A Reply to a Censure

Touching the Jesuits.

I Acknowledge my labor employed to bring in discredit the Jesuits, whose infections are well known abroad, and are now entered to work treason in the land. Also I grant the speeches which in all hatred of Popish practices, so directly attempted against the Majesty of God, and peace of this noble kingdom, I uttered in diverse places of my answer, and are now by you not unfitly gathered together to be seen in one view. And because you charge me with ordinary railing, I might fully requite you with placing your ordinary and extraordinary railings in one rank, that you may know your own, and take them home. But I have no such purpose: and if I had, where you have gathered my fit words against the wicked monkish friers or frierly monks to fill ten lines, I might gather of your reproaches more then can come into ten leaves. Therefore I leave it to the indifferent reader of your book to judge with what mind it is like you accused me of railing, that rail so yourself, or for want of modesty, you that have been so immodest and so bitter, or of absurd assertions, you that have so many.

Concerning your charge, that I abuse the Jesuits those learned men: I answer, that godliness is true learning, and the only foundation of good life, without the which, if they had any learning, or have any show of good life, the greater is their sin and hypocrisy, in employing such gifts of God to so vile a purpose, as the defense of manifest falsehood and superstition. True it is, that the world doth know them, and such as they be: But it is a small thing to be known or loved of the world: our joy is, that God doth know his and maintain their right.

That I call the Jesuits a sect (which you so find fault with all) it is not my doing alone, but many have done it before me and that learnedly, as shall appear afterward. But your definition is first to be noted, as coming somewhat out of place and untrue. Touching the place I will not contend, the matter cannot be justified, in that you define Sectaries to be in deed such as cut themselves off in opinion of religion, from the general body of the Catholic Church. For herein, as not remembering your own art, you confound heretics with sectaries, making no distinction, between the general and the special: for (howsoever the names are sometimes confounded) in the received distinction of matter, all heretics are sectaries, but all sectaries are not heretics: so that being diverse in nature, they cannot have the same proper definition. Beside your fault of confounding even in a definition, which should serve to distinction, and to bring clear knowledge, this also is to be considered, that of the two, it doeth most fitly agree unto heretics, whose sin & heresy standeth in cutting them selves off from the communion of the Church in opinion and doctrines of faith. Lastly, though one man once divide him self, and so be guilty in this particular of schism, yet by the word in common use, we call it not a sect, till there be many drawn away. For if Layolas alone had trodden that new path, and vowed that special vow, for his division and superstitious trade, he alone should not have been called a sect. Wherefore your definition hath bewrayed great want of learning.

But to give you a truer definition, A sect, according to the true etymology of y ^• word, is a company of men, that differ from the rest of their religion, either in matter of form of their profession. Seeing therefore the Jesuits receive a peculiar vow to preach as the Apostles did, everywhere, to do it of free cost, to whip and torment them selves after the example of a sect called by the name of whippers, and condemned long ago: seeing they also as a divided company from all others, do follow the rule of Layolas, it appeareth plainly, the Jesuits are a sect. As for the examples of Elias, Elisha, Daniel, and John the Baptist, they are no less wickedly then unlearnedly alleged, to avow their order. What are you able to bring out of the word of God, why Elias should after more then 2000. years be brought in for a patron of Friers: What was in Elisha or Daniel, that may liken them to Jesuits: John the Baptist that may seem to make most, maketh nothing at all for you: for it is to be thought he was an extraordinary and perpetual Nazarite, & therefore his calling warranted him for his austere and extraordinary attire and diet, which restraint or the like, is not now laid upon those that teach in the Church; having all their several offices expressed in the word of God. Moreover John's preaching in the wilderness of Judea did not withdraw him as is imagined, into solitary and waste mountains, but the hillie part of Judea was in comparison of other places, called a wilderness, being notwithstanding a country well inhabited, as appeareth in the book of Joshua. Thus it is clear, that neither your definition nor examples can prove the Jesuits to be no sect. Nevertheless, as I have answered one definition with another: so will I answer your examples far from the matter, with examples plainly declaring that which is in question. Saint Paul doth accuse the Corinthes of Schism, only because they said, I am of Paul: I am of Apollos: I am of Cephas: I am of Christ. These did not cut themselves off in opinion of religion, they did not hold a several faith to themselves: but for this Schism he sharply rebuked them, saying, Is Christ divided: Therefore the Jesuits, following in y ^• like, or in more wicked steppes, receive sentence from Saint Paul, wherein they are accused of Schism, and condemned as a sect. For do not these votaries of Rome, do not these irregulars say, I am of Austē, I am of Francis, I am of Dominick, and these last men, I am of Jesus: Is Jesus then divided: or not rather you divided ye Jesuits, being cut off as heretics from the mystical body of Christ, and rent as Sectaries in your own bowels: Also the Pharisees are another example to overthrow your definition, & prove y ^• Jesuits a sect. For they did not cut off themselves from the religion of the Church, yet for their several order they were a notorious sect.

As I have plainly shown, that the Jesuits are a sect, so it is true, that they are a blasphemous sect. For what a blasphemy is it to abuse the most blessed name of Jesus, for a color to their blasphemous practices, in rooting out the pure and sincere preaching of the Gospel, that afterward they may bring in all the execrable superstitions & heresies of Popery, and after many outrages, establish again the intolerable yoke of Antichrist: This also increaseth the offense, that they draw to themselves alone, the most gracious and comfortable title of our fellowship and union in Christ Jesus, which is common to all that do believe, without any division or distinction. Wherefore, howsoever the discovery went near the heart, and made you complain, for me to call the Jesuits a blasphemous sect, was neither lewd nor unlearned. It is one of your nothings to make a show of something, when you say, they call not themselves Jesuits, but the Society of Jesus: making a distinction where none is, or if there he any, it is made against the received speech everywhere, and against yourself, who, in calling them so often Jesuits, do by the practice allow yourself the liberty of that speech, which you reprehend in me. And to discover your manifest untruth in this small matter that can yield you n • reward of a lie, I must tell you that Turrian another Layolas calleth his society by the name of Jesuits, which you deny.

The second note against me, as contumeliously depraving all religious men, to deface the Jesuits, is another slander: for I honor and pray for all religious men, as many as for true religion are united in the body of Christ, which is the Church. But if you account only the popish Monks and Friars religious men, and so take the title of religion only to yourselves, excluding all others, even those also that are of your church, as many as are not of some regular order and habit, you have well laid down my meaning: for I hold them all as wicked ministers of Antichrist, and worthy to be severely censured, for making the name of religious men proper to themselves, which is common to all Christians everywhere. Neither am I herein to be compared with the old Heretics: for they dispraised the good, and I have spoken against the bad: they did it untruly, and I in truth. Therefore it is a manifest misconstruing of my words, as delivered to the dispraise of thē, wh •• it was not in my thought to dispraise: as also it wa • a plain injury to match those ancient Monks of the primitive Church, with the Monks and Friars of the Popish orders, between whom there is so great difference, that the name excepted, there is almost nothing wherein they should be compared. For the Monks in the primitive Church, whom Agustine and others commend so highly, were, in life and conversation holy, painful and learned, they lived in their houses without any superstitious vows, as professed students of Divinity do in their Colleges: they labored with their hands, to relieve them selves and do good to others. Finally their societies were nurceries of good learning and godly life, that from thence the Churches might be continually furnished with godly Ministers and Teachers. These being once called to the ministry of the Church, ceased to be Monks and left their monasteries. But the Monks and Friers in these ages are, as one of your fellowpapistes writeth of Cardinal Wolsey, the dregs of the people, and the reproach of mankind. And that you may not charge me again with these or any other like speeches delivered against popish Monks & Friers, I must foretell you, that Agustine doth clear me in writing as I have done. For speaking of them, but when their wickedness first began to open it self, he doth cry out against them, as against idle, vagrant, proud, and unclean Monks (accompanied since with your beggarly Friers) such as now pester the Cloisters, burden the earth, infect the air, and plant detestable superstitions in all places where they find their kingdom of hypocrites. Bernard, a nearer witness of their wickedness, doeth wonderfully thunder against them, painting out their corruptions with fit words, but with more reproach then I have used, or can with modesty repeat. Wherefore, howsoever it might have been a fault to speak against ancient Monks, it is no fault to speak against the bastard Monks of this late age. But it was your hatred without other cause to compare me with old heretics▪ and your deceit (as I noted) notwithstanding so great difference, to match the old Monks with your new Friers. The writings of the Fathers are not herein against me, but their practice for me▪ For as I praise the good with them, s • they disprayse the • add with me: such as then began to declyne, and are now degenerated altogether, having made up the measure of iniquity, that was wanting in their predecessors. Saint Agustine also▪ the lowest that you will or can bring to prove any great good in Monks, in his 137 Epistle, the title whereof is corruptly set down for the purpose, as he willeth us not to infame all Mankes for a few that be evil, so he willeth us not to praise all, for a few that be good. But here I must not let you plead a false title: for if all the wisdom and authority of your Censureship should join in the matter, it cannot make this our Agustine a Friar, or so win seven or eyght hundred years, to advance the antiquity of your Friars. And this also I must remember you of, that when you charge me as making war against all the Saints of God, for speaking against wicked Monks, you do therein much more accuse these Saints and Fathers them selves, who have done the same before me, having less occasion, because the disease in their time was not so foul, nor the infections so general. But presently in the same cause again, to say I have a spirit • arre differing from the Spirit of Christ, is a false and presumptuous sentence, pronounced boldly as from his seat, that doeth search the reins and know the heart. For Christ called the Scribes and Pharisees a generation of Vipers, and oftentimes repeated these words against them, Woe be unto you ye Scribes, ye Pharisees, ye Hypocrites, they were not worn out terms with him nor slanderous: as they are not also being used against their successors, be they Monks or Friers, or any other which have that leaven. Your self also bring the name of Friar as able to disgrace even good men, saying in contempt, Friar Bale and Friar Luther. Lastly Christ's example is alleged for Jesuits, but most blasphemously and against his Majesty. For though Christ had not where to lay his head, yet his example agreeth less with you in this matter, then the example of Saint John the Baptist. For John came neither eating nor drinking in such sort, as men do ordinarily: but Christ came eating and drinking, he frequented public assemblies, and was sometimes interteined at great feasts. Howe do you then draw the life of Christ, to uphold the wicked institution of Iesi • ites: When did he whip himself; to warrant your practice in so doing? What worldly blessings given him of his Father did he at any time abandon: Howe doth his example recommende voluntary poverty to you Jesuits or t • any: except you would by virtue of this example, have all men be of your order, because all should be followers of Christ, and hold it as commanded, or recommended for an example to be followed of all, whatsoever he hath done before. Thus your ready words have soon carried you into a manifest error. For by this your doctrine kings must 〈◊〉 ▪ don their regalities, & after the example of Charles the fifth, all Monarchs must leave their scepters, and beta • e them selves to a F • yers weed, if they will be followers of Christ, and •• e that is recommended unto 〈◊〉 by his example of voluntary poverty. And for an example to touch you nearer, the Pope he must above all other, put off Peters cope, and throw away his triple crown, and become a brother of this your beggarly order.

In the third place you note my endeavor to bring the Jesuits into •• n • empt by their obs • ure cōce • tion from one Layolas a Spaniard, all which I grant is true. Neuertheles I may not let you pass away with a plain untruth. Where do I 〈◊〉 all my answer cal Lay • las a Soldier? yet you say I have done it contumeliously. For the time when Jesuits began, it was hard for any man not of your nourcerie, to set down the very day and year, when your mother brought forth those two • wynnes the Theatines and Jesuits: because their obscure conception and secrete educat •• was such, that for long time there was no difference known, and the differences which you make out of Payua dependeth upon his credit. But for the matter, Payua saith, The Jesuits had their full creation in the time of Paulus tertius: Kem •• sius saith, they had it not before the time of Paulus quartus. I pray you what authority hath Payua against me, that Kemnisius hath not against you: Notwithstanding let the matter be as it is, you can gain nothing by it, for Turrian a father Ies • ite saith, that the Jesuits were confirmed by Paulus tertius, and by other Popes afterward: (among whom was Paulus quartus) which proveth my report sufficiently. In handling this question, you grant that which I affirmed of the Jesuits, that they were created by the Pope in Martin Luther's time. To your common objection, that our faith began with Martin Luther, I answer, you may as • el say, the religion of the Jews, and knowledge of the Law, began in Josiah time: and that Hilkia was their progenitour, because he found the book of the Law in the house of God: who notwithstanding found no new thing, but only the authentical book of Moses, whereupon the king and his people, by a diligent reading and regard thereof, were won the rather to a notable reformation. For our faith is the same that hath been evermore laid and built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus being the chief corner stone, which hath also continued from age to age, although sometimes with small show to the world, because of many persecutions and great falling away, both in life and doctrine. Wherefore it is your evil speech, so basely to speak, and bitterly to deface the religion of Jesus Christ, that hath received in the eyes of all the world so great testimony from God, to prove the work is his own work, and the Gospel his own everlasting truth, the power whereof is still dedlared from day today, in many wonderful issues for the enlargement of his kingdom, and most of all, by adding to the Gospel daily such as appertain to his holy election.

Concerning the praise you give to Jesuits, as reformers of vice, in my answer I have proved that your religion must first be reformed, and your intolerable dispensations and indulgences taken away. For so long as these merchandises are to be bought so commonly and for so small a price, sin must needs abound, and the complaint of the Lord will be most just against you, which was made against the covetous and unclean priests in Israel: They eat the sins of my people, and lift up his mind everyone to their iniquity. The Jesuits abandoning of all worldly pleasures & possibilities of preferment in the same, so far forth as none of that society hath or may take any spiritual or temporal livings or commodities whatsoever, is nothing else but a superstitio • s worship, without commandment (as hath been declared) invented by themselves: being moreover against the order of the pr • mitiue Church, and savoring not a little of Anabaptistry, in condemning the pr • pertie or private po •• ession of earthly bl • ssings. But howsoever you sound a trumpet one before another, to show the Jesuits contempt of worldly riches, and that they receive not the preferrements, wherewith mighty Princes have pressed them, yet, I think your meaning is not, • ut y ^• if the Pope entreat them, they will be sone entreated.

The humility of their spirit was noted in y ^• answer. They can be content in h • pocrisie, to abase themselves, as to the du • , but it is, that afterward they may rule o •• r all estates in the lande, as he did, whose 〈◊〉 was to the Pope, I & my king. So also I proved that the Jesuits come to meet meddle with matters of estate, & offered them 〈◊〉 wrong therein, as shall appear in a •• tter place, whē you assay to prove the contra • y.

The Censurer in the next place cometh to a discourse of three leaves touching Ignatius Layolas & Martin Luther, but altogether from the purpose: for proof whereof, let his two arguments be examined, the one for Layolas and the Jesuits, the other against Martin Luther and the professors of the truth. For the Jesuits he bringeth this reason: Whosoever leaving his former calling, shall betake him self to a votaries life, and therein win souls, may be f • there of a Society: Layolas did so: therefore Layolas may be father of a Society. The first propositiō is omitted by the Censurer, but without it • e can prove nothing for the Jesuits. For if any man leaving the field, or the like calling, may not begin a new order as Layolas did, howe can Layolas & his brood • ustifie their Society? The second proposition, y ^• Layolas, leaving his former calling, proved so good a man and won souls, is more then doubtful. Thus it appeareth, that vpō two former propositions, the one false, the other doubtful, the Censurer can make no true or clear conclusion, that the Jesuits have a good warrant for their new Apostleship. Against y ^• professors of the Gospel, there is another argument made, but with a • ill art and success. For thus the Censurer doth reason: If Luther were a wicked man, & taught many beastly doctrines, the Protestants may be ashamed of their progenitor: but Luther was such a one: therefore the protestants may be ashamed of their father and religion. The first proposition is altogether false: for Luther is not our progenitour, nor the father of our faith. If he had offended, yet the truth and professors thereof are not guilty, or thereby justly touched in credit. The seconde proposition is also false: for howsoever false witnesses come in one upon another to swear against him, Martin Luther's worthy praise, shall continue in all ages: the Lord hath shown him a token of good: they that hate him shall see it and be ashamed. Wherefore these two propositions being false, must needs bring forth a false and s • aūderous conclusion. Thus the Censurer appeareth much more careful, smothely to deliver foul reproaches, then to bring a good reason for maintenance of his cause. His arguments being thus laid open, it remaineth to consider the particular speeches, whereby he setteth such colors upon his slanders delivered against that holy and learned man Martin Luther and upon his praises, for Ignatius Layolas.

And first for the life of Ignatius Layolas, I pass it over, as a thing from the matter, and having in it nothing to be answered: when it cometh into the Legenda, it may have some credit in your Church: but as it is now reported, I see no honor that cometh to you by the tale, nor harm to us. But to you this harm may grow, that hereafter by so slender an example, other Friars may be brought in as much to reign over you, as you would reign over all the Monks and Friars that have been before you. 〈◊〉 marvel howe in this story of Layolas you left out y ^t , which, if it had been true, would have made more for you then all his life beside. It is his wonderful vision when in a trance he did behold Jesus receiving him and his fellows into protection. You know that without a miracle your new creatures of the Pope have neither life nor soul.

For Martin Luther, what may truly be said f • r his just honor, that shall appear afterward: now I am to answer unto your reproaches against him. And first (howsoever you think your credit discharged by alleging them) Hosius, Cochleus, Lindanus & Xaintes have no voice where truth or reason are admitted for witnesses. For in this action they are specially sworn and forsworn against Martin Luther the ruin of their estate, being all agreed to lend and borowe lies, and in one tale to conspire the death and detestation of his name. Although the sentence were true, yet would you not censure him that should give sentence against your unholy father, according to Martin Luther's testimony? Why then do you think that we will anymore admit Lindan and his fellows against Martin Luther, then you will admit him against the Pope?

Therefore in alleging Lindan, Cochleus, Hosius and Xaintes, with some others, you commit many faults without any gain to your cause. First you abase yourself more then needeth, in not thinking your own credit as sufficient with us to prove anything against us, as their credit is. For although these witnesses are dashed in, to make a show in the margent, and to deceive the ignorant readers that know neither their names, nor their weak authority: yet the Censurer, if his name were well known, hath against us as much credit in his own cause, as Lindan hath, or Hosius, albeit he was your great president in the Council of Trent. Secondly in citing your own partial men, more carried I think, with malice against Luther and these causes, then yourself, their sentence can have no more authority, then when a man doth stand out to bear witness in his own cause, or when one thief giveth in evidence to acquit another. We go not about to ouerbeare you in the like causes with the bare authority or reports of Martin Luther, of John Calvin, of Peter Martyr, or other like men: for these are all parties, and the law alloweth no such for sufficient witnesses in their own causes. Therefore, howe unequal is your measure, how insufficient is your trial in bringing such testimonies against us, as yourselves would hiss at, if the like, or better were brought against you 〈…〉 Lastly, in alleging such partial and forsworn witnesses, you bewray an evil cause, that cannot otherwise be maintained, then by such unlawful & insufficient proofs. But (seeing there can be had nothing from you and your witnesses but slaūders) let us examine how small cause you have, so bitterly to slander those that are gone before, and for so wicked purposes, to infect the judgment of such as shall come after. Entring into the slanders of Martin Luther, you give a note, that he was the beginner of the new Gospel. Do you not still bewray Campions spirit in charging the religion now established in this lande with novelties, and most scornfully calling the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which we preach, a new doctrine? This is not upon good ground to speak against a few Friars, but in a blasphemous spirit, to speak against God. But before I answer the particular slanders laid down against Martin Luther, I must again add that which you have left out, namely howe Luther was begot̄ of a devil. Surely this is as true as the rest, and Proteolus as much to be believed as the others. Therefore the same spark of modesty which made your paper blush to receive this, as a thing incredible, as offensive to every man's ears, and as bewraying your insatiable malice, might also have refused to tell the other slanders of like bitterness and no less untruth. Now, that Martin Luther was stricken with a thunderbolt in a meadow, though you easily dare report it from an enemy, yet you shall hardly •• nde a wise man that will believe you▪ the matter being of it self so incredible. A thunderbolt would have taken away life, or left a mark behind it, for a manifest and sure note of that which otherwise cannot be proved. I will no more believe Lindan in this, then in his large and wonderful tale of a mad dog pursued with a multitude of armed men, whose venomous teeth Lindan himself escaped, by the help of Saint Hubert, as they call him, for the which delivery he and all his house were afterward dedicated to the worship of the same Hubert. I will believe him no more against Martin Luther, then against our own countrymen, of whom he writeth that they of the religion in England (whom he calleth Calvinists) do worship the image of y ^e devil. Of like credit is your other tale of y ^e devil, horribly crying out of Martin Luther's mouth, and as much to be believed from Cochleus alone, as frō him and a thousand such, making no conscience to cast out in their writings so malicious and so intolerable libels. You add these words, that upon a certain emulation & contention between him and the Friars of Dominiks order, he left his religion, cast away his habit, broke his vows, married a Nun, and by little and little, began to preach strange new doctrines, especially tending to all liberty and carnality. Howe roundlye are these things written, and howe calm doth the flood of malicious words seem to flowe, partly to disgrace that, y ^t was lawfully done, & partly to charge him with that evil, which he never thought? For when the Lord did open his eyes to see (as many before have seen) the abhominable hypocrisy and superstition of your religion and orders, no otherwise then for hatred thereof, he left his former superstition (which you call religion:) he cast away also his superstitious order & the pharisaical habit thereof: and thinking him self no longer tied to his unadvised and superstitious vow, he married in the Lord, and all this was lawful. That by little and little he began to preach strange and new doctrines, especially tending to all liberty and carnality, it shall be found an untruth delivered against the man, and a malice against the doctrine which he taught: your own examples shall make the proof.

First therefore, you charge him to teach, there is no sin but incredulity: neither can a man damn himself, do what mischief he can, except he will refuse to believe. I will not here measure unto you, as you have measured unto me, I will not disgrace you first, and then examine the matter: for therein you have offered me great wrong, as shall appear when I come to answer those places. But I may plainly pronounce, that in this place you do in words and matter report an opē untruth. For Martin Luther hath no such doctrine. First it was far from him to think there was no sin but incredulity, and therefore he would never write so manifest an untruth. He is vehement in condemning many other sins, as (beside infinite other places) it appeareth in his expounding the xv. Psalm, and more largely in his brief exposition upon the ten commandments. This it is that you have wonderfully perverted: Martin Luther saith, Incredulity, (y ^t is, not to believe the promise of God) doth argue the promise of God to be a lying promise, which is a most high sin of all other. Again, he doth not say as you report, a man cannot damn him self, for that is against all knowledge, either of man's iniquity, or of God's just judgments: but he speaketh of the baptized, which believe, & of the truth of God's promise, who cannot deny himself. Wherein he showeth that it doth wonderfully comfort a man's soul, and encourage him to the hope of mercy, if he shall consider the promise of God made toward him: of which promise Martin Luther saith, it is impossible it should lie, being entire and not changed or change able through any of our sins. And hereupō he declareth what armor we have in respect of God's true promise, & how to answer when sin troubleth the conscience. Afterwarde speaking of the riches of a believer, he concludeth saying, Thus thou seest a Christian man, or one baptized howe rich he is, who though willing, yet cannot lose his saluatiō through his sins howe great soever, except he will not believe: for no sins can damn him but incredulity alone, if faith in the promise of God, made to the baptized, return and stand, all other vices are swallowed up in a moment, by the same faith, yea by the truth of God that cannot deny him self, if thou confess him and cleave faithfully to him that promiseth. In which words Martin Luther speaketh not of a faith separated from good works, or accompanied with sin only; but of that faith which bringeth foorch as fruits and effects those good works which God hath prepared, that we should walk in them. This is the true and comfortable doctrine of Martin Luther, to prove it impossible, that the elect should be deceived or fall away, or that the multitude of their sins, should bar the grace and promise of God. Wherefore seeing Martin Luther saith, Incredulity is the greatest sin, and you say, he affirmeth there is no sin but incredulity: Seeing he saith in respect of God's promise all the sins of the righteous man without want of faith cannot condemn him: and you utter it most corruptly, as if he said, a man cannot damn himself do what sin he can: Lastly, seeing Martin Luther speaketh of the elect, and you utter it as spoken of all, even of the wicked, the godly reader may behold your malicious and false reports that have in this first place, heinously charged Martin Luther with a doctrine, which was never in his heart to embrace, much less in his purpose to publish by writing. Yet I confess this his found doctrine of our certain salvation, is against your Trent doubtfulness, in so undoubted a covenant, as is that which the Lord hath confirmed to his children with an oath that cā never be repealed.

2 In the second place out of his sermon touching Moses, misreporting the title as I think, you cite these words. The ten commandments appertain nothing unto us. Wherein you would bring the reader unto an opinion, that Martin Luther altogether rejecteth the moral law of God, setting men free from the obedience or regard thereof. If you could prove but this one article against him, without your further reproaches, it were sufficient to bring his honor to the dust. But I dare auowe in your name, that you are not so ignorant, as not to know his clear doctrine to the contrary, both in other books, and in that from whence you drew out these words, leaving the sense behind. I grant he hath such words, but never laid down so nakedly, or to prove such an error, as your report importeth. For speaking against such as urged the policy of the Jews, and laid the yoke of Moses Law upon Christians, he resisted this doctrine, expounding the differences between the two couenantes of God: one in the ministry of Moses, which is the perfect obedience af all the Law: the other in the mercy of Christ apprehending righteousness by faith. The first as he teacheth, appertained for a time to the Jews alone, y ^t seconde afterward both to Jews and Gentiles, as many as believe. Wherupon he proveth at large, that the law doth not appertain unto us, as it did to the Jews: the yoke and ceremonies thereof, lie not upon us to observe in such sort as it pressed them. All which doctrine, is as largely taught by the Apostle, proving that we are not under the Law, but under grace: and in another place, that the law was given because of transgression, til the seed came which was promised: again in the same place, the Law was our schoolmaster to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith, but after faith is come, we are no more under the schoolmaster. Which places do clearly show, y ^t Moses Law appertaineth not to us, as to the Jews: we are not under it as they were, the yoke and condemnation thereof doth not bind us as it did them: which is all that Martin Luther teacheth: distinguishing our time from their time, and our estate under Christ and the Gospel, from their condition under Moses and the Law, according to that excellent distinction of S. John: The law was given by Moses but grace & truth came by Jesus Christ. We are under Christ and under grace, not under Moses and the yoke of his law: we have the truth and not the multitude of shadows and ceremonies, that were under the Mosaical administration. Now, that Martin Luther did acknowledge the doctrine of the law profitable to us, though the yoke and former ministry thereof be taken away, it appeareth by his exposition of the Law, and by his words out of the same sermon which you allege, where he saith, We receive and acknowledge Moses for a teacher in deed, whence we learn much wholesome doctrine: as a lawegiuer or governor we do not acknowledge him. Also afterward having repeated the commandments, he demandeth, saying, Is it not necessary for us to keep these? are they not universally commanded to all men? I answer, saith he, they are to be kept of all and appertain unto all. Thus it is clear, although M. Luther acknowledgeth not the yoke, the curse, the Mosaical government, which were proper to the Jews, and appertain not unto us: yet in other respects he is plentiful in showing the profit and use thereof to Christians: for it is, as David saith, a lantern to our steppes, and a light unto our path. Therefore you shall do well to regard your steps, least yourself seem to neglect the law of love and truth as appertaining nothing to you, if you thus misreport & misconster any man's wholesome doctrine.

