¶ A confutation of a Popish, and slanderous libelle, in form of an apology: given out into the court, and spread abroad in diverse other places of the Realm.  
¶ Written by William Fulke, Bachelor in Divinity, and fellow of S. Ihons' College in Cambridge.  
¶ Imprinted at London, by John Kingston, for William jones, and are to be sold at the new long shop, at the West end of Paul's.   

¶ To the right honourable and virtuous Lady, the Lady Margaret Strange.  
YOur honourable and Godly request (madame) to have this infamous, and Popish Apology confuted, may be a sufficient testimone, both of your loyal affection towards your prince & country, & also of unfeigned love towards God, and his true religion. For as the libel being slanderoous against our sovereign and her laws, & blasphemous against God & his truth, might be a rejoicing to the obstinate & rebellious, and an offence to the weak and ignorant, if the clouds of calumniation, and deceitful reasoning used therein, were not driven a way with the blast of some confutation: so the falsehood thereof being opened, and the craft discovered, by your L. procurement, shallbe a matter of gladness to the godly, of grief to the wicked, of strengthening to the weak, and of learning to the ignorant. Whereby truth being maintained, and error confounded, many men shallbe profited, & God himself shallbe glorified. And your L. for preferring so many fold goodness, may be assured to receive worthy thanks of men, and plentiful reward of god. But this especially, wherein your L. aught chief to rejoice, is not to be omitted, that as god hath justified you in the merits of his son through faith conceived in your heart, so he hath given you an occasion hereby, of his holy name and religion, to make open profession in the world. When according to the testimony of the Apostle, as a true and lively belief of the heart is necessary for justification, so a clear & open confession of the mouth is requisite to salvation. So that this your L. request, might seem in all points most fortunate, if it had not found so mean an instrument, as I am to accomplish it. For beside that, I am inferior to very many of my brethren, that are meat to take such a matter in hand, I have been for these two years almost, as it were sequestered, both from serious study, and plenty of such books, as for such a purpose, were most convenient. Notwithstanding, esteeming your L. motion, as a provocation sent of god, to occupy my idle time, & to employ some part of gods gifts, to the profit of his Church, as my duty bindeth me, I thought good to show myself, rather unable, than willing to satisfy your godly desire. Not that the objections of the adversary were of such weight, but that they might easily be avoided by many thousand christians, whom God hath endued with meaner gifts of knowledge, & understanding, than it hath pleased him to bestow upon me: but that I am privy to mine own imperfection, whereby I am less apt, to beautify a matter, with such copy, & eloquence as many other are, & I would wish that this argument might have been handled. Nevertheless, according to my bore, and simple faculty, I have endeavoured to set forth the truth, rather with substance of matter, then with flourishing of words, not caring how finely, but how plainly, I might 'cause it to appear, seeing it is no less charitable to teach the ignorant, than it is commendable to please the learned. And this labour I have bestowed for the profit of others, and not for the praise of myself. For which cause also I thought it not best, to encumber the simple reader with many reasons, or authorities to prove one matter, but to instruct him with a few, and those pitthie, & of force to persuade. Saving that in one question of justification, in multitude of testimonies, I may seem to be over tedious, if the cause be not considered, which provoked me thereto. For seeing the adversaries without shame cry out, that our doctrine of justification, is such a strange paradox as never was heard of in the world, before our time, the same doctrine, being the chief foundation of true Religion, I thought it expedient, that the unlearned were admonished, what plentiful witnesses it hath of antiquity, as it hath most manifest authority in the holy word of God. To conclude, there were two other considerations that encouraged me, to take upon me this confutation. One because this Popish apology discovereth no great learning of the author, there is no great cunning to be required, in him that should make answer to it: & for that it hath presumed, to thrust itself into the prince's court, it is not impertinent that it should be confuted, by one that is attendant in the same. Thus having done my good will, I most humbly desire your L. to take it in good part: beseeching almighty God so to continued and increase his gifts of virtue, and godliness in your L. that you may be blessed with true honour, and prosperity in this life, and afterward, rewarded with eternal joy, and felicity.  
Your L. to command in the Lord William Fulke.   

An answer to a Popish apology ¶ An apology of a Papist confuted by W. F.  
THere was found in the court, either cast of purpose, or lost of negligence, a certain small pamphlette, containing an apology, or answer of a Papist, to some friends of his, that persuaded him to conform himself, to the Religion now received in the realm, by public authority: which when it came to my hands, supposing it might do some hurt among them that are ignorant, I thought good, briefly to confute it. But because the copy which was found, was unskilfully written, I had some diffultie to read it in certain places, and sometimes I might plainly perceive, that the authors meaning was changed by untrue writing: So that the author, or his friends, may have some occasion to cavil at my publishing of the copy, which was so much corrupted: In consideration whereof, I would have been very glad, to have had the principal copy of the authors own hand, if I could have known how to come by it. But seeing I was out of hope of that, I perused, and restored the copy that I had, as faithfully as I could, desiring the author, or his friends, that have the original, if I have erred in any word of any moment, to let me have knowledge thereof, and I will thereby reform the apology, and altar mine answer thereto accordingly. The writing had this title.  

The Papist.  
Certain considerations and causes, moving me not to be present at, nor to receive, neither use the service of the new book, otherwise called the Common book of prayers.   

The answer.  
If the copy of your title, as it came to my hand, was not perverted, you show yourself in your title, to be a very perverse▪ and froward person, that may not vouchsafe to call the book, as it is commonly called. Especially when you pretend to give it the name, which commonly it beareth, for you are not ignorant, that it is called the book of Common prayer, and not the Common book of prayer. But a man may easily, and peradventure truly guess, why you refused to call it the book of common prayer, least any man should conceive by the only name, that common prayer, which is so necessary for the Church of Christ (a form whereof that book containeth) is altogether wanting in your Popish Church, where, in your Missalles, Processionalles, Hymnalles, Grailes, Antiphonalls, and Pontificals, are not contained common prayers, to the edification of all the church, but idle, and unprofitable ceremonies, to the maintenance of ignorance, and superstition.   

The Papist.  
The first consideration is, because the said servis book, was condemned as heretical and schismatical, Anno domini 1553. both by the clergy and convocation of this realm, and by the nobility and commons of the same, by all whose consents there passed an act of Parliament, for the repeal thereof. Beside that Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, the chief authors and composers of the said book, were therefore openly condemned by the Church, and Laws of this realm, & suffered the pains of death in Oxford. S. Paul in his Epistle willed the hebrews, to have in remembrance their Bishops, which preached unto them the word of God, and diligently to observe and look upon the end of their lives and conversation.   

The answer.  
The first consideration containeth two causes of your refusal, the one because the book of Service, was repealed by Act of Parliament, the other, for that Cranmer Ridley, and Latimer, were burned at Oxford for it. To the first I answer, that if you account the authority of the Parliament of force to condemn it, why do you not acknowledge th'authority of the same, in establishing it, for anno. 1551. by all the states of the realm, that book was allowed, and appointed to be used. Also by diverse Acts of Parliament, in the time of our sovereign Lady's reign, established, and confirmed. But it is no hard matter, to gather your traitorous meaning, which is common to you, with all them of your religion. You account no acts of Parliament, passed in the time of king Edward, or Queen Elizabeth, to be of any authority, being confirmed by the royal assent of those, whom you esteem to be no lawful Princes, seeing your father the Pope, hath pronounced sentence of deprivation against them.  
Your second reason, I will turn upon your own neck. Seeing Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, did so constantly suffer death, for the confirmation of that doctrine, which they had taught, it is a good argument, that they dissembled not with us, but uttered that truth unto us, wherein as they lived, so they were content to die. The text of the Apostle to the Hebres. 13. you apply very strangely, as though we should think well of none, that suffereth death by martyrdom, whereas the Apostle meaneth clean contrary, and exhorteth the jews, to follow the faith of them, the end of whose conversation, they had seen to be agreeable to their doctrine, who, as they had preached diligently, so did they end their lives by torments, in the same confession constauntely, and patiently.   

The Papist.  
The second consideration is, that the said book so universally condemned by all degrees of men here in this realm, was received and brought in again only by the nobility and commons of this realm, clean contrary to the whole minds of our Clergy, no one person in the Parliament did give his consent thereunto. Besides that the whole convocation did exhibit their book to the contrary. Wherein the sheep taking upon them to establish this book, contrary to the learning and conscience of their shepherds, they have done against the express words of our saviour Christ, who in describing the office of good shepherd, and the duty of good sheep said that a good shepherd must know his sheep, and his sheep must know him, hear his voice and follow him. And the Apostle S. Paul in his Epistle Cap. 13. willed the hebrews to obey their shepherds, and spiritual governors, and to submit themselves unto them, for they do watch even as men which must give account for their souls. Obey them therefore saith S. Paul that they may do it with joy, and not with grief.   

The answer.  
Your second consideration, is determinable, by such as are skilful in the laws of this realm, what persons must concur, in the Parliament, that it may be an Act of Parliament, and I doubt not, but the matter was so ordered, by the judgement of them that had knowledge, as was for the honour, and wealth of the realm. But if any error had been committed, at that time you speak of, it was since by all three estates in Parliament redressed, the same book of service, by their authority being confirmed. But whereas you complain, that the Sheep in that first Parliament, took upon them against their shepherds, I answer nay, but the shepherds against the Shepebiters, for your Clergy consisted all of Wolves, and not of shepherds, wherefore it was the duty of the Prince, with the nobles, and senators of that Parliament, to deliver the Sheep out of their cruel tyranny, and to banish, and remove all such raveinous beasts, from the flock. And touching the book, you say they exhibited, of what credit would you have it to be, when they so shamefully refused conference, before the most part of the Parliament, upon a frivolous pretence, in Westminster church. At which time all wise men saw, that their cause was nought, which durst not abide the trial in the open light.   

The Papist.  
The third consideration is, that it is prohibited by the Canons of the apostles, and by the general caunselles also, that a christian man should not communicate neither in Sacraments nor yet in common prayers, with Heretics and Schismatics. As it appeareth in the tenth Canon, and in the second Canon of the counsel holden at Antioch. It was decreed there, that it was not lawful to communicate with excommunicate persons, nor to enter into any house, nor to pray with them, nor lawful to receive them that are excommunicate out of one church into another church. And in the counsel held at Laodicea, it was prohibited there, that the christian men should enter into the churches or church yards, of the heretics, there to pray with them, and in the 33. Canon of the same counsel the like prohibition is there expressed for prayer with Schismatics. And in the 4. counsel holden at Carthage Canon 73. it was decreed, that christian men should neither pray nor sing with Heretics. And who so ever did pray, sing, or communicate, with any excommunicate person, whether he were of the Clergy or of the Laity, should be thereby excommunicated. An example we read therefore, how the christian men at Constantinople would not communicate with the Arianes, neither in Sacraments, nor yet in common prayers, notwithstanding that the Arians did agreed with the Christian men in them both, as in all Sacraments, and in all points of praying, saving that the Arians did sing Gloria patri in filio, and the Christian men, Gloria patri & filio, etc. And therefore, and for that only point, John Chrysostome then being Bishop of Constantinople, did appoint unto the christian men a separate place, and manner of prayer from them, as it appeareth in the sixth of the History ecclesiastic. And therefore the notable doctor S. Augustine doth conclude, on this wise, saying, that they shall not communicate in Sacraments with us, whose doctrine we cannot approve and allow.   

The answer.  
Your third consideration, standeth upon a foolish fallation of Sophistry, called petitio principij, which is, when a man will take that as true, which his adversary will not grant him. As you do in this your argument, where you take that for a true principle, which you shall never be able to prove, namely that we are Heretics, and Schismatics. And so you commit double folly. first, in proving that so diligently, which no man will deny (which is, that a man aught not to communicate in religion with Heretics) and secondly, in bringing no proof at all, of that, which all your adversaries will deny, namely that they are Heretics, or Schismatics. For you must first prove that they are such, before you can prove, that you aught to avoid their society.   

The Papist.  
The fourth consideration is, that the receiving of this new book of service, is a condemnation of the old, whereby is taken away 5. of the. 7. Sacraments, the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament of the altar, the sacrifice of the mass, many traditions of the Apostles, as the holiing of the font, oil and Chrisma in Baptism and Confirmation, the making of the sign of the Cross, prayers for the dead and unto saints. All sacramental, and godly ceremonies, frequented in the universal church of Christ, and brought into this realm with the faith of Christ by S. Augustine, and here by him established, as sure signs and tokens of christian faith, like as the holy. S. Bede witnesseth in his first book de gestis Anglorum, in the 25.29.30. chapters, beside that all the foresaid things have been alway approved, used, and allowed throughout the universal church of christ. And therefore saith S. Augustine all these things which have been received in the universal Church of Christ, and approved by the use, and consent thereof, aught not to be overthrown, nor yet to be changed by the judgement of one private person, be his learning and living never so good, nor yet by the Bishops of any one province or country, when thereby they should break the unity of God's spirit, which is the chief treasure in his Church, commended by our saviour Christ unto his Apostles, wishing and praying the same unity to be amongst them, which was betwixt him and God (joan 17) the father. The Apostle S. Paul taught the Corinthians above all things to observe this unity, and willed the romans that with one mind and one mouth they should glorify God. And in the Epistle to the Ephesians, he besought them most entirely to observe this unity. Again. S. Augustine saith, these things which the universal church doth teach, therefore are to be observed and kept of all men, because the church which is the spouse of Christ, hath the full authority of her husband Christ, and such government also of the holy ghost, that she cannot consent, but to true things, nor she cannot command but only such things which are both holy, wholesome and good. And farther the same S. Augustine saith, that in the ministration of the Sacraments, and in the manner of praying used of Preestes, there must be an uniformity observed in Christ's catholic Church, that by their Law and manner of praying there may be established the law of believing. And jest that the law, and manner of praying being changed, may also bring forth a change and alteration of faith, like as it hath so proved in this realm. Beside that S. Ambrose doth think that there can not be the faith, where Schism is, for albeit that schismatics may have faith towards God, yet they cannot have faith toward the Church of God, whom they suffer to be dismembered, and discerped in pieces. For whereas our saviour Christ suffered for his Church, and the Church is the mystical body of Christ, how therefore may they have faith in christ, by whom his Passion is made frustrate, and his mystical body drawn in pieces. And therefore would not we should change an order set, or a custom of Christ's church. For albeit saith he, the reason or cause of a custom may be sought for, yet must it be so sought for, that the custom thereby be not infirmed or broken, for the search may not be made unto destruction, but unto edification, whereby thou mayst better observe the custom when thou art assured of the cause and reason thereof. I do praise thee (saith Tertuliane) which first doth believe the custom to be observed, before it hath learned the cause and reason why and wherefore.   

The answer.  
In your fourth consideration, you should have likewise considered, that such things, as are granted of both parts, need small proof, and that those matters, which are in controversy, should be substantially confirmed. As for example. How necessary unity is for the Church of Christ, no man doubteth, so it be in truth, and not in falsehood: for there is unity among the most wicked, but not in truth, and honesty.  
On the other side, that there be five sacraments, more than the book alloweth, that there is a carnal presence in the Sacrament of the lords body, and blood, that there is, or aught to be, a Sacrifice in the mass, ye bring not one word of proof.  
Concerning Ceremonies, which you call traditions of the Apostles, you say in deed a little, although to little purpose, and yet so confusely, and out of all good order, that you seem rather to confound, then to instruct your simple reader, for what an hochpotte is this? in the mids of your Sacraments, and sacramentals, to chop in prayers for the dead, and invocation of saints, which be articles of doctrine, and not Ceremonial observations. Again, when you have rehearsed by name, divers Ceremonies, as oil, and chrism in Baptism, your manner of confirmation, the sign of the Cross, and all other your sacramentals, and Ceremonies, you bring in certain broken, and unperfect sentences of Doctors, which speak generally of Ceremonies, used in the church in their age: and do not show that your Ceremonies were used then in such manner, as you use them now: which is a mere mockery of your readers. For whereas you do comprehend them all, under the name of Traditions of the Apostles, if you be a man of such learning, as you would seem to be, I dare say in your behalf, you will be ashamed to come to trial of this point, that you use all those Ceremonies, that were used in the time of those doctors, whose names you allege or that all your Ceremonies, were used in the times of those Doctors, upon whose authorities you would seem to ground. But to consider your grounds particularly, that Augustine, whom you call saint Augustine, was an unlearned Monk, as appeareth by his questions, propounded to Pope Gregory, that came into this land, to corrupt the sincerity of faith, which the Britons had received, even from the Apostles, about six hundred years after Christ, and lived two hundred years at the lest, after the ancient father saint Augustine bishop of Hippo in Africa, of whose pride and folly, you may read in Galfridus Monumeth. Matheus Westmin. and others. And truth it is, that much superstition, and false doctrine, he brought in, and by tyranny maintained, as our stories witness, but not all that you hold at this time, for your religion, in all points, is nothing so old. And as for Beda, he lived long after Augustine. But where you affirm, that all your Ceremonies have been always approved, used, and allowed, throughout the universal church of Christ, I can no longer forbear you, you say more than all the Papists in the world, will be able to prove.  
Touching saint Augustine, although the place by you alleged, is not to be found in his undoubted writings, yet I confess that he speaketh favourably of Ceremonies commonly used, to be quietly suffered, and borne withal, rather than unity to be broken. But what maketh this, for your Ceremonies, which you teach to be necessary for salvation, and meritorious: which if they had been in saint Augustine's time, or that men had so taught of them, there is no doubt, but he would have utterly misliked them, as hereafter in place more convenient, I shall plainly declare. In your next sentence out of saint Augustine also, I must needs tell you, you play the subtle Merchant, to set for the counterfeit ware, in steed of true ambergris, for Augustine never was of that opinion, that the Church hath the full authority of her husband Christ, and such government of the holy Ghost, that she cannot consent, but unto true things, neither hath he any such words in all his works. For it is well known, that the book de dogmaticis ecclesiasticis, out of which this sentence seemeth to be borrowed, is not accounted among the Authentical works of Augustine, but forged of much later time, and falsely fathered upon S. Augustine, to steal credit from his name, which it could not obtain of itself.  
And yet if this saying were granted to be true, it pertaineth nothing to your church, which is the synagogue of Satan, and not the Church of Christ. Concerning your third testimony of saint Augustine, I can hardly think that saint Augustine, would have an uniformity of Ceremonies, in prayer, and administration of the Sacraments throughout all the world, because I am able to show his authority to the contrary, as in his. 118. epistle to januarius, he discourseth at large. And whereas you say, that the change of the manner of praying, hath brought in change of faith in this land, it is clean contrary, for the diversity of faith, teacheth us to pray, otherwise than you use, for invocation cometh of faith, as witnesseth saint Paul. Roma. 10.  
The testimony of saint Ambrose, although you declare not, where a man should find it, maketh little for your purpose. For we agree with him, that Schismatics are to be abhorred, but we will not grant to you, that we are Schismatics, as long as we know, that we are members of Christ. The testimony of Tertuliane concerning custom, if it be faithfully rehearsed of you, I see not what it maketh for you. For although laudable customs, may be observed, without searching their beginning, what is that, to your Ceremonies, which contain manifest impiety? For you yourself will not be so mad, to allow all customs, seeing many are contrary to the word of GOD. And although Tertuliane was to much addicted to the maintaining of Ceremonies, and customs in some places, yet otherwhiles he either expoundeth his meaning, or correcteth his error, as in his book De virginibus velandis, where he writeth in these words. Hoc exigere veritatem, cui nemo praescribere potest, non spacium temporum, non patrocinia personarum, non privilegium regionum. Ex his enim fere consuetudo initium ab aliqua ignorantia vel simplicitate sortita, in usum per successionem corroboratur, & ita adversus veritatem vindicatur. Sed dominus noster Christus, veritatem se, non consuetudinem cognominavit. Si semper christus & prior omnibus: aeque veritas sempiterna & antiqua res, viderint ergo quibus nowm est, quod sibi vetus est.  
Haereses non tam novitas quam veritas revincit. Quodcunque adversus veritatem sapit hoc erit haeresis, etiam vetus consuetudo. That is to say. This the truth requireth, against which no man can prescribe, not the continuance of time, not the defence of persons, not the privilege of any regions. For of these, custom taking her beginning, for the most part, through ignorance, and simplicity, is confirmed into an usage, by succession, and so is boasted of against the truth. But Christ our Lord called himself the truth, and not the custom, if Christ were always, and before all, truth is, as eternal, and ancient a thing as he. Let them be well advised therefore, to whom that is counted new, which of him is counted old. Heresies (saith he) not so much their novelty, as truth doth convict, for what soever soundeth against the truth, that shallbe an heresy, yea though it be an old custom. By this testimony of tertullian, every man may see, what he thought of old custom, when it was alleged to deface the truth, and of what customs he speaketh, when he commendeth customs, namely such as agreed with the truth, and not every blind, & superstitious Ceremony, whereof a great number were invented, many hundredth years after his death.   

The Papist.  
The fift consideration is, that whereas I am not persuaded that the form of prayers set forth in the said book, is lawful and catholic, my coming to hear it should be an act, not only contrary to mine own conscience and also to my damnable sin, but also my coming thereto, should be to the weak and ignorant, an occasion of ruin, and deadly sin, which is called scandalum infirmorum, and I am bound by the words of our saviour Christ, to avoid that, saying woe be to that man, by whom any such offence or slander shall uprise and come. For of my coming thither, either they must judge that I am a dissembler in doing against my conscience, or else they must judge that I am in conscience persuaded thereunto. And thereby gather by mine example a liking of that thing to be good and holy, which in my very conscience I do utterly condemn, and that this slander shall not be so taken, as scandalum acceptum, but so given as scandalum datum of my part. And where as it hath been often times objected unto me, how that it is but a very small matter to stick or stay at, for to come to the Church, and hear the said service, being set at liberty, secretly, and privily to pray with myself whatsoever I shall think meet, for he answer, I do read in the Scriptures how Eleazarus the Priest is in the same commended, because he would not dissemble the eating of swines flesh, whereas he might have escaped the pains of death thereby. tertullian writeth a book in the praise of a Soldier, and entitleth his book de corona militis, because that Soldier refused in natali die Severi imperatoris, to wear but a Garland of flowers uponn his head, because he should therein then have followed the manner of the gentiles, and heathen people. And rather or he would do so small a mattet, as to wear but a Garland of flowers, he did suffer inprisonment, and therefore is commended of so great a clerk, as Tertullian was. Theodoritus in his second book of the history ecclesiastic, in Cap. 24. doth note Leontius Bishop of Antioch of great dissimulation, for as much as he, being present in the choir at Antioch, and in the hearing of christian men, there to sing Gloria patri & filio, etc. and the Arians Gloria patri in filio, etc. Contrariwise he did there openly take neither party, but privily at the end of every psalm did sing Gloria pari in saecula saeculorum. Amen. And so he mumbled it up to himself, ut ab instantibus vix audiri posset, whose example therefore being so manifest, and so well admonished thereof, I purpose not to follow God willing. When to dissemble with a man I hold it no honestly, to dissemble with my Prince, it is the just desert of perpetual discredit, and infamy, but to dissemble with God, it is most impiety, from the which detestable sin, I am utterly resolved by the word god, spoken by the mouth of Helias saying: Vsquequo claudicatis in duas parts? How long will you halt or limp on both sides? And S. John in his revelation saith: Because thou art neither hot nor cold, therefore I shall begin now to vomit and cast thee out of my mouth. The premises well weighed, it cannot be justly said that I stick at a trifling or small matter, but a matter of great importance, and conscience moveth me thereunto, and forceth me that I should not unadvisedly without great cause separate myself, from the unity of the Church, neither to condemn the universal church, unheard having no just or weighty cause why I should so do. For I have always, and do thus weigh the matter with myself, that the points and matters of religion, which this book of service, hath condemned or taken away, either they were thought matters of small importance and did no harm, but being rightly understanded might have done good, or else they were to be taken, for matters of impiety and intolerable to be borne withal. In case they were of the first sort, which they have condemned and abolished. Then in my judgement they should have been tolerated and borne withal, for charity's sake, and for the continuance, and increase of unity betwixt us and the universal Church of christendom. On the other side, in case they had been taken for matters intolerable, and could in no wise have been borne with all for their impiety, as it hath been pretended, then yet in my conscience, we aught to have been better advised then by our private condemnation of them, to have showed ourself to condemn thereby, all the whole universal church of impiety unheard, which things the universal church hath used from the Apostles time, and do to this day. As touching matters of right faith, and godly manners, the church of Christ being the spouse of Christ, was never destitute of the holy ghost, neither could nor would in all this time have borne or dissembled any impiety like as. S. Augustine writeth hereof. The Church of God being placed and put among much chaff, and many Cockles, and weeds, the same church doth suffer, and bear with many things, yet that notwithstanding, touching the things which are against faith, and against good life, the Church doth neither approve them, nor yet let them escape unspoken against.   

