A replie to a censure written against the two answers to a Iesuites seditious pamphlet. By William Charke

A Replie to a Censure writ∣ten against the two answers to a Iesuites seditious Pamphlet.

IT is much to be lamen∣ted, that in the things of this life, there is not a cause so good, nor a title so iust, but when it is brought into question, the quarelling partie will readily finde out some forme of pleading against it, & in the iudgement of y^e ignorant or partial hearer, seeme to haue a good cause & great reason on his side, when in deede, he hath neither the one nor the other. But it is much more to be lamented, that in the thinges of a bet∣ter life, namely in the matters of our salua∣tion, there is nothing so plaine in the word of God, nothing so agreeable with the vse of the primatiue Church, but it hath ene∣mies that crie out against the light as if it were darkenesse, and against the trueth as if it were falshoode, whereby the ignorant are interteyned in their ignorance, and the obstinate hardened in their rebellion.

Yf the trueth be subiect to such iniuries and reproches, they that mayntaine the

trueth, must partake with it also, but al∣wayes with an affiance therein, that it is mightie and will preuaile. As many also as loue the trueth, & yet for want of know∣lege, do as it were stagger in so great con∣trari••rie of opinions, they must not haue their faith in respect of persons, or be cari∣ed * 1.1 about with euery blast of doctrine, in the vncerteintie or hazard of men, who are ex∣ercised in cunning waies, and lye in waite to deceiue. For this Religion is not true, be¦cause such learned men teach it, or that false, because such wise men doe condemne it: but whatsoeuer is truely taught, and playnely proued by the holy worde of God, if thou ••••care it with feare and reuerence, that wil confirme thy iudgement, and esta∣blish thy heart in a good conscience of the trueth. But in handling these controuer∣si••s, because an earnest zeale of the trueth, doth prouoi•••• the godly to a great hatred of error, and a blind loue of superstition ca∣rie away others to the slaunder of whole∣some doctrine: let both sides remember, that there is one that s••eth and iudgeth in these actions, whose final sentence shal stand in that great day of the Lord Iesus against * 1.2 al, that withhold the trueth in vnrighteous∣nesse.

This, being well considered; will ioyne christian loue with godly-zeale on the one side, and somewhat stay the other, that they breake not out into a defyaunce of the trueth, and into the same open faultes, wherewith they so much and so vniustly ac∣cuse others. For, many in great want of ar∣guments, recômpense the matter with vn∣christian taunts and slaunders; and not be∣ing able to ouerthrow the trueth, are yet alwayes armed with varietie and colout of wordes to charge it as a lye, and the de∣fenders thereof as forgers of lyes, and as maynteiners of daumable absurdities. Notwithstanding, as the trueth was not ti∣ed * 1.3 when Paul was in bandes: so good cau∣ses are not confuted, though the defenders thereof be neuer so scornefully reproched. This may appeare, as by many other trea∣tises against our brethren heretofore, so by the late Censure of Ed. Campion or some other for him, that was more ready before hand, to deale somewhat with the answers made to his proud and seditious libel. For in a round stile this quareler would cary away the maintenance of an euil cause, and vnder the title & authoritie of a Censurer, ratifie his manifold and vniust accusations,

that so finally he may sit downe to giue o∣pen sentence against the truth. But for an answere to those accusations, and a repeale of his false sentence, I mind to follow him, as from line to line, where iust occasion is offered, that vpon examynation it may appeare, howe little force there is against the naked truth of Gods causes, in the pain∣ted wordes of mans wisedome.

This Censurer taketh in hand the open defence of y^e Iesuites seditious Pamphlet, and as a man of authoritie and iudgement, to censure my answere to it: but as he hath nor perfourmed the one, so hee hath greatly missed of the other. For the argumēts alle∣ged to proue Campions seditious enterprise in euery part of his libel, & to open the like practises in his fellow Iesuites, and other Papistes, that imploy all their labours a∣gainst the Church of God, and the good e∣state of this kingdome, they remaine all vn∣answered: the Censurer did not think it safe to giue his sentence in these matters, al∣though he knewe well, they were the chiefe things that he should haue answered. The matters handled by the waye, as of the sect and doctrine of Iesuites, of Ed. Campi∣ons person, of disputation, of Christian

Frankens treatise against the Iesuites, they are the matters that the Censurer hath chosen out to abide his bitter taunts, and re∣ceiue his vniust sentence. Thus this iudge, that for the skill and authoritie hee taketh vpon him, should haue censured the matter it self, hath dealt only with certaine accessa∣ries, leauing the principal cause in ful force against the Iesuite.

But for proofe hereof, to come now to the Censure, Campion o•• the like spirit in some other petie champion, doth at his en∣traunce, giue an aduertisment to abuse his reader, that the Iesuites offer required not so much an answere in writing, as shorter triall in disputation. In which wordes he would seeme to make it a matter out of doubt, that he & his confederates can soone confute the religion established, and by a short way defende their Popish superstiti∣on, if they might come to the triall. But these few wordes do bewray much vanitie. For who is Campion, or who are the rest of these seedmen, that they should presume so much of themselues, as to make so short worke in anowing that popish religiō, that hath nothing to vphold it but tyrannie, no∣thing to defend it but lies, nothing to re∣store

it but hypocrisie & rebellion: Where haue these disputers staied so long time: Now they are come, what can they get by renewing the battaile so often, and so lately refused and auoided by their chiefe fathers & auncient captaines: Surely, if your stu∣died * 1.4 & prepared bookes, be a sure argument what you can doe in a present disputation, then I doubt not, if it were graunted, but you would therein make a short tria•••• of your vaine ch〈…〉〈…〉ge, and leaue a sure testi∣monie of your 〈…〉〈…〉tichristian religion.

This your aduertisement is ioyned with a bolde and malicious accusation, not so much against M••st. Hamner and mee, as against the religion, and as many as pro∣fesse y^e same. For not hauing a watch before your lippes, you affirme it as cleare, that there can be had nothing from vs but wordes. Mast. Hamner hath with his words brought more reason and trueth a∣gainst you, then you wilbe wel able to an∣sweare. Whether I bring nothing but wordes or no, I leaue it to them that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 measure my answere, by their own indiffe∣rent iudgemēt, & not by y^e preiudice of your vnlawfull Censure. Whereas you would seeme briefly to gather y^e effect of my book••

in steade thereof you spread abroade your owne vncharitable and vntrue termes, cen∣suring me and not my answere. For you ac∣cuse me of subtiltie, of falsifying, of ma∣lice, of flatterie for profite, of infinite repe∣ticions in the termes of Pope and Popery, of inuention and excesse in railing, and of bolde lyes and assertions whatsoeuer with out blushing. Almost euery lyne soundeth loud with some foule reproch. Therefore to answere you in them al, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 report not y^• chalenge; subtillie for my purpose, but for a plaine discouerie of Campions practise, which is full of distoyaltie, full of Popish rebellion, and I haue don••••t so iustly, that you haue thought it good to say little or nothing in his defence. Secondly what moued you to charge me as falsifying: the challenge, whereas you haue not in al your censure so much as mentioned the least cor∣ruption against me: I know I followed some speciall copies, which came neither co〈…〉〈…〉tiy nor corrupted to my handes: but 〈…〉〈…〉ed their comming, and one an other with great consent. Such a charge maketh your false accusation to fall vpon your selfe; as a false accuser, for a iust recomp••nce of your vniust sentence. The third ••ccus••t••∣on

of malice, is agaynst the brotherly loue yon speake of: for the report of Campi∣ons dissoyall and seditious practises, be∣ing apparauntly true, and in soine of you broken out into actuall and vnnatu∣rall rebellion, and founde readie to breake out in others, you cannot well charge mee with malice in declaring a trueth, except you can for full execution of your office looke into my heart, and there finde that I neuer felt. 〈…〉〈…〉s no excuse in this place to maynteine your Iesuites and Semyna∣ries, that their seedes of sedition, their li∣bels, their masses, their bulles and open ••rmes, are things done for conscience and religion: for in making such trayterous practises, the effectes of your religion and conscience, you subscribe to Saunders booke, and both make the tree very euill, because the fruite is very badde: therein al∣so you graunt me that, which afterwarde you doe denie. Touching the fourth accu∣sation of palpable flatterie towarde 〈◊〉〈◊〉 states for gaine: if you thinke them vnw〈…〉〈…〉 thie of such prayse, examin the thoughtes of your owne heart in that behalfe: if my due∣tie and conscience bounde me to say no lesse in their defence against Campions vngod∣ly

suggestions, you haue iudged before the time, and one, who by the grace of God is well able to proue his speciall hatren of flat∣terie and gaine by such vngodly meanes. In the fifth reproch I take it as a plaine note of somewhat, that your eares tin∣gle and are wearied with the termes of Pope and Poperie. But your infinite re∣petition of such superstitions cause often repetition of these fittest wordes to expresse the same: for the matter must be wearisom and worne out with you, before the proper termes thereof be worne out or buried with vs. Neither can I promise it then, for as the notorious superstition of Scribes and Pharisees, the iniquitie of Pilate, and the hardnesse of Pharao while they liued, will in no age suffer their odious names to die: so the Pope and poperie may for like rebel∣lion receiue the like punishment, remay∣ning for euer in all detestation. But you (for what cause I can easely gesse) haue scarsely once mencioned the Pope in all your booke, although hee be your Lorde and father, and to you neerer and deerer, then either the Prince, or the loue of your countrey.

Vpon my answere you promised to en∣large

your selfe, and in brotherly loue: but you do onely enlarge your selfe in answe∣ring a fewe articles cited against the Ie∣suites out of Donatus Gotuisus: in all the rest you are very short, so that my answere is not answered, but by your malicious and bold Censure here and there noted, for a worde or for a syllable, making litle for you or against me: in the rest it is charged and ouercharged, with your free taunts and vniust sentence. Your brotherly chari∣tie, I thinke, is somewhere els bestowed.

My order in answering the pamphlet from point to point, it pleaseth you to call rouing, that you may perswade the reader, I did not leauell at the certaine marke in my aunswere, nor keepe a right order. Wherein you giue me occasion to speake of your order, which may fitly be called a disorder, such as also may bee looked for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 your hands, if you & your fellowes should come to disputation. The order you haue framed to your selfe in foure partes: first; touching the sect of Iesuites: secondly, tou∣ching Campion: thirdly, touching the chal∣lenge: and lastly, touching the dialogue ad∣ded to the answere, is at your pleasure, to roue in deede at your owne markes, to bee

large or shorte, to touch or passe by, to an∣swere or leaue vnanswered, as may serue best for your skill and make most for your purpose. Notwithstāding, seeing you haue frained this order, and layde downe these 4. partes to my hande, I will followe them in the same order, least I might seeme with you to make some answere where I please, and let the rest alone.

Touching the Iesuites.

I Acknowledge my labour imployed to bring in discredit the Iesuites, whose in∣fections * 1.5 are well knowne abroade, and are nowe entred to worke treason in the land. Also I graunt the speaches which in al ha∣tred of Popish practises, so directly at∣tempted against the Maiestie of God, and peace of this noble kingdome, I vttered in diuers places of my answere, and are nowe by you not vnfitly gathered together to be seene in one view. And because you charge me with ordinarie rayling, I might fully requite you with placing your ordinarie and extraordinarie railings in one ranke, that you may knowe your owne, and take

them home. But I haue no such purpose: and if I had, where you haue gathered my fit wordes against the wicked monkish fri∣ers or frierly monkes to fill tenne lynes, I might gather of your reproches more then can come into tenne leaues. Therefore I leaue it to the indifferent reader of your booke to iudge with what minde it is like you accused mee of rayling, that rayle so your selfe, or for want of modestie, you that haue beene so immodest and so bitter, or of absurd assertions, you that haue so many.

Concerning your charge, that I abuse the Iesuites those learned men: I answere, that godlines is true learning, and the on∣ly foundation of good life, without the * 1.6 which, if they had any learning, or haue any shew of good life, the greater is their sinne and hypocrisie, in imploying such giftes of God to so vile a purpose, as the defence of manifest falshoode and superstition. True it is, that the world doth knowe them, and such as they bee: But it is a small thing to be knowen or loued of the worlde: our ioye is, that God doth know his and maynteine * 1.7 their right.

That I call the Iesuites a sect (which you so finde fault with all) it is not my do∣ing

alone, but many haue done it before me and that learnedly, as shall appeare after∣ward. But your definition is first to bee noted, as comming somewhat out of place and vntrue. Touching the place I will not contend, the matter cannot be iustified, in that you define Sectaries to be in deede such as cut themselues off in opinion of re∣ligion, from the general body of the Ca∣tholike Church. For herein, as not remem∣bring your owne arte, you confound here∣tiques with sectaries, making no distincti∣on, betweene the generall and the speciall: for (howesoeuer the names are sometimes confounded) in the receiued distinction of matter, all heretiques are sectaries, but all sectaries are not heretiques: so that be∣ing diuers in nature, they cannot haue the same proper definition. Beside your fault of confounding euen in a definition, which should serue to distinction, and to bring cleere knowledge, this also is to bee consi∣dered, that of the two, it doeth most fitly a∣gree vnto heretiques, whose sinne & here∣sie standeth in cutting them selues off from the communion of the Church in opinion and doctrines of faith. Lastly, though one man once diuide him selfe, and so be guiltie

in this particular of schisme, yet by the word in common vse, wee call it not a sect, till there bee many drawen away. For if Layolas alone had troden that newe path, and vowed that speciall vowe, for his di∣uision and superstitious trade, hee alone should not haue bene called a sect. Where∣fore your definition hath bewrayed great want of learning.

But to giue you a truer definition, A sect, according to the true etymologie of y^• word, is a companie of men, that differ from the rest of their religion, eyther in matter of forme of their profession. Seing therefore the Iesuites receiue a peculiar vowe to preache as the Apostles did, euery where, to do it of free cost, to whippe and torment them selues after the example of a sect called by the name of whippers, and * 1.8 condemned long agoe: seeing they also as a diuided companie from all others, doe followe the rule of Layolas, it appeareth plainely, the Iesuites are a sect. As for the examples of Elias, Elizeus, Dani∣el, and Iohn Baptist, they are no lesse wickedly then vnlearnedly alledged, to auow their order. What are you able to bring out of the woord of God, why Elias

shoulde after more then 2000. yeeres bee brought in for a patrone of Friers: What was in Elizeus or Daniel, that may liken them to Iesuites: Iohn Baptist that may seeme to make most, maketh nothing at all for you: for it is to be thought hee was * 1.9 an extraordinarie and perpetual Nazarite, & therefore his calling warranted him for his austere and extraordinarie attire and diet, which restraint or the like, is not nowe laid vpon those that teach in the Churche; hauing all their seuerall offices expressed * 1.10 in the worde of God. Moreouer Iohns preaching in the wildernes of Iudea did not withdrawe him as is imagined, into solitarie and waste mountaines, but the hil∣lie part of Iudea was in comparison of o∣ther places, called a wildernesse, being not∣withstanding a countrey well inhabited, as appeareth in the booke of Iosua. Thus it * 1.11 is cleere, that neither your definition nor examples can proue the Iesuites to bee no sect. Neuerthelesse, as I haue answe∣red one definition with another: so will I answere your examples farre from the matter, with examples plainelie declaring that which is in question. Saint Paul doth accuse the Corinthes of Schisme, on∣ly

because they said, I am of Paul: I am of * 1.12 Apollos: I am of Cephas: I am of Christ. These did not cut themselues off in opini∣on of religion, they did not holde a seueral faith to themselues: but for this Schisme hee sharpely rebuked them, saying, Is Christ deuided: Therfore the Iesuites, fol∣lowing in y^• like, or in more wicked steppes, receiue sentence from Saint Paule, wherein they are accused of Schisme, and condemned as a sect. For do not these vota∣ries of Rome, do not these irregulars say, I am of Austē, I am of Frauncis, I am of Dominick, and these last men, I am of Iesus: Is Iesus then diuided: or not ra∣ther you diuided ye Iesuites, being cut off as heretiques from the mysticall body of Christ, and rent as Sectaries in your own bowels: Also the Pharises are an other example to ouerthrowe your definition, & * 1.13 proue y^• Iesuits a sect. For they did not cut off themselues from the religion of the Church, yet for their seuerall order they were a notorious sect.

As I haue plainely shewed, that the Ie∣suites are a sect, so it is true, that they are a blasphemous sect. For what a blasphemy

is it to abuse the most blessed name of Ie∣sus, for a colour to their blasphemous prac∣tises, in rooting out the pure and sincere preaching of the Gospell, that afterwarde they may bring in all the execrable su∣perstitions & heresies of Poperie, and after many outrages, establishe againe the in∣tolerable yoke of Antichrist: This also increaseth the offence, that they drawe to themselues alone, the most gracious and comfortable title of our fellowship and v∣nion in Christ Iesus, which is common to * 1.14 all that do beleeue, without any diuision or distinction. Wherefore, howsoeuer the dis∣couerie went neere the heart, and made you complaine, for me to call the Iesuites a blasphemous sect, was neither lewd nor vnlearned. It is one of your nothings to make a shew of something, when you say, they call not themselues Iesuites, but the Societie of Iesus: making a distincti∣on where none is, or if there hee any, it is made against the receiued speach eue∣ry where, and against your selfe, who, in calling them so often Iesuites, doe by the practise allowe your selfe the libertie of that speach, which you reprehend in mee. And to discouer your manifest vntrueth in

this small matter that can yeelde you n•• reward of a lye, I must tell you that Tur∣rian * 1.15 an other Layolas calleth his societie by the name of Iesuites, which you denie.

The second note against me, as contu∣meliously deprauing all religious men, to deface the Iesuites, is an other slaunder: for I honor and pray for all religious men, as many as for true religion are vnited in the body of Christ, which is the Churche. * 1.16 But if you account only the popish Monks and Fryers religious men, and so take the tytle of religion onely to your selues, ex∣cluding al others, euen those also that are of your church, as many as are not of some regular order and habit, you haue wel layd downe my meaning: for I holde them all as wicked ministers of Antichrist, and worthy to be seuerely censured, for making the name of religious men proper to them∣selues, which is common to all Christians euery where. Neither am I herein to bee compared with the olde Heretiques: for they dispraised the good, and I haue spo∣ken against the badde: they did it vntruely, and I in trueth. Therefore it is a manifest misconstruing of my wordes, as deliuered to the dispraise of thē, wh•••• it was not in

my thought to dispraise: as also it wa•• a plaine iniurie to match those auncient Monks of the primitiue Church, with the Monks and Fryers of the Popish orders, betweene whom there is so great differēce, that the name excepted, there is almost no∣thing wherein they should bee compared. For the Monks in the primitiue Church, whome Austen and others commend so * 1.17 highly, were, in life and conuersation holy, painfull and learned, they liued in their houses without any superstitious vowes, as professed students of Diuinitie doe in their Colledges: they laboured with their handes, to releeue them selues and do good to others. Finally their societies were nur∣ceries of good learning and godly life, that from thence the Churches might bee con∣tinually * 1.18 furnished with godly Ministers and Teachers. These being once called to the ministerie of the Church, ceased to bee Monkes and left their monasteries. But the Monkes and Friers in these ages are, as one of your fellowpapistes writeth of Cardinal Wolsey, the dregges of the peo∣ple, and the reproche of mankinde. And that you may not charge mee againe with these or any other like speaches deliuered

against popish Monkes & Friers, I must foretell you, that Austen doth cleere mee in writing as I haue done. For speaking of them, but when their wickednes first began to open it selfe, hee doth crie out against * 1.19 them, as against idle, vagrant, prowde, and vncleane Monks (accompanied since with your beggerly Friers) such as nowe pester the Cloysters, burden the earth, infect the ayre, and plant detestable superstitions in all places where they finde their kingdome of hypocrits. Bernard, a neerer witnesse of their wickednes, doeth wonderfully thun∣der * 1.20 against them, painting out their cor∣ruptions with fit words, but with more re∣proche then I haue vsed, or can with mo∣destie repeate. Wherefore, howsoeuer it might haue bene a fault to speake against auncient Monkes, it is no fault to speake a∣gainst the bastard Monkes of this late age. But it was your hatred without other cause to compare me with olde heretiques▪ and your deceite (as I noted) notwithstan∣ding so great difference, to match the olde Monkes with your newe Friers. The writings of the Fathers are not herein against me, but their practise for me▪ For as I prayse the good with them, s••

they disprayse the ••adde with me: such as then beganne to declyne, and are nowe de∣generated altogether, hauing made vp the measure of iniquitie, that was wanting in their predecessours. Saint Austen also▪ the lowest that you will or can bryng to prooue any great good in Monkes, in his 137 Epistle, the title whereof is corruptly * 1.21 set downe for the purpose, as he willeth vs not to infame all Mankes for a fewe that be euil, so he willeth vs not to prayse al, for a fewe that be good. But here I must not let you pleade a false title: for if al the wis∣dome and authoritie of your Censureship should ioyne in the matter, it cannot make this our Austen a Fryer, or so winne seuen or eyght hundred yeeres, to aduaunce the antiquitie of your Fryers. And this also I must remember you of, that when you charge mee as making warre agaynst all the Saintes of God, for speaking against wicked Monkes, you doe therein much more accuse these Saintes and Fathers them selues, who haue done the same before me, hauing lesse occasion, because the disease in their time was not so foule, nor the infections so generall. But present∣ly in the same cause againe, to say I haue a

spirit ••arre differing from the Spirit of Christ, is a false and presumptuous sen∣tence, pronounced boldly as from his seate, that doeth search the reynes and know the heart. For Christ called the Scribes and * 1.22 Pharises a generation of Vipers, and of∣tentimes repeated these wordes agaynst them, Woe be vnto you yee Scribes, yee Pharises, yee Hypocrites, they were not * 1.23 worne out termes with him nor slaunde∣rous: as they are not also being vsed a∣gainst their successours, bee they Monkes or Friers, or any other which haue that leauen. Your selfe also bring the name of Fryer as able to disgrace euen good men, saying in contempt, Fryer Bale and Fry∣er Luther. Lastly Christes example is al∣ledged for Iesuites, but most blasphemous∣ly and against his Maiestie. For though * 1.24 Christ had not where to laye his head, yet his example agreeth lesse with you in this matter, then the example of Saint Iohn Baptist. For Iohn came neyther eating * 1.25 nor drinking in such sort, as men doe ordi∣narily: but Christ came eating and drin∣king, he frequented publike assemblies, and was sometimes interteined at great feasts. Howe do you then drawe the life of Christ,

to vpholde the wicked institution of Iesi••∣ites: When did he whippe himselfe; to warrant your practise in so doing? What worldly blessings giuen him of his Father did he at any time abandon: Howe doth his example recommende voluntarie pouertie to you Iesuites or t•• any: except you woulde by vertue of this example, haue all men be of your order, because all should be followers of Christ, and holde it as com∣maunded, or recommended for an example to be followed of all, whatsoeuer hee hath done before. Thus your readie words haue soone caried you into a manifest errour. For by this your doctrine kings must 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ don their regalities, & after the example of Charles the fift, al Monarches must leaue their scepters, and beta••e them selues to * 1.26 a F••yers weede, if they wil be followers of Christ, and ••••e that is recommended vnto 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by his example of voluntarie pouer∣tie. And for an example to touch you nee∣rer, the Pope he must aboue all other, put off Peters cope, and throw away his triple crowne, and become a brother of this your beggerly order.

In the third place you note my ende∣uour to bring the Iesuites into ••••n••empt

by their obs••ure cōce••tion from one Lay∣olas a Spanyard, all which I graunt is true. Neuertheles I may not let you passe away with a plaine vntruth. Where doe I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 al my answere cal Lay••las a Souldier? yet you say I haue done it contumeliously. For the time when Iesuites began, it was hard for any man not of your nourcerie, to set downe the very daye and yeere, when your mother brought foorth those two ••wynnes the Theatines and Iesuites: be∣cause their obscure conception and secrete educat•••• was such, that for long time there was no difference knowen, and the diffe∣rēces which you make out of Payua depen∣deth vpon his credit. But for the matter, Payua saith, The Iesuits had their ful crea∣tion in the time of Paulus tertius: Kem∣••••sius saith, they had it not before the time of Paulus quartus. I pray you what autho∣ritie hath Payua against me, that Kemni∣sius hath not against you: Notwithstan∣ding let the matter be as it is, you can gain nothing by it, for Turrian a father Ies••ite saith, that the Iesuites were confirmed by * 1.27 Paulus tertius, and by other Popes after∣ward: (among whom was Paulus quartus) which proueth my report sufficiently. In

handling this question, you graunt that which I affirmed of the Iesuites, that they were created by the Pope in Martin Lu∣thers time. To your common obiection, that our faith began with Martin Luther, I answere, you may as••el say, the religion of the Iewes, and knowledge of the Lawe, began in Iosias time: and that Hilkia was * 1.28 their progenitour, because hee founde the booke of the Lawe in the house of God: who notwithstanding found no new thing, but onely the authenticall booke of Moses, whereupon the king and his people, by a diligent reading and regarde thereof, were wonne the rather to a notable reformation. * 1.29 For our faith is the same that hath bene e∣uermore laid and builded vpon the founda∣tion of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ * 1.30 Iesus being the chiefe corner stone, which hath also continued from age to age, al∣though sometimes with small shewe to the world, because of many persecutions and * 1.31 great falling away, both in life and doc∣trine. Wherefore it is your euill speach, so basely to speake, and bitterly to deface the religion of Iesus Christ, that hath recei∣ued in the eyes of all the world so great te∣stimonie from God, to proue the worke is

his owne worke, and the Gospell his owne euerlasting trueth, the power wherof is stil dedlared from day to daye, in many won∣derfull issues for the inlargement of his kingdome, and most of all, by adding to the Gospel dayly such as appertaine to his ho∣ly election.

Concerning the praise you giue to Ie∣suites, as reformers of vice, in my answere I haue prooued that your religion must first be reformed, and your intolerable dis∣pensations and indulgences taken awaye. For so long as these marchandises are to be bought so commonly and for so small a price, sinne must needes abounde, and the complaint of the Lord will bee most iust against you, which was made against the couetous and vncleane priestes in Israel: They eate the sinnes of my people, and lift * 1.32 vp his minde euery one to their iniquitie. The Iesuites abandoning of all worldly pleasures & possibilities of preferment in the same, so farre forth as none of that so∣cietie hath or may take any spirituall or temporall liuings or commodities what∣soeuer, is nothing els but a superstitio••s worship, without commandement (as hath bene declared) inuented by themselues: be∣ing

moreouer against the order of the pr••∣mitiue Church, and sauouring not a little of Anabaptistrie, in condemning the pr••∣pertie or priuate po••••ession of earthly bl••s∣sings. But howsoeuer you sound a trum∣pet one before another, to shewe the Ie∣suites contempt of worldly riches, and that they receiue not the preferrements, wher∣with mightie Princes haue pressed them, yet, I thinke your meaning is not, ••ut y^• if the Pope intreat them, they wilbe sone in∣treated.

The humilitie of their spirit was noted in y^• answere. They can be content in h••po∣crisie, to abase themselues, as to the du••, but it is, that afterward they may rule o••••r all estates in the lande, as he did, whose 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was to the Pope, I & my king. So also I proued that the Iesuites come to meet med∣dle with matters of estate, & offered them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wrong therin, as shal appeare in a ••••tter place, whē you assay to proue the contra••y.

The Censurer in the next place com∣meth to a discourse of three leaues tou∣ching Ignatius Layolas & Martin Luther, but altogether from the purpose: for proofe whereof, let his two arguments be exami∣ned, the one for Layolas and the Iesuites,

the other against Martin Luther and the professors of the trueth. For the Iesuites he bringeth this reason: Whosoeuer lea∣uing his former calling, shall betake him selfe to a votaries lyfe, and therein winne soules, may be f••ther of a Societie: Layo∣las did so: therefore Layolas may be father of a Societie. The first propositiō is omit∣ted by the Censurer, but without it ••e can proue nothing for the Iesuites. For if any man leauing the fielde, or the like calling, maye not begin a newe order as Layolas did, howe can Layolas & his broode ••ustifie their Societie? The second proposition, y^• Layolas, leauing his former calling, pro∣ued so good a man and wonne soules, is more then doubtfull. Thus it appeareth, that vpō two former propositions, the one false, the other doubtfull, the Censurer can make no true or cleare conclusion, that the Iesuites haue a good warrant for their newe Apostleship. Against y^• professors of the Gospell, there is another argument made, but with a•• ill arte and successe. For thus the Censurer doth reason: If Luther were a wicked man, & taught many beast∣ly doctrines, the Protestantes may be asha∣med of their progenitor: but Luther was

such a one: therefore the protestantes may bee ashamed of their father and religion. The first proposition is altogether false: for Luther is not our progenitour, nor the father of our faith. If he had offended, yet the trueth and professors thereof are not guiltie, or thereby iustly touched in credit. The seconde proposition is also false: for howsoeuer false witnesses come in one vp∣on another to sweare against him, Martin Luthers worthy praise, shall continue in all ages: the Lord hath shewed him a token of * 1.33 good: they that hate him shal see it and bee ashamed. Wherefore these two propositi∣ons being false, must needes bring forth a false and s••aūderous conclusion. Thus the Censurer appeareth much more carefull, smothely to deliuer foule reproches, then to bring a good reason for maintenance of his cause. His arguments being thus layde open, it remaineth to consider the particu∣lar speaches, whereby he setteth such co∣lours vpon his slaunders deliuered against that holy and learned man Martin Luther and vpon his praises, for Ignatius Layolas.

And first for the life of Ignatius Layo∣las, I passe it ouer, as a thing from the matter, and hauing in it nothing to bee

answered: when it commeth into the Le∣genda, it may haue some credit in your Church: but as it is nowe reported, I see no honour that cōmeth to you by the tale, nor harme to vs. But to you this harme maye growe, that hereafter by so slen∣der an example, other Fryers may bee brought in as much to raygne ouer you, as you woulde raygne ouer all the Monkes and Fryers that haue bene before you. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 maruel howe in this storie of Layolas you left out y^t, which, if it had bene true, would haue made more for you then al his life be∣side. It is his wonderfull vision when in a traunce he did behold Iesus receiuing him * 1.34 and his fellowes into protection. You knowe that without a myracle your newe creatures of the Pope haue neyther lyfe nor soule.

For Martin Luther, what may truely bee sayde f••r his iust honour, that shall ap∣peare afterward: nowe I am to answeare vnto your reproches against him. And first (howesoeuer you thinke your credit dis∣charged by alledging them) Hosius, Co∣chleus, Lindanus & Xaintes haue no voyce where trueth or reason are admitted for witnesses. For in this action they are speci∣ally

sworne and forsworne agaynst Mar∣tin Luther the ruine of their estate, beyng all agreed to lende and borowe lies, and in one tale to conspire the death and detesta∣tion of his name. Although the sentence were true, yet woulde you not censure him that should giue sentence against your vn∣holie father, according to Martin Luthers testimonie? Why then doe you thinke that we will any more admitte Lindan and his fellowes against Martin Luther, then you will admit him against the Pope?

Therefore in alledging Lindan, Co∣chleus, Hosius and Xaintes, with some others, you commit many faultes without any gayne to your cause. First you abase your selfe more then needeth, in not thin∣king your owne credit as sufficient with vs to proue any thing against vs, as their credit is. For although these witnesses are dashed in, to make a shewe in the margent, and to deceyue the ignorant readers that knowe neyther their names, nor their weake authoritie: yet the Censurer, if his name were well knowen, hath against vs as much credit in his owne cause, as Lin∣dan hath, or Hosius, albeit hee was your great president in the Councill of Trent.

Secondly in citing your owne partiall men, more carryed I thinke, with malice against Luther and these causes, then your self, their sentence can haue no more autho∣ritie, then when a man doth stande out to beare witnesse in his owne cause, or when one thiefe giueth in euidence to acquite an other. Wee goe not about to ouerbeare you in the like causes with the bare autho∣ritie or reportes of Martin Luther, of Iohn Caluin, of Peter Martyr, or other like men: for these are all parties, and the law allow∣eth no such for sufficient witnesses in their owne causes. Therefore, howe vnequall is your measure, how insufficient is your tri∣al in bringing such testimonies against vs, as your selues would hisse at, if the lyke, or better were brought against you〈…〉〈…〉 Lastly, in alleadging such partiall and forsworne witnesses, you bewray an euill cause, that can not otherwise bee maintayned, then by such vnlawfull & insufficient proofes. But (seeing there can be had nothing from you and your witnesses but slaūders) let vs ex∣amine how small cause you haue, so bitter∣ly to slaunder those that are gone before, and for so wicked purposes, to infect the iudgement of such as shal come after. En∣tring

into the slaunders of Martin Luther, you giue a note, that he was the beginner of the newe Gospel. Doe you not still be∣wray Campions spirit in charging the re∣ligion nowe established in this lande with nouelties, and most scornefully calling the Gospel of Iesus Christ, which we preache, a newe doctrine? This is not vpon good grounde to speake against a fewe Fryers, but in a blasphemous spirite, to speake a∣gainst God. But before I answere the particular slaunders layde downe against Martin Luther, I must againe adde that which you haue left out, namely howe Lu∣ther was begottē of a deuil. Surely this is * 1.35 as true as the rest, and Proteolus as much to be beleeued as the others. Therefore the same sparke of modestie which made your paper blush to receiue this, as a thing in∣credible, as offensiue to euery mans eares, and as bewraying your vnsatiable malice, myght also haue refused to tell the other slaunders of lyke bitternesse and no lesse vntrueth. Nowe, that Martin Luther was stroken with a thunderbolt in a me∣dow, though you easily dare report it from an enemie, yet you shall hardly ••••nde a wise man that will beleeue you▪ the matter be∣ing

of it selfe so incredible. A thunderbolt woulde haue taken awaye lyfe, or lefte a marke behinde it, for a manifest and sure note of that which otherwise can not bee proued. I will no more beleeue Lindan in this, then in his large and wonderfull tale of a madde dogge pursued with a mul∣titude of armed men, whose venemous teeth Lindan himself escaped, by the helpe * 1.36 of Saint Hubert, as they call him, for the which deliuerie he and all his house were afterwarde dedicated to the worshippe of the same Hubert. I will beleeue him no more against Martin Luther, then agaynst our owne countrey men, of whom he wri∣teth that they of the religion in Englande (whom he calleth Caluinists) doe worship the image of y^e deuil. Of like credit is your * 1.37 other tale of y^e deuil, horribly crying out of Martin Luthers mouth, and as much to be beleeued from Cochleus alone, as frō him and a thousand such, making no conscience to cast out in their writings so malitious and so intollerable libels. You adde these wordes, that vpon a certaine emulation & contention betweene him and the Fryers of Dominiks order, hee left his religion, cast away his habit, broke his vowes, ma∣ried

a Nunne, and by litle and litle, began to preache strange newe doctrines, especi∣ally tending to all libertie and carnalitie. Howe roundlye are these things written, and howe calme doth the floud of malici∣ous wordes seeme to flowe, partly to dis∣grace that, y^t was lawfully done, & partly to charge him with that euill, which he ne∣uer thought? For when the Lord did open his eyes to see (as many before haue seene) the abhominable hypocrisie and supersti∣tion of your religion and orders, no other∣wise then for hatred thereof, he left his for∣mer superstition (which you call religion:) he cast away also his superstitious order & the pharisaicall habit thereof: and thin∣king him selfe no longer tyed to his vnad∣uised and superstitious vowe, he maried in the Lorde, and all this was lawfull. That by litle and litle he began to preach strāge and newe doctrines, especially tending to all libertie and carnalitie, it shalbe founde an vntrueth deliuered against the man, and a malice agaynst the doctrine which hee taught: your owne examples shall make the proofe.