3 Your third report of Luther's doctrine is, that it is a false opinion, and to be abolished, that there are four Gospels. Touching this third place, I find the effect of your report else where, for these first and chief words: but the latter words concerning John's Gospel, that it is the only fair, true, and principal gospel, I cannot find, I think there was never any such preface written in latin by Luther, as you cite for your defense. You have in many places used the avouch at large, which Lawiers think unlearned in their cases, and oftentimes you cite books not to be gotten, as this preface, and that book de missa angulari, and laid down one title for another, with such like practices, to occupy your answerer more in finding out your places, then in making answer to four of your books. But I thought only to note your practice herein: now let us return unto the matter. Martin Luther doeth neither him self exclude Matthew, Mark, or Luke, from being the Gospel, neither would he have any man bar the other writings of the Apostles from that title, because all that was written by the four Evangelists, and what so ever the holy Apostles wrote beside in the new Testament, all that is one Gospel in substance, though there be four whose several books usually are called four several Gospels. Therefore to speak of the four Evangelists first, in respect that the holy Ghost used them as four pens, and four witnesses, all writing the Gospel and story of the doctrine and deeds of Christ: we may say there are four Gospels. But in respect they 〈…〉 te in an heavenly harmony, in one Spirit, in one truth, for one and the same work of faith, the Gospel being one and the same in all four, there are not four, but one Gospel. As for the rest of the Apostles, what they have left to the treasure of the Church in the book of God, that also is the same Gospel, and the Apostle doth call his doctrine and Epistles by that name: which is to be observed for avoiding a corrupt judgment, in thinking less authority or majesty of Gospel in the Epistles, then is in the books of the four Evangelists: for in respect that they were sent from the Apostle, to the Churches absent, they are called Epistles: as other men's letters are called in like case: but in respect of the doctrine therein delivered, it is the same which saint Luke and saint John did write, and bear no less honor, howe so ever some custom of speech otherwise doeth hinder a right judgment in this behalf.

To this third article only hath the Censurer given his Censure, wherein he hath not so much reproached Luther, as bewrayed some want of exercise or judgment in the Scriptures. His words are that Luther said this, because the other three Gospels spake too much of good works: whereby the Censurers opinion is clear, that Saint John speaketh less of good works then the rest. I grant that John hath a special course in describing the divinity of Christ, and the love of God toward us: but that he is inferior to the rest in teaching good works. I cannot grant it, neither can the Censurer prove it. But for proof of that I say, one or two places of many may be sufficient. If love be the fulfilling of the Law, and the new commandment, not to love one another, as every man loveth himself, but more perfectly and more abundantly, as Christ hath loved us: if to bring forth much fruit, as branches in the vine, be the fountain of every good work: if to follow the shepherd Christ and to obey his voice, be better then all sacrifices: then John doth most mightily teach the true doctrine of good works.

4 The fourth report is, if any woman cannot, or will not prove by order of 〈◊〉 the insufficiēcie of her husband: let her request at his hands a divorce; or else by his consent let her lie privily with his brother or with some other man. Accuse not us for your fault: but cover it or take the s •• me thereof to yourselves. True it is, Luther gave this evil counsel, but as he answereth for himself, he did it when he was yet among you, teaching shriuing priests, what to answer when such doubts are moved by them that come to shrifte. Also he saith it was his advice, when he was holden with the fear of Antichrist: but now saith he (speaking of the time after his conversion) my mind is to give other counsel. What holy writings can be free from your foul reproaches, if you will thus rack a piece of sentence against the manifest purpose of the writer? But it appeareth that you wrote these things by he are say, or made none account what examination your book abide, your name being unknown.

5 In the fifth place you lay down these words against Martin Luther. If the wife will not, let the maid come. These words thus barely set down, import a wicked opinion and doctrine tending to carnality, as if Martin Luther allowed of fornication, sending the unruly husband to his maid servant upon any refusal of the wife. But they were of set purpose and malice tent from the other words and sense of the writer, to make a show of that opinion which was never in M. Luther reclaimed to the knowledge of the Gospel. For in this place he speaketh of a third cause of divorce, when the woman shall obstinately refuse her husbands company: & bringeth in the man often threatening his wife with these words, which if they prevail not, he maketh his complaint to the Magistrates, and doeth nothing but after a solemn diuorcing, as was that of Vashti, and after a solemn espousing, as that of Esther: which example he setteth down in the same place, and alludeth unto it by some Dutch phrase, not founding so west in other tongues as the matter will bear being rightly taken. If this opinion of divorce seem gross, as it may, yet your Popery, whence this proceeded, hath somewhat more gross even in this point. For it permitteth a man if he will, to put away his wife, because she was a bondwoman, and he knew it not before the marriage. The like is alleged out of Agustine, to prove that a man may be divorced from his wife for covetousness, or such other sins, because they are spiritual fornication.

6 The sixth report of Luther's doctrine is, that Matrimony is much more excellent then virginity. Marriage was ordained in Paradise, marriage increaseth the number of saints, it is honorable among all men: 〈◊〉 so much cannot be said for virginity. The comparison I will not stand upon, they are both good, yet neither good for all: but marriage for him that cannot contain: and virginity in some respects, as the Apostle noteth: which Luther in many places doth like wise acknowledge. The sixth point might seem to you a beam in his, which to us would not have been deemed a mote in your eyes.

7 Your seuently report is, that Christ and Saint Paul did not counsel, but dissuade virginity unto Christians. It is not hard. I suppose, to draw out from you the justification of this doctrine: for you cannot think that Christ persuadeth all men to abstain from marriage: Seeing his words are not generally spoken to all whatsoever, but to alsuch as can contain▪ He that can receive le • him receive. Which words for avoiding of sin, imply thus much also, not as counsel only, but as a commandment: he that cannot contain let him marry to avoid fornication as S. Paul enforceth. So that all Christians, which have not that rare gift of continency for avoiding of sin, are counseled to marry: all that have the gift, for them it is more profitable many ways to abstain. This Luther teacheth out of Christ and Paul's doctrine, not to overthrow virginity, but to condemn your ungodly vow of chastity, without due examination, whether you have the continent gift.

8. The eyght report is like the former, making it as necessary for every man to have a wife, as it is to eat, drink or sleep. It is as necessary for him that hath not the gift to marry for avoiding of sin, as it is to eat and drink for avoiding of famine, that is not so dangerous as sin. When you drew so deep as these matters, you were desirous rather to bring nothing in deed then nothing in show.

9. Your last report is, that M. Luther should make all Christias as holy & as just, as 〈◊〉 mother of God, & as y ^• Apostles were. These words are true in respect of Christ, in whom all the faithful have holiness, and honor equally, notwithstanding there may be inequallitie in their gifts, and in the measure of their glory. I will not stand upon the comparisons of these distinctions serving little to edification: He that is but a door keeper in the house of God, the new Jerusalem, hath infinite glory. Yet because you make the virgin Marie and Apostles to bear more rule with Christ in heaven, then they did while they lived upon earth: Martin Luther teacheth us, there is no such respect of persons with God: but in Christ Jesus whether in heaven or on earth, there is neither Jew nor Grecian, bond nor free, neither male nor female, but we are all one in him. They have all the same glorious inheritance, as they had all like precious faith. For the diversity of measures I have not been a companion of your bastard Denis in his journey to heaven, to describe the degrees and dignities there, or to determine that, which Christ referred to the determination of his Father, who shall sit at his right hand in his kingdom, & who at his left. Thus I have answered these places of M. Luther faithfully & without any of your bitterness in scoffing and vassting at a vantage of nothing, as if you had thereby gained the whole cause. By my answer it may appear, these nine places contain no strange new doctrine, as you have reported without that regard of truth or modesty which is pretended. But what is that you dare not write, to bring the man's divine and clear doctrine into contempt, with as many as will be carried away with your smooth style and bold accusations: For, as not contented with these untruths, you would make y ^• reader believe, y ^• you leave other infinite beastly doctrines of his, invented by much conference with the devil, as you avouch the matter out of Lindan. But touching the broken and insufficient credit of this Lindan & other your authors I have noted somewhat before: and such as your witnesses are, such are their testimonies also: the witnesses not lawful, and the testimonies not true. For Lindan, that hath here filled one page of your Censure, as a false witness, writeth that the devil hath been seen talk bodily with Martin Luther, by men of very great credit. The men are not named, nor the matter probable: therefore we may behold a conspiracy to leave the matter, and disgrace the man: one beginneth a slander, and the rest come in, one after another to justify the same upon that foremans credit. If we had no better testimonies, this practice would be as plentiful and strong for us as for you: but we have not so learned Christ, neither do we stand in need of evil evidences to avow a good cause. But in this matter, because you bring in Luther's words against himself, to prove some part of your report, let us see your misconstruing, brought for a defense of your misreport. It is well known, M. Luther felt many temptations, and endured great conflicts with the enemy, which are very strange to the most of your religion. Christ hath rendered the reason of your quiet, and godly men's disquiet in this affliction of conscience: when a strong armed man, saith he, keepeth his Palace, the things are in peace which he possesseth. As long as Satā had Luther in possession, kept in the chains of ignorance and superstition, he felt not the malice of his spiritual enemy: Satan had no cause to disquiet a superstitious man, whom he had for the time in quiet hold: but when the Lord opened his eyes to see, and framed his heart to withstand the kingdom of Satan and Antichrist, the the enemy assailed him grievously, as himself complaineth in many places. All which conflicts were not as you dream, in an outward or bodily conference with the devil: but in those inward battles, in those spiritual combats between the flesh and the spirit, between the temptations of Satan and the desires of the Newe men: such as the Apostle noteth in diverse places. Though the Jesuits be not by experience acquainted with this grievous whip of God, wherewith he scourgeth many of his dear children, yet by reading they might have known what it meant. For Christ endured such temptations 〈◊〉 Paul acknowledgeth 〈…〉 in y ^• flesh given him, and the angel of Satan to buffet him. But to make all thin plain, that Luther was not otherwise tempted, then in the exercise of his conscience, and with these inward conflicts of the flesh, fyghting against the Spirit, and again with the agonies of the spirit, resisting the assaults of the Devil, which (as was noted) other •• intes of God have suffered; and Christ himself, it appeareth by his own words in the far places cited for your purpose. I see • yght well; saith Luther in David and in the other Prophets; 〈…〉 greatly they did wraste and gro 〈…〉 in those battayles and the like; against Satan and his horrible assaults, Christ also him self (thouth without sin) what tears, what anguish, and what agonies endured he for us against Satan? He doeth infinitely press our hearts, and ceaseth not, but when he is beaten back with the word of God. Wherefore you do not only in this slander intollerablie reproach Martin Luther, but you speak evil also of the ways of GOD, whereby he worketh in the hearts of his children, true mortification and strength in Jesus Christ, to overcome such sharp and dangerous temptations. The treatise of Luther de missa angulari so often̄ aledged by your fellows, I could never see, therefore it is as the allegation of his testimony that is dead, or cannot be found to give in evidence face to face: when he is revived & cometh forth to bear witness, he shall be ansered. Touching Luther's death slain (as you think) by y ^• devil, going drunken to bed ouernyght, you should never have dis 〈…〉 ed your own discretion in reporting so foul a lie from so insufficient witnesses, the contrary being known, to many yet alive, & written by men more indifferent, & of better intelligence touching the story. As Lindan hath thus flaundered his death, so you slander his life, saying that almost thirty years he lived in all sensuality and pride. If there had been any material argument, or some false witness at hand, you would not have come in yourself all alone to be sworn upon this deposition. That which you lay against him of dissention, hath somewhat to be granted. For (if you call it dissention) he did altogether dissent from Papists, being open enemies of the Gospel: but for Occolampadius, Bucer, and others, although in some points they disagreed, yet there was among them a singular care of unity in the Gospel. Whereupon, beside the intercourse of many loving and godly letters, they set down articles of agreement, subscribing their names for a testimony of their love, as appeareth especially by an act of concord agreed upon at Marburge: and after that by another concluded at Wittenburg. We might far most justly require you with this accusation of dissention among yourselves, although you are banded together in a consent against the kingdom of Christ: but this is from the question, although you often fall into it.

After these praises of 〈◊〉 . Layolas, and many fold slanders against Martin Luther delivered in the best manner, without any proofs against the one, or for the other, you leave the matter for the in different reader to judge▪ The judgment is soon given, if your proofs were as manifest as your boldness in uttering untruths.

A most patient mind cannot brook a libel so seasoned to itching ears. Our corrupt nature is more patient and glad to read a whole book, written with a pleasing grace of scoffs and taunts against another, then a lease written sicly to correct and teach our selves: and we are both more skillful to write and more apt to conceive reprothes, then any doctrine of importance: for the one is home bred, the other must come down from above. But notwithstanding all your cunning, if the reader stand upon proofs; and not upon bare speech: if he stand upon witnesses of credit, and not upon these false subdrued witnesses, the matter will fall out against Layolas as a superstitious obscure fellow: and for Martin Luther as a m • n that hath written more, then Layolas (I think) ever read: that hath taught more, then Layolas could conceive: that hath suffered for a good conscience, more then ever did Layolas under his voluntary whip: who finally was the mean by the mercy of God to plant more, then all the brood of Layolas shall ever be able to hinder in y ^• growth, or by their infinite and shameless lies any ways to impeach in worthy estimation.

The Censurer not satisfied with all these ungodly injuries against Martin Luther, now breaketh out into such words of stomach against M. Calvin, saying that the like life or worse is written of him by a French man that lived with him sometimes of the same religion. You take the best way throughout all your Censures to bring the men still into suspicion and hatred, because you can effect no more against the cause. But for Mast. Calvin, beside so many as yet remain alive witnesses of his godly and blameless life, his writings shall testify to all ages hereafter, that the Lord raised him up, as a singular Minister of the Gospel, and endued him with such a spirit of wisdom and learning, as may worthily kindle greater love to him in godly mens hearts, then is malice against him in your uncharitable spirits. The Lord is most wise, and testifieth his love in the dispensation of his singular graces: So great gifts of true zeal, of an understanding heart, of a mind not overcome with any service of the Church, with any labor for the brethren, are real arguments, that, as the Lord did sanctify and defend him against all the malice of his enemies while he lived, even against the fiery darts of Satan: so now, though the man be laid up in peace, yet the Lord will preserve his name in honor upon the earth: and they that would bring shame upon him, it shall light upon them selves, as a just recompense from him, who evermore preserveth his saints as the apple of his eye. Therefore it was no evil chance, but the Lord's good will, that hitherto the translation of your libel against him should be suppressed.

I marvel how you passed by the story written against M. Bucer, serving you so well for this purpose. Seeing you have left it out, I will briefly note it for a proof of my exceptions taken to Lindan, as to a shameless liar against the holy men of God. M. Bucer lived to the great good, and died amongst us with the great and public sorrow of many. His life and death is written by M. Carre, a man against whom you can take no just exception, who hath these words of him: He lived so as no man better: he died so as no man more blessedly▪ his sickness was such that no man did set him sorrow: he died so that no man did perceive his departu •• . Many are 〈◊〉 alive that will witness as much as M. Carre hath written: Yet your great author Lindan is not ashamed to make M. Bucer's death as horrible, and as monstro 〈…〉 as may be suspected, comparing it with foul words and in all horror to the most shameful death of 〈…〉 ius that 〈…〉 tique. I appeal to them among you (if there be any) which 〈◊〉 the truth, that they 〈◊〉 reform them, or giu • 〈◊〉 against such manifest 〈◊◊◊〉 , 〈…〉 us to God and 〈◊〉 , who ar • into 〈◊〉 of their ma 〈…〉 and 〈…〉 that 〈◊〉 in their 〈…〉 a 〈…〉 tion • have 〈◊〉 〈…〉 es to thi 〈…〉

In the fourth 〈◊〉 I am 〈…〉 〈◊〉 the Jesuits 〈◊〉 • ited out of th • 〈…〉 is, it shall hereafte • more 〈◊◊〉 For if the Censures himself, reporting most 〈…〉 , in 〈◊〉 of M. Luther, hath • ot thought his 〈◊〉 discharged, if he report the matter as it is in his own corrupt authors, Hosius, Lyndanus and Cochleus: howe much more have I discharged my credit, in reporting the Censure of Colen faithfully out of a learned treatise of Don. Gotuisus, alleged for my warrant: for I pretended not to cite their words out of the Censure of Eolen, which I could never get, but expressly protested, to take them, out of a treatise concerning this matter, the author whereof is quoted in the most books: and having performed this touching the sense faithfully; as may appear by conference, I 〈◊〉 in no respect h • e charged with • alsifying, howsoever to undermine the truth, and discredit the 〈◊〉 thereof, you 〈◊〉 about words left out or put in, with▪ 〈◊〉 any change of matter. But you that challenge me • for additions, why do you twice add the word (Very) to help your 〈…〉 l, and once misconster me, as if I would have men know I minded to bring 〈…〉 able of mine own? This is to • all 〈◊〉 to a st •• ight account of that I never undertook: and in nice pointes to take 〈◊〉 of syllables, when you can take no just vantage of words and sentences.

Wherefore to take away from you the only matter of show in all your Censure, I confess that I do not deliver the scriptures in the number of words and syllables, but in the full weight of true sense and matter. Which practice, beside example of the fathers, we • have also in Christ and his Apostles. This you know, and yet of an evil purpose you dissemble the matter, proving yourself thereby to be a manifest caviller, as was declared. Therefore I need not be ashamed to offer my book in this point to be censured by you, or examined by any. Neither am I privy, as the Lord knoweth, to any purposed falsehood be it never so little, or to any evil practice in allegation of scripture, or other writings of any man. But you, either with shame or without shame, in the next sentence utter w ^t one breath four untruths. For first we have not all printes to our selves, as you say, for then you could not so soon have printed your censure & some other books: S • c •• lie, our searchers are not so watchful, that nothing can pass our hands, as your own book will testify against itself in this sentence: Thirdly, we can neither say nor print what we will, but that only, which after view and diligent examination hath, or should have, • riu • ledge from her Majesty's lawful authority. Lastly, you would make your reader believe, that you were beyond▪ Sea, when you wrote and sent this shameless censure, which now is evidently known to be otherwise. Wherein I note the judgment of God against you, that in o 〈…〉 sentence where you have falsely charged us with uttering slanderous untruths, you have yourself written these four manifest lies. Moreover, that it may appear, who it is in deed that uttereth many manifest and inexcusable untruths, let it •• e also considered, what you think of the preaching of God's word in England, and what manifest untruths you utter afterward, saying, that what I & my fellows dare auouche, in our sermons, speeches and discourses (as you cast them) we are sure, shall never come to the examination. Daily experience giveth sentence against you in this matter, and one of your late books, repeating certain articles corruptly gathered out of Sermons, made in the country the last S • mmer. Here also you distou • r C 〈…〉 pions vein, in charging the Magistrates and learned Bishops, as if they were careless, what docttrine is delivered unto the people. For myself, I admit not your comparison between my writings & my preachings, as if I durst be bolder to fail in a Sermon, then in writing a book, that may be disclosed. For, to answer also for my godly fellow ministers, we preach as before God and Angels: and dare as little in their presence presume to preach otherwise then his word giveth commission, as we dare to write otherwise before men then the truth can allow.

Now follow the XIII articles of doctrine, wherewith the enemies of the truth are charged, especially the Jesuits as the chief mainteiners thereof. And because you offer yourselves to be holden guilty of all other doctrines whereof you are accused, if these articles be proved against you: I would have you stand to your own condition: for my part; I accept your conclusion to be judged as I have dealt with the Jesuits, in well reporting or misreporting their doctrine out of mine author.

The first article out of the Jesuits blasphemous doctrine, hath, as • otuisus reporteth, and as you will not deny: it is not sin whatsoever is against the word of God. The report lieth upon my author (as I have said) yet you charge me with the words, as guylefully reported, as peeced and culled out for my purpose. But notwithstanding this charge, you presently acquit both mine author and me, granting the words to be most true in their sense. If they be in their sense most true, why do you take any exception to my report, who only lay them down to yield what sense you can make: Therefore before I wade any further, let me ask you a question or two. If any one of these XIII points of doctrine be false, why did you not plainly deny it? If they be all true, why did you not plainly grant them? why did you wrangle, making them true and false, fast and loose, perfect and imperfect at your pleasure? Through all your discourse, do you not plainly grant them: and yet to help your own credit, and to purchase against m • e some note of bad dealing, would you not seem in some fort to deny them? But as this pretended denial of those articles was an injury to me, so the open maintenance of them again was your trusty service toward the Jesuits, and the covenant of your right hand. It was also safe dealing to grant them, because if you would deny any one of them in the plain sense, wherein it is aduouched, yet the aduouchment should be proved against you by your own records. Thus the good reader may see your dealing, that so accuse me, that so double and redouble the lie upon me, for laying down nothing, but known grounds of popish doctrine, which you could not deny, and whereof the▪ Jesuits have lately undertaken the principal defense.

To return to the matter, the▪ Censure of Colen was made (as you say) against Monhemius Catechism: & among other points to condemn him for saying that concupiscense, remaining after baptism, is a damnable mortal sin, albeit no consent of heart be given unto the same. To avoid your doubtful speech of damnable mortal sin, and the distinction of mortal and venial sin, you must understand, Monhemius spake not of the sin unto death, for the wich we are taught, that a man must not pray. Otherwise vndersta • di • g mortal sin according to the word of God, and not as you do, without Christ all sins are mortal: and (that one sin against the holy Ghost excepted) in Christ all sins venial 〈…〉 which true sense, Monhemi • s did truly affirm, that concupiscence is a dam • able sin. But you deny 〈◊〉 definition, to establish your own: Let us therefore examine the gross faults, which these Ie • uites of Colen commit in one definition, notwithstanding they were so many, and (as you say) so learned men. They teach, by your report first, that sin is an action. Whatsoever they say, or Thomas of Aquine in this question, you shall find that injustice is a sin, and yet no action: and that it is a sin as well not to do the thing commanded, as to commit the thing which is forbidden, which leaving of good offices undone, you know is called the sin of omission: and yet no action, as you would have it. For Andradius distinction in this matter, is beside are and to no purpose. Also in this place, howe childishlie do you cast in an exception of evil men and such like, that they are against the law of God, confounding and huddling in deed: The question is altogether of the corruption, transgression and sin which man c • mitteth, and you run to beasts and to the sin of devils: where in it is good to note, that as you speak not to the question, so your speech is not true. For evil men as they are the creatures of GOD, are not against the Law, but the evil in men: not the devils, but the corruption and evil in them: not evil laws, as they command, but y ^t evil in laws, as it is either commanded or executed. You must put a difference between the creatures and ordinances of God, which are all good as they were created and ordained, and the same as they are now by themselves, corrupted and made abominable. To that you say these things are not properly sins, for that they are no actions, I answer, If nothing be sin, but that which is an action, what Censure will you give upon God's judgment against Hely, for not using discipline toward his sons: What sentence will you pronounce for those watchmen, that sound not the trumpet, when they see the enemy coming? Here is no evil action done, but a good action left undone, & y ^t is a sin, and hath received the punishment of sin.

It followeth in the Jesuits definition. Sin is an human or reasonable action. I would not say, sin is an human or reasonable, but a beastly or unreasonable action of a man endued with reason. Yet in the Censurers judgment, if a mad man or a fool kill a man, it is properly no sin: but these effects of sin, these great in • irmities of folly and madness shall excuse murder, adulteri • and other like enormities. Lastly you say, in the definitiō of sin, it must be added, that it is a voluntary action, & done wittingly. Al these additions are additions in deed, and lay open notable corruptions in your doctrine. For whatsoever is not of faith is sin, be it against thy will, or w ^t thy will, be it an action or no action, be it reasonable (as you speak) or against reason. If this part of their definitiō were true, thē original sin should he no sin, because you cannot make it an action done willingly or wittingly. Moreover, touching manslaughter done unwillingly or unwittingly, and to one that is not hated, it may be answered, that he that hath so killed a man must flee to the city of refuge: if he be found from the bounds and liberties thereof, then the anenger of blood may kill him. Also he cannot depart from the City of refuge, till the death of the high Priest; whose death seemeth herein in some sort to prefigure the forgiveness of his sin, in the death of Christ, the great high Priest. Lastly Howlets book acknowledgeth a sin of ignorance against Christ the wisdom of the Father: and he maketh willing sin and wittingly committed, to come near the sin against the holy Ghost. Thus between your doctrine and his, it will fall out that some sins are no sins: and again, that all sins are done wittingly, and therefore are in some sort against the holy Ghost, & not easily remitted. Which doctrine condemneth all venial sin, and leaveth no place for indulgences and Pardons: for all sin is wittingly and willingly done, saith the Censure: and all such sins are against the conscience, and therefore damnable saith Howlets author. This is the harmony and consent of your doctrine, to mitigate the sorrows of a weak conscience w ^t many discordes placed in an evil concord. As for your example, that Jacob sinned not in lying with Lea, because he knew it not, it is to make no sin of a double sin: for Jacob sinned in judgment, not knowing what he did, and so sinned, as upon the like ignorance for want of regard, he might easily have committed the foulest incest. Also it cannot be proved that the bed was altogether undefiled. To conclude therefore howsoever you allege Agustine to approve your definition, it is no way so large as sin, and therefore a most unlearned definition. You provide for some way to escape by these your last words: And this is to be understood of actual sin properly, between properly and improperly, between actual and not actual, you think to find a defense, because the words may be diversely taken. But if everything repugnant to the law of God be sin in deed, though not actual, the question is granted, and nothing left to you, but a war of words against the truth.

