FAULTS ESCAPED IN THE first Book.  
Pag. 2. lin. 37. wily. 15. 11. vainly. 62. 21. renforce. 64. 35. come. 65. 8. the. 82. 8. runneth forth almost into over great. 90. in the mark ad illumin. 91. 4. soon. 103. 28. immortal. 111. 16. literally. 118. 13. texts. 33. as expressly. 124. 33. left. 126. 13. one of other. 130. 24. Spanianum. 156. 32. without confusion. 169. 26. brands. 177. 29. which with. 184. 15. learned. 186. 5. contra. 206. 37. put out, that. 212. 8. hic. 29. fiat hoc. 215. 22. 〈◊〉. 228. 1. is. 237. 28. some. 239. 17. have. 240. 30. a thought, & yet raveth. 256. 8. dare not. 274. 21. greatest fault. 279. 31. Pacianus. 280. 10. quotations. 282 5. remaineth. 299. read the 9 line before the 8. 309. 22 joh. 1. 321. 18. He faith 324. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 333. 8. de gen. ad Lit. 336. 17. de Sp. S. 30. it is. 36. not whatsoever. 337. 36. suppose. 351. 3. ever. 352. in the mark count 3. in margin. 353. 37. is the.   

FAULTS ESCAPED IN THE second book.  
Pa. 4. l. 2. to. 7. 19 disorder. 22. 9 ever. 41. 12. to God. & 13. put out, to. 44. 33. to the. 49. 34. in the mark put out, Allen. &. 37. where. 103. 16. For. 114 8. Matthie. 115. 1. thisplace. 128. 23. the. 138. 2. expound. 158. 6. grounded. 173. 30. at hand. 177. 24. strong ones. 184. 2. by himself, or by his saints, and therefore remission ofsinnes by himself. 186. 15. said. 201. 35. of mutual offence. 212. 5. but from. 222. 1. as 〈◊〉 35. eordes. 251. 36 Christ's. 311. 2. demur. 314. 3. that. 〈◊〉ters. 17. Monks. 324. 28. delegavi. 325. 33. put out, 〈◊〉. 334. 14. both. 341. 1. half. 35. deemed. 342. 26. no 〈◊〉 345. 13. consortatives. 346. 33. false. 350. 29. to the. 366. 27. 〈◊〉 30. I. 369 28. prostant. 398. 15. money. 483. 30. put out, not. 521. 34 the mark 1. joh. 5. 529 2. and figures. In the answer to Prarine p. put out the note in the mark    

TO THE READER.  
AGainst this Popish and traitorous defence of the proud Censures, given upon Master Charkes and M. Hanmers' books, there hath been already set forth an answer, containing a maintenance of the credit of those excellent Ministers, and Elders of God's Church, which this malicious slanderer hath sought to deface (for stay of the simple reader) till Master Charkes book come forth. There hath also been printed and set forth by Doctor Fulke a brief confutation of sundry cavils and quarrel uttered by diverse Papists against his writings, and specially by this Censurer in this his book of defence, whereby some part of his unhonest dealing is displayed, to the discredit of this defender, and to the shame of all Papists. Nevertheless, understanding that Master Charke is not minded 〈◊〉 set forth his answer, (although he have it 〈◊〉 written) before this defender hath 〈◊〉 his whole book, as he promiseth; I have thought it not amiss, to write a short treatis for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the matters of doctrine especially which are in controversy between M. Charke and the Censurer, either omitting, or but briefly touching the points handled more at large in the two 〈◊〉 books. Neither do I think M. Charkes staying to be misliked, for diverse causes: First, to avoid confusion, which might ensue, if the defender should replic upon his answer to the first part, before the confutation of the second part were finished, & published: secondly to avoid misunderstanding: for that diverse points touched in the first part, may be more at large, and otherwise handled in the latter part, upon view whereof Master Charke would change his answer. And last of all, lest replying, and rejoining upon the first part, might be occasion that the latter part should never be handled. For which reasons, and some other, perhaps better known unto himself, indifferent readers may gather, that it is expedient for him to stay, until he see the whole charge of the adversary, and then more orderly and seasonably he may publish his answer altogether.  
But now to the purpose taken inhande. Three tall fellows step forth upon this bulwark of defence: the Corrector of the print: the setter forth of the book: and the grand Captain defender himself.  
The Corrector cometh forth with his part, to stop a gap, or empty place of a page, with the real 〈◊〉 of a noun Heretic: and that presuming (as he 〈◊〉) without the author's knowledge: to wise a man belike to be made privy of such gramaticall trifles. But whereas he weeneth that by reading his author's treatise, a man shall see the most points verified in Master Charke and his companions, he is foully beguiled. For there is no wise man, but seethe all the points of his newly devised declension thoroughly verified in his author and his Complices: who hath showed himself to be, not in one, but in all cases, a proud malapert Liar, and an obstinate seditious Atheist: 〈◊〉 hereunto an impudent heretic, and a malicious traitor. And if any man be so simple, that he cannot yet perfectly be hold all these points in his own treatise, yet in the answers, and confutations thereof, he that will not acknowledge them to be verified in him, is like to prove a noun of the same declension with him. Thus the Owlie Corrector having shot his bolt out of the bulwark, which by evil hap of a contrary wind is carried back against himself, and his own friends, retireth into a corner, and doth no more appear, saving that some notes of his negligence, here and there bewraying him, do declare that this was not the first time that he was overseen in his life, & that he should have done his Master better service, if he had employed the time he spent in devising this grammatication, in being occupied more diligently about his office of Correction.  
The setter forth of this book hath the next place, who writing an epistle to Master Charke, minister, as he termeth him, and as he is indeed, of the Church of god in England, under colour of expostulation of some particular matters, concerning the person of M. Charke taketh occasion to be a setter forth, not only of a seditious & slanderous book against the Church, but also of most spiteful accusations against the prince, and Magistrates of the realm: a sin the particular view of this epistle shall most manifestly appear.  
First therefore he excuseth the long delay of setting forth this defence of the Censure, which hath been deferred more months, than the Censure was days in writing, upon such cause as is easy to judge, and specially to Master Charke, which for the most part is privy to the same. The meaning is, that the author is so quick a dispatcher of his matters, partly by means of the weakness of our cause, partly by singular dexterity of his own wit and learning, that having finished his Censure in eight or nine days space at the most, he could also in like proportionable time have accomplished his defence, if he had not by the cause pretended, been stayed or interrupted. And here the author is much beholding to the setter forth, that doth so cunningly commend his faculty in expedition of such writings: which in a Papist must needs be an argument of great and wonderful promptness, both of wit & learning, though in a protestant it be girded at by the author himself, with a scornful reproach of rashness and ignorance. But what is the cause, trow ye, that hath stopped the force of these flowing streams of the authors eloquent style, that in so many months he hath not fulfiled that course, which without impediment he had been able to have dispatched almost in as few days. Every one (saith he) may imagine how difficult a thing it is in England, for a catholic man, to write any book: where neither liberty, nor rest, nor library, nor conference, nor being is permitted. But I pray you sir (if I may be so bold to ask you) what greater liberty, rest, library, conference, or being, had your Catholic author in contriving his Censure, which he wanted in writing his defence? Or rather what cause had he to complain of the difficulty of the times, which with such faculty, in so short a time, could perform so great and weighty a piece of work, as by his own judgement (who you know is nothing partial in his own cause) deserved to be called by the honourable name of a Censure? unless perhaps you think, that either the Prince, her Council, or the Clergy of the realm, should have invited him to write against the religion of God, and the state of the realm, with promise of liberty, rest, library, and all other things, the lack whereof you pretend to have hindered him.  
And yet whatsoever you say in general, you confess in particular, that all difficulties notwithstanding, the author had, soon after M. Charkes reply to his Censure, in great part dispatched his defence ready for the print, but that by misadventure your seditious print was discovered, and taken with many things printed, or in printing, concerning your defence of truth and equity, against his falsehood, and violent oppressions. That you speak against M. Charkes falsehood, it is lawful for you to renew, if you can discover any committed by him. As for his violent oppressions, being a man of no power or authority out of the Church, all may know how vainly you charge him, or rather how lewdly in speaking to him, you speak of the lawful proceed of the Prince, and all her magistrates, against Popish traitors, terming them no bettet then violent oppressions, when God knoweth, you have but in a few yet tasted of most just condemnations, and executions. Oflike stomach and style it is, that you say, the same print was so long sought, and much feared by him. By like he thought that your print being taken, you had no mean to publish your author's defence against him: as though you have not printers enough in places beyond the sea. How dangerous an unknown print within the land may be to the state, if it be abused by seditious persons, no man of mean understanding can be ignorant: and therefore marvel not if the magistrates have been careful, to search for it, and diligently to suppress it being found.  
But of this disturbance (as you tell us) had like to have come a great loss: for the author had almost given over his enterprise of defence, not only upon these difficulties alleged, but also because Master Charkes reply did seem sufficiently to answer itself. A pitiful case, but how did the reply answer itself so sufficiently? He telleth us, it was so obscure in many places, as most men without the Censure might not understand it. Admit it were so: is the obscurity of a reply, a sufficient answer to itself? but why might not he that could not understand it, have recourse to the Censure, whereunto his reply had relation? Then he answereth for a second reason: It was so weak otherwise, as it needed little confutation of others. This will best appear by the author's doughty defence, when both are compared, and examined together. A third reason. Campian the subject of the Censure, being fallen into Master Charkes hands, it was looked for, that according to reason, and all his promises, he should be disputed withal openly, publicly, and freely: and so the matter without writing dispatched. No man is so simple, but he may well perceive, that while the words are directed to Master Charke, they are meant against the Prince and state. For who can truly say, that Master Charke had Campian in his hands? or that he had made promise, of open, public, and free disputation, who knew full well that he was not able to perform such promise if Campian had been taken? or that any man of our profession, made any one such promise? what meaneth then our setter forth, by these his words, and all your own promises, but through feigning of many promises, to slander us of many breaches of faith and much falsehood. This is, in Popery and Knavery, a common practise, to charge men with a promiss where none was, that they may overcome modesty with impudency; or at left to make her blush, being unjustly accused of unfaithfulness.  
But you will say, it was according to reason, that Campian should have been so disputed withal, if there had been no promise at all. Great reason forsooth, that a well known, vain, light, runagate person, challengeing all the grave, wise, and learned of the land to disputation, should so greatly be regarded, that his challenge should be taken. Nay that an arrant traitor, furnished with faculties from the Pope, the Queen's open enemy, whose banner of defiance at the same time was spread within her majesties dominions, should be admitted under colour of an open disputation, to stir up the unconstant people to tumult and sedition: as though the religion so long by law established, were now brought into doubt, and disceptation. Finally, it was small reason in wise men's judgement, that such a lusty Champion as did first cast his glove of defiance out of a secret corner, after he hath been long sought for, & is at length drawn out of the bench holl, should be set on the open stage to answer his challenge against all comers, with no small glory of his fool hardy attempt, though he lose the day, and be vanquished in the cause. Never the less it pleased them that had authority, partly to repress the insolency of the proud peevish challenger, and his foolish fautors, that made no small account of such a glorious Thraso, pattelie to satisfy the weak minds of such, as might surmise of his brags, otherwise than they deserved, there was a conference or disputation granted, wherein although Campians learning was well known before, to all them that knew his bringing up and studies, yet was it then throughly discovered to many others, which conceived better of him before, then at that time showed manefestlie to be in him. For besides his shameful ignorance in the learned tongues, which he sought most rediculoussie to cover and hide, there appeared in him to all indifferent men's judgements, no more than is written of Catiline the Roman, whom he followed as well in practise, as he resembled him in qualities, Loquentiae multum, sapientiae parum, many words, little wisdom, impudent loquacity, small learning, & less judgement.  
But when it came to the hearing of the world (saith the setter forth) how courteously you had used this learned man with torments. The world here signifieth, the secretrable of traitorous papists, which give themselves to no thing more then either to hear or invent, most impudent lies against religion, & all maintainers & professors of the same. For to omit the common phrase of this epistle, wherewith all things that are done against the papists, are imputed to M. Charke, whom all reasonable men know to be one of the most, that may do lest in these cases: who is so far from all sense or understanding (if he know what racking meaneth) to believe that Campian endured such torments of racking: whereof no sign could appear in any part of his body, either before the conference, or after, whereby he should be less able to dispute, as may be proved by many hundred witnesses: yet the glorious fool, partly to boast of his sufferings, partly to excuse his impatience, and pusillanimity, which for fear rather than feeling of the rack, had discovered many of his friends & complices, with his own hand writing, immediately after his racking, was not ashamed on the day of the first conference, to complain of his grievous torments, until by testimony of Master Lieutenant of the Tower, and others that were present, his impudency was so restrained for that time, that he thought it not best to brag any more of his intolerable racking. But in the conference (say you) he was handled without all indifferency or law of reasoning. How so, I pray you? The questiones were taken out of his own book, in which he could not beunprovided: he had as great warning of them, as any of his adversaries: he required no book to furnish his memory, but it was provided for him: the opponents for the most part, dealt with him in lawful syllogisms, except when his own lavish tongue, discoursing against the law of reasoning, enforced other manner of communication: he was neither threatened, nor reviled, though he gave great occasion by his insolent speech & gesture. He was pressed with no authority, but the book was showed him: & what other indifferency or law of reasoning would you require?  
But it is no marvel though you dare be bold to quarrel at his handling in the conference, when you are not ashamed to speak so impudently of his open trial and condemnation, saying: Finally you made him away by cruel death, without any show or shadow of particu lar crime committed by him, against Prince or country. This were more than barbarous immanity, if it were true: but being false, what is it, but a most heinous, and sedi tious slander, whether you consider the matter, or the persons against whom it is uttered? Let us begin with the persons. Who made Campian away? not M. Charke, I am sure: for all men would laugh at you, if you so should say: for immediately after, you distinguish him from that action, saying, and that yourself Master Charke followed him in person: Then who can be understood to have made him away by cruel death, but they by whose authority, in whose high Court, by whose order, he was brought to trial: by whom evidence, verdict and sentence was given, and execution commanded? Now let us weigh the matter: was he not in dighted, & arraigned, found guilty, atteinted, & judged, according to the ordinary & accustomable manner always used in the case of high rreason, according to the laws of the realm? had he not leave to answer for himself, to challenge the jury, or to use any other plea, that is permitted and allowed in such cases? was there no show or shadow of particular crime contained in the indictment, or in the evidence? The world knoweth it must needs be, & the records are yet to be seen. But there was nothing proved, perhaps you will say, though much was alleged against him: he was slandered by them that gave evidence against him, he never did bear a traitorous or undutiful mind against the Prince, or the state. Well, admit for Campians sake, that the credit of sworn witnesses, and the whole process of so honourable a state, as is of this land, must stand in suspense, and not prove so much as any show or shadow of treason committed by him: yet what shall his own confession subscribed with his hand testify, concerning his treasonable affection against her Majesty? shall it not confirm the testimony of such as gave evidence against him, & prove him most manifestly to be guilty of high treason? his own confession taken the first of August, 1581. subscribed with his hand, remaineth to be seen: in which, after certain most traitorous sentences were showed him out of the books of Saunders and Bristol, concerning the Bull of Pope Pius, by which he took upon him, by his Antichristian sentence, to deprive her Majesty of her regality, and to discharge her subjects of all obedience, and duty towards her highness: it followeth in these words: Edmund Campian being demanded, whether he would acknowledge the publishing of these things before recited, by Saunders, Bristol, & Allen, to be wicked in the whole, or in any part, and whether he doth at this present, acknowledge her Majesty to be a true and lawful Queen, or a pretenced Queen, and deprived, and in possession of her Crown only de facto: he answereth, To the first, that he meddleth neither to nor fro, and will not further answer, but requireth that they may answer. To the second he saith, that this question dependeth upon the fact of Pius Quintus, whereof he is not to judge, and therefore refuseth further to answer.  
Edmund Campian.  
Answered and subscribed in the presence of 

Owin Hopton.  
john Hammonde.  
Robert Beale.  
Thomas Norton.    
Here except you will say, that it is no treason in a natural borne subject of this land, though he refuse to acknowledge the Queen's Majesty to be a true and lawful Queen, and in possession of her Crown de jure: and though he will not in one word disallow them that speak, writ, & practise against her right, her Crown, and dignity, and seek by all means they can, to depose and dispossess her of the same, there was never traitor more clearly discovered by the testimony of others, than Campian is displayed by his own confession. I need not here note the faculties granted by the present Pope Gregory the 13. to Campian, and his fellow traitor Parsons, which were taken about one of their complices immediately after Campians death, in which they desire of the Pope the explication or meaning of the Bull of Pius Quintus, given forth against our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth: and yet because they do most plainly convince him of the same horrible crime, where of he was condemned, I will here set down the same, as it is testified in the book of execution of Papists for treason, and not for religion.  

Facultates concessae PP. Roberto Personio & Edmundo Campiano pro Anglia, die. 14. Aprilis, 1580.  
PEtatur à summo domino nostro, explicatio Bullae declaratoriae per Pium Quintum contra Elizabetham, & ei adhaerentes, quam Catholici cupiunt intelligi hoc modo, ut obliges semper illam & haereticos, Catholicos verò nullo modo obliget rebus sic siantibus, sed tum demum quando publica eiusdem Bullae executio fieri poterit. The answer to this and many other faculties by them required is this, Has praedictas gratias concessit summus Pontifex patri Roberto Personio & Edmundo Campiàno in Angliam profecturis die. 14. Aprilis, 1580. present patre Oliverio Manarco assistente.   
Which is thus much in English.  

Faculties to the two fathers Robert Persons and Edmund Campian for England, the. 14. day of April. 1580.  
LEt it be desired of our most holy Lord the explication of the Bull declaratory made by Pius the fift, against Elizabeth, and such as do adhere unto her: which Bull the Catholics desire to be understood in this manner, that the same Bull shall always bind her, and the heretics: but the Catholics, it shall by no means bind, as matters do now stand: but hereafter when public execution of that Bull may be made. The highest Pontiff or Pope granted these fore said graces to father Robert Persons and Edmund Campian, who are now to take their journeys into England, the 14. day of April. 1580. Being present the father Oliverius Manarcus assistant.   
These things known, & considered, it is evident that none, but as honest a man as Campian, could write that Campian was made away by cruel death, without any show or shadow of particular crime, committed by him against Prince, or country: or that Campian suffering for such horrible treason, is a Martyr of Christ: or that he and his fellows died most constant, pure, and innocent martyrs of their Lord and Master jesus Christ. But for that Master Charke in person followed Campian to his execution, as a conqueror of his adversary, with big looks, stern countenance, proud words, and merciless behaviour, the author of the Censure was moved to resume his answer, as well for the honour of Christ's martyr, as for declaration of what value he is in reason, learning, and weight of argument by writing, which is so fierce and violent upon God's saints in death, and torments, so pompous in gate and speech unto the people, etc. Here are many grievous accusations, but no proof at all, but the common report, and that of traitorous Papists: for no honest man will charge Master Charke with these crimes. If he followed Campian, it was not to insult upon his misery, but to exhort him to repentance. What big looks or stern countenance he could put on in that time and case, I cannot conceive. I hope all men that know his face, will testify, that he looked then no otherwise, than he doth at all times, except commiseration of the damnable state of those obstinate traitors and heretics, did cause some tokens of heaviness to appear in his countenance. What his proud words and merciless behaviour was, in what point he showed himself so fierce and violent upon those traitorous heretics, in death and torments, when you can declare, but in three words, you shall receive an answer. In the mean time you may not think that with any reasonable man it is sufficient for you to accuse him of pride in words, and cruelty in behaviour, when you bring no example nor proof thereof. And sure I am, what words of his soever then used, you may wrest to make a show of pride, you are able to allege no action, wherein you may declare his unmercifulness, fierceness or violence. As for his pompous gate and speech, which you note in the last place, I doubt not but all they which know him, do laugh to hear you object it to him, as also that you note him afterward, to wear gorgeous apparel, and therein to have excelled Campian. His value in reasoning, learning and weight of arguments in writing, what they are, and how to be esteemed, albeit his friends know already, yet I hope his adversaries also shall in their conscience acknowledge, especially after the smoke of your author's cavils be driven away, by the clear light of truth.  
As for the disturbance through searchers and persecutors, that you complain of, which caused your author to break of in the midst, is but a shift of descant. For as your author, whatsoever he be, is still hidden, so in his hiding place, he may go through, if it please him, or if he be weary of his enterprise, he may take his ease without controlment. For the extremity of the time is not such, though you whine never so much, but if he can abstain from undermining the state, he may enjoy more rest, than an heretic deserveth to have, or than Papists in time and places of their government will afford unto true Catholics.  
But you (saith the setter forth) having gotten the start before us in the favour of our Prince, you follow the same with such vehemency and straightness, as you allow us no one 〈◊〉 either of courtesy, or humanity, or of reasonable indifferency. First mark how mannerly he speaketh of our prince's favour, as a matter not bestowed by judgement, but gotten by start of that party that first steppeth unto her. Secondly, how hyporbolically he describeth our vehemency: no one jot of courtesy, humanitic, reasonable indifferency. Why sir? who are you with whom we deal so straightly, for whom we make search so diligently, and punish so extremely? A whole hundred of Papists and more be daily in our sight, dwell in their houses, and suffer not so much as the lest ordinary punishment which is appointed by law for them, which come not to Church. They be temporal men, you will say. Read the book entitled the execution for treason, etc. and you shall find a number of your clergy men used with all courtesy, and humanity, that may be showed to men of a contrary religion. It remaineth then, that you are some rebeilious jesuits, or seminary priests, which are sent hither by the Pope, and his Antichristian adherents, to alienate the princes subjects minds, yea to steal away their hearts from obedience of their Lawful Sovereign: that you might by such means prepare a way the sooner for the public execution of that blasphemous bull of Pius Quintus. And would you, wandering about with such intents and practices, have courtesy and gentleness showed you? And yet when you are apprehended, there is no duty of humanity denied you. You have the due trial of law, and many times the deserved execution is forborn. Such lenity so lightly regarded, nay so tragically inveighed against, as most barbarus cruelty, deserveth at the hands of God and man more sharp, and yet but just entertainment.  
You exclude us (say you) from speech, conference, writing, printing, disputing, or any other due trial of our cause. Still you would have your cause to be religion, when it is high treason. And as for trial due for treason, is never denied you, before you be condemned for it. As for speech, conference, writing, printing, disputing for trial of the cause of religion, when you will permit to be free, in places of popish regiment, you may expostulate with us, for not allowing you the same in this Christian state of government.  
But what extremity soever we use, we are sure (say you) always to be answered by one means or an other. It may be as you say: but you tell us not when. For if you speak of answering our books, you scarce give one for ten. Neither do you so disquiet us by your pretended claim, as you mainly boast, but we might sleep on both sides, if we had none other business then to confute your popish treatises. And if you had no greater hope in treasonable practices, as in your rebellions, both in England, and Ireland, and in your Pope's bands and banners, your Saunders, your Feltons', your Someruils, your Parries, and such other execrable traitors and treasons, than you have confidence in writing or reasoning, you would not look to see the rooting out of our faith & religion, which you term heresy, as you do vainly prognosticat and prophecy.  
But our credit (you think) is greatly crushed in our own conceits, seeing we fly openly and without shame all kind of quiet trial what soever, and with fury only move the magistrate to violence against you. In deed you know your own cause best, where you have the magistrate obedient at your beck, how unwilling you are to have any other quiet conference for trial, but imprisonment, torment, fire, and faggot. And if the same measure were paid you home again into your laps, it were no more but good justice, and such as you shall surely find one day, according to the prophecy of the holy ghost. Reward 
Apoc. 18.  her even as she hath rewarded you, etc. when God shall put into the hart of Kings, to hate the Romish whore of Babylon, to eat her flesh, and to burn her with fire. But as yet, God calling you to repentance, you have no cause to repine against our severity, much less to condemn us of violence, if you seek not your own bane, by practising of treason and sedition. But how do you openly and without shame, say, that we fly openly and without shame all kind of quiet trial? What lawful kind of quiet trial hath not been offered to you? Would you have conference? was there not a most solemn conference agreed upon, in the beginning of her majesties reign, where principal men of both parts have been chosen to confer, and all the states of the realm assembled in parliament ready to hear? And who did there openly and without all shame fly the trial? did not the pillars of popery, upon a frivolous cavil, misliked by their own Fecknam, give over the combat? As for private confirence, it hath been many times offered, and often practised with such of your heresy, as be in hold, but of them for the most part misliked or rejected. Trial by writing of books, hath always been, and yet is open & free, in so much as many of your popish treatises being confuted by us, are allowed to be inserted into our books, that the indifferent reader may judge of both more freely and easily: a trial which you papists never yet durst enter into, and a manifest argument, that you fly the most indifferent kind of trial. You have been openly challenged by Doctor Fulke to conclude the controversies 
In his request and protestation before his retentive against Bristow'S motives.  of religion that are between us in the strict form of syllogisms, both for your own ease and for the clearness and certainty of judgement: and this rea sonable request, if you refuse to yield unto, he hath protested before God and the world, that you show yourselves thereby to be enemies of truth, that you fly the light, and dare not abide the trial. And yet these four years day, none of you all hath adventured that most easy, certain and necessary trial, which you cannot refuse, if you will have truth to be thought to stand on your side. Let wise men judge therefore, whether we refuse all kind of quiet trial, and whether it be not a seditious kind of trial, that you would have, as appeared by Campians challenge: who although he were a person too contemptible for years, gravity, learning, or honesty, to make so proud a challenge, to all the learned and wise of the Church and common wealth of England: yet when he was brought to light, he was conferred withal, by diverse grave, and learned men, and tried in the defence of his own treatise, in which God wots, he was quickly found to be none other, than his familiars always knew him to be, that is more bold to challenge, then able to defend himself: more ready to cavil like a childish sophister, then to answer like a sober divine.  
And as for his constancy & patience (which you magnify with so many words) in his just execution for treason, which you falsely term martyrdom, for your false religion, there is small cause you should boast of it: but that it is necessary, where you cannot be borne out with truth, to break through with open lies. For many hundrethes of eye witnesses can testify against you, that of his patience (which yet had been perforce) there was no sufficient trial by torment, or sense of bodily pain, at his death, other than is usual to all that be strangled with an halter. But as for constancy or cheerful passage unto his death, it appeared less in him, then in any of his fellows, but rather great tokens of dejection and consternation of his mind, bewrayed in his colour, countenance, voice, and gesture, plainly noted by such as knew his stomach, courage, & lusty behaviour when he was in prosperity. That he & his complices, would acknowledge no guilt of treason, whereof they were so clearly convicted, it maketh their death more detestable, & showeth their hypocrisy more damnable: who seeing it was necessary for them to die as traitors, desired of their fautors to be honoured as martyrs: declaring thereby intolerable rancour, and malice against the prince and the state, and no less pride & ambition in themselves. Of such Martyrs boast as long as you will, you shall neither get credit by them, when their cause is known, nor terrify us with revenge of their blood, when their punishment was just. Hitherto belike you have spoken to all that abhor Popery in general: for now you will speak aword or two to Master Charke, as to his own person in particular. And two things you tell him of, that in this matter do principally concern him. The first is his writing, which, as shall appear by this author's defence, doth convince him of gross ignorance, and that in very common matters, both of divinity, and of Philosophy, wherein it is well known that Campian was most excellent. But seeing the proof of this conviction resteth only in the author's defence, the discreet reader will suspend his judgement, until he see Master Charkes answer also. In the mean time it will appear, by that which other men writ in his defence likewise, that all is not gross ignorance, which cavilling and malicious Papists, seeking to deface him with a false accusation, are disposed to impute unto him. As for Campians learning in these two sciences, I may be as bold to say, it is well known, that it was but vulgar, and inferior to many of his years and time of study, which you commend to be in the superlative degree of most excellency. Some piece of his divinity he showed in the conference with in the tower of London. His knowledge in Philosophy, as it is not to be weighed in the controversy of Religion, which we have in hand, so it is not to be thought, that he so far excelled therein, but Oxford and Cambridge can afford an hundredth Masters of Art his juniors in time, at the least way his equals, if not his betters therein  
That Master Charke outfaced him in the tower of London, by reason of his high place, gay apparel, great words, assistance of friends, countenance of authority, and applause of Protestants standing by, it is a poor excuse of Master Campians insufficiency, which though it was manifest to the wise and learned, in every of the former days of conference, yet in that last day of Master Charkes encounter with him, was apparent even to the simple & ignorant: so that Campians impudency, wherein he chiefly excelied, was so repressed at that time, as even in the opinion of every man (albeit he was vanquished before) yet now at last he seemed to be clean overthrown. And this shameful foil, you would feign have to be thought to have happened unto him, as one overmatched with M. Charkes high place, gay apparel, great words, etc. It is pity your Champion was no better armed against so weak arguments, but did suffer himself to be outfaced with such frivolous reasons, of place, garments, words, countenance, & multitude. verily they that knew his audacity from a child, marveled to see him so greatly daunted, but that it pleased God that day, to make him, and all the papists, in their foolish devise of his impudent challenge, ridiculous to all the world. But if we may examine these reasons, by which he seemed to be so much outfaced, what difference of place, I pray you, was there between the opponents, and the respondent? were not there stools of equal height? you would have fools imagine belike that Charke sat a fit in a throne, seven steps higher than Campian, or what mean you to prate of high place. As for gay apparel, men may see Master Charke daielie how gorgeously he is arrayed, so that he turneth the eyes of all men upon him, which way so ever he goeth: or else Campian had small cause to fear him, for his gay apparel. In truth his apparel was of colour black, of matter woollen, of making such as the common sort of Ministers in London commonly do use to wear. But if Campian had been stripped out of his rug gown, whereunder his ruffianlike garments were hid, he would have appeared in much gayer apparel for matter, colour, and fashion, than Master Charke was ever seen to wear, since he came into the ministery. Nevertheless his gown could not hide his to spots hat, which, if not on that day, yet at all other times of the conference, it is certain was the same, that was seen with the rest of his jesuiticali robes, when he rid through Cheapside towards the tower of London: And therefore me thinks you need not to have spoken of Master Charkes gay apparel. But what 
Sesquipedalia verba.  were those great words of his, a foot and a half long at the jest, that Master Campian might be outfaced with them? They that were present could observe no affectation os words, but weight of matter, that bore down Campians courage, especially when he was pressed to answer to syllogisms, which (as though no man but he could skill of) at the first he did scornfully call for. The assistance of friends was a small prerogative, when they were only hearers, and not helpers of his disputation. The countenance of authority little availeth in conference, where each party, by leave of authority, may say what he can for his cause. Last of all the applause of the Protestants standing by, was no cause of Campians outfacing, but a consequent of his unsufficient answering. That vain scoff, of Campians coming within the reach of Charkes ministerial power and authority, savoureth of nothing, but of proud folly, and foolish malice. For all men may easily know, that when Campian was apprehended for moving the Queen's subjects to sedition, and committed to the tower, for imagining and practising of high treason, he was not within the reach of any Ecclesiastical persons power, or authority, much less of poor M. Charkes jurisdiction, which is none at all, further than by commission might be granted to any of the state civil or Ecclesiastical to examine him, or to confer with him.  
The second matter you have to speak to Master Charks own person, is of his false dealing, to deceive: wherein you grant him principality, not only above Campian, who had no talon at all therein, but even above the chief masters of his own side, most expert in that faculty. The term of talon, being taken out of the gospel, and signifying some grace or gift of god, how ungraciouslie it is abused, not only in this place, for a faculty of false dealing, but also by the auctor himself asterward, for a custom of railing, I wish the sober reader to observe, and to consider what religious affection these men bear to the doctrine of Christ, that can find no terms to play with all in their spiteful invectives, but such as are shamefully detorted and abused from the holy use, and phrases of the blessed scriptures. As for the crime of false dealing, let it appear in God's name, by the trial and examination of both the parties writings, and rest where it shallbe found to be practised. In the mean time, we must a little consider of these examples here brought for a taste, to show his false dealings by Master setter forth: First M. Charke inveigheth against the Censurer very sharply, because he chargeth Luther with an opinion, which he confesseth that sometimes he held, and afterward recanteth, concerning the licensing of wives to lie with their neighbour, when their husbands by natural infirmity, were not able to do their parts. This say you, seemeth a very reasonable defence: where is then the false dealing? Marry (say you) the words that immediately follow in Luther, declare that now he would do worse than before: for now he would compel the poor husbands, to grant their wives that liberty, or else would he tug them by the locks of the head. And can there be any more shameless 
See afterward in the answer to the defence more at large.  dealings, etc. If Luther declare his opinion in the words following, to be as you say, I must needs confess that this was a great oversight in Master Charke at jest, if it were not shameless dealing. But if Luther's meaning by the whole scope of that place be plain, not to give the wife licence to lie with an other man (the band of wedlock continuing) but to compel such an insufficient husband to be divorced from his wife, because she cannot have the lawful remedy of incontinency by his company, do you not play the papist in grain, thus to exclaim against Master Charks false dealing? As for the phrase of tugging by the Locks, being a Dutch proverb, signifying no more but enforcement (to use your own words) hath that man any conscience, trow you, that will urge it to colour such unhonest and false accusations? Verily you had been better to have held your peace: for now you are, and shallbe more hereafter discovered, while you slander him untruly to use deceit, and do use false play yourself, and that most impudently.  
Another example of his false dealing you bring, in the controversy, Whether concupiscence in the regenerate without consent be sin. Where Master Chark being sore oppressed by many places of Saint Augustine's authority, brought by the Censurer, findeth no other relief of his credit with the reader, but to forge a place of Saint Augustine to the contrary: in which to deceive the reader, he foisteth in this word (sin) reciting his words thus: Concupiscence is not so forgiven in Baptism, that it is not sin. By which addition of the word (sin) the matter seemeth to stand clear on his side. And this cannot be excused by ignorance: but showeth open and wilful malice in the man. Hasty judgement. Peradventure he may excuse the addition, by the Printers fault, and so it was neither ignorance, nor malice in him. But take it most hardly, that Master Chark did purposely add the word (sin) unto S. Augustine's text (which yet in a strict translation, where there is no need, is not allowable) if it be manifest that it is Saint Augustine's meaning, the addition of a word, for explication of the sense, is neither forging, nor foisting. But it is most impudentlying in you, sir setter forth, to say, he findeth none other relief of his credit with the reader, but to add this word (sin) to S. Augustine's text, when immediately after this pretended forgery, he bringeth a most clear place of Saint Augustine, in which he doth expressly affirm, that concupiseense, even in them that have the spirit of God, is sin: which argueth, that he needed not at all to forge and foist, having Saint Augustine's words so evident on his side, and that he findeth not only another, but a far better relief of his credit with truth, than he could look to gain, if he had been disposed to use false dealing. Master Charkes words are these: Saint Augustine's place making it no sin in the regenerate without consent, is expounded by himself afterward saying: Concupis cense is not so forgiven in Baptism, that it is not sin, but that it is not imputed as sin. For a clear proof hereof, in another book he saith plainly, it is sin. and so showing the occasion of his saying, citeth the place at large Cont. jul. lib. 5. cap. 3. in which are these words. Concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit lusteth, is sin, because there is in it a disobedience against the regiment of the mind. Where he saith, for a clearer proof, it is probable that the word (sin) in the formet text, was not added by him, at lest wise not to deceive: for with the addition, you will confess, it is as clear, as can be for his part. But if he added that word, as being of the plain meaning of Saint Augustine, yet subject to cavilling, because it is not in him expressed, to take away all colour of wrangling, about the term, he joineth a most clear proof, of Saint Augustine's judgement plain, that concupiscence in the regenerate is sin in his own nature, although because it is forgiven, it is not imputed to them as sin. So that the sense is manifest, that concupiscence in the regenerate is sin, but sin forgiven, or sin not imputed. And therefore although in some sense, a man may truly say, that sin forgiven, as adultery, is no sin, or sin not imputed, is no sin, because the guiltiness there of is removed from the 〈◊〉 remission, covering, or not imputing, through God's mercy, or satisfaction of Christ; yet it followeth not there of, that sin of his own nature is not damnable, because mercy hath made it remissible: or that sin forgiven, as adultety, or such like, cannot be properly called sin, because it is pardoned; but the clean contrary doth follow of necessity: even so is concupiscens, which is forgiven in the regenerate, yet remaineth in them, not as a virtue, or an indifferent thing, but as an evil thing, as Augustine else where confesseth: yet no sin able to condemn them, because it is not imputed to them, or because it is pardoned in them. Therefore except you will say, that sin forgiven or not imputed ceaseth to be sin in his own nature, concupiscence in the regenerate is sin, although forgiven & not imputed to them. But of this matter enough at this time, seeing it is to be handled more at large hereafter, and to be plainly showed, that Saint Augustine, although in some sense, he say that concupiscence is no sin, yet in another sense he doth as plainly affirm, that it is sin, and such as would condemn unto death, if it were not satisfied by Christ, and remitted unto the regenerate.  
Your third example, of his purpose to deceive, is, that not having at hand the Censure of colen itself, he reporteth diverse untruths against the jesuits out of Gotuisus, concealing his name, quoting only Censura Coloniensis, which he is sure cannot be seen, as not to be had in England, andomitting Canisius, whom his author Gotuisus doth likewise cite, which may be had, and red of every man. This is but a bare surmise, without any sufficient reason to uphold it: of two he citeth one, Ergo he seeketh to deceive. And as for the Censure of colen, it is now as common to be had in England, as Canisius his Catechism, although when Master Chark did set forth his first book, it was not to be sold in the shops, yet many had it in their studies. And it seemeth he did choose to cite that which was like to be of greater authority among the Papists, as done by consent of a whole University. But it toucheth him more nearly, that where Gotuisus did not beelie the jesuits sufficiently, Master Chark without blushing will falsify his words, to make them more odious: as where Gotuisus his words are, that the jesuits say, the scripture is, as it were a nose of wax, Master Chark saith their words are, the scripture is a nose of wax. This quarrel was objected at the first by the Censurer, and answered by M. Charke in his reply, that protesting at the first, not to set down the very words, but the meaning, he hath nothing varied therefro. For there can be no other sense of these words, the scripture is a nose of wax, and these, The scripture is as a nose of wax, seeing no man would dream of a transubstantiation, but all reasonable men understand a semblans or likeness, although the note of similitude (as) be not expressed. Therefore there appeareth no purpose of deceiving by this citing out of Gotuisus, when Paiva Andradius also excusing the same crime against Kemnitius, confesseth that the fathers of colen, in a most apt similitude, called it a nose of wax: & Pighius the leaden rule of the Lesbian building, as Master Charke showeth, whose purpose is no more, but to prove that this is an unapt, and an unworthy similitude, and therefore hath offered no wrong to the jesuits or Censurers of colen, nor used any fraud to deceive the reader.  
Now concerning his other behaviour towards M. Campian in the tower of London, & else where, you mean not greatly to stand upon, because you cannot imagine what colour you should set upon your slander, and yet somewhat you must say, or else burst for spite. First his incivility in words uttered against Campian in his book. These blasphemous heretics, and arrant traitors, where they have no authority, and most bloody butchers of gods saints where they have power, require to be reverenced, even of them, whom by all possible means they persecute, and abuse, so that there may not an ungentle word be spoken against them, though it be not half so much as they deserve to hear, but they complain forsooth, of great incivility used toward them. But what the Ceusure noted, the reply hath answered, and therefore to a general charge, I need make none other, but a general answer. But that was nothing to the contemptuous usage of so learned a man in open audience. Surely learning goeth very low among the English Papists, when Campian is made so learned a man, and even with loathsomeness so often commended for learning: in whom as we acknowledge there was more learning, than honesty, so they which either were privy to his studies, or had trial of his knowledge, must needs confess, that there wasin him much more arrogancy, than learning. But what contemptuous usage (I pray you) can you lay to Master Charks charge? Barbarous threatening of that further cruelty which then he had in mind, and now hath put in execution upon him. Is any man so simple to believe this slander? hath M. Chark put any cruelty or punishment of justice, either upon Campian in execution? or had he any more to do in Cam pians punishment, than you? or was any greater cause thereof then you? nay verily, I may think probably, that you, or at lest wise I may say boldly, that some of his greatest friends the Papists, were a much greater cause of Campians death, than any minister in England. For they knowing his proud stomach, & arrogant disposition (which no man could be ignorant of, that was acquainted with Campian) chose him for a meet instrument to be sent into England, as a trumpet of sedition, with his traitorous faculties, which is in deed the right and true cause meritorious of such pain, as he suffered, & not Master Charks cruelty or malice: which if he had borne any against Campian, he is neither of authoritic, nor credit, to procure execution thereof, in such sort as Campian was punished. Therefore this slander of Barbarous threatening, and contemptuous usage, is as the rest of your honest reports, which neither have truth, nor likely hood of truth in them.  
But of all other things it seemeth to you most ridiculous, and fit for a stage, which yet Master Charke thought was excellent, and became him well: and that was his often turning to the people, and requesting them to rejoice, and thank the Lord that had given him such an argument: which when it came forth, proved not worth three eggs in May, for that Master Campian dispatched it often times in less than half three words. Ofthis turning and requesting they that were present do say, you lie in your throat, that any such was used by Master Charke, as also where you say, that when he was brought to a non plus, and thereupon the people beginning to depart, he caused the doors to be shut, and no man to be let out, until they had joined with him in prayer to thank the Lord for his victory, etc. But if it had been true, that he had requested such thanksgiving of the people, or caused the door to be shut, that the whole multitude of hearers might join with him in prayer, is prayer & thanksgiving ridiculous, & meet for a stage? & doth the use of them prove a comical exercise to get applause of the people? if the one or the other be so in the account of papists, surely they are otherwise judged of among true christians. But it was the weakness of the arguments (you wilsay) which were so lightly dissolved, in less than half three words, which made that preparation ridiculous. A marvelous dexterity of the Champion, or else a ridiculous marvel of his parasite, to say, that he could dispatch arguments often times, and show the infirmity of them in one word only, so that all men might laugh at the opponents folly. Of like credit it is, that Master Charke in the end was brought to a non plus, and thereupon the people began to departed: when as many as were present can testify, that the day being far spent, Master Lieutenant signified that the time was past, whereupon Master Charke gave over, and concluded with prayer. In which if any Papist, by reason the door was shut by order of them which might command it, were constrained like an hypocrite to vail his bonnet, or bow his knees against his mind, yet none was so hardy to protest that he would not join in prayer with him, but ovelie your grand Captain Campian: which yet was so courtcous a gentleman, that he offered to join hands with them in familiarity, with whom he refused to join his tongue in prayer. A lack that treason and vain glory would not suffer him to live: for otherwise many think he would have been tractable enough in Religion.  
But it was to get applause of the people that Master Norton the rackmaster was at Master Charkes elbow, to repeat and urge his arguments for him to the purpose, What else? except we might be bold with your worship, and tell you that you gable. Master Norton was there as a diligent and faithful writer, as well of the arguments, as of the answers: and when he repeated any argument that he had written, it was that the opponent might acknowledge that he had taken it truly. As like wise he repeated Campians answer also, who often times when he misliked it himself, either added, or detracted, or altered the same, so that he wearied the writer not a little, until it was set down, as he would have it stand, and as he would stand to it: otherwise it had been small matter of applause, that Master Charke should get, to have an other man urge his arguments for him to the purpose, as though he could not follow them himself sufficiently: so great likeliehoode of truth your surmises have, which yet you set down as absolutely, as they were oracles of Apollo. For which cause also you had Master Norton the rackemaster, etc. But how well do you remember the rule of civility in words, whereof you are such a rigorous exactor in other men, that so reproachfully scoff at M. Norton, who beside his rare gifts of wit, learning, and wisdom, was of special trust with other appointed by the Prince, and her most honnorable council, to examine such as were thought meet to be tried, or terrified with the rack, & therefore in respect of the authority, by which he dealt in those cases, neither in civility, nor in christianity deserved the odious, and opprobious name of a rackemaster. Again you pity the case, that we durst not make those few disputations public, where more men might have laughed & been witnesses of our folly etc. No no, if we had parted with Master Campian but at an even hand, as we joined with him with all inequality, you should have had books of triumphset forth before now, & this secret of ours all the people of England doth know. What secret of ours? be like that we durst not make these disputations publiker by printing the report thereof. For otherwise there were witnesses enough, at the hearing of them. But now all the people of England know that you lie impudently. For the report of that conference hath been imprinted almost this two years, and never a papist of you all, at home or abroad, hath adventured to control it, although there have been printed brags, that you would shortly set'it out yourselves to our shame. You will say it is set down by ourselves, or our own friends, and consequently partially in report of Campians answers. Admit it were so (as in deed it is otherwise) for Campians answers touching the substance of them, and in his own words, are as truly set down, as the opponents arguments: yet because the matter is not the victory against Campians person, but against his heresies, if you think Campian, or your cause have injury by the report of his answers, why do not you show, either what his answers were. or what they should have been, to the avoiding of those arguments that then were brought against him? Which arguments as they were then propounded to Camipans person. so now by publishing of them in print, they are offered as a small taste to all his fautors & abbertors, to answer them, if they can, better than Campian, but a young novis in popish divinity, was able to do. But I suppose it much more easy for you to laugh at them in corners, and smile in your sleeves in open presence, then keeping the laws of disputation, to avoid the force of them. As for the vain glory whereof you dream, that we be so greedy, you see by differing the publication of that conference so long, that we could well have forborn it altogether, if your insolent bragging, false surmising, impudent slandering, and childish daring, had not in a manner extorted the setting forth thereof. The example you bring of our desire of praise, by Doctor Fulke, looking into Wisbige Castle, is by the same man sufficiently answered, with all other quarrels, that you pick against his writings, in a several treatise annexed to his defence of the English translations against Gregory Martin, and therefore there needeth not any other confutation of those slanders and cavils, then is already set forth.  
But with what inequality did we join with Campian, by means whereof, he might be less able to make his party good? We know (you say) the inequality, whereby we dealt with that man, being but one, unbooked, unprovided, wearied with imprisonment, and almost dismembered with the rack, threatened and terrified with death to come, appointed only to answer, and never to oppose: yea all this we know, and the world both knoweth and marveleth at it abroad. The world may marvel at his arrogancy, in making such a proud challenge, and at your impudency, in defending his insufficiency with such manifest untruths. First you say, he was but one, and the world knoweth there were but six, of more than six hundredth whom he challenged, able to have encountered with a greater giant, than he was, that at several times had conference with him. He being but one, with manifest note of intolerable pride, provoked all the learned of England: and do you complain, that being but one, he was assayed by so few of so great a number as he challenged? There was but one that challenged all, and therefore it was thought meet, that this one should be a little discovered, partly to repress the insolency of himself and of his friends, partly to satisfy the weakness of some ignorant persons, that might imagine, there was some great matter in his bold challenge, who showed therein the greatest folly that could be, if it had notserued for an other subtle practise. Hewas unbooked (you say) but in deed he was licenced to have what books soever he would call for. Canisius great Catechism he required, and had, which he said should be unto him instar omnium. unprovided he could not be, being opposed in his own book, or at lest wise could not complain of it, having as long time to consider of the questions, as his adversaries had. His imprisonment had not been so long before the conference, nor his keeping so strait, that his wits could be dulled, or his memory quailed in so short a time of five or six weeks. That he was either almost, or any thing at all dismembered, or distracted in body with the rack, is a most false lie, and shameless slander, although he bragged as of his suffering by the rack, which he rather saw, then felt, as Master Lieutenant told him. It is as false that he was threatened or terrified with death, by any of the disputers. If he were terrified in mind with conscience of his treasons, to fear that death, which he knew he had deserved, there was none to blame but himself. Otherwise his behaviour was not like one that feared death, as it was afterward when death in deed was present before his eyes.  
Finally, that he was appointed only to answer, and never to oppose, it was no disadvantage to him, if he had maintained a true cause, and had been that man of learning, which he would seem to be. For all men which know what belongeth to disputation, will confess, that it is easier for a learned man to answer with commendation in defence of truth, then to oppugn a true cause, with hope to win credit. Wherefore the inequality was in the cause, not in the disputers part, which was appointed to Campian. For if his positions had not been false, by answering he had the advantage against the opponents. Again, Campian did first take upon him the opponents part in publishing his book of ten arguments against us, which by our side was answered, and therefore it was meet, and agreeable to order, he should be appointed to answer, and our side to oppose, and that by the very law of equality and indifferency, although (as it is evident by the report of the conference) he was permitted sometime to oppose, and propounded such arguments as his weak cause could afford him.  
But you are sure and dare avow to our faces, that we will never deal with you at even hand, or upon equal conditions, while we live. You may be sure that to maintain your purpose of sedition, for which your challenge was made, that we will not deal with you at any hand, or upon any conditions. But to show your falsehood, ignorance, and arrogancy manifest to the world, we are ready to join with you in any conditions, that our prince and magistrates will allow us, and shall think may stand with the quiet of the state: who, seeing our religion after lawful and solemn conference by us offered, and shamefully refused by your good masters, is by law established, will not rashly admit every vain and ridiculous challenge of disputation, that is offered by such, as Campian & you are, who dare avow to our faces, and yet dare not show your own faces, before you be drawn out of your creeping corners, and hiding holes, as Campian and his complices were.  
Yet you are in the name of all your fellow Catholics torenew your bublike challenge of equal disputation. Who are you, and what Commission have you from your fellow Papists, that we may credit you? If we knew either the one, or the other, we might the rather consider of your pretended public challenge. Edmond Campian did more like a Champion, who when he cast down his glove of defiance, spared not his name, though he hid his head. But you, coming with so loud a challenge, so large offers, so magnifical promises, not of your own countrymen, but of strangers also, of matters not in private men's power, but of the grant of Princes, & that in any kingdom and country, which you call Catholic; and moreover, rather than you would fail of disputation, are ready to bear the expenses, not only of our countrymen, which are many, but of all the learned Protestants of Europe, whom you give us leave to call for our defence, must needs have great intelligence & conference with all the popish states in Europe, and a wonderful large commission from them all, which we would beglad you should show, for our assurance, or else you show yourself the noblest fool in the world, to think that any man will credit you in so weighty matters, upon your own bare word, not knowing so much as whom to inquire for, or where to find you, if we were disposed to confer with you, about any conditions of equality to be used in the pretended disputation, or about the time, place, or persons to be employed in the same.  
Nevertheless to show your confidence, and desire of trial in all the haste, you tell us, that albeit we think your cause to be greatly weakened by the taking away, and dispatching (so you call the just execution) of Campian, & Sherwine, yet you are the same men you were before, yea much more disirous of this trial, than before. Indeed I am persuaded you are no changelings, but even as the devil hardeneth them whom he hath once in possession, so your obstinacy daily increaseth, both in heresy and treason. For the weakening of your cause, we never accounted any great moment to be either in Campian, or Sherwine, more than to the strengthening thereof. They were of the ripest fry, that your seminary could afford, sparing the old stores, and yet they were but froth, for any sound learning that was in either of them. You say, we were want for more abasement of the other, to say that M. Sherwine was far better learned, than Campian himself. It may be some have said so, and they that have had conference with both, do affirm that is the learned tongues Greek and Hebrew, Sherwyn had some little sinacke, so that he could talk of them, whereas Campian was as blind as a beetle in them both. Again, Sherwyn in reasoning had for the most part, the common shifts and ordinary answers of Papists, to the places that were cited out of the Doctors: Campian had nothing but frivolous distinctions, framed of his own head upon the seddaine, seldom, or never understanding the argument of the book, or place of the Doctors, that he was pressed withal. So that it might easily appear, that Sherwin was better studied, & Campian quicker witted. In impudency they were almost equal, saving that Campian was impudent with arrogancy, Sherwine with more show of humility. I will note one example of Sherwins impudency, and an other of his small knowledge in the Hebrew tongue, wherein yet the Papists would bear us in hand, that he was excellent. When after some private conference had with him in M. Lieutenants lodging, within the tower of London, My Lady Hopton chanced to speak somewhat against the licentious and abominable life of the Cardinals, and clergy of Rome; Sherwin said, if any such thing were, they should answer for it themselves: but he took the eternal God to witness, that those eyes of his never saw in the city of Rome, which he had often walkedover, that could offend his heart, or conscience; which shameful protestation of his, all that heard him did abhor, seeing that, if Rome were the holiest city that is in Europe, as it is wellknowne to be the most sinful in 〈◊〉, yet no honest and religious man, could remain so long in it, but he should see some tokens of pride, wantonness, covetousness, cruelty or vanity, that must needs be a grief unto his heart to consider. Now for the other matter. In the conference itself, he would have taken upon him no small judgement in the 〈◊〉 ewe language by avouching that he wo●●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and notable corruptions in the Hebrew text of the Bible. when an example was required, he brought forth the ●7. v. of the 22 Psalm, which by like he had learned of Gregori● Martin as Martin had learned of 〈◊〉 here the Hebrew text (said he) is C ARE I I, as a 〈◊〉 my hands and my feet: but the truth is, as the v●lga●e 〈◊〉 station hath, they have pierced my hands and my feet. Hear when it was answered, that of the Mazorites do discharge this text of corruption testifying that the ancient reading was CAROV which signifieth they have pierced; which Mazorites? said Master Sherwine. And so much touching the comparison between Master Campian and Master Sherwine in whom as there was little help for your cause, so we think you have lost no great advantage by their taking away out of this life.  
But let us see what be the words of your public challenge. We request you, yea we conjure you, either for truths sake, if you seek it: or for your own credit's sake, if ye will retain it, that you yield us after so much suit and supplication, some equal trial, either by writing, preaching, or disputing Although we should not yield either to your request, or to your 〈◊〉, we might have that love of truth, and care of our credit, which becometh us. For truth hath been so well and long tried to be on our part, that our credit in maintaining thereof cannot be cracked, if we should altogether refuse any new trial. For why should you be admitted after. 24. years to any new trial, which refused in the beginning so lawful and solemn a trial, as the like in any memory was never offered in this land? what suit or supplication you have made I know not, except you mean the seditious challenge of Campian, which was cast about as a lible, to erect and stir the wavering minds, of your inconstant disciples, into expectation of some great alteration, not lawfully, and orderly delivered to them, to whom it was entitled, as an humble suit or supplication. Again, there is no reason, that upon any suit or supplication, there should any further trial be granted unto you, that have been already so often convicted, & condemned in the cause, as though the matter were still in question or doubt with us; but only in respect of some weak, and doubtful persons, unto whose infirmity, in hope of their satisfaction and full resolution, something may be yielded. For what wise man would grant to the Manichees, Arrians, Macedonians, and such other absurd heretics (so long since condemned) at this time any new trial or judgement by public disputation, preaching, or writing, although they did never so importunately crave it, yea (as you doc) adjure and conjure them to it? And seeing you are so indifferent, as you pretend, to enter into any equal trial, either by writing, preaching, or disputation, what maketh you so vehement in calling for trial, when one of these ways neither is, nor can be denied unto you, namely trial by writing? yea you have been provoked, and challenged to the most equal way of trial by writing, which is by syllogism, to try how you can uphold any of your heresies by us condemned: whereunto you are now the rather to be called, because you complain that Campian was not suffered to oppose. Set down your syllogisms in the defence of any article of controversy that you hold against us, or in oppugning any point, of doctrine that we hold against you, either in writing or in print, so as they may come to our hands, & you shall receive a speedy and a ready answer. This trial you may have without danger, suit, or charges, if it were trial, and not treason, that you sought to practise under pretext of public trial, by preaching, or disputing. Else what need you be so importune for any equal trial, when this the most equal, the most easy, the most profitable trial, or way of trial, for finding out, and judging on which side truth doth stand, neither is, nor can be taken from you.  
There is no reason in the world (you say) but only fear that may move us to deny you this your request. But they that be wise can easily judge, that there is great reason to deny you any such request, where your purpose is known to be sedition, and not trial: nevertheless your request of trial by writing is not denied you, as I have said before: use it then when you think good, and make no more babbling of trial, if you seek nothing but trial, and be indifferent to take any of these three kinds of trial.  
The reason of the state (you say) which is alleged against your request, is mosts vain. For what can a peaceable disputation granted you for religion, endanger our state, but only it may chance to discover our errors, and so make the hearers detest our state of heresy? You carry peace in your mouths, and sword in your hearts. I have touched some reasons already: they that govern the state can say much more. As for peaceable disputations upon controversies in religion, are daily practised in our schools, for excercise sake, in which all the arguments you can bring, are urged as vehemently, as you yourselves can do, in peaceable manner; and are so clearly avoided, either by the answerer, or at lest by the moderator, as all reasonable hearers may plainly see, that we stand for truth against 〈◊〉 and heresy, and if any do waver in opinion upon so manifest evidence of truth, he judgement, without that we stand of trial, that are ready to abide stand with our duty, and is demonstration of truth. As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you do once again require, that obtain for you, whatsoever you , is well known to be but a 〈◊〉, for an other purpose then trial of truth, whereof if you were so desirous, as you would seem to be by your challenge, and so indifferent to accept any of the three before named kinds of trial, as in words you did so lately make show, you would not be so importunate, for this kind of trial by disputing, which is not like to be granted unto you, lest it might be surmised, that we would be content to bring our faith into doubt, and disceptation, & refuse the safest, the quietest, and the best kind of trial, that is offered unto you, which is by writing. You far like a cowardly russian, which knowing a man to be bound to the peace, will make no end of bragging, and challenging him to fight: but if any man that is at liberty offer to try a blow or two with him, he is as cold to the combat, as he was before hot to the challenge.  
You offer yourselves to the labour, charges, and peril of life, and yet you ask for your safeties such a warrant from her Majesty, as the late council of Trent did offer to all protestants of the world. If you offer yourselves to the peril of your lives, what need you any warrant for your safeties: except you think her majesties warrant is no better than such as is given by popish Counsels and princes, which notwithstanding any safeconduits, leagues, truces, or warranties of safety, are at their liberty to make contrary Canons, and to execute most cruel burnings, massacres, and murders of God's saints and innocent lambs, which have committed their lives into such faithless tyrant's hands. But God be praised, her highness honour hath never been blemished with the least spot of unfaithfulness, that you should sear notwithstanding her majesties warrant, any danger to your lives, or boast that you offer yourselves to peril of life, when you demand a warrant for your safeties, without the which you dare not so much as utter your name, that be the challengers. And therefore it were a ridiculous suit for a warrant, that our ministers should commence in your behalf, when they know not what you are, nor what warrant you have, from any learned Papists to make such large offers, uponwarrant of your safteties: seeing it is known, that the best learned of your side in England, have not only refused the same, but some also judged all disputation to be unprofitable.  
Your offers I confess are very large, as that we shall appoint in what kind and number, at what time, to what place, you shall come, either our country men only, or strangers to dispute in our universities before the learned only, that you give us leave to call all the learned protestants of Europe for our defence, you taking only our own countrymen: That you give us leave to oppose or defend, begin or end or use any prerogative that may not impugn the indifferency of trial. But when you ask, what we can allege why we should not accept this, We answer, that beside many causes, not here needful to be rehearsed, though before in part touched, we allege for this present, that we do not believe that you are able to perform any of these liberal offers, except we see matter of greater credit, than an epistle of an unknown papist, written to Master Charke a private man. If you had showed us such warrant or commission, as we might probably have been persuaded of the performance of these promises, you might more reasonably have required, what we had to allege, why we did not accept them: but now there is no reason in the world, that we should entreat with our Prince & Magistrates upon these frivolous words of an obscure hedge-creeper, or boasting bench-whistler for any thing we know: I am in the name of all my fellow Catholics to renew, &c: Once again I say to you ministers, etc. We will give you leave, &c: and such like. But it is not sufficient that you are liberal at home only, except you be lavish abroad also: for if we had lever make trial in other countries, we may choose what Protestant state we list, and procuring you safety there, you will meet us. Or if we please to come into any Catholic Kingdom or Country, you will procure what security soever reasonably we will demand, and more than that, you will bear our expenses also, rather than so good a work should remain unattempted: or any other condition that we can device, you will fulfil; Then you conclude, If we offer you reason, then deal somewhat reasonably with us again. For all the world will cry shame and begin to discredit you, if you will neither give, nor take, upon so great odds as here are offered you. I answer, you offer us great words, but no reason at all, because we know not what assurance you can make us, to perform your words. If Master Charke, a man well known by his name, should make the like offer to you, by such an other printed epistle, or taking your offer, should promise you as great warrant as you require, at home or abroad, and moreover to bear your expenses, rather than you should sail to appear at any time or place by him assigned, is your simplicity so great, that you would keep the appointed day, and place of disputation, upon his pure promise, without further assurance? And yet you can not miss to hear of him, & his dwelling place at London: whereas we know not to whom, nor whether to returnethe warrant, that it may come to you: except per haps youwould have it proclaimed with sound of trum pet, & sent into all parts of the realm, that you may hereof it. It may be you will allege, that it is great danger for you to appear without warrant of security, and no peril for us, to procure you assurance of safety. But all wise men may see, that we should deserve no less punishment by procuring such a warrant for you, upon so light a ground, if you did not accept it, as you should incur, appearing without warrant, for any difference in religion, if you be not guilty of felony or treason. If you meant nothing, but peaceable disputation for trial of truth, you would not make your challenge in printed libels, and seditious pamphlets, but rather seek it at the hands of them that have authority to grant it, by intercession of those foreign princes, with whom you pretend your credit to be so great, that you can procure what security soever reasonably we can demand, in their dominions. But to use any such lawful means, I trow you will make no haste, when you will not accept that quiet form of trial by syllogisms in writing, which by Doctor Fulke so many years ago was offered unto you, and yet is free for you to take, if it please you, and that without suit, without danger, and to the best and surest trial of the truth.  
But if we dare not venture with disputations, yet you require us to grant you certain sermons to encounter with us upon this matter. A very reasonable request, I assure you. when you will grant the like liberty of preaching in Spain, or Italy, we will become suitors for you to preach in England. Or if that also be to dangerous, we must procure you but a little passage for your books, & specially Master Charke must obtain licence & free passage for this book, until it be answered. Sir whenwe see what passage you can & will procure for our books, at lest such as be not answered, until they be answered, in places where they are now restrained, we will endeavour, that you shall have the like entertainment with us. In the mean time, take what controversy you will, or think you self best able to prove against us, set down such arguments as you have to oppose against our assertion, in lawful and logical syllogisms, and whether you send them written or printed, you shall receive them again printed with our answers to them, and have as free passage for your arguments, as shall be granted for our answers. If you will reply against our answers, in like form aforesaid, you shall have our 〈◊〉 in like manner set forth with your reply; and 〈◊〉 the grace of God, you shall not fail of, toties, quoties, until you be non plus, or which we had rather will he, until you yield to the truth. This offer is so reasonable, that when the like was made to M. Mettham, one of the prisoners at Wisbeach, M. Fecknam of his equity acknowledged that there could no more be required. Butas Mettham did then refuse it, so I am afraid will you. And yet it is more than you will do for us, to give licence, that our books may be read of every man among you, with your confutations. And Doctor Windham then said, that no wise state would suffer it. Neverthe less our state, God be thanked, upon conscience of truth on our side, hath with no less wisdom, then good success, always permitted your books with our answers to them, to be read of all men to judge indifferently, so they contain nothing but question of religion, and not shameful diffamations and invectives against the prince, and the state of government: which matters deserve to be answered with an axe or an halter, rather than with pen and paper. But to permit your books unconfuted to have free passage (although they pass with an hundred times less danger, then ours may do among you) as you require, it were neither wisdom, godliness, equity, nor reason.   

