onely learne serious∣ly to know, how to direct the course of this transitory lyfe, but also,* 1.106 by what meanes we may attayne euerlastyng lyfe: not how much our righteousnesse auayleth in the sight of men, but what thyng doth Iustifie vs in the sight of God. You beyng addicted altogether to the rules of your old Maister of Ethnicke Philo∣sophy, heape together many good and commendable preceptes of perfect righteousnesse, wherein you are not so much to be mis∣liked: But in that ye doe nothyng els but the selfe same thyng,

whereof they haue treated much more cunnyngly and plentyful∣ly before your tyme,* 1.107 as Cicero in his bookes of Offices, Aristo∣tle in his Ethickes, Plato in his bookes De Legibus, and many other learned men in their bookes likewise: herein surely you cā not be excusable nor voyde of blame: not bycause you agreé with them in those good preceptes, whereof they dispute well, but by∣cause you are so fast tyed to their opinions, that ye skippe away from Christ, and obstinately resist his Gospell: not bycause you Imitate them whom we accompt to be learned, the ensuyng of whole studious industry we do not neglect, but for that you do so much Imitate the prophane writers, as that ye seéme to doe no∣thyng els then Imitate thē, as though with Paganes you would become a professed Pagane: & for that disputyng so carefully of righteousnesse and good workes, ye make stay, and rest your selfe wholy there, from whence you ought haue stept a degreé further, and pursued the better way to higher mysteries, and matters of greater importaunce.* 1.108 And as though there were no difference betwixt Morall Philosophy and Christian Diuinitie, ye so racke all thynges to the practize of vertue, and pursuyng the perfect plotte of righteousnesse: and (with I know not how huge a heape or wordes) blaze out vnto vs a certeine absolute portraite of in∣nocencie (whereof happely ye can painte some shewe or shadowe in your bookes, better then expresse in your conuersation.) And yet are we not so much displeased with that imaginatiue deuise how∣soeuer deuised and engrauen by you. For we know, and doe con∣fesse together with you (Osorius) & all the whole secte of auncient Philosophers, that there is nothyng more beautyfull amongest all the actions of mans lyfe, then vertue: and nothyng of more e∣stimation then righteousnesse: and do withall as hartely, and ear∣nestly, as you wishe and desire, that this integritie of life might be throughly emprinted in all mens maners, and conuersation, ] whereof you finde so great a mayme, and want in these new Ges∣pellers. But will you heare agayne Osorius?* 1.109 This integritie of innocent and vndefiled lyfe, whiche you require so earnestly, yet performe nothyng lesse, will we, will we, is lost long agoe, not in you or in me onely, but in the whole nature of mankynd general∣ly also, and so altogether lost that it can neuer by any meanes be restored with good life, but by beleéuyng onely.

But you will say. That this righteousnesse though alto∣gether lost in vs, may bee restored through the grace and boūtie of Christ, and so many times is restored in the faith∣full. Ueryly I would graunt vnto you as much as ye speake (Osorius) if you would either aptly define that Grace,* 1.110 whereof ye make mention, or rightly distinguish that rigthteousnesse. For it is not to be doubted, but that the comfortable Grace of Christ doth purchase vnto vs perfect Righteousnesse.* 1.111 But this Righte∣ousnesse (if ye will know it good Syr) consisteth not in that which we doe procure by well doyng, but in that which by onely forge∣uyng is not Imputed. Wherefore all that Righteousnesse and blessednesse whatsoeuer is in vs, is grounded rather vpon the re∣mission of sinnes, then vpon any vertuous workes. Will you heare the summe of all your felicitie described vnto vs, and knit vp in few wordes, in the mysticall Psalme, and mentioned by the recitall of the Apostle?* 1.112 Blessed are they (sayth he) whose sinnes are forgeuen, and whose Iniquities are couered, blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not Imputed his offences. Psal. 31. Further∣more whō that Mysticall melodious Psalmiste doth call blessed, the same man onely Bernarde doth denounce to be blessed, mea∣nyng thereby the same thyng in deéde, which is most true, that there is no meane nor ayde from whence mā may hope for eter∣nall felicitie, besides this onely and alone. Why so? Ueryly by∣cause the whole Nature of mankynde is so ouerwhelmed with sinne, that vnlesse the continuall mercy of God dyd preuent vs, winkyng at our wickednesse, who (I praye you) could stand in Iudgement? not I. No, nor yet your selfe Osorius. For we haue all sinned, and we all haue neede of the glory of God. And yet not∣withstandyng through his onely mercy pardoning vs, our offen∣ces are in the case as though they neuer had bene committed, wherein if you, beyng an old raynebeaten souldiour, dare not geue credite to our new Gospell: Let it not loathe you yet at the least to heare Bernarde him selfe, a witnesse both of our Gospel, and of our Iudgement herein: who albeit is reported not to haue seéne all things, yet did discerne this perfectly enough. For thus he speaketh. Whatsoeuer he hath decreéd not to Impute,* 1.113 is as though it neuer were: & hereunto addeth an other saying which I would wish you to note aduisedly.

Not to sinne is the Righte∣ousnesse

of God, but the righteousnesse of man is the mercyfull indulgence of God. And the same sentence hee doth reiterate a∣gayne in an other place in the selfe same wordes, or at least doth cōfirme it with wordes not very much differēt from y^e same. For the sinne (sayth he) that is committed can not be vndone, and yet if God doe not Impute the same, it shalbe as though it neuer were done. &c.

Surely if the sinne shall not be accompted sinne that hath bene committed, no more shall the Sinner bee taken for a Sinner that hath committed the sinne. And so it follow∣eth necessaryly hereupon, that he must neédes be righteous and blessed. Whereby you do perceaue (I suppose) from whence all this sappe or iuyce of our Righteousnesse and Saluation sprin∣geth, not out of the workes of our righteousnesse, which is none at all, but from the onely meére mercy of Gods freé pardon, as hath bene declared by the testimony of Bernarde.

Or if the authoritie of Bernarde cā not obteine so much cre∣dite with you, yet let the Fayth of Basile, Augustine, Origene and Ierome persuade you, or their auncientie moue you, for I perceaue that you are much delighted with antiquitie. And first what cā be more notable then the wordes of Basile?* 1.114

For he that trusteth not to his owne good wordes, neither looketh to be iusti∣fied by the deseruyng of good deédes, all his hope of saluation he reposeth onely in the meéte mercy of almightie God.

* 1.115I will adioyne vnto him a companion of the same iudgemēt and auncientie, that notable Clarcke Origene.

Bycause all thynges (sayth he) are concluded vnder sinne, therfore mans sal∣uation consisteth not in merites of workes but in the freé mercy of God.

Neither doth S. Augustine differre from them, who treatyng of y^e ende of the last Iudgement seémeth to haue setled all the hope of our sauetie in the onely mercy of God:* 1.116 God will crown vs (sayth he) in the end of the world with mercy and com∣passions: Yeldyng the same in the Latine toung almost, which Basile before him dyd expresse most manifestly in the Greéke toung in this wise.* 1.117 There is Iudgemēt not without mercy by∣cause here is no such man to bee founde pure and immaculate without some spotte of sinne, yea though hee be an Infante dy∣eng the same day that he is borne.

And agayne the same Augu∣stine in his booke De Ciuitate Dei. 19. booke and 27. Chapter,* 1.118

purposing to declare, what accompt may be made of our righ∣teousnes in this transitory life, affirmeth it to be such, as ought, rather to be valued by the forgeuenesse of sinnes, then by perfe∣ction of vertues. And agayne the same Augustine in his first booke of Retractations. 19. Chap.* 1.119

All the Commaundementes (sayth hee) are then reputed to be performed, when that whiche is left vndone is pardoned. And I know not whether Ierome haue declared y^e same more euidently,* 1.120 who referryng all thyngs to the freé mercyfulnesse of God forgeuyng vs, speaketh in this wise. In Christ Iesu our Lord in whom we haue our hope, ac∣cesse, and affiaunce by the faith of him, not by our righteousnes, but by him, through whose fayth our sinnes are forgeuen vs.

But why doe I stand so long vpon a matter that ought to be without all cōtrouersie? when as the generall consent and agreément of all learned Authours and antiquitie, can not be founde more constaunt, nor for the more part more consonaunt, in any one thyng so much, as in this. The matter therefore beyng so playne, it remayneth that of two meére contraries, we allow the one, and vtterly forsake y^e other; that is to say: either that, which you doe cauill, touchyng righteousnesse or els that, which they doe teache vs touchyng Gods gracious forbearyng. For these two are farre different eche from other, and can not be admitted both: for it righteousnesse be obteyned by integritie of workes, then what neéde haue we of any further forgeuenesse? But if this come vnto us by the onely freé benignitie of the forgeuer. I be∣seé you then for the loue ye beare to your Myter, where is now that integritie of workes? that vprightenesse that may make our righteousnesse perfect? For as farre as I can gesse, pardon is not geuen to well deseruynges, but reward rather offred as of duety: Neither can it be truely sayd: That pardon must be cra∣ued where no offence is committed. But ye will say paraduen∣ture, that some imperfections doth lurcke secretly in our deédes, though they be wrought by the grace of God, which yet wanteth the mercyfulnesse of God. It is well sayd truely. And why then doth your darkyng penne so cruelly rage agaynst Luther? Who franckely & of his own accorde doth professe the selfe same thing, though in other wordes, which you are driuē by force to yeld vn∣to, whether ye will or no. That is to say: That our deédes are

vnperfect, lame, blynd, naked and so altogether barren and hun∣gry, that vnlesse they bee clothed and vpholden by the mercy of freé pardon, no defence wilbe pleadeable before the Iudgement seate of God: and shalbe accompted rather in place of sinnes, then seéme to deserue any reward of vertue. If ye be not satisfied with these testimonies, but will obstinately persiste in this your opinion still: that our workes may be so absolutely perfect as to deserue: I beseéch you make proofe therof by some reasonable authoritie, either vouched out of holy Scriptures, or out of some approued auncient Authours: And if ye can make no soūd proofe in that behalfe, deale yet somewhat more soberly with vs. For these your reproches, rebukes, lyes, scoldynges, out∣cries, spyttynges, cursinges, glorious & hauty speaches, and tri∣flyng wordes make nothyng to the purpose. On the other part, if ye can neither make proofe vnto vs of this perfect Righteous∣nesse of workes by any demonstration of your owne workes: nor any mā els besides you dare presume to offer him selfe in iudge∣ment to tryed by his workes, what els doe ye, in chargyng Lu∣ther so sharpely, when ye so condemne him for a franticke, and braynesicke mā: Then Tertullus did sometyme, accusing Paul to bee a seditous person? sauyng that he accused Paule but at one tyme, once: and your penne vomityng out nothyng els be∣sides furies, frensies, and madnes of Luther, doth so continu∣ally crawle in ragyng by degreés, as will seéme neuer to make any ende at all thereof, vntill ye bryng your selfe amongest the Iewes at the last, and crye out as they did, Crucifige vpon him, Crucifige vpon him.

* 1.121Iob a most vpright lyuear did stand in doubtfull feare of all the workes of his life. Esay the Prophet doth cōpare all our righ∣teousnesse to a foule menstruous cloth. Christ him selfe doth pro∣nounce that all our endeuours and workes are vnprofitable. Paule as it were loathyng the remembraunce of his owne righteous∣nes,* 1.122 how glorious so euer his works appeared, yet did adiudge them so farre distaunt from true righteousnesse, that hee estee∣med them no better then doung. Dauid durst not presume to en∣ter into Iudgement with God.* 1.123 Augustine feareth that if God be∣hold his workes he shall finde more offences then merites:* 1.124 and "if he shall deale with vs accordyng to our desertes, he shall finde

nothyng in vs but damnable. Ierome doth so call vs backe frō all confidence in our deédes,* 1.125 that he boldly pronounceth that, if we cōsider them in their own nature we should vtterly dispayre. What? and may it not be lawfull for Luther to vtter his mynde with Christ? with the godly Prophetes? with the holy Apostles, with the learned auncient Fathers? Are they commēded in the old Gospell for that they spake well, and shall Luther, Melan∣cthon, Bucer, and Caluin•• be reproched in scoffyng wise, with a new foūde name of new Gospellers, bycause they thinke, and speake the selfe same thyng that they did? If Luther were such a kynde of felow as would take part with Epicure,* 1.126 and would practize to let louse the reynes to voluptuousnes, turning mens myndes vpsidowne, and carry them away quyte from vertuous endeuour, from loue of godlynesse, from their duetie, and honest trade of godly lyfe, to lust and licentiousnesse, and would place all mans felicitie in this corruptible body, and the vayne tick∣lyng delightes therof: it were not altogether from the purpose that ye speake (Osorius) nor you should be much blamed for ma∣kyng him companion with Epicure: neither would I refrayne my penne (so Christ helpe me) but would inueigh agaynst him with all my power as sharpely as your selfe. But peruse now all Luthers bookes, searche, sift, consider and ponder all Luthers writynges, all his exhortations, his doctrine, his Lessons, his Sermons, and all his imaginations: yea prye narrowly into his lyfe and conuersation: if you can shewe out of all these, I will not say one place, or example, but one worde or sillable so much, which doth sounde agaynst the loue, and practize of ver∣tue, which may seéme to rende the sinowes of righteousnesse and holynesse, or breéde dislikyng to the embracyng therof: or which doe bruyse the fruites of good workes, weaken serious trauaile, breake of honest industry, or hinder godly enterprises from do∣yng well, or by any maner of meanes doe extenuate the feare due to the lawes of God and man. Finally where he may seéme to thinke lesse then may bee seéne a perfect Deuine: or behaue him selfe more dissolutely in his maners, thē he resembleth in honest iudgement: Nay rather if he do not employ all the care possible to rayse vp all men in euery place, to the dewe feare of Gods law, to true obedience, and to all honest conuersation, and ear∣nestly

emprinte into the sight and myndes of all men, the re∣nowne, dignitie and worthynesse of vertue, pic••e and godlynes, you shall haue the Conquest.

* 1.127But euen the same thyng (say you) Epicurus did. I con∣fesse that to be true Osorius, which ye reporte of Epicurus, and which you haue very finely pyked out of your M. Cicero.* 1.128 Who doth deny in his thyrd booke of Tusculane questions. That Epi∣curus was Authour of any voluptuous sentences, and with all sayth, that he vttered many and soudry notable sayinges seéme∣ly enough for a true Philosopher: But what doe ye conclude hereof? Epicurus doth commende vertue in some place. Luther doth also the lyke. Ergo, Luther is an Epicurean.* 1.129 Why doe ye not also conclude agaynst S. Paule that hee is an Epicurean, bycause he doth also the selfe same thyng. O rare and singular sharpe witted Chrisippus: whiche if had not altogether beéne nooseled in his old Gospell, could neuer haue knitte such knots together of meére particular propositiōs: neither would this wō∣derfull Logician haue euer coupled Luther with Epicurus. But bycause Osorius hath borowed this Argument out of Cicero, we will open his iugglyng boxe in fewe wordes: and first of all shew what Cicero speaketh, next how west this Ciceroniā doth agreé with Cicero. And first as concernyng Cicero. Whenas he maketh mētion of Epicurus sentēces, he doth not reprehend the quicknesse and nymblenes of his witte: but rather prayseth him therfore: onely he noteth the scope and end of his doctrine. Neither doth he condēne those sentēces which Epicurus spake well, but bycause he did so define chief Felicitie, as though it cō∣sisted onely in voluptuousnes, herein he founde fault with him, and not without cause. For Epicurus amongest other his say∣inges wrate in this maner. That mans lyfe could not be plea∣saunt if it were not ioyned with vertue: he denyed that fortune was of any such force, as to apall the courage of a wise man: That the meane lyfe of the poore, was better then the riche. He denyed also that there was any wise man, but the same was al∣so happy. Truely all those sayings are worthely spoken by him as Tully him selfe reporteth. Now let vs see what Argument our Ciceroes Ape will shape out of all this.

* 1.130And Luther (sayth hee) doth offer the same order per∣happes

exhorte his Auditory in his writyngs and Sermons to the same dueties of lyfe. &c. If Luther doe so (Osorius) he doth very well. What then? will you finde fault with this? No, but as Epicurus disputyng sometymes gloriously of vertue,* 1.131 did notwithstandyng with his preceptes vtterly wipe away vertue, euen with lyke craftie conueyaunce Luther doth subuerte and ouerthrowe all dueties of vertue and godly∣nesse. Speake out Parrotte, in what place doth Luther sub∣uerte the dueties of vertue? Where doth hee blotte out honesty and godly carefulnesse of good men? May this be tollerable in you, with slaūders, and lyes, to deface the good name of a man, that neuer deserued it, who is also dead? to condemne his wri∣tynges? & after you haue geuen him a most cruell wounde, to be so voyde of all reason, as to be vnable to alledge one Title, one place, one sillable so much of iust accusation wherfore ye should so do? Nor make your slaunderous reproches to carry any shew of truth? let vs throughly peruse the begynnynges of Luthers doctrine, the proceédyng and dayly increasinges therof, let vs sift out the ende, and the whole course and purporte of his pro∣ceédyng, what? doth he forth with plucke vp the rootes of vertue, which abateth the Affiaunce of mans workes? and ascribeth all our saluation to the onely bountie and mercy of God? Which doth likewise affirme that the workes of the Saintes in this world, if they be examined to the vttermost pricke, are not able to counteruaile Gods wrath, nor satisfie his iudgement? but preacheth that of all partes they neéde mercy, directyng vs in the meane whiles to the true marke of assured Confidence? is this man to be coupled with Epicurus, as though hee should be Authour of the ouerthrow of all honesty? or rather shal he be ad∣iudged a good Phisition of the Soule? as one that doth minister wholesome medicine agaynst poysoned errours?

But you will inueigh to the contrary. That if that maner of doctrine be admitted wherof Luther is Authour,* 1.132 then will all studious care of pietie decay, and hauocke will bee made of all godly endeuour, and licentious liberty will be made free for all estates. In deéde this may happely chaunce amōgest some persons: for what cā be so well spoken at any tyme, or so circumsplectly handled, but that the malice of the wicked will

take thereof euill occasion to wrest to their filthy lust? So in the tyme of Paules preachyng, there wanted not peruerse peo∣ple, which in like maner tooke occasion to slaunder his doctrine with his owne wordes:* 1.133 videl. Let vs doe euill that good may come thereof. There were also some whiche were not ashamed to say, that Paule did destroy the law, & did geue to much scope to libertie. Of that kynde of people Peter doth cōplayne, which w^t sinister deuises practized to wrest Paules writyngs crooked∣ly to their own confusiō. Shall not good men therfore frequent his Epistles? Euen by the same Reason (Osorius) let not flow∣ers grow in the spryng tyde, bycause the Spyder doth aswell sucke poyson out of them, as the Beés matter to make theyr honnycombe. But if so bee that, when good men doe geue ver∣tuous and necessary exhortation of those thynges, whiche they do thinke worthy to be embraced, accordyng to their duety, and profession of their fayth, wicked men in the meane space starte vp betwene, whiche will abuse the same good thynges to their owne destruction, is this the fault of the teacher, or rather the fallax of the accident, as Logicians do terme it?

* 1.134Many persons (say you) do take occasion of wicked con∣fidence and vnpunishable libertie through that new Gos∣pell of Luther. But many on the contrary part do receaue frō the same very comfortable consolation, and finde them selues thereby to be much more pricked foreward to pursue godlynesse with more carefulnesse. If Luther teach the truth, shall not his doctrine therfore be published bycause wicked men doe abuse it? But if you thinke his Assertions to be erronious: Why do not you (O Thales I pray you) vouchsafe to prescribe, as becom∣meth the fulnesse of your wisedome, some pretie rules of soun∣der doctrine, whereunto Luther might more safely haue direc∣ted his opinions?* 1.135 I beleue that he should by your aduise, haue associated him selfe with the Schoolemen and Monckes, and with that sacred Inquisitiō of Spayne, and vsed these kyndes of speaches, videl. That the kyngdome of heauen is a due re∣ward for our good workes, if it were not, we should otherwise be vncerteine thereof. Bycause that which is of duetie is most assured, but that proceédeth from mercy is vncerteine. Or els ye will require perhappes that he should teach vs as your Ho∣sius

doth preach,* 1.136 who doth affirme that euerlastyng Saluation is obteyned by deseruinges proceédyng from the grace of God. Or els as our Osorius doth:* 1.137 Who calleth faith onely, to be one∣ly rashnesse, & boldly pronounceth that all the meanes and wor∣thynesse of our Saluation consisteth in righteousnesse, not that righteousnesse whiche we receaue by imputation from Christ through fayth: but that same, which euery mā maketh peculiar to him selfe, by his owne purchase, through workes. Or els as the Schoolemen of your old Gospell do professe, who bablyng very much about Iustification, haue decreéd at the length, that it must be taken two maner of wayes: one way which is obtey∣ned before any workes be done, through grace geuen freély as they say,* 1.138 as in Infantes beyng Regenerated by Baptisme. The other in elder yeares, through great store and perfectiō of workes: That is to say, through the resistyng of the froath & en∣ticementes of sinne, & dayly subduyng therof: which they call in their phrase of speach, Grace making acceptable, or acceptyng Grace. And although good workes doe not bryng to passe that first Iustification, yet they do geue the second maner of Iustifi∣eng, the grace of God workyng together with the same: which doth minister strength sufficient as well to worke stoutly, as to striue agaynst the very stynges and prickes of the flesh effectu∣ally: so that it may not onely be possible to lyue cleare frō dead∣ly sinne, but also to atteine to be Iustified, pe•• Congruum & Con∣dignum.* 1.139 You knowe well enough these fayre flowers Osorius (if I be not deceaued) and glorious speculatiōs of your old Di∣uinitie: Whiche how agreably seéme to accorde with your old Gospell I know not: Sure I am that Christ neuer knew this Gospell: the Apostles neuer taught it, nor the Euāgelistes, no, nor the approued auncient Catholicke Fathers had euer any smatche thereof. Nay rather Christ, Paule, the Apostles and Euāgelistes, and auncient Doctours of the Church when soe∣uer they treated of Saluation, and of lyfe euerlastyng, do en∣deuour nothyng more seriously, thē that (seueryng our workes from the cause of Iustification altogether) they might dispoyle vs wholy of Confidence of our owne sauetie, and so referre vs ouer to the onely mercy of God, who onely geueth the kyng∣dome of heauen, not for any our deseruynges, but for his pro∣mise

sake onely. But we haue sayd enough herein. Let vs now proceéde to other cauillatiōs of this troublesome trifler though it be somewhat greéuous, and as neare as we may, if we cā not all, yet let vs briefly and orderly cut of the toppes of them.

* 1.140There is no man that will geue him selfe to any good workes if he haue once heard Luther for his Schoolemai∣ster. &c. Whereas Luther doth not take vpon him the person of a Schoolemaister, nor hath challenged to him selfe the digni∣tie of high deske, nor euer taught any Schooles of new factiōs, nor euer lead any trayne of Scholers, but amōgest other Chri∣stians followed alwayes Christ the common Schoolemaister: And was neuer knowen to haue vttered any other doctrine, thē that whiche he receaued of Christ, what should moue this qua∣rellsome Doc••or to reproch him with this enuious title of mai∣ster? Many good and vertuous men haue heard Luthers prea∣chyng, but no man (as I suppose) acknowledged him for his Maister. For that neéded not, for through all Christendome, in Uniuersities and common Schooles, are whole droues of Mai∣sters scattered abroad, as though they dropped out of the Troi∣ane horse. Whom we doe heare also, whē they teach, what they teach. I will not here stand to discusse: nor I make any estimate thereof. The Christians did sometymes heare the Scribes, and Phariseés teachyng in Moyses chayre, neither doth the A∣postle forbyd vs:* 1.141 But that may take a tast of all doctrines, but pet so tast them, as we hold fast nothyng but that which is good. If Luther teach any doctrine of his owne imaginatiō, him selfe refuseth to be beleued therin: but if the teach y^e doctrine of Christ, and those thynges, which he hath sucked out of the sweéte iuyce of Christes Gospell: I beseeche you Syr, doth he therfore pro∣fesse him selfe a Maister to Scholers? or a Scholer rather to his Maister Christ? And therfore this scornefull title of schoole∣maister wherewith ye reproche him, is a scoffe more fitte for a common Ruf••ian, then a Deuine: surely altogether vncomely and vnseémely for a Byshop.

* 1.142But whereas ye pronounce that Luthers Auditory haue not geuen them selues to any good workes. How know you this to bee true? For I am assured that in Porting all and in Spayne good prouiso is made, that no mā be so hardy to touch

any of Luthers bookes: if you referre your Assertion to Eng∣land or Germany: I doe not a litle marueile how this monstru∣ous Spynx can cast his eyes ouer so many Seas, so many high mountaines, and so great distauuce of Countreys, and so curi∣ously behold the lyues of men? and prye so precisely into their maners? vnlesse some Phebus haue cloured vpon this Mydas head not the eares of Osorius, but the eares of some lolleared Asse, in the truncke wherof he may catche euery blast whatsoe∣uer, any where blowen abroad or deuised in secrete, through the reportes of whisperyng Talebearers: & like a credulous soole beleue the same forthwith. But howsoeuer those Lutheranes in Englād and in Germany do exercise them selues in no good workes, it goeth very well in the meane tyme with Porting all and Spayne that men lyue there holy and Angellike. For I do beleue surely that men in those Countreys do so glytter in since∣ritie of life and brightenes of vertues, that their very shadowes do shyne in the darke, and glyster more lyke Aungels then men, that they are such men as plante their feéte no where, but that they leaue behynd thē a certeine wonderfull fragrant sauour of modestie, curtesie & singular chastitie, & so make the very hea∣uens in loue with their puritie, & sweétenes of their vertues.

But goe to Osorius tell vs at the length a good fellowshyp what the cause should be, that such as doe geue eare to Luther will not apply them selues to doe good workes? Truely I sup∣pose, that bycause he teacheth, that mē are Iustified in the sight of God by fayth onely and not by workes, therfore it must be an infallible consequent: That whosoeuer attende to Luthers do∣ctrine will forthwith abandone all thought to lyue vertuously, and yeld him selfe carelesly ouer to all idlenesse and filthynesse. As though with honest and well disposed persons fatherly cle∣mencie shall cause the children to be sluggish to do their duties? or as though the voyce of mercy doth at once vtterly abolish all Morall vertues? To what ende therefore doth Christ so much not commende vnto vs that fatherly affection in the mercyfull father mentioned in the Gospell towardes his prodigall sonne: but also painte him out vnto vs for an example? if that doctrine of the freé mercyfulnesse of God be not true, or if it be true, that it ought not therefore be published, bycause many vnchast and

corrupt persons will abuse the same? Nay rather why ought net y^e truth of God of greater reason be generally and openly preached, for the necessary comfort of the godly? Neither beho∣ueth vs to be inquisitiue how much this doctrine doth worke in certeine particular men, but rather to know, how true this do∣ctrine is of it selfe. And accordyng as we doe finde the same to be true and constant, so to preach the same, accordyng to the ca∣pacitie of the hearers.

* 1.143But Osorius doth vrge vs agayne with threé Argumentes chiefly as it were with a threé square battell, & lyke a threé hea∣ded Cerberus doth rushe vpon Luther with threé sondry as∣sautes, attemptyng to proue by his Logicke, that this Luther of whom we speake, doth ex••irpe and roote out all vertue, hone∣stie, and godly endeuour. First by his disablyng of workes,* 1.144 se∣condly through desperation of honestie,* 1.145 thirdly, by Confidence of false righteousnesse.* 1.146 In threé wordes as it were threé lyes. And first of all touchyng Desperation and Cōfidence, I thinke we haue spoken enough before: where we haue so proued both to be falsely imputed to Luther, as that we doe yet acknowledge them both in Luther.* 1.147 For Luther doth describe Cōfidence, but the same which is the true Confidence: he teacheth also Despe∣ration, I confesse it: but the same very comfortable: And there∣in teacheth nothyng els, but the same, that the Euāgelistes, and Apostles haue alwayes taught. For what can be more true, and assure•• Confidence, or more comfortable Desperation, or more ••onson unt with the Gospell of Iesu Christ and his Apostles, then that we beyng in full dispaire of the righteousnesse of our owne workes, doe shroude our selues wholy vnder the mercy of Christ and in his freé bounty and elemency? That is to say, not in workes, whiche the grace of Christ hath wrought in vs, but for vs? As touchyng the brablyng that he maketh about the de∣spising of good workes, by what Logicke will hee proue his ca∣uillatiō? And now pause here a whiles (good Reader) & note the passing pearcyng witte, nurtured not in y^e Schoole of Stoicke Philosophy, but nooseled by rather I suppose in some swynesty.

Luther doth strippe our merites and workes naked frō all Confidence.

Ergo, Luther rendeth in peeces the very sinewes of all

godlines, setteth at nought and vtterly abolisheth all the efficacie and dignitie of good workes.

And though Osorius haue not placed his wordes after this order, yet the bent of his conclusion tendeth to the same effect. For what did Luther els in all his writynges and Sermons, but cut of all hope of workes, and so by that meanes allure vs to take ankerhold in the onely ayde & helpe of the Mediatour? if this be the waye to choake vp vertue, and to bury her vnder groūde, I confesse that Luther was an abolisher of vertue, and S. Paule also as well as he.

But Osor. doth many tymes deny this Assertion of the Lu∣therans to be true, that our righteousnes & hope of our salua∣tion so depēdeth vpō Christ, as that y^e same should be Imputed to vs of God, & accoūted our own by Imputatiō through fayth onely. For he supposeth this way to be ouer easie, and that it will hereof come to passe,* 1.148 that no man wilbe carefull, stu∣dious or desirous to accomplish any good worke. In deéde I thinke Osorius is of the mynde of many persons, whiche vn∣lesse be continually beaten, & pricked foreward, lyke dull Oxen with goades and cudgels, will neuer yeld their bodies to la∣bour, but forced as it were with threatenynges and stripes, are drawen to the yoke quyte agaynst their willes. But this neuer happeneth in natures of mylde and good disposition: but rather the contrary: so as by le••••ie and remembraūce of receaued be∣nefites they are rather encouraged chearefully to doe their du∣ties. The bountifulnesse of almighty God is not to be measu∣red after the proportion of mans imagination. Neither ought we regarde how the wicked doe interprete thereof: but rather what Christ doth cōmaunde to be preached: how much the will of God will permitte: and what thynges true discipline will al∣low of. I know that there hath bene euer great store, and that we shall neuer want to great a number of that sorte of people, which will wickedly abuse all thynges, that otherwise of their owne nature ought chiefly bee embraced. Neither is it reason to defraude vertuous personages of their right, for the abuses of euill and peruerse disposed persons. Yet such is the maner of of Osorius disputation, as though no man could be founde that would amende his life, or embrace godlynes at the preachyngs

of the Gospell. And as though nothyng ensued therof els, but vnbrideled licentiousnesse and outragious boldnesse, to rushe and range headlong into all vnpunishable libertie and lust, the decay and ouerthrowe of all vertue, the subuersion and drow∣nyng of all godly discipline, finally the very sinke and recepta∣cle of all abhomination, whiche as is most falsely belyed vpon him, so I can not yet gesse, to what end it is alledged, vnlesse he meane thereby to persuade vs to abandone and banish the prea∣chyng of the freé mercy of the Gospell, and so to slide backe a∣gayne to old Iewishnesse with the Scribes and Phariseés,marg 1.149 and that in steéde of Christ & Paule, Moyses may rule ouer our con∣sciences agayne, & Cicero may be preached in our Churches. Truely this is the marke that Osorius, or rather in Osorius the auncient enemy of mankyng seémeth to shoot at: who hauyng now spent all his shot and pouder, vnable at the last to enfeéble or resiste the glory of Christ any longer, practizeth by subtill engynes of crafty lyeng and slaunderous cauillations to vn∣dermyne, and batter his doctrine, and to bryng this deuise to passe, findeth none so fitte an instrument as Osorius chief cham∣pion of his garde. I haue now set out vnto theé (gentle Reader) the substaūce of Osorius Diuinitie, the grauitie of his doctrine, and the forme of his accusation. Whereby thou mayest perceaue the poysoned fistula, whereof he would empeache Luther. For this is his practize, to enduce men to beleue, that Luther doth teach extreme Desperation, boldnesse to sinne, and contempt of good workes. Now remaineth to discusse by the sequele of his discourse, what force of Argumentes and sleight of deuise he is furnished withall to mainteine his challenge.

* 1.150And therefore Paule doth not in any wise promise inhe∣ritaunce of the kyngdome of heauen to those persons who rest them selues vpon the onely fayth of Luther, but vnto them which do exercize them selues in good workes, and do direct all their labour and trauaile, to set forth the glory of Christ through the whole course of their lyfe. &c. In one sentence two euident lyes: the one imagined agaynst Luther, y^e other deuilishly deuised agaynst S. Paule. First of all wher∣as hee burtheneth Luther to be the founder of this doctrine of Onely Fayth:* 1.151 it is as false, as there is no truth in Osori. mouth.

In deéde Luther wrate much touchyng Fayth onely, but neither he alone, nor he the first: nor taught he other doctrine, then ma∣ny famous Doctours of aūcient antiquitie did teache besides him: Who did not onely excell him farre in learnyng, but ly∣ued many hundred yeares before he was borne. And namely a∣mongest all other S. Paule: who through all his whole Epi∣stles, doth with a wonderfull vehemencie harpe (as it were) al∣wayes vpō this one string, That true righteousnes cōmeth to no man by the law, nor by the workes of the law, but through the fayth of Christ freely, without workes, and so without workes (as it hath often bene spoken before) that if any mā will take hold of workes, he is excludeth forthwith from Fayth.* 1.152

But Osorius will say. That no mention is made any where in S. Paule of this exclusiue word Onely. Whereupon these Lutherans doe stand so much. In Letters perhaps, as you say Osorius or in sillables: But why prye we after sillables, when we hold the substaunce of the worde? or to what purpose striue we about wordes, when we are assured of the matter? First of all I suppose no man will deny, but that Paule doth denounce men to be Iustified by fayth. Now hee that doth tye righteous∣nesse so fast to fayth, that he vtterly abandoneth the law, and all the workes of the law from Iustification, what doth he meane els thereby (though he professe it not in bare wordes) then that fayth is the chief, yea and onely foundation and builder of Iu∣stification? vsing herein the very same rule, that Logicians doe vse in their Schooles, framyng a sounde & probable Argument from the proposition Exponent,* 1.153 to the Exclusiue. Euen as if a man disputyng with you would proue by Argument. That Christ is the knowen and assured head of the Churche, would argue thus: that besides Christ, is none other head of the whole Church vpon earth. I beseéch you Syr, what meaneth he elles that argueth so, then that Christ onely ought to be acknowled∣ged the head of the whole Church?

If it be so: that this word Onely,* 1.154 seéme so haynous to you, and others of your fraternitie, that it may not be admitted, as in a∣ny respect tolerable, yet can ye not accuse Luther for the same, but you must withall endite guiltie of the same crime, the best and most approued Doctours and interpretours of elder age,

who to expresse the meanyng of y^e Apostles doctrine more liue∣ly, haue not onely accustomed them selues sundry tymes to this word Onely in their Commentaries, but also deliuered the same to the posteritie to be vsually frequented: so that Luther now shalbe founde to coyne no new thyng herein, but rather make report of the studious carefulnesse, and carefull trauaile of the auncient Father in this behalfe.

And first of all we will begyn with Ambrose, vnto whom I pray you geue eare what he writeth herein: who as it were one of the same number whō Osorius doth reproch to be wholy bent to this doctrine of Luther, many hundred yeares before the name of Luther was knowen,* 1.155 hath written in this maner. God hath decreéd from eternitie (sayth hee) that the beleuyng man "shalbe Iustified by Fayth Onely. Whereby appeareth that this word Onely came not first from Luther but from Ambrose ra∣ther. But bycause the truth shall not want substaunciall wit∣nesse, and authoritie worthy the same witnesses, we will ad∣ioyne to Ambrose the like testimony of Ierome, whose wordes if may obteyne any credite with Osorius will be of such force & efficacie for our present purpose, as that they will seéme to haue bene written for none other entent, then to cōuince this Iewish opinion of Osorius.* 1.156 And these are his wordes. The Iewes (sayth he) did affirme that he which trusted to Fayth Onely was to bee abhorred. But Paule on the contrary part doth auerre that whosoeuer trusteth in Fayth Onely is blessed &c. I beseéche "you tell me for your Myters sake, what can be spoken agaynst you more substaūcially? Let vs now conferre your saying with Chrisostome. You do adhorre them as Lutherans which doe rest them selues vpon Fayth Onely, bycause Paule doth promise the kyngdome of heauen, as you say, to them that worke good deédes: on the contrary part Chrisostome doth note them for Iewes especially, and accompteth them execrable which deny that men ought to trust to fayth, vsing this reason, bycause Paule (sayth hee) doth professe those men blessed that trust to Fayth Onely. Now chuse you therfore one of these two whiche ye will, whether we shall adiudge Chrisostome a Lutheran bycause he trusteth to Fayth Onely: or your selfe an execrable Iewe which set your Confidence vpon workes. Agayne, the

same Chrisostome in other place, makyng a Commentary vp∣on the Epistle to the Ephes. vseth the selfe same exclusiue word. By Fayth onely (sayth hee) shall Christ saue the offendours of the law. And bycause ye shall know his meanyng perfitely, not the offendours of the ceremoniall law, but of the same law namely, which was endited by the finger of God, in y^e most sacred Ta∣bles conteinyng the tenne Commaundementes.

Adde also hereunto the saying of the same Doctour in his fourth Homely vpon the Epistle to Timothe.* 1.157

What thyng is so hard to beleue, as that such which are enemies, and sinners not Iustified by the law nor the workes of y^e law, obteined forth∣with to be placed in y^e chiefest dignitie of merite through Faith Onely? &c. We haue recited a litle before the wordes of Basile vpon the Sermon De Humilit.* 1.158 so that it neédeth no further re∣hearsall, where in expresse speach, excludyng from mā the glory of his own righteousnes, he doth testifie that we are euery of vs Iustified by fayth onely in Christ Iesu.

I might cite his owne wordes agayne vpon the 32. Psalme,* 1.159 as effectuall as the rest, where he describyng a perfect man, doth describe him to be not such a one as trusteth to his own good deédes, but such a one as reposeth all his whole confidence in the onely mercy of God.

In like maner also Theophilact.* 1.160 Now doth y^e Apostle (sayth he) declare euidently that very Fayth Onely is of power to Iu∣stifie. And by any by he citeth the Prophet Abacuc as most cre∣dible witnesse thereof. Briefly what shall we thinke that those auncient Fathers of the purer age and primitiue Churche dyd determine therof. Whenas Thomas Aquinas him selfe chief champion of this Sinagogue of Schoolemen, being otherwise in many thynges a very wrongfull and false interpretour. Yet vanguished herein with the manifest truth was enforced no len∣ger to dissemble in this questiō of Fayth Onely. For in his thyrd lesson vpon the first Epistle to Timothe the 3. Chap. disputyng of the law, and concludyng at length that the wordes of Paule did not apperteine to the ceremoniall law but vnto the Morall law.* 1.161 There is not (sayth he) any hope of Iustificatiō but in Faith Onely, and arguyng agaynst Osorius of set purpose as it were, he citeth to this effect the testimonie of S. Paule, We suppose (sayth the Apostle) that man is Iustified by Fayth without the

workes of the law.* 1.162 Rom. 3. I am not yet come to this point•• to discusse, how true this doctrine of Luther is touchyng Iustifi∣cation by Fayth Onely. But whether this doctrine was erected first by Luther. And I trust I haue sufficiētly proued that it be∣gan euen from the first age of the primitiue Church, and in the very dawnyng of the Gospell, and hath bene so deliuered ouer from the most auncient writers, and continued vnshaken, euen vntill our age: so that no man neédeth hereafter to geue credite to Osorius: makyng so shamelesse a lye vpon this doctrine, of Fayth Onely Iustifieng. And this much hetherto concernyng Luther.

I come now to that point wherein Osor. did likewise shame∣full belye Paule. And what doe I heare now Osorius? Doth Paule (as you say) so promise the inheritaunce of the heauē∣ly kyngdome to them which worke good deedes?* 1.163 and not to them also whiche rest vpon fayth onely? That is to say. Which haue reposed all their affiaunce in Iesu Christ onely? How shall we conceaue this? where finde you this? and how doe ye enduce vs to beleue this? out of the Epistle as I thinke to the Vtopēses. Looke there Reader at thy bestleysure: for Osorius was at good leysure to lye, but had no tyme at all to confirme his lye. But he alledgeth somewhat I suppose out of the Epi∣stle to the Gallat. 5. Chapt.* 1.164 That is to say that the Apostle doth threaten vtter banishement from the kyngdome of God, to the wicked and haynous sinners, which yeld them selues ouer wholy to all filthynesse of sinne. This truely is a true saying of the Apostle. Who denyeth it? But what doth Osorius in the meane space gather hereof? Forsooth bycause the horrible wickednesse of men doth exclude those per∣sons from the kyngdome of God, which are endued with a false fayth onely, or none at all rather, hereof doth he con∣clude his Argument by opposition of contraryes. That life euerlastyng is promised to the good and vertuous workes of men.* 1.165 O clownishe Coridon. But we are taught by the ru∣les of Logicke that if a man will frame a good Argument of cō∣traries, hee must bee first well aduised, that those propositions which are appointed for contraries, must dissent and disagreé eche from other by equall and proportionable degreés. Wher∣by

it is cleare, that this is not a good consequent.

The silthy lyfe of the wicked doth exclude men from the inheritaunce of euerlastyng habitations.

Ergo, the honest and vpright lyfe doth obteine euerla∣styng habitations.

And why is this no good Argument? bycause the propositi∣ons ••oe not agreé together in proportionable qualitie. The of∣fences that are committed by vs, are of their own nature of all partes vnperfect & euill, & purchase to them selues most iust dā∣natiō. But on the contrary part, our good and ver••uous deédes (yea beyng most perfectly accōplished by vs) want yet alwayes somethyng to absolute perfection, and of their owne nature are such, as rather stand in neéde of the mercy of God, then may de∣serue any prayse in the sight of men.* 1.166 To the same ende spake Bernarde very fittely. Our righteousnesse is nothyng els then" the indulgence of God. But here commes yet an other place of S. Paule out of the whiche this wylde wiffler may rushe vpon vs with his leaden dagger not altogether so blunte and rustye herhaps. The wordes of y^e Apostle a Gods name, in the second to the Romaines.* 1.167 Not the hearers of the law onely, but they that performe the law in their lyfe and conuersation, shalbe accompted righteous before the Iudgemēt seat of God. &c. To aūswere brief∣ly I will gladly allow that, which this enemy to Paule doth ob∣iect out of Paule, so that hee will not in like maner refuse the the whole discourse of the Apostle, and ioyne the first with the last. For the whole Argument of the Apostle in those iij. Chap. is concluded in this one Sillogisme.

All men shalbe rewarded with the cōmendatiō of true righ∣teousnesse (God him selfe witnessing the same) whosoeuer be able with their owne workes to accomplish the whole law published in the tenne Tables,* 1.168 and commaunded by God to be kept absolutely, as the law requireth.

But there is no liuyng creature whether he be a Iewe, and is ruled by the law of the tenne Tables, or a Gentile and ly∣ueth after the law of nature, that is able to accomplishe the law as he ought to do.

Ergo, No man linyng is able to attaine the true commenda∣tiō of his righteousnes, but in respect of his workes is of ne∣cessitie

subiect to the Iudgement and curse of God.

In this Argument doth the whole force & pithe of Paules disputatiō cōsiste, if I be not deceaued. In the Maior & first pro∣position whereof, he setteth down before vs the seueritie of Gods Iudgement: In y^e Minor or second proposition, he condemneth all men generally as guilty of sinne. By the conclusion he allu∣reth and as it were driueth all men to Christ necessaryly.

By this Argument you may playnely perceaue vnlesse you wilbe wilfully blind like a want, how you haue piked out not one scrappe so much of all that you haue hitherto raked toge∣ther, to salue the credite of your cause. Finally to make shorte with you. I referre you to note, marke, examine and search out all whatsoeuer the Churche doth acknowledge of the sayd Apo∣stles Letters, Epistles, yea all his sentences. Ye shall finde in them all, so nothing agreable to this your Assertiō: That Paule should attribute righteousnes to workes, or promise be meanes therof possession of euerlastyng inheritaunce, as that his whole bent and endeuour may seéme to bee in no one thyng els so ear∣nest as in this, wherein he trauaileth earnestly to persuade, that the promise of God poureth out vpō all them that beleue in Ie∣su Christ most plentyfull and assured freédome: yea such a freé∣dome, as is clearely deliuered from all entanglyng of workes. So that the same Apostle doth inferre his conclusion on this wise:* 1.169 If inheritaunce come by the law, then not of promise. And in an other place. If we bee made heyres through the law, then is our fayth made frustrate, and the promise of none effect. Rome. 4.* 1.170 And agayne. If righteousnesse come by the lawe then did Christ suffer in vayne. Gal. 2.* 1.171 And least that your lying spirite should with sinister interpretation wrest those sentences spoken of the law to the ceremoniall law, you may heare the Apostle there tre∣ating of that law, which was geuē for offendours vntill the pro∣mised seéde should come: which law should in steéde of a Schoole∣maister lead vs (as it were) by the hād directly to Christ: which law did shut vp all vnder sinne, as well Iewes as Gentiles, that the promise might be geuen vnto the beleuers through fayth in Iesus Christ. All whiche titles of the law can not be construed to haue any apte agreément with the ceremonies of the Iewishe Sinagogue. And where are now those workes of the law (mai∣ster

Osorius) vnto whom Paule doth promise possession of the kyngdome, if you exclude those wherof Luther preacheth? Si∣theace Paule him selfe doth so wisely and carefully not onely ex∣clude all presumption of mans righteousnesse, from the inheri∣taūce of the kingdome, but also rēder a reason wherfore he doth so. By what law (sayth he) by the lawe of workes. No ye may not beleue so Osorius. And therfore that ye may the better vnder∣stand, how no matter of Confidence at all is left to the conside∣ration of the workes of the law: But by the law of fayth (sayth S. Paule) the same lawe which consisteth in fayth and not in workes. That is to say, if we beleue the Paraphrast. The very same law which requireth nothyng but fayth.

Now therfore sithence these matters are so throughly deba∣ted in the holy Scriptures,* 1.172 & discouered manifestly by the holy Ghost: with what shamelesse face dare Osorius thrust those wor∣kes in the doctrine of freé Iustification, whiche the Spirite of God doth so openly reiect? or with what impudencie dare he af∣firme that Paule doth promise the right and title of inheritaūce to them whiche worke good deédes? Whereas the same Paule mainteynyng the challenge of fayth, and not of workes, pronoū∣ceth so expressely, That God doth accept his fayth for righteous∣nesse, whiche doth not worke but beleueth on him that doth Iustifie the wicked. Which two sentences beyng so meérely opposite and contrary eche to other, I referre me to the Readers Iudgemēt whether Paule shalbe accōpted vnconstaunt,* 1.173 or Osorius a false Fabeler. But I heare a certeine gruntyng of this Pigge be∣yng no lesse an enemy to the Crosse of Christ thē to Paule: who assoone as he heareth good workes to be banished from the effect of Iustification, doth straightway cite vs to the Consistorie, as though we did vtterly choake vp all care & studious endeuour to liue vertuously, and destroy all preceptes and rules of godly conuersation. And hereupon conceauyng a vayne errour in his idle braynes, he rageth and foameth at the mouth outragious∣ly, not much vnlike to Aiax Sometyme: called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.174 Who beyng swallowed vp of extreme frensie did most foolishly assayle and batter poore seély sheépe in steéde of Agamemnon and other noble Pieres of Greéce. But let vs once agayne geue eare to his gay Logicke, which being sometyme esteémed the Schoole∣mystres

of Inuētion, and displaying the truth, this Gentlemā hath made therof an Arte of lying and desceit: as thus.

Luther doth exclude all good workes from the cause of Iustification.

Ergo, Luther doth extinguishe all vertue, and abolishe all Morall and Ciuill actions.

Agayne. Luther doth make fayth onely beyng voyde of good workes the cause of Iustification.

Ergo, Luther doth require nothyng in Christians but Fayth Onely.

I aunswere that this is a Fallax and a Sophisticallye deri∣ued from the proposition that is tearmed in Schooles Secun∣dum quid,* 1.175 to Simpliciter. Furthermore herein also hee doth be∣wray his Sophisticall iugglyng, whereas by his liedger de mayne, he conueyeth away the state of the questiō which concer∣neth the thynges onely, to the circumstaunce of the persons. For whereas we (agreéyng herein with Luther) do enquire y^e thyng onely, which is the instrumentall Cause of our Iustification be∣fore God, he in his aunswere doth describe vnto vs, what maner of life they ought to lead that are already Iustified. And bycause it is most requisite, that those which are Iustified by the freémer∣cy of God through fayth, shall continually exercise thē selues in good workes, hereupon he concludeth. That Luthers proposi∣tiō wherein he affirmeth that fayth onely doth knit vp the knot of our Iustification without all ayde of workes, is vtterly false. As though Luthers disputation concerned the actions, and en∣deuours of them to whom righteousnesse is geuen, and not ra∣ther of the cause of Iustification onely? or as though he did not as carefully require all faythfull persons to the dayly and cōti∣nuall practize of godly lyfe, as any of all y^e Byshops of Portin∣gall doe. But if you be so vnskilfull Osorius as you seéme to be, you must learne, that it is one thyng to treate of the persons, whiche are made righteous, and other thyng of the Cause that doth make them righteous. And therfore this is a deceitfull and a friuolous Argument.

The possession of heauenly kyngdome is promised to them which doe good deedes.

Ergo, Onely fayth doth not Iustifie.

This conclusion is altogether false,* 1.176 and the subteltie therof transposed frō that which is not the Cause, to ȳe which ought to be the Cause. In deéde y^e inheritaunce of heauē is geuen to them which doe good deédes, but not in respect of those good deédes whiche they doe. But there is a certeine other thyng, whiche doth both Iustifie the persons, & the good workes of the persons also. That is to say, which doth make the persons and the wor∣kes good also.* 1.177 And therfore you do confounde those thyngs ve∣ry vnskilfully, which ought of necessity haue bene distinguished. If you will make this the grounde of the question, to enquire of what behauiour those persons ought to be, whiche are called to the inheritage of euerlastyng lyfe. Luther will neuer deny, but that they ought to be such, as must be conuersaūt in this world godly, holy, & vnblameable, as much as may be possible: But if the state of the question tende to this end, to shew, what maner of thyng amongest all the good giftes of God, that one thyng is in vs, whiche doth procure our Iustification in the sight of God: Luther will boldly pronounce, that is Fayth Onely, yea and ap∣proue y^e same with inuincible testimonies of Gods scriptures. Neither will Osorius deny it without great reproch of errour. Afterwardes he proceédeth to his accustomed trade of lyeng.

Workes do follow fayth (as the Lutherans say) not by∣cause they prepare a way to saluation (for they shall not of them selues be cyted to iudgement) but bycause they are deriued from faith as by a certeine way of procreation:* 1.178 for as the tree bryngeth forth fruite by force of nature, so doth fayth of necessity engender good workes which both pro∣positions are false. Or els Osorius doth lye for that wanted to make vp the periode. But go to, let vs seé what those two false propositions be, which the Lutheranes do teach: The first is,* 1.179 that workes do prepare no way for vs to obteine Saluatiō, by∣cause of them selues they shall neuer be cited to Iudgemēt. The second is: That workes do follow fayth of necessitie none other∣wise, then as fruite by force of nature is engendred of the treé: Upon these he hath geuen sentence that they are both false. But what reason alledgeth hee thereto? Forsooth bycause workes (sayth he) do either procure vnto vs Saluation, or Damnatiō vndoubtedly. And yet Osorius ceaseth not to keépe his old wōt

to lye.* 1.180 And hereof no mā ought to be in doubt, but that our deedes shalbe throughly examined apart by thē selues by Gods sharpe Iudgemēt. Yea? say you so Osorius? What shall they stād apart by thē selues? what? naked & vnclothed of all suc∣cour of Christ? of the promise? & of mercy? Go to, & what shalbe come of fayth thē? Shall she stād •• the meanes whiles with her finger in a hole,* 1.181 like a Mome in a corner vnprofitablye? whiles (mercy being banished) mēs deéds shal by thē selues be arrained before gods iudgemēt seate? If this be true, why do we not rase & scrape cleane out of all bookes y^t saying of S. Paule? Not tho∣rough the workes of righteousnesse which we haue done, but accor∣ding to the greatnes of his mercy hath he saued vs: For if saluatiō be yet to be measured by the law of workes, & to be wayed after y^t Standard of Iudgemēt, what place thē remayneth for fayth, or for mercy?* 1.182 And by what meanes is that hādwrityng of the law blotted out by the Crosse and bloudsheadyng of Iesu Christ, if as yet we be holden fast yoaked vnder the curse of the law, and not deliue∣red by grace? for what doth the law elles (if we dare beleue S. Paul)* 1.183 but engēder wrath, and procure to be accursed? not bycause the law is of it selfe vneffectual, if it might be accomplished: but bycause we are all vnprofitable seruauntes vnable to performe the law. And for your part, doe ye thinke any mans workes to be of such valew, as beyng throughly examined after the vtter∣most exaction of Gods Iustice, can either endure the immeasu∣rable horrour of Gods wrathfull indignatiō, or by any meanes escape it?* 1.184 Surely Dauid that godly Kyng and great Prophet perceauyng that there was no mortall creature but was ouer∣paised, and pressed downe with this heauy burden, and weight of Iudgement, beseécheth of God nothyng more earnestly, then that he would not way his seruaūt in the ballaūce of his Iudge∣ment. And therfore in an other place he addeth: If thou examine our iniquities Lord, who abyde it? Of this mynde was he e∣uen then, when he was a most trusty seruaunt of God. As for O∣sorius I know not whose seruaunt he is, neither am I hereof a∣ny thyng Inquisitiue: but what Lord soeuer he serue, I doe not a litle marueile at this, in what place of heauen this Gentlemā shall stand, whenas his wordes, deédes, yea all his thoughtes, when so many his lyes, slaūders, errours, blasphemies reproch∣full

speaches, furies, impieties (whiche as it were to discharge his gorge he hath belched out in his bookes without measure or end) shall come forth into brightnesse of Iudgement: and shalbe seuerely measured by the playne and streight squyer of Gods exact Iustice?

But let vs now ponder by the rules of the Scriptures the pretie reasons taken out of the same whereupon hee buil∣deth his defence.* 1.185 And first of all that sentence offereth it selfe vouched out of the mysticall Psalmes, where the holy Ghost doth witnesse, that God will render to euery man accordyng to his workes. This sentence I suppose is to be foūde in the 62. Psalme, for Osorius had no leysure to note the place. And I know not whether him selfe euer cited the same out of the very founteines them selues, or rather scraped it out of the mustie Ambry of Hosius, sinisterly applyed by him there, and so this Marchaunt would wrest the same crookedly to fitte his owne drift. After this S. Paule is vouched of a witnesse but no place noted,* 1.186 where the Apostle doth affirme that all men generally and euery of vs particularely shalbe summoned to Iudge∣ment: where euery one shall render accompt of the life that he hath lead, and receaue reward accordyngly. You shall finde this in the second Chap. to the Romaines. Hereunto is annexed an other testimony of the same Paule: All shall appeare and be arraygned before the Iudgement seate of Christ, that euery man may receaue reward according to the deserte of his life, and euery mans peculiar worke may bewayed and measured in the iust and vpright ballaūce of seuere Iudgement. Where is this Osorius?* 1.187 Thou must seéke for it Reader. The place is extaūt in the second to the Corinth. the v. Chap. Here withall is also coupled that faying of Christ with like vncited place.* 1.188 They that haue done well (sayth he) shall come forth into resurrection of life, but they that haue done euill to the resurrection of death. He had many other places to this ef∣fect besides these (saith he) if he lifted to prosecute euery of thē, but bycause they were beyond number, the mā beyng otherwise occupied in other studies pardy, seémeth well enough furnished with these few, whiche he hath piked out of Hosius (if I be not deceaued) and so thought good to rehearse no more.

Well now. Let vs seé what peéce of worke hee meaneth to

frame out of these places of Scriptures so raked together, and whereunto to he bendeth his force. We shall all be summoned be∣fore the Iudgement seate of Christ. This is true. Euery per∣son shalbe clothed agayne with his own body. Those that haue done well shalbe crowned with immortall felicitie, and those that haue done euill shalbe throwen into euerlastyng torments. This is also vndoubtedly true. Agayne, the most iust and vp∣right Iudge shalbe present, which shall reward euery one accor∣dyng to his workes and deseruynges. I heare it and confesse••t to be true. For who is ignoraunt hereof? But what hereof at length? what will Osorius Logicke conclude vpon this?

* 1.189Ergo, not fayth but workes (sayth he) doe iustifie, which shall purchase for vs Saluation or Damnation. But this il∣fauored shapen consequent which you haue most falsely deriued from true thynges and confessed, we doe vtterly deny vnto you: and not we onely, but the holy Scripture doth deny & cōdemne: all holy write doth reiect, the whole fayth of the Euangelistes, and doctrine of the Apostle, and all the promises of God with generall consent do crye out agaynst & hisse at it. If out of these places of Scripture you would haue framed an Argument a right, and accordyng to the true meanyng of the holy Ghost, ye should more aptly haue concluded in this wise. For as much therfore as there remayneth for euery of vs such a Iudgement, wherein euery one must yeld an accoumpt of his lyfe spēt, there is no cause why any mā should flatter and beguile him selfe with a vayne promise, that his wicked deédes or wordes shall escape vnpunished after this lyfe, but rather that euery man so behaue him selfe in this transitory world, that neither his good workes may appeare without fayth, nor his faith want testimony of good workes. Truely this conclusion, would haue bene preached to them (the number of whom is infinite, not onely amongest the Papistes) but also euen amongest the professours of the Gospel, who professing the name & fayth of Christ, liue notwithstandyng so dissolutely as they bryng the name and doctrine of Christ in∣to open obloquy. And as though it sufficed them to professe Christes most sacred Religion in wordes onely, or as though there should be no Iudgement at all to come, make no accompt of their callyng, but are caryed headlong agaynst equitie & con∣science

into the gulfe of all licentious filthyues, to the great dis∣honour of almightye God, and the manifest ruine of their owne Saluation. Surely I am of opinion if you had directed your conclusion in this maner agaynst those persons, and others lyke vnto them, which do so wilfully rash and throw them selues care∣lessely into manifest abhominations without all respect of equi∣tie and conscience, the consequent would more aptly haue bene applyed and of more force.

We shall all be summoned before the Iudgement seate of the hygh Iudge, where accoumpt shalbe made of the whole course of our lyfe.

Ergo, who that wilbe carefull for his Saluation, let him haue especial regard to the vttermost of his abilitie that his life be agreable to his professiō, and stand assured (as much as in him lyeth) in the testimony of a good conscience knit together with a true fayth voyde of all hypocrisie.

For otherwise we doe heare what the truth it selfe speaketh. And those that haue done euill shall goe into the resurrection of Iudgement. We shall likewise heare what Paule sayth,* 1.190 Euen for these thynges (sayth he) the wrath of God doth come vpon the chil∣dren of disobedience.

But to what purpose Osorius is this alledged agaynst the Iustification of fayth in them, who hauyng receaued the fayth of Christ, doe ioyne withall fruites of obedience as companions if not altogether pure and absolutely perfect, yet do yeld their en∣deuour and abilitie at the least such as it is, after the small pro∣portion and measure of their weakenesse. This trauaile & ende∣uour though it be farre distaunt from that exact requireth perfe∣ction of the law, is yet neuertheles accepted in place of most full and absolute Iustification in the sight of God, who doth supply the want of our workes with his owne freé Imputation, for the fayth sake in his sonne onely, whiche is not Imputed for righte∣ousnesse to them that do worke, but to them that do beleue in him: For what although the horrible rebellion of the vngodly whiche walke not after the spirite but after the fleshe, doe procure vnto them selues most iust Iudgement of condēnation, yet shall this saying stand alwayes inuiolable notwithstandyng, and remayne assured for euer, The righteous shall liue by fayth: And he that be∣leueth

in me shall not dye for euer. Iohn. 11.* 1.191 But yet that promise (say you) doth abyde most euident and vnuanquishable, whiche doth promise resurrection of lyfe to them, that do liue godly and good deédes. Goe to, and what conclude ye hereof? Ergo, Faith onely doth not iustifie vs (say you).* 1.192 Nay rather neither Faith One∣ly, nor fayth any way els taken doth Iustifie a man, or auayle a∣ny thyng at all to Iustification, if workes accordyng to your in∣terpretation bee examined by them selues, by the waightes and ballaūces of Gods Iudgement, shall make full satisfaction. But ye conceaue amisse of the matter Osorius, and therfore your cō∣clusion is as ilfauoredly shapen. Doe ye expect a reason? For∣sooth bycause you fayle in the rule Topicke: whereby we are taught to apply true proper Causes,* 1.193 to true effectes. And ther∣fore your consequent is faultie, and a Sophisticall cautell de∣riued from that which is not the cause, to that which is the pro∣per cause. Let vs discusse the very order of your wordes. And they which haue done well: What they? shall come, (sayth he) into the resurrection of life. &c. First of all, ye perceaue that the wor∣kes alone are not treated of simply, but the persons that doe the workes. Surely in Iudiciall Courtes is no small obseruation vsed chiefly of the difference betwixt the circumstaunces of the Causes, and circumstaunces of the persons. As when a Ser∣uaunt shall commit the very same which a Sonne shall doe, al∣though the factes be of all partes equall, yet I suppose that the Sonne shall finde more mercy in his cause, of his Father being Iudge, then the seruaunt of his Maister being Iudge, especial∣ly where the Iudge is not constreined to yeld Iudgement by a∣ny coaction, or expresse rigour of Statute and Law, but is at libertie to vse consideration of the trespasse, accordyng to his own discretion. Euē so, neither do I thinke it all one, if a Chri∣stian mā (I say a true Christian man) shall mainteine his cause before Christ his Redeémer, as if a Turke or Infidell should pleade before the same Christ his Iudge. And why? bycause the one is very much holpen by yeldyng his fayth to the promise, the other hath none other ayde to trust vnto, but y^e rigour of the law. But let vs proceéde, that we may come at the last to the pricke that is shot at. I vnderstand therfore by these wordes of Christ, what shalbe betyed of thē at y^e last that haue liued well,

that vnto those that are founde such in the Iudgement shall ge∣uen possession of eternall life.* 1.194 I heare this well. But I would fayne know at the length, what the Cause should be, why this mercyfull Iudge will vouchsafe to reward those workemen so highly? For our controuersie consisteth not in this point, that re∣ward is geuen, but in this, for what Cause reward is geuen:* 1.195 Whether of any desert, or without all desert? whether for the proper worthynesse of the workes them selues whiche you call good, or rather for the Fayth of the person, from whence those workes doe obteine both to bee called good, and to bee esteémed for good?

You will say that the spring of this together working grace floweth vnto vs out of the founteine of Fayth,* 1.196 from whence all abilitie to do good deédes is so aboundant within vs, whiche be∣ing receiued: afterwardes through the bountifulnesse of Christ, fruites of holy workes do issue out from vs, which do make vs worthy to be Iustified, and to place vs in the possession of euer∣lastyng kyngdome. I do aunswere,* 1.197 that ye do neither speake as much as ye ought, nor that altogether true, that ye doe speake. For albeit we confesse, that all the good whatsoeuer we do, pro∣ceédeth from the bountyfull gift of God: yet this is farre wyde from the marke of our controuersie now in hand, neither is this matter in handlyng now, to know from whence the fruites of good workes do spryng: but after they are come vnto vs, y^e que∣stion is, how much they do auayle vnto vs: whether they them selues through their owne worthynesse do worke our Iustifica∣tion before God? or whether they stand destitute of any other ayde, whereby they may be Iustified them selues? whether doe ye thinke workes of their owne nature so effectuall, as to bee a∣ble alone to endure the heauye burden of Gods Iudgement, or that the operation of the Fayth of the beleuer, rather thē of the worke, doth present the persons together with their workes, to Gods freé Imputation, and so accomplish Iustification?

But I doe heare a continuall ianglyng of this Portingall Coockoe chatteryng alwayes one maner of laye in myne eares, * 1.198Not fayth but workes (sayth hee) wayed in the ballaūce of Gods Iudgement do purchase either Saluation or Damna∣tiō vnto vs. Where finde you this? Out of the wordes of Christ:

And those that haue done well, shall goe into euerlasting life: but those that haue done euill into euerlasting destruction. I aūswere, it is most true that the Lord speaketh, but most vntrue that O∣sorius concludeth hereof. Christ comprehendyng the fruites of workes together with the whole treé, and ioynyng the Causes together with the persons, doth encourage them with the hope of eternall lyfe, which do yeld their endeuour manfully to their vtterest abilitie to performe y^e rule of the Gospell, not defiuyng what the proportion of their workes doe deserue, but declaryng how bountyfully and manifoldly he will require their labours, whiche haue suffered any kynde of afflictiō for his names sake. Osorius framyng hereof meérely false propositions doth with his crafty conueyaunce wrest & force those thynges to the wor∣kes them selues onely, whiche the Lord doth apply to his fayth∣full that liue vertuously, and so at length turnyng awry, that is to say:* 1.199 From the Concreto to the Abstractum (to vse here the termes of Sophistry) & seueryng the persons from the thyngs doth conclude disorderly after this maner of false conclusion.

Faythfull and godly Christians liuing vertuously shal∣be rewarded with eternall lyfe.

Ergo, Good workes by them selues wayed in the bal∣launce of Gods Iudgement doe deserue eternall lyfe.

What cā be more falsely imagined or more foolishly cōcluded thē this lye? In deéde workes are the fruites of Christiā fayth, and tokens, not causes of Saluation. Euen as a treé that brin∣geth forth fruites, if the treé be good, it appeareth by the fruites, not bycause the fruite maketh the treé good, but bycause the treé maketh the fruite good. In lyke maner the deédes of the godly, haue nothyng in them selues that may enable them to stand vp∣right in Iudgemēt. But if they finde any grace or reward, the same may not bee ascribed to their owne merite,* 1.200 but partly to Mercy, partly to Imputatiō, through the sonne that is the Re∣deémer: to Mercy, I say, which doth forgeue our euill deédes, to Imputation whiche accepteth our good workes though they be of them selues neuer so vnperfect, as though they were per∣fect, and doth reward them with a crowne of glory: so that the glory hereof is not now to be ascribed to men but to God, not to righteousnesse but to grace, not to workes, but to fayth, not to

Iudgement but to mercy. For confirmation wherof, if we seéke for authoritie, who may require any one a more faythfull wit∣nesse, or of more approued authority then the Apostle? who be∣yng sent vnto the Gentiles as to his proper & peculiar charge, what doth he preach vnto thē? Not by the workes which we haue done (sayth he) but for his mercy sake he hath saued vs: If wordes may obteine any credite with you, what can bee spoken more playnely? if the authoritie of the witnesse may preuayle, what more assured testimony can be sought for, then Paule, that spea∣keth him selfe?

But Osorius lacketh not a shift of descante here,* 1.201 thinkyng thereby to craze the force of veritie. For whereas Paule affir∣meth that we are saued for his mercyes sake, he doth interprete this saying to be verified after this sort. Bycause mercy doth endue vs with abilitie and power to worke, that hereof those godly deedes of pietie doe ensue,* 1.202 which may make vs vs righteous before God, and that hereof likewise it com∣meth to passe, that all whatsoeuer true righteousnesse ap∣peareth in vs, doth proceede from the mercy and bountie of God, and not from our own nature. Such is the doctrine that he scattereth abroad euery where in these bookes, & in those other also, which he hath entituled De Iustitia, followyng here∣in (as it seémeth) his forerunner Hosius,* 1.203 who maskyng in the like maze, doth affirme that life euerlastyng is geuē to men so farreforth through the grace of God, as it is deliuered to mens merites, which do issue out of the mercy and grace of God. But Augustine will helpe to vnlose this knot easely: so will also all y^e most famous and auncient interpretours of the Greeke & La∣tine Churche, who altogether with one voyce doe so ascribe all our saluatiō to the mercy of God, not that which is obteined by doyng good deédes in this corruptible body, but which consisteth rather in remission of sinnes, and which after this lyfe will sup∣porte the neédy and naked weakenesse of our workes (be they ne∣uer so feéble) agaynst the importable burden of the rigour of the law. Of which mercy Augustine maketh mention in this wise.* 1.204 Stand not in Iudgemēt with me O Lord, exactyng all thyngs which thou hast cōmaunded me:

For if thou enter into Iudge∣ment with me thou shalt finde me guiltie. Therefore I haue

more neéde of thy mercy then thy manifest Iudgement. Agayne in an other place treatyng of the last Iudgemēt. He shall crown theé (sayth he) in mercy & compassiōs. This shall come to passe at that dreadfull day, whenas the righteous kyng shall sit vpon his throne, to render to euery mā according to his workes, who then can glory that hee hath a pure and vndefiled hart? or dare boast that he is without sinne? And therfore it was necessary to make mention there of the compassions and mercy of the Lord. &c.* 1.205 And agayne somewhat more playnly, where hee describeth what maner of mercy shalbe in the day of Iudgement, he doth set it forth in this wise. This is called mercy (sayth he) bycause God doth not regarde our deseruynges, but his owne goodnesse that thereby forgeuyng vs all our sinnes, he might promise vs euerlasting life.

Hereunto also may be annexed the testimonie of Basile no lesse worthy to bee noted, touchyng the mercyfull Iudgement of God towardes his chosen people, you shal heare his owne wordes as they are.

For if the Iudgement of GOD were so rigorous and precise in it selfe,* 1.206 to render vnto vs after our worthynesse accordyng to the workes that we haue done, what hope were then, or what man should bee saued? But now he loueth both mercy and Iudgement, that is matchyng mercy equall with him selfe, to beare chief rule in the regall seate of Iudgement, and so bryngeth forth euery man to Iudgement. That is to say, if Gods Iudgement should proceéde of it selfe precisely and exactly, requityng euery of vs accordyng to the deseruynges of our deédes that we haue done, what hope should remayne for vs? or what one person of mankynde should be sa∣ued? But now God loueth mercy and Iudgement: And reser∣uyng mercy for him selfe, he hath placed her before the Royall Throne of Iustice, as chief gouernesse and so citeth euery man vnto Iudgement.

You seé here mention made of mercy and the grace of God, not that grace onely that doth engender in vs good workes, but the same rather whiche doth forgeue sinnes and Sinners through the bloud of his sonne,* 1.207 in which forgeue∣nesse consisteth our whole redemption, accordyng to the testi∣monie of Paule the Apostle: In whom (sayth hee) we obteine re∣demption through his bloud, and remission of sinnes through the riches of his grace. &c.

If I neéded in this matter to vse a multitude of witnesses, rather thē substaūce of authority, it were no hard matter for me to cite for defence of y^e Cause, infinite testimonies out of Am∣brose, Ierome, Gregory, Bernarde, & others. But what neéde I protract the time of the Reader, in vouching a nūber, whenas it is euident enough already (I suppose) by those sayinges spo∣ken before: that our saluation can by no meanes obteine place, in Iudgement without the mercy of God, and his freé Imputa∣tion. The first wherof our Sinnes neéde to be couered withall, the next euen our best workes shall want of necessitie. Whereu∣pon that saying of Bernarde, wherof we made mention before, as diuers other Sentences of his to the same effect, bee very pitthye: Not to sinne (sayth he) is the righteousnesse of God,* 1.208 the righteousnesse of man is the freé pardon of God.* 1.209

Of which par∣don Augustine very litle differring from Bernarde maketh re∣hearsall in these wordes. Thou hast done no good thyng (sayth hee) yet thy sinnes are forgeuen theé:* 1.210 hitherto thou hearest the worke of mercy: Marke now for Imputation. Thy workes are examined, and they are founde all faultie: and forthwith conclu∣ding addeth.* 1.211 If God should require these workes after their de∣seruynges, he should surely condemne theé. But God doth not geue theé due punishement, but graunteth vndeserued mercy.

Thus much Augustine. Euen as though hee would say. Our best deédes seéme in none other respect good, then as farreforth as they be vpholden by his pardon and freé Imputation: who if otherwise should searche all our workes euen to the quicke, af∣ter the most precise rule of his seuere Iustice, hee should surely finde nothing sounde in our best deédes, many things lothsome,* 1.212 and wicked in our workes, all thyngs in vs altogether corrupt and defiled. Wherein we do not so aduaunce the mercy of God in his Iudgement, as though we would haue all the partes of his Iustice excluded from thence. But we doe mitigate rather y^e frettyng wounde of his Iustice (which you do so stiffely main∣teyne with your speache) applyeng thereunto the sweéte and wholesome playster of his mercyfull Imputatiō. For who cā be ignoraūt hereof, that God shall Iudge the quicke and the dead with Iustice and equitie? And who on the other part is so blind, that can not discerne this to bee most false, that Osorius main∣teineth?

who rakyng all thynges to amplifie the estimation of pure righteousnes, doth so stoutly defende this pointe: That all our wordes & workes are of such force and value in this Iudge∣ment, that of their owne nature they are auaylable towardes y^e purchase of the euerlastyng inheritaunce, or els do procure vs a ready downefall to euerlastyng destruction: In deede he spea∣keth truly in respect of the condemnation of the vnfaithful, and vnbeleuyng persons: and of them which beyng estraunged from fayth, haue not acknowledged Christ in this world: and of such as abusing their fayth, haue despised Christ: and of them also, which seékyng to establish their own righteousnesse, would not submit thē selues to the righteousnesse of Christ. Neither is it any maruell, if God doe execute his Iustice somewhat more sharpely agaynst those persōs, whenas their deédes beyng foūde guilty, haue no ayde to pleade for them, that may stand them in steéde besides Christ.* 1.213 For Christ is nothyng elles but a seuere Iudge to them that are not within the fortresse of Fayth, as in effect the Gospell doth denounce vnto vs. Who so hath not bele∣ued the Sonne, the wrath of God dwelleth vpon him. Iohn. 3. But the matter goeth farre otherwise with them that are engraffed in Christ by faith, of whom we read in Iohn the same Chap. He that beleueth the sonne hath euerlasting life.* 1.214 Wherfore as Christ appeareth not a Redeémer, but rather a Iudge to them, which without the Castle of Fayth, seéke to be rescued by the law: so on the contrary part: Those that shrowde them selues wholy vn∣der the assured Target of fayth, and protection of the Sonne of God, shall not finde Christ a rigorous Iudge, but a mercyfull Redeémer. The whiche sentence he doth verifie him selfe by his own testimony and promise, where prophecyeng of the tyme of his commyng of Iudgement.* 1.215 When you shall see the beginning of those thinges (sayth Christ) looke vp, and lift vp your heades: and so proceédyng yeldeth therof this Reason: Bycause then your re∣demption draweth nye: Marke well Osorius he doth not say your Iudgement, but your redemption draweth nye. And why did he choose to put his Disciples in remembraūce of their redemp∣tion rather, keépyng the name of Iudgement in silence? Ueryly bycause there is so no Iudgemēt of condēnation to them, which are of the fayth of Christ Iesu, as thereis no redēptiō for them,

who without the fayth of Christ Iesu, do wholy yeld their ser∣uice to the world and to the fleshe. Whereupon we may heare him agayne debatyng the same matter touching the freédome of Iudgement in the v. of Iohn.* 1.216 Whosoeuer heareth my voyce, and beleeueth on him whiche hath sent me, shall not come into Iudge∣ment, but hath already passed from death to life. And in an other place turnyng his speache to his Disciples, whenas hee could promise them no reward of more excellēcie:* 1.217 And you (sayth he) shall sit together vpō seates Iudging the xy tribes of Israell. Luke. 22. What neéde I rehearse Paule writyng to the Corinthians?* 1.218 Doe ye not know (sayth he) that the Saintes shall Iudge the world? And raysing vs vp beyond the reache of earthly thynges to the excellencie of Aungels. Doe ye not know that we shall Iudge the Aungels? 1. Cor. 1. What then (will you say) shall we not all come into Iudgement? shall we not all be arraigned before the Royall seate of the Maistie?* 1.219 Yes Osori. we shall all come to Iudgement: But Augustine will discouer vnto you a Di∣stinctiō of this Iudgement. That the one part therof shall con∣cerne Damnation, the other sequestration, whereby the Goates shalbe seuered from the Lambes, but the Lambes not condem∣ned with the Goates. And therfore I do firmely beleue, that we shall come all vnto Iudgement: but my assured hope and Affi∣aunce is, that the elect shall not come into Iudgement of condē∣nation. I know that all shall yeld accoumpt, but this Awdite shalbe so easie, and so voyde of all feare vnto them which are en∣graffed into Christ, as on y^e other side it will be most rigorous & dreadfull to them, which shall come forth into Iudgement with out Christ, and the weddyng Garment. And why so? veryly, by∣cause whom Fayth doth clothe with her Roabes, the same doth Christ so shield, defende, and saue harmelesse with his innocen∣tie, agaynst all bytternes of tempestuous Iudgemēt, as though they should neuer appeare before any Iudge at all, but passe presently from death to life.

And this truely, euen this same innocencie of Christ is that pure righteousnesse of Christians,* 1.220 which the Father doth none otherwise Impute vnto vs that beleue in his Sonne, then he did once Impute to the same his Sonne all our sinnes, when he suffred his Passion for sinners. And he (sayth the Prophet) did

beare vpon his backe all our Iniquities.* 1.221 Esay. 53. On the con∣trary part such as refusing this ankerhold of Christ, and tru∣styng to their own tackle, will hazard the sauetie of their soules before the seuere Iustice of God, otherwise then clothed with this weddyng Garment, must neédes suffer shipwracke of their soules, voyde of all hope to recouer the hauen of perfect felicitie: & so beyng turned ouer to the furniture of their own store, must neédes be bulged through, and ouerpa••sed at ••ast with the buroē of Iustice, whiche they could neuer reach vnto in this life. And hereof ariseth all that difference betwixt them which are ioyned to Christ, and the rascall rable of Infidels. For although in this iust Iudgement, a reckonyng shalbe made of all the deédes of all men before God, and likewise reward decreede vndoubtedly ac∣cordyng to euery mās deseruynges: yet the order of this Iudge∣ment shall farre otherwise proceéde with the faythfull, thē with the Reprobate.* 1.222 For such as will challenge their Saluation as due vnto them, for obseruyng the righteousnesse of the law, tho∣rough their owne workes, and not through fayth and Imputatiō of Christ: Those mē surely shalbe rewarded according to the de∣serte of their own workes, vnder this cōdition: That whosoeuer haue accomplished the rule of the law, with that absolute perfe∣ction that he ought to haue done, shall lyue accordyng to the de∣creé of the law. But if he haue fayled one tittle in performaance, lesse then the law required: what may he hope for els, then accor∣dyng to the sentence of the law (which holdeth all men fast chay∣ned vnder euerlasting malediction, that haue not continually in all the course of their lyfe perseuered vpright and vnblameable of all partes therof) That no blemish, be it neuer so litle, may be founde in the breache of any one iote of the law, whiche may procure most heauy matter of vtter condēnation vnto him. And euen here most manifestly appeareth the Iustice of God: for hee that of him selfe is altogether vnable to atteyne perfect righte∣ousnesse, and will likewise wilfully refuse y^e same, beyng offered vnto him by another:* 1.223 if he suffer punishement for his owne vn∣righteousnes, hath no cause to accuse y^e law of iniustice, but must referre his plague to his owne infidelitie. On the other part. Those that departing hence with fayth & repentaunce (I speake here of sinners which are truly penitent in Christ) do so prepare

them selues, as men reposing all their whole righteousnesse in the onely innocency of Christ, and not in their workes, shall nei∣ther bee impeached for their sinnes, whiche Christ hath healed with his woundes: And yet if they haue done any good worke, they shalbe rewarded with y^e inheritaūce of eternall lyfe, not for the worthynesse of the workes, but bycause of his freé Imputa∣tion, he doth vouchsafe those weake workes, bee they neuer so barren and naked, worthy to obteine the promised inheritaunce: not bycause they haue deserued it, but bycause hym selfe hath promised it.

I suppose these manifold and manifest sayings hitherto are sufficient enough to declare the truth,* 1.224 and discouer the falshoode of all this quarell of Osorius: nay rather to shewe how many sondry faultes he hath couched vp into one cōclusion: how many errours he hath clouted together, and into how many absurdi∣ties hee hath tombled him selfe headlong. For endeuouryng to proue agaynst the Lutheranes: That there is none other way to attayne true righteousnesse, then by liuyng vertuously: he seé∣meth to pretende a colour of a certeine few sentences pyked out of the Scripture, such, as him selfe scarsely vnderstandeth, or hath ilfauouredly disguised to make a shewe in his maske: and makyng no distinction meane whiles betwixte the persons and the thynges, disposing nothyng in his due place and order, but choppyng and shufflyng all thynges together in a certeine con∣fused hotchpotte (as it were in the old vnformed Chaos) though they be as farre distaūt as heauen and earth, iumbleth them to∣gether without all discretion, confoundyng the law w^t the Gos∣pell: the persons with the thynges them selues: righteousnesse of fayth with righteousnesse of workes: neither noteth which are the naturall causes of the thynges, nor which are the proper ef∣fectes of the causes: but disguiseth the causes vnder title of ef∣fectes, and effectes likewise misturneth into causes. For where as workes are properly the effectes of fayth, neither are of their owne nature good, nor can be esteémed for good, but through Iu∣stification goyng before, yet our Osorius frameth his discourse, as though the chief and especiall bullwarke of all our righteous∣nesse were built wholy vpō workes.* 1.225 And that which he readeth in Scriptures shall come to passe accordyng to workes, y^e same

forthwith he cōcludeth to be done for the workes sake, as though heauen were now a due reward for our trauaile and labours: & not the gift of grace: & as though they do worke, might clayme it as due dette for their workes sake, and were not rather pro∣mised to them that beleue for y^e Sonne the Redeémer his sake. But we haue discoursed enough vpon this matter: it remaineth that we pursue the tracke of the rest of his disputation. And by∣cause we haue spoken sufficiently (as I suppose) of the one of those two propositions, which he calleth false, and whereof hee hath accused Luther to be the Authour: Let vs now fyritte out the other, and seé what vermine it is, and how it is able to de∣fende it selfe.

First of all, whereas Luther hath noted this saying, to be y^e chief piller and foundation of Christian doctrine: That no man ought to ascribe the meane of his Saluation, in any thyng els then in the onely fayth of Iesus Christ: afterwardes he proceé∣deth to the other pointe: That y^e fruites of good workes are en∣gendred, and doe issue from this fayth, euen as the fruite is en∣gendred of the roote of a good treé: and that workes doe follow fayth of necessitie, none otherwise, then as a fertile treé budding out first his greéne leafe, and beautifull blossome, doth at the last by course and force of nature, bryng forth fruite. The sentence Osorius iudgeth to be haynous & in no wise sufferable: and yet in the meane tyme denyeth not, but that good workes do follow fayth.* 1.226 But he cryeth out with an opē mouth this to be false that good workes doe follow Luthers fayth. But it is well yet that we heare in the meane whiles, that good workes are en∣gendred out of Fayth, but in no wise out of Luthers fayth. I would therfore learne of you Osorius out of whose Fayth good workes doe proceéde.

* 1.227Forsooth my fayth (sayth hee) is not Luthers nor Had∣dones fayth if he bee Luther Scholer herein. Come hither Osorius a good fellowshyp that I may stroke y^e smoath shaue∣lyng of yours a whiles. Truely I can not choose but all to be∣loue you, and beleue you also when you speake the truth, for I I suppose that the Oracle of Apollo can bee no more true then this Oracle is, that workes doe follow your fayth as you say. They follow in deéde apasse in great clusters. And bycause ye

vouchsafe not your selfe to expresse vnto vs what kynde of wor∣kes those are,* 1.228 it shall not greéue me to do so much in your behalf. And yet what neéde I make proclamatiō of them? whenas your owne bookes do so aboundauntly and manifestly vtter the same, as that no man can be so blynd or deafe, but he must neédes seé & heare them. What? art thou desirous (Reader) to haue descri∣bed vnto theé as it were in a painted Table, what blossoms this pregnaunt fayth of Osorius doth shewe forth? Peruse his wri∣tynges and his bookes, especially those Inuectiues compiled a∣gaynst Luther, & Haddon. Was euer man in this world, that hath heaped together so many lyes vpon lyes: hath compacted so many blasphemies and slaunders? hath vttered so many er∣rours? hath euer by writyng or practize imagined, expressed, & vomited out so many tauntes, reproches, madde wordes, vani∣ties, cursinges, bragges, follies, and Thrasonicall crakes? so much rascallike scoldyng mockes doggishe snarllyng as this beast hath brayed out in this one booke? wherein you shall neuer finde Luther once named, but coupled together with some title of reproche, as outragious, frāticke, or madde: If those trimme monuments of your gay workes, do cleaue as fast to your day∣ly conuersatiō, as they are ryfe to be founde euery where in your bookes, and the testimonies of your witte: I Appeale to the iud∣gement of the indifferent Reader, what consideration may bee had of that your fayth, which whelpeth out vnto vs such a mon∣struous lytter. For if a good ••••••••growyng vpon a sounde roote, do not commonly bryng forth fruites vnlike to the stocke: And if children doe vsually represent their progenitours in byrth, in some lineamentes of personage, resemblaunce of maners, or o∣ther applyable feature of Nature (for the Gleade, as the Pro∣uerbe is, doth not hatche forth Piggeons) it must surely follow of necessitie, that either your workes whereof you vaunt your crest, do by no meanes follow your fayth: or els we must neédes adiudge you a man scarse of any fayth at all. And therefore to aunswere briefly to those glorious vauntes, whiche you make touching workes that follow your faith, and not Luthers fayth: if you meane those workes which I haue rehearsed, I will glad∣ly agreé with you: but if your meanyng tende to good workes, truly your owne writynges will without any other witnes con∣demne

you for a great lyar. But go ye to. Let vs allow this vn∣to you, which you require to be graunted, that is to say. That your Fayth doth necessaryly drawe after it good deédes, as the Southeast wynde doth draw along the cloudes: yet what should be thestoppell in the meane space, to barre good deédes from Lu∣thers or Haddones fayth more then from yours?

* 1.229Bycause (say you) fayth commeth by hearyng, and hea∣ryng by the word of God. I do acknowledge this a very Ca∣tholicke maxime, & a sentence meéte for a true Christian. But I wonder what monster these moūtaines will bryng forth at the last. But Luthers fayth commeth not of hearyng, for hee doth not heare the wordes of Christ. What wordes I pray you? and where are they writtē? Forsooth where Christ (as he sayth) doth promise euerlastyng life to them that Repente: and doth man ace hell and destruction to them that are im∣penitent. Where is this? Seéke it Reader.

* 1.230And bycause Luther doth not heare those wordes of Christ.

Ergo, his fayth commeth not by hearyng, and therefore yel∣deth no fruites of good workes, but starke bryers & bram∣bles onely.

Go to. And what doth your fayth in y^e meane space Osorius? Let vs heare what grapes it produceth. But my fayth (sayth he) that is to say, the faith of holy Church, whenas it cōsen∣teth to the wordes of Christ: And whenas also Christ hym selfe doth threaten destruction to the impenitent sinners, this fayth therfore wherewith I doe beleue these wordes of Christ causeth me to be repentaunt. What do I heare Oso∣rus? why? what neédeth repentaunce at all, where so manifold, & so great treasures of good workes doe flow so plētyfully out of that riuer of fayth, which workes do prepare an assured way to perfect righteousnes? For what mā is he that dare presume to challenge y^e name of a righteous man, in respect of his vnrigh∣teous dealyng? or who is he y^t repenteth him of his good deédes? But let vs marke the sequele of this tale.

* 1.231Agayne whenas the same Lord doth say: you shall bee my frendes if ye do the thynges that I commaunde you. If I do geue credite to Christes wordes,* 1.232 and doe earnestly de∣sire to be receaued vnto his frēdshyp. I will employ all the

power of my soule to fulfill all his Commaundements. &c. Truely I do commēde you Osorius, and accompt you an happy man also, if you performe in deédes, that ye protest in wordes. But what neédeth then to make any playster of Repentaunce, for as much as you do accomplish all Gods commaundementes as you say? No, but I doe apply all the power of my soule that I may accomplish them. How so (I pray you) Bycause I doe beleue Christes wordes, and therfore yeld my carefull endeuour that if I doe any thyng amisse, I may purge the same with Repentaunce, and that I may obserue all his good preceptes to the vtterest of my abilitie. Behold now Reader the platforme of Osorius his fayth: Whiche by succeé∣dyng encreasinges of dayly buddyng blossomes yeldeth conti∣nuall fruites of most beautifull and holy workes, cōteined in the sappe, braunches, and barke of that pleasaūt stocke. How com∣meth this to passe? First of all: bycause hee is endued with that fayth, which fayth is proper and peculiar to holy Church: Thē bycause he doth beleue the wordes of Christ: Furthermore by∣cause he doth prepare him selfe through this fayth, that he may clense his sinnes with Repentaunce (and what shall become in the meane space of righteousnesse of workes in the Confession of sinnes) Lastly bycause he doth addresse the conuersation of his lyfe, as neare as he can, after the line and leuell of Christes ru∣les. Go to. Let vs compare this platforme of his fayth, and the fayth of Luther and Haddon together. Osorius a Gods name doth credite Christes wordes: Luther and Haddon distrusting Christ, hath geuen no credit at all to the wordes of Christ. O∣sorius beleuyng Christ, and esteémyng aright of his wordes, gaue him selfe to Repentaunce, as became a good Christian mā, and so enured him selfe thereunto, that hee abhorreth his owne wickednesse, and is become obedient to Christes Commaunde∣mentes. These iollyfellowes haue raunged all their lyfe long in such carelesse securitie, as men neuer touched with any re∣morse of Repentaūce, or regarde of amendemēt of lyfe after the doctrine of Christ. Auaunte therefore cursed Luther and his cōpanion Haddon both byrdes of an ill feather, with this your vnbelief, which could neuer be enduced to haue a will neither to beleue Christ, nor to come to Repentaunce, nor yet to accom∣plish

Christes preceptes. You might at least haue taken exam∣ple by Osorius patterne, and thereby haue learned fayth, and bytternesse of Repentaunce.

* 1.233But goe to now. Bycause Osorius doth triumph so glori∣ously of the credite that hee geueth to Christes wordes: Let vs discusse the truth of his speach: and search out the difference be∣twixt this his fayth, whereof he maketh such bragges, and Lu∣thers Fayth. Take an example. The wordes of Christ in the Gospell are these:* 1.234 This is the will of my Father that hath sent me, that euery one that seeth the Sonne, and beleeueth in him shall haue euerlastyng lyfe, and I will rayse him vp in the last day. Iohn. 6. And immediatly after y^e same Christ redoubleth y^e same wordes agayne, and agayne, thereby to emprinte thē more deépely, into their mindes. Veryly, veryly, I say vnto you, he that beleueth in me, hath euerlasting lyfe.* 1.235 Agayne Iohn the first. To as many as belee∣ued in him, he gaue power to be made the Sonnes of God. And by & by in the 3. Chapter. He that beleeueth in the Sonne, hath lyfe euerlasting. And how oft doe you heare in the Gospell, the son∣dry sentences, and the notable titles, and Testimonies, where∣with the Lord doth aduaūce the fayth of his Elect, and the won∣derfull commēdation, wherewith he doth amplifie the force, and efficacy therof? Thy fayth (sayth hee) hath saued thee: Be it vnto you accordyng to your faith. Math. 9.* 1.236 Be it vnto thee as thou hast beleeued. Math. 8.* 1.237 Feare not beleeue onely: Mar. 5.* 1.238 Beleeue onely and thy daughter shalbe made whole. Luc. 8. If thou canst beleeue all things be possible to the beleuing mā. Math. 9. And he that be∣leueth in me shall do the workes which I do, and greater workes thē I do, shall he do. Iohn. 14. You doe acknowledge these wordes of Christ (I suppose) which you can not deny:* 1.239 I demaūde of you now whether your fayth, or Luthers fayth do agreé better w^t the wordes of Christ? Luthers, that doth call backe all thyngs vnto fayth? Or yours, that doth yeld ouer all to y^e workes of righte∣ousnesse. Whenas the Lord being dayly conuersaunt: with the Pu∣blicanes (as the Gospell reporteth) doth preferre the Publicane before the Pharisee: Mary Magdalene before Simō: Banqueteth his prodigall Sonne more sumptuously, then his obedient brother: whenas he carrieth vpon his shoulders his scattered and lost sheepe: looketh narrowly for his lost groate: bindeth vp the woundes of him

that fell among theeues: offereth him selfe a Phisition to the sicke more gladly,* 1.240 then to them that were sounde and whole: whenas hee placeth Harlottes and Sinners in the kingdome of God, before the Pharisees: when hee requiteth their trauaile with equall wages, that came to worke the last houre of the day, with them, that bare the brunte, and heate of the whole day in the Vynearde: when hee compareth, and setteth the last, before the first: when hee promi∣seth Paradise to the theefe, for his faithes sake onely: when he fa∣shioneth Paule, of a deadly Enemie, to be an Apostle: whenas he doth not onely receaue to mercy the Gentiles castawayes by nature, excluded from the promise, voyde of all hope, Reprobates for their Idolatrie, but hath them in greater estimation, then his naturall Sonnes: What did hee meane els by all these examples, then to disclose vnto vs the secret mystery of our Iustification? Which consisteth rather in forgeuenesse of Sinnes, then in doyng good deédes: which is to be esteémed by the onely mercy and promise of God: wherof we take hold fast through fayth, and is not to be wayed by y^e valew of righteousnes, nor any merites of workes. Therfore sithence all you opinion doth so wholy discene from this kynde of Doctrine, with what face can you affirme, that your Fayth is consonaunt with the wordes of Christ? and Lu∣thers discrepaunt?