The answer.  
In that you will not dissemble against your conscience, if you do not dissemble, but speak as you think, you are to be commended: but if your conscience, as you say, is not yet persuaded, you are by no means to be excused, for in this so clear light of the Gospel, you could not be so blind, if you did not obstinately close your eyes, from receiving the Sun beams into them.  
And whereas you think it not reason, to depart from the unity of the church, nor to condemn the universal Church unheard, you stand upon a false ground, as you do always, that the Popish Church, is that universal Church, but that you shall never be able to prove. For was the Popish church at any time, or is it now universal? But the romish church, you will say, is always universal, though it have never so many enemies. But I can show you by saint Augustine's judgement, that the universal Church, may be without the romish church. For writing to Casulane. Epi. 86. he hath these words, speaking of one that defended the Ceremonies, & custom of the romish church, against the whole catholic Church. Quod utinam sic quaereret, aut sic affirmaret, ut toto terrarum orb diffusam, exceptis Romanis & adhuc paucis occidentalibus, apertissimè non blasphemaret ecclesiam. that is to say: which thing I would he did seek in such manner, or so affirm, that he did not most manifestly thereby, blaspheme the church, dispersed through out the whole world, except the Romans, and a few other Western Churches. Do you not here see, that when the romish church, with a few other that agreed with her are exempted, the universal church of Christ still remaineth, by saint Augustine's judgement? and that if the romish Church, depart from the whole Catholic Church, the romish Church is a Schismatic, as it is at this day, and hath been a long time, even since antichrist set up his seat there, and made a general departing from the faith of Christ, which saint Paul prophesieth should come to pass. ij. Thessaly. ij. All the which time, though there were but few that continued in true faith, and honouring of God, yet those few, wheresoever they were scattered in all the world, were the true catholic Church of Christ, and were always joined together in Christ their head, by unity of true religion.  
And whereas you say, your Church is unheard, I marvel what you mean, for what can the Pope, or any of her proctors, say in her defence, but it hath been heard, and confuted by the scriptures? Which thing hath caused, the most part of the regions of Europe this day, to forsake your Heretical, Schismatical, and Antichristian Church of Rome, and to join themselves to the true Catholic, and Apostolic church of Christ, which approveth all her doctrine, out of the holy Scriptures, and by the same reproveth all your heresies, and erroneous opinions: the judgement, and trial of which holy Canonical scriptures, you never yet durst abide. It is not therefore any private condemnation, which is pronounced out of God's word, against heresies, whose authority in all things is highest, and of all men to be obeyed. Finally, where you affirm, that the church of Christ, was not destitute of the holy Ghost, I agreed with you, but that your Church, is the Church of Christ, I may in no wise acknowledge. And truth it is, that the true Church did always reclaim, against the heresies of your church, as they sprung up and increased in the world, and received that reward, which true Prophets have accustomed to receive of wicked tyrants namely, persecution, imprisonment, and cruel death, as appeared in Bertramus, Marsilius of Milan, Pauperes de Lugduno, johannes de Gandavo, Bruno Andegavensis, johannes Wickleve, johannes Hus, Hieronimus de Praga. etc. all which with many other, in several times, & places, reproved, and confuted your false Church, and the errors thereof, some in Italy, some in France, some in Flaunders, some in Germany, some in Bohemia, and some in England, and for the most part, were either murdered, or otherwise cruelly persecuted for their labours. But yet the heresies of your church, did not escape unspoken against, and confuted by them.   

The Papist.  
The sixth, and last consideration, that I come not to their church, is, because I am not of their Church. S. Augustine in putting difference of churches saith, how unto them which have not all one Sacraments, there can not be one religion, nor consequently one Church. And the cause why I am not of their Church, but refuse to communicate with them in religion, besides this saying of S. Augustine, that we should not Communicate in sacraments with those men whose doctrine we can not approve and allow: I do refuse to be of their church, because I cannot learn nor understand, of what church they are of. For they being first baptized in the catholic church, and in the very self faith and religion, wherein I do at this present time, believe and remain: they are departed therefrom, some to the Lutherans Church, some to the Zwinglians, and coming last of all to the church Geneva, they are in manner fled from that church also, and by attributing the chief & supreme government of this their English church unto the queens highness, they are in doctrine directly against their old master Caluine, being the chief Apostle of the Church of Geneva, which Caluine in the eight Chapter of the book of his institutions, doth directly reason against Kings, and Princes, for taking upon them spiritual government in the Church of Christ, and in the same Chapter he doth much commend the holy Bishop S. Ambrose, and the noble Emperor Theodosius, Ambrose for his great stoutness and resistance made against the Emperor: And Theodosius for his great submission, and obediens showed unto the Bishop. The history whereof is at large expressed in Ecclesiastica historia. And the said Caluine in his exposition upon the fourth Chapter of the prophet Amos, doth tax King Henry the eight by name, because he alone, of all other Princes was the first that took upon him in the Church of Christ spiritual government, whose example in that point, there was never one Prince in all Germany, nor yet in any place else where, of the whole world, that would follow the same, but his own natural son King Edward the sixth, being then in his minority, and again the Queen's highness that now is, If therefore I shall depart from the common known catholic Church wherein I stand, I would gladly know of them unto what Church I should repair, to be instructed with out errors, wherein unity, charity, and verity do dwell, what form of a church are they able to show, whereupon a christian man may be bold to assure himself? And if peradventure they cease not ro pretend, that the Primitive Church is that plat form of the Church whereunto they would reduce us: I answer, that there be so many points wherein they do descent from the Primitive Church (like as I shall make sufficient proof thereof) that it can not be so, it is only pretended, but it shall never be proved: The anabaptists, the Libertines and the Arians do pretend gods word, and the Primitive Church as well as they: And because they are so bold to name the primitive church, I ask of them but this one question, whether that this day 50. or, 60. years last paste, was their Church here in this realm, or in any other part of christendom? What particular Church either here in England, in the last year of King Henry the eight his reign, or any other realm else, can they name that taught or received universally throughout, in all points the doctrine, that this present Church of England doth now teach, or from that day, a thousand years before that, or from thence, unto the time of Christ, and his Apostles. If they can not show any one such Church (as I am well assured, they shall never be able to do) than it must needs follow, that either Christ had no Church in the world all that time till now their coming, or else it must needs follow that their Church, is a new invented and upstart Church, which with Christ's Primitive church hath no agreans, like as it shall most plainly appear unto you by these profess following.   

The answer.  
In your last consideration, you do inconsiderately allege, that you are not of our Church, but show no sufficient reason, why you aught not to be one of our Church. You say, we are departed from the church, in which we were baptized, as though, if a man were baptized in a Church of heretics, he is bound to remain in the same Church, and heretical faith of that Church, in which he was baptized, so that if a man were baptized in the Church of Arrianes, Novatianes', Donatists, Pelagians, he might not forsake the faith, and Church, in which he was baptized, to become a true Christian catholic. A child of seven year old, may see how slender a reason it is for a man, to continued in any Church, or Religion, because he received baptism therein. For if a Papist may not become a Protestant, because he was baptized in the Popish church, by the same reason, a Protestant must not become a Papist, if he were baptized in the Protestants Church, which you yourself by no means will grant.  
The second reason you bring, is of the diversity of churches, the Lutheran, the Zwingliane, & the Genevian. As though the diversity of some opinions, not of the greatest importance, maketh divers churches. The church of Salisbury, the church of York, and the church of Bangor, had some diversity in their manner of serving God, and yet you will say, they were all one Popish Church. But to the purpose, you recite more names, than there be diversities of opinions. For Zwinglius, and Caluine, in the matter of the Sacrament, which you shoot at, are all one, and Luther differeth from them. And yet the difference is not so great, but that they be all of one Catholic Church, because they agreed in the only foundation, jesus Christ, and in all opinions, that are necessary to Salvation, although Luther in his opinion of the Sacrament (as a man) was deceived. And that diversities of opinions (so long as the principal grounds of faith be observed uncorrupted) doth not make diversity of churches, you may easily see, by this example S. Cyprian and all the Churches of Africa, were in this error, that such as were baptized by heretics, should be baptized again, which was a very perilous error. Cornelius, & Stephanus the Bishops of Rome, with the Churches of Europe were, in the contrary opinion. And yet no man ever refused S. Cyprian, to be a member of the Catholic church, nor judged the churches of Africa, that followed his error, to be of any other than of the universal church of Christ, among whom were many martyrs, and godly men which lived & died in the same error. Now compare Cyprian, & Luther, the one erring in the Sacrament of Baptism, the other in the Sacrament of the Supper, if the error of th'one, did not separate him from the communion of the catholic church, no more can the error of the other. Which thing, if it were well weighed, would remove that stombling block, that troubleth many weak persons, but can hinder no learned man, concerning the controversy of Luther, and Zwinglius.  
The third reason is, that we are departed, from the Church of Geneva, because we ascribe supreme government, in Ecclesiastical matters, to the queens highness. first, we must be bold to tell you, that as we reverence, and honour all particular Churches, where true religion is established, so we do not ground ourself upon either the opinion, or custom, of any one, but only upon the word of God, and so far forth to follow every one, as they come near to the same rule. But whereas you would set that excellent, godly Church of Geneva, at variance with us, about the supremacy, your childish quarrelling, shall easily appear to all men. You allege Caluine against us, in two places, one in his Institutions, an other in his commentary of the Prophet Amos. A man in deed, from whom we would be loath to dissent, except it were for a great cause. A man of such godly learning, and profound knowledge in divinity, as all the Papists, that ever were, are not worthy to carry his books after him. But before I answer you, I must admonish you, that either your copies, which came to my hands, were very much corrupted, or else you have recited those places by hearsay, rather than by your own observation. Your copies sendeth me to the, viii. Chapter of his Institutions, naming no book, and to the fourth. Chapter of Amos, whereas that you speak of the one place, is in the fourth book, and twelve Chapter of his Institutions: the other in the seven Chapter of Amos. So that in deed, it was more labour to seek your places, then to make answer to them. Concerning the first, I marvel you were not ashamed, to allege Caluine against us, where he saith, that Kings, and Princes, are subject to the discipline of the Church, as Theodosius was content to be excommunicated by saint Ambrose, for the murder he had committed in Thessalonica, (which none of us denieth) and do not remember, how substantially he proveth, that godly Princes have authority, and aught to maintain true religion, by laws decrees, and judgements, which is all the supreme government, that we ascribe to the queens highness.  
And as for the place of Caluine upon Amos, the truth is this: Caluine findeth fault, not with king Henry, but with those that did ascribe that title unto him, and showeth for what reason, he misliked the same. Not that he denied his lawful authority, which was meant by that title, of all his godly, and true subjects: but because, Steven Gardener bishop of Winchester, by false understanding thereof, declared that he understood nothing thereby, but the tyranny, which the Pope usurpeth over the church, to be translated unto the king. And therefore at a solemn conference, at Ratisbone in Germany, after the Pope's authority by act of Parliament, was abolished out of the realm, he defended all Popish religion, which remained unreformed, to be good, and godly, because it was established by the king's authority, who was supreme head of the church. He disputed not by reasons, neither cared he for the testimonies of scriptures, but said, it was in the kings power, to abrogate all Laws, and establish what he thought good in the church, as to forbid priests marriage, to forbid lay men the use of the Cup in the Church, and all other such matters, he said, were in the kings authority. This he said of the Kings power abroad, and how he abused that noble Prince at home, to make the Act of six Articles, and other things of like effect, there be many yet alive, that can remember. But seeing this title of supremacy, doth so much offend you, I pray you let me demand one question of you. Who did first invent it here in England? Or who did first ascribe it to king Henry? Was it not the whole Popish Clergy of England? when they were cast in the Praemunire, for maintaining the power Legantine of Cardinal Wolsey, and submitting themselves unto the King, they flattered him with that title, and offered him a great sum of money, for their pardon: as witnesseth Halle, and Grafton in their histories, and there be yet alive many, that can remember it. So that if there were any fault in it, you should blame them, and not us for it. For so farforth, as being rightly understood, it declareth the lawful power of the Prince, we did, and do yield unto it, but not in Steven Gardiner's sense, which Caluin in the place by you alleged, doth confute.  
After this, you require us to show you a Church, where unto you may resort, which hath continued even since Christ, which if it can not be showed, you conclude in th'end, that Christ had no church, or else our Church is not Christ's Church. Again where our Church was fifty, or sixty years agone. If a man had asked of Elias, where the church of God was in his time, he could not have made answer, and yet God had his Church in Elias time. The Church is not always apparent, to the eyes of the blind world, in which she is a stranger, but is compelled sometimes to fly into the wilderness, out of the sight of men, by the persecution of the devil, and his members, as it is Prophesied in the xii. Chapter of saint Ihons' Revelation. And yet for fifty or sixty year agone, it had been no hard matter, to have showed you divers members of our Church, both in England, & in Bohemia, as th' history of the church declareth at large. Also in France at Merindoll, and about Lions, but these you will say, agreed not with us in all points, but I will answer you, they agreed in the chiefest points, necessary to eternal salvation. For whatsoever we are able to show, for our Church, I am sure you are never able, to show yourself, for your church, that which you require us to show: namely a church that hath continued from this time upward, unto the Apostles, that taught uniformly, and in all points, the doctrine that the Popish Church now teacheth. Which thing when you have performed, I will do the like for our Church. In the mean time, that which is a sufficient rule, to find out the true Church, by the judgement of Saint Augustine, I will declare unto you. In his book the unitate ecclesiae. Capi. 2. Inter nos autem & Donatistat, quaestio est, ubi sit ecclesia. Quid ergo facturi sumus? In verbis nostris eam quaesituri sumus, an in verbis capitis sui domini nostri jesu Christi? Puto quod in illius potius verbis eam quaerere debemus, qui veritas est & optimè novit corpus suum. Between us, and the Donatists (saith saint Augustine) the question is, where the church should be. What shall we do then? shall we seek her in our words, or in the words of her head, our Lord jesus Christ? I think that rather in his words, we aught to seek her, which is the truth, and best knoweth his own body. And in the. xuj. chapter of the same book, he writeth thus of the Donatists Vtrum ipsi ecclesiam teneant, non nisi divinarum scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant. That is, whether they have the church on their side, let them show none otherwise, but by the Canonical books of holy scriptures. Many other such testimonies are in S. Augustine, by which it is plain, that he giveth this infallible rule, to know the true church, to examine the doctrine thereof, only by the scriptures. But whereas you say, that anabaptists, Libertines and Arians, pretend the word of god, and the primitive Church, what mean you thereby? that we should forsake the word of god & the Primitive church, by which all heretics have been confuted, what soever they pretended. For though heretics pretend the scriptures, yet only by the scriptures they are to be confuted, & though they appeal to the judgement of the primitive church, yet by the primitive church they are condemned for heretics. I may as well say, that Arianes, Libertines, and anabaptists, boast themselves to be the true Catholic Church, therefore we must not allow the true catholic church. It is pity to see men, that would be counted wise, and learned, to reason so fond, and unlearnedly. For of all other reasons, it is the vainest, and feeblest shift that the Papists use, to fly from the scriptures, to the authority of the Church, in confutation of heresies. For there was never yet heresy did arise, but there was as great controversy, of the Church, as of the opinion: for every heretic, boasteth as well of the Church, as of the scriptures, but when all is done, his brags of both, must be beaten down, only by the scriptures. But because you make so proud vaunts, that you will so plainly prove, that our Church hath none agreans with the primitive church of Christ, in discourse of that controversy with you, I will set for the both what is the Primitive church, and how we agreed therewith, and I doubt not, but that I shallbe able by the grace of God, both to justify our cause, against your false accusations, and also to overthrow your falshodde, which you have heaped up, to overwhelm the truth.  
And as I have confuted your six considerations, which unto you seem of great importance, so by God's help I shall avoid all other your calumniations, in which with some subtlety, but more impudency, and most of all impiety, you go about to entangle the consciences, of such as be ignorant, and unlearned, to withdraw their obedience▪ from the godly laws of this realm, which are established, for the maintaining of God's true Religion, and the abolishing of all Idolatry, and superstition.   

The Papist.  
Arguments gathered out of the Scriptures, proving that this late reformed English church hath none agreans with the Primitive church of Christ.   

The answer.  
The very title of your arguments declareth, of what force your arguments are. Your reasons are ten in number, which if they were all granted to be true yet followeth not this conclusion, that our Church hath no agreance, with the Primitive Church of Christ, except you would affirm, that all the doctrine of the Primitive Church, were comprehended in these ten points. Again your own Popish Church differeth, in these ten points, as much from the Primitive Church, as ours, therefore by your own Logic, I will conclude, that your Popish church, hath no agreance with the church of Christ. 1. For neither you have all things common, 2. neither do you cell your houses, and lands, to put the price in common. 3. Neither do you make division to every man, according to his necessity. 4. Neither are all members of your Church so provided for, that none do beg. 5. Neither do you baptize only in the name of Christ. 6. Neither do you give the holy ghost, by laying on your hands. 7. Neither do you restore them to health, whom you annoincte with oil, being sick. 8. Neither do you make open confession of your sins. 9 Neither do you celebrated the Sacrament, after supper. 10. Neither do you abstain from blood, and strangled, therefore by your own reason, you have no agreance with the Primitive Church of Christ. Or if you may have any agreance, these differences notwithstanding, why may not we the same differences, nothing letting us, have sufficient agreement therewith? You see that either your argument is nothing worth, or else you have as little agreance with the primative church, as we. Your only refuge is this, that it is not necessary for you, to have any agreance with the primitive Church. And that is the opinion of all Papists, which is diligently to be noted, that you disclaim of all title of the Primitive Church, which you hold, was but an infant, and by addition of your doctrine, and Ceremonies, is grown to be of womannes' state. As though Christ married his Church, when she was under age, and so the matrimony was not ratified, and consummated, before the Pope had nurtured her in his school, until she came to years of discretion. For it is as lawful for me, so to infer upon your allegory, as for you so to allegorise of her.  
But that you may the better understand, what we mean by the primitive Church, I put you out of doubt, that none of us doth attribute unto her, such long limits, as you do in your arguments, gathered out of the Doctors: where you allege the second counsel of Nice, as a determination of the primitive church, which was holden almost eight hundred years after Christ. Of which thing you were not ignorant, but you thought it was sufficient, to fill unlearned ears, with great blasts, void of all reason, or truth. Wherefore, when we appeal to the Primitive Church, we mean the Church of the Apostles, and their successors, so long as they continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, whereof trial is to be made, by the Canonical writings of the Apostles. That whereas you accuse us for departing from your church, as though we were of no Church, we defend ourselves to be of the true church, seeing we retain the faith, and doctrine of the primitive Church, which without all controversy, was the true church. Now as I have showed you, what we account to be the primitive church, so must I declare, in what things we are bound to consent, and agreed with the same. For which purpose, we must mark this difference, which I suppose, no Papist is so far past shame, to deny: namely, that in the primitive Church, some things were necessary, and immutable, some things again were temporal, and variable. Of the first sort is the doctrine, and Sacraments, of the latter sort are Ceremonies, and politic constitutions. To the doctrine no man may add, no man may diminish, no man may altar, any thing thereof. The Sacraments being, as Augustine calleth them, the visible word, be of the same nature with the doctrine. On the other side, Ceremonies, and public constitutions, mate be retained, or changed, as they make best for edification, for order, and for comeliness. And of this latter sort, are all those things, which you allege, in which we differ from the primitive church. But yet, so long as we hold still the same faith, and the same Sacraments, which are left to us by the primitive Church, all reasonable men will judge, that notwithstanding your reasons, we have such agreance with the primitive Church, as may prove us to be members of the same. For it is the unity of faith, and Sacraments, not of Ceremonies, and constitutions, that joineth us unto the body of Christ, as witnesseth saint Paul to the Ephesi. iiij. One faith, one baptism, one God. etc. Now let us particularly consider your ten differences.   

The Papist.  
First it is written how the believers in the Primitive church had all things in common. And no one man did reckon the thing that he did possess, to be his own or private.   

The answer.  
first, it it is a sport to see, how to make a show of a great multitude of dishes, and to fill up the number of ten, you divide one matter into four quarters, which is of the community of all things, that was in the primitive Church, which should have been served all in one mess, but for fashions sake. That they had all things common, one while in Jerusalem, it is very true, but that they had so always, and in all places, it is most false, for saint Paul exhorteth the Corinthians, to give almose to the poor liberally. j Cor. xuj, and he willeth Timothe, that he charge them that be rich, in this world, to be ready to distribute unto that necessity of their brethren. j Timoth. vj. which needed not all, if all things had been common. This was therefore a variable order, and constitution, which continued but a short time, neither was it profitable, but only then, when the number of the disciples was but small, in comparison, and lived all in one place at Jerusalem.   

The Papist.  
second in the Primitive Church such of the believers, which were possessors of Lands and Houses sold them, and powered it down before the Apostles, but the believers of this our late reformed Church are not come to that perfection, nor yet are aminded so to do.   

The answer.  
This is all one with the former, for how could they have had all things common, if every man had retained his houses, and lands, to his private use. And yet no man was compelled to this community, for Peter saith, plainly, to Ananias, that he needed not to have sold his land, neither to have brought the price, but of his free william. But whereas you account it a perfection to have all things common, I must be bold to tell you, ye savour of Anabaptistry, for although it was then expedient for thal time, among a few, yet it were not tolerable to be used as a pefection among all the church of Christ But would bring a mere confusion, and disorder of all things, beside that it is unpossible, that all Christian men, in all places, should have all things common.   

The Papist.  
Thirdly in the primitive church, Christ's Apostles and their successors were chief governors of the believers, and of such goods as they had in common amongst them, division unto every man was made thereof, by the appointment of the Apostles, according as they thought it needful or necessary. And because Ananias the husband of Saphira went about to keep back a portion of that common money, for the which they sold their Lands, the Apostle. S. Peter did strike them both with sudden death. But in this our reformed English church, beside that the believers are at no such appointment of the Bishops and successors of the Apostles, they do by their laws spoil them of all they have, by taking from them so much of their temporal lands, and so much of their goods, for first fruits, tenths and subsidies as they list. And therefore in this point it hath no agreans with the order of the Primitive church.   

The answer.  
The Apostles kept not that government long in their hands, but committed it over to the Deacons, as it is declared in the sixth chapter of the Acts, by which it is manifest, that it was no perpetual order, which in so short time, was altered. For in such things, the Church may institute, and change, as often as it shall seem expedient. But whereas you charge our Prince, to be a spoiler of the church, by withdrawing the lands, and goods thereof, by taking first fruits, tenths, and subsidies, you show yourself what an honest subject your are. We for our parts, acknowledge, that it is in the Prince's power, to increase, or diminish the stipend of the ecclesiastical ministers as shallbe thought expedient, and that it is our duties, to pay all such taxes, tributes, and subsidies, as by lawful authority, are laid upon us. But I marvel why you should accuse our princes, for taking of subsidies, as though Popish princes, do not take subsidies of their Clergies also, and most of all when the Pope who hath no authority, to demand one penny, hath extorted such infinite sums of money, for annates, first fruits, palles, pardons, and such other trumpery: whereof how great complaints the Clergy of England hath made, you may read in Mathewe of Westminster in the lives of divers kings, and namely of Henry the third, and Edward the first. One history is notable, that the Pope fente a Legate called Otto, with a letter, complaining of the great poverty of the Church of Rome, which was the cause that she was compelled, to pill, and poll poor suitors, that sued to the Court of Rome, in remedy whereof, he demanded of every Cathedral church two prebends, and of every Religious house, so much as the portion of two Monks, or cloisterers came to by year. But the Clergy would in no wise grant it. The same request was made in France, but could not be obtained. Wherefore every man may see, how maliciously you slander the prince, which hath authority to take for necessary affairs, of the realm, so long as a competent living, remain unto the Ministers   

The Papist.  
Forth it is written of the Primitive church, that of such goods which they had in common, there was such equal division made by the hands of the Apostles, that no one man of the beliuers did lack, or was forced of necessity to beg. But since the reformation of this English church, many especially of the Clergy which were before well able to live, are now brought unto a very bore and beggarly life and estate.   

The answer.  
This division lasted not long among the Apostles at Jerusalem, for saint Paul from the Churches of the Gentiles, received almose, to supply the necessity of the poor saints at Jerusalem, and by Peter, james, & John he was exhorted so to do, as you may read, in the second to the galatians, and the second to the Corinth. viii. and. ix. And as for your Clergy, if any of them be brought to beggary, it is through their own ignorance, and frowardness, which either will not forsake their heresies, or are not able to minister in the Church of Christ, if any worthy men be neglected, it is the fault of some private persons, and not of the whole Church.   

The Papist.  
Fiveth in the Primitive church, Christ's Apostles did baptize the believers only in the name of jesus Christ, and not by express words of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, the which form of baptizing used in the Primitive church, these new reformators use not.   

The answer.  
That any of the Apostles, baptized, only in the name of jesus Christ, excluding the name of the father, and of the holy ghost, it is a detestable slander of the holy apostles. Who as they had an express commandment, of our saviour Christ, to baptize in the name of the blessed Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, so there is no doubt, but they did always observe it, which is easily to be gathered, out of the. xix. chapter of the Acts where certain disciples of Ephesus, being unorderly baptized, by some preposterous disciples of John: answered they knew not, whether there were an holy ghost or not, saint Paul then doth demand into what they were baptised, as though he should say, if you had been rightly baptized, you could not have been ignorant of the holy ghost, but by their answer, he perceived, that they were baptized into the name of John, and not of Christ, as though John had been the head of their religion, and not christ. Then after S. Paul had declared that Ihons' doctrine & baptism, was to be referred altogether to jesus Christ, they were baptized into the name of jesus Christ, that is to acknowledge jesus Christ to be the head and author of their Religion, not that in the form of their baptizing, the name of the father & of the holy ghost was excluded. And so are all other places to be expounded, where it is said, that any are baptized in the name of jesus Christ. And in no place is it said, that any man was baptized only in the name of jesus Christ. Wherefore this cavillation as it unprofitable for your purpose, so is it slanderous, and blasphemous against the Apostles.   

