AN EXAMINATION OF M. DOCTOR WHYTGIFTES CENSURES, CONTAINED IN TWO TABLES, SET BEFORE HIS BOOK,  
Entitled, THE DEFENCE OF THE ANSWER TO THE ADMONITION. etc.,  I COR. XVI. 14. 
Let all your things be done with joy.. 1575.   

AN EXAMINATION OF Censures contained in two Tables set before book entitled The Defence of, etc.  
THE EXAMINER TO HIS FRIEND IN CHRIST JESUS.  
YOUR importunity rather than any other Argument, hath moved me to yield unto your request. For what am I, that I should take upon me to be an Arbiter between two so renoumned Clerks? You know a great number I am sure, both wise and learned, which favour the cause of reformation, that might better satisfy you with their learned judgement, than I can plased you with my simple opinion. Beside this, it is not otherwise likely, but that T. C. (if God spare him life) will make answer in his own defence, as one that knoweth his own meaning best As for me, I can but conjecture, how an indifferent man without affection unto either party, or desire of cont●●tion might reasonably and charitably judge of those matters, supposed by M Doctor whitgift to be dangerous pilates of doctrine, or falsifications and untruths How be it in one thing, I can not but think as you do, that M W. in premising thesetwo tables in the first face of his treatise, and after placing them in the beginning of his book, hath used a very prejudicial policy. For his volume being so large, his style so unpleasant, and his matter for the most● part such, as no man without great pa●ience, can abide to read him over, although he favour his cause never so much: he might well think, that as he should have many curious vewers of the first leaf: so he should have few diligent readers unto the last ve●se. And 〈◊〉 this policy were commendable, but that divine matters require to be handled rather with sincerity, then with sub●litie, For such defacing of the adversary may perhaps procure a sudden acclamation, but a strong defence of the cause obtaineth a sure victory. And therefore M. W. (in mine opinion) 〈◊〉 have done better, to the furthering of his purpose, if on s●e●de of these two Tables of Dangerous points, and untruths, that tend to none other end, but to deface his adversaries: he had made one Table of short and sound arguments whereby either his cause were confirmed, or the contrary confuted. For in so doing, aswell his plain dealing, as the strength of his cau●●, should have clearly appeared to all men●. But as he hath omitted, that so I will let it pass, and show you what I 〈◊〉 of every one of his Censures severally.   

TO THE READER.  
THou haste here (gentle Reader) an examination of D. W. Censures, contained in the two first Tables set before his book, written by a godly and learned man to a friend of his, wherein may appear, with what conscience, he hath charged his adversary, and with what grounds he goeth about to persuade thee to his opinions. No doubt but T. C. (if it ●e please God) shall more fully satisfy thy expectation, in making a just and full answer to all his Cauill●. In mean time use thi● to thin profit, and accept of it, with the same mind that it is communicated unto thee Thou shouldest have had it sooner a great while, and so was, it meant but it could not conveniently be brought about.  
Far well.   

NOTE OF 〈…〉 points of doctrine, as are 〈…〉 T. C. in his reply and quoted, as they are to be found, etc.  
1 He sayeth that certain of the things which we stand upon are such as if every heart of our head were a life, we aught to afford them for the defence of them: whereby he would insinuate that this Church of England doth maintain some damnable doctrine Pag. 44.  
1 The first dangerous point is gathered by insinuation: but direct and plain dealing doubteth of no such danger. surely if there be any truth on T C. side be it in never so small a matter, yet being the truth of God, and in God's matters it aught not to seem a trifle in man's eyes. There is great diversity of matters uttered in the word of God, in degrees of weyghtines, but the holy Ghost instructeth us of no trifles No man that considereth the majesty of God, doubteth what he aught to suffer, rather than to break the ●●st of the commandments: our Saviour sayeth, that no jot nor title of God's law, shall pass, until all be fulfiled, and whosoever breaketh one of the jest of the commandments, and teacheth men so to do, shallbe called left in the Kingdom of heaven.  
Then let every indifferent man judge, whether we aught to afford ten thousand lives, rather than to be excluded out of the Kingdom of heaven. But God will not deal so hardly with us for so small matters, true nor yet for breach of the greatest commandments. But the assertion is of the justice of God & the duty of man, not of man● frayelty and God● mercy. As for the damnable doctrine supposed, although it be no part of the assertion but an uncharitable collection, yet the Church of England is no● to be charged therewith For in as much as both the parties that hold these controversies are members of the Church and a great many others also which take no part in these disputations: the doctrine of the Church is that which is truth in those questions, whether the same be held by T. C. and those that be of his judgement, or by Io. Whitgifte, and all that be of his mind. For if T. C and as many a● take his part be deceived, the Church of England may not be said to be deceived No more if Io Whytgift, & his side be in a wrong opinion, may the Church of England bear the blame of their error. To conclude, a damnable doctrine may by said in two senses, first generally any 〈◊〉 〈…〉 is damnable, because it deserveth 〈…〉 sin is of it self damnable, then specially such false doctrine as is blasphemous, and holdeth contrary to the foundation of our salvation and so all reasonable men mean, when they speak of damnable doctrine, but so doth not T C. charged his adversary much less the Church of England.  
2 He sayeth, that if the Church be considered in the whole and general government and outward policy of it, it may be pure and unspotted: which smelleth of an anabaptistical fancy pag 50.  
2 The second dangerous point is affirmed by M D to smell of Anabaptistry▪ surely they that have there senes exercised to discern good from evil as well as he and have better cause to know the stink of Anabaptistry than he, because they have been nearer to the dunghill of them, than ever he was, can perceive no such savour in the assertion. For first he affirmeth it not absolutely, but for any thing he knoweth, which words should have been added in this accusation, if it had been framed with indifferency. Secondly he addeth if men would labour to purge it of the abuses, which aught to be according to the word of God, now what letteth the purity?  
But either the word of God teacheth not how to purge the Church perfectly, or else that men can not follow the rules prescribed by the word of God throughlie.  
If you grant imperfection in the word, all men know whereof that smelleth, if their want ability in men, than the rules were not rightly framed for man: it will be answered, that the like is objected of the law by the Pelagians and Papists: if no man can keep the law than the law was given in vain: but this objection is soon avoided For the law and these rules are not rightly compared, because they differ in the end for which they were, given. The law was not given that men should fulfil it but to show them their sin.  
These rules were given because God would have his Church in the outward policy to be well governed. But M D will have an example of this purity: what thinketh he of the Churches planted by the apostles so long as they continued in such order, as the Apostles established in them, were they not pure and unspotted as touching the general government and outward policy of them? were the apostles also ignorant or unable, or unwilling, to bring this thing to pass? as for the spots in the Church of the Corinthians and galatians 〈…〉 were not left by th'apostle, when he 〈…〉 but cast in by false apostles that came after 〈…〉 they were th● faults of the men not the imperfection of the orders, which if they had been rightly observed he needed not to have written to the one for excommunication of the adulterer, nor to the other for confuting of their heresy: wherefore by these examples may be inferred that although the order of government and outward policy be never so pure and perfect, yet if men be negligent to observe it, great enormities may grow in the Church, But that there can be no perfect order for the right government of Christ his Church requireth some other faculty than Logic, to frame a good argument of these examples Finally men muse why this opinion should be counted so dangerous in T. C which is so stoutly defended by the accuser himself in both his books. For if there can be no Church pure and unspotted in the whole government and outward policy, why doth he so boldly defend the Church of England, as he pretendeth in her government and outward policy, that he will acknowledge no spo●te nor blemish thereof, but either he defendeth it as beautiful, or else removethe it as being in the men and not in the order of government?  
3 He affirmeth, that many things are both commanded and forbidden, of which there is no express mention in the word, which are as necessary to be followed or avoided, as th●s whereof express mention is made which soundeth to the confirmation of the very foundation of all papistry. pag 77.  
3 The third dangerous point of doctrine in M. Whytgifte ears soundeth to the confirmation of Popery▪ but this his Censure in other men's judgement soundeth more maliciously then godly or learnedly: for it is well known how far T C is fled from all Papistry. And his meaning in those words is evident to any man that is disposed to understand him. That many things are commanded and forbidden in the word of God by general precepts, which are not expressed particularly in there special names and kinds. Why should this be noted in the margin for a Papistical assertion? but afterward it is termed most civilly an unadvised assertion because M Whytgyfte counteth (expressed) as it pleaseth him, which he may well do wh●n he interpreteth his own words, but who made him a dictator to determine the sense of other men's words. Every man is best interpreter of his own words▪ 〈…〉 fallw, hen a man is accused for speaking 〈…〉 he shall not be admitted to expound his 〈…〉, yet by law his adversary shall not be his expounder, but vir bonus a good and indifferent man. If lawyers be somewhat captious they are to be born withal when doctors of divinity permit unto themselves such liberty of wrangling▪  
4 He holdeth, that the doctrine of free will is not repugnaun● to salvation: and yet is it a doctrine clean contrary to f●●e 〈◊〉 by Christ. pag 82.  
4 In the three former Censures though uncharitably yet in this behalf he hath dealt more uprightly, in that he hath set down near the very words of T. C but in the fourth Censure he hath set down neither his words nor his meaning for his words be these And if you mean by matters of faith and necessary to salvation those without the which a 〈◊〉 can not be saved then the doctrine that teacheth there is no free will or prayer for the dead is not within your compass. For I doubt not but divers of the fathers of the greek Church, which were great patrons of free will are saved holdi●ge the foundation of the faith which is Christ. T C doth not hold that the doctrine of free will is not repugnant to salvation, but only objecteth against that, which he supposeth to be M. D meaning by matters of faith and necessary to salvation, for he himself so meaneth by matters of faith and necessary to salvation as he counteth the doctrine that teacheth there is no free will or prayer for the dead to be within the compass but yet he is persuaded (you will say) that many patrons of fire will are saved. M D is of the same mind nevertheless he saith, that he that dieth in the opinion of free will holdeth not the foundation, by which words it seemeth he hath had no great conferens with the free will men of our time, and that he imagineth that those fathers of the greek Church died not in the opinion of free william. But who is able to affirm that? I doubt not but they repented before they died and desired pardon of all there errors and ignorances, as of all there secret and unknown sins: but yet it is most like they died in this opinion that they thought free will to be no error. A Christian man must desire forgivens of those sins which he hath committed not knowing they were sins and likewise of those errors which he holdeth not knowing them to be errors, wherefore they died not without repentance although they did not revoke that particular error.  
5 He sayeth, that all the commandments of 〈…〉 Apostles, are needful for our salvation: which is a 〈◊〉 error pag 103.  
5 The fift point is defined to be a notorious error and in pag 103. it is quoted for a gross error, and in the text T C is said grossly to have erred in affirming that all the commandments of God and the apostles are needful for our salvation, with good store of the like Rhetoric, but what need all this insultations▪ I would require of M. D not a charitable as of a Christian, but a reasonable interpretation as of a man, to these words of T. C. All the commandments of God and the apostles are needful for our salvation For what man (except he were blinded with malice) would not understand this saying of such commandments as God and the apostles in God's name have given to us, and then what absurdity is in the saying? For such commandments as were given to others are they no commandments to us?  
6 He utterly denieth, that any Magistrate can save the life of blasphemers, contemptuous and ●●uberne idolaters, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, and such like which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death: whereby he bindeth the civil Magistrate to the observing of the judicial law of Moses, and condemneth this state and government (now used in this realm of England) of manifest impiety. pag. 120.  