The Apostle doth in so many places throughout his whole Epistles thunder out (as it were) that there is no righteousnesse but through the faith of Iesu Christ:* 1.241 that no saluatiō is to be obtei∣ned, but by the Mediatour the Sonne, through whom righteousnesse is Imputed, not purchased by workes, neither to him that worketh (saith hee) but to him that beleeueth in Christ, that Iustifieth the wicked: And yet you seémyng not to bee so much as acquainted with this righteousnes by Imputation, as that ye dare not once name this worde Imputation, doe notwithstandyng stand so much in your owne conceite, as though Christ at his commyng should finde all fayth in Osorius,* 1.242 but no fayth at all in Luther. If a man might be so bold with you, it were no vneasie matter to pike out diuers other sentences out of Scripture, whiche would quickly cracke the credite of your fayth. As where the A∣postle writyng vnto Timothe doth so manifestly Prophecie: That it should come come to passe before the end of the world. That

many should departe from the faith, beleeuing lyeng Spirites and doctrines of Deuilles, forbidding Marriadge, and the eating of meates, which the Lord hath prepared to be receaued with thankes geuing. These doctrines of Deuils for as much as the lying spi∣rite of Osorius doth so stoutely mainteine, & bende all his force to vphold in this latter age of the world, as besides him no man more obstinately: what may be thoughe els, but that either he is departed from the fayth? or that the Apostle is an open lyar? A∣gayne: Where the same Apostle writeth touchyng Antichrist, paintyng him out in his colours (as it were) & so liuely expres∣sing him to the apparasit view of y^e world his Throne, his wicked∣nesse, his iuggling,* 1.243 his lyes, his pride, his immesurable arrogancie vauntyng him selfe beyond all hautynesse of mans Nature. What may a man Iudge of these sentences? the meanyng of the whiche can by no meanes possible be applyed to any thyng els thē to the Romish Sée. 2. Thess. 2. Agayne in the Reuelatiō of S. Iohn: where the same Antichrist is set in open stage, hauing the shape and countenaunce of a meeke Lambe, whiche vnder the visour of false hornes,* 1.244 should resemble the true Lambe, and restore the I∣mage of the wounded beast to lyfe and speache. Whiche place of Scripture bycause can not be wrested any other wayes, then to that Romishe Ierarchie (whiche bendyng to ruine at the first, was restored by that great Archeprelate of Rome) yet in this most apparaunt Text of Scripture, if Osorius faith he demaū∣ded, whether it may be applyable to y^e Bishop of Rome, we shall finde him as farre dissentyng from the purpose of this Prophe∣cie, as if he were demaunded the way to Canterbury, he might aunswere, a poake full of Plummes. We haue hitherto suffi∣ciently enough declared (I suppose) that Osorius for all his bragges is voyde of all ayde to defende his Fayth: And so for this tyme I will commit the cēfure of those gay workes, which flowe so plentyfully out of that glorious Fayth, to that Iudge which shall display the hidden corners of darkenesse: and to the consideration of them, who by the view of his bookes, haue skill to discerne a Lyon by his pawes, or rather an Asse by his lolie∣eares. Now remayneth at length to discouer briefly that, which he barketh agaynst Luthers fayth.

* 1.245Now let vs see Luthers fayth (sayth hee) whether it can

bryng forth any liuely fruite.* 1.246 It cā not by any meanes. &c. Lye on yet more a Gods name. First of all, bycause hee tea∣cheth that all workes appeare they neuer so godly are desi∣led with sinne. Nay rather: but y^t you were by nature of so cor∣rupt a Iudgement, y^t ye can not frame your selfe so much as to speake y^e truth, you would neuer haue patched this lye amōgest y^e ragges of your leasings. Luthers disputation cōcerning faith & good workes, tendeth to nothyng els, but that which y^e Scrip∣tures euery where, the sacred spirite of truth, and S. Paule in∣spired with the holy Ghost doe by all meanes, and reasons con∣firme, & which we all ought of very duetie to embrace. For Lu∣ther endeuouryng to make euidēt the doctrine of Iustification, & comparyng our good workes with the lawe of God, is enfor∣ced to confesse the very truth of the matter: that is to say, That there is nothing so holy in workes, but beyng of it owne nature, in some respect vncleane and defiled, must néedes be vnsauorie in the sight of God, if without Christ it bee racked with exact scrutyne of Gods seuere Iudgement. And hereof quarell is py∣ked forthwith agaynst Luther,* 1.247 as though he should affirme that whatsoeuer workes the very regenerated, & engraffed in Christ them selues did worke, were nothyng els, but méere sinnes, and wickednesse. And bycause he doth abbridge good workes in that part onely, wherein they be falsely adiudged to be of valew, to Iustifie before God: Osorius doth argue agaynst him in this wise, as though he did vtterly roote out of mans lyfe, all Ciuill and Morall vertues and vertuous conuersation. Wherein a mā can not easilye determine, whether he doth shewe him selfe more iniurious to Luther, or bewray rather his owne blockish grose∣nesse. No man euer taught more soundly,* 1.248 no man more highly commended good workes, then Luther did, beyng separated a part from the doctrine of Iustification. And whereas he doth ex∣tenuate the force of workes in the treatize of Iustification, he doth not therein so altogether derogate from workes, as rather frendly aduertize them, whiche through vayne Confidence of workes, doe challenge to them selues righteousnesse in the sight of God, and do depende so much vpon the deseruynges of wor∣kes, as though there were none other foūteine from whence our Saluation might be deriued. Luther therfore vsing Argumēt

agaynst those persons, doth boldly auow, that all our workes are defiled, yet not simply, but in respect of their application, beyng considered without the fayth of the Mediatour. Whiche beyng most truely spoken by Luther, is as sinisterly wrested by Oso∣rius as though he had spoken it simply, that there is no good or commendable thyng in workes, nothyng in them acceptable to God, though neuer so duetyfully, or vertuously performed. And for this cause hee concludeth at last, as with an vnuanquishable Argument. That by no meanes possible, Luthers fayth could bryng forth any frutefull workes, like as that barren figge tree, growyng neare vnto the high way, whereupon grewe nothyng but leaues. But this is Osorius his owne conclusion not Luthers, a Sophisticall cauill concludyng falsely. If S. Paule doubted nothing at all to esteeme all thinges sinnefull which were done without faith. Rom. 4.* 1.249 If it were lawfull for Augu∣stine to write in this wise. Thy workes are examined (sayth he) and are foūde all defiled. Why doth he rage so furiously agaynst Luther, bycause he doth professe, that the déedes which we call good, are in none other respect to be daémed for good, thē as they bee valued by the fayth of the Mediatour? The consideration of this doctrine as is of it selfe most assured, so doth it not tende to that end, that Osorius imagineth, to discourage godly myndes from vertuous endeuour. Rather well disposed persons are so much the more enflamed to embrace vertue, by how much they finde them selues more bounde to Gods bountyfull mercy: for as I vnderstand, nature hath so prouided, that fayth workyng by loue, should alwayes be more effectuall, thē the law constrai∣nyng through feare.

If this rule of Paule can not yet be beaten into that bussard∣ly braynes, how that our déedes be voyde of all prayse, and esti∣mation, teachyng you that all thyng is Sinne, that is wrought without fayth.* 1.250 Let Augustine yet preuayle somewhat with you.

Beléeue (sayth he) in him that doth Iustifie the wicked, that thy good workes may proue good workes: For I will not vouchsafe to call them good, as long as they do issue from an euill trée.

And therefore our Sauiour him selfe recityng and rewardyng the good déedes of his faythfull,* 1.251 doth not speake in this maner as though he spake generally. Thou hast fedde the hungry. Thou

hast lodged the harbourlesse: Thou hast refreshed the néedy, and clothed the nacked, but restrainyng all these thynges to y^e fayth, which ought to be towardes him. I was hungry (sayth he) and ye fedde me, and I was naked, and ye clothed me: I was in miserie, in chaines, and emprisoned, and you visited me and gētly refreshed me: I was harbourlesse and ye refreshed me. &c. So that he regarded not so much the deédes them selues, which are indifferently em∣ployed vpō the relief of the néedy, as he esteémed the fayth which worketh those déedes for Gods sonnes sake & his names sake. Wherefore forasmuch as vpon this fayth dependeth not onely the Iustification of all mankynde,* 1.252 but of all the actions of mans lyfe, in the sight of God, as vpon this onely roote, and founda∣tiō, what absurditie ensueth hereof to say. That all our workes as of them selues, & their owne nature, are filthy in the sight of God, vnlesse they be sprinckled with y^e fayth, & bloud of the Me∣diatour? Now these thyngs beyng agreéd vpon. Let vs returne to the Argument of Osorius.* 1.253 The fayth of Luther (sayth Oso∣rius) can by no meanes yeld any good fruite. Why so? By∣cause hee doth say that all our workes seeme they neuer so holy, are infected, and wholy defiled. Go to, and what more? Ergo. No liuely fruites of good workes (sayth hee) can ensue from Luthers fayth: for as much as all our doyngs are cor∣rupt and sinneful, as Luther him selfe witnesseth. I do heare you & aunswere you. That the Antecedent is true, but the con∣sequent most salfe. For to confesse that to be true, which Luther hath most truly alledged, that all our good deédes beyng viewed with the eyes of Gods Iustice, without fayth, and without the Mediatour, are of them selues no lesse abhorred in the sight of God, then wicked sinners: yet is not Osorius conclusion there∣fore true, that Luthers fayth is the wellspryng and seédeplot of all vngodlynes. The reason therof is euident. For whatsoeuer actiōs, or endeuours of mās life are of their own nature blame∣worthy, the fault of the same proceédeth not from fayth, but frō the poysoned corruption of our weake fleshe. And therfore Lu∣ther agreéing very wel with Augustin, cōmaūdeth to take hold∣fast of fayth. That our workes may thereby be made good wor∣kes, For as much as whatsoeuer is not of fayth, and is not one∣ly not shielded vnder her protectiō, deserueth not to be accomp∣ted

for good, but also after the testimony of Paule, is esteémed in the sight of God no better then very sinne and offence.

* 1.254 This matter beyng confessed, a mā may frame an Argumēt agaynst Osorius much more fitly after this maner.

For as much as the law in her proper effect cā do nothing, but engender wrath, and was for this purpose published, that sinne should appeare much more sinnefull.

It followeth rather by Osor. doctrine (who seémeth to main∣teine w^t the whole bent of his skil y^e glory of the law) that no good workes are engendred of y^e law, but sinne rather as from whēce more plentyfull matter of wrath is raysed to our destruction.

But Luther handleth the matter farre otherwise, all whose Diuinitie howe much the more carefully doth enseale vnto vs the fayth of Christ, which is the onely mother, and nourse of all vertuous deédes, so much the greater encrease of good workes must of necessitie spryng by his doctrine. And therefore (as I suppose) we haue handsomely enough, for this tyme, wrong out of Osorius his fingers, this choakyng bone, wherewith he hath kept all this sturre agaynst Luther, and thrust it into his owne throate: That Luthers fayth is the well spring & seede plot of all wickednes, but his faith the founteine of all ver∣tue. But here comes an other bolt, out of the same quiuer, as well made, and as wisely shotte. Let vs behold how neare the marke he shootes withall.

* 1.255Agayne bycause Luther doth affirme that the force of lust is so strong, that he beleeueth no man able to resiste it. It is a common custome (I perceaue) amongest many persons to extenuate and despise boldly Originall sinne, and that decay of nature in wordes: but I could neuer finde any one, that was able to suppresse and vtterly subdue the strength therof in deéde in this mortall lyfe: except that onely man of whom it is writ∣ten: Whiche of you doth accuse me of sinne? vnlesse we will cou∣ple this our Osorius next vnto him, and make him his equall: who with singular & vnspeakeable courage, doth fight agaynst nature, so stoutely (I thinke) that no force of naturall corruptiō, no entycementes of ticklyng lust can driue him from his state of innocencie. But I will no more rippevp the lyfe and maners of Osorius I will examine the force and vigour of his Argu∣ments

and the vnioynted ioyntes, and shiuered sinewes therof.

Luther doth deny that man in this lyfe, is able to van∣quishe the strength of sinne vtterly, raignyng in the fleshe.

Ergo, No good workes doe proceede from Luthers Fayth.

Why do ye not by the same Logicke conclude likewise.

Ergo, There is nothyng in the world besides the Crowe that is blacke.

Nor any skill in the learned that is not in Osor. packe.

But go to let vs chaūge the names of men & let the matter remayne. And in place of Luther let vs vse the name of Paule. Marke now as wise a reason, or rather the very same, onely the names of persons beyng chaunged.

Paule complainyng of the sinne, which doth accosiber his flesh, doth protest, y^t in his flesh, dwelleth no good thing.

Ergo, No good workes are engēdred out of Paules fayth.

For what difference is there I pray you betwixt the wordes of Paule, & Luthers positiō, if ye compare them together right∣ly? whenas eche of them with vnelagreable assent, haue relation to the selfe same vnuanquishable tyranny of Originall Sinne. But now let vs heare how necessarily this consequent must fol∣low of this wonderfull reason, wherewith hee would seéme to proue that Luthers fayth is y^e vtter subuertour of all good wor∣kes: for in this wise crawleth forward that lyeng spirite out of his mouth.

But for as much as no man can enterprise any good ac∣tion, vnlesse he doe first utterly cut of the kyngdome of Sinne.* 1.256

But the kyngdome of sinne can not be vtterly cut of, if it be true that Luther teacheth.

It remayneth therefore that no man is able to worke any good deede.

As touchyng the forme of this Argument,* 1.257 perhappes the punyes in Sophistey may somewhat allow: but if ye behold the matter thereof. Certes the Doctours of Diuinitie will reiect the same as faultie. Vnlesse (sayth he) the kyngdome of sinne be first vtterly cut of. &c. Truly I would not much stand with

you here Osorius. If you will first expresse vnto vs apely and di∣stinctly,* 1.258 what you meane by this worde kyngdome. For where∣as Deuines do agreé, that there are two sortes of sinne, whiche we call actuall sinne: whiche also they doe distinguish two ma∣ners of wayes, into Sinne reigning, and Sinne rebelling, you must teach vs, whether of those two you meane. For it is not all one thyng to suffer thy selfe to be carryed away with sinne, & to yeld thy selfe willingly captiue into his Tyranny, as to be van∣quished of sinne through weakenes: For the first cōmeth of will: the next of Infirmitie: We are all many tymes ouercome of sinne, neither liueth any in this flesh, but offendeth sometymes sondry wayes. Yet are we notwithstanding ouercome agaynst our willes, and drawyng backe as it were. The most chosen ser∣uaunts of God are sondry tymes cast down through Sinne rei∣gning in their mēbers: But neuer yeld ouer wholy as subiectes to his kyngdome. Uery well therfore doth S. Paule counsell vs: Let not Sinne reigne in your fleshly bodies.* 1.259 Rom. 6. And yet the same Paule did not alwayes bring to passe the good y^t he would. But did worke many tymes the euill that he would not: Not he now but Sinne dwellyng within him.

These thynges beyng thus opened: Let vs search out the pythe of the Argument.* 1.260 Hee denyeth that vertue hath any place there, where the kyngdome of Sinne is not vtterly rooted out. If Osorius do meane the kyngdome of Sinne, as a kyng or a tyraunt doth reigne ouer his subiectes. The Ma∣ior proposition is true, but the Minor most false. For Luther did neuer teache, no not so much as dreame otherwise, then that Sinne should bee suppressed as much as were possible. But if his meanyng tende to this end. That no man can enter∣prise any good worke, vnlesse the tyranny of Sinne beyng first brought vnder yoke, he haue so tamed the fleshe, that no motion so much may bee felt to rebell within, that may wounde or in∣fect the conscience: how can Osorius make proofe of that which he verifieth in his Maior? or confute that which he doth obiect agaynst Luther in his Minor? Or where shall he finde that con∣querour of Sinne, who hauyng throughly mortified Sinne, and vtterly vanquished the ragyng Rebellion of naturall cor∣ruption, dare promise rewarde of perfect righteousnesse vnto

him selfe? Iob a man of all other famous for his vprightenesse of lyfe,* 1.261 was yet so displeasaunt with him selfe, that hee seémed to stand in doubte of all his workes.* 1.262 Esay doth condemne all his righteousnesse, to be more lothsome then a menstruous cloute. Who was more holy, or more acceptable to God then Dauid?* 1.263 And yet besides that he dare not presume to offer him selfe to Iudge∣ment, as beyng dismayed with feare of his secret conscience, he doth not spare franckely to pronounce, That no fleshe liuyng can bee founde righteous in the sight of God. The greate Prophete Daniell doubted not to make his humble Confession together with the people, saying,* 1.264 That he had Sinned with his forefathers. What shall I speake of Ionas,* 1.265 and the other Prophetes? And to let passe the other Apostles, what shall I say of Paule and Peter? S. Iohn declaryng That we all are Trespassours in ma∣ny thinges,* 1.266 doth not exempt him selfe out of the same number.

Next to the Apostles, ensued the Age of auncient Antiqui∣tie and learned Fathers, who although with all their power & might, did valiauntly mainteyne cōtinuall battell agaynst y^e as∣saultes of sinne, yet could they neuer so surely encampe, & gard them selues in so firme a grounde, but they should be vndermi∣ned with the countermoyling of her outragious Pyoners: that lyke dastardes mistrustyng their owne strēgth, they should feéle them selues enforced sometymes to forsake their standyng, and fleé for rescue to the onely mercy and forgeuenesse of God, as to the onely vnpenetrable rocke of their Saluation. And ther∣fore S. Ierome in playne wordes doth note truly,* 1.267 that though man did atteine to perfection, hee should yet stand in neéde of Gods mercy: and that mans full and perfect perfection did de∣pend vpon grace, and not vpon deseruynges. &c. No lesse effec∣tually Augustine writyng to Boniface touchyng perfect righ∣teousnesse, or rather of the imperfection of our righteousnesse.* 1.268

Uertue (sayth he) whiche is now in a righteous man, is sayd to be so farreforth righteous, as vnfayned acknowledgement, and humble Confession of his owne imperfection doth admitte the same to bee perfect. Agayne the same Augustine in an other place doth accompt that man to haue profited much in this life,* 1.269 who by profityng doth feéle in him selfe, how farre he is distaunt from true perfection. And bycause the Latin Church shall not

seéme to want the testimonies of the Greékes.

Let vs heare the wordes of Basile treatyng of mans righteousnesse.* 1.270

This is full & perfect reioysing in God, when as a man is lifted vp not with any righteousnes of his own, but knoweth him selfe empty and naked of true righteousnesse, and so to be iustified by Faith One∣ly in Christ Iesu. Whereby Osorius may perceaue, what esti∣mate is to be made of our owne righteousnesse, though it seéme neuer so beautyfull:

which Augustine him selfe adiudgeth wor∣thy of execrable curse, if it bee examined besides the mercy of God.* 1.271 But bycause (sayth he) thou doest not narrowly & sharpe∣ly searche our offences, we doe hope assuredly, that we shall ob∣teyne some place for pardon in thy sight. It is not neédefull to "make a Register of all y^e testimonies of writers (y^e matter espe∣cially beyng so euident, and so strongly fenced with multitude of authorities) whenas the consent and agreément of all wri∣ters, is in no one thyng more generall, and stedfast, then in the abacyng of perfection of workes, and humbly crauyng pardon of our owne imperfection.

* 1.272 Whereupon Augustine, stand not in Iudgement (sayth he) agaynst thy seruaūt, requiryng of me all thynges that thou hast taught and commaunded. For if thou enter into Iudgement with me, thou shalt finde me guilty. I had neéde therfore of thy mercyes, rather thē thy seuere Iudge∣ment.

I demaunde now what you cōceaue of the wordes of Au∣gustine? Surely although I doe not thinke, that the man was voyde of wonderfull willyng endeuour, yet if he had bene of all partes endued with that integritie of vndefiled lyfe, and had vt∣terly rooted out the whole kyngdome of Sinne, with the concu∣piscence thereof: and had obteined to be deémed prayse worthy, in respect of absolute accomplishyng the Commaundementes of God: his soule would neuer so humbly haue disclaymed from Gods Iudgement, and submitted all comfort of pardon to the onely freé mercy of God.

Let vs annexe hereunto the same Aurel. August. altogether disagreéyng from Osorius where hee setteth downe the same much more playnly in his booke De Spirit. & Liter.

* 1.273 I said (quoth he) that it was possible for a mā to be without Sinne, if he haue a will thereunto, & Gods assistaunce withall: but I neuer sayd, that euer was, or euer should be, any one, who in this lyfe could

be so perfect, except that one onely, in whom all creatures shal∣be quickened. &c. Of what force therfore can this your wynde∣shaken crooche be, more then Catholicke, which you haue scra∣ped out of Hosius, Roffensis, or Cicero (as I suppose) where u∣pon your lame cripled workes do rest so boldly?

namely: that a man may so order his lyfe in this rottē Tabernacle of the flesh, after the right squarier of righteousnesse, by the assistaunce of God: as hauyng throughly conquered the kyngdome of Sinne, he may easely accomplish all the Cōmaundementes of the law? And therfore to aunswere at a word for all, what shall I speake els, then as Ierome reported to Ctesiphon, when he wrate a∣gaynst the heresie of Pelagians. So shall I set Augustine a∣gaynst Osorius, & S. Ierome agaynst Syr Ierome.* 1.274 Thou doest say, that the Commaundements of God are easie (sayth S. Ie∣rome) and yet thou canst name no one man, which hath perfor∣med them all. &c.

And so the same S. Ierome proceédyng fore∣ward: Utter no such blasphemy agaynst the heauens, whereby thou mayst delude y^e myndes of simple folke with these wordes. It is, and it may be: for who will graunt vnto theé, that a man may do that, which neuer man could doe? And agayne the same Ierome, what is our wisedome? nay rather what ought our wisedome to be, which are not perfect? Our simple Confession, that we are vnperfect: and that we haue not yet atchieued or attayned full perfection.* 1.275 This is the true wisedome of man, to know him selfe to be vnperfect. And I willbe bold to speake it, that the perfection of the best and most righteous, whiles hee dwelleth in this fleshely doughill is altogether vnperfect. &c. What neéde I alledge any more in a matter so manifest of it selfe? so throughly confirmed with Testimonies, and so playnly and notably discernable by the dayly examples of mans life?

But amongest the rest of this innumerable ouerflowyng multitude of Sinners, here shalbe a Reply made (I beleéue) of the Deuine integritie of this one Gentleman Osorius, of his wonderfull conuersation, absolute holynes, Angelike chastitie, culuerlike simplicitie, linked together with a more then Sera∣phicall humilitie, and incomprehensible innocencie, who alone amōgest the children of women, hath beautified the whole world with such brightnesse of righteousnes, who carrieth about him

all vertues fast lockt in the sacred cheéste of his breste, and day∣ly numbred them: who hath so quenched the boylyng froathe of Originall Sinne: hath so vtterly subdued, and brought into bondage, the whole empire therof euen at one pushe: hath of all partes so absolutely fulfilled eche tittle of the Cōmaundemēts: hath tamed the flesh and all the concupiscence thereof: hath sup∣ressed his affections: hath with so well disposed order, addres∣sed the whole course of his life: and euen now haled up on hygh,* 1.276 with a certeine out stretched reache of mynde beyonde the hea∣uens, and rapted now into the fraternitie of S. Frauncisce him selfe, is enflamed with vnquencheable desire of Deuine zeale, that hee will not once treade awrye so much, nor wilbe blotted with one spotte of crime, or suspition of crime, bee it neuer so litle: will not yeld to any temptations of Sathan, or infirmi∣tie of the flesh: will not be seéne with blemish or suspition of Sinne, no not one Solecisme or Incongruitie: no nor yet idle speache in all his wordes, no disorder in his whole lyfe and con∣uersation: out of whose mouth shall issue no idle word, nor lye no (I dare boldly say) not one no erronious doctrine, no cōtume∣lious cauill in his bookes: no rascallike slaunder: no Sycophā∣ticall outrage: but all thynges shalbe founde within him so at∣tempered, and quallified with a certeine marueilous peacible modestie, and lenitie, that no defect may bee founde neédefull to be added to fill vp a full Bushell of perfect righteousnesse. And bycause thou shalt not wonder (Reader) by what meanes, this our most Reuerend Prelate hath climbed to this immesurable excellencie of generall righteousnes, and with what Pillers he vnderproppeth the same, and learne withall, how auayleable and effectuall, this most sacred Sacrament of Confession is: vouchsafe I pray theé to heare Osori. him selfe telling his owne tale.* 1.277 I doe call to witnesse (sayth) he Iesu Christ my Lord and my God, that by the meanes of this comfortable Confes∣sion sondry times frequented,* 1.278 I haue escaped from infinite wickednesse: wherfore if I haue at any tyme subdued lust, if I haue forsaken voluptuous filthynesse, if I haue bene de∣sirous to embrace Chastitie: If I haue bene enlightened with any sparckle of godly zeale: I do wholy ascribe the ef∣fectuall operation therof to the same Sacrament: through

the whiche the holy Ghost hath emparted vnto me great store of his grace. &c. What a test is this? If beyng first ouer∣whelmed with innumerable iniquities, hee haue attayned that righteousnesse at the length through the vertue of that most sa∣cred Sacrament, in so much as he hath shaken of the yoake of all concupiscence, hath cut the throate and cut of the head of the kyngdome of Sinne: what neéde hath he then to repeate his cōfessiōs so oft? when the wounde is whoale, what neéde any play∣ster or further Surgery? If all Sinne bee abolished, to what purpose serueth dayly custome of Confessiō, and to what end is absolution craued? But if he feéle yet somewhat lurkyng with∣in him, that forceth him betwixt whiles, to runne agayne so oft to Confession, and to y^e drugges of absolution: how is it, that he affirmeth so boldly, that y^e kyngdome of Sinne is wholy cōque∣red in vs, so couragiously fightyng agaynst Luthers doctrine in wordes, whereas in very life he agreeth altogether w^t Luther.

Finally if Osorius dare presume to stoutely vpon his owne conscience, as hauyng vtterly crusht in peéces the kyngdome of Sinne, that hee is now no more acquainted therewith: what may preiudice him, but he may forthwith frankely Iustifie him selfe with the Phariseé and say, I thanke theé, O Lord Heauēly Father, that I am not as other men are, nor like vnto this Pu∣blican Luther, and those seély sheépish Bucerans. I do fast twise in the Weéke: I geue the tenth of all that I possesse: yea besides all this I do also dayly enure my selfe to holy Cōfession. &c. But hereof enough: Let vs proceéde to the remnaūt rable of his ra∣ked lyes as they follow.

Furthermore who be holy & vnblameable before God?* 1.279 Euen those truly which are voyde of all crime, but accor∣dyng to Luthers doctrine, you can not bee voyde of crime: for hee denyeth that sinne is extinguished, and affirmeth that the flames of all abomination do broyle out therof, as out of a whotte flamyng Ouē, scorching and cōsumyng all things: by meanes whereof no man can bee founde vnbla∣meable & without spotte. The sutteltie of this Sophisticall cauill tendeth at the last to this end.

God hath chosen vs (sayth the Apostle) that we should become holy, and vnblameable.

But according to Luthers doctrine, no man can be ho∣ly, and without fault, in this lyfe.

Therfore hereof ensueth an vnauoydeable conclusion.

Bycause no man liuyng is cleare frō offence, therfore neither Haddon, nor any of all the Lutheranes can be reckoned amongest Gods Elect.

Packe ye hence therefore as banished outlawes all ye vyle Lutheranes, packe ye hence with all your torne & ragged wor∣kes into the helles of Osorius damnable curse. For the gate of Election is not opened to any, but vnto Popes, Osorians, Phi∣gianes, Hosianes, Eckyans, and others the like Lordynges, in whose most pure and choise behauiour, no droppe of filth can be founde worthy of Reproch. If Osorius him selfe had not bene so shamelesse beastly, as to blaze abroad this trifling Argumēt, it would haue loathed me to haue rehearsed the same in this place: nor would I vouchsaued any aunswere thereto: but that I thought good to geue the Reader a tast of his blockishe igno∣raunce, that he might smile at it a whiles, or at the least, learne by this, to esteéme of all other his poppet reasons almost in all his booke: for scarsely any founder matter is scattered in any part thereof.

* 1.280FIrst of all. The Apostle both teache that we are elected and chosen, that we should become holy. This is true. Whereby you may perceaue (Osorius) that whatsoeuer holynes we be en∣dued withall, doth neither goe before, nor accompany election, but that it ought to follow altogether, not in order of tyme one∣ly, but in respect of the end and effect thereof. For the Apostle doth not say: GOD hath chosen vs bycause we were holy, or should afterwardes proue holy, but that we should become holy: so that Gods Electiō is now the cause, not the effect of our good workes. And if good workes do follow Electiō in order of time, I seé no cause to the contrary, but by the same reason, our Iusti∣fication should likewise necessaryly follow. For as much as the consideration of them both is all one. For whom hath cho∣sen, the same he hath Iustified: and with the same grace that he hath chosen vs, hee is sayd also, to haue Iustified vs: by one selfe same meane, and to one selfe same ende. For God hath chosen vs, if ye aske here the cause: of his freé mercy accordyng to the

good pleasure of his will, if ye seéke the meane. In Christ Iesu, If ye looke for the ende to worke good deédes, not for the good deédes sake, not for any our deseruinges, but to the prayse of the glory of his grace. Truly none otherwise fareth it in the matter of Iustification. For whom God of his freé mercy hath chosen, the same also he hath freély Iustified, not by any other meanes then in Christ Iesu: not bycause he foresawe, that we would be holy, but to that ende, that we should walke circumspectly and holyly in his sight.

But what emporteth this saying,* 1.281 that we should become ho∣ly and vnblameable? paraduenture Osorius bee of the opinion, that the Catharres, Celestines, and Donatifies were imagi∣nyng, that herein our full and absolute regeneration of our re∣newed nature was signified vnto vs: and that we should accom∣plish such a kynde of thyng as the Grecians do call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without the which, Gods Election and our Iustification could not by any meanes consist. Ueryly I could wishe with∣all my hart, that we all could direct the course of our lyfe in such sort, accordyng to this Puritanisme of Osorius. And that we were all endued with such integritie, and Angelicke innocē∣cie, that no part of our life might be defiled with blemish or iust reprehension. But what shall we say? Such is the condition of mans life, such is the weakenesse of the fleshe, that euery man hath his infirmitie: And we haue not as yet so put of the Na∣ture of man altogether, that we should bee forthwith transfor∣med into Angels. Goe to then? what if it come to passe, that in this brickle estate of our frayltie, any of vs doe folter and fall∣downe? are we therfore excluded forthwith from our Electiō? or haue we by and by lost the benefite of our Iustification? I doe not thinke so Osorius. For in what sence shall y^e Electiō of God he sayd to be permanent, if it may be cut of, and haue an ende? or how shall it be called stedfast and assured, if it hange vpon the vncerteintie of our frayltie? But do not the true elect (say you) fall at any tyme into deserued rebuke? what thē? shall euery one y^t is worthy rebuke, be forthwith cast of frō his Electiō? A good felowshyp (Osorius) What if this fall happē before Baptisme? You will say that Baptisme doth washe it cleane away. What? and shall not fayth and Christian Repentaunce clense our offen∣ces

after Baptisme likewise? If there be no forgeuenes of those Trespasses which we Christians doe commit after Baptisme: To what ende is that Article in our Christian Creéde, wherein we cōfesse remission of Sinnes? If no offence be made, to what purpose serueth Pardon? Surely where nothyng is blame∣worthy their Pardon may goe play. Let vs seé now: will you now dispoyle vs of an Article of our fayth, and withall bereue vs of hope of remission, that erste bosted so boldly of your strong belief in the wordes of Christ? But you say. God did chuse vs that we should be vnblameable. I do heare you Osorius & al∣low your Obiection, if you will likewise accept of myne aun∣swere. Whatsoeuer is forgeuen to the guiltie by Pardon, and purged by forgettyng and forgeuyng: there is nothyng remay∣nyng to terrifie that person from Imputatiō, or make dismayed for any controllement. For (that we may so bold to glory as Paule doth).* 1.282 What is he that shall accuse the elect of God? God is he that doth Iustifie, who shall then condemne vs? We may law∣fully adde hereunto. Who shall comptroll vs?

You seé therfore in what wise Gods elect doe appeare now excusable and righteous: not so much through the cleannesse of their deédes, as through the bountie of him that Imputeth:

Not from the begynnyng of vnrighteous nature,* 1.283 (to speake Augu∣stines own wordes) but by conuersion from sinne to righteous∣nes. nothyng blame∣worthy, but bycause it doth not please the Fatherly clemēcie, to exact sharpe and narrow triall of them, whom he hath chosen in his Sonne.

And therefore the Apostle notyng the same thyng, sayth.* 1.284 Whom he hath chosen in Christ Iesu, that they should become holy and vnblameable. &c. Wherein you haue both the cause, & the end of our Electiō. The cause is Christ, or y^e grace of God in Christ: The end is herein signed, that we should become holy & vnblameable. For he speaketh not in this wise: he did chuse thē which had lead an vncorrupt life, to the ende he might engraffe them in Christ. But he did chuse vs in Christ Iesu first, that we should liue holy, and vnrebukeable.* 1.285 But by what meanes vn∣rebukeable (say you) whenas the very elect them selues can not be free from faulte, as Luther doth say? The aunswere is playne and easie.

Whereas Luther doth deny,* 1.286 that Gods true elect are freé frō all guilt, he seémeth therein to haue regard to y^e frayltie of mās nature, & making a comparison therof, doth set the same direct∣ly opposite against the seuere Iustice of Gods law. This weake nature bēding her force as much as she may, agaynst y^e assaults of sinne, although she get the vpperhād sometymes, yet, besides that she yeldeth ouer very oft as vāquished, euē then chiefly, whē she hath obteined the maistry, she doth neuer yet expresse y^e im∣maculate sinceritie, & vndefiled vprightenes in mainteinyng y^e battell, but some default may be foūde in her most perfect obedi∣ence: & so pumples will yet sticke fast in y^e flesh, that they may be easily espied: For curing wherof she shalbe cōstreined of necessi∣tie to pray in ayde for the generall triacle of the Church. Lord forgeue vs our sinnes. &c. So y^t Augustines wordes may well be verified here,* 1.287 why is y^e possibilitie of nature so much presumed vpon? It is woūded, maymed, troubled, and vtterly destroyed: it neédeth a true Confession, and not a false purgation. &c.

Furthermore where the Apostle maketh this addition: Thar" we should become holy & vnblameable, he seémeth not therein so much to respect y^e naturall perfectiō of innocēcy (which I doubt whether may be foūde in the very Angels) as y^e zealous mynde, godly will, & earnestly bent affectiō of euery of vs in this life, & vprightnes in euery our seuerall vocatiō: meanyng nothyng in this placeels, thē as he did in an other place: where speaking of y^e vocation of widdowes cōmaūdeth thē to be instructed to lead an vnreproueable life. 1. Timo. 5.* 1.288 Likewise making mētion of By∣shops: sayth. That they must be vnblameable, & haue a good testi∣mony, left they fall into reproch and reprofe of the slaūderer. 1. Tit. 3.* 1.289 Agayne setting an order for seruaūtes, cōmaūdeth thē to haue regard to their calling,* 1.290 lest the name of God & the doctrine of their professiō should be brought into obloquy. In like maner to Titus the 2. chap. Appointyng a rule of comely cōuersation, he doth ex∣borte all persons that euery one so behaue him selfe in his vocation,* 1.291 that the word of God be not blasphemed: & that the aduersary may be ashamed, hauing no iust quarell to accuse vs. And agayne to the Colloss. the first chap.* 1.292 That he may deliuer you holy and vndefiled and vnblameable in his sight. &c. Which sayings tend not to this end, as though mās nature could put on that perfection, wher∣by

by she might be preserued frō fallyng at any tyme afterwardes by frayltie from the state of integritie: but prouoke vs rather thereby to take heéde, that our will be no more in thraldome vn∣der wicked rebellion, & so voluntary yeld ouer the members of y^e body to sinne, or by any meanes bryng her selfe in bondage to wickednes. And this is the meanyng of the Apostle (as I sup∣pose) That we are therfore chosen of God, not to be delighted in mynde with the cōcupiscence of the flesh, to fulfill the lust ther∣of But to become holy: That euery of vs in this world should demeane our selues in our callying soberly, vprightly, and god∣ly, as be seémeth the chosen, and holy ones of God.

Whereby you may sufficiently perceaue (if I be not decea∣ued) That those sentēces,* 1.293 which Paule hath written cōcernyng holynes, and Luther touching naturall infirmitie, are not so re∣pugnaunt one agaynst the other, but they may both be admit∣ted well enough. For hereof ariseth no repugnauncie, but that in outward conuersation, and obseruyng the rules of our fun∣ction duely, it may be sayd after a simple maner of speach and vnfaynedly: That is to say, in the sight of God a man may de∣meane him selfe honestly, in whose nature notwithstādyng some such filthe may cleaue, as may of necessitie compell him to crye out with that elect vessell of God, wretched man that I am, who shall deliuer me from this body of death?* 1.294 But Osorius perhappes will chaunte vs an higher note, not with this miserable Paule: Vnhappy man that I am, who shall deliuer me? But will descaunt (I suppose) with that blessed Phariseé. I thanke thee, O heauenly Father, that I am not as other mortall men are. &c. But let vs goe foreward, and pursue the Reliques of this notable monument. And sithence we are come now to the treatize of Predestination and Freéwill. Let vs marke well what stuffe this Raunger hath brought out of his Forrest: and what dogges he leadeth to course other mens game withall.

¶Of Predestination and Freewill.

LVther affirmeth that freewill is a thyng in name onely,* 1.295 or a Name without substaunce: That mā is the patiēt and not the agent: That he is drawen, and doth not purpose or Deli∣berate any thyng: That man is an instrument onely, and as it were a Sawe, or Axe whiche God doth frame and force whether he will, and whereun∣to him pleaseth: and that mā hath no power nor strēgth re∣serued him either to doe good, or to cōmit wickednesse: in so much that we are not able not onely not to do good or euill: but also not to thinke any thought by any meanes of our selues. Moreouer when I name Luther, I vnderstād al∣so withall Melancthon, Bucer, Caluin and the rest of your Iolly fellowes: whose opinions and writynges tend to this effect at the length. That no difference at all may seeme to be betwixt man, and any other toole or instrument.

In uery good tyme Syr, blessed bee this houre, wherein we are come now at the length to the most combersome and crabby treatie of Freéwill, which beyng heretofore so oft tost to an fro in common Schooles, in assemblies, and disputations of Deui∣nes, after so many combates & turmoyles, hath now at the last founde out a champion (hope I) through whose onely force and actiuitie beyng defended, and shrowded (as it were vnder the Target of Aiax) she shall be able to endure and withstād all the assaultes, and coūtermoyles of all heretiques whatsoeuer. For whereas heretofore this vnsearcheable gulfe hath encombred & entangled the wittes, and studies of so many notable Clerkes, Cardinalles, Byshops, and Priestes: the bottome and depth whereof could notwithstandyng neuer yet bee attayned vnto: I suppose the onely let thereof hitherto hath bene, for that our O∣sorius was not hatched as then, nor produced to be Proctour in this cause. But now sithence this vpstarte wrestler is skipt o∣uer the old barriers, and hath catcht the collers in hand, may a∣ny man doubt but that (the whole force of the Enemy beyng vt∣terly discomsited and compelled to fleé the field, the Maiestie of Freéwill hauyng bene long tyme wounded and weakened with greéuous maladie, yea and through feéblenesse euen yeldyng vp

the ghost) shall presently recouer health? stand vpon her feéte, and be strong? For this lusty gallaunt disdayneth to encounter as Bythus did sometyme with Bacchius or as Ecerinus with Pacidianus, or as Hercules agaynst two,* 1.296 or as Horarius a∣gaynst threé brethren at once, or with one man hand to hand onely: but of valiaunt courage, challengeth the field agaynst foure choise and tryed souldiours at one choppe together: to witte, Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Caluine. Yea with them also agaynst the whole armye of Lutheranes. Agaynst whom neuerthelesse if Osorius durst haue cast his gloue, when they li∣ued amongest vs: or if they were present now to aunswere the challenge, and defende the cause, no doubt the iustie crakes of proude Iacke bragger would carry but a small coūtenaunce to moue the godly to be displeasaunt withall. But as to rake the dead out of their graues, and to pike quarell agaynst ghostes and spirites, is the common guise of euery rascall varlet: so to the discreét and well disposed hath it bene accompted most filthy and contemptuous: yea most to be abhorred in our Osorius at this present: who in all this his discourse of Freéwill alledgyng no one thyng agaynst them, but that whiche in their writynges and bookes is fully aunswered and satisfied: yet (as though they had made no aunswere at all) crawleth hee foreward neuerthe∣lesse, patchyng together his rotten and motheaten trumperie: wherein neither is any thyng of his owne inuētion, nor any new stuffe, but that he hath somewhat furbushed the old rusty Argu∣mentes of other raynebeaten souldiours, with a fresh glaze of raylyng and slaunderous tearmes, like the foolish Choughe at∣tiryng him selfe wholy with the feathers of other Fowles: and in this respect also more vyle and lothsome: That, where the o∣ther doe in their arguyng make a certeine shew of some reason vouched either out of Scriptures, or of Doctours wrongfully wrested: but he for the more part doth so frame his discourse, ra∣ther to the accusing of men, then to the discussing of the contro∣uersie: and doth so handle his matters,* 1.297 as one hauyng regarde rather to the persons agaynst whom hee quarelleth, then to the cause, which ought to haue bene discouered by him.

* 1.298The man is fully persuaded that Freewill ought to be main∣teyned by all meanes possible. But what the will or choyse of mā

is what thyng is freé, or not freé in the will of man: what is ne∣cessary, and what difference is betwixt freé, and necessary, and how many maner of wayes necessary to be taken, he doth neither discouer by definition, nor distinguishe by Argument, nor deuide by partition, nor doth declare what diuersitie and difference ought to be betwixt braunche and braunche. Many & sondry persons before him haue stoutely maynteined the quarell of Freewill, yea w^t no lesse courage, then they would haue done, if y^e state of their countrey had bene in hazard. In the same quarell long sithence, the Celestines and Pelagians kept a great sturre agaynst Augustin. Amōgest many others of late, yeares, wrate chiefly Roffensis and Eckius agaynst Luther. Cardinall Pi∣ghius hath stuffed vp tenne Inuectiues full agaynst Caluine. Likewise many others haue written agaynst Melancthon a∣gaynst Bucer and others. All which albeit preuayled very litle agaynst the truth, yet to the end they might the more easily de∣ceaue vnder a certeine visour of y^e truth, they did shuffle amōgest their owne writynges many sentences of the Scriptures, and many also of the most approued Doctours. After all these our Osorius intendyng to vphold Freewill beyng in great ieopar∣die to perish, what doth he? what bryngeth he? what vttereth he at length elles? but certeine simple croppes scattered here and there in the fieldes of holy Scriptures, which he hath gleaned together and wretchedly misordereth, to make his Assertions get some credite, yet nothyng auayleable to his purpose, God knoweth. In the meane whiles he citeth not one world so much out of the autenticke monumentes of the auncient Authours, nor out of Augustine: who was altogether busied in decydyng this controuersie, and by whom he ought chiefly haue bene gui∣ded in this cause: either bycause he hath practised other scien∣ces, and read nothyng of this writer: or els bycause he is wic∣ked and craftely dissembleth the thynges whiche he hath read. And yet all this notwithstandyng this our Portingall cham∣pion so carrion leaue in the knowledge of Scriptures, altoge∣ther disfournished of Doctours, persuadeth him selfe to be man good enough (if it may please the Muses) to beare y^e whole brūt of the battell in the behalfe of Freewill against freély Luther, Me∣lancthon, Bucer and Caluine, not with mayne strength onely,

but euen with a proude Portingall looke.

* 1.299But go to: bycause we will not protract any long tyme with the Reader, in wordes purposing to wrestle somewhat with O∣sorius herein. Let vs approche to the marke. And bycause the whole force of his communication seémeth to tend to this end, to accuse men rather then to open any matter worthy to be lear∣ned: and for as much he obserueth no order in teachyng, in accu∣sing, ne yet in disputyng: but beyng violently whirled and car∣ried (as it were) in some forcible whirlewinde of accusation raū∣geth the field without Iudgement and out of all aray, and after a certeine confused maner of talke doth wrappe vp, and mingle all thynges togethers as it were vnder one confused heape: we on the contrary part will to temper our aunswere, that (as neare as the matters will permit) we may dispose in some reasonable frame, the chief pillers and Arguments of his accusation, which him selfe hath set downe most disorderly. And therefore in my simple conceite the whole substaunce of all his accusation what∣soeuer, may bee gathered into foure or fiue principall places chiefly, whiche he seémeth to finde fault with all most in Luthers doctrine, as matters full of absurditie, and which he obiecta∣gayust Luther in this wise.

[unspec 1] First, that Luther affirmeth that there is no freé choyse, or freédome in the will of man.

[unspec 2] That all thyngs haue their begynnyng through absolute and vnanoydeable necessitie.

[unspec 3] That impossible thynges are commaunded by God.

[unspec 4] That men are damned, for the thynges which they commit not of their owne freé and voluntary motion, but compelled by fatall necessitie.

[unspec 5] That God is to be taken for the originall and Authour of all mischief and wickednesse.

For into these few places, as in a short Cataloge may be de∣uided all whatsoeuer is comprehended in this huge masse of O∣sorius Inuectiues. Which beyng in this wise placed, it remai∣neth, that we frame our aunswere to euery of them particular∣ly, as oportunitie and place shall offer them in the discourse, and so to purge and wash away (as much as in vs lyeth) all his cauillations & Sophisticall subtelties. For thus would I wish

theé to be persuaded (frendly Reader) that besides naturall scol∣dyng, and meére cauteles of wordes voyde of all substaunce of truth, there is els nothyng of all whatsoeuer he doth brabble in all this discourse, yea & that also stroakyng him selfe rather with vayne conceipt of his own opinion, then of any grounded know∣ledge or Iudgement at all.

And first as touchyng Freewill: In steéde of a proofe & testi∣monie of Luthers owne workes and yet the same also, neither doth he alledge whole as they be, nor fully: nor doth hee couple the first with the last: nor directeth to any certeine place of the Authour. But goe to. What maner of haynous crime is this (a Gods name) wherewith this Portingall Inquisitour doth charge Luther so greéuously & cruelly? Forsooth it is this: That he did dare mutter against Freewill, Saying that it was a thing in tittle onely: and whiles it followeth his owne nature, it doth nothyng but sinne deadly. And where is this written? In the volumes of Luther (I suppose) or els in Sybilles leaues. Seéke there Reader, or els where if thou wilt. For as our Re∣uerēd Maister Inquisitour assigneth no place to y^e Reader, so (I thinke) he neuer did read in Luther the thyng, whereat he cauil∣leth: nor thinketh that it concerneth his credite at all to vtter whatsoeuer him listeth, in what sense, w^t what phrase of speache, by what authoritie, or with what testimonies it bee bolstered so that somewhat bee suggested whereat hee may frame some qua∣rell. But proceéde on, and what followeth? Then afterwardes the same Luther correctyng him selfe, what sayth he farther? I haue erred (sayd hee) I spake vntruely: that Freewill is a thyng in name onely before the tyme of grace:* 1.300 but I should haue sayd simply. That Freewill is a fayned deuise or a tittle without all substaunce. Luther in his Assertions writ∣ten to Leo the tenth the 36. Article. Well and what is it at last, that this Maister Inquisitour will frame vnto vs out of this? Ergo,* 1.301 Luther is an heretique, who dispoyleth man of all his Freewill, and traueileth chiefly to this end, to affirme that mans mynde is alwayes holden captiue, his will fast bound, all power of workyng taken away, in so much that we can do neither good nor euill, nor cā thinke a thought so much by any meanes. And this doth not Luther teach onely: but

Melancthon also aboundauntly, yea much more plentyful∣ly Caluine doth debate the same. I not heare you Osorius & do aunswere, not I for Luther, but Luther shall aunswere ful∣ly for him selfe.

And first touchyng that whiche we terme mans choyse, whe∣ther ye conster it to be reason, or will: surely Luther did neuer deny. The same dare I boldly affirme in the behalfe of Melan∣cthon and Caluine also. Certes these men were neuer so rea∣sonably madde, as to despoyle man (whom they define to be en∣dued with reason) of reason and of will. For by no reason cā the operation of will be sequested from that part,* 1.302 where the vse of reason resteth. Howsoeuer nature was corrupted through the first originall of Sinne: yet remaineth neuerthelesse that thyng after a certeine sort within vs still, which we receaued of the treé of knowledge of good and euill:* 1.303 but thus must be noted chiefly in what wise it remayneth, not that it can auayle any way to salua∣tion, but that it hurteth rather thereunto. And therfore as con∣cernyng those naturall properties of will, Luther was neuer so foolishe, nor any of all the Lutheranes, as to exclude that will from nature by any meanes, which nature it selfe had engraffed into men. Let this therfore remayne vnshaken in this cōtrouer∣sie as touchyng the substaūce of Freewill, that the essenciall sub∣staūce therof vnited together with sensible reason doth alwayes cleaue inseparably to nature:* 1.304 which neither Luther deny, nor any of all the Lutheranes did euer deny. What is it then (will you say) that Luther did deny in Freewill? I will tell you: so that your vnderstandyng be able to conceaue it.

* 1.305It is out of all controuersie that Adam in his first creation, was endued with wonderfull and absolute freédome of will: to the vpholdyng of which freédome of will, the grace of God was not wantyng at that tyme, without the which he could not stand fast in that good will, wherein he was created though he would: now to haue a will to stand fast was not geuen him, but was left in the power of his Freewill, and so left, that if hee would haue stoode fast, hee had neuer bene euill, if he would not bene euill. And yet neither could he bee good through the force of his owne Freewill, without Gods speciall grace. But what did he? Be∣yng thus left in the power of his owne Freewill, when he neither

would stand fast, nor could fall without sinne: By Sinnyng (a∣busing his owne freédome) he brought to passe, that he both lost and cast away him selfe, and his freédome withall: and yet not in such wise, as that there remained in him neither sense, nor feé∣lyng, nor vse of will: but he so lost it, that, whereas he was be∣fore immortall and freé, now hath he both lost his freédome, and also his immortalitie and righteousnesse withall. Whereby it came to passe, that the wretched man (by losing that pure freé∣dome of good will, which he receaued in his first creation) pur∣chased to him selfe and all his posteritie most miserable and la∣mentable bondage. Now therfore beyng clogged and fastened to this state of bondage (as it were cloyed in claye) albeit after a certeine sorte we reteine still that power of vnderstandyng and appetite, whereby the mynde of her freé motiō is able to discerne betwixt sensible obiectes: yet can we neuer of our selues aspire agayne to that vprightenesse and immortalitie, which we haue lost: for beyng now fast yoaked, and sold vnder this yoake of ser∣uitude, we doe serue such a seruile thraldome in this fleshe, that we can turne our selues to no one side, through any force of freé∣dome, but we shall alwayes be the bondslaues of sinne & death, vnlesse the grace of Christ do helpe vs, and set vs at libertie.

Whereby you may easily perceaue (Osorius) what is the state and condition of Freewill:* 1.306 to witte: that in one sense it may be taken not altogether freé, and agayne in an other sense, not o∣therwise but freé. For if ye call backe the nature of mankynd to her first creation, and then will demaunde generally, whether there be no freé will in nature? I doe aunswere. That nature it selfe was created vpright at the first, & that God the good Crea∣tour endued it with Freewill: but that man him selfe became ene∣my to that freédome, & destroyed y^e same in nature vtterly. But if you will proceéde, & make a further question, & demaūde what kynde of will (after sinne entred once) was in man towardes na∣turall euill thyngs, and towardes deceitfull good thynges? I do aunswere that mās will (which they call Freewill) is altogether prone and enclined to wicked and euill thynges:* 1.307 And here you haue the bare title of Freewill. But if you demaunde how mās will is affectioned to good and godly thynges: Luther doth af∣firme that it is neither freé, nor effectuall of it selfe, or inclinable

thereunto & will boldly confesse y^t it is bond, seruile, & altogether captiuate, vnlesse it be hoipen. Not bycause mās will is vnable to will or to attēpt any thyng of it selfe: but bycause of her owne power it is not able to will well, or do to well, in those thyngs y^t apperteine vnto God.* 1.308 Where agayne you may seé the name of Freewill, but voyde of vse or substaunce. But as concernyng the proper qualitie or operatiō of freédome, albeit it reteine y^e name of Freewill in y^e Church in respect of the title: bycause it seémeth alwayes freé either to righteousnes, or free from sinne, yet ought it alwayes to be holden in such sorte freé, as not beyng alwayes good, yea rather neuer good in deéde, vnlesse it be gouerned by the goodnesse of the almightie God. Which thyng Augustine doth notably expresse saying.* 1.309 Freewill (sayth he) is nothing worth vn∣lesse God doe gouerne the same. And immediately after. To this effect is thy will, whiche is called free, apt and sufficient, that by doing ill, it becommeth a damnable bondmayde. &c. Harken Osorius. If it be a bondmayde, now is it not freé thē. If by doing ill it bee damnable (for that as Augustine reporteth of it selfe it can do nothyng but euill). Wherefore is Luther condemned for saying that Freewill doth sinne deadly, when it worketh what it cā of it selfe? &c. or what can your selfe Osorius discerne other then a title voyde of substaunce in that Freewill, wherein you cā finde nothing effectuall to the purpose, that is to say, to y^e worke of Saluation?

* 1.310For as much therefore as it so: what request is it that this accuser maketh? who contendeth so friuolously agaynst Luther for the Mooneshyne in the water, and for a title onely? whether is it bycause hee taketh away will from men, or freédome from will? As touchyng the substaunce of the matter, there is no qua∣rell agaynst Luther: The whole controuersie ariseth then about the forme and qualitie of will. Well then Luther doth not deny the will of man (as I do vnderstād) but the freédome of will one∣ly. Be it so Osorius: yet this may not suffice in the accuser, that he which is quilty shall make a simple denyall onely. But it be∣haueth to consider diligently in what sense, & with what wordes deny all is made, what libertie hee meaneth, & in what maner of persons, and in what thyngs that libertie may be knowen to be. For neither doth Luther so vtterly abandone from nature of mā

all freédome, as though there were no freédome at all, or as though it were so fait chayned with yron roapes, that it could moue it selfe to no vse. Albeit (I say) he do deny that will is freé, and confesse it to be a thyng of name and title onely: yet doth he not affirme this so to bee simply a title, as though man had no will at all, or as though it were neuer, or neuer was and neuer should be freé. And therefore in the same Article, he doth very learnedly annexe these wordes of restrainte. Post peccatum, After sinne, whiche wordes of Luther our Osorius doth very craftely dissemble and skippe ouer.* 1.311 Besides this also is added thereunto an exception of tyme, to witte, Ante iustitiam & gra∣tiam .i. Before righteousnesse and grace. By whiche playne wordes you might (as you are otherwise sharpewitted enough) haue easely discerned that Freewill is not so, simply, nor altoge∣ther taken away, neither from all men, nor out of all order of na∣ture: seyng as the state of Adam before sinne was most perfect in that integritie of Freewill: also seyng as after grace receaued Freewill is mighty in those persōs, which are made freé through Christ. As for the rest, who as yet stickyng fast cloyed in that old puddle of Sinne, are not yet come to bee regenerated by grace: in these persons if question be moued, what Freewill is in them, and of what efficacie in her owne nature:* 1.312 Luther doth aū∣swere truely, that it is a thyng of title onely, and that it sinneth deadly, when it worketh what it can of it selfe, though she ende∣uour the best that she can: meanyng hereby, that albeit Freewill continue to bee called Freewill after her first de••••••mination and state, yet that she hath vtterly lost the very substaunciall opera∣tion thereof, and so lost the same, that whatsoeuer enterprise it attempt, yet can it not auayle one iote so much to the very sub∣staunce of the matter, vntill the first nature beyng renewed by fayth, be fashioned a new, into a new creature. Well then, and what haynous matter at the length conteineth this sentēce that may prouoke you to barke so cruelly? or what haue you espied in this Freewill, that may auayle you or any other person to God∣ward? If there be any thyng, declare it I pray you: If there bee nothyng: wherein then hath Luther offended? who perceauyng, as truth is, that Freewill is altogether vneffectuall to profite vs, doth therfore make small accompt therof.

* 1.313But your Catholicke stomacke is somewhat queysie per∣happes at the sounde of that Hyperbole of Luther not vsually frequented in your Schooles, whereby he doth so embase Free∣will to be nothing els but a title, and a forged fantasie amongest naturall causes: As touchyng Luthers frequentyng of Hyper∣bolicall speaches: Admit I would somewhat yeld vnto you: yet sithence the Scripture it selfe doth not altogether vnacquaynte it selfe with such kynde of figures, reseruyng alwayes the truth of things: what waywardnesse is this of those men not to vouch∣safe in Luther to expresse certeine wordes with some sharpe ve∣hemencie of speach,* 1.314 whenas they them selues meanewhiles, ei∣ther for very blockyshnesse doe not marke, or for very malice do not reforme, not onely y^e most friuolous barrennes of words, but also the most outragious excesse of speaches, wherewith their whole doctrine swarmeth euery where? And what maruell is it then, if Luther inueighyng agaynst those so monstruous ou∣trages of doctrine, waxe somewhat whotte sometymes, after a certeine more vehement maner of speakyng? But if any man adiudge him worthy to be reprehended in that respect, I would fayne haue the same man required: if hee will not vouchsafe to Impute that his heate to y^e vehemēcie of Gods Spirite (which after the purpose of his good pleasure directeth his Instru∣mentes as him lysteth) that hee will yet at the least bethinke him selfe, of how great Importaunce the cause was wherein Luther trauayled at that tyme: & weighe aduisedly the manifold darke∣nesse, and errours of that season: and withall enter into a deépe consideration of the vnmeasurable iniuries of his aduersaries. Luther did then mainteyne the most iust quarell of Gods grace & mercy agaynst the innumerable droues of drousie Monckes, who hauyng ouerwhelmed the glorious Maiestie of the Grace of the Gospell,* 1.315 did of an incomparable shamelesse excessiue Im∣pudencie extoll aboue Moone and Starres, yea beyond all com∣passe of reason, the force of mans Freewill: in such wise that no∣thyng might beare palme besides mans merites onely, and the workes of Freewill (the mercy of God beyng vtterly banished and exiled) Or if they did at any tyme admitte Grace to be cape marchaunt (as it were) with Freewill, least they might seéme vt∣terly to exclude Grace: Yet did they so admitte her, as they dyd

the Article of Iustification. Wherein as they did with most vayne practize enforce this one point cōtinually: to witte: That fayth onely without workes could not Iustifie: euen so and in lyk•• maner in this question of Freewill, they would neédes haue this to bee graunted, that the Grace of God was not the onely foundresse of good workes, and of our Electiō, but a seruaūt ra∣ther, or at the most a companion of Freewill.

Whose vnmeasurable errour forced Martin Luther to that vehemet sharpnesse of speach,* 1.316 and not without good cause. And yet in all that his heate of wordes, what can any man (I pray you) finde, beyng not otherwise lead by corrupt affection, that is cōtrary to the naturall truth of thyngs? or that is not in all res∣pectes faithfully agreable w^t the very spirite & wordes of Gods Scriptures? Freewill is denyed to be of any value, not bycause it is of it selfe nothyng (if you respect the substaunce of it) but in respect of the operation therof, it is sayd to be altogether vneffe∣ctuall to that worke, whereunto it is supposed to be conducible: not much vnlike to that figuratiue phrase of speach, wherewith Paule doth esteéme of Circumcision, and Uncircumcision to be nothyng worth: wherewith Esay the Prophet doth tearme I∣dolles and Idollmakers to be nothyng: and wherewith Ieremy beholdyng the earth with open eyes, was sayd hee saw nought. Or as a man might say, that Osorius doth say nothyng at all, when as otherwise he is ouer lauishe of toung, if you regard his wordes and sillables: but nothyng at all to the purpose, if ye cō∣sider his Argumentes. Semblably Freewill is called a fay∣ned deuise amongest thynges, or a tittle without substaunce, from whence ariseth no preiudice to mās nature: onely the cor∣ruption of nature is discouered hereby.* 1.317 For it is vndoubted (as Augustine truly teacheth) that we do will, when we will: and that we doe worke, when we worke. But to be able to will, and to be able to worke bee bringeth to passe in vs, of whom it is sayd, God is hee that worketh in vs both to will, and to doe: geuing most effectuall power to our will: whiche sayd, I will bring to passe that you shall doe. Aud agayne in other place.* 1.318 Thinking (sayth he) we do beleue, thinking we doe speake, thinking we doe all whatsoeuer we doe. &c. Loe here you haue the tittle of Freewill. And forthwith in the same Chap. But to the attaining the way of righteousnesse and the

true worshipping of God, we are altogether of our selues insuffici∣ent: for all our sufficiencie herein proceedeth frō God. &c. Where you may easily conceaue the substaūce it selfe, which Augustine acknowledgeth to be none at all in Freewill, but affirmeth bold∣ly to cōsiste wholy in God. Albeit neither doth Luther him selfe (when he tearmeth Freewill to be a fantasie or deuise in thyngs) simply and barely affirme the same to be so: but annexeth there∣unto an addition: namely Post peccatum, & ante gratiam. That is to say. After Sinne, and before Grace. Whereby the godly Reader may vnderstand, that those persones are not noted here, whom either the Grace of Christ hath vouchsafed into Freé∣dome or whō, after Grace receaued, Christ will crowne in glo∣ry to come.

For there be certeine distinct differences of tymes, and per∣sons (if you know them not Osorius) whiche ought chiefly to be obserued:* 1.319 wherein if you be as yet vnskillfull, ye may repayre to your M. Lumbard, who will lead you to a descriptiō of Free∣will, deuidyng it into foure braunches as it were.

Wherof the first is: The same that was created ioyntly with mans nature at mans first creation, sounde and perfect.* 1.320 The se∣cond whiche after mans fall, was throwen downe in them that were not regenerated. The third, whiche is proper and pecu∣liar to the godly, after their conuersion vnto Grace. The last, which shalbe accomplished in those that shalbe glorified. As tou∣chyng the first and last whereof, the Deuines make no question at all (as I suppose) Agayne if you will assigne Freewill to the thyrd braunche, Luther will nothyng gaynsay you: whose dis∣putation concerneth those persons chiefly, who after Sinne, & before their conuersion beyng wounded with originall Sinne, haue not as yet recouered health in Christ Iesu, through the tri∣acle of better Grace. In which sort of people, if you be of opi∣nion that the state of Freewill ought by any meanes to be defen∣ded, I would fayne learne of you first, whether ye will inueste those persons with Freewill playnly, perfectly, whole, and not diminished, or otherwise? If you will attribute such a freédome vnto them: it remayneth then, that by way of definition ye ex∣pounde the difference betwixt the state, and condition of the first man before his fall, and this latter state and condition after his

fall. But if you will dismember it, and will graunt vnto them certeine vnperfect dregges thereof onely, neither will Luther vary much from you herein:* 1.321 so that ye will yeld some distinctiō thereunto, and vtter playnly and distinctly what kynde of liber∣tie you meane: in what thynges you settle it, and how it ought to be taken: what this word Freewill emporteth: and to what ac∣tions of mans lyfe it ought to be referred: and withall will vn∣lose those crabbed knottes of equiuocatiōs, wherewith ye seéke to entrappe the truth.

For whereas the actions of mans lyfe are not all of one sort or kynde: some wherof proceédyng from nature it selfe be natu∣rall, others altogether faultie and corrupt, others politique and apperteinyng to maners are morall, called good: Agayne some other spirituall, and consiste in the worshyppyng of God: It behoued you here to make manifest vnto vs, whiche of those actions you do meane. If you speake of the first kynde: certes euē vnto these, by y^e very law of cōmon nature it selfe, we are all fastened & boūde of necessitie, wherby we are bereft of y^e greatest part of our freédome. For what freédome can bee so mighty in mans wil as to preserue mā so, that he neuer neéde to sleépe, but be alwayes watchfull: that he neuer be sicke, but alwayes heal∣thy: neuer receaue sustenaūce, not to disgest the foode receaued,* 1.322 not to prouide for his houshold, not to be carefull for him selfe & his family, not to be busied abroad, not to rest at home, not to en∣ioy y^e commō ayre, not to lyue, not to dye, not to performe the o∣ther dueties apperteinyng to mans lyfe, whereunto we are for∣cibly drawen by course of nature, not so much by allurement of will, as by very constrainte of necessitie.* 1.323 I come now to the vse and handlyng of Ciuill trades and forreine disciplines, and to other dutiefull actions, and considerations of the same kynde which are dayly frequented in mans lyfe. In the whiche albeit Luther will confesse many thynges to be conteined that are sub∣iect vnto Freewill, yet will he not otherwise graunt thereunto, but that euen in the selfe same, y^e vnderstandyng mynde is many tymes deceaued, will defrauded, and freédome altogether ouer∣throwen. And yet doe we not for that cause vtterly extinguishe will or freédome, nor wrappe vp and entangle the mynde, nor spoyle reason of coūsell, nor dispossesse mā frō his aunciēt inhe∣ritaunce

of choyse or will: howsoeuer the cruell outrage of Sinne hath weakened, and wasted the sinewes and strength of nature, beyng well created at the first: yet remayneth neuerthe∣lesse that naturall power of the soule, not onely in those that are renewed in spirite, but in them also that are not regenerate, in respect of those actions especially, wherof I made mention be∣fore.* 1.324 But if the question be remoued to those actions, which do not belong to the naturall and common conuersation of life, but apperteine to the spirituall worshyppyng of God, and concerne the kyngdome of Christ: who can not here easily discerne that Freewill before it receaueth Grace, though it be garnished with neuer so gorgeous a tittle, hath besides a glorious tittle onely, nothyng els, whereby it may defende it selfe from seruile bon∣dage, or rayse it selfe vp to attaine the true freéedome of Salua∣tion. I doe not speake here of that freédome (Osorius) which is properly opposite to constrainte and compulsary violēce, wher∣of we vaunte all in vayne: nor of that naturall power of the rea∣sonable soule, whiche we seéke not to shake of: ne yet of mans will beyng regenerated, which we do not disable: finally nor yet of those actions wherewith this sensible lyfe is beautified, but I speake of those affections which are ascribed to the spirituall lyfe of the person that is regenerate in Christ.* 1.325 Whereupon ac∣cordyng to those fiue distinctions afore mentioned, as many se∣uerall kyndes of questions do arise: which for auoydyng confu∣sion, must be seuerally distinguished.

* 1.326First, if a question be moued of the freédome of nature being pure and sounde: as was before the fall of Adam: who doth not know that the state of that will was most pure and freé.* 1.327 And it is not to bee doubted, that mans Freewill was absolutely perfect in his first creation. But that man by sinne, lost the same freedome al∣together. August.

* 1.328Secundarely, if the question bee remoued ouer to the sub∣staunce, and to that part of man wherewith the mynde is en∣dued with vnderstandyng and appetite: as if this be the questiō, whether mans will which is called freé, were after the fall of A∣dam vtterly extinct, and of no substaunce? we do aunswere here with Ambrose,* 1.329 that the Iudgemēt of will was corrupted in deede, but not vtterly taken away. And agayne. The deuill did not spoyle

man of his will vtterly, but bereft him of the soundenesse and inte∣gritie of will. For although mans will and the vnderstandyng parte of his soule, was miserably corrupted through originall Sinne, yet was it not so altogether abolished, but that there re∣mayneth some freédome to doe: freé I call it in respect of those thynges, which are either naturally carryed to motion without Iudgement, as brute beastes: or whiche are forced by coaction agaynst nature, as stones. By this therefore that is spoken, it appeareth that will (wherewith we are naturally endued in res∣pect of the essentiall and naturall disposition thereof) doth al∣wayes remayne in mans nature, how corrupt soeuer it be: yea and remayneth in such wise, as hauyng alwayes a freé and vo∣luntary operation in naturall causes, without all forreine coac∣tion (vnlesse it be hindered) and a naturall sensibilitie also, and capacitie (as Iustine tearmeth it) in heauenly thynges,* 1.330 if it be holpē. And this is it that Augustines wordes seéme to emporte to my Iudgement, where speakyng in the defence of Freewill vseth these wordes.* 1.331 Beleeue (sayth hee) the holy Scriptures and that will is will, and the grace of God, without helpe whereof, man can neither turne vnto God, nor profite in God. Agayne in his se∣cōd Epistle to Valentin. The Catholicke faith doth neither deny Freewill applyable to good life or badd life, nor doth esteeme ther∣of so highly, as though it were of any value without the grace of God, either to turne frō euill to good, or to perseuer stedfast in good, or to attaine to euerlasting goodnes, whereas it feareth not now, left it may fainte and decay. &c. And agayne in an other place.* 1.332 I con∣fesse (sayth hee) that will is alwayes free in vs, but it is not alwayes good. But the maner how it is sayd to bee alwayes freé, must be learned of the same Augustine: It is either free from righteous∣nesse (sayth he) when it is the bondslaue of sinne and than is it euill: or it is free from Sinne, when it is handmayd to righteousnesse and then is it good. &c.

It appeareth therefore by this twofold freédome of Augu∣stine,* 1.333 that mans will is alwayes freé both in good thynges and in euill thynges. But we ought to conceaue of this freédome in this wise: not that she hath power of her owne strength to make choyse of good or euill, namely in spirituall matters, as our ad∣uersaries doe dreame: But accordyng to Augustines interpre∣tation,

whē will is naught, it is of her owne disposition naught: when it is good, then is it guided by grace not vnwillyngly, but voluntaryly, without compulsion:* 1.334 yet freé notwithstandyng al∣wayes, whether it be good or bad: bycause it is alwayes volunta∣ry & neuer constrained. And this much touchyng the propertie & naturall disposition of mās will, which who so will deny seemeth in my conceite to do euen all one, as if he should deny that man is a reasonable creature, for I seé no cause why reason may be more sequestred from man, then will ought to be seuered from reason. Which two thynges are so vnited together with a cer∣teine naturall affinitie, & are so mutually linked together with an inseparable knot in the reasonable soule, that Reason cā nei∣ther performe any exployte without will, nor will enterprise any thyng aduisedly without the guidyng of Reason. Therefore as Iudgement belongeth properly to Reason, so to will and to worke, apperteineth properly to will, whether it be to good, or to euil. The one wherof respecteth y^e substaūce of will, the other is peculiar to the disposition therof. But as this liuely Reason be∣ing enclosed within her certeine limittes & boūdes hath her pro∣per & peculiar obiectes, so that she is vnable to rayse it selfe be∣yond the cōpasse of naturall & vitall causes, vnles it be enlighte∣ned: euē so will, beyng straighted w^tin y^e same limittes & boūdes of naturall causes, hath no power at all in it selfe either to attēpt or to atchieue those spirituall good things, vnlesse it be holpen.

* 1.335For as much therefore as reason and will doe in their owne right exercize their actiuitie & dominiō in naturall thyngs one∣ly (as I said before) as it were in their lawfull prouinces, here∣of springeth the thyrd question. Whether there be any such freé∣dome in will, as to be able of it selfe to embrace or eschewe those thyngs, which are gouerned by the externall senses, and by rea∣son? Whereunto the aunswere is very easie:* 1.336 for it is not to bee doubted, but that the mynde and the wil (out of which two Free∣will is deriued) do yet still reteine some certein sparckes of freé∣dome, such as they be, euen in the forlorne nature: for the mynde after a certeine sorte is able to thinke, to purpose, to take coun∣sell, to Iudge, to allow or disallow:* 1.337 in like maner also will doth enioy her certeine freédome in those thynges, whereunto Sense and Reason do direct. For it as able to wil, or not to will, to chuse

or not to chuse, to desire, or to forsake, to stay his purpose or to chaunge it: to moue hether and thether: and after a certein ma∣ner to exercize it selfe in her kynde to externall discipline, that is to say: to worke externall honest actions agreable with the law of God, & to eschew the cōtrary. Which thyng besides that many other thynges doe approue to be true: as well the sundry examples of Ethnicke people, as also the whole politicall estate doth verifie. So is it true also, that the same is not performed without Gods guidyng: which thyng Nazienzen did notably aduertize and expresse in his Oratiō.* 1.338 I know (sayth hee) that the Goale is not attained by the quyuernes of the person, nor successe of battell by prowesse, nor conquest atchieued by fighting, nor yet safe and sure Roade alwayes at skilfull saylers commaundement, but it is the onely worke of God to geue victorie, and to cōduct the Shippe safety vnto the happie hauen. &c. But for as much as these actiōs are referred more properly to politique reason, then to Diuini∣tie, nor concerne Luthers discourse very much, it shalbe neéde∣lesse to bestow any great labour herein.

Fourthly, to approche somewhat neare to those thynges which are peculiar,* 1.339 and belong chiefly to the doctrine of Deui∣nes: and first of all if question be moued, whether mans Freewill do beare any stroake in actions meérely euil and corrupt, the do∣yng whereof doth defile man in the sight of God? our aunswere herein will forthwith be supplyed with y^e wordes of Augustine.* 1.340 God doth not helpe vs to committe Sinne (sayth he) but in that we fall from God commeth of our owne corruptiō. And this is our cor∣rupt will. And agayne, where he reciteth the Obiectiō of Iulian, writyng agaynst y^e two Epistles of y^e Pelagianes,* 1.341 Did the Free∣will of the first man perishe therefore (sayth Iulian) to the ende it should compell all his posteritie to Sinne in their flesh of very neces∣sitie? To whom Augustine maketh this aunswere: Which of vs dare say that mankinde was vtterly spoyled of Freewill by the sinne of the first man? freedome perished in deede through Sinne, but it was that freedome wherewith man was created in Paradise, free to enioy full righteousnes with immortalitie: for the which the na∣ture of man standeth in neede of Gods grace, according as the Lord him selfe doth testifie, saying: If the Sonne do deliuer you,* 1.342 thē shall you be free in deede: Free I meane, to liue well and vprightly: for

so farre is it of, that Freewill did so altogether perishe in Sinners, that by the same Freewill men do offende, especially they that take pleasure in Sinne, and which being delighted with the loue of Sinne, do with pleasure greedely folow their owne lust. And in y^e 3. Chap.* 1.343 We do not say, as they report that we say, that all men are constrai∣ned to fall into Sinne through the necessitie of their flesh, and as it were against their willes. But after they be growen to that rypenes of yeares, that they may discerne the inclinatiō of their own minde, and finde them selues fast holden in Sinne, through their owne con∣sent, and so suffer them selues to be carried headlong from Sinne to Sinne wilfully and wittingly. This will now whiche is free to euill thinges, wherein it taketh pleasure, is therefore not free to good things, bycause it is not made free. &c. Adde hereunto the wordes of the same Augustine to the same effect discoursing vpon the wordes of the Apostle.* 1.344 To doe euill thou hast Freewill, without the helpe of GOD, albeit that will is not free. For of whom so∣euer a man is holden bounde, to him is hee a bondslane. And a∣gayne in an other place, To fall (sayth hee) commeth of our sel∣ues and of our sluggishenesse: Moreouer writyng agaynst the same Pelagians.* 1.345 That person hath Freewill to do euill (sayth he) either whom Sathan allureth to take pleasure therein by couert or open suggestion: or who that persuadeth him selfe thereunto. Fi∣nally, if a mā might tarry still in alledgyng y^e testimony of Au∣gustine, what cā be clearer thē these wordes.* 1.346 Freewill being cap∣tiued hath no power to worke any thing but sinne, and is altogether vnable to worke righteousnesse, vnlesse God geue it free passage. Whereby you may perceaue how mās will is at one tyme both freé and captiue:* 1.347 to witte, freé to doe euill, in as much as pursu∣yng lust with voluntary delight, neédeth not any forreine coactiō to worke euill: whiche also Luther doth not deny: but in no res∣pect freé to do good, vnlesse it be set at libertie by Gods grace, & to speake Augustines words, vnlesse it be guided to euery good actiō of doyng, speakyng, & thinkyng. And where be these iolly fellowes now, which do so stoutely yeld to mans will equall freé∣dome to do good, or euill in this corruptiō of nature? and yet this might be graunted also after a sort, so that it be interpreted ac∣cordingly: for if they meane of will regenerated, it is tollerable enough, neither will Luther be agaynst it: all whose discourse of

Freewill tendeth not to any other will, then to that wherof men∣tion hath bene made out of Augustine, whiche beyng without grace, is altogether vneffectuall of her owne nature to doe any thyng but to Sinne.

And hereof springeth at the length the whole substaunce of the fift questiō.* 1.348 Wherein the chief and speciall state of Luthers discourse consisteth: to witte, touchyng spirituall motions and actions: touchyng heauenly thynges and workes apperteinyng vnto God: touchyng spirituall righteousnesse: inward worshyp∣pyngs: fayth: repentaunce: conuersion: loue & new obediēce. &c. As if the question were demaunded now, not of the substaunce of reasonable will: whether after the fall, there remayne in man a power of vnderstanding, & appetite to those thynges, which nature hath made subiect to mans witte and capacitie? or whe∣ther man haue any freédome of will to corrupt affections? but rather that the question be after this maner,* 1.349 whether mās will after Sinne, do reteyne still that force and strength of freédome in those spirituall thyngs before rehearsed, as that it be effectu∣all of it selfe before Grace, or beyng holpen by Grace, could pre∣uayle so farreforth inspirituall thynges, as that through grace and the naturall force of Freewill workyng together, it might become sufficient cause of it selfe, to enterprise spirituall moti∣ons, and with all to put them also in practize? For all those thynges must be duely considered Osorius: If we will shew our selues vpright and hādsome disputers of Freewill: in debatyng of which question, if ye will permit our Cōfession to be coupled with the authoritie of the most sacred Scripture, we must of ne∣cessitie hold this rule fast, whiche teacheth: that albeit mans na∣ture is fallen from the integritie of that excellent and absolute freédome, yet it is not ouerthrowen into that miserable state of seruilitie, whiche is proper to brute beastes: neither that it is so altogether dispoyled of all the power of the first creation, as ha∣uyng no sparkes at all of her aūcient dignitie remaynyng. For the nymblenesse of the mynde deuiseth many thynges with vn∣derstādyng, digesteth with Reason,* 1.350 comprehēdeth with memo∣ry, debateth with aduise, gathereth in order with wisedome, in∣uenteth Artes, learneth Sciences, Recordeth thinges past, ob∣serueth thynges present, and prouideth for thynges to come.

Semblably will doth chuse,* 1.351 and refuse the thynges that seéme either agreable to reason, or profitable to the senses. So that by those qualities appeareth sufficiently (I suppose) the difference that is betwixt vs, and brute beastes, and vnsensible creatures. Which actions beyng naturally engraffed within vs, yea with∣out grace, albeit proceéde from the voluntary motion of the vn∣derstandyng mynde, yet bycause they extende no further, then to this present lyfe, and perishe together with this mortall body, serue but to small purpose: yea euen then chiefly, when we make our best accompt of them. Moreouer although they bee after a sort freé of their owne nature, yet stand they not alwayes in such an vnchaūgeable integritie, but that reason is many tymes de∣luded by great errours, will ouercharged with waywardnesse, & y^e power of the mynde suffereth many defectes. Almightie God many tymes by secrete operation communicatyng his handy∣worke to gether with these actiōs, doth apply the willes of men hether and thether, whereunto it pleaseth him: confoūdeth their deuises, aduaunceth their endeuours, not after the freé Imagi∣nation of men, but according to his own freé decreé and purpose. And this much hetherto concernyng those obiectes, and exter∣nall operatiōs onely, which concerne the common preseruation of this present lyfe, and which perish together with the same.

* 1.352But yet truely as concernyng either the enterprising, or ac∣complishyng of those spirituall motions and operations, for as much as they do farre exceéde the capacitie of mans nature, the Scripture doth vtterly deny that man (beyng not as yet rege∣nerated) is naturally endued with any force or abilitie of will sithence the first creatiō: but that all those giftes are vtterly lost through the greatnesse of Sinne, and that by this meanes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imbecillitie and weakenesse of nature, is by propaga∣tion discended vpon all men, and nature it selfe corrupted with miserable faultinesse, yea and not with faultynesse onely (that doth exclude vs from those euerlastyng good thynges) but be∣sides this also, that through this corruption of nature hath suc∣ceéded in steéde of that auncient integritie, a certeine rebellious contumacie, and filthy infection of Diabolicall seéde, which doth depriue vs of all heauēly knowledge, and carry vs headlong in∣to all maner of abhomination: whereupon y^e doctrine of Luther

is not vnfitly confirmed, wherew^t they do conclude with Augu∣stine most truly as agaynst the Romish Doctours, that Freewill is not onely weakened in vs, but vtterly extinct also, and so tho∣roughly defaced, that if we bee any tyme enlightened with any sparcle of Regeneration, the same ought wholy be ascribed to the grace of God, and not to Freewill, nor to any strēgth of ours, and (to speake the wordes of Augustine) neither wholy,* 1.353 ne yet of any part. For vpon this point chiefly dependeth the whole va∣riaunce betwixt vs and the Papistes touchyng Freewill.

These thyngs therfore beyng in thus sort discouered,* 1.354 which ought in deéde haue bene distinguished at the first, for the better demonstration of the manifold diuersitie of questiōs. I will now returne agayne to Luthers position, who doth professe that Freewill is a thyng of Title onely, and a Name or Title with∣out substaunce. Wherein if Osorius shall Iudge any worde to be misspoken and blameworthy in him, hee must then first aun∣swere me to this question. For as much as Freewill is not all a∣like in the persons that are regenerate, and in them that are not regenerate: and for as much as libertie also is to be construed in humane actions after one sort, but taken after a contrary cō∣struction in spirituall exercizes: hee must (I say) tell me which sorte of Freewill, or what maner of actions he doth treate of. If he meane that Freewill, which is now gouerned by the Spirite of God: Surely Luthers position maketh therof no mention at all. Or if he meane those naturall obiectes, whiche proceéde of common nature, or whiche are vsually frequented in the dayly practize of common conuersation, after the conduct of Morall reason, either in doyng right, or executyng wrong: So doth not Luthers position tende to these actions in any respect. But if the question bee after this maner: Of how much force and effi∣cacie the bare choyse of man may be of her owne naturall abili∣tie, either in enterprising or performyng those thynges,* 1.355 which doe obteine Gods grace for vs, or make an entrey for vs into heauen: then will Luther aunswere most truly: That there is scarse any substaunce at all in Freewill, auayleable to the pur∣chassing of the kyngdome of heauen, except a glorious visour of Title onely: no more substaunce veryly then is in a dead man, who besides the onely shape and denomination of a man, hath

nothyng in him whereby hee may receaue breath, and recouer life to the dead carcasse. For of what force is mans Freewill els towardes the thynges that apperteine vnto God, before it haue receaued grace, then as a dead man without lyfe? And for this cause the Scripture in many places, expressing our natures in their most liuely and natiue colours, calleth vs darkenesse, blinde to see: deafe to heare: vncircumcized of hart: wicked in the de∣uises and imaginatiōs of our conceites: stonie harted: cast awayes: enemies in respect of our fleshly thoughtes: Rebelles against the Spirite: vnprofitable Seruauntes: bondslaues: sold vnder Sinne: dead vnto iniquitie: vnexcusable: subiect to wrath. S. Paule des∣cribyng the callyng of Gods Elect in the first Chap. of his first Epistle to the Corinthes.* 1.356 And those thinges whiche were not (sayth hee) God hath called. &c. If Paule doe affirme that the thynges which are, were not so at the first, and that truely: How can Osorius Iustifie, that will was any thyng worthe in them which as yet were not? I will rehearse vnto you the saying of our Sauiour in the Gospell, where settyng vs forth to behold our selues, as it were in a glasse: Let the dead (quoth hee) burie their dead, Come thou and preach the kingdome of God. Tell vs here Osorius, in what sense did Christ call them dead, whose bo∣dies were not dead, if their life were endued with Freewill able to come vnto God in any respect, howsoeuer they seémed to be alyue in the Iudgement of men? But and if they had no lyfe in God, how then could Freewill be liuely, and forcible in the dead? Goe to: And how can the dead by any meanes restore him selfe to lyfe? May it please you to heare Augustine treatyng of the same matter.* 1.357 Man can not rise againe (sayth Augustine) of his owne accorde as hee fell voluntaryly: Let vs take holdfast of the right hand of God, which he reatcheth out vnto vs. &c.

So that I would wish you to consider with your selfe adui∣sedly, what thyng it is whiche we ought to receaue at Christes handes, without Freewill first: and what afterwardes of Free∣will, without Christ: for the which we ought to be thankefull to him for them both. For if accordyng to the testimony of Augu∣stine,* 1.358 There was none other cause of our destruction greater, then mans Freewill, by abuse wherof man lost both it, and him selfe: by what reason will you proue that to be sounde: which Augustine

affirmeth to bee vtterly lost? or how can you restore lyfe to that thyng, whereunto you are indebted for your owne death?* 1.359 Or what reliefe can you finde towardes the purchasing of eternall life from nature beyng so vtterly dispoyled? which euen then es∣pecially, when it stoode in most perfect integritie, could neither helpe you nor her selfe, nay rather whiche brought you and her selfe both to vtter destruction? The Lord cryeth out in a certein place by the mouth of his Prophet.* 1.360 O Israell thy perdition is of thy selfe: but in me onely is thine helpe. &c. If there bee no helpe els where, then in the Lord onely, vpon whō alone all helpe de∣pendeth, what is there left then in Freewill, that we miserable wretches may trust vnto? If you be ignoraunt therof (Maister Osorius) the Prophet will forthwith declare it vnto you: For∣sooth what els think•• you, but vtter destruction? For in as much as one man by one faulte onely, wherein he alone offended, did through his freédome of will (whenas yet it was most pure and sounde) throw headlong both him selfe, and all his ofspryng into so horrible thraldome, frō most absolute and most perfect Ma∣iestie of freédome: what other thynges will Osorius then gape after, out of this his Freewill, sithence nature is altogether defi∣led now, who hath made so often shypwracke of his freédome & of all his Freewill also, & standyng (as it were) in dispayred case, is enforced dayly to runne to the second table of Penitentiary Confession for relief, but vtter perditiō? vnlesse he take holdfast by fayth of that right hand of God, whereof S. Augustine doth make mētion before. Therfore let this great Proctour of Free∣will take good heéde, least whiles he accuse Luther to much, he cōmit a more execrable fact, & bewray him selfe a more deadly enemy to Gods grace, thē y^e other may seéme aduersary to Free∣will. For if this controuersie here debated touchyng the merite of Saluation tende to this end onely, to sifte out from whence the cause therof ariseth: to witte: whether from the onely grace of God? or whether from Freewill as a necessary and vnsepara∣ble coperterner therewith? truely, if it be true which the Prophe∣ticall Scripture doth most truely conclude,* 1.361 That all helpe consi∣steth onely in the Lord, and in our selues nothing but destruction. I can not seé, but that by how much soeuer it shall please Osorius to establishe Freewill, by so much shall hee disployle GOD of

his Grace and that most iniuriously.

But I heare the colorable pretence of Osorius, wherewith he practizeth to make his defence carry a certeine shewe of truth, paintyng it out with a deceauable foyle: so that hee may seéme neither to yeld all to the grace of God, accordyng to the Catho∣licke fayth, nor yet (after the errour of the Pelagians) leaue no∣thyng at all to the operation of Grace.* 1.362 For whereas the deuilish doctrine of the Pelagians (which taught that euery mā was en∣dued with sufficient freédome to doe good without the helpe of God) hath bene long sithence condemned for hereticall, accor∣dyng to the testimony of Augustine: This Gentleman fearyng to bee deémed a Pelagian, doth deuide his Assertion after such a sort, that he may neither seéme vtterly to exclude Grace altoge∣ther, nor yet so yeld ouer all to Grace, but that Freewill must of necessitie be copemate with Grace. But let vs heare Osorius vtteryng his owne wordes.

* 1.363Veryly we do cōfesse this to be true, that our thoughtes & our workes which we deuise & bring to passe vertuously and godly ought to be ascribed vnto God, through whose grace and fauour they are accomplished in vs. Behold god∣ly Reader, how this godly Prelate, of his Catholicke pietie, at∣tributeth some thyng to the Grace of God: whiche doth ascribe our godly sayinges, thoughtes, & deédes to the worke of God. And this much truly did neuer any of the Pelagians deny, but affirmed alwayes, that onely God must bee accompted the Au∣thour, not onely of our lyfe, of our beyng, yea of all the actiōs al∣so of our lyfe: but also that all our Freewill ought to be referred to him, beyng the Authour thereof. But this is not enough O∣sorius: for question is not demaunded here, whether God be the Authour of all good workes, which no man will deny. But the question is whether those thynges,* 1.364 which belong to the purcha∣sing of our conuersion and Saluation in the sight of God, do so proceéde from God the Authour therof, as that his onely Grace do worke y^e same altogether in vs: or whether Freewill also doth worke any thyng together with Grace. For herein consisteth the chief knot of all the controuersie. Which shalbe debated af∣terwardes more at large in place fit for it by Gods grace. In y^e meane space, let vs marke how Osorius goeth foreward.

For vnlesse God had restrayned me from rushyng wil∣fully into wickednesse: vnlesse Gods spirite had forewarned me with his coūsell, that I should not throw my selfe head∣long into euerlastyng calamitie: vnlesse he had strengthe∣ned me with his wholesome and strong protection, & made me able to worke the good worke that he cōmaunded me, I should neuer haue bene able either to thinke a good thought, or to doe a good deede: and all myne endeuour employed either to the purposing or accomplishyng my worke should haue bene vtterly vneffectuall. What neéde I aunswere much hereunto? Neither could Luther him selfe (if he were alyue) speake or professe any sentence more godlyly, if a man regard the wordes, and not the meanyng of the man. For what can be more truely or more substauntially spoken, thē that Freewill can worke nothyng but wickednesse, destruction, headlong ruine, and euerlasting wretchednes? nothyng but noy∣some thoughtes, vnlawfull Imaginations? finally nothing that is godly or good, except it be guided by the grace of God? which Grace doth restrayne from wickednesse, doth recouer from de∣struction, doth direct from wandring, doth reforme with whole∣some counsell, and bryng into the right way those that goe a∣stray. Truely if the matter go thus altogether, as the wordes emporte: That is to say: If the very founteine and perfection of all our actiōs, thoughtes, and deuises tendyng to godlynesse and poured abroad into our lyues, doe issue vnto vs from no where els, thē from the onely wellspryng of Gods grace: what other abilitie then shalbe left in wretched Freewill to worke a∣ny good worke (if Osorius he the man he would seéme to be) but an vnprofitable and naked name onely? But least peraduenture he may seéme to be hyred by the Lutheranes, to write so effectu∣ally in the defence of Grace, our Catholicke Byshop returneth agayne to the patronage of Freewill, endeuouryng to proue by his Diuinitie, that the worke of our conuersion doth not so alto∣gether depend vpon Grace onely, but that Freewill also must play his part withall. And why so?

Bycause (sayth hee) it is in our power not to consent to good counsell,* 1.365 to reiect it beyng offered, to refuse courte∣sie, and through wickednesse and outrage to treade vnder

foote profered grace. And who doth deny but that we may so do? Nay rather what els doth Freewill at all, whē it worketh af∣ter her owne nature, but by resistyng & refusall throw headlong into errour? (Luther him selfe witnessing y^e same?) But for more credite of the matter Augustine shall aunswere for Luther.* 1.366 In that we turne our selues away from God (sayth he) commeth of our selues, and this is euill will. But in that we turne vnto God, we can not, except he styrre vp and helpe vs thereunto. And this is good will. Thus much Augustin. We may therfore resiste (say you) and withstand the holy Commaundementes of God accordyng to the operation of our Freewill. In deéde there is nothyng more easie, neither neédeth any helpe hereunto. A∣gayne, We can geue our consent vnto, and embrase Gods Commaundementes also: Surely this is true, if the Grace of God doe guide vs: But if Gods grace doe not gouerne vs, we do then vtterly deny it, Augustine agreéyng with vs herein. To Sinne (sayth Augustine) we are not holpen by God:* 1.367 but to doe well or accomplish the Cōmaundementes of righteousnes through∣ly, we are not able except God helpe vs: And immediatly after. If we be turned from God,* 1.368 it proceedeth of our selues, and then we be wise accordyng to the flesh: God therefore doth ayde men beyng conuerted, and forsaketh them beyng reuolted, yea he doth not one∣ly helpe them beyng conuerted, but helpeth them also that they may be conuerted. Thus much Augustine. Go to, and what will O∣sorius Logicke conclude hereof at the length?* 1.369 Forsooth if euery man of his owne freé power be able to dissent from, and consent with the Grace of God, it appeareth then, that Freewill is not altogether vneffectuall. For to this effect I suppose will he di∣rect the force of his Argument. But I doe aunswere agayne with Augustine.* 1.370 That the same might be so construed and graun∣ted well enough, if it were not spoken by them, whose meanyng is apparaunt. For to admitte that man him selfe may will, and may condiscende, and yeld, and do somewhat in his conuersion, and spiri∣tuall workes: yet hath not man this power of his owne naturall strength neither in whole, nor in part: but he receaueth that strēgth of him, which worketh in man, both to will and to do.