The Papist.  
sixth in the Primitive Church the Apostles, Peter, John, and their Successors, did give the holy Ghost unto their believers, that were before baptised by laying their hands upon their heads, which thing our reformators of this our English church do refuse to do by their denial made of the Sacrament of Confirmation.   

The Answer.  
Although I will not contend with you, on what part of men's bodies, the Apostles laid their hands, yet it is boldly affirmed of you, that they laid their hands on men's heads, which you read not in any place of the scripture, but concerning the substance of the matter, the Apostles by the ceremony of imposition of hands conferred the holy ghost, that is to say, the visible graces and gifts of the holy ghost, as the gift of tongues, the gift of prophecy, the gift of healing and such like, which gifts, as they were temporal in the Church, to beautify the ministry of the gospel, in the first publishing thereof, and now are ceased, so the ceremony by which they were conferred, is rightly abrogated. For now the ministers by laying on their hands, can not give those external graces of the holy ghost, wherefore they aught not to use that Ceremony. another imposition of hands, was used by the Apostles, on those that were baptized, being infants, which after they came to years of discretion, professed their faith before the Church, to which they were baptized, and so were received only by imposition of hands, which was therefore called confirmation. Not that it was a Sacrament, or a sign of God's favour, supplying that which wanted in baptism, but that it was a testimony of the Churches allowing, of those that were so baptized, and after learned the principles of their faith. And this Ceremony, we retain in our church, not as a Sacrament, which is a visible sign of an invisible grace, between God and us, but as an external approbation, and receiving of the person, in such sort baptized. As for your Oil and Chrism, that you occupy in your Popish confirmation, hath none institution of Christ, and therefore is no Sacrament.   

The Papist.  
Seventh the order and manner was of the Primitive church, if any man was dangerously sick, to sand for the Priest, to pray for him, and oinct him with Oil in the name of our Lord God, which the reformators of this our English church do refuse to do, by their denial of the Sacrament of extreme unction.   

The answer.  
In the primitive Church, the Elders of the Church, had the gift of healing, and therefore, when any man was sick, they used to send for the Elders of the Church, who prayed for him, and anointed him with Oil, in the name of the Lord, by which Ceremony, it pleased GOD, to restore the party to health, as you may read in the u Chapter of saint james. And in the sixth of saint Marks Gospel we read, that the Apostles being sent abroad of Christ, to preach, and work miracles, used by the same ceremony, to heal many that were sick. But now when the gift of healing, continueth not in the Church, it were a very ridiculous thing, to use that Ceremony. And as for your extreme unction, by no means can be accounted that usage, of the Apostles, for you anoint none almost, but such as are past hope of recovery, so far you are from restoring any to health by your beggarly ceremony.   

The Papist.  
Eight in the Primitive church we do read in the nintinth chapter, of the acts of the Apostles, how upon a certain plague there made upon seven brethren, the sons of one Sceba, by a man that was possessed with the Divelle, many of the people which did believe in jesus Christ, thereupon came and made upon confession of their sins, and made declaration of their private acts and deeds, which the reformatour of this our English Church will none of, by the denial of Sacrament of penance, and all the parts thereof.   

The Answer.  
It is strange to see, unto how narrow shifts, you are driven, to make up a number of arguments. Have you nothing but open confession, to prove your private and auricular confessions God be thanked, there are many also in our church, that make open confession, and declaration of their former life, led in blindness and superstition, of their falling in time of persecution and other like offences, but what is this to your popish Sacrament, of auricular confession? or what likelihood hath it with the same? first the faithful bringing forth certain examples of their actions, acknowledge how they were seduced by the devil before they embraced the faith: the pope's law compelleth men to rehearse all their deeds, words, and thoughts. These men made their confession once, the pope's law requireth each man to confess every year once at lest, these came forth to this confession of their own accord, the pope compelleth all men upon necessity of salvation. Again the text saith, that many came, but not all, the pope's law excepteth none, these Ephesians made open confession, before all the church, as you yourself acknowledge, the pope commandeth every man to whisper his confession, into a priests' ear. Let all men judge, what agreement this their confession, hath with your auricular confession. And whereas you say, we deny the Sacrament of penance, and all the parts thereof. The truth is, we preach repentance, as we are commanded, by the word of God, but no Sacrament of penance, do we find in the Scripture, what you mean by the parts of penance, I cannot well tell, but if it be those three, that be commonly set forth in writers of your dunsical divinity, contrition of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of work, you shall here, what we think of them. They are such, as a very limb of the Devil, may perform, and yet go to the Devil, when he hath done. Example in judas Iscarioth, who had contrition of heart, as the Scripture teacheth, when he was sorry for his fact. And he made confession of mouth, to the priests, when he said, I have sinned, in betraying of innocent blood. Finally, he made satisfaction of work, when he restored the thirty siluerlynges, which he received for his treason. And when he had so done, went and hanged himself in despair. You see, that judas lacked none of your three parts of penance, but he lacked faith, without the which, all contrition, confession, and outward satisfaction is nothing available. And therefore you teach a very wholesome kind of penance, in which faith in the blood of Christ, is no part at all. Neither is it necessarily required thereto, by your own doctrine. For Sacraments (you teach) give grace ex opere operato, that is, of the work wrought, so a man doth not withstand the receiving of them, which you call ponere obicem. And therefore penance being one of your Sacraments, and absolution of sins, may be received without faith, in the merits of Christ. Therefore keep your penance for your friends we can not skill of such Sacraments.   

The Papist.  
Ninth the order and manner of the Primitive church, was to celebrated the Sacrament of Christ's body after supper, as it appeareth, both by the example given thereof by our saviour Christ, and by the testimonies of the Apostle saint Paul, which they do not observe nor follow.   

The answer.  
You are not able to prove, that any such order was established, in the primitive Church, that the Sacrament of the body, and blood of Christ, should be received after Supper. Although it was by our Saviour institited after his last Supper. Not appointing any time, in which it aught of necessity to be received, no more than the Sacrament of Baptism, is bound either to Morning, or Evening, day, or night, or to any time of the day, in which it was first ordained. And whereas you allege the authority of saint Paul for your purpose, you do him great wrong, for he reproveth the Corinthians, for confounding drunken, and profane banquets, with the holy Sacrament of the lords Supper. i Cor. xj. And as for the time, place, and other like circumstances, pertaining to the ministration of the Sacraments, they are in the discretion of the church to appoint, as they may best serve for order, comeliness, and edification. But over the substance of the Sacraments, the Church hath no power, as to take the cup from the lay people, which none but the church of Antichrist would presume to do.   

The Papist.  
Tenth in the Primitive Church, it was decreed by a solemn law holden by the Apostles of Christ at Jerusalem, that the christian men men should abstain a sanguine, & suffocato, from blood and all suffocate things, which our reformators perform not, nor will admit any fasting from meats and drinks at all, by the which testimonies, and proves gathered out of the divine scriptures, how plain a matter it is that they purpose not in their reformation to reduce us to the Primitive Church of Christ, when therewith beside they have no agreaunce, they do all things clean to the contrary, like as ye have partly heard by profess made therefore out of the divine scriptures, and shall hereafter more at large by the writings, and testimonies of the most best learned, and gravest fathers that ever were in Christ's Church.   

The answer.  
The Apostles in that Counsel, made not a perpetual law, to bind any man's conscience, but only a temporal decree, to avoid offence of the weak jews: who were accustomed to abstain from such things, and this decree, as occasion served, was broken, and altered. But where you say, we can admit no fasting from meats, and drinks, at all. You shall understand, that we count it no fasting, to abstain from one kind of meat, and to fill your beallie with an other kind, as to refrain flesh, and to glut your stomach with fish. Or as the Manichees abstained from living creatures, and rioted in fruits, spices, and delicate confections. Neither did the Apostles, by that decree command any fasting, but only abstinence from blood, and strangled beasts, which was offensive to the jews. And for such end of avoiding offences, or for civil policy, we can, and do admit abstinence, from some kinds of meats, and drinks, but not for Religion's sake, neither accounting any such abstinence to be fasting. But true fasting, to tame the body, and to bring it into subjection, to humble ourselves, to make us more apt to pray, we commend, and exhort men unto it, although we make no tyrannical laws, to entangle any man's conscience with all. Your feeble kind of reasoning, should not incur so great reprehension, if you had not as well in your title, as in your conclusion, made so bold brags, of your plain proofs, which be so plain in deed that every man may see, they have no force at all in them. And whereas you threaten to show, that we do all things, contrary to the primitive Church, you do well to sat, it shall be performed in such sort, as you have proved already, that we have none agreaunce with the same. For he that hath experience, how pithily you have reasoned out of the scriptures, can not but hope, that you will dispute, even as profoundly out of the Doctors.   

The Papist.  
Arguments gathered out of the holy Fathers and ancient doctors, proving that this late reformed English Church hath no agreance with the primitive church of Christ.   

The answer.  
A man may easily perceive, that you delight in great numbers. For as before in your former arguments, one matter was cut into four parts, to fill up the number, so likewise in these arguments without order, or disposition, divers things are twice or thrice repeated. As dipping in baptism, oil, and Chrism, and crossing whereas if you would have followed any order, all these should have made but one argument of Ceremonies, or Traditions. Or if you would needs divide them into their particulars, you should have made thirty, or forty arguments of them, and not ten only. But now, how well you difine the primitive Church (as I have touched before) a man may marvel to see: sometime, you allege two hundredth, sometime three hundredth, sometime four hundredth, sometimes six hundredth, and at length you come almost to eight hundredth years after Christ, when you allege the second Counsel of Nice, which was holden in the year of our Lord, seven hundred eighty and one. So that the greater half of all the time, that hath passed from Christ's ascension, until this day, you would have us to take for the primitive church. But you know full well, that none of us, would allow all that time, for the primitive Church, especially when we speak of that state, which we would have to be a pattern and example to all churches. Only your purpose was, to amaze your unlearned friends, to whom you made this apology, with the names of so many ancient fathers, as you rehease, and yet like a wise man, you note but few places, where a man should find their authorities, as you allege them, jest you should happen to be discredited. Which must needs be counted fraudulent dealing, because you note some whereof no learned man will doubt, and pass over so many, which seem somewhat strange, that any such things should be, to those that perhaps have read, as much of the ancient doctors as you. But unto all, your ten as gumentes, I will first oppose one answer which is sufficient, to take them all away, namely that such things, as you bring in, to have been used, of the primitive church, were not in the first church of the Apostles, which is most properly called the primitive church, but in the latter and more corrupt age, and the further from the Apostles, the farther from sincerity. Beside that of Ceremonies, not manifestly impious used in the ancient church, after the Apostles, the church at all times after hath power, to abrogate or altar them, as they grow to be abused, or cease to be profitable, & therefore diversity of Ceremonies, maketh not diversity of Churches.   

The Papist.  
first in the Primitive Church they did mix in our lords cup water with wine, and so for to do, est lex evangelica, & traditio dominica, as witnesseth S. Cyprian, Irenaeus, Eusebius Emissenus which these our reformators will none of.   

The answer.  
The primitive church observed in the sacrament, that, which in drinking of wine, they commonly used, that is to put water among the wine, to allay the strength of it, in which thing, there was no harm, so long as superstition, and opinion of necessity was away, but that it should be as you say, lex evangelica & traditio dominica, the law of the Gospel, and the tradition of our Lord, I suppose, you are not able to prove, by authority of those Doctors, whose names you recite. In deed Cyprian, very earnestly urgeth the law of the Gospel, & the institution of Christ, for wine to be used therein, against certain heretics, of his time, which contended, that it should be ministered only with water. And so he writeth lib. 2. Epist. 3. to Caecilius. Admonites autem nos scias, ut in Calais offerendo, dominica traditio servetur, neque aliud fiat à nobis, quam quod pro nobis dominus prior fecit. ut Calix qui in comemorationem eius offertur mixtus vino offeratur. Nam cum dicat Christus, ego sum vitis vera, sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vinum. That is. Know thou, that we are admonished, that in offering the Cup, the tradition of our Lord be observed, and that none other thing be done of us, then that which our lord before did for us. That the cup which is offered in remembrance of him be offered mingled with wine. For seeing that Christ saith, I am the true Vine, not water truly, but wine is the blood of Christ. By this testimony, it is manifest, that Cyprian urgeth wine, and not water, to be of the institution of Christ, and the law of the Gospel. But I marvel how any Papist can be so shameless, to accuse us for taking away water out of the Cup, which was no part of Christ's institution, when they them selves are so bold, to take away the cup altogether, which is the one half of the Sacrament, of Christ's own institution, and continued in the Church 1400. years after Christ, until the late Counsel of Constance, which was but. 155. years agoens. They may rob the people of the blood of Christ, which Christ appointed for them, and we are heinous heretics, for not using water in the Cup, whereof as there is no use, so was there none institution. This is the judgement of those, that be blinded with their own pride, to espy a mote in an other man's eye, and not to see a beam in their own.   

The Papist.  
second in the Primitive Church in baptizing, they used to dip the party baptised thrice in the water, and S. Basile affirmeth, that it was a tradition of the Apostles, that who so ever did not so, he should be deposed therefore, whereas our reformators do but sprinkle a little water in the forehead of the party baptised, it may be quickly espied that they follow not the primitive church.   

The answer.  
Our saviour Christ, commandeth us to baptize, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, which, whether it be by dipping the body into the water, or by pouring water upon the body, the mystical signification of washing, is sufficiently expressed, and so long the Baptism is right, as for the number of dippinges, is nothing material. We read in the scriptures, divers forms of washing. The Eunuch, was baptized by Philip, going in naked into a River or Brook. And so baptized John in jordan. Other that were baptized in their houses, it is most like that water was powered on them, as Cornelius, and them that were with him. And the keeper of the prison, with his household. Acts. xuj. And as for the Ceremony of thrice dipping, although it was used of many, to signify the Trinity, yet was it not general, nor of any necessity. For in the fourth Counsel of Toledo, it was determined, that all was one, whether a child were baptized with three dippynges, or with one, alone. And yet it was there decreed, upon a good consideration, that in Spain they should use but one dipping. The words are these, in the fourth Counsel Toletane, and the fifth Canone. Ne tamen haereticis videamur consentire, qui tertio mergum, dum eorum morem seruamus, cautum est ne in Hispaenia, fiat baptismus, nisi in una mersione. that is to say. Lest we should seem to agreed with heretics, which use to dip thrice, while we retain their manner of baptizing, it is decreed, that no Baptism in Spain, be ministered but with one only dipping. In this decree of the Counsel, two things especially are to be noted. first, that the three dippynges was not always, and in all places observed, as a necessary matter: and therefore your argument is fallen to the ground, secondly, that it is profitable to altar, and change such Ceremoeys, as are used of heretics, that we seem not to agreed with them in any thing, in which it is lawful for us to disagree. And for this consideration, do we refuse to dip thrice, because we would not seem to agree with you, which are heretics, although we acknowledge, that of itself, it is a thing indifferent, to dip twice, or thrice, or ones, or not at all to dip, but only to pour on water, in sign of that spiritual ablution, which is represented by that Sacrament of Baptism. Wherefore, you have a very quick sight, that can espy a knot in a Rush, and of so small a gnat, to make so great an Elephante, as though all Christianity stood in thrice dipping of a child in Baptism, which I have proved not only, not to have been always observed, but also by decree of a Counsel to have been expressly forbidden. Which Ceremony, although it be numbered among the canons, commonly called of the Apostles, yet hath he a mean judgement in antiquity, that can not discern them from Apostolic writings. But because you bring in the Tradition of the Apostles, you must needs give me leave, to press you, with the same authority, and to show that you yourself, observe not the Traditions of the Apostles. In the vj. Canon of the Apostles, it is commanded that no Bishop, Priest, nor Deacon, shall put away his wife, under colour of religion, and they that do so shall be excomunicate. And in the ninth, and tenth Canons it is decreed, that whosoever is present at the Communion, and doth not communicate, that he should be excommunicate. How these Canons of the Apostles (if you will needs have them so called) be observed in your Popish Clergy, and your private Mass, what need I to rehearse? And yet you agreed with the primitive Church in all things, and we have none agreaunce therewith at all.   

The Papist.  
third in the Primitive church they used Oil and Chrisma in the ministration of divers Sacraments, which christ himself did ordain and sainctifie the night before his passion as witnesseth S. Cyprian. And his Apostles did commend the same unto the Church by their traditions as witnesseth saint Basile and S. Augustine, which these our reformators will none of.   

The answer.  
In the Primitive Church, there was not so many diverse Sacraments as you speak of, but only the Sacrament of Baptism, and of the body and blood of christ, and in neither of these, was there any institution or usage, of oil & chrism. And although, in the later time, ceremonies increased, that oil was used in baptism, yet was there not so many Sacraments, for Augustine saith, unto januaerius Epis. 118. unde Sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis▪ societatem novi populi colligavit, sicut est Baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus, communicatio corporis Christi, & sanguinis ipsius, & si quid aliud in scriptures canonicis commendatur. Wherefore (saith Augustine) God hath bound the society of his new people, with Sacraments in number fewest, in observation easiest, in signification most excellent, as is baptism consecrated in the name of the Trinity, the communion of the body and blood of Christ, and if any thing else be commended in the Canonical scriptures. The same Augustine and Chrisostome also upon the water and blood that issued out of Christ's side, do gather, that the Sacraments of the church, flowed out of his side, namely Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Aug. Hom. in joann. 20. Chrysostom. ad Neophytos. Augustine also in the third book, de doctrina christiana Cap. 9 rehearseth but these two Sacraments, speaking of those that are properly called Sacraments, for otherwise both he and other ancient writers, extend the name of Sacrament, to all ceremonies. And yet Gregory accounteth washing of feet to be a Sacrament, as Baptism and the Supper, which is no sacrament with you. And as for the ceremony of anointing in baptism, it is as lawful for us to abrogate, as for you to omit the drink of milk and Honey after baptism, & other such ceremonies, which you know were used as well as oil and Chrism. But our Saviour Christ, the night before his Passion, did ordain and sanctify. Oil and Chrism for such purposes: I marvel what Cyprian dare be so bold to affirm it, seeing the Evangelists make no mention thereof, and here again if you had noted the place of Cyprian, we might better have considered of his authority. diverse writings are set forth in his name, which were never any of his works.   

The Papist.  
Fowerth, S. Basile saith, that all determiminations and instructions which are preached and kept in the Primitive church of Christ, we have received them partly of the scriptures, and partly by the traditions of the Apostles, which both hath like force and strength unto godliness. As for example, the instructions which they have that trust in the name of jesus Christ, to sign themselves with the sign of Christ's cross, to pray towards the east, to use words of invocation at the showing of the Bread and the Cup in the holy eucharist: to bless the water of the font, the Oil of the holy unction, and that he also which is baptised, should be thrice dipped in the water, and such other like things which are taught and observed in the Sacrament of Baptism, as to renounce the Devil and his angels, salt, spittle, and the exorcism there made to the expulsion of the devil. All these things, and other like which are taught and observed in Christ's church, we have them saith saint Basile either of the scriptures, or else by the tradition of the Apostles, which are of like force and strength unto piety and godliness, whereas the reformators of this English church do esteem and judge all the premises for impiety, and ungodliness.   

The answer.  
In this your fourth argument, if it may be called an argument, you huddle up a number of Ceremonies, together, all which out of Basile, you would prove to be Traditions of the Apostles. In deed Basile in the. xxvij. Chapter of his book De spiritu sancto, is driven to this shift, that either he must acknowledge many such unfruitful Ceremonies, as in his time were crept into the church, to be unprofitable, or else to fly to the tradition of unwritten verities. The same in effect ceaceth Augustine, and yet neither of both, was so ignorant, but that at such time as they did thoroughly consider, either the dignity of the holy scriptures, or the natures of such humane Traditions, they judged otherwise of the whole matter. For Basile in his morals Diffinit. xxvi. saith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. that it behoveth every word, and deed, to be authorized by the testimony of the scripture inspired of God, both for the certain persuasion of the good, and the confusion of the evil. And in the 8. diffini. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. If all that is not of faith, is sin, as the Apostle saith, and faith is of hearing, and hearing by the word of God, what so ever is beside the divine scripture, being not of faith, is sin. Upon which conclusion, a man may infer, that all such Traditions, as Basile before defended, being beside the scriptures, are sin. The same Basile in his brief definitions to this question, whether it be profitable for them, that come newly to the faith, immediately to be instructed out of the scriptures? Maketh this answer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. It is both convenient, and necessary, that every man far his necessary use, should learn out of the divine scriptures, both that he may be certainly persuaded in his Religion, and also, that he be not before accustomed to humane Traditions. Let this therefore suffice for saint Basile to answer himself.  
Saint Augustine also in his 118. Epistle, where he speaketh most favourably for Traditions, hath these words. Sed hoc nimis doleo, quod multa quae in divinis libris saluberrimè praecepta sunt, minus curantur & tam multis praesumptionibus, sic plena sint omnia, ut gravius corripiatur, qui per octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit, quam qui mentem vinolentia sipelire est. But this (saith Augustine) doth grieve me to much, that many things, which in God's book, are most wholsemly commanded, are less regarded, and all things are so full of presumptions, that he is more sharply reproved, which hath touched the earth with his bore foot, in time of his vtas, than he that hath buried his mind with drunkenness.  
And in the same place he saith, of Traditions: Quamuis enim neque hoc inveniri possit, quomodo contra fidem sint: ipsam tamen religionem, quam paucissimis, & manifestissimis celebrationum Sacramentis, misericordia dei esse liberam voluit, seruilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolerabilior sit conditio judaeorum qui etiam si tempus libertatis non agnoverint, legalibus tamen sarcinis, non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur. that is to say. For although this can not be found, how they are contrary to the faith, yet they oppress with sclavishe burdens, the religion itself, which the mercy of God, would have to be free, with most few, and manifest Sacraments of celebrations: So that the state of the jews, is more tolerable than ours: for although they have not acknowledged the time of liberty, yet they are subject to burdens laid on them by the law, not to humane presumptions.  
By this you see Augustine's right judgement, of such unprofitable Ceremonies, and Traditions. Which although Basile, and he conjecture, and guess to have been received of the Apostles, because they knew none other original of them, yet it doth not follow, that they were delivered by the Apostles in deed. For many of them (if your own authors do not lie) were instituted by divers Popes of Rome, long after the age of the Apostles. And some it is plain, were invented by heretics. For the first that we read of, in any ancient, and authentical writer, that had in reverence the sign of the Cross, were the Valentiniane heretics as witnesseth Irenaeus, libri primi. Capit. 1. which they called Oron crucem confirmativam, the strengthening Crosse. And abused the testimonies of saint Paul, as you Papists do, where he saith verbum crucis. etc. The word, or preaching of the cross, & mihi non eveniat gloriari. etc. God forbid that I should rejoice, but in the Cross of Christ. But afterward true Christians used that sign, to testify unto Heathen men, that they were Christians, and were not ashamed of the ignominious death of Christ, which the Gentiles did dispightfully cast in their teeth, and at length it grew to a mere superstition, and last of all, to most horrible Idolatry, when the Image of the Cross was worshipped, sensed, and prayed unto.  
Prayer toward the east, was used of the Christians, in the ancient Church, to testify, that they differed from the jews, who prayed toward the West, lest they should seem to worship the Sun rising, as the Gentiles did. And although words of invocation were used, at the showing of the bread, and the Cup, yet was there no invocation, of the Sacramental bread and Cup, but of God.  
Of the other Ceremonies, of anoincting, and thrice dipping, hath been spoken before. That the Apostles used no such blessing of the water of Baptism, as you do, it is manifest, when they baptized in every River, and Brook that they came to. In dedè they did consecrated the water for that time, when they used it to serve for the holy use, but did put no holiness into it which should remain after that baptism was ministered with it, as you do. As for the stipulation of renouncing the devil. etc. is in deed the doctrine of the Apostles. Hebr. u (which we retain) although you say in the end, we do not. As for salt, spittle, & conjuration, or exorcism, they are altogeher superfluous, at this time. Of exorcism, there was some use in the ancient church, but of salt, & spittle, which never are not mentioned in that place of Basile. As there were many possessed with Devils, so there was some, that that had this power of the holy ghost, to cast out Devils which were called exoreistes, as witnesseth S. Cyprian in his fourth book, and Epis. seven. ad Magnun. Quod hody etiam geritur ut per exorcistas, voce humana, & potestate divina, flagelletur et uratur, et torqueatur diabolus. Et cum exire, et hoens dei dimittere saepe dicat, & in eo tamen quod dixerit fallat, & id quod per Pharaonen prius gestum est eodem, mendacio obstinationis, et fraudis exerceat: Cum tamen ad aquam salutaren, atque ad baptismi sanctificationan venitur, scire debemus & fidere, quia illic diabolus opprimitur, & homo dicatus divina indulgentia liberatur, that is: Which thing also, is done at this day, that by the exorcists, through the voice of a man, and the power of God, the devil is scourged, burned, and tormented. And although he saith oftentimes, that he goeth out, & letteth go the men of God, and yet in so saying deceiveth, & practiseth the same thing, that was done before by Pharaoh, with the same lie of obstinacy, & deceit: yet when we come to the wholesome water, and sanctification of Baptism, we must know, and believe, that there, the Devil is oppressed, and the man, which is there dedicated, is by the mercy of god delivered. This one testimony among a number is sufficient, to declare both, that there was in the Church, men endued with the gift of casting out devils, which visibly, and sensibly did possess men: and that Exorcism at Baptism, was used for none other end, but to deliver such as were possessed, and could not be delivered by the Exorcists, before they were baptized, not that every person which was baptized had need of exorcism, but only such as were vexed with unclean spirits. And seeing that gift of casting out devils, doth no more continue in the Church, and they that are to be baptized, are not possessed with devils, it were not only ungodliness, but also mere madness, for such to take upon them that power, which have it not, or if they had it, to exercise it, where there is no need of it.   