First therfore, you charge him to teach, there is no sinne but incredulitie: neither

can a man damne himselfe, doe what mis∣chiefe * 1.38 he can, except he will refuse to be∣leeue. I will not here measure vnto you, as you haue measured vnto me, I wil not dis∣grace you first, and then examine the mat∣ter: for therein you haue offered me great wrong, as shall appeare when I come to answere those places. But I may plainely pronounce, that in this place you doe in wordes and matter report an opē vntruth. For Martin Luther hath no such doctrine. First it was farre from him to thinke there was no sinne but incredulitie, and therfore he woulde neuer write so manifest an vn∣truth. He is vehement in condemning ma∣ny other sinnes, as (beside infinite other places) it appeareth in his expounding the * 1.39 xv. Psalme, and more largely in his briefe exposition vpon the tenne commaunde∣mentes. This it is that you haue wonder∣fully peruerted: Martin Luther saith, In∣credulitie, * 1.40 (y^t is, not to beleeue the promise of God) doth argue the promise of God to be a lying promise, which is a most high sinne of all other. Againe, he doth not saye as you report, a man can not damne him selfe, for that is against all knowledge, ei∣ther of mans iniquitie, or of Gods iust

iudgementes: but he speaketh of the bapti∣sed, * 1.41 which beleeue, & of the trueth of Gods promise, who cannot denie himself. Wher∣in he sheweth that it doth wōderfully com∣forte a mans soule, and incourage him to the hope of mercie, if hee shall consider the promise of God made towarde him: of which promise Martin Luther saith, it is vnpossible it should lie, being entire and not changed or change able through any of our sinnes. And hereupō he declareth what ar∣mour we haue in respect of Gods true pro∣mise, & how to answere when sin troubleth the conscience. Afterwarde speaking of the riches of a beleeuer, he concludeth saying, Thus thou seest a Christian man, or one baptised howe rich he is, who though wil∣ling, yet cannot lose his saluatiō through his sinnes howe great soeuer, except hee wil not beleeue: for no sinnes can damne him but incredulitie alone, if faith in the promise of God, made to the baptised, returne and stand, all other vices are swal∣lowed vp in a moment, by the same faith, yea by the trueth of God that can not de∣nie * 1.42 him selfe, if thou confesse him and cleaue faithfully to him that promiseth. In which wordes Martin Luther speaketh

not of a faith separated from good workes, or accompanyed with sinne onely; but of that faith which bringeth foorch as fruites and effectes those good workes which God hath prepared, that wee shoulde walke in * 1.43 them. This is the true and comfortable doctrine of Martin Luther, to proue it im∣possible, that the elect shoulde bee deceiued or fall awaye, or that the multitude of their sinnes, shoulde barre the grace and pro∣myse of God. Wherefore seeing Martin Luther sayth, Incredulitie is the greatest sinne, and you say, he affirmeth there is no sinne but incredulitie: Seeing hee sayeth in respect of Gods promyse all the sinnes of the righteous man without want of faith can not condemne him: and you vtter it most corruptly, as if he saide, a man can not damne himselfe do what sinne he can: Lastly, seeing Martin Luther speaketh of the elect, and you vtter it as spoken of all, euen of the wicked, the godly reader may beholde your malicious and false reportes that haue in this first place, hainously charged Martin Luther with a doctrine, which was neuer in his hearte to embrace, much lesse in his purpose to publish by wri∣ting. Yet I confesse this his found doctrine

of our certaine saluation, is against your Trent doubtfulnes, in so vndouted a coue∣naunt, * 1.44 as is that which the Lorde hath con∣firmed to his children with an othe that cā neuer be repealed.

2 In the second place out of his sermon touching Moses, misreporting the title as I thinke, you cite these wordes. The ten commandements apperteine nothing vn∣to vs. Wherin you would bring the reader vnto an opinion, that Martin Luther alto∣gether reiecteth the morall lawe of God, * 1.45 setting men free from the obedience or re∣gard thereof. If you could proue but this one article against him, without your fur∣der reproches, it were sufficiēt to bring his honour to the dust. But I dare auowe in your name, that you are not so ignorant, as not to know his cleare doctrine to the con∣trarie, both in other bookes, and in that from whence you drewe out these wordes, leauing the sense behinde. I graunt he hath such words, but neuer laid downe so naked∣ly, or to proue such an error, as your report importeth. For speaking against such as vrged the policie of the Iewes, and layde the yoke of Moses Law vpon christians, he resisted this doctrine, expounding the diffe∣rences

betweene the two couenantes of * 1.46 God: one in the ministerie of Moses, which is the perfect obedience af all the Law: the other in the mercie of Christ apprehending righteousnes by faith. The first as he tea∣cheth, apperteyned for a time to the Iewes alone, y^t seconde afterwarde both to Iewes and Gentiles, as many as beleeue. Wher∣upon * 1.47 he proueth at large, that the law doth not apperteyne vnto vs, as it did to the Iewes: the yoke and ceremonies thereof, lie not vpon vs to obserue in such sort as it pressed them. All which doctrine, is as largely taught by the Apostle, proouing * 1.48 that wee are not vnder the Lawe, but vn∣der grace: and in another place, that the lawe was giuen because of transgression, * 1.49 til the seede came which was promised: a∣gaine in the same place, the Lawe was our schoolemaster to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith, but after faith is * 1.50 come, we are no more vnder the schoole∣master. Which places do cleerely shewe, y^t Moses Lawe apperteineth not to vs, as to the Iewes: wee are not vnder it as they were, the yoke and condemnation thereof doth not binde vs as it did them: which is al that Martin Luther teacheth: distinguish∣ing

our time from their time, and our e∣state vnder Christ and the Gospell, from their condition vnder Moses and the Law, according to that excellent distinction of S. Iohn: The lawe was giuen by Moses * 1.51 but grace & trueth came by Iesus Christ. Wee are vnder Christ and vnder grace, not vnder Moses and the yoke of his lawe: we haue the trueth and not the multitude of shadowes and ceremonies, that were vnder the Mosaical administration. Now, that Martin Luther did acknowledge the doctrine of the lawe profitable to vs, though the yoke and former mynisterie thereof be taken away, it appeareth by his exposition of the Lawe, and by his wordes out of the same sermon which you al∣leadge, where he saith, We receiue and ac∣knowledge * 1.52 Moses for a teacher in deede, whence we learne much wholesome do∣ctrine: as a lawegiuer or gouernour we do not acknowledge him. Also after∣warde hauing repeated the commaunde∣mentes, he demaundeth, saying, Is it not necessarie for vs to keepe these? are they * 1.53 not vniuersally commaunded to all men? I answere, saieth he, they are to be kept of all and apperteyne vnto all. Thus it is

cleere, although M. Luther acknowledgeth not the yoke, the curse, the Mosaicall go∣uernment, which were proper to the Iewes, and appertayne not vnto vs: yet in other respectes hee is plentifull in shewing the profite and vse thereof to Christians: for it is, as Dauid saith, a lan∣terne * 1.54 to our steppes, and a light vnto our path. Therefore you shall doe well to re∣gard your steps, least your selfe seeme to neglect the lawe of loue and trueth as ap∣perteyning nothing to you, if you thus misreport & misconster any mans whole∣some doctrine.

3 Your thirde report of Luthers doc∣trine * 1.55 is, that it is a false opinion, and to be abolished, that there are foure Gospels. Touching this third place, I find the effect of your report els where, for these first and * 1.56 chiefe wordes: but the latter wordes con∣cerning Iohns Gospell, that it is the onely faire, true, and principall gospell, I cannot finde, I thinke there was neuer any such preface written in latin by Luther, as you cite for your defence. You haue in many places vsed the auouch at large, which Lawiers thinke vnlearned in their cases, and oftentimes you cite bookes not to bee

gotten, as this preface, and that booke de missa angulari, and laide downe one title for an other, with such like practises, to oc∣cupie your answerer more in finding out your places, then in making answere to foure of your bookes. But I thought on∣ly to note your practise herein: nowe let vs returne vnto the matter. Martin Luther doeth neyther him selfe exclude Matthewe, Marke, or Luke, from beyng the Gospel, neyther woulde he haue anye man barre the other writings of the Apo∣stles from that title, because all that was written by the foure Euangelists, and what so euer the holy Apostles wrote be∣side in the newe Testament, all that is one Gospel in substance, though there be foure whose seuerall bookes vsually are called foure seuerall Gospels. Therefore to speake of the foure Euangelists first, in respect that the holy Ghost vsed them as foure pennes, and foure witnesses, all wri∣ting the Gospel and storie of the doctrine * 1.57 and deedes of Christ: we may say there are foure Gospels. But in respect they 〈…〉〈…〉te in an heauenly harmony, in one Spirite, in one trueth, for one and the same woorke of faith, the Gospell being one and the same

in all foure, there are not foure, but one Gospell. As for the rest of the Apostles, what they haue left to the treasure of the Church in the booke of God, that also is the same Gospel, and the Apostle doth call * 1.58 his doctrine and Epistles by that name: which is to be obserued for auoyding a cor∣rupt iudgement, in thinking lesse authori∣tie or maiestie of Gospell in the Epistles, then is in the bookes of the foure Euange∣lists: for in respect that they were sent from the Apostle, to the Churches absent, they are called Epistles: as other mens letters are called in like case: but in respect of the doctrine therein deliuered, it is the same which saint Luke and saint Iohn did write, and beare no lesse honour, howe so euer some custome of speach otherwise doeth hinder a right iudgement in this behalfe.

To this thirde article onely hath the Censurer giuen his Censure, wherein hee hath not so much reproched Luther, as be∣wrayed some want of exercise or iudge∣ment in the Scriptures. His wordes are that Luther saide this, because the other three Gospels spake too much of good workes: whereby the Censurers opinion is cleere, that Saint Iohn speaketh lesse

of good woorkes then the rest. I graunt that Iohn hath a speciall course in descri∣bing the diuinitie of Christ, and the loue of God towarde vs: but that hee is inferiour to the rest in teaching good workes. I can not graunt it, neither can the Censurer proue it. But for proofe of that I say, one or two places of many may be sufficient. If loue be the fulfilling of the Lawe, and the newe commaundement, not to loue * 1.59 one another, as euery man loueth him self, but more perfectly and more aboundantly, as Christ hath loued vs: if to bring foorth much fruite, as branches in the vine, be the * 1.60 fountaine of euery good work: if to follow the shepheard Christ and to obey his voyce, * 1.61 be better then al sacrifices: then Iohn doth most mightily teach the true doctrine of good woorkes.

4 The fourth report is, if any wo∣man cannot, or will not proue by order * 1.62 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the insufficiēcie of her husband: let her request at his handes a diuorce; or els by his consent let her lye priuily with his brother or with some other man. Accuse not vs for your fault: but couer it or take the s••••me thereof to your selues. True it is, Luther gaue this euill counsell, but as

he answereth for himselfe, hee did it when he was yet among you, teaching shriuing * 1.63 priestes, what to answere when such doubtes are moued by them that come to shrifte. Also hee sayth it was his aduice, when hee was holden with the feare of Antichrist: but now saith hee (speaking of the time after his conuersion) my mind is * 1.64 to giue other counsel. What holy writings can bee free from your foule reproches, if you will thus racke a peece of sentence a∣gainst the manifest purpose of the writer? But it appeareth that you wrote these things by he are saye, or made none account what examination your booke abide, your name being vnknowen.

5 In the fift place you laye downe these woordes against Martin Luther. If the wife will not, let the maide come. * 1.65 These wordes thus barely set downe, import a wicked opinion and doctrine ten∣ding to carnalitie, as if Martin Luther al∣lowed of fornication, sending the vnruly husband to his maide seruant vpon any re∣fusall of the wife. But they were of set pur∣pose and malice tent from the other words and sense of the writer, to make a shewe of that opinion which was neuer in M. Lu∣ther

reclaymed to the knowledge of the Gospel. For in this place he speaketh of a thirde cause of diuorce, when the woman shall obstinately refuse her husbandes com∣panie: & bringeth in the man often threat∣ning his wife with these wordes, which if they preuayle not, hee maketh his com∣playnt to the Magistrates, and doeth no∣thing but after a solemne diuorcing, as was that of Vasthi, and after a solemne espou∣sing, * 1.66 as that of Esther: which example he setteth downe in the same place, and allu∣deth vnto it by some Dutch phrase, not founding so west in other tongues as the matter will beare being rightly taken. If this opinion of diuorce seeme grosse, as it may, yet your Poperie, whence this proce∣ded, hath somewhat more grosse euen in this poynt. For it permitteth a man if hee * 1.67 will, to put away his wife, because she was a bondwoman, and he knewe it not before the mariage. The like is alledged out of Austen, to prooue that a man may bee di∣uorced from his wife for couetousnesse, or such other sinnes, because they are spiritual fornication.

6 The sixt report of Luthers doctrine * 1.68 is, that Matrimonie is much more excellēt

then virginitie. Mariage was ordained in * 1.69 Paradise, mariage increaseth the number of saintes, it is honorable among all men: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 * 1.70 so much cannot be sayd for virginitie. The comparison I will not stand vpon, they are both good, yet neither good for all: but ma∣riage for him that can not conteyne: and virginitie in some respectes, as the Apostle * 1.71 noteth: which Luther in many places doth like wise acknowledge. The sixt point might seeme to you a beame in his, which to vs woulde not haue bene deemed a mote in your eyes.

7 Your seuently report is, that Christ * 1.72 and Saint Paul dyd not counsaile, but dis∣swade virginitie vnto Christians. It is not hard. I suppose, to drawe out from you the iustification of this doctrine: for you can∣not thinke that Christ perswadeth all men to abstayne from marriage: Seeing his wordes are not generally spoken to all whatsoeuer, but to alsuch as can containe▪ He that can receiue le•• him receiue. Which wordes for auoyding of sinne, implie thus * 1.73 much also, not as counsaile onely, but as a commaundement: he that can not containe let him marrie to auoyd fornication as S. * 1.74 Paul inforceth. So that all Christians,

which haue not that rare gift of continen∣cie for auoyding of sinne, are counsailed to marrie: all that haue the gift, for them it is more profitable many wayes to abstayne. This Luther teacheth out of Christ and * 1.75 Paules doctrine, not to ouerthrowe virgi∣nitie, but to condemne your vngodly vowe of chastitie, without due examination, whe∣ther you haue the continent gift.

8. The eyght report is lyke the former, * 1.76 making it as necessarie for euery man to haue a wife, as it is to eat, drinke or sleepe. It is as necessarie for him that hath not the gift to marry for auoiding of sinne, as it is to eate and drinke for auoyding of famine, that is not so dangerous as sinne. When you drewe so deepe as these matters, you were desirous rather to bryng nothing in deede then nothing in shewe.

9. Your last report is, that M. Luther * 1.77 should make all Christias as holy & as iust, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mother of God, & as y^• Apostles were. These wordes are true in respect of Christ, in whome all the faythfull haue holinesse, and honour equally, notwithstanding there may bee inequallitie in their giftes, and in the measure of their glorie. I will not stande vpon the comparisons of these di∣stinctions

seruing litle to edification: He * 1.78 that is but a doore keeper in the house of God, the new Ierusalem, hath infinite glo∣rie. * 1.79 Yet because you make the virgin Ma∣rie and Apostles to beare more rule with Christ in heauen, then they dyd while they lyued vpon earth: Martin Luther teacheth vs, there is no such respect of persons with God: but in Christ Iesus whether in hea∣uen * 1.80 or on earth, there is neyther Iewe nor Grecian, bond nor free, neither male nor fe∣male, * 1.81 but we are all one in him. They haue all the same glorious inheritance, as they * 1.82 had al like precious faith. For the diuersity of measures I haue not bene a cōpanion of your bastarde Denis in his iourney to hea∣uen, to describe the degrees and dignities there, or to determine that, which Christ re∣ferred * 1.83 to the determination of his Father, who shall sit at his right hande in his king∣dome, & who at his left. Thus I haue an∣swered these places of M. Luther faithful∣ly & without any of your bitternesse in scof∣fing and vassting at a vantage of nothing, as if you had thereby gayned the whole cause. By my answere it may appeare, these nyne places contayne no straunge newe doctrine, as you haue reported with∣out

that regarde of trueth or modestie which is pretended. But what is that you dare not write, to bryng the mans diuine and cleare doctrine into contempt, with as many as will be caried away with your smooth stile and bold accusations: For, as not contented with these vntrueths, you woulde make y^• reader beleeue, y^• you leaue other infinite beastly doctrines of his, in∣uented by much cōference with the deuil, as you auouch the matter out of Lindan. But touching the broken and insufficient credit of this Lindan & other your authors I haue noted somewhat before: and such as your witnesses are, such are their testi∣monies also: the witnesses not lawfull, and the testimonies not true. For Lindan, that hath here filled one page of your Censure, as a false witnesse, writeth that the deuill * 1.84 hath bene seene talke bodily with Martin Luther, by men of very great credit. The men are not named, nor the matter pro∣bable: therefore we may beholde a conspi∣racie to leaue the matter, and disgrace the man: one beginneth a slaunder, and the rest come in, one after another to iustifie the same vpon that foremans credit. If we had no better testimonies, this practise woulde

bee as plentifull and strong for vs as for you: but we haue not so learned Christ, nei∣ther * 1.85 doe we stande in neede of euill euiden∣ces to auow a good cause. But in this mat∣ter, because you bryng in Luthers wordes against himself, to proue some part of your reporte, let vs see your misconstruing, brought for a defence of your misreport. It is well knowen, M. Luther felt many ten∣tations, and endured great conflictes with the enemie, which are very strange to the most of your religion. Christ hath rende∣red the reason of your quiet, and godly mens disquiet in this affliction of consci∣ence: when a strong armed man, sayth he, * 1.86 keepeth his Palace, the things are in peace which he possesseth. As long as Satā had Luther in possession, kept in the chaynes of ignorance and superstition, hee felt not the malice of his spirituall enemie: Satan had no cause to disquiet a superstitious man, whome hee had for the time in quiet holde: but when the Lord opened his eyes to see, and framed his heart to withstande the kingdome of Satan and Antichrist, the the enemie assailed him greuously, as himselfe complaineth in many places. All which conflictes were not as you dreame, in an

outward or bodily conference with the de∣uill: but in those inward battailes, in those spirituall combates betweene the flesh and the spirite, betweene the tentations of Sa∣tan and the desires of the Newe men: such as the Apostle noteth in diuers places. * 1.87 Though the Iesuites be not by experience acquainted with this greeuous whippe of God, wherewith he scourgeth many of his deare children, yet by reading they myght haue knowen what it meant. For Christ endured such tentations 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Paul ac∣knowledgeth * 1.88 〈…〉〈…〉 in y^• flesh giuen him, and the angel of Satan to buffet him. But * 1.89 to make all thin playne, that Luther was not otherwise tempted, then in the exercise of his conscience, and with these inwarde conflictes of the flesh, fyghting agaynst the Spirit, and againe with the agonies of the spirit, resisting the assaultes of the Deuill, which (as was noted) other ••••intes of God haue suffered; and Christ himselfe, it appea∣reth by his owne words in the farre places * 1.90 cited for your purpose. I see ••yght well; sayth Luther in Dauid and in the other Prophetes; 〈…〉〈…〉 greatly they dyd wraste and gro〈…〉〈…〉 in those battayles and the lyke; agaynst Satan and his horrible assaultes,

Christ also him selfe (thouth without sinne) what teares, what anguish, and what agonies indured he for vs against Sa∣tan? He doeth infinitely presse our heartes, and ceaseth not, but when hee is beaten backe with the worde of God. Wherefore you doe not onely in this slaunder intolle∣rablie reproche Martin Luther, but you speake euill also of the wayes of GOD, whereby hee worketh in the heartes of his children, true mortification and strength in Iesus Christ, to ouercome such sharpe * 1.91 and dangerous tentations. The treatise of Luther de missa angulari so oftē aledged by your felowes, I coulde neuer see, there∣fore it is as the allegation of his testimonie that is dead, or can not bee founde to giue in euidence face to face: when he is reuiued & commeth forth to beare witnesse, he shall bee ansered. Touching Luthers death slaine (as you think) by y^• deuil, going drun∣ken to bedde ouernyght, you shoulde neuer haue dis〈…〉〈…〉ed your owne discretion in reporting so foule a lie from so insufficient witnesses, the contrary being knowen, to * 1.92 many yet aliue, & written by men more in∣different, & of better intelligence touching the storie. As Lindan hath thus flaunde∣red

his death, so you slaunder his life, saying that almost thirtie yeeres he liued in al sen∣sualitie and pride. If there had beene any materiall argument, or some false witnesse at hande, you would not haue come in your selfe all alone to be sworne vpon this depo∣sition. That which you lay against him of dissention, hath somewhat to be graunted. For (if you call it dissention) he did altoge∣ther dissent from Papists, being open e∣nemies of the Gospell: but for Occo∣lampadius, Bucer, and others, although in some poynts they disagreed, yet there was among them a singular care of vnitie in the Gospell. Whereupon, beside the enter∣course of many louing and godly letters, they set downe articles of agreement, sub∣scribing their names for a testimonie of their loue, as appeareth especially by an acte of concord agreed vpon at Marburge: * 1.93 and after that by another concluded at Wittenberge. We might farre most iust∣ly require you with this accusation of dis∣sention among your selues, although you are banded together in a consent agaynst the kingdome of Christ: but this is from the question, although you often fall into it.

After these prayses of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Layolas,

and many folde slaunders against Martin Luther deliuered in the best maner, with∣out any proofes against the one, or for the other, you leaue the matter for the in diffe∣rent reader to iudge▪ The iudgement is soone giuen, if your proofes were as mani∣fest as your boldnes in vttering vntrueths.

A most patient mynde can not brooke a libell so seasoned to itching eares. Our corrupt nature is more patient and glad to read a whole booke, written with a plea∣sing grace of scoffes and tauntes against a∣nother, then a lease written sicly to correct and teach our selues: and we are both more skilful to write and more apt to cōceiue re∣prothes, then any doctrine of importance: for the one is home bredde, the other must come downe from aboue. But notwith∣standing * 1.94 all your cunning, if the reader stande vpon proofes; and not vpon bare speach: if he stand vpon witnesses of cre∣dit, and not vpon these false subdrued wit∣nesses, the matter will fall out against Layolas as a superstitious obscure fellow: and for Martin Luther as a m••n that hath written more, then Layolas (I thinke) euer read: that hath taught more, then Layolas coulde conceiue: that hath suffered for a

good conscience, more then euer did Layo∣las vnder his voluntarie whippe: who fy∣nally was the meane by the mercie of God to plant more, then all the broode of Layo∣las shall euer be able to hinder in y^• grouth, or by their infinite and shamelesse lyes any waies to impeach in worthy estimation.

The Censurer not satisfied with al these vngodly iniuries against Martin Luther, now breaketh out into such wordes of sto∣macke against M. Caluin, saying that the like life or worse is written of him by a French man that liued with him some∣times of the same religion. You take the best way throughout all your Censures to bring the men still into suspicion and ha∣tred, because you can effect no more against the cause. But for Mast. Caluin, beside so many as yet remaine aliue witnesses of his godly and blamelesse life, his writings shal testifie to all ages hereafter, that the Lorde raised him vp, as a singuler Minister of the Gospel, and indued him with such a spirit of wisedome and learning, as may worthe∣ly kindle greater loue to him in godly mēs heartes, then is malice against him in your vncharitable spirites. The Lorde is most wise, and testifieth his loue in the dispensa∣tion

of his singular graces: So great giftes of true zeale, of an vnderstanding heart, of a minde not ouercome with any seruice of the Church, with any labour for the brethren, are reall arguments, that, as the Lorde did sanctifie and defende him a∣gainst all the malice of his enemies while he liued, even against the fierie dartes of Satan: so now, though the man be layde vp in peace, yet the Lorde will preserue his name in honour vpon the earth: and they that would bring shame vpon him, it shall light vpon them selues, as a iust recom∣pence from him, who euermore preserueth * 1.95 his saintes as the apple of his eye. There∣fore it was no euill chaunce, but the Lords good will, that hitherto the translation of your libel against him should be suppressed.

I maruaile how you passed by the storie written against M. Bucer, seruing you so wel for this purpose. Seeing you haue left it out, I wil briefly note it for a proofe of my exceptions taken to Lindan, as to a shame∣lesse lyer against the holy men of God. M. Bucer liued to the great good, and died a∣mongst vs with the great and publique so∣row of manie. His life and death is written by M. Carre, a man against whom you

can take no iust exception, who hath these wordes of him: He liued so as no man bet∣ter: * 1.96 he died so as no man more blessedly▪ his sickenes was such that no man did set him sorowe: he died so that no man did perceiue his departu••••. Many are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a∣liue that will witnesse as much as M. Carre hath written: Yet your great author Lindan is not ashamed to make M. Bu∣cers death as horrible, and as monstro〈…〉〈…〉 as may bee suspected, comparing it with * 1.97 foule wordes and in all horrour to the most shamefull death of 〈…〉〈…〉ius that 〈…〉〈…〉 tique. I appeale to them among you (if there be any) which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the trueth, that they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reforme them, or giu•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against such manifest 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉, 〈…〉〈…〉us to God and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, who ar•• into 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of their ma〈…〉〈…〉 and 〈…〉〈…〉 that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in their 〈…〉〈…〉 a〈…〉〈…〉tion•• haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈…〉〈…〉es to thi〈…〉〈…〉 * 1.98

In the fourth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I am 〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Iesuites 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ited out of th•• 〈…〉〈…〉 is, it shall hereafte•• more 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 For if the Censures himselfe, reporting most 〈…〉〈…〉, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of M. Luther, hath ••ot thought his 〈◊〉〈◊〉

discharged, if hee report the matter as it is in his owne corrupt authors, Hosius, Lyn∣danus and Cochleus: howe much more haue I discharged my credit, in reporting the Censure of Colen faithfully out of a learned treatise of Don. Gotuisus, allead∣ged for my warrant: for I pretended not to cite their wordes out of the Censure of Eolen, which I could neuer get, but ex∣pressely protested, to take them, out of a treatise concerning this matter, the author whereof is quoted in the most bookes: and hauing performed this touching the sense faithfully; as may appeare by conference, I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in no respect h••e charged with ••alsi∣fying, howsoeuer to vndermine the trueth, and discredit the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thereof, you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 about wordes left out or put in, with▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 any change of matter. But you that challenge me•• for additions, why doe you twise adde the worde (Verie) to helpe your 〈…〉〈…〉l, and once misconster mee, as if I would haue men know I minded to bring 〈…〉〈…〉able of myne owne? This is to ••all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to a st••••ight account of that I neuer vndertooke: and in nice pointes to take 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of syllables, when you can take no iust vantage of wordes and sentences.

Wherefore to take away from you the only matter of shew in al your Censure, I confesse that I doe not deliuer the scrip∣tures in the number of woordes and sylla∣bles, but in the ful weight of true sense and matter. Which practise, beside example of * 1.99 the fathers, we•• haue also in Christ and his Apostles. This you knowe, and yet of an euill purpose you dissemble the matter, prouing your selfe thereby to be a manifest cauiller, as was declared. Therfore I need not bee ashamed to offer my booke in this point to be censured by you, or exami∣ned by any. Neither am I priuie, as the Lorde knoweth, to any purposed falshoode be it neuer so litle, or to any euil practise in allegation of scripture, or other writings of any man. But you, either with shame or without shame, in the next sentence vtter w^t one breath foure vntruthes. For first we haue not all printes to our selues, as you say, for then you could not so soone haue printed your censure & some other bookes: S••c••••ly, our searchers are not so watch∣full, that nothing can passe our handes, as your owne booke wil testifie against it self in this sentence: Thirdly, we can neither saye nor print what we will, but that only,

which after view and diligent examination hath, or should haue, ••riu••ledge from her Maiesties lawefull authoritie. Lastly, you would make your reader beleeue, that you were beyond▪ Sea, when you wrote and sent this shamelesse censure, which now is euidently knowen to be otherwise. Wher∣in I note the iudgement of God against you, that in o〈…〉〈…〉 sentence where you haue falsely charged vs with vttering slaunde∣rous vntrueths, you haue your selfe writ∣ten these foure manifest lies. Moreouer, that it may appeare, who it is in deede that vttereth many manifest and inexcusable vntrueths, let it ••••e also considered, what you thinke of the preaching of Gods word in England, and what manifest vntrueths you vtter afterward, saying, that what I & my fellowes dare auouche, in our ser∣mons, speaches and discourses (as you cast them) we are sure, shall neuer come to the examination. Daily experience giueth sen∣tence against you in this matter, and one of your late bookes, repeating certaine arti∣cles corruptly gathered out of Sermons, made in the countrey the last S••mmer. Here also you distou••r C〈…〉〈…〉pions veine, in charging the Magistrates and learned

Bishops, as if they were carelesse, what docttrine is deliuered vnto the people. For my selfe, I admitte not your comparison betweene my writings & my preachings, as if I durst bee bolder to faile in a Ser∣mon, then in writing a booke, that may be disclosed. For, to answere also for my god∣ly fellow ministers, we preache as before * 1.100 God and Angels: and dare as little in their presence presume to preache otherwyse then his worde giueth commission, as wee dare to write otherwise before men then the trueth can allowe.

Nowe followe the XIII articles of doctrine, wherewith the enemies of the trueth are charged, especially the Iesuites as the chiefe mainteiners thereof. And be∣cause you offer your selues to bee holden guiltie of al other doctrines whereof you are accused, if these articles bee proued a∣gainst you: I woulde haue you stande to your owne condition: for my part; I ac∣cept your conclusion to bee iudged as I haue dealt with the Iesuites, in wel repor∣ting or misreporting their doctrine out of mine authour.

The first article out of the Iesuites * 1.101 blasphemous doctrine, hath, as ••otuisus

reporteth, and as you will not deny: it is * 1.102 not sinne whatsoeuer is against the word of God. The report lieth vpon my authour (as I haue sayde) yet you charge me with the wordes, as guylefully reported, as pee∣ced and culled out for my purpose. But notwithstanding this charge, you presently acquite both mine authour and me, graun∣ting the wordes to bee most true in their sense. If they be in their sense most true, why do you take any exception to my re∣port, who onely lay them downe to yeelde what sense you can make: Therefore be∣fore I wade any further, let me aske you a question or two. If any one of these XIII poyntes of doctrine bee false, why dyd you not playnely denie it? If they be all true, why dyd you not playnely graunt them? why dyd you wrangle, making them true and false, fast and loose, perfect and imper∣fect at your pleasure? Through all your discourse, doe you not playnely graunt them: and yet to helpe your owne credit, and to purchase agaynst m••e some note of bad dealing, would you not seeme in some fort to denie them? But as this pretended deniall of those articles was an iniurie to me, so the open mayntenaunce of them a∣gayne

was your trustie seruice toward the Iesuites, and the couenant of your right hande. It was also safe dealing to graunt them, because if you woulde deny any one of them in the playne sense, wherein it is aduouched, yet the aduouchment shoulde bee proued agaynst you by your owne re∣cordes. Thus the good reader may see your dealing, that so accuse mee, that so double and redouble the lie vpon mee, for laying downe nothing, but knowne groundes of popish doctrine, which you coulde not denie, and whereof the▪ Iesuites haue lately vndertaken the principall de∣fence.

To returne to the matter, the▪ Censure of Colen was made (as you saye) agaynst Monhemius Catechisme: & among other poyntes to condemne him for saying that concupiscense, remayning after baptisme, is a damnable mortal sinne, albeit no con∣sent of heart be giuen vnto the same. To auoyde your doubtful speach of damnable mortall sinne, and the distinction of mortal and veniall sinne, you must vnderstande, Monhemius spake not of the sinne vnto death, for the wich wee are taught, that a * 1.103 man must not pray. Otherwise vndersta••∣di••g

mortall sinne according to the worde * 1.104 of God, and not as you doe, without Christ all sinnes are mortall: and (that one sinne against the holy Ghost excepted) in Christ * 1.105 all sinnes venial〈…〉〈…〉 which true sense, Mon∣hemi••s dyd truely affirme, that concupi∣scence is a dam••able sinne. But you deny 〈◊〉〈◊〉 definition, to establish your owne: Let us therefore examine the grosse faultes, which these Ie••uites of Colen commit in one definition, notwithstanding they were so many, and (as you say) so learned men. They teach, by your report first, that sinne is an action. Whatsoeuer they say, or Tho∣mas of Aquine in this question, you shall finde that iniustice is a sinne, and yet no ac∣tion: and that it is a sinne as well not to doe the thing commaunded, as to commit the thing which is forbidden, which leauing of good offices vndone, you knowe is cal∣led the sinne of omission: and yet no action, as you woulde haue it. For Andradius distinction in this matter, is * 1.106 beside are and to no purpose. Also in this place, howe childishlie doe you cast in an exception of euill men and such like, that they are agaynst the lawe of God, confounding and huddling in deede:

The question is altogether of the corrup∣tion, transgression and sinne which man c••∣mitteth, and you runne to beasts and to the sinne of deuils: where in it is good to note, that as you speake not to the question, so your speach is not true. For euill men as they are the creatures of GOD, are not against the Lawe, but the euill in men: not the deuils, but the corruption and euill in them: not euill lawes, as they commande, but y^t euil in lawes, as it is either comman∣ded or executed. You must put a difference betweene the creatures and ordinances of God, which are all good as they were crea∣ted * 1.107 and ordeined, and the same as they are nowe by themselues, corrupted and made abominable. To that you say these things are not properly sinnes, for that they are no actions, I answere, If nothing be sin, but that which is an action, what Censure will you giue vpon Gods iudgement a∣gainst Hely, for not vsing discipline toward * 1.108 his sonnes: What sentence will you pro∣nounce for those watchmen, that sound not * 1.109 the trumpet, when they see the enemie comming? Here is no euill action done, but a good action left vndone, & y^t is a sin, and hath receiued the punishmēt of sinne.

It followeth in the Iesuites definition. Sinne is an humane or reasonable action. I would not say, sinne is an humane or reasonable, but a beastly or vnreasonable action of a man indued with reason. Yet in the Censurers iudgement, if a madde man or a foole kil a man, it is properly no sinne: but these effects of sinne, these great in∣••irmities of folly and madnes shall excuse murder, adulteri•• and other like enormi∣ties. Lastly you say, in the definitiō of sinne, it must be added, that it is a voluntarie ac∣tion, & done wittingly. Al these additions are additions in deede, and lay open notable corruptions in your doctrine. For whatsoe∣uer is not of faith is sinne, be it against thy * 1.110 will, or w^t thy will, bee it an action or no ac∣tion, be it reasonable (as you speake) or a∣gainst reason. If this part of their definitiō were true, thē original sin should he no sin, because you cannot make it an action done willingly or wittingly. Moreouer, tou∣ching manslaughter done vnwillingly or vnwittingly, and to one that is not hated, it * 1.111 may be answered, that hee that hath so kil∣led a man must flee to the citie of refuge: if he be found from the bounds and liberties thereof, then the anenger of bloud may kill

him. Also he cannot depart from the Citie of refuge, till the death of the high Priest; * 1.112 whose death seemeth herein in some sort to prefigure the forgiuenes of his sinne, in the death of Christ, the great high Priest. Last∣ly Howlets booke acknowledgeth a sin of ignorance against Christ the wisedome of the Father: and hee maketh willing sinne and wittingly committed, to come neere the sinne against the holy Ghost. Thus be∣tweene your doctrine and his, it will fall out that some sinnes are no sinnes: and a∣gaine, that all sinnes are done wittingly, and therefore are in some sort against the holy Ghost, & not easely remitted. Which doctrine condemneth all veniall sinne, and leaueth no place for indulgences and Par∣dons: for al sinne is wittingly and willing∣ly done, sayth the Censure: and all such sinnes are against the conscience, and ther∣fore damnable saith Howlets author. This is the harmonie and consent of your doc∣trine, to mitigate the sorowes of a weake conscience w^t many discordes placed in an euil concord. As for your example, that Ia∣cob sinned not in lying with Lea, because * 1.113 he knewe it not, it is to make no sinne of a double sinne: for Iacob sinned in iudge∣ment,

not knowing what he did, and so sin∣ned, as vpon the like ignorance for want of regarde, hee might easily haue committed the fowlest incest. Also it cannot bee pro∣ued that the bed was altogether vndefiled. To conclude therefore howsoeuer you al∣ledge Austen to approue your definition, it is no way so large as sinne, and therefore a most vnlearned definition. You prouide for some way to escape by these your last woordes: And this is to bee vnderstoode of actual sinne properly, betweene proper∣ly and vnproperly, betweene actuall and not actuall, you thinke to finde a defence, because the wordes may be diuersly taken. But if euery thing repugnant to the lawe of God bee sinne in deede, though not actu∣all, the question is graunted, and nothing left to you, but a warre of woordes against the trueth.