* 1.371And therfore the reason that Osorius frameth here, of not re∣iectyng, and of condiscendyng: if hee meane of naturall giftes:

Augustine doth playnely declare, that this is the very errour of Pelagius. If he meane of the power of Grace, hee gaynsayeth Luther nothyng at all: who did neuer so dispoyle mans Free∣will of freedome, but that beyng manumysed and aduaunced by Gods grace, it was able to do much: and agayne he did neuer so vphold this freédome, but that man might of his owne proper strength refuse Grace, beyng at any tyme offred: (for neither Luther nor any other did euer dreame (I suppose) that Grace was so necessaryly throwen vpon mans will in his cōuersion, as that he should be enforced to reteine it beyng offered, whether he would or no, lyke as when a marke is emprinted into the fleshe by a who••e yron, or as stones that are violently whirled out of a Crossebow. But this is generally affirmed, that the holy Spi∣rite of God doth by his secret operation, worke such an effectu∣all influence in the myndes of the faythfull, that the grace which he offreth may bee receaued, not with vnwillyng will, but that will may with gladsome cheare delight to embrace it, with most earnestly bent affectiō. But if it happen to be reiected, the fault therof to spryng from out the corruption & malice of the flesh. If Osori. will not be satisfied yet, but will vrge still with this his Argumēt, that euery person accordyng to the proportion of his Freewill, may freély reteyne, or refuse the Grace of God, if he will. I will then aunswere briefly and resolutely, that the disceit of this suttle Sillogisme is framed of the Fallax:* 1.372 to witte: a Diuisis ad Coniuncta, as the Logicians do terme it. For albeit will (beyng seuered from Gods grace) be of it selfe freé to reiect Gods callyng: yet is it not after the same sort freé to obey Gods callyng, vnlesse it bee altogether vpholden by the ayde of Gods grace. Let vs now seé further the remnaunt of his disputation.

I do stand at the doore (sayth he) and knocke:* 1.373 hee doth not say, I do breake open the doores, or I do rende abroad the henges and doe violently rushe in: but I knocke onely: that is to say: I do admonish: I do foretell the daunger ensu∣yng: I doe foreshew hope of Saluation, I promise to geue ayde: and I allure vnto me, with fayre promises. In deéde Osorius hee standeth knockyng at the doore, and they to whom it is geuen do open vnto him, but vnlesse it be geuen vnto them they open not at all. Therefore in that hee doth knocke, this is

proper to the callyng: but in that an opē entrey is made, this is to be peculiarely ascribed to Election and Grace. So likewise he doth not heaue the doores of the hookes, nor rusheth in forci∣bly: and yet although hee presse not vpon with any foreine force, he worketh notwithstandyng a secret effectualnesse, and draweth them vnto him, whō he hath chosen, and entirely loueth, through inward operation of voluntary will.* 1.374 Neither is any mā good that will not be good (as Augustine reporteth) yet to haue a will to be good, must the grace of God needes be assistaunt: bycause it is not written in vayne: God is hee that worketh in vs, both to will and to do accordyng to his good pleasure, and the Lord doth first frame and fashion the will. &c. Therefore whereas it is sayd that God doth knocke at the gate of our will, I gladly yeld hereunto: but to say that he doth no more but knocke, this I do vtterly deny: In lyke maner whereas you say that hee admonisheth, that hee foretelleth daunger ensuyng: that he feédeth with hope: that he promiseth ayde, and that he allureth with reward, truely these are not vntruely spoken Osorius: But ye speake not all, nor as much as should be spoken. And therefore herein your haltyng bewrayeth it selfe playnely. For you are flowen into a Fallax, which the Logicians do tearme Ab insufficiente causarū enume∣ratione.* 1.375 True it is, that the grace of God doth knocke: doth fore¦warne, and doth allure: what? doth grace therfore nothyng els but knocke? forewarne? promise? and persuade? Doth it not also create within vs a cleane hart? doth hee not renew a new spi∣rite within our bowels? doth he not plucke out of our fleshe the stony hart, and engraffe in steéde therof a fleshly hart? Yea doth he not also alter all our whole nature? I meane all those inward naturall qualities: doth hee not make them plyable and (as it were) out of an old deformed lumpe, new fashion it into a new creature? doth he commaunde those thynges, which he willeth by admonishyng onely? by callyng, and persuadyng onely? doth not Gods Grace geue also that which he commaundeth? And where in the meanes whiles lurketh then the law that is writ∣ten within, in the hartes of the faythfull?

When we heare these wordes in the Gospel: No man commeth vnto the Sonne, but he whom the Father draweth: Tell vs a good felowshyp, doth he which draweth nothyng els but ad∣monish?

but call? but allure?* 1.376 What is he (sayth Augustine) that is drawen if he bee willyng? for the willing are lead, and none are drawen but the vnwilling. And yet no man commeth, but he that is willing: but to this willingnesse he doth draw vs by wonderfull meanes, who is skilfull to worke within, euen in the very hartes of men, not to make the vnwilling to haue fayth, but to frame the vn∣willing plyable to be willing. &c. If it be so that y^e heauēly Grace by inward operation do make men willyng, that before were not willyng: I would fayne learne now whether Grace do no∣thyng els,* 1.377 but knocke onely? Go to, and whiles Grace is a knoc∣kyng, who is it within that openeth? Freewill, I suppose: But now for as much as this Freewill is powred into all persons in∣differently by a generall influence, as much in one, as in an o∣ther, why doe not all alyke open to the heauenly Grace, when the Lord doth knocke? forsooth bycause they will not (you will say) yet doth the wheale runne neuerthelesse as rounde as it did before. For I demaunde agayne, why some seéme to be willyng whiles others are vnwilling? what els thinke you to be the cause hereof, but bycause God doth open their Freewill first, whiche do open vnto God, that they may be able to open, otherwise it could neuer opē vnto him. Whereby you may easely perceaue, that Freewill is not the porter to let in Grace, so much as the ve∣ry gate it selfe: and that it doth not els open, but as it is first o∣pened by his meanes whiche doth knocke, and that it applyeth not any way els, but as it is made plyable, and so made plyable, that it may seéme rather to be drawen, then to bee lead: neuer goyng before Grace, but followyng altogether, and to speake the wordes of Augustine,* 1.378 Neuer as a foregoer, but as an hand∣mayden of Grace onely in euery good worke. If you will deny this to be true, what Argument shall I better vse agaynst you then the wordes of your owne mouth? For what meaneth it els that you your selues of the Romish Sinagogue at the begynnyng of your Mattens, pray dayly to the Lord Domine labia mea a∣peries, Lord open thou our lyppes,* 1.379 if they open of them sel∣ues, and are not rather opened by him? And in what sorte doe you then desire the Lord to open your lyppes, that your mouth may shew forth his prayse, whom you affirme to do nothyng els but knocke onely? Why therfore doe ye not rather amende your

booke, that your prayer may bee agreable with your desire, and sing an other song on this wise: our Freewill shal opē our lippes O Lord, and our mouth shall chaunte forth thy prayse.

* 1.380What then (will you say) is it not in our owne power to moue our lyppes?* 1.381 Yes truly Osor. there is nothyng more easie then to moue them to contētion, to quarellyng, to lyeng, to blas∣phemous communication, to noysome talke, and vayne tittle tattle. But I will in no wise graunt that we are able to moue our lippes, or to open our hartes of our owne will, to shew forth the prayse of God. All which notwithstandyng tend not to this ende, as though Freewill did worke nothyng at all: yes it wor∣keth surely: but how it worketh and how it is wrought, bycause Osorius doth not declare sufficiently Augustine shall make playne vnto him.* 1.382 Not they that are carried of their owne motion but as many as are carried by the Spirite of God, they are the chil∣dren of God. Here will some man say vnto me. Then are we plyed, and do not plye our selues. I aūswere, yea rather thou doest both ap∣ply thy selfe and art applyed: And euen then doest thou plye well, if thou be plyed by Gods spirite, without whom thou canst doe no good thing: euen so also thou doest apply thy selfe of thine owne Freewill without the helpe of Gods Spirite, & thē doest thou euill. To this ende is thy will, which is called free, prone and effectuall, that by doing euill, it become a damnable handmayd. &c. Whiche wordes you must interprete to bee spoken of Augustine in this wise: not that will doth worke nothyng, but that it worketh no good thyng without Gods helpe. And that you may conceaue the same more effectually, harken what the same Augustine teacheth in his treatize De Gratia, & Lib. Arbit.* 1.383 It is vn∣doubtedly true (sayth hee) that we doe, when we doe: and that we will, whē we will: but he bringeth to passe in vs to will, and to do geuing to our will most effectuall abilitie, which hath sayd: I will make you that ye shall be able to do. Briefly to cōclude. It shalbe lawfull for me to speake the same and in such wise touchyng o∣penyng, whiche and in what wise Augustine spake of doyng, when the Lord doth knocke we do open with a Freewill in deéde, bycause when we do open, we do it freely and willingly: but that we may be able to do so, not we, but he doth open our harts first. Whereby you may perceaue to what end this our discourse ten∣deth,

not that Freewill hath no place,* 1.384 but that it be voyde of me∣rite, vnworthy of prayse, and to be takē for no part of any cause, not bycause we dispoyle her of all maner of motion, but we doe distinguish the maner of motion in such wise, that all the prayse of well doing be ascribed vnto him, vnto whom onely all is due, whatsoeuer we will or can, as Augustine reporteth: and that in this respect Freewill is endued with no actiuitie, whereupon it may vaunte her force:* 1.385 For so shall we liue more out of daunger (sayth he) if we yeld ouer all vnto God, and not commit part of our actions to him, and part to our selues. &c. And agayne in the xiij. Chapter of the same booke. I graunt in deede that we will and worke, but God worketh in vs both to will, and to worke, according to his good pleasure. Thus it behoueth vs to speake and beleue. This is godly: this is true, that by this meanes our Cōfession may be hū∣ble and lowly, and all attributed vnto God. &c.

But I heare what this arrogaunt hautynes of Frewill doth whisper agaynst this humble Confession.

If all this (sayth he) be the worke of God,* 1.386 and no power bee left in mans endeuour that may procure furthe∣raunce to our conuersion.

Ergo, sithence there is nothyng left in vs to doe, what are we thē, other then as good as stones & stockes.

Which Argument Osorius hath gathered (as hee sayth) not out of S. Paule, but out of Luthers braynsickenesse. I would haue marueiled if Osorius could haue gathered any Ar∣gument from any without some reproche, or could haue repro∣ched any man without a lye. But thus to doe is not to gather some thyng frō an other, but to lye rather: not to dispute by Ar∣guyng, but to play the part of a captious scoffer. But to let passe this dronken scoffe, as which neither furthereth his cause, nor empayreth Luthers estimation: we will turne our talke a∣gayne to y^e matter. Luther is here therfore cited for a drunc∣kard, who by blazing abroad Medusaes head doth enchaūt men into stones and flyntes. And why so? Forsooth bycause he doth deny, y^t we do aspire to y^e fauour of God of our own strēgth: but affirmeth that all whatsoeuer we do take in hād,* 1.387 or bryng to passe towardes y^e attaynement of saluation, we obteine the same wholy through the onely worke of Gods grace, which worketh

all in all in vs. Hereupon Osorius cryeth out forthwith, That will is fast tyed, boūde, and restrayned with euerlasting fet∣ters, so that men must of necessitie be chaunged into stones, rockes and stockes. So that it is much to bee feared, least by this Argument he turne Peter also into a stone, bycause Christ called him a Stone: & least he chaunge Christ him selfe Peters Maister also together with Peter into some stony substaunce, bycause Paule calleth him a Rocke, and bycause the Prophetes doe nominate him y^e Corner Stone. It is also to be feared, least he bewitche into stones all the whole aūcient race of the old Testa∣ment: of whō we heare the Prophetes speake in this wise.* 1.388 And I will take away from their fleshe their stony hart. &c. If the pro∣pheticall Scripture do accustome to resemble the properties of personages by some similitude of domme creatures, after an vsuall phrase of figuratiue speache: may it not likewise be law∣full for vs to expresse the hardnesse of mās nature, vnlesse we en∣chaūt mē forthwith into stones, stockes, & flyntes? I beseéch you. Or bycause we professe that Freewill is all together vneffectu∣all in those thynges, which apperteine vnto God, and to worke or vnderstād things, which passe beyond the reache of mās capa∣citie (vnlesse it be plyed by Gods Spirite) is there no force ther∣fore in Freewill to worke in other thynges?* 1.389 or to worke in those thynges, which belong vnto God beyng holpen and assisted by the grace of God? And will you so frame your Argument from the proposition Secundum quid, to conclude with that, which the Sophisters terme Simpliciter?

* 1.390Wherein though you be a Byshop, your fatherhoode seémeth to me to haue committed a double errour. First bycause you cō∣ceaue not the sense of those men sufficiently, whō you quarell a∣gainst: next bycause you deceaue your selfe in y^e selfe same Asser∣tiō which you do mainteine. For those men, which do call backe all the causes of actiōs frō Freewill, attributyng them to Gods grace onely, doe not conceaue of it after such sort, as though the mynde beyng endued with heauēly strēgth, whē it is made plya∣ble, doth not apply it selfe any thyng in the meane space.* 1.391 For euē as Gods secrete Grace through Iesus Christ our Lord, is not pow∣red into stones stockes or brute beastes (as Augustine doth truly record) but into him which was created in the Image of God): euē

so God doth not worke in this his owne Image, as hee worketh in a stone: or after the maner as huge heauy burdēs are drawen by mans pollicie: in the which abydeth no inward operation (as Aristotle sayth) which may auayle to motion:* 1.392 The matter goeth farre otherwise here: and the natures are farre vnlike. True it is that the heauenly grace doth draw vs in deéde, not through a∣ny force of externall coaction, as blockes & Images are drawen: but God leadeth and boweth, which way him listeth, euery per∣son inwardly by his owne will, or plyeth hee any man other∣wise then voluntaryly.

It is well then (say you) If will do nothyng but when she will,* 1.393 and if it will alwayes first before it do: how then shall will bee sayd to worke passiuely, whiche both willeth al∣wayes those thynges which it doth, and doth nothyng but that whiche it willeth?* 1.394 The Aunswere is easie: Will in deéde doth nothyng, but when it willeth: this is true. For otherwise it could be no will, vnlesse it did doe willyngly and voluntaryly. But yet neither doth will alwayes all those thynges whiche it willeth: And agayne to be able to will, it is alwayes made ply∣able first. By the one whereof may be vnderstanded the Instru∣ment or toole of action,* 1.395 by the other the cause of action. Wher∣fore whenas will is taken after this maner, that it yeld to the guiding of the workeman in y^e maner of a toole, by what meanes can it be called either freé, which serueth as bounde? or how can it be sayd to do, which in doyng doth alwayes suffer and is dri∣uē? And yet it doth not so alwayes suffer by doyng, that it neuer doth any thyng of it selfe: and agayne doth neuer so doe in those thynges which apperteine vnto God, but that it is made plya∣ble to doe. And therfore the maner how it doth, and how it suf∣fereth, must be aduisedly considered.* 1.396 For we doe confesse that both are true after a certeine sort, as Augustine testifieth in his booke De Correp. & gratia. Let thē not deceaue them selues ther∣fore (sayth he) which say. To what purpose are we taught and com∣maunded to eschue euill and to do good, if we can not doe it, but as God doth worke the same in vs,* 1.397 to will and to worke? Nay rather let them vnderstand, if they be the children of God, that they are made plyable by Gods Spirite, to doe the thynges that ought to be done, and when they haue done so, to yeld thankes to him, by whom

they were made to do so. For they are made plyable, bycause they should do something, not bycause they should do nothing. &c.

Which saying doth make euident vnto vs, that eche of these two are to be founde in Freewill, both that it is made to do, when it doth well, and agayne that it selfe also doth, when it is made to do.* 1.398 So that herein is no contrarietie at all, but that it may both demeane it selfe by suffering, and also by doing (and to aun∣swere for Luther with Luthers owne wordes) to witte, after di∣uers and seuerall sortes, and after the common phrase of speach in diuers and seuerall respectes. For in respect of the worke it selfe, whenas will occupyeth the place of an Instrument or toole, it both doth, & is made to do, euen as other tooles do in any mat∣ter whereunto they are applyed. But if you haue relation to the efficient cause or workeman, to whose vse it serueth in steéde of a toole: in this respect the will of man demeaneth it selfe altoge∣ther sufferyngly, as the which in respect of procuryng of Gods Grace (from whence issueth all motion of good will) it worketh nothyng at all, but simply obeyeth & suffereth. For in any good worke, what is mans will elles, then an instrument of the holy Ghost?* 1.399 voluntary in deéde, bycause it is moued whether soeuer it is moued of her owne accord, yet is it an instrument notwith∣standyng, bycause of thynges well done, it is neither the cause it selfe, nor any sparcke of the cause in respect of the worker, but a seruaunt rather, and a handmayde onely: whose seruice, the Spirite of God being the worker, doth apply to do these things which it pleaseth him to haue to be done in vs: for the accompli∣shyng wherof it ministreth no helpe at all, as of her selfe.

But the Papisticall generation can not disgest this by any meanes, to whom sufficeth not that Freewill shalbe taken as an instrument,* 1.400 or as it were a workeshoppe onely, vnlesse it beare as great a stroke or rather with Gods Spirite wor∣kyng together with it: nor doe they thinke it sufficient that the whole action of our Election and regeneration bee ascribed to the onely freé mercy of God, vnlesse we also as felow workemē, be coadiutours of this worke together with God. For euen the same doe Osorius wordes emporte manifestly, which folow in this wise.

* 1.401Do ye not therefore perceaue (sayth he) by Paules owne

wordes, that Freewill is approued by his authoritie, which Luther doth practise to ouerthrowe? For to what ende would he haue called vs fellow workers with God, if none of vs did further the worke that GOD worketh in vs? to what purpose would he haue admonished vs to worke our owne Saluation, if to do it were not in our owne power? We are together Gods labourers as Paule reporteth

. 1. Corinth. 3.* 1.402 Where I know that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth signifie together labourers. But what is this at the length to the purpose? doe you not here playnly put the old Prouerbe in practize? to witte: I aske you for Garlicke, and you offer me Oynyones, I desire to borrow sickles, and you lyke a churlishe neighbour deny that you haue any Mattockes. How carefull the Apostles were in plantyng the doctrine of the Gospell we are not ignoraunt, nor do deny. And it is not to be doubted, that Gods prouidence vsed them as most choyse instrumentes to addresse, and husband his Uynearde, yea and that not without singular profite. But we make no enquiry here as now, how much mans industry did bryng to passe by the outward preachyng of the word, or whom it profited most: but the question is here touchyng the fruite of inward cōuersion, whether Freewill of her selfe do worke, or not worke any furtheraunce towardes the embracyng of fayth, to∣wardes repentaūce, towardes spirituall righteousnes, towards attainement of Saluation, and towardes the regeneration of lyfe: So that the state of the question be now, to witte: Whether mās mynde and will beyng of the selfe same nature (that it was when we were first borne) be endued with any actuall or effectu∣all power able to worke together,* 1.403 with Gods holy Spirite to∣wardes the begynnyng of our conuersion, and entryng into our godly consideration of good purposes, and actions of inward o∣bedience? Wherein many writers doe vary in Iudgement and opinion, yea that not a litle.

But Osorius propositiō alledged here of y^e Apostles toge∣ther workers maketh nothyng to the purpose,* 1.404 nor auayleth to y^e maintenaunce of Freewill a rushe. For to admit that the Apo∣stles were together workers with God: yet that those same together workemē should be hypred to worke in this Uyneard, and sent abroad into the Lordes haruest, proceéded not of their

owne voluntary motion or Freewill, but of the freé Election and callyng of God onely. Agayne this their Ministery (as farre forth as concerneth their own persons) euen then when they la∣boured most earnestly, was extended no further, then to the out∣ward preachyng & dispensation of the word: for as touchyng the inward conuersion of the hearers, & nourishment of their fayth, this was the onely worke of the holy Ghost, and not of the Apo∣stles: Paule did plante: Apollo did water. But what doth this helpe to Freewill, when as neither he that plāteth, nor he that wa∣tereth are any thing at all, but God onely who geueth the encrease. And what is the reason then, why they are sayd to bee nothyng? Is it bycause he that plāteth, and he that watereth, and he that ploweth doth nothyng at all? was Paule nothyng? or did he not worke at all? who beyng continually trauailyng is reported to haue laboured more then all y^e rest? or shall we say that y^e rest of y^e Apostles did nothyng, which did employ not their trauaile one∣ly, but shedd their bloud also in furtheryng y^e worke of the Gos∣pell? Yeas veryly, wonderfull much, if you respect the outward Ministery of Preachyng the word and their function. But we doe enquyre of the inward operation of conuersion, and the re∣newyng of the myndes, which is the onely worke of God, not of Freewill, nor of mans outward endeuour. Godly Preachers in deéde doe pearce into the eares of men with outward voyce, & set downe before them the wordes of fayth and truth: And yet thus to do, springeth not of their own Freewill, but from the freé callyng of God, whereby they are lead to do the same: but to be∣leue y^e doctrine inwardly, to become faithful hearers of y^e whole∣some word, is the onely worke of y^e holy Ghost, who by secret in∣spiration doth dispose y^e myndes, doth renew the hartes, doth in∣spire with fayth, finally of unwillyng doth make willyng: so that here is no place left now for Freewill to challēge, but y^t he onely possesse the whole, which onely worketh all in all: who thrustyng out workemen to preach the word, doth frameth the wills of the hearers that they may beleéue. Whereupō I do aūswere to that suttle Argument of Osorius briefly, and playnly in this wise.

Whosoeuer worketh together with an other, worketh actiuely and not passiuely onely.* 1.405

The Ministers of the Gospell are together, workemen

with God.

Ergo, The Preachers of the worde, when they worke with God, do not suffer passiuely onely.

I aunswere,* 1.406 that in the Maior proposition should haue bene added these wordes Per fe, & inys que ngit: That is to say: Of him selfe, & in the things wherein he worketh. For y^e thyng that of his owne power worketh together with an others helpe, doth somewhat in deéde in those thynges, whiche it doth, and is not wrought onely. That is true. And for the same purpose the Minor proposition must bee denyed: for the Freewill of Gods Ministers doth neither worke in Preachyng the word Per se, of it selfe, except it be holpen by Gods Spirite: nor doth proceéde any further euen when it is holpen, thē to the outward action of preachyng. But as concernyng the inward fruite of preachyng, (namely nourishment of fayth, and the operatiō of conuersion) all this action proceédeth from the holy Ghost, and not frō Free∣will. And this seémeth to bee the very meanyng of Luther,* 1.407 to witte, hauyng respect to those thynges onely, wherein Freewill can not challenge to be any meane of effectuall operation, either in workyng, or in together workyng, nor can make any title of clayme therein, nor prescribe to bee any partener with the holy Ghost in the worke.

It remayneth that we arme our selues agaynst the other sut∣teltie of Osorius,* 1.408 which he coyneth out of the Apostles wordes.

S. Paule writyng to the Phillipians, doth counsell them in a certein place to worke euery of them their own saluation with feare and tremblyng.

I doe heare it, and I awayte what this choppelogicke will stampe out hereof.

Ergo (sayth Osorius) we are able to worke our Salua∣tion of our owne Freewill.

I doe aunswere.* 1.409 The antecedent is true, but the consequent most false, and altogether sauoryng of Pelagius errour, nor a∣greable with the antecedent. For this word working, which the Apostle vseth, doth not signifie any such thyng as may vphold the force of Freewill, or declare it to be the efficiēt cause of Sal∣uation, as though it did depend vpō the dignitie of our workes: but is onely a word of exhortation, to comfort them to goe fore∣ward

diligently, and to perseuer carefully in the course of Salua∣tion, where they were now settled.* 1.410 And withall teacheth them fur∣ther how they ought to perseuer with feare (sayth he) and trē∣blyng, to witte, exhortyng them to take vnto them the feare of God in humblenesse of mynde, which might hold them alwayes conuersaunt in good workes, whiles they made hast to attaine the goale of Saluatiō. Finally that no man might cauill & say, that this vertue of perseueraūce did farre surmoūt their weake∣nes, he addeth forthwith, callyng them backe as it were to a bet∣ter hope through cōfidence of greater helpe: For it is God (sayth he) which worketh in you both to will and to worke accordyng to his good pleasure. &c. If God do worke in vs (Osorius) both to will and to worke, what is it then that Freewill can will or doe? Fur∣thermore if life euerlasting be the gift of God, not for the workes sake whiche we haue done, how shall Saluation be obteined by good workes? wherefore you trippe twise in your Argument. First, whereas you place Saluation in good workes. Then, whereas you deriue good workes out of mans Freewill, as from the sprynghead therof. For thus ye conclude. If it were not in our own power (to witte in our Freewill) which both are false and most friuolous.* 1.411

And yet after all these manifest trackes of Pelagius playne footesteppes, not vnlike that craftie varlet Syrus in Terence, whiche cleareth him selfe to his Maister, as vnacquainted with the Mariage of his sonne: euen so least he should seéme to be de∣filed with some spotte of Pelagius errour, addeth immediately: What?* 1.412 Are we such as will consent with Pelagius? Did we say at any tyme that we were able to worke any godly or prayse worthy worke through our own strength and indu∣stry? If you will abide by your wordes Osor. you haue so said in deéde. For he y^t doth auow, that it is in our own power to worke our saluation: what doth hee meane els by these wordes, but that we be able of our owne strēgth to worke somewhat worthy cōmendatiō? But whether he agreé herein w^t Pelagius or no, let y^e indifferēt Reader Iudge as seémeth him best. But I pray you sir, by what meanes do you affirme y^t to be in our owne handes, which you deny agayne to be in our owne power? Or how cā ye defend them both, but you must neédes make a lye in y^e one? or

what slipper deuise will you vse here to couer your lye withall? You say that Saluatiō is not obteined by our own strength; but through Gods grace workyng within vs. And why then chaufe you so maliciously agaynst Luther, Melancthon, Bucer and Caluine, which affirme the same that you do? But a litle earst ye confessed the thyng, which ye do now deny. Be stedfast therfore, and set downe your mynde whereunto you will stand, that we may know once where we may finde you. If you af∣firme that all consisteth in our owne handes, then do you not a∣greé with Pelagius, but you go farre beyond him: If you ascribe all to the grace of God, what neédeth any more scoldyng? But you will deuide your meanyng perhappes, and will allowe to Gods grace such a parte of the worke, that Freewill also may occupy some part with all.* 1.413 Yet doe ye not vntwyne this meashe notwithstandyng. For if you will so cut asunder this shippe, which can by no meanes bee vnioynted, and will yeld ouer the forepart therof to mās guidyng, & the powpe to Gods tuition: surely S. Paule will gayne say you euery way, which yeldeth y^e whole interest of both, aswell the former as the hinder partes to God, whether Osori. will or no: Declaryng That it is God that worketh in vs both to will, and to bryng to passe all thyngs accordyng to his good pleasure. But you will finde out some meane thyng paraduenture betwixt both, whiche you may attribute to Free∣will. But euen here agayne you shall be driuen backe, whereas you may heare Paule pronounce That it is God that geueth the increase, so that now not onely the originall of good will, but the encrease also of well doyng, the accomplishyng, proceédyng and successes also flow from out the holy Ghost, and not from man.

If it be so thē (will you say) that Gods grace doth worke all in all in vs,* 1.414 to what purpose serueth the Freewill that is naturally engraffed within vs? or beyng holpen by grace, how is it sayd to doe any thyng, if you shall thinke that it ought not to be accōpted in any respect a partener in wor∣kyng a good worke? For aūswere wherof,* 1.415 I would wishe you to harkē not to the wordes that I speake, but vnto Augustine. It is most true Osori. that whatsoeuer good worke is wrought by vs, the prayse thereof ought to redounde wholy not to our Freewill, but to Gods grace, which performeth all whatsoeuer

is performed by vs godly, and worthy prayse. For that is it that the wordes of Augustine emporte, that true and humble con∣fession doth require in vs. That is to say. That we referre all vnto God. And yet this grace of God doth not so worke all that whiche is proper to it selfe, by her selfe onely, as workyng in vs without our Freewill. And agayne it neither worketh so toge∣ther with our Freewill, that any portion of prayse or rewarde should bee ascribed to Freewill, for any of all whatsoeuer is due vnto God. And therefore where as Augustine in his booke De gratia & libero arbit•• both affirme,* 1.416 that neither grace without Freewill, nor Freewill without grace is sufficient: We do confesse both to be true: for either of them worketh with the other I cō∣fesse it: but yet after a certeine seuerall sort. For the Grace of God worketh, when it helpeth mans Freewill, yet it worketh in such wise, as that it is neuer wrought by an other: it doth so helpe Freewill as beyng neuer holpen by Freewill. Furthermore it doth so helpe, but that it is alwayes freé not to helpe, if it will: In fine whēas Gods grace doth worke most effectually by hel∣pyng mās will,* 1.417 yet worketh it not so with mās Freewill, as stā∣dyng in neéde of the helpe of Freewill by any meanes, but rather vsing y^e seruice therof. But the state of Freewill is farre other∣wise: For Freewill worketh together with Gods spirite, not as commaundyng his seruice at any tyme, but alwayes wantyng his assistaunce. In the one wherof you perceaue the efficacie of the cause that worketh, in the other the seruice onely of the In∣strument.* 1.418 Moreouer when will doth worke most effectually (Gods grace directyng it) yea and freély, bycause it worketh vo∣luntaryly, yet doth it neuer attempt any good thyng of her selfe, without the directiō of grace, neither by any meanes otherwise, then as it is holpen, but neuer helpeth grace by which it is both wrought and holpen. Yea and then also when it is wrought it so worketh, that it can not chuse but worke of very necessitie. E∣uen as Seruauntes in respect of their birth are freé, but beyng commaūded by their Maisters (whom they be bounde vnto) they must obey whether will they nill they, of very Necessitie. In like maner fareth it with mens Freewilles, albeit they stand in such plight as that they be alwayes carried with freé motiō, that is to say, with voluntary motion to the thynges whatsoeuer they do,

yet is it so farre of to be able enough of their owne power to pro∣secute their purposed imaginations as they would wishe them selues, that many tymes they are withdrawen agaynst their willes,* 1.419 from executyng the mischief whiche they conceaued. A∣gayne to do good deédes, they are so the Seruauntes of grace, that when they are drawen, they can not chuse but obey of ve∣ry necessitie.

What neéde examples in matter most apparaūt?* 1.420 How oftē and how many doe we finde, that purpose many thynges in their myndes, which notwithstandyng come to a farre other maner of end then they were deuised for, beyng quite ouerthrowen by the onely countermaunde of almightie God. As appeareth in Ba∣laam, and the brothers of Ioseph: of whom the first was bar∣red from speakyng that which he determined: the other from ex∣ecutyng their deuises by the wonderfull prouidence of God. It would be to much to recite all the exāples mētioned in the scrip∣tures to this effect as Pharao, Sennacherib, Hamman, Anti∣ochus, Herode, the Pharisees, Iulian and innumerable others of the same sorte: whose Freewill beyng wonderfully interrupted euen amiddes their chiefest practizes, was neither able to do a∣ny good thyng well, nor yet accomplishe the euill that they had i∣magined accordyng to their determinate purpose. It shall suf∣fice to produce one or two examples, whereby it may make both euidētly appeare, how that it neither resteth in the choyse of mā to proceéde in euill doyng after his owne will, nor to leaue of frō doyng well beyng drawen by Gods Spirite. Saule breathyng forth as yet slaughter & threatenynges, whenas he persequuted the Christiās with wholy bent affection of Freewill,* 1.421 what cruel∣tie would he haue executed, if he could haue brought to passe the deuise, which he had throughly determined in mynde? And why could hee not doe it? But bycause there is no freédome in mans Freewill of it selfe, euen in workyng wickednesse, but such as be∣yng hindered many tymes, & alwayes bonde, must be enforced to acknowledge her owne weakenesse on euery side.

Let vs couple with Paule the Apostle Peter:* 1.422 that we may learne in thē both, how that we are not able of our selues either to frame our lyues altogether to wickednesse, or to direct the same sometyme to godlynesse. And first touchyng Saules wic∣ked

will in his most wicked enterprises, how litle it auayled hath bene declared already. Let vs now behold Peters fayth, not by what meanes he receaued it at the first, but let vs seé what his fleshly will was able to doe, to the vttermost of his power, ei∣ther in refusing fayth when it was geuen him, or in forsakyng it when he was holpen. Upō which matter let vs geaue care to the testimonie of Augustine:* 1.423 When it was sayd vnto Peter (sayth hee) Peter I haue prayed for thee, that thy fayth may not fainte: Darest thou presume to say that `Peters fayth should haue fayled though Peter him selfe would haue wished it to haue fayled, consi∣dering that Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle, as though Peter would haue willed any thing elles, then as Christ had prayed for him, that hee should will? Whereupon appeareth that Peters faith did not depend so much vpon his owne will, is vpon the prayer of Christ: who did both helpe his faith, and direct his will: And bycause his will was directed of the Lord, therfore could not the prayer made for him be vneffectuall. And therfore when hee prayed, that his faith might not fayle, what prayed hee for els, but that he might bee endued with a most free, most valiaunt, vnuan∣quishable, and most perdurable will in the faith? Thus much Au∣gustine.* 1.424 And therfore Ieremie the Prophet cryeng out vnto the Lord most worthely: I know O Lord (sayth he) that the way of mā is not in him selfe, neither is it in man to walke and to direct his owne steppes. Whiche wordes me seémeth that Luther did note not altogether vndiscretely, whose wordes if I would here set downe, I can not seé which part therof Osorius would be able to confute. For in this sorte doth Luther argue:* 1.425 If mans way & mans steppes be not at his owne disposition, how shall the way of the Lord, & the pathes of the Lord be at mans direction? And hereupon deriuyng an Argument a Comparatis, as they tearme it in Schooles, addeth forthwith, how then is mā able to dispose him selfe to good, whenas he is not able of him selfe to make his wayes euill? For otherwise if he be able, how then did the Pro∣phet say, that he knew that mans way was not in him selfe? or how is it that in y^e 16. of his booke of Prouerbes y^e wise Kyng beyng enspired with y^e same Spirite confesseth, that he knew as he te∣stified?* 1.426 The hart of man (sayth he) purposeth his way, but the Lord doth direct his steppes. Albeit this is not spoken to this end, as

though we did affirme that mās will is no wayes freé towardes wicked thynges:* 1.427 for who knoweth not how frayle and prone the disposition of mās will is alwayes to catch hold of euill? though from doyng therof, it be many tymes hindered. The compari∣son tendeth to this ende onely, that if mans Freewill beyng hin∣dered, and bonde, seéme many tymes lesse freé to put in executiō euill thynges: how much lesse freédome thinke you doth it enioy towardes the thynges that further vnto godlynesse? for as much therfore as this appeareth to bee most true by the euident testi∣monies of the Scriptures, and experimented by the continuall course of mens actions and conuersations: Let vs heare what Osorius doth obiect agaynst Haddon.

But I say thus that all good men,* 1.428 all godly men, all men most endued with heauenly giftes doe testifie, that in this sentence of thine lurketh haynous wickednesse: vnshame∣fast impudencie: detestable maddnesse and most execrable treacherie. Unlesse your so manifold lyes hetherto dispersed abroad, and as it were clouted together in one lumpe, vnlesse your shamelesse face Osorius, and that your impudent vsage in lyeng and blaunching, your monstruous vanitie (the lyke wher∣of can scarse possibly be founde in any writer, surely more mon∣strous in no man) had long sithence disabled all the substaunce and credite of your talke, in the Iudgemēt of all good and god∣ly men: you might happely haue founde some one, which would haue soothed this your cōmunicatiō. But now hauyng vttered scarse one true Sentence throughout all this worke of yours, with what countenaunce, and with what face dare ye speake in this wise? But I say this. &c. And what doth this famous speaker tell vs at y^e length? I do say this that in this sentēce of Luther, Melancthon and Caluine lurketh haynous wicked∣nesse, vnshamefast impudencie: detestable maddnesse and most execrable outrage. Goe foreward then, and tell vs first without a lye (if you can) I pray you, what they haue vttered in their wordes.* 1.429 Forsooth bycause they stand stiffely herein that mans mynde is alwayes holden captiue, his will fast chayned, dispoyled of all abilitie to doe, in so much that we can neither doe good nor euill, no nor thinke any good thought by any meanes. Finally this is the effect of their

opinion, that there is no difference betwixt vs and any o∣ther toole or instrument. &c. Truely I should haue maruei∣led much Osorius, if that lyeng spirite in your mouth, if your wicked lippes & deceitfull toung could haue vttered any thyng vnto vs without a lye, or haue made a lȳe without raylyng. Yea Syr? Is the winde in that doore? who that assigneth freé and vo∣luntary power to doe good,* 1.430 not in our owne will, but in Gods grace: who that ascribeth all our actions (especially these which be godly) to the direction and disposition of God: who that af∣firmeth that our will is neither freé of it selfe without Gods Grace, and that it doth nothyng els but sinne deadly, when it worketh after disposition of her owne nature: doth he so dis∣poyle man naked altogether of all will, as though it could doe nothyng at all? or purpose nothyng at all? or as though he made no difference betwixt man and any other instrument or toole? who that endeuoureth to proue manifestly by the Scriptures this thyng chiefly, that all the thoughtes of mans hart, and all his senses alwayes are prone, and inclined at all tymes to wic∣kednesse, doth hee seéme to affirme that man is voyde of all feé∣lyng of thought? Tell a good fellowshyppe, the man that doth that which is in his owne power, or the man doyng that whiche is in his owne power, doth nothyng els but sinne: doth this man now nothyng at all, whiles he sinneth? or whiles he imagineth mischief, doth he imagine nothyng at all? And how then, I pray you, doth Luther spoyle men of their will? or how is hee re∣ported, to bynde mans will fast in euerlastyng chaynes, in such wise, as that it can not onely not doe, but also not thinke any good or euill?

* 1.431But Luther doth deny that it resteth in mans Freewill to make his wayes euill. And what inconuenience is there in this sentence, if the meanyng therof be taken in the right sense, as it ought to be?* 1.432 Truely if our wayes either good or badd were sim∣ply and absolutely at our owne disposition: how is it that the Scripture teacheth that mans steppes are directed? or how is it that the Prophet doth deny mans way to be his owne? or how read we in the holy Prouerbes, That when mā hath prepared his hart most, yet it is the Lord that gouerneth the toung? How often doe we finde the old Prouerbe to proue true, that man doth purpose

one way and God doth dispose an other way? How rife are the examples of some persons which with halter in hand, and knife ready bent to dispatch them selues of their wretched liues, or whiche haue practized to drowne them selues, haue not accom∣plished the wicked fact, that they deuised euen then, when they were most willyng thereto? Surely Gods diuine prouidence doth wonderfully dally with mans thoughtes and imaginati∣ons, deludyng, ouerthrowyng, makyng frustrate transposing beyond all expectation of man, the thynges which we haue most firmely determined. And what freédome is this at the length, whiche is alwayes constrained to serue at an others appointe∣ment? the strongest force wherof beyng many tymes hindered, must alwayes depende vpon the permission and commaunde∣ment of the hygher power? whiche thyng Augustine doth very well declare.* 1.433 All willes are subiect (sayth he) to the will of God, bycause they haue no power, but such as hee graunteth. The cause therfore that maketh this, and is not made, is God, other causes doe both make and are made, as are all created Spirites, but chiefly such as are endued with reason. And agayne.* 1.434 Our willes are so farre a∣ble, by how much God would haue them to bee able and foreknew it. And therfore in what soeuer abilitie they stand they are vndoub∣tedly able, and what soeuer they shall doe, they shall surely do, by∣cause he did foreknown that they should be able, and should do, whose foreknowledge can not be deceaued. &c.* 1.435 And agayne in an other place. Neither is it to be doubted, that mens willes can not resiste the will of God, but that he must needes doe what God will, for as much as he doth dispose the willes also as him listeth, and when him listeth. Therefore to will, and to nill, is so in the power of him that willeth and nylleth, that it neither goeth beyond Gods power, nor hindereth his will, but is many tymes hindered by the power of God, and alwayes ouermaistered. &c.

But that is somewhat more hard which is obiected out of the same Article, that will is so fast bounde, that we cā thinke no euill thought by any meanes. For so doth Osorius cite the place. Wherein he doth first cast a myste before the Rea∣ders eyes, and then deale iniuriously with Luther. For he doth neither faythfully, nor fully rehearse the wordes of his Article. He is also no lesse iniurious to Melancthon and Caluine, whō

he alledgeth as partakers of the same opinion. Albeit I know right well, that they doe not varie from Luthers meanyng, yet did they alwayes of very purpose refrayne from this kynde of speache. Where did Melancthon euer write, that all thynges are performed by vnaduoydeable necessitie? Where did Cal∣uine say, that Freewill was but a deuise in thynges? Who euer heard Bucer say, that man was not of power to thinke euill? not bycause they varied from him in meanyng and Iudgement, but they chose rather to quallifie, with some more plausible kynde of stile, that which seémed to be propoūded by him somewhat more roughly. But to returne agayne to Luthers wordes: I doe re∣knowledge herein not your new furnished cauill Osorius: but the auncient rusty canker of many others agaynst Luther, as of Leo, Roffensis, Eckius, Iohānes Coclaeus, Albertus Phigius, Iohn Dreidon, Alphansus de Castro, Andrew Vega, Peter Canisius, and such like: which do neither read Luthers writyng with Iudgement, neither consider his meanyng, nor cōferre the first with the last: but catch here and there a worde halfe gelded for hast: and out of these beyng sinisterly construed, if they finde any one thyng more then other fitte to be quarelled withall, that they snatch vp, that they vrge stiffely, and are alwayes rakyng their nayles vpon that scabbe (as the Prouerbe sayth). And by∣cause amongest all other his Assertions, they can picke out no one sentence more odious in the Iudgement of the simple peo∣ple: it is a wōder to seé, what a coyle they keépe here, and how vi∣perously they gnaw and turmoyle this one Sentence, wherein he sayd, That mans will hauyng lost her freédome, is now of no force at all, not so much as to thinke an euill thought. And in this respect surely, I can not but marueile much to seé the vndis∣creéte disorder of some, but chiefly the singuler shamelessenes of Osorius. For albeit Luther in so many his Commentaries, Sermons, Bookes, and Aunsweres doth vrge this one pointe alwayes, and euery where trauaile earnestly to proue, that mās Freewill (beyng voyde of Grace) auayleth to nothyng but to cō∣mitte sinne: yet doth Osorius so frame all his writyng agaynst Luther: as though Luther did teach that mans Freewill could not so much as thinke an euill thought.

And frō whence doth he pike this quarell? out of the wordes

of Luthers Article before mentioned, I suppose: But for as much as Luther doth in the selfe same Article openly professe,* 1.436 that Freewill of her owne nature auayleth to nothyng but to Sinne, and that all the imaginations of the hart do (of a cer∣teine naturall inclination) rushe headlong into euill: in what sense can y^t mā be sayd not to be able to thinke an euill thought, whiche is alwayes occupied in imaginyng euill? But I beleue he will presse vpon vs with Luthers owne wordes, wherewith he affirmeth that no mā of him selfe is of power to thinke a good thought, or an euill thought, &c. Well, let vs heare what conclu∣sion this Logician will coyne out of these wordes.

Mans minde whether it thinke well or euill,* 1.437 doth nei∣ther of them both of her owne power.

Ergo, Mans mynde of it selfe cā neither thinke a good nor an euill thought.

I do here appeale to your Logicke Osorius. What kynde of Argumēt is this? by what rule make you this cōsequent? what? bycause the substaunce of the matter doth depend vpon the first causes properly, will you thereupō conclude, that the secōd cau∣ses do therfore nothing at all? Or bycause the freédome of doyng is restreined to the first and principall cause, to witte, to the one∣ly Maiestie of God, that therefore mans will is no cause at all, bycause it is not freé? and y^t therfore it cā thinke no ill thought by any meanes, bycause it doth it not of her owne strength and li∣bertie, as though to do a thyng properly? & a thyng to be done of her owne proper power, were all one to say? So then by this reason the Iewes, which crucified the Lord of glory, shalbe sayd to do nothyng, bycause all the outrage whatsoeuer they kept, was determined before, by Gods vnsearcheable coūsell. In like maner Pharao in withholdyng the people of Israell, and Na∣buchadonasor in spoylyng them, may be sayd to do nothyng, bycause the hart of the one was hardened by the Lord, and by∣cause the other leadyng his armye into Egypt, was constray∣ned to chaunge his will in his iourney, and bende his force a∣gaynst Ierusalem. Likewise neither the Shippe whiles she sayleth, nor the Pylote within the Shippe, do any thyng at all, bycause their course whether it bee fortunate or vnfortunate, is not alwayes directed after their owne will, but as the wyndes &

the tydes do driue them. For what doth Luthers disputation of Freewill enforce els, but that he may referre all the order of do∣yng to Gods freé disposition onely? Neither doth hee dispoyle mā of will altogether, which doth onely disable will of freédome: Neither is it a good consequent to say, bycause mans will is de∣nyed to be freé, therfore that man is altogether destitute of will, bycause it is not freé, but alwayes captiuate, bounde, & an hand∣mayde, as the which in euill thyngs is either alwayes seruaunt to Sinne, or in good thynges handmayde to grace, euen as an Instrument or toole is alwayes at the bestowing of him that wor∣keth withall.* 1.438 For what should let but Luther may as well call Freewill, by the name of a toole, as Esay doth name the wicked by the name of Sawes in the band of the Lord? and as well as in many places of Ezechiell those hartes are called stoany hartes which the Lord doth promise to soften and mollifie with his grace?* 1.439

* 1.440And yet I will not much trouble Osorius herein. For whe∣ther will be freé vnto euill, or be seruaunt vnto euill: it maketh litle to the present purpose, nor will stād Osorius much in steéde. This is vndoubtedly true, that mans naturall strength (bee it freé, or be it bond) is more thē strong enough to all wickednesse. So were all these stormes raysed agaynst Luther neédelesse al∣so, consideryng that he doth so frankely oftentymes, and in ma∣ny places professe in playne wordes, that mans mynde is al∣wayes prone, and inclined to all euill cogitations: consideryng also that he doth confesse euery where, that to thinke euill is as properly naturall to mans will, as that of it selfe it neither can, nor doth acquainte it selfe with any thyng elles, but with euill thoughtes. And I thinke it is not so neédefull to stand much vp∣on the name of freédome, especially sithence we doe agreé vpon the truth of the matter. And it may happen that Osorius is de∣ceaued in doubtfull cōstruction of the word, or rather deceaueth others therewith: takyng the same in an other sense thē Luther vnderstode it.* 1.441 For whereas some thynges are sayd to bee freé of necessitie in respect of outward coaction, some freé of necessitie in respect of bōdage: Will may right well be called freé after the first maner of necessitie: as the which is neuer cōstrained to will vnwillyngly that which it willeth, be it good, or badd: For com∣pulsary will (as Augustine sayth) is no will. Accordyng to the lat∣ter

maner of necessitie, man hath neuer power ouer his owne will so, but that (whiche way soeuer it is carried) it alwayes o∣beyeth his commaūdement of whom it is carried, albeit it doth alwayes serue both voluntaryly, and willyngly. Whereupon S. Paule discoursing vpon the euill whiche hee would not, but did it neuerthelesse, sayth, that he did it not: but imputed the do∣ing therof to Sinne dwellyng within him, and to the law of his members, the force wherof being greater then his own strēgth, did drawe him into bondage, though hee stroue agaynst it. And surely that is the bondage that Luther did meane accordyng to Paules saying,* 1.442 when writyng of bond will on this wise: Mans will (sayth he) is after this sort common to vse, as is a horse or a beast: if God do ride vpō it, then it willeth & goeth whyther God will haue it: if the Deuill sit vpon it, then it willeth and goeth whyther the Deuill will haue it: nor is it in his owne choyse to runne to either of those riders, or to get either of them: but the riders do contend for the hauyng and keépyng of him. &c. If O∣sorius do seé any meane betwixt these two riders, I would fayne haue him shew it. He will say perhappes, that betwixt these two there is a meane in will, whereby will is able to apply it selfe to this, or to that; Augustine doth make aunswere,* 1.443 that the very begynnyng of this applyeng, if it be towardes good, ariseth not with∣out Gods good will and grace: if it be towardes euill: then it sprin∣geth not but out of euill:: Euen as Bernarde doth teach that the whole begynnyng must be ascribed to Grace.

In fine: to shutte vp the matter in fewe wordes,* 1.444 as concer∣nyng Luthers proposition, wherein he denyeth that Freewill is of power to do good, or euill of it selfe. Two thynges seéme wor∣thy to be noted here. The one concernyng the power of doyng, the other concernyng the freédome of power: If we enquire of the power of will, how effectuall it may be to good or euill of her owne naturall force: neither Luther nor any other will deny, the propertie of will to bee otherwise, but that it may will the thynges that it willeth: neither that the force of will is so alto∣gether blotted out, but that it may apply when it is applyed ei∣ther to good, or to euill: and that it doth so farre forth not apply, by how much it is either destitute of Grace, or ayded by Grace, after none other sorte, then as the horse doth beare his rider hee

trauerseth in his ryng, and runneth his race, he sweateth vnder his rider, he trauaileth his grounde, is very nymble, chaufeth & champeth vpon the bridle, commeth a loft, porketh out with his heéles behinde, he runneth rounde in his carryer backward and foreward, and performeth all other qualities and properties of his kynde, which are subiect to his senses. All which motions if you respect the naturall qualitie and force of the horse, seéme to be not altogether out of his owne power: But if ye respect the libertie of motiō, the actiuitie therof will appeare to consiste not so much in the naturall power of the beast which is ruled, as in the power of the ryder, which doth mannage him. Euē so ought we to Iudge of mans will, whose naturall inclination if you re∣gard, and what it may doe of her owne strēgth: who will deny, y^t the property of will is to will, but to be able to will, is proper to habilitie? For of will it proceédeth, that we will, but of habilitie it cōmeth, that we performe. So with our will we will, with our mynde we conceaue: and with our habilitie we doe performe. And, as Augustine sayth,* 1.445 thinking we do beleeue, thinking we doe speake, and thinking we doe whatsoeuer we doe. And in an other place the same Augustine doth confesse: that nature may be of power not onely to do euill, but also to haue fayth, hope, and charitie, yet to haue all these, hee doth affirme to come of Grace altogether.* 1.446 Wherfore we agreé well enough together as touchyng y^e habili∣tie of will. But to let passe this treatie of habilitie: if question be moued touching freédome of will, bycause hereupō hangeth all our cōtrouersie (for neither do we enquire here, what y^e property of will is: or what will cā do properly? but what euery man may do,* 1.447 or not do in all thyngs, by the freédome of his owne proper will) Luther doth aūswere forthwith, that the name of freédome seémeth to be a name of more maiestie, thē that it ought, or may agreé cōueniently to any thyng properly, but to y^e onely Maiestie of God, or to him, whō the holy Ghost hath made freé by grace.

* 1.448But y^e great Proctours of Freewill are wont to obiect, that in some sense this is true in deéde: That there is no power abso∣lutely & fully freé, but the onely omnipotēt power of Gods Ma∣iestie: yet neuertheles as we call Angels immortall, men holy, wise, and good (though we doe acknowledge God onely to bee truly immortall, onely wise, and onely good) so nothyng withstā∣deth,

but we may call men after their certeine maner freé. I do Aūswere.* 1.449 Angels in deéde are called immortall, and that truly: bycause they obteined that state of their creatour at the first: be∣sides that also, they neuer lost that state of immortalitie where∣in they were placed, although some fell frō the blessednes of im∣mortalitie. But as for our freédome, the condition & state therof is of a farre other condition and kynde. For albeit mā in the be∣ginnyng was created in the freé estate of will through y^e benefite of his creatour, which he might haue reteigned still without any contradiction if he would: yet did hee loase the same freédome, and Paradise withall, by his own default: so that he turned that blessed estate, into miserie: and his freédome, into bondage: that beyng out of Paradise now, by how much we are sequestred frō all felicitie, euen so farre seéme we to be cut of from all freédome, without the Grace of the Redeémer. For shyppe wracke beyng once made of vniuersall blessednesse, I can seé none other reme∣dy, but that freédome must be drowned withall. Therefore the selfe same thyng whiche doth open Paradise, beyng shut fast a∣gaynst vs, must of necessitie restore freédome agayne: which can not by any meanes be brought to passe through force of nature, or through any power of our owne: It consisteth onely in the Grace of the Redeémer. As our Redeémer him selfe witnesseth in S. Iohns Gospell.* 1.450 If the Sonne shall make you free, then shall you be free in deede. Notyng vnto vs this one thyng chiefly, by those wordes, the state of our bondage to be such, as except it be renewed with Grace of the Redeémer, that in all this nature of ours is nothyng freé. Moreouer as concernyng the vsuall ma∣ner of speach: that men are called good, holy, and wise:* 1.451 I know that men haue bene accustomed to bee tearmed so. But what is this to the purpose? The question here is not, by what name mē are called, but of what value euery thyng is in the sight of God. And yet do I not doubt at all, but y^t many men may bee in their kinde good, holy, and wise, & euen so to be esteémed well enough. But howsoeuer this holynesse, godlynesse, and wisedome of mē seémeth in mans Iudgement, yet is nothyng whatsoeuer it be, if it proceéde not from the grace of God. (For what hast thou, that thou hast not receaued?) After the same sorte do I aunswere touchyng freédome, whiche beyng once lost through Freewill,

must of necessitie sticke fast cloyed in y^e puddle of thraldome, vn∣lesse it be renewed agayne by Gods grace.* 1.452 Whereupō August, very aptly, Freedome (sayth he) without grace, is no freedome but co••tumacle. And as in this place August, denyeth that to be li∣berty, which is seuered frō grace, so in an other place he will not graunt that to bee named will, except it be conuersaunt in good things.* 1.453 Will (sayth he) is not will: but in good thyngs, for in euill & wicked thinges, it is properly called Luste, & not will. Wherfore if there be neither freédome, where Gods grace is not present: nor will, where wickednesse is practized: by what meanes then will Osorius mainteyne, that Freewill is in euill thinges, whenas in that respect, there is neither freédome, nor will? There is also in the same August. & in the same his Epistle to Hillary, that may well be gathered and framed into an Argument on this wise.

The lyfe of libertie is the perfect soundenesse of will.* 1.454

But in doyng euill mans will is not sounde.

Ergo, In doyng euill mans will is not freé.

For euen so are we taught vp Augustines wordes.

The lyfe of libertie (sayth he) is the soundenesse of will, and by so much euery man is more free, by how much his will is most sound.

Albeit I will not striue much about the contention of tear∣mes. If any mā be minded to name the choyse of will applyable towardes good or euill, to be voluntary, rather then freé, he shall not erre much in my Iudgement. Neither will I be offended, if a man do say (as Augustine doth) that mās will is freé towardes euill thinges, so that he hold the meanyng of Augustine, as well as the wordes. For I am of this mynde, that when Augustine doth name mans Freewill, & couple it to grace: he calleth it freé in this respect,* 1.455 bycause beyng freé frō all forcible constrainte, it bēdeth it selfe through voluntary motiō that way, whereunto it is directed, be it to goodnes through Grace, or to euill, through naturall lust. And in this sense, accordyng to August. meanyng, y^e Confessiō of Auspurgh doth expoūde mās will to be freé: that is to say: yeldyng of his owne accord. The selfe same do Bucer, and Melancthou also: & this also doth Caluine not deny: who doth neither striue much about this tearme of freédome,* 1.456 & doth learnedly also professe, that the originall cause of euill, is not to be sought elles where, then in euery mans owne will. But as

concernyng Luther: for that he doth vpon some occasion some∣tyme expresse his minde in writing somewhat roughly, wherein afterwards he discouereth his meanyng in a more mylde phrase of speach: it was not seémely in my conceite to racke out those thynges onely whiche might breéde offence, cloakyng meane whiles those thynges fraudulently, which do wipe away all mis∣likyng. He doth set downe in his Assertion thus: That it is not in mans freé power to thinke a good or euill thought. Agayne in the same Assertion the same Luther doth not deny, that all mans imaginations of their owne inclination are carried to all kynde of naughtynesse: & that Freewill can do nothyng of it selfe but Sinne. On this wise with lyke heate of disputation rather, then of any errour he calleth Freewill sometyme a fayned or de∣uised tearme, not to bee founde in deéde any where, makyng all thynges to be gouerned by vnauoydeable necessitie. Which ve∣hemencie of speach many men do cast in his teéth reprochful∣ly now and then.* 1.457 And yet in other places agayne exp••undyng him selfe, he doth graūt without all Hyperbolicall speéche, that in inferiour causes Freewill can do somewhat, and withall doth franckely affirme, that it can do all thynges beyng assisted with Grace. And why is hee not holden excused as well for this, as snatcht at for the other? why doe the aduersaries shut fast their eyes, and blindfold them selues willyngly at matter well spokē, and neuer looke abroad, but when they liste to carpe and cauill.

Was there euer any so circūspect a writer, whose latter di∣ligence & more attentiue heédefulnes might not alwayes amend some ouersight escaped at the first? either in Exposition, or Iud∣gement of thynges? The more that Solon the Sage grewe in yeares, the more he increased in knowledge: and may it not bee lawfull for vs to encrease vnderstādyng with our age likewise? Surely August. could not excuse the errours of his youth, nei∣ther shamed he to confesse in his age, the ouersight that escaped his penne in youth vnaduisedly, & not onely to reforme them by ouerlickyng them, (as the Beare licketh her whelpes) but also to reuoke them openly, with an open, graue, and grayheaded retractation: and to pray Pardon of his errours franckly: nor doth in vayne permitte those bookes to be preiudiciall vnto him, whiche hee wrate beyng a young man,* 1.458 saying very modestly of

him selfe that hee began then to write like a learner, but not a•• grounded in Iudgement. Neither was such perfection to be re∣quired in Luther: who albeit vttered somewhat at the first in wordes, otherwise then common custome of Schooles were ac∣quainted with, it had bene the partes of graue Deuines, not to prye narrowly into y^e vnaccustomed phrase of wordes so much, as to sift out the substaunce of the doctrine, how agreably it ac∣corded with the Scriptures in truth, and sinceritie. And if the matter would admitte some other interpretation, yet ought As∣sertiō haue bene compared with Assertion, and place with place: Finally consideration ought to haue bene had of the entent and meanyng of the writer: then also of the first originall, & scope of his doctrine, whereunto it tended, and what it emported. And if ye would examine vprightly the opinions and assertions of mē, accordyng the true touchstone of Gods truth, and not sinisterly for eiudge them: whether opinion I pray you seémeth in your cō∣ceite most sounde, of those which doe aduaunce the Maiestie of Gods grace? or of those whiche doe enhaunce the weakenesse of mans nature? of those which doe make mens merites, & workes, the effectes of Saluatiō? or of those which do ascribe it to Gods freé imputation, through Iesu Christ? of them which doe deter∣mine that righteousnesse commeth by fayth? or of them which say it is obteyned by the workes of the law? of those whiche spoyle Freewill of all matter to glory vpon?* 1.459 or of them which do call mē backe to a true, and humble acknowledgement of them selues? of those whiche razing out the euerlastyng and vnchaungeable decreé of Gods Predestination, doe committe the successes of thynges to happe hazard, and blynd chaunce, and to freé affectiō of mans will? or of them whiche settyng aside all chaunceable euentes of fortune, and all power of mans will, doe referre all things to the assured gouernaunce of Gods infallible foreknow∣ledge, guidyng all thyngs after his own pleasure, in most stayed and stable order? And yet doth not Luther so roote out all Free∣will altogether, and all chaunceablenesse of fortune, but that he doth admitte the vse of them in some respect: to witte in respect of inferiour causes, although in respect of hygher causes, & in those thynges whiche concerne saluation or damnation, he be∣leueth surely, that no force of Freewill, ne yet any chaunceable∣nesse

of fortune doe preuayle any thyng at all.

For as much as this is the chief grounde of Luthers doc∣trine,* 1.460 what els may the well affectioned & indifferent Reader (I pray you) cōceaue of this his Assertiō, then that which may mag∣nifie the glory of God? extoll his omnipotencie? may establishe the sauetie of the faythfull, dependyng vpon the freé promise of God through fayth, & not vpō the worthynes of merites through Freewill? may terrifie the wicked with a wholesome feare of God? may restrayne them frō outrage: may comfort vs agaynst death with lyfe y^t is in God: agaynst miserie, with grace: against infirmitie with strength: & agaynst destruction with Gods mer∣cy? may rayse vp the godly to loue and embrace their God? The fruite of all which thyngs as the godly Reader may easily reape by this doctrine, let vs seé now on the other side, what poyson O∣sorius doth sucke out of the fame, as one that seéth nothyng in this Assertiō,* 1.461 but horrible wickednes (as he fayth) shamelesse arrogācie, detestable maddnes, execrable outrage. And now would I fayne heare how he will confirme this proude affirma∣tiue so vehemētly vttered. For (sayth he) this beyng graunted, I doe say, that lawes are abolished: decrees put to silence: sciences rooted out, learnyng extinguished, peace and trā∣quillitie disturbed, and vtter confusion made of all, right and wrong without all order. If Osorius require this at our handes, that whatsoeuer his lauishe tounge shall rashly roaue at large, be coyned for an vnreproueable oracle, thē is this matter soone at an end. But that world is gone long sithēce Osor. wher∣in this Pythagoricall Prouerbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was takē for a law.* 1.462 We thinke it not now enough to harken to all that a man will speake, but to cōsider what, & vpon what groūde a mā speaketh. Well: & what say you vnto vs at the lēgth Osorius? That lawes will decay, statutes be put to silence, sciences rooted out, learnyng extinguished, trāquillitie disturbed, and right and wrong confounded together. Certes you haue heard of this man here many hygh and absurde speaches (gentle Reader) but heare yet much more absurditie.* 1.463 I say furthermore that here∣upon doth follow, that mā is spoyled of sense, bereft of ad∣uise, and depriued of reason, and driuen to that passe, as no difference may seeme to be betwixt him & a stone throwen

out of a mans hād. And yet haue you not heard all. Osori. crau∣leth forward still, & is come now (as it seémeth) into some mayne playne, where he purposeth to make vs a course of his harysh e∣loquence. I say also: that the holy cōmaundements of God, his preceptes & statutes, his exhortatiōs and threatnyngs, rewardes promised for well doyng, and punishmēt threate∣ned for malefactours, were all in vayne prescribed to the posterity by Gods word. O Heauē, O Earth, O Sea of Her∣cules. But is there any more yet? tush all these be but trifles yet. For ouer and besides this ensueth so haynous a fact, more horri∣ble then toung can speake, or hart cā thinke, so vnspeakeably fil∣thy, & so monstruously straūge, that all the rest beyng layd toge∣ther, may in respect of this, be accompted scarse worth the spea∣kyng. And what is it a Gods name?* 1.464 Forsooth that Luther or Melancthon, Bucer or Caluine, or whosoeuer were the first foūder of this doctrine, besides that he doth thereby turne all states and cōmon weales quite vpsidowne, he breaketh yet further into such vnmeasurable impiety, as that he doth imagine God him selfe (the most holy of holy ones) & our most deare Father (to whō no iniquitie can by any meanes be imputed) to be the author of all wickednes and cruelty. We haue heard a tedious Catalogue of haynous absurdities, which (as he sayth) must needes ensue vpō Luthers doctrine: And if it be not true. He requireth vs to make him a lyar, as that either Luther neuer spake so: or els to teach him that Luthers doctrine may well be mainteined. As though there were any such pitthe in all this your rayling (M. Osorius) that might not easily be confuted; or any such weakenes in Luther, that might not much more easily be defended? yea & so defended as that neither he may seeme to haue taught the doctrine of Ne∣cessitie, without good cōsideratiō, nor you able to deface y^e same without great perill of cōmittyng horrible sacriledge? I speake now of Necessitie, not that Necessitie, that is called violēt coa∣ctiō, but of that which is named of vndoubted assuraūce, & abso∣lute infallibilitie: not that Necessitie which the schoolemen call Consequēti••, but which is called Consequētia, or ex Hypothesi.* 1.465 For Necessitie is neither takē after one onely significatiō amongest y^e Deuines, nor yet amōgest y^e Logiciās & Philosophers, wher∣of

of (I suppose) you be nothyng ignoraunt, at the least you ought not be ignoraunt therof surely. Therefore they that haue em∣ployed their studyes somewhat more carefully about y^e scannyng of this matter, haue defined Necessary after this maner:* 1.466 to be such a thyng, as can not bee altered, a certeine settled and firme vnmoueablenes, which can not be chaūged by any meanes from that whiche it is. Of this Necessary, Aristotle hath se•• downe two principall begynnynges: the one internall, the other exter∣nall. Then also distinction is made of this Necessitie,* 1.467 which is moued force of the internall cause, and inward proprietie of Nature: So that some thynges may be called simply, and ab∣solutely necessary: as God: and those thynges whiche beyng chaunged do emply contradiction: as if a man would say: that foure were not an euen nomber, that foure and threé, were not seuen in nomber: And this is called Geometricall Necessitie, which will not admitte any chaunge by course of nature. There is an other Necessitie; called Naturall Necessitie. Which al∣beit bee of her selfe the begynnyng of her owne motion, yet it consisteth not in so simple and absolute an estate, but followeth onely the vsuall course of her owne nature: And after this ma∣ner•• fier is sayd to bourne of Necessitie: The Sunne is con∣tinually carried about in his course of Necessitie: whiche can not chuse, but doe as they doe, accordyng to the proprietie of their naturall disposition: yet doe they not follow their naturall inclination so absolutely, and vnauoydeably, but that God may hinder, and alter their dispositiō, or make them cease from their naturall operation. Such a kynde of Necessitie to Sinne, we say that man is clogged withall sith the fall of Adam, if the ho∣ly Ghost and Grace be absent: For of them selues they can not but sinne, albeit there is no let in their nature, but that they may bee holpen or chaunged, and otherwise altered: as we seé come to passe in those that are regenerate in Christ. That Necessitie therefore whereby wicked men are sayd to bee lead to sinne, is not so absolute, and vnaduoydable, that they can not chuse but sinne: for assoone as the holy Ghost, and the Grace of Christ com∣meth, this Necessitie is vtterly cut of. And thus much of that internall Necessitie.

But the Necessitie that spryngeth from externall causes is

also deuided two maner of wayes. Whereof the one is violent,* 1.468 and is called Compulsary Necessitie: As when a thyng is for∣ced to moue, or to styrre agaynst her own nature. And this Ne∣cessitie can by no meanes fall into mans will: for it is impossi∣ble that will shall will any thyng vnwillyngly. The other is sta∣ble and infallible, or of the Hypothesis, or by reason of the Consequence, which Logicians do take to be in Sensu composito, & not in Senfu `Diuiso. Now this Necessitie, called of the Con∣sequēce, is on this wise. As when a thyng may be true by occasiō of the Necessary couplyng together of one proposicion with an other, though the thyng that is concluded for true, bee not Ne∣cessary of it selfe. And in this respect, we do affirme that all our actions are done of Necessitie, not by the force of the inwarde cause or els their owne nature, that is to say, if they be conside∣red apart, & referred to their next cause, to witte, vnto will. E∣uen so will beyng considered apart, in her owne nature from the externe begynnyng, to witte, Gods prouidence and foreknow∣ledge, it is sayd to be freé in his certeine kynde, so that it is en∣dued with a certeine facilitie to encline it selfe, to whether part it will, although it bee not able of her selfe to moue and en∣cline at all but vnto that part, which God did foreknow. Whereby you perceaue Osor. in what sense this Neces∣sitie, which we do affirme is not alwayes absolutely tyed to our actions, as farreforth as they doe pro∣ceéde from our owne will, but through the cou∣plyng & conioynyng of Gods Predestina∣tion with our workes. Which thing to be euen so, the Deuines did seéme to signifie `Per Sensum Com∣positum and Necessita∣tem Consequentiae.

¶ A Description of Freewill, and the thynges apperteinyng thereunto after the rules of Diuinitie, taken out of August. P. Lombard an•• others.

Fiue thyngs chiefly to bee cōside∣red in Free∣will.

• 1. What Free∣will is
  • ...Will.

    Is a thyng properly perteinyug to reason, whereby man doth lis∣cerne good frō euill, what is to be desired, or what to be eschewed.

  • ...Free.

    Freedome is a thyng properly perteinyng to will: whereby of voluntary appetite without fo∣reine coaction it may either will good or euill, but to will good cōmeth of Grace, which maketh to will and to doe.

    ¶ The des••••••ption of Freewill talen out of Arg••na 〈◊〉〈◊〉. l••b. 2. Dist. 24.

    Freewill is an ••••••initie of rea••on and will, whereby good is chosen through the assistaūce of Grace, or euill, if Grace b•• absent, or thus.

    Freewill is a facuine of the Soule which can will good or euill, discernyng them both.

• ...
  2. In what thyngs Freewill doth consiste.
  • In God first and chiefly.

    Whose wi••l is of it selfe simply and absolutely most 〈◊〉〈◊〉 frō all bōdage of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and all infec∣cion of sinne, for God can ••ot of his own nature sinne: not bycause any force restrayneth him, but bycause of his own nature he cā not so will, so that God is both holy of necessitie, and yet this necessitie 〈…〉〈…〉 Freewill from God in whō all ••ccessitie ioyned with all free∣dome is reliaunt.

  • In blessed Angels.

    Whose state and condition is this, that their will is made stedfast and vnchaungeable in all goodnes, not of them selues, but through Grace.

  • In mans nature, and that foure maners of wayes according to the fourefold diuision of mans state.
• 3. In what respect it is called mans Freewill.

  Not in respect of things present, nor thyngs past, bycause present thyngs and thyngs past be of this qualitie, that beyng done they cā not be vndone, nor thynges pa••. can be reuoked.

  But is called Freewill in res∣pect of thyngs to come. And these be the thynges that our Lombar∣dines do affirme are in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pow∣er, but vntruely, for mās habilitie (to confesse truth) is directed by gods euerlasting decree neither is it in mās habilitie to order chaū∣ceable thynges at his pleasure.

  • 1. In the state of innocen∣cie.

    Whose freedome was once such which could both sinne & not sinne. And in this sense the auncient wri∣ters must be vnderstanded as often as they speake of mans Freewill, that is to say, of the Freedome of mans nature.

  • 2. In the state of blessed∣nesse.

    or of his heauenly coūtrey, as schole∣men terme it, where man shalbe en∣dued with a freedome that can not Sinne by any meanes.

  • 3. In the state of life after sinne, & before re¦genera∣tion by Grace.

    In which state man hath no Freewill to do any thyng, but to Sinne dead∣ly as Lombard sayth? and of this state meaneth Luther writyng of bonde will.

  • 4. In the state of life after sinne, & after re∣genera∣tion by Grace.

    In whiche state man hath freedome not to Sinne except veniall Sin••e as sayth Lombard. But although Au∣gustine and Luther doe yeld an habi∣litie not to Sinne after a certeine sorte: Yet in respect of actuall Sinne they doe not except man either from veniall or deadly Sinne. Bycause was neuer any man yet found (Christ onely excepte) endued with such 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Grace that had not in all his ly••e Synned, yea and that deadly.

• ...

• ...
  4. Of what thynges Free∣will taketh his denomination.
  • 1. From necessi∣tie or coaction whiche is called the Freedome of nature.

    This Freedome the scholemen do attribute to mē in all states. But this necessitie must bee distin∣guished & pro∣portioned by his principall cau∣ses, whereof

    Some be called internall. As be the thynges whiche are mo∣ued of their own nature and of inwarde ope∣ration: And those.

    Are either simply and abso∣lutely necessary as God and his holynesse, and as those thynges which b••yng chaū∣ged emply contradiction, whereof the one partie m••st needes bee true the other needes false: as foure is not an equall nōber, foure & three are not sen•• in nō∣ber: and this is called Geo∣metricall Necessitie which alteration nature do••h not admitte and this Necessi∣tie perteyneth nothyng to Luthers Disputation of Freewill.

    Or be no•• simply and abso∣lutely necessary, but after the common course of na∣ture, as ••••er doth burne of Necessitie. The Sinne is alwayes moued and other such lyke, beyng naturall thynges, whiche yet are not of such Necessitie, but may bee ••indered by God and so cease from opera∣tion.

    Some haue ex∣ternall begyn∣nynges: and of these there is two maner of Necessities.

    Either violent. Whiche is called the Necessitie of ex∣ternall coaction: as wh•••• thynges are constreyned to moue or to do contrary to their nature, as stones and heauie thyngs, as the schole men call Necessitie in re∣spect of the consequence not of the consequence or it Sensu Diuiso and not in Sensu Composito and frō this Necessitie the freedome of mans will is vtterly exēp∣ted.

    Or stable and infallible by reason of the consequence not of the consequent or in Sensu Composito not in Sen∣su Diuiso. This Necessitie of the consequence not of the consequent is to be vn∣derstanded, when a thyng may bee true in respect of the necessary aff••••tie of proposition from proposi∣tion, although the thyng concluded be not necessary of it selfe: or true in Sensu Composito, which otherwise is false in Sensu Diuiso, or false in Sensu Composito, which otherwise is true in Sensu Diuiso, as if a man say, that white may bee blacke by distinction of contrary tymes it may bee true, but ioynyng the tymes and in Sensu Compo∣sito, it can not be true.

  • 2. From sinne or from bondage of sinne, whiche is called freedome of Grace. And this freedome is attributed to them onely, which are made free by Grace. Where∣in if they meane of the imputa∣tion of Sinne, it is true: but if they meane of actuall Sinne, it is false.
  • 3. From miserie, which is called the freedome of Glory, and this freedome had free will in the state of innocēcie once, and shall haue the same much more perfect hereafter in the state of glory.
• 5. How much Freewill is em∣payred in man through sinne.

  It is woūded in her naturall qua¦lities, to witte, in Reason, in vn∣derstādyng, in memory, witte. &c. Dispoyled altogether in thynges as bee heauenly, and appertey∣nyng to God.

  And this much well agreeth with the doctrine of Luther.

  Lombard. Lib. 2. Dist. 25.

Sithence we haue now layd this foundation for our better furniture to be able to make aunswere: We will now addresse our selues to our aduersaries Argumentes. Wherein although he obserue no course, nor forme of cōmon Disputatiō, let vs yet helpe his lame Logicke as well as we may. And first of all, tou∣chyng y^e ouerthrow of Lawes (wherewith bycause it lyketh Mai∣ster Osorius to vrge this point chiefly before the rest) let vs geue our attentiue eares to his wordes, and marke well how cun∣nyngly he argueth.* 1.469 But I say (sayth he) that by this doctrine of Luther (whereby he doth teach that things are directed to their end by Necessitie) that Lawes are subuerted, De∣crees put to silence: and right and wrong confoūded toge∣ther. And why doth he not adde this much more also? that whole common weales are ouerthrowen? Well go to. I do heare very well what you say Osorius. But I haue not heard yet any sub∣staunciall Argumēt, whereby you proue this that you say to be true. Certes there be at this present within Christendome ma∣ny Natiōs, many Prouinces, many Kyngdomes, many Duke∣domes, many Cities and common weales that fauour Luthers doctrine: Wherein I appeale to your owne conscience (speake it if you can) haue you euer heard amongest all these (I say not of any one commō wealth or Citie) but of any one litle Uillage, or Ciuill familie, that hath bene any one iote defrauded of the benefite of their Lawes, or become lesse prouident for the cōmon quyet of their countrey, by followyng Luthers doctrine? Al∣though we haue not yet receaued frō Spayne and Portingall into our common wealth your bloudy lawes of Inquisition, em∣brued with Chriscian bloud, and do suppose also that no discrete common wealth will euer receaue them: Yet through Gods in∣estimable prouidence we bee not destitute of politique Lawes, nor of honest sciences, nor of vigilaunt Counsellours. Wherein albeit our grosse capacities may seéme vnworthy to bee compa∣red to the fine and pregnaunt wittes of Portingall: yet howsoe∣uer they seéme, we are by their direction sufficiently enough in∣structed to discerne betwixt the limittes of right & wrong, & not to confounde thē: neither haue we euer confounded thē as farre as I know: what maner of hotchpot you make of them in Por∣tingall I know not. For as much therefore as common experi∣ence

teachyng the contrary, doth most manifestly conuince you of open lyeng, with what face dare you so boldly affirme? that through this doctrine of Luther, Lawes are subuerted, Coun∣sels put to silence, and confusion and disorder of right and wrong to haue entred in? Whereof you neuer saw any proofe, ne yet can tell a dreame so much of any attempt practized in a∣ny common wealth. And therfore I marueile what kynde of le∣sing you will coyne at length to make this cauillation of yours to carry some shew of truth. I suppose veryly that (beyng disfur∣nished of proofe and recordes, and founde an open lyer in matter so euident) you will shrowde your selfe vnder some close couert of Pelagius. To witte. That where the vse of the law consisteth of two pointes principally, that is to say, in aduancyng vertue, and in punishyng vyce: hereupon Osorius will frame an Argu∣ment after this maner and forme.

Lawes are ordeined in vayne, vnlesse there be habilitie to performe them.* 1.470

But there is no habilitie to performe by the doctrine of Necessitie which Luther do threache.

Ergo, Lawes are ordeined in vayne by Luthers doctrine of Necessitie.

I do aunswere the Maior proposition were true,* 1.471 if this bon∣dage or Necessitie, which doth preiudice habilitie, were natu∣rall, and not of it owne faultynesse, that is to say: If we had bene created without this habilitie by nature, and had not throwen our selues into this inextricable Laberinthe of yelding, through our owne default. But as now hauyng heaped vpon our selues this Necessitie of sinnyng voluntaryly by our owne purchase, and hauyng made Necessitie (as Augustine sayth) of a penall offence: for good cause therefore lawes are of Necessitie establi∣shed, which may by some lawfull meane reduce vs to nature, or at least reteyne vs in some couenable order of lyfe:* 1.472 not ouerpas∣sing this also withall: that where the Maior treateth of the obe∣dience of mans lawes, in the Minor that Necessitie (which Lu∣ther doth teach) ought not be referred to mās lawes nor the di∣scipline of externall lyfe, but to the obediēce of Gods law onely.

Moreouer, for that I haue promised to helpe to vnderproppe Osorius Logicke, which is of it selfe very ruinous, and ready

to fall to the grounde. I will not refuse to frame by some order and forme, the remnaunt of his allegations into Argumentes, that the Reader may more easily be instructed, what aunswere to make to euery of them particularely.

* 1.473The freedome of mans will beyng takē away, the force of lawes preceptes and rules of good lyfe and all or∣dinaunces of Ciuill discipline and statutes do cease.

The Necessitie which Luther teacheth doth abolish all freedome of mans will.

Ergo, This doctrine of Necessitie being allowed. Lawes decay, good statutes and ordinaūces, and all ende∣uour of good and godly lyfe is extinguished.

* 1.474First in your Maior proposition this word Freedome must be distinguished: namely to be taken either as opposite to coac∣tiō, or opposite to bondage: if in the Maior you vnderstād of co∣acted freédome, then is the Maior true. For whosoeuer taketh away freédome from man, doth also dispoyle him of will. But if you vnderst̄ad of bonde freédome, then euen by this meanes is your Maior cleane false.

* 1.475Next we deny your Minor with Augustine, wherein also this word Necessitie must be distinguished. Whiche beyng de∣uided into two partes, the one whiche is called Cōpul••ary Ne∣cessitie, the other whiche is sayd to be of the Consequence, or ex Hypothesi, wherof the first ••euer any of our Writers dyd de∣ny, the other can none of all your Doctours deny: whiche con∣sistyng of the foreknowledge of God,* 1.476 by a certeine vnmoueable coniunction of causes, and byndyng Necessitie to thyngs fore-ordeined by God, doth vtterly abolish fortune and chaunce: but doth not take away will, nor withstandeth the freédome therof: as there is no contradiction, but one selfe thyng may be called both Uoluntary, and Necessary also. For freédome of will is not taken away through Necessitie, but through coaction. As for example, when we say that God liueth euerlastyngly, and orde∣reth all thynges vprightly: we doe confesse that both these are peculiar to Gods nature of Necessitie, and not by any forreine coactiō. After this maner in the booke of Exod. Whereas Pha∣rao did endeuour to stay the children of Israell from departyng out of Egypt, we must neédes confesse, that he did it of Necessi∣tie,

in respect of Gods secret appointemēt: & in deéde he neither could will, nor do otherwise:* 1.477 But in respect of his owne inclina∣tion, which was the very peculiar & nearest cause y^t moued him to stay thē••o Necessitie of coactiō forced his will to this vnwil∣lingly, but that which he did, he did uolūtaryly: and with no lesse earnest willingnes of mynde did he bring to passe y^e thing which his greédy affection had willed before. Although a man may be constrayned to do somethyng many tymes agaynst his will yet can he not be framed by any meanes to will a thyng y^t he would not. For the will which willeth not, is not now called will, but vnwillyngnesse: nay rather nothyng at all. And for the same ve∣ry cause, bycause there is no such thyng at all in the course of na∣ture, nor to be founde any where, therfore hath it no denomina∣tion nor vsuall name of speache, whereby it may be expressed in Latine: of the same sorte also are the other Argumentes tou∣chyng Artes and Sciences, whereof he cauilleth so much after this maner.

If all thynges that happen bee referred to the power of God and are done of Necessitie according to Luthers doctrine,* 1.478 which byndeth all the actions of men to Ne∣cessitie.

It would hereupon follow that all Sciences should be o∣uerthrowen, all endeuour of mā vtterly frustrate, nor any industry of mē (were it neuer so skilfull employed in husbandry, to byeng and sellyng, to traffique, to prouision for the familie, to Surgery and Phisicke, or any other actions of mans lyfe whatsoeuer) shall pro∣fite nor be auayleable.

I do aunswere this to bee most true,* 1.479 that the operation of all thynges ought to be referred to the will and prouidence of God, as to the chief and principall cause: by whiche prouidence all thynges are ordered of very Necessitie. But this Necessitie ta∣keth not away habilitie to endeuour from men, but causeth one∣ly that mens actions are not chaunceable. For albeit the thyngs that God willed, doe necessaryly come to passe: yet doth mans will neuertheles yeld her diligent endeuour, which will the pro∣uidence of God doth not take away, but gouerneth. In deéde mās will doth worke, yea and freély worketh: that is to say: wor∣keth

voluntaryly, not coactly: yet it worketh so, as if God helpe, it worketh well, if God doe not helpe, it worketh ill. And yet whether it worke well, or ill, it alwayes worketh of Necessitie: neither doth will employ her habilitie any io••e lesse beyng go∣uerned by God, but rather is encouraged to worke so much the more earnestly, bycause the thynges come to passe necessaryly, whatsoeuer Gods will hath foreordeined to bee done by the in∣dustry of man.

Certes this saying of Luther is vndoubtedly true, that no∣thyng happeneth in all the actions of mans lyfe, either well, or euill, either without Gods knowledge, or without his will, or els without his direction. And yet bycause the successes of those thynges are vncerteine vnto vs, therefore followyng the rule of our will and reason, and withall obeyeng the will of God (who cōmaundeth vs to do our endeuour) we do apply all our diligēce earnestly to worke, cōmending in the meane whiles both our sel∣ues, & the successe of our trauaile to the tuitiō of almighty God: at whose especiall commaundement all thynges come to their end necessaryly, & obey his direction of very Necessitie. Wher∣by you perceaue that our endeuours and trauailes doe nothyng lesse decrease or waxe more dull to worke, bycause they are fore∣knowen, and directed by God: but our will is by so much more encouraged to worke, bycause we will obey Gods will, who cō∣maundeth to worke. And therefore that Sophisme of yours is altogether Sophisticall & deceauable, not much vnlike to that, whiche we read in Origine in his second booke agaynst Celsus: where the Sophister, to dissuade the sicke body from counsell of Phisicke,* 1.480 frameth this Argumēt. If thou be Predestinate (sayth hee) to recouer health, thou shalt surely be hoale whether thou take Phisicke, or no: but if thou be Predestinate to dye, the Phi∣sition shall both loase his labour, and thou cast away thy money to no purpose. Whom the sicke person perceauyng to be to∣wardes Mariadge, with the lyke Sophisme (driuyng out as it were one nayle with an other) aunswereth after this maner. If it be thy destiny to haue issue of thy body, thou shalt haue one, whether thou marry a wife, or not marry a wife: but if thou be predestinate to be childlesse, thou shalt surely be childies, though thou marry a wife neuer so much. The deceite of this So∣phisme

lurketh herein. Bycause our endeuours,* 1.481 and Imagina∣tions ought not to depend vpō an vncerteine certeintie, whiche may be applyable to good or euill indifferently, or vpon chaun∣geable aduenture (the successe wherof we know not) but must be ordered by a direct assured rule of reason. For albeit on the one side it may so come to passe, that he that marryeth a wife shall haue no children: yet on the other part, for as much as it is im∣possible to haue children without copulation of man and womā: therfore that ought to be yelded vnto, that seémed consonaunt to reason, not that which y^e Argument concluded videl. therfore he must not marry a wife. In lyke maner fareth it with the other Argument concernyng the Phisition. Although it may so come to passe that no Phisicke may helpe me, yet bycause it is most a∣greable to reason that vnlesse Phisicke be ministred, health will not bee recouered, I will follow herein the most approued rule of reason, and will not wilfully throw my selfe by an vncerteine Necessitie of destiny, into that whiche seémeth impossible, or at least lesse agreable to reason. Wherfore as these assumptions be false, thou shalt in vayne marry a wife, & thou shalt vse Phi∣sicke in vayne: in lyke maner I aunswere that Osorius Argu∣ment is Sophisticall, where hee argueth that our endeuours are applyed in vayne, & that we do trauaile in vayne. Well: to go foreward to the other triflyng toyes of this Sophister.

An other Argument touchyng rewardes and punishmentes.

For as much as vertue and vyce doe proceede from out the free choyse of will,* 1.482 it can not be, but that he which doth bereaue will of her freedome, must also dispoyle the lyfe of man of due reward for vertue, and punish∣ment for vyce.

Luther, by byndyng all thynges to Necessitie, doth be∣reaue will of her freedome.

Ergo, by Luthers doctrine it doth come to passe, that nei∣ther punishment shalbe executed vpon malefactours, nor vertue aduaunced with condigne reward.

The very same Argument did Pelagius long ••ithence vse a∣gaynst August. though not in the selfe same wordes, yet all one in effect. I aunswere the partes therof. And first concernyng

freédome of will mentioned in the Maior, how it ought to be di∣stinguished, hath bene declared before already. Then if in the Minor you respect that kynde of Necessitie, whiche forceth vs to yeld whether we will or no, your Minor is false. As touchyng reward for vertue, and punishment for vyce: Celestius the Pe∣lagian vrged agaynst Augustine in the same wise.* 1.483 Man is not to be blamed (sayth he) for committing the Sinne, which he can by no meanes auoyde. Augustine maketh aunswere:* 1.484 Nay ra∣ther (sayth he) man is therefore faultie, in that hee is not without sinne: bycause by mās Freewill onely it came to passe, that he should fall into that Necessitie of Sinnyng, which Necessitie by his owne will he can not withstād. Whereby you perceaue Osor. that Ne∣cessitie of sinnyng is neither vtterly abolished frō mās nature, & that malefactours are duely punished notwithstādyng for their offences. By what reason may this be iustified (will you say) sithence the Iudgement of our choyse (whereby we fall into Sinne) is not freé, but subiect to thraldome. Be it as you say, but thorough whose default this seruitude came first is already declared. Agayne whether offence be committed through frée or seruile choyse of will, it maketh litle to the purpose for the qual∣lyfieng of the punishment, so that it appeare to the Iudge, that the fact was committed of willfull and corrupt lust and affectiō. But you will say agayne.

If the offence be voluntary.

* 1.485Ergo, the doing therof consisteth in our owne power.

For what soeuer is voluntary, seemeth to be within the compasse of our habilitie. I aunswere.* 1.486 To will, we haue in deéde naturally in vs: but to will well we haue not: So that ha∣bilitie to will is of our selues,* 1.487 to witte: We are able to will, but to will well is not in the power of will: for this soundenesse of will, Adā lost (when he had receaued it) through his own abuse.

* 1.488As touchyng rewardes. I Aunswere. Albeit our deédes de∣serue not to be rewarded, yet doth God righteously reward thē whenas he doth crowne his owne giftes in vs. Neither doth it follow hereupon, bycause God doth reward good workes in vs, that therfore those good workes are our own, as proceédyng frō vs through our owne strength, & habilitie. But bycause he hath vouchsaued to make those giftes to be ours, & bycause he pow∣reth

those good giftes into vs, therefore worthely are those good giftes rewarded as his owne. And yet neither is this reward geuē as due to desert, in respect of the worthynes of the worke: but of his gracious liberalitie, which he hath bountyfully pow∣red vpon vs vndeserued before, to make vs obedient vnto him.

Briefly, if this Aunswere, though of it selfe very playne and manifest, shall seéme but of small credite with you, I will bryng you Augustine for an umpyer betwixt vs sufficient enough (I trust) who beyng long agoe assayled with the same Obiections by the Pelagians, shall for the better maintenaunce of his owne credite, fully aūswere these cauillations of those heretiques like vnto your selfe. For the Pelagiās did obiect agaynst him in this sort. If it be true, that all thynges frō the begynnyng are deter∣mined to their end by Gods foreordinaunce & decreé,* 1.489 & that mēs willes are directed by God: to what purpose are lawes made? & punishment ordeined for malefactours? why are men rebuked, reproued, reprehended, & accused? for what do we that we haue not receaued? what maruell is it if we be disobediēt to God, whē as he that commaūdeth to obey, hath not geuen will to obey?

Euen as Augustine hath aunswered this Obiection long si∣thence, so let Osorius cōtent him selfe to be aūswered in as few wordes:* 1.490 For correcting of vyce (sayth he) punishment is ministred for two causes. First bycause no man is euill, but by his owne de∣fault, for the euill that he worketh, is euill voluntaryly and of his owne accorde. And although it ought not to be doubted that mās will ought to be subiect to Gods will, whom mā can not let to worke what him best liketh, for as much as when him listeth, he frameth mans will to worke after his will, yet here is no cause to the contra∣ry, but that man should receaue due punishement for the offences, which him selfe committeth willfully, seyng that he is the worker of his owne Sinne, for no man Sinneth agaynst his will. The other cause why transgressours are worthely punished, is bycause the tres∣passours either are regenerate, and such beyng cleansed before, and fallyng agayne to their former filthe, of their owne accorde, can not pleade for defence that they neuer receaued grace: as men who through their own Freewill, haue made frustrate the Grace of God once receaued, by their owne wickednesse: But if they be not rege∣nerate, yet is that damnable originall sinne worthely punished: that

will through anguish of punishment may conceaue desire to be rege∣nerate, if at least the man that is so chastized be the child of pro∣mise. That God by outward vsing this meane of scourge vexation and chastizement may by secret inspiration fashion and frame the will to obedience. &c.

And thus much hetherto cōcernyng lawes and ordinaūces, for rewardyng vertue and punishyng vyce in Ciuill gouerne∣ment. There followeth now an other absurditie, to witte, where he sayth, that by Luthers doctrine man is altogether dispoyled of vnderstandyng; depriued of Iudgement, bereft of reason, and driuē to that extremitie, as to be no better then a naturall stoane throwen out of a mans hand.

Osorius Argument.

* 1.491Whosoeuer do attribute the orderyng of all thynges to absolute Necessitie, exemptyng freedome from will, doe spoyle men of their vnderstandyng, depriue them of Iudgement and bereue them of reason, and do trāf∣forme them into brute beastes and stoanes.

Luthers doctrine doth bynde mens actions and willes to Necessitie.

Ergo, Luthers doctrine doth dispoyle mē of their senses and turneth them into stoanes.

