Answer to Assertions of Fecknam

To the right worshipfuls, Sir Francis Iobson Knight, Lieuetenaunt of the Toure, Sir Henry Neuell Knight, and M. Pellam Lieuetenaunt of the Ordinaunce, give these.

Y Our worships request was upon Sunday last, as I came from the Church, to know my liking of M. Goughes Sermon. Wherunto I answered: that I was very loath to find any fault with the sayings or doings of any man, being already in trouble as you know. You replied and said: that I was not able to find fault, where no fault was. I had thē no leisure to make any further answer, you departing homewardes, and I to my prison. But now considering with myself, y ^t I might seem unto you a greater offēder in holding my peace, than in speaking my mind: when as saying nothing I might ingender an opinion in you, that I am obstinate, self willed, and h • ue nothing to mislike but mine own proper fancy. On the other side, to declare my mind, I might signify unto you the just causes, and true occasions, which I have to find fault withal: not so much for reprehending other men, as to show the necessary stays of mine own conscience: I thought good, upon your lycence granted and obtained, to express by writing some faulty matter of his sermon, whereby your worships might perceive in the rest, how much fault he is worthy of for speaking, and how little I deserve for not liking of so ungodly pointes of doctrine. Desiring you most humbly, favorably to interpret these my notes of reprehending his Sermon: that is, to proceed of a mind, not desirous of contention, but desirous of the truth: more seeking to satisfy your request and demand, than to minister any occasion of further argument.

An Answer to certain Assertions and Objections of M. Fecknam sometime Abbot of Westminster, which he made of late against a godly Sermon of M. John Goughs, preched in the Toure the .xv. of January. 1570.

To the right worshipful, Sir Francis Iobson Knight, Liuetenaunt of the Tour, Sir Henry Neuel knight, and M. Pellam Lieuetenaunt of the Ordinaunce.

T Here was delivered unto me upon the .4. of March .1570. by a friend of mine, a little pamflet written by M. Fecknam sometime Abbot of Westminster, which he exhibited unto your worshippes, upon demand by you made of his liking of a godly Sermon preached by M. Goughe in the Toure the .15. of January .1570. Which when I had red over, I maruayled not a little both at the weakness of his cavilling Objections, he useth against such godly points of Doctrine, as he laboreth, by forsing of Scriptures and Doctors to his purpose, to overthrow: and also at his boldness in offering the same unto you. For I thought until I had perused it, that in so little a treatise, so great ignorance of Scriptures, of Doctors, of the common Art of Logic, which boys after one or two years being in the universities, are not ignorant in, could not have ben found in him, who carrieth so great a name and countenance of learning: Or at the least if his ignorance had been such, as by this I understand it in deed to be, that he could by politique silence have concealed it, and not by writing to your worshippes, (men I doubt not but of perfect knowledge and sound judgment in all points of true religion) revealed both it and the weakness of their common cause, which so fain he would support. How be it for this latter, in his Preamble he pretendeth some cause, as the avoiding with your worships, the opinion of obstinacy, self willfulness, want of just matter to mislike in the foresaid Sermon. &c and this in deed is but a bare pretence. For the bitterness of his style, and smothe scoffs, which he useth too often̄ in so short a discourse upon .iv. point • , showeth, he rather by these cavils sought to rid his stomach of a little choler, than anything else: or to abuse and seduce your worships as men altogether ignorant in these questions. But yet I will think the best, as y ^e rule of charity teacheth me, and conceive hope of his conversion, for which also I pray with my whole heart. And in case he blame me as not judging rightly of this his writing, being thereunto requested by you: let him weigh well his own & last words in his preface unto you, & say plainly whether a simple & plain meaning may be gathered of them: they be these. More seeking to satisfy your request and demand, than to minister any occasiō of further argument. What meaneth he hereby? Is he rather moved with satisfying your request thā the cause itself he standeth in, which he would make appear to the world to be the truth? Or if the truth of his .iv. assertions did more move him, than your requests, why feareth he least by his writing, occasion of further argument touching these questions be ministered?

If he know that he hath here by good argument maintained a good cause, then is there no cause why he should fear further debating, but he ought like a good minister and teacher, stand and offer himself ready prepared to the defense thereof, yea though it were with danger and loss of his life. But if he be guilty in his own conscience of the naughtiness of the cause and his own weak proves, why doth he so much abuse your worships with a show of confutation of the truth? What just causes and true occasions have lead him to reprehend so godly points of doctrine, taught by M. Gough, I refer to the judgment of any indifferent and learned Reader. I have used as much brevity as I could, in answering his arguments, that the reading thereof might not be tediouse to you. And last of all I thought good in mine own behalf, (lest some might think amiss of me for maintaining the quarrel, made against another man, as one desirous of contention, vain glory. &c.) to proteste unto your worshippes, that the earnest request of my very friend, who knew me to have a little spare time and M. Gough too be otherwise more profitably occupied, forced me to say somewhat in way of an answer to M. Fecknam: that I speak nothing of the truth of the common cause of religiō, which of itself ought to move any man zealous in God's religion, to take pen in hand against any that shall seek to impugn the same. Thus much I thought good to let you understand of the occasion of my dealing herein, and partly also for a piece of an answer to such talk, as M. Fecknam in his preface directeth, specially too your worships. The Lord Jesus confirm you in all truth daily increasing his knowledge and all other good gifts in you, Amen.

1 That it is not impossible to keep God's commandments.

B Efore I come to your proves & allegations, I must say a word or two of your coloured art and goodly show you make in your first proposition. It is the fashion of Rhetoricians (as you know) especially when their cause is not all of the best, & therefore misdoute the event of their action, so to behave them selves in their Exordium, that they may at the least purchase thus much, y ^t they may be heard, some by one means, some by another, the worst is not by procuring an evil suspicion too his adverse party. So is your dealing in this present case, to be better heard peradventure or to make your cause seem to be better, you give forth that in M. Goughes doctrine of the impossibility of keeping God's commandments, he followeth the race of the Manichees and the Valentinians. A grievous accusation if it were true and worthy to cause his doctrine to be rejected, if all that you speak were a Gospel. But peradventure you thought you had the sexton of Paul's in hand, when you presented this your writing to the worships of these in deed worshipful & godly gentlemen. The matter is thus, not many years since, a good companion minding to recreate him self with the sexton, charged him self with a baskette heavy laden as he made the matter appear, directing his way through Paul's Church, because it was the shorter: where he was met of his mate: and demanded why in that solemn time he passed thorough that place so charged, a thing not to be endured, the circumstances being considered. This companion desired him to let him pass, for that he was heavy laden with certain plate, and therefore the gladder too take the shorter way. The sexton would not be persuaded, but alleging the Queens profit, caused him to set down his baskette, and sent immediatlye for such as too whom it appertained to have the view of such matters: who thinking to have found some▪ great matter, as they had been informed by the sexton, willed the basket to be opened, and what found they? for a cupbourde of plate a basket of horns. Thus had he his jest at the sexton: but you M. Fecknam, thanks be unto God, have not to do with a sexton: they do well see your horny plate: but because you yourself deceived yourself, thinking it to be plate, they have used this charitable way, that it may be shown unto you, that they are in deed but horns. And therefore this horn will nothing move them as I trust, until you be able to show that the denying of free will, to the establishing of the grace of God, whereby we are justified from sin, and saved from infirmity, is the doctrine of Maniche or Valentinian. This I remember Valentinian and his say, that to us, qui ab Ecclesia sumus, opera necessaria esse, aliter enim impossible est seruari, which are of the Church works be necessary, for otherwise it is impossible to be saved, and that teach you: s • ipsos vero non per opera, sed propterea quod ex natura spirituales sunt, penitus & omnino saluari docēt, but they teach that they them selves are wholly & altogether saved, not by works, but because of nature they be spiritual: and this teacheth not M. Gough. Therefore that gloss might well have been left out, if you had more thought upon the truth of the matter, how well you might have alleged it, than only for a cloke of yourself barely to allege it. For to prove M. Gough a Manichean, or any of his fellows in his heresies, it will be hard for you, and as impossible as to fulfill the law: but to prove you a Pelagian, it is easy enough, and as easy as in Christ Jesus for M. Gough and us to keep the law. But to prove you such a one is not my chief purpose: my mind is rather to convince your heresy, and bring you to the flock of Christ, if it so please God too give you the eyes of understanding, and a heart to repent. Therefore to do the duty of good Christians, let us yield our selves unto God to be governed by his spirit, & submit our selves in hūblenes to his word, & without all vain opinion of well or evil defending a question, arrest our selves upon his Prophets & Apostles, which have and do show us the way to walk in, and minister unto us the true light, whereby we may chase a way all these darknesses. This way if we take, no doubt he will show us the truth: if we reject it, why should he not farther punish us with blindness?

So then to come to your first position, That it is not impossible to keep God's commandments, I will answer youre places of the scripture alleged and your Doctors, and there withal show out of them both the contrary, that it is impossible, and so shall I show I trust, that in that article M. Goughe hath taught no ungodly point of doctrine, and so will I do consequently with the residue. And that it may be more plainly and evidently done, that there may be no occasion of doubt in any branch of my doctrine, I will first show howe they are impossible, and by what means: and after, howe they are possible, and howe they may be fulfilled. This done, I shall sufficiently answer youre places alleged, and if GOD so will, take away this veil from before youre eyes, which is a let unto you that you cannot see.

