An examination of M. Doctor VVhytgiftes censures, contained in tvvo tables, sett before his booke, entituled The defence of the aunswer to the admonition, &c.

NOTE OF 〈…〉〈…〉 poinctes of doctryne, as are 〈…〉〈…〉 T. C. in his replye and quoted, as they are to be founde, &c.

1 He sayethe that certeine of the thinges whiche we stande vpon are suche as if euery heart of our heade were a lyfe, we ought to aforde them for the defence of them: whereby he woulde insi••uate that this Churche of Englande dothe mainteine some damnable doctrine Pag. 44.

1 The first daungerous poincte is gathered by insinuation: but direct and plaine dealinge doubtethe of no suche daun∣ger. Suerly if there be any trueth on T C. syde be it in neuer so smal a matter, yet beinge the trueth of God, and in Gods matters it ought not to seme a tryfle in mans eyes. There is great diuersitie of matters vttered in the woorde of God, in degrees of weyghtines, but the holy Ghost instru∣cteth vs of no tryfles No man that considereth the maiestie of God, doubteth what he ought to suffer, rather then to breake the ••••st of the commandements: our Sauiour sayeth, that no iote nor title of Gods lawe, shall passe, vntill all be fullfilled, and whosoeuer breaketh one of the lest of the commaundementes, and teacheth men so to doe, shalbe cal∣led left in the Kingdome of heauen.

Then lett euery indifferent man iudge, whether we ought to aforde ten thousand lyues, rather then to be excluded out of the Kingdome of heauen. But God will not deale so hardly with vs for so small matters, true nor yet for breach of the greatest commaundementes. But the assertion is of the iustice of God & the duety of man, not of man•• frayelty and God•• mercye. As for the damnable doctryne supposed, althoughe it be no parte of the assertion but an vncharita∣ble collection, yet the Churche of England is no•• to be charged therwith For in as muche as bothe the parties that holde thes controuersies are members of the Churche and a great manye others ••lso which take no parte in these disputations: the doctrine of the Churche is that which is trueth in those questions, whether the same be helde by T. C. and those that be of his iudgment, or by Io. Whitgifte, and all that be of his mynde. For yf T. C and as many a•• take his parte be deceiued, the Churche of England maye not be sayd to be deceiued No more yf Io Whytgift, & his syde be in a wronge opinion, maye the Churche of England beare the blame of their error. To conclude, a damnable do∣••••ryne maye by sayd in two sences, first generally any 〈◊〉〈◊〉

〈…〉〈…〉 is damnable, because it deserueth 〈…〉〈…〉 synne is of yt self damnable, then specially suche fals doctryne as is blasphemous, and holdeth contra∣rye to the foundation of our saluation and so all reasonable men mean, when they speake of damnable doctrine, but so doth not T C. chardge his aduersary much lesse the Church of England.

2 He sayeth, that if the Churche be considered in the whole and generall gouernement and outward pollicie of yt, yt maye be pure and vnspotted: whiche smelleth of an Anabaptisticall fancye pag 50.

2 The seconde daungerous poyncte is affyrmed by M D to smell of Anabaptistry▪ Suerly they that haue ther senes exer¦cised to discerne good from euill as well as he and haue better cause to knowe the stynke of Anabaptistry then he, because they haue been nearer to the dounghill of them, then euer he was, can perceiue no such sauor in the assertion. For first he affirmeth yt not absolutely, but for any thinge he knowethe, whiche wordes shoulde haue been added in this accusation, yf yt had been framed with indifferencye. Secondly he addeth yf men would labour to purge yt of the abuses, whiche ought to be according to the worde of God, nowe what letteth the puritie?

But ether the worde of God teacheth not howe to purge the Churche perfectlie, or ells that men can not followe the rules prescribed by the woorde of God throughlie.

Yf you grante imperfection in the worde, all men knowe whereof that smellethe, yf ther wante ability in men, then the rules were not rightly framed for man: yt will be aun∣swered, that the lyke is obiected of the lawe by the Pela∣gians and Papists: yf no man can kepe the lawe then the lawe was geuen in vayne: but this obiection is soone auoy∣ded For the lawe and these rules are not ryghtly compa∣red, because they differ in the ende for whiche they were, giuen. The lawe was not geuen that men shoulde fullfill yt but to shewe them ther synne.

These rules were giuen because God woulde haue his Churche in the outward pollicye to be well gouerned. But M D will haue an example of this purytie: what thinketh he of the Churches planted by the Apostells so longe as they contynewed in such order, as the Apostells established in them, were they not pure and vnspotted as touchinge the generall gouernement and outward pollycie of them? were the Apostells also ignoraunt or vnable, or vnwillinge, to bringe this thinge to passe? as for the spottes in the Churche

of the Corinthians and Galathians 〈…〉〈…〉 were not lefte by th'Apostell, when he 〈…〉〈…〉 but cast in by fals Apostells that came after 〈…〉〈…〉 they were th•• f••ultes of the men not the imperfection of the orders, whiche if they hadde been ryghtly obserued he neded not to haue written to the one for excommunication of the adulterer, nor to the other for confutinge of ther he∣resye: wherefore by thes examples maye be inferred that althoughe the order of gouernement and outward pollycie be neuer so pure and perfecte, yet yf men be negligent to obserue yt, greate enormities maye growe in the Churche, But that there can be no perfecte order for the right gouer∣nement of Christe his Churche requireth some other facultye then Logike, to frame a good argument of thes examples Finally men muse why this opinion shoulde be compted so daungerous in T. C whiche is so stoutly defended by the ac∣cuser him self in bothe his bookes. For yf ther can be no Churche pure and vnspotted in the whole gouernement and outwarde pollycie, why dothe he so boldly defende the Churche of England, as he pretendethe in her gouernement and outwarde pollicie, that he will acknowledge no spo••te nor blemishe thereof, but ether he defendethe yt as bewty∣full, or ells remouethe yt as beinge in the men and not in the order of gouernement?

3 He affyrmeth, that many thinges are bothe commaunded and forbidden, of whiche there is no expresse mention in the worde, whiche are as necessarie to be followed or auoyded, as th••s whereof expresse mention is made whiche soundethe to the confirmation of the very foundation of all papistrie. pag 77.