* 1.492I deny the Maior of this Argument. In the Minor I distin∣guish this word Necessitie. Lastly the Argument is altogether vicious: and that for two causes. Either bycause Osorius thin∣keth:* 1.493 That no Necessitie at all byndeth thynges to be directed by the eternall prouidence and ordinaunce of God: or els he sup∣poseth this Necessitie to he such, as must neédes exclude all freé∣dome of will. Both which are false. And first touchyng Necessi∣tie. Luther & other aūcient writers do learnedly affirme:* 1.494 That the actions of mans lyfe are not subiect to fortune: but herein they do acknowledge the prouidence of God, which they assigne to be the onely and principall gouernesse and guide of mās lyfe, as which directeth mās purposes, boweth and bendeth his will, and ordereth all the enterprises thereof. Moreouer they teach the same prouidence to be such, as whiche is not whirled about through blynd and sudden motions (wherein no place is left to

the happenynges of fortune) nor such a prouidence as must neédes depend vpon inferiour causes,* 1.495 or vpon a necessary cou∣plyng together of causes (wherein destiny is excluded) nor such a prouidence as is vnaduisedly & vncerteinly tossed to & fro, ac∣cordyng to the wandryng chaunces of fortune (wherein fortune & chaunce is taken away) but such a prouidence, as consisteth in a certeine assured stedfast & permanent order,* 1.496 workyng so in the meane whiles by inferiour and mixte causes neuerthelesse, not as though it were tyed to those causes with any such necessary bonde of couplyng, that it may not possibly doe otherwise by her owne absolute and most freé motione, neither as though those causes could not possibly doe otherwise, but must of Necessitie follow the direction of the same prouidence, whereunto they be subiect. Whereby it commeth to passe, that Freewill beyng oc∣cupyed in these meane causes,* 1.497 neither ceaseth to be altogether freé (as being forced by no forreine constraint, but guided by her owne accord:) nor yet remayneth so absolutely freé, but that it is constrayned whether she wil or no, to yeld to y^e direction of Gods prouidence, voluntaryly notwithstandyng & not coactly. Wher∣upon amongest the learned this Necessitie is called Necessitas immutabilitatis aut certitud••nis:* 1.498 whiche though doe not vrge thynges with violent coaction, yet for as much as nothyng is in al the creation of nature of so small substance, as can be with∣out the cōpasse of Gods knowledge,* 1.499 therfore albeit many things seéme accordyng to our capacities to be done by chaunce, yet in respect of Gods prouidence (if wee duely consider the origi∣nall and principall cause of thynges that are done) wee shall finde nothing done, but which could not but be done, of very Ne∣cessitie. I make hast to the other absurdities: to witte: to Oso∣rius his most friuolous brabblynges. For in this sorte he craw∣leth from mans lawes and ciuill gouernement, to Gods lawes, arguyng as it were in this sort.

If will be nothing auayleable to good lyfe, nor of it selfe can do nothyng but Sinne: then are Gods lawes com∣maunded in vayne: in vayne also are exhortatiōs and aduertisementes ministred: in vayne are blessinges and cursinges set downe in the Scriptures.* 1.500

But no man wil say that these are cōmaūded in the Scrip∣tures

in vayne.

Ergo, this doctrine of Luther is false & execrable, whereby he leaueth none other habilitie to Freewill, but onely to sinne, & whereby he bindeth all things to necessity.

* 1.501This Maior must bee denyed, beyng nothyng els but a most manifest cauillation: to witte: tendyng to this effect, as though God commaunded vs to doe nothyng, but that we might of our owne selues performe: whereunto Augustine aunswereth in this wise. O man in the commaundemēt learne what thou oughtest to doe, in the punishment learne thy weakenesse through thyne owne default: In the prayer learne from whence thou mayest obteyne. &c. By the law of commaundyng, and forebyddyng therefore accordyng to Augustine, we come to the knowledge of our Sinne and infirmitie, not of our owne strength & power, yet is not the law therfore cōmaunded in vayne. For to vs that aske in the Sonnes name, and acknowledge our infirmitie, is Grace promised: which worketh in vs both to will, and to doe: accor∣dyng as the same Augustine doth recorde in the same place: Let vs remember that hee doth say: make vnto your selues a new hart and n••w Spirite, who hath sayd. I will geue you a new hart, and I will geue you a new Spirite. How is it then that he that sayth make vnto your selues a new hart, fayth also, I will geue you a new hart? Why doth he commaunde if him selfe will geue? Why doth he geue, if mā be the worker? but bycause he geueth the thyng that he com∣maundeth, and helpeth him whom hee hath commaunded that hee may do it? For through grace it commeth to passe, that man is en∣dued with a good will, which was before of an euill will. &c. Ther∣fore by this Argument of Augustine appeareth that this word of admonition, exhortation, or of rebukyng vsed in the Scriptu∣res is as it were a certeine meane, or instrument which the holy Ghost doth vse in conuertyng the will of such, as are not yet re∣generate: and in beautifying the first issues of his good giftes in such as are regenerate, that they may grow to a more rype∣nesse through Repentaunce, through Fayth, and through Pray∣er. And by what wrest of Logicke doth Osorius gather habili∣tie of Freewill out of the holy ordinaūces, seyng Augustine doth in so many places so directly gayne say him, but especially in his 2. booke agaynst the two Epistles of Pelagius,* 1.502 writyng in this

wise. I can see nothyng in the whole Scriptures, geuen by God in commaūdement to man, to proue that man hath Freewill, that may not bee founde either to bee geuen of Gods liberalitie: or required to set forth the assistaunce of his grace. This much Augustine.

Briefly to knitte vp the matter in a word or two: if you will know to what end, commaundementes, couenaunts and exhor∣tations are deliuered by God. Learne this out of S. Paule, if Augustine cānot satisfie you. That is to say: Bycause after y^e knowledge of good & euill is once receaued, we are therfore vn∣der the law of Necessitie, & bycause also we are vnder y^e law,* 1.503 whether we be able, or not able to performe: the law speaketh vnto vs of Necessitie, that if we be able to performe them, we should ly••e by them: and that if we despise them euery mouth should be stopped, and all the world be culpable before God. And withall that such as are not yet regenerate in Christ, vnderstan∣dyng how much is cōmaunded beyond their habilitie & power, may fleé to prayer, and seéke for the Mediatour, and call vpon him for assistaunce of Grace: on the other side, such as the holy Ghost hath endued with more bountyfull giftes of his gracious liberalitie, may w^t more earnest bent affection, yeld them selues thankefull to God, who hath geuen them strength to be able to walke in his wayes. Whereby it is come to passe,* 1.504 that neither the Necessitie of the commaundement is made frustrate by our imbecillitie, nor mans endeuour any thyng weakened by the Necessitie of infallible certeintie, nor yet freédome or will disa∣bled by Gods prouidence, all which you do most falsely reporte to ensue vpon the doctrine of Luther. I come now at y^e last, to that great and most haynous matter, the very chief and well-spryng of all the other absurdities. To witte: Wherein Luther maketh God to be the Authour of all mischief, and chargeth him with vnrighteous dealyng, in this Argumēt for sooth. For where as Luther doth attribute the successes of all things,* 1.505 be they good be they euill to God as to y^e chief and principall originall, and doth conclude all thynges vnder the absolute Necessitie of pro∣uidence, hereupon the aduersary doth gather threé moustruous inconueniences.

The first, that by this meanes men haue not freédome vpon [unspec 1] their owne willes.

[unspec 2] The second, that men are not Authours of their owne sinne.

[unspec 3] The thyrd, that God doth execute his Iudgementes vpon men vniustly for the Sinnes, whereof they be not the Authours, but God. Whereupon Simme Suttle argueth from destructi∣on of the consequent on this wise.

Osorius Argument.

God doth not take away freedome from mans will, nor is Authour of euill: but euery man is Authour of his owne euill. Neither is God iniurious to any man, in ex∣ecutyng his punishment vpon him for his offence.

* 1.506Ergo, Luthers doctrine is wicked and haynous, whiche teacheth absolute Necessitie of doyng good or euill by the foreknowlede of God, and whereby he imagi∣neth God to be the Authour of wickednesse.

* 1.507There are extant in the Scriptures many famous and no∣table testimonies touchyng the truth of Gods Praedestination, and foreknowledge of thynges to come: which neither Osorius nor all Portingall are able to gaynsay.* 1.508 Whereupon Necessitie of al the actions which we do, must neédes ensue, in respect of the Hypothesis, as Schoolemē tearme it. But as touchyng his glo∣rious assumption of the haynous inconueniences concurraunt withall: that is most false. For first neither doth the freédome of mans will perish so, but that men may alwayes willyngly, & voluntaryly chuse that, whiche they will. Neither is any man charged with such Necessitie, as the force of cōstraint may com∣pell him to doe that, whiche he would not:* 1.509 And it may come to passe, as is mentioned before, that the thinges which be Neces∣sary vpō the Hypothesis, beyng done without the same Hypothe∣sis, may seéme to be chaūceable, and not Necessary. And by what meanes then is will bereft of freédome? vnlesse paraduenture, bycause God (seyng mans wil inclinable to all wickednesse) doth not restrayne it when he may, for this cause he may be sayd to take away freédome from will. But this withstandeth our dis∣putation of Necessitie nothyng at all. For although this freé∣dome be holpen to good, yet remayneth the same neuerthelesse freé to wickednesse, in the sense spoken of before. But he might haue holpen (you say.) In deéde nothyng was more easie. For

what cā not his omnipotēcie bryng to passe w^tout any difficultie? but what then, I pray you? Ergo, God is vnrighteous bycause whē he could geue grace he would not: Truth in deéde, if god did owe this grace to any mā of duety: but by what law will you auerre that God was boūde to geue this grace of duetie? First, God did at the first creatiō endue the whole nature of mankynd with Freewill: So also if he did suffer mankynd aftewardes to be directed by the same Freewill, I pray you what vnrighteous∣nesse was there in him hitherto as yet? But ye will say, that this Freewill is spoiled, and vneffectuall to worke spirituall good thynges: through whose default I pray you? through Gods default? or mans default? If it were mās default: for what cause then is God accused, as either vniust for not geuyng assitaūce, or cruell, for punishyng the Sinne, which euery of vs doe com∣mitte of no coaction, but of our owne voluntary will?

But besides this he chargeth GOD to be the originall cause of all mischief.* 1.510 If that be true, then must this needes follow, whiche were execrable to be spoken: that wicked mē are vnrighteously damned, as whom him selfe had cre∣ated to the end they should be damned, and so doth punish them for the offences, whereof him selfe was Authour, and procurer at the first. For this is Osorius obiection.* 1.511 For reme∣dy whereof, I perceaue that I had neéde to goe circumspectly to worke: least God be disabled in any thyng that is due to his omnipotencie, or that more be ascribed to his power, then is a∣greable with his Iustice. Moreouer as there want not testimo∣nies in the Scriptures, which in vtter apparaunce may seéme very well inclinable to either part: so I thinke it not amysse, to vse herein some ayde for the better discouerie thereof: Besides this must be had no small consideration of the simple and vnlet∣tered multitude, who once hearyng God to bee named the Au∣thour of wickednesse, and not vnderstandyng the matter aright, will forthwith interprete thereof, as though it might bee law∣full for them forthwith to rush into all disorder whatsoeuer, & that they are vniustly punished, if they doe the euill which God doth both will and cause to be done. Whiche kynde of people I wishe to be aduertized, when they heare the direction and orde∣ryng of all thynges good or euill to be ascribed vnto God,* 1.512 that

they Imagine not these wordes to be so spoken, as though God were willyng to haue iniquitie committed: That is to say, as though GOD were either delighted with wickednesse, or as though wicked men when they do wickedly, did therein accom∣plishe Gods will simply and absolutely.* 1.513 And yet neither may this be denyed in any wise, y^t of the generall masse of all the cre∣ation, any one thyng cā be without the cōpasse of Gods Deuine foreknowledge, or done without his will: albeit we must neédes confesse with Augustine that many thyngs are done agaynst his will. Now therefore encombred (as it were) betwixt these two whirlepooles, how shall we say that he doth either will Sinne, which he doth forbyd and punish? or that he doth not will sinne, whenas nothyng can be done, God not beyng wittyng and wil∣lyng thereunto?

* 1.514Surely as touchyng Sinne, God ought not to be named the Authour of Sinne properly: Neither (as Ambrose truely writeth) can iniquitie issue from thence, whence floweth all righte∣ousnesse. And yet can not God be excluded from the direction & rule of Sinne altogether, vnlesse we may thinke that some¦thyng may chaūce in mans lyfe, which the almighty eye of God either seéth not, or that his will willeth not.* 1.515 If he do not seé it, where is then his eternall foreknowledge? if the thynges which he seéth, be done without his knowledge and will, where is his euerlastyng omnipotencie, which worketh all in all? and where∣with he is sayd to doe all thinges that he will in heauē and in earth? What shall we say then?* 1.516 If God will not haue Sinne, why is sinne committed, & so wōderfully ouerflowyng? If he will haue sinne, how may it be defēded that he is righteous? for after this sorte reasoneth Osorius, as though the righteousness of God could not be excusable, if God may be supposed either to will Sinne, or to be any cause or procurour of Sinne.

Albeit this drift of Osori. whereby he cōcludeth y^t God wil∣leth not sinne, bycause hee is righteous, may be in some respect yelded vnto:* 1.517 so y^t, it haue relation to y^e same will of God, which hath discouered it selfe vnto vs in his expresse law, which will y^e Schoolemen tearme Voluntatē sigui, or if he argue on this wise.

God is righteous.

Ergo, He is not a Sinner.

God is righteousnesse it selfe.

Ergo, He can not sinne.

This Argument would hold well enough.

But this other Argument can not be good, to say:* 1.518

God is righteous and the founteine of all righteousnes.

Ergo, God can not will Sinne in any others without pre∣iudice to his owne righteousnesse.

As though God could not will Sinne in some respect not sinnefully, with that most secrete and vnsearcheable will, where∣with he order••in, and sweetely disposeth all thynges in heauen and in earth, not empayring in the meane space any ioate of his own righteousnes at all?* 1.519 Nay rather what if euen for the selfe same cause, bycause he is righteous, some kynde of actions do some∣tymes burst out, whiche beyng committed of men, in respect of mans nature are Sinne: but in respect of God, are not Sinne, but punishementes of Sinne, powred fromout his most iust Iudgement? for it is not the least office of Iustice to punish sinne by sinne: nor is it by and by necessary to Iudge alyke of the cau∣ses them selues, whenas one selfe same action doth proceéde frō diuerse causes: vnlesse the causes be altogether correspondent in action. When the Magistrate doth execute the offendour, he is both the cause of his death, and doth willyngly cause him to be executed: not bycause he delighteth in his death, but enduced onely by necessitie of doyng Iustice, he doth in that respect both rightfully, and necessaryly minister Iustice. But if a priuate mā, or a Russiā should willyngly put a mā to death, he should be deémed a murtherer. When the parent doth chastize his vnthrif∣tie child with the rodde, he doth the same rightfully, yea if he dyd it not, he should Sinne. But if the brother should beate his bro∣ther, or the seruaunt his felow seruaunt, the same could not but be culpable. Wherfore in all maner of actions regarde must be had, not onely what is done, but how it is done:* 1.520 so must the ende and causes also bee considered, whiche being in nomber many tymes many, & diuers, & not all of one nature, do neuerthelesse concurre. For it may be (as it doth oftentimes come to passe) y^t in causes beyng cōcurraūt in one actiō may be great diuersitie. So that one selfe same cause may be in one kynde of actiō wic∣ked, and in another actiō, meére righteousnesse. It may so come

to passe that a man at a tyme may committe robbery, or fall into some other haynous wickednesse: where if you seéke for the ve∣ry cause of executyng that action, you may rightly impute it to the frayltie of mans nature: If you seéke the procuryng cause that draue him to consent, no doubt it was his wicked thought, and corrupt mynde, which is altogether replenished with sinne: neither is it to be doubted but that Sinne is engendred out of the corrupt will of mā, without the which (as Anselme doth wit∣nesse) no wicked action is committed.* 1.521 Whereby appeareth at the length, that because no vncleannesse can be founde in the will of God, therfore his most sacred nature can by no meanes be defi∣led with Sinne. But if you be desirous to learne from whence this corruption and euillnesse of the mynde, & imaginatiō doth proceéde, Caluine him selfe whom you accuse very greéuously, shall aunswere you in his owne behalfe.* 1.522 This corruption of mynde (sayth he) commeth partly by the procurement of Sa∣than, partly by the frayltie of nature, which man did defile by his owne voluntary fall. Whereupon, he sayth, when the cause of e∣uill is sought for, we ought not to seéke it els where, then in our selues: but the whole blame therof we must lay vpon our selues.

* 1.523You will say then, and how then will these wordes of Caluine agree with Luthers doctrine? seing Luther maketh God the Authour both of good and euill, and Caluine ma∣keth man the cause of euill? Nay rather by what meanes can you forge vnto vs such a crafty deuise of iarryng, in so vniforme an agreement of Iudgemēt, betwixt Luther and Caluine? Cal∣uine supposeth that the cause of euill ought not to be sought for els where, then in man. Luther teacheth that no righteousnesse ought to be sought for els where then in God onely. And where be these felowes now, which either go about to make man excu∣sable, or God culpable of vnrighteousnes by any meanes? for to this effect tēdeth the whole force of Osor. brablyng agaynst Lu∣ther: as though God could not will sinne by any meanes, but that the glory of his Iustice should by and by be blemished. And bycause mans will imaginyng or doyng wickedly at any tyme, can not imagine or do euill without Sinne, therefore Osorius dreameth forthwith that it fareth in lyke maner in Gods will, which is most vntrue. For nothyng withstandeth at all, but that

many causes of semblable affections may concurre oftentymes,* 1.524 all which nothwithstandyng may not altogether powre out sem∣blable force of operatiō, after one and semblable sorte. And ther∣fore this is no good Argument.

God accordyng to his secrete vnsearcheable will, doth some¦tymes encline the willes of men to committe horrible mis∣chiefes, and after a certeine maner willeth Sinne.

Ergo, God may be iustly accused of vnrighteousnes & iniquity.

Which Argument applyed in the behalfe of mans nature, might seéme to be of some validitie perhappes in the opinion of men. But to transpose the same from men to God, It can not holde. And why so? bycause there is great difference betwixt thynges wherof God is the Authour, and thynges wherof man is the doer. For euen Sinnes them selues and wickednesse, as they come frō God are scourges, yea and that most righteous, and whatsoeuer is decreéd either by his couered, or discouered will, it is in this respect both holy and righteous, bycause the will of God ought alwayes to be accompted for the very foun∣datiō of all righteousness. Upon which matter let vs heare what Augustine speaketh in his thyrd booke De Trinitate, euen his owne wordes. The will of God is the chief and principall cause of all kindes of actions and motions.* 1.525 For there is nothyng done whiche proceedeth not frō that vnsearcheable and intelligible wisedome of the most mightie Emperour, accordyng to his Iustice vnspeakeable, for where doth not the almightie wisedome of the highest worke as it willeth? which reacheth from one ende of the world to an other mightely, and ordereth all thynges sweetely, and doth not these thynges onely, which beyng in dayly practise, and by reason of com∣mon vse are not much marked or marueiled at, but thynges also passing all vnderstandyng and capacitie, and whiche for the rare∣nesse of vse, and straungenesse of successe, seeme marueilous: as are Ecclipses of the Sunne and Moone, earthquakes, mōsters, and vgly deformed vnnaturall shapes of creatures & such like: Of the which no one thyng commeth to passe, without the will of God, though it seeme to be otherwise in the Iudgement of many persons. And ther∣fore it seemed good to the phātasticall Philosophers to ascribe such vnkindely operations to other causes beyng not able to discerne the true cause thereof, which in power surmounteth all other causes, to

witte,* 1.526 the will of God: wherefore besides the will of God, there is none other principall cause of health, sickenesse, reward, punishment of blessinges and recompences. This is therfore the onely chief and principall cause, from out the which do flow all thyngs whatsoeuer: and is it selfe without beginnyng, but endureth without endyng.

Let vs now gather the Argumēts of Augustine into a short abridgement. If the will of God be the souereigne and princi∣pall cause of all motiōs: what remayneth but that Osorius must either deny that Sinnes are motions: or yeld vnto this of ne∣cessitie, that the same motions are not done without the will of God: which will neuerthelesse must be adiudged cleare from all reproche. Moreouer if the same motions, which are on our be∣halfe Sinnefull, be punishementes for Sinne: What should lette, why that euē the selfe same sinnes should not seéme to pro∣ceéde after a certeine maner frō God, without any preiudice of his Iustice at all? none otherwise truely, then when as God is accompted the creatour of monsters, Ecclipses of the Sunne & Moone, vnpassable darkenes, vntymely byrthes, and yet not∣withstandyng no ioate of his maiesty and integritie empayred.

* 1.527But we are vrged here with an Obiection out of the Scrip∣tures, where it is sayd, that God is not a God that willeth iniqui∣tie. Aunswere. As though Luther did not perceaue this saying of the Prophet well enough? or that he were so impudent at any tyme, as that he would cōtrary to the Prophet deny that sinnes raunge immoderately agaynst Gods will? We rehearsed a litle earst out of Augustine: that somewhat may be done agaynst the will of God, which neuerthelesse cā not happen without his will:* 1.528 In the one part wherof, the vnsearcheable wisedome of his De∣uine counsell is playnly discernable: in the other y^e thyng that is naturally wicked & displeasaūt in Gods eyes: So that y^e thing, which is of it selfe & in respect of it selfe naturally euill, may be∣come good in respect of Gods ordinaūce, & in respect of the end whereunto it is directed by God. The worke of our redēption from sinne and death, is a good worke of Gods mercy. But man should neuer haue stoode in neéde of this redēptiō, vnlesse death & sinne had happened. Therfore death and sinne could not execute their malice, w^tout the foreknowledge & ordinaunce of God. So also no lesse notable is the worke of Gods Iustice in executyng

his iust wrath agaynst Sinners: which seueritie of Iustice had neuerthelesse neuer expressed his wonderfull brightnesse: if sinne had neuer bene committed.

But here I suppose Osorius will not deny that men rushe headlong into wickednesse and Sinne, if not by Gods proui∣dence, yet by his sufferaūce at the least. For it may be, that ma∣ny thynges may happen by a mans permission, in the which he that did permit them may be blamelesse notwithstandyng.

I heare you well & aunswere to the same, that it is not alto∣gether nothyng that Osorius doth alledge in deéde, and yet this allegation of his comprehendeth not all. For first I demaunde what if Osorius beyng a Bishop do suffer Gods flocke commit∣ted to his charge to starue by defraudyng thē the necessary foode of the word, whom of duety he ought to cherish with all diligēce and care? What if the Shepheard doe willyngly suffer y^e mag∣gotte to pester the sheépe? or what if the Maister should suffer the seruaunt to perish, whose perplexitie he might haue releued by puttyng his hand to in tyme? may not we iustly accuse Osorius of fraude for not feédyng? or can Osorius acquit him selfe by a∣ny slipper deuise of negligence in this behalfe? If in cōmon cō∣uersation of lyfe, the man that will not repell iniury when he may, be adiudged in euery respect as blameworthy as if he offe∣reth the iniury him selfe, by what meanes can God (whō you say doth permit sinnes to be done) either deémed be excusable in res∣pect of this sufferaunce onely? or how can you charge vs as ac∣cusing him of iniustice? bycause we say that he doth not onely permit, but also will sinne after a certeine maner. Which thyng Augustine doth very well declare. If we suffer (sayth August.)* 1.529 such as are vnder our correctiō to doe wickedly in our sight, we must needes be adiudged accessaries to their wickednesse. But God doth permitte Sinne to raunge without measure euen before his eyes, wherein if he where not willyng, surely he would not suffer it in any wise, and yet is be righteous notwithstandyng. &c. Wherfore your allegation of bare Sufferaunce doth neither helpe your cause, nor disaduantageth ours any thyng at all.

But go to: let vs somewhat yeld to this word of yours Suf∣feraunce, whereupō ye stād so stoughtely: yet will ye not deny, but that this Sufferaunce of God, is either coupled together

with his will, or altogether sundered frō it: If ye confesse y^e will and Sufferaunce be ioyned together: how can God be sayd then either to suffer the thyng whiche he willeth not, or to will the thyng, wherof him selfe is not after a certeine maner the cause: but if you sunder will from Sufferaunce, so that Gods Suffe∣raunce be made opposite to his will: That is to say, contrary to the determinate coūsell of God, in bringyng any thyng to passe: Surely this way your bare Sufferaūce will not be sufferable, but foolishe, false, and ridiculous. For neither can any thyng be done without Gods Sufferaunce, but must be done by his will: and agayne nothyng soundeth more agaynst the conuenience of reason, that any thyng may be done with his will, otherwise thē as him selfe hath decreéd it to be done. But if so be that ye set Gods Sufferaunce opposite to his will, namely to that will, wherewith he vouch safeth and accepteth any thyng, veryly it may so be, that some one thyng may be executed by Gods Suf∣feraunce, yet altogether agaynst his will: so that we forget not in the meane space, that this Sufferaunce is not idle & fruite∣lesse, but altogether effectuall: not much vnlike the orderly pro∣ceédynges in Iudgementes, whenas the Iudge deliuereth ouer the trespassour to be executed: it is cōmonly seéne that the Suf∣feraunce of the Iudge, doth worke more in the execution of the offendour, thē the acte of the executioner, & yet the Iudge is not altogether exempt from beyng the cause of his death, though he be cleare of all blame in that respect. And therfore to make you conceaue our meanyng more effectually Osorius, you may vn∣derstand by the premisses:* 1.530 That the will of God, is to be taken two maner of wayes, either for that vnsearcheable will, not ma∣nifested vnto vs, wherewith thynges may happen accordyng to to the determined decreé of his purposed coūsell, whereunto all thynges are directed: And in this sense or signification we doe affirme that God doth will all thynges that are done, and that nothyng at all is done in heauen or in earth, that he would not haue to be done. Or els how should he be called Omnipotent, if the successes of thyngs be other, then as he hath decreéd them? Secundarely the will of God may be takē for that, which by ex∣presse word and commaundement he hath reuealed vnto vs, and which beyng done he accompteth acceptable in his sight. And

in this sense. The faythfull and godly onely do execute the will of God, euen that will, wherewith he can not will nor allow any∣thyng, but pure & good. After this maner is that will fully dis∣closed, and ensealed vnto vs in his Scriptures, wherewith God is sayd to be a God that doth not will Sinne.

Accordyng to that former will which is hidden from vs, and is neuertheles alwayes iust, and discouered vnto vs but in part by his word, as there is nothing done without his prouidence & foreknowledge: so in this sense we do affirme, that he willeth no∣thyng at all, but that, which is of all partes most pure, and most righteous, be it neuer so secrete. For euen as it is hidden frō the knowledge of all men, what shall come to passe, by the purposed appointement of God: so shall nothyng come to passe, but that which he hath decreéd vpon before: neither should any thyng at all be done, if he were altogether vnwillyng thereunto. Finally to conclude in few wordes, all whatsoeuer concerneth this pre∣sent discourse.* 1.531 God can not be sayd to be properly, & truely the very cause of sinne, accordyng to that will, which he would haue to be reuealed vnto vs in his Scriptures: And yet if the cōcur∣raūce of causes must be deriued from the first originall, surely God ought not be excluded altogether from the orderyng & ap∣pointmēt of sinne. Frō whence if we respect the meane & second causes, it is vndoubted true, that mākynde doth perish through his owne default. For no man liuyng sinneth vnwillyngly. But if we tourne our eyes to the first agent, & principall cause, by y^e which all inferiour causes haue their mouyng. Then is this al∣lso true, that all second and subordinate causes are subiect to the eternall prouidence and will of GOD.* 1.532 And therefore both these may be true. That mans destructiō commeth through his owne default. And yet that therein the prouidence of God bea∣reth the sway, without any preiudice at all to his Iustice.* 1.533

But this prouidence notwithstandyng is altogether vn∣slayned: for albeit Gods euerlastyng purpose be sayd to be the cause of our sinnesiull actions, yet are those Sinnes in respect of Gods acceptaunce, meare righteousnesse. For GOD in most vpright disposed order doth by Sinne punish Sinne. And therfore with those Sinnes (in that they are scourges of Gods Iustice) God doth worthely execute his iust Iudgement agaynst

mē, which although his pleasure be to vse otherwise accordyng to his vnsearcheable counsell, either to execute his Iudgement vpō the reprobate, or to manifest his mercy towardes his elect, neither is he iniurious to y^e one in exactyng y^t which is due: nei∣ther culpable in y^e other sorte in forgeuyng that, which he might haue exacted. These two thyngs therfore especially be to be be∣leued to be inseparable in God (though mās capacitie cā scarse∣ly atteine hereunto) the first. That there is no wickednes with God. Secondly. That God hath mercy of whom it pleaseth him to haue mercy, and doth harden their hartes, whō he willeth to be hardened.* 1.534

Now that we haue spoken sufficiētly in the defence of Gods Iustice, and acquited it cleare from all quarellsome accusation: to retourne agayne to our former question.* 1.535 If Osorius doe de∣maunde now, if God bee the cause of Sinne? Bycause I will protract no tyme: I aunswere in two wordes. That in seuerall and sundry respectes, it is both the cause, & not the cause. Now let vs seé, how this will hang together.

First, I call him the cause, not bycause he distilleth new poy∣son into man, as water or other liquour is powred into empty caskes from somewhere els: for that neédeth not: for euery man ouerfloweth more then enough already with faultynes naturall, though no new flames of corruption be kyndeled a fresh: but by∣cause hee forsaketh our old nature, or bycause he withholdeth him selfe from renewyng vs with grace: Bycause nature beyng not holpen waxeth dayly worse and worse of it selfe, without measure, and without end: Whereupon Augustine debatyng of mans induration, speaketh not vnfitly on this wise.* 1.536 But as touchyng that whiche followeth: Hee doth harden whom hee will. Here the force of mans capacitie is ouerwhelmed with the straungenesse of the word. But it must not be so taken as though God did beginne to harden mās hart, which was not infected before. For what is hardnesse els then resistaunce of Gods commaundementes? which who so thinketh to be the worke of God, bycause of this say∣ing: He doth harden whom hee will, let him beholde the first beginnyng of mans corruption, and marke well the commaundemēt of God: the disobedience whereof made the hart to offende, and let him truely confesse, that whatsoeuer punishement befalleth him si∣thence that first corruption, bee suffreth it righteously and deser∣uedly.

For God is sayd to harden his hart whom hee will not molli∣fie: so is hee sayd also to reiect him, whom hee will not call, and to blynd them, whom he will not enlighten. For whom hee hath Pre∣destinate them hath he called. &c.* 1.537

2. Moreouer after this withdrawyng of Grace, this also fol∣loweth thereupon. That God doth righteously minister occa∣siō of sinnyng in the wicked and reprobate, and maruelously en∣clineth the hartes of men, not onely to good, but also to euill: If we may beleue the testimony of Augustine. Who in his booke De Libero Arbit. & Grat. alledgyng certeine testimonies out of the Apostle.* 1.538 Where it is sayd that God gaue them vp to vyle affections. Rom. 1. And agayne, hee deliuered them vp vnto a reprobate mynde.* 1.539 And in an other place. Therfore God doth send them strong delusion that they should beleeue lyes. By these and such lyke testimonies of Sacred Scriptures appeareth sufficiently, that God doth worke in the hartes of men, to bende encline and bow their willes, whereunto him listeth either to good, accordyng to the riches of his mercy, or to wickednesse, accordyng to their owne de∣sertes: to witte, by his Iudgemēt sometymes reuealed in deede, and sometymes secret: but the same alwayes most righteous. For this must be holdē for certeine, and vnshaken in our myndes. That there is no iniquitie with God. And for this cause when ye read in holy writte that mē are deceaued or amazed, or hardened in hart, doubt hereof nothyng at all, but that their sinnefull deseruyngs were such before, as that they did well deserue the punishment that followeth. &c. The premisses considered, and for as much as God doth vse the peruersenes of men (will they nill they) to these purposes & endes, whereunto he hath decreéd them, may any mā be doubt∣full hereof, but that God ought not by any meanes be excluded from the disposing of sinnes?

3. Besides this also, whereas the holy Ghost misdoubteth not to speake in the Scriptures, after this vsuall phrase of speach, to witte.* 1.540 That God doth harden mens hartes: doth deliuer vp in∣to reprobate myndes: doth dazell with blyndnesse: doth make eares deafe: doth lead into error: and such like. How shall we say, that sinnes doe happen now without God? Albeit neither doe we say that God is therefore properly and simply the cause of wicked∣nesse, whenas we are of our selues more then enough the true & 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

naturall cause of wickednesse. Be it therfore that the will of mā is the cause of sinne: but seyng this will must of Necessitie be subiect to the will of God, and be directed by the same: surely it may not be lawfull to exclude God from the direction and dis∣position of sinnes. If Osorius shall thinke him selfe not yet ful∣ly satisfied w^t this aūswere, he may be resolued agayne if he will with this. That the whole cause of sinne is resiaunt in man him selfe, and in his corrupt will: but the cause wherfore sinne doth become sinne, must be ascribed to Gods good ordinaunce: in the one wherof is sinne, and the punishment for sinne, as Augustine maketh mention. Out of the other affections be ordeyned, y^t such affectio••s as be, may be wicked: which affections notwithstan∣dyng are not in the guidyng cause it selfe, but are by hym gui∣ded to some good purpose & end: of which doctrine let vs heare what August. doth him selfe testifie & professe.* 1.541 It is out of all con∣trouersie (sayth he) That God doth well euen in suffering all things whatsoeuer: yea euen in the thynges that be wickedly done: for euē those he suffereth to be done not without his most iust Iudgement: now whatsoeuer is iust, the same is good surely: Therfore albeit the thynges that are wicked in this respect that they are wicked be not good: yet that not onely good, be, but euill also, is neuertheles good. For if it were not good that wickednes should be, surely the almigh∣tie goodnes it selfe would by no meanes permitte it to be done, who without doubt can as easely not permit the thynges that he will not, as he cā easily do the things that be done. If we do not firmely beleue this, the groūdworke of our faith (wherein we do cōfesse that we do beleue in God the Father almighty) is in great hassard. For God is not called omnipotēt for any other cause in very deede, but bycause he is able to do what he will, the operatiō of whose Deuine will the will of no creature cā hinder or preiudice by any meanes at all. &c. This much Augustine. And bycause I will not be tedious, I argue vpon Augustines wordes in this wise.

* 1.542Euery good thyng doth proceede from God as from the Au∣thour and guider therof. But it is good that wickednesse be. Ergo, God is the Author and directer that wickednesse com∣meth to passe.

But here some Iulian of Pelagius sect & with him our Por∣tingall

Prelate Osorius will brawle and cauill: That those deédes of wickednesse are committed through the sufferaunce of God forsakyng them, and not by his omnipotent power wor∣kyng in thē: meanyng hereby I am sure: That God doth permit wicked thynges to be done in deéde, but by his power forceth no man to doe wickedly.* 1.543 Agaynst such persones Augustine doth mightly oppose hym selfe euen to their teéche, prouyng those thynges to be done by Gods power, rather then by his Suffe∣raūce, and for more credite voucheth a place of S. Paule. Who knittyng those two together: to witte, Sufferaunce and Power, writeth after this maner: What and if God willyng to shewe his wrath, and to make his power knowen, did suffer with long patience the vessels of his wrath prepared to destruction? &c. Rom. 9. Af∣terwardes produceth many examples & reasons taken out here and there of the Propheticall Scriptures, to make good his Assertion Achab was Deliued ouer to geue credite to the lyeng mouthes of the false Prophetes. First, in that he beleéued a lye, you perceaue that he sinned.* 1.544 Moreouer in that he was geuen o∣uer not without cause, you conceaue the punishment of sinne. I demaund of you now, by whom hee was geuen ouer? you will aunswere of Sathan: neither will I deny it, though it seéme ra∣ther that he was deceaued by him, then deliuered ouer. But goe to. Who did send Sathan? but he which sayd, Go forth and doe so, vnlesse Osorius do suppose that to send forth, and to suffer, be all one, which besides him no man els will say, I suppose.

By like Iudgement of God, Roboam is sayd to be driuen to harken to sinister Counsell, bycause he should refuse the counsell of the Elders. And from whēce came this I pray you but from him of whom it is written in holy writte?* 1.545 For it was the ordinance of the Lord, that he might performe his saying, which he speake by the mouth of his Prophet. 1. Kynges. 15.12.

The lyke must iudged of Amasias, who had not fallen into that perill if he had harckened to Ioas the kyng of Israell, now what shall we alleadge to be the cause why he did not harken to the good counsell of Ioas? Here will Osorius runne backe a∣gaine after his wounted maner, to Freewill, or to Sathan y^e mo∣uyng cause.* 1.546 And this is true in deéde in respect of the second and instrumentall causes. But Gods sacred Oracles beyng ac∣customed

to searche out the souereigne and principall cause of thyngs, do rayse them selues higher, and do aunswere, that this was wrought by God him selfe, who dyd not onely suffer hym, but of his determinate counsell directed him also thereunto, by∣cause hee would auenge him selfe of the kyng, for his abhomi∣nable Idolatry.

* 1.547When Dauid caused the people to be nombred, I know that Sathan is sayd to prouoke hym thereunto, as we read in the Chronicles. But let vs marke what the Scripture speaketh els where. And the wrath of the Lord being kindeled agaynst Israell, he stirred vp Dauid to nomber his people.* 1.548 2.Sam. 24. And nothyng withstandeth truely, but that both may bee true. Neither is it agaynst cōueniēcie of reason (as Augustine truly witnesseth) that one selfe wickednesse may be a punishement, & scourge of sinne vpō the wicked, by the malicious practize of the Deuill, & by Gods iust Iudgemēt also, seyng it skilleth not whe∣ther God bryng it to passe by his own power, or by the seruice of Sathan. Esay the Prophet cryeth out in his Prophecie.* 1.549 O Lord why hast thou made vs to erre from thy wayes? and hardened our hartes from thy feare? And in Ezechiell GOD speaketh by the mouth of his Prophet.* 1.550 And if the Prophet bee deceaued I the Lord haue deceaued him.

Let vs consider Iob hym selfe the most singular paterne of perfect patiēce,* 1.551 whom beyng turmoyled with infinite engynes of Sathans Temptatiōs all men will confesse to be plagued by the horrible malice of Sathan. True it is, will you say: and with Gods sufferaūce withall. Be it so. But I demaunde further, who made y^e first motiō of Iob, whē God sayd on this wise? Hast thou considered my seruaunt Iob? And wherefore did God make this motion first. But that it may appeare that the Enemy is not permitted onely, but made a Minister also to make triall of mans patience? Furthermore after that he was robbed & spoy∣led of all his goodes and Cattels, and throwen into extreme po∣uertie, I would fayne learne who stale those goodes from hym? That dyd the Caldeans & Sabees will Osorius say, I am sure: which is true in deéde. Yet Iob doth not so acknowledge it: But liftyng hym selfe vp higher, and entryng into a more deépe con∣sideration of that souereigne prouidēce, which ordereth and dis∣poseth

the seruice of all the workes of his creation at his owne pleasure, professeth earnestly, that none els dispoyled him of his goodes, but he that gaue them.* 1.552 The Lord gaue (sayth he) and the Lord hath taken, blessed be the name of the Lord. &c.

But that wōderfull force and vnmeasurable power of Gods wisedome, and prouidence, disposing all thynges accordyng to his euerlastyng purpose, & with outstretched cōpasse spreadyng it selfe farre, & wyde, abroad throughout all degreées & successes of thynges,* 1.553 is not discouered vnto vs by any one thyng more notably discernable, thē in the death of his sonne Iesus Christ: in that most innocent Passion of all other, y^e most innocent death (I say) of our Sauiour Iesu Christ: In y^e whiche as there were many causes goyng before, and the same also not a litle diffe∣ryng eche from other, yet amongest them all was there none, but was not onely ioyned with Gods sufferaunce, but was long before also foreordeyned by his will, decreéd by his wisedome, yea & ordered almost by his owne hand. For otherwise, in what sense is he called The Lambe slayne frō the beginning of the world, whenas they were not yet created that should kill him? and when as yet were no sinnes committed by mankynde, whiche might procure Gods wrath. If God from the furthest end of eternitie, in his euerlastyng foreappointed wisedome and determination, had decreéd vpō nothyng that should cause those thyngs to come to passe afterwardes, through vnauoydeable Necessitie?

Out of those matters heretofore debated and argued, two thyngs may you note, Osorius, wherof the one concerneth Lu∣thers doctrine, and is true: the other toucheth your suggestions and is false. For as to the first (wherein Luther doth discourse vpon Necessitie, agaynst the mainteynours of chaūce and for∣tune) cā no more be denyed by you: then Gods prouidence in go∣uernement of the present tyme, and foreknowledge of thynges to come can be any wayes deceaueable. On the other side, where as you do w^t so gorgeous colours & glorious titles blaze forth the beautie of mans Freewill, ioynyng in league herein with the old Philosophers, auncient Maisters of ignoraunce, and especi∣ally Cicero, bendyng your whole force to ouerthrowe the doc∣trine of necessitie, what els doth your whole practize herein? thē the same which August. did long sithence worthely reprehēd in

Cicero? To witte: Whiles you striue so much to make vs free, you practize nothyng els but to make vs horrible blasphemours, and withall endeuour to vndermyne the vnpenetrable Castell of Gods foreknowledge. For who is able to foretell thynges to come, which he neuer knew? or preuente the assured certeintie of successes of thyngs, without the vtter subuersion of the infallible prouidence of Gods foreknowledge? Wherfore I would wishe you to be well ad∣uised Osorius, least whiles you thinke to molest Luther with your outragious barkyng, for affirmyng an infallible. Necessitie flowyng from aboue, from out the founteine of Deuine opera∣tion in direction of thyngs: ye fall your selfe headlong at the last in this cōbersome,* 1.554 gulfe to be adiudged not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but playnly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and beyng not able to endure the doctrine of Necessitie, ye entangle your selfe vnto such an inextricable maze of impietie, as that ye shalbe thought to practise the abādonyng of the vndeceueable certeintie of Gods most Sacred Scriptu∣res out of heauen, after the example of that your fine Cicero, whiles ye affect Cicero to much in the nymblenesse of your stile. For what els can be gathered out of that detestable discourse of Cicero?* 1.555 (as August. calleth it) or out of this execrable opiniō of Osor? (if he will be y^e man he seémes for). How can those things be auoyded, which God doth know shall come to passe most assu∣redly? but that Necessitie must be graunted by the doctrine of prouidence: or Necessitie beyng excluded, Gods prouidence al∣so be rent asunder withall? For after this maner doth Cicero dispute in his bookes De natura Deorum.* 1.556 If thynges to come (saith he) be foreknowen, then it must neédes followe that euery thyng must proceéde in his due order: but for as much as no∣thyng is done without some cause, therfore must a due order and knittyng together of causes be graunted of Necessitie. Where∣upō must neédes ensue, y^t all thynges y^t are done, are performed by vnauoydeable Necessitie: If this be graunted (sayth he) all Ciuill societie is rooted out, Lawes are established in vayne: correction, praysing, dispraysing, good counsell are ministred in vayne, neither anye ordinaunce deuised for the aduauncement of vertue, and punishement of vyce serueth to any purpose at all.* 1.557 Now bycause these haynous and daungerous absurdities are not tollerable in any weale publique. Therfore (sayth Augustine) this

man will not yeld, that there should be any foreknowledge of thyngs to come. So that by this meanes he forceth the Reader into these inconueniences to chuse one of these two: either that mans will is of some force, or els that thynges must be determined vpon before of Necessitie: beyng of opinion that they can not be both at one tyme together, but that if the one be allowed, the other must needes be abolished. If we leane vnto Gods foreknowledge and prouidēce, then must Freewill haue no place, on the other side if we mainteyne Freewill, then foreknowledge of thyngs to come, must be banished. So y^e whiles Cicero, beyng otherwise a man of wōderful expe∣rience (as August. sayth) endeuoureth to make vs freé, doth bring vs w^tin y^e cōpasse of sacrilege as horrible robbers of Gods foreknowledge: and beyng ignoraunt him selfe how to vnite this freédome and foreknowledge together, rather suffreth God to be despoyled of his wisedome, then men to be left destitute of Freewill: which errour Augustine doth worthely reproue in him.* 1.558 For it is not therfore a good consequent, bycause the well orderyng & dispositiō of all causes is in the hands of God, that mans Freewill therfore is made fruitelesse altogether: for that our willes them selues being the very causes of humaine actions, are not exempt frō that well disposed order of causes, which is alwayes vnchaungeable with God, and directed by his prouidence. And therfore he that with his wisedome doth cōprehend the causes of al thyngs, the same also in the very causes them selues; could not be ignoraunt of our willes, which he did foreknow should be the causes of al our doyngs.

Go to now. Let vs compare with this blynd Philosophy of Cicero, the Diuinitie of Osorius in all respectes as bussard-lyke. For as Cicero doth vphold the freédome of mans will, by the ouerthrow of Gods prouidence and predestination, and con∣trarywise by the ouerthrow of mans Freewill, doth gather and establish the certeintie of Gods prouidence, supposing that they can not stand both together: In lyke maner our Osorius ima∣ginyng with him selfe such a perpetuall and vnappeasable dis∣agreément betwixt Necessitie in orderyng of causes, and mans Freewill, that by no meanes they may argreé together: what doth he meane els, thē pursuyng the platteforme that Cicero before him had builded in the couplyng of causes, but to come to this issue at the length, either to establish the doctrine of Necessitie

with Luther? or agreéyng with Cicero, vtterly to roote out the foreknowledge and prouidēce of God?* 1.559 for if to chuse be the pro∣pertie of will, then are not all thynges done of Necessitie, accor∣dyng to Osorius opinion. Agayne, if not of Necessitie, then is there no perpetuall orderyng of causes, after Ciceroes suppo∣sitiō. If there be no perpetuall order of causes, neither is there any perpetuall order of thynges, by the foreknowledge of God, which can not come to passe, but by the operation of causes pre∣cedent.* 1.560 If the perpetuall orderyng of thynges, be not in the fore∣knowledge of God, thē all thyngs atteyne not y^e successes, wher∣unto they were ordeyned. Agayne if thyngs atteyne not the suc∣cesses, whereunto they were ordeyned, then is there in God no foreknowledge of thynges to come. Let vs cōpare now the first of this suttle Sophisme with the last.

* 1.561The choise of mans will is free.

Ergo, There is in God no foreknowledge of thynges to come.

Let Osorius aduise him selfe well, what aunswere he make to this Argument. If he hold of Ciceroes opinion, what remay∣neth but hee must neédes condemne vs of Sacrilege as Cicero doth, whiles he endeuoureth to make vs freé? But I know hee wil not hold with this in any case: and in very deéde, Ciceroes Argument ought not to be allowed, for that he doth not discende directly in this Argument frō proper causes, to proper effectes. For whereas Freewill is mainteyned in the one propositiō, this is no cause wherefore it should be denyed that thynges are done by Necessitie. As also this is not a good consequent lykewise, bycause Necessitie is taught to consiste in an vnchaūgeable or∣deryng of causes, and in Gods foreknowledge, that therfore no∣thyng remayneth effectual in our Freewill.* 1.562 And why so? bycause agreéyng herein with Augustine, we doe confesse both, to witte: Aswell that God doth know all thynges before they be done: and that for this cause y^e thynges foreknowen are done of Necessitie.* 1.563 And that we also do willyngly worke whatsoeuer we know, and feéle to be done by vs, not without our owne consentes.

But you will Reply. That Luther contrary to Augustines doctrine both leaue mans lyfe altogether destitute of Freewill, tyeng all our actions fast bounde in the chaynes of vnauoydea∣ble

Necessitie. I do aunswere. As Luther doth not defend eue∣ry absolute and vnaduoydeable Necessitie,* 1.564 but that whiche we spake of before, of the consequence: No more doth he take away all freédome from will, neither from all men: but that freédome onely, which is set contrary and opposite to spirituall bondage: no nor yet doth he exempt all men from that freédome, but such onely, as are not regenerate with better Grace in Christ Iesu. For whosoeuer will inueste such persons with freédome, is an vtter enemy to Grace.

And no lesse false also is all that whatsoeuer this coūterfaite Deuine doth now groūde him selfe vpon, and hath more then an hundred tymes vrged touchyng this opinion of Necessitie. For in this wise he brauleth agaynst Luther and Caluine.

If the thyngs that we doe, are done of meere Necessitie, and decreed vpon from the furthest end of eternitie.

Surely whatsoeuer wickednesse we do committe, as not lead by our owne voluntary motion, but drawen by perpetuall constraynte, is not to bee adiudged for Sinne.

Which triflyng Sophisme we haue vtterly crusht in peéces before, by the authoritie of Augustine. Neither came euer into the myndes of Luther, or Caluine to mainteyne any such Ne∣cessitie, which by any cōpulsary externall coaction should enforce will to committe wickednesse vnwillyngly. For no man sinneth, but he that sinneth voluntaryly. Albeit none of our actions are destitute of a certeyne perpetuall directiō of the almighty Lord and Gouernour, yea though neither the sinnes them selues can not altogether escape the prouident will and foreknowledge of God: Yet is not the peruerse frowardnesse of the wicked any thyng the lesse excusable, but that they ought to receaue cōdigne punishment accordyng to their wicked deseruynges: for whoso∣euer hath voluntaryly offended, deserueth to be punished. And therfore herein Osorius friuolous Diuinitie, doth not a litle be∣wray her nakednesse: that whereas debatyng about the matter of sinne, he seémeth not to haue learned this lesson yet out of Au∣gustine, that sinne & the punishmēt of sinne is all one.* 1.565 And ther∣fore mainteynyng one lye by an other, doth conclude as wise∣ly: that it is not agreable to equitie (sithence men are Instru∣mentes

onely, & God the worker of all thyngs) that they should be condemned as malefactours which are onely Instrumentes, with as good reason as if the sworde wherewith a man is slayne should be adiudged faultie, & not the persō that slue the man with the sword:* 1.566 Whiche I my selfe would not deny to be agaynst all reason, if y^t matter were as Osor. would applye it. But who did euer speake or dreame, that men were Instru¦ments onely in doyng wickednesse? and that God is the Authour and worker of all mischief? These be y^e wordes of Osorius, not Luthers nor Caluines.

* 1.567That wicked men are Sawes & Instrumentes many tymes in the handes of God for the punishement of sinne, this not Lu∣ther onely. but Esay also, doth boldly confesse. Go to. And will you therfore cōclude that men are nothyng els, but instruments, and tooles onely? very wisely I warraunt you: deriuyng your Argument from the propositiō Exponent, to the Exclusiue: nay rather maliciously wrestyng and peruertyng all thynges from the truth, to slaunderous cauillyng. August. doth sundry tymes witnesse that mens willes are subiect to Gods will, and are not able to withstand it.* 1.568 For as much as the willes them selues (sayth he) God doth fashion as him liketh, and when him lysteth, and that our willes are no further auayleable, then as God both willed, and foresawe then to bee auayleable.* 1.569 Whereby you seé, that Gods al∣mighty power doth worke in our willes, as in a workeshoppe: & whē he purposeth to do any thyng, that then he doth neither trās∣pose our willes otherwise, or to other purposes then by y^e seruice of our owne willes. And yet doth it not therfore follow, y^e mens willes are nothyng els then Iustrumentes, and tooles onely of Gods handyworke, as y^e thyng that of it selfe doth nothyng but as it is carryed, and whirled about, hither & thither without any his own proper motiō, through the operation of the agent cause onely. Truly Augustine sayth very well.* 1.570 We doe not worke by wishinges onely (sayth he) least hereupon cauillation arise that our will is effectuall to procure to lyue well. Bycause GOD doth not worke our saluation in vs, as in vnsensible stoanes, or in thynges which by nature were created voyde of reason & will. &c. In deéde God doth worke in the willes and harts of men, and yet not rol∣lyng or tossyng them as stoanes, or driuyng & whirlyng them as

thynges without lyfe, as though in enterprising and attemp∣tyng of thynges, the myndes and willes of men were carryed a∣bout by any forrein constraint and Deuine coaction, without a∣ny voluntary motion of the intelligible mynde. And therfore O∣sorius doth hereof friuolously, and falsely forge his cankred ca∣uillation, and maliciously practizeth to procure this doctrine of Luther? to be maligned: As though we did deuise man to be lyke vnto a stoane, or imagined God to be the onely Au∣thour and worker of mischief,* 1.571 bycause we do teach that mens willes are subiect to Gods wil, as it were secundary causes.

Certes if that •• August. writeth begraūted for truth: That Gods will is the cause of thynges that are done.* 1.572 Why should the same be lesse alowable in Luther, or not as false in eche respect in Aug. since they both speake one selfe sentence & be of one iudge∣ment therein. Neither is it therfore a good consequent that O∣sor. doth phantasie: The onely will of God to be so the cause of sinne, as though mans will did nothyng reproueable for sinnyng, or punishable for deseruyng. For to this end tendeth the whole cutted conclusion of all Osorius brabblynges. But if you haue no skill to know the nature of a distinctiō as yet, you must be taught, that it is one thyng to permitte a sinne volunta∣r••ly, an other thyng to committe a sinne voluntaryly. Wherof the first is proper to God, the other is peculiar to men: the first may be done without all offence, the other can bee done by no meanes without wickednesse. Whereas GOD is sayd to will sinne after a certeyne maner, the same is sayd to be done accor∣dyng to that will (which they call Gods good pleasure) neither e∣uill, nor without the truth of the Scriptures. And yet it follow∣eth not hereupon necessaryly, that God is the onely and proper cause of sinne:* 1.573 No: for this is accompted the onely cause, which excludeth all other causes besides it selfe: So is that cause cal∣led the proper cause, which doth respect onely one end, yea and that also the last end, in respect wherof it is accompted to be the proper cause. Whereas therfore sinne is y^e last end not of Gods will, but of mans peruersenesse, we do affirme that it is not done in deéde without Gods will, but that man is the proper cause therof, and not God. For if the causes of thynges must be pro∣portioned by their endes, surely sinne is not y^e last end of Gods

will, in respect that it is euill, but in respect that it is y^e scourge & plague of sinne, and to speake Paules own wordes:* 1.574 The shew∣yng forth of Gods righteousnesse, and the feare of God, then which ende nothyng can be more better or more holy. And where is now that iniquitie, and cruelty of God, Osorius, which by mis∣construyng Luther wickedly & maliciously, your fruitlesse Lo∣gicke taketh no fruite of, but which your deuilishe Spirite and slaunderous cursed fury doth corrupt. But that I may not seéme to stand to much vpon refutyng this toye, lettyng slippe many thynges here in the meane whiles, whiche make nothyng to the purpose, nor conteyne any other thyng almost in them but vayne hautynesse of speache, Tragicall exclamations, maddnesse, feé∣uers, frensies, spittyngs, reproches, horrible cōtumelies, wher∣with this vnmanerly Deuine hath most filthely defiled whole pa∣pers, I will come to those places, which carry a certeyne shew of lesse scoldyng and more Scripture. After this maner the ver∣mine crawleth foreward.

* 1.575But that ye may perceaue how illfauouredly your Do∣ctours haue interpreted those testimonyes of Paule, which you haue heaped vp together, I thinke it expedient to dis∣close the meaning of Paule. And that this may be done more orderly, it behoueth to note diligently to what ende Paule gathered all those reasons together.

It is well truly. This cruell scourgemottō weried throughly w^t whippyng poore Luther miserably, & vnmercifully buffetyng him, doth now at the length hyde his rod vnder his gowne & be∣ginneth to creépe to high desk, & will teach somewhat (and God will) out of y^e Scriptures, so that we shall neede nothyng now, but a Camell to daunce, whiles this Assehead minstrell striketh vppe his drumme. And therfore harken in any wise you blinde buzardly Lutherans, you caluish Caluinistes, & you foolish Bu∣cerans, sith you be so blockish by nature, that of your selues you can cōceaue nothing of the Apostles doctrine ye may now at the last (I warrant you) learne of this Portingall Thales the pure and sincere Interpretation of Paules discourse, touching the Predestination of the Gentiles, and the reiection of the Iewes, whereof he debateth in all those his three Chapters. 9.10.11. The vnderstanding whereof, because neyther Luther himselfe,

nor any of all the rest of Luthers Schoole were able to con∣ceaue: it is good reason that we not onely attentiuely harken vnto, but also without controlement beleue this new pyked car∣uer, not of sentences onely, but a planer of wordes also, whiles he do lay open before our eyes y^e very naturall meanyng of that place, to be sensibly felt, euen to the vttermost tittle thereof.

And for as much as there be two thinges chiefly hand∣led by Paule in these three chapters.* 1.576 First, wherein he reioy∣seth with the Gentiles for that their calling and most pros∣perous knowledge of the light of the Gospell. Secōdarily, wherein he lamenteth the lamentable fall of the Iewes, & their most sorowfull blindenes, and taking occasiō hereup∣on, doth forth with enter into a discourse of fayth, and the infallible certeintye of Gods promises. For whereas that blessednes was promised to the posterity of Abraham, here might some scrupule haue troubled his minde, as there wan∣ted not of the Iewes some that pyked hereout matter to cauill vpon, as though God had broken the promise that he once had made, as one that hauing obliged hymselfe be∣fore with so many couenauntes, and promises to this gene∣ration, did now contrary to his othe cast them of and des∣pise them. S. Paule valiauntly impugning the disorderous reproches and cauillations of these with sondry forcible reasons, doth fortifie this his defence with iiij. Argumētes chiefly. First, that this promise of the blessing was made in deede to Abraham, and Israell, and to their posteritie: but this promise in as much as is spiritually to be taken, did not so restrayne it selfe onely to that externall Family alone af∣ter the kinred of the fleshe, as that it noted not vnder the same fellowshyppe and kinred of Israell, the Gentiles also, such especially as were endued with like sincerity of fayth. He addeth furthermore,* 1.577 that albeit the same promise did concerne those Gentiles chiefly, which ioyned themselues to Christ, yet the same was not so wholy translated to the Gentiles (the Iewes beyng forsakē) but that a great portiō of these also (remnaunts as it were of that lamētable ship∣wracke) beyng preserued: should be partakers of the same promise and blessednes together with the Gentiles.

* 1.578In the third place that it came to passe through their own villany & vnbelief, & not of any inconstancie on Gods behalfe, that this promise of God did so much fayle them but that they did exclude themselues rather from the be∣nefite of Gods promise.

* 1.579Lastly that neyther this reiection shoulde continue so for euer, but that it should once come to passe (as the Apo∣stle prophecieth) that the fulnes of the Gentiles beyng ac∣complished, the whole nation of the Israelites recouering at the length the former grace of their auncient promise, shoulde be restored agayne to the benefite of their former blessing.

Uerily I do confesse, that this interpretation of Osorius is not altogether amisse: wherein I seé nothing yet false, or newly deuised: moreouer nothing spoken of here, that hath not long si∣thence bene spoken, yea and with a farre more playne lightsom∣nesse by our expositors:* 1.580 for we beyng long agoe sufficienly en∣structed in Paules schoole, haue vnderstood well inough without Osorius schooling, y^e that promise was peculiar to the seede of Israell, beyng the children of promise, and not to the Children after y^e flesh: Moreouer neither are we ignorant hereof, that that blindenes happened not to all Israell but in part onely, not of a∣ny inconstancy on Gods behalfe, but that they fell themselues from true righteousnes, by their owne default, as people follo∣wing the righteousnesse whiche came not by fayth, but flat∣tering themselues in obseruing the workes of the lawe. Fur∣thermore that whiche Thapostle doth prophecie shall come to passe concerning the restoring agayne of that whole nation at the length: as we all hartily wish for, so no man (I suppose) is so blockishe, but doth vnderstand sufficiently, all whatsoeuer Paule hath spoken of this matter by his owne writing, though Osorius did neuer interprete it.

* 1.581And agayne touching the examples of Isaac and Iacob set downe by Paule, whom Gods election would, should be preferred before their brethren, though elder in birth in the deuision of the Fathers patrimonye? We are neither igno∣raunt, nor forgetfull thereof: whereupon we do nothing disagreé frō Osorius in conceauing the same thing vnder the types and

figures of those persons, and doe professe in as many wordes, that neyther the prerogatiue of kinred, nor workes, nor yet the lawe, but that Gods election, calling, and grace doth make the true Israelites. Forasmuch therefore as our expositours in all these poynts of doctrine, haue nothing at all hitherto swarued from the truth of Paules doctrine, or your interpretation, what corrupt exposition is that at the length of these our Interpre∣tours, wherewith you are so much offended? forsooth, (say you) because they doe not sufficiently enough conceaue the very ende, whereunto Paule did referre those argumentes. Goe to then. sith you prouoke vs hereunto. Let vs first seé what argu∣mentes those be of Paule: then to what ende they be applied: Because the Iewes did challenge to thēselues a title of righte∣ousnes through the obseruaunce of the law, which neuerthelesse they did not obserue in very deéde, partely (because swelling w^e pryde for the Nobilitie of their race,) they did promise vnto thē¦selues a certaine peculiar election with God before all other na∣tions) Paule entending to treate very sharply agaynst the inso∣lent arrogancie of them, doth argue agaynst thē with most forci∣ble argumentes, taken out of holy Scriptures, namely. That the substance of Gods election neither did hang vpon the works of the Law, neyther vpon the roialtie of race, not yet vpon aun∣cient of parentage, but did depend vpon the onely freemercy of Gods compassion and Fayth of the Gospell. And to make the same appeare more euidently, he putteth foorth vnto them the example of Isaac and Ismaell,* 1.582 whereof the one though by byrth were yonger, yet obtained through grace to be the first, and was thereby aduaunced to the dignity of inheritaunce, where as they both were generall issues of one, and the same father Abraham, though they had not both one mother. And to auoyde y^e daūger of scrupule, that might ensue, by reason of the two mothers, hee doth yet confirme the same with a more notable exāple. Name∣ly the example of the two brothers that were twinnes Iacob and Esau who issuing of one Father, of one mother, and one birth, and before they had done any thing good, or euill, God did tran∣slate the honour of birthright and blessing to y^e yonger, to beare rule ouer the elder. And whereof came this? but from the freé gift of election, whereas before there was nothing in the In∣fantes

(beyng not yet borne,) that might eyther deserue to beé aduaunced, or to be reiected. If you respect the worthines of their workes, what had the seély infantes done before they were borne? but if this whole matter did depend vpon the determina∣tion of Gods vnsearcheable counsell, what rewarde here doe mens workes deserue? namely whereas God spake to Moyses in playnest maner of speach.* 1.583 I will haue mercy on him on whō I will shew mercy, and will haue cōpassion on him on whom I haue compassion. Whereunto agreéth the testimony of Paule immediately vttered by the same spirite, It is not of him that willeth nor in him that runneth, but in GOD that sheweth mercy. Againe alledging the example of Pharao, with sembla∣ble reason cōfirmeth the same by the example of Gods seuerity,* 1.584 that he debated before of his freémercy.

And this is the very order of the argument in Paules dis∣course, which neyther Osorius himselfe will deny. But it must be diligently considered, to what ende Paule applyed those rea∣sons: for herein consisteth the whole pithe of our controuersie. And whereas Luther, Caluine, Martyr, and their companions bee of opinion, that Paule vndertooke this Disputation for this end•• that by settyng downe examples of Gods liberalitie,* 1.585 and seueritie, he might make manifest that the onely freé mercy, and eternall Election of God, accordyng to the purpose of his good pleasure, did make the true Israelites, without any helpe or res∣pect of workes or endeuours•• Osori. doth very stoughtly with∣stand these felowes, not denyeng meane whiles Gods Election nor Gods callyng, ne yet his Grace, as hee sayth: but will not graunt this notwithstandyng, that the Election of the faythfull consisteth in the freémercy of GOD, without speciall respect of workes. For this is the whole force of this Prelates Diuinitie, Let vs heare his owne wordes, as they be.

* 1.586This therfore (sayth he) do we gather out of this place of Paule, that neither dignitie of parentage, nor worke, nor yet the law, doth make true Israelites, but Gods Election, his callyng and his Grace. But let vs see, whether this so no∣table mercy of God powred vpon vs without all our deser∣uynges, is geauen vs without any respect of workes? No: it is not? &c.

First bycause I do not sufficiently conceaue Osorius, what you meane by this that you say, mercy powred vpō vs with out desertes, & yet not geauen without respect of workes. I would haue you open your meanyng more distinctly. If God do powre out vpō his faythfull mercy, without merites, as you say, what other choyse then doe ye want in those that are elect, then the very same, which cōsisteth of Gods meére mercy & good will onely, without merites? But this you thinke not in any wise sufferable nor to be vttered: for this reason as I suppose.

If Gods Election should consiste of mercy onely,* 1.587 with∣out any choyse of such as are chosen: Gods Iudgement might be adiudged to be chaunceable and vnaduised.

Let vs ioyne hereunto the Minor.

But fortune and vnaduisednesse are not to be imputed to Gods Iudgement.* 1.588

For we heare out of Paule. Not by workes, but of him that calleth who sayth that the elder shall serue the younger.

Let vs now conclude a Gods name.

Ergo, Gods electiō standeth not by his mercy onely,* 1.589 with out some choyse, that is say: without some especiall & discrete regarde of some one thyng in the person that is elected, which was not to bee founde in the person that was reiected.

For in this maner doth Osorius both define and conclude.

After sūdry ridiculous vayne glorious speaches of his Rhe∣thoricall brauery, and vnprofitable scoldyng, least he might not seéme to be a Rhetoriciā onely, or a leane Logiciā: he hath now pyked somewhat out of the Rules of Sophistry, wherein he be∣haueth hym selfe neuerthelesse none otherwise, then an Owle a∣mōgest Nightingales. For the very principall & speciall pointe of that Arte, hee either atteyneth not aright, or toucheth surely very coldly. Which may be easily and playnly perceaued Oso∣rius by this your owne forme of arguyng. And I call it playn∣ly your owne, bycause no creature cā more nearely resemble his Sire: wherein you do neither define rightly, nor deuide order∣ly, no lesse foolishly heapyng together false thynges, in steéde of true thynges in your maner of arguyng: proceédyng from the effectes to causes: and as Crabbes crawle backeward, so do you

for the more part set the carte before the Hoarse. First,* 1.590 Wheras you say that this word Electiō doth signifie some speciall re∣gard, whereby some thyng may be iudged to be in the per∣sons that are Elect, that wanted in the reprobate. If you de∣fine Election in this wise, surely we can not allow of it. For al∣though no man ought to dought, but that God accordyng to his incomprehēsible wisedome, euen from the begynnyng, was not ignoraunt of the contrary dispositious of all and euery thyng, & the differences betwixt the faithfull and the reprobate: yet is not Election opened sufficiētly hetherto as yet accordyng to the na∣ture of the word. These be the effectes of Gods foreknowledge, and doe follow Election, but make not Election: For euen as fire doth not therfore warme, bycause it should be whote, but by∣cause it is whote: and as a wheéle doth not therfore runne roūde, that it may be rounde, but bycause it is rounde. As August.* 1.591 ma∣keth mention: euen so the faythfull were not therfore chosen, by∣cause they were lyke to lyue vertuously: but they were chosen in Christ, bycause they should lyue vertuously, beyng thereunto predestinate by God, not for the worthynes of their workes (that were for seéne should be in them before as Osorius doth dreame) but accordyng to the good pleasure of his will: If we list to geue credite more to Paule,* 1.592 then to Osorius: So hath hee chosen vs (sayth Paule) in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy (not bycause we were holy) and vnblameable. &c. What can be more playne then this? And yet doth hee not stay there, nor so expresse the last maner of Election. Whereupon he addeth forthwith:* 1.593 Accordyng to the good pleasure of his will, to the prayse of the glory of his grace. If Gods Election stād accordyng to the purpose of the freé will of God, by what meanes will O∣sorius iustifie, that Election cōmeth accordyng to his foreknow∣ledge of workes to come? As though Gods Election and fore∣knowledge did depende vpon our Actions,* 1.594 and not rather our actions vpon his Election and foreknowledge?

* 1.595Therfore Osorius doth deale falsely, whereas he defineth the purpose of God to be a Iudgemēt preordinated before, whereby God doth ordeyne some vnto glory, and others some vnto destruction, accordyng to the choyse of those thynges, which he doth see will come to passe. First, in that

he calleth it by the name of Iudgemēt, I seé no reason at all, why he should so do:* 1.596 for as much as Iudgement is properly execu∣ted in sinnes before committed: but Purpose concerneth thyngs to come & preuenteth them. Agayne if we must speake after the proper phrase of speache, whatsoeuer is done by Iudgement, must neédes be cōfessed to be righteously done & according to de∣serte, not accordyng to Grace. But whereas y^e Election & Pre∣destinatiō of God (which I think Osor. would gladly expresse by this word, Purpose, for this word Predestinatiō, he dare scarse meddle withall, as not worthy the finesse of a Ciceronian) pro∣ceédeth from grace and not from workes, by what meanes may any sentence be geuen vpon workes y^t were neuer done? or how will Osorius say, that Election commeth by Iudgement geuen vpon workes, which Paule affirmeth to be ascribed to Grace, & freé mercy onely? all merite of workes beyng excluded.

Hee sayth that in the euerlasting counsell of God,* 1.597 all things which are, which haue bene, and which shalbe, are all as if they were presently in the sight of God, so that in exe¦cuting his iudgement, he needeth not to regard the thinges thēselues. I do confesse, y^t all thinges whatsoeuer are, be open and present to the foresight of God: as if they were presently and openly done, but what will Osorius conclude hereof vnto vs? forsooth he doth conclude hereupon, that God hath already determined, according to the diuersitie of mens actions fore∣seéne by him before: after this manner. To witte.* 1.598 That whome God doth foresee will cōtemptuously despise his benefites, those he hath excluded from Paradise: contrariwise whom God doth foreknow will behaue themselues in this lyfe du∣tifully, and vertuously, those he hath mercifully chosen to e∣uerlasting lyfe as worthy of his mercy. To impugne this craf∣ty cauillacion, I perceaue I shalbe pestered, not with Osorius alone: but with Pelagius, and with the whole troupe of the Pe∣lagians, for this hereticall schoole chattereth not vpon anye one matter more, then in maynteining this one heresie. But Paule alone shall suffice at this present to refell all the rable of them: The force of the Argument tendeth to this ende at the last.* 1.599

The wonderfull quicksited mynd of God, did throughly perceaue euen from the beginning, what manner of lyfe

euery person would leade, as well as if the view thereof had bene layed presently open before him.

Ergo, Gods purpose was applyed according to the pro∣portion of euery mans workes and life forseene of God before, to choose the good to saluation, and to iudge the wicked to damnation.

* 1.600This argument is altogether wicked, and tending altoge∣ther to Pelagianisme. And the conclusion meerely opposite to the doctrine of S. Paule. For if the difference of eternall electi∣on, & reiection, do depend vpon workes foreseéne before: Then doth the Apostle Paule lye,* 1.601 who affirmeth that election is of Grace, not of Workes: Rom. 11. and agayne in the 9. Chapter of the same Epistle.* 1.602 That the purpose of God might remayne accor∣ding to election, not of workes: but of him that calleth. What? and shameth not Osorius to affirme, that which the Apostle doth de∣ny? If it were expedient for me to ruffle Rhetorically agayne, with a Rhetoriciane. You seé Osorius, howe great and howe champaine a plaine lyeth open for me to triumph vpon you, and such crauēs as you are with lyke force, & in farre more weighty matter. What tragicall exclamations, could I bray out here? what quartaine feuers, what outrages, frensies, madnes, dron∣kennes? impieties? impudencies? yea what whole Cartloades full of raylinges and reproches frequented by you, and pretely pyked out of your Cicero, could I now throw back agayne into your teeth? and spitt euen into your owne face? But away with these madd outragies of rayling, and this cāckred botch of cur∣sed speakyng, worthy to bee rooted out, not of mens maners onely, but to be razed out of y^e writinges & bookes also of christi∣ans: the contagious custome wherof being frequented by you, to the noysome example of the worlde. I do verily thinke vnseeme∣ly for the dignity whereunto you are aduaunced, neyther would I wish any man to enure himself vnto the like, after your exam∣ple, namely in the debating of so sacred a cause, where the con∣trouersie tendeth not to the reuēgement of iniury, but to the dis∣couery of the truth: where skirmishe must be mayntayned, and conquest purchased by prowesse of knowledge, and Gods sacred scriptures, and not by outrage of rayling: And therefore to re∣turne our treatise to y^e right tracke of y^e Scriptures, leauing all

bypathes aside, the Apostle doth deny that election springeth out of workes: What aunswere you to y^e Apostle Osorius? you will vouch that old rotten ragge, worne out to the hard stumps by your schoolemen, to witte, that the workes that were fore∣seene: are the cause of predestination, not those whiche are done but which are to be done,* 1.603 for so doe the schoolemen ex∣pound, and distinguishe it: but this will be proued many wayes both friuolous, and false by sundry reasons.

First if this be true which you did earst confesse, and whiche Pighius doth euery where inculcate, that of all thinges whatso∣euer, nothing is to come, or past, but is as it were present in the sight of God: Agayn if there be no diuersitie of times with God, because his knowledge comprehendeth (as you say) all thinges past, present, and to come, as though they were present in view: how can hys election, or reiection spring out of workes then, that are yet to be done?* 1.604 If they bee present: in what sence call you them to be done in after tyme? but if they be to come, and to bee done in after tyme: how call you them present? or how doe these thinges agree together, that there is nothing to come in respect of the foreknowledge of God, and yet that election must be beleued to issue frō out the foreknowledge of works to come?

2. Agayne, in what respect soeuer these workes are taken,* 1.605 whether in respect of God or of men (which your schoolemen do distinguishe into works done, and works to be done) they vaun∣tage thē selues nothyng by this distinction, but that y^e question will continue as intricate, as at the first. For whereas all good workes, which either men worke, or shall worke, do proceéde frō God: the question reboundeth backe agayne frō whence it came first: to witte: Why God accordyng to the same purpose, should geue good workes more to one, then to an other? if the perfor∣maunce hereof did arise of foreseéne workes, and not rather of the determined will of him that calleth, whiche is not limited by any conditions of workyng.

3. Whereas the Scripture doth manifestly declare,* 1.606 that we are created & elected to good workes: it appeareth ther∣fore that good workes are the effectes of Predestination.

But the effectes cānot be the cause of that, wherof they were the effectes.

Ergo, workes can not be the cause of Predestination.

But if they alledge that not workes, but the foreknowledge of workes, in the purpose of God, be the cause, out of the which the Grace of Election ensueth, and is gouerned: surely neither can this be agreable to reason. For God did also foreknow the euill will of the reprobate (as there is nothyng in the world, that his vnsearcheable purpose did not foreknow) euen aswell, as he foreknew before the glory of the elect that should come: yet did he not therfore chuse vnto glory some, bycause he foreknew thē, nor did chuse all thynges, which he did foreknow: but whatsoe∣uer his Electiō had predestinated, it is out of all doubt, that the same were all foreknowen.

* 1.6074. Agayne the foreseéne pety workes (which they make to be the cause of Election) are either our owne, or properly apper∣teynyng to God. If they be Gods, and not ours: where then is the freédome of our choyse? any merites of works: But if they be ours, that is to say, in the direction of our owne willes: then is that false, that Paule teacheth. God it is, that worketh in vs both to will and to worke, declaryng hereby: that we are vnable to will, or to attemp any thyng that good is, without Gods assi∣staunce.

* 1.6086. The fift reason is this, whatsoeuer is the cause of y^e cause, is worthely adiudged the cause of the effect. If the foreseéne workes of y^e faythfull be the cause of Predestination, certes they must neédes be the cause of Iustification also: whiche is directly opposite and aduersary to the doctrine of Paule, and the Grace of Christ.

* 1.6096. Workes as they issue from vs, are thynges vncerteine: But Gods Election is a thyng alwayes certeyne, and perma∣nent: Now by what reasō will Osorius proue then that thyngs beyng of their own nature certeine & vnchangeable, shall depēd vpon thynges transitory and variable. Not but foreknowledge (sayth he) of thynges that are foreseene, doth stand in a cer∣teine permanēt and vnremoueable assuraunce. Neither do I deny this. And therefore when the foreknowledge of God hath established thyngs in such a Necessary & vnaduoydeable assu∣raunce, whiche will be chaunged by no alteration, what should moue him to gnaw so greédely vpon Luther for teachyng such

a Necessitie of our workes?

7. When as God did regarde the people of the old Testament as a Damsell naked, polluted, and adulteresse. &c.* 1.610 Agayne in the new Testamēt,* 1.611 where we are heare the vyle things & things despised in this world, and thyngs which are not to be had in estimation with God. Moreouer whereas accordyng to the testimony of August.* 1.612 Gods Electiō is said to haue ouerpassed many Philosophers notable for their vertue. & famous for the cōmendable cōuersation of life, doth not the thyng it self declare sufficiently? y^t the whole exploite of our saluation is accōplished, not of any desert of our workes that were foreseéne, but of his onely bountyfull benignitie, and most acceptable freé mercy?

8. Moreouer, what shall be sayd of Infantes,* 1.613 who are taken out of this worlde assoone as they are Baptised? what shall we thinke of the theéfe hangyng on the Crosse? and others the lyke? who hauyng lyued most abhominably, were yet receaued into the kyngdome of Christ by holy repentaunce onely thorough fayth, whenas they had done no good worke at all, were either a∣ny workes to come foreseéne in these persons? which were none at all, shall we Iudge, that they wanted Electiō, bycause they wanted workes foreseéne before?

2. Furthermore,* 1.614 whereas this seémeth to be y^e onely scope of Paules Epistle, to extoll and aduaunce the freé mercy of God, by all meanes possible, surely this scope is vtterly ouerthrowen and rooted out, if the whole action of freé Election must be deci∣ded by merites of workes foreseéne before. Whiche matter mo∣ued Augustine so much, that to preferre knowledge of workes,* 1.615 yea of foreknowledge of fayth either, before the Grace of Elec∣tion, he adiudged matter of all other most intollerable.

10. Lastly,* 1.616 bycause Osorius doth so scornefully loathe our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 innouations (as her termeth them) as newfan∣gled deuises of rascallike abiects, to make it euidēt that we are not altogether destitute of antiquitie, to iustifie our Assertions to be true, we will ioyne with vs herein the Iudgement of Au∣gustine, who excludeth foreseéne workes altogether from the worke of Gods Electiō. For these are his wordes most expresse∣ly set downe.* 1.617 And least peraduenture the faythfull should bee thought to be Elect (sayth he) before the foundation of the world,

for their workes that were foreseene, he proceedeth & addeth ther∣to. But if Electiō come by Grace, then cōmeth it not now of workes: Or els Grace now is not Grace at all. &c. What say you moreouer to this?* 1.618 that in an other place hee doth vtterly deny that choyse was made of the younger to beare rule ouer the Elder, through the very foreknowledge of any workes at all. &c.

Which matters being thus set in order, what remayneth? but that we encounter with our aduersaries argumentes, wher∣with they endeuour to reuiue the auncient heresie of Pelagius, and hale it out of hell agayne. For as those olde heretiques dyd teach, that mans will was so farforth freé, as y^t euery man was elected for the merite of their workes foreseéne before by God: none otherwise do these our new Pelagians iarre vpon the same string, or not very much vnlike, treading the track of their fore∣runners the Archheretiques, referring all thinges in lyke sort to workes foreseéne before, least something maye seéme to bee found altogether without recompence in the behalfe of our most bountifull and souereigne God. And amongest these notable Champions, rusheth out this couragious ringleader Osorius, and geueth a proud onset agaynst the kingdome of Grace, and hath so disposed the whole force of hys battery, that the maiestie of Freewill may not by any meanes bee endamaged, trustyng chiefly to this Target of proofe before mentioned, arguyng on this wise.

* 1.619If election did consist of freemercy onely (sayth he) with∣out respect or choyse of any the thinges that God did foresee, he might be worthely accused of vnaduised and rashe dealyng.

But now whereas God accordyng to his vnpenetrable counsell doth determine all thinges aduisedly in a cer∣tayne well disposed order.

Ergo, Gods Election doth not consiste of his mercy one∣ly, without respect or choyse of workes which he fore∣saw would be done by the faythfull.

* 1.620To aunswere these thinges brieflye. If Osorius senselesse iudgement were not throughly ouerwhelmed: with heddinesse, and rashenes, he would not skatter abroad such black and thick

cloudes (to vse Augustines wordes) and such crafty cautels of confused disputations: We doe know and confesse (Osorius) that God doth neuer any thyng at all aduētures, nor vnaduised∣ly. Yet doth not that rashe imagination therefore followe, whiche you haue as rashely conceaued in that blynde denne of your intoxicate braynes, to witte that workes foreseene before, are the cause of Election. Moreouer Gods Election is neyther therefore decreéd vpon without cause, nor yet therefore guyded by blynde chaunce, though it hang not vpon the choyse of works afterwardes to be done. But Osor. beyng a very naturall Phi∣losopher, and very Ethicall seémeth to haue sucked this geare rather from Aristotle, thē out of Christes Testament,* 1.621 who tea∣cheth in his 3. booke of Ethickes that Election (which he calleth vnderstandyng Appetite) is euer occupyed about good or euill: And because in humaine actiōs, where choyse is made betwixt two, or moe thinges, preéminence is graunted to one of thē, ac∣cording to the difference of good and euill: like as in cōmon mu∣sters, the Souldier that is most valiaunt: in Maioralities and Baylywicks, the richest Citizen: in choyse of wyues, the most beautifull, in schooles of learning, the most expert in sciences, are vsually more esteémed and preferred formost: the same sur∣myseth our Osorius to be betide with the Election of God, and hys sacred decrees. But here a distinction ought to haue bene made betwixt Gods choyse, and mans choyse: and the causes thereof likewise ought to be distinguished. And therefore in this place especially Osorius doth notably bewray his singuler ig∣noraunce, disputing of those thinges: whiche lyke an vnskilfull Sophister he can neyther rightly deuide, nor duely define.

But here perhaps some question will be moued:* 1.622 whereas God and nature do nothing without cause: what other cause els could there be here, if God did not make choyse of the faythfull, and of the Reprobates accordyng to the proportion of their workes foreseéne before. But this reason can no man discusse better then Paule himselfe: who after many his blasphemous persecutiōs of Christ, obtayning mercy at the length, and yeal∣ding y^e reason of this great mercy, doth franckly confesse that it was the onely clemency of God, & not any workes foreseéne in him before: to the end, that he might be a president to others of

Gods mercy stretched out towardes them which would beleéue. To be short: if the naturall cause must be throughly searched out: which are the very foundacion of Gods predestinat••on: the Apostle Paule doth knit them vp altogether into iiij chiefe pla∣ces,* 1.623 first GODS POWER: hath not the potter power of the clay. 2. GODS PVRPOSE or GODS GOOD PLEA∣SVRE, for he doth vse both these speaches. 3. GODS WILL.* 1.624 He will haue mercy on whom he will haue mercy, and will harden whom he listeth. 4. GODS MERCY OR LOVE. It is not of hym that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but in God that sheweth mercy. Rom. 9. So y^t you seé playnely that here is no mention made of works at all, but that there be other much more weigh∣tie causes which will deliuer God cleare of all Rashnesse and vn∣aduizednes, though foreseéne workes haue neuer anye place in the counsell of God.

* 1.625I come now to the other argumentes of Osor. For after this sort doth this lumpish logician cauill agaynst Haddon that beautifull blossome of Bucer out of the 2. of Tim. 2.

* 1.626If any man purge himselfe from these he shall be a vessel of honor vnto the Lorde, that is to say, predestinated vnto honour, and sanctified.* 1.627

Euery man is of power of his own Freewill to purge him selfe.

Ergo, Euery man is of power of his owne Freewill to be predestinate, and made a vessell to honour.

The Maior must be vnderstanded, that Paule treated not of the cause of predestination,* 1.628 but of the execution and effect of predestination. Neyther doth the wordes of the Apostle tend to this end, to expresse the cause of predestination but to admonish vs by the effecte of predestination, how weé ought to esteéme of the worthines and vnworthiness of persons in the congregation according to y^e saying of Christ: by the fruites you shall know them &c. Then the Minor is false, for that which they inferre vpon these wordes of Paule, as though it were in the power of our owne will, to make our selues vessels of honour, is not well concluded: for it lyeth not in the will of y^e doer, but of the caller, not in the clay, but in the potter, who is of power to fashion the ••lay, whereunto him listeth: into a vessell of honor or of dishonor.

Furthermore neyther is our abilitie to be decyded by any hypo∣theticall proposition, no more then if a man would conclude vp on thys hipotheticall proposition.* 1.629

If you doe this or that, or if you beleeue you shall bee saued.

Ergo, to do this or that, or to beleue, we are of our selues sufficient inough.

And why then doth the Scriptures vse thys phrase of speech that men purge themselues: if we haue no power of our own selues to purge our selues? forsooth because God doth worke in men, not as in stockes and stoanes, whiche are not mo∣ued of any their own feéling or will. Whē God worketh in men, he doth so temper their mindes and willes whom himself doth regenerate, that they willingly vndertake whatsoeuer they are commaunded. After this mauner therefore are they sayde to to purge themselues by this very will, not whiche is proper and peculiar to their owne nature, but whiche is poured into them by grace. And by this meanes at the length, such as are rege∣nerate, are made afterwardes Gods together workemen: and of their own accord leade a vertuous and holy life. Finally God in his Scriptures commaundeth to purge our selues, when notwithstanding it is he alone that purgeth. So doth he com∣maund the people of Israell by the mouth of his Prophet Mo∣ses to sanctifie themselues,* 1.630 whereas hee witnesseth of himselfe in an other place that it was he that doth sanctifie the people.* 1.631 So also, hee commaundeth vs to beleéue:* 1.632 when as notwithstanding Fayth is the gift of God, and not our owne, nor is the cause of our predestination but the effect.

But let vs proceéde farther to your challenge Osor. wh chal∣lenge you haue vndertakē to iustifie out of y^e depth of Diuinitie:* 1.633 namely that there is nothing in gods eternall electiō but is accōplished vpon certeine conditions of reason and iudge∣ment. And yee suppose that the reason of Election, is not to be sought els where, but from the foreseene workes of the faythfull and reprobate. And that if wee graunt not this, that then ye think that our assertion of predestination cannot be iustified, but that many thinges will ensue there∣upon not onely erroneously false, but also absurde to bee

spoken, & incredible to be beleued. First, because Gods iu∣stice cannot be acquired of iust reproche of parcialitie, nor his mercy (which is retched to all mē indifferently) cleared of vnrighteous dealing. You crye out afterwardes that it is both agaynst right & reason that he should saue a very few in number, and condēne an innumerable company besides to destruction. Moreouer euen in this choyse it selfe, when cōsideration is had, why he should chuse these, and why he should reiect the others, the thyng it selfe doth seeme not to bee cleare of speciall acceptyng of persons, nor of a cer∣teyne extreme crueltie. &c. All which w^t others y^e lyke sithence be but weake sproughtes, budding out of the sauadge woodbyne of the aduersary, & not issues of the true stocke, will be so much the more easily cut of with the Razour and Axe of the truth, and vtterly rooted out with the vnuanquishable force of Gods scrip∣ture.* 1.634 Therfore first: Let vs heare what discourse he maketh of Gods Iustice and mercy against the Lutheranes. For where∣as Luther and all good men of Luthers opinion do professe, that the regarde of merites is directly cōtrary to Gods libertie and power, as touchyng his Election and Predestination. Osorius on the cōtrary part doth enforce all his might possible to proue, that it is not so, vsing these Argumentes especially.

* 1.635Whereas we were all wrapped vp in one brake of perdi∣tion, so that beyng ones defiled with sinne we became all most worthy of euerlastyng destruction, for our naturall ha∣tred agaynst Gods law, engraffed fast within the nature of our bodies subiect to the outrage of lust: God in whō nei∣ther any rashnes not vnrighteousnes can fall, beyng a most iust Iudge towardes all men indifferently, could not of his vnuariable equitie, with singular clemēcy so embrace some, as he must hate others: vnlesse there were some cause or rea∣son to enduce him to extēde his mercy to some, and to ex∣ecute Iudgement agaynst other. But God now doth per∣ceaue the whole cause therof, to consiste in the maner of li∣uing, and workes: not the workes which were already done, but which God foresawe should be done. For what is there that the wisedome of God, in his infinite knowledge doth not comprehende euen as it were present, though the same

be to be done in the vttermost minute of ages? And by this reason, it may be, that God (accordyng to the seuerall con∣ditions of men) did of his clemency, elect them to eternall life, whō he foresawe would be obedient to his Cōmaūde∣mentes: And on the other side did exclude them from the fruitiō of his kyngdome, which he foresaw would vnthank∣fully despise his heauenly benefites. And by this meanes (sayth he) Gods Iustice may right well be defended, all the defence whereof standeth vpon mercy, which otherwise cā not by any meanes deliuered from due reproch.

What a mockery is this?* 1.636 as though if God should follow his owne libertie and will in y^e order of Predestination, without all workes foreseéne before, his Iustice could not stand inuiola∣ble, nor garded safe enough from all slaunder or suspition of vn∣righteousnesse. I demaunde then: what if God out of this huge lumpe hadd chosen no one man at all (whiche he might lawfully haue done if him lysted) what if he had duely Iudged to deser∣ued damnation the whole masse of mankynde, which did altoge∣ther deserue his indignation & wrath? (to speake Augustines wordes) could any man cōdemne him of iniustice.* 1.637 Goe to. May not he that oweth nothyng to any man, of his owne meére libe∣ralitie lawfully exempt vndeserued out of this corrupted & loste masse whō him listeth? or haue mercy on whō he will haue mer∣cy? could not hee indurate and reiect whom he would without respect of meritorious workes followyng, whenas there was matter more then enough ministred by their former desertes, to condemne all to destruction? As for example. Admitte that a mā haue two debtours, whereof the one is indebted vnto him in an exceédyng great summe of money, the other oweth not so much by a great deale: and the bountyfull creditour vouchsafe to for∣geue the greater summe to that first: I pray you, is there any iust cause here, for the other to grudge agaynst the creditour? If he doe, shall not his mouth be forthwith stopped with that aun∣swere of Christ in the Gospell?* 1.638 Is it not lawfull for me to doe as I will with myne owne? is thyne eye euill, bycause I am good? The ve∣ry same doth that place of Paule seéme in my simple capacitie to emply, where treatyng of the Election of the yoūger, and re∣fusall of the elder, and of hardenyng Pharaos hart withall, he

doth annexe immediatly vnto the same, what shall we say then? is God vnrighteous?* 1.639 makyng this Obiection agaynst him selfe as vnder the person of Osorius after this maner.

* 1.640If God did not worke after the proportion of foreseene workes and deseruynges.

Ergo, God may seeme to be vnrighteous in his Election, and should offend against Iustice distributiue.

* 1.641This Argument the Apostle doth forthwith deny, saying: God forbyd, and withall rendreth a reason of his illation nega∣tiue, namely that both propositions bee Iustifiable in God. Both, that God is not vnrighteous. And also that God accordyng to the equitie of his Freewill, doth take mercy on whom he will haue mercye, not in respecte of anye mans deseruynges, but of his owne freé bountyfulnesse, benignitie and mercy. And ther¦fore for the better establishyng of this his defence, he doth forth∣with cite the same wordes that were spoken to Moyses. I will haue compassion on whom I haue compassion, and I will shew mercy to whom I do shew mercy. So that hereby you seé (good Syr) that to the worke of Election and Predestinatiō, the Apostle iudgeth Gods will onelye (though there were no cause els) matter suf∣ficient, to acquite his Iustice freé from all flaunder and reproch: that in my Iudgement now, the defence of Gods Iustice, which you haue placed in Gods mercy, seémeth more aptly applyed to his will.* 1.642 For as he can will nothyng but y^t which is most righ∣teous, so nothyng is truly righteous in deéde, but that whiche proceédeth from the will of GOD. So that now it shall not be neédefull at all to be inquisitiue (accordyng to the coūsell of Au∣gustine) after any other principall causes besides Gods good will,* 1.643 consideryng that no hygher cause can be founde of greater importaunce.

* 1.644But what can be so well spoken, but that some will be founde somewhat scrupulous without cause? & will not in most brightest Sunneshyne seé w^tout a candle? Therfore this cauillyng colco∣uerthwart creépeth yet foreward. If it be true (sayth hee) that Gods Election is directed by his will onely, in allowyng or makyng hardharted whom he will, & that no man cā resist his will: It seemeth then that Pharao and others who of in∣durate contumacy of mynde are wicked, whereas in that

their wickednesse they do execute the will God: that they are not the cause of their owne wickednesse, nor that they can chuse but do the wickednesse, whereunto they are vio∣lently thrust necessitie: If it be so: what iust quarell can God haue then agaynst those (whom him selfe hath made to be stiffenecked). wherefore he should condemne thē? To be short. The substaunce of the Obiection is for the most part knitte vp in this Argument.

If God do harden mens hartes: then should not Pharao be the cause of his owne Sinne,* 1.645 consideryng no man can resist the will of God.

Or to reduce this consequent into a Sillogisme.

No mā hath iust cause to blame him,* 1.646 whom him selfe en∣forceth to offende.

God doth iustly finde fault with sinners.* 1.647

Ergo, God doth compell no mā to sinne, nor doth make them endurate.* 1.648

I do Aunswere.* 1.649 First, euen by the self same Obiections, wh the Apostle vnder the person of the Cauiller did oppose agaynst him selfe: Is there any vnrighteousnesse with God? why doth he yet complayne of man? who is able to resiste his will? It may appeare most euidētly, that Paule was fully resolued there, that as well Election, as reiection, did depend altogether vpon the very will of God, without all mans deseruynges: For otherwise there had bene no place to make this Obiection. For if they onely should be chosen that did deserue, and they likewise should be onely cast away which did not deserue: what reasonable man might mur∣mure at this? when Gods Iustice rewardyng euery man accor∣dyng to his deseruynges, did now leaue no cause to moue man to be offended, nor gaue any stumblyng blocke to the Apostle, to enter in this kynde of Obiection.