The Papist.  
fift in the Primitive church they builded churches, erected therein altars, and offfered sacrifice thereon, which was a sure token and argument of the faith of Christ, received like as Chrysostome writeth of England, how that they had received the faith of Christ, because they had builded churches, and erected Altars in the same. S. Bead witnesseth, that saint Augustine at the bringing in of Christ's faith into England, did set up Altars, whereupon the people did make their oblations, and the pressed did celebrated Mass, which these our reformators do deny and destroy, as great blasphemy unto God.   

The answer.  
For building of Churches in any sumptuous manner, the primitive church was not careful, but until Constantine's time, continued in such places as they could get, sometimes & most commonly in caves under the earth, when they were persecuted and durst not assemble in open places. And we at this time, if we had not convenient places for the holy assembles would and where such convenient houses lack do build, Churches and Oratories. But not in the honour of Saints and Angels as you do, which thing the primitive and ancient Church, did not, but judged it to be mere Idolatry, sacrilege, and blasphemy. As Basile in his. 141. Epistle proveth the holy ghost to be God, because he hath a temple, so doth Didymus in his treatise de spiritu sancto, because no creature but God only, can have a temple S. Augustine de vera religione, Cap. 55, saith, concerning saints. Quare honoramus eos charitate, non servitute, nec eyes Templa construimus. etc. Wherefore we honour them with love and not with service, neither do we build churches unto them, for they will not be so honoured of us. Likewise in the. 8. book. 27. cap. de civitate dei, he saith, that christians build no temples to Martyrs, and in very many other places, he writeth to the same effect. And as for Altars and Sacrifies, the primitive church used none, more than we. The ancient church in deed, nameth Altars and sacrificing, but they meaned nothing less, than such Altars and sacrifices, as the Papists use. For the fashion of their altar, which was the Communion Table, & so called of them also, is to be seen in the panegyrical oration made before Paulinus Bishop of Tyrus, where also the fashion of their Temples is described. Euseb. lib. 10. Cap. 4. There was but one Altar in all the Church, which stood not against the furthest wall, at the East end of the Church, as your Altars, but in the midst of the Church, and was compassed round about with Grates or Lattesses of wood, which were called Cancels, the Chancel, with in which place so enclosed, the Communion was ministered, and at the time of the ministration, the Ministers and Deacones, stood round about the Altar, which is a manifest proof, that it was not an Altar against a wall, like yours, but a Table standing in the midst as ours is. last of all, what they understood by the name of sacrifice, I will discloase by one Testimony of Chrisostome, which shallbe in stead of a great number. For this he writeth upon the. x. chapter to the hebrews. Hom. 17. Speaking of the sacrifice, which the Church doth offer. Hoc autem quod facimus in comemorationem quidem fit eius quod factum est. Hoc enim facite inquit in meam comemorationem. Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex, sed ipsum semper facimus, magis autem recordationem sacrificijeperamur. This Sacrifice (saith he) that we do, is done in remembrance of that which was done. For he said, do this in remembrance of me, we do not offer an other Sacrifice, as the high Priest, but we offer the self same always, or rather we exercise the remembrance of that sacrifice. By this testimony of Chrisostome, it is evident, that the old writers, when they spoke of Sacrifice, did not mean the Popish sacrifice of the Mass, but only the remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ, which is the ministration of the Communion. The Testimony of Beda, concerning Augustine the Monk, that came into England, which you alleged, is neither ancient, being above six hundred years after Christ, neither yet of authority to be followed, the same Augustine being a superstitious proud, cruel, and unlearned Monk. For his superstition, Bede testifieth, his pride and cruelty is set forth in our English histories, his ignorance, in doubts and questions, which he propoundeth to Gregory B. of Rome.   

The Papist.  
sixth in the Primitive church both men and women, made solemn vows to the abdication of all propriety in worldly goods and possessions, and also of perpetual chastity, as it may appear. Acts. 5. Math. 19 and. 1. Corinth. 7. 1. Tim. 5. Example whereof, was in the time of the Apostles in Iphigenia a professed virgin, whom Hirtacus King of Ethiopia would needs have taken to his wife, but the Apostle S. Matthew vouched to him, that he could not so do for that she had vowed her virginity to God. Whereupon Hirtacus put the Apostle saint Mathewe to death, as witnesseth Abdias and others. The Canons of the Apostles doth prohibit the marriage of priests. The counsel holden at Chalcedon and all the auncien fathers, Dionysius, Areopagita. S. Basile. S. Ambrose. S. Augustine. S. Chrisostome, Epiphanius, and divers others. This notwithstanding our reformators do defend such marriages to be lawful and good, having no regard of any vow or profession made to the contrary.   

The answer.  
In the Acts are mentioned those, that were content to give their goods in common, but no vow spoken of, that they might never have any propriety of goods. Our saviour Christ also speaketh of some, that had made themself chaste, for the kingdom of heaven, having the gift of continency, but no vow, that they were bound unto. Saint Paul to the i. Corinthians. seven. chapter, commendeth Virginity, in such as have the gift, but he bindeth none with any vows, for if a Virgin marry, he saith she doth not sin. But in the first of Timothe. u he entreateth of widows, which as they were nourished by the Church, so they did minister unto the Church, and these made no vow to God, but a promise to the church, that they would continued unmarried, that they might attend to their charge, being free from husbands, which saint Paul would not have to be chosen under sixty years of age, when carnal lust is paste. What is this to young girls, that are professed nuns, at fifteen, or sixteen years of age, before they know, whether they are able to live chaste, without any husband, or no? As for your fable of Iphigenia, and Hirtacus out of your new found old doctor Abdias, we give small credit unto it: the very names do sufficiently bewray, the forgery, which sound nothing like to the Aethiopian language. The Canons commonly called of the Apostles, do excommunicate, a bishop, or a clerk, that doth put away his wife under colour of Religion, as I have showed before. The counsel of Chalcedon Canon, xiii. forbiddeth Clerks to marry wives of a contrary Religion, as jews, or Pagans. But not simply forbiddeth them, much less would allow them, to put away their lawful wives. But when you proceed further, and say, that all the ancient fathers, do prohibit Priests marriage, you are to general: For I can bring you some proves to the contrary. In deed the most of the later sort of ancient writers, are very much addict to the praise of sole life, yet was not marriage clean taken away from priests, for more than a thousand years after Christ. You rehearse certain ancient writers, and among them Dionysius Areopagita, of whom I must admonish the unlearned reader, that he is not that Dionysius whom saint Paul at Athenes converted, but one of much later time. For the rest of the Doctors, if you had alleged their sayings, as you do their names, I should have said some thing unto them. But that all ancient fathers as you say, do not forbid marriage of Priests, and such as have vowed virginity, you may know by these examples.  
First, Tertullian was a married man, and writeth a book to his wife. Epiphanius rehearseth many heretics, which forbade marriage. Also of such as had vowed virginity, and could not keep their vow, he writeth Contra Apostolicos libr. 2. Tom. 1. haeres. 61. Melius est itaque unum peccatum habere, & non plura. Melius est lapsum à cursu, palam sibi uxorem sumere secundum legem & á virginitate multo tempore poenitentiam agere, & sic rurssus ad ecclesiam induci, velut qus mala operatus sit, velut lapsum & fractum, & obligation opus habentem, & non quotidie ocultis iaculis sauciari ab improbitate quae à diabolo ei infertur. Sic novit ecclesia praedicare, haec sunt sanationis medicamenta. It is better therefore, to have one sin and not many. It is better for him, that is fallen from his course, openly to take him a wife, according to the law, and to repent along time, for his virginity, and so again to be brought into the church, as one that hath done evil, as one that is fallen and bruised, and hath need to be bound up, and not to be daily wounded with privy Darts, through the improbity which is wrought to him by the Devil. So the Church knoweth to preach, these are the medicines of healing. You see here that Epiphanius, would have such as could not keep their vow of virginity, rather to marry, then to burn, according to the doctrine of saint Paul.  
Chrysostome, whose name also you rehearse in his second Homely upon the first Chapter of the Epistle to Titus, hath these words. Obstruere prorsus intendit haereticorum ora, qui nuptias damnant, ostendens eam rem culpa career, imo ita esse pretiosam, ut cum ipsa etiam possit quispiam ad sanctum▪ Episcopatus solium evehi. That is to say. He purposeth utterly to stop the mouths of heretics, which condemn marriage showing how that thing is without fault, yea to be so precious a thing, that with it any man may be advanced to the holy see of a Bishopric. Chrisostome therefore is not so whole on your side, as you make him, no more is any of the ancient fathers, though it please you to abuse there names for a show. But who among all the old writers was either a greater admirer of virginity? or a more defacer of matrimony, than Jerome was? and yet he writeth thus of virgins, that have vowed continence, ad Demetriadem: Sanctum virginum propositum, & caelestis angelorumque familiae gloriam, quarundam non bene se aegentium nomen infamat. Quibus apertè dicendum est, ut aut nubant si se non possunt continere, aut contineant si nolunt nubere. That is, the ill name of some, that behave not them selves well, doth slander the holy purpose of virgins, and the glory of the heavenly family of angels, to whom it is openly to be spoken, that either they do marry, if they can not contain, or else that they must contain, if they will not marry. By these witnesses it is apparent, that all ancient fathers, be not of your judgement, if we shall believe their own writings, rather than your sayings. And concerning them, that have vowed continence, if they have any conscience of their vow, and are able to perform it, none of us exhorteth them to break it. But such as are not able to perform honestly, that which they have vowed rashly, we teach according to the doctrine of saint Paul, that it is better for them repenting of their rash vows to marry, then to burn in concupiscens, then to commit fornication, and uncleanness. And this we do not without the consent of old writers, as partly I have showed, and more could show if need required.   

The Papist.  
Seventh in the primitive church Images of Christ, his Cross and of his saints, were used, as in Cęsarea was the Image of Christ set up, by the woman which Christ cured of the flux of blood, as witnesseth Eusebius and Basilius magnus, and the general Counsel holden at Nice, of three hundred and ten Bishops, doth constantly affirm and vouch, that the Image of Christ and of his Sanctes in the church, were of the tradition of the Apostles. And saint Gregory Nyssen doth writ how he did behold the Image of Christ's passion, and that oftentimes not without tears and weeping. Chrisostome saith, that he that doth any injury or valiny to the Image of Caesar, he doth commit the same against Caesar himself. S. Bead writeth, how saint Aug. entered into this Realm with a Cross of Silver, and an Image of Christ painted in a table in procession wise, singing the Litany, to which notwithstanding, what violence, and dishonour hath been done by our reformators herein this Realm, to the Image of our saviour Christ and of his saints it is not unknown.   

The Answer.  
It is a proper Primitive Church, which you allege of the second Counsel of Nice, which was seven hundred eighty and one years after Christ, holden by a multitude of Idolatrous, flattering, and unlearned Prelates, which to feed the humour of that wicked Empress Irene, were gathered together, not in the name of Christ, but against Christ, whose express commandment, they did impugn. And with such lewd, and unsensible reasons, and wrestynges of the scriptures, that if a man of purpose, to mock the Idolaters, would invent arguments to laugh at, he could not devise more ridiculous matters. God made man after his own Image, ergo we must make Images, God is marvelous in his saints, ergo we must make Images. (Theodofius of Amorie reasoneth, whatsoever is written, is written for our learning, ergo we must have Images to teach us.) No man lighteth a candle, and putteth it under a Bushel, ergo Images must be set on the Altars, with a hundredth such substantial proofs. And to make the matter most manifest, Theodorus bishop of mire, proveth that Images must be worshipped by his Archedeacons' dreams, and so doth other by dreams, and miracles, and at last, Tharasius archbishop of Constantinople, with the whole Synod concludeth, that Angels have bodies, and men's souls also be bodily, and therefore they may be painted. Against this Idolatrous, unlearned, and blasphemous Counsel, Carolus Magnus wrote a book, which is extant, in which he confuteth the gross heresy, of adoration of Images.  
As for the primative church of Christ, regarding the second commandment of God, did make no kind of Images, to be had in any use of religion, but utterly forbade them. As for the Image of Christ, whereof Eusebius speaketh, if it were true, was only a monument of the history, set up in the street, in remembrance of the miracle, not in the church to be had in veneration, or worshipped. Neither was there any Image received into the Church, for three hundredth years after Christ. The Epistle of Epiphanius, translated by saint Hierome, is a notable testimony.  
Cum venissem ad villam quae dicitur Anablatha, vidissemque ibi praeteriens lucernam. etc. When I came to a village, which is called Anablatha, and saw there as I passed by, a candle burning, and enquiring what place it was, and understanding that it was a Church, I entered in, to pray, and found there a vail, or linen cloth, hanging at the door of the said church, stained, and painted, and having an Image as it were of Christ, or of some saint. For I do not well remember, whose Image it was. Therefore when I saw, this thing, that the Image of a man was hanged up, in the Church, contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, I did rend it in pieces, and gave counsel to the keepers of that place, rather to wrap it about some poor body that was dead, to bury him with all. Contrariwise, they murmured, and said. If he would needs rend it, it were reason, he should give us an other vail for it, and so change it. Which thing when I heard, I promised, that I would give them one, and send it shortly. There passed not long time, but that I sought to send them a very good vail for it. For I thought that one should have been sent me out of Cypress. And now I have sent such a one, as I could get. And I pray you to command the Elders of that place, to receive that vail of this bearer, which is sent by us. And to give them charge, that hereafter in the Church of Christ, such veils be not hanged up, which are contrary to our Religion. This writeth Epiphanius to John bishop of Jerusalem, by which it is evident, what was thought of Images, at that time, when a painted vail, might not be hanged before a Church door, to keep out the wind, or for some such purpose, and not in any respect of religion, or worshipping. The same Epiphanius, among the heresies of Carpocrates rehearseth, that he made privily the Image of jesus, & Paul Homer, and Pythagoras, and worshipped them. Also he inveigheth sharply against the Antidicomarians, and Collyridians, for using, and worshipping the Image of Marie the Virgin. As for your testimonies, out of Gregory Nyssene, and Chrysostome, serve nothing to the purpose, for Gregory speaketh not of the history of Christ's passion, as you untruly report, but of the oblation of Isaac, by his father Abraham. Conc. Nicen. 2. actione. iiij. But this picture was in some private place, not in the Church, and place of worshipping.  
And Chrysostome in his saying, concludeth not, that therefore we must have Images of GOD, and of Christ in the Church, but he that doth injury to any man, that is made after the Image of god, or disobeyeth a Magistrate, which representeth the person of God. etc. He doth injury to God. For he that maketh any Image of God, doth God great injury, transforming the glory of the invisible GOD, into the shape of any corruptible creature. Rom. j But what Chrysostome and divers other godly fathers, thought of the use of Images, in the church, is exdressed in the counsel of Ephesus, which condemned Images before the Counsel of Nice, which restored them. And the Counsel Elibertinum, four hundredth years before that, under Constantine the great, made this decree. Capt. xxxvi. Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus depingatur. That is. It is thought good, that pictures aught not to be in the Church, least that thing, which is worshipped, and honoured, should be painted on the walls. To conclude, that which you allege out of Beda, concerning Dan Augustine the Monk, I will answer by the authority of saint Augustine the Bishop: who in his book De consensu Euamgelistarum libr. i Capit. 10. Speaking of certain Heathen adversaries, which noumbred Paul among the twelve Apostles, that were with Christ, while he lived, writeth in these words. Credo quod pluribus locis simul eos cum illo pictos viderunt, quià merita Petri, & Pauli etiam propter eundem passionis diem celebrius, & solemniter Roma commendat. Sic omnino errare meruerunt, qui Christum, & Apostolos eius, non in sanctis codicibus, sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt. I believe that in many places they saw them painted together with him, because the City of Rome, commendeth the worthiness of Peter, and Paul, more notably, and solemnly, because of the same day of their suffering. So altogether they were worthy to be deceived, which sought Christ and his Apostles, not in the holy scriptures, but in painted walls. And so all they that followed your Augustine's superstitions, were justly blinded, and deceived, because they sought not Christ in the scriptures, but in painted Tables, which is the punishment due for Idolatry, as saint Paul testifieth. Roma. j   

The Papist.  
Eight in the primative church the manner of fasting was marvelous straight, in so much that Faustus Manicheus. 1300. years ago, did tax the Christian men, that they should in time of Lente, abstain from all meat, that is spoken of by the Apostle. S. Paul in the first to Timothy the fourth Chapter. And did blaspheme the doing and teaching of Christ's church to be doctrinam daemoniorum. But Jerome upon the same place doth make answer, like as saint Augustine in many places, that the church in their fasting to abstain from meat, not thereby to condemn any kind of meat, as Manichaeus did, but for penance, and to subdue the carnal concupiscens, and such other like good purposes▪ And farther for the straight fasting in the primitive Church. S. Iheronime writeth ad Nepotianum, Epiphanius in Anchorato, which is now thought of these reformators to be superfluous and foolish, and therefore they mind not to reduce and bring us to the order of the primitive church.   

The answer.  
Concerning Fasting, I have spoken sufficiently, in answer of your tenth argument, out of the scriptures, where you make mention of fasting also. Euseb. lib. u Capit. xviij. Testifieth that Montanus the heretic, was the first that prescribed laws of fasting, whom you follow altogether. And especially the heretics call Archontici, of whom Epiphanius writeth lib. i Tom. iij. Here. 40. which pretended fasting, but observed none in deed, and the Manichees of whom S. Augustine testifieth, that under colour of abstinence, they refrained from eating of any living thing, and from drinking wine, yet did they glut, and pamper them selves with delicate fruits, and spices, with drink made of the juice of Dates, etc. such was your Popish fast: on Fridays at Dinner, to eat no flesh, but as much fish, as the beallie would hold, with good store of wine, at night to eat no living creatures, but Figs, Reasons, Almonds, Wardens, and Quinces baked, Suckette, and Marmelade, and other fruits conserved with good wine, or Hippocras to help digestion. This was a strait kind of fast, yet this was Catholic enough, so long as great Prelates used it.   

The Papispte.  
Ninth in the primitive church, they used prayer for the souls departed, which was the tradition of the Apostles, as witnesseth Dyonysius Areopagita de caelesti Hierarchia. Cap. 7. Epiphanius Chrisostom in. 1. ad Cor. Hom. 41. & in Math. 33. & Hom. 69. ad populum Antiochenum, which thing is proved also by the Scriptures, affirmed of all ancient writers, and hath always been continued in Christ's Church, and now denied and taken away by our reformators, and therefore they mind no to reduce us to the primitive church.   

The answer.  
I must needs confess, that prayer for the dead, is one of the oldest heresies, that the Papists do maintain, and yet hath it no authority of God's word, nor of the primitive Church, for two hundredth years after Christ. They used in deed, to make mention of them, at the celebration of the Communion, and to give God thanks for them, which some time is called a Sacrifice offered for them, as of Cyprian. Lib. iiii. Epist. v. Speaking of Martyrs, of whom none doubteth, but they were in heaven, and needed no prayers to be made for them. Sacrificia pro eyes semper ut meministis offerimus, quoties martyrum passiones & dies anniversaria commemoratione celebramus. That is: We offer Sacrifice for them always, as you remember, so often as we celebrated the passion, or days of the Martyrs, by yearly commemoration. But this unproper kind of speaking, and bold attempts, without scripture to name the dead in the Communion, did breed in the posterity, many errors, as prayer for the dead, the Sacrifice of the Mass for the dead, Purgatory, and such other. But in this ninth argument, you bewray your fraudulent dealing in the other, for here you note the places of the doctors, which you know no man will deny, and in other places, where you affirm, that none of us will grant, you allege their names only, without quoting the places.   

The Papist.  
Tenth in the Primitive church christian men were taught, to arm themselves with the sign of the Cross, which consignation of the Cross was used in the administration of the Sacraments, and that of necessity, as saint Augustine saith: words also of invocation before the consecration of the Sacrament of the Altar, were used in the primitive church, like as the sanctifying of the font, the blessing also of the Chrism and Oil, to annoincte the party baptised, all which things were of the traditions of the Apostles, as witnesseth Basili. saint Cyprian, saint Augustine, Damas', and many other▪ which things being now utterly abolished by the new reformators, they purpose not to bring us to the order of the Primitive church. Seeing therefore it can not be denied by so many testimonies gathered out of the divine Scriptures, and holy fathers, that they agreed not with the primitive church of christ, but do dissent and are clean gone from it, in so many diverse points as I have expressed. Therefore this their reformation to reduce us to the primitive church, is only pretended of their parts and shall never be proved.   

The answer.  
You leap to, and fro, backward, and forward, more like to one that danceth, then that disputeth, Have we not heard enough before, of crossing, and blessing, of Oil, and Chrism? But they must now be repeated again, which if they were granted to you, and used of us, as they were in time of those doctors, whose names you recite, what had you gained there by? It is your blasphemous doctrine, that me do most abhor, and your Ceremonies, we hate the more, for your doctrines sake. You should therefore stand to the defence of your doctrine, and not fight so eagerly for your Ceremonies, if you would use good policy. Now for these observations, I have answered before sufficiently, by which, as by the rest of mine answers, I trust it shall appear, to every man of indifferent judgement, that notwithstanding, all your twenty arguments of both sorts, our Church hath such conformity, and agreement with the primitive Church of Christ, that she may be truly counted a member of the same, and partaker in the communion of all the saints of God.   

The Papist.  
Of what force, streingth, and estimation those things are of, which have been used in Christ's catholic church, it shall appear by these testimonies of saint Augustine following.   

The answer.  
Before you had spoken of the force of those matters, you should have done well to have considered the force of your arguments, which, how strong so ever those things be, are to weak to prove that, which you propound, namely. that our Church hath none agreaunce at all, with the Primitive Church of Christ. But seeing you will needs set for the dignity of these matters, we will severally consider, all these four arguments.   

The Papist.  
first saint Augustine writing against the Donatists, saith, look what things the universal church of christ observe, and hath at all times observed, if the same be not ordained by any general counsel, them it aught most firmly to be believed, that it came to us only by the authority, and tradition of the Apostles.   

The answer.  
Although I know what to think of unwritten Traditions, yet if you be able to prove, that all these things whereof you speak, the universal Church of Christ, doth, and hath always observed, I will yield to you, that they are the Tradition of the Apostles, according to your testimony, which if you can not do, (as I am well assured, you will never be able to do it) by your own reason, and authority, we need not hold them for Traditions of the Apostles, nor yet decrees of general Counsels.   

The Papist.  
Second saint Augustine in his Epistle ad Casulanum, saith, how in all these things, whereof the Scriptures hath made no certain determination, the manner of the people of god▪ or decrees of our elders, must be taken and holden as a law to govern ourselves, and in the same Epistle he maketh mention how the Sunday, because it is not fasted, which fasting is a Sacrifice acceptable to God▪ Therefore saith he, the Sunday may not be celebrated and kept without an other Sacrifice which is acceptable to God.   

The answer.  
The Scripture hath determined of all necessary articles of faith, and against all superstitious opinions, and Ceremonies. And these things you speak of, we proved to be such, therefore in them by Saint Augustine's rule, neither the custom of people, nor the decrees of elders must take place, but the authority of God's word. But of such things as be variable Ceremonies, for edification, order, and comeliness sake, divers particular Churches, may make particular decrees, which are nothing prejudicial to the universal Church of Christ, which is the principal argument that saint Augustine handleth, in that 86. Epistle to Casulanus, where he defendeth the custom of the most part of the Church, against the custom of the Church of Rome. As I have touched before, which thing, of you will in no wise be allowed. And as concerning the Sacrifice he speaketh of, to be celebrated on Sondaie, he meaneth not the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, as perhaps you would seem to infer. But the celebration of the communion, for thus he writeth in the same Epistle against Vrbicus. Dicit cessisse pani pecus, tanquam nesciens & tunc in domini mensa, panes propositionis poni solere, & nunc se de agni immaculati corpore partem sumere, dicit cessisse poculo sanguinem, non cogitans etiam nunc se accipere in poculo sanguinem. He saith that the Sheep hath given place to the bread, as though he were ignorant, that then also the showbread, was used to be set on the lords board, and that now also he taketh part of the body of the immaculate Lamb: he saith that blood hath given place to the Cup, not considering that now also, he receiveth blood in the Cup. These words declare, both that the Sacrifice was nothing but the Communion, and also that the wine is none otherwise called blood, than the bread is called a lamb, and that the bread in nature, and substance is such, as was the Showbread, in which was no transubstantiation, and thirdly, the necessity of the Communion in both kinds, if this analogy of Augustine must stand, wherefore saint Augustine in this Epistle, maketh little for your purpose.   