Touching the first, S. Paul dilating and amplifying his probation of the free justification which we have thorough the tender mercy of GOD in Christ Jesus, saith in this wise: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &c. For that that was impossible to the Law in as much as it was weak because of the flesh, God sending his son in the similitude of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. The words are but few, and therefore easy to be remembered, nay therefore better to be considered: God sent his own son: Why? To condemn sin in the flesh: Why so? Bicause it was impossible to the law: wherefore? in as much as it was weak because of the flesh. Why then we may conclude, that the Law is a burden, and so grievous a burden, that neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear, and that because of our weakness. Hereof it is that he saith in another place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &c. For if there had been a law givē which could have given life, surely righteousness should have been by the Law. It is the work of grace to save and quicken, the receyuers whereof, although they were extreme enemies to the wholesome doctrine of the holy scriptures they become freends. It is not the work of the doctrine, which whosoever hear and read without the grace of GOD, they are made worse enemies. Therefore the grace of God is not in the nature of free will and in the law and doctrine as the perverse Pelagian doth deceyptfully believe and teache: but at every moment it is given by his good will and pleasure, of whom it is said: Thou o God sendest a gracious rain upon thine inheritance. For we lost both free will to love god by the greatness of our first sin: and the law also and the doctrine thereof, although it be holy and good and just, yet it killeth if the Spirit do not quicken, by which spirit it cometh to pass that not by hearing, but by obeying, neither by reading, but by loving, it is observed. For the Law without grace, is but a letter, it remaineth to convince sin, but not to give salvation. So saith the Apostle. For if there had been a law given, which could have given life, surely righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ should be given to them that believe. Of this letter he saith in another place: The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth. Thou hast the letter but thou dost not fulfill the letter. And why dost thou not fulfil the letter? Bycause thou presumest of thyself, thou extollest thy works, thou knowest not that the grace of the helper is necessary, that the precept of the cōmaunder may be fulfilled. Behold, God hath commanded thee, do that which be commandeth: thou beginnest to do, as of thine own strength, and thou fallest, and so remaineth the punishing and not the saving letter. Let us a little more near consider this question, what these words import, and what they mean, It is not impossible to fulfil the law : The Law and the Spirit are set as opposite, as killing and quickening, as Moses & Christ, therefore in plain words the question is this: Whether it be possible, without Christ: by the works only of the Law which we can perfectly and absolutely perform in such order and manner as GOD hath commanded, to be saved? And your position is, that we can if we list perfectlye as he commandeth in all points fulfill his Law, and so purchase life unto our selves, without the quickening spirit, without the grace of God. For if you say not this, you say nothing, as you shall hereafter more plainly understand. A preventing grace and helping you grant (whereof I will not defraud you) and after permitted to your own willes you can do what you list, and keep the commandments, and purchase heaven, & as it followeth, caste Christ away: Now then let us join together: I say that thou O Man whatsoever thou art, so setting Christ his death and passion a side, of whose fullness we have all received, and setting aside grace and truth which cometh by Jesus Christ, I say that thou canst not by any possibility, if thou shouldst live seven hundredth years, fulfil the law of GOD, and so be saved. For if there had been a Law given, which could have quickened, justice had been by the Law, neither should a Savior been sought for, nor Christ have come, nor with his blood have sought his lost sheep, as the Apostle saith in another place. For if righteousness be by the Law, then is Christ dead in vain. Let us consider what is the best of us, Solomon said at the dedicatiō of his Temple: There is no man on the earth which sinneth not. David saith, no man living shall be justified before God. Saint Paul plainly affirmeth this, The flesh coveteth ageinst the spirit, and the spirit ageinst the flesh: and useth no other reason to prove that all which are under the law are cursed, but this: Bicause it is written, Cursed be they that confirm or fulfill not all these words of this law to do them. And such were mē not in their time only, but such is our nature at this day: there is no time nor seasō, no hour or moment, in which we ought not to say, forgive us our trespasses, & where forgiveness is requisite, there is no perfectiō, there is no law fulfilled, there is no saluatiō wrought: neither is it thus to be thought y ^t these & such like sentences are spokē of men not regenerate & assisted with y ^e grace of god: for Paul speaking of himself & of the contention & strife y ^t he felt, said: Noui non habitare in me, id est, in carne mea, bonū: nā velle adest mihi, sed vt quod bonū est perficiā, nō assequor. Non enim facio bonum quod volo, sed malum quod nolo, hoc ago. For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but I find no means to perform that which is good. Here you may see that the Apostle himself was frail in body, & that he had as yet no righteousness & perfection. That you may know that y ^e Apostle himself which would save others, is yet in way of curing, that ye may know that he is yet a curing, if you esteem his honor, mark what emplaister y ^e medicine hath laid to the swelling. Hear not me, hear himself confessing, that you may perceive him teaching. Now may I say to the Apostle Paul: Be not proud thou holy Apostle: thou must take heed y ^t thou be not proud. What sayst thou to me saith he. Hear thou also. Hear what I am, & be not high minded, but fear: hear how the little Lamb may go in, where the Ram is in such danger. Ne excellentia reuelationum supra modum efferrer, datus est mihi surculus infixus carni. &c. Leste I should be exalted, saith he, out of measure thorough the abundance of Revelations, there was given unto me a prick in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffit me, because I should not be exalted out of measure. Let us then by this example consider that we are men, let us acknowledge that the holy Apostles were men, chosen vessels, but yet frayl, as yet pilgrims in this flesh. No doubt but Paul and David, and the residue of the most saints that ever were, thought this either the chiefest or the only perfection, if they knew them selves to be imperfect. And you, saith he, when you have done all, say we are unprofitable servants, we have done but what we ought to do. If he be unprofitable which hath done all things, what shall we say of him which could not fulfill. Therefore the Apostle said that he had partly received and partly comprehended, and yet was not perfect, and that he forgot things past, and auanced him self to things to come. He that always forgetteth things past and desireth things to come, declareth himself not content with things present. But can you show me any other that was better in this case, than the Apostle? You say the commandments, of GOD are easy, and yet you can show none that hath fulfilled them all. Aunswere me are they easy or hard? If they be easy, show me who hath fulfilled them, and why David saith in his Psalm &c. You know where I am. I cut it of because I would be short, and yet must I say something: It followeth, But if they be hard, why darest thou say that the cōmaūdements are easy, which no man hath fulfilled? Mark this by the way, which no man hath fulfilled. And if you think it peradventure faulty to reason Ab esse ad posse negatively, although I might well answer you that in attributo specifico it is no fault, although it be in indiuiduali: yet have I rather to give you the answer of him which may prevail more with you than mine, and God grant it may do so. Dicitis his verbis. &c. You say in this sort: It is another thing to be, and another to may be, or be possible to be. To be consisteth not in our power, but to be able to be is spoken universally. That although one be not, yet he may be that will be. I pray you, what kind of reasoning is this, y ^e thing may be which never was? that that may be done, which you witness that no man hath done? to attribute that unto any man, who whither he shall be or no, you know not, & give I cannot tell to whom, that which you cā not prove to have been in the Patriarchs & Prophets & Apostles. Do not you perceive that your assertions are contrary within themselves? Either they are easy & a great mumber of men have fulfilled them, or they are hard and you have rashly said, that to be easy which is hard. You are wont to say this also: either the commandments are possible and well given of God, aut impossibilia & in his non esse culpam? or impossible, and no fault in thē which have received the cōmaundemēts, but in him y ^t gave those which were impossible. Nunquid Deus. &c. Hath god commanded me to be that which God is, that there should be no difference betwixt men and the Lord the Creatoure? that I should be higher than the Angels? That I should have that which the Angels have not? Of him it is written as a property, which did not sin, and there was no guyle found in his mouth. If this be cōmō to me with Christ, what had he proper? Otherwise your sentence is destroyed of itself. If you think not this whole tretise which I have alleged, rightly cited against you, show me wherein you differ. You say that the commandments are possible to be kept, you can show none that hath kept them either of the Patriarchs or of the Prophets, or Apostles. You say moreover, that if God hath commanded things impossible, the fault is in him and not in us. Seeing then y ^t you accord in all these points with them, you must either show some farther reason, why S. Jerome may not be derived against you, or else give glory to God and confess your error. For to allege for yourself that you there in differ from them, because they only granted gratiam praeuenuntem, and you both that & adi •• antem, it availeth you not. For the patriarks had that, the Prophets had that, y ^e Apostles had that and in such sort, that god was unto them semper larguor, semper{que} donator, always a liberal giver, and always a free giver, and yet they could not as you there read. I could here bring in more allegations both out of this father and other, but for fear of being to long, I leave them. I trust these few may serve with the help of gods spirit to open your eyes & believe. And thus have I shown how they are impossible.

Now to come to my second menber, and to show you how they are possible & may be fulfilled, I will not stray far away, neither seek very wide, for that I need not: I will come home to my first Allegation which sufficeth for dissolving of this dout: and therefore I chose it moved thereunto, because I see S. Jerome use the same order: and in eschuing of prolixity, our rule is good: frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora: that is vainly done by a longer way, which may be done by easy and short means. Let us then see how the Apostle dissolveth this dout. For that that was impossible to the law in as much as it was weak because of the flesh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . GOD sending his own son in the similitude of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh. And in an there place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. & ye which were dead in sins, & in the vncircūcision of your flesh hath he quickened together w ^t him, forgeuing you all your trespasses, and putting out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, he even toke it out of y ^e way & fastened it upon y ^e cross. &c. Now to condemn sin in the flesh, to fasten y ^e hand writing upon y ^e cross, to spoil principalities & powers, to triumph over thē in y ^e cross, what other thing doth it import, than perfect righteousness gotten, than a performing of y ^e law? if it be already performed, then was it a good cōsequēt to say it might be performed, & herein we agree. By whō y ^e Apostle teacheth you, by Christ Jesus, & by him only, for so is Paul's cōsequēt in these words. For that y ^t was impossible to y ^e law, in as much as it was weak because of y ^e flesh, God sending his son. &c. For y ^e cause why God sent his own son, was the weakness of our flesh by reason whereof the law could not be fulfilled, & his anger appeased. So then this causeth us with confidence to say, O death where is thy sting, O hell where is thy victory? there is no cōdēnation to thē which are in Christ Jesus. And in that, y ^e Christ is our justification, our sanctification, our peace, we may say y ^t we fulfil the law, & y ^t no one jot passeth us nor one prick in y ^t he forgiveth what we cannot do. And so you have another way how the commaūdemēts are possible. Therefore to come unto you, I say as you say: y ^t the commandments are possible, & how these words are to be understand that elect vessel doth most plainly teach us as I alleged. For that y ^t was impossible, &c. & again, • x operib{us} legis, by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. And y ^t we may not think it only spoken of the law of Moses, & not of all the commandments which are comprehended in the name of the law, the same apostle witnesseth saying. Consentio legi Dei. I delight in y ^e law of God concerning y ^e inner mā, but I see another law in my members rebelling, &c. O wretched mā y ^t I am, who shall deliver me frō y ^e body of death. Gratia dei {per} Jesus̄ Christū dn̄m nostrū: it is y ^e grace of god through Christ Jesus M. Feck. For as we are cast down by one, so must y ^e gift of righteousness be by one, y ^t is by Jesus christ: and why it cā be but by Christ, y ^t this fulfilling of y ^e law, this righteousness must be, y ^e Apostle showeth, in another place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for we know y ^t the law is spiritual, but I am carnal sold under sin. For I alow not y ^t which I do: for what I would that do I not, but what I hate that do I: and so forth as it followeth in the whole text. The nature of the most godly of all is such, that he cannot do as he would. By the spirit he may do much, but as long as he is compassed with this body of death, he cannot do all. So saith the Apostle in this place. Non enim facio bonum quod volo. I do not the good thing which I would. Do not burden us, as you have done in the beginning Master Gough, with the error of the Manicheans and such like which trouble the Church with their wicked phantasies, saying, that that nature is naught, which cannot be changed by any means, and impute this not to me but to y ^e Apostle, who knoweth y ^t God is one, & man another: the frailnesse of the flesh is one, and the strength of the spirit another. For the flesh desireth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these do so strive and contend eche with other, that we cannot do such things as we would do. You shall never hear of me y ^t nature is naught, but how the fragility of the flesh is to be reasoned of, let us learn of him which teacheth, Ask him why he said, for that which I would do, that I do not, but the evil which I hate, that do I. What necessity hindereth his will, what force commandeth him to do things so hateful, so that, not that which he would, but that which he hated and would not, he is constrained to do. He will answer • you: O man, what art thou, that so aunswerest God? shall the clay say unto the potter, why hast thou made me so? hath not the potter power over his claye, to make of one lump a vessel to honor, and another to dishonor? Concerning justice and grace, it may be well said of the guilty which is absolved, and of the guilty which is condemned. Take that which is thine, and go thy ways, I will give this man that which is not due unto him. Is it not lawful for me to do what I list? Is thy eye naught, because I am good? Here if he should say and why not to me? he shall worthily hear, O man, what art thou that so aunswearest God? whom thou seest towards one of you to be a moste bountiful bestower, and towards thee a most just exactor, and yet in nether of you unjust. Seeing that he should be just, if he punished either, he which is delivered hath to give thanks, he which is condemned hath not to reprehend. Sure it is, that our flesh is frail, that our nature is corrupt, and so corrupt, that it letteth us, that we cannot do our duty, let us not seek howe it is so, but as S. Paul himself did, how ye may be delivered from it, and still cry with our selves, Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius, who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? you stand upon the possibility of the law: there are diversity of gifts as you know, can you attain to all of them? there are many sciences, as Grammar, Rhetoric, Logike, &c. Who is he of all us, be he never of so excellent a wit, that can be a perfect Gramarian, a perfect Logician, a perfect Rhetorician, a perfect Philosopher, a perfect lawyer, a perfect Physician? the excellent orator & lawyer he saith, There are few which attain one, but both no man can. You see, then that God hath commanded a possible thing, and yet that which is possible, no man can perform by reason of our nature. He hath given therefore diverse precepts and diverse virtues which we can not have all together. To be short and to make an ende of this parte, the old saying is true, non omnia possumus omnes, there is none of us all can do all things: and there is none or very rare is that riche man, which in all his substance possesseth all things equallye. God hath commaun • ed possible things, I grant it. But all these possible things, we cannot everyone have, not for the weakness of nature (that is, as it was first made of God) least you slander God, but for the weariness of mind which cannot have all virtues together, and always. And thus much touching these two partes, whereby you may understand, how we say that the keeping of the law is possible. And how it is impossible. This considered, I come to your arguments.

Your first is taken out of the eleventh of Matthew: and your words are these. Contrarie to this doctrine, is our Savior Christ, where he willeth us to take his yoke upon us, because it is light. Tollite iugum meum super vos, iugum enim meum suaue est▪ & onus meum leave. Take my yoke upon you, for my yoke is sweet, and my burden is light. If it be a light burden, M. Goughs heavy example, hath not a penny worth of good skill.

This is neither contrary to his doctrine, M. Fecknam, neither is his heavy example void of skill. But that which causeth you to think it to be contrary, is that you deceive yourself, and make a Paralogisme as the Logicians call it, à fallacia accidentis, which I shall be able to show you by your doctors. For you do not reason with M. Gough in sensu vniuoco, and in his proposed matter. He taught you in his sermon that to fulfill the law was impossible, you oppose and lay for an answer, that the yoke of Christ is easy. S. Jerome upon the same place teacheth you that here be subiecta diuersa, & therefore in your disputation there is no vniuocatio. Your subjects are Lex and Euangelium, the law and the Gospel, of which two he saith thus. Quo modo leuius lege Euangelium: quum in lege homicidium, in Euangelio ira damnetur? Qua ration Euangelij gratia facilior, quū in lege adulterium, in Euangelio concupiscentia puniatur? In lege multa precepta sunt, quae Apostolus non posse compleri plenissime docet. How is the gospel lighter than the law, seeing y ^e murder is condemned in the law, and anger is condemned in the gospel? How is the grace of the gospel easier, seeing that in the law adultery, and in the gospel concupiscence is punished? Many things are commanded in the law, which y ^e Apostle showeth most plainly, that they cannot be accomplished. In y ^e law works are required, which who soever doth, shall live in thē. In the Gospel y ^e will is required, which although it have not the effect, yet it leeseth not the reward. So that by this Doctor, here is a comparison betwixt the law and the gospel, and as far difference there is betwixt your two arguments, as is betwixt velle and facere. And mark then, is this a good argument. Non possum facere, ergo nō possum velle, I am not able to do, therefore I am not able to will: or this, Possum velle, ergo possum facere, I am able to will, therefore I am able to do. Take which you will, these are your arguments. I am sure you see how little hold there is in them: therefore confess the truth, give glory to God, and be not ashamed to have erred, but be ashamed to remain in your error. The gospel sure is easier than y ^e law, y ^e grace of Jesus Christ forpasseth & surmounteth the letter. If you will consider your heavy burden and come unto Christ, & crave pardō for your sins, & have a mind to walk in his paths, and where you fall down desire him to lift you up, to cloth your nakedness with his garmente, you shall find rest and refreshing. and this is an easy yoke. But if you will needs do, when he requireth the will, you will burden yourself with an heavy yoke. I could allege upon this same place of Matthew Theophilact, and Glossa ordinaria, which neither of them take the place as you do, but I pass them over because I would be short. You yourself may read them.