AN OVERTHROW OF THE ANSWER TO Master Charkes preface, touching Discerning of Spirits.  
M. Chark beside the matter in question, etc.  
IF this answerer beside the matter in question, had not made many unnecessary, and unpertinent digressions, the substance of his answer might have been contained almost in as few lines, as now it filleth leaves. The trial of the Spirits which Saint john requireth, that is, by the kind of doctrine in teaching Christ, and not the quality of the teachers, Master 
I. john, 4.  Charke desireth, the adversaries refuse, allowing nothing finally, but the only, and falsely named title of the Catholic Church of Rome for themselves, and accusations of the persons, some perhaps true, some utterly false, against us. To this practise so many popish treatises, and this especially in hand, do give testimony. This is the sum of Master Charkes preface. Now cometh our answerer and because he had many by-quarrels to deliver, he taketh occasion to utter them in this place, though little or nothing pertaining to the direct confutation of Master Charkes preface. First he chargeth Master Charke to say, that the Papists refuse Saint john's trial, which is false: for their books are extant, whereby they have called to trial all sectaries of our time: among whom he nameth Munster, and Stancarus: against whom I never heard what Papists have exercised their style, especially Stancarus, holding one principle, coming very near to their position of Christ's priesthood, to be only according to his manhood: as Stancarus taught, that Christ was a mediator only after his humanity: but read their books who shall, and he must needs confess Master Charkes saying to be true. For first or last, they draw all trial to Rome, and not to examine which doctrine giveth all glory to God by jesus Christ our only Saviour, which is the scope of Saint john's trial.  
But if we had not desired trial of Spirits (saith he) we would not have laboured so much, to obtain the same of our adversaries in free printing, preaching, or disputation. You speak of great labour, which none of us ever heard that you took, except it were in spreading a few copies of Campians seditious libel, not to the end of trial of spirits, for discerning of truth: but to the stirring up of men's bodies and minds to treason, and 
Saunders treason in Ireland.  rebellion; as the like labours, by the like messengers took effect, and make manifest demonstration in Ireland. But if free printing, preaching, and disputation be a goodway for discerning of Spirits, that Christ may be known from Antichrist, why do not you Papists grant the same in Spain, Italy, and other countries thrall to the Pope's tyranny, yet assaulted by the doctrine of the gospel, as by the power of Christ against Antichrist? if it be not a good way (as it seemeth you think, because you take it not yourselves) how can you say, that you require in those places this trial of spirits? No, no, it is an other trial, of the sharpest sword, that you mean, when you require such trial of Spirits.  
You add further of the adventuring of your lives in coming and offering the same to us at home, with so unequal conditions on your side, as you have done and daily do, for the trial of truth. There is no danger of life among us, in offering the trial of Spirits, according to Saint john's rule; but in seeking to avert the Queen's subjects from their dutiful obedience unto her Majesty, to make a way for the execution of the Pope's most blasphemous, and traitorous Bull, 
Bull. Pij. 5.  and this hath procured most just, and necessary execution of some few of you: and not, as you slander, justice; that offering to try the truth, hath obtained nothing hitherto, but offence, accusations, extreme rackings, and cruel death. Again, these inequal conditions, these daily offers, these many petitions, and supplications that you speak of, who hath made? to whom have they been offered? when were they presented? where were they seen, or heard? by whom were they refused? except Campians ridiculous challenge be all in all with you. But what will a Papist spare to affirm, that he may make falsehood have some likely shape of truth? yet being admitted that you offer trial, it must be seen who do offer best means of trial.  
And here you will endeavour to show, that all means of trial, which Master Charke and his fellows will seem to allow in word (For they offer none in deed) are neither sure, possible, nor evident; but mere shifts to avoid all trial: and that yourselves do offer all the best, and surest ways of trial, that ever were usedin the Church, for discerning an heretical spirit from a Catholic. Your endeavour is great, but your ability is small: for you shall never be able to demonstrate either the one, or the other, howsoever with vain sophistications, and wrested authorities, you seek to dazzle the eyes of the simple. Let us hear therefore how you begin. The only means of trial (you say) which Master Charke will seem to allow, is the scripture. But this is a shift common to all heretics, especially of our time. First you slander Master Charke, in saying that he alloweth the scripture to be the only means of trial of spirits, whereof he speaketh not at all in this preface, but of trial of spirits by the doctrine of Christ, which is most plainly and certainly set forth in the holy scriptures, and therefore by the holy scriptures the doctrine may best and most certainly 
joh. 5. 39  be tried, and judged. But that Master Charke by referring himself to the holy scriptures only, as suffixion and ●●le to decide all controversies of Religion, doth deny, or exclude all other means of 〈◊〉, whereby the true meaning of the scripture may be known, it is impudent he affirmed without either proof, or likelihood of truth, as hereafter more plainly will appear. Saint Augustine (as though he were an enemy of con●●●●ing heresies by the authority of the scriptures only) is quoted in the margin de nupt. & Concup. lib 2. cap. 31 whose words are these. Non est mi●●am, si Pelagiani dicta nostra in sensus 〈◊〉 volunt, deto●quere cona●tur, quando de scriptures sanctis, non ubi obscurè aliquid dictum est, sed ubi clara ●●aperta sune testimonia, id facere consueverunt, more quia●● haere●icorum etiam caet●rorum. It is no marvel, if the Pelagians endeavour to wrest our sayings into what senses they will, when they are accustomed to do the same by the holy scriptures, not where any thing is spoken darkly, but where the testimonies are clear and manifest, after the manner indeed of the rest of heretics.. These words of Saint Augustine do as aptly agree to the Papists, as though they had been by name uttered against them; as in that which followeth you shall see verified in this Papist, who both wresteth out sayings to such sense as himself pleaseth, and also the holy scriptures themselves, where they are most plain and evident against him: a right pranek of old herenkes. Note also by the way that the scripture by Saint Augustine's judgement, containeth most clear and evident testimonies; which though they be never so much wrested of herenkes, yet in the conscience of all that love the truth, they do manifestly deliver true doctrine, and confute false; and therefore be not as a nose of wax, or a leaden rule, by which no 
Pighius.  certainty may be found, or any sure trial had by them, as the Papists do blaspheme.  
The next quotation. l. 3. cont. Donat. ca 15. is uncertain, because of diverse treatises that S. Augustine did write against the Donatists: but I guess he meaneth his book de Baptismo contra Donatistas': where yet is nothing to his purpose, or to any purpose in hand: but that the scripture of the Gospel, If it be whole, is the same, although it be alleged by innumerable heretics, according to the diversity of every one of their opinions: and so Baptism, ministered by heretics, according to the institution of Christ, is the same, what opinion soever the heretics have of the words, by which it is consecrated and ministered. He saith also that the snares of heretics and schismatics, are therefore very pernicious to carnal men, because their pro●ting in knowledge is shut from them, their sentence of vanity being confirmed against the Catholic truth and their sentence of dissension being con●●●med ag●in● the catholic peace. These things are true of obstinate heretics, and consequently of Papists, but they make nothing against Master Chark, or for the trial of spirits, which is the question now debated between him & his adversary. But that the scriptures are sufficient to beat down all heresies, and to reach all truth necessary to salvation, and the only sure and certain trial, whereby all doctrine is to be examined and adjudged, the same Augustine doth plentifully and in many places of his works declare, and even in that same work de Baptismo contra Donatistas', lib. 2. Cap. 2. de unitate Ecclesiae. cap. 2 & 3. & 16. de nup. & conc. lib. 2. cap. 29. de peccat. merit. & remiss lib. 3. cap. 7. de natura & gratia, cap. 60. etc.  
Three causes there be (saith our answerer) of appealing only to scripture. The first, to get credit with the people by naming of scripture, & to seem to honour it more than their adversaries do, by referring the whole trial of matters unto it. To win credit by cleaving to the authority of God, expressed in his holy word written, and to honour it by acknowledging the sufficiency thereof, for the trial of all matters of religion that may come in controversy, is no shift of heretics, or new teachers, but the ancient practise of the best and most approved Catholics. To pretend these things in show, and not to accomplish them in deed, is the guise of hypocrites, what religion soevet they would seem to maintain.  
The second cause (saith he) is by excluding councils, fathers, and ancestors of the Church (who from time to time have declared the true sexse of scripture unto us) to reserve unto themselves liberty and authority to make what meaning of scripture they please, and thereby to give colour to every fancy they list to teach. But Master Charke and his fellows, giving the sovereign authority to the only scriptures, do not at all exclude councils, fathers, and ancestors of the Church, except it be in case, where they teach contrary to the manifest scriptures of god, which do either in express and plain words, or else by most easy and necessary conclusion deliver unto the Church all things needful to be credited, and known unto eternal life, as both the Apostle testifieth. 2. Timoth. 3. and S. Augustine, a worthy Father & ancient of the Church consenteth. Ep. III. Fortunatiano. Neque enim quorumlibet disputationes, quamuis Catholicorun & laudatorum hominum, velut scripturas canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis nonliceat, salva honorificentia, quae illis dcbetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare atque respuere, si fortè invenerimus quòdaliter senserint quàm veritas habet, divino adiutorio vel ab aliis intellecta, vel à nobis. Talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse intellectores meorum. Denique in his omnibus quae de opusculis sanctorum atque doctorum commemoravi, Ambrosij, Hyeronimi, Athanasij, Gregorij, & siqua aliorum talia ita legere potui. For we ought not to account the disputations of all men, although they be catholic & praise worthy, as the Canonical scriptures, that it should not be lawful for us, saving the reverence which is due to these men, to disallow and reject something in their writings if perhaps we have found out, that they have thought otherwise then the truth is, of things by gods help either understood of others, or of ourselves. Such one am I in the writings of other men, such would I have other men to be understanders of my writings. Finally in all these which I have rehearsed out of the works of holy and learned men, Ambros Hicrott. Athanasius, Gregory, Andif I could so read any like of other men's writings, etc. Also, Ep. 112. Pauline. 〈◊〉 scripturarum, earum scilicet quae canonicae in Ecclesia nominantur, perspicua firmatur authoritate, fine ulla dubitatione credendum est. Aliis verò testibus vel testimoniis quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur, tibi credere vel non credere liceat, quantum meriti ea admonentem ad faciendam fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis. What scever is confirmed by the plain & clear authority of the holy scriptures, of those truly which are called in the Church canonical, without all doubt is to be believed. But other witnesses or testimonies, by which any thing is counseled to be believed, it is lawful for thee to believe, or not, according as thou shalt weigh what worthiness, he that counseleth those things, hath to cause credit, or else hath not. Again, De doctrina christiana, lib. 3. cap. 6. Magnificè & salubriter spiritus sanctus ita scripturas sanctas modificavit, ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret: Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur. The holy ghost hath magnifically and wholsomlie so tempered the holy scriptures, that with evident places he might satisfy hunger, and with more dark places might wipe away disdainfulness. For nothing almost is found out of those obscurities, which is not found else where most plainly uttered. It were no hard matter to heap up many testimonies of the ancient fathers to this purpose, but that the va nitie of this answerer appeareth sufficiently in all our books written against the papists, in which not only by the manifest places of the scriptures, but also by most evident testimonies of the doctors of the church, we confute them in the most and greatest matters of controversy that ate between us.  
But what saith our gallant answerer, that the counsels, fathers, and anciters of theChurch, have from time to timedeclared the true sense of the scriptures unto us? hath none of these at any time erred in expounding the scriptures, & may we safely believe them whatsoever they say? He will (I warrant you) deny it, except the Pope of Rome do allow their interpretations. And therefore this flying from the only scriptures to the interpretation of Count cells, fathers & ancestors of the Church, is nothing else, but an impudent shift, to reserve unto the Pope liberty & authority to make what meaning of scripture they please, & thereby to give colour to every fancy they list, to father it upon the authority of the holy scriptures.  
The third cause he affirmeth to be, that by challenging of only scripture, they may deliver themselves from all ordinan ces or doctrines, left unto us by the first pillars of Christ's Church, though not expressly set down in the scripture, etc. In deed to deliver ourselves from the burden of men's traditions, the ordinances or doctrines of men, we affirm 
2. Tim. 3.  the holy scriptures to be able and sufficient to make us wise unto salvation by faith in jesus Christ, as the Apostles and principal pillars of the Church have taught us: who have left no such ordinances or doctrines, but they be either expressly set down in the holy scriptures, or by plain and necessary collection to be gathered out of the same. For how will our adversaries prove, that any thing is received from the Apostles, which hath not testimony out of the writings of the Apostles? who can be a sufficient witness of such delivery, seeing many things were of old referred to the Apostles tradition, which even our adversaries do 
Euseb. li. 5. c. 26.  not admit to be Apostolical? seeing the most ancient and immediate successors of the Apostles, as Polyearpus, & Anicetus, can not agree about a ceremony received from the Apostles, namely the celebration of Easter, what certainty can there be of any other ordinances or doctines, fathered upon the Apostles, without witness of their writings, yea and some times directly contrary and repugnant to their writings?  
But hereof, saith our adversary, they assume authority of allowing or not allowing, whatsoever liketh or serveth their turns for the time: and hereof he bringeth example: First of the number of sacraments, whereof some protestants have written diversly, because the name of sacrament is diversly taken: sometimes largely, for every holy sign: sometimes strictly, for such holy signs only, as being instituted of God, are seals of the dispensation of his general grace in the new teftament, pertaining to every member of the Church: sometimes for all holy mysteries: or secrets, etc. But what doth it serve any protestants turn, whether there be more, or fewer signs in number, that may be called sacraments? seeing all protestants agree about the things themselves, that are set forth in the scriptures to be visible signs of grace invisible, and the name itself, Sacrament, in that sense we speak of, when we say there are 2. 3. 4. or 7. sacraments, is not once used. This diversity therefore is but of a term, and that not used in scripture: therefore it ariseth not of any interpretation, or perverse understanding of the scripture, as our answerer would have it seem to be.  
But let us hear his example. Martin Luther, saith he, after he had denied all testimony of man, besides himself, he beginneth thus about the number of sacraments. Principiò neganda mihisunt septem sacramenta, & tantúm tria pro tempore ponenda. First of all I must deny seven sacraments, and appoint three for the time. Marry this time lasted not long: for in the same place he saith, that if he would speak according to the use of only scripture, he hath but one sacrament for us, that is baptism. In this sentence how many lies and slanders be packed together? First he saith, Martin Luther denieth all testimony of man, which is false: for he alloweth all testimony of man, that agreeth with the testimony of God, expressed in the scriptures, and often citeth the testimonies of the ancient fathers for confirmation of the truth, which he taught: indeed he alloweth man no authority to institute sacraments, or to make articles of faith, or laws to bind the conscience of man: and he would have all man's testimonies to be examined and judged according to the word of God: but this is not to deny all testimony of man, but to distinguish true testimonies of man, from false. another slander is, where he saith, that Luther in denying all man's testimony, excepteth himself: which is altogether untrue. For he requireth none other credit to be given to his own testimony, than he alloweth to the testimony of other. Neither doth he arrogate any authority to himself, which he derogateth from other men. And namely in this book of the captivity of Babylon, he taketh not upon him absolutely to teach every point, but so far forth as he did for the present understand of them: promising after greater study, & more diligent inquiry, to entreat of divers of them more certainly: & even in this very place of the number of the sacraments, he saith, he will admit three onclie for the present time, intending to be further a duised whether there be fewer, or more, to be entitled with that name. Wherein our answerer offereth him the third injury, in translating, tria pro tempore ponenda, I must appoint three for the time, as though Luther had taken upon him to appoint how many sacraments the Church should have, or would challenge power to appoint more or Jesse at his pleasure; where as his words (if the answerer did not wilfully corrupt them by false translation) do import no such thing, but only as far as he did presently see, there were no more but three of those, that were commonly called sacraments of the new testament, which were rightly to be called by that name. The fourth slander is, that Luther hath but one sacrament for us, which is Baptism, if he would speak according to the use of only scripture: yea this is a double slander: for neither doth Luther say, that he hath but one sacrament for us, in that meaning of the word sacrament, in which he is charged by the caviller to alter his opinion so shortly, but in an other meaning: neither doth he say, that this one sacrament is haptisme: in which I can but wonder at the impudence of this fellow, that forgeth this last lie in his own brain, without all colour or show of Luther's words: as though Luther would allow no sacrament of the Church but Baptism. The words of Luther are these, of the number of sacraments. After he hath denied the number of seven, & admitted for the present but three, namely Baptism, penance, & the supper, all which he affirmeth by the court of Rome to be brought 
De cap. Bab.  into miserable captivity, and the Church spoiled of all her liberty, he addeth: Quanquam si usu scripturae loqui velim, non nisi'vnum sacramentum habeam, & tria signa sacrament alia, de quo latiùs suo tempore. Although if I would speak after the use of scripture, I have but one sacrament, and three sacramental signs, whereof more at large in due time. This one sacrament, whereof he speaketh, is the holy mystery or secret of our redemption, or salvation by jesus Christ; of which the other that are commonly called sacraments, are holy and mystical signs: so that herein he changeth no opinion of the thing, but only speaketh of the diverse taking of the word.  
Well, yet will our a duersarie reply, he alloweth three sacraments, so doth the confession of Auspurge, Melancthon four, and calvin two: and all this by only scripture. I have showed before sufficiently, that this question of the number of those signs that may be called sacraments properly, or unproperly, generally or specially, is not determinable by the holy scriptures, because this name of sacrament is not found in them. Those holy mysteries, which by external elements do testify the invisible grace of God working in us, unto our salvation by regeneration and preservation, are plainly set forth in the scripture, Baptism, and the Lords supper, without naming them sacraments, which comprehend that whole mystery of our salvation, which Luther calleth the only sacrament, by the use of the scripture, according to which explication of the word sacrament there are but two, so rightly, properly, and specially to be termed, according to the ancient usage of the Latin Church, and no more acknowledged, by any protestant of sound religion. For Luther, his enemies shall testify, which were appointed to gather out of his writings whatsoever they thought to be erroneous, to be objected against him: & this is their Censure. Negat septem esse sacramenta, sed tantùm tria pro tempore ponenda, baptismum, poenitentiam, panem. Immo non nisi unum esse sacramentum, & tria figna sacramentalia. Duo tamen in Ecclesia Dei esse sacramenta, baptismum, & panem. He denieth (say the collectors) that there are seven sacraments, but that three only for the time are to be admitted, baptism, penance, and the bread: nay rather, that there is but one sacrament, and three sacramental signs: nevertheless there are two sacraments in the Church of God, baptism, and the bread. Luther's judgement thus appearing by the confestion of his own adversaries, that as baptism and the supper are called sacraments, there are no more that rightly and properly can bear that name: The confession of Auspurge and Melancthon, which as our answerer saith, pretend and profess to follow Luther in all things, can have none other meaning in this matter of the number of the sacraments of the new testament. And Melancthon expressly discoursing of the term sacrament, showeth how diversly it may be taken, to comprehend two, three or four. And in the last edition of his common places, where he answereth the articles of the Bavaricall inquisition, he holdeth but two properly to be called sacraments, as Luther before him, in his Catechism the greater, and the lesser. Wherefore this frivolous cavil is thus easily discussed, to the shame of the caviller, and to the attestation of our consent in the matter and substance of truth,  
The like brabble of words he maketh of the title of head of the Church, which calvin and the Magdeburgeans do mislike, and calvin in King Henry found to be Antichristian, but Caluines followers in England do find by only scripure to be most Christian. Where all the dissension is in the term, which being rightly understood, as by law it hath been confirmed unto the Prince, containeth no other authority, then calvin, and all other professors of the Gospel, do acknowledge to pertain unto the Christian magistrate, and is proved to be most Christian, not only by scripture, but also by testimony of the most ancient and Catholic Fathers of the Church, as it were easy to show, but that it is here no place to decide these controversies. The title of supreme head of the Church, granted to King Henry, calvin saith was blaspheomus, not as it was understood of the godly at that time, but as it was applied by Stephen Gardiner: who in a conference at Ratisbone, cared not much for the testimonies of the scripture, but said, it was in the King's power to abrogate decrees, and to institute new ceremonies, as to appoint days of fasting, abstinence from flesh, etc. And not staying there, he proceeded further, to affirm, that it was lawful for the King to forbid marriage unto Priests, to forbid the lay people to drink of the cup in the Lord's supper; and generally to command, or for bid in his kingdom what he would, because he had sovereign authority. This authority, or the title in this sense, neither our princes do accept, neither doth any godly man allow unto them.  
A third example he bringeth of burning of heretics, wherein he saith: The Protestants a great while by only scripture, defended against the Catholics, that no heretics might be burned, or put to death, whereof large books are written on both parts: Now they have found by evident scripture, that they may be burned. As though there were not controversies enough, between the Papists and the Protestants, this man will needs make more, as this of putting blasphemous heretics to death, which was never denied, the scripture of stoning blasphemers, false Prophets, and Idolaters, being so manifest. A. nabaptists indeed, and such like sectaries, are loath that heretics should be punished with death. But there hath bone long books (saith he) written thereof on both parts. If you ask him by whom, he biddeth you in the margin look Eckius in Encher. and Luther contra Latom. de incendiariis. Would you not think this follow had read these treatises, for burning of heretics, pro & contra, whereunto he sendeth us, to justify his saying of large books written on both parts? but in truth he either never saw the books, or else he is the most impudent forger, that ever was heard of: for Fckius in his little book, called Encheridion, loco 27. de hereticis Comburendis, which is but a short section or Chap er, doth not charge Luther with this opinion, of heretics not to be burned; but the Donatists, whose fancy is renewed again in the Anabaptists, and Libertines. As for Luther Contra Latomum deincendiariis, handleth not this controversy at all, but only expostulateth with the divines of Louane, which burned his books without examination, or Conviction of them, out of the word of God. Many men have complained, and that most justly, of the cruelty of the Papists in burning as heretics, the true saints, martyrs, and members of the Church, whose faith and religion they were never able to convince of heresy, by the authority of god's word. But that no blasphemer or obstinate heretic, maintaining blasphemy against the express and manifest truth of God, is to be punished by death, I am persuaded he can bring no book or author of any account, that so holdeth.  
fourthly, he addeth, that Luther by only scripture, found the sacramentaries to be heretics. D. Fulk by the same scripture findeth that both parties are good Catholics. But as Luther erred in his opinion of the sacrament, so he was over rash in condemning those whom he calleth sacramentaries: nevertheless seeing he erred of ignorance, and inconsiderate zeal, he hath found mercy with God, and is not to be adjudged as a blasphemous heretic. For neither the error he maintained is blasphemy in itself, neither did he hold it contrary to his knowledge, but as he was ignorantly persuaded with zeal of truth, though deceived with error. How Doctor Fulke proveth this not only by scripture, but also by example of ancient fathers, erring in like cases, and yet not to be condemned for heretics, you may read in the place by this answerer quoted, and in his confutation of Popish quarrels.  
His last example is of many things which Master Whitgift doth defend against Thomas Cartwright, to be lawful by scripture, as Bishops, Dcanes, Archdeacon's, officials, holy days, and an hundredth more, which in Geneva are holden to be flat conirarie to the scripture. There are many things lawful by scripture, which yet are not necessary to be used. The form of external government and discipline of the Church is not so expressly set down in holy scriptures, but that every particular Church hath liberty, and must of necessity appoint many things for order, decency, and government, which are not in express terms contained in the scriptures, even as god shall give them grace to see what is most expedient, according to the difference of times, places, and persons, for the building up of the Church, in truth and love. Wherefore although the Church of Geneva in the form of outward regiment, rites, and discipline, differing from the Church of England, do not use the same things that we do, yet it followeth not that they hold them to be flat contrary to the scripture, neither is our answerer able soundly to prove, that he doth so boldly assure.  
To proceed, he telleth us what advantage herctikes have by only scripture: they make themselves thereby judges of Doctors, Counsels, histories, presidents, cusiomes, prescriptions, yea of the books of scripture, & sense itself, reserving all interpretation to themselves. But this is nothing so, for howsoeverheretikes take upon them to control all things, according to their fantasy, yet have they no advantage by only scripture, but thereby may be, & are confounded, when they come to examination & tri all. And as for the professors of the Gospel, which acknowledge the scripture to be sufficient to teach all 
joh 5.  things needful to be knowneunto salvation, although they are by god himself made judges of the spirits of all men, by exacting them unto the trial of the word of 
Iho. 17.  god, which is the only certain rule of truth, yet do they not by private authority judge of councils, doctors, fathers, customs, etc. But by that charge, which is laid upon them to judge, & condemn, even the Angels 
Gal. 1.  from heaven, if they should bring any other Gospel, then that which the Apostles have preached; without all arrogancy or insolency against the Angels, Counsels, Doctors, Fathers, & whatsoever: but in giving god the glory, to be only true, & all men to be liars, & no Angel to be credited, except they speak by the spirit of God; of whose speech we have no certain demonstration, but in the holy scriptures, & whatsoever is agreeable unto them. The discerning of the books of scripture, & of the true sense of them, is also committed unto the Church, & the faithful members thereof, that doubtful books be judged by those that without doubt are indicted by the holy ghost, & delivered to the Church by faithful witnesses & instruments of the holy ghost, to be of sovereign and perpetual authority in the Church, and so are known and taken of the true Church from time to time, in such sort, that although the same truth may be found in other books, yet (as Saint Augustine saith) they are not of the same authority, because there is not such certainty of truth. As for the sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures, it must be taken out of the scriptures themselves, which are always the best and surest interpretation of themselves, in all points necessary to be known, with the aid of the gift of tongues, the gift of knowledge, the gift of interpretation, in them that have laboured in finding out the sense thereof, according to the analogy of faith, which is comprehended in the scriptures, and that in places so plain and evident, as they need no interpretation, and therefore cannot be wrested by damnable heretics without great impudency, and against their own conscience: for which cause Saint Paul willeth an heretic after the first & second admonition to be avoided, as one who though he will not acknowledge the truth, yet he is condemned in his own conscience, and sinneth unto eternal damnation. Wherefore councils, Fathers, Doctors, customs, examples, are by us admitted, but not hand over head, without distinction, but such, & so far forth, as they be true and faithful interpreters of the scripture, by matters and places plain, & certainly known, opening matters & places obscure and unknown. Which is the office of an expounder, & not to determine by his own authority of another's meaning, whereof, as among men, every man is the best in terpreter of his own, so is the holy ghost of himself, in the scriptures by him inspired: of whose meaning, where they be hard to be understood, no man can be certain, but either by his own plain words, or by plain & necessary conclusion out of his plain words.  
Now touching the Papists, whom our answerer saith to be restrained from chopping and changing, affirming and denying at their pleasures, because they bind themselves to other things beside the scriptures (to which they give sovereign authority) as to councils, ancient fathers, traditions of the Apostles, and primative Church, with the like, the matter is far otherwise. For whatsoever they prate of the sovereignty of the scriptures, of the authority of counsels, ancient fathers, traditions of the Apostles, and primitive Church; they bind themselves to nothing, but to the present Pope's authority and determi nation in things, which he may chop and change at his pleasure, against which they admit neither scripture, Council, Fathers, nor Church. For example briefly. The scripture most plainly forbiddeh the worshipping of Images. will they give sovereign authority to the scriptures? All the primitive Church for six hundred years after Christ, condemned the worshipping of Images, even Pope Gregory that allowed the use of them: shall the authority of the primative 
Greg. ep. lib. 7. ep. 109. Se reno. & lib: 9 ep. 9 Sereno. Theod. dial: 2 Gelasius count Eutych  Church, or of Pope Gregory in this point overrule them? No, I warrant you: they will set them all to school, and learn them a new lesson. Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus, and Gelasius Bishop of Rome, do in plain words affirm, that the substance of bread and wine doth remain in the lords supper after consecration: doth either the antiquity of these fathers, or the determination of the Bishop of Rome, which otherwise they affirm never to err in doctrine, prevail with them against their new here sie of transubstantiation? The councils of Constantiople the first, and of Chalcedon decreed, that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal authority and dignity with the Bishop of Rome. The councils of Constans and basil determined, that the Council is above the Pope. The counsels of Constantinople the sixth and Nice the second, condemned the Pope for an heretic: will the Papists of these days, trow you, stand to the determination of these councils? you may be assured they will not. But the traditions of the Apostles they hold fast, and bind themselves unto: yea verily, as long, and as much as they list. What beareth a greater show of the Apostles traditions, than the Canons of the Apostles? which excommunicate 
Can. 6.  a Bishop, priest or deacon, that putteth away his wife under pretence of religion: which excommunicate any of the clergy that is present at the communion, & doth not communicate, 
Can. 8.  except he show a cause why he doth not. Which admmitted him, that is maimed in his eye or other parts of his body, being otherwise worthy, unto the office of a Bishop, because the maim of the body doth not pollute a man, but the 
Can. 77.  filthiness of the souls. These & such like traditions of the Apostles, how are they regarded of our Traditioners? even as much as they list; and that is never a whit at this time: and yet these men bind themselves to councils, Fathers, traditions, primitive Church, you see how far. Yea you see, that while they rail upon us, for appealing to only scriptures, they themselves rely upon the present Pope's authority only. Let all indifferent men therefore judge, whether it be more safe for a Christian man, to bind himself to the authority of scriptures only; or to the Pope's authority only? and whether claim a privilege of ease, they that will admit no testimony irrefragable, but only the scripture; or they which chattering of many other things, in the end conclude upon the Church only, which when it cometh to trial, is nothing else but the Pope only: for if all the Church say it, and the Pope deny it, it is nothing worth with them: and if the Pope affirm it, though all the Church deny it, it must stand for payment.  
But seeing the sense and interpretation of scripture, is the chief matter we have to speak of, let us consider, whether Master Charke be justly charged by our answerer, to have abused that scripture by interpretation, which is the chief ground of his preface, and which he saith, is a full and plain rule, whereby to discern and try the spirits: namely the text of Saint john. 1. john. 4. Every spirit which confesseth jesus Christ being come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit, which confesseth not jesus Christ being come in the flesh, is not of God, and this is that spirit of Antichrist, etc. This text Master Charke doth so expound, as that it containeth a confession, not only of the person of Christ, but also of his office, for which office sake, that wonderful person of God and man, jesus Christ, was ordained, and sent into the world, to be a Prophet alone to teach, a King alone to rule, a Priest alone to sanctify us, and to reconcile us to his father, by the obedience of faith. And if any spirit shall teach, that Christ is not our only teacher, by his Gospel, but that we must admit unwritten belief, and traditions, from we know not whom, to be of like authority with the written word: secondly, if any spirit make not Christ alone our King, and head to rule us by his holy spirit, but teach, that a mortal and sinful man must sit in our consciences, and for hatred or gain (which is his practice) bind or lose at his pleasure: lastly, if any spirit impeach the all-sufficiency and entire virtue of Christ's sacrifice, offered up once for ever, and teach that themselves must enforce it from day to day, by the continuance of their daily sacrifice of the Mass, offered for the quick and the dead; it appeareth manifestly that such spirits are not of God, etc. This interpretation of Master Charke (saith the answerer) containeth many absurdities. For first the ancient fathers did expound this place (as of itself it is most evident) against the jews, which denied Christ to have taken flesh, also against Ebion, Cerinthus, and other heretics, that denied the Godhead of Christ. Note here by the adversaries confession, that some places of scripture are of themselves most evident, whereof this is one against the jews & other heretics, that deny the godhead of Christ. And I hope you shall see it shortly as evident against the Papists, that deny his offices. To this interpretation of the ancient fathers we agree, that whosoever denieth the person of Christ, or any thing proper to his person, is of Antichrist. But none of the ancient fathers do affirm, that this text is to be understood against such enemies only, as deny the Godhead or manhood of Christ. For Augustine and Oecumenius do interpret it against all heretics and schismatics, which, although they confess this matter in words, yet deny it in deeds: and Oecumenius against all wicked persons, which have not the spirit of Christ, mortifying their ungodly lusts, which carry not the mortification of Christ in their body, etc. Augustine also expoundeth the place against all that break charity. 
〈◊〉. joan. Tract. 7.  Omnes negant jesum Christum in carne venisse, qui violant charitatem. All they deny jesus Christ to have come in the flesh, which do break or violate charity. & why so? because not only the person that came, but the end why he came must be considered, in the interpretation of this place (as Saint Augustine rightly judgeth) or else all heretics will after a manner in tongue and words confess, that jesus Christ came in the flesh. But, Quaeramus (saith he) quare venerit in carne Christus, & inveniemus qui eum negant in carne venisse. Let us inquire wherefore Christ came in the flesh, and we shall find who they are, which deny him to have come in the flesh: For if you give heed to their tongues, you shall hear many heretics confessing, that Christ came in the flesh: but the truth convinceth them, wherefore came Christ in the flesh? was he not God? was it not said of him, In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God? did he not feed the Angels, and doth not he himself feed the Angels? did he not so come that he departed 〈◊〉 fromthence? did he not so ascend, that he did not forsake us? Then wherefore came he in the flesh? Because the hope of resurrection ought to have been showed unto us. He was God, and he came in the flesh, for God could not die, the flesh could: therefore he came in the flesh, that he might die for us. And how died he for us? No man hath greater love than this, to give his life for his friends: therefore love brought him to the flesh. Whosoever therefore hath not love, denieth Christ to have come in the flesh. It is manifest now by this discourse of Augustine, upon some particular causes of Christ coming in the flesh, that his chief and principal offices cannot be excluded in the right interpretation of this text, and therefore Master Charke hath rightly inferred, that whosoever denieth the offices of Christ, or any part of them, is no less confounded by this scripture, than they that deny his person, or any part, or essential property thereof: and that by the consent of the ancient father's exposition, without the which also the text is evident of itself. For the very names of jesus and Christ do comprehend his offices, which whosoever denieth, although in words he confess his person and names, doth make but an Idol of jesus Christ, whosoever therefore confesseth not Christ to be a Saviour, Prophet, King, and Priest, is not of God, but of Antichrist: he whosoever confesseth not that he is a whole and only Saviour: Prophet, King, and Priest, is of the same spirit of Antichrist, that denieth jesus Christ being come in the flesh: or, as the vulgar translation hath, that dissolveth jesus. For whosoever setteth up any other Saviour, Prophet, King, or Priest in that sense, that these offices pertain unto jesus Christ, dissolveth jesus, denieth jesus Christ to have come in the flesh, who came to be our only Master-teacher, according 
Mat. 23. 8.  to the manifest texts of scripture, which hath taught us all things, likewise our only spiritual King, & eternal 
Ihon. 4. 25.  and high priest, whose office both kingly and priestly, being confirmed to him by an oath, passeth 
Psa. 110. Heb. 7. 2. 24. joh. 18. 37. 1. Tim. 6. 5. Apoc. 17. 14. 19 16.  not from him unto any other in succession, but remaineth always the only mighty Prince, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. whosoever therefore derogateth from Christ any part of these dignities, & offices, denieth jesus Christ coming in the flesh, and so do the popish Catholics, or papists, by their doctrine of traditions, Pope's authority, sacrifice of the Mass and such like.  
Nay, saith the answerer, Martin Luther interpreteth this place, to be understood of M. Charke and his fellows, 
Tom. 7. Wittemb. Fol. 414.  saying, That spirit is not of God, but of Antichrist, which dissolveth Christ's flesh in the sacrament. It cannot be denied but Martin Luther was in this case to rash and presumptuous, in condemning other men for holding this, contrary to that wherein he erred himself. But this answerer is too impudent, to feign sayings & words of his, yea and to apply that which he said further than Luther himself doth. For first these words that are alleged as Luther's saying, are none of his, but forged by the answerer. secondly that which Luther saith, founding to such a matter, can not be drawn against M. Charke and his fellows, who maintain no such absurdity, as Luther in that place oppugneth. The very words of Luther in his book entitled deafen: verb: Caenae, Accipite, etc. are these. Quare in superioribus dixi hunc spiritum non esse bonum, neque per istos fanaticos homines quicquam boni machinari: quanquam existimem hos concionatores, contra quos haec scribuntur, nondum mali quicquam in animo habere. Sed bone Deus, non sunt sui ipsorum compotes. & continentes, à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & captivi tenentur. Quare eis nimium sidendum non ect. Nam spiritus qui Christi carnem dissoluit, non est à Deo, inquit joannes, idqque probam spirituum vult esse. Hic spiritus verè dissoluit carnem Christi, cùm came inutilem, pereuntem, & prorsus communem carnem affirmat, qualis est bovis aut vituli. Wherefore I said before that this spirit is not good, neither 
Luther speaketh against the rebellious rustical bou res principally, and the Anabaptistes.  goeth about any good thing, by these fantastical men (the rebellious bowers) although I suppose these preachers, against whom these things are now written, as yet to have none evil thing in their mind. But good God, they have no power nor hold of themselves, they are blinded and holden captive by a spirit, wherefore they must not be trusted too much. For that spirit which dissolveth the flesh of Christ, is not of God (saith Saint john) and that he will have to be the trial of spirits. This spirit in deed dissolveth the flesh of Christ, when it affirmeth, that it is unprofitable, perishing, and altogether common flesh, such as is the flesh of an Ox or a calf. This is Luther's saying: now it is certain that M Charke and his fellows do neithet think, nor speak so unreverently of the flesh of Christ, animated with his spirit, which they acknowledge to be very true meat, wherewith we are fed unto eternal life. They had some smack of Nestorianisme therefore, against whom Luther uttereth these words, from which M. Charke and his fellows, God be thanked, are free.  
But now cometh our answerer, after he hath forged a place of Luther, and hammered it out against Master Charke, to marvel that these men can find so many absurdities upon one sentence of scripture: and first he would ask, whether Master Charke thinketh, that the Papists do exclude Christ, when they allow Prophets, to teach under him, Kings to reign under him, Priests to sanctify under him, or no. As though there were no way for Papists to be guilty of Antichristianisme, except they did exclude Christ altogether; whereas it hath been proved, that whosoever doth not acknowledge the whole, and every part of his offices, is of Antichrist. As for Prophets, Kings, and Priests, to teach, reign, and sanctify under Christ, is not the matter in question, but to teach, reign, & sanctify beside Christ, to claim like authority in teaching, governing, & sanctifying with him: as to be fellow Prophets, fellow Kings, & fellow priests with him, to teach that Christ taught not, to make articles of faith, to dispense against God's commandments, to make laws to bind the conscience of men, to sanctify them by their work, whom Christ by his only oblation hath made perfect for ever. They that hold these points, deny Christ to be a perfect Prophet, King, and Priest. But these be deep mysteries of puritanism, saith the answerer, Christ is a Prophet alone, a King alone, a Priest alone: the overthrow of all government. No, sir, no: to acknowledge Christ to be our only Prophet, king, and priest, overthroweth not, but establisheth all power, that is ordained under him to teach, govern, and sanctify. The scripture in deed Eph. 4. & Acts. 5. doth allow Prophets and teachers in the Church, but not authors of new doctrine, no makers of new articles of faith, no traditions beside the Gospel of Christ, which is written, that we might believe, and believing have eternal life in his name. The scripture alloweth 
joh. 20. 31.  Kings, and rulers, 1. Pet. 2. Act. 2. but the scripture giveth no authority to any king or ruler, to dispense against the laws of God, nor to any Prophet or priest, to discharge subjects of their oath made to their lawful Prince, to bind the conscience of man with new constitutions, as necessary to salvation, etc. But whereas you ask, whether Priests may not sanctify by the word of god, 2. Tim. 4. you are near driven for proofs. For to omit that the Chapter you quote, hath never a word either of priests or sanctifying, and to take your meaning to be of 1. Tim. 4. verse. 5. the Apostle speaketh not of the Priest, or ecclesiastical ministers power of sanctifying, but of every Christian man, and woman, to whom every creature of God, in the right use thereof, is sanctified, by the word of God and prayer: and against them that forbidden things consecrated and allowed by God (as matrimony, and meats sanctified by his word, that hath given them to be received with thanksgiving, and by the prayer of the thankful receiver, as a mean to obtain sanctification 
Apoc. 15. 4.  from God, who only is holy, and therefore hath only power properly to sanctify) and to enjoin, as more holy by their own making, and not by God's sanctification, virginity then matrimony, fish then flesh, yca take upon them to sanctify God's creatures in an other use than God hath appointed them, as water, fire, garments, boughs, flowers, bread and such like, for religion, and sanctifying of Christian men.  
Again he asketh, what do the traditions of Christ and his Apostles (for of those only they talk, when they compare them with scripture) impeach the teaching of Christ and his Apostles? I answer, there are no traditions of Christ and his Apostles, pertaining to a Christian 
joh. 20. 31. Luk. 1. 3. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Act. 24. 14. Act. 26. 22.  man's duty to obtain erernall life, but those that be comprehended in the holy scriptures, as the spirit of God in the scripture, which cannot lie, doth testify. And therefore, they are the traditions of men, and not of Christ and his Apostles, that areso called, under which title all heresies & fancies may be brought in, without testimony of the written word of God. Wherefore such traditions do greatly impeach the office of Christ's teaching, reproving his Apostles and Evangelists of imperfection, if they have not comprehended the sum of all that Christ taught, and did for our salvation which Saint Luke in the beginning of his Gospel, doth profess that he hath done and that very exactly. And further it is false, that our answerer saith, they talk of the traditions of Christ and his Apostles only, when they compare them with scripture. For they compare the decrees, of their Pope, and of their general councils allowed by him, to be of equal authority with the holy scriptures, as well as traditions.  
secondly he asketh: what doth the spiritual authorttie of the Pope under Christ, diminish the Kingly power, and authority of Christ? I answer, the Pope hath no spiritual authority under Christ, by any grant of Christ, but he usurpeth authority above Christ, when he will control the laws and institutions of Christ, as denying the cup of blessing unto the lay people, and in taking upon him to make new laws, and to enjoin men to observe them in pain of damnation, as be his laws of abstinence from marriage and meats, for religions sake, which Christ hath left free for all men, even for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the Church, and in an hundred matters beside.  
Last of all he asketh, How doth the priesthood of men, as from Christ, or the sacrifice of the altar instituted by Christ, disgrace Christ's priesthood, or his sufficient sacrifice once for all offered on the cross? I answer, the priesthood of reconciling by sacrifice, doth not pass from Christ to any man, because he hath by one sacrifice made perfect for ever, all that are sanctified, and liveth for ever to make intercession for us, therefore hath (as the Apostle saith) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a priesthood that passeth not to any other in succession, 
Heb. 7. 24.  as Aaron's priesthood did, whereby he is able to save for ever, those that come unto God by him. Again, I deny that Christ did institute that sacrifice of the altar, whereof there is no word in all the scripture, and therefore a new priesthood, and a new sacrifice must needs be blasphemous against the eternal priesthood, of Christ, and that one sufficient sacrifice which he offered, and thereby found eternal redemption.  
The texts alleged by Master Charke. Heb. 7. & 9 he saith do not impeach this daily sacrifice of theirs, because they grant that sacrifice once offered, etc. in that manner, as it was then done, meaning bloodelie, whereas they offer it unbloodelie, etc. But the whole discourse of the Aposile throughout the whole epistle almost, excludeth all repetition of that sacrifice in any manner. For therepetition of the same sacrifice, should argue imperfection in it, 
Heb. 10. 11. Heb. 9 22. Heb. 9 25. 26. Heb. 〈◊〉. 25  as it did in the jewish sacrifices, and without shedding of blood there is noremission of sins. Is Christ should be often offered, he should often suffer. All which being impossible, it remaineth that as Christ offered himself but once, and not often; so no man hath authority or power to offer him any more: neither is there any need he should be more than once offered, seeing by that one oblation, he hath made perfect for ever, all that are sanctified, 
Heb. 9 12. Heb. 10. 14.  and hath found eternal redemption for all that believe in him. But for proof that there must be such a daily sacrifice in the Church, until the end of the world, he alledgeiu the prophecy of Daniel. 12. & Malachi 1. whereas Daniel speaketh of the daily sacrifice of the Law, which should cease in the persecution of Antiochus, and be 
Dan. 9  utterly abolished by the death of Christ. And Malachic of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which by all nations is offered, as a pure sacrifice, and 
Heb. 13. 15.  acceptable to him, through Christ. The former exposition is allowed by S. Jerome to be verified of Antiochus in a type of Antichrist, who shall forbid culium Dei, the worship of God, which doth not require any 
Dan. 12.  such sacrifice, neither is the word sacrifice in the Hebrew text of Daniel. And therefore it is an unlikely place to prove a sacrifice propitiatory of the body of Christ in the Mass. The prophecy of Malachi by general consent almost of all ancient fathers, is expounded as I have said, of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which is offered at all times by the faith full: and especially in the celebration of the Lords supper. But most clearly Instinus Martyr in his Dialogue against the jews, speaking of the very same text of Malachi, and the sacrifices that are offered in all places by the gentiles, that is the bread of thanksgiving, and the cup of thanksgiving: hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. For I myself do affirm, that prayers, and thanksgiving made by worthy persons, are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God. For these are the only sacrifices that Christians have received to make, to be put in mind by their dry and moist nourishment, of the passion, which God the son of God, is recorded to have suffered for them. If prayers and thanksgiving be the only sacrifices, which Christians have received to offer, and are the only perfect, and acceptable sacrifices to god, as justinus in plain words affirmeth, where is the unbloody sacrifice of the natural body and blood of Christ, yea of Christ himself unto god his father? If prayers and thanksgiving be the only pure sacrifice prophesied by Malachi, then is not the natural body of Christ offered in the Mass; neither hath the Church any such sacrifice. And although the ancient fathers, often times do call, the celebration of the lords supper a sacrifice, yet you see by the judgement of justinus, how they are to be understood, of a spiritual sacrifice, of prayer and thanksgiving for the death of Christ on the cross, and our perfect redemption thereby: which also they called an unbloody sacrifice 
Indeclar. Anath: 11. Orat. In jul.  sometimes, as cyril and Nazianzen in the place by the answerer quoted, but either in the same places, or some other of their works, they do evidently declare, that they meant no sacrifice propitiatory of the natural body of Christ, but of praise and thanksgiving, for the only insacrificable sacrifice of Christ's 
In sanct. pasor at. 4.  passion, as Gregory Nazianzen doth call it. Saint Augustine also in the place by the answerer quoted, 
Cont. Faust l. b. 20 Cap. 21.  showeth plainly, that this sacrifice of praise is celebrated, by the sacrament of remembrance of the flesh and blood of Christ, which in truth itself was offered in the passion of Christ. Sed quid agam, etc. But what shall I do, and when shall I make demonstration to so great blindness of these heretics, what force that hath which is song in the Psalms: The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me, and there is the way where I will show my saving health? The flesh & blood of this sacrifice, before the coming of Christ, was promised by oblations of similitudes: in the passion of Christ by the truth itself it was yielded: after the ascension of Christ by the sacrament of remembrance it is celebtated. Who seethe not here, a manifest opposition between yielding by the truth itself, and celebrating by a sacrament of remembrance.  
But that the sacrifice of the Mass, is the same that was offered on the cross, differing but in the unbloody manner of oblation, Saint chrysostom (saith out answerer) doth prove at large upon the epistle to the Hebrews. Hom. 17. whom if Master Charke and his fellows would not disdain to read, and believe, they would be ashamed to cavil and blaspheme gods mysteries, as they do. The place of chrysostom hath been often alleged on both parts: by the Papists, for a show and a colour of the matter: by the other side, for a manifest demonstration, that chrysostom (as he doth interpret himself) maketh nothing for the Popish sacrifice of the Mass, but altogether against it. His words are these, after he hath showed the imperfection of the legal sacrifices, by the often repeating of them, Then what do we every day? do we not offer? yes we offer, but we make the remembrance of his death: and this is one sacrifice, and not many. How is it one, and not many? Seeing it was once offered, it was carried into the holy of holies. This thing is a figure or type of that sacrifice, & this sacrifice of that. For we offer the same always, not now an other, but always the same. Therefore it is one sacrifice by this reason: otherwise because it is offered in many places, are there many Christ's? Not so, but one Chrisi every where, both here full and perfect, & there full and perfect. one body. Therefore as being offered in many places, it is one body, and not many bodies, so is it one sacrifice. He is our high priest, which offered that sacrifice, which maketh us clean. the same do we offer now also, which then was offered, which can not be consumed. This is now done in the remembrance of that which was then done. For do ye this (saith he) in remembrance of me: we do not offer an other sacrifice, as the high Priest, but the same always: but rather we work the remembrance of a sacrifice. These words of chrysostom declare, that the name of sacrifice, is un properly given to the celebration of the Lords supper, which is rather a remembrance of a sacrifice, than a sacrifice indeed. secondly, that retaining the name of a sacrifice, there is great difference between it, and the sacrifice of Christ: for the thing here offered, is a type of that which was offered there, and this sacrifice, is a figure of that sacrifice. thirdly Christ offered the only sacrifice propitiatory, that purgeth away sins: this oblation is but a remembrance of that, to stur us up to thankfulness for that, and to confirm our faith in our spiritual nourishment, by that body and blood which was once offered for all, never to be repeated. So that Master Charke and his fellows have not chrysostom their adversary in this place, but receive great light by this exposition of the name sacrifice, which is not properly so to be called, but rather a remembrance of a sacrifice. And it is not to be doubted, but that other ancient fathers used the name of sacrifice in the same sense that chrysostom did.  
The answerer referreth his reader further to Theodoret, and Saint Augustine, who handleth this question, why Christians do now use to sacrifice, seeing the old law with all sacrifices were abolished, by the one sacrifice of Christ. You may see by this that our answerer hath more care to point his margin with quotation of the Doctors, which the ignorant can not read, than he hath judgement to consider what the Doctors write. For this place of Theodoret is clean contrary to the sacrifice propitiatory of the Mass. The words are these of the translation of Gentianus Heruetus, a man not to be suspected of Papists: Siergo & Sacerdotium quod est ex lege, finem 〈◊〉, & Sacerdos qui est secundùin ordinem 
Theodoret. 〈◊〉 ep. ad heb. cap. 8.  Melchisedech, obtulit sacrificium, & effecit ut alia sacrificia non essent necessaria, cur novi testamenti Sacerdotes, mysticam liturgiam seu sacrificium peragunt? Scd clarumest iis qui sunt in rebus divinis eruditi, nos non aliud sacrificium offer, sed illius unius & Salutaris memoriam peragere. Hoc enim nobis proecepitipse dominus. Hoc facite in meam recordationem, ut per figurarum contemplationem, earum quoe pro nobis susceptoe sunt, perpessionum recordemur, & in benefactorem benevolentiam couseruemus, & futurorum bonorum perceptionem expectemus. 〈◊〉 therefore the priesthood which is of the law, hath received an end, and the Priest which is after the order of Melchisedech hath offered sacrifice, and brought to pass, that other sacrifices should not be necessary; why do the Priests of the new testament celebrate a mystical liturgy or sacrifice? But it is clear to them that are instructed in divine matters, that we do not offer an other sacrifice, but do celebrate a remembrance of that one and healthful sacrifice. For this our Lord himself commanded us, Doyee this in remembrance of me, that by contemplation of the figures, we might remember the passions that were suffered for us, and continue good will towards our benefactor, and wait for the fruition of good things to come. This saying of Theodoretus, is a full and large answer in deed to the objection by him made, of the unproper term of sacrifice, whereby the celebration of the Lords supper was commonly called in his time, but it is nothing favourable to the Popish sacrifice of the Mass, yea rather it showeth the right use and end of the sacrament, which is an holy memorial of Christ's sacrifice, not the same sacrifice itself, nor any sacrifice propitiatory, but only eucharistical, of praise and thanksgiving. The other author, to whom our answerer referreth his reader, is Saint Augustine. Ep. 23. ad Bonifacium, who proposeth this doubt (saith he) how we sacrifice Christ every day upon the altar, seeing he is said to be sacrificed once for all upon the cross. But in deed the question he answereth, is, how the godfathers in baptism answer, that the infants do believe, whereas they do neither believe in deed, and it is uncertain whether they will believe: for resolution of which question, he bringeth in example of the Lords supper, called the body of Christ, and a sacrifice, whereas it is not properly either of both, but a sign, sacrament, and memorial of those things: so is baptism called faith, and infants said to believe, when they are baptized: his words are these, often alleged against the Papists: Nempe saepe it a loquimur, etc. Verielie we do often times speak so, that when Easter is at hand, we say, to morrow, or the next day after, is the passion of our Lord, whereas he hath sufferrd so many years passed before, and that passion was suffered but once in all. For on the very sunday we say: This day our Lord arose again, whereas there are so many years passed since he arose again. Why is no man so foolish, that would charge us to have lied, when we speak after this manner, but because we name these days, according to the similitude of those days, in which these things were done. So that the day is called the same, which is not the same, but in revolution of time like unto it, and the thing is said to be done on that day, for the celebration of the Sacrament, which is not done that day, but was done long before? was not Christ once offered in himself? and yes in the sacrament, not only in every solemnity of Easter, but every day he is offered for the people, neither doth he make a lie, which being asked the question, shall answer that he is offered? for if Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things, where of they are sacraments, they should be no sacraments at all: And of this similitude for the most part, they take the names even of the things themselves. Therefore even as after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ, is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ; so the sacrament of faith is faith. And to believe is nothing else but to have faith. And by this, when it is answered that the child believeth, which as yet hath not the effect of faith, it is answered that he hathfaith, because of the sacrament of faith, & to convert himself to God, because of the sacrament ofconuersion, because the answer itself pertaineth to the celebration of the sacrament. As the apostle, of baptism itself saith, we are buried with Christ by baptism unto death. He saith not we signify his burial, but plainly, we are buried with him. Wherefore he called the sacrament of so great a matter by none other name, then of the very thing itself. This answer of Saint Augustine, how full and large it is, in that sense the Papists defend their sacrifice of the Mass, or rather how directly contrary to the same, I refer to the judgement of any indifferent reader, that with any conscience will consider it. Neither hath Eusebius. Demonstr, Eua. lib. 1. cap. 6, or 10. nor Theophilact, although a late writer, in cap. 5. ad Heb. any thing that may uphold the Popish propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass. Eusebius verily hath these words, to clear him both of the heresy of transubstantiation, and of the masking sacrifice, after he hath spoken of the dignity and sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ's passion. Having received to celebrate the remembrance of this sacrifice at the table, by the tokens or signs of his body and healthful blood, according to the rites of the new testament, we are again instructed by the Prophet David to say, Thou hast prepared a table in my sight against mine enemies, etc. By which words it is manifest, that Eusebius acknowledged no sacrifice of the natural body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, but a memory of that only sacrifice celebrated in the symbols or tokens of his body and blood. Likewise in the exposition of the prophecy of Malachy he saith, That God by the voice of the Prophet having refused the sacrifices after Moses, doth by oracle declare what should be done of us, saying, For from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same my name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice: wherefore we sacrifice to god that is above all, the sacrifice of praise. we sacrifice a divine, reverent, and holy sacrifice: we sacrifice after a new manner, according to the new testament, a pure sacrifice: and the sacrifice to God is said to be a broken spirit, for a contrite and humbled heart God will not despise: and we do burn also the prophetical incense, offering to him the sweet smelling fruit of the most excellent divine contemplation, by those prayers that are sent up unto him. Thus much Eusebius of the sacrifice of Christians. As for Theophylact, in the place by him quoted, wherein either his Printer, or his note book hath deceived him, hath nothing touching this matter in question, but upon the 10. Chapter, he hath the very words of chrysostom, which I have set down at large before. Suboritur hîc quaestio, etc. Here riseth a question, whether we also do offer unbloody sacrifice: whereto I answer that we do certainly: but we keep a memory of the Lords death, and it is one sacrifice, and not mante, seeing he was offered up once for all. For we offer up the same always, but rather we keep the memory of that oblation wherein he offered him self, as if it were done even now. Thus none of the ancient writers, to whom he doth refer the reader, for defence of his Popish sacrifice, do speak any thing for it, and some of them do write directly against it.  
And now the answerer thinketh he might have ended his preface, but that he promised to show, that they offer most reasonable means of trial, and that we in deed admit none at all. Of both these parts we have spoken already, sufficiently to the conscience of all reasonable men, yet must we further answer to such matters, as he can object against us. And first he saith, All the controversy being not of the words, but of the sense of the scriptures, we admit no judge but ourselves. To this I answer first, that all the controversy is not about the sense only, but some about the words also; where we allege the interpretation of them out of the original tongues, and they will admit none, but the vulgar translation, which in many places is false, in some places also corrupted from the integrity in which it was first written. secondly, that we admit no judge of it, but ourselves, it is false of us, and true of them. For they admit no interpretation of the scripture, but that which their Church alloweth, which alloweth nothing, but that the present Pope alloweth, whom they make judge of all interpretation, and to whose judgement they will all stand: Conttariewise, we take upon us no judgement, but that which is common to all men, by reason and learning to weigh all things that are brought unto us, the chief judge or rule to judge by, being the holy scriptures, in places of themselves evident and confessed, or to be confessed by right reason, of all that acknowledge the authority of the scriptures, by them to find out the obscurities of such places as are hard, and have need of interpretation.  
But if they bring scripture (saith he) never so plain, yet will we shift it of, with some impertinent interpretation, whereof he bringeth two, or three examples, in which you shall plainly see, how like a Papist he handleth himself, in all kind offalshood and treachery. The first example is this. The most of the ancient fathers writ books in praise of virginity above wedlock, and used to prove it by the saying of Christ: There be eunuchs which have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven: he 
Math. 19  that can take it, let him take it. Also by the words of Saint Paul, he that joineth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he 
I. Cor. 7.  that joineth her not, doth better. Which words being alleged against M. Luther, who preferred marriage (yea though it were of a vowed Nun) before virginity, he answered it thus, That Christ by his words terrified men from virginity, and continency, 
Lib. de vot. Monast. in 〈◊〉.  and Saint Paul by this speech did dissuade them from the same. Now what could be replied (saith he) in this case trow you? He beginneth with a lie, and so he holdeth on. For the most of the ancient fathers have not written books in praise of virginity above wedlock, neither is he able to prove, that the one half of them have wri ten books of that argument, although many of them have in their writings mentioned that comparison. secondly, in the state of the controversy, he offereth us shameful injury: for we all confess, that in the respects named by our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles, virginity is better than marriage, in such persons, as have the gist of continency: but not in all respects, and namely not in such respects, as the Papists do prefer it, of merit for themselves and others, etc. nor in persons that lack that rare gift of continency. For neither Christ nor Saint Paul do say, that virginity meriteth more than marriage, or the profession of virginity in all men, though they have not the gift of continency, is better than a chaste life in holy matrimony. Wherefore that which we affirm against the Papists, is against that which they affirm, more than Christ or S. Paul spoke, and is more than by any lawful demonstration can be proved out of their words. thirdly, in rehearsing the text, against the plainness whereof he bringeth Luther's interpretation, he fraudulently leaveth out those words, whereupon the exposition of Luther is grounded, namely these words non omnes capiunt, etc. All men are not capable of this saying, 
Math. 19  but they to whom it is given. If you ask, of what saying? the text is plain, his disciples said unto him, If the cause of aman and his wife be so (that he may not be divorced but for adultery) it is not expedient to marry: but all men, saith Christ, do not receive, or cannot take this saying. For there be three kinds of eunuchs, or gelded men, the third only being voluntary, and for an excellent end, is commendable, so it be given unto him, that he may take it. He that can take it, let him take it. Is it not evident by this text, that Christ terrifieth all such men from this high attempt, to whom it is not given, and exhorteth them only which have the gift to use it. Now to come to Luther's interpretation: First he saith, that Luther preferreth Marriage before virginity, yea though it were of a vowed Nun. This as it is simply set down, is a loud lie: for Luther acknowledgeth the preferment of virginity before marriage, in persons having the gift, and for the end and respects by Christ and Saint Paul named, as by his own words in diverse places of his works is manifest, and most plainly, Exege. ad. Cap. 7. Ep. ad Cor. 1. Nam sicubi coniugium quis cum coelibatu conferat, praestantius certè donum est coelibatus. For if a man compare marriage with virginity, virginity verily is a better gift. Concerning the marriage of a vowed Nun, if she have the gift of continency, and will renounce the superstitious and blasphemous end, for which she vowed virginity, and use it to the glory of God, you shall hear Luther's judgement. Nec ideo caelibatum & virginitatem reprobare mihi 〈◊〉 est, nec inde quenquam ad iugale vinculum invitare: quisque pro dono suo divinitus impartito ut potest feratur. For all this my mind is not to reject sole life & virginity, nor to allure any person from thence unto wedlock: let every man according to the gift given him of god, be carried as he may. But if your vowed Nun have not the gift of continency, Luther is not afraid to prefer chaste marriage before unchaste sole life, or the vow of virginity that is not kept: and this he learned of Saint Jerome and Epiphanius, against 
Ad Demetriadem. Cout. Apostolic. H. 61.  whom you may take your action, if yond cannot away with Luther's opinion.  
By this the indifferent reader may gather, how these words of Luther are to be understood, out of which our answerer bringeth example of absurd interpretation. 
De vot. mon.  At virginitas & caelibatus, etc. But virginity & sole life is a Counsel, Christ himself plainly did not counsel it, but rather feared men from it: he only showed it, and praised it, while he said to the mentioned eunuchs, he that can take it, let him have it: and again, all men are not capable of this saying: are not these the words of him that rather calleth back and frayeth from it? for he doth not invite & call any man, but only showeth it. Yet Paul saith, I give counsel: but neither doth he invite any man, but rather deterreth and calleth back while he saith, but every one hath his proper gift of God, he doth neither persuade, nor dissuade, but leaveth it indifferent and free. but our unclean wifeless men understand nothing else by counseling, but inviting, exhorting, calling, and persuading unto sole life, also to dissuade, dehort, call away, fray away from marriage, which thing they do in all their sermons and writings. Understand Luther here according as he expoundeth himself, that men void of the gift of continency are dissuaded from professing of virginity, and other which haveit, be at their liberty to use it without compulsion, and there is not any absurdity in this interpretation, but the very pure and natural meaning of our saviour Christ and his Apostles sayings.  
The second example he taketh, is touching S. john Baptist, his being in the wilderness, his apparel of Camels hear, his meat, locusts & wild honey, of which the old fathers do gather a singular & great austerity of 〈◊〉, & do affirm that Eremites & Monks & other religious people, did take their pattern of strait living from him. In this example are two things, the austerity of S. john's life, & the pattern of Monks. The former we all confess, the second can not be proved out of this place, because the calling of S. john was singular, neither do all, or most of the old fathers in exposition of this text affirm this pattern, & they that do affirm it, speak of the solitary men of their time, not of the false and counterfeit Eremites, Monks, and Friars of these times, whom proudly & schismaticallie he calleth religious people: who neither in austerity of life, nor exercises of godliness, nor in the end of their profession, are any thing like the other, but in name only: and yet we can not defend the other in all points. Now what saith our answerer upon this example? For this cause (saith he) Saint chrysostom doth often call S. john Baptist, Monachum, & principem vitae Monasticae, a Monk, & Prince of Monastical life, which Protestants being not able to abide, do rage marvelously against Saint chrysostom, condemning him of rashness and falsehood for using those terms. I pray you note his liberal speeches: Saint chrysostom doth often call john Baptist a Monk, and Prince of the Monastical life, yet he noteth not so much as one 
In Mar. ho. 1.  place where he so calleth him. He quoteth in deed the Centuries, Cen. 5. C. 6. pag. 711: who note one place where he calleth him the Prince of Monks, but Monachum, & principem vitae Monasticae, I know not where, and I am persuaded, that no where chrysostom hath these words of Saint john Baptist. But how do the Protestants rage so marvelously against him? The words of the Centuriastes be these: Similia, immo fere, etc., The like, yea more superstitious things doth chrysostom report of Monks, and first he maketh john Baptist Prince of all Monks, in deed somewhat rashly, and against the truth of the thing. H. 1. in Eva Mar. Again, H. 69. in 21. Mat. he cometh forth a 〈◊〉 into great commendation of them. For he saith, they dwell in hills and valleys, and being unmarried, do lead an Angelic life, and talk freely with God, that their soul is without all grief and passion, and their body is such as adam's was, before his sin, and this contrary to the doctrine of original sin. The rest that he reporteth of them are good and godly, and not to be found in the bastard Monks of these days, yea he would have all married men to lead their life in obedience of Christ's commandments, saying, that Christ hath not commanded men to seek godliness in the mountains, and wilderness. Neque enim Christus it a praecepit, etc. For Christ hath not so commanded. But how? let your light shine, saith he, before men, not before mountains, nor before the wilderness or secret places from the high ways. And this saying, I do not detract from them that keep the mountains, but I lament the inhabitants of cities, because they have banished virtue out of them.  
But how do Protestants interpret the words of scripture against the austerity of john Baptist? Marry first, saith he, by the desert, wherein he lived, until he began to preach, is understood nothing else but his private life at home in his father's house. For this is quoted, Sarcerius in 1. cap. Luc. & Cent. 1. l. r. cap. 20. How impudently he belieth Sarcerius, you shall see by his own words in the place quoted, upon this text, Et erat in desertis. Tam de vita, quàm de loco, intelliges deserta: nam & certum est johannem in deserto vixisse, fortassis ut vel loco ostenderet, atque ip sa vita, qualis suaforet doctrma: aliâs johannem fuisse in deserto, est johannem privatum vixisse, & educatum fuisse. And he was in the wilderness, etc. Thou shalt understand the wilderness as well of his life, as of the place: For both it is certain that john lived in the wilderness, peradventure that even by the place, and by his kind of life, he would show of what manner his doctrine should be: otherwise john to have been in the wilderness, is john to have lived and been brought up privately. How say you? doth Sarcerius understand nothing else but his private life in his father's house, when he expressly understandeth the word desert both of the place, and of his solitary or private education? But what say the Centuriastes? even to the same effect. Adolesientiae & junentutis studia, etc. The exercises or studies of his childhood and youth are not put in writing: Only Luke doth rehearse, that being a child he remained in the wilderness, until the time of his open showing, which is not to be understood of some den, altogether sequestered from the conversation of men: as though he had lurked there like a bear, and an hater of mankind, estranged from all humanity, as in latter times Eremites, and such like men feigned unto themselves superstitious service, but he was 
Luc. 1. 65.  brought up under the discipline of his parents, which dwelled in a place, lying in an hilly region, which was commonly called the wilderness: as we also speak in our vulgar language. To dwell by the forest Hercinia, am hartzowonen, that is, to dwell in towns near to the mountains. So afterward he baptizeth in the wilderness, that is, in places near jordane, where the mountains are not far of: and yet every where there were towns and villages. Thus it is plain, that the Centuriastes do understand by the wilderness, not only a private life in his father's house, but also his dwelling in the wilderness. Except our answerer (perhaps) doth think, that as soon as john Baptist was circumcised, he was cast out into a desert place, and not nourished in his father's house, nor by them instructed in godliness. The words of Lake are plain, Immediately after his circumcision. The child grew, and was strengthened in spirit, and was in the desert places, until the day of his open showing unto Israel. by which desert places, if he will understand none other, but a vast wilderness, void of all conversation of men, he must needs place him there in his infancy by the text, before he could go, speak, or help himself any more, than a child of eight days old. Again, he must tell us where this wilderness was, into which john was so translated: for the land of Israel, as it had many wild and solitary places, as every country hath, yet had it no such wilderness, as is imagined, but that was inhabited with towns and villages, and the grounds thereof occupied and frequented. Finally, he is meanly read in the scriptures, which knoweth not, that the word desert often signifieth the country, as it is opposite to the city, and frequency of men, and not always a barren forsaken land, as the desert of Arabia, through which the children of Israel passed from Egypt to Canaan.  
Now touching his apparel, how is it expounded by Protestants? The answerer's words are these. And for his apparel (say they) of Camels hear, it was not strange apparel, but usual to Mountain men, that is undulata, saith another, water-chamlet, handsome and decent, albeit somewhat plentiful in that country. For this is quoted, Marlorate in cap. 3. Mat. & Chytraeus in cap. 3. Math. The words of Marlorate are these: Hoc evangelista non memorat, etc. The Evangelist doth not rehearse this among his principal virtues, that being addicted to a rude and austere form oflife, he avoided even mean and usual neatness, but because he had said before, that he was a man of the mountains or wilderness, now he addeth, that his victuals and his apparel was agreeable to his dwelling. And this he reciteth, not only that we may know, that he being content with rustical victuals and apparel, sought after no delicacy, but that in this base and contemptible habit, he was of great estimation, even among them that were delicate and gallant. It satisficeth not the Papists, that he used a garment of small price, and great hardness, except it were of a strange and disguised fashion, such as no man used the like. And therefore in stead of a garment made of Camels hear, they clothe him in their Imagery, with a camels skin half naked, sometimes with the tail hanging between his legs, as Hercules in his lions skin is pourtraicted of the gentiles: although the express testimonies of the ancient writers are to the contrary. Therefore the Centuriasts writ thus ofhi apparel, to whom perhaps our answerer would be referred, because his quotation is before, etc. Fuit & vestitus & victus ratio peculiaris: His apparel, and manner of living was peculiar: which as in Prophets sometimes hath betokened the greatest matters, so also in this john his garment was woven of camels hear. Neither is it agreeable to truth, thatraw hydesweere so joined together, as some think, but he wore an usual kind of garment, such as they were clad in, which dwelled in those hilly places, namely base and rustical, lest any man should suspect, that he desired the greatest honours or the life of noble men, &. Again, Horridior quidem paulò, etc. His garment of Camels hear was somewhat rough, but yet strong and durable. You see these men acknowledge his garment to have been base, rustical, and rough, far from the daintiness, and bravery, that is commonly desired in apparel, although they think it was usual unto poor bowers of the country, that dwelled in the desert mountains, where he had his abode. But what is he, that saith his garment was of water-chamlet, handsome and decent, albeit somewhat plentiful in that country? Chytreus is noted on the 3. of Matthew, whose words are these: vestis johannis oer at contexta ex pilis Cameli, similis ei quam hody vulgo à camelis vocamus Kamelet, vel Shamlodt, Latinè undulatum. Non fuit sordida vestis, neque etiam valde pretiosa, sed mediocris, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & in iis locis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The garment of john was woven of camelsheares, like unto that, which of camels we commonly call chamlet, in Latin undulata. It was no filthy garment, nor again veric precious, but mean, and decent, and in those places easy to be gotten. Let us examine this saying, which soundeth most like to our answerer's charge. First, he saith not simply, that it was water chamlet, but like unto that, which is commonly called chamlet, because it is made of the same stuff, that is camels hear, yet differing much in fineness, and price, as hempen sackcloth differeth from silk sackcloth, and yet is woven like unto it: or as course cloth of tow, differeth from fine holland and camebrike, and yet is made of the same flax, and woven after the same manner. For of the fine and soft hears, of some called 
Non de lana camelina Chrysost. in opere imperfect. in 3. Mat. hom. 3.  the wool of camels, is made fine chamlet, grograine, and such like: of the course, hard, and bristelie hears, is made a comse cloth, like to the other, but ofsmall price, and for the use of rustical persons. Such one meaneth Chytraeus, that the garment of Saint john was. That he saith, it was not a filthy, or ill shapen garment, but decent, he speaketh it against the gross devise of the Papists, which in their pictures, do apparel the Baptist, in a raw camels skin, and that not shaped to cover his body, but that his arms, and his legs are bate. Saint Hicrome in Marc. saith, that by the camels hears, the riches of the gentiles are signified. Euthinius upon Mark also saith, that he was clothed in camels hears, non simpliciter incompositis, not simply disordered, but woven together, which seemeth to argue, that although there were no costlienesse, or delicacy, yet there was decency and comehenesse in the apparel of john Baptist.  
Now cometh our answerer to his diet with these words: And lastly, touching his diet of locusts and wild honey, it was no hard fare (say they) for the locusts were crevices, cast away by the fishers of jordane, as unclean by the law, but eaten of john by the liberty of the Gospel. First we will speak of the locusts, and afterward of the wild honey. For the locusts he quoteth, Magd. Cent. I. lib. I. Cap. 4. &. 6. where he reporteth the Protestants, to say it was no hard fare, he useth his accustomable boldness of impudent lying: for the Magdeburgianes, whom he citeth, say not so, but clean contrary. For when they have spoken of his apparel, and diet of locusts, and wild honey, Cent. I. lib. I. Cap. 10. p. 357: they conclude in these words, Tendebant autem ea omnia huc denique, ut constaret, johannem non captare imperia huius mundi, neque Christum: & ut haec vitae simplicitas & austeritas testaretur, non ob corporaliahuius vitae commoda, Christum accipiendum, qui spirirualia & 〈◊〉 bona largiretur. All these things tend to this end, that it might be manifest, that neither john nor Christ did seek the Empires of this world, and that this simplicity and austerine of life might testify, that Christ is not to be received for corporal commodities of this life, which giveth freclie spiritual and eternal good things. The Magdeburgians do here acknowledge a simplicity, and austerity of life: they do not say, it was no hard fare. But if they interpret those locusts to be crevices, which are a delicate fish with us, it could not be hard fare, whatsoever they say, as our answerer thinketh. Let us then hear their own words: but where shall we find them? Cap. 4. which he quoteth, containeth 50 great leaves, or more, which he that hath leisure may read over, and tell what he findeth to the purposeithe sixth Chapter hath even as much, saving that in it they say, that, Albeit john Baptist lined in the wilderness by jordane, yet was he no Monk, neither did he institute any Monkish or solitary kind of living. For he took his journey freely about those places whether he would, and did preach the doctrine of Messiah to the people, that flocked to him daily. That which perteineh to this purpose of locusts, is in the tenth Chapter, where their words are these. Cibus erat mel silvester, etc. His meat was wild honey, which the woods near hand did bring forth abundantly, as Samuel. 14. and locusts. But what manner of living thing this was, it is doubted among learned men. Some think it was a kind of Crabbe, somewhat like the locusts in shape, which the jewish fishers at jordan did cast on the banks, as meat forbidden by God. Leuit. II. Such also are certain Crabs that are bred in the Sea, of mean bigness, having a shell armed with many sharp pricks, wanting arms, and having somewhat longer legs. If that be so, john also did exercise an example of the liberty of the Gospel in that meat, which used fishes that were forbidden, that all men might know, that this Law of Moses was now abrogated. Other understand it of the land locust, the eating whereof is expressly permitted. levit. II. Dioscorides, lib. 2. cap. 44. writeth, that there is a certain kind of locust, which is called Asiracoes or Onos, which the people called Aphei dwelling about Leptis, do eat plentifully. Plinius li. II. cap. 29. saith, that locusts are a pleasant meat unto the Parthians, and that they are found in some places three foot long. It is manifest the Centuriaters do not affime that these locusts were crevices, but only they report the judgement of some men that so thought, themselves, rather allowing the common opinion, that they were land locusts, and in the end concluding, that whethersoever you take it, these matters declared a simplicity and austerity of his life. For admit they were fishes, yet to eat nothing, but such fishes, and wild honey, though it were never so sweet honey, would be counted but hard fare of my Lord fat Abbot, and his covent of Popish Monks. And it appeareth by the testimony of Pliny, that the land locusts are as pleasant in taste, as the shrimps or crevices. Saint 
in Mat. 3.  Jerome upon his diet noteth no more but this. Habitatori solitudinis, etc. For an inhabitant of the wilderness, it is meet not to follow the daintiness of meats, but to satisfy the necessity of the human flesh. A small repast to sustain nature, though it be of pleasant meat, and always the same, will prove no delicacy in any man. The elder writets were not all agreed what these locusts were. Euthimius reporteth that some affirmed, that they were the stalks of herbs, some that they were a certain herb called locusts, and other that they were the insect or flying vermin. Yet he himself holdeth the first. It is, I ween, no wrong interpretation, sometimes to declare the divers opinions of learned men, upon matters whereof question may be: wherefore neither the Magdeburgians, nor Chytreus, who reporteth the like opinion of the crevices, are to be charged with absurd interpretations, when either they leave the matter to the reader's judgement, or else they declare their own, without prejudice of other.  
Now touching the honey, our answerer's words are these. And the wild honey was no unpleasant thing, as the fathers do imagine, but it was (say Cossius and Strigelius) that pleasant Manna, which Apothecaries use to keep in their shops: so that according to these men, all that austerity of life which the scriptures so particularly do recount, and all antiquity doth wonder at, in Saint John Baptist, cometh but to this, that he was brought up privately in his father's house, clad in Chamlet, and fed with crevices and sweet Manna. what great hardness was this? First, where he saith, the fathers do imagine that the wild honey was an unpleasant thing, he bringeth none for proof, neither do I think he can bring in any more than Euthimius, 
In3. Mat.  Noah very ancient father, who saith in deed that this wild honey was made in the clefts of rocks, by wild Bees, and was bitter and unpleasant. But it is against all experience, that honey (though of wild Bees) should be bitter or unpleasant. Of honey that is 
Plin.  poisonous, we have read in them, that have observed the diversities thereof, but not of bitter honey. And the most ancient father's rook this wild honey to be sweet, and pleasant in taste, and thereof gather allegories, analogies, & anagogies. As Hilarius, which saith, that the locusts, are we the gentiles, before flitting, 
In Math. ca 2.  unprofitable, etc. But now are the food of the saints, and the filling of the Prophets, being chosen together with wild 〈◊〉, to give most sweet meat, of ourselves, not out of the hives of the law, but out of the stocks of wild trees. Likewise chrysostom upon Mark saith, that, Honey is a token 
Hom. 2.  of pleasure and sweetness, and cometh not only of flowers, but of every volisptuous thing, and therefore was not offered in the law, but now eaten of john, not in the Church, but without the Church. The author of the imperfect work hath these words: Et qui agrestium gentiuns, etc. And he which teaching the sweetness of faith of the wild gentiles 
Hom. 3. in 3. Mat.  that should be, etc. did eat wild honey. Saint Ambrose speaketh of it thus: Ecclesiae quoque gratia praefiguratur, etc. Also the grace of the Church is prefigured in wild honey, 
In Inc. lib. 2. In cap. 3.  not found within the hive of the law, of the swarm of the jewish people, but powered forth in the fields and leaves of the wood, by error of the gentiles, as it is written, we have found it in the fields of the wood. And he truly did eat wild honey, preaching that the people should be filled with honey out of the rock, as it is written: he filled them with honey out of the rock. Add hereunto Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, whose words are these. Thou seeft how excellent a man he hath chosen to be guide of this graet, possessing nothing at all, a lover of the wilderness, but not void of humanity, eating 
Catech. illust. min. 3.  locusts and preparing wings for the soul, eating honey and speaking things more sweet and profitable than honey. This testimony is the rather to be noted, because this man, being Bishop of jerusalem many years, might easily know, whether there were any bitter honey made in the wilderness about jordan, where john lived. But he acknowledgeth none but sweet honey. Beda also is a witness of good antiquity, for the sweetness of the honey, that john the Baptist did 
In Marc. 1. lib. 1.  eat. Locustas & mel siluestre edebat, quia dulce quidem, etc. He did eat locusts and wild honey, because his preaching savoured sweetly unto the multitude, while the people judged, and all men thought in their hearts of him, whether he were not Christ. But this opinion soon had an end, when his hearers understood, that he was not Christ, but the forerunner and Prophet of Christ. For in the honey there is sweetness, in the locusts swift flying; but some falling down. Last of all, as latest in time, I will join to these Theophilacte: who upon Matthew showeth, that wild honey is called that, which is made of wild Bees, and is found in trees and rocks, which no man will suspect to be bitter. But in the first of Mark he maketh the wild honey to signify the spiritual food of the people, which is the scriptures, etc. Quodammodo igitur & mel. After a sort also the people did eat honey, which being made by the Bees, the Prophets, not gotten with any husbandry, nor domestical, which was well understood, sought out and comprehended. The Hebrews truly had the scriptures, as a kind of honey, but they did not husband them, nor search them. This cloud of witnesses doth prove most evidently, that the greatest part of the ancient fathers did not imagine that the wild honey was unpleasant of taste, as our answerer would have it be thought; but that it was as honey, naturally sweet of itself, although the continual eating there of did make it not delectable, as experience showeth, that the most daintic meat often eaten, is loathsome. Now whether it were honey made of Bees, or dewhony, called in the Apothecary's shops Manna, it skilleth not much, seeing the one is as sweet as the other. But where our answerer citeth Cossius, either his notebooke deceived him, or else goodman corrector was studying of his declension, when he should have looked to his office, wherein he hath failed in quotation, three or four times together. There is one Lossius in deed, who upon Mar. 1. thinketh the wild honey was this due honey which falleth upon the leaves of trees, and at this day is brought from the country near unto jordan. Chytreus and others think the same, citing Galen. lib. 3. de alim. facult, and Diodor, Sicul. pag. 691. to show the plenty of it in those parts. But what of this? doth Lossius hereof gather that it was no hard fare? his words are clean contrary in the same place. Describit evangelista singularem continentiam, & duritiem vitae johannis. The Evangelist doth describe (saith he) the singular continency, and hardness of the life of john. Last of all, are Lossius, Strigelius, and the Protestants of this time (think you) the first authors of this opinion, that wild honey is the due honey upon the leaves of trees? No verily. For Ambrose (as we have heard before) maketh mention of honey spread on the leaves of the woods. And 
In3. mat. lib. 1.  Beda upon Matthew is very plain that it was so. Porro mel syluestre, folia sunt arboris, mirae dulcedinis, quod doctri nae johannis nimiam suavitatem ostendit. Now the wildehonie are leaves of a tree of merucylous sweetness, which showeth the exceeding great sweetness of john's doctrine. So that Lossius, and Strigelius, are not the first writers that brought this opinion into the Church, which obtained many hundred years, before they were borne, as our answerer might have known, if he had been as well read in the ancient Doctos, as he is bold to crack of all antiquity, whereof he never tasted, but in notebooks, Dictates, or common places, of some other men's partial gathering, as it may easily appear, by many experiments of his skill in ancient writers. But mark his conclusion: According to these men (saith he) all the austerity of life, which the scriptures do so particularly recount, and all antiquity doth wonder at in Saint john Baptist, cometh but to this, etc.  
You have heard, that all these men, do acknowledge the hardness and austerity of john's life, which consisteth not only, in the place where he lived, the kinds of garment, and meats which he used, but also in his great abstinency, and fasting, which the scriptures 
Mat. 9 Marc. 2. Luk. 5. Mat. 11. Luk. 7.  do else where record of him, and his continual thin and spare use, even of those things which he received. john came neither eating, nor drinking, but with a mournful song: wherefore though his honey was sweet, and his locusts pleasant in eating, whether they were fish, the infect, or the herb so called, or the buds of trees, his course garment comely, & his education from the time of his circumcision, in rustical houses, rather than in the open air, or in the dens of wild beasts, yet was his bringing up veric hard, remaining always in the wilderness, and not in the Cities, or civil places, considering the nobility of his birth, being descended from the stock of the high priests, and allied unto the famlie of the Kings: his apparel rough and hairy, after the example of the old Prophets, his diet thin and unpleasant, not in respect of the ill taste of the thing he did eat, but of the continual use of them, without seeking of 
Luc. 1.  variety, and especially his great and often fasting, his perpetual abstinency from wine and strong drink, his daily excercise of prayer, and contemplation, when he was alone, his diligent and zealous preaching and baptifing, when the multitudes came to him, his free and earnest rebuking of all men's sins, even those that were greatest in credit, the Pharises, the Saducees, the high Priests, and the King himself. All these joined together, are such arguments of austerity and severity of life, as not only all antiquity, but all ages past, present, and to come, may worthily wonder at: as for the place, the garment, the diet, be not matters of so great admiration of themselves, neither so wondered at of all antiquity, as he babbleth, not yet followed of his Mocke-monkes, and false Eremites, that either the wilderness is their dwelling, or the Camels hear their weed, or the locusts and bitter honey their diet, or any thing answering to these in hardness. Their Monks dwell in palaces, their Eremites in fine houses, near to cities and great towns; their apparel, though in fashion disguised, yet neither rough, nor hairy, nor of smallest price; their diet like Princes, and noble men: the life of the greatest part of them idle, and lascivious. Therefore to their own shame, they may account John Baptist the Prince or first author of their Monkish order, whom they follow as near in austerity of life, as they much come behind him in course of time. I trust all reasonable men may now understand, what these unlearned quarrels come unto, when they be discussed and examined, howsoever they seem to be bolstered out with impudent asseverations, multitude of quotations, false cavillations, and unnecessary collections. In the rest therefore, I will be more brief, because my purpose is not to handle common places of controversies at large; but shortly to discover the vanity and pride of this answerer, and leave such matters to other treatises, where they be fully answered.  
A third example he taketh, of our impertinent interpretation, about the controversy of the real presence in the sacrament: which is nothing else, but a beggarly craving of a matter still in question, which can bear no show of of any lawful example, except it were clear against us, that our exposition were beside the text, or contrary to it. But peradventure this fellow will bring some new matter, that hath not been heard of in this cause, to convince us of absurd interpretations. First he saith, they have these words of scripture repeated in four several places: This is my body. If we 
1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Mat 26. Marc. 14.  did utrerlie denic the sacrament to be the body of Christ in any sense, it were somewhat that he saith against us: But we grant it to be the body of Christ, in such sort as Christ did mean, by those words. Contrariwise we show the one part of the sacrament to be six times called bread, after the consecration, in the scripture, the other part, twice or thrice to be called the fruit of the vine, yet your gare interpreters the Papists, do utterly deny the one to be bread, the other to be wine in any sense, but monstrous and imperceptible, and that against the judgement of all antiquity, and the plain words of diverse ancient doctors. But all antiquity (to our answerer, a great antiquary, as you shall sec by and by) are so clear for the Popish real presence, as no man might without great offence doubt thereof, as the words of Saint Ambrose and Saint cyril are. These books that he quoteth of lib. 4. de sacram. C. 5. for Ambrose, and Catech. 4. for cyril, are not so without controversy acknowledged to be so ancient, as those fathers, whose names they bear: and yet they say nothing in this cause, of not doubting, but we are ready to say the same: Namelia, that Christ having said, this is my body, no man ought to doubt, but that it is his body. They have also other words to declare, that their meaning was not of the popish manner of presence, but the spiritual manner of eating of Christ's flesh, where of the external sacrament is a figure, and similitude: as Ambrose, de sacr. lib. 4. cap. 4. & 5. de iis qui my star: init: cap. 9 The same cyril also, though much to be suspected for his antiquity, as very lately come into light, yet saith in the same place, that the body of Christ is to be received by fatih, not as the Capernaites imagined, which thought they had been provoked to the cating of a man's flesh. But that same cyril, saith our answerer in another place, proveth at large, that to ask only, quomodo, how it may be, is the part of an unbelecuing jew, & quoteth lib. 4. in 10. cap. 13. In deed Cyrillus Alexandrinus affirmeth, and we subscribe unto him, that to ask, how God can do, that he said he will do, cometh of jewish incredulity. He saith not, that it is a part of an unbelieving jew, to ask how Christ's words are to be understood, figuratively, or properly, carnallic, or spiritually. Neither doth he speak in the place alleged, of Christ's real presence in the sacrament, but of the question of the jews, how Christ could give his flesh to be eaten, which we believe verily he doth, not one lie in the sacrament, but even to infants, which never received that sacrament, or else we must exclude them from eternal life, according to his words, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you.  
But now you shall plainly see, how skilful this answerer is in all antiquity, whereof he talketh so often and so confidently (as bayard is always the boldest horse) The same cyril saith he (speaking of him under whose name are carried those my stagogical catechesis) is he that wrote upon john's gospel, etc. whereas the one was Bishop of jerusalem in Palestine, the other of Alexandria in Egypt: the one not much nearer in time to the other, than the provinces where they were Bishops are in place. For cyril of jerusalem was a very old man, in the time of the second general Constantinopolitan council. Cyrillus of Alexandria was precedent of the third general council of Ephesus the first: between which two Counsels there was above forty years distance in tyme. By which note of gross ignorance, it is manifest, that this scornful proud answerer hath never seen the works of the one cyril, nor of the other, but one lie the quotations and collections of other men, which he useth as vauntinglie, as they were all of his own reading: yea, if they be not pregnant enough for his purpose, he will make no bones to falsify their sayings, clean contrary to their meaning, as he dealeth with Epiphanius, whom he affirmeth to say, That albeit the host seemeth to us of around form, and insensible, yet whosoever believeth it not to be the true body of Christ, is fallen from grace and salvation: whereas Epiphanius saith expressly, it is of a round shape, and insensible, as concerning power, and yet it is the same that Christ said it to be, & we believe the same. The whole discourse of the Doctor in that place, is contrary to the error of the carnal presence; where he showeth, that the sacrament is the Image of Christ, as man is the Image of God, though he be not equal with God, as the sacrament is not equal with Christ, but an insensible thing: yet nevertheless by grace is called, and believed to be that which Christ said of it. This saying of Epiphanius do we allow, and use as an inumcible argument against transubstantiation, and the carnal manner of presence, as was well tried, when in the conference at the tower, it was opposed unto your client Campian, who had nothing but vain words to anoide it, being a place, which he neither understood in the author's tongue, nor after it was expounded in English, could tell the argument, or occasion of it.  
To the places cited out of chrysostom I answered, that albeit they be sometimes hyperbolical, yet as he understood them, and doth many times expound himself, we confess them to be true, and yet no carnal presence proved by them, as In Mat. H. 83. which our answerer citeth in these words: Sed quoniam ille dixit, hoc est corpus meum, credamus, etiamsi sensui absurdem esse videatur. Because Christ hath said, this is my body, we must believe it, although it seem absurd to our sense. The saying is good and catholic, but yet it is not altogether Chrysostom's, neither in this homily, nor in the Hom 60. add Pop. Antioch. which also he quotech for it. The words of chrysostom in Math. Ho. 83. of the translation of Trapezuntius, be these: Quoniam ergo ille dixit, hoc est corpus meum, nulla teneamur ambiguitate, sed credamus, & oculis intellectus id perspiciamus. Because than he hath said, this is my body, let us not be holden with any doubtfulness, but let us believe, and behold it with the eyes of underslanding. And add pop. Antioch. Ho. 60. of Germanus Brixius translation, these are his words: Quoniam igitur verbum dicit, hoc est corpus meum, & pareamus, & credamus, & intellectualibus ipsum occulis intueamur. But because the word saith, this is my body, let us borh obey and believe, and behold him with the eyes of understanding. A third place he citeth out of this father in I. Cor. ho. 24. in these words: Hoc idem corpus, cruentatum, lancea vulneratum, & quoth in caelum extulit. This is the very same body, whose blood was shed, and which was wounded with the spear, and which he carried up with him. We grant as much, that we receive in the sacrament, the very same body of Christ, that was crucified, wounded, dead, and carried into heaven, yet not coming down to us, but we (as chrysostom saith in the same homely) by faith made Eagles, and ascending up into heaven, where Christ is: yet the words be not altogether, as our answerer citeth them, for immediately after the word vulneratum, followeth, Fontes sanguinis & aquae 〈◊〉 so orbi salutares scaturivit: Flowed forth 〈◊〉 of blood and water healthful to all the world. But he were to be pardoned, that hath nothing of his own reading, but is feign to cite all out of other men's notes, if he were not such a proud and malapert censurer of other men.  
To proceed, after these quotations, and citations of the ancient Doctors, he cometh to his adversaries, to show how contrary they are, in understanding of this text of scripture, This is my body: they have found out (saith he) a new exposition, affirming that it must be construed: this is only the sign of my body, for which they have neither scripture, nor ancient father, for warrant, or example. But which of your adversaries (good sir) giveth this construction? This is the sign of my body, some do interpret it, and for that, you may have warrant of ancient Doctors more than ever you read, if you durst deny it. but this is only the sign, by which you mean a bare sign, to exclude all true feeding upon Christ in his supper, none of the Protestants your adversaries, did ever affirm. What Libertines, Anabaptists, and other fantastical heads have imagined, we have nothing to do with it, no more then with the eight several expositions numbered by Luther, or those 84. gathered by Claudius de Xanctes: from all which we disclaim, and from all other, saving from one, which is the true interpretation. And yet it is certain, that Luther, an enemy to this truth, straingeth much, & Claudius ten times more, the words of the Christian Protestants, to so great numbers of interpretations. Among whom if eighty more do utter the same sense in divers words, you will make no less than 80. interpretations. But because M. Chark acknowledgeth Luther to be illuminated singularly by the holy ghost, and he is compared to Elias, by the common phrase of all Protestants, our answerer taketh pains, to repeat divers bitter sayings of his, against our interpretation of those words of Christ, as which he had revealed to him by his holy spirit. A wife matter: as though Luther being singularly illuminated by the holy ghost, is made a Pope, by M Charke, that he can not err in any thing, or being compared by some Protestants, and in some respects (for it is a loud lie that he is compared by all Protestants) to Elias, may not be deceived in any point, as Eliashim-selfe was.  
But doth our answerer, trow you, cite more truly out of Luther, than he did of late out of the old writers, that we might think, perhaps he hath read the latter more diligently, although he hath been little conversant in the former? I will give you a taste, by one or two places. and first, that which he citeth out of Luther's epistle ad Argentinenses: wherein he clippeth and geldeth out diverse whole sentences, at his pleasure, or rather as his note book did lead him. So that it is plain, he hath read no more in Luther, then in the ancient Doctors. The words are these. Hoc diffiteri nec possum, nec volo, etc. This can I not. nor will deny, but if Carlostadius, or any manels, could for five years past have persuaded me, that there had been nothing in the sacrament, but bread and wine, he should have bound me to him, by a great good turn. For I have taken great care, and anxiety, in discussing this matter, and have endeavoured with all my power, and sinews siretched out, to rid myself of the same. Seeing I did well perceive, I might very greatly and especially hurt the papacy. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Moreover 
Papatui. Answ. the pope.  I had two men, which did write unto me of this matter more rightly and sharply then Carolostadius, nor sowresting 
That which is enclosed in the paréthesis is left out by the answerer. ()  the words after the capacitis of their own 〈◊〉) But I do see myself captain, no way being left to escape. For the text of the Gospel is too plain and strong, and such as cannot easily be overthrown by any man, and much less by words and glosses devised by a fantastical head. (Quod si et i am bodierno die. etc. Yea and if at this date it could be, that any man by strong testimony of scriptures were able to prove unto me, that there 
that which is enclosed in the paréthesisis left out by the answerer. ()  is not any thing in the sacrament but bread and wine, yet there is no need that any man should set upon me with so bitter mind) for I am alas to much inclining to this part, as far as I canperceive the nature of my old Adam. (But by such furies as Carolostadius rageth and is mad about this matter, it 
() omit 1 by the answerer.  moveth me so much, that in defending my opinion, I am made more stubborn.) In these words Luther being in an heat against Carolostadius, a vain tumultuous person, acknowledgeth his own weakness of both sides. But by our answerer he is charged with his honesty, as labouring to pervert the sacrament, thereby to hurt the Pope. Yet neither any desire of perverting the sacrament, or end of hurting the Pope is confessed in those words. For Luther laboured not to pervert the sacrament, but to find out the truth, if he might: not to hurt the Pope's person, but to oveithrowe the papacy, which is the Kingdom of Antichrist: although he acknowledgeth, that his affection is carried sometimes on the one side, sometimes on the other side, contrary to his persuasion. Wherein he is an honester man, to confess his own infirmity, than the answerer is, to quarrel and cavil with him therefore. For the saying which he citeth out of his epistle ad joh. Heruagium, Printer of Argentine, he sendeth us to seek it in Gesners Bibliotheca, where is only the title at the most: but where it is to be found among Luther's printed works, neither he nor we can tell: and therefore how honestly he hath dealt with it, I can not say. But to this he joineth certain other sentences of Luther's, taken out of a treatise called a defence of the words of the supper against the phanaticail spirits of sacramentaries: in which treatise, it cannot be denied, but Luther, as he erred in the matter, so was he carried far beyond the bonds of charity, and modesty, in declaiming against the contrary part: yet not also much, as the answerer would have men think, by falsifying his words, and mangling his sentence, after his usual manner. As in the first clause, he maketh Luther to say, accursed be their char.tie and concord, where his words be, Illa charitas & concordia, that charity and concord, under pretence of which (as he untruly gathered) gods truth should be defaced.  
The second sentence, in which he derideth the divers expositiones of Carolostadius, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, more by hap, then by cunning, he hath hit upon Luther's words, who yet else where confesseth, that the interpretation of Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius came both to one end: As for Carolostadius fantasy, is as much rejected of us, as of Luther and the papists.  
Now come we to the third place, wherein it is somewhat long to show the fooletie of this answerer, which will take upon him, out of another man's notebooke to set down Luther's words, as though he had read them himself, even as he playeth with all other writers sayings almost, that come through his fingers, old & new. Yet, to discover his vain pride, and to shame his fellow papists, that boast of his great learning, and much reading, I will set forth the matter somewhat more at large: this is the answerers saying. p. 22. And again in the same work, he hath these words. To expound the words of Christ, as the sacramentaries do (this is the sign of my body) is as absurd an exposition, as if a man should interpret the scripture thus: In the beginning God made heaven and earth, that is, the Cuckoo did eat up the titling or hedgesparow, together with her bones. Again, in S. john. And the word was made flesh, that is, a crooked staff was made a kite. This saith the answerer: but in deed Luther's words are far otherwise, and to another end, then to show the absurdity of our exposition, although he have the words of a Cuckoo, and a crooked staff, a titling, and a kite, as you shall see plainly: Age verò, audiamus quo pacto verbis Christi, etc. Go too, let us hear how they take away our sense from the words of Christ, and thrust in their own. They affirm, that the word (is) is all one with the word (signifieth) as Zuinglius writeth. And the word (my body) is the same that (the sign of my body) as Oecolampadius writeth. The words therefore, and mind of Christ, after the text of Zuinglius, do sound thus: take ye, eat ye, this doth signify my body. & after the text of Oecolampadius, take ye, & eat ye, this is the sign of my body. Now they are as certain that these sentences are true, & they do as steadfast lie persist in them, in their hearts, as a reed is wont to do, being shaken hither and thither of the wind, as I said. Therefore by and by they glory, that we have no testimony of scripture, that the body of Christ is in the lords supper, but a little while after, they humble themselves again, and desire to be taught, and promise that they will follow us, if we shall prove by scripture, that the body of Christ is present in his supper. And truly they do a great and earnest matter: but the same thing cometh to pass, as if, when I had a little before denied, that God created heaven and earth, and had subscribed to the opinion of Aristotle, Pliny, & other ethnics, of the eternity of the world, and some man setting himself against me, should bring forth that saying of Moses: In the beginning God created heaven and earth, and I now to confute mine adversary, should expound the words of Mosesthus: God, that is the Cuckoo, created, that is devoured, heaven and earth, that is the titling all and whole together with the bones and feathers, and so should fayne this sentence of the words of Moses: In the beginning the Cuckoo devoured the titling all and whole together with the bones and feathers, and should utterly cast away that, In the beginning God created heaven and earth: would not this seem to be a piece of cunning? Yet truly, not unworthy, nor unknown of jesters. Also it should be like, as if I would deny the son of God, to be made man, to him that should lay against me that saying of Saint Ihon. 1. The word was made flesh: I would answer, the word signifieth a crooked stafe, and flesh a kite; and the sentence is, a crooked stafe is made a kite. But if my conscience did reprove me, and cry against me, Master Martyne, you expound the text too peevishly and crookedlie, but, etc. and I should keep in that (but) until shame died my cheeks with red, and yet would say, fie on the false traitor, take away thy (but) & hold thy peace, that no man ever perceive, or smell out, that I have so evil a conscience. And afterward should set forth myself lustily, and clapping my hands together with full mouth should sing: Hei, how, the Christians have not any place of scripture, which affirmeth and proveth that the word is made flesh. And yet at the last, I should submit myself again, and desire to be instructed and taught, how they could prove it out of the scripture, which I before had rend in pieces. If this were lief and lawful for me to do, O mortal God, how great business and trouble might I cause in the old and new testament, as well to the jews as Christians! These are the very words of Luther in deed. Now the end why he useth these fond comparisons, he showeth afterward. Quisquis enim vult verba scripturae aliter quàm sonant, interpretari, is tenetur ex textu eiusdem loci, aut ex aliquo fidei articulo probare. For whosoever will interpret the words of scripture, otherwise than they sound, he is bound out of the text of the same place, or out of some article of faith, to prove it. Which rule in deed, or the like, if it be notkept, there will be no end of vain, & licentious interpretations. But Zuinglius and Oecolampadius out of the text of the same place, where the cup is called the new testament in his blood, and out of the article of Christ's incarnation, and true manhood unconfounded with his godhead, do prove, that their interpretation must needs be true: therefore these similitudes do not show, that their exposition is absurd: also Luther himself denieth, that his meaning was to deface them by those gross similitudes & absurdities. Deus novit, etc. God knoweth (saith he) that with these gross similitudes, I study not to deface Zuinglius, and much less Oecolampadius, unto whom God hath given many gifts above many other men whose case I do lament from my heart, neither with such words do I bend my pen against them, but rather against the Devil, proudly and bitterly 〈◊〉 us, which hath circumuenied and deceived them, that I might fulfil the lust of my mind against him, to the honour of God, etc. These sayings of Luther declare, that albeit he stood too much in his own conccyt, touching this sacramentary matter, and was very hasty and rash of judgement, in condemning them, that held the truth against him; yet he was not so void of charity, as the answerer gathereth by some vehement speeches of his, showing here how he meaneth them, and would have them to be understood, namely, not against the persons of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius, but against the devil, who, as he falsely imagined, had deceived them in this matter. So that the controversy is still, between the true Catholics and the Papists, which part provoketh to the scriptures, in their true meaning, as the only sufficient rule to decide all controversies of religion.  
But which part alleadgeih the true meaning (saith our answerer) according to the council of wise Sisinius to Theodosius the Emperor, we desire to be tried by the judgement of ancient fathers, indifferent in this matter, for that they lived before our controversies came in question. This he saith, but as I have proved before, and namely in the exampled of transubstantiation, they will not stand to the judgement of the ancient fathers, further than their Pope shall allow them. As for us, we refuse not the judgement of the most ancient fathers, except it be in such matters, wherein it is manifest by the plain texts, and necessary collections out of the scripture, that they were deceived as even the Papists will confess in some points that they were. This wise Sisinius, whose counsel he would have followed, was a wise heretic, who first gave the advise to Nectarius the Catholic Bishop, by whom it was commended to the Emperor, and had good success against all other heresies, save the heresy of the novatians, who by means hereof came in credit with the Emperor, and had free liberty to use their conventicles openly. By which it appeareth, that it is no perfect kind of trial, which was first offered by an heretic, & whereby he could not be convicted of his heresy. Again it was not used against the sufficiency of the scripture, and the trial that may be had thereby, but only to cut of quarelous disputation of heretics, which are always more ready to contend, then to learn the truth. Last of all, where he saith, the ancient fathers are indifferent, for that they lived before our controversies came in question, it is no sufficient argument, seeing the ancient fathers erred themselves in some points, and no man is an indifferent judge in that case, wherein he is deeeived himself. Again, the ancient fathers are not all of one antiquity, but commonly the most ancient, the purest and furthest from all smack of Antichristian errors; the later more savouring of the infection of the times; drawing toward the apostasy. Even as water, the nearer the spring, is purer, but running further of, through unpure soil, receiveth some taste thereof. So the Council of Sisinius in respect of the most ancient fathers, that were before the heresies of those times, was better to be used in his time, then in these days, when they that lived five hundred years after Sisinius, may be counted ancient fathers in respect of us, yet their judgement not so weighty, nor so meet to be embraced, as those first fathers of the primitive Church, to whose judgement, if all matters of controversy were referred, the Papists should get but small advantage.  
But our adversaries (saith the answerer) will allow no exposition but their own, whereby it is easy to defeat, whatsoever is brought against them, scripture, or Doctor. In deed this which he saith, is most true of the Papists, as I have proved before, but untrue of us: for we allow all interpretations, that are not contrary to the analogy of faith, and are agreeable to the plain words, & necessary circumstances of the place of scripture, & not repugnant to any other evident text of scripture. According to which rules, we must examine all expositions of all men, since the Apostles time: yea the Apostles themselves were content that their doctrine should be examined by the scriptures of the old testament: but so are not the Papists: for they hold opinions, 
Act. 17. 11.  altogether beside the scriptures. But our answerer, to justify that, which he hath said against us, bringeth examples of shifting scriptures and Doctors: all which (except one) are gathered out of diverse writings of Doctor Fulke, for answer of which, seeing he hath set forth a special treatise, I refer the reader 
Confutation of Papists quarrels.  thereunto. pag. 38. 39 40. That one example which he could father upon no man, I will examine here. The like evasion (saith he) they have, when we allege the words of Saint Paul, Qui matrimonio, &c: he that joineth his virgin in marriage, doth well, and he that joineth her not, doth better. Whereof we infer, that virginity is more acceptable and meritorious before God, than marriage, although marriage be holy. No say our adversaries, Saint Paul meaneth only, that he doth better before men, and in respect of worldly commmodities, but not before God. If you ask him, which of his adversaries do say so, he is not able to name one: for in truth we never said so, not think so. But that which he saith, they do infer upon the text, that virginity is more meritorious before God, the marriage, we do utterly deny, and we say furthet, that all the Papists in the world shall never be able, by lawful and true arguments, to infer so much, upon these words of the text, or to justify this kind of inferring; virginity is better before God, ergo it is more meritorious. for the antecedent, which we grant, doth not prove the conclusion, which we deny. Therefore when out of the circumstances of the text he proveth, that virginity is better in respect of God, as a more excellent gift of God, he taketh more pains than he needeth. For we confess as much, that he that joineth not his virgin doth better, not only in respect of worldly commodities, or before men: but also that she may be holy before the Lord, in body and spirit, etc. then he that joineth her in marriage: but that he doth better in respect of merit, & reward in the life to come (as the answerer saith) it doth not follow thereof. I mean for the merit. As for the reward, which God bestoweth of his mere mercy, doth not prove any merit or desert of the party rewarded. For he which useth the gift of God well, by the power and strength which he hath of God, shall of God's goodness, not miss of his reward; but he cannot thereby claim reward of duty, or of merit; neither doth the text alleged by him prove any such thing: Some Eunuches 
Mat. 16.  have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven, therefore they have deserved the kingdom of heaven thereby. Such licentious kind of inferring, will not only make popery to stand, if it were lawful, but also might be able to justify all heresies, that ever were, by scripture. But bring these illations or inferring to the judgement seat of Logic, and they will easily appear to be voluntary glosles, and not true expositions or necessary collections. Yet these new doctors (saith our answerer) do contemn and 〈◊〉 all authority, antiquity, wit, learning, sanctity of our forefathers, and of all men: yea of their own new doctors, and masters, when they come to be contrary to any new devise, or later fancy of theirs. Because we may not receive every interpretation, or opinion of every of the fathers, he maketh this hideous outcry against us. And yet we are always ready to show, and have often performed the same, that in the most and greatest controversies, the ancient Doctors, are against them, & very clear on our side. Therefore it is an impudent slander that we reject or contemn all authority, antiquity, wit, etc. of our forefathers: as it is a ridiculous argument, that he bringeth, of our dissent from our late doctors and masters, as he termeth them: because we follow not the error of Luther, about the real presence, and the use of Images: as for the number of the sacraments, and books of the Bible, we hold 
Cateth. Luther. edit. 1530. Surius som. 〈◊〉 1530.  with Luther in his last judgement, when he was best instructed in those cases.  
The order of service is free for every Church, to use diversely, as may serve best for edification. The popish Churches have divers uses of service, as Sarum, York, Bangor Hereford, in England they had: how many then divers orders abroad? But calvin (he saith) is rejected about the head of the Church in England, which is a manifest untruth: for Calvin is even of the same judgement, concerning the Prince's authority in causes, & over persons Ecclesiastical (as is evident in his Institutions) that we are in England; only he misliked the term supreme head, as offensive, though not evil, as it was understood of the godly: and that term is forborn in England, for the same cause, and another of supreme governor used, which signifieth as much, as was meant by the other, when it was rightly understood. As for the government of the Church in Geneva, Caluine did never bind all other Churches to use the same: what other points are rejected in Beza, he hath no leisure to tell us. But that all the Churches of the Protestants, as he calleth us, in Europe, do agree in the chief and principal articles of Religion, the Harmony of their confessions, lately set forth in print, doth give full & most sufficient testimony. Ceremonies and for me of external government, were never in god's Church accounted necessary to be all one, in every particular Church. And some men may have their private opinions, sometime perhaps untrue yet retaining the unity of faith, in the chief grounds and foundation of Religion, with them that descent from them, either justly or unjustly. Wherefore our answerers final conclusion doth not follow, that Protestants will have only that to be taken for truth, which they last agree upon, and their words must be the one ie proof thereof. whereas the world can testify, that the holy scripture is our ground, and from thence we challenge the best proof: not refusing any other lawful proofs, that will stand with the judgement of holy scripture, where it is most plain, and easy to be understood, even without any interpretations.  
The books of the scripture we receive, which the Church of God, among the jews before Christ, and the most ancient Church of the Gentiles since Christ, hath received and allowed: the sense we take even out of the same books, and bring no foreign sense unto them: all writings of men old and new, we examine according to the same, praising God for such help, as we have by his gifts in them, to understand his word: yet leaving to them, without reproach, such things as proceeded from themselves, without the warrant of that word: and this have all true Catholics always done, and no heretic is able to do, albeit he would profess never so much to do.  
To the former slanders, our answerer will have us adjoin this, that our adversaries (saith he) notwithstanding all request, suit, offer, or humble petition that we can make, will come to no public disputation, or other indifferent and lawful judgement: but do persecute, imprison, torment, and slaughter them which offer the same. Touching any lawful request, suit, or humble petition made in due manner, to them that have authority to grant, I never hard of any, only the seditious challenge of Campian is all the request, suit, offer, and humble petition, that he is able to prove, was ever made by them, for any such matter, before the publishing of this answer of his. As for them that persecute, imprison, torment, and slaughter them which offer disputation, which he calleth their advetsaries, it is well known, that Master Charke, and the ministers of the Church, are none such, neither have they any such authority. It remaineth then, that he accounteth the Prince, her council, magistrates, and ministers of justice his adversaries; who indeed have good cause so to be, not only in respect of their heresies, but also in regard of their manifold, and almost infinite practices of treason, against the Prince and realm; for which, some of them have suffered most justly, and not for offering of disputation, as this traitorous heretic, every where, most slaunderouslie, doth avow.  
But now for their parts, he saith, they offer the best, surest, and easiest means that can be devised, or that have been used in God's Churches, for trial, and they are many in number. The first is, the books of Scripture, received upon the credit of the ancient Church, of which we are content (saith he) to accept for canonical, and allow all those, and none other, which antiquity in Christendom hath agreed upon. But this is false: for to omit that they receive for canonical, such as the Church of God before Christ never received, they receive also such, as the greatest, and best antiquity in Christendom received not: as the Church in origen's time, witness Eusebius, more than the 
Hist. lib. 6. e. 18.  Church of Rome, received in Saint Ieromes, witness Jerome himself, prologo Galeato. and Ruffinus in Expossymb. more than the Council of Laodicea did receive for canonical, as is manifest by the 59 canon.  
The second way of trial, is the express & plain words of Scripture, wherein they must needs be far superior: for what one express plain text have they (saith he) in any one point or article against us, which we do not acknowledge liberally, as they do, and as the words do lie? yes we have many, but a few shall serve: for example, God saith, Exod. 20. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image, etc. thou shalt not fall down to them, nor worship them. Again Matt. 4. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve: Which are most plain, express, and manifest against worshipping of Images, and other creatures, in any use of Religion. Christ saith, drink ye all of this, they be express and manifest words, against the popish sacrilege of the cup. The 14. to the Corinthians the first Epistle, is express and plain against public prayers, homilies, lessons in a strange & unknown tongue. 1. Tim. 4. in express and plain words the spirit pronunceth, the forbidding of marriage and meats, to be the doctrine of devils. And Heb. 13. Marriage is honourable in all men. And 1. Tim. 3. Tit. 1. a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon must be the husband of one wife, beside a great number more. But the papists (saith our answerer) have infinite texts against us, which we cannot admit without glosses, and fond interpretations of our own. A bold speech, as always he useth: but it shall always be found, that if we do in any text depart from the grammatical sense, there is necessary cause why: as if it be a figurative spcach, which is tried either by circumstances of the same place, or by other texts of scriptures, & for the most part, hath the judgement of the most ancient writers agreeing with our interpretation. But the most of these examples he bringeth, have nothing in show, that the express words of scripture are with them, or against us, but by their fond, false, unreasonable collections, and such as they can never conclude in lawful & true syllogisms: as for example. We have it (saith he) (for the supremacy) expressly said to Peter, that signifieth arocke, upon this rock will I build my Church. We answer, that we might follow the interpretation of the most ancient and approved fathers, that the rock here spoken of, is Christ, whom Peter confessed but granting them, that they could never evict, we confess that the Church is builded upon the foundation of Peter the Apostle, but not upon him alone, or more principally, then upon all the Apostles, who are all rocks, or stones, upon whose foundation, as also upon the foundation of the Prophets, the Church of Christ 
Eph. 2. 20. Apo. 21. 14.  is builded. Neither is it possible to prove the supremacy of the Pope, out of those words of scripture, or any other. But they have further expressly (touching the Apostles) he that is great among you, let him be as the younger Luk. 22. We have no where, there is none greater than other among you. Neither do we hold, that none ought to be greater than other among us, but that 
Mar. 10. 43. 44. 1. pet. 5. 3.  the greatest among the ministers, aught to be servant of all the rest, and that none ought to exercise Dominion over the lords inheritance: yet the primacy of order we grant, even among the Apostles, according to which james was precedent of the Council at jerusalem, Peter the chief Aposlle of 
Act 15. 19 Gal. 2. 7.  the circumcision, Paul of the gentiles: all which will not serve one whit, to maintain the popish tyranny. For Paul was nothing inferior to the highest Apostles. But for the real presence, they have expressly: 
2. Cor. 12. 11.  This is my body: we have no where, this is the sign of my body. Neither do we deny the sacrament to be the body of Christ, neither do we affirm, that it is a bare sign. But that this is a figurative speech, we have expressly. This cup is the new Testament in my blood, and 
Luc. 22. 1. Cor 11. 1. Cor. 10.  as expressly the Apostle speaking of the same sacrament, the rock was Christ: which proveth that it must be understood in a sigue, and after a spiritual manner, and so do all the old Doctors interpretit, as hath been often showed. We have expressly (saith he) The bread that I will give you, is my flesh. john. 6. they have nowhere, It is but the sign of my flesh. And we confess as much: for we never said, that the sign of Christ's flesh was crucified for us, but his very natural body, which he promiseth in that text, to give for the life of the world, which by faith and the spirit of God, is made the spiritual food of all the elect children of God, and without eating of which, none can be saved, joh. 6. 53. But they have expressly, A man is justified by works, and not by faith only. james. 2. we have no where, a man is justified by faith alone: no, nor that he is justified by faith without works, talking of works that follow faith. First, we confess the text, that a man is justified by works. As Abraham was, when he offered his son: and as Rahab was, when she received the spies: that is, a man is declared to be just in the sight of men. For Abraham was justified before God, by faith, before he offered his son, whom God did not try, to inform himself, 
Gen. 15. 6. Rom. 4. 3.  but to declare unto men, by the fruits of obedience, that Abraham was a just man: even so by faith, the harlot Rahab perished not, with the unbelievers, when the received the spies in peace, but by receiving them peaceably, she was declared to be just, or justified in the sight of men. Therefore there are two kinds of justification: the one by faith before god, the other by works before men: therefore a man is not justified by faith only, but by works also: which saying of S. jamesis not repugnant to that we hold, that a man is justified before god, sola fide, by faith alone, or by faith without the works of the law, as S. Paul saith, which is alone: which comprehendeth all good works, 
Rom. 3. 28.  as also the examples of Abraham and David, in the 4. Chapter to the Romans, doc plainly declare, where the Apostle speaketh expreslely of circumcision, which was a work of obedience, following the faith of Abraham. And David pronounceth the blessedness of a man, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works: which 
Rom. 4. 6.  must needs be understood, even of works following faith, because David speaketh of himself, and of all men generally, that shall obtain blessedness by the grace of god, without merit of works. For, to him that worketh, reward is not imputed according to grace, but according to debt. Again, the Apostle writing to the Galathians, 
Rom. 4. 4.  which were faithful, speaketh generally. It is manifest, that by the law no man is justified before god: for the just shall live by faith. By which texts, & many more, the conclusion 
Gal. 3. 11.  is most necessary, that before God, works following faith, do not iuslifie, but faith alone without works: yet not a dead, but a living faith, which worketh by love. Further (he saith) they have expressly for absolution: whose sins ye forgive, are forgiven, whose sins ye retain, are retained. john. 20. but we have no where, that Priests cannot forgive, or retain sins in earth. But the controversy is not, whether the Ministers of God have power to forgive, or retain sins; for we believe that they have such power; but whether absolute power, properly to forgive sins, and how the same is to be exercised, is the question. For we believe, that God only hath power, absolutely & properly, 
Marc. 2. 7. Luc. 5. 21. job. 14. 5. Esa. 43. 12.  to remit sins, according to the scripture, man by declaring Gods will & pleasure. Yet again, they have expressly, The doers of the law shall be justified. Rom. 2. And we say even as much: but because none is found a doer of the law, we say with the same Apostle, that 
Gal. 3. 11.  it is manifest, that no man is justified before God by the law. But our answerer inferreth moreover, that we have no where, that the law required at Christians hands is impossible, or that the doing thereof justifieth not Christians. yes we have it expressly, That which was impossible of the law, 
Rom. 8. 3.  in as much as it was weak by the flesh, God sending his son in the similitude of sinful flesh, etc. If there had been a law given, that had been able to give life, righteousness in deed had been of the law. but the scripture hath concluded all under 
Ga. 3. 21. 22.  sin, that the promise by the faith of jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Again, by the works of the law no flesh shallbe justified before him: therefore no Christians 
Rom. 3. 20.  by the works of the law shallbe justified before him. Moreover, we are saved by grace through faith, not of works. Ergo Christians (for none else are saved) are justified through faith without works. Yet again, they have expressly, Psal. 75. Vow ye, and render your vows: we haut no where, vow ye not, or if you have vowed, break your vows. we confess, the Prophet willeth the people to vow, yet he meaneth only things lawful, and in their power to perform: we bid no man to break his vow, if it be lawful and possible: but if he have vowed to go a pilgrimage, which is Idolatry, or to live unmarried, which is not able to live continently: we exhort him to repent of his wicked, or unadvised vow, & 
Num. 30,  to serve God, as he hath appointed, or to use the remedy that God hath provided. They have again expressly, 
I. Cor. 7.  Keep the traditions which ye have learned, either by word or epistle. 2. Thess. 2. we have no where, the Apostles left no traditions to the Church unwritten. Saint Paul willeth the Thessalonians to keep the traditions or doctrine, which he had delivered unto them, either by word of mouth, or by his epistle. This proveth not that the Apostles left any traditions, which are no where written in the holy scripture, because they were not all written in the epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians. But we have expressly, that the holy scriptures are able to make us wise to salvation, to make the man of God perfect, and prepared to all 
2. Tim. 3. 15.  good works: which things seeing we have fufficientlie in the holy scriptures, we neither regard, nor receive any other doctrine under name of tradition of the Apo stles, or of Angels from heaven. Still they have expressly: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments: and (when he said he did that already) if thou wilt be perfect, go & sell all thou hast, & give to the poor, & follow me. And we have no where, that either the commandments of God cannot be kept, or that we are not bound unto them, or that there is no degree of life one perfecter than another. We grant, that who so by good deeds will seek to enter into life, as that young man did, must do the deeds of the commandments, which if he can do, he shall live by them: but albeit he boasted, that he had kept the commandments, yet it followeth not, that he did keep them indeed, and as god required, but was a blind hypocrite, and sought to justify himself, according to the heresy of the pharisees. That we are not bound to keep the commandments, as near as God will give us grace, is no article of ours, but a slander of his. Finally, we deny that any mortal man's life is perfect, yet we grant, that some men's lives come nearer to perfection then other some. Neither doth our saviours words include perfection, in selling his goods, nor in giving them to the poor: for if a man bestow all his goods, to feed the poor, and have not love, he is nothing: but he addeth, that he must follow Christ, and take up his cross: and so by Christ's grace 
I. Cor. 13.  he shall attain unto perfection, which he falsely imagined, that he he had obtained by a pharizaical observation 
Marc. 10.  of the law: this favoureth not Monks and friars, more than hypocrites, and liars. Beside this: They have expressly, work your own salvation with fear and tremhling, Phil. 2. we have no where, either that a man can work nothing toward his own salvation, being helped with the grace of God: or that a man should make it of his belief, that he shall be saved without all doubt or fear. The saying of Saint Paul we acknowledge, that men should work out their own salvation with fear and trembling: together with the next verse following: for 
Phil. 2. 13.  it is God that worketh in you, both to will, and to be able to do, for his own good pleasure. whereupon we conclude that though a man is willed to work his own salvation, by walking in that way, which god hath appointed for them that shallbe saved, yet he can do nothing by his own strength, but all that he doth, is of the grace of god: for by grace you are saved, through faith, & that not of 
Eph. 2. 8.  yourselves, it is the gift of God. To be short, we make not the grace of God an helper only, but a whole doer and bringer to pass in us of our salvation, and of all things tending thereto. For we are not apt of ourselves, as of ourselves, to think any thing belonging thereto, but our aptness is of God. Nor I, saith Saint Paul, but the grace of God which is with me. Again, we 
2. Cor. 3. 5. 1. Co. 15. 10 Rom. 8. 38. 2. Cor. 5. 6. etc. 1. joh. 5 10. 1. joh. 4. 17. etc.  have infinite places of scripture, to prove, that a man ought not to doubt of his salvation, in respect of the truth of God's promises: although we ought to fear, & tremble at God's judgements, and although we cannot be always void of fear, in respect of our own weakness. Furthermore they have expressly, do ye the worthy fruits of penance. Luc. 3. we have no where that faith only is sufficient, without all satisfaction, and all other works of penance, on our parts. The fruits worthy of repentance, we acknowledge to be necessaire, to declare unfeigned repentance, but not for satisfaction of God's justice, which is blasphemous against the satisfaction of Christ's death. But that a faith which is fruitless, or void of the works of repentance, should be sufficient to salvation or justification, we do utterly deny, as a thing contrary to the scriptures. Yet again they have expressly, that every man shallbe saved according to his works. Apo. 20. we have no where, that men shallbe judged only according to their faith. We confess as the text is, that every man shallbe judged according to his works, and so perhaps he would have said, if the corrector had done his part: neither do we affirm, that men shallbe judged only according to their faith: for trial of their faith shallbe made by their works. Once again, they have expressly, that there remaineth aretribution, stipend, and pay to every good work in heaven. Marc. 9 1. Cor. 3. Apoc. 22. Ps. 118. we have (as he saith) no where, that good works done in Christ do merit nothing. In the 3. text, quoted out of the new testament, is all one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth a reward, whether it be freely given, or deserved by labour. To him that worketh, saith Saint Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reward is not accounted according to grace, but 
Rom. 4. 4.  according to debt. But God is debtor to no man. Neither is there any merit of good works once named in the scriptures, but against the merit of good works, Christ saith epxresselie, when you have done all things that are commanded unto you, say we are unprofitable 
Luc. 17. 10.  servants: and the pay, wages, stipend, merit or desert of an unprofitable servant is showed, Matt. 25. 30. Cast out the unprofitable servant into utter darkness: there shallbe weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is therefore the grace, mercy, and truth of God's promise, whereby we claim reward, and not the merits, desert, or debt of our good works. To that he saith, they have expressly prayer and sacrifice for the dead in the second of the Maccaebees, We answer, that book of Macabes to be no holy Scripture, out of which he might have expressly a man commended for killing himself. Whether Angels present good works and almsdeeds before God, and whether saints departed do pray for them that are alive, which he gathereth out of the Apocryphal books of Toby, and the Maccabes, we make no question, as of matters not revealed in the canonical scriptures. But if they were granted to be so. yet it followeth not, that men alive must, or may pray to Angels or Saints departed. Last of all, out of the canonical scripture he saith, they have expressly, that the affliction which Daniel used upon his body, was acceptable in the sight of God. Dan. 10. and we have no where, that such voluntary corporal afflictions are in vain. But which of us saith, that such voluntary corporal affliction, as Daniel used, and to such end as he did use them, are in vain? No man verily. You see therefore that while he boasteth of express words of scripture against us, he is driven either to gloze upon the text, or to feign some opinion unto us, which we hold not at all, and that all his brags are but wind and words, without matter, as of one that-fcareth no shame, because his head is hidden.  
The third way of trial is, necessary collections, made and inferred upon the scriptures: which we are willing to acknowledge and admit, to be of as great authority, as the express words of the scripture. But to discern, what is necessary collection, and what is not necessary collection, when there is no express words of scripture, there is no certain way, but the judgement of Logic: for that only is necessary collection, which out of express words of scripture, or articles of faith, or other grounds confessed to be necessarily gathered out of the holy scripture, may be rightly concluded in a true and lawful syllogism: & whatsoever cannot be so concluded, is no necessary collection. But our answerer saith, we must refer ourselves to the ancient primitive Church, for this meaning: and his reason is, For it is like, they knew it best: for that they lived nearer to the writers thereof, than we do, who could well declare unto them, what was the meaning of the same: we do willingly yield, to consult with the ancient primitive Church, to be helped with their collections: but to admit all their collections without examining them, were to admit many errors, that even the Papists do condemn for errors, and which are reproved by the scriptures themselves. Let one example serve in stead of many. S. Jerome collecteth out of this scripture, It is good not to touch a woman, that therefore it is evil to touch a woman. Every man doth see that this is an unnecessary collection; and so are many other in the ancient father's writings. Wherefore we must use the gift of knowledge of right gathering and concluding, which God hath given, not to be unprofitable unto his Church, but to be both beneficial, and necessary. Again, mark the feeble reason, upon which our answerer groundeth his saying: It is like they knew it best: he cannot say, it is necessary that they knew it best: then how proveth he, that it is like? because they lived nearer to the writers, than we do, who could well declare the meaning unto them. In deed if we had the writings of them that lived so near unto the Apostles, that they might hear their meaning of their own mouths, it were some likeliehood, and yet no necessary proof of necessary collection; For Logic would still judge, whether such meaning could be necessarily gathered out of such words. Seeing we are not bound to credit any writings, since the divine inspired scriptures, but so far, as they agree with the scriptures, and receive the light of truth from them. But those ancient writers, to whom he would have us to refer ourselves, lived so many hundred years after the Apostles, and Evangelists, the writers of the new testament, as they could no more declare to them, then to us, their meaning in their writings: and therefore those ancient fathers, which ground purgatory, prayer to saints, sacrifice of the altar, use of the cross, etc. (beside tradition) upon the scriptures (as the answerer saith) must show the necessary collection of them, by the judgement of demonstration, seeing they never saw the writers, never heard them speak, nor possibly could, living so long after them, or else they can carry no credit of necessary collection, outof the express words of holy scripture. As for tradition, without scripture, since God hath given the holy scripture, is as good as the credit of men may be, without a warrant from God.  
A fourth way of trial of spirits with him is, councils, by which old heretics have been tried, and they are content to refer themselves to all the Christian councils, that ever have been since Christ died. We acknowledge Christian councils to be a godly mean to exa mine and try the spirits, but according to the scriptures only, for matters of faith; as in the example of the first Council of Christendom, Act. 15. where the question was determined by authority of the scriptures. But that the Papists dare abide the trial by all councils, it is false: for they admit none, but by the Pope's consent, they admit nothing in them, but that the present Pope doth allow. Many councils in Aphrica forbade appellations to Rome: the general Council of Chalcedon, made the Bishop of Constantinople of equal dignity with the Bishop of Rome: the Bishop of Constantinople condemned and accursed a Pope for an heretic: the Pope of that time confirmed it, yet now it is not holden for Catholic. But I will spare examples until this lusty gallant dare adventure the trial, whereof he maketh the challenge. But seeing there are many points of controversies between us and the Papists, which in no ancient council came in question, he bobs us with the last most learned, Godly, and general Council of Trent, which was gathered of purpose for trial of hercticall spirits, whereunto all safe conduct being offered, we refused to come for trial. As though the Catholics would have come to the Council of Nice, if nothing might have been therein determined, but that which pleased Arius; or to the Council of Constantinople, if nothing might have been concluded, but that Macedonius would allow; Or to the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, if when all had been said, that which liked Nestorius and Eutiches, must have been holden for Catholic. Such is our case, we accuse the Pope to be an heretic, yea and to be Antichrist: the Pope will admit no council, but where he himself is judge: nor any to have any voice determinative, but only such as are sworn to maintain his heresies and ambition. It is great pity, but the Protestants must come to such a council. Such were many councils holden of old time by heretics, but for the most part, not frequented by the Catholics. Some of our profession were at Trent, but what entertainment had they? even such as their adversaries could afford them: they were not permitted to have any speech, but as pleased their enemies, wherefore when they saw no equity used, as they could look for no better, before they came, they left the heretics to consult among themselves, by example of ancient fathers in like Chapters of heretics.  
The sift way of trial, is to refer the matter to the old Doctors, which lived before the controversies began, of which we have spoken lately, and this we have often used, and still use against the Papists, in most controversies, although the authority of man is no certain rule to try, which is the truth of God. Augustine against julian used this way rightly, first confuting the Pelagians by the authority of the holy scripture, and then by the testimony of the ancient fathers also. Theodosius also in a case determined by the holy scripture, did politicly cirumvent the heretics, after the advise of Sisinius the Novatian, by the suggestion of Nectarius the Catholic, to put them to a foil, which had good success, because the others cause was nought. But Epiphanius hath a hard saying against us (as our answerer thinketh) It is enough to say against all heresies, the catholic church hath not taught this, the holy fathers have not admitted this. But I ween Epiphanius doth, not mean, that it is enough to say so, except men can prove it to be so. For else it is aseasy for heretics to say so against Catholics, as for Catholics against heretics. And here out answerer voucheth Epiphanius, quoting only, lib. 2. contra haere: but no Chapter of so long a book: whereby, knowing him to be a common foyster, we may well suspect his honesty in this voucher, until he show us, in what Chapter we shall find it.  
The sixtwaie of trial with him is, to consider which is the Catholic or universal Church, or great multitude of Christians, out of which the other part first departed. But to consider which is the Catholic or universal Church, is no way of trial, but the matter to be tried. And the description that he maketh of the Church, is as uncertain: the great multitude of Christians, out of which the other part first departed. For the Catholic Church is not always the greatest multitude. When the East Church was divided from the West, the one was as great a multitude, as the other; yea considering the number of provinces of the East, and the largeness of them, it was the greater. And one heresy some times departeth out of another, as the Rogatians from the Donatists, the Eunomians from the Arrians, the jacobites from the Eutichians, etc. Neither doth Saint Augustine against the Manichecs, make the consent of people, and the name of Catholic, of themselves, to be a sufficient way of trial, but among many things, which altogether held him, beside the authority of 
Cont. epist. Fund. cap. 4.  the holy scriptures, he accounteth these, which with the truth, are a good confirmation, but can be no prejudice against the manifest truth, as he confesseth in the same place. To the judgement of Vincentius we will subscribe, to hold that, which every where, which always, which of all hath been believed: so hath no point of Popery. Hoc est etenim verè proprièque Catholicum (quòd ipsa vis nominis ratioque declarat) quod omnia verè universaliter comprehendit. For that is truly and properly Catholic (saith Vincentius) which thing the very force and reason of the name declareth, which truly comprehendeth all things universally. These words in rehearsing the saying of Vincentius, our answerer could not bear, and therefore left them out, bragging of universality, antiquity, and consent, whereby his adversaries spirit might quickly be tried. But let him once attempt to try any one piece of Popery by this rule of Vincentius, and so show it to be Catholic, as he describeth Catholic, and he shall find it an harder matter to perform, then to talk of, examining his point by the authentical writings of the most ancient doctors, for. 200. years after Christ.  
The seventh way of trial is, succession of Popes, in the seat of Rome, wherein the successor always teaching the doctrine of his predecessor, it must needs be a strong argument, to prove the descent and continuance of one & the same faith from the Apostles time. This argument is used by Saint Augustine and Optatus, against the Manichees and donatists. But this way of trial he knoweth his adversaries will not admit. But he is deceived: for seeing he joineth succession in doctrine with succession in place, let him make trial when he dare, and prove that Peter, and all the Bishops of Rome, that lived for four, five, or six hundred years after Christ, did hold all points of Popery, and had none other faith, than the Papists have now. Some of the later mightholde some few, and of the best errors. But let them show all in every one, and take all: but that shall thev never be able to do, brag they of succession, as long as they list.  
The eight way of trial is, to examine what part doth hold any old condemned heresy: for the true Church can never admit, or defend any heresy: for otherwise she could not be the pillar of truth The true Church may err, in matters which are not of necessity to salvation, & yet be the pillar of truth, so long as she holdeth all truth necessary to salvation, yea some true Church may be 
1. Tim. 3.  seduced for a time, with heretical opinions, as the Churches of Corinth, and Galatia, but not obstinately defend them, nor continue in them. For of a particular Church, as the Church of Ephesus, the Apostle speaketh, wherein Timothy had his conversation.  
But we believe (saith the answerer) with holy Athanasius in his creed: that he which holdeth not the faith wholly in all points, shall perish eternally: howsoever our adversaries do salve the matter in their Prophets, Berengarius, Husse, Wicklife, and Luther, whom they say to have been holy men, and yet to have erred in diverse points offaith, and to have held their errors obstinately to the day of their death. And we believe with holy Athanasius, that whosoever shall not hold that Catholic faith (which he, or whosoever under his name setteth down in that Symbol or creed) whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. But not every one that erreth in any small point of doctrine or faith, which is not of the foundation of our religion. For so doth not Athanasius say, and our adversary falsisieth both his words, and meaning, to draw him to that sense of his. Now if Berengarius, Wicklife, Husse, Luther cannot be convinced of any heresy contrary to Athanasius Creed (though they erred in other points) they are not subject to his sentence of eternal damnation, more than Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, who erred also in some points of doctrine, yet are rightly accounted saints, and elect of God, as they which held the foundation, and all articles of faith necessary to salvation. But where he chargeth usto say, that Berengarius, Husse, etc. did err in diverse points of faith, meaning thereby diverse articles of Athanasius Creed, he doth us and them great injury: for that we neither say, nor think: neither say we, that they did obstinately hold those errors, wherein they were deceived, although they did stiffly hold them, not as heretics which are condemned in their own conscience, but as men deceived with zeal of truth, even in those points wherein they were deceived. But we believe, saith he, the contrary, by which belief he will condemn the best and most ancient Catholic fathers, who, as men, held every one of them, 
Epiph. lib. 1. Tom. 2. in praefat. Epiph. H. 38 Epiph. H. 42.  for the most part, one error, as hath been showed: But whosoever could show, saith he, but one confessed heresy to be defended by our Church, there needed no more disputation about the matter. It will be a hard matter to make the Papists confess, that their Church holdeth any heresy: but it hath been often showed, that the Popish Church holdeth many things, of old time condemned for heresy, as worspiping of the Image of Christ, in the Carpocratites, and Gnostikes; Invocation of Angels, in the Caianes, licensing of women to Baptize, in the Marcionites; worspiping of Angels, of men, and women, that are dead, in the Collyridians', and such like.  
But for the right use of this trial, he requireth two conditions to be observed: The first is, that the party do in deed hold that which is objected, and not a certain likelihood of it: in which point he chargeth us to slander them with the heresy of Pelagius, concerning free will, who held, that men without the help of God's grace, by the power and force of nature, could work well, but they require that a man should be prevented, and helped with the grace of God. In truth we do not object unto them, all articles of Pelagius heresy, but yet they are not free; for Pelagius held that by the power of nature men might keep God's law, but more easily by the help of God's grace: the, former the Papists hold not, but they hold the latter, that a man helped with God's grace, hath freewill, and power to keep God's law. Their doctrine also of merit ex congruo, of works preparatory before grace, and such like, are nothing else, but branches of the Pelagian heresy. The like injury, he saith, we do them, in objecting the heresy of those that did sacrifice to 
Epiph. h. 79.  our Lady, which they do not. A great injury, I promise you: the Collyridians' offered cakes only to her, the Papists offer candles, ouches, and brouches, money and jewels: The Collyridians' did garnish a charet where her Image was, the Papists adorn tabernacles (as they call them) yea chapels, altars, and Churches, to worship her: Epiphanius condemneth the study of making her Image, and the Images of dead saints, as a devilish attempt. He inveigheth most severely, against the worshipping of the virgin Marie, of Angels, and of saints departed, yetall this is Catholic among the Papists, and we offer them injury, to charge them with this old heresy, because they do not offer cakes, as the Collyridians' did.  
The second condition is, that the heresy objected, be accounted & condemned for an heresy in the Primitive Church, & not only held by an heretic: for heretics held many truths together with their heresies. And here he complaineth that Doctor Fulke doth them wrong, in saying that prayers for the dead, is an heresy, because the Montanistes, which were heretics, did hold it. But he rather doth offer manifest wrong to Doctor Fulke, whouseth not 
Pag. 41.  to reason so loosely: But rather concludeth that prayer for the dead is an error, because it was first invented and practised by an heretic. For all truth hath an higher and more ancient spring, than any heretic or heresy. But for so much as he hath answered this whole objection sufficiently, in his confutation of Popish quarrels, I will send the reader thither, where he shall find, that which may satisfy him in this matter.  
The last kind of trial, whereof he will speak at this time, is to consider the manner of old heretics, and to compare the same with ours. And here he would have the two former conditions observed; To wit, that we consider such qualities only, as were accounted heretical in them, and to examine them truly in ourselves. The manners of heretics, is no sure way of trial: for heretics come often times in sheeps clothing, pretending greater holiness in conversation, then true Catholics do. But let us see how he will prove us heretics, by this kind oftriall. For example, saith he, Saint Augustine, doth note it, as an heretcall property in the Donatists, to hate the sea of Rome, and to call it the chair of pesttlence. Doth this agree to the Protestants, or to us? as also defaming of the said sea for the 
Cont. lib. 〈◊〉. 2. c. 51  evil pretended life, of some particular men. But here he breaketh his own conditions. For Petilian did not hate the sea of Rome, as the sea of Antichrist: For the Donatists had their mockbishop at Rome also. But he railed upon all the chairs or sees of all Catholic Bishops, and on the Bishops themselves, that were not of his schism and heresy; and on the Apostolic chair of jerusalem, as well as on that of Rome. Again, the donatists called the chair of Rome the chair of pestilence, when it was the chair of a Catholic Bishop: we call it the chair of pestilence, now that it is the seat of the beast, and great whore of Babylon, 
Esa. 1.  Antichrist. As Esay calleth jerusalem an harlot, which yet sometime had been a faithful city. Wherefore the example of the Donatists maketh nothing against us.  
Another heretical trick Augustine noteth in them, to persuade the people, that the visibie Church had erred & oppressed the true Church, banishing her from the sight of the world. Do not our adversaries, saith the answerer, say the very same. No sir, we have nothing to do with the Donatists, whom the Papists do resemble, more than 
Den unitat. eccles. c. 12.  we. For in the place quoted, there is no talk of the visible Church, as you note in your example. But this is the matter. The Donastites affirmed, that the Church was utterly lost in all other parts of the world, and remained only in Africa, and in the part of Donatus. So the Papists affirm, that the Church was lost in all other parts of the world, and remained only in Europe, and in the part of the pope. But we hold, that the Catholic Church of Christ is dispersed over all the whole world, where the name of Christ is called upon, as Saint Augustine in the same place showeth out of the scripture, that it must be even among them, that either know not, or else acknowledge not the Bishop of Rome's authority. That he chargeth us, for condemning all the Church for the faults of some, as the Donatists did, we do not. But rather the answerer faulteth herein, with the Donatists, who upon shameful slanders, invented to deface the godly life, of Luther, calvin, Beza, and such like, laboureth to bring the truth of their Doctrine in discredit, as the Donatists did, by charging the Bishop of Carthage, and others with treason against 
Cont. lib. 〈◊〉. 3. Cap. 4.  Christ, in delivering the books of his Gospel to the gentiles to be burned.  
But yet moreover he noteth against the same heretics (saith he) for hating, and condemning the life of Monks, as also for drawing nuns out of their cloistures, and joining themselves with the same, in pretended wedlock. To reprove the life of them that were innocent, was a point of heretical malice: but to hate, and condemn the life of detestable hypocrites, and abominable livers, as the most of the Popish monks and nuns were, and are, is an argument of Godly zeal: an hypocrite and an holy man, an heretic & a Catholic, may do the same actions oftentimes, which differ not in the kind of action, but in the end, purpose, cause, and manner of doing. But where findeth our answerer the Donatists noted (as he saith) for hating and condemning the life of Monks, drawing Nuns out of cloistures, and joining them with themselves, in pretended wedlock. His quotation sendeth us to the second book against the epistle of Parmenian, cap. 9 and Ep. 169. ad Eusebium. But in neither of both places, is this noted in them: for they hated not the life of Monks and Nuns, which had such of their own, as in the former place Saint Augustine's words are. Anon come mach is particulam suam ponunt, qui greges ebrios sanctimonialium suarum, cum gregibus ebri is circumcellionum, die noctuque permixtos vagari turpiter sinunt? Do they not put their part with adulterers, which suffer the drunken flocks of their own nuns, with the drunken flocks of the circumcellions, day and night mingled together, to wander about filthily? This is all that he writeth there, of monks or nuns, which whether it do more nearly touch the life of Popish nuns, & lymiting friars, than the conversation of Protestants, let the indifferent reader judge.  
In the epistle to Eusebius, he complaineth of one 〈◊〉, which sometime had been a Subdeacon of the Church of Sanianum, who when he was forbidden to have such access unto the nuns, as was against the discipline, and despised orderly and wholesome precepts, he was removed from the clergy, and being himself stirred up against the discipline of God, he removed himself unto them, and was rebaptized. Also two nuns with their tenants, out of the ground of the Catholic Christians, whether the same man removed, or whether they followed him themselves, yet were they rebaptized, and were with the flocks of Circumcellions, among the wandering flocks of women, which therefore would have no husbands, lest they should have discipline. The proud fellow boasteth himself in the mad banquets of detestable drunkenness, rejoicing that a most broad licence of naughty conversation is opened unto him, from whence in the Catholic Church he was prohibited. Here is neither the hatred, and condemning of Monks lives, nor drawing of nuns out of cloistures, nor joining them in pretended wedlock, noted in the Donatists. But two light nuns, by a quondam clerk, either conveyed by their consent, or following him out of the ground of Christian Catholics, into the sect and grounds occupied by the Donatists, etc. In the same epistle also, he speaketh of the daughter of a certain tenant of the Church, that was carried away by the Donatists, against her parents will, so that she was among them baptised, and took upon her the form of a Nun, whom her father would by force and stripes have compelled to return to the Catholic Church, but he was forbidden by S. Augustine to use such force, if she would not come with a good will. This may touch Papists also, which have and do profess nuns, monks, and Priests, young undiscreet persons, against the consent of their parents; but how it should be applied against us, I cannot see. But here the notebooke was to blame, to quote these places, for such purposes: the answerer, I hope, is not so impudent, that if he had read the places himself he would for shame have noted them against us, or else have added as he doth. Finally, he noteth it as heretical in the Arrians, to appeal from traditions to only scripture lib. 1. Contra Maximinum. In all which book there is no such matter: for neither doth Maximinus appeal from traditions, neither is he noted for so doing, by Saint Augustine. In deed he often times boasteth of the authority of holy scriptures, and in that conference, he many times calleth for testimonies of holie-scripture, and professeth that he is, & willbe a disciple of the holy scriptures. But for this, he is not reproved of Saint Augustine, but still pressed with the authority of holy scriptures, whereof he falsely boasted, and when he doth but once call to witness the council of Ariminum. Saint Augustine in his answer, telleth him plainly, that he ought not to allege with any prejudice that Council against him, as neither himself the Council of Nice against the Arrians, but requireth that 
Cont. Max. l. 3. C. 14.  the matter be decided by authority of the scriptures, which are common to both parts. But Irenaeus in deed doth note it as heretical in the Valentinians, to appeal from the holy scripture to traditions, without the which they affirmed, that the truth could not be found in the scriptures, which they accused to be diversely or doubtfully written, as the Papists do, in comparing them to a nose of wax, or a leaden rule: So the contrary to that he falsely saith, was noted as heretical by S. Augustine, is in truth noted as heretical by S. Irenaee.  
But Optatus before Saint Augustine (saith he) noted it as heretical in the Donatists, to break altars, whereupon 
Optatus. Con. Donat. lib. 6.  the body and blood of Christ were kept, as the words of Optatus are. You must understand, that these altars were communion tables, made of wood and remooveable, covered with a linen cloth in the time of celebration, of which, in spite of Catholic Religion, some they broke, and some they seraped only: for which folly they are derided by Optatus. So played the Papists with the communion tables in the beginning of Queen Mary's reign, calling them in despite oyster boards, and breaking them with as great fury, and without lawful authority, as the Donatists did. The like parts they played with the communion cups, of which he also complaineth, as also challenging to themselves the Church yards, that the bodies of the Catholics, might not be buried in them. So did the Papists in Queen Mary's time. But the words of Optatus are (saith our answerer) that the body and blood of Christ were kept upon those altars. He would have us think that the sacrament of the altar was kept in a pixe, as among the Papists. But the words of Optatus are not so. For albeit he calleth the communion table an altar, as it was commonly called at that time, yet he saith not, that the body and blood of Christ was kept upon it: his words are: quid est enim altar, nisi sedes, & corporis & sanguinis Christi? For what is the altar, but the seat, both of the body and blood of Christ? And lest you should think that it was a permanent seat, wherein the sacrament was kept, as it is among the Papists, he saith further, speaking of the breaking, and scraping of these wooden altars; Quid vos offenderat Christus, cuius illic per certa momenta corpus & sanguis habitabat? what had Christ offended you, whose body and blood at certain moments of time did dwell there? By which words he showeth, that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, tarried no longer there, then until the time of the distribution of the same unto the communicants. As for breaking down of Idolatrous altars, and profaning of all instruments belonging to them, we have the word of God as a sufficient warrant, so that we cannot justly 
Deut. 7. 5.  be likened to the Vandals, that were Arrians, or to julian the Apostata, which defaced the Religion of the Christians, so long as our Religion, by the scriptures, can not be convinced of heresy, or Apostasy. For as heretics and ethnics destroyed the Religion of Christ, with the places and instruments used in the exercise thereof, so did the Christians serve the Tempells of Idols, and all other monuments of gentility, and heresy. The Papists do no more spare our holy Bibles, than we do their profane babbles. They break our tables and cups, as we do their altars, and chalices: they burn our bodies, as we do their Idols. Finally, it is the Religion that must justify, or condemn these actions: the actions are no sufficient trial of the truth of Religion.  
Here again he appealeth to public disputation, or to any other indifferent way of trial, that we dare afford him. As for public disputation, we dare, if the Magistrates think it convenient: but a most in different way of trial, by writing their arguments in syllogisms, Doctor Fulke offered for certain years ago, before Campian crept forth with his seditious challenge: the offer still remaineth, take up his glove, you Papists, if ye dare. As for the seditious commendation of Campian, and Sherewyn, condemned and executed for high treason, where with he hath never done, I will omit. That all heresy is beggerrie, which he laboureth to prove out of Saint Augustine, and that the Majesty of the Catholic cause, is greater, than heresy can oppress, we do willingly grant. Only let not the majesty of Christian religion be esteemed, by the multitude, or wordly power of them which profess it, wherein yet the Protestants are not much inferior to the Papists, at this time, but by the riches, and glory of God's truth revealed in his holy word, wherein Popery, whensoever trial is made, showeth itself like a most filthy rogue, and miserable beggar, though she seek cloaks of eloquence, learning, authority of men, or any such like things to cover her. And among all, that in these times have taken upon them to defend her, there is not a more beggarly merchant, than this proud answerer, who having no reading of his own, nor any other good quality of a defender, but a brazen face, & an heap of scornful words, is feign to scrape all his patches of learning, out of some other men's notes, or suggestions, in which he is as void of knowledge, as a beggar is of honour or riches. The causes that he allegeth of setting down his proud censure, might seem somewhat probable, if he had set down Master Charks reply also. Which seeing he durst not do, he cannot boast that all things shallbe made clear, by putting down the censure only, and joining thereto his own defence thereof, when there is more lack of Master Charkes reply between, then there would have been of his censure before it. But he pleased himself (as arrogant fools do commonly) so much in his own brood, that he thought it was never sufficiently seen, when all wise men were cloyed with it already. How well he performeth his brags, of answering all the substance of Master Charkes reply, the thing itself would show to them that shall read both the treatises together, without partiality.   

AGAINST THE DEFENSE.  
THe defender in the last words of his answer to Master Charkes preface, promising, to omit nothing of substance, which Master Charke saith, nor to let it pass without due examination, doth nevertheless omit more than two whole leaves of Master Charkes reply, untouched, and that in the very beginning, where there is more matter of substance, to discover the false and fraudulent dealing of him, and his fellow papists, than he might abide to examine, meaning to continue his lewd purpose, lest he should be driven to discover some part of his own unhonest practices. And yet he is not ashamed to say, that the replier, even at the veric entrance, lceseth his patience, for that the papists require short trial in disputation. How so, good sir? for sooth because he asketh, who is Campian, or the seedmen, that they shouldpresume, to make so short work, in avowing the popish religion, which hath nothing but tyrainnie, lies, hypocrisy, and rebellion, to defend it, or restore it. Which, as it may be said with truth, so it may be said with patience, & without any fear of the name of disputation: in which Master Charke by God's grace did quit himself so well against your Champion, as if ever a proud hypocrite were apalled, you may have shame of your bragging jesuite, howsoever you would turn it over unto Master Charke, and say that Campians quiet behaviour cooled him with shame. Where contrariwise, Campian being put out of his bias of lose and lavish talk, by that order which was taken (to have his answers written, and read unto him, to be acknowledged of him) was so amazed at the weight of Master Charkes arguments, which he perceived could not be answered with bare words, wherein he used to applaud unto himself before, that he was enforced to a quiet behaviour, much like a quarreling Ruffian, which when other men are quiet, is challenging of all men, but when he seethe himself overmacthed, can learn to be quiet and calm enough. As for the reproaches, injuries, and torments, that you say Campian took so patiently at Master Charkes hands, all men may see how falsely you charge him, with such matters as do nothing appertain unto him, while under the name of Master Charke, and the rest of his fellow Ministers, you think you may more largely rail against the Prince, and Magistrates, for execution of justice against Campian, and his traitorous Complices.  
Master Charke next to his question, Who is Campian, etc. addeth another. Where have these disputers stayed so long time? But to this you make no answer, and yet a matter of substance, that after more than twenty years, staying from challenge of disputation, now you come forth, on a sudden, as though you desired nothing so much as disputation. To the third question you would seem to answer. What can they get by renewing the battles, so often, and so lately refused by their Captains and fathers, & c? Here, because the names of Doctor Watson, and Master Fecknam, are noted in Master Charkes margin, you conclude, that nothing else is meant, but that which is contained in the little pamphlet of the conference in Wisbeach, for which, so much as concerneth Doctor Fulke, answer is made by himself, in his confutation of papists quarrels, pag. 16. 17. 18. 19 etc. but that Master Charke meaneth not only of that, you might well enough perceive by his words, so often, and so lately refused. That of Wisbeach was but one refusal, whereas to the same persons, and other of like quality, the conference hath been often offered, and never accepted, whether they were challenged privately, as in those bishops houses, where they remained dainty prisoners, or else by commandment from the Magistrates, as at wisbeach more than once, they were offered to have conference, if it had liked them to consent thereunto. And who knoweth not the most solemn & public conference at Westminster, in the first year ofher majesties reign, with too too much shame of the popish prelacy, given over and refused. Yet you say, that at the very same time (of Wisbeach conference) and both before & since, both you, and they have sued by all means possible, to be admitted to a lawful, equal, and free disputation, either in Cambridge, or any place else that shall be appointed. Name the pesons that sued, and them to whom they sued, and all the possible means you used, and bring good proof of your saying for any such disputation, before the time of Campians challenge, or else we must be feign to think, and bold to say, that you feign without colour, and lie without measure. Our offers, and your refusal have been public and notorious, besides many private offers, able to be proved by sufficient testimonies, & I think not denied by the persons themselves, while they lived. You bring nothing but a seditious libel of Campian, of all the possible mean of suit, and yet you ask Master Charke, what proceeding is this? Where are now the lies and hypocrisy? As though they were not manifest one your part.  
As for tyranny (being an odious word) you will say nothing, nor turn it to us again. Let racking & quartering of those that offered disputation (say you) be accounted scholastical reasoning, with you. A pretty jest, for men wots well, that Campian was racked for nothing else, but for offering disputation, and quartered for the same. Although his own letter convinced him to conceal some secret, which he promised never to utter, come rack, come rope, and much other plain evidence proved him to be a rank traitor, besides his answers subscribed with his own hands to these interrogatories; Whether he doth acknowledge the traitorous writing of Saunders, Bristol, and Allen, to be wicked, in whole, or part? and whether he doth acknowledge her Majesty to be a true and lawful Queen, or a pretenced Queen, and deprived, etc. To the first his answer was, that he meddleth not to nor fro, and will not further answer. To the second, that this question dependeth upon the fact of Pius Quintus, whereof he is not to judge, and therefore refuseth further to answer. Let this be the answer of a loyal subject with you: if Campian or any of his complices were racked and quartered for offering disputation, only, or at al.  
But this you must say to us Ministers, for our good, that it were far better we confessedour fear in plain words, than so much to manifest it in deeds, and thereby io discredit the rest of our sayings. What fear (I pray you) and by what deeds do we manifest it so much? be like the Ministers of England racked and quartered Campian, for fear lest he should overcome them in disputation, as the popish Priests torment, and burn them, whom they are not able to stand against in disputation: we will confess in plain words, that we are perilouslie afraid of you in deed, where you may practise your malice against us, by massacres and martyring of our bodies, with all kind of cruel torments, & bloody persecution, even unto death, & that by fire: but of your learning, art of disputing, or any thing that you can bring in the way of disputation, either to maintain your heresy, or to oppugn the truth of our religion, we never showed ourselves fearful, or made dangerous to join with the proudest of your part in public disputation, though it cost some of us their lives, for none other crime, but because you could not vanquish them in disputation, to make them yield unto your falsehood, or to deny the truth: and therefore there is no reason we should be afraid of your disputers, when we live under the protection of a most gracious Prince, who is ready to defend both our persons from injury, and our Religion from contempt and contumely: you must therefore seek out other manner of deeds, wherein we so much manifest our fear of you, than the racking or quartering of popish traitors (which all men, and yourself do know, to be no acts or deeds of the ministers, but of the Magistrates) as also that the same punishment is not laid upon them, for any cause of religion, much less for offering disputation, but for horrible and heinous treason, or else all men will account you to be but a wooden disputer, to charge us with fear showed in deeds, whereof you can show none, that is ours, or can argue the like fear in them, whose deeds they are.  
The rest of the matter contained in this defence, of the first section of the Censure, and of the next, is so good stuff, that it needeth none other confutation, than Master Charkes reply, against which it defendeth the Censure. Where the Censure said, there can nothing be had from them but words, Master Charke for himself referreth men to his answer, and for Master Hamner, he saith that he hath brought more reason with his words, than the Censurer will be able to answer. But that is not the Censurers purpose, in respect of the desired disputation, and the disired disputation is a seditions challenge, as hath been plainly proved. For otherwise, what arguments so ever for your part have been brought by the Censurer, have been by Master Charke, & Master Hanmer, fully answered: which is a sufficient acceptation of disputation offered (if no surther matters were intended) and a more profitable kind of disputation, then that you desire, the printed books extending far and near, & carrying a certain and undoubted relation, as well of the arguments, as of the answers: whereas in your desired disputation, it may well be thought, that you hoped to triumph rather in multitude of boasting words, to be uttered with impudent audacity by your brabbling sophisters, and in the false reports, spread by your lying sycophants, then to obtain any victory by sound arguments, or sufficient answers: which thing well appeared in the disputation that was granted to Campian, and other of your sect, with Master Charke and the rest of the Godly learned, that had conference with them.  
But now because of that which Master Charke hath said of Master Hanmer, bringing matter with his words, you will bind him to defend every syllable in Master Hanmers' book, & are not ashamed to charge him that he will needs take upon him the avochement of Master Hanmers' doings, with what reason, every man that hath but a crumb of reason, may judge. Therefore such matters as you require Master Charke to answer for, he may if he think good in his next writing, satisfy your request, although he have by no promise bound himself thereto, and Master Hanmer is sufficient to answer for himself, and therefore by me they shall be passed over with silence, being but quarrels and cavils, what the jesuits hold or hold not. The like I say to your collection of the effect of Master Hanmers' book, which is performed so wisely, and pithelie, that you seem to have found out a very compendious and easy kind of confutation of any book that misliketh you.  
Although the same brief kind of declaring the effect of Master Charkes book, doth not satisfy your mind, and therefore you pass over his reply without examination, promising to verify all that you have said and he denieth, in their particular places, because in deed M. Charkes reply doth so clearly discuss the smoke of your vain cavillations, that you are ashamed to bring them again into open light, & therefore refer them to several corners; nevertheless, I wish that all indifferent readers, as in all places, so in this, will vouchsafe to read M. Charkes reply, between the censure, & the defence, or at lestwise, after the defence, in which for the most part, they shall see the defence overthrown, touching the substance thereof, before ever it was written, or devised.  
Touching the order, and division of the book, that you will needs make, we must be content to follow you, although no wise man doubteth (whatsoever you pretend to the contrary) but it had been more easy both for yourself, and for the replier, of whom you would seem to have a friendly care, and most of all for the understanding of the reader, that you had followed Master Charke from point to point, ash followed Campians challenge, if your bad cause could have abidden the light of so clear a method. As for the long and bitter invectives of spiteful and contumelious speeches, odious accusations, light suspicions, insufficient collections, vain surmises of treasons, rebellious dissimulations, practices, etc. which you pretend to have been the occasion of changing the order, in so short a treatise as Master Charkes is, could be no reasonable cause thereof, but rather if any such had been, they had ministered great advantage to you and your cause, if you had orderly confuted them.  
How indifferently, and without choler, you offer your four points to be examined, both in your censure, and in the defence of the same, each man of what humour soever he be, may with a mean judgement be able to consider.  

The first part, touching the society of jesuits, and the first section, entitled by him, Ofrailing.  
YOu would convince Master Charke of railing, by his own confession, because he acknowledgeth his labour employed in certain vehement speeches, by you gathered together, to bring the jesuits in discredit, whose infections are well known abroad, and are now entered to work treason in the land. Also, because he granteth the speeches, which in all hatred of Popish practises, so directly attempted against the majesty of God, and the peace of this noble kingdom, he uttered, in diverse places of his answer. But if you had not omitted the reasons, which he setteth down, of his acknowledging, and granting of those vehement speeches, they had been sufficient in any reasonable man's opinion, to discharge him out of that crime of railing. For you yourself confess afterward, that every hot word, uttered in Catholic books, by occasion of matter, is not to be taken for railing. Now Master Charke standeth to the defence of his book, to be Christian and Catholic, and himfelfe to be a true member, and Minister of the Catholic Church of Christ, and for occasion of matter, he allegeth the infections of the jesuits, well known abroad, and their late entry to work treason in the land: Also those Popish practices, against which he uttered those speeches, to be directly attempted against the Majesty of God and the peace of this noble kingdom, so that such sharp speeches (and yet but sparingly uttered, in comparison of so many reproaches, as you have belched out against him and our religion) are not to be charged with the prejudice of railing, neither in regard of the person, who did use them, or of the matter, that did occasion them. At the least wise, until you had disproved him to be a Catholic, or discharged your jesuits of the crimes of heresy and treason, intended against them: neither doth he with slander devised against their persons (as the manner of the Papists is) seek to discreditte their doctrine, but in detestation of their false doctrine, attribute such terms unto the men, as for their doctrines sake they deserve.  
But you are gracious to grant him pardon, for that he confesseth hatred to have been the cause: as though hatred, not of the persons, whom he wisheth to repent unto salvation, but of the practises, which he knoweth to be against God, and the peace of the realm, may not be a just cause of more vehement invectives, than he hath any expressed. And yet you see not how any learned, or common honest man, and much less a preacher, can justify such uncivil and outrageous terms against his brother, by any pretence of Christianlike or tolerable hatred. I will not say how mány foul reproaches be included in this one sentence, taking it according to your meaning: for I will grant that you say to be true, if it may be understood, of him that is a brother in deed. But that jesuits are brethren to Master Charke, and such preachers as he is, I think neither the jesuits, nor you yourself (if you be demanded, when you are awake) will acknowledge. Therefore being such as M. Charke had before described them by their infections, treasons, practises against God and the realm, he was not to embrace them as brethren, but to detest them, as heretics and traitors.  
The turning back of the crime of railing, which he useth unto you, was not for any excuse of the crime committed by himself, for he doth not at all excuse, but justify & defend those speeches (which you call railing) as fit words against the wicked Monkish friars, or fryerlie Monks, affirming, that if he were disposed to place your ordinary and extraordinary railing in a rank, he might gather of your reproaches, more than can come into ten leaves: but this you say is neither to the purpose, nor true: not to the purpose, because you were provoked by his example, and injury, who began without example: He might answer you, that he began not with you, but you with him: neither did he provoke you by any private injury, but if you count the cause of the jesuits to pertain unto you, as a public injury, then judge in differently, whether the heresies and treasons of the jesuits, do not minister just cause to him, of his hatred, and bitter speeches against them.  
But that he could gather ten leaves of your railing, you say it is a licentious lie: For as Printers count leaves (that is whole sheets) there are but half ten in your book, and albeit they be counted as they are folded, yet ten leaves are a greater part thereof, then can be filled with railing terms only. So you say and seem to say somewhat to your purpose; but Master Charke having told you before (unto which your silence may stand for a confession) that almost every line soundeth loud with some foul reproach, who cannot see that it were easy to gather almost out of every line so many foul reproaches, as would fill more than ten of your folded leaves. For of Printers large count, no reasonable man would understand him, except you would allow him also, to make as large letters, and as few lines, as Printers sometimes use to do, in such large leaves of their account.  
But this matter you may not so soon pass over, for that you think it of importance, to descry she spirits of us, that are adversaries in this case. Railing in deed is a fault, in whomsoever it be found: but it had been requisite, that you had first defined what is railing, that we might have agreed upon the matter in question. You tell us afterward, what is not railing, namely, every hot word, uttered in Catholic books, by occasion of matter, is not railing, nor the thing in question: for both Christ & his Apostles, and many holy father's aster them, used the same sometimes upon iust zeal, especially against heretics. So that untilyou have proved Protestants to be no true Catholics, & discharged papists from being heretics, every hot word in our books, uttered against Papists, can not justly be accounted railing. Nay, if Catholics by heat of zeal in a just cause, or in a case that they think to be just, be carried sometimes in vehemency of speech beyond the bands of modesty, as they may be justly reproved therefore, so they may not straightway be condemned for heresy in so doing. james and john were so far deceived with zeal, and in a cause that they thought to be clear, and just, that they would have prayed, that fire might come down from heaven, by example of Helias, and destroy the Samaritans, that resused to 
Luk. 9  receive their master Christ, and were otherwise heretics, for which they were reproved, but yet as they which knew not, or had forgotten of what spirit they were, yet not by and by rejected for heretics. The contention was sharp between Paul and Barnabas, 
Act. 5.  and there was a fault between them, yet both holy Apostles. Saint Jerome is misliked of many, for immoderate vehemency of speech against Rusfinus, as good a Catholic as himself, yea he is not to be excused in heat against Saint Augustine. Vigilantius and jovinian he handleth more hardly in terms, than the cause of either of them did deserve; although the one were in some fault, the other for saw the seeds of superstition and Idolatry then in sowing, better than he: yet are not Saint Paul, Barnabas, Jerome, hereby noted for heretics. But for railing (say you) and foul scurrility, such as Protestants use ordinarily against us, and among themselves, when they descent, I dare avow to be proper to them and their ancetora only. All this while, you tell us not what you call railing, and foul scurrility, except you mean, that the very same odious terms, which are lawful or tolerable in you, be railing and foul scurrility in us, only because you account us heretics: and then we must account you to be trifling sophisters, which to convince us of railing, can bring none other arguments, but that which is the whole matter in contro versie between us, namely whether we or you be the heretics; and yet you dare avow railing & foul scurrility, such as Protestants use against you, not only to agree to us, but also to be proper to us & our ancestors, by whom you un derstand none but heretics. Oath modesty of Papists! among whom no one person can be found, that ever used railing or scurrility, if this be true, that you dare avow of the property of heretics, and of all them whom you take for such.  
But it is good to examine your reason, by which you would prove railing to be proper unto gospelers (as you term them) and thereby easily take a scantling of the diversity of their spirits from Popish Catholics. First, the mouth speaketh according to the abundance of the heart, which is true, in such sense, as it is spoken of by our Saviour Christ: for wickedness is first bred in the heart, before it break forth of the mouth: but it followeth not thereof, that you conclude, when you say, I mean a man may be known by his speech: for then the wickedness of every hypocrite might appear by his talk, which is untrue. But Saint Peter said unto Simon Magus, upon his only speech (say you) I see thee to be in the very gall of bitterness, etc. yet was it no railing speech, which Simon Magus uttered, nor dissembled speech: for he plainly professed, that he was desirous to buy the gift of the holy ghost; and last of all, it was not only speech: for the text saith, he offered 
Act. 8.  money for his march andise: for otherwise his only words, as they are reported by Saint Luke, were not sufficient to discover so great wickedness of his heart: give unto me also this power, that upon whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the holy ghost: it might have been thought, upon this only speech, that Simon lately baptised, was desirous to have been a Minister of the dispensation of the holy ghost, to the benefit of god's Church, by the grant of the Apostles, if he had not proffered money also, by which his covetousness, and other wicked blasphemous opinions of the holy ghost, were plainly discovered. You show yourself therefore to be a man mighty in the scriptures, that can bring no better example or proof, that one, by his only speech sometime, may be sufficiently convicted, of the wickedness of his hart, than this of Peter, and Simon Magus; where only speech was not used, and the speech that was used, was not of itself able to discover the heart of him that spoke. In matters of greater controversy betwixt us, perhaps you are better exercised, or else we are like to find feeble arguments on your behalf. To proceed, you say, the scripture is plain in this point. what point? that a man may be known always by his speech: for that he may sometime thereby be abundantly convinced, we doubt not. well, what saith the scripture? he 
Rom. 8.  that hath not the spirit of Christ, appertaineth not to Christ. This is most true of the spirit of adoption, which also showeth itself in the fruits of mortification, and renovation. But hereof we may not conclude, thatall things in them, that have the spirit of Christ. are perfect, so that they never offended, no not in words; or that in whomsoever appeareth any thing, which proceedeth not from the spirit of Christ (as in the best there do many things) they are therefore to be judged void of the spirit of Christ. And therefore we may see what sound divinity you teach, and how well you understand the scriptures, upon which you conclude as followeth: Now than if we consider the quiet, calm, and sober spirit of Christ, and of all godly Christians from the beginning, and the furious, reproachful, and unclean spirit of Satan, and all heretics from time to time, and do compare them with the writings of both parts at this day, we may easily take ascantling of the diversity of their spirits. Verily it shall be found as hard a matter, as it was before you made this demonstration. for notwithstanding we acknowledge the quiet, calm, and sober spirit of Christ and Christians, yet you confess, and the scripture is plentiful, to prove, that Christ and his Apostles against the wicked and obstinate enemies of the truth, used most hot, vehement, and sharp speeches, and they which have truth on their side may use the like in like causes, by their examples: So that by vehemency of speech, the cause can not so easily be discerned, neither is your scantling right to be taken thereby. Those kind of speeches, for the most part, are to be accounted furious, reproachful, and unclean, which are uttered of malice against the truth, when the same being spoken of zeal against falsehood, may well stand with the quiet, calm and sober spirit of Christ. Yet are there also certain unclean, reproachful and scurrilous speeches, which serve not so much to describe falsehood and sin, to the detestation thereof, as they seem of themselves to bewray the hatred, and intemperate heat of them that use them against the persons of other; and these in no case are commendable, but to be reproved, whether they be found in Papists, or Protestants, as neither of both perhapsmaie be clearly excused of this fault. By this it may be gathered what railing is properly, not every hot word (as you say) but such as are used in an evil cause against truth & justice, of malice commonly, sometime of immoderate zeal, & such as be offensive, in what cause soever, or of what zeal soever they be used, and such railing I dare avouch you shall not be able to prove, that it is proper to Protestants, no nor to heretics. For there be heretics which not with railings, and reproachful speeches, make divisions in the Church, beside the Doctrine of Christ, but with fair, smooth, & flattering 
Rom. 16.  talk deceive the hearts of the simple: therefore railing is not a proper, and perpetual note of heretics.  
Now as concerning your examples, first you begin with Master Charke, ask what more venomous words can be imagined then these of scorpions, poisoned spiders, and the like used by Master Charke against reverend men. Here except you can first discharge your jesuits of heresy, and treason, the words of scorpions, and venomous spiders, are no railing terms, but apt to express their venomous and poisonous practices: for they are used in scripture to describe the like mischievous works, as Apocal. 9 Esa. 59 5. The rest of his speeches, have either the same, or the like phrases justified in the scriptures, against corrupters of Religion, and enemies of public peace, as we show your jesuits to be, for the former, and their practices, to the confusion of some of them, have been discovered for the latter. With Master Hanmers' terms I will not meddle, who is to answer for himself, when you have confuted his arguments, or else when he shall see it convenient. Doctor Fulke, the next man, whom you condemn to be of a ruffianlike spirit, because he saith (show me Allin if thou canst for thy guts) as though you rail not more of him, in your ruffianlike term, than he in speaking of Allens guts, whatsoever the cause or affection were, hath answered already in his own behalf, & in such sort, as more shame redowndeth to you that have gathered together his vehement and sharp speeches, uttered in many books, and to those whom you complain by him to be abused, while he giveth a reason of his speeches, than all the eloquence you have will be able to wipe away in a larger treatise, than your defence of the Censure as yet appeareth to be. Confut. of Topish quarrels: page. 20. and so forth in 16. or 17 pages. If it were no more but your marginal note, Doctor Fulkes talon in railing, wherein you abuse an holy phrase of scripture, like an Italian Atheist, to move Sardonicall laughter, it were much more able to convince you of a ruffianlike spirit, than any term that D. Fulke useth, seeing such unreligious allusions unto the terms and matters of holy scripture, cannot be defended in any man, cause, or manner. The like you have of Primitias spiritus, and Luther's lying with a Nun in the Lord, all which argue a profane spirit and a licentious, intemperate, and almost blasphemous tongue, or pen, in any that use them or the like.  
When you have almost done with Doctor Fulke, you take upon you to show the like railing in the Masters (as you term them) that you have done in the scholars, and beginning with john Calvin, you say that his ordinary term, especially against Bishops and such like, as are his superiors, is to call them Nebulones, knaves: which beside the foul gall whence it proceedeth, is unseemly. For this you neither note nor quote any one place, where he useth that term in such sort, as either his gall might thereby be espied, or the same signfying light persons, might not fitly be applied unto them, upon whom he bestowed the term. As for your popish Bishops, are not his superiors, but for the most part deserve sharper terms, than Nebulones, even such as were fit for Annas, Caiphas. Ananias, and the rest of that race, which were as great prelate's as they? Having nothing more against Calvin, you pass over to Luther, who in his book against King Henry the eight of England, ministereth unto you larger matter to triumph against him: where in it may be doubted, whether you had greater pleasure in discovering of Lu thers intemper at style; then in displaying those odious and long since buried reproaches, against that noble Prince, so great an enemy to your Romish Antichrist; which as they were unseemly in respect of either of their persons, him that did write, & the Prince against whom he did write; so they were afterward misliked of Luther himself, who in as great humility, as before he did write in disdain, craved pardon at his hands, not for the matter & substance of his book, but for his unreverent 
Ep. ad Reg. Angl.  handling of the same, against a King of so great nobility, & of so good expectation. the cause that moved him to such destemper was, for that he supposed, that the book was not indited by the King himself, but by some enemy of his, to procure his dishonour, as he writeth in the same book, Crederes ab insigni hoste regis hunc librum editum in perpetuam regis ignominiam. You would think, that his book was set forth by some notable enemy of the Kings, to the perpetual shame of the King. And in his Epistle of submission he declareth, that he suspected cardinal Wolsey to be the author thereof, which made him the bolder to write as he did against it. And in the story of Sir Thomas moors life, written by his son in law Master Roper (which I have seen) it appeareth, that King Henry took great displeasure against Sir Thomas Moor, for the edition of that book, by which he received more dishonour, then by any thing in all his life. Luther therefore writing against him, that did abuse the name of the King, in defence of an evil cause, thought he was not bound to spare him, because of the kings title, but that he might so much the rather be free to inveigh against him. But this, to say the truth, might be some part of an excuse, though not a sufficient defence of his doing nevertheless it followeth not here of, that he could not be an elect vessel of God, or that he had no part of God's spirit, or that he was herein worse than any russian or rakehell, as our severe Censurer saith, without either malice or railing spirit, I warrant you. For Gods elect children, & they that have a great part of his spirit, do sometimes fall into far greater crimes than this, and yet by his grace are brought to repentance, as Luther was for this untemperate style, and thereof made open confession in his epistle of submission. again, he erred by immoderate zeal, yet in defence of the truth, which is not the cause that moveth ruffians and rakehells to rage. Wherefore it is well with Luther, that hath already answered the matter, before a more wise and merciful judge, and standeth not at the courtesy of our solemn Censurer.  
But it is more to your purpose, that you bring in Luther inveighing against the calvinists, where he had not (by our own confession) a good cause, & the calvinists again as bitter against him: a taste whereof though you refer the matter to another place, you will needs give us here, by citing of one place in stead of all the rest, and that is, of the Church of Tygurine against Luther, Tygur. 〈◊〉. 3. contra supermam Lutherij confessionem: whole words you promise to rehearse, out of what edition I cannot tell, for the edition of Tigure by Froshere. 1545. of Gualther's translation, reporteth their words somewhat otherwise, and therefore I think in this place, as in divers other, you are but a broker of other men's ware, to put forth that you never saw yourself, but gather out of some other man's notebooke, which reported not all things either with such diligence, or faithfulness, as had been requisite, to be found in so glorious a Censurer. The very words indeed of the edition beforesaid are these: Nos damnatam & execrabilem sectam vocat, ipse viderit ne iracundis istis & à Christiana religione alienissimis sermonibus sibi ipsi damnationem acceleret, & ne sectarum authorem vel consortem sese faciat, dum cum iis convenire non vult, qui Christum & fatentur & docent. Quàm admirabilem verò Lutherus hîc quoque cum Diabolis suis sese praebet? quàm impuris verbis, quae Diabolis farcita tument, utitur? Sic enim ait: Inuisus ille Diabolus in ipsis agit & nunc, & in posterum, si habent (quis enim latinis verbis haec exprimat) ein y ●geteiiflet, iiberteiiflet, vnd durchteiiflet lesterlich hertz, vnd Lugenmaull. Blasphemum. n. cor & o● mendax habent, in quo, super quod, & per quod diabolus diffufus est & regnat. Multa huius generis ab omni Christiana religione aliena verba non sine gravib. & justis causis praeterimus. quis verò unquammortalium istiusmodi ser moans exratione utentibus, non furiosis & Demoniacis audivit? He calleth us a damnable & execrable sect. Let himself take heed, lestwith those angry speeches, and most far from Christian Religion, he hasten condemnation to himself, and lest he make himself an author or a companion of sects, while he will not agree with them, which both confess and teach Christ. And how wonderful a man doth Luther here also show himself, with his devils, how unpure words, which even swell, being stuffed with devils, doth he use? for thus he saith: that hatfull devil worketh in them both now and hereafter. they have (for who can express these terms in latin words (an indevilled, overdeviled, & through devilled, blasphemous hart, and lying mouth; that is, they have a blasphemous hart, & lying mouth, in which, upon which, & through which the devil is diffused, & reigneth. Many words of this kind far from all Christian Religion, not without weighty and just causes we pass over: now what man ever heard such speech of men that use reason, being not ma● and possessed with the devil? In stead of these words you bring us an other report, and say, their words are these. Nos condemnatam & execrabilem vocat sectam, etc. Luther calleth us a damnable and execrable sect, but let him look that he do not declare himself an archhereticke, seeing he will not, nor cannot have any society with those which confess Christ. But how marvelously doth Luther here bewray himself with his devils? what filthy words doth he use, and such as are replenished with all the devils in hell? for he saith, that the devil dwelleth both now and ever in the zwinglians, and that they have a blasphemous breast insathanized, supersathanized, persathanized, and that they have beside a most vain mouth, over which sathan beareth rule being infused, perfused, & transfused to the same: did ever man bear such speeches pass from a furious devil himself? Hitherto (say you) are the words of the Tigurine calvinists, which how faithfully they are reported, by comparing them with the latin, and the true English of the same, every simple reader may perceive. Now touching such matter as you gather out of them: first where they say, how wonderful doth Luther show himself with his devils, you conclude in the margin, Ergo Luther had devils, which Master Charke denieth: a fine and proper conclusion. The Tygurines speak of the term of devils, which Luther so often repeateth against them, therefore he was possessed of devils actually: which is the thing that Charke denieth.  
secondly you say, these words of the Tygurynes may easily confute Master Charkes shameless lies in defence of Luther, as after shall be showed: well hereafter cometh not yet, and therefore you might have spared your courteous term of shameless lies, until you had showed us what they are. Yet I may not say that you have a railing spirit: but that even as your Pope, though he be never so great an heretic, hath a prerogative that he cannot err; so you have a privilege that you do not rail, though you use never so foul reproaches, and give no reason of them. More than this, here you wouldhave the reader to consider with what conscience Charke doth call Luther a holy and divine man, and M. Whitaker a man of holy memory, seeing the Tyguryne Caluinists (who are their Masters) do call him an arch-heretic and a furious devil. Peter was justly reprehended of Paul for dissimulation, and as one that did not tread rightly according to the truth of the Gospel, and of Christ himself 
Gal. 2.  he was called Sathanas, and told that he was an 
Mat. 16.  offence, and that he savoured not those things that are of God, but of men: the same Peter did thrice deny 
Mat. 26.  Christ, yea swore and forswore, curse and ban, that he knew him not. Think you then that M. Charke & Master Whitaker, with any conscience might call him an holy and divine Apostle, or an Apostle of holy memory? verily I would have the Reader consider, both here, and almost every where, what a subtle Logician (for I will not meddle with his conscience, wherofperhaps he hath small feeling) we have to be our Censurer, which maketh such infallible conclusions, as no man, except he had more overweening of his wit, then use of his reason, would make in a sophism among children in the university. And yet when you have cried out; Is not this open dissimulation and blinding of the people? where do the Tygurynes call Luther, an arch-heretic, and a furious devil? For although Luther in deed did break all Christian modesty, as one carried away with immoderate zeal, and that in a wrong cause; yet do the Tygurynes throughout all their wholltreatise speak both charitably of Luther, and as reverently as was convenient, to one which so much forgot his own credit, while he inveigheth against them. They bid him take heed that he make not himself an author or a companion of sects. Ergo by your Logic, do they call him an arch-heretic? Nay let us use your own friendly translation, let him look that he do not declare himself an arch-heretic: who but you may conclude of these words that they do call him an arch heretic? They admonish him of the danger, wherein he was like to fall, if God did not keep him, while he will not agree with them, which both confess and teach Christ in all necessary points unto salvation, as well as he. secondly I ask, where they do call Luther a furious devil? They ask in deed who did ever hear such speeches uttered by men that use reason, which are not mad, or possessed with the devil? whereof you can gather no more rightly, but that such speeches, wherein the devil is so often repeated, are more like to proceed from mad men or demoniackes, then from a modest Christian: yet do they not call him either mad man or demoniac, much less a furious devil: yea in the end after they have protested their hatred of the devil, & all his ways, they conclude, Deus faxit ne Listhero juxta domini verbum eveniat, Ex abun dantia cordis os loquitur, God grant that it may not come to pass unto Luther, according to the Lords sayings, Of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Now whether these be shameless lies, that the Tygurynes do call Luther an arch heretic, & a furious devil, let the reader's judge.   

The second section, entitled Of sects and sectaries.  
FIrst you complain, that the answer is somewhat confuse, and unorderly, because Master Charke saith, the examples of Elias, Elizeus, Daniel, and Saint john Baptist are no less wickedly, then unlearnedly alleged, to avow the jesuits order, which hot entrance (say you) is joined with a manifest cavil, because these examples are not alleged to avow the jesuits order absolutely, but in one point of differens: life, from the common sort, which maketh them no sectaries. But in deed Master Charke keepeth good order, speaking first of the name of a sect, than the definition of sectaries, & thirdly to such reasons as are alleged, to prove the jesuits to be no sectaries, namely these examples, which without any cavil (as you surmise) he denied to be sufficient, to avow the order or company of jesuits to be no sects, & so followeth the matter of confusion until the end of it. And now we will mark his reason, as you bid us. He demandeth what you are able to bring out of the word of God, why Elias should after more than two thousand years be brought in for a patron of friars? you answer, these examples are brought by the censurer, to prove that different apparel, diet, or strait order of life, do not make sectaries, as Master Charke hath affirmed, and now cannot defend, and therefore having nothing else to say, maketh these vain and idle interrogations in stead of proofs. Hear you not how confidently he speaketh what Master Chark hath affirmed? how boldly he pronounceth, that he is not able to defend, that he hath affirmed? and last of all how scornfully he concludeth, that he hath nothing but vain & idle interrogations, in stead of proofs? would ye not think, that he which so lately charged Master Charke with shameless lies (though he showed none) had a care, that he himself should speak nothing but the truth? And which in the end of the former section was so busy with the conscience of Master Charke and Master Whitaker, that he burdened them with open dissimulation, and blinding of the people, is it like, that in the beginning of the next section he would make an open and most impudent lie himself? for believe me reader if thou wilt, or else read over Master Charkes answer to Campians seditious pamphlet thyself, and thou shalt find my words to be true, that Master Charke doth no where affirm, in all that book, that different apparel, diet, or strait order of life, do make sectaries: I say, neither in this form of words, nor in any other to this effect or sense. Then judge according to thy conscience, what a sincere Censurer this Papist is to Master Charke, and what a doughty defender he is of his own Censure.  
But now to return to you, sir defender, whom I may not accuse of lying, lest you charge me of railing, although I take you in a manifest untruth: was this the cause why ye found fault with M. Charkes method, to jumble together things that were in good order, that you might fumble out such an open slander, & be covered with the dust of disorder, that you yourself had raised? you show now of what spirit you are, even of his that was a liar, and a false accuser from the beginning, and the father of the same things. But to that idle interrogation of Master Chark, as you term it, what was there in Elias, Elizeus, or Daniel, that may liken them to jesuits? you answer there was to your purpose now in hand a different sort of life from the common sort, which made them no sectaries, as Master Charke would have the jesuits to be for that cause. I have said before, for that cause only Master Charke would not have them, neither doth he thereby go about to prove them to be sectaires, although there is great difference in the singular examples of those Prophets, and in multitudes of men, that sever themselves from the common sort of true Christians, and that for religions sake, therefore those examples were idly brought in by the censurer, to prove that lesuites are no sectaries. But to this you add, which is more than you need (as you say) and in deed more than is for your purpose, to justify the jesuits that dwell commonly in the greatest cities, That Saint Jerome proveth plainly, that Elias and Elizeus were the beginners, captains and patrons of Monks, and monastical life, whom he calleth for that cause Monks of the old testament, ep. 13 ad Paulinum, & ep. 4. ad Rusticum. For Saint Jerome in the former place proveth not at all, but only saith. Noster Princeps Elias, etc. our prince is Elias, ours is Elizeus, our guides are the sons of the Prophets, which dwelled in the fields, and desert places, and made them tabernacles near the streams of jordane. The like he saith of the sons of Rechab, which drank no wine, or strong drink, and dwelled in tents: & this he saith, to approve the dwelling of solitary men that were given to study, and contemplation in desert places, by example of these holy men commended in the scripture, which extendeth not to Popish Monks, or jesuits, which thrust in themselves especially into places of most frequency of people. In the epistle to Rusticus, he speaketh neither of Elias, nor Elizeus, but exhorteth Rusticus likewise to leave the city, and to get him into some solitary place, if he will be in deed, that he professed himself to be called, Monachus, a solitary man. He bringeth in deed the example of john Bap 'tis, and the sons of the Prophets, filii Prophetarum (quos Monachos in veteri testamento legimus) aedificabant sibi casulas propter fluenta jordanis, & turbis urbium derelictis polenta & herbis agrestibus victitabant: the sons of the Prophets whom wereade to have been Monks or solitary men in the old testament, did build themselves litlecoteges near to the streams of jordan, and having for saken the throng of cities, lived with pottage and wild herbs. In the same epistle he saith, mihi oppidum carcer, and solitudo paradisus est: quid desideramus urbium frequentias, qui de singularitate censemur? unto me the town is prison, and the solitary place is a paradise: what do we desire the frequency of cities, which have our name of being solitary? These words of Saint Jerome do show, that in the principal point of profession there is great odds betwixt your jesuits, & the solitary men, of the old testament. Sozomenus in 
lib. hist. 1. cap. 12.  the place by you cited, after he hath commended the Philosophy or contemplative life of the solitary men in those days, hath these words: of this excellent Philosophy was the beginner (as some say) Elias the Prophet, and john Baptist: so that it is not so absolute as you set it down, but as some say, and it is of a Philosophical study and life, in which if comparison be made with Popish Monks, for one thing which they have like, they have three things unlike, or contrary to the profession and practice of those ancient Monachi, which might have some resemblance with the manner of Elias life in some things, and were more agree able to the example of the sons of the Prophets which were students in divinity, as those old Monks of the primitive Church, ready to serve in the place of teachers, whensoever they were called.  
That antiquity only should let the Prophets to be examples of monastical life, it is your own vain collection, and as vain is your comparison of Adam, to be a pattern of marted men, Abel of shepherd's, Cain of husband men, etc. For M. Charke asketh what you are able to bring out of the word of God, why Elias should after more than two thousand years be borough in for a patron of friars, which for so many years could never be espied in the Church, either of the jews, or of the Christians. As for the estate of married men, shepherds, husbandmen, citizens, Tentdwellers, musicans, smiths, etc. is either necessary or otherwise commendable, then by the examples of those ancients, of which some in respect of their antiquity are not to be followed at all, as Cain, and the rest of his cursed line, who yet were inventors of profitable arts by the gift of God, and not by the worthiness of the persons. As for the slate of the monks and friars, such as we strive about, is neither necessary, nor profitable to the Church, but a great infection, and poison of the same. Now whether john Baptist were a precedent to Monks, whom Master Chark saith to have been an extraordinary, and perpetual Nazarite, whose example is not now laid upon them that teach in the Church; you answer, that he doth wilfully mistake the question; for that you affirm not, that such extraordinary austerity is laid upon any man of necessity, but that it is lawful, and maketh no sect, when it is voluntarily taken and used. You do wilfully omit the pith of Master Charkes argument, who is not ignorant of your pretence, of voluntary, but addeth that the several offices of those that teach in the Church are expressed in the word of God, and therefore there can be no new order of Ministers by any title or voluntary assumption: but it is a suspicious sect, howsoever several persons may as they see just cause more or less, prescribe unto themselves, some extraordinary austerity of life for their private exercise or chastisement. That Saint john's austerity was for the most part voluntary, and not of necessity of the vocation of a Nazarite, it is fondly proved of you, by example of the superstitious sect of the Essenes' described by Pliny, and josephus, of which Pliny speaketh very little, but josephus at large, and in some points of austeritic noteth them to exceed any thing that we read in scripture of Saint john Baptist; as of their continual exercise in labour of their hands, their forbearing to spit in the assemblies of men, their forbearing to ease their bodies on the sabbath day, and such like superstitious toys.  
Now the austerity of Saint john, in that he did willingly, and not by compulsion undergo it, may be called voluntary: otherwise, in that it was appointed by the wisdom of god, whose spirit directed him, it was necessary, and especially for the forerunner of Christ, to sing the doleful song, and to call the people to repentance, and therefore, not without presumption, drawn into example by them that are neither led with the same spirit, nor called to the same office and so no example nor platform for the superstitious order of Monks, and friars, albeit they alwares kept as great austerity in deed, as they profess in words. But it is a wonderful argument for your Monks, that the Nazarites did make a religious vow for their dedication to God, as your religious people do also use. For it were somewhat 
Num. 6.  that you say, if you could bring as good warrant for the vows of your Popish votaries to be prescribed and accepted of God, as you bring for the vow of the Nazarites: otherwise it may be said unto you by God, as he speaketh by the Prophet, quis requisivit, etc. who, required these things at your hands? which if it were said 
Esa. 1. 12.  of those things, which in some manner, and to some end were required, how justly may it be spoken of these, that in no manner, nor to any end, are by God required at your hands? but that Saint john was a Monk of the new Testament, and a patron of monastical life (although you confess it to be more than you were bound to prove) so many fathers as you name, do testify with one consent. And what if he were an example followed of those Monks, that lived in most of those father's times, is he therefore a patron to your Popish Monks, of these late days, and new orders? it will be more than hard for you to prove that. Now let us consider your authorities, which you affirm to testify, that Saint john was a Monk of the new testament, and a pattern of monastical life.  
First, Gregory Nazian. orat. de. S. Bas. 1. hath this testimony. only he compareth basil with Saint john Baptist, as resembling him in some things, as he doth with Peter, Paul, john the Evangelist, and Stephan: except you will say these were all Monks. chrysostom in deed, Hom. 1. in Mark. calleth Saint john prince of the Monastical life, but not a Monk of the new testament, as I have showed before in answer to your preface. Neither doth Saint Jerome epist. ad Eustoch. say that Saint john was a Monk, and pattern of Monastical life, but speaking of the life of an Anachoret, which lived by himself alone in the wilderness, he saith: huius vitae auctor Paulus, illustrator Antonius, & ut ad superior a conscendam, princeps 
Not the Apostle, but the Hermit.  johannes Baptista fuit. Of this life Paul was the author, Anthony the beautifier, and that I may ascend higher, the Prince or chief was john Baptist. Where is john Baptist the Monk, or pattern of your Papistical monkish life, when they lived not in the wilderness, but in cities, & populous towns, not in caves, and tents, but in gorgeous palaces? Although Saint john be the chief of them that lived in the wilderness, the same Jerome in the life of Paul the Eremite whom before he calleth the author of the Anachorites life, hath these words: Inter multos saepe dubitatum est, à quo potissimùm monachorum eremus habitari caepta 〈◊〉 quidam enim altiùs repetentes, à beato Helia & johann sumpsere principium, quorum Helias plus nobis videtur fuisse quàm Monachus, & johannes antè Prophetare caepisse, quàm natus est. alij autem, in quam opinionem vulgus omne consentit, asserunt Antonium huius propositi fuisse caput, quod ex part verum est. It hath been often doubted among many, by which of Monks especially the wilderness began to be inhabited: for some fetching the matter somewhat high, have taken the beginning of blesseá Elias and John, of which two Elias seemeth to us to have been more than a Monk, and john to have prophesied before he was borne: but other (into which opinion all the common sort consenteth) affirm that Antony was the head, or chief of this purpose, which is partly true. By these words it is evident, that Saint Jerome counteth Helias and John Baptist to be of a higher calling, then that they could be called Monks or patterns of Monastical life: ascribing the beginning of them rather to Paul and Antony, then to Helias, and john Baptist, although they both, for some time, did lead an austere life in the wilderness. the same doth your next author Cassianus, Collatine 18. Cap. 6. neither doth he once call john Baptist a Monk, or pattern of monastical life, but only showeth that the Anachorites desiring to encounter openly with the devil, feared not to pierce into the vast solitary places of the wilderness, ad imitationem scilicet johannis Baptistae, to the imitation of john Baptist, who led his life in the wilderens: so do not your Popifh Monks, but lie in their warm nests in the cloisters.  
What Sozomenus saith, I have showed a little before. Isodorus agreeth with Saint Jerome, and Cassianus, that the Anachorites which live alone do follow Elias, and john Baptist, where as the Coenobites, which live in companies (in that point more like your Monks) do follow the Apostles. As for Theoph. in c. 1. Lu. which you note next, hath nothing sounding towards the name of monkor monastical life, except you mean where he saith that john lived in the wilderness, as Elias did. The last author you quote, Nicephorus Hist. li. 8. c. 39 hath nothing more than the very words of Sozomene, that some men said that Elias was the beginner of that solitary life of Christians, some that john Baptist. And among all your authors, there is not one that saith, john Baptist was a Monk of the new Testament, or a pattern of such monastical life, as you defend, that there should be so great consent there, of that matter, where of you brag so much. But names, and quotations of Doctors are sufficient, either for you, that by all likeliehood never turned the books yourself, or for your sottish scholars, that accept all your words without examination and trial.  
After this followeth a vain strife of words concerning the signification of this term sect, which of M. Charke is taken for a schism, as it is manifest by the example he bringeth of the 1. Cor. 1. The Censurer sometime taketh it in good part, and sometime in evil: sometime he maketh it equal with the term of heresy, sometime more particular: which contention seeing it is unprofitable for the readers, I do willingly omit, referring them that list to understand ofit further, to the comparison ofboth their writings, where they shall find, that Master Charke in effect preventeth all his cavillations, by saying that the names of heresy and sect areoften times confounded: which to prove, the Censurer busieth himself in vain. It is somewhat material that he saith, the Corinthians erred in a point of faith, esteeming the virtue or power of Baptism, not to depend only of Christ, but of the dignity of the Baptizer. And surely there must be some opinion touching faith, where there is a schism, in the Church, though there be not a dissent in the necessary articles of faith: but a schism or sect may be, where neither the general doctrine, nor the society of the Church is forsaken, as inthe example. 1. Cor. 1. which is contrary to the descriptionof the censure. Sectaries are such as cut themselves of in opinion of religion from the general body of the Catholic Church: for so did not the Corinth. 1. Cor. 1. (howsoeeur they had an opinion of some excellency in the minister of Baptism) nor the 1. Cor. 11. 18. where Saint Paul likewise chargeth them with schisms, when they came together to celebrate the communion, which text being likewise quoted by M. Chark, is clean omittedby the defender. But now you would clear your sects of Monks and Friars from the example of the Corinthian schismatics, by a fond similitude, supposing our ministers should say in a contrary sense of liberty, I will live unmarried after the order of my Lord of Canterbury. I will bem aried after the platform of my Lord of London: I will have two wives together, after the fashion of Master Archdeacon of Salisbury: I will have a wife, and a wench, after the custom of some other Archdeacon and preahcer. Concerning your example, if any Archdeacon's be of such fashion, as you describe them, I would they had such punishment as to such fashions belongeth, and if you be able lawfully to convince them thereof, I doubt not but they shall. As for the other 2. of being married & unmarried, be matters in deed of Christian liberty, that every minister may choose that which he findeth to be most expedient for him, but if any minister should glory of his continent life out of marriage, by having my Lord of Canterhurie for his pattern, or of his chaste life in marriage, by following my Lord of London's platform, he might justly be noted for a schismatic, as Saint Paul doth the Corinthians when they said, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas, and I of Christ. For the platform, order, pattern, or example of men in these cases, must not be their warrant, but the word of God; which text is plain, that in profession of Religion we may not be called by the names of men, no nor by the name of Christ, or jesus, thereby to make a division or separation of ourselves in excellency from other, to whom jesus Christ is common, as well as to ourselves.  
For every one of your sects termed of Benedict, Augustine, Francis, Dominike, jesus, etc. although in the general doctrine of Popery they all agree, yet have they their several opinions each one of the excellency of their orders, and patrons, which maketh a schism, and often times hath broken forth into great brawling, and open contention. It is too manifest, that the Monks commonly hated the Friars, the Dominicans and Franciscans were at deadly feed, the not observants envied the observants, and they despised the children of their own father Francis, as bastards in comparison of themselves: and now the jesuits are hated and invicd of all other sects of Monks, and especially of Friars, whom they bring into great contempt, wheresoever they plant themselves, in so much that the Friars in some places have slirred up sedition against them, & caused them to be expelled. It remaineth therefore that the jesuits are a sect or schism even in Popery, as they are a detestable kind of heretics against the Catholic faith, which is common to all obstinate Papists, and it is true likewise, which Master Charksayeth, that the Pharises were a notorious sect, ver did they not cut of themselves from the religion of the Church, nay they bore the greatest sway in the Church: & albeit some of them held great heresies, yet they professed to imbraceal the doctrine of the Church: and so did the Saducees, in so much that some of them climbed up even to the high priests office: yet were they a detestable sect, but of a bastard Church, as the jesuits are of the Popish Church of Rome.  
His definition also (if you did not cavil and trifle about words) is true, that a sect is a company of men, that differ from the rest of their religion, in matter, or form of then profession. Whether you derive the Etymology à secando, of cutting, or à sequendo, of following, although I think Master Charke meaneth it of cutting, the absurdities you gather are wilful cavillations For bishops, ministers, lawyers, judges, etc. though they differ in authority, apparel, state, and form of life, yet they differ not in form of profession of religion from the rest of our religion. They be diverse offices, and lawful callings in one profession of religion, but so are not jesuits, and other orders of Monks, and Friars: for they, albeit they hold one religion with the rest, yet do differ in the form and profession of that religion, being no necessary offices or callings instituted by God, but several professions begun by men, whose imitation soever they pretend. Therefore no wise man, but such a quarrelling Censurer, would have made the cases of bishops, judges, lawyers, like in this point with Dominicans, Franciscans, jesuits. Like wisdom and gravity you show in flouting of. Master Charkes definition, with your ridiculous comparisons, where he sayeth, a sect is a company of men. For when, you have sported yourself, until you have wearied yourself, and your reader, in the end you confess that you are not ignorant, that in common speech this word sect may improperly signify the men also, which profess the same, but not in a definition, where the proper nature of each word is declared. Whether it be properly or improperly so taken, because it is a brabble of words, I will not contend, but if you exclude all improper or figurative speeches, whose sense is commonly known, as this of sect, from definitions, you will drive them into a strait room. For we may not say, Logic is a science, or arte bene disserendi, which in common speech signifieth to dispute well, because disserere in latin, doth properly signify to sow, or set in diverse places: and seeing the word sect in common speech, may signify the men that profess such a separation, why may there not a definition be given of the term according to that signification?  
Now whether the jesuits be a sect, according to Master Charkes definition, you will examine: after you have told us, that his conclusion is like that he made in the Tower against Campian, which was to dispatch him at Tyburn, nothing following of the premises: which fond comparison I pass over, seeing all men: know that conclusion was not of Master Charkes making, by which Campian was hanged at Tyburn, and all men may see what was Master Charkes disputation in the Tower, and how it was answered by Campian.  
But to the matter in hand, you ask what is in M. Charkes illation, that can make the lesuites a sect, if it were all granted to be true? the jesuits receive a peculiar vow to preach as the Apostles did, every where of free cost. First, to dedicate a man's life by vow to God's service, you say it is allowed in scripture, Numbers. 6. &. Ps. 131. yea, that is every man's duty: but Master Charkes illation is of a peculiar vow, which by no scripture is allowed, but of such things only as God accepteth to his service, and are in our own power to perform, as the vow of a Nazarite, the vow of sacrifices, of thanksgiving, etc. Other be either superstitious, or unlawful vows. secondly, to preach every where and at free cost, you think he should be ashamed to say that it maketh a sect, seeing Christ commanded his Apostles to preach every where freely, and Saint Paul glorieth, that he had taught the Gospel of free cost. Yes Sir, this maketh a sect, for them to vow to exercise the office of Apostles, which are not called by Christ to be Apostles: the vow is unlawful, and the votaries are sectaries, not of the Apostles, but of that pseudo Apostle Laiolas, that was of his own ordination. Again, where you say, that the Apostles were commanded to preach the Gospel in all places freely, it is false, for that precept, Mat. 10. give freely, as you have received freely, either is meant of the graces of healing, or if you join it with the other precepts that follow, of not possessing gold, nor silver, nor money, garments, & c. & other provision for the journey, it is as they are particular for that voyage, and not general for all time of their Apostleship. For otherwise the Apostles should have grievously offended, in not preaching in all places of free cost, and Saint Paul in taking of double wages of some Churches, that in some other he 
2. Cot. 11. 8.  might preach freely. Therefore as upon good consideration in some place the Apostles did preach of free cost, and so may men at this day: yet for any man to vow, that in all places, and at all times, he will preach at free cost, the vow is unlawful, because it is contrary to the ordinance of God, which hath ordained and appointed that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9 14. And it cannot, but be to the injury, & such as will procure contempt, and neglect unto them that preach the Gospel, and live according to the ordinance of the Gospel, in taking the stipend for them appointed, that there should be a sect or company of men, which should profess always and in all places to preach of free cost.  
You proceed and ask, what then maketh them sectaries? to whip and torment themselves, if it were true? seeing Saint Paul chastened his own body, and carried the bonds of Christ in his flesh: and the scriptures talk much of mortifying our members, of crucifying our flesh, and the like, and never a word of pampering the same. As though there could be no chastening of the body, bearing of Christ's marks, mortifying the members, or crucifying the flesh, except men whip and torment themselves: or that whosoever doth not whip himself, doth pamper his flesh. Saint Paul did chastise his body, with abstinence and fasting: he did bear in his body the marks of Christ, by suffering imprisonment, stoning, whipping, not of his own hand, but of the persecutors of the Gospel. As for mortifying our members and crucifying our flesh, be higher matters, than any voluntary exercise: and extend much farther in overcoming our whole corrupted nature, which it seemeth you little know or practise, for all your whipping, and tormenting of yourselves, by your comparing of them to exercises of bodily chastisement. Moreover, the severity of S. john Baptists life, and of other Saints of the new Testament, & the old, mentioned in the scripture, favoureth not your superstitious whippings. For albeit they did willingly sometime abstain from pleasures that are lawful, & were tormented by other, yet none of them was a tormentor of himself. And as for the great store of examples, that you promise the reader in one Chapter of Marcus Marulus, lib. 3. cap. 10. of Saints chastizing their bodies with whips, there is in deed some store of examples of voluntary, not only chastening, but also tormenting of the body, but we have small warrant either that they were all Saints, or that any Saints in such examples of tormenting their bodies pleased God: yet is there very few examples of them that whipped themselves. The first is of Francis, the father of grey- friars, which being assaulted with the thoughts of marriage, being angry with himself therefore, did beat himself very hardly with the cord wherewith he was girded. But when stripes little prevailed, he tumbled himself naked a great while in the deep snow, and afterward binding to his whole body the shapes of men made of snow, he spoke unto himself, by the way of rebuking, and said, lo Francis, here is thy wife, lo, here be thy children; either cloth them, that they be not so frozen for cold, or else forsake all things, and serve the Lord only. So (saith your author) at length he tamed the wantonness of his flesh with whips, and quenched the burning fire of lusts by embracing cold snow with his naked breast. But the holy ghost, wiser than Francis, prescribeth marriage, which he did fight against, and not Images of snow, which he embraced, to be a remedy to quench burning Iust. I. Cor. 7. But of whippers there are three more examples; Elizabet anunne of Comagie, whipped herself certain hours every day. Maria Decegnies, that was married against her will, by often prayers, fasting, and whipping of herself, moved her husband to vow chastity with her, where your author saith Naufragium, etc. she had made shipwreck of virginity, being committed to the waves of Matrimony: but while she leaneth to the board of fasting, prayer, chastisement, unhurt and untouched she swam out unto the haven of salvation. But the holy ghost giveth an other 
Portum salutis.  rule to them that be married, that the wife be not separated from her husband, except it be for a time of fasting and prayer, and then to return again together, lest Satan tempt them through incontinency, and that they which are married, should not seek to be loosed. 1. Cor. 7. ver. 10. 5. 27. Beside these, there is a Duke's wife of Thuringia called Helizabeth, that commanded her maids to whip her in her privy Chamber: and these are the goodly examples of Saints that used whipping of themselves. Many of the rest are wearing of haireclothes, as Thomas Becket, Maiorus, Bishop of Sarina, I wots not where, in the isle of Brittany. Medericus Eduensis Abbas: jews the 5. King of France: Cecilia, and Radegundis wife of Clotharius King of France, until she had obtained the dissolution of the band of marriage, by binding herself to chastity, agreeable to the doctrine of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. as well as white and black resemble each other. edmund of Canterbury ware a coote of mail, woven with lead. Macharius Abbot of Alexandria bore on his shoulders a sack full of sand. A Monk in Saint Jerome, being commanded by his elder, carried a great stone eight years together, twice in the day, by the space almost of five miles. Jerome to Eustochium testifieth, that he cried often day and night together, and ceased not beating of his breast until by the Lords rebuking, quietness returned. An example more meet to be followed of them that seek the like cause, than any we have had yet, which is confirmed by authority of the Scripture, Psal. 22. Psal. 32. and 42. Bonifacius Archbishop of the neither Missia, riding barefoot in winter, his feet were frozen to the stirrup, and thowed with hot water. Hospitius Monk of Nuceria used an Iron girdle: Philoramus a Priest lived enclosed in a stony den, being bound hand and foot with iron bands, and the last day of his life confessed (if you will believe the story) that he omitted no moment of time, in which he thought not somewhat of God: he had been better occupied, to have attended on the flock of the Church, whereof he was a Priest or elder. Martin a Monk of Massick in Campania had bound his foot in a chain fastened to a rock, but being bidden by the Abbot Benet to beware that the iron chain did not hold him there more than the chain of Christ, he unloosed the bands, but would never depart further. john a Monk stood three years under a hollow rock of a mountain, that his legs thereby swelled, and broke into ulcers. Pacomius an Abbot walked barefoot through the brambles and thorns, and returned into his cell with his feet all bloody. Simeon a Monk took a rope from a bucket, and wound it about his body, until his flesh were eaten with it, and putrefied, till stink betrayed the secret: then the rope being loosed, he was expulsed out of the Abbey for his folly: but afterward being sought for by his Abbot, which was troubled with terrors in the night, he was found in a dry pit in the desert, and brought back again. Last of all, Sara an Abbess in Scythia, by the space of 60. years, would never look out at a window to behold the water that ran by, or the pleasant meadow. I pray God she were not worse occupied within, than she might have been in beholding Gods creatures a broad. And these (except Saint Paul's chastening of his body, which he nameth first) are all the store of worthy examples, gathered, as you say, out of all antiquity: and yet Paul being the first, Thomas Becket is the next: and although there be some of greater antiquity, yet, out of all antiquity, you would not have said, if you had read the Chapter yourself, except you care not what you say.  
You add further that Saint Jerome testifieth of himself, by an occasion given to a secret friend of his, that his skin was well near as black, with punishment, as the skin of an Ethiopian, Epist. 22. ad Eustochium: And that johannes Cassianus, that lived about the same time, hath infinite examples of the practise of the fathers in this point. Saint Jerome in deed writing to the noble virgin Eustochium, testified how little he prevailed with such immoderate austerity, to subdue the lust of his flesh, until by importunity of prayers, he obtained rest of his unquiet mind from Christ. Although his words be not, as you have set them down, that his skin was as black as an Ethiopian: but his deformed skin was grown over with the hearines, or scurf of an Ethiopians flesh, squalida cutis situm aethiopicae carnis obduxerat. In the margin you note that we will say, Saint Jerome was no Protestant. I answer, although we cannot allow Saint Jerome, or any man, that by hurting his bodily health, with immoderate rigour of austere life, bringeth his natural life in danger: yet do we embrace S. Jerome, as a member of the true Church of Christ, who trusted not in any merit of such chaistisment, but only in the mercy of God by jesus Christ. The like we say of any examples of godly men, that are brought by Cassianus, who is not altogether so old as you make him. Your railing, and seoffing at Peter Martyr. I omit, as meet for such a Censurer: but where you charge him to jest at Saint basil and Saint Gregory Nazianzen, for hard handling of their own bodies, in cap. 16. lib. 3. Reg. your note book deceived you: for in his comment upon the Chapter he hath no such matter. His judgement else where may be to this effect, That notwithstanding the examples of the ancient godly fathers, yet it is neither lawful nor expedient, for a man with such rigour to handle his body, as it be not able to serve him in his calling. For as chastisement of the body to bring it in subjection, is sometime necessary: So weakening of the body, to make it unable to serve the spirit in such outward actions, as require the use of the body, is neither wisdom, nor godliness, what examples soever be pretended. For as it is not lawful for a man, under any pretence of mortifying his flesh, to kill himself; so it is not lawful for any man to torment his body, above the strength thereof; whereby sickness must needs follow, and death may ensue. For against all examples of godly men, that can be alleged to the contrary, we will oppose the wisdom of the holy ghost, in his elect vessel S. Paul, who calleth Timothy from such austerity, whereby his health was impaired, unto a moderate use of gods creatures. Drink no more water, saith he, butuse a little wine, because of thy stomach, and often infirmities, 1. Tim. 5. 23. According to the proportion of which rule if many of the examples before remembered were exacted, they may perhaps declare a zeal in the persons, but such as is not guided by knowledge of God's will, revealed in the scriptures.  
Where you say, If the Ministers of England would use this cooling physic, there should be fewer eaton's, and Hynches openly punished, or fly the country, for incest & rape, you would insinuate, that for lack of chastisement of men's bodies, so great enormites' break out, and in part it may be true, so you touch none but such as are guilty, who when they be discovered, by your own confession, are not winked at in our Church, but openly punished, what discipline soever you use when any of your jesuits are overtaken with such offences. The number God be thanked of such offenders among us is not great, how small chastisement soever you think the Ministers do use, and therefore no cause why you should amplify them in the plural number, as though for one Eton, or one Hynch, there had been ten of each sort at the least. Too many, we confess, of one, but fewer than one there could not be, except there had been none. Howbeit we praise God that so few have given such offence in so long peace of the Church, and pray God they be the last. Yet are they a small matter for you to insult against us, if you look homeward, where for two, you may easily find two hundred, and for two poor Ministers, many of your great prelate's, yea your Popes, by confession of your own historians, have not been behind any examples of incontinency, and filthiness.  
But if we will not practise this remedy ourselves, for contristing, or making sad the holy ghost within us (which you say is our phrase) yet you will us not to impute it as schism, and heresy to them, which use it moderately, as we may imagine the jesuits will, being not fools, nor having iron bodies, but sensible as ours are. Hereto I answer, that the remedy of incontinency we learn out of the scriptures, and have no need of your instruction for such matters, if God give us grace to practise that which we learn out of his word. The phrase whereat you scoff, is not ours, but used by the holy Ghost himself, though in a 
Eph. 4. 30.  far other sense, than you ascribe it to us, in which meaning you will sooner be hanged for a traitor, than you are able to prove, that any approved Minister of ours hath ever used the same in speech or writing. Among the family of love perhaps, which are catercosins with you Papists, you may find such blasphemous abusers of holy phrases of scripture. The imputing to schism or heresy, ariseth of the jesuits profession, and practise, which in such doings pretend a greater merit, and perfection, than God requireth of Christians. Otherwise we doubt not but many of the jesuits can favour themselves well enough in their voluntary whipping, especially those of our nation, or of any other, except the Spaniards, among whom the relics of the old whipping heretics have continued so rank in some, that they have been seen in England to endure grievous whipping for other men's sins, that liked not to suffer such penance in their own persons. The following of one man's rule (you sat) can make no division, because it is but a particular direction of life, and manners, grounded one the scriptures and practice of the fathers, and allowed by the superiors of the Church. But here you assume more than willbe granted: for neither is the rule of Laiolas grounded one the scriptures, neither have the governors of the Church authority to allow any such rule: and last of all, it is so new, that it hath no practice of the ancient fathers to shadow it. The first is proved before, the second dependeth upon the first, and the last of the newness is manifest of itself.  
But all this while you have supposed, that Master Charkes reports of the jesuits life and vocation, were true, which is false: for there was never any that took a vow to whip themselves, and much less to do it after the example of a sect, called by the name of whippers, condemned long ago. Here, beside a double cavil, is nothing worthy the answering, for Master Charke meaneth not, that their vow is to follow the condemned whippers: but that this whipping is after the example of that condemned sect, in that they wippe, and torment themselves. Whereof if there be no particular vow expressed, yet seeing they vow to follow the rule of Layolas, which includeth whipping of themselves, as you cannot deny, Master Charke hath not belied the jesuits, as you note in your margin. And as concerning the sect of heretics, called whippers, you refer us to Prateolus and Gerson, to prove that they held many wicked opinions, for which they were condemned, and ask what doth this make against the sober & moderate chastisement which good men use in secret, upon their own bodies, at such times, as they esteem themselves for mortification to need the same. I answer, there is no need that any man for mortification should whip himself, or else it is need for all men so to whip themselves, except jesuits have more untamed bodies, than all other men. And therefore it is but ethelothreschia, a voluntary Religion, or a superstition, after the precept and Doctrine of men, in colour of humility, and not sparing the body, described by Saint Paul Col. 2. 23. and as for Gerson, to whom you send us, doth not 
Tract. count slagiliantes.  only condemn the heretical opinions of those whippers, but also their whipping of themselves, and that for divers causes, of which I will rebearse some. First he accounteth it a tempting of God, to lay such a burden upon men, as you do, which make whipping needful for mortification: 
Act. 15.  whereby it followeth that it is needful for all men, as mortification is, & not for jesuits only. secondly he saith, that the law of Christ, ought no less in his service, to avoid the superstitions of the gentiles, and idolators, espiciallie these that are cruel, and horrible, than the old law, in the which yet there is express prohibition, Deu. 14. where it is said, be ye servers of the Lord your God: you shall not cut yourselves: where the gloss is, you ought not in any thing, to be made like to idolators: and in the hebrue it is, you shall not tear or rend yourselves: Again he saith, (for I do but translate his words) lex Christi, etc. the law of Christ is given sufficiently in the ten commandments, the keeping of which good simplicity, and plain faith, is enough to salvation, especially of lay men and common people, without any new imposition of most grievous burdens, according to the saying of Christ: if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Neither is it any thing worth, if it be said, that the people do voluntarily take upon them such whippings, without any other commandment, while it is found that thereupon they do more licentiously contemn God's commandments in many things. For the nature of man is stubborn, which since it is forsaken of the state of originalliustice, it is carried more greedily unto those things that are of man's invention, than those that are of God's bidding. And this is one degree of pride, which Bernard saith is found among Religious men, while they rejoice more in abstinence, or particular voluntary prayer, then in all the regular discipline. Again, the law of Christ, being set forth sufficiently, by the Apostles and holy Doctors, is not found to have appointed such novelties of men, whipping themselves, either by preaching, or otherwise, but rather to have reproved them, as most suspect and dangerous, and which may grow to the slander of Christianes' among the jews, Saracens, and Pagans, as though the law of Christ were austere, cruel, and nourished in blood, not in mercy,  
Afterward he setteth down reasons, to dissuade this superstition, as he calleth it. Let diligent and earnest exhortation be made, touching the praises of patience, which hath her perfect work, preferring it before such voluntary whippings, as Augustine saith agreeably to Seneca, that the adversities of this world, are not so much to be laid upon us, as when they happen, patiently to be suffered, making through patience a virtue of necessity. I am not so mad (saith Seneca) that I would be sick, but if I must be sick, I will bear it patiently. Therefore there must be reckoned up diligently, and severally, the divers tribulationes, sometime temporal, sometime spiritual, which daily do give and offer to us, whether we will or nill, matter of patience, such as are sickness, poverty, etc., and who is able to number all such tribulations? which are such and so many, that we must not bring upon ourselves new sorrows: for the valiant suffering of such daily tribulations is enough for the purging of greater sins, especially if contrition be increased, and humble confession, in deed, or purpose, etc. Yea the same Gerson saith farther, Imò sicut non licet, etc. As it is not lawful for a man of his own authority to maim, or geld himself, except it were for the health of the whole body. So it is not lawful, as it seemeth, that a man should violently draw blood of himself, except it be for bodily Physic: or else by the like reason a man might burn himself with an hot iron, which no man hath held or granted hitherto, except perhaps idolaters, or false Christians, such as are found in India, which think that they ought to be baptised with fire. Finally, Gerson alloweth no whipping, except it be enjoined as penance, and that it be executed by another man, and that moderately, and without offence giving, or ostentation, and last of all without drawing of blood. And this book of Gerson, as you wot, is in print, to answer your question, was there ever honest man but Master Charke, that would have objected so impertinent a thing in Print, as is the whipping of men by themselves, upon any falsely pretended need of Mortification? But Master Charke maketh you laugh, when he saith the sect of whippers was condemned long ago. You ask how long, and by whom? For they began anno 1273. under Pope Gregory the 10. and were condemned both by him, and his successors, by which authority Luther and Caluine are likewise condemned. An high point in a low house: as though the authority by which men are condemned, is all the matter, not the cause for which. Adultery is condemned by Mahomet, and by the same authority the Gospel of Christ: is it not lawful to approve the one condemnation, except a man allow the other? No marvel though you laugh at this matter: for indeed it is very ridiculous, as most of your collections be. And whereas you affirm, that Pope Gregory the 10. did condemn these Flagellantes, I suppose you are not able to bring any author of credit, that so doth write. For in his time they sprang up, and continued almost fourscore years, without any solemn condemnation. For any thing that Prateolus, or who so writeth most diligently of here sies, can testify. Prateolus out of carrion showeth, that 1343. they came to Spire in Germany, when the diet of the Empire was kept, and through opinion of great holiness, had good entertainment. Tandem verò damnata est. At length, saith he, this sect was condemned and extinguished with fire and sword.  
Concerning the name of jesuits, it is a frivolous quarrel of your censure, seeing you confess it to be given to them by common speech, and think it lawful for yourself to use, yet you tax Master Charke for using it. That the jesuits are not only a sect, but also a blasphemous sect, Master Charke proveth, because they abuse the most blessed name of jesus, for a colour of their blasphemous practice, which is to root out the Gospel of jesus, and to bring in the heresy, and superstition of popery. For this you will call him an angry gentleman, with whom every thing is blasphemy, though it be but the wagging of a straw. But hear his reason (you say) They draw to themselves alone the comfortable name of jesus, which is common to all. But his reason I have set down before, gathered truly out of his own words: that he speaketh of the name of jesus, is after this sort. This also increaseth the offence, that they draw to themselves alone the most gracious, and comfortable title of our fellowship and union in Christ jesus, which is 〈◊〉 to all that do believe, without aniè division or distinction. You answer; no (Sir William) you may have your part, if you exclude not yourself. In deed we doubt not but we shall have our part, notwithstanding the jesuits praesumptuous claim. But yet you will justify their claim by an evident example, as you term it. For when any man (you say) leaveth all other cares and business, to serve the Queen only,. and professeth the same by some special name of her majesties 〈◊〉 servant, doth he injury other subjects hereby? or doth he take from them any interest in her Majesty? It is somewhat you say, if the man whom you speak of for examples sake, have his name lawfully registered in her majesties chequer role, or can show good testimony of her majesties appointing him to such special office, as he taketh upon him to exercise. But if any man, or specially if any company of men, should arrogate unto themselves without lawful appointment the special name of her majesties servants, and take upon them to exercise such an office, as her highness hath not committed to them, I suppose they deserved rather to have their ears cut of on the pillory, then to receive any honour, that is due to the Queen's ordinary servants, or officers. And this is an evident example of the usur pation of the jesuits, who have not received the calling of Apostles, which is immediate from jesus himself, and yet profess to exercise the office 
Gal. 1.  of Apostles in preaching the Gospel every where, & of free cost, which is more than the Apostles did at all times. As for Eldertons jest of raising the dead, curing the lame, blind, etc. I marvel you do not answer by the japonical miracles, which are done so thick in another world, in both the Indies, by your jesuits, rather than in this point to make them of no greater power, than any, that are called Christianes'. But it is an easier matter, to lie of things far of, then to show a wonder in presence of them that can examine such a matter.   