But let vs now draw neare to the aunswere of the Apostle it selfe,* 1.650 which seémeth to me to be two maner of wayes. The one in respect of the person: whereby he stoppeth y^e mouth of the mur∣murer. O man, what art thou that pleadest against God? The other in respect of the thyng, whereby he doth expresse the very cause it selfe, perswadyng it by a certeine similitude of the Potter and the clay. For as the Potter in makyng his vessels doth not re∣gard

any desert on the clayes behalfe Euen to Gods purpose in the gouernement of his Election is at libertie, and freé from all respect of workes, and is directed by the onely will of the ma∣ker. And for this cause Paule doth make this comparison be∣twixt this Election of Grace,* 1.651 and the power of the Potter: Doth the thyng formed (sayth Paule) say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? hath not the Potter power ouer the claye to make of the same lumpe one vessell to honour and an other to dis∣honour? And yet GOD hath much more power ouer men then the Potter ouer y^e clay. In deéde y^e Potter hath power to fashion his vessels as him listeth. If God were not able to doe the lyke with his creatures, then were the Potter of more power then God. For the Potter is able to fashion his vessels, yea to breake them and fashion them a new after his own will: And shall God then be bounde to our merites and regulate his Election by the measure of our deseruynges? Take this Argument if it may please you.

* 1.652The power that the Potter hath ouer his vessels, the same pow∣er hath God ouer men.

The Potter is of power to make vesseles to honour, or to disho∣nour, as him listeth, nor is bounde to any worthynesse of the Claye.

Ergo, God is of power to dispose his creatures after the boun¦tie of mercy, or measure of his Iustice as him listeth without all regard of deserte in his Creatures.

* 1.653To this Argument the aduersaries make this aunswere, that they do not take away power from God, and that they are not able so to do, neyther did euer meane anye such thinge, but that onely power, which he putt of from himselfe. And albeit there is nothing that his omnipotēt power cānot bring to passe, yet would he neuerthelesse be no more able, then was be seéming to his Iustice. And because it is horrible to condemne anye man without deserte, by the same reason it standeth not with equitie, to defraude good workes of their due rewarde. And therefore it behoueth Gods Iustice to yelde this of Necessitie, that whom God would haue to be saued, the same he should haue chosen for their good workes foreseéne before, and the Reprobates hee should destroy, for their wickednesse: for otherwise if heé had no

consideration of workes, his Iustice could not be constant, and vnchaungeable. And therefore this Trifler doth conclude vpon the premisses. That the Lutheranes assertion is false, that in the worke of Election and Reiection choyse or respecte of workes, is meerely opposite and cōtrary to the libertie and power of God. &c.* 1.654 But this obiectiō is to be encountred with∣all on this wise. That it is one thing to treate of Election, and an other thing to treate of Gods iudgement. As concerning Gods iudgement it is true, that no man is damned vnlesse heé haue deserued it through wickednes of sinne: and that no man is saued, vnlesse same cause be found in him, which may be impu∣ted vnto him for saluation. But it is not so in Election, and Pre∣destination, which is accomplished by Gods Freewill, without all respecte eyther of former workes, or workes to come after∣wardes. Or els what meaneth the Apostle by speaking of gods freé Election when he sayth Not of works but of him that calleth:* 1.655 Whereupon let vs heare what Augustine wryteth. Saying this, not of Workes (sayth hee) but of him that calleth was spoken, tou∣ching that the Elder shalbe in subiection to the Yonger. For he doth not say of works past: but when he spake generally of workes, in that place hys meaning was as well of workes already done, as of workes that were to be done: to witte workes past: which were none at all and workes to come whiche as yet were not. &c. Workes there∣fore haue both their place and tyme,* 1.656 but in Election they haue neyther place nor tyme, neither is there any thyng effectuall in Election, besides the onely will of God, which neither hangeth vpon Fayth, nor vpon Workes, ne yet vppon promises: but Workes, Fayth, promises, yea and all other thinges whatsoe∣uer do depend vpon Election. Neyther is Gods Election pro∣portioned after the qualitie or quantitie of our workes, but our workes rather directed by his Electiō, none otherwise, then as y^e effectes do depēd vpon y^e cause, & not contrariwise y^e cause vp∣on the effectes. And yet in the meane tyme, God is not vnrigh∣teous. Neither doth GOD therfore offend in Iustice distribu∣tiue, if he haue mercy on whom hee will haue mercy: or if hee doe harden whom he will harden. And why so? because hee oweth no∣thing to any man, for whereas all men are borne by nature the children of wrath altogether, why might not God according to

the purpose of hys will haue mercy on whom he will haue mer∣cy? and agayne cast them awaye, whom him listed? leauing them to their naturall filthe and corruption, to witte: not hauing any compassion vpon them? Wherby all men may throughly per¦ceaue, as well the reprobate, what the cause is that they are rightfully condēned, as the elect also, how much they be indeb∣ted to God for this his so vnmeasurable mearcye.

These matters beyng so cleare your foolish consequent then (whereby you wrestle so much for y^e vpholding of works against y^e Election of Grace,* 1.657 as though if God did not work Electiō for the merite sake of the workes foreseéne, that then his Iustice could not possible beé acquited, nor defēded frōiust accusation of slaunder) is vtterly fonde, faynte, and not worth a rush: for if it were true, then is not Election of Grace: but of workes: yea Paule spake foolishlishly also, saying: that the remnant are sa∣ued according to the Election of Grace, and according to the pur∣pose of the Grace of God,* 1.658 and so should he haue spoken more aptly in thys wise, that the remnaunt were saued according to the E∣lection of workes. And how then shall God be sayd to haue mer∣cy on whom he will haue mercye? and so harden whom hee will harden?* 1.659 if that he will nothing, but that whiche is due of verye right, nor doth receaue any to mercy, vnlesse it appeared that he rewarded them both according to their workes forseéne. But what kinde of duety can that be called, which is freely geuen? or what kinde of mercy is it, whiche is not poured foorth vpon any, but such as do deserue it? If it be of Grace (sayth the Apostle) now is it not then of workes, or els were Grace no more Grace.* 1.660 Whereunto Augustine doth further annexe. Not of workes done already (sayth he) but where the Apostle vseth this generall phrase of speech.* 1.661 Not of works there he doth meane this to be spokē both of workes past, and workes to come &c. Whereof let Osorius beé well aduised lest whiles he immagine in hys mynde vnder the colour of purging Gods Iustice of due reproche, to escape the iutte of a moulehill, he breake hys neck ouer a Rock by putting Gods mercy out of doores: for what place will there be left for mercy? or what office will Osorius assigne vnto her? If Gods Iustice doe measure all thinges by lyne and leuell of hys fore∣knowledge of things to come? For Osorius in this disputation,

of Election,* 1.662 and of the purpose of God, calling backe all things to the foreknowledge of thinges which God doth perceaue will came to passe, Osorius doth not in wordes onely professe, but with the whole bent of his skill practize y^t ouerthrowe of Grace. Goe to. And what be those goodly workes (good Syr) whiche God doth foreseé shal come? If they be good and righteous, what is more agreable to equitie, then that the workes which be good should be worthely embraced and accompted prayse worthye? But if they be euill: that then also they should euen of very right be forsaken? And what shall become of Mercye in the meane space? but that shee sitt mute in a corner with her handes in her bosome, & like a dumbe stocke play mumme budget in Osorius Stage of merites.

But here forthwith will Osorius rayse vp hys Bristles, and merueile it is but that we shall heare him belching out agayne in most beastly braying noyse, Feuers quartanes, tertians, fu∣ries, woodnes, frensies, helhoundes, botches, shamelessnes, and what soeuer outragies els he hath suckt out of the olde tragicall deuises.* 1.663 What (will he say) haue I euer spoken or imagined any thing of Gods mercy otherwise then becommeth me? what kynde of foolehardinesse is this? what vnmeasurable and disorderous kynde of liyeng? Doe I thrust the grace of God out of doores? with what face dare you a••ow this vp∣on me? where? when? in what place? in what phrase of wordes? to whom? in whose presence? in whose hearing? in what booke can ye approue that I euer vttered any such thing? who haue alwayes most reuerently esteemed of the Grace of God, and do yelde euery where so much to Gods mercy, that I haue affirmed that in Gods mercye onely the whole protection of Gods Iustice doth consiste whiche if were not otherwise fortified with the ayde of mercy, could neuer be free from reproche: And how is it that I am so so∣denly accompted a changeling fugitiue, a traytor to Gods grace and a cutthroate of mercy.

I doe heare you well (good Syr) surely these bee smoothe wordes that you speake. But may I be so bolde (by your leaue) as to cyte your owne wordes before the Inquisition, and to rack the same after the maner of an Inquisitour, to seé, whether ye

approue the same man in deéde, which you so boldly pronoūce to be in wordes: you say that ye diminish not so much as the value of a myte of Gods grace, and that you doe not so exclude Gods mercy out of doores: but that ye rather cōclude all things vnder her, as vnder the most especiall: and onely fortresse of all other. Goe to then. Let vs take a taste both of your selfe and your do∣ctrine. And forasmuch as there be iiij. thinges, in the whiche all our saluation and doctrine is chiefly conteyned.* 1.664 Namely E∣lection, Vocation, Iustification, & the Glory of immortali∣tie: forasmuch also as the whole purporte of the sacred Scrip∣tures and the generall profession of Christian doctrine do con∣sent in this one thing, aboue all others: that the whole hope and confidence of our Saluation consisteth in no one thing els, but in the onely mercy of God promised vnto vs: in all these now would I fayne learne how much Osorius wisedome doth yeald vnto mercy whiles he ascribeth so much to Gods Iustice.

* 1.665First as touching Election and Predestination: if workes foreknowne do beare the whole sway here, and that Gods Elec∣tion falleth vppon no man, but whose whole course of lyfe be∣ing knowne before, hath made not vnworthy of this honorable dignitie of Election, what place I pray you then, is left here for mercy? seéing this whole worke of Election seémeth to be a∣scribed to Iustice rather? For as Iustice vouchsaffeth none but the good, and such as deserue it, euen so Grace and mercy doe relieue none for the more part, but abiectes, outcastes, & such as are altogether vnworthy therof.

* 1.666Moreouer as concernyng Vocatiō, and Cōuersiō: if the ha∣bilitie of mans Freewill be such (accordyng to this new Maister Doctour) that it may not onely worke together with God, but may also as well preuent the grace of God, by some good motiō, as follow it: and that Grace is none otherwise either offred vn∣to vs, vnlesse we put forth our willes thereunto before, or that it is not otherwise effectuall in vs, but whiles we stand fast to our tacklyng, and hold fast the helpe, offred vnto vs, yea and en∣crease it with our owne strength: and that no man is holpen of GOD, but who that both willyng, hopyng, and prayeng, doth make him selfe apte thereunto: truly, whosoeuer teach this doc∣trine, let them set neuer so glorious a face towardes the bla∣zyng

of mercy in wordes, yet in very deéde they be nothyng els but very Rebelles to Gods Grace: or at the least manglers and spoylers of the best part and power of Gods Grace, whiles they attribute part to grace, and part to Nature.

The same is also to be adiudged of the worke of Iustifica∣tion from the whiche though you seème not to exclude the Free∣mercy of God altogether,* 1.667 yet doe you gelde the most forrible partes therof surely, and yeld them ouer to workes flowyng frō out the foūteyne of Freewill: wherein also you make such a myn∣gle mangle, that ye will neither graunt onely fayth in the worke of Iustification, nor onely Grace on the worke of Election by any meanes.

Lastly, what shall we say of the reward of Glory?* 1.668 for if our workes, beyng wayed in the righteous ballaunces of Gods Iudgement, shall procure vs lyfe or death (as Osorius writeth. Pag. 145.) Agayne if the righteousnesse onely, which consisteth of well doyng, doth purchase Gods fauour to mankynde. Pag. 142. What soppe I pray you shalbe left for mercy here to deale withall? or what shall remayne at all wherein the Grace of God may be exercized?

If these be not your owne wordes Osorius deny them,* 1.669 if you dare: but if they be: with what artificiall Argumēt will you per∣suade vs not to accōpt you for an enemy of Gods grace, whiles ye sight so much vnder the banner of his Iustice? Yet will not I be so captious a cōptoller of your wordes, as to call you by the name of an enemy of Grace: though in very deéde I dare scarse∣ly thinke you, to be in any respect a sownde frende thereunto: he∣therto veryly as yet haue you declared your selfe no better. And the same euen your owne writings do more then sufficiently de∣nounce agaynst you: in y^t which it is a wonder to seé, how lauish & prodigall you be in the aduauncyng of the prayses of Iustice, for the amplyfieng whereof you can scarse finde any end: but in the meane tyme towardes the commendation of Mercy so spa∣ryng a niggard, and hardelaced, that ye seéme either not to con∣ceaue of the wonderfully Maiestie therof sufficiētly, or els very vngratefully not to be acquainted therewith: sauyng that ye be∣gyn now at the lēgth, to preach somewhat of the excellency ther∣of also,* 1.670 takyng occasion of these wordes of Paule: What shall we

say then? Is there vnrighteousnesse with God? God forbid: for he sayth to Moyses. I will haue mercy on him, to whom I do shew mer∣cy, and I will haue compassion on him, on whom I haue compassion. In y^t which place (say you) Paule doth render a Reason,* 1.671 Wher∣fore no man cā by any meanes accuse God of vnrighteous∣nesse: And doe annexe hereunto a conclusion agreable enough to your defence. For the defence of Iustice (say you) cōsisteth wholy in mercy. And agayne. But the mercy of God doth acquite his Iustice free from all reproche. Whiche reason of yours Osori. although perhaps might be allowed in some res∣pect: yet doth it not exactly and substauncially enough discusse y^e naturall meanyng of the Apostle, nor sufficiently aūswere the A∣postles question. Which will euidently and playnly appeare ei∣ther by the Apostle him selfe, or by Augustine the Expositour of the Apostle: if we will first note before, the marke, and state of the question diligently and truely.

The scope wherof Augustine affirmeth to be this. That the Apostle may lay open before vs, that the Grace of fayth ought to be preferred before workes, not to the end he might seéme to abolish workes, but to shew that workes do not goe before, but follow grace:* 1.672 and to make the same more apparaunt, he alled∣geth amongest others, the example of Iacob, & Esau: Who be∣yng not as yet borne into the world, hauyng done nothyng wor∣thy either to be fauored or to be hated, but that equabilitie of e∣state had made eche of them equall with the other, and betwixt whō was no difference of natures, or deseruyngs, which might procure aduaūcement of the one, before the other: Finally when∣as by orderly course of byrthe, and right of first byrthe, the elder might haue challenged the prerogatiue of honour before the younger:* 1.673 Almighty God vsing here his vnsearcheable Electiō, did make this difference betwixt them (whereas was no diffe∣rence of workes or merites) as that for sakyng Esau, (who by no merite after the rule of Iustice had deserued to bee reiected) he gaue the preheminēce to the younger: turnyng the common or∣der of nature vpsidowne, as it were, that whereas the younger are wont to be subiect to the elder, now, contrary to kynde, the elder should become seruaunt to the younger. Whereupon whē the Apostle sawe, what scrupule might arise in the imagination

of the hearer or Reader therof: he putteth a question vnder the person of one y^t might argue agaynst it: whether God had done any thyng herein agaynst equitie and right? or any thyng that he could not iustifie accordyng to Iustice distributiue? whereun∣to him selfe aunsweryng immediately, doth with wonderfull vehemency detest that slaunderous cauill, and withall acquiteth God freé from all accusation and suspition of vnrighteousnes, & this not w^tout lawfull authoritie of the Scripture, What (sayth he) do we not read spokē vnto Moyses on this wise? I will haue mer∣cy on whō I do take mercy, and I will haue cōpassion on whō I haue compassion? Besides this also, addyng forthwith the example of Pharao, he doth conclude at the length on this wise. Therfore he hath mercy, on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

But if our captious accuser will yet persiste in his obstina∣cie, as though it sufficed not for God to do what it pleased him: he doth cōfute him with a most manifest Argument of lyke com∣parison on this wise. The Potter fashionyng his vesselles either vnto honour, or to dishonour, or to what purpose seémeth him best, doth not offend at all. And shall it be lesse lawfull or God, to shew his power vpon his owne creatures, then for the Potter vpon his Chalke or Clay? Therfore whether God be willyng to haue mercy, or to indurate any man, he doth nothyng herein, but that which is most lawfull and most agreable with equitie.

You perceaue therfore Gods Iustice sufficiently enough de∣sended I suppose: which in all his workes ought by good right be mightly defēded. But how it is defēded, is now to be seéen. O∣sorius vrgeth stoughtly that Gods Iustice standeth not other∣wise to be defended but onely in respect of his Mercy:* 1.674 which al∣beit might be graunted after a sorte, yet is not altogether sim∣ply and absolutely true, and the reason therof is pyked out of O∣sorius credite rather, then out of any Argument of S. Paule. Whereas Paule seémeth to referre all this whole defence of Iu∣stice not to mercy, but to onely will of God, Saying God taketh mercy on whom he will, and hardeneth whom he will. Albeit I will not in the meane whiles deny, but that the Election of the fayth∣full doth consist vpon mercy alone, yet surely the defense of Ele∣ction is not vpholden, but through the will of God onely. Like∣wise also albeit the castyng away of the Reprobates do proceéde

from the onely Iustice of God, yet will no man say, that the de∣fence of this reiection consisteth in Mercy, but in the onely will of God. And therfore it is the onely will of God, which doth de∣fende Mercy in Election, and Iustice in reiection. For other∣wise how could this come to passe, that the onely Mercy of God should defēd his Iustice either in the Reprobate? (in whō scarse one sparckle of Mercy is discernable) or els in the Predestina∣tion of the faithfull, wherein appeareth no execution of Iustice? therfore what is it then, that may defend Iustice in these, & Mer∣cy in those other, but onely the purpose of Gods will onely? wherof S. Paule maketh mention: God taketh mercy (sayth he) on whom he taketh mercy, and hardeneth whom he will harden. As who neither reiecteth of Mercy, nor yet taketh cōpassion of Iu∣stice: but executeth both, accordyng to the absolute good pleasure of his will.

* 1.675Let vs make this more manifest by exāples. Whenas God is sayd to hate Esau, & to loue Iacob, beyng not yet borne: both which had done as yet nothyng worthy to be loued, or to be ha∣ted: what kynde of mercy can you shew in the hatred of that one, whiche may defende his Iustice? or what kynde of Iustice in the loue of the other, which Mercy (as you say) may deliuer cleare from all reproche? It followeth hereupon therefore, that the whole defence of Iustice consisteth not in mercy alone, but that the onely will of God rather doth acquite, not onely the mercy of God, but his Iustice also withall, frō all accusatiō of vnrigh∣teous dealyng.

* 1.676Be the same spoken likewise touchyng the hardenyng of the hart of Pharao. Which beyng decreéd vpon in the secrete coun∣sell of God, long before any droppe of mercy was extended vn∣to him: how then doe you referre y^e Iustice of his induration, to Mercy onely? But you will say:

God did call Pharao to fayth and obedience:* 1.677 but when as he did despite that so great bountie, and lyke a wilde Colte would licentiously raunge out of all order, it was agreable not onely with Gods seue∣ritie, but with his mercy also to scourge him with most iuste plagues accordyng to his deserte, that so by his exāple, o∣thersmight be reclaymed to do their duety.

I do know y^e sū∣dry singular Presidentes of Gods clemency and callyng were

ministred vnto him in deéde, but as all those tokens of Mercye be outward meanes,* 1.678 which God vseth in the outward calling of men, so the same do appertayne to calling onely, and touch E∣lection and Reiection nothing at all: nor do in this respect ex∣presse any defence of his Iustice: for to admit that the hardning of Pharao, and the casting away of Esau did happen most righ∣teously: yet this Iustice is not therefore defended agaynst the quarelling aduersary, because they did abuse the lemty of God afterwardes: And why so? because they were first reiected from God, before any Mercy (which they did abuse) was powred out vpō thē. And these things thus alleadged by me, doo not tend to this end, as though I were of opinion, that this Iustice of their reiectiō were boyd of all defēce: for it hath her certeine peculiar & most iust defence:* 1.679 but not that wherof Osorius doth dreame. If we seéke for the right defence of Gods Iustice: what can beé more Iust the Gods will? which apperteining to God, as hys owne properly, and effectually (as the Deuines do tearme it) can do nothing of her owne nature, but that which standeth with equitie and Iustice, neither standeth in neéde of an other defence. For what soeuer God doth decreé vpon, though it be neuer so farre hidde from our vnderstanding, yet is it of it self defensible and absolutely perfect enough. And therfore S. Paule seéketh no place of refuge els where agaynst the most terrible assaults of the aduersary, then the will of God: which he accompteth the strongest & surest fort of defence. Where he sayth,

God taketh mercy on whom he hath mercye, and will ha••den whom he will.

* 1.680He doth not say he doth harden that person on whom he taketh no mercy: but he doth harden whom he will. And agayne he that hath predestinated vs through Iesus Christ according to the pur∣pose of his will: He sayth not of his Iustice. Ephes. 1. hauīg in deéd no one thing of greater maiestie to alleadge for, hys defence a∣gaynst the aduersary, then the onely will of God, & wherewith a∣lone the Aduersary might be throughly satisfied.

But Osorius will take exception,* 1.681 and say that this will ought to be vpright and agreable to it selfe. Who is eyther ignoraunt hereof? or who can deny thys? But I demaund like∣wise of Osorius: whereas weé confesse that this will is moste righteous, and lawfull, whether in Reiection, Mercy, do suffi∣ciently

acquite this Iustice of Gods will, agaynst the quarel∣ling Cauiller? or Gods will rather. As for example. If a vayne babling Sophister or some capciouse busibody do demaund of you what the cause should be that Esau was forsaken without all desert of euill fact committed? and why also Paraoes hart was hardened, before that Moses was sent vnto him? why the eares of the Iewes were stopped that they might not heare, before the Prophet opened his mouth vnto them? All which thinges considering you cannot deny were wrought by Gods most righ∣teous Iustice, by what meanes will you defēd his Iustice here∣in? you will say perhaps, that God did therefore forsake, and cast them off, because he forknew by their wickednes that would ensue, what they should work in after tyme. But he will tell you here: that this proceéded not here of Mercye, but of Iustice wh doth rēder to euery man according to his desert: so that now the defence of Iustice may not seeme to depend vpon mercy by this meanes,* 1.682 but vpon Iustice it selfe? Not so (say you) but I do af∣firme that the defence of Iustice hangeth wholy vpō mercy which will acquite it cleare from all Reproche. I do see what you do affirme, but I do not seé yet how this will stop the mouth of the cauiller: for in this wise will this wrangler replye (if so be that God were pleased with Iacob, of his owne meere mercy, how could it be then that he should be displeased with Esau, by meane of the same mercy? for it hys wickednes that was yet to come, were layd vnto his charge, then did this reiection now be∣long to hys Iustice, not to his mercy? but if the same hys offen∣ces not yet done were pardoned through mercy: by what meanes then is he sayd to be reiected?

Certes how this manner of defence delighteth you Osorius, I know not: sure I am that S. Paule tooke a farre other manner of course, treating of Induration and reiection, alleadging none other argument in the defence of Gods Iustice against the Aduersary, then the onely decreé of Gods deuyne will: what art thou o man (sayth he) that doest contend agaynst God? Doest thou not heare the Lord himselfe declaring the reason of his Election in the propheticall scriptures? I will haue mercy on whom I haue mercy. And to make the same more euident S. Paule debateth the matter after this manner. Therefore (sayth he) God doth take

mercy on whom he taketh mercy, & doth hardē whom he will hardē: As though he might say, God in choosing or refusing hys own creatures, is tyed to no Necessitie, neyther is there any law to y^e contrary, but y^t he may according to his good pleasure, do ther∣in what himself liketh & lusteth. If he dochoose thee, y^u hast great cause to be thākfull vnto him for it, If he cast theé of, y^u hast no iust cause to quarrell w^t hym therfore: for he doth y^t no wrong. Thy God he is, & thy potter, what art y^u to cōtend w^t him? a weake man w^t thy most mighty God: a lump of clay with y^e potter: for this is the effect of your Argumēt.* 1.683 Surely God willeth nothing that he willeth without most iust and righteous reason: but in such sort, that this very will cannot seeme to proceede from any els where, or otherwise be defended in the order of pre¦destination, but of works foreseene, and of the foreknowne well vsing of good giftes, as the schoolemen do say.

Which saying how false and friuolous it is, shalbe declared both out of Augustine, and more notably out of S. Paule,* 1.684 for these are the wordes of Augustine discoursing vpon Esau, If so be (sayth Augustine) that God did therefore predestinate Esau to become vassall to his younger brother. because he did foreknowe that he would worke wickednes, then did he also predestinate Ia∣cob to become Lord of his elder brother because he did foreknow taht his works would proue good. And therfore the saying of the A∣postles is false. Not of works &c. And imediatly after enterlacing many other thinges betweene. If you will once graunt (quoth he) that a man may be chosen or refused, for the thing that as yet was not in him, but because God did foresee what would be in him, it fol¦loweth hereupon that he might haue been chosen for the worthines of his workes which God foresaw would be in him, though as yet he had done nothing, and this saying, that they were not yet borne, will not preuayle thee at all, where it was spoken, And the elder shall serue the younger: to declare hereby that it was sayde, Not of workes because as yet he had wrought nothing at all. &c. But to let passe August. Let vs heare what Paule himselfe speaketh. Who debating very largely vpon this poynt of Predestination, doth amongst other at the last breake out into this speach, tou∣ching the same.* 1.685 If God willing on the one side to shewe his wrath, and to make his power knowen hath with great sufferaunce and le∣nity

borne with the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction, and on the other side do make knowne the riches of his glory towardes the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared to glory. &c. Let vs more exactly ponder the wordes of the Apostle,* 1.686 where he sayth, that God was willing, therein you heare first that God doth will, and withall, the cause and reason why he willeth, ye perceiue expre∣sly set downe afterwardes. But he is sayd to will wrath, y^t is to say, willing to shew the seueritie of his Iustice: Where I pray you? or towardes whom? what? towardes all creatures indifferent∣ly? Certes this might he haue done according to his Iustice: but this would he not do for his mercy sake. Towards whom thē? Towardes the vessells of wrath prepared vnto destruction. Where you heare the name of a Vessell, you doe withall conceaue a Potter, bycause no vessells are made without the Potter. More∣ouer where this worde Prepared is annexed, thereby forthwith commeth to remembraunce the will of the Potter not the will of the thyng fashioned. For it standeth not in the power of the port it selfe, to fashion and forme it selfe after it owne will, but the fa∣shioning therof resteth in the will and purpose of the Potter. For if any sense or feélyng at all were in earthen vessells, would any vessell fashion it selfe into a vessell of dishonour? if it had power to fashion it selfe by any meanes into a vessell of houour? where∣upon it followeth consequently, that the order and disposition of fashionyng, resteth wholy in the will of the Potter, and not in the will of the vessell.

Now therfore as concernyng the will of the Potter, left any mā shall thinke that his will is vnaduised, nor directed by equi∣tie and reason: The Apostle doth forthwith set downe the cause, therewith the mouth of the slaunderous backbyter may be stop∣ped. To shew (sayth he) the riches of his glory towardes the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared vnto glory. &c. He doth not say: bycause God foresaw the good workes of the godly, and the euill doynges of the wicked, that these were therfore ordeyned to dā∣nation, those other chosen to saluation: but hee sayth, that those are prepared to destruction, whom he would haue to be vessells of wrath, & the others to glory. And yet this notw^tstandyng nei∣ther vnaduisedly, nor contrary to equitie. Wherein if any man be desirous to know y^e reason, or the Iustice of God in his prede∣stination,

let him heare Augustine herein. The whole masse of mankinde was subiect (sayth he) to one state of perdition rightly de∣seruyng the scourge of Gods Iustice:* 1.687 which whether be executed, or pardoned, proceedeth not of any vnrighteousnesse in God. Now it pleased Gods good will of his mercy to make a choyse of some of these, and to relinquish other accordyng to his Iustice. If you re∣quire a reason hereof, the Apostle doth not hyde it from you: To make knowen (sayth he) the riches of his glory towardes the vesselles of mercy, which he hath prepared vnto Glory. &c. Wherein the principall and first cause of doyng, is ioyned toge∣ther with the last end therof. In the meane space many meanes are enterlaced betwixt these two. For euen as the will of God doth not otherwise preferre his elect to the honour of glory, but as it were through many tribulations, so neither doth he exe∣cute the seueritie of his Iudgement agaynst the Reprobate by & by,* 1.688 but by long sufferaūce, much lenitie and tolleration of their wickednesse. But as the afflictions of the elect is not the cause of their saluation, so neither the lenitie and long sufferaunce of the wicked, is the principall cause that moueth God to exercize the seueritie of his Iustice agaynst them. And therfore are they called Vessells: the one sorte vessells of wrath, the other vessels of mercy prepared either to destruction, or to saluatiō first, and before either God did with patience endure the wickednesse of the one, or with tribulations exercize the Fayth of the other.

To conclude therfore in few wordes briefly: I come agayne to the Argument that was proposed, which albeit he choppeth together without all order of teachyng: yet in my conceite, a mā may briefly reduce it into this forme. For out of these wordes of Paule, wherewith God is sayd to haue borne with the vessels of wrath in much lenitie, Osorius doth gather his cutted Sil∣logisine with a wonderfull dexteritie of witte.

Gods deuine Iustice did scourge none,* 1.689 but such as with much lenitie he did beare withall first.

Neither are any destitute of Gods mercy, but such as for∣sake it beyng offred. [unspec 1]

Finally saluation and the mercy of GOD is extended [unspec 2] vnto all persones, but vnto such as will not them selues be saued. [unspec 3]

[unspec 1] The defence of Iustice consisteth wholy in mercy.

[unspec 2] And onely mercy doth acquite Gods Iustice from all re∣proche.

[unspec 3] Neither doth any man perishe but beyng condēned for his owne treachery and wickednesse.

* 1.690To aūswere in one word. If this suttle Sophister do meane heare of Iudgement, or of execution of condemnation, I will graunt him his whole consequence. For who did euer deny this, but that God doth exercise his lenitie towardes the most abho∣minable rascalles, yea long and very much, & in much patience doth allure them to repentaūce? and agayne y^t no man is dam∣ned but who that perisheth through his own default, without all vnrighteousnesse in God? But if he meane of the cause of Prede∣stination: We deny his antecedent. For whereas that most sa∣cred purpose of the Deuine Predestination, and Reprobation, doth issue and spryng from out the onely will of God, beyng in deéde most vnsearcheable, yet most righteous: And whereas al∣so men are first fashioned in the same will, as in Gods worke∣shop, to be either vesselles of wrath, or vesselles of mercy, before that any lenitie or mercy doe appeare to be extended towardes any of them from God, by what meanes then will Osorius af∣firme That the defence of Iustice cōsisteth wholy in mercy, and that there be no vesselles of wrath, but such as will not be vesselles of mercy?* 1.691 Or how will he charge Luther w^t accu∣sing God of vnrighteousnesse? who by all meanes possible doth continually enforce with August. that there is nothyng in God, but that is most righteous, though it appeare vnto our capaci∣ties neuer so much past all findyng out. Nay rather why should not Osorius bee duly reproched for this matter? whose whole bent enforceth nothyng ells, but that Gods Iustice can by no meanes ells be defended, but by the workes of men knowen be∣fore? which how voyde is of all truth, we haue already declared, both out of S. Paule, and out of Augustine, sufficiētly enough, as I suppose: That in the meane tyme I slippe not ouer by the way that other saying of Paule, where makyng mention of veselles, he doth not say, y^t they were fitte or meéte vesselles, but vesselles formed not ready or apt vesselles, but vesselles prepared

and fashioned either to dishonour or to honour. Whereby you may perceaue that this whole action cōsisteth not in any y^e workemā∣shyp of the Potter, nor in the good or euill vsage of Gods gifts, but onely, and wholy, in the secret purpose & will of the maker.

But Osorius doth deny this that God did fashiō any ves∣selles vnto destructiō.* 1.692 How shall we know this to be true? For∣sooth by the wordes of the Apostle. For hee doth not say the vesselles which God him selfe did forme vnto destruction, as he spake a litle afterwardes of the vessels of mercy which he prepared vnto Glory. Goe to. And what mystery I pray you pyke you out of this? Forsooth, that ye may vnderstand that godly mē are predestinated to glory through the will and mercy of God, and that wicked mē euery one through his owne voluntary default are throwen out into condem∣nation. &c. I heare you Osorius. And I do aūswere, that this is true in deéde that you Reply, that no man perisheth at all, but who so perisheth by his owne procurement and default. But what is this to y^e purpose? Sithēce Paule in this place doth not treate of the executiō of punishment, but raysing him selfe farre hygher, debateth vpon the very cause & end of Predestination & Reprobatiō. Now as concernyng the execution of condēnation & condemnatiō it selfe, if we search for the cause therof. Sure∣ly the same is neither one nor alone: but in sundry and diuerse respectes. If you require the inward cause, and whiche in deéde is peculiarely to bee assigned in man: it is Sinne: If you re∣quire the outward cause, in respect that it is the punishment of Sinne, the cause of the destruction of Sinne, is Gods Iustice. You will say then, what? will you make GOD the cause of destruction and condemnation? Yea surely good Syr, in that sense that I spake before. For why not as well, as when the murtherer his hanged, if you respect the outward cause of his death, ye will not deny, but the Iudge was cause therof, but if ye behold the inward cause, he that is executed (being guilty of his owne fact) can charge no man with his death but him selfe.* 1.693 But you will say, although the Iudge doe punishe the malefa∣ctor, yet did he neuer so forme the malefactour to the end he should be hanged. And no maruell. For he doth occupy the place of a Iudge onely, who hath no other authoritie at all a∣gaynst

any such person, vnlesse he haue committed some offence worthy of Iudgement, for he is but a Iudge, he is not a Crea∣tour. But the matter fareth farre otherwise in the most sacred Maiestie of God,* 1.694 who hath absolute and full power ouer his creatures, not onely to punishe, after they haue committed of∣fence, in the nature of a Iudge: but also to determine vpon his creatures, before any their deseruynges, what him pleaseth in the nature of a Creatour, to frame them to dishonour, or to call them to honour as him lysteth. Therfore as he is a Iudge, he doth punish Sinners in deéde: but as he is a Creatour, he doth fashion his Creatures according to his will, euen as the Potter doth fashion his Pottes. And to this effect tend those wordes of Paule If God willing to shew forth hys wrath, and to make knowne hys power towardes the vessels of wrath. &c.* 1.695 But you will say GOD hath not fashioned vessels of wrath: nor hath for∣med any person vnto destruction. Why then let vs likewise imagine that y^e Potter doth not make some Uessels to dishonor, but all to honor rather. But sithence that all Uessels are not fra∣med by the handes of the Crastesman to beauty and dignitie, but some applyed, and made to serue for more base and vyle v∣ses, according to the testimony of Paule•• By what meanes then will the similitude alleadged be aptly applyed to God, to witte, if that God may not do towardes hys Creatures the same that the Potter doth to hys Vessels? But now will you heare this Argu∣ment finely contriued with a merueilous nimblenes of witte?

* 1.696Paule doth not say: the Vessels which he fashioned vn∣to destruction, as he doth in the same place speake of the Vessels of mercy, which he did prepare vnto glory.

Ergo, It may be vnderstanded thereby, that wicked men are not throwne into destruction by Gods will, but for their owne wickednes.

* 1.697As though both might not be graunted together namely: y^t wicked men are throwen into destructiō by Gods will, & yet ne∣uertheles not without their owne desert? But the name of God (say you) is not expressed in this place. And why so? because the Apostle speaking of the vessels of wrathe, doth say that they were fashioned vnto destructiō, but doth not say, that God did fashion thē vnto destruction. Surely here is a very

niece pointe of descāt: Go to, Admit this also that gods name is not expressed, yet haue ye not taught vs y^t it is not vnderstanded here. No, (say you) for so much as nothing could more varie from the minde of the Apostle,* 1.698 nor be more repugnaunt to the most milde nature of God, then to conceaue, that God should hymselfe frame vessels vnto dishonor, seyng that no man runneth headlong into ruine: but through hys owne voluntary blindenes. And who did euer deny this? yet doth this nothing more exclude the will of God, from fashioning his ves∣sels as him listeth: As on the other side neither doth the will of God receaue vnto mercy those, that haue offended: so that no∣thing withstādeth now, why the vessels of wrath should be lesse deémed to be fashioned vnto destruction, by the will of God, and withall that themselues also do procure to themselues their own destruction, But why did not Paule (say you) set downe thys matter in expresse wordes? which God himselfe did forme vnto destruction: whiche he would surely haue done, if he had thought that God had bene the Authour of destruction. Truely I will aske you a question in as few wordes Osorius, why the Apostle did choose rather to say, (Vessels Fashioned to destructiō) then leauing out the word Fashioned, to say Vessels of destruction? for this would haue accorded farre fitter with your exposition, if so be that he thought that the Vessels did pe∣rish without the will of God. Agayne, why did he call them Ves∣sels, and not? creatures rather? why did he annexe this supply, to witte, Wrath? finally why did he bring in God himself willing to shew forth hys wrath agaynst the Vessels of wrath? but that you should vnderstand that all those circumstances are to be redu∣ced to the most sacred will of God, euen as to the working hand of the Potter. For first as I sayd before when you heare this word Vessels thereby you vnderstād the Potter: Secōdly when you heare this word Fashioned,* 1.699 therein the hand of the Artifi∣cer is cōceaued: Thirdly when you heare Fashioned vnto destru∣ction therin appeareth the certeinty of Gods will in his Prede∣stination. Whereas the Vessels do perish, it is their own fault, but where it is sayd that they are Fashioned thereunto, this sure∣ly is not proper to the Vesselles, but doth note a certayne o∣ther hygher cause, and a more playne, demonstration of the cre∣ator

for Vessels are not wont to bee Fashioned of any, but of the craftesman, as I suppose: what man is so madde to say that Vessels made, are made of themselues? namely to their owne dishonor, and not formed thereunto by the workman rather: and I maruell greatly that Osorius hauing any sense or feéling in him at all, cannot quickly conceaue the meaning of the Apostle, eyther by the comparyng of the text together, or by the maner and order of speéch: namely sith the matter it selfe doth so di∣sclose so many manifest reasons to discusse the doubtfull signifi∣cation of the wordes.

* 1.700First, you will not deny but that this will of God, wherewith he had decreéd both to shew hys wrath (that is to say the seueri∣ty of his Iustice) and his mercy also, was euen from the begin∣ning. This will then beyng once determined vpon by God, could neyther by any meanes be made of none effect, nor againe by any meanes made discernable, vnles it were poured out vp∣on some matter,* 1.701 whereupon it might worke. And euen here doth that wonderfull Electiō of God display it selfe at the first, wherewith (before the foundations of the world were layd) he had predestinated them whom he would should be saued, and re∣iected thē whō he would haue dāned. Next vnto this Election, immediately ensued the Creation:* 1.702 wherewith the almighty Creator with a most singuler excellency, and exquisit work∣manship did forme all vessels out of one selfe lump of Clay, and yet not those all ingenerall appoynted to one ende. For some vessels he made to serue to shew forth hys mercy,* 1.703 some other to shew forth his Iustice. These things being thus established, im∣mediately after Creation ensueth Vocation or Callyng: & the same two maner of wayes: accordyng to hys purpose, and not according to his purpose:* 1.704 wherof the one is lynked with Grace making acceptable: the other is voyde of Grace: though not al∣together, yet destitute of effectuall Grace. And hereupon doe issue Blindenesse, Rebellion, Hardenesse of hart, Infidelitie, Breache of the Law, Execution of Iustice, not by force of any coaction, but by reason of the sequele or consequent. For y^e grace of God once denying assistance, what soeuer remayneth in man is nought els, but the seéde of the Serpent, or some vncurable Fistula, wherewith man is deadly poysoned. Agayne out of the

other Vocatiō, which is according to purpose, springeth Fayth a will to obey, forgeuenes of Sinne, Iustification:* 1.705 and such like inestimable treasures: not ensealed into vs by nature, but frāck∣ly geuen vs from aboue. Now out of that Infidelitie, and exe∣cution of Iustice, ariseth the destruction of the Reprobate: of the which Paule treateth here, which is not without the speciall will of God, Or els in what sense doth he say, God was willing to shew his wrath? and yet not without their most due deseruing nei¦ther: as on the other side Saluation and Glorification do spring of Fayth & Iustification, for asmuch as in them, the cōmendatiō of his Iustice, in y^e other, y^e dignite of hys mercy doth shew forth their bright beames to y^e inestimable glory of gods maiesty,* 1.706 who is the chief and principall ende and foundation of all workes.

Wherefore forasmuch as God was willing to shew both, as well hys wrath, as also hys mercy: and this hys will could by no meanes be accōplished, vnlesse there were some vpō whom, both hys wrathe, and hys mercy might make hys power on eche part discernable: hereupon then is no small stoare of proofe mi∣nistred, wherby may be perceaued, from whence aswell the de∣struction of the reprobate, as the Saluation of the elect doth proceéde. And first of all your selfe do not deny, that godly per∣sons are predestinated vnto glory through the onely bountiful∣nes of God. I demaunde now whether thys selfe same mercy of God haue predestinated to glory all creatures generally, or not all? I attend your aunswere. If you will say all without excep∣tion, where then are the vessels of wrath? what shalbe come of this saying. God willing to shew hys wrath vpon the Vessels ordey∣ned to destruction? Finally what shalbe thought of that saying of Christ? Many are called but few are chosen. If so be that all are receaued by a generall Electiō: how can this Election be made frustrate and vneffectuall? or what kinde of Reiection can there be then? But if you will not say all, it followeth then, that there must bee some Uessells of reiection of Necessitie, as well as of mercy: to witte: by like agreablenesse of contraries. Or els how shall a man vnderstand that some vessels are Predestinate to Glory? vnlesse by the same Argument ye confesse that some vessels were also reiected to dishonor, which beyng agreé vpon I demaund further, of the reprobation of them that are forsa∣ken,

whether do ye think that the same proceéded from the secret purpose of God: or of themselues? if from thē selues? how shall thys appeare? for asmuch as Election, and Reprobation also, are not seperated by any distinction of the Creator, or distaunce of tyme, and were both together before the foundacions of the world were layed: as appeareth most manifestly by the exam∣ples of Iacob and Esau, and sundry other semblable examples.

* 1.707But Osorius will coyne vs here some straunge Oracle, to witte. That GOD dyd create the nature of the vessels in deede, but not the very vessels of wrath, as whiche tooke their originall from Sinne and infidelity, and not from God the Creatour. And who did euer deny this to be true? Goe to. What monster doe these great bellyed hilles Calue out at the length? Forsooth a very wonderfull conclusion.

God did not create wickednesse.

Ergo, He did not not forme the vessels of wrath.

But that this creéppled curtoll of Osorius may stād vpright: vpō his legges let vs helpe here Osor. haltyng Logicke once a∣gayne. For in this wise shall it be able to craule vpon his feéte.

* 1.708Onely wickednesse brought to passe that they become vessels of wrath.

God did not create wickednesse.

Ergo, GOD doth not create vessels of wrath, but euery one maketh him selfe a vessell of wrath thorough hys owne wicked will, by cause he would not be made the vessell of Mercy.

* 1.709First, the Maior is not to be graunted simply and absolute∣ly. For if this must be yelded vnto for a truth, that onely wic∣kednesse doth make the vessels of wrath, why should not this al∣so be taken for matter confessed, vpon equall relation of contra∣ries? to witte, that vertue onely doth make the vessels of mercy, and withall that it consisteth in the habilitie and power of euery good body, that will not be a vessell of dishonour, to become a ves∣sell of honour.

Moreouer where it is sayd that wickednesse doth make the vessels of wrath, is not agreable with the truth. Dauid did com∣mitt agaynst his owne soule not one wickednesse alone: no more was Saule beyng a persecutour cleare of his proper wickednes

also, yet the same Dauid (notwithstādyng his wickednesse) was a vessell of Election.* 1.710 Be the same spoken of Mary Magdalene, of the theéfe: finally of many of Gods Elect, whose horriblenes of Sinne did not make thē vessels of wrath notwithstandyng.

Besides this also, if it be true that Osorius speaketh: That wicked men do not make them selues vessels of wrath, but through their owne will and wickednesse. Tell vs a good fel∣loshyp, what offence hadd Esau committed beyng the vessell of wrath, not by any action of lyfe, but beyng borne euen so by na∣ture? Be the lyke spoken of Ismaell: Cain the māquelier became worthely abhominable in the sight of God, by the murther of his owne brother: but before this murther committed, and before a∣ny priuy grudge conceaued, what had he done when in his first oblation, both him selfe and his oblatiō was reiected? Iudas Is∣cariotes had not yet betrayed his Maister, whenas he was both the vessell of wrath, and called also the Sonne of perditiō. The Phariseés had not yet vttered any tokē of hatred agaynst Christ, when they were called of Iohn Baptist y^e generation of Uipers. What shall I say of Pharao?* 1.711 Whose destruction if we behold, euen worthely and deseruedly layed vpon him by the Lord, who may dought it that his owne Rebellion deserued that he should be rightfully punished? but if we respect the secrete former de∣termination of the Deuine reiection, and induratiō which was before in the secret mynde of God. It is out of all question, that the same induration proceéded not of the rebelliō of Pharao, but that his Rebellion sprang out of his induration rather, as suc∣ceédyng thereupon.

Wherfore if we interpret of the wrath of GOD to be a pu∣nishment of Gods seuere Iustice,* 1.712 we deny not, but that the same falleth vpon none, saue such as through their owne wickednesse haue deseruedly procured their owne destructiō. And this wrath of God in deéde as it is alwayes righteous, so doth it alwayes follow, but neuer go before the vngodlynes, which is either pe∣culiar to euery person, or is parcell of the inheritable infection of the first father Adam. But if vnder this vocable Wrathe, that will and decreé of the highest God be noted, wherewith those are secluded from Election, whiche are called the vessels of wrath. Then is Osorius raungyng Fable both false & absurde, where∣with

he would seéme to persuade, that it is a very easie thyng to be chaunged from wooden and earthly vessels, into ves∣sels of siluer and gold, if we will our selues, and that it is in euery mans owne power to be made a vessell of wrath or a vessell of mercy as him listeth. As though Gods will were of no force at all to determine vpon matters, but as it is regulated by mans will. And as though it were also as necessary then to be made a vessell of mercy, whenas mā is not willing to be made a vessell of wrath. But such a vessell doth neuer display his light∣somnesse in the house of God, as I thinke (Osori.) But to what purpose then belongeth that saying of Paul.* 1.713 It is neither of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that taketh mer∣cy: If Gods euerlastyng decreé be of no more force in these mat∣ters to determine vpon any certeintie, but such as must be gui∣ded by the raungyng rule of mans will: which is as much as ac∣cordyng to the old sayd law Quite agaynst the heare. Albeit I will not deny in y^e meane tyme, that we are not able to discerne truly betwixt the vessels of wrath, and the vessels of mercy, but by good or euill workes, that we seé to be in them. Yea it cōmeth hereby many tymes to passe, that such as sometymes seémed in their owne conceites to be them selues the vessels of wrath, be∣yng afterwardes endued with better Grace, doe in processe of of tyme feéle the contrary. But this hangeth not now vpon the cobbwebbe of mans will, but dependeth wholy vpon Gods Ele∣ction: which beyng alwayes agreable and stable in it selfe, is ne∣uer chaūged, how variable soeuer the motiōs of men are. Ther∣fore if this be the very meanyng of Osorius wordes, his Iudge∣ment is commendable enough. But it is one thyng to be adiud∣ged somewhat in the opinion of men, Osorius, & an other thyng to be directed by the vnsearcheable counsell of God.

* 1.714What then will some man say. Did God create his cre∣tures to the end to destroy them? did he create his creature to wrath & destructiō? Is it credible that his will is to har∣den the hartes of any to wickednesse, whose will is to haue all saued? or that he who hath predestinate his creatures to glory, can cast thē into destruction? And can it be possible that he, who doth testifie of him self in the Scriptures, which will not the death of a Sinner, but rather that he liue and

be conuerted, shall now alter his nature and will not the lyfe, but the destruction of a Sinner? whenas also all things are good that God hath created, can he hate the worke of his owne handes? yea not onely after he hath created it, but also before hee hath made it? I am not ignoraunt Osorius of these and such lyke your not absurdities, but cauilles rather, which you are wont to thrust vpon vs now and then.

To the which to make a playne and distinct aūswere. First,* 1.715 the nature of causes it selfe must bee considered. Then must a playne distinction of Gods will be opened. For when question is made of Gods will, the Scripture doth not speake therof al∣wayes after one maner & phrase of speach, nor expresse the same euery where after one onely signification. Sometymes this name of will is taken in a most large and ample signification,* 1.716 for that which Gods decreé hath determined shall come to passe in all matters. As in that place of Paule. God doth take mercy on whom he will haue mercy, and doth indurate whom he will. &c. And agayne.* 1.717 God did what soeuer he would doe in heauen and in earth. And in an other place. Bycause it seemeth so good in thyne eyes O Father. Luke. 10.* 1.718 And this will, seruyng in eche respect to as many purposes, as the foreknowledge and essence of God,* 1.719 doth both go before all other meane and secondary causes in or∣der of tyme, and of it owne power also doth dispose all thynges (good Syr) not as though it would enforce them, agaynst their willes, by any outward coaction, but doth so dispose and order thyngs w^t a certeine secrett power, as y^t through their voluntary and seruiceable yeldyng, they atteyne at the last to the same pur∣pose, whereunto the will of God did first & chiefly foreordeyne and direct them. Whereby it commeth to passe, that though the will of God of it selfe make no persons euill properly, yet that wicked persons notwithstandyng shall accōplish the will of God,* 1.720 if not accordyng to the euent and successe properly and absolute∣ly, yet by accidentall meanes. So that on this wise, albeit the destruction of the wicked proceéde from the voluntary corruptiō of man, not from Gods will as from the nearest cause, yet do not those wicked persons fulfill their wickednes without Gods will. For in as much as it is a due scourge and punishment of sinne, man is not punished therewith without Gods will. Agayne by

this word will is signified sometymes that, wherewith God (by his expresse word) doth notifie him selfe to be delighted, to be well pleased, and which is acceptable in his sight. Of whiche sort are all thynges whiche be naturally good and commendable. In which significatiō, God is sayd not to will wickednes, nor to will the death of a sinner:* 1.721 And of this will speaketh the Apostle. This is the will of God, your sanctification. And this will the faythfull onely do performe properly and simply.

We haue spokē now of will, we must now create somewhat of y^e order of causes.* 1.722 Wherein this is to be noted aboue all other. To witte that y^e first causes haue alwayes relatiō to the vttmost endes, & the meane & concurraūt endes, & effectes to the meane & middle causes. Forasmuch therfore as the will of god y^t is to say the decreé of God is the originall of all causes, we must then seeke out, what the last end is which may be answerable to this will:* 1.723 now y^e same is sufficiently discouered by Paul If God (sayth he) willing on the one side to shew hys wrath and to make his power knowne, do with much sufferaunce and lenyty beare with the Ves∣sels of wrathe prepared vnto destruction: and on the other side to make knowne the richesse of hys glory: towardes the vessels of mer∣cy, which he hath prepared to glory. &c. By which wordes who doth not easely perceaue that the last,* 1.724 and principall ende of Gods workmanship doth consist in this, not that wicked men should perish, but that the Larges of hys heauenly mercy should more mightely increase in the saluation of hys faythfull. Now because this could not be brought to passe by any other meanes, vnlesse there were some on the contrary part, vpon whome the seueritie of Gods Iustice might be exequuted: it seémed good therefore to the Almighty Creator of all the creation in this vn∣speakeable Workshop of the whole world) to dispose his vessels to seuerall vses, not all vnto honor, nor yet all vnto dishonor, but some he made seruiceable instrumentes of hys Iustice, other some meéte instruments of hys mercy: not y^t he created his crea∣tures to this effect, as to the finall and vtmost end of hys pur∣pose, that they should perish: but because he had so determined with himselfe in his secret counsell before the foundations of the world, not to haue mercy vpon all, therefore it could not other∣therwise be, but that such as should be forsaken of him, beyng

forsaken and yelded ouer to themselues, should fall away of ve∣ry necessitie. For Gods grace withdrawing assistaunce, mans imbecillity must withall neédes fall to the ground: and Nature being nowe ouerthrowne, Gods Iustice coulde not but execute his office, & punish greuously of very necessitie. And hereof cō∣meth the destruction of the reprobates & persecutors of hys peo∣ple:* 1.725 y^e efficient cause wherof cōsisteth truely in euery of their own corruption,* 1.726 but the cause deficient in the will of God.

And therefore we ought not to Iudge alyke of the causes of Election and Damnation. For although these be certayne brā∣ches of predestination, and concurre altogether in one kynde one originall and one end, yet do they differ notwithstanding in the maner. The fountayne & original of them both is the decreé of God and the ende is the glory of God. And yet is not Election to lyfe euerlasting of the same sort that reprobation to destructi∣on is.* 1.727 For hee hath chosen by making, hee doth reiect not by doyng somewhat, but rather by forsaking. And in the saluation of y^t Godly, y^t whol cause is so wholy shut vp in God, as y^t besides him no person nor cause can come betwixt, that may challenge any interest in the title of Election and Saluacion. But y^t mat∣ter goeth otherwise in the destruction of the reprobate, for albeit such as perishe are not damned at all without the will of God: yet besides this will also, y^t obstinate rebellion of mans will thru∣steth it self in, wherby they do worthely procure to thē selues de∣serued Damnation. For God doth neyther so cast of those whom he doth cast away, as one that did enforce them to commit filthi∣nes, but forsaketh euery such one and yeldeth him ouer to hys owne guiding. Now Freewill beyng nothing els but fraylty, and feéble weakenes it selfe vnable to defend the brickle inclina∣tion of nature, agaynst the monsturous assaultes of vnsatiable lust, yeldeth it selfe coward captiue to euery storme of suttle Tē∣tation. By meanes whereof if commeth to passe, that mans life beyng left voyde of the help of God, as a ship destitute of a Py∣lot, tossed to and fro with outragious wyndes and waues of the Sea, which of her self she cannot withstand,* 1.728 doth easily driue it self vpon the Rocke of damnation and rendes in peéces, hauing none other guyde but it self. But the estate of the Electe is after an other sorte, for whom GOD hath chosen those:

doth he not yeald ouer to their owne conduct, but stirreth them forward with the force of hys secret good will, and doth drawe thē vnto hym self, & doth so draw them, y^t beyng called they must neédes obay: moreouer he doth so call thē, that heé doth forwith Iustifie them y^t are called, and doth so Iustifie them with his freé and bountifull mercy, that he doth at y^t length glorifie thē whom he hath Iustified. In all wh Action of Saluation Gods Grace doth so accomplish all, and euery part thereof, as that nothing at all is left for mans will to glory vpon, but very much paraduen∣ture y^t may ouerthrow it.* 1.729 Wherupō the Apostle very aptly sayth, that it is neither of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that taketh mercy, On the contrary part I meane in the ship∣wrack of damnation, mans wayward peruersnes beyng left vn∣to it self, doth therin throughly play all her partes so, y^t there is nothing now, wherew^t it may iustly accuse God: neyther is there any man condemned, but he that through hys own default doth purchase to himself damnation. In which damnation too things offer themselues in the meane tyme to be considered:* 1.730 not onely what he suffereth which hath deserued to be punished, but what he hath deserued which suffereth, and how righteouslye hee suf∣fereth: in the one whereof mans offence is declared, in the other Gods Iustice is discernable. The first whereof the deuines do call, the euill of the offence, thother the euill of the punishment: Paule calleth it the reward of Sinne, therefore whereas a man doth commit euill,* 1.731 and is punished for that euill, let hym thank hymself for it: But whereas he is righteously punished: herein let him not murmure against God as though he were the Author of euill: for that which is righteously done, can not be vnorderly done: Although the punishment seéme euill to him that suffereth y^t he would not suffer, yet he is himself the Author of that punishment, bicause he did that, which he ought not to haue done. Moreouer neyther is that thing forthwith euill in the sight of God, that appeareth euill to mans iudgement: these thinges therefore are to be wayed by the circumstances of the ende. For euen as the cloudy ouerspreading of the darckened night, doth not diminish any part of y^e cleare day light, but rather beautifie the lightsome clearenes of the bright sunneshine, euen so where the persequutors of the Church do dash sometyme on a Rock, &

are drowned,* 1.732 although it be euil to thē that perish properly, and of it own nature: yet in that they dash on the Rock and perish, in respecte of Gods ordinaunce, and in respect of the end where∣vnto all thinges are directed, it is not euill in the sight of God, but tourneth to good rather, and to the setting forth and beautifi∣ing of hys glory. So Augustine not vnfitly: It is good (sayth heé) that euills be, neyther is there any inconuenience in this that Euills may not happen without Gods will, which yet are performed contra∣ry to his will. That is to say, agaynst that rule and ordinaunce which hymselfe doth allow and commaund.

To conclude. Albeit the Saluation of the elect, and the de∣struction of the reprobate doe proceéde both from one originall, namely,* 1.733 from the secret counsell of almighty God: yet this same decreé neuerthelesse doth not expresse it selfe after one maner at all tymes, if you haue regarde to the maner of the operatiō. For the cause of Saluation of such as are saued, is so wholy shutte vppe in the closett of Gods mercy, that God onely and alone is the whole and onely efficient cause therof, so that the same cā by no meanes be ascribed to any other. But y^e damnation of the re∣probate, albeit can not escape the knowledge of the secrete pur∣pose of God, (bycause no one thyng be it of neuer so small value can be done without his will) yet if we seéke the true and efficient cause therof, whereunto may it be more properly imputed, then to Sinne? and to the Deuill the father of Sinne? But for as much as: God doth compell no man to committe wickednesse, but rather yeldeth them ouer whom he forsaketh to their owne lustes, hereupon doth it consequētly follow, that the first seédes of originall corruptiō (beyng destitute of the grace of God) suc∣kyng vppe more deadly poyson of ragyng lust by the contagi∣ous motions of it owne naturall will,* 1.734 cleane contrary to Gods will, is become by that meanes the cause and procurour of his owne destruction. The cause deficient wherof (as I vouched be∣fore out of Augustine) is onely in God:* 1.735 but the cause efficient cō∣sisteth no where els then in man onely.

These premisses considered and duely examined, I returne to the Question that was proposed.

Whether God by his bare decree did create his Creatu∣res to destruction,* 1.736 and made them vessels of wrath?

Whether we will not graunt that the promise of God was vniuersall?

Whether we may imagine such a will in GOD, as will not haue all to be saued and come to the knowledge of the truth?

I doe aunswere.* 1.737 Gods promise is without all controuersie generall, and is extended generally to all mankynde, yet with this Prouiso, All, whosoeuer do beleue or shall beleue in the sonne of God.

And there is no dought, but that his will doth agreably con∣discende with his promise at all tymes, and in eche respect very readyly bent,* 1.738 inclinable, and fauourable towardes the saluation of all ingenerall: so y^t those All be vnderstād with the same Pro∣uiso, to witte, all that are engraffed in Christ Iesu by fayth: A∣gayne, as vnder the name of this vniuersall subiect All (to speake with Augustine) not euery particuler of all the genera∣lities, but the generalities of euery particuler is comprehēded,* 1.739 (for els as All haue not the true fayth: so neither is the promise made vnto thē all,* 1.740 who do not beleue in the Sonne, nor is there any will in God to saue them, but to cast them of rather.

* 1.741But as concerning Creation, if the end therof besought for. I doe aunswere, that God did create man vnto righteousnesse. For we were created to good workes, accordyng to the testimonie of Paule: That we should walke in them. But man abusing the freédome of his owne will, contrary to the will of God, to witte contrary to the rule of righteousnesse, fallyng quite away from righteousnesse into vnrighteousnesse, did at the length through the same vnrighteousnesse throwe him selfe headlong downe into vnrecouerable destructiō. What them? Shall we say y^t these thyngs chaunced w^tout Gods knowledge? & agaynst his will? or els w^t his wil, or not regardyng y^e same. For one of these we must graunt of very necessitie. If we say, agaynst his will, we shall ouerthrow his omnipotēcie: if, without his knowledge, we shall then empayre the excellency of his wisedome: If you say that he regardeth it not: I beseéche you what difference wilbe betwixt you, and that filthy pigge Epicure: It remaineth then: That we boldly pronoūce, y^t this work was atchieued, God not only wil∣lyng it, but foreknowyng, & withall permittyng it so to be done.

Which beyng agreéd vpon: there remaineth further to be enqui∣red, whether this will and sufferaūce of God were idle & fruite∣lesse or effectuall? but to assigne vnto God an idle and fruitlesse foreknowledge (as the Epicures do) we are altogether forbiddē by the Scriptures. Then if we graunt, that this is accōplished through the effectuall and determinate decreé and will of God, and withall that no man is able to withstand his will: what shall we conclude then? That the Reprobate are altogether excusa∣ble, bycause the fault to their reprobation resteth wholy in God? This saying in deéde thus spoken might seéme to be somewhat paraduenture, if so be that God had not made man perfect, whē he created him at the first, and had not enioyned him a law and rule of righteousnesse, and had not strengthened him w^t a sound freédome of will, adding thereunto further a certeine seuere cau∣tion of wholesome counsell, and a fatherly forewarnyng of the daunger that would ensue. But now when as our first father Adam fell, we were all ouerwhelmed together within the selfe same downefall, in such wise that we were neither able to shake of from our shoulders that law of Iustice, wherewith we were yoaked: nor accomplish the perfection therof, were the freédome of our will neuer so mightie. And therfore he that doth offende, hath no cause whereof hee ought to quarell with God:* 1.742 but hath matter of contagion enough, and more then enough to quarell a∣gaynst his owne lustes, Adam and the Deuill: Whereupon we conclude at the length, that the thynges which apperteine to de∣struction of mankynde can neither escape the knowledge & coun∣sell of God, and yet the prouidence of GOD to be neuerthelesse voyde altogether of blame and reproche.

But the Osorianes will deny that this ought to be at∣tributed to Predestination or Gods decree,* 1.743 but to hys suf∣feraunce onely. Certes this is not to be doughted, but that God doth permit and suffer the thinges which he hath decreéd: But they do winne nothing by thys distinction: seéing that they fall back into the same quauemire out of the which they can by no meanes cleare themselues. First whereas God vseth his suf∣feraunce, it is out of all question, that he doth the same witting∣ly and warily: furthermore whereas he had comprehended all those thinges: by hys vnsearcheable wysedome, and foresaw the

euentes thereof: we must neédes confesse that he was able of hys omnipotent power to forbid all what soeuer he were not willing should be done, if it had bene his good pleasure so to haue done: now my question is, why he would not? what? because he regar∣ded it not? but this swinish blockishnes of Epicure ought ney∣ther be admitted into any Christian cogitation: neyther can any such retchlesnes agreé with the gracious mercifulnes of God: what then? was not God sufficiently able? who shall let hym? doth there lack in him then any meanes to helpe? to thinke so, were heathnish infidelity. But some man will say: Seéing that the fall of Adam might haue bene stayed by an onely becke of Gods countenaunce, if it were not his pleasure so to do, why yet at the least would he not make stay of that welspring of Sinne in Adam?* 1.744 so that the same might not haue raunged to any fur∣ther infection of the posteritie. Finally why doth he dayly geue so great scope to Sathan, whom, he may so easily restrayne? The premisses considered, what remayneth? but that of Neces∣sity we yeld, that he did will y^e thinges which he foreknew would come to passe, as not restrayning the proceéding thereof, beyng otherwise of ability enough to stopp & ouerthrow it quite if heé would: Or els how shall Paules saying be true, He taketh mer∣cy on whom he will haue mercy, & he doth harden whom he will, if we make this an infallible rule that these thinges are suffered contrary to Gods will, or not performed by his will? forasmuch as he doth all what soeuer him listeth both in heauen & in earth.

Moreouer, whereas he is called by the predestinate counsell of God the Lamb slayne before the foundations of the world were layde, and before the fall of Adam: by what meanes (I pray you) could a playstere be prepared before the wounde made, but that through the same prouidence it was decreéd, y^t a wound should be made of Necessity?

* 1.745But loe a new onset agayn vpon vs: If this be true, then must it needes follow: that both God is the Author of Sinne, and withall that men were created by him to destruction also. I do aunswere to both the obiections. First that God is not the Author of Sinne, but the Author of his own creature: out of which creature sprin∣geth Sinne: so that Sinne now is the work of the Creature, not of the Creator. Secondly where it is obiected. That

God did create hys creatures to destructiō: this is most vntrue: for God doth condemne nothing of hys owne nature, but sinne onely: when God created man at the first, he created hym per∣fect, vpright,* 1.746 and without Sinne: he indued him also with freé, & absolute abilitie, not to sinne: thē he armed hym with sufficiēt furniture agaynst sinne, to witte: with an especiall admonitiō, so that the matter doth sufficiently declare it selfe, that God did so make man that he should not perish but be saued. Afterwardes sinne began to bud out, taking the sappe thereof not from God, but from Sathan,* 1.747 & the freéwill of man. Wherupon immediat∣ly ensued damnation, not layed vpon mans shoulders by reason of his creation, but willingly purchased by reason of his owne Sinne. For if Adam had stood fast, in that vprightnes, wherein he was created, and God had condemned hym then, beyng in that vprightnes, there might haue bene some cause peraduen∣ture that might haue moued him to this iust complaynt: That God by hys bare decreé had vniustly created hys owne creature to the end that he should be damned. But now sithence the whole race of mankinde did cast it selfe vnderfoote, through the default of hys own lust, and not through Gods default, this will be a good aunswere to the questiō: That God did not make hys crea∣ture vnto destruction, but that the creature it selfe, by defiling it selfe with sinne, contrary to the dignitie of hys creation,* 1.748 hath made it selfe an abhominable and vgly chaungeling, and trans∣formed it selfe from the creature of God, into the creature of the Serpēt. So that the creator himself in destroying hys creature may well be adiudged to haue condemned now not his creature which he made, but the creature of Sathan, which the Ser∣pent destroyed.

But you will say: Then was the Image of God deformed as soone as it was created. I know it: but by whose default? by Gods default? or mans default? but why did not the good creator of the world forbid it to be done, when as he foresaw it would come to passe?* 1.749 As though he gaue not an especiall commaundement to the same effect in playne wordes. Nay rather if your rea∣son be so captious, as will not be satisfied but with naturall rea∣son: I might more reasonably demaunde this reasonable questi∣on of you? why dyd not man obay the expresse restraynt of God?

For what do ye reade? was not Adam forbidden to touch the vn∣happy Apple of vnlucky knowledge? was he not carefully ad∣monished, and forewarned by denouncing the daunger that would ensue thereupon? And beyng sufficiently armed with the power of Freewill, hadd he not strength enough in him selfe to take heéde? why thē did he not looke to him selfe at the least in sea∣son, if he were not willyng to beleue and obey Gods aduertize∣ment? Certes as lōg as her reprosed him selfe, & his whole sauetie in the saue keépyng and custody of the Lord, he was in no daun∣ger at all. But settyng Gods commaundement at naught once, whenas he chose rather to become the bondslaue of Sathan, as∣pyring to be as wise as his Creator and God: here what should Gods Iustice doe now, which was not bounden to be any more carefull for an other bodyes Seruaūt? And yet for all this, God of his mercy did not so forsake, and yeld ouer his creature, al∣though his Creatour most vnkyndely forsooke him,* 1.750 beyng his Creature. He did beautifie this runneaway with the light of Reason, whereby he might know, what ought to be eschued and what ought to bee embraced. Furthermore to make him more carefull to regard vertue, he planted into him very deépe rootes and prickes of conscience, hee added moreouer Statutes and Lawes, not onely emprinted within euery ones hart, but engra∣uen also outwardly in spectible Tables.

Finally besides these written ordinaunces of the law, he did euer now and then among, rayse vppe Prophetes vnto them, who with liuely voyce and teachyng, should neuer cease by ay∣dyng, by promising, by terrifieng, by obtestyng, by sweéte exhor∣tyng, briefly by all maner of meanes should neuer cease to re∣teine the people in an vniuersall obedience, accordyng to order & duetie. What shall we say to this also? that he furnished the ve∣ry Gentiles them selues (though they were neuer so beastly and barbarous) with the doctrine of Philosophers oftentymes, with coūselles of grauen men, with wonderfull helpes of good letters and preceptes of Philosophy, persuadyng them to all thynges, and withall not sparyng to pricke them foreward to the embra∣cing of vertue and eschewing of vyce, with horrible examples of∣tentymes as it were with a spurre? I beseéke you now what wāted to be added more either to Gods Iustice, to expresse mercy?

or to his mercy, to expresse Iustice? or to his diligēce, to expresse his continuall fatherly carefulnesse?

But here wanted naturall strength (you will say). Yet was not God to bee blamed for this, but mans folly rather. And yet neither in this behalfe, did Gods fatherly goodnesse deny his as∣sistaunce: for euen for this so are also he made a playster: And to Cure this vniuersall poyson of nature, he gaue as vniuersall a Mythridatū, made with the precious bloud of his onely begot∣ten Sonne: wherewith the weakest Creature in the world, and the most ouerwhelmed with Sinne might easily atteyne reme∣dy of eternall lyfe.

For as much therefore as mankinde was of euery side so wōderfully fensed, with so many and so great benefites of Gods gracious mercy: what is there that any man may eyther want to be supplied by thys our most bountifull God, and Creator? or what could this good and mercifull God, haue done more li∣berally for hys creatures? but here bursteth out more contenti∣on and quarreling amongest the deuines, wherein they plunge thēselues to much. For whereas this fayth in Christ is not per∣tinent to all persons, and that the greater sort of people do not acknowledge the sonne of God, and that he is not so faythfully Reuerenced, as becommeth: and that they repose not the safety of their imbecillitie in this Christ as they should: now commeth here the question, what the cause should be then of this hys re∣iectiō? from whence it proceédeth? from out the will of men? or or from out the decreé of God? or out of both causes beyng cou∣pled together? Osorius here grounding hys authoritie vpon his fine Cicero doth very mightely affirme. That they were ther∣fore made the vessels of wrath because they would not be made the vessels of mercy. But how this may be true, I can not conceaue sufficiētly. Although I do not deny this, that those which eare made vessels of wrath are altogether replenished w^t a rebellious will, wherewith they do voluntarily forsake the of∣fered grace of their vocation, yet this same will is not the cause of reprobation, but the effect rather: & doth follow, and not go before it, and it selfe is made rather, then maketh reiectiō. For neither such as be razed out of the booke of Election, are there∣fore become the vessels of wrath, because they did forsake mer∣cye:

but they doe therfore throw away mercy offred vnto thē, by∣cause beyng excluded from the grace of Electiō, they were fore∣appoynted to be y^e Uessels of wrath & castawayes: so that Osor. might haue spoken more truely, on this wise: y^t such were made y^e vessels of wrath, whō God would not haue to be the Uessels of mercy: And for thys cause those Pharaonicall persequutors of the church were subiect to wrath: not onely because they will not be partakers of Gods mercy, but also because they cannot.

* 1.751Besides this also, in as much as all the Mercies of God are contayned in Christ onely, and in the knowledge of Christ, as as it were fast lockt in the Ark of God: in what sense will Osor. say, that they which will not beleeue are made the Uesselles of wrath? as though the sinne of Infidelity did not rather proceéde of the ignoraunce of Iudgement, then of any motion of will, & of purpose. For it consisteth not within the compasse of naturall strength,* 1.752 for euery man that will, to be able to know Christ as him listeth: But such as it is geuē vnto frō aboue, that they may be able to know and haue a will also to know Christ. Otherwise in what sense do the scriptures teach? that Christ shalbe the stone of offence, and Rock to stumble vpon to them, who doe not beleeue and do stumble vpon the worde of fayth, whereunto they are mar∣ked, if the whole matter were atchieued not by y^e decreé of God, but did hang vpon the determinatiō of man:* 1.753 euē as y^e Apostles doth testifie in an other place that all do not apprehend fayth. A∣gayne we heare also by the testimony of the same Paule. That it is neyther of him that runneth, nor of him that willeth, but of God that taketh mercy:* 1.754 finally of thē which are ordeined (sayth Luke) to eternall lyfe, and whose harts (as the same Luke recordeth) God doth open,* 1.755 to make them know the word of God. And agayne the same Paule doth deny them to haue knowne the Lord of glory for if they had knowne hym, they would not haue crucified Christ. But what was the cause, that they knew him not? but because the whole matter thereof rested not in their owne willes: but be∣cause by Gods secret decreé,* 1.756 it was not geuen to them that had eares to heare: and eyes to seé. For their eares were made deafe that they should not heare: and their hartes were blynded, that they should not vnderstand. And therefore the Lord himself doth openly pronounce:* 1.757 that manye were called but fewe are chosen.

Moreouer in an other place, the same Lord calleth his flock a lit∣tle flocke. And why doth he call it a little flocke, (good sir) I be∣seech you? If Gods mercy so largely poured abroad and so freé∣ly offered (as you seeme to blaze it out) doe extend it selfe to all persons indifferently without exception, why do not all persons then indefferētly repayre vnto Christ? at the least, why is not the greatest part drawne vnto him? forsooth because they will not (say you) You are come back agayne to the first question: For I demaund what the cause is why they will not, but because it is not geuen vnto them? so that ye may perceaue now, the very welspring of this fountayne springeth not from mans will, but from the counsell of God. Or els how doth Christ name them which be hys, to be but few in number? but that he foreknew as∣suredly that it would be so: or how did he foreknow it? but be∣cause it was decreed first of an infallible certeinty: And therfore Christ teaching his disciples spake openly and playnly vnto thē That it was geuē vnto them to know the misteries of the kingdome but to others in parables,* 1.758 that seeing they might not see, and hear∣ing they might not heare. Likewise Peter confirmed by the same spirite (speaking of the rock of offence) doth openly denounce,* 1.759 not onely what they should do which should be offēded at Christ, but also that they were ordayned of very purpose so to doe. And yet I will not deny that which they teach of the mercy of God. I do know and confesse that it is farre and wyde dispersed abroad euery where, and that the same mercy of GOD denyeth it selfe to no person (as Augustine sayth) but to such as will not receaue it. But in thys same very mercy neuerthelesse two thinges are to be considered:* 1.760 That God doth not onely offer those promises of benefites and blessings, of his meére mercy & bounteous libe∣ralitie: but also that he doth inspire y^e hart of man inwardly with hys spirite, to receaue those thinges that be offered.

And so after the first maner of speakyng, I do confesse, that there is a certayne generall grace of God,* 1.761 and a certayne freé choyse of Election layed open to all, without exception: that he may receaue it, that hath a will to receaue it, so that vnder thys word layd open Gods outward calling be vnderstanded, which consisteth in preceptes, in exhortatiōs, in Rules, writtē either in the tenne Cōmaundementes, or in the conscience, or in prea∣ching

of the word.* 1.762 And in this sense may we rightly say: y^e Pha∣rao hymself wanted not the grace of God, nor Saule: no nor any of the rest, whom he did oftentimes allure with gētle promises: terrifie w^t miracles, reward with giftes, enuyte to repentaūce with prolonging of punishment: suffer with much patience allu∣ring & calling all men dayly to amendment of lyfe. All which be infallible tokens of hys mercifull will, called Voluntas Signi.

But after the second maner of speakyng: if we behold the mercy of GOD, and that grace which maketh acceptable or if we respect that will of his, wherewith he not onely willeth all to be saued, but wherewith hee bringeth to passe, that these whom he will, shalbe saued: the matter doth declare it selfe suffi∣ciently:* 1.763 that that Mercy and Grace of acceptyng those thyngs, whereunto they are called is not layd open for all and euery one indifferently, but is distributed through a certeine speciall dis∣pensation and peculiar Election of God: whereby they that are called accordyng to the purpose of his grace, are drawen to cō∣sent. By meanes wherof it commeth to passe, that the same cal∣lyng accordyng to Gods purpose fayling, euery man hath not in his own hand to chuse, or refuse that earnest desire and gene∣rall Grace indifferently offered, but such as haue either recea∣ued the gift of God, or are denyed the gift of God. Neither doth the matter so wholy depende vpon the choyse of our will, either in chusing, or refusing totally: for then might it be verified, that there was no Predestination, before the foundations of the world were layd, if our Electiō were necessaryly guided by our willes, and that our will were the foundation of our Saluatiō. Therfore whereas they say, that God doth accept them, which will embrace his grace, and reiect thē which will not receaue it, is altogether vntrue. Nay it rather had bene more cōuenient to fetch our foūteine frō the wellspring of Grace, then frō y^e puddle of our owne will. So that we might speake more truly, on this wise:* 1.764 That God doth endue vs with his grace, and fauorable countenaunce, bycause we should be willyng to embrace his or∣dinaunces and Commaundementes: on the contrary part, as concernyng those that will not receaue his grace offered, that such do worthely perish. And that the very cause, that they will not receaue it, doth hereof arise, bycause their will is not holpē:

and that they do therfore not receaue it, bycause they are not thē selues receaued first.

For as touchyng the Obiection vrged out of Chrisostome,* 1.765 that God did as much vnto Pharao in deede, as hee could doe, to saue him: if ye referre Gods doyng there to that will which is called N••on signi, but to beneplaciti: which God could & would vtter in those, whom he made Vessels of mercy,* 1.766 wherof S. Paule maketh mention treatyng of the mercy of Predesti∣nation: surely the Scripture is quite repugnaunt agaynst it, saying: God did harden the hart of Pharao. For if GOD did harden the hart of Pharao, how then did he to Pharao, as much as he might?* 1.767 But if Pharao did harden his owne hart, after that God had not mollified his hart, had not tamed his in∣solencie, and not bowed him to godly inclinations (which he is accustomed to doe to his elect.) In what sence then is he sayd to haue done as much to Pharao, as to his other Vessels of mercy, whom Election had Predestinated to be saued?

But to let Chrisostome passe a whiles.* 1.768 Let vs heare Augu∣stine hereupon, and make him as it were Iudge of the cause. For where question is made. Whether God did call all men in∣differently by a generall inspiration to fayth and Saluatiō. Au∣gustine doth make this aunswere.

For as much as vocation or callyng is taken two maner of wayes, to witte internall, and exter∣nall? true it is (sayth he) that all men are indifferently called after the maner of that externall calling: but all are not as indifferent∣ly drawen by this internall vocation. And if the cause be sought for, why all are not drawen indifferently, but that to some it is ge∣uen, to others some not geuen. He maketh this aunswere. Some there be that will say (quoth he) it is the will of man. But we say, it is the Grace and Predestination of God. But God doth require mē to beleue. I confesse (sayth he) yet is fayth neuerthelesse the gift of God. For he that doth require faith, doth promise withall, that he will bring to passe, that they shall performe that which he com∣maundeth. &c.

And agayne, If it be demaunded: whether mercy be therefore geuen to man, bycause he beleueth: or that mercy were therfore be∣stowed vpon him, bycause he should become beleuyng: to this questiō he maketh the very aunswere of the Apostles. I haue obteined

mercy, bycause I should be faythfull. He doth not say, bycause I was faythfull. &c. And this much hetherto out of Augustine. Let vs now come to Pighius. And bycause we are happened vp∣on this place to discourse vpon, to witte, the equall dispensatiō of Gods mercy: It shall not be amisse to consider briefly his opi∣nion herein, agreéyng with Osorius altogether. For these be the speaches of Pighius. God doth offer him selfe (sayth he) an e∣quall and indifferent father to all persons: he ouerspreadeth all mē generally with the one selfe same gladsome beames of mer∣cy and clemency without any difference.* 1.769 Now if some through this lenitie become tractable, and other some hereby made more indurate: this discrepaunce proceédeth frō the corruption of mē. There is no vnequallitie of distribution of lenitie, and mercy in God. For proofe whereof takyng a Similitude out of the Epi∣stle to the Hebrues the iiij. Chap. For as not euery land wate∣red with like bountyfulnesse of the heauenly dew doth yeld lyke fruite to the husbandman, but one land yeldeth forth corne, an o∣ther thornes & brambles, y^e one wherof is blessed of God, y^e other accursed, euen no lesse ioyously doth the mercy of God shyne in∣differently, with generall and equall largesse and bountie to∣wardes all vniuersally: which beyng set wyde open to all alike, doth deny it selfe to none, but such as will refuse it them selues. But some turne to amēdemēt of life through this mercy, others some do abuse this mercy to more outragious licentiousnes of sumyng. And agayne fetchyng a similitude frō the heate of the Sunne. Whereas the Sunne yeldeth one selfe same heate: we doe seé that through the same, the earth is made more stiffe and hard, and y^e waxe softened and made more plyable. Hereupō Pi∣ghius gathereth. That, what soeuer difference is betwixt the good and the reprobate, the same wholy to issue out of y^e corrup∣tion of men, and not out of the will of God.

* 1.770But our Expositours haue sufficiently aunswered this slip∣per deuise, that this Assertion of Pighius, and of his mate Oso∣rius, that Gods mercy is powred alike into all men, is vt∣terly false and absurde, & where they do affirme, that God ma∣keth no choyse in the dispensation of his Grace, & that there is great difference betwixt the godly & the vngodly: in deéde that there is great difference betwixt the good & bad we do not deny.

But where they doe ascribe the principall motion, and efficient cause hereof in mans will onely, and not in God onely, they are altogether deceaued. For as concernyng the common nature of mā,* 1.771 truly in this we may with more certeintie determine equa∣bilitie of condition in mankynd, as that they reteine one sembla∣ble condition and qualitie of freé choyse, for as much as all be∣yng created out of one lumpe, are alike all poysoned alike with one kynde of infectiō, as men that be altogether vnable of them selues to doe any thyng auayleable to Saluation. And for as much as this imbecillitie doth infect all mākynde alike, as with a generall pestilence: It appeareth therfore euidently, that this difference standeth not so much vpon the determination of their will: or at least if it stand vppon their will, yet that it doth not proceéde first from mans will, but from the callyng of God, whiche offereth it selfe not alike to euery one, nor after one maner to all ingenerall, but doth diuersly drawe some af∣ter one sort, and some after an other. For as I sayd before: The Scriptures haue set downe a double maner of callyng, the one wherof is generall and outward. The other is inward, accor∣dyng to purpose: to witte, the callyng of them, whose willes the holy Ghost doth enspire and enlighten with an inward effec∣tuallnesse.

But this Similitude of the Clay and Waxe is ridiculous and worthy to be laughed at.* 1.772 Bycause that this distinction can not be appliable to Freewill after the fall of Adam. For of the whole ofspryng of Adam, not some be plyable as Waxe, nor some lumpish as hard earth. For where God doth fashion ves∣sels of one kynde of Clay (as Paule sayth) some vnto honour, some vnto dishonour: no mā is so madd to affirme that the Clay is the cause of this difference, but the Potter rather.

Moreouer to as small purpose serueth that place to the He∣brues:* 1.773 which treateth not of Grace & Freewill: but of the word of God, and men, whom he doth exhort by way of demonstratiō, and cōparison of frutefull grounde, to receaue the word of God fruitefull and professe the same with effect. The same also is to be vnderstanded of that Parable of the good ground, yeldyng to the husbandman plenty and aboundaunce of fruite, mentioned in y^e Gospell. But how may these be applyed to Freewill? or what

will Pighius coyne hereof? If Gods word take roote in none, but such as be good, what auayleth this sentence to establish the doc∣trine of Freewill? For the question is not here, whether they onely be good, which receaue the word of eternall lyfe effectually: But this is the pointe that must be touched. From whence men re∣ceaue habilitie to be made good: of the nymblenesse of their owne will? or of the callyng of God? And therfore that Parable ser∣ueth to no purpose in this case, as beyng applied for none other end, but to signifie the dispensation and disposition of Gods ho∣ly word, which in a maner may aptly be compared to seede, wh though the husbandman do sow vpon euery ground indifferēt∣ly, yet it yealdeth forth fruite but in a fewe, yea & in those also that be good groundes.

But hauing now rent in sunder these slender and trifling cob webbes. The aduersaries notwithstanding be neuer a deale the more quieted, but hauing pyked together a fresh supply of skip∣tacks, do rush vpon the grace of predestination with a new Hoo∣boube agayne, for the maynteinaunce of Freewills quarrell. For with these shuttlecocks do these Redshankes with their Colo∣nell Osor. set vpō vs:* 1.774 for to Admitte (say they) that God doth make choyse but of a few, and passe ouer an infinite nūber of others: this seemeth to argue no small repugnācie in Gods mercy, & a wonderfull crueltie in hym: neyther is it conso∣nant to Reason. For if he suffer the more number to perish because he will not saue them, he is cruell: if he cannot saue them, he is not omnipotent: Moreouer if he cast them of without iust cause of offence, or deserte, he is vnrighteous: if in equall cause he make vnequall distributione of hys E∣lection, he shalbe iudged an acceptor of persons.* 1.775 But the al∣mighty and most mercifull God, doth nothing now, that is not in all respectes most consonaunt to reason, no cruelty, no vnrighteousnes finally no one thing that is not repleni∣shed with goodnes.

* 1.776Albeit this mowsy and drossy chaffe long sithence blowne a∣broad in y^e eyes of Augustine by the Pelagianes, hath bene suf∣ficiently fanned away in hys booke entituled De articulis falso impositis: Yet following Augustine herein (more then I neéde) somewhat to please Osorius withall, least he exclayme agayne

that his argumentes are not throughly resolued: I will auswere in few wordes on thys wyse. It cannot be denyed that few are chosē, and many called: yet is not the goodnes of God any ioate impeached in this respect, nor his cruelty encreased. First in that he did choose few, or any at all: was an especiall work of his goodnes. Then, in that it pleased hym to proclayme a generall calling to the participacion of hys Gospell for all men vniuer∣sally, was also a poynt of great clemency: but in that those y^t are called do not come, proceéded not of any cruelty in God, no nor yet is any fault thereof to be layd to hys charge, but vnto mens disobedience: but how can it be sayd to be mans fault say you, seéing that not their willes, but Gods predestination withstan∣deth them so, that they cannot be able to come? In deede that mens will is no obstacle vnto them to come, this doth no man affirme: for hereof springeth all the faulte y^t is in man.* 1.777 Agayne to saye that Gods eternall Predestination is no preiudice to them that fall away, surely no man can deny this likewise: but how this predestination of God is an Estoppell, must be seene: not by powringe in new poyson (for that neédeth not) but by for∣saking the olde: thus therefore the will of man is an obstackle, but not alone: So is Predestination also an obstackle, but not without the will of man. So that here both mans will worketh, and Gods predestination worketh, ech one in hys owne kynde, but after a seuerall maner of operacion: in the difference where∣of, because Osorius will seeme so bussardly blinde, we will not refuse to open it vnto hym.

And first Gods Predestination in deéde hath her operation according to the infallible will of hys most freé decreé, not so much in the thinges themselues, as most inespeciall in the wils of men: and expresseth in this their will such a kynde of o∣peration, that it felfe in the meane tyme is forced of none, and doth alwayes goe before the actions of mans will, and doth guyde and gouerne those wills: whiche direction and conduct mans will doth attēd vpon: which withall worketh also in things subiect vnto it, and after a certaine maner of her owne, doth moue it selfe freély, that is to say, doth with earnest affection bēd it selfe willingly of her owne accord, and voluntary inclination, to the thinges which it embraceth, or despiseth: for it doth ney∣ther

choose any thing, but that it willeth: nor refuseth any thing, but that it selfe willeth not: finally attempteth nothing at all, but willingly, that is to say of her owne accord, and with a very willing minde. And yet not altogether so freély as Osorius surmiseth whiche is in very deéde cause of Osorius hys error herein, and drowneth hys iudgement most in this question.

For as often as he heareth mencion made, that will doth vse her certaine freé choyse, in consenting or dissenting: he drea∣meth by and by, that the same will is such as is subiect to the di∣rection of none other, but is at her own libertie: and is endued with full and absolute power in her selfe (whiche power the Greékes do call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to eschew y^e thinges that it willeth,* 1.778 and to do the thinges that it willeth, so that it doth nothing of Necessitie, but which it might otherwise do ac∣cording to it owne pleasure if it will. Agayne if a man make ne∣uer so little motion of the purpose of predestination, he doth by and by so interprett thereof, as though nothing were left for man at all to be able to conceaue with reason, or deliberate with iudgement, or make choyse of, through any voluntary mo∣tion of will, but to be enforced to all thinges by a certeine exter∣nall coaction: as it were by vnauoydeable and fatall Necessitie. Both wh are vtterly false: & to speake directly, y^e very dotage of Osorius. For as we do not despoyle will of her libertye, nor ba∣nysh it out of the worlde, nor raze it out of our writinges, so doe we not magnifie it like an Idoll, we do not root it out of nature, but we make it subiect to God: nor do deny that it is freé after a certayne maner, but do declare in what sort it is freé: for then it is freé, when it is made free: we do not so derogate from it, as though in attempting,* 1.779 or Relenting, it had no feeling or sense: but we do neyther esteéme it of so great a price, as though it ac∣chieued any thing of her own strength, without the speciall con∣duct of Gods predestination. Moreouer we doe neyther so esta∣blishe thys same Predestination, working in mens willes, as though it enforced them agaynst their willes, and violently to do the thinges they would not.* 1.780 For will cannot chose but will, yea willingly alwayes, and freely, what soeuer it doth, nor can do any thing, but that it willeth. Or els will were no will at all whether it did wel or otherwise. But to will well, and to do well,

she is not able of her selfe, but boroweth her abilitie thereunto from els where: And yet to do euill, hath it more then enough in it selfe, yea without any helpe at all, which she doth both will of her selfe, and doth of her self bring to passe freely: albeit not al∣together so freely yet, but that this freedome is alwayes capti∣uate w^t miserable thraldome and bondage. For will beyng left destitute of heauēly assistance, is so subiect & seruile to her natu¦rall lust,* 1.781 & ouerwhelmed w^t backward affectiōs: y^t when it doth euill it cā do no better of it self though it would: nor is of it self able to do any thing y^t it doth otherwise, thē of very Necessitie.

Whereby appeareth euidently what kynde of freédome mans will enioyeth: which whether it consent to good thyngs, can neyther will nor do any thing of it selfe, beyng not assisted: a∣gayne if it dissent, cannot otherwise dissent, but of very Neces∣sity, beyng left ouer to her owne strength:* 1.782 For so deadly an infe∣ctiō hath poysoned the very Rootes & whole ofspring of nature, that it is neyther able to will any good thing, but being holpen by grace, no nor so much as to think a good thought.

What then? shall there be nothing left (say you) in the power of mans freedome. Yes truely Osorius I do not spoyle mans will so naked, that it can do nothing in heauenly thinges: but your opinion tendeth rather to this effect, that Gods prede∣stination can appoynt no certeinty in humayne acccions. For if mans will do possesse such a full and absolute freedome, as you say, as can by no meanes be subiect: what scope then geue you to Gods Election, but that it performe nothing at all freely, but be directed alwayes by the free conduct of some forren guyder, so that the whole force hereof now be not of him that calleth, but of him that is called rather. But if according to Paules doctrine, the whole exployt of thinges be gouerned by hym that calleth onely: what shall become of mans freedome then? If you will cut these two asunder, and yealde part thereof to will, and part to Predestination, ascribing all to mans power and abili∣tye, and little or nothing at all to Gods predestination: why then do you not instruct vs distinctly, what, and how much ech of them doth performe? and withall wherein the diuersitie and difference of them both consisteth? which if you will not distinguishe duely and orderly according to their naturall and proper distinctions

what other doctrine will ye teach vs but that Gods predestina∣tion must needes appeare both in order of tyme to be first,* 1.783 and elder, and in power alwayes more mighty and farre surmoun∣ting all the force of mans will? which beyng graunted, what will follow here of at the length? but that mans choyse will beé pro∣ued at the length so, & none otherwise freé, but y^t it must alwaies be in bondage, eyther to Gods grace beyng holpen to good, or to her owne lust, beyng cast of to wickednes.

But me seémeth I do heare what the secrett whisperings of Pelagius brood, and amongst them chiefly Osorius the stought Champion of that crew will bark agaynst thys.

To consent or not to consent (say they) is in our own po∣wer, nor is the grace of God otherwise effectuall, but as we embrace hys ayde and assistaunce offered vnto vs.* 1.784 Where∣vpon they conclude at the length, that it is in our owne power eyther to enterteine, the grace of God, or to for∣sake it.