6 The sixth point is accused of two heinous cryme●● the one of bringing in of judaisme, the other of condemning this state of manifest impiety. but in my judgement without just cause. For T. C. requireth not the observation of that law, but the substance and equity thereof as the marrow, which is nothing else but true justice. Is God's justice eternal, now become judaisme? be not blasphemers, incestuous persons, murderers, traitors, etc. as worthy of death now as they were in times past? surely my think if M. Whytgiftes divinity be not able to rule his judgement in these cases, yet humanity it self and the light of nature shining unto all nations should instruct him, that the horrible crimes are worthy of death by the justice of God. And if it be the justice of God, how is it lawful for man to altar it? But let us consider M. D. reasons. First all the● laws of this land that be contrary no the iudicialls of Moses, as he sayeth (but he should say to the justice of God for he must not mock men with the ambiguous and odious term of the judicial law of Moses) must be abrogated. surely they that are studious of the laws, confess as you 〈…〉 must be consonant to the justice of God▪ 〈…〉 point they be not, that they aught to be reform. And every Parliament, pains is taken to bring them as near thereto as can be obtained. Much rather a divine should require that all laws be squared according to the justice of God. The second reason: the Prince must be abridged of the prerogative of perdoninge. The question in mine opinion, is not whether a Prince may forbear the execution of a sentence upon good respects, but whether he may make a law contrary to God's eternal justice. The third reason: punishments of death for felony must be mitigated, etc. surely such may be the circunstaunces that in some cases in conscience they aught to be mitigated, and in some cases they may be increased. when David pronounced sentence of death, according to the case that was put unto him by Nathan the prophet 2. Sam. 12. he increased the punishment of felony, yet he decreed not contrary to the justice of God. The rest that followeth of lawyer's casting away their books, and priests becoming judges, I take to be but jesting, unseemly for so serious matters: as for the authorities he allegeth out of Musculus, Hemingius, Caluine, etc. read them who will with any indifferency, and he shall find nothing in them contrary to the assertion of T. C but rather agreeable to the same: wherefore in my simple judgement, this doctrine tendeth not to the overthrow of states of commonwealth, etc. But rather this assertion of M D printed in great letters (" That the judicial law is lest to the discretion of the magistrate to add to it or to take from it, or to altar and change it as it shallbe thought moste fit, etc.") tendeth to the setting up of all tyranny and confusion, and to the overthrow of all well ordered common wealths. For if there be no certain rule of justice in that law, which is immutable (as there be infinite circunstaunces mutable) it is in the discretion of the magistrate be he wise or unwise, godly or wicked as it shallbe thought fit by him (for who must be judge of the fyttnes but he to whose discretion it is left?) to decree all things at his pleasure, then may he punish a trespass of three halfpence damage by triple torments of death, and assess a parricide at three halfpence fine: he may punish an incestuous person with a fillip and persecute a fillip given with fire and faggott. He may chastise an horrible blasphemer with a check and for a word of small reproach put a man to death. I know M. D. abhorreth these absurdities, but when he is so hard an interpreter of other men's words you may see what may be collected of his own.  
7 He affirmeth, that in the Churches of Christ 〈…〉 drunkards, nor whoremongers, at the lest, which 〈…〉 which assertion sendeth to Anabaptisme. pag. 176.  
7 The seventh assertion is said to tend to Anabaptisme, which affirmeth that in the Churches of Christ, there be no drunkards, nor whormongers at the least which are known. Truly if T. C had added no reasons of this assertion, yet me thinketh an indifferent reader would have understand his meaning to be of such Churches where discipline is exercised. But when he joineth the reasons, namely, that such offenders are there restored by repentance, or cast out by excommunication, and so are to be accounted either as no offenders, or as no members of the Church: I can not see what occasion is left to a Sophister to cavil▪ and therefore I marvel that M. D. whitgift hath no more regard of charitic then upon every vain surmise to accuse his brother of Anabaptistrye.  
8 He sayeth, that whatsoever apparel the Magistrate commandeth the Minister to wear, the commandment can not be without some injury done to the Minister: which is to debar the Magistrates from appointing any kind of apparel to Ministers. pag. 265.  
8 The eight point is charged though not in words, yet in deed with suspicion of Anabaptistrie: for if it abridge, the lawful authority of the Magistrate, it favoureth the Sect. But in mine opinion it derogateth nothing from the lawful authority of the Magistrates. For (as I conceive) he meaneth not, that it is unlawful for Magistrates to appoint distinction of apparel, to all degrees of men for civil respects: but that the Magistrate ought not to think so evil of the elders of God's Church) which are worthy of that office and so of double honour) as that they can not order themselves in sober and decent apparel, except they be instructed and enforced thereto by law. As for example even of those justices of both the benches whom M D. objecteth, being approved for their wisdom and gravity, before they be admitted to that office, if they were forbidden to wear white feathers in their caps, or to sit in short Ierkens or to use barrel bretches, and commanded to use sad colours and sober fashions in all there apparel, think you they would not be sorry, that they should be so ill thought of that they cold not consider these things without commandment. And I am persuaded 〈◊〉 D. whitgift himself, if he were in ●●nest, by any that hath authority specially forbidden to were double ruffs, or yellow hose, drawn out with blue and commanded to wear his garments of such colour and making as becometh a man of his calling: he would, think a piece of-wronge were offered him▪ in that he were no better thought of, but that he needed such kind of commandment to keep him in order But you will say, that all ministers be not of such wisdom and discretion that they can order themselves without commandment. I answer that T. C. speaketh not of such as are, but such as aught to be, and of the reverent opinion that the magistrate, as well as others, aught to have both of the office of the ministry, and of the ministers themselves.  
9 He sayeth, that those ministries without thee▪ which the Church is fully builded, and brought to perfection and complete unity, are not to be retained in the Church: which is a very dangerous assertion, and may give occasion to divers errors pag. 307.  
9 The ninth is counted a dangerous assertion, giving. occasion of divers heresies, and in the pag 307. it is said to tend to the shutting out of the Civil magistrate, and to be the very argument of the anabaptists against Christian magistrates. But if it were sufficient to accuse, who should be innocent? especially if M. Whytgiftes Censure were a sentence, T.C. were in a woeful case But, if you will credit me, when I examine the words of T C. as strongly as I can against him, this accusation seemeth to me to have less colour than any of the former. For what can be collected of th●se words. (Those mynisteryes without the which the Church is fully builded, and brought to perfection and complete unity are not to be retained in the Church.) but that all superfluous and needles ministries are to be removed? How doth this assertion exclude the Civil magistrate? except you will make him an Archbishop or Archdeacon, or sum such Ecclesiastical minister, It will be said that the Civil magistrate hath authority in causes Ecclesiastical. It is true, but that maketh not him an Ecclesiastical minister, or his office a ministry Ecclesiastical. if T. C had said these offices without the which, etc. there might perhaps have been left some colour of quarrellinge, yet he might reasonably have been understand to mean of such offices as in his whole discourse he speaketh of, that is Ecclesiastical, but when he sayeth ministries, by which word men do commonly without any further addition, understand ministries of the Church, I can not see what accusation M D can have against him. As for the differens he putteth of bringing the Church to perfection and preserving it therein, is needles in this place, for T, C speaketh not only of laying the foundation of the Church, but of bringing it to perfection and complete unity in Christ the head, which of force importeth continuance to the end.  
10 He holdeth that it were more safe for us, to conform our indifferent ceremonies to the Turks which are far of, then to the Papist which are so near: which can not be so, for the Turks utterly deny Christ, and be void of all Christian ceremonies. pag 475.  
10 The tenth assertion is not charged with any dangerous doctrine but only said that it can not be so, and therefore it should have been placed among the untruths rather than the dangerous points of doctrine: but perhaps he would insinuate that T. C. favoureth the religion of the Turks, rather than of the Papists. Truly I think he favoureth them both alike and yet in some points there is less hurt in the one then in the other. I had rather abhor all images with the Turks, then commit idolatry with the Papists, and yet I like neither of both. Such comparative sayings do not employ a simple allowing of either of the things compared, as when they commonly say: I had rather be cumbered with an ague then with a cursed wife, they mean to cherish nother the one nor the other, if they may choose. So I am persuaded that T. C. wisheth neither turkish ceremonies nor Popish, and yet there were less hurt in Turkish ceremonies, then in Popish. to be used of us, because of greater offence growing in the use of one, which is near and known, then in use of the other that is far of and unknown. M D noteth in the margin that Gentills and Papists are not like in all respects: neither two kinds of milk, nor two eggs are like in all respects. it sufficeth in simillitudes if they be like in those things in which they are compared. But from Gentiles and Turks we differ wholly in matter and substance of religion, from the Papists we differ not wholly in matter and substance. Truly if Antichrist differ wholly from Christ in matter and substance Antichristian religion differeth wholly from Christian religion in matter and substance. And I trust M. whitgift will not say otherwise but that the Pope is antichrist, and Popish religion is Antichristian, But yet you may say we confess the twelve 〈◊〉 of faith, and all the holy Scripture to be true which the Papists hold also, therefore we differ 〈◊〉 wholly from them. So doth the devils aswell as the Papists in an historical belief, and yet they are both void of true faith. Therefore as we differ wholly in matter and substance of our Religion from the dyvells, so do we from the Papists. And in my simple judgement, there is more danger in this assertion of M. D. we differ not wholly in matter and substance of Religion from the Papists (than this of T C.) it were more safe to conform our ceremonies to the Turks then to the Papists. Finally, T C. sayeth, that as far as may be, the Religion of God should differ from the Papists in form and fashion, not that we may not have any thing common with them: ot like to them which M D. urgeth so earnestly and yet proveth so slenderly.  
11 He affirmeth, that not only the dignity, but also the being of the sacrament of Baptism dependeth upon this, whether he be à Minister or not, that doth minister it: which if it be true, then be there numbers not baptized, that are supposed to be baptized, and it must of necessity follow, that they aught to be rebaptized which is plain Anabaptisme. pag 518.  