Your second argument is of like force. Where you say thus. S. John to this effect saith. Quod mandata eius grauia non sunt. That his commandments be not heavy, if they be not heavy, they be far unlike M. Goughs lump of lead, impossible to be taken up and removed.

It is I say of like sort, as Nicholas de Lyra interpreting the place of Matthew doth allege out of Augustine, where he saith thus. Mandata gra • ia non sunt, quod exponens Aug. dicit. s. amanti: The commandments are not heavy, which S. Augustine expounding saith, that is, to the loving. S. John saith so himself in effect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. For all that is borne of God overcometh the world. For in deed the commandments being tempered. with the mercy and goodness of our heavenly father accepting then all donne, when that is pardoned which is not done, and as David saith, &c. Chy immecha haselichach. For with thee is pardon that thou mayst be feared. Then to the child of God, to him that hath the victory of y ^e world, that hath Emunah, a sure and a stable faith, that believeth in Christ Jesus the son of God, to him the commādemēts are not grievous: nay they are hamnechmadim mizahab more desirous than gold, vinethukim middebasch ▪ and sweeter thā honey, & this is y ^e true sense of y ^e place.

Your third is this. S. Paul in rebuking these idle hearers of the law, which say that they can hear it, but not do it, and fulfill it, writeth. Non enim auditors legis iusti sunt apud Deum, sed factores legis iustificabunt • r. For not the hearers of the law be just with God, but the doers shall be justified. If they do the law, then it may be done, then it is possible. Ab esse ad posse is a good argument. They do works of the law, therefore they may be done.

First touching the scope of the Apostle, you are deceived. Pardon me, I speak it not of malice or to taunt I protest, but for the truth of the matter. The Apostles purpose is not there to rebuke idle hearers of y ^e law, & say that they can hear it, but not fulfil it: But he goeth about to conclude all under sin, and show that everyone hath need of the glory of God: and therefore maketh this occupation. The Jews cannot exempt them selves from this sentence, because they had the law amongst them. Nō enim qui audiunt legem. &c. For not they, which hear the law are just with God. &c. And they did not the law as it appeareth in the same place. Therefore I marvel how you conclude out of these words your so strong argument, Ab esse ad posse. If you will needs follow your own sense & muse upon these words, Factores legis iustificabuntur, the doers of the law shall be justified: Hear what you have in Glossa ordinaria. Iustificabuntur .i. iusti deputabuntur: vel iustifient a Deo, vt sint factores. Non qui ante erant factores, post iustificabuntur: vt si diceretur, homines creabuntur, quia ipsa creatione sit vt sint homines. Sic ipsi non qui ante erant factores iustificabuntur quia etiam gentes. They shall be justified, that is, they shall be accounted just: or they shall be made just of God: that they may be doers: not which were doers, shall be justified. As if it should be said, men shall be created: because by the creation they are made men. So likewise not they which were doers before, shall be justified, because the gentiles also. This would I repeat unto you, as a thing which you know well enough, because I think you have often read it, for that he saith well and truly, and according to the scriptures, although not very fit to this place, to the end that you may see how little it serveth for you, if you be not minded to follow my first answer, which I think and hope you will, if you will look upon the place. And here I beseech you in y ^e mercies of Christ Jesus to consider with yourself your own state: I think the best of you, I think you have not the Bible and other books about you: If you had you would never allege places in such sort, so far from the purpose of the holy ghost, so little to purpose. I speak it with grief of heart, the Lord knoweth. I am sorry to see you in such blindness: right glad would I be to see the glory of god appear in you to your health and salvation, • not to your destru • ction. Well the Glosa interlinealis goeth farther. Non enim auditors legis .i. pro auditu legis, sed factores .i. gratia iustificat eos vt adimpleant legem, quia non faciunt vt iustificētur, sed iustificantur vt faciant: For not the hearers of the law, that is, for the hearing of the law: But the doers, that is, Grace justifieth thē that they may fulfill y ^e law, because they do not the law that they may be justified, but are justified that they may do it. I shall not need to stand upon these words ( vt adimpleant legē, that they may fulfill the Law) for by that which I have said before, I trust you understand howe they are to be taken. Well let us go to your fourth Argument.

The Evangelist Saint Luke of these doers of the Law, bringeth a full example, writing thus of Zechariah and Elizabeth: Erant ambo iusti ante Deum. &c. They were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame. If S. Luke had the Spirit of truth, when he said that those two walked in all the commandments, then M. Goughe by his denial and impossibility put thereof, must needs have the Spirit of error and lying. Saint John saith: Qui dicit se nosse Deum, & mandata eius non custodit, mendax est. He that saith he knoweth God and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar.

No doubt, M. Fecknam, but Saint Luke had the Spirit of truth, and yet hath not M. Goughe the Spirit of error and lying. He teacheth no contrary doctrine why you should so conclude. Well let us examine the words and so shall we see. They were both just, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before God. Not y ^e god had nothing to lay to their charges putting Christ's deliverance a side, not that he had nothing in their lives to find fault withal, his mercy being put a parte, Nō est qui faciat bonum, non est us{que} ad vnum: there is not one that doth good (in such sort) not one. I trust you will not so say. Well how then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .i. Before God? You know M. Fecknā which are learned in tongues, that this phrase is borrowed of y ^e Hebrew tongue, biphne Jehovah, and that is so to walk in y ^e sight of the Lord, as in the eyes of God. As he said: Si Deos, homines{que} celare possum, If I could or might hyde this from God's and men. &c. meaning that he and she walked uprightly, not as dissembling Hipocrites, not in a fair show to the world as others, but their justice was such as which is done in the sight of God, plain and sincere, without all dubblnesse. And that is, be leb hatum, and not▪ be leb tahur. And this doth partly note unto you both Theophilactus and Lyra, upon this place. I refer you to y ^e places: I need not to recite the words. Let us go forward: Walking in all the commandments: Non quod nō procauerint saith your Glossae interlinaris. &c. Not because they sinned not, but because that thei being washed with the grace of God left to sin. I trust you will not stumble here neither, as though they sinned no more. For if we say so, veritas Dei non est in nobis, the truth of god is not in us: the last word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inculpate blameless. How this is to be understanded I refer you to Justinus Martyr, in Solu • q. 141. where he hath in effect these words. Iustus ex lege dicitur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . qui cùm p̄cauerit in ijs quae possunt cōdonari, sàcrificiorū oblation & delicti redemtione, remission accepta mundus efficitur, & a crimine liber. He is said to be just by the law, who after he hath sinned in those things which may be forgiven, having remission by the offering of sacrifice & redemption of y ^e offense is made clean & free from fault, and so are Elizabeth & Zechariah said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 blameless. Touching your last place of s. John. chap. v. I have said sufficient before in the place of y ^e .j. John. chap. v. This will I add by the way, y ^t in deed the knowledge of God cannot be without efficacy, and therefore they that brag them selves to be the childrē of God and to have a faith, and walk not in his commandments, are but liars. Now to your authorities of S. Jerome and Augustine.

S. Jerome writing of these teachers which sai that it is impossible to keep the law, hath these words: Execramur eorū blasphemiā, qui dicunt impossible aliquid homini à Deo praeceptum esse, et mandata eius non a singulis sed ab omnibus in communi posse seruari: That is: we detest their blasphemy which say that God hath commanded man to do anything impossible: and that the commandments of God may be kept, not of everyone in particular, but of all in general. He witnesseth that God's commandments may be observed of everyone in particular, and that God commandeth nothing impossible: for he detesteth the contrary doctrine, and calleth it blasphemy, and therefore I have little cause to like it.

I will not say as other do, & as I might well, that this is suspect: I have his mind in the same question, when he was urged with the same argument of the Pelagian. Possibilia inquit, mandata dedit Deus: Et quis hoc negat: Sed quomodo haec intelligenda sit sententia. &c. God gave, saith he, commandments which are possible: and who denieth it. But how this sentence is to be understood, the chosen vessel doth plainly declare. That which was impossible to the law in as much as it was weak because of the flesh, God sending his own son in y ^e similitude of sinful flesh. &c. and in another place he saith, Possibilia praecepit Deus. &c. God commanded things possible, and I grant it: but all these possible things, we cannot every man have. Not for the weakness of nature, least thou slander God, but for the weariness of y ^e mind, which cannot have all virtues together and always. Therefore if these be both Jerome's, and Jerome be not contrary to him self, you must thus understand youre place that he is to be detested which saith that God hath commanded mā to do anything that was impossible in itself to be fulfilled, had not y ^e frailnesse of man's nature other ways been a let: and them also that say that everyone in particular, being a true believer, cannot fulfill them in him, of whose fullness we all receive, and whose Justice is ours by his gift and grace. And in thus taking of it, I trust you will neither reject my answer, neither condemn M. Gough as one of that sort. Now to your place of S. Augustine.

S. Augustine likewise to the same ende saith. Deus neque impossible aliquid potuit imperare, qui iustus est, nec damnaturus est hominem pro eo, quod non potuit vitare, qui pius est. That is: God neither could command anything that is impossible, who is just: neither will he condemn any man, for that which he could not avoid, who is merciful. The contrary whereof to maintain doth blasphemously argue God, both of injustice and impiety. When he commandeth us to do, which M. Gough saith is impossible and condemneth us. For that, which he saith, we could not avoid.

This place of Augustine is easy enough, and hath in itself sufficient to answer you, not swerving a whitte from the state which I have made you, and the true meaning of M. Gough. He exhorteth them there unto charity, and reprehendeth withal the foolish tergiuersations and resistances which they made against y ^e scriptures. But a man will say, saith he, I can by no means love mine enemies. In all the Scriptures, God saith unto thee that thou canst: thou on the contrary part answerest that thou canst not. Mark now whether should a man believe thee or God. And therefore because the truth cannot lie, let man's frailenesse now leave his vain excuses, Quia nec impossible. &c▪ Bicause he could neither command anything which is impossible, who is just, neither will condemn man for that that he could not eschew, who is merciful, it followeth. Why dost thou resist in vain? Nemo enim quantum possumus. For no man knoweth better what we can do or may do, than he that hath given us (ipsum posse) that we may. Therefore if the commandments in themselves are not impossible, but by reason of our weakness, and God doth give us ability in this our defect in such sort as I have declared before, it must needs follow that his justice ageinst those that do it not is good and just: and this M. Goughe teacheth. He saith also in the beginning of his Epistle. In reliquis operibus bonis &c. In other good works a man may sometimes pretend some manner of excuse: but in having charity no man can excuse him self. A man may say unto me, I cannot fast: Can he say, I cannot love? A man may say for the infirmity of my body I cannot abstain from wine & flesh: can he say, I cannot love? A mā may say, I cannot keep myself a virgins: A man may say, that he cannot sell all his substance and give it to the poor, can he say, I cannot love mine enemies and forgive thē which have offended ageinst me? Let no man deceive him self (dear brethren) for God deceiveth no man. For although there be many things, which for the fragility of man's nature we cannot corporally fulfill, yet without any doubt we may have charity in our hearts God so inspiring it if we will in deed. Thus you see by this place, what we may do, when God giveth that which he commandeth, when he worketh that in us that he requireth, and yet that we of our selves cannot do so much as keep a virgins, as sel our substance, as give to the poor. And so have I briefly answered your Objections, without all prolixity of farther Allegation of moe authorities: desiring you rather to rest yourself upon the scriptures, whereon we may surely ground our selves, than upon the wavering judgment of men in whom you see verified the common saying, Quot capita, tot sensus. So many understandings as be heads: and I would it were not so in everyone of them.