This consequent we deny, as the which beyng made without all forme of art,* 1.785 is also as voyde of all ground of truth. As con∣cerning assenting, or dissenting: I doe confesse that these moti∣ones are numbred amongest the residue of the naturall powers of mans will, if we do consider of them, as in their bare and na∣ked powers,* 1.786 without their obiectes. But to assent rightly to the thinges whiche appertayne vnto fayth, and Gods calling: Au∣gustine doth aunswere very discretly, That vnto this we are al∣together vnable of our selues, but that our abilitie hereunto pro∣ceadeth wholy from hym, which doth first bring to passe, that of vn∣willing, we may be made willing, and doth draw them that are ob∣stinate to obedience, creating a new hart within thē to make them hys owne willing, voluntary, and seruiceable seruauntes. Moreo∣uer where they say that grace is none otherwise effectuall vnlesse we doe put our helping handes also together with grace: and that none are holpen but such as endeuour ther∣unto of their owne accord. It is true also, and the reason is: because God doth worke in man not with anye forraygne con∣straynt onely, as he vsually accustometh in brute beastes, and stoanes, but with mans own voluntary inclination and motion: But from whence this voluntary motion (in thinges appertay∣ning

to God inespecially) doth arise, Augustine will teach you:* 1.787 who doth deny that this grace of God doth finde any good will in vs, but doth make our wills to be good. And agayne where he testifieth that no man is able to resort to this grace for ayde, but whose stepps the Lord doth guyde thereunto: in so much that he boldly pronoun∣ceth, that the beginning of Grace is euen to feele a want of grace.

Now therefore followeth vpon these propositions thus graunted, that whersoeuer Gods effectuall grace is,* 1.788 there is no defect of will: on the contrary part, wheresoeuer appeareth any defect of will, there Gods grace is vneffectuall: which is com∣prehended in these ij. operations: namely: in eternall calling, and inward drawing: so that the receptacle of grace is within vs in deéde, but not as of our selues: but of the grace of God. But the refusall of grace is both in vs, and withall commeth of our own selues: and yet so neuerthelesse of our owne selues, as that being reiected from Gods grace, we cannot but reiect his grace, nor are we able of our selues to do otherwise, though we would ne∣uer so fayne. And what kinde of freedome shall Will be sayd to enioy here, then the which no kinde of seruile thraldome can beé more miserable or more wretched?

But our good Syr here will deny this. That God accor∣dyng to the inestimable goodnesse of his fatherly nature doth reiect any at any tyme from his mercy, which is indif∣ferently and equally layed open for all ingenerall. Hereof hath bene sufficiently discoursed before. Yet I will adde this one saying. If Gods grace do reiect no person from him, then must we of necessitie confesse that he doth not make choyse of any like wise. For where all are generally and indifferently chosen with out respect, there surely is no man cast away. Agayne where is no reiection at all, there can be then no place for Election. For in choyse we are not sayd to chuse all, but to accept out of all, not euery one, but whom we like best: Where a choyse is, and no mā reiected, there is not a choyse or Electiō properly, but an accep∣taunce, and an allowaunce rather. Neither can that be tearmed a choyse of men, which the Greciās do call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after the proper maner of speakyng, except it be out of the multitude of a remnaunt. But God (say you) hath left no man so destitute of his grace, but that euery mā is able of him selfe to be cōuer∣ted

aud to embrace grace,* 1.789 if he will: or not to be conuerted, if he will not. Who cā better vnloase this knot then Augustine? When the Gospell is preached, why do not all beleue, they are not all of the father? If we shall say (sayth he) bycause they will not be cō∣uerted, we shall answere here, to what purpose then was this spoken? Conuertyng vs O Lord, thou shalt quicken vs. And agayne. O God of hostes conuerte thou vs. &c. And therfore the same Augustine speaketh not vnfitly in an other place. GOD doth helpe them that are conuerted, and forsaketh them that are forsa∣ken, but to be conuerted God him selfe helpeth. &c. If none be con∣uerted vnto God, but those onely whom him selfe helpeth: Here∣by it appeareth playnly, that they which turne thē selues away from GOD, do not therfore turne away, bycause they will not turne vnto him: but y^t they will not therfore turn rather, bycause God forsaketh them. That is to say, bycause the Lord of hostes conuertyng doth not quickē them, that they may haue will to be conuerted. Albeit I will not deny in the meane whiles that vn∣willyngnesse doth proceéde from men them selues & from their owne Freewill, yet this vnwillyngnesse notwithstandyng is not so freé of it selfe, that they which are forsaken can do otherwise, then they be vnwillyng of very Necessitie: neither can there be any defect of this will any where, but where Gods effectuall Grace was not present before. For as no man is good (as Augu∣stine witnesseth) that will not be good:* 1.790 so is there no man euill, but through his owne voluntary will, which will being forsaken of God, can neuerthelesse not do any otherwise but euill.

And why doth God forsake thē (will you say) why doth not God helpe them whom he hath created? Let me moue you a counterquestion I pray you, euen in as few wordes. And why do they not aske it of their God? if they be without, why do they not knocke? if they be vnbeleuyng, why do they not seéke? if they dwell in Sinne, why do they not repent. How can they (say you) seyng that they haue no Freewill (as you say.) Ad∣mit the same: but in whse default? in Gods default? but God did create mā perfect at the first, and endued him with freédome: was it mans fault? Let them then accuse them selues, not God. But ye vrge agayne. And why then doth he cōmunicate his grace to some, which he denyeth to others? why is he not

indifferently mercyfull towardes all? and as inclinable to all vniuersally? At the begynnyng, when God created man, he did then create also all the nature of man fully furnished with all integritie, and freédome. Afterwardes when this state of in∣nocency & freédome was lost, when as also the whole ••umpe was defiled withall, God might withall haue so forsaken all the same ingenerall. Neuerthelesse his mercy doth not so, but would ra∣ther by Election chuse some out of this abhominable corruptiō, not forsakyng the other altogether in the meane tyme: onely he denieth helpe vnto them, vnto whom he was not boūde to geue assistaūce. And what though he were not so indifferently mercy∣full towardes all? Yet was he iniurious to none: what? do you not heare what him selfe speaketh? Is thine eye therefore wicked is it not lawfull to do with myne own as it pleaseth me? Or at least, do you not heare the Apostle? O man what art thou that conten∣dest agaynst God? Whereas God doth owe theé nothyng at all, doest thou therefore snarle at him, bycause doyng wrong to no man, he doth enlarge the richesse of his mercy towardes them, whom it pleaseth him?

But foreward crawleth Osorius Inuectiue.* 1.791 For as much as this is the mynde and meanyng of Paule: what outragi∣ous furie is this madd man intoxicate withall, that would endeuour to persuade such a cōstruction by Paules testimo∣ny? which would both ouerthrow the state of humaine so∣cietie, and withall make God guiltie of vnrighteousnesse? Sithēce this is y^e infallible meanyng of Paule, which we haue heretofore confirmed after y^e Iudgemēt of Luther, Bucer, Cal∣uine and by the testimony of the holy Scriptures chiefly, which also Osorius him selfe (were he neuer so sober & sounde witted) can neuer be able to confute: to what end rendeth this so foolish, and childish exclamation, proceédyng from an old and grayhea∣ded man? whereunto serue these Tragicall outcryes?* 1.792 that this Ruler of roste so ruffleth vppe of a trifle, thundring out such mō∣struous outragies and franticke exclamations.

Which doth ouerthrow (sayth he) the state of men. And what kynde of estate of men is this at the lēgth, which Luther doth so ouerthrow? If he meane the state of the cōmon weale, & Ciuill societie: herein truly are many seuerall degreés & estates

aswell of offices, as of persouages. For there be Princes, there be Dukes, there be Knightes of y^e noble order, there be Citizēs, there be diuers & seuerall Magistrates, some hygh, some low, vnder whō are the meane & inferiour subiectes, euē the rascall rable & multitude. So •••• there also seuerall distinctions of A∣ges, Artes, handycraftes & in manitary occupations: some yoūg, some old, some riche, some poore. All these now albeit in nōber innumerable, & in kynde & qualitie distinct, are neuertheles cō∣federate & knitte together in a certeine generall vnitie, & mutu∣all cōformitie of allyed leaque, through a certeine Ciuill polli∣cie, & institutiō of maners: are beautified with mutuall amitie: are vnited & linked together to God, in one participation of Re∣ligion: are orderly gouerned by force of lawes: do exercize mu∣tuall traffique togethers: are restreined frō licenciousnes of lyfe with one maner of generall correctiō: So that if they liue not in full perfectiō of vertue, accordyng to y^e prescript rule of y^e lawes, yet do they much lesse offende, for feare of Iustice and Iudge∣ment. Now Syr in this generall Regiment & state of thyngs, and of persones, what one Citie, what one Villadge, or what Family was euer made one myte y^e worse by Luthers doctrine? either in respect of their due obediēce to Ciuill Magistrates, or in breache of domesticall tranquillitie, or in their dutyfull alle∣giaunce to their Princes, or in any other Ciuill societie.

* 1.793One onely disorderous order of people hath entruded it selfe vpon this state of humaine societie, vsurpyng a certeyne Prince∣ly superioritie (I know no thy what meanes) crept in at the first: sure I am, was neuer established by God, nor by nature, ne yet by any necessary institution. But pressing to the pearche, partly through fraude, partly through oppression, and chiefly through the ambitious arrogaunoy of their owne proude Prelacy: not to vndertake any necessary or profitable function in the weale pu∣blique, nor to ioyne in administration of office with others for the behoofe of any common weale: but to hale all other gouerne∣mentes vnder their Iurisdiction, and to make subiect all other estates, potentates, and Empires vnder their stately Superi∣oritie, by erectyng a certeine new founde, and Luciferlike Mo∣narch vpon the earth. It is that Romishe Tyrannicall, and Pa∣pisticall dominion which I meane, and complayne vpon, which

through incredible subtiltie, craft, & secrete slye vnderminynges vnder a commendable title of the Church, hath by litle and litle, enhaunced it selfe to so wonderfull loftynesse: that all other e∣states and degreés (beyng enforced to yeld their neckes to the yoake, as it were) must maugre their beardes, not onely submit their heades, and shoulders to their oppression, and tyranny, but also lyke miserable bondslaues, must with all reuerence, and hu∣militie prostrate them selues, to kysse their feéte. In this Impe∣riall throne is enthronized chief aboue all others, & triumphyng ouer all other estates, the most mighty potentate and Monarch the Byshop of Rome. Next vnto him (as the principall stayes and proude pillers of this Ierarchy)* 1.794 aduaunce them selues the Cormoraunt Cardinalles:* 1.795 Then follow in order the Roystyng route of Mytred Prelates,* 1.796 of the Scarlet crew of Rochettes, & shauelynges. I speake not here of good & vertuous Byshops: nor of true Ministers of Christ, but of such as hang onely vpon the becke of y^e Bysh. of Rome. Last of all, after those ••olly Chāpiōs, whole droues of Monckes,* 1.797 & Friers, come tumblyng in heapes together, a rable of rascals as of all other people the most lazy, and lewde, so surroundyng the whole world in such vnmeasura∣ble warmes (issue as it were and broode of the earth) that the earth it selfe is scarse able to foster vppe her owne generation.

And therefore if your meanyng concerne the ouerthrow of this sorte of people: in this pointe I do agreé with you Osorius. That Luther trauayled in deéde earnestly herein, but atchieued not so much as was neédefull for the Christian common wealth. For albeit he could not vtterly raze out the rakyng Regiment of those Romishe roysters, most inordinately raysing them sel∣ues, not onely aboue all Empires and Regimentes of the earth, but also beyond all whatsoeuer is called God: yet did he pretely shake them: he pluckt of the vysours of those Apish stagers, dis∣couered their fraude, made y^e world acquaynted with their sub∣till sleyghtes, and lyeng doctrine, and confuted them with the manifest force of the truth: finally albeit by openyng the light of the Gospell, he could not vtterly ••ende in peéces the shryne of the beast, which so many hūdred yeares had suppressed & drow∣ned in darkenes the knowledge of Gods word, yet was his in∣dustry and labour not vnprofitably employed to the defacyng

therof. And I would to God he had bene able, not onely to haue defaced the power and outrage of y^e Seé, but also to haue pluc∣ked the same vppe by the rootes, and brought the memory therof to vtter confusion, and vanished it cleane out of y^e myndes & me∣moryes of men &, Nations for euer, in so doyng truly he could not haue done any exployte more acceptable to God, and more profitable to the state of Christianitie. Certes many thousandes of men and womē had bene wonderfully preserued thereby, who through the more then barbarous & vnspeakeable cruelty of this consumyng gulfe, haue bene miserably swallowed vppe and de∣uoured within a very few yeares in Englād, Fraunce, Spayne, Scotland, Flaunders, Germany and other Christian Nati∣ons: for as yet can not this vnsatiable Cormoraūt be sufficiētly englutted and fully gorged with Christiā goare. And yet for all this,* 1.798 poore seély Luther is accused, which durst so boldly presume to vnlade and cure Christiā consciences of so cancred a Fistula, of so poysoned in impostume, and so raunging a carbuncle. And bycause he did dare to vndertake the patronadge and defence of the truth agaynst manifest heresies, and more then palpable er∣rours, there is no lesse layed to his charge then hygh treason, as though he practized the vtter ouerthrowe not onely of all Chri∣stian societie, but of the state of the whole world also. And why may not the Wolfe w^t as good reason condenme the seély Lambe for troublyng his water? Let Isaack also be accused, bycause he restored to the Philistines the Welles pure, and cleansed from filthe,* 1.799 & baggage whiche them selues had maliciously dammed vppe before. Let the Phisition likewise be endi••ed of murder, who ministring wholesome potion to his patient agaynst the pe∣stilence or phrensie, hath preserued lyfe. Furthermore let it be lawfull for Osorius him selfe to barke agaynst the shynyng of the Sunne, bycause it reneweth the gladsome countenaunce of the pleasaunt dawnyng, by driuyng away the dazelyng darke∣nes of the vgly night.

Finally let him quarrell w^t Christ himselfe, & his most sacred spirit,* 1.800 who did not onely himselfe rayse vp Luther for this pur∣pose, but also by playne foretellings did so many yeares before prophesie of y^e darcknes, decay, & ouerthrow of y^e self same Seé.* 1.801 And he poured out hys vyall (sayth he) vpon the seate of the beast,

and hys kingdome was couered with darckenes, and they did gnawe their tongues for sorrow. &c. Which prophesie for asmuch as can not by any probable allusion: be applyed eyther to the Iewes or to the Turckes: Let the Romish Seé bethinke it selfe well, what kynde of kingdome at the length is foreshewed here, by y^e words of the holy Ghost. And to the same end do the wordes of Saint Paule tend likewise: where he declareth in what maner the Re∣uealyng of the Sonne of perdition should come to passe.* 1.802 But after the proper phrase of speéche nothyng is sayd to be Reuealed, but that which before did lye close, & hidden in couert: And ther∣fore if of very necessitie the Deuine spirite of Christ must be had to the discoueryng of this couert Enemy, which could not other∣wise be espyed by the pollicy and witte of man: Certes it could not be, but y^t this Antichrist whatsoeuer he be must lurke & sha∣dow him selfe wonderfull couertly, and craftely, and that much people should be deceaued in him, before he could be Reuealed and detected to the world.

What Person this Sonne of perdition is, I doe not at this present trouble my braynes about, surely for my part I know no one person els, neither by application of the signes, notes, or cir∣cumstaunces, and playne demōstrations (wherewith S. Paule doth painte him out vnto vs) can I gesse vpon any other, whom this counterfaite may resemble in any proportion, besides this one Prelate onely, who so lustely vaūteth him selfe in the Tem∣ple of God.

And therefore these thunderboltes & great flashes of Osori. lightning touching the ouerthrowe of the state of Christianitie, do no more touch Luther, then the lying cauillation of Amasias the Priest of Bethell, did concerne the Prophet Amos, to be a seditious person, when he accused hym in the presence of Iero∣boam, the king; behold (sayth he) Amos hath conspired agaynst thee, euen in the middes of the house of Israell.* 1.803 Euen such like lie∣ger de mayne doth our Osorius vtter here, very finely expres∣sing vnto vs the wonderfull and singuler sleightes of the Papi∣sticall subtelties which those catholick counterfaytes seéme long sithence to haue sucked out of the crafty wyles, and practizes of that olde Comicall Phormio, who being chiefly to be detected for some crafty conueyaunce, steppe forth lyke call fellowes first,

and become accusers of others: supposing they shall hereby ac∣quite thēselues cleare of all suspicion of crime, if they cā first ac∣cuse others of the fault, whereof they ought themselues be im∣peached (And here in myne opinion) the very selfe same, or very like vnto the same, seemeth to haue happened to Luther, where∣with we read y^e wicked Achab did charge Elias y^e Prophet euē in like deceitfull maner,* 1.804 saying. Thou art he (quoth he) that do∣est trouble all Israell. Not much vnlike to that example of Nero whereof the histories make mention, who hauyng himselfe sett Roome on fire, playing and singing vpon hys harpe the destruc∣tion thereof in Homers verses, whiles it was on flame: did af∣terwardes lay the burning thereof to the Christians charge, to thend he might procure them (though altogether innocent) to be maligned, hated, and persequuted of the people. Euen in lyke maner (Osorius) whenas ye Papistes, & the generatiō of your holy Father haue long sithence tourned the state of the whole worlde, and the conditiōs and decrees of all Ciuill societie quite vpsidowne, according to your owne lust and pleasure: yea and dayly moyle and turmoyle the same, & haue left nothing sound, and in peacible order throughout the whole earth, continuyng still all maner of outrage, persequutyng continually with fire and sword, with your cursings and Bulles, with execrable In∣quisitions, horrible punishmentes, scourges, and tormentes, & with all maner of horrible tortures, triūphyng (as it were) vp∣on the Ransack of all Christian peace, & tranquillitie: Yet do yeé Papistes neuerthelesse rayle rudely vpon Luther. Thou art hee which doest trouble all Israell.

And why should not that song be chaunted rather euen into the eares of your holy Father the Pope? for this is he, the same very Troiane Horse: from out whose belly hath issued all cal∣lamitie, and mischief. This is that Dauus, that disturbeth all thynges. This is that Babilonicall strumpet Thais, the bruer of all misery. What will become of that Seé hereafter I know not: hitherto surely it hath so behaued it self, that it may be wor∣thely called the plague and cancker of all Europe: which may be easily made manifest by many and sundry testimonyes. And al∣though I speake thereof nothing at all, yet will their owne do∣ings and proceédings faythfully described by historiographers,

and deepely imprinted into the present view of the world, suffi∣ciently bewray their dealinges.* 1.805 The great and manifolde tur∣moyles of chaunged estates, the sundry vproares of people: schismes, slaughters of Christiās, the horrible disturbaūces of kinges, and kingdomes, the sundry alterations of the Romayne Empire, chaunges, and translations of the same from out the East first, into the West, do euidently declare the same: whenas the pope of Rome renouncing the othe wherwith the Romaynes and Italianes hadd obliged them selues to the Emperour of Greéce,* 1.806 did send for Charles Martellus out of Fraunce, into I∣talie, and crowned hym Emperour, contrary to the auncient order of Election. Afterwardes, because the Frenchmen would not yealde to their outragious ambitions, practised in procu∣ring the preéminence of the Popes Election, the Empire was sodenly translated from Fraunce, into Germany, by meanes of which inordinate alteration, can scarse be expressed by tongue, how great and how cruell warres and contentions followed be∣twixt the Frenchmen, and the Germaynes, in y^e raigne of Hen∣ry the first & Otto beyng then Emperoures. Neither was this amitye of the Pope towardes the Germayne Empire of any long continuance: whose onely and speciall practise was, that not onely all Bishops, but Emperours also shoulde runne to Roome for y^e Inuestiture and confirmation: Prouided alwayes, that it might by no meanes be lawfull for any of them, to enter∣meddle any thing at all in the Popes Iurisdictiō.* 1.807 Now because the Germaynes could not be made plyable hereunto vpō the so∣deine, as men who reuerēcing the dignity & maiestly of the Em∣pire (after the example of Otto, & other their Auncestours) were not willing to yeald to thabacing of their lawfull authoritie and prerogatiue imperiall: hereupon began incredible sturres and vproares to be kindled.* 1.808 This was the occasion of the great warres of the two Henryes, the fourth, and the v. Then also of Frederick the first, and the second: After them of Ludouick of Bauiere, and of his brother Frederick of Austrich: And agayne of Ludouick, & Rodolph, whom pope Gregory the seuenth of that name had priuily raysed vp against Ludouick the true and lawfull Emperour, sending hym a Crowne with thys proude inscriptiō or poesie, petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolpho.

* 1.809What should I here renew the remembraunce of those old Tragedies of the Emperour Henry the vi. wherwith the whole world is well acquaynted? vpon whose head Pope Celestine the iiij. vaunced vpō an high throane, did set the imperiall Crowne not with hys hande, but with hys foote, and immediately with the same foote, ouerthrew the same Crowne agayne: most arro∣gantly boasting, that he had authoritie to create kinges and to depose them agayne. What shall I speake of Chilpericke the Frenche kyng?* 1.810 Whom Pope Zacharie agaynst all equitie and conscience dyd depose from hys true and possessed inheritaunce, and aduaunced in hys place Pypyne?* 1.811 And it lacked very little, but that king Phillip had bene driuen to the very same extremi∣tie:* 1.812 agaynst whom Pope Boniface the 8. did by all meanes pos∣sible teaze, and egge to battell Alberte the king of Romanes, to driue him out of hys kingdome. Like as before hym Pope Hil∣debrand, did mayntayne in armes Henry the Sonne, agaynst his own naturall Father Henry the fourth,* 1.813 who brought to passe by hys cruelty, that the Father (beyng taken prisoner by the Sonne, and shorne a Moncke) was thrust into a Monastery in stead of a prison, where he perished miserably, through famine, and want of foode. What shall I say of that, where Pope Alex∣ander the 3. that most meéke seruaunt of the seruauntes of God (treading vpon the neck of a most renowmed Emperour as vp∣on the imperiall maiesty trodden now vnder foote) applyed ther∣unto thys triumphant Sonnet takē out of the Psalmes of Da∣uid. Super Aspidem & Basiliscum ambulabis &c. Neyther was Frauncisce Dandalus king of Creéte and Cipres,* 1.814 and Duke of Uenice any iot more fréndly intreated, whom Clement y^e proud Romish Prelate would scarse at the lēgth after long sute admit vnto speech, though chayned with an Iron Roape, and lying vn∣der hys table amongest dogges. Surely I shall seeme to mea∣sure the sandes, when I enter vppon the gulfe of thys Romishe Ierarchy. Briefly therefore, and to be short: what Nation? what Countrey? what territory? what Iland did euer heare of the name of thys Seé? whiche hath not withall bene pinched with their crampes, spoyled with their exactions, and beggered w^t their trumperies: at or least skarse peépeth as yet frō the tiran∣nicall thraldome thereof? Yea what vproares? what commoti∣ones?

what warres haue wasted, or consumed any Christian na∣tion these many hundred yeares at any tyme? whereof this Ba∣bilonicall strūpet hath not bene wholy, or at y^t least for the more part the Author and procuror? And no meruayle at all. For what may be looked for els, at the handes of so proud a prelate? who beyng enflamed and boyling inwardly (as it were) with such an incredible inordinate desire of luciferlike superioritie: as that he would onely, and alone, rule the roast, and haue all others in subiection vnder hym, how then could such vnmeasurable ambi∣tione be possibly satisfied without infinite troubles, vproares, & tumultes? And therefore as touching that clamorous accusaci∣ons agaynst Luther: to be a common Barrettor and distur∣bor of all Ciuill societie, seémeth to me to be framed of Osori. none otherwise, then as though he would that Luther shoulde onely beare the name, but that the Bishoppe of Roome shoulde winne the game.

Deale playnly therfore (Osorius) and poynt directly to the Butte, that you ought to haue shotte at: Name the person by his name, if ye will be taken for a good Proctour at the Barre: yea if ye be so carefull for the preseruation of the common weale of Christendome (as ye are a curteous and Ciuill Gentleman) let the force of your wrotte eloquēce be blowen directly agaynst those persons, whiche are Enemyes to Christendome in deéde, which treade Empyres vnder foote, which doe writhe and wrest Scepters out of the handes of Princes, which moue commoti∣ons, styrre vpp y^e people agaynst the Nobilitie, y^e Subiectes a∣gaynst their Kynges, which do mainteyne the Sonnes in armes agaynst the fathers, which do cause the subiectes to abiure their sworne obedience due to their liege Lords, & teaze and prouoke the rude multitude to bende their force agaynst their naturall Princes, which doe ouerthrow the peace and tranquilitie of the Church of Christ, with their seditious Bulles, open warres, & Ciuill discensions, which do subuert all places of Iustice, Iudi∣ciall seates and Iudgementes, rende lawes asunder, are truce breakers, and disturbours of peace, are disseysours and disinhe∣ritors of lawfull discentes, proprieties, and possessiōs: & are pil∣lers and pollers of all cōmon weales: which do turne all thyngs vpsidowne, choppyng and chaungyng, and makyng a generall

confusion of all thynges: finally whiche doe neither render that vnto God that apperteyneth vnto God, nor geue that vnto Cae∣sar, which is due vnto Caesar: but rushe violently into both esta∣tes, aswell Temporall as Spirituall, makyng hauocke of all: and appointyng one onely Iudiciall Consistory in this world, to witte, Gods and the Popes. If these dealynges emporte not a generall ouerthrow of all Ciuill, & politicke gouernementes, let the accuser hym self deny it. But if he confesse it to be true: now then may I be so bold to demaunde of Osorius, that he will vouchsafe to aunswere me truely without parcialitie: For as much as that Pōtificall Romish Seé is to to much polluted, and defiled with all those enormities (wherof I haue made mention before) which one of these cā he pyke out at the length, that may be duely & truly layed to Luthers charge? where was Luther at any tyme moued with such desire to beare rule, as y^t he seémed willyng to beare full sway, and be Lorde and Ruler of all o∣thers? Where did he entrude vpon the right of any Prince, or tooke vpō him selfe violently the authoritie of the Ciuill Magi∣strate? where did he shew him selfe rebellious against the Supe∣riour powers? where did he disturbe the peace, and quiet gouer∣nement of any weale publique? What Church or Congregatiō did he molest & trouble? where did he euer shake of the obedience of due allegeaunce? or procured any Subiectes to rebellion a∣gaynst their Gouernours? What Empyres did he transpose? what Kyngdomes did he trouble? what warres was he the au∣thour of? what Kynges or Byshops did he euer minister poyson vnto? either in the Communion bread, or in the wyne within the Cōmunion Chalice? or in the common drinkyng goblet? as we read in the Hystories hath happened vnto the Emperour Hen∣ry, vnto Victor, and vnto Iohn kyng of England. And I would to God there had neuer bene besides there any other poysoned after the same sort. When? or to whom did Luther euer offer his feéte to be kissed? or vpon whose necke did he treade with his feéte any tyme? Finally in what Natiō or Countrey was Lu∣ther euer knowen with his curses Excōmunications & Bulles, to haue vsurped vpon the Maiestie of any Prince? or to haue a∣bated the due obedience of the people? or els to haue allured and drawen away the harts of the Subiectes (which were by oathe

obliged to their hygher power) to rebell? and pursue the destru∣ction of their Rulers and Magistrates? contrary to their othe, contrary to all Religion, contrary to all law, reason, and com∣mon course of nature it selfe? Which inordinate outrage beyng neither to be found (by report of any Chronographer) amongest the Scythianes, ne yet amongest the cruell Massigetes: yet this do we read, yea and haue seéne with our eyes to haue bene prac∣tized of late here in England, by the treachery of Pope Pius the fift, agaynst our most gracious Queéne Elizabeth: yea and not long sithence agaynst the late renowmed Kyngs Henry the viij. her Father, and Edward her brother.

But it comes already to my mynde, what aūswere Osorius will make to all this. For all that I haue spoken touchyng the ouerthrow of the peace of the church, and the scatteryng abroad of the possessions therof, Osorius will forthwith take holdfast of, and hurle violently with all the force of his eloquence agaynst Luther: speakyng in this maner. What? assoone as these bookes of Luther were scattered abroad,* 1.815 doe we not see how the quiet and peacible estate of the Churche is vexed and troubled euery where? how Monckes are driuen out of their selles? spoyled of their goodes? Chanones thrust out of their Colledges? Abbottes and Byshops throwen out from their rightfull possessiōs? In deéde we seé this to be done in ma∣ny places (Osori.) Euē so also do we seé the darke cloudes to va∣nish away after y^e rysing of the Sunne in y^e mornyng: we seé also the foggy mystes to be scattered abroad, y^e darkened night to be driuen away, the smaller starres to lose their brightnes, and the heauens to waxe cleare, beautifull, & fayre of hew, and men that before seémed blynde with drousy sleépe, to awaken, and shake of their sluggishnes at the cleare shining of the glittering light.

Now cōcernyng your Obiection agaynst Luther, in the be∣halfe of the Church, of the Byshoppes and Monckes, you shall then make partie colorable, & good, whenas ye haue right∣ly defined: First what y^e true Church is, who be true Byshops, and true Monckes. When I do heare this word Peace named, when I do heare mētion made of the Church & of Byshoppes,* 1.816 I can not chuse but acknowledge them to be honorable, names & cōmendable titles: yea euen such as all men do most gladly & 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

ioyfully embrace, but yet truely vnder these names lurke many tymes, many crafty conspiracies, I know that it is not vnfitly reported by the Poete. That Peace is the most precious pearle of Dame Natures stoare.* 1.817 And surely as euery man excelleth in vertue and pietie, so for the more part is heé studious & care∣full most for the due preseruation of Peace and of concorde. And therfore good men doe ioue Peace, yea and mainteyne Peace a∣mongest them selues, yet good men onely (good Syr) haue not Peace alone. How glorius & acceptable a thyng soeuer Peace is accoumpted to be in her owne nature, yea though it be chief∣ly embraced and hadd in greatest price with good men: Yet is not Peace alwayes, and altogether conuersaunt amongest good men onely,* 1.818 nor the entoyeng of Peace alone doth make men to be good. For there is a certeyne Peace amongest the wicked: Yea Pirates, Theéues, & Robbers haue their certeine Peace, and agreément in willes. Neither is it to be doughted, but that false Catholiques, and such like heretiques haue their seuerall Conuenticles, and peacyble bandes of concorde, and consent: e∣uē as the false Apostles and false Prophetes had in tymes past. They that worshypped the Golden Calfe, and they that conspired & took counsell agaynst the Lord cryeng Crucifige agaynst him, did represent a certeine forme of the Churche, and were firme∣ly knitte together in mutuall Peace,* 1.819 and agreément of myndes. If it be an haynous matter to dissolue the bandes of Peace, and knittyng together of fellowshyppes, concluded and determined vpon for euer occasion whatsoeuer: we must neédes thinke that Cicero dealt very wickedly,* 1.820 who at the tyme of Catelynes con∣spiracie did breake a sunder, and sparckle abroad the false trea∣theries of this detestable cōspiracie, beyng linked together with a certeyne wonderfull agreément of willes and affections, yea and affyed together & sworne in one, by drinkyng a cup of bloud. So also did Elias very naughtely,* 1.821 who detected so great a nū∣ber of the Priestes of Baal, agreéing together so constaūt in er∣rour, and in so great a tranquillitie, causing them to be slayne.

And therfore it is not enough to pretend the names & titles of Peace and of the Churche onely: if their effectes be not aun∣swerable. Peace (sayth Hillarie) hath a glorious name, and truth is had in great admiratiō: but who doughteth of this, that the one∣ly

vnitie and peace of the Church, and of the Gospell, is that which is of Iesu Christ alone? &c. Now as the Peace of Christ, and Christes true Churche doth alwayes lyue in a perfect vnitie, so together with vnitie doth it alwayes enioy perfect truth and veritie. On the contrary part, that Peace and Churche what∣soeuer is not grounded vppon the Rocke of Christes infallible truth, is not Peace, but Battell rather: is not the Churche of Christ,* 1.822 but a conspirary of naughty packes. And therfore we do seé many tymes come to passe, that vnder the name of Peace, ve∣ry naturall dissentiōs are fostered, and many persons are decea∣ued by the paynted vysour of the title of the Churche: yea they are many tymes accumpted seditious persons, which doe vp∣hold and mainteyne Peace and tranquilitie most. After this maner Tertullus the Oratour did accuse S. Paule to be a sedi∣tious fellow: so was Christ him selfe also, and his Apostles, ex∣claymed vpon as seditious by the Phariseés:* 1.823 the holy Martyrs were likewise charged w^t treasō, & procuring of vprores, by y^t vn∣beleéuyng Emperours and miscreant infidels. Euen so fareth it now a dayes with Luther, & the Lutheranes. Luther (sayth he) doth rende a sunder the Peace and tranquillitie of the Church with his writynges and preachynges: doth teare in peeces Christes Coate that is without seame, rayseth tu∣multes and vprores, doth entāgle whole Christēdome with dissentions and varieties of opinions.* 1.824 And why so (Osorius) I pray you? From sooth, bycause he doth discouer the liuely well∣springes of sounde doctrine, bycause he doth enstruct men to cō∣ceaue the most wholesome and souereigne Grace of God in his Sonne, and declareth vnto them the true rule of righteousnes, and the true Peace which is in Christ Iesu: bycause be allureth all men to the onely mercy of GOD, excludyng all mans merites, and vayne confidence of Freewill. Now bycause their bleare eyed dulnes could not endure the sharpenes of this light, from hence flush out all these fluddes of complaints, from hence rush out all these Tragicall scoldinges, & exclamations, where∣with these Rhetoricall Becons haue conceaued so greéuous a flame, ragyng out on this wise. Is not this mōstruous wicked∣nesse? is not this horrible maddnesse? is not this intollerable presumption? what feuer doth make thee so frantike Had∣don?

what furies doe possesse thee Luther? what paynes of haynousnesse doe pursue thee? And such like pleasurable or∣namentes of whotte eloquence, which scarse any man can read without laughyng.* 1.825 For who can endure to heare common out∣lawes complainyng of Sedition?

Truly I suppose (Osorius) that with the very same wordes and euen in the same maner of outrage, or surely not much vn∣like, Herode and the whole Nation of Phariseés did crye out, whenas the fame of Christes byrth being bruted abroad, it was sayd,* 1.826 that Herode the king was exceedingly troubled, and with him all Ierusulem also. And therfore accordyng to this Logicke, and Rhetoricke of Osorius. Let vs condemne Christ him selfe for a seditious fellow: bycause, vnlesse that child had bene borne, and that Sonne had bene geuen vnto vs, those troubles had neuer arisen amongest the Iewes. What shall we say to y^t? Where the same Christ afterwardes beyng now of well growē yeares, did declare in playne & open wordes, That he came not to send peace in the earth, but a sword, but diuision, but fire, and that he desired no one thyng more earnestly, thē that the same fire should be kinde∣led. Wherfore if it be so much to be feared, least breach of Peace and concorde, breéde offence: Let this Portingall aduise him selfe well, whether Christ shalbe here accused as farre forth as Luther, bycause in the Gospell he is sayd to sturre vppe the Fa∣ther agaynst the Sonne, the daughter agaynst the mother, the step∣mother agaynst the daughter inlawe, and the daughter in lawe a∣gaynst the stepmother, two agaynst three and three ogaynst two: or whether Luther ought to be acquited with Christ, for as much as in this accusation, he can not duely be impeached with any one cryme, which may not also aswell be charged vpon Christ. If the Peace of the Catholickes be disturbed in these our dayes through Luther, the same also happened to the Phariseés in old tyme, by the meanes of Christ and his Apostles, yea not to the Phariseés onely, but also in sturryng vppe all the Natiōs of the earth in an vproare: wherein yet no fault can be layed vpon Christ, who is himselfe the Prince of Peace, and can by no meanes be vnlike him selfe. In lyke maner, and with lyke con∣sideration Luthers doctrine is to be deémed (as I suppose). For what a sturre soeuer the Papisticall generation keépe in these

our dayes, yet surely is not their Peace hindered by Luther: or if it be, yet ought not he to be accused that ministred wholesome playster to the wound, but the fault was to be imputed rather to them, whose cankers were so vncurable, that could not endure the operation of the Medicine. And therefore as touchyng the crime of sedition, and troublesome disturbaunce of Peace layed vnto Luthers charge, therein the accusation is wrongfully mis∣tourned, and Luther iniuriously dealt withall. For it is not Lu∣ther, that hath turned the Peace of the Churche vpsidowne, but the worldlynges, with their Osorius do in a corrupt sense define the Peace of the Churche.

It is an vndoughted truth that they speake,* 1.827 and whiche wee also do confesse together with them to witte: that the Churches of Christ, as it is one, and most peacible: so delighteth in nothing more then in Peace. But let Osorius geue vs such a Peace, vn∣der vysor whereof lurketh no conspiracie agaynst the Lord: Let him geue such a Church wherein are not fostred Enemies, and traitoures of the true Church. I speake it not, because I recken them all enemies of y^e church that are Resiaunte within the bor∣ders and territories of that pontificall Ierarchye. So neyther Luthers vehement writings were bent agaynst them all. Nay rather Luther carpeth at no mans person priuately, inuadeth no mans possessions, nor seéketh the losse of any mans life. Onely a∣gaynst the wicked Assertiones, Determinations and decreés, of your pestilent patched doctrine,* 1.828 agaynst the established erro∣neous falshoods, abhominations, and heresyes, agaynst the wic∣ked worshipping of Idols, Breadworship and stock worshippe, and most pestiferous Superstitious Absurdities, wherewith y^e force & efficacy of y^e Euāgelicall fayth was well neére ouerwhel∣med (not without manifest perill of the losse of many thousandes of Christian Souldiers) Luther vndertaking the Necessary pa∣tronage of the truth, endeuoured with all hys skill and force, not to the end he would hurt any man, but that he might enduce o∣thers to the same cleare light, & sweéte ioyce of vnderstanding, whiche himselfe had sucked out of the pleasaunt source of holy Scriptures. If your darcknes vanish cleane away at the view of this light: If Herode withall hys Ierusalē be troubled, If y^e Gentiles do frett and fume and the people imagine vayne thinges,

If monasteries fall down altogethers: If Idols shiuer in peéces If the issues and sproughts of Religiones neuer planted by god, be plucked vp from the bottome of the Rootes: is this the fault of Luther? or the greuousnes of the malady rather? that will by no meanes eudure the launcing of the soare? or is it because the botches and plagues could no rather be handled, but woulde of thēselues burst out, and vanish away into vapours and smoke? And what if Landes and possessions long times englutted with gorbelly mouncks,* 1.829 became a pray to the spoylers: or were tour∣ned to some better vses? first what an iniury is thys to impute that vnto Luther, which Princes and Magistrates in their se∣uerall dominiones dyd establish, as they lawfully might? morco∣uer what is that to Luther? or what meruell is it if the byrdes do pluck their own fethers againe, which they gaue before to the though? And what should let but that a man being better adui∣sed, might reuoke and employ to better purpose, as may seéme him best, y^e thing wh he did foolishly or wickedly lauish out before? But hereof enough: and I am long sithence throughly weryed in spending so much breath and losse of so much tyme, in conten∣ding with such a trifling brabler, who accustoming himself to no∣thyng els almost but to lying, and slaundering, yet amonges so many notable lyes, & heaping together so many slaunders vpō slaunders, hath not hitherto iustified any one of all hys lyes, to beare but euen a bare resemblaunce of truth.

And here agayne commeth to hand an other most shamelesse, and abhominable lye: So conning a craftesman he is, that the further he proceédeth, by so much more he contendeth with hym∣selfe, yea and exceédeth hymself in slaundering.* 1.830 And thys is it forsooth? That Luther (as he sayth) doth accuse God to be an vnrighteous God. Good words I pray you good my Lord: In what place of all Luth. speaches, or writinges dyd you euer finde any such worde, or sillable? wherein heé layed the cryme of vnrighteousnes vpon God? Not so: but a man may gather no lesse by hys assertion. And no meruell: if you be the expositor thereof your selfe. For what other thing els doth the venimous spyder suck out of the most sweete honnysuckles, and pleasaunt roses? but poyson: But go to. Let vs heare at the length this no∣table Collection: for Luther doth affirme that all thinges doe

proce••de from out Gods eternall predestinatiō aswell whē such as beyng Vessells of wrath are damned through theyr owne default: as also, when such as are Vessells of mercye without any their desert are aduaunced to glory. Thys phrase of speeche beyng not founded first by Luther, but long before hys dayes preached by Paule, and confirmed by the full consent of the whole Scriptures: Osorius knittyng and plat∣tyng together many absurdities (which are both false and ill fa∣uouredly placed by the meanes of wrong misconceauing the said phrase of speeche) is come at the last to conclude on thys wyse. That God of Necessitie must be accompted vnrighteous,* 1.831 as one that doth vniustly punishe poore wretched miserable men for the euill deedes which they do not of their owne accord: but whereunto they are forced through eternall co∣action. But this conclusiō is not Luthers: but framed by Osori. hymself. And I think no man aliue besides Osorius was euer a∣ble to forge so madde a conclusion: who if were as voide of desire of friuolous cauilling, and slaundering, as Luther is cleare of this reproch, to condemne God to be an vnrighteous God, he would neuer haue patched vp his papers with such friuolous libels and vnsauory Argumētes, bewraying therein his notori∣ous ignoraunce. But that the matter may appeare more playn∣ly, let vs display and vnfold his whole captious argumentation which he hath framed to entangle Luther withall, standing in armes as it were agaynst him with a certeine brood of ill fauou∣red coupled propositions. And in this sorte crawleth forth thys slipper deuise for the more parte.

If be determined by the sure and established decree of predestination,* 1.832 what shall become of euery thing: and that it can not be, but as he hath decreed what soeuer he hath decreed shall come to passe. Then is it necessary that all things must be boūd and tyed to an euerlasting Necessitie.

If all thinges be brought to passe by an absolute Neces∣sitie: then must God be accompted the onely author and workes of all thinges, whether they be good or badde.

If all thinges good or euill, be ordered by the guyding of God the Author thereof. Then remayneth nothing for mans Freewill to put in execution.

If this be graunted: it followeth hereupon, that men when they rushed headlong into mischiefes, do not now cō∣mit wickednes of their owne accord, but as it were tooles and instrumentes of wickednesse, plyed thereunto by an o∣thers hand, and enforced with merueilous coaction.

Which propositions being thus argued by Luther, there∣ensueth vpon the same (being-layed together) this Necessary Conclusion.* 1.833 That God doth deale vniustly if he will punish that in man, which hymselfe willeth and determineth to be done.

* 1.834The Logitians that haue described the fourme of a Sorites doth deny that this kinde of arguyng is of any substaunce, vn∣lesse the parts of the true properties, and differences do accord and aunswere eche other, with a necessary coupling together of the kyndes and the formes, and that the proper effectes be ap∣plied to the proper causes: Of all which there is not one so much obserued in all this heape of wordes, and sentences, wherein if I might as lawfully vtter some follishe skill, by creeping for∣ward after the same sorte, with follish childish degrees of propo∣sitions: it would not be hard for me to conclude, out of gram∣tyng the freédome of mans will? That there were no Predesti∣station nor prouident of God at all in heauen: which we proued before out of Augustine•• was once concluded vpon by Cicero. First such as doe affirme, that God is the chief and principall cause of all thyngs, and do graunt all things to be subiect to his will, do not erre, except Augustine do erre, who discoursing vp∣on the will of God.* 1.835 The will of God (sayth he) is the first and So∣ueraigne cause of all formes and motions: for there is nothing done that issueth not fromout the secrett and intelligible closett of the highest Emperour according to vnspeakeable Iustice: for where doth not the omnipotent wisedome of God worke what it pleaseth hym? which mightely stretcheth hys power from one ende of the worlde to the other, and ordereth all thinges most sweetely? Thus much Augustine.* 1.836 And yet this cause doth not therefore enduce such a Necessitie of coactione, as Osori. doth imagine, as that no freédome of will should remayne in man, that he should do no∣thing of hys own accord, that he should deserue nothing worthy of punishment: but should serue in steede of an Instrument (as

it were) enforced through fatall coaction, & should be gouerned by an others power, that it selfe should bring nothyng to passe, wherefore it ought to be punished. Now for asmuch as Luthers Assertion, doth maintayne none of all these: what is become of that horrible accusation, wherein Luther is sayd to accuse God of vnrighteousnesse?

It is not agreable with Iustice (sayth he) that such as are onely instrumentes of wickednesse,* 1.837 should be punished. But according to Luthers doctrine men in doing wickedly, seeme nothing els then instrumentes of wickednes. Where finde you this M. Doctour? where haue you it? who euer besides Osorius spake on this wise either waking or sleéping? sometime Gods prouidence doth vse the seruice of man to punish euill do∣ers. Euen so did God auenge hym vpon the sinnes of owne people, by the Babilonianes. Agayne to take vengeaunce of the Assirianes, was Cirus the Duke of Persia raysed vppe. So did God vse also the malice of the Iewes, to finish the worke of our redemption: for vnlesse that Natione had conspired agaynst the sonne of God, we had not bene redeémed. And what is the deuill himselfe, but the Rodde of correction in the hand of God? and as it were an Instrument of vengeaunce, ordayned to pu∣nishe the outragies of euill doers? yet doth it not therefore fol∣low, that deuils and wicked persones, when they are called In∣strumentes of Gods wrath: are nothing els but Instrumentes, as though they were forced onely, and themselues did nothing at all, and as though by doyng nothing, themselues deserued no wrath. For neyther do we so imagine mē to be like vnto stoanes (as I haue sayd before) as though we left vnto them no abilitie in action:* 1.838 euen as the mynde of man, vnlesse it be ayded, can of it selfe do nothing but sinne: so doth no man sinne at any tyme, but by hys owne voluntary motione: which sinne albeit he doth not commit without the will of God, yet because he doth commit it contrary to the will, and commaundement of God, he is not acquired of hys fault. As when a murtherer killeth men, albeit he seeme after a certeine maner to exe••uute the will of God, yet because he doth not the deede onely beyng of the minde simply to serue hys God, but rather to follow the rage of his malice, ther∣fore is he neyther excusable: as beyng not faulty: nor is God to

be accused for vnrighteous, because he executeth hys wrath.

Wherfore it is false and slaunderous which Osorius doth conclude vpon the Assertion of Predestination. For he cōcluded two absurdities chiefly, but with a farre more grosse absurditie The first.* 1.839 That God is the cause of destruction and repro∣bation. The secōd That they which offend are punished vn∣worthely. Both which are vnmeasurably vayne: For albeit the decreé of God be the first and soueraigne cause in all actiones, by the which all other second, and inferiour causes are gouer∣ned: and although there is condemnation to the Reprobates, without the same decreé: Yet neuerthelesse this same condem∣nation is both adiudged righteous: and floweth also from their own will properly, & not properly frō the decreé of God. For ma∣ny thinges be done agaynst the will of God, by a certayne won∣derfull and vnspeakeable maner (as I haue sayd) whiche come not passe notwithstanding,* 1.840 without hys will. He ruleth ouer the mindes of men (as Augustine reporteth) and worketh in their hartes to encline their will whither him listeth, eyther vnto good thinges for hys great mercyes sake, eyther to euill thinges accor∣ding to their deseruings, after the proportiō of his owne Iudgemēt, sometymes manifest, sometimes secrett, but alwayes most iust and righteous: bringing to passe by a certayne merueilous operation of hys owne power,* 1.841 that in the things which men do agaynst the will of God, it cannot be, but that the will of God must needes be fulfilled.

Therefore the will of God (as you seé) is the first and soue∣raigne cause of all causes, and motiones: whiche neuerthelesse must be so vnderstanded, that thys first cause respect properly nothyng, but the last ende. Now this ende is the glory of God, and the most excellent commendation of hys Iustice, and mer∣cy. In the meane tyme the other middle endes do depend vpon their owne middle, and proper causes, and are referred vnto the same. Whereby it commeth to passe, that betwixt Gods de∣creé, and the condemnation of the Reprobate, many causes of condemnation doe come betwene, to witte: Infidelitie: the In∣heritable corruption of Nature defiled: and whatsoeuer fruites spring thereof. Now the proper efficient cause of this Infideli∣tie, and naturall corruption, is mans will, not Gods predesti∣nation: which corruption and Infidelitie notwithstanding are so

gouerned by Gods decreé so subiect there vnto, that although they be not executed by the decree of God, yet chaunce they not at any tyme,* 1.842 besides hys decree, nor without hys decreé: whereof God (as Augustine sayth) is not the cause efficient, but the cause deficient.

Now therefore where is that fatall and euerlasting Necessi∣tie (Osorius) which (as you say) doth thrust men maugre their heades by violent coaction without any their owne will into all kynde of wickednes?* 1.843 where are the vndescrued punishmendes of oftendours? where is the ouerthrow of the cōmon weale? where is that haynous accusation of the vn∣righteousnes of God? And where are now those Protago∣ristes and Diagoristes, and men farre more wicked then any of those, of whom you preache so much? what aunswere shall I frame to this your malapere and currishe slaunderinge, O some of Iemini?* 1.844 If God haue cōmaunded you to lye so shame∣lesly without controlement, and to backbite vertuous persona∣ges in this sort, what remayneth for them, but that they pati∣ently endure this generall grief of the godly? and recomfort thē∣selues by the example of Dauid? If peraduenture the Lord will behold their affliction; and will render vnto them good thinges for this cursed slaunder. In the meane space: this one thyng de∣lighteth not a little, that whereas his fellow doth counterfayte and lye in all thinges, yet he doth the same so openly, that no man can choose but laugh at hym: and withall so Impudently, that euery man may detest hynm: and agayne so blockishly, that euery man may despise, and deryde him for it. Wherby it com∣meth to passe that he doth not so much preiudice to Luther, by euill speaking, as he doth bewray hys owne ignoraunce to the worlde, by worsse prouing hys false and forged lyes: seeing heé hath neyther seemed to haue learned any thinge of the truth as yet, nor proued those lyes which he hath forged, nor euer shalbe able to proue any of them. Go to, and what gaine (think ye) haue you made by these your slaunders and lyes? when as ye accuse Luther amongest the nūber of Atheistes. Diagoristes & Pro∣tagoristes? and farre more wicked also then any of these? as one that doth condemne God of vnrighteousness: affirmeth him to be the Author of euill, dispoyleth man of Iudgement &

reason, bryngeth in fatall Necessitie (excludyng all action and operation of Will) compelleth men to do wickedly a∣gaynst their willes: teacheth that men may freely be euill, and go vnpunished, couereth their naughtines with an ex∣cuse: These and other vnspeakeable treacheries when ye lay to Luthers charge, do ye beleue that ye shall make any man geue credite to your talke? And doe ye not think, that some one or o∣ther will ryse vppe vpon the sodayne, which by readyng Luthers bookes, will espye thys your manifest falshood in lying? Let e∣uery man that will peruse Luthers writinges, ouer and ouer, which he hath left behynde hym as pledges, and testimonyes of hys fayth: who hath euer iudged or written more honorably of Gods Iustice? who hath euer with more vehemency, reproued mans vnrighteousnes? or condēned it more sharpely? so farre is he of from shadowyng the wickednes of naughtipackes, with a cloude of excuse. And where then hath thys man affirmed, that God is the Author of euill? Or where doth he tye men to a Ne∣cessitie of sinnyng? such a Necessitie especially as Osori. drea∣meth of? This doth he affirme, That Nature being left desti∣tute of grace, cānot but sinne of very Necessitie: which Necessi∣tie notwithstādyng proceedeth frō no where els, then frō will it selfe beyng corrupted. But Osori. doth so snatch, and wrest this sentēce into a cauillation, as though Luther did bryng in such a Necessitie, as should leaue no freédome to man at all: moreouer such a Necessitie as should so abolish all libertie, as though will could vndertake nothing at all of his own voluntary choyse: but should be forced, and whirled (as it were) to all thinges through ••oaction and constraint: Such indifferency vseth Osorius here both to make an open lye himself, and to charge Luther with a lye also. In the first wherof the vayne error of Osorius is easily espyed, & in the second hys vnshamefast impudēcy discouereth it selfe. Now to make the same appeare more euidently, it will not be impertinent in this place to make a short collection of all the sentences and argumentes of ech partie, touching the whole cause of Freewill and Predestination: which beyng compiled in∣to certayne brief places, it will not be amisse likewise to expoūd the same: That by this meanes the Reader may more easily cō∣ceaue, and more substancially discerne betwixt the doctrine of

eche party, aswell of them y^t are of Luthers opiniō, as also of thē that hang vppon the Popes sleaue: what is truth, and what is false: and how slaunderous a toung Osorius hath: what soeuer therfore hath bene taught by Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Cal∣uine and other Deuines of sounde Iudgement of Freewill and Predestinatiō, are to be reduced for the most part into this brief.

¶A Breuiate of all Luthers doctrine of Free∣will and Predestination gathered out of his bookes: And withall the contrary Argumentes of the ad∣uersaries and the solution of the same.

FIrst as cōcerning mās corrupt nature thus they teache. That man is so wholy and altogether de∣filed, that he is not able of him selfe, or of any part of him selfe, to atteyne vnto God. But they deny not but man may come to GOD, by the helpe of Grace.

2. That it is not in mās power to prepare him selfe to receaue grace, but all mās conuersion to be the gift of God, in the whole and of euery part.

3. That the Grace of God is not so offered, as that it resteth in our choyse afterwardes to take, or refuse.

4. That the grace of God is not so geuen, nor to thus endone∣ly, that by his aide onely it shold helpe our weakenes, as though there were otherwise somwhat within vs: but that the worke and benefite hereof is his owne: that our stoany hartes may be conuerted into fleshly hartes: that our wills be not bettered, but wholy renewed: That being regenerated in harts and myndes first, we may will that, which we ought to will.

5. That mākinde hauing lost that freedome, which he recea∣ued in his first creation, fell into miserable bondage: And they deny, that man being in this seruile estate, is endued with any free abilitie to do good, or euill, as that he may applie him selfe

to whether part him listeth. And here they expounde free∣dome to be that, which is opposite to bondage.

6. Touching the effectuall operation of Gods grace: thus they doe affirme: that our will is not so raysed vppe by the conduct therof, that it may be able of it selfe if it will: but that it is re∣newed and drawen, so that it must follow of necessitie, neither that it can be able otherwise, but to will.

7. They denie that in perseueraunce, man worketh together with God, as that of his owne power, it may obey the guiding of God: moreouer in rēdring reward, they denie that the latter grace is geuen to euery mā in steede of recōpence, as though by well vsing the first grace, man had deserued the last grace.

8. That mā cā do nothing at all, especially in the things which apperteine vnto God, but so much as God himself vousafeth to geue. And that God doth geue nothyng according to his good pleasure, but the same is altogether free, without all respect of any mans deseruinges. Finally that God doth geue nothing of set purpose; but that he pursueth his owne worke to an end, in a certeine perpetuall order and course.

9. That man doth not so worke together with God, as brin∣ging or adding any thing of his owne, but doth worke by mea∣sure onely in spirituall thinges, by how much he is forced by the cause agent. So doth the minde see, but being enlightened: Iudgement doth discerne, and chuse, but guided by the dire∣ction of the holy Ghost. The will is obedient, but being first re∣generated. The hart is willing: but being renewed, man doth endeuour, doth will and doth bring to passe, but accordyng to the measure that he hath receaued.

10. Moreouer where as it is declared, that man hath a will aswell in good thinges as in euill thinges, then if question be moued what kinde of thing will is of it selfe, they do aunswere with Augustine. That will is alwayes naturally euill, that of it selfe it can do nothing, but frowardly bende it selfe against

the Iustice of God: and that it is made good through grace one∣ly, and so made good, that it may then of necessitie loue and sol∣low righteousnes which it abhorred before.

11. They doe confesse with Augustine, that men when they sinne do neuer sinne, but of their owne accorde and by the pro∣per motion of will: and that they doe vaynely that do post ouer the fault therof to any others but to them selues.

12. Agayne when they are directed to good thinges by the Spirite of God, yet that their will is not excluded here: for as much as euen this is the very grace of God, namely, that their will is enclined to desire good.

13. That euen from the first creation, nature is so weakened, that sinne must cleane thereunto of very Necessitie. Whiche Necessitie neuerthelesse proceedeth not from God, nor from nature simplie, neither from any destinie, nor yet any forreine coaction, but from the corruption of nature, and from euery mans proper and peculiar inclination, and is to be ascribed thereunto: to which inclinatiō is annexed vnauoydeable Ne∣cessitie of sinning, as Augustine recordeth.

14. Luther Caluine, and the others, when they seeme to take away Freewill: the same is so to be construed, as that they doe not wholy take the same away, but in that sense onely, in the whiche that aduersaries doe establishe the same: That is to say, wherewith they do establish merite and preuētiō in Freewill.

15. Last of all whereas the whole difficultie of this contro∣uersie doth cōsist in three wordes chiefly, to witte: Will, Free∣dome and Necessitie.* 1.845 Our Deuines do distinguishe the same after this maner.

The will of God is takē ij. maner of wayes: sometymes for his secret counsell, wherwith all things are necessaryly carried to the end, whereunto God hath directed them before. And so do we say, that nothing is done besides this will: It is also some∣tyme taken for that, which God approueth, and maketh accep∣table

vnto him selfe: And in this sense, we do see many things done, now and then, cōtrary to his will discouered in the scrip∣tures. And therfore according to his will, God is sayd, that he willeth all men, to be saued, whereas yet not all, nay rather but a very few are saued.

* 1.84616. Freedome also, which is peculiar to man, is discerned by two maner of wayes: either as it is set opposite to bondage: and this Freedome Luther doth vtterly deny, as he may well doe: or as it is set contrary to coaction, or fatall necessitie. And this Freedome Luther neuer gaynesayd: For as much as there is no will, which can endeuour any thing against her will, or the thing which she will not, or which will may sinne at any tyme except she will her selfe.

* 1.84717. Likewise Necessitie is to be taken two maner of wayes, the one of certeintie, and vnchaungeablenesse: as hath bene declared before, which Osorius cā not deny. The other of vio∣lent coaction, which doth offer force vnto will: And the same is imputed to Luther falsely.

18. But now, that former Necessitie (which is called vnchaū∣geable) albeit it take her beginnyng from the cause of Gods Predestination: yet this Predestination doth not cast such a Necessitie vpon thinges, which may remoue Freewill, no more doth it take away the Iustice of God, wherewith he doth ren∣der to euery one according to his workes. These thinges beyng thus set downe, and duly considered, it shalbe an easie matter, not onely to withstand the cauillations and subtelties of Osori∣us, but to confounde the residue of the Sophisticall brables of all other aduersaries also, wherewith they practize busily enough (but all in vayne) to oppresse Luthers cause: weuyng their Cobbwebbes (as I may tearme them) for the more part after this maner hereafter following.

¶The Argumentes of the aduersaries agaynst the foresayd Assertions propounded and confuted.

If our actions be first determined and decreed vpon:* 1.848 two inconueniences doe ensue vpon this Assertion .1. that the Freedome of mans will must vtterly perish .2. that men shal be constrayned by Necessitie, as if they were bounde in bondes. &c.

There are so many,* 1.849 & so manifest testimonies in the Scrip∣tures, concernyng the truth of Predestinatiō, and the foreknow∣ledge of thyngs to come, that they can by no meanes be denyed. As to the Obiection of inconueniēces, it is vntrue. For the Freé∣dome of mans will doth not so perish, but that men do alwayes chuse the thyng, that they will of their owne accorde and wil∣lyngly. Then also neither is any such Necessitie layed vpon any man, which by force of coaction may driue him to do that, which he would not. Moreouer although it rest not in our Freédome, that we may be chosen, or forsaken: it followeth not therfore, that we haue no Freédome to any other thynges. This is therfore a captious Argument, falsely concludyng, from the proposi∣tion Secundum quid, ad Simpliciter.* 1.850 As if a man would argue in this sort.

A fleshly man doth not conceaue the thynges that are of God.

Ergo, The force of mans witte doth conceaue nothyng at all in any matter whatsoeuer.

Osorius maketh Luther worse thē Diagoras:* 1.851 and Pighius maketh him worse then the Manichees. Pighius Argument is framed in this maner. The Manichees, bycause they would ascribe wickednes to God, did imagine two begynnynges: Luther ascribyng wickednes and mischieuousnes to God, maketh vs lyke vnto a Sawe, whom God doth draw, and driue forth and backe, whether him lysteth.

Manichee did appoynt two natures in man,* 1.852 thone good, the other euill: whereof that one could not sinne, this other coulde not do well. Luther doth neyther affirme two natures in man, neyther doth so condēne y^e same nature of man, wholy of it self:

but as it is corrupted after the fall, hee doth affirme, that of Necessitie and alwayes it doth resiste Gods Spirite, yea euen in the very Saincts thēselues, being euen from their very child∣dhoode enclined to euill. Then, that wicked men are as Sawes in the hand of God, not onely Luther, but Esay also doth con∣fesse. And agayne, whereas he sayth, that the remnaunt of flesh (euen in the holy ones) is like a wilde sauadge Tyger, euer re∣sistyng against the Spirite, and whereas also he doth cōuince y^e whole fleshly Iudgemēt of mā of faultynes naturall,* 1.853 he differeth herein nothyng at all. From Paule and Augustine, Augustine writyng vpon Iohn. Let no man flatter him selfe (sayth he) of him selfe he is a Sathan•• Let man therfore take away Sinne: that is his owne: and leaue righteousnes vnto God. &c.

* 1.854Osorius is not so blokishe as to make Luther equall with Diagoras, but much more wicked. And why so?

He adiudgeth is to be more tollerable to thinke there is no God at all, thē to conceaue that God is wicked and vnrighteous.

* 1.855But Luther doth conceaue him both wicked and vn∣righteous.

Ergo, &c.

Undoughtedly a very haynous fact, yea more then Diago∣ricall, If so be that any man either were euer so detestably abho∣minable, as to be able to conceaue any such thyng of God. But frō whence shall this mylde & charitable allegation of this most curteous Prelate appeare at the length vnto vs to be truly vou∣ched agaynst Luther? For sooth vnlesse I be deceaued, as the mā is not altogether blockish, he will coyne vs, this euident demon∣stration out of the bottome of his owne braynes.

* 1.856Whosoeuer doth impute the faulte to an other of the thyng he can not auoyde: doth vnrighteously.

Sinne is a thyng in man that can not be auoyded, as Lu∣ther doth say.

Ergo, God imputyng Sinne vnto man after Luthers do∣ctrine is vniust.

* 1.857The Maior proposition is true in those persons, which were not them selues the cause of y^e thyngs, whiche they could not a∣uoyde. But man now through his owne will hath throwen him

selfe into that Necessitie of Sinnyng, which he is not able to o∣uercome. Wherupon the fault of the trespasse that he commit∣teth, is iustly imputed vnto him selfe, nor can he nothwithstādyng chuse, but doe the thyng that is committed. And so by this rea∣son, the Maior is false. Moreouer as touching the Minor. Two thynges are to be considered in Sinne, as it is taken to be the punishment of Sinne, cleauyng fast vnto vs. The Acte and the Imputation: For although the Acte he not taken away altoge∣ther through the corruption of nature: Yet through Christ the Imputation of the Sinne is take away. Therfore if a man cā not be freé from Sinnyng. Let him obteyne a remedy for sinne in Christ, in whom Sinne, though be vnauoydable in this weake nature, yet can not be hurtfull at all, bycause it is not im∣puted: Whereupon Augustine very fitly.* 1.858 Sinne (sayth he) may be auoyded: not when the proude will is aduaunced, but when the humble and meeke will is holpen. And the same is holpen in them, which call earnestly by prayer, which do beleue, and which are cal∣led accordyng to Gods purpose.

He is in vayn cōmaūded to make choise,* 1.859 who hath no po¦wer to applye him self to the thing which he doth chuse. But we are commaunded to chuse both lyfe and death, aswell good as euill.

Ergo, We haue abilitie in vs to applye our selues aswell vnto life as vnto death, aswell vnto euill as vnto good.

These thynges are alledged, lyke as if there were any man y^t did vtterly driue away wil,* 1.860 or abilitie of freé choyse frō mē. We doe confesse that man hath a freé, not a coacted power to chuse good or euill. For we do chuse both, not through any coaction at all, but of our owne voluntary will, albeit our choyse is not all alike in both: for we make choyse of the thyngs that apperteine vnto Saluation after one sorte: and of the thinges that are wicked after an other sorte: For wicked thynges, and thynges that are not godly, euery man greédyly catcheth after, & of him self is greédyly carried thereunto: yet so neuerthelesse of him selfe, as of his owne nature he can not otherwise do: if he be not hoplē. But good & godly thyngs no man can chuse, through the naturall inclination of Freewill, vnlesse he be thereunto assi∣sted by the ayde of the holy Ghost. This therfore that is read in

the Scriptures:* 1.861 God left man to the power of his owne counsell: he set before mans face lyfe and death, good and euill, aduising him to chuse life. &c. Is a true saying, but with this restrainte al∣wayes annexed: that of hym selfe he was able to rush into all e∣uill, and beyng ayded by the holy Ghost, he might be able to doe well: on the other side: not beyng holpen, that he is neither of a∣bilitie to do any thyng acceptable to God well, nor could chuse by any meanes, but worke the thyng that was displeasaunt vn∣to God.

* 1.862If man be not the thyng, that he can not be, of his owne power and will, but be compelled of Necessitie to be that, which he ought not to be.

Ergo, This is not now to be imputed to man, nor yet see∣meth he to be in any fault for it.

The Aunswere is out of Augustine.* 1.863 Nay rather it is ther∣fore the fault of the man, that he is not without Sinne, bycause it came to passe by mans will onely, that he should come to such a Necessitie, which could not be counteruayled vp the onely will of man.

* 1.864If to Sinne be naturall not voluntary, then either is it not sinne now, or surely not to be imputed.

But if sinne be voluntary and not naturall nor of Neces∣sitie: then in respect that it is voluntary, it is auoydea∣ble by will, that it neede not cleaue vnto vs of very Necessitie.

* 1.865Augustine doth Aunswere: God created Nature at the first pure and sounde•• which may not be accused, as if it were the cause of Sinne. But afterwardes mans owne will did defile this good na∣ture, which beyng now corrupted conceaueth Sinne, which neither can be healed without the grace of God. Moreouer touchyng the thing that is done by will voluntaryly, it can not be denyed but that the same will may be chaunged: and so the will being chaunged, the thing also that was done voluntaryly may be altered. But whereas it is sayd, that will may be chaunged by will it selfe, this sauoreth surely of a wonderfull arrogancie.* 1.866 For asmuch as the flesh wil∣leth agaynst the Spirite, and the Spirite agaynst the flesh (as the Apostle him selfe witnesseth.) And these two are at warres agaynst eche other, so that ye may not doe the thynges

that ye would. Gallat. 5.

Either a man may be without Sinne,* 1.867 or he can not be without Sinne. If he can not, what reason is it, that Sinne that can not be but present, should be imputed? If he may be without Sinne, how is will then bounde by Necessitie, which might haue eschued the thyng that was committed?

And to this also Augustine maketh Aunswere: That a man may in deede be without Sinne if God do helpe him, we do not deny: but this reason proueth not, that there is any man without Sinne, that is not holpen, neither do we agree thereunto. But when a man may be without sinne, and by whom, that is the thyng that is in que∣stion. If thou wilt say in this present life, and in the body of this death, how then do we pray in this life, forgeue vs our sinnes? If mā can of him selfe be without Sinne. Ergo, Christ dyed in vayne. &c. But Osorius vnderproppeth his Freewill here, with this crooch in couplyng the grace of God with it, disputyng on this wise.

By the assistaunce of Gods Grace nature may subdue Sinne.* 1.868

The grace of God doth assiste them that be his owne.

Ergo, In the thynges apperteinyng to God all Necessi∣tie of Sinnyng is quyte excluded.

Least Osor. may not seéme to differre nothyng at all from the Pelagians:* 1.869 he doth vphold the cause of Freewill w^t an addition of Grace. And yet for all this, he doth not so catche y^e thyng y^t he ga∣peth for, but that a Necessitie of sinnyng shall alwayes be resi∣aunt, euen in y^e holy ones of God: Grace assistyng (sayth he) Na∣ture may exclude Sinne. If he meane the perfect assistaunce of grace, by the wh all infirmitie of nature is taken away, y^e Maior is true, but y^t Minor is false. For to confesse, as truth is, the ri∣ches of Gods graces to be wonderfull, and his blessyngs, which God powreth into his Elect to be magnificent, yet this Grace of God doth not make any man of such a singuler perfection in this world, but that the best of vs all many tymes offende in ma∣ny thynges: and do pray dayly, that our trespasses may be for∣geuen. The grace of God, in deéde doth helpe our infirmities, y^t they may be lessened and pardonable, but to be cleane cutte a∣way, y^t I do vtterly deny: it doth in deéde helpe out infirmities, yet leaueth it vs neuerthelesse in our infirmities, that he may al∣wayes

help vs. How plentifully the Grace of Christ was pow∣red vpon hys holy Apostles, no man is ignoraunt: which Grace notwithstanding did not make perfect their strength, to the full measure: but the same grace rather was made perfect, through their infirmitie In part (fayth S. Paule) we do know and in part we do perceaue,* 1.870 But when that is come which is perfect, then shall that which is vnperfect be abolished. For now we behold as by a glas in a darck ridle, but then shall we see face vnto face: nowe doe I know in part, but then shall I know as I am knowne.* 1.871 And therfore to aunswere at one word. If Osorius do meane that assistaunce of Gods Grace, which may make absolute and perfect obedience in this life: Augustine will immediately deny the same: who dis∣coursing vpon the first commaundement,* 1.872 whereby we are com∣maunded to loue God withall our hart, and our neighbour as our selfe. We shall fulfill that commaundement (sayth August.) when we shall see face to face: And immediately after: And ther∣fore the the man hath profited much in this lyfe, in that righteous∣nes which ought to be accomplished, who doth knowe by profiting, how farre he is distaunt from the full perfection of true righteous∣nesse. Lastly whereas it is argued from the power of Gods grace: that sufficeth not to exclude Necessitie of sinning, for it may come to passe through Grace, and the absolute power of God, that a man may not sinne at all, And that the fire may not burne also. And it might haue come to passe likewise, That the punishment of the whole corrupted masse in Adames loynes, should not haue bene deriued into the posterity, if it had so plea¦sed God. Yet are not all things done, that may be done: vnlesse the decreéd Will of God do ioyne together with his power. Not vnlike vnto this, is the very argument of Celestius the Pela∣gian agaynst Augustine.

* 1.873If God Will, it may come to passe that man may not sinne in wordes nor in thought.

But Gods will is that no man should sinne

Ergo, Nothing withstandeth but that man may not sinne in wordes nor in thought.

* 1.874The forme of this argumēt should rather haue bene framed on this wise. If God Will and do minister help withall, it may come to passe that man shall not sinne at all, but God willeth, &

helpeth withall that a man shall not sinne at all in worde nor in thought Ergo &c. I doe aunswere with Augustine, vnto the Minor. That it is true in deéde, that God willeth and helpeth agaynst the force of sinne: I doe adde ouer and besides, that no man is holpen but he that willeth, and worketh somewhat him∣selfe also. But two things are to be noted here: both who they be, that are holpē, & how God doth help them: Forsooth such as call vpon him, such as beleue in the Sonne, such as are called after the purpose of hys Will: and such as whose will is s••irred vppe to this end, to craue earnestly for assistaunce. Because whom he hath foreknowne, thē hath he also predestinate to be made like vn∣to the Image of the Sonnes of God. &c.* 1.875 Furthermore it must be cō∣sidered, by what meanes he doth helpe: not to the ende that no more dregges of sinne should from thenceforth cleaue fast in the flesh, but to the end that sinne should not raygne in y^e mortall bo∣dyes of them whom himselfe hath sanctified through Grace.

What thing so euer God will haue to be done, must of Necessitie be done.* 1.876

God will haue all men to be saued.

Ergo, It is of Necessitie that all men shalbe saued.

I do aunswere vnto the Maior all things that God will haue done,* 1.877 must be done of Necessitie, so that God yelde hys helpe also together with hys will, that they may be brought to passe. Then I thus annswere to the Minor. That it is true that God would haue all men to be saued, with this addition annexed, All to witte: All that beleéue in the Sonne. For without the Media∣tor, he will haue no man saued. But now sithence it is not geuē to all men to haue fayth: nor that all men do repayre to Christ, for helpe. The fault hereof is their own vnbeleéuingnes, not the will of God. But some of Osorius pupills will vrge agayne.

Forasmuch as fayth is the gift of God,* 1.878 and hys will that all should be saued, is an vniuersall promise: and that the greatnes of his mercy is prepared ready, and set forth to all indifferently: why then is not geauen to all indifferently to haue fayth? is it because God will not geue it? but so should he seeme an vnrighteous distributour, and so should he offend in Iustice distributiue: Or is it because men will not embrace the kingdome of GOD? But this doth argue that

men may take holdfast of the gift of fayth, if they will. And how then is the power of Freewill suppressed?

* 1.879I do aunswere first out of the scriptures, then out of August. And they beleeued as many as were foreordeyned to lyfe euerla∣sting Actes 13.* 1.880 Augustine. Two thinges are to be holden to be re∣siaunt alwayes in God. That there is no vnrighteousnes with God: and likewise, it must be firmely beleued, that God hath mer∣cy on whom he will haue mercy, and on whō he will not haue mercy. thē he hardeneth. That is to say: on whom he listeth he will not take mercy: whereupon whether he geaue any thing, or require that is dew vnto hym: neyther he of whom he requireth it, can well com∣playne of hys vniust dealing: nor he to whom he geueth, ought to be ouer proud and boast of hys giftes: for the one neither rendereth a∣ny more then is due, and the other hath nothyng but that which he hath receaued,

* 1.881If God had commaunded vs to do the thinges that hym selfe saw were impossible for vs to do, he might seeme wor∣thely to be accused of vnrighteousnesse.

* 1.882This obiection were perhaps to some purpose, vnlesse the scriptures had prouided a Triacle for this malady : namely, Fayth, in hys Sonne: in whom when we do beleéue, endeuo∣ring in the meane whiles as much as lieth in vs, we do then ful∣fill the whole Law of workes: That is to say: we do attayne full & absolute righteousnes, as well as if we had fulfilled the whole, beyng endued wi••h righteousnes now, albeit not properly our owne, yet enioying hym notwithstanding whiche of God was made our righteousnesse, by Fayth: Whereupon Luther in hys booke of Christian liberty hath written very excellently.* 1.883 That which is impossible for theé to bring to passe in the whole works of the Law (sayth he) which are in number many, thou shalt ea∣sily accomplish with small labour. Namely, by Fayth. Because God the Father hath placed all thinges in Fayth, so that who∣soeuer is indued with this Fayth, may possesse all thinges: and he that is voyde of this Fayth, may possesse nothing at all. After this maner the promises of God doe geue that which the com∣maūdements do exact, & they do finish that, which the law com∣maūdeth: so that now he onely, & alone is he, that may cōmaūd, and he onely and alone is he, that may bryng to passe. &c.

To what end are ordinaūces to liue well prescribed?* 1.884 why are threatninges added to the stifnecked and rebellious, if men were not able to liue well? why is a freedome of choyse set out vnto vs, to enter into whether way we will, if we can not be able to holde the right way? who is so madde to com¦maund a blinde man to keepe the right path? or who will commaund that man that is so fast bound as beyng vnable to moue hys arme, but vnto the left side, to reache hym a a thing on the right side, whiche is not possible for hym to doe?

Augustine will aunswere.* 1.885 That which man is not able to at∣teine to by nature, vnto the same may he yet attayne by grace: he doth meane there, of liuyng commendably, not of liuyng perfectly: which was neuer as yet graunted to any one person in this life (no though he were aided by grace) but to Iesu Christ alone. But ye will demaund agayne, to what end then was the law published? and naturall choyse set out vnto vs, if that choyce be not free to make choyse of these thinges, that are set forth to our Election? I do aunswere. That this complaynt of Nature, might beé not altogether impertinent, if he that gaue the lawes had created the same Nature, such, as we haue at this present. But now whereas he did at the beginning create Nature, vp∣right, and vnspotted: God according to the selfe same Nature, did publishe hys law vnto men, whiche shoulde be holy and vn∣defiled. Neither could he do otherwise: whose commaundemēts if we be not able now in this corruption of Nature to accom∣plish with due obedience, there is no cause why the fault there∣of should be imputed to GOD (who can neyther will nor com∣maund any thing, but that which is most righteous) but we our selues, and our first parentes (Authors of this disobedience) and the Deuill the coūsellor are to be blamed therfore. God cā not be vnlike himselfe. If we become vnlike to our selues, whose fault is it? ours? or his? Furthermore touching the obiection of the blind, and the mā that was bound, hereunto I do aunswere: That the similitude is not in all respectes correspondent, for this cause. For if God had blynded man at the first, or had chay∣ned hym fast with such Roopes of Necessitie, and afterwardes had commaunded hym, whom he made blynde, to keepe the

right pathe, or him whom he had first bounde fast, to reach after∣wardes ouer to the right hand: this were perhappes not altoge∣ther from the purpose, that is cauilled: but now for as much as the cause of this blyndnes was procured by man him selfe, and not sent by God: he is not to be blamed that geueth necessary counsell (to speake as Augustine doth) but he that hath entan∣gled him selfe into such a Necessitie, out of the whiche he can by no meanes vntwyne him selfe agayne.

* 1.886A righteous and wise Law geuer doth neuer proclayme such Statutes, the performaunce whereof will exceede the abilitie and capacitie of his subiectes.

God is the most righteous and most wise Law geuer.

Ergo, God in publishyng his law did prescribe nothyng beyond the capacitie and abilitie of his owne Crea∣tures.

* 1.887I do aunswere vnto the Maior, two maner of wayes. First: That the same is true in deéde, in those lawes whiche were esta∣blished of the Lawgeuer, to this onely ende, that the subiectes should exactly performe the same. But albeit GOD did desire this thyng chiefly, that all men should precisely and throughly obserue his Ordinaunces, yet besides this consideration, there are many other endes and causes.* 1.888 1. That the Iudgement and wrath of God agaynst Sinne should be made manifest. 2. That we might be more easily brought to the acknowledgemēt of our Sinnes and weakenesse. 3. Thyrdly, that vnderstandyng our weakenes the more we feéle our selues more heauyly oppressed with this burden, the more sharpely we should be prouoked (as with the Schoolemaisters rodde) to fleé vnto Christ, who is the end of the law. 4. That by this Schoolyng, as it were, we may learne what way we ought to take, that if it be not geuen vs at the least to atteyne the full, and absolute obedience of the law, yet that begynnyng to be obedient, we may profitte as much as we may.

Secundaryly we do confesse, that the Maior is true in res∣pect of those lawes, for the due obseruation of the which, there is no cause to the cōtrary, either by the Lawgeuer, or in nature it selfe, but such as appeareth rather in the Subiectes: Whose onely fault, and disorderous licentiousnes procureth the breach

therof. As for example. If a Prince do sende foorth an Ambas∣sadour in all respectes whole, sounde, and well enstructed, to whom afterwardes he geueth in commaundement to put some matter in execution, which he might very easily bryng to passe vnlesse through his owne default, and disorder he made him selfe lame, halte, or vnable to execute the commaundement of his Prince. Now, if this Ambassadour for want of health, and strēgth become vnable to execute his Embassie, ought y^e Prince to be blamed for it? or the Ambassadour rather, who by his owne folly hath disabled him selfe? And that is it that Augustine doth seéme to emply in his booke De perfectione Iustit.* 1.889 Nay rather for this cause (sayth he) the man is blameworthy, that he can not per∣fittly doe his duetie, nor liue without Sinne: bycause by mans owne will it came to passe, that hee should be driuen to that Necessitie, which could not afterwardes be shaken of agayne by mās will alone.

Thyrdly here is to be noted, that there be foure maner of meanes or wayes to obserue the law. 1. Either by the force of our owne strength: and by this meanes the greatnesse of our strength is ouercome by the law. 2. Or by the helpe of some o∣ther: And so nothyng withstandeth, but that we may fulfill the commaundementes of the law. 3. Or by the operation of the ho∣ly Ghost in vs, to make vs to lyue godly. 4. Or by Imputation through fayth in the Mediatour, who freély forgeueth our im∣perfection, and iustifieth the Sinner and wicked also.

All sinne is voluntary.* 1.890

Ergo, No man sinneth of Necessitie.

Here must be a distinction added in these wordes Will and Necessitie.* 1.891 If Necessitie be taken in this place for coaction, then is the consequent true: but if it be taken for euery vnchaū∣geablenesse, which of it selfe can not be otherwise altered, then is the Argument faulty. Moreouer in the Antecedent. If the word Will be taken for a sounde Will & able enough of it selfe, such as was in y^e first creation of nature, the consequēt were not amisse, and was true in deéde in Adam. But if we take it for that Will, which is in vs now defiled, and full of corruption, the Argumēt concludeth no Necessitie at all, no more thē if a man should ar∣gue on this wise.

Euery man by nature is two footed.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Ergo, Euery man may goe.

If Nature here be meant for sounde, the Argument is good: but if it haue relation to one sicke of the palsey, or to a maymed mā, or one that is bounde with roapes, beyng fallen in the hands of theéues: your selfe will deny the Argument. And why so? not bycause man is not two footed by nature (if ye regarde his first creation) but bycause this nature is woūded through the disobe∣dience of our first parētes, and maymed altogether: so that now either we haue no feét•• at all, or they be not sounde surely: or if they be hoale and soūde, they are not at libertie to treade on the groūde, but fast bounde by theéues, and are holden, captiuate vn∣der Sinne: so that either we be not able to go at all, or at least lesse able to treade the right tracke that we ought to doe, vnlesse the holy Samaritane come, and let lowse our bandes, namely: the assistyng Grace of Christ Iesu, of y^t which Augustine spea∣keth very notably.* 1.892 If we will mainteyne Freewill (sayth he) lot vs not gaynsay that, from whence will taketh her Freedome: for he that denyeth Grace, whereby it is made free, either to eschue euill or to do good, is willing to continue still in bondage. &c. And ther∣fore when we debate or dispute of Will: the question must not be referred to nature it selfe, but rather to the corruptiō of nature.

* 1.893There is no Necessitie of sinning where will hath a free∣dome to doe.

All men are endued with a Freewill to doe.

Ergo, There is no Necessitie of sinnyng in men.

* 1.894Where Freédome of Will is, there is no Necessitie of Sin∣nyng, this propositiō is false. For there is not such a repugnaū∣cie betwixt Will and Necessitie:* 1.895 whosoeuer sinneth freély, the same also sinneth voluntaryly. No man is enforced to Sinne, but is drawen to wickednesse by the enticementes of his owne will, and not by any foreine constrainte. Chrisostome:* 1.896 He that draweth, draweth him that is willing. Wherfore if our owne will do carry vs headlong to Sinne, let vs not Impute it to Neces∣sitie, but to lust.

And therfore to make a distinction of these thynges (Osori∣us) and that ye may be satisfied, if it be possible. Voluntary and Necessary are not opposite. For they may both light together at one tyme in Will. When Will enlightened by the inspiration

of the holy Ghost, doth earnestly couet after euerlastyng lyfe: this it doth of Necessitie in deéde, yet neither vnwillyngly, nor cōstrayned thereunto: for it cā not come to passe by any meanes, that will may be any tyme enforced to will that, whiche it will not. Nay rather Augustine is of this opinion, that it standeth as much agaynst the conueniencie of reason, for man to will the thyng that he will not, as if a mā would contend, that any thyng could be hoate without heate.

And yet that Necessitie in the meane tyme wherewith wic∣ked men are sayd to Sinne, is not so absolute, and vnauoydea∣ble, as that they can not chuse but continue in their wickednesse. For assoone as the holy Ghost,* 1.897 and the grace of Christ preuēteth them, that chayne of that Necessitie is forthwith broken in peéces. And therfore Augustine doth say, that it proceédeth of na∣ture to be able to haue fayth, hope and charitie, but to haue thē in deéde commeth vtterly of Grace. For that power and habili∣tie is not put in execution, vnlesse Grace be geuen from aboue. And thus farre forth Augustine did agreé with Pelagius, that to be able, commeth of nature: but Augustine addeth withall, that Pelagius would not agreé vnto. That to will well and to liue well, must be ascribed onely to grace.

Nothyng ought to be accompted for sinne, which doth not depende vpon the free choyse of man.* 1.898

This is true,* 1.899 if it be taken of that kynde of Sinne, that is called the punishment of sinne. For otherwise Originall sinne is neyther voluntary, nor vndertaken of any choyse.

If you be willing and be obedient,* 1.900 ye shall eate the fatte of the earth.

But if you will not, nor will be obedient, the sword shal deuour you, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

Ergo, It is in mans power both to will, and not to will.

Augustine.* 1.901 The whole law is full of such conditions. And these Commaundementes were geuen to suppresse the pryde of Arro∣gant persons by way of sufferaunce, vnder a colour, vntill the seede should come that was promised.* 1.902 That is to say. That men should be tyed to the commaundementes whiche otherwise presumed proudly before of their owne strength, In the accomplishing of the whiche man faynting, and made to quayle in hys owne conceipte, he shoulde

be forced to flee, to the deliuerer and Sauiour. And so being ter∣rified by the rigour of the Law, should by the same Lawe, as by a schoolemaister be conducted to fayth, and to grace. &c. This much Augustine.

* 1.903Sinne is eyther of Will or of Necessitie: if it be of Neces∣sitie: then doth Osorius deny it to be sinne, if it be of Will: then may it be auoydeable.

Augustine maketh aunswere. That sinne is not of Nature simply, but of Nature corrupted, and of will depraued: where∣vpon ensueth vnauoydeable Necessitie to dwell in sinne vntill a Release be sealed, and deliuered from the Grace of GOD through Iesus Christ our Lord. And therefore that man may be acquited of this Necessitie, he is to be called vpon, vnto whom the Psalmist cryeth out. Set me at libertie O Lord from my Ne∣cessities.&c.

* 1.904God doth neyther forbid nor commaund any thing in vayne.

He shoulde prohibite in vayne, if the thynges that are contayned in the Lawe might not be eschued or ful∣filled by vs.

Ergo, We be of power to accomplishe or to eschew the things which God doth commaund or prohibite.

* 1.905Augustine doth aunswere. The whole Lawe which is compre∣hended in these two commaundementes, in not coueting, and in louing: To do good, and to eschew euill, doth com̄maund things that ought to be done in deede, and forbiddeth the contrary: nor so much because that we are of power and abilitie to accomplishe the same of our selues, but because when as man feeleth hys owne disa∣bilitie and weakenes to performe them, he shoulde not swell nor be pufft vppe with pryde, but beyng weryed and faynt in his trauaile, should seeke for relief at Christs handes: and so the law holding him in a couenable feare, should in stead of a schoolemaister leade to the loue of Christ.

* 1.906God doth commaund nothing but that which is in our power to performe.

God doth commaund spirituall thinges chiefly.

Ergo, Thinges that be most spirituall are in our power.

* 1.907The Maior were true, if the will were sound, or such as was

at the first, in the first man Adam, before the fall whiche was of power to enforce her selfe wholy to the keeping of the lawe, nowe sithence all the powers of the soule are weakened, and vn∣effectuall altogether to do any good, we must seek for abilitie y^t may satisfy the law in heauen, and not in our selues.

If man were not of power to be obedient,* 1.908 God shoulde enstruct and exhort in vayne.

In vayne I confesse: if he should vse none other meanes, but externall preceptes to lead to the true profiting in Godlines.* 1.909 But as now, sithence he maketh hys doctrine effectuall through the inspiration of the holy Ghost, it is farre of, that his dotrine should be fruitlesse.

God commaundeth nothing that is out of our power.* 1.910

True it is, if you meane of that power, not which is engraf∣fed in our naturall corruptiō, but that power wh God doth geue to hys holy ones peculiarly from aboue.

In the conuersione of a sinner God himselfe doth not by hys own will cōuert him alone,* 1.911 but doth allure and exhort hym, that he may cōuert hymself: for in much lenity & pati∣ent suffering, he doth not punish hym, but graūteth space & place of repentance. & prouokīg solliciting, & pricking him forward to repentaunce, vseth many occasions exhortati∣ons, and corrections. And therefore it is our part to be con∣uerted, and to tourne agayne, and hys office to receaue the sinner that retourneth, and to quicken him.

The collusion,* 1.912 and fallax of thys reason, is in the insuffici∣ent nombring of partes, or deriued from the cause insufficient: for albeit God do work all these in the conuersion of a sinner, yet doth he not vse these externall meanes onely, but ministreth also in the meane space the motione of the harte withall, and the in∣spiration of a secret renouation.

In the regeneration and conuersion of man euery of vs haue of our selues sufficiently to be obedient to the calling.* 1.913

It is in euery man I confesse: but not of euery man,* 1.914 but pro∣ceédeth frō an other, who calleth inwardly before that man doth outwardly obey.

The Tridentine Fathers doe obiect that man may refuse to geue hys consent, and to reiect grace when it is offred.* 1.915

* 1.916That is true in deede, and to true: Neyther doth any man Imagine that Grace is so thrust vppon man in hys conuersion, as though he shoulde be constrayned to receaue it, whether hee would or no: which neyther he can refuse, though he will. But this is the meaning hereof. That the holyghost with hys secret effectuall operation, doth so enlighten the hartes of hys elect y^t the Grace (which he graunteth of hys owne liberalitie) shalbe receaued, that the will cannot choose but receaue it, with an har∣ty desire and earnest willingnesse, yea most ioyfully and gladly. But if it happen that grace be forsaken, that proceadeth from the corruption of our own fleshe, and our naturall faultines na∣turally engraffed within vs.

* 1.917 Agayne, it is also in our power to geue our consent.

In vs in deede, but not of our selues as Augustine reporteth, who sayth that grace doth not finde good will in vs, but doth make them to be good. &c. And in an other place. Who ronneth to the Lord for Grace, but whose foot steppes are directed thereunto by the Lord? And therefore to craue the assistaunce of Grace is the very beginning of Grace.

God hath set before all men indifferently a ctrteine ge∣nerall grace and promise and a free desire of choyse,* 1.918 that all men may conceaue it that will.

* 1.919 We do not deny, that we haue altogether a generall grace of God, that calleth vs to eternall saluation. But this must be con∣fessed withall, that Grace to embrace the thinges whereunto we are called, is not graunted to all ingenerall without excep∣tion, but distributed by a certayne peculiar Election, and Pre∣destination of God to some: whereby it commeth to passe, that it is not in euery mans power y^e will, to refuse, or take hold fast of this grace, so generally offered, but in their power, vnto whom it is geuen, for to take or refuse Grace offered, is not in our own power. Otherwise what place were left for Gods Election, be∣fore the foundation of the world were layde? If our will were a a rule of hys Election, or the cause and beginning of our salua∣tion. And therefore this their cauillation, that God doth receaue them that will be receaued, and doth reiect them, that will not be receaued, is vntrue. It had bene more agreable with reason, to beginne rather at the Grace of God, then at our owne will, and

it had bene more conuenient, to haue sayd, that the Grace of God is graunted vs, to the end we may will those thinges, that he commaundeth vs: and that such as forsake it, are worthely re∣iected in deede: but in that, y^t they are forsaken cōmeth hereof, be∣cause they are not first holpen, that they may be able to receaue

If all the worke of our conuersione be in God onely,* 1.920 & that our endeuour auayle nothing thereunto, what remay∣neth then for vs but that we must become no better then stocks and stoanes.

There is none of vs that affirmeth that men do nothing to∣wardes their conuersion.* 1.921 This is it that we do affirme, that men when they be conuerted, do consent to the worde of God, do loue, do wish and earnestly desire to be saued. But yet we do call these the effectes, not the causes of mercy, who beyng now made the Uessells of mercy, could neuerthelesse not haue bene able of thē∣selues to bryng to passe that they should haue attayned the first & primitiue Election of God.

August. sayth that men are worthely cast away for sinne.

Ergo,* 1.922 On the contrary: if men are reiected for their sinnes why should they not aswell be predestinate for their good workes.

Augustine doth not meane here that reprobation that is cō∣trary to predestination,* 1.923 but vnder this reprobation, he doth vn∣derstand the last end & effect of Reprobation, namely damnatiō. And in this sence it is true y^t men are dāned for their sinnes, not forsaken: as they are neyther predestinate for their good works.

Luther and Caluine doth deny, that it is in mans power before grace receaued to seeke and desire it: But Augustine affirmeth the contrary.

Nay rather what is more common in Augustines mouth then these speaches?* 1.924 Couldest thou be conuerted vnlesse thou were called? Did not he that called thee back agayne, bring to passe that thou shouldest be cōuerted? And agayn do not presume vpō thy cō∣uersion, for vnlesse he had called the back agayne, thou couldest not haue bene conuerted. And in an other place. God doth not onely make willing of the vnwilling, but maketh also obedient of such as are stifnecked and stubborne.

The doctours of the popish faction, although deny not

that nature is very much corrupted in originall sinne,* 1.925 yet yeald they not thys much, that man can do nothyng els but sinne: Neyther that any thing els is taken away from Na∣ture, besides the supernaturall gift onely, whereby Nature might haue bene made more perfect, if it had not fallen. And therefore that Nature was beautified with those super∣naturall giftes, of the which she is now spoiled: the naturall power and abilitie of will, remayning in her force notwith∣standing.