3 The third daungerous poyncte of doctryne in M. Whyt∣gifte eares soundethe to the confyrmation of Poperye▪ but this his Censure in other mens iudgement soundethe more malicyously then godly or learnedlye: for yt is well knowen howe farre T C is fledde from all Papistrie. And his meaninge in those wordes is euident to any man that is disposed to vnderstande him. That many thinges are com∣maunded and forbidden in the worde of God by generall preceptes, whiche are not expressed particularly in there speciall names and kindes. Why shoulde this be noted in the margent for a Papisticall assertion? but afterwarde it is term••d most ciuily an vnaduised assertion because M Whyt∣gyfte counteth (expressed) as yt pleaseth him, which he maye well doe wh••n he interpreteth his owne wordes, but who made him a dictator to determine the sence of other mens wordes. Euery man is best interpreter of his owne wordes▪

〈…〉〈…〉 fallw, hen a man is accused for speakinge 〈…〉〈…〉 he shall not be admitted to expounde his 〈…〉〈…〉, yet by lawe his aduersary shall not be his ex∣pounder, but vir bonus a good and indifferēt man. Yf lawyers be sumwhat captious they are to be born withall when do∣ctors of diuinitie permitt vnto them selues suche lybertie of wranglinge▪

4 He holdethe, that the doctrine of free will is not repugnaun•• to saluation: and yet is yt a doctryne cleane contrary to f••••e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by Christe. pag 82.

4 In the thre former Censures thoughe vncharitably yet in this behalf he hathe dealt more vprightlye, in that he hath sett downe neere the very woordes of T. C but in the fourth Censure he hath sett downe nether his woordes nor his mea∣ninge for his woordes be these And yf you meane by matters of faythe and necessary to saluation those without the whiche a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can not be saued then the doctryne that teacheth there is no free will or prayer for the deade is not within your compasse. For I doubt not but diuers of the fathers of the greeke Churche, whiche were great patrons of free will are saued holdi••ge the foundation of the faythe whiche is Christe. T C dothe not holde that the doctryne of free will is not repugnant to sal∣uation, but only obiecteth against that, whiche he supposeth to be M. D meaninge by matters of faythe and necessary to saluation, for he him self so meanethe by matters of faythe and necessary to saluation as he countethe the doctryne that teacheth there is no free will or prayer for the deade to be within the compasse but yet he is perswaded (you will saye) that many patrons of fre will are saued. M D is of the same mynde neuerthelesse he saythe, that he that dyeth in the opinion of free will holdeth not the foundation, by whiche woordes yt semethe he hath had no great conferens with the free will men of our tyme, and that he imagineth that those fathers of the greeke Church dyed not in the opi∣nion of free will. But who is able to affyrme that? I doubt not but they repented before they dyed and desyred pardon of all there errours and ignoraunces, as of all there secret and vnknowen synnes: but yet it is most like they dyed in this opinion that they thought free will to be no errour. A Christian man must desire forgiuens of those synnes which he hathe committed not knowinge they were synnes and lykewyse of those errors whiche he holdethe not knowing them to be errors, wherefore they dyed not without repen∣taunce althoughe they dyd not reuoke that particuler er∣rour.

5 He sayeth, that all the commaundements of 〈…〉〈…〉 Apostells, are needfull for our saluation: whiche is a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 error pag 103.

5 The fyfte poincte is defyned to be a notorious error and in pag 103. it is quoted for a grosse error, and in the text T C is sayd grosslye to haue erred in affyrminge that all the commaundements of God and the Apostells are needfull for our saluation, with good store of the like Rethorike, but what need all this insultations▪ I woulde require of M. D not a charitable as of a Christian, but a reasonable inter∣pretation as of a man, to thes wordes of T. C. All the com∣mau••dements of God and the Apostels are needfull for our sal∣uation For what man (except he were blynded with malyce) woulde not vnderstande this sayinge of suche commaunde∣ments as God and the Apostells in Gods name haue giuen to vs, and then what absurditie is in the sayinge? For suche commaundements as were giuen to others are they no com∣maundements to vs?

6 He vtterly denyeth, that any Magistrate can saue the lyfe of blasphemers, contemptuous and ••••uberne idolaters, murtherers, adulterers, incestuous persons, and suche like whiche God by his iudiciall lawe hathe commaunded to be put to deathe: whereby he byndeth the ciuill Magistrate to the obseruinge of the iudiciall lawe of Moses, and condemneth this state and gouernment (now vsed in this realme of England) of manifest impietie. pag. 120.

6 The syxte poyncte is accused of two heynous cryme•••• the one of bringinge in of Iudaisme, the other of condem∣ning this state of manyfest impietie. but in my iudgement without iuste cause. For T. C. requireth not the obseruation of that lawe, but the substaunce and equitie thereof as the marrowe, whiche is nothinge else but true iustice. Is Gods iustice eternall, nowe become Iudaisme? be not blasphemers, incestuous persons, murderers, traytors, &c. as worthye of deathe nowe as they were in tymes past? Suerly my thinke yf M. Whytgiftes diuinitie be not able to rule his iudgment in these cases, yet humanitie yt self and the light of na∣ture shyninge vnto all nations sholde instruct him, that the horrible crymes are woorthye of deathe by the iustice of God. And if it be the iustice of God, how is it lawfull for mā to alter yt? But let vs consyder M. D. reasons. First all the•• lawes of this lande that be contrarie no the iudicialls of Moses, as he sayeth (but he sholde saye to the iustice of God for he muste not mocke men with the ambiguous and odious terme of the iudiciall lawe of Moses) must be abrogated. Suerly they that are studious of the lawes, confesse as you