2 That the holy Angels and Saints of heaven may hear our prayers.

AS touching this question (M. Fecknam) to say what I think, it is but fond and curious, as sought forth and invented rather to be some stay and ground to a schism, thā to edify the church of God. For no doubt had it been necessary for us, the holy Ghost would have made some express mention of it in the canonical scriptures, whereas I am sure you are not able to bring one direct place. But such is the nature of man, readier to seek out things of no profit, & which serve to nothing but to strife & dissention, than to follow y ^• which is left unto them for their profit. The cause of this search hath been to maintain your prayer to the saints, which how it followeth of it, if it be to be granted, we shall see hereafter. As for that error of Vigilantius I had rather err w ^t him, than go straight with Jerome, if you can show me no better proof. To be short in this fond matter, omitting the variety of many opinions, as Augustine's in his book de spiritu & amma, where he saith thus: Ibi siquidem sunt spiritus defunctorum, vbi non vident, ne{que} audi • nt▪ &c. There are the spirits of y ^e dead, where they neither see nor hear &c. and in diverse other places, & also other men's: also letting pass other questions which ensue hereof: how far they hear? And what they hear? with such like, I will lay down this only which I read in Hazzohar, His words in the Syrian tongue sound thus word for word. Tantum sciunt Angeli de rebus nostris, quantum illis datū est & traditum vt sciant. the angels know so much of our affairs as is given and delivered to them to know. What that is, & when it is, neither you can tell, neither any of yours, that you may make your conclusion available. And for such an uncertainty whereby your consciences cannot be staid to leave a certainty and an vnfallyble anker, Inuoca me in die tribulationis, cal upon me in the day of trouble. Vnus est mediator dei & hominum homo Christus Jesus, there is one mediator of God and mā, the man Christ Jesus. Quaecun{que} petieritis paetrem meum in nomine meo dabit vobis: What so ever you ask my father in my name he will give it you: To leave I say these sure holds & such like, for that doutful change, what oversight is it, what contempt of God's word? As for the consequent you make hereof. The angels hear us, ergo we may or must pray unto them. I know not how you think in your own conscience, but to my judgment it is so strange as the Doctrine it self, yea rather more 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 strange. When you shall be able to make me this a good consequent, I will say as you say: but sooner may you bring heaven & earth together, sooner may you cause the East & the West to meet, than to bring it to any rule of a good consequent. I am sure M. Fek. y ^t audire et precari, that is, to hear & to pray, are two accidents, disparata, y ^t is unlike & separated one frō y ^e other, which depend not either of other, vllo aut praedicationis aut naturae vinculo, either ration sui, or ration subiecti. And as good a consequent is this, to say, Croesus est diues, Ergo Philosophus, y ^t is, Croesus is rich, therefore he is a Philosopher, as Angeli audiunt, Ergo angeli sunt inuocandi, that is, Angels hear, therefore they are to be called upon. And unless this consequent be admitted, you have no ground for this point of doctrine. I am loath, I ensure you to s • and in this point. For any man that shall either hear or read this, will think rather I speak it to triūphe over you (as God knoweth I do not, I wish you better) because the matter is more plain, thā that it needeth any such demonstration. But less I could not speak, because you so make the collection in your first allegation. For my parte I do as gladly let pass things not necessary & of small moment, as other men could be content to have them buried. Well, for invocation itself ether of Angels or saints, let us say a word or two (for to speak much of it at this present it needeth not, for that it hath been freshly handled by others, & you have seen it or may) and dispatch this trifling question, which breedeth more dissention thā it bringeth profit. First we have this, that invocation is a piece of God's service due only to his honor, inuoca me in die tribulationis, call upon me in the day of trouble, and of this he is jealous. Honorem meum non dabo alteri, my honor I will give to none other, & such a piece of God's service it is, that it carrieth a belief with it in him on whom ye call, quo modo inuocabunt, in queas non crediderunt? how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? in whom you must believe, you are not I trust to learn in this age, but thus much by the way, he must be God, in quem credis, in whom you believe. It is not cui, nor de quo to whom you give credit, nor of whom you believe well. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in quem that is, in whom If you can find any other inuocatiō but this, I would gladly see it: non quaero exemplum, quaero▪ authoritatem, I seek not or demand of you an example or fact, but authority. I demand no more of you, than you may justly of me: of our rest and certeyntie, I give you these: Inuoca me in die tribulationis, cal on me in the day of trouble. And our Savior Christ, when you will pray, pray thus: Oure father &c. Not that no other form of prayer may be used, but showing to whom the prayer must be directed. And again, whosoever calleth be schem Jehovah, upon the name of the Lord, he shall be saved. And howe this is to be taken if we neither learn of Christ nor Christian, an old Jew will teache us, Rabbi Iodan, god give us all this cōfessiō. His words recited in Midrasch tillim be mizmor 4 are these Basar vadam iesch lo pitron higiay lo yeth tzarah eno nichnas lephanau pithom ella ba veyamad all pethach pitrono ve kore le abdo vehu omer, peloni all happethah: ve hacchadosch baruch hu eno chen. higia eth tzara le Israyl lo iehe kore lo le Gabriel, ve lo le Michael, ella kore otho, veh one otho hare hu daamar, colascher ikra be schem Jehovah immalet. That is, flesh & blood hath a patron in y ^e time of his necessity, he will not streightway go into his presence, but cometh and standeth at the door of his patron, and calleth his servant, & he telleth his Master that there is one at the door. But with God we must not so do. At what time Israel is in affliction or necessity, he must neither call to Gabriel nor to Michael, but he must call upon God, and he heareth him: and this is if that is said: whosoever calleth on the name of y ^e Lord, he shall be saved. But as I said, I will not be long herein because it were but Actum agere, to do that is already done: my purpose is but to run over your Arguments.

Youre first is this: To this opinion is clean repugnant the saying of our Savior Christ when he teacheth that more joy shall be in heaven before the Angels of God upon one sinner doing penance, than upon nintie and nine just men which need no penance.

First, not to medle with the sense of the place, which Christ expresseth by these words of joy, applying his doctrine unto our capacity, I may well answer you with a simple denial. The consequent is naught, Angels shall rejoice upon the conuersiō of a sinner, ergo Angels do hear and know whatsoever we ask and pray: A futuro ad praesens in meris contingentibus, you know non valet argumentum. And it is not a consequentibus as you take it. For those Arguments must be in pari tempore. As for Example: Haec mulier pariet, ergo concipiet, this woman shall bring forth, therefore she shall conceive. And it is naught to say pariet, Ergo concepi • , she shall bring forth, therefore she hath conceived: unless there be limitatio temporis, a limitation and restrainte to the certain time in which she conceived: and y ^t in ijs quae sunt ex necessitate materiae. But in • ere cōtingentibus, they must be always • iusdem temporis ▪ at one selfsame time, as • ras pluet, ergo • ras nubes erunt, tomorrow it shall rain, therefore tomorrow there shall be clouds. But to say • ras pluet, ergo hodie nubes sunt, tomorrow it shall rain, therefore there are clouds this day, this is no reasō. For agreement of time being set posito antecedente, sequitur cōsequens etiam in contingētibus. If one rejoice it is a consequent that he heareth or hath heard, but to say, he shall rejoice tomorrow, ergo, he heareth today. I cannot tell how this consequent hangeth together. What if I answer you, facta reuelat • Deus, nō facienda: that is to say, God revealeth things done, & not to be done. What cā you then say? Your place imporeth, y ^e God will make manifest to Angels, how a sinner hath reap̄ted, not that he will show to them that they shall repent. And so had youre Argument ben good: He will make them rejoice for the conversion of a sinner, therefore he will show thē y ^e conversion of a sinner. I say unto you, your place doth import this, y ^t facta reuelat Deus, non facienda. They shall rejoice for a sinner returned, not for a sinner that shall return. I know that God hath revealed unto his servants things past and things to come, but when he doth it, or whether he doth it always, I say you know not, and therefore your collection is naughte. Where you say, neither if they know our penance, shall they be ignorant of our petitions: I say your collection is naught, although I touch not y ^e false kind of reasoning, which is à conclusione hypothetica ad categoricam, in materia cōtingēti. And therefore you are mad men in praying unto thē, unless you have some more sure and certain ground than this: and they are no mad men which make them so ignorant: for unless god doth reveal it unto them, they know in a manner no more than we do: and when he doth reveal it unto them and how much, and in what cases, when you can certify me and others, we will believe it. In the mean season if we suspend our faith until we have a better rest for it, I pray you do not call us mad men. But now for the sense of the place. Doth he not in those three parables set forth unto us y ^e • are that he hath of his church, in that he of his singular love seeketh us whē we go astray from him: He laboreth to find us, when we be lost: and is ready to receive us when we turn unto him: and thereby also advertise us of our duty, to seek the help and safety of eche other, not to condemn the wāderers which go astray but by his example to seek means to bring them unto Christ, that in so doing being members both of one body, we may rejoice together and glorif • e God, we may have that consolation & comfort, which brethren ought to have, and especially those which are the childrē of God? To move us to this duty, he setteth before us y ^e doing of that part of the church which is better, & which is in heaven, he setteth before us I say the doing of the Angels, who as they be menbers of this body, so do they rejoice, when they see that consent and conformity in the members, which ought to be in so precious a body. If then they be joyous and glad that sinners do reap̄t, what ought we to do, which are present with them, & seeing their infirmities may consider our own, and by mercy shown to them, be more confirmed in the graces of God? This I say is the sense of the place. Now then because we are here instructed of the charity and love, which is and ought to be in y ^e church of God and members of Christ's body, because there is a true joy and gladness eche with other, when God bestoweth his graces, which before seemed to be shut up: because this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, natural and mutual agreement, is not only in the menbers on the earth, but in those also which are in heaven: will you therefore conclude that things done here on earth, and words spoken, are heard and known unto them at all times and seasons, as if they were heads and not members, God's and no Angels? For to see our harts & thoughts, to hear our sighs and words is a property of God's nature, given unto no Angel, but when he revealeth it unto him: & that not always, but as he shall think it expedient both for them and us: and as for such revelations, this place showeth it not, this only is here declared, what charity and love there is in the true members of Christ his body, and the fruit thereof, God working as well in them as in us a knowledge of things done, and gladness therefore. And thus much touching this place of Luke .xv. whereof you can neither conclude that thei do continually here us, neither if they did, that we should pray therefore unto them.

Your next argument is out of Toby, 12. This also is refelled by the saying of the Angel Raphaell unto Toby. Quando orabas cum lachrymis & sepeliebas mortuos, &c. When thou prayedst with tears, and burriedst the dead, and forsokest thy dynner, and hiddest by the day dead folks in thy house, and buriedst them in the night, I did offer thy prayer unto the Lord. All these things the Angel Raphael did know, when Toby thought lest hereof: and what? shall we adventure to say, that the Angel knew it only, and affirm that no other Angel doth know the like, or shall the Angels know it, and not the glorified saints of God, when he promiseth of them, that in the resurrection they shall be like Angels? Matt. 22.

I muse at this kind of dealing (M. Fecknam) I might say unto you, vna hirundo non facit ver, one swallow maketh not sonmer: but that is not the matter: to see all things that are done of us, or to hear us, is it natura Angelorum, the nature of the Angels? or is it speciale donum, a special gift. What kind of reasoning is this, in accidentibus commumbus to reason ab vno indiuiduo ad speciem, or à specie ad genus. Were this a good argument to say, Socrates Philosophus vere sentit de summo bono, Ergo, omnes Philosophi vere sentiunt de summo bono? Socrates the Philosopher judgeth truly or a righte of the chiefest good, or happiness, therefore all Philosophers judge and think truly thereof. Yours is the same. Raphaell saw his doing, therefore all y ^e Angels saw Toby his doings, & per consequentiam, consequently, they see ours. I see not (Master Fecknam) why I may not deny consequentiam & consequence, that is, both your conclusion and that which you would infer thereof. For neither doth it follow, if Raphaell saw Toby, therefore all did see him, neither if they saw his doings, therefore they see ours. For as I said, it is neither the nature of an Angel, neither the property of an angel: of which two there must be one to make an argument good à specie ad genus, or by an induction. Thus much touching your kind of reasoning, in groūding an article of religion, which hath no other ground of scripture for his warrant. I marvel that the angel which appeared to Cornelius made nothing to your purpose. For he saw him in a vision, and declared unto him how his matters went. Therefore you might have concluded something. But will you know, why he is out of your rolle? Because he said, thy prayers and thine alms are come up into remembrance before God: & did not say, I did carry up thy prayers. And yet I wisse you might have as well concluded by this, ergo the angels know what we do. Even both a like, when God sendeth them, when god openeth unto them, I think they know. And surely to be noted it is, that the angel saith not, I knew, I saw, I carried thy prayers: but, thy prayers are come, to give us to understand that as they are but messengers, so we cannot, nor ought assure our selves more of thē than their master willed them to reuele unto us. Now to your author, who as you allege is Toby, whose authority cited as scripture I deny it, I find no such author in my Bible. I mean not the Geneva Bible, whereat diverse of you list to ieast, but I would you could show a better in our tongue, or justly correct it: I mean that Bible, which is divided into these partes, CH. CH. T. NR. NA. MG. Hac: If he were in this mumber, I would not, neither could I reject him as not scripture, as not written with the singer of God: but because I find him not, I dare not be so bold as to make him fellow with y ^e holy ghost, to ground my faith vpō him as upon the holy scriptures: & how you ought to read him & such others and use him Jerome doth teach you, I need not repeat it. And this for Toby. Now touching your allegations out of y ^e 4. Reg. 6 of the revelation y ^t was given to Elisha, touching the secretes of the king of Syria, and Act. v. the revelation to Peter of y ^e secrete thoughts of Ananias, I know not to what purpose they make touching your question: these places & many mo show unto us how boūtifully God hath poured his spirit upon his servants the Prophets and Apostles at diverse & sundry times, for the help & comfort of his church: but to prove either an intelligence continual y ^t the Angels have of our affairs, or for us to pray unto them, they serve nothing at all. I beseech you what will you conclude: God revealed the secretes of the king of Syria to Elisha, and of Ananiss to Peter. Therefore he revealeth to y ^e Angels our doings, therefore we must pray to them and to the Saints? What dealing is this? You heap here another place of S. Augustine to as much purpose Si Prophetae, nondum facta nosse po • uerunt, per hoc quod erat Deus, (quantulucum{que} erat) in eorum mortalium mentibus, quo modo immortales sancti, iam f • cta, tum nescient, cùm erit Deus omnia in omnibus? If the Prophets could know things before they were done, by this that God was (how much so ever he was) in the minds of them as yet being mortal, how shall they not know then things that be done already being, immortal saints, when God shall be in them all in all? You see evidently y ^t he speaketh here howe & in what case they shall be in the latter day, when indeed y ^t shall be rightly verified, y ^t he shall be all in all. And what doth this impugn y ^e saying of M. Gough? who denieth not y ^t in y ^e latter day we shall see God face to face, we shall most fully see & know that which neither eye hath seen, neither ear hath heard, neither at any time hath it entered into y ^e heart of man. A more full knowledge, a more ample sight, a better understanding thā this you cā not have. This we grant, yours we deny. We grant this also, y ^t we may make an end, & come to your arguments) that the angels which God hath commanded to wait upon us, to guide us in all our ways, to be round about us, to admonish us and comfort us, • o watch perpetually for our sauegard, these angels see and know what we do, frō the vtmoste action, to the inwardst thought, if God so dispense unto them, and make them his ministers, who is the sole and only searcher of hearts and rains, knower of thoughts and minds: and yet followeth it not, that we must pray to them: neither yet, that other Saints do know what we do or think. I say the dead, the saints, do no more know what we do here while it is in doing, than we know what they do: and when they know anything, it is by after information, or by the ministry of the Angels, as in like case they minister unto us. So that certainty you can have none to found your prayers upon: for while you are praying, they do not know.