The contrary doctrine followeth: The transgression of the lawe is sinne. Howe * 1.114 tauntingly & how scornefully, doth y^• mas∣ker play his part: Hee woulde make his reader beleeue I haue made a vowe not to deale plainly in any one thing, and that I can not alleadge one litle sentēce without falsifying. I prayse the Lorde it is farre

from me to make any such vowe, or to haue any such vngodly purpose, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈…〉〈…〉 approue my cōscience euē to my enemies. That you may haue a proofe he••••of, this very place out of S. Ioh. which you so w••∣der at, shal be a witnes, being in sense truly & fitly aleaged to proue it sin, whatsoeuer is against or beside y^t law of God▪ For as si•• is the transgression of the law, so again the transgression of the Lawe is sinne: these two are conuerted, as the ••••finition and the thing defined: and as the termes which are mutually verified one of another. To giue you an example whereof, we say, The Gospe•• is the power of God to saluation, & againe, The power of God to saluation is the Gospel. As for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, let the same Aposties words be ma〈…〉〈…〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the fourth chapter, where he sayth, God is a * 1.115 Spirit, yet the woordes lye thus in the Greeke text, a Spirit is God, wherefore let not a transposition seeme 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to you; when you see it bringeth no 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ but a true sense, ••either accus•• 〈…〉〈…〉 when there is no fraude 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 of trueth. To make some shew•• of your fa•••••• accusation, you lay downe a fal•••• example: for a man 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉, are not

termes generally verified one of another, being one the generall, and conteyning more, the other the speciall, and hauing lesse. If you had brought an example of the like, it would haue followed wel with∣out any shewe of fraude. For, as Euery reasonable creature is a man, so againe Euery man is a reasonable creature. They that are exercised but a litle in the knowledge of these propositions, may easi∣ly see your erro••r, or purposed deceit in the example, and your false accusation in the matter. But after a false example, let vs see a false conclusion, you conclude saying: So these words as Saint Iohn 〈…〉〈…〉eth thē * 1.116 are most true. Euery sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the lawe, But as I vtter the••, you say they are false, to witte, that euery iniquitie or transgression of the law, be it neuer so litle, or done without either consent or knowledge, or by a mad man or bruite beast, should be properly a mor∣tal sinne▪ Here you playnely conclude that n••ga••••u••ly, which Saint Iohn him selfe layeth downe affirmatiuely, saying after∣wards in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chapt. Euery iniquitie * 1.117 or transgression is sinne: if sinne, a mortall sinne, as hath bene proued. Thus the C••••∣surer

hath not added, nor altered alone, but playnely denyed that, to conde〈…〉〈…〉 mee, which Saint Iohn hath worde for worde, to iustifie mee. All my places that you so condemne, being written and layde toge∣ther, haue I thanke God, no cause to make mee blushe, but this alone hath ••ause to moue you to the repentance & re••antation of this speache, so directly contrary to the wordes of the holy Ghost. But the Lorde remooue all blindnesse from our eyes, and ha••dnesse from our heartes, that wee may not struggle agaynst the trueth, and so fall into these grosse denials of the manifest worde of God. You that charge me in this place with transposition, your selfe may be as worthily charged with alteration of the text, putting one verbe for an other, and two wordes for one: both the Greeke and the vulgar translatiō hath, Euery one that committeth sinne, and you haue agaynst them both, Euery one that sinneth. This you woulde haue made a ••olde part in me; but I am contented to g••aunt it is nei∣ther bouldnesse nor ignorance i•• you▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 though the first may stande better▪ yet your translation is 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉▪ You 〈◊〉〈◊〉 per∣happes to serue the Lorde in your 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪

and I: knowe I serue the Lorde, his cause is to be had in high estimation, and the exa∣mination thereof must be without such dis∣gracing quarrels, otherwise he will punish euen him, that shall not vse good meanes in the handling of a good cause. But to conclude, you graunt the question, though (as you say) it commeth not to be so hay∣nous a blasphemie. For your vsual taunts of confounding and hudling, you may worthily receiue them backe agayne with this va••••tage: that you haue manifestly denyed, that which the Apostle doth mani∣festly affirme: and so stande vpon a contra∣diction, not onely agaynst my wordes, but against the holy and perfect word of God.

In the second poynt the Iesui••es doc∣trine is thus reported: Concupiscence re∣mayning * 1.118 in the regenerate, although it be * 1.119 against the lawe of God, yet is it not sinne properly in it selfe, or of his owne nature. I am charged for mine authour, that these wordes, although it bee agaynst the lawe of God, are not founde in the ••ensure o•• Colen▪ To what purpose 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the ca••ill a∣gaynst these wordes, which if they had not be••e 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 neuer〈…〉〈…〉 of necessi∣tie 〈…〉〈…〉

is of con••upiscense against the lawe, and you so take it, and so defend it. Also by your owne graunt, the Iesuites of Colen, expresse those wordes in effect saying: Al∣beit this concupiscense doe styrre or moue a man sometimes to doe things which are repugnant to the lawe of God: yet if no consent of heart bee yeelded vnto it, it reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne, worthy of eternal damnation. That concupiscense which doeth styrre or moue a man to doe thinges against the lawe of GOD, is it not also it selfe agaynst the law: As you thus graunt the words which before were denyed, so vnderhande, or at vnwares you graunt the matter wherwith you are charged. For, saying that concu∣piscense without consent, reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne worthy of e∣ternall damnation, in some sorte you giue vs to vnderstande, that it is neuerthelesse some kind of sinne, which is to graunt the question, or to loade and disguise the sen∣tence with many waste woordes, that you may in so doing hide the errour. Moreo∣uer you and the Iesuites confesse concu∣piscense to be sinne, by Saint Paules ma∣nifest * 1.120 woordes, who as you graunt, some∣times

calleth it sinne. But as you wrangle with mee, so you misconster the Apostle, saying, hee meaneth not that it is a sinne properly, but by a figure. Wherefore his large disputation is shortly to bee layde downe, that thereby it may appeare, howe corruptly you interprete his meaning.

The Apostle hauing declared, that the Lawe doth thorow our corruption worke in vs the lustes & passions of sinne, to meete with a doubt that might bee made against the law as if it were sinne, because through our rebellion it stirreth vs vp thereunto: answereth, saying, The Lawe is holy, and wee solde vnder sinne: the Law spirituall * 1.121 and we carnall. In which answere, it is di∣ligently to be considered by the waye, that were it not holy, and the commaundement holy and iust, and good, euen the Lawe should seeme to bee sinne, for occasion of sinne that commeth thereby through our corruption. But this occasion is not giuen by the Lawe, but altogether taken by our corruption rebelling against the comman∣dement. So the Lawe being of it selfe holy altogether and giuen against sinne, is not to be charged with our rebellion, which is sinfull of it selfe, and prouoked by such re∣straint.

If the Lawe, which hath in it no∣sinne nor shadowe of sinne, come notwith∣standing to the question of sinne, for the fruite of our corrupt 〈…〉〈…〉re prouoked and discouered thereby: what shall wee saye of concupiscence that is it selfe vncleane, and of it selfe maketh sinne exceeding∣ly * 1.122 sinfull: S. Paul following the question, doth open the nature of concupiscence in his owne person, comparing his estate be∣fore the knowledge of the tenth comman∣dement with his state afterwarde. Vpon * 1.123 which comparison hee declareth, that hee knewe not sinne, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hee knewe the Lawe that saith, Thou shalt not couet. He knewe other sinnes before by the Lawe and light of nature, but he knewe not concupiscence to be sinne. So the very Gentiles in their * 1.124 Lawes condemned adulterie, murder and other like sinnes: but the iustice of God condem••ing concupiscence, the Gentiles could not see, the Philosophers could not finde it, neither will the Papistes acknow∣ledge it, although they knowe with the A∣postle the Lawe which saith, Thou shalt not couer. Therefore the Apostle hath set before vs by his owne example, what wee may learne by that tenth commandement,

which sheweth most cleerely y^t the Lord our God is a spirituall Lawgiuer, binding our spirites, our very thoughtes, & least desires * 1.125 to y^• obedience of his most holy most pure, & most perfect Law▪ If any of these bee beside the Law, it is against y^• holines, wherein we were created, & which is required of vs by the Lawe, and so plainely and properly a sinne, howsoeuer the Iesuites distinguishe betweene sinne properly so called, & not pro∣perly called sinne. Euery sinne is sinne, & these sinnes which by the Iesuites doctrine are so called, figuratiuely (except we finde mercie) they will bring no figuratiue con∣demnation, in y^t day when y^• secretes of all heartes shall be layde open, and wee called to giue an account of euery idle worde. * 1.126

Your similitude of the Latine tongue taken out of Austen, is doubtfull, for the tongue is the instrument of speache, * 1.127 and not such a cause. The naturall know∣ledge of the latin speach, or the knowledge thereof by arte, is the cause. If the tongue were the proper cause, whosoeuer had a tongue should speake latin, because where the cause is, the effect followeth. By which reason your owne woordes againe make concupiscense to bee sinne, saying it is

the affect of originall s〈…〉〈…〉▪ because such as: the proper cause is 〈…〉〈…〉 is also: the proper effect: the ••ause▪ sinne and sinne∣ful, the effect also sinne and sinful. But you that make many demaundes to me, let me aske you what you meant to bring in the example of Christ who is called sinne in th••••▪ chapter and ••ep••stle to the Cor••th. * 1.128 forwhich you falsely quote the 8. ••o the R••man▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you make the example like? Shall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 exp••••••de the former speach of Saint Paul, calling concupiscense sinne: Surely hereby you proue, that Paul cal∣ling concupiscense▪ sinne▪ meant notwith∣standing that it was altogether no sinne: for Christ is altogether no sinne. Againe, howe vnlike are these examples, Christ is called sinne, because hee was a sacrifice for sinne, that is, to take away sinne: concupi∣scense is called sinne, because it is the effect & fruite of originall sinne, not taking it a∣way, but increasing it continually? If you made conscience of your speach, you would neuer miscon••••er the plaine wo••rdes of the Apostles, & bring nothing for your defēce, but such impertinent similitudes. For I appeale to your conscience, may you not as fitly by these similitudes proue, that the Apostle calleth fornication sinne by a fi∣gure,

or any other sinne neuer so great? Saint Auste•••• place, making it no sinne in y^e 〈…〉〈…〉rate without con••••t, is expoun∣ded by himselfe afterwarde, saying, Con∣cupiscence is not so forgiuen in Baptisme that it is not sinne, but that it is not im∣puted * 1.129 as sinne. For a clearer proofe here∣of, in another booke hee saith plainely it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For when Iulian obiected that con••••∣piscence is wort••y praise, because it is a pu∣nishment of sinne: Austen tooke that away by an example of the wicked deuils, wh•• though they, in respect of Gods hande do•• iustly punish, yet themselues are vniust and sinfull, whereupon this similitude fol〈…〉〈…〉∣eth, to proue concupiscence sinne, euen when there is no consent: As the blynd∣nesse * 1.130 of the heart (which God remoueth, who alone doth illuminate) is both sinne, whereby we beleeue not in God, and the punishment of sinne, whereby a proude heart is punished with worthie punish∣ment, & the cause of sinne, when any euill is committed, by the error of a blind heart: so the concupiscense of the flesh, agaynst which the good spirit ••usteth, is both sinne because there is in it a disobediēce against the regiment of the minde, and a punish∣ment

of sin, because it is rendred to y^e me∣rites of the disobedient, & the cause of sin, through the defect of that y^t consenteth, or the con••agion of that that springeth. You were deceiued in citing Austen twise, as hauing written but one booke De Nup. et * 1.131 Concup. Clement hath no such place: but against you hee hath these woordes in the booke of his exhortation to the Gēti••••s speaking of the seuenth commandement a∣mong others: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thou shalt not lust, for by concupiscense alone thou hast committed adulterie. Which sentence sheweth what a sinne bare concupiscense is, that alone without consent commeth so neere a de∣gree * 1.132 of actuall adulterie. You were also deceiued in quoting Ambrose, for he hath no such place where you cite him. Nazian∣zen I thinke, hath no such oration as you dreame of: such is your cause, and such are your testimonies. Wherefore it is false, that all those good fathers are partakers with the Iesuites, of that doctrine which blasphemously maketh the breach of the tenth commandement no sinne. And be∣cause you so often presse the worde blas∣phemie, so seldome vsed by me, you must

vnderstande, that such doctrines, especially now after so great reuelation of the trueth, are the doctrines of deuils, blasphemo••s against God and his holy woorde, which teacheth the contrary, as hath and shall bee further declared.

But nowe followeth the place of Got∣uisus, brought to proue the contrary doc∣trine: Whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her, hee hath already committed * 1.133 adulterie with her in his heart. The Cen∣surer in this place to note my ignoraunce, bewrayeth his owne, confounding & hud∣ling the first & last part of the proposition, which in Scholes are called subiectu, and praedicatum. For the question sta〈…〉〈…〉th in y^• former place, where Christ vset•• a word of concupiscence, affirming, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a man see a woman to lust, or in concupis••en••e to desyre her, where the force of sinne worketh in the first degree, it is with content of heart, brought to a further degree, and be∣commeth actuall adulterie before God, though it bee not actuall before men. Therefore if I had (as you mi••con••••er,) alleaged this place of Matthewe altoge∣ther in respect of the effect, and as it is a breach of the seuenth commandement, it

had not made against the doctrine of con∣cupiscense without consent. But I cite it for the former part of the propositiō, which sufficiently proueth bare concupiscense to bee sinne. For if the consent of the heart make concupiscēse to be adulterie, thē must concupiscense it selfe be also sinne: because otherwise the consent of the heart cannot make any lawful desire to be adulterie: but * 1.134 the fruite and the tree must be of the same nature. Saint Iames doeth moreouer proue this: who wil not that a man should * 1.135 say, God tempteth him, and so charge the Lord with sinne: but he turneth vpon man the whole worke and al the blame of sinne, frō the first sinne of tempting, to the ripe & ful birth thereof. The Apostles wordes in this place are full to make this proofe, cal∣ling it a mans owne lust, or lusting: adding moreouer that a man is tempted therwith, drawen away, and as with a baite intited: which thinges can not bee in bare concu∣pis••ense, except it were sinne, and a sinful cause of sinne, from the which Iames doth carefully quite the Lorde. Also this concu∣pifcense, because it hath ••entation, violence and a baite to sinne, before c••nsent of heart be giuen, and before the secret adulterie of

the heart be cōmitted, it cannot be of faith: and therefore the Apostle giueth sentence that it is sin: for whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne, be it before or after the consent of * 1.136 heart. Therefore out of these woordes of Christ, it is truely proued, by the nature and effect of concupiscense, that it is sinne of it selfe, seeing presently with consent it is made a sinne in so high a degree as is ad∣ulterie. Also herein, my alleadging of Scripture is founde to be according to the matter and argument, without any error of doctrine, alteration of sense, or appiying it otherwise, then it may be truely and profi∣tably applied: wherefore you gaue to much libertie to your penne, in charging mee with common misalleadging of Scripture. But seeing you graunt y^t this second point of doctrine is also mainteined by the Iesu∣ites, euen in such sort as they are charged, all men may see, It is hard to say whether you are more ready to defēd their doctrine, or to take a pretensed aduantage of quarell against my wordes.

In the thirde place, the Iesuites are charged to say, The first motions of lust are * 1.137 without hurt of sinne. This third doctrine * 1.138 is graunted by the Censurer as most true

and playne: but yet I must not go without ••ome accustamed taunt. Hee chargeth mee that by clipping their wordes, I make eue∣ry thing to seeme a Paradox. This is only says to accuse, without any shew of proofe. For what▪ ••••nefit was there to mee in lea∣uing out these wordes: If they come of na∣turall in〈…〉〈…〉onely, without any cause gi∣uen by vs? or what gayne you by adding them, seeing they are superfluous: For I pray you, are not all the first motions of lust meerely natural, & euermore of some * 1.139 cause giuen by▪ vs, and dwelling within vs, namely the corruption of old Adam: what shiftes are they then which you vse to helpe a weake cause? If to defende this addition of waste wordes, you shall obiect the temp∣tations of Satan offered without any cause giuen by vs: I answere you cannot properly call them motions of lust, being but outwarde prouocations to lust and sinne, wherewith many times a mortified man is not prouoked to lusting & sinning: by which neuerthelesse, Satan woulde moue, but is resisted by faith, he entreth not in to worke those motions of lust which do affect vs, and whereof our question is mo∣ued. Your comparison bet〈…〉〈…〉e these first

motions of lust and the pulse, making the one to be no more sinne then the other, is without iudgement. For you can not con∣clude from that part of our natural soule, wherby we haue life and sense only, to that part wherein our reason and affections are placed, because the former is not in the same sort corrupted as the second: neyther doeth sinne so woorke in naturall life and sense, as it doeth in the heart by the corrup∣tions and guiltinesse of the soule. The necessarie actions of life, as▪ eating, drin∣king, sleepe, breath, also the ••••cessarie acti∣ons of sense, as smelling, seeing, hearing, feeling and the rest, they are of themselues al free from sinne, remaining as they were in man before his fall. But euery imagina∣tion and cogitation of ma••s heart is euill * 1.140 euermore, as God testified to No••: much more the lusts and desires thereof, Where∣fore to compare the lustes of sinne▪ to the pu••se which is meerely naturall and with∣out sinne, was to bring the simple into a dangerous opinion that the one is as law∣full as the other. For a cleere example of this difference, it may be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that Christ had the working of the pulse, and other na∣turall opera〈…〉〈…〉 of life and ••ense, but hee

was far euen from the least concupiscense, I thinke in your owne iudgement. There∣fore this your example of the pulse to de∣fende the first motions of lust, is neyther in substance nor in shewe to any purpose. Moreouer you make the first motions of lust no sinne, because it lyeth not in our power to prohibite them: by which reason you defende sinne by the necessitie thereof. But seeing this necessitie commeth of our selues by our corruption and custome of sinne, how can it be any excuse or defence for the trespasse: what wil you say to origi∣nall sinne, shall it be no sinne because it lyeth not in vs to resist it, no more then we can resist our owne conception, and is lesse in our power to resist then the pulse: Like to the former comparison of the pulse is that which followeth, making the first mo∣tions of lust to be no more sinne in vs, thē they are in beastes. But this comparison proueth no more the•• the other: for as there is no law giuen to prohibit the pulse: so there is no lawe to restraine these moti∣ons in beastes: but man is tyed to a lawe for euery action last or first, great or small, as is proued by the great commandement: Thou shalt loue the Lorde thy God with * 1.141

all thy heart, and with all thy soule, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mynde. So that what lust or thought soe∣uer swarueth from this entire and absolute loue of God, it is against this his comman∣dement, and therefore a sinne against his most soueraigne and most glorious Maie∣stie, to whome wee owe all the seruice and holinesse of all the heart, of all the mynde, and of al our powers whatsoeuer. There∣fore to say wee must not or can not pull in the raynes of our first lustes, or that they are as lawfull in vs. as the pulse, or as they are in bruite beastes: is indeede to reache a beastly libertie and to laye open the way to all vncleannesse without controulement. Yf all your readers did knowe howe little proofe is made by similitudes, they would all see the insufficiencie of your defence, that so often vse them, and so vnfitly, in place of playne and sure arguments.

Now for the tenth commaundement al∣ledged as a contrary doctrine, y^t Censurer * 1.142 sayth it is not any way repugnant to that the Iesuits teach. For proofe whereof as the Papistes make of the tenth commaunde∣ment two commaundementes, so this fel∣lowe maketh of two seuerall breaches of

two diuers commaundementes, but one sinne, and that agaynst the seuenth com∣maundement onely. But there can not be a commaundement, agaynst the which there is no sinne. Therfore (as it was decla∣red in the former article) there is a sinneful desire first, which is concupiscense agaynst the tenth, the assent whereunto maketh it adulterie, which is a sinne of another de∣gree, * 1.143 and agaynst the seuenth commaunde∣ment. So the Censurer must by duetie re∣ceyue home agayne his owne ••aunt of hud∣ling and confounding: for confounding the sinnes of two diuers commandements. Furdermore y^• Censurer, being ca••ied a∣waye into errour by the olde translation a∣gainst the trueth, and other faithfull trans∣lations, woulde proue that the lawe is in our power to doe it, and that therefore these first motions of luste are not forbidden by the tenth commaundement, because it is not in our power to resist them. That his argument may appeare, I will set it downe to be more easily discouered. What∣soeuer is commaunded, that is not a∣boue vs, but in our power: to resist the first motions of lust, is not in our pow∣er: therefore to resist the first motions of

lust is not commaunded. The first pro∣position is false, and (as I said) a false trans∣latiō brought to proue it. For Moses saith, The Lawe is not hidden from vs, and the * 1.144 Censurer saith, It is not aboue vs: Moses sheweth, that it is reuealed, the Censurer would proue that it is in our power. Moses speaketh chiefly of the Gospell, and the Censurer referreth it altogether vnto the tenne commandemēts. But that the place, is both to be translated so, as I haue saide, and to bee applied to the reuelation of the Gospell, it is euidently declared by the plaine text, and by the application thereof in the epistle to the Romanes. Thus the * 1.145 first proposition is false, and drawen both against the wordes of the text, and farre from the sense thereof opened by the A∣postle. The seconde proposition is false also: for neither is it true, that all these first motions are altogether out of our power, for the gift of continencie and mortifica∣tion * 1.146 doth more and more subdue them: nei∣ther doth it followe, that wee are not sub∣iect to the Lawe for such offences as wee can not resist, the fault being ours through corruption, why wee can not resist them. Shall not a wholesome lawe made for

drunkardes, stand in force a〈…〉〈…〉 hath so accustomed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 selfe to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that now it is v〈…〉〈…〉 for him to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Shall we iustifie our euill though〈…〉〈…〉 ••ause it is not in our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈…〉〈…〉 * 1.147 good thought: 〈…〉〈…〉 fort iustifie the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, you must condemne these opinions. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you and your fellowes bring th•••••• false & daungerous propositions to 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 ••••∣clusions, and venture thus vpon so 〈…〉〈…〉 〈…〉〈…〉pretations, it wilbe easie for you, both to write at will, and to dispute at ••arge. ••ustens opinion against lust, euen be∣fore the consent, appeareth by the places * 1.148 alledged before, and in many other places: therefore his owne answere serueth to ex∣••ounde this place. I doubt not but Au∣••••••n which forb••••deth the disease of lusting, will much more forbidde the consent and following of such sinfull steppes. In these questiōs of cōcupiscēce & the first motiōs of lust, a little feeling of a good conscience would cut off all this contention of speach. For if they that teache otherwise, woulde looke into the Law, Thou shalt not couet, * 1.149 with such eyes as Saint Paul did, and * 1.150 would also consider the corruption, the

force and fruites of originall sinne, and m〈…〉〈…〉ouer regarde the power of Gods en∣•••••••• * 1.151 ••nd perfect iustice which is iustly pro∣uoked with the least offence, because hee made vs in the greatest perfection, they would then speake no more in defence of the vncleane concupiscence of an vncleane heart: but would with. Saint Paul con∣fesse, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Lawe, Thou shalt not couet, * 1.152 teacheth ••s to knowe sinne, not onely that gr••sse sinne knowen and punished among in••••••els, but somewhat more, that flesh and blood cannot acknowledge, euen that all concupiscence & all vncleane lust is sinne, because God is a spirituall Lawegiuer, who hindeth our sp〈…〉〈…〉it, and bringeth all our desires into obedience, restraining the least motions of vncleane cōcupiscence * 1.153 by this holy and streight commandement, Thou shalt not couet.

In the fourth place it commeth to bee * 1.154 examined, how litle authoritie the Iesuites giue to the worde of God, and howe much they attribute to vnwritten beleefe. They are charged to saye, The holy scripture is * 1.155 a doctrine vnperfect, maimed, lame, not conteining all things necessary to fayth and saluation, Wherein you censure mee

as being to shameles in setting forth these for the Iesuites wordes. Howsoeuer Got∣uisus report or misreport the Iesuites, if I report him faithfully, it is no shame to me: but to you it is some blame, still to charge me with that is none of mine. As for the question, you handle it subtillie, reporting not your owne iudgement, but with some corruption what Monhemius saith, and a∣gaine what the Iesuites answere, where∣as you are in the name of the Iesuites, eyther to graunt that the scripture is per∣fect, and conteyneth all thinges necessarie to saluation, which is cōtrary to the Coun∣cill of Trent: or els plainely and without * 1.156 perhappes to set downe the thinges that are to be beleeued of necessitie, and yet not comprehended in the scripture, which is clearely to graunt that which before you denied: for the scripture is maymed and wanteth, if any substantial doctrine of faith belonging to a Christian man, bee left out. There followe twelue particular pointes, which you make of one sort to be beleeued, and affirme them, but with perhappes, to be deduced out of scripture: of the which seuen are, not by perhappes, but vndoub∣tedly conteyned in the word: as that there

are two natures and willes in Christ: that * 1.157 the holy Ghost proceedeth frō the father and the sonne without generation. Third∣ly (which you vtter in woordes that are ob∣scure and vnsound) that the worde did take the nature of mā to be one person & not the * 1.158 person: Fourthly, that infantes are to be bap••••sed: Fifthly, the change of the Sa∣baoth: So also we receiue the foure Gos∣pels, and the epistse to the Romanes, as ap∣prooued out of the worde, by the inscripti∣on there expressing the names of the wri∣ters thereof. For your darke wordes out of Thomas, Howe the father vegate the sonne, I wishe cleare and perfect woordes in so high a mysterie. We beleeue by testi∣monie of the worde, that Iesus Christ is * 1.159 the onely be gotten sonne of the Father, and God aboue all to bee praysed for euer. * 1.160 That I may refraine other speath, I pray you examine your heart before the Lorde, you that dare teach that these most high mysteries of God the Sonne and God the holy Ghost, are not reuealed in y^• scrip∣tures, so farre as they concerne our faith, but stande vpon the warraunt of mens traditions. The rest of these twelue points, as they are not euidently conteyned in the

woorde, so a Christian is not absolutely bounde to beleeue them: as that the com∣mon Creede (the articles whereof not∣withstanding we beleeue as grounded vp∣on the Apostolicall doctrine) was made by the Apostles: the celebration of Easter day vpon a Sunday: the perpetuall vir∣giuitie of the blessed Virgin. The Epistle to the Laodiceans, although many make mention of it, Paul maketh none: so that eyther you ignorantly passed ouer the Greeke, or wilfully addicted your selfe to the olde translation, being in this place playnely corrupted. For by the originall, Paul speaketh of an epistle frō Laodicea, and not written to the Laodicenses, as you vntruely affirme. Nowe what haue you * 1.161 gayned by all or any one of these twelue notes, seeing they are al eyther proued by y^• Scriptures & thē no warrant for your tra∣ditions & vnwrittē ve〈…〉〈…〉 not necessary points of our faith, and therfore not of like authoritie to the holy writings of the Apo∣stles and Prophetes? After this sort you may easily publish A briefe Censure, con∣founding and hudlyng together without distinction, matters of our ••eleefe, with things which we are not bound to beleeue:

and articles playnely conteyned in Scrip∣ture, with points that are not there at all.

The place foloweth, alleadged to ouer∣throw the former doctrine of the Iesuites. All the Scripture is giuen by inspiration of * 1.162 God, and is profitable to teache, to con∣fute, to correct & to instruct in iustice, that the man of GOD may be perfect, and throughly instructed to euery good work. Here y^• Censurer hath brought his cole to set his markes vpon my translation, which is neuer thelesse so faithfull, that no one of y^• fiue words by him so marked, as wicked∣ly added, can wel be wanting without some iniury to the text, or to the propertie of our language in expressing the same. In trans∣lating, the propertie of euery tongue is to be obserued: for as tongues differ in lan∣guage, so they differ in their peculiar forme & order of words. That which may be well vnderstoode in one tongue, must needes be supplied in an other. And to translate word for worde, is to haue the wordes English or Frenche, when yet the phrase shall remaine Greeke or Hebrewe, and be as litle vnder∣stoode. Yet this is that obscure and fruite∣lesse translation which the Censurer exac∣teth at my hand. But let vs see how iustly.

All scripture is not so plaine as All y^• scrip∣ture: and the Censurer aftē saith, the scrip∣ture. The verbe is must be supplied, whe∣ther you regard the English tongue or L••∣gicke: for the copulatiue coniunction fol∣lowing in y^• Greeke, doth make the whole proposition compound and not simple. O∣therwise what sense or sentence▪ were it to say: all scripture giuen by inspiration of God, & profitable to teach, &c. The addi∣tion of this verbe was so necessarie, that the vulgar translation addeth it in the seconde place, but by no better reason, then why it should be added in both. The first (and) was childishly and vnlearnedly noted as super∣fluous, being expressed in the Greeke text▪ and corruptly left out by the olde transla∣tion, which deceiued you. The wordes and throughly were added, the one to ioyne the sentence, and the other to expresse the force of the compound word which Paule vseth▪ signifying throughly or perfectly perfect. In this signification is the compound vse•• in many other places also. Thus you see I * 1.163 misuse not the Scriptures in this place, for my translation is sufficiently approoued, and some faultes be wraied in the old trans∣lation, and ignorance in your Censure. Ne∣uerthelesse▪

I must remember you, that it was your ouersight to leaue out y^• note of a third (and) which might aswell haue bene set vpon your score with the rest, and raised the number vp to site. Also you that so exact a strayght translation of worde for word, why did you not Censure me for ad∣ding v. wordes at one clap in this sentence to expresse one Greeke worde: Paul hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is word for worde, Godin∣spired: I haue to expresse it vsed v. wordes, giuen by inspiration of God. But your Censurers eye may without blame passe ouer the sight of such small matters. I craue pardon of my Reader, that I haue bene drawen on into so trifeling poyntes. But he hath beene exercised in sifting and shifting to finde somwhat, y^• may serue his turne, and yet greatly misseth of his pur∣pose: if he were so searched, perhaps hee would not easely answere it. Now against my translation he vseth words, that should be by a new worde called raileciue speache in me, saying, If I had vsed such audacitie in translating Acsopes fables, it woulde haue bene tollerable, but in translating the Scripture it is impious. Surely if the Cen∣surer had bene well censured, and exercised

in translating Acsopes fables, when 〈◊〉〈◊〉 went to the Grammer schoole, hee woulde haue bene better acquainted with Greeks phrases, and the translation of the new Te∣stament. But it may be, he hateth the king∣dome and skill of Grammarians. Thus much to answere my translation which you haue so vnlearnedly marked, and so vniust∣ly cōdemned. Now it foloweth to consider what you bring agaynst the alleadging of that place to reproue the Iesuites doctrine, and your vnwritten verities.

Your first reason, y^• this place is not full ynough to proue y^• sufficiencie of y^• Scrip∣ture, for which it is alleaged, standeth vpon and word in y^• text, where the Apostle saith, the Scripture is profitable, and hath not the worde sufficient. But you say these are two diuers thinges, to bee sufficient for a purpose, and to be profitable for it, as may appeare in meate which is profitable for our lyfe, yet wee cannot saye it is suffici∣ent, because it alone, without naturall heate, clothes and other meanes sufficeth not. Whereupon you leaue the reader to conclude that this place is too slender for my purpose. The force of which your rea∣son is of the difference of these two words,

affirming that profitable, is not so much as sufficient. Whereunto I answere, that as sometimes it is true which you affirme, and as it appeareth in your example: so of the other part it is true, that many times a thing may be saide profitable for a purpose, where profitable shal import sufficient and not barely profitable: as for example, when some reason is adioyned why it shoulde be profitable and nothing else applyed or ser∣uing to that effect. For proofe hereof when the Apostle writeth that Godlines is profi∣table to all things hauing the promises of * 1.164 this life & of the life to come: it can not be denyed, but by profitable here, he meaneth it is sufficient for all things: that is for the obteyning of all good thinges: which sense of this worde is prooued by that which fol∣loweth of the effect, hauing the promises of both lyues. For if godlinesse bryng all good things of this lyfe and of the lyfe to come, it must needes folowe that the Apo∣stle saying, it is profitable to all things, vn∣derstoode it was so fully sufficient, that hee which hath it, needeth not the supplie of a∣ny thing else. For like reason in this place, I say, the Apostle speaking of the Scrip∣ture, as profitable for doctrine for confu∣tation,

for correction and reformation, by profitable, vnderstandeth sufficient. If your example were of the like, it woulde proue the same. If as meate and drinke are profitable to nourish, so they were profita∣ble also to cloth, to giue rest and to make a man perfectly healthie and strong to euery good action: I woulde also conclude vp∣on such causes that it were both profita∣ble and sufficient to mayntaine life. But you stande in neede of an other Censurer, to Censure your comparisons and exam∣ples so often brought in, easily to dereyue the reader, that doth not see howe vnequal∣lie they are yoked, as like thinges to make like proofe, being in deede vnlike and of vn∣like effectes. To returne vnto the text, the sufficiencie of scripture is moreouer proo∣ued by the wordes which got before and followe. Before the Apostle had sayde that all the Scripture is inspired of God: whereupon he inferreth, and is profitable to teach for doctrine and confutation: as if he had sayde, it is profitable to teache the trueth and reproue errour. The strength of which reason lyeth in this, that the light of knowledge which sometime was in man by his creation, is damped and gone out: so

that nowe wee haue no meanes (except God by his holy Spirite doeth inspire vs) to discerne betweene trueth and vntrueth, or betweene good and euill. Nowe this heauēly knowledge, which (as Saint Pe∣ter sayeth) was vttered by the holy men of * 1.165 God, inspired with the holy Ghost, is re∣corded in the bookes of holie Scripture. Whereupon it foloweth that these bookes of the holy worde, and no other, being the authenticall words of the heauenly know∣ledge, which God inspired the holy Pro∣phets and Apostles withall, are so sayde to be profitable to teache the trueth, as it no∣teth this to bee proper to the holy Scrip∣ture, and not to agree to any other whatso∣euer. Therefore if these bee the writings which contayne the wisedome, wherewith God hath inspired his holy men, for such vse of the Church, as is here spoken of, it must needes followe, the knowledge which God hath reuealed, being sufficient for vs, that these holy Scriptures conteining the same knowledge, is lykewise sufficient. Whereby it appeareth that this cause here noted, (to witte of inspiration from God) being the proper cause of the holy Scrip∣tures, and not common to any other wri∣tings

whatsoeuer, doeth implie the effect also folowing in this place, of teaching, dis∣prouing and making perfecte the man of God, to be likewise proper vnto them: and (which I vndertoke to proue) profitable in this place to signifie as much as suffi∣cient.