The contrary doctrine followeth: The transgression of the law is sin. Howe tauntingly & how scornfully, doth y ^• masker play his part: He would make his reader believe I have made a vow not to deal plainly in any one thing, and that I cannot allege one little sentence without falsifying. I praise the Lord it is far from me to make any such vow, or to have any such ungodly purpose, 〈◊〉 〈…〉 approve my conscience evē to my enemies. That you may have a proof he •• of, this very place out of S. John. which you so w • der at, shall be a witness, being in sense truly & fitly alleged to prove it sin, whatsoever is against or beside y ^t law of God▪ For as si • is the transgression of the law, so again the transgression of the Law is sin: these two are converted, as the •• finition and the thing defined: and as the terms which are mutually verified one of another. To give you an example whereof, we say, The Gospe • is the power of God to salvation, & again, The power of God to salvation is the Gospel. As for the 〈◊〉 , let the same Aposties words be ma 〈…〉 , 〈◊〉 the fourth chapter, where he saith, God is a Spirit, yet the words lie thus in the Greek text, a Spirit is God, wherefore let not a transposition seem 〈◊〉 to you; when you see it bringeth no 〈◊〉 ▪ but a true sense, • either accus • 〈…〉 when there is no fraud 〈◊◊〉 of truth. To make some show • of your fa ••• accusation, you lay down a fall •• example: for a man 〈◊◊◊〉 , are not terms generally verified one of another, being one the general, and containing more, the other the special, and having less. If you had brought an example of the like, it would have followed well without any show of fraud. For, as Every reasonable creature is a man, so again Every man is a reasonable creature. They that are exercised but a little in the knowledge of these propositions, may easily see your erro • r, or purposed deceit in the example, and your false accusation in the matter. But after a false example, let us see a false conclusion, you conclude saying: So these words as Saint John 〈…〉 eth thē are most true. Every sin is iniquity or transgression of the law, But as I utter the • , you say they are false, to wit, that every iniquity or transgression of the law, be it never so little, or done without either consent or knowledge, or by a mad man or brute beast, should be properly a mortal sin▪ Here you plainly conclude that n • ga •• u • lie, which Saint John him self layeth down affirmatively, saying afterwards in the 〈◊〉 Chapt. Every iniquity or transgression is sin: if sin, a mortal sin, as hath been proved. Thus the C •• surer hath not added, nor altered alone, but plainly denied that, to conde 〈…〉 me, which Saint John hath word for word, to justify me. All my places that you so condemn, being written and laid together, have I thank God, no cause to make me blush, but this alone hath • ause to move you to the repentance & re • antation of this speech, so directly contrary to the words of the holy Ghost. But the Lord remove all blindness from our eyes, and ha • dnesse from our hearts, that we may not struggle against the truth, and so fall into these gross denials of the manifest word of God. You that charge me in this place with transposition, yourself may be as worthily charged with alteration of the text, putting one verb for another, and two words for one: both the Greek and the vulgar translatiō hath, Everyone that committeth sin, and you have against them both, Everyone that sinneth. This you would have made a • old part in me; but I am contented to g • aunt it is neither boldness nor ignorance i • you▪ 〈◊〉 though the first may stand better▪ yet your translation is 〈◊◊〉 ▪ You 〈◊〉 perhaps to serve the Lord in your 〈◊〉 ▪ and I: know I serve the Lord, his cause is to be had in high estimation, and the examination thereof must be without such disgracing quarrels, otherwise he will punish even him, that shall not use good means in the handling of a good cause. But to conclude, you grant the question, though (as you say) it cometh not to be so heinous a blasphemy. For your usual taunts of confounding and hudling, you may worthily receive them back again with this va •• tage: that you have manifestly denied, that which the Apostle doth manifestly affirm: and so stand upon a contradiction, not only against my words, but against the holy and perfect word of God.

In the second point the Iesui • es doctrine is thus reported: Concupiscence remaining in the regenerate, although it be against the law of God, yet is it not sin properly in it self, or of his own nature. I am charged for mine author, that these words, although it be against the law of God, are not found in the • ensure o • Colen▪ To what purpose 〈◊〉 the ca • ill against these words, which if they had not be • e 〈◊〉 ▪ 〈◊〉 never 〈…〉 of necessity 〈…〉 is of con • upiscense against the law, and you so take it, and so defend it. Also by your own grant, the Jesuits of Colen, express those words in effect saying: Albeit this concupiscense do stir or move a man sometimes to do things which are repugnant to the law of God: yet if no consent of heart be yielded unto it, it reacheth not to the nature of a mortal sin, worthy of eternal damnation. That concupiscense which doeth stir or move a man to do things against the law of GOD, is it not also it self against the law: As you thus grant the words which before were denied, so vnderhande, or at unawares you grant the matter wherewith you are charged. For, saying that concupiscense without consent, reacheth not to the nature of a mortal sin worthy of eternal damnation, in some sort you give us to understand, that it is nevertheless some kind of sin, which is to grant the question, or to load and disguise the sentence with many waste words, that you may in so doing hide the error. Moreover you and the Jesuits confess concupiscense to be sin, by Saint Paul's manifest words, who as you grant, sometimes calleth it sin. But as you wrangle with me, so you misconster the Apostle, saying, he meaneth not that it is a sin properly, but by a figure. Wherefore his large disputation is shortly to be laid down, that thereby it may appear, howe corruptly you interpret his meaning.

The Apostle having declared, that the Law doth thorough our corruption work in us the lusts & passions of sin, to meet with a doubt that might be made against the law as if it were sin, because through our rebellion it stirreth us up thereunto: answereth, saying, The Law is holy, and we sold under sin: the Law spiritual and we carnal. In which answer, it is diligently to be considered by the way, that were it not holy, and the commandment holy and just, and good, even the Law should seem to be sin, for occasion of sin that cometh thereby through our corruption. But this occasion is not given by the Law, but altogether taken by our corruption rebelling against the commandment. So the Law being of it self holy altogether and given against sin, is not to be charged with our rebellion, which is sinful of it self, and provoked by such restraint. If the Law, which hath in it nosinne nor shadow of sin, come notwithstanding to the question of sin, for the fruit of our corrupt 〈…〉 re provoked and discovered thereby: what shall we say of concupiscence that is it self unclean, and of it self maketh sin exceedingly sinful: S. Paul following the question, doth open the nature of concupiscence in his own person, comparing his estate before the knowledge of the tenth commandment with his state afterward. Upon which comparison he declareth, that he knew not sin, 〈◊〉 he knew the Law that saith, Thou shalt not covet. He knew other sins before by the Law and light of nature, but he knew not concupiscence to be sin. So the very Gentiles in their Laws condemned adultery, murder and other like sins: but the justice of God condemn • ing concupiscence, the Gentiles could not see, the Philosophers could not find it, neither will the Papists acknowledge it, although they know with the Apostle the Law which saith, Thou shalt not cover. Therefore the Apostle hath set before us by his own example, what we may learn by that tenth commandment, which showeth most clearly y ^t the Lord our God is a spiritual Lawgiuer, binding our spirits, our very thoughts, & least desires to y ^• obedience of his most holy most pure, & most perfect Law▪ If any of these be beside the Law, it is against y ^• holiness, wherein we were created, & which is required of us by the Law, and so plainly and properly a sin, howsoever the Jesuits distinguish between sin properly so called, & not properly called sin. Every sin is sin, & these sins which by the Jesuits doctrine are so called, figuratively (except we find mercy) they will bring no figurative condemnation, in y ^t day when y ^• secretes of all hearts shall be laid open, and we called to give an account of every idle word.

Your similitude of the Latin tongue taken out of Agustine, is doubtful, for the tongue is the instrument of speech, and not such a cause. The natural knowledge of the latin speech, or the knowledge thereof by art, is the cause. If the tongue were the proper cause, whosoever had a tongue should speak latin, because where the cause is, the effect followeth. By which reason your own words again make concupiscense to be sin, saying it is the affect of original s 〈…〉 ▪ because such as: the proper cause is 〈…〉 is also: the proper effect: the • ause▪ sin and sinful, the effect also sin and sinful. But you that make many demands to me, let me ask you what you meant to bring in the example of Christ who is called sin in th •• ▪ chapter and • ep • stle to the Cor • th. forwhich you falsely quote the 8. • o the R • man▪ 〈◊〉 you make the example like? Shall 〈◊〉 exp ••• de the former speech of Saint Paul, calling concupiscense sin: Surely hereby you prove, that Paul calling concupiscense▪ sin▪ meant notwithstanding that it was altogether no sin: for Christ is altogether no sin. Again, howe unlike are these examples, Christ is called sin, because he was a sacrifice for sin, that is, to take away sin: concupiscense is called sin, because it is the effect & fruit of original sin, not taking it away, but increasing it continually? If you made conscience of your speech, you would never miscon •• er the plain woe • rdes of the Apostles, & bring nothing for your defense, but such impertinent similitudes. For I appeal to your conscience, may you not as fitly by these similitudes prove, that the Apostle calleth fornication sin by a figure, or any other sin never so great? Saint Auste •• place, making it no sin in y ^e 〈…〉 rate without con •• t, is expounded by himself afterward, saying, Concupiscence is not so forgiven in Baptism that it is not sin, but that it is not imputed as sin. For a clearer proof hereof, in another book he saith plainly it is 〈◊〉 . For when Julian objected that con •• piscence is wort • y praise, because it is a punishment of sin: Agustine took that away by an example of the wicked devils, wh • though they, in respect of God's hand do • justly punish, yet themselves are unjust and sinful, whereupon this similitude fol 〈…〉 eth, to prove concupiscence sin, even when there is no consent: As the blindness of the heart (which God removeth, who alone doth illuminate) is both sin, whereby we believe not in God, and the punishment of sin, whereby a proud heart is punished with worthy punishment, & the cause of sin, when any evil is committed, by the error of a blind heart: so the concupiscense of the flesh, against which the good spirit • usteth, is both sin because there is in it a disobedience against the regiment of the mind, and a punishment of sin, because it is rendered to y ^e merits of the disobedient, & the cause of sin, through the defect of that y ^t consenteth, or the con • agion of that that springeth. You were deceived in citing Agustine twice, as having written but one book De Nup. et Concup. Clement hath no such place: but against you he hath these words in the book of his exhortation to the Genti •• s speaking of the seventh commandment among others: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thou shalt not lust, for by concupiscense alone thou hast committed adultery. Which sentence showeth what a sin bare concupiscense is, that alone without consent cometh so near a degree of actual adultery. You were also deceived in quoting Ambrose, for he hath no such place where you cite him. Nazianzen I think, hath no such oration as you dream of: such is your cause, and such are your testimonies. Wherefore it is false, that all those good fathers are partakers with the Jesuits, of that doctrine which blasphemously maketh the breach of the tenth commandment no sin. And because you so often press the word blasphemy, so seldom used by me, you must understand, that such doctrines, especially now after so great revelation of the truth, are the doctrines of devils, blasphemo • s against God and his holy word, which teacheth the contrary, as hath and shall be further declared.

But now followeth the place of Gotuisus, brought to prove the contrary doctrine: Whosoever shall see a woman to lust after her, he hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. The Censurer in this place to note my ignorance, bewrayeth his own, confounding & hudling the first & last part of the proposition, which in Schools are called subiectu, and praedicatum. For the question sta 〈…〉 th in y ^• former place, where Christ vset • a word of concupiscence, affirming, that 〈◊〉 a man see a woman to lust, or in concupis • en • e to desire her, where the force of sin worketh in the first degree, it is with content of heart, brought to a further degree, and becometh actual adultery before God, though it be not actual before men. Therefore if I had (as you mi • con •• er,) alleged this place of Matthew altogether in respect of the effect, and as it is a breach of the seventh commandment, it had not made against the doctrine of concupiscense without consent. But I cite it for the former part of the propositiō, which sufficiently proveth bare concupiscense to be sin. For if the consent of the heart make concupiscēse to be adultery, thē must concupiscense it self be also sin: because otherwise the consent of the heart cannot make any lawful desire to be adultery: but the fruit and the tree must be of the same nature. Saint James doeth moreover prove this: who will not that a man should say, God tempteth him, and so charge the Lord with sin: but he turneth upon man the whole work and all the blame of sin, frō the first sin of tempting, to the ripe & full birth thereof. The Apostles words in this place are full to make this proof, calling it a man's own lust, or lusting: adding moreover that a man is tempted therewith, drawn away, and as with a bait intited: which things cannot be in bare concupis • ense, except it were sin, and a sinful cause of sin, from the which James doth carefully quite the Lord. Also this concupifcense, because it hath • entation, violence and a bait to sin, before c • nsent of heart be given, and before the secret adultery of the heart be committed, it cannot be of faith: and therefore the Apostle giveth sentence that it is sin: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, be it before or after the consent of heart. Therefore out of these words of Christ, it is truly proved, by the nature and effect of concupiscense, that it is sin of it self, seeing presently with consent it is made a sin in so high a degree as is adultery. Also herein, my alleging of Scripture is found to be according to the matter and argument, without any error of doctrine, alteration of sense, or appiying it otherwise, then it may be truly and profitably applied: wherefore you gave to much liberty to your pen, in charging me with common misalleadging of Scripture. But seeing you grant y ^t this second point of doctrine is also maintained by the Jesuits, even in such sort as they are charged, all men may see, It is hard to say whether you are more ready to defend their doctrine, or to take a pretensed advantage of quarrel against my words.

In the third place, the Jesuits are charged to say, The first motions of lust are without hurt of sin. This third doctrine is granted by the Censurer as most true and plain: but yet I must not go without • ome accustamed taunt. He chargeth me that by clipping their words, I make everything to seem a Paradox. This is only says to accuse, without any show of proof. For what▪ •• nefit was there to me in leaving out these words: If they come of natural in 〈…〉 only, without any cause given by us? or what gain you by adding them, seeing they are superfluous: For I pray you, are not all the first motions of lust merely natural, & evermore of some cause given by▪ us, and dwelling within us, namely the corruption of old Adam: what shifts are they then which you use to help a weak cause? If to defend this addition of waste words, you shall object the temptations of Satan offered without any cause given by us: I answer you cannot properly call them motions of lust, being but outward provocations to lust and sin, wherewith many times a mortified man is not provoked to lusting & sinning: by which nevertheless, Satan would move, but is resisted by faith, he entereth not in to work those motions of lust which do affect us, and whereof our question is moved. Your comparison bet 〈…〉 e these first motions of lust and the pulse, making the one to be no more sin then the other, is without judgment. For you cannot conclude from that part of our natural soul, whereby we have life and sense only, to that part wherein our reason and affections are placed, because the former is not in the same sort corrupted as the second: neither doeth sin so work in natural life and sense, as it doeth in the heart by the corruptions and guiltiness of the soul. The necessary actions of life, as▪ eating, drinking, sleep, breath, also the •• cessarie actions of sense, as smelling, seeing, hearing, feeling and the rest, they are of themselves all free from sin, remaining as they were in man before his fall. But every imagination and cogitation of ma • s heart is evil evermore, as God testified to No • : much more the lusts and desires thereof, Wherefore to compare the lusts of sin▪ to the pu • se which is merely natural and without sin, was to bring the simple into a dangerous opinion that the one is as lawful as the other. For a clear example of this difference, it may be 〈◊〉 that Christ had the working of the pulse, and other natural opera 〈…〉 of life and • ense, but he was far even from the least concupiscense, I think in your own judgment. Therefore this your example of the pulse to defend the first motions of lust, is neither in substance nor in show to any purpose. Moreover you make the first motions of lust no sin, because it lieth not in our power to prohibit them: by which reason you defend sin by the necessity thereof. But seeing this necessity cometh of our selves by our corruption and custom of sin, how can it be any excuse or defense for the trespass: what will you say to original sin, shall it be no sin because it lieth not in us to resist it, no more then we can resist our own conception, and is less in our power to resist then the pulse: Like to the former comparison of the pulse is that which followeth, making the first motions of lust to be no more sin in us, thē they are in beasts. But this comparison proveth no more the • the other: for as there is no law given to prohibit the pulse: so there is no law to restrain these motions in beasts: but man is tied to a law for every action last or first, great or small, as is proved by the great commandment: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. So that what lust or thought soever swerveth from this entire and absolute love of God, it is against this his commandment, and therefore a sin against his most sovereign and most glorious Majesty, to whom we owe all the service and holiness of all the heart, of all the mind, and of all our powers whatsoever. Therefore to say we must not or cannot pull in the reins of our first lusts, or that they are as lawful in us. as the pulse, or as they are in brute beasts: is indeed to reach a beastly liberty and to lay open the way to all uncleanness without controulement. If all your readers did know howe little proof is made by similitudes, they would all see the insufficiency of your defense, that so often use them, and so unfitly, in place of plain and sure arguments.

Now for the tenth commandment alleged as a contrary doctrine, y ^t Censurer saith it is not any way repugnant to that the Jesuits teach. For proof whereof as the Papists make of the tenth commandment two commandments, so this fellow maketh of two several breaches of two diverse commandments, but one sin, and that against the seventh commandment only. But there cannot be a commandment, against the which there is no sin. Therefore (as it was declared in the former article) there is a sinful desire first, which is concupiscense against the tenth, the assent whereunto maketh it adultery, which is a sin of another degree, and against the seventh commandment. So the Censurer must by duty receive home again his own • aunt of hudling and confounding: for confounding the sins of two diverse commandments. Furdermore y ^• Censurer, being ca • ied away into error by the old translation against the truth, and other faithful translations, would prove that the law is in our power to do it, and that therefore these first motions of lust are not forbidden by the tenth commandment, because it is not in our power to resist them. That his argument may appear, I will set it down to be more easily discovered. Whatsoever is commanded, that is not above us, but in our power: to resist the first motions of lust, is not in our power: therefore to resist the first motions of lust is not commanded. The first proposition is false, and (as I said) a false translatiō brought to prove it. For Moses saith, The Law is not hidden from us, and the Censurer saith, It is not above us: Moses showeth, that it is revealed, the Censurer would prove that it is in our power. Moses speaketh chiefly of the Gospel, and the Censurer referreth it altogether unto the ten commandments. But that the place, is both to be translated so, as I have said, and to be applied to the revelation of the Gospel, it is evidently declared by the plain text, and by the application thereof in the epistle to the Romans. Thus the first proposition is false, and drawn both against the words of the text, and far from the sense thereof opened by the Apostle. The seconde proposition is false also: for neither is it true, that all these first motions are altogether out of our power, for the gift of continency and mortification doth more and more subdue them: neither doth it follow, that we are not subject to the Law for such offenses as we cannot resist, the fault being ours through corruption, why we cannot resist them. Shall not a wholesome law made for drunkards, stand in force a 〈…〉 hath so accustomed 〈◊〉 self to the 〈◊〉 , that now it is v 〈…〉 for him to 〈◊〉 Shall we justify our evil though 〈…〉 • ause it is not in our 〈◊〉 to 〈…〉 good thought: 〈…〉 fort justify the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 , you must condemn these opinions. 〈◊〉 ▪ 〈◊〉 you and your fellows bring th ••• false & dangerous propositions to 〈◊◊〉 •• clusions, and venture thus upon so 〈…〉 〈…〉 pretations, it will be easy for you, both to write at will, and to dispute at • arge. • ustens opinion against lust, even before the consent, appeareth by the places alleged before, and in many other places: therefore his own answer serveth to ex • ounde this place. I doubt not but Au ••• n which forb •• death the disease of lusting, will much more forbid the consent and following of such sinful steppes. In these questions of cōcupiscēce & the first motions of lust, a little feeling of a good conscience would cut off all this contention of speech. For if they that teache otherwise, would look into the Law, Thou shalt not covet, with such eyes as Saint Paul did, and would also consider the corruption, the force and fruits of original sin, and m 〈…〉 over regard the power of God's en •••• • nd perfect justice which is justly provoked with the least offense, because he made us in the greatest perfection, they would then speak no more in defense of the unclean concupiscence of an unclean heart: but would with. Saint Paul confess, 〈◊〉 the Law, Thou shalt not covet, teacheth • s to know sin, not only that gr • sse sin known and punished among in ••• else, but somewhat more, that flesh and blood cannot acknowledge, even that all concupiscence & all unclean lust is sin, because God is a spiritual Lawegiuer, who hindeth our sp 〈…〉 it, and bringeth all our desires into obedience, restraining the least motions of unclean concupiscence by this holy and straight commandment, Thou shalt not covet.

In the fourth place it cometh to be examined, how little authority the Jesuits give to the word of God, and howe much they attribute to unwritten belief. They are charged to say, The holy scripture is a doctrine imperfect, maimed, lame, not containing all things necessary to faith and salvation, Wherein you censure me as being to shameless in setting forth these for the Jesuits words. Howsoever Gotuisus report or misreport the Jesuits, if I report him faithfully, it is no shame to me: but to you it is some blame, still to charge me with that is none of mine. As for the question, you handle it subtillie, reporting not your own judgment, but with some corruption what Monhemius saith, and again what the Jesuits answer, whereas you are in the name of the Jesuits, either to grant that the scripture is perfect, and containeth all things necessary to salvation, which is contrary to the Council of Trent: or else plainly and without perhaps to set down the things that are to be believed of necessity, and yet not comprehended in the scripture, which is clearly to grant that which before you denied: for the scripture is maimed and wanteth, if any substantial doctrine of faith belonging to a Christian man, be left out. There follow twelve particular pointes, which you make of one sort to be believed, and affirm them, but with perhaps, to be deduced out of scripture: of the which seven are, not by perhaps, but undoubtedly contained in the word: as that there are two natures and willes in Christ: that the holy Ghost proceedeth frō the father and the son without generation. Thirdly (which you utter in words that are obscure and unsound) that the word did take the nature of mā to be one person & not the person: Fourthly, that infantes are to be bap •• sed: Fifthly, the change of the Sabaoth: So also we receive the four Gospels, and the epistse to the Romans, as approved out of the word, by the inscription there expressing the names of the writers thereof. For your dark words out of Thomas, Howe the father vegate the son, I wish clear and perfect words in so high a mystery. We believe by testimony of the word, that Jesus Christ is the only be gotten son of the Father, and God above all to be praised forever. That I may refrain other speath, I pray you examine your heart before the Lord, you that dare teach that these most high mysteries of God the Son and God the holy Ghost, are not revealed in y ^• scriptures, so far as they concern our faith, but stand upon the warrant of men's traditions. The rest of these twelve points, as they are not evidently contained in the word, so a Christian is not absolutely bound to believe them: as that the common Creed (the articles whereof notwithstanding we believe as grounded upon the Apostolical doctrine) was made by the Apostles: the celebration of Easter day upon a Sunday: the perpetual virgiuitie of the blessed Virgin. The Epistle to the Laodiceans, although many make mention of it, Paul maketh none: so that either you ignorantly passed over the Greek, or willfully addicted yourself to the old translation, being in this place plainly corrupted. For by the original, Paul speaketh of an epistle frō Laodicea, and not written to the Laodicenses, as you untruly affirm. Now what have you gained by all or any one of these twelve notes, seeing they are all either proved by y ^• Scriptures & thē no warrant for your traditions & vnwrittē ve 〈…〉 not necessary points of our faith, and therefore not of like authority to the holy writings of the Apostles and Prophets? After this sort you may easily publish A brief Censure, confounding and hudlyng together without distinction, matters of our • eleefe, with things which we are not bound to believe: and articles plainly contained in Scripture, with points that are not there at all.

The place followeth, alleged to overthrow the former doctrine of the Jesuits. All the Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teache, to confute, to correct & to instruct in justice, that the man of GOD may be perfect, and thoroughly instructed to every good work. Here y ^• Censurer hath brought his cole to set his marks upon my translation, which is never thelesse so faithful, that no one of y ^• five words by him so marked, as wickedly added, can well be wanting without some injury to the text, or to the property of our language in expressing the same. In translating, the property of every tongue is to be observed: for as tongues differ in language, so they differ in their peculiar form & order of words. That which may be well understood in one tongue, must needs be supplied in another. And to translate word for word, is to have the words English or French, when yet the phrase shall remain Greek or Hebrew, and be as little understood. Yet this is that obscure and fruitless translation which the Censurer exacteth at my hand. But let us see how justly. All scripture is not so plain as All y ^• scripture: and the Censurer aftē saith, the scripture. The verb is must be supplied, whether you regard the English tongue or L • gicke: for the copulative conjunction following in y ^• Greek, doth make the whole proposition compound and not simple. Otherwise what sense or sentence▪ were it to say: all scripture given by inspiration of God, & profitable to teach, &c. The addition of this verb was so necessary, that the vulgar translation addeth it in the seconde place, but by no better reason, then why it should be added in both. The first (and) was childishly and unlearnedly noted as superfluous, being expressed in the Greek text▪ and corruptly left out by the old translation, which deceived you. The words and thoroughly were added, the one to join the sentence, and the other to express the force of the compound word which Paul useth▪ signifying thoroughly or perfectly perfect. In this signification is the compound use • in many other places also. Thus you see I misuse not the Scriptures in this place, for my translation is sufficiently approved, and some faults be wraied in the old translation, and ignorance in your Censure. Nevertheless▪ I must remember you, that it was your oversight to leave out y ^• note of a third (and) which might as well have been set upon your score with the rest, and raised the number up to site. Also you that so exact a straight translation of word for word, why did you not Censure me for adding v. words at one clap in this sentence to express one Greek word: Paul hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is word for word, Godinspired: I have to express it used v. words, given by inspiration of God. But your Censurers eye may without blame pass over the sight of such small matters. I crave pardon of my Reader, that I have been drawn on into so trifling points. But he hath been exercised in sifting and shifting to find somewhat, y ^• may serve his turn, and yet greatly misseth of his purpose: if he were so searched, perhaps he would not easily answer it. Now against my translation he useth words, that should be by a new word called raileciue speech in me, saying, If I had used such audacity in translating Acsopes fables, it would have been tolerable, but in translating the Scripture it is impious. Surely if the Censurer had been well censured, and exercised in translating Acsopes fables, when 〈◊〉 went to the Grammar school, he would have been better acquainted with Greeks phrases, and the translation of the New Testament. But it may be, he hateth the kingdom and skill of Grammarians. Thus much to answer my translation which you have so unlearnedly marked, and so unjustly condemned. Now it followeth to consider what you bring against the alleging of that place to reprove the Jesuits doctrine, and your unwritten verities.