11 Concerning the eleventh assertion which is heinously accused of Anabaptistrie as I do not plainly understand how it is meant by T C so do I not see how it is substantially confuted by M. whitgift for whereas he allegeth some authorities to prove that baptism ministered by Popish priests is good and sufficient, the same is also granted by T. C. who counteth them for ministers, though they be not good and lawful ministers, but usurpers and intruders: the like may be said of such as without ordinary calling counterfeit themselves to be ministers, and so deceive the Church. In these the secret consent of the Church receiving them for ministers until there wicked usurpation be espied may be sufficient to auctoryse, there ministry, towards others, although they have no ground of there calling in themselves. Now, it is another question, whether a woman, or a lay man which professeth himself to be no minister, if he presume to baptise do minister the Sacrament, or in deed abuse the Sacrament. In this I will determine nothing myself, but only I will let you see by certain reasons that the matter is not so clear as M. D. would seem to make it First it is manifest that T. C would have no rebaptisation: because he c●●pteth the baptism of women to be utterly no baptism: and therefore the first being none at all the next is no rebaptisme. Secondly I am thoroughly resolved that neither any lay man or any woman ought to take upon them to baptise. For there is no such necessity of the outward element that the institution of Christ should be broken for it. But if a woman have presumed to break the ordinance of God, whether she have ministered the holy Sacrament is all the doubt. I would ask of M. whitgift (if I were acquainted with him) if a woman presume to minister the Communion whether she give the body and blood of Christ or no, if he say no. I would know why she should rather give the one Sacrament then the other, for I suppose he rejecteth the Popish opinion of the necessity of Baptism, and yet I may doubt, because of the authorities which he allegeth out of tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and Zwinglius where he was not best advised. Moreover, because he affirmeth that the only essential form of Baptism is to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. I would have inquired also whether if the element be changed as well as the minister yet the Baptism is allowable: as there is great question among the Papists, if Baptism be ministered with wine, milk, broth, and other more vile liquor whether it be sufficient: but that he seemeth to allow the Baptism of sand in the fabulus story, so water were afterward sprinkled on and then ariseth another duncical question: if those wo●des with are the form of Baptism be pronounced a twelumoneth before water be powered on whether this be a good Baptism or no? howbeit in that example of him that was baptized with sand, a man would think the bishop of Alexandria might aswell have dispensed with the lack of water, as he did with the lack of a minister, or rather he might have added a minister as he added water. For I see no reason why one may not be baptized as well without water as without a minister. Furthermore for any thing that I can perceive the judgement of D. W. seemeth to be repugnant to the book of common prayer, where it prescribeth the order of Baptism for them that are baptized in private houses, In which the minister is willed to examine them that bring any child to the Church which is baptized at home of these six interrogatories. 1. By whom the child was baptized? 2. Who was present when the child was baptized? 3. Whether they called upon God for grace and succour in that necessity? 4. With what thing or what matte● they did baptize the child? 5. With what words the child ●as baptized? 6. Whether they think the child to be lawfully and perfectly baptized? By which the judgement of the book very godly and soundly appeareth to require six things unto lawful and perfect baptism. First, one that hath authority to baptize, for else the question were in vain, if all men and women might lawfully baptize, secondly witnesses or a congregation, which baptism aught to be ministered, thirdly, invocation of God's name, which as it doth consecrated all holy actions so it aught not to be severed from the administration of the Sacrament●: fourthly, the element of water according to the institution of Christ, and not sand, milk, or such like baggage. fifthly, the words of Christ's institution that baptism be ministered in the name of the holy Trinity. lastly faith in them that have ministered the Sacrament, that they may be assured they have done all things required by the word of God, for what so ever is not of faith is sin. And if the minister shall prove by the answers of such as brought the child, that all things were done as they aught to be, then shall he not baptize the child again, but receive him as one of the flock of Christ, But if they make an uncertain answer to those questions and say they can not tell what they thought, did, or said, in that fear, etc. He is appointed to baptize him in this form, if thou be not baptized already then I baptize the in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost: you see by the judgement of the book, that the outward ceremony not used as it aught to be, or not certainly known, whether it hath been rightly used, may be repeated again, and yet no rebaptisation committed, nor Anabaptistrie allowed. As for example, if answer were made to the fourth question, that the child was baptized with sand or with ashes, milk, wine, or with any thing but water, if I were minister I would no more doubt to baptize the child by the word of God, and the direction of the book, than any that hath had no ceremony of Baptism used towards him. And if answer were made to M. D. in the fift question, that the child was baptized into the name of God and our lady, I suppose he would not think it to be rightly baptized, but would baptize it himself into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. And if unto the last question it were answered by them that took upon them to baptize, that they could not tell whether the child so baptized by them were lawfully and perfectly baptized. I think he would baptize it himself, at lest wise in the conditional form before rehearsed. By this you may see that the matter is not so plain against T.C. as M. D. would seem to make it by the judgement of the book, which requireth mo●● things to the being of the Sacrament than M.D. doth, 〈◊〉 prescribeth a conditional form of Baptism, for those of ●hose baptism it may be doubted for want or ill using of any of those things before showed.  
12 He sayeth, that with what lawfulness men may offer themselves to the prayers and hearing of the word of God, they may also offer themselves to the lords supper: which is a palpable error. pag. 532. and pag. 604. he affirmeth directly to the contrary.  
12 The twelfth is calleth a palpable error but if I may say as I think the Censure is a palpable cavil for T. C. hath these very words ●her ●he speaketh of this matter able enough to express his meaning (I speak of those which are of the Church and of discretion to examine themselves.) M.D would make him contrary to himself, because he sayeth in another place that Papists and excommunicate persons must be compelled by the Magistrate to hear sermons, and yet not admitted to the communion so that by his censure these be two assertions directly contrary on to the other. Such as be of the Church may as well offer themselves to the communion as to the prayers and hearing of the word, and this: they that be not of the Church, must be compelled to hear but not permitted to receive. secondly he maketh instan● of such as be weak in faith. corrupt in judgement, ignorant in the right use of the Sacrament, not knowing how to examine themselves: but T. C. excludeth all those that be in any such respect unmeet to examine themselves. I am sorry I have troubled you with so many words in so plain a matter.  
13 He denieth, that the Church or any man, may restrain the people from bodily labour, in any of the six days: which i● to draw from the Magistrate his lawful authority, and to give carnal liberty to the people. pag 541.  
13 The thirteenth assertion is condemned of Anabaptisme in abriging the Magistrate lawful authority and of libertinism in giving the people to much carnal liberty. But good Lord how unjustly? Hath the Magistrate lawful authority to command the people to be idle which God expressly forbiddeth, or can any man ordain a religious rest such as God ordained one the Sabbat in the Law? For it must be either idleness or a Sabbat that these Magistrate should institute. For if the Magistrate or the Church will command men to 〈◊〉 from there 〈◊〉 labours that they may be employed in public affairs, or given to holy exercises. T. C. will not gainsay it, as not many times before this assertion he affirmeth plainly. Now touching the carnal liberty that this assertion gevithe▪ ●s M D. sayeth) I promise' you I can not imagine what should be ment thereby for I cold never conceive that plowing, carting and other laboringe of men in their vocations, whereof T. C. speaketh, should be counted carnal liberty.  
14 He sayeth, that the life of the Sacrament dependeth of the preaching of the word: which if it be true, then is the sacrament of Baptism not to be ministered to infants, because they can not hear the word preached, and in deed this is the gr●●●de of Anabaptisme. pag. 566.  
14 The fourteenth assertion is mightily pressed with the accusation of Anabaptistrye partly because the metaphor of life is urged so vehemently by M D and partly because the speech of T C. in this place is somewhat unproper or else perhaps corrupted in the printing. But first it is neither charitable no reasonable to expound a metaphor too strongly against him that used it, as if a man should say my life is in your hands, it were hard to conclude against him, ergo it is not in your body, and so you are dead and then you must be buried, etc. Likewise where T C sayeth the life of the Sacraments dependeth of the preaching of God's word, it is an hard conclusion of M. D ergo the Sacraments ministered without a sermon are dead, and being ministered to infants which can not understand the sermon is not effectual But where he sayeth that the life of the Sacraments dependeth of the preaching of the word of God. I suppose he meaneth of the word of God preached and declared, and peradventure so his words were but altered by the printer. For M D assertion of the life of the Sacraments, if it be not charitably expounded is as foul an error as he would seem to charged T. C withal, and would breed as great absurdities For he sayeth" that the life of the Sacraments dependeth upon God's promises expressed in his word, and n●ther upon preaching nor reading." For if the life of the Sacraments dependeth upon God's promises, expressed in his word: although the same be never read nor preached and declared the Popish mass may be counted the lords supper although the Lorde● death be not therein preached and declared, nor yet read to the edifeing of the people. Again if the life of the Sacraments dependeth altogether upon God's promises expressed i● his word, and nothing at all of preaching or declaring● of the same, they may be ministered to infidels, for there can be no faith where there is no preaching of God's word. They give life ex opere operato, of the work wrought as the Papists say to all that receive them, whether they be worthy or unworthy, within the covenant or without it. But I know M D. will answer that he doth not exclude preaching. The like may be said of T. C. that he doth not exclude the promises of Gods word, but joineth preaching to them although he doth not of necessity require preaching immediately before every action of there administration, but that of necessity the word of God must not only be read, but also preached and declared unto the people amongst whom the Sacraments are ministered, or else they may be ministered among the Turks and jews So that if the assertion of T. C. ●e weighed with indifferency it tendeth no more to Anababaptistrie, than the assertion of Iho● whitgift to Papistry.  
15 He doubteth, whether he may call him minister or not, that can not preach, which being 〈◊〉 with his former 〈◊〉, that the minister is if the being of the Sacrament, it will fall out, that he counteth all those not baptized which have bee● baptized by any other than by preachers. pag. 568. and 6●●.  
15 The fifteen Censure is a mea●e cavil, taken up by ●●●kinge a phrase of speaking contrary to the speaker. Although it seemeth that either M.D. or his printer ●athe left out some words pag. 568, which T. C is charged to use by the Censure in the table. For in the pag. 568. he is made to speak th●s, That there should be in stead of a preaching minister (if I may so call him) and in stead of preaching reading, etc. as though he doubted whether a preaching minister were a minister which is clean contrary to that he is burdened withal in the Censure: But let it be as the Censure reporteth that his words are of a minister that can not preach, doth he doubt whether he be in any respect a minister? because he sayeth (if I may so call him) In deed this manner of speaking declareth that he judgeth him that can not preach a man unworthy to be a minister, but he doth not deny him altogether Or 〈◊〉 what say we to these speeches? Nero a most cruel man▪ if I may call him a man, which is so far from all humanity? Did he tha● so spoke, doubt whether Nero was a man in nature? josephus sayeth of Christ in those days there was a man called jesus (if I may call him a man) doth josephus doubt whether he were a natural 〈◊〉 One sayeth to his servant, thou wicked servant (if I may so call thee which behavest thyself more like a master than a servant doth he doubt whether he be his servant or no? A man speaketh to his wife thou art a disobedient wife, if I may call the a wife, which carest so little for they husband. Doth this man doubt whether the woman were his wife? you see what a childish cavil this is, to ground so great a slander of Anabaptistrie upon it. The like fond quarellinge he useth pag 583. where T. C. hath these words▪ What reason is there that it should be granted to one that can not preach (being as they call him a minister (to minister both the Sacraments when as the same 〈◊〉 not permitted to a Deacon (as they call him) which is able to preach. M. W. noteth in the margin why? do you accounted him no minister? this gear would be marked. In deed it would be marked or else M. D. would 〈◊〉 away all with cavilling and slandering. For who seeth not although he have but one eye that T. C. speaketh of the unproper using of these terms Minister and Deacon▪ which signify all one and yet are commonly used for divers offices, and that which is proper to the one as he sayeth made common to the other: not denying, but affirming him to be a minister where he sayeth, being a minister (as they call him) for these words only (as they call him) should be enclosed with the parenthesis, as in the next member of the sentence, where he speaketh of the Deacon (as they call him) where the phrase is all one.  
6 He seemeth to be of this judgement, that only those which be of the family of God aught to be baptized: which is a dangerous error, for not all that be baptized are of the family of God. pag 621.  
16. The sixteen assertion is counted a dangerous error, and affirmed in M. D. opinion to savour very strongly of heresy, but what heresy he showeth not. T C sayeth that baptism is an entry into the house of God▪ whereby only the family of God must enter, and those he counteth to be of the family of God, which be clean, holy, and within the covenant M.D. replieth, that no man can tell who be elect and who reprobate: therefore let him baptise, the children of Turks and jews, yea the Turks and jews themselves, without conversion unto the faith, because no man knoweth whether they be elect or reprobate. But it seemeth he forgeteth what S. Paul writeth 1. Cor 7. For there he teacheth us to know who be clean and who unclean, who holy and who unholy, who within the covenant and who without it, and where he sayeth that all that be baptized are not of the family of God, he is contrary to himself in other places, where he counteth all them that are baptized to be Christians pag 518. and else where: and if they be Christians they be of the family of God, yet all that are baptized with external baptism be not the elect of God, but only such as are baptized with the holy Ghost yet all that are baptized may be counted of the family of God, which is the Church so long as they neither depart from it nor are justly cast out of it.  
17 He secludeth the children of excommunicate persons, and of professed Papists from the sacrament of Baptism, until they be able to make a confession of there faith: which smelleth very strongly of Anabaptisme, and it is a manifest error pag. 622.  