To this I adde an other reason out of the wordes which followe: wherein be∣cause not some things onely which may in parte make a man perfect, are attributed to the scriptures, and some other thinges left to bee supplied by other meanes: but all things whatsoeuer may bee needefull for vs, are sayde to be perfected by the Scrip∣tures, it must needes follow, that the scrip∣ture alone is sufficient. For that which is profitable to al the partes, which may be re∣quired to perfection, cannot be but sufficiēt for the perfection of the whole: but that the Scripture is profitable in such maner, the Apostle doth fully declare, both in rehear∣sing all the particular partes which are ne∣cessarie, and adding also after generally, that the man of God may be perfect. To this purpose the Apostle hath so set his wordes, as hee could not more effectually by any other speach. For he teacheth, that it

is profitable to make perfect, which yet is * 1.166 made more full by the compound worde adioined, the grace and force of which com∣position (as was noted before) is to note perfection added to perfection, and to sig∣nifie throughly, or perfectly perfect, and that, as hee addeth, for all good workes. This is yet made more full and more waightie by that hee speaketh not here of the cōmon perfection of all men, but of the perfection of the man of God, that is of the Minister. If the scripture conteine know∣ledge to make the Minister throughly per∣fect, for euery part of his office, both in doc∣trine soundly to teach the trueth, and to confute and remoue error: and in life to re∣forme and correct that which is amisse, and to instruct in that which is righteous and holy, how much more is it sufficient for the cōmon knowledge of other men, in whom like perfection of vnderstanding is not so much required.

To these two reasons, because the que∣stion is of importance, I will yet adde one other out of the verse next going before. There the Apostle vseth an argument to perswade Timothy to abide in y^• doctrine of the holy Scriptures, for proofe of which

argument, this seuēteenth verse is immedi∣atly adioyned. His argument is takē from the effect of these holy writings, wherein Timothie had been brought vp frō a child. Which effect is this, that through faith in * 1.167 Christ Iesus they are of abilitie or of pow∣er, or of sufficiencie to make him wise to saluation. For the Apostle sayeth ex∣pressely, that the Scriptures are able, or of power, or sufficiencie (for all these spea∣ches I take to bee of one signification) whereunto: to make him wise: how farre: euen to saluation, that is to teache him all wisedome needeful to saluation. Whereup∣on, as I sayd, the Apostle immediatly brin∣geth in this sentence, that All the Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is pro∣fitable for doctrine, &c. Which must either be sayde to bee impertinent to the former matter of the power or sufficiencie of the Scripture to saluation (which I thinke no man of any reason will affirme) or els it must be confessed, that the Apostle added it for greater plainnes, or for an other proofe. For whether of both it be brought in, it is absurde to bring the lesse to set out, or proue the more. And seeing the Apostle had spo∣ken in the former verse of the sufficiencie

of Scripture, to saye nowe it bringeth but some profite to that purpose, were to saye lesse then he had said before. Wherefore he saying it is profitable, setteth it out as a∣lone and sufficiently profitable, being in∣spired of God, and sanctified by his promise and ordinance, to make perfect the man of God to al heauenly wisedome. Finally, the Apostle hauing put into Tiniothies hande al compleat, necessarie and sufficient furni∣ture, speaketh neuer a whit of your church∣reuealed verities, but onely of the scripture inspired of God. Therefore either he tea∣cheth and concludeth insufficiently: or els the Scripture is sufficiently, wholly, pow∣erfully, and in trueth onely profitable.

For your second reason, I denie that the newe Testament is therefore super fluous, because the olde was sufficient. For this bountifull addition, or accesse of scripture by the Newe Testament, is not to impeach the perfection and profitable sufficiencie, or sufficient profitablenes of the olde Testa∣ment, seeing the Fathers were aswell fa∣ued, as we are now vnder the Gospell, but for a more full, euident, and cleare reue••a∣tion of that, which though to saluation it was sufficient before, yet could not shewe

the infinite riches of Gods goodnesse to∣ward vs, so plainely & so fully as these doe. Iob had sufficient in his greatest want, and no superfluitie in his greatest aboundance, A morning light is sufficient for a man to doe his worke by, yet the brightnesse of the sunne is not therefore needelesse and super∣fluous: for it serueth to giue a clearer, a more certaine and more comfortable direc∣tion then the other. For your by matter, that the wordes omnis and tota, differ in Greeke and Latine, for proofe wherof you appeale to all Logicioners, I dare warrant you they will all condemne your opinion. For omnis homo signifieth euery man, but omnis populus (which is the Vulgar translation) doth not signifie euery people: * 1.168 neyther can you translate the woordes of Saint Luke concerning the taxing that euery earth, or euery worlde should bee tax∣ed: * 1.169 in which places the Euangelist vseth the same worde, the vse wherof in y^• greeke you did not vnderstand. Therefore if you can salue this matter of manifest errour, I will acknowledge my selfe to deale deceit∣fully as you charge me. An other point fol∣loweth like the rest already answered. But the Censurer thus repeateth. Saint Paul

must vnderstand part of the scripture and not the whole, because all was not then written: also nowe wee can not take the Apostles wordes as vttered of all, because much scripture is now wanting as he doth imagine. Should these be your plaine ar∣guments if you could obteine disputation: Should this be the shorter waye? I know not your name, but know I pray you and teach your fellowes to knowe, that the scripture hath bene in all ages sufficient for the time wherein it was written: of all that which hath by seuerall encreases bene writ∣ten, nothing was at any time superfluous: and whatsoeuer hath bene written and not come to our handes, nothing for all that is now missing, that is necessary vnto salua∣tion. He that hath not giuen vs the bookes of Nathan, Gad, Achia the Shilonite, and * 1.170 Iehdo (if they wrote any other then partes of the two bookes of Samuel after his death, & of the first booke of the Kings) also he that hath not giuen vs the rest of Sa∣lomons Prouerbes, (to passe by your ouer∣sight concerning the epistle to the Laodi∣ceans, already noted) therefore gaue them not, because he knewe them not necessarie or expedient for the posteritie. Iohn pro∣ueth * 1.171

this in the conclusion of his Gospell, and Christ teacheth that they which had Moses and the Prophets, euen then had * 1.172 sufficient without miracles and traditions. And you haue no sound opinion of the wis∣dome and mercie of God, if you thinke his maiestie to leaue any age, since he chose a peculiar people, voide of scripture, profita∣ble and sufficient to the saluation of his Church. Thus the reader may see that I neither wrest the former place agaynst my selfe, neither can you doe it, that would so faine.

In the fifth article the Iesuites are reported to say, The want of holy scrip∣tures * 1.173 must be supplied by peecing it out * 1.174 by traditions. For the report of this doc∣trine, the Censurer bestoweth more of his vndeserued tauntes. If the Censure of Co∣len hath no such wordes, Gotuisus failed in citing their booke, but failed not in char∣ging them with their owne doctrine, which all Iesuites and Papistes so vpholde as Peters chaire, both to mainteine their false doctrines, and to vnderset their Anti∣christiā tyraunie. But although you would for the time dissemble the matter, traditiōs are not of so smal force, as to peece out the

want of scripture. For, except the Presidēt of y^e Trent council haue a forge to coyne lies, traditions are a liuing Gospel: and hee vttereth it as a question that can not be de∣nied. * 1.175 This is most true (saith Hosius) that if traditions be reiected, the very Gospell also seemeth to be reiected: for what els are traditions, then a certaine liuing Gos∣pell? In deede traditions make a quicke court at the Vaticane. Thus by your doc∣tors opinion it is most true, y^• traditions are made not a supplie to any wants in y^• Gos∣pel, but an other liuing Gospel, after a sort to giue life to that which in y^• true Gospell seemeth to be dead. And may not a man w^t∣out a lie call this doctrine vlasphemous: My vttering of y^e Cōmandemēt in the sin∣gular number is without additiō or altera∣tion of sense. For Moses in the same Chap∣ter, speaking of the same lawe and to the same men, doth change the plurall number into the singular. The selfe same Lawe also is recited in the singular number in the twelfth chapter of Deuteronomie, & by Salomon, in the thirtieth chapter of his * 1.176 Prouerbes: and euermore that which is * 1.177 said to al is also said to euery one, and truly taken as vttered to euery one. Surely I

cannot guesse what you unagined at this change of the Lawgiuers wordes, without change of the sense, being done by the ex∣ample of the same Lawgiuer in another place, and without any breach of his Lawe: and wherupon your vttermost malice could inferre none absurditie in sense, none iniurie to the scripture, nor aduantage to my cause, but a stinging guesse insinuating some cause mouing mee to this change, which whether you cōcealed as forbearing me, or ashamed on your own behalfe to be∣wraye, the indifferent reader iudgeth. A∣gaine, what made you adde so haynous a slaunder, as if all thinges were lawfull for me: and to charge me, as blaming the A∣postles and Euangelistes for adding the Gospel? Take heede you allowe not your selfe such scope in these suggestions mani∣festly agaynst the trueth and your owne conscience, for you knowe what that sen∣tence implieth, Blessed is he that condem∣neth * 1.178 not himselfe in that thing which hee alloweth. The Lorde that addeth grace to grace, and light to light, he also hath ad∣ded to the lawe, the fulnesse and satisfaction * 1.179 thereof in Christ Iesus, which is published in his most holy and most perfect Gospell.

To expounde Moses wordes, forbidding * 1.180 to adde or take away from the Lawe as spoken of the things he deliuered by word of mouth, and not of the lawe written, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is a doubtfull speaking, and may beare a har∣der conclusion, then I will charge you with. His cōmandement respected the law eyther pronounced or written by him, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 afterwarde to bee preached and written by the holy Prophets and Apostles in the spirite of God. I dare appeale to your con∣science, though it be deliuered from your pen, you do not thinke in your heart, that I woulde haue no scriptures beleeued, be∣sides that which Moses set downe. Wher∣fore your proofe needed not in this matter. To conclude, it is a great iniquirie to adde traditions, or your unwritten ve〈…〉〈…〉 to the written worde of God, whereunto no man may adde, because nothing is wan∣ting: from which no man can take, because nothing is superfluous: but to him that * 1.181 addeth, shal the curses written in the booke be added for euer.

In the sixth place the Iesuites wordes * 1.182 are thus reported: The holy Scripture is a nose of waxe. At the true report of this blasphemous doctrine, you fall into a

storme, perswading that I haue therein sinned agaynst God and abused the Iesu∣ices, with other most bitter woordes: as if I tooke the way to ouermatch both learning and trueth. But howe wrongfully all these woordes are cast out against me, your owne wordes beare wit∣nesse: for presently after the sentence of condemnation, you repeale it and acquite me of the fault: graunting, that as a nose of waxe, may bee formed what way and to what forme one list, so naughtie men may wrest the Scriptures. Notwithstanding, because you presse the wordes against me, let them be examined. First to proue that the Iesuites haue them more plainely then you will acknowledge, I appeale from your Censure, to Andradius playne con∣fession. Hee (as you knowe) defended the Iesuites in these poyntes agaynst Kemni∣tius, which you defende against mee: and hath lent you no small furniture for this seruice. This Andradius (as hauing more learning, and in his kinde more true dea∣ling then you) in handling this article, doth not at all cry out as you doe, but acknow∣ledgeth and defendeth the matter without such needelesse scoffes. And for the words he confesseth saying: The fathers of Colen

I graunt, do say, in the place which Kem∣nitius * 1.183 citeth, that the holy Scripture is as a nose of waxe. The worde (as) may indif∣ferently bee put in, or left out, and the sense all one, as shall be proued. Buclet vs leaue the wordes and followe the matter. Seeing it is now cleere that the I••suites say, the Scriptures are as a nose of waxe, what shall we say? Is this the Censur••es Censure, or the Iesuices doctrine'•• may the worde of God, may the word of power, the vnchangeable word of God, may it (I say) be compared to pliant, changeable & mel∣ting waxe: Is it in the worde so to receiue diuers & contrary fenses, as the waxe recei∣ueth in trueth, and not by misconstering or mistaking of the eyes; contrary formes, or printes from contrary seales? shall Iesu∣ites mainteine this directly or indirectly in a kingdome, where the Gospel is prea∣ched? I appeale herein to the conscience of all that loue the trueth: though a naugh∣tie Iesuite for flatterie of the Pope, or o∣ther Heretike to deceyue people, may wrest and peruert the scripture, yet Saint Peter teacheth, it shall be to his owne de∣struction, * 1.184 and the Scripture notwithstan∣ding shall remaine perfect and vndefiled. For the worde doeth not worke it selfe, ••a∣sely

to receiue and: holde euery forme as waxe d••••th▪ but the trueth of the whole Scripture mainteineth the trueth of eue∣ry branch, it taket•• away th•• ••••ampe, an•• r••sisteth the print of any f••rged 〈…〉〈…〉ent in∣terpretation. Euery sentence in the word of God, is as the arme of a mightie Oke that cannot be broken off, but if you bowe it by force, the bowing will appeare, and the more you force it to come about to your ••ent, the inightier it is to recouer itselfe and returne aganie to his owne course and grouth, and that with ••••rill to him, that offered such violence▪ I coulde not passe from this place easely, because this blas∣phemous doctrine doeth in the Church of Rome (I mea••e the Popish Church, for 〈…〉〈…〉wise I doubt not but God hath his Church in Rome, as he had in Englande, when all Englande seemed to bee Rome) because I say this intollerable abasing and abusing the power and all sufficiencie of the holy Scripture, doeth in the Po∣pish Church, mainteyne the my••••erie of vngodlynesse: it stoppeth vp the fountaine * 1.185 of liuing waters, and prepareth ••isternes and di••ches in place thereof: it chaungeth the milke and water of life mentioned in * 1.186 Esay, into the cuppe of fornications descri∣bed * 1.187

in the Reuelation: finally the traditi∣ons of man must ouerrule the trueth of God. But let vs see what followeth. The Censurer graunteth mee and I graunt him agayne, that the wordes are spoken in a similitude, and I alleadged them in no o∣ther sense: yet hee woulde inforce it vpon me, and vpon his reader to beleeue, that I shoulde absurdely make the Iesuites say, the Scripture is a nose of waxe, without re∣gard of sēblance. But he cannot so much as make my wordes a nose of waxe, to receiue this his counterfeited stampe & false inter∣pretation. And for his obiectiō, it is waste, saying: Although Christ be likened to a Serpent, yet he is no Serpent, and to a ••••∣uetous man, yet he is none. For who doeth at all affirme that which hee doeth con••u••e so carefully? And touching the first ob∣iection, which is like the seconde, where is it sayde that Christ is lyke a Serpent? True it is, the lifting vp of the brasen Ser∣pent in the wildernesse, is compared to the * 1.188 lifting vp of the sonne of man: which will not warrant the woordes of your Censure. It is moreouer one thing to ••ō∣pare that speciall sacrament and signe of the brasen Serpent to Christ, and to com∣pare

Christ to a serpent generally. Thus you haue picked out an example, that in shewe seeme••h to make for you, but is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 deede against you: as I may also say of y^• se∣cond, touching y^t coue••ous man▪ But howe many exāp••••s are against you in this mat∣ter? Christ is likened to a vine, and we may say Christ is a vine: he is likened to a shepe∣heard, * 1.189 & he is a shepheard: God is likened to a consuming fier, and ••her••upon it is writ∣ten, * 1.190 God is a consuming 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against your example, Christ is likened to the bra∣sen serpen••, and we may say he is that bra∣sent serpent lifted vp from the earth at his passion, to drawe all to him selfe. But that * 1.191 you may not haue h••te the va••••age of t••e letters, nowe I haue giuen you your liber∣tie to say what you can, I wil not yeeld that the word (as) is left out▪ in the C••len Cen∣sure. For Payua, as loth as you to grant y^• trueth, doeth yet at last report the wordes altogether as I do••, adding the like out of Pighius, your doctors word••s are: when the fathers of Colen, considered that there * 1.192 were many▪ places in the holy Scriptures, whose true sense doth not easely app••are, but that euery man may at his pleasure drawe them into var••able & diu••••s senses,

in a most apt similitude they called it a nose of wax. And Pighius. The leadē rule of the Lesbian building. By these two pla∣ces Payuas Andradius hath brought you into some worthy suspition of charging me for my autor without cause in ••ther places as well as in this. But now wherin haue I abused the Iesuites learned or vnlear••ed▪ What haue I here sayde, that one of your doctors doeth not ••••owe▪ what haue I done to ouermatch a trueth, in defending the vnchangeable trueth of the scriptures against your doctrine, teaching that here∣••iques may command and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the word of truth, as wax is commanded and framed to what forme they list. Now•• commeth somewhat to make sport, if the granitie of the matter did not require feare and reue∣rence. The Censurer supposeth me, to haue had but one Bible, & that of the old trans∣lation onely, which hath, The Lawe of the Lorde is immaculata vndefiled, or as hee * 1.193 translateth vnspotted, voide of filth and dishouestie. Whereupon the matter is de∣bated at large, what y^t latine worde imma∣culata doth signifie beyonde sea (where the Censurer woulde dissemblingly seeme t•• be) and what it should signifie here in Eng∣land.

A solemne preparation to make shew of a ••••••torie▪ which the Censurer will haue ouer his owne imagination. I shal be con∣uinced for false translation of that I trans∣lated not, and for ill handling that I tou∣ched not. I may as well be censured for the translation of Staphylus, or Lindan•• ••launders, as for the translation of the word immaculata. The original hath, the Lawe of the Lord is perfect, and the best transla∣tions haue so translated it. Your olde trans∣lation doth g•• alone: the Lxx. followe the rest. Wherefore this place out of Dauid doth shewe that the scripture is perfect, and mainteineth her perfection against all cor∣ruptions, as a right line sheweth it self, and bewrayeth that which is crooked. Thus you see I translate not your olde translation in this place with fraude or without ••••aude. Somewhat you imagined in a ••••eame, & tolde it before you were awake.

In the seuenth article the Iesui••es * 1.194 are reported thus to teach: The reading of the holy Scripture, is not only not profita∣ble, * 1.195 but many wayes very hurtfull to the Church. Here the ••ensurer would seeme to denie the doctrine, that in so doing hee may both somewhat couer the absu••di••ie,

and accuse me for my author, as ••••stepor∣••ing the same. Yet after a storme of neede∣lesse wordes, hee doth in effect graunt the matter. But his maner is for some aduan∣tage to report their doctrines otherwise then they are caught or brought into que∣stion. For the Papistes doe restraine the common people from reading the Scrip∣tures, vsing many reasons to proue them hurtful. Besides other your bookes to this purpose, there is▪ one w••••thie of remem∣brance * 1.196 written to y^e Parliament in Queene Maries time, where fiftie reasons, such as they be, are brought, not ••nely to keepe the people from the Scriptures, but for a more fure waye, to keepe the Scriptures from them, not suffering the translation thereof in the English tongue. Wherupon the question wee haue in hand is this: whe∣ther the reading of Scriptures be hurtful, and therefore to bee forbidden. Nowe the Censurer saith the rash and vnconsiderate reading is forbidden, which is from the matter. We doe not ioine issue in this, whe∣ther the people shoulde rashly reade them, or without consideration: but whether you may make men beleeue that the reading of holy scriptures is hurtfull, and therefore to

be res••r••yned. There is no doubt but you holde both, and teach both carefully, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ap∣peareth by a late Iesnites booke written of this matter: yet in disputation you woulde * 1.197 seeme onely to forbid the cash and unad∣ui••ed reading, whereof we make no questi∣on. But your reason is to be layde downe: Whatsoeuer may hurt, though it be in no fault, yet it is to be restrayned: the worde of God hath done such hurt: therefore it is to be restrayned. So you may aswell take a∣way the foode of the body, that body and soule may perish together, because men may surfeit by good meates, and fall into drunkennes by wholsōe wine. Here let me for the scriptures fitly plead against you, your owne rule pleaded in an other place for Philosophie. It is say you, a grosse igno∣rance, for an abuse that may be, to•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 demne the things which bee excellent giftes of God, and sparks of his most high and infinite wisdom. If this he true; the•• is it a blasphemie for an abuse not at all growing by the worde, yet to forbid•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vse thereof▪ and to keepe it in an vnknown tongue, in a barbarous translation, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 condemne, not sparkes of Gods most hig•• and infinite wisedome, but to conde〈…〉〈…〉

euen that high and infinite wisdome it selfe, by making such restraintes and taking such sure wayes to debarre the children of God, from the most necessary euidences of their heauenly inheritance. But in this question * 1.198 agayne, Payua doth deale more plainely to the purpose then the Censurer, who bo∣rowing of Payua this place also, yet lea∣ueth out all that, which maketh not to his purpose, of couering and shielding the Ie∣suites from the trueth that fighteth against them. For Andradius plainely confesseth, that this is the first argument of the Ie∣suites, why the Scriptures should not be read, because (as the Iesuites teach) they * 1.199 haue giuen occasion to all heresies. A very strange assertion: but howsoeuer vnlear∣ned and vnstable men deale, yet the Scrip∣ture giueth no occasion of heresie, much lesse of all heresies, as these fellowes doe thus openly maintaine. Therefore the Ie∣suites, in teaching that such harme com∣meth by reading the word of God, accuse the scriptures as hurtful many wayes, and not profitable, which is asmuch as they are charged withall in the 7. place. The Censurer commonly faileth in leauing the question, and prouing that which is not

called into doubt: as in this place bee pro∣ueth that the worde is without all fault, when men misconster it, or founde here∣sies vpō the misunderstanding of it. This was not in question: yet it is wel prooued 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fitly to ouerthrowe the former doctrine of Iesuites: for, if the scripture be in no fault, testraine not the Scripture, but reforme the wrangling and peruerting wit: if it be in no fault, it is neither the occasion of all heresies, nor a nose of waxe. Your exāple of Christ is easely & truely returned against you. For as Christ is a ruine to none, but * 1.200 to those that receiue him not, and to those that beleeue not in him: so the Scripturè hurteth not, but those that despise the rea∣ding, the hearing and the practise thereof.

The contrary doctrine to alleaged ••ut of Matthew; Yee erre,, not knowing the * 1.201 Scriptures, nor the power of God. The Censurer woulde 〈…〉〈…〉we the applica∣tion of this place by two circumstances, one to proue the word〈…〉〈…〉articular: the ••∣ther because (as he sayth) Christ spake not to the ignorāt people, but 〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Touching the first 〈◊〉〈◊〉, although the Cen〈…〉〈…〉 doth wel lay 〈…〉〈…〉 the particular application of Christ, 〈◊〉〈◊〉∣spect

of the present matters and hearers, yet it will bee founde more then audaritie for any man, so to restraine the doctrines of Christ deliuered in particular, that they must reach no further then the present cir∣cumstances of the matter, and of those dis∣ciples or aduersaries to whome hee spaket for this is nothing els; but to make Christ a Prophet for a time, & not a Prophet for euer. Also by that interpretation his won∣deful workes, & most heauenly doctrines, shall bee made to vs nothing els, but a bare and naked storie, to tell vs what Christ taught others, and not what he hath taught vs: and to declare what hee reprehen∣ded in them, not what he reprehendeth in vs. But the Censurer will answer••, hee mindeth not to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other doctrines to the particular circumstances. And why not any other sentence aswell as this to the Sadduces? for nothing can be more gene∣rall then errour, nothing more vniuersall then the ignorance of Scriptures; which is I thinke, in y^• Censurers iudgement the fountaine of all errour. How commeth it then that he will stop so generalle streame, restrayning that to a fewe, which apper••••••∣neth to all: And for the Sadduces; they

did not only erre in the doctrine of y^• resur∣rection, but were otherwise enemies, & ig∣norant of Christ, not knowing the Scrip∣tures, * 1.202 nor the power of God to saluatiō in him. Wherfore Christ noted vpō one parti∣cular occasion, y^• fountaine of al their blind∣nesse and infidelitie, as well as the cause of their ignorance, touching the resurrection, & their foolish doubt of the seuen brethren. Thus, notwithstāding y^• Censurers iudge∣ment, it is plaine, that the doctrine of this place hath aswel a general vse as a particu∣lar: & that Christ noted the fountaine of all ignorance, & not the ignorance of Saddu∣ces touching resurrection alone.

To your seconde point, that Christ spake not this to the people, but to y^• lear∣ned Sadduces, first I answere, If the learned erre, not knowing the scriptures: the vnlearned are in more danger of errour through the same want. Secondly, if the want were not noted in all, the sup∣plie shoulde not be made and commanded to all: but all, euen the people are com∣maunded to search the Scriptures, therefore * 1.203 not to search them, or to bee ignoraunt of them, is a fault in al, be they learned or vn∣learned. Your argumēt that Christ shoulde

speake onely to the Sadduces, and of the resurrection because it is added, you know not the power of God, is alreadie answe∣red: for it is a generall fault, aswell to bee ignorant of the power of God, as not to knowe the Scriptures. Therefore as the ignorance of the one is condemned in all, so is the ignorance of the other, and the re∣medie for both is found in the exercise and search of the holy scriptures. Your simili∣tude of woordes spoken as by my Lorde Chauncellor to the doctors of the Arches, is vnlearned, for with an example of speach concerning a speciall matter, you would o∣uerthrow that which was spokē by Christ, of a generall cause. But let your example stande: As the studie of the ciuill lawe is proper to all Lawyers: and therefore their lawe bookes to bee read and studied of all Lawyers: so the studie of the spirituall and heauenly Lawe, is the profession of all chri∣stians, * 1.204 and therefore the bookes of that law to be read and studied by all professors of the same, because to erre, not knowing the Scriptures, is a thing common to all men, as was declared. An example of the lyke had bene nothing for your purpose: as if my Lorde Chauncellor should say to some

Iesuites, Yee runne into daunger of trea∣son, not knowing the Law against al those that withdrawe the Queenes subiects from their naturall obedience to her Maiestie: this should be a note not only to those Iesu∣ites, but to al whatsoeuer they be, Iesuites, or Seminaries or massepriestes, or what persons soeuer, y^• they must eyther knowe and keepe the lawe, or incurre the punish∣ment therein expressed agaynst the offen∣ders. Vse good wordes of your countrey∣men: clowne them not, for though they bee simple, and not trayned in the studie of good letters, yet they haue soules to bee fed with the woord: and (howsoeuer you * 1.205 prayse the Colliers fayth, and would put it in execution) they are to take heede they find not Christs word verefied against thē aswell as against y^• Sadduces. Ye erre, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

In the eyght article the Iesuites are * 1.206 reported to say, That the righteous man li∣ueth by fayth, he hath it not in Christ but * 1.207 by his owne workes. First in this questi∣on I am charged with vntrueth, for the Ie∣suites haue no such thing, as the Censurer affirmeth. For answere in this behalfe, I

referre you to my author, whose wordes being truely reported, the charge you laye vpon mee is causelesse, and must returne. But what is this, stil to denie the articles, to mayntaine quarell: and yet to auowe the doctrine to defende the Iesuites: Your owne wordes teache that a mans workes are meritorious in Christ, and meanes to make him righteous with the seconde righteousnesse, as you call it: which is playnely to graunt the doctrine denyed be∣fore. For although you vsey^• name of Christ in this question, yet the Apostle cōcludeth, that you impute your saluation not to Christ, but to your owne workes. I testifie, sayeth the Apostle, (speaking of them that dyd not exclude Christ) that if yee bee cir∣cumcised, Christ doeth nothing profit you: * 1.208 teaching thereby, that whosoeuer will in a∣ny part bee righteous in them selues, can haue no righteousnesse in Iesus Christ. Therefore there was no cause of your im∣pudent lyes.

You come next to the place auouched for confutation of this errour: If righte∣ousnesse * 1.209 come by our workes, it is not nowe grace. This sentence you truely con∣ster as alledged by mee to prooue that no

man: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can bee ryghteous in this life: which you say is both from the pur∣pose and false. But if the woordes be ful of proofe, to shewe there is no righteousnesse in mans woorkes, if it be the manifest doc∣trine of the Apostle, what coulde more fitly conuince the blasphemie, derogating from the righteousnesse which is by Christ, and arrogating to our owne workes, then that place which sheweth, there is no righ∣teousnesse in our workes, but in Christ a∣lone, which is imputed to vs by grace one∣ly: Nowe let vs see how false it is. This you woulde proue by a distinction of a dou∣ble righteousnesse, the first of being called from infidelitie to gayth in Christ, which you say is onely of Gods mercie, and nor by any merit of our workes: the seconde righteousnesse is of such workes as pro∣ceede from men after the former calling, if they remayne in grace. But if this reede whereupon you leane, be broken, you must needes confesse the former proofe against you to be both pertinent and true. For this * 1.210 purpose it is to be considered, that as there was but one blessing shewed to Isaac, so there is but one onely righteousnes, which is not founde in any person or subiect, but

in our Sauiour Christ Iesus alone. This righteousnesse is accounted and imputed * 1.211 to all those that beleeue as their owne. In which imputation it is needefull to consi∣der the proportion betweene y^t redeemer, & his redeemed, for it giueth great light to this questi••. As in Christ there was found no cause of death at al, & yet hee died onely * 1.212 by imputation of our sin: so in vs there is foūd no cause of life at al, & yet we shal liue onely by imputation of his righteousnes. The like proportion is betweene the coue∣nant in the law and the couenant of faith in Christ: for as y^• law admitteth no transgres∣sion, if a man will liue by it: so Christ ad∣mitteth * 1.213 no satisfaction or merit to ioyne 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his perfect merits, if any man will liue by him: that y^• whole woorke of our saluation may be of y^e grace of God in Christ Iesus the au••thour and fynisher of our fayth. * 1.214 But to proue this righteousnesse one, there is a place to the Romanes in the which the righteousnesse wherby God saueth the beleeuers, is called the righ••eousnes of * 1.215 God: and said to be that which is reuealed in the Gospell. This is the righteousnesse of faith, as the Apostle proueth out of the Prophet, witnessing that the righteous mā * 1.216

liueth by faith which place proueth there is but one righteousnesse of men, not onely because the Apostle speaketh of it as one: but in naming it expressely the righteous∣nesse of God, and giuing to this faith both righteousnesse and life. For if the righte∣ousnesse of faith, be the righteousnesse of God, that is, such as God accompteth for righteousnesse, which may also stand before him, and make vs holy in his sight, what second righteousnesse can there be, or what can it doe before God, that is not already accomplished by that first righteousnesse▪ Moreouer if this righteousnesse bee that which the Gospell teacheth, and not the Gospell only, but, as the same Apostle wri∣teth afterward, which is testified by the law and the Prophets, whēce haue you brought * 1.217 vs a second righteousnesse, that neither the Lawe, nor the Prophets, nor the Gospell, haue reueiled vnto vs: The vanitie of this your deuise may further appeare, if we cō∣sider the iustice of God, which can not al∣lowe for righteous any thing, but y^t which is absolutely perfect and holy in all re∣spects, * 1.218 as the Lawe is most perfect & most holy. Wherfore both the satisfaction for ••ur sinne committed, must be such as m••y

fully endure whatsoeuer the Lawe hath threatened for sin, and the obedience so ex∣act and precise as it faile not in any poynt. But this righteousnesse is but one, and is in none but in our sauiour Christ (none o∣ther being able to make that ful satisfactiō * 1.219 for sinne, nor perfectly to keepe the Lawe but he alone) therefore there can ••ee but one righteousnesse, which is in Christ Ie∣sus, & accompted vnto those which beleeue in him according to the Gospell. The holy Apostles teach that after men be conuerted from infidelitie to faith, they stande righte∣ous and liue in the sight of God, not by meanes of their woorkes, but by this faith whereby they beleeued. Abrahams example maketh this good, who after he was called from idolatrie to the seruice of God, is said to haue beleeued, and that his faith was rec∣koned to him for righteousnesse: not his workes first or last, least hee might haue * 1.220 wherein to reioyce and not in God. The Apostle to the Galathians, maketh this eui∣dent. We knowing, saith he, that a man is not iustified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Iesus Christ, we also haue * 1.221 beleeued in Iesus Christ, that we may bee iustified by the faith of Christ, and not by

workes of the Law, because by the works of the Lawe no flesh shalbe iustified. In which words the Apostle plainely maketh saluation an effect of faith, and not of any workes, which we do after wee haue belee∣ued. Our sauiour Christ confirmeth this in diuers places, as in Ioh: He that beleeueth * 1.222 in him that hath sent me, hath euerlasting life, & shal not come into condēnatiō, but is already passed from death to life: &, He that beleeueth in the sonne, hath life euer∣lasting. * 1.223 An other place to the Galathians, maketh all this yet more manifest: where the Apostle speaking of himselfe long after his conuersion saith, That I nowe liue, I liue by the faith of him that loued me, and * 1.224 gaue him selfe for me. By these proofes it is euident, that there is but one onely righ∣teousnesse, for which men are accompted righteous before him, which is the righte∣ousnes of faith. To this may be added, that the only righteousnes of God is that, which giueth all the glorie of our saluation to God only in Christ Iesus, and shutteth out * 1.225 all vaunting and boasting of man: but the second righteousnes, which you imagine, doth not so, but Ieaueth somewhat for man to glory of: therefore it is no righteousnes * 1.226

taught by the Apostle. Lastly, this also is a∣gainst your second righteousnes, that our workes done by faith, yet are not perfect, * 1.227 and therefore cannot make vs righteous before God. These reasons may suffice in this great question of our saluation, briefly to conuince the blasphemie of your deuise inuented of Satan, to deceiue those that seeking saluation more or lesse by their owne workes, faile of that righteousnesse * 1.228 which is by faith onely in GOD through Christ Iesus our Lorde. Nowe seeing the folly of this absurd distinction of a first and of a second righteousnesse is euidently cō∣uicted, it is also worthy of consideration how this Censurer, that taketh vpon him so iustly to deuide and giue euery thing his owne, doeth here notwithstanding huddle and confound righteousnesse with regene∣ration, and iustification with sanctification. For that which hee calleth the second righ∣teousnesse, is that which the Scripture cal∣leth * 1.229 the New man, the fruits of the Spirit or regeneratiō. Furder also where he saith, The first righteousnesse is of Gods mercie only, and no way of our workes, or by any merit of the same, it is to be noted that hee is constrayned to acknowledge a righte∣••usnesse

by faith onely, without any de•••••••• of workes: whereupon it ••hould be obser∣ued that the Censure•• him selfe seemeth t•• be ashamed of y^e merit of cōgruence, as the Schoolemen terme it, while he so ••••atly & fully affirmeth our calling to bee onely of Gods grace without any merit of ours.

Now to returne to his Censure againe, * 1.230 he addeth in the end a Censure vpon the al∣legation of the text vouched out of the Ro∣manes, for the disproofe of the former blas∣phemous opinion. This he blameth as im∣pertinent and vntrue: impertinent, because (in his construction) it is against the righ∣teousnesse of good workes before our cal∣ling: and not generally against the righte∣ousnesse of all good workes: wherein hee seemeth not to haue regarded the reason of the Apostle, which is taken from the na∣ture of grace and workes so contrarie, that the one can neuer nor in any wise stande with the other. Therefore the argument is strong to proue that our saluation cannot ••e both deserued, and also freely giuē. N••••∣ther doth this argument holde in election onely, but whatsoeuer is of grace, as ••••••••∣tion, iustification, sanctification, glory, all these are in no 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or part, of works. Thus

the place is so forcible to the purpose it was alledged for, that the Censurer is not able ••o escape the sentence therof. He com∣plaineth lastly of wordes added, which are but to cleare the sense, and taken out of the second to the Galathians: where to like ef∣fect the Apostle faith, If righteousnesse be * 1.231 by the lawe, Christ dyed without cause. Thus, hauing satisfied all the Censurers pretensed doubtes, and conuicted him of er∣rour, in the blasphemous doctrine of a se∣cond righteousnesse, I may worthely leaue the Iesuice to his voluntary Whip, for re∣formation of his iudgement: otherwise if he wil not learne to giue al the honour and causes of saluation to God in Christ, but * 1.232 will, in establishing his owne righteous∣nesse, abandon the righteousnesse of God by fayth, which must stand altogether of it selfe, then in so teaching he wil drawe vpon * 1.233 him selfe other Whippes euen Scorpi••ns whose sting abide for euer. For auoyding hereof I pray God (if it may make for his glory) that you Iesuites may receiue the loue of the trueth, & that you maye seeke & * 1.234 finde saluation in the merites of Christ a∣lone to life euerlasting.