The third section, entitled, Of religious men, and their vocation of poverty.  
YOu defend the title of religious, claimed, and given to Monks, and Nuns, because they were not called religious by antiquity, for that they only had religion in them, but that they made profession of more perfect following of Christian religion, than others, by removing worldly impediments, according to the counsel of Christ touching perfection, Mait, 19 16. & Esay. 56. where chastity, voluntary poverty, and abnegation of our own will, are commended, and counseled to perfection, and the contraries thereof in other places of scripture showed to be great impediments. But first you prove not, that they were so called of the first, and reverend antiquity, by any such singular name of religions, as they are called in the Popish Church. secondly, where you count abnegation of our own will to be only commended and counseled to perfection, you declare what a profound divine you are, when the very text which you cite, is manifest, that it is necessary for all the disciples of Christ, and that in pain of damnation: If any man will follow me, saith he, let him deny himself, and take 
Mat. 16.  up his cross, and follow me: for he that will save his life, shall lose it, etc. thirdly, I say that the perfection of Christian Religion standeth not in virginity (for that you mean by chastity, as though the marriage bed also which is undefiled, were not to be accounted chastity) and wilful poverty. For all men are in scripture commanded to endeavour unto the perfection of Christian Religion, but no man is commanded to live unmarried, or to renounce his worldly possessions, Mat. 5. 48. 2. Cor. 7. 1. Ephe. 4. 13. Phil. 3. 12. Col. 1. 28, etc. Neither is marriage, or private possession of earthly goods, of itself, any impediment unto the perfection of Christian Religion. And if it were granted, that the perfection thereof did stand in such profession as you speak of, yet doth it not follow, that such professors should have that prerogative, to be called absolutely Religious: seeing they that make no such profession, may be nevertheless sufficiently Religious unto salvation: neither do your examples justify this proud usurped term. For the name of learned men doth truly agree to them that are so in deed, whereas to them that have but small learning, it doth not absolutely agree, but with addition of something, smallly, meanly, prettily, or such like. For no man can say truly of him, that knoweth only a little grammar, latin, logic, etc. that he is a learned man: but of every true Christian man, we may truly say, that he is a Religious man, although some be more religious than other. The name of Clergy also, as it was used by the Fathers of old time, may be defended, and warranted by example of the scripture, in respect of the especial lot, whereunto the Ministers of the Church are called, as the tribe of Levi was, notwithstanding that all true Christianes' 
Luke 6. 13.  are the lot or inheritance of the Lord. The name of Apostles, being given by our Saviour Christ himself, unto his special ambassadors, he were a mad man that would control, though other also were sent. What like warrant have Monks, and Nuns to be called religious? verily by these examples it appeareth, that which you say of Master Charke to be verified of yourself, this man weigheth not what he saith, so he say somewhat.  
Concerning the second point, Master Charke writeth plainly, if you were disposed to understand him, that he misliketh Popish Monks, and Nuns, not only for the abominable life of the greatest part of them, but specially, for their superstitous, hypocritical, and Idolatrous profession, wherein they differ from the virgins of the primitive Church, as much as in their lewd life, and lose conversation. And therefore neither he nor Doctor folk do use any heretical sophistry, to condemn all for the ill life of a few, or to condemn a lawful calling, for the misbehaviour of them that are in that vocation, and much less, for that men live not so perfectly in the same, as they did in the primitive Church, about which heretical consequences many words are spent in vain.  
But now let us hear what you answer to such difference, as Master Charke maketh between the old monks, and the new. His words you recite in this manner. It is a plain injury, saith he, to match those ancient Monks of the primitive Church, with those of the popish orders: for the old Monks lived in their house without vows, as students in divinity in Colleges: they were holy, painful, learned, they laboured with their hands. Their societies were nurses of good learning and godly life, to furnish afterward the Church: whereto being once called, they ceased to be Monks, and left their monasteries. Here first you charge him with bold slandering, as though he said that all Monks and sriers are unlearned, unpainful, and unholy, whereas he saith not so, knowing that some are unlearned, though neither all, nor the most part, no not in this learned age: many friars also take pains in preaching, which with more commendation and credit might hold their peace. Yet few Monks labour that way. As for labouring with the hands (say you) though it be not necessary to any, if they be occupied in greater matters, yet their is no monastery wherein some do not exercise that function. But Saint Augustine in his book, deopere 〈◊〉, holdeth it to be necessary for all Monks to labour, and admitteth not the excuses of praying, singing of Plalmes, reading, or preaching the word of God, for any to be privileged altogether from not labouring with his hands, cap. 17. 18. That some in every monastery with you are appointed to that function, as you say, it is but a mockery of the old labour of Monks, and left for a shadow of some similitude with antiquity, and not taking away the difference set down by Master Charke. That many Bishops are chosen out of monasteries, and that Pius 5. choose 70. bishops out of one order, it is little to the purpose. For the old monks were not only chosen to the office of rich and stately Bishops, but to serve in the painful office of teachers, and pastors, and were, as Master Charke saith, the nurses of good learinng, of the ministery of the Church, as your popish orders are not, out of which they may not departed to serve the Church, without a dispensation, and capacity, as they call it. Your jest of his poor benefice by London, and the barbarres shop, are both a like, and the latter as well agreeth unto him as the former, seeing it is well known he never had any benefice, rich or poor, in London, by London, or far from London.  
The first difference you confess to be the greatest; although you speak of it last, where you say he affirmeth, that the Monks of the primitive Church made no vows, the contrary whereofyou prove by many testimonies of the ancient fathers, and in the end you conclude against Master Charke, ask what he will say to this, and much more that mighr be brought for this matter? And may he not blush (say yond) to have made (In saying that the religion of the primitive Church made no vows) so open and manifest alley? But may not all modest Papists blush in your behalse, seeing your own forehead, as it seemeth, is hardened against shamefastness, for that you have made so open, and manifest a lie, in saying that Master Charke affirmeth, that the Monks of the primitive Church made no vows? whereas he saith not so, but far otherwise: for these are his words, they lived in their houses without any superstitious vows. Is it all one to say they made no vows, & to say they made no superstitious vows? the like impudence you show, in charging him with cogging, and foisting, for placing his quotations of Saint Augustine in the margin, right over against the matter of vowing, which is both false, and unjustly laid to his charge: the Printer had set them a little wry. For the quotation beginneth right over against the name of Austen in the leaf, or text, although the tail of it extend to the line in which he speaketh of vows. The places that are quoted for vows are specially against the marriage of them that have vowed sole life, yet have we good testimony of the fathers, that such as are not able to keep those vows rashly made, aught to betake themselves to the lawful remedy of marriage. Epiphanius Cat. Apostolic. Haer. 61. Hieronymus ad Demetriadem, etc.  
Where M. Charke denieth Saint Augustine to be a Friar; First you cavil, which Austen he meaneth, the Bishop of Hippone, or of Canterbury: and both, you say, were Monks, and the later you make our first Apostle in England, yet was he an Apostle from Gregory, not from Christ. What Doctor Fulke hath written of him, he answereth in his confutation of Popish quarrels, Pag. 43. But how prove you that the elder Austen was a Monk, as monks were termed in his time? you cite, Ep. 89. & tract. 1. de come. vita clericorum, and Possidius, or Possidonius in his life. To the first quotation I answer, that Saint Augustine in that epistle confesseth not that he was a Monk; only he acknowledgeth that he once sold all that he had, and gave it to the poor. But that he had private possession when he was Bishop, Possidonius doth plainly declare. The second quotation is of no work of Saint Augustine's, but of I know not what babble rule, of some impudent counterfeiter, whose style is as like Augustine's, as an ass is like a Lion. To the third I answer, that the writer alleged saith, that Austin when he was made priest, or elder, of the Church of Hippo, did institute a college or monastery of students, with in the Church, which were especially appointed to serve afterward in the Church, as they also that were afterward brought up in other monasteries, set up by his scholars. But nevertheless he neither calleth Augustine, nor any of his scholars Monks. For these Monasteries by Augustine himself, are called diversoria, hostelles, or Inns, Demoribus eccl. Cath. lib. 1. cap. 33. being distinct from Monks, which in those days were only Anachorets, or Caenobites, both living in the wilderness, whereas these lived within cities, yet in straighter discipline, than the common sort, under the government of a very Godly, and excellent learned man, in Christian charity, holiness, and liberty, not in superstitious vows, & are called by Augustine none otherwise, but a laudable kind of Christianes'. And all this maketh him neither Monk nor Friar. You say he was not called so in English, but in latin, Frater, and Monachus. For the name of Monachus, I have answered, that you are not able to prove it by authentical author or testimony. And I doubt not, but he was called brother, as all Christians are called one of an other, but not as Friars are called fratres. You add further out of Saint Ambrose, that he ware a black hood, and a girdle of leather, Ser. 94. so that nothing wanted in him to the very habit of an Augustine Friar. But seeing there are of Ambrose his sermons numbered in all but 93. this bastard babble where this of the hood and the girdle is written, must be set out for a wrangler, and he had been worthy to be set one the pillory, that feigned such a sermon under the name of Saint Ambrose, to give creditte to the Augustine Friars. Possidonius testifieth that his apparel, shoes, and bedding were of moderate, and competent habit, neither too fine, and costly, nor too very abject, or contemptible; In which he kept the mean. As for the black hood, and leathern belt, he that lived 40. years with him (as you say) can tell us nothing of them, so that you have neither the weed, nor the profession of Friars in S. Augustine.  
Where the example of Christ is alleged, to uphold the institution of jesuits, which Master Charke affirmeth to be blasphemous against his Majesty, you confess that Christ did not whip himself, because he had no rebellion in his flesh, as you have, and therefore use mortification of your body, according to Saint Paul's counsel, Coll. 3. You show how wisely you understand mortification, which you refer to the body only, where Saint Paul commandeth us to mortify our members, which are upon earth. And lest you should think he meaneth your head, your arms, or your shoulders, he addeth, fornication, uncleanness, lust evil concupiscence, covetousness, and such like, which be the members of the old man, that must be mortified, & not the natural body of man, or the parts thereof. But though you have no example of Christ whipping himself, yet you have of long fasting, praying, and lying all night one the ground, which notwithstanding you think we ministers will not imitate: for prayer, and fasting we know it to be our duties, having not one lie the example, but also the commandment of Christ for it. But for lying all night on the ground, we find no example of Christ. The Evangelist Luke. 6. which you quote for it, saith, that Christ continued all night in prayer: but that he lay all night on the ground, he saith not so: you declare yourself, as well by this, as by many other things, to be very well studied in the scriptures. Where Master Charke saith that Christ came eating and drinking, did frequent the public assemblies, and was sometime entertained at great feasts, he showeth the form of Christ's life, differing from john's the Baptistes, which was more austere, whose example is more like your profession, than that example of Christ, although your vocation be nothing answerable to his.  
Concerning poverty, Master Charke asketh, what worldly blessing given unto Christ by his father, did he at any time abandon? how doth his example recommend wilful poverty to you jesuits, or to any, except you would by virtue of the example have all men be of your order, because all should be followers of Christ, and hold it as commanded or recommended for an example to be followed of all, whatsoever he hath done before? And then the Pope above all other by his own claim, must be the poorest of all, and become a brother of your beggarly order. To this you an swear, by ask, if it were not wilful poverty, for him the was Lord of all to live of alms? Yes verily he did willingly 
2. Cor. 8. 9  forbeate, to challenge that which was his own: nevertheless it was necessary for his office, to become poor, that he might enrich us with his grace: so is it not for jesuits, or any other to whom God hath given such benefits, as they should not need to live of alms. You ask further, if he that counseled men, torenounce all they possessed, for his service, and to give all to the poor, that would be perfect, did not he recommend voluntary poverty, though he commanded it not? Surely if the necessitte of his service do require it, there is no doubt, but that it is every man's durie to renounce all that he possesseth. But what necessity compelleth the jesuits to any such service of his, but that they may live of their own, and ear their own bread? As for the place you quote Luk. the 14. is very Anabaptisticallie applied to actual forsaking of men's possesons: whereas it is manifestly to be understood, of renouncing in affection, & is not counseled only to some, but commanded of necessity to all: every one of you (saith he) which renounceth not all that he possesseth cannot be my disciple. For even as bearing his cross is necessary for all Christians, so is wilful poverty: and it is impossible for any rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven: which places if they be understood against 
〈◊〉  actual possession of worldly goods, what followeth but anabaptistical confusion? For they are express commandments, and denials, to all, not lost to the choice of a few. It remaineth therefore that they be understood of the mind, love, affection, and trust in wordly riches, not of budelie use, or having evil propriety in them. Neither doth it follow that the perfection of a Christian life consisteth in wilful poverty, because our saviour said unto the rich young man, that boasted that he had fulfiled the 
〈◊〉  commandments, If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all that thou haste, etc. For by perfest, he meaneth such a one as the young man professed himself to be, in whom nothing wanted. Again, he was further commanded to follow Christ, as his Apostles did, and to take us the cross. Therefore it was no general counsel to all that desire perfection, but a special discovery of that man's worldly affection, and hypocrisy, which preferred temporal things, before eternal felicity, and yet boasted that he had kept the commandments from his youth. And Luke. 12. where he willeth his disciples, to sell their possessions, and give alms, he showeth the duty of all men, which is not to spare their own patrimony, but even to sell their possessions, rather than the poor should perish for lack of necessaries, yet not to make ourselves beggars, or to be pinched, that other might have ease, but that equality might be observed, as the Apostle saith, 2. Cor. 8. 13. So that hitherto we have not wilful poverty, such as is that of the jesuits, by Christ's example or counsel, commended unto us.  
But you add further, If the Apostles left all propriety, and did live in common, as the scripture noteth, etc. But the Apostles left not all propriety, although they forsook all things. For Peter retained the propriety of his house. Matthew made agreat feast, of his own 
Mat. 8. 14. Luk. 5. 29. joh. 19 27.  goods I warrant you: john received the virgin Mary into his own, to provide for her. Neither had the Apostles and Christians in the primitive Church any other community of goods, then ought to be among all Christians, always, namely that no man should account any thing to be his own otherwise, than the necessity of the Church requiring, he should be contented to sell, even his lands, and possessions, to relieve the poor. Neither was Ananias and Saphira punished, for breaking of their vow of poverty, but 
Act. 5.  for lying against the holy ghost, as the text is plain, whatsoever any man say to the contrary. And yet Jerome ad Demetriadem, whom you cite, saith not that they were punished for breaking their vow of poverty, or that they vowed poverty, but that after they had vowed the whole price of that land, they did retain part, as if it had been their own. In basil I find nothing to such intent. 
Serm. 1. de inst. monach. vel de judicio Det Praefat.  But that Ananias, and Saphira were punished so severely, because they sinned with an high hand, & proudly contemned the Lord in their hypocrisy. Neither doth Master Charke affirm that the Apostles forsaking of their goods is anabaptistical, condemning of propriety, as you slander him, but that the example of Christ's voluntary poverty, if it be to be followed, bindeth all men alike, and specially the Pope, who claimeth to be Christ's own vicar general, and therefore ought most to follow Christ. It is to no purpose therefore that you will him to read the places of the doctors, to change his opinion. For first Jerome in the 19 of Matthew, is not content, that he which seeketh to be perfect, sell all his goods, but he must give them to the poor: and then, not live idly of other men's goods, but of his own labour, as the ancient Monks did, with many other conditions, that are wanting in Popish votaties. basil. inter. 9 in reg. fus. expl. hath nothing to this purpose, but that men which forsake their goods to profess monastical life, must not leave them negligently, but dispose them to the glory of God. What Saint chrysostom saith upon the saluting of Prilca, it were good you read over yourself, and then tell us wherefore you would have Master Charke read it; for I find nothing to alter his judgement therein Last of all, Saint Augst. de ciu. lib. 17. cap. 4. saith not, that the Apostles votum paupertatis voverunt. For these are his words, Dixerunt enim potentes illi, Ecce nos dimisimus omnia, & secuti sumus te: hoc votum potentissimi voverunt. Sed unde hoc eyes? nisi abillo de quo continuò dictum est, Dans votum voventi. For these mighty had said, behold we have left all, and followed thee: this vow those most mighty had vowed: but whence came thy to them, but from him, of whom it is said immediately, giving the vow to him that 〈◊〉. Now I have proved before that the Apostles leaving all things to follow Christ, was not a renouncing of any property in their goods, except in such case as they could not retain them, and do the service of Christ: wherein if you will not believe me, you are an obstinate heretic, by the sentence of Pope john. 23. which declared all them to be obstinate heretics, that affirmed Christ and his disciples to have had nothing private or proper. He condemned also a gloss of Friar Peter, a minorite, which had encouraged a certain covent of a third order to follow the poverty of Christ, of which number many were condemned and burned. Platin. in joan. 23. How your doctrine and his doth agree, look you unto it, for one of you is greatly deceived. That you conclude the use of all wordly blessings to be lawful, it is well. That you charge Master Charke or our ministers to allure, dandle, or smooth men in them, to serve their own belly, etc. it is a slander that needeth no confutation, seeing their open, and zealous preaching of repentance, and mortification is a sufficient discharge for them before God, and all that hear them.   

The forth section, which he entituleth, of Loialas and Luther.  
IN this section, you say, little defence needeth, because the replier hath nothing, beside a railing sentence, or two against the jesuits, saying that they eat the sins of the people, Whereas these men, neither taking any charge of souls upon them, nor receiving any tithes, or other commodities for the same (both which things M. Charke doth) the reader may judge whether he, or they stand in danger of the sentence. But that which M. Charke saith, of eating the sins of the people, he meaneth not of the jesuits only, or chief, but of them that give pardons for money, of which the jesuits are sometimes merchants, wherein they may with the Pope, eat the sins of the people, although they have no benefices, which you mean by charge of souls, and tithe taking. And sure it is, they live not all of angels food, neither are they maintained altogether by pure alms, but by an artificial kind of cozenage, under pretence of restitution; as their predeceslours, the pharisees, under pretext of long prayers, devoured the houses of poor widows: and if no man eat the sins of the people, but they that have benefices, Master Charke is out of danger of the sentence: for he neither hath charge of souls, nor tithe, or commodity for the same, as you understand the matter.  
Whether Paul the third, or Paul the fourth, did first allow the sect of jesuits, it is a trifling matter, not worth the strife about it. It is sufficient for Master Charkes report, that Paul the fourth did confirm it, and there is no more reason that we should believe Andradius, then that you should credit Kemnitius. you have little to do, that prosecute such fruitless contentions.   

The fift section, entitled, Of Luther and his doctrine.  
MAster Charke first chargeth you, with plaineuntrueth, in that you say, he doth contemptuously, or contumeliously call Loialas a soldier, where as he doth neither with honour, nor with disdain, nor any ways in all his answer, call him a soldier: to this charge you are mum, And whereas he doth unjoint your two arguments, and manifestly discover the insufficiency of them, you deny that you made such arguments: whereby you acknowledge, that you brought in these matters, of the life of Laiolas, and Luther, vainly. The slanders of Papists against Luther's life you think must be credited, because they be matters of fact: As though the testimony of enemies, must needs be taken in a matter of fact. And that they which are obstinate enemies to the Gospel, will care for fear, either of damnation, or open shame in the world, to invent, or brute abroad most impudent slanders, against the professors of the truth. Concerning sleidan's eleven thousand lies, there is no wise man, but laugheth to hear of the number of them. And if one Sleydan a Protestant, having public records, and writings to justify his story, could yet write eleven thousand lies against the Papists, as you affirm, is it not possible trow you, that Coclaeus, Hosius, Lindanus, Xanctes, Staphilus, Bolsec, and such like, being Papists, might write eleven score lies against Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, calvin, Beza, and the rest?  
Concerning the report of Prateolus, that Luther should be begotten of a devil, you say Master Charke greatly bewrayeth his fasehoode, and after you have set down the report of Prateolus unperfectly. you praise his modesty, and blame the bold impudency of William Charke, in saying he avoucheth that, which he avoucheth not. But where doth William Charke faith, that Prateolus doth avouch it? his words are of a slander laid down against Martin Luther, how he was begotten of a devil, which you confess, that Prateolus reporteth, as he doth in deed out of Coclaeus; and Cocleus out of other men's writings: whether Prateolus himself doth credit it altogether, or no, it skilleth not; this slander among other he layeth down against Luther, and favoureth the report of other so far, that he would have it seem credible: but as for saying that he avoucheth it, Master Chark speaketh not one whit. Let the Reader therefore judge who bewrayeth his falsehood in this point, and upon whom the reproach of bold impudency may justly be laid. But Master Charke showeth as great fully, as impudency (if we believe you) in making mention of such a foul matter, whereupon at the least remaineth a shameful suspicion. In deed it is the triumph of slanderers, if they cannot kill with their stroke, yet to leave a scar where the wound is healed. Although the slander of a matter so impossible, leaveth no suspicion in any man's head, that hath any wit or understanding in it, but discovereth the malice, and folly of the inventors of such monstrous slanders; yet you affirm that the probability of the thing seemeth to have been so great in those days, as Erasmus believed it. But here you go asfarre beyond the modesty of your author Prateolus, as ere while you charged Master Charke to be run. For his words are these. Adhans historiam alludere alicubi Erasmum non est à vero alienum. to this story it is not altogether unlikely or strange from the truth, that Erasmus doth in some place allude: he saith not that Erasmus did believe it; No he is not able to prove that Erasmus did object it. For the speech of Erasmus is, only of certain unclean speeches. where with he complaineth, that he was unjustly charged by Luther, in that unmodest epistle which you translate drunken.  
Now (say you) if Master Charke will stand upon the denial, not so much of the fact, as of the nature of the thing itself, as impossible that spirits can so abuse lewd women, that will consent to their lusts; you will oppose against him S. Augustine, 
Lib. 15. de ciu. det, c. 2.  which saith it were impudency to deny it, and Ludovicus vives upon the same place. Sir Caviller, the thing in question, is not, whether foul spirits may abuse the bodies of lewd women: for beside the authority of Saint Augustine, who standeth most upon testimonies, we have the testimony of Wierus, a man very expert in such matters, who maketh report of divers Nuns so abused, by unclean spirits, yea of divers Nunneries, in which many were so dealt with all, and namely a notable nunnery in the borders of 
De praest. dae. lib. 3. c. 9 tertiae editionis.  the province of Collene; where the devil in the likeness of a dog in the day time, was seen to fall upon them in most beastly manner, about 26. years ago. Also the Nunnery of Nazareth in colen, Anno. 1564. where the Nuns in most filthy manner 
Cap. 11.  suffered the same illusion, oftentimes in the presence, and sight of many. But the matter in controversy is, whether Luther were begotten of a Devil: in denial where, of Master Chatke doth stand, becuase it is impossible, that although the Devil should abuse the body of a woman; yet that a man should be borne, or gotten by such illusion, which neither, Augustine affirmeth, nor Ludovicus vives. And if you dare avouch that the devil can beget a child (as it seemeth you would draw your argument to prove the probability of Luther's conception by such devilish abusement) we will be bold to say, that you are worthy to be whipped out of the Schools of Philosophers, Physicians, and Divines: if you dare not abide by it, to what end do you oppose Saint Augustine and Ludovicus vives against him?  
Touching the matter of the thunderbolt, you say Master Charke denieth it stoutly, confidently, and I know not how. But in truth Master Charke saith, that it is of itself uncredible that you say, Luther was strooken with a thunderbolt, which would have taken away life, or left a mark behind it. Nevertheless you williustifie your saying by testimony of Malancthon; who saith he suffeted great terrors that year, in which he lost his come panion, slain I know not by what chance; and by Luther's own confession, that he was called by terrors from heaven, and for fear of death vowed to be a friar: yet neither of these do prove, either that he was overthrown, or stricken with a thunderbolt. The reports of Lindane, Prateolus, and such like, you cannot enforce us to believe, who sought by all means to deface both the person, and doctrine of Luther. But whether he were overthrown, by lightning, as Prateolus saith, or by fear, seeing his fellow slain by the same, and so vowed a superstitious vow, it is not greatly material. That the devil cried out of his mouth, we hold it still for a very fable, until you bring better proof, than the report of Luther's adversaries, Lindane, and his fellows. Your ribaldry terms of Luther coping with a nun, and your blasphemous scoffing ofhiss lying with a nun in the Lord, I commit to the vengeance of him, that is the instituter of holy matrimony. That many of the ancient fathers judged it unlawful, for vowed persons to marry, it is not denied of our part; but than it is to be understood of them, which married not for necessity, but for wantoness; and for such as made vows advisedly, not rashly; voluntarily, and not by compulsion. For of them that could not contain, after they had vowed virginity, I have showed before the plain testimonies of Saint Jerome and Epiphanius.  
Now are we come to those nine articles of Doctrine, with which you have charged Luther: how justly, we shall see by & by. The first is, that you affirmed Luther to teach, that there is no sin, but incredulity, neither can a man damn himself, do what mischief he can, except he will refuse to believe. To this Master Hanmer answereth; that all sins proceed of the root of incredulity, as all good works from the root of faith: but this you will not understand, and bring in a contradiction of Master Charkes, which doth pronounce, that in words and matter, you report an open untruth. And so you do, for any thing that you bring in your defence. For Luther saith not absolutely, but in comparison, that there is no sin, but unbelief, as our saviour Christ saith to the pharisees, if you were blind, you should have no sin; and of 
joh 9 41.  the obstinate jews; If I had not come and spoken unto them, they should have had no sin. If I had not done those works, among them, which no other could do, they should have had 
joh. 15. 22. 14.  no sins. Luther's meaning is therefore, that unbelief is the greatest, and only sin, that damneth a man, because all other sins are forgiven to him that believeth & is baptised, according to the promise of god. secondly, where Luther speaketh expressly of a Christian baptised, you say simply, a man: where he saith, with any sianes, how great soever; you sat, do what mischief he can. And as for your blasphemous collection, that a man cannot lose his salvation, if he would never so feign, etc. and that he may do what he will, so he fall not into incredulity; Luther himself in three words, showeth how far it is from his meaning, in his answer to the gatherers of errors out of his doctrine, which dealt more honestly with him, than you. For they said, Baptizatum etiam volentem, etc. that the baptised man, though he be willing. cannot lose his salvation: Luther answereth, Quia fides tollis omnia peccara, & facit volentem non pecca re. Rom. 1. because faith taketh away all sins, and maketh a man willing not to sin. For even in his book de captivitate Bab. he addeth this condition, which you do fraudulently omit. Siredeat, vel 〈◊〉 fides, if faith do return or stand. For by the same faith or rather the truth of God's promise, all other sins are swallowed up; because God cannot deny himself, if thou shalt confess him, and cleave faithfully unto him that promiseth. To conclude, faith and good works be unseparable: and the faithful man, although by corruption of nature, he is apt daily to fall away from God, into most grievous sins, yet by grace he is either preserved from heinous sins, or else he is brought to repentance, and sorrow for the same. So that Luther's doctrine of faith and unbelief, if it be understood rightly, as he doth often expiicate himself, is full of comfort to a troubled conscience, yet giveth not bridle to sin or carnal liberty. And therefore, howsoever you wrist his words from his meaning, you show yourself no less an impudent liar, than the false witnesses, that deposed against our saviour Christ, that he said: destroy this temple, and within three days I will raise it again: which words in deed he spoke, but not in that sense, they deposed: and therefore are condemned by the holy ghost, as liars, and false witness bearers. Luther saith, only infidelity is the trouble of the conscience: because there is nothing but sin and damnation, where there is no faith: you conclude, that nothing is sin, but unbelief. whereas in unbelief there is nothing but sin: and being justified 
Rom. 14. 23. Rom. 5. 1. Rom. 8. 1.  by faith, we have peace with god. And there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. Again, where ' Luther saith, that nothing maketh a wickedman, but infidelity, because it is the root of all wickedness, and bringeth with it all wickedness, you conclude, that no other sin maketh a man wicked: which is true, if it be understood of him that hath faith. & is truly penitent for his sin, & hath it pardoned by God's mercy. For to such one, though his sins were as 
Esa. 1.  red as scarlet, they are made as white as will, neither is he to be called Prawn's, a wicked man, but rectus, or justus, a right or a just man, who shall live by his faith.  
The second doctrine is so manifest a cavil, that you do in a manner acknowledge a satisfaction, both by Master Hanmer, and Master Charke, only you would have it considered, how these words of Luther do sound in the ears of the people. The: enne commandments appertain nothing to us. As though Luther did set down this Aphorism so barely, that he did not plainly declare his meaning. For this he saith in his sermon, entitled, how the books of Moses are to be read with fruit. Doctorem sanè, etc. truly we do receive and acknowledge Moses as a teacher, of whom we learn much profitable doctrine, as after shall be said: but we do not acknowledge him to be a law giver or a governor, sith he himself restrained his ministery to that people only. Again in answer to this question, Why the ten commandments are to be observed of us, Seeing Moses pertaineth not unto us, he saith. Sed inquis, etc. but thou sayest, certainly the commanndements of Moses (that is of God) are these, not to have strange Gods, to fear god, to trust him, and obey him, not to abuse his name. to give honour to parents, not to kill, not to steals, not to commit adultery, not to bear false witness, etc. is it not necessary that we observe these things: I answer, they are to be oserued of all men, and they pertain to all men, not because they were commanded by Moses, but because these laws, that are rehearsed in the ten commandments, are written in the nature of men. For God hath imprinted these notices in all men, even in their creation. Wherefore even the gentiles, to whom Moses was unknowen, and to whom God hath not spoken, as to them, do know that God is to be obeyed, God is to be called upon, parents are to be honoured. men must adstaine from murder and injury of others, etc. because these things displease God, and are punished of him. In the end he concludeth thus: Dico igitur servanda esse he 〈◊〉 decalogi, etc. 1 say therefore, that these ion commandments are to be observed, not because Moses hath 〈◊〉 them (which thing pertained to that people one. lie) but because all men have these knowledges imprinted in nature, with which Moses also agreeth. If this be not sufficient, to declare his judgement to be far from abolishing of the moral law, I reporre me to you. Now whether the ten commandments appartaine more to Christians, then to gentiles, or jews, we will not 〈◊〉 at this time. Howsoever it be, Luther saith not (as you conclude) that by this means they should no more appertain to us, then to gentiles, in whose nature also they were written: But rather the contrary may be concluded by good Logic, out of Luther's reason: If they did appertaives to the gentiles, because they were written in their nature: much more to Christians, in whose heart they are written also by the spirit of god. What shall I say more? the Lord shall destroy all deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaketh proudiie. 
Psal. 12.   
thirdly, you report that Luther said: It is a false opinion, and to be abolished, that there are. 4. Gospels. For the Gospel of john is the only fair, true, and principal Gospel. For this you cited his preface in nowm Testamentum. which Master Charke cannot find, nor any man else that I hear of, in latin. You say, it is not your fault. At the least it is your fault, that in so strange a report you have not set down his words in latin, if ever you saw the preface yourself. As for the corrupt edition, or often changing of Luther's works by himself we have not to do with it: for why might not Luther reform his own works, if ought in them were erroneous or offensive? But it is a cavil that you adjoin, of the confession of Auspurg, whereunto the Germans perhaps ascribe too much, as Alasco writeth: For though there be divers editions thereof, differing in words, yet are they not contrary in sense, as appeareth by the harmony of confessions, lately set forth at Gencua. Now sir, so much as we find sounding toward your report, I will set down, that the reader may judge, how uprightly you do charge Luther with denying three of the four Gospels. Enarrat. in epist. Petri argumentum: Primùm omnium notandum, etc. First of all it is to be noted, that all the Apostles do handle the same doctrine, for which cause it is not well done, that men do number but only four Evangelists, and four Gospels, whereas whatsoever the Apostles have left written, is one Gospel. For the Gospel signifieth nothing else but the preaching, and publishing of the grace and mercy of God, by our Lord Christ deserved, and purchased to us by his death: and that thou mayest take it properly, it is not that which is contained in books, and is comprehended in letters; but rather a vocal preaching, and a living word, and voice, which soundeth into the whole world, and is so openly blown out like a trumpet, that it may be heard every where, neither is it a book, which containeth a law, in which are many good doctrines, as it hath been commonly taken heretofore: for it doth not command us to work any thing, where by we may become just, but it showeth unto us the grace of God freely, and given without our merit, namely that Christ hath been our mediator, and having made satisfaction for our sins, hath abolished them, and made us just, and saved by his works. Now whosoever doth either preach, or write these things, he teacheth the true Gospel, that which all the Apostles, and peculiarly Saint Paul, and Saint Peter in their Epistles have performed. Therefore whatsoever is preached of Christ, is one Gospel, although one handle it after one manner, an other man after another, & in diverse manner of words, do reason of it. For the matter may be handled, either in long, or in short speech, and be described either streightlie, or largely. But seeing all pertaineth to this end, to teach Christ, to be our saviour, and that we are made just, and saved by faith in him, without our works, it is one word, it is one Gospel, as there is but one faith only, and one baptism in all the Church of Christ. Therefore thoureadest nothing written by any of the Apostles, which is not contained in the monuments of the other Apostles. But they which have handled this point especially, and with greater diligence, that faith alone in Christ doth justify, they are the best Evangelists of all. And in this respect you may more rightly call the Epistles of Paul the Gospel, than those which Matthew, Mark, and Luke have written. For these men describe not much beside the story of the Acts, and miracles of Christ. But the grace which is wrought unto us by Christ, none doth set forth more fully, or more rightly, than Saint Paul, especially in the Epistle to the Romans. Now seeing there is much more moment in the word, then in the facts, and miracles of Christ, and if we should want the one, it were much better to lack the Acts, and history, than the word and doctrine; it followeth that shose books are to be had in highest price, which handle the doctrine chiefly, and the words of our Lord jesus Christ. Seeing that if there were no miracles of Christ extant, and we were altogether ignorant of them, the words were sufficient for us, without the which we could not so much as live. Therefore hereof it followeth, that this Epistle of Saint Peter is to be accounted among the most excellent books of the new testament, and is the true, and pure Gospel, as in which he doth nothing else, but that which Paul, and the other Evangelists do, teaching sincere faith, that Christ is given unto us, which having taken away our offences, doth save us, etc. This that he speaketh, naming Matthew, Mark, and Luke (say you) signifieth some tooth against these three Gospels. And what tooth I pray you? because these three Gospels speak too much of good works. As though S. Paul in his Epistles, and namely in that to the Romans, doth not speak as much of good works, as all those three Gospels: and Saint Peter, though briefly, do not speak as much in effect. But in the preface in question, you affirm that Luther hath these words: The Epistles of Paul, and Peter, do far pass the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which yet more proveth Luther's evil opinion of those three Gospels. I doubtnot (albeit I never saw the preface myself) but Luther doth plainly express, in what respect the Epistles of Paul and Peter do excel the histories of the Gospel, written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, even as he doth in this preface unto his exposition of Saint Peter: Because these Epistles are more occupied, in setting forth the Grace of Christ, and the fruit, and benefit of his passion; which no more proveth his evil opinion of those three Gospels, then when Christ preferreth john the Baptist before all the Prophets, it proveth his evil opinion of all the Prophets: or when he preferreth him, that is least in the kingdom of heaven, before john Baptist, it proveth his evil opinion of john Baptist. These brutish Papists think all men void of common sense, when they make such impudent conclusions.  
As for your first charge, that it is a false opinion, and to be abolished, that there are four gospels: For the gospel of S. john is the only fair, true, and principal gospel: when you can allege the words of Luther in latin, to justify your report, and, because we know not how to come to the sight of that preface, will set down two sentences, that go before them, and as many that follow them, you shall receive a reasonable answer. But until you have thus much performed, I am persuaded, you will be as far to seek, as Campian was for his reporre of Luther, that he should call the Epistle of Saint james Stramineam, strawie, or like straw. And yet you take upon you to show the intolerable impudency of Master Chark, and his fellows in the Tower, against Master Campian, for that he could not presently show out of their books, where these words are written by Luther; especially of Master Whitaker (who to the admiration, and laughter of all other nations) hath set forth in latin, that Luther never called the Epistle of Saint james Stramineam. And I pray you good sir, where doth Luther so call it? For admitting your report of his words (jacobi autem epistola pre illis straminea est: the epistle of james in comparison of those of Peter, and Paul is like straw, or but strawie) we find not yet that he doth so call it absolutely, but in comparison; which may be done without contempt, or reproach: As when the Apostle saith, the law hath but a 
Heb. 10.  shadow of good things to come; he meaneth not, that the law to alintents, & purposes, is nothing but a shadow, for than it should be a vain thing, but in comparison of the truth exhibited in the Gospel. The intolerable impudence therefore is yours, and your fellows, and the laughter, and admiration of all nations (if all nations may hear of your shameless folly) may be against you, rather than Master Whitaker, that blush not to say absolutely, Luther called the epistle strawy, when he spoke only in respect, and comparison of greater plenty, of more weighty matter, in the Epistles of Peter, and Paul, then in that of james.  
But the matter presseth Master Whittaker very heavily, for that he being a reader in divinity, could not choose but have read those words alleged by learned men, above a hunddred times, against Luther. As though he is bound to believe, whatsoever he readeth by papists alleged against him. In deed this siaunder of Luther's rejecting that Epistle, and calling it strawie, is often thrust in, by Popish writers, yet without alleging the place where, or the words in which it is written. Prateolus out of Lindane of late hath set it forth in 
Lib. 10.  these words: eam non modò reiecit epistolam ceu canone indignam, sed contumeliosissimè quoque appellavit. Praealiis verè stramineam, quòd nihilipsius judicio haberet evangelicae indolis. He did not only reject that episile, as unworthy to be in the Canon, but also most contumeliously, hath called it in comparison of other, verily of straw, because in his judgement it had nothing of Gospellike nature in it. In the preface in Dutch whereof you speak, we neither find this word verily, or truly, nor any rejection of this epistle, or any such judgement of Luther expressed, that should contain in it nothing that savoureth of the Gospel. You see therefore what credit is to be given to Popish writers in their reports against Luther. Now whether Saint john did speak less of good works in his Gospel, than the other three Evangelists, you handle a vain question, when you confess, that john writing by the same spirit, could not but have many things to the same effect. Neither are you able to set down those words of Luther. our of which it may be proved, either that Luther affirmed, that the Gospel of john was the only true Gospel: or that the other three were to be rejected, or mishked, because they spoke too much of good works: so that you remain still, forany defence you have brought, a famous liet, & animpudent slanderer.  
The fourth doctrine of Luther you reported to be this: If any woman can not, or will not prove by order of the law the insufficiency of her husband, let her request at his hands a divorce, or else (by his consent) let her privily lie with his brother, or some other man. Master Charke answered, that this was Luther's counsel, while he was a Papist, which he revoked after his conversion. For this you charge him with such wilful and shameful dishonesty, as can not be excused: and ask how he will look his own friends in the face hereafter? with such fond insultation against him, as was used in the preface, whereunto hath sufficiently been answered, to discover your impudency. For Luther would not revoke his former counsel, say you, but do far worse, namely take the man by she locks, and touse him, except he did it. Whereas in plain truth, Luther meaneth nothing else, but to compel such a man, to an open divorce, as I showed in answer to the preface, and as the will discourse of Luther's words shall make plain, even to a partial reader. Serm. de matr, speaking of the causes of divorce, Priores autem quos Christus ex matris utero, etc. The former sort, whom Christ saith to be borne eunuchs from their mother's womb, are those, which are called impotent, which by nature are unable for procreation, and multiplying, In whom coldness, and infirmities do exceed; or else are so affected in body, that they are not meet for the life, that is in matrimony: such as a man may find both men and women. These as exempted by God, and so created, as they are not partakers of the blessing of generation and multiplying, are to be put away. For in them there is left no place for that word of God, increase, and multiply: even as if God had made some lame, or blind, which are free from walking, or seeing. Concerning such, a great while a go, I committed to writing a counsel for confessors, which they should use, if the husband or wife came to them, to ask counsel what they should do, for as much as their yoke fellow is not able to render the due benevolence; and yet the other party can not be without it, when he feeleth sufficiently, that the creature of God in himself to be of ability. Then they slandered me that I taught thus: that if the husband can not satisfy his wives wantonness, she ought to fly from him to another. But I suffered those froward triflers to lie. The sayings of Christ and his Apostles were perverted, and made worse: what marvel if the same thing happen to me? But who shall be hurt thereby, they themselves shall see at the length. Therefore after this manner I gave counsel. If to a woman meet for the matter, there do happen a husband that is impotent, and she can not openly be married to another man, and she unwillingly went against the common usage, and would not have her credit and fame to be obscured, whereas in this case the Pope requireth without cause many witnesses, that she should speak to her husband after this manner; Behold my husband, you cannot render unto me the due benevolence, and you have deceived me, and my youthful body, beside this you have brought me into peril of my good name, and health, or salvation, neither is there before God any matrimony between us. Favour me I pray you, that I may contract a secret matrimony with your brother, or your next of kin, so that you may have the name, that your goods may not pass to strange heirs, and suffer yourself willingly to be deceived by me, as you have deceived me, against my will. I proceeded also further, that the husband in this case ought to assent unto his wife, and by that means, to yield unto her the due benevolence, and hope of issue. And if that he refused, that she by secret flight should provide for her own safeguard, and going into an other country, be married to an other man. Such counsel I gave even them, when as yet the fear of Antichrist did hold me. But now my mind were to give far other counsel, and to such a husband which should with such craft beguile a woman, I would lay hand on his locks, and pull him vehemently, as the proverb is. And the same I judge of the woman, although it be more rare, then in men. For it availeth not any thing to defraud the neighbour, in such weighty causes, as touch the body, substance, credit, and happiness: it were needful, that he should be commanded no tably to pay for such deceitfulness. Thus far Luther's words truly translated. How say you now? is not this sufficient to declare Luther's mind, that he would revoke his former counsel of privy contract, or flying away, and compel the party to an open divorce?  
But if any man think this is not sufficient, you shall hear what he writeth further, concerning this matter, while he rehearseth how many causes in Popery are allowed for divorces? Decima quarta est, quam supra recensui, simaritus & uxor impotentes, & evirati: atque haec estynica inter octodecim illas causas, que admatrimonium dissipandum sufficit, quanquam & ipsa 〈◊〉 obstringatur legibus, priusquam tyranni earn permittant. The fourteenth cause is that which I rehearsed before, if the husband, and wife be impotent and unapt for generation: and this is the only cause among these eighteen cause, which is sufficient to dissolve the matrimony, although the same also be bound with many conditions, before the tyrants will permit it. And yet again speaking of those causes, which he himself allowed for divorcement, he saith: Quae nune personae segregari queant intersese, videbimus. Tres ergo causas novi, ob quas divortium fieri potest, prima, quae iam & in superioribus recitataest, cùm marious & uxor impotentes ad rem fuerint, membrorum, aut naturae causa, etc. Now what persons may be separated one from an other, we will see. Three causes I know for which there may be divorce. The first, when the husband and the wife are impotent, and unable for the matter, through cause of their members, or nature, howsoever that may be, of which sufficient hath been spoken. Is not all this as plain as can be, that Lutherspeaketh of a divorce necessary to be had in that case? As also in the same sermon afterward he teacheth, that all divorces are to be made by public authority, and with the knowledge, and consent both of the common wealth, & of the Church, or of one of them at the least. Therefore that I may rightly use your own words against you, which you do unjustly abuse against M. Charke; Can this be excused from extreme impudency, and most wilful falsehood against your own conscience? Defend this if you can, with all the helps, and devices of your fellows: ere else let the reader, by this one point of open dishonesty discovered, judge of the rest of your dealings, and slanderings of us without all conscience, both in your sermons, and in your books, etc.  
Now whether he were a Papist or no, when he gave this first counsel to such as heard shrift, you move the question, and conclude against his plain words (as it seemeth) that he was none. Well, let us hear your reasons. First, you say, that many years after his conversion, he sloode in fear of the Pope, and said nothing against con●ession. How many years, I beseech you? For as soon as the Pope excommunicated him, and condemned his writings, to be burned at Rome, he did open lie burn the Pope's Canon law at Wittemberge, which was, Anno Dom. 1520. before that time he acknowledged the Pope's authority, and humbly submitted himself to his Censure, if either the gross abuse of pardons might have been reform, or he himself convinced by the scriptures to have erred. But from that time, he never stood in awe of the Pope, as that open fact declared, and there had passed but four years before, since he first began to inveigh against the abuse of pardons.  
Your second reason is, that it appeareth evidently, by his whole discourse in the place alleged, where he saith plainly (beside other things) that the Papists did seek advantage against him for this opinion of his, and to that end did misreport his words. The whole discouse I have set down, that you may see how evidently it appeareth. For that the Papists did slander him, it is granted, but thereby it doth not evidently appear, that Luther at that time was no Papist. For doth not one Papist slander another sometime? was there not spite and malice between friars of other orders, against them of that order that Luther was of, & especially the Dominicans, which might cause them to pervert his words & meaning. As for other things beside, and seeking advantage against him for this opinion, you sucked out of your fingers ends: for in the whole discourse there is no such matter.  
Your third reason is, that Papists teach no such doctrine, but clean contrary: as though some Papists have not their private opinions, which are not generally received. Neither is there any thing in substance, but in circumstance, contrary to the Papists doctrine, in that counsel of Luther's. For the Papists in the case of impotency, or frigidity, do grant a divorce, which Luther thought, without trial of law, might be made by private consent, or in case of the impotent persons dislent, by voluntary departing of the other: so that this reason disproveth him not to have been a Papist at that time, any more than the rest.  
The fourth reason is, that putting such a thing in writing, he should have been resisted presently, if he had been of your Church. But that followeth not, especially if the writing were not public, but private to a few ghostly fathers, perhaps of his own order, and house, and his advise, or opinion only, not a matter obstinately defended. And yet it appeareth, that is was notwel brooked, when his enemies had an inkling of it.  
Your last reason is, that it appeareth by his own words, and the computation of time, when he wrote this book, that he had left Papistry a good while before. In deed if you can convince us by his own words, that he had left Papistry, when he gave this counsel, you have some advantage against Master Charke; but that is yet to come. As for the computation of time, in which he wrote this sermon of Matrimony, will not help you to prove, that he was no Papist, when he wrote the shrift advise. For he speaketh of it as of matter that was very old, olim, he saith, long ago. For the book was written much about the time of his marriage, which was five year after his open renouncing of the Pope; before which time, he was a Papist, though in some points he began to espy the gross errors of Papistry.  
But as though you had not done him injury enough already, you add, that in an other place he sayeth, that if a man have ten wives, or more fled from him upon like causes, he may take more: and so may wives do the like in husbands. Whereupon Alberus, one of your own religion noteth, that johannes Leidensis, took many wives, and one knipperdoling took thirteen for his part, so that this doctrine was not only taught, but also practised upon Luther's authority. I will here like wiseset down the whole discourse of Luther, in the place by you quoted, Exegesi ad c. 7. ep. 1. ad Cor. that the world may see, whether there be a spark of honesty, or shamefastness in Papists, that make such impudent reports, which may so easily be disproved. For that which Luther speaketh of ten wives fled from him, is in a far other cause, than the cause of impotency, and nothing in the world favoureth the plurality of wives, practised by the Anapabtistes, whatsoever Alberus, or any other hath written, of whom there is just cause to doubt what he bathe written, because you are so false, almost in all your reports of writers of our side. As for the Anapabtistes, it is certain they practised not their polygamy upon Luther's authority, whom they did utterly abhoore, and in open printed books accounted him for a notable false teacher. Again, it is not like, that Alberus being a lutheran, would father so gross a lie upon Luther's authority.  
But let the reader mark what Luther writeth upon these words of the text, but if the unfaithful depart, let him depart: a brother or sister, is not in bondage subject to such. Hoc loci Paulus (saith he) fidelem coniugatum sententiam pro illo ferendo liberat, ubi infidelis compar discesserit, aut concedere non vult ut Christum sequatur, eique copiare facit iterum cum alio matrimonium contrahendi. Quòd verò hic divus Paulus de Ethnico compare dicit, idem & de falso Christiano intelligendum est, us si alter coniugum alterum ad impietatem adigeret, necilli permitteret Christum vita imitari, tum liber hic sit & solutus, ut quicum libuerit se despondeat. Quòd si hoc Christiano iure non liceret, cogeretur fidelis infidelem suam comparem sequi, vel invitus repugnant natura & viribus suis caelebs permanere, magno cum animae suae periculo. Id ipsum D. Paulus his denegat, inquiens: Quòd si eiusmodi frater, aut soror, seruituti non sit obnoxius, neque captus, neque venundatus sit: ac si dicat, in aliis causis, ubiconiuges unâ commorantur, ut in debita coniugij benevolentia, & id genus similibus, alter alteri obligatus est, nec sui 〈◊〉 est. In 〈◊〉 ubi alter alterum ad impiam vitam cogit, vel ab altero discedit, ibiverò non est captiuus, neque 〈◊〉 isti adhaerere porrò. Quòd si captiuus non tenetur, liberatus & manumissus 〈◊〉, despondere se alters potest, velutisi matrimonio coniuncius sibimortem oppetiissit. Quid, si & 〈◊〉 coniugium non opportunè cederes, ut alter alterum, maritus uxorem, vel è contra, gentium in morem, adeoque impiè vivere cogeret, vel si alter ab altero fugeret, donec tertium, 〈◊〉 quartum coniugium attingeretur, dareturne viro toties 〈◊〉 ducere, quoties alia eiusmodi (ut iam dictum est) esset, ut decem, velplures 〈◊〉 viventes transfugas haberet? Et rursum, licebitne uxori dectm, aut plures, qui iam omnes 〈◊〉, esse maritos? Responsio: D. Paulo non possumus obstruere os, neque cumillo 〈◊〉 eius doctrina: quoties necessum fuerit, uti volunt, verba eius aperta sunt, Fratrem aut sororem liberos esse a coniugij lege, si alter discesserit, vel cum hoc habitare non consenserit. Neque ut semeltantùm stat hoc, dicit, sed liberum relinquit, ut quottes res postularit, vel pergat, vel consistat. Neminem enim incontinentiae discrimine covictum vult, ut eo captus teneatur alienae temeritatis & malitiae causa.  
In this place Paul setteth at liberty the faithful married person, giving sentence one his side: where the unfaithful match shall depart, or will not grant, that the other may follow Christ, and giveth him leave to contract matrimony with another. And that Saint Paul here sayeth of a heathen yoke-fellow, the same is to be understood of a false Christian, that if any of the married persons, would compel this other to impiety, and not permit to follow Christ in life, then is the party free to match in marriage with whom he listeth. Which thing if it were not lawful by Christian right, the faithfll man should be compelled to follow his unfaithfullmate, or else against his will, his nature and strength repugning, to remain unmarried with great danger of his soul. But that Saint Paul here denieth, saying, in such, a brother or a sister is not subject to bondage, nor captive, nor sold as a slave: as if he said: in other causes, where man and wife dwell together, as in the due benevolence of marriage, and such like cases, the one is bound to the other, and is not at liberty. But in such, where the one compelleth the other to impiety, or departeth away, there the other is not captive, nor compelled to cleave to this person any longer. And if he be not holden as a captive, he is set at liberty, and made free, he may betrothe himself to an other, as if the other party, that was joined in matrimony to him, were dead. But what if the second marriage fall not outrightly, that the one would compel the other, the husband the wife, or contrariwise, to live after the manner of the Gentiles, and that impiously, or if the one fled from the other, until the third or forth marriage were come unto, should the husband have licence so often to marry a new wife, as the other is such a one, as we have said already, so that he should have ten, or more wives 〈◊〉 away from him, & yet living? And again, shall it be lawful for the wife to have ten or more husbands which are all come away from hit? The answer. We cannot stop Saint Paul's mouth, nor wrestle against him they that will use his doctrine, his words are plain, that a brother, or a sister are free from the law of wedlock, if the one depart, or do not consent to dwell with the other. Neither doth he say, that this may be done once only, but leaveth it free, that as often as the case shall require he may 〈◊〉 proceed, or stay. For he will have none to be cast into the danger of incontinency; that he should be holden in 〈◊〉 thereby, through cause of the rashness, or malice of another.  
By this long discourse of Luther's own words, let the reasonable reader judge, what occasion the Anabaptistes might justly take, to defend their beastly keeping of many women together, under the cloak of marriage, by his authority, or what carnal liberty of marriage Luther graunteh, otherwise then the Apostle alloweth, in the case of the infidels departure. Albert he put the case of the second, third, fourth, tenth, or more, beinginfidelis, or false Christians, which is altogether unlikely, and almost unpossible to come to pass. For he that is once rid of an unfaithful match, being himself a good Christian, will not 〈◊〉 take a wife, but of Christian Religion, and if he be deceived twice, it were monstrous that he should be deceived in his third choice. But if he should wilfully and wittingly match with so many known heathen women, it would breed another case than Luther speaketh of, and he were worthy to be cut of from the congregation of Christians, as one that showeth himself to be a dissembling hypocrite, rather than a faithful Christian.  
The fift doctrine that you reported of Luther is, that if the wife will not come, les the maid come. Which M. Chark hath answered sufficiently to be spoken of a third cause of divorce, when the woman shall obstinatelle refuse her husbands company, But this you say cannot be excused, either by M. Hanmers' shameless denial, or by M. Charks impertinent interpretation. For you say, that this was practised in Germany, to all kind of lasciviousness, yea among the Ministers themselves, as Sebastian Flask, sometime a Lutheran Preacher doth testify. Here is upon the testimony of a lewd bawdy knaves confession of his own filthiness, for which it is like that he was banished from the Church, and so became a papist, a slander raised upon the whole ministry, yea upon the whole nation of Germans, that profess Luther's Doctrine, that by authority of Luther's writing, they use to call their maids to bed, when their wives will not come, etc. But to justify Master Charkes interpretation, and to let the reader see the intolerable impudency of this wretched defender, I will set down, as I have done in the rest, Luther's words concerning the matter in question more at large; by which it may appear, that Master Hanmer might justly deny the words to be Luther's, where they were drawn so far from his meaning. After he hath showed three causes of divorce, in his judgement, the first being impotency, the second adultery, & the third desertion, or forsaking, he speaketh ofit in these words: Tertia ratio est, ubi alter alteri sese subduxerit, ut debitam benevolentiam persoluere nolit, au: habitare 
Serm. 〈◊〉 trimon.  cum 〈◊〉. Reperiuntur enim interdum adeò pertinaces uxores, quae etiamsidecies in libidinem prolaberetur maritus, pro sua duritia non curarent. Hic 〈◊〉 est, ut maritus dicat, Si tunolueris, alia voler: si domina nolit, adveniat ancilla: it a tamen, ut antea, iterum, & tertiò uxorem admoneat maritus, & coram aliis eius esiam pertinaciam detegat, ut publicè, & ante conspectum Ecclesiae, duritia eius, & agnoscatur, & reprehendasur. Situm renuat, repudiae eam, & in vicem Vasthi, Esther surroga, Assueriregis exemplo. Porro hîc tu Divi Pauli. 1. Cor. 7. imitaris verbis, maritus proprij corporis potestatem non habet, sed uxor. Et uxer sui corporis ius non habet, sed maritus. Ne fraudetis vos mutuò, niss uterque consenserit. Ecce 〈◊〉 hîc fraudem 〈◊〉 Apostolus. Name in desponsione, alter alteri corpus 〈◊〉 tradit, ad matrimonij obsequium: ubi ergo alter debitum obsequium negat, tum alteri corpus 〈◊〉 deditum spoliat, & vi aufert, quod propriè coniugij repugnat iuri, immo & coniugium dissipat. Igitur hanc uxorem cohihere magistratus est, atque interimere. Hoc si 〈◊〉 magistratus, imaginandum est marito suam 〈◊〉 uxorem à Latronibus raptam, & interfectam esse, confiderandumque ut aliam ducat. Ferendum est aliquando, ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tollatur, spolieturque corpus, & tollerandum non est, si uxor sese marito ipsademat, & praedetur, aut ab aliis adimatur. The third way is, when the one withdraweth himself from the other, so that he will not pay the due benevolence, or refuseth to dwell with the other. For there are found women sometimes so obstinate, that although their husbands should ten times fall into filthy lust, such is their hardness that they would not care. Here now it is good time for the husband to say, if thou 〈◊〉 not, another will: if the mistress will not, let the maid come: but yet so, that the husband before do admonish his wife, the second, and third time, and discover her 〈◊〉 also before other men, that openly, and before the sight of the Church, her hardness may be known, & reprehended. If then she refuse, be thou divorced from her, and in steed of Vasthi, take Ester, by the example of King Asuerus, and in this case thou mayest lean unto the words of Saim Paul 1. Cor. 7. the husband hath not the power of his own body, but his wife, and the wife hath none authority of her own body, but her husband. Do not defraud one another, except it be by consent of both. Behold the Apostle here forbiddeth fraud one both parts. For in their betrothing they deliver their bodies one to the other, to the service of matrimony. Therefore where the one denieth the due service, than he robbeth, & taketh away by force his body, which he hath given to another, which is properly repugnant to the right of marriage, yea and dissolveth the marriage. Therefore it is the Magistrates duty to bridle his wife. yea and to put her to death. This if the magistrate omit, the husband must imagine that his wife is stolen away and slain by thieves, and consider how to marry another. Is it to be borne at any time, that a man should be spoiled, and rob of his own body? and is it to be tolerated, if the wife do take away, and steal herself from her husband, or be taken away by other?  
Now (reader) it is thy part to judge, whether Master Charke have made an in pertinent interpretation of Luther's words, and whether any practise of such lascuiviousnes as was touched, can be defended by this doctrine of Luther. Last of all, whether there be any honesty in the defender, that faseth out the matter still, as though Luther spoke not of a cause of divorce, but of licentious lechery, to be committed with the maid, so often as her mistress should chance to refuse her husbands company, upon any occasion: yea he rubbeth his forehead hardly, and saith to Master Charke, when you are not ashamed to defend the doctrine, ye are more bold than the Lutherans themselves, who for very shame do suppress the German book, wherein it was written, as Cromerus a German testifieth.  
If the Lutherans had been so ashamed of the doctrine, as you say they were, why suffer they the latin book to be so often printed? As for suppressing of the German book, for very shame, you are not able to prove it: for how could they suppress it, if it were once printed, and distracted? if they have kept it in, being never set forth, why did they not as well in translation resorme so gross an oversight? But it sufficeth you, that any Papist hath belied Luther: for such a testimony is sufficient evidence with you to condemn him. And yet this opinion of Luther, that such obstinacy of the wife is a sufficient cause of divorce, is not defended by Master Charke, more than by Smideline. and whether Luther did ever retract it or no, I know not. And albeit he did not, yet is it not so gross, as that of the Papists, which you defend, as true and allowed by all laws of nature, civil, & Canon, that he which marrieth a bond woman unwittingly, may be divorced from her. When our saviour Christ acknowledgeth no cause of divorce, detweene persons apt for marriage, butonelie adultery.  
The inconveniences, that you allege, of her body in bondage, her issue bond, whereof the father can not have the education, etc. are better avoided by buying the bondwoman of her Lord, then by breaking of Christ's law so expressly, and peremptorily set down in the Gospel. Unto which sail the Lord may be compelled, by the Christian magistrate. But in case he be not under a Christian governor, or the husband not able to pay the price, he were better be in bondage himself, yea lose his life, than so wilfully to commit adultery, by marrying another. The other cause of divorcement, for covetousness or other grievous sin, which is spiritual fornication, you answer, that it was but the saying of one man: as though Luther were many men, or the master of the sentences were not as great a man among you, as Luther is with us.  
Where you conclude out of Thomas Aquine, that the knot of marriage is not dissolved, because Lombard's words are, demittere eam, that is, dismiss her from his company, you make a sound arguments for the very same word he useth in the case of a bondwoman, which you confess to dissolve the knot: his words are these, Si nescitur esse seruilis conditionis, liberen potest dimitti. If it be not known that she was of servile condition, 
〈◊〉. 4. dist. 36.  she may be freely put away. And in the 39 distinction, he expresseth his mind plainly, in what case the knot is dissolved, and in what case it is not.  
The last four doctrines you huddle up together, upon a false pretence, that Master Charke doth grant 
The sixth point.  them as they lie, and think them sound enough to stand with the Gospel. For touching the first, that matrimony is much more excellens then virginity, Master Charke in deed noteth certain things, in respect whereof marriage excelleth virginity; which you can not confute: yet refuseth to stand upon the comparison, saying, they are both good: yet neither good for all, but marriage for him that can not contain; and virginity in some respects, as the Apostle noteth, which Luther also doth acknowledge. Wherefore, seeing the Apostle in some respects preferreth virginity, he were amadde man, that would affirm the contrary. But seeing the Apostle in all respects doth not prefer virginity, he is a foolish wrangler, that quarelleth against him, that denieth marriage in all respects, to be inferior to virginity. For we have nothing to do with jovinian, helvidius, Basilides, or whomsoever you can name, that was condemned by antiquity, for affirming matrimony, paris esse merits cum virginitate, to be of equal dignity with virginity in all respectes-neither did Luther ever so affirm, but the contrary, as his own words shall testify for him. At quisque (inquit) suum donum habet, alius sic, alius verò sic. Hîc profitetur 〈◊〉 votum impleri non posse, neque velle deum cuique eximium 
Exegis. ad cap. 7. Epist. 1. ad Cor.  illud impartiri donum. Atque hunc textum tu in intimis pectoris tui penetralibus recondas, pleraque enim in se complectitur, neque minus continentia matrimonium praedicat. Nam sicubi coniugium quis cum caelibatu conferat, praestantius certè donum est 〈◊〉. Attamen matrimonium itidem Dei donum est (inquit hoc loci Paulus) ut continentia. Mas etiam faeminae praestat, attamen aequè utille, opus dei haec est. Coram deo enim omnia sunt aequalia, quae inter seize alias distant. Quicquid is condidit, suum eum 〈◊〉, & creasorem appellat, & dominum, neque quicquam alio sublimius eum nominat, sive magnum, sive parvum fuerit. Sic idem valet coram illo matrimonium & virginitas. Nam utrunque est donum & creatura dei, tametsi alterum alteri antecellas, si quis inter se conferat. But every one (saith he) hath his proper gift, one man after this manner, another man after that. Here he professeth that his desire can not be fulfilled, and that God will not bestow upon every man that excellent gift. And this text lay thou up in the innermost closet of thy breast, For it comprehendeth many things in it, and setteth forth marriage, no lose than continency. For if a man shall compare marriage with virginity, certainly virginity is the more excellent gift. Nevertheless, marriage (saith Paul in this place) is the gift of God, as well as continency. A man also is more excellent than a woman, yet is she the work of God, as well as he: for all those things are equal before God, which otherwise do differ among themselves. Whatsoever he hath made, it calleth him the maker, the creator, and Lord thereof, neither doth any thing name him more highly, than another thing, whether it be great or small. So before him matrimony and virginity be of equal value: for both is the gift and creature of God, albeit the one more excellent than the other, if they be compared one with the other. These words of Luther are plain enough, to show his opinion of the excellency of virginity above matrimony, in some respects; although in regard that they are both the gifts of God, he affirm them to be equal. For the gifts of God may be the one more excellent than the other, (as he confesseth of virginity) yet is not the one more the gift of God, than the other.  
But all this is little worth (you may say) if that, which you bring in next against him, be true. For seeing the ancient writers did write whole books in the commendation, and preferment of virginirie, above all other states of life, What would they have said (say you) If they had heard the base, scurrile, and impious words of M. Luther, de natura statuum inter se, as his own explication is: that is, of the very nature of these two states in themselves, without respect of abuse, or good use, to affirm matrimonium esse velut aurum, the state of matrimony to be as gold: and the other state of virginity and continency to be, utî stercus ad impietatem promovens, like stinking dung promoting to impiety. Can any thing be spoken more abject, or more contradictory to the scriptures and Fathers, than this? Can hell be more opposite to heaven, than the carnality of this Apostata to the spiris of all saints? See you not how this fellow insulteth? how he chafeth? how he raileth? but will you see also how he lieth, how he falsifieth, how he slandereth? For Luther saith not: that marriage in comparison of virginity, is as gold, he saith not that the state of virginity and continency is as stinking dung, etc. But the comparison he maketh is between the state of matrimony, and the popish 
Exeg. ad cap. 〈◊〉. ep. 1. adcor.  spiritual or Ecclesiastical state: of which he saith, de usu, vel abusu, etc. of the use or abuse of the states at this present, we say nothing, but of the condition and nature of the states in themselves, and do conclude that matrimony is as gold, but the spiritual state (meaning of the popish Church) is as dung, because that setteth forward to faith, this unto impiety. And lest you doubt, what spiritual state he speaketh of, he calleth it expressly in the same discourse, spiritualis status in papatu, the spiritual state in popery. And for a more manifed discovery of this impudent slanderer, I will set down his words in the same place, more at large yielding reasons, why he doth so highly prefer marriage, before that popish state, speaking nothing of virginity, or continency, or true chastity; as this shameless caviller doth cry out. Nemo igitur (obiicies) tua sententia coelelis permanebit, sed quisque matrimonium contrahet, quaeres huic Paulino textui adversaretur? Respondeo. De spiriivali nunc statu loquor ad matimonium comparato, non de coelibatu. Status spiritualis nulli prorsum rei accommodus est, sed perditissimus, praestaretque neminem spiritualem, & quemque coniungtam esse. Porrò coelibatus & vera continentia aliud est ac spiritualis status: de hoc nihil omnino hîc Paulus agit: de vera. n. castitate loquitur. Nullus enim statuum impudentior, & ad libinem promptior est, Ecclesiastieo & spirituali statu, ut hodiernus dies contestatur. Quòd siex illis coelibes quidam essent, non tamen utuntur calibatu, ad Pauli institutum & normam, ut nequaquam castitas esse queat, cuius hîc 〈◊〉 mentionem facit. Isti enim ex castitate meritum, iactantiam & magnificentiam coram Deo & hominib, faciunt, & in eafidunt, idquod cūfide pugnat. D. Paulus verò exeafacilitatem quandam & servitutem ad verbum Dei & fidem effecit. Spiritualis verò status, non ex labore suo vivit, Arcadico iumento signor, etc. Thou wilt object by thy sentence, therefore, shall no man remain continent, but every one shall marry, which thing is contrary to the text of Saint Paul? I answer, I speak now of the spiritual state, being compared to matrimony, not of continency or virginity. The spiritual state, or the spirituality, is good for nothing in the world, but is most wicked, and it were better that there were never 
Such a spiruall man.  a spiritual man, and that all were married. But as for virginity & truecontinency, it is an other thing then the state of the spirituality of which Saint Paul in this place speaketh nothing at all, for he speaketh of true chastity. For no state in the world is more shameless, and more prone to filthy lust, than the ecclesiastical and spiritual state, as this days experience doth testify? And if any of them were continent, yet they use not their continency to the purpose and rule of Saint Paul: so that it can not be that chastity, whereof Saint Paul maketh mention in this place. For these men of their chastity do make a desert, a boasting, and magnificense before God and men, and put their trust therein, which is contrary to faith. Whereas Saint Paul thereof hath made a certain easiness, and service unto the word of God: but the spiritual state liveth no of their labour, being more slow than an Ass, etc. Thus hast thou (reader) Luther's judgement out of his own sayings; by which thou mayst & must needs acknowledge, what injury this falsary hath done unto him in saying, that Luther affirmeth the state of virginity or continency to be as stinking dung promoting to impiety, when Luther speaketh of the Popish spirituality, whose doctrine and manners are blasphemous and wicked, like the old heretics called Apostolici and Origeniani turpes, 
Epi. ha'. 61. & 63. August. in Catal. her. 40.  which boasted of continency, and performed nothing less, as Epiphanius and other do testify.  
The second of these last 4. that Christ and Saint Paul did not counsel, but dissuade virginity unto Christians: You 
The seventh point.  ask if any thing can be more contrary to Christ's and Saint Paul's sayings? Master Charke answereth you sufficiently: the counsel pertaineth not to all, but unto those, that have the gift; the rest are dissuaded from the attempt. And for them that have the gift, Master Charke saith, it is more profitable for them many ways to abstain. Luther saith: Nec ideo coelibatum & virginitatem reprobare mihi animus est, nec inde quenquam ad iugale vinculam invitare. Quisque pro dono suo diuinitut impertito, ut potest, feratur. Neither is it my mind to reiest continency, and virginity, nor to provoke any man from thence unto wedlock. Let every man bear himself according to the gift, that he hath received of God, as he can. What would you say more? that all men are here exhorted unto virginity, even those that have not the gift of continency? it seemeth you would, by alleging the saying of Saint Jerome. Quasi hortantis, etc. it is the voice of our Lord, as it were exhorting, and stirring 
In Mat. c. 19  up his soldiers to the reward of chastity: he that can take it, let him take it, he that can fight, let him fight, conquerre and triumph. And whom doth Jerome mean by his soldiers? all men in differently? or those only, whom God hath armed with the grace, & gift of continency? If you 〈◊〉 say all, S. Jerome in the words going immediately before in the same place, will tell you another tale. Qui potest capere, capiat, ut unusquisque consideret vires suas, utrum poffit virginalia & pudicitiae implere praecepta. Per se enim castitas blanda est, & quemlibet ad se alliciens. Sed considerandae suntvires, ut qui potest capere, capiat. He (saith he) that can take it, let him take it, that every man may consider his strength, whether he be able to fulfil the precepts of virginity, and chastity. For chastity in deed of itself is pleasant, and alluring every man unto it. But men must consider their strength, that he which is able to take it, may take it. You see here, that Christ exhorteth none but them that are able, by his grace, and that all have not strength to contain: those that have the strength Luther also exhorteth to use it: they that have it not, are commanded by the Apostle to marry.  
The third doctrine, touching the necessity of a wife to everyman, to be as great as the necessity of eating, drinking, 
The eight point.  or sleepeing, which importeth that he may not welmisse her 24. hours together, you marvel Master Charke was not ashamed to maintain. But neither Luther, nor Charke, do maintain it necessary for every man to have a wife, but only for them that have not the gift of continency, which cannot avoid sin without marriage, as the text of the Apostle is manifest. Where you infer, 
1. Cor. 〈◊〉  that then he may not well miss her 24. hours together, it is a fond conclusion. For the like necessity of things, bindeth not to the like often use of the same things. As if I should say, meat and drink is as necessary for the life of man, as breathing, it followeth not, that a man must eat and drink every moment, because he must breathe every moment. Correction, we say commonly, is as necessary for children, as meat and drink, and yet I trow it followeth not, that children must of necessity be beaten once in 24. hours. Letting of blood, or sweeting, for some bodies, is as necessary, as sleep: therefore must they be let blood, and sweat always once in 24. hours? But you marvel especially, if that sentence of Luther's be added to the former serm. De matrim. Verum est profectò, it is true verily that he must needs be a bawd that flieth matrimony, seeing God hath created man & woman for copulation and 〈◊〉 sake. This you say is a wise reason of a 〈◊〉 Apostata, for every man must either couple and marry, by this, or be a bawd. But in truth we may say, this is a slanderous conclusion of an impudent liar. For Luther in the place quoted speaketh against them that differ, and fly marriage, that they might live more licentiously in whoredom: as his words going before are plain: Plerique ideo matrimonium & differunt & fugiunt, quòd primùm satis ad tempus aliquod usque scortari velint suamque explere voluptatem, & 〈◊〉 ubi saturi fuerint, honestatise item dedere. sed bonae verba quaeso, etc. Many do therefore differ and fly marriage, because they will first for a certain time commit whoredom enough, and take their pleasure to the full: afterward when they are glutted, they will give themselves to honesty also: but suft I pray you, etc. and so proceedeth to inveigh against such purposes, and at length cometh to these words cited by our defender, and other that follow. Verum profectò est, eum lenonem esse oportere, quimatrimonium fugiat, & quî aliter eveniret? posteaquam marem & foeminam commixtionis & multiplicationis causa condidit. At quare scortatio matrimonij statu non antevertitur? Nam ubi praecipua gratia non excipiat, necessum est naturam feruere & multiplicaeri. Si ●d in matrimonio non contingat, ubi aliâs quàm in fornication, aut peioribus peccatis accideret? It is true in deed, that he must needs be a bawd, which flieth matrimony. And how can it be otherwise? seeing he hath created man and woman for copulation, and multiplications sake. But why is not whoredom prevented by the state of marriage? For where special grace doth not except a man, nature must needs boil, and be multiplied, if that happen not in marriage, where should it happen else, but in fornication, or worse sins? Yea the saying which I cited in answer to the next point before, doth follow, necideo coelibatum, etc. neither do I reject continency, or virgininitie: let every man use his gift, as he hath received it of God. All which I suppose is manifest to declare, that Luther counted not all men bawds, that lived unmarried: but those only, that had not the gift of continency, and which by flying holy marriage, fall into grievous sins of fornication, and uncleanness.  
The last Doctrine, that all christians are as holy, & as just as the mother of god, & as the Apostles were, if it be understood as Luther meaneth, containeth no absurdity; neither is it any badge of intolerable pride. For Luther meaneth of the holiness & justice of Christ, communicated unto us, by which we are made holy & just, as Christ is made equally to all Christians, justice and holienes, not of the effects of this grace, which 
1. Cor. 1. 30.  worketh inequality of holiness & righteousness, as the image of God is more or less restored in every one. And this his words declare. Quia verò renati sumus, filii atque haeredes Dei, pari sumus in dignitate & honore D. Paulo, Petro. S. deiparae virgini, ac divis omnibus. Habemus enim eundem 
In epst. 1. Pet. 1.  the saurum à Deo, bonaque omnia tam largiter quàm ipsi. Siquidem & ipsosnon secus atque nos renasci oportuit: quare non plus habent, quàm quilibet reliqui Christiani. Because we are borne again the sons and heirs of God, we are equal in dignity and honour to Saint Paul, Saint Peter, to the virgin mother of God, and to all the Saints. For we have the same treasure of God, and all good things, as largely as they. For that was necessary for them also, no less than us, to be borne again. Therefore they have no more than all other Christians. By these words it is evident, that Luther maketh this equality in the grace of regeneration, & the common effects thereof, not in the special gifts that follow, according to the several measure of grace, that God giveth to every one, and therefore it is out of season to dispute here, of the degrees of rewards, or the excellency of God's gifts, in some more than other: no nor of the merit of good works, except you will say, that the grace of regeneration is given according to merit. Although the term of merit, used often times in the Fathers, which you do gladly usurp, signifieth not the desert of good works, as the Papists take it, but the praise, commendation, or honour of virtue, and sometimes virtue, and good deeds themselves. Finally, to compare with the Apostles, and the virgin Marie, in holiness and righteousness of life, it is neither the meaning of Luther, nor of the Ministers of England, but to acknowledge that we have received the like precious faith, in the righteousness of our God and Saviour jesus Christ, by which we are made holy & righteous in him, Saint Peter will warrant us. 2. Pet. 1. For the ligittimation of Dyonise, falsely surnamed the Areopagite, you would feign bring the authority of general Councils, but your note book deceived you. For you quote Concil. Const. Act. 4. can. 2. both 〈◊〉 your page, and in your correction: but in deed 〈◊〉 which is said of him, is in Concil. Constantinopol. 6. 〈◊〉 undecima. Which was holden almost 700. years after Christ, where one Sophronius, Patriarch of 〈◊〉, writing to the Council, maketh mention Dionysius the Areopagite, and his writings, as he supposed, not counterfeit. But where lay the books of Dionyse for 600. years, that none of the writers, that gathered the monuments of such ancient Fathers, could once hear of them? I mean Eusebius Jerome, Gennadius. The other testimony out of the second of Nice, which you quote as fondly, I will not stand upon, seeing it is of later time, and less credit, among such a number of bastards made legitimat, to set up Idolatry. How well you have justified your nine slanders, and proved Luther's Doctrine to be licentious, and carnal. I will not spend time in repeating: let the reader judge of that which hath been brought on both sides.   

The fift section, entitled, Other doctrines of Luther, and of calvin, and Beza.  
WHat other absurdities you are able to bring out of Luther, you have given us a sufficient taste, in the former section, in which you handle the matter of licentious liberty: by which the indifferent reader may esteem of the rest. For ribaldry, scurrility, and thameles falsehood, of which you say you have examples more, infinite, and without number, when we hear of them, you shall receive answer, either of confession, defence, or excuse. But in the mean time you will note us one or two things of impiety, as they lie together in one treatise, that we have in England, which he descendeth obstinately, after they were condemned by the Church, being such positions, as cut the very sinews of all virtue, and so open the high way unto all dissolution. The first example is, when he holdeth that the very just man, in every good work, doth sin mortally: by which (say you) how doth he discourage all men from doing good? I answer, whatsoever Luther hath written to that effect, as not to discourage men from doing good, but to dissuade them from trusting in their own doing, when it is at the best. And seeing there is so great imperfection in the best deeds of men, he encourrageth men to labour more toward perfection. He teacheth men therefore, to a scribe to the grace of God, that which is properly his and to acknowledge their own infirmity, which without his grace can do nothing but evil: which grace secing it is sufficient for us, in that his power is made perfect in our weakness, there is no discouragement, either unto faith, or good works: for the sufficiency of his grace shall comfort us in faith, and the strength of his mercy, shallbe glorious in our infirmity. Wherefore this Doctrine of Luther, doth no more discourage men from doing good, than he that saith, whosoever hitteth not the prick, doth miss the mark, doth discourage men from shooting as nigh as they can. The second example of impiety is, when he saith, A man hath not in his power to do evil. Whereby (say you) how doth he encourage all lewd people to wickedness, delivering them from the fault thereof? But Luther doth neither of both. For albeit he say, that it is not in the power of man, to make his ways evil, because no man hath any power to do any thing, but from God, 
Act. 17. 28.  in whom we live, move, and have our being: yet doth he not deliver the wicked man from the fault of his wickedness, because he sinneth willingly, though he can do nothing else but sin, being destitute of the grace of God, and therefore sinneth necessarily: for proof whereof Luther allegeth Augustine de spiritu & litera. cap. 4. saying, Liberum arbitrium sine gratia non valet, nisi ad peccandum, etc. free-will without grace availeth not, but to commit sin, etc. And further he saith, jeremias quoque cap. 10. sic dicit: Scio Domine quoniam non est hominis via eius, nec viri est ut dirigat gressus suos. Quid potuit 
Assert. art. 36.  apertius dici? si via sua & gressus sui non sint in potestate hominis, quomodo via Dei & gressus dei erunt in potestate eius? Via enim hominis est ea, quam ipsi vocant naturálem virtutem faciendi quod est in se. Ecce haec non est in arbitrio hominis, seu liberi arbitrij. Quid ergo liberum arbitrium est, nisires de solo titulo? Quomodo potest sese ad bonum praeparare, cùm nec in potestate sit suas vias malas facere? Name & malaopera in impiis Deus regit, ut proverb. 16. dicit. Omnia propter semet ipsum operatus est Dominus, etiam impium addiem malum. & Rom. 1. Tradidit illos deus in reprobum sensum, ut faciant quae non conveniunt, etc. jeremy cap. 10. saith thus: I know O Lord, that a man's ways is not in his own hands, neither is it in man to direct his own steps. what could be said more plainly? if a man's own way, and his own steps be not in his own power, how shall the way and steps of God be in his power? for the way of man is that, which they call the natural power of doing that which is in him. Behold this is not in the will of man, or of free-will. What is free will then, but a thing of title and name only? How can a man prepare himself to good, when there is not in his power so much as to make his wates evil: for God governeth even the evil works in the ungodly, as he saith in the 16. of the proverbs. God hath made all things for himself, even the wicked man against the evil day, and Rom. 1. God hath delivered them into a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. All power of doing is of God, whether it be good or evil that is done. For the murderer could not live, nor lift up his hand, but by the power which he hath of God; who also ordereth even the wickedness of the murderer to good, either for the punishment of him that is slain, or for his reward, if he be slain for the defence of his truth, and in a good cause, and evermore turneth it to his glory. Yet is not the malice of the murderer from God, nor the murderer delivered from the fault of his wickedness; because he doth not intend therein to serve God, but his own cruelty. And this is that which Luther doth both say and mean, far from the slanderous report of this malicious caviller, as his own words do bear witness.  
The third example of impiety is, that Luther teacheth, that to fight against the Turk, is to resist God himself: whereby (say you) what a path maketh he to the empire of infidelity? But in truth, Luther teacheth not that it is unlawful simply and absolutely, to fight against the Turk, but to fight against the Turk under the Pope's banner. The article is better gathered by the Collectors, then by you sir defender. Praeliari adversus Turcas, 
〈◊〉. 34.  etc. to make war against the Turks, is to resist God, visiting our iniquities by them. And this article I do approve (saith Luther) by a double experience of our infelicity. The two experiences are these. First, that all prayers and Counsels of prevailing against the Turks, have been hither to frustrate, and the strength of the Turk is increased by our wars. The second is, that under pretext of making war against the Turk, the Popehath used to rake money together for their pardons: And he concludeth, that without repentance and the overthrow of the Pope's tyranny, there is no hope to prevail in war against the Turks, because God is not on our side, butiustlie incensed against us. Quantòrectius (saith he) faceremus etc. How much better should we do, if first with our prayers, yea rather by changing the whole course of our life, we reconcile God unto us? And then that the Emperors & the princes would restrain that Idol of Room, from tyranny, deceit, and destroying of sovies. For that I also may once prophecy, although I know I shall not be heard. Except the Pope of Rome be brought under, all Christendom is undone. Let him fly, as Christ hath taught, into the mountains, he that can; or with confidence let him offer his life to death, unto the Romish murderers. The Popedom can work nothing, but sin and destruction, what will you more? But who shall subdue the Pope? Christ by the brightness of his coming, and none other. Lord who hath believed our preaching? he that hath ears to hear let him hear, and let him abstain from the Turgish war, while the name of the Pope prevaileth under heaven. I have said. By this you may see, that Luther favoured not the empire of infidelity; but showeth by what means it may be resisted. Again, he forbiddeth not defence against the Turk, but invasion of the Turk, when we may be at peace with him. For that it is lawful to fight against the Turk in our own defence, he showeth his opinion, in consut. Rat. Latomianae, where he derideth the folly of Latomus, and the divines of Louane, which racked the decree of Pope Leo to this sense, that it was needles to answer the adversaries of religion: which is as great wisdom of the school of Louane in proceeding against Luther, as if when the Turk doth set upon us, which is no ways lawful for him, and yet he will not be stayed, we should send the divines of Louane ambassadors unto him, which should say unto him, It is not lawful for thee to fight, and if thou do, we will condemn thee, and so suffer him to range at his pleasure, and yet boast that we have gotten the victory. Nay (saith he) let us lay aside prayers and all spiritual armour, and cease to resist the devil, denouncing unto him, and saying: It is not lawful for thee to trouble the Church of God. So that Luther by these words declareth his judgement, that it is as lawful for us, and as necessary, with bodily armour to defend ourselves against the Turk assailing us, as it is to fight against the devil, with spiritual armour, and to confute enemies of the truth by the word of God.  
For a fourth example of impiety, you add, when he reprehended the Pope, for defining beside scripture, that the soul is immortal, and calleth it a monster of the dunghill of Rome, what ground of impiety doth he not lay? In deed if Luther should deny the immortality of the soul, as Pope john the, 23. did, and was therefore convicted, and condemned in the Counsel of Constance, we would accurse Luther's memory, as much as the Popes. 
Sess. 11.  But if Luther reprehended the Pope, for delivering that upon the credit of his own definition, and authority, which is manifestly grounded upon the authority of holy scriptures, what a slanderous pen have you? He was charged by the Collectors, art. 37. to have said thus. Certum est, in manu Ecclesiae, etc. It is certain, that it is not in the hand of the Church, or of the Pope at all, to decree articles of the faith, nay nor yet laws of manners, and good works: To this article Luther answereth thus. Probo hunc sic, etc. This article I prove thus. 1. Cor. 3. No man can lay any other foundation, beside that which is already laid, which is jesus Christ. Here thou hast the foundation laid by the Apostles: but every article of faith is part of this foundation: therefore none other article can be laid, then is already laid? There may be builded upon, as the same Apostle saith. And therefore the Pope ought to be laid, and builded upon the same foundation, but not to lay any foundation: for all things to be believed are fully set forth in the scriptures. Yet I permit that the Pope may make articles of faith to them that believe in him: such as these are; That the bread and wine are transsubstantiated in the sacrament: That the essence of god doth neither beget, nor is begotton: That the soul is the substantial form of the body: That he himself is the Emperor of the world, & King of heaven, and an earthly God: That the soul is immortal. And all those infinite monsters in the Romish dunghill of decrees, that such as his faith is, such may be his Gospel, such his beeleevers, & such his Church, and that like lips may have like lettuce, and the cup a cover meet for it. But we which are Christians, and not Papanes, do know that there is nothing pertaining either to faith or good manners, which is not abundantly set forth in the holy scriptures: that there is neither authority nor place for men to decree any other thing. These words declare, that what doctrine is true, and needful to be known, must be received from God by the holy scriptures; not from the Pope's decrees, or from any mortal man's authority. It is marvel you do not charge Luther, with holding the plurality of Gods, because here prehendeth the Pope, for defining, that the essence of god can neither beget, nor be begotton, as well, as with denying the immortality of the soul. both which articles are to be taken out of the holy scriptures, not from the authority of the Pope's definition. For though the Pope define any thing which is true, yet it must not be received upon his credit, but upon the authority of God's word. And seeing the Pope's decrees do contain such a number of untruths, the articles of faith from the Pope's decrees may receive discredit, rather than authority. But all things must be examined according to the word of God written, which is the truth, yea even the scripture coming from the mouth of the devil. Again, I wish the reader to consider, how truly you say, that Luther calleth that opinion of the immortality of the soul, a monster of the dunghill of Rome, when he speaketh of the infinite monsters of falsehood, that are found in the dunghill of the Pope's decrees, where of he maketh no express mention in answer to this article.  
The last example of impiety is, when Luther affirmeth, and mantaineth, that neither man, nor Angel on earth, can lay any one law upon any one Christian, further than he will himself. What foundation (say you) doth not he overthrow of all Christian common wealths. Luther's short answer to this, is. Hoc non de civilibus legibus, sed de Ecclesiasticis dixi, & est sententi a Pauli. Coll. 2. This I speak not of civil laws, but of Ecclesiastical laws, and it is the sentence of Saint Paul, Coll. 2. What foundation now doth he overthrow, or teach, of any Christian common wealth, when he speaketh of the freedom of conscience, from all constitutions of men? These be the great monsters of impiety, which cut the sinews of all virtue, & do open the high way to all dissolution. Will you never be ashamed, to slander their doctrine, which you are not able to confute?  
But now for the bodily and sensible conference of Luther with the devil, you wonder with what face Master Charke can deny it: & we wonder with what mouth you can affirm it. That the Tygurines give testimony of it, is a lie, as I have showed before. And the whole discourse of Luther's words shall make manifest, that his confession is only of a spiritual fight in mind, & no bodily conference, as Master Charke answered at the first. His words in his book, de missa privata, & unctione sacerdotum, are these. Sed forsitan agnoscatis quàm firmis nitatur columnis vestra causa, si in horam incidatis tentationum. Eglantine o coram vobis reverendis & sanctis patribus, confessionem faciam: date mihi absolutionem bonam, quae vobis opto quàm minimum noceat. Contigit me semel sub mediam noctem subitò expergefieri. Ibi Satan mecum caepit eiusmodi disputationem. Audi, inquit, Luthere doctor per docte, nostietiam te quindecim annis celebrasse missas privatas quotidie: Quià si tales missae horrenda essent idololatria, & c? But peradventure you may acknowledge upon how sure pillars your cause leaneth, if you fall into the hour of tentation. I will make my confession before you reverend & holy fathers: give me good absolutition, which I wish may hurt you least. It happened that once I waked suddenly about midnight. There Satan began this disputation with me. Harken, saith he, thou very well learned Doctor Luther, etc. thou knowest also, that thou hast said the private Mass by the space of, 15. years, almost every day: what if such private Masses were horrible idolatry, & c? These words are manifest that Luther speaketh of a spiritual temptation, such as even good men are subject unto, in which Satan objecteth unto the conscience of men, such things wherein they have offended God most grievously.  
The atguments that the devil layeth against him, are not so much against the Mass, as against Luther's sin, to bring him in despair for saying mass, being a sinful man, as appeareth by these words which he attributeth to the devil. Prome ubi scriptum est, quód homo impius, incredulus, possit assistere altari Christi, & 〈◊〉 ac conficere infide Ecclesiae: ubi jussit ac praecepit hoc deus? Bring forth where it is written, that an ungodly man, an unbeeleever may stand at the altar of Christ, and consecrate, and make the sacrament in the faith of the Church: where hath God bidden or commanded this? For Luther had defended himself, and sought to quiet his conscience, because he was an anointed priest, because he celebrated in the faith of the Church, although he was unworthy in respect of the weakness of his own faith, & the multitude of his sins. But this you clip, as your note book served you, which was not of your own gleaning, Agè, prome ubi scriptum est, ubiiussit aut praecepit hoc Deus. Go to now, show me where the mass is written in scripture, where hath God commanded it; and scoff at the Protestants fashion of disputation, and conclude, that Luther not being able to answer, finally yielded to banish the mass, upon the devils appointment, which is a tale of a tub: for there is no such conclusion, but that Luther by faith in the merits of Christ, overcame this temptation. For after his conflict described thus, he proceedeth: Hîc respondebunt mihi sanctissimi patres, hîc ride bunt & dicent, tune es doctor ille celebris, & non nosti respondere Diabolo? An ignoras Diabolis esse mendacem? papè! vestro merito vobis gratias ingentes ago, pro tam suavi consolation in re tanta. Has tres voculas (Diabolus est mendax) ignorassem ego 〈◊〉, nisi monuissetis vos eximij theologotati. Si papista essem omnium tentationum ruàis, quem securum & 〈◊〉 Satan negligeres, ut ipsos negligit indulgentes suis cupiditatibus, etc. etiam talis gigas essem, contra absentem hostem alacer & fortis. Sed si vobis sustinendi essentictus Diaboli, & audiendae disputationes, non diu essetis cantilenam de Ecclesia, & veteri recepto more cantaturi: equidem satis video in David, & reliquis Prophetis, qu àm graviter luctentur & ingemiscunt in his certaminibus & similibus, contra diabolum, & horribilem impetum eius. Et Christus ipse quamuis sine peccato, propter nos in quantis lachrimis, in quibus angustiis agonizavit, in his agonibus contra satanam? Vrget enim in immensum corda, nec 〈◊〉 niss repulsus verbo dei. Et ego planè persuasus sum, Emser 'em, & Oecolampadium, & similes, his ictibus horribilib. & quassatio nib. subitò extinctos esse. Nec. n. humanum cor horrer dum hunc & ineffabilem impetum, nisi deus illi adsit, perferre potest. Satan enim in 〈◊〉 oculi repent totam mentem terr oribus ac te. nebris adobruit, & si nihil quàm hominem inermem, & verbo no instructum invenit, quasi digitulo totum 〈◊〉. Verum qui dem hoc est, quód mendax sit, sed eius mendacia non sunt simplicis artificis, sed longè callidiora & instructiora ad fallendum, quàm humanus captus assequi possit. Ipse sic adoritur, ut apprehendat aliquam & solidam veritatem, quae negarinon possit, atque eam adeo callidè & versutè urget & acuit, & adeo speciose fucat suum mendacium, ut fallat velcautissimos, etc. utî cogitatio illa, quae judae cor percussit, vera, Tradidi sanguinem justum: hoc judasnegare non poteratised hoc erat mendacium, ergo est desperandum de gratia Dei. Et tamen diabolus hoc mendacium, hanc cogitationem tam violenter ursit, ut Iudas eam vincere non possit, sed desperaret. Proinde bone frater, domine papista, non mentitur Satan, quando accusat aut urget magnitudinem peccati; ibi enim habet duos inconuincibiles graves testes, legem dei, & nostram propriam conscientiam. Non possum negare, quòdreus summortis & damnationis, etc. Sed ibi mentitur Satan, quando ultrà urget, ut desperem de gratia: Sicut Cain dicebat, maius est peccatum meum, etc. Et ibi tum opus est in tali agone divino & caelesti auxilio, ut vel srater adsit, qui te consoletur promissionibus gratiae foris, velintus in cord, spiritus sanctus verbum fratris erigat, ac animet, ac sustentet cor tuum, ut possis sic apud 〈◊〉 statuere, Confessus quidem sum (Lege dei convictus) coram diabolo, me peccasse, me damnatum esse, ut judam. Sed verto me ad Christum cum Petro, & respicio eius immensum beneficium & meritum, etc. ille omnem horrendam damnationem damnavit. Here those most holy fathers will answer me, here they will laugh and say, art thou a famous doctor, and knowest not how to answer the devil? Dost thou not know that the devil is a liar? how say you by that? I give you great thanks, as you are worthy, for so sweet comforse, in so weighty a matter. These three words (the devil is a liar) I should not have known, until now, except you most notable divines had taught me. If I were a Papist, unexpert of all temptations, whom Satan would not neglect, being carls, and snorting, as he neglecteth them that follow their lusts, etc. I should be such a Giant also, stout and valiant against the enemy, that is absent. If you should bear the stripes of the devil, and hear his disputations, you should not longsing the song of the Church, & after the accustomed manner. I verily do see sufficiently in David, and the rest of the Prophets, how grievously they wrestle and groone in those combats, and such like, against the devil, and his horrible violence. And Christ himself (although without sin) in what abundance of tears, and anguish, did he sirive for us, in those conflicts against Satan For he urgeth man's heart exceedingly, & ceaseth not, except he be driven back with the word of God. And I am plainly persuaded, that Emser and Oecolampadius, and such like, were sodendlie slain wieh these horrible stripes, and shakings. For 
Rash judge meant.  the heart of man cannot abide this horrible and unspeakable violence, except God be with him. For Satan in the twinkling of an eye, sodendlie overwhelmeth the whole mind with terrors and darkness, and if he find nothing but a man unarmed, and not instructed in the word, as it were with a little finger, he overwhelmeth him all at once. It is true in deed, that he is a liar, but his lies are not of a simple crafts man, but much more crafty, and prepared to deceive, than man's capacitis can comprehend. He doth in such sort set upon a man, & take hold of him, and that sound truth which can not be denied, and that he urgeth, and sharpeneth so craftily and subtly, and covereth it so cunningly, that he may deceive them, that take the best heed of him, etc. As, that cogitation, which strake the heart of judas, was true: I have betrayed innocent blood, this could not judas deny. But this was a lie, therefore I must despair of the grace of God. And yet the devil urged this lie, this cogitation so violently, that judas was not able to overcome it, but despaired. Therefore good brother, Sir Papist, the devil doth not lie, when he accuseth or urgeth the greatness of sin. For thereby he hath two grave witnesses, that are unreproovable, the law of God, and our own conscience. I can not deny but I have sinned, I cannot deny my sin to be great, I cannot deny that I am guilty of death and damnation, etc. but there Satan lieth, when he urgeth further, that I should despair of grace: As Cain said, my sin is greater, etc. And in this conflict thou hast need of the help of God from heaven, that either some brother be present, which may comfort thee outwardly with the promises of God, or that the holy ghost inwardly in thy heart, through thy brother's word, do lift up, and encourage the, and comfort thy heart, that thou mayst determine thus with thyself, I have in deed confessed before the devil, being convicted by the law of God, that I sinned, that I am condemned as judas: but I turn myself unto Christ with Peter, and look back to his infinite benefit, and merit, etc. he hath condemned all horrible condemnation, etc. Now I report me to every indifferent reader, whether Luther do not speak here of a spiritual conflict, or tentation unto desperation, for his saying of private mass, after he knew that it was idolatry, not of any bodily conference, about the abolishing of the mass. secondly, that Luther doth not yield to the persuasions of the devil, wherewith the defender confesseth, that both good and evil men are assaulted, but according to the difference by him observed, resisteth the assault, and obtaineth victory through Christ.  
But now let us hear what arguments our defender bringeth, to prove this bodily conference. First, the confession of the Tigurine Caluenists. but that is false. The Tigurines did only reprove Luther for his intemperate invectives, and naming of devils so often; our wise defender concludeth, ergo Luther had devils. Secondly, he saith, it is evident that this conference was more than spiritual, by the devils preface, wherein he calleth the friar, right learned Doctor, according to the vain of pride, wherewith he saw him puffed up, etc. But what reasonable man seethe not, that this presace of his title, was but a bitter scorn of the devil? no flattering speech, to make him ready to receive his impressions, as the defender saith. As for the sound of Satan's voice, described in the place alleged in the Censure, there is none such. For the book demissa angulari, so often alleged by the papists, is none other, but this, de missa privata, & unctione sacerdotum, as appeareth by the very words, noted by the Papists, in lib. de missa angulari, which are found here in this book, de missa privata, etc. Therefore the sound of Satan's voice, is but some papists dream upon the matter, which our defender would now hide, under the title of de missa angulari. The third reason is, for that Luther confesseth some of his fellows to have been slain by this conference. What he saith in his rash judgement of Emser, and Oecolampadius, where of the one was a Papist, the other a Protestant, you heave hard in his own words, which proveth no bodily conference. For those terrible blows and shakings, where of he speaketh, are no more bodily, than the busfeting of Satan, where of Saint Paul speaketh. And who doubteth 
2. Cor. 12. 7.  but that by such spiritual buffeting of Satan, a man that is overcome with exceeding sorrow, may suddenly die? except he be assisted and comforted by the grace of Christ, as Saint Paul was. Finally, the bushel of 
de missa angulari.  salt (saith our defender) which Luther confesseth himself to have eaten together with the devil, proveth that he had bodily conference with him. First, the book is not extant, and if any such were, yet it proveth no bodily conference. For no man is so mad to think, that the devil and Luther did corporally eat salt together. But the eating of bushels of salt with one, is a proverb, signifying long experience of him, as Tully in his book de amicitia useth that saying, that a man must eat many bussheles of salt with one, before he join in friendship with him, that is, know him, and try him throughly. And this (if Luther speak of eating of salt, with the devil) his meaning is, that he had long experience of the assaults and temptations of the devil: as Saint Paul saith, we are not ignorant of the devices of Satan, nor of any bodily conference, such as Prateolus out of Lindanus 
2. Cor. 2. 11.  doth report on these words. Nec defuere virifide dignissimi, qui sibi visum demonem corporaliter cum Luthero conversari adfirmarent. Neither have there wanted men most worthy of credit, which did affirm, that they have seen the devil corporally conversant with Luther. O pleasant invention. At lest they should have told us their names, the place, the time, the manner, the shape in which they saw the devil conversant with Luther: and if he were not in any strange shape, how they know that it was the devil. But there is no lie so incredible, that needeth any further proof to slander Luther, then that 
Censure. Defense.  some papists have affirmed it.  
Concerning Luther's death, which the papists affirm to have died. drunken, and slain by the devil, our defender saith, (as it is thought) and (as it is coniecturrd) but the words of Hosius, as they are cited by Lindanus and Prateolus, are absolute. Tandem sub vitae finem, 
Prateol. in Luther.  (inquit Hosius) reipsaevenit. Probè. n. potus & hilaris, postridie manè in lecto repertus est mortuus. At length toward the end of his life, saith Hosius, it came to pass in deed (namely that he was in a moment slain by his familiar devil) for being well tippled and merry, the next day in the morning he was found dead in his bed. The defender belike being ashamed of the matter, doth qualify it with thought, and a conjecture, raveth against Master Charke, for opposing Sleidan only against three popish witnesses, whom he quoteh: as though one writer, receiving information of the manner of Luther's death, from them that were present, is not more to be credited, than an hundred Papists, which feign of malice, or receive of malicious rumours, without any one witness of credit, whatsoever may sound to the slander, and the defacing of Luther. For the credit of sleidan's story, I refer men to his own Apology, in which he declareth, that the chief substance thereof, is taken out of public writings and records; which is sufficient to justify him against all Papists in the world, from any purpose of lying or feigning, especially seeing he doth not interpose his judgement of matters in controucrsie, as Historians commonly use to do; but only reporteth them as he found them in public monuments. And therefore deserveth more credit with all indifferent men, whatsoever Latomus babbleth of eleven thousand lies, or Lindane reporteth of Charles the Emperor, which Surius ascribeth to julius Pflugius Bishop of Numburge, although he affirm the like of Charles the Emperor.  
But now you will bear us down with a sound testimo nigh of justus jonas, that was present at Luther's death, and was his dear friend, & his cook, to prove that he was drunk. But why do you call justus jonas Luther's cook. It is well known, that justus jonas was a river end learned man, and a Doctor in Divinity, he had as little skill in cookery as you. Your answer will be, that Pontacus the Popish Chronicler so calleth him. And surely I should marvel what monster were meant thereby, but that I read in Surius, that his name was justus Cocus, and that he called himself (as he saith) justus jonas. For Papists can tell every man's right name better than himself. So they trifle with the names of calvin and Luther. But to the purpose. What saith justus jonas, or jonas Cook, if you will have his name so? Forsooth that Luther, a little before his death, said to him, and Coelius, and certain other, that were present, Orate Deum pro Domino Deonostro, & eius evangelio. Pray to God for our Lord God, and his Gospel. Surius addeth further; ut ei bene succedat, etc. that it may have good success, because the Council of Trent, and he abominable Pope do set themselves against it. Here (say you) Luther prayed for Christ at his death, which either you must ascribe to drunkenness, or to some worse affection, he being in his perfect wits, as the author affirmeth. And is it with you a sign of drunkenness, to pray that the Kingdom of Christ upon earth, and his Gospel may have good success? You would have been as angry, as the high priests and scribes were, if you had been in their time, with the children, that cried in the temple, hosanna to the son of David, that is, Lord send health or prosperity to the son of David, blessed be the Kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord. You might cavil as well, that Christ hath taught us to pray for God the father, when he taught us to pray, that his name might be sanctified, his kingdom come, his will be done. If Luther had said simply, pray to God for our Lord and God Christ, It had been an hard construction, to infer upon those only words, that he was drunk: but now when he expresseth, that he would have them pray for the success of Christ's Gospel, which was oppugned by Antichrist, and his blasphemous Chapter of Trent, no man, except he were mad with malice, would conclude, that this speech proceeded of drunkenness. The Apostles Act. 4. do pray unto God to stretch forth his hand unto healing, that signs and wonders may be done in the name of his holy son jesus: doth this prayer argue any evil affection in the Apostles, against the divinity of Christ, which had given them power to work miracles in his name. None but an Arrian would so gather. No more of this prayer of Luther, that God will defend the Gospel of Christ, against the enemies thereof, any reasonable man would conclude, that Luther was drunk. Prateolus out of Lindane against the testimony of justus jonas, Michael, Caelius, and joannes Aurifaber, which were present, with manyother learned and noble persons at Luther's death, hath nothing to oppose, but tamen haud temere, R. P. Hosium literis prodidisse credas, Lutherum bene potum & hilarem, etc. Yet believe thou not, that the river end father Hosius hath rashly committed to writing, that Luther being well tippled and merry, was the next day found dead in his bed. So these impudent Papists, will have one enemy of Luther, being absent many hundred miles from the place of his death, bringing no witness, argument, or probability of truth, but his bare word, to be credited before so many learned and noble persons, as were present, and eye witnesses, concerning the rumour of Martin Luther's departure out of this life. But Hosius was a Bishop and a Cardinal forsooth: as though a malicious Papist, when he hath a white rochet put on his back, or a red hat clapped on his head, were soprivileged by his titles, that he must needs be credited though he lie never so impudently.  
Touching the dissension of Luther with others, that professed the Gospel, Master Charke doth grant that in some points he disagreed from them, and yet he saith, there was a singular care among them of the unity in the Gospel. But this our defender taketh in so evil part, that he calleth it in tolerable impudency, specially that for proof thereof, Master Charke citeth the act of concord agreed upon at Marpuge, Anno. 1529. upon the report of Brentius (which since hath showed himself an obistinate heretic, and author of the opinion of the ubiquity of Christ's body) who reporteth that the zwinglians were vanquished, and yet he giveth them this testimony, that they desired with tears to be called brethren, which Luther refused. But what the agreement was, the book of Acts printed both in Latin and Dutch doth testify unto the world. The 15. Chapter of which convention, concerning the matter in controversy was this: Credimus & profitemur omnes, de caena domini nostri jesu Christi, Vsum illius sub utraque specie (iuxea Christi institutionem) obseruandans dum esse. Quodque missanon sit ullum eiusmodi opus, quo alto alteri qutsquam (sive mortuo, sive vivo) gratiam consequi possit. Quod item sacramentum altaris, sit sacramentum veri corporis & sanguinis jesu Christi: Et quòd esus spiritualis eius 〈◊〉 corporis & sanguinis, sit unicuique Christiano homini inprimis necessarius. Adhaec quòd usus huius sacramensi (perinde atque verbum ipsum) à Deo oped. max. sit institutus, atque ordinatus ad excitandas ad fidem infirmas hominum conscientias per spiritum sanctum. Quanquam autem inter nos hactenus, non planè potuit convenire, num verum corpus & 〈◊〉 sanguis Christi pani ac vino corporaliter insit, debebit nihilominus tamen utraque pars altera erga alteram declarare Christi anam charitatem, quatenus idomnino cuiusque conscientia ferre potest. Et utraque pars deum. oped. max. diligenter precabiturrot is nobis per spiritum suum verum eius rei intellectum constabilire dignetur. Amen. 

Martinus Lutherus.  
joann. Brentius.  
justus jonas.  
joan: Oecolampadius.  
Philippus Mclancthon.  
Huldricus Zuinglius.  
And. Ostander.  
Martinus Bucerus.  
Stephan. Agricola.  
Gaspar Hedio.    
We all believe and profess concerning the supper of our Lord jesus Christ, that the use thereof in both kinds according to the institution of Christ, is to be observed. And that the mass is not any such work, whereby any one man may obtain grace for another, whether he be dead or a live. Also that the sacrament of the altar is the sacrament of the true body & blood ofIesus Christ. And that the spiritual eating of the same his body & blood, is very necessary for every Christian man. Moreover that the use of this sacrament, even as the word itself, is instituted & ordained of almighty God, to stir up unto faith the weak consciences of men by his holy spirit. And although it could not hitherto be altogether agreed amongst us, whether the true body, and true blood of Christ, be in the bread and wine corporally: yet never 〈◊〉 both parties ought to declare Christian charity one towards the other, so far as every man's conscience can bear. And both parts shall diligently pray unto almighty God, that he by his spirit may vouchsafe to establish unto us the true understanding of that matter. Amen.  
Martin Luther, etc.  
The subscriptionof their names appeareth before.  
You hear how far forth they agreed, and to a full 〈◊〉 indeed, the Lutherans could never be brought, nor Luther himself, who in this point was out of measure hard & intractable. which seeing it is not denied by Master Charke or any of us, it is altogether needles, that our defender spendeth two leaves, and more in citing testimonies of his dissent from the rest that profess the Gospel, which he calleth Zuinglians, and Caluinists. And to make the matter more large, he 〈◊〉 the writings of Brentius, Stankatus, Ochinus, men fallen from the truth into open errors, condemned of all pats, against the professors of the truth. But what care the godly had to maintain the unity of the Gospel, may appear by the harmonic of confessions of so many diverse Churches, in the some of Christian Religion, and doctrine, of the most necessary points of faith unto eternal salvation, thoroughly agreeing within themselves, and against the heresies of the Papists, and all other sectaries, both old and new. That the Lutherans, notwithstanding continue still their uncharitable judgement against the other, it is in deed to be lamented, but yet no cause for Papists to rejoice, who whether it be by us or them, in all other points of their heresies, are beaten down and brought to confusion. And still that remaineth true that Master Charke said of Oecolampadius, Bucer & others, although in some points they disagreed from Luther, and other of his side, yet was there among them a singular care of unity in the Gospel. The intercourse of loving letters, that you so earnestly require, may be seen among Caluins' epistles, where there are loving letters between calvin, Melancthon, Vitus, Theodorus, and other.  
And now we are come to the odious invectives against the lives of calvin, and Beza, taken out of a vile libel, written by Jerome Bolsec, an unlearned, ungodly, and unshamefast knave; who once was a Carmelite friar, and flying from his cloister, came first and deceived the Dachesse of Ferrara for a time, but his knavery being known, and he espied, he was banished from her; and then within three days study, he professed himself to be a Physician, and came to Geneva; where being contemned of the learned in that science, he would take upon him to be a divine, & openly inveighed against the doctrine of prae destination, not as a Papist, out as a mere Pelagian, for which he was condemned and banished the City, and after for like troubles, he was twice banished the territory of Berna. After that, when he thought the Churches of France should have continued in peace, he feigned repentance, and sought reconciliation of the Church of Geneva, labouring ambitiously to be admitted into the ministry: but when war & persecution befell unto the Church, contrary to his expectation, he returned to his leech craft, and revolted again to Poperte: and in satisfaction of his Apostasy hath forged, and refined these lies against calvin and Beza. Anp this is that reverend man whom our defender commendeth, for wisdom, learning, and honesty. Whose impudent slanders with not indifferent man can find any credit, seeing all law and common equity, alloweth exception against such a vile person to be a witness, much more to be an accuser, witness, and judge himself alone. The law of God will have no man condemned, but under two or three witnesses: and the discipline of the Gospel will not have any accusation to be admitted against an elder of the Church, under two or three witnesses: much less ought the slander of such an impudent adversary, being a most vile and absurd person, to be received to the condemnation of so excellent learned teachers, whose life in public view and fame, where they have lived, hath always been blameless, and unreprovable. Wherefore, the accuser being thus notoriously known, by open facts and judgements against him, there needeth none other defence of the persons slandered, but their simple denial of the crimes objected; whose nay by all reason must be better, then his yea: seeing no man is by law presumed to be evil, before he be lawfully convicted. Beside this the particular slanders have been so diligently confuted by him that first answered this lewd defence, for that purpose principally, that I shall not need to spend any longer time, in declaring the vanity and fasehood of them.  
But because our defender will needs make a brief recapitulation of the matter, and tell us that there were six reformers of all our English Religion, it shall not be amiss to consider what weighty matter he can bring. The first (saith he) was Luther himself, who confesseth expressly himself without gloze, that the first motion thereof came from the devil himself in proper person, lib. de missa privata & unctione sacerd. How false and slanderous this report is, the reader may see, by Luther's own words, before set down. The second, Carolostadius (saith the defender) was by Luther's procurement, as unworthy to live among Christians, banished out of all the dominions of the Duke of Saxony and so ended his life miserably in labouring the ground, as your own Historiographer Sleidan writeth, lib. 5. Sleidan in deed doth write, that he was banished, as one that seemed to favour the Anabaptistes: but he writeth also, that by Luther's procurement, he was admitted to purge himself of that crime. But that he ended his Life miserabliein labouring the ground, Sleidan our own historiographer doth not write, and it is an impudent lie, as it is manifest by your own Historiographer Surius, who in Anno 1530. writeth, that Carolostadius of an Archdeacon of Witemberge, became a deacon of Zurich, and after the death of Zuinglius, he removed to Basile, and there in the ministery of a zwinglian Church (as he saith) ended his miserable life miserably. Certain it is that Carolostadius was a vain man, and had great imperfections, yet it is a shame to lie upon the devil.  
The third, you say, Oecolampadius, was so lewd a man, as by Luther's affirmation, he was slain by the devil himself: lib. de missaprivata & unct. sacerd. or as some other think, killed himself with his own hands. Lind. dial. 3. dubit. It is true that Luther uttereth his rash and fall sentence of Oecolampadius upon occasion ofsome fly ingtale, that he had heard of the sudden death of Oecolampadius. She like he affirmeth in the same place of Emser the Papist: if his authority be good for the one, why is it not for the other? But the truth is, that Oecolampadius as he lived holily and up rightly, so he made a Godly and quiet end, and was sick in his bed 15. days before he departed, as is testified in the story of his death, set forth by that reverend learned man Simon Grinaeus, who was present, and saw, and heard all that he writeth, with many more witnesses of sufficient credit. In his sickness he was visited by all his friends, both of the Senators of the university, and of the people. So that it is a most shameless fiction, either that he died suddenly, or that he killed himself, as that malicious Papist Lindan writeth.  
The fourth reformer, saith our defender, was Zuinglius, who having received the proofs of his new doctrine of the sacrament, from a spirit in the night (as himself writeth, and confesseth that he knew not whether he were black or white) lived in such sort, as he was detested by Luther, and finally stirring up the Suitsers his countrymen to fight, was slain himself in the field, and his body burned. That Zuinglius was slain in the field, and his body burned by the Papists, it is confessed: but that he stirred up his countrymen to battle (which were provoked by intolerable injuries) it is false. He went with his countrymen as a Preacher, according to their custom, and it pleased God, that he was martyred by the enemies of the truth. As for the proofs that he received from a spirit in the night, you shall hear the whole matter in his own words. lib. de subsid. Euchar. But first you must understand, that he rehearseth the whole story concerning the abolishing of the mass at Zurich, & showeth that a certain scribe opposed himself against it, the 12. of April, and objected that those phrases (unto which Zuinglius compared the words of the institution, This is my body) the seed is the word of god, the field is the world, the envious man is the devil. etc. were spoken parabolically. Zuinglius maintained that nevertheless, there was in those sayings the same trope or figure, that is in the words of the supper: so the decree was made concerning the abolishing of the mass. After this he writeth after this manner.  
Restabat adhuc haud minimus conatus, quo scilices exempla proderemus, quae nulla cum parabola coniuncta forent. Caepimus ergo cogitare omnia, omnia revoluere, attamen aliud nihil exemplorum occurrebat, quàm quod in commentario proditum est, aut quod occurrebat erat illorum simile. Cùm verò decima tertia Dies adpeteret, vera narro, adeoque vera, ut caelare volentem, conscientia cogat effundere, quod Dominus impertiit, non ignorans, quantis me contumeliis risibusque exponam. Cùm inquam decimatertia Aprilis lux adpeteret, visus sum mihi in somno, multo cum taedio denuo contendere cum adversario scriba, sicque obmutuisse, ut quod verum scirem, negante lingua beneficium suum, proloqui non possem: qui me angor, us solent nonnunquam somnia fallaci ludere nocte (nihilenim altius quàm somnium narramus, quod ad nos attinet, tametsi leave non sit, quod per somnium didicimus, gratia Deo in cuius solius gloriam ista prodimus) vehementer turbare videbatur. Ibi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visus est monitor adesse (after fuerit, an albus, nihil memini, somnium enim narro) qui diceret: Quin ignaue respondes ei quod Exod. 12. Est enim Phase hoc est transitus Domini. Protinus ut hoc Phasma visum est, simul expergefio, & èlecto exilio. Locum apud 70. primùm undique circumspicin, ac de eo coram 〈◊〉 concione pro virili dissero: qui sermo ubi acceptus est, quemadmodum paulò pòst dicemus, omnibus sacrarum literarum candidatis, qui adhue nonnihil propter parabolae obstacula haerebant, omnem nebulam discussit, etc. There remained yet not the least endeavour; namely that we should bring forth examples which werejoined with no parable. Therefore we began to think of all that we could, to unfold all that we could, but yet none other example, came to mind, but that is set forth in our commentary, or else whatsoever came to mind, was like unto those examples. But when the 13. day drew near, I tell the truth, & that so true, that though I would conceal it, my conscience compelleth me to utter that which the Lord bestowed upon me, being not ignorant to how great reproaches, and scorns I lay forth myself; when (I say, the 13. day of April drew near, me thought as I was a sleep, that with great tediousness I was again disputing with the scribe my adversary, that my mouth was so stopped, that my tongue denying her office, I was not able to speak out that which I knew to be true: which trouble, as dreams are wont sometimes to mock men in the deceitful night (for here I declare no higher matter than a dream, as concerning myself, although it is no light matter that I learned by this dream, thanks be to God to whose only glory I utter these things) which vexation (I say) seemed to trouble me vehemently. Then suddenly there seemed an admonisher to be present with me (whether he were black, or white, I do not at all remember, for I tell a dream) which said, why dost thou not thou coward answer him, that which is written Exod. 12. For it is the paschal which is the passover of the Lord. Immediately as this sight appeared, I awoke withal, and leapt out of my bed. And first I considered the place in the seventy Interpreters on every side: and thereof before the whole congregation I preached as well as I could, Which sermon when it was heard, as soon after we shall declare, drove away all mist, or want of understanding from all those that were students in the holy Scriptures, which unto that time did somewhat doubt, because of the objection of the parable.  
Thus far Zuinglius, by whose words you may easily perceive, what proofs he received of his Doctrine, of the Sacrament, of a spirit by night; as our defender saith, when he showeth only that he was admonished by God's providence in a dream, ofthat example Exod. 12. in which the trope or figure is manifest, being also in the doctrine & institution of a sacrament, whereunto the Lords supper doth most properly answer, which is used in the words of the Lords supper: this is my body, without any such parable, as was objected unto him in the other examples. Where he saith, that he remembreth not whether the advertiser were white or black, he meaneth no more, as all men that know the proverb must confess, but that he remembreth not what he was, whether known to him, or unknown, of whom he dreamt that he received that example. The same proverb he useth not long before, in the same discourse, of him that disputed against him, who, whether he was white or black, that is, what manner of man he was, he would not describe. Surius quarelleth against 
An. 23.  him, that he would attribute so much to a dream when otherwise he will admit nothing but holy scriptures, whereas every reasonable man may see, that he admitteth no Doctrine upon the bare credit of a dream or of the admonisher, were he whit or black, but is only put in mind by a dream of a place of holy Scripture, that served to stop his adversaries mouth, and to remove all doubt from them, that were novices in the study of the scripture. And this is a thing that many times cometh to pass, that a man which earnestly studieth of any matter, shall in his dream be admonished of some better way, than he could think of waking. Which when he hath considered to be the best, for any good purpose, he need not to doubt, but that it came unto him by the providence of God, without being afraid to follow it, because he thought of it first in a dream. What Luther thought of Zuinglius, it skilleth not, seeing as he was stiff in his error of the carnal manner of presence, so he was apt both to think and speak worse, than the truth was, of all them that held the contrary.  
The last two were calvin and Beza, of whom it is needles to say any more than hath already been setforth in their defence in print these two years, with out reply of any papist. Although God be praised the Church of England dependeth neither upon these, not upon other men, further than they were faithful interpreters of the word of God, according to which our faith is framed, and not after the decrees of men.  
Concerning the death of Martin Bucer, welknown in England, whom the papists abroad (as they do of the rest) imagine to have died a foul death, our defender quarreleth with Master Charke, for belying of Lindan, and charging him to say, that Lindan avoucheth it, where he only reporteth as he heard of certain worshipful Merchants of Colene. But in truth Master Charke saith not, that Lindan doth avouch it, but only, that by uttering his false reports, he maketh Bucers' death as horrible and monstrous as may be suspected. Pontacus the popish historian, uttereth a like report, as the defender confesseth, that he died a jew, denying the Messiah. Surius addeth another tale, that he circumcised his son. begotten of I know not what woman. Thus these lying papists, heap lies upon lies, and when they have neither sufficient author, nor probability of truth to bear them out, then certain worshipful Merchants, than a certain grave, and most excellent 
Lindan Surius Pontacus  learned man, than some of Bucers own disciples are the reports, under which cloak it is an easy matter to forge any slander and turn over the envy of it to the man in the moon, in the mean time to burden men with suspicion of infamy among credulous persons, where no proof of their false accusations can be demanded and obtained. Touching Bucers inconstancy, The defender out of Surius, and other of that stamp, gathereth many things, perverting to unsteadfastness of judgement, what soever Bucer did say, labouring to make unity between Luther and Zuinglius. Charging him also to recant the article of the baptism of infants to be unnecessary, as he had written before upon the third Chapter of Saint Mathewes Gospel, and upon the 26. of Matthew to ask pardon of God, and of the Church, for that he deceived so many with the heresy of Zuinglius, as he calleth it. Both which matters are mere forgeries, for in those commentaries upon that Gospel which we have seen, there is no such matter.  
Finally, where he affirmeth, that calvin differed from Zuinglius (which Master Fulke in all his writings most impudently denieth) he 〈◊〉 15. articles of heresies which Andreas Zebedeus Preacher of Nion, & joannes Angelus preacher of Burtin, both zwinglians, did take upon them to prove against calvin at Berna (calvin being present) upon pain of burning, whereupon proceeded the decree of those magistrates, in the year 1555. April. 3. that none of their dominions should communicate with calvin at Geneva. Pontac. in anno 1555. The truth is, thatby instigation of that heretical varlet Bolsec, diverse Preachers near unto Geneva, quarrelled against Caluins' doctrine of gods eternal predestination, charging him to affirm, that god is the author of evil, with such like impudent slaun dear, whereupon calvin by licence of the Senate 
Beza in vita calvini.  of Geneva, so purged himself before the Bernates, that one Sabastian and Bolsec were banished their dominion And Andrew Zebedey not many years after, albeit he were then the most earnest accuser of Calvin in his death bed at Novidune, four miles from Geneva before the chief men of that town, revoked his errors, detested all those his acts against calvin, and commanded all his papers to be burned in his fight. So that whatsoever was offered to be proved, nothing was proved in deed, to show such dissent between calvin and Zuinglius, as Master Fulke might not justly deny any dissent betweeneCaluine and Zuinglius in the substance ofChristian religion, which was truly taught by them both: notwithstanding any cavils, that quarrel-pickers, or faultfinders have devised against calvin.   