Your first reason, y ^• this place is not full enough to prove y ^• sufficiency of y ^• Scripture, for which it is alleged, standeth upon and word in y ^• text, where the Apostle saith, the Scripture is profitable, and hath not the word sufficient. But you say these are two diverse things, to be sufficient for a purpose, and to be profitable for it, as may appear in meat which is profitable for our life, yet we cannot say it is sufficient, because it alone, without natural heat, clothes and other means sufficeth not. Whereupon you leave the reader to conclude that this place is too slender for my purpose. The force of which your reason is of the difference of these two words, affirming that profitable, is not so much as sufficient. Whereunto I answer, that as sometimes it is true which you affirm, and as it appeareth in your example: so of the other part it is true, that many times a thing may be said profitable for a purpose, where profitable shall import sufficient and not barely profitable: as for example, when some reason is adjoined why it should be profitable and nothing else applied or serving to that effect. For proof hereof when the Apostle writeth that Godlines is profitable to all things having the promises of this life & of the life to come: it cannot be denied, but by profitable here, he meaneth it is sufficient for all things: that is for the obtaining of all good things: which sense of this word is proved by that which followeth of the effect, having the promises of both lives. For if godliness bring all good things of this life and of the life to come, it must needs follow that the Apostle saying, it is profitable to all things, understood it was so fully sufficient, that he which hath it, needeth not the supply of anything else. For like reason in this place, I say, the Apostle speaking of the Scripture, as profitable for doctrine for confutation, for correction and reformation, by profitable, understandeth sufficient. If your example were of the like, it would prove the same. If as meat and drink are profitable to nourish, so they were profitable also to cloth, to give rest and to make a man perfectly healthie and strong to every good action: I would also conclude upon such causes that it were both profitable and sufficient to maintain life. But you stand in need of another Censurer, to Censure your comparisons and examples so often brought in, easily to dereyue the reader, that doth not see howe vnequallie they are yoked, as like things to make like proof, being in deed unlike and of unlike effects. To return unto the text, the sufficiency of scripture is moreover proved by the words which got before and follow. Before the Apostle had said that all the Scripture is inspired of God: whereupon he inferreth, and is profitable to teach for doctrine and confutation: as if he had said, it is profitable to teache the truth and reprove error. The strength of which reason lieth in this, that the light of knowledge which sometime was in man by his creation, is damped and gone out: so that now we have no means (except God by his holy Spirit doeth inspire us) to discern between truth and untruth, or between good and evil. Now this heavenly knowledge, which (as Saint Peter saith) was uttered by the holy men of God, inspired with the holy Ghost, is recorded in the books of holy Scripture. Whereupon it followeth that these books of the holy word, and no other, being the authentical words of the heavenly knowledge, which God inspired the holy Prophets and Apostles withal, are so said to be profitable to teache the truth, as it noteth this to be proper to the holy Scripture, and not to agree to any other whatsoever. Therefore if these be the writings which contain the wisdom, wherewith God hath inspired his holy men, for such use of the Church, as is here spoken of, it must needs follow, the knowledge which God hath revealed, being sufficient for us, that these holy Scriptures containing the same knowledge, is likewise sufficient. Whereby it appeareth that this cause here noted, (to wit of inspiration from God) being the proper cause of the holy Scriptures, and not common to any other writings whatsoever, doeth imply the effect also following in this place, of teaching, disprouing and making perfect the man of God, to be likewise proper unto them: and (which I vndertoke to prove) profitable in this place to signify as much as sufficient.

To this I add another reason out of the words which follow: wherein because not some things only which may in parte make a man perfect, are attributed to the scriptures, and some other things left to be supplied by other means: but all things whatsoever may be needful for us, are said to be perfected by the Scriptures, it must needs follow, that the scripture alone is sufficient. For that which is profitable to all the partes, which may be required to perfection, cannot be but sufficient for the perfection of the whole: but that the Scripture is profitable in such manner, the Apostle doth fully declare, both in rehearsing all the particular partes which are necessary, and adding also after generally, that the man of God may be perfect. To this purpose the Apostle hath so set his words, as he could not more effectually by any other speech. For he teacheth, that it is profitable to make perfect, which yet is made more full by the compound word adjoined, the grace and force of which composition (as was noted before) is to note perfection added to perfection, and to signify thoroughly, or perfectly perfect, and that, as he addeth, for all good works. This is yet made more full and more weighty by that he speaketh not here of the common perfection of all men, but of the perfection of the man of God, that is of the Minister. If the scripture contain knowledge to make the Minister thoroughly perfect, for every part of his office, both in doctrine soundly to teach the truth, and to confute and remove error: and in life to reform and correct that which is amiss, and to instruct in that which is righteous and holy, how much more is it sufficient for the common knowledge of other men, in whom like perfection of understanding is not so much required.

To these two reasons, because the question is of importance, I will yet add one other out of the verse next going before. There the Apostle useth an argument to persuade Timothy to abide in y ^• doctrine of the holy Scriptures, for proof of which argument, this seventeenth verse is immediately adjoined. His argument is takē from the effect of these holy writings, wherein Timothy had been brought up frō a child. Which effect is this, that through faith in Christ Jesus they are of ability or of power, or of sufficiency to make him wise to salvation. For the Apostle saith expressly, that the Scriptures are able, or of power, or sufficiency (for all these speeches I take to be of one signification) whereunto: to make him wise: how far: even to salvation, that is to teache him all wisdom needful to salvation. Whereupon, as I said, the Apostle immediately bringeth in this sentence, that All the Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, &c. Which must either be said to be impertinent to the former matter of the power or sufficiency of the Scripture to salvation (which I think no man of any reason will affirm) or else it must be confessed, that the Apostle added it for greater plainness, or for another proof. For whether of both it be brought in, it is absurd to bring the less to set out, or prove the more. And seeing the Apostle had spoken in the former verse of the sufficiency of Scripture, to say now it bringeth but some profit to that purpose, were to say less then he had said before. Wherefore he saying it is profitable, setteth it out as alone and sufficiently profitable, being inspired of God, and sanctified by his promise and ordinance, to make perfect the man of God to all heavenly wisdom. Finally, the Apostle having put into Tiniothies hand all complete, necessary and sufficient furniture, speaketh never a whit of your churchreuealed verities, but only of the scripture inspired of God. Therefore either he teacheth and concludeth insufficiently: or else the Scripture is sufficiently, wholly, powerfully, and in truth only profitable.

For your second reason, I deny that the new Testament is therefore super fluous, because the old was sufficient. For this bountiful addition, or access of scripture by the Newe Testament, is not to impeach the perfection and profitable sufficiency, or sufficient profitableness of the old Testament, seeing the Fathers were as well faued, as we are now under the Gospel, but for a more full, evident, and clear reue • ation of that, which though to salvation it was sufficient before, yet could not show the infinite riches of God's goodness toward us, so plainly & so fully as these do. Job had sufficient in his greatest want, and no superfluity in his greatest abundance, A morning light is sufficient for a man to do his work by, yet the brightness of the sun is not therefore needless and superfluous: for it serveth to give a clearer, a more certain and more comfortable direction then the other. For your by matter, that the words omnis and tota, differ in Greek and Latin, for proof whereof you appeal to all Logicioners, I dare warrant you they will all condemn your opinion. For omnis homo signifieth every man, but omnis populus (which is the Vulgar translation) doth not signify every people: neither can you translate the words of Saint Luke concerning the taxing that every earth, or every world should be taxed: in which places the Evangelist useth the same word, the use whereof in y ^• Greek you did not understand. Therefore if you can salve this matter of manifest error, I will acknowledge myself to deal deceitfully as you charge me. An other point followeth like the rest already answered. But the Censurer thus repeateth. Saint Paul must understand part of the scripture and not the whole, because all was not then written: also now we cannot take the Apostles words as uttered of all, because much scripture is now wanting as he doth imagine. Should these be your plain arguments if you could obtain disputation: Should this be the shorter way? I know not your name, but know I pray you and teach your fellows to know, that the scripture hath been in all ages sufficient for the time wherein it was written: of all that which hath by several increases been written, nothing was at any time superfluous: and whatsoever hath been written and not come to our hands, nothing for all that is now missing, that is necessary unto salvation. He that hath not given us the books of Nathan, Gad, Achia the Shilonite, and Iehdo (if they wrote any other then partes of the two books of Samuel after his death, & of the first book of the Kings) also he that hath not given us the rest of Solomon's Proverbs, (to pass by your oversight concerning the epistle to the Laodiceans, already noted) therefore gave them not, because he knew them not necessary or expedient for the posterity. John proveth this in the conclusion of his Gospel, and Christ teacheth that they which had Moses and the Prophets, even then had sufficient without miracles and traditions. And you have no sound opinion of the wisdom and mercy of God, if you think his majesty to leave any age, since he chose a peculiar people, void of scripture, profitable and sufficient to the salvation of his Church. Thus the reader may see that I neither wrest the former place against myself, neither can you do it, that would so fain.

In the fifth article the Jesuits are reported to say, The want of holy scriptures must be supplied by peecing it out by traditions. For the report of this doctrine, the Censurer bestoweth more of his undeserved taunts. If the Censure of Colen hath no such words, Gotuisus failed in citing their book, but failed not in charging them with their own doctrine, which all Jesuits and Papists so uphold as Peters chair, both to maintain their false doctrines, and to vnderset their Antichristiā tyraunie. But although you would for the time dissemble the matter, traditions are not of so small force, as to piece out the want of scripture. For, except the President of y ^e Trent council have a forge to coin lies, traditions are a living Gospel: and he uttereth it as a question that cannot be denied. This is most true (saith Hosius) that if traditions be rejected, the very Gospel also seemeth to be rejected: for what else are traditions, then a certain living Gospel? In deed traditions make a quick court at the Vaticane. Thus by your doctors opinion it is most true, y ^• traditions are made not a supply to any wants in y ^• Gospel, but another living Gospel, after a sort to give life to that which in y ^• true Gospel seemeth to be dead. And may not a man w ^t out a lie call this doctrine vlasphemous: My uttering of y ^e Cōmandemēt in the singular number is without additiō or alteration of sense. For Moses in the same Chapter, speaking of the same law and to the same men, doth change the plural number into the singular. The self same Law also is recited in the singular number in the twelfth chapter of Deuteronomy, & by Solomon, in the thirtieth chapter of his Proverbs: and evermore that which is said to all is also said to everyone, and truly taken as uttered to everyone. Surely I cannot guess what you unagined at this change of the Lawgiuers words, without change of the sense, being done by the example of the same Lawgiuer in another place, and without any breach of his Law: and whereupon your uttermost malice could infer none absurdity in sense, none injury to the scripture, nor advantage to my cause, but a stinging guess insinuating some cause moving me to this change, which whether you cōcealed as forbearing me, or ashamed on your own behalf to bewraye, the indifferent reader judgeth. Again, what made you add so heinous a slander, as if all things were lawful for me: and to charge me, as blaming the Apostles and Evangelists for adding the Gospel? Take heed you allow not yourself such scope in these suggestions manifestly against the truth and your own conscience, for you know what that sentence implieth, Blessed is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. The Lord that addeth grace to grace, and light to light, he also hath added to the law, the fullness and satisfaction thereof in Christ Jesus, which is published in his most holy and most perfect Gospel. To expound Moses words, forbidding to add or take away from the Law as spoken of the things he delivered by word of mouth, and not of the law written, 〈◊〉 is a doubtful speaking, and may bear a harder conclusion, then I will charge you with. His commandment respected the law either pronounced or written by him, 〈◊〉 afterward to be preached and written by the holy Prophets and Apostles in the spirit of God. I dare appeal to your conscience, though it be delivered from your pen, you do not think in your heart, that I would have no scriptures believed, besides that which Moses set down. Wherefore your proof needed not in this matter. To conclude, it is a great iniquirie to add traditions, or your unwritten ve 〈…〉 to the written word of God, whereunto no man may add, because nothing is wanting: from which no man can take, because nothing is superfluous: but to him that addeth, shall the curses written in the book be added forever.

In the sixth place the Jesuits words are thus reported: The holy Scripture is a nose of wax. At the true report of this blasphemous doctrine, you fall into a storm, persuading that I have therein sinned against God and abused the Iesuices, with other most bitter words: as if I took the way to overmatch both learning and truth. But howe wrongfully all these words are cast out against me, your own words bear witness: for presently after the sentence of condemnation, you repeal it and acquit me of the fault: granting, that as a nose of wax, may be formed what way and to what form one list, so naughty men may wrest the Scriptures. Notwithstanding, because you press the words against me, let them be examined. First to prove that the Jesuits have them more plainly then you will acknowledge, I appeal from your Censure, to Andradius plain confession. He (as you know) defended the Jesuits in these points against Kemnitius, which you defend against me: and hath lent you no small furniture for this service. This Andradius (as having more learning, and in his kind more true dealing then you) in handling this article, doth not at all cry out as you do, but acknowledgeth and defendeth the matter without such needless scoffs. And for the words he confesseth saying: The fathers of Colen I grant, do say, in the place which Kemnitius citeth, that the holy Scripture is as a nose of wax. The word (as) may indifferently be put in, or left out, and the sense all one, as shall be proved. Buclet us leave the words and follow the matter. Seeing it is now clear that the I • suites say, the Scriptures are as a nose of wax, what shall we say? Is this the Censur • es Censure, or the Iesuices doctrine' • may the word of God, may the word of power, the unchangeable word of God, may it (I say) be compared to pliant, changeable & melting wax: Is it in the word so to receive diverse & contrary fences, as the wax receiveth in truth, and not by misconstering or mistaking of the eyes; contrary forms, or printes from contrary seals? shall Jesuits maintain this directly or indirectly in a kingdom, where the Gospel is preached? I appeal herein to the conscience of all that love the truth: though a naughty Jesuit for flattery of the Pope, or other Heretike to deceive people, may wrest and pervert the scripture, yet Saint Peter teacheth, it shall be to his own destruction, and the Scripture notwithstanding shall remain perfect and undefiled. For the word doeth not work it self, • asely to receive and: hold every form as wax d •• th▪ but the truth of the whole Scripture maintaineth the truth of every branch, it taket • away th • •• ampe, an • r • sisteth the print of any f • rged 〈…〉 ent interpretation. Every sentence in the word of God, is as the arm of a mighty Oke that cannot be broken off, but if you bow it by force, the bowing will appear, and the more you force it to come about to your • ent, the inightier it is to recover itself and return aganie to his own course and growth, and that with •• rill to him, that offered such violence▪ I could not pass from this place easily, because this blasphemous doctrine doeth in the Church of Rome (I mea • e the Popish Church, for 〈…〉 wise I doubt not but God hath his Church in Rome, as he had in England, when all England seemed to be Rome) because I say this intolerable abasing and abusing the power and all sufficiency of the holy Scripture, doeth in the Popish Church, maintain the my •• erie of ungodliness: it stoppeth up the fountain of living waters, and prepareth • isternes and di • ches in place thereof: it changeth the milk and water of life mentioned in Isaiah, into the cup of fornications described in the Revelation: finally the traditions of man must overrule the truth of God. But let us see what followeth. The Censurer granteth me and I grant him again, that the words are spoken in a similitude, and I alleged them in no other sense: yet he would enforce it upon me, and upon his reader to believe, that I should absurdely make the Jesuits say, the Scripture is a nose of wax, without regard of sēblance. But he cannot so much as make my words a nose of wax, to receive this his counterfeited stamp & false interpretation. And for his obiectiō, it is waste, saying: Although Christ be likened to a Serpent, yet he is no Serpent, and to a •• uetous man, yet he is none. For who doeth at all affirm that which he doeth con • u • e so carefully? And touching the first objection, which is like the seconde, where is it said that Christ is like a Serpent? True it is, the lifting up of the brazen Serpent in the wilderness, is compared to the lifting up of the son of man: which will not warrant the words of your Censure. It is moreover one thing to • onpare that special sacrament and sign of the brazen Serpent to Christ, and to compare Christ to a serpent generally. Thus you have picked out an example, that in show seem • h to make for you, but is 〈◊〉 deed against you: as I may also say of y ^• second, touching y ^t coue • ous man▪ But howe many exāp •• s are against you in this matter? Christ is likened to a vine, and we may say Christ is a vine: he is likened to a shepherd, & he is a shepherd: God is likened to a consuming fire, and • her • upon it is written, God is a consuming 〈◊〉 ▪ 〈◊〉 against your example, Christ is likened to the brazen serpen • , and we may say he is that brasent serpent lifted up from the earth at his passion, to draw all to him self. But that you may not have h • te the va •• age of t • e letters, now I have given you your liberty to say what you can, I will not yield that the word (as) is left out▪ in the C • len Censure. For Payua, as loath as you to grant y ^• truth, doeth yet at last report the words altogether as I do • , adding the like out of Pighius, your doctors word • s are: when the fathers of Colen, considered that there were many▪ places in the holy Scriptures, whose true sense doth not easily app • are, but that every man may at his pleasure draw them into var • able & diu •• s senses, in a most apt similitude they called it a nose of wax. And Pighius. The lead̄ rule of the Lesbian building. By these two places Payuas Andradius hath brought you into some worthy suspicion of charging me for my autor without cause in • there places as well as in this. But now wherein have I abused the Jesuits learned or vnlear • ed▪ What have I here said, that one of your doctors doeth not •• owe▪ what have I done to overmatch a truth, in defending the unchangeable truth of the scriptures against your doctrine, teaching that here • iques may command and 〈◊〉 the word of truth, as wax is commanded and framed to what form they list. Now • cometh somewhat to make sport, if the granitie of the matter did not require fear and reverence. The Censurer supposeth me, to have had but one Bible, & that of the old translation only, which hath, The Law of the Lord is immaculata undefiled, or as he translateth unspotted, void of filth and dishouestie. Whereupon the matter is debated at large, what y ^t latin word immaculata doth signify beyond sea (where the Censurer would dissemblingly seem t • be) and what it should signify here in England. A solemn preparation to make show of a ••• torie▪ which the Censurer will have over his own imagination. I shall be convinced for false translation of that I translated not, and for ill handling that I touched not. I may as well be censured for the translation of Staphylus, or Lindan • • launders, as for the translation of the word immaculata. The original hath, the Law of the Lord is perfect, and the best translations have so translated it. Your old translation doth g • alone: the Lxx. follow the rest. Wherefore this place out of David doth show that the scripture is perfect, and maintaineth her perfection against all corruptions, as a right line showeth itself, and bewrayeth that which is crooked. Thus you see I translate not your old translation in this place with fraud or without •• aude. Somewhat you imagined in a •• eame, & told it before you were awake.

In the seventh article the Iesui • es are reported thus to teach: The reading of the holy Scripture, is not only not profitable, but many ways very hurtful to the Church. Here the • ensurer would seem to deny the doctrine, that in so doing he may both somewhat cover the absu • di • ie, and accuse me for my author, as •• stepor • ing the same. Yet after a storm of needless words, he doth in effect grant the matter. But his manner is for some advantage to report their doctrines otherwise then they are caught or brought into question. For the Papists do restrain the common people from reading the Scriptures, using many reasons to prove them hurtful. Besides other your books to this purpose, there is▪ one w •• thie of remembrance written to y ^e Parliament in Queen Mary's time, where fifty reasons, such as they be, are brought, not • nely to keep the people from the Scriptures, but for a more fure way, to keep the Scriptures from them, not suffering the translation thereof in the English tongue. Wherupon the question we have in hand is this: whether the reading of Scriptures be hurtful, and therefore to be forbidden. Now the Censurer saith the rash and vnconsiderate reading is forbidden, which is from the matter. We do not join issue in this, whether the people should rashly read them, or without consideration: but whether you may make men believe that the reading of holy scriptures is hurtful, and therefore to be res • r • yned. There is no doubt but you hold both, and teach both carefully, 〈◊〉 appeareth by a late Iesnites book written of this matter: yet in disputation you would seem only to forbid the cash and unadui • ed reading, whereof we make no question. But your reason is to be laid down: Whatsoever may hurt, though it be in no fault, yet it is to be restrained: the word of God hath done such hurt: therefore it is to be restrained. So you may as well take away the food of the body, that body and soul may perish together, because men may surfeit by good meats, and fall into drunkenness by wholsōe wine. Here let me for the scriptures fitly plead against you, your own rule pleaded in another place for Philosophy. It is say you, a gross ignorance, for an abuse that may be, to • 〈◊〉 demne the things which be excellent gifts of God, and sparks of his most high and infinite wisdom. If this he true; the • is it a blasphemy for an abuse not at all growing by the word, yet to forbid •• 〈◊〉 use thereof▪ and to keep it in an unknown tongue, in a barbarous translation, 〈◊〉 condemn, not sparks of God's most hig • and infinite wisdom, but to conde 〈…〉 even that high and infinite wisdom it self, by making such restraintes and taking such sure ways to debar the children of God, from the most necessary evidences of their heavenly inheritance. But in this question again, Payua doth deal more plainly to the purpose then the Censurer, who borrowing of Payua this place also, yet leaveth out all that, which maketh not to his purpose, of covering and shielding the Jesuits from the truth that fighteth against them. For Andradius plainly confesseth, that this is the first argument of the Jesuits, why the Scriptures should not be read, because (as the Jesuits teach) they have given occasion to all heresies. A very strange assertion: but howsoever unlearned and unstable men deal, yet the Scripture giveth no occasion of heresy, much less of all heresies, as these fellows do thus openly maintain. Therefore the Jesuits, in teaching that such harm cometh by reading the word of God, accuse the scriptures as hurtful many ways, and not profitable, which is as much as they are charged withal in the 7. place. The Censurer commonly faileth in leaving the question, and proving that which is not called into doubt: as in this place be proveth that the word is without all fault, when men misconster it, or found heresies vpō the misunderstanding of it. This was not in question: yet it is well proved 〈◊〉 fitly to overthrow the former doctrine of Jesuits: for, if the scripture be in no fault, testraine not the Scripture, but reform the wrangling and perverting wit: if it be in no fault, it is neither the occasion of all heresies, nor a nose of wax. Your example of Christ is easily & truly returned against you. For as Christ is a ruin to none, but to those that receive him not, and to those that believe not in him: so the Scripture hurteth not, but those that despise the reading, the hearing and the practice thereof.

The contrary doctrine to alleged • ut of Matthew; Ye err,, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. The Censurer would 〈…〉 we the application of this place by two circumstances, one to prove the word 〈…〉 articular: the • there because (as he saith) Christ spake not to the ignorant people, but 〈…〉 〈◊〉 . Touching the first 〈◊〉 , although the Cen 〈…〉 doth well lay 〈…〉 the particular application of Christ, 〈◊〉 spect of the present matters and hearers, yet it will be found more then audaritie for any man, so to restrain the doctrines of Christ delivered in particular, that they must reach no further then the present circumstances of the matter, and of those disciples or adversaries to whom he spaket for this is nothing else; but to make Christ a Prophet for a time, & not a Prophet forever. Also by that interpretation his wondeful works, & most heavenly doctrines, shall be made to us nothing else, but a bare and naked story, to tell us what Christ taught others, and not what he hath taught us: and to declare what he reprehended in them, not what he reprehendeth in us. But the Censurer will answer • , he mindeth not to 〈◊〉 other doctrines to the particular circumstances. And why not any other sentence as well as this to the Sadducees? for nothing can be more general then error, nothing more universal then the ignorance of Scriptures; which is I think, in y ^• Censurers judgment the fountain of all error. How cometh it then that he will stop so generalle stream, restraining that to a few, which apper ••• neth to all: And for the Sadducees; they did not only err in the doctrine of y ^• resurrection, but were otherwise enemies, & ignorant of Christ, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God to saluatiō in him. Wherefore Christ noted vpō one particular occasion, y ^• fountain of all their blindness and infidelity, as well as the cause of their ignorance, touching the resurrection, & their foolish doubt of the seven brethren. Thus, notwithstanding y ^• Censurers judgment, it is plain, that the doctrine of this place hath as well a general use as a particular: & that Christ noted the fountain of all ignorance, & not the ignorance of Sadducees touching resurrection alone.

To your seconde point, that Christ spake not this to the people, but to y ^• learned Sadducees, first I answer, If the learned err, not knowing the scriptures: the unlearned are in more danger of error through the same want. Secondly, if the want were not noted in all, the supply should not be made and commanded to all: but all, even the people are commanded to search the Scriptures, therefore not to search them, or to be ignorant of them, is a fault in all, be they learned or unlearned. Your argument that Christ should speak only to the Sadducees, and of the resurrection because it is added, you know not the power of God, is already answered: for it is a general fault, as well to be ignorant of the power of God, as not to know the Scriptures. Therefore as the ignorance of the one is condemned in all, so is the ignorance of the other, and the remedy for both is found in the exercise and search of the holy scriptures. Your similitude of words spoken as by my Lord Chancellor to the doctors of the Arches, is unlearned, for with an example of speech concerning a special matter, you would overthrow that which was spokē by Christ, of a general cause. But let your example stand: As the study of the civil law is proper to all Lawyers: and therefore their law books to be read and studied of all Lawyers: so the study of the spiritual and heavenly Law, is the profession of all Christians, and therefore the books of that law to be read and studied by all professors of the same, because to err, not knowing the Scriptures, is a thing common to all men, as was declared. An example of the like had been nothing for your purpose: as if my Lord Chancellor should say to some Jesuits, Ye run into danger of treason, not knowing the Law against all those that withdraw the Queens subjects from their natural obedience to her Majesty: this should be a note not only to those Jesuits, but to all whatsoever they be, Jesuits, or Seminaries or massepriestes, or what persons soever, y ^• they must either know and keep the law, or incur the punishment therein expressed against the offenders. Use good words of your countrymen: clown them not, for though they be simple, and not trained in the study of good letters, yet they have souls to be fed with the word: and (howsoever you praise the Colliers faith, and would put it in execution) they are to take heed they find not Christ's word verified against thē as well as against y ^• Sadducees. Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

In the eyght article the Jesuits are reported to say, That the righteous man liveth by faith, he hath it not in Christ but by his own works. First in this question I am charged with untruth, for the Jesuits have no such thing, as the Censurer affirmeth. For answer in this behalf, I refer you to my author, whose words being truly reported, the charge you lay upon me is causeless, and must return. But what is this, still to deny the articles, to maintain quarrel: and yet to auowe the doctrine to defend the Jesuits: Your own words teache that a man's works are meritorious in Christ, and means to make him righteous with the seconde righteousness, as you call it: which is plainly to grant the doctrine denied before. For although you vsey ^• name of Christ in this question, yet the Apostle concludeth, that you impute your salvation not to Christ, but to your own works. I testify, saith the Apostle, (speaking of them that did not exclude Christ) that if ye be circumcised, Christ doeth nothing profit you: teaching thereby, that whosoever will in any part be righteous in them selves, can have no righteousness in Jesus Christ. Therefore there was no cause of your impudent lies.