The ninth report of ••esui••e•• doctrine * 1.235

is: Men doe surely hope that euerlasting * 1.236 life shalbe giuen them, but they doe not beleeue it: now hope often faileth, ••••her∣wise it were no hope. This 〈…〉〈…〉cle 〈◊〉〈◊〉 co••∣fessed without any co••••radiction, that the wicked seruant may be iudged by his owne * 1.237 mouth. But the ••••uching of the places for ••ontrarie d••••trine, is ••ensured for vnlear∣ned huddling▪ vp and confounding hope and faith as one thing: which note of the Censure, I may truely say, came from no deepe knowledge. A litle iudgement might haue serued your Censureship to discerne▪ that the two places were not alledged to proue or disproue any thing of faith (the ful certein••ie wherof is proued against you by the certein••i•• of hope) but to ouerthrowe that which the Iesuites say in the latter parte of the sentence, against which these places serue plainely and expressely. For what may more cleare••y proue against the Iesuites doctrine, that hope neuer faileth, then the Apostles wordes, calling 〈◊〉〈◊〉 The * 1.238 ancre of the soule. Where by he n••••eth our f••eedo••e from danger in all stormes of ••entations, ••idding out the time of this life wi〈…〉〈…〉 any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 o•• feare, and without any 〈…〉〈…〉 touching 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈…〉〈…〉 hea∣uen.

To shewe the force of this assurance, the Apostle vseth very significatiue words, calling it a sure and stable ancre: and yet to make it so full that no feare or doubt may remayne, he addeth that it entreth in∣to the inwarde of the Vaile, whereunto Christ is entred, meaning thereby the hea∣uens. Which importeth as much as if hee shoulde say, we that haue cast this Ancre a∣boue in heauen, are so much more safe, then they whose Ancre is cast downe into the Sea, as the holde wee haue taken in hea∣uen by the Ancre of hope, is surer. Yea, the very Rockes shal sooner faile, thē our hold, settling vpon the strength & truth of gods promise, which are al Yea & Amē in Christ * 1.239 Iesus. This our shoote Ancre of hope, hath taken holde of the mercy seate of God, and of the throne of grace, which except some * 1.240 storme be able to remoue, wee are in most ioyfull and stedfast safetie.

The like is promised by y^e other place out of y^e fifth to the Romanes: for, if hope ma∣keth not ashamed, and shame commeth * 1.241 when a man faileth of that be hoped for: then hope can not faile. The Apostle ma∣keth this more strong by that which foilo∣weth as a reason, The loue of God is aboū∣danly

shead out into our hearts by the ho∣ly Ghost which is giuē vnto vs. By which reason it appeareth, except the holy Ghost hath giuen vs a wrong testimonie of the loue of God, the hope which we haue con∣ceiued thereby cannot deceiue vs. Thus you see these places so truely and fitly al∣ledged, that al your falsely named learning will not be able truely to answere the alle∣gation of them, which notwithstanding it pleaseth you to call vnlearned. But let vs see what you call learning: forsooth the doctrine of Iesuites, touching the doubt∣fulnes and feare which is in hope, that is true, learned and cleare. This is (as the pro∣phet complaineth) to call good badde, and * 1.242 sweete sower: whereunto you know what belongeth.

For aunswere to these two places of hope, the Iesuite•• doctrine is declared at large, the effect of all standing in two pointes: the first concerning faith, the other of hope. Of faith they teach, that no man may beleeue that he in particular shalbe saued without a particular reuelatiō from God. A faithlesse doctrine of faith: and therefore not to bee lightly passed ouer. You seeme to proue it by reasons, one

drawen from y^t obiect of faith, which is the word written, or tradition, whereof neither as you say, doeth testifie mens saluation in particular: the seconde taken from the vn∣certaintie of the things beleeued: which (as the Censurer supposeth) doe depende vpon such conditions as possibly may not be per∣fourmed. Both these great points, for want of scripture he setteth foorth by examples, as minding rather to perswade then to proue. The first is of the answerer: the se∣conde of the possibilitie to be damned, as did fall out in Iudas, and may fall out (a more * 1.243 fearefull case then I woulde put of him. had bee not put it of him selfe) in the Cen∣surer him selfe. Nowe let vs consider, what great learning the Iesuices haue in this their opiniō of faith, as the Censure•• doth report them. To iudge, that without par∣ticular reuelation by name, no man can be sure of his saluation, is expressely against that the woorde of God ••eacheth in this great question. Therefore, howe lerane•• soeuer the Iesuites make them selues, yet in deede as the Apostle speaketh of the wise * 1.244 Gentiles, they become starke fooles, not knowing true wisedome out of the worde, but bastard wisedome by their foolish di∣stinctions.

The Censurers worde of Tra∣dition must bee reserued for a fitter place. Touching the promise of the Gospell, it is * 1.245 general: whosoeuer beleeueth shall be sa∣ued: & the Censurer confesseth it. This ge∣nerall promise hath place, and is certainely verefied in euery particular y^t beleeueth. E∣uery sensible mā without further learning may easely iudge in this doctrine: whatsoe∣uer is true in y^e general, must needes be true in euery particular. Nowe, if it be vndoub∣tedly true, that euery beleeuer shalbe saued, it must needes bee also, that Simeon and Lazarus beleeuing in Christ shalbe saued. Therefore what needeth any speciall reue∣lation in the worde, for that which is suffi∣ciently comprehended vnder the generall: what neede is there by name to saye from mā to man by name, Lazarus shalbe saued, & Citus shalbe saued, and 〈…〉〈…〉we shall be saued, and so infinitely? Or shall we say that God in respect of persons doth particular∣ly assure some of their certaine saluation, leauing all the rest to be tossed and caried vp and downe with feare and hope, as a ship in the sea caried hither and thither with contrary winds? Moreouer the very place * 1.246 cited by the Censurer as a particular reue∣lation,

was not particular, but generall to all the disciples, that beleeued by vertue of a more generall couenant made to all that beleeue whatsoeuer. For, to examine that place neerer, all the disciples and all the A∣postles, had not their names written in the booke of life: for Iudas was excepted. And here by the waye, the Censurers ouer∣sight * 1.247 must bee noted, that draweth the place of Luke as speciall and particular to the Apostles, being spoken of the seuen∣tie disciples. He wanted special knowledge herein, when hee so boldly made it an argu∣ment * 1.248 of the Apostles speciall reuelation.

Of the most certayne and sure founda∣tions of our particular fayth and hope, the Apostle writeth in the eight to the Ro∣manes, * 1.249 saying that nothing was able to take from him the loue which God beareth to him in Christ Iesus, which hee setteth out by naming such things as are most like and mightie to strike a feare and doubt in∣to his heart, as oppression, anguish, persecu∣tion, famine, nakednesse, and finally death it selfe: nay he addeth agayne, that neyther lyfe nor death, nor Angels, nor things pre∣sent, nor thinges to come, nor height nor depth: that is, what so euer is in heauen a∣boue,

or in the earth beneath, or in the par•••• vnder the earth, finally that no creature is able to separate him from the loue of God, that is in Christ Iesus. But in maynte∣nance of these errours you are wont to say, this was a speciall p••etogatiue of the Apo∣stle, which is easely taken away by that S. Peter writeth to this purpose: that the Saints had obtayned lyke precious fayth with him: which was true not in the de∣gree, but in the kind and substance of faith: which shoulde wholly differ, if the Apostles * 1.250 had a faith of their particular saluation, and we not. Agayne the certaintie of fayth ap∣peareth by these reasons which the Apostle alleadgeth: Who shall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the chosen of * 1.251 God? It is God that iustifieth, who shall condemne? It is Christ that hath died, nay rather who is raysed vp againe; who is al∣so at the ryght hande of God; who ma∣keth into cession for vs. These reasons of a most sure faith and hope that wauereth * 1.252 not, are of no particular reuelation, but of the generall doctrine of the Gospel, and of the common saluation, as Iude calleth it, * 1.253 which of right apper〈…〉〈…〉 to euery belee∣uer, aswel as to Peter or to Paul.

The Consurers set onne reason is, that

the faithfull may fallaway from the fayth and from saluation: where as the things be∣leeued remaine most certayne. The groūd of this reason is to be denie••, for it is most vntrue, that any man who hath had fayth, can euer afterward finally fallaway. This may bee prooued by euident testimonies of the scripture, beside those alleadged aboue: as that which Christ teacheth of the belee∣uer, in the eyght chapter of Iohn, He shall neuer see death: in the fourth, But the wa∣ter * 1.254 that I shall giue him, shall be in him a spring of waters, flowing vp to euerlasting life: in the tenth. The father is greater * 1.255 then all, and none is able to take them out of the fathers hand: Againe of the faithfull it is true, which the Apostle vniteth, that God hath iustified and glorified them. So * 1.256 certayne it is, as if it were already euery way perfourmed. But it were long to re∣peate any ino••e. Notwithstanding there are places that mention a fayth, which see∣med for a time to be faythfull, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as the fig tree was full of leaues, but with∣out * 1.257 fruite. As for the examples of Iudan who hath falne, and of your selfe, who (〈◊〉〈◊〉 saye) may likewise cast your selfe away, if you list: I can saye of Iudas hee neuer be∣leeued,

because he was y^e childe of distructi∣on. * 1.258 For your selfe, if you haue bene alwaies of that minde you were of when you wrote this, you neuer had any true faith, and ther∣fore coulde neuer yet fall awaye from it. What God may vouchsafe you hereafter I knowe not, but leaue it to his wisedome to dispose of his owne as it shal please him: but if euer he vouchsafe you this gift, I am sure the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile a∣gainst * 1.259 you.

Your seconde poynt is of hope, which in your doctrine hath two respectes, one of Gods mercie, and in that regard it is full of confidence: the other in respect of Gods iustice, which hath feare and doubt an∣nexed with it. The places alledged before of hope, you expaunde for the confidence thereof: which is true, if you stayed there, not adding other respects to roote out that which you woulde seeme to plant: for you shoulde haue made hopes•• firme and sure, that it can not be deceiued. But, as being of an other iudgement, you say that hope re∣specteth also the iustice of God, and the feareful effectes of his feueritie, which you quote out of the Scriptures: concernyng which effectes I will not dispute with you.

Onely in alleadging the last, I note your wantes, that without all regarde or any warrant of the text, dare say, that those re∣probates * 1.260 shall come confidently in the last day hoping to be saued. For besides that it is vnpossible that their conscience can haue any sparke of confidence or hope of saluati∣on; there is not any mention of such confi∣dent hope in the text, eyther expresly or by implication. If they had some hope, then also they must haue some faith, for they goe together hande in hande. Although I thus linke them together, yet I do not confound * 1.261 them: but acknowledge this differēce, that as faith is a full persuasion of the promise: so hope is a patient expectation and loo∣king for, of the things which are beleeued. It is you therfore, that in deede huddle and confounde hope and a vaine perswasion as one thing: where as hope is no lesse sure then fayth, being grounded vpon the same foundation of the worde, and hath the same fulnes of persuasion. But this is ignorance * 1.262 and confusion, which who so discrieth, may well marueyle. what cause you or your friendes finde to hoast of your learning or order for disputation. Such cōfusion must be in Babell, which leauing with you: I

saye further, that hope neuer respecteth Gods iustice, nor any thing else, but the things that are beleeued: which are y^• most sweete and pretious promises of his life, * 1.263 kingdome, and glorie. Therfore what cau∣ses shoulde hope haue to feare: True it is that neither fayth nor hope is so perfect in vs, but that in these respects you name, we often feare: but this feare is no woorke of hope, no more then doubt is a woorke of fayth. For to say that hope feareth in some respects, is as much as to say, faith in some respectes doubteth and is no faith. We doe both doubt and feare, such are our infirmi∣ties: but that we doubt, it is not of fayth, but of vnbeliefe: neyther doe we feare, as you speake of feare, by any effect of hope, but by the contrary worke of desperation. But after so many and sufficient reasons * 1.264 out of the worde to prooue this question of importance, the woordes of the Censurer offer one not to be neglected. He affirmeth that hope in respect of the goodnesse of God is full of confidence and assurance. Therefore although he will needes against reason make confidence fearefull, yet shall he neuer cast any shadowe of feare vpon as∣surance, especially vpon a full assurance

such as he confesseth. Nowe for the places * 1.265 you alleadge, they concerne not this feare nowe in question, but expresse a godly care to liue woorthie our calling, which is not against the confidence of hope, but a reme∣die agaynst presumption and securitie. The place which you alleadge out of the preacher, sheweth you to be a great clarke, * 1.266 able to reade and cite a place, though you come not neere the matter by many de∣grees. The wise man there disputeth of that a man may gather by prosperitie and aduersitie, and not what he knoweth by the worde of God. For neyther can aduersitie nor prosperitie shewe the loue or hatred of God toward vs: it was the deceitfull coun∣sell of Iobs frendes, to drawe him into these argumentes of Gods purpose. But Iob by fayth coulde confesse agaynst all calamities and extremities, saying, though he kill mee, yet will I beleeue in him still. * 1.267 Thus the learned diuinitie of the Iesuites, may appeare to them that will beholde it. Howe dyd you forgette the two milstones you are wont to alledge for teachers in this matter. When a man you saye, doeth be∣bolde that he standeth vpon, it maketh him holde: but looking vnto that ouer his head

he is in feare. Wo be vnto them that teach such offensiue and erroneous doctrines, deceitfully confirming them with simili∣tudes and distinctions so farre from the trueth, and yet easie to be imbraced, and de∣ceiue the ignorant. It were better for them that a milstone were hanged about their necke, & they throwne into the bottome of the sea, then thus to infeeble the faith and hope of Gods children, by their faithles and fearefull doctrines. Yet the Censurer and his fellowes (if you will beleeue him) re∣concile all Scriptures together, mayntey∣ning confidence and feare in Christian hope, whereas we are sayde to confounde and huddle vp matters: but hereto I an∣swere, let him that offendeth herein, be•• both offend to which himselfe, and not recon∣ciled to God, till he repent.

In the tenth article the Iesuites are * 1.268 reported to ••ayr, The Scripture in deede neuer teacheth the inuocation of Saintes, * 1.269 yet we must beleeue, receyue and holde it. Here you Censure both the alleadging of the Iesuites opinion, and the text auou∣ched to disproue the same. You saye it is false: that they graunt, the inuocation of Saintes is no where taught in the Scrip∣tures.

Neuerthelesse you graunt after∣warde that Monhemius charging them so, and therfore gathering that it ought not to be beleeued, they make this answere, y^• many things are to be beleeued, which are not expressely set downe in the Scripture. To which purpose you your selfe adde af∣terwarde, that the inuocation of Saintes is deduced out of many and euident places of Scripture: whereby it appeareth, that you all confesse, that the Scriptures ex∣pressely teach it not. Nowe, that praying to Saintes is by necessary consequence to be gathered out of many euident places of the Scriptures, and to be proued by gene∣rall Councils, Fathers, and the vniuersall practise of all Christen dome from the be∣ginning, though you boldly affirme it, yet you vouch not any one place of scripture, nor any one proofe of so many: If you haue so good bookes to shewe, it standeth vpon your credit to bryng them to lyght. For where as your idolatrous praying to saints * 1.270 is detestable in euery sort, both for the sinne it selfe, and because you commende it with∣out any likely colour of excuse: if you bee not able to answere to so grieuous a crime as you are charged with herein, (being in

deede high treason against the heauenly Maiestie of the eternall God) yet you may alledge somewhat by waye of excuse, to finde some fauour, if so great authoritie, as you pretende, haue carryed you awaye like simple people to ryse vp and rebell a∣gaynst the Lorde. You sende vs to your Catholike bookes touching this question, which we haue seene and read, but fynde not any warrant, which may iustifie your doctrine.

Hauing hoasted of much & perfourmed nothing, in your second Censure, of y^• place alledged agaynst Saintes inuocation, you blame me for auouching but that one text of scripture for the disproofe: yet your selfe haue brought none for your necessa∣ry defence. To ouerthrowe the place, you bring two answeres, but tel vs to which of them you will stand. The first is grounded in Limbo patrum, that is to say, hath no grounde at al, as there was neuer any such Limbus, but framed & setled in your ima∣gination. The seconde, which you seeme to relie more vpon, is in effect this asserti∣on: not to knowe is not to allowe. This if I might graunt you, it doeth not take away the force of the place. Out

of y^• which, allowing you your owne sense, I reason thus: Because GOD onely is here declared to be of fatherly loue toward vs, who also is readie to pardon vs, when * 1.271 Abraham by your sense, would not knowe vs but condenme vs: therefore it is both wisedome and duetie to praie to God, and the contrary both vanitie & sinne. But be∣cause you require other reasons and pla∣ces for this purpose, take these of a num∣ber. It is not lawfull to giue the worship of God to any other, according as it is writtē. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God & * 1.272 him only shalt thou serue. I wil not giue my glory to any other, nor my praise to idols. But prayer is a speciall honor and seruice that God requireth of vs, as it is said in the fiftieth Psalme. Call vpon me in the day * 1.273 of trouble, and I wil deliuer thee, and thou shalt glorifie me. Whatsoeuer you shall aske the father in my name, he will graunt * 1.274 it vnto you. Againe, a man cannot praye to any but to those in whom he doth beleeue. Rom. 10. How shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued? But it is * 1.275 not lawfull to beleeue in any but in God a∣lone: which is proued by the former pla∣ces, faith being a principall part of Gods

seruice: Therefore it is not lawfull to pray to saintes or to any creature whatsoeuer. I might here shewe all promises made to prayer: all precepts and examples of pray∣er in all the whole bodie of the Scriptures to be onely of prayer to God: and no one precept, promise, or approued example of prayer to any saint liuing or dead, or to any other creature. But this place being cleare and mightie against you: I will conclude with the Prophet Ionas, They which ob∣serue lying vanities, let them forsake the * 1.276 goodnes shewed vnto them: but with the voyce of thankesgiuing will I sacrifice vn∣to the Lorde, I will pay that which I haue vowed, all maner of saluation is of the Lorde.

In the eleuenth the Iesuites are char∣ged * 1.277 to teach that Christ neuer sayd to the lay men, Doe this in remembrance of mee. * 1.278 Seeing you pretend, that notwithstanding you expound Do this, of the Ministers on∣ly, yet you meane not so, but that the peo∣ple are also commaunded to communicate at the Lordes Supper as well as they. I can the more easely leaue you to followe your owne sense: for the doctrine against lay mens consecration or ministration, is

not in controuersie, but it is (except you faile) holden on both, that none but called Ministers should minister the sacraments. But if, as you haue alreadie committed the greatest sacriledge and churchrobbery that may bee in taking away from the people the Cup of the newe Testament, and the Communion of the pretious bloud of our * 1.279 Sauiour Christ: so nowe by this expositi∣on, you would leaue the people at libertie, to chuse whether they will be partakers of this bodie too, or no, y^• you may driue them altogether from the table of the Lorde, the sacriledge shalbe so made the more intolle∣rable. If the Commaundement, Doe this * 1.280 in remembrance of me, binde not the peo∣ple to come to the Lords table, howe shall the other wordes, Take ye, Eate ye, bynde them? What moued you here to cite your Clement, Ambrose, & Cyprian with others I knowe not, except it were some meri∣ment, to ioyne with your similitude of sin∣ging: for in good earnest you minde not by those places without matter in them, to proue that the wordes of Christ, Doe this in remembrance of me, were onely saide to the Ministers touching Consecration, and not to the people also for their partici∣pation.

In the twelfth Article the Iesuites are reported to say, Traditions are of e∣quall * 1.281 authoritie with the worde of God: * 1.282 wee must beleeue them though they bee manifestly against the Scripture. Here the reporte and the texte vouched to disproue their doctrine are both censured. The first for adding, we must beleeue them, though they be manifestly against the Scripture, & for reporting the rest so generally and confusedly. Touching y^• latter point, if my report of your doctrine be in these wordes: Traditions are of equall authoritie with the worde of God, meaning it of some on∣ly (for who would thinke it of all, you ha∣uing so many and so feeble?) why doe you charge mee; as generally and confusedly saying, al traditions are equal with y^• scrip∣tures? Was it I pray you, to deserue your owne note of a sounde lye for a parting blowe? which false mis〈…〉〈…〉 you haue doubled to make it the sounder. For aun∣swere to the former poyut, I doe not onely auow that I haue faythfully reported my authors wordes (which is alwayes my iust defence against your vniust flaunder, laying them vpon me▪ but I say further, that their

practise compared with their wordes will ••ustifie the report as truely layde downe against them. For proofe whereof not to goe further, the Censurer rehearseth a∣mongest these traditions, which the Po∣pish Church charge our faith withall, the number of the bookes of Scripture, & the Lent fast. Of al other traditions these two are taken out to stande for their owne credit and for the credit of the rest: let vs therefore see what treasons there are a∣gainst God in these your traditions. First the Apocrypha bookes are not in the aun∣cient Canon or language of Canaan: the * 1.283 fathers haue disauowed them, they are eui∣dently repugnant to the doctrine of the ho∣ly scriptures, and dis〈…〉〈…〉eeing among them selues. Yet your Trent conspirarie doeth adde them to the number of the Canonical bookes, and bolde all men accursed, that holde them not for canonicall scriptures. Therefore this your tradition is manifest∣ly against the word of God. Further also, what is more manifest against the woorde of God then the doctrine of deuils? The Lent fast, as you commaunde to keepe it, for conscience sake, forbidding meates cre∣ated * 1.284 of God to bee taken with thankesgi∣uing,

is plainly called a doctrine of deuils. Furthermore your opinion is playnely de∣liuered to be with this distinction: Eccle∣siasticall traditions are of no greater au∣thoritie then the writings and other de∣crees of the Church: and Apostles traditi∣ons are of no lesse authoritie then if they had bene written by them, or then are the other thinges which they wrote: This is confusedly taught and needeth yet more plainenesse: for not all orders deliuered by the Apostles, are to bee kept perpetually and vnchangeably, of like authoritie with the doctrine of the Gospell, which they preached. The Apostolique doctrine is per∣petuall, subiect to no varietie of persons, of times or places: but some traditiōs, that is, some orders are altered, as that in the acts, where they commaunde to absteine from strangled and from blood: for it appeareth * 1.285 that the Apostles commanded not this for a perpetuall order, alwayes inuiolably to be obserued, but onely for a time to auoids offences: which cause ceasing, the order or tradition was no longer in force. Againe, some orders might be set downe by them for comlinesse, which yet were not to be be∣leeued as necessary partes of saluation, nor

yet to remayne for euer in that forme or kynde: and therefore can not be matched with the Apostolique doctrine of fayth, which is euer al one, and which whosoeuer beleeueth not, cannot bee saued, Nowe * 1.286 touching your pretensed Apostolicall tra∣ditions, I vtterly denie that there are any such, beside those which are euidently she∣wed, or by iust consequence fitly gathered out of the written worde. For what so euer is necessary to saluation, is in this sort to be * 1.287 proued by the holy Scriptures. Therefore your Censureshippe dyd well to adde, If they be certaynly descended from Christ and his Apostles. But how can this I pray you be certaynely knowen, but by the holy writings: can any other custome or testi∣monie assure your consciences what came vndoubtedly from Christ, or what from his Apostles: Is there any one of your tra∣ditions that you can vouch to descend from so sufficient authors, otherwise then by re∣port of insufficient witnesses: What is it then for you to boast of inuincible argu∣ments to proue diuers doctrines not writ∣ten, but left by woorde of mouth onely, whereas you bryng nothing but counter∣feyt Couneils, erring Fathers, fabulous

stories, and Apocrypha scriptures. This is right the bragging Apostle, and a shewe of the vaine chalenger. Yf a man coulde be feared with the guilte of your armour, or with your plume of feathers, you woulde bee a worthie champion, wounding more with a vayne feare; then with the force of your shrinking arme. In this encounter of al your profes, you haue sorted out two: the first is out of that excellent chapter to the Thessalonians, conteining a prophe∣cie * 1.288 and reuelation of Antichrist. For an an∣swere to which place it is first to be vnder∣stoode, that the worde Tradition in the A∣postles speach, commeth as it doth in La∣tin, of a verbe to deliuer, so that whatsoeuer y^• Apostle deliuered to the Churches, those were the traditions hee lefte with them. Therefore I denie that Paule doth in any place by tradition signifie any vnwritten veritie, but that as in other places, he vnder∣standeth the doctrine of the Gospel, which in the sundrye partes thereof he deliuered. This appeareth apparauntly by the place so cited for your purpose, without regarde of any more then the worde Tradition. For in the verses nexte before, the Apostle ma∣keth mention of the Thessalonians faith to

the trueth, saying, God hath called you * 1.289 thereunto by our Gospell, to obteyne the glory of our Lorde Iesus Christ: and ther∣upon inferreth this conclusion: now there∣fore brethren stand fast, & holde the tradi∣tion which you haue learned, eyther by worde or by our epistle. Whereby it plain∣ly appeareth, that the traditions or thinges deliuered by him, partly by word, and part∣ly by writing, were the diuers partes of the Gospell which hee had taught them. Wherefore the written woorde affordeth you no proofe for vnwritten verities. The seconde is of doctrines, which you say, wee holde not by record of writing, but by word of mouth from Christ and his Apostles: as for example, baptisme of infants, celebratiō of Sunday, y^• number of y^• bookes of scrip∣ture, & the fast of Lent. If this be not hud∣ling and confounding of things together of vnlike sort, I knowe not what may be cal∣led confusion. For what order is it (to re∣peate vpō the Censurers occasion y^• which was noted in the fourth article) to match the baptisme of children with the fast of Lent: The one being by plaine argument gathered out of the worde, as namely out of the wordes of the conenant, I will bee

thy God and the God of thy seede, and * 1.290 thy children after thee for euer. This coue∣naunt dyd appertayne to both a like, to A∣braham and his seede: whereunto the seale and practise was adioyned in circumcising infantes of eyght dayes, as well as Abra∣ham * 1.291 of great age, and that by expresse com∣maundement of God. Thus the doctrine is so prooued out of the written worde, as that no doubt remayneth. Nowe circum∣cision was the sacrament or seale of that * 1.292 righteousnesse which is by fayth, as Saint Paul teacheth: wherein it is equall our baptisme. But this is your great learning; when you are not able for your ignorance, to prooue a doctrine out of the written worde, to say, we haue it by tradition, and by worde of mouth from the Apostles. Now your Lent fast as you vse it, hath not onely no grounde out of the worde, but is agaynst the worde as I prooued before. If this bee your methode and discretion, I maruell not if good order be huddling and confounding in your accompt. For the number of the bookes, and for the Lordes day, I myght likewise make proofe out of the worde: so that if you can bring vs no∣thing by worde of mouth from the Apo∣stles,

but your Lent fast, your letters of credence will not serue you to be deleeued.

The seconde Censure is that the place alleadged by me to confuce the aucthoritie of traditions, should be impertinent. This the Censurer woulde shewe by three diffe∣rences betweene it and this purpose. First, of the diuers cause of those traditions, which our Sauiour Christ inueyeth a∣gainst, whereof they had beene authors to them selues, and of these which he affir∣meth to descende from Christ and his Apo∣stles. But as in deede the difference woulde be great if this were true, so being false and vntrue as it is, it can make no difference at all. Theirs were in deede such as they af∣firme, and though you deny it, so are yours also. For which of all your traditions came eyther frō Christ or from his Apostles? whē you proue them frō either of them, your dif∣ference shall be allowed. Secondly, you say Christ reprehendeth not al obseruation of mēs traditiōs, but the naughtie obseruing of thē: which was, as you affirme, in that y^• Pharises esteemed them more then Gods word, & brake it for the keeping of them, which you condemne. This also, if it were true, were a sufficient difference: but it is

vntrue that our Sauiour Christ reproued onely the esteeming of them more then Gods commaundementes. It can not bee denied, but he reprooued this in them in the same chapter before: but in the woordes alleadged, You worshippe mee in vaine, * 1.293 teaching doctrines that are but traditions of men, (which are no wordes of compari∣son) our Sauiour simplie rebuketh them for esteeming the keeping of mens traditi∣ons to be any seruice of GOD: to which ••ude the sentence had bene first vttered by * 1.294 the Prophet. The thirde note is double, first that these traditions were idle & foo∣lish: of which sort are yours, and whatsoe∣uer the idle brayne of man deuiseth to serue ••od withall: the second that some of them were impious, direct contrary to the word of God, such as were certayne corrupt ex∣positions of the lawe: where you are as like to them, as the sonne may be to the fa∣ther. For neuer were there more false glo∣ses vpon the word of God violently thrust, and by litle and litle secretly conueyed into the Church, peruerting the true meaning of the Scriptures, and corrupting the sim∣ple worshippe of GOD, then haue beene brought in by your Rabbines, that haue

obtayned the highest seates, and the most honourable names, more then euer did any among the Iewes. You speake of the Tal∣mud as dyd bastarde Denis of the orders in heauen: but this florish of your skill in those bookes because it hurteth not the cause, let it serue you and your frendes, for as much credit as it may.

Lastly the Iesuites are reported to teach that we must worship y^e image of Christ, * 1.295 with like honour that wee doe the holy * 1.296 bookes of the Gospell. In this article the doctrine is graunted without any word of contradiction: your Censure onely tou∣cheth * 1.297 the second to the Corinthes the sixt chapter, as not alledged to the purpose. In deede if you list not to vnderstand to what end it is vouched, you may well complaine against the alledging thereof as from the matter. You take it as brought to proue, that we may worship the image of Christ with greater honour, then the bookes of the Gospell: but you mistake the matter, and wilfully (as it shoulde seeme) to haue some what against the cause, for how could you think, that he which detesteth al idols, would alledge a place to prooue that the image of Christ is worthy honour more

then Gospels: Or howe may not any ma•• note you of open contradiction against the word of God, that being deuoutly madde vpon idols, would for their loue prophane the temple of God, and therefore dare to say there is more agreemēt betweene them (which yet the Apostle maketh most con∣trarie) then there is betweene the place of Saint Paul, & the matter which the same place doth fitly disprooue: But if you li•••• to vnderstand, the place serueth to prooue that no image at all is to be worshipped, for which the wordes are so pertinent and is strong, as all the wisedome of your Cen∣sureship and of the rest, will neuer bee able to answere them. Therefore you lost your labour in framing arguments, to prooue why the material booke of Gospels should be no lesse worshipped then the image of Christ: for neither of bath are to bee wor∣shipped, nor any other creatures whatsoe∣uer, according to that which was before al∣ledged to this purpose: Thou shalt wor∣ship * 1.298 the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serue. You can not escape, for saying you giue no diuine honour vnto them, for this bowing downe before them (which is one of the least deuotions you vse) is cha∣lenged

as diuine honour, and expressely forbidden in any respect of religion or de∣uotion * 1.299 to images, or any other creature, as hath beene often declared. But here saying the honour done to the image of Christ and to the letter of the Bible is not done to them selues, you dissemble your owne idolatrous doctrine, which alloweth the same honour to the image, that is due to the paterne, and namely the same most ho∣nourable and diuine worship of Latria to the Crucifix, which is due to the Lord Ie∣sus Christ himself. Your bookes that teach * 1.300 this, are many and not vnknowen. So in other questiōs it appeareth that either you are ashamed of your owne doctrine, or els you will not defende it in such sort as you teach it, least the vantage should be euen in your own opinion, too open and too great against you. Also it commeth to bee noted howe you huddle the karuer of an image that is cursed, with a printer: and an image that is an abhomination, with the holy Bi∣ble: as if it were all one to make an image of God, and print the worde of God. Se∣condly (being herein cōtrarie to your self,) you vndertake to proue that creatures may be worshipped, and, as if the matter were

out of doubt, you demand what we will say to the worship done vnto the Arke, vnto the Cherubins, vnto the Serpent of brasse. For some shewe of proofe you alledge the fiue & twentieth of Exodus, & the 45. Psal, * 1.301 mistaken by you for the 99. In the place of Exodus there is no woorde leading vs to worshippe, but onely a commandement of making the Arke, and the Cherubin of such fashion as is there prescribed. If wee condemned all vse of grauing or painting, this myght haue serued your turne: but speaking only against your worshipping of creatures, it maketh nothing against vs, or to iustifie your idolatrie. The place of Da∣uid doth not shewe what we must worship, but where we must worshippe, euen at the footestoole of the Lorde with all humilitie, being there prostrate vpon the ground, and humbled before him. The other two places of Numb. the 21. and Iohn 3. are brought * 1.302 by you to proue the worshippe of the brasen serpent. In which places there is no such matter, but a commandement as before, to make it & set it vpon a perch, that it might bee the better seene: with a promise that they which had beene slung with firie ser∣pentes, if they looked vpon the brasen ser∣pent,

should receiue their health. Now, ex∣cept to looke vpon a thing be to worship it, here is no place at all to prooue that you saye. If you had cited the place out of the kinges, there is a cleare testimonie, that the brasen Serpent was worshipped: but it made not for your purpose, seeing good Ezechias in the same place did there∣fore breake it downe because it was wor∣shipped. * 1.303 Thus you may see what we haue to say out of the worde against your false suggestions, and against your mistaking and misconstruing the Scriptures. But this place and that of Iohn were answe∣red in the sixt Article. The second to the Philippians sheweth a great iudgement and skill in you: it is there written thus of Christ: God hath exalted him, and giuen * 1.304 him a name which is aboue euery name, that at the name of Iesus euery knee should bow, of things in heauen, of things on the earth, and things vnder the earth. Hereupon you gather, first that the name of Iesus is to be worshipped, so as at the hea∣ring of it, we should bow our knees. Now, if this bowing be due to y^• sound of a name, which is but a creature, then in your iudge∣ment some creature is to bee worshipped:

and so consequently such as your Censure∣ship shall appoint. But as when you spake of the Cherubines, you were not vnder the winges of y^• Cherubines: nor being before y^• Arke, receiued any Oracle: so now though you speake of the Lorde Iesus, exalted to the right hand of his Father, yet you are neuer a whit neerer drawen vnto him, nor vnderstand what his glorie meaneth. The name of Iesus is here no creature to feede the eare, as an image feedeth the eye (which * 1.305 is your distinction borowed with the rest our of Lindane) but it signifieth the soue∣raigne power and authoritie which Christ * 1.306 hath receiued ouer all creatures both in heauen and in earth, as appeareth in the same place, where it is saide that God hath giuen him a name aboue euery name: and * 1.307 in the eleuenth where hee speaketh of con∣fessing Iesus Christ to be the Lorde. The ••owing of the knee, is not that which these words in their proper signification declare: for how should it agree to Angels and o∣ther creatures, which haue no knee•• as men haue: but obedience and subiection is figuratiuely noted by this outward signe of obedience vsed among men. The mea∣ning therefore of the Apostle is to shewe

that our Sauiour Christ, when he had humbled, and as it were emp••••ed him selfe for our sakes, and became as nothing, that was all, was afterward exalted euen as hee was man aboue all creatures, hauing soueraigne power and authoritie giuen him ouer all, so that all creatures are made subiect to his commaundement. This being the meaning of the Apostle (that I may not returne home your wilfull and malitious termes) I leaue to shewe what good grace you had in alleadging this text for your purpose. But, the Lord reforme it, thus you are constrained ignorantly, or wilfully to straine and constraine the holy Scriptures, when you haue once set down a resolution to maintaine errour. Neuer∣thelesse as I noted, the Scripture is not commaunded or made to serue for euery frame, as a leaden rule: it is not pliable to serue euery purpose, as a nose of war••, but freeth it selfe from all in••uries, and con••••••ueth the same course to condemne all errour, and iustifie the trueth for euer. As for Austens place, your notes dece••••ed you, for he is farre from allowing idol or * 1.308 image worship: neyther can you finde any such speache to mainteine your idol••••rie as

is all••aged. Austen hath some such words * 1.309 as you a••••eadge, but in an other booke and to another purpose: for after a disputation against images and idols, hee speaketh of the signes and sac〈…〉〈…〉s of the Church, which represent the Lord vnto vs, not as images, but as signes & seales ordeyned of God to informe & strengthē our vnderstan∣ding in y^e faith. Further you giue a Censure vpon this, that I call the image of Christ an Idol. I knowe in it selfe it is a crea∣ture, and an idol is nothing in the worlde: * 1.310 but as the image imagined of God is an i∣dol, and the worshippers thereof idolaters, which is prooued by the first to the Ro∣manes, * 1.311 so the Image of Christ worshipped by you is an idol of yours, and you are ido∣laters for woorshipping of it. As for the curse of Ladie Irenes Councill wherewith you threaten me, because it fleeth away like * 1.312 a birde, I feare it not. But I heartily wish you to feare his curse, who hath threatned idolaters w^t that lake, that burneth as you * 1.313 know, frō which your ••uilet of Image and Idol, & of Dulia worship & Latria worship wil not be able to deliuer you, but a true re∣pentance onely, & conuersion from the wor∣shippe of idols to the seruice of the true and * 1.314

liuing God, which (notwithstanding all your tauntes and want of your promised Christian charitie) the Lorde vouchsafe to worke in you by his powerfull worde and mightie spirit. I can not altogether con∣tent my selfe, thus to haue fully answered the chiefe matter of this article, but, you drawing me on with your tauntes, I must answere to them also. For the difference of an Image and an Idol you knowe my an∣swere, and I acknowledge not your diffe∣rence. Couching your honours done to the creature and creator, I doe not malici∣ously confound them: but you do vnlear∣nedly make a distinction in wordes, when in deede there is none. When wee teach y^t al your worshippes are idolatrous, we offer you no wrong, neither do we therin blind our hearers, or charge you with doctrines which are not your own. For if any worship be greater then other, that you giue to the * 1.315 crosse and image of Christ: & you can not denie this, being your playne doctrine, (as I haue declared) by Thomas, by Saun∣ders, & by Andradius so expressed, as we can not more expresse it against you. Therefore we doe not mainteine matter of rayling a∣gainst the true Catholike Church, which

hath alwayes more detested all Idola••••••e, * 1.316 then your Church doeth or can defende it. For your repeated words, God forgiue you I must conster them in the best part: but comming in the middest of other scosses, they giue me occasion to note, that many offend in the vttering of them against God, whose name they take in vaine, and against their neighbour, whome they curse and tant with wordes that import a charitable prayer: which is to be reformed in our speach, least such sinnefull vse of good wordes, increase the note of euill maners.