The sixth section, entitled, Of the jesuits doctrine.  
MAster Charke being charged to have falsified the jesuits words, defendeth his report by testimony of Donatus Gotuisus, out of whose treatise concerning that matter, he professed at the first to rehearse their words. And that it is lawful for him to charge them upon an other man's report, he bringeth example of the Censurer, who reporteth intolerable slanders of Luther upon the credit of Lindan, Cocleus, Hosius. This reply the defender thinketh not sufficient, because he bringeth three witnesses, and Master Charke but one. As though three false witnesses were of more credit, than one that speaketh the truth, after it is tried and known. For what Luther affirmeth, his own writings do declare, so that if a thousand Papists would swear against him, that he hath written otherwise, than he did, his writings being open to all men's view, the world might condemn them all of falsehood. And if Gotuisus have reported untruely, the blame is his, and not Master Charkes, who citeth his report. But in the end it shall appear, that Gotuisus hath done the jesuits no wrong, but either in their own words, or in their meaning, truly delivered the substance of their doctrine, howsoever they may cavil to cloak the matter, as the defender here compareth Master Charke to a bird taken by the leg for lying, and seeking every hole to escape.  
The first is, that he chargeth the Censurer with four lies in one sentence: this the defender calleth most ridiculous accusations, and asketh if men do not pity the poor minister, that stoopeth to so miserable helps for his relief: so he laugheth at his lies, when he can not justify them, and turneth the will matter to a scoff, when he hath not one word to answer for himself. he thinketh not the matter worthty he defence, because the lies are madein no weighty causes. And yet a man may justly note how loosely he writeth, that hath no more regard of truth, the unto rap out four lies in so short a compass of time and place. What will he do in matters of greater importance? I need not ask: for you may see how often he hath been taken in most impudent and shameless assertions, such as maketh me often to think that he is no professor of divinity, which hath any grounded knowledge himself, but some cozening Copesmate chosen out for his impudency and verbosity, to broach such stuff for unlearned readers, as the note gatherers were ashamed to put forth under their own names.  
But to return to our starting holes, the second saith sit defender, is, that Master Charke and his fellows, draw all matters against the state, as Pasie the mad man dealt with his Master to defend himself, when he was near a shrewd turn, for some pranks played with his companions: and here by name doctor Fulk is charged with this practise, and with parasitical and palpable flattery, who answereth 
 for himself in the treatise often named, pag. 44. etc. But in truth Mastet Charke needed not any cords to draw matters against the state out of your writings: for you offer frankly more, than it would be your ease to answer, if you durst show your face. And truly he said that you charge the Magistrates and Bishops, as if they were careless, what doctrine is delivered to the people, when you ask what he and his fellows dare avouch in their sermons, speeches, and discourses, which they are sure shall never come to examination.  
The third hole is, by laying all his lies upon one Gotuisus: where his falsehood appeareth, in that he did not in all his whole discourse so much as once name, or quote his author Gotuisus, either in text or margin. MasterCharke answered before, that the author's name is quoted in the most books, & so it is to be seen, in the margin over against those words of the text, out of a treatise concerning this matter I have interlaced their own words, as they are to be found in the same book. Where the quotation is Donati Gotuisi, lib. de fide jesus & jesuitarum. This being to be read ofevetie child in many hundred copies, of what metrall is his face made of, that doth so confidently deny it, because (as he saith, believe him ifyou list) he could never happen upon any copies, that had him quoted. And if somehad it, he asketh why all had not? as though he were ignorant, that a fault, or an omission escaped in a few copies, may be reform or added in the rest, when it is espied. The other surmises that follow, why Master Charke should not quote his author Gotuisus, are vain, seeing he hath quoted him, as also the other charges of treachery, and malicious meaning, for so much as there is no proof of them, but his bare word, are as easily denied by us, as they are by him affirmed. If in the particulars that follow, he be able to bring any substantial matter, to confirm any one of them, it may be considered, as the cause shall require, and occasion be offered.   

The 7. section entitled, Of the nature and definition of sin.  
THe first article of the jesuits doctrine, you say, is this: It is not sin whatsoever is against the word of God. Here you charge Master Charke with guileful dealing, and that you take upon you to show, by an example of a lawyer that should say, it is not treason whatsoever is against the Prince and common wealth, which soundeth odiously, as though nothing committed against the Prince and common wealth, were treason. But in what asses ears should it so sound? when every reasonable man must needs understand, that there be offences against the Prince and common wealth, as felony, misprision of treason, Mayhem, and such like, which yet are not offences in so a high a degree, as treason is. The thing in question you confess, that there is something that doth repugn the law of God, and yet is no sin at all, if it be without will or consent, as the first motions of concupiscence are. Another cavil you have, that his authors have not only these words, but somewhat more, as when they say, Sin is not, whatsoever repugneth the law of God, but, etc. If Master Chark had denied the rest, it were somewhat that you say: but seeing you grant they have all that he rehearseth, he is without blame, and whether it be part of a definition, it skilleth not, seeing it is part of their affirmation. A third cavil is, that he changeth the place of the negative, which in framing propositions altereth often the sense: as for peccatum est non quicquid, he saith, non est peccatum quicquid. If Master Charkes changing in this place did alter the sense, you would have told us of it: but seeing the sense is all one, the change is no fault. lastly, for repugneth the law of God (you say) he putteth, it is against the word of God. But here by your leave you make a piece of a lie, for in his first answer he saith, it repugneth the law of God, which when he repeateth in his reply, it is against the word of God, it can have none other sense, than before. That you will admit as much, as the jesuits in word or sense have uttered, it is as much as Master Charke requireth.  
Now to the objection against the jesuits definition, made by Master Charke: you say that to prove that sin is no act, he objecteth that injustice is a sin, and yet no act. He were a poor sophister that could not espy your paltry in this place. Master Charke doth not prove that sin generally taken is no act: but he affirmeth that there is some sin which is not an act. And therefore the jesuits in their definition have not given the right Genus or material cause of sin. Now for injustice (to pass over your knavish example of the execution of Campian and his fellows, so innocent and learned men, by great injustice) You take upon you to teach Master Charke an high point of learning, Of the difference between a vice that is an habit, and a sin that is a singular fact, which perhaps (you ween) he learned not before, & yet every young sophister in Cambridge knoweth it well enough. But Master Charke speaketh of general injustice (as his words are plain) which is a sin in not doing the thing commanded, because it is a manifest transgression of the law of God, who commandeth the whole and every part to be fulfiled, and is the sin of omission, which you make the second objection. But every omission, you say, includeth an act, which is a gross absurdity, meaning such an act as is sin. For I may do a good act, while I omit a better: the omission of a better act is sin, the doing of a good act is no sin. To tith mint and anise, is a good act of itself, for it was commanded by God, & must not be omitted, yet was it sin to omit mer cie and justice, as the words of Christ are plain; this you 
Mat. 23. 23.  ought to do, and not to omit the other. The examples you bring of one resolving not to go to Church, Helie determining not to punish his children, and the watchmen not to sound the trumpet, where the determination and resolution as the cause, is the principal part of the sin, are foolish. For there may be omission which is sin, where there is no resolution, and determination to the contrary, of that which should be done, but negligence, or forgetfulness: yea there is omission which is sin, where there is no power in us to perform that should be done, as in all the reprobate and unregenerate, and in the regenerate also in part, which neither do, nor can in this life, love God and their neighbour in such perfection as the law of God requireth. There is omission also through ignorance of Gods law, which is sin, and deserveth stripes, and yet ignorance the cause thereof, is no act, but the lack of knowledge.  
But being overcome by scripture and reason, you fly to the authority of the ancient fathers, and first you quote Chrysost. Homil. 16. in Epist. ad Eph. most impudently, where by scriptures, reason, & examples, he 
Luc. 12. 48.  teacheth the clean contrary, that omission of duty, is sin though there be no act to the contrary, as when Christ shall say, I was an hungered, etc. and concludeth: Nihilenim boni facere, hoc ipsum est malum facere: to do no good, even that is to do evil, or to sin. The like he saith. Hom. de virtut. & vitiis, Satis est igitur mali hoc ipsum, nihil fecisse boni. Even this is evil enough, to have done no good. Ambrose hom. 18, hath nothing to the purpose, or if you mean 81. which is translated out of Basils hom. which you quote next, he hath nothing to your purpose, but rather against it. For upon the words of Christ Math. 25. I was an hungered, and you gave me not to eat, he writeth thus; Neque enim in his verbis, qui aliena invasit arguitur, sed is qui non communiter usus est iis que habuit, condemnatur. For in these words he is not reproved which hath laid bold upon other men's goods, but he which hath not communicated those things which he had, is condemned. basil's words in Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the extortioner is not 
Hom. in illud. Luce. destruem horrea.  there accused, but he that doth not communicate is condemned.  
Last of all you charge us with that definition of Saint Augustine contra Faust. lib. 22. cap. 27. Peccatum est factum, vel, etc. Sin is something done, or said, or coveted against the eternal law. But if this were a perfect definition, what needed the jesuits to frame another, according to whose definition, this of Saint Augustine is larger than the word defined, and in respect of the sin of omission, it is straighter than the term of sin: yet it served Saint Augustine for his purpose in hand, concerning the facts of the patriarchs, mentioned in the scripture, which were to be praised, and which to be dispraised. As for Ambrose in the place by you quoted, lib. de paradiso, cap. 8. hath another definition, than Augustine, and a more perfect, taken out of Saint john. Quidest enim peccatum (saith he) nisi praevaricatio legis divinae, & coelestium inobedientia praeceptorum. For what is sin, but the transgression of the law of God, and a disobedience of the heavenly commandments? This definition of Ambrose is perfect, and maketh flatly against you: for he that doth not that which god commandeth, sinneth, although in the mean time, he do some other thing that is good, or not evil, yea although he sleep and do nothing.  
Where Master Charke doth distinguish the creatures and ordinances of God, which are good, from the: corruption, and prevarication that is in them, which is evil, you pick a fond quarrel to him and make him to say, that devils and evil men do not repugn against the law of God, and that they do not sin properly: Which is false, for he saith no such thing: but that evil men, as they are the creatures of God, are not against the law, but the evil in men, and so of the rest: yet evil men do sin properly, and repugn against the law of God, by the evil that is in them: as in your own example, the Physician cureth his patient, not as he is a man, but as he is a Physician, and by knowledge of Physic, which is in him. And as for the repugnance of contrariety, whereof the question is in the definition of sin, it is not in the creature of god, but the corruption of that good creature. A black horse is not contrary to the colour of white, but the colour of black; so not an evil man, but sin of an evil man is contrary to the justice of God's law: So a Phitisian driveth away an ague, yet aPhisitian is not contrary to an ague, but thevertue of the medicine, which he ministereth. When every child may understand your cavilling, it is no marvel, though you charge M. Chark with such absurdity, and ignorance, yea with heresy: and that out of Augustine, Tom. 8. fol. 665. not telling us of what edition you speak, so that it were hard to find (if it were worth the search) that which you talk of: but you are to be pardoned, for your note was unperfect, & did not express in what homely, upon what Psalm.  
The second fault of the jesuits definition, is, that they call it an human or reasonable action, Master Charke would rather say, a beastly or unreasonable action, of a man endued with reason. Here you take on, and ask whether Master Charke be so unlearned in all foundation of Philosophy? And Aristotle, and Saint Augustine are called to witness, that sin proceedeth from the mind endued with reason: and what other thing I beseech you, doth Master Charke say? his words are plain, as I have set them down, and the same that you cite 
Tom. 6. defied. count man.. c. 〈◊〉. 9 & 10.  out of Augustine. Now if you will defend, that sin is an action agreeable to right reason, because it proceedeth from a reasonable man, he giveth you a weapon to play with all against your next encounter, otherwise he hath better reform the words of your definition, the you have either wit, or grace to understand. It hath. a better colour that you object, of the moral works of justice, temperance, & other virtues in the gentiles, which M. Chark will acknowledge to be sin, and yet they seem to be agreeable to right reason; & so they are in part, so far forth as they be directed by that light, which is left in men, proceeding fró the eternal word of god: but in so much as that light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not, no acceptable work to God can be brought forth thereby. Yea for so much as all the moral works of the gentiles, respected not the right end of obedience, and glory of God, whom they knew not, their whole actions were 
Psa. 109. 7. Pro. 15. 8.  thereby vitiated, and corrupted, so that they may justly be called sin. Even as prayer is turned into sin, and the sacrifice of the ungodly is abomination to the Lord. And M. Charke faith truly, whatsoever is not of faith is sin, be it reasonable as you speak, or against reason. And in deed against right reason it is, that the gentiles in their moral works, sought not to obey God according to his law, and therefore even their best works of justice and temperance were sin. But this is so jump (you say) that an horse might be a sinner, for that his actions proceed not of faith. In deed if Saint Paul had spoken of the actions of brute beasts, as your Saint Francis (witness your Legend) did preach to brute beasts, you had jumped near the matter: but when none but an ass would understand Saint Paul to speak of any other actions, than such as proceed from men, you jump as near as Germans lips, that were nine mile a sunder. But you will answer to Saint Paul with S. Ambrose, that he meaneth whosoever doth a thing against that, which faith prescribeth, that is against a man's own conscience, and judgement, he sinneth. The words of S. Ambrose are these. Rectè peccatum appellat quod aliter 
in ep. ad Rom cap. 14.  fit quàm probatum est. He doth rightly call that sin which is done otherwise then is allowed. Now this allowance or approbation, is not referred to every man's corrupt conscience, or ignorant judgement as you expound it, but is measured by faith, which is a certain knowledge and persuasion, grounded upon the word of God, as Saint Paul showeth in the 14. verse of the 14. Chap. I know & am persuaded by our Lord jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: which faith when the Gentiles had not in their works, their works were sin. And therefore you abuse S. Ambrose by your gloze, to restrain the prescription of faith only to that which a man doth against his conscience and judgement.  
But Saint Augustine (you say) proveth at large against Master Charke, that the moral good works of infidels were not sin. lib. de spiritu & litera, cap. 26. 27. 28. In truth S. Augustine though he call such works justice, liberality, wrought by infidels, as we do commonly, good works, yet his judgement is none other, than I have before expressed, and that he declareth in the latter end of the 27. Chapter, for in the 26. he hath nothing sounding that wase. Speaking of infidels. Quaedam tamen fact a vel legimus, vel novimus, vel audimus, quae secundùm justiciae regulam non solùm vituper are non possumus, verumetiam meritò recteque laudamus: quanquam si discutiatur quo fine fiant, vix iweniuntur quae insticiae debitam laudem defensionemue mereantur. Yet some deeds we either read, or know, or hear of, which according to the rule of righteousness, we cannot, not only dispraise, but also we do worthily & rightly praise them, although if it be discussed with what end they are done, they are scarcely found, which deserve the praise or defence dew to righteousness. But most clearly his judgement is for Master Charke against you (sir defender) as well for the allegation of the text, Rom. 14. where you scornfully jumped in your sinful horse, as for the matter in question, that the moral works of Gentiles are sin before God. Contra julianum Pelagianum lib. 4. cap. 3. toward the end in these words. Si Gentilis inquis, nudum operuerit, numquid quia non est ex fide peccatum est? prorsus: in quantum non ex fide, peccatum est: non quia per se ipsum factum, quod est nudum operire, peccatum est: sed de tali opere non in domino gloriari, solus impius negat esse peccatum. If an heathen man (sayest thou) do clothe the naked, is it sin, because it is not of faith? yea, out of doubt, in as much as it is not of faith, it is sin. Not because the deed itself, which is to clothe the naked, is sin, but not to rejoice in the Lord of such a work, none but an ungodly man will deny to be sin. This and much more to this effect, hath Saint Augustine in that place against the Pelagians, which with the papists denied that such works of the infidels were sin. But albeit Saint Augustine be directly against you, yet Saint Jerome (you think) may help you in ezechiel: cap. 29. who saith thus. Caeterùm ex eo quòd Nabuchodonoser mercedem accepit boni operis, intelligimus etiam ethnicos, si quid boni fecerint, non absque mercede Dei judicio praeteriri. But of this that Nabuchodonuser received arewarde of good works, we understand that even the gentiles, if they have done any good thing, are not passed over without reward by the judgement of God. To this I answer, that God rewardeth virtue in the gentiles, it proveth not their moral works are not sin, in as much as they are not done of faith, as S. Augustine at large teacheth in both the books and places last cited. For those good facts are of the relics of God's image, not altogether blotted out, which God doth reward as his own work in them: but in as much as they do not those good deeds well, they are sin in the doers, as Saint Augustine saith: and therefore neither Saint Augustine, nor Saint Jerome, are against Master Charke in this cause.  
The third fault of your definition Master Chark saith is, that you restrain sin only to voluntary action. Against which you oppose Saint Augustine in many quotations, where he repeateth these words so often, Sin is an evil so voluntary, as it can be by no means sin, except it be voluntary. But what his judgement was of those words, appeareth best in his retractations which you quote lib. 1. cap. 13. & 15. In the former he saith, patest videri falsa haec definitio, sed si diligenter discutiaiur, invenieiur esse verissima. Peccatum quip illud intelligendum est, quod tantummodo peccatum est, non quod est etiam paena peccati, etc. This definition may seem to be false, but if it be diligently discussed, it shall be found to be most true. For that sin is to be understood therein, which is only sin, and not also the punishment of sin, as I have showed before, when I rehearsed certain things out of my third book of free will. Although even those sins, which not unworthily are called sins not voluntary, because they are committed either by them which know not, or which are compelled, can not be committed altogether without the will, because even he which sinneth of ignorance, sinneth willingly, when he thinketh that to be done, which ought not to be done. And he which doth not those things which he will, the flesh lusting against the spirit, 
Gal. 5.  lusteth truly unwillingly, and there in doth not what he will: but if he be overcome, he consenteth to concupiscence willingly, and therein doth not what he will, being free from justice, and a servant of sin. And that which in children is called original sin, when as yet they use not the free choice of will, is not absurdly called also voluntary, because being drawn from the evil will of the first man, it is made as it were coming by inheritance. The same in effect he saith C. 15. answering that he had set down, de duabus animabus c. 14. Propterea vera est, etc. That definition is true for this cause, for that, that sin is defined which is only sin, and not that sin which is a punishment of sin. Again he saith. sine voluntate nullum esse petcatum, sive in opere, sive in origine: that there is no sin without will, either in the work, or in the beginning. By which sayings Saint Augustine's judgement is plain, that in the particular work, there are sins, that are not voluntary; as those that come of ignorance, or compulsion, or as concupiscence & original infection, yet all these may be called voluntary in respect of the first man's offence, in whom was freedom of will, which Master Chark granteth, and therefore that childish insultation needed not, but to show your pride in contempt of others, as though all learning had been bred with you, and were like to die, if you did not plant it in us. Saint Augustine therefore is clear, that that sin which is a punishment of sin, is not voluntary, and that his definition (as he calleth it) was only of sin, which hath none other consideration, but as sin: his disputation being against the Manichees, which derived sin from an evil God, and not from the free will of man, or devil, first created good, by the only good God. But you have scripture to prove every act or omission which is sin to be voluntary: because Christ himself saith, that those things which do defile a man, do come from the heart, as though nothing might come from that corruptroote, the heart of man, which is not voluntary. You yourself affirm, that evil thoughts are not voluntary, which he saith come from the heart. Mat. 15. 19  
Now concerning the objection of original sin, there hath been enough said out of Saint Augustine concerning the other objection of manslaughter, done without consent of will, which you affirm to be innocency, God defend every good Christian from such innocency. At least wise you might have made such a fact committed by error, a voluntary sin, by the first man's sin, that was of free will, which if it had not been, no man should have erred in that case, or any other. But the text (you tell us) calleth him an innocent man, liberabitur innocens, etc., the innocent shall be delivered from the hand of the revenger So great a Rabbin as you would seem to be, by your quotations out of Rabbi Isaac, Rabbi Mose, and Rabbi Levi, should not be ignorant, that in the hebrew text the word is harotzeach, that is the killer, & not the innocent, which yet is adjudged to escape punishment 
Num. 35. 25.  of death, by the politic law, because in respect of man's judgement, he hath not offended: for which cause also Deut. 19 his blood is called innocent. Yet his flying to the city of refuge, and imprisonment there, until the death of the high priest, argueth as Master Charke saith, that there is something in his fact or the error, by which he committed the fact that hath need of forgiveness by Christ, where of the high Priest was a figure. Neither was the city of refuge appointed only for the trial of the slaughter, whether it were willingly or unwillingly committed (as you say) but also for a kind of punishment, and detestation of manslaughter; so that if the sleaer were found out of the City, before the death of the high Priest, the avenger of blood might kill him, and not be charged with his blood, Where you refuse the mystery of Christ's death in the death 
Num. 35. 27  of the high Priest, and fly to the fantasies of the jews, you declare that you care not what you bring, so you may obtain your purpose. But Chri stian divines as Cyrillus, Maximus, and others, of the death of the high priest in that place, gather deliverance by the death of Christ. Saint Ambrose also is 
Curill. & aliorum collect. ex deut. cap. 15. de fuga Jeculi. cap. 2.  clear, that the high Priest in this place, signifieth jesus Christ, and confuteth the politic reasons, by you rehearsed, out of R. Mose, and R. Levi, for that in causis paribus there was impar eventus, In equal causes unequal end. For the high Priest might die (saith he) the next day after the manslayer hath taken his refuge. Again he addeth, that Christ is exors omnium voluntariorum & accidentium delictorum: void of all offences voluntary and chanceable, by which he acknowledgeth unwilling manslaughter to be an offence. Saint Jerome also, Dialog. advers. Pel. lib. 1. is plain in that whole case and sin of ignorance, and that he which is fled to the city, must tarry until the high Priest die, that is until he be redeemed by the blood of our Saviour. Beda also upon this place by his allegory, showeth how 
in deut. c. 15  he thought of that kind of sin. Also Theodoretus in lib. Num. quaest. 51. declareth both the mystery of the high Priests death, and showeth, that such unwilling manslaughter is sin. Cur ad obitum Pontificis praescribet eireditum, qui nolens interfecit? Qnia 〈◊〉 Pontificis secundùm ordinem Melchisedech, erat humani peccati solutio. Whte until the death of the high Priest, doth he prescribereturne unto him, which hath slain a man unwillingly? Because the death of the high Priest after the order of Melchisedech, was the losing of the sin of man: and so forth to the same effect. And if all the politic reasons be granted, of the man's tarrying until the high Priest die, yet the mystery of Christ's death, is not thereby taken away, whoose blood cleanseth us from all sin voluntary, or unvoluntary.  
The last fault of the definition is, that the jesuits acknowledge not the sin of ignorance: you answer, they do, of that ignorance, whereof a man himself is the cause, but not of that ignorance, which the schoolmen call invincible, which is not in the doers power to avoid, nor he fell into it, by his own default as in the example of the Queen's subject, being in his Prince's affairs in India, and commanded by proclamation in Westminster to appear there, at a certain day: in which cause his absence is excused by invincible ignorance. This case granted between the Prince and his subject, proveth not that ignorance excuseth before God, because there is not the like reason: seeing no such ignorance, whereby a man should transgress the law of God, is in man, but by voluntary and witting transgression of the first man, and his own negligence which maketh his fact sinful, because he is cause of his ignorance by negligence, or in the sin of Adam, in whom you confess that all men sinned. At least wise if original sin be voluntary, by the sin of Adam, so also is the transgression of god's law, in these cases of invincible ignorance, wittingly committed by the same sin of Adam. Augustine, whom you quote for 
De libet. arb. lib. 3. cap. 22.  your purpose, speaketh of naturallignorance, and infirmity, which is in infants, not of that whereby men fall into error, and so transgress God's law. For that he calleth penal ignorance and difficulty, which is justly laid upon them that neglected to seek knowledge, and is sinful, therefore cannot excúse sin. chrysostom, whom you quote likewise, is manifestly against you. his words are these. Quòdsi ea ignoraveris quae scriri non possunt, praeter culpam eris: siverò quae scitu & 
In epist. ad Rom. hom. 26  possibilia sunt, & facilia, extremas poenas merito dabis. If thou be ignorant of those things which are not possible to beknowne, thoushalt be blameless: but if they be possible, and easy to be known, thou shalt worthily suffer extreme punishment. As in the cases of Abimelech with Abraham's wife, and jacob with Lea, who if they had made diligent 
Gen. 20. Gen. 29.  inquiry, needed not to have been deceived through ignorance. Neither doth God excuse Abimelech from sin altogether, as you say, albeit he pardoned his ignorance, and kept him from the fact of adultery, & acknowledged his mind to have been free from the purpose of Adultery. For the punishmeut laid upon him, argueth what he deserved by his over hasty purpose of marriage with Sara, and Abimelech confesseth that Abraham had brought upon him and his Kingdom a great sin. Also when God saith to him, I have kept thee thatthou shouldest not sin against me, he declareth plainly, that if Abimelech had lain with Sara, upon that ignorance, he had sinned against God. But of jacobslying with Lea, in stead of Rachel, you move a greater contention, and allege Saint Augustine in 
Cont. Faust. lib. 2. cap. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52  his defence. But whosoever gave you your notes, through your negligence in not reading the places yourself, made you err through ignorance. For S. Augustine doth notin all those Chapters once touch the question, whether jacob sinned, in that he did not regard what woman was laid in his bed, by which negligence, as Master Charke saith, he might have committed most horribleincest with his mother, aunt or daughter. Only he defendeth his Polygamy, by the custom of that time, and the contention of his wives for their lodging with him, and last of all, allegorizeth upon the whole story, drawing the error of jacob and all the rest to a mystery. Nor yet the civit: dei lib. 16. c. 38. doth he defend his negligence, rehearsing only, how he came to have four wives, when he went into Mesopotamia for one only, adding that because he had lain with Lea unwittingly, he did not put her away, lest he might be thought to have mocked her. Neither hath justinus Martyr lib. de verit. Christ. rel. any defence of jacobs' innocency, or excuse of his negligence in this fact, but showeth only what 
dial. cum Tiyobon. in Gen. quest. 84.  mystery may be gathered of his marriages, as Saint Augustine doth. Finally Theodores your last ancient witness, agreeing with the rest, saith that jacob betrothed only Rachel, and beside the purpose of his will, had to do with Lea. But immediately assoon as he perceived the deceit, he took it heavily and complained to his father in law. what word of defence, or excuse of his fact committed through ignorance & negligence, have you in this saying? yet you conclude after your vaunting manner. And what one word can Master Chark now peep against all this?  
O you papists, that with sincerity of Religion, have not cast of all human honesty, do you not, blush at the impudent ignorance, of this your defender? And yet he is not ashamed to gather Master Charks absurd positions, not one according to his meaning, and but one only agreeable to his words. First that sin is no action, where he holdeth that all sin, as the sin of omission, is no action. secondly, that no evil men do sin, but the evil in men: which he saith not, but that man, as he is the creature of God, is not against the law, but the evil in man. thirdly, that sin is not voluntary, which he saith not generally, but of some sin, speakeing properly. Forthlie, that sin, is no human or reasonable action. which he saith, rather to be a beastly and unreasonable action of a man endued with reason. fiftly, that it requireth neither will nor knowledge in the doer. where he saith, that the transgression of God's law is sin, in some case and sort, which is without the will and knowledge of the doer. Last of all, that fools, and mad men may as properly commit sin as others: but this he saith not at all, but that the infirmities of folly and madness shall not excuse sin, and that if a mad man, or a fool kill a man (in the Censurcrs' judgement) it is properly no sin. Whereof you may infer, that it is sin properly, but not that it is as properly sin, as in others. But if mad men and fools could not commit sin properly, why are they punished for sin? To conclude where you say, that Master Charke rejecteth Saint Augustine about the definition of sin, it is false. For these are his words. Howsoever you allege Austen to approve your definition, it is no way so large, as sin, and iherefore a most unlearned definition. These words of his declare, that he rejecteth not Augustine in this matter, but your false and fraudulent allegation of him, which is manifestly showed before, by Augustine's sound judgement, in his retractions.   

The eight section, Of sin.  
MAster Chark having said out of the definition of Saint john, which also Saint Ambrose doth use, as I have showed before, that all transgression of the law is sin, was charged by the Censurer with transposition, because the Apostles words lie thus in the text, Sin is transgression 
1. joh. 3. 4.  of the law. Master Charke defendeth himself, alleging that these words sin, and the transgression of the law, are as the definition, and the thing defined, which are mutually verified the one of the other. The defender bringeth nothing to prove, that this is no definition, but that which he hath said in the section before, which is overthrown. Only he quarreleth, that Master Charke said, the Gospel is as general, as the power of God to salvation, whereas Christ also is called the power 
1. Cor. 1. 24.  of God to salvation. As though the Gospel did not include Christ. For when it is said, the Gospel is the power of God to salvation, you must understand, the general matter, namely the doctrine or the preaching. That transposition of words is sometimes lawful, M. Charke showeth by an example, God is a spirit, where the words lie in the text, a spirit is God. The defender wrangleth, that it is not always lawful, which shall be granted unto him, without controversy. That in this question it is not lawful, he hath nothing to prove but a beggarly demand of that in question, that transgression of God's law is larger than sin. Where Master Chark allegeth out of 1. john. 5. 17. that every iniquity is sin, he maketh no small ado, because the greek word in that text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,, which if they be not all one in sense, let him enter an action against the vulgar interpreter, which in both places translateth iniquitas. Yea, let him quarrel with Saint Augustine, 
1. joh 3. 4. Tr. 4.  which upon the place in question, writeth thus. Nemo enim dicat, aliud est peccatum, atque aliud iniquitas: nemo dicat ego peccator homo sum, sed iniquus non sum: omnis qui facit peccatum, & iniquitatem facit, Peccatum iniquitas est. quid ergo faciemus de peccatis nostris & iniquitatibus? Let no man say, sin is one thing, iniquity is an other thing: let no man say, I am a sinful man, but I am not unjust: every one that committeth sin, doth commit iniquity: for sin is iniquity: what then shall we do with our sins, and iniquities, & c? You see here that S. Augustine accounteth sin & iniquity or unjustice to be all one. So doth he in 1. john. Tr. 5. And where the Apostle useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is unrightevosnes, what say you? meaneth he general injustice, or special? If he mean general, as you must needs say for shame, than it is as large as sin, and it is manifest, that the Apostle useth the word justice, as contrary to sin, therefore justice must needs be the same that sin. If you can make a diversity between general iniquity, & general injustice, you are wiser than the vulgar interpreter, specially if he speak in this latter place of great sins only, as you say, whereas iniquity in the former place, may signify such small transgression, as is no sin at all. verily Oecumenius is against you, and saith, Simpliciter tanquam à genere peccati facit 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉, omnis iniquitas peccatum est, hoc est, sive sit ad mortem, sive non. He maketh a plain division of sin, as it were from the general, and saith, all iniquity is sin, that is, whether it be unto death, or not. And upon 1. 〈◊〉 3. he saith. Sciendum autem quòd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We must know that sin is a falling from that which is good, 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 is an offence against the law: and both of them hath, this beginning, namely sin, the 〈◊〉 from that which is good, iniquity, to do against the law that 〈◊〉. And they agree the one with the other, and are about the same thing. For he which sinneth, erreth from the mark which is according to nature, and in nature is self. For the scope or mark 〈◊〉 nature, is to live according to reason, far from unreasonableness. Likewise he that doth 〈◊〉, offendeth about the law given in nature, being affected intemperatelie. Rectè ergo discipulus domini 〈◊〉, inidem 〈◊〉. Therefore the disciple of our Lord, hath rightly used the one for the other. Here iniquity is as large as sin. Against this what have you to say? aristotel in praedicam. qual. For which I send you to aristotel. Eth. lib. 5. c. 1. But 〈◊〉 every iniquity is not sin, you have Saint Augustine lib. 2. cont. julian cap. 5. When you can set down his words, you shall receive an answer; in the mean time as you say, Master Charke reserved a sure card for the end. I may think you have prepared this as a bum card to wine the game. That S. Auustine saith, concupiscence in the regenerate is not sin, I grant, so you will confess that he saith also, that it is sin. When he saith, it is not sin he meaneth either because the guilt is forgiven 〈◊〉 because it is not actual sin, as Saint james doth distinguish sin from concupiscence. But that it is of itself sin, and damnable, if it be not remitted, he affirmeth count jul. Pel. lib. 5. c. 3. & lib. 6. cap. 5. he saith it is evil always, and cap. 3. he condemneth it as the Pelagians heresy that 〈◊〉, it is not to be blamed.  
Where Master Charke chargeth you with alteration of the text, when you translate, omnis qui facit peccatum, every one that sinneth, where you should say, every one that doth sin, you make sport afteryour manner, and ask what difference, whether a man say, your wife spinneth, or your wife doth spin? where you show yourself to be a very good Grammarian, that can make no difference in our tongue, between the sign of the active mode, doth, and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differeth nothing in vehemency from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which M. Chark told you, you should have translated, to express the force of the phrase in our tongue, every one that committeth sin. But this you count small game, and I would it were the greatest that you have committed in your censure. You cannot afford M. Chark to say, that he knoweth he serveth the Lord, because he hath not that knowledge by Aristotle's demonstrations (you are sure) which yet are the only means of certain science properly. So that the doctrine of the scriptures, & the testimonies of the holy ghost, are no means of certain science properly. Yet without them and Aristotle's demonstrations also, you are sure, that Master Charke hath no certain knowledge, that he serveth the Lord. Or if you suppose you can gather your sureness 〈◊〉 aristotelical demonstrations, it may please you to think, that Master Charke may by the same kind of demonstrations gather the certainty of his knowledge, having the mayor in the holy scriptures, and the testimony of his conscience, and of the holy spirit, for the minor and conclusion. The examples you object, of Luther and Bucer altering their opinions, are not like the matter in question. For as men may 〈◊〉, so may they be deceived in their opinion of 〈◊〉 God: yet it followeth not, that no man may be certain that he serveth God truly. Where you say that Luther had been a protestant many years, when he said he did know there was a purgatory, it is false; for at the same time he acknowledged the Pope's authority, 〈◊〉 humano, by the law of men, as in the time of the Canstans' Council, it was the opinion of many Papists.   

The ninth section, entitled, Of Concupiscence. Art. 2.  
THe doctrine of the jesuits as Gotuisus reporteth is, that Concupiscence remaining in the regenerate, although it be against the law of God, yet is it not 〈◊〉 properly in itself, or of his own nature. Here you will not accept the excuse which layeth the addition of these words, although it be against the law of God, upon 〈◊〉, because Master Charke might have seen them wanting in Canisius. As though he was bound to examine the report of Gotuisus, which he promiseth to rehearse by Canisius. But Master Charke telleth you, the excuse is needless, because those words must of aecessity be understood. For the question isof none other concupiscence, but that which is against the law. secondly you slander him, when you say he doth assure his Reader, that you do under hand grant concupiscence to be some kind of sin, when you deny it to be mortal sins for his sentence is disjunctive: namely, either you grant, etc. or else you load, and disguise your sentence. with waste words, which is true: for to what purpose should you deny that to be deadly sin, which you do not acknowledge to be any sin: as if one should say, an Ass is not a wise man, he should speak fondly, seeing an Ass is no man. That concupiscence by Saint Paul is called sin unproperly, as S. Augustine saith, because it is the cause of sin, Master Charke denieth, yet without any malapertness (as you charge him) or contumely never so little unto Saint Augustine, but with that liberty which he himself granteth to all men, that shall read or examine his writings: Neither is Saint Augustine's judgement always the exposition of the primitive Church, when both he diffenteth from others, and from himself also, now and then.  
But now let us see, how you cavil at Master Charkes exposition of Saint Paul to the Romans, where he 
〈◊〉. 7.  calleth concupiscence sin. First he saith, though the Law stirrcth us to sin, yet is it no sin: and that maketh for you, for so you may conclude of concupiscence. But then your conclusion shallbe false, and your reasoning weaker, then that you reprehend in Master Charke, as weak reasoning, where he saith: If the law that is holy do come in question of sin, for that it provoketh our corrupt nature to sin, how much more concupiscence, which is unclean of itself? This proveth nothing (say you) but from the place, à disparatis, where children and distracted men take their arguments. I will enter no logical disputation with you, of what force the argument à disparatis is, if it be rightly used: but I marvel you could not see, the argument à comparatis, from the less to the more. If the holy law may come in question of sin, much more the unclean lust. But you would have men think, that Master Charke meant by this comparison to conclude, that lust is properly sin, whereas he only prepareth a way to that conclusion, by this comparison. But the antecedent (you say) is false, that the law stirreth us to sin, or the law provoketh our corrupt nature to sin. Which Master Charke saith not absolutely, but that through our rebellion, the law giving no occasion, but the occasion being altogether taken by our corruption rebelling against the commandment. You reply, that the law doth no way stir to sin, but by discovering, as a glass doth spots, and that Saint Paul hath no such meaning, as Master Charke saith. But the text is too plain to be denied, That sin taking occasion through the commandment, hath wrought in me all concupiscence, the commandment coming, sin revived. Sin 
Rom. 7. 8. 9 10. 13.  taking occasion through the commandment hath deceived me, etc. that sin might be made exceedingly sinful. Now to prove that Saint Paul meaneth voluntary concupiscence, whereunto consent or delectation is yielded, where he saith, he had not known concupiscence, if the law had not said, thou shalt not lust: you cite S. Augustine lib. 1. de nupt. & concup. cap. 29. where he hath the clean contrary judgement. Multum boni facit, qui facit quod scriptum est, post concupiscentias tuas non eas, sed non perficit, quia non implet quod scriptum est, Non concupisces. He doth much good, which doth that which is written, go not after thy lusts, but he maketh not his good perfect, because he fulfilleth not that which is written, Thou shalt not lust. These words and the whole Chapter proveth that Saint Augustine understandeth the tenth commandment of concupiscence, whereunto no consent is added. Again, lib. de spir. & lit. cap. ultimo, he saith, that this commandment, Thou shalt not lust, pertaineth to the life to come, because no man can fulfil it in this life: but the other, Go not after thy lusts, pertaineth to this life, because men may restrain, by God's grace, consent and delectation in lust. Your third quotation is, lib. 19 Cont. Faustum, cap. 7, where Saint Augustine saith no more for you, then in the rest, saving that he saith. That for as much as it is hard for us to fulfil in every respect, that which is written in the law, thou shalt not lust, Christ being made a priest, by the sacrifice of his flesh obtaineth pardon for us, even so fulfilling the law, that by his perfection might be recovered that, which by our infirmity we could not. In which saying, except you will cavil upon the term of difficulty, which in other places he maketh a flat impossibility, there is no shadow for your assertion. In your fourth quotation, Cont. 2. ep. Petil. lib. 3. cap. 7. or in steed of Petil. as I guess, you would say Pelagianorum, is nothing sounding to the matter, but rather the contrary; that perfection cannot be in this life, because there cannot be perfect justice or fulfilling of the law. Where fore I can but wonder at your impudency in these quotations. And yet as though you had found a great 〈◊〉, you say it is most worthy of laughter which Master Charke for filling up of a page, discourseth of S. Paul's estate, when he saith, Paul compareth his estate before his knowledge of the tenth commandment with his state afterward, etc. verily the Greek proverb hath place in you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. A fool lauheth when there is nothing worthy of laughter. You ask how he could be ignorant of that commandment, considering his education, & yet be able to 〈◊〉 other sins by the light of natural reason. But Master Charke saith he knew other sins by the law, and light of nature. He knew also by his bringing up that it was written in the law, thou shalt not lust, but he understood it not otherwise, than the Pharises did, which thought they were able to keep the law. But after he learned what original sin, and the lust thereof proceeding was, he sound himself condéned by the tenth commandment, which he could not do by the other nine, from which it is perfectly distinct, nor by the light of reason: for the philosophers could never attain to understand that sin. But concupiscence with consent, and delectation, they could perceive to be vicious, and sinful. So that your sardonicall laughter may be staid and turned to weeping, if 〈◊〉 had grace to know that commandment, as Saint Paul had, whereof it appeareth you are as ignorant, as everhe was.  
Concerning the similitude of the latin tongue, whereof the tongue is only an instrumental cause, as it answereth not the effect of original sin, so being a contention of terms, I will not stand upon it. Again, I confess it is not necessary, that every effect of original sin should be sin in the regenerate, as hunger, sickness, etc. but original sin is not so the efficient of these, as of actual sins: for the justice of God, is the good, proper, and principal next efficient of those punishments, sin is the cause moving the justice of God to punish: but original sin is the immediate, evil, & material cause of actual sin. That the guilt of original sin is taken-away from theregenerate, in and by baptism, we do not deny: yet remaineth the sin after baptism, though it be not impured as sin unto condemnation in the children of God. That Christ is called sin, because i e is a sacrifice to take away sin, may prove, as you say, that something is figuratively called sin, which properly is no sin. But that concupiscence should as unproperly be called sin, you can not prove, because it is a matter and increaser of sin. Your false quotation Rom. 8. where Christ is called sin, you would justify by the 3. verse, where there is no such matter, but that God sent Christ in the similitude of sinful flesh, and of sin condemned sin in the flesh. But if the text will not serve, you send us to the commentaries, which can not alter the text, howsoever some do compare this place with that of 2. Cor. 5. 21. and other some do take it otherwise.  
Touching the ancient Father's 〈◊〉 in the Censure to testify, that concupiscence is not sin in the regenerate, if consent be not yealed, etc. you say, he hath passed over Cyprian, and Pacacius, without any word unto him. The cause is, for that they say nothing to him, in the matter controversed beteweene him and you. For Cyprian, in both the places showeth, that baptism by the spirit of God, 
lib. 2. ep. 〈◊〉 de latio 〈◊〉  purgeth a man and washeth him clean from all spots of sin. Which Master Charke confesseth, as concerning the guilt, because concupiscence, though it remain, is not imputed for sin in the regenerated. But the question is, what concupiscence of itself deserveth, 〈◊〉 in the regenerated, if it were imputed by God's justice, as it is forgiven by his grace. Albeit he be not bound to take all that Cyprian writeth for Gospel, especially in that Sermon de ablutione pedum, if it be Cypriant. As for Pacianus, he saith not all so much. If you have any words in the Fathers, that may enforce your meaning, set them down plainly, and mock us no longer with dumb questiones. Ambrose, and Clemens Alexandrinus (as Master Charke telleth you) have not your words, nor sense: for whatsoever they say of the pureness of them, that are regenerated, we acknowledge with them, in respect of the remission of their sins, not that the regenerated are void of all sin, or natural corruption, more than they be void of infirmity and mortality.  
Where Clemens saith, that concupiseence alone is adultery, you labour in vain to add, consent, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone doth exclude what soever you can add unto it. Where you cavil that he exhorteth the Gentiles to resist these motions of concupiscence, and would prove thereby, that they are not the first motions, which are unavoidable, it is a tale: for he exhorteth the Gentiles to Christianity, where they should find remission of all sins, and all honnstie oflife. Gregory Nazianzen, hath an oration, or homily entitled of holy baptism, but not the S. jana, as your Censure had in the first edition: and in that oration he proveth not your purpose, teaching only, that we are consecrated, or made perfect by baptism, which is true in respect of sanctification, and remission of sins, but proveth not that concupiscence, which you confess to be an evil thing, remaining in the regenerate, is changed in nature to be no sin, although it be forgiven and shall not be imputed, to the elect. For the wrong quoting of Augustine do 〈◊〉. & concupiscent. You were best quarrel with your printer: for Master Charke hath instlie charged your book with error, in the first edition, whereunto he answered, which you will not understand, but charge him with ignorance, quarrelling, and impudency, whereas your quotation was twice, lib. de nupt. & concupiscent. And not, as you say now, lib. 1. de nupt. & concupiscent. You with that you were with Master Charke, to see if he would blush at his ignorance by you discovered, and call back your wish, for fear of pursuivants. But I look not at all, that your brazen face should blush, either at so small a fault, or at so false a defence thereof, which are not ashamed of a great number of more wrong, and impudent quotationes, then that is, for which though no pursuivants shall attach you, yet the reproach of them shall pursue you, to the utter confusion of your proud and arrogant Censure, and more impudent, and unlearned defence. Finally, Ambrose lib. 1. de voc. gent. c. 5. hath not one word to prove that concupiscence in the regenerate is no sin of itself.  
But where Master Charke rehearseth not the very words, but the meaning of Saint Augustine, expounding himself, in what sense he saith, that concupiscence is not sin, you set abroad all the sails of your railing, and venomous tongue and pen against him. Saint Augustine's words are, dimitti concupiscentiam carnis 
Lib. 1. de nupt. & conc. cap. 25.  in baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum non imputetur. Quamuis autem reatu suo iam soluto, manet tamen, donec sanetur omnis infirmitas nostra, proficiente renovatione interioris hominis, de die in diem, cúm exterior induerit incorruptionem: non enim substantialiter manet, sicut aliquod corpus, aut spiritus, sed affectio est quaedam malae qualitatis sicut languor. Concupiscence of the flesh is remitted in baptism, not so that it is not, but so that it is not imputed to sin. And albeit the guilt thereof be loosed, yet it remaineth, until all our infirmity behealed, the renewing of the inward man profiting from day to day, when the outward man shall have put on incorruption, for it remaineth not substantially, as a body or a spirit, but it is a certain affection of evil qualitic, as a sickness. These words declare, that concupiscence being an affection of evil quality (which is as much to say, as sin) remaining in the regenerate, although it be not imputed to them as sin, for that if they 〈◊〉 against it, it shall not prevail against them to condemn them. A sin not imputed, is a sin of his own nature. The sins of Gods elect are not imputed to them, they are forgiven, the guilt is taken away, they are washed away in the blood of Christ, they are as white as wool, and as snow: yet of their own nature they are foul, abominable, and detestable transgressions of God's law: so is concupiscence against the law, thou shalt not lust, as Augustine often confesseth, therefore of itself sin, even in the regenerate, to whom it is remitted. The similutude of a sickness also, whereunto Augustine doth often compare it, showeth the same. For a sickness if it be not healed, either by strength of nature prevailing, or by medicine, doth either cause death, or remaineth as long as life: so concupiscence of itself, would kill, if the medicines of Christ's redemption did not overcome the malice of it, and in the end take away the disease from the roots.  
But for a clearer proof, Master Charke allegeth, that Saint Augustine in an other place saith plainly, it 
Cont. jul. lib. 5. cap. 3.  is sin. You answer, that he saith only of concupiscence in general, that it is sin, and not of concupiscence in the regenerate, But that Saint Augustine speaketh of concupiscence in the regenerate, it is manifest by this reason, for that he saith, concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit lustesh, which is only in the regenerate. 
Cont. jul. lib. 6. cap. 11.  As he himself saith in an other place, by you quoted. Non enim rectè cuiusquam spiritus concupisceret aduersue carnem suam, nisi habitaret in illo spiritus Christi. For no man's spirit should rightly lust against his flesh, except the spirit of Christ did dwell in him. But that concupiscence without consent is properly no sin, you say, Saint Augustine prooneth by the words of Paul himself, who calleth it sin in the chapter last remembered: but that is false: he only retaineth 
Gal. 5.  his usual acception of the word sin, for actualsin, as Saint james doth, whose terms of conception, and bringing forth also he useth: yet he concludeth that concupiscence without consent is evil, is to be chastised, to be bridled, to be fought against, to be overcome, which proveth sufficiently, that it is sin, though not actual sin, yet properly sin, from which we can not be delivered, but by the grace of Christ: sin of another kind, sin in another degree, called sin in the scripture, and therefore without controversy (except we will trifle in vain contention of terms, and childish sophisms, where the matter is plain) sin in deed, and properly, which of his own nature deserveth death, but that it is purged by the blood of Christ, as all other sins, of what sort or degree soever they be, in those that are saved. That Saint Augustine useth other whiles the terms of veniallie, and mortally, when he speaketh of sinning, it can not defend your distinction, whereby you hold, that there be some sins so small, as of their own nasure they deserve not damnation: contrary to the scripture, that saith generally, the reward of sin is death. Whereas Saint Augustine meaneth only degrees of sins, whereof some are less, some are heinous, yet all deserve death. For Saint Augustine must be understood according to the scripture, but the scripture must not be racked to agree with Saint Augustine.  
Hitherto concerning the doctrine of the jesuits, that concupiscence in the regenerate without consent is not sin. Against this doctrine Gotuisus opposeth the words of our Saviour Christ, Mat. 5. 28. whosoever shall see a woman to lust after her, he hath already committed adultery with her in his heart: which text you confirm as you said before to be alleged ignorantly, and against himself, because here is a manifest consent of the heart expressed, to make concupiscence adultery. And for that purpose you cite Saint Augustine: and to all this you ask, what sir William replieth? and answer yourself, Surely nothing, but maketh a long idle speak, of praedicatum and subiectum, as pertinent to the matter, as Charing cross to Billings gate. If William Charkes book, might be had no where, but in your report, you would make miserable matter of it. But they that list to see how impudently you lie, shall find in his book, first that he confesseth, that the effect of concupiscence, which is adultery by consent, is a breach of the 7. commandment. For which he doth not allege the place as you misconstrue him. secondly that Christ useth a word, which in greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to behold, that is more than to see, or to use the sense of sight: which beholding with concupiscence alone, he denieth to be sin in the first degree, that with consent of heart is made sin in so high a degree as adultery. And Augustine himself in the place by you cited, maketh three degrees to actual sin: suggestion, delectation, and consent. The first he compareth to the devils temptation, which when it was without man, was not sin in man: but now that every man is tempted of his own concupiscence, how can you say it is not sin in man, as it was in the devil? thirdly the long speak of subeictum & praedicatum, that Master Charke maketh, is comprehended in less than three lines. And last of all, whereas you say, that to quit the Lord most carefully from sin, he alledgeeth Saint james, you pervert, and that wilfully, both his saying, and his meaning, and scoff at him in your dogs eloquence, as you are accustomed. But he saith expressly, that Saint james doth carefully quit the Lord, from being a sinful cause of sin, when he turneth upon man the whole work, and all the blame of sin, from the first sin of tempting, to the ripe and full birth thereof: saying that a man is tempted of his own lust, and therewith drawn away, and as it were with a bait enticed. Which things (saith Master Charke) can not be in bare concupiscence, except it were sin, and a sinful cause of sin. And in deed, if every thing conceive, and bring forth a creature of the same kind, that the dam is of, what should the mother of sin be but sin? Concupiscence conceiveth, and bringeth forth sin, therefore it is sin itself  
But calvin is condemned of your Church, as you affirm, for this impiety, that he maketh God author of sin. But calvin appealeth from your Church, to the Catholic Church of Christ, before whom let us see what you can allege, to justify this horrible crime. You ask if he doth not hold that God is the author of sin, in diverse places of his works: namely lib. 1. Inst. cap. 8. 17. 18? I answer no: but directly maintaineth the contradiction of that blasphemous slander, namely that God is not the author of sin: answering all objections, that are made to the contrary, both by authority of scriptures, and by testimony of the fathers. You demand further, doth he not condemn Saint Augustine by name, for holding the contrary, lib. 2. Inst. c. 4? I answer as before, Noah. Only he misliketh Saint Augustine in one place, where he saith, that induration, and excecation pertain not to the working of God, but to his foreknowledge, where the scripture expressly saith, God doth harden, God doth blind, not as an evil author, but as a just punisher, as Augustine else where confesseth, for which he is cited cont. jul. lib. 5. where he proveth at large, that some sins are not only of God's permission or patience, but of his power, that former sins might so be punished. What is this to make God the author of sin? Yet further you ask, whether Peter Martyr his scholar, do not hold the same. in come. lib. 1. Reg. cap. 2? And I answer as before, that he never held that opinion, but the contrary, that God is not the author of sin, as it is sin, all though no fact can be committed without his power, in whom we live, move and have our being. But this is a common slander of unlearned Papists, when they that be learned, if they come to entreat of God's power, providence, predestination, reprobation, etc. can not speak more reverently than calvin, Martyr, and all other learned Protestants do write of those high mysteries of God.   

The tenth section, entitled, Of the first motions of concuptscence.  
THe jesuits hold, that the first motions of lust, are without hurt of sin. Of this you think you have said enough before, because it dependeth wholly of that which goeth before. Yet two places of Saint Augustine you add, and both fraudulently. The former cont. jul. lib. 2. circa finem, you cite thus. We might be alway without sin, if we never did yield consent to our concupiscence to sin. But Saint Augustine's words are otherwise, Quantum enim ad nos attinet, sine peccato semper essemus, donec saneretur hoc malum, si ei nunquam consentiremus ad malum. For as much as concerneth us, we should be always without sin until this evil were healed, if we did never consent unto it unto evil. He saith not absolutely, we should be without sin, but as much as concerneth us, because that evil is in us, without our will or consent, which maketh actual sin. Otherwise not many lines before, he calleth it, vitium mortuum, a vice dead, but yet to be buried, that is throughly healed.: and addeth further, Quomodo igitur mortuum dicimus hoc peccatum in baptismo, & How then do we say, that this sin is dead in baptism (as this man also saith) and how do we confess, that it dwelleth in our members, and worketh many desires against our wills which we resist by not consenting (as this man also confesseth) but because it is dead in that guilt in which it held us, and till it be healed by perfection of burial, it rebelleth even being dead. Although now it is not called sin, after the same manner, in which it maketh guilty, but because it is made by the guilt of the first man, and because, by rebelling, it laboureth to draw us to guiltiness, except the grace of God do help us. This place of Saint Augustine shewteh that it is sin. and why it is so called, although it differ much from actual sin. Again when he saith, it is dead vice, in respect that it is remitted to the renegerate in baptism, yet it is as a stinking carcase of the enemy, which until it be buried will infect: by which it appeareth what a pestilent thing it is, of itself, though by grace it be overcome, and must be buried in us, till it be utterly abolished.  
The other place, lib. 2. de gratia, cap. 40. you cut very short, and utter in these words. Quibus sinon consentitur, nullius peccati reatus contraehitur. Unto which nation if we give no consent of heart, no guilt of sin is contracted by them. But you conceal craftily that he calleth these first motions vicious desires, which is as much as we require, and showeth how the guilt is taken away, namely by remission of sins in baptism. His words are these, Non solùm peccata omnia, quorum nunc remissio fit in baptism, que reos faciunt, dum desideriis vitiosis consentitur, 〈◊〉 peccator, verumetiam, ipsa desideria vitiosa, quibus si non consentitur, nullus peccati reatus contraehitur, quae non in ista, sed in alia vita nulla erunt, eodem lavacro baptismatis universa pur gantur. Not only all sins whereof there is no we remission in baptism, which make men guilty, while they consent to vicious desires, and to sin: but even those vicious desires also, to which, if consent be not yielded, no guilt of sin is contarcted, which not in this life, but in the other life, shall be none at all, are altogether purged in the same laver of baptism. Now whether a Christian man need to say, forgive us our debts, for his vicious or wicked desires, although he consent not unto them, you define out of Saint Austin, that he need not. And quote Ep. 200. ad Asell. where he saith that, if we did not at all follow our concupiscence, and although the desires of sin be in us, while we are in this mortal body: yet if we give consent to none of them, there were not for which we should say to our Father, which is in heaven, forgive us our debts. Yet should we not be such, as we shall be after this mortal hath put on immortality: for then there shall be in us no desires of sins. Secondly you quote. conc. 3. in Ps. Where he answereth this question, in these words: Quantum quidemegs sapere possum, etc. As far as I can perceive, the whole guilt of the disease and infirmity, from whence those unlawful desires are moved, which the Apostle calleth sin, is loosed by the Sacrament of baptism, with all those that obeying it, we have done, said, or thought: neither should this disease hereafter hurt us, though it be in us, if we yielded obedience to none of the unlawful desires thereof at any time, either in work, speech, or secretassens, until the sickness itself be healed, when that which we pray for, is fulfiled, either when we say, thy kingdom come, or when we say, deliver us from evil. thirdly you quote de perfect iustisiae, c. ultimo. Where against the Pelagians, which hold that a man might be just without actual sin, although he could not be without concupiscence, which is called sin, because it is sin to consent untoit, and is moved against our will, he hath these words: Subtiliter quidemista discernit, etc. He that so saith, discerneth these things subtly, but let him be advised what is done in the lords prayer, where we say, for give us 〈◊〉 debts. Quòd nist fallar, which except I be deceived, it were no need to say, if we did neeur consent, never solitle, to the desires of the same sin, either in slipping of tongue, or in delight of thought, but only we should say, Led us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. lastly you quote Cont. 〈◊〉 Epist. Pel. lib. 1. cap. 13. Nec propter ipsum, 〈◊〉 iam, etc. Neither for this concupiscence, whose guilt is already confumed in the laver of regeneration, the baptised say in their prayer, forgive us our debts, etc. Out of all these places this I may gather: First, that Saint Augustine doth not so constantly affirm, as you say, as a Doctrine most certain, but modestly delivereth his opinion, saying, as far as my wisdom serveth, and, except I be deceived. Secondliehe speaketh not of those motions, that be in us, which consent to some, though not to all of them; but in case we never consented to any of them. Thirdly he rendereth his reason, because they he already forgiven, to theregenerate in baptism. And sorthlie, he calleth them unlawful desires of sin, against which we pray to be delivered. So that all things weighed, as you have Saint Augustine in some sort favourable, to the words of your assertion in this piont, yet he is not so rank, and full one your side, in the sense of the matter, as you would bear us in hand.  
Now follow a number of cavillations against M. Charkes words, which I will briefly run over. First where he saith. Are not all the first motions of just merely natural, and ever more of some cause given by us, and dwelling within us, namely the corruption of Adam? This fond 〈◊〉 (say you) includeth two contraries: for of they be merely natural, then are they not of any cause given by us. This fond argument (say I) hath two faults. One is ambiguity, sought where it needs not, in the word merely natural, which Master Charke showeth to be by corruption of nature, and then the consequent followeth not: for to that corruption, cause is given by us, and in us, in the sin of Adam. secondly you say, that it is false that all first motions of just are merely natural: for in lewd men they are often voluntary. jump, as you are wont to say. For if will go before them, then are they not first, we speak of motions, which go before will, and therefore are called first motions: wherefore your example of awaking a mad dog, and distinction of natural in the root, and voluntary in the branch, do not excuse, but increase your heap of waste words, as when you be awake you may perceive.  
Another cavillation you have, that Master Charke deceitfully avoideth the simulitude of first motions with the pulse, because they be not like in all things, which is untrue, but because they are not like in quality, in the which they are compared. For the first motions unto sin are evil, vicious, unlawful, as Saint Augustine calleth them, so is not the motion of the pulse: therefore not like. But while he reasoneth against your example of the pulse, he uttereth three foúle absurdities, & most gross errors, if we believe you. Which are they? say on, & take heed you lie not. The first is, that he placeth concupiscence of the flesh (whereof we talk) in the reasonable part of the mind, and 〈◊〉 in the sensitive part. That is false: for his words are, you cannot conclude from that part of our soul, whereby we have life and sense only, to that part where in our reason and affections are placed. In these words he denieth not concupiscence unto the sensitive part, but extendeth it to the reasonable part, where also the affections are, where virtues and vices have their seat, in as much as the reasonable soul is distinguished into two pars, the one that useth reason, the other that should obey reason. And therefore you speak very grossly, and falsely, when you say, The first motions are nothing else, but the rebellions of our sensitive parts. And your reason is as gross in divinity, as your position is in philosophy, because it is called flesh, and the concupiscence of the flesh, etc. where flesh signifieth the whole corruption of man, as it is manifest by the works of the flesh, rehearsed by Saint Paul in the text you quote, Gal. 5. where there is not only whoredom, gluttony, drunkenness, and such like, but idolatry, witchcraft, heresy, etc. which are sins against faith, and knowledge, and doubtless have their first motions, as well as other sins, that are principally committed with the body, as adultery, drunkenness, etc. and may have their first motions both in the body, & in the mind, but chiofly in the mind. Therefore while you charge Master Chark with intolerable ignorance, you bewray intolerable want of knowledge, in one that would be taken both for a philosopher, and a divine.  
The second absurdity, you say, is greater, in affirming that the sensual part of man is not so much corrupted by original sin, as the reasonable part. But master Charke saith, the former (that is, that part of our natural soul where buy we have life and sense only) is not in the same sort corrupted as the second: neither doth sin so work in natural life, and sense, as it doth in the heart, by the corruptions and guiltiness of the soul. Now these words do declare a comparison in quality, not in quantity: for the question (if you be remembered) was of a similitude, which is a comparison in quality, not in quantity. But if he hadmade comparison in quantity, I think there is no wise man, but feeleth temptations against the knowledge of God, and faith, greater and more dangerous, then to commit sin in the abuse of any of the senses. And seeing all that defileth man cometh first from the heart, I marvel how you place concupiscence in the sensitive part, except you place the sensitive part in the heart. Although it is not without fraud, that you change Master Charkes words, who speaketh altogether of life and sense, and you only of the sensitive part, in which you include the inward senses, as well as the outward, where as Master Charke speaketh of the outward only, as his examples of smelling, seeing, hearing, and feeling declare.  
The third absurdity is joined with flat Pelagianism, where he saith, that the necessary actions of life and sense, remain now in man, as they were before his fall. For which is alleged a saying of Saint Augustine de Eccles. dogm. cap. 38. that if any man shall affirm, that man both in body and soul, is not changed into worse, he is deceived with Pelagianism. But Master Charkes words are, that the nenecessarie actions of life, as eating, drinking, etc. and of sense, as smelling, ate of themselves all free from sin, remaining as they were in man before his fall, he doth not deny that they are changed into worse, but that of themselves, they are not sin. It is not sin to eat, but a man may easily sin in eating: it is not sin to see, but by sight a man may easily fall into sin. Neither doth your author say, that the actions of life & sense, are sin, but he speaketh against them that thought by the fall of Adam, the body only was subject to corruption, the liberty of the soul being unhurt. Now if you hold that the simple, and necessary actions of life and sense, are sin, I wonder how you can deny the first motions, and unlawful desires of sin, to be sin. But you 〈◊〉 them from sin, because they be not voluntary, which is serase true of the senses, for a man need not to see except he will, seeing he may close his eyes. But against this point of voluntary, you say, he objecteth original sin, which is answered before, and showed how it is voluntary. And I answer, that the first motions are voluntary, by the same reason. secondly he objecteth, that god saith in Genesis, every cogitation of man's heart is evil evermore. To that you answer, that it inclineth to evil, by reason of concupiscence left in us. Thus God and you agree not. He saith, it is evil, you say, it inclineth to evil, 
Gen. 5.  but yet is not that inclination sin without consent. But God saith, it is only evil, and that always. thirdly you say he objecteth the commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, etc. Whereby the first motions, being against the great commandment, must needs be sin. But that you say is false. For though we be stirred by this commandment to all perfection, that we can in this life, yet no more is enjoined us thereby, under pain of sin and damnation, but only that we do not yield consent to sin. If you say, that god imputeth not unto us, that are his children, all breach of this commandment to our condemnation, I would agree with you. But that any man in this life can keep this commandment, or that no transgression thereof, except it be with consent, is damnable sin, I do utterly deny. Yet you make Saint Augustine author of your interpretation. First, lib. de spirit. & lit. cap. ultimo. Who both affirmeth, that this commandment is not fullfiled by any man in this life, and also that there is no perfect justice in this life, but that man hath profited most, which knoweth how far he is from perfection of justice. Again, that there is no justice in this life, but by faith, & therefore walking by faith, he may be said not to sin against the justice of this commandment, seeing he is not to be blamed, if he love not God so perfectly, as when he shall know him perfectly. But all this is to be understood of the new man, so far forth as he is reform, according to the Image of God. And therefore he concludeth in the end, that of what quality soever, or of what quantity soever, we can define justice in this life, there is no man void of sin, and it is necessary for every man to pray for remission of sins, and to presume of no justice of his own, but of the grace of God. secondly you 
lib. 1. de doct. Christ ca: 2.  quote lib. 1. de doct. Christ. cap. 2. where there is nothing to the purpose. thirdly, de natura & gratia, cap. 69. where he saith, this commandment is not heavy, where there is that love, whereby faith worketh, where this love is not, it is heavy. But that the breach of this commandment is not sin, where we yield no consent, he saith not one word. lastly, you quote lib. 2. de pecc. merit. cap. 6. where this commandment is not once mentioned. Thus you think to carry away the matter with dumb quotationes, when in the places quoted, there is nothing to uphold your assertion.  
Next followeth a question, whether Protestants or papists do repress the rains of lusts, which he knoweth best, that searcheth the heart, & the rains. But the doctrine of the protestants (say you) doth take away both rains and bridle out of our hands, while they teach the first motions to be natural, and that we cannot let their effect, but that they work sins in us, whether we consent or not. But that is false, for we say, that by the grace of God, we may resist their effect, which is to work actual sin, if default be not in ourself: yet we say they are sin of themselves, for which we ought to sigh and groan, with the Apostle. And where you say, we have no hope of victory, because we sin, though we consent not, and thereof 
Rom. 7. 24. 〈◊〉. Co. 12. 7. 8.  make many words in vain of the excellency of popish doctrine, it is most untrue: for we have a most certain hope by the grace of god in jesus Christ, to have deliverance from the one, & victory of the other, & that to the obtening of the crown of everlasting glory.  
Now are we come to the tenth commandment, which is contrary to the jesuits doctrine, which you say, the Censure, out of S. Augustine expoundeth to be meant of consent. lib. 1. denupt. & conc. cap. 23. where S. Augustine doth not so expound this commandment, thou shalt not lust, but showeth as he doth in other places before noted, that it is not fulfiled in this life.  
Next to this, you say, it pleaseth Master Charke to put down four manifest lies, saying, As the Papists make of the tenth commandment two commandments, so this fellow maketh of two several breaches of two diverse commandments, but one sin. And both these you say are slanders. But how both these, if they were slanders, should make four lies, I do not yet see, except it be by multiplication. Your answer is, first that the Catholics make but one of the tenth commandment: but the question is which is properly and distinctly the tenth commandment. Very well, if it be a question, and such a question as you conclude not to be defined in your Church, you do ill to make it an argument to convince him of slander. For if that opinion be true, that maketh but one commandment against coveting, which few papists do follow, and yet many ancient writers do hold, as you confess; then do the rest make two commaundemetes of that one, against coveting. Yes Saint Augustine, you say, contendeth in diverse places, that these two clauses, thou shalt not have strange Gods, and thou shalt not make any graven Idol, are but one commandment, and therefore, that the two other of coveting, make two distinct commandments. That S. Austin liketh that division, I deny not; but that he contendeth for it, is untrue. And you yourself note six ancient writers, namely Origen, Procopius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Hesychius, S. Ambrose, & S. Jerome, that follow our division, assigning four precepts to the first table, and six to the second. To which may be added Greg. Nazianzen, decalog. Mosis carmine, & Augustine or whosoever was author of those books, called quaestiones ex veteri &. N. T. quaestione 7. Beside the authority of those old fathers, reason is against it. For whereas you say, this clause, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, is the ninth commandment, and the rest the tenth, Moses is against you, Exod. 20. placing, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house first, and then, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, which were a confusion, if that which is in the second place were the ninth, & that which is in the first, were the tenth: beside the transposition, that part of the tenth commandment should be joined with the ninth. Therefore, seeing the same Moses placeth the coveting of the wife, Deu. 5. in the first place, it is manifest, that both those clauses make but one commandment, else should it be uncertain, which is the ninth, and which the tenth. Again, where you say, it is most convenient that the two 
1. joh. 2.  general internal consents unto the two lusts, of carnality, and covetousness, called by Saint john concupiscence of the flesh, and concupiscence of the eye, should be expressly and particularly forbidden by two distinct commandments, I answer that it is more cowenient, that concupiscence of all sins against the second table, should be forbidden in one general commandment. And it is marvel how in Saint john you forgot the pride of life, which he joineth with the concupiscence of the eyes, and of the flesh: which was as needful to be forbidden as the other two: though you say the internal temptations against the other commandment are neither so frequent, nor so dangerous as those two. Yes verily, the temptations to ambition, rebellion, disobedience, malice, lying, & such like, are both as frequent, and as dangerous, as unto bodily lust, and covetousness.  
To that you sat, they are sufficiently forbidden by the words set down in the commandments themselves, it may be answered, so are the other two; and therefore, all lust with consent, is forbidden in every one of them, as lust unto adultery, in the commandment prohibiting adultery, desire of revenge in the commandment prohibiting murder, by our saviour Christ's own interpretation and authority, by like reason, ambition, or lust of disobedience, in the commandment that biddeth parents to be honoured, covetousness in that which forbiddeth theft, the lust of lying, or slandering, in that which forbiddeth false witness. Therefore the commandment of lust being one and general, must needs be the tenth, and the commandment of having no gods but one, & the true God, the first: the commandment of not making, nor worshipping Images, the second: which are two perfectly distinct precepts, the one commanding the true God to be honoured alone: the other commanding the worship of God to be spiritual, and forbidding all carnal imaginations of God's worship, as by Images, or any other thing of men's devise, whereby they change the glory of the immortal God, into the shape of a mortal man, beasts, fouls, or any other thing. Therefore he that worshippeth Baal as a God, breaketh the first commandment, he that worshippeth jehova in the calf that Aaron made, or the calves that jeroboam set up, or by offering incense to the brazen serpent, offendeth against the second commandment. This division therefore is both most convenient, as that which distinguisheth all good works, and all sins, by their proper precepts, and also necessary, as that which maketh ten commandments, every one perfectly distinct from the other, and that showeth all men all manner of sin, as well that which is in act, as that which is in desire, not only that which is with consent, but even that also which proceedeth of the corruption of nature, and is resisted by the spirit of God. Therefore that which you say untruely, of the first two branches, is true of the last, that they contain but one thing, namely a prohibition of concupiscence, against any of the other five precepts of the second table.  
But it is a weighty argument that the 70. interpreters do recite them distinctly, as two commandments in their Greek translation. How shall we know that? You answer, 
Ex. 20. & Deut. 5.  by repeating the verb twice. But that is a slender proof, for the verb is twice repeated in the Hebrew text, and in Deut. 5. once changed. In the two first commandments, there are four verbs denied: there shalls not be, thou shalt not make, thou shalt not bow down, thou shalt not serve. Yet these two, you will have to be one. But why do you fly from the authority of your vulgar latin interpreter, which in both places, maketh the prohibition of concupiscence one commandment, in Exod. by adding the copulative which is not in the Hebrew, but a pure negative, Non concupisces domum proximi tui, nec desiderabis 〈◊〉 eius, etc. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, neither shalt thou desire his wife, etc. In Deut. by leaving out the verb, which is in the Hebrew. Non concupisces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non domum, non agrum, non servum, non accillam, non bovem, non asinum, & universa 〈◊〉 illius sunt. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, not his house, not his field, not his servant, not his maid, not his ox, not his ass, and whatsoever things are his. By this translation your interpreter showeth plainly, that he acknowledged but one commandment against concupiscence, although the sin were set forth in diverse words. And it is as great reason to make a several commandment for every word that followeth, as to make the concupiscence of the house one, and of the wife, another. But you do better to acknowledge the matter doubtful, as being no matter of faith, and not defined by your Church, because of the authority of so many ancient fathers against you: yet you have no colour, to shift of your Idolatrous woshipping of Images, except you confound the two first commandments in one: neither can you exclude the commandment against concupiscence without consent, except you divide the tenth commandment into two, retaining the distinction that ought to be of every precept from other, and making the law perfect, which prohibiteth all sin, as I have showed before.  
But it is a greater slander, I ween, that the Protestants charge you to leave out the second commandment against Images, where you do but include it in the first. As though you have not in your English primers, & other books where you set forth the ten commandments, altogether left out that precept, as ten thousand books will testify against you. And as for your including, is but a crafty hiding of it from the common people, lest they should learn to detest your grosie Idolatry, and forsake your malignant Church, as the mother of all abominations against God, and his true worship. Your distinction of mental adultery, from actual adultery, and of mental theft from actual theft, to make four commandments of two, is gross, & unlearned. For why should not mental murder, mental disobedience or rebellion, mental slander or lying, require enerie one a several commandment, distinct from actual murder, actual rebellion, disobedience, or treason, actual slandering or lying? And so in the whole we should have thirteen commandments at the least. Or else Master Charke hath truly charged you, to make the several breaches of two diverse commandments but one sin, and the breach of one commandment to make two several kinds of sin: as you do in the breaches of the commandments against adultery and theft. Where our saviour Christ saith expressly, that the looking on a woman, with desire of lust, is adultery, which he should rather have said, according to your where is forbidden in the seventh commandment, distinction, it is sin against the ninth commandment, which you say is against mental adultery. And so he should have said no more in effect, but mental adultery, is mental adultery. But our Saviour Christ referring that sin to the commandment against adultery, showeth that concupiscence without consent, is an other sin, and not only in an other degree of the same kind, as mental and actual adultery are, and as anger, racha, thou fool, are against the sixth commandment.  
The last reason of the censure, to prove that the first motions to lust are not forbidden, is, because they are not in our power. where the scripture saith, This commandment, 
Exod. 30.  which I give the this day, is not above thee. Master Chark replieth, that the assumption of this argument (which is, to resist the first motions, is not in our power) is false. You rehearse his words thus: Our first motions are not altogether out of our power, for that the gift of continency doth more and more subdue them. Here you cavil, that albeit good men do cut of infinite occasions and causes of motions and temptations, yet can they never subdue all motions. But Master Charke said, It is neither true, that all these first motions are altogether out of our power, etc. neither doth it follow, that we are not subject to the law for such offences, as we can not resist, the fault being ours through corruption, why we can not resist them. So that in the first part of this saying, he confesseth some motions to be out of our power to resist, some not out of our power, which you also acknowledge: and therefore your assumption, if it be general, is false: if it be particular, the conclusion cannot be general, that to resist all the first motions of lusts is not commanded: orthus, the law forbiddeth no first motions.  
To the second part of Master Charkes saying, you answer nothing, that is of the consequence of your assumption: namely that the fault being ours through corruption, and such as our first father did willingly bring upon him and us all, our want of power to resist offences, can not exempt us from the justice of God. This was so strong, that you had not so much as a cavil against it. But as though you saw it not, you run by, into your usual path of girding our Ministers: who, you say, talk of continency and mortification, (each one having his yoke mate ready for his turn) as good fellows do of fasting, that sit at a full table. And yet I think it is more praise, to keep temperance at a full table, then to abstain where there is hunger, and nothing to eat. But I pray you sir, doth continency and mortification belong only to unmarried men? You are as good to say that no married man can be a true christian, seeing mortification is necessary for all Christians, and continency also, not from the undefiled bed, but chastity from all uncleanness is commanded generally to all true members of Christ: How the wifeless votaries in popery perform continency, and mortification, but even of that one earthly member of uncleanness, the world is to full of examples, and the justice of god will one day make manifest.  
To the place of Moses Master Chark saith the translation is false, and corrupt, which saith, the commandment is not above thee, where Moses saith, it is not hidden from thee. And that the place is so to be translated, and to be applied to the revelation of the Gospel, it is evidently declared by the plain text, and by the application thereofin the epistle to the Romans. cap. 10. 6. To this you answer, that he proveth it neitherby the words of text, nor by Saint Paul's application. O wretched shift. when he quoteth the Chapter and verse, where the Apostle beginneth to speak of this place of Moses, in these words: The righteousness which is of faith, saith thus: Say not in thy heart who shall go up into heaven? that is to bring down Christ: or who shall go down into the deep? 
Deut. 30. 14.  that is to call Christ from the dead. But what saith the scripture? The word is near in thy mouth, and in thy heart: this is the word of faith which we preach. Here is the application of the text to the Gospel, and not to the law. But the text (you say) is not so evident: for Saint Jerome either the author, or the corrector of this translation, knew what the hebrew words import, and how they are applied by Saint Paul, as well as William Charke. Here is a vain and an odious comparison, without need or cause. For who will grant unto you, that S. Jerome was either author, or corrector of the vulgar translation, that we now have? None surely that favoureth the credit of Saint jerom, who though he have some in this age, as well Papists, as Protestants, better learned in the hebrew, than he was, yet was he far better learned, then that he would have suffered, either in translation, or in corre ction such gross faults, as be in that vulgar translation which we now have. As for Saint Paul's application of that part of the sentence, which he toucheth, (you say) make eth wholly for you, as after shall be showed. Well, when you show it, we shall shape you an answer. But now to the very words of the text itself. Niphleth, which, as you confess, that it signifieth to be hidden so you affirm, that it signifieth also, to be marvelous, to be hard and difficult, as appeareth, Psalm. 13 9and 2. Sam. 1. which we do not deny, so you understand to be difficult and hard for want of knowledge, and not for want of power. For you are not able to bring an example, where this verb Phala, which most properly signifieth to be hidden or unknown, is taken in that sense you would have it here, namely to be hard or difficult for lack of strength. That it signifieth to be marvelous, it is because marveling is upon causes, that are hid or unknown. The Chaldee and Greeke must either be answerable to the Hebrew, or else they are to be rejected as untrue or unproper translations. Although the Chaldee word signifieth the same that the hebrew: whereunto if you add the signification of separation, yet it must be separation from knowledge, and not from strength, or else it answereth not unto the original. As also the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth (as you say) exceeding, immeasurable, great, passing all mean, etc. must be understood for exceeding measure in knowledge, or else it is not right: and so may your latin, suprate, be understood also, as Saint Jerome translateth the same verb, Ps. 139. where it is manifestly taken for marvelous, in respect of the want of knowledge. And therefore none of these three words, used in the three ancient tongues, having a negation before them, do express so much as you would gather by the vulgar translation, the law is not above thy strength. Wherefore you may take bayard whom to your own stable, that make such ignorant and impudent conclusions, as an Arcadian beast, that had learned but a while under Apuleius, would not make for shame.  
But if Saint Jerome will not satisfy us, you bid us take Saint Austen, who (say you) handleth both the words alleged of Moses, and also the application used by Saint Paul of part of the sentence: and proveth out of both the very same conclusion that we do, to wit, that the law is not above our ability to keep it: and for confirmation thereof he addeth maenie other texts of scripture, as, my yoke is sweet, and my burden light: also, his commandments are not heavy, and the like, concluding in these words, we must believe most firmly, that God being just and good, could not command impossible things unto man. That you may understand how many ways he mocketh us, with his dumb quotations, and shameless collections, I will set down the whole Chapter which he quoteth. De natura & gratia. c. 69. Valde autem bona sunt praecepta, etc. The commandments are very good, if we use them lawfully. Far even by the same whereby it is most firmly believed, that God being just and good could not command things impossible, hereof we are admonished, both in easy things what to do, and in hard things what to crave. For all things are made easy to love, to which alone the burden of Christ is light, or that alone is the self same burden which is light. According to this it is said: And his commandments are not heavy, that he to whom they are heavy, may consider, that it could not have been said of God, they are not heavy, but because there may be such an affection of the heart, to which they are not heavy, and may ask that which he lacketh, that he may fulfil that which is commanded. And that which is said unto Israel, in deuteronomy, if it be Godly, if it be holy, if it be spiritually understood, signifieth the self same thing: for when the Apostle had rehearsed this testimony, The word is near in thy mouth, & in thy heart (which this man hath in thy hands, for in the heart are spiritual hands) this saith he, is the word of faith, which we do preach. Every one theresore being converted, as there is commanded, unto the Lord his God, with all his heart, and all his soul, let him not account the commandment of God to be heavy: For how is it heavy, when it is the commandment of love? For every man either loveth not, and therefore it is heavy, or he loveth, and then it can not be heavy. He loveth, if, as Israel is there admonished, he be converted to the, lord his God, with all his heart, & with all his soul. I give you, saith he, a new commandment, that you love one another: and he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law: and, love is the fulfilling of the law: according to this is that also spoken, If they walked in good paths, they should have found the paths of righteousness to be light. How then is it said, Because of the words of thy lips, I have kept hard ways? but because both is true. They are hard to fear, and liht to love. Therefore love begun is justice be gone, love proceeded, is justice proceeded, great love is great justice, perfect love is perfect justice, love I mean coming out of a pure heart, & a good conscience, and out of faith not feigned, which then is greatest in this life, when for it the life itself is contemned. But I marvel if it have not wherein to increase, when it is departed out of this mortal life. But where soever, and whensoever it is so full, that nothing can be added unto it, yet is it not spread in our hearts by the works of nature, or will which are in us, but by the he lie ghost, which is given unto us, which both helpeth our infirmity, and worketh with our health. for that is the grace of God by jesus Christ our Lord. to whom with the father and the holy ghost be ascribed eternity and goodness for ever. In this discourse of S. Augustine is declared, that the commandments of God are made possible, and not heavy to be fulfilled by the grace of God, nor by the strength of man, either of nature or will, and that by two means, faith and love. Faith, by which we crave & obtain forgiveness of our imperfection, and love by which we cheerfully endeavour to accomplish in work, so much as we can, which we can not do perfectly in this life, in as much asno man's heart is pure in this life, & no man's love is perfect in this world. yet faith purifying our hearts, that by themselves are unclean, obtaineth, as the same's. Augustine saith, that which the law commandeth. But how far is this from the popish assertion, to wit, The law is not above our abtlitie to keep it.  
The curse that you cite out of Augustine, Serm. 191. and jerorme explan: Symb. ad Damasum, is but a crack of a broken bladder in stead of a thunderbolt. For both the sermon, and the explanation are counterfeit stuff, being all one word forword, except a little 〈◊〉 slew in the beginning and the end, and yet are most impudentlieascribed both to Augustine and Jerome. But that ne there of both is author of that sentence, I will prove by 〈◊〉 of Saint Jerome, who expressly affirm ah that, which the sermon and explanation accurseet. We curse the blasphemy of them (say the counterfeiters) which say, that any thing impossible is commanded by God to man, and that the commandments of God cannot be kept of every one, but of all in common. Saint lerome dialog. advers. Pelag. lib. 1. saith: Possibilia praecepit 〈◊〉, & ego fateer. Sed haec possibilia cuncta singuli habere non possumus, non imbeciliitate naturae, ne calumniam. facias deo, sed animilassitudine, quae 〈◊〉 simul & semper non potest habere virtutes. God commanded things possible, and that I confess. But all these possible things every one of us can not have, through weakness of nature, lest thou shouldest slander God, but through weariness of mind, which can not have all virtues together, and always. And his whole discourse in that dialogue is, to prove that no man can be without sin, the contrary whereof is flat Pelagianisine. He expoundeth also at large, how the commandments of God are possible, and how unpossible, which may be seen of any man that will read his writings against the Pelagians: and therefore it is very injurious unto him, to make him a patron of that sentence, which he put posedlie and plentifully impugneth. To conclude, chrysostom and Basile mean not, that a perfect observation of God's law is possible in this life, but that God giveth grace in some measure to keep them, to those that are borne 〈◊〉 in Christ, in whom only is performed that which was impossible by the law, as the Apostle saith. These fathers and diverse other, whose authority the Pelagians abused, as you do, to uphold their heresy, by such speeches, meant to accuse the negligence and slothfulness of men, in keeping Gods commandments, not to extol the power, and ability of man's free will to keep them, as Saint Augustine proveth by many testimonies taken out of their writings, in his treatises against the Pelagians.   

The eleventh section, of de facing the scriptures, and doctrines by tradition.  
THe jesuits, you say, do not use these terms of defacing: that the scripture is imperfect, maimed, or lame: and thereof I will not contend: but the same in effect they hold, as Master Charke saith: when they affirm that all things necessarte to salvation are not contained in the scripture. Your similitude of a merchant leaving his commandments partly in writings, and partly by word of mouth, and referring the resolution of doubts unto his wife, is not sufficient in this case. For our Saviour Christ liveth for ever, whereas his servants and the men of whom his Church, which is his spouse, consisteth, are changed in every generation. So that there can be no certainty of his commandments, but only by his writings: which if they contain not all things necessary to salvation, they are imperfect, lame, and maimed. And where you say, that Saint Augustine proveth the contrary at large, lib. 1. cont. Cresc. c. 32. it is utterly untrue. For he saith expressly, concerning the question of rebaptising them that were baptised by heretics, Sequimur sanè nos in hac re etiam Canonicarum authoritatem certissimam scripturarum. We truly do follow in this matter also the most certain authority of the Canonical scriptures, whereunto he adjoineth the consent of the Catholic Church after some disceptation about the matter, whose counsel agreeable to the holy scripture, no man doubteth burr it is to be followed. Theverie same doctrine (you say) teacheth the said father, lib. de side & operibus cap. 9 and also ep. 66. ad Don. In the former is no word to the purpose, he speaketh of the Eunuch whom Philip baptised, whose confession of Christ being very short, some thought to be sufficient for any man that should receive baptism, whereas there is a more distinct knowledge, and particular explication of this faith, in other places of scripture set down, that is to be required of them, that are catechised and come to baptism. In the last quotation I think there is a fault, either in your Printer, or in your notebooke, which setteth down ep. 66. for ep. 166. which is directed to the Donatists, whereas the other is to Maximus. But in this epistle to the Donatists there is nothing that proveth this matter, that the scriptures contain not all things necessary to salvation. Only he exhorteth the Donatists to unity, showing that out of the same scriptures, which teach Christ to be the head, his body the Church, is to be discerned and learned.  
Touching the twelve points of doctrine set down by the Censure, as not contained expressly in the scripture, and yet to be believed, Master Charke answereth, that seven of them are in scripture, the rest not necessary to be believed. But here you say, the question is of express scripture, and not of any far fet place, that by interpretation may be applied to a controversy. If you mean by express scripture, that which is expressed in so many words, as the thing in controversy, we deny that we have anysuch question with you. For we hold that any thing, which by necessary demonstration can be concluded out of the scripture, is as true, as necessary to be believed, as that which is expressed in plain words. And so we mean when we say, all things necessary to salvation are contained in the holy scriptures. And as for your examples of invocation of saints, prayer for the dead, purgatory, and the like, if you can win them either by manifest words, or by necessary conclusion, we are content you shall wear them, and we also wilyeald unto them: otherwise you prate without proof, of expressed in the scripture, trifling upon the term expressed, which either we use not in this question, or else we mean thereby, certainly declared, and taught in the scriptures, either in express words, or by necessary conclusion.  
But now let us see how Master Chark is distressed in answering these twelve particulars. For the first of the seven, which he acknowledgeth to be contained in the scripscripture, which is, that there is two natures, and two wills in Christ, he citeth these words, Rom. 1. of his son, which was made unto him of the seed of David, according to the flesh. Also Math. 26. not as I will, but as thou wilt. here you say, that the interpretation of the Church being set aside, and the bare text only admitted, these places cannot convict an heretic. yes verily, the only authority of the textis sufficient to confit me faith, and to convince an heretic. For the former point thus. The divinity and humanity are two natures: in Christ is divinity and humanity: ergo two natures. The mayor is manifest: the minor is plain by the text, the son of God one nature, the seed of David an other nature. For the fecond point. The will of God, and the will of man, the one contradictory to the other, are two wills. In Christ was the will of God contradictory to the will of man: ergo two wills. The minor is proved out of the text, not as I will, but as thou wilt, seeing Christ was both God & man. That the Monothelits in the 6. Council of Costantinople could not be convinced out of the scriptures, it is an intolerable slander of that reverend assembly: for even by this text, and many other, their error was made manifest: whereunto albeit the consent of the ancient fathers was added, yet is there no word in all that 4. action, which you quote, to prove that they were not sufficiently confuted out of the holy scriptures.  
The second point is, the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father, and the son equally: for which Master Chark quoteth joh. 15. 26. When the holy ghost shall come, which I will send you from my father, the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the father, etc. Against this you cavil that it proveth not the proceeding equally, and cite Cyril for your witness in 15. joh. who out of this place proveth that (equally) as well as the proceeding, seeing the heretics might be ashamed to say, that the spirit of the father, was sent by the son, as by a minister: which also if they should say, he disproveth, for that if the son were as a minister, he should be of an other substance than the father, and the spirit proceeding from the father, being of the same substance with the father, should be greater in nature then the fonne, whereas the son saith plainly of the holy ghost, he shall glorify me, etc. An other cavil you have, that this place telleth not, whether he proceeded by generation, or without generation, from the father. But it is sufficient that neither this place nor any other place of scripture teacheth, that the holy ghost is begotten, therefore we believe without generation.  
The third point is, the union of the word unto the nature of man, and not to the person of man. which because you 
Pet. Lumb. Lib. 3. dist. 5.  did set down obscurely, M. Charke did not rightly understand: yet the text that the quoteth. 1. 〈◊〉. 14. The word was made flesh, includeth that assertion also: seeing there was no person of the man, when the union was made unto the nature of man, but the word in taking upon him the nature of man, did unite himself to it, & in uniting took it, as it is evident, Luk. 1. 35. Mat. 1. 20.  
The fourth doctrine is, the baptising of infants, for which Master Charke quoteth. Gen. 17. 12. the infant of eight days shall be circumcised. Against this you have many trifling cavils, that baptism is not expressed, of the sex, of the eight day. Against which I oppose the authority of Saint Augustine, which lib. 1. cont. Crescon. Grammat. cap. 31. confuteth the rebaptisation of such as were baptised by heretics, by example of them that were circumcised, by the Samaritantes, whose circumcision was not to be repeated: to whom the like might be objected. But it is sufficient, that wherein baptism answereth to circumcision, the reason is one in both. Circumcision was the sacrament of regeneration, as baptism is: the one given to infants, ergo the other. The ceremony of the eight day, had an other reason, not needful to be observed in baptism. The distinction of the sex is taken away by Christ, in whom there is neither male, nor female. That Beza was stricken dumb with this question, in the conference at Poyssie, it is a slander of Cladius de Xanctes, confuted by Beza himself. But you had rather follow Saint Augustine, who contendeth and proveth, that baptizing of infants is only a tradition of the Apostles, and not left us by any written Scripture, lib. 10. cap. 23. super Gen. ad lizeram. So you writ, but I will set down Saint Augustine's words, that the reader may see, what contention and proofs he useth, having protested of his ignorance, how the reasonable soul cometh into the body, he concludeth that the baptism of infants favoureth their opinion which think, that souls are procreated of the parents. And of the baptism of infants thus he writeth. Consuctudo tamen matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis nequaquam spernenda est, neque vllo modo superflua de putanda, nec omnino credenda, nisi Apostolica esset traditio. Habet enim & illaparua aet as magnum testimonij pondus, quae prima pro Christo meruit sanguinem fundere. Yet the custom of our mother the Church in baptizing of infants is not to be despised, nor by any means to be thought superfluous, nor to be credited at all, if it were not an Apostolic tradition: for even that little age hath great weight of testimony, which first obtained to shed blood for Christ. You see that here is neither contention, not proof, that it is only a tradition, & not leftin writing: for he allegeth one testimony out of Scripture, of god's acceptation of that age to martyrdom, much rather to baptism: and many other testimonies might be brought for the same purpose, as Matt. 19 14. 1. Cor.. 7. 14. etc. As for Origen, he doth only make mention of the baptism of infants, according to the observance of the Church, to prove original sin. But whether it stand only upon tradition, and not upon the scripture, he saith not one word.  
The 5. Doctrine is, the changing of the Sabbath into sunday. M. Charke quoteth Apo. 1. 10. I was in the spirit on the lords day. Here you cavil that there is no mention of saturday or sunday, much less of celebration of either, and least of all of the changing of the Sabbath into an other day. But if it please your Censurship, are you ignorant what day of the week is called dies Dominicus, the Lordsday? whether saturday or sunday? if it be sunday, as all professors of Christ's name confess, here is as much mention thereof, as is needful for the day into which the change is made. Or if that be not sufficient, you may have further, Act. 20. 7. 1. Cor. 16. 2. And why is the first of the Sabbath called the lords day, but in respect of the celebration there of, in honour of the redemption of the world by Christ? For otherwise, all days of the week are the lords days, in respect of their creation. thirdly, seeing the lords day was one day in the week, used for the assembly of the Church, for their spiritual exercises of Religion, it is certain, that the change of the jewish Sabbath was made into that day, except you would be so waywatd; to say there were two days in every week, appointed by God to be celebrated whereas the law of God requireth but one, and giveth liberty of bodily exercise in six days. So that the change of the Sabbath day is sufficiently proved out of the Scripture, into the lords day.  
The sixth point is, about four Gospels, and the Epistle to the Romans, which Master Charke saith to be proved out of the scripture, but yet he quoteth no place of scripture, where only he saith the inscription expresseth the names of the writers. But what a mocker is this? (you say) Are the bare names of the Apostles sufficient to prove that they were written by them? who can prove by scripture that these names are not counterfeit, as in the Epistle to the Laodiceans, in the Gospels of Bartholomew and Thomas, etc. But abide you sir: your question hath two branches, the one, that the 4. Go spells are true Gospels: the other, that the epistle to the Romans was written by Saint Paul, and not that to the Laodiceans. To the former it is answered, that they are proved, by other undoubted books of the scripture, both of the old testament, and the new: secing they declare that to be fulfiled of Christ, which was spoken in the law, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms. To the other it is answered, that admitting the Epistle to the Romans to be scripture, the inscription of his name is sufficient to prove that it was written by Saint Paul. And so of the rest. Although the name of the writer is not material unto salvation, when the book is received to be Canonical as divers books of scripture are received, whose writer is unknown. That Epistle which is called to the Laodicians, is not received, and therefore the inscription is unsufficient, as the Gospels of Bartholomew, and Thomas, and such like, which are known to be countefet, by the dissent they have from the other canonical scriptures. Whereas you require one place of Scripture to prove all the four Gospels to be canonical, you declare your wrangling, and wayward spirit. But name you any one point of Doctrine written in any of those four Gospels, and the same shall be advouched by other texts of scripture, and so may every point contained in them, if need were. But you affirm, that Origen saith, he rejecteth the Gospel of Saint Thomas, only for that the tradition of the Church received it not. Which is false. He saith, he hath read the Gospel after Thomas, after Mathias, and many other, Said in his omnibus nihil aliud probamus, niss quod Ecclesia, idest, quatuor tantùm evangelia recipienda. But in all these, we allow nothing else, but that which the Church alloweth, that is, that only four Gospels are to be received. In these words he affirmeth, that he approveth the judgement of the Church, he saith not, that the judgement or traditions of the Church was the only cause why he rejected those Gospels: for he said before, they were received of heretics: and wherefore? but in maintenance of their heresy, which is contrary to the holy scriptures. That all counterfeit Go spells were rejected by the Church, it is confessed: but the Church had this judgement of discretion confirmed by the canonical scriptures, against which Epiphanius saith nothing. But when Faustus the manichee 
lib. 1. cont. Hebion. & lib. 1. haer. 46.  denied the Gospel of Saint Matthew (say you) saith not S. Augustine, Mathaei evangelium probatum adversus Faustum Manichaeum per traditionem? The Gospel of Matthew was alleged against Faustus the manichee by tradition. August. lib. 28. Cont. Faust. c. 2. If you ask me, I say no, he hath no such words. Yet doth he avouch the Gospel of Saint Matthew in that Chapter, by testimony of the Church from the Apostles, by continual succession even unto his time, against the Manichees, but in far other words than you have set down in steed of Saint Augustine's words, by which the reader may once against perceive how impudently and ignorantly you ailedge, whatsoever the note book, which was never of your own gatheriug, because you understood it not, did minister unto you. For these are the words of the collector of your notes, & not of S. Augustine. May not the papists have great joy of such a Cenfure, & defender? Yet you triumph like a lusty champion, and ask, what can be more evident than all this, to prove our opinion of the necessity of tradition, & to confound the fond madness of this poor Minister? Alas poor defender, what weighty evidencethou haste brought to prove the necessity of tradition which proveth thee to be a blind beggarly, & yet a bold broacher of other men's notes, which thou understandest not thyself.  
The seventh doctrine which is required to be proved out of the scripture, is, that God the father begat his son only by understanding himself. Here Master Charke in steed of these dark words out of Thomas, how the father begat the son, wisheth clear, and perfect words in so high a mystery: which you say, are plain and usual to those which have studied any thing in divinity. As though there were no divinity in the holy scriptures, and so many of the ancient fathers, which have neither this question, nor these words, but that all divinity were included in the breast of Thomas Aquinas, and such doctors as he was. That he quoteth a place or two of the scripture, to prove that Christ was the only begotten son of God, you make small account of, seeing the question is of the manner how this generation maybe, which the Church defendeth against the adversaries. And here you insult against M. chark as ignorant in those high points of divinity, whereas catholics know what the Church hath determined herein against heretics and infidels, as though either of both: cared for the Church's determination, if the one were not vanquished by scripture, the other by right reason, whereunto scripture is consonant. And here you swell as much as any to ade, in the opinion of your deep knowledge in these matters. Nevertheless we ignorant and unlearned Protestants, think it more safe to be ignorant of the manner of the sons generation with Saint Ambrose, then to determine beside the scriptures thereof, with Thomas Aquinas. When Saint Ambrose was pressed with the same question, that you set down, of the adversaries, how can God, being a spirit, beget a son, and yet the same not to be after his father in time or nature, but equal with him in both, and how doth the father beget? he answereth thus, De side ad Gratian. lib. 1. cap. 5. Quaeris à me, quomodo sifilius sit, non priorem habet patrem? quaero item abste, quando aut quomodo putes filium esse generatum? Mihi impossibile-est generationis scire secretum. Mens deficit, vox silet, non meatantùm, sed angelorum. Supra potesta●● supra angelos, supra Cherubin, supra Seraphin, supra omnem sum est, quia scriptum est, pax autem Christi quae est supra ennem sensum. Si pax Christi supra omnem sensum est, quemadmodum non est super omnem sensum 
Gal. 5.  tanta generatio? Tu quoque manum ori admove: scrutari non licet superna mysteria. Licet scire quod natus sit, non licet discutere quemadmodum natus sit. Illud negare mihi non licet, hoc quaerere metus est. Nam si Paulus ea quae audivit raptus in tertium coelum, ineffablia dicit, quomodo nos exprimere possumus paternae generationis ercanum, quod nec sentire potu●●mus, nec audire. Thou askest of me how if he be a son, he hath not his father before him? I ask likewise of thee, when or how thou thinkest that the son was begotten? For to me it is impossible to know the secret of his generation. The mind faileth, the voice stayeth, not of me 〈◊〉, but even of the Angels. It is above powers, above 〈◊〉, above Cherubim, above Seraphim above all understanding, because it is written, The peace of Christ which is above all understanding. If the peace of Christ be above all understanding, how is not so excellent a generation above all understanding? Thou also hold thy hand before thy mouth, it is no● lawful to search these high mysteries, it is lawful to know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begotten, it is not lawful to discuss after what manner he is begotten. That to deny, it is not lawful for me, this to inqu●● of, I am afeard. For if Paul saith, that those things which 〈◊〉, being taken up into the third heaven, were unspeake●●, how can we express the secret of the father's generation 〈◊〉 we could neither understand, nor hear, etc. If th● determination were no less to be believed, 〈◊〉 other mysteries of the trinity, that are expressed in the scripture, as you affirm, Saint Ambrose was short in his faith of the trinity, as every man may see by his answer. Nevertheless, whatsoever is objected, that the soon should not be equal in time and nature with the father, whereof ensueth the plurality of Gods, is manifestly confuted by all those scriptutes that affirm one only God, and jesus Christ to be God, and the only be gotten 〈◊〉 of the father, which must needs argue the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in nature & time or eternity. How this may be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the scripture affirmeth that it is, Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not, or need not to inquire. If infidels in 〈◊〉, they are not to be answered by authority of 〈◊〉 scriptures which they believe not, & much less 〈◊〉 the Church, which they know not. And then the 〈◊〉 is out of the matter in controversy, whether 〈◊〉, things that are to be believed necessary to 〈◊〉, be contained in the holy scriptures. Nevertheless 〈◊〉 to infidels, that Philosophical answer may be given, how the generation of the son by the father 〈◊〉 be without inequality in time or nature: but 〈◊〉 it is, or must be only by understanding of himself, he think it for all your brags you are not able to 〈◊〉 the determination of your Church, to avow it; 〈◊〉 for all is not defined by your Church, that the 〈◊〉 have wearied their heads to dispute of. But if you could prove it of necessity to be so, the scriptures that affirm Christ 
1. Cor. 2. 24. joh. 1. 1. Luk. 11. 49.  to be the wisdom of the father, the word that was in the beginning with the father, etc. would give as much light for the manner of his generation as is possible, and profitable for man to know.  
Beside this of the 〈◊〉 of the son, you have other questions of 〈◊〉 adversaries: what mean they (you say) to hold, that the 〈◊〉 ghost proceedeth from the father, and that the son 〈◊〉 not, but is begotten? To this I answer, That the 〈◊〉 ghost proceedeth from the father, the text of 〈◊〉 is plain, john. 15. 26. that the son is begotten of the father. john. 1. 14. That the son proceedeth not from the father (albeit he is begotten) it is heresy and blasphemy to affirm. For he himself affirmeth john. 16. 28. I proceeded from the father, and came into the world. and joh. 8. 42. Another question you have like unto this: why is it heresy to say, that the son proceedeth from the father, or that the holy ghost is begotten? I answer, to say the holy ghost is begotten, it is heresy, because the scripture teacheth, that the son is the only begotten of the father. But to say, that the son proceedeth from the father, is no heresy, but the contrary is heresy, because it is against the express words of Christ, as I have showed before. And Saint Augustine affirmeth expressly, that whatsoever 
Cont. Max. Arr. lib. 3. cap. 14.  is begotten, proceedeth, so that you cannot deny the proceeding of the son from the father, except you deny his begetting: Nevertheleles although the son and the holy ghost do both proceed, yet not both alike, as the same Augustine showeth, the trin. lib. 5. cap. 14. ubi & illud elucescit, utpote quod solet multos movere, cur non sit filius etiam Spiritus Sanctus, cum & ipse à patre exeat, sicut in evangelio legitur. Exiit enim, non quo modo natus, sed quo modo datus, & ideo non dicitur filias, quia neque natus est sicut unigenitus, neque factus, utper Dei gratiam in adoptionem nasceretur, sicutinos. Where that also is made clear, which is wont to move many men, why the holy ghost also is not the son, seeing that he also proceedeth from the father, as it is read in the gospel. For he proceeded not as begotten, but as given, and therefore he is not called the son, because he is neither begotten, as the only begotten, nor made that by the grace of god he might be borne into adoption, as we. Here you see that proceeding is common to both the persons, yet one manner of proceeding proper to the son, and another to the holy ghost. A third question you have: what difference is between these speeches: namely of proceeding and begotten: which question you say with the rest, though Master Charke seem ignorant in them all, and not to understand so much as the very 〈◊〉 themselves, yet Catholic divines know what the Church hath determined herein. But concerning this question Saint Augustine shall answer for our ignorance. Cont. Maximin. lib. 3. cap. 14. Quid autem inter nasci & procedere incersit, de illa excellentissima natura loquens, explicare quis potest? Non omne quod procedit, nascitur, quamuis omne procedar, quod nascitur. 〈◊〉 omne quod bipes est, homo est, quam nis bipes sit omnis qui homo est: haec scio. Distinguere autem inter illam generationem, & hanc processionem, nescio, non valeo, non sufficio. Ac per hoc, quia & illa, & ista est ineffabilis, stcut Propheta de filio loquens alt, Generationem eius quis enarrabit? ita de spiritu sancto verissimè dicitur, processionem eius quis enarrabit, etc. What difference is between begotten & proceeding, speaking of that most excellent nature, who is able to express? Not all that proceedeth, is begotten, although all proceedeth, that is begotten. As not every two legged thing is a man, although every one is two legged that is a man. Those things I know. But to distinguish between that generation, and this procession, I know not, I am not able, I am not sufficient. And for this reason, because both that and this is unspeakable, as the Prophet speaking of the son saith, who shall declare his generation? so of the holy ghost it is said most truly, who shall declare his procession? This is Saint Augustine's judgement of this question. Yea this is the Master of the sentences judgement also, as well of this question, as of the proceeding of the son from the father against you. Yet you say of these as well of as the other, they are no less to be believed, than other mysteries of the trinity, wherewith your conclusion is, that you would not have troubled Master Charke, if you had supposed him so gross therein, as by examination you find him, Alack poor Sir William. A lack for pity, what high points of learning you have showed, which in the Master of the sentences, & whom soever he will, of an hundred schoolmen, that wrote upon him, every sophister may find moved, debated, and defined in less than one days study. no marvel then if Master Charke be so gross in them, as you by examination find him. But while you in your own imagination are so subtle in them, that you think your crest pierceth the clouds, you have bewrayed more shameful proud ignorance, than any of us would have suspected that it might be found in such a great Champion of the Papists, such a Lord he censuter, such a doughty defender. When in some of the questions propounded by yourself, you neither know the doctrine of the scripture, the judgement of the ancient fathers, the determination of your Church, nor the conclusion of your own school doctors, in whole mysteries nevertheless you would seem to be an other Mercury.  
For the rest of the hands, that you draw against Doctor Fulke, you are answered in this consutation of popish quarrels, from pag. 48. until pag. 55. And where you say, that every little guess at our pleasure is sufficient to prove what we will, whereas no testimonies of your part will serve, except they be so plain and evident, as by no waits they may be avoided, and thereupon charge us to be Lords of the scriptures, it is as many other of yours, a detestable slander. For as I have showed before, in matters necessary to salvation, we admit no guesses, but either manifest words of scripture, or else that which is necessarily concluded out of manifest words, and principles confessed: and such if you have any, bring them forth, and we will hearken unto them.  
Over against the article of punishing heretics by death, which, (you say) was a long time denied by ourselves to be allowable by scripture, you note in the margin Luther against Latomus de incendiariis, of burners. For what purpose I marvel, seeing in that book he complaineth of the Louanists, not for burning heretics, but for burning of his books. For the mention which Saint Paul is thought of some to make of an Epistle written to the Laodicenses, you are not a little nettled, that Master Chark condemneth both you and Saint Ieromes translation of ignorance. You say he should not object ignorance so peremptorily to you, you ought not so rigorously to have been reprehended, and you name a great many ancient writers, which may be sufficient, to wipe away Master Charkes bitter reproach against you. But let us see howrigorously, and bitterly he hath dealt with you, yea how peremptorily he objecteth ignorance to you by his own words. The Episile to the Laodiceans, although many make mention of it, Paul maketh none: so that either you ignorantly passed over the greek, or willfully addicted yourself to the old translation, being in this place plainly corrupted. For by the original Paul speaketh of an Epistle from Laodicea, and not written to the Laodicenses, as you untruely assirme. Here is all that he saith: you are a dainty parnel that count yourself so rigorouflie reprehended, and so bitterly reproached in those words, where ignorance is not peremptorily objected, as you say, but either that, or wilful addiction to the old translation, which I know not upon what ground, you do so peremptorily call S. Ieromes translation. Master Charke hath more cause to complain of you, for that you affirm, that he saith, the greek text hath of an Epistle written by S. Paul from Laodicea. For he saith not, an Epistle written by Saint Paul, but from Laodicea, by whom soever it was written. Where you cite many that thought mention to be made of one written by Saint Paul to the Laodiceans, he confesseth as much.  
But it is more against Master Charke, that you have two Greek editions, the one of Pagnine, the other of Plantine which make for you, as you affirm. But what if you be deceived in them, as great a clerk as you would seem to be, that may not be touched with the least suspicion of ignorance. The most of the copies, both printed and written have 〈◊〉, the Epistle from Laodicea. Your two editions leave out the preposition, and then it must be translated that Epistle 
Col. 4. 16.  of Laodicea, which it seemeth your vulgar interpreter followed in sense, though not in words, which saith: eam quae Laodicensiumest, that which is of the Laodiceans. Where is there now in any of these that which maketh for you? that Saint Paul speaketh of an Epstle written by him, to the Laodicenses. For the Epistle of Laodicea, which your two greek editions have, and the Epistle of the Laodicenses which your vulgar translation hath, cannot signify an Epistle written to the Laodicenses, but from Laodicea, or from the Laodiceans, which in sense may be all one with the most usual reading, that expresseth the preposition from. Therefore it is true that Master Charke saith, by both the editions, and by the vulgar Latin text also, that albeit many make mention of an Epistle, written by Saint Paul to the Laodiceans, he himself maketh none.   

The 12. section, Of the Scriptures missalledged for the contrary by M. Charke.  
THe text is 2. Tim. 3. 16. & 17. The whole Scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable, etc. The Censure had caviled against his translation, which it was nessarie for him to defend, against which defence you have nothing to reply, and therefore begin with the first reason, about profitable and sufficient. Hetahis profitable, sometimes shall import sufficient, and not barely profitable: as for example, when some reason is adjoined, why it should be profitable, & nothing else applied or serving to that effect: as when the Apostle writeth, that godliness is profitable to all things, having the promises of this life, and of the life to come. where profitable, importeth sufficient, for the obtaining of all good things of both lives. Against this you trifle: First, that it is but a slender argument to infer one particular of an other. But if your eyes were matches, your might see a particular inferred of an universal. wheresoever some reason is alleged, why a thing should be so profitable, that nothing else is necessary for the effect, there profitable importeth sufficient, as in that example godliness is profitable for all things etc. But so it is in the text in question, therefore in that text profitable importeth sufficient. Nevertheless in your opinion M. Charke is uttrerlie deceived in this example of godliness, which by the 〈◊〉 of Saint Ambrose, Saint Jerome, and Saint Augustine, importeth no more, but that godliness hath her promises of reward in all actions, whether they be about matters of this life, or of the life to come. So that the meaning is, that piety meriteth in all actions, but is not sufficient to the obtaining of all good things of both lives. First concerning Saint Ambrose, read him who will upon this text, and he shall find the contrary. Pietati operam dandam commonet, quia grandem habet presectum. Qui enim misericordiae student, senioribus 〈◊〉 reddentes parentibus, & in presenti vita auxilia Dei non 〈◊〉, & in . He admonisheth to labour in godliness, because it hath greas profit. For they that are merciful 〈◊〉 their old Parents love, they shall 〈◊〉 mant the help of God in this present life, and in the world to come, they shalhave immortality with glory. Again, omnis enim 〈◊〉 discipline 〈◊〉 in misericus dia & pietate est. All the sum of our discipline is in 〈◊〉 and piety. Now piety, as you confess, comprehendeth charity, and the love of God. And therefore in the end Saint Ambrose, after he hath showed, that bodily exercise, taken for fasting, and abstinence without godliness, shall have 〈◊〉 punishment, concludeth, that fasting and abstinence, of men that are spiritual, being to the end of piety, is comprehended therein. S. Ieromes words upon this text are no more but these. Et 〈◊〉 tempus, & in futurum: nam & ipsa vidua & in presenti casta est, & merces eius manetinea. Godliness is profitable, etc. both for the present time, & for the time to come. For even the widow herself is both chaste in the present time, & her reward abideth in her. What is here against the sufficiency of piety? S. Augustine de morib. Eccles. lib. 1. c. 33. hath only these words 〈◊〉 to this text, speaking of the godly life of Christians, living under discipline in cities. Ita pietatem sedulò exercent: corporis verò exercitationem, ut ait idem Apostolus, ad exiguum tempus 〈◊〉 noverunt. So they exercise godliness diligently, as for corporal exercise, as the same Apostle saith, they know to pertain but to a short time. Where is here, either the unsufficiency, orthe merit of godliness? for the promise of reward is of mercy, not of merit. This reason therefore of Master Charkes for the safficiencie of the Scripture standeth in movable seeing the Scripture is so profitable, to all points of doctrine, that nothing else is required to perfection.  
The second reason, you say, he frameth in these words, That which is profitable to all the parts, which may be required to perfection, cannot but be sufficient for the perfection of the whole: but that the Scripture is profitable in such manner, the Apostle doth fully declare in rehearsing all the particular parts which are necessary, and adding also after generally, that the man of God may be perfect, 〈◊〉 the Scripture is 〈◊〉. Here of your charity you pray God to help Master Charke, 〈◊〉 him that he is a simple one to take controverfies in hand. And then you ask, what boy in Cambridge would have reasoned thus. And why all this? forsooth, every boy knoweth there is a cause sine qua non, which is not only profitable, but also necessary to all parts, whereof it is such a cause, and yet it is not sufficient alone, either to the parts, or to the whole: as the head is 〈◊〉 for all the actions of this life, as to sing weep, dispute, yet is it not sufficient alone to perform these actions. Therefore it followeth not that whatsoever is profitable to all particular parts, should be sufficient to all. Dij te Damasyppe 〈◊〉 verunrob consilium 〈◊〉 tonsore, Or, as we say in English, the vicar of fools be your Ghosllie father. Did you learn when you were a boic in Cambridge orOxford, to repeat your adversaries proposition by halves, & then to confute as much there of as you list? Look back & you shall find, that his proposition is not, what soever is profitable to all particular parts, is sufficient for the whole, but whatsoever is profitable to all the parts, which may be required to perfection, is sufficient for the perfection of the whole, or whatsoever is so profitable to every part, as maketh the whole perfect, is sufficient to the whole. Against these propositions, if you have any thing to object, perhaps we shall have it in your next reply, for hitherto you have said nothing, and his argument standeth still.  
His third reason is taken of the words of S. Paul immediately before, where he saith unto Timothy, That the holy Scriptures, which he had learned from his infancy, were able to make him wise unto salvation. So the argument is this, that which is able to make a man wise unto salvation, is sufficient: the holy scriptures are of ability to make a man wise unto salvation: ergo they are sufficient. But this you deny. What I pray you? for I hope the 〈◊〉 be rightly framed. In effect the minor, which is the very words of Saint Paul. For as though either you knew not, or cared not for the original text, which saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are able to make thee wise, you harp only upon the word, of instructing, which the vulgar interpreter useth, not sufficient to answer the greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and yet if it be rightly understood, as perhaps he meant, it signifieth to furnish, and not to teach properly: so the sense might be, that the scripture is able to furnish thee with knowledge to salvation: and that 〈◊〉 a sufficiency.  
Now to your pelting cavils. You ask, if the Scriptures, which can show Timothy the way to salvation, and bring him also to it, if he will follow them, be sufficient for the whole Church, so that all Doctrine by tradition is superfluous? I answer, yea. For there is but one way to salvation for all the Church. But you object, that every Epistle of Saint Paul enstructeth a man to salvation, yet it not sufficient for the whole Church. I answer, that every Epistle of Saint Paul is not sufficient to instruct a man to salvation, or to make him wise unto salvation. But that which Saint Paul spaketh, is of the whole scripture, not of every epistle. For you might as well object, that every chapter and verse instructeth a man toward salvation, rather than to salvation, but not sufficiently: yet the whole is able to make a man wise unto salvation. Your second objection is, that the Apostle speaketh principally of the old Testament, and will Master Charke say that the old Testament is sufficient to Christian men for their salvation, without any other writ? Yea I warrant you: for there is no Doctrine in the new, but it was taught in the old. Saint Paul affirmeth that he said nothing, but that which the Prophets, and Moses had spoken of things to be performed. The new Testament hath no other Doctrine than the old, only it testifieth the performance of those things in Christ, which the old Testament foreshowed to be performed. Again, because you grate so much upon the exclusion of other writ, Saint Paul addeth by faith in jesus Christ, which containeth all that is written in the new Testament, concerning the story of performancet, and seals of this faith. And if the old were sufficient, how much more is the old & the new together, a rich & abundant Doctrine. The 〈◊〉 that you make against his translation, of the whole Scripture, which you would refer to every Scripture is answered before: the translation must be according to the circumstance of the place. Every Scripture, which is every several book, or every several Chapter, or every several verse, is not able to make the man of God perfect, and perfectly prepared to every good work: but the whole is: therefore the translation must be, the whole scriptures, and not, every scripture.  
But now to your tow reasons. In the first you say, that Saint Paul could not mean to Timothy of all the scriptures together, which we now use, for that all was not then written. To this you confess that he answereth, there was enough written then, for the sufficient salvation of men of that time, and therest is not superfluous. But this, you say, is from the purpose. Yea is? how so, I pray you? you answer, it was sufficient with the supply by word of 〈◊〉 unwritten: but that is contrary to the purpose for Master Charke telleth you, that from the time that any, 〈◊〉 was written, that scripture contanied sufficient 〈◊〉 to salvation, without any supply of any other Doctrine, that was not in that Scripture comprehended, although preaching and other means were necessary to reach men, which is beside the purpose. Before the scripture was written, the same doctrine in substance was delivered by revelation, that afterward was written. The continuance thereof was not only by bare tradition, but also in every age renewed by revelation. Again, the age of men was so long, that there remained always faithful and ceratine witnesses of the doctrine alive, so that it could not be corrúpted, but it was easy by those witnesses to be refuted. But when the age of man was drawn into the straits of 70. years, or little more, as Moses 
Psal. 90. 10.  showeth, the Doctrine of the Church was committed to writing, even as much at the first, as was sufficient for the instruction of the people unto salvation, without any supply of traditions. The 〈◊〉 of the Prophets, and Apostles writings, is a more full, and plentiful declaration of the same Doctrine of salvation, not any addition of any new Doctrine, or way to salvation.  
Your second reason is, that 〈◊〉 parts of scripture be wanting now, which were in Saint Paul's time. But that you are not able to prove. For although there is mention in the old testament, of diverse books written by Prophets, which are not now extant, yet it followeth not; that those were extant in Saint Paul's time. And if any were, yet were they but explications, and interpretations of the books of Moses, which are extant every syllable, and prick, and shall be to the end of the world. But Epiphanius affirmeth, that all things cannot be taken from the scripture; wherefore the Aposties' 〈◊〉 somethings in writing, and somethings in tradition. To this I answer, first, that Saint Paul is greater than Epiphanius. secondly, that Epiphanius saith not, that any thing necessary to salvation cannot be taken out of the scripture. For he speaketh only of this opinion, that it is sin to marry, after virginity decreed, which nevertheless, may be taken out of the scripture, if the vow were advisedly taken and no necessity of incontinency requiring marriage. But of tradition we shall have further to consider in the next section.   

The thirteenth section, entitled, Of teaching traditions besides the scripture. Art. 5.  
GOtuisus reporteth the jesuits, to saic, that the want of holy scriptures must be supplied by piecing it out by traditions, Cens. f. 220. Here you repeat your old frivolous quarrel, that the jesuits have no such unreverent words. Master Chark chargeth you out of Hosius, with a far worseisaying: that if traditions be rejected, the very Gospel itself seemeth to be rejected. For what else are traditions, than a certain living Gospel? But thereto you answer not one word, and the meaning of those words, reported by Gotuisus, you maintain eagerly, thorouhout this section, as you did in part in the 12. section, that the scriptures are not sufficient, and that there must be traditions received beside the scripture. To what end, but to supply the want, and insufficiency of the holy scriptures? Nay, say you: Though both parts of God's word, that is, both written, and unwritten, be necessary unto God's Church: yet both of them do stand in their full perfection, assigned them by God, neither is the one a maim, or impeachment to the other. You mean, they are as perfect, as God made them, not that the written word is sufficient to teach all truth, unto the perfection of the man of God. And so for all your vain compass of words, the sense is all one. The scripture is but a part, or a piece of God's word, and traditions are an other piece: and this piece must be added to that, or else it is not, a perfect or sufficient instruction of itself for God's Church.  
The comparison you make of joining S. Luke's Gospel to that of Saint Matthew, or Saint Paul's epistles to them both, to resemble your patching of traditions to the written word of God, is both odious, and unlike, and, without begging the whole matter in question, gaineth nothing. For the adding of the writings of one Evangelist to another, or of an Apostle to the Evangelists, is but the heaping of heavenly treasure, to the further enriching of the Church in all light of spiritual knowledge: so the accession of the books of the new testament, is as it were the unfolding, or laying open of the same divine riches, that was perfectly contained in the old testament, for the salvation of all Gods elect, that, lived under that discipline. But your traditions (as you maintain them) argue an insufficiency of the holy scriptures, which also you confess yourself, and are not a more plain, or plentiful application of the mysteries comprehended in them. Therefore though you can for manners sake, otherwhile, forbear odious speeches against the dignity of holy scriptures, yet even that odious conclusion gathered by Gotuisus must needs follow of your doctrine, concerning the insufficiency of scriptures, and the necessity of traditions.  
That your traditions are God's word, and of equal authority with the scriptures, you promise to show more largely in the twelft article, together with certain means how to know, and discern the same. Sed haec in dicm minitave Parmeno. You have taken a pretty pause of three years long, since you were interrupted (as you 〈◊〉 in the end) by a writ de removendo. But the day will come that shall pay for all. Whether any cause or matter hath been ministered by you, of odious speeches against the dignity of holy scriptures, Mastet Charke declareth by one example out of Hosius, which with all the rest that he saith, you omit to answer, as trifling speech to little purpose. So whatsoever by any colour of reason you can not avoid, by your censorious authority you may contemn, and pass over.  
But his conclusion seemeth worthy the answer, which he maketh in these words, To conclude it is a great iniquity, to add traditions, or your unwritten verities, to the written word of God, whereunto no man may add, 
Apoc. 22.  because nothing is wanting: from which no man may take, because nothing is superfluous. But to him that addeth, shall the curses, written in the book, be added for ever. Against this conclusion, you note in the margin, great iniquity to add one verity to another, or to believe two verities together. A fine jest: but a gross begging of the whole cause. For who shall grant that your unwritten vereties be truth, and not falsehood, falsely by you termed verities unwritten. There is no verity of matters necessary to be known unto salvation, which is not written in the holy scriptures, that are able to make us wise unto salvation. 
2. Tim. 3.  But good Lord, what a stir you keep, because M. Chatk noteth in the margin, Apoc. 22. & ask how this place is alleged against you, etc. As though that which is true of one book, yea of every book of the scripture, may not justly be verified of the whole body, and book of the the Bible. Because adding to the word of god, argueth imperfection in the word of god. Your stolen objection of Saint john's Gospel written after the Revelation, is already answered. For all books of scripture, that have been written, since the five books of Moses, are no addition to the word of God, but a more clear explication of the 〈◊〉 first committed to writing by inspiration of God. Neither do they teach an other way of salvation, than Moses did, but set forth the same more plainly by demonstration, by examples of God's justice, and his mercy, by threatenings, by exhortations, by explication of his promises, by showing the accomplishment, and the manner of performance of them in Christ and his Church. And this they do most absolutely, sufficiently, and plentifully, to the salvation of God's people. These things, saith S. john, are written, that you should 
joh. 20. 31.  believe that jesus is Christ, the son of God, and that believing, you may have everlasting life in his name. Here you may as well cavil, that not only the Gospel of Saint john, or the miracles written in the same, is necessary to be believed unto salvation, but all the rest of the scripture also, foolishly opposing things that are no way repugnant, but the one including the other. For the believing of Saint john's Gospel, doth not exclude, but include, all other books, and parts of holy scripture, which teach the same mean of salvation, or any thing thereto pertaining. But how holdeth this argument (say you) no man may add to the book of apocalypse, ergo no man may believe a tradition of Christ, or his Apostles. May we not as well say, ergo we may not believe the acts of the Apostles? No sir, for we make our argument in this man ner, No man may add to the book of the apocalypse, much less may any man add to the whole Bible, of the old, and new testament. And consequently, there are no traditions of Christ, and his Apostles, to be credited, as needful to salvation, which are not contained in the holy scriptures. Thus we allege scriptures, and thus we argue upon them, not as it pleaseth you to deseant upon our allegations, and to dissigure our arguments.  
But it is lamentable (you say) to see the 〈◊〉 dealings of these men in matters of such importance. It is very true, understanding you, and your complices, to be the men that use such flights in 〈◊〉 weighty causes. As for our doctrine is plain, & without any seam, that the scriptures are sufficient to salvation, & therefore all tradition, besides them, are 〈◊〉 to that purpose. But let us see who 〈◊〉 sleights by your judgement. First you ask Master Charke what he 〈◊〉 by adding? Who doth add? Or in what sense? as though his meaning, and sense of adding were not manifest, as also his accusation, that the I suits, the Papists do add, to the word of God, their traditions, a necessary to salvation, yet not expressed, or contained in the word of God. But if God (say you) left any doctrine by tradition unto the Church, and our ancetours have delivered the same vuto us, especially those of the 〈◊〉 Church, what shall we do in this case? Shall we refuse it? It seemeth dangerous, and I see no reason. The question is not, whether we should refuse any thing that God hath left: but whether God hath left any such tradition to be believed unto salvation, which is not contained in the holy scriptures. But if our ancetours of the primitive Church, have delivered any such tradition unwritten, as left by Christ, what shall we do? you see no reason to refuse it. But if you will learn reason, when it is showed, you may see more than you do now. Are your ancestors of the primitive Church greater than Saint Paul? Is there any testimonié of man, greater than the witness of an Angel from heaven? yet if Saint Paul himself, or an Angel from heaven, should preach an other Gospel than Saint Paul had preached, and is contained in the holy scriptures, that false Gospel were to be resused, and the author thereof to be accursed. Now that Saint 
Gal. 1. 8.  Paul preached nothing, beside the doctrine, contained in the scriptures, he is a sufficient witness himself. Act. 26. 22. But why see you no reason to refuse such traditions so obtruded? Forsooth because the same men, that delivered unto you the scriptures, and said this is God's written word, and said of other forged scriptures, this is not Gods written word, the same delivered to you these doctrines, saying; this is God's words unwritten. So that by this reason, you have no other foundation of your faith, but the testimony of men: who as they may speak the truth in one matter, so they may lie, or be deceived in an other. As even by your own reason the Grecians, the Armenians, the Georgians, the Moscovites, and all other sectaries are bound to believe all that to be the word of God unwritten, which the same men affirm to be such, that delivered the canonical scriptures to them, and said it was the word of God written. But in stead of this unsure, and sandy ground, the children of God have a more firm rock, to build their faith upon: namely the spirit of truth, sealing in their hearts the testimony of men, concerning the truth of God's word written. In which the same spirit also testifieth of the sufficiency of the word written unto salvation in such sort, as if we receive the word written for truth, we must needs condemn for false, what word soever speaketh either the contrary, or addeth any thing as wanting, and not set forth in the word written. And this I say, not as though the primitive Church, or the godly fathers of the same, have brought in any thing under the name of tradition of Christ, or his Apostles, as necessary to salvation, although some of them in matters of rites, & ceremonies, have alleged tradition beside the scriptures, yet in such things as are now for the most part abolished, either because they were not delivered by the Apostles, as it was pretended, or else because such matters are mutable, and not perpetual, though they were received from the Apostles.  
But let us examine the examples that you join to your reason. First, Saint Augustine, and Origen do teach us, that baptizing of infants is to be practised in the Church, only by tradition of the Apostles. For which you quote. August. lib. 10. ad gen. lit. cap. 23. Origen. in cap. 6. Epist. ad Rom. What Saint Augustine saith and how the baptism of infants is practised by authority of the scripture, I have showed before, sect. 11. As for Origen, in the place quoted, hath never a word to any such matter. But of these impudent allegations, we have had too many examples already. The second example is, Saint Jerome and Epiphanius tell us, that the fast of the lent, and other the like, is a tradition of the Apostles, Hierom. Epist. 54. ad, Marcelia. Epiphann. Haer. 7. 5. Hieromes words are these against the Montanistes. Nos unam quadragesimam secundùm traditionem Apostolorum, toto anno, tempore nobis congruo, ieiunamus, 〈◊〉 tres in anno faciunt quadragesimas, quasi tres passi sunt saluatores, non quòd & per totum annum, excepta pentecost, ieiunare non liceat; sed quòd aliud sit necessitate, aliud voluntate munus offer. We fast one lent or forty days according to the tradition of the Apostles, in the whole year, in a time convenient for us: they make three lentes, or forty days fast in a year, as though three saviours had sussered: not but that it is lawful all the year long, except in the pentecostor fifty days, but that it is one thing to offer a gift of necessity, an other thing to do it of free will. Here Jerome saith, that one forty days fast, is of the tradition of the Apostles, but other writers say otherwise. For Damasus in his Pontifical saith, that Telesphorus Bishope of Room did institute this seven weeks fast, before Easter. Telesphorus himself, in his decretal Epistle, saith, that he, and his fellow Bishops gathered in a Council at Room, did ordain this forty days fast, only for clerks, and contendeth in many words, that there must be a difference between clerks, and lay men, as well in fast, as in other things. If you say, these authorities, are counterfeit 〈◊〉, as I thin 〈◊〉 you may truly, though 
Eccles. 〈◊〉. l. 5. cap. 26.  you will not willingly, yet what say you to 〈◊〉, an elder witness than Jerome, who testifieth out of years, that two hundred 〈◊〉 before his time there was great controversy between the next successors of the Apostles, concerning the day of the celebration of Easter, and that the controversy was not only of the day, but also of the fast: some fasting one day, some two dates, some more. So that of the Apostles tradition, we have no certainty in any monument of antiquity. Again it is to be noted, that Jerome holdeth it unlawful to fast between Easter, and Whitesontyde, which he calleth Peatecoste, by the same tradition of the Apostles, which yet in the Popish Church is not observed at this day: for beside the friday fast, they have also the gang week fast in that time, which in Saint Hieromes age was accounted unlawful to fast in. Your other witness Epiphanius speaketh not of your forty days lent, but of a shorter, and yet a straighter. For these are his words: Aquo verò non assensum est in omnibus orbis terrarum regionibus, quòd quarta, & prosabbato jeiunium est in Ecclesia ordinatum. Siverò etiam oportet constitutionem Apostolorum proffer, quomodo illic decreverunt quarta & prosabbato jeiunium per omnia, excepta pentecost, & de sex dieb. paschatis quomodo praecipiunt nihil omnino accipere, quàm panem, & salem, & aquam, qualemque diem agere, & quomodo dimittere in illucescentem dominicam, manifestum est. And of whom is it not agreed in all regions of the world, that one wednesday and friday fast is ordained in the Church: But if we must also bring forth the constitution of the Apostles, how they have there decreed one the wednesday, and friday a fast, throughout all except pentecost, and of the six days of Easter, how they command to take nothing at all, but bread, and salt, and water, and how to spend the day and how to give over against the dawning of the Lords day, it is manifest. Here he speaketh but ofsixe days before Easter day, and of an other manner of diet, than the Popish Church holdeth to be necessary. secondly, he speaketh of the fourth days or Wednesdays fast to be appointed by the tradition of the Apostles which yet nevertheless the Romish Church doth not observe. thirdly, that the Penned cross or fifty days, by the tradition of Apostles, are exempted from the friday fast, which tradition is not kept in the Pope's Church, except you will say that Pentecost is taken for whitson week, and then the custom of the PopishChurch is directly contrary to the tradition of the Apostles: for wednesday and friday that week are 〈◊〉 days. And as for the wednesday fast, as well as the friday, Epiphanius is so earnest, that he addeth further, Deinde verò, st non de eodem argumento quartarum, & Prosabbatorum, ijdem Apostoli in constitutione dixissent, etiamaliter undique demonstrare possemus: Attamen de hoc exactè scribunt. Assumpsit autem ecclesta, & in toto mundo assensus factus est, etc. And moreover if the same Apostles in their constitutions had not spoken of the same argument of wednesdays, & Fridays, we could otherwise thoroughly make proof of it. But they writ exactly ofit, and the Church hath taken it up, & assent hath been given in all the world. You see he allegeth not only a decree of the Apostles, but also the consent of all the world, for the wednesday fast, as well as the friday fast. So that if the Apostles tradition beside the scripture be necessary for lent, why is it not also for wednesdays fast? And if wednesdays fast is not necessary, no more is lent fast.  
Further you affirm, that Dionystus and Tertullian say, that prayers, and oblations for the dead, are traditions of the Apostles, De Eccles. hier. c. 7. de corona milit. but Dionystus, all beit we do not acknowledge him for a man of such antiquity, as the papists would obtrude him, yet hath not any mention of traditions of the Apostles, in that Chapter touching prayer for the dead, but either of tradition in scripture, or else at large endeavouring to prove that he saith by scripture. Tertullian in the place quoted, speaketh only of oblations for the dead in that yearly day, which may signify thanksgiving, as pro nataliliis, for their birth, doth in in the very same clause. Not denying yet, but Tertullian, when he forsook the Church, and became a Montanist, yealed to prayer for the dead, as a thing revealed by the spirit, and new prophecy of Montanus.  
Last of all you say, Saint basil teacheth that the consecration of the fant, before baptism, the exorcism upon those that are to be baptised, their anointing with holy chrism, and diverse like things, are delivered to us by prescript of Christ and his Apostles, lib. de. spi. 5. cap. 27. Of consecration or blessing of the water to the holy use of baptism & of those that are to be baptised, there need no tradition to be alleged, the scripture is sufficient in the institution of baptism, whereby both the water, and the perfon are dedicated to God, and his holy work of regeneration. The anointing with chrism, seemeth at the first to have been the sign of the gifts of the holy Ghost, which were wont to be granted with baptism: which though it had been ufed by the Apostles in baptism, yet that particular grace being ceased, which to signify it was used, it hath no longer any profitable use in the Church. As for exorcism upon those that are to be baptised. Is is your own addition, for Saint basil hath it not. But where you say, he hath divers like things, as delivered by traditian, it is very true, and among them this for example, that it is necessary for the children of the Church, to pray standing, on the Lord's day. But this necessity, even in the popish Church, is notacknowledged: therefore whatsoever he saith, is a tradition of the Apostles, is necessarieto be kept of all Christians, although all the Church in his time believed it, as that which Epiphanius reporteth of the wednesdays fast before spoken of.  
You demand, upon what ground you shall discredit, or reject these traditions, delivered by such fathers, chief Doctors, and pillars of the Church? Even by the same ground, that you give over other traditions, delivered by the same persons, either because they are not true traditions, or else because they are not necessary for the Church, albelt they were delivered (as no doubt some ceremonial matters were) even by the Apostles themselves. Your other reasons are frivolous: That they were nearer the Apostles than we. For the nearest, and most immediate successors to the Apostles, Policarpus, and Anicetus, could not agree upon the tradition of the Apostles, one of them building upon john, the other upon Peter, as is testified by Eusebius, out of Irenaeus in 
lib. 5. c. 10. Eccl. bsst. 〈◊〉  the place before cited. another reason is, that they were honest men, and would not deceive us willingly. And so much we acknowledge: yet might they be deceived, in ascribing the common practice of their time, to Apostolic tradition, and so deceive us unwittingly: nor be controlled, because the custom, & general acceptation of that ceremony restrained men. Which things considered, it is a great iniquity, as Master Charke saith, to add traditions to the written word of God, as if of itself it were not sufficient to instruct the Church in all things necessary to salvation. That which followeth of Doctor Fulkes handling the old Fathers about traditions, is answered by himself in his confutation of popish quarrels from pag. 55. to pag 61.  
After this you cite four sever all Doctors in defence of traditions unwritten: whereunto as some of ancient writers were too much inclined, so have you not so sure ground out of them for your popish traditions, as you purpose. And to begin with basil, who by 
lib. de sptr, Sanct. c. 27.  Apostolic tradition defendeth the custom of the Church, which was to sing, Glory be to the Father, and to the son, with the holy Ghost, whereas the heretics would have it, in the holy Ghost, and cavilled that the other form was not in the scriptures, Saint Basil maintaineth it as agreeable to the scriptures, by authority of ancient tradition, although it were not expressed in so many words in the scriptures, as many other things are, which have like force unto piety, with those that are dilinered in express words: as for example, he allegeth the confession of the faith in the 〈◊〉, which no man doubteth to be sufficiently tanght in the scriptures, although the very words of our creed are not expressed in such for me. As we rehearse our creed. I omit 〈◊〉 things (saith he) the very confession of faith, in which we believe in the father, the son, & the holy Ghost, in what scripture have we it? Again, And if they do reject the manner of glorifying of god, as not written, let them bring forth demonstration in writing of the confession of faith, & of other things that we rehearse. By which it is manifest, that the traditions he speaketh of are of two sorts: the one necessary to salvation, not expressed in so many words, and syllables, yet in full sense contained, and to be plainly concluded out of the holy scriptures, and these we receive to be of as great credit as any thing, that is expressly contained in the scriptures. The other kind of traditions, was rites and ceremonies, which are not necessary to salvation, but are in the Church's power to alter, as it may stand best with edification. Among which. S. basil rehearseth some, that long since are abolished, as the rite of standing in prayer one the Lords day, and between Easter and Whitsontid, which of itself is a thing indifferent, as also that manner of glorifying, in which they said. with the holy ghost, whereas all the Church long since, hath said neither in the holy Ghost, nor with the holy Ghost, but to the holy Ghost. To believe that the holy Ghost is to be glorified equally with the Father and the son, it is necessary to salvation, but in what form of words, that shallbe sung in the Church, it is indifferent, and the later Church hath used her liberty herein, to alter that form which Saint basil saith was delivered by the Apostles themselves without writing. By this I hope it is manifest, what kind of traditions are of equal force, or authority with the scripture, even they which have their ground in the scriptures, and none other. For as the same basil affirmeth, Every 
Moral. reg. 26. & Reg. 80.  word or deed ought to be confirmed by testimony of the holy Scriptures. Again, For if all that is not of faith is sin (as the Apostle saith, and faith is of hearing, and hearing by the word of God, whatsoever is beside the holy Scripture, being not of faith, is sin. Thus basil whatsoever he speaketh of unwritten traditions, he meaneth not against the insufficiency of the holy scriptures, except you will say he is contrary to himself, in many places beside these that I have noted. Tr. de vera & piafide. Epist. 80. in Reg. Breu. Inter. 1. &. 65. 68 de ornatu Monachi.  
Your next testimony is out of Eusebius, lib. 1. Eu. Demonst. cap. 8. whole words you mangle after your manner, leaving out at your pleasure, more than you rehearse. Eusebius having showed the excellency of Christ above Moses, declareth also that there are two manners ofliving in Christianity, the one of them that are strong and perfect, the other of them that are subject to many infirmities, and that whereas Moses did write in tables without life, Christ hath written the perfect precepts of the new Testament in living minds, & his disciples following their Master's mind, considering what Doctrine is meet for both sorts, have committed the one to writing, as that which is necessary to be kept of all, the other they delivered without writing, to those that were able to receive it, which have excelled the common manner of men in knowledge, in strength, in abstinence, etc. And this is the meaning of Eusebius in that place, not of any traditions necessary to salvation of every man, which are not taught in the holy scriptures, but of certain precepts, tending to perfection, not enjoined to all, but written in the hearts of some.  
The third man is Epiphanius, who (you say) is more earnest than Eusebius, writing against certain heretics called Apostolici, which denied traditions, as our Protestants do. Which is but a tale: for they were more like to Popish monks and friars, than Protestants: For they professed to abstain from marriage, & to poslesse nothing, and such other superstitions they observed. But what saith Epiphanius for traditions? He saith that we must use tradition. For all things can not be taken out of the scripture: wherefore the holy Apostles delivered somethings in the scriptures, and something in tradition. Mine answer to Epiphanius, is the same that it was to Basilius, Namely, that such things as were not expressed in plain words in the scripture, were approved by tradition, being nevertheless such things as were to be concluded necessarily out of the scripture. As in the question, for which he allegeth tradition, it is manifest: Tradiderunt, etc. the holy Apostles of God (saith he) have delivered unto us, that it is sin after virginity decreed, to be turned unto marriage. This the Papists doubt not, but that they are able to prove out of the scripture, except where the Pope dispenseth. And we acknowledge, that where the vow was made a duisedly, to a Godly purpose, and ability in the party to perform it, that it is sin to break it, neither can the Pope dispense with it. In the other place, where he rehearseth many examples of traditions, he speaketh 
〈◊〉. 75.  of rites, and ceremonies, as is before declared, whereof many are not observed in the Popish Church, neither is there any of them necessary to salvation. But Epiphanius (you say) proveth it out of scripture, 1. Cor. 11. 14. 15. where Saint Paulsaith, as I delivered unto you. And again, so I teach, and so I have delivered unto the Churches. and, If you hold fast, except you have believed in vain. To the first, I answer, that it proveth no traditions necessary to salvation, which are not contained in the scriptures: as is more manifest, by the second and third text: for where Saint Paul saith, so I teach in all the Churches of God. 1. Cor. 14. 33. he saith immediately before, that God is not the God of sedition, but of peace. & 1. Cor. 15. 1. 2. 3. the Apostle speaketh manifestly, of the doctrine of the resurrection, whereof he himself in that place writeth plentifully, and in many other places of scripture, the same article is taught most expressly. You see therefore how substantially Epiphanius proveth tradition unwritten, out of the scripture, to be necessary to salvation: which is our question.  
But with Epiphanius (say you) joineth fully and earnestly 
2. Thess. 2.  Saint chrysostom, writing upon these words of Saint Paul to the purpose. Stand fast, and hold traditions: out of which clear words Saint chrysostom maketh this illation. Hinc patet, etc. Hereof it is evident, that the Apostles delivered not all by epistle, but many things also without writing, and those are as worthy credit as these. Therefore we think the tradition of the Church to be worthy of credit, it is a tradition, seek no more. The sense of these words is, that the Apostles, in their preaching, did express many things, more particularly then in their epistles: not that they preached any thing necessary to salvation, but that the same was contained either in their epistles, or in other books of the holy scripture. And so I say of the tradition of the Church which is a doctrine contained in the scriptures, though not expressed in the same, or in so many words: as the three persons, and one God in trinity, and trinity in unity to be worshipped, etc. is of equal credit with that which is expressed in the scriptures: because the ground of our faith, standeth not upon the sound of words, but upon the sense, and true meaning of things themselves. And this is Chrisostomes' meaning, not of traditions altogether without the compass of the scriptures, and yet held necessary to salvation. For of the sufficiency of the scri ptures he speaketh in divers places, and namely upon that clear text. 2. Tim. 3. Hom 9 of the scripiure he saith. Siquid vel diseere, velignorare opus sit, illic addiscemus. If any thing be needefisli to know, or not to know, in the scriptures we shall learn. But because you say, those words of Saint Paulare clear. 2. Thess. 2. for unwritten tradititions, I pray you, what argument can you conclude out of them? Saint Paul delivered to the Thessalonians, something by preaching, and something by writing, ergo he delivered something that is not contained in the holy scriptures, written either by himself, or any other of the holy men of God, appointed for that purpose. Who is so childish, think you, to grant you this consequence? therefore for any thing you have brought or can bring, or any thing that the fathers have said or can say, the word of God writ ten is perfect, and able to make a man wise to salvation, by faith in jesus Christ, which is to be had sufficiently in the holy scriptures, as Christ himself doth witness. john. 5. 39 And so the former conclusion doth still stand. It is great iniquity to receive traditions altogether beside the holy scripture, as necessary to salvation, which must needs argue the holy scriptures of imperfection, and unsufficiency. Neither doth the consent of Antiquity refute this assertion of Master Charke, seeing the ancients, as it is said, spoke either of doctrine not expressed in word, but contained in deed, in the scriptures, or else of rites, and ceremonies: the perpetual observation where of is not necessity to eternal life, as is proved by the discussing of many of them, which the elder fathers do father upon the tradition of the Apostles, as much as any other that they name. And if you say, they were deceived, in such as are abolished, how shall we know that 〈◊〉 not in such as are retained? For in their 〈◊〉, they were all generally received as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well such as are discontinued, as those 〈◊〉 remain.  
〈◊〉 if any man will ask you, what be these Apostolical 〈◊〉 in particular, you could allege him testimonies 〈◊〉 ancient fathers, for a great number: But you refer 〈◊〉 Saint Cyprian, Serm. de ablut. pedum. Tertullian 〈◊〉. milit. and Saint Hieron. dialog. contra Luciferianos: 〈◊〉 say, he shall find store. Belike your note book 〈◊〉 you thither, although you listed not to take so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yourself, but turn it over to your 〈◊〉. Howbert he that is disposed to read the sermon 〈◊〉 Cyprian, shall find no store at all, but of the necessity of washing offcete, which ceremony was taken by the example of Christ, yet is not thought necessary in the Popish Church at this day. Tertullian in deed hath some pretty store, yet not to maintain popish traditions so much, as to overthrow them. For he 〈◊〉 some things, that are taken out of the scripture; as to renounce the devil in Baptism, etc. some that are grown out of use many hundred years ago: as that the baptised should taste of milk and honey: that they should abstain from washing seven days after. That men should sign their forehead at every step and proceeding going forth, and coming home, at putting on of apparel, and at pulling on of shoes, at washings, at table, at lighting of candles, at beds, at stools, at all times and places. Saint Jerome also in the person of the heretic, rehearseth traditiones, and among them, such as Papists do not observe, namely the mixture of milk and honey given to them that are newly baptised. On the Lord's day, and during the whole time of pentecost, neither to kneel in prayers, nor to fast. These are part of those Apostolical traditions in particular, which if they had been necessary to salvation, must have been perpetually continued. If they were untruely ascribed to the Apostles, what wartant can we have of any other, seeing the most ancient writers commend these as much as any other, for Apostolical traditions.  
Yet a few other examples, you will add out of Saint Augustine, who proveth baptism (you sare) by tradition of the Church. lib. 10. de. gen. ad lit. cap. 23. to this answer hath been made sufficiently in the 11. section, that Saint Augustine doth not defend baptism of infants only by the custom of the Church, but also by the scriptures. Likewise you say he proveth by the same tradions, that we must not rebaptize those which are baptised of heretics, lib. 2. de bapt. capt. 7. & lib. 1. cap. 23. & lib. 4. cap. 6 It is true, that he perwsadeth himself, that this custom of not rebaptizing, came from the Apostles tradition, yet doth he by many arguments out of scripture prove, that such are not to be baptised again, which have been once baptised, although by heretics, and therefore he saith of the same matter, Hoc planè verum est, quia ratio & veritas consuetudini praeponenda est. Sed cùm consuetudini veritas suffragatur, nihil oportet firmius retineri. This is plainly true, that reason, and truth is to be preferred before custom: but when truth consenteth with custom, nothing ought more steadefastlie to be 〈◊〉. You see therefore, that he buildeth not only upon custom, or tradition, which is the matter in question, but upon truth and reason, which is founded by the holy scriptuers. Your middle quotation, de bap. lib. 1. cap. 23. you may correct against your nextreplie, for there are but 19 Chapters in that book.  
Again, you say, He proveth by tradition the celebration of the Pentecost commonly called Whitsuntide. ep. 11 etc. 1. If it were as you say, it is but a matter of ceremony, not necessary to salvation, but in the power of the Church to alter, as many like, which are abrogated. But in truth he proveth it not, as you say, by tradition. For these are his words. Illa autem quae non scripta, etc. But those things which are kept, being not written, but delivered, which are observed throughout all the world, it is given to be understood, that they are retained as commended, and decreed, either by the Apostles themselves, or by general councils, the authority of which is most whollesome in the Church, as that the passion of our Lord, and his resurrection, & ascension into heaven, and the coming of the holy ghost from heaven, are celebrated with yearly solemnity. You see by his own words, that he is not certain whether he should lay this ceremonial celebration upon delivery of the Apostles, or upon decrees of general councils. And whencesoever they came, the matter is not great in such things, as of their own nature are indifferent, and therefore alterable by discretion of the Church in all times. Whether the Apostles were baptised, which is the next matter, that you say, he prnoveth by tradition, it is a question not so needful to be decided, although it may be proved out of scripture that some of 
Math. 3. 5. 7.  them which were john's disciples, were baptised by him, and so it is like were all the rest: seeing jerusalem, and all jury, and all the coast near unto jordan were baptised 
Luk. 3. 12. 14  by john, even to the Pharisees, and Saducees, Publicans, and soldiers, it is not probable, that the Apostles, who before their calling by Christ, were of honest, and devout conversation, did neglect that divine institution, which all men, that would seem to be religious, made haste to receive.  
Furthermore, you say, he proveth by tradition the ceremonies of baptism, as delivered by the Apostles. lib. de. fide & Oper. cap. 9 The question is, whether the Eunuch whom Philip baptised, made such profession of his faith, etc. renouncing of the devil, as is required of them that are baptised, when the scripture maketh mention only of a short confession, that jesus Christ is the son of God. Where Saint Augustine showeth that the holy ghost would have us to understand, that althings were fulfilled in his baptism, which though they be not expressed in that scripture, for brevities sake, yet by order of the tradition we know that they are to be fulfilled. Where tradition is not taken for that which is altogether beside the scripture, but that which according to the scripture delivereth what is to be observed, concerning the celebration of that sacrament, which is the seal of mortification, and regeneration. That the lords supper should be received before other 
Epist. 118.  meats, he thinketh of it as of other ceremontall matters, that it came either from Apostolic tradition, or from decrees of general council, yet is it a thing not necessary always to be observed: for yourselves do housel sick folks, at all times of the day, or night, without respect, whether they have tasted any thing or no: otherwise as a matter of order, and decency, it is observed of us also, to minister that sacrament before dinner, and to them that be fasting, if the case of necessity require not the contrary.  
Yet again, you say, he proveth by tradition the exorcism of such as should be baptised. l. de nupt. & concu. cap. 20. & l. 6. cont. julian. c. 2. But the truth is, that by the ceremony of exorcism, exsufflation, and renunciation, that is used in baptism, he goeth about to prove, that infants before baptism be in original sin, and in the power of the devil: as is evident by both the places, which prove not exorcism to have been received by tradition, but by the end of that ceremony (upon what beginning soever) used in the Church at that time that infants are borne in original sin, and subject to the power of Satan, before they be baptised. The words of the former place are these. In veritate itaque non in falsitate, etc. In truth therefore, not in falsehood, the devils power is exorcised in infants, and they renounce him by the hearts and mouths of their bearers, because they cannot by their own, that being delivered from the power of darkness, they may be translated into the kingdom of their Lord. Here is never a word of tradition. The second place hath these words: Sedetsi nullaratione indagetur, nullo sermone explicetur, verum est tamen quòd antiquitas etc. But although it (original sin) may be sought out by no reason, by no speech it may be expressed, yet is it true that by true Catholic faith from ancient time is preached, and believed throughout the whole Church, which would neither exorcise, nor exsufflate the children of the faithful, if she did not deliver them from the power of darkness, and from the prince of death. Here the ancient doctrine of original sin is confirmed by the old ceremonies of exorcism, and exsufflation, which were used in baptism, to signify that infants were by that sacrament delivered from the guilt of original sin, by which they were under the power of darkness and death. But that these ceremonies were Apostolic traditions, he saith not, or that they are of necessity to 〈◊〉 used in baptism, when the one of them, namely 〈◊〉, is not used at this day, for aught I know, in the Popish form of baptism. The Moscovites, in place of it (as it seemeth) use excreation. For when the Godfathers, and Godmothers, answer that they renounce the devil, they spit out one the earth, as it were in sign of detestation. In Saint Augustine's time they used to blow out.  
In the last place you say, he proveth by the same tradition, that we must offer up the sacrifice of the mass for the dead: lib. de cura pro mort. agenda. cap. 1. & 4. serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli. Of the sacrifice of the Mass Saint Augustine speaketh nothing, but that prayers were offered for the dead at the celebration of the lords supper, which he calleth sacrifice: he saith, it was by authority of the whole Church, which was notable in that custom, and that the whole Church observed it, as delivered from their fathers. But seeing the elder Church for more than an hundred years after Christ had no such custom nor doctrine, and especially, seeing the same custom is against faith, taught in the holy scriptures, that the dead in the Lord are blessed, that judgement followeth immediately after death, etc. The authority of faith and truth is to be preferred before the tradition, and custom of men. Neither is it to be thought, to have proceeded from the Apostles, which is disproved by the writings of the Apostles, the only certain witness of the doctrine delivered by them, which is necessary for us to believe, and follow. And therefore this new sir Censurer doth greatly abuse the old saints, whom he would have patrons of his unwritten verities, partly in charging them to refer unto tradition many things that they do not, partly in drawing to doctrine necessary, that which they speak of ceremonies mutable, & not the least in picking out one or two oversights to be pardoned, under colour of them to maintain all the gross heresies of Popery, that are intolerable.   