The Papist.  
third saint Augustine in his third Epistle ad januarium saith, that the things which we do observe throughout the whole world, being not written, but delivered unto us, either from the Apostles or general counsels (the authority whereof is notable) and as of them received, aught to be observed, as the yearly remembrance and feasts of the passion of Christ, of his ascension into heaven, and of the coming of the holy ghost, which are celebrated in the Church of Christ, or any other like thing which is universally observed from whatsoever it first came fro, and therefore saith saint Augustine in the same Epistle, to reason or dispute why the same thing aught to be observed, which of long time hath been observed throughout the whole world, by the authority of Christ's church, insolentissima insania est, it is a point saith he of extreme madness. And therefore saith saint Aug. the change made of so long a custom, yea though the same should be very profitable, yet by the newness thereof it doth vex and trouble the Church of Christ, it is made unprofitable, unfruictful and finally hurtful to the church of christ, and for an example thereof, he doth there allege how the disciples of christ did receive the body and blood of christ, not fasting but after supper, is the universal church of christ therefore to be reproved, or the custom thereof to be changed, whereby we do in the same, receive the body and blood of christ fasting, and that for a more reverence thereunto, in preferring the food of the soul, before the food of the body? doubtless so for to do it, should be after the mind of Augustine, both hurtful unto the church of christ, and a great ponct of madness.   

The answer.  
This testimony in effect, is the same with the former. Saint Augustin would have such Traditions, as have always been used in the Church, to be supposed, that either they came from the Apostles, or from the generell Counsels: but here we have, diligently to consider, that we admit not all such things, as are called Traditions, but only such as are universally, and have been always used in the Church. secondly, that they be not contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles, contained in the holy scriptures, for than it is most certain, they are no Traditions of the Apostles, for they did not deliver one thing in writing, and a contrary thing in Tradition. Thirdly, that whatsoever Tradition of the Apostles, is not contained in the scriptures, although we knew it came from the Apostles, it is lawful upon good consideration to altar it. For seeing that all necessary matters, are contained in the scriptures, whatsoever they delivered, which is not contained in the scriptures, was but temporal, & might be changed, aswell as the decree De sanguine et suffocato, of blood, & strangled.  
And that we aught not to receive, whatsoever is commended to us, as a Tradition of the Apostles, may appear by these examples. Irenaeus was a man that lived near to the age of the Apostles, for he saw, as he himself doth testify, Polycarpus the disciple of saint Ihon. And he declareth that it was a Tradition, commonly received in Asia, as of saint John the Apostle, and of other of the Apostles, that our saviour Christ lived fifty years, which is contrary to the truth of the Gospel. Irenaeus libri. 2. Cap. xxxv. If such a fable could be credited, for an Apostolic Tradition, so soon after the Apostles departure, what may be judged of those, that in two hundredth, three hundredth, five hundredth, six hundredth, eight hundredth years after the Apostles, were not heard of, but suddenly were set out in the world, as Traditions of the Apostles. Eusebius also reporteth, libri. u Cap. xviii. that it was alleged as a Tradition of the Apostles, that Christ commanded them, not to depart from Jerusalem, twelve years after his ascension, which is manifestly contrary to the the history of the Acts of the Apostles. Tertuliane after he was fallen into the error of the montanists, voucheth the Tradition of the Apostles, against the Catholics, whom he calleth Psychicos, that is, animales, natural men, and not spiritual.  
jeronime in Euangel. Math. libr. 4. Cap. xxv. declareth that it was a Tradition among the jews, that Christ should come at midnight, whereupon he gathereth, that the Tradition of the Apostles was derived, that on Easter eve, the people should not departed out of the church, before midnight, but tarry there for the coming of Christ. A likely matter, that the Apostles would make a Tradition, of the error of the jews. The same jeronyme upon the first Chapter of Agge saith very well of the Apostolical Traditions: Sed & alia quae absque auctoritate, & testimonijs scripturarum quasi Apostolica traditione sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit gladius dei. But other things also (speaking of heretics) which they find out, and feign of themselves, without the authority, and testimonies of the scriptures, as it were by Tradition of the Apostles, the sword of God doth strike. By these examples, and testimonies, it is manifest, that we must not by and by, receive what soever is said, to be a Tradition of the Apostles.   

The Papist.  
Fowerth saint Augustine in his third Epistle ad januarium, in speaking of these things, which in diverse parts are observed in Christ's Church diversely, he giveth that certain and sure rule, that if they be not against the professed faith of Christ's church, nor against the good living and manners of men, but have in them some manner of encouragement of a better life, wheresoever saith he we do know any such thing diversely to be used, we shall not only not disallow them, but also follow them, with praise, and innovation of life. So that the infirmity and weakness of some men be not let thereunto. when otherwise if more profette may come thereby unto the good, then hurt unto the weak offended thereby, sine dubitatione facienda sunt, without doubt (saith he) all such although they be diverse, and in diverse places diversely observed, yet they aught to be continued and kept.   

The answer.  
We agreed with saint Augustine, that such Ceremonies as are instituted for order, and comeliness sake, being divers in diverse churches, if they be not contrary to the Scriptures, are to be observed of such, as remain in those Churches. And what this should make, either for you, or against us, I do not see at all. For your Ceremonies, are void of edifying, unorderly, undecent, for the church of Christ, and then the opinion of merit, and satisfaction, that you join unto them, being contrary to the Christian faith, and the authority of the Scriptures, maketh them to be utterly abominable. Furthermore when you make them essential parts of the religion, and worship of GOD, our saviour Christ himself, out of the Prophet Esaie, doth utterly condemn them. For GOD will not be worshipped, with the doctrine, Traditions, and precepts of men. Matth. xv. Thus neither your ten reasons, out of the scriptures, nor your ten arguments out of the doctors, nor your four bulwarks out of S. Augustine, are able to defend your Popish church from overthrow, which if she take upon her, to encounter with the truth, must needs be discomfited, and come to utter destruction.   

The Papist.  
Besides that this reformed English church, hath no agreaunce with the catholic church of christ, the religion thereof doth only stand of negatives, like as it shall appear in the process following.   

The answer.  
Besides that your Rhetoric in railing on our Church, is very unreasonable, your Sophistry itself, in quarrelling against us, is void of sufficient subtlety: not only to defend itself, but at least wise, to hide itself. For what impudent kind of arguing call you this: by enumeration of a few particulars, to conclude any universal proposition? These new reformators deny twenty things, which the Papists affirm, ergo, their religion standeth only of negatives. May not I likewise reason, the Papists deny forty things, that the Protestauntes affirm: Ergo the Religion of Papists, standeth only upon negatives. Furthermore, when every affirmative proposition implieth a negation of his contradictory, and every negative proposition, importeth an affirmation of his contradictory, you may as well say, that it standeth altogether upon affirmatives, as you do, upon negatives. Like as in the ten commandments of GOD, only two are affirmative, and eight are negative, wherein all the duty of a Christian man consisteth, you might reason, that God's commandments stand almost all of negatives, as though God did only tell us, what we should not do, and did not teach us, what we should do, like as you conclude afterward, upon the sale of Clare the Butcher's horse: but that right reason telleth us, that the prohibitive Commandments, are also preceptive, and the preceptive commandments, are also prohibitive, for he which forbiddeth adulteterie, commandeth a chaste life, and he which commandeth to honour our parents, forbiddeth us to disobey the same. But because faith, which is the foundation of religion, is an affirmation of those things, which are believed, to prove that our Religion standeth not all upon negatives, but chief upon affirmatives, it shall be sufficient to declare that we believe, and affirm all the articles of the Christian faith, and what soever is affirmed in the word of God as truth, like as we deny all falsehood, and untruth. We believe, and affirm, that there is but one GOD: we affirm that in this godhead, there are three persons distinct, but not divided. We affirm that the son of God was conceived by the holy Ghost, borne of the virgin Marie, and so forth, as it followeth in the Crede, by which it is manifest, that our Religion standeth not all in negatives.   

The Papist.  
Saint Augustine doth define religion to be cultus divinus a divine service dew unto God, whereby as Isidore saith, we do bind ourselves to the worshipping of God with a full purpose and intent to serve God. True religion being in this wise put in a dew worship and service to be done unto GOD, the late begun religion of this reformed Church, can not be the true religion of GOD, for as much as it doth not consist in any action or service more now unto God then was before, but only this religion standeth as I suppose by negatives, by an overthrow and subversion making of all things before appointed for the government of his people, both in the old Testament and new, some precepts which were moral, some judicial, some ceremonial, also sacrifice and sacraments, the doctrine of this new religion and reformed Church, which as I said doth stand only or wholly by negatives doth deny.   

The answer.  
I will not stand in argument with you, whether this be a full definition of religion, which you allege out of Saint Augustine. It is not by and by, a definition of Religion, which may be truly said of Religion. But what should move you to think, that our Religion teacheth not men to worship God? When we only teach, the right kind of God's service, set forth in his word, whereas you, and all other heretics, worship God after the precepts of men, which is no religion but superstition. You say our religion doth not consist in any action or service, more now unto God then was before, but how true this is, let every man judge, when we ascribe all religious service, obedience, honour, faith, invocation, and thanks giving, only to God by our saviour christ: whereas you give the greatest part thereof to creatures, some to Images, some to saints departed, some to your own merits, some to your beggarly Ceremonies. Let every man therefore judge, whether our religion give not more to God in Christ then you, when we give all to God, the only author of all goodness, and Christ our only mediator of all benefits to be received of God, and you give him but part of all the service that is due to him, and make so many mediators beside our saviour Christ. Finally, where as you charge us, with the subversion of the precepts moral, ceremonial and judicial, of God's law it is a strange matter to see your boldness. What moral precepts of God do we gainsay? do we not teach men to observe all the ten Commandments? And what Ceremonial laws remain there, to us which were not utterly abrogated by Christ? As for the judicial precepts of the jewish law, who ever required the christians to be bound unto them? The only propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's Passion, we embrace, & all Sacraments of Christ's institution. Wherefore we neither stand all upon negatives, neither deny we any thing, that we aught to affirm as true.   

The Papist.  
First it denieth that the moral precepts are possible to be kept of man.   

The answer.  
It shall not be needful our doctrine, being so commonly known to the world, to make a large discourse, upon every one of these negatives, but only to declare briefly, how we deny them, and to show a reason of our denial. We deny in deed that it is possible for any man, except Christ only, to keep the moral precepts of God. Which is not such a strange paradox, to any man that is not a stark hypocrite, but his own conscience will testify the same unto him. The moral precepts are contained in these two points, as our saviour testifieth: Thou shalt love the Lord thy GOD, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself. Who is so past all fear of God, that he dare affirm, that he is able to perform this? Again, what is the cause, that the scripture doth so often pronounce, that no man can be justified by the works of the law? but because no man can fulfil the law. Which if a man could perform, he should live therein, and have eternal salvation without Christ, but no man can be saved without Christ, therefore no man can fulfil the law. For the law was given, to show us our weakness, and so to bring us to Christ.   

The Papist.  
second it denieth that any judgement in spiritual causes, or in the high court of conscience, is to be given to the Priest.   

The answer.  
The high court of conscience, is Gods own jurisdiction, the judgement whereof, pertaineth neither to Priest, nor lay man, but to God alone. But in causes spiritual, to judge according to the word of God, we do not deny, but it pertaineth to Ecclesiastical persons, from which rule of justice, if any of them depart, he is subject to the correction, and punishment of the Civil Magistrate, As Aaron had his authority of judgement in Spiritual causes, yet was he reproved by Moses. And Abiathar the high Priest, was deposed by Solomon, and Sadoc set up in his place. And should not Ahaz, if he had been a godly Prince, have deposed Vriah, for making the profane altar?   

The Papist.  
third it doth deny all kind of Ceremonies.   

The answer.  
We deny all kind of Ceremonies, that are of man's invention, to worship God, or to merit salvation by them. For in the worship of God, we must do only that he commandeth us. Other Ceremonies that are only for order, and decency, ordained in the Church, we receive, as I have often showed before.   

The Papist.  
Fowerth it doth deny the sacrifice of Christ's Testament.   

The answer.  
The Sacrifice propitiatory, that only taketh away the sins of the world, is the Sacrifice, which Christ offered once for all, upon the altar of the cross, and thereby making perfect for ever, those that are sanctified, can not be repeated, without horrible injury done unto the Passion of Christ, and the merits thereof. Hebr. seven. ix. x. and almost through out the whole Epistle. In deed the Sacrifice of the Mass▪ if it be the Sacrifice ye mean, we utterly detest, as blasphemous, and abominable. For which you have neither commandment, nor example of Christ, what soever you pretend, by these words of our Saviour, Do this in remembrance of me. For besides that, to celebrated the remembrance of Christ in the Sacrament, hath nothing to do with a Sacrifice, by those words it is easy to prove, that you can offer up no Sacrifice, in the celebration of the Sacrament. For by this word of Christ (do this) you can do no more, but that which Christ then did. But Christ did then offer no Sacrifice of his body, therefore you can offer no Sacrifice of his body. That Christ did then offer no Sacrifice of his body, is manifest by the Apostle to the hebrews, which often times testifieth, that he offered himself but one's, which was on the Cross, Chapit. seven. ix. x. therefore he did not offer himself on the table at his supper, as you most falsely surmise.   

The Papist.  
fift it doth deny the Sacraments of Christ's church.   

The answer.  
We receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and of the lords Supper, which only we find in the scripture, the other five, which you call Sacraments, because we find them not in the scripture, instituted of Christ, in the nature of Sacraments, we do not receive them as Sacraments. Matrimony, Confirmation, election of Ecclesiastical ministers, with their authority, as we find them by the word of God, so we retain the pure institution of them, refusing the corruption, and superstition builded upon them, by antichrist. Extreme unction, is an idle Ceremony, and nothing pertaining to our time, as I have declared before, & for that cause is justly abrogated.   

The Papist.  
sixth it doth deny the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the holy Eucharist.   

The answer.  
We do not deny the real presence of Christ's body, to the faith of him that receiveth worthily. But the carnal, and gross imagination of transubstantiation, which is contrary to the scriptures, which teacheth that the body of christ, is like unto our bodies, in all things, sin excepted, and therefore can not be in diverse places at one time, and is also contrary, to the doctrine openly taught in the Church, for seven or eight hundredth years after Christ. For Bertramus did writ his treatise, as some think, to Carolus calvus, which lived eight hundredth years after Christ.   

The Papist.  
Seventh it doth deny that Christ's Church is visible or possible hear to be known.   

The answer.  
We deny, that the Church of Christ is visible, to the world, at all times, because our saviour Christ prophesieth, that the most part of the world should be deceived by false Prophets. Math. xxiv. and S. Paul prophesieth, of the general apostasy, that should be made by antichrist. Saint John also in the Revelation showeth, that the Church should fly into the wilderness, and all the world should worship antichrist. Apoca. xii. and. xiii. Wherefore the Church is not always in sight of the world, although it be sometime delivered from such extreme persecution, as it is, God be thanked at this tyme.   

The Papist.  
Eight it doth deny the free choice and will of man.   

The answer.  
We affirm, that Adam by his fall, lost the freedom of his will, both in himself, and from his posterity. So that a man hath now no freedom of will, so much as to think a good thought. ij. Corin. iij. much less to do we any good of ourselves. Which seeing it is the just judgement of God, upon Adam, and his posterity, for sin, we make not God author of evil, as profane dogs do bark against us, or rather against God, but just in all his judgements, and holy in all his ways. But of free will, I shall have occasion to speak more hereafter, toward the latter end of your discourse.   

The Papist.  
Ninth it doth deny our justification by penance, by Baptism, by hope, by charity and good works.   

The answer.  
We affirm with saint Paul, that a man is justified before God by faith, without the deeds of the law. Rom. iij. not that dead faith, which saint james speaketh of, but a lively, and fruitful faith, that worketh by love. But of justification, I must speak more hereafter.   

The Papist.  
Tenth it doth deny the merits of all good works, Gods promises made to the contrary notwithstanding.   

The answer.  
We affirm, that all good works, shall be rewarded by God, for his promise sake, but neither for worthiness of them, nor for the worthiness of us. For the worthiness of them, deserveth nothing, because they are unperfect. And our worthiness in doing them, doth merit nothing, because they proceed of God, and not of us, and secondly, because our sins are many more in number, than our good deeds. And when we have done all that we are bidden, we are unprofitable servants, Luke the. xvij. therefore we deserve nothing by them, but that GOD of his infinite mercy, vouchsafeth for his promise sake in Christ, to accept them, and reward them.   

The Papist.  
Eleventh it doth deny fasting from any one kind of meat more than an other, or upon this day more than an other.   

The answer.  
To teach men to abstain from meats, and marriage, is the doctrine of devils. j Timo. iiij. Otherwise true fast we deny not, but affirm, and commend as hath been declared once, or twice before.   

The Papist.  
Twelft it doth deny time and days of watches and prayers.   

The answer.  
We deny the superstitious observation of days and times, but we affirm, allow, and use certain days, and times appoicted for prayer, and godly exercises. By watches, if you mean your vigiles, of saints days, you yourselves use only the name, and not the observation of those watches. Which although they were used of old in the Church, yet for divers inconveniences, they were left of, and by decree of the Counsel Elibertinum abrogated Can. 35.   

The Papist.  
thirteen it doth deny the observation of holy and solemn promises, and vows made unto God.   

The answer.  
We do not deny the observations of any lawful promises, made unto GOD, that are possible to be kept of those that make them. But we teach men, not to be rash in making promises, before they be sure, that they are able to perform them. And if they have made a rash or unadvised vow, as to abstain from Marriage, which they are not able to observe, but by committing fornication, and uncleanness, we counsel them to repent of their rashness, and to return to the ordinance of GOD, which is the remedy of incontinence, rather than to lead an abominable life, in filthiness.   

The Papist.  
Fowertene it doth deny the chaste life apertainyng to the order of priesthood.   

The answer.  
We affirm, that chaste life appertaineth to all men, and especially to Ecclesiastical ministers. But we do not count marriage an unchaste life, as you do, but holy, and honourable in all men, and the marriage bed to be undefiled. Hebr. xiii. And seeing that the holy ghost by saint Paul, in his Epistles to Timothe and Titus, describing the best qualities required in Bishops, and Deacons, allowed marriage, we dare not presume to disallow it, or to forbid any man from it, least we should teach the doctrine of devils, as you do.   

The Papist.  
Fifteen ie doth deny the invocation, and honour due unto saints.   

The answer.  
How shall we call upon them, in whom we do not believe? Roma. x. We believe only in God, therefore we call upon God only. We acknowledge no mediator of God and men, but only jesus Christ. j Timoth. ij. Neither of redemption, nor intercession: For the Apostle in that place speaketh purposely of intercession, saying, I beseech you therefore brethren, that prayers, supplications, etc. be made for all men. And as for honour that should be due to saints, we acknowledge none, being taught by so many places of Scripture, that all honour, and glory, belongeth only to God: who is a jealous GOD, and will not give his honour to any other. Wherefore as Augustine saith, honoramus eos charitate, non servitute, we honour them with love, and not with service, by which testimony of that godly man, your blind distinction of latria, and doulia is overthrown, for what is doulia, but servitus? Which kind of honour, saint Augustine, doth utterly deny to be given to saints. August. De vera religione. Capi. 55. The same Augustine doth also declare, wherein their honour doth consist, namely, in following of their example. Honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem. They are to be honoured for imitations sake, not to be whorshipped for religions sake. And you yourself defined religion before, to be cultus divinus, the service due unto GOD, how would you then that true Religion, should do any service to men, or Angels, which are but creatures of God.   

The Papist.  
Sixteen it doth deny oblations and prayers for the souls departed.   

The answer.  
We affirm according to the scripture, that the dead which die in the lord are blessed, for they rest from their labours, and therefore to pray for them that are happy, were superfluous. And as for those that die not in the lord, they are accursed, and therefore no prayer is to be made for them: and all that die, do either die in the lord, or not in the lord, for between contradictories there is no mean. Apo. 14. Our saviour christ testifieth of them that believe in God, that sent him, that they have life everlasting, and come not into judgement, but pass from death to life. john. 5. And if any had need to be purged for satisfaction (as you teach, that men must be in purgatory) the holy thief, that was crucified with Christ, should have been one especially, but our saviour christ made him assurance of felicity immediately, this day (saith he) thou shalt be with me in Paradise. Luke. 23. And seeing the Scripture neither commandeth nor commendeth Prayer for the dead, it is untolerable presumption for any man, to use it. And as for oblations, we find none in God's word appointed for the dead, that we should offer: no not in the old law, where there was so many diverse kinds of Sacrifice, no one was appointed for the dead. Wherefore the example of judas rehearsed by the author of the second book of Machabées is neither to be allowed, nor followed, because he had no warrant of God's law to offer any such Sacrifice.  
The seventeenth negation was altogether left out in the copy which came first to my hands, I suppose by negligence of the writer, but in another copy I find it thus.   

The Papist.  
seventeenth it doth deny Images, and the cross of Christ.   

The Answer.  
According to the word of God, and the consent of the primitive church, we deny the use of Images in the Church, which are the doctrine of vanities and lies, as the Prophet witnesseth Abac. 2.   

The Papist,  
eighteen it doth deny the burial of the dead bodies in the Church yards.   

The answer.  
We are not so careful for the burial of our dead bodies, to dispute where they must be laid, so that dew reverence without superstition be used in their Sepulture, neither do we refuse to bury them in the Church yards and places of common burial, although we think no holiness to be more in one place then in an other.   

The Papist.  
Nintene it doth deny the hallowing of the font, Oil, Palms, and Ashes.   

The answer.  
Of hallowing the water of baptism, I have spoken sufficiently before, as for oil Palms, Ashes, and such other beggarly Elements of the world, that have no word of GOD to comende them, we have no use of them in our religion: but in their Civil use, all the creatures of god are hallowed to us by the word of God and prayer. Gal. 4. Coll. 2.1. Tim. 4.   

The Papist.  
Twenty it doth deny holy bread, holy water, Vestiments, Chalices, Copes, Tunicles Candlesticks, lights, Sensors, Organs in the church, singing in the quere, relics of saints, pardons and pilgrimages, whereby it doth appear, that the religion of this new reformed Church doth stand wholly of negatives, by destroying, subverting, and denying of all things before used in the Catholic Church of Christ.   

The answer.  
As this twentieth differeth from the ninetenth only in words, so one answer shall serve both. These weak and beggarly Elements of the world, christian religion needeth not, having Christ in whom dwelleth all fullness and perfection, wisdom, iustificatien, sanctification. And generally, of all Ceremonies as is often said before, we admit none as part of God's whorshippe, which are instituted of men: only such as be accidental, and mutable, if they be ordained for edification, order, and decency, and be void of superstition, we observe them. But so that no man's conscience be bound to them. And that when soever occasion serveth for better edification and more comely order, it is lawful to abrogate them, and to institute new in their places.   

The Papist.  
Wherein the authors composers and devisers of this new religion have dealt much like as one master Molande Vicar of saint Peter'S in. Oxford, did with Clare the Butcher, a near neighbour and parishner of his, unto whom by the way of a merry jest, he made sale of an horse, all by negatives on this wise, saying unto him how that his horse had not a great head, his horse had not a pair of Ass ears, his horse had not one touth in his head longer than an other, his horse had not a saddle back, no Splent, spavin, or Ringbone, his horse was not pincromped, sickle hought, nor broke winded, and so forth all by negatives, he sold his horse to Clare the Butcher, not expressing what his horse had, but what his horse had not. Dealing therein with much like faith and truth, as our Preachers do with the people of this Realm, which go about to plant a new religion amongst them, which standeth as I have here expressed wholly by negatives, in affirming nothing, and denying all things.   

The answer.  
You conclude your matter, as it is very meet, with a merry tale, I had almost said of Robin Hood, and little John, but I should say of master Molande, and Clare the Butcher of Oxford. Whereby a man may perceive, you were pleasantly disposed, that in so short a treatise, would needs thrust in so long a tale, and the same to dilate with all the circumstances, whereas you had no leisure to note the places of your Doctors, that ye allege in good earnest. But now sir, (saving your tale) and to apply it to the purpose. If master Molande, as he rehearsed some faults, of which perhaps his horse was free, so he had recited all the faults, that may be in any horse, and denied them all to be in his horse, might not Clare the Butcher, have bought a good horse, of him by negatives? But master Molande like a subtle Sophister, repeateth a many of his defaults, and suppresseth as many, or more, and so he beguileth poor Clare the Butcher. And this Sophistry of master Molande, is your Logic throughout all your treatise, of a few particulars, to infer an universal. And this your jade belike, you thought to cell unto some, as simple as Clare the Butcher, that could no more discern of your divinity, than Clare the Butcher, could see of master Molandes' Sophistry. Or else if you ment good faith, as you do pretend, I must needs say, to quit your tale, that if Clare were not a better Butcher, than you show yourself to be a Logicien, or divine, you might both proceed in one faculty, and master Molande be your presenter. For as he sold his horse by negatives, so you have proved, that all our Religion standeth wholly upon negatives, that we deny all things, and affirm nothing.   

The Papist.  
Dew objections made against the premises. For whereas ye have said the religion of this new reformed Church, to stand wholly by negatives, in affirming no one thing more than was before used, in the Catholic church of Christ, how untrue this is who seeth not when the religion of this new reformed Church, doth affirm, and hath brought in many things as good, godly, and lawful, which before were straightly denied.   