You come next to the place avouched for confutation of this error: If righteousness come by our works, it is not now grace. This sentence you truly conster as alleged by me to prove that no man: 〈◊〉 can be righteous in this life: which you say is both from the purpose and false. But if the words be full of proof, to show there is no righteousness in man's works, if it be the manifest doctrine of the Apostle, what could more fitly convince the blasphemy, derogating from the righteousness which is by Christ, and arrogating to our own works, then that place which showeth, there is no righteousness in our works, but in Christ alone, which is imputed to us by grace only: Now let us see how false it is. This you would prove by a distinction of a double righteousness, the first of being called from infidelity to gayth in Christ, which you say is only of God's mercy, and nor by any merit of our works: the seconde righteousness is of such works as proceed from men after the former calling, if they remain in grace. But if this reed whereupon you lean, be broken, you must needs confess the former proof against you to be both pertinent and true. For this purpose it is to be considered, that as there was but one blessing shown to Isaac, so there is but one only righteousness, which is not found in any person or subject, but in our Savior Christ Jesus alone. This righteousness is accounted and imputed to all those that believe as their own. In which imputation it is needful to consider the proportion between y ^t redeemer, & his redeemed, for it giveth great light to this questi • . As in Christ there was found no cause of death at all, & yet he died only by imputation of our sin: so in us there is found no cause of life at all, & yet we shall live only by imputation of his righteousness. The like proportion is between the covenant in the law and the covenant of faith in Christ: for as y ^• law admitteth no transgression, if a man will live by it: so Christ admitteth no satisfaction or merit to join 〈◊〉 his perfect merits, if any man will live by him: that y ^• whole work of our salvation may be of y ^e grace of God in Christ Jesus the au • thour and fynisher of our faith. But to prove this righteousness one, there is a place to the Romans in the which the righteousness whereby God saveth the believers, is called the righ • eousnes of God: and said to be that which is revealed in the Gospel. This is the righteousness of faith, as the Apostle proveth out of the Prophet, witnessing that the righteous mā liveth by faith which place proveth there is but one righteousness of men, not only because the Apostle speaketh of it as one: but in naming it expressly the righteousness of God, and giving to this faith both righteousness and life. For if the righteousness of faith, be the righteousness of God, that is, such as God accounteth for righteousness, which may also stand before him, and make us holy in his sight, what second righteousness can there be, or what can it do before God, that is not already accomplished by that first righteousness▪ Moreover if this righteousness be that which the Gospel teacheth, and not the Gospel only, but, as the same Apostle writeth afterward, which is testified by the law and the Prophets, whence have you brought us a second righteousness, that neither the Law, nor the Prophets, nor the Gospel, have revealed unto us: The vanity of this your devise may further appear, if we consider the justice of God, which cannot allow for righteous anything, but y ^t which is absolutely perfect and holy in all respects, as the Law is most perfect & most holy. Wherefore both the satisfaction for • ur sin committed, must be such as m • y fully endure whatsoever the Law hath threatened for sin, and the obedience so exact and precise as it fail not in any point. But this righteousness is but one, and is in none but in our savior Christ (none other being able to make that full satisfactiō for sin, nor perfectly to keep the Law but he alone) therefore there can • ee but one righteousness, which is in Christ Jesus, & accounted unto those which believe in him according to the Gospel. The holy Apostles teach that after men be converted from infidelity to faith, they stand righteous and live in the sight of God, not by means of their works, but by this faith whereby they believed. Abraham's example maketh this good, who after he was called from idolatry to the service of God, is said to have believed, and that his faith was reckoned to him for righteousness: not his works first or last, least he might have wherein to rejoice and not in God. The Apostle to the Galatians, maketh this evident. We knowing, saith he, that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also have believed in Jesus Christ, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the Law, because by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified. In which words the Apostle plainly maketh salvation an effect of faith, and not of any works, which we do after we have believed. Our savior Christ confirmeth this in diverse places, as in John: He that believeth in him that hath sent me, hath everlasting life, & shall not come into condēnatiō, but is already passed from death to life: &, He that believeth in the son, hath life everlasting. An other place to the Galatians, maketh all this yet more manifest: where the Apostle speaking of himself long after his conversion saith, That I now live, I live by the faith of him that loved me, and gave him self for me. By these proofs it is evident, that there is but one only righteousness, for which men are accounted righteous before him, which is the righteousness of faith. To this may be added, that the only righteousness of God is that, which giveth all the glory of our salvation to God only in Christ Jesus, and shutteth out all vaunting and boasting of man: but the second righteousness, which you imagine, doth not so, but Ieaueth somewhat for man to glory of: therefore it is no righteousness taught by the Apostle. Lastly, this also is against your second righteousness, that our works done by faith, yet are not perfect, and therefore cannot make us righteous before God. These reasons may suffice in this great question of our salvation, briefly to convince the blasphemy of your devise invented of Satan, to deceive those that seeking salvation more or less by their own works, fail of that righteousness which is by faith only in GOD through Christ Jesus our Lord. Now seeing the folly of this absurd distinction of a first and of a second righteousness is evidently convicted, it is also worthy of consideration how this Censurer, that taketh upon him so justly to devide and give everything his own, doeth here notwithstanding huddle and confound righteousness with regeneration, and justification with sanctification. For that which he calleth the second righteousness, is that which the Scripture calleth the New man, the fruits of the Spirit or regeneratiō. Furder also where he saith, The first righteousness is of God's mercy only, and no way of our works, or by any merit of the same, it is to be noted that he is constrained to acknowledge a righte • usnesse by faith only, without any de •••• of works: whereupon it • hold be observed that the Censure • him self seemeth t • be ashamed of y ^e merit of cōgruence, as the Schoolmen term it, while he so •• atly & fully affirmeth our calling to be only of God's grace without any merit of ours.

Now to return to his Censure again, he addeth in the end a Censure upon the allegation of the text vouched out of the Romans, for the disproof of the former blasphemous opinion. This he blameth as impertinent and untrue: impertinent, because (in his construction) it is against the righteousness of good works before our calling: and not generally against the righteousness of all good works: wherein he seemeth not to have regarded the reason of the Apostle, which is taken from the nature of grace and works so contrary, that the one can never nor in any wise stand with the other. Therefore the argument is strong to prove that our salvation cannot • e both deserved, and also freely givē. N •• there doth this argument hold in election only, but whatsoever is of grace, as •••• tion, justification, sanctification, glory, all these are in no 〈◊〉 , or part, of works. Thus the place is so forcible to the purpose it was alleged for, that the Censurer is not able • o escape the sentence thereof. He complaineth lastly of words added, which are but to clear the sense, and taken out of the second to the Galatians: where to like effect the Apostle faith, If righteousness be by the law, Christ died without cause. Thus, having satisfied all the Censurers pretensed doubts, and convicted him of error, in the blasphemous doctrine of a second righteousness, I may worthily leave the Iesuice to his voluntary Whip, for reformation of his judgment: otherwise if he will not learn to give all the honor and causes of salvation to God in Christ, but will, in establishing his own righteousness, abandon the righteousness of God by faith, which must stand altogether of it self, then in so teaching he will draw upon him self other Whippes even Scorpi • ns whose sting abide forever. For avoiding hereof I pray God (if it may make for his glory) that you Jesuits may receive the love of the truth, & that you may seek & find salvation in the merits of Christ alone to life everlasting.

The ninth report of • esui • e • doctrine is: Men do surely hope that everlasting life shall be given them, but they do not believe it: now hope often faileth, •• herwise it were no hope. This 〈…〉 cle 〈◊〉 co • fessed without any co •• radiction, that the wicked servant may be judged by his own mouth. But the •• uching of the places for • ontrarie d •• trine, is • ensured for unlearned huddling▪ up and confounding hope and faith as one thing: which note of the Censure, I may truly say, came from no deep knowledge. A little judgment might have served your Censureship to discern▪ that the two places were not alleged to prove or disprove anything of faith (the full certain • ie whereof is proved against you by the certain • i • of hope) but to overthrow that which the Jesuits say in the latter parte of the sentence, against which these places serve plainly and expressly. For what may more clear • y prove against the Jesuits doctrine, that hope never faileth, then the Apostles words, calling 〈◊〉 The ancre of the soul. Where by he n •• eth our f • eedo • e from danger in all storms of • entations, • idding out the time of this life wi 〈…〉 any 〈◊〉 o • fear, and without any 〈…〉 touching 〈◊〉 〈…〉 heaven. To show the force of this assurance, the Apostle useth very significative words, calling it a sure and stable ancre: and yet to make it so full that no fear or doubt may remain, he addeth that it entereth into the inward of the Vail, whereunto Christ is entered, meaning thereby the heavens. Which importeth as much as if he should say, we that have cast this Ancre above in heaven, are so much more safe, then they whose Ancre is cast down into the Sea, as the hold we have taken in heaven by the Ancre of hope, is surer. Yea, the very Rocks shall sooner fail, thē our hold, settling upon the strength & truth of gods promise, which are all Yea & Amē in Christ Jesus. This our shoot Ancre of hope, hath taken hold of the mercy seat of God, and of the throne of grace, which except some storm be able to remove, we are in most joyful and steadfast safety.

The like is promised by y ^e other place out of y ^e fifth to the Romans: for, if hope maketh not ashamed, and shame cometh when a man faileth of that be hoped for: then hope cannot fail. The Apostle maketh this more strong by that which foiloweth as a reason, The love of God is aboūdanly shed out into our hearts by the holy Ghost which is givē unto us. By which reason it appeareth, except the holy Ghost hath given us a wrong testimony of the love of God, the hope which we have conceived thereby cannot deceive us. Thus you see these places so truly and fitly alleged, that all your falsely named learning will not be able truly to answer the allegation of them, which notwithstanding it pleaseth you to call unlearned. But let us see what you call learning: forsooth the doctrine of Jesuits, touching the doubtfulness and fear which is in hope, that is true, learned and clear. This is (as the prophet complaineth) to call good bad, and sweet sower: whereunto you know what belongeth.

For answer to these two places of hope, the Jesuit • doctrine is declared at large, the effect of all standing in two pointes: the first concerning faith, the other of hope. Of faith they teach, that no man may believe that he in particular shall be saved without a particular reuelatiō from God. A faithless doctrine of faith: and therefore not to be lightly passed over. You seem to prove it by reasons, one drawn from y ^t object of faith, which is the word written, or tradition, whereof neither as you say, doeth testify men's salvation in particular: the seconde taken from the uncertainty of the things believed: which (as the Censurer supposeth) do depend upon such conditions as possibly may not be performed. Both these great points, for want of scripture he setteth forth by examples, as minding rather to persuade then to prove. The first is of the answerer: the seconde of the possibility to be damned, as did fall out in Judas, and may fall out (a more fearful case then I would put of him. had be not put it of him self) in the Censurer him self. Now let us consider, what great learning the Iesuices have in this their opiniō of faith, as the Censure • doth report them. To judge, that without particular revelation by name, no man can be sure of his salvation, is expressly against that the word of God • eacheth in this great question. Therefore, howe lerane • soever the Jesuits make them selves, yet in deed as the Apostle speaketh of the wise Gentiles, they become stark fools, not knowing true wisdom out of the word, but bastard wisdom by their foolish distinctions. The Censurers word of Tradition must be reserved for a fitter place. Touching the promise of the Gospel, it is general: whosoever believeth shall be saved: & the Censurer confesseth it. This general promise hath place, and is certainly verified in every particular y ^t believeth. Every sensible mā without further learning may easily judge in this doctrine: whatsoever is true in y ^e general, must needs be true in every particular. Now, if it be undoubtedly true, that every believer shall be saved, it must needs be also, that Simeon and Lazarus believing in Christ shall be saved. Therefore what needeth any special revelation in the word, for that which is sufficiently comprehended under the general: what need is there by name to say from mā to man by name, Lazarus shall be saved, & Citus shall be saved, and 〈…〉 we shall be saved, and so infinitely? Or shall we say that God in respect of persons doth particularly assure some of their certain salvation, leaving all the rest to be tossed and carried up and down with fear and hope, as a ship in the sea carried hither and thither with contrary winds? Moreover the very place cited by the Censurer as a particular revelation, was not particular, but general to all the disciples, that believed by virtue of a more general covenant made to all that believe whatsoever. For, to examine that place nearer, all the disciples and all the Apostles, had not their names written in the book of life: for Judas was excepted. And here by the way, the Censurers oversight must be noted, that draweth the place of Luke as special and particular to the Apostles, being spoken of the seventy disciples. He wanted special knowledge herein, when he so boldly made it an argument of the Apostles special revelation.

Of the most certain and sure foundations of our particular faith and hope, the Apostle writeth in the eight to the Romans, saying that nothing was able to take from him the love which God beareth to him in Christ Jesus, which he setteth out by naming such things as are most like and mighty to strike a fear and doubt into his heart, as oppression, anguish, persecution, famine, nakedness, and finally death it self: nay he addeth again, that neither life nor death, nor Angels, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth: that is, what so ever is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the par •• under the earth, finally that no creature is able to separate him from the love of God, that is in Christ Jesus. But in maintenance of these errors you are wont to say, this was a special p • etogatiue of the Apostle, which is easily taken away by that S. Peter writeth to this purpose: that the Saints had obtained like precious faith with him: which was true not in the degree, but in the kind and substance of faith: which should wholly differ, if the Apostles had a faith of their particular salvation, and we not. Agayne the certainty of faith appeareth by these reasons which the Apostle allegeth: Who shall 〈◊〉 the chosen of God? It is God that justifieth, who shall condemn? It is Christ that hath died, nay rather who is raised up again; who is also at the right hand of God; who maketh into cession for us. These reasons of a most sure faith and hope that wauereth not, are of no particular revelation, but of the general doctrine of the Gospel, and of the common salvation, as Jude calleth it, which of right apper 〈…〉 to every believer, as well as to Peter or to Paul.

The Consurers set on reason is, that the faithful may fallaway from the faith and from salvation: where as the things believed remain most certain. The ground of this reason is to be deny • , for it is most untrue, that any man who hath had faith, can ever afterward finally fallaway. This may be proved by evident testimonies of the scripture, beside those alleged above: as that which Christ teacheth of the believer, in the eyght chapter of John, He shall never see death: in the fourth, But the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a spring of waters, flowing up to everlasting life: in the tenth. The father is greater then all, and none is able to take them out of the fathers hand: Again of the faithful it is true, which the Apostle uniteth, that God hath justified and glorified them. So certain it is, as if it were already every way performed. But it were long to repeat any ino • e. Notwithstanding there are places that mention a faith, which seemed for a time to be faithful, but 〈◊〉 as the fig tree was full of leaves, but without fruit. As for the examples of Iudan who hath fallen, and of yourself, who ( 〈◊〉 say) may likewise cast yourself away, if you list: I can say of Judas he never believed, because he was y ^e child of destruction. For yourself, if you have been always of that mind you were of when you wrote this, you never had any true faith, and therefore could never yet fall away from it. What God may vouchsafe you hereafter I know not, but leave it to his wisdom to dispose of his own as it shall please him: but if ever he vouchsafe you this gift, I am sure the gates of hell shall never prevail against you.

Your seconde point is of hope, which in your doctrine hath two respects, one of God's mercy, and in that regard it is full of confidence: the other in respect of God's justice, which hath fear and doubt annexed with it. The places alleged before of hope, you expaunde for the confidence thereof: which is true, if you stayed there, not adding other respects to root out that which you would seem to plant: for you should have made hopes • firm and sure, that it cannot be deceived. But, as being of another judgment, you say that hope respecteth also the justice of God, and the fearful effects of his feueritie, which you quote out of the Scriptures: concerning which effects I will not dispute with you. Only in alleging the last, I note your wants, that without all regard or any warrant of the text, dare say, that those reprobates shall come confidently in the last day hoping to be saved. For besides that it is impossible that their conscience can have any spark of confidence or hope of salvation; there is not any mention of such confident hope in the text, either expressly or by implication. If they had some hope, then also they must have some faith, for they go together hand in hand. Although I thus link them together, yet I do not confound them: but acknowledge this difference, that as faith is a full persuasion of the promise: so hope is a patient expectation and looking for, of the things which are believed. It is you therefore, that in deed huddle and confound hope and a vain persuasion as one thing: where as hope is no less sure then faith, being grounded upon the same foundation of the word, and hath the same fullness of persuasion. But this is ignorance and confusion, which who so discrieth, may well marueyle. what cause you or your friends find to host of your learning or order for disputation. Such confusion must be in Babel, which leaving with you: I say further, that hope never respecteth God's justice, nor anything else, but the things that are believed: which are y ^• most sweet and precious promises of his life, kingdom, and glory. Therefore what causes should hope have to fear: True it is that neither faith nor hope is so perfect in us, but that in these respects you name, we often fear: but this fear is no work of hope, no more then doubt is a work of faith. For to say that hope feareth in some respects, is as much as to say, faith in some respects doubteth and is no faith. We do both doubt and fear, such are our infirmities: but that we doubt, it is not of faith, but of unbelief: neither do we fear, as you speak of fear, by any effect of hope, but by the contrary work of desperation. But after so many and sufficient reasons out of the word to prove this question of importance, the words of the Censurer offer one not to be neglected. He affirmeth that hope in respect of the goodness of God is full of confidence and assurance. Therefore although he will needs against reason make confidence fearful, yet shall he never cast any shadow of fear upon assurance, especially upon a full assurance such as he confesseth. Now for the places you allege, they concern not this fear now in question, but express a godly care to live worthy our calling, which is not against the confidence of hope, but a remedy against presumption and security. The place which you allege out of the preacher, showeth you to be a great clarke, able to read and cite a place, though you come not near the matter by many degrees. The wise man there disputeth of that a man may gather by prosperity and adversity, and not what he knoweth by the word of God. For neither can adversity nor prosperity show the love or hatred of God toward us: it was the deceitful counsel of Job's friends, to draw him into these arguments of God's purpose. But Job by faith could confess against all calamities and extremities, saying, though he kill me, yet will I believe in him still. Thus the learned divinity of the Jesuits, may appear to them that will behold it. Howe did you forgette the two millstones you are wont to allege for teachers in this matter. When a man you say, doeth bebolde that he standeth upon, it maketh him hold: but looking unto that over his head he is in fear. Woe be unto them that teach such offensive and erroneous doctrines, deceitfully confirming them with similitudes and distinctions so far from the truth, and yet easy to be embraced, and deceive the ignorant. It were better for them that a millstone were hanged about their neck, & they thrown into the bottom of the sea, then thus to infeeble the faith and hope of God's children, by their faithless and fearful doctrines. Yet the Censurer and his fellows (if you will believe him) reconcile all Scriptures together, maynteyning confidence and fear in Christian hope, whereas we are said to confound and huddle up matters: but hereto I answer, let him that offendeth herein, be • both offend to which himself, and not reconciled to God, till he repent.

In the tenth article the Jesuits are reported to • air, The Scripture in deed never teacheth the invocation of Saints, yet we must believe, receive and hold it. Here you Censure both the alleging of the Jesuits opinion, and the text avouched to disprove the same. You say it is false: that they grant, the invocation of Saints is nowhere taught in the Scriptures. Nevertheless you grant afterward that Monhemius charging them so, and therefore gathering that it ought not to be believed, they make this answer, y ^• many things are to be believed, which are not expressly set down in the Scripture. To which purpose you yourself add afterward, that the invocation of Saints is deduced out of many and evident places of Scripture: whereby it appeareth, that you all confess, that the Scriptures expressly teach it not. Now, that praying to Saints is by necessary consequence to be gathered out of many evident places of the Scriptures, and to be proved by general Councils, Fathers, and the universal practice of all Christian dome from the beginning, though you boldly affirm it, yet you vouch not any one place of scripture, nor any one proof of so many: If you have so good books to show, it standeth upon your credit to bring them to light. For where as your idolatrous praying to saints is detestable in every sort, both for the sin it self, and because you commend it without any likely color of excuse: if you be not able to answer to so grievous a crime as you are charged with herein, (being in deed high treason against the heavenly Majesty of the eternal God) yet you may allege somewhat by way of excuse, to find some favor, if so great authority, as you pretend, have carried you away like simple people to rise up and rebel against the Lord. You send us to your Catholic books touching this question, which we have seen and read, but find not any warrant, which may justify your doctrine.

Having hoasted of much & performed nothing, in your second Censure, of y ^• place alleged against Saints invocation, you blame me for avouching but that one text of scripture for the disproof: yet yourself have brought none for your necessary defense. To overthrow the place, you bring two answers, but tell us to which of them you will stand. The first is grounded in Limbo patrum, that is to say, hath no ground at all, as there was never any such Limbus, but framed & settled in your imagination. The seconde, which you seem to rely more upon, is in effect this assertion: not to know is not to allow. This if I might grant you, it doeth not take away the force of the place. Out of y ^• which, allowing you your own sense, I reason thus: Because GOD only is here declared to be of fatherly love toward us, who also is ready to pardon us, when Abraham by your sense, would not know us but condemn us: therefore it is both wisdom and duty to pray to God, and the contrary both vanity & sin. But because you require other reasons and places for this purpose, take these of a number. It is not lawful to give the worship of God to any other, according as it is writ̄. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God & him only shalt thou serve. I will not give my glory to any other, nor my praise to idols. But prayer is a special honor and service that God requireth of us, as it is said in the fiftieth Psalm. Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. Whatsoever you shall ask the father in my name, he will grant it unto you. Again, a man cannot pray to any but to those in whom he doth believe. Rom. 10. How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? But it is not lawful to believe in any but in God alone: which is proved by the former places, faith being a principal part of God's service: Therefore it is not lawful to pray to saints or to any creature whatsoever. I might here show all promises made to prayer: all precepts and examples of prayer in all the whole body of the Scriptures to be only of prayer to God: and no one precept, promise, or approved example of prayer to any saint living or dead, or to any other creature. But this place being clear and mighty against you: I will conclude with the Prophet Jonah, They which observe lying vanities, let them forsake the goodness shown unto them: but with the voice of thanksgiving will I sacrifice unto the Lord, I will pay that which I have vowed, all manner of salvation is of the Lord.

In the eleventh the Jesuits are charged to teach that Christ never said to the lay men, Do this in remembrance of me. Seeing you pretend, that notwithstanding you expound Do this, of the Ministers only, yet you mean not so, but that the people are also commanded to communicate at the Lord's Supper as well as they. I can the more easily leave you to follow your own sense: for the doctrine against lay men's consecration or ministration, is not in controversy, but it is (except you fail) holden on both, that none but called Ministers should minister the sacraments. But if, as you have already committed the greatest sacrilege and churchrobbery that may be in taking away from the people the Cup of the new Testament, and the Communion of the precious blood of our Savior Christ: so now by this exposition, you would leave the people at liberty, to choose whether they will be partakers of this body too, or no, y ^• you may drive them altogether from the table of the Lord, the sacrilege shall be so made the more intolerable. If the Commandment, Do this in remembrance of me, bind not the people to come to the Lord's table, howe shall the other words, Take ye, Eate ye, bind them? What moved you here to cite your Clement, Ambrose, & Cyprian with others I know not, except it were some merriment, to join with your similitude of singing: for in good earnest you mind not by those places without matter in them, to prove that the words of Christ, Do this in remembrance of me, were only said to the Ministers touching Consecration, and not to the people also for their participation.

In the twelfth Article the Jesuits are reported to say, Traditions are of equal authority with the word of God: we must believe them though they be manifestly against the Scripture. Here the report and the text vouched to disprove their doctrine are both censured. The first for adding, we must believe them, though they be manifestly against the Scripture, & for reporting the rest so generally and confusedly. Touching y ^• latter point, if my report of your doctrine be in these words: Traditions are of equal authority with the word of God, meaning it of some only (for who would think it of all, you having so many and so feeble?) why do you charge me; as generally and confusedly saying, all traditions are equal with y ^• scriptures? Was it I pray you, to deserve your own note of a sound lie for a parting blow? which false mis 〈…〉 you have doubled to make it the sounder. For answer to the former poyut, I do not only avow that I have faithfully reported my authors words (which is always my just defense against your unjust flaunder, laying them upon me▪ but I say further, that their practice compared with their words will • ustifie the report as truly laid down against them. For proof whereof not to go further, the Censurer rehearseth amongst these traditions, which the Popish Church charge our faith withal, the number of the books of Scripture, & the Lent fast. Of all other traditions these two are taken out to stand for their own credit and for the credit of the rest: let us therefore see what treasons there are against God in these your traditions. First the Apocrypha books are not in the ancient Canon or language of Canaan: the fathers have disauowed them, they are evidently repugnant to the doctrine of the holy scriptures, and dis 〈…〉 eeing among them selves. Yet your Trent conspirarie doeth add them to the number of the Canonical books, and bold all men accursed, that hold them not for canonical scriptures. Therefore this your tradition is manifestly against the word of God. Further also, what is more manifest against the word of God then the doctrine of devils? The Lent fast, as you command to keep it, for conscience sake, forbidding meats created of God to be taken with thanksgiving, is plainly called a doctrine of devils. Furthermore your opinion is plainly delivered to be with this distinction: Ecclesiastical traditions are of no greater authority then the writings and other decrees of the Church: and Apostles traditions are of no less authority then if they had been written by them, or then are the other things which they wrote: This is confusedly taught and needeth yet more plainness: for not all orders delivered by the Apostles, are to be kept perpetually and unchangeably, of like authority with the doctrine of the Gospel, which they preached. The Apostolic doctrine is perpetual, subject to no variety of persons, of times or places: but some traditions, that is, some orders are altered, as that in the acts, where they command to abstain from strangled and from blood: for it appeareth that the Apostles commanded not this for a perpetual order, always inviolably to be observed, but only for a time to auoids offenses: which cause ceasing, the order or tradition was no longer in force. Again, some orders might be set down by them for comliness, which yet were not to be believed as necessary partes of salvation, nor yet to remain forever in that form or kind: and therefore cannot be matched with the Apostolic doctrine of faith, which is ever all one, and which whosoever believeth not, cannot be saved, Now touching your pretensed Apostolical traditions, I utterly deny that there are any such, beside those which are evidently shown, or by just consequence fitly gathered out of the written word. For what so ever is necessary to salvation, is in this sort to be proved by the holy Scriptures. Therefore your Censureshippe did well to add, If they be certainly descended from Christ and his Apostles. But how can this I pray you be certaynely known, but by the holy writings: can any other custom or testimony assure your consciences what came undoubtedly from Christ, or what from his Apostles: Is there any one of your traditions that you can vouch to descend from so sufficient authors, otherwise then by report of insufficient witnesses: What is it then for you to boast of invincible arguments to prove diverse doctrines not written, but left by word of mouth only, whereas you bring nothing but counterfeit Couneils, erring Fathers, fabulous stories, and Apocrypha scriptures. This is right the bragging Apostle, and a show of the vain challenger. If a man could be feared with the guilte of your armor, or with your plume of feathers, you would be a worthy champion, wounding more with a vain fear; then with the force of your shrinking arm. In this encounter of all your profess, you have sorted out two: the first is out of that excellent chapter to the Thessalonians, containing a prophecy and revelation of Antichrist. For an answer to which place it is first to be understood, that the word Tradition in the Apostles speech, cometh as it doth in Latin, of a verb to deliver, so that whatsoever y ^• Apostle delivered to the Churches, those were the traditions he left with them. Therefore I deny that Paul doth in any place by tradition signify any unwritten verity, but that as in other places, he understandeth the doctrine of the Gospel, which in the sundry partes thereof he delivered. This appeareth apparauntly by the place so cited for your purpose, without regard of anymore then the word Tradition. For in the verses next before, the Apostle maketh mention of the Thessalonians faith to the truth, saying, God hath called you thereunto by our Gospel, to obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ: and thereupon inferreth this conclusion: now therefore brethren stand fast, & hold the tradition which you have learned, either by word or by our epistle. Whereby it plainly appeareth, that the traditions or things delivered by him, partly by word, and partly by writing, were the diverse partes of the Gospel which he had taught them. Wherefore the written word affordeth you no proof for unwritten verities. The seconde is of doctrines, which you say, we hold not by record of writing, but by word of mouth from Christ and his Apostles: as for example, baptism of infants, celebratiō of Sunday, y ^• number of y ^• books of scripture, & the fast of Lent. If this be not hudling and confounding of things together of unlike sort, I know not what may be called confusion. For what order is it (to repeat vpō the Censurers occasion y ^• which was noted in the fourth article) to match the baptism of children with the fast of Lent: The one being by plain argument gathered out of the word, as namely out of the words of the conenant, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, and thy children after thee forever. This covenant did appertain to both a like, to Abraham and his seed: whereunto the seal and practice was adjoined in circumcising infantes of eyght days, as well as Abraham of great age, and that by express commandment of God. Thus the doctrine is so proved out of the written word, as that no doubt remaineth. Now circumcision was the sacrament or seal of that righteousness which is by faith, as Saint Paul teacheth: wherein it is equal our baptism. But this is your great learning; when you are not able for your ignorance, to prove a doctrine out of the written word, to say, we have it by tradition, and by word of mouth from the Apostles. Now your Lent fast as you use it, hath not only no ground out of the word, but is against the word as I proved before. If this be your method and discretion, I marvel not if good order be huddling and confounding in your accompt. For the number of the books, and for the Lord's day, I might likewise make proof out of the word: so that if you can bring us nothing by word of mouth from the Apostles, but your Lent fast, your letters of credence will not serve you to be deleeued.