17 The seventeenth assertion is charged to smell very strongly of Anabaptistrye, and to be a manifest error. Surely if it be an error it is not so manifest as M. W. affirmeth, but whether it be an error or no it is far enough from the savour of Anabaptistry, except it be in such a man's nose that hath raked so long in the puddle of Anabaptistrye to espy if he could find his brother drowned in it, that his head is so stuffed with the stink of it, that he imagineth all things where he cometh to savour of it, For although T. C. affirm that the children of heretics and other excommunicate persons aught not to be received to baptism before there parents repent yet if they be received, he denieth not there baptism neither would he have them rebaptized, if they embrace the Christian religion which there parents rejected. if a man affirm that matrimony aught not to be solemnized without the consent of parents, he doth not deny the matrimony which is already solemnized or give the partis leave to marry others or will them to be married again. m. D. holdeth that baptism aught not to be ministered without a surplice yet he would be loath to be counted an Anabaptiste as to deny that the baptism ministered without a surplice is lawful, and to say that therefore it must be ministered again. Now concerning the error which is made so manifest and affirmed to be void of all Scripture, reason, and authority▪ surely if it have not Scripture (as if it be an error it 〈◊〉 not) yet it hath great appearance of Scripture, and such as might move as great a clerk as D. Whytgifte 〈◊〉. For Math 18. Christ willeth that an excommunicate person● should be as an heathen or publican, where upon by reason a man will infer. But the child of an heathen man 〈◊〉 not to be received to baptism, therefore neither the child, of an excommunicate man should be admitted But the judgement of Beza is contrary, I grant, but yet his reasons are not so clear that they can satisfy every simple man which buildeth upon these words of our Saviour Christ math. 18. if he refuse to hear the Church let him be to thee as an heathen and publican. Notwithstanding I hope that for asmuch as T. C. is now at Geneva with M Beza (as I hear) of whom he is judged to be one of the best learned in Europe, that by godly conferens had between them either T. C. shall be willing to acknowledge his error in this matter, or if he be able to defend it by the word of God M Beza himself will revoke his judgement.  
18 He sayeth that princes must remember to subject themselves unto the Church, to submit their Sceptres, to throw down there crowns, before the Church, and to lick the dust of the feet of the Church: And by the Church he meaneth the presbytery and eldership: so that he would have Princes in as great bondage to his seniors, as ever they were to the Pope. pag. 645.  
18 In the eighteenth assertion T. C. is grievously charged as though he would set up a new Popedom, because he sayeth with the prophet Esaye cap. 49. that Princes must worship the Church with there ●aces to the earth, and lick the dust of her feet. I marvel what he may speak without danger of heresy M D. being his judge if he may not speak the words of the Scripture. But M. D. improveth not the saying, for then the devil were on him but his meaning, for by the Church (sayeth he) he meaneth the Presbytery or Eldership. But who made him so privy of his meaning? forsooth the pag. 140. by the words of Christ, Dic Ecllesiae, tell the Church, he meaneth the Eldership, therefore always wheresoever he speaketh of the Church he meaneth the Eldership: a proper conclusion. So though he speak never so well if M. D. may interpret his meaning he can not escape suspicion of heresy. Howbeit in this place as I could never have imagined any such meaning, so it is evident to all men that he hath no such meaning for his words, his reason, the authority of the Prophet whom he citeth do all testify that he meaneth the Church in the most common and usual sense, and as it is the body of Christ in whose respect being her head she ought to have all this honour that is spoken of. But m. D. will have a Prince in no respect subject to the seniors, nor yet to 〈…〉 calleth in scorn, whose name and office is yet authorized by God. And whether he would have him exempt from discipline I do not plainly see, but as far as I can perceive he would. And then he condemneth Ambrose fo● excommunicating the Emperor Theodosius for the murder committed in Thessalonica, and many other godly fathers which did exercise discipline upon Christian princes. And verily the reasons that he useth may serve to set a Prince above the doctrine, Sacraments, discipline and all. But he is altogether deceived for the subjection that is required of Princes is spiritual and not carnal▪ unto God and not to men, derogating nothing from there princely majesty, nor from the●e authority, not not from that authority which they have over persons Ecclesiastical, and in causes Ecclesiastical. If a Prince submit himself to the doctrine of his Pastor▪ to learn that he knoweth not, to reform that wherein he is justly reproved, to receive the Sacraments of his hand, to be blessed of him, to have his sins forgiven by him (I speak but as Christ speaketh) he is not made as M. D sayeth a servant no master, a subject no Prince, under government no governor in matters pertaining to the Church: but remaineth still a master of men though a servant of God, a prince of people yet a subject to the King of Kings, a governor in matters pertaining to the Church though under the government of Christ. Right so, if he submit himself to the discipline of the Church, which is no authority of men, but as S. Paul calleth it 1. Cor 5. the power of our Lord jesus Christ, he abaseth not himself otherwise then he aught to do. For those texts. Quicquid ligaveritis & quicquid ligaveris, matth 16. and 18. whatsoever you shall bind and whatsoever thou shalt bind, whose sins soever you retain john 20. If any that is called a brother 1. Cor. 5 be so general, that in mine opinion they make Princes as well as poor men subject to the discipline of the Church, which is no earthly, civil, or human authority, but the power of our Lord jesus Christ for the salvation of there souls 1. Cor 5 As for the authority of master Galter and other Helvetians is of small weight in this case for they do not only exempt princes but all other men from discipline of excommunication, whose gross error seeing it is contrary to our state which alloweth discipline Ecclesiastical though not such as T C requireth I marvel what master D. meaneth to publish for good authority.  
12 He sayeth, pag 646 that the government of the Common wealth must be framed according to the government of the Church, even as the hanging to the house: and he affirmeth that the government of the Church is Aristocratical or populare: which is a dangerous error, and springeth of this that he doth not distinguyshe betwixt the essential points of the government of the Church, and the accidental points of the same: for the essential points of Ecclesiastical gouernement● may well agreed with any lawful state of common wealth, and civil kind of government: as the gospel may be truly preached in them all, the Sacrame●tes rightly ministered, discipline duly executed and such like: but the accidental points of government (as the manner of electing ministers, the kind of discipline, accidental ceremonies, and other such like rites and circumstances) may be varied according to time, place, and persons, and are so to be framed, as they may best agreed with the state and government of every common wealth The ignorance of this distinction hath ●ast T C into a great and perilous error  
19 The nynetenth assertion is so violently drawn into an odious calumniation that I am loath to lose any time in answering, but only to satisfy your request T. C. sayeth that the common wealth must be made to agreed with the Church, and the government thereof with her government which is all one as if he had said the common wealth must be made to agreed with the word of God▪ and the government thereof according to the doctrine of the same: wherefore if there be any thing in, the common wealth that agreeth not with the word of God, the same must be reformed according to the word of God, is not this a perilous doctrine? In deed it hath always been accepted so by Epicureans and Atheists but I never heard a divine mislike it before: but I heard a friend of mine once say that malice is a most subtle sophister. As for the cavil of M D how vain it is experience itself doth prove, for even that government of the Church which T. C requireth may stand with any of the three good states of a common wealth, whether it be Monarchye, Aristocratye, or Democratye The realm of Scottland is ● Monarchye, and there is established this government of the Church, the like also is intended by the Palsgrave which is a Monarch in his territory, the cities of Savoy be partly Aristocratical and partly democratical in which this government of the Church hath long time been practised: wherefore it is neither so strange nor so dangerous a thing as M▪ W. would seem to make it▪ As for the Censure of ignorance that he so proudly objecteth to him, were more than needed although it came from a far better learned man the M. D. showeth himself to be.  
20 He both joineth with the Papists, in taking from the Civil magistrates authority in Ecclesiastical matters, and also in confirming that error by their arguments, and none other● pag 694.  
20 The twentieth is belike no assertion of T C. for then he would have set down his words but one of M. D. collections, which because we have tried them so charitable before there is no great cause why we should now be much moved at them: saving that my think M. W. should not object to T C. the confirming of his opinion by the arguments of the Papists But to the purpose T. C is accused to take from the civil Magistrate authority in Ecclesiastical matters. It is well that he leaveth him authority over Ecclesiastical persons. But what authority or in what matters doth he take from the civil Magistrate? Hath the civil Magistrate authority to preach, to minister the Sacraments to excommunicate? I am sure he will say no. What is left then, but to provide that these things may be done to the glory of God. I am sure that T C. will not deny this authority. But how shall he provide? by laws, decrees, constitutions How shall these laws, decrees constitutions be directed? by the word of God. Of whom shall the civil Magistrate be instructed in the word of God, what and whereof it is expedient that Ecclesiastical laws, should be made? by his godly and learned clergy: except in these matters he be wiser and better learned then all his clergy in which case he may and aught to ordain whatsoever is agreeable to the word of God for the benefit of his Church not only without, but even against the consent of the state Ecclesiastical. All this T. C. yieldeth unto and of there by any thing else that M. D. can prove to be the lawful authority of the civil Magistrate in causes Ecclesiastical I doubt not but it shallbe likewise granted In the mean time let M. W. give to the civil Magistrate what he will T C. for any thing that I can perceive by his writing will take nothing from him, that is due to him by the word of God.  
21 He affirmeth, that the reading of the Scriptures without the preaching, can not deliver so much as one poor sheep from destruction, etc. ●herein he is also contrary to himself. pag. 784.  
21 In the last place it is noted for a dangerous point of doctrine tha● T. C. affirmeth that bore reading of the Scriptures without preaching can not deliver one poor sheep of destruction. You must understand that he speaketh not of attentive reading, weighing, and conferring, of the Scriptures joined, with humble and hearty prayer, but of reading such as is used in the Church service, and yet he excepteth the extraordinary working of God. The best confuting of this error had been for M. D. to have brought in some instance of some on Papist converted to the Gospel by only reading in the Church, or of any wicked man become a godly man that hath had none other instruction, but as he hath heard the Psalms and chapters read in the service at Church, which if he can do I will not defend T.C. error in this point. But whereas he maketh him contrary to himself he doth him wrong For in the place which he quoteth 158. T. C. preferreth reading of Scriptures in the Church before reading of homilies. And that which he sayeth of the plainness and easiness of understanding of God's word is authorized by the Prophet: which is spoken of the nature of God's word (as I take it) and not of the aptness of men's, understanding which is gross and blind. The son is not light to a blind man, no more is the word of God plain to the natural man For my part I see no contrariety in these matters.   

A NOTE OF CERTAIN Untruths, and falsefyed authorities contained in the Reply of T.C. and are to be found out to his book according to the quotation.  
NExt followeth a note of untruths and falsefied authorities, etc. whereof some be oversights and human slips which in a brother should not so egerlye be persecuted, some be doubtful and disputable matters and therefore not to be so rashly condemned: the most part are cavils and wrestinges such as hath been detected before. But if they were all such as M. D. would have, yet his cause is not overthrown by them therefore no great victory obtained of them. This numbering of untruths in the B. of Sarum. parley for the sincerity of his Censures, partly for the novelty of the matter, and partly for the odiousness of his adversaries cause was worthily well thought of, but I can not tell how it cometh to pass that in M. W. it seemeth stolen, prejudicial, and invidious. The examining of these notes requireth the judgement of one, that hath diligently red over the Doctors, or at the least hath a good library of them by him, whereof I have neither: wherefore you might do well to require the same of some other your friends that are divines who can better satisfy you. But because you have so importunatlye required my simple judgement, I will do the best I can to show you my opinion.  
1 He sayeth, that it appeareth in the eight chapter of the book of Nehemias, that the feast of Tabernacles, which was commanded of the Lord to be celebrated every year, was not celebrated from the days of josua the son of Nun, until the return of their captivity: which is a manifest untruth as it is evident 1. Esdras 3.. and it is also against the opinion of all the interpreters. pag 8.  
1 If the residue of his Censures be like the first by which as by a gate he letteth us into the rest, there is more truth in T. C untruths then in M. W. judgement of vn●truthes T. C. sayeth that the feast of Tahernacles 〈◊〉 not kept from the days of josua the son of Nun, until the return of the people from there captivity. M D. sayeth it is a manifest untruth, as it is evident 1. Esdr. 3. truly if he have no better evidence to uphold his cause then to allege that which was done after the return to prove that it was done before their retourn●▪ his cause will soon fall to the ground. In deed it is recorded 1. Esdr. 3. that the feast of Tabernacles was celebrated, but all men will confess that it was after there return and not before Then see the boldness and bitterness of this man, and according to this welcome, look for good entertainment at this table of untruths of his furnishing. Yet he sayeth it is against the opinion of all the interpreters: suppose you that he hath read all the interpreters? for my part I think not for I hear say that he is utterly ignorant both of the Greek and Ebrue tongues though he make some show of both in his book. And it is not to be thought but some learned Grecians have commented upon these books of Esdras and Nehemias, and I think you remember what our friend M. N said of a certain rabbin that is an Ebrue interpreter called Rabbi solomon jarhii, who thinketh it possible that neither in the days of David, nor in the days of King Solomon, that feast was celebrated until the days of Esdras: but if the place be to be understaunde as M D with all his interpreters expound it, yet the words sound otherwise until the contrary be showed. for it may be that Esdras and Nehemias speak both of one time and the other exposition serveth T. C. purpose even as well. For in that place the former ages are reproved if for not omitting yet for not so solemnly keeping, that feast as they should have down by the Law.  