〈…〉〈…〉 muste be consonant to the iustice of God▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 poyncte they be not, that they ought to be re∣••ormed. And euery Parliament, payns is taken to brynge them as neare therto as can be obteyned. Muche rather a di∣uine shoulde require that all lawes be squared accordinge to the iustice of God. The seconde reason: the Prince muste be abridged of the prerogatiue of perdoninge. The question in myn opinion, is not whether a Prince maye forbeare the execution of a sentence vpon good respectes, but whether he maye make a lawe contrarye to Gods eternall iustice. The thirde reason: punishments of deathe for fellonye muste be mitigated, &c. Suerlye suche maye be the circunstaunces that in some cases in conscience they ought to be mitigated, and in some cases they maye be increased. when Dauid pronoun∣ced sentence of deathe, accordinge to the case that was put vnto hym by Nathan the prophete 2. Sam. 12. he increased the punishment of fellonye, yet he decreed not contrarye to the iustice of God. The reste that followeth of lawyers ca∣stynge awaye ther bookes, and priests becomminge iudges, I take to be but Iestinge, vnsemely for so serious matters: as for the auctorities he alleageth out of Musculus, Hemingius, Caluine, &c. reade them who will with any indifferencye, and he shall fynde nothinge in them contrarye to the asser∣tion of T.C but rather agreable to the same: wherefore in my symple iudgment, this doctryne tendeth not to the ouer∣throwe of states of Commonwealthe, &c. But rather this assertion of M D printed in great letters ("That the iudiciall lawe is leste to the discrescion of the magistrate to adde to yt or to take from yt, or to alter and chaunge yt as yt shalbe thought moste fytt, &c.") tendethe to the settinge vp of all tyrannie and confusion, and to the ouerthrowe of all well ordered common wealthes. For yf ther be no certayne rule of iustice in that lawe, whiche is immutable (as there be in∣finite circunstaunces mutable) it is in the discrescion of the magistrate be he wyse or vnwyse, godly or wicked as yt shalbe thought fytt by hym (for who muste be iudge of the fyttnes but he to whose discrescion yt is lefte?) to decree all thinges at his pleasure, then maye he punysh a trespas of three halfpence damage by treble tormentes of deathe, and assesse a parricide at three halfpence fyne: he may pu∣nyshe an incestuous person with a fyllip and persecute a fyllyp giuen with fyer and faggott. He maye chastice an horrible blasphemer with a checke and for a woorde of small reproche put a man to deathe. I knowe M. D. abhor∣reth thes absurdities, but when he is so harde an interpreter of other mens wordes you maye see what maye be collected of his owne.

7 He affyrmeth, that in the Churches of Christ 〈…〉〈…〉 dr••n••kards, nor whoremongers, at the least, whiche 〈…〉〈…〉 whiche assertion sendeth to Anabaptisme. pag. 176.

7 The seuenth assertion is sayde to tende to Anabaptisme, whiche affyrmeth that in the Churches of Christ, ther be no dronkards, nor whormongers at the least which are knowen. Truely yf T. C had added no reasons of this assertion, yet me thynketh an indifferent reader wolde haue vnderstande his meaninge to be of suche Churches where discipline is exercised. But when he ioyneth the reasons, namelye, that suche offenders are there restored by repētaunce, or cast out by excommunication, and so are to be accompted ether as no offenders, or as no members of the Churche: I can not see what occasion is lefte to a Sophister to cauill▪ and therefore I meruayle that M. D. Whytgifte hathe no more regard of charitic then vpon euery vayne surmise to accuse his bro∣ther of Anabaptistrye.

8 He sayeth, that whatsoeuer aparell the Magistrate com∣maundeth the Mynister to weare, the commaundement can not be without some iniurye doen to the Mynister: whiche is to de∣barre the Magistrates from appointinge any kinde of aparell to Ministers. pag. 265.

8 The eighte poyncte is chardged thoughe not in woordes, yet in dede with suspition of Anabaptistrie: for yf it abridge, the lawfull aucthoritie of the Magistrate, it fauoreth the Secte. But in myne opinion yt derogateth nothinge from the lawfull auctoritie of the Magistrates. For (as I concea∣ue) he meaneth not, that it is vnlawfull for Magistrates to appoyncte distinction of apparell, to all degrees of men for ciuill respectes: but that the Magistrate oughte not to thinke so euill of the elders of Gods Churche) whiche are woor∣thye of that office and so of doble honor) as that they can not order them selues in sober and decent apparrell, exce∣pte they be instructed and enforced therto by lawe. As for example euen of those Iustices of bothe the benches whom M D. obiecteth, beinge approued for ther wysdome and grauitie, before they be admitted to that office, yf they were forbidden to weare whyte fethers in ther cappes, or to sytt in shorte Ierkens or to vse barrell bretches, and com∣maunded to vse sadd collors and sober fashions in all there apparell, thinke you they woulde not be sorye, that they shoulde be so yll thought of that theye colde not consyder these thinges without commaundement. And I am perswaded 〈◊〉〈◊〉 D. Whytgifte hym self, if he were in ••••nest, by any that

hath auctoritie specially forbidden to were doble ruff••s, or yellowe hose, drawne out with blewe and commaunded to weare his garmentes of such collour and makinge as becom¦meth a man of his callinge: he woulde, thinke a pece of-wronge were offered hym▪ in that he were no better thought of, but that he needed suche kinde of commaundement to kepe hym in order But you will saye, that all mynisters be not of suche wysdome and discrescion that they can order them selues without commaundement. I aunswer that T. C. speaketh not of suche as are, but suche as ought to be, and of the reuerent opinion that the magistrate, as well as others, ought to haue bothe of the office of the mynistery, and of the mynisters them selues.

9 He sayeth, that those mynisteries without the▪ whiche the Churche is fully buylded, and brought to perfection and compleate vnitie, are not to be reteined in the Churche: whiche is a verye daungerous assertion, and maye giue occasion to diuers errors pag. 307.

9 The nynthe is compted a daungerous assertion, giuinge. occasion of diuers heresies, and in the pag 307. it is sayd to tende to the shuttinge out of the Ciuill magistrate, and to be the verye argument of the Anabaptistes againste Chri∣stian magistrates. But yf it were sufficient to accuse, who shoulde be innocent? especially if M. Whytgiftes Censure were a sentence, T.C. were in a wofull case But, if you will credite me, when I examine the wordes of T C. as stronglye as I can against hym, this ac••••sation seemeth to me to haue lesse collor then anye of the former. For what can be col∣lected of th••se wordes. (Those mynisteryes without the whiche the Churche is fully buyld••d, and broughte to perfection and compleate v••itie are not to be reteined in the Churche.) but that all superfluous and needles mynisteries are to be remoued? Howe doth this assertion exclude the Ciuill ma∣gistrate? except you will make hym an Archbyshop or Arch∣deacon, or sume such Ecclesiasticall mynister, It will be sayde that the Ciuill magistrate hathe auctoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall. It is true, but that maketh not hym an Ec∣clesiasticall mynister, or his office a mynisterie Ecclesiasti∣call. yf T.C had sayd these offices without the whiche, &c. ther might perhaps haue been lefte some collor of quarrel∣linge, yet he might reasonablye haue been vnderstand to meane of suche offices as in his whole discourse he spea∣keth of, that is Ecclesiasticall, but when he sayeth myniste∣ries, by whiche worde men do comonlye without any fur∣der addition, vnderstand mynisteries of the Churche, I can

not see what accusation M D can haue agaynst hym. As for the differens he putteth of bringinge the Churche to per∣fection and preseruing yt therein, is needles in this place, for T, C speaketh not onelye of layinge the foundation of the Churche, but of bringynge it to perfection and com∣pleate vnitie in Christe the heade, whiche of force impor∣teth continuance to the ende.