The answer.  
It must needs be a clerkly disputation, where you may be both opponent, & respondent yourself, where you may make arguments for us, and make answer for yourself. But as he that answereth, if he get the victory, overthroweth him that opposeth: so you taking upon you to oppose, and answer yourself, you can overthrow none, other but your own self. But never a one of these five objections, is holden of us, in manner and form, as it is propounded of you. And therefore I would desire you henceforward, to defend your own matters, aswell as you can, for you shall get neither money, nor thanks, to play the Proctor for us.   

The Papist.  
first it doth affirm, that it is lawful, and both good and godly that Priests should take wives, and being first made Priests, it is lawful to marry.   

The answer.  
We affirm that it is unlawful, that any man should be bound to sole life, which hath not the gift of continence. And that marriage is as honourable in ecclesiastical ministers, as in all other men, whether they were married before they were called to that office, or to whether they marry afterward. Hebre. xiii. j Timoth. iij. and Tite. j   

The Papist.  
second it doth affirm, that Freers' Monks, and nuns after their vows made solemnly unto God of their chaste and continent life, that it is lawful for them to marry together, and hold the same to be good and lawful wedlock.   

The answer.  
We affirm, that who soever hath made a rash, and unadvised vow of continence, which he is not able to keep, aught to repent him of his rashness, and rather to marry, then to burn. j Cor. 7.   

The Papist.  
third it doth affirm, that a man being divorced from his wise for fornication, may thereupon marry again, and take another, and so it is lawful for him to have two wives a live, the one in the bed, the other divorced.   

The answer.  
We affirm that they, which are lawfully divorced for adultery, are no more husband, and wife. For the knot of marriage by lawful devorsement, is clean dissolved, and therefore a man so divorced, may marry, and not have two wives at ones, according to the doctrine, and right understanding of our Saviour Christ's words. Math. u and xix.   

The Papist.  
Fowerth it doth affirm Bread and wine, to be the whole substance of the eucharist, after the consecration.   

The answer.  
We affirm according to the scriptures, and faith of the Church, for a thousand years after Christ, that bread and wine remain in the Sacrament, and are necessary there to remain, that it may be a Sacrament, for the word must come to the Element, and so make it a Sacrament. But we do not affirm, that bread, and wine is the whole substance of the Sacrament, but the body and blood of Christ, received by faith, is the principal part thereof, as in Baptism the outward Element is water, but the principal part thereof, is the pourgyng of our sins, by the secret, and wonderful working of the holy ghost.   

the Papist.  
fift it doth affirm that only faith justifieth, and that faith alone is sufficient to procure and purchase for us, gods grace and mercy, for the time of this present life, and at the end and term thereof, life everlasting. Beside many other like diverse things that the religion of this new reformed church doth affirm as things lawful, and have brought them into this realm, as things good and godly.   

The answer.  
We affirm, that the free mercy of God in Christ, is the efficient cause of our justification, which mercy we apprehend by none other hand, or instrument, but by faith. But that either faith doth procure, or purchase God's grace, or mercy, by any whorthinesse of it, we utterly deny, as also that only faith is sufficient for a christian man: when we teach that this faith, by which we are justified, is not a solitary faith, but of necessity accompanied with many virtues, & good works, although by receiving God's mercy, no works, but only faith doth justify us.   

The Papist.  
An answer against the objections.  
For answer beside, that there is no one of their affirmations, now by them brought that maketh any thing ad cultum divinum, to the service and honouring of god, wherein true religion doth consist, as it is before proved by the definition thereof, given by Augustine all their affirmations do include some negations of a far more better thing, then is brought in by their affirmations.   

The answer.  
But even now, in the latter end of the first objection, you confess, that we affirm many other things, beside these five, which you have rehearsed. And now as though, we had no other affirmations, you conclude, (as your manner is) that no one of our affirmations, maketh any thing ad cultum divinum to god's service, and that all our affirmations do include a negation, of a far better thing, then is brought in by them. So that when we affirm all the articles of the Crede, none of them pertaineth to God's service, but rather include a negation of a far better thing. When we affirm, that Christ only is the head of his universal Church, we do it not to the honour of Christ, but we include the negation of a far better thing, that is the supremacy of the Pope. Which by your assertion, is a far more better thing, than the supremacy of Christ. So when we affirm, that only the scripture must be the rule of true Religion, it maketh nothing for Religion, to worship God as he hath commanded, but it includeth a negation of unwritten verities, which are far more better things, than the scripture. When we affirm that we must put our trust in God alone, we do no honour to God thereby: but we deny that men must put their trust in creatures, which by your rule, is a far more better thing, then to put our trust in God alone. When we affirm, that we must pray to God alone, it pertaineth nothing, to God's service, but includeth the negation, of praying unto saints, which is a far more better thing, then to pray unto God. And when we affirm, that the only Sacrifice of Christ's passion, is sufficient for our salvation, we yield no honour to God thereby, but deny the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is a far better thing, than the Sacrifice of Christ's passion. And thus if I had leisure, and pleasure, as you have, to number examples by tens, and by twenties, I might rehearse a whole hundredth of the like sort.   

The Papist.  
As for example their affirmation that it is lawful for Priests to take wives, is a denial of chaste and continent life of priests, which as the Apostle saint Paul saith is much far better.   

The answer.  
We so affirm marriage of Ecclesiastical ministers, as an honourable, and a chaste life, neither do we deny continens to those that have the gift thereof. And whereas you vouch saint Paul to warranty. I answer, that saint Paul in no place, doth require virginity of Ecclesiastical persons, and wheresoever he commendeth it, he praiseth it, no more in priests, then in lay men. I would all men were, saith he, as I am, but every one hath his proper gift of God, some of one sort, and some of an other. j Cor. seven.   

The Papist.  
Their affirmation that Freers', Monks, and nuns, may marry together, is a flat denying of the vow of chastity, which by saint Paul's judgement is far better.   

The answer.  
We deny not the observation of any promises, or vows, which are lawful for men to make, and possible for them to perform. Neither doth saint Paul at any time commend any such vows, or allow them to be kept, but giveth a general rule, that to avoid fornication, let every man have his wife, and every woman her husband. j Cor. seven. And if a virgin marry, she sinneth not: so that if you would understand virgins in that place, for vowed nuns, you should manifestly contrary yourself, that count it so heinous a matter, for a Nun to marry. And as for the widows, which (as I said before) made no vows to God, but promises to the church, if you would needs understand them for nuns, Saint Paul saith, it is better for them that are under three score year old to marry, and bear children, then to vow chastity. j Timo. u   

The Papist,  
Their affirmation that the divorced man may again marry, is a plain denial of reconciliation, which aught to be made again, betwixt man and wife, the Apostle saint Paul giving counsel thereof, that the woman being departed from her husband, should remain unmarried to be reconciled again unto her husband.   

The answer.  
Concerning divorces, if that which we wish, might take place, all controversies should be cut of. For we wish that adulterers, according to the law of God, should be punished with death. But if the Civil Law doth fail in that point, the next remedy for the innocent party, is divorcement, and after divorcement, marriage, if he can not live unmarried. For our saviour Christ excepteth the case of fornication, as well for marriage after divorcement, as for the divorcement itself. Math. xix. And for amendment of the party offendant, the Ecclesiastical sword of Excommunication, must be drawn out: which must continued so long upon the offender, until his unfeigned, and hearty repentance, do sufficiently appear to the Congregation. Which in that case, may not refuse to receive him again. The party then so received, both of god, and the church, and not being able to lead to a continente life, is at liberty, to marry also in the Lord. For the first marriage by the divorcement, is as clearly dissolved, as if it had never been. And as concerning the reconciliation saint Paul speaketh of, he meaneth not between them, that are lawfully divorced. But between those that separate themselves, without a sufficient cause, which is only fornication. Like as our saviour Christ, when he saith, that who so marrieth her, that is put away, committeth adultery, understandeth of her that is unlawfully put away, for any other cause, beside fornication, in all which causes (the case of adultery only excepted) she continueth still wife to him that did put her away so that he which marrieth her, marrieth an other man's wife, and so committeth adultery. But she that is divorced for adultery, is no man's wife, and therefore he that marrieth her, committeth none adultery.   

The Papist.  
Their affirmation that bread and wine is the whole substance of the holy Eucharistia, is a plain denial of Christ's very body in the same, which is much far better, and a thing of a far more greater price than bread and wine is. So that by their affirmations they do nothing better, but sooner appair and diminish the preciousness of every thing they meddle with all.   

The answer.  
We do not so affirm bread, and wine in the Sacrament, that we deny the presence of the body, and blood of Christ, to the faith of the worthy receiver. But that gross, and carnal presence, which you do feign to be received, as well of wicked men, as of Godly: which imagination being of flesh without the spirit, our Saviour Christ affirmeth, to be altogether unprofitable. For if you did not separate it from the spirit, it must needs give life to those that receive it. As Christ himself affirmeth, whosoever eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath life everlasting. Ihon. vj. Again you feigned presence, is unpossible to the nature of his humane body, which he hath in all points like to ours, sin excepted. Heb. ij. and. iiij.   

The Papist.  
And by their affirmation that only saith doth justify, they do deny all other things else, as Baptism, penance, Confirmation, the holy Eucharistia, hope, charity, and generally all kind of good works. For all learning doth agreed of three kinds of justifications to be expressed in holy scripture, whereof the first iustication is Qua quis ex impio fit justus, whereby a man is made of a wicked man, and a member of the Devil, a good man, and a very member of Christ, the which justification is performed in infants, by the Sacrament of Baptism. And therefore to ascribe our justification to only faith, is not only to deny with the anabaptists Baptism of infants, but also that the Sacrament of Baptism is needful, or necessary for our health and salvation.  
second justification is, qua ex homine lapso post baptismum, fit conversio ad deum, whereby a man being fallen into sin, after Baptism, doth return back again unto God, the which justification is performed in us, by the Sacrament of penance, and therefore the affirmation of our justification by only faith, is a plain denial of the Sacrament of penance.  
third justification is, qua ex justo redditur quis iustior, whereby a man hath increase of righteousness, and of a righteous man before is made more righteous in the sight of God, whereof speaketh saint John in his Apocalypse, saying that he which is righteous must be made more righteous. Which justification is performed in us, partly by the Sacrament of Confirmation, partly by the rest of Christ's Sacraments, and chief by the Sacrament of the holy Eucharistia, and more generally by all kind of good works, whereof speaketh the Apostle saint Paul, saying to the Philippians, do you work your own salvation with fear and trembling. And the Apostle saint Peter in confirmation thereof, willeth us to give all diligence for to minister, in our faith virtue, and in virtue knowledge, in knowledge temperance, and in temperance patience, in patience godliness, in godliness brotherly love, and in brotherly love charity, for if these are among you and plenteous, they will make you, that you shall be neither idle, nor unfructful in the knowledge of our lord jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, as saith the Apostle saint Peter, and gropeth for the way with his hand, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore brethren saith (the Apostle saint Peter) give you more diligence for to make your calling and your election by your good works more sure, for if you do such things you shall not sin, yea and by this means an entering in shall be ministered unto you abundantly, in the everlasting kingdom of our lord jesus christ. And by the affirmation of our justification by faith alone, they do deny not only the Sacrament of Baptism, of penance, of the holy Eucharistia, with the rest of Christ's Sacraments, but more generally they do deny all kind of Good works, here commended and taught, both by saint Peter, and saint Paul. Saint Augustine in his book de fide & operibus, gave to us sufficient admonition, how dangerous an error and heresy it was, to put our whole justification to faith only, and faith alone, and saith how upon the mistaking of the words of saint Paul of our justification by faith, upon these words misconstrued, certain persons denied the merit of good works, uprising and springing of faith, promising to themselves, safety and security of saluatien, by only faith and faith alone, for reformation of the which error Augustine saith, that the Apostles saint james, saint Peter, and saint John did writ their Canonical Epistles, which admonition thereof given by SAINT Augustine, should have sufficed both learned and Christian men.   