The fourteenth section, Whether the jesuits speak evil of scripture. Art. 6. entitled, Nose of wax.  
IF you had ser down Master Charkes reply between your Censure and your defence, as reason would you should have done, for men to judge indifferently between both, you might have spared more than two pages, which you have spent in charging him with a slander of the jesuits, where he reporteth, that they say, the scripture is a nose of wax, when they say, it is as a nose of wax. For no reasonable man can make any other sense of those words, the scripture is a nose of wax, but even the same that you confess, to be the saying of the jesuits: the scripture is as a nose of wax, as Master Charke telleth you. And moreover that Paiva saith, the fathers of Colene, in a most apt similitude called the scripture, a nose of wax, and Pighius the leaden rule of the Lesbian building. But now concerning the matter itself: You would shift it of, by saying: The jesuits do compare the heretical wresting, and detorting of scripture, unso 
Orth. expl. lib. 2. pag. 104.  the bowing of a nose of wax, upon certain circumstances; which are these. First not in respect of the scripture itself, but in respect of heretics, and other that abuse it, and that before the rude people, that cannot judge: thirdly to the end to flatter Princes, or the people in their vices. Thus much was said before in the Censure. But it was replied that Andradius confesseth the fathers of Colene do say: that the holy scripture is as a nose of wax. So doth Pighius: and it is a thing more commonly known, then that it can be denied. Therefore the wresting of the scripture is not compared by them, to the bowing of a waxed nose, but the scripture itself to a nose of wax, as that which is as easy to be drawn into any sense, as a nose of wax may be turned every way. The words of Pighius are plain. Sunt enim scripturae velut caereus quidam nasus, qui sicut 
Cont. 3.  hor sum illor sumque facilè se trahi permittit, & quo traxeris haud invitus sequitur, ita & illae se flecti, duci, atque etiam in diver same sententiam trahi accomodarique ad quid-uis patiuntur, nist quis veram illam inflexibilemque earundem amussim, nempe Ecclesiasticae traditionis authoritatem, communemque sententiam ilsdem adhibeat. For the holy scriptures are as it were a certain nose of wax, which as it easily suffereth itself to be drawn this way and that way, and whether soever you draw it, is followeth not unwillingly: so also they do suffer themselves to be bowed, to be led, and also to be drawn into a contrary meaning, and to be applied unto what you will, except a man lay unto them that true, & inflexible rule of them, namely the authority, and common understanding of the Church's tradition. These words declare (if the sense of all Papists be the same) that the jesuits do not only compare the scripture itself, but also that they make this comparison in respect of the scripture itself, which suffereth itself as easily to be wrested, and abused, as a nose of wax abideth to be bowed: nor before the rude and ignorant only, nor to flatter Princes, and people in their vices alone, but before any persons, or to any purpose whatsoever: and that there is not in them a certain and infallible sense, to judge of the Church's doctrine, or to find out the true Church from all false congregations, by the truth taught in the scriptures, but that the authority and common understanding of the Popish Church's tradition, is the only true sense, & inflexible rule of the holy scriptures. whereby also it is manifest, though you deny it never so stoutly, that you do impute the wresting of the scriptures, unto the imperfection of God's word set forth in them, and not only to the malice of the wrester. For if the will of God be but as well expressed in them, as the will of princes is in their written laws, and proclamations, the one may as well be found out, by reading and weighing of the holy scriptures, as the other may be out of profane writings, especially where the spirit of God, granted unto the prayers of the elect, openeth their understanding, not only to conceive, as the natural man may, by study, and ordinary helps, the true scope and purpose of God uttered in them, but also to believe, and embrace whatsoever the Lord their God hath propounded in them. Therefore though the scripture may be wrested to the destruction of the ungodly, as Saint Peter showeth, yet Master Charke telleth you, that it cannot so be wrested, but that still it remaineth the light unto our feet, and the lantern unto our steps: and every part thereof, is like the arm of a great Oak, which cannot be so wrest, but that with great force it will return into the right position, to the shame and peril of the wrester, which answer of his you do so dissemble, as though you had never seen it. And you do wisely, seeing otherwise, then by silence, you could not avoid it.  
But howsoever Master Charke storm, you will defend your blasphemy of the nose of wax, not only in a kingdom, where the Gospel is preached, but also in the kingdom of us ministers, where the letter of the scripture is worse wrested by us to all errors and licentiousness, than every waxed nose was yet bended, to diverse fashions. O ye senseless papists, had you never a man of moderate judgement, to set forth against us, but this loosetongued Gentleman, which so he may rail with full mouth against us, hath no care how his slanders may be coloured? Do we pervert the scriptures to all errors? then surely, we hold no truth: there never was any heresy, neither can there be any heresy, but that with many errors, it maintaineth and holdeth many truths. Yea the Devil himself the father oflies, believeth some truths, and for shame dare not profess the maintenance of all errors. We think very hardly of Antichrist, and his brood the papists, yet we may not say, that they wrist the scriptures to all errors, and licentiousness: for if they so did, they should not deceive so many by show of truth in errors, except they did profess some articles of truth in deed. As for the wresting of the Scripture to all licentiousness, let God and all the world of reasonable and indifferent men judge, how justly we may be charged therewith. If we be licentious in our lives, God will find it out, and let man, where he findeth it, punish us. But if we wilfully pervert the scriptures to the maintenance of all licentiousness, the Lord reward us according to our deeds, and be not merciful to them, that sin of malicious wickedness.  
But it is no fault in the scriptures (say you) that they may be abused. For Christ himself was called, the rock of offence, and the stone of scandal, not for any fault or imperfection in him, but through the wickedness of such as abuse that benefit. So if the jesuits had said no more, but that the scripture may be abused, no man could have found fault with them. And Christ is called a stone of offence or stumbling, not altogether in respect of the wicked that abuse him, for he is called a stone most precious, and necessary to build upon, of stumbling, to those that refuse to build upon him, which meeting with him, must either stumble and fall, or else if it fall upon them, they must be ground to powder. But the the scripture is compared to a nose os wax, because it is in their imagination, that use the comparison, as pliant to follow every way, and to yield as probable a sense one way, as an other, as a nose of wax is easy to be turned and shaped on every side or sort, which if it were so, must needs be a great fault in the scripture itself. A hundred positive laws and statutes in England are so well penned, as all the sophistical heads in christendom cannot find a starting hole in them by any perverse interpretations, but thatall they, which have but a mean skill in the laws, will laugh them to scorn. And that I we think so unreverently of the holy scriptures, given by inspiration of god, that every foolish heretic may turn them about, like a nose of wax, but rather that in his said attempt of turning, his folly shall be made manifest to all men? Pighius, 
Cont. 3.  saith expressly, the scriptures are dumb judges, as though Godspake not in them, and by them unto us: whose profane comparison of the holy scriptures with profane laws, which require Magistrates, and judges to punish the offenders of them, every Christian man may perceive to tend to the derogation of the majesty of them. As also every child that hath studied logic but half a year, may understand his beggarly petition of the principle, when appealing from the judgement of the scriptures, he will be judged by none, but by papists, in controversies and questions that we have against the papists. As for the black Gospel, and Inky divinity babbled by Eccius against the written Gospel. If jesuits can maintain as Catholic: surely Christians can not hear it without horror of blasphemy.  
If there be no fault or imperfection in the scriptures, 
Cont. 3. math.  how saith Pighius, that every man may evidently know without the scriptures, in what order the Church is appointed, by her author. Again, of what moment is the holy scripture, if it be not necessary, to decide all doubts and controversies in the Church? for thus saith Pighius: If we receive the authority of the Church's tradition, quam si recipimus, omnis facilè etiam sine scripture is inter nos componetur concertatio & controversia, cùm de singulis nonfuerit admodum operosum invenire, quid Catholica ab initio Ecclesia senserit. Which if we receive, all strife and controversy between us may easily be compounded, even without the scriptures. Seeing it is no very hard work to find out, what the Catholic Church from the beginning hath thought of every question. Thus the Ecclesiastical tradition is set a fit, and the holy scriptures excluded, as superfluous and unnecessary, seeing all questions may easily be decided without them.  
But to give a better colour to your nose of wax, you 
In cap. 1. ep. ad Gal.  say, Saint Jerome doth call the scriptures alleged corruptly by Martion and Basilides, the devils Gospel, because the Gospel consisteth not in the words of scripture, but in the sense. But so doth not Christ call the scripture, when it was alleged by the devil: neither doth Saint Jerome so call the scripture, but the false sense feigned by heretics. His words are these. grand periculum est in Ecclesia loqui, ne fortè interpretatione perversa, de evangelio Christi hominis fiat evangelium, aut quod peius est, Diaboli. It is great peril to speak in the Church, lest perhaps by perverse interpretation, of the Gospel of Christ, be made the Gospel of man, or that which is worse, of the devil. And it is true which he saith, The Gospel is not in the words, but in the sense of the scriptures. Yet it is also true, that the sense of the scriptures is expressed in those words of the scriptures, and not included in the Pope's breast, as the Papists would have us think, that all labour bestowed in seeking the sense of the scriptures, is in vain, except we take the interpretation of the Popish Church, which sthe judgement of the Pope, as the sure rule to guide us by. But Saint Augustine (you say) calleth the scripture the bow of heretics. Which is not so: for he compareth 
In Psal. 10.  their wresting of the scriptures, to the bending of a bow. Ecce, inquiunt, peccatores tetenderunt arcum: credo scripture as, quas illi carnaliter interpretando, venenatas inde sententias emittunt. Behold, say they, the sinners have bend the bow: the scriptures I believe, which while they interpret carnally, they send forth poisoned meanings from them.  
Further (you say) Irenaeus compareth it abused by heretics 
〈◊〉. 1. cap 1.  to a jewel stamped with the form of a Dog or Fox. Irenaeus speaketh not of the body of the scriptures, but of words, sentences, and parables of scripture rend not only from their sense, but also from their place, and patched together with old wives fables, to make a show for heresy: which is all one, as he saith, as if a man should break an excellent Image of a king, and when he hath fashioned the pieces, being pearls or precious stones, into the shape of a Fox, or Dog, he would yet be so impudent to say, this is that excellent Image of the king, which was made by a not able workman. This soundeth nothing like the nose of wax.  
Likewise you say, Gregory Nazianzen compareth the 
〈◊〉 Nicob.  scripture to a silver scabbard with a leaden sword in it. The comparison you speak of, is in his poems which I verily am persuaded, that you never read, but were mocked by your notebooke, as many times before. For Gregory compareth not the scriptures, as you slander him, but an hypocrite, a man that hath nothing, but an external show of religion, to a leaden sword in a silver scabbard: his verses are these, if you could have construed them.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
To these that you might seem bountiful, though 
In praescrip. Cont. baer.  you be a very beggar of your own reading, you add Tertullian, and Vincentius Lirinensis, of which the former (you say) compareth the scripture to the deceitful ornaments of harlots, the other to poisoned herbs covered in the Apothecary's shops with fair titles. Wherein you slaun der them both: for they compare not the whole scripture, as you do in your nose of wax, but the heretical brags of scripture, which as they may abuse a piece for a show, so are they confounded by the whole, when the same is rightly weighed. Therefore the comparisons of these ancient Doctors, are no more like to your nose of wax, than your nose of wax is like to the holy scriptures. Neither doth the example of Luther, calling the scriptures the book of heretics, expounding himself why he so calleth it, namely because it is depraved by heretics, defend the jesuits, which to the depravation of the scriptures use that similitude, as Luther did not in his, albeit he might as well have forborn that title, as his rash judgement, against those whom you call sacramentaries: for as the one was unprofitable, so the other was unjust.  
But if the jesuits (say you) had rejected any one book of the scripture, as the Protestants do many, we might justly accuse them. It is as great a fault to add to the word of God, as to take from it. The Protestants reject no book of the canonical scripture, which was received by Christ, and his Apostles, and the primitive Church long after them. But the Papists add of their own authority, to the holy canon, and therefore, as much are they subject to gods curse, as if they did take away. Neither doth Luther discredit or deface the whole epistle of Saint james as (you say) although in comparison of some other books of scripture, by a similitude, he maketh it far inferior to them What Doctor Fulke and 
Fulk confuse of Popish quarrels, fol. 61. Whittak. Cont. Dur.  Master Whitaker have written, the one of the book of Maccaebees, the other of Toby, they have sufficiently maintained in their replies, whereunto I remit the reader: and for Master Charkes reviling of judith, to the report of the disputation, in which your impudent slander is confuted.  
Where you conclude that no man in the world ever spoke more reverently of holy scripture, then jesuits do, you over reach very much, as you do very often. They which teach that the holyscripture is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation speak more reverently, than the jesuits, whichdeny the sufficiency of the scripture, for the instru ction of the Church. Last of all the Censure ridiculously charged M. Charke with fraudulent translation of this word Immaculata, when he allegeth this text psal. 19 as oppo sit to your nose of wax. The law of the Lord is perfect, out of the original tongue, & the best translations, from which the greek in sense dessenteth not, & not out of the old latin translation. Now you trifle to no purpose, about the Hebrew, Greek & Latin terms, which to those that are but me anelie learned, are well enough known what they signify. And first, if you should grant all that M. Chark said, you think he had gained nothing. For you also confess, that the law of the Lord is perfect, but not in that sense, wherein M. Chark usech it, to wit, that because the law of the Lord is perfect, therefore the scripture cannot be wrested. And afterward when you have told us, that these words, unde filled, irreprehensible and perfect (which answer the latin greek, and Hebrew words) 〈◊〉 not much in sense (for whatsoever is irreprehensible, and unspotted, may also be called perfect) you conclude that this doth not prove the scriptures to be perfect in sense, in such sort, as it may not be wrested or perverted. You say true, but it is false, that Master Chark maketh any such illation, as you charge him. For thus he inferreth, the law of God is perfect, ergo it cannot be wrested as a nose of wax, or as his own words are, the scripture is perfect, and manteineth her perfection against all corruptions, as a right line showeth itself, & bewrayeth that which is crooked. The law of a wise man (as hath been said before) may be so perfect, as it cannot be wrested like a nose of wax, into any sense that the wrester will imagine, but that his vain cavillation shall be odious, and ridiculous to all men. Much rather is the law of God so perfect, as though all the devils in hell should break their brains to wrest and pervertit, yet can they never wrest it like a nose of wax, to every side or shape, but that the perfect sense of the scripture remaineth full constant, and manifest to them that have the spirit of God: yea even to them that will judge but indifferently according to right reason. 
Cont. Max. Arr. lib. 3. cap. 14.   
By the way you charge Master Charke with railing, and inveighing, against your old translation, and with running he careth not whether, forging he careth not what, and reprehending he careth not whom. yet in all that discourse he hath no more words of it, but these: your old translation doth go alone. In which words what railing, running, forging, reprehending, inveihing, may be contained, let ihe wiser sort judge, and fools learn to be wiser. But where he saith, that the best translations differ from the old translation, you ask, what best, or better, or other good latin translation hath he then the old? As though none might be good, but your old translation. I perceive you would not acknowledge any good of them that were set forth by Munster, Leo, Jude, or any other professed protestant: yet what say you to the translation of Vatablus, a famous and learned reader of Paris? How dare you condemn the translation of Pagnine of the old testament, and Erasmus of the new testament, as nought, which the Pope allowed as good? Finally what exceptions can you take to the translation of Isidorus Clarius censured and approved, by the deputies of the Council of Trent? may none of these be good, better or best, but that your old translation hath the prerogative in goodness in all degrees, that it leaveth all other behind it, as nought? O weighty censure of a wise Papist. But let us see wherein the excellency of the old translation doth consist, as you suppose. First you say, it was in use in God's Church above 13. hundred years past, as may be seen by the citations of the fathers which lived then. But even those very citations do prove the contrary, at the least, that it was not in general use in the latin Church. Saint Augustine in the place by you quoted, for the bow of heretics, where 
In Psal. 10. ver. 〈◊〉.  your translation hath in obscuro, did read in obscura luna, and standeth much upon exposition of the dark moon. Yea throughout the whole Psalter, whosoever will compare the text which Saint Augustine used, with your old translation, shall find great difference between them. But this your old translation (you tell us) was afterward overuewed, and corrected by Saint Jerome. we know very well, that Saint Jerome did overuew and correct a certain ancient translation of the septuaginta, that was ufed in his time. But how are you able to prove, that this your vulgar translation is the same, either corrected, or uncorrected? For it appeareth by the citations of diverse of the latin Church, which lived after Saint Jerome, that they used an other text, than this translation, even until the days of Bernard. When you say, that this your old translati on was highly commended by Saint Augustine, you make such a shameless 〈◊〉, as you object without shame to M. Charke, when he saith, that the Septuaginta agree with the hebrue, in signification of the word perfect: for they say irreprehensible, which must needs be perfect: but so is not your latin 〈◊〉, unspotted, or undefiled, which you yourself in your censure do eagerly contend to be differing from perfection. You name the translation of Erasmus and Luther, of which the one translated only the new testament, which Leo. 10. and Clemens. 7. did both allow, the other translated not the Bible at all in latin, except perhaps some parts, upon which he wrote commentaries.  
Here your Printer will make us believe, that you were removed with a writ de removendo, so as you could proceed no further: but now there is a writ de renovando, sued against you, if you dare abide by your censure, to renew your defence, or else to pass on to the rest of the confutation, of the rest of Master Charkes reply, and so to take his answer altogether.   
LAUS DEO.   

A CONFUTATION OF A TREATISE MADE BY WILLIAM ALLEN IN DEFENCE OF the usurped power of Popish Priesthood to remit sins, of the necessity of Shrift, and of the Pope's Pardons.  
BY WILLIAM Fulke.  
Imprinted by THOMAS THOMAS Printer to the University of Cambridge.   

A CONFUTATION OF A TREATISE MADE BY WILLIAM ALLEN IN DEFENCE OF THE VSVRped power of Popish priesthood to remit sins, etc.  ALLEN. 
BEcause the unjust clyame and challenge of any power not given doth highly displease God, from whom only all pre-eminence of man proceedeth, no doubt all Priests & Bishops, who have so long practised pardoning and punishing of sin, if they hold not the right of the excellent function of Gods own grant, they have built this many hundredth years towards hell, and can neither avoid the heavy indignation of god, in wose office and prerogative they have unjustly intermeddled, nor yet marvel at their disdain amongst men, seeing it is said, that the usurper of power is worthielie hated: Qui 
Eccl. 20.  potestatem sibi sumit, iniustè odietur.  FVLKE. 
IF the rest of your arguments were as good as this, we should not need to write any confutation of your treatise: for true it is, that they which usurp so great a power without Gods own grant, deserve condemnation of him, and hatred of men, neither of which (except they repent) they can be able to avoid. Neither are they in better case, which though they pray tend to have some colour of grant, yet abuse the same, perverting the right meaning of the granter to a far other end, and exersize the same, after a far other sort, than their commission, by which they claim authority, in any wise doth import. And such is the case of popish priesthood, which under pretence of power of remitting or retaining of sins committed against the Church of Christ, and the true pastors thereof, arrogate unto themselves, which are but Idols, and therefore not the persons authorized, an absolute authority of pardoning, according to their own judgement, not a ministery of reconciliation, according to the will of God, by a certain devised form of words, or writing, and not by preaching of the Gospel. For which causes and many other, although the grant of Christ be never so ample unto his Church, yet it includeth not them, which be his adversaries, which for their own glory, and lucre, under shadow of Christian authority of binding and losing, do practise antichristian tyranny, to be Lords of men's conscience, and to make merchandise of their souls.  ALLEN. 
But if that most holy order, do by good right & reason, and by the son of God Christ jesus his own warrant and special commission, occupy the seat of judgement, erected in the Church for the government of our souls and needful search of our secret sins, than it standeth lamentably with the disobedient captains of this contempt, through whose continual call to sedition, so many have been carried away, from that cbaisance that is due to the sovereign power given to Gods annonited.  FVLKE. 
But when neither the popish order of priesthood hath any institution of God, neither hath the son of God erected any such seat in the Church for government of our souls, and needful search of our secret sins, as is pretended & practised: they which call men, not one lie to the contempt, but also to the detestation of such usurped tyranny, are unjustly charged with sedition and disobedience against Gods anointed, seeing they purpose and practise nothing, but the honour of Christ, the Lords anoninted with the oil of gladness above all other, & the due estimation of those his servants, whom he hath appointed to be the true dispensers of the graces, and heavenly treasures of his word and Sacraments upon earth.  ALLEN. 
They remember well (such is their exercise in the word) how that disdain of Moses & Aaron's 〈◊〉 over the people that then God chose to be his peculiar, moved his Majesty to so great indignation, that he drove down Core and all his confederacy to the depth of hell both body & soul, themselves alive, & all the people looking on their fall so fearful. The example had been of less respect, if his heavy hand had stayed upon the principal of that proud sort: but it did not. For there perished, by strange fire, of the accessaries to that Schism, two hundredth & fifty more. And the grudge, alas, of the people not ceasing so, God sent fire from heaven, and wasted 14. thousand and 700. of them at once. And all this saith Moses, Vtsciatis quia blasphemaverint Dominum, that you may be well assured, that they blaspemed our Lord God. So near doth the contempt of God's ministers touch his own person, that in disdain of the one, there is account made of horrible blasphemy of the other. This Cores, as josephus writeth, was a man that had a cast in talk to please the people, as the seditious often have: and this was a great flower of his persuasion of the people to sedition & disobedience, as holy writ reporteth, Cur elevamini super populum Domini? It is sufficient for our purpose, that the whole multitude is sanctified, and the Lord is in them: why do you exalt yourselves above the people of God? Thus said the seditious against God's Priests then: and now truly, both the people and the preacher do pipe Cores note of cur elevamini, in every play and pulpit, never having in mind their lamentable fall, whose steps they like so well to follow.  FVLKE. 
The example of Cores rebellion, if we had forgotten, by so many treasonable devices of the papists, against the Prince, and Religion, breaking forth into sundry actual rebellions, both in Ingland and Ireland, we might easily be put in remembrance, whose often disappointed purposes, and sometime punished practices, if at length they move nothing to surcease from their wickedness, let them remember, that the Lords long suffering so much contemned, will add infinite torments to their endless damnation, which sleepeth not, although the execution be deferred. As for the application of Cores example, which Allen maketh, is very ridiculous, while the papists dancing after the Pope's seditious pipe, charge us for piping, and that in every play & pulpit, Cur elevamini, as though either they had proved themselves to be God's Priests, which be rather the devils paragons, or we refused to yield any honour, which to any of God's ministers, either Ecclesiastical, or Civil, by his appointment appertaineth.  ALLEN. 
Marry I cannot tell well, whether the cases be comparable, though I nothing doubt but ours is much worse: For. S. chrysostom saith, that the disobedience of Dathon and the rest of that confederacy, rose rather upon the affectation of so high a function. 
De sacer. lib. 3.  with admiration of their dignity, then upon any contempt of that power, in which the priest of god were placed. But the dishonour and the derogation that now is done to the much more excellent office, st anacth upon unfaithfulness, mistrust of God's promise, love of sin, liking of liberty, loath somnes of truth, and unminde fullness of salvation. In which case though neither the heavens yield fire for the present punishment, nor the earth open for their speedy passage to eternal pain, yet the perpetual fight which they keep against God's ordinance, their disordered life, and disobedience, their darkness of understanding in such light of approved truth, and the continual course of the Church, which inmarucilous misery they do willingly sustain, doth, me think, fully resemble the lamentable slate of the damned and for saken sort, and therefore being yet a live, in goodliking, and liberty, I fear they wittingly and wilfully perish.  FVLKE. 
And we nothing doubt but the contempt of the ministers of the gospel, is a greater offence, than theirs which despised the ministers of the Law. 2. Cor. 3. But that our neglect of popipsh shrist, for which we are so heinously accused, should stand upon unfaithfulness or mistrust of God's promise, it is very incredible: but for that the faithful trust of gods promises, without any such ordinance of man, offereth us free remission of our sins, we are bold to reject it. And that love of sin, and liking of liberty therein, should move us to refuse popish absolution, it is altogether unlikely. For where absolution may be bought for a little money at the hands of men, who is so mad to present himself before the judgement seat of God? and who that delighteth in sin, will not think to have liberty therein, when he may compound with his judges for a trifling matter, in such cases as deserve eternal damnation? As for the hell, in which Allen placeth us alive, is like the purgatory, in which he teacheth men to be placed, when they are dead. For what ordinance of God doth he dream of, against which we should fight? popish priesthood, shrist, and pardons, they are not yet, nor ever shallbe proved to be gods ordinance. And what discord seethe he in our life, more than the common frailty of mortal men, which never be free from sinning? or greater than every man may see in the lives of popish Priests and people? Touching disobedience, lettreason and rebellion speak, whether they be found in us, or in them. Finally our darkness of understanding, in so great light of Allens approved truth, when it appeareth, shall either argue us to be very blind, or Allen to dream when he is awake. And the continual course of the Church, if it bring not Allen into a confused case, worse than purgatory, before he can show it, for popish shrift and pardons, we refuse not to lie in such an hell, as he placeth us, until he and his fellows of their charity, will say mast, to bring us out of it.  ALLEN. 
And yet I am not so void of all hope of their recovery, that I would refuse to confer with them, touching that aut horitie of remission of sins, or other pre-eminence, which the Priests of Christ's Church do claim, and they so ear- they so earnestly control. Though the rather I would do it, for the help of the more humble sort, which in these days of disobedience, be rather driven out of the way by force of the common tempest, then by malice or misbehaviour towards the ministery, whom in Christ's name I must aducrtise to consider carefully, in what doubt and danger they and all their dearest do stand, in this pitiful vacation and long lack of the practise of priesthood for the remission of their sins and other needful succour of their souls. For if Christ, by whose blood we obtain pardon of our offences, have by his ordinance made man the minister of our reconciliation to God, and the bestower of his mercy in remission of sins, then doubtless whosoever neglecteth to walk the known way of salvation, and refuseth the ordinary means of mercy, which Christ meaneth to be applied to our use none otherwise, but by the office of mortal men, he liveth in sin perpetually, he dieth in sin without hope of recovery, and for sin without doubt shall perish everlastingly.  
Therefore the matter of so great importance, standing on so doubtful terms, it were no wisdom to sleep so soundly in such present peril, nor to continue without care and singular respect of most dreadful state. In which, if we pass our days without hope or possibility of God's mercy, because we refuse man's ministery, than all our life and studies, all our pains or pleasures, all our works and ways do nothing else, but drive us in disobedience to extreme death and desperation.  FVLKE. 
Though I have small hope of your recovery, which so long have been frozen in the dregs of popish heresy: yet will I not refuse to confer with you after this manner, or any other that is convenient, both to justify such contempt of Popish priesthood and pardons, as we teach, and also to let the doubtful sort plainly see, that such usurpation, as you pretend to maintain, hath no good ground either in scripture, or in the most ancient writers, or practise of the eldest and syncerest primitive Church of Christ. As for that point, which you take such pains to prove, that the contempt of man's ministery, for reconciliation unto God, and remission of sins bringeth damnation, is no matter of controversy between us: for we believe, confess, and teach even as much, and in as many words, ready to subscribe, and swear to the same, if it were lawfully required of us. But whether it be the ordinance of Christ, that Popish priests, Bishops, and Pope himself, should exact auricular confession, as they do, and give absolution and pardon in such manner as they use, this, I say, is that, which you should occupy your style in: for this is that, which we deny.  ALLEN. 
I make the more matter hereof, for that not only such as be led into folly & falsehood by the persuasion of some, to whose teaching and liking they have unadvisedly addicted themselves, but also diverse, even of the faithful, that be not fallen (thanks be given to God) so far as to contemn the Church, and Christ's appointed ordinance, are not yet so touched, as in such case of extreme misery, Christian men should be. For heresy is such a creeping and contagious canker, that albeit she utterly (through mercy and God's grace) kill not all, yet she dulleth the conscience, drieth up the zeal, and infecteth the minds of most. The like lack of Christian comfort hath been often else amongst the people in such storms of the Church: but so little care and consideration thereof, I do not lightly remember.  
In the persecution of the vandals and Arian Goths in Africa, the people of God were sivered from their pastors, and thereby wanted succour of their souls, as we now do: but thereof they conceived such grief and heaviness, that it is surely lamentable to remember. The story is recorded by Victor, and 
Li. 2. de de persecut. Vandal.  the words of the sorrowful people vitered in the ways, as their holy Bishops did pass towards their banishment, he reported thus: A marvelous press of faithful people, that the high ways could not receive, came down the hills with tapersin their hands, and laid their dear children at the Martyr's feet (so they termed the witnesses of God's truth then) and pitifully complained thus; Alas to whom do youleave us so desolate, whiles yourselves go to the crown of martyrdom? who shall now baptise these poor babes, in the fountes of lively water? who shall lose us tied in the bands of our offences, by pardon and reconciliation? who shall prescribe to us the due of penance for our fins past? For to you it was surely said: whatsoever you lose in earth, it shall likewise be loosed in heaven. Such you see was the carefulness of the people then, in that little lack of so necessary a thing: where now in so long desolation of most holic things, and our greatest comfort, few there be that take any grief of so much misery at all, and, that heartily lament the case, almost none. If we assuredly believed (as it is surely true) that all which pass this present life in the bonds of mortal sin, shouldeverlastinglie perish without all hope of mercy, and then to be undoubtedly bound in their offences, whom the priests of the holy Church had not loosed in this life (excepting only the case of extreme necessity, where by no means possible man's ministery can be obtained) then truly, besides the fear of our own dangerous state, our hearts would bleed for pity and compassion of so many that depart this present world, in the debt of eternal damnation, not only of our Christian brethren commonly, but of our dearest and best beloved particularly.  FVLKE. 
That heresy hurteth much, where it destroyeth not altogether, it was clearly seen in the blind time of Antichristes greatest exaltation, joined with so sharp persecution and strong delusion: in which although there were many, whose hearts were not infected with that deadly poison, yet there were few, which openly showed their full detestation of it: which you should less marvel at, in so general a plague as that was, considering how few you do acknowledge to be found on your side, in this short time of small trouble, and weak means (as you count them) of persuasion. The pitiful complaint of the Christians in Africa for the banishment of their Catholic bishops (although the time were such as all things were not sound therein) yet maketh it no resemblance with your case, which are not banished by tyrants and heretics, as they were, but rather being tyrants and heretics, do wilfully withdraw your obedience from a Christian Catholic Prince, and from the execution of her Godly laws.  ALLEN. 
It is not my timorous conscience, nor scrupulous cogitation, that raiseth this fear: but it is the grave sentence of God's ordinance, it is Saint Augustine's own judgement, that moveth me of pity tomoove, and of duty to admonish my brethren and friends, of a thing that pertaineth to all so near. Saint Augustine, concerning the manifold miseries of the Christian people in the absence of their true Pastors in times of persecution, doth lively set forth the godly endeavours of faithful folks in these words. Do we not consider, when the matter is brought to an extreme issue, and where it can not be by flight avoided, what a wonderful concourse of Christian men of every kind, state, and age, is unto the Church? where some cry out for baptism, some for reconciliation or absolution (for so I interpret, ipsius panitentiae actionem, which also may mean a request to have penance appointed of the Priest) and all generally call for comfort, confession, and bestowing of the holy sacraments? In which extremity, if there lack such as should minister these things unto them, Quan tum exitium sequetur eos, qui de isto seculo vel non regenerati exeunt, vel ligati? quantus èst etiam luctus fidelium suorum, qui eos secum in vitae aeternae requie non habebunt? what utter destruction shall fall on them, that must pass this life, either not christened, or else fast bound in sin? And what passing sorrow will it be for their faithful friends, which shall not have their company in eternal rest and joy? Thus far said he, for proof that the Pastors should not forsake their flock: and thus say have forsaken their pastors: the lack is like in both. But ours so much worse, because it was procured willingly, and theirs the more excusable, because it was both borne of necessity, and lamented Christianlie.  FVLKE. 
It is neither your timorous conscience, nor Saint Augustine's judgement, but your traitorous affection towards the state of your native country, and your ambitious desire to be advanced in the multitude of your disciples, that moveth you to complain, that the flocks have now forsaken their pastors, where as in old time, the pastors did in times of heresy forsake their flocks. For admit you were, that you are not, name lie shepherds, where as you are wolves, how have the flocks forsaken you, rather than you forsaken them? should they have followed you into Flaunders, France, or Italy? or else should they have stuck to you manfollie, & have by force defended you, that you needed not to have been chased away? although rather hope of preferment, by speedy alteration of the state, then fear of punishment in so mild a government caused the greatest numbers of you to turn the soil.  ALLEN. 
Neither may we think ourselves here much to be relieved, by them, that pretend the like practice of such things as now 
Note.  we lack. For that ever augmented the sorrow and just dolour of the faithful. Much it is, God knoweth, to want their Pastors and priests so dear, and with them for most part all the due of Christianity: but to sustain in stead thereof, a kind of apish imitation of such holy functions, which in deed, by what pretence of holiness soever it be used, is and always hath been accounted most detestable, that is the great calamity which wasteth most in all tempestuous times of God's religion. For the only use, acquaintance, and familiarity of this false face or resemblance of truth and holy actions of the Church, driveth many into a kind of contentation and rest in such things, as themselves otherwise do abhor, at least turneth away sheirearnest appettie and desire of those matters, which no man can without peril of damnation miss. It is not yet meant herebie, that every sacrament is frustrate always that is by such made, or ministered, although for the most they be so profaned, that they be not only nothing beneficial, but also damnable, both to the giver and receiver: but my meaning is, that even those sacraments, which be of necessity, that by God's special mercy they may be received of such as be not otherwise competent ministers, where the present peril of any man's life forceth thereunto, that even then when they may be beneficial to other, that without schism call for the sacraments, yet they shall be damnable unto themselves. For hereof let every man be bold, that taketh upon him any ministry in schism & disorder, that so often he hath practised it, so often hath he provoked gods ire towards himself, and procured, as much as in him lieth, his indignation to all that are partakers thereof. S. Basil the great complaineth hereof very much in his days, by these words: 
Epist. 70.  In the doctrine of impiety & wickedness the Church's babes be now brought up. For how can it be otherwise? Baptism is ministered by heretics, they help forth such as pass hence, they keep visitation of the sick, they have comforting of the sorrowful, they take on them the ease of such as be burdened in all cases, and to be short, they minister the mysteries of holy communion: so that in time, though the liberty of Christ's religion be restored again, the youth shall take such liking in heretics practises, to whom by love and custom, they are so fast knit, that it will be hard to reduce them home to truth again. Thus far spoke Saint Basil of his days: and right good cause have we no less to complain of ours. They were then encumbered with Arians, and we with a legion of new devices and bold practisioners of such high and heavenly functions, as neither by God nor man they are rightly and orderly called unto. By these now only our souls seem to live, but by these alone we surly die everlastingly. In all which great desolation of Christian comfort and all spiritual unctions this were some solace, if either the elder sort could consider what they have lost, or the poor children, which are nurced in these novelities, might learn what they lacked.  ALLEN. 
My meaning is therefore, to move all parties to the necessary care and heed of the matter, by the treatise following: trusting that some one or other of my good brethren, who all be to me most dear, will awake at my earnest call, and consider of the matter deeply, how it fareth with him and other touching their souls, since the sacrament of penance hath been banished, and the priesthoede of God's Church spoiled of jurisdiction and right in remission of sins, and to help him in so necessary and fruitful advise of himself, and other, whom in such cases I mean always to serve, I will seek out the ground of this authority, that hath been so long practised of the priest, and honoured of the people, to the singular glory of God, the notorious increase of virtue, weal public of the whole Christian world, that both the good Catholic may have reasonable prose of that, which to his immortal weal he hath so long both loved & reverenced in Christ's ministers, and also the contemners of so heavenly power may learn in humbleness of heart to like and fear the excellent function, which by pride they did before unadvisedly disprove. It may please any man, that is doubtful of this article, which is so necessary to be known, to consider, & give good attendance to the whole course of my talk. I promise him as afore god (who will sharply judge all sinister endeavours in causes of his honour) that I will deal sincerely in all points and faithfully: I will not cover myself nor the light of the cause in cloud of words, neither by any artificial sleight (as new doctors now a days often do) cirumvent the sense of him that is moss simple, such indifferency shall be used every where in trial of the truth, that I will seem for his sake, to doubt of the matter myself. Though in deed (so god save me in my common sense, and so god spare me for my sins) I can never mistrust any point of that faith in which I was new borne & baptised. But that notwithstanding I will not spare to rip up that, which men most reprove in god's Church and ministers, that all the disobedient children may see, how free they be from falsehood, and far from beguiling the flock of Christ to them committed to keep, we will call the high magistrates (though it be exceeding unseemly for subjects) to account of their governent: the principal pastor must give a reason of his pardons, and answer for the limitation of his indulgences by years, days and times, both he and all other bishops shallbe accountable for such grave censures exercised upon men's souls, with them all inferior priests must be posed for searching the secrets of our cansciences, for releasing man's misaeedes, enjoining penance, and requiring satisfaction for sins. Thus bold will we be with truth, the rather thereby to deface falsehood.  
And all this in that order, that may in least room contain most matter, with both brevity and light, so much, as so deep and large a cause can bear, from all contention I will so far refrain, that even the adversaries themselves of Cristes' truth and doctrine, albeit they be persons infamous, by law, and consent of all nations, shall not yet without meet and reasonable moderation be touched or talked of, requiring of them this courtesy again, that they reprehend nothing in this discourse pri vilely, which they can not, nor dare not answer to openly. And of my loving brethren that be Catholic, I must farther require one thing (the suit is for themselves) that, when in a manner they sensibly feel the truth, they would not refuse to follow the same, that by outward work they may declare their inward will. Here of I am more careful, for that I see heresy and falsehood to be of that countenance and colour, that it is often liked, before it be believed: where gods truth, for terror and bitterness that it beareth, is not always followed, where it is well known & trusted. But surely truth is not profitably understood, till it be willingly practised.  
Therefore whosoever acknowledged in his conscience the power of God's Church and ministry for the remission of sins, and useth not humbly con fession of his sins, that that power may redound to his saluati on, he is so much farther from God, by how much more he knoweth the right way to come to God. Man's will must in all such cases of terror and difficulty, give over to God's ordinance, whose commandments, though they seem to the worldly burdenous, yet to the good and ghostly, & paucis amantibus (saith Saint Augustine) they are sweet and exceeding pleasant. And this let every man assuredly know, that whosoever counteth confession so heaive, he neither feeleth the weight of sin, nor yet sufficiently feareth the appointed pain for the same. All these untowardly affections, that sin and the world have planted in us all, let ut seek by love and zeal of God's truth and ordinance, to amend: and join with me (geucle Reader) I beseech thee, in prayers, that our endeavours may please God, and profit his people.  FVLKE. 
In that you allow no necessity, that should drive any man to take any sacrament of such as you count heretics, but only the sacraments of baptism and penance in present peril of death, and yet account the receiving of sacraments so necessary, you insinuat whereunto you would bring the matter, if it lay in your power, and persuasion. Your late attempts by excommuncations and invasion, have made open your meaning. But he that sitteth in heaven shall laugh you to scorn, the Lord himself shall have you in derision: and all reasonable men shall think you ridiculous, while by declaiming generally against heresy, and the hurt that cometh thereby, you labour to bring your falsehood into credit, and the truth into disdain. It is a great part of popish rhetoric in these days, to enueie mightily and eloquently against schism, heresy, salsehood, errors, & c. & let the trial go, whether party may be justly charged with these crimes. But Master Allen, albeit he liketh that kind of disputing, and useth it much himself, yet his purpose is in this treatise to examine the matter so thoroughly, that men shallbe able, not only to understand the truth in their minds, but also to feel it with their hands. Of which truth he hath so great assurance, that he sweareth as deeply as any Christian man can do, not only that he doubteth nothing, but also that he can never mistrust any point of that faith, in which he was new borne, & baptised. How well he performeth this large promise, as also of such moderation as he will use, in touching the inmous persons of his adversaries, the book following will declare: wherein if auricular confession be so sensi blie proved out of the holy scriptures, as he maketh vaunt it shallbe, I myself will join with him, that if it were ten times as burt henous as it seemeth to be, no Christian man ought wilfully to omit it in pain of eternal damnation: but if the scriptures of God will afford no commandment for it, and the most ancient Catholic Church on earth never thought it necessarily to be required, I may reasonably require, that such as thought it needles before this treatise was written, when they see as much as can be said for it, to be disproved, they will acknowledge, that without tyranny to men's consciences, it cannot be imposed.  

That Christ did forgive sins, not only by proper power and nature, as he was God, but also by ministery, as he was a man, and as he was a Priest, and head of the Church: and that upon that ground the priest's power, in remitting sins in the Church, doth stand.  
THE FIRST CHAP.  ALLEN. 
CHrist jesus the Son of the living God, being everlastingly of the same substance, power, and nature, that his Father and the holy Ghost be of, as being equal and one God with them both, worketh mightily all things in heaven and in eartb jointly with them both: and therefore by excellency of power, property of nature, and by full and perfect dominion over his own creature, he remitteth man's sinnos by the same soveraingne right that they do. Who being thus in all excellency equal with God, hath notwithstanding vouchsafed of his singular bountifulness, joined with marvelous humilitises, to abase himself to the receiving of our nature: in which now he hath wrought the same things in earth, by service, suit, and commission, which before he only did by might and majesty of his own power procure, Even the self same God, that by will and commandment might most justly both have punished and pardoned whom he list, of love and wisdom infinite (continuing always in like excellency as before) became the minister of our reconcilement to God. In which state he offereth sacrifice as a Priest for sin, he useth sacraments for the remission of sin, he prayed to God his Father for the sinful, he is made the head of the Church, the Governor of the Church, and the judge of the Church. All which functions pertain to our Saviour, in respect and consideration of his human nature: according unto which, power is given him of the Father, thorough the holy Ghost, to practise the same.  FVLKE. 
THat the ignorant be not overtaken with the subtlety of this Sophister, which to derive his popish absolution from the person of our saviour Christ, playeth on while the Nestorian, another while the eutychian, It shallbe good for them to remember, what they are taught in their Creed concerning the person of Christ, which is very God and very man, consisting of two most divers natures, so united into one person, as they may neither be divided, nor confounded, without horrible blasphemy. In which person each nature so retaineth the essential proprieties of itself unconfounded, or destroyed, that he is but one person our Lord and saviour jesus Christ. Whereupon it followeth, that some actions arepeculiar to his godhead, some proper to his manhood, and some proceeding jointly from him, as he is God and man. As God he 
john. 5. 17. Mat. 9 4.  worketh even as his Father, he knoweth the th' ought of men's hearts, he knoweth the last day, whereof he is ignorant as man. Again that he did eat, drink, 
Mar. 13. 32.  sleep, sorrow, die, it was proper to his humanity. Finally that he preached the Gospel, wrought miracles, offered sacrifice for our sins, rose again, etc. and such like things, he did as the Mediator God and man. And although by reason of the unity of the person, that is often spoken of the whole person, which is peculiar to either nature, or of God, which is proper to man, or of man, which is proper to God: yet to preserve the essential properties of each nature, we must wisely distinguish, that which is proper unto the divinity, from that which is proper unto the humanity, whereof we see Master Allen hath small regard. while he affirmeth that all these functions of Christ, whereby he offereth sacrifice as a Priest, useth sacraments, prayed to God, is made the head of the Church, the governor of the Church, and the judge of the Church, pertain unto him in respect and consideration of his human nature. For of the sacrifice ofhim-selfe, the Apostle expressly affirmeth, that it was made by his eternal spirit, which being offered by an inferior nature, could not have been acceptable unto God. Heb. 9 14. Also that Christ God and man, is the head of the Church, and advanced in his humanity, to be judge of the world, it is in respect and consideration ofhi godhead, unto which his humanity is united. For as he is the image of the invisible God, by whom all things are created in heaven and earth, he is the head of his body the Church, Col. 1. 15. etc. And the Apostle Phil. 2. 10. showing his exaltation from the base shape of a Servant to be the most honourable judge of the world, using the words of the Prophet isaiah, cap. 45. in which God challengeth the judgement to himself, showeth plainly, that Christ hath this honour in respect of his godhead, which is proper unto it.  
Andwhatsoever in holy scripture is read to be exercised of him through the might of God's spirit, by the virtue of his anointing, by the finger of God, by the sending of the Father, by power received from above, by Priesthood, prayers or sacrifice, by the Son of man, of the head of the Church, or judge of the living and dead: whatsoever is in this sort said to be done, it is not otherwise lightly meant, but in respect of Christ's humanity, by which and in which he worketh the same, not as by the proper and natural power or force thereof, but as by jurisdiction received of the blessed Trinity, and employed upon the son of man, for the procuring of salvation to his people, whereof he is become in our very nature the head.  FVLKE. 
This general rule is so abridged with the exception lightly, that it is hard to bring any instance against it: but Allen would have his starting hole in it. Nevertheless seeing he concludeth the examples before remembered, to be included within this rule, we may be bold to charge him with a spice of Nestorianisme, seeing those works which are certain to have been the works of the Mediator God and man, he ascribeth to the only humanity by jurisdiction received from the blessed Trinity: whereby it should follow, that the work of Christ in this respect, should not differ from the works of Moses, Elias, David, or any of the Prophets, who received jurisdiction from the blessed Trinity, whereby they performed many works, which the same blessed Trinity had appointed for the procuring of salvation unto his people.  ALLEN. 
Therefore no Christian man may doubt, but as our Saviour, by the omnipotent power of his Godhead; might and did forgive sins to the penitent, so likewise, that, as he was Priest, & the son of man, he might by the right of his office, unction, and ministery, in the virtue of the holy Ghost, remit sins also. And for that cause principally in the Prophet Esay it is said, Spiritus Dominisuper me, eò quòd unxerit me, ad annunciandum mansuetis misit me, ut mederer contritis cord, & praedicarem captivis indulgentiam, & clausis apertionem: The Spirit of the Lord vopn me, because he hath anointed me, and sent me to signify unto the meek, that I should heal the contrite in heart, to preach pardon to the prisoners, and freedom to the closed. The which place of the Prophet our Saviour applied unto himself in the Church of Nazareth, and is to be understanded only of preaching, and pardoning, by the holy unction of the Spirit of God, and his Father's calling. And therefore, it must needs, according to Saint Augustine's judgement, concern the shape of his service and manhood taken on him, in which he preached so, that yet it pleased him to affirm, that his Doctrine was not his own, but his Fathers that sent him: and healed the contrite in heart, which is nothing else, but to forgive sins to the penitent, after such a sort, that it might well appear to be received and practised by the unction of the Spirit of God, and sending of his Father, whereby the Son of man might do that as God's minister in his manhood in earth, which both he, and his eternal Father, with the holy Spirit of them both, do work by their own, one, and equal authority in heaven everlastingly.  FVLKE. 
And seeing he willeth us to note the ground of the cause, which is, that Christ as he was Priest, and the son of man, might remit sins by a ministeriereceived by unction of the holy Ghost, it is not lightly to be passed over. That the son of man had power upon earth to forgive sins, he himself affirmeth Mat. 9 6. but this was the power of his godhead, which was not restrained, nor abased, by the shape of a servant, in which he appeared on earth. That he was authorized by unction of the holy Ghost, to preach remission of sins unto the penitent, it pertaneth indeed unto him, in respect of his manhood, although Saint Augustine in the place by Allen quoted, saith not so, but citeth the place of isaiah, to prove that Christ, in respct of his humanity, was inferior to the holy Ghost, but that this is all the power, that Christ had upon earth to remit sins, it is not proved by any argument. For this ministery of reconciliation to remit sins, by preaching of the Gospel, doth remain still with the Church: the other, that was proper to his Deity, no mortal man without Sacrilege can arrogate, or usurp.  ALLEN. 
And though God hath never 〈◊〉 man's fall, used the means and service of man, to his restore again, and to the relief of his lacks, and therefore hath given authority by his holy spirit and unction, to diverse of the old law to offer sacrifice, prayer, and procure remission to the people of all their offences: and no less 〈◊〉, occasion served, and the matter required, to correct their misdeeds by judgement and jurisdiction given unto them, for which sovereign calling they were called the anointed of God, an external ceremony of anoyting being solemnly annexed thereunto: yet our Lord an Master, whether you consider his high Priesthood, by which in most ample manner through commission received, he may procure our pardon, or his calling to be head of the Church, by which he ruleth and keepeth all the body in due subjection and order, or his ministery of preaching, whereby, far above all the Prophets and preachers of the old law, he openeth to his flock the Church, the secret mysteries of God's truth; Christ, I say, in all these respects being man, is yet much more abundantly blessed, and anointed without comparison, above all his fellows and copartners, as the holy Prophet David doth testify. Upon whose words touching that matter, Saint Hilary writeth thus: Vnxit te Deus, Deus tuus oleo exultationis prae participibus tuis: non secundùm sacramentum aliud, quàm secundùm dispensationem assumpti corporis. unctio enim illa, non beatae, illi & incorrupt, & in natura dei man enti nativitati profecit, sed sanctificationi hominis assumpti. Name & in Actis ait Petrus, unxit illum Deus in spiritu sancto & virtute. Thus he meaneth in English: God etien thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of joy, far above thy copartners, not in any other meaning, but according to the dispensation of a body received. For that unction could not be beneficial to the holy, unspotted, and everlasting nativity in the nature of his Godhead, but only it was agreeable to the mystery of his manhood and flesh assumpted in his temporal nativity: whereof Saint Peter speaketh in the Acts, that God hath anointed him with the holy ghost and with power.  
The holy Father also Saint cyril agreeth hereunto, confessing that all this honour, power, and authority, which the Prophets have signified so long before by the anointing of the son of God, came unto Christ in consideration of his manhood: thus he saith, Quòd unctio sit secundúm humanitatem, nemo qui rectè sapere solet, dubitabit, quia absque omni controversia minus à maiore benedicitur. That the anointing of Christ should be meant of his humanity, no man doubteth that is of any right understanding. For without all controversy the inferior and less ever receiveth blessing of the superior and greater. There can be no question then, but all sovereignty and supreme jurisdiction, which he exercised over the Church, being his body and spouse, in that respect that he was either Priest and Bishop of our souls, as Saint Peter calleth him, or else as he was out head and pastor, it is certain, that all this came unto him by his father's sending, and the unction of the holy Ghost, and the benediction of the holy Trinity, to which he was inferior accor ding to his manhood.  FVLKE. 
That our saviour Christ by his unction received no gift or blessing of God, but in respect of his humanity, it is more clear than it needed to have been declared, by the testimonies of Hilarius and Cyrillus: but that all sovereignty and supreme inrisdiction, which he exercised over the Church in respect that he was Priest and Bishop of our souls, or as he was our head and Pastor, came only to his manhood (as Allen maketh it certain) it is utterly false, and blasphemous against his godhead. For unto all sovereignty and authority, he hath full right in respect of his divinity. and therefore the Apostle Heb. 3. 5. etc. saith that Moses was faithful in Gods house as a servant, but Christ as the son over his own house, which was builded by himself, as God which hath made all things. For what cause Allen speaking of the sovereignty of Christ over his Church useth the time past, saying he was our Priest and Bishop, he was our head and pastor, it is easy to guess, seeing he laboureth to establish such a sovereignty and supreme jurisdiction on earth, as is derogatory to the high authority of Christ in heaven. But the scripture teacheth us, that he is an eternal Priest. Heb. 7. & 9 etc. that he is the shepherd and Bishop of our souls, 1. Peter. 2. that he is and shall be to the end of the world, the head of his Church. Eph. 1,  ALLEN. 
If thou doubt of his Priesthood in this case, hear Theodoretus: Christus autem, quód ad humanitatem quidem attinet, Sacerdos appellatus est, non aliam autem hostiam, quám suum corpus, obtulit: Christ 
Dialog. 1.  (saith he) touching his humanity, was called a Priest, and he offered no other host, but his own body. But we may have more forcible testimony hereof in Saint Paul himself, who in sundry other places that are known, professeth every Bishop to be elected and chosen out among a number of men, to offer sacrifice for sin. 
Heb. 5. 5.   
And that he is made the supreme governor & head of the Church in his humanity, yea and in respect thereof, is appointed to be the high minister of God the father in pardoning or judging the world, it is an assured ground of our faith, approved not only by the consent of all Doctors, but also by the Scriptures, every where protesting, that all power in heaven and earth is given to Christ: in so much, that the Apostle calleth him, the man, in quo viro statuit judicare orbem tetratum: In which, or by which appointed man he will judge the world. All these things, though they may 
Act. 7.  seem to the simple to be far from the matter, yet they be both near our purpose, and necessary to be laid up in memory for the further establishing of our faith in the Article proposed, and diverse other profitable points of Christian belief now impugned.  FVLKE. 
We doubt not that Christ was a Priest, as touching his humanity, as Theodoret saith, but we believe that he was a Priest, as he was the mediator, God and man. For as some ministerial parts of that office did require that he should be a man, áccording to which nature he might be subject, so other parts of the same office required the authority of God. For none but God, hath authority to reconcile man, and to bring him into the holiest place, into the presence and sight of God, whereunto he hath full right of his own nature and dignity. The forcible testimonies that Master Allen citeth out of the Apostle, Heb. 5. & 9 have no force to prove, that Christ is not a Priest, as he is God and man, although they prove that he is a Priest, as he is man. But contrariwise if these scriptures be well marked, which the Apostle doth allege out of the second Psalm: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten the: and out of the 110. psalm, thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchiseàech, they will make evident proof unto us, that Christ not only in respect of his humanity, but also in respect of his deity, is our eternal high Priest, as he is our saviour, our mediator, our redeemer, as in other places the Apostle showeth more plainly, and I have argued purposely, and plentifully against the slanderous note of the Rhemistes in my confutation of the Papists quarreils against my writings. pag 64. unto the end, whereunto I refer the reader for more full satisfaction. That Christ in his humanity is made the supreme governor and head of his Church, we do constantly bleeve: but that he hath this excellent authority, in respect of his humanity alone, and not in respect of his divinity, we can not acknowledge. For in respect of his divinity his person is capable of all honour, glory, power, and authority, which in the only respect of his humanity it were not. That he is appointed to judge the world also, in his humanity, we confess according to the scriptures: but seeing I have proved before, that to be judge of the world, is 
Gen. 18. 25.  proper to the deity, we must needs confess, that the man jesus Christ, is appointed to be judge of the quick and the dead, not only as an high minister deputed of God, in respect of his humanity, but as God himself, of supreme authority in respect of his divinity. For to hold that Christ, is no otherwise judge of the world, but as an high minister, as kings and Princes are judges of the earth, as high ministers by deputation only of God's authority committed to them, and not by right of their nature, I see not how it can be excused from gross Nestorianisme. The scriptures which protest, that all power in heaven and earth is given to Christ, are to be understood in deed of the exaltation of his humanity, and crowning of his manhood, with glory and majesty: but thereof it followeth not, that Christ enjoyeth all that power, that is given to him, by the only right of his humanity. For except Christ were God, as verily as he is man, he were not able to receive such a gift, which no creature can have, except he be also creator and God himself, therefore Christ truly as man, receiveth that which is given, but in respect and right of his godhead, he is able to receive and exercise that power, which none can have but God only. These things indeed may seem unto the simple to be far fetched, and far from the question of priest's power to remit sins, but they are much farther from the truth of our Catholic faith and Religion, that our saviour Christ in respect of his Divine nature, should be spoiled of his authority, or else should thereby work nothing in a manner, in the chief & most necessary parts of our redemption, that Popish priests might be made equal, or not far unlike him, in the power of pardoning sins.  ALLEN. 
For as the due consideration of Christ's authority and excellent office touching his manhood, will help up the decayed honour and jurisdiction, that the guides of God's Church, by the right of his high calling, do justly challenge: so it shall express the boldness of certain miscreants of this age, who, to further their sundry evil in tents, and detestable doctrines, have dishonoured Christ's dignity, touching his incarnation and office of his redemption, exceeding much, both in himself, and in persons of his priests and substitutes, some of them fearing (as I take it) lest the honour and office of Christ's Priesthood might, by participation, descend to the Apostles and Priests of the Church, letted not to hold that Christ was his father's Priest according to his divine nature: of which blasphemy john calvin was justly noted, wherein the wicked man, 
Vide Orichovii Chimer.  whiles he went about to disgrace the dignity of mortal men, became exceeding injurious to the second person in Trinity. One other of that school, and of his own nest, denied that Christ in his manhood should judge the world, lest there might seem to be some force of punishment and correction of wickedness practised by man's ministery in this life, for the resemblance of Christ's judgement to come. And so taught one Richerius, of a Carmelite a Caluinist. Other deny 
Vide Villegag. contra articulos calvini. Ita Hartop. Monhem & alij. Heb. 7.  Christ being now in heaven, to make prayer for us according to his manhood, because it tendeth towards the intercession, as Saint Paulin express words recordeth of him: Quòd saluare in perpetuum potest, accedens ad Deum per semetipsum, semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis. That for ever he is of power to give salvation, having access to God by himself, and always jiving to make intercession for us. Yea most of the Sacramentaries, for the advantage of their ungodly assertion, that Christ in his own person as he is God and man should not be present in the sacrament, do covertly blaspheme the blessed and highly 
Vide Ciril in joan lib. 3. Cap. 4.  sanctified fleshof our saviour, avouching it to be unprofitable: whereby they unadvisedly dishonour the dreadful incarnation of Christ, and all the works wrought by the mean of his flesh and blood, and ministery of his manhood, for the remission of our sins, and purchasing salvation to his Church.  FVLKE. 
The due consideration of Christ's authority, and excellent office touching his manhood, will nothing help to restore the decayed honour and jurisdiction of Popish priesthood, except you can both prove your Popish priests capable of such honour and power, as the son of God is, and also bring forth the records out of the holy scriptures, for that high calling, whereof you boast. That any faithful Christian, whom you to maintain an Antichristian authority, call Miscreants, have dishonoured Christ's dignity, touching his incarnation and office of his redemption, it is a slander strongly advouched, but slenderly proved. For first calvin affirming Christ to be a priest in his whole person, God and man, derogateth nothing from that dignity, neither is he injurious against the second person in trinity: for Christ is an high priest after the order of Melchesidech, and our redeemer, not as a minister and servant only, but as the son, as the King os peace and righteousness, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of his days, nor end of his life, all which things can not be restrained to the humanity of Christ, but are proper to him as he is equal and eternal with his father. That Richerius should deny that Christ in his manhood should judge the world, it might well be a slander of that gross potheaded Cyclops Villegagnon, which when he durst not abide the invasions of the barbarous people in Gallia antarctica, where he had enterprised a conquest, he quarreled with Richerius, and other godly persons, to have a colour of return, and a welcome of the Papists. And as touching his slanderous libel, that you send the reader unto, I refer you & them to the answer & confutation of Richerius. thirdly that Christ doth make prayers for us according to his manhood, it is not sufficiently proved by the text of the Apostle to the Heb. 7. because he may and doth make continual intercession for us, by the virtue and worthiness of the sacrifice of his death, although he conceive no prayers for us, in form of words. as men use upon earth. And if it be granted that Christ so prayeth for us, yet it tendeth nothing towards the intercession of Saints, but rather against it, because the interceffion of Christ is sufficient without them, yea if the intercession of Saints were proved, it draweth not of necessity prayer unto Saints after it, and therefore there were small purpose in them that deny Christ in such form to pray for us, to control the invocation of Saints, which thing being either granted or denied, proveth neither too nor fro, that Saints are to be prayed unto or 〈◊〉. That any one of those, whom you call Sacramentaries, doth either overtly or covertly blaspheme the blessed flesh of our Saviour, avouching it to be unprofitable (otherwise then our saviour Christ himself avouched, if it were separated from his divine, and quickening spirit, doth profit nothing) you are not able to justify, and therefore you send us in the margin to cyril upon john. lib. 4. Cap 14. who showeth in deed that the flesh of Christ, as it is the flesh of the son of God, hath quickening virtue and power in it, to our eternal redemption, but otherwise affirmeth nothing thereof, that we all are not ready to subscribe unto.  ALLEN. 
Let us therefore Christianlie confess with the scripture and with the Church of Christ, that our saviour not only by power equal to his father concerning his divine nature, but also by the sending and grant of his father, and unction of the holy spirit, being far under them both in his human nature, doth remit sins. Whereupon it orderly followeth, that, whosoever denieth man to have authority, or that he may have power granted him by God to forgive sins, he is highly injurious to our saviours own person, & dispensation of his flesh, and mystery of his holy incarnation. For though there be great diversity betwixt his state and others, because in one person both God and man be perfectly united in him, and therefore much more prerogative might be, and doubtless was given to his humanity, as to him that was both God and man, in respect of his base nature, then to any other of his brethren being but mere men: yet this is assuredly to be believed, that he which could without derogation to his godhead, communicate with the son of man, and grant him, in consideration of his assumpted nature, the rule and redemption of his people, the assoiling of our sins, and to work all wonders in the power, finger, and force of the holy ghost, the same God, without all doubt, through his son and our saviour, may at his pleasure without all unseemliness or derogation to his eternal honour (andso it shall be proved) that he doth give power to the governors of his Church and houshodle, to pardon and give penance, to judge and rule the people in the right of our said Saviour, to the edifying of his body and making perfect of his saints.  FVLKE. 
We do Christianly confess according to the scripture, and with the Church of Christ, that our saviour Christ not only by power equal to his father, concerning his divine nature, but also by grant of God his father, in his human nature, which is far inferior to his father, doth remit sins absolutely, and of sovereign authority, in respect of his divinity, as the mediator God and man and that he did the same upon earth also, as a minister and preacher of repentance and reconciliation, according to his humanity. But hereupon it followeth not, by any order, or necessity of consequence, that whosoever denieth mere man to have authority, or power to forgive sins, is injurious to Christ's person, and the dispensation of his flesh, or mystery of his holy incarnation. For although that man have this authority which is God, yet it followeth not that such men as are only men, are capable of the same authority. The diversity betwixt the state of our saviour Christ, and others is so great, that nothing can be communicated to others, which is proper to him in respect of his divine nature. And such a thing is the absolute power to forgive sins, for which he hath made satisfaction to the justice of God, which, whensoever we speak of the remission of sins, may not be forgotten. For the mercy of god forgiveth no sin, but that for which his justice is thorouglie satisfied in the obedience and justice of our Lord and redeemer jesus Christ. Therefore as no other man hath the dispensation of his satisfaction, but himself, so no other man can give absolute forgiveness of sins but himself. But as all his ministers have power to pronounce forgiveness of sins to the penitent, which is no more but to express his will and pleasure, concerning the remission of sins, and in what sort and condition he bestoweth the same, so have they power to teteine sins, not of them whom he will pardon, but of such as do not repent, and therefore by his word, are denied of forgiveness: so that man in this case followeth the judgement and authority of God, not God the judgement and authority of man. For if a true priest, elder, or minister, of the gospel, lawfully authorized, would forgive the sins of an hypocrite, that feigneth repentance, they are not forgiven before God: and if man would retain the sins of a true penitent, yet are they forgiven before God. For to man is given no absolute power to forgive sins, any more than there is given to man an undoubted judgement, to discern between hypocrites and true faithful persons.  
But where you say, that God could without derogation to his godhead, communicate with the son of man, and grant him in consideration of his assumpted nature, the rule & redemption of his people, the government of our souls, the assoiling of our sins, etc. I must know how far you extend your consideration. For if you mean thereby, that God in respect of, or according to this assumpted human nature, did communicate to our saviout Christ, none other but such power as he might without derogation to his deity, have communicated unto Moses, Samuel, or any other, which was a mere mortal man, for the redemption of our souls, and forgiveness of our sins, I do utterly abhor your Nestorian, and worse than Nestorian blasphemy but if you mean, that such power, as might without the derogation of his godhead be communicated to the son of man, is by him delivered to the ministers of his Church, which execute the office of shepherds, and teachers in his place, I do gladly confess, that without all unseemliness and derogation to his eternal honour, the ministers of the Church have power, by his grant to retain, and forgive sins, that is, to declare the judgement of God, in forgiving or retaining of sins, according to such conditions as he hath expressed in his holy word: which judgement, according to those conditions, is so ratified by God himself, that it is as certain, as if it were pronounced, and uttered by his own voice out of heaven. But where you speak of pardoning, and giving of penance, I must once again distinguish of your meaning. For if you mean, by your Popish term of penance, repentance, so that you say, man hath power to give repentance, which is a conversion of the heart unto God, and a change of the mind from sin to obedience of God, I spit at your blasphemous saying. For it is proper only to God, to give repentance to Israel, and to all true Israelites of the gentiles his elected children, as the holy ghost teacheth, Acts. 5. and 11. in which places, your pupils the Rhemists, durst not for gall of conscience, and shame of the world, translate the latin word paenitentia (as they do commonly else where, except it be taken in the evil part) penance, but repentance. Yet if by the word penance you mean a time, or exercise of trial of true repentance, which the ancient writers do sometimes metonimically call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and paenitentia, which was granted by the elders of the Church, to such as had grievously fallen, that they might have some experience of their true conversion, before they were admitted into the communion of the faithful, I may yield to your term. And further I will not deny, but that God hath given power unto the governors of his Church and household, to pardon such penance, thatis, to remit upon due and good consideration, some part, or the whole of that time, and exercise, which to such penitents by them is enjoined: but that any mortal creature hath power to pardon penance, in such sort, that the party which is to receive the pardon, need not to be penitent for his sins, I stand still to the flat denial.  
Neither must we here make any great account of such as shall object to the priests of gods Church, as the Scribes did unto Christ himself, when they saw him in express words absolve many of their sins, conceiving in their hearts, as it is recorded by Saint Matthew in the history of the healing of the man that had the palsy, that Christ did injury to God, and 
Cap. 9  committed blasphemy in taking upon him to remit man's offences. whose malicious minds and cogitations, Christ did so reprehend, that they might well perceive by his sight of their inward secrets, that he was very God, who only by nature looketh into man's heart, and therefore did thereby well insinuate, that they could not justly reprehend his doings, seeing he was God in deed, and might as God pardon man's offences. Yet that notwithstanding, he stood not with them then upon the right of his Godhead for the doing of this excellent function, which in deed by nature and property is only pertaining to him, but he gave this reason of his doing, that the Son of man had power to remit sins in earth: whereby me seemeth (wherein yet I submit my judgement to the more learned) that he plainly professed, that by power received, he might in respect of his manhood and calling forgive sinners, and that in earth, as meaning thereby to institute an order and way, how to remit sins here in the world, either by himself, or by his ministers, at whose sentence passed in earth, the penitent should be frree by judgement of God in heaven. For so our saviour two or three times talking of man's ministery, in the remission of 〈◊〉, termeth it, losing in earth, and the contrary, binding in earth, as also he calleth God's high sentence in the same cause, losing and binding in heaven. Neither doth the interpretation of Saint Hilary any whit hinder my meaning, who upon that place affirmeth Christ to have remitted this 
Mat. 16. & 18. In explan. Mat. Can. 18  man's sins by the might of his godhead: for it standeth well, that one work should be wrought by the principal cause, and yet by the office and ministery of some secondary cause appointed by the ordinance of God for the same use, as we see in baptism to the remission of the child's sin, both the might of God, and the ministry of man to concur at once, whereof we shall have, I trust, better occasion to speak anon.  FVLKE. 
It is well that you can make such light account, of such as shall object against you, that it is not lawful for man to usurp any thing, which is proper to god, as is the absolute power to forgive sins, which none can properly and absolutely forgive, but he against whom they be committed. Therefore there is a broad difference between the power of God, and the 〈◊〉 of man, in forgiving of sins. God doth absolutely and properly forgive sins committed against his law, and majesty. Man by his appointment doth assure the penitent sinners of his sins forgiven by God: and therefore in some phrase of 〈◊〉 is said to forgive sins, as he is said, to save men's souls, to whom he preached the salvation by jesus Christ. The Scribes did rightly affirm, that none could forgive sins, but God only but they erred in that they did not acknowledge Christ to be God, who in the person of the mediator, even in that state of humility, in which he was conversant upon earth was no whit abridged of his divine authority, but that he might by the same power forgive sins, that he did heal diseases. And whereas he saith, that the son of man had power to forgive sins upon earth, he meaneth not that he had it, as mere man: but as God and man in one person, and that his manhood was no let unto him, to exercise that power of his godhead. john. 3. he saith, the son of man came down from heaven, and that the son of man is in heaven. But this is not to be understood of the son of man, according to his manhood, but according to his Godhead, as many other such speeches are in the scripture, which in respect of the unity of the person, ascribe to the one nature, that which is proper to the other, as Act. 20. to feed the Church of God, which he hath redeemed with his own blood. where redemption by his blood is affirmed of God, which is proper and true, in respect of Christ's humanity. Your modesty is commendable, that you do submit yourself to the judgement of other, in that your conceit of Christ's meaning, thereby to institute an order, etc. for the order that he hath instituted, and the power that he hath given, of binding and losing in earth, is else where plainly, and purposedlie set forth, that we need not such unnecessary & unlikely conjectures to ground it upon. And whereas you affirm, that the interpretation of Saint Hilary doth not any whit hinder your meaning, because one work may be wrought by the principal cause, and yet by the office and ministery of some secondary, I answer, the questions is not, what may be, but what was done in that case, whereof Saint Hilaries judgement is flat against you. His words are, in Mat. come. Canon. 8. Movet Scribas remissum ab homine peccatum. Hominem enim tantùm in jesu Christo confitebantur, & remissum ab eo quod lex laxare non poteratifides enim 〈◊〉 justificat: deinde murmurationem eorum dominus introspicit, dicitque facilè esse filio hominis in terra peccata dimittere Verùm enim nemo potest dimittere pecoata, nisi solus Deus: ergo quiremittit, Deus est, quia nemo remittie nisi Deus: deus in homine manens curationem homini praestabat, & nulla ei agendi aut loquendi erat difficultas, cui subest totum posse quod loquitur. Porro autem ut ipse in corpore positus, intelligi possit esse, qui & animis peccata dimitteret, & resurrectionem corporibus prestaret, ait, ut siatis quoniam silius hominis habet potectatem in terra dimittendi peccata, etc. It moveth the Scribes that sin is remitted by a man. for they did behold a man only in jesus Christ, and that to be remitted by him, which the law could not release. For faith alone doth justify afterward our Lord looketh into their murmuring, and saith, that it is easy for the son of man on earth to forgive sins. But none truly can forgive sins but God alone, therefore he which forgiveth, is God, be ause no man remitteth but God. God abiding in man performed healing to the man, and there was no difficulty to him of doing or speaking, who hath power so be able to do all that he speaketh. But that he being placed in the body, might be understood to be the same which forgiveth sins to men's souls, and performeth resurrection to their bodies, he saith, that you may know that the son of man, hath power on earth to forgive sins, etc. Let the reader judge whether Saint Hilary do any whit in these words hinder your meaning. And yet more plainly Saint chrysostom controlleth your meaning, and speaketh expressly, and directly against it, in Mat. Hom. 30. entreating upon this place. Illud verò non praetermittendum, quòd quando peccata paralytici dimisit non apertè potestatem suam manifesiavit. Non enim dixit, dimitto tibi peccata tua: sed dimittuntur tibi peccata tua, inimicis autem urgentibus manifestius, suam potestatem oftendit. Ait enim, ut sciatis quia potestatem habet filius bominis in terra peccata di mittere: perpendisne quam longè abest, ut nolit aequalis patri putari? non enim dixit, potestatem habere à deo filium hominis, aut quia dedit sibi Deus potestatem, sed potestatem habet filius hominis: nec ad gloriam dico, ait, sed ut vobis persuadeam, quia non blasphemo, cùm meip sum patri aequalem faciam. But this thing, is not to be passed by, that when he forgave the sins of the palsy man, he did not openly manifest his power: for he did not say, I forgive thee thy sins, but thy sins are forgiventhes. But when his enemies urged him, he showeth his power more manifestly: for he saith, that you may know, that the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins. Dost thou not mark how far of it is, that he would not be thought equal to his father? for he said not, that the son of man hath power from God, or that God hath given him power, but the son of man hath power: neither, saith he, do I speak it for to glory in, but that I might persuade you that I do not blaspheme, when I make myself equal with my father. The same interpretation hath Euthymius upon the place. S. Ambrose also acknowledgeth the divinity of Christ to be proved by forgiveness of sins, in Luc. 5. Cognosce interioris hominis sanitatem cui peccata donantur, quae cùm judoaei asserunt a solo Deo, posse donari, deum utique confitentur, suoque judicio perfidiam suam produnt, ut opus astruant, personam negent, etc. Acknowledge the healing of the innar man to whom his sins are forgiven, which when the jews do affirm that they can be forgiven by God alone, they do confess verily, that he is god, & by their own argument bewray their falsehood, that they allow his work, and deny his person. Therefore even of them the son of god receiveth testimony of his work, & requireth not the suffrage of their voice. For falsehood can confess, but it cannot believe. Therefore there wanteth no testimony to his divinity, but faith is wanting to their salvation: for both it is more strange for credit which they confess unwilling, and also more pernicious to their fauls that they deny, which are convinced by their own assertions. Great therefore is the madness of the unfaithful people, that when they have confessed that it pertaineth to God only to forgive sins, they will not give credit to God, when he doth forgive sins. And a little after, where he also acknowledgeth the power of remitting sins, which is granted to men, he doth nevertheless affirm, that God only doth forgive sins. Quamuis igitur magnum sit hominibus peccata dimittere (quis enim potest peccata dimittere, nisi solus Deus, quiper eos quoque dimittit, quibus dimittendi tribuit potestatein?) tamen multò divinius est resurrecti onem donare corporibus. For although it be a great thing to forgive sins to men (for who can forgive sins but god alone, who also forgiveth by them, to whom he hath given power of for giving?) yet it is a much more divine work to give resurrection to men's bodies. This 〈◊〉 of S. Ambrose, showeth not only, that Christ by his divine power, as god, forgave sins in this place, but that God only doth properly 〈◊〉, when he useth the ministry of men: so that not 〈◊〉 S. Hilary, but even the consent of all the ancient writers is a 'gainst your new imagination.  ALLEN. 
But to return 〈◊〉 to our 〈◊〉: when Christ had declared that the Son of man had in earth power to remit sins, he then by this farther proof and argument overturneth the whole cause of their 〈◊〉 and inward 〈◊〉 against him for the same: whether is it more easy to say, thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say to the incurable person, take up thy bed and walk? I due the one in all your sights, and he is cured at my word: why then mistrust you the other? It was no less the property of God alone to he all him suddenly of his corporal infirmity, that had been desperatclie sick so long, then to forgive sins: but the one power though by 〈◊〉 it was proper to himself, yet he gave it in the sight of you all to the son of man in earth: why then mistrust you but he might well give the other? This reason proceeding from the wisdom of Gods own son, shall help our faith much touching this article, and shall not a little further the dignity of the 〈◊〉, who also after their master's example, may prove the force of their authority upon men's souls, which cannot be open to our bodily eyes, by the apparent power that their words shall be seen openly to work on men's bodies, especially if it be well weighed, that Christ wrought miracles also, not only by the excellent dominion and force of his godhead, but also, as Saint Augustine proveth, by the spirits of God, in respect of his manhood: In quo spiritu sanflo (saith he) operatus est virtuies, dicens: Si ego in spiritu dei 
De Trin. lib. 1. c. 11.  eiicto daemonia, certè superuenit in vosregnum Dei: In the power of which holy ghost Christ wrought miracles, according to his own saying in these words: if I expel out devils by the spirit of god, then surely the kingdom of God will come on you. The jews therefore seeing themselves thus overcome in their cogitatiòns, waxed affrayed, and glorified God, who gave such power to men. For though no man ever had equal authority or like power to Christ, who was both God and man, yet of this plentiful spirit and unction, many of his brethren have through his ordinance reccived part, as shortly now is shall be proved. In the mean time arm thyself against 〈◊〉 with this approved and certain truth, that not only God by his passing prerogative, may forgive sins, but that he hath so soveraignclie 〈◊〉 Christ our Priest and head, that as he is man, and occupieth the said functions in earth, he may remit by the virtue of the holy Ghost our offences also.  〈◊〉. 
That which before, but doubtinglie, and under correction of better learned men, you propounded, to the end that like a subull serpent you might writhe in your head, now as a conqueror of the whole cause, you thrust in your whole body: and as though you had gained your purpose, you affirm steadfastly, that although, it was no less the property of God alone to heal the man suddenly of his corporal infirmity, then to forgive sins, yet as he gave the one power to the son of man, which was proper to himself, so he might well give the other. Your argument in à posse adesse, which is not worth a straw, among them that know that arguments do mean. That power which God might give to mere mortal men, who doubteth but God might also give to Christ his son, to exercise according to his humane nature: but that he did exercise the same only as man, & not as God, by what argument is it proved? we know that in casting out of devils, he used his divine authority, and in his own name commanded them to come forth, and they obeyed. Mark. 1. 27. he raised the dead by his own authority as God, and in his own name, Luke. 7. 14. Saint john restifieth, that of the eternal word, which was made flesh, and dwelled among us, he and his fellow Apostles did see the glory, as the glory of the only begotten Jonne of God, full of grace and truth. From whence come you therefore, with a Gospel, to teach us that Christ did forgive sins, heal the sick, cast out devils, and do miracles, but as a man only, by power received from God? whereby you show yourself to be a good proctor for the Arrians, if those works which were proper to Christ, in respect of his divinity, you will draw down to his humanity, so that he raised the dead. cleansed the lepers, etc. not otherwise than by power received from; god, as Elizeus did, or as any of his Apostles, which did all things in his name: whose dignity you are so careful to further, that you care not how you abase the honour of their Master, & all to bring in a popish, that is, an Antichristian tyranny over men's souls, which is blasphemous against the authority of God. For if the plain text of the scripture, john 20. 23. whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, etc. would yield you so much authority, as you would gladly excercise, you would not trouble yourself, to make such impertinent, and inconsequent collections, by which you would have it seem, as though Christ in respect of his divine nature, was unoccupied, as concerning the work of our redemption in the world, but that he did all things in respect of his human nature, by power received from God. But Saint Augustine (you say) proveth, that by the spirit of God, in respect of his manhood, Christ wrought miracles, which although it be not the matter in question, yet you draw S. Austen to another matter, than ever was in his meaning. For although it be true, that Christ did cast out Devils in the spirit of God, as man, yet it followeth not, that he did not cast out devils by his own authority as God, seeing the works of the Trinity are undivided, and Saint Augustine, in the place by you quoted, distinguisheth between those sayings that speak of him, as in the form of God, and those that pertain unto him, in respect, of the shape of a servant.  
But an other argument you have, of that the jews, which seeing themselves thus overcome in their vain cogitations, waxed afraid, and glorified God, who gave such power to men. That the Scribes and Pharises which first moved the question of forgiveness of sins, were moved with reverence of our saviour Christ, or yielded glory God, I find not: but that all the rest of the people glorified 
Math. 9 Mark. 2. Luk. 5.  to god, which had given such power to men. What power say you? to forgive sins. The text saith not so, but of working such miracles, to heal the man sick of the palsy, so that he was presently changed from extreme weakness, to perfect strength. whereof: as S. Luke reporteth) they said, we have seen sirange things to day, and as S. Mark rocordeth it, they said, we never saw it thus. But as for the ordinary power of making atonement for sins, which the Priests used according to the law, it was no strange thing unto them, and they had seen it often times before. These therefore are the best interpreters of S. Math. which did write by the same spirit. But because man's authority with you is many times preferred before god, you shall hear what S. Hilary saith in that place, which ere while you affirmed to make nothing against your meaning: his interpretation of the text, Et honorificaverunt deum, quòd tantam dedit potestatem hominib. etc. is this. Conclusa sunt omnia suo ordine, & cessant iam desperationis timore, honour Deo redditur, quòd tantam dederit hominibus potestatem: sed soli hoc Christo erat debitum, solid communione paternae substantiae hoc agere erat familiar. All things are concluded in due order, and the fear of desperation now ceasing, honour is rendered to God, because he hath given so great power to men. But this was due only to Christ, to him alone it was familiar or accustomable to do these things by the communion of his father's substance. These words do plainly show that Saint Hilary dissenteth every whit from your meaning: and that you arm your scholars with no armour of proof, when you will them to look for the like power, of remitting sins in Christ's humanity, which he did exercise according to the authority of his divinity.  ALLEN. 
Let the proud cogitations of men here attend, that so highly disdain the ministery of mortal men in the remission of their sins: let them controulle the wonderful wisdom of God, which would no otherwise save the pitiful sores of our souls, but by the servile form of our own nature, joined marvelously in our person, to the word and eternal Son of God the father: let them reprehend the unsearchable secret council of the holy Trinity, which being of power infinite to work their will in all creatures, yet would not repair the world, nor remit our sins any otherwise, but by the service of the Son of man: let them mislike, that flesh, blood, and the soul of our blessed saviour being all creatures, should join with the only almighty creator of all thinger, in the remission of all our offences: let the presumptuose thus do, and let us humbly reverence God's ordinance, and glorify him in his Sons high calling in our kind, through whose singular prerogative we shall undoubtedly find exceeding power to be given to his body and brethren in earth, to his most dear spouse the Church.  FVLKE. 
The ministery of mortal men in remission of sins, no man I hope is so mad to disdain, when Christ himself in so plain terms hath authorized the same. But where you say, that the wisdom of God, would no otherwise salve the pittifuli sores of our souls, but by the servile form of our nature, joined marvelously in one person to the word and eternal son of God, I cannot but marvel at your Nestorian blasphemy. For although it be most certain, that in the form of a servant, the wisdom of God preformed that, which to the glory of his justice was expedient, yet that the deitic was altogether idle, or unoccupied, in the work of our redemption, yea that the godhead did not work the principal and most necessary part thereof, it is too too abominable, and intolerable heresy. Out of the like stinking puddle it proceedeth that you say, that the holy Trinity, being of infinite power to work their will in all creatures, yet would not repair the world, nor remit our sins any otherwise, but by the service of the son of man. That the service of the son of man was necessary to be used, it is most true, but that authority of the son of God, was not necessary for so great a work, as well as the service of the son of man, it is such an impudent blasphemy, as I think the Pope himself would condemn it, if his opinion without partiality thereof might be known. As for the work of Christ's humanity joined in one person to his deity, and the commission granted to his ministers to remit sins, are nothing hindered by acknowledging, that God only doth properly and absolutely forgive sins, even when his ministers, according to his commandment, do forgive sins, as S. Ambrose saith, and all antiquity doth accord.   

Here it is declared by the scripture, that the same power of remitting sins, which God the Father by commission gave unto his Son, as he was man, was also by Christ bestowed on the Apostles after his resurrection.  
THE SECOND CHAP.  ALLEN. 
IN what high reputation man hath ever been with god his maker, it is not my purpose now to treat of: neither will I make any tedious talk, though it be somewhat more near the matter, how estimation is increased by the honourable and most marvelous matching of God's only son with our nature and kind: whereof whosoever hath any conside ration, he shall nothing wonder, I warrant him, at the sovereignty of such, as be placed in the seat of judgement and government, for the rule of that commonwealth, whereof Christ is the head. These things, though they be well worthy our labour and deep remembrance, and not very far from our matter, yet so will I charge myself with continuance in my cause, that I will only seek out the dignity of priesthood, touching the right, that the order: laimeth in remission and retaining of man's sins. In all which cause, I take this a ground, that our Master's messenger stood upon, when his disciples grudged that Christ had his followers, and practised Baptism no less than himself did, which is: That no man can rightly receive any thing, that is 
john. 3.  not given him from above. Therefore if it may be sufficiently declared, that the order holdeth by good warrant this their pre-eminence of pardoning, or punishing of the people's offences, and that by commission from him, who without all controversy is the head of the Church, than the contrary must learn to leave their contentious reasoning, and unjust contempt of that order, which is honoured by power and prerogative proceeding from Christ jesus.  FVLKE. 
That God of his mere goodness and mercy hath vouchsafed man of so great honour, that of himself deserveth eternal shame, it is more reason to wonder at God's mercy, then to insinuate any piece of man's dignity or worthiness. That it hath pleased god to advance some men to the government of his Church upon earth, we have cause to magnify his majesty, that disdaineth not our base condition, but putteth his honour and authority upon them, driveth us not from them by the excellency of their nature above ours, but familiarly inviteth us to obedience of his will, that we may attain to his promise of eternal happiness. The title of this chapter, That our saviour Christ gave unto his Apostles, the same power of remitting sins, which God the father by commission gave unto his son, as he was man, we do all agree: but that Christ did exercise a more sovereign authority in forgiving sins, than he did bestow upon his Apostles, or their nature was capable to receive, it is proved sufficiently in the Chapter going before. Nevertheless I will examine all parts of this chapter, and if in any thing I descent from you, I will show that you descent from the truth. And first where you profess only to seek out the dignity of Priesthood, touching the right that the order claimeth in remission and retention of man's sins, you should have done better, to have sought and set out the duty of such persons also, to whom such dignity is committed, lest, as it falleth out in your bastard Popish Priesthood, the dignity be only sought for, the labour and duty almost, or altogether neglected. The ground you take out of Saint john, is infallible: 
joh. 3.  and therefore your Popish priesthood doth blasphemously usurp a pretended power, to offer up our saviour Christ unto his father, as a sacrifice propitiatory for the sinnns of the quick and the dead for grant of which power from above, you can show no warrant out of the written word of God, the only true record of Gods grant, and sufficient evidence for so great an authority.  ALLEN. 
And of two or three places in holy scripture pertaining to this purpose, that shall be first proposed, which with most force driveth down falsehood, and most properly pertaineth to the pith and principal state of the cause which we have in hand. Thus than we find of Christ's words, will, and behaviour, concerning the commission granted out to his holy Apostles for the remission and punishment of our sins, in the 20. Chapter of the Gospel of Saint john. Where the Evangelist thus reporteth, that Christ after his glorious resurrection, came into a secret chamber, where his disciples were together, the door being shut for fear of the jews, and there after he had given them, as his custom was, his peace, and his blessing, and she wed himself to their infinite comfort, that he was perfectly risen again in the same body that so lately was buried, he then strait afterward, to make worthy entrance to so high a purpose, gave them this peace again, in manner of a solemn benediction, and therewith said: Sicut misit me Pater, & ego mitto vos. Even as the father hath sent me, so I do send you. And when he had so spoken, he breathed on them and said, Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eyes: & quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt. Receive you the holy ghost: whose sins soever you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they be retained. This is the place, lo, in which the judgement and rule of our souls with all authority in correcting our sins, in most express and effectual terms, and in most ample manner is given to the Apostles and their successors. Christ himself doth communicate unto them the jurisdiction that he received of his Father: he giveth them in a solemn ceremony that same spirit of God, by which in earth himself did remit sianes: hemaketh them an assured promise, that whatsoever they pardoned or corrected in man's life, the same should stand in force before God.  FVLKE. 
Our saviour Christ in this place, doth first of all authorise his Apostles, to execute the office of public preaching of the Gospel in all the world, unto the which he had before chosen & appointed them. Then doth he furnish them with gifts of the holy Ghost meet for so high and painful a calling: last of all he ratifieth the effect of their ministery, to be accomplished in the remission of the sins, of all them that believe their preaching: and in the retaining of their sins, that do not obey the voice of the Gospel, to believe it. For the power of remitting sins, must not be separated from the office of teaching, whereunto it is annexed by our saviour Christ: who doth not give his Apostles authority to remit sins, so that he would transfer into them any thing that is proper unto himself. For it is proper to him to remit sins: which honour, so far forth as it pertaineth to his only person, he doth not resign to his Apostles, but commandeth them in his name to testify the forgiveness of sins, that he might reconcile men to God by their ministery. For I have showed before in the words of S. Hilary, that to speak properly, God only by men remitteth sins, not following the sentence of man, but man following the judgement of God, which is to pardon all penitent sinners, and to retain the sins of unbelievers, unto eternal condemnation. Therefore it is much more than the place doth afford, that you affirm the judgement and rule of our souls, with all authority in correcting our sins in most express and effectual terms, and in most ample manner is given to the Apostles, and their successors in this place. For Christ in this place doth constitute Apostles, and not judges, messengers and declarers of his good pleasure and will unto men, not rulers of men's souls: he giveth them power to remit or retain sins in his name, to the inestimable comfort of all penitent sinners, and to the terror and in crease of damnation of all unbelievers: he giveth them not all authority, and that in most ample manner in correcting our sins: neither are there in the place any express or effectual terms, our of which such omnipotent authority can be concluded, as afterward when we come to your syllogism, we shall platnlie declare. Again, there is no mention in the text, of any jurisdiction communicated unto them, but of the office of teaching, whereunto Christ was sent for a time, which he committeth to his Apostles and their successors. For these words of our saviour (As my father hrth sent me, I also do send you) can not be enlarged generally, to all such purposes as God sent Christ: but must be understood, according to the matter he speaketh of, that is, of the office of Preaching & teaching, which Christ at that time did cease to execute in his humanity, remaining yet still the only doctor and teacher of his Church, because he is author of the doctrine that is taught, and by his holy spirit teacheth continually, in giving effect to the labours of his Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, & teachers, which he hath given unto his Church, for the external ministery of instructing the same in all truth necessary to the eternal salvation of his elect: He substituteth therefore his Apostles in that necessary office of preaching the Gospel, he enableth them by his spirit, which he testifieth untothem by an holy sign, to proceed from him. He maketh an assured promise, that they should not labour in vain, but that in pardoning & retaining sins according to the doctrine of his Gospel, whatsoever they did, should stand in force before God.  ALLEN. 
What dignity could ever be given more? in what terms more plain? by what order more honourable? for surely if either Christ could remit sins, as we have at large proved that he could, by commission and sending of his father, or if the holy spirit of God may remit sins, or if Christ's word will procure man any power to remit sins, then undoubtedly may the Apostles remit sins: For they have the express warrant of them all. Much said Paul, when he affirmed in the Apostles name and person of all Priests, Quòd 〈◊〉 erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi, & posuit in nobis verbum reconciliationis. 
1. Cor. 5.  Pro Christo ergo legatione fungimur: That God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and hath put in us the word of reconcilement: therefore our calling is to serve as an Embassy in Christ's own stead. These words be of great weight, and exceedingly set forth the vocation of the spiritual governors, as of those, that hold by the warrant of Gods sending, and thereby occupy Christ's own room. Marry the place for all that appertaineth to their calling generally, as well to preach, as otherwise to guide the people of God in the behalf of their Master, to whom we all be subject: but this present text, whereupon we now treat, doth properly concern the commission given to the Apostles for the sacrament of penance and remission of sins. For it doth in most clear and undoubted sense give to them the like right in that case, that Christ himself had by the sending of God the father: that is to say, the very same authority that he had in respect of his mediation and manhood: A Equalem patri filium novimus (saith Saint Augustine) sed bîc verba Mediatoris agnoscimus: medium quip se ostendit dicendo, 
Super hune locum.  ille me, & ego vus. We know the son to be equal with the father, but here we must acknowledge the words of a mediator. For he showed himself to be as a mean, when he said: He sent me, and I send you. That is to say (as Theophilact expoundeth 
In joannena cap. 20.  it) Take upon you my work and function, and do it with confidence: For as my father did send me, so I send you again, and I will be with you to the end of the world.  FVLKE. 
There is no doubt, but the Apostles had power to remit sins, but yet for all your thetorical interrogations, none other, than I have expressed before; nor greater, then may stand with the glory of Christ, who maketh not men equal with him. when he authorizeth them as his servants, to be ministers of his mysteries, and stewards of his gracious gifts. And Paul truly said much, when he affirmed, that god was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their offences (which clause I know not why you have omitted) & hath put in us that word of reconciliation. We are therefore ambassadors for Christ, etc. For he said, that it is proper to god to reconcile the world, to forgive sins, or not to impute them, & that is but a ministry of reconciliation, which he hath given unto men, & showeth how this ministery is executed, namely by preaching reconciliation, as the ambassadors of God, to desire men, to be reconciled unto God: which only mean of preaching expressed in this place you (with a Marie for all that) fumble up, with I cannot tell what guidance because you cannot content yourself to be a minister, a servant, a subject: but you must be a Lord a Prince, a ruler.  
But the other text of joh. 20. (yousay) doth properly concern the commission given to the Apostles, for the sacrament of penance, and remission of sins. But whether I pray you in the scripture shall we read of this your sacrament, or the institution thereof? what is the visible word or element thereof? yet you say, that this text doth in most clear, and undoubted sense, give to them the like right in that case, that Christ himself had, by the sending of God the father: that is to say, the very same authority, that he had in respect of his mediation and manhood. So that be like Christ, as Mediator, hath no authority peculiar to himself, in respect of the excellency of his person, but that which is communicable unto others, and is communicated to his Apostles. But that is a strange doctrine, never heard of before in the Church of God, except it were from the mouth of Nestorius, or any of his disciples. For our saviour Christ received in his manhood, that which no other man is able to receive, because he one lie is God and man: he received the spirit, not according to measure, john. 3. 34. as all men must do that receive it: therefore no man can receive such power by the spirit in measure, which he received by the spirit infinitely or without measure. But Saint Augnstine is called to witness, that this text doth give theverie same authority to the Apostles, that Christ had in respect of his mediation, and manhood. Whereas Saint Augustine's words import no such thing, but only show, that Christ, though equal to his father in respect of his godhead, yet as he is our Mediator, is sent of his father in respect of his manhood. But of the very same authority that Christ had in respect of his mediation, given to the Apostles, he speaketh not a word. That you join his manhood to his mediation, as though the mediator were nothing but man, or as though the man jesus Christ, which is our only mediator, were not Immannell, that is, God with us, it is not without some smack of Nestorian heresy, whereby you seem so to separate the man from God, as though any thing might be verified of the man, which in respect of the unity of person, might not be verified of God, or as though there were not such a perfect union of the two natures in one person, that although they both continue unconfounded, retaining their essential properties, yet any part of the office and authority of Christ, which he exercised in his humanity, might as latgelie, as fully, and with the very same authority, be committed over to any other mortal man, to be exercised, as it was by Christ himself. But Theophilact is cited to be an interpreter of Saint Augustine, who saith upon these words, as the father hath sent me, etc. in the person of Christ: take upon you my work, and be sure that I will be with you, meaning that he committeth to them the office of teaching, whereunto he was sent by his father, but of equal authority with him, he speaketh no word. Which place you have very licentiously translated, to draw it to your purpose. For the words are no more but these, as Philippus Montanus hath translated them: Meum opus, inquit, suscipite, & confidite quod vobiscum sum futurus. And in the end he willeth men to consider the dignity of priests, that it is divine. For it pertaineth to God to remit sins: so therefore are they to be honoured, as God. For although they be unworthy, what is that? they are the ministers of God's gifts, and grace worketh by them, even as he spoke by Balaams' ass. For our unworthiness hindereth not grace. so because by means of priests, grace is granted, they are to be honoured. Thief words of Theophilact declare, that although he ascribe much to the dignity of Priests, yet he doth not allow them the very same authority, that Christ had in respect of his mediation, but a far inferior ministery.  
And excellently to our purpose wrote the holy father Cyril, as well for the dignity of the Apostolic vocation, as for the 
Super. 20. c. joannis.  honourable legacy, in these words. Ad gloriosum Apostolalatum Dominus noster jesus Christus Discipulos suos vocduit, qui commotum orbem firmarunt, sustentacula eius facti: unde per Psalmistam de terra & de Apostolis dicit, quia ego firmavi columnas eius. Columnae enim & robur veritatis discipulisunt, quos ita dicit se mittere, sicut à patre ipse missus est, us Apostolatus dignitatem ostenderet, & magnitudinem potestatis eorum aperiret. These words and the residue following concerning the same purpose go thus in english. Our Lord and master Christ jesus promoted his disciple, to a glorious Apostleship: who becing made the props and stays of all the earth, have established the wavering world: whereupon the Psalmist sayeth thus of the earth and the Apostles: I have surely and firmly set the pillars thereof. For the disciples no doubt be the very pillars strength, and stay of truth, whom Christ saith that he doth send, even as his father did send him, that thereby he might declare to the world as well the dignity of their Apostleship, as open to all men their excellency and the might of their power: and no less signify unto them, what way they had to take in all their life and studies. For if they be so sent as Christ himself was sent of the father, it is requisite to consider, for what work & purpose the father everlasting sent his son in flesh to the world. And that himself else where declareth: saying: Non veni vocare justos, sed peccatores ad poenitentiam: I came not to call the just, but sinners to reapen tance: 
Math. 9  & in another place it is said. God sent not his son 
joan. 3.  into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved by him: all these things and other he touched briefly in these few words: Sicus misit me pater, & ego mitto vos. ut hinc intelligant vocandos esse 〈◊〉 ad poenitentiam, 〈◊〉 corpore simul & spiritumale habentes. Like as my father sent me, so I send you: that sinners should be called to repentance, and be healed both in body and soul. Thus far spoke S. Cyril of the excellent calling of the disciples, & of the cause of their large commission not restricted by any straighter terms, than Christ's own commission was, which he received from his everlasting Father.  FVLKE. 
The words of Saint Cyrillus declare no more than I have said before, that the Apostles were sent of Christ as Christ was sent of his father, to call sinners to repentance by their ministery of preaching, not that they were sent with as large commission, in every respect, as Christ was sent, to be our mediator and redeemer. The words of cyril which you have mangled and chopped at your pleasure, I will recite whole together, that the reader may see, how iniutiouslie you would draw to far other meaning, than his saying will yield. In joh. lib. 12. C. 55. upon these words. Dicit ergo eis iterum, pax vobis: sicut misit me pater, & ego mitto vos. He writeth thus. Ordinavit his verbis orbis doctores, etc. He ordained them by these words, teachers of the world, & ministers of the divine mysteries, whom he sent as lights, to the lightning, not of the region of the jews only, which according to the measure of the legal commandment, extended from Dan to Bersebe, as it is written: but he commanded them to lighten the whole world. Therefore Paul saith truly, that no man taketh honour upon him, except he be called of God. For our Lord jesus Christ called his disciples unto the glorious Apostleship, which stayed the world that was moved, being made the pillars thereof. Whereof by the Psalmist, he saith, of the earth, and the Apostles,: I have strengthened the pillars thereof. For his disciples are the pillars and strength of truth. Whom he saith that he doth so send, as he himself is sent of his father: that also he might show the dignity of their Apostleship, and open to all men the greatness of their power, and with all might show, what way they ought to follow in their studies, and in their life. For if they be so sent, as Christ is sent of his father, how is it not necessary to consider, unto what the father sent his son? for so, not otherwise, they may be able to follow him. But if expounding to us the cause of his sending many ways, one while he said: I came not to call the just, but sinners to repentance: an other while, The hell have no need of the Physician, but such as be diseased: And moreover, I came down from heaven (saith he) not that I might do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me: And again, God sent not his son into the world, that he should judge or condemn the world, but that the world might be saved by him. All which things he signified in most few words, saying that he doth so send them, as he was sent by his father: that hereof they might understand, that sinners are to be called to repentance, that they which are diseased might be healed both in body and in mind. And in the dispensation of things they must not do their own will, but the will of him that sent them, and that the world by preaching and the doctrine of faith must be saved. All which things with what great diligence they performed, you may learn with small labour, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles & in the Epistles of Paul. Thus far Cyrillus whose saying if you had not clipped and gelded for your advantage, would have made no colour for your purpose, but against it.  ALLEN. 
And truly it was the singular providence of God, that beforem the grant of the government of men's souls to his Disciples being but mortal men, mention should be made of his own right therein, that the wicked should never have face to disgrace the authority of them, that dependeth so fully of the sovereign calling, and commission of Gods own son. This high wisdom was practised also, to the utter confusion of the wicked and wilful persons, at their calling to the office of preaching and baptizing. The which function lest any contemptuous person should in such base men disdain, Christ allegeth his own power and pre-eminence, to which the dignity of priesthood is so near, and so everlastingly joined, that every dishonour and neglecting of the one, is great derogation to the other. And therefore he saith: Omnis potest as data est mihi in coelo & in terra. All power in heaven and 
Math. 28.  in earth is given to my hands. Therefore go you forward and teach all natious, babtizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Thus before the institution of sacraments, whereof God himself must only be the author (as saith Saint Cyprian) Christ vouchsafed for the quiet instruction of the world, to declare his authority and 
Serm. de bapt. Christ  prerogative, that all men might farther understand thereby, that the ministery and excllent founction in the use of the same, did orderly proceed of that authority and supreme power, that Christ hath received over all mankind.  FVLKE. 
Cyrillus telleth you there is none other grant of the government of men's souls, contained in these words, but to be teachers of the Gospel, and to be ministers of the divine mysteries, to preach remission of sins to the penitent, and to seal it up with the sacraments, to denounce vengeance to the impenitent & unbelievers, & in all things to attend, that they do not their own will, but the will of him that sent them. And in so doing their authority is exceeding great, derived from God himself, the only author of their Doctrine, and of the sacraments they do minister. Wherein you seem somewhat to forget yourself, which hitherto have maintained, and still affirm, that Christ did remit sins, and gave his Apostles authority to do the same, by power received from God in his manhood, and that the holy Trinity would not remit our sins otherwise, then by the service of the son of man. But now you confess with S. Cyprian, that God himself, must be the only author of Sacraments. Wherefore if this power of remitting sins, be a Sacrament, as you hold, Christ must be the only author of it, as God himself, & not as man, by power received from God, by the holy Ghost.  ALLEN. 
And this sequel of Christ's reason hath marvelous efficacy and force, if we will consider thereof: All power is given to me both in heaven and earth, therefore go you and preach, and baptise, and remit sins. If a man would ask the Priest or Apostle, how he dare be so bold to exercise any of these functions? he might upon Christ's word be so bold to make him this answer: marry sir, I baptise, because all power is given to Christ: I preach, because all power is given to Christ: I remit sins, because all power was given to Christ. For in my ministery he practiseth daily all these functions: in his power I am become the lawful worker of all actions, that are so proper to Christ himself. Therefore it was Christ (saith Saint Augustine) 
Supertract. 4. 5. & 6.  that baptised, and had more Disciples than john: and yet Christ baptised not, but his Disciples only. So say you to all contemners of God's ordinance: it is Christ that pardoneth and enjoineth penance for man's sins, and yet he doth it not himself as in his own person, but Christ doth it daily, by the power which he established after his resurrection, and which continueth for ever in the high ministery and service of the Church. Thus (I say) doth he remit sins: Hunt 
Act. 5.  principem & salvatorem exaltavit dextra sua ad dandam poenitentiam Israeli, & remissionem peccatorum. This our Prince and Saviour hath God exalted with his right hand, to give penance and remission to Israel of all their sins. This power hath our high priest de served for his obedience, & therefore as he received it, so he hath left it in his Church: his own holy words dot protest that same. For upon his power and sending, which he did receive of his father, all the Priests do everlastingly hold the right of all holy functions, which else, but by Christ's own commission and sending, they could never, nor never durst have practised so long.  FVLKE. 
It were a more direct sequel, for a Priest or Elder of the Church, to maintain and defend his power, that he practiseth in preaching, baptizing, and remitting of sins, by the calling of Christ; who hath all power in heaven and in earth: for otherwise it followeth not, because Christ hath all power, therefore man without calling, and authority received from Christ may execute any part thereof. But in your application, where you say, that Christ pardoneth and enjoineth penance for man's sins, in the ministery of the Church. I grant he pardoneth, where the power which he hath given to the Church, is duly executed. But for enjoining penance, in that sense that papists do speak it, which is a piece of satisfaction for men's sins, you are never able to prove, that Christ either in his own person enjoined any, or by mean, or ministery of any man, doth enjoin such penance: and therefore the text you cire Acts the 5. is wretchedly writhe from the true meaning, and falsely translated, as I have showed before, by testimonies of your own translator, the English Rhemists, who read it thus, This Prince and saviour, God hath exalted with his right hand, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. Where the text is so plain, of the 〈◊〉 conversion of the jews unto Christ, that they were ashamed to turn the word poenitentia as they do most commonly (penance) by which they mean some works of satisfaction, which are enjoined to them that commit sin after baptism. As likewise Acts. II. where it is said, God then to the Gentills hath given repentance unto life. Where by as good reason, and in like sense you might say, that God hath given penance to the gentiles, taking penance in your popish meaning, or else you have greatly abused the scripture to prove that Christ enjoineth penance by popish Priests, by that saying of the Apostles Acts. 5. whereby they mean, that God hath exalted Christ to convert the Israelites, from judaisme to the Gospel, and to give them salvation in the free remission of sins, which of itself excludeth all other satisfaction, than such as Christ himself hath made, to answer the justice of God, whose obedience having satisfied for our disobedience, upon our true and unfeigned repentance, which will appear by the fruits thereof, we are received into favour, all our sins being freely forgiven for jesus Christ's sake.  ALLEN. 
And whosoever seethe not how the power & jurisdiction of so excellent actions passeth from God the Father to his only Son, and from him again to such as he hath sent, and made the messengers of his blessed mind, and disposers of mysteries, he hath no feeling at all of the ways that he wrought for man's redemption: he can not attain to the intelligence of Christ's unction, whereby he is made our head & priest: he, in the midst of the glorious light of the Church can not behold 
In Epist. sua Canonica.  the practise of so he avenlie mysteries, and therefore such things as he knoweth not, he blasphemeth, saith S. jude. But to work all in light and order, I will build upon the foresaid, the intended conclusion, that the a duersaries may see and behold the force of our faith, and the singular weakness of their assertions, I thus join with them in arguments barely and plainly without covert. That power and commission which was given to Christ by his heavenly Father, concerning remission or retaining of sins, was given to the Apostles at his departure hence: But Christ himself did truclie, effectually, and in proper form of speech, by his Father's sending and and commission remit sins: Ergo, The ministers of Christ may, and do truclie and perfectly remit sins. Or thus more briefilie: As Christ was sent of his Father, so are the Apostles sent by Christ: But Christ was sent to forgive sins: Ergo, the Apostles be fent to forgive sins also. The second part of the reasons, which is, that Christ had power of his Father to remit sins, and was sent for the same purpose, is sussicienlie proved in the Chapter before. The first part of the argument standeth upon the sure ground of Christ's own words, which be these. Like as my Father sent me, so I do send you. Which words were so plain and so deeply noted for this intent, of Saint chrysostom, that with admiration of the dignity and excellent calling of Priesthood, he thus trimly discourseth upon them. I will report his saying in Latin, as Germanus Brixius hath translated it: all that speaketh for 
De sacerdot. lib. 3.  that purpose hereafter shall be recited, but now no more but this: Quid hoc aliud esse dicas, nisi omnium rerum coelestium potestatem illis à Deo esse concessam? Ait enim, Quorumcunque peccata retinueritis, retenta sunt. Quaenam obsecro potestas hac una maior esse queat? Pater omnifariam filio potestatem dedit: caeterùm video ipsam eandem omnifariam potesiatem à Deo filio illis traditam. Nam quasi iam in coelum translati, ac supra humanam naturam positi, atque nostris ab affectibus exempti, sic illi ad principatum istum perducti sunt. And in English thus it is: What is canst thou make of this, or what less, then that the power and jurisdiction of all heavenly things is by God granted unto them? for it is said: whose sins soever you do hold or retain, they be retained. For God's love, what power can be given in the world so great? the Father bestowed all manner of power upon his Son, & I find the very self same power of all things to be delivered to the Apostles by God the Son. For now as though they were all ready translated out of this life to heaven, and there promoted above man's nature, and discharged of all our feeble affections, they are advanced to the Princely sovereignty, whereof we now have said. Thus far chrysostom. So doth this worthy father help our cause, and so doth he think of the excellent authority given by the father to his Son, & derived from him to the ministers of his holy will & testament in earth. Whose jurisdiction so highly holden, so truly obtained, so nearly joined unto Christ's honour, and so daily practised no otherwise but in his right & name, whosoever shall control or conremne, they not only irreverently touch gods anointed, but they sacrilegiously lay hands on ipsum Christum Domini, even on him that is anointed above all his fellows. Well, I conclude up this matter with these few words of Saint Ambrose: Vult Dominus plurimum posse 
Li 1. de penitent. c. 7.  discipulos suos: Vult á servis suis e a fieri in nominesuo, quaefaciebat ipse positus in terris. Our lords pleasure is, that his disciples should have great prerogative: he will have the same things wrought by his servants in his name that himself did in his own person, when he was in earth.  FVLKE. 
He that seethe not the difference of the ministery of man from the power of God in those actions, wherein God worketh by man, gropeth in the dark, & seethe nothing as he ought to see. Therefore, let us come to the light of your logic, and thereby consider, if we can, the distinction of the one from the other. If the mayor or first proposition of your former syllogism, be understood of a power or commission granted to the manhood of Christ, such as might have been granted by God to any other mere man, than your Minor is not true, that Christ by such a power and commission only, setting his Godhead aside, though truly and effectually, yet not in proper form ofspeach, by his father's sending and commission remitted sins for then could he not be the author of remission of sins, but only a minister thereof: and therefore in proper form ofspeach, he could not be said to forgive sins, which is proper only to god, but to preach the forgiveness of sins, in God's name, or to testify that God did forgive sins, as the ministers of the Church do. Butif the Mayor be understood, of such power & commission as was given to Christ, as the Mediator, in respect of his manhood, but yet such, as he couldnot receive & exercise, but in respect of his godhead, & such as could not be granted to any, but unto that person which is God & man, such is the absolute & principal power of remission of sins, than I deny that such power was given to the Apostles at his departure. For when Christ himself did truly, effectually, and in proper form of speech remit sins, he did it as God, having equal, and principal authority with the father, and the holy ghost so to do. The conclusion of your second syllogism, I grant, that the Apostles were sent to forgive sins, but retaining the former distinction, of the authority of God, and the ministery of man. For as Christ was sent of his father to preach the remission of sins, so were the Apostles sent by Christ to preach remission of sins: therefore such power as he had, by preaching only of remission of sins, to forgive sins such power be granted to his Apostles, whom he ordained preachers in his place: but the proper power of his deity he granted not, nor any power which is proper to the person of the Mediator God and man. Theresore these words of Christ, As the father sent me, so send I you, must not be extended further than our saviour Christ in that place meaneth. For else infinite absurdities might be concluded thereof, as that he sent his Apostles to redeem the world, to die for the sins of the world, to be saviours of the world, etc. or that he sendeth all ministers of the Church, to whom this commission extendeth, to cleanse lepers to raise the dead, to give sight to the blind, and to do all other miracles, that he was sent to do. According to this distinction, that Rhetorical amplification of chrysostom, is to be understood: and doubtless wonderful great is the authority, that man doth exercise in the name of God, although that which is peculiar to God, be not attributed to men. The similitude that chrysostom useth in the same chapter, Lib. 3. cap. 5. of a King granting power to one of his subjects, to imprison men, and to release them, showeth that he knew the difference of the Lord, from the servant, who if he abuse the authority committed unto him, deserveth sharp punishment, and therefore hath not absolute authority, to do all things as his Lord, and can not transgress in doing. And in the next Chapter he showeth, that Priests do exercise this power of forgiving sins, by teaching, admonition, and by prayer. Not only by teaching and admonishing, but also by the help of prayers: and a manifest difference showeth Saint Ambrose, when he saith, Christ would have his disciples to do in his name the same things which he did on earth, partly in his father's name, and partly in his own name.   