10 He holdeth that it were more safe for vs, to conforme oure indifferent ceremonies to the Turkes whiche are farre of, then to the Papiste whiche are so neare: whiche can not be so, for the Turkes vtterly denye Christe, and be voyde of all Christian ce∣remonies. pag 475.

10 The tenthe assertion is not chardged with any daunge∣rous doctryne but only sayde that yt can not be so, and the∣refore it shoulde haue been placed amonge the vntruthes rather then the daungerous poynctes of doctryne: but per∣hapes he wolde insinuate that T. C. fauoreth the religion of the Turkes, rather then of the Papistes. Truely I thinke he fauoreth them bothe alyke and yet in some poynctes ther is lesse hurte in the one then in the other. I had rather abhorre all images with the Turkes, then committ idola∣trie with the Papistes, and yet I lyke nether of bothe. Suche comparatiue sayinges do not imploy a simple allowinge of ether of the thinges compared, as when they comonlye saye: I had rather be combred with an ague then with a curste wyfe, they meane to cherishe nother the one nor the other, yf they maye chuse. So I am perswaded that T. C. wysheth nether Turkysh ceremonies nor Popishe, and yet ther were lesse hurte in Turkishe ceremonies, then in Po∣pishe. to be vsed of vs, because of greater offence growinge in the vse of one, whiche is neare and knowen, then in vse of the other that is farre of and vnknowen. M D noteth in the margent that Gentills and Papistes are not lyke in all res∣pectes: nether two kyndes of mylke, nor two eggs are lyke in all respectes. yt sufficeth in simillitudes if they be lyke in those things in whiche they are compared. But from Gen∣tils and Turkes we differ wholy in matter and substaunce of relligion, from the Papistes we differ not wholy in mat∣ter and substaunce. Truely if Antichrist differ wholy from Christ in matter and substaunce Antichristian religion dif∣fereth wholy from Christian religion in matter and sub∣staunce. And I truste M. Whytgifte will not saye otherwyse but that the Pope is Antichriste, and Popishe religion is Antichristian, But yet you maye saye we confesse the twelue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of faythe, and all the holye Scripture to be

true whiche the Papistes holde also, therefore we differe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wholy from them. So dothe the dyuels aswell as the Papistes in an historicall beleefe, and yet they are bothe voyde of true faythe. Therefore as we differ wholy in mat∣ter and substaunce of oure Religion from the dyuells, so doe we from the Papistes. And in my symple iudgemente, there is more daunger in this assertion of M. D. we differ not w∣holy in matter and substaunce of Religion from the Pa∣pistes (then this of T C.) yt were more safe to conforme oure ceremonies to the Turkes then to the Papistes. Finally, T C. sayeth, that as farre as maye be, the Religion of God should differ from the Papistes in forme and fashion, not that we maye not haue any thinge comon with them: ot lyke to them whiche M D. vrgeth so earnestly and yet proueth so slenderlye.

11 He affyrmeth, that not only the dignitie, but also the beinge of the sacramente of Baptisme dependeth vpon this, whether he be à Mynister or no, that dothe mynister yt: whiche yf it be true, then be there nombers not baptised, that are supposed to be bap∣tised, and it muste of necessitie followe, that they ought to be re∣baptized whiche is playne Anabaptisme. pag 518.

11 Concerninge the eleuenth assertion whiche is heynously accused of Anabaptistrie as I do not playnlye vnderstand howe it is ment by T C so do I not see howe it is substaun∣cially confuted by M. Whytgifte for whereas he alleadgeth some auctorities to proue that baptisme mynistred by Po∣pishe priestes is good and sufficient, the same is also graun∣ted by T. C. who compteth them for mynisters, thoughe they be not good and lawfull mynisters, but vsurpers and intruders: the lyke maye be sayde of suche as without ordi∣narie callinge counterfayte them selues to be mynisters, and so deceaue the Churche. In these the secret consent of the Churche receyuinge them for mynisters vntill there wicked vsurpation be espied maye be sufficient to auctoryse, there mynisterie, towards others, althoughe they haue no grounde of there callinge in them selues. Nowe, it is another que∣stion, whether a woman, or a laye man whiche professeth hym self to be no mynister, yf he presume to baptize doe mynister the Sacrament, or in deede abuse the Sacrament. In this I will determine nothinge my self, but onely I will let you see by certeyne reasons that the matter is not so cleare as M. D. woulde seme to make it First it is manifest that T. C woulde haue no rebaptization: because he c••••pteth the baptisme of women to be vtterlie no baptisme: and therfore the first beinge none at all the next is no rebaptisme.

Secondly I am throughly resolued that nether any laye man or any woman oughte to take vpon them to baptize. For there is no suche necessitie of the outward element that the institut••on of Christe shoulde be broken for yt. But yf a wo∣man haue presumed to breake the ordinaunce of God, whe∣ther she haue mynistred the holye Sacrament is all the doubte. I woulde aske of M. Whytgifte (if I were acquain∣ted with hym) yf a woman presume to mynister the Commu∣nion whether she giue the bodye and bloude of Christe or no, yf he saye no. I woulde knowe why she shoulde rather giue the one Sacrament then the other, for I suppose he re∣iecteth the Popishe opinion of the necessytie of Baptisme, and yet I maye doubt, because of the auctorities whiche he alleadgeth out of Tertulliane, Ambrose, Ierome, Augusti∣ne and Zwinglius where he was not best aduised. Moreouer, because he affirmeth that the onely essentiall forme of Baptisme is to baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holye Ghost. I woulde haue en∣quired also whether yf the element be chaunged as well as the mynister yet the Baptisme is allowable: as there is great question amonge the Papistes, yf Baptisme be myni∣stred with wyne, mylke, brothe, and other more vile liquor whether yt be sufficient: but that he seemeth to allowe the Baptisme of sande in the fabulus storye, so water were af∣terwarde sprinkled on and then aryseth another dunsicall question: yf those wo••des with are the forme of Baptisme be pronounced a twelumoneth before water be powred on whether this be a good Baptisme or no? howbeyt in that example of hym that was baptised with sande, a man would thinke the byshope of Alexandria might aswell haue dis∣pensed with the lacke of water, as he did with the lacke of a mynister, or rather he might haue added a mynister as he added water. For I see no reason why one maye not be bap∣tised as well without water as without a mynister. Furder∣more fot any thinge that I can perceaue the iudgement of D. W. semeth to be repugnaunt to the booke of common prayer, where it prescribeth the order of Baptisme for them that are baptised in priuate houses, In whiche the minister is willed to examine them that bringe any childe to the Churche whiche is baptised at home of these syx interro∣gatories. 1. By whom the childe was baptised? 2. Who was present when the childe was baptised? 3. Whether they called vpon God for grace and succor in that necessitie? 4. With what thinge or what matte•• they did baptise the childe? 5. Whith what wordes the childe ••as baptised? 6. Whether they thinke the childe to be ••••wfully and perfectelye baptised? By whiche the iudgment