The seconde Censure is that the place alleged by me to confuce the authority of traditions, should be impertinent. This the Censurer would show by three differences between it and this purpose. First, of the diverse cause of those traditions, which our Savior Christ inueyeth against, whereof they had been authors to them selves, and of these which he affirmeth to descend from Christ and his Apostles. But as in deed the difference would be great if this were true, so being false and untrue as it is, it can make no difference at all. Theirs were in deed such as they affirm, and though you deny it, so are yours also. For which of all your traditions came either frō Christ or from his Apostles? whē you prove them frō either of them, your difference shall be allowed. Secondly, you say Christ reprehendeth not all observation of mens traditions, but the naughty observing of thē: which was, as you affirm, in that y ^• Pharisees esteemed them more then God's word, & brake it for the keeping of them, which you condemn. This also, if it were true, were a sufficient difference: but it is untrue that our Savior Christ reproved only the esteeming of them more then God's commandments. It cannot be denied, but he reproved this in them in the same chapter before: but in the words alleged, You worship me in vain, teaching doctrines that are but traditions of men, (which are no words of comparison) our Savior simply rebuketh them for esteeming the keeping of men's traditions to be any service of GOD: to which • ude the sentence had been first uttered by the Prophet. The third note is double, first that these traditions were idle & foolish: of which sort are yours, and whatsoever the idle brain of man deviseth to serve • od withal: the second that some of them were impious, direct contrary to the word of God, such as were certain corrupt expositions of the law: where you are as like to them, as the son may be to the father. For never were there more false glosses upon the word of God violently thrust, and by little and little secretly conveyed into the Church, perverting the true meaning of the Scriptures, and corrupting the simple worship of GOD, then have been brought in by your Rabbin's, that have obtained the highest seats, and the most honorable names, more then ever did any among the Jews. You speak of the Talmud as did bastard Denis of the orders in heaven: but this flourish of your skill in those books because it hurteth not the cause, let it serve you and your friends, for as much credit as it may.

Lastly the Jesuits are reported to teach that we must worship y ^e image of Christ, with like honor that we do the holy books of the Gospel. In this article the doctrine is granted without any word of contradiction: your Censure only toucheth the second to the Corinthes the sixth chapter, as not alleged to the purpose. In deed if you list not to understand to what end it is vouched, you may well complain against the alleging thereof as from the matter. You take it as brought to prove, that we may worship the image of Christ with greater honor, then the books of the Gospel: but you mistake the matter, and willfully (as it should seem) to have some what against the cause, for how could you think, that he which detesteth all idols, would allege a place to prove that the image of Christ is worthy honor more then Gospels: Or howe may not any ma • note you of open contradiction against the word of God, that being devoutly mad upon idols, would for their love profane the temple of God, and therefore dare to say there is more agreement between them (which yet the Apostle maketh most contrary) then there is between the place of Saint Paul, & the matter which the same place doth fitly disprove: But if you li •• to understand, the place serveth to prove that no image at all is to be worshipped, for which the words are so pertinent and is strong, as all the wisdom of your Censureship and of the rest, will never be able to answer them. Therefore you lost your labor in framing arguments, to prove why the material book of Gospels should be no less worshipped then the image of Christ: for neither of bath are to be worshipped, nor any other creatures whatsoever, according to that which was before alleged to this purpose: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. You cannot escape, for saying you give no divine honor unto them, for this bowing down before them (which is one of the least devotions you use) is challenged as divine honor, and expressly forbidden in any respect of religion or devotion to images, or any other creature, as hath been often declared. But here saying the honor done to the image of Christ and to the letter of the Bible is not done to them selves, you dissemble your own idolatrous doctrine, which alloweth the same honor to the image, that is due to the pattern, and namely the same most honorable and divine worship of Latria to the Crucifix, which is due to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Your books that teach this, are many and not unknown. So in other questions it appeareth that either you are ashamed of your own doctrine, or else you will not defend it in such sort as you teach it, least the vantage should be even in your own opinion, too open and too great against you. Also it cometh to be noted howe you huddle the karuer of an image that is cursed, with a printer: and an image that is an abomination, with the holy Bible: as if it were all one to make an image of God, and print the word of God. Secondly (being herein contrary to yourself,) you undertake to prove that creatures may be worshipped, and, as if the matter were out of doubt, you demand what we will say to the worship done unto the Ark, unto the Cherubims, unto the Serpent of brass. For some show of proof you allege the five & twentieth of Exodus, & the 45. Psal, mistaken by you for the 99. In the place of Exodus there is no word leading us to worship, but only a commandment of making the Ark, and the Cherubin of such fashion as is there prescribed. If we condemned all use of grauing or painting, this might have served your turn: but speaking only against your worshipping of creatures, it maketh nothing against us, or to justify your idolatry. The place of David doth not show what we must worship, but where we must worship, even at the footstool of the Lord with all humility, being there prostrate upon the ground, and humbled before him. The other two places of Numb. the 21. and John 3. are brought by you to prove the worship of the brazen serpent. In which places there is no such matter, but a commandment as before, to make it & set it upon a perch, that it might be the better seen: with a promise that they which had been slung with fiery serpentes, if they looked upon the brazen serpent, should receive their health. Now, except to look upon a thing be to worship it, here is no place at all to prove that you say. If you had cited the place out of the kings, there is a clear testimony, that the brazen Serpent was worshipped: but it made not for your purpose, seeing good Hezekiah in the same place did therefore break it down because it was worshipped. Thus you may see what we have to say out of the word against your false suggestions, and against your mistaking and misconstruing the Scriptures. But this place and that of John were answered in the sixth Article. The second to the Philippians showeth a great judgment and skill in you: it is there written thus of Christ: God hath exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, of things on the earth, and things under the earth. Hereupon you gather, first that the name of Jesus is to be worshipped, so as at the hearing of it, we should bow our knees. Now, if this bowing be due to y ^• sound of a name, which is but a creature, then in your judgment some creature is to be worshipped: and so consequently such as your Censureship shall appoint. But as when you spake of the Cherubim, you were not under the wings of y ^• Cherubim: nor being before y ^• Ark, received any Oracle: so now though you speak of the Lord Jesus, exalted to the right hand of his Father, yet you are never a whit nearer drawn unto him, nor understand what his glory meaneth. The name of Jesus is here no creature to feed the ear, as an image feedeth the eye (which is your distinction borrowed with the rest our of Lindane) but it signifieth the sovereign power and authority which Christ hath received over all creatures both in heaven and in earth, as appeareth in the same place, where it is said that God hath given him a name above every name: and in the eleventh where he speaketh of confessing Jesus Christ to be the Lord. The • owing of the knee, is not that which these words in their proper signification declare: for how should it agree to Angels and other creatures, which have no knee • as men have: but obedience and subjection is figuratively noted by this outward sign of obedience used among men. The meaning therefore of the Apostle is to show that our Savior Christ, when he had humbled, and as it were emp •• ed him self for our sakes, and became as nothing, that was all, was afterward exalted even as he was man above all creatures, having sovereign power and authority given him over all, so that all creatures are made subject to his commandment. This being the meaning of the Apostle (that I may not return home your willful and malicious terms) I leave to show what good grace you had in alleging this text for your purpose. But, the Lord reform it, thus you are constrained ignorantly, or willfully to strain and contstrain the holy Scriptures, when you have once set down a resolution to maintain error. Nevertheless as I noted, the Scripture is not commanded or made to serve for every frame, as a leaden rule: it is not pliable to serve every purpose, as a nose of war • , but freeth it self from all in • uries, and con ••• ueth the same course to condemn all error, and justify the truth forever. As for Augustine's place, your notes dece •• ed you, for he is far from allowing idol or image worship: neither can you find any such speech to maintain your idol •• rie as is all • aged. Agustine hath some such words as you a •• eadge, but in another book and to another purpose: for after a disputation against images and idols, he speaketh of the signs and sac 〈…〉 s of the Church, which represent the Lord unto us, not as images, but as signs & seals ordained of God to inform & strength̄ our understanding in y ^e faith. Further you give a Censure upon this, that I call the image of Christ an Idol. I know in it self it is a creature, and an idol is nothing in the world: but as the image imagined of God is an idol, and the worshippers thereof idolaters, which is proved by the first to the Romans, so the Image of Christ worshipped by you is an idol of yours, and you are idolaters for worshipping of it. As for the curse of Lady Irenes Council wherewith you threaten me, because it fleeth away like a birde, I fear it not. But I heartily wish you to fear his curse, who hath threatened idolaters w ^t that lake, that burneth as you know, frō which your • uilet of Image and Idol, & of Dulia worship & Latria worship will not be able to deliver you, but a true repentance only, & conversion from the worship of idols to the service of the true and living God, which (notwithstanding all your taunts and want of your promised Christian charity) the Lord vouchsafe to work in you by his powerful word and mighty spirit. I cannot altogether content myself, thus to have fully answered the chief matter of this article, but, you drawing me on with your taunts, I must answer to them also. For the difference of an Image and an Idol you know my answer, and I acknowledge not your difference. Couching your honors done to the creature and creator, I do not maliciously confound them: but you do unlearnedly make a distinction in words, when in deed there is none. When we teach y ^t all your worshippes are idolatrous, we offer you no wrong, neither do we therein blind our hearers, or charge you with doctrines which are not your own. For if any worship be greater then other, that you give to the cross and image of Christ: & you cannot deny this, being your plain doctrine, (as I have declared) by Thomas, by Saunders, & by Andradius so expressed, as we cannot more express it against you. Therefore we do not maintain matter of railing against the true Catholic Church, which hath always more detested all Idola ••• e, then your Church doeth or can defend it. For your repeated words, God forgive you I must conster them in the best part: but coming in the midst of other scosses, they give me occasion to note, that many offend in the uttering of them against God, whose name they take in vain, and against their neighbor, whom they curse and taunt with words that import a charitable prayer: which is to be reformed in our speech, least such sinful use of good words, increase the note of evil manners.

All these XIII articles are granted, yet your Censureshippe doeth cover the grant most carefully, as one that knows well what shame it is, plainly and openly to grant so foul absurdities. You might have provided better for your own credit, and against mine, if you had directly denied but one of them, to prove at the least one slanderous false report: for this alone would have prevailed more against me, then all your naked vauntes and undeserved sentences of disgrace. But no one being denied, what cause had you as fearing no examination of your book, and without all regard of truth to say: Thus I have answered briefly your slanderous false reports of the Iefuites doctrine? In place of an answerer you have only shown yourself a caviller, & passing by the matter, you have prop • unded to yourself new propositions from the purpose, such as you might more easily confute thē those wherewith you are charged. Therefore it appeareth, notwithstanding your Censure, that I have with seemly and fit words charged the Jesuits, that they teach blasphemies against God and his word, that they are the Popes procters in that service, and bewraye the spirit of Antichrist. Let the record of your false sentence, charging me with a lying spirit of Antichrist, with an ignorant and railing spirit, remain with the placing of your name for mine, til you have otherwise proved, that my speeches against the unclean doctrine and rebellious practices of your Jesuits, are untrue or railing. And because so clear places in the word of God, with the interpretation of the name and number of 666. agreed of by ancient fathers, and found to accord with the Latin and Hebrew words, do make Antichrist to sit at Rome, in the city builded upon seven hills, if they make it to be a Latin and Romish Church, let y ^• record stand against the Pope y ^t he is Antichrist, and against all other his instruments, for that they have the spirit of Antichrist full of all corruption. Whereas you charge me that my zeal ouerranne my wit, in reporting the former doctrines as blasphemous, it is to speak without proof, and to slander without controlment. For I must again say, that all your ignorant evil zeal, and all your wit knoweth not howe to deny any one of these XIII. articles, except you will willingly & wittingly run into a curse of the Trent Council. Therefore your bitter taunt was without cause in respect hereof, as also in respect of that y ^t followeth about a mass book. For in my conscience I am not priui • , y ^t I did at any tune cry out, or at all utter these words. A bla • phemie, findyng the blessed virgin named mother of God. Wherefore until you bring better proof of it, my religious denial shall more then weigh down your hateful affirmation, & convince you of breaking y ^t nienth commandment, by raising •• ch infamous reproaches in print against your neighbor, either upon light report of an enemy, o • upon your own imagination. I am not in this sort ouergreedie of your discredit, to whom in that general love I owe to all men, I wish in the Lord the riches and honor of true godliness, praying that you may receive the love of the truth, and be blessed as I would be blessed. But this your cause of teaching error, and laboring to root out the gospel, must more and more be brought into discredit, either to draw you to a love of y ^t truth, or to make you ashamed of such lies. If I did in deed any way hurt my cause, you love it not so well as to admonish me thereof: but I trust, y ^t Lord would provide me more faithful remēbrancers. For your next words of reproach, that we seem to have made a compact between us every man to lie his part, howe untrue are they, and howe full of reproach? To lie is a fowl sin: but to lie with consent and conspiracy that the lie may have the more force and greater credit, it is double iniquity, and further from us by the grace of God, then from any of you. If the force of truth ouerbeare you not, without God's extraordinary judgment, I look not to see you ouerborne. This thirtieth leaf of your book will afford a scantlin of your brotherly love, if any man will take the measure. Notwithstanding in the ende you please me so well, that I must thank you for your helping hand in a good work. And although you tell the tale so, that I may seem to have a fellowship in the offense, yet being free, I subscribe to your good a 〈…〉 tisement against imprinting lying 〈◊〉 , as that from Rome. For it is so great a sin, to imprint lies and r • • ore for ••• thy lucr • , and everywhere • o empty men's purses and •• ll their heads with • ables, that for such an iniquity, every such Printer 〈…〉 ueth to carry a print of his vngod 〈…〉 coueto • snesse, 〈◊〉 dishonor offered to 〈◊〉 so excellent and so profitable 〈◊〉 . Touching the purpose of him, that to persuade the all • wance, was like to aff 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 er 〈◊〉 he were a Papi •• , such as is 〈◊〉 like 〈◊〉 tell what is done at Rome, he had a 〈…〉 d to sin hi 〈…〉 of purpose; that he 〈…〉 ht lay it 〈…〉 : If it were▪ 〈◊〉 you 〈◊〉 , 〈◊◊〉 would so 〈…〉 e y ^t Pope, (which cannot be gathered by any word in all the 〈◊〉 ) it was in him a greater sin. For without lying news, there is true matter •• ough ag 〈…〉 Pope and against Rome. But if a former copy imprinted at Strasbrough gave it credit here, it was a less offense, yet a great oversight. Now what vantage do you take by that vain and lying Pamphlet: will you have all the faithful charged with the fault of one or two Printers: and for a fault so ordinary in all other like cities? your marginal notes are like the words of a crafty seller, y ^• promiseth more then the buyer can find. For your margin in a disgrasing note, promiseth to lay open lying for the game: and you have chosen two places to prove it against me. For the first of Cardinal Pooles purpose, to reform some gross things at Popery, and Stephen Gardiners answer, I appeal to many which are witnesses to me of this known and undoubted report. To prove the second lie, you do openly pervert and falsify my plain words and meaning. For in my answer I say, Papists yield in nothing, and prove it to be so. Neuertheles, I give a note that our bastard Papists in England neither true to us, nor faithful to their own side, (as since, Howlets author complaineth) would seem to b 〈…〉 ashamed of images, pardons, pray 〈…〉 ints, and service in an unknown tongue: saying they verily hold thē as wicked things: Which I spake to note their hypocrisy. But you, to show a lie for the game, lay down my words as if I had not said they would seem ashamed but as if I had directly affirmed that they confess the same things to be wicked▪ Which if I had said of some, it had been no lie: but I spake only of their dissi 〈…〉 lation. Therefore what is it for you to say, our resolution appeareth, which we have made to auonch anything, be it never so false, to blush at nothing be it never so shameful, and to invent whatsoever may serve for your purpose to entertain and 〈◊〉 the people? In this short conclusion without all cause, you have crowded up together many great words of reproach, against the greatest, and against the least of them that love the Gospel. But I have proved, who they be that 〈◊〉 the people with such lles and enticing erroutd. The Lord hath in such sort put the fear of his name, and the love of his truth into one heats, that we are free from charging out adversaries untruly, having a strong 〈…〉 way to work by, then to take away 〈◊〉 by evil, and one lie with another. God hath given us y ^• light to chase away your darkness, and the truth of his Gospel to confute your errors with all your popish traditions, Jewish ceremonies, and damnable superstitions whatsoever.

Now follow the other three partes dispatched for haste or want of matter, all three in as little room, as half the first: wherein your order again may be noted, that have filled twenty leaves of your book to Censure one leaf handled by the way in mine: and again have made show of answer to fifty leaves of mine with ten of yours. If you had kept on your proportion, of twenty for one, your Censures would have stayed a longer time, & made a larger volume.

Touching the Man.

Concerning Edmund Cam • ion although you miss not your ordinary taunts against me in place of arguments for the cause yet having spoken nothing against him but a truth, I • ra •• not your 〈◊〉 having dealt but w ^t a seditio us Jesuit, you could not well accuse me of 〈…〉 〈◊〉 think neither of his fatherhoode nor of his practice as you do▪ either to reverence the one, or defend the other. Out of my answer, you have gathered together diverse accusations laid down against him: but make nomention of the reasons whereupon those accusations were grounded: which injury you have also done me, in other places. But if the same reasons be briefly remembered, it will easily appear; that whatsoever he saith or doeth, it is to hinder the course of the Gospel, & to trouble the peace of the lande, and therefore to be taken in most evil part. For, notwithstanding your defense, if he speak humbly, having the work of pride in his heart and in his hand; he dissembleth: If he yield commendation where he hateth, it is dangerous fla 〈…〉 : If he show confidence in his weak arm, and against the Gospel that so prevaileth everywhere, he only vaunteth: If he vnla • fully offer a trial of disputation denied by his fathers, and being him self in danger of another trial. he meaneth no performance: If he protest peace against his open and known practice of commotion, he 〈…〉 dited: If he desire audienc • to open his mouth against the religion of God established, and to exalt the authority of Antichrist, whose double banne by his two 〈◊〉 and double curse hath been̄ openly denounced against this noble Realm. For answer hereunto, I leave him to them that may admit and commit him to. But here the reader may behold howe little you have to say in your Captains defense, who allow him in your book 〈…〉 more then iii. leaves of the which ii. are spent in proving a question not denied, and making much against your cause. For, proving that religion standeth with obedience to magistrates, which you tall temporal obedience, you must needs conclude that your Romish religion is no religion, because it casteth off this yoke of subjection laid upon us by the word, and bringeth in a foreign supremacy to rule and overrule all by his usurped power and most ungodly practices. Therefore, taking in hand to confute it, you have in deed confirmed my general conclusion: that Papists cannot teach or maintain the pretended Catholic religion, but they must be traitors to GOD and enemies to the State. But because you bring evil arguments to prove this good conclusion, I must examine them, and lay open that error, which is secretly and sophistically conveyed under a show of probable and true propositions. First, to prove my conclusion against God, he affirmeth Popery to be the Catholic faith, which is to crave and beg the cause, and to affirm the chiefest matter in question. Your arguments laid down at large, will make this your order of disputation more plain, and the error more sensible. Your former reason is this: whosoever calleth him an enemy to God, that mainteyneth Popery, uttereth the reproach of an unclean mouth: All professors of the Gospel so hold and so call the maynteyners of Popery, therefore all professors of the Gospel utter the reproach of an unclean mouth. In this reason the first proposition is brought, against all art, to prove and should it self be proved: it is placed first and should be placed last for the conclusion: for if he could in a true argument prove and conclude that which is only affirmed in the first assertion, the controversy were at an ende. Therefore you speak in a purpose to disgrace the truth, & not with arguments to prove your cause. Your second argument is thus framed: Whosoever speaketh against those y ^• would bring in a doctrine, contrary to the Gospel established, condemneth the former noble princes of England, y ^• Answ▪ speaketh against them: therefore the Answ. condemneth the former noble princes of England. I grant the second proposition: but the first is full of untruth. For I speak of the present estate and present practices among you: what is that to former states and former proceedings? I speak of subjects, and the Censurer doeth draw it to princes: I speak of them that dealt contrary to the settled laws, and he doth bring it as spoken against those, that made and maintained their own laws then in force. This one proposition being so false, ran make no argument, but sophistical for a show of truth, when there is nothing in it but falsehood. Also the Jesuits words have an argument intended for him in this form: what religion former princes from the conversion of the lande unto our age, have maintained, that must not be condemned: but they have maintained Popery: therefore Popery must not be condemned. The first proposition is false, for we must live by the rule of God's word, and not by the example of men, that may deceive and be deceived, as appeareth in the story of the kings of Israel and Judah. The second proposition is false like the first. For since the conquest, as I have partly shown in my answer, Edward the first, Edw. the third, Richard the second, & others did set themselves, even so long ago against y ^• tyranny of Antichrist. And which is more, our Chronicles show that before Pseudoaustens coming, our religion was free from many superstitions, which he brought in: neither did the Pope challenge any preeminence of King Lucius, nor yet was it yielded him long after. But while you plead the authority, and, as you account it, the Catholic regiment of some of those princes against me, you speak against yourself secretly, opening your heart to discover what you think of other Princes since, and namely of her Majesty's authority, and laws establishing the Gospel. This is sufficient to discover the counterfeit honor, and hearty hate to the present sovereignty. It followeth that I answer your objections to the second part of my conclusion: whether I make all Papists traitors, because they are of contrary religion to that which now standeth in force by the grace of God, and under her Majesty's blessed government. What may be said of all Papists generally, I leave it as a question, which I have not undertaken: other men have, if you will look into their reasons. But for all reconciled Papists employed with Saunders in Ireland, or entered to withdraw the people in England: such as with Campion and his fellows help forward some of the heinous attempts that come to light from day today, if I would hold my peace, themselves will bewray and confess treason against her Majesty and the estate: beside open contempt against the Lord, and the free preaching of the Gospel. Neither doeth my zeal overrun my wit, in making mention of these matters, or my malice ouerlash all reason, as you have tauntingly accused me without cause. My zeal I wish increased according to knowledge, and against all your abominable superstitions: In malice I have not dealt, but am careful to detest all corruption in the service of God. Bishop Tunstall an authentical witness, shall acquit me of this reproach, who for like Rome practices, useth more bitter and broad speeches, even against your great Cardinal, Cardinal Poole. For having charged the Pope with his pestilent malice, (so he speaketh) and Poole as his instrument, afterward he calleth the Cardinal an arrant traitor, of a devilish purpose to destroy his native country, also that he ran headlongs into hell, and was (for this Romish matter) incomparably worse then any Pagan. And will you call this hot doctrine: But to proceed, you note that religion standeth with temporal obedience. It is truly said of true religion: but Popish religion doeth take away from princes their supreme authority, making them the Popes vassalles and their people his tributaries. It warranteth all men to renounce and leave their obedience, it dispenseth with all rebellion, and pardoneth any treason to those that are reconciled for the day of execution. He that hath an eye to see, or an ear to hear, may hear and see this, and some fruits thereof, both in the land and without. Your traiterous bulls, your actual rebellion in the north, where D. Morton had the first bull, & where your Priests also said mass in the tents: Stories traiterous shift & choosing him another king, and pleading him self no subject to the Queen, whose subjection and protection he unnaturally renounced, without any cause in the world given, but abusing her Majesty's clemency: your seconde bull and seconde actual rebellion under Saunders in Ireland: the alienating & moving of the people by your opē Masses in Lākeshire & elsewhere: your other attempts which came so near the quick procured by your Jesuitical Masses of reconcilemēt: finally, Saunders book allowing and extolling these rebellions and enterprises, canonizing the Captains thereof with the title of notable Martyrdom: what are they but open and actual proofs, that there is in you a resolution to do anything you dare do, for the overthrow of the present estate: It is openly laid to your charge that your malice is so great to some alive, that you will be avenged of them, as you were in Cambridge of M. Bucer and Paulus Fagius five years after their death. Your example of the Apostles obedience to Magistrates of contrary religion, proveth nothing for you, that hold not that doctrine, neither yet follow their example. They and the faithful in the primative Church, yielded obedience to princes that believed not, and you do it not to them that believe and maintain the Gospel, as it is proved against you. The like examples follow: for the blessed Martyrs of late times did all patiently yield them selves to death, according to the doctrine which they professed, and witnessed their obedience as well to the Prince as to GOD in their grievous persecutions. In all my book there is no such general question propounded as you charge me with, that everyone of a contrary religion, must needs be an enemy to the State. I have already answered, that true religion teacheth and yieldeth obedience to magistrates: but your religion bringeth even Emperors under the subjection of the Pope, to give their attendance at his gate, and at his stirrup, wherein you withdraw from Caesar that that is Caesars, as well as otherwise you withhold from God that that is God's. The malici • us report which followeth against some of our chief Prelates (as you speak) cannot be proved: nor your repeated taunt against our spirits, which if they were as evil as you make them, being compared with your, there would be I grant, no great difference. Touching those godly and learned men, Wycliffe, Luther and Calvin, whom you charge with dangerous doctrine against Princes, I answer that the light is no clearer at No • ue, then that they taught all obedience to be due to Princes in the Lord, and that for conscience sake without any rebellion: as in their writings it remaineth, witnessed to all the world. Luther upon the fifth Commandment, noteth for the sacred authority of Magistrates, that this precept of obedience to them cometh next to the Commandment of obedience to God: adding that it teacheth us how to behave our selves toward all Magistrates, who are ordained and appointed of God. For Magistrates are comprehended under the name of Parentes, being the common Fathers of the common wealth. M. Calvin beside many other singular places of purpose handled, to set forth the sovereignty of Magistrates, hath these words in his institutions: God hath not only testified that he approveth and accepteth of Magistrates office: but hath moreover set out the dignity thereof with most honorable titles of praise, marvelously commending the same. Wherupon he citeth that, that God calleth them God's: concluding y ^• their authority is most lawful and holy, and in all the life of man, a thing of all other most honest. Moreover, having taught subjects their duty to obey Statutes, to pay tribute, to bear public charge and office: he proveth against all rebels, that if they rise against the Prince, they touch the annointed of God. Thus the glory of the Prince, is the good estate of the people: and the joy of the people, is the blessed prosperity of their Prince. I might show the like doctrine out of Wycliffe, but it needeth not, after so sufficient proofs against you for M. Luther, and M. Calvin. If on the other side they had words in the places barely quoted by you in the margent, to prove that which you charge them with, I doubt not but you would have set them down at large and in the best manner. But for the conscience, this liberty it hath, that when a law is made against God, such as your popish laws be, then the rule of the Apostle taketh place, It is better to obey God then man, which rule notwithstanding alloweth no rebellion at all, but teacheth the subject to offer himself with all lowliness to the mercy of the magistrate, either to keep a good conscience, or to witness the integrity thereof to God, and his obedience to the Prince by a patient suffering. But, if we may believe your words, you condemn y ^• doctrine that teacheth subjects not to obey the Prince for conscience sake: wherein, if it be your opinion indeed, you give a sentence of condemnation against yourself, and against all the recusants in England or fled beyond seas. But by this assertion every man may see you make no conscience of a lie, which have uttered one manifestly against your own doctrine, dispensing with rebellion by the Popes Bulls, which is also taught in your books and from time to time discovered by your practices. Where shall we build upon your words and not be deceived? when shall we think that you speak the truth from your heart: Howe shall we look for constant dealing towards us, when you are so inconstant coward yourselves: But this is that I noted against Campion: a double minded man is inconstant in all his ways. For the commotions (as you call them) in other countries, by those of the religion, it is well known that they have Edicts, Priuileges, and paciffcations to clear them from sedition: whereby also their good conscience and lawful proceedings for the advancement of religion is sufficiently avowed. Now you come to plead the innocence of the wolf, because he hath sheep's clothing, or because it is not safe for him to break into the foulde watched by diligent shepeheardes. You presume that we would not live so quietly, if the state pressed us, as you say your Catholics are pressed. Howe vnquietly you have dealt I need not so osten to repeat: how quietly we would abide in such times, our doctrine and former example of obedience doth move a better expectation th •• you will conceive. You complain without cause, but it is high time both by books and by preaching, to provoke the Prince in a zeal of God's house, to exercise justice against those, that will not be brought from their practices of rebellion to the love of the truth, no not by her exceeding mercy and rare clemency. For seeing mercy taketh no more place with them, justice is necessary both in respect of her own safety, and in respect of her people, that the blessed preaching of the Gospel may continue established to us, and to our posterity forever. I that cannot, as you say, blush for myself, blush notwithstanding for you that are so full of blood and cruelty, and yet charge our spirit as cruel and bloody. For one fire in the time of your persecutiō, consumed moe then have been executed for religiō only, & not attainted of some traiterous or fellonious intention in all the time of her Majesty's happy government, notwithstanding so many offenders and so heinous offenses of capital Idolatry. Therefore you had small cause to complain of the justice done in examining two or three of your traitorous cōfederates at the rack: for you cannot allege one for a thousand of the torments, famines, cruel and lingering deaths, wherewith our brethren have been consumed under y ^t Pope, with no less outrage, then Ne • o, Domitian or Dioclesian used against y ^• martyrs of Jesus Christ. What eyes hath the Censurer, that can note so small sufferings against his fellows, and will not detest so detestable and savage cruelty practiced by the Popish inquisition where it can lay hold: concluded also, and, when time serveth, to be put in execution against this lande by the conspiracy of Trent: In this complaint I find, that the Censurer is ready with a little help to break out even against the highest als • 〈◊〉 for he that is privy to so infinite cruelties of the Pope, doth nevertheless exercise his style to enlarge a small matter against her Majesty's justice, saying that all Christendom, did talk of the late racking and tormenting of the Priests in the Tower. If this be true, you have swift and many Curriers, that can give so general aduer •• sment in so small time as vi. or vii. weeks. To aggreue this matter, be saith they were virtuous priests: and that they were tormented for their conscience, where as he knoweth that beside their own cofession, other evidences proved them guilty of such attempts as deserved y ^t their right • oynt should have been racked. All this unjust complaint and excuse of the priests, content him not, but he addeth moreover a persuasion, that the same justice in the Tower hath cast men's hearts into a horror of such strange and unwonted dealings: whereas in very truth there was no one of them so racked, but that, howsoever their minds seemed to yield to the fear of pain, they were yet worse afraid thē hurt. For the very next Sabbath day, though to the Churchwarde they must be draw • or driven or carried between two men like obstinate b • ares to a stake: yet could they after y ^• sermō walk home upon their own legs stoutely enough and strongly as other folks. This is indeed to strain at a gnat and swallow up a camel, to complain of justice mercifully & necessarily used to two or three, and yourselves with all horrible torments to destroy great cities, and attempt the desolation of whole kingdoms. But to pass from this s • causeless and foolish complaint, which may worthily hurt your cause: I nothing fear any loss that can come to our religion by so necessary justice. As for your last note of desperation, which may come by these torcures, it is not to be feared: you are so resolved (if we may believe Campions protestation for himself and his fellow Jesuits) & have such a confidence in your cause, that there is no such fea •• : they are prepapared by the whip to endure greater things, especially in the cause you esteem so great and so worthy your sufferings. This nevertheless I may grant you, that your evil cause may more charge and rack yo •• consciences to desperation, then a thousand times more coul • d •• to the godly mart •• s, who have sound it a joyful thing, not only to believe in Christ: but also to suffer for him.