And although you may allege me some visions which may seem to confirm your purpose, putting the case I should grant them: yet can you no more prove that they know and understand our doings, than if in your dream you should have a thing opened unto you by one which was sleeping when you slept, & nothing thought of you. What if they have care for us being there, as requisite too, for that they be menbers with us, and charity ceaseth not: Do they therefore know what we do? we have care of them also, and yet we know not what they do. We love them as whē they were here, we laude and magnify God, that he hath dealt so lovingly with thē, we rejoice that they are already partakers of that, which we look & hope for, running the same race of faith and fear of God. This care I say we have of them, thus in charity we are affectioned towards them, & yet know we not what they do: no more do they, what we do. Well, now let us come to youre Arguments of Doctors.

Mayster Gough, say you, to prove that no Saints being dead can hear us, alleged the saying of the Prophet Isai. &c. Abrahā nesciuit nos. &c. That is, saith M. Goughe, Now after they be dead they have no manner of knowledge of us, but be clean ignorant of things done here vpō the earth. But S. Jerome hath another interpretation, which I think I may prefer before master Goughs saying, Abraham nesciuit nos .i. Abraham non agnouit nos pro filijs. Abraham hath not knowue us, that is, Abraham hath not allowed or acknowledged us for his children: and why? Quia te offendimus: because we have offended thee, saith S. Jerome. He saith not, quia Abraham & Israel mortui sunt. Bicause Abraham & Israel be dead, as if thereby they could have no longer knowledge of them?

What if S. Jerome have another, is M. Goughes therefore naught? Nay, but you had rather prefer S. Jerome's. Do you think that M. Gough hath no authority for his? Do you think that he hath not as good as S. Jerome? If you think so, I will give you to understand the contrary. If you do not think so, why do you conceal the truth, and stand rather upon man than upon the word of God? This is the misery that you have, that whilst you will not hearken to the scriptures, but what this man or that man saith, you waver up and down, now alleging one man, now another, not knowing well where to stand. Well, I will bring you two, neither to be misliked in such cases, the one comparable to Jerome in all respects. First Kimki on this place saith: all derech, abi ve immi. &c. On this sort is it spoken in another place, Pater meus & mater mea dereliquerunt me, Dominus autem assumpsit me. Quamuis enim pater noster. Abraham multis iam preterlapsis seculis mortuus sit, & pater carnalis non nouerit filium aut nepotem suum nisi dum viuit, tu tamen pater noster viuis & duras de seculo in seculum, ita vt opus non sit nobis clamare nisi ad te, & per omnes aetates tam quae preterierunt quàm quae futura sunt, tu es pater noster, tu redemptor noster ex omni afflictione & in perpetuum nomē • uum erit super nos: That is, my father and my mother have forsaken me, but y ^e Lord hath gathered me up. For although our father Abrahā were dead many many years ago, and a carnal Father doth not know his son or his nephew but while he liveth, yet thou O father livest and remainest forever, so that we have no need to cry unto any other but unto thee, & through out all ages as well forepassed as to come, thou art our father, thou art our redeemer out of all trouble, & thy name shall be upon us forever. The other is S. Augustine, whom you need not to have concealed, if you had minded the truth. But if you should have alleged them both, you could not have told which way to have gone. Giving his definite mind & sentence upon these matters and questions, he saith thus: vt volet accipiat quis{que} quod dicam. &c. Let every man take as he listeth, that which I will say: If the souls of the departed did meddle with the affairs of the living, & did speak unto us when we see them in visions, to hold my peace of other, my loving mother would no night forsake me, which followed me by Sea and by land, that she might live with me. For God forbid that she should be made with a happy life so cruel, that when anything grieveth my heart, she should not comfort hir heavy son, whom she would never see sad. But surely that is true which the godly Psalm saith: My father and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lord hath gathered me up. Therefore if our fathers have forsaken us, how do they communicate with our cares and affairs? and if our Parents do not communicate or do not meddle, what other are there of the dead, which know what we do, and what we suffer? Isaiah the Prophet saith, for thou art our Father: For Abraham hath forgotten us, and Israel doth not know us. If so great Patriarchs did not know what was done to the people begotten of them, to whom believing God, the people was promised of their stock, how do the dead know and help the affairs and doings of others? How say we y ^t they were well dealt withal, which died before adversity came, which followed their death, if so be that also after death they feel what so ever things come to pass in the calamities of man's life? Or peradventure we err in so saying, and we think those quiet whom the unquiet life of the living doth grieve. And so forth alleging as you know to the same purpose the promise made to Josiah, and so concluding saith thus. Ibi ergo sunt spiritus defunctorum, vbi non vident quaecun{que} aguntur, aut eueniunt in ista vita hominibus. Therefore the souls of the dead are there, where they see not whatsoever things are 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 done or come to men in this life. Thus then you neaded not have in such sort cast off Master Gough, as though it were a heavy comparison betwixt him and Jerome. He is as you see, as well to be thought of as Jerome, in that he hath for his part the whole Scriptures, these two learned men. Other I do not reckon up, you yourself acknowledge in yourself that I might bring more: But in this variety of men, what certainty cā you have for your conscience, if you do not at the length come to the Scriptures? Wherein you cannot find one word well taken, whereby you may prove that the dead do know our doings, unless it be by espetiall Revelation, or work of GOD, which you can never draw to a rule.

As for the prosecuting of that manner of speech, I do not know you, for, I do not acknowledge you : I think there is no man so enuyous, but will grant you that truth. Sed quorsum illa, to what purpose is that? Although it be so taken in very many places, yet why it should be so taken there I see no reason. I speak what I think, I know there be interpreters as well one way as other. But the circumstance of the text in my mind draweth that way. You go further.

If this will not satisfy master Gough, let him hear Saint Augustine: who showeth upon occasion of this place, in what manner the Saints do hear us. Per diuinam inquit potentiam Martyrs viuorum rebus intersunt. &c. By divine power the Martyrs are here present in the doings of those that be alive, for being dead by their own proper nature to be present in the doings of those that be alive, they cannot.

Now you something change your state, and make Duo predicata, where before you made but one. Your first conclusion was, That the Saints and Angels may or do hear our Prayers: Now you put in may by divine power hear our Prayers: And so you committee a fault which is called, A secundum quid ad simpliciter. Again in Accidentibus communibus a specie ad genus, saying thus. The Martyrs do hear us: therefore all Saints. For your Doctor in your own place alleged, maketh a difference betwixt them in this matter and saith. Non igitur ideo putandum est viuorum rebus, quoslibet interesse posse defunctos, quoniam quibusdam sanandis vel alliunandis martyrs adsunt: sed ideo potius intelligendū est, quod per diuinam &c. Therefore it is not for that cause to be thought that everyone that is dead, can be present in the doings of those that be alive: because the Martyrs are present in healing and helping of some. But therefore rather it is to be understood, that by the divine power the martyrs are present in the doings of those that be alive, because the dead by their own proper nature cannot be present in the doings of those that be a live. He concludeth a clean contrary position to yours, saying that the martyrs are present, because the saints cannot be. And how the Martyrs be present he showeth in these words, per diuinam potentiam, by divine power. For this is not orderly, but as he said before, verū ista diuinitus exhibentur, longe aliter quàm sese habet vsitatus ordo singulis creaturarum generibus attributus But these are exhibited from God far otherwise, than the accustomed manner is, which is given to all kind of creatures. For not because that water was sodaynely turned intoo wine when God would: therefore we ought not to discern what water is in the proper order of elements, from the singularity and strangeness of this heavenly work. Take the best of this for your purpose, yet can you not come to that you would, to make any certain rule, no not in the very martyrs. And so likewise touching this matter, he confesseth of himself, that it passeth his understanding. Leave therefore these vain speculations, and content yourself with that which God hath taught you: you are sure that Christ doth & will hear you, whensoever you call on him in truth and verity: you are sure that what so ever you ask in his name, it shall be given you, that the Father may be glorified: why then, rest upon this surety, go not a stray when you may go right: differ not yourself to the night, when you may walk in the light.

After this you descend from debating the matter by scripture and reason & authorities ad factū, what thei did (as though this question betwixt us and you were facti, what hath been done, and not rather as it is in deed, iuris, what of right & lawfully may and ought to be done) to which purpose you allege two places out of Augustine, one out of Gregory Nazianzen, one out of Origin, one out of Ephrem, one of Jerome, one of Chrysostom, whose doings because they have no ground in gods word, neither better and more sure reasō than S. Augustine allegeth, which are not sufficient for me to rest my conscience von: & yet your promises being granted, y ^e conclusion is very wyde. I wish you better to consider the case you stand in, & pardon me that I disalowe them. For this I learn by Augustine, that to speak in genere of the departed, nescire quidem mortuos quid hic agatur, That the dead cannot tell what is done here, whilst it is doing, & if they know, it is after by relatiō (saith he) of thē which go frō hence unto them: & yet not all, but such things as they are suffered to tell, and which they were suffered to remember: and such as they ought to hear, to whom they tell them, or else by the Angels which are here present with us, & at our doings, they may hear something which he thinketh meet and convenient to whom all things are subject. If therefore he himself teache us this, that they do not know or they know after, and not all, but such as are necessary for them to know, and as he thinketh expedient that is master of all: If he do contrary to his doctrine commend his prayers to thē which as yet hear him not, and when they shall or whither they shall at all, he knoweth not: you must give me leave to follow his doctrine, if I think it better than his example. His doctrine importeth something, his example nothing. Do as they teach you which sit in Moses seat, but do not as they do. And thus much touching this question. God give us eyes to see, and hearts to understand, that if you be out of the way (as you show yourself to be) you may come in: If I myself (as I am perfectly persuaded I am not) that he will give me grace to convert. And so pray I for us both.

3 That only faith doth not justify.

MAster Gough likewise in few words, would vehemently have persuaded, like as others heretofore him, that sole faith or only faith doth justify us. So did long ago teache Eunomius of that faith which he professed, as S. Augustine reciteth in his 6. Tom. de Haeresibus.

In so doing as others have done before him▪ as Moses, as Christ, as Paul, as all the Prophets and Apostles in teaching the Justification of faith only, if you expound him not amiss, he did the part of a faithful Minister and preacher of God's word. But you are disposed in this matter, as in others, to carpe and cavil, evil construing that which is well spoken. You join your words in this sort, sole faith or only faith. There is great difference in these two kinds of speaking: a sole faith is a barren, an unfruitful, a wicked, a devilish faith: which in deed is no faith, it hath but the glistering and show of faith, it is but a lip faith: and where so ever it is, I warrant you, there is Corde non creditor, no belief in heart. Faith only is another manner of thing, it is that which the Hebrews cal Emunah that is, a faith stable and sure, as it is said of Moses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & manus eius erant firmae & stabiles us{que} ad occasum solis, & his hands were steady and stable until the going down of the sun. So doth Paul term it vaiehi iadan emunah the common translation hath substantia: it is that quod facit vt extent quae sperātur, which maketh those things to exist which are hoped for. This faith can be no more without fruits, than can the body be without the soul, to be a living body, so that there be time: for we know that vocation is diverse, some in the morning, some at noon, some at night are called, and these last because they are so soon cut of, that they could not but believe, and not glorify God before us, we must not therefore condemn them. This faith I say most flourishing and decked with gorgeous works, as shining both before God and man as the lily, doth only justify, doth only apprehend the justification of God given in Christ Jesus our Savior, doth truly bring Christ into us, and us into him. So the faithful man seeing himself purged from all his former sins and offenses, walketh in newness of life in the ways that God hath ordained for him: that before men he may glorify his father which is in heaven. This faith Eunomius did not teache: he was in his opinion a naughty and wicked man, as were many moe in the time of S. Augustine, & are now: God make them fewer. He writeth of him and others in this wise. I will lay his words before you, that you yourself may judge, whither you do rightly burdē us with Eunomius or no. Apostolus predicans iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, non been intellectus est ab eis, qui sic dictum acceperunt, vt putarent cùm semel in Christū credidissent, etiāsi male operarētur, & facinerose, flagitiose{que} viuerent, saluos se esse per fidem posse, that is, The Apostle preaching that a mā is justified by faith without works, was not well understood of them which took his saying in this sort, that they thought they might be saved by faith, whē they had once believed in christ, although they did wickedly, although they lived most detestably and villenously. And in another place, Non cogimur dicere iniustis, non subditis, scelestis, contaminatis, parricidis; matricidis; homicidis, fornicatoribus, masculorum concubitoribus; plagiarijs, mendacibus, periuris, & si quid aliud sanae doctrinae aduersatur, quae est secundum Euangelium gloriae beati Dei, si tantum in Christum credatis & sacramentum Baptismi eius accipiatis etiamsi vitam istam pessimam non mutaueritis, salui eritis. We are not constrained to say to the unjust, to the rebellious, to the wicked, to the defiled, to the murderers of father & mother, to manslayers, to fornicators, to buggers, to mē stealers, to liars, to y ^e perjured, & if there be any other thing which is contrary to the wholesome doctrine which is according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, if you believe only in Jesus Christ, and receive his Sacrament of Baptism, although you change not this wicked life, you shall be saved. This was Eunomius opinion and his fellows, it is not ours. Our Preachers teach that faith only justifieth, & yet not that a sole faith justifieth, therefore in so expounding his words as you do, you do deceyuablie commit an Eleuche which we cal fallatia accidentis. For whereas we say faith iustifyeth only, that is, no other thing doth apprehend the justice which GOD doth give us, but our faith: you turn it and make this sense, a bare faith void and destitute of all goodness doth attain to the mercies of God. Which in deed is an heresy. For as the other is good & allowable, according to the scriptures, There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, which walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit: so is this wicked and naught. For if we live after the flesh, we shall die. And thus much to show that we are no Eunomians. Now to your Arguments.