2 josias is alleged for Ezechias. pag. 10.  
2 This might be the fault of him that coppyed out thee first writing, or the fault of the printer, or if it were the fault of T. C. it is confessed by M D to be a light oversight, and such as he himself hath triped in once or twice.  
3 This word (especially) is added to the text 1. Cor 10. pag. 86.  
3 It is a great fault to add any thing to the Scriptures. But he that giveth the true meaning in other words doth neither add to the Scriptures nor change them. His words 〈◊〉 these." That they offend not any, especially the Church of god." S. Paul sayeth. Be such as give no offence neither to the jews, nor to the grecians, nor to the Church of God Now whether those that are weak in the Church of God are especially to be considered rather than jews or Gentills which are out of the Church, is all the question. M. D. sayeth they that are out of the Church are especially to be regarded. But he only sayeth it without other reason or authority. For reason of the contrary side this may be said: that as charity is the chief rule in avoiding offences and charity regardeth especially those that are of the how should of faith, so we must have especial care not to offend them. The Apostle also speaketh most of them teaching to avoid offences calling them thy brother, thy weak brother, those for whom Christ died, etc. Rome 14 1. Cor 8.  
4 He opposeth Ignatius and Tertullian, to Ambrose and Augustine, as though Ambrose and Augustine should think it to be lawful to fast on the Lord's day, and the other two should writ the contrary: whereas Ambrose and Augustine fully agreed with Ignatius and Tertullian in that matter pag 99  
4 The words of T. C. be these. I will not enter now to discuss whether it were well done to fast in all places according to the custom of the place you oppose Ambrose and Augustine. I could oppose Ignatius and Tertullian, whereof the one sayeth that it is nefas a detestable thing to fast upon the lords day, the other that it is to kill the Lord, and this is the inconvenience that cometh of such unlearned kind of reasoning Saint Ambrose sayeth so, and therefore it is true. In the 99 pag this is noted to be an untruth proceeding of ignorance, but in deed this a false and a proud Censure proceeding of malice and arrogance, as though T. C could not tell what difference is between the Sabbat and the lords day I should have read these words an hundredth times, and never understood that he opposeth Ignatius and Tertullian to Ambrose and Augustine, but to M. D. whitgift, and his kind of reasoning as M. whitgift opposeth Ambrose and Augustine to his adversary. For if the authorities of Ambrose and Augustine be irrefragable for fasting one satterdaye, than the authorities of Ignatius and Tertullian are the like touching fasting one sunday: which notwithstanding are mere absurdities But as it is not so heinous an offence to fast on sunday, because Ignatius and Tertullian say so: So no more is the rule of fasting one saturday true because Ambrose and Augustine say so.  
5 He mangleth saint Augustine's words both before, behind and in the midst pag 107.  
5 This is a frivolous quarellinge for T. C. pretendeth not to recite the words of Augustine, nor to translate them into English, but only to give the sum of his meaning. which he doth sufficiently to show that M. D. hath no great ground in that epistle ad januarium, etc.  
6 Page 144 he falsifieth the words of saint Paul 1 Tim 3. and untruly translateth them.  
6 It is no small offence to falsify the word of God, and therefore M. W. should be well advised before he accuse his brother of so horrible a crime. God forbid that every one which erreth in translation, should be a falsefyer of Gods word much less he that giveth such a translation as the original word will bear, which I think T. C. doth in this place: his words are pag. 144. And being tried let them execute there functions, as long as they remain blameless. first he translateth not word for word, for than he would have said, and let them be tried first, and then let them minister being blameless. So that it may well be, that he ment only to gather an argument of the Apostles words, who if he will not have Deacons admitted to minister before they be tried, and in try all found blameless, no more would he have them permitted to remain in that office if they do not continue blameless. What falsefyinge is here either of the words or of the meaning of the Apostle. But if he meant to translate those words ' anegclytoi' ontes so long as they remain blameless: they are better Grecians then M. D. is counted to be that think it may stand both with signification of the word, and with the circumstance of the place, for S. Paul doth not only speak of election of Deacons: but also of such qualities as should continue in them after they be chosen. Therefore if it be an error (which willbe hard for M. D. to prove) it is no error in matter, but in translation and no falsification: except M. D. willbe counted a falsifier for reading out of the 12. of the Apocalypse verse 11 and expounding it also according to his reading" by the word of his testimony," where he should have said by the word of their testimony It is like he did read it out of Erasmus translation, which is, propter sermonem testimonii sui, which if a man mark not the reciprocation of sui, may deceive him, being not a very cunning Grammarian. This was uttered within these two or three years in a sermon at Paul's cross, and noted by many learned man, which had there greek Testaments, whereof one sitting by me said, that before that time he thought M W had been a very good Graecian▪ but now he perceived the contrary that he could not so much as read his text in Greek, which if he had done he could not have been deceived. And yet in my conscience as I am sure he did err in translating, so would I not judge him to be a falsifier of God's word, because I think he erred of simplicity and not of malice.  
7 He sayeth that Israelites when they worshipped the Calf said, that they would keep holy day to the Lord jehova: which is not true. pag. 151.  
7 I pray God neither T. C nor Io. whitgift never err more then T. C hath erred in this point, for than I trust they should never be deceived but what is the error? Aaron said so but not the people, but Aaron was then the head of the people, and they all consented to keep holy day the next morrow according to his proclamation, therefore the people said so, as well as Aaron But M W. objecteth: the people said these by thy Gods oh Israel, which brought thee out of land of Egypt They said so in deed, but they said not so to control Aaron's proclamation, and so to deny that they would keep holy day to jehova. But contrary wise even those there words declare that they purposed not to change there God, but to worship the same God which brought them out of Egypte in that visible form of a calf. And because M. D. thinketh there is no wrytter that so doth take it let him read Caluine both in his Institution lib. 1. cap. 11, sectione 8. and in his Harmonye upon Exod. 32.  
7 He citeth a place out of justinian's Code, which can not as yet be found there, neither doth he faithfully report, but subtly suppress the words which explain the matter, as they be set down by Illyricus of whom he borrowed them. pag 184.  
8 seeing he doth acknowledge that he hath the place of Illyricus collections it is no fault in him, if it be wrong quoted, as for the surmise of suppressing some of the words is without ground, for he allegeth that constitution only for this end, to show that the consent of the Church in the election of there minister may stand with the time of a Christian magistrate, because justinian a Christian Emperor, decreed, that so often as a ministers place was void, the inhabiters of the city should choose three, etc. This is neither untruth, nor falsification in alleging authority, to leave out that, which pertaineth nothing to the purpose for which th'authority is cited.  
9 He sayeth that Platina writeth, that L●dowicke the second● commandeth the romans to chose there own Byshope: which is not true, for he only commended them for so doing, he did not command them. pag. 186.  
9 commanding and commending differ but in one letter, and therefore this might be the fault of the wrytter or printer: or if it were lapsus memoriae forgetfulness of the auctor, yet the matter for which it is alleged is true, he commendeth them for choosing a good Byshope, non expectato aliorum voto, etc. not looking for other's men's voices, which being strangers cold not so well tell what was done, or to be done in the common weal were they where strangers, and that it apertaineth to the citizens (all which M D slily passeth one) rhet will I not s●ye that ye is a falsefyer for carping at that which is not material, and suppressing that matter which is principally to be regarded for that which is in question.  
10 He sayeth, that these which write the Centuries suspect the council of Lacdicea, which forbiddeth the election of ministers to be committed to the people, and doubt whether it be a bastard or not which is untrue, for the Authors of the centuries make no such doubt. pag 188.  
10 The matter is not worth the wagging of a straw whether they doubt if this canon were a bastard▪ or else decreed against the truth, and those words of there's, which M. D allegeth concerning this Canon, Mirum qua veritare, it is marvel by what truth, for any thing that I see, may be taken, that either they think the Canon connterfeyted, or else they erred that made it. The one sense is as good for T C. as the other.  
11 He sayeth, that Jerome willeth that the people should have power and a●ct●●iti to choose Clerks and ministers, which is not so, for jerom willeth no such thing. pag. 203.  
11 Here is neither falsification, nor untruth for Jerome words are not alleged by T C. therefore not falsefyed, and where he sayeth that Jerome willeth: he meaneth, that Jerome alloweth the people there right in election. As those words do show, which M D. allegeth, out of Jerome Cum ad perfectam ●●atem veneris, si tamen vita comes 〈◊〉, & te vel populus vel Pontifex civitaris in clerum elegerit, agito quae cleri sunt: when thou shal● come to perfect age, but so that good life be a companions and that either the people or the bishop of the city, choose thee into the clergy, do those things that belong to a clerk By these words it aperithe, that he would not have Rusticus intrude him self, without lawful election, and that he counted that a lawful election, which is made by the people, and confirmed by the bishop: but whereas M. D. should make it indifferent, whether he were chosen by the bishop alone, or by the people, because Jerome saith, either the people or the bishop, it is without colour of reason For he may no more gather by those words, that the bishop might choose without the people, then that the people might choose without the bishop. But the cause of that distinction is, that in that age, sometime the people would choose a minister, whom they thought mere and afterward bring him to the bishop to be admitted by him, as appeareth in the work of Chrysostom De sacerdotio, of the choosing of Basill when John Chrysostom himself gave him the s●ypp Sometimes the bishop would espy a mere man himself, & require the consent of the people to choose as it appeareth by Augustine in the election of Eradius to be his successor. Wherefore this Censure, as many other might well enough have been spared.  
12 He allegeth Musculus his words in stead of Ieromes● and that which only Musculus sayeth in his common places, 〈◊〉 ascribeth to Jerome in his Epist to Nepotian e●d.  
12 Here be the words of Musculus alleged for the words of Jerome, which was in deed an oversght, but it may be excused by the lack of books. If M D. had charged him with great negligence, it had been sufficient, but when he upbraideth him with gross ignorance, it is more than needeth except he accounteth it gross ignorans in T.C. because he can not say all Jerome's works without book. But touching the substance of the matter, th'exchange of Musculus for Jerome is no great loss, for Musculus is as well learned, and of sounder judgement them ever Jerome was.  
13 He sayeth that Nazian. (〈…〉 oration that he writeth at the death of his father) confuteth these reasons, that seem to 〈◊〉 der the election of ministers by the Church, and yet is there no such thing to be found in that oration. pag 205.  
13 M D. himself confesseth pag 206 as much as T.C. requireth to be proved by this oration, that is, that the people in that time had interest in the election of ministers. No man (sayeth he denieth) but that the people at this time had interest in the election of the minister in divers Churches. Therefore the conclusion of T. C. is void of untruth or falsification. These were learned fathers, and yet thought not that the election of the Pastor or Bishop pertained to one man alone, but that the Church had also her interest. Therefore you see all the learned fathers are not of that mind you say they are.  
14 He referreth the reader to the 6.3.7. book of Eusebius, for examples of elections of the people and clergy confirmed by the Christian Magistrate, namely in the bishop of Constantinople: and yet there is ●o such examples, in these books, neither any mention of any bishop of Constantinople. pag. 207.  