The answer.  
By affirming that only faith doth justify, we neither deny the Sacraments to be received, nor any good work to be exercised, as GOD and all the world doth know. For ascribing to faith, that which is her peculiar office, we do not deny the offices of any other things, that belong unto them. As if I affirm that only the eye doth see, I do not deny the ear to hear, or the tongue to taste, or the hand to handle, or the foot to go, but I deny that the ear, or any other member doth see, save only the eye. So affirming, that only faith doth justify, we do not deny, the Sacraments to be seals of God's promises, nor good works to be fruits of our justification, by which God is glorified, and our election in us established, and yet we deny, that the Sacraments, or good works, or any other thing in us, doth justify, save only faith, that taketh hold of God's mercy, by believing Gods promises. As it is written of Abraham, not for him only (as saint Paul testifieth) but for us also, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness: so that faith doth not justify us by the merit, or worthiness thereof, but by God's imputation of righteousness thereunto. For to be justified before GOD, is not to be righteous by any quality that is in us, but to be accounted righteous of GOD for Christ's sake, having our sins purged by his passion. But whereas you take upon you, to talk of justification, and that so substantially, that you will tell us what all learning agreeth thereof, you declare that your learning, and discretion are both a like. For it were enough for you, to speak of all your own learning, which you know, and not of all learning in general, which you know not. It is not by and by all learning, that the Master of the Sentence, and after him all the sentenciaries, and whole rabble of Papists also do hold. There is some learning of the old writers, and there is some learning of the new writers. And the Protestants I trust, be not void of all learning. It were sufficient for you, to challenge truth, though you did not boast of all learning. But seeing all learning is on your side, as you say yourself, will you give a poor man of small learning, leave, to ask you one question, concerning that division, which all learning doth agreed of? Is this your division, of the word of justification? Or of the thing itself, which is justification. If it be only of the word justification (saving the correction of all learning) I find in scripture three other diverse kinds of justification, of which never a one, can be comprehended in any of your three kinds of justification. The first is, in the. Lj. Psalm. ut iustificeris in sermonibus tuis, & vincas cum iudicaris. That thou mayest be justified in thy sayings, and get the upper hand, when thou art judged. The second, is in the eleventh chapter of saint Matthew. justificata est sapientia a filijs suis. Wisdom is justified of her own children. The third is. j Timo. iij. Deus manifestatus est in carne, justificatus est in spiritu. etc. God was showed in the flesh, justified in the spirit. etc. Lo hear, are three several justifications more, than your learned division doth contain. But if you understand your division, not of the diverses acceptions of the word, but of the thing itself, I would demand by what kind of justification, the Publican was justified, of whom our saviour Christ doth testify, that he departed justified, rather than the Pharisie. Luke. xviij. The first kind you say, is by Baptism, but he was not baptized, the second you make by penance, but he received no penance: and by the third kind, he could not be justified, for he came thither a Publican, and a sinner, Therefore all learning hath left out one kind of justification, which Christ himself doth teach. And that is the only true justification, whereof we mean, when our sins being pardoned by the free mercy of God in Christ, we are accounted righteous before him, which is confirmed to us, when we believe his promises thereof. And this is that justification, whereof saint Paul disputeth at large, in the Epistle to the romans. By which it may appear, what a clearkly division you have made, that excludeth the only true justification, which is the thing we contend of, and is so most properly called. But now to consider rightly, the parts of your division. You say, the first kind of justification, is when of an ungodly man, is made a godly man. Which if it were rightly understood, is the same justification, that we speak of, when we say only faith doth justify. But when you restrain it to Baptism of infants, you are far wide from our understanding, and from the truth. For what is Baptism to us, more than Circumcision was to Abraham? but Abraham was not justified by Circumsition, as S. Paul proveth at large, therefore neither are we justified by Baptism. But Abraham was justified by faith, and received Circumsition, as a seal of his justification, So we being justified by faith, receive Baptism, as a seal of our righteousness, which is by faith. Thus we do not deny the Sacrament of Baptism, as you most shamefully do slander us, but we show the right use, and profit thereof, out of the scriptures. For when we have received by faith, the promises of God's favour, and mercy, in which our salvation dependeth, we do not refuse the seals, which are the Sacraments, which GOD hath added for confirmation of our faith. But whereas you restrain this justification to infants, you show your ignorance in the Scriptures, for he that ex impio fit justus, that is, of a wicked man is made righteous, must believe in him that justifieth the ungodly man, as it is in saint Paul. Roma. iiij. and so his faith is imputed, or accounted to him for righteousness, and in such sort, that it is without respect of works, which is nothing else, but that we affirm, an ungodly man is justified by faith only, for what works can he have, that should concur with faith, to justify him, which is an ungodly man, before he be justified, and therefore Augustine saith very well of good works. Sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt iustificandum. They follow him that is justified, they go not before him that is to be justified. Seeing therefore, that faith is necessary in this justification, and infants (to speak properly) have no faith, this justification can not be restrained to Baptism of infants, which if they die before they hear the word of God preached, that they may believe, are saved by election, if they be the children of God, and not by faith. For as the doctrine of faith, pertaineth to them only, that live to hear the Gospel preached, to which they may give credit, and bring for the fruits of good works accordingly, to the praise of God's glory: So the doctrine of justification, by faith only, pertaineth to them, and not to infants. And therefore your assertion, that infants are justified by Baptism, cometh nearer to the error of the anabaptists, for both you, and they require faith necessary, to be in all them that shall be baptized, whereupon springeth two heresies, the one of the anabaptists, denying the Baptism of infants, because they have no faith: the other of the Papists, fantasiing that they have faith, and therefore are justified by Baptism. Whereas the saying of our saviour Christ, which is misunderstood of you both (he that believeth, and is baptized, shallbe saved) must with all equity, be expounded, according to the matter whereof he speaketh, according to the words going before. Which are, Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. Mat. xxviij. Mark. xuj. So that where preaching hath gone before, their faith is necessary to salvation, and necessary to be required, before a man be baptized. For we must remember, that our saviour Christ, doth not in that place, institute Baptism, but show how it must be added, as a seal of the Gospel, for confirmation of the believers, and for a testimony of their profession. But seeing that God hath also a secret operation in Baptism, whereby the children of GOD are regenerate, by his holy spirit, and that the favour of God, extendeth by his promise, not only to ourselves, but also to the seed of us that are faithful, we minister the Sacrament of Baptism, to our infants also, because they are comprehended within the compass of God's covenant, and therefore aught to have the seal, and cognisance of God's covenant set upon them. And yet not binding the grace of GOD so straightly, to the outward Element, but that, he may save the children of the faithful, without Baptism, whom he taketh out of this life, before they can receive this sacrament in the church, according to his holy institution.  
And this justification by faith only, we do not make to be an inconstant quality of righteousness, that should be within us, which is abolished so often as we fall into sin, but a perpetual acceptation of God, whereby he imputeth not our sins unto us, but accounteth us righteous, for the righteousness of Christ, according as saint Paul difineth justification by faith, without works, out of the xxxj. Psalm. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord doth not impute his sin. Roma. iiij. For whom God doth justify by faith, he doth not justify them for a day, or a year, but for ever, as S. Paul testifieth, whom he hath justified, he hath glorified. Roma. viii. Whereby it is easy to see, what a vain justification that is, which you make to be your second kind by penance, which is lost, by every fall into deadly sin, of which kind of justification, the scripture speaketh not one word, but it is a fantasy of your own brain, to set up a Butchery of men's consciences, and to make yourselves Lords, over their consciences, by binding them upon necessity of salvation, to your beggarly Penance. For although a man that is regenerate, and justified of God, is not only subject to infinite falls, as the scripture testifieth (the righteous man falleth seven times a day, and riseth again) but also sometimes falleth into great, and notable crimes, as David into murder, and adultery, yet can he never fall from the favour of God, but that he is called to repentance, and his sins are forgiven him. For this foundation shall never fail, the Lord knoweth who are his, and whom soever he hath known before all time, them he will call in time thought convenient to his wisdom, and them whom he hath so called, he hath justified, and whom soever he hath justified, he will glorify eternally. Roma. viii. And in this justification, whereby God receiveth us into his favour, and pardoning our sins, imputeth righteousness unto us, there is no degrees, for when he doth justify us, he maketh us his children, and so his children, that we are his heirs, and heirs by adoption, annexed with Christ his only begotten son by nature. Roma. viii. Wherefore although faith, and good works, the one being the instrument to receive, the other being the fruits to show our justification, may, & aught to increase daily in us, that are justified: Yet our justification before GOD, is not thereby increased, who imputeth righteousness unto us, for Christ's sake alone, and not for our own worthiness. Whereby it is evident, how unlike your third kind of justification, is to the justification of God, who justifieth not the righteous, but the ungodly man, that believeth in him. And as for the testimony that you allege, out of the Apocalypse, although it may have a true meaning, that he which is just, may be made more just, and he that is holy, may be made more holy, which is of the increase of virtues, and not of justification: yet the best interpretation, according to the Greek phrase, is rather of continuance, than increase, and so it is best translated, he that is righteous, let him be righteous still, and he that is holy, let him be holy still. Wherefore, you see upon how weak a foundation, your third kind of justification doth lean, namely upon a corrupt translation. But admit it be so, as you do take it, there is great difference between a just man, and a man justified. For a just man, is he, that is endued with the virtue of justice, which may increase, or diminish in him: But a justified man is he, whose sins are forgiven him, and he accounted righteous, not for his own worthiness, but for Christ's sake, therefore, although the virtue of justice, which is a quality in him, may increase, yet, because in God's sight, there is no respect of his worthiness, his justification can not increase thereby. For what can he be more than the son of GOD, and inheritor with Christ, of the kingdom of heaven. If you say, he may have greater reward, that hath greater virtues, I will not contend against you, so that this be remembered, that his virtues are rewarded, not as his merits; but as God's gifts, for his promise sake. So that a just, or righteous man, is he that exerciseth himself, in the keeping of God's commandments, so near as God shall give him grace, and the infirmity of man's corrupt nature, will admit. But a justified man, is he that having no justice, or righteousness in him before, is accepted of God for just, his iniquities being pardoned, and his sins covered. And for them that be simple, an example will make the matter plain. There are two men standing before a prince, the one that hath not transgressed the prince's laws, which may be called a just man: The other that hath grievously offended, and is pardoned of the prince, which may well be termed a justified man. But this difference there is to be noted, in this example, that before God, none can be just, or righteous, but he that is first justified, neither can any man be so just, but that he offendeth in many things, and hath need of great mercy. Thus it is clear, how impertinently the increase of faith, and good works, with tertes of Scripture belonging thereto are of you drawn to justification before God. Wherefore by our affirmation, that only faith justifieth, we neither deny the exercise, and commodity of Christ's Sacraments, nor yet the study, and practise of all good works, commanded of God, but rather established them: when we teach, that the Sacraments are seals, and confirmation of this faith, and good works, are the fruits of the same: first to the glory of God: secondly for the example of others: and thirdly, for assurance of our election to us ward, and increase of our reward before God. And as for that, which you allege out of saint Augustine, which of all other writers, is most clear of our judgement, for election, justification, and sainctification, maketh nothing in the world against us. For we do not teach (as I have often said) that a bore faith alone, which is void of good works, is sufficient for our salvation, but that a true, lively, and fruitful faith, only doth justify us before God, that GOD may have all the glory, of our salvation in Christ: And that sanctification, or good works, of necessity must follow a justified man, whereby God may be glorified, his neighbour profited, and himself rewarded, not of merit due to his works, but of mercy, according to God's promise.  
And that which saint james speaketh of faith, that it doth not justify, alone, he meaneth, as he himself expoundeth, of a dead faith, which is void of good works, of an historical faith, that there is one God. etc. which the devil believeth, not of a lively faith, which worketh by charity, nor of a justifying faith, which embraceth the mercy of God set forth in his promises. So that this saying of saint james, a man is not justified by faith only, is all one with this, a dead faith or an historical faith doth not justify, which we do always affirm. And whereas he speaketh of justification by works, he meaneth of arguments proves, and certain signs to the world, of justification before God, as it is manifest by his examples. For Abraham was justified before God by faith, without respect of his works, as saint Paul doth testify, when he believed the promise, and that the scripture said his faith was imputed to him for righteousness, which was long before he offered his son Isaake: but this his obedience, was a trial and manifest testimony, of his justification by faith, to all the world, whereupon as saint james concludeth, it was evident to all men, how this scripture was fulfilled: Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Likewise the harlot Rahab, as witnesseth the Apostle to the hebrews the. 11. was justified by faith, when she believed the word of God, concerning the destruction of her Country, and all them that did not join theimselues to the people of god: but she showed the fruit of this faith, when she entertained and dismissed the spies, that came to her house. So that by this distinction, of faith and justification, saint james agreeth with S. Paul, which without it, can never by reconciled. For that confusion of faith and works, which the papists make to concur in justification, can never make them agreed, for saint Paul doth flatly exclude works from that office. We determine saith he, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. Rom. 3. But this is the judgement of both the Apostles, that a lively faith alone doth justify. The one affirmeth, that nothing is required to justify but faith, the other affirmeth, that faith which only is required as sufficient to justification, is not dead, solitary or unfruitful, but lively, fruitful, & accompanied with many virtues, & good works. For he that acknowledgeth his sins to be forgiven of God for Christ's sake, and that he is received of God as his child (which is to be justified) must needs love God, and all them that love God, must needs have a desire to obey God, honour God, to be thankful to God, and to profit all them, that God hath commanded him to love. And this is the worst effect of only faith justifying. But because you make it so strange a matter, as though it had never been heard of in the world before now, that faith alone or only faith doth justify, I will rehearse you the sentences of a few doctors, that I have read, which in plain words affirmed the same, many hundred years before you and I were borne. Not doubting but they, that have red more than I, are able to bring forth a great deal more than I have brought.  
Origines, though otherwise a very unpure writer, yet for justification by faith only, speaketh very plainly, although not in all points truly, upon the Epistle to the Rom. lib. 3. Cap. 3. Dicit sufficere solius fidei justificationem, ita ut credens quis tantummodo, iustificetur etiamsi operis nihil ab eo fuerit expletum. Imminet igitur nobis qui integram esse scripturam Apostoli conamur asserere, & ordine suo cuncta constare, ut requiramus, quis sine operibus, sola fide justificatus sit. Quantum igitur ad exemplum pertinet. etc. S. Paul saith that the justification of faith alone, doth suffice, so that he which believeth only, may be justified, although he have done no good work. Wherefore it standeth us upon, that take in hand to defend the writing of the Apostle, to be perfect and all things therein to stand with good order, to inquire who was justified by faith only without works. Therefore for examples sake, I think that thief is sufficient, which being crucified with Christ, cried to him from the Crosse. Lord jesus remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Neither is there any other good works of his described in the Gospel, but for this faith only, jesus said to him, verily I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. Thus far Origine. Nevertheless we must remember, as I have said before, that although this thief was justified by faith only, yet this faith was fructefull of such good works, as the time suffered him to express, as invocation, repentance, reprehension of his fellow. etc. The same Origene saith. Idem enim ipse deus, ex utroque populo non circumcisionis, aut praeputij privilegio, sed solius fidei contemplatione justificat. The same God out of both the people, not by privilege of Circumcision, or uncircumcision, but by the contemplation of faith alone, doth justify. And in the. 4. book and. 4. Cap. Initium iustificandi à deo fides est qua credit in iustificantem, & haec fides cum iustificata fuerit, tanquam radix imbre suscepto haeret in animae solo. etc. Faith is the beginning of justifying before god, which believeth in him that justifieth, and this faith after it is justified, as a root that is wattered with a shower of rain, abideth fast in the ground of the soul, that when it beginneth to be dressed and delved by the law of God, the boughs arise in it, which bring forth the fruit of good works. And in divers other places Origen, showeth himself to be of the same mind. Saint Cyprian and Quirinum. Cap. 4. In nullo gloriandum quando nostrum nihil sit. We have to boast of nothing, seeing nothing is our own. Where be then our merits? Again. Cap. 42. Fidem tantum prodesse, & tantum nos posse, quantum credimus. He affirmeth that faith only doth profit, and that so much as we believe, so much we may obtain. Wherein he agreeth with our saviour Christ saying, all things are possible to him that believeth. Also in his book de duplici Martyrio, he writeth thus. Non credit in deum, qui non in eo solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam. He doth not believe in God which doth not place in him alone the assurance of all his felicity. In whom then do Papists believe, that trust in their own merits and in creatures? Saint Hilary agreeth in the same sentence de Trinitate. lib. 2. Et cum sola fide expleri quae praecepta sunt oporteret. etc. seeing that these things which are commanded, must be accomplished by faith only, that is to worship the father, and with him to honour the son, and to abound in the holy ghost, we are enforced to extend the baseness of our speech, to those things that are unspeakable. Also writing upon Mathewe Canone. 21. he hath these words Nam inviti licet confitentur quis obsecutus sit voluntati junior scilicet, filius obediens professione licet non efficiens in tempore. Quia fides sola justificat, atque ideo publicani & meretrices in regno coelorum erunt priores, quia joanni crediderunt. For they confess though it be against their will, who hath obeyed the father's will: namely the younger, son obedient in profession, although not performing in time. Because faith alone doth justify, and therefore the Publicans and harlattes shallbe sooner in the kingdom of heaven, because they believed Ihon. etc. And in the. 8. Canon he hath this plain conclusion. Fides sola justificat, faith alone doth justify. Therefore we are not alone that teach so. Gregorius Nazianzenus in his Oration. 22. de modestia in disceptationibus. Prope te ait verbum est, thesaurum hunc intellectus habet, & lingua, hic quidem credens, illa vero confitens, quid his opibus succinctius, quid dono hoc facilius? Confitere christum, & credas eum à mortuis suscitatum esse, ac saluaberis: siquidem & credere solum justitia est, salus autem perfecta confiteri, loquendique libertatem addere scientiae. The word saith he, is near unto thee, and this treasure thine understanding, and thy tongue hath, the one believing, the other confessing, what can be more short, than these riches? what more easy than this gift? Confess Christ and believe that he is raised from death, and thou shalt be saved. For to believe only is righteousness, and perfect salvation to confess and to add freedom of speech to knowledge. The same Gregorius carmine de rebus suis, speaking in the person of the publican that prayed with the Pharisie. Non opera me saluabunt, tua autem gratia, tuaeqús misericordia, mihi stillet profano, quam solam miseris rex praebuisti spem peccatoribus. Works shall not save me, but let thy grace and thy mercy drop upon me profane man, which only hope, O King thou hast given to miserable sinners. From him dissenteth not Basilius Magnus de humilitate hom. 51. Haec enim est perfecta, ac integra gloriatio in deo, quando neque ob justiciam suam quis se iactat, sed novit quidem seipsum verae justiciae indigum esse, sola autem fide in Christum justificatum esse. This is a perfect and full rejoicing in GOD, when a man doth not boast himself of his own righteousness, but knoweth himself to be void of true righteousness, and to be justified by faith only in Christ. The Papists now adays saith it is great pride and presumption which Basile acknowledgeth to be true humility.  
Saint Ambrose in many places, showeth himself to be of the same mind, as in his exhortation And virgins, speaking of the dowry, that Christ requireth of us, to join with him in marriage: Sola est fides utrique indiscreta sexui, census virorum does virginum. It is faith only, which is indifferent to both sexes, the substance of men the dowry of virgins. Also in the same work. Nam unde mihi tantum meriti est cui indulgentia pro corona est? For whence should I have so great merit, when mercy is my crown. And again, Non ex operibus sed ex fide unusquisque iustificatur à domino. Not by works, but by faith is every one justified of the lord. And in his Epistle. 82. Ad Vercellenses: Sola vos comitabitur fides. Erit sanè etiam justitia comes si fides praevia sit. Only faith shall bear you company. And righteousness also shallbe your companion, if faith goeth before. Also in Lucam lib. 2. Capit. 2. Nihil in hoc censu verearis terribile, nihil immite, nihil triste, sola unumquemque fides signat. Fear nothing in this taxing, that should be terrible, nothing cruel, nothing sad, or heavy: only faith doth mark every man? But these places, you will say, are somewhat dark: You shall have therefore, them that are plain enough. Upon the Epistle to the romans. Chapit. iij. upon these words. justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, that is, Being justified freely by his favour, he writeth thus: justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono dei. They are justified freely, because without any working, or requiting, they are justified by faith alone, by the gift of God. And upon the iiij. Chapter Quomodo ergo judaei per opera legis justificari, se putant, justificatione Abrahae, cum videant Abraham non ex operibus legis sed sola fide justificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem iustificatur apud deum secundum propositum gratiae dei. Sic decretum dicit à deo ut cessant lege solan fidem gratia dei posceret ad salutem. That is. How do the jews think, that they may be justified through the works of the law, by the justification of Abraham, when they see that Abraham, was not justified by the works of the law, but by faith alone? Therefore the law is not necessary, seeing the ungodly man, is justified before GOD, by faith only, according to the purpose of the grace of God: for so he saith it is decreed of God, that the law ceasing the grace of God requireth faith alone to salvation.  
And in the same Chapter, Beatos dicit, de quibus hoc sanxit deus ut sine labore et aliqua observatione, sola fide iustificentur apud deum. He saith they are blessed, of whom GOD hath decreed this thing, that without labour, and any observation, they should be justified before God, by faith alone. And again: Manifest beati sunt, quibus sine labore, vel opere aliquo, remittuntur iniquitates, & peccata teguntur. Nulla ab his requisita poenitentiae opera, nisi tantum ut credent: It is manifest, that they are happy, to whom their iniquities are forgiven, and their sins hid, without any labour, or work of theirs, and no works of repentance, required of them, but only that they should believe.  
And in the. 10. chapter. Nullum opus dicit legis, sed solam fidem dandam in causa Christi. He saith, that no work of the law, but only faith must be given in the cause of Christ. And in the eleventh chapter. Et quoniam versutia adversarij cumulari peccata coeperunt, ut per interdictum magis reus homo constitueretur: deus clementia bonita tis suae semper, homini procurans, ut & quod sine lege erat peccatum, & in lege non possit deleri, hoc decrevit, ut solam fidem poneret, per quam omnia peccata abolerentur, ut quia nulla spes per legem omnibus hominibus erat, dei misericordia saluarentur. And because through the subtlety of the adversary, sins began to be increased, so that through the forbidding, a man was made more guilty, God providing alway for man, by the mercy of his goodness, so that, that which was sin without the law, and by the law could not be put away, he decreed this, to prepare only faith, by which all sins should be taken away, that because there was no hope to all men by the law, they might be saved by the mercy of God. And upon the j Cor. Cham j Datam dicit gratiam, à deo in Christo jesu, quia gratia sie data est in Christo jesu, quia hoc constitutum est à deo, ut qui credit in Christum saluus sit sine opere, solae fide gratis accipiens remissionem peccatorum. He saith, that grace is given from God, in jesus Christ, because grace is so given in Christ jesus, for that it is so appointed of God, that he which believeth in Christ, shall be saved without works, receiving forgiveness of his sins freely, by faith alone.  
And upon the ij. Cor. Chap. iij. speaking of the law of the Gospel. Haec lex dat libertatem solam fidem poscens. This law giveth liberty, requiring faith alone.  
And in the Preface before the Epistle to the galatians. Si ergo haec dicta intelligerent, à lege recederent, scientes à praedicatione joannis Baptistae, legem iam cessare, ut sola fides sufficiat ad salutem abbreviata ex lege. If therefore they did understand these sayings, they would departed from the law, knowing that since the preaching of John the baptist, the law is now ceased, and faith alone sufficeth, which is an abbridgement of the law. Also upon the third Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians Sed aliud adversum improvida praesumptione defendunt, putantes justificationem sine operibus legis provenire non posse, cum sciant Abraham qui forma eius rei est, sine operibus legis per solam fidem justificatum. But they maintain an other contrary thing, by unskilful presumption, thinking that justification, can not be obtained without the works of the law, whereas they know that Abraham, which is the example of that matter, was justified by faith only without the works of the law.  
And again. Manifestatis enim peccatis suis conclusi sunt ut se excusare non possent, sed quaererent misericordiam ut veniens qui promissus erat Abrahae, solam fidem ab eyes posceret, quam habuit Abraham. For when their sins were made open, they were concluded, so that they could not excuse themselves, but were feign to seek mercy, that when he came, which was promised to Abraham, he might require only faith of them, which Abraham had. And upon the u Chapter. Atque per hoc neque praeputium valet quiquam neque Circumcisio. Sed sola fides opus est in charitate ad justificationem. And by this, neither Circumcision, nor uncircumcision is worth any thing, but only faith in love, is necessary to justification.  
Chrysostome also, although he do often say, that faith alone is not sufficient to salvation, he meaneth it of a dead, and an historical faith, which is not fruitful of good works, as saint james doth: But that he acknowledgeth a true, and lively faith, to justify alone, may sufficiently appear by these testimonies. First upon Math. Chapter. j Hom. i. Non enim laboribus nostris, neque sudoribus, non doloribus & arumnis, sed per dei in nos tantummodo charitutem, tam grandia haec promissa suscepimus. Not by our labours, nor our travails, not by our sorrows, and griefs, but only by the love of God toward us, we have received these great promises. And in the twelve Homely. I am non visibili specie qua utique non egemus, cum nobis pro cunctis sola fides sufficiat. We have not need now of outward show when only faith sufficeth us for all things. And upon the Acts Home. thirty. Vide quomodo ubique omnia tribuunt deo. Hos & nos imitemur. Nihil nostrum esse putemus, quandoquidem & ipsa fides non est nostrum opus. See how they ascribe all things, every where to god. Let us then follow them, let us think nothing is our own, seeing that faith itself is not our work. And again Home. xxxij. A sola fide (inquit) illa assecutisunt, & non operibus, vel circumcisione. They obtained (saith he) those things by faith alone, not by works, or Circumcision. Again De prodit. jud. Speaking of the penitent Thief, whether he had any good works, or were baptized. Neque enim de hoc contenderim ego, sed illud umim asseveraverim, quod sola fides per se saluum fecerit. Of that matter I will not contend, but this one thing I will affirm, that only faith by itself, made him to be saved. Also upon the Episto. ad Roma. Home. ij. Speaking of righteousness. Non enim sudoribus, & laboribus, illam comparabis, sed ex divino gratiae don● quod ex supernis est gratis ut accipias oportet. unum hoc solum adferens de tuo, ut credas. Thou shalt not obtain it by labours, and travails, but thou must receive it freely, by the gift of God's grace, which is from above, bringing this one thing only of thine, that thou believe. Again, Hom. seven. Hîc virtutem dei ostendit, quod non solum saluavit, sed & iustificavit, & in gloriationem induxit, nullis ad hoc usus operibus, sed fidem tantum exigens. Hear he showeth the power of God, that he hath not only saved us, but also justified, and brought us into a rejoicing, using here to, none of our works, but requiring faith only. And again. Quam primum homo credidit confestim justificatus est. So soon as a man hath believed, immediately he is justified. And Hom. viii. Ne enim quis dicat quid vetat quominus, & fidem habeam, & legem interim seruem, ostendit fieri non posse. Fidei siquidem virtutem de honeflat, quisquis legem ut velut saluantem servat. And lest any man should say, what letteth, but that I may have faith, and keep the law also? He showeth it can not be, for he dishonoureth the virtue of faith, who so keepeth the law, as able to save him.  
And in the 9 Hom. Nos solam fidem attulimus, we have brought faith alone. And in the same Homely Apostolus cum dicit spes non confundit, non recte factis nostris, sed dilectioni dei rem omnem acceptam fert. When the Apostle saith, hope doth not confounded, he ascribeth the whole matter, not to our good deeds, but to the law of God. And in the. 14, Hom. unum enim hoc tantummodo donum dei obtulimus, quod futura nobis promittenti credimus, at que hac sola viae saluati sumus. This only gift we have offered to God, that when he promiseth us things to come, we believe him, and by this only way we are saved. Also upon the Epistle ad Galath. Cap. 2. Scientes quod non iustificabitur homo ex operibus legis, sed tantum per fidem jesu Christi, knowing that a man shall not be justified by the works of the law, but only by saith of jeseus Christ. And upon Cap. 3. Tum enim valet fides, cum nihil accesserit exlege. Then faith is of force, when nothing of the law is added to it. Also speaking of Abraham. Quod si is ante gratiam ex fide justificatus est, idque cum & operibus bonis floreret, multo magis nos. Quid igitur illi detrimenti attulit, quod non esset sub legee? nihil, sed sufficiebat ei fides ad justiciam. If he before the time of grace, were justified by faith, and that when he flourished in good works, much more we. What hurt was it then to him, that he was not under the law? none at all. But his faith was sufficient to him for righteousness. Again. Rursum illi dicebant qui sola fide nititur execrabilis est, hic contra demonstrate, qui sola fide nititur, eum benedictum esse. They said, he that trusteth unto faith alone is accursed, but he saith, contrariwise, he that trusteth unto faith alone, is blessed. Quum enim lex esset infirmior quam ut posset hominem ad justiciam perducere, repertum est non leave remedium, nempe fides, quae quod legi erat impossibile, per se redderet poffibile. For when the law was of less force, then that it was able to bring a man to righteousness: a remedy of no small fores was found out, namely faith, which by herself, should make that possible, which was impossible to the law. Also upon the Epi. ad Ephes. Hom. 5. Ex sola quip fide nos saluavit. For he saved us by faith alone. And upon the Ep. ad Colloss. Hom. 5. Apparet quidem & in reliquis magna mysterij huius gloria, verum multo magis in istis. Hoens enim lapidibus stupidiores ad angelorum subito dignitatem simpliciter nudis verbis, solaque fide fine omni operum adminiculo evehere revera gloria est, ac misterij huius divitiae. The great glory of this mystery truly appeareth in the rest, but much more in these. For to advance men that are more doltish than stones, suddenly to the dignity of Angels, simply with bore words, and faith alone, with out all help of works, is glory in deed, and the riches of this mystery. And in the 6. Hom. Per fidem operationis dei qui exitavit eum ex mortuis. Benedixit, totum enim fidei est. Credidistis deum exitare posse, atque ita exitati estis. By faith of the operation of God, which raised him from the dead. He hath said well. For it is all of faith. You have believed that God can raise you, and so you are raised. Again, In decretis (inquit) quibus decretis fide: satis est credere, non operibus opera, sed fidei adiunxit opera. In the decrees (he saith) which decrees? In faith for it is sufficiet to believe, he ioygneth not works to works, but works to faith. Also upon. 2. Thess. Hom. 4. Quo modo in salutem? ut sanctificaret nos per spiritum. Ab istis namque salutis nostrae summa dependet, nusquam ab operibus, nusquam à recte factis, sed per fidem veritatis how unto salvation? that he might sanctify us by his spirit. For hereof dependeth the sum of our salvation, not at all of works, not at all of good deeds, but by faith, or belief of the truth. Also upon the 1. Tim. Hom. 3. Id solum inquit attulimus nos quia credidimus christum nos posse saluare. This only saith he have we brought, namely, that we have believed, that christ is able to save us. And in the. 4. Hom. Quid igitur est? ita cui difficilis habebatur fides, quod inimici, quod peccatores, quod hi qui in lege non iustificantur, neque per opera, hi continuo ex fide sola primas parts meritorum consecuti sunt. etc. what is it ihen? so that to whom faiethe seemed a hard matter, because that enemies, because that sinners, because that they which cold not be justified by the law, nor yet by works, these immediately by faith, alone obtained the chief worthiness. And in the same place. Incredibile enim videbatur, siquidem homo qui omnem priorem vitam frustra, atque inaniter consumpsisset, duxissetque per mala opera, post modum ex fide sola saluandus diceretur. For it seemed an incredible thing, that a man, which had spent all his former life vainly and to no purpose, but passed it away in evil works, should afterward be said to be saved by faith alone. Also the Epistle to Titus. Hom. 3. Si enim credis fidei, cur alia infers quasi fides iustificare non sufficiat sola. If thou trust unto faith., why bryngeste thou in other things? as though faith alone were not sufficient to justify. Likewise upon the Epistle to the hebrews Cap. 4. Hom. 7. Accedamus cum fiducia petentes. Tantum fidem adferamus, & omnia tribuet. Let us approach near with confidence making our petition, let us bring forth faith only, and he giveth all things. These testimonies doth abundantly declare, what Chrisostome thought of justification by faith alone. Let us now see what saint Jerome will say to the same matter. First therefore against the Pelagians. lib. 1. He writeth thus. Ergo justi sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur, & justitia nostra non ex proprio merito, sed ex dei consistit misericordia. Then are we righteous, when we confess ourselves to be sinners, & our unrighteousness consisteth not of our own merit, but of the mercy of god. And in the. 2. book of the same work. Manifestè ostendit non in hominis merito, sed in dei gratia esse justiciam, qui sine legis operibus credentium suscipit fidem. He showeth manifestly, that righteousness is not in the merit of a man, but in the grace of God, which receiveth the faith of believers without the works of the law. Also in his Commentary upon Mark Chap. 14. Gratia non meritis saluati sumus à deo: we are saved of God by grace, and not by merits. And oftentimes else where he speaketh to the same effect, but especially in the Commentary upon the Epistle to the romans, which beareth his name. Cap. 4. Conuertentem impium per solam fidem justificat deus, non opera bona quae non habuit. God justifieth the ungodly man when he converteth by faith alone, not by good works which he had not. And Cap. 10. Ignorantes quod deus ex sola fide justificat, & justos se ex legis operibus, quam non custodiebant putantes. etc. Not knowing that God doth justify by faith alone, and thinking themselves just by the works of the law which they did not keep: Again. Talis est ille qui Christum credidit die qua credidit, qualis ille qui universam legem implevit. He that believeth in christ, is such a one the first day in which he believeth, as he is, that hath fulfilled all the law. And again Moses distinxit in levitico inter utramque justiciam, fidei scilicet atque factorum, quod altera operibus, alterae sola fidei credulitate accedente fiat. Moses in Leviticus made distinction of both kinds of righteousness, namely of faith & of deeds, that the one is brought to pass by works, the other by only belief of faith coming unto it: yet again in the same Chapter. Ergo si fides sufficit ad justiciam, & confessio ad salutem, inter judeum & Gentiles credentes, nulla est discretio. Therefore if faith suffice to righteousness, and confession to salvation, there is no difference between the jew and the Gentle that are believers. And upon the Epistle ad Gal. Cap. 1. Gratia vobis qua sola estis fide saluati. Grace to you by which alone through faith you are saved. And Cap. 2 Non ex operibus legis, sed sola fide sicut Gentes, vitam in Christo invenisse te nosti: He maketh Paul speaking to Peter saying: Thou knowest that thou thyself, haste found life in Christ, not by the works of the law, but by faith alone as the Gentiles have. Again. Si enim gentes fides sola non saluat, nec nos, quia ex operibus legis nemo iustificatur. If faith alone doth not save the Gentiles, no more doth it save us, for no man is justified by the works of the law. And upon these words of Paul. In fide vino filij dei. In sola fide quia nihil debeo legi antiquae. Abiecta enim est gratia, si mihi sola non sufficit. I live saith Paul by the faith of the son of God, that is saith Jerome by faith alone, for I own nothing to the old law. For grace is cast away, if it alone be not sufficient for me. And Cap. 3. Spiritum sanctum sola fide accepistis, qui non nisi à justis accipitur: justos autem sine legis operibus vos esse constat. You have received the holy ghost by faith alone, which is not received but of righteous persons. And it is plain that you are righteous with out the works of the law. Moreover. Abraham eredidit deo, & reputatum. etc. Ita & vobis ad justitiam sola sufficit fides. Abraham believed GOD, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. So faith alone is sufficient for you also to righteousness. Furthermore in the same Chapter. Quaeritur sane hoc loco si fides sola sufficiat Christiano, & utrum non sit maledictus, qui evangelica praecepta contemnet. Sed fides ad hoc proficit, ut in primitijs credulitatis accedentes ad deum iustificet, si deinceps in justificatione permaneant. Caeterum seen operibus fidei, non legis, mortua est fides. It is in deed demanded in this place, if faith alone be sufficient for a Christian man, and whether he is not accursed, that shall despise the precepts of the Gospel. But faith profiteth thus far, that in the beginning of believing, it justifieth those that come unto god, if afterward they continue in justification. But without the works of faith not of the law, faith is dead. Also speaking of the law. Quia nemo illam servat ideo dictum est quod sola fide iustificandi essent credentes. Because no man keepeth the law, therefore it is said, that the believers must be justified by faith alone. Also so ut sola fide Gentès benedicerentur, in Christ sicut promssum est Abrahae, that the Gentiles might be blessed, by faith alone in Christ, as it was promised to Abraham. Also▪ Lex autem non est ex fide nam justificat sola fides. The law is not of faith, for faith alone doth justify. Again, necesse est sola fide salvari credentes. It is necessary, that the believers should be saved by faith alone. Again Aequaliter & judaei, & Gentes per solam fidem filij dei estis, qua credidistis Christo. Both jews, and Gentiles, you are a like the sons God, by faith alone, by which you have given credit to Christ. Also upon the u Chapter. In sola fide crucis dico esse salutem, I say, that salvation consisteth in faith alone of the cross: That is, of the death of Christ. And upon the vj. Chapter. In sola fide spes collocatur animarum, In faith alone resteth the hope of souls. Also upon the Episto. ad Ephes. ij. Gratia saluati estis, non meritis prioris vitae sed sola fide. You are saved by grace, not by merits of your former life, but by faith alone.  
Also upon these words, Legem mandatorum in decretis abrogans) per solam fidem, iustificans, moralia sola decernens. Abrogating the law of precepts, that was in decrees justifying by faith only, and decreeing the moral precepts, only to be observed. And upon these words, Per crucem interficiens inimicitias) per solam fidem crucis, quae nullum deterret, non enim gravis aut difficilis est, quam habere etiam latro potuit crucifixus. By his Cross slaying the hearted) by only faith of his cross which maketh no man afraid, for it is not heavy, or hard, which even the Thief that was crucified might have. Finally, upon the Epist. ad Philip. iij. Where saint Paul saith, that he hath not the righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of Christ jesus he noteth: Sed illam quae a deo pro pace, & sola fide collata. But I have that righteousness, which is given properly of God, and by faith alone, Ruffinus also, which otherwise was a great adversary of saint Hieromes, yet in this point, he is his very friend, and of the same judgement, as he was the judger of all learned men at that time, except Pelagius the arch heretic, and his fellows. Ruffinus therefore, in his exposition of the Crede, upon the Article of remission of sins, writeth thus. Verum de remissione peccatorum sufficere debet sola eredulitas. Quis enim causas, aut rationem requirat, ubi indulgentia principalis est causa. But for remission of sins only, belief aught to suffice, for who should require causes, or a reason? where mercy is the principal cause? So that when justification, is through remission of sins, as saint Paul proveth out of the Psalm. xxxij And remission of sins is obtained by faith alone, who can deny that justification is obtained by faith alone. Saint Augustine, although he do not so often repeat the terms of faith alone, yet no writer more often, nor more substantially setteth forth the righteousness by faith alone, and as he had specially more occasion, being troubled with the Pelagians, and Celestianes', in his confessions Libro. x. Capit. xxix. Tota spes mea, non nisi magna valde misericordia tua. Da quod jubes, & iube quod vis. All my hope is nothing else, but thy exceeding great mercy (O God) give that thou commaundeste, and command what thou wilt. Also in his Epistle to Sixtus. 105. Restat igitur ut ipsam fidem unde omnis justitia sumit initium, propter quod dicatur ad ecclesiam in Cantico Canticorum venies, & transies ab initio fidei, non humano quo isti extolluntur saluamus arbitiro, nec ullis praecaedentibus meritis, quoniam inde incipiant bona quaecumque sunt merita, sed gratuitum donum dei esse fateamur, si gratiam veram id est fine me ritis cogitamus. It remaineth therefore, that we do not ascribe to the free will of man, whereof these men are so proud, nor to any merits going before, that have faith itself, of which all righteousness taketh his beginning (for which it is said unto the Church, in the Canticle, thou shalt come, and pass by the beginning of faith) because that hereof all good merits, whatsoever they be begin: but that we confess it to be the free gift of God, if we think of true grace, which is with out merits. Also in his 120. Epistle to Honoratus, speaking of faith: Ex hoc quip in cipiunt bona opera ex quo iustificamur, non quia precesserunt iustificamur, For hereof begin good works, whereof we are justified, we are not justified, because they went before. In his Enchiridion ad Laurentium Capite 99 Sola gratia redemptos disceruimus cernimus à perditis quos in unam perditionis concreverit massam ab origine ducta causa communis. We discern them, that are redeemed from those that are lost, by grace alone, whom the common cause, derived from the beginning, hath bred into one lump of perdition. Also in his book De fide, & operibus. Capit. 22. In illis duobus tota lex pendet, & Prophetiae, licet recte dici posset ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur. In these two the whole law, and the Prophets dependeth, although it may be well said, that the commandments of God, pertain to faith alone, if not, a dead faith be understood, but that lively faith, which worketh by love. And in his treatise Octoginta trium questionum. lxviij. Ipsa eutem gratia, quae data est per fidem, nullis nostris meritis data est. The same grace, which is given through faith, is given to none of our merits. Also Quest. lxxvi Quapropter non sunt contrariae duorum Apostolorum sententiae Pauli, & jacobi, cum dicit unus justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, & alius dicit inanem esse fidem fine operibus, quia ille dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt, iste de ijs quae fidem sequuntur, ut etiam ipse Paulus multis locis ostendit. Wherefore the sentences of the two Apostles, Paul, and james are not contrary, when the one saith, that a man is justified by faith, without works, and the other saith, that faith without works is vain, because the one speaketh of works going before faith, the other of such as follow faith, as Paul himself showeth in many places. And that true faith can not be without good works, he showeth in his book De fide & operibus. Capi. twenty-three. Inseperabilis quip est bona vita a fide, quae per dilectionem operatur. Good life can not be separated from faith, which worketh by love. Also in his book De natura, & gratia. Cap. xi. Fateor dilectioni vestrae, cum ista legerem repent laetitia perfusus sum, quod dei gratiam non negaret, per quam solam homo justificari potest. Hoc enim in disputationibus talium maximè detestor & horreo. I confess unto your charity, that when I read these things, I was suddenly filled with gladness, because he denighed not the grace of God, by which alone, a man can be justified, for that thing in such men's disputations, I do most of all detest, and abhor. And in the Chapter. xuj. Haec est fides ad quam praecepta compellū● ut lex imperet, & fides impetret, This is faith unto which the commandments doth drive a man, that the law commandeth, and faith obtaineth. Also upon the. lxvij. Psalm. Sine bonorum operum meritis per fidem iustificatur impius. The ungodly man is justified by faith, without the merits of good works. And upon the 88 Psalm. Et quia sola fides in Christum mundat, non credentes in Christum soluti sunt ab emundatione. And because faith alone in Christ doth cleanse, they that believe not in Christ, are free from cleansing. But what should I tarry longer, in rehearsing sentences of Augustine, when so many books, Epistles, and Homilies of his are extant, which wholly, and purposely, were composed for the same matter, against the Pelagians? Paulinus also a learned man, in saint Augustine's time, in an Epistle written to Augustine. Episto. 58. Hath these words. Quid enim sis ad salutem quae sola fide quaentur, prodest in legis memoria, et meditatione versari. etc. What doth it profit them, to be conversant in the remembrance, and meditation of the law, towards salvation, which is sought by faith alone. Marcus Heremita an ancient Greek writer in his treatise, of them that think they may be justified by their works writeth on this wise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Lord willing to show that every commandment is of duty, and that the adoption is of gift by his own blood saith. When you have done all things that are commanded you, then say you, we are unprofitable servants, and we have done that which we aught to have done: Therefore the kingdom of heaven is not the reward of works, but the free gift of the Lord prepared for faithful servants. Faustus also an ancient Bishop in France writing a book de gratia meritis & libero arbitrio, hath these words. Tempus gratiae in quo redempti sumus, merita hominum non expectavit, opera penitus non quae sivit, sola deus fidei nostrae devotione contentus fuit juxta illud apostoli, credidit Abraham deo, & reputatum est ei ad justitiam. The time of grace in which we are redeemed did not tarry for the merits of men, did not require works at all. But god was content with the only devotion of our faith according to the saying of the Apostle, Abraham believed god, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. And although Claudianus Mamertus Bishop of Gallia Viennensis, for his error concerning Angels in which he followed saint Augustine doth confute him, and joannes Maxentius archbishop of Constantinople, for his opinion of grace and merits in which he disagreeth from S. Augustine, reproveth him in his answer against the Epistle of Hormisda Archbishop of Rome: yet for excluding merits from justification no man findeth fault with him. For the same joannes Maxentius concerning the free will of man, whereupon all merits are grounded, hath this catholic confession. Liberum autem naturale arbitrium ad nihil aliud valere credimus, nisi ad discernenda tantum, & desideranda carnalia, sive saecularia, quae non apud deum, sed apud homines possunt fortasse videri gloriosa. Ad ea vero quae ad vitam aeternam pertinent, nec cogitare, nec velle, nec desiderare, nec perficere posse nisi per infusionem, & inoperationem intrinsecus spiritus sancti. We believe that natural free will availeth to nothing else, but only to discern and desire carnal or worldly things, which may perchance seem glorious before men, but not before god. But for those things that pertain to life everlasting, that it can neither think of them nor will them, nor desire them, nor perform them, but by the inward infusion & working of the holy ghost. And lest the judgement of this joannes should be doubted of, because he wrote against the B. of Rome. This is the same joannes, whose confession the same Hormisida sent unto the Bishops of Spain as catholic and true. Albinus the school master of Carolus magnus much later in time, but in sentence all one with him, upon the. 119. Psalm part. 19 writeth in this manner. definite in nullo homini esse praesumendum, nisi in sola dei pietate, quae ex miserit beatos facit, ex mortuis vivos. He determineth that a man must presume in nothing but in the only mercy of god which of miserable maketh us happy of dead men alive.  
Another godly man of good antiquity, not so famous in name which of purpose he suppressed to avoid vain glory in all his writings, calling himself Idiota, is nevertheless of the same opinion in divers places of his works, especially in Regulis sancti viri. Quinta regula, quod in illis duodecim armis, nec in quocunque alio humano remedio confidas, sed in sola virtute jesu Christi qui dixit, confidice ego vici mundum: & alibi, princeps huius mundi eijcitur foras, quare & nos sola eius virtute confidamus, & mundum posse vincere, & diabolum superare. The fift rule of a godly man is, that thou do not trust in those twelve pieces of armour, nor in any other human remedy, but in the only virtue of jesus Christ, which saith be of good courage, I have overcome the world, & in an other place, the prince of this world is cast out, wherefore let us trust by his virtue alone both to overcome the world, and to vanquish the Devil. Also in his book de conflictu carnis, & animae. Cap. 6. Tibi domine deus meus attribuitur quicquid pertinet ad potentiam: divinam autem potentiam evidentius nihil manifestat, quam iustificare impium, hoc est trahere peccatorem, juxta quod legitur, Deus qui omnipotentiam tuam parcendo maxim, & miserando manifestas, melius enim est iustificare quam creare, cum creando detur natura, iustificando autem, & auferatur culpa, & conferatur gratia. To thee O lord my god is ascribed, whatsoever pertaineth to power, and there is nothing that setteth forth the power of God more evidently, then to justify an ungodly man, that is to draw a sinner, according as it is red (O God which showest thine almighty power most of all in sparing and showing mercy) for it is a greater matter to justify, then to created, whereas in creating nature is given, but in justifying sin is taken away, and grace given. I will conclude with Venantius in his exposition of the Crede, wherein he followeth Ruffinus upon the Article of remission of sins, & using almost the very words of Ruffinus, saith on this manner. Remissionem peccatorum nobis in hoc sermon sola credulitas sufficit, nec ratio requiritur ubi principalis indulgentia comprobatur. Only belief in this speech is sufficient to give us remission of sins, neither is any reason required, where mercy is proved to be the principal cause. Seiing therefore that we are compassed (as the Apostle saith) with such a cloud of witnesses, I cannot but marvel with what face the adversaries can so confidently pronounce that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is new doctrine never hard of in the Church before this forty or fifty years. And for as much as the witnesses are in number so many, in time so ancient, in learning so excellent, that of all men they are reverenced, and seeing their testimonies are so diverse all to one end, some affirming the doctrine in plain terms, some yielding reasons thereof, some showing proofs and arguments for it, some answering objections made against it, and every one of these in several words phrases and manners of speaking, I am sure though subtlety can devise, starting holes to elude some of them, all the craft of the Devil cannot be able to avoid them al. And if the only admonition of August. be thought of you sufficient for both learned men and Christian men, which is that a barren dead and unstructfull faith is not sufficient for salvation, what think you so many admonitions of so sundry, both learned and christian writers, aught to work with all men, teaching that a true and lively faith alone in the only mercy of God by jesus Christ doth justify? We agree with Augustine, that a solitary faith doth not justify, if you can as well agreed with the scripture and almost all ancient Fathers, that a fruitful faith alone doth justify not by merit of the fruits, but by taking hold of God's mercy.   