To confirm his opinion out of the scriptures, he brought the saying of the Apostle: Arbitramur iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus Legis. We think or determine that a mā is justified by faith without the works of the Law. Concluding by this testimony of S. Paul, that works do in no manner of wise iustifye us, not only those which go before faith, but also those which do follow faith: for touching any justification of works, he maketh the like condition of them both.

His allegation was good and his argument good. For it followeth well, we are justified by faith: Therefore works done before do not justify, neither works after. This consequent you will not deny simply, for all your allegaciōs you bring, do prove that works before do confer nothing to justification. For the Apostle preaching to the Gentiles, saith: When he saw them that came to the lord justified by faith, that now they which did believe, should work, and do good deeds, and not because they had done well, they deserved to believe, he cried out and said boldly, That man may be justified by faith, without the works of the law. Your sticking is vpō works that follow: as in deed, not knowing what difference is betwixt justification and sanctification, you should doubt whether sanctification were a piece of justification, or an effect of justification. Let us then see, whether works that follow do con • err anything to the Justification. Mark I pray you the controversy betwixt you and master Goughe. The question is not whether good works are necessary to walk in? Whether we are. bound to walk in the fear of GOD, after that he hath manifested unto us his election, and called us to embrace his free mercy and Justification? I say, the question is not, whether we ought to do well that GOD may be glorified by us? But whether a man being already justified, his works afterward may give increase of Justice? I pray you Sir after that Queen Marie had made you Abbot of Westminster, did you the office of an Abbot, that you would be a more Abbot, or to do your duty, to the which the Queen of hir grace had called you. For therefore she bestowed it upon you, that you should do the duty, and not dy doing the duty to become a more Abbot.

So fareth it with the children of God: Of this whole lump of earth which he made of this mass, which we call Adam: he of his free mercy and goodness hath chosen some whereby he will be glorified in this world, by the good works which they shall do before the face of men. When this election of his beginneth to be manifest to every chosen, when he moveth the hearts of his after they have long slept in sin, to remember that they are his, that he hath slain his Son for them, that they are delivered from the whole curse of the law: Is it not requisite think you, that they walk worthy his vocation? That they make sure their vocation? Nay do they in this their course, in any parte deliver them selves from the curse of the law? Do they pay that ransom which was paid before? What is the justice or Justification of GOD? Redemption and remission of sins in the blood of Christ. Was then the blood of Christ answerable to all the Law, did there remain no parte vnpayde? For whom then did he all this? Not for him self, for there was no guile found in his mouthe: For whom then? For the faithful, to whom God doth give this Faith, not of merit, but of grace. Have they then all the justice of Christ, have they that, which Christ did in his body, put upon them? May they say, as he said, Death where is thy sting, Hell where is thy victory? May they say, death is swallowed up in victory? May they say, there is no condemnation to us which are in Christ Jesus? what remaineth then? that they walk according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh: that they glorify God before men, which hath already made them the children of God. Not to do ageyn y ^• which is done already, for that is impossible: not to join a piece to Christ's, as though it were not perfect. For he left no piece vnpayed. But to receive by faith that justification that God doth give them, without the works of the law. For works sequuntur iustificatum, non praecedunt iustificandum: they follow a man justified, and go not before him that is to be justified: Effectus autem non praeiudicat causae as you know: The effect never preiudiceth the cause. Thorough all the course of our lives we work, because we are justified: and we do not work that we may be justified. And this is the meaning of the Apostle in this place: not as though works were to be joined with faith, to deserve something: For then should we receive reward due, and not grace. And thus much touching M. Goughe his argument. Now to your Objection.

Firste, I marvel that M. Goughe will allow this term, Only: when it is not expressed in Canonical scripture. Next I am sure that there is nothing equivalent unto it: for faith without the works of the law and faith only, or faith simply without works, be not of one like condition.

You need not marvel much, if you would rightly consider it: Paul's whole disputation standeth upon two Subiecta, & one Praedicatum, as the people are two to whō he addresseth his doctrine, and must agree in one. The subiecta are these, works or the Law, faith or Christ: The Praedicatum is Justification. If then reasoning à diuisione, the one be put away, what remaineth? If I reason thus, Of all living creatures there is one that is risibile, apt to laugh: it is not Brutum any brute beast: Therefore it is Homo, man. If I reason thus I say, is not this consequent comprehended in Consequenti: Therefore only man is risibilis. So likewise Paul reasoneth: there is one thing which justifieth. It is not works, therefore it is faith. Doth it not now follow that being but one, and that one faith: that we may well conclude that faith only justifieth? And so add we nothing to the scriptures, which you seem to lay to M. Goughes charge, by a taunte, but find it in y ^e very letter although not literallie. And in so doing we make no new inuentiō. So taught before us Theophilact : whose words are these, vt autem haberi pro comperto queat, posse hunc deum, qui impie vixerit, non solum à tormentis eximere, sed iustum reddere, illud subdit, credenti autem in eum qui iustificat &c. Num igitur est & hic quippiam allaturus? Fidem duntaxat: that is, But that it may be certaynely known that God cannot only deliver frō torments, but also justify him which lived wickedly, he addeth that, but to him that believeth in him which justifieth. &c. Must he therefore also bring something? Faith only▪ And Origen's upon this same place which M. Goughe alleged, saith thus: Nunc tam velut conclusionem suarum assertionum ponens, in hoc loco dicit: Vbi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est▪ per quam legem? operum? Non, sed per legem fidei: Arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis: & dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem, ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur, etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum. Now, making as it were a conclusion of his assertions saith in this place, where is then thy rejoicing? it is excluded. By what law? of works? No, but by the law of faith: for we suppose or conclude that mā is justified by faith without the works of the Law: and he saith, that the justification of only faith is sufficient, so that a mā believing only may be justified although that no work be don of him. I will not allege here Jerome on y ^e 4. of this Epistle: Conuertentem impium, and agein, vt omnes qui ex Gentibus. &c nor Amb. j. Cor. xi. hoc constitutum est à Deo. &c. nor Bernard. ser. 22. super Can. Quamobrem quisquis pro peccati • • in all which you find these words, Sola fides ad iustitiam reputatur: per solam fidem iustificat▪ Deus, saluus fit sine opera, sola fide, et solū iustificatus per fidem, that is, only faith is accounted unto righteousness: By only faith God justifieth, that he may be saved without work, through only faith, and being justified only by faith. As for the works which follow, as I said before, we condemn them not, we praise them, as God did in Abraham, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. In that he believed God, within in his heart, it consisteth in faith only, concerning that he lead his son to sacrifice him, in that without fear he armed his right hand, in that he would have stricken had he not been witholden, surly it was a great faith, & the work also was great, & God praised the work when he said, because thou obeyedst my voice. Wherefore then saith the Apostle Paul, we conclude that man is justified by faith without the works of the law: and in another place. It is faith which worketh by charity? how doth faith work by charity? & how is a man justified by faith without the works of the law? This seemeth hard that a man shall be justified by faith only, and yet that faith must work by charity. Not at all: for in that, y ^t it is said to justify, it showeth what thou haste received of God, in that it is said to work by charity, it showeth what thou owest to God. For so must justification stand, that it may be applied unto all men, whether they be called in y ^e morning, or at noon, or at night? There is one that believeth, he hath received the sacrament of faith, and is dead, he had no time to work, what shall we say? that he is not justified? we say plain that he was justified, because he believed in him which justifieth the wicked. Therefore this man is justified, & did not work. The sentence of the Apostle is fulfilled: I conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. The thief which was crucified with Christ believed in heart to Justice, and confessed by mouth to salvation. For faith which worketh by charity, although it have not wherein it may work externally, yet is it kept fervent in the heart. If then faith in these & such like doth justify, why shall it not in others? Because one man liveth longer than another after his vocation, shall therefore the rightuousenesses of God be changed? shall therefore▪ man be made fellow with God in the work of his salvation, because he hath bestowed a greater benefit of longer life upon him? Is this the thank that GOD shall have at our hands, for giving us space to glorify him, to use it as a means that we our selves may glory? For surely if we deserve anything, we have wherein to glory. But when all is done, it is but an evil favored glory, for it is not with God. But let us go farther.

S. Paul excluding works of the Law, meaneth works that go before faith; which do not justify. S. James in the example of Abraham forbidding that faith only doth justify, speaketh of works that follow faith, which do also justify, that is, give increase of justice. Abraham pater noster nónne ex operibus iustificatus est, offerens Isaac super Altare? Abraham our Father was he not justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the Altare?

If works before faith do not justify, much less works after faith: before man had need, and after he hath no need: then is a benefit requisite, when a man is in poverty: but when he is riche, it is not needful. To be short because I have handled this before, works do never go before justification. For the Scripture is plain. If it be grace, then not of works, other ways were grace now no grace. And this is as well for youre works after as before. As for that that is said often times, and you allege it before, Factores legis iustificabuntur, the doers of the law shall be justified. It is so to be understanded, to wit, that they could not otherwise be doers of the law, unless they be justified. So that Justification cometh not to the doers, but justification goeth before the doers of the Law▪ For what other thing doth this mean, Justified, but made just? that is to say, of him which justifieth y ^e wicked, that he may become just of wicked. For sanctification goeth not before Justification, but Justification before Sanctification. Touching the place of S. James, there is no such matter in it as you make. You may see by the whole course of the chapter, that he speaketh not how man is justified before god, but how they ought to show before men, that they are just before God. So that he beateth down the vain opinion of them, which thought that if they believed, it belonged not to them to do well, and therefore contemned good works, as who would say they were not bound to glorify God before men, who had glorified them with himself. And touching the example of Abraham, if you confer the scriptures together, as Genesis with James: you shall see that Abraham was justified before, and this is but the show of his obedience unto God, y ^t all the world might know he nothing misdouted the promise of God, although his only son must go to be offered, and this do your doctors teach, which you hear recite.

To this effect S. Augustine reconcileth these two Apostles. Non sunt contrariae duorum Apostolorum sententiae Pauli & Iacobi • cum dicit vnus iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, & alius dicit, inanem esse fidem sine operibus, quia ill dicit de operibus quae praecedunt fidem, iste de his, que fidem sequuntur. These sentences of the two Apostles, Paul and James, be not contrary unto them selves: when the one saith, that a man is justified by faith without works. The other saith, that faith is vain and idle without works, for Paul speaketh of works that goeth before faith, James speaketh of those that follow faith.

I do not see to what great purpose this place is alleged, be it that this reconciliation is good, can you conclude that Augustine teacheth or James either, that works justify before God? that can you never prove. The place you bring, he hath in many places, yet in none of them doth he conclude as you do. But in everyone he teacheth this, y ^t therefore James writ this Epistle and likewise, Peter his, to show that after saith received, works of righteousness ought not to be contemned: & that whatsoever works they do, they are of a justified man, and not to justify a man. For when it is said that the doers of the law shall be justified, what other thing is said, than this? Let 〈◊〉 that is righteous, be righteous still. For the doers of y ^e law are just. And therefore it is as much as if it should be said. The doers of y ^e law shall be created, not because they were, but that they may be. You go foreward against M. Gough.

An other place he brought to express by scripture this word, Only, that faith only doth justify: alleging the saying of Christ unto Jairus Prince of the Synagogue. Crede tantùm, Believe only. A place very fitly applied: as if Christ there had spoken of the Justification of Jairus, and not rather of the corporal reviving of his daughter.

As for M. Goughes alleging of the place, I do not think, but he saw what was principally done in that place, and that Christ was reviving of his daughter: yet not withstanding he might note unto you, in what sort we ought to beehaue our selves towards y ^e receiving of Christ's benefits and graces, that although things seem unto us desperate, void of all hope and comfort, yet we should not cease, but to believe in Christ, that he is able to do whatsoever we demand in fear and truth. And this hope and faith is sufficient, and he requireth nothing else at our hands. This I say, why might he not note unto you touching only faith, having two such notable examples before his face as the woman with the flux, Jairus with his dead daughter. And so might he make his argument. As faith only is sufficient to the curing of an incurable sore, and the raising of the dead, so is it sufficient to the remission of sins. Neither is he void of authority for his interpretation. Theophilacte saith thus: Ne timeas, tantùm creed: respice ad mulierem hanc, quae sanguinis profluuio laborauit, illam si imitatus fueris non aberrabis. Fear not, only believe: Behold this Woman which was sick of the flux, if thou follow her, thou shalt not do amiss. Neither is James clean contradictory (as you say) to Master Gough in this sense, where he saith, Videtis quoniam ex operibus iustificatur homo, non ex fide tantùm. You see that of works man is justified, and not of faith only.