14 For the election of the Clergy and people mentioned in these two books of Eusebius lib. 6 cap 10. & lib. 7. cap. 30. Which M. W himself hath found out, although he pick many quarrels unto them, yet for as much as he granteth in the end, that the people in that time did gave there consent in the electing of there Byshope, it shallbe needles to say any more of it. But herein he triumpheth exceedingly that there was no such election confirmed by the Christian magistrate, namely in the Byshope of Constantinople In this Assertion are three things to be considered: one of substance, and two of circumstance. Of substance this: whether an example may be found, of the whole Church's election of a Byshope confirmed by the magistrate? Of circumstance these two: one whether he were a Christian magistrate, another whether it were the bishop of Constantinople. And as concerning the first which is the matter of substance: in the 7. book of Eusebius cap 24 there is to be seen an example of the election of one Domius which was chosen by the whole Church, and confirmed by the Emperor Aurelianus. Now for the circumstance there is some error to be confessed, but such as seemeth most probable to proceed of the printer, rather than of the Author For Aurelianus although at that time he favoured the Christians, and as Eusebius sayeth decreed most hollyly in that request that was made to him touching the bishops house, yet can not properly be called a Christian magistrate, and that T C knoweth very well, affirming that Constantine was the first Christian Emperor except Philip. Wherefore this word Christian seemeth to be added by the printer, to fill up his line at the latter end of a page. The other is misnaming of Constantinople for Antioch, and this is like to be the mysreadinge of the printer, if the copy were hastily written in a ronninge hand, because Antino with is a part of this word Constantinople, hath some resemblans with Antioch: some letters before and behind being blotted and put out. But whereas M. d. jesteth so vnsa●earlye, of the building of Constantinople, Anno 335. and the bishop of constantinople's confirmation forty years before Constantinople w●s: noting in the margin, a gross oversight of T.C. peradventure it bewrayeth as gross ignorance of Io. W. for Constantinople was not first builded by Constantine anno 335 but beautified and enlarged being before a very ancient and noble city called Byzantium, and had bishops as Nicephorus witnesseth ever since the Apostles time, lib 8. cap. 6. among whom was one Dometius, brother of the emperor Probus. Who succeeded Aurelianus, which Dometius had two sons that succeeded him in the byshopryck. first Probus, and then Metrophanes, which was bishop, when Constantine began his great building at Constantinople Wherefore it may be that T. C hath read some where, of the electing and confirming of these bishops, that were so near of Kin to the Emperors. 〈◊〉 hereof I can not pronounce.  
15 He fathereth a manifest untruth upon Eusebius lib. 6. touching Origens' admission into the ministry. pag. 209.  
15 He speaketh never a word of Origens' admission into the ministry, as M. d. understandeth the word minister, to be the same whom he calleth priest, and which of the common people be called priests and ministers. But he sayeth that Origene Was admitted not of one bishop, but of many bishops to teach, which were reproved by Demetrius bishop of Alexandria, because they had admitted him without the election of the presbytery of the Church. counting him but a lay man, which was not so elected, although he were admitted by many bishops. Therefore all that M. d. bringeth in to prove that Origene was afterwards made a minister, etc. is to no purpose for T.C. sayeth not, that he was admitted a minister at this time, but a teacher, and yet counted a lay man by Demetrius, because he lacked the election of the presbytery. For if he had been lawfully chosen to be but a reader, he could not in that time, have been justly counted a lay man, much less if he had been lawfully chosen to be a teacher, and instructor of the Church. Wherefore it appeareth that Demetrius called him a lay man, because he deemed him not to be lawfully elected And the Bishops themselves defend not there election, but show, that lay men being learned, have been required of sundry bishops to teach the people in presence of the bishop Wherein they answer de facto out not de iure, that is they show what hath been done, but not what aught to be doen. Nevertheless the chief matter that sticketh in M. W. stomach is, how it may be proved, that Demetrius counted him a lay man, that was admitted without the election of the presbytery. For he asketh whether there be any thing sounding that way. But if he had read Eusebius in Greek, for that which he hath turned (when as yet he was not ordained minister) he might have given it an other sound and translated it: when as yet he had not obtained the election of the presbytery, for the words are th●se, Kai toi tes tou presbuteriou xeirotoneias. Oud●po te●uxekota, auton▪ and where is then this manifest untruth fathered upon Eusebius touching Origens' admission into the ministry? But it seemeth that M. D is better acquainted with the sound of Latin then of Greek for he discusseth not any translation so it will serve his turn.  
16 He leaneth ●ut the words of the council of Chalcedon, that open the meaning of the council. pag 222.  
16 Those words that he leaveth out open no matter against him. The words craftily left out as M. D. sayeth be, he Marturio, he Monasterio which signify, or in some Church builded in the memory, of a martyr, or in a monastery. For (saving M. W. authority) these were pastoral charges aswell as the other, for monasteries in that time, though they were exempt places from other congregations, yet did they contain a multitude of men, and therefore were a congregation, which had need of a pastor. And Martyria whether they were parish Churches, or colleges, or hospitals, they had also some people pertaining to them, and were counted several congregations. Wherefore these words do rather confirm than impugn the saying of T. C as you shall better perceive by the whole Cannon. The Council decreeth, (That none be louslye or absolutely ordained Elder or Deacon, or in any Ecclesiastical degree, except he that is to be ordained, be pronounced specially or properly, in a congregation of some city or town, or in a martyrie, or in a monastery. And as for such as are ordained absolutely, the holy Synod hath decreed, that such imposition of hands be counted void, and that they may minister in no place, to the shame of him that ordained them.) I blame not M D. wit though by cau●llinge at words, he would draw men from considering the matter of this Cannon. But I marvel what he means to seek the understanding thereof, out of the rhapsodies of Graciane the Pope's proctor, which groundeth his exposition upon a false translation of komeiss for possessioni●, which M. D. translated truly himself, pag i of a town or village.  
17 He again ascribeth Musculus his words to Jerome. pag. ●adem.  
17 And yet Jerome in the same Epistle, complaineth that there is no regard of the election of ministers. The authority of Musculus is as good as of Jerome, but that he is not so ancient.  
18 He denieth that Chrysostome maketh a distinction betwixt Bishops and Elders, when as his words be plain. pag. 226.  
18 M. W. in his former book, allegeth Oecumenius expounding the presbyteri that S Paul speaketh of 1 Tim 4. to be such Elders, as were also called bishops, and affirmeth that Chrysostome sayeth so in like manner. T. C. answereth, that by Elders, he meaneth bishops, not to sever those that had the government of the Church together with the pastor, but to make a difference between Elders by age, and Elders by office. M. D. for Oecumenius hath nothing to reply, and therefore having said or seemed to say that Chrysostom's words, quoting no place of his works, were all one with Oecumenius his words. T. C. might well think that in answering Oecumenius he had answered Chrysostome. But now he bringeth other words of Chrysostome, saying that Elders did not ordain the bishop, which in my mind must be understaunde with some distinction, or else they be contrary to the words of SAINT▪ Paul, who affirmeth that Timo●hye received imposition of hands by the Presbytery or Eldershipe, which word as the learned in the Greek tongue do testify, is used Luke 22. and Act 22. for the company of Elders, that had government of the people.  
19 He doth untruly and corruptly allege Theodore●●. pag. 268.  
19 T. C. sayeth, (that the place cited by master Bullinger maketh mention of a golden cope, and that used by bishops of Jerusalem, and sold by Cyrill a good bishop, whereby he declared suffycientlie, his misliking of such garnmentes in the ministery of the Sacraments.) m. doctor affirmeth, that Theodorete counteth it but a fable, that Cyrill should make any such sale. But what if he dream of a fable, where none is talked of if Theodorete be well understand? But be it that he counteth it a fable, yet he maketh mention of selling a cope, and therefore no falsification And maste● doctor confesseth, that some writers (and nameth Sozomenus) affirm that he sold it▪ but he declareth that it was not for any disalowinge of the vesture, but for necessity of the poor in time of famine. But where doth Sozomenus declare that it was not for any disalowinge of the vesture? Let master whitgift take heed that he falsifieth not Sozomenus, otherwise than he can prove that T. C falsifieth Theodoretus. For although Cyrill bestowed the price on the poor, yet he showed by the sale, that he thought it not necessary, and that is a sufficient myslykinge, to justify the words of T.C.  
20 He sayeth pag. 280. that the two treatiser called the Admonition were written by divers persons, the one not knowing the others doings: the contrary whereof is manifestly declared.  
20 It seemeth that T.C. was not privy to there writing, and therefore speaketh as far as he knew, and the matter is not worth a Ryshe whether the one knew of the others doings or no.  
21 He citeth Nicephorus corruptly. pag. 326.  
21 Nicephorus was a Greek writer, and therefore if master whitgift, had alleged his words in Greek, he should better have showed the corruption he speaketh of. But if it were an oversight of T. C. to make Nicephorus say, that Victor in glory passed all the bishops before him, where as he should have said, that Victor in glory went before all the bishops of his time, yet it is all one to his purpose For it is untrue that Nicephorus sayeth, because other bishops were even as glorious as Victor bishop of Rome, and in true glory many went before him.  
22 He falsifieth a place in the first of john, by a false interpretation, to make it serve his turn. pag 302.  
22 It would make a man to quake, to hear such terrible accusations of falsefyinge the words, or meaning of the holy Ghost, if he were not acquainted with the weight of master Whytgiftes censures I have read Caluine, Musculus and other, upon that place of john, and they expound it even as T. C. doth, and especially Caluine which alloweth this to be a good reason of the Pharisees: if thou be neither Christ, nor Elyas, nor a Prophet, why dost thou baptize. For if he had been none of these, he might not have instituted a new ceremony in the Church. But they were deceived in this, that they knew not john to b● Elias promised by Malachy, though he were not that Elias whom they dreamt of As for m●ster doctor's conjecture that they ment the Prophet promised deut 18. like to moses is frivolous▪ for there Moses forbiddeth the people to ask council of witches and conjurer's, because God would from time to time raise up a Prophet among them: which should be inspired of God as Moses was, of whom they should be instructed in all things that were meet for them to know. As for the place math 11. were Christ affirmeth, that john was a Prophet is answered by Caluine, and Musculus. For john sayeth he was no Prophet, to tell of things to come. Christ sayeth he was more than a Prophet, because he was sent of God, to show that Messiah was present.  
23 He sayeth that the centuries allege a place of Ambrose, out of his book De dignitate sacerdotali, to prove that the office of an Archbyshope was nor then come into the Church: which is untrue, for the Centuries allege no such place ●ut of Ambrose for any such purpose. pag 337.  
23 Because the place in the centuries is not quoted by T. C. I can say little to it, but that I think he is not so impudent, as master doctor would make him, to allege that which is no where written For it is like enough that the Centuryators, although they show in the fourth Centurye, that there were Archbyshopes in S. Ambrose his time, and show also how much they differed from the Archbyshopes that followed in the Popish times: yet in some other place, they might allege the authority of Ambrose out of his book de dignitate sacerdotali, to prove that in his time the degree of an Archbyshope, was not distinct from the degree of a Byshope in dignity, but only for order sake, because he there divideth the clergy into no more degrees, than these three, bishops, Elders, and Deacons.  
24 He sayeth, that Jerome and Augustine speaketh of Archdeacon's in those places, where they only speak of Deacons pag 346.  
24 Undoubtedly Jerome speaketh of an Archdeacon in the place quoted by T. C that is in his Epistle to ●uagrius. Where first he findeth great fault that any Deacon should be preferred before the Elders or Priests, which by the Scriptures he proveth to be equal to the bishops, and afterward showeth how the Byshope came to be preferred, namlye by consent of the rest of the Elders, for avoiding contention, as if the Army choose a captain, or the Deacons choose one among themselves whom they know to be a diligent man, and call him Archdeacon. So that by jeroms judgement the Archdeacon was preferred above the Deacons, but not thereby preferred before Elders. So the falsification of Jerome is not to be advouched. The like may be said of Augustine for seeing the Archdeacon in those times, was but the chief Deacon, and so but a Deacon, whatsoever was spoken against the presumptions of the inferior deacons over the Elders may be also said of the Archdeacon's or chief deacons. I think master whitgift (howsoever he would seem to walk under a cloud in this matter) yet he will not say for shame that the Archdeacon's in saint jeroms and saint Augustine's days, had authority over the Elders and ministers as they have now, which is the thing in question, and which T.C. denieth.  