This is most vntrue: whereas Nature and will it selfe, not by alteration of Substaunce,* 1.926 but by accesse of sinne and dispo∣sition, is so depraued and reuolted from God, so weakened and spoyled through it own operation, as y^t it may be not conuerted, but by the onely grace of God, hauing of her self no part in thys work, but as farre forth, as it is preuented by God: Whereup∣on Augustine doth witnes. That will doth not goe before, but is handmayd to well doyng: Wherefore the same Nature and sub∣staunce of will, remayneth still, not chaunged into a new shape by Gods creation, but defiled with the corruption and filthe of Nature. The same affections also do remayne that were before (in respect of their substaūce) but in respect of their disposition, they be so putrified and stincking, that nothing can be found in them now, that bringeth not with it some matter of filthines.

Who soeuer is holpen, he doth worke somewhat toge∣ther with hym that helpeth hym,* 1.927 and suffereth not him self to be applyed meerely passiuely.

Will beyng not renued is holpen of Grace.

Ergo, Freewill euen sithence the first creation seemeth to bring much to passe, and not to be altogether applyed passiuely.

In the Maior proposition should haue bene added, perse by it selfe.* 1.928 For what soeuer worketh by it selfe, hauing the help of an other, is not altogether plyed passiuely: but with this excep∣tion, the Minor must be denyed, for freedome of choyse, when as it selfe neuer preuenteth grace following her, but is altogether holpen of Grace goyng before, (according to the testimony of Augustine) what can it bryng to passe at all of it selfe? Or if it can do any thing at all by it selfe, that whiche it is able to doe,

it doth in morall good thinges: externall, and ciuill exercises: certes to deserue eternall lyfe, to purchase the fauour of God, Saluation, Iustification, and the euerlasting kingdome, Freé∣will is altogether vneffectuall: but is a meere sufferer onely, nor hath any thing, but that which it hath receaued, and is altoge∣ther vnprofitable: yea when it hath done all that it can possibly do. And this is it, that Luther seemeth to stand vpon.

Let hym be accursed that will say that God commaun∣deth thynges impossible.* 1.929

Melancton doth aunswere:* 1.930 what soeuer were the occasion of this saying, surely those wh vouch y^e same, & so busily vrge it, seéme voyde of vnderstanding in y^e causes why y^e law of God was geuen: worldly wisedome supposeth y^t lawes are published onely because they should be obserued. But the Lawe of y^e Lord was ordayned for this cause chiefly, y^t the Iudgement and wrath of God should be layd open agaynst sinne: y^t it should conuince vs of wickednes, and increase the horror therof, y^t wickednes might be restrayned from to much licensiousnes: that putting vs in re∣mēbraunce of our own weakenes & frayltie, it should in steed of a schoole master enstruct vs to Christ, as it is declared before.

And there was no lye found in their mouthes. Apoc. 14. to this August.* 1.931 maketh aunswere, aduertising vs how man may be in this sorte sayd to be true of hys worde through the grace and truth of God (who otherwise of hym selfe without all doubt is a lyer) As is that saying. You were sometymes darck∣nesse but now are ye light in the Lord: when he spake of darcknesse he added not in the Lord: but when he spake of light, he annexed by and by, in the Lord. But Osorius will vrge agaynst vs here: Ergo, Nature beyng holpen through grace (sayth he) may eschew all lying and sinning. To aunswere hereunto agayne out of Augustine, he that will speake so, let hym be well aduised, how he deale with the Lords prayer where we say Lord forgeue vs our Trespasses which we needed not to say, except I be not deceaued If our consents neuer yelded to false speaking, nor to the lust of the flesh. Neyther would the Apostle Iames haue sayd. We are tres∣passers all in many thinges,* 1.932 for that man doth not offend, but he whom flattering lust hath allured to consent contrary to the rule of righteousnes. Thus much Augustine.

* 1.933Out of the wordes of Ieremy. If I speake of any Nation that I may destroy them, and they do repent them &c. And if I say the word that I may plant them, and they tourn a∣way from me &c. vpon this the Romanistes do build as fol∣loweth. Euen as men behaue themselues, such shall the pot∣ters vessels be afterwardes. Ergo, it is false that the Luthe∣ranes teach, that the regard of worke doth fight agaynst Freedome and the power of God in chusing or refusing.

* 1.934 The Prophet doth treate here properly of the punishment & rewardes, which do follow mens workes at the last Iudgemēt, and not of the maner of eternall Electiō, which doth preceéde all our workes, either goyng before (as August. reporteth) which were none at all, or comming after, which were not as yet. If the aduersaries of Luther shall wrest these words of y^e Prophet to the cause of Electiō, as though Gods Electiō goyng before, did depend vpō mens workes that follow after, they do conclude vntruely. For as the Potter in fashionyng his earthē Uessells, hath no regard to y^e merite of the clay, euen so y^e purpose of God in the rule of his Electiō, is free frō all respect of workes. And therfore Paule doth resemble the same of the power of y^e Potter. But if they will trāslate the same to y^e punishments & rewardes of workes, in this respect we confesse they say true, euen as mē behaue thēselues, so shall they finde their Creator affectioned to∣wardes them: Yet in such sort neuertheles, that if any vertue or cōmendation be in y^e Uessell, that may moue to please: the same confesse, that it commeth not of it selfe, but of the free liberality of the Potter: on the contrary, if it haue any thing worthy of pu∣nishment, then to yelde that this proceedeth from themselues, and not from the Potter: For he made Nature at the beginning whole, sound, and vpright. Afterwardes came in vgly defor∣mitie wilfully and voluntarily defiled through originall sinne.

* 1.935 God hath no regard but to the poore and contrite in Spirite.

Ergo, The Grace of God is not promised to any but to such as are prepared thereunto before.

* 1.936 True it is, that none but humble in spirite are capable of Gods Grace: But from whence commeth this Iowlines, and humble reuerence towards God: truely not from the Nature of

our corrupted flesh (which is wont alwayes to be the Mother of pryde) but from the onely gift of the holy Ghost: Whereupon if any man vrge, that there ought to go some preparation in man before, apt to receaue the grace of God: neyther will the Luthe∣ranes deny this, but so, that they also confesse with Augustine that the same commeth to passe, not by the direction of our Freé∣will, but by reformation and renewing of the holy Ghost.

Forasmuch as the cause of all men is generall and the e∣state indifferent,* 1.937 as the Lutheranes do say.

Ergo, There is no cause not reason, why God in the choise of man should preferre some before othersome, and se∣perate some from othersome.

S. Paule rendereth this cause for vnreproueable I will haue mercy (sayth he) on whom I will haue mercy.* 1.938 Aunswering, as it were, to this same obiection, that thys commeth to passe, not because God findeth any cause in man, but for that he onely, re∣ceaueth hym of hys owne mercy.

I will not the death of a sinner,* 1.939 but rather that he be cō∣uerted in liue.

If this saying be referred to the secret will of Gods good pleasure: how is it then, that such will not be conuerted, nor fleé from Damnation, whom the almighty will of God both would haue to be saued, and can make able also to be saued? But if it be vnderstanded of hys reuealed will, which is called Volunt as Signi:* 1.940 what maruell is it if such will not be saued, but perish be∣sides the will of God, which are left to the power of their owne Freéwill, by the secret and vnsearcheable will of God?

What soeuer is voluntary may be auoyded.

* 1.941

Synne is voluntary.

Ergo, Sinne nay be auoyded.

This is aūswered before out of Aug. The Maior were true if it be vnderstāded of nature beyng soūde:* 1.942 but now nature is woū∣ded & defiled, either bycause it doth not seé, by reasō of her blynd∣nes, or bycause it doth not performe, by reasō of her weakenes.

God would not commaūde the thynges which he knew man could not do.

* 1.943

Augustine maketh aunswere.* 1.944 And who is ignoraunt here∣of? but he doth therfore commaunded some thynges, which we are

not able,* 1.945 bycause we may know, what we ought to craue at his hāds.

Where Nature and Necessitie beare rule, there is no iust crime in Sinnyng.

The Lutherans do teach that Sinne doth cleaue fast with in vs by nature, and that of very Necessitie.

Ergo. Accordyng to the Lutheranes doctrine there shal∣be no iust crime in Synnyng.

* 1.946 And hereunto aunswere is made before. In the Maior I do distinguish Nature and Necessitie. If it haue relation to Na∣ture that was sounde and Necessitie of coaction, true it is, that there is no accusation of iust crime of Sinne to be layed there. But if it meane Nature corrupt, and Necessitie of inuincible and vnchaungeable bondage, it is false, of which Necessitie Augustine speaketh. But now faultynesse punishable ensuyng did make a Necessitie of Freédome.* 1.947

There is no reason to make it Sinne, where is no power to be able to auoyde it.

I do aūswere that it was true in Adam, who cōmitted that, whiles nature was sounde,* 1.948 which he might haue eschued: but in vs not so: who in this corrupted and forsorne nature now, whe∣ther we may auoyde it, or not auoyde it, yet doth Sinne follow vs of Necessitie. For if will could eschue Sinne, yet can it not cleare it selfe from sinne of her selfe, and of her own abilitie, but onely through the assistaunce of helpyng grace: whereupon will deserueth no commendation, though it can cleare it selfe: but if it eschue not the sinne which it might eschue, so much the more doth it aggrauate the trespasse. And why commeth not forth a∣ny one such at the length, which can or dare boldly professe, that he hath euer eschued the sinne, that these Iacke braggers boast so much may be auoyded? on the contrary although will can not escape from Sinne, yet doth it not therfore cease to be Sinne, bycause it sucked this imbecillitie, not from nature (wherein it was created at the first) but from him, whiche might haue bene without Sinne, if he had would.

* 1.949

No mā lacketh the Grace of God, but he that will cow∣ardly faynte of hym selfe.

* 1.950 True it is: but to make mā not to be faynt harted in him self, it is neédefull that the grace of God be present first, without the

which all our good will is vneffectuall. Moreouer whoso beyng holpen with grace, doth begyn to will well, & to endeuour well is not now altogether a coward crauen: but he that is faynt har∣ted, is therfore faynte harted, bycause he was not assisted with the effectuall Grace of God.

God doth constrayne no man forcibly.* 1.951

I do graūt: but that they may be made willyng,* 1.952 he doth first of vnwilling, make them willyng, & draweth such as are stiffe∣necked, to become inclinable: creating new hartes within them, & renewyng a new Spirite within their bowels, to make them tractable, and willyng seruauntes for hym selfe.

But thou accordyng to the hardnesse of thy hart,* 1.953 doest procure to thy selfe vengeaunce.

The Apostle speaketh here of the externall blessing, or cal∣lyng of God: which he exercizeth indifferently, aswell towardes the good, as towardes the euill: and not of the spirituall Grace of Regeneration, wherewith he doth peculiarly seale, and esta∣blish his Elect vnto hym selfe.

The Grace of God is none otherwise effectuall,* 1.954 then as we be not sluggish or retchelesse to vse his helpe offe∣red vnto vs.

Ergo, It is in our power either to receaue the Grace of God offered vnto vs, or els not to receaue it.

I deny the Argument. For where the effectuall Grace of God is (which worketh in vs not onely by outward callyng,* 1.955 but also by the inward renewyng and earnest motion of the mynde, as Augustine writeth to Simplician) there can be no defect of will. And agayne, wheresoeuer is any want of will, there is not Gods effectuall Grace, which is comprehēded within these two partes outward callyng, and inward drawyng. So that the recea∣uyng of grace, is within vs in deéde, yet commeth not of our sel∣ues but of the grace of God. But the Refusall of Grace, is both in vs, and of vs: and yet in such wise, as that beyng left ouer to our owne weakenesse, we are not able to doe otherwise of our selues.

There is obiected out of Augustine Hypognosticon 3. booke.* 1.956 That we haue lost our freedome not to will: but to be able, and to performe.

* 1.957 First by y^t consent of y^e learned, it is certeine y^t this booke was neuer made by August. 2. the aduersaries do not interprete it a∣right. 3. let y^e premisses be ioyned w^t that which followeth. For he doth cōfesse, y^t there is a Freewill hauyng Iudgemēt of reason in deéde, not by wh it may be apt either to begyn, or to end any god∣ly action w^tout God, but onely in the actions of this present life. And forthwith followeth in the same August. When we speake of Freewill, we do not treate of one part of man onely, but of whole mā altogether. &c. Whereupō their errour is cōdēned, which do af∣firme y^t corruptiō is wholy includeth within y^e flesh: whereas by testimony of y^e same Aug. corruption hath defiled y^t inward pow∣ers of y^e soule likewise: whereupō he speaketh in y^e same place on this wise: Freewill beyng defiled, the whole mā is defiled: wherfore without helpe of the Grace of God, he is neither able to begin to do any thyng that may be acceptable vnto God, nor yet to performe it.

* 1.958The Scripture doth euery where describe the Freedome of will. Where it testifieth: that God will render to euery man accordyng to his deseruyng: whereas it cōteyneth or∣dinaunces and preceptes of good lyfe: where it exhorteth euery where to godlynes: forbyddeth to sinne: and threate∣neth punishment: Out of all whiche it is most assured, that the power of freewill is declared.

* 1.959 If the whole Scriptures treate altogether euery where of these, where be the premisses then? First as touchyng merites Augustine doth Aunswere: Woe be vnto the lyfe of man thought neuer so commendable, if God deale with vs after our deseruynges. As cōcernyng reward, he doth aunswere after the same maner: That reward is geuē in deede, to them that deserue it, but yet so as to deserue, is geuen first from the grace of God, and proceedeth not from mans Freewill, vnto whō reward is geuen afterwardes. That is to say, Grace for Grace as Augustine sayth. Moreouer as cō∣cernyng the preceptes and commaundementes: in deéde GOD doth commaunde vs to walke in them, but he doth promise that he will bryng to passe, that we may walke in thē: that is to say, that he will geue vs both a mynde, and feéte to walke withall.

* 1.960Where a Recompence is made, there is a consideration of merite.

* 1.961Nay rather the conclusion would haue bene more correspō∣dent

on this wise. Where Recompence doth follow, there doth consideration of obedience goe before. For of Obedience the Argument is good enough, but of Merite starke naught.

Where Recompence is, there is regarde had both of O∣bediēce and of Merite,* 1.962 out of the Maister of Sentēces. Wher∣upon they argue on this maner.

Hope doth not trust to the mercy of God onely, but to our Merites also.

And therfore to hope beyng voyde of Merites: is not to hope, but to presume, as they affirme.

This Treatize here toucheth Merites and Obediēce both.* 1.963 I aunswere vnto both. First of Obedience, the Assertion may be graunted. But that Obedience is ment here, that is made acceptable to God, and proceédeth not from the will, and abili∣tie of our Freéwill, but from the grace of GOD onely. But of Merite, if the worthynesse of the worke be regarded, we doe vt∣terly deny it: if they vnderstand of Obedience approued and acceptable in the sight of GOD, we doe not striue agaynst them, so that they will reknowledge this much agayne, that this Obedience of ours, how ready soeuer it be, doth not spryng from our owne abilitie, but that we ought to acknowledge it (as a gift receaued by the benefite of the heauenly Grace) to be his gift onely, and none others. Agaynst this Masterlyke sentence I will set downe the opinion of Basile. He that trusteth not in himselfe,* 1.964 neither looketh to be iustified by workes, that man hath the hope of Saluation reposed onely in the mercies of God. Augu∣stine, disputyng agaynst the Pelagians, which did say, that the same Recōpence which shalbe geuen in the ende, is a reward of good workes going before, doth aūswere: That this may be graū∣ted vnto them, if they likewise agayne would confesse, that those good workes were the gifts of God, and not the proper actiōs of mē: for those that are such, that is to say, proper vnto men, are euill: but yet are good giftes of God. &c. Whereupō in an other place. If thy merites (sayth he) come of thy selfe,* 1.965 they be euill, and for that cause are they not crowned: and therefore that they may be good, they must be the giftes of God. And agayne writyng to Sixtus. Be there no merites of righteous men? yeas truly: Bycause they be righteous men: but their merites brought not to passe, that they

were made righteous. For they be made righteous, when they be Iustified: but after the maner of the Apostles teachyng: Freely Iu∣stified through the Grace of Christ. And agayne writyng vpon the 94. Psalme.* 1.966 If GOD would deale accordyng to mens deser∣uynges, he should not finde any thyng, but that he might of very Iu∣stice vtterly condemne. &c.

But these sayinges, bycause they apperteyne to the Iudge∣ment of yeldyng Reward, do concerne our cause nothyng at all, who do not create now of the last Iudgement, but of the Grace of Election properly:* 1.967 Whiche grace whosoeuer will say is geuen accordyng to the proportion of deseruynges, Augustine doth call the same a most pernitious errour.

* 1.968It is Furthermore obiected that Augustine writyng vn∣to Prosper and Hyllary doth not onely in the very title of the booke ioyne Freewill with Grace, but also heapyng a nomber of Arguments together doth very earnestly ende∣uour to confirme, that man hath Freewill.

* 1.969I do confesse that Augustine in these bookes, as many tymes otherwise, doth by certeyne Argumentes framed out of holy Scriptures teache. Freewill, and withall ioyne it with Grace. But such Argumentes are they, as him selfe afterwardes con∣futeth. Moreouer consideration must be had in what wise he doth ioyne both these together, & how he doth part them a sūder agayne.* 1.970 They that doe fortifie Grace in such wise, as that mās Freewill may in no sense be admitted withall, doe not Iudge therof rightly. For mans will whether it be good, or whether it be euill, doth neuer cease to be after a certeyne sort Free: either Free to righteousnes, or Free to Sinne: which if it be good, she receaueth her goodnes of Grace: if it be euill, she sucketh that e∣uill of her selfe: and therfore sucketh it of her selfe, bycause it is seuered from Grace. Furthermore it must be cōsidered, in what sence Augustine doth construe Freewill: Surely if our aduersa∣ries doe interprete Freewill after this sence, as though it cōtey∣ned in her owne power, a Free election of chusing good, or euill: they swarue altogether from Augustines interpretatiō. Who by this vocable Freewill seémeth to signifie nothyng els, then that will onely, which worketh those thynges voluntaryly, that it worketh, whether they be good, or euill.

An other Obiection out of Augustine:* 1.971 Beleue the holy Scrip∣tures both that there is Freewill, and the grace of GOD, without whose helpe man can neither be conuerted to God, nor profite with God. Agayne out of his 2. Epistle to Valentine. The Catholicke fayth doth neuer deny Freewill either towards good life or towards euill life. Neither doth it attribute so much vnto it, as that it may be of any value without the grace of God, whether it be conuerted out of euill into good, or whether it continue profityng in good, or whether it attayne to the euerlasting good: whereas now it feareth not least it quayle and waxe faynte. &c.

What is meant els by these wordes of Augustine,* 1.972 but that vnder the name of Freewill,* 1.973 that will be vnderstanded in man, which is capable aswell of euill, as of good: and may be euill of it selfe, through corruption of Nature, but good onely by refor∣mation of Grace.

All actions that men take in hand do proceade frō God the first mouer and ruler,* 1.974 as from the first cause thereof accordyng to Luthers doctrine.

All sinnes are actions.

Ergo, After the Lutheranes doctrine, all sinnes doe pro∣ceade from God as from the chief and first cause.

First in the Maior this word Actions must be distinguished.* 1.975 Some Actions are Naturall, some are Deuine, and Superna∣turall. Now if the Maior haue respect to these Actions,* 1.976 then is the Maior true, and the Minor to be denyed. For the Maior doth not meane properly these Actions which are not of nature, but agaynst nature: of which sort are sinnes, and the Actiōs of wic∣ked Spirites: or if it do meane those Actions, it may be denyed. There is besides the••e a thyrdkynde of Action, which is called a Freé and voluntary Action. I call it Freé for this cause, wher∣by will is willingby euill, without all coaction as August. wit∣nesseth. And these kyndes of Actions, which are proper and pe∣culiar to man, doe proceade from will, as from the nearest and most proper cause, although not altogether without the proui∣dence and ministery of God, which as it powreth it selfe abroad through out all maner of thyngs, by a certeine secret influence, beyond all reach of capacitie, euen so doth it encline, and make plyable the very wills of men, to whatsoeuer purposes it plea∣seth

him. Yet so notwithstādyng, as that no man is constrayned thereunto by this inclination. For neither is any man compel∣led to be euill agaynst his will, when he doth naughtyly, except he will him selfe. So that now it is neédelesse for any man to seéke for the cause of Sinne, without him selfe, as Caluine tru∣ly teacheth. But Osorius doth obiect here agayne.

* 1.977Whosoeuer doth entice and allure an other to wicked∣nesse, is as much in faulte, as he that is allured thereun∣unto: at the least is not voyde of blame.

God doth moue and prouoke mens wills to do haynous offences after the Lutheranes doctrine.

Ergo, God him selfe accordyng to the Lutheranes, as the first motioner and cause of euill, can not be cleare of faulte.

* 1.978The Maior is true there, where both he that doth allure & he that is allured, are lead both by one kynde of cōsent, are hol∣den both together vnder one selfe cōditiōs, & haue both regarde to one selfe ende in their doyng. But now all these thynges doe chaunce farre otherwise in God, then in men. For as God doth worke nothing, but that which is wrought w^t a maruelous pure, & sincere will (who cā will nothyng but that which is most good) euen so doth he attempt nothyng at any tyme, but that he may doe of his most Freé Iustice, nor is tyed to any conditions or lawes: Now where no law is, there neither is any Sinne at all. For Sinnes properly are defined, not so much by the bare acti∣ons, as by the conditions, lawes, and endes. At a word, to make this matter more discernable. God cōmaunded Abraham that he should kill his Sonne: if any other had cōmaunded the same, or if the Father had attempted to do the same, at any others cō∣maundement, he had ••urely sinned. But now sithe it was the Lordes Commaundement, neither was there any sinne in him that did commaunde, neither in him that did assent, no though he had slayne him in deéde. What ••hall we say of this? That the same Father of heauē and earth, when he gaue his onely begot∣ten sonne to be flayne, yea altogether vndeseruyng it (for this Tragedy was not played surely without his hand and secrete counsell) shall we therefore say that he sinned,* 1.979 bycause in this worke he willed the same that the murtherers dyd? For neither

was his cōsent absent, nor sene••ed frō their will which did Cru∣cifie the Sonne of God, ne yet his ordinaunce: yet was this ordinaūce of his cleare from sinne notwithstādyng, but their fu∣ry lacked not sinne. In deéde his consentyng will dyd will the same, that they willed: But not after the same sort, & for a farre other maner of end. For in them that dyd Crucifie Christ ap∣peareth a treble Argumēt, & playne demonstration of Sinne. First, bycause they brake the lawes, that were commaunded thē contrary to all equitie & right. Agayne for that they layed vio∣lent handes vpon the innocent, beyng enflamed with malice and despight: wherein also they did not respect any other end, but to embrue their madd murtheryng handes with innocent bloud, to establish thereby their arrogaunt ambitiō. All which were farre otherwise in God. For first, who euer limited any lawes for God which he might not breake? Wherfore beyng Freé from all law, he neither did any thyng here, nor at any tyme els can doe any thyng, that is not in all respectes, most lawfull for him to doe. And yet neither did the Father here so procure the death of his Sonne, but that y^e Sonne him selfe did volūtaryly of his own ac∣cord yeld therūto. Moreouer in this y^e fathers will was nothing amisse: in his ordinaunce nothyng malicious, in y^e end nothyng but most glorious, & for our saluation. For on y^e other side, in all this actiō was wōderfully vttered & expressed his most iust Iud∣gemēt agaynst sinne, his most excellēt piety towards his sonne, & his most tēder loue towardes mākinde: For in that he did most sharpely, and w^t seuerest Iustice punish our Sinnes in his owne sonne, he restored him to life & to a most ample kyngdome w^tall, & thereby prouided most fatherly for all our saluatiō generally.

We Read lykewise in the holy Scriptures. It is necessary that offences shall come, it is necessary that heresies be. &c. And it is not to be doughted, but that this Necessitie doth issue frō the ordinaunce of God. And what then? if these offences do chaunce altogether besides the ordinaunce of GOD how then doe they chaunce of Necessitie? Agayne if they happen by the ordinaūce of GOD, how shall we then defende the goodnesse of GOD? Forsooth euen by the same meanes, that I spake of before: For if he which dyd foreordeyne those offences were alyke af∣fectioned, and of the same mynde, nor dyd respect any other ende

then the persons themselues do from whom those offences doe aryse, there should nothing withstand, but that he should be in the self same fault: and in all respectes as blameworthy as they. But nowe sithe there is so great diuersitie betwixt them in the maner of doyng, and the respect of the end: hereby it commeth to passe, that in one selfe action: that which is committed by mē is a most haynous cryme: and in that which commeth of GOD appeareth most euidently a wonderfull commendation of Iu∣stice, and pyety. But here is yet a very great knott in thys bullrush: whereupon Osorius scrapeth agayne very busily.

* 1.980To cōfesse this to be true, that offences and heresies must aryse by men: yet forasmuch as their willes are not other∣wise ordered, but by the guyding and leading of Gods di∣rection: it can not be denyed, but that God hymselfe as (one that doth suggest some matter first) must be accomp∣ted for an Abettour or furtherer: for whosoeuer shall be the cause of any other cause or action, euē the same must needs be an accessary to the cryme that is committed.

* 1.981That offences, and other sondry inconueniences of this pre∣sent lyfe, do flow from out the corrupt affections of men, as out of their naturall source and sprynghead, is most true: And a∣gayne, that the willes of men, which way soeuer they bend them selues, are guyded, not without the permissiō and especiall pro∣uidence of God. This is also most true.

Furthermore that the very Will of God, and hys prouidence doe seéme to be in some cause, that offences and inconueniences do aryse, I doe confesse likewise, agreéing herein with August. Well: and what hereof? what if we graunt that God is after a certayne sorte the cause of euill? Ergo, Osorius doth conclude presently vpon the same, that God (as beyng the cause of euill) cannot be excused of blame. But if he do so, hee is at hand that will deny his argument. For it is not a good consequent which is deriued from the cause of offences and euilles, but onely in such offences and sinnes: which are not themselues the very pu∣nishment of sinnes, and reward of trespasse, & where the euills that are committed, be the vttermost effectes of the cause agent: Whereof neyther of them both may be imputed to God. For neyther doth Gods prouidence work in the corrupt affections of

men, as the principall cause vnto the last ende: moreouer ney∣ther are mens wills enclined, or hardened to wickednes, by the operation of God, but where God hath most iust cause so to do, aswell because God doth all thinges to make the excellency of hys power, and Maiesty to appeare more glorious, and to beé wondered at: as also because hee doth harden the hartes of no person, but to thend with sinne to punish the former sinnes, wic∣kednes, and mischieuous facts, that haue bene committed be∣fore, Yea and this also most rightfully. Whereupon August. sayth:* 1.982 this must be grounded and vnremoueable within your hartes. That there is no vnrighteousnes in God. And for thys cause when ye do reade in the holy scriptures, that men are seduced by God, or that their hartes are hardened, dought nothing at all, but that they haue committed before offence enough, for the which they ought worthely to suffer &c. If mans nature be of it selfe so va∣liaunt, as to defend it selfe sufficiently agaynst all stormes, and assaultes of sinne: wherefore then doth he suffer himselfe to beé caryed away, willingly and wittingly, out of the right way? why doth he not preuent all occasions, and temptations, as heé ought to do? why doth he not practize the same courage, that his owne reason inuiteth him vnto? If he cannot, why then (euen from the beginning, throwing ouer boorde the helme of Gods gouernement) did he take vpon hym to be pylote of hys owne course? why did he presume to be wise without God? why was he so arrogant, with so hauty and lofty a courage, to geue the at∣tempt vpon the tree of lyfe, and graspe of the fruit thereof? why being not contented with hys owne simplicitie chose he rather to raunge the field himselfe with the bridle in his teéth, thē to abide the managing of the Lord? who now if were able to gouern him selfe without Gods assistaunce, doth worthely breake hys neck if he fall ouer the rock. If he cannot guyde hys owne wayes, euē for this cause is he worthely forsaken, and spoyled, because him self cast of of God beyng hys Ryder, frō hys back: Whereupon this is a good consequent, and must be graunted of Necessitie: that eyther God is not the cause of euill, or if he be, yet that in this cause is nothing at all, but that whiche standeth most of all with equitie and Iustice: likewise that in man is nothing, but that whereof he may worthely condemne hym selfe.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

* 1.983The will of God doth worke together with mans will in sinne according to the Lutheranes.

It standeth therfore with as good reason, that the same should be imputed to the one, that is imputed to the other.

If the circumstaunces of them both were in all respects like, the consequent would be good:* 1.984 but the circumstances beyng al∣tered, the state of the conclusion is altered also. All the actions of mans life are gouerned by the disposition of the secret proui∣dence of God. This is very true. Mans will also doth endeuour withall together with the same. Here is therefore an operation, and working on both partes: God worketh, and man worketh: and both in one matter. But bicause God doth order things af∣ter farre other meanes, and respecting an other ende, then men doe, herein redowndeth vnto hym the highest commendation of power, Iustice, aud Bounty. Men are worthely blamed, as beyng the very causes of their own harmes. When Ioseph was solde by hys brethren: when Iudas betrayed the Lord: when Absa∣lon defiled hys fathers concubines. When Pharao witheld the peo∣ple of Israell: When Semei rayled vpon Dauid: When Antiochus waxed wrothe agaynst the Iewes long sithence: whenas Antichrist euen now gryndeth hys teeth agaynst the seély flock of Christ: when as Paule breathed out threatninges and slaughters: no man will deny but these were haynous & horrible factes: of all which notwithstanding no one wanted the singuler counsell of God, and hys especiall prouidence: whereupon it could not possible be otherwise, but that the thinges which he had determined before, should so come to passe in the ende. For neyther doth enter into mans thought any thing that God doth not will before, that mā shoulde will: neither doth mans will purpose any thinge, which is not both foreseéne, and foreordained of God. What thē? shall we therefore accuse God as Author of the wickednesse of the vngodly? because these thinges chaunce of Necessitie, which God hath purposed shall come to passe, and can by no meanes be altered? For so seemeth Osori. to conclude hys argument. But I argue agaynst hym in this wise, and with two reasons. First. If this preordinaunce of God, whereof I speake, do bryng such a Necessitie of externall coaction vppon men, as Osorius doth speake of, as that no man could sinne voluntaryly but cōpelled

thereunto by God: it might not seeme altogether perhaps from the purpose, to impute the fault thereof to God. But what is he now? or what mā hath euer bene so horribly wicked at any time? who in performing his treacherous deuises, can say that he was constrayned agaynst hys will to commit the facte, that he would not haue done, being neyther led thereunto of any motion of him selfe, nor blynded with any hys owne affections?

Moreouer although the will of God doth work together with mans will:* 1.985 or (as Augustine liked rather to speake) whether God do worke in the hartes of men to apply their willes wher∣vnto it pleaseth hym, eyther to godlines for hys good mercies sake, or to wickednes and vyce according to their owne deser∣uinges: or whether man be afflicted with any crosse of persequu∣tion, yet doth God bring all these to passe, according to his own iust Iudgement, sometimes open and manifest, but alwayes most righteous: for what sitteth more with iustice, thē to punish offenders? then to tame and suppresse the outragious pryde of rebellious Nature? But forasmuch as all the workes of GOD are directed chiefly as to one ende: from whence then may man take a more large occasion, to magnifie and extoll the Iustice of God, then out of hys owne works? And therefore though weé confesse, that it is one selfe work which is wrought by God, and by man, yet because in the selfe same worke God worketh by an other way, and to an other ende: Namely putting in vre the worke of hys Iustice: and because men do the workes of pryde, of Luste, of wrath, and of couetousnes: hereupon it commeth to passe, that sinne is worthely imputed vnto them: the will of God remayning alwayes righteous and good notwithstanding. For this rule is to be holden alwayes vnshaken: That all the works of God are wrought for the best. So the fall of our first parent Adam, the hardening of Pharaoes hart, the treasō of Iudas, the persequutiō of Paule, tended to as good purpose as the perse∣ueraunce of Noah in fayth: The humblenes of Dauid, Peters denyall of hys maister, and the conuersion of Paule. For what soeuer is wrought by God, doth alwayes tourne to the glorifi∣ing of hys power, and magnifieng hys Iustice: of hys Iustice, because by sinne he doth punish sinne: and that most righteously: of hys power, whē with hys mighty hand, and onstretched arme

he doth aduaunce and deliuer them for his wonderfull mercies, sake, and of hys free liberalitie it pleaseth hym to vouchsaue. But Osorius is a wylypye, and will not be destitute of a star∣ting hoale, but will seéke to escape through some chynk or mous∣hoole. And because he doth perceaue, that Gods power cānot be vtterly sequestred from the Actions of men, he like an olde try∣ed shifter, will collour the matter, and applye the workes of God which we haue rehearsed, to Gods foreknowledge. For this is the subtill distinction whereunto our aduersaryes flee for their defence.

* 1.986They say that no prouidence of God that may enduce a∣ny Necessitie, doth go before to cause men to sinne. Onely that God did foreknow that they would so do, & that they were such in deed: not for that God did foreknow, that they would be such: but rather that he did therefore foreknowe that they should be such through their own inclination.

Where the Aduersaryes make mencion of the foreknowe∣ledge of God,* 1.987 they doe not altogether lye in this poynte. For it is most true, that the Maiestye of God doth behold (as it were) with present view all thinges that are, haue bene, and shalbe, as though they were present in hys eye: but herein they go amisse, where they practize to establish the foreknowledge and permissi∣on of God so firmely, that they would haue hys vnchaungeable prouidence seuered from the same: which cannot possibly be by any meanes: for what may a man thinke, if God doe foreknow and permitte wickednes to raigne, which he is not able to turne away, where is then hys power? if he be able and will not, where is then his mercy? what father is so hard harted, that seéing his childe ready to receaue some harme, will not call him from y^e pe∣rill if he may? But say they, he that doth wickedly, & he also that doth consent thereunto, are both in one predicament. Therfore as it is an absurde thing not to confesse God to be omnipotent, or that any thing is done that he cannot do: so is that as false also to say, that any thing w^t God will not, is permitted w^tout hys knowledge, and agaynst hys will. For howe shall we con∣ceaue that God doth permitte any thing to be done, but because hys will is, that it shall so be done? whereupon we may frame an argument agaynst those persones, who reiecting the neces∣sary

doctrine of predestination, flee onely to Gods Permission on this wise.

If God do permitte sinne, that doth he eyther with hys will or agaynst hys will.

But he doth not permitte it agaynst hys will (for there can nothing be done agaynst the will of God.)* 1.988

Then followeth it, that God doth willingly permitte sinne, and will not stay nor hinder it.

Which beyng graunted, their obiection hath a dubble error. First, because they take away sinne altogether from the will of God, casting the same wholy bpon hys Permission: Next, be∣cause they do feare least Gods Iustice should be blemished: be∣yng of this opinion: To witte: if God do worke in the hartes of the wicked, when they do sinne, Then must it be taken for con∣fessed, that the cause of sinne shalbe forthwith imputed to God: and withall that men shall hereof take iust occasion to excuse thē selues: Both which are easily confuted. For first of all, whereas it is sayd, that GOD worketh in the hartes of men, to encline their willes whereunto it pleaseth hym, eyther when he doth thrust vpō men outward calamities, as straunge diseases, cruell Warres, flames of fire. &c. or where he bryngeth vpon men in∣ward griefes by the seruice of Sathan exequutioner of hys wrathe: as famine of hys holy word, ignoraunce, blindenes of vnderstanding, hardnes of hart, as appeareth euidently by the Scriptures. I pray you what meane you by that whiche you reade in the 9. of Iudges?* 1.989 God did send hys euill spirite betwixt Abimilech and the people of Sychem &c. When you reade in Moyses, I will harden the hart of Pharao adding a cause to the same wherefore he would do it:* 1.990 And agayn when you heare that the Lord did harden the hart of Syhon King of Hesbon. When you read in Esay the Prophet.* 1.991 Blunt the hartes of this people, & stopp their eares. And agayne, why doest thou make vs wander from thy wayes O Lord? What is this in the 3. of the kings the 22. chap?* 1.992 Behold the Lord hath geuen the Spirite of lyeng, into the mouthes of all the Prophets. &c. and in Iob. 12.* 1.993 The Lord doth take away the hartes from them that rule ouer the people of the earth, and he maketh them to goe astray. &c. of the same sence are the wordes of the Prophet Ezechiell. If the Prophet be seduced and speake a

word. I the Lord haue seduced that Prophet. And in Amos,* 1.994 If there shalbe any euill in the Citie, that the Lord hath not done. And agayne in the 2. to the Thessalonians the 2. chapter.* 1.995 God shall send vpon them strong illusione to beleue lyes &c. These and innu∣merable like vnto these who so shall heare euery where in the scriptures, can he dought hereof, that the sinnes of the wicked are not hidden vtterly from the decreed will of God? or that any thing is done in any of all these by Gods Permission so, as hys effectuall prouidence doth not worke also withall?

Now as concerning the inconuenience, as though it were of Necessitie, y^t Gods Iustice shold be therfore called in questiō: and that it would by that meanes come to passe, that wicked mē would hereof take occasion to excuse themselues, as though they should not offend through their own default, but by the compul∣sary constraynt of Gods will: if so be those thinges be so taken according to y^e very purporte of the bare letter wherwith God is sayd to deliuer ouer into a Reprobate minde, to make blynde, to har∣den the hartes &c. then is this also eche way as false. Neyther doth the conclusion of hys argument thus shuffled vp hang to∣gether.

* 1.996All thinges that God hath foreordayned shall come to passe, do chaunce through absolute Necessiitie.

God did foreordayne that sinne should come to passe.

Ergo, When sinnes do come to passe, they are to be impu∣ted aswell vnto man, as beyng an instrument, as vnto God hymself, as beyng the Authour.

* 1.997Nay rather the conclusion ought to haue bene framed on this wise. Ergo, God hath ordayned that sinnes should be, which for the same cause cannot but be of very Necessitie. And so in deede is the conclusion right, and to be graunted also. For it is without all controuersie, that sinnes cannot come without the ordinaunce of Gods will: which ordinaunce neuertheles hauing iust cause of defence, ought to be acquited of all vnrighteousnes. And to shew that it hath iust causes of defence, Three reasons may be rendered.* 1.998

First. This seely earthly worme had skarse yet thrust hys nose out of the dyrte, whenas he would needes make hymselfe equall w^t God hys creator farre aboue y^e reach and cōpasse of his

creation, presuming to attayne the knowledge of good and euil: then came it to passe by the most iuste iudgement of God, not by hys Permission but by hys prouidence also, that Freewill be∣yng as then throughly furnished with vnderstanding, and rea∣son (but destitute of Grace) could not gouerne it selfe, but must needes both agaynst hys owne knowledge, and conscience stum¦ble, and fall downe withall. And no meruayle. For assoone as God had withdrawne hys light, right spirite, and helping hand (whereupon issued lacke of well doyng, blindenes and hardnes of hart) it could not otherwise be, but that (the grace of God be∣ing withdrawne & all abillitie to do well beyng taken away) this proud presumptuous Uermine must fall to the ground, both of very Iustice and of very Necessitye, whereof the one is ascri∣bed to God, and not to man, this other not to God but to man, and to hys owne Freewill: And hereupon aryseth that absolute and vnauoydeable Necessitie whereof we treat so much, and withall the most iust defence of Gods Iustice.

Then besides this Freewill, there is yet an other reason,* 1.999 that will playnly acquite the iust prouidence of God from fault, though it worke in the sinnes of men together with men them∣selues. As when he bryngeth vppon man eyther diseases of the body, or blindnes of vnderstanding for sinnes already commit∣ted, punishing sinne: as it were, by sinne Euen so Pharao, that had vsed horrible tyranny before in drowning y^e suckling babes of the Hebrues, was himselfe afterwardes most iustly hard har∣ted by God, and at the last miserably drowned in the read Sea. Euen so likewise Esay,* 1.1000 and the other Prophetes did prophesye, that the Iewes should be blinded for the wickednes whiche they had committed.* 1.1001 By the like Iudgement, of God came it to passe that which was spoken of the Gentiles.* 1.1002 As they would not geue themselues to know God, God did deliuer them ouer to the lustes of their owne hartes. &c. And in an other place writing to the Thes. For this cause (sayth he) God will send vpon thē strong illusion to beleue lyes &c.

Besides these most iust causes spoken of before,* 1.1003 there is yet a thyrd, no lesse rightfull, and iust: which although be somewhat darke vnto vs, yet seémeth not so darke to the vnderstādyng, and knowledge of S. Paule, where Gods Deuine prouidence doth

wonderfully order and dispose his workes: to witte, by his Iud∣gemēt hidden in deéde, but alwayes iust, leadyng and directyng all thynges to that ende, whereby he may make his Iustice, or his power discernable to mankynde. And to this end at a word, do all the counsells of God, and all the effectes of the same tende and be directed, whether he do fashion the vessels of his wrath to destruction, or prepare the vessels of his mercy to Glory: or whe∣ther he be mercyfull to whom he will, or whether he do harden the hartes of whom it pleaseth hym, or whensoeuer it pleaseth him so to do, or when he doth styrre vppe the myndes and en∣deuoures of men, where unto him lysteth, by the seruice of Sa∣than, minister of his wrath, or whether he do comfort, and make glad the hartes of his chosen, by the operatiō of the holy Ghost. And yet is there no cause in the meane whiles, why any man should complayne that the thynges are done iniuriously which are done by Gods secrete Iudgement: or that God ought to be blamed in any of all these, whenas whatsoeuer is done by him, we beleue assuredly, is done either to expresse his power, or to make his glory discernable, or to commend his Iustice, or els to discouer the wonderfull riches of his mercy.

Wherfore when Luther doth affirme, that with GOD all thynges are done by an absolute Necessitie, whether they come by destiny, chaunce, or any fortune at all, why should not it be as lawfull for him to speake so, as for Osorius to speake in the lyke phrase and in lyke titles of words. That God is of Necessitie y^e best, the most iust, and the most wisest? But I heare the sounde of an Argument from the Popish Diatriba.

* 1.1004

They say that they abridge not God of his power, no nor that they can do it, neither would at any tyme other∣wise then as him selfe hath abridged it. Although there be nothyng, but that the omnipotency of God can bryng to passe, yet would he haue nothyng lawfull for him selfe to do, that might be contrary to his Iustice. And bycause it is an horrible matter that any man should be damned with∣out euill deseruynges, and that it is not reason that good workes should be defrauded of their due reward: therfore it must needes follow accordyng to the rule of Iustice, that God should chuse thē whom he would haue to be saued, for

the good workes, whiche he did forsee to be in them, and condemne the other lykewise for their euill doynges. For otherwise if he doe not regarde the workes, then were not his Iustice constaunt and permanent.

This Obiection must be ouertaken after this maner.* 1.1005 It is one thyng to treate of Gods Election, and an other thyng to treate of his Iudgement. As concernyng the Iudgement of God, it is euident, that no man is damned, vnlesse he haue de∣serued it for his wickednesse: and that no man is saued, vnlesse some matter be founde in him, whereunto his saluation may be imputed. It is farre otherwise in Election, and Predestina∣tion, which is accomplished accordyng to Gods Freé determi∣nation and coūsell, without all respect of workes, either goyng before, or commyng after. Or els how can that saying of the A∣postle be true, Not of workes, but of him that calleth? &c. meanyng thereby the Free Election of GOD? Whereupon let vs heare Augustine very aptly discoursing in his booke De Praede∣stin. & Grat. It is sayd:* 1.1006 not of workes but of him that calleth: The elder shall serue the younger. He doth not say of workes done before: but when the Apostle spake generally, not of workes: here he would that men should vnderstand it, both of workes done and already past, and workes not as yet done, that is to say, workes past which were none at all, and workes to be done, which as yet were not done. &c. Workes therfore haue both their tyme and their place: Certes in Electiō they haue neither tyme, nor place: Neither is any thyng here of any value, but the onely will of God, which neither dependeth vpon fayth, nor vpon workes, nor vpō the promises: but workes, fayth, and the promises, and whatsoeuer els doe all depend vppon it. For neither are our deédes vnto him a rule, to direct his Election by: but our deédes are directed by his Election, as the effectes do consequētly de∣pend vpon the causes: and not the causes vpō the effectes: Nei∣ther doth God worke vnrighteously in the meane tyme in this, if he take mercy on whō he will take mercy, or if he harden whō he will harden: And why so? For sooth bycause he is indebted to no man. For sithence we are all in generall euen from our mo∣thers wombes, ouerwhelmed & drowned in this puddle of ori∣ginall sinne: he may, accordyng to his good pleasure, haue mer∣cy

on whom it pleaseth him, and againe passe ouer whom soeuer hym lysteth and leaue them to them selues, that is to say, not take mercy vppon them. Whereupon all men may easily per∣ceaue, aswell the Reprobates, what it is whereof they may iust∣ly accuse thē selues: as also they that are chosen, how much they are indebted to God for his great and exceédyng mercy.

* 1.1007Euen as if one man kill an other with a sworde, no man doth therfore accuse the sword, but he rather is knowen to be in faulte, which did abuse the sword to murther: with as good reason, for asmuch as men are nothyng els but as in∣strumentes of wickednesse onely in Gods hand, they that yeld of Necessitie are not so much in fault, as he rather de∣serueth to be blamed that caused them to do wickedly.

* 1.1008If so be that men, whom God hath created after his owne I∣mage, were such kynde of Instrumentes, whiche lyke vnto a sword, or sawe, were driuen not of them selues, and without any motion or consent of their owne: or if God were such a Royster or hackster that would delight in the slaughter of men, the simi∣litude were not altogether to be mislyked. Now to graunt vn∣to them, that the wills of men are directed, and are subiect to a stronger power, then they are able to resiste, yet do they not suf∣fer onely as Instruments, brutish and senselesse, doing nothyng them selues in the meane whiles. Men are drawen in deéde, but with their owne wills: as Augustine maketh mention. Neither is any man euill, but he that will him selfe. And if man will be of his owne accord euill, who ought to be blamed therfore but him selfe? For where shall we say that sinne is, but where a will is founde to committe Sinne? But Osorius ceaseth not as yet frō his chatteryng.

* 1.1009They that doe affirme that God hath seuered out of all the vniuersall masse of mākynde some whō he would prepare to euerlastyng glory, and some others whom he would appoint to euerlastyng destruction, not for any other cause, but bycause it so pleaseth him: doe plucke Gods prouidence vppe by the rootes.

The Lutheranes do alledge none other reason of Gods Predestination besides his will onely.

Ergo, The Lutheranes do foredoe and plucke the proui∣dence

of Cod vppe by the rootes.

I beseéche you Osorius,* 1.1010 if as yet you haue not cast away all feélyng of an honest and sober Deuine vtterly, returne to your selfe at the length. In deéde say you so? Do they foredoe Gods prouidence which say it is so, for none other cause but by∣cause it pleaseth him? &c. What kynde of Argument doe I heare from you? Cā God be pleased to do any thyng that is not most correspōdent to reason? or cā any Reason be of all partes so absolutely perfect, that can disagreé frō the chief and principall patterne of his will? or do you seéme a reasonable man that doe talke so fondly? But I beseéche you Syr. For as much as the will of God, whether soeuer it bende and encline it selfe, is no∣thyng els but a most perfect Reason of it selfe, and of all partes most absolute, and without blemishe: and for as much also as Reason it selfe is nothyng els then the very rule of Gods will: nay rather for as much as the will of God is the very essence,* 1.1011 & substaūce of God: what kynde of couplyng do ye desire to be had betwixt Reason, and the will of God? Who in deéde can will no∣thyng but that whiche is perfect, sithe that nothyng is perfect but that which he willeth. And whereupō then riseth this hauty crest of yours? that can not be satisfied w^t the bare will of God, beyng expressed in his playne word? Neither seémeth it sufficiēt in your Iudgement that God should chuse any to saluation, vn∣lesse his secret counsell herein may be made discernable by the deépe reach of your owne reason? and that he should render an accoumpt and reason of his decreéd will herein vnto your Mai∣stershyppe? Albeit I doe not deny this to be true, that the pro∣founde wisedome of the Deuine Godhead, can not be sundered from the knittyng together of his Reason, and counsell: that is to say, from it selfe: Yet out of what Schoole suckt you such Di∣uinitie, O singuler Piller of the Romishe route? so earnestly to require and to sift out the counsell and Reason of the Creatour, euen in the very vnsearcheable wisedome of him that created you? I suppose ye were thus schooled in your sacred confessions. Surely you neuer learned it out of holy Scriptures. If you neuer noted what aunswere the Lord made to Moyses in the Scriptures, marke now somewhat more attentiuely: I will haue mercy (sayth he) on whom I haue mercy, and I will take compassion

on whom I will take compassion. &c. Here you may seé a singuler Mercy of God in takyng compassion: whereof you nor seé, nor heare any other rendred in the whole Scriptures, besides the onely will of God. I will haue Mercy: (saith he) will you know y^e causes, and the persons? the doth not say, bycause I perceaue thē to be worthy of my benignitie, whose foreseéne workes doe de∣light me now, before I take Mercy: but I do therfore take Mer∣cy, bycause I will take Mercy: and I will take compassion, on him of whom it pleaseth me to haue Mercy. And therfore S. Paule addyng a very fitte conclusion. Ergo (sayth he) God will haue mercy on whom he will haue mercy, and will harden whom he will harden. With these wordes bridlyng our nyce curiositie, as it were, and withall geuyng vs to vnderstand, that it is enough for vs to know, that so is y^e will of y^e Lord, although there be no manifest demonstration made vnto vs of the cause, wherfore he would so do.* 1.1012 For of what soeuer it shall please the Lord to bryng to passe, albeit we can not atteyne the Reason, yet ought we to grounde our selues vpon this, for sufficient and lawfull Reason, bycause the Lord hath brought it so to passe: we ought also to learne of Christ this lesson. Bycause it hath so pleased thy good will O Father: For as much as it is not lawfull for any creature to presume to enquire any reason beyond the will of God.

* 1.1013Right well therfore, and very profoundly doth Augustine geue vs this lesson, It is not meete (sayth he) to search for the cau¦ses of Gods vnsearcheable will, it is not lawfull to know it, for that the will of God is the principall and highest cause of all thinges that are: and therefore if when it is asked, why the Lord did it, it is to be aūswered, bycause he so willed it: if thou go further in asking why he willed it, thou askest some greater and higher thyng then the will of God is. Which can not possibly be founde out. And agayne the same Augustine in an other place writyng of Predestinatiō and grace, God (sayth he) taketh mercy on whō he will haue mercy and of whom be will not haue mercy he will not take mercy. He geueth to whom him listeth, and requireth that whiche is due vnto him, of whom he will. Here agayne ye heare the Will of God named, yea and that alone: wherewith if you be not yet satisfied, bycause it is named alone, harken what is immediately annexed by y^e same Augustine, for thus it followeth. He that shall continue to say

God is vnrighteous, let him harken vnto the Apostle. O man what art thou that contendest with God? man with God: earth with the Potter. &c. Doth he herein not note you excellently (Osorius) and (as it were) poynt at you with the finger? as, that no man could possibly haue noted any matter more notably? Paule the Apostle doth render no causes at all of Gods Election, but his will onely: Augustine dare enquire after none. All the whole Scripture is throughly satisfied with his will onely: Onely, Osorius can not be satisfied, nor thinketh it lawfull enough for God to doe that him lyketh best, vnlesse with sutteltie of Reaso∣nyng as it were with cutted Sophismes, and Sillogismes, mā mainteyne Argument with his GOD, earth with the Potter. Which thing how horrible it is, learne at the least out of Esay y^e Prophet:* 1.1014 Woe (sayth he) vnto him that will contend with his ma∣ker, a brittle pottesharde of the outcast potteshardes of the earth: shall the clay say vnto the Potter, why doest thou make me thus? did thy handes fayle thee in thy worke. &c. As though there were any of the Creatures of God that doth vnderstand the mynde of the Lord: or were euer counsellours vnto him: or as though it were not permitted him to will as him lysteth: or as though what soeuer pleaseth him, were not lawfull for him to do, vnlesse he did geue vs a reason, and orderly render vnto vs the causes that moued him thereunto? And what if he will not discouer it Osorius? Yea and what if he ought not? what if when him ly∣steth to display it most manifestly, your balde mazer, and the blockyshnes of your nymble capacitie can not be able to pearce into the vnsearcheable depth of his glory? wisedome? and coun∣sell? Ieremy the Prophet beyng commaunded to go downe into the house of the Potter, and there to behold throughly y^e worke∣manshyppe of the runnyng wheéle, and the hand of the craftes∣man: when he saw the Uessell that was newly made, and was by and by broken agayne: neither doth he require a reason thereof of the workeman, nor yet doth the Lord beyng the workeman rēder any reason vnto him: onely he declareth his power in ma∣kyng new, and renewyng agayne of that which was broken, in these wordes.* 1.1015 Am not I of power to do vnto you, as this Potter doth to his claye, O house of Israell? sayth the Lord. Behold as the clay in the hand of the Potter, so are you in my hand, O ye house of

Israell. And will Osor. dare be so bold (beyng a fashioned lumpe of the Potters wheéle, neither reuerencyng the Maiestie of his maker, nor contented with his onely will) to require a reason of his creation, besides the lawfull will of the Creator? and will he not permit it to be sufficient for God to doe in his owne wor∣kes, what it pleaseth him best?

For what do these wordes of Osorius emporte els?* 1.1016 Where beyng squeymish at Luthers speache: He doth Iudge them not worthy to be heard in any wise, whiche will affirme that God doth chuse whom he will vnto Saluation, out of the whole masse of mankynde: for none other cause but by∣cause it so pleaseth hym. Pag. 163. First where hath Luther any such Assertion? Why do ye not set it downe good Syr? and admit that he hath: what is it, that your carpyng cauillation cā gnaw at here, if you interprete it aright? For although Luther seéme in your goodly conceipt to be more then a thousand tymes madd (whom ye can neuer name without some gall of raylyng speache) yet was he neuer hetherto so foolish, as to haue a will to spoyle the most wise workes of God of Reason, and counsell in any wise. There is with God a most perfect, stable, & vnchaun∣geable knowledge of all the workes of his owne handes, but such a knowledge, as doth altogether surmount the greatest reach of our nymblest capacities, and seémeth rather to be wōde∣red at, then to be searched out by vs. Surely it is farre be∣yond the Reason that you make vnto vs. For deliberately no∣tyng with my selfe, and entring into a very deépe viewe and con∣sideration of the thynges, which are spoken of Election, of pur∣pose of Gods prouidēce (for this word Predestination as scarse fine enough for a Ciceronian you abhorte, neither dare ye so much as once to name in all your bookes) hereūto all your drifts seéme to tende, that ye suppose that Gods Iustice can by no meanes be defended, in makyng a differēce betwixt them whom he reserueth to be saued, & those whom he adiudgeth to be dam∣ned, but by foreknowledge of those workes, which God doth be∣hold shall be in them. As though Osorius would seéme to argue with God with such an Argument as this is.

* 1.1017There must be alwayes with God a stable assured and vpright reason in euery choyse to be made.

There can be none other iust cause of Reason of Gods Election and Reprobation,* 1.1018 but in respect of the merite that must follow.

Ergo, To the attainyng the grace of Election some pre∣paration of merite must needes go before.

First I do aunswere out of Augustine:* 1.1019 that it is a most pe∣stilent errour, to say, that the Grace of God is distributed accor∣dyng to merites; & this is one of the errours of Pelagius. Then as touchyng the Maior. There is in deéde with God a perfect, sounde, & vnchaungeable Reason of all his workes: But by what reason be ordereth his workes, may not be subiect to the Iudgement of the claye (as Augustine sayth) but of the Potter. Now I come to the Minor. Which we do vtterly deny: for where you make a definition of Gods prouidence (in chusing or refusing whom he will) to be none other then such as dependeth vpon the fore∣knowledge of workes: this is altogether most brutishe and vn∣reasonable. For albeit that preuēting for eknowledge of things (which out Deuines doe call foreknowledge) is vnseparably knitte together to the will of him, that doth Predestinate: yet do we not graunt the same to be the cause of Predestination. For first as concernyng the cause efficient, for as much as the will of God is the very substaunce of God, aboue the which there cā be nothyng more highe: there can be no efficient cause thereof ren∣dered, either before it, in limitation of tyme: or aboue it in Ma∣iestie: but the materiall and finall cause therof may (after a sort) be assigned. The materiall cause about the which it doth exer∣cise her force, is mākynde, and those thynges which God doth geue vnto men by Predestination, namely: Vocation, Faith, Iu∣stification, Glorification: The finall cause is two maner of wayes: either that which forceth him to doyng, by the preuen∣tyng will and reason of the first Agent: or els that which is pro∣duced out of action. And bycause there may be many endes of one thyng, it may be, that there is one end of Predestination, an other end of him that is Predestinated, and an other of him that doth Predestinate: As for exāple: As Saluation and life euer∣lastyng is the end of Predestination: the end of him that is Pre∣destinated, is to beleue and to lyue well: and the end of him that doth Predestinate, is his owne glory, and the manifestation of

his Iustice, power and mercy. As we do reade in Salomons Prouerbes.* 1.1020 God doth make all thinges for himselfe, and the wic∣ked man also for the euill day. And therfore if it be asked, whether God do predestinate for the workes sake?* 1.1021 it may be aunswered with S. Paule, that the holy ones are predestinated not for their good workes, but to do good workes: so that now the respect of workes be vnderstanded, not to be the cause efficient of prede∣stination: but the effect rather. For thus we heare the Apostle speake,* 1.1022 Euen as God hath chosen vs in hys sonne frō eternitie that we should become holy to the prayse of hys glory. &c. not because we were, or should be holy (sayth he) but that we should become holy, to the prayse of hys glory, &c. So that no reason of Election may appeare, but that which is to be sought for in the freé libera∣litie of hym, that doth make the Election, neyther that any o∣ther last end may be conceaued, but the prayse of the manifesta∣tion of hys heauenly grace. So that as without God there is no cause efficient, which may enforce predestination, so (if weé seeke for the very beginninges of eternall predestination) we shall perceaue that S. Paule doth reduce them, to iiij, princi∣pall heades chiefly.* 1.1023 1. to hys power, Where he sayth, hath not the Potter power. &c. 2. to hys purpose or hys good pleasure. For so we reade in the Epistle to the Ephesianes, where he vseth both these wordes: because he hath predestinated vs (sayth he) accor∣ding to the good pleasure of hys will. &c. And immediately after whē we were predestinated (sayth he) according to hys purpose &c. 3. to hys will. Rom. 10.* 1.1024 he will haue mercy on whom he will haue mercy and will harden. &c. 4. to hys mercy or loue: Where he sayth Rom. 10. It is neyther of hym that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that taketh mercy.

Last of all if you demaund further for some reason of Gods Election, who shall more liuely expresse the same vnto you: then the Apostle Paule writing to the Romaynes on this wise.* 1.1025 If God (sayth he) willing on the one side to shew his wrath, and to make his power knowne, did with much lenity beare with the Vesselles of wrath prepared to destructiō, and on the other side to make knowen the riches of hys glory towardes the Vessells of mearcy, which he hath prepared to glory, &c. Unlesse you haue ceased long sithence to be a reasonable man (Osorius) what more perfect reason can

be made vnto you? or more manifest of Gods workmanship then this, that is here set downe in Paule? Whereby you may playn∣ly perceaue, that all these councells and workes of God (which we do see) were begonne, and atchieued, not for any fayth fore∣seene before, nor for any foreknowne good works, but to mag∣nifie, and make discernable hys power, and the prayse of hys grace. And yet is not this vntrue, that the fayth of the holy ones was foreseene, and the works of the vngodly were foreknowne, long before they were: but yet these do follow as effectes, and do not preuent, nor make predestination, nor do certifie a reason, or playne demonstracion of Gods prouidence, but are thēselues established rather, by the reason of Gods prouidence: For to hym that will enquire amongest all the workes of God, what is it, that his most hyest and vnsearcheable will hath respect vnto chiefly? for what reason: for what cause? and to what end all these were instituted, in the same order and maner, as we do beholde them? the matter may by this reason, be made notorious vnto hym: to make manifest (sayth he) the power of hys wrathe, and to make knowne the riches of hys mercy. But I will pursue the other reasons, wherewith they do vrge vpon vs.

If thou wilt conuert vnto me,* 1.1026 I will conuert thee, and if thou be retourned, and will make thy self to be retourned, thou shalt stand before my face: If thou wilt make separati∣on of that which is precious, from that which is vile, thou shalt be euen as myne own mouth. Be ye tourned and I will heale you: I will retourne and not turne away my face from you.

The office of the holyghost is of two sortes:* 1.1027 the outward calling by preaching. And the Inward operation of the minde, whereof the first is layd open for all men indifferently: the other concerneth none, but the chosen properly. Moreouer for asmuch as repentaunce is a spirituall resurrection frō death: I cannot see how the same may be within the compasse of mans power, more then for a man that hath bene dead, can be able to restore hymself to lyfe agayne.

If God do vouchsafe to empart hys liberalitie to some without all respect of preparation,* 1.1028 he shal be iniurious and cruell to the others, whō he passeth ouer in the meane time.

* 1.1029God doth witnes of hymselfe, that he alone is he that is able do discerne and Iudge betwixt men, when as otherwise we are all like eche other in all thinges: but after what maner GOD doth discerne & make the difference, the scriptures doe declare. Not in respect of mans preparation, but according to the good pleasure of hys will: for so we reade Ephes.* 1.1030 That God hath pre∣destinate vs all according to the purpose of hys will. &c.

* 1.1031If God should not worke in respect of the workes fore∣seene before, he should seeme vnrighteous in hys election.

* 1.1032S. Paule doth propose these same obiections to himself, and withall maketh an aunswere to the quarrelling cauiller O man what art thou that doest aunswere with God? adding thereunto the similitude of the Clay and the Potter. And yet GOD hath much more power ouer men, then the Potter hath ouer the clay. If the Potter be at his owne libertie to fashion the Uessels, as he will himselfe: shall it not be as lawfull for God to shewe forth hys power vpon hys owne creatures? but that he must be enfor∣ced to follow mens merites, and that our deedes now must be vnto hym a rule of Election.

* 1.1033Roboam was sayd to be reiected for this cause: because he did not encline hys hart to seeke God.

Ergo, It is in mans power to make the harte apte to re∣ceaue grace.

* 1.1034The hardnes and peruersenes of the hart, wherewith we are made prone and propense to wickednes, vprofitable and vnable to do good, is a generall disease of all mankinde, vntill the new regeneration of the holyghost do minister a new remedy for y^e same. Which remedy if it come once, Grace is to be than∣ked for it onely: If it do not come, let euery man impute it to his owne frowardnes, and to hys naturall disease, and not vnto God, who did create mans nature whole, and sound at the be∣ginning. Briefly, to aunswere at a worde: This aunswere shall suffice to all those threatninges and exhortations, which our ad∣uersaryes do pyke out of the bookes of sacred scriptures euery where, and do obiect agaynst vs.

I may seeme perhapps to haue bene ouerlong, and tedious in heaping together, and confuting the obiections of our ad∣uersaries.

It remaineth now, that I make aunswere to certeine slaunders and lyes of these persones, who being vnable to bring any thing to passe with sound argumentes, and good matter, do attempt y^e ouerthrow thereof, with crooked conueyaunce, & with false & slaūderous cauillations: wherein as many others do tur∣moyle themselues very much, so doth this our porting all ouer greedely busye hymselfe, more then all the rest.

The Cauillacions of the Aduersaries where∣with they do impugne the doctrine of predestina∣tion, as altogether vnprofitable and superfluous for edification and Iustitution of good lyfe.

FOr this they vse to obiect,* 1.1035 that by the meanes of this doctrine of predestinatiō, all carefulnes is takē away frō mē that are fallē, to ryse agayn: that to such as do stand oc∣casion of sluggishnes is ministred, because mans trauaile is altogether Superfluous in both respectes: if neyther he that is woūded, cānot be able to become sound agayn through any hys owne industry: neyther he that is chosen, can fall away through any his negligence: by the one whereof des∣peration is nourished by the other slouthfulnes is mayn∣tayned.

If all things be first decreed vpon with God, by hys vn∣chaungeable counsell of predestination: what neede we thē any preaching, or godly exhortations? Whereby mens affe∣ctions may eyther be stirred vp to embrace vertue, or terri∣fied frōtheir accustomable licēciousnes of life? Whenas the desperate minde shall think with it selfe on this wise: Whe∣ther we lyue well now, or otherwise, we shalbe such not∣withstanding at the length, as God did foreknow that we should be: if good, then good: if euill, then euill.

Forasmuch therefore, as (through the teaching of thys doctrine) the very sinewes of all endeuour are brust asun∣der, and that there remayneth a certayne fatall Necessity onely: they do say, that it were more conuenient, not to haue any wordes or speach at all of this matter.

They do add moreouer, that it is superfluous to dispute of that matter, the depth whereof neuer was man able to re∣ache vnto: as a thing nothing fitte for the instructiō of the Auditorye: besides that if it were true, yet ought it not be taught (say they) because it deliuereth matter very perni∣ciouse, not to be receaued: and because such thinges being not able to be conceaued, may without any daunger be hol¦den in couert.

Moreouer there want not some now a dayes, Which do defend their obstinacye by Auncientye: forasmuch as the auncient fathers did eyther wryte nothing at all, or els very litle thereof or do teach of this grace preuenting the merites of the holy ones farre otherwise.

Wherfore they would haue the people to be taught on this wise rather. That God of hys goodnes and mercye, would haue all men to be saued: And that the cause, why all are not saued, is for that all will not receaue the grace indif∣ferently offered vnto them. And this maner of teaching they do suppose to be sound. On the contrary: that the other doctrine of predestinatiō doth take cleane away all force, & vse of wholesome preachinges, exhortations, and disci∣plines &c.* 1.1036 If we onely eyther were alone, or were the first that were vrged with these slaunders and cauillationes, there were lesse cause to wōder at y^e wickednes of this our age. But I do seé now no new thinge here, neuer spoken of before, nor any other thinge but such as many notable learned men haue bene sun∣dry tymes combred withall long sithence. Emongest whom cō∣meth first to hand Augustine, whom (beyng occupyed in thys cause) sometyme the Pelagianes, but most of all the Massilianes did molest much, with the very same obiectiones, as appeareth playnely by the transcript of Prosper and Hillary their letters to Augustine, euen the which obiections our deuines are now a dayes pressed withall: which if were true, then might he seeme to haue vndertaken this quarrell not rashly, nor altogether in vayne, as our men haue done also. But let vs aunswere to their complayntes.

* 1.1037Such as are appoynted teachers in the congregation of God, if they should beate into the grosse eares of the rude multi∣tude

this part of doctrine, which treateth of the secrett prede∣stination of God so nakedly, and barren of it selfe, as not doyng ought els, nor respecting any other thing, ne yet applying w^tall any wholesome exhortations, and allurementes to vertue, shold stirre and prouoke none to vertues endeuour, honest carefulnes and godly lyfe, these reasons might carry some showe of truth perhapps. But this matter ought to haue bene foreseene Osor. how these preachers behaue thēselues, what they preach, how, in what maner, and to what end they do lay this doctrine open before the people: before you should haue burst out into those cru¦ell accusacions and slaunderous reproches. If some yoūglings peraduenture may be found not so modestly and soberly to demeane themselues, as may beseeme them (allured either through delight of noueltie, or caryed thereunto through lightnes of witte, or to braue out their knowledge and learning) it is not conuenient, that the lowse and vncircumspect dealing of some particuler persons, should be preiudiciall to the truth of the doctrine.* 1.1038 Godly and modest wittes surely, as they conceaue the true reason of this doctrine, so doe they Iudge it no lesse ne∣cessary to be applyed: to the end they may pluck downe that per∣nicious opinion of yours, treating of merites, of confidence in workes, and of doughtfulnes of Saluation. For the ouerthrow whereof what more necessary doctrine to edifie the congregaci∣on withall may be applyed in the Church of Christians?

And therfore, to conclude briefly. For asmuch as all the doc∣trine of Predestination doth tend to this ende chiefly: that men may be forewarned not to trust to much to their owne strength, but to repose all their hope and affiaunce in God, It is vntrue that you do obiect: That the doctrine of predestination doth perswade rather to desperation then to godly lyfe: For what is this els as Augustine sayth, then as that you should say, that men do then dispayre of their owne safety, when they beginne to learne to repose their hope and affiaunce in God, and not in themselues in any wise. &c, Whosoeuer therefore shall instruct the ignoraunt people, in the true doctrine of predestination of the holy ones, discretly, and modestly and in due season, when case so requi∣reth: and shall ioyne withall godly and wholesome exhortations, the same shall he do profitably enough without anye inconueni∣ence

seeing that the preaching of both may be well coupled, and agree together, according to the testimony of Augustine: who affirmeth: that neyther the preaching of fayth profiting in godly fruits ought to be hindered by the preaching of predestination, that they which are taught may learue how to obey:* 1.1039 And agayne that the preachīg of Predestinatiō ought not to be hindered by the prea∣ching of fayth profiting in godly fruites, that they which obey, may know, in whom they ought to reioyce, not in thoir owne obedience, but in him of whom it is written: he that doth reioyce let him reioyce in the Lord.

Will you vnderstand, Osorius how the coupling of these too doctrines is not preiudiciall to the preaching of y^e one to the o∣ther? Paule the Apostle of the Gentills did many tymes sette forth the doctrine of predestination to the Rom. Ephe. Timot. The same did Luke in the Actes of the Apostles. Christ himself likewise doth make often mencion of the same in hys sermons: all which did not cease to preach the word of God neuerthelesse and do notwithstanding withal entermixt diuers good and god∣ly exhortations to liue well.

Paule when he sayd: it is God that doth worke in vs to will and to bring to passe according to hys good pleasure: did he therefore a∣bate any thing of hys godly lessons to make vs lesse carefull to will? and to worke the thinges, that are acceptable vnto God? In like maner where he sayth: he that hath begonne a good worke in you, will bring the same to effect euen vntill the day of Christ Ie∣su. Yet did he not cease to perswade them earnestly in the same Epistle written to the Phillippianes that they should not onelye beginne, but perseuere vntill the end.

* 1.1040Beleue (sayth Christ) in God, and beleue in me: & yet is thys neuerthelesse true, that he speaketh in an other place. No man commeth vnto me, or beleeueth in me, vnlesse it be geuen him from the father. Christ sayth also, he that hath eares to heare: let hym heare.* 1.1041 Yet doth God speake in the scriptures these wordes also: that he will geue them a hart frō aboue, that they may vnderstand, eyes that they may see, and eares that they may heare. &c. And al∣though it were not vnknowne vnto hym, who had eares to heare and who had not, that is to say, the gifte of obedience: Yet doth he exhort all men to heare.

Although Cipriane did both know and wryte that fayth and obedience were the gift of God,* 1.1042 and that we ought not reioyce in any thing, because we haue nothing of our owne, yet this was no hindraunce at all vnto his earnest preaching, but that he taught Fayth and obedience neuerthelesse, and most constantly perswa∣ded to good life.

When we heare S. Iames teach vs,* 1.1043 that euery good and perfect gift commeth downe from the father of lightes, yet this preaching of grace nothing withstoode, but that he continued to rebuke such as troubled y^e cōgregation, saying, If you be bit∣terly zelous, and your hartes be full of contencion: doe not reioyce, nor lye not against the truth, for this is not the Wisedome that came from aboue, but earthly, beastly, and diabollicall &c. And these giftes of God in deéde as Augustine reporteth, if there be no Predestination, are not foreknowne of God: if they be foreknowne, then is there a necessary predestination of God which we do defend.

To conclude Christ doth aduertize hys disciples.* 1.1044 That God doth know well inough what they stand in neede of before they doe pray, and yet he willeth them to pray notwithstanding, shewing vnto them aforme of prayer also.

Sufficient aunswere is made nowe (Osori.) if I be not de∣ceaued, vnto the obiections of your fraternity, that is to say, to your trifles and slaūders if not to all, yet at the least to the very principall pillers, and chiefe stayes of your vagarant dis∣putation, if not with such force, and dexterity, as may be a∣ble to putte your ouerthwhart obstinacy to scilence, yet as much for the defence of Luthers cause, as will satisfie the reasonable Reader (I trust) sauing that there remaineth one quarrell or cō∣playnt of yours as yet, agaynst Luther: A hanger by of all the rest, as it were: whereunto I cannot tell what I shall say: whe∣ther I were best to laugh at it, or aunswere it: for who can possi∣bly resfrayne from laughter, to reade that ridiculous counter∣fayte Prosopopoeia of yours?* 1.1045 wherein lyke a very foolish Rheto∣rician, you haue thrust in vppon the stage a lusty Ruffler who in the person of a Swartrutter, may accuse Luther for the vp∣roares raysed by the countrey Boores in Germany. As though of all that whole route of Clownes, any one were heard at anye tyme to accuse Luther as Author of this tumulte: or woulde

haue vttered somuch as halfe a word of reproche against him for y^e same, if he might speake for him selfe, & were not compelled to vse herein the counterfaite person of an other: or as though the Hystories do not declare sufficiētly, from whence the spryng head of all this mischief burst out at the first: surely not from Luther, but from an other Crowbyrde, from an other Chayre of pestilence (Osorius) what soeuer it was. But goe to: Let vs heare what dronken eloquence this gallaunt counterfaite swart Rutter doth gushe out vnto vs, out of Osorius drousie tankerd: And with what flashes of thundryng wordes, he meaneth to scorche vppe Luther withall.

* 1.1046O Luther? why doest thou accuse the harmelesse and in∣nocent? why doest thou rage? why art thou madde?

Truly I should haue wondered, if Osorius would haue spo∣ken any thyng agaynst Luther, but with some haryshe eloquēce. Nay rather Osori. if your selfe be not starke madde, what kynde of maddnes? What rage? what accusatiōs do ye tell vs of here? Wherfore let it be as lawfull for Luther to aunswere for him selfe agayne, and with like speéche, not to the Germaine ruffler, but to the Porting all Byshop: whom if he might reproue agayn contrarywise after this maner: O Osorius? why do ye accuse y^e guiltelesse?* 1.1047 why doe ye keépe such a sturre? why are you so fran∣ticke? who if were well in your wittes, would neuer reproche me with such madnesse. But what haue I haue done? what haue I deserued? is it bycause I would not encline to y^e furious disor∣ders of y^e rebellious? what? dyd I euer so much as moue a finger towardes that cause? did I not reproue them forthwith with penne and speache very instauntly? did euer man more earnestly bende the force of his arme agaynst them, thē I did my writing? If they would but haue harkened to my counsell, and continuall admonitions, the matter had neuer proceéded to so much bloud∣shead. What? And shall I receaue this recompence for my good meanyng towardes you, to be accoumpted a madd man? No (say you) not bycause ye wrote agaynst them, doe we repre∣hend you, but bycause you ministred the occasion of this vprore. But from whence do ye gather this to be true Osorius? Forsooth bycause they did learne this of you, that we were not able of our selues to doe either good or euil: for that

God doth (as you say) worke all in all in vs. &c. In deéde I haue denyed, that to thinke good or euill is in our owne hād. And what hereof I pray you? in what respect are these wordes ap∣plyable to the Countrey Boores? and to their rebellion? Doth that man open a gappe of licentiousnesse, and seditious treache∣ry to husbandmen, which doth abate that Freédome from mans will in doyng or atchieuyng any enterprise, which your Deui∣nes do falsely challenge as proper to mā? Is it therfore lawfull to be wicked, bycause many tymes men are hindered agaynst their wills from puttyng a mischief in executiō? or shall the will be therfore not wicked in doyng wickedly, bycause it is not freé, but enforced to yeld to a necessary Seruilitie, which of it selfe it is not able to shake away? Is the wicked Spirite therfore excu∣sed, bycause in doyng euill he doth it not so much of any Freé∣dome, as of Necessitie? for how shall he be sayd to be freé, which amiddes the race of his rudenes, is now and then restrayned a∣gaynst his will? and is not Lord of his owne will not so much as in doyng euill? yet doth this beyng not freé of him selfe nothyng withstād, but that he continue euill still: what and if I had sayd, that the will of the wicked of it selfe is not freé, but euery way captiue, and bonde? is it therfore to be imputed to God forth∣with, & not to men whatsoeuer they shall do wickedly? As though when men do thinke or committe euill, they be compelled there∣unto agaynst their willes? & are not willyngly and of their owne motion chiefly drawen thereunto? For to confesse this saying to be most true, That God is he that worketh all in all, yet doth he bryng to passe nothyng in mā surely, without their owne wills, so that if there be any euill in them, there is no cause why God should be accused for it, but euery man must laye the fault of his owne folly, and wilfulnes to his owne charge.

But (say you) for as much as God doth lead mens willes hereunto,* 1.1048 by what reason, cā ye couple the stabilitie of your doctrine with the defence of Gods Iustice.

I do aunswere.* 1.1049 First when we do ioyne the singuler proui∣dence of God, workyng all in all, in all the actions of mans lyfe: we do set the same forth, as all thynges may be referred to this, as to the primer cause efficient, which doth not worke properly, but in respect of y^e last end of all thinges. Here now for as much

as God is of his owne nature most best and most perfect, hereu∣pon it commeth to passe, that he which hath ordeined all thynges for him selfe, can in no respect be the cause of euill. 2. Then as touchyng the middle causes, whereas there is no man that doth not fall through his owne default, and the procurement of Sa∣than, it shalbe reason therfore, that no man seéke for the cause of sinne, without his own selfe, and that he complayne not of God for the same. 3. But yet to admit that the actions of mans lyfe, are not gouerned without the prouident and circumspect direc∣tion of Gods will: and that it is he alone, that inclineth mens willes whither him listeth: Yet neuerthelesse euen he, that ap∣plyeth the willes, hath enclosed also the same willes within cer∣teyne limittes and lawes, and as it were enuironed them, with certeine hedges & boūdes, which whether we accomplish or no, seyng he hath made the will of God manifestly discernable vnto vs, certeinly they do not onely sufficiētly acquite, and cleare his Iustice, but also aboundantly commende the same. 4. And lastly though we be neuer so vnable to the performaunce of his ordi∣naunces, yet for all this, can no iust accusation of quarell be fra∣med agaynst God, but the faulte must be wholy imputed vnto men, and that worthely. For why would this beastly flesh (beyng throughly fortified at the begynnyng vnder the safe keépyng of God and vnderstādyng) become Carter of his owne carriadge? and guide of his owne flitteryng lyfe afterwardes, refusing the conduct and leadyng of God? Which if can now gouerne it selfe rightly in deéde, as it ought to do, let it then a Gods name enioy his owne knowledge: but if otherwise: yet is Gods Iustice sufficiently enough defended, and euen for this same cause, by∣cause he first forewarned them of the perill ensuyng, it is with very good reason acquited of crime: for what standeth more a∣greable with Iustice, then to punish sinnes with sinnes? and to crushe downe, with sharpe and bitter correction, that proude re∣bellious arrogancie, agaynst the high God his Creator?

* 1.1050But howsoeuer the matter goeth here. I do maruell at this in the meane whiles, with what fayth and with what face, this one place is vrged so much, which maketh nothyng at all to se∣dition: whenas many other thynges may be gathered out of my bookes euery where, which are manifestly profitable for the pre∣seruation

of peace, and tranquislitie. For what els doe all my bookes, and preachynges more earnestly emporte? (the necessa∣ry instructions of fayth beyng once established) then that y^e mul∣titude of the rascall rable, and ruder Boores, together with all other Christians, should conforme their lyues altogether to pa∣tience? and desire of concorde, though they were oppressed with neuer so many iniuries? where did I euer by worde or writyng teaze any man to armes? Where did I euer geue so much as a crooked looke agaynst the Magistrate? Nay rather who euer e∣steémed of the gouernours more honorably? or taught the duetie of subiectes to their Princes out of holy Scriptures more ear∣nestly & faythfully? who did euer more carefully aduaūce, & call backe to their former dignitie, the Ciuill gouernours and Ma∣gistrates, vtterly suppressed almost through the Romish Pon∣tificall Tyranny? whose mynde or penne dyd euer more hateful∣ly abhorre disorderous vprores and outragious rebelliōs? And if my writynges and behauiour doe not witnesse this to be true that I speake, I am contended that this reproche be Registred amongest the other Beadroll of Osorius lesinges.

After that the light of the Gospell was restored:* 1.1051 Carolosta∣dius began to plucke downe Images, and to make an innoua∣tion in many thynges: the matter beyng duely wayed, was of it selfe commendable enough: yet bycause he attempted it with vi∣olence and vprore (the Magistrate not beyng made priuy vnto it) I withstoode him. The lyke attempt was made by Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, about the matter of the Sacrament. I doe not here debate of the truth of the cause: And yet no one thyng restrayned me so much from subscribyng to their Asserti∣tions, as did the dought of broyles, which I feared would after∣wardes haue ensued. I will adde also somewhat of my selfe: when the Counsell was called at Wormes, beyng cited by pu∣blique authoritie to appeare before the Emperiall seate: I dyd not refuse. Certainly the daunger was assured and apparaunt. For beyng aduertized (as I was on my iourney) that I should haue regarde of my sauety in tyme: I thought better to put my lyfe in hassard, then susteine the reproche of disobediēce. Beyng ouercome at the last not by Scripture, but by power I cōmit∣ted my cause to the mercy of the Lord, & to the authoritie of the

Emperour. I onely defended my cause constauntly. If I had bene of so lewde a disposition, & so foreward to sedition, as you suspect (Osorius) there wanted not at that tyme, both Princes, frendshyp and fautoures of the cause: yea and perhappes there was tyme good enough to put it in practize. But was there euer any Prince, or Subiect encouraged (by my meanes) to moue discension? This beyng done not long after in deéde, the Boores of the Countrey began to raunge in that outrage (whom after∣wardes Muncer and Phyfer takyng partes withall) brake out into lyke maddnesse. The common weale beyng thus deuided, & disquieted, how greatly I was greéued withall, what meanes I vsed agaynst them accordyng to my duety, what aunswere I made to their Articles, with what reasons I refuted them, what counsell I gaue and what exhortations to commō quyet, and Christian obedience, myne owne writynges (extaunt as yet) doe testifie for me, and the Hystories therof doe sufficiently declare. And Osorius him selfe doth not deny the same. Yet ta∣kyng occasion of my writynges, he shameth not to make me the authour of all this rebellion.

* 1.1052And why so? We (sayth he) haue learned of you that we are not able of our selues to doe good or euill. And what then? Hereof we conceaued our foolehardynesse, this was the cause that moued vs Boores to Armes. O notable Argument cōcluded by clownes, but very clownish surely. I suppose Cori∣don him selfe could not haue done more rustically. But if you will take occasion to argue agaynst me, of that which you might haue learned out of my writyngs (O ye Boores) ye were in them enstructed after this maner: That Magistrates ought to be re∣uerēced: why did you not obey this lesson? How often did I teach you that Rebellion must be eschued by all meanes possible? that no priuate man should auenge his owne iniuries? that it was not lawfull for any Christian to auenge any priuate wrong? That Christ had no neéde of any warlyke guarrison? That the Maiestie of the Gospell was able and strong enough of it selfe to mainteyne her owne quarell? That there could be no more forcible victory for the truth and pure doctrine, then which is atchieued with sufferaunce, and patience? that the nature of the same was such, as the more it were pursued, the more forcibly

it would preuayle? Why learned ye not to follow these lessons? Lastly: when ye were in Armes, and dereygned in field, and by sound of Trumpet had published your Articles, and Requestes to the hygher powers, how much dyd I moyle and turmoyle my selfe, to reduce you to order, and reclayme you from your at∣temptes? teachyng you out of holy Scriptures, conuincyng you, aduertizyng you, chidyng, beseéchyng, perswadyng, threat∣nyng, finally omittyng no part of duety vntouched, whereby I might reclayme you from your hurly burly, to peace and tran∣quillitie. If so be that my doctrine were of such authoritie with you, why did you shut vppe your eares from your Masters les∣sones? If you betooke your selues to Armes, through occasion of one sentence wrongfully vnderstoode, or misconstrued, why dyd ye not forsake the field, for so many my exhortatiōs, and no∣table exclamations to the contrary.

But go to Osorius: bycause vnder the person of the Boores complaynte, you do so vehemently wrest all this false suggestion of mischief agaynst me. What if I deny your Assumpsit? how will you be able to proue it? perhappes by heare say amongest the clownes? what? of any that be liuyng? or that be dead? But when the poore clownes lyued, and were drawen to execution, tormented, and stretched out vpon the rackes (in which extremi∣tie men are wont for the more part to vtter more thē they know) If there were one so much of that whole rable, muttered euer halfe a sillable of me, such as your Carterlyke and senselesse I∣magination hath deuised agaynst me, I will willyngly yeld to this accusation of suspitiō. But by your occasion (say you) this tumult might haue bene raysed easily. So might the Blacke Moore chaūge his skinne. And Osor. also might leaue his lyeng. But all thynges are not by and by done, that may be done. But onward: how proue you that it might haue bene so? Bycause (say you) that God worketh all in all in vs, accordyng to Luthers Assertion, and we be instrumentes onely applyed and wrest with his handes: hereupon followeth it therefore sithe God onely raysed vppe these tumultes, and was the onely procurour, deuisour and accomplisher of this sturre, that the Boores of necessitie must be guiltlesse, and innocēt hereof. Go to: And do ye suppose (Osorius) that these wordes

were the whole seédeplotte of all this Rebellion? what shall we say thē to that, which we read in Paul? That it is God that wor∣keth all in all:* 1.1053 And agayne. That worketh all according to the pur∣pose of his will.* 1.1054 And in the Prophet Amos. There is no euill in the Citie that the Lord hath not done. And agayne, whē we heare on euery side aswell amongest the Prophetes as the Apostle. That men are made blinde of God, are deliuered ouer into a Repro∣bate mynde. Why might not the Boores haue taken occasion of these wordes, aswell as of myne? Go to. And what and if I had writtē these wordes also, namely: That it is in the power of our Freewill to dispose our selues whereunto we lyst? either to make our selues earthen vessels, or golden vessels in the house of the Lord? would the Boores haue the sooner bene quieted for this cause? And yet this is the generall proclamation of that notori∣ous Seé of Rome, dispersed throughout all Catholicke Nati∣ons: the same doe all their Recordes and Canons noyse abroad (wheresoeuer they crawle) yea many yeares before Luther was borne: and the very same also doth Osorius write at this day in Portingall, and many other of the lyke fraternitie elles where: what? was there neuer any cōmotions therfore of the rude mul∣titude (before Luther was borne) in Portingall? none in Italy? Germany? Fraunce? England? Cycill? & other Nations? Could this, or any other portiō of Scripture, or doctrine, euē so bridle the affections of the vnruly, but that they would at one tyme or other burst out into outragious extremities?

I adde moreouer. Admit that my wordes (beyng either mis∣conceaued or misconstrued) might suggest some matter of euill occasiō: shall it be lesse lawfull therfore to beare testimony of the truth, bycause there be some that are so beastly brutish that will mishandle the wordes and deédes of others, be they neuer so well spoken? By this reason, away with the Bible, bycause out of the same, the most parte of heretiques haue sucked their poyson: what? dyd not Paule therfore not commende the Iustice of God aright by our vnrighteousnesse, bycause there wanted not that would abuse his saying to occasion of euill? Let vs doe euill (say they) that good may come thereby. The auncient godly Christi∣ans were wont to assemble together, and sing Psalmes before day light and to receaue the Sacrament of bread & wyne. Here∣upon

began rumours to be scattered abroad, that the Christiās dyd worshyp the rysing of the Sunne, & dyd sacrifice to Ceres & Bacohus. And what hath bene so well spoken, or established at any tyme, that the peéuishenesse of peruerse and froward per∣sons will not depraue•• if they lyst to pyke a quarell, or slaunder the good wordes and well doynges of men? The same came to passe with Augustine him selfe through the Pelagians: who af∣ter had once brought in the name and commendation of grace,* 1.1055 hereupon forthwith they began to quarell with him, as though he should affirme, that men are made good by fatall. Necessitie. And agayne where he denyed that Grace was distributed accor∣dyng to mēs deseruyngs: this saying they gnawed at as though he should say: That no endeuour ought to be looked for from the will of man, contrary that saying in the Gospell, where the Lord spake. Aske and it shalbe geuen you, seeke and ye shall finde knocke and it shalbe opened vnto you, for euery one that doth aske shall re∣ceaue. &c.

And all this haue I debated with you, euen as it were truth that your counterfaite imagination hath deuised, to witte: that I should be the originall of all that rebellious insolencie. I come now to y^t pynche of my true defence. Namely, to deny that there is, or euer was any Boore in all Germany, that did euer Iustifie this slaunder agaynst me. This was neuer the speéche of any Boore: but the rude vnshamefastnesse of Osorius: voyde of all matter of probabilitie, to make me authour of all this mischief. The very authour wherof if as yet you do not know, and would fayne know him in deéde, I will tell him you, but briefly, yet tru∣ly Osorius.

When Sathan perceaued that the kyngdome of your pride was ready to haue a fall:* 1.1056 and that the Romishe Prelate could now no longer mainteyne his erroneous sacriledges, agaynst the glorious excellency of the gladsome Gospell: he entred by a notable pollicie into this deuise vnder the pretence of the Gos∣pell to tickle vppe madd braynes, thereby to bryng the Gospell in obloquy and infamy, the ouerthrow whereof he perceaued now past his compasse, as the which he was now no longer a∣ble to withstand. Then also, vnlesse this lying Osorius had sett him selfe forth (as an especiall Instrument of this wyly Ser∣pent)

vpon whose shauen sconse not so much as a herebreadth may be founde growing of an honest or sober man, ye would ne∣uer haue so filthyly infamed the good reporte and credite of ho∣nest personages, standyng in the defence of the Gospell, with so many slaunderous lyes, and cursed reproches. If Luther should vse this, or the lyke counterbuffe, accordyng to the frankenes of his speéche, agaynst your rusty, clownish, and illfauored, false Diuinitie: I do not aske, what you could answere him agayne Osorius. But I feare this rather, least as he should not seéme to speake sufficiently in the honest defence of him selfe, so in respect of your deserte, he were not able to vtter enough a∣gaynst you.

After all this ye adde moreouer and demaunde, with what honest reason Luther doth ioyne the constancy of hys Dis∣cipline with the defence of Gods Iustice. To answere brief∣ly: Certes with much more honester reason, then your bloudy Bishop, or you his skraping catchpolles (who hauing embrued your rotchets in so much Christian bloud play the Butchers more like then Byshops) can ioyne your pryde vayneglorious Tytles, Pompe Arrogancy, Cruelty, Tyranny, Treason, Lust, Lechery, Opinions, Heresies, Determinations, and intollera∣ble Canones of mans Traditions, together with Peter with Paule, with Christ and with hys Gospell, not to speake of the rest of your secret abhominations.

* 1.1057I am come now at the length to the triumphaunt end of this glorious booke: where leauing Luther in the field, & sounding y^e retrai••t from the great battell of Freewill: Osor. doth furbush hys furniture for the Triumph agaynst poore Gualter Haddō, and not without cause: for because this quarelling Ciuiliā (who a little before did yelde ouer the preéminence of Eloquence to Osorius, and confessed him to be the chiefe carpenter of speach, and named hym also the scholer of Cicero many tymes) he seé∣meth so variable & vnconstant now,* 1.1058 That he dare affirme that Osorius writing is vnsauory, voyde of likelyhoode of truth, and without sense, argument and proofe: which Haddon is so childishe in hys style,* 1.1059 making skarse anye semblaunce of witte in hys vtteraunce, that he deserueth no commenda∣tion of witte at all, but such as seemeth to stand in darcke∣nesse

of speach Finally whereas he doth so oftentimes obiect a∣gaynst Osorius the name of Cicero by way of reproche: He him selfe did very carefully foresee that no man shoulde be able to reproche hym with the name of Cicero:* 1.1060 for he speaketh nothing very eloquently nothing playnely, nothing di∣stinctly, nothing pitthely nothing substancially, nothing loftely. What soeuer pleaseth hym, he hath thrust into hys wrytinge: and that also he doth confirme not by reason or argument, but with skolding and lauishnes of tongue. Lastly hys whole wryting is so bluntish, so base & so colde, that it moueth Osorius to pity it rather, then to hate it. And that is the cause. That Osorius cannot according to hys pro∣mise condiscend with hart and mynde to hys opinions, as he promised he would do, if he could winne the victory of the cause which he vndertooke, with apte and conuenient arguments. But now sithence he hath not done it, sithēce he hath brought no argument, nor vsed any proofe to the pur¦pose: sithence also hys reasons be such, as haue no force to mayntayne credite, but such as rather doe disclose a token of some miserable frensye: hereof therefore it commeth to passe, that he seemeth to be acquited of hys promise, if hee remayne as yet in hys opinion vnuanquished. And there∣fore that Haddon did very vaynely take in hand to wryte, & that they did not lesse vndiscretely that set hym a worke. Moreouer that neyther hys Schoolemaister was voyde of blame, whosoeuer he were, that did not instruct hym at the first in what place, and in what forme he ought to apply his interrogation making to the substaunce of the matter.