There is you know Oppositio in terminis, opposition in words, and oppositio realis, opposition in matter. As for the first ye know also it is nothing, and so may these two be, fides tantum iustificat, fides tātum non iustificat, faith only doth justify: • ayth only doth not justify. As for y ^e other, there must be vniuocatio in terminis, the Subiectum and the Praedicatum must be taken in one sense in both. Otherwise there is no opposition, For both may be true. As in this, faith only justifieth, the word (Iustifieth) is taken in this sense, Iustifieth before God. In the other, Faith only doth not justify: the word (Iustifieth) is taken having respect to men. And so they be not opposite. Of the sense of the place I spake before. Likewise of the place of Luke. viii. I have said my mind what M. Gough his meaning was: I was not at his Sermon, & I promise you I have not talked with him therein, I skant know the person.

S. Augustine in his book de fide & operibus, showeth the beginning and foundation of this much like heresy to have been in the Apostles time, upon the misconstruing of Paul's Epistles, saying: Quoniam haec opinio tunc fuerat exorta, aliae Apostolicae epistolae Petri, Johannes, Iacobi, & Iudae, contra eàm maxim dirigunt intentionem, vt vehementer astruant fidem sine operibus nihil prodesse. That is because this opinion was then sprōg up, other Apostolical epistles of Peter, John, James & Jude, do bend their drift and purpose most of all against that opinion, that they may boldly and vehemently affirm faith without works to avail nothing. If it be faith only, it is faith without works: If faith only availeth nothing, faith only cannot justify.

What opinion that was (M. Fecknam) & how unlike unto our assertion I shown you before out of y ^e same place, and it was this, as you have it in the beginning of the chapter. Bene autem viuere & bonis operibus viam dei tenere neglexerint, and they contemn to live well, and to keep the way of God in good works. He saith not, & bonis operibus incrementum iustitiae addere, and with good works to give increase of justice ▪ Which piece you stand for, & which you shall never be able to show out of Augustine, and so we deny it. As for your collection, if faith only availeth nothing, faith only cannot justify: we deny y ^e consequent. For as I said before, there is not vniuocatio in terminis. We say true, that nothing else but faith doth justify: and yet say, y ^e faith 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 which is dead & sole is nothing worth: for it is not that which we say doth justify.

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

This is very well said, we grant all this, he speaketh according to y ^e scriptures, you need not have gone so far. S. James, s. Paul, could have taught you y ^e same. But to your purpose it serveth very little: yea nothing at all. Now touching your tretise of works done in faith, whereas you are misgreeued with M. Gough so far, that you cal it a preposterous way, and a blasphemous doctrine, to say that our works are as filthy cloths, unto which Christ promiseth a reward so great as everlasting life, if you would justly consider with yourself the duty that god requireth of us, & the default that is in us, the integrity, the purity y ^t we are bound to by his commandment, & the imperfection, y ^e impurity y ^t is in us, you could not justly condemn him: god commandeth us to serve him with all our harts, with all our soul, with all our strength: what is he upon the earth, that doth employ these wholly, y ^t hath not always y ^e flesh pricking against the spirit? then the work y ^t is done of such, is it not as a menstruous cloth? could it be acceptable before God, were it not for his mercy? If it please him of the same mercy, to give me life everlasting for my half days, nay for my one hours work, doth it follow that my work is worthy of it, when all the works of the world be not worth life everlasting, Christ's death excepted?

Then touching your other cavil of faith only: How only? without baptism? without repentance? without fear? without hope? without charity? You may understand of that I have said before, howe all these must follow and an hundredth more, and yet faith only must justify, what so ever he be that casteth these away in that respect that he is justified by faith, he deceiveth him self and he is not justified: He is a dead tree, he is a thorn that bringeth forth grapes, he is a thistle that bringeth forth figs, and when the Lord cometh, he shall cut down this tree, and cast it into the fire that shall never be put out. But he that hath a true faith, hath a these fruits, they follow him as his handmaydes, he serveth himself of them, and serveth his leege Lord with them: he is baptized, he is penitent, he standeth in awe, he hopeth, he loveth, and all for the glory of his Master: and yet not without his own profit. He deserveth nothing, yet shall he have great reward: he meriteth not a myte, yet shall he have thousands: So standeth faith amongst her damsels, and yet she is singular: She walketh with great company, and yet is she alone. And this to your third question.

4 That every sin is not mortal.

MAister Goughe towards the ende of his sermō, did very constantly affirm, that every sin committed by a Christian man, is deadly and mortal sin: and that no sin is venial, no not an idle thought, as light as men made of it. Much like unto the old heresy of Jovinian, which to make all sins equal, made every sin likewise a deadly sin. Whome S. Augustine condemned more than a thousand years ago, as appeareth in his 6. Tom. de Haeres. Haer. 82.

How S. Augustine condemned Jovinian, and wherefore, it is manifest there in the place you recite and in his Epistles, for making all sins equal in deed: But not for saying that all sins deserve death, and therefore are mortal: That you cannot find in S. Augustine or any other: There is great difference betwixt these two, propositions, Omnia peccata sunt aequalia, and Omnia peccata sunt mortalia: Al sins are equal, and all sins are mortal. For you cannot conclude, They are all mortal, therefore they are all equal. Although contrary after a certain manner it may be said they are all equal, therefore they be mortal. We say, that who soever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be culpable of judgment: We say to, whoso saith fool to his brother, shall be punished with hell fire: We say the like of murder, we say the like of the sin of Sodom, and yet say we not that these offenses be a like: that it is all one to say, fool, to thy brother, and all one to be a Sodomite, a manslayer, an adulterer. Although that y ^e majesty of God be offended in them all, yet in some of them, thou sinnest ageinst nature, thou sinnest ageinst heaven and earth, the son it self is ashamed to behold thy villainy, and thou ashamed to show thyself in light: in some, thy sin is so horrible, y ^t if man do wink, yet y ^e earth will cry out for vengeance. For some, Cities & towns, fields, even paradises, for some, y ^e whole world hath been destroyed as you read, w ^t other god hath more mercifully dealt. And shall we say, that because the long patience and mercy of God doth give us time to repentance, therefore these sins y ^t we commit deserve not punishment? That because he soon pardoneth them to his, therefore their reward is not death: For so you and yours say veniale peccatum de sui natura est venia dignum, venial sin of his nature is worthy pardon. A sin it is, an erring & wandering frō the will of God, a deturning from his ways (for so doth this word Chot signify) and yet forsoothe he 〈◊〉 stand in his own justice with God? and say unto him, I am worthy to be pardoned? A wound which needeth not to be wrapped, a sore full of corruption y ^t needeth no emplaster: a swelling that needeth not to be mollified with oil, a sick mā which needeth no Phisitiō? well we shall have further occasiō to speak of these more at large hereafter. We will now come to your reasons you bring to confirm your doctrine.

Let us confer herewithal two sayings of the Scripture: the one of S. John which saith as well of himself and of every just man, as of the sinner. Si dixerimus. &c. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us: meaning that the iustest man a live is not without sin. Now, if this sin be as M. Goughe teacheth, deadly, mortal and damnable sin, which separateth the soul of man from God, and condemneth it to hell fire, let us see how a mā may be called just, which daily committeth such damnable sin.

This place maketh more ageinst you, than with you, you will not say I think y ^t S. John was one of y ^e most grievous sinners, y ^t he was an adulterer, a dronkerd. &c. And yet was he a sinner as the iustest mā is, yet sinned he .vii. times, and lacked the glory of God. And of the same sins, he spake in that sentence, of the same spake he in the sentence before, saying: And the blood of Christ his son cleanseth us from all our sins. And in the sentence after: If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. He comprehendeth him self in the number and saith, cleanse us from all, forgive us all our sins. Then belike the sins of S. John had need of it: If they had need, why was it? Was it not, because that stipendium peccati mors est? the wages of sin is death? But peradventure he did not acknowledge these for any sins. Then by your conclusion he had no sin. Take heed of that, if you say so, he will answer you straight, you are a liar. But you cannot see, how a man may be called just, which daily committeth such deadly sin. You cā not see how David saith. Beati quorū remissae sunt iniquitates & quorum • ecta sunt peccata, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered? And yet, ne intres • n iudicium cum seruo tuo, Domine, quia non iustificabitur, in conspectu tuo omnis viuens, enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall none living be justified. David telleth you in another place, the just man falleth, but he riseth up again. He repenteth himself, and flieth to the mercy of God, and he doth forgive him. After this you come again to the place of Luke concerning Zechariah and Elizabeth: touching which place because I have answered it before, I will say nothing: but besides I there alleged both out of Glossa ordinaria Theophilact and Justin{us} Martyr, I will now also refer you to Jerome aduersus Pelag. ad Chte. where you shall see, whether any such thing be to be concluded or no, & take heed you be not a Pelagian in that point. As for the contradiction you there speak of, which followeth of these two places conferred together, if M. Goughs exposition do stand: there is none, more thā followeth of your words. For as you say here after, peradventure against your will, because Augustine enforseth you thither, you must say for the least sin you can devise, forgive us our trespasses: if you did trespass him, you were not without blame. So you make a contradiction against yourself, for that you say, a just mā is without blame, & yet he must say forgive me. The truth is as I said (M. Fecknam) there is no contradiction, to say a mā sinneth damnably, and therefore in consideration of his own doing worthy to be condemned: yet being pardoned by the free mercy of Christ, he is without blame. As the Apostle saith, who can lay anything to our charge? not respecting that, that we are, but that, that we receive. And so I trust I have sufficiently answered you for that place.

To this may be added the place of S. James: where he describeth concupiscence to make a sin in us beside mortal sin, saying. Concupiscentia cùm conceperit, &c: cōcupiscēce when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin, but sin whē it is finished: begetteth death. Signifying hereby that sin is then mortal & deadly, when a man committeth it with a full consent & other circūstāces. For if a light passion or a carnal thought stealeth upon a man by sodein delectation without consent, the same is not a sin, which engendereth death, but a venial sin.

S. James his purpose is not as you say, to show how concupiscence maketh a sin besides mortal sin, neither cā you prove, by this place, that which you grant that concupiscence is a sin (although it be true.) S. James goeth not about here to show, when sin beginneth to be a sin, to be taken and esteemed so before God: But to show, when it cometh forth, and whence it proceedeth, that he might against the false surmises of others, show, that their sin and tempting, proceedeth not from God. His order is this, The consummation of sin procureth Death everlasting: sin proceedeth from inordinate desires, inordinate desires from concupiscence. Therefore in that, that men are condemned for their sins, they receive but the fruit which they brought forth thē selves: and therefore can they not cast any fault on God. Can you now thē prove by this place, that either concupiscence is a sin which I deny not) either that it is not a mortal sin? Out of this place I gather, that my condemnation is of myself: I can not gather that Concupiscence is a Sin, but only by a consequent, because it bringeth forth sin. For such as the fruit is, such is the tree, and so may I conclude again. The fruit is damnable, therefore the tree. But here I do gather it. Nō cōcupisces. Thou shalt not covet, and so because it is a sin, I conclude it is mortal, Anima quae peccauerit ipsa morietur. The soul that shall offend or err, the same shall die. For the word the Prophet there useth hachoteth signifieth but a missing and an erring from that he is directed unto, which is. Thou shalt love the Lord thy GOD with all thy heart, with all thy Soul, &c. so read we in the scriptures, all these could fling stones at an hairs breadth, ve lo iachati, and not fail. And Paul also speaking of him self, and not sinning any other mortal sin, saith. Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Whether you make your venial sin a failing or no, I refer it to your conscience. Some of you writers say thus. Peccatum veniale est quod cum voluntatis deliberatione inordinata homo committit, venial sin is that, which a man commit • eth by an inordinate deliberation of his will? what they are he rekeneth up there, as when a man eateth and drinketh more than he needeth if it be by chance, when he speaketh more than he ought, or holdeth his peace more than is convenient: when he vexeth the poor desiring alms out of time. The use of a man's own wife otherwise than the institution of God is: drunkenness, if it be not to often. For of nature it is no deadly sin, & such like. And as you put in a light passion or a carnal thought, stealing upon a man by sudden delectation. These and such others are your venial sins, such sins as are worthy pardon of their own nature. Is drunkenness but once done worthy of pardon by nature? Is making whoredom of marriage a sin worthy pardon even of nature? Is vexing the afflicted, a sin to be pardoned even of nature? is the enmity of God, a sin worthy pardon even of nature? Paul saith that a drunkerd, an adulterer shall not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. What Christ answereth them that are such too the poor. Ite maledicti in ignem aeternum, go ye cursed into everlasting fire, will tell you: That, that is of the flesh displeaseth God, the scripture telleth you also: what the displeasure of God is, the whole scriptures teach you. Do not you fail think you in these and such like, from the will of your heavenly father? S. Augustine saith that these things pertain ad corruptionem Templi Dei, to the corruption of the temple of God: not only the more grievous sins, but the least, Si qua vobis immoderatio de vsu isto concessarum rerum vitae humanae infirmitate irrepserit, if any immoderatenes by the use of things permitted unto you, do creep into you by the frayltie of man's life. Quoniam pertinet ad corruptionem Templi Dei, Because it pertaineth to the corruption of the Temple of God, tenete, hold you, &c. And make you a small thing of the marring of the temple of God? Qui templum Dei corrumperit, corrumpet illum Deus. &c. saith he. He that marreth the temple of God, God will mar him. What meaneth that, corrumpet illum Deus, God will mar him? I think it be not very far from death. Well let us see what you bring out of Augustine.