25 The words of Socrates are falsefyed pag 350.  
25 The words of Socrates be not falsefyed for they be not alleged nor translated, but his meaning is faithfully and truly rendered, (that the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria, leaving the sacred function were degenerated into a secular rule or dominion,) which master doctor translateth: that they were passed the limits of priesthood to an outward dominion. What difference is here in the seen. If T. C. take ●pon him to translate out of Greek into Latin or english, by all likelihood he well do it as well as master doctor can do. It is happy, he can not say but that the sense is all one though the words be not the same. And yet there is no great difference between passing and degenerating, the limits of priesthood and the holy ●unction, secular dominion and outward dominion.  
26 He untruly reporteth the words of Cyprian. pag 257.  
26 He reporteth no words of Cyprian, but only affirmeth a truth out of Cyprian, that, 90 bishops of one province condemned Privatus an heretic. master doctor quareleth at the name of province whereby T. C. meaneth that t●ac● of the country which was near about the City, where these bishops did meet. For if the dioceses had been so large, as commonly the dioceses of bishops are now, so many could not so often meet in council, as it is manifest in deed, by that epistle of Cyprian▪ with master doctor citeth lib 1. Epist 3. and many other: that 40.39.66. bishops met in council, commonly every year, and peradventure more than one in the year, which could not be, if they had dwelled so far a sounder as bishops do now. As for that he allegeth out of Masseus of the patriarch of Antioch, to prove the lardgnes of one province is to little purpose, for there were but four patriarchs in the world, under the bishop of Rome, as appeareth in the council of Laterane, therefore every one of them must have a great many provinces under him. Besides that he expresseth not, what time there were so many bishops subject▪ to him, saving that he seemeth to say, that they are now and T C. speaketh of Cyprians times, thirten hundredth year ago.  
27 He falsefye●h the meaning of Tertullian, alluding that to ceremonies, that Tertullian meaneth of faith, and of salvation. pag. 370.  
27 I never knew a man of such learning, so far to overshoot himself, as master whitgift doth in this place. For he allegeth a work of tertullian to prove that his rule as to be understand only of matters of faith, and not of ceremonies or matters of discipline, where he speaketh only and manifestly of a ceremony, and a matter of discipline, namely the covering of Virgins in the congregation, according to the doctrine of saint Paul. For whereas the contrary custom was crept into the Church of Carthage, that Virgins came bar headed into the congregation, and had long continued, he declareth, that Christ and the truth is most ancient, and before all customs, and therefore that to be followed, which was first, in this matter. And whereas master doctor would gather a difference out of tertullian, of matter of faith and matter of discipline. he is much deceived For tertullian writing of them, that held one true saith which is immutable, and erred in this matter of discipline, showeth that although they retained the rules of faith unchangeable, yet discipline also▪ if it were corrupted by evil custom, must be reformed according to the word of God. And this is the true meaning of his words, which are alleged by master Wgytgifte (this law of faith remaining, other things of discipline and conversation admit newness of correction, the grace of God working and going forward even to the end.) He sayeth not, that they may be changed newly every day, but t●at they may be newly corrected, if they be grown into abuse, and reformed according to the Scriptures Now let master doctor take h●de, that he falsifieth not the meaning of Tertullian, which interpreteth his meaning clean contrary to the scope of his whole book.  
28 He keepeth back the words of Theodoret that explain his meaning. pag 412.  
28 The words here spoken of in the Censure, are afterward in the probation pag 413. said to be one word Tauten This Well put Tauten to that which T. C. sayeth, and what is the matter mended? Theodoret sayeth that Chrysostom had the same care of the church of Thracia Asya and Pontus, that he had of the church of Constantinople, erge he had the same rule and authority. What lodgike is this? But Theodoret sayeth in plain words, (he governed the Churches in Pontus, with those laws.) M. D confesseth the Greek to be katekosmeis tois nomois, that is, he garnished or bewtefyed with laws But doth he falsify Theodoret because he leaveth out Tautois there? surely there is asmuch subtlety in leaving out the other, and greater prejudice, in translating katekosmeis, he governed, then in ●matting Tautois these Yet you will say, it can not be avoided, but that he had authority in that Church, which he garnished with laws. I will not discuss what authority he had, but I think this garnishing with laws▪ may be expounded by that promeitheian, or prospection, which he speaketh of before, and that the one doth open the other. That is, that he procured through that credit which he had with the Emperor, that such Ecclesiastical laws should be established in other Churches, as he saw to be profitable in his own, having a special charged of his own flock, and a general care of all Churches.  
29 An untruth concerning Ire●aeus, aucu●he●● out of the fifth book of Eusebius cap 3 a●d 4 pag. ●adem.  
29 The untruth supposed, is that T.C. affirmeth, that Irenaeus was sent of the french Churches into Phrygia. M D. saith he was sent only to Rome, and not into Phrygia. But it is strange to see, that such a diligent reader of Ancient writers, as master whitgift would be thought to be, by carping of others, should so much forget himself. For even in the place of Eusebius quoted by T C. it is manifest, that the long Epistle, written by the Churches of Vienna and Lions, was sent not only to Eleutherius the bishop of Rome, but principally to the churches of Asya and Phrygia, and a special cause alleged, because that Montanus did then spread his heresy. Now seeing master doctor confesseth, that Irenaeus carried the letter to Rome, what should lead him to think, that he carried it not further into Asya and Phrygia?  
30 He perverteth the words of the Greek scholiast. pag. 413.  
30 M doctor should better have reproved this perverting, if he had alleged the words of the Greek scholiast in greek. But let the words be as he translateth, ●●gulas civitates suum habere pactorem, that every city should have her own pastor, then followeth it of necessity (which T C. sayeth) that every pastor should have his own city for his charged. What perverting is this Every wife must have her own husband, therefore every husband must have his own wife. For if it be once granted▪ that every flock must have there own pastor, it must needs follow, that every pastor must have his own flock. For there may be a flock without a shepherd, but there can be no shepherd without a flock.  
31 He avouched aea untruth of Theodoret. pag. 415.  
31 T C. sayeth, (that the emperors Theodosius and Valentinianus writ unto Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria, that they had commanded Theodoret bishop of Cyrus, that he should keep himself unto his own Church only: whereby it appeareth, that he meddled in more Churches than was meet he should.) Master whitgift sayeth, this is an untruth, and a foul oversight, and that he hath dealt very corruptly in this matter. For the emperors meaning was nothing else, but that Theodoret should keep himself at home, and not come to the Synod, except the whole Synod would admit him You shall hear the very words of the Epistle, whereby you may judge what there meaning was, and what corruption is used by T. C. in this matter. (Sacerdotalem enim conventum, non nisi quis ma●● propria conscientia sauciatus eu●●at. Theodoretum san● Episcopum Cyri civitatis, quem pridem ●ussimus suae soli vacare Ecclesiae, sancimus non prius ad sanctam Synodum convenire, nisi universo sancto placuerit convenienti concilio, & ipsum concurrere & pariter interest.) For none will avoid the assembly of Priests, except he be wounded with his own evil conscience. In deed Theodoret the bishop of the city Cyrus, whom before this time we have commanded to attend upon his own Church only, we decree that he come not to the holy Synod, except it shall please all the whole holy council, that is assembled, that he shall be counted one of them, and be present with them. Here you see that Theodoret is not only forbidden to come to the council at such time as it was summoned, but also commanded to attend upon his own Church only before that time▪ whereby a reasonable man may gather reasonably, that he meddled with more Churches the● his own, before he was commanded there contrary.  
32 He uttereth a very uncharitable untruth, of the worthy man M. jewel bishop of Sarisburye. pag. 422.  
32 If that which T.C. teacheth be the doctrine of the Gospel, as he is persuaded, than the B. was to blame, to call it wantonness. And when M. whitgift hath proved that it is not the doctrine of the Gospel he may count it wantonness also. But until this controversy be decided, the matter of untruth is in suspense.  
33 He sayeth, that in the council of Antioch, it appeareth that the bishop of the Metropolitan seat called Synods, and propounded the matters, which were to be handled, and that it was his office to see, that the bishops kept themselves within there own Diocese: and he quoteth the 9 Canon where no such thing is to be found. pag 435.  
33 It is true that T. C. sayeth of the council of Antioch▪ and appeareth in divers Canons, although the quotation be untrue, which is like to be set out of place, by the printer, because that soon after it should come in, where it is said▪ that the 34 Canon falsely called of the apostles, is borrowed of the council of Antioch, which is in deed the 9 Canon. As for this that T. C. sayeth the Metropolitan did call Synods appeareth in the 14, Canon, and did see that bishops should keep them within there own diocese in the 13. Canon. The same may be gathered also by other Canons of that council, and master doctor confesseth that these things pertain to the Metropolitan office, therefore it is a poor spite, that he uttereth against the quotations in the margin.  
34 He h●the adds and detracteth from the 34. Canon attributed to the apostles. pag 439.  
34 The words of the Canon be not recited, and I can not perceive any adding or detracting from the meaning. The words of the Canon be, (The bishops of every nation aught to know who is chief among them: whom let them esteem as there head, and do nothing without his knowledge, beside those things only, that pertain to every man's own Parish. And the towns that are under it neither let him do any thing in their Parishes, without the knowledge of them all.) Of this Canon. T. C. gathereth, that the Metropolitan in ancient time, might do nothing in other bishops Parishes without the consent of all the bishops of his province, and that every bishop might do that which appertaineth to his own parish, without the Metropolitan, and he nothing to do with him in it. These last words (And he nothing to do with him in it,) are said to be added to the Canon. The detraction is laid to be of these words, (And the places subject to it,) so that where as T. C. said that every bishop might do that which appertained to his own parish, he should have added, (and the places subject to it.) I must confess, I can not understand such insensible collections. judge you whether the meaning be changed or no.  
35 The 17. Canon of the council of Antioch is untruly alleged. pag 440.  
35 A great untruth. The printer in the margin hath set Canon 17. where he should have set Canon 14. But master whitgift saith there is no mention of equality in voices, but only of disagreeing in judgement among the bishops in that 14. Canon But yet that equality of voices, must be intended, in case where a bishop standeth to be judged, For if the greater part did either absolve him or condemn him, there were no need to call bishops out of an other province to judge him.  
36 He should say an Epistle of pope zachary to Boniface, and he sayeth an Epistle of zachary to pope Boniface, In th● which Epistle he saith that this cause s●il. lest they should wax vile through the multitude, it alleged why there should not be a bishop in every village or little city, which is untrue: for there is no such cause alleged there. pag 443.  
36 Here again T. C. must abye for the printers fault, which master doctor might have seen in the margin, when it is called an Epistle o● pope zachary to Boniface, and yet there is an erratura in the margin, for ● it quoteth To. 3 in stead of To. 2. O matters worthy of master doctor Whytgiftes Censure. But now is the epistle falsefyed, the words whereof be as (master doctor saith) For you must remember what we are commanded by the old Canons to observe, that we aught not to ordain bishops in villages and small cities, lest the name of a bishop should wax vile T. C. reporteth that it is written in that Epistle, (that it hath been oftentimes decreed, that there should not be a bishop appointed in every village or little city, lest they should wax vile through the multitude, whereby it both appeareth, that there was wont to be a bishop in every parish, and upon how corrupt and evil consideration one bishop was set over a whole diocese) First master doctor accuseth him (as he doth often) for falsely alleging the words, when he doth not pretend to rehearse the words but the meaning. Secondly he asketh how he gathereth that there was wont to be a bishop placed in every parish? belike of this, that the Canons whereof the Pope speaketh, were made to forbid that which was wont to be down, and not that which never came in any man's head to do: and further because it was not one Canon, that so decreed but many But who falsifieth the Pope's Epistle? When master doctor translateth Menunerimus you must remember, & in sacris Canonibus by the old Canons. It is a good h●rse that never stumbled. And sometime Homer himself taketh ● nap. surely these translations are as f●rre from the words of the Epistle as the report of T. C: lest they should wax vile through the multitude: from these words of the Epistle, lest the name of a bishop should wax vile. But multitude is not named, true, but yet multitude is employed, for if every village or little city had a bishop, there should be a great multitude more than are, and multitude also maketh things contemned.  