All these XIII articles are graunted, yet your Censureshippe doeth couer the graunt most carefully, as one that knowes well what shame it is, playnely and openly to graunt so foule absurdities. You might haue prouided better for your owne credit, and agaynst mine, if you had directly deni∣ed but one of them, to proue at the least one slaunderous false report: for this alone woulde haue preuailed more against mee, then all your naked vauntes and vndeser∣ued sentences of disgrace. But no one be∣ing denyed, what cause had you as fearing no examination of your booke, and with∣out all regarde of trueth to saye: Thus I

haue answered briefely your slaunderous false reportes of the Iefuites doctrine? In place of an answerer you haue only shewed your self a cauiller, & passing by the matter, you haue prop••unded to your selfe newe propositions from the purpose, such as you might more easily confute thē those where∣with you are charged. Therefore it appea∣reth, notwithstanding your Censure, that I haue with seemely and fitte wordes char∣ged the Iesuites, that they teach blasphe∣mies against God and his worde, that they are the Popes procters in that seruice, and bewraye the spirit of Antichrist. Let the record of your false sentence, charging mee with a lying spirit of Antichrist, with an ignorant and rayling spirit, remayne with the placing of your name for mine, til you haue otherwise proued, that my speaches a∣gainst the vncleane doctrine and rebellious practises of your Iesuites, are vntrue or rayling. And because so cleare places in * 1.317 the worde of God, with the interpretation of the name and nomber of 666. agreed of by auncient fathers, and founde to accorde with the Latin and Hebrewe wordes, doe make Antichrist to sit at Rome, in the citie buylded vpon seuen hilles, if they make it * 1.318

to be a Latin and Romish Church, let y^• re∣cord stande agaynst the Pope y^t he is Anti∣christ, and against al other his instruments, for that they haue the spirite of Antichrist full of all corruption. Wheras you charge me that my zeale ouerranne my witte, in reporting the former doctrines as blasphe∣mous, it is to speake without proofe, and to slaunder without controlement. For I must agayne saye, that all your ignoraunt euill zeale, and al your witte knoweth not howe to denye any one of these XIII. arti∣cles, except you will willingly & wittingly runne into a curse of the Trent Councill. Therefore your bitter taunt was without cause in respect hereof, as also in respect of that y^t followeth about a masse booke. For in my conscience I am not priui••, y^t I did at any tune crye out, or at all vtter these wordes. A bla••phemie, findyng the blessed virgin named mother of God. Wherefore vntil you bring better proofe of it, my reli∣gious deniall shal more then weigh downe your hateful affirmation, & conuince you of breaking y^t nienth cōmandemēt, by raysing ••••ch infamous reproches in print agaynst your neighbour, eyther vpon light report of an enemie, o•• vpon your owne imagina∣tion.

I am not in this sort ouergreedie of your discredit, to whom in that generall loue I owe to all men, I wish in the Lorde the riches and honour of true godlinesse, praying that you may receiue the loue of * 1.319 the trueth, and bee blessed as I woulde bee blessed. But this your cause of teaching errour, and labouring to roote out the gos∣pell, must more and more bee brought into discredit, eyther to drawe you to a loue of y^t trueth, or to make you ashamed of such lies. If I did in deede any way hurt my cause, you loue it not so well as to admonish mee thereof: but I trust, y^t Lord would prouide me more faythful remēbrancers. For your next wordes of reproche, that wee seeme to haue made a compact betweene vs e∣uery man to lye his part, howe vntrue are they, and howe full of reproch? To lye is a fowle sinne: but to lye with consent and conspiracie that the lye may haue the more force and greater credit, it is double iniquitie, and furder from vs by the grace of God, then from any of you. If the force of trueth ouerbeare you not, without Gods extraordinary iudgemēt, I looke not to see you ouerborne. This thirtieth leafe of your booke will afford a scantlin of your

brotherly loue, if any man will take the measure. Notwithstanding in the ende you please mee so well, that I must thanke you for your helping hande in a good woorke. And although you tell the tale so, that I may seeme to haue a fellowshippe in the of∣fence, yet being free, I subscribe to your good a〈…〉〈…〉tisement against imprinting lying 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as that from Rome. For it is so great a sinne, to imprint lyes and r••∣••ore for ••••••thy lucr••, and euery where ••o empty mens purses and ••••ll their heades with ••ables, that for such an inquitie, euery such Printer 〈…〉〈…〉ueth to carye a print of his vngod〈…〉〈…〉 coueto••snesse, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dishonour offered to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so excellent and so pro∣fitable 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Touching the purpose of him, that to perswade the all••wance, was like to aff〈…〉〈…〉 the 〈…〉〈…〉er 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he were a Pa∣pi••••, such as is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 like 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tell what is done at Rome, hee had a 〈…〉〈…〉d to sinne hi〈…〉〈…〉 of purpose; that he 〈…〉〈…〉ht laye it 〈…〉〈…〉: If it were▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 woulde so 〈…〉〈…〉e y^t Pope, (which cannot be gathered by any word in all the 〈◊〉〈◊〉) it was in him a greater sinne. For without lying newes, there is true matter ••••ough ag〈…〉〈…〉 Pope and a∣gainst

Rome. But if a former copie imprin∣ted at Strasbrough gaue it credit here, it was a lesse offence, yet a great ouersight. Now what vantage doe you take by that vayne and lying Pamphlet: will you haue all the faithfull charged with the fault of one or two Printers: and for a fault so or∣dinary in all other like cities? your margi∣nall notes are like the wordes of a craftie seller, y^• promiseth more then the buyer can find. For your margēt in a disgrasing note, promiseth to lay open lying for the game: and you haue chosen two places to proue it against me. For the first of Cardinall Pooles purpose, to reforme some grosse things at Popery, and Steuen Gardiners answere, I appeale to many which are wit∣nesses to me of this known and vndoubted reporte. To proue the second lye, you doe openlye peruert and falsifie my plaine wordes and meaning. For in my answere I say, Papists yeelde in nothing, and proue it to be so. Neuertheles, I giue a note that our bastarde Papists in Englande neyther true to vs, nor faithfull to their owne side, (as since, Howlets authour complayneth) woulde seeme to b〈…〉〈…〉ashamed of images, pardons, pray〈…〉〈…〉ints, and seruice in

an vnknowen tongue: saying they verily hold thē as wicked things: Which I spake to note their hypocrisie. But you, to shew a lie for the game, lay downe my words as if I had not said they would seeme ashamed but as if I had directly affirmed that they confesse the same thinges to bee wicked▪ Which if I had saide of some, it had beene no lye: but I spake onely of their dissi〈…〉〈…〉∣lation. Therefore what is it for you to say, our resolution appeareth, which we haue made to auonch any thing, bee it neuer so false, to blushe at nothing bee it neuer so shamefull, and to inuent whatsoeuer may serue for your purpose to intertaine and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the people? In this short conclusi∣on without all cause, you haue crowded vp together many great wordes of reproche, against the greatest, and against the least of them that loue the Gospell. But I haue proued, who they bee that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the people with such lles and intising erroutd. The Lord hath in such sort put the feare of his name, and the loue of his truth into one heates, that we are free from charging out aduersaries vntruely, hauing a strong〈…〉〈…〉 way to worke by, then to take away 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by euil, and one lie with another. God hath

giuen vs y^• light to chase away your darke∣nesse, and the trueth of his Gospell to con∣fute * 1.320 your errours with al your popish tra∣ditions, Iewish ceremonies, and damna∣ble superstitions whatsoeuer.

Now followe the other three partes dis∣patched for haste or want of matter, al three in as litle roome, as halfe the first: wherein your order againe may be noted, that haue filled twenty leaues of your booke to Cen∣sure one leafe handled by the way in mine: and againe haue made shew of answere to fiftie leaues of mine with ten of yours. If you had kept on your proportion, of twen∣tie for one, your Censures would haue stai∣ed a longer time, & made a larger volume.

Touching the Man.

Concerning Edmund Cam••ion al∣though * 1.321 you misse not your ordinary taunts against me in place of arguments for the cause yet hauing spoken nothing a∣gaist him but a truth, I ••ra•••• not your 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hauing dealt but w^t a seditio us Iesuite, you could not wel accuse me of 〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thinke neither of his fatherhoode nor of his practise as you do▪ either to reuerence the one, or defende the other. Out of my

answere, you haue gathered together di∣uers accusations layd downe against him: but make nomention of the reasons wher∣upon those accusations were grounded: which iniurie you haue also done me, in o∣ther places. But if the same reasons bee briefly remembred, it will easely appeare; that whatsoeuer he sayeth or doeth, it is to hinder the course of the Gospell, & to trou∣ble the peace of the lande, and therefore to be taken in most euill part. For, notwith∣standing your defence, if he speake hum∣blie, hauing the worke of pride in his heart and in his hand; he dissembleth: If he yeelde cōmendation where he hateth, it is daun∣gerous fla〈…〉〈…〉: If he shew confidence in his weake arme, and against the Gospell that so preuayleth euery where, hee onely vaunteth: If he vnla•• fully offer a triall of disputation denied by his fathers, and be∣ing him selfe in daunger of an other tryall. he meaneth no perfourmance: If he pro∣test peace against his open and knowen practise of commotion, he 〈…〉〈…〉 dited: If hee desire audienc•• to open his mouth against the religion of God esta∣blished, and to exalt the authoritie of Anti∣christ, whose double banne by his two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and double curse hath benē openly denoun∣ced

against this noble Realme. For answer hereunto, I leaue him to them that may ad∣mitte and commit him to. But heere the reader may beholde howe litle you haue to say in your Captaines defence, who al∣lowe him in your booke 〈…〉〈…〉more then iii. leaues of the which ii. are spent in prouing a question not denyed, and making much against your cause. For, prouing that reli∣gion standeth with obedience to magistra∣tes, which you tall temporall obedience, you must needes conclude that your Ro∣mish religion is no religion, because it ca∣steth off this yoke of subiection layed vpon vs by the worde, and bringeth in a forraine supremacie to rule and ouerrule all by his * 1.322 vsurped power and most vngodly practi∣ses. Therefore, taking in hande to confute it, you haue in deede confirmed my general conclusion: that Papists can not teach or mainteine the pretended Catholike reli∣gion, but they must be traytours to GOD and enemies to the State. But because you bring euill argumentes to proue this good conclusion, I must examine them, and lay open that errour, which is secretly and so∣phistically conueyed vnder a shew of proba∣ble and true propositions. First, to proue

my conclusion against God, hee affirmeth Poperie to be the Catholique faith, which is to craue and beg the cause, and to affirme the chiefest matter in question. Your argu∣mentes laide downe at large, will make this your order of disputation more playne, and the errour more sensible. Your former reason is this: whosoeuer calleth him an enemie to God, that mainteyneth Poperie, vttereth the reproch of an vncleane mouth: All professors of the Gospell so holde and so call the maynteyners of Poperie, there∣fore all professors of the Gospel vtter the reproch of an vncleane mouth. In this rea∣son the first proposition is brought, against all art, to proue and should it selfe be pro∣ued: it is placed first and shoulde be placed last for the conclusion: for if hee could in a true argument proue and conclude that which is onely affirmed in the first asser∣tion, the controuersie were at an ende. Therefore you speake in a purpose to dis∣grace the trueth, & not with arguments to proue your cause. Your second argumēt is thus framed: Whosoeuer speaketh against those y^• would bring in a doctrine, contrary to the Gospell established, condemneth the former noble princes of England, y^• Answ▪

speaketh against them: therefore the Answ. condemneth the former noble princes of England. I graunt the second proposition: but the first is ful of vntruth. For I speake of the present estate and present practises among you: what is that to former states and former proceedings? I speake of sub∣iectes, and the Censurer doeth drawe it to princes: I speake of them that dealt con∣trarie to the setled lawes, and he doth bring it as spoken against those, that made and mainteined their owne lawes then in force. This one proposition being so false, ran make no argument, but sophisticall for a shewe of trueth, when there is nothing in it but falshode. Also the Iesuites woordes haue an argument intended for him in this forme: what religion former princes from the conuersion of the lande vnto our age, haue mainteined, that must not be condem∣ned: but they haue mainteined Poperie: therefore Poperie must not be condemned. The first proposition is false, for wee must liue by the rule of Gods worde, and not by the example of men, that may deceiue and * 1.323 be deceiued, as appeareth in the storie of the kinges of Israel and Iuda. The second proposition is false like the first. For since

the cōquest, as I haue partly shewed in my answere, Edward the first, Edw. the third, Richard the second, & others did set them¦selues, euen so long ago against y^• tyrannie of Antichrist. And which is more, our Chro∣nicles shewe that before Pseudoaustens comming, our religion was free from ma∣ny superstitions, which he brought in: ney∣ther did the Pope chalenge any preemi∣nence of King Lucius, nor yet was it yeel∣ded him long after. But while you pleade the authoritie, and, as you account it, the Catholike regiment of some of those prin∣ces against me, you speake against your self secretly, opening your heart to discouer what you thinke of other Princes since, and namely of her Maiesties authoritie, and lawes establishing the Gospel. This is suf∣ficient to discouer the counterfeit honour, and heartie hate to the present soueraign∣tie. It followeth that I answere your ob∣iections to the second part of my conclu∣sion: whether I make all Papistes tray∣tours, because they are of contrary religi∣on to that which nowe standeth in force by the grace of God, and vnder her Maiesties blessed gouernement. What may be sayde of all Papistes generally, I leaue it as a

question, which I haue not vndertaken: o∣ther men haue, if you will looke into their reasons. But for all reconciled Papistes employed with Saunders in Irelande, or entred to withdrawe the people in Eng∣lande: such as with Campion and his fel∣lowes helpe forward some of the haynous attemptes that come to light from day to day, if I would holde my peace, themselues will bewray and confesse treason agaynst her Maiestie and the estate: beside open contempt agaynst the Lorde, and the free preaching of the Gospell. Neyther doeth my zeale ouerrunne my witte, in making mention of these matters, or my malice o∣uerlash all reason, as you haue tauntingly accused mee without cause. My zeale I wish increased according to knowledge, and against all your abominable superstiti∣ons: In malice I haue not dealt, but am carefull to detest all corruption in the ser∣uice of God. Bishop Tunstall an authenti∣call witnesse, shal acquite mee of this re∣proche, who for like Rome practises, v∣seth more bitter and broade speaches, euen against your great Cardinall, Cardinall Poole. For hauing charged the Pope with his pestilent malice, (so hee speaketh) and

Poole as his instrument, afterwarde hee * 1.324 calleth the Cardinall an arrant traytour, of a deuilish purpose to destroye his natiue countrey, also that hee ranne head∣longs into hell, and was (for this Romish matter) incomparably woorse then any Pagane. And will you call this hote doc∣trine: But to proceede, you note that reli∣gion standeth with temporall obedience. It is truely sayd of true religion: but Po∣pish religion doeth take awaye from princes their supreme authoritie, making them the Popes vassalles and their peo∣ple his tributaries. It warranteth all men to renounce and leaue their obedi∣ence, it dispenseth with all rebellion, and pardoneth any treason to those that are reconciled for the day of execution. He that hath an eye to see, or an eare to heare, may heare and see this, and some fruites thereof, both in the land and without. Your trayterous bulles, your actuall rebellion in the north, where D. Morton had the first bull, & where your Priestes also sayd masse in the tents: Stories trayterous shifte & chusing him an other king, and pleading him selfe no subiect to the Queene, whose subiection and protection hee vnnaturally

renounced, without any cause in the worlde giuen, but abusing her Maiesties clemen∣cie: your seconde bull and seconde actuall rebellion vnder Saunders in Irelande: the alienating & mouing of the people by your opē Masses in Lākeshire & elswhere: your other attemptes which came so neere the quicke procured by your Iesuiticall * 1.325 Masses of reconcilemēt: finally, Saunders booke allowing and extolling these rebelli∣ons and enterprises, canonizing the Cap∣taines therof with the title of notable Mar∣tyrdome: what are they but open and actuall proofes, that there is in you a reso∣lution to doe any thing you dare do, for the ouerthrowe of the present estate: It is o∣penly layde to your charge that your ma∣lice is so great to some aliue, that you will be auenged of them, as you were in Cam∣bridge of M. Bucer and Paulus Fagius fiue yeeres after their death. Your exam∣ple of the Apostles obedience to Magi∣strates of contrarie religion, proueth no∣thing for you, that holde not that doctrine, neyther yet followe their example. They and the faythfull in the primatiue Church, yeelded obedience to princes that beleeued not, and you doe it not to them that beleeue

and mayntaine the Gospell, as it is proued agaynst you. The like examples followe: for the blessed Martyrs of late times did al patiently yeeld them selues to death, ac∣cording to the doctrine which they profes∣sed, and witnessed their obedience aswell to the Prince as to GOD in their greeuous persecutions. In all my booke there is no such generall question propounded as you charge me with, that euery one of a con∣trarie religion, must needes be an enemie to the State. I haue alreadie answered, that true religion teacheth and yeldeth obedi∣ence to magistrates: but your religion brin∣geth euen Emperours vnder the subiecti∣on of the Pope, to giue their attendance at his gate, and at his stirrup, wherein you withdraw from Cesar that that is Cesars, * 1.326 aswell as otherwise you withholde from God that that is Gods. The malici••us report which foloweth against some of our chiefe Prelates (as you speake) cannot bee prooued: nor your repeated taunt a∣gainst our spirites, which if they were as euill as you make them, being compared with your, there would bee I graunt, no great difference. Touching those godly and learned men, Wickliffe, Luther and

Caluine, whome you charge with daunge∣rous doctrine against Princes, I answere that the light is no clearer at No••ue, then that they taught all obedience to be due to Princes in the Lorde, and that for consci∣ence sake without any rebellion: as in their writings it remaineth, witnessed to all the world. Luther vpon the fifth Commande∣ment, noteth for the sacred authoritie of Magistrates, that this precept of obedience to them commeth next to the Commande∣ment of obedience to God: adding that it teacheth vs how to behaue our selues to∣ward * 1.327 all Magistrates, who are ordeyned and appoynted of God. For Magistrates are comprehended vnder the name of Pa∣rentes, being the cōmon Fathers of the cō∣mon wealth. M. Caluin beside many o∣ther singular places of purpose handled, to set forth the soueraintie of Magistrates, hath these wordes in his institutions: God hath not onely testified that he approueth and accepteth of Magistrates office: but * 1.328 hath moreouer set out the dignitie there∣of with most honorable titles of prayse, marueilously commending the same. Wherupon he citeth that, that God calleth them Gods: concluding y^• their authoritie

is most lawfull and holy, and in all the life of man, a thing of all other most honest. Moreouer, hauing taught subiectes their duetie to obey Statutes, to pay tribute, to beare publique charge and office: hee pro∣ueth * 1.329 against al rebels, that if they rise a∣gainst the Prince, they touch the annoyn∣ted of God. Thus the glorie of the Prince, is the good estate of the people: and the ioye of the people, is the blessed prosperitie of their Prince. I might shew the like doc∣trine out of Wickliffe, but it needeth not, af∣ter so sufficient proofes against you for M. Luther, and M. Caluin. If on the other side they had wordes in the places barely quoted by you in the margent, to proue that which you charge them with, I doubt not but you would haue set them downe at large and in the best maner. But for the conscience, this libertie it hath, that when a lawe is made against God, such as your popish lawes be, then the rule of the Apo∣stle taketh place, It is better to obey God * 1.330 then man, which rule notwithstanding al∣loweth no rebellion at all, but teacheth the subiect to offer himselfe with all lowli∣nes to the mercie of the magistrate, either to keepe a good conscience, or to witnesse

the integritie thereof to God, and his obe∣dience * 1.331 to the Prince by a patient suffering. But, if we may beleeue your wordes, you condēne y^• doctrine that teacheth subiectes not to obey the Prince for conscience sake: wherein, if it be your opinion indeede, you giue a sentence of condemnation against your selfe, and against all the recusants in England or fled beyond seas. But by this assertion euery man may see you make no conscience of a lie, which haue vttered one manifestly against your owne doctrine, dispensing with rebellion by the Popes Bulls, which is also taught in your bookes * 1.332 and from time to time discouered by your practises. Where shall we builde vpon your wordes and not be deceiued? when shall we thinke that you speake the trueth from your heart: Howe shall we looke for con∣stant dealing towardes vs, when you are so inconstant coward your selues: But this is that I noted against Campion: a dou∣ble minded man is inconstant in all his * 1.333 wayes. For the commotions (as you call them) in other countreys, by those of the religion, it is well knowen that they haue Edicts, Priuileges, and paciffcations to cleere them from sedition: whereby also

their good conscience and lawfull procee∣dings for the aduancement of religion is sufficiently auowed. Nowe you come to pleade the innocencie of the wolfe, because he hath sheepes clothing, or because it is not safe for him to breake into the foulde watched by diligent shepeheardes. You pre∣sume that we would not liue so quietly, if the state pressed vs, as you say your Catho∣liques are pressed. Howe vnquietly you haue dealt I neede not so osten to repeate: how quietly we would abide in such times, our doctrine and former example of obe∣dience doth moue a better expectation th•••• you will conceiue. You complaine without cause, but it is high time both by bookes and by preaching, to prouoke the Prince in a zeale of Gods house, to exercise iustice a∣gainst * 1.334 those, that will not be brought from their practises of rebellion to the loue of the trueth, no not by her exceeding mercie and rare clemencie. For seeing mercie ta∣keth no more place with them, iustice is ne∣cessarie both in respect of her owne safetie, and in respect of her people, that the bles∣sed preaching of the Gospell may continue established to vs, and to our posteritie for euer. I that can not, as you say, blush for

my selfe, blush notwithstāding for you that are so full of bloud and crueltie, and yet charge our spirite as cruell and bloudie. For one fier in the time of your persecutiō, consumed moe then haue been executed for religiō only, & not attainted of some trayte∣rous or fellonious intention in all the time of her Maiesties happie gouernement, not∣withstanding so many offenders and so hei∣nous offences of capitall Idolatrie. Ther∣fore you had small cause to complaine of the iustice done in examining two or three of your traiterous cōfederates at the rack: for you cannot alledge one for a thousande of the tormentes, famines, cruell and linge∣ring deathes, wherewith our brethren haue beene cōsumed vnder y^t Pope, with no lesse outrage, then Ne••o, Domitian or Diocle∣sian vsed against y^• martyrs of Iesus Christ. What eyes hath the Censurer, that can note so smal sufferings against his felowes, and will not detest so detestable and sauage crueltie practised by the Popish inquisition where it can lay holde: concluded also, and, when time serueth, to be put in execution agaynst this lande by the conspiracie of Trent: In this complaint I finde, that the Censurer is ready with a litle helpe to

breake out euen against the highest als•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for he that is priuie to so infinite cruelties of the Pope, doth neuerthelesse exercise his stile to enlarge a small matter against her Maiesties iustice, saying that all Christen∣dome, did talke of the late racking and tormenting of the Priests in the Tower. Yf this be true, you haue swift and many Curriers, that can giue so generall aduer∣••••sment in so smal time as vi. or vii. weekes. To aggreue this matter, bee saieth they were vertuous priests: and that they were tormented for their conscience, where as he knoweth that beside their owne cofessi∣on, other euidences prooued them guiltie of such attempts as deserued y^t their right ••oynt shoulde haue bene racked. All this vniust complaint and excuse of the priestes, content him not, but hee addeth moreouer a perswasion, that the same iustice in the Tower hath cast mens heartes into a hor∣rour of such strange and vnwonted dea∣linges: wheras in very trueth there was no one of them so racked, but that, howsoeuer their minds seemed to yeelde to the feare of paine, they were yet worse afraied thē hurt. For the very next Sabboth day, though to the Churchwarde they must be drawe••

or driuen or caried betweene two men like obstinate b••ares to a stake: yet could they after y^• sermō walke home vpon their own legges stoutely ynough and strongly as other folkes. This is indeede to straine at a gnat and swallowe vp a camell, to com∣playne * 1.335 of iustice mercifully & necessaryly vsed to two or three, and your selues with all horrible tormentes to destroy great ci∣ties, and attempt the desolation of whole kingdomes. But to passe from this s•• causelesse and foolish complaint, which may worthily hurt your cause: I nothing feare any losse that can come to our religion by so necessarie iustice. As for your last note of desperation, which may come by these torcures, it is not to be feared: you are so re∣solued (yf we may beleeue Campions pro∣testation for himself and his fellowe Iesu∣ites) & haue such a confidēce in your cause, that there is no such fea••••: they are prepa∣pared by the whippe to endure greater things, especially in the cause you esteeme so great and so woorthy your sufferings. This neuerthelesse I may graunt you, that your euill cause may more charge and racke yo•••• consciences to desperation, then a thousande times more coul•• d•••• to the

godly mart••••s, who haue sounde it a ioy∣full * 1.336 thing, not onely to beleeue in Christ: but also to suffer for him.

The Censurer hauing vsed a large di∣gression, returneth to the man, & finding his defence a barren matter, doeth only de∣nie some things which in my answere were proued against him, secōdly adding a praise y^t al the gold in England wil not gilt ••im: and that if he mette with me in equall ba∣lance I should appeare too light: which na∣ked assertions may bee sufficiently answe∣red with a bare deniall. Yet for a further answere, what is it to proue Campions quiet purpose by his owne naked woordes, when his open practises appeare to the contrary? For notwithstāding your scoffe, a man seeing little into common wealths, might easely see into these matters, and knowe both what the Ies••ites superiours seeke, and what their instrumentes woulde bring to passe in this kingdome. Let any * 1.337 man iudge: will not the Iesuites bee as faithfull to their superiours as Balam the false Prophet was vnto the Lorde? Ba∣lam blessed where the Lord had blessed, and cursed where the Lord had cursed. And shal the Pope discharge hee Maiesties subiects

of their Liegeance, and wil not Campion declare it? shall hee denounce the curse a∣gainst her, and will not the Iesuites sub∣scribe thereunto: But I will not agayne proue y^t which is already sufficiently proo∣ued. Your tales of the Iaponian Iesuites, are neither of credit, being written by them¦selues in their owne prayse: nor to the pur∣pose if they be as quiet as they & you report. For eyther they are in the Portingales Is∣landes and neede not, or, among the Hea∣thenesse and dare not yet rebell. Secondly you will not seeme to vnderstande a plaine speach of your Golden day, so often by the goodnesse of God adiourned, or as I hope, for euer disappoynted: but expounde it as spoken onely of Campion and his loue of golde, the least suspicion whereof neuer en∣tred into my thoughtes. But you haue here the seconde time deliuered that hard iudge∣ment agaynst me, with other reproches, which I let passe. I knowe that notwith∣standing any parrishes or Parsons opini∣on at the balances, yet the iudgement ap∣pertaineth * 1.338 to the Lord.

Touching the matter.

NOw the Censurer is come to the mat∣ter, as appeareth by the title of the * 1.339 third part, which title sheweth that the rest hath beene from the matter, or about cir∣cumstances not so materiall. This is the like arte to that which hath bene noted. For howe absurde is it to haue spent so many leaues eyther from the chiefe purpose, or in things not so weightie, & now conclude that which hee calleth the matter in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seely leauēs and an halfe? But this is yet more absurde, comming but nowe to the cause it selfe, & giuing it so smal allowanc•• yet thereof to speake no one word dire〈…〉〈…〉 to the question: For he was to prou•••• y^t 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is not inco••uement for the state to 〈…〉〈…〉te 〈◊〉〈◊〉 disputation against thē 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ agaynst the lawes, & against re〈…〉〈…〉gion, a•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ar〈…〉〈…〉 chal∣lenge of a seditious Iesuit••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 finding this hard to be proued, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reasons not very easie to be confuted, he 〈…〉〈…〉eth to the generall question, and proueth that dis〈…〉〈…〉∣tation may bee sometimes graunted, which proposition was neuer denie••. Let vs th〈…〉〈…〉¦fore consider what hee sayeth still front t•••• matter. I alleadged the q〈…〉〈…〉 continuanc••

of religion two & twentie yeeres free from Iesuites, and from all such chalenges: this is not a good reason vtterly to ••eba••re all disputatiō, neither was it so all••adged, but this setled peace maketh it an inconueniēt thing, to admitts men guiltie of rebellion, to dispute agayast the peace of the king∣dome, and the authoritie of religion. Your pretensed continuaunce of Poperie a thou∣sande yeeres without interruption, is clear∣ly sounde false, by many and great euiden∣ce•••• but if it were true, what doth it proue: If religion were reentred into Ierusalem, and there established two & twentie yeeres, woulde you thinke it ••onuenient that Ma∣••••met shoulde bee admitted to dispute, be∣cause hee also can pleade many hundred peres prescription as wel as you: Passing ouer the reaso•••• you thought good, as that of your o••••••inate purpose not to yeeld, which also saketh such disputation as you 〈…〉〈…〉e, very inconuenient: You re∣pea••e in the second place my argument of a small victorie ouer two or three last and least in the quarrell. To this you say some∣what in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but it would proue nothing: because it is not in your power to per∣••ourme, or in your purpose to doe it. For

doe you esteeme your selues such pillars of Poperie, that al the Catholiques in Eng∣lande and abroade, so long and deepely s••••∣led in their religion, will presently yeelde, if you bee ouercome with demonstration of the trueth. Doe they stande no longer then you preuayle, or must they needes fal when you are ouer throwen? If to shew y^• trueth with vs, were the way to gayne you, you had beene gayned long agoe, as many thousandes haue bene. But some haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 * 1.340 to see and will not see, they haue heartes to consider, and will not understand. Ca〈…〉〈…〉∣on in his chalenge forgate that which you do▪ well aduertise him of, concerning hi•• fellowes preast 〈◊〉〈◊〉 readie to helpe him, if he should come to the danger of his chalenge. The third•• reason against your 〈◊〉〈◊〉 distinctions, is 〈…〉〈…〉 all this thirde part: for I alledg•• that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 particular distinctions of 〈…〉〈…〉 learned and p〈…〉〈…〉 and 〈…〉〈…〉 question, di〈…〉〈…〉 ly are profitable. If this 〈…〉〈…〉 propound and ass••••le his 〈…〉〈…〉 can obteine no victory but 〈…〉〈…〉 and I can be but a witnesse of it. 〈…〉〈…〉 o••s I graunt▪ are generally 〈…〉〈…〉

of the cheifest partes of a learned man con∣sisteth in the knowledge how to distinguish aright. But what is this to proue all dis∣tinctions good, euen those that Iesuites make only to auoyde the power of trueth? Simples generally are good, seruing for the health of man, but what is this to proue those euill simples good, which haue lost their vertue, and which an euill Apotheca∣rie may serue in place of good? for a triall of the Iesuites distinctions you referre me to their disputation: but I may haue a suf∣ficient triall of them and of their disputati∣on before hand in this your booke, if there were no other proofe to iustifie my report. As you would bring your quilits into cre∣dit, so you labour to bring my arguments and interpretations into discredit, as lying and false: but in a good conscience, and ac∣cording to the trueth, I haue auowed them true and good, as will easely appeare to the indifferēt reader. You that before made me much inferiour to Edmund Campion, now make mee inferiour to thousandes of the Iesuites scholers. Whatsoeuer I am to the meanest of them, the Lorde, I trust, wil inable me to mainteine his trueth, euen against Campion your great champion;

to say nothing of his disciples. I confesse your distinctions offend〈…〉〈…〉 as being full of 〈…〉〈…〉ltie, and sometimes so darke and vnlearned, that there appeareth neither good cause nor good vse of them: yet you take it to heart that I should account them vnlearned and peruish. As for the accusatiō of Iude against the despisers of good 〈◊〉〈◊〉∣ses, it was corrupcly brought against mee * 1.341 for reiecting your sophisticall deuises a∣gainst the trueth: for proofe whereof I re∣ferre me to these your distinctions chosen out of many for your purpose, which, one excepted, are all vnlearned and peeuish, ser∣uing to put darkenesse for 〈…〉〈…〉ght, and ••••ol••∣trie in place of Gods seruice. For, as they that distinguish not, where the word hath distinguished, may soone fall into schisme and heresie: so also you in distinguishing where the worde admitteth no distinction, do offend in like ••or••, and with no lesse dan∣ger. There is you lay, cleare difference betweene an Idol and an image. Surely this is somwhat that you saye: for an idol is the image of the superstitious Gen∣tiles, and an image is the 〈…〉〈…〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 named Christians▪ There is I graunt, a cleare difference in the let∣ters,

but no difference at all in the word, no more then is betweene Omnipotent and Almightie. For (to passe by Phauorine, He∣sychius * 1.342 and some places in Plutarch, who all make these two wordes of one significa∣tion) Plato maketh the matter most eui∣dent, * 1.343 who mouing a question what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be, maketh this answere, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is manifest we will make an∣swere that those things are idoles, which are seene in water and in looking glasses, and those moreouer that are painted or set out in types or portratures, & other things of this sort whatsoeuer. By these words of Plato the Censurer may learne that any image carued, paynted, represen∣ted by a glasse or seene in water, is among the Grecians, where the worde is in his owne countrie and proper vse, called an I∣dol. Tullie moreouer who could aswell iudge of the Greeke worde, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and of the Latine word image as the Censurer, be in his translatiō maketh them one. Last∣ly * 1.344 to returne to the holy Scriptures, God in the second Commandement, forbiddeth both the making and worshipping of an

Image to represent the true God, or any of the false Gods. Thus much to she we your vnlearned and most vntrue distinction be∣tweene an Image and an Idol, which you and your fellowes repeate so often and vrge so much. You doe it to vpholde I∣doles vnder a more honest title of Images (as you suppose) but as they differ not in name, so in nature they are all one, euen stumbling blockes of offence, the worshippers whereof are open idolaters. I am taught by the word of GOD, that there were materiall and are still spiritual * 1.345 sacrifices in the Church: but for sinne I read y^• there is no sacrifice without bloud. So that your second distinction of bloudie and vnbloudy sacrifices is plainly against * 1.346 scripture: Iustice by faith wee acknow∣ledge: but merite by workes is proued to be against the worde. So the mediation of Christ is according to faith, but your inter∣cession of saintes against the scripture. For who is more mercifull then the Lorde that he may saue: or who more ready to heare vs, that he may be the Lordes remembran∣ce••: faith that beleeueth the promise, and * 1.347 hope that patiently wayteth for the issue of faith we acknowledge, and the distinction

I haue layde downe in the ninth article. Your counterfeit traditions of men and of the Apostles, are al without warrant in the causes necessary to saluation. But why haue you left out the distinction of the two worshippings, Latria to God, and Dulia to images? Is it left out because wee con∣denine it, and you now allowe no more of it: All these distinctions are most daun∣gerous, when you will with some distinc∣tion or change of a name, reteine still the same iniquitie, forging such wicked deuises of man, to disanull the truth of God. Ther∣fore they are but your vntrue assertions and vaine bragges, that you distinguishe things into their proper natures, that you can proue eche part of your distinction consonant to the word of God: that when you haue so distinguished, wee haue no more to saie: that wee bewray our igno∣rance, and finally that the truth is made manifest to euery mans eyes. When any one of these fiue definitiue sentences is pro∣ued true, I will acknowledge the rest. I much maruaile that in such vanting speach, you would not set down one true assertion of so many. But you care not what you say to reproche the godly, making account

that your owne side will take it in good part, be it neuer so vntrue, neuer so reproch∣full. The fourth argument touching the li∣bertie of your pen, I haue answered alrea∣dy: but I answere further, you may haue it without print: and if that will not content you, there are printes inough neerer hande beyonde seas where you are, if we may be∣leeue you so often affirming it. The daun∣ger & persecution you speake of, is a fruite of your murmuring spirits, complaining without a cause. For you go safely away w^t many matters: & as much as you cōplayne against vs openly, as intercepting all your bookes & other Popish stuffe, I thinke you doe much more brag among your selues of many escapes. But if you had as many prints as you can set a worke, what can you of lesser giftes write, that the most learned of your side haue not written long agoe, as Ecchius, Pighius, Hosius: and which nowe Turrianus, Andradius, doenot furboish in a vaine hope, at last to make an ende of Sify∣phus labour. What issue all these haue had of coursing & discoursing againe, the que∣stious betweene you and vs, we may consi∣der it with great ioy of heart, & you in this kingdome and in our neighbour king∣domes

may behold it with vexatiō of spirit. Therefore notwithstanding your bragges before you come to the triall, and that you tell vs, misusing the place, in the forehead of your booke of the fier in the moūtame, * 1.348 yet we feare no more to encountre with you then they that see their enemies with∣out armoure, or ouerthrowne before they come to giue them the charge.