The power of priesthood touching remission of sins proved by the solemn action of Christ, in breathing upon his Apostles, and giving them thereby the holy Ghost.  
THE THIRD CHAP.  ALLEN. 
THe commission and power that our Master Christ received of his everlasting father, being in most ample manner communicated with the Apostles, made great proof and evidence for the right that they claim in remission of sins: but the present power of God's spirit breathed by Christ upon them, and given unto them for the ministery and execution of that function, helpeth our matter so much, that whoso ever now denieth this authority of the Apostles, concerning the pardoning of our offences, doth not so much sin against the son of man, which of itself is grievous enough, as he doth control the work of the spirit of Christ, which is the holy Ghost, in whom both he and his Church doth remit sins. The more plain and more exact our master Christ was in the bestowing of that power to remit and retain sins, the more is our contempt in the disobedience and denial thereof. He sendeth them 〈◊〉 with his own authority in this case: he giveth them the very spirit of God, by whose divine power they may execute the function to which he called them: he giveth them the express warrant of his own word, that sins they might pardon and punish: and yet we make doubt of their usurpation. But how they might forgive sins by Christ's sending, we have already said.  
Now for the holy Ghosts power and prerogative in the same action, which was breathed on the Apostles, we must further confer with such as call in question matters so plain. And first I am in goodhope, that no man will deny, but Christ gave them the holy ghost for no other purpose so much, as to remit sins: secondly, I doubt not of their faith and belies in this point, but they will confess the holy ghost to be of power by nature and propriety to forgive sins: thirdly, I claim of their sincerity thus much more, that Christ being as well God as man, was well able, for the furniture of their calling, to give them the holy ghost: all which being confessed of all men, and denied of no Christian aline, how the conclusion, so beset with all proof on every side, standeth not, let the adversaries tell me. In the Apostles there can be no lack touching that officie, for the execution whereof they received both Christ's commission first, and the holy spirit of God afterward: In Christ there can be no default, who was well able to give, and in dead did give the holy ghost: In the holy ghost there can be no let nor lack, whose power is infinie, and his very propriety to remit sins. All things then standing on so safe and sure grounds, the giver, the gift, and the receiver competent, and fully answerable each to other on every side, let the discontented join in argument, let him allege, why the Priests so authorized by Christ, and so assured of the holy Ghost, may not either pardon or forgive penance. Never man avouched that he exercised the high action upon his own authority: but, that he may not, as a minister and servant, practise it upon the warrant of Christ, and present power of the holy Ghost, that no faithful person can affirm, nor any reasonable man stand in.  FVLKE. 
The commission that our saviour Christ received in his manhood to preach remission of sins, was by him committed to his Apostles, but in such ample manner, as Christ had power to remit sins, it is not proved, that Christ did communicate the same with his Apostles. The visible sign of breathing, by which our saviour Christ testified, that he did give them the holy Ghost, declareth that they were enabled with spiritual gifts, to exercise their function, the chief and principal end whereof, was to pronounce in his name remission of sins to the believers of the Gospel, and condemnation to the contemners. And this authority of the Apostles, concerning the pardoning of our offences, I know no man that denieth. And therefore you spend vainly the one half of your booke'in proving that which no man doth deny, namely, that the Apostles and their lawful succesiours had, and have power, by Christ's grant, to remit or to retain sins. The matters in question are these. 1. Whither Popish Priests be the lawful successors of the Apostles. 2. What manner of power is this which is granted. and thirdly, How it is to be exercised, by Preaching the gospel, or by Popish absolution and pardons. For we deny your shavelings, for the most part unlearned, to be the Priests or elders of the Church of god, towhome this power is derived from the Apostles: we deny an absolute power to be granted, but a ministery of testification, and assurance of that which God only doth properly and principally. Thirdly we deny that by Popish shrift, absolution, and pardons, this power is to be exercised, but by preaching of the Gospel, whereunto are annexed the sacraments, as seals of the doctrine. These questions would have been directly handled, without such a tedious discourse, to prove confuselie the power that is granted by Christ to his Apostles, which is not denied: but the kind of power about which you wander uncertainly, sometimes making it to be a mere ministry & service under god, the only worker therein: sometime more than obscurely insinuating, that it is the very same authority, and none other but the same, which Christ did exercise upon earth, and now hath committed it over, or communicated it to Priests, as though he were bound to stand to their sentence, in remitting or retaining sins, or that they might remit as well as he, and he must accept whatsoever they do in that case.  
But seeing you will not go directly to work, we must follow you in your crooked path, as well as we may. And for the first part of your conference, where you are in good hope that no man will deny, but Christ gave them the holy ghost for no other purpose so much as to remit sins, I must say unto you for my part, that forasmuch as remission of sins is the principal scope of preaching the Gospel, they were endued with gifts of the holy ghost, especially to call men to repentance & forgiveness of sins, and to assure the repentant and believers of the remission of sins, by that authority and commission which they received of Christ. But if you mean, that Christ gave them the holy ghost, for no other purpose so much, as that they should hear men's shrift, and give them absolution in such form of words, as your Popish Priests do use, without preaching the gospel to them, and setting forth the grace of god in jesus Christ, I deny that they received the holy ghost for any such purpose. The other two parts I grant: but I know not what is your conclusion. If you will conclude, that they have power to remit sins, I grant it, neither do I know any man that denieth it: But if you mean to conclude thus; because the holy Ghost which was given to the Apostles, is of power by nature, & propriety to forgive sins, therefore the Apostles did as properly forgive sins as god himself, I deny your consequence. And it seemeth you mean such a matter, when you say, In the holy Ghost, there can be no let nor lack, whose power is infinite, and his very property to remit sins: which is very true: but yet it followeth not thereof, that whosoever is endued with the holy Ghost, hath infinite power, and may properly remit sins. For the holy Ghost is given in measure to all men, not that his substance is divisible, that it may be apportionated, but that his gifts are distributed by himself, in such measure, as the wisdom of God seethe to be most convenient. His essence is infinite and incomprehensible, but he is said in Scripture to be present with them, or in them, on whom he bestoweth his graces and gifts. Therefore I see not what consequence can be made of the holy ghosts infinite power, and very property to remit sins, to conclude that the Apostles, which received the holy Ghost, rereived infinite power, or the very property to remitre sins.  
Where you will the discontented to join in argument, why the Priest so authorized by Christ, and so assured of the holy Ghost may not either pardon, or give penance, Thus I join with you: For remitting of sins I see authority: but for giving of penance, none: therefore I grant the former, and deny the latter. For if by penance true repentance be understood god only can give repentance, who only can turn the heart of man to fear him. If you mean popish penance, that is enjoining of satisfactory works or punishment, I deny that it is mentioned in the scriptures, neither can it be contained in retaining of sin. Where you say, that never man advouched that high action upon his own authority, it is untrue: for Antichrist, that lifteth himself to be equal with God and Christ, avoucheth upon his own authority, although to cloak his manifest impiety, & that he might deceive the simple, he pretendeth the name & authority of God & Christ. But that the Apostles and their true successors, by the warrant of Christ, & his power received by the holy ghost, may as ministers & servants remit or retain sins, we do most willingly consent and confess. But then they practise this power as servants, when they beinterpreters and declarers of the Lords will and pleasure, and require not that God should follow their sentence, or attend how they be affected to forgive or retain, and so to subscribe unto their doing: for that is an Antichristian usurpation, far from the meaning of that power. which Christ did grant to his Apostles.  ALLEN. 
Some holy writers upon this text of S. john, in which the order of Christ's authorizing his Apostles for the remission of sins is described, do dispute of the difference of giving the holy Ghost then to his Disciples, and afterward on Whitsondaie: some note the eternal ceremony that our Master used, when he gave them the holy spirit, which was by breathing on them, that such outward actions might both be an evidence to them of that excellent gift, which they inwardly then received, and should further be an everlasting instruction to the Church, that God's grace and gifts be often joined to external elements for the solace of our nature, that delighteth to have our outward man schooled, as well as the inward man nourished. These and many things more be of profitable remembrance and consideration, but not so much to our purpose. Therefore let us see, whether the judgement of the holy Fathers do not wholly help our present cause, proving the Priest's ministery, through the holy Ghosts authority, that our declaration standing on the plain words of scripture with their undoubted sense, may obtain invincible force against the adversaries, & worthy credit of the true believers.  FVLKE. 
If you had expressed what the writers are, that thus dispute or discourse upon this text, we might better have considered, how pertinent or impertinent their opinions are to our matter in controversy. S. Chrysost. seemeth to allow the opinion of some, and Euthymius plainly affirmeth the same, that the Apostles at this time did not presently receive the holy ghost, but only were prepared, or made capable thereof, which if it were true, is contrary to the title of your Chapter. I like better of Cyrillus judgement. which thinketh they presently received the holy Ghost in some measure, but not so plentifully, nor with such diversity of gifts, as on the day of Pentecost. That the grace of God is testified, assured, and sealed up unto us, for the help of our infirmity, by outward signs, and external elements joined thereto, we know & confess: but as for the solace of our nature, or delight to have our outward man schooled, I know not what they mean. It is great mercy of God to bear with our weakness, but it agreeth not with the discipline of the Gospel, that we should delight in outward things, but rather to exercise our faith, in spiritual and heavenly meditations.  ALLEN. 
We will make our entrance first with Saint cyril, who debating with himself upon the incomparable authority and power given to the Apostles for remission of sins, standeth first as in contention with himself, and with Christ's words, how it may be, that they being but men, should forgive the sins of our souls, being sure of this, that it is the property only of the true & living god to assoil us of our sins, against whom only all sins be properly committed. And therefore being not of stomach, as men be now a days, to deny that, which Christ's words so plainly do import, he made answer, that the Apostles were in deed deified, and made, as you would say, partakers 
Cap. 50. l. 12. in Io● interpre. Trapezun.  of God's nature to work Gods own office in the world. Qua igitur ratione (saith he) divinae naturae dignitatem ac potestatem discipulis suis salvator largitus est? Quia certè absurdum non est peccata remitti posse ab illis, qui Spiritum sanctum in seipsis habeant. Nam cùm ipsi remmittunt aut detinent, spiritus qui habitat in eyes, remittit & detines. By what means did our Saviour give unto the Apostles the pre-eminence and power of Gods own nature? Surely because it agreeth very well, that they should rimit man's sins, that have in themselves the holy Ghost. For when they assoil or retain sins, it is the holy spirit that dwelleth in them, which by their ministry doth remit or retain sins. Thus he. I marvel not now why this same father termeth the Apostles sometimes protectores & curatores animarum & corporum, the protectors & curers both of bodies & souls: it is not strange why S. Ambrose should call the order of priesthood, Ordinem 〈◊〉: Neither that he should term, Officium Sacerdotis, munus S. S. The 
Lib. 6. cont. Jul. De Sacerd.  Priest's office, to be the function of the holy Ghost. No, I do not wonder at some of our forefathers, that, in the admiration of God's Majestic, which they same to be so present in the execution of so high in office, they did simply and plainly term the principal Pastors of the Church half Gods, and not mere men: not having respect to their persons, which be compassed with infirmities as other the sinful sort of people in the world be, but casting eye upward to the holy and excellent function, which they practised by the spirit of God, which dwelleth in them, and deifieth their persons, to make them of ability to exercise the works of God.  FVLKE. 
Saint cyril is far from that blasphemy, to say that the Apostles were in deed deified, and made partakers of God's nature, to work Gods own office in the world. For, ascribing to God that which is proper to him, & incommunicable to any mere creature, he maketh this objection: how our saviour did grant to his disciples the dignity & power of his divine nature: & answereth, that they were only made ministers & instruments 
In joh. Ho. 25.  of the holy ghost, to express his power in remitting sins, by baptism, and repentance: whereof S. chrysostom also saith upon the same text, that the Priest giveth only his tongue, and his hand, but the Father, the son, and the holy Ghost doth all things in this case. I will rehearse the whole saying of Cyrillus, that his judgement may more fully appear upon this text. Et certè solius veri Dei est, etc. And surly it pertaineth to the only true God, that he is able to lose men from their sins. For to what other person is it lawful, to deliver the transgressors of the law from sin, but to the author of the law himself? for so in men's affairs we see it to be done. For no man without punishment doth reprove the laws of Kings, but the Kings themselves, in whom the crime of transgression hath no place. For it is wisely said, that he is implous, which shall say to a King, thou dost unjustly. By what means then did our Saviour grant to his disciples the dignity and power of the divine nature? because truly it is not absurd, that sins may be remitted by them, which have the holy ghost in themselves. For when they remit or retain, the spirit which dwelleth in them, remitteth or retaineth by them. And that shallbe by them, as I think, by two means: first by baptism, and then by repeatence: for either they induce men that believe, and are approved for holiness of life, unto baptism, and diligently expill from them that are unworthy; or where the children of the Church do offend, they rebuke them indeed, and pardon them that repent. As Paul did once commit the fornicator among the Corinthians, unto the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit might be saved, and received him again, lest he should be drowned with greater sorrow. Therefore when the spirit of Christ, dwelling in men, performeth the work of the true God, how shall he not be God by nature, which naturally possesseth the power and dignity of the divine nature, when he hath so excellent authority upon the law of God. This last argument of Saint cyril, by which he proveth against the Macidonian heretics, that the holy Ghost is very God, declareth that he never meant to deify Priests, with the same authority that is proper to god, by which it should follow, that the holy Ghost were not God, if men had that authority of remitting sin, that god hath: wherefore it followeth, that men are only instruments by which the holy ghost speaketh & declareth his own will of remission of sins, & not that the holy Ghost is subject to the Censure of man, which were intolerable blasphemy. And therefore if the same father did any where call the ministers of the Church, protectors and curers both of bodies and souls, it cannot be drawn to any such meaning, as though they were in deed deified, and made, as you would say, partakers of God's nature, to work Gods own office in the world, but the ministers of God, appointed to serve for the eternal salvation of the Elect, both in body and soul. Their order is divine, and they exercise the office of the holy ghost, as S. Ambrose saith, but yet so, that nothing is communicated unto man, that is proper to God. Who they were that did simply and plainly term the principal Pastors of the Church half gods, & not mere men, you do not express: perhaps you mean the Author of that blasphemous verse, written to the the Pope, and by him not refused, Nec Deus es, nec homo, quasi neuter es inter utrumque. Thou art neither god nor man, but a neuter between both. I find in the scripture, that civil princes are called not half Gods, but whole Gods, because they execute some part of God's authority among men. Yet he that shall say their people are thereby deified, might well be accounted a most blasphemous flatterer. We may now see, out of what puddle, the toads of the family of Love are crept, that upon pretence of the spirit of god dwelling in men, most blasphemously affirm, that it deifieth their persons, to make them of ability to exercise the works of God. whereas the power of remitting of sins, is granted even to wicked Priests, in which the holy Ghost dwelleth not, although he hath bestowed his gifts upon them, to make them sufficient in knowledge and utterance to preach the gospel.  ALLEN. 
But Saint Ambrose helpeth our matter with a long discourse. all I will not now report: for the present purpose, thus he saith, disputing against the Novarians, for the assertion of Priestly 
Cap. 2. l. 1. De poen.  dignity in assoiling our sins: Qui Spiritum sanctum accipit, sic enim scriptum est: Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eyes, & quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt. Ergo qui solvere peccatum non potest, non habet Spiritum sanctum. Munus spiritus sancti est officium sacerdotis, ius autem spiritus sancti in soluendis ligandis que criminib. est. He thatreceiveth the holy ghost (his meaning is in the taking of orders) receiveth therewith the power to bind and lose. For so is it written, Receive you the holy Ghost: whose sins you do forgive, they are forgiven them, whose sins you do reseine, they are retained. Therefore they which cannot forgive men's offences, they have not the holy ghost (that is to say, they have not the gift of the holy Ghost, which is given to the officers for their execution of their function in Christ's behalf) for the gift of the holy Ghost is the office of the priest: and proper right of remission of sins standeth in the holy Ghost. Thus wrote Saint Ambrose against the heretics of his time, and both toucheth and over overcometh all the falsehood of our days, against the minesterie of man, which so joineth God's spirit in all these divine functions, that it cannot, without blasphemy and special contempt of God, be contemned.  FVLKE. 
S. Ambr. helpeth your matter nevera whit, if you be not content with a ministry, a service, a power subject to the will of God. But you will be half gods, and more than men: you will have your persons deified, you willbe able to exercise the proper works of God. For S. Ambr. reasoneth against the novatians, which would take upon them to bind them that were fallen, but would not lose them, nor receive them again into the Church upon their repentance: signifying that the power of the one is as well granted to the Church, as of the other, & that it was as proper to God to retain sins, as it was to forgive them: so that if they renounced the one, they must renounce the other also, by the same reason: for it is the proper right of the holy ghost, to do the one as well as the other. And the Novatian heretics were found transgressors of God's commandment, who willeth the repentant to be loosed, as well as the obstinate offender to be bound. Ambrose therefore sayeth nothing for the deifying of men's persons, but for the executing of gods commandment of mercy, as well as of justice.  ALLEN. 
But I remember Saint Augustine, the Churches great Captain against her adversaries of those days, did ever in 
Contra pelagianes, Manicheos, & Donatist. passim.  disputation against the Pelagians and other like enemies of faith, make the greatest account of victory, and their overthrow, when they were driven to deny that, which ever before had been not only acknowledged of all men for truth, but also had been used as a granted truth, ground, and principle, for the notable evidence thereof, to the impugning of other falsehoodes. For there can be no doubt, but that which our holy Fathers did use without controlling and contradiction even of their adversaries, to impugn their adversaries withal, there is no doubt, but that it hath in itself exceeding much light and force of truth, as a thing having so little need of proof, that it may be made and taken for a probation of other matters that be doubtful and uncertain. The matter which we have now in hand is of that sort. For the authority and power practised of priests in the virtue of the holy Ghost, hath ever been in itself bòth so plain and so firm, that the holy fathers have used it, as a ground, to prove against heretics of Eunomius, and Macedonius sectc, the Godhheade of the holy Ghost, the third person in Trinity.  FVLKE. 
You remember Saint Augustine, but you can rehearse nothing that he saith touching this matter, to confirm the deifying of your poetical Popish half gods, the Popish Fauns, and satires, save only the general argument of universal consent, and practise: which if it be denied you, you are at a stolen, till you can prove it. You said that priests as deified persons, half Gods, not mere men, had ability to exercise the proper works of God. For otherwise the lawful power, and practise of remitting sins, is so sufficiently authorized by the words of the Gospel, that it need not be underproped, with Saint Augustine's general argument, wherein yet he never placed so great force, as you affirm of him.  ALLEN. 
S. Bernard is too young, good man, to name amongst these old fathers of our new Church, else, perdie, with the virtuous, his words sound full sweetly. Thus saith he to prove the equality 
Serm. 1. Pentecost.  of the holy Ghost with the Father and the son: Sicut in nobis interpellas pro nobis, ita a in patre: & delicta donatcum ipso Patre: & ut omnino scias, quòd remissionem peccatorum spiritus sanctus operatur, audi, quod aliquando audierunt Apostoli: Accipite Spiritum sanctum: quorum remiserit is peccata, remittuntur eyes. In English thus: Like as in us he maketh suit for us, so in the father he pardoneth sins with the father: and that thou mayest understand, that the holy Ghost worketh remission of sins, hear that which she Apostles once heard: Receive you the holy Ghost: whose sins you do forgive, they are forgiven. Thus he. And Saint Ambrose his ancient, to prove the holy Ghost to be God, allegeth, that he remitteth sins by the priest's ministery, which he could not in any wise do, if he were not in all points equal and omnipotent God with the father and son: Let us see, (saith he) Whether the holy Ghost doth pardon sins: and he answereth himself thus: Sedhinc dubitari non potest: cùm ipse Dominus dixerit, Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorum remiseritis 
Lib. 3. de Sp. S. Cap. 19  peccata, remittuntur: ecce quia per spiritum sanctum peccata donantur, homines autem in remissionem peccatoris ministerium suum exhibent, non ius alicuius potestatis exercent. It is thus much to say: There can be no doubt thereof, seeing our Lord said, Receive you the holy Ghost: whose sins you do forgive, they shallbe forgiven: lookeye, that by the holy Ghost sins be forgiven: men do but exercise their service and ministery, and claim not the right of power and principality therein. And Saine basil upon this assured ground 
Lib. 5.  frameth in full form against Eunomius this argument: Dominus sanctis Apostolis insufflans, inquit, Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorumcunque dimittetis peccata, dimittentur eyes: siergo nullius est peccata dimittere, nisi solius Dei, dimittit autem spiritus sanctus per Apostolos: Deus ergo spiritus sanctus. Our lord breathing on the Apostles, said, take ye the holy ghost: for whose sins soever you shall pardon, they be pardoned: therefore if it be the only propriety of God to forgive sins, and the holy Ghost so doth by the Apostles: Ergo, the holy Ghost is truly God.  FVLKE. 
Saint bernard is not to be despised for his youth, where he agreeth with the most ancient and eternal truth, revealed in the holy scriptures. His purpose is to prove the equality of the holy ghost with the father and the son, and proveth it by his effects, because he forgiveth sins, which is proper to God. His saying, Hom. de Pentecost. 1. is mangled by you, I know not for what purpose, except you follow some jesuits dictates, more than your own reading. But in truth, there is nothing which can prove the deification of priests, but contrariwise, that it is the holy Ghost that properly remitteth sins, of whose pleasure, according to the holy scriptures, the priests are but interpreters and reporters.  
As for the saying of Saint Ambrose, is flat against you, if you had not falsified it in translation. For you traslate, Exhibent ministerium, non ius alicuius potestatis exercent, They do but exercise their service and ministery, and claim not the right of power and principality. Where you should say; men do exhibit or yield their ministery or service, they exercise not the right of any power. And he addeth a reason which you omit. Neque enim in suo, sed in patris, & filii, &. SS. nomine peccata dimittuntur. Isti rogant, divinitas donat: humanum enim obsequium, sed munificentia supernae est potestatis. For sins are not forgiven in their name, but in the name of the father, and of the son, & of the holy Ghost. These men do entreat, the godhead doth grant: for the service is man's, but the bowntiful gift is of the highest power. Saint basil also, if his whole saying were recited, would appear more manifest against you, as he maketh, upon your own report, no show at all for you. His words are these against Eunomius. Lib. 5. Cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. It is proper to God to forgive sins, he himself affirming the same: I am he which putteth away thy sins: if your sins were as purple, I will make them as white as snow, and if they were as scarlet, I will make them as white as will. Afterward when God, the son of God, jesus forgiveth sins to the man sick of the palsy, saying, son, thy sins are forgiven thee, whereupon he was thought to blaspheme of the jews, which knew not that he was God, saying: that this man blasphemeth, for it pertaineth to none to forgive sins, but to god alone. But our Lord breathing upon his holy Apostles said, receive the holy ghost: whose sins you forgive they are forgiven to them. If therefore it pertaineth to none to forgive sins (as it doth not) but only to God, and the holy ghost by the Apostles forgiveth, than the holy ghost is God, and of the same efficacy and power with the father and the son. In this saying of Saint Basil, you have not only omitted the former part, which ascribeth the power of forgiving of sins as proper to God, but also have gelded out these words, in that part you allege, both in your latin and English translation (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as in deed it is not) of what purpose, let the indifferent reader judge.  ALLEN. 
Thus you perceive that the ground of this our faith and assertion was of old accounted so sure, that it was a singular aid and for tress of faith against the unfaithful attempts of most wicked persons in diverse ages. The only practise that priests use, by the Sacrament of penance to pardon sins, was a full proof that the holy ghost was God, by whose authority and proper power, they did always since Christ's word was spoken, remit the same. The which being true (as it cannot be false, that is so agreeable both to scriptures and to all our father's faith) the heresy of our time must needs directly impugn the virtue and power of Gods own spirit. For as the proof of man's ministery in this foresaid function induceth the true and everlasting Godhead of the holy ghost, by whom they practise that power, so the denial thereof, and robbery of priesthood of this their most just claim, doth directly spoil God of his honour, and of the everlasting right that he hath in remission of sins. So whiles these goodmen seek to abase man unjustly, they blaspheme God highly, and together with man's ministery, they bring unto utter contempt Gods own authority.  FVLKE. 
Your deifying of popish priests, doth altogether weaken the force of that argument, which our fathers used against the ancient heretics, to prove the divinity of the holy Ghost. For it were an easy matter for Eunomius, Macedonius, or any other heretic, that was against his godhead, to reply, that by ministery of God, the holy Ghost might as properly forgive sins, as Priests do by the ministery of Christ, and of the holy ghost: yea so far forth, as thereby they are made half Gods, yea deified, and made Gods in deed. But you utter repugnancy, when you say, that, by God's authority and proper power, Priests do forgive sins. Where you make it not proper to God, which is common to others with him. Therefore you should speak more properly to say, that God the holy ghost by his own authority and power proper to the deity, doth forgive sins in their ministry, & men thereto authorized, do no more, in proper speech and sense, but testify and declare what God doth: for which declaration, and testification, seeing they are the ambassadors and messengers of God unto the world, to declare his pleasure of reconciliation or condemnation, they are said to forgive sins, or to retain them which they do not properly, but pronounce the sentence of God concerning the remission or retention of men's sins. And that this was the meaning of the Ancient fathers concerning the authority and power of God's ministers, it is most manifest by this argument, whereby they choke the enuier of the holy ghosts divinity: from which you cut of all the sinews and force it hath to prove it, when you communicate to men, that which is proper to God, and advance men above the nature of mere men, when you deify their persons, by means of the gifts of the holy Ghost given to them, and make them of ability to exercise the proper works of God. As for the denial and robbery that you ascribe, I can not tell to what heretics of this time, we detest as much as ye, not seeking to abase man beneath the nature and condition of man, norseeking to extol him, by robbing God of his glory, and proper effects, to magnify men, to deify the persoas of men, as you do in plain terms. Whereby it is manifest we are as far from blaspheming god, or making man's ministery contemptible, which he exerciseth in the name of God, as you are from sobriety thus to judge, if your meaning be of us, or thus to reason, if you would defend the argument of the ancient fathers against the ancient heretics.  ALLEN. 
But for the readersease, and more light of our cause, I join thus in argument with them again, upon the second part of Christ's own words and action had in the authorizing of his Apostles: Whatsoever the holy Ghost may do in this case by the proper power of his Godhead, that may the Apostles and Priestcs do by service and ministery through the power of the holy Ghost: But the holy Ghost properly and rightly doth remit sins: Therefore the Apostles do rightly remit sins by their ministery in the said holy Ghost. All parts of this conclusion stand upright, and fear no falsehood: they be guarded on every side by Christ's action, by words of scripture, by the Doctor's plain warrant, and by all reason. With all which, whosoever is not contented, but will needs extinguere spiritum, extinguish God's spirit, and violently take from the Church the greatest comfort of all man's life, 
1. Thes. 〈◊〉  that in this infirmity of our flesh, standeth in most hope by his gift in remission of sins, for which especial cause the said spirit was mercifully breathed upon the Apostles peculiarly, before the mare common sending of the same from heaven above. If all this reason and just demonstration of truth will not serve them, I will charge them with this grave conclusion of S. Augustine, uttered partly against the novatians, & especallie against the desperate, that would not seek for God's mercy by the Church's ministery in the sacrament of penance. To be brief I will speak it in English. Whosoever he be 
Cap. 83. Enchir.  that believeth no: man's sins to be remitted in God's Church, and therefore despiseth the bountifulness of God inso mighty a work, if he in that obstinate mind continue till his lives end, he is guilty of sin against the holy Ghost, in which holy ghost Christ remitteth sins.  FVLKE. 
I do greatly commend you, that you have such regard of the reader's ease, and it seemeth you have good confidence of your cause, that you fly not the light of Logical judgement, by which the truth shall more plainly appear to all sorts of men, then by any discourses at large, under which many great errors may be often covered, under sophistical clouds & ambiguity of words, which in a brief syllogism is soon and easily espied. To answer your argument therefore, First I distinguish of your Mayor: for if you mean by service and ministery, the expressing and declaring of the will and pleasure of the holy ghost, whereunto they are authorized, I acknowledge your Mayor proposition to be true: whatsoever the holy Ghost may do in this case, by the proper power of his godhead, that may the Apostles and Priests do by service & ministery through the power of the holy Ghost. But if you mean by service and ministery, that the proper power of God is communicated to men, I deny your Mayor, as false, and absurd. For the Apostles and Priests may not by service and ministery, through the power of the holy Ghost, forgive sins properly, which the holy ghost by proper power of his godhead may do: for this is a proper power not come municable unto any creature, but a declaration of the will of him that hath such power, is the ministerial authority, by which men forgive sins. secondly I answer, that your conclusion is deceitful. For your Minor, Extreme, or Assumption is not perfectly joined with your Mayor or Proposition in the conclusion. For your Minor is, that the holy ghost properly & rightly doth remit sins. So your conclusion should be, therefore the Apostles properly and rightly do, remit sins by their ministery: in stead of which word properly, you craftily convey in the word truly: so your whole syllogism, is a paralogism, and may lawfully be denied. Notwithstanding your conclusion, as it is, we do grant, that the Apostles do rightly and truly remit sins, by their ministry in the holy ghost: but as it should be inferred upon your premises, we deny it, which cannot be gathered, but upon a false Mayor. Whatsoever the holy ghost may do properly, in remitting sins, the Apostles may do by ministery, as properly. As for the comfort of man's life, taken away, by denying sins to be properly forgiven by Priests, is a fond cavil, and mere slander. For we acknowledge it a singular comfort of man's life, that God hath appointed men, by their ministery, to assure us of his favour, and reconciliation in the remission of oursins. And we believe with Saint Augustine that sins are forgiven in God's Church upon earth, acknowledging the bountefullnes of God in so mighty a work, anathematizing and detesting the novatians, and all other heretics, that obstinately and willfully maintain the contrary.   

The power to remit sins is further proved to be given to the Apostles by these words of Christ: Whose sins you do forgive, etc. by the Doctor's exposition of the same, and by conference of other words of scripture of the like sense.  
THE FOURTH CHAP.  ALLEN. 
HOw the priests of Christ's Church have defended this right and calling for remission of sins, as well by the commission that Christ first received of his father, and afterward bestowed upon them, as by the assured receiving of the spirit of god from Christ's blessed breath to the same and & purpose, I have hitherto declared at large. Now the third part of the place before alleged out of S. john's gospel, concerneth the words of Christ's promise and warrant made unto his Apostles: out of which words distinctly uttered we must see what force may be further added unto our Catholic assertion, for the pristes autho rity to remit and retain sins. And surely if none of the former words of commission, nor any other mean or mention had been made of the holy ghosts assistance herein, these only words upon the credit that faithful men own to Christ, had been sufficient to have assured the world of the authority of priesthood, & of the whole cause that now is called in controversy. For what can be said either of god or man more properly or more plainly than this: whose sins you shall forgive, they be forgiven: whose sins you shall retain, they be retained? I must needs heree complain of these unfaithful and unhappy times, that in the continual loathsome brags of the scripture, and God's word, in perpetual tossing and tumbling of the book of the Bible, in endless contention and disputation of most high mysteries in them contained, have wholly converted the clearest and only undoubted meaning of such places specially, as most touch the very life and salvation of all mankind, and which be of all other things in terms of scripture most open and evident, full foolishly and unfeignedly have both the simple sort handled God's word, as in such gross ignorance of all things they needs must, and their new procured Masters also, in not much more knowledge and far passing pride can not otherwise do, but whilst they play themselves in things of smalller importance, they are to be laughed at, rather than lamented: but if the devil drive them farther, as he lightly doth, wherere he see quietly possesseth, and cause them to dally, and delude the places of scripture, that principally concern the state and salvation of us all then we must with all force resist, lest we lose the fruit and good of our Christianity. What can be of higher importance in the world, or touch our souls and salvation so near, as the holy sacraments of Christ Church, by which grace and mercy through god's appointment be procured? & yet these blessed fountains especially even these waters springing everlastingly to our life and comfort, have these men most infected.  FVLKE. 
You far as though we denied all power of remitting or retaining of sins: whereas we do most gladly embrace all such power as Christ hath given us, which we must so take, as it be not dishonourable to the godhead, that man should exercise that which is proper to God himself. The power therefore we grant, but what manner of power this is, we must inquire, whether an absolute power for priests at their pleasure (as you speak afterward in this Chapter) 
Sect. 6.  to forgive sins properly, or a power to declare the same to be forgiven according to the pleasure of God, to them that repent and believe the Gospel: and also, whether this power is to be exercised by preaching the Ghospel, or by auricular confession. You spend many words therefore in vain, to prove the power and authority, whereof we stand in no controversy with you: but what manner of power this is, and by what means it is to be exercised. As for the loathsome brags of the scripture, and God's word in perpetual tossing and tumbling of the books of the Bible, do argue, that you complain of, savoureth not of the spirit of Christ, which willeth the scriptures to be searched, as those which bear witness of him. To glory in the truth of God's word contained in his holy scriptures, is no vain bragging, but such as Christians ought most of all to delight in. The rest of your railing I pass over, as unworthy any answer, when, whatsoever you prate in general, shallbe found false in special, when you come to prove the particulars.  ALLEN. 
In the institution of Sacraments Christ's words were ever plain without colour or figure, as words that work with singular efficacy, grace and virtue, and therewith give to the ministers just authority for the execution of Christ's meaning: which could not be done in figurative speeches and parables without infinite error. Did God speak parables when he instituted the solemnity of so many sacrifices in the old law? when he signified unto Moses and Aaron every several sort of beast or creature with their sex & kind & all the ceremony thereunto belonging? Did he speak parables, when the sacrament of the lamb was to be instituted? Did he speak by figure 
Exod. 12.  to Abraham, when he commanded him to circumcise the male of every of his people? Did he speak by figure, when he instituted 
Gen. 17. Ex. 35.  the Sabbath? Did he, to be brief, ever in the old law speak one thing, and mean another, when any external work by the charge of his word was to be practised for ever amongst the people? In common speech, in prophesying, in preaching, in similitudes, in examples uttered for the declaration of many things, and for grace and variety of talk, to stir up man's industry in searching the secrets of the truth, there figures of all sorts be used: but where, by external words and actions, force of inward grace must be procured, or perpetual usages in the Church are in outward signs and elements to be instituted, or commission of great matters granted, or charge of singular weight given to servants in absense of their Masters, in all such cases plain speaking by God's providence was ever used, and by all reason must be used, or else man falling into error in the execution of his commission, is sufficiently to be excused, because he could not attain to the meaning of his Master's words. And yet the wicked of these days, have found such light in scripture, that they have made our Master Christ to speak one thing and mean the contrary, in the very institution of Sacraments, and have found figures to delude & deseat the world of the necessary fruit of them al.  FVLKE. 
Since you were a Papist, you never uttered a more fase proposition, that in the institution of Sacraments Christ's words were ever plain and without colour or figure: nor yet a more foolish and unlearnd assertion. For you oppose figure to plainness and colorablenes. As for your Metaphor of colour, I will not meddle with it: but if you mean thereby, as it is commonly taken for dissimulation, I protest that Christ in no speech ever used any. As for plainness, he sought, when he used figures, or rhetorical colours. Therefore as I grant, that in institution of Sacraments, Christ's words were ever plain, so jutterlie deny, that in institution of sacraments Christ's words were never figurative: and I hold him for a very either ignorant, or impudent person, that dare affirm the contrary. That the words of Christ could not work with singular efficacy grace and virtue, and therewith give to the ministers just authority, for the execution of Christ's meaning, being uttered in figurative speeches & parables, without infinite error, is a brutish affirmation, as afterward I will show, by many particular examples. In the mean time, that which cometh near to this cause, what boy that learneth Moselanes figures will deny, that these speeches, of binding, of losing, of the keys, of the kingdom of heaven, of Peter being a rock, or stone, on which the Church is builded, are figurative speeches and parables, meaning not proper binding, losing, keys, Rock, or building, but parables, or things like unto those? But against this you object, with interrogation, did God speak parables, when he instituted the solemnity of so many sacrifices, & c? Yea verily, than did he most of all speak parables. For than he signified, that reconciliation was only by Christ's death, whereof all these sacrifices were parables, similitudes and figures, as the Apostle declareth, Heb. 9 verse 9 in plain words. And yet it followeth not, that every word was figurative or parabolical, which he used in the institution of every sacrifice, and therefore the several sort of the beast or creature, with the sex and kind, and other parts of the ceremony thereto belonging, might be in proper terms, without justifying of that monstrous paradox, that no figurative speeches were used in the institution of sacraments, or that in the institution of sacraments, Christ's words were ever without figure. But you urge us farther, ask, whether he did speak parables, when the sacrament of the Lamb was to be instituted? I hope you play not the lad, to trifle about the distinction of parables and figures: but you mean that he used no figurative speeches, as your first proposition was. I answer you, he did, and that do I plainly prove when he said, the Lamb so taken, prepared, and eaten with haste, is the 
Ex. 12. 11.  Lords passover, where indeed it was a sacrament, and sign thereof, and not the Lords passover, in proper speech. Moses also reporting the Lord's institution, biddeth the people to slay the passover, and the people are willed to teach their young children, ignorant of 
Ex. 12. 21.  the end and use thereof, that it is the Lords passover, and so diverse times both in the 12. and 13. Chapters 
Ex. 12. 27.  it is repeated, that the lamb so slain, is the passover of the Lord. Therefore it is plain, that God did use figurative speech in the institution of the Sacrament of the Lamb, even when he did teach the people the use and end thereof: not to obscure the mystery, but by similitude of passing over their houses, where the posts were sprinkled with the blood, more plainly to express and set forth the same.  
You ask the third time, whether God did speak by figure to Abraham, when he commanded him to circumcise the male of every one of his people, Gen. 17? I answer you, yea, he did speak by figure. For when he began to speak of that matter ver. 10. He said, this is my covenant between me and you, and between thy seed after the, which ye shall keep: that every male among you be circumcised. Which that you should not doubt to be a figure, in the next verse following he expoundeth it saying: that circumcision shallbe a sign of the covenant that is between me and you, And verse 13. he saith, so shall my covenant be in your flesh, for a perpetual covenant. And in the 14. verse, the soul of the uncircumcised male, shallbe rooted out from his people, because (saith he) he hath transgressed or made void my covenant. The like demand you make of the institution of the Sabbaoth, which I know not whether you number among the sacraments or no. In Gen. 2. where it is said, that God rested from all his work, which he had made, there is a figure, because he ceased only from creation, but not from government and preservation of those things which he hath made. And in the 35. of Exod. whereunto you send us, if you take the words of the law, without any figure (whosoever shall do any work on the Sabbath day, shall die the death) you condemn a great many, whom our savionr Christ doth excuse, not only from punishment of death, but even from breach of the commandment, Luke 13. & 14. Mat. 12.  
To your last question I answer, that he never dissembled in the old law, or the new: but if you understand, by speaking on thing and meaning an other, figurative speeches, I say he often used them, when any external work was to be practised for ever by charge of his word among the people, as is most evident in the sacraments of circumcision and the passover: therefore your distinction is falsc, & frivolous; for God hath used figurative speeches often times, in the institution of the sacraments, not to deceive the people, that they should take one thing for an other, but the better to express the virtue and effect of them, according to the capacity of the people. As in calling the Lamb the pascal, they were more lively put in mind, both of the temporal benefit, and passing over, and also of their spiritual deliverance. When circumcision is called the covenant, whereof it was a sign, the people were admonished, what was the spiritual meaning thereof, namely, that they should cut of the old man with all concupiscences of the flesh, which God requireth of all them, that shall accept him for their Father and merciful redeemer.  ALLEN. 
There were some of old that drove the mysteries of Christ's incarnation and speeches that prove his equality with his Father in Godhead, to figurative phrases, and sought for the defence of their folly the like phrases in other of Christ's talks but never none were comparable in this kind to our new devisers. For by the face and crack of god's word they have brought to pass amongst fools, that no one text of scripture which pertaineth to any of the Sacraments can have his meaning, and such sense as the the very word beareth, and the world hath ever taken and confirued of it. The blessed and most sovereign 
The B. Sacr. of the altar.  sacrament of the altar, instituted in a solemn action, in most careful manner, amongst his most secret servants, the last almost of all his works in earth, in most evident terms, with sore charge given to the Apostles of the continuance of his everlasting memory in the same, yet must 
Mat. 26.  mean nothing less, then that which our Master made it, and must by a thousand figures be wrested and writhe to what you list & like, so that is be not to import that, which our Master said it did, and the Church hath ever believed of the same. Words of the like solemnity were used for the ordering of the holy use of Baptism, to be done, as the word doth also import, 
Baptism.  necessarily in the external element of water, with certain most holy prescribed words, under pain and peril of everlasting perishing to the neglecters thereof: yet in such plainness figures are found out by these pernicious conveiers, that neither water is counted so much necessary, nor the words of such strength, but that one of these malapert fellows was bold to 
Brentius contra Petrum á Solo  write, that it was much superstition to bind the Church to the same, as to the prescribed words of art Magic, sorcery, and witchcrafie. Of the honourable act and sacrament of extreme unction, what can be said with more evidence of words than is 
Extreme unction. Cap. 5.  spoken of the holy Apostle Saint james? If any man be sick amongst you, let him call for the Priests of the Church, and let them anoint him with oil: and yet so little matter these men make of the Apostles spirit, word, and writing, that they have condemned the whole use thereof as superstitious, not helping themselves by figures, but by openforce. Grace is 
Holle orders. 1. Tim. 4. Matrimony  given to Timothy, as in a sacrament, when he took orders of Paul: the Apostle saith so much in express terms: yet this grace and the whole sacrament of orders, these holy men reject. Matrimony to S. Paul is a great sacrament, and of our ministers not misliked, so fair as concerneth their fleshly 
Eph. 5.  conjunction, which they only lust after: but grace they list not receive thereby, lest it should be a sacrament, whereby the unity of Christ and his spouse the Church, which in no sauce they can abide, might be fully represented and signified.  FVLKE. 
It is one thing ro draw violently all things expressed in the scriptures unto alligories & other figurative speeches, an other thing not to acknowledge any figures which yet be so usual in the institution of sacraments. The face & crack of god's word, with the sequel thereof, that you speak of, so long as it resteth upon your own cracked credit, shallbe little regarded by any wise man. But to examine the examples you bring, to justify your saying: first you begin with the Lords supper, where you say, it was instituted in most evident terms. Whereby you mean terms properly used, and without figure, as though you had forgotten the words of our saviour Christ, pertaining to the institution of the cup, This cup is the new testament in my blood, Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Where I marvel whether you have the face to say, the words are not figurative which he used, or whether you will say, the Evangelist and Apostle did express the words of Christ in more obscure terms than he spoke them, or whether there be not the same sense of these figurative words, This cup is the new testament in my blood, and those other reported by the other Evangelists, This is my blood. In saying we would have the words of our Saviour Christ mean nothing less than the sacrament that he made it, you slander us without measure or cause. For we would have the words of our Saviour mean nothing more, nor less, but even altogether as much as our saviour Christ did mean to teach us by them. And the hyperbolic all lie of a thousand figures, by which we should wrest them, may in respect of greater number of figures you make in your gross and carnal exposition, be justified of you, rather than of us, whose interpretation maketh but one figure, and one meaning, and that warranted by the words of diverse of the most ancient and Catholic Doctors.  
In the sacrament of baptism, who make the external element of water more necessary to be used? they that require water for the use thereof, or else require that the external elemét be forborn, rather than that it should be changed into wine, milk, broth; or any other more vile liquor? of which kind of questions & other mostrous cases your treatises of the sacraméts are full. What Brentius hath written, I have not to do to answer: yet it seemeth that the words of Brentius are wrested of you, to another meaning, rather than that he would have them either altered, or the sense of them not retained. Wherein for any thing that I can see, he varieth not from the judgement of your Master of the sentences & all sententionaries, which allow baptism ministered in the name of Christ, to be as good as in the name of the blessed trinity. lib. 4. distinct. 3.  
Of extreme unction, we find nothing in Saint james, but of a ceremony of anointing with oil, joined with the gift of healing, used in the primitive Church, but not to be drawn into example of them that confess, they are void of that mirarulous gift. The use of which ceremony, without the gift whereunto it was annexed, without any force or figure, we may be bold to condemn, as superstitious. The grace that was given to Timothy, and the order of the Ecclesiastical ministery, distinct from the common people, we acknowledge and retain. But that any gift of prophesy, or of any other grace, is dispensed by imposition of the hands of the presbytery in these days, as it was in the Apostles time, we cannot acknowledge, before we see it. for he that was void of all spiritual gifts, before his taking of orders, remaineth as very an ass among you, as he was before. Seeing matrimony was instituted in paradise, before the fall of man, we cannot account it a sacrament of the new testament, by which we are assured of grace in the forgiveness of sins: and yet we do (howsoever it pleaseth you to rail upon our ministers) acknowledge that great and excellent mystery of the spiritual unity of Christ and his spouse the Church, which you say in no sauce we can abide: as though wheresoever any mystery is confessed to be, there must needs follow a Sacrament of the new testament.  ALLEN. 
These fellows therefore that dare be so bold to disturb all the orders and sacraments of God's Church, and to maintain their fantasies, dare burst the sacred bands of express scriptures in such points as do directly touch the whole policy of our Christian common wealth and ordered waics of our salvation, even in those which Christ most carefully left to be practised for the use of his loving flock, by the warrant of words most plain, what shall we say to such bold and impudent faces, that thus dare do, and yet which I more mernaile at, in this their uncourtesy, and most unhonest dealing, will not stick to cry and call upon God's word, as though they did that by scripture, the contrary whereof they expressly find in scripture. And truly where they be not helped by the verte words, vain it shallbe for them to stand with us, and with all our Fathers, and with the practise of all nations, and with the very express judgement of the Church of God, it shall not boot them, I say, in their dark ignorance & infinite pride to stand with us, having so many helps for the true meaning, and the express text of the word for ourselves and side.  FVLKE. 
He must needs have an impudent face, and a wicked conscience, that so shamefully slandereth us, to bereake the sacred bands of the express scriptures, whereunto we seem to attribute all credit: as though we deny any one word of express scripture, & do not affirm, whatsoever the scripture doth affirm in express words, or deny, whatsoever the holy scripture in express words doth deny, according to such sense and meaning, as the scripture must have, as it is agreeable to itself in all places. The express words of scripture touching the Lord's supper are these: that it is the body & blood of Christ: we confess and believe as much. The express words of scripture concerning the Apostles authority, in pardoning or retaining sins, are, as they have been often alleged. we believe they, and their successors (of whom there is no express word) have power to remit or retain sins. The express words of scripture concerning the Lord's supper are also, The rock was Christ: we believe that the rock was Christ. The cup is the new testament: we believe that the cup is the new testament. Also by express words, to the Apostles there is granted power to bind and to lose. We confess and believe that they have power to bind and to lose. And yet I trust we may be bold to say, without breaking the sacred bonds of express scriptures: The rock was not Christ, in nature of his humanity and divinity, but a sacrament of Christ. The cup is not the new covenant itself, but that which is in the cup is an holy sign or seal thereof. The Apostles had no power given them, to bind men with chains or cords, nor to lose the chains & cords of them, that be bound by other: but a spiritual authority, to bind and lose spiritually. In like manner we do not break the sacred bands of express scripture, when we affirm that the Sacramental bread and wine are not by transsbustantiation turned into the natural body and blood of Christ, or the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament are not corporally received, but spiritually. For the contrary of these we find not expressly in the scripture. So when we say, the Apostles had not power to remit sins properly, which is peculiar only to God, but to aslure men in Christ's name, whose ambassadors they were, of the forgiveness of their sins by Christ, we break no bands of express scriptures. For we confesle the words according to their true meaning, agreeable with other places of scripture, that teach it to be peculiar to God, to remit sins properly. An ambassador is said to make peace or war, when he declareth, according to his commission, his Prince's determination of peace or war. The kings Lieutenant having such commission, offereth or granteth pardon to rebels or other offenders, where he doth only declare the kings pleasure, in pardoning or releasing their offences. As for the Popish brag of all our fathers, with the practise of all nations, and the very express judgement of the Church of God, to be for your assertion, how vain it is, will easily appear, when you come to cite fathers, show forth the practise of all nations, declare the judgement of God's Church, and when the contradictory shall be manifestly proved and borough forth against you.  ALLEN. 
Sometimes where it may appear that the words and outward face of scripture serve not our assertions so plainly as the holy traditions of Christ's Church do, there they call upon us with infinite clamours to abide the judgement of the word, which they would be thought to esteem above all man's meaning. But whether would they now run think you, where all our sacraments stand upon evident words, & more than words, upon the very express & notorious action of Christ himself? all instituted sincerely to be practised of the Church after his de parture hence: all commended in known terms of greatest & most efficacy that could be, not by way of preaching, in which he used sometimes figures, not at such time as he used other then common known speech, but after his resurrection, when he now uttered no more parables as he did before, that such as 
Mat. 13. Marc. 4.  faugh, should not see, and such as were of understanding, might not understand, but did open unto his dearest their senses, that they might understand scriptures, and more carefully expressed his meaning for the instruction of his holy Disciples, to the better bearing of that charge which he meant to leave them in, after his departure: whither will these men (I say) where they see all things so environed with truth, whither will they fly? The scriptures be plainly ours, the Doctors they dare not claim, reason is against them, there is then no way to bear it out, but with boldness and exercised audacity. Yet here we will assay, by the notorious evidence of this one cause that we now have in hand, to break their stony hearts to the obedience of Christ's Church & word, for whose faith, if they have seen great light & force of argument already, & shall yet see much more, I trust they will not still with stand the known truth.  FVLKE. 
We will run no further for the understanding of Christ's words, concerning the institution and practise of his holy sacraments, although we have the consent of the most ancient and approved doctors of the primitive Church, as witnesses of the same. That the sacraments are commended in known terms of greatest and most efficacy that could be, we cofesse: but thereof it followeth not, that they were not in some part commended by figurative speeches, which are often and almost always, if they be rightly used, better known, and of greater efficacy, then proper terms. That you say, the sacraments were not commended by way of Preaching, it is a gross and impudent absurdity, when they were instituted and commended to be seals of the doctrine, that was preached, for confirmation of faith, which is builded upon the hearing of God's word preached. As also it is a brutish assertion, that Christ used no figurative speeches after his resurrection. For what are these but figurative speeches, feed my sheep, feed my lambs? And what was that but a parable of Peter's bands girding himself, and being girded, walking where he would, and led whither he would not, to signify by what death he should glorify God? Neither did he affect obscurity by parables before his resurrection. For his parables were uttered for better and more plain understanding of his obedient disciples, although to the reprobate contemners of his doctrine, they seemed hard and inexplicate, and were, as all things are unto them, and as Christ himself was, a stumbling block, and stone of offence, that they might fall and perish. That our saviour Christ did open the senses of his Apostles, that they might understand the scriptures, they were the better able to understand figurative speeches, of which the scripture is full. But that he did more carefully express his meaning, for the instruction of his holy disciples, I do deny, for he had always before as great care to express his meaning: and without care was always able to utter his divine pleasure, considering that he had appointed the doctrine, which he preached before his resurrection, to be committed to writing, for the public and perpetual instruction of his whole Church. To the vain insultation and boasting that followeth, I answer, as in the end of the last section before.  ALLEN. 
All words then of institution of sacraments, being literally to be taken, and things of so great charge not otherwise to be understanded, then are both by act and word of Christ sincerely uttered, we need not doubt but the form of Christ's sentence, in which he giveth the Apostles power to remit sins, is plainly to be taken in that common sense, as the same by words importeth, and therefore that by force thereof, they may remit sins. And yet to make more proof to satisfy all men, I will join to these words of our saviour that most properly concern the sacrament of penance, other his words touching our principal couclusion not unlike, whereby in conference of the like sayings together (which our adversaries do always, as they would seem, well to allow) truth may try itself. Therefore as our master here saith: whose sins you shall forgive, they be forgiven, And whose sins you retain they be also retained: even so said he twice before unto the Apostles, expressing in other words almost the same meaning and sense: once to them altogether in the 18. of Saint Matthew, and an other time before that, in the 16. of the same Gospel to S. Peter alone.  
To them in general thus saith Christ: If thy brother have committed any offence towards thee, go to him & admonish him privately betwixt him and thyself. If he take it well, thou hast won thy brother: if he regard thee not, take one or two with the, that in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word may stand: if he regard not them neither, then make complaint of him to the Church (that is to say, as Saint chrysostom expoundeth it, to the governors of the Church) and if he will not obey the Church, then take him for no better than a Heathen, and a Publican. And strait 
Super hunc locum  upon these words, lest any man should set light by the Church, or rulers thereof, Christ added (saith Saint Augustine) a wonderful terror of her severe authority, saying: 
De side & operib. c. 3.  Amen dico vobis, quaecunque alligaveritis super terram, erunt ligata & in coelo: & quaecunque solueritis super terram, erunr soluta & in coelo: Surely I say unto you, what things soever you bind in earth, it shall be bound in heaven: And whatsoever you lose in earth, it shall be loosed in heaven. This text is clear for the Churches claim in remission of sins, though it properly pertain rather to the outward power judiciary and court of external judgement for open crimes and notorious contempts, then for the sins of the people that be secret, and only subject to power practised in the sacrament of penance, which now lightly is close, and only uttered in secret to him, that hath charge of his soul. Nevertheless, if the Priests of God have received power to lose and bind, which is, to pardon and punish open notorious crimes and contempts, which touching the guiltiness of the fault, doth no less pertain to the power of God, than the absolving of secres sins doth: then, without question they may pardon orretaine man's sins of all sorts, as well in the sacrament of penance, all that be confessed: as in public judgement, whatsoever is by witness proved. And as in this, they may at their pleasure, where justice requireth, correct the open offender by most grave censures of God's Church: so may the Priests give due penance in the sacrament, for the chastisement of such sins as be to them confessed, and for the satisfying of God's justice by sin violated.  FVLKE. 
If all words of institution of sacramets must be taken literally, then must these words be taken literally, This cup is the new testament in my blood. The lamb is the Lords passover, Circumcision is the covenant, and such like. But as for your conclusion, though inferred upon a false principle, I confess to be true, that the Apostles by force of the words of commission granted to them, may remit sins: but not properly, for that the words do not enforce. Both the places that you will join to this, of Math. 18. and Math. 16. are parables and figurative speeches of binding and losing, of the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and of a stone, and buildilng of che Church thereupon: nevertheless the text Math 18. I do acknowledge to be clear, for the Churches claim in remitting offences, and that it pertaineth more properly to the discipline of the Church, then to the preaching of repentance, and remission of sins, whereunto the text of john 21. most properly belongeth. That you say, penance is now lightly close, and the sins uttered only in secret, to him that hath charge of his soul: you do closely confess, that otherwise lightly you will not openly acknowledge, that your practise is contrary to the use of the most ancient, and primitive Church. But that the ministers of the Church have authority to remit sins as well openly, as secretly, I am content it be without question: only this is the question, whether any thing pertaining to the proper power of God, be made common to men. For we hold, that they do in such sort remit sins, as they exercise nothing that pertaineth to the proper power of God, touching the release of the guiltiness of sins, although in executing of discipline, they may pardon the exercise of repentance, that is appointed for trial of the parties true penitency, or some part thereof, which as it is enjoined, by the judgement and discretion of men, so they may by the same release it, as upon good cause, they think convenient.  
Where you say, that Priests may pardon or retain man's sins, of all sorts, as well in the sarcrament of penance, all that be confessed, as in public judgement, You thrust in diverse matters, whereof there is neither mention in the text, nor any necessary collection to be made of them, out of it: as the sacrament of penance, whereof there is no outward element or sign instituted: then your kind of penance which includeth some piece of satisfaction for sins & last of all your auricular and particular confession: as though genetall confession and acknowledging of men's sins before God, might not obtain remission of sins in his sight: And as though, if any sin be not remembered in shrift, the priests remission extendeth not unto it, or if it were remembered, and be hypocritically concealed, yet the remission were good & available for all other sins that are confessed. Again, it is an insolent power you give them in open judgement, that they may at their pleasure, where justice requireth correct the open offender. For though you seem to qualify their pleasure by justice: yet to ascribe that to their pleasure, which is laid upon them of necessity, what warrant have you for it? For if they may at their pleasure, they need not, except it please them. Finally, your argument holdeth not, that as in exercising of discipline, they may chastise the offender, by the censures of the Church: so they may give due punishment, for sins 〈◊〉 in shrift. Neither are those two ends you allege, true. For the chastisement of sins pertaineth not to them, but to God, and the civil Magistrate: and the justice of God violated by sin, is satisfied by the obedience and suffering of our saviour Christ. Whereby also it should follow, that the power of remitting of sins were made void and frustrate, if men must endure due punishment, which you call penance, for the satisfying of God's justice, by sin violated.  AILEN. 
The other text of holy scripture, containing Christ's words to Saint Peter severally, by certain notable circumstances of the letter, and by words of great grant spoken singularly to him, giveth the chief of all his Apostles in more ample terms and beneficial clauses this power and prerogative also. To him it was only said, thou art Peter (which is as much to say as a rock: for our Master gave him that name new at his first calling, in signification of further intent and purpose which he here uttered) and upon this rock will 
joh. 1.  I set my Church: and hell gates shall not prevail against it. That so said, he thus spoke in plain terms: Et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum. Et quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum & in caelis, & quodcunque solueris super terram, erit solutum & in caelis: And to thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind in earth, it shall be bound in the heavens, And what thou losest in earth, it shall be loosed in the heavens. This promise made unto Peter and performed no doubt after his resurrection, when he committed to him the feeding and government of all his dear flock both 
Ibid. 21.  young and old, doth exceedingly import a wonderful incomparable sovereignty and-iurisdiction over men's souls. For a mortal man to receive the keys of Christ's Kingdom, and by them to bind & lose, to lock out and let in, before our Master Christ who had the full jurisdiction therein, it was never heard of. And when the holy Prophets do mean to set out the great and passing power given by God the father to his only son in earth, they use to express the same often by the terms, of keys, as when the Prophet isaiah saith: I will lay the keys of the house of David upon his shoulder: he shall shut, and there can none be able to open, and he shall open so, that none can shut agiane. And Christ himself 
Cap. 21. Apoc. 1. & 3.  speaking to his beloved john in the Apocalypse saith: I am the first and the last. I am alive, and was dead before, and I have the keys of death and hell. The keys therefore, ever signifying power andgovernment of the household, was given to Christ, as to whom, being the principal and most excellent rector of his own Church that he bought so dearly, they most duly belong. But he communicated unto Peter, as to his special steward, the use of the same, for the government of our souls, with exceeding much pre-eminence both in binding and losing. Yet I do not remember that any of the old writers do put any great difference betwixt the authorities of Peter and the rest of the Apostles, concerning the remitting of sins, which is a thing pertaining indifferently to the whole order of priesthood, and therefore no more proper to the Pope or Peter, then to Priests and Apostles: though Origen noted well, that the jurisdiction of Peter seemed by these words to be enlarged above the residue, by that our saviour said to him, that, whatsoever he bound or loosed in earth, it should be loosed or bound in the heavens: where to the rest he spoke of heaven only in the singular number. I speak only of this latter clause of binding and losing with the keys thereunto belonging. For there is no doubt, but great pre-eminence of rule and jurisdiction is promised before in the sametext now recited, and else where actually given unto him, more than to the rest of his brethren. Nevertheless even this power of binding and losing, common to all the holy order, was in him first severally planted, for the commendation of unity and order, as Saint Cyprian saith, and so the same authority given 
De simplicitate Praelatorum.  to other, might yet after a sort be derived from his fullness of power and prerogative, as from a fountain.  FVLKE. 
The other text of scripture, containing the words of our saviour Christ to Peter severally, giveth to him (as you say) this power and prerogative also. As for the not able circumstances of the letter, the words of great grant spoken singularly to him, the more ample terms, and beneficial clauses, let us examine, what they are, and whether they be of force to make him chief of all his Apostles. First, to him it was only said, thou art Peter, which is as much to say as a rock: what then? ergo he was chief of all the Apostles? who is so mad to gtaunt the consequence? To the sons of zebedee only it was said, that they were Bonarges, that is, the Children of thunder, ergo they had greater authority than the rest of the Apostles. But of all the Apostles it was said, that they are the twelve rocks, or stones, the foundation of the walls of the new jerusalem. Apoc. 21. 14. and the Church is builded upon the foundation of all the Apostles. Eph. 2. 20. secondly you say, the promise made to him, joan. 1. & Math. 16. was performed no doubt after his resurrection, when he committed to him, the feeding of all his sheep young and old. joh. 21. 2. We grant as much, but that it doth exceedingly import a wonderful incomparable sovereignty, and jurisdiction over men's souls, greater or other than was equally granted to the rest of the Apostles, we see not how it can be inferred of any scripture. Every one of the Apostles being sent into all the world, to teach all nations, and to preach the Gospel to every 
Math. 28. Marc. 16.  creature, hath as general authority to feed the sheep of Christ, both old and young, as Peter. thirdly you say, for a mortal man to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and by them to bind and lose, to lock out and let in, before our Master Christ, who had full jurisdiction therein, it was never heard of. But we read that the samekeys were committed to the scribes and Pharisees, and teachers of the law, which they did shamefully abuse, and therefore are threatened by our saviour Christ: woe be to you teachers of the law: for you have taken away the key of knowledge, and neither you yourselves do enter, and you forbidden them that would. Woe be unto you Scribes and Pharisees, ye hypocrites, for you shut up the kingdom of heaven before men: For neither you yourselves do enter, nor suffer those to enter that would enter. Luk. 11. Mat. 23. here you note inthese places the key of knowledge, by which the kingdom of heaven should have been opened, taken away, and the kingdom of heaven shut up from them that gladly would enter, if they knew which way? The keys in deed do signify power and authority: but that only Peter hath those keys, and not the Church and every true Pastor of the same, or that Peter by them had greater power and authority, than the rest of the Apostles, which had them also, you shall never be able to make demonstration. Your remembrance serveth you well, that all the old writers do make no difference, between the authority of Peter and the rest of the Apostles, concerning the remitting of sins. But you do forget, that the power of binding and losing, was by our saviour Christ granted equally to all the Apostles, and to their successors, though it were once singularly uttered to one. The subtlety of Origen, to make a difference between binding and losing in all the heavens, and in one heaven only, beside that it is vain in itself, yet is it not brought of Origen to dignify Peter above all the Apostles, whom both upon the place of Mat. 16. and this also, he confesseth to have received equal power with Peter: but to prefer Peter and such as Peter was, before them that have thrice reprehended offenders, and being not heard have bound the sinner upon earth, judging him as an heathen or publican: whereof he inferreth. Quanto melior fuerit, qui ligat. etc., how much better he is that bindeth, by somuch he that is bound is bound more than in one heaven, and how much better he is that looseth, by so much he shall be more happy that is loosed: for he is loosed in all the heavens. The greater pre-eminence of rule and jurisdiction, & the fullness of power and prerogative derived from Peter, as from a fountain, be matters of bold assertion, but void of all manner of proof or demonstration.  ALLEN. 
But we will not stand hereon now, nor yet to put difference betwixt these words and terms, losing or remitting, binding or retaining, nor to dispute whether these two texts more properly signify the authority and jurisdiction given to the spiritual Magistrates, for punishing by temporal pain enjoined, and releasing by mercy, as they see occasion, the same appointed penance again, or else it properly concerneth the very release of sin itself, or retaining the sin, which they upon just causes will not forgive. These things would grow to over tedious a tale, and overcurious for the simple, whom I would most help in these matters: and I shall briefllie touch so much hereof, as is necessary, hereafter when I shall dispute of pardons. For in deed these two texts of binding and losing, as well spoken to Peter, as to the residue afterward, shall be the ground of our whole discourse there, and therefore till then, we must touch these texts no further, but as in common pertaineth to remitting or retaining sins. For they are brought indifferently of the holy fathers with the foresaid words of Saint john, in which, as I have declared, the very institution of penance and priests judgement of our souls and sins, be most properly grounded. Theresore that by all these words, so often uttered by our saviour, you may well perceive the very literal and vudoubted meaning to be, that Priests have authority by Christ's warrant to remit and retain sins, I will recite one or two places of most ancient fathers, that they joining with such plain words of sundry places of scripture, may make all most sure, to such as can by any reason be satisfied. First jalledge the saying of S. Maximus, 
Homil. In natali Petri & Pau.  an old author, & a blessed saint. He doth by conference couple together these texts whereon we now stand: thus hespeaketh very pithily, therefore you shall hear his own words: Ne qua vos, fiatres, de creditis Petro clavibus regni, more nostrarum clavium cogitatio terrena promoveat, Clavis caeli lingua est Petri, quam singulorum meritae censendo Aposiolus unicuique regnum coelorum aut claudit, aut aperit: Non est ergo clavis ista mortalis artificis aptata manu, sed data à Christo potestas est judicandi. Denique ait eyes: quorum remiseritis peccata, remissa erunt, & quorum detinueritis, detenta erunt. Thus he saith in our tongue: Lest any earthly cogitation move you to think of any such material keys as we occupy in earth, when you hear of committing the keys of the kingdom to Peter, you must thus understand, that the key of heaven is Peter's word or tongue, because the Apostle weighing well every of our deserts, openeth or shutteth to every man the kingdom of Christ. This key therefore is not made by mortal man's hand, but it is the power of judgement given by Christ. To be brief, he saith to them all: whose sins you shall forgive, they shall be forgiven, etc. Thus saith Maximus, joining together fitly two texts for one purpose, & out of both maketh a most forcible argument, that the judgement of our souls, which is a passing authority, and the very letting in, and keeping out of heaven, is addicted by the keys to Peter's, and the Apostles ministery. For which cause also S. Gregory calleth all Christ's Apostles, and the just occupiers of their rooms, the doors by which we must enter into heaven, or everlastingly bide out: which is a fearful saying to all such as contemn their authority. His 
Ca 16. l. 28. in job.  words be these: Quid cuncti Apostoli, nisi sanctae Ecclesiae ostia, existunt? cùm eis dicitur, Accipite spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, etc. ac si illis apertè diceretur: per vos ingrediuntur ad me high quibus vos ipsi panditis, & repellentur quibus obseratis. What are all the Apostles else, but the doors of holy Church? Seeing it is said of them, take you the holy Ghost. whose sins you do forgive, they be forgiven: even as though in plainer terms it had been spoken thus: by you all must enter that will come unto me, those, I say, to whom you open the door by losing of their sins, and those that be put back, that you lock out. Hitherto Saint Gregory. This wonderful authority caused Saint Hilary thus to make exclamation: 
De Trin. l. 6.  O holy & most happy men! for the desert of your faith you have obtained the keys of heaven, & now the whole right both of binding & losing in heaven & earth is assuredly in you. But that you may fully behold their right herein, consider his notable words upon the alleged place of S. Matthew: Ad terrororem metus maximi, quo in praesens omnes continerentur, 
Super Math. 18. Some read Confession for concessione  immobile severitatis Apostolicum judicium praemisit, ut quos in terrae ligaverint. i. peccatorum nodis innexos reliquerint, & quos soluerint, concessione scilicet veniae, receperint in salutem, in Apostolicae conditione sententiae, in caelis quoque aut soulti sint, aut ligati. That is to say: To she terror and fear of all men, and necessary keeping of them in awe and disctplne, Christ promised the immovable judgement of the Apostles severity, that whomsoever they hound in earth, that is to say, left fast tied in the bands of sins, and whom they loosed, that is to wit, by mercy received to the benefit of pardon, that the same persons so bound or so released, in the same case that the Apostles left them, should be in the heavens, either lose or fast. Thus far S. Hilary: by whom we evidently may learn, in what careful case all men be that pass this life not loosed by them, whose sentence in earth is so surely ratified in heaven above, and no leesse how the words of Christ uttered sometimes in terms of binding & losing, other times in remitting and retaining, do literally signify.  FVLKE. 
If these two texts of binding and losing, shallbe the ground of your whole discourse, when you come to the pope's pardons, we may see before hand upon how feeble a ground you build. For they being brought as you confess indifferently of the holy Fathers, with the other words uttered by Saint john, in which you say, the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of penance, and Priests judgement of our souls and sins be most properly grounded, do prove that all Priests have equal power in giving of pardons, as they have in remitting of sins: When you conclude, that by all these words, so often uttered by our sa viour, we may perceive the very literal and undoubted meaning to be, that Priests have authority by Christ's warrant, effectually to remit and 〈◊〉 sins, you join together things that are of no necessary consequence, and in this case are to be disjoined. For we acknowledge that it is the undoubted meaning of Christ, that his ministers should have authority, effectually to remit or retain sins. But the very literal meaning (so you call the grammatical sense) is otherwise then you take it. For in those two texts, binding and losing are plain Metaphors, as all men will confess, that can put a difference between proper and figurative speeches. And in the third, of remitting or retaining, either we must acknowledge a Metonymy, or else the Proper office & authority of God is made common to men. The places of the ancient fathers that you cite, make nothing at all to clear the controversy on your side, namely whether Priests forgive sins as properly as God himself. First the saying of Maximus, or whosoever was author of that Homely, interpreting the key, of the kingdom of heaven, to be Peter's word or tongue, doth signify, that by preaching he exreciseth that power of judgement, by which he openeth or shutteth the kingdom of heaué, according as every one receiveth, or refuseth his Doctrine. Again, comparing this power of judging, with the text of S. john, he declareth that Peter's key is common to him, with all the Apostles, and their successors. S. Gregory also comparing them to doors, meaneth not to take any thing from our saviour Christ, the only door. Also in the same place he showeth in plain words, that they are doors, to let in and keep out by preaching. Et quia Doctores sancti praedicatione quidem sequentibus 〈◊〉 sunt, authoritate autem suaresistentibus clausi, non immeritò ostia vocantur: id est, aperta conversationi humilium, & clausa terroribus, superborum. Non immeritò ostia vocantur: quia & ingressum fidelibus aperiunt, & rursum sese perfidis ne ingrediantur opponunt. Pensemus quale Ecclesie ostium extitit Petrus, qui investigantem fidem Cornelium recepit, pertio quaerentem miracula Simonem reppulit, illi dicens: In veritate comperi, quoniam non est personarum acceptor Deus, secreta regni benignè aperuit: huic inquiens, Pecunia tua tecum sit in perditionem, per districtae damnationis sententiam, celestis aulae aditum claudit. And because holy teachers by preaching truly, are open to them that follow them, and by their authority shut to them that resist, they are not unworthily called doors: that is, open to the conversation of the humble, and shut to the terrors of the proud. They are not unworthily called doors, because they do both open an entry unto the faithful, and again oppose them. selves against the unfaithful, that they should not enter. Let us consider what manner a door of the Church Peter was: which received Cornelius searching out the faith, and kept out Simon seeking miracles for money: saying to the one: Of a truth I preceiue that God is not an acceptor of persons, he gently opened the secrets of the kingdom: saying to the other Thy monit with thee be unto destruction, by sentence of strait damnation he shut up the entry of the heavenly court. Then follow immediately the words by you cited. Quid cuncti Apostolie, etc. whereby it is evident that Saint Gregory's judgement is, that by preaching they remit or retain sins, as by the same they are doors of the Church. The former place of Saint Hilary, is unfaithfully translated by you. In neither is their any admiration, or exclamationi in his words, in respect of their authority, neither saith he, that the whole right of binding and losing is assuredly in you. I will recite his words, whereby all men may see, how bold you are to sttetch forth the Doctor's meaning, when you will be so impudent with their words. The Apostles said, In hoc credimus, quia a Deo exîsti. Quae rogo haec verbi huius admiratio est, quod se exisse à Deo professus sit? Tanta & tam deo propria vos, O Sancti & beati viri, ob fidei vestrae meritum claves regni caelorum sortitt, & ligandi atque soluendi in caelo & in terraius adepti, gestacsse per Dominum nostrum jesum Christum Dei filium 〈◊〉, & ad id quod à Deo exisse dixit, nunc primùm vos veri intelligentiam assecutos protestamini? In this we believe that thou art come out from God. What admiration I pray you is this of this word, that he professeth that he came out from God? so great things and so proper to God, O ye holy and blessed men, which had obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, for the worthiness of your faith, and have obtained right of binding and losing in heaven and earth, had you seen done by our Lord jesus Christ the son of God: And do you now first protest, that you have obtained the understanding of the truth, as concerning that he said he came forth from God? In these words it is apparent, that all the Apostles have the keys, as well as Peter, and right or authority of binding and losing, but that the whole right thereof is in them, as though God had resigned his right to them, or given them equal right with himself, S. Hilary never said nor thought. The latter sentence toucheth not the controversy between us. For we grant the power of binding and losing, forgiving and retaining, to be ratified in heaven, but that the words of Christ be of an absolute power properly to do that, which is the office of God alone, we cannot learn by this, or any other saying of Saint Hilary.  ALLEN. 
But I will add S. Chrysostom's testimony thereunto, the rather because our adversaries do abuse his words sometimes against confession, which necessarily hangeth on the authority of Priesthood in remission and retaining sins, as anon I shall declare. That I be not over tedivose, I will report his saying in English only: Those (saith he) that dwelleth in earth and are conversant amongst men, have received power and commission 
Lib. 3 de Sacer.  to dispose and dispense such things as be in heaven: yea these men have receieud power, such as neither God either gave to Angels, for, it was never said to them, whatsoever you bind in earth it shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you lose in earth, it shall be loosed in heaven. Earthly Princes in deed have power to bind, but that pertaineth to the bodies of their subjects only: but that which I now talk of, that is proper to the Priests, touching the very soul itself, and is so ample, that it reacheth to the heavens above: yea & that so largely, that whatsoever the Priests do beneath, the very self same God will allow and ratify in heaven above, and so the Lord will confirm the judgement and sentence of the servants. Thus far speaketh chrysostom. His words be so plain that to stand long on them, for farther proof of my matter, than the very face of the sentence doth import, it were vain. For man may here rather marvel to see such strange power upon Christ's words given to the holy order, and yet that to be so little esteemed of wicked men and so little regarded even of the honester sort of simple folks, that few either seek after their judgement in cause of their souls, or duly honour that power in them which passeth all other prelacy, that ever either man or Angel received in this great contempt (I say) of most holy things, wickedness is rather to be wondered at, and lamented, then by long reasoning to be confuted. The sequel of true things is so plain in itself, the diverse places of scripture so answer justly each to other, the fathers so consonantlie confirm the known meaning of the same and the very terms of so many scriptures written at diverse times by sundry of the Evangelists, so fall upon one undoubted sense, that we may rightly conclude the power to be in all cases given to the Apostles of remission of sin.  FVLKE. 
The words of chrysostom are large enough of themselves, although you had not augmented them, with your additions and explications, beside that you have altered the number, in the text of Mat 16. where in lieth a mysteric. For chrysostom by these words spoken in the singular number to Peter, proveth the authority that is common to all Priests. What soever, thou shalt bind, & whatsoever thou shalt lose. The sum is, that the power and dignity of Priests is exceeding great, which maketh a mortal man, to come near to the blessed, and incorrupted nature of God, as he saith before. But if an absolute and proper power of remitting sins were granted to them, they come not one lie near, but are translated in deed, into the divine nature, which is intolerable blasphemy. That the Lord ratifieth in heaven & confirmeth the sentence of his servants given upon earth, it is to be understood, that God approveth the sentence which he before hath appointed them to pronounce. As if the Queen in England should protest that she is content to ratify and confirm whatsoever her ambassador doth in France, adding to his commission, and the instructions received from her, thee neither resigneth her authority to her ambassador, neither giveth him equal power with herself, but only maketh him the interpreter, and declarer of her will and pleasure, which she is content to ratify, and not otherwise.  ALLEN. 
And upon such known terms I make this argument against the adversaries. They truly and properly do remit sins, upon whose sentence in earth the pardon of God immediately ensueth in heaven: but Gods pardon undoubtedly followeth the priests pardon in remission in earth (clave non errant) Ergo they assuredly remit sins. The Mayor is manifest, the Minor hangeth upon plain scripture thrice told: which first appointed man to lose in earth, and then that God shall in the same instant forgive in heaven: God shall confirm the sentence of his servants, saith S. chrysostom. Man's judgement (saith Hilary) shall be as a sentence prejudicial to God in heaven. And thus far for the words of Christ at this present, and farther strength shall more and more be gathered unto them, by diverse parts of all the process following.  FVLKE. 
You make such arguments for your friends, and not against your adversaries. For what adversary would you choose unto yourself so simple, that could not espy these gross faults of your syllogism. For first your Mayor is false, which you say is manifest. But you have not yet proved that they do properly remit sins, upon whose sentence in earth, the pardon of God immediately ensueth in heaven, that is, whose sentence on earth, is ratified & confirmed in heaven. That they do truly forgive sins, it is granted: but not that they do properly forgive sins, being but God's servants appointed to declare his forgiveness. Secondly your Minor bringeth in a fourth term, clave non errant: beside that it is ambiguous, that you say, God's pardon followeth the priests pardon: for if by following, you mean succeading later in time, or depending upon the priests pardon, your Minor is false, wtih clave non errant: if you mean, as I have explicated in your Mayor, the word ensueth, it is true. Last of all your conclusion joineth not your two extremes together as it ought to do, but leaveth out the word which is of most importance and question among us, namely this term Properly. For you should conclude, that Priests do truly and properly remit sins, which in respect of the word properly, is false. But as you set it down with the word assuredly, it is granted. For we acknowledge, that the lawful minister, elder, or priest of the Church, doth truly and assuredly remit sins, but yet not properly. So you miss the cushion, and make a show in your Mayor, as though you would reason directly: but in your Minor you give back, with clave non errant, in your conclusion you fly quite from the question. Where you interpret your Minor, so that God in the same instant forgiveth in heaven, you rid us of one doubt of the posterity in time. But where you say out of Saint Hilary, that man's sentence shall be as a sentence prejudicial to God in heaven, you give us to understand that God's sentence dependeth upon man's sentence, which is horrible blasphemy: neither do I believe that you are able to show any such saying of Saint Hilary: for out of the places before alleged, there is no such thing to be seen or gathered.   

That the same power of remitting and retaining sins, which was given to the Apostles, was nor bestowed on them in respect of their private persons, but as they were public officers. and that therefore the like authority is committed by Christ's grant to all Priests of Christ's Church, who in this matter are the Apostles successors.  
THE FIFT CHAP.  
IF I had here to do only with the learned, it were enough that is already proved for the power & pre-eminence given to the Apostles in remission of sins, thereupon to ground most assuredly the like right in the same cause to pertain to all Bishops and priests of Christ's Church. But we study to help such as cannot by this so far consider, that the power given to his Apostles or to any of them is one eternal power, not ceasing in their persons, but during in their succession to the world's end. For I have myself met with many such, as could be content, as they said, to acknowledge upon so plain scripture the singular privilege given to the Apostles, and thereupon if they might have had an Apostle, they would not have sticked to have made there confession and suit to him for the remission of their sins: but because I had not the like words of Christ spoken to all priests particularly, they thought it was no reason that any such challenge should be made for them: nor any such charge to be given to others to confess their sins unto them. This simplicity of the common sort, or rather this rude frowardness rising upon contempt and disobedience to God's Church, is maintained even of the more learned sort, who have charged themselves in all behaviour to be so populare and so plausible, that even against known order of things they will draw back from the light of the truth, with the common, rude, and unlearned reasons of the people. For john calvin, a man borne to sedition and the Church's calamity, 
Calvin.  maintaineth the madness of the multitude by this reason: The Apostles (saith he) had the holy ghost, whereof our priests have no warrant. But inquire of them, whether they have the holy ghost: if they say yea, demand of them further, whether the holy Ghost may err: if they confess, that the holy ghost can not err, than they prove themselves not to have the holy Ghost, because it is well seen that they may err, and do err, both in losing and binding many, otherwise then God's sentence will allow. But briefly to satisfy all sides in this case, I shall declare the like power to be left by Christ's meaning to all Bispopes and priests, no less then to the Apostles themselves, to whom Christ then presently spoke: that both the people's lack of understanding may be corrected, and the false and crafty conveyance of their captain may be, to his shame and the devils, plainly disclosed.  FVLKE. 
It seemeth, that those which you met with, which would not acknowledge the same power to be in the ministers of the Church, that was in the Apostles, concerning remitting of sins, were some of your own chickens, whom ignorance, the mother of Popish devotion, had blooded up in such fantastical and soolish errors. But lest you should seem to fight only with the simple sort, you say, the same opinion is upon popularity and plausibility maintained even of the more learned sort, yea of john calvin himself: but you dare not set down where or in which of his writings, lest your impudency should be manifestly convinced. In deed Instit. lib. 3. Cap. 4. Sect. 20. he denieth that ignorant Popish confessors, or shrift priests, have the power of the keys, which are void of the spirit of God, that is, of the gifts of the holy ghost, that they may know who me to bind, & whom to lose: but he acknowledgeth, the power of remitting sins to be perpetual in the true preachers, and faithful ministers of the Gospel. And therefore you take needless pains, to prove this matter against him, unless you will take upon you, to defend the ignorance of your priesthood, and answer the arguments that he bringeth against it.  ALLEN. 
First this is plain, that whatsoever Christ after his resurrection or before did institute for the commodity of the people and weal of the whole Church, that did not decay in the persons of them to whom Christ presently spoke the words: for else all sacraments had been ended, and all government ceased at the death of them to whom in person that charge was first given by Christ. For example: Christ in his institution of the holy Sacrament of the altar spoke only to his twelve, & to those present persons he only said presently, hoc facite, do 
1. Cor. 11.  this: yet in their persons, the Church was so instructed, and all priests so authorized, that the same sovereign work hath upon that warrant been truly practised of the Church, and by vain imitation followed by their adversaries, even till this day. And in deed, the very words of the instruction did import no less: for it is said Mortem Domini annunciabitis, donec 〈◊〉. You shall set forth Christ's death till his coming: which could not be, if the ministery had decayed with their persons, to whom Christ spoke. So the charge both of preaching and babtizing was given to a few chosen men then present: but that all the world might preceiue, that of his wisdom & careful providence the charge & authority pertained to the governors of the Church for ever, no less then to them, whom he then called to that function, he added: I will be with you to the end of the world, meaning, that they should exercise that office in his name & assistance 
Math. vlt.  to the day of judgement Which in their own persons was not true, but in their successors. For this cause, it is no doubt, but what authority soever Peter had alone above the residue of his fellows, that the same is by all reason to be derived from him to all his successors: and that caused chrysostom to say, that Christ shed his 〈◊〉 to win the sheep, which he committed to Peter and his successors to feed: where Christ in person presently spoke but to Peter alone: and yet because he knew the like government was both necessary after Peter's death, as well as in his time, and no less by Christ's appointment to be continued in the Church after, as before, the Doctors doubted not to enlarge Christ's word uttered to Peter alone, to all them that this cceeded in the same room. Upon these most strong grounds every man plainly may argue, the like power yet to be in the Church of God in every case, even as Christ did institute at the beginning, when he gave the charge to the Apostles first. For look what form of government and order of the Church was thought unto his wisdom to be best then, the same must needs be best now (I speak for the substance of things: for by diversities of time and person some alteration may rise in the circumstances) Therefore if it were good at that time that one should be the general Vicar of Christ, and pastor of all the sheep, for which he shed his blessed blood, it is good yet also: if some had authority then to consecrate Christ's body, some have the same power till this time: if some than must needs baptise & preach, other some must now also do the same: finally if certain then had commission by Christ, & the holy ghost given them to remit sins, & therewith power by his word both to pardon & punish, to bind & to lose, it must by force of the foresaid argument necessarily be induced, that some at this date must have the like office. For else Christ could not continue the same power & office in the Church which he for the Church's sake did first institute: & which he counted of his heavenly wisdom most necessary for the Chucrhes government. But I think no man hath yet so shaken of shame and fear of God, that he dare hold that Christ was not able to maintain all power, rule, and iurisaiction, with all kind of functions which he instituted for the benefit of the people till the worlds end, both himself and the holy ghost promised to be present for that purpose till the general judgement. And that those functions were necessary for his everlasting common wealth, his solemn institution and careful provision of them do declare: that he meaneth no less to establish the same which he then instituted, not only the foresaid reasons, but that saying of Saint Paul doth prove: He gave unto the Church some to be Apostles, some to be Prophets, some to be Evangelists, some to be Pastors and 
Ephes. 4.  Doctors: and all this to the work and maintenance of the ministery for the persiting of the Saints, and upholding of Christ's body, till the time of the acknowledging of God's son. Thus doth Christ provide for his dear Church in all manner of service and office even till the last day. Whereby it is most clear, that the power of remission of sins being once given to the Church can never cease, whiles man of his continual frailty ceaseth not to sin. That which was then counted a necessary refuge and remedy for sins committed, can not now perish in the world, where sin is a great deal more rife, and the remedy more needful.  FVLKE. 
There was a certain power committed to the Apostles, to have a general charge to preach over all the world, which ceased by their death, as that which was proper to the office of the Apostleship. But such power as they had for the building up of particular Churches, by preaching, administering the sacraments, and exercising of discipline, is perpetual, and died not with the Apostles. And this authority is derived unto them, immediately from Christ, and not from Peter. And therefore you abuse the name of chrysostom, to make him witness of your derivation: for he acknowledgeth Christ himself, in the words by you alleged, to have 〈◊〉 feeding of his sheep to Peter's successors, that is, to all priests, which be successors of the Apostles, as Saint Jerome saith, no les, then unto Peter himself: for they are not Peter's commissaries, but Christ's ambassadors, ministers, and dispensers. That one should be general vicar of Christ, & pastor of all the sheep, for which he shed his blood, it was neither good, not possible, and therefore he instituted many, and no one with such singular authority as is pretended. The body of Christ is of perfect holiness, and therefore needeth no consecration of men: but there remaineth authority with the ministers of the Church, to consecrate bread and wine, to be the body and blood of Chest, that is, the sacrament, sign, or figure thereof. Likewise to preach and baptise, to excommunicate, and to receive again. And that for which you bring in the rest, to remit and retain sins, according to the pleasure of God, revealed in his holy Gospel, whereof the true dispensers are appointed to be true and faithful interpreters and declarers.  ALLEN. 
But to convince them plainly that think contrary let them tell me whether Thomas being not then present, as the Evangelist saith, and therefore the words not uttered to him in person, let them show me whether he had not afterward, by force of that institution, power also to remit sins. If he had, as by reason I am sure they cannot deny, as full pre-eminence and power to do all things, that then Christ charged his ten Disciples, which were present, to do in his name, than the power of remission of sins was not so straightly limited, as the words might seem to be uttered, by which no doubt a sacramen: was instituted to take force in the Church both then & afterward to the world's end: not that any man may of his own head, upon force only of Christ's commission given at that time to his Apostles, take that high function upon him: but that he which ordinarily shall be called by receiving of grace and the holy Ghost in external sacrament by laying on of hands of Priesthood, may likewise upon his own flock and cure exercise that office, no less than those holy men might after Christ's calling thereunto, occupy the same work of binding and losing of such sheep of Christ's fold, as to them were committed. And so did Saint Thomas, who then was not there: so did Saint Matthew who then was no Apostle: so did Barnabas, so did Timothy and Titus who were ordained by Saint Paul, and so did Paul himself, of whom Saint Ambrose saith 
Lib. 1 〈◊〉 Poenit. Cap. 16.  that he did remit sins without all derogation.  
The good studiousereader must mark well then, that all these holy functions or passing pre-eminencies, are not given to the private persons, in respect of themselves, neither of Peter, nor of Paul, nor any other, but they are bestowed upon them for the use of the Church which dieth in their persons, and therefore must be honoured with the same offices by other, after they be dead, by perpetual succession they shall never cease. And that caused Saint Augustine, and other holy fathers to say, the keys were given to the Church and authority to remit sins, 
De doct. Christ. lib. 1. c. 18.  to baptise and to enjoin penance: not because the whole Church, by gathering all her children together, must give sentence upon every sinner, or else the priests judgement to be nothing, as some foolish seditious heads have now to the distrurbance of the world devised: but because it is our common wealth and house of faith, which is so beautified in her ministers, with all kind of sacraments and good orders for the government of her children, and because all men may see, it was the earnest love and careful providence for this his spouse, and not the persons of the Apostles in respect of themselves, which moved his wisdom to the institution of such perpetual offices in the Church.  FVLKE. 
Your conclusion is true, that the power extended to all the Apostles successors; but it is not strongly proved, by the example of Thomas, Matthew, Paul, and Bernabas, who were Apostles themselves, in the highest degree: and therefore I like better the solution of Cyrillus, which understandeth the intention of Christ, to have been of the whole order of the Apostles, and their successors, although more than Thomas had been absent, at such time as he gave that power, alleging the examples of Eldad, and Meldad, which being of the number, that were chosen to be governors, to assist Moses, although they were not present with the rest before the tabernacle, yet they were endued with the spirit of prophesy, because they were of the number appointed. Where you say, that no doubt a Sacrament was instituted by these words of Christ, and often have so said, you only say it, and bring no proof thereof. neither do you declare what is the visible sign of the invisible grace, nor what 〈◊〉 the element to which the word cometh, that we might acknowledge a sacrament with you. That the keys are given to the Church, although it prove 〈◊〉 that every member of the Church should execute them, yet it proveth, that Peter had no sovereign nor singular authority of the keys above the rest of the Apostles, but that the Pastor of every Church hath the same, not of the gift, grant commission, or permission of Peter; but of the grant and immediate commission from jesus Christ himself. Whether the power of excommunication pertain to all the Church, or to certain chosen governors thereof, it is a question not incident to this to be handled.  ALLEN. 
Hereupon therefore, and in consideration that the keys of opening and shutting heaven, by binding and losing man's sins, shall ever remain for the use and honour of the Church, the said holy Saint Augustine hath these words: claves dedit Ecclesiae suae, ut quae solucrit in terra, soluta essent & in coelo: quae ligaverit in terra, ligata essent & in 〈◊〉 
Lib. 1. c. 18. De doct. Christ.  Christ deliured the keys to the Church, that whosoever she loosed in earth, should be loosed in heaven: and whatsoever she bond in earth, should be bound likewise in heaven. And Optatus his equal striving with the Donatists for all holy gifts which Christ bestowed upon his Church, challengeth 
Lib. 1. & 2. cont. Donatist.  all other sacraments, and namely the keys for the Catholic and universal Church, from the part of Donatus the heretic, as in the right of Peter. He saith exceeding pithily: claves darae sunt Petro, & non haereticis: And afterwade: Cathedram Petri, quae nostra est, per ipsam & caeteras dotes apud nos esse probamus. etiam sacerdotium. The keys are given to Peter, and not to heretics: by the chair of Peter which is ours: we prove all other gifts of the Church to be ours yea even priesthood. Thus he hath in sense in diverse places. By which we see, the inrisdiction and power given to the principal Apostle, yet to remain, and by it all other the Churches notable pre-eminences, which he calleth Ecclesiae dotes, The douries of the Church, through his whole discourse against the Donatists. So doth Epiphanius attribute the power of penance and pardon to the Church likewise, not only in baptism, which he calleth the most perfect penance, but also afterward upon the party's relapse, in which case the heretics called Cathari, affirmed that the Church had no authority to pardon them any more. Against which pernicious 
Cathari.  sect he sayeth, If any man fall after his baptism, the Church will not be unmerciful to him: Dat enim reversionem, & 
Lib. 2. To. heres. 59  post poenitentiam. For she giveth him leave to return, and hath penance after penance. By which he noteth, that the Church hath two sacraments for remission of sin, the one is baptism, which he termeth perfect penance, with Saint Paul to the Hebrews: And Saint Augustine doth call it in his En. chiridion, Magnam indulgentiam, a grand pardon. And 
Gap. 6.  afterward, The Church hath an other kind of remission, which Epiphanius calleth poenitentiam post poenitentiam: But of these two more shallbe said anon.  
After this 〈◊〉 doth Lactantius 〈◊〉 to the true Church, confession, penance, and profitable healing of our wounds, and such sores as be found in our souls. By all which, every man 
Lib. 4. de Sap. cap. 30.  may conceive easily, that this honour and commission of priesthood, for the remission of our sins, did not decay with the Apostles appointed by Christ, nor shall cease till Christ's coming to 〈◊〉 the world.  FVLKE. 
These testimonies needed not to be heaped up in vain, but that you would bear the ignorant in hand most iniurioslie, that Calvin and the better learned of the protestants do hold, that the power of binding and losing ated with the Apostles, and continueth not in the Church. Saint Augustine's words are as you cite them, but there followeth immediately an explication, which you have omitted. Scilicet ut quis quis in Ecclesia eius dmitti sibi peccata non crederet, non eidimitterentur, quisquis autem crederet, seque ab his correctus averteret, in eiusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus, eadem fide atque correctione sanareiur. Quisquis enim non credit dimitti sibi posse peccata, fit deterior disperando, quasi nihil illi melius quàm malum esse remanear, ubi de fructu suae conversionis infidus est. Christ delivered the keys to the Church (saith S. Augustine) that whatsoever she loosed in earth should be loosed in heaven, and what soever she bond in earth should be, etc. that is to say, that whosoever would not believe, that sins should be forgiven him in his Church, they should not beforgiven unto him: but whosoever did believe, and being corrected, did turn himself away from them, being placed in the bosom of the same Church, should be healed by the same faith and correction. For whosoever doth not believe that his sins may be forgiven unto him, is made worse by despairing, as though nothing remained better for him then to believe, when he is unfaithful & unbelieving of the fruit of his conversion. These words of Saint Augustine do show, that sins are forgiven to the penitent, and faithful, that believe the doctrine of repentance and forgiveness of sins, which is preached in the Church. The place of Optatus urging the unity of Peter's chair against the schismatics that were divided from the communion of the Catholic Church, ascribeth no greater authority to Peter's chair in exercising the keys, or any other power of the Priesthood, then to all other chairs. That Epiphanius allowethrepentance after baptisine against the Catharistes, it proveth no more an other sacrament of penance, then that we do, even as he, grant that there is place of repentance before god, & reconciliation unto the Church, for such as do daily fall after baptism. But contrary wise it appeareth, that Epiphanius alloweth but one sacrament of repentance, which is baptism. Andyet (saith he) we take not away the mercy of God knowing the preaching of the truth, and the mercy of the Lord, etc., the pardonable nature, the unsteadfastness of the soul, the weakness of the flesh, the deepness of the sense of many men, because no man is void of sin, and pure from filthiness, though his life be but one day upon the earth. And perfect repentance in deed is in the laver of baptism but if a man fall, the holy Church of god doth not lose him, for it granteth him a return, and after that repentance an other repentance. The Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying a sorowfullnes for that which is committed, by which the party may be brought to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the perfect repentance that he spoke of before, that is, recover the grace of forgiveness of sins, confirmed unto him in baptism, which is the only sacrament of repentance, the fruit whereof endureth unto our lives end, to make us partakers of the fruit of regeneration, that is, life everlasting. The examples that he bringeth of repentanee offered to Cain, and granted to Peter, do Prove that he speaketh not of any sacrament of rePentance, but showeth that God receiveth them that fall after baptism, unto repentance, according to the preaching of truth, and of the mercy of God. I muse what you mean, when you say, that Epiphanius termeth baptism perfect repentance, with Saint Paul to the Hebr. cap. 6. For the Apostle to the Hebrews hath no such term, either in that chapter, or in any other place of that epistle: except you dreamt of such a matter, because he professeth to leave the first principles of religion, as repentance from dead works, etc. which pertaineth to the doctrine of baptism, and Imposition of hands, and to grow to perfection. In the Catholic Church, as Lactantius saith, there is confession, because there is faith: there is also repentance, which wholsomlie healeth the sins and wound to which the weakness of the fleshis subject: by which it is proved that there is remission of sins in the Church, continuing until the coming of Christ to judgement.  ALLEN. 
But he that listeth to see in what office, and by whom he holdeth this singular honour of remission of sins, he shall find, not only the Apostles, who were called by Christ, but all other Bishops also, that succeed them in the Church, to be her ministers herein. Whereof let him read the 26. Homely of Saint Gregory, pertaining almost wholly to that purpose. I will repeat a few words only out of it, committing the rest to the diligence of the reader. Libet intueri (saith he) illi discipuli ad tanta onera humilitatis vocati, ad quantum culmen gloriae sint oeruecti. Ecce non solùm de semetipsis securi fiunt, sed etiam alienae obligationis, & relaxationis potestatem accipiunt: principatumque superniiudicij sortiuntur, ut vice Dei quibusdam peccata retineant, quibusdam relaxent. Ecce, qui districtum judicium Dei metuunt, animarum judices fiunt & alios damnant, velliberant, qui semetipsos damnare metuebant. Horum profectò nunc in Ecclesia Dei, Episcopi locum tenent, ligandi atque soluendi authoritatem sumunt: grandis honour, sed grave pondus est istud honoris. It is my meaning now, to behold to what marvelous honour the Disciples of Christ be exalted, which before were called in their base state to great burden and troubles. For now, they be not only in assurance of their own state, but they have obtained power of binding and releasing other, and the very sovereignty of heavenly judgement, that in Gods own stead, they may some man's sins release, and other offencesreteine, Lo, those that once feared the strait sentence of Gods own judgement are made the judges of other men's souls, to condemn or deliver where they list, that before doubted of themselves. And now truly in these men's rooms are the Bishops of God's Church, and receive the authority of binding and losing, and their own state ofregiment. High surclie is their Chair, but greater is their charge. S. Gregory said so far.  
But Saint Augustine shall make up this matter, with words of such weight, that I trust every man shall see the truth, and almost feel the grossness of falsehood thereby. He writeth thus upon this verse of the Psalm Eructavit, which is the 44. in number with him: Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filii, constitueseos Principes super omnem terram: In place of thy parents thou hast Children borne thee, them thou mayst make the Princes of the whole earth. The Apostles did beget thee, they were sent themselves, they preached in their own persons, and finally they were thy fathers.  
But could they always corporally abide here? And though one of them said, I would gladly be dissolved and be withChrist, 
Phil. 1.  yet for your sake I counted it more necessary to tarry in flesh. Thus he said: but how long could his life last? he might not remain till this day, much less for the time to come. What then? is the Church desoiate after the departure of her parents? God forbidden. In stead of thy parents thou hast sons, saith the text: what is that to say? Marry the Apostles sent by Christ are as fathers, and for them God hath raised up children or sons, which be the holy Bishops of the world. For at this day the Bishops that be throughout all Christendom, how rose they to that room? The Church calleth them fathers, and yet she did beget them, and she placed them in that room of their fathers: Non ergo reputes desertam, quia non vides Petrum, quòd non vides Paulum, quòd non vides illos per quos nataes: de prole tua tibi crevit paternitas: pra patribus tuis natisunt tibi filii, constitues eos principes super omnem terram. Do not therefore think thyself desolate, because thou hast not Paul, because thou hast them not now present, by whom thou wast borne: of thy own issue, fatherhood is grown to thee: and for thy fathers thou hast brought forth sons, them shalt thou make the rulers over all the earth. Thus much out of Saint Augustine. By whom you may perceive the great providence of God that everlastingly upholdeth the ordinance of his son Christ jesus, as well now by the children borne from time to time in the Church's lap, as before in the spring of our faith by the Apostles sent and appointed in person by Christ himself.  FVLKE. 
I suppose the title of your book, will admonish you not to restrain this office only to Bishops, which so often you have made common to all priests. For Gregory also in the same homily nameth often times all pastors of the Church, to whom the power of binding and losing doth appertain, which are many other beside Bishops. Moreover, inveighing against the ignorance, and unworthiness of them that occupied such places, which take upon them to lose, where God doth bind, and bind where God doth lose, he concludeth, that then the absolution of the governors of the Church is true, when it followeth the will of the eternal judge. By which saying, and more to the like effect in that place, he declareth his judgement, of the kind of power or authority which the Church hath, that it is not absolute, but subject vuto the will of God, and is an expressing of God's forgiveness, or retaining, not a proper forgiving or retaining. The saying of Saint Augustine proveth in deed, a continuance of the ministry of the Apostles in the office of Bishops, but hereof it followeth not, that only Bishops, as they are distinct from priests, have this power: for not only Bishops be the children of the Church, but all faithful men to whom the inheritance of the world is like wise appointed.  ALLEN. 
And here you must know, that not only Bishops who succeed the Apostles in all kind of power and regiment, but also all other inferior Priests to be counted with them, as successors in ministering diverse sacraments, as baptism, penance, the reverend Sacrament of the Altar, and such like: but look what power either Apostle or Bishop hath in remission of sins, in consecrating Christ's body, in baptizing, the same hath the whole order of holy Priesthood by the right of their order, and may practise the same upon such as be subject unto them in all causes not exempted for reasonable causes, by such as have further jurisdiction over the people. Whereof I will not now talk particularly, the learned of that order know the limits of their charge and commission, better than I can instruct them, and the simpler sort must seek for knowledge of their duty, by the holy Canons of Counsels and decrees of Bishops made for that purpose. I can not now stand thereon: meaning at this present only to defend the holy order, and challenge for it such right, as the scripture and Chistes own word giveth, which in this contempt of virtue and religion is most necessary for all men to consider.  FVLKE. 
There is no power or authority granted by our saviour Christ to preach the word of God, or to minister any sacrament, but the same is common to every one of the pastors of the Church, and not only lawful, but also necessary for them, to exercise in their several charges. Wherefore that ministering of some sacraments is permitted to them, and of other denied them, it is beside the word of god. Again the word of god, that giveth them general power, whose sins soever, whatsoever you shall bind or lose, is directly against all exempted cases, which savour of nothing, but of Antichristian tyranny. As for the cannons of councels, and decrees of Bishops, whether you send the simple, to learn the limits of their charge, can not restrain that Christ hath enlarged, and therefore if your meaning were, as your words profess, to defend the holy order, and challenge for it such right as the scripture and Christ's own word giveth, you would enueigh against the pride, and ambition of the Pope, & other prelate's that exempt any cases from the Priest's power and authority, which the holy scripture, and the express wordsof our saviour Christ doth in such ample manner grant unto them.  ALLEN. 
Therefore upon our large discourses for this last point, I now deduct the particulars to this sum, which may stand for a certain mark, as well for the good to discern the truth, as for the adversaries to shoot at whiles they live. Alpower and every jurisdiction or right of Christ's Church, remaineth as amply, and in as full force and strength at this day, and shall till the world's end so continue, as they were, by Christ granted first in the persons of the Apostles or other, instituted. But the power of remission of sins, was given properly and in express terms to the Apostles: Ergo the same remaineth still in God's Church. Whereupon it is so clear, that the Priests at this day have as full power to forgive sins, as the Apostles had. And this argument of the continuance of all offices and right of the Church, is the most plainest and readiest way, not only to help our cause now taken in hand, but utterly to improve all false doctrines and detestable practices of heretics. For they must here be examined diligently what common wealth that is, what Church that is, in which Christ doth preserve the government given to the Apostles? where it is that the power not only os making, but also of practising all sacraments hath continued still? what company of Christian people that is, wherein the Apostles, Doctors, preachers, ministers, through the perpetual assistance of God's spirit, be continued, for the building up of Christ's body, which is the number of faithful people? What Church that is, which bringeth forth from time to time sons to occupy the rooms of their fathers before them. It is not (good reader) the pelting pack of Protestants? It is not, I say, and they know it is not their petty congregations, that hath till this day continued the succession of Blshoppes, by whom the world, as Saint Augustine saith, is ruled, as by the Apostles, and first Fathers of Religion. Surely our mother the Church hath bene long barren, if for her Fathers the Apostles, who died so long since, she never brought forth children till now to occupy their rooms, and great lack ofrulers, if she have made her only contemners to be her own governors. No, these sellowes hold not by her, but they hold against her: these sit in no seat Apostolic, but they by all force dishonour the seat Apostolic: these are not they, qui pro patribus nati sunt tibi filii: but these are the sons, quos enutrivisti & genuisti, ipsi spreveruntte. If you ask of these men how they hold? they seek no Fathers after whom they may rightly rule: they seek no large rew of predecessors in whose places they may sit: they ask no counsel of God's Church, by whose calling they should govern: but they make a long discourse of statutes and temporal laws, to cover their ambitious usurpation, that in great lack of Christ's calling, their unjust honour may be approved by man's favour. Thereby let them hold their temporal dignities, their lands, their livelihoodes, their wives also, if there can obtain so much at the common wealths hands: but their spiritual functions, their ministering of Sacraments, their governance of our souls, and what else soever they usurp without the warrant of God's Church, the longer they exercise them, the farther they be from salvation, and the nearer to eternal woe and misery. But to come to our purpose: it is our Church Catholic, in which all holy functions have been practised after Christ's institution ever since his ascension up to heaven. And therefore this principal power of remitting and retaining sins, must needs be contained in the Church by her ministers and priests as it was begun in the Apostles before.  FVLKE. 
I like well your pretence after a large discourse to knit up your whole intent, in a Syllogism: which you set as a matke for us to shoot at, while we live. verily your argument, if one word were away, I would willingly grant: but the word properly, you are never able to prove while you live, nor all the papists in the world after you are dead: therefore in respect of that word, I deny your Minor. And yet I grant, that you infer upon it your conclusion in such terms as you have set it down: that lawful Priests, Elders, or ministers of God's Church, at this day, have as fullpower to forgive sins in their several charges, as the Apostles had in their gener all commission. But here you will needs examine us, what Church that is, in which Christ doth preserve the government given to the Apostles? The Catholic Church forsooth. 2. Where the power of ministering the sacraments (if you mean that, by your terms of making and practising) hath continued still? in the Catholic Church. 3. What company of Christ an people that is, wherein the Apostles, Doctors, preachers ministers through the perpetual assistance of God's spirit, be continued, for the building up of Christ's body, which is the number of the faithful? Still I answer, the company of the Catholic Church. 4. What Church that is, which bringeth forth from time to time, sons to occupy the rooms of their Fathers before them. Here I answer, many heretical and malignant Churches: but only the Catholic Church hath continued from the beginning in such propagation. You answer yourself and say, it is not, it is not the pelting-packe, & petrie congregation of the Protestants, to your double negation, a single affirmation may serve. It is the Church of them you call Potestantes in Europe, which is a part of the Catholic Church dispersed over all the earth: which Church of the Protestants I see not, why you should so pelt at it, with your pettierhetorike. It is (God be thanked) as great, and as glorious at this time, in the eyes of the world, as the Romish rabble, except that the ministers thereof be not so proud, nor so gorgeous. That whore of Babylon your dame, whom you would have to be accepted for the Catholic Church of Christ, which boasted herself that she was no widow, is now of many forsaken, & of her spiritual for nication begetteih but feew bastards, in comparison of that she was wont to do. Therefore it is not, no, no, that will be able to pull us out of the Apostolic chairs, in which we teach nothing but the Doctrine of the Apostles, consonant unto the Doctrine of the Prophets. These Fathers we seek to hold of, and all other that hold of the same line, we hold with them: as for large view of predecessors, we know it must necessarily ensue the doctrine of the Prophets, and Apostles, because of the perpetual continuance of the Church. And therefore we take not up old, mouldy, and mothen parchementes to seek our progenitors names, but by consanguinity of Doctrine with the Apostles, as Tertullian calleth it, know we are Apostolic, and set in Apostolic places. As for the long discourse of statutes & temporal laws that you talk of, we claim no spiritual inheritance thereby: although we accept the confirmation of temporal laws, for the better execution of our offices. What I pray you Sir? had not you Papists in Queen Mary's time, as large a discourse of statutes and temporal laws, as we have, for the maintenance of your popish superstition, and all things thereto belonging? and yet you would procure envy to us, of statutes and temporal laws, as though we held only by them. As for temporal dignities, lands lievely hodes, I know not how they should be maintained, but by temporal laws. Out wives we hold by the law of God, against which there is no temporal law of the land, by infinite better right, than you do hold your stews, and other remedies of your incontinency: and as for spiritual functions, we hold them by the same right, that they were first given to the Church and have therein continued even to this day.   

An answer to such as deny this power to pass from the Apostles to all other Priests, because many of them being evil men, may be thought not to have the holy Ghost, whereby they should effectually remit sins.  
THE SIXTH CHAP.  
ANd to Calvin or other of his sect, that require the like virtue and force of the holy Ghosts assistance in all men that take upon them to remit sins, as it was given to the Apostles, who first received that power, I answer: that the same gift of the holy Ghost is yet in the ministers of the same Sacrament, no less then in the Apostles. For though they had more plentiful sanctification whereby they were in all their life more holy, and more virtuous, then lightly any other, either Priests or lay men, were after them, yet the gifts of the holy Ghost, touching the ministery and service of God's Church, which were not so much given them for their own sakes, as for the use of the common wealth, and for the right of practising certain holy functions requisite for the people's sanctification, as they were also given to divers that were neither good nor virtuous, and therefore lacked that, which properly is that grace of the holy Ghost that is called of our school men, gratia gratum faciens, such a grace as maketh a man acceptable to God. Therefore, the holy Ghost breathed upon the Apostles then by Christ, and given yet to Priests in their ordering by bishops; is a gift of God, and a grace of the holy ghost, not whereby man is made rertuous, or cunning, or happy before God, but it is a gift only of God, whereby man is called above his own nature and dignity, to have power and authority, to do and exercise any function in God's Church to the spiritual benefit of the people, which is not only not always joined to virtue and holy knowledge, but it full often, by calling, due to them which are most wicked persons, without any impair of their authority. And these kind of gifts and graces of the holy Ghost, be called gratiae gratis datae, certain gifts given to men for no deserts of their persons, but freely, for the use of other men, to whom they be beneficial, even there, where they be hurtful to the bestowers. In which sense Saint Paul numbereth a great sort, in the fourth to the Ephesians, and the first Epistle to the 
Eph. 4. Cap. 12.  Corinshians: and he calleth them, not only the graces of the spirit, but also the divisions of functions, and ministrations: as, the gift of working of miracles, the gift of tongues, the gift of prophesying, the gift of preaching, and so forth: all which being the gifts and graces of the spirit for the Churches edifying, and of Saint Peter being called the holy Ghost, in the Acts, yet they were given to evil men often, 
Cap. 2.  as well as to good, without all imparing of God's honour: yea with the great increase of God glory, that even by the wicked is able to work his will and holy purpose for the benefit of his Elect. And in this sense, the spirit of God breathed upon the Apostles, was a gift of the holy Ghost, whereby man should remit by lawful power the sins of the people. 
In 20. cap joan  Whereupon Theophilact sayeth, that, Potestatem quandam & donum spirituale dedit Apostolis, us remittant peccata, ostendens quod genus spiritualium donorum eis dederit, inquit: quorum remiser it is peccata, remittuntur eyes: that is to say: Christ gave to his Apostles a certain power and spiritual gift, whereby they might remit sins: for he showed what power of the spirit it was that breathed on them, when he said: whose sins you do for give, they be forgiven.  
Whosoever shall undoubtedly remit sins, and absolve sinners, must have the same gift of the holy Ghost, which the Apostles had, whereby he cannot err. And this gift no man denieth, but it may be in a wicked and ungodly man. For even such an one may preach the doctrine of Christ, of remission of sins, publicly, and privately, if he have the calling, that is required to that office. Neither doth calvin, or any other that are of his judgement, otherwise require the like force of the holy ghosts assistance, in all men that take upon them to remit sins. For there is not only a power, but a knowledge required in him that shall assuredly and undoubtedly forgive sins. And therefore the papists do unreasonably make a divorce, of the key of power, from the key of knowledge: which power, if it be no guided by knowledge, doth nothing, but instead of opening and shutting with the keys committed to the Church, throw forth the keys, as the blind man casteth his staff, which cannot happen so right in to the lock that they should open it, to the penitent sinners. For it is not the priests authority that can open the door of comfort to a sinner's conscience, except he can declare unto him, out of the word of God, how and by what means, he may be reconciled unto God. That the holy Ghost is given by bishops to Priests in their ordering, it is more boldly affirmed, then ever it can be proved: for Christ only hath authority to give the holy Ghost, and therefore to declare, that it cometh from him alone among men, he breathed upon his Apostles: which though the Bishops do, until their lungs ache, yet can they not furnish their parties by them ordered, with gifts meet for their calling, as Christ did his Apostles. They must make choice therefore, according to the Doctrine of the Apostle, of those that have those gracious and necessary gifts of God before, and to them they must commit the power and authority to exercise the same, to the public benefice of the Church. But if they will give authority to them, that have no wisdom to exercise the same, they make the most foolish judges of all the world, and such are worthily contemned. Therefore howsoever you distinguish grace, you must not seek to win credit to them, which have nothing but pretence of authority, when they be void of all understanding, how to use it, as many hundreds, yea thousands of your hedge Priests are, if their calling were never so good, as it is most corrupt and unlawful.  ALLEN. 
If our adversaries be ignorant of these things, which be so common in schools of divinity, yet we think they should remember, that Saint Paul did not disallow the authority nor power of preaching, in such as were evil men, and taught 
Philip. 1.  for emulation and not of sincere zeal of the Gospel, and that Christ himself stopped not such as cast out devils in his 
Mat. 7.  name, and therefore were not without the gift of working miracles, though he professed, that many of them at the date of judgement, challenging some right of heaven upon that act, should not be received to glory: & how the gift of prophecy was common in the old 〈◊〉, not only to the wicked, but to such as willingly would deceive the people: And Caiphas 
joan. 11.  he prophesied by the spirit of God, as by force of his office, being yet in purpose to work wickedness against Christ himself, for whose truth he then, by force of the spirit, prophesied. But of the Sacraments of God's Church every one, that they may beministred beneficiallie, to the receiving in much wickedness of the giver, there is no man can be ignorant. For it is a rule and a principle most certain, that God worketh his will in them by the ministery of men, be they never so evil. For else they were man's sacraments, and not Gods. and we could not be certain neither of our baptism, neither of right receiving of Christ's body in the holy sacrament of his eultar, nor of any other spiritual benefit that we now by man's ministry receive in the Church. Much consort it were for all Christian people, to havesuch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than souls, and such disposers of God's mysteries, as would & could in all sincerity and faithfulness work God's 〈◊〉, and that would always use the high power given them, to 〈◊〉, and never to destroy: and that they would so do, both S. Peter and S. Paul do often exhort 
1. Pet. 4.  them. But neither the misery of man's sinful nature can suffer that, nor our wickedness can desirue so much. S. Peter 
Gal. 2.  himself was reprehensible in his government: therefore let us not marvel, that other which be not of so full spirit, as he was, either may commit things worthy of reprehension amongst the good, or subject to the malicious slander of the evil.  
These things are not such high points of learning that your adversaries need not to be ignorant in them. Your distinction as common as it is in the schools, yea & hath a good intendment, yet it is uttered in such terms, as be coincident. For gratia gratum faciens, is also gratîs data. Although every grace or gift of God, doth not make a man acceptable, or beloved of God, yet is every grace or gift of God freely given, and not in respect of merits or deserts, and least of all that grace, by which we are made acceptable., and beloved of God. And touching your other point, we do not hold, that the sacraments, or any other part of the administration of the Gospel dependeth upon the virtue or vices of men, that exercise the same. And yet the first reason you use to strengthen that point, is very feeble. For you say, S. Paul did not disallow the authority nor power of preaching in such as were evil men, and taught for emulation, and not of sincere zeal, of the Gospel. Phil. 1. Whereas it doth no way appear, that he did allow the authority of those men, who perhaps were not lawfully called, and so it is most like, but rejoiced, that Christ was preached, by what means soever, because God both can, and doth convert the unlawfulintentes and acts of wicked men, to serve to his glory. Some other arguments you use, that are not very strong: but forasmuch as I agree with you in the sum of the matter, I will spend no time about them.  ALLEN. 
And surly for our matter, being of such importance, Priests had need most carefully to study, how to practise so high a function, which is proper to Gods own judgement and heavenly court. For though by Christ they have undoubtedly received commission and power in the virtue of the holy ghost, when they took holy orders, to forgive and remit sins, yet cursed be they by Gods own mouth, if they do it either negligently, because it is the work of our Lord, or with affection of pride and Pharisaical dominion, as though they were Lords of the sacraments and Christian Religion, and not ministers or servitors of Christ in his Church. Whereof it seemed that 
jeorm. in 16. Mat.  S. Jerome in his days, had some cause to complain, nothing reproving their authority, but correcting the abuse of their authority. Penance in those days was so hardly obtained, that it seemed to S. Icreme, that their austerity grew to some spice of Pharisaical regiment, that would lay importable burdens on other men's necks, and not touch any at all themselves. Whereupon he taketh occasion to advertise 
Mat. 23.  them, that eucrie power of remission, and the office of absolution was properly Gods, and theirs but by ministery. And therefore that their mercy and judgement ought to be tried and measured by his sentence, and not his by theirs. These things were to be admonished and reprehended then: but now the disease lieth on the other side, and they offend rather in over much lenity. For as both be contemned of the wicked, so there is almost amongst the good none left, but losing now a days, when men had rather be bound in sin, then bound in penance for sin. Therefore the office os binding and losing requireth truly good knowledge, much discretion, zeal and stoutness in God's quarrel. For as it is most high, so surely it is most hard and burdenous. It pitieth my heart to see it so little esteemed, but much more, that it should be less esteemed through their ignorance or evil life, to whom the keys of remission be committed. The key of remission and retaining sins, they had of God in their orders, but discretion, knowledge, virtue with other qualities, meet for the exercise of that office, they must by prayer and industry obtain, lest whilst they profit other men to salvation, they become reprobate themselves, as Saint Paul said of himself in case of preaching.  
But in deed, it is not so cömendable for us, as the case standeth now, nor so needful to pry into the Priest's bosoms, or to view their lacks in ministering of this sacrament of penance which, if any be, do lightly redound to their own harms & not so mech to mine, or to any other which use their office to our salvation. For though for counsel and comfort, and such other respects, a discrete and learned man were rather to be wished for then a worse, yet being assured that the party is called by God's Church to the function, and hath jurisdiction ordinary, or granted extraordinarily by the appointintment of lawful superiors, and if by schism and excommunication or otherwise he be not suspended from the practise of the said functions, I need nothing to doubt for his other lacks, but much more for mine own sufficience, or lack of contrition, or some other like want in myself, why the fruit of the Priest's absolution cannot be derived unto me, as else, if it were not my own default, it should by force of the sacrament undoubtedly be.  FVLKE. 
Except you have no regard of the property of speech, I marvel you can say, this function is so proper to gods own judgement and heavenly court, and yet allow the judgement of Saint Jerome that all power of remission and absolution is properly Gods, and man's but by ministery: In which sentence, if you would continue, we should have small controversy with you, touching the argument of this first book of your treatise. The words of Jerome upon the 16. of Saint matthew are these: Et dabo tibi claves regni caelorum. Istum locum Episcopi & presbyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi de Pharisaeorum assumuns supercilio, ut vel damnens innocentes, vel solvere se noxios arbitrentur: cùm apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed reorum vita quaeratur. Legimusin Levitico de leprosis, ubi iubentur ut ostendant se sacerdotibus, & si lepram habuerint tunc a sacerdote immundifierent: non quòd sacerdotes leprosos faciunt, & immundos, sed quòd habeant notitiam leprosi & non leprosi, & possint discernere qui mundus, quiuè immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi le prosum sacerdos mundum vel immundum facit, sic & hîc alligat vel soluit Episcopus & pres biter: non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxij, sed pro officio suo cùm peccatorum audierit varietates, rietates, scit qui ligandus sit, quive soluendus. And to the I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This place bishops and priests not understanding, do take upon them somewhat of the pride of the Pharises, that either they condemn innocentes, or think that they due lose guilty persons, whereas before God, not the sentence of priests, but the life of the parties accused in judgement is inquired of. We read in Leuit. of the Lepers, where they are commanded to show themselves unto the priests, and if they have the Leprosy, than they are made unclean by the priest. Not that the priests do make men Lepers and unclean, but for that they have knowledge of a Leper, and of him that is no Leper, & can discern who is clean, & who is unclean, Therefore look how priest doth there make a Leper clean, or unclean, so here doth a Bishop or priest bind or lose, not them that are unguilty or guilty, but according to his office, when he hath heard the variety of sinners, he knoweth who is to be bound, or who is to be loosed. In this saying of S. Jerome diverse things are to be considered: First that the gift of the keys & the power of binding & losing granted to Peter, by his judgement and all men's in his time, peiteineth to every Bishop, elder, or priest of God's Church. secondly that God only doth properly and absolutely forgive sins: and thirdly that the priests sentence upon earth is but declaratory, upon his knowledge of the offenders of God's sentence, as the priest's authority to make a Leper clean or unclean, was only upon certain knowledge to pronounce that which God had wrought upon him to his punishment or deliverance, and according thereunto, either to separate him, or to receive him into the congregation. That penance in those days was given greater than the fault required, you find not in Saint Jerome, either in the one place, or in the other, that you quote. Only in the later upon the text of Mat. 23. which you cite of importable burdens, he saith. Hoc generaliter adversus omnes magistros, qui graviaiubent, & minora non faciunt. This is spoken generally against all such Masters, as command burdenous things, and themselves do not lesser things. So that you would seem to avoid Saint Ieromes judgement upon a false surmise. For Saint lerome findeth as much fault with the prelate's of his time, for losing them that are guilty, as for binding them that are innocent. The contempt of your priests which you lament, is both for there ignorance, & unlawful calling. Whereas you assure them of the key of remission and retaining of sins to be given them by God, in their orders, and then you send them to obtain discretion, knowledge, virtue, with other qualities meet to exercise that office by prayer and industry, you take a wrong course, and contrary to that which the Apostle prescribeth: for he will have men first, to be tried and then to minister. They must first by prayer and other ordinary means, seek to be fit for their office, & afterward lawfully be admitted thereto. But where this order is perverted, they may have calling and admission by men, but I see not how, they can have power and approbation of God. And therefore Saint Ieromes sentence standing, your conclusion of the fruit of an ignorant priests absolution is nothing worth, though there were no doubt of his calling.  ALLEN. 
For this I dare be bold to say, that the lack of the appointed fruit of any sacrament, ariseth a thousand times oftener, by the unworthiness of the subject, and him that receiveth the sacrament, then upon any lack of the giver and minister thereof, and namely in this sacrament of the Church's discipline it chanceth more often. For as Saint Basil saith: Potestas remittendi peccata non est absolutè data, sed in recipientis obedientia, & in consensu cum eo qui animae ipsius curam 
Quaest 15. Regula contract.  gerit, sita est. The power of remitting sins is not absolutely, without condition, given: but it standeth in the obedience of the penitent, and in his agreement with him that hath the charge of his soul. Therefore, for Christ's love, let us cast peril oftener of our own case, then upon other men's states: for we are not so assured of the holy spirit, or his grace to qualify us for the worthy receiving, as they are out of doubt for the right power of ministery.  
And to conclude against Calvin, and all other, that think the power of priests either to be less for lack of good life, or want of much learning, I allege Saint Cyprian thus: Remissio peccatorum per baptismum, sive per alia sacramenta donetur, propriè spiritus sancti est, & ipsi soli huius efficientiae privilegium manet. Thus in English: Remission of sins, whether it be by baptism or by other sacraments given, it properly pertaineth to the holy ghost, and the pre-eminence of the foreceable effect is only his: the solemnity of words, the invocation of God's name, and the external signs prescribed to the priests ministries, by the Apostles to make up the visible sacrament: but the thing itself, and effect of the sacrament, the holy ghost worketh: and the author of all goodness putteth his hand invisible, to the external and visible consecration of 
Serm. de baptis. Chr sti.  the priests. So saith Saint Cyprian, and maketh a far long discourse how the diversity of the ministers deserts do nothing 
Vidi August. 1. 5. contra Donatistas' Cap. 20. Act. 1.  alter the sacraments or the effect thereof, but being a like to all receivers of fit capacity and condition, by whomsoever they be served and dispensed with justice, authority, and calling thereunto. The Baptisine of judas Iscarioth, was no worse than Simon peter's. For S. Peter saith, Connumeratus erat in nobis, & sortitus est sortem ministerij huius: He was counted as one of our number, & had the lot of the ministery. Nor the ministery of Nicolas of less acceptation in itself, than the function of Stephen, being men of one office, but of unlike deservings. The prophesy of Esate no more true than the prophesy of Caiphas: nor the prophesy of Balaam less true, than the prophesy of Baruc. If we were either absolved, or baptised in the name of Peter and Paul, or judas, or Apollo, than we might brag, who were best baptised, or sureliest loosed from sin, and every one might so either crack, or be ashamed of his minister, whereof Saint Paul earnestly checked the Corinthians. But now every one being both baptised, and loosed, and houseled, and anointed, and honoured in all other spiritual acts, in no other name, but in the name of jesus, his father everlasting, and the holy ghost proceeding from them both, all must needs receive the like benefit that be like qualified thereunto, of whom soever the office is exercised, if he be lawfully called, that is to say, have by the hands of priesthood, received the gift and grace of the holy ghost for his lawful authorizing in that case, the which gift of the holy Ghost, being the self same that the Apostles received of Christ for the like functions, continueth with them still, though their life and deserts be never so evil, and their ignorance never so much: yea though they be by iust occasion, as for heresy, schism, or notorious life, through the Censures of the Church imbaryed from the use and exercise of that office of remitting sins, and such other the like spiritual functions.  FVLKE. 
That the lack of the fruit of any sacrament is most commmonlie in the receiver, rather than in the insufficiency of the minister, it proveth that the minister doth not properly give the effect of the sacraments, but the outward seals thereof, as Saint john Baptist doth most wisely distinguish them, saying, I baptise with water, but he that cometh after me, shall baptise with the holy ghost and with fire, Saint basil in the place by you quoted, saying that the power of remitting of sins is not given absolutely, but in the obedience of him that repenteth, etc. declareth what manner of power this is, contrary to that you have hitherto for the most part maintained. As also that he sayeth within few words after, that the new testament doth promise remission of all sins to them that worthily repent, he concludeth plainly against your long discourse, wherein you would have it seem, as though the priest had absolute power of remitting, and not an authority of declaring the sentence of God concerning such. And Saint Cyprian, or whosoever is author of that work, De cardinalibus Christi operibus, confirmeth that which I said, that the minister doth not properly give the effects of the sacrament, but only the outward seals thereof, as john Baptist doth testify. His whole sentence I will repeat, because you have not so fully set it down, not so truly translated it. Veniebat Christus ad Baptismum, non egens lavacro, in quo peccatum non erat, sed ut sacramento perennis daretur autoritas, & tanti virtutem operis, nulla personarum acceptio commendaret: quoniam remissio peccaterum sive per Baptismum sive per alia sacramenta donetur, propriè spiritus sancti est, ut ipsi soli huius efficientiae privilegium mancat. Verborum solennitas, & sacri invocatio nominis & signa institutionibus Apostolicis sacerdotum ministerits attributa, visibile celebrant sacramentum: rem verò ipsam spiritus sanctus format, & efficit, & consecrationibus visibilibus invisibiliter manum totius bonitatis author apponit, & plenitudinem gratiae unctionis divinae pinguedo sanctificationibus officialibus infundit, & remsacramenti consummate & persicit. Christ came to Baptism not wanting that 〈◊〉, as he that was free from sin, but that perpetual authority might be given to the sacrament, and that no respect of persous might commend the virtue of so great a work: because remission of sins, whether it be given by Baptism, or by other sacraments, is properly the holy ghosts, and to him alone the privilege of this essectuall working remaineth. The solemnity of words and the invocation of the holy name, and the signs appointed for the ministry of the Priests by the Apostles doctrine and instruction, do celebrate the visible sacrament: but the thing itself, the holy ghost formeth and worketh, and the author of all goodness doth invisibly put his hand to the visible consecrations: and the fatness of the divine unction doth power the fullness of grace into the ministerial sanctifications: and doth make consummate or make perfect the matter of the sacrament. That the ministers deserts doth nothing alter the sacraments or the effect of them, it is no controversy between us, howsoever you would make the ignorant believe that calvin is of another opinion, wherein his writings are most manifest to the contrary. Where you approved him that is lawfully called, to have received the gift and grace of the holy Ghost, which is the self same that the Apostles received of Christ for the like functions, you take too much upon you: for the ordinary and external calling, to exercise an outward ministery, where of Cyprian discourseth, may be without receiving of the holy Ghost. Again no man hath authority to give the holy Ghost, in ordaining, more than in Baptism or any other part of the ministery of the Gospel. thirdly, where you require lawful calling and ordaining in the minister of the sacrament, that the receiver being rightly qualified, may obtain like benefit of whomsoever the office is exercised, you exclude lay men and women from ministering of the sacrament of Baptism, which your doctrine doth admit. Finally, where you assure the minister of the continuance of his authority, by that gift of the holy Ghost, be his life and deserts never so evil, you say very much. For what if he be an Idolater, a persecutor of Christians, or degenerated into Mahometism, will you say his gift and authority doth still continue? nay, you say it continueth, though he be never so ignorant. Then if he be a natural fool, or a mad man, or one void of all Christian knowledge, either when he was ordained, or fallen since into such extremity of ignorance, yet by your rule, he retaineth his gift. Nay, if he be for heresy, schism, or notorious evil life lawfully embarred from the use and exercise of remitting sins, and other like spiritual functions, yet his gift of the holy Ghost continueth still with him. This is in deed an indelible character, that is imprinted so deep, that nothing can scrape it away, except perhaps a glass or knife in degradation: For as I take it, you mean of him that is only suspended from his office, as though the practise only, and not the authority for a time might be taken from him.  
But to make an end of this matter, I turn Caluins' reason against himself. He and his flock be of that fond and blind judgement, that the whole text of the twentieth of S. john, wherein Christ giveth authority to the Apstoles to remit sins, is meant only of preaching the Gospel, for which function Christ gave them the holy Ghost: Now sir, upon this I urge him with his own reason: I ask him first, whether the ministers that by him cresent to preach the word of the holy ghost, as for example Beza that he sent into France first, or Richerus, whom he sent to Coligninia, or Hermam that came by the holy Ghosts sending unto Flaunders & Brabant, had these the holy ghost, or no? If they say yea, as I think they will (they be so bold in an other man's house) then demand of them further, whether the said spirit may err? If they say no, as possibly they will, then conclude against them thus: The holy Ghost can not err, ergo you have not the holy Ghost, and consequently you have then no better right in preaching, then poor Priests have in remitting or absolving. Therefore I leave calvin wrestling with his own shadow, and will follow on my purpose and course of matter, which I have in hand.  FVLKE. 
Now we shall hear how cunningly you can turn Caluins' reason against himself. First you say, he and his flock be of that fond and blind judgement that the whole text, wherein Christ giveth authority to his Apostles to remit sins, is meant only of Preaching the Gospel, for which function Christ gave them the holy Ghost. But Caluinsaith notso, but that authority to remit sins, is granted to be exercised by preaching. both privately and publicly: that is, to assure men, that God doth remit their sins, and that the gifts of the holy Ghost were granted to the Apostles, that they might be enabled to exercise that high office and function: which gifts no man hath power to give, but only God, neither doth any man at this day receive them in such plentiful measure, but that he may err, of whomsoever he be ordained, or sent to preach. Neither doth Calvin require that power of not erring, but only in them that arrogate unto themselves an absolute power to remit sins, as properly as the holy Ghost doth forgive them, who we know cannot err, in binding him, that is to be loosed, or loosing him that is to be bound, as popish priests do, which yet presumptucusly, and blasphe mouslie arrogate unto themselves such power and authority.   

