The seconde erroure that Rastell layeth to my charge, is, that I wold bring the people in belefe that repentance of a man, hel∣peth not for the remission of his sinne.
IN prouing this second error against me, Rastel taketh so great paynes, * 1.1 that he is almoste besydes hym selfe. For he saith that I would make men * 1.2 beléeue that it forceth not, whether they sinne or no. Why so brother Ra∣stel? verely because I allege S. Iohn, * 1.3 S. Paule, Erechiell and Hieremie to quenche the hotte fire of purgatorie, and allege no aucthorities to proue good woorks, whervnto I answer (as I did before) that it is nothing to my purpose, for the prouyng of good wor∣kes doth neither make for purgatorie nor against it, I coulde haue alleaged all those textes if I had entended my selfe to proue that I shoulde doe good woorkes (which I neuer knewe chri∣sten man denie) but as touchyng my matter it is nothyng to the purpose, and as well he mighte haue improued me, bicause I bryng in no textes to proue that the father of heauē is god, or to proue that whych neuer manne doubted of, notwithstanding if Rastel had indifferent eyes, I spake suffici∣ently of good woorkes in the. 34. argu∣ment against hys dialoge, let all men read the place and iudge.
Rastel taketh the matter very grée∣uously that I attempt to allege howe S. Iohn & S. Paul send vs to Christ, * 1.4 and then adde that we know no other to take away sinne but only Christe, and because I adde this worde only, therfore he thinketh that I cleane de∣stroy * 1.5 repentance, whereunto I aun∣swere, that I added not thys woorde only for naught, but I did it by the au∣thoritie of S. Iohn, which saith: if we walke in the lighte, as he is in the lyght, we haue felowship with eche o∣ther, and in the bloud of Iesu Christe hys sonne, purifyeth vs frō all sinne, wherupon I say that for vs which are in the lyght, hys bloud only is suffici∣ent, but for your christen men whych continue still in sinne, and walke in