of the booke very godlye and soundlye appeareth to re∣quire syxe thinges vnto lawfull and perfecte baptisme. First, one that hathe auctoritie to baptise, for els the que∣stion were in vayne, yf all men and women might lawfully baptise, secondlye wytnesses or a congregation, which bap∣tism ought to be ministred, thirdly, inuocatiō of Gods name, whiche as it dothe consecrate all holye actions so yt ought not to be seuered from the admin••stration of the Sacramēt••: fourthly, the element of water accordinge to the institution of Christe, and not sande, milke, or suche lyke baggadge. Fyftlye, the wordes of Christes institution that baptisme be mynistred in the name of the holye Trinitie. Lastely fayth in them that haue mynistred the Sacrament, that they maye be assured they haue done all thinges required by the worde of God, for what so euer is not of fayth is synne.

And if the mynister shall proue by the aunswers of suche as brought the childe, that all thynges were doone as they ought to be, then shall he not baptise the childe againe, but receiue hym as one of the flocke of Christ, But yf they make an vncertayne aunswere to those questions and saye they can not tell what they thought, did, or sayde, in that feare, &c. He is appoincted to baptise hym in this forme, yf thou be not baptised alreadye then I baptise the in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the holye Ghoste:

you see by the iudgement of the booke, that the outward ce∣remonye not vsed as it ought to be, or not certaynlye knowen, whether it hathe been rightly vsed, maye be re∣peated againe, and yet no rebaptisation commytted, nor A∣nabaptistrie allowed. As for example, yf aunswere were made to the fourthe question, that the childe was baptised with sande or with ashes, mylke, wyne, or with any thing but water, yf I were mynister I woulde no more doubte to baptise the childe by the worde of God, and the direction of the booke, then any that hathe had no ceremonie of Ba∣ptisme vsed towards hym. And yf aunswere were made to M.D. in the fyfte question, that the childe was baptised into the name of God and our ladye, I suppose he woulde not thinke yt to be rightly baptised, but woulde baptise it hym self into the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holye Ghoste. And if vnto the last question it were aunswe∣red by them that tooke vpon them to baptise, that they coulde not tell whether the childe so baptised by them were lawfully and perfectly baptised. I thinke he woulde baptise it hym self, at least wyse in the conditionall forme before rehearsed. By this you maye see that the matter is not so playne againste T.C. as M.D. woulde seme to make it by the iudgement of the booke, whiche requireth mo••••

thinges to the beinge of the Sacrament then M.D. do••he, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 prescribeth a conditionall forme of Baptisme, for those of ••hose baptisme it maye be doubted for want or ill vsing of any of those thinges before shewed.

12 He sayeth, that with what lawfullnes men maye offer them selues to the prayers and hearinge of the worde of God, they maye also offer them selues to the Lordes supper: whiche is a palpable error. pag. 532. and pag. 604. he affyrmeth directlye to the contrarie.

12 The twelueth is calleth a palpable error but yf I maye saye as I thinke the Censure is a palpable cauill for T. C. hath thes very wordes ••her ••he speakethe of this matter able inoughe to expresse his meaninge (I speake of those whiche are of the Churche and of discrescion to examine them selues.) M.D woulde make hym contrary to hym self, because he sayeth in another place that Papistes and ex∣communicate persons must be compelled by the Magistrate to heare sermons, and yet not admitted to the communion so that by his censure these be two assertions directlye con∣trarye on to the other. Suche as be of the Churche maye as well offer themselues to the communion as to the prayers and hearinge of the worde, and this: they that be not of the Churche, muste be compelled to heare but not permitted to receiue. Secondlye he makethe instan•• of suche as be weake in fayth. corrupt in iudgement, ignoraunt in the right vse of the Sacrament, not knowinge howe to examine them selues: but T.C. excludeth all those that be in any suche re∣specte vnmeete to examine them selues. I am sorye I haue troubled you with so manye wordes in so playne a matter.

13 He denyethe, that the Churche or any man, maye restrayne the people from bodely labor, in any of the syxe dayes: whiche i•• to drawe from the Magistrate his lawfull a••ctoritie, and to giue carnall libertie to the people. pag 541.

13 The thirtenth assertion is condemned of Anabaptisme in abriging the Magistrat•• lawfull auctoritie and of liber∣tinisme in geuinge the people to muche carnall libertie. But good Lorde howe vniustlye? Hathe the Magistrate law∣full auctoritie to commaunde the people to be ydle whiche God expreslye forbyddeth, or can any man ordeyne a reli∣gious reste suche as God ordeyned one the Sabbat in the Lawe? For it muste be ether ydlenes or a Sabbat that thes Magistrate shoulde institute. For if the Magistrate or the Churche will cōmmaunde men to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from there 〈◊〉〈◊〉

labors that they maye be imployed in publik affayres, or gi∣uen to holye exercises. T. C. will not gaynsay it, as not many tymes before this assertion he affyrmeth playnelye. Nowe towchinge the carnall libertie that this assertion geuithe▪ ••s M D. sayeth) I promise you I can not imagine what shoulde be mente thereby for I colde neuer conceaue that plowinge, cartinge and other laboringe of men in ther vocations, whe∣reof T.C. speaketh, shoulde be compted carnall libertie.

14 He sayeth, that the lyfe of the Sacrament dependethe of the preachinge of the worde: whiche if it be true, then is the sa∣crament of Baptisme not to be mynistred to infantes, because they can not heare the worde preached, and in dede this is the gr••••••de of Anabaptisme. pag. 566.