Lastly you like not my opinion, that on∣ly the Scriptures should bee admitted for iudges in disputation. But the opinion is good, and the practise needefull, seeing the holy scripture is the onely touchstone to make triall, and the onely iudge to giue sentence in all questions apperteyning to the doctrine of fayth and saluation. Howe reuerently I thinke of the chiefe councils of the fathers and doctors, and what profit I acknowledge to come by their great la∣bour, it was declared in my answere. But you euermore omit that which maketh not for your purpose, where in you take an euil but yet a readie waye to condemne a good cause. Notwithstanding to determine controuersies in iudgement of religion, I admit them no seate: but refuse them al not onely with one breath, but with this one

short sentence: The rule is not ouerruled. You shoulde haue proued that the doctours and councils haue not places contrary one to another, and sometimes contrary to themselues: If you had cleered them of this warre among themselues, you had made them somewhat fitter to make peace amongst vs. In affirming that I say some of the fathers are condemned of forgerie, you doe manifestly peruert my playne wordes: for I spake of the places, and you drawe it to the persons. It is one thing to say some places in Austen are forged, and an other to say Austen him selfe is forged. Now that places in Austen are forged, and namely many of his short sermans to the brethren in the wildernes, it appeareth by * 1.349 the iudgement of Erasinus, and by the notes of bastardie set downe in your owne editions. Cyprians places are also ac∣knowledged by your selues, especially that notorious booke of the reuelation of Iohn Baptistes head, where Cyprian maketh * 1.350 mention of king Pipin that liued fiue hun∣dred yeeres after that Cyprian was dead▪ But I neede not to alleadge any more, you wil not deny but there are many. Now there followeth a comparison, that you

ground your beliefe onely vpon the word of God, and make it the onely obiect of fayth more thē we do. Your reports here, and in the ninth place confirmed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 an othe, can haue no credit against your kno∣wen doctrine and dealinges to the contra∣ry. For doe you not in this verie question, pleade the authoritie of men, as the war∣rant whereby we receyue the Scriptures? Doe you not denie that wee are saued by faith onely? Howe then doe you buylde your beleefe onely vpon the word of God? or make that the onely obiect of faith, more then we doe?

In the wordes following you keepe on your course, prouing that which is graun∣ted, and affirming that which shoulde bee proued. I dyd graunt that Councils, Fa∣thers and stories yeeld profitable helpes to shewe the estate of the Church from time to time, and also for the better vnderstan∣ding of the worde of God: yet this is that which you make y^• questiō as denyed by me, and to be proued by you. After this strange order of disputation, you myght as fitly in forme, and more truely in matter, proue your doctrine blasphemous, and your prac∣tises

full of rebellion. If you woulde proue this, it were a true proposition, but no con∣futation of that I say affirming the same. So in prouing that doctors bring great helpes to learning, you proue a trueth, but not in any ouerthrowe of my answere: For I haue acknowledged as much. The que∣stiō in deede is, whether Councils and Fa∣thers be iudges to giue sentence in contro∣uersies, and rules to ouer rule interpreta∣tions: to the proofe whereof you shoulde haue tyed your selfe: but without any fur∣ther proofe you affirme it, as a cleare mat∣ter and altogether out of dout. Is this that disputation which you so boast of, to proue that is graunted, and to leaue that without proofe which is in question? I shall not escape the note of audacitie, If vpon your Censures false report, I shal be thought to denie that which I doe most manifestly a∣nouch. But this note of audacious bouldnes cleaueth to you, who blush not to say, that the authoritie of Scriptures dependeth vpon the testimonie and allowance of men: and that otherwise, we know not which is the word of God and which not. As many as hold this opinion had neuer their eares bored, nor their heartes opened by the

Spirite of GOD, to heare and see more then the bare letter, they neuer felt the lyfe and spirite thereof, which is the holy spirite of God, not onely bearing witnesse with our spirite, that we are the sounes of God, but also that the holy scriptures, are the worde of God, and his power to saluati∣on: that they are also the rule which should * 1.351 rule all, and not be ouerruled of any. Nei∣ther haue those disciples of the word, hum∣bled them selues at the footestoole of the Lorde, to behold his absolute perfection in * 1.352 all his wayes, especially in the full reuela∣tion of his will to the sonnes of men by his holy scriptures: neither haue they conside∣red y^• vanitie of vanities, & y^• infinite hard∣nesse of heart and corruption of iudgement which is in all flesh. This humilitie would confirme them in the faith of that saying, no man knoweth the things of God, but * 1.353 the spirit of God. This Spirit leadeth vs into all trueth, to knowe it and to proue it, and to be comforted thereby, not in the iudgemēt or after the sense of man, but ac∣cording to the worke of God opening our hearts, and sanctifiyng our vnderstanding, * 1.354 so that the worke and iudgement is of the spirite according to the woorde of God.

Herein also standeth an answere to your se∣conde assertion, that by the fathers wee knowe which is the right meaning of the word of God, for as the authoritie of the worde is confirmed by the spirit, so are the interpretations thereof also. As man is not the author, so he is not the interpreter of the worde of God, otherwise then by the autoritie of the worde it selfe. This saint Peter proueth, making it a reason why no Scripture is of a priuate interpretation, because it came not from man: but the ho∣ly * 1.355 men of God spake as they were moued and caried with the holy Ghost: so that the holy Ghost doeth deliuer, and warrant, and interprete vnto vs the holy woord of God, expounding scripture by scriptures, and not leauing this high office to men, other∣wise then to ministers conteyning them∣selues within the faithfull seruice of their charge in their written and authenticall commission. And you dare not say (who dare say much) y^• an interpretation is true, because an ancient father hath it, but be∣cause he hath it according to a trueth, and the trueth according to the word. Hierome is a notable father of singular giftes, but, to passe ouer other places, I verely thinke

you woulde censure him, for his interpre∣tations * 1.356 vpon the eleuenth verse, of the se∣conde chapter to the Galathians: and vpon the sixt verse of the thirde chapter, I write them not downe because I am desirous to couer such blemishes, among other excel∣lent gifts. Whether the visible Catholike Church may erre or no, which must be con∣sidered in the particular members and doc∣trine thereof, I will for a triall admitte the example of your Church, but not the presēt testimonie. Their example doeth testifie y^• Apostasie, which their testimonie will not acknowledge, though they should do it to * 1.357 iustifie the prophecies that were deliuered of it before, and are nowe made so cleere as nothing may be more. To your mani∣fold examples brought to proue that here∣tiques cleaue to the scripture: I answere first, y^• heretiques also cleaue to traditions & ordinances receiued by word of mouth, * 1.358 as appeareth by the complaint of Ireneus against them. Secondly the Scripture is the worde of God in his manifest sense and construction of trueth and life, and not ac∣cording to the naked letter, whereunto, I graunt the heretiques did peeuishly sticke, as you also doe, where it maketh for your

purpose. The philosophicall proofes which some haue made, asyou say, for the wonder∣full mysterie of Christes two natures and willes, proue not so much for philosophie, as you woulde inferre therby: for without philosophie the scripture hath sufficient proofes for that necessarie doctrine, as hath beene declared. But by the way, where is your iudgement in this assertion? de∣bate the matter with your selfe, and you shall finde howe vnpossible it is for natural philosophy to determin the supernaturall misteries of the vnitie of God and man, & of two natures and willes in one person Iesus Christe, which was a worke of God as great as the creation of the world. Not∣withstanding I haue acknowledged, that philosophie being corrected and sanctified by the woorde, may also be some helpe to heauenly wisedome, but without it the woorde is sufficient, to open all the coun∣sell of God which apperteyneth vnto vs.

Thus we take not away (as you charge vs) y^• vse of Couneils, Fathers, & other like helpes, because of an abuse y^• may bee, but stand against them, y^• vnder some vse there∣of woulde bring in and cōfirme the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Therefore how doth the Censurer both ac∣cuse

without conscience, and giue sentence without iudgement? who doth depriue you of these helpes? Who doth call you to the bare letter? How often am I enforced to repeate one thing to answere the same slaunder? As Councils and Doctors or Philosophie may helpe, wee allowe them and vse them: as Iudges we admit them not: and although we answere you to them when they are alleadged, yet knowe, that it is of that measure that is pressed downe * 1.359 and floweth ouer, we are not bound vnto it with any condition. But what reasons are these that followe in the Censure? Eche man may deny the Scripture to be Scrip∣ture, or wrangle at pleasure vpon the sense, therefore we must admit Councils, Doctors, and Philosophie. This argu∣ment is very vnlearned and peremptori•• against the maiestie of Gods worde: A wicked man may wickedly take exceptions against it, therefore it is not sufficient: he•• may deny or wrangle vpon the sense, therefore we must leaue the certaine touch∣stone of God, and bee tryed by the vncer∣taine coniectures of men. If the Iesuite had not abandoned all worldly commodi∣ties, as not caring for the good blessings of

God in this behalfe, I might easely confute this reason by one drawne from a lesse as∣surance, and lesse importance. An enemie may deny the Censurers euidences of land; or wrangle vpon the sense of the wordes, therefore he must not stand vpon them, but seeke other testimonies to mainteine his ti∣tle. But if these helpes or (as you meane) if the authoritie of men bee taken away, it is as much as to saye, controuersies in religi∣on shall neuer be ended. Wherein againe you make this weake and wicked argu∣ment: if controuersies in religion be euer ended, it must not be by the Scriptures on∣ly, but by Councils, Doctors and Philo∣sophie. This is therefore the effect of your Censure and definitiue sentence in this matter: that which God cannot doe by his worde, men may by their writings: that which God cānot determine by his trueth, men may ende and conclude by their lyes. And further to examine this your bould and daungerous conclusion, into what a sea doe you drowe vs, calling vs to passe by the examination and iudgement of so ma∣ny, so large; so doubtfull and so contrarie writers? If the worde be darke, are not the Fathers darker? If the Scriptures bee

doubtfull, are not mens writings infinitely more doubtfull? If any heretique or wic∣ked man dare wrest the holy scriptures of God, withe not much more dare to peruert, to denie, and to treade vnderfoote the wri∣tings of a mortall man? It came from the deepest bottom of the Sea, to drawe men from the certeintie & safetie of Gods word, to the daunger and vncerteinty of mens iudgement. Concerning the heresies you mention, as Trinitaries in Transiluania, Anabaptistes in Poland, Adamites in Germanie, I pray God wheresoeuer these or any other heresies bee taught, that they may be vtterly rooted out, together with all other weedes that growe vp of their owne accorde, wheresoeuer the Plowe is neglected. For Hu〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 me, for a∣ny thing I know in substance of Religion, also for Caluinistes in Fraūce, I answere, they are no heretiques, 〈…〉〈…〉 rie these names, but by your 〈…〉〈…〉 speach, that, to bring the Gospell of God into cōtempt, would make it to be thought the doctrine of those men, whom the Lorde raysed vp as notable instruments to pu∣blish it in their time, and as singular lights to chase away the mist, which you had

brought in, in all places of your darke and sinfull kingdome. How farre we differ from Lutherans in some poyntes, you are not the fittest man to whome I may make complaint. But howsoeuer you haue added your marke in the margent, Note this, yet the Scripture is no cause of this disagree∣ment. Vnder the name of Caluanistes you charge the Estate of this land with heresie: for albeit we receiue not the name, neither build our faith vpon the doctrine of any mā, yet the Estate maynteyneth the doctrine which vnder that name you call heresie. But you would onely seeme to lay that re∣proch vpon France. In England you saye there are Puritanes & the Familie of loue. What an high and deepe slaunder is this to all the godly in this kingdome from the prince to the meanest person professing the religion: your Catholikes excepted, are all in England either to bee charged with the odious name of Puritanes, or with the most execrable abominations of the Fami∣lie of loue: What would not this your spirit attempt in the aboundance of your heart, if you durst as well come to open ac∣tion, as you dare cast out these open and in∣tollerable flaunders against all the godly 〈1 page missing〉〈1 page missing〉

entred. We all holde the same doctrine of faith, published and mainteined according to the worde of God: we come to the same felloweship and communion in the exerci∣ses of religion, and ioyne all in the same de∣fence of Gods holie Gospell, yea we all, though not in the same measure, seeke the reformatiō of that, that at the Lordes time shalbe reformed to a further growth and beautie in the bodie of Iesus Christ, which is the Church. Therefore notwithstanding * 1.360 your slaunder, vpon examination it wil ap∣peare, that those in Englande, which are slaundered with the name of detestable He∣retiques, are farre from the heresie, & most readie to condemne it, or whatsoeuer is contrarie to the publique doctrine of faith, mainteined by the present Lawes of the lande, which doctrine is pure and holy, and agreeable to the most holy word of God, which the Lorde continue for his names sake with peace vpon Israel. But to re∣turne to the Censurer, hee addeth a mani∣fest vntruth, saying that all the former he∣resies ioyne against the Romish Church, in receiuing the scripture onely. To wade no further, the familie of loue, which you cite, are against you, who haue their seuerall

Gospell of the kingdome, they build vpon * 1.361 the cursed & thrise cursed bookes of H.N. also they scorne the scripture learned, and in their loue to you, acknowledge y^e ministe∣rie of y^• word to come frō the Pope. There∣fore they do neyther cleaue only to y^• scrip∣tures, nor liue in such mislike of your su∣perstitions. Nowe for the matter, if your argument be good: Heretiques cleaue to the word onely, therefore it is naught: you may aswell conclude, that we must not al∣leadge the Scriptures at all, because they alleadge them: we must not dispute at all because they dispute: which conclusions are all absurd. For heretiques eate and drinke, they clothe them selues, all which are lawfull for all men to doe: therefore not whatsoeuer they doe, but whatsoeuer they doe as heretiques, that is a marke of heresie. Furthermore to proue wantes in the worde of God, you demaunde howe it commeth to passe that the Scripture doeth not ende controuersies among here∣tiques. I answere they are in the faulte, as you also like heretiques are by resisting the trueth: the worde is not to bee charged with any want. But let me moue the like question, and haue your Censure touching

the doubt. You that haue the Scriptures, the Councils, the Fathers: you that haue Philosophie moreouer, and stories, and which is most of all, the Popes breast and the fulnesse of the spirite you bragge off: howe commeth it to passe that you haue not yet compounded your trouble some and long controuersie, whether the virgin Ma∣rie was conceyued without originall sinne or no: If the euidences you so stande vp∣on cannot in so long time ende so small a matter, what will they be able to proue in the great questions of saluation: Agayne hedemaūdeth how such heresies can be, yf y^• truth be so cleare. For triall of the truth & a manifest proofe what power there is in Gods worde, there must be heresies and schismes: and God hath alwayes suffered * 1.362 false prophets & teachers for a iust punish∣ment of those that loue not the trueth: ne∣uerthelesse the Scripture is cleare and plaine, where God giueth an eare to heare, and a heart to vnderstand: if it be hidden, it is hidden to them that are lost. But you * 1.363 that once or twice beate at mee, as one whose zeale ranne before his witte, staye your selfe. Doe you y^• make no conscience to diminish the authoritie of the worde of

God, crye out agaynst vs, if wee refuse the determination of men: will you that haue alreadie in diuers plates pleaded against y^• sufficiencie of Scriptures, now pleade for Philosophie, Doctours and Councils, as able to end al controuersies & ratifie your title: If we call you onely to the worde, not the bare woord, but adorned and richly attired with all fulnes of light and trueth, the cleerest interpreter of it selfe, doe wee in calling you hither, depriue you of your euidences and witnesses, seeking thereby to set you together by the ••ares for the ti∣tle? I knowe no euidences but the worde, no witnesses but the holy Prophets and A∣postles: if your kingdome can not iustifie * 1.364 it selfe by these euidences and witnesses, let her bee condemned by them for euer. Your beadroule of fathers naming heretiques y^• abused y^• Scriptures, I tooke not the tale of them, they are brought in as vnnecessary witnesses of a matter alreadie answered, & not in question. Lastly you conclude, that we drawe in one line with the most cursed heretiques, and you make them our proge∣nitors, because we appeale to the worde of God, as the onely teacher and iudge in cau∣ses of religion. If this be a faulte, let it be

required at our hande: if it be your horri∣ble slaunder against the worde and agaynst the Saints of God, for giuing due honour thereunto, y^• Lord require it at your handes in the defence of his owne glorie.

Touching Christian Franken.

TOuching Christian Franken, which * 1.365 is the last of your foure partes, it ap∣peareth he hath vsed a true reporte agaynst the Iesuites, because (as hee assured him selfe before hande) yet no man hath denyed the idolatries, the superstitious and heathe∣nish exercises, wherewith he doth so plain∣ly charge them. As for the first part of your answere hereunto, it standeth altogether vpon false argumentes, as that, He depar∣teth from the sect of Iesuites, therfore he is an apostata: He discouereth their wicked superstition, therefore he reuileth al catho∣like religion: Austen confesseth that hee * 1.366 knew none worse then they that fel in Mo∣nastical life, while he liued, therfore Frankē must be one of them. All these conclusions are barely affirmed without proofe: & there∣fore may be truely denied without any fur∣ther answere. Notwithstanding, it is to bee

noted, that againe you find no fitter taunt against M. Luther and Iohn Bale, then to call them Friers: and therefore you re∣peate the matter. True it is they were Fri∣ers, but forgiue them that fault, seeing they did cast away their habit, and kept a better course. An other reproch followeth in char∣ging vs plainely with coyning the newes of Rome, and with suspition to haue coy∣ned Frankens Dialogue: whereunto I answere if we haue not coyned, you haue, And as for Austēs place, it maketh for him against whome it is alleadged, and against them in whose defence you bring it. For if in Austens time with some good, this Mo∣nasticall life brought forth others so euill that none were worse, and hath declined e∣uer since, it was time for Franken to come out from the middest of you. If so long a∣go, & in such puritie of the Church, as was in Austens time, the Monasteries did bring forth y^• worst men of all others, what did y^• Cloysters foster afterwardes: Your other place of Austen to proue it a great fault, to reproch many for one or two, I graunt to be true, but for your purpose falsely allead∣ged, because it is not one or two of you, or so fewe as one or two hundred which are

accused of superstition & hypocrisie, but y^• accusation is against you all, for you appa∣rell idolatrie with the name of deuotion, you nourish ambitiō vnder a Friers weed, and seeke an empire vnder a Priestes ga∣berdine, you exercise a Wolues rauening crueltie vnder Sheepes clothing, Trea∣son is conscience among you, and a iust execution is made a glorious martyrdome. * 1.367 These are the diseases that haue infected the hearte, and spread them selues as a le∣prosie, throughout all the bodie of your vn∣holy orders and irreligious men. So that we blame not many for a fewe, but cannot finde a few to hope wel of, in so great & di∣uers swarmes. This is not my complaint as you knowe, or of this time alone, but the complaint of many and long agoe. There∣fore in drawing Saint Austens wordes to condemne mee as insulting against Christ and his religion, for the fall of some one religious man, is to drawe him against his will, to condemne one for another, as was noted before.

Your seconde exception to Frankens dialogue is taken, because in your opinion, he applieth good thinges in the societie to euill purposes, by which practise you haue

well noted that any good thing in reli∣gion or policie may be depraued. This practise you shoulde haue prooued in Fran∣ken, so y^• exception had bene good: but you affirme it onely, as a man whose word must be taken for a proofe, & his opinion for an oracle. What Franken hath written you see, what he can write to a further accusa∣tion of the Iesuites life I knowe not: I thinke it was his minde to passe by perso∣nal matters, and to note onely the corrupti∣ons and superstitions of their orders and doctrine: for which cause also he was al∣leaged. Your bitter taunts against our mi∣nisterie as loose, are accusations reaching to him that wil not be pacified for the sin, with all your vnbloodie sacrifices. The ig∣norant and vnfit ministers we defende not, or any that may among so many be iust∣ly accused of loosenes: but the godly prea∣chers receiue the testimonie of learning and godly life, euen their enemies be∣ing made iudges. Whereas you finde a place in the dialogue to commende Iesu∣ites for great labour, diuine meditations, chastising of the flesh and such like, I answere there is an vse and abuse in some of these actions: you are charged with the

abuse. The rest, as your whippe and volun∣tarie abandoning of Gods blessings, both are superstitions, as was noted before in a fitter place. You remember who complay∣neth, that of all iniust men, they are most iniust, which when they doe most deceiue, * 1.368 and greatest harme, they do it notwithstan∣ding that they may be esteemed good men. Againe, wherin you haue a singular grace, you taunt vs as that we can not well bee charged with such faultes as you count vertues in the Iesuites. True it is we wish not to be charged with the righteousnes of * 1.369 Scribes and Pharisees, but seeke a righ∣teousnes that may exceede it, such as stan∣deth in the synceritie of a good conscience * 1.370 according to godlines.

The thirde and last exception is against Frankens conuersion, as not strong to prooue any thing, seeing you can presse vs with many examples for one, which is your franke and bould assertion. But if you cannot truely alleadge a man for a citie, or a towne for a kingdome, this is a note who it is that in deede dare venture vpon any as∣sertion, though all the worlde see the vani∣tie and vntrueth thereof. In place of ma∣nye, two examples are brought in with

their pretended reasons. But first you giue sentence before the triall, that Fran∣ken departed from vs vpon a fancie, and your fellowes vpon great reasons and in∣uincible proofes. For Franken I an∣swere, though I knowe he be not throwly cleansed from the dregges of Poperie, but carieth some corruption that hath infected the hearte, (which you haue not at all bla∣med him for) yet his reasons of departure were such as enforced him therunto, being otherwise superstitiously addicted and desi∣rous to continue. Of your two men I can saie nothing, I knowe not what roote they had takē, that were so soone withered. But you that condemned me without cause, as blaming al your Catholiques for the fault of one, abusing a sentence out of Austen a∣gainst * 1.371 mee for that purpose, what is it that your selfe now bring in two runnagates to the slaunder of all, that constantly remaine in the trueth: must it bee no fault in you that was made so haynous in mee: There are belike some indulgēces from the pope, that what you do shalbe no fault, and what you say shalbe no lye.

To come to your two rumiagates Xi∣lander and Flaschius, albeit you auowe

their proofes of running out, to be great and inuincible: yet they are in deede so in∣sufficient, that they haue plainely condem∣ned thē selues by y^• apologie, wherein they seeke to be iustified: & may soone finde better arguments why to returne, if their true re∣pentance did opē a doore for their reentrie.

1 For what reason is the first, that Xilander giueth? The Catholiques haue endured these fifteene hundred yeeres in concorde of one doctrine, and 16▪ sectes haue sprong of Luther within these sixtie yeres, therefore he departeth to you: First this reason standeth vpon two false, and of∣ten confuted assumptions: For neither hath the Popish Church endured so long, nor so many sects so lately growne vp of Luther. Secondly, though the assumpti∣ons were true, yet the argument doth not followe. For if antiquitie might prooue a Church, the Iewes would make a great clayme to the title: If sects springing vp, prooue no Church, what shal we say to the Churches of God at Corinth and in Gala∣tia: Xilander did but salute our religion as passing by, that had no better reason of his falling away then this, so often and so many wayes confuced.

His seconde reason that moued him to leaue our religion for Poperie, is successi∣on of Bishops in the Popish Church, from Christ till now, which some Fathers make a great reason. Surely those fathers knew some good by the bishops that had bene be∣fore their time, but they could not iudge of the Apostacie of these that came after to oc∣cupie that Chaire. Againe those fathers e∣steemed not so much a Succession of per∣sons, as the succession of doctrine, which is farre from the bishops of Rome, that teach many things against the word, and against the practise of the Primatiue and true A∣postol〈…〉〈…〉 Church, as hath beene declared. But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Xilander that maketh this. S••c∣cession * 1.372 a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 able motiue (as you speake) mouing him to roca••••, did he consider the xxvi. graunted. Schismes when one Pope cursed and p••osecuted an other, to the hor∣rible sta••••ght•••• of all sortes of people in that Citie▪ Did he note your two Popes, & two P〈…〉〈…〉s together at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 time, yea somtime three, somtime foure Popes, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Chatre sometime at Rome, sometime at 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sometime in other places. Did hee euer consider, that they which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the storie of these men, can not

agree either in the number, nor in the suc∣cession of these your Popes: Any one of all these, or of many other matters written by your selues, being well cōsidered, might haue bene a weightie cause to keepe him from that fall. For these bishops, many of them succeeded with such wicked conditi∣ons, and for so wicked purposes, that their succession may shewe out matter to proue them rather the race of Antichrist, and the spirit of fornications, which long agoe be∣ganne to worke the mysterie of iniquitie: * 1.373 but hath nowe made vp all the measures thereof, so that the prophesie is fulfilled, that Antichrist in the succession of his mi∣nisters exalteth him selfe against all that is called God, or is worshipped, and sitteth in the Temple boasting him selfe that he i•• God. This is that succession of Antichrist, which is glorious in the eyes of flesh and bloud, and therefore made Woodeman de∣part from Christ, whom whosoeuer wil fo∣lowe, * 1.374 must euery day take vp his Crosse and folow him.

3 As for his third reason of miracles in the Popishe Church, I leaue it as very false & insufficient. Notwithstanding some I graunt wil beleeue if a man come from * 1.375

the dead which wil not beleeue Moses and the Prophets. The kingdome and Church of Christ was planted in the power of doc∣trine and miracles, and also by the power of the holy Ghost, while Christ and his A∣postles liued. Now it is against faith, if any looke for miracles to confirme the Gospell againe, which is already so confirmed, that an Angel from heauen or any miracle wor∣ker * 1.376 perswading otherwise, must bee accür∣sed. By miracles it is an easie thing to de∣ceiue and bee deceiued, seeing Satan to that purpose changeth himselfe into an An∣gell of light. Such were many of the lying miracles not onely printed from Rome, but receiued and registred at Rome, and thrust vpon mens consciences to beleeue, being matters that might easely drawe them headlonges into all error and idola∣trie, as was prophesied of this kingdome of * 1.377 Antichrist, and hath no we appeared by the lamentable effect. Therefore his third rea∣son was to weake to haue drawen him frō the Church of Christ, if he had bene tied to it but with one bande of loue, to the trueth and power of doctrine.

4 Xilanders fourth reason dath hu••••••e vp and confound many reasons: As that he was moued with the authoritie of the

vniuersall, of the visible, and of the Catho∣lique Church: where like a good plaine dealer, he left out that which he founde not in the Romish Church, namely holinesse. And what are all the rest without this ho∣linesse: Againe of those three notes that moued his falling off, two are all one in worde and sense. For the worde vniuersal, and the word Catholique, are as these two wordes, Wodeman and Xilander, which do not signifie two, but one and the same thing. That the Church of God must al∣waies haue a visible and glorious Maiestie vpon the earth, is not yet proued. Also that the Church of Rome was neuer Catho∣lique or vniuersall, as it pretendeth, the Churches of y^• East, while they florished, & the Greeke Churches, such as remayne at this day, doe make sufficient proofe. Againe we receiue the Scriptures from God, hee by inspiration hath giuen them, and hath * 1.378 alwayes kept them in his arke, and the Philistins could not keepe the Arke from * 1.379 vs. The pretended victorie ouer heresies must be proued, before it be admitted for a reason. I graunt the Romish Church hath had a victorie and a tryumph in outwarde shewe ouer many thousand Saints, most cruelly murdered for the trueth. But ouer

heresies it tryumphed not, but in the time of her chastitie before the Lorde had giuen her a bill of diuorce: after which time shee embrewed her selfe in the bloud of the Saintes and became the mother of all for∣nications. * 1.380 With his other reasons hee linketh Saint Augustines saying, so * 1.381 often misalleadged to proue the authoritie of the Church aboue the Scriptures: that he woulde not beleeue the Gospel, but one∣ly vpon the Churches authoritie. By these wordes his minde was not to determine which had greater authoritie, the Church or the Scriptures: but to declare against the Maniches, in his owne practise what brought him first to esteeme the worde at his conuersion from in••••de••tie. The autho∣ritie and consent of the Church, may in such a case perswade one to receyue the worde, which being receyued, is of it selfe founde to be greater then that which first per••••••ded. Thus of many reasons heaped vp together in y^• fourth place, there is not founde one good. The Romish Church was neuer vniuerfall or Catholike, but particular, and of ••ne ••erritorie though by vsurpatio••it enlarged her selfe by litle and little: and the visiblenes therof is nothing, for the true Church of the elect is in••isi∣ble.

Moreouer (as I declared) it neuer tri∣umphed ouer heretikes, it hath not any pe∣culiar custodie of the Scriptures, neyther dorth the authoritie of the Gospel depende vpon hir ratification, being authenticall of it selfe. Therefore al these reasons and put them together, coulde not open the least dore for his departure, if he had euer beene placed within the Church.

5 The fift reason is that the Romish Church is the true Church, because many that liued there, are nowe Saintes in hea∣uen, and namely Dominic and Frauncis, as Xilander doeth imagine. I say as before, there was a time when Ephraim spake, & * 1.382 there was trembling, he exalted him selfe in Israel, but he hath sinned in Baal and is dead. Neuerthelesse▪ seeing Xilander went so farre for a fift reason, let vs examine what he hath brought. There is no doubt saith he, but Domini••, Fra••ncis, and others are Saintes in heauen, therefore it cannot bee that they liued in errour. Who hath made it out of doubt to vs that they are in heauen, seeing there are writte〈…〉〈…〉 many 〈…〉〈…〉dent lyes and blasphemies of them▪ in the Legenda, and that most detestable Al∣caron * 1.383 called the booke of confo〈…〉〈…〉? who will beleeue that Dominic raysed the

dead which you teach: Who can heare or reade those your blasphemies in making Fryer Frauncis an other Iesu in type and figure, matching him w^t Christ frō poynt to poynt, and his miracles with Christs * 1.384 myracles. If the Censurer had not men••i∣oned Frauncis the Fryer among his saints, it myght haue beene hoped the Iesuites would refourme that booke, or rather con∣demne it to the pit of hell. But to returne to Xilanders argument, it is a very bad one, prouing the lesser doubt by the greater. For it is not so great a doubt, what those famous Fryers taught, as whether they be in heauen. Neuerthelesse if it were out of doubt they are in heauen, yet the argu∣ment doeth not necessarily followe. For many are in heauen that haue liued in er∣rour, because the rich mercie of God doth aswell pardon errour to him that repen∣teth, as other iniquities. No man will take this for a good argument: one ••f the two that were crucified with Christ is nowe in heauen, therfore he was no thiefe, therefore he liued not in error: yet such altogether is the fifth motiue that moued Xilander to go to Rome in hope perhappes to be a Saint.

6 To the sixt reason which maketh the Papistes reuerent in their wordes, and the

other syde rayling, blasphemous and dis∣honest in their speaches and writinges, I answere with Salomons woordes: he that iustifieth the wicked, and he that cou∣demueth * 1.385 the innocent, are both an abhomi∣nation before the Lorde. This reason is re∣peated in the next, and is there further answered.