37 He allegeth the fifth Canon concilii Tyronns. for that that can not be found in it. pag. 446.  
37 Howsoever the quotation in the margin be untrue▪ master doctor can not deny, but that councils have decreed against the immoderate feasting of bishops, which is the matter of the text, and therefore this fault is scarce worth the finding. Master doctor himself hath alleged a work of Basil's such as never none was, etc.  
38 He saith▪ that another Council (quoting the council of Africa) decreed that the Christians, should not celebrated feasts on the birth days of Martyrs, because it was the manner of the heathen: which is a manifest untruth, for there is no such decree in that Council. 479.  
38 There is a decree which master doctor himself reporteth pag 479. (This is also to be desired (of the Emperors) that such feasts as contrary to the commandment of God are kept in many places, which have been drawn from the error of the gentils (so that now Christians are compelled by the Paganns, to celebrated them, whereby another persecution in the time of Christian Emperors seemeth covertly to be raised) might be by there commandment forbidden, etc. especially seeing they ate not afraid to commit such things in some cities▪ even upon the birth days of blessed Martyrs, and in the holy place.) Now who but master whitgift would say, that Christians are not forbidden by this Canon to celebrated feasts one the birth days of Martyrs, after the manner of the heathen. He will say the Pagans' are forbidden. True, but not only the Pagans'. He will say all times they are forbidden. True, but especially on the birth days of Martyrs. He will add, that for other causes they are forbidden, and not only because the heathen used them▪ I grant, but yet for that cause also, because they were drawn from the error of the Gentills. So that here is no untruth▪ advouched by T. C. for he saith not, that only the Christians, were forbidden to hold those feasts only on▪ birth days of Martyrs, and only because it was the manner of the heathen, but his words are as they are reported in the Censure. (That Christians should not celebrated feasts one the birth days of Martyrs, because it was the manner of the heathen.  
39 He saith, That Tertullian would not have the Christian● to sit after they had prayed, because the idolaters did so: and he quoteth his book De anima. where there is no such thing written. pag. ●adem.  
39 The place is confessed by master whitgift to be in the book of Tertullian de Oration, and therefore it must needs be the error of the copyer or printer. But whereas M. doctor pag. 480. will not seem to acknowledge that cause, which T C doth allege, you shall understand, that the words of Tertullian be these (Potro cum perinde faciant nationes adotatis sigillaribus suis residendo, vel propterea in nobis reprehendi meretur quod ●pud idola celebratur.) But whereas the Gentiles do even the same in sitting down after they have worshipped there puppetts even therefore this custom deserveth to be reprehended in us because it is used before the idols.  
40 He fathereth an untruth of Augustine touching baptizing by women, or in private houses. pag 522.  
40 He fathereth no untruth upon Augustine. Only he sayeth that Augustine doth not allow either of baptism in private houses or by women, but when there was danger the women hasted to carry the children to the Church which it is like they would not have done if women might have baptised, and in private houses. Now cometh master whitgift and asketh where saint Augustine doth disallow it? But if he will prove T. C. a falsefyer, he must show where Augustine doth allow it T. C. doth not say that Augustine doth dissallow it, but that he doth not allow of it.  
41 He allegeth M Beza in his annotations, for that which can not be found in them. pag 584.  
41 Though master whitgift nor none of his searchers can find it yet I am persuaded, that it is not forged by T. C. there be diverse editions of that work perhaps master doctor hath not thoroughly sought them all, and the place it not material, for this is Beza his judgement that a Deacons should neither preach nor baptise, but only provide for the poor.  
42 He sayeth▪ that if we will take the nature of the Sacrament so straightly 〈◊〉 Augucti●e d●th, and that there be no Sacraments, but when as to the element there cometh the word● them circumcision can be ●o Sacrament, which is a gross untruth for in circumcision there is both the word, & the element pag 618  
42 Master doctor saith the foreskinn is the element, it may be answered that is unaptly compared, with water bread and wine, for they are given, and the foreskynn is taken away. But it is neither to nor fro, for the word of God added to an external sign, whether it be an element or not, maketh a Sacrament, except Augustine by an element in that place understand an outward sign.  
43 He saith that the Eldership was moste flourishing in Constantine's time but he noteth no place, where we may find his saying to be true. pag 651.  
43 He noteth no place where his saying may be found true therefore this is the three, and fourteth untruth or falsification: a sound argument and meet for a doctor to use.  
44 He is greatly deceived about the excommunicating of Apollina●ie, and showeth manifest tokens that either he hath not himself read the story, or that he hath read it very negligently as it is plainly declared in the defence. pag 669.  
44 He is no more deceived than master whitgift in the same place mistaking Theodoretus for Theodotus. For although he mistake the circumstance of time concerning the excommunication of Apollinaris yet those phrases which he allegeth out of that chapter serve to prove that although the bishop alone did pronounce the sentence of excommunication yet it was not decreed against any man by one bishops only authority as is most manifest to them that know the history of that time, although it be often said that such a bishop did excommunicate, which is none otherwise to be understand, than these sayings the Emperor or the Prince hath made a law, which nevertheless is made by the Senate or Parliament, of which the Emperor or Prince is chief.  
45 He falsifieth Ambrose, pag. 670.  
45 If T. C have not rightly collected out of Ambrose▪ that which maketh for his purpose yet he can not be justly accused to have falsefyed Ambrose, there is great difference between a falsification and a wrong collection. But letting master whitgift have his uncharitable terms, I see not but that T C doth gather as probably out of Ambrose, that he did not alone of his o●ne authority excommunicate the Emperor Theodosius and more probably too, then master whitgift doth affirm that he did it alone, because all the praise is given to him by Theodoret and So●omene. For if a Synod were gathered about that matter, as T. C showeth out of Ambrose, it is not like that it was only to lament and take the matter in evil part (as master doctor saith) but rather to consult hereof, and by whom discipline should be exercised toward the Emperor to bring him to repentance, and to take away the offence and the same may be gathered also out of those words of Ambrose, for any thing that master whitgift proveth to the contrary. (Non erat facti tui absolutio in Ambrosii Communione) The absolution of thy fact was not in the communicating with Ambrose. Moreover the practice of that time, favoureth the collection of T. C for at that time and long after, excommunications were decreed by Synods.  
46 He allegeth a place of Tertullian very deceiptfullye. pag 673.  
46 After Tertullian hath showed the manner of the Congregations in prayer and preaching he cometh thirdly to declare what is there discipline in these words. In the same congregation are used exhortations, reprehensions, and the divine Censure. For judgement is executed with great weight, as among them that are sure they be in the sight of God And it is the greatest conclusion of the last judgement that shallbe, if a man have so offended that he is banished from the communication of prayer, and of the assemblies, and of all holy affairs. Approved seniors do govern (this action) which have obtained this honour not by money but by good report. T. C. saith, (If there be any that hath committed such a fault that he is to be put away from the partaking of the prayers of the Church, and from all holy matters. There do bear rule, or be presydents certain of the most approved Ancients or Elders which have obtained this honour not by money, but by good report.) What deceit is here? Forsooth Tertullian maketh a full point of these words (all holy affairs) & beginning a new sentence, saith (approved seniors, etc.) T C. hath joined these into one sentence O crafty conue●●nce, it is pity that he liveth. But shall I be plain with you? if ever any man did go about to pervert a writers meaning, master whitgift doth so here. When he saith th●● it can not be gathered of these words that these seniors did excommunicate. I had as leise he told me the so●ne doth not shine when it is noon tide. But what nede-furder proof when he himself giveth it over afterward, and saith he will not deny, but that they had to do in excommunication. Then why doth he quarrel before, and charge T.C. with untruth for saying that which he himself will not deny.  
47 He sayeth, that Augustine in his books De bapt. contra Donatistas', showeth that if the most of the people be infected with the faul●e with is to be punished, that 〈◊〉 no excommunication aught to be attempted, for because a sufficient number of voices will not be obtained for the excommunication▪ whenas these words. For because a sufficient number of voices, etc. are not to be found in these books of Augustine. pag. 675.  
47 Master doctor is always harping upon the words when T C. standeth only upon the matter, and reporteth not the words. For although be can not find those words yet he hath not showed the contrary out of those books, but that saint Augustine is of that judgement which. T C. reporteth him to be.  
48 He maketh a● untrue report of the 10. Canon of the council of Antioch. pag. 682.  
48 This is a very false Censure concerning the 10. Canon of the council of Antioch as every man that readeth that Canon will confess, and master doctor himself also if it please him to read it over once again. But pag 682 is showed that he did mistake the 13. Canon of the Ancyrane council for the 13 Canon of the council of Neocesariense, which error he might easily fall into, because it is both one number of the Canon, and both the councils were held near about one time, and no greater error than master doctor falleth into even in the same place while he accuseth him to have erred in reporting the council of Antioch where he should have said the Ancyrane council.  
49 He allegeth that for making Ecclesiastical laws and ceremonies, which is 〈◊〉 of building and repairing of Churches▪ ●ut of Eusebius lib. 2. De vita Constantini. Epist. ad Eusebium. pag ●98.  
49 T C. allegeth other authorities then that of Eusebius as Sozomene and the councils for proof of that he wry●teth, and therefore master doctor doth him wrong 〈◊〉 press him with that only place. And yet perhaps the Greek words may be taken otherwise then they 〈◊〉 commonly translated. But whether they may or not, there be words plain enough▪ to show that Churches were then governed by bishops, Elders, and Deacons, which being a part of T.C. assertion peradventure is as much as he would have proved out of that Epistle, and the rest to be confirmed by the other authorities afterward cited Therefore I can perceive no such gross oversight as is supposed.  
50 He affirmeth that this practice continued still in the Churches of God, scil. that nothing was brought into the Church to be read, besides the words of God, whereas the contrary is manifestly proved of the same time, whereof he meaneth. pag. 718.  
50 He affirmeth that this practice continued from the Apostles time until the time of justinus Martyr, as it appeareth by his apology, where justinus purposing to make open to the Emperor, whatsoever was done in the congregation of the Christians (for so much as they were shamefully slandered concerning there assemblies) declareth, that they did read the monument of the Prophets and apostles, whereby T. C. gathereth that they did read nothing else which is not an argument ab autoritate negative, if you consider the purpose of justinus to purge the Christians which he did not sufficiently, if there were any thing else said or done among them, then that he uttereth. As for that which master doctor allegeth out of Eusebius of Dionysius writing to So●er, was after the time of justinus Martyr, and therefore no reproof of T. C. affirmation. For justinus was in the days of Antoninus pius and Soter was bishop of Rome▪ in the time of Lucius Commodus the son of Marcus Aurelius which reigned eighteen years after Antoninus.  
51 He saith that saint john in the Apocalyps reprehending the ministers of di●res Churches, did not put to his name unto his book, which is a manifest untruth, for he addeth his name both in the beginning and in the end; thrice in the first chapter and once in the last. pag. 806.  
51 T.C. I trow is not ignorant of that, therefore I think●e he meaneth not of his name john, but of his addition or surname whereby it might be known which john it was, for ●her were divers at that time, and learned men do not a●ree which john it was.  
As for the residue of untruths and falsyficatio● that are not numbered you may well think they be such as these. In which I have satisfied your request to show you ●yne opinion and simple judgement, leaving the cause in controversy between them as I found it. I pray God it may be ended to his glory There be godly men and learned on both sides I wish. they might all agreed in the truth: in the mean time I would have malice and unsincere dealing hated on both parts.