Nowe hast thou gentle reader the last acte of Osorius fable which whether I may tearme to be Comicall, or Tragicall, I can not well tell: but that it seemeth in myne opinion, to resemble rather the shape of a Comedye more neerely. For what glorious Thraso (I pray you) could euer haue handled hys part vppon a stage more rufflingly, & moue the beholders to lowd laughter more pleasauntly. To haue the whole fruition of his sweet pig∣snye Cicero as it were of Thais or Phillida, what a sturr doth he keepe? And because he perceaueth that Haddon hath a fansie to hys mynion, which maketh him to stand in some feare least he

wil beguile him: how hatefully & despightfully doth he exclame vpon him to driue him out of countenaunce? not onely treading hym vnder hys feete, but so furiouslye boyling agaynst hym, That if this Parasiticall Gallaunt were now in England, with hys cogging companion Sanga, and but an handfull of Catho∣licke Monkes with them, Uerely I beleue, he would as Thra∣so pretended agaynst Thais also burst open the gates vpon him, whom he doth now thrust downe in the belfry amongest boyes, as one that deserueth no title of good word for his witt in whom is neyther any force of sētence, nor any likelihood of truth, in whose writings no examples, finally which Haddō no re∣sēblance of Ciceroes delectable pronūciatiō doth appeare: but a certayn piteous stāmering of speach vttred, in hys wri¦tings vntowardnes, & childishnes: in disputīg obscure, & a certein vnskilfull applicatiō of Rhetoricall interrogatiōs, learned of an vnskilfull Maister, but as one that can skarse expresse hys meaning by his vtteraunce: hath no pertaking of Ciceroes finesse, nor cōmeth so much as any thing neere the maiesty of Cicero: expresseth nothing purely, nothing playnly, nothīg distinctly, nothing substācially, nothing lof∣tely, Finally vttereth nothyng but a vayne sound of foolishe wordes, that it woulde pittie a man to see it. Wherefore O wretched man that thou art poore stammering Haddon, O pi∣teous estate of this seély Phedria. And in the meane tyme thys vayneglorious proud pecocke is bedeckt with all these Distritch feathers, and glittering plumes, wrapt vp together in a great brush perdie: so that here is no want of any thing nowe, but of some gyering Gnato, which may lowt this Thraso out of hys paynted Coate. But go to. Let these thinges passe Osorius. Although this vnbrydeled and cottquenelike maner of scolding and lauishnes of toung doth of right require, that we shoulde likewise blaze out your braynsicknesse in the right colour, and make you as it were a mockery for boyes: yet dismissing now at the last those toyes, and merry conceites of your dame deynty (wherewith she hath (as you say) besmeared Haddons lips) we will deale in earnest with you: and therefore let vs see what it is wherewith you reproche Haddon so vnmanerly. He sayd that you were Ciceroes scholler, and a conning coyner of words

what euill was in this? Afterwardes himselfe doth confesse that your writinges are vnsauorye, and without reason: wherin sayd he amisse? meaning this in effect as I think: that you busye your selfe about a straunge matter as though you were raking after the Moone, wherein ye neyther sauour any thing at all, you are not able to teache, nor willing to learne. You doe slaunder cer∣tayne godly and learned personages, here in England, yea euen to their Queéne, whom despightfully ye call by a nickname new Gospellers: And thus do ye, eyther of no reason at all, or in such wise, as if onely exchaunge of names were made, would easily be more appliable vnto the forgers and counterfayte stagers of the Romish Gospell: yea would accord much more fittely with them, then with those that you do accuse. moreouer where you say, that he vttereth nothing purely nothing playnely, nothing, pit∣thily, nothing substancially or with good grace, if any man els be∣sides Osorius should speake this, perhappes he might be credi∣ted. But as now what shall any discrete or indifferēt man iudge of your opiniō herein? for what merucile is it, if a mā practise by all meanes possible to deface y^e credite of the Aduersary, agaynst whom he writeth? And yet here men may easily seé, y^t as you haue no great stoare of modesty & discretion, so you are not ouerladen w^t the rules, & principles of Rhetorick. For the skilfull in Rheto¦ricke are wont to extoll and aduaunce y^e power & excellency of y^e Aduer. agaynst whō they mayntaine quarrell, to th end to make thēselues more famous thereby, if happely they gett y^e victory.

I come now to that part of thaccusacion, which concerneth the forme and phrase of hys style: wherein I cannot but wonder enough at your exceeding childish (pardō me I pray you Osor.) and more then womanishe malepartnes: for in this sorte hoyes wont to brawle for nuttes: And women (as Ierome reporteth) when they are a goshipping, speake ill of them that are absent, and crake lustely ouer men, as if they were stronger then they. you take it to be a goodly matter to resemble Cicero in Elo∣quence and finesse of phrase, or at least to come very neere it: And think it not inough to treate of Christ, of the Gospell, of ho∣ly thinges, and sacred religion, aptely soundly and learnedly, vnlesse a man paynt it out with the glorious brauery of Cice∣roes Eloquence. And bicause Haddons style doth not rayse it

selfe to Ciceroes loftynes sufficiently, (as you Iudge) therfore he is not accompted worthy to sitte amongst the punyes, no nor yet fitt to be a scholler in Ciceroes schoole: as one that vttereth nothing purely nothing playnly nothīg pitthily nothīg lof¦tely. &c. whē wise men I say shall read these words of yours, & this your Iudgemēt cōcerning Haddō, how will they esteéme of you in their secret conceiptes think you? Will they smile in their sleaues at this your folly? or will they laugh openly at it? will not all men clapp their hands, and spitt at that singuler inhuma∣nity of thys Portugall wrangler? will they not abhorre his de∣testable shamelessenesse? for why do ye say that Haddon spea∣keth nothing purely? nothing playnly, &c. is there anye man that hath euer read any of Haddons writinges, so vnshamefast be∣sides Osorius onely, that would say so? Are yee nothing asha∣med of this your so manifest vanity? Are ye so altogether dis∣poyled of feéling of modesty, and humanity, as you are barraine in scriptures, and voyde of Iudgement? that whereas ietting at your own shadow, you can be contented so bountifully to be∣stow the best, and the fayrest vpon your selfe, that ye will finde in your hart to empart nothing but poore ragges to others? For to confesse in deede that Haddon did not reache to that grace, and dexteritie of phrase that was in Cicero: Will ye therefore yelde him no commendation of the latine style? nor so much as anye meane knowledge therin? nor yet will suffer him in your cōpany to beare the name of a poore scholler in Ciceroes schoole? And who hath made you vsher I pray you, or pepositour of Ciceroes schoole? that no man may be admitted into that fellowship vnles you allowe of hym? And yet in respect of this friuolous title, what matter maketh who beare the name? But what kynde of discourtesy is this? so to embase Haddon of all ornamentes of an artificiall Rhethorician, so to throw him down amongest the Apsy boyes, as to leaue him nothing but babishnes and stam∣mering of speache? and withall condemne hym for so doltish and rascall a wryter, that yee cannot choose but meruayle also, what collpixe had so bewitched hym to make him a writer?

But ye ought to haue marueled at this O meruelous man, in others rather, and posted ouer this taunting check to them ra∣ther, ouer many of whose pelting workes are flowne abroad out

of your cloysters into y^e worlde, so Mosy, vnsauory, harshe, & vn∣pleasaunt, that y^e learned are enforced many tymes to turne ouer their stomackes in reading thē, & the vnlearned suck nothing out of them, but smoake, and puddle. In which notwithstanding I would not be so squeimish at their rudenes, & barbarous grosse∣nesse of speach: if euen in their most excellent writinges, they might be found to cary any resemblaunce of any sound doctrine, or sauoring of wholesome knowledge at the least: and were not more disorderous in the substance of the matters, then they are grosse of speache. For otherwise as concerning that exquisite excellency of Eloquence, for asmuch as neyther Cicero, that graund captayne of Eloquence himselfe, doth at all times speak so exquisitely: neither forceth so much if it be not altogether ar∣tificiall in a Philosopher, so that his maners and doctrine be substanciall: what cause is there to the contrary,* 1.1061 but if there be some defect thereof in a deuine, that he may as well beé borne withall, so that the simplicitie of hys speach agree with the truth, and be cleare from barbarous grossenesse: and so that the want of Eloquence, be supplyed with the soundnes of the truth. But as now, how vnreasonable is your communication Osorius that can so courteously allow of those your vnsauory, and vnpleasaunt Ianglers? and shew your self so whotte a Cen∣sor against Haddon onely: as that ye affirme him to write no∣thing eloquently, nor yet able to expresse his meaning any thing playnely.

But yet truely whereunto soeuer Haddon is fitte or vnfitte, or whatsoeuer Haddon can do or cannot do: This is most cer∣tayne and true. That the want of Eloquence is not the matter, that rubbes you on the gall so extremely: Haddon is not ther∣fore expelled from Ciceroes Colledge, because he cannot ex∣presse Ciceroes finesse liuely enough (which your selfe cannot do, more finely though ye would burst asunder Osorius) But there is an other thing, yea an other thing in deede, there is an other padde in the straw: for who cannot easily perceiue out of what puddle this bubling froathe doth issue, and whereunto this tendeth, that Haddō may not seeme worthy to be named a Ciceroniane: not because he is not a Ciceroniane: but bicause he is not a Romayne: not because he writeth scarse plainely nor

connīgly with y^e Orator of Rome, but bicause he taketh not part with the Bishop of Rome? because he will not blindfolde him∣selfe with Osorius: not because he doth not sufficiently expresse the elegancy of the Romanes eloquence, but because he would attempt his penne agaynst Osorius, and against the doctrine of Rome, and take vpon him to fauour the cleare veritie of the gos∣pell, and apply his minde to the defence of true religion, hereup∣on ariseth the reproche of the stammering tongue, of the chil∣dish speach, and of the vnskilfull style.

In the which I cannot well conceaue the meaning of Osor. For if according to this rule, all wryters that do not attayne the cleane and pure elegancy of Cicero, do seeme in his iudgement childishe stammerers: in vayne haue Augustine, Ierome, Ci∣prian, Ambrose, Gregory, Bernard, in vayne haue the Romish Prelates, and all other expositours both of the Greéke and the Latine Churches, in vayne haue Angrensis Dalmata, Al∣phonsus, Turianus. Andradius bestowed great and paynfull labours in writīg: whose style and forme of phrase if be through∣ly viewed, and considered: peraduenture the more part of them will be found to differre as farre from the finesse of Cicero, as Haddon doth: That I may be so bolde to make no menciō at all of Scotus Sotus Lōbardus Gratiane. Thomas de Aquino Ra∣phaell Gabriell, and such like trasshe, yea how many may a mā pyke out from amongst the most famous and true Christian de∣uines, who of sett purpose haue abased their stile: not because they could not write so loftely of the thinges y^t you esteéme of so ga••ly: but because they were of this minde, that this hawty lof∣tinesse of affected Eloquence,* 1.1062 woulde not agreé with y^e naturall simplicitie of the Gospell. Whereupon Ierom writing to Pam∣machius seemeth in this respecte to haue him in the more esti∣maciō, because he despised Cicero in respect of Christ: and far∣ther also is of this Iudgement y^t in the expositiō of scriptures, the nycetye of speache ought not onely to be dissimuled, but also vtterly eschued:* 1.1063 because it might be more profitable for all ingenerall.* 1.1064 Christ our sauiour accompteth the high and great thinges of this worlde to he execrable and abhominable in the sight of God. And the Prophet Esay doth with wonderfull manacing threaten Manasses the day of the Lord agaynst all things that be

fayre, beautifull, florishing things of this world. Paule in enlarging the knowledge of the Euangelicall doctrine: durst not beginne the same with high and lofty Rhetoricall speache, nor furnishe his wordes with humayne Eloquence (not because it was hard for him to do so if he listed) but chose rather to refrayne,* 1.1065 least the Crosse of Christ (sayth he) might be made voyde and of none effect. I speake not this, because I would haue men tyed to such a ne∣cessitie now a dayes, by his example, namely sithe y^e Gospell of Christ doth so florish euery where, as though it might not be lawfull in these dayes w^t what soeuer ornamentes, yea of great∣test estimatiō to beautifie y^e speache, & to applye the same to the vse of Christes congregatiō. But yet must modest discretiō be v∣sed here. Truely if Plato were of opinion, y^t the last end of Elo∣quence was, that we should deliuer & vtter things acceptable to God: how much more thē is y^e same to be required in a Deuine?

Aud therefore as concerning the Grace and dexteritie of Cicero: whatsoeuer it be that eyther. Nature did emplant in him, or Industry did attayne: as I despise it not, but rather very well like of it, and do wonder at so excellent a gift of God in him: so agayne do I not reprehend in any man to immitate him, so that his imitation be ioyned with Christian simplicitie, so that it be done not to hawke after the proud estimation of the worlde, nor to the vayne glorious ostentation of witte, nor for anye pri∣uate glory: finally so that it be so applyed, that discret imitation may be clearely voyde of vayne affectation. Nowe what shall we say to them? who reiecting all other teachers of maners and doctrine, do employ all their endeuour to file vpp their tongues & so addict themselues altogether to Cicero alone, and so ama∣zedly dote vpon him onely, that thinke it a lesse fault not to be a Christian almost, then not to be a Ciceronian: nor iudge hym scarse worthy the reading (though he be neuer so Christian a wryter) that doth not frame hys stile after Ciceroes, patterne, and sauor altogether of hys delicate speache? And that is the cause (as I suppose) why Osorius doth recken, that Haddon doth wryte nothing purely, and nothing playnly. Not because he hath corruptly or fasly written, but that it seémeth to Osori. y^t he hath not written like a Ciceronian, & because hee doth not throughly resemble his dexteritie & loftines, although in deéde

he be not very farre behinde hym. And therfore this sweete man doth wōder, what waywardnes of minde forced him to be so bold as to wryte agaynst Osorius,* 1.1066 and cōmaundeth him to learne of him (if it please the Muses) how hawty and vehement interrogations must be applyed in place fitte for the same. Last of all in steade of a Rhetoricall acclamation, concluding with a Satyricall skoffe he doth aduertize hym, To procede in writing franckly as hym listeth, and because he will encou∣rage hym to wryte more franckly and freely, he telleth him that he may freely wryte without daunger, because no man of any iudgement or skill will blame him in this respect, that he is addicted to Cicero more then is needefull.

If there were any sense or feélyng of right or wrong in all your body, or if there were any reason in all these your vnma∣nerly tauntes, and rascallike scoffes (Osorius) I could acquite you with the lyke, and could be contented to space them vnto you in Haddons behalfe. But now for as much as this your speach is so aboundaūtly replenished with vanitie and folly: what were better for me to doe, then accordyng to the counsell of the wise man,* 1.1067 To aunswere a foole accordyng to his foolishnesse? Briefly therfore and bycause I make hast to the end of your booke: to aū∣swere not to your Argumentes which in deéde are none, but to aunswere your scoffes and nyppyng conceiptes, not altogether vnpleasauntly, yet neuerthelesse somewhat truly: Surely I do geue you harty thankes Osorius, not for myne owne cause one∣ly, but in the publicke name of all the learned generally, for the thynges, wh you haue taught vs hetherto in these your notable books. For so haue you taught, as we all can not but be merry and receaue singuler delight at your doynges. For what is he that can absteine from laughing, that shall heare you disputyng vpon those matters? in wh you seéme to behaue your self no more aptly, then as though a blind man should discerne betwixt co∣lours, and a Camell Iudge of dauncing. You take vpon you to determine franckly betwixt true, and false Religiō, very haute∣ly and proudely, but yet much more impudently. And yet it shal be as easie a matter for a mā to finde as much Relligion in Tul∣lies Offices, yea and as true, as this your Relligion is, which you haue so gloriously painted out in these your bookes hetherto,

a fewe sparckles onely except. Likewise also throughout the whole course of the rest of your discourse, how often haue your friuolous, and confused Argumentes moued me to myrth, and laughter? As where you thrust your selfe to stoughtly into the matter of Iustification & Predestination: in all which kinde of doctrine notw^tstādyng you seéme as meére a straūger, as though you came new frō India, neither dare once so much all the while in all your bookes name out of your mouth, the tearme of Iu∣stification or of Predestination: Yea truly I maruell also why ye durst name the name of Christ also amōgest your writyngs, sith that Cicero neuer made mention therof in all his bookes.

But this ridiculous Silenus doth neuer play his part more pleasauntly, then whenas takyng the rodde in his hād, and sit∣tyng in the Schoolemaisters chayre, he calleth forth poore seély Haddon into the middes of the Schoole, and cōmaundeth him to harken to him, & to learne of his Maister. And no maruell: for he is full of such cōmaundementes: But good M. Osorius, you must beare with poore Haddō in this behalfe, for he is occupied about other matters, he can not come to your Schoole now. And if he could be presēt, he would not be so foolish yet, though o∣therwise in eloquēce neuer so childishly ignoraūt, as to be much afrayde of this vgly Buggebeare in a Lyons skynne, but he would sooner espye him to be an Asse by his lollyng eares, then a Lyon by his pawes. Wherfore keépe these Maisterly preceptes now to your selfe, which you may then at the length with shame enough lay vpon others neckes, when you haue your selfe lear∣ned to vse them well before. For if we lysted to set downe here to the viewe, how oft your Reasons and Argumentes fayle you: how vndiscretly & how fayntly you roaue and raunge to vnsea∣sonable exclamations, and vntymely scornefull braggynges, braying out as it were a madd man, where no cause is, trium∣phyng there where is no victory, yea and many tymes where no aduersary is, how stoughtly sometymes ye stād by incōgruitie: I could easily shew, that the faultes which you carpe at to be in Haddon, cā be applyable to no mā more fitly then to your selfe.

Now whereas you adde last of all, that there is no man of any Iudgement, which will blame Haddon for that he is addi∣cted to Cicero more then is neédefull: as I am not ignoraunt

whereunto that your vnsauory and more then foolishe scoffe ten∣deth, so can I not sufficiently coniecture, what this malicious bragge of the name of a Ciceronian and emulation of speache should emporte amōgest Christiās. It is not my part to Iudge rashly of your meanyng. And it may be, that ye write this a∣gaynst Haddon, not so much of any true knowledge, as to vn∣lade you of some cholericke humours. And yet if you will geue me leaue to tell you in your care what I thinke: if you thinke as you haue writtē, and be of the very same mynde in deéde: cer∣teinly there can not be hidden vnder this couerte meanyng of yours any other thyng, then very lurkyng Heathenish infideli∣tie. For if you be carried into such a wonderfull admiration of Cicero, that ye thinke him worthy to be noted for infamous, that is not more then enough addicted to Cicero (for so doe your wordes emporte) and ou the contrary part thinke also a speciall poynt of hyghe commēdation if a man with whole bent of affection endeuour to become a Ciceronian•• where is thē (I pray you) the Glory of Christ? where is that mynde that knoweth not to reioyce in any thyng, but in the Crosse of our Lord and Sauiour Iesu Christ? The Lord in the Gospell doth playnly deny that a man may serue two Maisters at once. And y^e Apostle doth exhorte not in one place alone, that we frame not our selues to the fashiō of this world. But you will say that by these wordes Mammon is vnderstāded. Be it so in deéde: Ergo, who so is addicted ouermuch vnto Mammon, him you deny to be y^e seruaunt of Iesu Christ. And shall he be y^e seruaūt of Christ y^t is addicted to Cicero more then enough? But it is praysewor∣thy to imitate y^e gorgeous neattnes of Ciceroes speach, & wor∣thy of great cōmēdatiō to matche him in excellēcy, nor is it any thyng preiudiciall to Christes glory. But what & if Christ will not be glorified on this wise? what & if y^e simplicity of y^e gospell, will not admit such pyrlyd pyked & delicate speéch? what & if the same y^t Synesius spake of the young man,* 1.1068 may be as aptly veri∣fied of speach, y^t is to say: That fine poolished speach is alwayes impudēt. But eloquēce was alwayes had in great estimatiō a∣mongest all men (you will say). As though y^t whatsoeuer were vnlike vnto Ciceroes phrase, were by & by barbarous: and as though Cicero him selfe, if he were now aliue agayne, would

not vse an other phrase of speach in y^e doctrine of y^e Scriptures, thē he vsed at y^t tyme. And as I suppose this one mā Cicero did not accomplish all maner of learnyng: Neither is one phrase of speach meéte & applyable to all persons, causes, and Argumēts.

But now (Maister Osorius) other maner of matters are in hand: & we lyue now in an other world: In y^t which we may not occupy our wittes so much about y^e poolishyng of speach, but ra∣ther w^t earnest bent affectiōs seéke for life euerlasting, for remis∣siō of sinnes, for the kyngdome of God: & learne how to turne a∣way the seueritie of Gods wrath & Iudgemēt frō vs: for y^t day surely hāgeth ouer our heades, which shall bring vs either to e∣uerlastyng glory, or els to euerlasting destruction. We must be well aduized, how we shall aūswere in y^t Parliament before that Iudgemēt seate: For y^e Iudge may not be dealt withall w^t floori∣shyng wordes, but w^t substaunciall matter. This must be all our care & endeuour, hereunto must we enforce all y^e powers of our soules, not how measurably or aboundaūtly our toung may be framed to pretie cōceiptes: not how loftely our style mayad∣uaūced. But by what meanes y^e terrible coūtenaūce of God may be pacified. All other thynges whatsoeuer are but shadowes, though they delight prophane eyes of this world with neuer so glorious spectackles. Undoughtedly whosoeuer is strickē with an earnest feare of God, whose soule (beyng terrified w^t the mul∣titude of his haynous sinnes) doth with inward & harty sorrow sighe and scrytche out vnto Christ: whom the holy Ghost hath endued with a true and liuely contemplation of this transitory world,* 1.1069 who hath in hart and mynde vtterly renoūced the world with the pompe therof: Finally whom the vnmeasurable mag∣nificence, and vnspeakeable Maiestie of the kyngdome of the Sonne of GOD doth wholy possesse, what shall he regarde the lofty grace of Cicero? or y^e proude stately wordes of his phrase? or his myniō deuises and toyes? so that he speake purely, plain∣ly, lightsomely, and directly to purpose: so that his speach be cleane, ioyned with a meane comlynesse: what neédes there any more aboundaunce be required in that man? But he speaketh not lyke a Ciceronian, veryly Christ him selfe spake not like a Ciceronian, yea although he had so spoken, he should haue pro∣fited lesse. For it commeth to passe (I can not tell by what secret

operation and influence of thinges) that the humilitie of the Crosse, which consisteth wholy in Deuine inspiration, will not agreé with this hauty, and lofty kynde of mans vtteraunce. For it is one thyng for a Deuine to debate vpon holy mysteries, and an other to play the Mynstrell: As Musonius spake sometyme of a certeine Philosopher.

And therfore I doe not differre much from his Iudgement herein, who although attributed enough vnto Cicero, yet did so much of set purpose absteine frō affectation of his speache, that although he could haue attayned thereunto, gaue him selfe ra∣ther yet to a more soūde, more proportionable, more pitthy, lesse effeminate, more naturall, lesse fleshly, & a more spirituall kynde of speache. And yet doth no man diminish any thing of the com∣mendation of those excellent giftes of Tullies eloquence. But perhappes it seémeth more vnseémely in Osorius Iudgemēt not to speake like a Ciceronian, then not to speake like a Christian. And therefore this Portingall Pasquill doth giere at Haddon by way of mockage, saying: That no mā of sounde Iudgemēt will euer blame him for this, that he is more then enough addicted to Cicero. &c. As though if that Haddon had ap∣plyed him selfe to Ciceroes phrase, more then was neédefull, that wise men would haue geuen him any commendation for the same, and not rather haue turned it to his reproche, a••d condemned him of follye. But how much Haddon gaue him selfe to the affectatiō of Cicero, or how much he did not, neither do I greatly regarde, nor am I well acquainted withall. Which neither knew the man nor the maner of his studies, but that con∣sidering the man by the viewe and conference of his bookes and writyngs, he seémeth to my Iudgement more addicted, and lesse cleare from this Ciceronian scabbe, then I could haue wished him. What Iudgementes of others you presse vs withall, I know not: but if they be Ciceronians, I doe not greatly re∣gard them: If they be blinde, and like vnto your selfe, such I can not tearme to be Iudgementes, but foreiudgementes ra∣ther, such as are wont to be of those, whose Iudgementes are not grounded vpon reason, but vpon affectiōs. Ierome in a cer∣teine place doth say, that the ••udgemētes of Louers be blind, but I dare affirme that enuy and malice be much more daunge∣rously

blinde. But if you tell me of curteous, and Christian Iudgementes I make no doubt of these at all, but that they will Iudge right well of all Haddones cause. For he pleadeth in the most necessary quarell of the Churche, and the most com∣mendable defence of his Countrey. Moreouer he so handleth his matters with Argumentes, and Reasons, as that he seémeth not onely to haue cōfuted Osorius. But also to haue crusht him all to peéces? Let other men Iudge of his stile and the dis∣position of his writyng, as shall like them best, I will not gayn∣say them. As for me truly (if I may be so bold by the leaue of the iudifferent Reader so subscribe to other mens Iudgementes, though it be of no great estimation that I shall speake) yet will I speake neuerthelesse franckly, as I thinke, not of Haddon onely, but so for Haddon, as I will withall aunswere vnto O∣sorius Haddones Pasquill. For this I Iudge of them both, vnlesse your grosse and Heathenishe Iudgement (Osorius) did much more differre from Christ, and from all Christian mode∣stie, then Haddones maner of writyng (in my Iudgement truely) doth differre from Ciceroes commendable ver∣tues: you would neuer haue set forth your selfe, your blinde ignoraunce, nor your rayling bookes to the open gaze of the world to be mocked, derided and hissed at, in this so great, and cleare lightsomnesse of the Go∣spell of Christ.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Plinius lib. 35. cap. 10.
• * 1.2

  That is to say cōmyng out of the Sea.
• * 1.3

  The decease of M. Had∣don.
• * 1.4

  Osoria me∣lancholycke brauler.
• * 1.5

  The summe of all Oso∣rius worke, briefly cō∣prehended in three wordes.
• * 1.6

  Exclamat••ō of Osorius agaynst Lu∣ther.
• * 1.7

  Osorius pag. 141.
• * 1.8

  The doc∣trine of de∣speration, whether is it more pro¦per to the Papistes, or to the Lu∣therans.
• * 1.9

  Iohn Ecki∣us with o∣thers.
• * 1.10

  Henry se∣cond Frēch kyng his death.
• * 1.11

  The affi∣aunce and assuraūce of saluation, wherein is it to be pla∣ced.
• * 1.12

  Two kynd•• of despera∣tion.
• * 1.13

  The ende and office of the law.
• * 1.14

  The lawe vnprofita∣ble to salua¦tion.
• * 1.15

  A whole∣some kynde of trust and mistrust.
• * 1.16

  Osori. pag. 141.
• * 1.17

  The trust of saluatiō de∣pēdeth vpō promise & not vpō the Law. Ergo, the more assured.
• * 1.18

  Promise made be∣fore the Law and without the law.
• * 1.19

  Galat. 3.
• * 1.20

  The pro∣mise of sal∣uation free and simple without condition.
• * 1.21

  Fayth onely howe it doth ex∣clude and not exclude good wor∣kes.
• * 1.22

  Tertull. Actc. 24.
• * 1.23

  Christian peace and affiaunce.
• * 1.24

  Rom. 5.
• * 1.25

  Ephes. 3.
• * 1.26

  Hebr. 4.
• * 1.27

  Iohn. 16.
• * 1.28

  Galat. 4.
• * 1.29

  Esay. 35.
• * 1.30

  Esay. 61.
• * 1.31

  Esay. 52.
• * 1.32

  Ierem. 23. 32.
• * 1.33

  Ezech. 39.
• * 1.34

  Rom. 4.
• * 1.35

  The righte∣ousnesse of the law and of fayth.
• * 1.36

  Leuit. 18.
• * 1.37

  Psal. 142.
• * 1.38

  The affi∣aunce of workes.
• * 1.39

  Barnard.
• * 1.40

  How farre the workes of the lawe come short to true righteous∣nesse.
• * 1.41

  Augustine.
• * 1.42

  Aug. Con∣fes. Lib. 9. Cap. ••3.
• * 1.43

  Gregor. in Iob. Cap. 9
• * 1.44

  Gregor. Com. Cap 11.
• * 1.45

  Barnardu.
• * 1.46

  Osorius Pag. 142.
• * 1.47

  Phillipica.
• * 1.48

  August. E∣pist. 105.
• * 1.49

  pag. 142.
• * 1.50

  Osori. Ex∣positiō vpō the Epistle of S. Paule to the Ro∣maines.
• * 1.51

  Pag. 142.
• * 1.52

  Wherin the sauetie of a Christian consisteth accordyng to Osorius.
• * 1.53

  Pag. 142.
• * 1.54

  Phil. 3.
• * 1.55

  The true vn¦derstādyng of iustifica∣tion accor∣dyng to S. Paule.
• * 1.56

  Rom. 7.
• * 1.57

  Rom. 4.
• * 1.58

  Rom. 3.
• * 1.59

  Ephes. 2.
• * 1.60

  Pag. 143.
• * 1.61

  Deut. 4. 5.
• * 1.62

  Rom. 2.
• * 1.63

  A double obseruation of the law.
• * 1.64

  Deut. 27.
• * 1.65

  Gallat. 3.
• * 1.66

  Iames. 2.
• * 1.67

  Galat. 3.
• * 1.68

  Wherefore the law iu∣stifieth not.
• * 1.69

  What wor∣kes doe sig∣nifie by Paule.
• * 1.70

  Rom. 4. 5.2. 3.7.9.13.
• * 1.71

  The righte∣ousnesse of the Iewes.
• * 1.72

  Pag. 143.
• * 1.73

  The fayth and righte∣ousnesse of Abraham.
• * 1.74

  Rom. 4.
• * 1.75

  Gene. 15.
• * 1.76

  Rom. 4.
• * 1.77

  The fayth and righte∣ousnesse of Dauid.
• * 1.78

  Psal. 142.
• * 1.79

  The righte∣ousnesse of Iob.
• * 1.80

  The fayth and righte∣ousnesse of Paule.
• * 1.81

  Phil. 3.
• * 1.82

  The fayth and righte∣ousnesse of Cornelius before god.
• * 1.83

  The riche young man in the Gos∣pell.
• * 1.84

  The Phari∣sie praying in the tem∣ple.
• * 1.85

  Nathaniell the true Is∣raelite.
• * 1.86

  The scope of Paules disputation to the Ro∣maines.
• * 1.87

  Workes of the Cere∣moniall and Morall law both are ex¦cluded frō Iustificatiō.
• * 1.88

  Osori. doth take the workes ex∣cluded frō Iustification for the Ce∣remonies of the law.
• * 1.89

  Pag. 142. ••, 140. ••.
• * 1.90

  Fayth hath no place al∣most with Osorius.
• * 1.91

  Pag. 143.
• * 1.92

  Osori. obie∣ction confu∣ted.
• * 1.93

  Osori. doth erre in the rules of Lo∣gicke.
• * 1.94

  Osori. Pa∣ralogisme from the insufficient, enumera∣tion of partes.
• * 1.95

  The Cere∣monies of the law ve∣ry hardly a∣brogated in the primi∣tiue church, Actes. 15.
• * 1.96

  The morall law abro∣gated, not in respect of the vse, but in respect of Iustificatiō.
• * 1.97

  Psal. 142.
• * 1.98

  Galat. 3.
• * 1.99

  Rom. 4.
• * 1.100

  Osori. Iud∣gement of Iustificatiō.
• * 1.101

  The fruite of good workes be∣twixt the Papistes & Protestates to be wayed indifferent∣ly.
• * 1.102

  The markes of true righ¦teousnesse among the Papistes.
• * 1.103

  An exhor∣tatiō to the Readers.
• * 1.104

  The prayse of Cicero and other aūciēt Phi∣losophers discoursing vpō vertue.
• * 1.105

  The diffe∣rence be∣twene Mo∣rall and Christian Philoso∣phy.
• * 1.106

  The end of Christian Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.107

  Whom O∣sorius doth chiefly imi∣tate.
• * 1.108

  Vertue to be embra∣ced of all men.
• * 1.109

  True inno∣cencie in mankynde loste long sithence.
• * 1.110

  Osor. obie∣ction cōfu∣ted.
• * 1.111

  By what meanes we doe recouer true inno∣cencie.
• * 1.112

  Psal. 31. How the grace of God doth geue righ∣teousnes to men.
• * 1.113

  Bern. in Sermo. 23. super Cant.
• * 1.114

  Basil. in Psal. 32.
• * 1.115

  Orig. ad Rom. Lib. 9. Cap. 12.
• * 1.116

  Aug. Epi. 105. Ad Six¦tum.
• * 1.117

  Baūl. in Psal. 32.
• * 1.118

  Aug. de Ci∣uit. Lib. 19. Cap. 27.
• * 1.119

  Aug. Retra. Lib. 1 Cap. 19.
• * 1.120

  Ierome. Our salua∣tion consi∣steth not in our owne righteous∣nesse but in the free mercy of God.
• * 1.121

  Iob. Euen the most perfect workes of men of no valew with God.
• * 1.122

  Paule.
• * 1.123

  Dauid.
• * 1.124

  August. in Psal. 94.
• * 1.125

  Ier. in Esay Cap. 64.
• * 1.126

  Luther de∣fended a∣gaynst O∣sorius.
• * 1.127

  Osori. pag. 141.
• * 1.128

  Cicer. Tus∣cul Lib. 3.
• * 1.129

  Osori. accu∣seth Luther to be an E∣picurean.
• * 1.130

  Pag. 141.
• * 1.131

  How ab∣surdely O∣sorius doth cōpare Lu∣ther with Epicurus.
• * 1.132

  Osorius.
• * 1.133

  Rom. 3.
• * 1.134

  Luther false¦ly accused to bee the Authour of wicked boldnesse.
• * 1.135

  The opiniō of Schoole∣mē and Pa∣pistes tou∣chyng the waye of righteous∣nes is false & wicked.
• * 1.136

  Hosius.
• * 1.137

  Osorius.
• * 1.138

  Rosfenfi•• against Lu∣ther.
• * 1.139

  Congruum Cōdignum Conueni∣encie and worthynes.
• * 1.140

  Pag. 141. ••
• * 1.141

  ••. Thess. 5.
• * 1.142

  Osori. ibid. O••or. cauill agaynst the Lutherans workes.
• * 1.143

  A threefold lye of Oso∣rius.
• * 1.144

  Disablyng of workes.
• * 1.145

  Desperatiō.
• * 1.146

  Confidēce.
• * 1.147

  After what maner Lu∣ther tea∣cheth Con∣fidence and Desperatiō and how not.
• * 1.148

  Pag. 141.
• marg 1.149

  The marke of Osorius accusation cōsidered.
• * 1.150

  Pag. 145. Two lyes vttered by Osorius.
• * 1.151

  Onely faith doth Iust••∣tie.
• * 1.152

  The testi∣monies of most aunci∣ent writers touchyng Onely Fayth.
• * 1.153

  An Argu∣ment from the propo∣sitiō expo∣nent to the exclusiue.
• * 1.154

  The voca∣ble Onely.
• * 1.155

  Ambr. in 1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.156

  Chrisost. in Epist. Paul. ad Galat. Cap. 3.
• * 1.157

  Chrisosto. Homel. 4. in Timoth.
• * 1.158

  Basil. in Homel. De Humilit.
• * 1.159

  Basil. in Psal. 32.
• * 1.160

  Theophil. in Epist. ad Rom. Cap. 3.
• * 1.161

  Thom. A∣quin. in. 1. Tim. 1. Lect. 3.
• * 1.162

  Rom. 3.
• * 1.163

  Pag. 145.
• * 1.164

  Osori. his Obiection framed out of the Epi∣stle to the Galat. Cap. 5.
• * 1.165

  The Aun∣swere.
• * 1.166

  Bernarde.
• * 1.167

  Rom. 2.
• * 1.168

  The summe of Paules disputation comprehē∣ded in one Syllogisme.
• * 1.169

  Gallat. 3.
• * 1.170

  Rom. 4.
• * 1.171

  Galat. 2.
• * 1.172

  Right of in¦heritaūce is not promi∣sed to wor∣kes, as Paul affirmeth.
• * 1.173

  Osori. takē tardy.
• * 1.174

  That is ••o say a scour∣ger.
• * 1.175

  Fallacia a dicto secun∣dū quid ad Simpliciter.
• * 1.176

  Fallacia a non Causa, vt Causa.
• * 1.177

  Fayth doth iustifie both the persons and the workes.
• * 1.178

  Pag. 141. 146.
• * 1.179

  A double lye made by Osorius.
• * 1.180

  Pag. 146.
• * 1.181

  Workes are not exami∣ned a part by thē sel∣ues in gods Iudgemēt. Tit. 3.
• * 1.182

  Collos. 2.
• * 1.183

  Rom. 3.
• * 1.184

  Dauid ter∣rified with the terrour of the law.
• * 1.185

  Pag. 146. Osor. obie∣ction in the behalfe of righteous∣nes by wor∣kes agaynst righteous∣nes of faith.
• * 1.186

  Rom. 2.
• * 1.187

  2. Cor. 5.
• * 1.188

  Iohn. 5.
• * 1.189

  Pag. 146.
• * 1.190

  Collos. 3.
• * 1.191

  Iohn. 11.
• * 1.192

  The Obie∣ction cōfu∣ted.
• * 1.193

  Fallacia a nō causa, vt causa
• * 1.194

  The words of Christ expounded.
• * 1.195

  The person accepted not for the workes sake but the workes for the persons sake.
• * 1.196

  An Obie∣ction.
• * 1.197

  The Aun∣swere.
• * 1.198

  Pag. 146. The words of Christ not wel vn∣derstoode but croo∣kedly wre∣sted by O∣sorius.
• * 1.199

  Osor. fallax a Concreto ad Abstra∣ctum.
• * 1.200

  Mercy for∣geueth our ill deedes. Imputation acknowled¦geth our well do∣ynges for good.
• * 1.201

  An other Obiectiō of Osorius.
• * 1.202

  In what wise Osori. doth as∣cribe Salua∣tiō of Gods mercy.
• * 1.203

  Hosius.
• * 1.204

  August. de temp. 49.
• * 1.205

  August. de Spirit. & Li∣ter. Cap. 33.
• * 1.206

  Basil. in Psal. 32.
• * 1.207

  Ephes. 1. In what thyng our redemption chiefly con∣sisteth.
• * 1.208

  Remission.
• * 1.209

  Bernard. Serm. 23. in Cant.
• * 1.210

  August. in prima quin∣quagena in Prolog.
• * 1.211

  Psal. 31. Imputatiō.
• * 1.212

  The defeéco of mercy doth not abolish Iu∣stice.
• * 1.213

  Ill workes whom they do condēne and whom not. Iohn. 3.
• * 1.214

  How christ is called a Iudge, how a Redemer.
• * 1.215

  Luce. 21.
• * 1.216

  Iohn. 5.
• * 1.217

  Luke. 22.
• * 1.218

  1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.219

  Gods iudge¦ment two fold accor∣ding to Au∣gust. De Consens. E∣uang. Lib. 2. Cap. 30.
• * 1.220

  The Inno∣cencie of Christ is the righte∣ousnesse of Christians.
• * 1.221

  Gods Impu¦tation in re∣spect of Christ, and in respect of vs.
• * 1.222

  Of the rec∣konyng to be made in the last Iudgement.
• * 1.223

  The diuer∣sitie of thē which shal rēder an ac∣compt is di∣stinguished
• * 1.224

  In Osorius writynges order wan∣teth, and in distingui∣shyng thin∣ges Me∣thode.
• * 1.225

  Accordyng to workes. For the works sake.
• * 1.226

  Osori. doth deny that good works to followe Luthers fayth.
• * 1.227

  Pag. 146.
• * 1.228

  What ma∣ner of wor∣kes doe fol∣low Osori. fayth.
• * 1.229

  Pag. 146.
• * 1.230

  Luthers fayth yel∣deth no good wor∣kes accor∣dyng to O∣sorius. Pag. 146.
• * 1.231

  Ibidem.
• * 1.232

  The fayth and workes of Osorius.
• * 1.233

  A shewe of Osorius fayth.
• * 1.234

  Iohn. 6.
• * 1.235

  Iohn. 1. 3.
• * 1.236

  Math. 9.
• * 1.237

  Math. 8.
• * 1.238

  Mar. 5.
• * 1.239

  A compari∣son betwixt the fayth of Osorius and Luthers Fayth.
• * 1.240

  The righte∣ousnesse of sayth accor∣dyng to the Scriptures.
• * 1.241

  Osori. doth neuer name in his booke this worde, Imputatiō.
• * 1.242

  A playne demonstra∣tion that Osori. ge∣ueth small credite to the wordes of Christ.
• * 1.243

  2. Thess. 2.
• * 1.244

  Apoc. 13.
• * 1.245

  Pag. 146.
• * 1.246

  Osori. doth discusse the sayth of Luther.
• * 1.247

  Note here the cauill of Osorius.
• * 1.248

  The doc∣trine of Lu∣ther tou∣chyng good workes.
• * 1.249

  Rom. 14. Aug. in pri∣ma quinqua gena ex Prologo Psal. 31.
• * 1.250

  August.
• * 1.251

  Workes are not in any other res∣pect accōp∣ted for good in the sight of god then in res∣pect of Christ tho∣rough faith.
• * 1.252

  Good wor∣kes are Iu∣stified by fayth.
• * 1.253

  Pag. 146.
• * 1.254

  The Argu∣ment recoy∣leth backe vpon Osor. him selfe.
• * 1.255

  Pag. 146.
• * 1.256

  Pag. 147.
• * 1.257

  Osori. Ar∣gument faultie in the forme.
• * 1.258

  A twosold kyngdome of Sinne.
• * 1.259

  Rom. 6.
• * 1.260

  The sub∣staunce of the Argu∣ment is dis∣cussed.
• * 1.261

  Iob,
• * 1.262

  Esay,
• * 1.263

  Dauid,
• * 1.264

  Daniell.
• * 1.265

  Ionas.
• * 1.266

  Iohn.
• * 1.267

  Iero. in Ezec. Lect. 14. Cap. 46.
• * 1.268

  August. ad. Bonif. Lib. 3. Cap. 7.
• * 1.269

  August. de Spirit. & Lit. Cap. ••.
• * 1.270

  Basil. in conc. de hu∣milit.
• * 1.271

  Aug. Lib. cont. 9. Cap. ••••.
• * 1.272

  Aug. Serm. de temp. 49
• * 1.273

  August. de Spirit. & Li∣ter. Cap. 11
• * 1.274

  Ierom. ad Ctesiphon. cōtr. Pelag. Tomo. 3.
• * 1.275

  Ierom. cōtr. Pelag. Lib. 1.
• * 1.276

  The holy & and perfect life of Oso. compared with S. Frācise.
• * 1.277

  Osor. Lib. 2 Cap. 100.
• * 1.278

  How great the force of Popish cōfession is.
• * 1.279

  Pag. 148.
• * 1.280

  Osori. Ar∣gumentatiō discussed.
• * 1.281

  To be irre∣prehensible how it is taken in the Scriptures.
• * 1.282

  Rom. 8.
• * 1.283

  August. E∣pist. 95.
• * 1.284

  The Cause and end of Election.
• * 1.285

  Osori. Ob∣iection.
• * 1.286

  The confu∣tatiō of the Obiection.
• * 1.287

  August. de natura & gra. Cap. 53.
• * 1.288

  1. Timo. 5.
• * 1.289

  1. Tit. 3.
• * 1.290

  1. Timo. 6.
• * 1.291

  Tit. 2.
• * 1.292

  Collos. 1.
• * 1.293

  How holy∣nes & frayl∣tie be con∣curraunt in the holy ones.
• * 1.294

  Rom. 7.
• * 1.295

  Of Prede∣stinatiō and Freewill. Pag. 149. 150. 151.
• * 1.296

  Hercules not able to stād agaynst two, yet O∣sorius a∣gaynst foure.
• * 1.297

  Osori. more couragious in accusing, then in ar∣guyng.
• * 1.298

  Osori. his stinolous & foolish tre∣atyng of Free will.
• * 1.299

  The princi∣pall partes of Osor. ac∣cusation, re∣duced into certeine pla¦ces.
• * 1.300

  Luther in his Assertiō Article. 36.
• * 1.301

  Pag. 151.
• * 1.302

  The repulse of the ca∣uill.
• * 1.303

  Will cā not be seuered frō Reason.
• * 1.304

  The sub∣staunce of Freewill is neuer seue∣red from Nature.
• * 1.305

  Adam crea∣ted in abso∣late free∣dome.
• * 1.306

  How mans will is free, & not free.
• * 1.307

  The title onely of Freewill.
• * 1.308

  The name of Freewill without ef∣fect.
• * 1.309

  August. vpō the wordes of the A∣post. Serm. 13.
• * 1.310

  Luther doth not take away will from man, but freedome from will.
• * 1.311

  The words of Luther touchyng title onely are expoun∣ded.
• * 1.312

  Freewill beyng with out grace whiles she doth what it can of it selfe, sin∣neth dead∣ly.
• * 1.313

  Of Luthers Hyperboli∣call maner of speach.
• * 1.314

  Outragi∣ous Hyper∣bolicall speaches in the Popish doctrine.
• * 1.315

  The Pa∣pistes can neither a∣way with fayth one∣ly: nor with grace one∣ly.
• * 1.316

  Luthers ve∣hemencie whereupon it began.
• * 1.317

  August. de grat. & Lib. A••bit. Cap. 16.
• * 1.318

  Aug. in his booke de bono perse∣uerentie. Cap. 13.
• * 1.319

  The diffe∣rences of tymes and persōs must bee distin∣guished.
• * 1.320

  Foure de∣grees of Freewill af∣ter Lom∣band. 2. Lib. Distinct. 25
• * 1.321

  Freewill weakened after the fall, but here must be obserued a distinctiō of actions.
• * 1.322

  Naturall a∣ctions.
• * 1.323

  Ciuill acti∣ons belon∣gyng to the vse of com∣mon lyfe.
• * 1.324

  Actions merely spi∣rituall.
• * 1.325

  Fiue kyndes of Questi∣ons.
• * 1.326

  1. Quest.
• * 1.327

  Aug. vpon the worde of the Apo∣stle, Serm. 2.
• * 1.328

  2. Quest.
• * 1.329

  Ambros. of the callyng of the Gē∣tils. Lib. 1. Cap. 3.
• * 1.330

  Capacitie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.331

  August. E∣pist. 46.
• * 1.332

  August. de grat. & Lib. A••b. Lib. 1. Cap. 15.
• * 1.333

  Mans free∣dome is twofold. How free∣dome of will must be cōstrued.
• * 1.334

  How Free∣will must be taken.
• * 1.335

  3. Quest.
• * 1.336

  Whether will be free to those thynges whiche are ruled by reason.
• * 1.337

  The Mai∣ster of the Sentences. 2 booke Dist. 24.25.
• * 1.338

  Nazienze∣nus in Ora∣tione.
• * 1.339

  4. Quest.
• * 1.340

  August. de peccat. me∣rit. Lib. 1. Cap. 5.
• * 1.341

  Aug. wri∣tyng against 2. Epistles of the Pe∣lag. 1. booke Cap. 2.
• * 1.342

  Iohn. 8.
• * 1.343

  In the same booke the. 3 Chap.
• * 1.344

  Aug. of the wordes of the Apostle Serm. 13.
• * 1.345

  Aug. of the wordes of the Apostle Serm. 2. 11.
• * 1.346

  De Ecclesia¦stic. Dog∣matibus, 21
• * 1.347

  Mans will how it is free, & not free.
• * 1.348

  5. Quest.
• * 1.349

  Whether nature be∣yng not re∣generated haue any free motiōs in spirituall thinges.
• * 1.350

  Reason.
• * 1.351

  Will.
• * 1.352

  Freewill in respect of spirituall functions is not onely weakened in vs, but al∣together blotted out. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, power.
• * 1.353

  Aug. de bo•••• no perseue. Cap. 6.13.
• * 1.354

  Luthers pro¦position of bonde will defended.
• * 1.355

  The bare Freewill of man beyng deuoyde of grace, is none other∣wise thē as a dead man without a Soule.
• * 1.356

  1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.357

  Aug. in his booke of Retract.
• * 1.358

  Aug. En∣••hirid.
• * 1.359

  Freewill of it selfe vt∣terly lost.
• * 1.360

  Os••c. 13.
• * 1.361

  The Grace of God without our Free∣will onely sounde and perfect,
• * 1.362

  August. de Nuptijs & cōc••p. Lib. 2. Cap. 3.
• * 1.363

  Pag. 148.
• * 1.364

  Whether our conuer∣sion be the worke of God onely.
• * 1.365

  Pag. 149.
• * 1.366

  An auns∣were of August. De peccat. & merit. Lib. 2 Cap. 18.
• * 1.367

  August. De peccat. & merit. Lib. 2 Cap. 5.
• * 1.368

  August. De peccat. & merit. Lib. 2. Cap. 5.
• * 1.369

  Obiection.
• * 1.370

  Aunswere out of Au∣gust.
• * 1.371

  Freewill hath no power of her selfe ei∣ther of the whole or of any part to worke.
• * 1.372

  A Fallax, a Diuisis ad Coniuncta.
• * 1.373

  Pag. 149.
• * 1.374

  Against the 2. Epistle of the Pelag. 1. booke Cap. 18.
• * 1.375

  The suttel∣tie of the Argument framed by not yeldyng cause suffi∣cient.
• * 1.376

  August. a∣gaynst the 2. Epistle of Pelag. 1. booke Cap. 19.
• * 1.377

  Grace doth not knocke alone, but openeth mans will also.
• * 1.378

  August. de verbis A∣post. Sermo 13.
• * 1.379

  O Lord o∣pē thou our lyppes.
• * 1.380

  Obiection.
• * 1.381

  Aunswere.
• * 1.382

  Aug. vpon the wordes of the A∣postle the. 15. Sermon.
• * 1.383

  August. de grat. & Lib. Arbit. Cap. 16.
• * 1.384

  Freewill is made na∣ked of all maner me∣rite.
• * 1.385

  Aug. in the same booke the 13. Chap.
• * 1.386

  Pag. 149.
• * 1.387

  The bea∣tyng down of Osorius Argument.
• * 1.388

  Ezechiell. 11. Chap. and 36. Chap.
• * 1.389

  The Fallax from the proposition Secundum quid, to Sim¦pliciter.
• * 1.390

  Osori. dou∣ble fault.
• * 1.391

  Aug. contra Iulian. Lib. 4. Cap. 3.
• * 1.392

  Aristotles Ethickes booke. 3. Cap. 1.5.
• * 1.393

  Obiection.
• * 1.394

  The Aun∣swere.
• * 1.395

  How mans will doth execute the force of an instrument.
• * 1.396

  By what meanes wil doth both worke and suffer.
• * 1.397

  Aug. Lib. de Correp. & gratia Cap. 2.
• * 1.398

  How will demeaneth it selfe pas∣siuely and actiuely.
• * 1.399

  Mans will is taken for an Instru∣ment, yet free neuer∣thelesse.
• * 1.400

  Wherein the papistes do attribute to much to Freewill.
• * 1.401

  Pag. 149.
• * 1.402

  1. Cor. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.403

  The state & substaunce of the que∣stiō of Free¦will.
• * 1.404

  How it is to be vnder¦stāded that the Apo∣stles were together workers with God.
• * 1.405

  The Argu∣ment of O∣sorius and the Papi∣stes.
• * 1.406

  Tne Aun∣swere.
• * 1.407

  How Lu∣thers wor∣des are to be cōstrued.
• * 1.408

  An other Argument of Osorius, Pag. 149.
• * 1.409

  An Aun∣swere.
• * 1.410

  Phil. 2.
• * 1.411

  The double errour of Osorius.
• * 1.412

  Pag. 149.
• * 1.413

  Osori. doth attribute our Salua∣tion, partly to Grace, & partly to Freewill,
• * 1.414

  Osorius Obiection.
• * 1.415

  Aunswere.
• * 1.416

  August. de grat. & Lib. Arbit.
• * 1.417

  Otherwise worketh Gods Spi∣rite, other∣wise mans Freewill & the diuersi∣tie of them both.
• * 1.418

  Will doth nothyng in good things but whē it is holpen & applyed.
• * 1.419

  Grace doth plye, but is neuer plyed
• * 1.420

  Examples of mās will beyng hin∣dered euen in the euill whiche it purposed.
• * 1.421

  Will obey∣eth the spi∣rite of God many times whether it will or no.
• * 1.422

  The exāple of Paule & Peter.
• * 1.423

  August. de Correp. & grat. Cap. 8
• * 1.424

  Ierem. Cap. 10.
• * 1.425

  Luther in his booke of Asserti∣ons. Art. 36
• * 1.426

  Prouer. 16.
• * 1.427

  Man is not altogether depriued of free will to euil, though the same be ma¦ny tymes stayed.
• * 1.428

  Pag. 151.
• * 1.429

  Pag. 152.
• * 1.430

  Osor. lyeng rayling a∣gaynst ••u∣ther Melā∣cthon, Cal∣uine. &c.
• * 1.431

  Osor. Pag. 151.
• * 1.432

  Freewill is not of pow∣der simply & absolutely to make his wayes euill
• * 1.433

  August. de Ciuita. Del Lib. 5. Cap. 9.
• * 1.434

  Aug. in the same place.
• * 1.435

  August. de Correp. & gratia.
• * 1.436

  Luthers Artic. 36.
• * 1.437

  Osorius a lyeng Rhe∣thoritian & a grosse Lo∣gician.
• * 1.438

  Mans Free∣will is an Instrument of Gods Grace.
• * 1.439

  Esay.
• * 1.440

  Ezechi. Cap. 11. 36.
• * 1.441

  This worde freedome is discussed & distingui∣shed.
• * 1.442

  Luther. Lib. de S••r••o Arb. Cap. 46.
• * 1.443

  August.
• * 1.444

  The power of doyng wāteth not, but it •••• the freedome of power that wanteth.
• * 1.445

  August. de bono perse∣uer. Lib. 2. Cap. 13.
• * 1.446

  August. de grat. Chri∣sti contra Pellag. Lib. Cap. 20.
• * 1.447

  Luther de seruo Arb. Cap. 48.47.
• * 1.448

  Obiectiō of the Defen∣dours of Freewill taken out of the booke of Hypera∣spistes.
• * 1.449

  Aunswere.
• * 1.450

  Iohn. 8.
• * 1.451

  In that men are called holy and wise must be referred, not to their deseruyngs, but to grace wholy.
• * 1.452

  Aug. Epist. 89. ad Hil∣larium.
• * 1.453

  August. de serm. Dom. in monte. Lib. 2.
• * 1.454

  An Argu∣ment out of the wordes of August. to Hyllary.
• * 1.455

  In what sense Aug calleth will Freewill. Will see∣meth ra∣ther to bee termed vo∣luntary thē free.
• * 1.456

  The Con∣fession of Auspurgh.
• * 1.457

  Caluinus contra Alb. Ph••gium. Lib. 5.
• * 1.458

  August. de bono perse∣uer & pros∣per Cap. 12 and•• 21.
• * 1.459

  A compari∣son of Lu∣thers Asser∣tiōs and the Papistes.
• * 1.460

  The fruite and cōmo∣ditie of Lu∣thers doc∣trine.
• * 1.461

  Osorius Pag. 151.
• * 1.462

  The man hath spoke.
• * 1.463

  Ibidem.
• * 1.464

  Osori. Pag. 152.
• * 1.465

  The mani∣fold consi∣deration of Necessitie.
• * 1.466

  What is Necessary.
• * 1.467

  Two begin∣nynges of Neccessitie,
• * 1.468

  Necessitie of Coactiō.
• * 1.469

  Pag. 151. The shame¦lesse and ly∣eng cauill of Osorius.
• * 1.470

  Osori. Ar∣gument.
• * 1.471

  Aunswere,
• * 1.472

  Necessitie of sinnyng is not to be imputed to God, but to our selues.
• * 1.473

  An other Argument of Osorius.
• * 1.474

  Aunswere. Freedome taken two wayes.
• * 1.475

  Necessitie to be taken two maner of wayes.
• * 1.476

  The Neces∣sitie that Luther tea∣cheth, doth take awaye fortune and chaunce, but taketh not awaye freedome from will.
• * 1.477

  Freedome is taken a∣way by coa∣ction not by Necessitie.
• * 1.478

  Osori. Ar∣gument. Pag. 151.
• * 1.479

  The Cōfu∣tation.
• * 1.480

  Origene a∣gainst Cel∣sus. 2. booke
• * 1.481

  Our actiōs must be gu∣ded by ap∣proued rea∣son and not vncerteine certeinetie.
• * 1.482

  An other suttle So∣phisme of Osorius is opened. Pag. 151.
• * 1.483

  The Obie∣ctiō of Ce∣lestine the Pelagian a∣gaynst Au∣gustine.
• * 1.484

  Aug. Aun∣swere.
• * 1.485

  Obiection.
• * 1.486

  Aunswere.
• * 1.487

  August. vpō the wordes of the Apo∣stle the•• 2. Sermon.
• * 1.488

  August. E∣pistle to Sixtus.
• * 1.489

  Celestius the Pela∣gian against Augustine.
• * 1.490

  August. de Corr••pt. & grat. Cap. 6.
• * 1.491

  Osor. cauill Pag. 151.
• * 1.492

  Aunswere.
• * 1.493

  Osori. dou∣ble errour.
• * 1.494

  All thyngs are subiect to Gods prouidence.
• * 1.495

  Chauncea∣ble thinges•• Destiny for∣tune chaūce be excluded from beyng the causes of actions.
• * 1.496

  The order of superiour and inferi∣our causes.
• * 1.497

  Freewill is neither alto¦gether bōd nor altoge∣ther free.
• * 1.498

  Necessitie vnchangea∣ble and of certeintie.
• * 1.499

  In respect of Gods prouidence all thynges are done of Necessitie and not by chaunce.
• * 1.500

  Obiection, An Argu∣ment taken frō the pre∣ceptes and exhortatiōs of Gods law. Pag. 15••.
• * 1.501

  Aunswere. August. de gratia & li∣bero arbit. Cap. 16.
• * 1.502

  August. a∣gaynst the 2. Epistles of Pelagius Cap. 10.
• * 1.503

  Why the Commaun∣dements of the law were ordei∣ned out of S. Paule. Rom. 3.5.
• * 1.504

  Mans infir∣mitie doth not take a∣way the Necessitie of the law, The Neces∣sitie of cer∣teintie doth not dimi∣nishe mans endeuour.
• * 1.505

  The fore∣knowledge of GOD doth not take away freedome from man.
• * 1.506

  Osorius. Pag. 152.
• * 1.507

  Aunswere.
• * 1.508

  Of the truth of Gods Pre∣destination and fore∣knowledge
• * 1.509

  How thyn∣ges may be tearmed chauncea∣ble.
• * 1.510

  Luther falsely accu¦sed to make GOD the Authour of wickedness.
• * 1.511

  Luthers as∣sertion de∣fended a∣gaynst the cauill of Osorius.
• * 1.512

  An admo∣nitiō to the Readers.
• * 1.513

  August. En∣chirid. 100.
• * 1.514

  To be the cause of Sinne pro∣perly ought not to be imputed to God.
• * 1.515

  Ambrose of the callyng of the Gen∣tiles the se∣cond booke the last Chapter.
• * 1.516

  Cōmittyng of sinne can neither be without the know∣ledge of God, nor without his will al∣together & by what reason.
• * 1.517

  Will to be distingui∣shed in God.
• * 1.518

  Osor. Drift.
• * 1.519

  It is no re∣pugnancie to Gods righteous∣nes to will sinne in some res∣pect with∣out sinne.
• * 1.520

  There is ma¦ny tymes great diuer¦sitie in cau∣ses of one¦selfe same action.
• * 1.521

  Anselm. de casu Diabo li. Cap. 19.
• * 1.522

  Caluine a∣gaynst Pi∣ghi. Lib. 5.
• * 1.523

  Luthers & Caluines doctrine true and a∣greable tou∣chyng the cause of Sinne.
• * 1.524

  Gods will is not to be measured by the affe∣ction of mās will, where∣in Osorius doth erre.
• * 1.525

  Aug. Lib. 3. de Trinit.
• * 1.526

  The will of God higher then all o∣ther causes.
• * 1.527

  An Obie∣ction out of the Psalm. Aunswere.
• * 1.528

  Agaynst Gods will & without Gods will.
• * 1.529

  August. a∣gaynst I••liā the Pelag. Lib. 5. Cap. 3.
• * 1.530

  Gods will taken two maner of wayes. The secrete will of God that is vsu∣ally called his good pleasure. Gods will discouered in his word is termed, Voluntas Signi.
• * 1.531

  God is not cause of e∣uill accor∣dyng to his will reuea∣led by hi•• word.
• * 1.532

  Gods will can not be exempt al∣together from the or∣deryng of causes.
• * 1.533

  Mās, destru∣ction com∣meth of himselfe & yet not without Gods pro∣uidence.
• * 1.534

  Certayne actions in respect of man may be sinnes in respect of God may be righte∣ous.
• * 1.535

  God is the cause & not the cause of sinnes, in sundry res∣pectes.
• * 1.536

  August. de Praedest. & grat. Cap. 4
• * 1.537

  How blyn∣ding and hardning is to be taken with God.
• * 1.538

  Aug. de lib. Arb. & grat. Cap. 21.
• * 1.539

  2. Thessa. 2.
• * 1.540

  The true cause of sinne is pro∣perly in man not in God.
• * 1.541

  August. En∣chirid. Cap. 95.
• * 1.542

  An Argu∣ment out of August.
• * 1.543

  August. a∣gainst Iu∣lyan the Pe∣lagi. 5. book Cap. 3.
• * 1.544

  1. Kinges, Cap. 12.
• * 1.545

  1. Kings 12.
• * 1.546

  2. parillipo, Cap. 25.
• * 1.547

  1. Paralipo. 12.
• * 1.548

  2. Paralipo. 24.
• * 1.549

  Esay. 63.
• * 1.550

  Ezech. 14.
• * 1.551

  Iob. 1.
• * 1.552

  Iob. 1.
• * 1.553

  The meanes of Gods pro∣uidence is notified by example.
• * 1.554

  Not to striue a∣gaynst Lu∣ther: but to warre a∣gaynst God hym∣selfe.
• * 1.555

  Cicereos discourse, a∣gaynst Gods prouidence is detesta∣ble.
• * 1.556

  Cicero de natur. deor. lib. 2.
• * 1.557

  August. de Ciuitat. dei. 5. Booke Cap. 9.
• * 1.558

  Aug. de Ci∣uitat dei lib. 5. Cap. 9.
• * 1.559

  Aug. in the same booke and Chap.
• * 1.560

  A suttle So¦phisme pra¦ctizyng to persuade meere ab∣surdities.
• * 1.561

  An execra∣ble conclu∣sion.
• * 1.562

  The suttle∣tie of the Sophisme is disclosed.
• * 1.563

  August. de Ciuit. Dei Lib. 5. Cap. 9.
• * 1.564

  Luther doth nei∣ther teache euery Ne∣cessitie ab∣solutely, nor take a∣way free∣dome from all men.
• * 1.565

  August. de Natur. & Grat. Cap. 22.
• * 1.566

  Osorius. pag. 152.
• * 1.567

  An answere to the false diuinitie of Osorius.
• * 1.568

  Aug. de Correp, & grat. cap. 14.
• * 1.569

  August. de Ciuitat dei. lib. 5. Cap. 9.
• * 1.570

  Aug. de pec¦catis meri∣tis. lib. 2. Cap. 5.
• * 1.571

  Oso. Caui••.
• * 1.572

  August. in hys treatise vpon Gen. agaynst Ma∣nichaeus. lib. 1. Cap. 2.
• * 1.573

  How causes are called onely and proper cau∣ses.
• * 1.574

  Rom. 3.
• * 1.575

  Pag. 154.
• * 1.576

  Paules mea¦nyng expoūded accor∣dyng to O∣sorius.
• * 1.577

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.578

  Rom. 10.
• * 1.579

  Rom. 11.
• * 1.580

  The disposi∣cion of Paules dis∣course of predestina∣tion and e∣lection after the inter∣pretation of the faithful.
• * 1.581

  Osorius. pag. 152.
• * 1.582

  Examples of Isaac and Iacob. Isma∣el and Esau.
• * 1.583

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.584

  The exam∣ple of Pha∣rao.
• * 1.585

  All reward of merites excluded.
• * 1.586

  Osorius. Pag. 155.
• * 1.587

  Maior.
• * 1.588

  Minor.
• * 1.589

  Conclusiō.
• * 1.590

  Election what signi∣fieth after Osorius logick.
• * 1.591

  August.
• * 1.592

  Ephes. 1.
• * 1.593

  The ordina-Glose vpon the 1. chap. to the Ephe.
• * 1.594

  Whether Gods Ele∣ction doe depend vpō our actions to come.
• * 1.595

  Pag. 256.
• * 1.596

  How Osor. doth define the purpose of God.
• * 1.597

  Pag. 156.
• * 1.598

  The cause and reason of Election according to Osor. and the new pe∣lagianes.
• * 1.599

  The crafty cauillation of Osorius, Pag. 156.
• * 1.600

  Aunswere.
• * 1.601

  Rom. 11.
• * 1.602

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.603

  Workes foreseene, are not they which are done, but whiche are to be done accordyng to the schoolemē.
• * 1.604

  Workes foreseene are in no respect the cause of Gods elec∣tion.
• * 1.605

  The second Reason.
• * 1.606

  The third Reason.
• * 1.607

  The fourth Reason.
• * 1.608

  The fift rea∣son.
• * 1.609

  The sixth Reason.
• * 1.610

  The seuēth reason. Ezech. 1.16.
• * 1.611

  Corinth. 1.
• * 1.612

  August. ad Simplicia∣num.
• * 1.613

  The eight Reason.
• * 1.614

  the 9. Rea∣son.
• * 1.615

  Aug. retract lib. 1. cap. 19.
• * 1.616

  The 10. rea∣son.
• * 1.617

  Aug. contra Iulia. pelag. lib. 5. cap. 3.
• * 1.618

  August. ad Simplici. Lib. 1. Quaest. 2.
• * 1.619

  Osori. Ar∣gument.
• * 1.620

  Aunswere.
• * 1.621

  Aristot. E∣thic. Lib. 3. Cap. 3.
• * 1.622

  The Fallax from that whiche is not the cause to the cause.
• * 1.623

  4. Causes of Election or Predest. by Paule.
• * 1.624

  Rom 9. Ephe. 1. Rom. 9.
• * 1.625

  Osor. 2. ar∣gument.
• * 1.626

  The argu∣ment.
• * 1.627

  pag. 153.
• * 1.628

  Aunswere.
• * 1.629

  The Aduer∣saries obiect resolued.
• * 1.630

  Leuit. 20.
• * 1.631

  Numer. 11.
• * 1.632

  Marc. 1.
• * 1.633

  The reason of the ad∣uersaries touching the mercy and iustice of God, and the cause of the same, expounded and confu∣ted.
• * 1.634

  The respect of merites are directly against Gods free power.
• * 1.635

  Pag. 156. 157. Osori. Ob∣iection.
• * 1.636

  Aunswere.
• * 1.637

  August. de nat. & grat. Cap. 5.
• * 1.638

  Math. 12.
• * 1.639

  Rom. 3.
• * 1.640

  Arguments.
• * 1.641

  Both the propositiōs of the argu∣ments are denyed.
• * 1.642

  All the de∣fence of Gods iustice doth consist in hys will.
• * 1.643

  Aug. de Tri∣nit. lib. 3.
• * 1.644

  Obiectiō of a Sclaunde∣rer.
• * 1.645

  The argu∣ment of the Aduersary.
• * 1.646

  Maior.
• * 1.647

  Minor.
• * 1.648

  Conclusion.
• * 1.649

  An Aun∣swere out of S. Paule.
• * 1.650

  The Apo∣stle doth aunswere two manner of waies.
• * 1.651

  Rom. 9. The simili∣tude of the Potter. Rom. 9.
• * 1.652

  S. Paules Argument against fore¦seene wor∣kes.
• * 1.653

  The aun∣swere of this Proc∣tour and others.
• * 1.654

  The confu∣tatiō of the aduersaries aunswere.
• * 1.655

  Rom. 9. August. de Praedest. & grat. Cap. 7.
• * 1.656

  Electiō de∣pēdeth not vpon fayth in our wor∣kes: but fayth and workes de∣pende vpon Election.
• * 1.657

  The stino∣lous cauil∣lation of Osorius hys ouerthrow.
• * 1.658

  Rom. 11.
• * 1.659

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.660

  Rom. 11.
• * 1.661

  Aug. depre∣dest. grat. Cap. 7.
• * 1.662

  Osorius ta∣ken tardy as Enemy to Grace.
• * 1.663

  Osori. pag. 257.
• * 1.664

  The summe of Christian doctrine doth con∣sist in foure thynges chiefly.
• * 1.665

  Electiō and Predestina∣tion.
• * 1.666

  Vocation & Conuersiō.
• * 1.667

  Iustificatiō and lyfe e∣uerlastyng.
• * 1.668

  Glory of immortali∣tie.
• * 1.669

  Osori. doth couer an E∣nemy of Grace vn∣der a glori∣ous pray∣sing of ver∣tue.
• * 1.670

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.671

  Osori. pag. 157.
• * 1.672

  August. ad simplicia. Lib. 1. Quest. 2.
• * 1.673

  The mea∣nyng of Paule ope∣ned by Au∣gustine.
• * 1.674

  The defēce of Gods Iu∣stice consi∣steth not in any thing els thē in the onely mercy of God ac∣cording to Osorius.
• * 1.675

  Esau. Iacob.
• * 1.676

  The harde∣nyng of Pharao.
• * 1.677

  Osorius. Pag. 158.
• * 1.678

  The confu∣tation of Osori. Ob∣iection.
• * 1.679

  The chief meanes wherewith Gods Iu∣stice may be defended.
• * 1.680

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.681

  An other exception of Osorius, confuted.
• * 1.682

  Osorius. pag. 158.
• * 1.683

  The reason of Osorius touchyng the cause & order of predestina∣tion.
• * 1.684

  Aug. ad sim∣plici. lib. 1. quest. 2.
• * 1.685

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.686

  The words of Paul ex∣pounded.
• * 1.687

  August. ad simplici. Lib. 1. Quaest. 2.
• * 1.688

  In Predest. the first cause must be coupled with the last end.
• * 1.689

  Osori, pag. 158. 159. 160.
• * 1.690

  The aun∣swere to Osorius cōclusion.
• * 1.691

  Pag. 161.
• * 1.692

  Osori. pag. 161.
• * 1.693

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.694

  The office of a Iudge & of a crea∣tour farre diuerse.
• * 1.695

  Rom. 9. Osori. pag. 161.
• * 1.696

  The Argu∣ment of O∣sori. out of S. Paule
• * 1.697

  The aun∣swere with an explica∣tion of S. Paule.
• * 1.698

  Osori. Ca∣uill vpō the wordes of Paule.
• * 1.699

  Fashioned.
• * 1.700

  The will & purpose of God the first cause.
• * 1.701

  Election & Predesti∣nation.
• * 1.702

  Creation.
• * 1.703

  Calling ac∣cordyng to his pur∣pose.
• * 1.704

  Vocation accordyng to purpose.
• * 1.705

  Fayth. Iustificatiō.
• * 1.706

  The Glory of God, the last end.
• * 1.707

  Pag. 161.
• * 1.708

  Osori. Ob∣iection. pag. 161.
• * 1.709

  Aunswere.
• * 1.710

  Aunswere, Whether vessels of honour be made of wickednes onely as of the first cause.
• * 1.711

  Pharaoes Reiection proceeded not of his Rebellion, but his Re∣bellion ra∣ther of his reiection,
• * 1.712

  A double considera∣tion of the Vessels of wrath.
• * 1.713

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.714

  Cauilles of the aduer∣saries.
• * 1.715

  An answere to Osorius Cauils.
• * 1.716

  Gods will taken two manner of wayes.
• * 1.717

  Psal. 113.
• * 1.718

  Luke 10.
• * 1.719

  Gods will is the begin∣ning and rule of all thinges.
• * 1.720

  How wic∣ked men do the will of God.
• * 1.721

  I. Thessa. 4.
• * 1.722

  The order and processe of causes.
• * 1.723

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.724

  The place of Paule to the Rom 9. expounded.
• * 1.725

  The cause effecient.
• * 1.726

  The cause deficient.
• * 1.727

  How the causes of E∣lection and damnation do differr & agree be∣twixt them selues.
• * 1.728

  How Gods will doth behaue it self in the Elect.
• * 1.729

  The damna¦tion of the wicked ought not to be impu∣ted to God.
• * 1.730

  In the dam∣nacion of the wicked two thinges are to be cōsidered.
• * 1.731

  Malum cul∣pae. Malum poenae.
• * 1.732

  How the damnation of thē that perish tho∣row their owne de∣fault tourn∣eth to good in the sight of God. Aug. Enchi. Cap. 95. Aug. Enchi. Cap. 100.
• * 1.733

  How the efficient cause of sal∣uation and damnation do differre.
• * 1.734

  The effici∣ent cause.
• * 1.735

  The deficiēt Cause out of Aug. lib. de Ciuit. dei. 12. Cap. 6.9.7.
• * 1.736

  Question.
• * 1.737

  Answere.
• * 1.738

  The pro∣mise of God is generall with a pro∣mise.
• * 1.739

  Singuli ge∣nerum.
• * 1.740

  Gunera sin∣gulorum.
• * 1.741

  The end of Creation to Godward.
• * 1.742

  The proui∣dēce of god ought not to be accu∣sed in the destruction of the Re∣probates.
• * 1.743

  How Gods sufferaunce dealeth in mens acti∣ons or life.
• * 1.744

  Whether Gods suffe∣raunce or hys will beare more rule in mans lyfe.
• * 1.745

  A dubble obiection.
• * 1.746

  The origi∣nall of sinne is to be as∣cribed vnto the Crea∣ture not vn¦to the Cre∣atour.
• * 1.747

  God dyd not create man to the ende he should pe∣rish.
• * 1.748

  Frō whēce the cause of damnation sprang at the first.
• * 1.749

  The Obie∣ctions con∣futed.
• * 1.750

  The cause of eche mās dānation is within him selfe.
• * 1.751

  Infidelitie proceedeth rather of ignoraunce thē of will.
• * 1.752

  Fayth being the gift of God sprin∣geth not frō mans will.
• * 1.753

  1 Peter. 2. 2. Thessa. 1.
• * 1.754

  Actes. 13.
• * 1.755

  1. Cor. 2.
• * 1.756

  Esay. 6.9.
• * 1.757

  Math. 20.
• * 1.758

  Luke. 8.
• * 1.759

  1. Pet. 2.
• * 1.760

  Two things to be consi∣dered in Gods mer∣cy.
• * 1.761

  Whether Gods mer∣cy be gene∣rall to all indifferent∣ly, and how it is gene∣rall.
• * 1.762

  Grace of Vocation.
• * 1.763

  Grace of Election.
• * 1.764

  Fayth and Saluation take their originall from Grace rather then from our owne will.
• * 1.765

  An Aun∣swere to the place of Chriso∣stome.
• * 1.766

  The secret will of his good plea∣sure vnre∣uealed. i. Benepla∣citi.
• * 1.767

  The ex∣presse will of God re∣uealed. i. Voluntas Signi.
• * 1.768

  Vocation taken two maner of wayes ac∣cordyng to Augustine•• August. ad Simplici.
• * 1.769

  Pighius touchyng the equali∣tie of Gods Grace to∣wardes all. Pighius si∣militude ta¦ken out of the Epistle to the He∣brues.
• * 1.770

  The Rea∣son of Pi∣ghius and Osor. is cō∣feted.
• * 1.771

  Whether it be of God or of man that the good and the euill do differre.
• * 1.772

  An answere Pighi. simi∣litude.
• * 1.773

  The place out of the Epist. to the Hebrues.
• * 1.774

  An other Reason of the aduer∣sary leading to absurdity.
• * 1.775

  An acceptiō of persones.
• * 1.776

  The aduer∣saries obie∣ctions are mett with∣all.
• * 1.777

  That those that are not chosen doe not come how mans will & gods predestina∣tion: do se∣uerally work.
• * 1.778

  Selfe power or libertie to liue after her own will.
• * 1.779

  Aug. contra. 2. Epist. pela. lib. 1. Cap 3.
• * 1.780

  Aug. de pre∣dest 1. sancti. Cap. 3.
• * 1.781

  Mans will is neuer so free but that it is alwaies coupled with Ne∣cessitie.
• * 1.782

  The strēgth of Orignall sinne.
• * 1.783

  Gods pre∣destination both elder in tyme and in power surmonn∣ting all mās will.
• * 1.784

  The obie∣ctions of the Aduersaries.
• * 1.785

  The aun∣swere.
• * 1.786

  Aug. ad bo∣nifacium. lib. 1. Cap. 19. De lib. arb. Cap. 2. &. 17.
• * 1.787

  Aug. de cor∣rep. & grat. Cap. 1. epist. 107. ad vi∣ctalem.
• * 1.788

  Wherein effectuall Grace doth consiste.
• * 1.789

  Aug. de gra. & libe. arbit. Cap. 5.
• * 1.790

  Aug. con∣tra. 2. Epist. pela. lib. 1. Cap. 18.
• * 1.791

  Osori. pag. 162.
• * 1.792

  The com∣playnt of Osorius a∣gaynst Lu∣ther tou∣chyng the subuersion of Ciuill so¦cietie.
• * 1.793

  The Tyran∣nicall state of the Po∣pe some∣what trou∣bled by Lu∣ther.
• * 1.794

  The Pope.
• * 1.795

  The Cardi∣nalls.
• * 1.796

  Mytred By¦shoppes.
• * 1.797

  Droues of Monckes & Friers.
• * 1.798

  The Wolfe doth accuse the Lambe for trou∣blyng the water.
• * 1.799

  Gene. 26.
• * 1.800

  The seat of the beast in the Apo∣cali.
• * 1.801

  Apoc. 16.
• * 1.802

  2. Thessa. 2.
• * 1.803

  Amos. 7.
• * 1.804

  3. Kyngs.
• * 1.805

  It is decla∣red by exā∣ples what and how many mis∣chiefes the Romishe See hath ••ay sed.
• * 1.806

  The Trans∣lations of Empires,
• * 1.807

  The confir∣ming of Bi∣shops taken away from Emperours,
• * 1.808

  The warres of Hēry the 4. and Fre∣dericke. 1. & 2. ••••donick of Bauie re, Frederick of Austriche, Ludouicke and Ro∣dolphe.
• * 1.809

  The Trage∣dies of Hē∣ry the 6.
• * 1.810

  Chilperick the French Kyng.
• * 1.811

  The Scep∣ters of Em∣perours and Kynges o∣uerthrowē and takē a∣way by the Popes.
• * 1.812

  Phillippe the Frenche Kyng.
• * 1.813

  Hēry the 5. agaynst Hē¦ry the iiij. the Sonne in armes a∣gaynst the Father tho∣rough the practize of the Pope of Rome.
• * 1.814

  Frācis. Dā∣dalus, an Ambassa∣dour of Ve∣nice first: af∣terwardes Duke of Ve¦nice & kyng of Creete.
• * 1.815

  Osorius quarrell a∣gaynst Lu∣ther.
• * 1.816

  Peace. Church. Bushoppes.
• * 1.817

  Sillius.
• * 1.818

  Peace is a common thing both to the good and the wic∣ked.
• * 1.819

  The forme of the chur∣che is alto∣gether beu∣tifull: but not alwayes true.
• * 1.820

  Cicero.
• * 1.821

  Elias.
• * 1.822

  Vnder the name of peace many tymes lur∣keth horri∣ble breach of vnitie.
• * 1.823

  Christ, Paule, the Apostles, and Martirs, falsely accused as disturbers of the peace.
• * 1.824

  Luther ac∣cused of the Portugall Tertullus without all reason.
• * 1.825

  Iuuenal.
• * 1.826

  Math. 2.
• * 1.827

  Where the Church is, there is the vnity of fayth, but not where vnity is, there the Church is alwayes.
• * 1.828

  Luther dyd not inueigh agaynst any priuate per∣sones by name: but gaynst their pestiferous Sectes.
• * 1.829

  The ouer∣throw of Monasteries not to be imputed to Luther.
• * 1.830

  Osorius shameles slaunder vp-Luther.
• * 1.831

  Osori. pag. 162. 163.
• * 1.832

  Osor. cree∣pyng So∣phisme.
• * 1.833

  Conclusiō.
• * 1.834

  Aunswere. The nature of the Sori∣tes expla∣ned. Generum. Specierum.
• * 1.835

  August. de Trinitat. Lib. 3.
• * 1.836

  Necessitie of coaction.
• * 1.837

  Osori. pag. 163.
• * 1.838

  No mā sin∣neth, but by his own will. Without the will of God. And contrary to the will of God.
• * 1.839

  Two absur∣dities in O∣sorius.
• * 1.840

  August. de Lib. Arbitr. & Grat. Cap. 20. & 21.
• * 1.841

  August. de Praedestin. Sanct. Lib. 1. Cap. 16.
• * 1.842

  August. de Ciuita. Dei. Lib. 12. Cap. 6. 7. 8.
• * 1.843

  Osori. pag. 163.
• * 1.844

  2. Kyng. 16.
• * 1.845

  Will. Freedome. Necessitie.
• * 1.846

  Freedome taken two maner of wayes.
• * 1.847

  Necessitie taken two maner of wayes.
• * 1.848

  Argument.
• * 1.849

  Aunswere.
• * 1.850

  A fallax se∣cundū quid ad simplicit,
• * 1.851

  An other obiection of the aduer∣saries.
• * 1.852

  Aunswere.
• * 1.853

  Aug. in Io∣han. Tomi. 49.
• * 1.854

  Osor. obiect
• * 1.855

  Osorius. pag 163.
• * 1.856

  Osorius ar∣gument lea∣ding to in∣conueni∣ence.
• * 1.857

  Aunswere.
• * 1.858

  Augustine de perfect. iusticia.
• * 1.859

  Argument.
• * 1.860

  Answere.
• * 1.861

  Deut. 30.
• * 1.862

  An other obiection of the Aduer.
• * 1.863

  Aunswere. August. de perfect. Iu∣sticiae.
• * 1.864

  An other obiection of the Aduer.
• * 1.865

  August. de perfect Iu∣sticiae.
• * 1.866

  Gal. 5.
• * 1.867

  An other obiection.
• * 1.868

  Osorius ar∣gument.
• * 1.869

  Aunswere.
• * 1.870

  2. Cor. 12.
• * 1.871

  1. Cor. 13.
• * 1.872

  Aug. de spi∣ritu. & ••itte∣••a. Cap. 36.
• * 1.873

  The Argu∣ment of Ce∣lestine the Pelag. a∣gaynst Au∣gustine.
• * 1.874

  The Aun∣swere out of Augustine.
• * 1.875

  Rom. 8.
• * 1.876

  An other Argument.
• * 1.877

  Aunswere.
• * 1.878

  Osori. Ob∣iection pag. 159.
• * 1.879

  Aunswere.
• * 1.880

  Actes. 13. August. in his booke of Questiōs to Simplici. the second Quest.
• * 1.881

  An Obie∣ction.
• * 1.882

  Aunswere.
• * 1.883

  Luther in his Chri∣stian liber∣tie.
• * 1.884

  The Argu∣ment. Ex Diatreba.
• * 1.885

  Aunswere out of Au∣gustine.
• * 1.886

  Obiection out of Pi∣ghius and others.
• * 1.887

  Aunswere.
• * 1.888

  The vse & end of the law.
• * 1.889

  August. de perfect. Iu∣stit.
• * 1.890

  Obiection.
• * 1.891

  Aunswere.
• * 1.892

  August. in his 107. E∣pistle vnto Vitalis.
• * 1.893

  The Papi∣stes Argu∣ment.
• * 1.894

  Aunswere.
• * 1.895

  Will and Necessitie are not cō∣traries.
• * 1.896

  Chrisost. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.897

  Voluntary and Neces∣sary how they agree and are cō∣trary eche to others.
• * 1.898

  Obiection.
• * 1.899

  Aunswere.
• * 1.900

  An Argu∣ment out of Esay.
• * 1.901

  August. de perfect. Iu∣stit.
• * 1.902

  Aunswere.
• * 1.903

  Osori. Ar∣gument.
• * 1.904

  An argu∣ment for Freewill.
• * 1.905

  Aunswere.
• * 1.906

  An other Argument.
• * 1.907

  Aunswere.
• * 1.908

  Out of O∣sorius and Pighius.
• * 1.909

  Aunswere.
• * 1.910

  Obiect. Aunswere.
• * 1.911

  Osorius reason,
• * 1.912

  Aunswere.
• * 1.913

  An other obiection of Osorius.
• * 1.914

  Aunswere.
• * 1.915

  An argu∣ment of the Tridentine councell.
• * 1.916

  Aunswere
• * 1.917

  Aunswere out of Aug. de corrept. & gratia.
• * 1.918

  Obiect.
• * 1.919

  Aunswere.
• * 1.920

  Obiect.
• * 1.921

  Aunswere.
• * 1.922

  An obiectiō out of Aug, wordes.
• * 1.923

  Aunswere.
• * 1.924

  Aunswere.
• * 1.925

  The Iudge∣ment of the Aduersaries touching o∣riginall sinne.
• * 1.926

  Aunswere.
• * 1.927

  Obiect.
• * 1.928

  Aunswere.
• * 1.929

  Out of Ie∣rome.
• * 1.930

  Melanch∣tones aun∣swere.
• * 1.931

  Obiect. out of the Apoc. August. de perfectio Iusticiae.
• * 1.932

  1. Iaco. 3.
• * 1.933

  Obiect. out of Ieremy. Cap. 18.
• * 1.934

  Aunswere.
• * 1.935

  An obiect. out of Esay. Cap. 17.
• * 1.936

  Aunswere.
• * 1.937

  Obiect.
• * 1.938

  Aunswere.
• * 1.939

  Out of E∣zech. cap. 18.
• * 1.940

  Voluntas Signi,
• * 1.941

  Argument.
• * 1.942

  Aunswere.
• * 1.943

  Obiect.
• * 1.944

  Aunswere.
• * 1.945

  August. de grat. &. Lib. arbit.
• * 1.946

  Aunswere.
• * 1.947

  An other argument of the same sort.
• * 1.948

  Aunswere.
• * 1.949

  Osori. ob∣iection.
• * 1.950

  Aunswere.
• * 1.951

  Obiection.
• * 1.952

  Aunswere.
• * 1.953

  Osori. Ob∣iect. out of S. Paule. Aunswere.
• * 1.954

  An other out of Oso∣rius.
• * 1.955

  Aunswere.
• * 1.956

  Obiect. out of August.
• * 1.957

  Aunswere.
• * 1.958

  The Obie∣ction of O∣sori. and o∣thers.
• * 1.959

  Aunswere.
• * 1.960

  Obiect. a∣gaynst Free Election.
• * 1.961

  Aunswere.
• * 1.962

  Out of the Maister of Sentences Lib. 3.
• * 1.963

  Aunswere.
• * 1.964

  Basil. vpon the .32. Psalme. Aug. in his Epistle to Sixtus.
• * 1.965

  August. de Grat. & Li∣bero Arbit. Aug. in his Epistle to Sixtus. 105.
• * 1.966

  Aug. vpon the .94. Psalme.
• * 1.967

  August. de bono perse∣uer. Cap. 17
• * 1.968

  Obiect. out of August.
• * 1.969

  Aunswere.
• * 1.970

  Will is al∣wayes Free either to righteous∣nes or to Sinne.
• * 1.971

  Out of Au∣gust. in his 1. and•• 2. E∣pistle to Valentine. How farre forth will is free after August.
• * 1.972

  Aunswere.
• * 1.973

  Mans will capable of good and euill.
• * 1.974

  Agaynst Gods pro∣uidence and Predest. out of O∣sorius.
• * 1.975

  Aunswere.
• * 1.976

  Three ma∣ner of Ac∣tions.
• * 1.977

  Out of O∣sorius.
• * 1.978

  Aunswere.
• * 1.979

  In the death of Christ our Sauiour how the fathers will did consent and how it did not cō∣sent.
• * 1.980

  Againe out of Osorius.
• * 1.981

  Aunswere.
• * 1.982

  Aug. de lib. arb et gra. Cap. 2••.
• * 1.983

  An other obiection of the aduer∣saries a∣gaynst the Lutherans.
• * 1.984

  Aunswere
• * 1.985

  Aug. de grat. & lib. arb. Cap. 21.
• * 1.986

  How the aduersaries do dally with Gods prouidence.
• * 1.987

  Aunswere.
• * 1.988

  Argument. Sufferaunce.
• * 1.989

  Iudges. 9.
• * 1.990

  Deuter. 2.
• * 1.991

  Esay. 6.63.
• * 1.992

  3. Kings. 22.
• * 1.993

  Iob. 12.
• * 1.994

  Amos. 3.
• * 1.995

  2. Thessa. 2.
• * 1.996

  A conclusiō ill fauored∣ly inferred.
• * 1.997

  Aunswere
• * 1.998

  Three rea∣sons may be rendered why sinnes do come by the iust iudgement of God.
• * 1.999

  The second reason.
• * 1.1000

  Esay. 6.
• * 1.1001

  Ezechiel.
• * 1.1002

  Rome. 1.
• * 1.1003

  The 3. reasō
• * 1.1004

  An obiect. out of the Diatriba & others a∣gaynst Lu∣ther.
• * 1.1005

  Aunswere.
• * 1.1006

  August. de Praedest. & Grat. Cap. ••
• * 1.1007

  Obiect. of Osori. pag. 163.
• * 1.1008

  Aunswere.
• * 1.1009

  Argum. O∣sor. pag. 163.
• * 1.1010

  Aunswere.
• * 1.1011

  Aug. in his 11. booke of Confesi. Cap. 11.
• * 1.1012

  Aug. vpon Genesis a∣gaynst Ma∣nichaeus. Lib. 1. Cap. 2.
• * 1.1013

  August. de Praedest & Grat. Lib. 6
• * 1.1014

  Esay. 45.
• * 1.1015

  Ierem. 18.
• * 1.1016

  Osorius wordes. pag 163.
• * 1.1017

  An Argu. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Oso∣rius, Pighi.
• * 1.1018

  Hosius. Bar tho. Came∣rar, and o∣thers.
• * 1.1019

  Aunswere.
• * 1.1020

  Prouer. 16.
• * 1.1021

  Not for good wor∣kes. To good workes.
• * 1.1022

  Ephes. 1.
• * 1.1023

  Rom. ••. Fou••e prin∣cipall heads of Predesti∣nation. Ephes. 1.
• * 1.1024

  Rom. 10.
• * 1.1025

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.1026

  Out of Ie∣remy. Cap. 15.
• * 1.1027

  Aunswer.
• * 1.1028

  The reason of the pa∣pistes.
• * 1.1029

  Aunswere.
• * 1.1030

  Ephes. 1.
• * 1.1031

  Obiect.
• * 1.1032

  Aunswere.
• * 1.1033

  Obiection.
• * 1.1034

  Aunswere.
• * 1.1035

  The reasons wherwith our Aduer∣saries doe practise to suppresse the verye name of predest.
• * 1.1036

  Answere to the obiect. proposed.
• * 1.1037

  The doctrin of predesti∣nation with what ma∣ner of mo∣deration ought to be preached to the people.
• * 1.1038

  Three com∣modities do come by the preaching of predesti∣nation.
• * 1.1039

  Aug. de bo∣no, perseue∣ra. Cap. 17.
• * 1.1040

  Iohn. 14.
• * 1.1041

  Mar. 7.
• * 1.1042

  Cipriane.
• * 1.1043

  Iames. 1.
• * 1.1044

  Math. 6.
• * 1.1045

  Osor. pro∣sopopoepia a¦gaynst M. Luther.
• * 1.1046

  Pag. 162.
• * 1.1047

  Luthers aū∣swere to O∣sorius Rhe∣toricall fy∣ctione.
• * 1.1048

  Osori. pag. ••63.
• * 1.1049

  Aunswere.
• * 1.1050

  Luther falsely ac∣cused of se∣dition.
• * 1.1051

  Luther pur∣ged frō the crime of se∣dition.
• * 1.1052

  The com∣playnt of the Boores against Lu∣ther framed by Osorius by a Rheto∣ricall fictiō.
• * 1.1053

  Ephes.
• * 1.1054

  Amos. 3.
• * 1.1055

  August. a∣gaynst Iuliā the Pelag. 4. booke Cap. 8.
• * 1.1056

  What was the cause & who was the authour of the vp∣rore in Ger∣many.
• * 1.1057

  Osor. glori∣ous trium∣phyng a∣gainst Had∣don.
• * 1.1058

  Haddon in∣constant.
• * 1.1059

  Haddon as infant in speache.
• * 1.1060

  Haddon hath no ioate of Ci¦ceroes fy∣nesse.
• * 1.1061

  Exquisite eloquence as is not carefully required in philosipher so may the want therof be borne withall in a Deuine.
• * 1.1062

  Ieromes E∣pistle to Pāmachius
• * 1.1063

  Luke. 16.
• * 1.1064

  Esay. 2.
• * 1.1065

  1. Cor. 1. ••
• * 1.1066

  Osor. 163.
• * 1.1067

  Prouer. 16.
• * 1.1068

  Fine pooli∣shed speach is alwayes impudent.
• * 1.1069

  An Exqui∣site affecta∣tion of Elo∣quence not so much to be regarded of Deuines.