7 The seuenth reason hath nothing in prayse of the Papistes as the former had: but is altogether a repetition of that which was said against the godly, as railing and misreporting their aduersaries. Wherein for proofe against this slaunder, I appeale to the places of the Censure alleaged a∣gainst Martin Luther, and charging him with most foule opinions, such as after his conuersion he neuer mainteined in worde or deede, which his practise prooued while he yet liued: and his writings doe testifie now after his death. Doctor Watson also may make a triall of this matter against you, who in a sermon before Queene Ma∣rie, * 1.386 charged no small men as he saith, but our great bishops, to say that euery man and woman, might at the Lordes table, take bread and blesse it (which he calleth tonsecration) and speake the woordes of the institution, aswell as the minister. Not∣withstanding

here I am to aduertise the reader, that Papistes misreport thē selues now saying and at an other time denying the same, as appeared in many of the XIII. articles by y^• Censurers own practise. For when the Iesuites are truely charged, he will not graunt that which is truely auou∣ched against them, but changing the ques∣tion will seeme to say lesse then they teach. For one example they are charged to com∣mit idolatrie in worshipping images: the Censurer will seeme to denie this, saying, they giue no worship to the image but to God: this distinction is not good: and fur∣ther more the assertion is false. For it hath been prooued that they giue worship to the very image of Christ: and, which is more, that they giue y^• greatest worship of Christ him selfe to his picture. Therefore al men are to consider this both for our defence, & to auoyde the errour that may come by their deceites. For in the fielde, where they stand in feare of the aduersarie, and in their perswasions, when they would win a pro∣selyte, the pretended Catholiques will not lie open, but cloke a great part of their shamefull doctrine: which is their subtiltie to drawe away disciples, and to leaue lesse aduantage to their enemies. Therefore to

a man not acquainted with their double dealing wee may seeme to report them o∣therwise, then they holde in disputation, when notwithstanding we report them no other wise then they openly teache in their kingdome, and publishe in their writings. Wherefore I may conclude that this rea∣son was groūded vpon a manifest vntruth: Xilander iudged of Iudas by the kisse, not * 1.387 by the treason.

8 Lastly for a reason we are falsely char∣ged to esteeme all our auncesters damned: to breake their willes, and conuert to pro∣phane vses, that which they gaue to main∣teine idle Monkes and Friers, and to redeeme them by masses out of purgatory. Whatsoeuer he thought in him selfe, or i∣magined in others, wee thinke not our an∣cesters damned: but leaue iudgement to * 1.388 the Lorde, to whom the iudgement of life and death doth belong: not searching out his secret coūsels which are vnsearchable. As for the ornamēts which they bestowed, not vpon the seruice of God, to the instruc∣tion of their soules, by the preaching and ministerie of the Gospell, but vpon the great harlot and to the inlargement of her kingdome, they are brought home agayne to better vses: and I thinke many of your

best friendes will holde and enioy them as better bestowed.

Your seconde man, commeth ready * 1.389 furnished to your hande out of the former booke of Lindan. But because you pro∣mise not to deliuer the same reasons that were touched before, let vs see how faith∣fully you keepe art and promise. Flaschius first reason is the same that Xilanders se∣uenth: where they say we report the pa∣pists to teach that they teach not. Also his thirde is but a particular of that which the other man did generally auouch in y^• sixt against y^e godly as vsing dishonest speach.

To speake of them particularly, Flas∣chius his first reason is, that your Ca∣tholiques teach cleane contrary to that which we report of them. We report them to teach, that the Pope is supreame head of the Church, doe they teach the cleane contrary? we charge them to ascribe some merit to workes, do they teach cleane con∣trary? Againe we charge them that they auowe transubstantiation, do they teach no such thing: Wee moreouer chalenge them for giuing worshippe to images, do they teach the contrary doctrine? wee ac∣cuse them for denying the sufficiencie of scriptures, do they make them sufficient? 〈1 page missing〉〈1 page missing〉

I might bring infinite such examples, but these may be sufficiēt to shew how Flaschi∣us stūbled at his first going out at the gace.

2 The second reason is drawen from Luthers mind in writing against y^t Romish Church, of en••y, as the rūnagate doth sup∣pose. How is this prooued out of any place quoted for a shewe of proofe: Agayne, if it were proued that enuie made M. Luther write against Popery, how doth the runna∣gates reason followe: The preacher prea∣cheth of enuie, therfore his doctrine is to be forsaken: The Phisition vseth his arte for couetousnes, therfore his coūsel is to be de∣spised. If Flaschius had learned what the place of S. Paul ment where he saith, he was glad & reioyced that Christ was prea∣ched, eyther vpon enuie or contention, ey∣ther * 1.390 for fashion sake, or in synceritie how∣soeuer, it might haue bin a counterpoyson, against y^• disease of this second imaginatiō.

3 His third reason against M. Luther for great dishonestie & scurrilitie of speach in his writings, is another ••launder in ef∣fect all one w^t the seconde, and there answe∣red. You say this bad fellowe was a ••rea∣cher, surely thē he came in by a wrong way, & went out by a right dore, y^t neuer had any sound knowledge of the trueth, or if he had

any, he first put back a good cōscience, & thē made shippe wracke of faith & knowledge. * 1.391

4 Fourthly, it is but ••laūderously laid to our charge y^t we do easily reiect any booke or peece of Scripture: for we admit as the word of God, all y^• bookes & partes contey∣ned in y^t auncient & autenticall Canon of y^• Iewes, & with our aduersaries all the new Testament, neither doe we vse or suffer the least corruption of y^t Scripture, knowing what a curse is pronoūced against such blas∣phemous * 1.392 auda••ity. But you haue added the Apocrypha bookes, although they neither agree in some pointes with y^• scripture, nor yet one with another as hath bene declared. Touching Fathers and Councils, it is too foule an accusation to charge vs, y^• wee es∣teeme no more of them thē of y^• Turkes Al∣coran. Flaschi••s appeareth to be some cor∣rupt hypocrite, who measured other men, by y^• vanity & wickednes of his own heart. So farre doe wee honour the councils as they can well aske, or doe deserue honour. For (that I may bee suffered to repeate with the Censurer) we receiue from them ioyfully and with reuerence whatsoeuer they deliuer vnto vs with sufficient war∣rant out of the worde of God: acknowled∣ging them not only to haue brought great

profit to the church in their time, but also to their posteritie. This honour we giue not to the deuilish Alcaron: what the Apo∣stata did or will do, I can not report.

5 The fifth reason is a slaūder against y^• truth, blasphemously cast out against it and the professers thereof. It is that our newe opinions (as Flaschius & our enemies wil needes call them) are olde heresies, condē∣ned by name in the primitiue Church. Whereunto I answere, that if Saunders most traiterous booke quoted for proofe in the margent, or Lindane with his roule of heresies, or the runnagate by any good trial can proue, that either we pull olde heresies out of the graue, or breed newe that should be buried, though it be no good reason why Sebastian should flie to them, yet wee will graūt it a full sufficiēt reasō, why he should take the wings of the morning & flie from vs. But if this runnagate in the malice and error of his heart, hath spoken good of euil, * 1.393 and euill of good; if he haue forsaken dark∣nes for light, and light for darknes, then he hath escaped a blessing, and made haste to finde a curse.

6. 7. The next two reasons are of y^• same forge with all the rest, they prooue nothing but the malice and blindnes of your con∣uert.

The sixt chargeth Luther with con∣trarietie of doctrine, the seuenth with a speache of intollerable in••quitie against faith in God. But his godly writings doe sufficiently iustifie him against these open slaunder〈…〉〈…〉as was declared before against y^• Censurers like slaūderous reports. Out of his large volumes of talke at tables, wee know not so much what Luther said, or vp∣on what causes, as what those men remē∣bred or added, which did collect the bookes.

8 The last reason of Flaschius, was cun∣ningly chosen out to make a fit conclusion of your taūting and slaunderous Censure, hauing nothing but the venim of the aspe, that laie vnder the runnagates tongue. It standeth vpon many points shuffeled toge∣ther: as that we are partiall, that we exag∣gerate euery litle fault in our aduersaries, and liue our selues most vitiously in forni∣cation, and chaunge of wiues, according to Luthers doctrine: the proofe whereof is alledged in one preacher vpon the runna∣gates credit, with other thinges that this shamelesse man is ashamed to vtter. What an heape of reproches is this without any proofe? Against this I haue proued that M. Luther taught no libertie offornicatiō, but the contrarie, as appeareth at large by

many his learned and godly treatises, Als•• the knowne doctrine and discipline of our Church free vs frō the slaunder, who seeke a sharper punishment for such enormities, then your petie penaunce. If Flaschius euer met with a mate like him selfe, that would haue made a match w^t him in chaunging of wiues, he was to blame, except the most fault was in himselfe, that he did not bring it before the Magistrate: vpon complaint and proofes it woulde haue appeared, that y^• religion suffereth no such wickednesse to goe unpunished. This may be a particular slaunder like the rest, but if it were true in Flaschius and one of his companions, both fitte to haue bene thrust out of the Church before eyther departed, what is this to all:

These are your two false witnesses, wel able to discredit euen a true matter com∣ming from their report, as they themselues are discredited by the testimonies they haue giuen in agaynst the Gospell, being reportes so full of manifest reproch and vntrueth. It is verie like they omit∣ted the true reason of their departure. Perhappes they went out because they woulde not or coulde not any longer abide within, as it fell out with Demas * 1.394

and Alexander. Nowe for a recompence * 1.395 of your two runnagates, the present exam∣ple not of a straunger unknowen, but of one home borne, toucheth the quicke. He in your faces rendered good reasons of his conuersion from among them, where wic∣kednesse of life, and abhomination of doc∣trine striue, which may cal downe the grea∣test vengeaunce. But this needeth not my repetition, and I labour not to presse you with examples or corruptions of men: it is beside the question we haue in hande. My prayer and labour is for the defence of his trueth, from the which we receiue life, and * 1.396 are to striue for it vnto death. The Lord re∣quireth this seruice at our hands, & he will at his good time blesse it with manifolde blessings, the fruit whereof it may be some of vs shal not see, but our posteritie shal be∣hold it, notwithstanding all the wisedome * 1.397 and power and counsell of man to the con∣trary. For the Lord hath reuealed the man of sin by the preaching of the worde, & hath shaken his chaire with a mightie arme, hee wil not withdraw his hand, til he hath vtter∣ly cōsumed Antichrist with the spirit of his * 1.398 mouth, & abolished him w^t the brightnesse of his comming. In the meane time his little ••locke may bee somewhat scattered for a

time of trial, but they shal be gathered toge∣ther againe & increased to shewe the Lords power and mercie: they may s••w 〈◊〉〈◊〉 teares, * 1.399 but they shal reape with gladnesse. This is the hardest account the godly can make. But it may be that the Lord will himselfe * 1.400 correct vs in mercy, and not deliuer vs into the hands of our enemies to be punished by them: It may be the mother of Sisera shall * 1.401 looke out at the window, and cry out at the casement, why is his chariot so long a cō∣ming? why tary the wheeles of his charet? So let thine enemies perish O Lorde, but let them that loue thee and thy trueth, con∣tinue as the Sunne when he riseth in * 1.402 his might, and as Oliue plants in the house of God that flourish for euer.

Amen.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Iames 2. 1. Ephe. 4. 1••.
• * 1.2

  Rom. 1. 18.
• * 1.3

  2. Tim. 2. 9.
• * 1.4

  D. Watson. M. Peoknam
• * 1.5

  The first part.
• * 1.6

  1. Tim. 4. 7.
• * 1.7

  2. Tim. 2. 19. Psal. 9. 4. Ier. 50. 34.
• * 1.8

  Chronica. chronic. fol. 21 5.
• * 1.9

  Luk. 1. 15.
• * 1.10

  Rom. 12. 6. 7, 8.
• * 1.11

  Iosh. 1••5 61.
• * 1.12

  1. Cor. 1. 10. & 11. 18.
• * 1.13

  Mat. 23. 2. Actes 26. 5. Ioseph. antiq. Iudaic. 1. lib. 13. pag. 394.
• * 1.14

  Eph. 3. 6. Eph. 4. 4.
• * 1.15

  Tur••ianus in Apologetico cap. 1. & cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.16

  ••p••••, 1. 22.
• * 1.17

  Aug. dem••. ribus Eccl. Catho. ca. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Item. de opere. Mo∣nach. ca. 14. & 15.
• * 1.18

  Aug. epist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Item. ••p. 76.
• * 1.19

  Aug. de opere Mo∣nach. cap. 28.
• * 1.20

  De coena Do••. serm. 15.
• * 1.21

  Aug. epi••t. 137.
• * 1.22

  Mat. 12. 34.
• * 1.23

  Mat. 23. 13.
• * 1.24

  Duk. 9. 58.
• * 1.25

  Mat. 11. 18.
• * 1.26

  Isag. chron. Abrah. Bu∣chol.
• * 1.27

  Torrian in apolog, in 〈…〉〈…〉at.
• * 1.28

  2. King. 22. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2. Chro. 34. 15.
• * 1.29

  2. Kin. 23. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• * 1.30

  Eph. 3. 20.
• * 1.31

  Apoc. 12. 6.
• * 1.32

  Hos. 4. 8.
• * 1.33

  Psal. ••5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.34

  Turrian in Apologe∣tico. pag. 10.
• * 1.35

  Gab. Pr••∣••eol.
• * 1.36

  Defug. Idol. 144.
• * 1.37

  ••idem. 100.
• * 1.38

  Luth. de captiuit. Babil. Eccles. Tom. 2. Ien. pag. 271.
• * 1.39

  Operatio∣nes Luth. in Psal. 15. Tom. 3.
• * 1.40

  Item in breui expos. Decalogi. Tom. 7. ••19.
• * 1.41

  De Cap••a. Babil. eccles. Vol 2.
• * 1.42

  2. Tim. 2. 13. Tit. 3. 8.
• * 1.43

  Ephe. 2. 10. Gal. 5. 6.
• * 1.44

  Concil. Tri∣den. de iusti. Cau. ••3.
• * 1.45

  Luth. Con∣cione quo modo et quo fructu lib. Mosis•• Christ. le∣gendi sint. tom. 3. ••en.
• * 1.46

  Gal. 3. 11. 12. & 4. 24.
• * 1.47

  Rom. 2. 16.
• * 1.48

  Rom. 6. 14.
• * 1.49

  Gal. 3. 19.
• * 1.50

  Ibidem. 24.
• * 1.51

  Iohn 1. 19.
• * 1.52

  Luth. in ••••∣pofit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7.
• * 1.53

  Luth. eadem concione.
• * 1.54

  Psal. 119. 105.
• * 1.55

  In praesa. ad ••ou. testam.
• * 1.56

  Luth. ena••▪ rat. in epist. Petri. ••om. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. witteb.
• * 1.57

  Act. 1. 2.
• * 1.58

  Rom. 2. 16. &. 16. 25. 1. Thess. 1. 5.
• * 1.59

  Iohn 13. 34.
• * 1.60

  Iohn 15. 2.
• * 1.61

  Iohn 10. 4.
• * 1.62

  Luth. serm. de matrim. Tom. 5. wit∣teb. pag. 120. a.
• * 1.63

  Ibid. pag. 119. b.
• * 1.64

  Ibid. pag. 120. a.
• * 1.65

  Luth. Serm. de matri∣monio. Tom 5. witteb.
• * 1.66

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈…〉〈…〉 & 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.67

  Pet. Lomb. Tit. 4. dist. 36 tomb. codē libro, dist. 39
• * 1.68

  Luth. lib. de vot. ••uang.
• * 1.69

  Gen. 2. 22.
• * 1.70

  Heb. 13. 4.
• * 1.71

  1. Cor. 7. 2. 27. Serm. de matrim. pag. 126. 〈…〉〈…〉 cap. prior. ad Corinth. pag. 16.
• * 1.72

  Luth. lib. de Vot. Monast
• * 1.73

  Matt. 19. 12.
• * 1.74

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Cor. 7. 9.
• * 1.75

  Serm. de matrim. 126.
• * 1.76

  Lib. de vot. coniu. et in assert. art. 16.
• * 1.77

  Luth. serm. de Trinit.
• * 1.78

  Psal. 84. 11.
• * 1.79

  Apoc. 21. 2.
• * 1.80

  Act. 10. 34.
• * 1.81

  Gal. 3. 28. Col. 3. 11.
• * 1.82

  2. Pet. 1. 1.
• * 1.83

  Mat. 20. 23.
• * 1.84

  Lindan de sugien. idolis cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.85

  Eph. 4. 20.
• * 1.86

  Luk. 11. 18.
• * 1.87

  Gal. 5. 17. Ephe. 6. 12.
• * 1.88

  Matth. 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• * 1.89

  2. Cor. 12. 7.
• * 1.90

  Luth. de missa priua∣ta et Vnct. saccrd. To〈…〉〈…〉 7. wittch. pag. 230.
• * 1.91

  Luc. 22. 31.
• * 1.92

  Ioh. Sleid. Comment. lib. 16.
• * 1.93

  Actiones de concordia Marpur∣gae. 3. oct. Anno. 15 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Item Witten∣berge. Anno 1536.
• * 1.94

  Iam. 3. 15.
• * 1.95

  Deut. 32. 10. Zach. 2. 8.
• * 1.96

  Epis. Nichol. Carr••ad Io. Checu〈…〉〈…〉 de obitu Buceri.
• * 1.97

  Lind. de su∣gien. idolis. cap. 11. pag. 91.
• * 1.98

  Deut. 29. 19.
• * 1.99

  Mat. 4. 4. Gal. 3. 10. &c.
• * 1.100

  1. Tim. 3. 15. & 6. 3.
• * 1.101

  I
• * 1.102

  Cenl. Col. 54. 89.
• * 1.103

  1. Ioh. 5. 16.
• * 1.104

  Rom. 6. 23.
• * 1.105

  Matt. 12. 31. 1. Ioh. 516. Mich. 7. 19. Col. 2. 1••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Iohn 1. 9.
• * 1.106

  〈◊◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊◊〉.
• * 1.107

  Gen. 1. 3••.
• * 1.108

  1. Sam. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2••.
• * 1.109

  E••••••h. ••3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.110

  Rom. 14. 23.
• * 1.111

  De••••. 4. 43.
• * 1.112

  Nomb. 35. 25
• * 1.113

  Gen. 29. 23.
• * 1.114

  1. Iohn 3. 4.
• * 1.115

  Iohn 4. 24▪
• * 1.116

  Ioh. 3. 4.
• * 1.117

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ioh. 5. 17.
• * 1.118

  II
• * 1.119

  Cens. Col. 38. &c. Ca∣••••sin opere ••atech. 18 4.
• * 1.120

  Rom. 7. 7.
• * 1.121

  Rom. 7. 12. 14.
• * 1.122

  Ibidem. 1••.
• * 1.123

  Ibidem vers. 7. & cap. 3. 20.
• * 1.124

  Plato deleg▪ lib. 6. Item lib. 8. contra adul. libro 9. contra homicidi••. Leges XII. tab.
• * 1.125

  Mat. 5. 22. ••8.
• * 1.126

  Matt. 12. 36.
• * 1.127

  August. de nup. et con∣cup. lib. 1. cap. 23.
• * 1.128

  2. Cor. 5. 21.
• * 1.129

  Aug. lib. 1. de nup. et con••upi••••i∣••entia. cap. ••3. & 25.
• * 1.130

  Aug. contra Iul. lib. 5. cap. 3. pag. ••30. Paris.
• * 1.131

  Clem. Alex∣an. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. Pae∣dago. cap. 6. Idem adhor. ad gentes. pag. 38.
• * 1.132

  Amb. lib. 1. devoe. Gent. cap. 5.
• * 1.133

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 5. 28.
• * 1.134

  Matt. 12. 3••.
• * 1.135

  Iames. 1. 14.
• * 1.136

  Rom. 14. 23.
• * 1.137

  III
• * 1.138

  Cens. col. ••ol. 54. ••9.
• * 1.139

  Mar. 7. 1••. ••1. Iames. 1. 14.
• * 1.140

  Gen. 6. 5. & 8. 21.
• * 1.141

  Deut. 6. 5. Mat. 22. 37.
• * 1.142

  Exod. 20. 17.
• * 1.143

  Matt. 5. 2••.
• * 1.144

  Deut. 30. 11.
• * 1.145

  Rom. 10 6.
• * 1.146

  Rom. 6. 2, 4, 14. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7. 4.
• * 1.147

  2. Cor. 3. 5.
• * 1.148

  Aug. contr•• Iul. lib. 5. cap. 3. & lib. 1. de nup▪ & concup. cap. 25.
• * 1.149

  Exod. 20. 17.
• * 1.150

  Rom. 7. 7.
• * 1.151

  Mat. 5. 19. Iam. 1. 10.
• * 1.152

  ••••od. ••0. 17. ••o••. 7. 7.
• * 1.153

  Rom. 7. 14. ••o••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 26.
• * 1.154

  IIII
• * 1.155

  Cens. Col. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.156

  Se••••. 4. De〈…〉〈…〉 de Can. scriptur.
• * 1.157

  Rom. 1. 3. 4. Mat 26. 39. Ioh. 15. 25.
• * 1.158

  Iohn 1. 14. Gen. 17. 12. Rom. 4. 11. Apo••. 1. 10.
• * 1.159

  Iohn 1. 1.
• * 1.160

  Rom. 9. 5.
• * 1.161

  Col. 4. 16.
• * 1.162

  〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ Ti••. 3. 1••.
• * 1.163

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Actes 21. 5. Matt. 21. Psal. 8. 3. 1. Thes. 3. 1••.
• * 1.164

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Tim. 4. 8.
• * 1.165

  2. Pet. 1. 21.
• * 1.166

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.167

  2. Tim. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• * 1.168

  Luk 2••. 3••.
• * 1.169

  Luke 2. 1.
• * 1.170

  1. Chro. 29. 29. 2. Chro. 9. 29. 1. Reg. 4. 31.
• * 1.171

  Lolu••. 21. 25.
• * 1.172

  Luke 15. 20.
• * 1.173

  V
• * 1.174

  Cens. Col. 220.
• * 1.175

  Hosius lib. 4. de. trad. ••ol. 388.
• * 1.176

  Deut. 12. 32.
• * 1.177

  P••o. 30. 6.
• * 1.178

  Rom. 14. 22.
• * 1.179

  Rom. 10. 4. 1. Tim. 3. 16.
• * 1.180

  Deut. 4. 2.
• * 1.181

  Apoc. 22. 18.
• * 1.182

  VI Cens. Col. 117.
• * 1.183

  Paiuas An∣drad. orth. expl. lib. 2. pag. 104.
• * 1.184

  2. Pet. 3. 16.
• * 1.185

  Iere. 2. 1••.
• * 1.186

  Esai. 55. 1.
• * 1.187

  Reue. 17 4.
• * 1.188

  ••omb. 21. 9. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 3. 14.
• * 1.189

  Iohn 15. 1. Iohn 10. 11.
• * 1.190

  Heb. 12. ••9. Deut. 4. 24.
• * 1.191

  Iohn 3. 1••
• * 1.192

  Payuas An∣drad. orth. explic. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pag. 107.
• * 1.193

  Psal. 19. 7.
• * 1.194

  VII
• * 1.195

  Cen. Col. fol. 11••.
• * 1.196

  Standishes booke en∣tituled, A∣discourse whether it be expediēt that the scriptu•••• should be in English.
• * 1.197

  Iacobus Le∣desima de diuin. scrip. quauis ling. non Legend〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.198

  Psal 18. 8, 10. &c. & 119. 129.
• * 1.199

  Paiuas An∣drad. lib 2. orthodox. expl. pag. 117.
• * 1.200

  Psal. 11 〈…〉〈…〉. 1. Pet. 2. 7. 2. Cor. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.201

  Mat. 22. 29.
• * 1.202

  Mat. 16. 6. Actes 5. 7.
• * 1.203

  Iohn 5. 3••.
• * 1.204

  Actes. 17. 1••.
• * 1.205

  Hosius de aut. scrip. lib. 3. pag. 253. Iac. Noguer. de eccle. Christi lib. 1. pag 69. Mat. 22. 29.
• * 1.206

  VIII
• * 1.207

  Cens Col. 118.
• * 1.208

  Gal. 5. 2.
• * 1.209

  Rom. 11. 6.
• * 1.210

  Gen. 27. 38. Heb. 12. 16. Act. 4. 12.
• * 1.211

  1. Cor. 1. 30, Phil. 3. 9.
• * 1.212

  Iohn 19. 4. 1. Cor. 15. 3. Rom. 5. 6.
• * 1.213

  Psal. 14. 1. Rom. 3. 10. Gal. 3. 22. Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Gal. 5. 3.
• * 1.214

  Heb. 12. 2.
• * 1.215

  Rom. 1. 17.
• * 1.216

  Gal. 3. 11. Habac. 2. 4.
• * 1.217

  Rom. 3. 2••.
• * 1.218

  Mat. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Iac. 2. 10.
• * 1.219

  Act. 4. 12. Matt. 26. 39. Heb. 5. 9.
• * 1.220

  Gen. 15. 6. Rom. 4. 3. Gal. 3. 6.
• * 1.221

  Gal. 2. 16.
• * 1.222

  Ioh. 5. 24▪
• * 1.223

  Idem. 3. 36.
• * 1.224

  Gal. 2. 2••.
• * 1.225

  1. Cor. 1. 31. 2. Cor. 10. 17
• * 1.226

  Iere. 9. 23. Rom. 4. 2.
• * 1.227

  ••••a. 64. 6. Luk. 17. 10. Phil. 3. 8.
• * 1.228

  Rom. 10. 3.
• * 1.229

  Eph. 4. 24. & 5. 9. Gal. 5. 22.
• * 1.230

  Thom. Aq▪ prim. secu••▪ quaest. 114. art. 2. Rom. 11. 6.
• * 1.231

  Gal. 2. 21.
• * 1.232

  Rom. 10. 3.
• * 1.233

  Phil. 3. 9. Rom. 3. 22.
• * 1.234

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Thes. 2. 12.
• * 1.235

  IX
• * 1.236

  C••••s. Col. fol. 10••.
• * 1.237

  Luk. 19. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.238

  Heb. 6. 19.
• * 1.239

  2. Cor. 1. 20.
• * 1.240

  Heb. 4. 16.
• * 1.241

  Rom. 5. 5.
• * 1.242

  Esa. 5. 20.
• * 1.243

  Mat. 27. 5. Act. 1. 18.
• * 1.244

  1. Cor. 1. 20.
• * 1.245

  Mar. 16. 1••. Iohn 3. 16.
• * 1.246

  Luke 10. 20.
• * 1.247

  Iohn 13. 18. Psal. 108. 8.
• * 1.248

  Luke 10. 17.
• * 1.249

  Rom. 8. 35.
• * 1.250

  2. Pet. 1. 1.
• * 1.251

  Rom. 8. 33.
• * 1.252

  Iam. 1. 6.
• * 1.253

  Iude. vers. 3.
• * 1.254

  Iohn 8. 51. Idem 4. 14.
• * 1.255

  Iohn 10. 29.
• * 1.256

  Rom. 8.
• * 1.257

  Mar. 11. 13.
• * 1.258

  Psal. 108. 8. Iohn 17. 12. Act. 1. 18.
• * 1.259

  Mart. 16. 18.
• * 1.260

  Mat. 7. 22.
• * 1.261

  Gen. 15. 6. Rom. 4. 3. Galat. 5. 5. Tit. 2. 13.
• * 1.262

  Heb. 6. 11. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.263

  Luk. 12. 32. Heb. 6. 12. Item. 11. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.264

  Iam. 1. 6, 7, 8 Mar. 19. 23. 24.
• * 1.265

  1. Pet. 1. 17. Phil. 2. 12.
• * 1.266

  Eccles. 9. 3.
• * 1.267

  Iob. 13. 15.
• * 1.268

  X
• * 1.269

  Cons. Col. 〈…〉〈…〉▪
• * 1.270

  Rom. 10. 14.
• * 1.271

  Isa. 63. 16.
• * 1.272

  Deut. 6. 13. & 10. Mat. 4. 10. Esa. 42 8. Iohn 16. 24.
• * 1.273

  Psal. 50. 16.
• * 1.274

  Iohn 15. 15.
• * 1.275

  Rom. 10. 14.
• * 1.276

  Ionah. 2. 8.
• * 1.277

  XI
• * 1.278

  Cens. Col. fol. 302.
• * 1.279

  Luke 22. 20. 2. Cor. 10. 16.
• * 1.280

  Luke 22. 19. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Cor. 11. 24
• * 1.281

  XII
• * 1.282

  Cens. Col. Col. 2 30.
• * 1.283

  Esd. lib. 3. cap. 3. ver. 1. & 5. ver. vlt. & lib. 4. cap. 1. ver. 2. Tob. 12. 15. Iudit. cap. 9. 2. Mac. 2. & 14. 4. Concil. Tri∣dent sess. 4. decret. de Canō. script.
• * 1.284

  1. Tim. 4. 1.
• * 1.285

  Act. 15. 29.
• * 1.286

  1. Pet. 4. 17.
• * 1.287

  Luke 16. 29. Eph. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 20. 2. Tim. 3. 15.
• * 1.288

  2. Thes. 2. 15.
• * 1.289

  2. Thes. 2. 13. 14.
• * 1.290

  Gen. 17. 7.
• * 1.291

  Ibidem. 17. 10.
• * 1.292

  Rom. 4. 11.
• * 1.293

  Matt. 15. 9. Mat. 7. 7.
• * 1.294

  Esay. 29. 1••.
• * 1.295

  XIII
• * 1.296

  Cens. Col. 66.
• * 1.297

  ••. Cor. 6. 15.
• * 1.298

  Mat. 4. 10. Exod. 10. 5.
• * 1.299

  Exod. 20. 5. Leuit. ••6. 1. Deut. 11. 16.
• * 1.300

  Pai〈…〉〈…〉lib. 9. orthodox, expl. pag. 705. Saunders de ••yp. honore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 adorat. imag.
• * 1.301

  Exod. 25. 20. Psal. 99. 5.
• * 1.302

  Num. 21. 9. Iohn. 3. 14.
• * 1.303

  2. Kin. 18. 4.
• * 1.304

  Phil. 2 9, 10.
• * 1.305

  Lind. de fug. idol. pag. 121
• * 1.306

  Mat. 28. 18. Iohn 17. 2.
• * 1.307

  Phil. 9. 10, 11.
• * 1.308

  Aug. lib. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 T••••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 9. & 10.
• * 1.309

  Aug. lib. 3. de doctr. christia. cap. 8. & 9.
• * 1.310

  1. Cor. 8. 4.
• * 1.311

  Rom. 1. 23.
• * 1.312

  Concil▪ Nicon. 2. Pro. 6. 2.▪
• * 1.313

  Apoc. 21. 8.
• * 1.314

  1. Thess. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 9.
• * 1.315

  Thom. Aquin. tert. parte summae. ouaest. 25. Saunderus de typic. hon. et ador. imag. Payua orthodox. expl. lib. 9. pag. 706.
• * 1.316

  Exod. 20. 4. 1. Iohn 5. 21.
• * 1.317

  2. The. 2. 3. 4. Iren. lib. 5. cap. 20. 5. Aretas An∣dreas apud Aretā pag. 955. 956.
• * 1.318

  Apo••. 13. 18.
• * 1.319

  2. Thes. 2. 10.
• * 1.320

  ••phe. 5. 13.
• * 1.321

  The 2. part.
• * 1.322

  Luke 20. 25. Rom. 13. 1. Tit. 3. 1.
• * 1.323

  Psal. 119. 105. Ex. 23. 2. E••e. 20. 18
• * 1.324

  A sermon of Cuth. Bishop of Duresme printed. Anno 1539.
• * 1.325

  Saunders of the visible monarch. in the 7. booke pag. 334. 732. 736.
• * 1.326

  Matt. 22. 21.
• * 1.327

  Luth. in ex∣pos. decalogi Tom 7. pag. 1. 19.
• * 1.328

  Cal. inst. lib. 4. cap. 20. sect. 4.
• * 1.329

  Psal. 82. 1. 6. Iohn 10. 25.
• * 1.330

  Act. 4. ••9.
• * 1.331

  1. Pet. 4. 15.
• * 1.332

  Saunders de v〈…〉〈…〉 mo∣••a••. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Howlets booke.
• * 1.333

  Iam. 1. 8.
• * 1.334

  Psal. ••9. 9. Isa. 49. 23. 2. King. 18. 40.
• * 1.335

  Matt. 23. 24.
• * 1.336

  Phil. 1. 29.
• * 1.337

  Nomb. 23. 8.
• * 1.338

  Deut. 1. 17.
• * 1.339

  The third part.
• * 1.340

  ••sa. 6. 1••.
• * 1.341

  Iude 10.
• * 1.342

  Phauorine. Hesychius. Plutarch.
• * 1.343

  Plato in dialog. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.344

  Cicero in Phaenon. Arati.
• * 1.345

  Exod. 29. 38. Heb. 8. 3. 1. Pet. 2. 5. Heb. 13. 15. Heb. 9. 22.
• * 1.346

  Abac. 2. 4. Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 2. 15. 6. 1. Ioh. 2. 1. 1. Tim. 2. 5.
• * 1.347

  Rom. 4. 3. Heb. 4. 1. 1. Thess. 5. 8. Tit. 3. 7.
• * 1.348

  Deut. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.349

  Aug. ad frat. in Eremo.
• * 1.350

  Cypr. de reuel. capi∣tis Iohn Bap.
• * 1.351

  Rom. 8. 16. Esai. 53. 1. Rom. 1. 16.
• * 1.352

  Rom. 11. 34. Iere. 17. 9.
• * 1.353

  1. Cor. 2. 11. Iohn. 16. 13.
• * 1.354

  Act. 16. 14.
• * 1.355

  2. Pet. 1. 20▪ 21.
• * 1.356

  Hieron. comment. in epist. ad Gal.
• * 1.357

  2. Thes. 2. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Tim. 4. 1. Apoc. cap. 13. & 14. &c.
• * 1.358

  Ireneus lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.359

  Luk, 6. 38.
• * 1.360

  Eph. 1. 23.
• * 1.361

  Euang. regni.
• * 1.362

  2. Pet. 2. 1.
• * 1.363

  1. Cor. 4. 3.
• * 1.364

  Iohn. 5. 39.
• * 1.365

  The fourth parte.
• * 1.366

  Aug. ep. 137.
• * 1.367

  Sander. de visib. Mo∣narch. lib. 7.
• * 1.368

  Cic. off. lib. 1.
• * 1.369

  Mat. 5. 20.
• * 1.370

  1. Tim. 1. 5. & 19.
• * 1.371

  Aug. ep. 137.
• * 1.372

  Plat. in vita Ioh. 14. &c. Onuph. Pan in Com.
• * 1.373

  Hos. 4. 12. 2. Thess. 2. 4.
• * 1.374

  Luke 9. 23.
• * 1.375

  Luke 16. 30.
• * 1.376

  Gal. 1. 8.
• * 1.377

  Apoc. 13. 1••.
• * 1.378

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tim. 3. 16.
• * 1.379

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Sam. 5. 10.
• * 1.380

  Apoc. 17. 5.
• * 1.381

  Aug. contra 〈…〉〈…〉ist. fundā. Manichaei. cap. 5.
• * 1.382

  Hos. 13. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.383

  Ma••••vrolog. Vsuardi. prid. Non. Aug.
• * 1.384

  Lib. Confor mitat. in i〈…〉〈…〉 tio.
• * 1.385

  Prou. 17. 15.
• * 1.386

  D. Watson in the for∣mer of the 2. sermons printed anno. 1554.
• * 1.387

  Luke. 22. 48.
• * 1.388

  Iam. 4. 12.
• * 1.389

  Sebastian Flaschius.
• * 1.390

  Phil. 1. 1••.
• * 1.391

  1. Tim. 19. 1.
• * 1.392

  Apoc. 22. 19.
• * 1.393

  Esa. 5. 20.
• * 1.394

  2. Tim. 4. 12.
• * 1.395

  1. Tim. 1. 2••▪
• * 1.396

  1. Cor. 9. 16.
• * 1.397

  Pro. 21. 30.
• * 1.398

  2. Thess. 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.399

  Psal. 106. 6.
• * 1.400

  Ier. 10. 24.
• * 1.401

  Iudg. 5. 28.
• * 1.402

  Psal. 32. 10.