The Papist.  
And that which is most of all to be marveled at, whereas the religion of this reformed Church hath left us nothing to serve God withal, but this only and alone faith which they do affirm to suffice, they do by the free choice and will of man denied, clean take away this only faith also, like as all other gifts, & graces, & benefits uprising unto man, by the death and blood shedding of jesus Christ. For so much as the free will of man is the seat of grace, and the mansion house of faith, whereby faith is produced and brought forth by the grace of God, as chief agent and worker thereof, and in the will of man, as in an apt receptackle and place to receive the same, when no man can believe but he that william. And therefore for man to believe both these two things are necessarily required. First is the act of God's grace, stirring and moving the will of man thereunto, second is the consent of man's will to apply, and receive the same, without the which consent of man's will, God's grace knocketh all in vain. As it appeareth by the citizens of Jerusalem, unto whom our saviour Christ saith in the Gospel. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which doest slay the Prophets, and stonest them to death, that are sent unto thee, how often times would I have gathered thy children, like as a Hen gathereth her chickens, underneath her wings, and thou wouldst not. I would saith christ, but thou O jerusalem wouldst not. Whereby it appeareth, that god by his grace doth not work his belief in the soul of man, as in a stock, or in a stone, with out any consent of man's part, to be given thereunto, when there is no man, that can by any other mean, receive faith, then by the consent of his own will, and therefore in the work of faith, God's grace, and man's will must consent, and join together both. The Apostle saint Paul, in witness thereof saith, by the grace of God, I am that I am, and his grace in me was not in vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they all, and not I saith saint Paul, but the grace of God with me, and not without me as working before in me, and without my consent, but mecum, with me. For Augustine saith, that almighty God, which in the beginning, did created man, without any consent, asking of man thereunto, he will not now justify man constreinedly, and whether he will or not, but with his own consent, will, and desire thereunto. For the kingdom of heaven, saith our saviour Christ suffereth violence and the only violente men, which here will travail, labour, and fight therefore, shallbe partakers of that kingdom. When the joys of heaven are not so vile, nor so mean things, like as the Apostle saint Paul saith, but they are worth the labouring for: seeing therefore it can not be denied, without denial of the express testimonies of the scriptures, but that the consent of man's will, must necessarily come with God's grace to receive faith, therefore, in the denying of the consent of man's will, they deny faith, and thus in fine, the religion of this new reformed church is brought (all circumstances being duly examined) from only faith, and faith alone, to have no faith at all.   

The answer.  
It is a great marvel to see you, and such as you are, that boast of your free will, to be so obstinately blind, that you will not see the truth, but that we do acknowledge the just judgement of God in those that strive against him. But to avoid all your cavilling of free will, where by you go about to amaze the understanding, of such as be simple, I will first show, what we teach of free will, and then answer your peevish Sophistry. And because the name of free will, is ambiguous, and of divers significations, it is expedient, to set forth the sundry meanings thereof. Free will is sometimes taken as it is contrary to coacted or constrained william. Sometimes as it is contrary to a servile, or bond will. And sometimes as it is, the election of that, which seemeth good, and is contrary to refusing. But in the ambiguity, of the two former significations, all the doubt of this controversy doth consist, whereof we determine after this manner. That man before his fall, had free will, in every respect: he might have chosen freely without any let, or compulsion, that which was good in deed, and acceptable to God: For there was in his nature, nothing to provoke him to evil. But man after his fall, both in himself, and in all his posterity, hath utterly lost that free will, which I make the second meaning of the word, and hath his will, now altogether servile, and bound, so that he can will nothing of himself, that is good, and acceptable before God. And therefore the scripture saith. Genesis the. vj. and viii. That all the imaginations of the thoughts of men's hearts, are only evil continually. Our saviour Christ also Matth. xv. teacheth, that out of the corrupt heart of man, proceedeth all wickedness. And saint Paul. ij. Corin. iij. affirmeth, that we are not apt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of ourselves, as of ourselves, to think any thing, that pertaineth to the glory of God. With an infinite number of places beside, to the same effect, through out the Scripture, declaring that before we be regenerate, and borne a new, we can will nothing but that which is well. Nevertheless, we do not deny, that a man hath free will in the first meaning, for although his will is bond, and slave unto sin, before it be made free, by the grace of God, yet is it not compelled, nor enforced by any external coaction or Stoical necessity unto evil, but voluntarily embraceth that, which is evil, and delighteth therein, and voluntarily doth refuse goodness, and pleaseth itself in ille doing. As for the third kind of free will, which is an appetite, or election of that, which seemeth good, continueth in man after his fall (but yet subject to God's providence) whereby he guideth all his external actions, but this is unproperly called free will, and therefore may be well omitted in this disputation. The whole matter of doubt resteth therefore in this, whether a man hath his will so free, and uncorrupted, that he can discern any thing in true godliness, and apply himself to receive it. And here in this your discourse, a man can hardly perceive, whether you defend free will simply with the Pelagians, or partly with the Papists. But this is the manner of you all, to show yourself, where you dare for shame, plain Pelagians in deed, for all your divinity of free will, is out of Aristotle and not out of God's word, but when you be pressed with the authority of scripture, to fly to some sorry shift of defence. But it is all one in a manner, to confute the Pelagians, and you, when it is proved out of the word of God, that the grace and goodness of God, worketh all together, whatsoever is good in them that are regenerate. For it is neither of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD only, that showeth the mercy. Therefore it is no hard matter, to avoid most of your cavillations, with that one distinction of free will, which is either free from coaction, and compulsion, or free from corruption, and bondage unto sin. As when you wrangle of the receiving of faith, that no man believeth but he that will, I answer, no man is compelled to believe, but he that believeth, doth believe willingly, and of his own accord, but that he hath a will to believe, is not of himself, but of God. For GOD doth not only offer mercy to our will, but also giveth us a will to receive it. As saint Paul testifieth, God worketh in us, both to will, and to perform whatsoever is good, and pertaining to our salvation. Phili. ij. And where God giveth not a will, there men can not believe, though grace, and mercy be offered unto them. As saint John testifieth in the. xii. Chapter of his Gospel, that the jews after so long preaching, and so many miracles working among them, did not believe in him, and they did not believe, because they could not believe in him, for that God, according to the Prophecy of Esaie, had given them over, into a reprobate mind. But if every man had free will, as you defend it, it might not be truly said of any men, they could not believe, because God had blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart. For you hold, that every man may believe that will, and that every man hath this will, in his own power. And the first part of the sentence in some respect may be granted, that each man may believe that will, but the second part is altogether false, that each man hath this will in his power. But those only whom God hath appointed to salvation, he maketh willing to believe, that they may be saved.  
And whereas you quarrel, that Christ would have gathered, and Jerusalem would not, it maketh nothing to prove, that the jews had power of their will, to receive Christ, which saint John utterly denieth, saying, they could not believe. And concerning the will of God, and Christ, you should not be ignorant of that distinction, which your Sentiaries doth acknowledge. That there is one will of God's determination, and an other of his precept, or commandment, which they call voluntatem signi. As when GOD commanded Abraham, to kill his son, he declared one will by his commandment, and yet the end declared that he willed not the death of Isaac. These diverse wills, are not repugnant in God, neither doth he intend, contrary things by them, but such as may well stand together. For he determined to save Isaac, for his promise sake, and yet to try the obedience of Abraham, by the commandment. So when Christ preached to Jerusalem, he determined to call those only, that were elect of God, and yet to make the other inexcusable, when he offered mercy unto them, and they by no means would receive it. The rest that you add, of the consent of man's will, to be necessary unto justification, is so impertinent, that I muse what you meaned to speak one word of it. For who ever said that God worketh in the faith of a man as in a Stock or Stone, or who ever denied the consent of a man's will to be required in believing? This is no part of the question. But whether every man that is not predestinate of god to salvation, hath it in his power to consent unto faith, that he may be justified, and so be saved, which is clean to overthrow the election and predestination of God, which is the chief foundation of our faith, & consequently to overthrow the power, wisdom, glory and authority of God over his creatures. For if every able and scilful workman, determineth of the end and use of his workmanship, before he beginneth it: with what reason can we take that from the creator of all things, who as Solomon witnesseth, made all things for his own glory, even the wicked man for the day of his wrath. Your conclusion is very clerkly, that we have driven all things to faith alone, & when all is duly examined, we have no father at all. When Zeno had disputed long that there was no moving, Diogenes walked up and down his school, and being demanded, what he was doing, he answered I am confuting of Zeno his arguments. In which behaviour he showed a double example of wisdom, first because he vouchsafed not to answer the subtleties of Zeno in so vain a matter, & secondly for that his sensible action, did sufficiently confute the Philosopher's vain speculation. We will therefore hold our peace in this case, and let the matter itself speak for us. If it were not that we had faith to Godward, why should we trouble ourselves in this controversy of religion? If we seek riches, honour, pleasures, or whatsoever the outward man can wish for, where should we sooner find it, then in Popery? If we sought any thing in this life by our profession, why should we not leave it in time of persecution? Let the life & death therefore of them that have suffered martyrdom for our religion, declare whether for maintenance of faith and trust in God, or for confidence in the world, we have taken this contention in hand. But seeing you are disposed to dally with us in denying our faith, you shall give me leave to disprove in good earnest, your justification. For if you have none other but these three, which all learning (you say) doth agreed of, I suppose it not unpossible by your own learning, to convince that justification in papistry, is either very vain, or else none at all. And because your distinction is so preposterus of itself, it shall not be against order to begin with the last kind first, which is (you say) when of a just man is made a more just man. If no man be just, how can there be degrees in justification? If the scripture teach (as I ween you will not deny) that all men are sinners, and that no sinner is just, than no man can be made of a just man more just. But because I promised to deal with you rather by your own learning, than by scriptures, if I can disprove your two first kinds of justification, the third must needs vanish away of itself. justification by baptism is your first kind, by penance, your second kind. If a child be justified by Baptism, & die in that state of justification, he cometh not into purgatory. And therefore needeth neither Dirge nor Mass to be said for him: but by saying Dirge and Mass for such one, you acknowledge him to be in purgatory, therefore you confess he is not justified. And so your own catholic doings deny your learned sayings of justification by Baptism. Let us see if justification by penance be any thing surer. When a man hath shriven himself, & received absolution, I trow you will say he is justified by penance. But so soon as he is gone from the Priest, if he fall into deadly sin, he is become lapsus again. And it is the doctrine of all the Sententiaries, that every evil desire, with consent is deadly sin, as if the party, that is shriven, when he cometh out of the church, seeth a fair woman, & lusteth after her, he hath committed adultery in his heart with her, if he meet his enemy, & desire revengement, he is a murderer. If he behold any house, land, or other goods, & cattles, that is not his, and covet it, he breaketh the x. commandment, & so of the rest. Wherefore, so so●e as ever he thinketh an evil thought, after his absolution, all the fat is in the fire, he hath lost his justification. So that he must be shriven ten thousand times in a year, or else he must not tarry, but a short while in his justification. A miserable conscience or none at all, must that man have, that trusteth to such a justification. But you will say, he needeth not to fall by concupiscence so often. But I say, he is a false hypocrite, that dare so say, of himself. Saint Paul was not inferior to any man, in the grace of regeneration, and yet he confesseth, that there was an other Law in his members, which was resistaunte to the law of his mind, & so far prevailed, that it brought him continually, captive unto the law of sin, in so much that it did wring out of him, this pathetical exclamation: miserable man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of sin? And findeth no other comfort, but the mercy of GOD in Christ Roma. seven. Wherefore seeing both the first justifications fail, the third must needs fall, and therefore except you can find another justification you are like to have none at all at jest wise of any value to make you righteous by your own learning.   

The Papist.  
My poor wit, learning, and conscience being fully persuaded, that all the premises, be of such truth, and verity, as I have expressed. I thought it good to make declaration there of chief for discharge of conscience, and partly to meet with this common objection, that we have nothing to say, but stand wholly upon a wilful frowardness, obstinacy, and vainglory, having neither scripture, doctor, argument nor reason to allege, for the defence of the matter, that we stand in. And for some trial to be made of my fidelity, and truth, in the allegations of the premises, I do offer myself to turn the books of the scriptures, doctors, and holy fathers, when where, and before whom I shall be called. And by the books being indifferently red, judge betwixt us. Doubtless this is the whole desire, and intent I had in the writing hereof, & not any other desire, I had of liberty, enlargement, or hear to live. For what desire should a christian man have, to live in that Realm, that slayeth them that would their wealth, and is angry with them that would help their evils, what desire should a christian man have, to live in that realm, that setteth nought by, and destroyeth, those that do watch, and pray to do good, and setteth by those, that do watch, and travail for to do evil? Who would desire to live in such a Realm, where the Elders, and ancient men thereof, the wise, godly, and virtuous, do live discontented, and whereas the youth, witless, graceless, and vicious, do live best contented, and pleased? who would desire to live in that Realm, where such vices are of subjects openly committed, which in all other Christian realms they fear to do in secret? and where all that they desire, they procure, and all that they procure, they do attain, and all that is evil, they think, and all that they think, they say, and all that they say, they may do, and that that they may do, they dare do, and put in operation. And therefore, I can have by no right reason, any desire of enlargement of liberty, or yet hope any while to live.   

The answer.  
A man may doubt for all your protestation whether your wit, learning and conscience be so persuaded of all the premises, as youpretende: of which some be so absurd, that no man of any wit or learning can be persuaded in them. And whereas you think you have answered the common objection that you have nothing to say, I suppose by the judgement of wise men you have rather confirmed the same, that either you have nothing to say, or that which you say is nothing to the purpose. Your fidelity in the allegations should better have appeared, if you had noted the places at the first, which either must be imputed to fraud or to lack of books that it was omitted, but by noting of some places it should seem you wanted no books, and your straight keeping I suppose is not such, but you might have had books if you list. You conclude your Apology with an odious diffamation of the whole state of our prince's government, which if it have failed in any point, it was in over much clemency showed towards such as you are. It cannot be denied, but men of good profession are oftentimes wicked in living, and many of no profession be a slander to those of true religion. But how soever men be malicious and ungodly bent, the state alloweth them not, but punisheth them, that by order of law are convicted to be such. Wherefore to make such an outcry, as though nothing but murder oppresssion, filthiness and all kind of ungodliness, yea nothing else but a confusion of all wickedness were openly maintained: it savoureth neither of truth, nor of the spirit of God, nor of the affection of a good subject. If Nero Domitian or Heliogabalus raged in the world, with what other rhetoric would you have painted out their regiment then this that you have abused against this present government? the praise whereof if the present age envy, the posterity will marvel at it, when neither in memory nor in monuments being compared without afffection, the like shall ever be found before it. God give all true subjects grace to be thankful for it, and so to behave themselves therein, that through his mercy it may be many years more, most happily continued.   
FINIS.