14 The fourtenth assertion is myghtely pressed with the accusation of Anabaptistrye partlye because the metaphor of lyfe is vrged so vehemently by M D and partlye because the speache of T C. in this place is sumwhat vnproper or els perhaps corrupted in the pryntinge. But first it is nether charitable no reasonable to expounde a metaphore too stronglye agaynste hym that vsed it, as yf a man should saye my lyfe is in your hands, it were harde to conclude agaynst hym, ergo it is not in your bodye, and so you are deade and then you muste be buryed, &c. Lykewise wher T C sayeth the lyfe of the Sacraments dependeth of the preachinge of Gods worde, it is an harde conclusion of M. D ergo the Sa∣craments ministred without a sermone are deade, and beinge ministred to infants whiche can not vnderstande the sermon is not effectuall But where he sayeth that the lyfe of the Sa∣cramentes dependeth of the preachinge of the worde of God. I suppose he meanethe of the worde of God preached and declared, and peraduenture so his wordes were but alte∣red by the prynter. For M D assertion of the lyfe of the Sa∣cramentes, yf it be not charitablye expounded is as foule an error as he would seme to chardge T. C withall, and woulde brede as great absurdities For he sayethe "that the lyfe of the Sacramentes dependethe vpon Gods promysses expressed in his worde, and n••ther vpon preachinge nor readinge." For yf the lyfe of the Sacramentes dependethe vpon Gods promisses, expressed in his word: although the same be neuer read nor preached and declared the Popishe masse maye be counted the Lordes supper althoughe the Lorde•• deathe be not therin preached and declared, nor yet reade to the edi∣feynge of the people. Agayne yf the lyfe of the Sacraments dependethe altogether vpon Gods promysses expressed i•• his worde, and nothinge at all of preachinge or declaring••

of the same, they maye be mynistred to infidells, for there can be no fayeth where there is no preachinge of Gods worde. They giue lyfe ex opere operato, of the worke wrought as the Papists saye to all that receaue them, whe∣ther they be worthye or vnworthye, within the couenaunte or without it. But I knowe M D. will aunswer that he dothe not exclude preachinge. The lyke maye be sayd of T. C. that he dothe not exclude the promysses of Godes worde, but ioyneth preachinge to them althoughe he dothe not of necessitie require preachinge immediatlye before e∣uery action of there administration, but that of necessytie the worde of God must not only be reade, but also preached and declared vnto the people amongest whom the Sacra∣ments are mynistred, or els they maye be ministred amonge the Turkes and Iewes So that yf the assertion of T. C. ••e weyghed with indifferencie it tendeth no more to Anaba∣baptistrie, then the assertion of Iho•• Whytgifte to Papi∣strie.

15 He doubteth, whether he maye call hym mynister or no, that can not preache, whiche beinge 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with his former 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that the mynister is if the beinge of the Sacramente, it will fall out, that he counteth all those not baptised whiche haue bee•• baptised by any other than by preachers. pag. 568. and 6••••.

15 The fyften Censure is a mea••e cauill, taken vp by ••••••∣kinge a phrase of speakinge contrarie to the speaker. Al∣though it semeth that ether M.D. or his printer ••athe lefte out some wordes pag. 568, whiche T.C is chardged to vse by the Censure in the table. For in the pag. 568. he is made to speake th••s, That there shoulde be in steade of a preachinge mynister (yf I maye so call hym) and in steade of preachinge readinge, &c as thoughe he doubted whether a preachinge mynister were a mynister whiche is cleane contrarie to that he is burdened withall in the Censure: But lett it be as the Censure reporteth that his wordes are of a mynister that can not preache, dothe he doubte whether he be in any re∣specte a mynister? because he sayeth (yf I maye so call hym) In deede this manner of speakinge declareth that he iudgethe hym that can not preache a man vnworthy to be a mynistre, but he dothe not denye hym altogether Or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what saye we to these speaches? Nero a most cruell man▪ yf I maye call hym a man, whiche is so farre from all huma∣nitie? Dyd he tha•• so spake, doubte whether Nero was a man in nature? Iosephus sayethe of Christe in those dayes there was a man called Iesus (yf I maye call hym a man) dothe Iosephus doubte whether he were a naturall 〈◊〉〈◊〉

One sayethe to his seruaunte, thou wycked seruaunt (yf I maye so call thee whiche behauest thy selfe more lyke a master then a seruaunte dothe he doubte whether he be his seruaunte or no? A man speakethe to his wyfe thou arte a disobedient wyfe, yf I maye call the a wyfe, whiche carest so lytle for they husbande. Doth this man doubte whether the woman were his wyfe? you see what a childish cauill this is, to grounde so great a slaunder of Anabaptistrie vpon it. The lyke fonde quarellinge he vsethe pag 583. wher T. C. hathe these wordes▪ What reason is there that it shoulde be graunted to one that can not preache (beinge as they call hym a mynister (to mynister bothe the Sacramentes when as the same 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not permitted to a Deacon (as they call hym) whiche is able to preache. M. W. noteth in the margent

why? do you ac∣count hym no mynister?

this geare woulde be marked. In deede it woulde be marked or ells M. D. woulde 〈◊〉〈◊〉 awaye all with cauillinge and slaunderinge. For who seethe not althoughe he haue but one eye that T.C. speaketh of the vnproper vsinge of these termes Mynister and Deacon▪ whiche signifye all one and yet are commonly vsed for di∣uers offices, and that whiche is proper to the one as he sayeth made common to the other: not denying, but affyr∣ming hym to be a mynister where he sayeth, beinge a my∣nister (as they call hym) for these wordes onelye (as they call hym) shoulde be enclosed with the parenthesis, as in the next member of the sentence, where he speaketh of the Deacon (as they call hym) where the phrase is all one.

6 He semeth to be of this iudgement, that onely those whiche be of the famelye of God ought to be baptised: whiche is a daun∣gerous error, for not all that be baptised are of the famelye of God. pag 621.

16. The syxtene assertion is counted a daungerous error, and affyrmed in M. D. opinion to sauor very stronglye of heresye, but what heresy he sheweth not. T C sayeth that baptisme is an entrye into the house of God▪ whereby only the famely of God muste enter, and those he countethe to be of the famely of God, whiche be cleane, holy, and within the couenant M.D. replyethe, that no man can tell who be electe and who reprobate: therefore lett hym baptize, the children of Turkes and Iewes, yea the Turkes and Iewes them selues, without conuersion vnto the fayeth, because no man knoweth whether they be electe or reprobate. But it semeth he forgettethe what S. Paule wryteth 1. Cor 7. For there he teacheth vs to knowe who be cleane and who vncleane, who holy and who vnholy, who within the co∣uenaunt

and who without it, and wher he sayeth that all that be baptised are not of the famelye of God, he is con∣trary to hym self in other places, where he countethe all them that are baptised to be Christians pag 518. and ells w∣here: and yf they be Christians they be of the famely of God, yet all that are baptised with externall baptisme be not the electe of God, but onely suche as are baptised with the holye Ghost yet all that are baptised maye be counted of the famelye of God, which is the Churche so longe as they nether departe from it nor are iustlye caste out of yt.