The Censurer having used a large digression, returneth to the man, & finding his defense a barren matter, doeth only deny some things which in my answer were proved against him, secondly adding a praise y ^t all the gold in England will not gilt • im: and that if he met with me in equal balance I should appear too light: which naked assertions may be sufficiently answered with a bare denial. Yet for a further answer, what is it to prove Campions quiet purpose by his own naked words, when his open practices appear to the contrary? For notwithstanding your scoff, a man seeing little into common wealths, might easily see into these matters, and know both what the Ies • ites superiors seek, and what their instruments would bring to pass in this kingdom. Let any man judge: will not the Jesuits be as faithful to their superiors as Balaam the false Prophet was unto the Lord? Balaam blessed where the Lord had blessed, and cursed where the Lord had cursed. And shall the Pope discharge he Majesty's subjects of their Liegeance, and will not Campion declare it? shall he denounce the curse against her, and will not the Jesuits subscribe thereunto: But I will not again prove y ^t which is already sufficiently proved. Your tales of the Iaponian Jesuits, are neither of credit, being written by themselves in their own praise: nor to the purpose if they be as quiet as they & you report. For either they are in the Portingales Islandes and need not, or, among the Heathenesse and dare not yet rebel. Secondly you will not seem to understand a plain speech of your Golden day, so often by the goodness of God adiourned, or as I hope, forever disappointed: but expound it as spoken only of Campion and his love of gold, the least suspicion whereof never entered into my thoughts. But you have here the seconde time delivered that hard judgment against me, with other reproaches, which I let pass. I know that notwithstanding any parishes or Parsons opinion at the balances, yet the judgment appertaineth to the Lord.

Touching the matter.

NOw the Censurer is come to the matter, as appeareth by the title of the third part, which title showeth that the rest hath been from the matter, or about circumstances not so material. This is the like art to that which hath been noted. For howe absurd is it to have spent so many leaves either from the chief purpose, or in things not so weighty, & now conclude that which he calleth the matter in 〈◊〉 seely leavēs and an half? But this is yet more absurd, coming but now to the cause it self, & giving it so small allowanc • yet thereof to speak no one word dire 〈…〉 to the question: For he was to prou •• y ^t 〈◊〉 is not inco • uement for the state to 〈…〉 te 〈◊〉 disputation against thē 〈◊〉 ▪ against the laws, & against re 〈…〉 gion, a • 〈◊〉 ar 〈…〉 challenge of a seditious Jesuit • . 〈◊〉 finding this hard to be proved, and 〈◊〉 reasons not very easy to be confuted, he 〈…〉 eth to the general question, and proveth that dis 〈…〉 tation may be sometimes granted, which proposition was never deny • . Let us th 〈…〉 fore consider what he saith still front t •• matter. I alleged the q 〈…〉 continuanc • of religion two & twenty years free from Jesuits, and from all such chalenges: this is not a good reason utterly to • eba • re all disputatiō, neither was it so all • adged, but this settled peace maketh it an inconueniēt thing, to admitts men guilty of rebellion, to dispute agayast the peace of the kingdom, and the authority of religion. Your pretensed continuance of Popery a thousand years without interruption, is clearly sound false, by many and great evidence •• but if it were true, what doth it prove: If religion were reentred into Jerusalem, and there established two & twenty years, would you think it • onuenient that Ma •• met should be admitted to dispute, because he also can plead many hundred peres prescription as well as you: Passing over the reaso •• you thought good, as that of your o ••• inate purpose not to yield, which also saketh such disputation as you 〈…〉 e, very inconvenient: You repea • e in the second place my argument of a small victory over two or three last and least in the quarrel. To this you say somewhat in 〈◊〉 , but it would prove nothing: because it is not in your power to per • ourme, or in your purpose to do it. For do you esteem yourselves such pillars of Popery, that all the Catholics in England and abroad, so long and deeply s •• led in their religion, will presently yield, if you be overcome with demonstration of the truth. Do they stand no longer then you prevail, or must they needs fall when you are over thrown? If to show y ^• truth with us, were the way to gain you, you had been gained long ago, as many thousands have been. But some have 〈◊〉 to see and will not see, they have hearts to consider, and will not understand. Ca 〈…〉 on in his challenge forgot that which you do▪ well advertise him of, concerning hi • fellows preast 〈◊〉 ready to help him, if he should come to the danger of his challenge. The third • reason against your 〈◊〉 distinctions, is 〈…〉 all this third part: for I allege • that 〈◊〉 particular distinctions of 〈…〉 learned and p 〈…〉 and 〈…〉 question, di 〈…〉 lie are profitable. If this 〈…〉 propound and ass •• le his 〈…〉 can obtain no victory but 〈…〉 and I can be but a witness of it. 〈…〉 o • s I grant▪ are generally 〈…〉 of the chiefest partes of a learned man consisteth in the knowledge how to distinguish aright. But what is this to prove all distinctions good, even those that Jesuits make only to avoid the power of truth? Simples generally are good, serving for the health of man, but what is this to prove those evil simples good, which have lost their virtue, and which an evil Apothecary may serve in place of good? for a trial of the Jesuits distinctions you refer me to their disputation: but I may have a sufficient trial of them and of their disputation before hand in this your book, if there were no other proof to justify my report. As you would bring your quilits into credit, so you labor to bring my arguments and interpretations into discredit, as lying and false: but in a good conscience, and according to the truth, I have avowed them true and good, as will easily appear to the indifferent reader. You that before made me much inferior to Edmund Campion, now make me inferior to thousands of the Jesuits scholars. Whatsoever I am to the meanest of them, the Lord, I trust, will enable me to maintain his truth, even against Campion your great champion; to say nothing of his disciples. I confess your distinctions offend 〈…〉 as being full of 〈…〉 ltie, and sometimes so dark and unlearned, that there appeareth neither good cause nor good use of them: yet you take it to heart that I should account them unlearned and peruish. As for the accusatiō of Jude against the despisers of good 〈◊〉 ses, it was corrupcly brought against me for rejecting your sophistical devises against the truth: for proof whereof I refer me to these your distinctions chosen out of many for your purpose, which, one excepted, are all unlearned and peevish, serving to put darkness for 〈…〉 ght, and •• ol • try in place of God's service. For, as they that distinguish not, where the word hath distinguished, may soon fall into schism and heresy: so also you in distinguishing where the word admitteth no distinction, do offend in like • or • , and with no less danger. There is you lay, clear difference between an Idol and an image. Surely this is somewhat that you say: for an idol is the image of the superstitious Gentiles, and an image is the 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 named Christians▪ There is I grant, a clear difference in the letters, but no difference at all in the word, no more then is between Omnipotent and Almighty. For (to pass by Phauorine, Hesychius and some places in Plutarch, who all make these two words of one signification) Plato maketh the matter most evident, who moving a question what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be, maketh this answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is manifest we will make answer that those things are idols, which are seen in water and in looking glasses, and those moreover that are painted or set out in types or portratures, & other things of this sort whatsoever. By these words of Plato the Censurer may learn that any image carved, painted, represented by a glass or seen in water, is among the Grecians, where the word is in his own country and proper use, called an Idol. Tully moreover who could as well judge of the Greek word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and of the Latin word image as the Censurer, be in his translatiō maketh them one. Lastly to return to the holy Scriptures, God in the second Commandment, forbiddeth both the making and worshipping of an Image to represent the true God, or any of the false God's. Thus much to she we your unlearned and most untrue distinction between an Image and an Idol, which you and your fellows repeat so often and urge so much. You do it to uphold Idols under a more honest title of Images (as you suppose) but as they differ not in name, so in nature they are all one, even stumbling blocks of offense, the worshippers whereof are open idolaters. I am taught by the word of GOD, that there were material and are still spiritual sacrifices in the Church: but for sin I read y ^• there is no sacrifice without blood. So that your second distinction of bloody and unbloody sacrifices is plainly against scripture: Justice by faith we acknowledge: but merit by works is proved to be against the word. So the mediation of Christ is according to faith, but your intercession of saints against the scripture. For who is more merciful then the Lord that he may save: or who more ready to hear us, that he may be the Lord's remembrance • : faith that believeth the promise, and hope that patiently waiteth for the issue of faith we acknowledge, and the distinction I have laid down in the ninth article. Your counterfeit traditions of men and of the Apostles, are all without warrant in the causes necessary to salvation. But why have you left out the distinction of the two worshippings, Latria to God, and Dulia to images? Is it left out because we condenine it, and you now allow no more of it: All these distinctions are most dangerous, when you will with some distinction or change of a name, retain still the same iniquity, forging such wicked devises of man, to disannul the truth of God. Therefore they are but your untrue assertions and vain brags, that you distinguish things into their proper natures, that you can prove eche part of your distinction consonant to the word of God: that when you have so distinguished, we have no more to say: that we bewray our ignorance, and finally that the truth is made manifest to every man's eyes. When any one of these five definitive sentences is proved true, I will acknowledge the rest. I much marvel that in such vanting speech, you would not set down one true assertion of so many. But you care not what you say to reproach the godly, making account that your own side will take it in good part, be it never so untrue, never so reproachful. The fourth argument touching the liberty of your pen, I have answered already: but I answer further, you may have it without print: and if that will not content you, there are printes enough nearer hand beyond seas where you are, if we may believe you so often affirming it. The danger & persecution you speak of, is a fruit of your murmuring spirits, complaining without a cause. For you go safely away w ^t many matters: & as much as you cōplain against us openly, as intercepting all your books & other Popish stuff, I think you do much more brag among yourselves of many escapes. But if you had as many prints as you can set a work, what can you of lesser gifts write, that the most learned of your side have not written long ago, as Ecchius, Pighius, Hosius: and which now Turrianus, Andradius, doenot furboish in a vain hope, at last to make an ende of Sifyphus labor. What issue all these have had of coursing & discoursing again, the questious between you and us, we may consider it with great joy of heart, & you in this kingdom and in our neighbor kingdoms may behold it with vexatiō of spirit. Therefore notwithstanding your brags before you come to the trial, and that you tell us, misusing the place, in the forehead of your book of the fire in the moūtame, yet we fear no more to encountre with you then they that see their enemies without armoure, or overthrown before they come to give them the charge.

Lastly you like not my opinion, that only the Scriptures should be admitted for judges in disputation. But the opinion is good, and the practice needful, seeing the holy scripture is the only touchstone to make trial, and the only judge to give sentence in all questions appertaining to the doctrine of faith and salvation. Howe reverently I think of the chief councils of the fathers and doctors, and what profit I acknowledge to come by their great labor, it was declared in my answer. But you evermore omit that which maketh not for your purpose, where in you take an evil but yet a ready way to condemn a good cause. Notwithstanding to determine controversies in judgment of religion, I admit them no seat: but refuse them all not only with one breath, but with this one short sentence: The rule is not overruled. You should have proved that the doctors and councils have not places contrary one to another, and sometimes contrary to themselves: If you had cleared them of this war among themselves, you had made them somewhat fitter to make peace amongst us. In affirming that I say some of the fathers are condemned of forgery, you do manifestly pervert my plain words: for I spake of the places, and you draw it to the persons. It is one thing to say some places in Agustine are forged, and another to say Agustine him self is forged. Now that places in Agustine are forged, and namely many of his short sermans to the brethren in the wilderness, it appeareth by the judgment of Erasinus, and by the notes of bastardy set down in your own editions. Cyprians places are also acknowledged by yourselves, especially that notorious book of the revelation of John Baptists head, where Cyprian maketh mention of king Pipin that lived five hundred years after that Cyprian was dead▪ But I need not to allege anymore, you will not deny but there are many. Now there followeth a comparison, that you ground your belief only upon the word of God, and make it the only object of faith more thē we do. Your reports here, and in the ninth place confirmed 〈◊〉 an oath, can have no credit against your known doctrine and dealings to the contrary. For do you not in this very question, plead the authority of men, as the warrant whereby we receive the Scriptures? Do you not deny that we are saved by faith only? Howe then do you build your belief only upon the word of God? or make that the only object of faith, more then we do?

In the words following you keep on your course, proving that which is granted, and affirming that which should be proved. I did grant that Councils, Fathers and stories yield profitable helps to show the estate of the Church from time to time, and also for the better understanding of the word of God: yet this is that which you make y ^• questiō as denied by me, and to be proved by you. After this strange order of disputation, you might as fitly in form, and more truly in matter, prove your doctrine blasphemous, and your practices full of rebellion. If you would prove this, it were a true proposition, but no confutation of that I say affirming the same. So in proving that doctors bring great helps to learning, you prove a truth, but not in any overthrow of my answer: For I have acknowledged as much. The questiō in deed is, whether Councils and Fathers be judges to give sentence in controversies, and rules to over rule interpretations: to the proof whereof you should have tied yourself: but without any further proof you affirm it, as a clear matter and altogether out of dout. Is this that disputation which you so boast of, to prove that is granted, and to leave that without proof which is in question? I shall not escape the note of audacity, If upon your Censures false report, I shall be thought to deny that which I do most manifestly anouch. But this note of audacious boldness cleaveth to you, who blush not to say, that the authority of Scriptures dependeth upon the testimony and allowance of men: and that otherwise, we know not which is the word of God and which not. As many as hold this opinion had never their ears bored, nor their hearts opened by the Spirit of GOD, to hear and see more then the bare letter, they never felt the life and spirit thereof, which is the holy spirit of God, not only bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the sounes of God, but also that the holy scriptures, are the word of God, and his power to salvation: that they are also the rule which should rule all, and not be overruled of any. Neither have those disciples of the word, humbled them selves at the footstool of the Lord, to behold his absolute perfection in all his ways, especially in the full revelation of his will to the sons of men by his holy scriptures: neither have they considered y ^• vanity of vanities, & y ^• infinite hardness of heart and corruption of judgment which is in all flesh. This humility would confirm them in the faith of that saying, no man knoweth the things of God, but the spirit of God. This Spirit leadeth us into all truth, to know it and to prove it, and to be comforted thereby, not in the judgment or after the sense of man, but according to the work of God opening our hearts, and sanctifying our understanding, so that the work and judgment is of the spirit according to the word of God. Herein also standeth an answer to your seconde assertion, that by the fathers we know which is the right meaning of the word of God, for as the authority of the word is confirmed by the spirit, so are the interpretations thereof also. As man is not the author, so he is not the interpreter of the word of God, otherwise then by the authority of the word it self. This saint Peter proveth, making it a reason why no Scripture is of a private interpretation, because it came not from man: but the holy men of God spake as they were moved and carried with the holy Ghost: so that the holy Ghost doeth deliver, and warrant, and interpret unto us the holy word of God, expounding scripture by scriptures, and not leaving this high office to men, otherwise then to ministers containing themselves within the faithful service of their charge in their written and authentical commission. And you dare not say (who dare say much) y ^• an interpretation is true, because an ancient father hath it, but because he hath it according to a truth, and the truth according to the word. Jerome is a notable father of singular gifts, but, to pass over other places, I verily think you would censure him, for his interpretations upon the eleventh verse, of the seconde chapter to the Galatians: and upon the sixth verse of the third chapter, I write them not down because I am desirous to cover such blemishes, among other excellent gifts. Whether the visible Catholic Church may err or no, which must be considered in the particular members and doctrine thereof, I will for a trial admit the example of your Church, but not the present testimony. Their example doeth testify y ^• Apostasy, which their testimony will not acknowledge, though they should do it to justify the prophecies that were delivered of it before, and are now made so clear as nothing may be more. To your manifold examples brought to prove that heretics cleave to the scripture: I answer first, y ^• heretics also cleave to traditions & ordinances received by word of mouth, as appeareth by the complaint of Irenaeus against them. Secondly the Scripture is the word of God in his manifest sense and construction of truth and life, and not according to the naked letter, whereunto, I grant the heretics did peeuishly stick, as you also do, where it maketh for your purpose. The philosophical proofs which some have made, asyou say, for the wonderful mystery of Christ's two natures and willes, prove not so much for philosophy, as you would infer thereby: for without philosophy the scripture hath sufficient proofs for that necessary doctrine, as hath been declared. But by the way, where is your judgment in this assertion? debate the matter with yourself, and you shall find howe impossible it is for natural philosophy to determine the supernatural mysteries of the unity of God and man, & of two natures and willes in one person Jesus Christ, which was a work of God as great as the creation of the world. Notwithstanding I have acknowledged, that philosophy being corrected and sanctified by the word, may also be some help to heavenly wisdom, but without it the word is sufficient, to open all the counsel of God which appertaineth unto us.