To this place alludeth S. Augustine, where he speaketh of concupiscence that remaineth in those which be regenerate, saying: Ab illo rebellante, & si non laetaliter, sed venialiter tamen vincimur. That is, of that sin concupiscence rebelling against us, we be ouercomed, although not deadly, yet venially. It followeth, & in his contrahimus, vnde quotidie dicamus, dimittae nobis debita nostra. And in these (venial sins) we gather, by means whereof we may say daily. Forgeue us Lord our trespasses.

S. Augustine in deed speaketh of such remnaunts of original sin as remain in the elect after they be regenerate, whereof S. Paul spake. Caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum. The flesh coveteth against the spirit: and saith, that we are overcome of this remnaunt not deadly, but venially. The reason is in S. Paul. Because there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, and that that relique is not able to bring forth any such Sin in the elect, whereby he may be condemned, yet notwithstanding, least we should think ourselves not to be indetted or endaungered by this means unto God, thus much we get, saith he, that we must needs say every day, forgive us our trespasses. And he showeth not in this place, what it is in it self, but what it is in the elect. S. Augustine in another place calleth these leuia peccata, light sins, not simply but comparate, by comparison. Of the sins of this life, saith he, Quaedam grauia & mortifera sunt, quae nisi per vehementissimam molestiam humiliationis cordis, & contritionis spiritus, & tribulationis poenitentiae non relaxantur. Haec dimittuntur per claues Ecclesiae. Some are grievous and deadly which are not released but by most vehement sorrow of humility of the heart, and contrition of the spirit, and tribulation of repentance. These are remitted by the keys of the Church. Sunt autem leuia peccata & minuta, quae deuitari omnino non possunt, quae quidem vidētur minora, sed multitudine praemunt: There are light sins and small, which can be eschewed by no means, which truly seem to be less, but they overcharge by reason of the multitude. And mark this by the way, a most plain contradiction to your first question: Quae deuita • i non possunt, which cā not be eschewed: and sine quibu • non potest ista vita duci, without the which this life cannot be lead, and yet you say, the commandments may be fulfilled. Posse implere Legem, to be able to fulfill the Law: is, Posse non concupiscere, to be able not to covet or lust. Nō potes non • oncupiscere, thou art not able not to covet or lust, Ergo, non po • es Legim implere, therefore thou art not able to fulfill the Law. And so might you have had regard to Christ's words, • uae apud homines impossibilia sunt, apud Deum possibili • sunt, those things which are impossible with men, with GOD be possible. And a little after: Sic ergo quàmuis minuia sunt ist a peccata, tamen quia multa sunt, vt congregata aceruum faciant, quo te pr • mant, bonus est Deus qui etiam ipsa dimittat, sine quibus non potest ista vita duci: So then although these be little sins, yet because they be many, that thei being gathered together make a heap to ouerpresse thee, God is good who forgiveth thē also, without which this life cannot be passed. You see by this place, that remission is givē to them both, and debts they are both. But because he is more ready to forgive the one than the other, he calleth them in this place, grauia & leuia, grievous or weighty, and light: in other places venalia & laetalia, venial and deadly. I wis you know that these words be of comparison, and not de simplici existentia, as the Philosophers call them, that is, to declare what those smaler faults be of their own simple existence, or proper nature. I cannot tell how little you make of remissiō of sins. But by his similitude he bringeth, they would kill you, if remission came not the sooner. And in the ende, (as I alleged before) of his sermon, he concludeth that because they destroy the temple of God, they should take heed and be ready to cry and call, Forgive us our trespasses.

Ageyne, in his Book de Spiritu & litera, he writeth thus of venial sins: Sicut non impediunt à vita aeterna iustum. &c. Lyke as some venial sins do not let a just man from life everlasting, without the which this life is not led: So some good works, do nothing profit a wicked man unto life everlasting without the which the life of every naughty mā is hardly found.

You may see by this place and by the comparison he maketh, that both this place & the other you alleged before, are so to be expounded and taken as I have said. For surely no sin is able to cast the child of God, whom he hath elected & chosen, out of the favor of God, out of the kingdom of heaven, which is his inheritance gotten & given him by Christ. For the counsels of God are without repentance. So likewise it shall avail the wicked nothing at all, y ^t he hath some good works. For he is the child of wrath, the son of perdition. As for the fault of youre reasoning, I let it pass: you may think with yourself how well you deal making such Arguments: these sins are not deadly to the elect & just: Therefore they are not deadly: à secūdo ad • acēte ad primū negative: Socrates nō est Ph • losop. academic{us}, ergo, nō est Philosophus: Socrates is no Academical Philosopher, therefore he is no philosopher, or M. Feknā was not Abbo • of Osne, therefore he was no Abbot, for you have brought never a place directly proving what they are in thenselves. What you could bring out of Luther, I know not, when I see it, I will answer it if I cā. Non iurau • in verba Lutheri, I have not sworn to credit every word y ^t Luther writeth. And sure it is, some things he writ extāt in print, before he was well persuaded in many points of sound doctrine. Now, touching y ^e austerity of M. Gough, GOD make us all ageinst vice austere, and not to flatter our selves in our concupiscences: we cannot hate sin to much, nor condemn sin to grievously. I would I might, I, by the word of God persuade myself that sin were no sin, mē might live more at liberty. But yet I think myself blessed that he hath called me to the liberty of his Gospel, which is free remission of my sins & sinful life in the blood of Christ Jesus, and a calling to walk after the spirit and not after the flesh. It is time and high time for us (M. Fecknam) to beat down sin, and not to seek means howe we may cloke sin. Let it appear in his own nature, that we may be ashamed of him: put not a Lions skin upon an Ass. Call white, white: and black, black: good, good: and bad, bad. So shall we take heed, that we fall not to often: and if it cannot otherwise be, but we must fall seven times, yet that we may learn to fear thereby, and not to make a fleabyting of it. If we do so, we shall be more like to Abel than Cayne: to Isaac, than Ishmael: to Jacob, than Esau: to John, than to the Pharisees: to Simon Peter than to Simon Magus: to John than Judas: in no miserable state, in no evil condition, in state of salvation not perdition, Christ of his mercy releasing our infirmities. If the just man did fall only, if there were no more but so, that he sinned & sinned deadly: then were he no just man, thou were he in as evil case as Paynimes and heathen people. But in that he falleth and riseth up again, as David teacheth us; he is better than Paynymes, better than the Heathen: as good as Abel, as Isaac as Jacob, as John, as Simon Peter, and John ageyn: he is, I say, notwithstanding all these falls, the fellow of Angels, the child of God, & inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. Why? Bycause he hath spoken by the mouth of his Prophet: Ippol, lo iutall. He shall fall but he shall not be cast away: and as y ^e wise mā saith, Scheba ippol tzaddik vakam▪ septies cadet iustus, sed surget: the just man shall fall .vii. times, but he shall rise. As for this word Naphal, to fall, it carrieth with it a more weightier signification than you allege. All these things being considered, it is no evil way to preach repentance, and yet say that all sin of it self is damnable: to exhort to good works, and yet to teach a man not to presume of his own works as to give part of his salvation, seeing that the whole is wrought by Christ his death, and applied to us by only faith: to exhort all men to pray for eche other, & yet not to spoil Christ of the office of his mediatorship, which is taken away by the prayer to Saints & to exhort men to keep God's commandments, and yet to teach y ^t they be impossible: that seeing our own weakness through our own sin, we may fly to his mercy, and say: Da quod, iubes, & iube quod vis, give what thou cōmaundest, and command what thou wilt. So sound Doctrine as this is, God give grace to all his ministers to preach, & you to embrace: that they with their preching, and you & I with our following may glorify our father which is in heaven.

Thus have I in few words answered your cavilling arguments and counterfeit stuff as time did serve me: if not so amply as I might, yet sufficient for those you brought, framing my answer shortly to your argument. And as you unjustly lay to M. Goughs charge contradiction to y ^e holy scriptures, to the fathers, and to have nothing to stand upon but old heresies revived, as of the Manichees, Eunonius, Vigilantius, & Jovinian: I have and do lay to your charge justly, contradiction to the scriptures, false alleging of doctors to no purpose, such slēder, such childish, so against all art & reason in forming of your talk, as any Boy might have been ashamed to have used the like. I have, and do, I say, lay justly to your charge your false burdning him with those foresaid heresies, as unfit as unaptly laid against him, as anything could be. I cannot see why in these cases you might not as well have blamed him to be an Arian, a Sabellian, and what you will: as a Mani • hean, an Eunonian, a Vigilantian, a Jovinian.

Now when you have done all this, as though you had achieved a notable seat, you require of their worships a thing reasonable (as you would make it) y ^t you might not be enforced to come to sermons: a thing as you say, against all former example, a thing as true as the residue. Did you never read Augustine to Vincentius, against the Donatists concerning this matter? If you did not, I pardon your ignorance: If you did, I will not spare but tell you of your untruth. Do you not read in his Epistles, cum haereticis esse v • agēdum, that heretics must be dealt with by force? Do you not remember that he saith, it did good to the Churches in his time. That the Donatists were constrained by authority to the embrasing of Christian religion, and there reheasreth diverse of their gratulations Do you not remember that he saith, not to do it is malum pro malo reddere, to requite evil for evil? Do you not remember, that he saith, A • elius est cum seueritate diligere quam cum lenitate decipere? Better it is to love with severity, than to deceive with lenity? And that it pertaineth to princes? Do you not remember how he answereth that objection, because there was none in the Apostles time? Do you not remember the example of Nebuchadnezzar, which he saith signified the state of the Church in the Apostles time, & this now? When he constrained to Idolatry, howe the Apostles were persecuted? When being turned to God, decreed in his kingdom that whosoever blasphemed y ^e God of Sydrach, Misach and Abednego should be worthily punished, what princes ought now to do? For then saith he, that scripture was verified, Quare fremuerunt gentes. &c▪ why did the Gentyles tumultuously rage. &c. But now is fulfilled that, & principes erūt nutrices tuae, and Princes shall be thy nurses. Do you not remember how he saith, capitale • u • icium, punishment of death was appointed by the law of the Emperors against y ^e sacrifices of the Pagans? Do you not remember when he saith of that, quis nostrum quis vestrum non laudat? Which of us, which of you doth not praise it? Do not you remember how he saith, that Constantine did decree vt conuictorum res fis • o vendicarentur? that the goods of the convicted should be challenged to the common treasure? Do ye not remember, that he was once in that error, that they should not be constrained until he was convicted by examples of the profit it did? Do you not read in the same, that in matters of religion: Mansuetudo quae perdit hominem crudelitas est seueritas quae castigat improbum charitas est? gentleness which destroyeth a mā is cruelty, severity, which chastiseth a wicked mā is charity? do you not remember the similitudes he useth? Do you not remember that he saith, the Church of Christ doth persecute, showing it in the example of Sara? do you not remember, poenam decem librarum auri ab Imperatoribus consti • u • am, that by Emperors was appointed or decreed a punishment or penalty of ten pounds in gold, against the Donatists? But if it be a thing so strange, against all example: why did you so then use it in Queens Mary's time, and so far, that you contented not yourselves to cast them in prison, to hale them to Masses, but to burn them also? if it had been no more but your own example, you might have been ashamed, to give forth this reason. You in your doings could be called defensores pacis, prouisores Ecclesiae, defenders of peace, and gardians of the Church. The Queens grace that now is and her Lieuetenaunts are cruel vexers and oppressors. But you show yourself as you are, a righte Donatist both in profession now, and in dooyngs then. As they, when they accused Caecilian, the Bishop of Carthage to Constantine, and required to have him punished, then were they defensores pacis & prouisores Ecclesiae ▪ defenders of peace and gardianes of the Church: but when they were served with their own sause, then they could cry out and say: Non esse vt agendum, that there ought too be no dealing by constrainte. Suche were your doings in Queen Mary's time, this is your demand and talk now▪ What is this other, than as Tychonius one of theirs, and your Master, said of you both? Quod volumus, hoc sanctum est. That is holy that we will have. As for our own men, you name Luther, Bucer, Bullinger, &c. (not citing or coting any their words or one place of their writings,) you might have thus thought. That they were of a more gentle spirit than you were, and yet would they not have an obstinate hereti que, maintained neither. Their moderation is good as they learned of Augustine and others, in case their gentleness might be used. But seeing you will not embrace y ^t , if you had the smarte you could, not complain of contrariety to our own men, neither of injury. As for example we have of you. We deal otherwise with you, than you dealt with us. We follow that good rule that Augustine giveth, you did it not. Si terrerentur, & non docerentur, improba quasi dominatio videretur, if they should be feared and not taught, it might seem as a wicked governance. You have been taught, & are taught. No more with ours but from prison to fire. Therefore as we do that, so must we do that followeth. Sed rursus si docerentur & non terrerentur, vetustate consuetudinis obdurarentur. But again if they should be taught and not feared, they would be hardened with oldness of custom. So that what is done is but well done: and not against example, as you say: if worse were shown, we have example to, both of Augustine and your own doings. But this do not I wish for, neither would have it shown, God knoweth what I speak, yet so much must I say, because you provoke it, seeming unto me rather to scoff at these worshipful men, than otherwise having just occasion to complain. God give you grace to enter into yourself, that ye may remember how you go a stray, not walking in such ways as he hath appointed for you, that at the last you may seek unto him, you may repair homeward, after this your peregrination, and he receive you as a most joyful Father. Amen.