17 He secludeth the children of excommunicate persons, and of professed Papistes from the sacrament of Baptisme, vntill they be able to make a confession of there fayth: whiche smelleth very strongly of Anabaptisme, and it is a manifest error pag. 622.

17 The seuententh assertion is chardged to smell very stronglye of Anabaptistrye, and to be a manifeste error. Surely yf it be an error it is not so manifeste as M. W. affyr∣meth, but whether yt be an error or no it is farre inoughe from the sauor of Anabaptistry, excepte it be in suche a mans nose that hathe raked so longe in the puddle of Ana∣baptistrye to espye yf he coulde fynde his brother drowned in it, that his heade is so stuffed with the stinke of it, that he imagineth all thinges where he commeth to sauour of it, For allthough T. C. affyrme that the children of heretykes and other excommunicate persons ought not to be receiued to baptisme before there parents repente yet yf they be re∣ceued, he denyeth not there baptisme nether would he haue them rebaptised, yf they imbrace the Christiane religion which there parentes reiected. yf a man affyrme that matry∣monie ought not to be solempnised without the consent of parentes, he doth not deny the matrimonie which is already solempnised or giue the partis leaue to marry others or will them to be maryed agayne. m. D. houldeth that baptisme ought not to be ministred without a surples yet he woulde be lothe to be counted an Anabaptiste as to denye that the baptisme mynistred without a surples is lawefull, and to saye that therefore yt muste be mynistred agayne. Now con∣cerninge the error whiche is made so manyfeste and affyr∣med to be voyde of all Scripture, reason, and auctoritie▪ suerlye yf it haue not Scripture (as yf it be an error it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not) yet it hathe greate apparence of Scripture, and suche as might moue as greate a clearke as D. Whytgifte 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For Math 18. Christ willeth that an excommunicate person•• should be as an heathen or publicane, wher vpon by reason a man will inferre. But the childe of an heathen man 〈◊〉〈◊〉

not to be receiued to baptisme, therefore nether the childe, of an excommunicate man shoulde be admitted But the iud∣gement of Beza is contrarye, I graunt, but yet his reasons are not so cleare that they can satisfye euerye simple man whiche buyldeth vpon these words of our Sauiour Christe math. 18. yf he refuse to heare the Churche lett hym be to thee as an heathen and publicane. Notwithstandinge I hope that for asmuche as T. C. is nowe at Geneua with M Beza (as I heare) of whom he is iudged to be one of the best lear∣ned in Europe, that by godly conferens had betwene them ether T. C. shall be willynge to acknowledge his error in this matter, or yf he be able to defende it by the worde of God M Beza hym self will reuoke his iudgement.

18 He sayeth that princes must remember to subiect them selues vnto the Churche, to submit theire Scepters, to throwe downe there crownes, before the Churche, and to lycke the duste of the feete of the Churche: And by the Churche he meaneth the presbyterye and eldershyp: so that he woulde haue Princes in as great bondage to his seniors, as euer they were to the Pope. pag. 645.

18 In the eightenth assertion T. C. is greuously chardged as thoughe he woulde sett vp a newe Popedome, because he sayeth with the prophet Esaye cap. 49. that Princes muste worship the Churche with there ••aces to the earthe, and lycke the duste of her feete. I meruayle what he maye speake without daunger of heresye M D. beinge his iudge yf he maye not speake the wordes of the Scripture. But M. D. improueth not the sayinge, for then the deuill were on hym but his meaninge, for by the Churche (sayethe he) he meanethe the Presbyterie or Eldership. But who made hym so preuye of his meaninge? forsoothe the pag. 140. by the wordes of Christ, Dic Ecllesiae, tell the Churche, he meane∣th the Eldership, therefore alwayes wheresoeuer he spea∣keth of the Churche he meanethe the Eldershippe: a pro∣per conclusion. So thoughe he speake neuer so well yf M. D. maye interprete his meaninge he can not escape suspicion of heresye. Howbeit in this place as I coulde neuer haue imagined any suche meaninge, so it is euident to all men that he hathe no suche meaninge for his wordes, his reason, the auctoritie of the Prophete whom he cyteth do all te∣stifye that he meanethe the Churche in the moste common and vsuall sence, and as it is the bodye of Christe in whose respecte beinge hir heade she oughte to haue all this honor that is spoken of. But m. D. will haue a Prince in no respecte subiecte to the seniors, nor yet to 〈…〉〈…〉 calleth

in scorne, whose name and office is yet auctorized by God. And whether he woulde haue hym exempt from discipline I doe not playnlye see, but as farre as I can perceiue he woulde. And then he condemneth Ambrose fo•• excommuni∣catinge the Emperor Theodosius for the murder committed in Thessalonica, and manye other godly fathers whiche dyd exercise discipline vpon Christian princes. And verely the reasons that he vseth maye serue to set a Prince aboue the doctrine, Sacramentes, discipline and all. But he is altogether deceiued for the subiection that is required of Princes is spirituall and not carnall▪ vnto God and not to men, deroga∣tinge nothing from there princelye maiestie, nor from the••e auctoritie, no not from that auctoritie whiche they haue ouer persons Ecclesiasticall, and in causes Ecclesiasticall. Yf a Prince submitt hym selfe to the doctrine of his Pastor▪ to learne that he knoweth not, to reforme that wherein he is iustlye reproued, to receyue the Sacraments of his hande, to be blessed of hym, to haue his synnes forgiuen by hym (I speake but as Christe speaketh) he is not made as M. D sayeth a seruaunt no master, a subiect no Prince, vnder gouernement no gouernor in matters perteyninge to the Churche: but remaynethe still a master of men thoughe a seruant of God, a prince of people yet a subiect to the Kinge of Kinges, a gouernor in matters pertaininge to the Churche thoughe vnder the gouernement of Christe. Right so, yf he submitt hym selfe to the discipline of the Churche, whiche is no auctoritie of men, but as S. Paule callethe it 1. Cor 5. the power of our Lorde Iesus Christe, he abaseth not hym selfe otherwyse then he ought to doe. For those textes. Quicquid ligaueritis & quicquid ligaueris, matth 16. and 18. whatsoeuer you shall bynde and whatsoeuer thou shalt bynde, whose synnes soeuer you reteyne Iohn 20. Yf any that is called a brother 1. Cor. 5 be so generall, that in myne opinion they make Princes as well as poore men subiect to the discipline of the Churche, whiche is no earthly, ciuill, or humane auctoritie, but the power of our Lorde Iesus Christ for the saluation of there soules 1. Cor 5 As for the auctorytie of master Galter and other Heluetians is of smal waight in this case for they do not onely exempte princes but all other men from discipline of excommunica∣tion, whose grosse error seing it is contrarye to our state which alloweth discipline Ecclesiasticall though not suche as T C requirethe I meruayle what master D. meaneth to publishe for good auctoritie.