Thus we take not away (as you charge us) y ^• use of Couneils, Fathers, & other like helps, because of an abuse y ^• may be, but stand against them, y ^• under some use thereof would bring in and cōfirm the 〈◊〉 . Therefore how doth the Censurer both accuse without conscience, and give sentence without judgment? who doth deprive you of these helps? Who doth call you to the bare letter? How often am I enforced to repeat one thing to answer the same slander? As Councils and Doctors or Philosophy may help, we allow them and use them: as Judges we admit them not: and although we answer you to them when they are alleged, yet know, that it is of that measure that is pressed down and floweth over, we are not bound unto it with any condition. But what reasons are these that follow in the Censure? Eche man may deny the Scripture to be Scripture, or wrangle at pleasure upon the sense, therefore we must admit Councils, Doctors, and Philosophy. This argument is very unlearned and peremptori • against the majesty of God's word: A wicked man may wickedly take exceptions against it, therefore it is not sufficient: he • may deny or wrangle upon the sense, therefore we must leave the certain touchstone of God, and be tried by the uncertain conjectures of men. If the Jesuit had not abandoned all worldly commodities, as not caring for the good blessings of God in this behalf, I might easily confute this reason by one drawn from a less assurance, and less importance. An enemy may deny the Censurers evidences of land; or wrangle upon the sense of the words, therefore he must not stand upon them, but seek other testimonies to maintain his title. But if these helps or (as you mean) if the authority of men be taken away, it is as much as to say, controversies in religion shall never be ended. Wherein again you make this weak and wicked argument: if controversies in religion be ever ended, it must not be by the Scriptures only, but by Councils, Doctors and Philosophy. This is therefore the effect of your Censure and definitive sentence in this matter: that which God cannot do by his word, men may by their writings: that which God cannot determine by his truth, men may ende and conclude by their lies. And further to examine this your bold and dangerous conclusion, into what a sea do you drowe us, calling us to pass by the examination and judgment of so many, so large; so doubtful and so contrary writers? If the word be dark, are not the Fathers darker? If the Scriptures be doubtful, are not men's writings infinitely more doubtful? If any heretic or wicked man dare wrest the holy scriptures of God, withe not much more dare to pervert, to deny, and to tread underfoot the writings of a mortal man? It came from the deepest bottom of the Sea, to draw men from the certainty & safety of God's word, to the danger and vncerteinty of men's judgment. Concerning the heresies you mention, as Trinitaries in Transiluania, Anabaptists in Poland, Adamites in Germany, I pray God wheresoever these or any other heresies be taught, that they may be utterly rooted out, together with all other weeds that grow up of their own accord, wheresoever the Plowe is neglected. For Hu 〈…〉 〈◊◊〉 me, for anything I know in substance of Religion, also for Calvinists in France, I answer, they are no heretics, 〈…〉 rie these names, but by your 〈…〉 speech, that, to bring the Gospel of God into contempt, would make it to be thought the doctrine of those men, whom the Lord raised up as notable instruments to publish it in their time, and as singular lights to chase away the mist, which you had brought in, in all places of your dark and sinful kingdom. How far we differ from Lutherans in some points, you are not the fittest man to whom I may make complaint. But howsoever you have added your mark in the margent, Note this, yet the Scripture is no cause of this disagreement. Under the name of Caluanistes you charge the Estate of this land with heresy: for albeit we receive not the name, neither build our faith upon the doctrine of any mā, yet the Estate maynteyneth the doctrine which under that name you call heresy. But you would only seem to lay that reproach upon France. In England you say there are Puritans & the Family of love. What an high and deep slander is this to all the godly in this kingdom from the prince to the meanest person professing the religion: your Catholics excepted, are all in England either to be charged with the odious name of Puritans, or with the most execrable abominations of the Family of love: What would not this your spirit attempt in the abundance of your heart, if you durst as well come to open action, as you dare cast out these open and intolerable flaunders against all the godly 〈1 page missing〉 entered. We all hold the same doctrine of faith, published and maintained according to the word of God: we come to the same felloweship and communion in the exercises of religion, and join all in the same defense of God's holy Gospel, yea we all, though not in the same measure, seek the reformatiō of that, that at the Lord's time shall be reformed to a further growth and beauty in the body of Jesus Christ, which is the Church. Therefore notwithstanding your slander, upon examination it will appear, that those in England, which are slandered with the name of detestable Heretics, are far from the heresy, & most ready to condemn it, or whatsoever is contrary to the public doctrine of faith, maintained by the present Laws of the lande, which doctrine is pure and holy, and agreeable to the most holy word of God, which the Lord continue for his names sake with peace upon Israel. But to return to the Censurer, he addeth a manifest untruth, saying that all the former heresies join against the Romish Church, in receiving the scripture only. To wade no further, the family of love, which you cite, are against you, who have their several Gospel of the kingdom, they build upon the cursed & thrice cursed books of H.N. also they scorn the scripture learned, and in their love to you, acknowledge y ^e ministry of y ^• word to come frō the Pope. Therefore they do neither cleave only to y ^• scriptures, nor live in such mislike of your superstitions. Now for the matter, if your argument be good: Heretics cleave to the word only, therefore it is naught: you may as well conclude, that we must not allege the Scriptures at all, because they allege them: we must not dispute at all because they dispute: which conclusions are all absurd. For heretics eat and drink, they clothe them selves, all which are lawful for all men to do: therefore not whatsoever they do, but whatsoever they do as heretics, that is a mark of heresy. Furthermore to prove wants in the word of God, you demand howe it cometh to pass that the Scripture doeth not ende controversies among heretics. I answer they are in the fault, as you also like heretics are by resisting the truth: the word is not to be charged with any want. But let me move the like question, and have your Censure touching the doubt. You that have the Scriptures, the Councils, the Fathers: you that have Philosophy moreover, and stories, and which is most of all, the Popes breast and the fullness of the spirit you brag off: howe cometh it to pass that you have not yet compounded your trouble some and long controversy, whether the virgin Marie was conceived without original sin or no: If the evidences you so stand upon cannot in so long time ende so small a matter, what will they be able to prove in the great questions of salvation: Agayne hedemaūdeath how such heresies can be, if y ^• truth be so clear. For trial of the truth & a manifest proof what power there is in God's word, there must be heresies and schisms: and God hath always suffered false prophets & teachers for a just punishment of those that love not the truth: nevertheless the Scripture is clear and plain, where God giveth an ear to hear, and a heart to understand: if it be hidden, it is hidden to them that are lost. But you that once or twice beat at me, as one whose zeal ran before his wit, stay yourself. Do you y ^• make no conscience to diminish the authority of the word of God, cry out against us, if we refuse the determination of men: will you that have already in diverse plates pleaded against y ^• sufficiency of Scriptures, now plead for Philosophy, Doctors and Councils, as able to end all controversies & ratify your title: If we call you only to the word, not the bare word, but adorned and richly attired with all fullness of light and truth, the clearest interpreter of it self, do we in calling you hither, deprive you of your evidences and witnesses, seeking thereby to set you together by the • ares for the title? I know no evidences but the word, no witnesses but the holy Prophets and Apostles: if your kingdom cannot justify it self by these evidences and witnesses, let her be condemned by them forever. Your beadroule of fathers naming heretics y ^• abused y ^• Scriptures, I took not the tale of them, they are brought in as unnecessary witnesses of a matter already answered, & not in question. Lastly you conclude, that we draw in one line with the most cursed heretics, and you make them our progenitors, because we appeal to the word of God, as the only teacher and judge in causes of religion. If this be a fault, let it be required at our hand: if it be your horrible slander against the word and against the Saints of God, for giving due honor thereunto, y ^• Lord require it at your hands in the defense of his own glory.

Touching Christian Franken.

TOuching Christian Franken, which is the last of your four partes, it appeareth he hath used a true report against the Jesuits, because (as he assured him self before hand) yet no man hath denied the idolatries, the superstitious and heathenish exercises, wherewith he doth so plainly charge them. As for the first part of your answer hereunto, it standeth altogether upon false arguments, as that, He departeth from the sect of Jesuits, therefore he is an apostata: He discovereth their wicked superstition, therefore he reuileth all catholic religion: Agustine confesseth that he knew none worse then they that fell in Monastical life, while he lived, therefore Frankē must be one of them. All these conclusions are barely affirmed without proof: & therefore may be truly denied without any further answer. Notwithstanding, it is to be noted, that again you find no fitter taunt against M. Luther and John Bale, then to call them Friers: and therefore you repeat the matter. True it is they were Friers, but forgive them that fault, seeing they did cast away their habit, and kept a better course. An other reproach followeth in charging us plainly with coining the news of Rome, and with suspicion to have coined Frankens Dialogue: whereunto I answer if we have not coined, you have, And as for Augustines place, it maketh for him against whom it is alleged, and against them in whose defense you bring it. For if in Augustine's time with some good, this Monastical life brought forth others so evil that none were worse, and hath declined ever since, it was time for Franken to come out from the midst of you. If so long ago, & in such purity of the Church, as was in Augustine's time, the Monasteries did bring forth y ^• worst men of all others, what did y ^• Cloisters foster afterwards: Your other place of Agustine to prove it a great fault, to reproach many for one or two, I grant to be true, but for your purpose falsely alleged, because it is not one or two of you, or so few as one or two hundred which are accused of superstition & hypocrisy, but y ^• accusation is against you all, for you apparel idolatry with the name of devotion, you nourish ambitiō under a Friers weed, and seek an empire under a Priests gaberdine, you exercise a Wolves ravening cruelty under Sheepes clothing, Treason is conscience among you, and a just execution is made a glorious martyrdom. These are the diseases that have infected the heart, and spread them selves as a leprosy, throughout all the body of your unholy orders and irreligious men. So that we blame not many for a few, but cannot find a few to hope well of, in so great & diverse swarms. This is not my complaint as you know, or of this time alone, but the complaint of many and long ago. Therefore in drawing Saint Augustine's words to condemn me as insulting against Christ and his religion, for the fall of someone religious man, is to draw him against his will, to condemn one for another, as was noted before.

Your seconde exception to Frankens dialogue is taken, because in your opinion, he applieth good things in the society to evil purposes, by which practice you have well noted that any good thing in religion or policy may be depraved. This practice you should have proved in Franken, so y ^• exception had been good: but you affirm it only, as a man whose word must be taken for a proof, & his opinion for an oracle. What Franken hath written you see, what he can write to a further accusation of the Jesuits life I know not: I think it was his mind to pass by personal matters, and to note only the corruptions and superstitions of their orders and doctrine: for which cause also he was alleged. Your bitter taunts against our ministry as loose, are accusations reaching to him that will not be pacified for the sin, with all your unbloody sacrifices. The ignorant and unfit ministers we defend not, or any that may among so many be justly accused of looseness: but the godly preachers receive the testimony of learning and godly life, even their enemies being made judges. Whereas you find a place in the dialogue to commend Jesuits for great labor, divine meditations, chastising of the flesh and such like, I answer there is an use and abuse in some of these actions: you are charged with the abuse. The rest, as your whip and voluntary abandoning of God's blessings, both are superstitions, as was noted before in a fitter place. You remember who complaineth, that of all iniust men, they are most iniust, which when they do most deceive, and greatest harm, they do it notwithstanding that they may be esteemed good men. Again, wherein you have a singular grace, you taunt us as that we cannot well be charged with such faults as you count virtues in the Jesuits. True it is we wish not to be charged with the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees, but seek a righteousness that may exceed it, such as standeth in the sincerity of a good conscience according to godliness.

The third and last exception is against Frankens conversion, as not strong to prove anything, seeing you can press us with many examples for one, which is your frank and bold assertion. But if you cannot truly allege a man for a city, or a town for a kingdom, this is a note who it is that in deed dare venture upon any assertion, though all the world see the vanity and untruth thereof. In place of many, two examples are brought in with their pretended reasons. But first you give sentence before the trial, that Franken departed from us upon a fancy, and your fellows upon great reasons and invincible proofs. For Franken I answer, though I know he be not throwly cleansed from the dregs of Popery, but carrieth some corruption that hath infected the heart, (which you have not at all blamed him for) yet his reasons of departure were such as enforced him thereunto, being otherwise superstitiously addicted and desirous to continue. Of your two men I can say nothing, I know not what root they had takē, that were so soon withered. But you that condemned me without cause, as blaming all your Catholics for the fault of one, abusing a sentence out of Agustine against me for that purpose, what is it that yourself now bring in two runnagates to the slander of all, that constantly remain in the truth: must it be no fault in you that was made so heinous in me: There are belike some indulgences from the pope, that what you do shall be no fault, and what you say shall be no lie.

To come to your two rumiagates Xilander and Flaschius, albeit you auowe their proofs of running out, to be great and invincible: yet they are in deed so insufficient, that they have plainly condemned thē selves by y ^• apology, wherein they seek to be justified: & may soon find better arguments why to return, if their true repentance did opē a door for their reentrie.

1 For what reason is the first, that Xilander giveth? The Catholics have endured these fifteen hundred years in concord of one doctrine, and 16▪ sects have sprong of Luther within these sixty years, therefore he departeth to you: First this reason standeth upon two false, and often confuted assumptions: For neither hath the Popish Church endured so long, nor so many sects so lately grown up of Luther. Secondly, though the assumptions were true, yet the argument doth not follow. For if antiquity might prove a Church, the Jews would make a great claim to the title: If sects springing up, prove no Church, what shall we say to the Churches of God at Corinth and in Galatia: Xilander did but salute our religion as passing by, that had no better reason of his falling away then this, so often and so many ways confuced.

His seconde reason that moved him to leave our religion for Popery, is succession of Bishops in the Popish Church, from Christ till now, which some Fathers make a great reason. Surely those fathers knew some good by the bishops that had been before their time, but they could not judge of the Apostasy of these that came after to occupy that Chair. Again those fathers esteemed not so much a Succession of persons, as the succession of doctrine, which is far from the bishops of Rome, that teach many things against the word, and against the practice of the Primatiue and true Apostol 〈…〉 Church, as hath been declared. But 〈◊〉 Xilander that maketh this. S • ccession a 〈◊〉 able motive (as you speak) moving him to roca •• , did he consider the xxvi. granted. Schisms when one Pope cursed and p • osecuted another, to the horrible sta •• ght •• of all sortes of people in that City▪ Did he note your two Popes, & two P 〈…〉 s together at 〈◊〉 time, yea sometime three, sometime four Popes, who 〈◊〉 the Chatre sometime at Rome, sometime at 〈◊〉 , sometime in other places. Did he ever consider, that they which 〈◊〉 the story of these men, cannot agree either in the number, nor in the succession of these your Popes: Any one of all these, or of many other matters written by yourselves, being well considered, might have been a weighty cause to keep him from that fall. For these bishops, many of them succeeded with such wicked conditions, and for so wicked purposes, that their succession may show out matter to prove them rather the race of Antichrist, and the spirit of fornications, which long ago began to work the mystery of iniquity: but hath now made up all the measures thereof, so that the prophesy is fulfilled, that Antichrist in the succession of his ministers exalteth him self against all that is called God, or is worshipped, and sitteth in the Temple boasting him self that he i • God. This is that succession of Antichrist, which is glorious in the eyes of flesh and blood, and therefore made Woodeman depart from Christ, whom whosoever will follow, must every day take up his Cross and follow him.

3 As for his third reason of miracles in the Popish Church, I leave it as very false & insufficient. Notwithstanding some I grant will believe if a man come from the dead which will not believe Moses and the Prophets. The kingdom and Church of Christ was planted in the power of doctrine and miracles, and also by the power of the holy Ghost, while Christ and his Apostles lived. Now it is against faith, if any look for miracles to confirm the Gospel again, which is already so confirmed, that an Angel from heaven or any miracle worker persuading otherwise, must be accürsed. By miracles it is an easy thing to deceive and be deceived, seeing Satan to that purpose changeth himself into an Angel of light. Such were many of the lying miracles not only printed from Rome, but received and registered at Rome, and thrust upon men's consciences to believe, being matters that might easily draw them headlonges into all error and idolatry, as was prophesied of this kingdom of Antichrist, and hath no we appeared by the lamentable effect. Therefore his third reason was to weak to have drawn him frō the Church of Christ, if he had been tied to it but with one bande of love, to the truth and power of doctrine.

4 Xilanders fourth reason dath hu ••• e up and confound many reasons: As that he was moved with the authority of the universal, of the visible, and of the Catholic Church: where like a good plain dealer, he left out that which he found not in the Romish Church, namely holiness. And what are all the rest without this holiness: Again of those three notes that moved his falling off, two are all one in word and sense. For the word universal, and the word Catholic, are as these two words, Wodeman and Xilander, which do not signify two, but one and the same thing. That the Church of God must always have a visible and glorious Majesty upon the earth, is not yet proved. Also that the Church of Rome was never Catholic or universal, as it pretendeth, the Churches of y ^• East, while they flourished, & the Greek Churches, such as remain at this day, do make sufficient proof. Again we receive the Scriptures from God, he by inspiration hath given them, and hath always kept them in his ark, and the Philistines could not keep the Ark from us. The pretended victory over heresies must be proved, before it be admitted for a reason. I grant the Romish Church hath had a victory and a triumph in outward show over many thousand Saints, most cruelly murdered for the truth. But over heresies it triumphed not, but in the time of her chastity before the Lord had given her a bill of divorce: after which time she embrewed her self in the blood of the Saints and became the mother of all fornications. With his other reasons he linketh Saint Augustine's saying, so often misalleadged to prove the authority of the Church above the Scriptures: that he would not believe the Gospel, but only upon the Churches authority. By these words his mind was not to determine which had greater authority, the Church or the Scriptures: but to declare against the Manichees, in his own practice what brought him first to esteem the word at his conversion from in •• de • tie. The authority and consent of the Church, may in such a case persuade one to receive the word, which being received, is of it self found to be greater then that which first per ••• ded. Thus of many reasons heaped up together in y ^• fourth place, there is not found one good. The Romish Church was never vniuerfall or Catholic, but particular, and of • ne • erritorie though by vsurpatio • it enlarged her self by little and little: and the visiblenes thereof is nothing, for the true Church of the elect is in • isible. Moreover (as I declared) it never triumphed over heretics, it hath not any peculiar custody of the Scriptures, neither dorth the authority of the Gospel depend upon hir ratification, being authentical of it self. Therefore all these reasons and put them together, could not open the least door for his departure, if he had ever been placed within the Church.

5 The fifth reason is that the Romish Church is the true Church, because many that lived there, are now Saints in heaven, and namely Dominic and Francis, as Xilander doeth imagine. I say as before, there was a time when Ephraim spake, & there was trembling, he exalted him self in Israel, but he hath sinned in Baal and is dead. Nevertheless▪ seeing Xilander went so far for a fifth reason, let us examine what he hath brought. There is no doubt saith he, but Domini • , Fra • ncis, and others are Saints in heaven, therefore it cannot be that they lived in error. Who hath made it out of doubt to us that they are in heaven, seeing there are writ 〈…〉 many 〈…〉 dent lies and blasphemies of them▪ in the Legenda, and that most detestable Alcaron called the book of confo 〈…〉 ? who will believe that Dominic raised the dead which you teach: Who can hear or read those your blasphemies in making Friar Francis another Jesus in type and figure, matching him w ^t Christ frō point to point, and his miracles with Christ's miracles. If the Censurer had not men • ioned Francis the Friar among his saints, it might have been hoped the Jesuits would refourme that book, or rather condemn it to the pit of hell. But to return to Xilanders argument, it is a very bad one, proving the lesser doubt by the greater. For it is not so great a doubt, what those famous Friars taught, as whether they be in heaven. Nevertheless if it were out of doubt they are in heaven, yet the argument doeth not necessarily follow. For many are in heaven that have lived in error, because the rich mercy of God doth as well pardon error to him that repenteth, as other iniquities. No man will take this for a good argument: one • f the two that were crucified with Christ is now in heaven, therefore he was no thief, therefore he lived not in error: yet such altogether is the fifth motive that moved Xilander to go to Rome in hope perhaps to be a Saint.

6 To the sixth reason which maketh the Papists reverent in their words, and the other side railing, blasphemous and dishonest in their speeches and writings, I answer with Solomon's words: he that justifieth the wicked, and he that coudemueth the innocent, are both an abomination before the Lord. This reason is repeated in the next, and is there further answered.

7 The seventh reason hath nothing in praise of the Papists as the former had: but is altogether a repetition of that which was said against the godly, as railing and misreporting their adversaries. Wherein for proof against this slander, I appeal to the places of the Censure alleged against Martin Luther, and charging him with most foul opinions, such as after his conversion he never maintained in word or deed, which his practice proved while he yet lived: and his writings do testify now after his death. Doctor Watson also may make a trial of this matter against you, who in a sermon before Queen Marie, charged no small men as he saith, but our great bishops, to say that every man and woman, might at the Lord's table, take bread and bless it (which he calleth tonsecration) and speak the words of the institution, as well as the minister. Notwithstanding here I am to advertise the reader, that Papists misreport thē selves now saying and at another time denying the same, as appeared in many of the XIII. articles by y ^• Censurers own practice. For when the Jesuits are truly charged, he will not grant that which is truly avouched against them, but changing the question will seem to say less then they teach. For one example they are charged to commit idolatry in worshipping images: the Censurer will seem to deny this, saying, they give no worship to the image but to God: this distinction is not good: and further more the assertion is false. For it hath been proved that they give worship to the very image of Christ: and, which is more, that they give y ^• greatest worship of Christ him self to his picture. Therefore all men are to consider this both for our defense, & to avoid the error that may come by their deceits. For in the field, where they stand in fear of the adversary, and in their persuasions, when they would win a proselyte, the pretended Catholics will not lie open, but cloke a great part of their shameful doctrine: which is their subtlety to draw away disciples, and to leave less advantage to their enemies. Therefore to a man not acquainted with their double dealing we may seem to report them otherwise, then they hold in disputation, when notwithstanding we report them no other wise then they openly teache in their kingdom, and publish in their writings. Wherefore I may conclude that this reason was grounded upon a manifest untruth: Xilander judged of Judas by the kiss, not by the treason.

8 Lastly for a reason we are falsely charged to esteem all our auncesters damned: to break their willes, and convert to profane uses, that which they gave to maintain idle Monks and Friers, and to redeem them by masses out of purgatory. Whatsoever he thought in him self, or imagined in others, we think not our ancesters damned: but leave judgment to the Lord, to whom the judgment of life and death doth belong: not searching out his secret counsels which are unsearchable. As for the ornaments which they bestowed, not upon the service of God, to the instruction of their souls, by the preaching and ministry of the Gospel, but upon the great harlot and to the enlargement of her kingdom, they are brought home again to better uses: and I think many of your best friends will hold and enjoy them as better bestowed.

Your seconde man, cometh ready furnished to your hand out of the former book of Lindan. But because you promise not to deliver the same reasons that were touched before, let us see how faithfully you keep art and promise. Flaschius first reason is the same that Xilanders seventh: where they say we report the papists to teach that they teach not. Also his third is but a particular of that which the other man did generally avouch in y ^• sixth against y ^e godly as using dishonest speech.

To speak of them particularly, Flaschius his first reason is, that your Catholics teach clean contrary to that which we report of them. We report them to teach, that the Pope is supreme head of the Church, do they teach the clean contrary? we charge them to ascribe some merit to works, do they teach clean contrary? Again we charge them that they auowe transubstantiation, do they teach no such thing: We moreover challenge them for giving worship to images, do they teach the contrary doctrine? we accuse them for denying the sufficiency of scriptures, do they make them sufficient? 〈1 page missing〉 I might bring infinite such examples, but these may be sufficient to show how Flaschius stūbled at his first going out at the gace.

2 The second reason is drawn from Luther's mind in writing against y ^t Romish Church, of en • y, as the rūnagate doth suppose. How is this proved out of any place quoted for a show of proof: Agayne, if it were proved that envy made M. Luther write against Popery, how doth the runnagates reason follow: The preacher preacheth of envy, therefore his doctrine is to be forsaken: The Physician useth his art for covetousness, therefore his counsel is to be despised. If Flaschius had learned what the place of S. Paul meant where he saith, he was glad & rejoiced that Christ was preached, either upon envy or contention, either for fashion sake, or in sincerity howsoever, it might have been a counterpoyson, against y ^• disease of this second imaginatiō.

3 His third reason against M. Luther for great dishonesty & scurrility of speech in his writings, is another • launder in effect all one w ^t the seconde, and there answered. You say this bad fellow was a • reacher, surely thē he came in by a wrong way, & went out by a right door, y ^t never had any sound knowledge of the truth, or if he had any, he first put back a good conscience, & thē made ship wrack of faith & knowledge.

4 Fourthly, it is but • laūderously laid to our charge y ^t we do easily reject any book or piece of Scripture: for we admit as the word of God, all y ^• books & partes contained in y ^t ancient & autenticall Canon of y ^• Jews, & with our adversaries all the New Testament, neither do we use or suffer the least corruption of y ^t Scripture, knowing what a curse is pronounced against such blasphemous auda • ity. But you have added the Apocrypha books, although they neither agree in some pointes with y ^• scripture, nor yet one with another as hath been declared. Touching Fathers and Councils, it is too foul an accusation to charge us, y ^• we esteem no more of them thē of y ^• Turks Alcoran. Flaschi • s appeareth to be some corrupt hypocrite, who measured other men, by y ^• vanity & wickedness of his own heart. So far do we honor the councils as they can well ask, or do deserve honor. For (that I may be suffered to repeat with the Censurer) we receive from them joyfully and with reverence whatsoever they deliver unto us with sufficient warrant out of the word of God: acknowledging them not only to have brought great profit to the church in their time, but also to their posterity. This honor we give not to the devilish Alcaron: what the Apostate did or will do, I cannot report.

5 The fifth reason is a slander against y ^• truth, blasphemously cast out against it and the professers thereof. It is that our new opinions (as Flaschius & our enemies will needs call them) are old heresies, condemned by name in the primitive Church. Whereunto I answer, that if Saunders most traitorous book quoted for proof in the margent, or Lindane with his roll of heresies, or the runagate by any good trial can prove, that either we pull old heresies out of the grave, or breed new that should be buried, though it be no good reason why Sebastian should fly to them, yet we will grant it a full sufficient reasō, why he should take the wings of the morning & fly from us. But if this runagate in the malice and error of his heart, hath spoken good of evil, and evil of good; if he have forsaken darkness for light, and light for darkness, then he hath escaped a blessing, and made haste to find a curse.

6. 7. The next two reasons are of y ^• same forge with all the rest, they prove nothing but the malice and blindness of your convert. The sixth chargeth Luther with contrariety of doctrine, the seventh with a speech of intolerable in • quitie against faith in God. But his godly writings do sufficiently justify him against these open slander 〈…〉 as was declared before against y ^• Censurers like slaūderous reports. Out of his large volumes of talk at tables, we know not so much what Luther said, or upon what causes, as what those men remembered or added, which did collect the books.

8 The last reason of Flaschius, was cunningly chosen out to make a fit conclusion of your taūting and slanderous Censure, having nothing but the venom of the asp, that lay under the runnagates tongue. It standeth upon many points shuffeled together: as that we are partial, that we exaggerate every little fault in our adversaries, and live our selves most viciously in fornication, and change of wives, according to Luther's doctrine: the proof whereof is alleged in one preacher upon the runnagates credit, with other things that this shameless man is ashamed to utter. What an heap of reproaches is this without any proof? Against this I have proved that M. Luther taught no liberty offornicatiō, but the contrary, as appeareth at large by many his learned and godly treatises, Als • the known doctrine and discipline of our Church free us frō the slander, who seek a sharper punishment for such enormities, then your petty penance. If Flaschius ever met with a mate like him self, that would have made a match w ^t him in changing of wives, he was to blame, except the most fault was in himself, that he did not bring it before the Magistrate: upon complaint and proofs it would have appeared, that y ^• religion suffereth no such wickedness to go unpunished. This may be a particular slander like the rest, but if it were true in Flaschius and one of his companions, both fit to have been thrust out of the Church before either departed, what is this to all:

These are your two false witnesses, well able to discredit even a true matter coming from their report, as they themselves are discredited by the testimonies they have given in against the Gospel, being reports so full of manifest reproach and untruth. It is very like they omitted the true reason of their departure. Perhaps they went out because they would not or could not any longer abide within, as it fell out with Demas and Alexander. Now for a recompense of your two runnagates, the present example not of a stranger unknowen, but of one home borne, toucheth the quick. He in your faces rendered good reasons of his conversion from among them, where wickedness of life, and abomination of doctrine strive, which may cal down the greatest vengeance. But this needeth not my repetition, and I labor not to press you with examples or corruptions of men: it is beside the question we have in hand. My prayer and labor is for the defense of his truth, from the which we receive life, and are to strive for it unto death. The Lord requireth this service at our hands, & he will at his good time bless it with manifold blessings, the fruit whereof it may be some of us shall not see, but our posterity shall behold it, notwithstanding all the wisdom and power and counsel of man to the contrary. For the Lord hath revealed the man of sin by the preaching of the word, & hath shaken his chair with a mighty arm, he will not withdraw his hand, til he hath utterly consumed Antichrist with the spirit of his mouth, & abolished him w ^t the brightness of his coming. In the mean time his little • lock may be somewhat scattered for a time of trial, but they shall be gathered together again & increased to show the Lord's power and mercy: they may s • w 〈◊〉 tears, but they shall reap with gladness. This is the hardest account the godly can make. But it may be that the Lord will himself correct us in mercy, and not deliver us into the hands of our enemies to be punished by them: It may be the mother of Sisera shall look out at the window, and cry out at the casement, why is his chariot so long a coming? why tarry the wheels of his charet? So let thine enemies perish O Lord, but let them that love thee and thy truth, continue as the Sun when he riseth in his might, and as Olive plants in the house of God that flourish forever.