That it standeth well with God's honour that mortal men should ren it sins, and that Novatus the heretic was of old condemned for denying the same, and that he was the father of this heresy which denieth the Priest's authority.  
THE SEVENTH CHAP.  ALLEN. 
Now by all our former discourse, the right of remission of sins sufficiently proved to pertain to priesthood, some will perhaps count it vain labour, to make more declaration of that which is so plain, or further to establish that by reason, which standeth so fast on scriptures. But if any so think, they see net the wide ways of heresy, nor the manifold shifies that she attempteth even there, where she may seem to be fully beaten. The simple and the sinfullstand most in her danger, that can not in their lack of intelligence, compare reason to reason, nor gather one truth of an other, and therefore to their mouths we must chew all meats very small, else there could be no great need of their further information, how this claim of remission of sins or the usisall practise thereof, could stand with God's glory. For being answerable to his ordinance, it can not but be agreeable with his honour. But because in desperate cases our adversaries have taught their fellows there to wrangle uncurteouslie where they can not maintain reason pithelie, I will not only serve my cause, but sometimes pursue their folly, though I doubt not but the wisdom of God shall more and more appear, touching his meaning in our matter, not alonely by our defence but a great deal the rather by their discontentation,  
Now therefore intending to declare, that this pre-eminence of priesthood, doth nothing abase, or derogate to God's aignitie, I think it not amiss to match our new doctors, of whom I hear often this complaint, with other their forefathers, that at once both truth may fully be served, and a yoke of adversaries jointly drawing against the Church and our salvation, may be almost with one breath refuted. Our young masters may be glad, to grow so high in god's Church, as to be reproved with them who were condemned thirteen hundredth years since: and though they be so modest, that lightly they list not crack of their ancestors, yet we will not defraud them of that glory, nor help our cause by dissimulation of their great antiquity. It is their pusillanimity, I know, that they will not often in distress of their doctrine, call for aid of their forefathers, who were doubtless very ancient, and many of them within the first six hundred years. In other causes Vigilantius might help: in some jovinian would attend upon them: Manes might do them often high pleasure. julianus the apostata, a prince for their purpose, Simon Magus, one of the Apostles age, would stand by them: surely if our adversaries had 〈◊〉, they would well near win of us by antiquity. And truly I can not dissemble with them in this cause, that now is in hand: they have one patron against us, of years very ancient, and of reason much much like unto themselves, Novatus is his name, of whom the followers were called of the Church novatians, but themselves liked to be called Cathari, that is to say, clean and undefiled persons. Their opinion was, that such as did fall into any mortal sin after Baptism, could not by any man or means be assoiled thereof: and for that they disallowed the Churches whole practise of mercy and remission of sins in the sacrament of penance, nothing dissagreeing from Calvin, that condemneth the saying of Saint Jerome, as sacrilegious, where he writeth that penance is as a second beord of refuge, whereby after shipwreck a man may be saved. Neither did Novatus deny, but himself might have mercy, and give pardon after mansfall, but the Church could not therein meadle, as he thought, without singular injury to Christ, and his only prerogative. And that he joineth in this matter fully with our men, that they may take more comfort on him, you shall perceive by Socrates one of the writers of the Tripartit history, who saith thus: Novatus scribebat Ecclesus ne eos qui Daemonibus immolaverant, ad sacramenta susciperent, sed invitarent quidem ad poenitentiam, remissionem verò Dei relinquerent potestati, cuius solius est peccata remittere. Novatus wrote his letters to diverse Churches, that they should not admit any man to the Sacraments, that had sacrificed to devils, but that they should only move them to do Penance, and commit to God the remission of their sin, who only can forgive man's offences. And therefore though in some other point Novatus did overpricke his children, yet herein they fully meet in one. Epiphanius writeth, that he denied salvation to those that did fall to grievous crimes after their Christendom, and therewith did hold, that there was but one penance, which was done in baptism, & after that the Church to have none. How handsomely he defended this error, and unmerciful heresy, ye shall see anon by Saint Ambrose, who learnedly followed and chased him or his followers in an whole work written for that purpose. In the mean time it were good for the more credit of the man and his cause, to note with the ancient Doctors of his days, his conditions, his coming up, his proceeding, and practises. S. Cyprian, who was most molested with him, & knew him best, giveth him this praise: Novatus was a man that delighted much in novelties and news, of insatiable avarice, a furious ravine, with pride and intolerable arrogancy almost puffed past himself, known and taken of all Bishops for a naughty pack, condemned by the common judgement of all good Priests for a faithless heretic, curious and inquisitive them to betray, for to deceive, always ready to flatter, in love never faithful nor trusty, a match ever fired to kindle sedition, a whirl wind and storm to procure the shipwreck of faith, and to be short, an adversary to tranquility, and an enemy of peace. These were his conditions then.  FVLKE. 
In the latter end of the Chapter next before, you said in your bravery, that you would leave calvin wrestling with his own shadow, and follow on your purpose, and course of matter, a great part whereof is, as it appeareth, to wrestle with your own shadow. For no man there is in these days, especially of them whom you count your adversaries in this cause, but doth acknowledge, that it standeth well with god's honour, that mortal men should remit sins, according to that commission which they have reccaved of him, who only hath power absolutely and properly to remit sins. The heresy of Novatus is also generally condemned of all men, neither hold we any error common with him, in denying the priests authority, much less any heresy. To omit therefore your impertinent declaration, who be most in danger of heresy, I acknowledge your argument to be good and found. Nothing that is answerable to God's ordinance, can be disagreeable to his honour: the authority of the Church is agreeable to God's ordinance: therefore not contrary to his honour? But if your Priests will claim further authority, then is answerable to God's ordinance, as you do in their name, that is to say, that they have power properly to forgive sins, than they claim that which is not agreeable to God's honour. For it is God alone that properly taketh away sins. And God's ordinance is, that they should be declarers, interpreters and expressers of his holy will and pleasure concerning remission of sins, not properly pardoners, forgivers, or remitters of sins, as though the sentence in heaven depended upon the sentence in earth, and not rather the sentence of man, should be framed, and depend upon the sentence of God. Your scornful trifling in matching us with ancient heretics, and granting us some pre-eminence of antiquity, as though we were not able to prove our do ctrine in all points of controversy, more ancient than yours, I pass over, as needing no answer, except it were to such, with whom no answer will prevail.  
The heresy of Novatus, of divers writers is diversly reported: some affirm that he utterly denied allrepentance to them that had fallen after Baptism: other that he denied only the absolution and admission into the Church upon any repentance or submission of them, that for falling into idolatry for fear of persecution, were excommunicated or excluded from the Church. As for the popish Sacrament of penance, was not instituted in his days: but the power, that the Church hath in losing them that werebound in such cases, or of assuring the penitent osfenders of remission of sins, he utterly denied. But, you say, he was nothing disagreeing from Calvin, that condemneth the saying of Jerome as sacrilegious, where he writeth that penance is a second board of refuge, whereby, after shipwreck, a man may be saved. In which affirmation you utter many untruths at once. For calvin denieth not with Novatus, the benefit of repentance, absolution, losing, or forgiveness of sins after Baptism, as you shamefully slander him, but reproveth the sophistical papists, which to the derogation of Baptism, and the perpetual fruit thereof, call their pretended sacrament a second board aftershipwrack, as though the benefit of Baptism being lost, they should have remission of sins by this counterfeit sacrament of popish penance and absolution. secondly, Calvin simpliecon demneth not the saying of Jerome as sacrilegious, but saith, that whose saying soever it is, it can not be excused, but it is plainly impious, if it be expounded according to their meaning. As though (saith he) 
Inst. lib. 4. c. 19 Sect. 17.  by sin Baptism were clean put out, and not rather that it is to be called into remembrance to the sinner, so often as he thinketh of remission of sins, that thereof he may gather himself together be comforted, and confirm his faith, that he shall obtain remission of sins, which was promised to him in Baptism. Now that which Jerome spoke hardly and unproperly, that by repentance Baptism is repaired (from whence they fall, which deserve to be excommunicated from the Church) these good interpreters draw to their impiety. Therefore you may say most aptly, if you call Baptism the sacrament of repentance, seeing it is given for a confirmation of grace and faith in them that think upon repentance. These words of Calvin declare that he thought not so unreventhe of Saint Jerome as you would have it seem, but that he reproved their impudency, which to maintain their sacrilegious opinion of their new found sacrament do draw his words, though in themselves somewhat hard, & unproper, yet far beyond his meaning. And certainly whosoever shall read the place itself where Jerome hath these words, in isaiah, cap. 3. shall plainly perceive that he speaketh neither of Baptism, nor of any other sacrament of penance or repentance, nor of any exercise of repentance in the Church of Christ, but rather of them that were never baptised, thelews which impudently cried, Crucifyhim, we have no King but Caesar, or those elder jews, against whom isaiah prophesied. For upon these words of the Prophet, They have declared their sin as Sodoma, etc. Et quomodo Sodomitae in omni libertate peccantes, & nec pudorem quidem ullum habentes in scelere, dixerunt ad Loth, Educforas viros, ut concubamus cum eyes, sic & isti publicè proclamantes, suum praedicaverunt peccatum, nec ullam in blasphemando habuere vereeundiam: secunda enim 〈◊〉 naufragium tabula poenitentia est, & consolatio miseriarum impietatem suam abscondere. And as the Sodomites sinning with all licentiousness, and having not so much as any shame in their wickedness, said unto Lot, bring forth those men that we may lie with them, even so these men have declared their own sin, openlle proclaiming it, and in blaspheming had no shamefastness. For the second board after shipwreck is repentance, and a comfort of miseries to hide their own ungodliness. The sense is manifest, that they which are not ashamed of their sins, are far from repentance and in a desperate state. For they that have made shipwreck of honesty and Godliness, have no recovery but by repentance. So that Hieromes saying, except it be violently wrested to those things, of which he never meant, soundeth nothing to the maintenance of any patch of Popery,  
That Novatus reserved to himself any power of giving pardon after man's fall, which he denied to the Church, I know not where you find it. But Socrates must testify, that he joined fully with us: yea though in some other point, he did overprick his children, yet herein they fully meet in one. Why sir? do we refuse to admit any man to the sacraments, which have sacrificed to devils? yea though they have been excommunicated from the Church for their wickedness, do not we upon repentance grant them absolution, and assure them of remission of their sins? This is too intolerable impudency to charge us with Novatus heresy, especially in that point, in which we are as directly repugnant unto him, as contradictoric sayings and contrary doings may be. What Epiphanius writeth of his heresy, and Saint Ambrose confuted the same, is showed before, as also how truly calvin is charged to jump with Novatus in denying repentance after Baptism, because he calleth baptism the sacrament of repentance, as before him, the ancient writers used accustomably, whereof you may read in his institution, the place before mentioned.  ALLEN. 
Marry long before that his fall to heresy, S. Cornelius writein, that he was possessed in his youth with an evil spirit, for 
Epist. ad Pabianun exen.  which he had to do great while with conjurers, & that he lacked all the holy solemnity of Baptism and confirmation, and consequently the Spirit of God, which by them he should have received, and therefore took orders against the law upon sinister favour, and afterward by unlawful arts attempted to get abishopricke, with great oaths protesting that he would not be a Bishop if he might. But when indeed he could not attain to that holy dignity, which he so inwardly and intolerably gaped for, he fell in despite of God's Church to heresy, that he might get that without order, which he could not obtain, in the right manner of the Churches making. And for that purpose, he procured three base Bishops out of a strange and remote part of Italy, who neither knew the case, the man, nor his manners, and them through ignorance he beguiled, and by force caused them to consecrate him Bishop, by the colour whereof (for true imposition of hands was it none) suddenly he appeareth as a new creature & a Bishop of a strange stamp, apparuit Episcopus, velut nowm Plasma, saith Cornelius: And for this attempt one of the poor Bishops did great penance, the other two were deposed. In the mean time this mock Bishop vendicabat sibi evangelium: challenged the word of the Lord for himself, denied himself to be a Priest, because he would not give to the people (as Theodoritus 
Lib. 3. hereticatum Fabularnm, ca Novat  saith) in their extremity, the remedy for their sins, which is nothing else, but to give them absolution, which work he could never abide. To be short, he was so incensed against his lawful Paslour and superior the holy Bishop of Room, that in the delivery of the blessed sacrament to the people, he would force them to take an oath by the blessed body which they had in their hands ready to receive, that they should stick to him, and for sake the Bishop of Rome Cornelius.  
All these things in sense hath Eusebius of Novatus, the first patron of the Protestants doctrine concerning the impugning, 
Lib. 6. c. 33. Vide Aug. de heres. haer. 38.  of the Church's title in remission of sins, of which her right he would have rob her in pretence of maintenance of God's honour. Whereby he also abrogated the whole Sacrament of penance. This falsehood, though it were straight with he author condemned in a great Council holden at Rome, and afterward in diverse Provincial Synods, and by the holy council of Nice itself repressed also, Yet it spread very sort, and cintinued long, and was not only by S. Cyprian, but also by Dyonisius Alexandrinus, Saint Amb ose, and Saint chrysostom refused in sundry works written against the novatians. By whom and other, though the course of that false assertion was often broken in god's Church, yet in some parts they did knit again, sometimes by certain heretics, of Novatus days called Tessarescedecatitae, qui aversabantur poenitentiam, saith Theodoritus, who did abhor penance: and sometimes, by a sort called jacobitae, 〈◊〉 while by wrcliffe & his, else, by the Waldenses, now and than, by the Anabaptistes, & lately by the Lutherans, & most of the protestants, & by the calvinists, everyone.  
All which black band, though they agree not at every pinch of Novatus heresit (for it is not possible, that such should ever fully consent) yet all these knit tails together in this, that there is no sacrament of penance after Baptism, in which the priest may forgive sins, and that it standeth not with god's honour, so to remit the people's offences. Of other the like heresies which he lent our men, as of forbidding holy Chrism, and anointing of such as were by him baptised, in so much that the holy fathers were glad, to make up the lack thereof, in all such as came from their heresy to the unity of Christ's Church, I will not here speak: purposing only, because, that only concerneth our matter, to refute that old heresy raised so long since against the prerogative of God's priests, and only help of our sins, that at once both the author, and the offspring may be fully over thrown.  FVLKE. 
Novatus, as he is described by Cyprian, but that he came too soon before the open revelation of Antichrist, had been a man much more fit to make a Pope of the Church of Rome, whereof he was mockbishop, than a poor minister of the Church of England. And whatsoever you gatherout of Euseb. Theodoret, or any other writer against him, declareth that he was an execrable man, but maketh no resemblance of his heresy with our doctrine, concerning the power of remitting of sins. You say that he lacked all the solemnity of baptism and confirmation, and consequently the spirit of God, which by them he should have received Eusebius indeed out of the Epistle of Cornelius writeth, that after he was helped by exorcists, he fell into dangerous sickness, and being at the point of death, and not considering, he received baptism in his bed, if it may be said that such a one received. For after he escaped his sickness he obtained not therest, whereof he should have been partaker according to the canon of the Church, that is, to be sealed or confirmed of the Bishope, and having not obtained this, how obtained he the holy Ghost? By which words Cornelius meant, that he which was baptised in extremity, when he knew not what was done unto him, and afterward when he was whole, had no care to approve his baptism by the bishops judgement, upon his own confession & acknowledging of Christian Religion, could not be taken for a right Christian, much less, according to the discipline of those days, might be admitted unto the ministery. But being admitted by a singular, and if you will, a sinister dispensation, in time of persecution, he was so fearful, that he denied himself to be a Priest, when he was desired to come unto them, and only by words to confirm them that were stricken with the terror of the tyrant, as Therdoret writeth. The oath that he exacted of such as received the Sacrament of the lords supper at his hands, was more like the oath that the pope exacteth of all bishops at their consecration, than any ministered in the Queen's majesties visitation. That Wickliff, the Waldenses, Luther or Caluine, do deny repentance, or reconciliation of them, that are fallen after Baptism, it is a mere slander, although they deny the Popish sacrament of penance, whereof there was no mention in the Church, many hundred years after Novatus. That the novatians did not anoint those that were by them Baptized, it seemeth they take it of their Master Novatus, who because he had contemned: he ceremony, used in that time of the Church, himself taught his scholars to do the same, left it should hawe been reputed a want in him. Although not the omission of the ceremony, but the contempt of the usage of the Church, being not impious, in itself, was chiefly condemned in him. For at such times as he was ordained Elder or Priest of the Church of 〈◊〉, it was thought by the Bishope a matter that might be remitted in him, that for other respects seemed meet for the office, neither was it thought necessary, that he should receive that ceremony so by him omitted, but not yet, as it was thought, in despite of the Church refused. The Father's oflater time (as Theodoret writeth) decreed, that such as came from his heresy, and would be incorporated into the Church, should by receiving that ceremony, which in time of their heresy they despised, declare that they were truly converted from it, and willinghe. submitted themselves to the Catholic Church and her Doctrine. But of late days when that ceremony of anointing hath been accounted a Sacrament, yea and a greater Sacrament than Baptism, and thought necessary to eternal salvation, whereas yet it hath no institution of Christ set forth in the holy Scriptures: the reformed Churches have justly abrogated that custom, according to that liberty, which the Church hath in all ceremonies, not commanded by God, & according to the example of the Church in former ages, which hath abrogated many ceremonies used of ancient times, aswell as that of anointing with oil them that are Baptized.  ALLEN. 
And first, because generally all the foresaid join together against the truth in this argument, that it is dishonour to god and great presumption in a mortal man, to claim the power so proper to God: let the studious reader well consider, that no function, power, ne dignity, be it never so peculiar to God himself by naturaii excellency, but the same may be occupied of man secondarily, as by the way of service, ministry, or participation, so that man challenge nor usurp it not as of himself, or when it is not lawfuliie received, nor orderly given. All the works that extraordinarily and miraculously were wrought, either by Christ in his humanity, or by the Prophets, or Apostles words, or by their garments, or by what other instrument so ever they were done, were the works of god no less then to remit sins: yet all these things & other the like brought to pass by man, through the power of god that worketh by man's ministery the same, nothing derogateth to god's glory, but infinitely augmenteth his honour: even so the power of pardoning man's sins, being employed by God the father upon Christ his son, & by Christ upon his Church & ministers, & practised by them, not of their own might & heads, but in the 〈◊〉 of the holy ghost, which by the son of god was 〈◊〉 upon them, this authority (I say) is no derogation, but an evident sign of his mighty power of salvation, left for the faithfuls sake in the Church.  
When the person that was lame from his birth begged of Peter and john somewhat for his relief at the Temole door, as his manner was, Peter answered him, that gold and silver he had none to give, but that which he had, he would willingly bestow, which was power to heal him of his incurable malady: for proof whereof, he bade him arise, and walk, and so he did at his word, in the sight of all that there 
Act. 3.  were gathered: which being done, and the people wondering thereat, the Apostle thus instructed them: Brethren (faith he) why wonder you at us, as though we had brought this strange work to pass by our own strength and power: it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, & jacob, that hath glorified his son jesus whom you refused, and betrayed to Pontius Pilatus to be crucified: in his name and faith this poor man is recovered. Mark well, that the same thing which peter said, himself had to give quod habeo, tibi do, the same yet he professeth that he holdeth not as of his own right, or might, but as of Christ jesus, in whose name he willed the lame to walk: even so the the power of pardoning sinner is truly and properly in the Priests, as the power of working miracles is properly in Peter's hands, neither the one noryet the other holden as of their own might and power, but both practised for the glory of God in the name of jesus of Nazareth, by their appointed ministry. And as truly as Peter might say to the feeble in body, that which I have, I give thee: rise and walk, in the name of iesoes of Nazareth, so surely may the Priest say to the sick in sovie, that which I have, I give thee, in the name of jesus thy Ennes (my son) be forgiven thee. No less is the one the peculiar work of God, than the other: no more doth one dishonour god than the other.  FVLKE. 
Nothing that is proper or peculiar to God, can be communicated to man, but it ceaseth to be proper to God. For it is against the nature of properties, to be made common to any other subject, then to that whereof they are proper adjuncts. And yet I deny not but that which is proper to God, he doth exercise often times, by the service or ministry of men, in which they are but instrumental causes, & he himself is the principal efficient: otherwise man may not occupy, or execute secondly, or thirdly, or last of all, by way of participation, that which is proper or peculiar to God. So that it remaineth still an undoubted truth, that God only doth forgive sins properly, and man doth not forgive sins properly, but is the instrument of God to utter, and declare the good pleasure of God in forgiving sins to all and every one that repent, and believe the Gospe ll. Your general negative, that there is no function, power, nor dignity be it never so peculiar to God, by natural excellency, but it may be occupied of man secondly, as by the way of service, ministry, or participation, if it were urged against you, would breed horrible absurdities. To omit all other, the power of creating things of nothing, by what means may man be partaker thereof, occupy it, or exercise it? But let us consider your induction, All Miraculous works worught by Christ in his humanity, the Prophets, or Apostles, were no less proper to God, than the power to remit sins. Yes verily: for many miraculous works, that God did by Moses, the enchanters of Egypt did the like, by the power of the devil: whereby it appeareth, that although ail power be derived from God, as from the first cause thereof, even that power which the devil hath, yet it is otherwise communicated to creatures, than the power of remission of sins is. For that remaineth only in the hand of God, and is not properly executed by any other man, but only by our saviour Christ, the mediarour of god and man. In which power he hath ordained man, but as a servant, to do nothing after his own will, but only to declare and pronounce the will of God thereof. In working of miracles it is otherwise, in which man so exerciseth that power, either received of god, or of the devil, that often times he causeth effects according to his own will, & contrary to the will of God revealed in his word, though nothing can be contrary to his absolute will. But the power of remitting sins no man can execute, contrary to the revealed will of God: For Peter could not forgive the sins of judes Iscariot, Smon Magus, Alexander the copper smith, or any other that sinned against the holy Ghost, or that was not truly penitent for his sins, or that believed not the promise of God. Neither could Peter, or can any man retain the sins of him that repenteth, and taketh hold of God's mercy by faith, but he shall have remission of sins, though all the men in the world would say the contrary: so that man hath no power in retaining or remitting of sins, but by declaring the will of God, whereof he hath no warrant but out of his word. For I ask this question of you, if two priests having heard one man's confession at the same time be in contrary opinions, so that the one doth forgive sins, the other doth retain them, Whether of these sentences shall take place? No doubt but you will say, that which is agreeable to the will of God. Then doth it follow of necessity, that man doth only declare God's will, and hath no absolute or proper power, to exercise this authority according to his own will. But as Peter said to the lame man, that which I have, I give to thee, and yet he had it not of his own right of might, but from God: even so say you, The power of pardoning sins, is truly and properly in the priests, as the power of working mitacles is properly in Peter's hands. Idenie your consequence. For although the power of working miracles were properly in Peter's hands, yet it followeth not, that the power of pardoning sins was properly in him. For, as I have showed, there is great diversity between the one power, and the other. The power of miracles is granted to Peter, to be exercised according to the direction of God's holy spirit, agreeably unto the secret and absolute will of God: But the power of pardoning sins is not granted to Peter, or any man, but as to a messenger, and declarer of Gods will as it is revealed in his word; beside which, if any presume to remit. he doth but spend his breath in vain. But a wicked man having the power of miracles, may sometimes abuse it, contrary to God's law, as to maintain false doctrine, and Idolatry, to hurt or to murder innocents thereby: and yet we may say in some respect, that the power of working miracles is not properly in Peter's hands, both because it is not in him, to heal whom and when he will, but after as he hath a secret instinct of him that is the author of his gift, and also because he is but an instrument of God, who only doth great marvels properly, Psal. 136. as he confessed in the healing of AEneas, Acts 9 saying, Christ je sus heal thee. So Acts. 3: His name hath made him strong, and the faith which is by him hath given him his perfect health. Where you conclude that the priests may say likewise to the sick soul, That which I have, I give thee, In the name of jesus Thy sins, my son, be forgiven thee. Although the form of speech be somewhat insolent and strange, yet you confess that the priest hath nothing to give him, but a declaration of God's will, when he saith, thy sins are forgiven thee in the name of jesus. Yea if he shall say, in the name of lesus I forgive thee thy sins, the sense were no more, but this, jesus doth assure thee by me, his servant and messenger, that he hath, satisfied for thy sins, and therefore they shall no more be imputed unto thee, for God hath forgiven them.  ALLEN. 
And this work of remitting sins is much more certain than the miraculous healing of the body, being joined by God's promise to a sacrament that shall never cease in the Church, where miracles for most part ceased long since: yea the name and majesty of God is a thousand parts more honoured, not only that God, in his own person, but in the frailty of hu ministers, is able to accomplish such mighty miracles, both in the cure of body and soul. But the fondness of this heresy is so great, that it maketh those things to tend to God's disgracing, which he hath appointed properly and only in a manner, for the purpose, to set forth the name of his son jesus. For if both sins of man's soul, and sores of his body could not visibly by external means be healed in the glorious invocation of God's name, it would surely be forgotten in the Church of Christ, that such power is given by God the father to his only son, & man's mind would not reach to that inwardly, whereof he had no proof nor assurance outwardelie. I beseech you, Sir, the working of strange miracles given to some, as well of the Prophets, as of the Apostles of Christ, were they any whit prejudicial to God's honour, or were they givento man above his natural power, for the setting forth of God, honour, that the Prophets should see long before things that afterward did fall, which is the propriety of God alone, and theirs only by gift and grant of him, to who me only it doth belong, do they dishonour God, or else was it not always granted to some men, for the glory of God? That Eliseus could see the heart and inward thoughts of Giezi his servant, which is God's only property, did it dishonour God, or rather wonderfully 
4. Reg. c. 5.  augment his glory? The passing pre-eminence that Peter and the rest received, when they were able by laying on of hands to give the holy ghost, can it not be practised without 
Act. 3.  the dishonour of God, or else was it not principallse given to them to set forth the glory of God? This was so great power, that it was much more astonished at of the beholders, then either working of miracles, or remitting sins: in so much that Simon the forcerer, who was so glorious before, that he called himself the power of God, would have given the Apostles money largely, that upon whom soever he had practised the like laying on of hands, he might receive the holy ghost also. Then if the power of giving the holy ghost, or power of giving grace, which 
2. Tim. 4.  both Peter and Paul practised in a visible sacrament, by a solemn ceremony, in the sight of all the world, by laying on of their hands, if this passing work, and most proper to God, I dare say, of all other acts that be exercised in Christ's name in the Church, doth not only no whit abase God's excellency, but was purposely instituted to honour the majesty of God in the face of all people, and to set out the glory of his house, how dare any man for fear of God's high indignation, control the work of Christ in remitting man's sins, by such a visible sacrament, as to the honour of God is most convenient, and to our salvation most necessary? If they will not let pristes remit sins for fear of offending God, and dishonouring his name, then let them not baptise, not preach, not teach, not do miracles, not give the holy ghost, not correct faults, not give orders, nor do any other functions. For these every one be no less proper to God, than remission of sins.  FVLKE. 
You ground your argument upon a sacrament, before you have proved any. The power of remitting sins is granted to be perpetual in the Church, and nothing derogatory to the honour of God. But that there is any other sacrament, whereby men are assured of the forgiveness of their sins, by any external ceremony, except the sacraments of Baptism, and of the lords supper, which is the chief matter in controversy, you go not once about to prove If Christ's Church were like your Popish Church, wherein all things are taught by Images, & dumb ceremonies, and the word of God neverpreached, it might come to pass as you say, that it would be forgotten, that such power is given by God to Christ. But in the Church of God many things are remembered by means of preaching the Gospel, and word of God, whereof there is no visible sacrament or ceremony, although to help our weakness, the mercy of God hath by his sacraments sealed up the most necessary and generail points of doctrine of our regeneration, to be the Children of God, and of our spiritual feeding or nourishment, to continue us perpetually in the same. But whereas you say, that if both sins of man's soul, and sores of his body, could not visibly by external means he healed in the glorious invoration of God's name, it would surclie be forgottenin the Church of Christ that such power is given by God the father to his only son, etc. I pray you what external means have you visibly to heal the sores of man's body by invocation of God's name, lest it should be forgotten in the Church that the father hath given such power to his son? Will you now send us to the mock miracles, & lying signs registered in your Legends? wrought at your pilgramages, Idols, or in an other world by the japponical jesuits? These because they are not seen, move nothing the inward man, whose mind, you say, full learnedly, will not reach to that inward, whereof he hath no proof nor assurance outwardelie. As though faith were not a substance of things that are hoped for, and an evidence of things that are 
Heb. 11.  not seen. Where of the mind of man hath no assurance outwardelie. For the sacramental seals, but by faith, make no assurance outwardelie. Can I gather an assurance, but by faith of God's promise that my body being washed outwardelie, my soul is cleansed inward? Is it the receiving of the outward elements in the lords supper, that assureth me of my spiritual nourishment to eternal life, or faith granted upon the word, which coming to the elements, maketh them the seals of assurance of gods promises? The question you ask, of the Prophets foreseeing of things so long before things that afterward did fall, whether it was granted with dishonour of God, or to his glory? I answer that the property of God alone, to whom all things are present, was not, ne could not be communicated to men. But God to his glory, by the instrument of their mouth did foreshow those things, which he had revealed unto them by his spirit, in prophetical vision, or dream. Neither could Elizeus see the heart & inward thoughts, of Gihezei his servant, which is gods only property, but God did reveal, and declare unto him, what hypocrisy was hid in the heart of Gihezei: so that Elizeus knew no more properly what was in the heart of Gihezei then any other man, to whom Gihezei himself might open his thoughts, saving that Elizeus knew more certenlie, and by 2 more wonderful mean. For to man Gihezei might lie, but god who only searcheth the heart & the reins, revealed the truth to Elizeus. Neither was Peter and the rest able by laying on of hands to give the holy ghost, that is the visible gists of the holv ghost, but according to gods good pleasure & will. For Acts. 8. Peter and john sent by the Apostles into Samaria, prayed for them that were baptised, that they might receive the holy Ghost, and after laid their hands upon them, and they received from god the sensible graces of the holy ghost, as speaking with tongues, interpretation of tongues, healing of sickness, casting out of devils, and such like. Therefore in such wonderful effects as followed laying on of hands, nothing that is most proper to god passed to men. But it pleased God, who is the only author of such graces and gifts, to bestow the same by his faithful stewards, at their prayer, whereunto they were moved, and assisted by him, and with that visible sacrament or ceremony. But such ceremonies we have not for remission of sins, or retaining of them by God's institution. Therefore no sacrament, but a doctrine of remitting or retaining of sins.  ALLEN. 
O heresy most shameful, that then goeth about to dishonour God most, when she most pretendeth god's honour, whereof she is so tender and so careful, that she hath barred his own spouse, of his blessed body, of remission of sins, of the spirit of God, of all sacraments, of all holy ceremonies, of memories, of miracles, of all holy functions, and to be short, of all gifts, and graces: and all this for God's honour, so honourable a thing it is for Christ to be the king of so beggarly a common wealth, as they make of the Church: such glory it is for Christ to have his only spouse rob of the treasures of his gifts and graces: so comely it is for Christ, to have such sacraments, as neither contain himself, nor his grace: so worthy a thing it is, for Christ to have ministers, that upon his own warrant can neither pardon nor punish man's misdeeds. Gloriosa dicta sunt de te Civitas Dei. Glorious things 
Pial. 8c.  have been reported of thee, thou City of God, and how art thou now so barrenne and so contemptible, that thy honour must needs redound to the dishonour of him, by whom all thy honour only standeth?  
But I cease to pursue the Churchces enemies now in mine own words, I will rather join with the holy fathers, for their overthrow, whose, not only reason and sufficient answer to this their vain reply founded on the pretence of God's honour, but also, their only name and authority shall sufficiently beat down these men's boldness. Saint Ambrose in this case is most plain, and standeth with the novatians, 
Ambros. de poen. l. 1. c. 2.  as I do now with the zwinglians, even in the very same argument, in these words: Sed aiunt, se Domino defer reverentiam, cui soli remittend orum oriminum potestatem reseruent: imò nulli maiorem iniuriam faciunt, quàm qui eius volunt mandata res indere, commissum munus refindere: nam cùm ipse in Euangelis suo dixerit Dominus jesus, accipite Spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, etc. quis est ergo qui magis honorat? Vtrum qui mandat is attemperat, an qui resistit? Ecclesia in utroque servat obedientiam, ut peccatism & alliget, & laxat. That is to say: These novatians say that they deny penance or power to remit sins in earth, in respect of the maintenance of such honour as is due to God, to whom only they will reserve the pardoning of man's sins. But in deed none do so much injury to God's glory, as those which break his commandments, and make a division of that charge and commission, which he giveth. For seeing our Lord jesus by his own mouth spoke these words: Receive ye the holy ghost, whose sins you do forgive, they be forgiven, and whose sins you hold, they beholden, who in this case more honoureth God? He that obeyeth his commandment, or he that resisteth the same? The Church obeyeth in both, as well in binding as in losing. Thus there. And a little after: Look to whom this charge was given, and that person may lawfully and with God's good leave use the same. Au l therefore the Church may lawfully both bind and lose: heresy and her attendants can rightly do neither. This right is only committed to priests, and therefore the Church rightly challengeth that authority because she hath lawful priests: and so heresy cannot do, because she hath not the priests of God in her cursed congregation. Thus said Saint. Ambrose for the answer of the novatians in his days, and so say I now in the Church's behalf against the like affected enemies of Christ's honour, which whiles they in face of scripture and God's word would seem to defend, they are become sworn adversaries of his honour, and open contemners of his commandments and holy ordinance. Saint Ambrose here taketh it for a ground, that it is God's ordinance, that Priests should remit sins, he is bold to call the contrary doctrine, heresy, he maketh a principle of this, that it never dishonoureth God, that man should do that which God giveth him either commandment or commission to do in his behalf, he taketh it for a known truth, that, as the Church of God hath true and lawful priests, so she may by them, upon Christ's warrant, bath lose and bind: and contrariwise, that heresy may well enough give over that right of remission of sins, because she hath lightly no lawful priests, by whom she may practise the same.  FVLKE. 
First, you make a vain exclamation or outcry, as though heresy hath spoiled the Church of her treasures under pretence of God's glory: but such rhetorical vamties all wise men will deride. The Church is not spoiled of her treasures, when neither Christ, nor his grace is contained in the sacraments: but when Christ, her only treasure, is spoiled of his glory, of sole redemption and fatisfaction for our sins, or of any other part of the office that belongeth to the mediator. Therefore it is her greatest honour that Christ may have his true honour, in whom & with whom she hath all things, not to the glory of flesh & blood, but to the glory of God, to whom all glory of right belongeth: what Saint Ambrose did write against the novatians, pertaineth not to us, who deny neither the power of remitting nor of retaining of sins, but grant both. But that Saint Ambrose did not mean of such a power as the Papists do claim, I have showed before out of his own words in the same place, where he saith, that our Lord hath chosen such Disciples, as should be interpreters of their Lords will. This power is granted to all true ministers of the Church, that they are the Legates or ambassadors of god, to declare his will & pleasure unto men, aswell for remitting, as for retaining of sins. And therefore Novatus, or Novatianus, did very absurdly by Saint Ambrose his judgement, that did arrogate unto himself power to retain sins, while he pronounced that they which fell into Idolatry after Baptism, might not be received into the Church upon any trial of their repentance: and would not yield that the ministers of the Church by the same authority might pronounce, that they which were truly penitent of their former wicked behaviour, were forgiven in the judgement of God, which was to remit their sins upon earth, with faith in God's promise, that they shall be forgiven in heaven. Thus the answer of Saint Ambrose unto the novatians, doth nothing in the world make against us, which deny no power that Christ hath granted to his Church, under colour of maintenance of God's honour.  ALLEN. 
And surely, it is a maruclous force of truth, or rather the might of God's providence, that driveth Heretics to disdain, destroy, and dissanul the graces and manifold gifts of Christ's Church, that impugning them, where the very right of such holy acts do lie, they may plainlte confess, and to their shame acknowledge, that they have none such themselves, nor cannot by Gods warrant challenge any such gifts, which with all their might they would wholly if they could, together with God's spirit and Church, extinguish.  
Alas into what misery hath this forfaken flock willfully cast themselves and their adherentes, which can forsake God's house, ubi mandavit Dominus benedictionem, upon which God hath bestowed his blessing, & abide there, where, by their own confession, there is no Priesthood, no penance, no host, no sacrifice, no remission (where they can let) of sins, no grace in sacraments, nor no gift of the holy Ghost. All other heresies lightly by force of the Father's Doctrine and judgement, lost either their Priesthood, because they had no way out of the Church to make Priests, as Saint Jerome writeth of Hilary the Deacon, or else the use and function of 
Aduersus Luciferianos.  Priesthood, by reason, the works of God cannot be orderly nor benefi iallie used out of the house of God: and yet, they ever claimed to themselves, not only the order, but for most part all other functions that by Christ and his Church were annexed to that order: but ours (wherein they pass all their forefathers) in a manner willingly give over the whole profession freely and without compulsion, deny themselves, with Novatus, to be priests, deny to sacrifice, deny to enjoin penance, deny to give the holy ghost, either by imposition of hands, or by Chrism, or by any other solemn right of God's Church. To be short, take nothing from these fellows that belongeth to Christianity, for they will give all over themselves.  
But briefllie to conclude up the answer to their reason founded upon Novatus his principle touching God's honour, thus I say: That never derogateth to God's honour, which is agreeable to god's ordinance: but that priests should remit sins is the ordinance of God, as is declared: therefore the use thereof doth not derogate any whit to god's honour. Again: as great works and as proper to god, as remission of sins, was practised by the Apostles, and yet is used by the Bishops of holy Church without all dishonour of god, giving the holy ghost, and gods grace, by laying on of 〈◊〉: Ergo remission of sins may be also practised of priests, without all injury to God and the only right therein.  FVLKE. 
whethersoever the force of truth, or providence of God drive heretics, we have no purpose to follow them. The gifts which god bestoweth on his Church, and the ministers thereof, with all humility and thankfulness, we acknowledge, receive, and exercise to his glory, and the benefit of his Church: although we arrogate nothing unto ourselves, either in them, or in any other thing that is proper to God. And therefore it is both a vain and a false complaint, that the Church adorned with God's blessings is forsaken, and a congregation barren of all God's gifts, embraced. All offices of ministery in the Church, that God hath ordained, we admit and practise, neither will we give over any thing for all your childish prating, whereof we have warrant to enjoy it, out of the word of God. To your syllogisms I answer, thus to the first, That to exercise the Power of remission of sins, in such sort, as it is ordained of God, is no dishonour to God, but a great honour. To the second, I deny that any thing proper to God, as remission of sins, giving the holy Ghost and God's grace, as it is proper to God, was or could be practised by the Apostles, or any mortal man, properly: otherwise I confess, that remission of sins, as Christ hath commanded it, may be practised without all injury to God and his only right therein.   

For further proof of the foresaid matter, it is declared, that neither Christ, nor his everlasting Father, nor the holy Ghost, do give over unto man, or resign the power of remission, or any other holy function of the Church, but do themselves continually work all those graces by man's ministry and service.  
THE EIGHT CHAP.  ALLEN. 
furthermore, we must here consider, that what work soever God appointeth man to exercise in his Church, either in remission of sins, or giving grace of God's spirit, or what other holy action soever may in his name be done, for the benefit of the people, by the ministery and service of man, either by the means and mediation of any other instrumental cause, we must learn, that in these works so wrought either by man, or through other creatures, God doth not resign his right to the ways and workers thereof, and give over the whole title that is due to himself in the said divine acts. For then in deed man's practise should derogate from God's power, and he should as it were succeed God in the right of his proper power, and everlasting inheritance: which only to surmise, as heretics do, were mere folly.  
Christ is by everlasting right made the head of the Church, and he resigneth not this office to any mortal man. For if he did, than the party that should by his grant occupy for a season the same dignity, were his fuccessour, and should hold in like right the same office as he did before. But that notwithstanding, he hath made his substitute and vicegerent, by whom in his corporal absence he ruleth now the Church, as he did before in his own person, not giving over his pre-eminence & supreme power therein, but now practising that by another, which afore he exercised himself in his own person. It had been a great derogation to Christ that Peter should have been Christ's heir and successor: for then Christ had lost the perpeivitie, an other man governing after him in like right and pre-eminence as he had before. But, for Peter to rule the Church under him, in his stead, & as by his everlasting right, with commission from him that holdeth that sovereignty for ever, by whomsoever the Church shall be ruled till the world's end in earth, this (I say) is no derogation to God, nor his son Christ at all, but it much proveth that Christ according to his manhood is the head of the Church for ever, because by man in earth he ruleth the same till his coming again, the whichman, 
Psal. 44.  though he be his vicar & vicegerent, yet he is not his successor.  
Saint Augustine did trimly allude to the use of the old law, comparing the ministers of God's Church to the younger brethren who were charged to marry the elder brother's wife, when he died without issue, in whose name they did practise the work of marriage, and therefore could not call their children by their own names, but by the name of their elder brethren. For as they raised seed to their brother, and for their brother's honour, so the Priests that have taken upon them (as it were in marriage) to govern Christ's Church, and to bring forth children, not in their own names, but in the name of their elder brother, and her departed Husband. As when they bring forth children in Baptism, as through the womb of the Church, they bring them not forth as for themselves, and in their own names, but in the name of jesus Christ, being their elder brother: even so it is in remission of sins also, in which case Christ resigneth not his authority, as though he lacked that power himself, but practzeth that mighty work by the ministery of man, which before he exercised in his own person. And as the baptzing not in the name of Peter, nor Paul, nor Apolle, but in the name of Christ the first husband of the Church, after whom the Children be called Christianes', not Petrianes, nor Paulianes, doth much set forth the honour of the eldest spouse: so it proveth and augmenteth Christ's everlasting honour and most just title in remission of sins, that till this day, no less now in absence by the service of his Priests, then before when he was present, by his own word and will, sins be, in his name and faith, fully remitted: yea, even the very function of Preaching the Gospel, which they say is meant by remitting of sins (although they say most foolishly therein, and against the common sense of all the fathers) yet even that function is Christ's still, though it be used of man in earth.  FVLKE. 
You are as plentiful in proof of that which is confessed, as you are naked and barren in proving that which is denied. The title of your Chapter we will grant you without proof, and according thereunto, we are content to decide this controversy. But you will no longer abide by it, then until you have made a show of truth, and then strait give it over, challenging a proper power, & properly to remit sins, even the power that is proper to God, and the same to exercise as properly as God doth, with deification of your priests persons, and such other arrogant assumptions. Where you say, that God doth not resign his right to the ways and works of any divine function, & give over the whole title that is due to himself in the said divine acts, I add that he doth neither resign his right nor his practise or exercise there of, he doth not give over his whole title, or any part or portion thereof. When you go about to demonstrate your proposition, you say that Christ resigned his room, but not his right. A pretty collusion of words, but a matter full of her eticall meaning. For Christ resigned neither his room nor his right, when he ascended into heaven, but set himself down in the throne of magnificence, that he might fulfil all things, with his glorious an gracious presence, by which he continueth with his Church unto the end of the world. Neither hath he need of any substitute or vicegerent, to exercise any point of that office, which is proper to the universal head of the universal Church: neither can any mortal creature exercise the office of the head of the whole Church, because it is a mere divine power, by everlasting right, as you confess, proper to our saviour Christ, that from him, as from the head, life and all powers of life should flow into his whole Church, and every true 
Eph. 4.  member thereof. And therefore whatsoever from the beginning he hath exercised in his own person, he doth not now practise by any other, but still by himself and in his own person. But the office of teaching which in his humanity he exercised and before his incarnation was exercised, by the Prophets and Priests, he hath committed to his Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, and Teachers, unto the end of the world: but that one man should rule his whole Church, either by doctrine, or discipline, whereunto it is not possible for him to have an eye, and overseeing, Christ hath never appointed: but as he hath appointed several teachers, so also hath he ordained several governors. And no more possible it is, that one man should rule and govern all the Church, than it is possible that one man should teach all the Church dispersed, as it is now, and hath been of old, over all the face of the earth. But that Peter or any other man should rule the Church in Christ's stead, you say it proveth much, that Christ is head of the Church according to his manhood. That Christ, who is God and man, is head of his Church, it is a Christian confession: But that Christ is head of his Church according to his manhood, I see not how it differeth from flat Nestorianisme, or Arrianisme. For whole Christ is head of his Church, according to that he was head thereof before his incarnation, and flesh assumpted, yet intended: and he is head of his Church according to that he filleth all in all, Ephes. 1. It is one thing to say that jesus Christ, or the man jesus Christ is head of his Church, another thing to say, that Christ is head of his Church, according to his manhood. Beside, I know not what human head ship you ascribe unto Christ, that make him head in respect of such external regiment as may be exercised by man, and yet by no one man alone, but by many men, at once, in this dispersion of the Church: all which acknowledge Christ to be their only head, because they must govern the Church by his word only, and by laws framed agreeable unto the same. That the Protestants bring forth children to Calvin or Luther, it is nothing but tailing without reason. For the Protestants are willing to depart with any pretence of right or honout, so that God may have his whole glory by such means as he hath appointed. Therefore according to Saint Augustine's allusion, they beget children by preaching of the Gospel unto Christ, and not to themselves. The function of Preaching. you say, is Christ's still. If you mean, that he is the author of the doctrine preached, and so the only master and teacher of his Church, it is true but this function the Protestants claim not; but to be ministers appointed to declare this doctrine in the world. This function as a part of his humiliation, hath he clean given over, since his ascension, and appointed in his stead, Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, and teachers, to exercise the same function, to the edifying of his Church, until the end of the world. You charge us to say, that the function of Preaching is meant by remitting of sins: which we say not: For Preaching extendeth further, than the remitting of sins. But we say, that by preaching public, or declaring privately, as the case requireth, the grace and mercy of God in pardoning all penitent, and believing sinners, the minister of God doth remit sins in the name of Christ, while the pardon pronounced by him, is of as great force to assure the repentant sinner of remission of his sins, as if Christ himself should declare it out of heaven: wherein we speak neither foolishly, nor against the common sense of all the fathers, as by some of their writings alleged before I have plainly declared.  ALLEN. 
And they that are most tender in outward words of Godshonour, will yet seem to occupy that his proper function with out all derogation to his right therein. But in deed their preaching, which is their remission of sin, is not the power of God to salvation, but it is his permission for our great punishment. The lawful doctrine of Christ's Church, is truly no less theproper work of Christ, then is forgiveness of sins, & yet it is with out controlling of novatians & Heretics, exercised by man's ministery in earth. S. Augustine saith hereof thus: Christus est qui docet, Cathedram in coelo haber, scholaipsius in terra est 
De discipl. Christiana ca vlt.  & scholaipsius corpus ipsius est. It is Christ which teacheth, and he hath his pulpit in heaven, and his school in earth, and his school is his body the Church. Christ doth not then resign up his office in preaching, no more than he doth his authority of pardoning: no man succeeding him in either of the rooms, but occupieth both under him in his Church, which is his inheritance for ever: the which Church holdeth by him as a school to teach truth in, as a court and judgement seat to pardon or punish sins in. Thus he.  FVLKE. 
The proper function of Christ, which is to be the only author of the true Doctrine, that is taught in the Church, none of us will presume to occupy; we leave that blasphemy to the Pope, and the popish Church: but the Gospel which we preach, is the power of God unto salvation in the remission of our sins, revealed in this age by the singular mercy of God, to the undoubted salvation of many thousands. The outward preaching of Christ's Doctrine, is not the proper work of Christ, but common to all his true and faithful servants, the Prophets, Apostles, and their successors, bishops, Pastors, and teachers. It is Christ, as Austin saith, that teacheth inwardly by his spirit from heaven, and is the author of the doctrine that is taught on earth: in which respect he saith, He that heareth you, heareth me, etc. But it is the voice of man that uttereth this Doctrine in the outward ears of men, and not the voice of Christ.  ALLEN. 
But to bear down the adversaries of truth fullly, we will join with them touching the sacrament of extreme unction, the sacrament of baptism, and such other, in which they cannot, nor do not deny, concerning one of them, but man without all derogation to God's honour, remitteth sins. And how can it here seem strange, that in the sacrament of penance God should by man's office remit mortal crimes, seeing it cannot be denied, but God useth, not only man's ministery, but also the external service of bare and base water, which is much inferior by nature and dignity to a Priest or any other man, to take away sins both original and actual, in the sacrament of baptism: in which sacrament, seeing aswell the Priest is the minister, as the water an instrument, whereby God remitteth all sins, be they never so many and grievous, whether they be committed by their own act, or by our father's offspring, why doth it dishonour God any more, that the Priest should be the minister of remission in the sacrament of penance, than it doth by as great an office almost, in remitting of sins in the sacrament of baptism? Again, read the Epistle of S. jamer, and you shall find the Priest made a minister, the oil an instrument in the extremity of sickness, 
Cap. vlt.  to forgive sins: how much more is the priest, without any imparing of God's power, the worker under him of our reconciliation, and pardoning in the sacrament of penance: in which especially the grace of God is given above all other sacraments, to that only end and purpose.  
I may be more bold to use this comparing of sundry Sacraments together, because not only Saint Ambrose refuteth the Father of this fond heresy by the same reason, but also because most of the Doctors of the Church do confess, that she ever had these ways to remit man's sins by, without derogation to Christ's sovereignty herein, of whom only she holdeth her right, as well in the sacrament of penance, as in baptism or extreme unction. Saint chrysostom saith Neque enim solùm cùm nos regenerant, sed postea etiam condonandorum 
De Sacerlib. 3.  nobis peccatorum potestatem obtinent: infirmatur (inquit) inter vos aliquis? Accersat presbyteros Ecclesiae. Neither have Priests power in baptism only, but afterward also they have good authority to forgive our sins: Is any man feeble amongst you, saith he, Call for the Priests of the Church, let them say prayers over him, anoint him with oil, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. But this sacrament instituted by God's word, and Christ's authority, used of old, and well known to all the Fathers, is now become nothing in our building. Sin is now a days so favoured, that no sacrament may be abiden for the release thereof. The very express words of Scripture can take no place, where flattering of wickedness and fantasy ruleth to the contrary.  FVLKE. 
Touching extreme unction, we shall speak anon: but of baptism we say, that to speak properly, man baptiseth with water unto repentance, as an outward seal of the forgiveness of sins: Christ only baptizeth with the holy Ghost and with fire, actually, and effectually to purge and cleanse our sins. Of the sacrament of penance, we must first be resolved, before we can acknowledge any office of man to remit mortal crimes therein. If Christ had instituted a sacrament of penance, as he hath of baptism, we would acknowledge the like effects in the one, that we do in the other. Concerning the anointing with oil, spoken of in Saint james, whereunto besides bodily health, remission of sins was promised, it was a sacrament, while that special gift of healing continued, but no institurion of perpetual continuance. chrysostom citeth this text of Saint james to prove, that not only in the sacrament of regeneration, but afterwards also, the Priests hath power to remit sins, not only by teaching, and admonishing, but also by help of prayer. But of any perpetual sacrament, there is no mention in him, neither was it instituted by our saviour Christ, with any commandment of perpetual continuance, as baptism & the lords supper are, but only so long as the gift should continue. Neither doth Saint james give it in charge, as a perpetual sacrament, but only admonisheth the Church to use that benefit of healing, so long as it should remain with men.  ALLEN. 
There be some that affirm, this annoiling to have been a miraculous practice to take away the diseases of the sick, and therefore that it did decay with the working of other the like miracles, which after the spring of our religion were not usual. But that is a fond gloss. For I ask of them, whether the people then Christianed, were instructed, or rather commanded, to call for the Apostles or others, to heal them miraculously of their diseases, or whether all Priests had the gift of working miracles in the Primitive Church? If they say, yea, touching the first piont, then as well were they charged to send for them to revive them, after they were dead, because the Apostles so could do when they same occasion, and so did by some. But that is plain absurd and false, that ever Apostle gave in charge to any man, much less to make a general precept (as S. james here doth) to seek after miracles: for that were to tempt God. And for the second, they are not so unreasonable to answer me, that all Priests could work miracles, which is a several gift of the holy Ghost, from the power of their ministery, and therefore Saint james would not have charged the sick persons to have called indifferently for Priests, to heal them miraculously, the gift of miracles being not common to them all, nor perpetually promised to any of them all. Again I would know of them, whether there was any miraculous healing that had the remission of sins joined unto it, or to the external creature, by which they healed any person? If they say yea: than it followeth, that the Priests might by the office of that creature, heal a man of his sins, which they affirm to be blasphemy, and dishonour to God. But to what absurdity so ever you bring them, they will not confess mortal men in external Sacraments to remit sins.  FVLKE. 
You are better advised now, concerning Caluines judgement, of the oil, where of Saint james speaketh, than you were when you wrote your defence of purgatory: for there you were not ashamed to affirm, that calvin did expound it for a medicinable salve, or ointment to ease the sick man's sore. But now let us see how you will prove, his interpretation to be a fond gloss. First you ask, whether the people then christianed, were instructed, or rather commanded, to call for the Apostles or others to heal them miraculously of their diseases? I answer, they were admonished by the Apostles, that they might use the benefit of that special gift of healing, and that is manifest by the words of Saint james. secondly you ask, whether all Priests had the gift of working miracles in the primitive Church? I answer, I cannot tell of every one: but that in every Church some had the gift of healing, it is most probable, in the Apostles time. And therefore Saint Iames willeth not one Priest, but all the Priests or Elders of the Church, to be called for. But against my first answer, you object that by like reason they were charged to send for them to revive the dead, & that to seek after miracles were to tempt God. I reply, the gift of raising the dead, was very rare, insomuch as we read but of two that were raised by the Apostles themselves, Tabytha by Peter, and Eutycus by Paul. And Saint james willeth not the Apostles, which were not in all places hand, but the elders of the Church, which were in every Christian congregation, to be sent for. Neither is it a tempting of God to seek after miracles of healing, at their hands, to whom God hath given that gift. To your second objection, I answer, that albeit every Priest had not that gift, whereof as I cannot affirm, so cannot you deny of certainty, yet it is certain that in every congregation of the dispersed jews, to whom 〈◊〉 writeth, there were some that had that gift, as it is manifest by the promise that he maketh, that the prayer offaith shall give health to the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up. But howsoever it be, if there were any miracles of healing, that had remission of sins joined to it, or to the external creature, the Priests might by that office of that creature, heal a man of his sins, which they affirm to be blasphemy, etc. I answer, Saint james his words are plain, from whence remission of sins cometh properly. The oil was a seal of assurance, both of bodily health, and of remission of sins, with are the cause often times that man is visited which sickness and bodily infirmity, but not always, as our saviour Christ showeth of the blind man: therefore he saith, if he have committed sin, it shallbe forgiven, meaning if he had this bodily infirmity laid upon him for some greivos sin. For otherwise there is no man but sinneth. and whom God may justly punish for his sin, although he deal more mercifully, with his children, who though they want not his fatherly chastisement, yet he doth not always lay upon them the cross of bodily affliction.  ALLEN. 
In the sacrament of baptism they will not stand with me openly: for they will seem to acknowldge the forgiveness of sins thereby, and I think by the ministery of man to, though in their private schools, yea and in their open blaspemoous books, the whole pack of Protestants and zwinglians deny that sacrament also to remit sins, both acknowledging that children may be saved and be received to heaven without it, & avouching that sin remaineth still in the children after their Christendom, though God will not impute the same unto them for the hindrance of their salvation. Which false Doctrine is the ground of their more subtle opinions touching only saith, and imputed justice, and other their pelting paradoxes concerning man's justification, which I cannot now stand upon. Would God the ignorant sort of their followers could see through the dunghill of this confuse Doctrine. For these have ever, besides the flourish of their faith that they make abroad amongst fools, an other more improbable which they keep for the strong ones at home, that will no more be offended to hear the Turkish, than the christian faith. And so had the Epicure, as Tully teacheth. For pleasure of the mind gathered by contentation and contemplation of heavenly things was his chief God and extreme end of his endeavours abroad, but his dearlinge● at home had the pleasures of the bodily lusts, and wantonness for the end of all goodness.  
Well, but I will reason with them upon the ground of their outward profession, that baptism is a sacrament, in which truly sins be remitted by the ministery of men, and without all dishonour of God, seeing it was Gods own ordinance & appointment. But hear S. Ambrose again, I pray you, encountering 
Ibidem.  in this matter with our men's masters: Cur baptisatis (saith he) per hominem peccata dimitti non licet? in baptismo utique remissio peccatorum omnium est. Quid interest, utrum per poenitentiam, an per lavacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent? unum in utroque ministerium est. Sed dices, quia in lavacro operatur mysteriorum gratia: quid in poenitentia? non Dei nomen operatur? Why do they baptise, if man may not remit sins? for surely in Baptism all sins be remitted: and what difference (I beseech you) whether Priests challenge this gift to be theirs in baptism, or in penance? The ministery of man is like in both. But you will reply perchance, that in baptism the grace of the ministries worketh: And what worketh, I pray you, in penance? Doth not God's name bring all to pass there also? Thus he. But here, good reader, mark diligently in this doctoures words, as also in other the like of all ancient Fathers, that penance is not here taken for any virtue either moral, or theological, which is in a private man, when he amendeth or changeth his purpose, or former evil life to the better: whereof there was some shade amongst the heathen, & is now both commended in scripture, and given man by Christ's graces not only afore the remitting of the sacrament of baptism, if the party were in case of actual deadly sin, but also goeth alway, as a neccssary preparative, before sacramentali confession, and is called in our tongue properly, repentance: this Doctor therefore speaketh not of this kind of penitence, but of a public act of the Church, touching the reconciliation or repairing of man's state defiled after his baptism by grievous crimes, in which by priests judgement the sins committed be either pardoned, or punished. And this must be called repentance only, or the amendment of life, as Heretics do term it, to confound the Doctrine of God's truth & Sacraments: but it is an external and visible act-on appointed by Christ in the 20. of Saint john, to reconcile sinners by that form of absolving, which the Church useth in the name and invocation of God for that purpose. And therefore, having the grace of God and remission of sins joined unto it by Christ's promise, it must needs be a sacrament, as baptism is: which all the fathers do insinuate, when they make penance to be one prescribed ordinance of Christ, to forgive sins no less than Baptism is. Neither was it the preaching of the Gospel, nor the inward sorowfullnes or repentance of former sins, that Novatus did condemn: but it was the sacrament of penance, and act of absolution, by the priests ministery, which he so much abhorred, and meant wickedly to remove. For which cause as he was justly condemned of heresy by the Roman & Nicen Councils, so were you, Master Protestant's, both then in them, and since in your Masters, Wiclife, Luther, calvin, and the like, accused by God's Church and Counsels.  FVLKE. 
We will never grant, that baptism, or any sacrament doth remit sins properly: but God by sacraments ministered by man, doth assure us, that he doth remit our sins. unproperly, we may say the sacraments, and the ministers of them do remit sins, because the one is the mouth of god, to declare his sentence of forgiveness of our sins, the other are the seals of god, to confirm our faith in his promises of remission of sins. To hold that the children of Christian Parentsses, in whom is no contempt or neglect of baptism, cannot be saved, and received into heaven without it, is to abridge the power of God, as though he could not give salvation without sacraments: neither hath he declared any necessity of his will to the contrary. For the text of john. 3. Except a man be borne again of water, and of the spirit, pertaineth not to the external sacrament of baptism, more than the like saying of our saviour Christ john. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink hu blood, you have no life in you, pertaineth to the sacrament of the lords supper.  
That Original sin remaineth in the baptised, though it be not imputed to the elect, both the scripture and our own experience teacheth. Saint Paul did see another law in his members, withstanding the law of his mind, and bringing him captive under the law of sin, which is in his members. The Doctrine of only faith iustifing, 
Rom. 7.  and of imputed justice, although they be the Doctrine 
Rom. 3. 4.  of the holy Ghost, your blasphemous spirit calleth, pelting paradoxes, as your slanderous malice, not only imagineth, but stoutly affirmeth, that we have a secret Doctrine of Epicurism, which we teach secretly to certain strangers at home, etc. Whereof let God, who knoweth all secrets, be judge and revenger. Your argument of remission of sins in baptism, confirmed by testimony of Saint Ambrose, we grant, that it is no dishonour to God, that man should remit sins, by that power which god hath granted him. But whereas in his words, you would have the good reader to mark, that poenitentia doth not signify repentance, but your popish sacrament of penance, I will desire the good reader to mark the contrary. For Saint Ambrose by making objection doth plainly distinguish mysteriorum gratiam, which is in baptism, from panitentia, in which is only the invocation of God's name, or the name of God advouched, for assurance of remission of sins: which whether it be in the solemn act of reconciling those which are open penitents, or in preaching: and declaring remission of sins to all truly repentant sinners, it cometh all to one end. For there is not in that repentance mysterium gratiae, that is, a promise, adjoined to an outward sacrament, which spiritually worketh that, which externally it representeth. Yet you say, there is an external and visible action appointed by Christ 20. of Saint john. to reconcile sinners by the form of absolving, which the Church useth, etc. Here wanteth nothing, but proof of that you say. Here such syllogisms, as you make at the end of every Chapter, were necessary to demonstrate this conclusion. For we can see no external or visible action inthese words, whose sins you retain they are retained, & whose sins you remit, they are remitted, therefore no sacrament. But all the fathers, you say, do insinuat the same, when they make penance one prescribed ordinance of Christ, to forgive sins by, no less, than baptism. I deny this argument, for every ordinance of Christ whereby sins are forgiven, is not a sacrament. But it was not the preaching of the Gospel, or repentance (say you) that Novatus did condemn, but the sacrament of penance, & act of absolution, by the priests ministery. Epiphanius and others do writ, that he denied remission of sins, to the that had fallen into idolatry, after baptism, although they were repentant. Other more favourably write of him, that he denied only the outward reconciling unto the Church, or act of absolution by the priest's ministery, for them that had so fallen. But of the sacrament of penance, there is no mention in any ancient writer of those, or much later times. Therefore Wiclif, Luther, Calvin, and we all do subscribe to the ancient Church's condemnation of Novatus for an heretic, and his opinion for heresy.  ALLEN. 
The doctors therefore, as I have said, join lightly in talking of remission of sins, Baptism, and penance, and some time extreme unction also, that you need not doubt but they took them all three for sacraments working remission of sins. For they do not talk of inward repentance, but of an action solemnly exercised in God's Church, whereof the priest, as you hear by Saint Ambrose and Saint Chysostome, is the minister. And therefore Epiphanius saith, that the Church hath two penances, one for an other, insinuating thereby, the double act of the Church and sacrament, whereby sins be remitted. As Saint Augustine also saith by the novatians, quòd poenitentiam denegant, that they deny penance. By 
Heres. 38. Lib. 4. Cap. 30. de Sap.  which penance, Lactantius teacheth us also a way to discern the true Church from the false, as in which there is both confession and penance for the healing of man's frailty. Whereby it is evident, that this penance which they speak of, was an usual ceremony, and holy sacrament of the Church, whereby sins were remitted.  FVLKE. 
Such a sacrament, such arguments: the Doctorsjoine lightly in talking of remission of sins, baptism, and penance, and sometime extreme unction: Therefore you need not doubt that they took them all three for sacraments. And yet you have not brought one Doctor, that speaketh of extreme unction. For chrysostom speaketh of the effect of prayer made by the priest, to obtain remission of sins, although the gift of healing be ceased in the Church. And it is manifest that Saint james speaketh not of extreme unction, which you minister to none, but such as are ready to die, when he promiseth restitution of health to the diseased that were anointed in those days. Again his unction was only with oil, yours is with I cannot tell what slibbersauce consecrated by the Bishop. That anointing was not extreme, when it might be repeated, as sickness might often take hold of men. Yours is not extreme, it may be repeated: if it may not be repeated, it is not the unction that S. james speaketh of Of the sayings of Epiphanius, and Lactantius, we have spoken before, which it were needless here to repeat. That there was a ceremony used in reconciling of public penitents, I deny not: but that there was a sacrament of penance, you have hitherto brought no good evidence. For your argument to prove, that they talk not of inward repentance, but of an action solemnly exercised, because we hear that the priest is minister, is no good evidence: for the priest is minister of the word, as well as of the sacraments.  ALLEN. 
Which truth Saint cyril uttereth most plainly for our purpose, treating thus upon the words of institution of this sacrament: Cùm ipsiremittunt aut detinent, spiritus qui habitat in eyes, per ipsosremittit aut detinet: fit autem id duobus 
In 20. 10. Serm. de nupt. Christ.  modis: primùm, Baptism, deinde, Poenitenita. When the priests remit sins, or retain them, the holy ghost which which dwelleth in them doth remit or retain by them. Which is done two manner of ways: first in Baptism, and then afterward in penance. Saint Cyprian also said, that the holy ghost worketh remission of sins, whether it be in baptism, or by other sacraments. Whereby he clearly uttereth his meaning, that there should be more sacraments than one, instituted by Christ for that purpose. In all which congruity of God's holy working, by diverse sacraments, the remission of sins, we conclude against heresy, that the priesis power herein, derogateth no more to god nor our saviour, in the sacrament of penance, then is doth before by baptism, or after by extreme unction: in none of all which, as I have proved before, Christ doth resign his power and proper jurisdiction to the priests, but continuing everlastingly in like pre-eminence and power as before, worketh his grace and remission of sins, in all these Sacraments, by the priest's service and ministery, that it maybe yet as truly, as in his life time said, and so shall be to the world's end, Christ baptizeth, Christ shriveth, assoileth, and anointeth sinners, for remission of their offences: Although jesus doth none of these now, nor much did in his life time, but his disciples then, and his disciples now, do the same holy actions in his name.  FVLKE. 
There is nothing in Saint cyril's words to prove that there is a sacrament of repentance beside baptism but that the holy ghost doth remit or retain by his ministers by two ways, namely by baptism, & by repentance after baptism. For if you will restrain the word poenitentia, to your pretended sacrament, than this absurdity will follow, that seeing there are but two ways by which the spirit remitteth sins, they are not remitted without that sacrament, neither by true contrition of heart without any sacrament, not by receiving the lords supper, nor by your extreme unction. Therefore poenitentia in Saint cyril signifieth repentance, and is necessarily required in them, that shall obtain remission of sins by participation of the lords supper, or by faith without any sacrament. That Cyprian maketh more sacraments than one, instituted by Christ, to assure us of remission of sins, it is true. For by the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ worthily received, we have this assurance also, as well as by the sacrament of baptism. To conclude, the power of Christ or of his ministers, granted by him, we deny not, but the institution of the sacrament of penance we require, to be showed out of the holy scriptures, if you will have us to believe it.  ALLEN. 
To conclude this matter, I argue thus. It is no dishonour to God for the priest to remit sins, as well original as actual, of all sorts and gravity in the sacrament of Baptism, by the Protestants own confession, nor by extreme unction, by the warrant both of scripture and Doctors: Ergo, remission of sins is not unlawful, nor dishonourable to God, to be given by the priest in the solemn sacrament of penance. And further I join with them thus: The word of God is much more plain and express for the priests warrant to remit sins in penance, then in Baptism: but they may lawfully do it in Baptism, Ergo they may do it no less lawfully in penance. Compare the words of institution of them both, and judge yourselves of your indifferency and sincerity, by what right you remove the one, and retain the other. I pray God, you seek not shortly to baptise us only by your preaching, as you now will only absolve us by the same. But truly, I think you be in the case that Saint Ambrose took Novatus your forefather to have been in, not only for that, that he saith, Novatus where he listed would admit power to priests of remission: But 
Vbi supra  where he listed not, there the grace given to them must be dishonoured to God. So that of things equally commended by scripture, and commanded by God, the good man must have choice for his tooth, not only in this point, I now compare our choice men, but much more in that which followeth in the said Saint Ambrose of all novatians, whom he trippeth prettily with this term, delicati mei: My delicate gentlemen (saith he) with their lusty looks, and swelling hearts, can not abide in their bravery to look upon a poor caitisse weeping for his sins abundantly, appareled mourninglie, in sad and sorrowful company, and so forth. And this surely is the disease of our days, which hath not only infected the unfaithful, but also hath made these holy things loathsome even to the better sort of God's people. So much is man's will and pleasure pampered, where God's word and writing should be only followed. For the necessary bearing with such frailty, even of the good, almost generally, the Church of God hath sought and allowed much more gentle remedies, than the world had wont full gladly to bear for their grievous sins.  FVLKE. 
We confess that it is no dishonour to God, that the minister, lawfully authorized, should remit sins in such sort as he hath commission, namely by declaring the will of God, that they are by him remitted, and giving the seals or sacraments of God for more full assurance of performance, as even the Master. of the sentences teacheth out of S. Augustine, and other Doctors, whose words I will set down, that the indifferent 
Lib. 4. dist. 18.  reader may see, how you agree with your own principal pillar and post of Popery, who in this point, seemeth to be more sound yet then you. Cùm veraciter 
de bapt. contr. Don. lid. 6.  ad Deum converso, peccata dimittuntur, ab iis dimittuntur quibus ipse veraci conuersione coniungitur. Spiritus sanctus ea dimittit, qui datus est omnibus sanctis sibi charitare cohaer entibus, sive se noverint corporaliter, sive non. Similiter cum alicuius tenentur peccato, ab eis tenentur, quibus ille cordis pravitate disiungitur, sive notis corporaliter, sive ignotis. Omnes enim mali spiritualiter à bonis seiuncti sunt Ecce hic dicit peccata dimitti vel teneri à sanctis viris: & tamen spiritum sanctum ea dimittere dicit: & quod maiori consideratione dignum est, idem etiam dicit, quod Deus per se vel per sanctos suos, tantùm dimittit peccata, ait enim sic: sacramentum gratiae dat Deus etiam per malos, ipsam vero gratiam non nisi per seipsum vel pcr sanctos suos, & ideo remissionem peccatorum, vel per seipsum facit, velper ipsius columbae membra, quibus ait: si quibus dimiseritis, aimittentur. Ecce quàm varia à doctoribus traduntur super his, & in hactanta varietate quid tenendum? Hoc sane discere & sentire possumus, quod solus Deus dimittit peccata & retinet, & tamen Ecclesiae contulit potestatem ligands & soluendi: Sed aliter ipse soluit vel ligat, aliter Ecclesia Ipse enim per se tantùm dimittit pecca tum, quia enim animam mundat ab interiore macula, & à debito aeternae mortis soluit. Non autem hoc sacerdotibus concessit, quibus tamen tribuit potestatem soluendi & ligandi: id est, ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos unde Dominus leprosum sanitati priùs per se restituit, deinde ad sacerdotes misit, quorum judicio ostenderetur mundatus. When sins are forgiven to him that is truly turned to God, they are forgiven by them, to whom he himself by true conversion is joined. The holy ghost forgiveth them, which is given to all the Saints, which are knit together in charity, whether they know one another corporally or not. Likewise when any man's sins are retained, they are retained by them, from whom, he is disjoined by pravity of heart, whether they be corporally known or unknown. For all evil men are spiritually separated from good men. Behold here he saith, that sins are forgiven or retained by the Saints or holiemen: Ana'yet he saith, that the holy ghost doth forgive them, and that which is worthy of greater consideration, the same Doctor also saith: that God by himself or by his Saints only remittesh sins. For thus he saith, The sacrament of grace god giveth even by evilmen, but grace itself, not but by himself he causeth, or by the members of that dove, to whom, he saith if to any ye shall forgive, they shall be forgiven. Behold how diverse things are delivered by the Doctors, concerning these matters, and in this so great variety what is to be holden? This truly, we may say and think, that only God forgiveth sins and retaineth, and yet he hath given power to the Church of binding and losing, but otherwise doth he himself bind and lose, otherwise the Church. For he himself by himself only forgiveth sin, because both he clensith the soul from the inward spot, and looseeh from the debt of eternal death. But this he hath not granted to the priests, to whom notwithstanding, he hath given power of binding and losing, that is to say, of declaring men to be bound or loosed, whereupon our Lord did first by him seifere store the Leper to health, asterwards sent him to the priests, by whose judgement he might be declared to be cleansed. Thus writeth the Master of the sentences, with more to this effect.  
In your second argument brought to prove, that penance is a sacrament, I deny the Antecedent, that there is any words of institution, to prove your sacrament of penance. Where you fear vainly, lest we will shortly seek to baptise by preaching, as we will absolve you only by the same, you declare nothing, but your hard conceit of us. For we are old enough to know the difference of the ministery of the word, and the sacrament a sunder. To compare us with Novatus, either in the one point, or in the other, you have no cause in the world, but your own malicious and slanderous humour. For we do not admit the power of remission where we list, but wheresoever God hath granted it, and in what manner soever, he hath appointed it to be exercised. We are ready to receive the public penitents, that with plenty of tears and other outward signs, do testify the inward sorrow of their hearts, conceived for their grievous and notorious sins. Yea we receive them, whose offences being not openly known, do nevertheless secretly bewail their sins. And therefore that you say of pampering man's will, and pleasure, where God's word and writing should be only followed, seek among your own sect, where it may take place. For sins openly committed, or known to be committed, we hold that they ought with open confession to be chastised, for satisfying the Church, that is offended by them: As for sins committed in secret, whereby our neighbour is neither hurt nor offended, it is sufficient that they be acknowledged, with hearty repentance before god, if the offenders conscience be not troubled with further doubtfulness about them. In which case we hold that it is convenient, that he should consult with the learned minister, for his further comfort and satisfaction, out of the word of God, concerning the remission of his sins.  ALLEN. 
And therefore the manner and order of Penance hath been diverse in sundry ages and countries: sometimes solemn, which could be but once taken in all a man's life sometimes not solemn, but yet open and public, which might be iterated, as ofien as man's mortal sins so required: other times private only, betwixt the priest and the penitent: which is now used, and long hath been, in a manner gencrallie through the whole world. Of all which diversities we will not now entreat, nor for our matter the consideration of them is virie needful, seeing that in all sorts, and in every of the sundry forms of doing penance this is a most firm principle, that the penitent had remission of sins, for which he did penance, no otherwise but by the ministery of the Priests. Therefore the substance of the matter being one, of the diversity of use, and circumstances which may be according to the time and manners of men altered, we need not much to care. Baptism was once used with solemnity, at two or three principal feasts of the year, for the time so required then, and the condition of the people, yet the same sacrament of Baptism ministerea'now privately as occasion serveth by the birth of every child, is of the same force and grace now, that it was then. Wherein to reprehend the wisdom of God's Church, that is assuredly ruled by the spirit of God, is overmuch wantonness of will, and sedition not tolerable.  FVLKE. 
There hath been diverse manners and orders appointed for the punishment of sins, and for trial of the offenders true repentance & conversion unto god: but all these prove not any sacrament of penance. The manner which the Popish Church doth use in the exercise of this pretenced sacrament, is partly tyrannical, while you enforce men to confess their secret sins, to a popish Priest, where of there is no commandment in the holy scriptures, and partly it is an encouragement unto security, & a pampering in sin, while the frail and foolish man is persuaded, that by the heard confession & absolution received of the Priest, he is clearly discharged of his sins, and may be toti es quoties, with a little pretty penance enjoined him for satisfaction. But it is a firm principle (you say) that in all forms of penance, the penitent had remission of his sins, for which he did penance, no otherwise but by the ministery of the Priests. A heavy case where the Priests were strait laced, and would retain sins, where God was ready to forgive. What is this else, but to restrain the mercy of God to the ministery of unskilful men. At what hour so ever the sinner doth truly repent, the Lord remitteth his sins. But man can not always see, or by outward tokens judge of true and inward repentance. Therefore it is a firm principle, that God often times forgave sins to the penitent, otherwise then by the ministery of the Priest. Men may err in exercising outward discipline, but God's remission is not stayed upon man's error. Where you conclude that as the diverse use of baptism hindereth not, but that in substance it is the same: so the sacrament of penance, notwithstanding the divers forms, and manners, in which it hath or is now used, Your comparison is nought. For baptism is a sacrament of Christ's institution, your popish penance can never be proved to be a sacrament. Therefore your argument à paribus is of no force. Whether the Church did well to restrain baptism to certain solemn feasts, I will not here dispute.   

That remission of sins hath been joined often, both in the law of nature and Moses, to some external ceremonies and sacrifices, whereof in the old law Priests were appointed ministers.  
THE NINTH CHAP.  
LEt no man, upon consideration of these things, either reprehend or maruatle at the counsel and ordinance of god, 
Fxternal sacraments or deined and man's ministery used for good causes.  that he being able to govern his creatures, and amend or correct, pardon or punish every man's misdeeds by himself, without all help and service of any other his subject natures, that it pleaseth his wisdom for all that, to forgive sins no otherwise in his Church, but by external orders joined to man's ministery in sundry sacraments. In sober consideration of these things, man's reason may well be satisfied, if he can conceive, that it is the honour and estimation of our kind with almighty God our maker, that he governeth not our affairs only by himself in his own person, but also that we be ruled and led in the ways of Gods will, by one an other: that the majesty of God, which most appeareth in regiment, and in remitting of sins, in correcting of 〈◊〉 and judgement, might be clearly seen in our kind amongst ourselves, to our comfort, and Gods no disgracing nor dishonour at all. And therefore Saint Augustine saith of the like doubt of some in his days, which would not be taught by man, but by Gods own spirit: Abiecta esset humana conditio, si per homines hominibus 
In prefa. de doct. Christ.  verbum suum Deus ministrare nolle videretur. Quomodo enim verum esset, quod dictum est: Templum enim Dei sanctum est quod estis vos, si de humano templo Deus responsa non redderet? Man's state were too base, if God would not, that his word should be ministered by one man to another. For how should this truly be spoken: the temple of God is holy, the which temple you are, if God gave not answers by man's temple? This is one great respect surely, especialle since the second person in Trinity took upon him our nature. by whom the worthiness of mankind is much increased, and more fit than ever before to serve each other, as in the works that be divine, and properly by nature belonging to God himself. another respect why we should by external sacraments and man's ministery receive grace and remission of sins, is the singular respect had by God of our infirmity, as well of mind, as body. For the mind requireth in her assured deserving of damnation some external token, by which she may have good cause to hope of mercy and grace. For where I know and assure myself that original sin is remitted by baptism, when I have once received the same, than I am in no further doubt of myself nor any damnation for that sin, which by the promise of God I have learned, shall be washed away thereby, as by an external instrument in which he conveyeth that benefit to my soul, if my soul by indisposition and unaptnes do not hinder the assured fruit thereof: So where after Baptism man's life is often defiled by grievous sins, and God highly displeased therefore, what an infinite treaskre it is, and how great a comfort to have an assured help thereof, wrought so by man's ministry in a visible action. that I may know (saving for mine own lack of connenient disposition) my sins to be forgiven, and God's mercy and favour to be obtained again. We may conceive easily what a passing comfort it was to the parties that heard sensibly, by the outward words of Christ's own mouth, thy sins be forgiven thee. The said persons believing in Christ, and lamenting for their sins past, might have had some hope of remission by Christ, though he had said no such thing unto them: yet he that perceiveth not, what comfort of conscience, what inward joy of mind, what rejoicing of the spirit they must needs have, that had Christ's testimony and blessing in plain terms, for the same purpose, he seethe nothing at all.  FVLKE. 
That God hath used in all ages, to testify and assure men, of his grace and mercy, to the forgiveness of their sins, by outward signs, and sacraments, and that for diverse good causes, we are always ready to acknowledge. But that it pleaseth his wisdom, (as you say) to forgive sins no otherwise in his Church, but by external orders joined to man's ministry, in sundry sacraments, we do utterly deny. For that were to tie the grace of God to the outward sacraments, which is most free to work, either with them or without them. The penitent publican, an example of persons, that seek 
Luk. 18.  justification, had his sins forgiven him, by the only grace and mercy of God, taken hold of by faith, without all external orders, joined to man's ministery in any sacrament. For if we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. And jesus Christ is our advocate 
1. joh. 1. a. & 5.  with the father, to obtain remission of sins. And if any man shall see his brother sin a sin not to death, he shall ask, & he will give life unto him that sinneth not unto death. By all which testimonies, and an hundredth more, that are every where to be found in the scripture, it is most clear, that God forgiveth our sins otherwise, then by external orders or sacramets. Again the sacrament of Baptism is a seal and assurance unto us of the forgiveness of our sins, not only such as are come mitted before baptism received, but even unto our lives end, whensoever we are truly penitent for the same. Also the sacrament of the Lords supper in which we are spiritually fed with the body of Christ, which was given for us, and with his blood, which was shed for the remission of our sins, is a sure pledge, token, and seal of the remission of our sins committed after baptism, that we need not the Popish sacrament of penance for the same.  ALLEN. 
As for myself good Christian Reader, I am not so free from sin, woe is me therefore, nor so void of man's affection, but as often I hear in the sacrament of penance the Priest, who to me then is Christ in full power of pardoning, saying the words of absolution over me, me think truly I hear the sweet voice of Christ saying with authority: thy sins be forgiven thee. Whereof no mortallman shall ever forbid me to take hope and singular trust of remission of sins with the passing comfort that thereon ensueth. All these that are without Christ's fold, seek not to hear his voice, for all their load of sin, from the heavenly and entire joy whereof they be as far, as from the conceiving of of the felicity to come in heaven itself. But let them assure themselves, that Christ writeth with his holy finger all their sins, though to Christ they will not now confess them, whiles they refuse the power ofremission that he both had, and hath in earth to the worlds end: without which outward solemn act of penance, man should either despair of God's mercy, and live in fear intolerable of everlasting perishing, which often fall to timorous consciences: or else, which is now of days more common, men would live in such passing presumption, and vain security of heaven, that they should never, till the very last breath of their evil time, either be sorry for sin, or seek to do any good work at al.  
This time shall testify with me herein, and the very diversity that is between these our corrupt conditions and the holy studies and endeavours of our forefathers shalltestifie: but the days that yet are to come must need, most feel the smart of it, when these that now have the direction of other men's steps shall be gone, by whom for old discipline, wherein they were brought up. Some signs and remnants of virtue be continued in the world. For when they be spent, and our yonkers that never heard of the Church's discipline, but have had their full swinge in sin, with the instruction of a most wanton doctrine, shall be the principal of the people, if this division so long continue (which God forbidden) into what terms shall truth and virtue be then brought? Me think I see before hand the lamentable state of things, and in a manner behold the fruit of our only faith, of this bold presumption of God's mercy, of removing the discipline of penance, of refusing the only ordinance of God for remission of our mortal sins. Evil are we now, but a thousand parts worse shall they be then, which in long nouseling in this naughty learning of liberty shall be in perpetual woe, and have no feel nor sense thereof. And all this must needs follow upon the lack of these outward acts & external ways of pardoning & punishing offences, and intended either for man's present comfort and solace, or else to keep in awe the wantoness of the world by the rod of outward discipline, which in the Church hath ever especially been observed in the sacrament of penance.  FVLKE. 
When we hear the authorized ambassadors and messengers of reconciliation, pronounce in the name of Christ, according to the scriptures, and promises of God, that our sins are forgiven us, whensoever we be heartily sorry & truly penitent for the same, we have sufficient warrant out of God's word, to assure ourselves of remission of them, with inestimable joy & comfort of conscience. But for the sacrament of penance, or the Priest to be Christ unto us, in fullpower of pardoning, or to have any words of absolution said over us, because we have no ground in God's word, whatsoever imaginary pleasure you have therein, we find nothing that is of force to stay a weak conscience, to comfort a troubled spirit, or to heal a broken heart. To confess our sins to Christ, who only knoweth whether our repentance be unfeigned, God forbidden, that we should refuse. But to confess them to a Popish Priest, or any lawful minister, if they be secret, there is no law or commandment of God to require us. If our conscience be not satisfied, about any offence that we have committed, how we should declare our unfeigned conversion, or repentance, we may use the advise of the Godly and learned pastor, who is able out of the word of god toresolue our doubts and quiet our conscience. That the want of Popish penance will drive all men, either to desperation, or security and presumption, it is affirmed, without any proof. God be praised, experience crieth out of the contrary side. But rather the doctrine of popery concerning the pretenced sacrament of penance, is manifest occasion of security, in them that are carnally minded; of desperation, in them that have a tender conscience. For the one thinketh he hath an easy remedy for his sins to discharge them into a priests ear: the other considering the impossibility of confession, and unsufficiency of the satisfaction, that be parts of this counterfeit sacrament, can find small comfort in the priest's absolution. Your blasphemous railing at the doctrine of God justifying by faith only, which you call the instruction of a most wanton doctrine, and the naughty learning of liberty, is sufficiently confuted by the examples of many thousands of God's Saints, who acknowledging that they are justified in the sight of God, by faith only in the merits of Christ, are more fruitful in good works, than all the popish hypocrites in the world. Where you term your popish penance to be the only ordinance of god, for remission of our mortal sins, you utter not only a gross contradiction of the truth taught in the holy scriptures, but also directly contrary to the doctrine of all Papists, and even of yourself. For what say you, M. Allen, were you well advised, when you said, that penance is the only ordinance of God for remission of our mortal sins: If it be as you say, than the sacrifice of the mass is not the ordinance of God for remission of our mortal sins, as all Papists beside you do hold and maintain: and extreme unction, whereof you have lately affirmed the contrary, is not the ordinance of God for the remission of our mortal sins. The discipline of the Church, whereby wantoness are kept in awe, is not excluded by removing the sacrament of penance, which is neither the discipline of the Church, nor the power of remission of sins granted to the ministers of the Church.  ALLEN. 
It were too tedious, further to declare, how these external means of working inward grace and remission of sins, be necessary for the outward man, which is sometimes refreshed, otherwhiles bridled, by things answerable, as well outwardly to the body, as inwardly to the mind. It is needless also to treat at large, how it is necessary for the one and visible common wealth of Christ's Church, to agree together in all points thereof, and be notoriously known from all other sects and sorts of peoples, that do not profess Christ's name, by the outward practise of all holy functions, by which God hath promised to give grace, remission, and sanctification to all his faithful subjects. All these considerations with many the like may serve and satisfy the quiet peaceable children of Christ's Church, that have learned to rest in Christ's ordinance, though the causes thereof be not to them opened.  
As for other, that are ever doubting, and never settelledin their faith, that always be learning, and yet never attain 
2. Tim. 3.  to knowledge: that had rather understand much, then believe a little, such fellows I must not so much instruct, as by the scriptures and examples of all ages, control and confound, if I may. Let them therefore be charged, that God hath not only used from the creation of man to bring up all people that serve him, in some especial ways of outward worshipping, but hath also, these many worlds, delivered man from original and actual sins, by external sacraments and sacrifices, not without the priests especial procurement and ministery therein. What did circumcision instituted by God in the law of nature, commanded to Abraham and his seed, and continued so many ages, even till Christ's law took place? Did it not after a sort remit sins? Was it any other thing, but an external work in the face of the world? Was it ministered by man? Did it derogate any thing to the honour of God, which by himself for his own glory and namesake was ordained? And afterward in the law of Moses, which did draw near unto Christian usages, by many actions of sacrifices and solemn rites instituted purposely to represent & foreshow the state of our present Church, there we have plain proof of certain outward orders instituted for procuring remission and pardon of sins: not without especial mention of the priests ministery in every of the said actions. Whereof Saint Paul speaketh to the Hebrews, in these words: Omnia penè in sanguine mundari, ac sine sanguinis effusione non esse remissionem. That all things 
Cap. 9  were in a manner cleansed by blood, and that no remission could be had without blood. For so in the 17. of Leviticus, they were charged to abstain from drinking of blood: 
levit. 17.  because, sanguis animalium propiaculo est, the blood of beasts stood for an expiation and cleaning of sins. And therefore, amongst the divers orders of sacrifice, mentioned 
Cap, 4.  in the said book of their ceremonies, there be divers express ways by sacrifice to purge men's sins: some for the Priests sins, other for the Princes, and the third for the common people's offences. And one wait for their sins committed of ignorance, an other for crimes wittingly done. Finally some for thoughts, and other some for evil deeds, with many more diversities, as you may see in the said book. In all which it is ever expressed, that the Priest is not only the minister in the said sacrifice (as needs must be) but also, with offering of the said oblations for sin, that he must make prayer especially for the offenders, and every of them severally, that God may pardon them of that sin, for which they offer their sacrifice. For always after the form and manner of offering be prescribed, according to the diversity of the people's offences, it is added. Rogabitque pro eo sacerdos, & pro peccato eius, & dimittetur ei. And the Priest shall pray for him, and for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him. And again, Agat poenitentiam pro peccato, & offerat de gregibus agnam sive capram, orabitque pro ea sacerdos, & pro peccatis eius. Let the soul do penance, and offer a kid of the flock, or an ewe lamb, and so the priest shall pray for that soul and the sins thereof.  FVLKE. 
That the ministry of man in all ages of the Church and external sacraments, have been instituted of God, as well for the exercise os men in his worship, as for the assurance of remission of their sins, it is evermore confessed of us, and that now also the like be ordained since the coming of Christ in the flesh. Where fore your long discourse to prove, that we never denied, is vain, except you mean it against the Anabaptistes, Libertines, Swinkfeldians, and such other condemned heretics. That in all the sacrifices of the law that were appointed for sin, the priest is ordained the minister not only to offer the sacrifice, but also by prayer to obtain remission of sins, it must be referred unto the only high Priest, whereof the jewish Priesthood sacrifices, altars, etc. were sacramental figures, and shadows. And therefore by that the Priests had then to do according to the law, you do unfitly gather, that the like is to be done by Priests under the Gospel. For that jewish priesthood, is wholly translated unto our saviour Christ, who hath it perpetual and without any passing from him to others. The ministery of the Gospel hath no sacrifices to offer for sins, but to preach the only sacrifice of Christ's death, and the propitiation of our sin by him, and thereof to assure our infirmity more plentifully, to deliver unto us the seals of our justification by faith, instituted by God, the sacraments of baptism, and the lords supper.  ALLEN. 
All which, doth not only cowince, that Gods will was, that remission of sins should be had, by external sacrifices, penance and oblation, and that not otherwise, but by the priest's mediationn, but also that there was an order even then often in the old law, that man should utter his sins, with the grievousness thereof and circumstances, that according to the difference of the faults the diversity of sacrifices and expiation might be used, and that the priest severally might pray for the remission thereof. In all which doing, I will not now dispute, whether a carnal jew that then had no further respect: but to the present observation of those commanded Ceremonies and sacrifices, did obtain thereby remission of sins, by which the soul is reconciled to God: or else only a freedom from some temporal punishment due to the same by law amongst the people, or otherwise by God's appointment: but most sure it is, that the spiritual sort, which from those sacrifices did not separate, but include Christ's blood, in respect whereof, all their sacrifices had their force, though not so full as ours now have, nor with 
August. supra Num. 25. & Leo serm. 3. de nati. Domini.  so ample promise of God's grace: yet sure it is, that they by faith in Christ, and yet not without those observations, which it was necessary that they should then keep, were sanctified and purged verily from their sins, nor without the ministry of the priest, whose prayer and sacrifice was requisite for the same purpose.  
Neither were all external ways of God's worship and remission of sins, abrogated by the Gospel, as some do falsely feign, but, to the external elements, that now even in the new law be instituted for grace and remission of sins, God's favour is given and granted a great deal more fully, and sanctification more plentifully. For else, let us with penance reject baptism, and other ways of God's service, that be not only internal, & separated wholly from outward elements of water, bread, wine, imposition of hands, oil and such like: which if they dare not do, how can they anouch, that God remitted not sins by external sacraments? or, not by the hands of priesthood? seeing without that order, none of these holy acts can be duly ministered. Seeing then that almighty God of his passing wisdom and careful providence towards man, hath remitted sins in all ages, as by the ministery of man in outward solemn ceremonies, as by circumcision in the law of nature, and by the same in Moses government, besides many other sacrifices used and commanded for divers sins actual both greater and less: how can it be otherwise, but there should be sacraments ordained in the new law: first for remitting of original sins, and other of all sorts at our, first entrance into Christ's house, & then an other, for more grievous actual offences committed by relapse after baptism? For else the law should not fully in figure foreshow the truth, & great grace of our sacraments to come, whereof lightly, by God's appointment it did bear a plain and express resemblance.  FVLKE. 
All this doth convince, that there was an order, that man should confess and acknowledge his sins before God, but not in auricular confession to the Priests, but by the open act of sacrificing. As for the uttering with the grievousness thereof, and the circumstances whereby you would make a resemblance of your popish shrift, you find not in the law any thing, by analogy whreof you might commend it. diverse kinds of sacrifice indeed were appointed for diverse states and persons of men, as for the high Priest, the whole congregation, the Prince, or the private man, but no difference in the same state, or kind of men, of sins, with the grievousness and circumstances thereof. Leu. 4. Nevertheless by faith in Christ, those sacrifices were seals and assurances unto the godly, of remission of their sins, as full as ours, and with as ample promise of God's grace, as concerning the effect, which was the salvation of their souls, but not with so full, ample, or clear declaration, of the effectual means thereof as we have. The ceremonies of the law were abrogated by the Gospel, not that we should be without all ceremonies, but that in stead of the multitude of dark, & obscure figures, the goodness of god hath bound the society of the Christian people, with sacraments, in number the feewest, in observation the easiest, in signification the most excellent, as baptism the sacrament of regeneration, and the lords supper, the sacrament of heavenly and spiritual nourishment, and preservation in the same state, of the children of God, into which we are sacramentally incorporated by baptism, the only perpetual sacraments, commended and commanded in the new Testament, and which comprehend in them, the whole mystery of the dispensation of God, for our eternal salvation, by which is sealed up unto us, the doctrine of the remission of all our sins, committed either before baptism or after, and of that natural corruption, wherein we are all borne & conceived, which we call original sin.  ALLEN. 
But besides these for said sacrifices, in which sins were after their manner remitted, there was another usual act practised by the Priests, which did more properly prefigur at and represent our sacrament of penance, and the Priest's authority in the new law, concerning the judgement of our souls, and the exact discussing of our misdeeds. For neither circumcision nor sacrifice of old had any face of power judiciary, and therefore could not exactly represent our Priest's power given them by Christ, for the judgement of our sin. But the authority given them by the law to discern, shut up, and separate the leprous and unclean persons, from other the clean of the people, did plainly represent our sacrament of penance: whereunto by the Doctors it is often resembled, wherein order is taken the 13. and 14. of Leviticus, the authority and practise 
levit. 13. & 14.  thereof being often allowed by our Master Christ, who observed the laws so humbly therein, that he always, after be had healed any such separated persons, sent them for all that to the Priests afterward, to offer their oblations prescribed by the law for the same.  
And that this power pronouncing the lepers to be sound or sore, to be separated or admitted to the company of the faithful; did represent the power of priesthood, concerning the leprosy of our souls, not only S Bede, but S. Chryso also doth declare. For he talking of confession of sins to the Priest, writeth thus: Quamuis leprae immunditiam iuxtalegem sacerdoti pandamus, atque ad eius arbitrium qualiter & quanto tempore iusserit, purificari curemus. The uncleanness of the more grievous leprosy (he meaneth deadly sin) let us open to the Priest, and according to his arbitrement, howsoeùer he commandeth us, let us seek to purify ourselves. And. S Jerome: Quomodo ergo ibi leprosum sacerdos mundum vel immundum fecit, sic & hîc alligat, vel soluit Episcopus & presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt velnoxy, sed pro officio suo cùm peccate rum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, quine soluendus. Look therefore (saith he) how the Priest maketh there in the old law a person clean or unclean, so here doth the Bishopor Priest bind or lose, not binding the innocent, nor losing the guilty: but when he hath heard the variety and diversity of our sins, than he knoweth, whom to lose, and whom to bind. This place is very plain for confession and distinct reckoning of every of our mortal sins. The which the holy Doctor proveth to be necessary, because else the Priest of God could not do justice in punishing and pardoning, but should of ignorance either bind the good, or lose the wicked. In which case almighty God that knoweth exactly the worthiness and unworshines of all persons, will not allow the priests sentence that did proceed of ignorance, but will himself give judgement according to the partics deserving. For the Priest is but a minister of his sacrament, and not the Lord and instituter thereof he must therefore conform himself to Gods will, whose place he there occupieth. For as the Priest in the old law could not make the clean person to be unclean, no more can the Priest of the new law bind the innocent, or absolve the person that continueth in sin. Nevertheless the Priest worketh more properly under god, touching the remission of sins, because he is appointed the minister of grace and reconciliation, than the Priest in the old law. For there in the making of any man whole of the leprosy, or other uncleanness, the Priest had not to do at all, but only when one was made whole by god, it was the priests office to discern the same, to show it unto the people, and to admit him again into the fellowspip of theresidue, after oblation made for that purpose. For to them it was not said, whomesoever you punish with leprosy, or make unclean, or whomesoever you heal & make clean, he shallbe whole: no such promise was made unto them. For it was enough, that it might represent and have resembling of our sacrament of penance, and of the marvelous authoritte given in the new law to our Priests, concerning the remission of sins. For to ours it was not said, you shall discern whom I have loosed already in heaven, and show to the world whom I have retained bound, or not forgiven in heaven: but, as Hilary saith, the Priest's sentence is made prejudicial to God in heaven, not the priests forgiving is first, and then Gods afterward, as two distinct actions in time, but because the Priests, is prius quoad nos, as the Philosophers do term such things, and by the priests work, which is plain to us, we straight come to the knowledge of Gods like work of remission in heaven, which is prius natura, because God's action is the principal, and man's must necessarily depend thereon. But eye both God's work and man's run jointly together in remission of sins, as all infirmental & secondary causes never make a several action from the principal, but they concur jointly to every effect, as it is most plain in all sacraments, whereby god worketh grace, the which grace as it proceedeth from god, so it cometh by man's service, not by distinct operation of the principal, and the serving and secondary causes, but in one work & undivided operation of them both. For in baptism God worketh the remission of original or actual sins first, and then sendeth the party to the fount afterward, that the Priest therein may declare what god hath wrought before, or to work the same again, that so the party might have a double grace of remission, first by Ggd, and then by the Priest: for that were foolish to surmise. But god by the Priest's ministery and the sacrament doth rewit sins so, that the action hereof, at once sitly may fall upon them both.  FVLKE. 
The power of remitting sins, as you say, is often compared by the ancient Fathers, to that authority which the priests of the old law had, in discerning and pronouncing, who were lepers and who were clean, which is to give a sentence declaratory, to pronunce, who was stricken or healed by God, not a proper power to strike or heal, and yet the words of the law are, that the Priest should make him clean, or unclean: meaning that he should so declare him with authority, to be either separated, or received as the case required, according to those directions, and descriptions, which he had in the law of God. For though other men by the instruction of the law, might discern a leper from a clean person, yet no man had authority to put him out, or to receive him into the congregation but the Priest. In citing the authority of Saint Bede, and Saint chrysostom, you use such confusion, as I know not whose words you pretend to allege, saving that Bede hath written upon Saint Iames epistle, chrysostom hath not. In citing therefore of Saint Bedes testimony, it may seem that you follow some other men's dictates, collection, or notebooke, and not your own reading. For Bedes words, upon that place of the 5. of Saint james are these, differing both in words, and sense from your allegation, Si ergo infirmi in peccatis sint, & haec presbyteris ecclesiae confessi fuerunt, ac perfecto cord ea relinquere atque emendare sategerint, dimittentur eyes: Neque enim sine confessione emendationis, peccata qucunt demitti. unde recte subtungitur, Confitemini ergo alterutrum peccata vestra, & orate pro invicem, & saluemini, In hac autem sententiailla debet esse discretio, ut quotidiana leviaque peccata alterutrum coaequalibus confiteamur, corumque quotidiana credamus oratione salvari. Porro gravioris leprae immunditiam, juxta legem sacerdoti pandamus, atque ad eius arbitrium, qualiter & quanto tempore insserit, purificari curemus. Therefore if the sick be in sins, and shall confess them to the elders or priests of the Church, and with perfect heart shall endeavour to forsake and amend them, they shall be forgiven to them. For without the confession of amendment, sins can not be forgiven whereupon it is rightly added, Confess therefore your sins one to an other, that ye may be saved. Now in this sentence this discretion ought to be, that we confess, our daily light offences to our equals, one to another, & that we should believe that by their daily prayer, we are saved. But the uncleanness of the more grievous Leprosy, according to the law let us open to the priest, & according to his arbitrement, how, and how long time, he shall command, let us have regard to be purified. In this testimony of Saint Bede, though I do not altogether allow his judgement, and every man may see, how he restraineth in some case to the priest, that which the Apostle speaketh of confessing one to another in all cases mutual offered, yet we may see his sentence contrary to your citation, quamuis Leprae, etc. although you have amended it in your translation. Also that it is confession, acknowledging, or purposing of amendment that Saint Bede counteth necessary for them, that shall obtain remission of their sins, and not a particular declaration of all sins counted in a priest's ear. thirdly that the text of Saint james is to be understood directly of mutual confession, of one man to an other, although in cases of grievous sins he allude to the law of Leprosy.  
In translating the place ofIerome, you render for peccatorum, sins, where you should rather translate it sinners, that peccatorum may be the antecedent to the relative that followeth: but as for auricular confession, or distinct reckoning of every of our particular mortal sins, this place maketh nothing in the world, as very plain as you say it is. The reason you add of doing justice in punishing or pardoning, is of your own imagination. For Jerome saith, that by hearing the diversity of sinners (speaking of them that have openly offéded) and finding some to be penitent, some to be obstinate, or dissemblers, he may know who is to be bound, and who to be loosed, which he cannot do by hearing the diversity of their sins. For if their sins be as red as scarlet, if they be truly penitent, they are to be loosed and if they seem never so small, if they be not repentant, nor humbly contrite in heart for them, they are to be bound. While you seek to make a difference between the authority of the minister in the Gospel of pardoning sins more properly, than the priest cleansed the Leper, you declare that you are not content with the sentence of Saint Jerome, nor of so many of the ancient fathers as made the case all alike. And where you say, it was not said unto them, as unto ours, whomsoever you punish with Leprosy, or make unclean, he shall have a Leprosy, you speak beside the book. For this authority was given to them, that they should make clean or unclean, and whomsoever they made clean, he was admitted into the congregation, and whomsoever they made unclean, he was so accounted of all men. Yet properly they made neither clean, nor unclean, but declared them so to be, according to the institution which they had of God's law, in exercise whereof although they erred, and so the party might be received or refused, according to their error, yet was he neither clean nor unclean in deed by their sentence, but by the work of God, and so be sinners. The blasphemy, that you ascribe to Saint Hilary, I have confuted before. Your distinction of prius natura, and quoad nos, is foolish sophistry in this case. For except God first work in our hearts by his holy spirit faith of forgiveness, we can have but small comfort, in the priest's absolution. That God doth always 
De bapt. count Don. 1. 4. c. 1.  wörke at the instant in which Baptism is ministered, it is false, if Saint Augustine's doctrine be true, who reacheth that Baptism may be received out of the Church, but cannot have effect but in the Church, that is, if the party came from heresy, and submit himself to the Catholic Church.  ALLEN. 
And so it is in penance, where God the principal, and the priest the secondary or serviceable cause jointly forgive together. For so the words of institution of this sacrament do most plainly convince: whose sins you shall forgive, they beforgiven, he speaketh in the present tense, as though he would say: as you forgive them, or retain them, ipso facto, I forgive them, or retain them. And therefore, saving the honour of the Master of the sentences, he had not good consideration when he did hold (as some other did after him) that first man's sins be remitted by God in his contrition and purpose to come to the sacrament, and afterward, the same remission to be declared by the priests, and as it were confirmed by his approbation in confession: being therein partly deceived by the saying of Saint Jerome before alleged, whom he took, perchance, to have compared in all respects, the office of the old Priest, for the view of the unclean, and ours of the new law, in the judgement used upon man's sins: and partly, as I take it, by a sentence of Saint Augustine, which compared together the receiving of Lazarus by Christ, and the Disciples losing his bands, to Christ's pardoning of sins first, and then the priests losing the same afterward in the face of the Church. This, to be short, is a piece of Saint Augustine's sentence: Quid ergo facit Ecclesia, cui dictum est: 
De verbis Domini. fed. 8.  Quae solueritis in terra, erunt soluta? nisi quod ait Dominus, soluite illum, & sinite abire. What doth the Church then, to whom it was said: uhatsoever you lose, it shall be loosed? Marry, she doth that which our Lord said, lose him and let him go. Wherein Saint Augustine meaneth nothing else, but that Christ is the principal agent, and that he properly doth give life to the soul, the Priest for all that, being his servant and minister therein, and therefore by nature is a latter agent in the same work, which else, as I have proved, joinilie pertaineth to them both, for that the effect of a Sacrament cometh not to any man till it be received, except it be in certain cases of necessity, where the parties can not obtain the external rse of the appointed element, though they earnestly desire the same.  
But how the old Priests office touching the Lepers of the law, representeth our sacrament of the priests ministery in the new Testament, and how far ours, which is the truth, excelleth that which was but a shadow of ours, Saint chrysostom doth excellentlic declare: and therewith fully may put out of doubt all men, that our Priests properly work remission of sins, as ministers in the same divine action, and not as declarers or approovers of that effect, which before was wrought 
De Sacer. Lib. 3.  by God himself. Thus he saith: Corporis lepram purgare, seu veriùs dicam, haud purgare quidem, sed purgatos probare, judaeorum sacerdotibus solis liccbat: at verò nostris sacerdotibus, non corporis lepram, verùm animae sordes, non dico purgatas probare, sed purgare prorsus concessum cst: Quamobrem mco judicio, qui istos despiciunt contemnuntque, multò sceleratiores ac maiori supplicio digni fuerint, quàm fuerit Dathan unà cum suis omnibus. That is to say: To purge the Leprosy of the body, or else to say as it was in deed, not to purge, but to discern who were clean, was granted only to the Priests of the old law: but it is fully granted to our Priests, not to purge the bodily lcprosie, nor to snew who are cleaner purged, but utterly to purge the very filth of man's soul. Therefore by my judgement, whosoever do contemn or despise them, they are much more worthy punishment, than the disobedient Dathan with all his company. Thus saith this holy Father, with many words more, which were worthy all consideration, and remembrance in this case, if the matter were not so abundant, that it may not suffer over long abode in one place, lest injury be done to other branches of the cause, no less necessary to be known for full upholding the truth thereof.  FVLKE. 
Your argument taken of Christ's speaking in the present tense is vain, and of no force to prove, that the forgiveness or retaining of God and man concur in one instant. For in the latter sentence of retaining the verb is of the preterperfect tense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but in the same sense that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former sentence, which is of the present tense proving God's forgiveness to go before man's declaration thereof. The Master of the sentences is little beholding to you, that doc so flatly condemn him of error, whereas he did write nothing in this point, which was not commonly received in the Church of Rome in his time, and long after. For among the articles in quibus Magister non tenetur, there is no fault found with his sentence, of the priests power in binding and losing. Gratian also declareth, that learned and religious men in his time, were in diverse opinions about that point and other, concerning this popish sacrament of penance. whereby it appeareth that the sentence which you hold, was not accounted Catholic nor universally received in their times. If Peter Lombard the Master of the sentences was deceived by the sayings of Saint Jerome and S. Augustine, they were first deceived themselves. for other sense out of their sayings, than the master of the sentences gathereth, no reasonable man can conclude. And it is but one only saying of S. Augustine that he citeth, not divers: and not only out of Augustine and Jerome but out of other writers also, as Ambrose, and Cassiodorus, and Gratian citeth maniemore: all which you must answer, if you will take part against the two principal posts of popery, Gratiane, and Lombard, with all them that take their part. But you think one saying of chrysostom enough to wipe away all their authorities and reasons, and to prove that the priests of the new law do purge the fitlh of the soul, and not only declare it to be purged, as the Priests of the old law did of the leprosy of the body. The meaning of chrysostom is, that the Ministers of the Gospel have power, not only to pronounce & declare the penitent sinner to be delivered from the uncleanness of his soul, unto other men, that he may be accepted into the congregation, if he have been excluded: but to assure the penitents conscience in God's name, of the remission of their sins, wherein he doth much more for the benefit of his soul, than the priest of the old law, who only declared unto other men how the party was to be taken, who knew in himself whether he were sick or healed, before he came to the priest. Therefore where chrysostom saith, It is granted unto the priests of the new testament, not only to try & approve the soul to be delivered of the filihines thereof, but altogether to deliver it, he meaneth of delivering by assuring the conscience of the penitent sinner of God's mercy and forgiveness, whereby he is thoroughly, or altogether delivered therefrom: whereas otherwise it were blasphemous, & conrrarie to Chrysostom's judgement in many other places, if the whole act of purging or delivering the soul from filthiness were ascribed to man, as the words seem to sound.  ALLEN. 
Now upon all this foresaid declaration, it may be well understood, that our adversaries have small reason in reprehending the ordinance of God, who is proved in all ages and diusities of laws, to have given grace and remission of sins, not only by external elements, and actions of diverse ceremonies, sacraments, and sacrifices: but also ever to have dispensed the said benefits, by man's service and ministery, without all dishonour of his parsonage, or diminishing his own proper interest and right therein. And so much more hath he used in the new law of the Gospel, the ministery of the priests and external sacraments, to the procuring of the said benefits, by how much more, our law, our sacraments, our sacrifices, and our priests, be glorified and preferred in respect of the old, and 
Chrisost. ibidem.  have the more abundant blessing of the spirit, and Christ's blood, which by these conduits, most largely flow to all men's fouls, that despise not the blessed benefit thereof.  
Yet if they will not be satisfied herewith, because they surmise our new law to be so spiritual, that man may look for nothing at man's hands, but all immediately of God and his spirit, for by him they will be taught the meaning of the scripture, by him they will be baptised, by him they must have remission and absolution, and at length they are become Anabaptistes, and refuse to obey Prelates of the Church, and Princes of the world, because by God they will only be ruled and 
In prolog. l. de doct. Christ.  punished for their offences: Against such proud cogitations, as Saint Augustine termeth them, God hath purposely, to teach humility and obedience one to another, both in temporal causes, and especially in spiritual matters pertaining to men's sins and souls, he hath (I say) for the nonst, not only instituted these ways of base creatures used in the sacraments, to attain his grace by, but also hath made man the master almost and executor of his meaning in the same, whose service he useth so much for our salvation, that he sticked not to send his most chosen and dearest even of those days of grace and plentifulness of the spirit, to be instructed by man, and made ready for his ministery no otherwise but by man. A strange thing surely, and to be well noted for this purpose, not only of our adversaries for their confusion, but of the good studious readers for their instruction, how that Paul being prostrate, and miraculously called by jesus Christ's own voice, was yet sent by Christ himself, to confirm the authority of his priests, to Ananias, of him to receive as well instructions, as the sacraments of the Church, for his incorporation to the faithful, and remission of his sins paste. And again, that Cornelius, 
Act. 9  though his prayers were heard, and his alms acceptable to 
Ibid. 10.  god, & an Angel sent unto him to declare the same, which was a sign of high reputation, was yet charged to go to Peter, of him not only to receive the sacraments, but a so by his instruction to learn, what to believe, what to hope, & what to love, saith S. Austin The Eunuch, might by god himself in his own country, have been schooledor sanctified, & yet it pleased his majesty 
Ibid. 8.  so to use the matter, that by Philip both the sense of scripture, & the sacrament of Baptism should be understanded & received at once. So hath God in all ages confirmed the authority of his holy priests and ministers, & so hath he ever checked by his own holy examples the presumptuous temptation of man, who ever hath disdained man's office and ministery for his own salvation. Therefore let no man marvel, why Christ hath given authority to man to forgive sins, seeing he hath from the beginning, not remitted ordinarily otherwise then by man's service, nor any way else, for the most part, but by external acts of ceremonies, sacraments, and sacrifices, that we may learn thereby humility, & obedience to God's ordinance, by the warrant whereof they all (as I have proved) challenge all manner of interest in the government of our souls.  FVLKE. 
That God by external sacraments, and by the ministery and service of man hath dispensed his spiritual benefits, it is proved but so, that his grace was never bound, either to the one or to the other, but that he may, and hath bestowed the same most freely, according to the good pleasure of his will. The fancy of the Anabaptistes, that would seem to look for all things immediately from God, despising the sacráments and ministery of man, we abhor and detest, no less than you. We marvel not why Christ hath given authority to man to forgive sins, whose ministery he hath used in all times, both by preaching his word, and by administering his sacraments, to dispense his mysteries unto the rest of his Church upon earth: But that God doth not ordinarily remit sins but by the ministery of the priest, nor any way else for the most part, but by external acts, we marvel how you are able to prove it, seeing God often times useth many other occasions, than the priests ministery, to bring men to repentance, and without all ways of external acts or sacrifices, to assure men of the remission of their sins by faith. But this admiration altogether passeth the reach of our capacity, to understand how it may be convinced, That all priests by warrant hereof, may challenge all manner of interest in the government of our souls. It were much to challenge any interest in government of our souls, which is proper to our Saviour Christ: but to challenge all manner of interest in government, it savoureth to strongly of Antichristian presumption, that any Christian should abide it. The Apostles in exercise of their calling, acknowledged themselves, not only to be the servants of God, but also of the Church: for we preach not ourselves (saith the 
2. Cor. 4.  Apostle) but jesus Christ, and ourselves to be your servants for jesus Christ. It is a ministery, and not a Lordship, that we must exercise, not as temporal Princes, who although they may be said after a sort, to serve the common wealth, yet they are so servants, as they are also Lords. But the ministers of the Church in their spiritual government, are servants, and not Lords, as Saint Peter testifieth: therefore they cannot justly challenge, all manner of interest in the government 
1. Pet. 5.  of our souls. For if they might, we should have many Lords of our souls, and deny God, our only 
jud.  lord, our Lord jesus Christ our only saviour.  ALLEN. 
Much more might be said out of diverse holy fathers, much out of the decrees as well of bishops as councils: the authority whereof no Christian Catholic did ever reject. In Lateran, in Florence and in Trent councils, Penance is decreed to be a sacrament, and of necessity, to all such as fall into deadly 
Can. 21. Tract de Sacra. De poen.  sin after Baptism. The minister thereof by their holy determination, is a Priest lawfully ordered: the remission of sins is in them all, challenged to be his right, not only by declaration that God hath or will pardon them, nor by the preaching of the Gospel, nor any other ways newly devised by the Devil to delude Christ's ordinance, and misconstrue his plain words: But properly is the priest proved, to be the minister under God of reconciliation, and therefore may, by his words, absolve men, in the said sacrament, of their sins, as in Christ's own stead, whose honourable judgement seat, byhis commission, and the holy ghosts assistance, he doth lawfully possess. And so surely, do Gods ministers hold this power and pre-eminence, that no power or dignity of man could ever be so well warranted and approved by Gods own word, and practise of all ages and nations christened, as this is. All the Princes in earth, though they reign full righteously, can not yet show the tenth part of the evidence, that God's priests can do, for their title of remission of sins: and it booteth not me in this my base state to admonish them, though I heartily wish they would consider it, that the contempt of spiritual jurisdiction and the dignity of priesthood, salleth at length to the difobedience of all temporal power, and wicked contempt of civil government also: as in these disordered days, we may to our great grief behold, when, under pretence of religion and God's word, whereof they have no more respect surely then the Devil himself hath they have disobeyed not only Peter's keys, but also Caesar's sword: Neither let any man think, that, where the bands of conscience, the awe of god's majesty, the fear of hell and damnation, the hope of heaven and salvation is removed that there can be any civil obedience long. Fear of man is much, flattery of man is more, but bond of conscience passeth them both. Thiu therefore have Gods priests made account of their calling, and long practised power of remitting and retaining the people's offences.  FVLKE. 
Whatsoever you can say out of any ancient fathers will not prove your intent of shrift and pardons: your sacrament of penance, is but a young beginner that can show no ancienter councils, for her authority, than Lateran, Florence, and Trent, the eldest of which is not much above 300, years old: and yet in the place you send us unto, Confession is straightly commanded, but penance is not decreed to be a sacrament. Declaration of the pastor by preaching, that God will pardon all penitent sinners, you count to be away newly devised by the devil, to delude Christ's ordinance, and misconstrue his plain words, as though your develishand blasphemous wit and tongue, were able to prove out of Christ's words your popish shrifts, penance, and satisfaction to be of Christ's ordinance, whereas it hath been the doctrine and practise of all the Prophets and Apostles, to preach remission of sins to all that truly repent, and were turned unto God, and by authority of their commission received from God, to assure all such of perfect forgiveness, of all their sins. To compare the evidence, whereby they hold this authority, with the right of princes whereby they hold their crown, & so far to prefer it, is a point of antichristian and anabaptistical presumption. For civil Princes have as clear evidence in the scripture to avouch all their lawful authority, as priests have to exercise that whereunto they be called. Otherwise the particular calling of every priest must lean upon aiust title, as well as the advancement of princes into their throne, and much more, or else they have not so great evidence, as you talk of. For a Prince being in the throne, by what right soever he possesseth it, is to be obeyed: But a minister of the Church, except he be lawfully called, is not to be regarded. You have great cause to complain of these days, that under pretence of God's word and religion, temporal and civil power is disobeyed and contemned, where there is no such manifest examples of such disobedience & contempt, as in your popish Northern rebellion, and in an hundredth other vile attempts, to wring the sceptre out of the hands of Gods anointed, and your most lawful Prince, under pretence (in the devils name) of religion and the Catholic Church. But such religion, and such a Church, as alloweth in Italian Priest to depose any Christian Prince from his throne, God of his infinite mercy deliver this Ileland, and grant all true subjects of the same, to yield their faithful obebience to their Godly Prince, not only for fear, but alfo for conscience.   

Here it is proved, that b mitting sins, the duty the right of the Priest in renecessarilie rife, for they of all Christian people doth him confession of every of their mortal sins unto h: as the same is also proved by the doctrine of the olie Fathers of Chistes' Church.  
THE TENTH CHAP.  ALLEN. 
ANd now I must advertise my loving breethrenof the necessary sequel hereof, which to some I know, seemeth so hard and upleasant, that the very consideration thereof hath driven many, that have not felt the sweetness of God's spirit, by which every of his commandments, be they never so rough in appearance, are made easy and delectable, to the fear, misliking, and loathsomeness of the sacrament of penance. Which, as it is, for other causes many, much abhorred of the wantoness lately departed out of the Church, and of some worldly Catholics to, that be not so zealous in following truth, as they be desirous to know truth: so it is most loathed and feared, for that in it, there is required a distinct, simple, sincere and plain confesfion to be made of every sin that is known or suspected to be mortal, unto a Priest, which is the lawful minister of the same Sacrament, with such diligent and exact examination of our consciences, as a matter of such importance doth of reason require. This is the great offence and stay, that the weaklings of Christ's Church do so earnestly respect: and so long they shall be vexed and molested in mind with the sour remembrance thereof, as they do not prove the sweet, gracious, and incomparable effect ensuing most assuredly thereon: so long shall they stumble at so small a straw, as they do not feel the burden of sin, fear the pains of hell, follow the quiet of conscience, foresee the dreadful day of judgement: so long shall they be bashful to submit themselves, to one man's most close, secret, meek and merciful judgement, as they fear not the infinite shame, open horrible confusion, and everlasting rebuke before God, Angel, man, and Devil, at the seat and sentence that shall be pronounced in the face of all creatures, which must fall to them, that close up under cover and compass of their conscience, such a number of manifold sins, whereof in that day both account and confession must be made, to their uttermost confusion. Finally, so long shall man's will and corrupted nature disobey God's ordinance herein, as he earnestly and humbly seeketh not by prayer at Christ's hands the grace and gift of obedience and repentance. For as the fulfilling of every of God's commandments cannot otherwise be had, but by his special favour, so saith Saint Augustine, or, as some think rather, Fulgentius: Firmissime tene, & nullatenus dubites, 
De fide ad Petrum. Cap. 31.  neminem hic posse hominem panitentiam agere, nist quem Deus illuminaverit, & gratuita sua mis ratione convertis. Hold this for an assurance, that no man can here do penance, except he be illumined and converted theseunto by his singular mercy. Neither doth this Doctor mean of any otherway of repentance, then is used for mortal sins after baptism in the sacrament of the Church, putting there, in a manner by express words, a double sacrament, one for original sin, that is in children only, and that he calleth Sacramentum fidei, that other for sins afterward committed, which he termeth, Poenitentiam, Penance.  FVLKE. 
That auricular confession, or popish shrift is a necessary sequel, of the power that Christ hath given to the ministers of his Church, to forgive sins, we must now see in what sorre you are able to prove In which argument, though most needful for your purpose, you have very little to say, and that nothing to the purpose in deed, either out of the scripture, or out of the ancient fathers. First you say, that shrift seemeth hard to them, that have not felt the sweetness of God's spirit, by which every of his commandments are made easy and delectable. Here therefore were convenient place for you to show, where in all the scriptures God hath commanded men to confess all their mortal sins, committed in thought, word, or deed, unto a priest of your order. But now you are as dry as a kixe, and as barren of proof as a pumisse stone of water. There be many other causes than you allege, why popish shrift is so burdenous. And the principal cause is, because it is a tradition of man, to clog the conscience with intolerable servitude. And in stead of all the causes of the contempt thereof, that you allege, so long shall every Christian man despise your auricular confession, as any thing necessary required of him, until you be able out of the holy scriptures, inspired of God, to prove that it is such an ordinance of God, as you in many words to no purpose do brag of, before you bring forth the word of God to prove it. The saying of Fulgentius is very Godly and grounded upon the holy scriptures, but that he doth not mean of any other way of repentance, then is used in your popish Church, what argument have you to show? He putteth there, you say, in a manner, by express words, a double sacrament, calling the one, sacramentum fidei, and the other, poenitentiam, the sacrament of faith and repentance. This is a strange manner of express words, to prove poenitentia to be a sacrament, because baptism is so. yea it is manifest, by his express words, that he acknowledgeth no sacramentum poenitentiae, but baptisine, Cap. 30. Firmissimè tene & nullatenus dubites, exeptis illis qui pro nomine Christi suo sanguine baptizantur, nullum hominem accepturum vitam aeternam, qui non hîc à malis suis fuerit per penitentiam, fidemque, conversus, & per sacramentum fidei, & penitentioe, id est per baptismum liberatus: & maioribus quidem necessarium esse, & poenitentiam de malis suis agere, & fidem Catholicam secundùm regulam veritatis tenere, & sacramentum baptismatis accipere. Paruulis verò qui nec propria voluntate credere, nec poenitentiam pro peccato, quod originaliter trahunt, agere possunt, sacramentum fidei quod est sanctum baptisma, quamdiu rationis oetas eorum capax esse non potest, sufficere ad salutem. Hold thou most steadfastly, and nothing doubt, that except those, which for the name of Christ are baptised in their own blood, no man shall receive life everlasting, which shall not be here converted from his evils, by repentance, and faith, and by the sacrament of faith and repentance, that is, by baptism be delivered. And for them that be of years, truly it is necessary, both to repent of their evils, and to know the Catholic faith according to the rule of truth, and to receive the sacrament of Baptism. But for infants which neither can believe by their own will, nor be penitent for the sin, which they draw originally, the sacrament of faith, which is baptism, is sufficient for them unto salvation, so long as their age cannot be ca pable of reason. yea it seemeth by this saying going imme diately before, that he speaketh in the next chapter of the first repentance that in men of discretion, might go before baptism, although it be true of all true repentance, and conversion unto God.  ALLEN. 
And let no man think, that true repentance can be in any or effectual for the remission of sins, if he follow not the appointed ordinance of God for remission of sins. For I dare be bold to say, that, as since the time that our saviours words took place: Nisi quis renatus fuerit, Except a man be borne again of water and the holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of heaven, that as since these words no man can be saved without baptism: so likewise since Christ spoke these words, Whose sins you do forgive, they be forgiven, I dare say never man was saved, nor can be saved, that either contemneth or neglecteth confession, or earnestly seeketh not for it, if he fall in relapse of deadly crimes after his baptism. I will speak it plainly, because I would have it thought on earnestly. As no man ordinarily can be saved without baptism, so can no man that ever after baptism committeth deadly sin, be saved without sacramental confession, or the earnest desire and seeking for the same. This may seem sharp to some, but this will prove true to all contemners of God's ordinance. For whensoever God worketh his gifts and grace among men, by any ordinary means appointed for the purpose, it is great sin to seek for the same eitherwithout it, or to presume to have it at God's hands, otherwise than he hath prescribed: But the sacrament of penance, and confession made to the priest, is the appointed means that God useth in his Church for remission of mortal sins: therefore whosoever thinketh to have remission immediately at God's hand, he shall first be void of his purpose, and then further be charged of high presumption and contempt of his will and ordinance. The remission of original sinner as properly pertaineth to God, as of mortal sinner: yet because Christ hath instituted a sacrament, as an instrument & means to convey that singular benefit to man, he that would now claim the same immediately at Gods own hand, and therefore neglecteth the sacrament of baptism, or would minister it to himself, without the Priest's office, he should never obtain remission of his original sin, but add to that high presumption and disobedience of god's commandment, which of itself without original sin were damnable.  FVLKE. 
No wise man thinketh that true repentance can be in any, or effectual for the remission of sins, if he despise to follow the appointed ordinance of God for remission of sins: but you shalnever prove, that shrift, or auricular confession, is a necessary, and general ordinance of god, for all that shall obtain forgiveness of sins committed after baptism. How many mortal sins are committed by children and others, where of they have no remembrance, to confess them, so that if confession were necessary, remission of those sins for them were impossible. That you dare be bold to say that no man can be saved without external baptism of water, it argueth more boldness than wisdom, except you were able to prove that the words of Christ by you cited are necessary to be understood of the baptism of water. And you are bolder, than Fulgentius, for he as you hard erewhile excepteth them that suffer martyrdom for Christ's name, before they be baptised in water. And Saint Ambrose is bold against you, to affirm, that the Emperor, Valentinianus the younger, who was slain before he was baptised, was undoubtedly saved. For comforting his sisters, he saith to them in that several oration, which he made upon the death of Valentinian the Emperor. Sed audivi vos dolere, quod non acceperit sacramentum baptismatis. Dicitemihi, quid aliud in nobis est nisi voluntas, nisi petitio? Atqui etiam dudum hoc votum habuit, ut antequam in Italiam venisset, initiaretur, & proximè baptizari se à me velle significavit, & ideo prae coeteris carsis me accipiendum putavit. Non habet ergo gratiam quam desideravit? non habet quam poposeit, & quia poposcit accepit? & ubi est illud, justus quacunque morse praeventus fuerit, anima eius in refrigerio erit? Solve igitur pater sancte munus servo tuo: quod Moses dum in Siritu vidit accepit, quod David, quia ex revelatione, cognovit emeruit. Solve inquam, servo tuo Valentiniano, munus quod concupivit, munus quod poposcit sanus, robustus, incolumis. Si affectus aegritudine distulisset, tamen non penitus à tua misericordia esset alienus, qui celeritate temporis esset, non voluntate sraudatus: solve ergo servo tuo, munus tuae gratiae, quam ilie nunquam negavit, qui ante diem mortis templorum privilegia negavit insurgentibus, quos revereriposset, astabat virorum catcrua gentilium supplicabat senatus. Non metuebat hominibus displicere in Christo: qui habuit spiritum tuum, quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam? Aut si quia solenniter non sunt celebrata mysteria, hoc movet: ergo ne martyrs, si catechumeni fuerint, coronentur, non enim coronantur, si non initiansur. Quòd si suo abluuntur sanguint, & hunc swa pietas abluit & voluntas. But I have heard that you are grieved, because he received not the sacrament of baptism. Tell me then, what other thing is there in us, but our will, but our desire? But long since, he had this purpose, that before he came into Italy, he would be dedicated, and next he signified that he would be baptised by me. And therefore, before other causes, he thought that I was to be taken. Hath he not then the grace which he desired? hath he not the grace that he called for, & received it because he called for it? And where is then that saying, the just, by what death so ever he be prevented, his soul shallbe in rest? perform therefore holy 
Sap. 4.  Father, that gift unto thy servant, which Moses while he saw in spirit received, which david because he knew by revelation obtained, perform, I say, unto thy servant Valentinian, the gift which he called for, being sound, strong & in good health. If being strooken with sickness, he had differred, yet he should not be utterly estranged from thy mercy, which was deprived by swiftness of time, not by his own will. Perform therefore unto thy servant the gift of thy grace, which he never denied, which before the day of his death denied the privileges of the Idols temples to them that rose up, of whom he might have stood in awe. There stood by a great rout of heathen men, the senate made supplication. Nevertheless he feared not for Christ to displease men. He that had thy spirit, how did he not receive thy grace? Or if this doth move, because the mysteries were not solemnly celebrated, therefore let neither martyrs be crowned, if they have not been baptised, for they are not crowned if they be not didicated. But if they be washed in their own blood, this man's will & piety also hath washed him. Again he saith speaking in an Apostrophe to him. Quis dabit tefrater, fratrem mihi lactentem ubera matris meae? hoc est, non quicunque te, sed Christus illuminabit gratia spirituali, ille te baptizavit, quia humana tibi officia defuerunt. Who shall give thee brother to be my brother, sucking the papes of my mother, that is, not every one, but Christ himself shall lighten thee with spiritual grace. He hath baptised thee, because the service of man was wanting to thee. By all which words it is manifest that S. Ambrose understood not those words of our saviour Christ of external baptism, as you do, when he refuseth not them that have a purpose and will to be baptised, and are prevented by necessity of time. But where you proceed, and dare be bold to say, that never man was saved, that either contemned or neglected confession, if you mean popish, auricular, and, as you after call it, sacramental confession, I dare be bold to say, you speak untruely: because the word of God prescribeth no such confession, as necessary to salvation. Confession of that we believe, and of our sins before God, I know to be necessary to salvation. Neither can you prove, that they which despise popish shrift, be contemners of God's ordinance: for the Minor of your syllogism that followeth, is a loud lie, that your popish sacrament of penance, and confession made to the Priest, is the appointed means, that God useth in his Church, for remission of mortal sins: for God hath appointed no such sacrament or confession, as necessary means, without the which remission of sins may not be obtained. Your similitude of baptism will prove nothing, except you can first prove, your confession to be of God's institution, as necessary for doing away sins committed after baptism, as baptism is by Christ's ordinance the seal of regeneration, by which we are assured of the remission of our sins.  ALLEN. 
And yet me think, I hear already the sound of the deceitful voices of our Preachers: It is Christ's blood that remitteth sins: Come to me all ye that are heavy loaden, and I shall refresh you. I am he, 
Mat. 1 1. Esa. 43.  saith the Lord, that putteth away thy sins, with a thousand such like: as though Christ's blood did not stand with Christ's ordinances and sacraments, as though they came not to Christ that keep the way of his will and sacraments to come unto him: as though God did not remit those sins, which in his name, and in his sacraments, and by his appointed minister, be remitted. Protestant, say plainly, will thou refuse baptism, because Christ's blood washeth away original sins? If thou darest not openly so preach, although covertly thou may chance so intent, how darest thou deceive the people, and draw them from penance and confession, because Christ's blood doth remit sins? For if the one sacrament may stand with the honour of God, and with all those places that thou bringest so deceitfully out of the scripture, why may not the other, seeing both are proved alike to be instituted of Christ? For the same self saviour which said: Come to me, ye that be loaden, and I shall refresh you: he, and no other, said, except you be borne of water and the holy 
Math. 12. joa. 3.  Ghost, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. The same God that said: I am he that putteth away thy sins, saith now to the Apostles and Priestss' whose 
Psal. 43. joa. 20, Psal. 105. jac. 5. Origin. homil. 2. super Levi. Beda super hunc locum  sins you do forgive, forgiven be they. The same Spirit of God that said in the Prophet, Confess yourselves to the Lord, for he his good, said now again in the Apostle, confess your sins one to another, that you may be saved. By which he meaneth not, as Origen, venerable Bede, and other do declare, so much brotherly acknowledging, for counsellor other causes, the grief of mind each man to his fellow, as he doth the order of sacramental confession, to be made unto gods Priests, as it may well appear by the circumstance of the letter. For there he had willed them to send for the Priests of the Church to annoile them, & straight after addeth this alleged text, of confession and praying over the sick. The which place the heretics saw to sound so many ways, as well towards the sacrament of extreme unction, as the sacrament of confession, both which they have unworthily abandoned, that they thought it not amiss, either to deny the Apostles authority and the whole epistle, as no piece of holy scripture, as Luther and other did: or else, which was after thought more handsome conveyance, to corrupt the text, and write instead of, send for the Priests of the Church, thus, call the elders of the congregation. For they thought it might sound evil, to have in one sentence, priests, Church, confession, remission of sins, release of pains for sin, annoiling, praying over the sick, and so forth.  FVLKE. 
It is no deceitful voice of our preachers, to affirm, by these, and a thousand such like texts of scripture that it belongeth to God only to forgive sins properly, satisfaction being made for them by the blood of Christ. And yet we deerogate nothing from Christ's ordinances, and sacraments, by which he worketh effectual assurance of the same. We acknowledge the ministery of the Apostles, and their lawful successors, for the remission and retaining of sins, both by preaching, and by ministering of the sacraments, instituted by our saviour Christ. But we deny and dare stand to the denial, with all the papists that hath been, are, or shallbe, that popish penance, and confession, is any sacrament, of our saviour Christ's institution: for he that said, whose sins you forgive, forgiven be they, hath not said, whosoever will have his sins forgiven by you, must have some penance by you enjoined, for satisfaction of God's justice: yea there is nothing more contrary to forgiveness then satisfaction made by the party to whom sins should be forgiven. And he that said, confess your offences one to another, and pray one for an other, that you may be healed, saith no where, confess all your sins unto a Priest, that you may be saved: but willeth a mutual acknoledgeing, and reconciliation of one Christian man to another, where there hath been any trespass of such offences, as one man hath committed against another, and a mutual acknowledging of our sinfulness one to another, that we may be stirred up to mutual prayer. By which textre the Priest is as much bound to shrive himself to his parishioner, as the parishioner to the Priest. But Origen and Bede are alleged, to prove that the Apostle meaneth not only of such acknowledging, nor so much thereof, as the order of sacramental confession. Verily when the words of the scripture are plain, & the sense 〈◊〉 to be gathered of the plain words, we may not restin any man's opinion that is contrary to the same. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every man that hath but small knowledge in the tongue, doth know to signify and require a mutual confession, aswell as a mutual prayer of one man for another. But yet let us examine what your authorities do contain. First Origen in the place by you cited, speaketh not a word of this text, confess your offences one to another, but only of the two verses going before. For, making seven means of remitting of sins, after his corrupt, & unpure manner of teaching, By baptism, by martyrdom, by alms, by forgiving one another, by converting of sinners, by abundance of charity, he addeth the seventh in these words; Est adhuc & septima, licet dura, & laboriosa, perpaenitentiam, remissio peccatorum, cum lavat peccator in lachrimis stratum suum, & fiunt ei lachrima suae pánes die & nocte. Et cùm non erubescit sacerdoti Domini indicare peccatum suum, & quaerere medicinam secundùm eum, qui ait, Dixi, pronunciabo adversum me iniustitiam meam Domino, & tu remisisti impietatem cordis mei: in quo impletur & illud quod Apostolus dicit, si quis autem insirmatur, vocet Presbyteror Ecclesiae, & imponant ei manus, ungentes eum oleo, in nomine Domini, & oratio fidei saluabit 〈◊〉 si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei. There remaineth yet the seventh, kind of remission of sins, although it be very hard, and painful by repentance, When the sinner washeth his bed in tears, and his tears are made unto him bread day and night, and when he is not ashamed to declare his sin to the Priest of the Lord, and to seek medicine according to him which saith, I have said, I will pronounce against myself my own unrighteousness unto the Lord, and thou hast forgiven me the ungodliness of my heart. In which also that is fulfiled which the Apostle saith, if any man be diseasedl, et him call the Elders of the Church, & let them lay hands upon him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the diseased, and if he shallbe in sins, they shallbe forgiven unto him. Thus much writeth Origen. Now it is to be understood, that after his manner, he alligorizeth upon the sacrifices of the law, comparing these means of remission to them. And lest you should think that by declaring of sin to the Priest of the Lord, he doth mean confession to a popish priest, he himself expoundeth before, whom he meaneth by this Priest. In morali loco potest pontisex isse esse sensus pietatis & religionis videri, qui in nobis per orationem & obsecrationes, quas Deo fundimus, velut quodam sacerdotio fungitur. In moral place, this high Priest may seem to be the sense of godliness & religion, which within us by prayers and supplications, which we power forth to God, exerciseth, as it were a certain priesthood. And so likewise he taketh the place of Saint james alligoricallie, as his application of the seventh way of remission unto the judaical sacrifice, doth declare. Si autem in amaritudine fletus fueris, luctu, lachrimis, & lamentatione confect us, si carnem tuam maceraveris, & 〈◊〉, ac multa abstinentia aridam feceris & dixeris, quia sicut frixorium confrixa sunt ossa mea, tunc sacrificium, similam à sartagine, vel à craticula obiulisse te 〈◊〉. But if thou hast been in the bitterness of weeping, consumed with sorrow, tears and lamentation, if thou hast afflicted thy flesh and made it dry with fasting, and much abstinence, and said, my bones are fried, as a frying pane, or a fire thing, then know that thou hast offered in sacrifice flower, of the frying pan, or of the gredeyorn. Origen therefore giveth a colour in words, but no substance in matter, unto this popish confession. Concerning the opinion, and authority of Bede touching this matter, I have spoken before, but by the circumstance of the letter, you say it may well appear, that the Apostle speaketh of sacramental confession to be made to gods priests. How so, I pray you? forsooth, Because he had there willed them to send for the Priests of the Church, to anoint them, and straight after addeth this text of confession, and praying over the sick. A simple reason god wots, because priests were spoken of in an other matter, therefore none but priests may be understood in that which followeth: nay rather the circumstances make against auricular confession, and popish anointing also. For what needs more priests than one to be sent for, to other of those popish purposes, or what papist sendeth for more, although there be never so many priests in the Church. But the company of elders in the primitive Church, being chosen of the most replenished with heavenly graces, that were in the congregation, both for the gift of healing, & for prayer to be made over the sick man, were most convenient to be sent for. But it is in vain by colour of any circumstances, to restrain the confession to priests, when the very words of the letter (as you call the text) do make it general, and mutual: and therefore here was no cause for Luther to deny the authority of the epistle, or for any other to corrupt the text. But where you count it a corruption, to writ in stead of, send for the priests of the Church, this, call for the Elders of the congregation, you do either abuse the ignorant of wilful malice, to make them think the sound of words being changed, the sense is any thing altered, or else you ignorantly quarrel about the translation, which is word for word out of the original greek into English, as no man meanly learned in that tongue can doubt. It is not the sound of the words you rehearse that troubleth us, for we both like, and use them in their right sense ourselves, but it sufficeth you to have an accidental sound, when you cannot find a substantial reason of your popish ceremonies, and sacraments, in the holy scriptures.  ALLEN. 
But that thou mayest see, good Christian reader, the necessity of confession the better, and that it is not grown to such a general practise and opinion of necessity, upon any charge given by man or positive laws, mark well with me, that it dependeth directly upon Christ's own words, whose sins you do forgive, they be forgiven, and whose sins you do retain, they be retained, And therefore sacramental confession to be of Christ's institution. For if Christ gave power to Priests, to forgive, or retain men's sins, than there must needs be some subject to their power & judgement: else in vain were so long a confession of binding and lossing men's sins, if the right of the power did not necessarily charge all men that have such sins, to be subject to their binding and losing. Therefore this is a clear case, that in the very 〈◊〉 words, that the power was delivered unto them, the bond of obedience was also perscribed to us. So that after that day, no sins mortal could ordinariely be loosed, but by them, & that sacrament, which in their ministry he then did institute.  FVLKE. 
Now you come toward the point, when you promise to let us see, how your popish confession is of Christ's institution. It dependeth, you say, directly upon Christ's own words, whose sins you do forgive, etc. That would we feign see how. For you yourself, though you make a very disorderly syliogisme, cannot tell which way to infer it upon your premises. But thus you reason, If Christ gave power to Priests to forgive or retain sins, than there must needs be some subject to their power, and judgement. I answer you, that every power draweth not a judgement with it, and therefore you foist in the word judgement unreasonably, although I grant also a kind of judgement unto them, and that men are subject to this power and iudegment of the ministers, by whom is declared the infallible sentence of God. Then say you, it is a clear case, that in the very same words that power was delivered to them, the bond of obedience was also prescribed to us. Of what obedience, I pray you? that we should obey them in any thing they shall speak? or only when they speak in the word of the Lord? If the latter only, for no man will grant the former, show us if you be able, the Lords word, and commandment for sacramental confesson, as you term it, to be necessary. Your conclusion hangeth as well by your premises, as confession dependeh upon Christ's words, That after that date no sins mortal could ordinarily be loosed, 〈◊〉 by them and in that sacrament, which in their ministry he then did institute. All sin is mortal and deserving death. The wages of sin (saith the Apostle) is death. But your conclusion is confuted by yourself afterward, granting sins to be remitted 
Rom. 6.  by baptism: and as for other sacraments, I dare say you will not exempt them, but that sins are forgiven by them. And that which is the chief matter in controversy, namely that a sacrament was there, and then instituted, you always affirm, but never are able to prove. And whereas you affirm that the necessity of auricular confession standeth not upon positive laws, but by Christ's institution, it is marvel, that this institution should so many hundredth years be unknown in the Church: The Master of the sentences can say nothing for it, but allegeth divers authorities to and fro, and in the end hath no certain argument to persuade us, that it is of Christ's institution. Gratian likewise in his decrees, after divers testimonies producted on both sides, whether it be necessary or no, concludeth in these words. Quib authoritatibus, vel quibuslibetrationum firmamentis, utroque sententia satisfactionis & confessionis innitatur, in medium breviter exposuimus, cui autem harum 〈◊〉 adhaerendum sit 〈◊〉 is judicio referatur, viraque enim 〈◊〉 habet sarientes & religi osor viros. Upon what authorities, and what foundations of reasons, both the judgement of satisfaction and confession doth lean, we have briefly brought forth and declared. But to whether of these we ought chiefly to stick, it is reserved to the judgement of the reader, for either of both opinions, hath wise and religious men favourers of it. If the Romish Church in Gratianstime, had received the opinion, of the necessity of shrift to a Priest, to be grounded upon the institution of Christ, neither he nor the Master of the sentences would have been in such a mammering about it wherefore it appeareth to be but young ware, the institution whereof was so uncertain to those principal pillars of popery. In so much that the gloss upon the 5. aistinct. In penitentia, was bold to utter these words, which should have proved him an heretic, if the popish Church in his time, had held that confession was of Christ's institution, and not upon any positive laws, In hac distinctione & in aliis duabus sequentibus, agitur 〈◊〉 de illa part poenitentiae, que dicitur oris confessio, & operis satisfactio, quàm de aliis, & ider videndum est 〈◊〉 oris confessio fuerit instituta, virum, necessaria sit, vel 〈◊〉 voluntaria, qualiter sit facienda, & cui, et quando: dicunt quidam institutam fuisse in Paradiso 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peccatum, dicente Donino ad Adam, Adam 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉. ideo enim 〈◊〉, ut ipso conficente peccatum, 〈◊〉 sorma aliis in posterum confitendi. Sed quoniam in ille interrogatione dominus minùs expressè videbatur adconfirendum 〈◊〉, idro post exquisivit á Cain fratricida expressi●s, ubi est Abel frater tuus? Alij dicunt quód sub lege primò instituta, quando Iosua percepit A●hor, ●rimen s●um confiteri, ●● lapidatus est 45. dist. secundum & illud. Alij dicunt quód in Novo testamento á jacobo dicente, consitemini alter●●●um peccata vestra. etc. Sed melius dicitur eam institutam fuisse a qu●d●m universal Ecclesiae traditione, potius quám ex novo vel veteri testamento: authorit●s & traditio Ecclesiae obligatoria est ut preceptum, ait 1.1. di. in his rebus: Ergo necessaria est confessio in mortalib. apud nos, apud graecos non, quoniam non emanavit apud illos traditio talis, 〈◊〉 nec confisiunt in 〈◊〉, said in firmentatis. 5. di cap. 1. si illud ergo 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 alteru●rum peccata vestra, 〈◊〉 consilium primó, ali●●uin li●oret et Grecos, non obstanto eor●● consuetudine. In this distinction, and the other two that follow, it is entreated as well of that part of penance that is called confession of the mouth and satisfaction of the work, as of other parts. And therefore it is to be seen, when confession of the mouth was instituted: whether it be necessary, or only voluntary. How it is to be made, and to whom & when: Some say it was instituted in paradise immediately after sin committed, when the Lord said unto Adam, Adam, where are thou? for therefore he inquired, that he confessing his sin, a form of confessing should be given to others afterward. But because in that confession the Lord secmed not so expressly to have warned him to confession, therefore he inquired afterward of Cain, the murderer of his brother, more expressly, where is Abel thy brother? Other say, it was first instituted under the law, where josua commanded Achar to confess his fault, and he was stoned, 45. di. sed & illud. Other say, that it was instituted in the new Testament by Saint james saying, confess your sins, etc. But it is better to say, that it was institutad by a certain universal tradition of the Church, rather than by authority, out of the new or old testament. And the tradition of the Church is of authority to bind, as it is commanded (ar. 11. di.) in these things. Therefore confession in mortal sins is necessary with us, but not with the Greeks, because such tradition hath not flowed unto them. Like as they make not the sacrament, in unleavened bread, but in leavened, 5. di. 1. cap. si. Therefore that saying of james, confess your sins one to an other, was at the first but of counsel, or else is should bind the Greeks, notwithstanding the custom. That which followeth, in the gloss, that confession in some case may be made to a lay man, which also both Gratian & Lombard do hold, & that which Bede writeth of confession of sins to every man, doth prove that confessio to a priest is not of Christ's institution by their judgement. For if it were, it ought to be of all, & every sin, as well as of those you call mortal, to a priest only. For if Christ instituted a sacrament in these words, whose sins you forgive, etc. and ordained a priest minister thereof, by no other means, but by hearing a sin ners particular confession, as you seem to hold, what reason is there, that a lay man should be a hearer of confession, or an absoluer, or that any sin, be it never so small, should not be confessed?  ALLEN. 
And that is yet more evident by the second part of Christ's sentence, where he saith: whose sins you do retain, they be 
Hilar. super hunclocum.  retained. The which word retinere, by Saint Hilary signifieth, non solvere, or non remittere: to reteinis as much as not to lose, or not to forgive. Whercupon, by Christ's express words, it ensueth, that whose sins the priest doth not forgive, they be not forgiven, and therefore, that every man being guilty of deadly sin in his conscience, is subject to the priests judgement, by the plain terms of Christ's own words. Marry we must well note, that the priest hath in other sacraments, and namely in Baptism, a right in remitting sins both original and actual, but there, in the grand pardon of all that is past, he is not made a judge, or a corrector: because the Church can not practise judgement or exercise discipline upon the penitents, for any things done before they came iinto the household, and therefore can appoint the party no penance nor punishment, nor bind him according to the diversity and number of his faults, nor can make search exactly of all his secres sins by him committed, that the sentence may proceed according to the parties deserts, but only upon his seeking that sacrament 
Concil. trident. Cap. 2. sess. 14.  to minister it unto him, according to Christ's institution: whereupon without any sentence of remission given by the priest, as I absolve thee, or such like, a pardon general of all his sins committed, if he come thither qualified, most assuredly ensueth.  
But now, in the other sacrament of penance, not only pardon 
Damas. de ortha. fidel 1. 4. cap. 9  of sins, but punishment for sins, is put in the Apopostles and priests hands, which can not be done without judiciary power and exact examination of the penitent: because Christ would, that, if any did grievously sin after Baptism, he should, as it were, be convented before his judgement seat in earth, in which, as in his room, he hath placed the Apostles & priests, as is already proved. And therefore, men's sins must in this case be known, with diversity of their kinds, and increase, by diversity of place, time, person, number, and intent. For withoout this particular intelligence, can neither the appointed judges of our souls do justice, nor the penitent receive justice for his offences. Therefore it is evident, that seeing this holy order is authorized not only to remit sins generally, as in Baptism, but also placed with all power over us as the judges of our sins, we must needs by force of Christ's institution be driven to acknowledge and confess all our sins to the Priest, so sitting in judgement upon the examination of our conscience. For no man ever took upon him, not in any civil causes, to determine and give sentence in the matter, whereof he hath not by some means or other, perfect and particular instruction, and in causes criminal much less, because the importance of the matter is much more. Then in God's causes and cases of our conscience, and in things belonging directly to man's everlasting wealth or woe, which is the life or death perpctuall of our souls, there, if either negligence in the judge in searching out of our sins, or consempt in us in declaration, opening, confessing, or clear utterance of them, do hinder the righteousness of God's judgement executed by the Priest's office, or driving them to give wrong sentence of delivery and remission, there the peril is exceeding great, and the danger well near damnation perpetual.  FVLKE. 
Although to retain is somewhat more than not to lose, or not to forgive, yet the conclusion is true, that whose sins the minister of the Gospel doth not forgive, of them that hear the Gospel, they are not forgiven. But herofit doth not follow, that every man is bound to shrive himself to the priest. If you mean that by being subject, to the priests judgement, the minister of the gospel denounceth damnation, to all impenitent and obstinate sinners: unto this sentence he is subject by the plain terms of Christ's own words, that is such a one. But if he be truly penitent in the sight of God, he is absolved by the sentence of the minister, which pronounceth in the name of God, forgiveness to all them, that be truly converted unto God. Wherefore here is no place for the necessity of auricular confession, except you can draw it in by the words of demonstrative syllogisms, which I suppose, to be impossible, and you yourself shall in conscience confess no less, whensoever you dare go about it. As touching the difference you show betwixt the priest's office, in remitting sins by Baptism and penance, it standeth altogether upon your own surmise, without any authority of the holy scriptures: For the minister of the ghospelis made as much a judge, whom to admit and whom to refuse from the sacraments, as he is to pronounce, whose sins be forgiven, and whose retained. Other judgement or correction, he hath not in the one nor in the other, neither is there any punishments put into the Apostles or priests hands, for those sins that are to be pardoned, nor pardon to those that are to be punished. The punishment is no less than the sentence of eternal damnation, under which all obstinate, and unrepentant sinners do remain so iong as they continue in their obstinacy, and impenirencie. And therefore the power judiciary and exact examination of the penitent, and the convention before God's judgement fear in earth, which should be the priest, is nothing but imaginary vanity, without all ground of authority out of Christ's institution. wherefore except you can prove, that Christ by giving his Apostles authority to sorgive or retain sins, did give this inordinarie power that you speak of, and set up this judgement on earth like to the courts in civil judgement, in canonical causes, whatsoever you say without warrant of God's word, is as easily by us denied, as by you it is affirmed. Where you quote Damascene, I find in him nothing for, nor any thing sounding that way in the place by you noted. But in the tenth Chapter, where he speaketh of eight kinds of baptism the fift he maketh Baptism by the holy ghost and fire. Which may be saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a punishing Baptism, because of the fire to come: & immediately followeth the sixth kind of baptism, which is very painfall, by repentance and tears. So that the one being distinct by the author from the other, I know not by what learning you do confound to make it seem as both were one.  ALLEN. 
Neither may we think, that this authority and approved power of priests, concerneth only the open offences, which by witness and proof may be convinced, and deferred to the public Magistrates of the Church, as some Protestants, confounding all places of like words and terms in scripture do. Wherein they consider not, that the perfectness of the Gospel teacheth man willingly to accuse, condemn, and judge 
1. Cor. 11.  himself, that he be not judged of our Lord. Neither do they weigh, that this judgement of our sins, though it be ministered by man, is yet the seat and court of Christ, to whom it no less pertaineth, to bind and lose our secret sins, than our open offences. And he without exception, committed remission of all manner of sins unto the Apostles and priests, saying: Like as my father sent me, so do I send you: But Christ was sent to heal the contrite and sorrowful of all sins, private and public: therefore all manner of offences, be they never so secret, belong to the priests not only pardon, but also correction and punishment, whereof, because they be men, they cannot justly discern or determine, to remit or retain, give pardon or give penance, except they be confessed by the parties penitent. Christ himself, perfectly seeing all diseases both of body and soul, 
Marc. 10.  & the inward sorrow and suit of every man's heart, yet said to the sick man & blind: Quid vis faciam 〈◊〉? what wouldst thou have at my hands? And shall the priest being a mortal man take upon him to give sentence of the diseases of our souls before he know them, or pardon him that will not show unto him, wherein & for what sin he asketh a pardon? Furthermore the sins of man's cogitation, that cannot be discerned by the priest, with out the confession of the party, be often no less grievous & damnable before God, than the open offences: therefore there may be no doubt, but Christ hath ordained mercy, as well for them, as other that be actually committed, and subject to the sight of the world, but yet no otherwise, but by the sacrament of penance, in which, without exception, the priests have power to remit or retain sins, as well private, as public. Therefore the same secret sins being subject to the Church's judgement no less than the open, they must needs be uttered and confessed, or else they cannot be realesed, much less have any enjoined penance for them.  
But it is mecre wrangling of our adversaries in so plain a case, & folly in all other to doubt, whether secret offences, even committed in thought only against the last two commandments forbidding unlawful coveting and desires of the mind, be properly subject to the Priest's judgement, seeing they can by no otherwise be released, but in the sacrament of penance, & sincere confession of them. For here is practised a judgement. not of civil Magistrates, which only punish by laws of all nations actually committed faults against the weal public, but of soul and conscience, which properly pertain to the cure of Priests, as they properly occupy Christ's own room, to whose pardon and punishment, not only open sins, but also private offences, either in deed or thought committed, do in like pertain. For external penance, or public, is rather used to satisfy the Church of her right, in which sins can not openly be committed, but to the great offence of her children, and therefore must in her, by public penance, be corrected, for the example of discipline, and proviso of the like sins to come.  FVLKE. 
I know no Protestants, neither I suppose you can name any writer of them, that doth think that the authority of sorgiving and retaining sins, concerneth only open offences, and not secret. But it may be that some protestants have written, as all I think do hold, and you yourself in the end of this section do acknowledge, that open confession is most convenient, for the satisfaction of the Church which is offended, where and by whom open and notorious sins have been committed. But that secret confession made to a priest, is necessary for the discharge of secret sins, all Protestants deny, neither can any Papists prove it. For such reasons as you bring are very weak and frivolous. The perfectness of the Gospel, teacheth man, willingly to accuse, condemn, and judge himself, that he be not judged of our Lord: Ergo, he is bound to shrive himself to a Priest. Nay contrariwise, if he be made accuser, condemner, and judge of himself, he need not seek any other external judge, but in his own conscience, accuse, examine, condemn, and judge himself before God. And this court of conscience, we acknowledge to be the seat, and court of Christ, where no priest or other mortal man hath authority to sit and judge. Neither doth any correction & punishment of our sins belong to priests by reason that Christ sent the Apostles, and their successors, to Preach, as he was sent by his father: but they may remit or retain sins, without hearing the particular confession of every sinner, by declaring the mercy of God to all that repent, and his justice, to all that continue in sin without repentance. But it is a maruetlous strong argument, Iweene, to prove the necessity of confession, because our saviour Christ caused the blind man, by uttering his request in particular, to declare his faith. Nay if he had caused all them whose sins he pronounced to be forgiven, first to make particular confession unto him, it had been more colour, and yet no sufficient argument to prove the necessity of confession to be made unto other men, much less that he would have the blind man acknowledge, that he believed that he was able to give him sight: wherefore upon a Principle shamefully begged, that confession to a priest is necessary, you go about to prove that confession of secret faults, and cogitations of man's heart, is also to be made to a priest, & you accuse your adversaries of wrangling in so plain a case, and all men of folly, that doubt, whether such secret offences be subject to the priests judgement, seeing they can not otherwise be released but in the sacrament of penance, and sincere confession of them: but which of your adversaries will grant that they can not otherwise be released, or how will you satisfy them that doubt out of the holy scriptures of the institution of such a sacrament, and of auricular confession as necessary.  ALLEN. 
Moreover the sacrifices of the old law were in many cases done by the Priests, as well for private sins as open; which could not be without the confession of the penitent: ergo, much more the secrets of our souls be subject to our Priests, to whom Christ hath given all judgement. Yet all this notwithstanding there be some that keep themselves by vain excuse of sin, from the very principal point and pith of this sacrament, which is the particular examination of a man's sins committed by thought, word, or work, and will yet draw back, and hold, that a general confession is enough with terms universal, acknowledging a man's self to have sins by mind, word, and deed, though he express not the several points thereof. But this opinion is confuted, both by all the fore said reasons, and other, as a most absord and wilful maintenance of sin. For by this rule, he that killed and murdered thousands, should confess no more after his wicked acts then before, nor no more than the innocentest man that liveth. David's weeping and confession should have been one after his double deadly sin committed, as before in his innocency. Peter should not have more bitterly went after his forsaking of his master, than before. Neither should our confession then pertain more to ourselves then to other, who by like general clauses may truly make the like and the same confession, as it is now in the Church of England. But the holy King David confessed not sins common to himself and other men, but my sin, my wickedness, my impiety, saith he, and this in confessing to God that know already his sins: How much more now, where God's judgement is exercised by man, that can not discern our faults himself, must we confess our sins, that he may rightly judge thereof?  FVLKE. 
The sacrifices of the old law did in deed contain a confession of sin, but no particular declaration unto the priest, of any sin committed in secret, therefore your conclusion is nought, as also it is blasphemous that you say therein, that Christ hath given to your priests all judgement. But confession by a general clause, you do not allow to be sufficient to salvation, not answerable to Christ's meaning. I pray you sit at the length, bring forth those words of Christ by which you know his meaning so well, that you dare deny salvation to them that make not a particular confession to a priest. By this rule you say, the murderer of thousands should confess no more than the innocentest man alive: verily to a priest he is no more bound to confess his murders, than an innocent man his lester trespasses. But as any man's sins are more heinous and grievous, so ought he to bewail and lament the same more earnestly before God: So did David and Peter, after their several and grievous falls, not to inform God, which knew their sins more exactly than they could make confession of them, but to stir up themselves to more earnest hearty sorrow, and repentance for them. That God's judgement is so exercised by priests as you mean, you must first prove, & after use for an argument, or else you beg and get nothing.  ALLEN. 
Penance must be done for every of our sins. So Peter prescribed Simon the sorcerer, when he attempted to have bought the gift of God's Spirit, that he should do penance for that especial grievous crime: Poenitentiam age, saith he, ab hac nequitia tua, Do penance for this thy wicked 
Act. 8.  attempt, if perchance God will forgive thee this abominable intent. The man was baptized not long before, and then no such Penance was prescribed for his most grievous and blasphemous practices of Necromancy and witchcraft long exercised before. Wherein this naughty pack Simon Magus, is a thousand parts more religious than our new masters. For he desired the Apostles to pray to God for him, that this sin might be forgiven him: where these care no more for the priest or Apostle, concerning their sins, than they do for dogs Again, Saint Paul did not only confess his sins by a general clause, but acknowledged his own sins, wherein he in his own person had offended, he confessed he was of all sinners the greatest, that he had obtained commission to attach them that believed in Christ's name, and so forth. 
1. Tim. 1. Act. 15.  Such as were faithful also at Ephesus, as we read in the 19 of the Acts, came to the Apostles, Et confitebantur actus suos, and confessed their acts and misdees, In so much, that certain which had followed unlawful arts, as Magic, Necromancy, and such like curiosity, confessed their faults, and burned their books before all the people.  FVLKE. 
We must be penitent for all and every of oursinnes, that we know or can call to mind: but that penance must be enjoined by a Priest, as you mean, for every sin, let us see how you can prove it. S. Peter prescribed Simon Magus, that he should do penance for that grievous crime: Therefore penance must be done for every of our sins. Although the antecedent were true, yet the consequence is nought penance must be done for one open and heinous sin, ergo, for all secret sins. But I deny that any such penance as you mean, was enjoined unto him by Peter. But that he exhorted Simon to repentance, if he looked to have any forgiveness of his sins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, repent, saith he, or change thy mind from this thy wickedness, and not as you translate, for this thy wickedness, as though repentance were a satisfaction for his sin. Moreover I answer, you use not to enjoin penance, before men have confessed their sin. But when Peter exhorted Simon to repent, he had not yet confessed his sin, but was a covetous hypocrite. 〈◊〉 you descent from your pupils of Rhemis which deny that doing of penance, was prescribed to men before they were baptised. For they translate agite panitentiam, as well before baptism, as after, to do penance, satisfaction for sin. Where you say that your new maislers care no more for the Priest or Apostle concerning their sins, than they do for degges, it is a saucic Censure, of a dogged Papist. For they whom you scorn, do reverence all the ministers of God, as well in the power they have to remit sins, as also in all other parts of their office. another argument on have of Saint Paul's example, who confessed his own sins, and namely the greatest, of persecuting the Church of Christ. Yea but not his secret sins to a priest: but his open faults before his conversion, and Baptism. And so likewise they that believed, Act. 19 made open confession of some of their devilish practises committed before they were Christians, and in detestation of their former wickedness, and sign of true repentance burned their books to a great value.  ALLEN. 
If the priests had nothing else to do with oursins, but as they had in the old law to do with the leprous persons, that is to say, should only discern, which were by God remitted or not remitted, they could not that do, except they saw the variety of the said sins, by man's confession. But now seeing they have further interest in our matters, and must properly both pardon and give just penance for sin, how is it possible they should do this without exact knowledge of entry of our grievous offences. In deed a general confession, such as is often made in divine service to God or his priests, such as be Catholic, doth some times take away the common infirmities of our sinful life, that our light trespasses be not imputed to us, or such, as we have so forgotten, that we cannot by any convenient search, call again to our remembrance: But other greater crimes and deadly sins, for which the sacrament of discipline was instituted, and the priests judgement seat erected in the Church, are not discharged before God, without several contrition, and distinct confession, with ready in tent of the penitent to accomplish such fruits of penance, as by the priest shall be appointed for the satisfying for his sins.  
And what a marucilous disorder is brought into Christ's Church, by plain flattery of ourselves herein, whiles we hold that this general confession is sufficient, we see by experience of these our evil days, where there is now put no difference betwixt small offenders and most grievous sinners, no diversity of penance, no more sorrow in one then in other, no confession of the most wicked, no more then of the smallest sinner, or most honest liver. A common murderer, a filthy whoremunger, a daily drunkard, a false robber, a greedy extortioner, confess as little, do as little penance lament as little, yea a great deal less, than the honest sort of people do, for much more small and fewer faults. All men repose themselves now of days so much in Christ's passion, and there only no faith, that they will neither confess to God nor man, neither sigh nor sorrow, nor do satisfaction for their sins. Well, let all men be assured, that God in the next world will not go by general Chapters, but will have an account of all our proper works and misdeeds, till it come to our idle words and vain thoughts. The which judgement, because God's Church and ministers sentence, to whom Christ gave all judgement of our sins in earth, doth most clearly resemble, we may be out of doubt, that the like particular discussing and examination of our own selves, here before his ministers, must needs be had, that we 
1. Cor. 11.  be not judged of our Lord in the life to come.  FVLKE. 
By seeing the variety of sins, though the Priest could see them as clearly as he that committed them, yea though he were present at the doing of them, and did see all the circumstances of them: he could never discern which were by God remitted, or not remitted, except he could see the repentance of the sins, according to which God doth either remit, or retain sins: Therefore confession to this purpose is neither necessary, nor profitable. For the further interest you claim, you must bring better evidence than he thereto you have showed forth, or else we may never yield it unto you. And greatly I marvel how you can affirm, that the Priest can properly pardon sin, when he can not to any man pronounce pardon of his sin, except he be true lie contrite, and penitent before god. God only and the party penitent are privy to the contrition of his heart, which in an hypocrite with a thousand confessions may be dissembled. And I trow you will not say that without unfeigned contrition of the heart the priest may pardon a sinner. The doctrine of your masters is but with condition, if the party be contrite without counterfeiting: therefore he that can not pardon absolutely, can much les pardon properly. Where you make general confession available, either for small and light offences, or else for greater sins forgotten, you speak without proof, and therefore your authoritite may be denied without doubt.  
The disorder, you speak of, for lack of shrift, was greater when most men went to shrift, and not fearing the judgment seat of God, and thought they were sufficiently discharged of their sins, if they had powered them out into a priests lap, or friars cowl. God be praised, they that repose themselves most in Christ's passion, and by the merits thereof believe to receive forgiveness of sins by faith in his blood, are more ready to confess their unworthiness both before God & man, than any popish hypocrite that trusteth in the merit of his works, and his own satisfaction, for his sins, and do more sigh and sorrow for their sins, although they be such as man's law cannot punish, although they were known, than they that whisper half an hour in a priests ear, for the sins of one whole year, whereas one hours offences, if they were particularie called to mind, and repeated, would ask longer time to confess them. We know that in the next world God will have an account of all our misdeeds, even to our idle words & thoughts, & therefore our whole life ought to be a continual meditation, and profession of repentance, & yet we know by his word and assurance ofhi spirit, that the same infinite multitude & heap of our sins shall not be laid to our charge, because out saviour Christ is the lamb of God that hath taken them away, and satisfied the justice of God for them.  
That Christ hath given all judgement of our sins in earth to his Church and the ministers thereof, you often affirm, & thereupon build up your court of confession, but by what words this may be proved you are never able to show. For that text, whose sins you forgive, etc. imporeth no such manner of judgement, but an authority to pronunce a sentence declaratory of God's mercy, in pardoning all them that truly repent, and of his justice in punishing all them that obstinately refuse the grace of God offered in the preaching of the gospel. The examining & judging of ourselves, which the Apostle requireth, that we be not judged of the Lord, urgeth us not to commit ourselves to the examination & judgement of othermen, but to a diligent discussing of our own conscience before god, that we come not with hypocrisy or without due regard of his presence and benefits to the participation of his sacraments.  ALLEN. 
And this particular discussing Saint Paul meant, when he commended unto the Corinthians, and by them commanded all Christian men to prove, try, and judge themselves, especially afore the receipt of the blessed sacrament of Christ's body and blood, which requireth most purity of life in the receiver, that can be. For to attempt to receive the holy body of Christ before we have in contrite manner confessed ourselves, and purged our consciences, by the judgement of Christ's Church, of the guilt of deadly sin, is exceeding damnable to us, and much dishonour to Christ's own person. Which proving and judging of man's self, to be meant by the diligent dif cussing of our consciences, sins, and misdeeds, by contrition and confession of them to our ghostly Father, the practice of the Church doth most plainly prove, which never suffered any grievous sinner to communicate, before he had called himself to a reckoning of his sins, before the minister of God, and so judged himself, that he receive not to his damnation that, which to every worthy person is his life and salvation. Whereof S. Augustine, or the author of the book de Ecclesiasticis 
De Ecclesiast. dog. ca 53.  dogmatibus, set forth with his name, giveth us good notice for his time. Quem mortalia crimina post Baptismum commissa premunt, horror priùs publica poenitentia satisfacere, & ita sacerdotis judicio reconciliatum, communioni sociari, si vult non ad judicium & condemnationem sui, Eucharistiam percipere, sed & secreta satisfactione solui mortalia crimina non negamus. I exhort every man (saith this holy doctor) that is burdened after his baptism with mortal sin, to satisfy for the same by public penance, and to be reconciled by the priest's judgement, & to be restored to the communion of saints, if he mean to receive the holy Sacrament, not to his judgement and condemnation. And I deny not in this case, but deadly sins may be remitted by secret satisfaction. Thus he. By whose words you see, in what a damnahle state men now of days stand, seeing that whosoever receiveth the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, before he be reconciled by a priests sentence, and assoiled of his sins, he doth receive it to his everlasting damnation. Unto whose judgement I join Saint Cyprian in this same matter, complainig very earnestly upon certain Conuersies in his days, that would adventure upon 
Serm. de lapsis.  Christ's body and blood, ante exomologesim factam criminis, ante purgatam conscientiam, sacrificio & manu sacerdotis: Before their sins be confessed, and their consciences purged by sacrifice, and the Priest's hand.  
All these things might be at large declared, and confirmed farther by the judgement of mostauncient Fathers: but because I have been very long, and enough already may seem to be said for such as by reason will be satisfied, & a great deal more than any Protestant will answer unto, and also the scriptures themselves, giving the Priest so plain power of binding and retaining, as well as of remitting and losing, will do more with these that have charged themselves with the belief of nothing that is not in express writing of God's word, than the uniform consent of all ages, and the most notable persons in the same. In respect of their humour therefore, I will not say much more for this point, than I have said: only my meaning now is, for the Catholics comfort, to repeat a few such evident sentences out of most authentic authors, by whom we take a 〈◊〉 not only of their meanings, which is much for the matter, but especially, of the Churches practise in all ages and most countries christened, since the Apostles time, which I account the most surest way to touch & try truth by, that by the example of all our forefathers, every man may willingly learn to submit himself to the sentence of such as God hath made the judges of his soul, and sins.  FVLKE. 
If Saint Paul had meant Popish shrift, he could and would have said, Submit yourselves to the examination & judgement of the Priest, and not as he hath said, Let a man try himself: &, judge yourselves brèthrens. If auricular confession be necessary, under pain of damnation, for every one that receiveth the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, immediately before it, many thousands of your priests which say mass every day, without shriving themselves, are in a damnable case. I or there passeth no day of man's life, without some deadly sin, if not in deed not word, yet at the least in thought: but that you popish hypocrites by your distinction of venial sins, flatter yourselves to be clear, when you are most foul and filthy. but the perpetual practise of the Church, you say, proveth the necessity of auricular confession, whereof you take witness the author of the book, de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus for his time, which you do honestly not to father upon Saint Augustine, being a man of much later time, less learning, and more corruption of doctrine: but you do fraudulently cut of his saying in the waste, because that which followeth declareth plainly, that either he meaneth not of mortal sins, as the Popish Church now doth hold, or else his opinion for secret satisfaction is far differing from that you would have men ween that he meaneth: namely such as you use to enjoin in your confession, five Lady's Psalters, five fridays fast, five pence, groats or shillings, to so many poor men in remembrance of the 5. wounds and such like stuff: but these author's words require, another manner of satisfaction. Sed & secreta satisfactione solui mortalia crimina non negamus, sed mutato prius secularihabitu, & confesso religionis study, per vitae correctionem, & iugi, immò perpetuo luctu miserant Deo: it a duntaxat ut contraria pro his quae poenitet 〈◊〉, & eucharistiam omnibus dominic is diebus, supplex & submissus usque ad mortem percipiat. Poenitentia vera est penitenda non admittere, & admissa deflere. Satisfactio paenitentiae, est causas peccatorum excidere, nec eorum suggestionibus aditum indulgere. But also that by secret satisfaction mortal crimes may be loosed we do not deny, but so that the secular habit be first changed, and the study of religion confessed by amendment of life, and by continual, yea perpetual sorrow, God being merciful: so only that he do the contrary things to those for which he doth penance, and humbly and lowly receive the eucharist every sunday to his dying day. It is true repentance not to commit things to be repent, and to bewail such as are committed. The satisfaction of repentance is, to cut of the causes of sins, and to yield no entry unto their suggestions. Wherefore it is plain, that in this writer's time there was no auricular confession, but an open confession, and public penance for open and heinous offences, and that none was admitted to secret satisfaction, except he changed his habit, became a Monk, & performed other conditions by him required, by which it is manifest that the judgement of this writer, though corrupt, yet is contrary to the practise of the popish Church at this day. But Saint Cyprian is a better witness (I trow) for the necessity of auricular confession of secret sins, saving that he speaketh of them that had openly fallen to Idolatry, and without open confession of their fault and public satisfaction of the Church, by some undiscreet pastors, were admitted to the lords table: describing them he saith, Mortiferos Idolorum cibos adhuc pene ructantes, exhalantibus etiamnum scelus suum faucibus, & contagia funesta 〈◊〉, Dominicorpus invadunt, etc. Almost yet belching out the deadly meats of their Idols, the jaws as yet breathing out their own wickedness, & savouring of the deadly infection, they set upon our lords body. And immediately before the words by you cited, Plus modò in dominum manib, atque ore delinquunt, quàm cum Dominum negaverant. They do more offend now against the Lord with their hands and their mouth, then at such time as they denied the Lord. These words declare of what kind of men, of what kind of sins, of what kind of confession, and of what kind of satisfaction, this Doctor doth speak, whose vehemency tendeth to the maintenance of discipline, being in great danger of decay, by the untimely and ungodly lenity of some flattering Church men in those days, that would reconcile such unto the Church by admitting them to the communion, which after their most grievous fall and denial of Christ before men, had not given sufficient tokens and testimonies of their hearty repentance before God, without the which, the wrath of God justly kindled against them for their henious offences, couldnot be appeased.  
Hitherto therefore, for the necessity of auricular confession, we have seen nothing, that any learned protestant might vouchsafe of any answer: & as for the scriptures giving the Priest so plain power, as well of binding and retaining, as of losing and remitting, do lay no necessity upon any man to confess unto them the particularities of his secret faults, nor give any authority unto the priests to exact the same, I say not by express words, but not by any necessary illation or conclusion out of the express words of the scripture, which we hold to be of as great credit, as that which is contained in express words. As for the uniform consent of all ages, and the mosie notable persons in the same, whereof you make your cómon vaunt, can never be showed for the necessity of auricular shrift, no nor for any other point of popery, though you would make choice of the eldest error that you hold. That you take the Churches practise in all ages, to be the most surest way to touch and try truth by, you declare what reverent opinion you have of the word of God, which our Saviour Christ saith, is the truth, wherein he prayeth his father to sanctify all his disciples unto the worlds end. Unto which rule of truth all practise of men must be exacted, and by it be tried. For what mad blasphemy were it to say, that the word of God, which was before all practise the only truth of touch, hath now lost his credit, or the best part thereof, if practise of men in all ages be now become the most surest way to try and touch truth by, as if the manners of men were always the best interpretation of the law.   