12 He sayeth, pag 646 that the gouernement of the Common wealthe muste be framed accordinge to the gouernement of the

Churche, euen as the hanging to the house: and he affyrmeth that the gouernement of the Churche is Aristocraticall or popu∣lare: whiche is a daungerous errour, and springeth of this that he doth not distinguyshe betwixt the essentiall poyntes of the gouernement of the Churche, and the accidentall poyntes of the same: for the essentiall poyntes of Ecclesiasticall gouernement•• maye well agree with any lawfull state of common wealthe, and ciuill kinde of gouer••ement: as the gospell maye be truelye prea∣ch••d in them all, the Sacrame••tes ryghtly mynistred, disci∣pline duelye executed and suche lyke: but the accidentall poyntes of gouernement (as the manner of electinge mynisters, the kinde of discipline, accidentall ceremonies, and other suche lyke rytes and circu••staunces) maye be varied accordinge to tyme, place, and persons, and are so to be framed, as they maye best agree with the state and gouernement of euery common wealth The ignoraunce of this distinction hath ••ast T C into a great and perillous error

19 The nynetenth assertion is so violently drawen into an odious calumniation that I am lothe to leese any tyme in aunsweringe, but only to satisfie your request T. C. sayeth that the common wealth muste be made to agree with the Churche, and the gouernement thereof with her gouerne∣ment whiche is all one as yf he had sayde the common wealthe muste be made to agree with the worde of God▪ and the gouernement thereof accordinge to the doctrine of the same: wherefore yf there be any thinge in, the common wealthe that agreeth not with the worde of God, the same muste be reformed accordinge to the worde of God, is not this a perilous doctrine? In deede it hath alwayes been ac∣cepted so by Epicureans and Atheistes but I neuer hearde a diuine mislyke it before: but I herde a frende of myne once saye that malice is a most subtill sophister. As for the cauill of M D howe vayne it is experience it selfe dothe proue, for euen that gouernement of the Church which T.C requi∣reth maye stande with any of the thre good states of a com∣mon wealthe, whether it be Monarchye, Aristocratye, or De∣mocratye The realme of Scottland is •• Monarchye, and ther is established this gouernement of the Churche, the lyke also is intended by the Palsgraue whiche is a Monarche in his territorye, the cytties of Sauoye be partlye Aristocrati∣call and partlye Democraticall in whiche this gouernement of the Churche hath longe tyme been practised: wherefore it is nether so straunge nor so daungerous a thinge as M▪ W. woulde seme to make it▪ As for the Censure of ignoraunce that he so proudlye obiecteth to hym, were more then nee∣ded althoughe yt came from a farr better learned man the M.D. sheweth hym selfe to be.

20 He bothe ioyneth with the Papistes, in takinge from the Ciuill magistrates auctoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters, and also in confyrminge that error by their argumentes, and none other•• pag 694.

20 The twentith is belyke no assertion of T C. for then he woulde haue sett downe his wordes but one of M. D. colle∣ctions, whiche because we haue tryed them so charitable before there is no greate cause why we shoulde nowe be muche moued at them: sauinge that my thinke M. W. should not obiecte to T C. the confirminge of his opinion by the argumentes of the Papistes But to the purpose T.C is accu∣sed to take from the ciuill Magistrate auctoritie in Ecclesia∣sticall matters. Yt is well that he leaueth hym auctoritie ouer Ecclesiasticall persons. But what auctoritie or in what matters dothe he take from the ciuill Magistrate? Hathe the ciuill Magistrate auctoritie to preache, to mynister the Sacramentes to excommunicate? I am suer he will saye no. What is lefte then, but to prouide that these thinges maye be donne to the glorye of God. I am suer that T C. will not denye this auctoritie. But howe shall he prouide? by lawes, decrees, constitutions How shall these lawes, decrees constitutions be directed? by the worde of God. Of whom shall the ciuill Magistrate be instructed in the worde of God, what and whereof it is expedient that Ecclesiasticall lawes, shoulde be made? by his godlye and learned Cler∣gye: except in these matters he be wyser and better learned then all his Cleargye in whiche case he maye and ought to ordeyne whatsoeuer is agreable to the worde of God for the benefyte of his Churche not onlye without, but euen a∣gainst the consent of the state Ecclesiasticall. All this T. C. yeldeth vnto and of there by any thinge ells that M. D. can proue to be the lawfull auctoritie of the ciuill Magistrate in causes Ecclesiasticall I doubte not but it shalbe lyke∣wise graunted In the meane tyme lett M. W. geue to the ci∣uill Magistrate what he will T C. for any thinge that I can perceiue by his wrytinge will take nothing from hym, that is due to hym by the worde of God.

21 He affyrmeth, that the readinge of the Scryptures without the preaching, can not deliuer so muche as one poore shepe from destruction, &c. ••herein he is also contrary to hym self. pag. 784.

21 In the laste place it is noted for a daungerous poynte of doctryne tha•• T. C. affyrmeth that bare readinge of the Scriptures without preachinge can not deliuer one poore shepe of destruction. You muste vnderstande that he spea∣keth

not of attentiue readinge, weyinge, and conferringe, of the Scriptures ioyned, with humble and hartye prayer, but of readinge suche as is vsed in the Churche seruice, and yet he excepteth the extraordinarye workinge of God. The best confutinge of this error hadde been for M. D. to haue brought in some instance of some on Papiste conuerted to the Gospell by onlye readinge in the Churche, or of anye wycked man become a godlye man that hath hadde none other instruction, but as he hathe hearde the Psalmes and chapters reade in the seruice at Churche, whiche yf he can doe I will not defend T.C. error in this poynte. But whereas he makith hym contrarye to hym selfe he dothe hym w∣ronge For in the place whiche he quoteth 158. T. C. prefer∣reth readinge of Scriptures in the Churche before readinge of homelyes. And that whiche he sayeth of the playnnes and easynes of vnderstandinge of Gods worde is auctorized by the Prophete: whiche is spoken of the nature of Gods worde (as I take it) and not of the aptnes of mens, vnder∣standinge whiche is grosse and blinde. The sonne is not lyghte to a blynde man, no more is the worde of God playne to the naturall man For my parte I see no contraryetie in these matters.