That confession hath ever been used, of all mortal sins, in all countries and ages since Christ's time, it is proved by the witness of most learned fathers, with an answer to such things, as out of the Fathers be sometimes objected to the contrary.  
THE 11. CHAP.  ALLEN. 
I Am the longer in this approved truth, because I remember what Saint chrysostom saith: And I see by 
De sacer. li. 2.  these days, that it is very true which he writeth, Multa arie opus esse, ut qui laborant Christiani, ultrò sibi 〈◊〉 persuadeant, sacerdotum curationibus sese submittere: That it is a point of high wisdom and cunning, to bring to pass that Christian men which are sick in soul, would persuade themselves to submit in all causes themselves to the priests curing. For indeed, in Nectarius his predecessors days, there was such an offence arose in the simple sort, and such a tragedy in Constantinople Church, by the naughty fact of a deaton there, that their Bishop was glad to make the state of penance, which then was often published even for private sins, to be a great deal more free than before. Whereupon, the people took occasion of such liberty and licentious life, that when their common penitentiary, by the commandment of Nectarius was remóoved, they were exceeding loath to confess, or do just penance for their sins actual. Though that good man condescending to the people's weakness, meant never to take away that whole order, wherein he had no authority, because it is no politic provision, but Christ's institution: but only that the penance should not be public, except the party listed, of those sins which were to the said Penitentiary confessed in secret. Which fact of his, though perchance it was necessary for that time, yet was not allowed of the writers of the same History. As a thing (saith Sozomenus) that brought much 
Lib. 9 cap. 35. tripar. histor.  dissolute life, and alteration of the people's manners into the Church. Yet our adversaries are in such aistresse, for their maintenance of their contrary assertion, against holy confession, that they be not ashamed to allege this man's doubtful example. Which if it were good and to be followed: yet made it nothing against shrift, which they call now auricular confession, or if it did make against the whole Sacrament every way ministered, yet it could not of reason be followed, being but one bishops compelled act, and that disallowed even of the reporters themselves, and proved to be evil, by the practise of all Churches christened to the contrary.  FVLKE. 
Chrysostom's words by you translated, if you had not falsified in translation, by adding of your own, these words (in all causes) which are neither in the original Greek, nor in the latin version, make but a small show for the necessity of the auricular confession. For in that place, chrysostom showeth how much more difficult the office of a spiritual shepherd is, than the charge of a bodily herdman, by this, that the shepperd of unreasonable sheep may both see the diseases of his cattle, and also compel them to take his medicines and diet: but the spiritual shepherd cannot always see with what diseases his flock are infected, neither can he compel them, but must exhort them, willingly to submit themselves to his cure, whereby he meaneth his doctrine of admonition, reprehension, and such like. But because you make mention of a story, and do not express it, and yet excuse chrysostom thereby in any thing that he hath written, sounding against the necessity of confessing before men, of sins committed in secret: as though he durst not fully set down his judgement thereof before the peo ple. I will set forth the story as it is reported, by the Ecclesiastical writers, Socrates and Sozomenus. Socrates, L. 5. C. 19 writeth thus. About the same time it was thought good, to take away those elders or priests of the Churches, which were appointed over public repentance, upon such cause. Since the time that the novatians were divided from the Church, for that they would not communicate with them, that had fallen in the persecution, that was under Decius, the Bishops of the Church added unto the Ecclesiastical canon or rule, a certain priest or elder which should be over them that repented, that they which were fallen after baptism, should confess their sins before this appointed priest. And this rule holdeth still unto this time in other sects. Only they that hold Christ to be of the same substance with his father, and the novatians which agree with them in this faith, have rejected this priest appointed over them that repent. The novatians in deed at the first, received not this addition. But they which now hold the Churches, having observed it for a long time under Nectarius, have changed it, by occasion of this matter that happened in the Church. A certain noble woman came to the priest appointed for repentance, and made particular confession of those sins she had committed after baptism: the priest charged this woman to fast and pray cominuallie, that with her confession she might show forth the work that was meet for repentance. But the woman proceeding accused herself of another offence, for she declared that a certain Deacon of the Church had line with her. This being declared, caused the Deacon to be cast out of the Church, but a tumult was raised among the priests: for they were sore grieved, not only with that which was done, but also because this fact tended greatly to the slander and contumely of the Church. So while clergy men were in great reproach for these things, a certain blessed elder of the Church borne at Alexandria gave in council to the Bishop Nectarius, to take away this priest, that was appointed over repentance and to permit every man according to his own conscience to be partaker of the mysteries. For by that means only, he should have the Church void of slander. These things because I heard myself of that blessed man, I was 〈◊〉 to commit unto this writing. For as I have often said, I have given all diligence to learn of every man that knew these matters, and exactly to search them out, that I might write nothing beside the truth. But I said unto Eudemon or that blessed man: your counsel, Sir, hath, brought into the Church God knoweth what or no. But I see that you have given occasion, that one should not reprehend an others sins, nor to observe that precept of the Apostle, which saith: Communicate not with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. But of these matters sufficient. Sozomenus, Lib. 7. Cap. 16. reporteth the matter after this manner. About this time Nectarius, which governed the Church of Constantinople, was the first that would no longer permit that priest, which was appointed for them that repented. And him followed all most all other Bishops. Now, this matter what it is, or whence it began, or for what cause it ceased, diverse men report diversely. I will declare what I think. For seeing not to sin at all, it is a matter more divine, then agreeable to man's nature, and that God hath commanded to grant pardon to them that repent, although they offend often times, and in refusing to confess sins, the debt groweth more burdenous, as it is like, it was thought good among the priests of old time, that as it were in an open theatre, under the witness of the multitude of the Church, men should declare their sins. And for this purpose they appointed a priest or elder of the best conversation, continent of speech, & wise, to whom they came which had sinned, and confessed such things as they had committed in their life. And he according to every man's sin, after he had appointed a mulct what he ought to do, or to abide, absolved them, when they had performed their penalty by themselves. But as for the novatians, which made no account of repentance, needed not this matter. But in other sects of heretics, it is observed even until this time. And it is diligintlie observed in the western Churches, and especially in the Church of the Romans. For there is a certain open place appointed, for them that are in exercise of repentance For they stand with heavy cheer and as it were sorrowing. And when the service of God is ended, being not made partakers of those things, that are lawful for the holy ones, with weeping & lamentation, they cast themselves down flat upon the earth: the Bishop beholding them, runneth to them weeping and likewise falling upon the earth, the whole multitude of the Church is then filled with mourning and weeping. Then first the Bishop riseth up, and lifteth up the sinners that lie on the ground, & after he hath prayed as it is meets for the penitents that have sinned, he dismisseth them. Then every one of them willingly afflicting himself, either with fastings, or abstinence from washings or certain meats, or with other things that are enjoined than, continueth a seaso, so long as the Bishop hath appointed unto him. And at the time appointed, after he hath paid, as it were a certain debt, he is released of the punishment of fin, and cometh into the congregation with the rest of the people. These things the priests of Rome observe even until our days. But in the Church of Constantinople, the priest or elder that was appointed over the penitent, did exercise that office, until Turrian certain noble woman, being appointed by the priests to fast, and pray to God for those sins which she had declared, while she continued in the Church, for this purpose, confessed that she had committed fornication with a Deacon, whereof the multitude haviug understanding, was sore grieved, for defiling the Church, and it was an exceeding great slander unto the whole clergy. Nectarius being in doubt how to handle this matter, that had happened, first depriveth the fornicator of his ministery. And being counseled by certain men, to permit every man, as his conscience served him, and as he might be bold, to communicate the mysteries, he caused the priest to give over that was appointed for repentance, and from that time this custom taking hold, hath hitherto continued. Now I think the ancient gravity and preciseness, having begun by little and little to fall away, into a diverse and negligent custom, seeing before, as I suppose, the offences were less, both through shame of them which declared their own transgressions, & through the preciseness of them that were appointed judges in this case. And for the same cause I gather that the Emperor Theodosius providing for the good name & gravity of the Churches, made a law that women should not be admmitted to the ministery of god, except they had children, and were above threescore years old, according to the express commandment of the Apostle, and to expel out of the Churches, those women that were shorn in the head, & to deprive such Bishops from their Bishopric, which did admit any such women. The story being as I have set it forth, out of the report of the Ecclesiastical writers, now let us see how sincerely you handle the matter, and report thereof at your pleasure. First you say, that Nectarius made the state of penance more free, then before: where as by the story it is plain, that he took away altogether that public form, and trial of repentance, leaving every man to his conscience. secondly, you say, the people took such occasion of liberty, that they were loath to confess, or do just penance for their sins at all. It is not unlike that the wicked sort, as they abuse all Christian liberty, so being left to the examination of their own conscience, whereunto the scripture leaveth them, would be more dissolute: But the godly being delivered from such a burdenous & unnecessary ceremony and custom, would nevertheless confess their sins before God, and be truly penitent, and heartily sorry for the same. thirdly you say, Nectarius, never meant to take away that whole order, wherein he had no authority. But that he took it wholly away, the story is plain, and that he had authority in an order, and decree of the Church, first made against the novatians, which was subject to mutation, Socrates doth declare. And Sozomene reporteth the consent, & imitation, of all the Catholic Bishops of the East, which they, it is not like, would have yielded unto, if it had been as you say, an institutio of shrist. That it was not allowed of the writer of the story Sozomenus, it is a small matter, seeing it was allowed of so many hundred bishops for so manyyeares before him, that were better divines than he, & therefore you say untruly, that it was but one man's doubtful example, & but one bishops compelled act, which was allowed of all the Bishops of the East, & followed. But if it were good, you say, it maketh nothing against private shrift, yes verily. for a thousand times greater inconvenience hath come by auricular confession, than the abusing of one gentlewoman. To omit all other, the story is famous and fresh in memory, within these few years, when the Inquisitors in Spain, charged all honest women & matrons that had been solicited by their ghostly fathers unto adultery, to confess the same before them, how the holy house was pestered with accusations, and how full the streets were of women repairing to the holy house, to declare the abuse of confession against their ghostly fathers. Wherefore if one such a fact, as the old story reporteth, were thought a sufficient cause unto all the godly and learned Bishops of the East, to abolish that unnecessary order & custom, of confessing and doing open penance in the Church for secret faults, how much more so many & so shameful abuses as have ensued of this ear shrift, aught to have moved the Church of God in these dates, to put away the necessity thereof: that I speak nothing of the ungodly opinions that are held thereof, to the snare of men's consciences, which make it altogether intolerable. Last of all, where you allege the practise of all Churches christianed to the contrary, how untrue it is, the very story is plain, and the custom of the Greek Churches confessed by Gratian not to admit this kind of confession, as being only a positive decree of men, no necessary institution of God.  ALLEN. 
And sure it, is that Saint Crysostome, who succeeded Nectarius, hadmuch a do to bring the people, made more licentious, by the foresaid grant, to the distinct numbering of all their sins to the priest again, which he knew to be necessary by Christ's institution: and therefore in exhorting them to 
Sermon. de poeniten. & confess.  confession, he speaketh much of bashfulness, which the people had in uttering their sins, and of fear of upbraiding such things as they had confessed to the priests, and of coming forth as it were, to a public stage to open their offences, as the use was in his predecessors days. Of all which things and other impediments of confession, this doctor doth discharge the penitents by a warranting of them, that private confession, which is made without witness, and to him that shall not lay any thing confessed to their charge, or open it to the world, is enough, though the open order used before, he counteth the more perfect and better, wherein he saith, that job was not ashamed to confess his faults before the world, much less Christian men should be aboshed to open themselves to God, not meaning so by confession made to god, as though he discharged them of opening their sins in the close consistory of the priests judgement, which he in deed did not, but he meaneth, as the Master first answered, and other school men of great and exact judgement 
Magister quarto sententiarum.  after him, that in steed of public confession, made in the face of the Church, secret opening to the priest (who occupieth there the seat of God, and therefore would never shame him afore men) would serve.  
Marry the truth is, that the late liberty that his people was set in through the disordered demeanour of the foresaid Deacon, made this cunning shepherd and expert preacher, so to use his words, as they might win most of the worst, and be least offence to the weak. And therefore he speaketh so warely and indifferently, that sometimes he biddeth them confess to God, and yet with several numbering of every of their sins, and other while in the very same sermon, he saith, atque oportebat maximè apud homines ea dicerc, and yet they should be opened to men, that so they might understand his meaning, and yet not be able to reprehend his words, who were so weak, as I said, and so used to liberty, by the losing of the law in Nectatius days, that Saint chrysostom had much a do to make them submit themselves, and their sins, to the pastors of their souls. Wherein, not only his great obtestations in the beginning of his sermon, but also his continual beating on this string, that they should not be confounded nor abashed to utter their sins, proveth plainly, that his only purpose was, to bring them to confession & penance sacramental, done by the priests ministery For there he chargeth them, that they did not weep nor lament, which he could not do rightly, if those things were only inward in cogitation & heart to be done. For how could be know, that they did not make confession to man, as we now know that no heretic maketh, confession, neither lamenteth, neither doth penance for his sins, because they have removed the way of God's Church, whereby such things had wont to be done. And by which Christ hath appointed is to be done: Otherwise they will say, they confess themselves daily to God, and so did Saint Chysostomes' flock, I warrant you, but he counted that no sacramental confessing, except they did it to God by the priests ministery, which is the way of confession, which God hath appointed.  FVLKE. 
So sure it is that Saint chrysostom went about to bring the people to the necessity of auricular confession, that it standeth only upon your own assurance without any warrant of Chrysostom's words, which are clean contrary thereunto, even in that sermon you quote, requiring confession of secret faults to be made only to God, and not to men. Sed confunderis & erubescis peccata tua effari: Atqui oportebat maximè apud homines ea dicere, & invulgare. Confusio enim est peccare, non est confusio confiteri peccata, nunc autem neque necessariùm presentibus testibus confusio confiteri: Cogitation fiat delictorum exquisitio, absque teste sit hoc judicium. Solus te Deus confitentem videat: Deus qui non exprobat peccata tua, sed soluit peccata propter confusionem. Nunquid & sic gravaris, & retrocedis? verùm & ego scio, quòd conscientia non sustinet sua delicta. But thou art ashamed, and abashed to utter thy sins. Yet thou oughtest most of all to declare and publish them before men. For it is ashame to sin, it is no shame to confess thy sins. But now it is neither necessary to confess in the presence of witnesses. Let examination of thine offences be made in thought, let this judgement be without a witness, let god only see thee making thy confession, god which casteth not thy sins in thy teeth, but too seth thy sins for thy shame: what? and art thou grieved to do so much, and goest back? yet I know shy conscience cannot abide her own offences: These words a man would think should be plain enough, against the necessity of auricular confession, but that you have found out a most impudent interpretation of them, to say that by confessing to God, he meaneth the close consistory of the priests judgement, who occupieth the seat of God, and of this exposition the Master of the sentences should be author, & other schoolmen should be approovers. verily whosoever invented it, or whosoever have allowed it, chrysostom crieth out plainly, that it is not his meaning, which requireth the examination to be in thought alone, and the judgement without witness, which cannot be, if the priest do hear it. And although he count it greater perfection to make open confession before men, yet he denieth it to be necessary. Again in his commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cap. 12. Hom. 30. more plainly, after he hath exhorted men, to count all their sins severally, before God, and to make an hearty confession of our unworthiness, he addeth, Non 〈◊〉 tibi ut te prodas in publicum, neque ut te apud alios accuses, sed obedire te volo Prophetae dicenti, revela domino taunt viam. Ante Deum ergo confitere peccata, apud verum judicem cum oratione delicta tua pronuncia, non lingua, sed conscientiae tuae memoria, & tunc demum spera, misericordiam te posse consequt: sihabueris in mente peccata tua contiwò, nunquam malum adversus proximum in cord retinebis. I say not to thee, that thou oughtest to bewray thyself abroad, nor that thou shouldest accuse thyself before other men. But I will have thee obey the Prophet saying, open thy wait before the Lord. Confess thy sins therefore before God, prononnce thy offences before the true judge with prayer, not with thy tongue, but with remembrance of thy conscience, and then hope that thou mayst obtain mercy: if thou shalt have thy sins in mind continually, thou shalt never reieine evil in thy heart against thy neighbour. We must confess ourselves before the consistory of that true judge, where we need not to pronounce with our tongue, but in our constience, our sinful state: which is not the close consistory of popish shrift, where without the tongue, the priest can know nothing. Yet again the same Doctor, upon the 50. Psal. Hom. 2. writeth most plainly. Pecoata tua dictio ut deleas illa: si confunderis elicui dicere, quia peccasti, dicito eaquotide in anima tuas non dico ut confiter 〈◊〉 servo tuo, ut exprobret: dicito deo, qui curateoe. Haec enim si non dixeris, ignorat ea Deus? nunquid à te vultea 〈◊〉 Cùm faciehas ea, practo erat, cùm admitteres 〈◊〉 are non erubuisti, & confiteri erubescis dicito in 〈◊〉 us in illa requiem habeas, dicito ingemiscens & lachrimen. Declare thy sins, that thou mayest 〈◊〉 them out: if thou be ashamed to declare to any that thou hast sinned, declare them daily in thine own soul. I do not say that thou oughtest to confess them to thy fellow servant, that he may cast thee in the teeth: declare them to God, which doth heal them. For if thou shalt not declare them, is God ignorant of them? Or would he know them by thee? when thou diddest them, he was present: when thou diddest commit them he knew, Thou waste not ashamed to sin, and art thou ashamed to confess? declare thy sins in this life, that thou mayst have rest in that life, declare them groaning and weeping. With what conscience could the Master of the sentences first, or any man after him, wrist these words of chrysostom to so contrary a meaning. But what dared they not do, which had given over themselves wholly to maintain the corrupt customs of the Romish Church, how concrarie soever they were, either to the holy scriptures, or to the testimonies of the ancient Doctors: But you have an invincible argument to prove plainly, that his only purpose was to bring men to confession and penance sacramental, you mean to Popish shrift. For there he chargeth them (say you) that they did not wcepe, nor lament, nor confess their sins, which he could not do rightly, if those things were only inwardly in cogitation and heart to be done. For how could he knowthat they did not make confession. Yes, Master Allen, being their pastor and overseer of their souls, he might know, by their outward, sinful, and careless conversation, that they did not weep, nor lament, nor confess their sins before God. For if they did daily examine themselves, as he chargeth them, they would not have been so lose in life as they were, and therefore you have not so much as obscurely proved your purpose, & lest of all that it was Chrysostom's only purpose, to drive his people to shrift, which if it had been a necessary institution of Christ, as you hold, he would not have been so dainty, for any offence of the weak, as you make him, to call men unto it, upon necessity of salvation. He that feared not openly to reprehend the Empress, would he have been afraid of the people's displeasure? No, no, Master Allen, God's institution, necessary to salvation, may not be concealed, though heaven and earth should run together, about the publishing thereof.  ALLEN. 
But whosoever list see the most assured and undoubted meaning of this holy Father touching confession to apriest, whereon I stand the longer, because our adversaries would pick quarrels with God's Church upon certain particles of his sentence, let him read the second and third book of the dignity of priesthood, where he doth not only attribute more dignity to that order, then to any other creature under God, but also maketh the priests to be as well the judges as surgeons of our souls, as to whom the searching, the cutting, the burning, the hard griping, the opening or the closing of 
Lib. 2. de sacerdotie  our wounds and sores of conscience, doth appertain. In all which cases he saith. Quî igitur phramacum ei morbo adhibere quis possit, cuius genus nequaquam intelligat? How should a man salve that sore, the nature and kind whereof he knoweth not? and to know it without confession of the party, is not possible. For the things within a man none knoweth, but the spirit, which is in man. And truly said the County Bonifacius to Saint Augustine: Ipse sibi denegat curam, qui suam 
Epist. 188.  medico non publicat causam: He hindereth his own health, that will not utter his disease and the cause thereof to his Physician. And further if you will be assured of the said Chrysostom's mind, touching confession, read his exposition upon the words of the institution of this sacrament, and of Christ's breathing the holy Ghost upon his Disciples, for their 
Super. 20. joannis.  power to remit sins. Where he declareth, that these holy things committed to the priests charge, do properly appertain to God, by whose special grace we obtain remission, even then, when the priest doth absolve us: where he also expresseth the very manner of the Church, in giving absolution, till this day, saying: that the priest doth but, as you would say, lend his voice, and his hand: signifying, that the manner was then, as it is yet, to speak the words of absolution, and lay the hand upon the penitents head, in the sacrament of penance. So in sense saith Saint chrysostom.  FVLKE. 
Whosoever list to read that book, shall find nothing in the world, to prove his judgement, for the necessity of auricular confession, but rather who so list to see Chrysostom's judgement of the necessity of shrift, let him consider what we have cited out of his writings in the last section. For in this place by you cited, he speaketh not of confession, but of the difficulty of a Priest's office, as I have showed before, to exact more knowledge, and diligence of them, because it is harder to be a shepherd of men, then of beasts. For the diseases of beasts may most commonly be seen, and they compelled to take the remedy: the diseases of men are hard, and sometimes impossible to be known, and no way either to compel men to discover them, or to receive medicine for them. Whereas, if confession were a necessary institution of God, he might have aptly brought it forth in this place, to show what way the spiritual shepherd hath, to understand the diseases of his sheep. His words are these, after he hath spoken of the bodily shepherd and his sheep. But the diseases of man first it is not easy for a man to see. For no man knoweth those things that pertain to man, but the spirit of man which is within him. How wherefore should a man use a medicine for that disease, the manner whereof he knoweth not: yea many times he cannot know whether a man be sick. But when that is made manifest, he hath more dissicultie about him. For he can not heal all men, with so great power, as the shepherd doth his sheep. For there he may bind him, restrain him of meat, burn him, cut him. But here the power to receive health, lieth not in him that offereth the medicine, but in the sick person. For this that wonderful man saw, when he said to the Corinthians, not that we are Lords of your faith, but we are helpers of your joy. And most of all it is not required in Christians by force to reform the transgressions of them that sin. But the foreign judges when they take malefactors under the laws, do show great power over them, and restrain them, against their will, to use the same manners. But here not by compulsion, but by persuasion, we must make such a one better: for there is no such power given us by the laws to restrain sins, neither if the laws gave such power, have we where to use it, seeing God crowneth not them which of necessity abstain from wickedness, but them that voluntaryly refrain from it. Therefore there is need of great cunning, that they which are sick may be persuaded willingly to submit themselves unto the healing of the Priests. Thus much chrysostom, nothing favouring the necessity of auricular confession, but rather denying any means, whereby the inward disease of a man may be known, except it be by voluntary & not extorted confession. The county Boniface speaketh of a public fact, which he committed in taking a man by force out of the Church, for which he was suspended by S. Augustine, until he did acknowledge his fault, and show himself penitent. Therefore his saying can not be drawn to the necessity of auricular shrift. Neither doth chrysostom, upon the 20. of john, declare any judgement or opinion, that he thought it necessary, for a man to shrive himself to a Priest. And where you urge his words, that the Priest doth lend his voice and his hands, it is to far of to prove, that it is necessary for every man to confess all his secret faults to a Priest. But I will set down all that he saith, in that place, lest any man which hath not, or can not understand the book, may suspect there is further matter contained thererein, toward this purpose then in deed there is. Magna enim dignit as sacerdotum, Quorumounque, etc. For great is the dignity of Priests. Whose sins you shall remit, saith he, they are remitted. Wherefore Paul said, Obey your governors, and be subject to them, that you may do them the greatest honour. For thou lookest to thine own matter, which if thou hast well ordered, there is none other charge laid upon the. The priest, if he do dispose his own life, and have not diligently cared for thine, he shall be thrust with the ungodly into 〈◊〉: and sometime he is not damned for his own deeds, but for ours, except he do all things that pertain unto him. Therefore seeing you see the greatness of the danger, embrace them with much benevocence: which Paul also signified saying, They do watch, as those which shall give an account of your souls, and therefore they are much to be loved. But if you shall insult against them, you shall not dispose your own things well. For so long as the master of the ship is of good & cheerful mind, the Mariners also are in quiet. But if he begin to be hated of them, & to be grieved, he cannot likewise watch, nor exercise his cunning & being grieved against his will, he shall trouble them with many evils. Even so the priest if he shall see, that the reverence due to him is performed by us, he shall be able to govern us well. But if you shall kill him weakening his hands, although he be of never so great courage, you shall cast him into the waves together with yourselves. Understand what Christ saith of the jews, Upon the chair of Moses the Scribes and pharisees did sit, do ye all things whatsoever they shall say to you. Now we must not say the priests are set upon the chair of Moses, but upon the chair of Christ: for they have received his doctrine: wherefore Paul saith, we are ambassadors for Chest, as though Christ did exhore by us: Do ye not see that all men are subject to the Princes of the world, and that often times the worse in birth, life, and wisdom, are preferred before the better: Nevertheless, men consider the reverence of the Prince that hath preferred them, not the persons whatsoever they be. so that if man appoint one over us, there is so great fear: if God have appointed any man, we despise him, 〈◊〉 on him, and vex him with innumerable contumelies: and whereas we are forbidden to judge our brethren, we whet our tongues against the priests. Of what excuse are these things worthy, when we see not a beam in our own eye, and judge so severelse, a mote in our neighbour's eye? Dost thou not know, that thou prescribest to thyself a more heavy judgement, when thou so judgest another? This I say, not that I allow unworthy persons to be taken into the priests office, but having compassion and weeping: For they are not therefore to be judged by their subjects, although they live evilly, and vitiouslie. But if thou look well to thyself: thou shalt not affend end in anie'thing that is committed to them. For if he made an Ass to speak, and gave spiritual blessings by a soothsayer, and wrought in a dumb mouth, and the unclean tongue of Balaam, for the stumbling jews: much more for you that be faithful, although the priests be nought, God shall persorme all things by them, and send his holy spirit: for a pure mind doth not therefore lose his pureness, but grace worketh all things. for all are yours, saith he, whether it be Paul or Apollo, or Cephas. For whatsoever the priest goeth about, it is the gift of God alone, and when he exerciseth man's wisdom, his grace appeareth less. Neither do I say this, that we might live more slouthfullie, but least while they that are set over you live slouthfullie, you that are committed to them, should at any time procure evil to yourselves. And what speak I of the Priest? Neither an Angel, nor an Archangel can bring any thing to pass, in those things which are given by God. But the father, the son, and the holy ghost, doth all things. The priest giveth his tongue, and his hands, for it is not just, that for malice of an other man, they that come to our salvation should be offended. All which things considered, let us both sear God, and greatly reverence his priests, that honour being given both to our works, and to them, we may receive great reward of God, by the grace and goodness of our Lord jesus Christ, to whom with the father and the holy ghost be glory for ever, and ever. Amen. These words of chrysostom declare that the ministration of the word and of the sacraments, in which the Priest dareth his tongue, and his hands, are not defiled by the evil life of the Priest, so he sit in the chair of Christ & preach the doctrine received by him, confirming the same by the sacrament of his institution. But of the popish sacrament of penance, or auricular confession, they speak nothing at all. Contrariwise they show by what means the Priests do execute the authority granted them in remission of sins, namely in the whole office of their ministery, consisting principally in preaching and ministering the sacraments, not in giving private absolution, only, or principally.  ALLEN. 
But to leave him, and fall to other of great antiquity and learning, whose judgements also will prove, not only for the truth of his doctrine, but also (which is much more) for the uniformity of this open Ceremony, which the Church of old used, and therefore in the like truth of things, yet keepeth: Theodoritus therefore, a Greek author also, doth plainly 
Divinorum decret. Epi. cap. de poeniten.  insinuate not only the whole sacrameut, but even this Ceremony of laying on hands in the act of absolution. Sunt medicabilia (saith he) etiam quae post baptismum fiunt vulnera: medicabilia autem, non 〈◊〉 olim per solam fidem data remissione, sed per multas lachrymas, & fletus, & iciunium, & orationem, & laborem facti peccati quantitate moderatum. Quienim non sic affecti sunt, eos nec admittere quidem didicimus, nee divina sunt manu impertienda. Nolite, inquit, dare sanctum canibus nec margaritas porcis. The wounds which are made even after Baptism, be to be healed: marry they cannot be remedied, as before in Baptism, by remission obtained by only faith, but they must now be cured by tears and weeping, by fasting and praying, and by penance measured after the quantity and nature of the fault. For whosoever be not so qualified, we have not learned to receive them to grace, neither be the holy gifts to be bestowed upon them, by our hand. Give not, saith he, holy things to dogs, nor precious stones to swine. Thus doth Theodoritus allude also to our manner yet used in the sacrament, where remission is given by the priests word, and hand. For which cause Saint Aogustine calleth this sacrament of reconciliation, sometimes, Imposition of hands, as he doth other sacraments more also, where the priests, by this external Ceremony of laying on of hands, use to give grace,  Fulke. 
Theodoret which lived so long after confession was abrogated by Nectarius in the Greek Church, speaketh nothing for it, but that repentance must best be testified by many tears, & weeping, fasting and prayer, and such like labour, moderated according to the quantity of the sin committed, otherwise they are not to be admitted into the Church, nor to be made partakers of the holy communion. So that he speaketh of them, that for grievous sins are excommunicated, who are not to be received but upon their hearty repentance, nor the divine mysteries to be delivered unto them. Wherefore there is no allusion in his words unto the popish manner of absolution, with the word and hand. For he speaketh of admission and delivery, with the hand. Which must be understood of them that were excluded, and debarred from receiving, which are accounted dogs, and hogs. For I hope you account not all sinners, for dogs and hogs, before they be shriven, if they be not by the sword of excommunication cut of from the Church. But Saint Augustine, as you say, calleth this your sacrament, Imposition of hands. If you mean the place De bapt. contr. Donatistas' lib. quinto, cap 20. Because there is no eight book, whereunto your margin sendeth us, he speaketh in deed of them, on whom hands are laid, which may be them that are confirmed, or ordained to the ministery of the Church, as well as of any other, on whom hands were laid: but of the sacrament of penance, he speaketh not there or else where, in all his works, nor of the necessity of confessing of secret sins to a Priest.  ALLEN. 
But to go forward in our matter, Saint basil a greek writer also, doth evidently show both his meaning, and his Churches practise, touching confession, both often else, & namely 
Quaest. 288. regula conera.  where he saith, upon the occasion of a question moved touching that matter, thus: Necessarium est, ut iis fiat confessio peccatorum, quibus dispensatio mysteriorum Dei 〈◊〉 est. Name & hoc pacto qui olim inter sanctos poenitentiam egerunt, fecisse reperiuntur. It is necessary (saith he) that our confession should be made to them, to whom God hath credited the disposing, & bestowing of his holy mysteries. For so the Saints did penance, as we read. And he allegeth more, that penance was used, & special sorowfulness for sins with some kind of confession of sins in baptism, how much more than must we now use the same, where it is more required, & where Christ hath instituted a Sacrament to that end, to remit suines committed by relapse after Baptism.  
And in deed the custom of john the Baptist proveth that there was a kind of confession necessary, or at the least convenient, 
Mat. 3. & Mar. 1.  before the institution of this Sacrament. For the Euangelisten do say: Baptizabantur ab eo in jordane, confitentes peccata sua: Men were baptised of him in jordane, and made confession of their sins. So that john may seem to have prepared the way to Christ's doctrine and Sacraments, not only by his baptism but also by the using of the people to confess their faults: and yet it is not necessary that his usage of penance should be of like force, or should contain an exact conconfession of every sin, as the institution of Christ afterward did include, no more than this Baptism may be thought to be fully answerable, either in manner of usage, or force and efficacy, to the holy sacrament of Baptism by Christ instituted, for the office of the new law. And in an other place the said S. basil treateth how young Nuns and holy sacred 
Quaest. 110.  Virgens should confess themselves. And in an other place he admonisheth all men to be circumspect in choice of their ghostly father, by whose sentence sins ought with singular discretion to be judged or examined. Whereby it is most manifest, that confession to the priests was used, and counted necessary in his days.  FVLKE. 
You say well that S. basil speaketh upon occasion of a question that was moved touching this matter, which question if it had pleased you to set down, Saint basil should have served you for no show or colour, of the necessity of shrift, or confession of private offences. The question is this O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that is willing to confess his sins, whether ought be to confess them to all men, whatsoever they be, or to certain men. By which question it is manifest that confession was not necessary but voluntary. But if any man will make confession, S. basil saith, he ought to do it to them, to whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is committed. For so they which repented of old time, are found to have done, unto the holy men: for it is written in the Gospel, that they confessea ' their sins to john the Baptist: & in the Acts of the Apostles, all men confessed to them, by whom they were baptised. And we acknowledge as much, that if any man will confess his secret sins, to be partaker of spiritual counsel, and comfort, for quieting of his conscience, he may & aught to confess the same to them to whom the dispensation of God's mysteries are committed. But what is this for the necessity of enumeration of all sins unto a priest. The same basil in the Hom. 21. upon Psal. 37. acknowledgeth in the person of David, confession to God alone to be sufficient, yea the secret groaning of the heart, without moving of lips, or uttering any words, to suffice. In the 110. question, for which you have placed question the 100 as there is somewhat to prove that confession was used to the priest or Elder, so there is nothing to prove, that it was counted necessary in his days. The question is this, whether as at such time a sister maketh confession to an Elder, the Elder women must be present. This question declareth, that priests had not such familiar and secret shriving of virgins in those days, as they have now among the papists. S. Basils' answer is this. The confession shall be made more decently, and more reverently, by the Elder woman unto the Elder man, which is able wisely to set down the form of repentance & reformation. This answer declareth that Saint basel would not have young women to shrive themselves at all, unto the Priest, but that if any thing troubled their conscience, which they were disirous to utter, they should first express it to an ancient woman, and she should make report thereof to the Priest, as in the colleges of virgins he prescribeth it most convenient, to be done by the matron or Elder woman, that had the oversight of the young sisters: and in the next question he affirmeth, that the said Elder woman, or governess hath just cause to be angry with the Priest, if he appoint any thing to be done by the sisters, that are under her charge, without her knowledge. Whereby he declareth plainly that he alloweth not that priests should hear the secret confession of such young women, or appoint them any penance, without the knowledge of their governess. That men ought to make good choice of them to whom they will confess their secret offences, it proveth not that confession is necessary, whereupon we stand, or that it was accounted necessary in Saint basil's days. That john Baptist made a preparation to shrift, it is a fond dream, when you yourself acknowledge, that your sacrament hath no place in them that are not baptized. That the institution of Christ doth include an exact confession of every sin to the Priest, you can never be able to prove. The Baptism of john was not instituted by man but by God: therefore of as great efficacy, as that which was ministered by the Apostles: for Christ was baptised for us, not with the worse baptism which was ministered by the hands of john.  ALLEN. 
Necephorus later than he, but a learned Greek writer, declareth also unto Theodosius a Monk, that the power of 
Niceph. 〈◊〉 cartophilax ad Theodos.  binding and losing sins was committed to bishops, by our merciful Lord Christ jesus, in so much (saith he) that once all men came and confessed their secret sins to them, by whom they either received pardon, or were put back. But now through the increase of Christian people, and great tediousness of the work, they have committed this business much what to religious persons, such as be of tried conditions, for to be most profitable to others. Thus saith he in sense.  FVLKE. 
This Nicephorus is too late a Greek writer, that we should approve his judgement, for the necessity or perpetual practice of auricular confession. Again there is nothing but a fragment of an Epistle remaining, by which we cannot thoroughly gather what his judgement was. But this is manifest in him, that men ought no more to confess themselves to an unlearned man, then in sickness to take counsel of one that is ignorant in physic. Again he saith not (as you report,) that once all men came, & confessed their sins to bishops. But he gathered upon the commission granted to Bishops, by those words, which were spoken to Peter, whatsoever thou shalt bind, shallbe bound, and whatsoever thou shalt lose, shallbe loosed: that olim omnes oportehat ad ipsos pontifices accedere, suaque illis occulta prodere, & sic vel reconciliationem, vel repudium far. Ignoro autem quî factum sit, cur haec minùs obseruentur, quamuis existmem pontifices negocij taedio frequentique 〈◊〉 turbulentia defatigatos id operae ad Monachos transmisisse, eos scilicet qui verè probati sint aliisque valeant esse utiles: nihil enim tale inexpertis & indoctis permiserunt. In times past it behoved all men to come to the bishops themselves, & to utter their secrets unto them, and so to receive either reconciliation or refusal. But I am ignorant how it is come to pass that these things are not observed, although I think that the bishops being wearied by the tediousness of the business and the often troublesomeness of the multitude, have set over that labour to the monks, namely those that are truly appooved, and are able to be profitable unto other: for to unexpert and unlearned men they have permitted no such thing. In this writer there is nothing, but his own collection and conjecture, which is not sufficient to 〈◊〉 men's consciences with a necessity of confessing all their secret sins to a Bishop or Monk, and lest of all to an ignorant and unlearned priest, such as are and have been the most rife, and ready confessors among the papists.  ALLEN. 
These therefore and many other do testify for their Church, in what solemn use sacramental confession hath ever been. Wherein we have the less need to stand long, seeing the same History that our adversaries do sometime allege, plainly reporteth, not only in the Church of Constantinople, but also in the West Churches, and namely at Rome, always since Novatus the Heretics false opinion touching penance rose, a virtuous Priest, sad, secret, and wise, was appointed to hear the sins of all men, and was called the Pnitentiarie then, as he and the like of that office he called yet. We call them Confessors, and of old in Greek, they were named Spiritual Masters or Fathers, as we now term them in our Mother tongue, Ghostly Fathers also, Quisecundùm uniuscuiusque culpam indicebant & mulctans. Who (saith Sozomenus) according to every man's fault, prescribed due penance. Which penance though it were often openly done by the confessors appointment: yet the sins were not known, for which the penance was prescribed. For the confession was secret or auricular, as we call it now, as is plain by the history (else the Priest of that office should not have been charged with secrecy and silence) though the confession sometimes was also open, where the penitents devotion or desire so required, as it may be yet. For it is no matter for the substance of the sacrament, whether it be public or private. And it is the condescending to the people's weakness, that, that should be so secret generally, which often in old time hath been open. And yet I think no man was ever compelled by any precept of the Church, to confess in the public face of the Church his sins that were committed secretly. Though in Leo the greathis days, there was a custom not allowable, that men 
Epist. ad Episc. Pice ni & Campaniae.  were forced to give up a libel openly of all their sins. Which rigorous custom, the said holy father afterward abrogated. Nevertheless the penance was of old often public, the form whereof appeareth in Saint Ambrose, in Tertullian, who both 
Poenitentes.  have written several books De poenitentia, in Saint Augustine in sundry places, and in this present History of Sozomenus. And long after their days there were called Poenitentes, Penitents, which were barred from the holy communion, & the secrets & sovereign holy of the blessed mysteries of the Mass, so long as their prescribed penance endured, besides fasting, alms, and other like penalties enjoyed And especially in Lent time, there were of these devout public penitentes, as appeareth by diverse orders of the service in the Church, appointed & agreeing to them, who lightly were separated till the celebrating of the Lords supper & passion, in the holy days next before Easter. Whereof yet in most Churches there remaineth a small sign, by discipline given to the people with rods on the same days. But now these many years, the people's feebleness considered, there is no public penance given nor received in the Sacrament, much less open confession made of any secret crimes, the Church being well assured, that this auricular confession sully answereth Christ's institution, and agreeth also with the often practise of the Primitive Church herein, though the heretics, and some of their falters, as Beatus Rhenanus, or who else soever wrote the preface, that commonly 〈◊〉 annexed to Tertullian, deny the same. And truly, seeing their wanton pleasure is, not to bear secret confession, I dare say, they can much less away with public penance or confession, which is a thousand times more burdenous.  FVLKE. 
There hath hitherto no ancient writer been brought, to testify the necessity of confession of secret sins, nor that there is any sacrament, whereof such confession should be part. The story before remembered testifieth of the abolishing of such confession in the Church of Constantinople, but that there was any such Priest, or confession used in the Church of Rome, it maketh no mention, but only showeth that they which did open penance, which was for open offences, for which they were excommunicated, were enjoined an exercise or trial, after the performance whereof they were received into the Church again. As you think, that no man for his sins committed secretly, was compelled to make confession in the public face of the Church, so do I think, that no man in those ancient and better times was ever compelled to make any confession open, or secret, of all his secret faults committed in thought, word, and deed. The public penance mentioned in Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, was for public offences. The ridiculous discipline given with rods in the popish Church, by the very name thereof declareth, that it is a mockery of the old discipline, & no sign of any sacrament of confession. And therefore as yet, nothing is brought to prove auricular confessing of secret sins, to be a necessary institution of Christ, or agreeable with the practice of the Primitive Church, or to disprove Beatus Rhenanus, which denieth the same, accusing both the novelty, and and the tyranny thereof, and the danger that men's consciences have been in through it, beside many other known inconveniences.  ALLEN. 
But now if you confer with the Fathers of all ages and of every notable Church, touching this confession to God's Priests, you may begin if you list, even at this day, and drive up both the truth of the doctrine, and the perpetual practice thereof, even to the Apostles time. In the late holy Council holden at Trent, both the doctrine is confirmed, and declared 
Sess. 14. Cap. 5. de Confess. c. 3. & 6.  with all gravity, and also the adversaries of that sacrament, and the misconstructers of Christ's words of remission, to pertain to preaching of the Gospel, & not to the very act of absolution, be by the consent of all Catholic states of the Christian world, accursed & excommunicated. It was at Furence also decreed 
De Sacrament. Poeniten.  in a most general assembly of both the Latin and Greek Church that as well the whole sacrament of penance, as that especial part which is called confession, was of Christ's institution. In the great council holden at Lateran, there is so plain charge given to every Christian to confess his sins, either to 
Can. 21. Omnis 〈◊〉; sexus.  his own ordinary Parochian, or to some other Priest, that hath by him, or otherwise, authority and jurisdiction over the penitent, that Protestants affirm, albeit very false'y, that confession was first instituted in the said Council: and this was more than three hundred years since. And four hundred years before that in a Provincial Council that was kept at 
Can. 7.  Vormacia, there is a Canon made concerning the qualities of the priests, that are constituted to be confessors and Penitentiaries, where it is commanded, that they be such. Qui possunt singulorum causas, originem quoque, & modum culparum sigillatim considerare & examinare, That can particularly try out and examine the causes of every offender, the manner and ground of their faults.  FVLKE. 
We are so well acquainted with your often brags of Fathers, and councils, that we never start for them: seeing we know, you have nothing, but the dross of the latter times, to cast at us. For the Council of Trentes decree, we esteem it, as it is worthy, being made by a few buckram Bishops of Italy, and some other Epicurian prelate's of other countries to patch up, rather than to repair the ruins and decay of the kingdom of Antichrist. In the late Council of Florence, I remember nothing decreed of this matter, neither do you note, where we should find it. In the Lateran Council, that was kept little more than 300. years since, the Protestants do truly affirm, that the necessity of auricular confession was first imposed upon men, of the Romish Church. For in the council of Worms, which you say was 400 years elder, there is never a word of confession, or confessor, but of wife consideration to be had of them that did penance, by which are meant open offenders, that did open penance: neither are you able to prove the contrary. Paenitentibue (saith the Canon) serundum differentiam peccatorum, etc. To the penitents or such as do penance, let penance be decreed by the judgement of the Priest, according to the difference of their sins. Therefore in giving penance the Priest ought severally to consider the causer of every one, the beginning also & manner of the faulies, and diligently to examine and manifestly to know the affection and sighings of the offenders, also to consider the qualities of the times, & persons, of the places, & ages: that according to the consideration of the places, ages, or times, or according to the quality of the offences, & the groaning of every offendor, he turn not his eyes from the holy rules. Thus far the Canon, after which follow the rules of penance to be appointed for divers kinds of offences: as for him that hath killed a Priest, a pagan, his parents, or brother or for him that hath slain a man in his madness, or against his will, and such like, whereby it appeareth that the Canon was made for penance to be enjoined to public offenders, and not to compel men to confess their secret sins.  ALLEN. 
Which decree is borrowed word for word almost, out of the last Canon of Constantinople Council, called the sixth general, 
Can. 102.  which was long before all the foresaid Synods. Their discourse is long upon the priests duty, which should sit on confessions, whom they instruct by these words: Oportebit, qui facultatem absoluendi & ligandi à Deo receperunt, peccati qualitatem speculentur, & peccatoris promptitudinem ad reversionem, ut sic medicamentum admoveant aegritudini aptum, ne si de peccato sine discrimine statuant, aberrent à salute aegrotantis. Those that have received of our Lord power to lose and bind, must try out the quality of every fault, and the readiness of the offender to return unto virtue, that they may provide a medicine meet to the malady, lest if they should without distinct knowledge of their sin give judgement, they should err in poruiding health for the sick person. By which Council kept in Constantinople, you may easily gather, that neither confession was ever omitted by the law, nor the common Penitentiary long abrogated out of Constaninople Church. And when I name these decrees of so many general Counsels in diu rfe ages, I do not only call them generally to witness for my cause, which were enough, seeing every determination there, passeth as by the sentence of the holy Ghost and Christ's own judgement, of whose presence such hotie assemblance is assured, but I appeal to everic holy Bishop, Priest, and Prince of the world, that agreed to the same, and were there assembled, every of which was of more experience, learning, and virtue, or at the least of more humility, than all our adversaries alive. But now if you go to try other the learned writers of all times, for the practise of this point, than our labour shall be infinite, but our cause more strong, and 〈◊〉 adversaries sooner confounded. I need not for that practise, name the learned schoolemem, of excellent capacity in deep mysteries, because they were so late, and because Heretics can not deny, but they are all undoubtedly against them, and every one for us: Thomas Aquinas is ours, Dionysius is ours, I mean the Carthusian. If any man doubt of Saint Bernard, let him read the life of Malachi, whom he praiseth for bringing into ure the most profitable use of confession, 
In vitam Malach. Super 5. ca jacob.  in the rude parts of Ireland. Saint Bede is proved before, not only to have allowed confession to the Priest, but to have expounded Saint james words of confession for the sacrament of penance, and uttering our sins to God's Ministers. And he recordeth that in our Country of England, before his days, confession was used to a Priest. Whereof, as also os penance and satisfaction, there is an example or two in the fourth book of his ecclesiastical history of our Church.  FVLKE. 
The decree of the Constantinopolitan council in sense is the same with the former, but not word for word, nay, almost it hath never a word alike. But it is to be understood of public penitentes, to be bound, or loosed according to their quality of the offence & the greatness of their repentance. The words are these. It behoveth that they which have received of god the power of losing and binding, consider the quality of the sin, and the readiness of the sinner unto returning, that so they may use a medicine fit for the disease, lest if they should determine of sin without difference, they should err from the health of the sick person. For the disease of sin is not simple, but diverse and of many forms, and budding up with many hurtful branches, by which the evil is spread far and wide, and creepeth so far, until at length it withstandeth the virtue of that which healeth. Therefore he that will show what skill he hath in the spiritual art of healing, must diligently search out, how he that hath sinned is affected, whether he incline unto health, or contrariwise, by those manners to which he is familiarly accustomed, provoke the diseased to look against him, and whether he by himself obeyeth his Master or whether the sore of the mind doth increase by medicines that are laid to it: and so mercy is to be bestowed by equal measure. For there is great regard both with God, and with the governor of this pastoral care, to bring home the wandering sheep, and to heal it being wounded by the serpent, and neither to thrust it down by the headlongs of desperation, nor to lose the rains unto dissolution of life, and contempt, but by all means as well by sharp medicines as by gentle, to withstand and strive, that the sore may be healed, that he which knoweth the fruits of repentance, may wisely govern the man, being called unto that heavenly glory. Therefore he ought to know both kinds of medicines, as well them that be of rigour, as them that be of pity, and not to follow them, which have taken in hand only the upper face of figures that are delivered as Saint basil hath taught us. In this Canon there is no word of confession, or whereby the necessity of confession may be inferred upon all men for their secret offences. Neither can it be proved that the penitentiary priest once abrogated by Nectarius was ever restored. The schoolmes' opinion we are no more bound to follow in this, then in other points of popery. Saint Bernard alloweth in deed confession made unto the Priests, and ministers of God, but the necessity thereof he doth not lay as a clog on men's consciences. The like I say of S. Bede, who in the book and Chapter by you quoted, speaketh of one Adamanus a scot, who having committed some great wickedness in his youth, when he considered the greevosnes of his fact, was in great distrust of mind: and coming to a priest, of whom he hoped that the way of salvation might be showed unto him, he confessed his guiltiness, and desired him to give him counsel how he might avoid the wrath of God that was to come. After this manner to come to confession, we deny not, but it is most expedient for them that are not quieted in conscience but that all men are bound by this or any other example, to make a particular rehearsal of their sins to a priest, before they can have remission, Beda neither here, nor else where teacheth.  ALLEN. 
Before him, S. Gregory, so well liketh and knoweth this practise of sacramental confession, that in his Pastorll, he 
Cap. 15. In Pastoral Gregorij.  prescribeth the Priests of God's Ghurch, many ways how to seek out the diseases of their people's souls, and according to the variety of the same, to admit or put back, to pardon or to punish: yea so plain he is in this matter, that he 
De Poen. dist. 6. Cap. de Sacer. 5.  chargeth the Priest to be exceeding grievoslie punished, that in any case shall utter the Penitentes confession or any part thereof. Again far above these, holy Leo the great amending the hard custom that in some places of Italy 
Epist. 80.  & Campania, was used, touching public confession of private sins, he saith: Reatus conscientiarum sussiciat solis sacerdotib? indicari, confession secreta. Quamuis enim plenitudo fidei videtur esse laudabilis, que propter Dei timorem apud homines 
Vide eundem ad Theo. dor. juli. 〈◊〉.  eruhescere non veretur, tamen quia non omnium huiusmodi suntpeccata, ut velint in poenitentiam ed publicari, removeatur tam improbabilis cohsuetudo, ne multi à poenitentiae remedijs arceantur, dum aut erubescunt, aut metuunt 〈◊〉 sais facta suareserare, quibus possint legum constitutione per eli. Sufficit enim illa confessio, quae primùm Deo offertur, tunc 〈◊〉 saccrdoti, qui pro debitis confitentium precator accedit. Tunc enim demum piures ad poenitentiam potuerunt provocari si populi auribus non publicetur conscientia confitentis. It is enough, that the guilt & offences of man's conscience be opened to the Priests alone in secret confession. For though the fervor of faith be very laudable, which is content for God's sake to be ashamed before men, yet because the sins of every man be not such, that the penitent would gladly utter openly, let so raprobale custom be abolished, lest many be holden from the remedies of penance, whiles either they are ashamed, or fear to open their deeds to their enemies, by whom they might by order of law be punished. For that confession is sufficient, which is made first to God, and then to the Priest also, who will be an intercessor for the sins of them that confess. For than might more be provoked to penance, if the secret conscience of the confessed be not published to the ears of the people. Thus saith Saint Leo, a man of that time and credit, as our adversaries would wish. Let them say now, that private confession began in the Lateran Council, because that thing which ever was counted and used as necessary, was there decreed for the amending of the people's sloth, to be done every year once at the jest, before they received the blessed sacrament. As truly may they say, that the eucharist and receiving thereof, was begun in the same Council, & by the very same Canon. For as there is charge, that every man should be confessed, so there is commandment given, that every man shall receive once a year the blessed Sacrament. So little care they have, what they say, so that they say enough to beguile them, that can skill of nothing.  FVLKE. 
If Saint Gregory in his pastoral or else where, had written any thing that might but make a face of the necessity of auricular confession, you would have set down some part of his words, or at least quoted the book, and Chapter: where we might find them: but in truth there is no such matter in all that work containing three parts and many Chapters, but he teacheth the behaviour of a pastor and preacher towards alkindes' of persons, both in his life, and in his doctrine: of auricular confession never a word. Therefore you fly to Gratian'S decres, where Gregory in deed is cited for such a matter, but which Gregory, it doth not appear, therefore it is more like to be one of the later Gregory's, than Gregory the first: in whose works long enough you can not show that sentence: and where you say, the priest may not in any case utter the penitents confession, the gloss upon the text is against you, who holdeth that he may lawfully reveal it, to avoid excommunication, if the Bishop shall excommunicate all them that are privy of such a fact. But Leo in deed speaketh of auricular confession, or at the least of confession made only to the priests, not urging it as necessary to salvation, nor requiring an exact numbering of every mortal sin, as the Papists do, which be the matters we stand upon, and not whether it be lawful for men to confess their offences to their pastor, which we think to be most expedient for them that are troubled in mind, about them, but not necesrie for all men, nor for all sins. The time and credit of Leo, although it be of better account then of his successors, yet it is not such, as we would wish. For the time had many corruptions and superstitions: the person was over careful to maintain the dignity of his sea, which by little and little after him was turned into the seat of Antichrist, and therefore his ambition was controlled by the general council of Chalcedon, which made the Bishop of Constantinople his equal in all primacy of honour and authority, although he by his Legates would have withstood it: but in vain: for all the Bishops allowed it, except Lucentius and Pascasius his deputies. We may still say that the necessity of auricular confession came first from the Lateran Council, for before it, you cannot prove that it was enjoined upon necessity, although it was used voluntarily, and thought of some very convenient.  ALLEN. 
But to hold on upward, holy Prosper giveth good evidence for his time, touching the practise of Confession, and needful recourse to Priests for the release of their sins. 
De vita con tempt.  Sundry remedies he showeth for every sore of man's soul, and much he moveth all Christians to confess their sins, advertising them of the danger thereof, if they keep them close. Thus he saith: Illi, quorum peccata humanam notitiam latent, nec ab ipsis confessa, nec ab 〈◊〉 publicata, si ea confiteri aut emendare noluerint, deum quem habent testem, ipsum habituri sunt & ultorem. Et quid eye prodest, humanum vitare judicium, cùm si in malo suo permanserint, ituri sunt in aeternum 〈◊〉 retribuente supplicium? That is to say, Those men, whose sins be secret, and be not confessed of themselves, nor 
lib. 2. c. 7.  published by other men, if they will not confess them or correct them, they shall have God their just revenger, whom they have now a record of their wickedness. And what are they the better to escape man's verdict, when, if they continue in wickedness, by the just judgement of God they shall go into everlasting punishment? And afterward in the same Chapter, which is exceeding much to be considered, he giveth all Priests careful admonition, that if any of them having committed deadly sin, do notwithstanding without confession and uttering of the same hold on his ministry of the blessed Sacrament, because he would not in the sight of men be noted worthy, that in this case he damneth himself before God, whose heavy indignation he cannot avoid, whiles he is ashamed to utter his sins unto men.  FVLKE. 
Prosper hath nothing for the necessity of auricular confession, but rather against it. For he speaketh against them that will neither confess their secret sins, nor amend their lives without confession to other men, showing that if they continue in their sin in vain shall they avoid the judgement of man, and fall into the eternal judgement of God. It followeth immediately. Quòd si ipsi judices fiant, & veluti suae iniquttatis ultores huius in se voluntariam poenam severissimae animaduersionis exerceant, temporalibus poenis mutabunt aeterna supplicia, & lachrimis ex vera cordis compunctione fluentibus restinguent aeterna ignis incendia. But if they become judges themselves and as it were revengers of their own iniquity, do exercise hereupon themselves the punishment of most severe correction, with temporal pains, they shall change eternal punishments, and with tears flowing out of true compunction of heart, they shall quench the burning of eternal fire. These words declare by what means without confession of secret faults men may obtain remission and avoid everlasting punishment. Which thing is yet more clear in that careful admonition, which he giveth to Priests, not to communicate without confession, or at least wise secret repentance, and punishment enjoined to themselves. His words are these. Quapropter Deum sibi facilius placabunt illi, qui non humano convict judicio, sed ultrò crimen cognoscunt, qui aut proprijs illorum confessionibus produnt, aut 〈◊〉 alijs quoles occulti sint, ipsi in se voluntariae excommunication is sententiam ferant, & ab altari cui ministrabant, non animo, sed officio seperati vitam tanquam mortuam plangunt, certi quòd reconciliato sibi efficacis poenitentiae fructibus Deo, non solùm amissa recipiunt, sed etiam cives supernae civitatis effecti ad gaudia sempiterna perveniant. Wherefore those men, shall more easily pacify God unto themselves, which being not convicted by man's judgement, but of their own accord acknowledge there fault: which either bewray the same by their own confessions, or though other men know not what they are in secret, they themselves give sentence of voluntary excommunication against themselves, and being separated not in mind but in office, from the altar which they served, do bewail their life as dead, being certain, that God being reconciled to them by the ftuites of effectual repentance, they do not only recover that they have lost, but also being made citizens of the heavenly city, they come into the eternal joys. By these words of Prosper it is evident, that confession of all particular sins, was not thought necessary to salvation, but that a man confessing his sins before God, and enjoining unto himself the ftuites of repentance without the knowledge of men, he might assure himself of remission and of eternal felicity  ALLEN. 
All this meaning hath Saint Prosper, and his equal in age Saint Augustine toucheth the disease of our days very sharply, saying thus: There be some which think that it is enough 
De visit. infirmorum 1. 2. cap. 4.  for their salvation, if they confess their faults to God alone, to whom nothing is hid, and from whom no man's conscience is close. For they will not, or they are ashamed, or at the least they disdain to submit themselves to the Priests, whom God hath given power unto, to discern the clean from the unclean. But I would thou shouldest not beguile thyself by false persuasion, or some respect of shame that thou hast to confess unto the priest, who is God's Vicar. For I tell thee, thou must under his judgement, whom God doth not disdain, to constitute his Vicegerent. But this Doctor made a whole work of penance, and the ways of recovery of Christian man's fall after Baptism by the Priest's judgement, and sacrament of Confession. Of the which books if any man list doubt, yet let him be assured, that they be both ancient, Catholic, learned, and agreeable to the doctrine of Saint Augustine's days, whosoever made them. And our cause is so much more helped, because not only Saint Austin, who is plain in these matters, upon Saint Matthwes Gospel, and else where, as it is declared already, but also other of great antiquity, confirm the same, and plainly confound the pride of our days, in which men are not somuch ashamed of their sins, as they be disdainful to confess their sins unto a poor priest, though he justly accupie the very judgement seat of God.  FVLKE. 
You do wisely to divorce upon his meaning when you have not his words to warrant you. For so you may blind the eyes of the ignorant, to believe that you have some farther intelligence of meaning than can appear even by the words that you have cited out of him. For the 〈◊〉 of condemnation, is not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them, which are ashamed to confess their faults to men, if they amend them before god, but against them that fly the knowledge and judgement of men, and yet do not repent before God. And therefore he saith, si ea confiteri aut emendare noluerirt, if they will not confess them or amend them, and again, si in maio suo permanserint, if they shall continue in their evil. But if they will amend their faults, and not continue in sin, he dare promise them forgiveness and life everlasting, as is declared in the last section. But now you charge us with Saint Agustines' authority, and yet you will not abide by it that it is Saint Augastines' authority, wherein you deal more sincerely, than Papists are commonly wont to do, to acknowledge that these books you vouch are not admitted for Saint Augustine's authority. Among so many great and large volumes, as are certainly known and generally received to be of Saint Augustine's writing, where you can find nothing but these books of uncertain credit, to maintain the necessity of auricular confession, the indifferent reader may well gather how little ground your purpose can find in that age of S. Augustine's. For that you have declared already out of S. Austin upon S. Matthewes Gospel, & else where, how plain it is for these matters, let the reader judge by that I have answered in those several places. But as touching the books de visitatione 〈◊〉, being one of the two treatises that you cite, as it is certain that it was not of S. Austin's writing, so hath it no similitude with the doctrine of his time, or with the style of any learned or ancient father. The Censure of Erasmus upon these books is this, Sermo locutulei, nec docti nec diserti. Quid habuerunt vel frontis vel mentis, qui talia scripta nobis obtruserunt nomine Augustini, etc. These books are the speech of a prattler neither learned nor eloquent. What shame or wit had they which have thrust upon us such writings under the name of S. Augustine? Yet you dare assure us that they be ancient, Catholic, learned, and agreeable to the doctrine of Saint Augustine's days. But the reasons of your assurance you spare to show, giving us nothing but your bare word, which is sufficient among unlearned and sottish Papists, whose ignorance you knew would accept whatsoever you brought, and therefore were carls what all the learned of the contrary part might judge of your impudent and shameless assertions. Concerning the other whole work of penance, which you affirm that this doctor made, although it were granted that Saint Augustine was author of that work of repentance, as it shall be easily granted, that if not Saint Augustine, yet some other ancient and learned father, was the writer of them: nevertheless there is nothing in them by which you are able to prove the matter in controversy, namely the necessity of confession of all mortal sins to a Priest. And therefore albeit you set a good face upon the matter, you have never a sentence to set down, out of those books, that is able to give but only a gloss, or colour to your Popish confession. For if you had, you would not have been silent in setting forth the sentence of another beside Saint Augustine, as you say, and as I think, of great antiquity, who against them that be impenitent, and neither acknowledge their sins unfeignedly before God, nor study to amend and reform their wicked life, writeth vehemently, showing three kinds of repentance, one before baptism, in them that are of years, another after baptism, which is daily sorrowing for our infirmities in saying the lords prayer, the third of heinous and notorious sins offensive to the Church, of them that are excommunicated and are not to be received, without open confession and signs of humility. But the necessity of confessing all things to a poor priest justly occupying the very judgement seat of God, there is no word in either of those two books, De medicina poenitentiae & de utilitate poenitentiae.  ALLEN. 
And Saint Ambrose, these men's ancient somewhat, did know this practice so well, and allow it, that he did sit in his 
Ambrose ex Paulino.  own person on confession, as Paulinus doth record, whose behaviour in that divine office, that all Priests may perceive, and all the people note, I will report: Quotie scunque illi aliquis ob percipiendam poenitentiam lapsus suos confessus esset, it a flebat, ut ilium flere compellerat. Causas autem criminum, quas illi confitebaniur, nulli nisi Domino soli apud quens intercedebat, loquebatur, bonum relinquens exemplum posteris sacerdotibus, ut intercessores apud Deum sin: magis quàm accusatores apud homines. That is to say: So often as any man came unto him to confess his faults and receive penance, he so wept, that he made the Penitent to weep also. But the faults themselves which they confessed, he uttered to no man, but to God alone, to whom for their sins he made suit, leaving a blessed example to all Priests of the posterity, to account themselves rather as intercessors to God for sins, than accusers of men before the world for their sin. This saith Paulinus of Saint Ambrose, whereby at once we see the judgement of them both for our matter.  FVLKE. 
The judgement of Saint Ambrose concerning the necessity of popish thrift, or auricular confession, we have heard before out of his own writings. Neither doth Paulinus testify any other thing of him: nor any other thing than might be said of Luther and Calvin, who were no friends of Papistical confession. For if any man did confess unto them his offences, that he might show himself truly penitent, and receive comfort, and counsel for his amendment, no doubt but those holy men were greatly grieved at his fall, which moved the offender to greater sorrow for his sin: and yet those faults, as were discovered to them, being such as might with duty to God, and the state be concealed, they would never utter to aniebodie. What would this make to prove, that they say on confessions like popish Priests, and required all men under pain of damnation to confess unto them their secret deadly sins, as popish Priests do. But popish prelate's disdain to do that which they feign Saint Ambrose to have done. Many of them being such for their knowledge, as you might rather seek water out of a pumise stone, than the doctrine of comfort out of their mouths, and for their lives and conversations, such as deserve, if there were any hope of amendment in them, to stand in the Church among open penitents, rather than to sit in the chairs of government, and judgement over other men. Wherefore by this citation we neither see the judgement of Paulinus nor of saint Ambrose, for your matter of the necessity of auricular confession. For that secret confession may be made in some case we deny not: but that it is necessary to be made of all deadly sins, that man can remember, you have not yet proved.  ALLEN. 
But to go forward, Saint Cyprians meaning is so plain for confession of sins, that he prescribeth the very thoughts of man, that be sinful and damnable, to be uttered unto the Priests, praising them, that upon only intent and purpose 
Sermon de lapsis.  of committing idolatry, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes Dei dolenter & simpliciter confitebantur, did simply and sorrowfully make confession thereof to the Priests of God. And now that we are for the practice and proof hereof at S. Cyprian, which is high in God's Church, we need not stay here, though we be far enough passed our adversaries account in such cases, that lay it down at I ateran Council, a whole thousand years short of those days. I will not much speak of Tertullian, whom 
Tertul. de poenit.  Saint Cyprian calleth Master, his whole book written of penance, doth make altogether for this sacrament, and for confession to be made to God's Priests, which he calleth exomologesin, & prosternendi atque humiliandi hominis disciplinam: and amongst other things pertaining to the act of confession and penance, which then was much more public and severe than it is now, he reckoneth this to be one, Presbiteris advolui, to be humbly laid at the Priests foot, where he also resembleth a man that is loath to confess his inward faults, to him, that having a filthy botch in the secret parts of his body, had rather let it 〈◊〉 up the member, then for foolish shamefastness, utter the grief to his surgeane.  FVLKE. 
You slander Saint Cyprian greatly, to make him be so plain of your meaning, that he perscribeth the very thoughts of man, that be sinful and damnable, to be uttered unto the priests, although he praise them that upon only intent and purpose of committing idolatry did sorrowfully and simply confess the same before the priests of God. His words are these. Denique quando & fide maiore & timore meliore sunt, qui quamuis nullo sacrificij aut libelli facinore constricti, quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitaverunt, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes dei dolenter & simpliciter 〈◊〉 exomologesin conscientiae faciunt, animi sui pondus exponunt, salutarem medelam, parvis licet & modicis vulneribus exquirunt, scientes scriptum esse: Deus non deridetur. Finally seeing they are both of greater faith, and better fear, which although they be guilty of no wicked fact of sacrifice, or libel, yet because they have so much as thought of such a matter, they sorrowfully and simply confess the same, before the Priests of God, they make confession of their conscience, they declare the burden of their mind, they seek for wholesome medicine, although for small and little wounds, knowing that it is written. God is not mocked. What prescription is in these words, of any necessity of confession of all the sinful thoughts of men? his meaning is, that they show themselves more faithful, and to fear God better, which voluntarily, when there is no necessity, offer themselves to open repentance. For their only purpose of sacrificing, to the better quieting of their conscience, than they which being polluted with libels as they called them (by which they professed to pay money, that they might not be compelied to sacrifice to Idols) yet would not acknowledge that they were in any fault, which was necessary for them to do, before they could be admitted into the congregation. And therefore you have neither practise nor proof, of the necessity of auricular confession in Cyprians time, which was 1000 years before the Lateran Council, which decreed the necessity thereof. That you will not speak much of Tertullian, it is because you have little, yea nothing at all in him to uphold your purpose. His book de Poenitentia is well known, to be written of open penance for such as were to be baptised, or else had openly fallen with offence of the Church, but as for your popish sacrament of penance or confession before the priests, otherwise then before the whole Church, you have nothing in that book: and therefore among other things pertaning to that severe discipline, of public repentance, where he reckoneth Presbyteris advolui to be one, he addeth immediately, & arie dei adgeniculari, omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis sue 〈◊〉. And to kneel before the altars of God, to require all the brethren to pray for them. And immediately it followeth, haec omnia exomologesis ut poenitentiam commender, All these things confession requireth to set forth repentance. And as touching him that refuseth this discipline for shamefastness, his words are these: Plerosque tamen hoc opus ut publicationem sui aut suffugere, aut de die in diem differre, praesumo, pudoris magis memores quàm salutis, velut illi qui in partibus verecundioribus corporis contracta vexatione conscteniam medentium vitant & ita cum rubescentia sua pereunt. Yet I suppose that many do either eschew, or defer from day to day this work, as a defamation of themselves, being more mindful of shamefastness then of their health, as those men, which having gotten a vexation in the secret parts of their body do avoid to have it known to them that should heal it, & so perish with their shamefastness. This saying doth not prove the necessity of confession of all our sins so often as we fall, but the necessity of open confession for them that had openly and notoriously fallen, in so much that the ancient Church did admit no man, but once in his life unto this kind of confession and open penance, and so the words of Tertullian are plain of this austere work of public confession, which he calleth exomologesis by the greek name. Haecigitur venena eius providens Deus, clausalices ignoscentiae ianua & intinctionis sera obstructa, aliquid adhuc permisit patere. Collocavit in vestibulo poenitentiam secundam, quae pulsantibus patefaciat: sediam semel, quiaiam secundó: sed amplius nunquam, quia proximè frustra. Non enim & hoc semel satis est? God therefore foreseeing these poisons, (of the devil) although the gate of pardon be shut up, and the lock of baptism be stopped, yet hath permitted something to be open. He hath placed in the porch or entry, the second repentance which may open to them that 〈◊〉 but now no more but once, because it is now the second time: but never hereafter, for the next time is in vain. For is not this once enough? Habes quodiam non merebaris, amisisti enim quod acceperas. Thou hast now that thou didst not deserve, for thou hast lost that which thou hadst received. These words do evidently declare, that this doctor speaketh not of the popish sacrament of penance, nor of popish confession, which is iterated often times, but of a rigorous kind of discipline, used in the primitive Church, if he do not incline to the heresy of Montanus as in other places. But it appeareth by Augustine that this solemn kind of penance before the Church, was admitted even of the Catholic Church, but as for them that had greevousely fallen in all their life, although they did not exclude offenders from repentance before God, and remission of sins, so often as they truly repent.  ALLEN. 
But of all other Origen is most plain. In one place he saith thus: Qui non priùs animae suae vitia, & peccatorum cognoveritmala, & proprij oris confessione prodiderit, purgari atque absolui non poterit. He that knoweth not perfectly the sins 
Lib. 3. peri archon.  of his own soul and the naughtiness of his offences, that he may utter them by the confession of his own mouth, he can not be cleansed nor absolved of his sin. And in an other place thus: there is one painful way of remission of sins, Cùm lavat 
super levit. homili. 2.  peccator lachrymis stratum suum & non erubescit sacerdoti Domini indicare, & quaerere medecinam, sicut scriptum est, Iniquitaiem means pronunciabo. When the sinner watereth his couch with tears, and is not ashamed to utter all his sins to the Priest of God, and to seek remedy, as it is written: I will confess mine iniquity.  FVLKE. 
We had need of a plainer testimony than we have hard any yet, and therefore let us see now toward the end what Origen hath for the necessity of popish shrift to a Priest. The first place is Li peri archon. 3. Cap. 1. which I will rehearse somewhat more at large, that the readers may judge how plain it is, for the necessity of auricular confession. His purpose is to declare, how men are said to be forsaken of God. Hi verò qui nondum se tanta constantia neque tanto affectu offerunt Deo, neque parati sunt accedentes adseruitutem Dei, praeparare animus suos ad tentationem, derelinqui dicuntur à Deo, id est, non erudiri, pro eo quod ad erudiendum parati non sunt, in posterum sine dubio tempus eorum dispensatione, vel curatione dilata: qui utique quid à Deo consequentur ignorant, nisi priùs ad beneficia consequenda per desiderium venerint: quod it a demum fiet, si quis ante seipsum cognoscat, & sentiat quid sibi desit: & quid sibi deest, à quo quaerere vel debeat, vel possit, intelligat. Qui enim non intellexerit prius infirmitatem, vel aegritudinem suam, medicum quaerere nescit, vel certè cùm receperit sanitatem, non egerit gratias medico, quoniam non priùs periculum sui languoris cognovit: It a & si qui non priùs animae suae vitia, & peccatorum suoruns cognoverit mala, ac proprij oris confessione prodiderit, purgari is, absoluique non paterit, ne ignoret sibi per gratiam concessum fuisse quod possidet, & divinam liberalitatem proprium bonum putet: quae ret sine dubio arrogantiam generes & elationem, & denuo ei causa sit ruinae. Quodetiam de Diabolo sentiendum est, qui primitus honores suos proprios, & non à Deo datos esse credidit, quos habebat tunc cùm immaculatus erat: & impleta est in eo illa sententia quae dicit, quòd omnis qui se exaltat humiliabitur. But they which do not yet offèr themselves to God with so great constancy, nor with so great affection, neither are ready when they come to the service of God, to prepare themselves unto temptation, are said to be forsaken of God, that is, not to be taught, because they are not prepared to be taught, the disposing, or healing of them without doubt being deferred unto the time to come: who truly know not what they shall obtain of God, except they come first by desire unto the obtaining of benefits. Which thing at the length shall be brought to pass, if a man know himself first, and feel what is wanting to him: and understand of whom, he ought or may seek for that which is wanting unto him. For he that shall not first understand his own infirmity or sickness, cannot seek the Physician: so if there be any also which shall not first know the vices of his soul and the evils of his sins, and bewray them by the confession of his own mouth, he cannot be purged and absolved, lest he should be ignorant, that thing to be granted to him by grace, which he possesseth, and thinketh the liberality of God to be his own goodness: which thing without doubt may gender arrogancy and pride, and may again be cause to him of falling. Which thing also we must think of the devil, which at the first did believe that his honours which he had, when he was undefiled were his own, and not given by God, and that sentence was fulfilled in him which saith, every one that exalteth himself shallbe be brought low. What reasonable man out of this discourse would gather the necessity of shrift to a priest, where it is certain the writer speaketh of the acknowledging of our sins before God, without which we can obtain no pardon, or remission of them at his hands, and not of confessing them to a Priest, as he would have the ignorant reader to surmise. But let us examine the second place, and see if that be not more plain, for the necessity of auricular confession. Origen in that place in levit. Hom. 2. allegorizeth upon the seven kinds of sacrifices prescribed by the Lord for remission of sins, & saith there are seven kinds of remission of sins in the gospel, namely. 1. In baptism. 2. In martyrdom. 3. In alms giving. 4. Inforgiving to other men. 5. In converting a sinner. 6. In abundance of charity. the seventh he expresseth in these words, which you rehearse very unperfectly, and translate falsely. Est adhuc & septima, licet dura & laboriosa, per poanitentiam remissio peccatorum, cùm lavat peccator in lachrimis stratum suum, & fiunt ei lachrimae suae panes die ac nocte, & cùm nou erubescit sacerdoti domini indicare peccatum suum. & quaerere medecinam, secundùm cum qui ait: dixi, pronunciabo adversum me iniustitiam meam domino, & turemisisti impietatem cordis mei. In quo impletur & illud quod Apostolus dicit: Si quis autem infirmatur, vocet presbyteros Ecclesiae & imponant ei manus, ungenteseum oleo, in nomine domini, & oratio fidei saluabit infirmum, & si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei. There is yet a seventh kind of remission of sins, though hard and painful by repentance, when the sinner washeth his bed with tears, and his tears are made to him his food day and night, and when he is not ashamed to declare his sin to the priest of the Lord, and to seek medicine, according to him which saith: I have said, I will pronounce against myself mine own unrighteousness unto the Lord: and thou hast remitted the ungodliness of my heart: wherein that also is fulfilled which the Apostle saith: if any man be sick, let him call the elders of the Church, and let them lay their hands upon him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick person, and if he have been in sins theyshal be remitted to him. These are the words of Origen, but you in your latin after indicare, leave out peccatum suum, and translate it, and is not ashamed to utter all his sins, to make the place seem more pregnant for auricular confession. I pass over that you altar the words following, which are secundùm cum qui ait initio, sicut scriptum est, by which it appareth that you borrowed this place out of some other man's allegation, or notebook negligently gathered, and do not cite it of your own reading. But to the matter, I answer, that Origen is not plain for any necessity of shrift to obtain remission of sins, when he showeth five other means to obtain it after baptism, beside this. secondly it is evident, that he speaketh of open confession to be made in the exercise of public repentance, which is not necessary for all men. For otherwise there is no remission of sins after baptism, but unto them that be penitent before God, although they suffer martyrdom, give alms, forgive other men, convert sins, abound in charity, if they be not sorry and repent for their own sins, they shall not obtain forgiveness at the hands of God. He speaketh therefore of open repentance where there is open confession, which also may be gathered by his allegation of the text of Saint james, where not one priest for auricular confession, but the Elders of the Church are called for. The priest of the Lord also. that he nameth, by the text following of Davides' confession before God, may be understood of Christ, of whom the levitical Priest, to whom Origen alludeth, was a figure, as I have declared before: so that here is no plain testimony, nor any certain warrant for the necessity of ear confession: For that confession may be made for quieting of a man's conscience we deny not: but that it is necessary to be made by all men of all their mortal sins, and that without such confession there can be no remission of sins, that (I say) we utterly, and always deny.  ALLEN. 
S. Dionise also an Apostolic man, doth invincibly prove unto us, that confession to a priest, and the sacrament of penance was in use in his days, that is to say, in the Apostles time, for he was S. Paul's scholar. He checketh very earnestly 
Epist. ad De mophilum.  one Demophilus a naughty Monk, that you may see Monks be old, when there was an evil one in S. Dionise days, and yet there was an evil Apostle, before there was an evil Monk, that you may see both orders be ancient, though, be they never so holy, they cannot be always void of evil. But this Demophilus I say, bore a great rebuke of Dyonisius, that he usurped once a priests place and function, and that on a time he thrust back from the Priest, and rebuked contemptuously a poor penitent that came to confession, and called the Priest sitting on confession a wretch and a miser, that he durst take upon him to make a sinner a just man. Which words were very fit for Luther's mouth, an other. religious man of like humour and honesty. So soon was confession hated of the wicked, and so speedily was it descended of the faithful, as of Saint Dionise, who here calleth the orders & divine acts of penance the decrees and institutions of God.  FVLKE. 
Indeed we read that one Dionysius Areopagita was converted by Saint Paul, but that the author of these books, which go under that name, was an Apostolic man, we do utterly deny. For Eusebius, S. Jerome, Gennadius would not have omitted the mention of such a writer and such books, being so diligent sertchers of ancient monuments of the Church as they were, if any such had been heard of in their times, by the space of five, or six hundredth years after Christ. But concerning the matter, this Dyonise whosoever he be, saith nothing for the necessity of auricular confession, which is the matter in question, although he rebuke Demophilus for abusing a poor penitent, & presuming to rail upon the Priest and to command him to avoid. Neither is there any mention that the Priest did sit upon confession, or that the penitent came in popish manner to shrive himself, but to seek medicine for his sins, perhaps to offer himself to open penance for some heinous transgression openly known, as it should seem by the words of Demophilus reported by Dyonisius. But thou as thine own betters declare, didst thrust away with thy heels, an ungodly and sinful man (as thou sayest) even when he was fallen down before the priest. Thou being present against thyself, than did he entreat and confess that he was come for the healing of his diseases. But thou wast not terrified, but increasing in boldness, didst rail upon the good priest, that he was a wretch in justifying a penitent and an ungodly person, and at length saidst unto him, get the out, etc. These words prove not although they were the words of Dyonisius the Areopagite himself, that it is necessary, that every man is bound to confess, even his secret sins, to a Priest: And as for the sacrament of penance, which you say is invincibly proved by this place, to have been in use in his days, here is no mention thereof. Finally where you would build the antiquity of works upon this man's authority, to be as high as the Apostles, I must tell you, that by this place you can not, albeit the Epiflle were granted to be written by the Areopagite: For he calleth not Demophilus a Monk, as Perionius translateth the word, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a servant or inferior minister. I know that Maximus and Pachymeres, expound that word to be meant of monks, and that this Dynoise also elsewhere nameth Monachos, that were in his time, but his time was far under the Apostles, as is proved invincibly by this argument, that neither Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor Gennadius maketh mention of any such works extant in their time, of Dyonisius Areopagita, and therefore it is certain they were counterfeited long after, under his name.  ALLEN. 
I can not stand upon every point, which grieveth me much, my matter is so fruitful, and one worthy witness is yet behind, S. Clement (I mean him that S. Peter made his successor. Si fortè (saith he) in alicuius cor vel livor vel infidelitas, vel aliquod 
Epist. adfra trem Domini.  malum labenter irrepserit, non erubescat, qui animae suae curam 〈◊〉 confiteri ei qui praeest, ut ab ipso per verbum & consilium salubre curetur, quò possit fide integra & bonis operibus, poenas aeterni ignis evadere, & ad perpetuae vitae praemia pervenire. If either envy, or infidelity, or any other grievous sore privily possess man's soul, let not him that hath any care of his salvation, be ashamed to confess it to him that is his Prelate, that through his word and counsel, he may be healed of his sins, and that in true faith and good works he may escape hell, and attain to everlasting life. Thus Saint Clement.  FVLKE. 
The points are not so many that you should prove, but you might have leisure enough to stand upon them, your matter is so passing barren that for lack of authentical writers, you are driven to pray aid of impudent counterfeiters, as of shameless and unlearned asses, which counterfeited the Epistles that go under the name of Clemens and that without either wit, or learning, or likelihood of truth. For who would think that the holy man Clemens could not write his mind in true latin? who would think, that such barbarous latin was written by the bishop of Rome at that time, when boys and girls did speak a hundredth fold more pure latin? what wise body would think, that Clemens the Apostles schooler would take upon him to teach the Apostle Saint james, and that such babbles, as of keeping the sacraments from myse dung and rottenness, nay not only to teach him, but to give him charge, à principio Epistolae usque ad hunc locum de sacramentis deleganti bene intuendis, ubi non murirum stercora inter fragmenta dominicae portionis appareant, neque putrida per negligentiam remaneant clericorum. From the beginning of this Epistle unto this place, I have given in charge of the sacraments to be well looked unto, where no mice ●urdes may appear among the fragments of the Lords portion, neither may they remain rotten through the negligence of clerks. This is that worshipful Clemens that prescribeth confession to a Priest. I beseech thee reader (as Erasmus saith) what wit, shame, or honesty have they, that will bear men in hand, these Epistles to be written by so ancient, so holy, so wise, & so learned fathers, in which is nothing but folly, barbarousness, ignorance, and impudency.   

The conclusion of this treatise, removing the impediments of confessiòn.  ALLEN. 
THus far in despite of heresy and all her abbettors hath truth brought itself. By Christ power was given to the Apostles and Priests, to remit sins: by Christ confession was instituted: by the Apostles it was commanded to all Christians: by their example all nations faithful afterward have used it: by general councils, which be of most sovereign authority, it hath been both confirmed and commanded: by all learned Doctors liked and allowed: by all Christian people frequented reverently, as the only refuge after their relapse. Therefore whosoever shall see this case so clear, and so consonant to all reason, to all learning, to all the examples of antiquity, and to Christ's own institution, let him school his conscience as he thinketh good.  FVLKE. 
As a cowardly traitor that is fled out of the battle, wherein he had greater care to hid him self frostrokes, then to fight, to attain the victory, when he thinketh himself to have escaped danger ceaseth not to brag and boast of his valiant acts, and strong adventures in defence of his Prince or country: so it fareth with you. For as though you had fought under truths banner, you boast of the victory against heresy, whereas you have served heresy, & done your endeavour against the truth, striving for nothing so much, as that heresy might change names with truth. But they which will you vouchsafe to consider, with how little labour you have been encountered, and chased out of the field, will be able to discern truth from heresy, and to give truth her true name of truth, and heresy her right name of heresy. But let us see what great matters this Champion of truth hath brought to pass. First, that by Christ, power was given to his Apostles, and their successors to remit sins, this victory indeed is soon archiued, against them, which never withstood this tlitle. But what manner of power this is, and how to be executed, by sentence definitive or declarative, according to the will of God, or man, and by what means it is exercised, by preaching the Gospel, or by murmuring of words, wherein truth controulleth heresy, you have broughtnothing to fortify your errors. secondly you say, that confession was in. stituted by Christ, and yet have no word in the scripture to prove that popish confession to a priest, after your position, was either instituted, or allowed by him. The like I say of the commendation of shrift to all Christians. Neither have you proved the necessity of confession, by the example of any faithful nation, that used it, and allowed it, nor by any Christian general council, before the Lateran council gathered in the name of Antichrist, to maintain his pride, and abominable heresies, neither hath any one learned Doctor, for 500 or 600. years after Christ, liked, or allowed of confession, according to your popish definition thereof, much less that by all Christian people, it was reverently frequented, & lest of all that confession is the only refuge, I mean confession always to a priest, for Christians after their relapse, which most absurd proposition, I think few learned papists will maintain, sure I am many of the Elder papists have denied, holding that by contrition of heart men might obtain remission of sins, without confession of the mouth to a priest. Wherefore he that seethe such an impudent brag, set upon so false a matter, wherein he seethe neither Christ's institution by his word, nor the example of antiquity by any credible report, nor practise of any Christian people, by any necessary ground, nor 〈◊〉 by learned witness, nor reason by necessary conclusions, to uphold and maintain it, let him school his conscience according to the holy scriptures, and nothing be moved with the vain glozing of such shameless boasters.  ALLEN. 
For if upon consideration of this practice so approved by all means possible, he can not charge himself with obedience to the truth and the exercise of that in his lise and works, which he seethe to be most sure and certain, as well by the Church's usage, as Gods own writing and will, more words will not weigh with him, nor the persuasion of man shall ever much move him to that, which the continual terror of conscience, always acknowledging that truth in mind, the practice whereof in outward fact he abhorreth, can not effectualliie force him unto. Hard it seemeth, I know, to the wordlings, and to the weak (and so hard, that never man could have brought it into the Church, much less to have continued it so long, if it had not proceeded from the precept of Christ's own mouth) to open the whole heart and mind to man. And it can not but be joined with some natural bashfulness, in this our frailty, to utter that to an other, which in itself, of what sort of sin so ever it be, is most filthy and loathsome. But knowing and feeling undoubtedly, that the continual close keeping thereof in the court of our conscience, is much more great and greevose torment, and therewith concerning Christ's ordinance to be such, that no consideration of our imbecillitle, nor contrary liking of our fantasy, may or ought to withdraw us from that thing, which for us all is accounttd most convenient and necessary, let us never by our disobedient wills, strive against God's wisdom.  FVLKE. 
When you can show Gods own writing and will out of the same, that popish shriftiss so necessary, all good consciences will run as fast unto it, as now they despise and abhor it. Such confession as the holy writings of God do require, all Christians willbe ready to make. But that confession of all our mortal sins, as you term them, is of necessity to be made to any man, we find no scripture that doth charge our conscience with it. And where you say, that no earthly power could have established, or begun any such burdenous thing as shrift is, I agree with you, & yet it followeth not, that the force of Christ's institution hath driven the world thereunto. For the subtlety of the Devil hath more prevailed to deceive the minds of ignorant men, than any 
2. Thess. 2.  earthly power against knowledge could have prevailed. Yea God himself hath sent the efficacy of error into the world, that Antichrist (than whose tryanny nothing is more burdenous) might prevail to the deceiving of the reprobate, for punishment of their 〈◊〉, which have not embraced the knowledge of the truth, to their salvation, that they might believe lies to their condemnation. Wherefore let no man marvel, that Antichrist hath laid so many, so heavy, and intolerable burdens upon men's consciences, which no earthly power could bring to pass: for his coming is foreshowed to be according to the effectual working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and wonders of lies, and in all deceitfulness of unrighteousness, in them that perish. Neither let any man be blinded with this foolish Sophistry, and inconsequence of Allen: Never any earthly power could have established or begun any such burdenous thing, as Popish shrift is, therefore it hath the force of Christ's constitution and ordinances, whereof there can no word be brought out of the hole scriptures.  ALLEN. 
If the hurthen therefore of confession seem to any man intolerable, as in deed it is not, but very pleasant to all such as have tasted how sweet Christ is, let him ease it with earnest consideration, that it is exceeding commodious to break the pride of man's heart, and to make him know himself. And, if that any burden of shamefastness appear in the uttering of his sins, he may learn to take it gladly as some worthy pain for his offences, and some piece of recompense and satistisfaction for the same. It pleased God at the first fall of our fathers, to join shame and confusion to sin, by which they were bashful at the voice of God, and of their own nakedness. Seeing that of his infinite wisdom, it pleased him to make it the first punishment for sin, and to lay it upon his own sons most innocent person, in his contemptible death and manifold rebukes suffered for our sins and sakes, let us not disdain to bear some portion thereof in this sacrament of confession, for the release of our sins. That shamefastness so much abhorred and so much respected shall often preserve man from further offending, whereof he knoweth after he must again so soon before God and his minister be rebuked.  FVLKE. 
To all wise and Godly men, the burden of Popish confession seemeth not only intolerable, but also impossible. But to foolish hypocrites that would gladly fall to a composition for their sins, it seemeth easy enough, especially since every man for a little money may choose his confessor, according to his own conceit, into whose lap he may vomit out the burden of his seared conscience, and be assured of absolution, toties, quoties. Neither is pride much abated, nor shame greatly regarded, where one simple obnoxius person is made privy of a man's fault, who also, as it is holden, is bound to conceal the same for ever. Neither were all the shame of the world sufficient to make satisfaction for the least of our sins, which deserve eternal confusion, & pains, for which the son of God, and none but he, was able to satisfy by temporal pain and shame, much less the shame of confession before one priest, and he commonly an ignorant contemptible ass, may be any piece of recompense, and satisfaction for all our sins confessed to him. jesus Christ the righteous, is the propitiation for our 
1. joa. 1. 2.  sins, and his blood purgeth us from all our sins, and therefore your Popish confession, with this opinion of some piece of recompense & satisfaction for our sins, is justly abhorred of all true Christians, who know that what piece soever of recompense or satisfaction for sins be ascribed to any other thing, so much is detracted from the glory of Christ's redemption, and the inestimable price of his blood. As for the preferuative from sin, that you imagine shrift should be, is but a foolish fantasy. for he that never feareth not shamerh to fall so often in the sight of the righteous God, will have but a small regard to bewray the same to sinful man.  ALLEN. 
But what should we talk of sosmall a let, where the comfort of opening our sores & wounds to man, that by nature is a like sinner, and by use of hearing many faults, can not much marvel at ours, and by office there is most secret, and careful over us, what should we talk of other impediments, where this comfortable motion is so great? What comfort can be more, then to have such a friend, who, for that I join with him, yea even mine own soul to his, after the dearest manner and most secret sort, must needs be to me a full stay of conscience, a witness of my sorrowful heart, an intercessor for my sins, a surety before God for my amending, a minister in my reconciliation, and one that under Christ (as Saint Clement 
Clemens li. 2. costi c. 23.  also saith) shall both bear my sins upon himself, and take charge of me to salvation? in which case me think surely, man is after a sort set in marvelous quietness, and almost discharged even of himself, and his own custody, whiles he giveth over his own advise and judgement, and wholly hangeth in earth upon him, whom God hath appointed to be his pastor, and governor of his soul. Therefore, good reader, call upon Christ for increase of faith, and believe only this ordinance of God was of infinite wisdom and high providence provided for thy sake, and it can not be burdenous unto thee. Christ shall give thee courage and heart to withstand the contrary temptations, and to serve him, though thou forsake thyself. To us therefore confusion of face for our sinful life, and to him honour and glory everlasting. Amen.  FVLKE. 
You do well to confess, that shame is but small ales, where a man is brought into a fools paradise, of so easy remission of his sins, for so light a confession, before one man, as sinful, and perhaps more sinful than he, and bound (as you say) by office to secrecy. But the comfort you speak of is vain and miserable, though all confessors were learned, and able to give good counsel, as not one among an hundredth of your hedge Priests & friars are. For how can he be a surety before God for an other man's amending, when he cannot be surety for his own reformation? He may well bear other men's sins upon himself, and take charge of other men's salvation, to his own damnation, when he preacheth not Christ the only propitiation for our sins, but will so be a minister of reconciliation, that he will rob Christ of his glory, and the people of their salvation. In which case in deed you set men in a marvelous, and mischievous security, and almost discharge them even of themselves, as your own words are, and of their own custody, while you make them give over their own advise and judgement, and wholly to hang in earth upon you, & not upon Christ, whom God hath appointed to be the Pastor and governor of their souls, even upon earth, though he be in heaven, and they upon the earth. Therefore good reader, mark how blaspemoussie these Popish dogs would have thee to hang thyself wholly upon them in earth, as the only Pastors and governors of their souls, by which they exclude Christ altogether, from any feeding or governing of our souls upon earth, and debar all Christians, not only from depending wholly upon Christ, as they might, and do, but from hanging any thing at all upon him in earth, seeing they will have men to hang wholly upon their confessor on earth, as though god had made any such pastors & governors of men's souls, as should put Christ out of office, & challenge the whole trust of men's salvation unto themselves. These be the right limbs of Antichrist, that challenge the chief honour of God unto themselves which is faith and hope of salvation, to be reposed on them: for what other thing is it, that a man should quiet himself by, be discharged of himself & his own custody, and wholly hang upon his ghostly Father, but to believe in him, to put his whole faith, hope, & confidence of salvation only upon him, while he is upon earth. And for this matter he is content to accept only faith, because he hath no other argument to persuade thee, but remember that faith cometh by hearing of the word of God, which abhorreth and accurseth all confidence reposed in man. And therefore confusion of face be to all blasphemous papists, not only for their sinful life, but also for their abominable heresies: and to god be all glory, honour, and dominion in Christ jesus our Lord, for ever & ever.   
Amen.   

THE SECOND part OF THE TREATISE, CONCERning the Pope's pardons.  

The author by just causes was moved to believe the truth of this doctrine of Pardons, before he knew the meaning of them and afterward found them of greater importance, than he took them before to be.  
THE FIRST CHAP.  ALLEN. 
OF the high power of remission and pardoning of sins, given by Christ to his only spouse the Church, in the Church, in the persons of her holy Bishops and priests, as a thing annexed to the whole order, and to be exercised in the sacrament of penance, upon all men that be of their several jurisdictions, and humbly shall submit themselves by confession of their faults to their judgements, I have already spoken so much, as may suffice for the satisfying of the sober, and just reproof of the contentious. And now because, as well the course of my former matter, as the special need of these days driveth me thereunto, I will make further search and trial of the right of that challenge, which as well the high priest, as other principal Pastors and Bishops make, by the force of their Prelacy and key of jurisdiction, over and above the power of orders, touching Pardons and Indulgences. Whereof whiles I do entreat, the more attention and heed I require of thee (gentle reader) because here all the lamentable tragedy and toil of this time first did begin, and here have all those that perished in the late contradiction of Core principally fallen. And in no article of Christian faith ever more offence hath been received of all sorts almost even of the wise, then in this one of the Pope's pardons.  FVLKE. 
WHen you have heard what were these just causes which he pretendeth, you shall plainly see, that the author's faith was not grounded upon God's word, but upon human presumption, and therefore deserveth to be called rather a fancy then a faith. Likewise, when you shall have read over the whole treatise to the end, you shall perceive though you read no confutation, that he hath not any warrant either out of the holy scriptures, or out of the ancient fathers, for any Pope's pardons, such as he should take upon him to defend. For that the Church of God and pastors thereof, have power to release them that are bound, and upon persuasion of their repentance, to remit or pardon some part of the trial appointed for them, it is no question between us: but of the pope's pardons, granted under his Leaden Bulls for remission of sins, but a poena & culpa, from the pain and from the fault, some plenary of all their sins, some partial of part of their sins, some for a number of days, some for many thousands of years, which every one that payeth money for them, shall have the benefit of them, or which he giveth to such an hospital, gild, or brotherhood, or to him which saith such a prayer, or goeth on such a pilgri mage, & such like, whereunto may be added his dispensations, absolutiós, exemptions, lycenses, these are the pope's pardons of which the controversy is between us, & of which he cannot prove, that there was either use, or approbation, no not in the Church of Rome for a whole 1000 years after Christ. And these when he hath said, as much as he hath learned to say for them, out of the decretals, Clementines, and Extravagants, you shall find to be by his & their own determination, nothing else but as they are called in Latin, Bullae Bubbles, great in appearance, but altogether empty and void of profit. The attention of the gentle reader I do likewise require, beccause he may see, what good occasion Luther had to separate himself from the Popish Church, as from the whore of Babylon, 
Apocal. 16.  which so obstinately defended such abominable blasphemies, which all wise and reasonable men have either abhorred, or as he confesseth, been offended at them. And yet let the reader mark, how boldly he calleth this article of the pope's pardons, an article of Christian faith, whereof the Church of god never heard for a thousand years & more since Christ's ascension, before the losing of Satan out of the bottomless pit, when Antichrist was bold to set abroad all his impieties, and to sit not in a mystery of iniquity, but openly in the sight of all men, in the temple of God, and to exalt himself above all that is called God or worshipped.  ALLEN. 
And to be plain in the matter, where sincerity is most required, two causes moved me to believe, like, and allow of the power of pardons and indulgencies, long before I either knew the commodities of them, or had sought out the ground and meaning of them. The first was the Church's authority, which I credited in all other articles before I knew any of them, or could by reason or scripture maintain them. Whose judgement to follow by my Christian profession in all other points, and to forsake in this one of Pope's pardons, had been mere folly, and a sign of fantastical choice of things indifferent, which is the proper passion of heresy. Neither did I then know, that the Church of Christ had allowed such things, because I had read the determination of any general councils, or decrees of some chief governors of the said Church, touching such pardons, or because I had by histories and note of diverse ages seen the practise of the faithful people herein, by which ways her meaning of doubtful things is most assuredly known, but only I deemed that the Church allowed them, and misliked the contrary, because such as bare the name of Christian folk and Catholic did approve them, and sometimes lamented the lack of them. And surely for an unlearned man, I count it the briefest rule in the world, to keep himself both in faith and conversation ever with that company, which by the general and common calling of the people, be named Catholics. For that name kept Saint Augustine himself in the truth and 
Contra Epistolam Ma nicgaei quam vocant fundament. Cap. 4.  true Church, much more it may do the simple sort, who is not able to stand with an heretic, that will challenge the Church to himself, by Sophistical reasons, from the Christians, that for lack of learning can not answer him. Well, this company of Catholics brought me to know the Church, and my creed caused me to believe the Church no less concerning the Pope's Pardons, than any other article of our Christian profession, which though it were not of like weight, yet it was to me of like truth, and all in like unknown at that time.  FVLKE. 
Your pretence of plainness, & sincerity, is but craft and sub tiltie, to deceive the simple and ignorant, that they might please themselves in their blindness, and by your example think themselves at ease in their ignorance. For what reasonable man will be persuaded, that you could believe, like, and allow that thing, whereof you know no use, nor whence it came, or what it meaned. But here you show what faith is accounted among the Papists, a fond persuasion of any thing that is told them by their teachers, although they neither know what commodity it bringeth, nor what ground of truth it hath, nor finally what it meaneth. But howsoever it was, two causes moved you, whereof you profess that hearing of the word of God was neither. The first was the Church's authority, which you credited in all other articles, before you knew any of them, or could by reason, or scripture, maintain them. So by your own confession you did as many papists do, believe you knew not what, which faith would never bring you to eternal life, which consisteth in knowledge of God and jesus Christ according to that which is written, that 
joh. 17. & 20.  we might believe and be saved. But seeing you could neither by reason, nor by scripture, maintain those articles to be true, which you believed, how could you be persuaded that this company was the Church of Christ, the pillar of truth, rather than the Church of Antichrist, the mother of heresies and errors? For all swarms of heretics challenge unto themselves the name of the Church, and require credit to be given unto them: and the more heretics the less care they have to make any trial of their doctrine to be truth: what had you more to persuade your conscience, that you were in the right way, than a jew or a Turk hath, which crediteth the company amongst whom he is bred and borne, without examining by reason, or the scripture, whether those things which they teach them be the truth or no? But it had been a sign of fantastical choice of things indifferent (you say) which is the proper passion of heresy, to follow the Church's judgement in all other points, and to forsake it in this one of Pope's Pardons. Where you say the fantastical choice of things indifferent is the proper passion of heresy, I know not what you mean, except you think that heretics are deceived only in the choice of things indifferent, or that whosoever maketh some fantastical choice of things indifferent, is an heretic: neither of which opinions, I trow, you are able to maintain. For though some heretics make a fantastical choice of things indifferent, I suppose it is not proper only to heretics: for some schismatics that be not heretics, make such a fantastical choice; and the fantastical choice of heretics is most occupied about principal grounds, and articles of faith, not about things indifferent only. Moreover I would know, whether you account the Pope's pardons to be things indifferent, or necessary for the Church: for if they be but things indifferent, you do not wisely, to be contentious about them. Finally, seeing a company of heretics may err in one article, and teach soundly in all other, as the Arians, Donatists, Novatians, and such like, a man may follow the judgement of such a company, in all other points, and without folly or sign of fantastical choice, depart from them in that one wherein they err. And therefore your faith was as good, as his, that believeth there is a man in the moon, because he heareth many men say so, whom he dare credit in other matters, and is loath to forsake them in this ' one. But your Christian profession, moved you to follow the Church's judgement in all things. And what heretic will not say as much, without trial or proof, which is the Church, or what is Christian profession? Therefore what ground had you that your profession was Christian, or your fellowship the Church of Christ? You confess you had neither the determination of general councils, nor the decrees of the chief governors of your Church, nor the practice of the people in divers ages, by which ways you say the Church's meaning of doubtful things, is most assuredly known: but only you deem the Church allowed them. So that you, because such as bare the name of Christian folk and Catholic men did approve them, had nothing but the bare name of Christian folk, and Catholic men to ground your deem upon. And is the bare and only name of Christian and Catholic men, so sure a ground to build faith upon, without either the authority of the scriptures, reason, determination of general counsels, or decrees of the chief governors of the same, or the practice of the faithful in ancient times? then surely jet all heretics content themselves, where they are, and dwell together: for there they shall have the name of Christian folk and Catholic men: which you account to be the breefest rule in the world for an unlearned man, to keep himself both in faith, and conversation, with that company, which, by the general and common calling of the people, be named Catholics. The rule indeed is very brief, and you say in the margin also, that it is good. But who I pray you prescribeth this rule, doth God the author of truth? where find you it in his word? shall the general and common calling of the people be the unlearned man's rule to direct him to the Church, which is the pillar and stay of truth? then surely the unlearned Grecians, Aethiopians, Armenians, and other that descent from the Church of Rome, and from the truth itself, have a good and brief rule to hold them where they are, for by the general and common calling of the people in those parts of the world, they be named Christians, and Catholics. Yea the rule serveth them ten times better than you Papists, the forgers of it, for they have the more general and common calling of the people, to be Catholics in those places, than you have here in Europe, by a hundred parts. For there no man calleth them otherwise than Christians and Catholics, here you have (God be praised) many hundredth thousands of the people, that commonly call you Papists, heretics, antichristians, catholics and such other names, agreeing to your heresies. If you will cavil that by the general and common calling of the people, they be not named Catholics, because you Papists do neither so call them, nor count them, they may answer you by the same reason, that you are not by general & common calling of the people named Catholics, because neither they nor we do so call you, or account you. But it is fufficient belike that you call yourselves, so and the rule is to be restrained to people of these parts of the world, and among them to Papists only; and so it is as good a rule, as that, ask my fellow if I be a thief. A good rule indeed for unlearned Papists, because draff is good enough for swine, which had rather sleep in the mire, and puddle of ignorance, then come to the knowledge of the truth by searching the scriptures, in which Christ the way, the truth, and the life, is to be 
joh. 14. 6. joh 5. 39 1. Pet. 3. 15.  found, and out of which all Christians ought to gather knowledge, that they may be able to give account of that hope that is in them.  
But Saint Augustine (I ween) should be author of this rule, for unlearned men, although he himself were not unlearned, Contra epistolam Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti, Cap 4. This is great impiety to feign so absurd a rule, and then to slander so godly a father, to be either the author or approover thereof. For Saint Augustine indeed, against the Manichees, which were a particular sect of heretics, confesseth that among many other things, the name of the Catholic Church did hold him in the bosom thereof: but not that the only name of Catholics was a good rule for unlearned men to know the Church by. But protesting to reason the matter with them, without any prejudice, and to try the truth without any rashness, as one willing to yield unto them, if they can persuade him with truth, so that they shall not require him to yield, before they can give him a clear reason without any darkness, of allthinges pertaining to the salvation of his soul, thus he beginneth; In Catholica enim Ecclesia, ut omittan, etc. For in the Catholic Church, that I may omit that most sincere wisdom, unto the knowledge where of a few spiritual men do come in this life, that they may know it, but of the lest part, because they are men, but yet without doubt: for the rest of the multitude not the quickness of understanding, but the simplicity of believing doth, make most false: Therefore that I may omit this wisdom, which you believe not to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which may most justly hold me in her lap. The consent of people and nations holdeth me, the authority begun with miracles, nourished with hope, increased with charity, confirmed with antiquity, holdeth me: The succession of Priests from the very seat of Peter the Apostle, to whom our Lord after his resurrection commended his sheeepe to be fed, unto this present bishopric doth hold me: last of all the very name of Catholic Church doth hold me, which not without cause among so many heresies, this Church alone hath so obtained, that whereas all heretics would have themselves to be called Catholics, yet to a stranger that asketh, where men meet at the Catholic Church, none of the heretics dare show either their own Church or house. Therefore these so many & so great most dear bonds of Christian name, do rightly hold a man that believeth in the Catholic Church: although for the dullness of our understanding, or the desert of our life, the tructh doth not yet show itself most openly. But among you, where none of these things is that may invite or hold me, there soundeth nothing but the promise of truth, which indeed if it be showed so manifest, that it cannot come in doubt, it is to be preferred before all those things, by which I am holden in the Catholic Church. But if it be only promised, and not exhibited, no man shall move me from that faith, which bindeth my mind with so many and great knots unto Christian religion. Let us see therefore what Maniche doth teach me, etc. These words declare that setting aside the wisdom of the Church grounded upon the scriptures which the heretics would not acknowledge, there were many other things that might justly hold him in the Catholic Church, among which the name of Catholics was but one, and served only at that time, when the Catholic religion was most commonly embraced: therefore he denied not that the name of Catholic only was sufficient to teach a man to know the Church, and the truth by it: but acknowledgeth that all these motives of universality, consent, miracles, succession, name of Catholic, must give place to the truth, when it is plainly showed out of the canonical scriptures, as in the chapter following he urgeth them to show out of the gospels of Christ, where it is written, that Manicheus was an Apostle of Christ, as his sect affirmed, and his epistle pretended. As for the reason you allege, that unlearned men are not able to stand with heretics in disputation, which will challenge the Church to themselves, is of no force. for the unlearned man ought to know the Church by the true notes thereof, contained in the scriptures, which is sufficient for to satisfy his conscience, although he can not cunningly avoid all the Sophistical arguments that the adversary bringeth: whereas theonelie name of Catholics can breed no true faith, or quietness of mind, which is not obtained by the people's judgement, but by authority of the word of God. And seeing the people are commonly deceived in many matters of difficulty, and most of all in misnaming of things, what assurance shall the unlearned have, that they be not deceived in this so weighty a matter, and wherein their speech may so easily be abused. But howsoever it was, the common calling of the people, brought you to know Catholics, Catholics to know the Church, and the creed taught you to believe the Church rules in Pope's pardons, then in other articles. Thus is your faith builded altogether upon human presumptions, the ladder whereof is this. you believe Pope's pardons, because the Church of Rome alloweth them, you believe the Church of Rome, because it is the Catholic Church. you believe that it is the Catholic Church, because the people commonly call it so. But of Christian faith, Saint Paul describeth another ladder, faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the word of God, preached by ministers 
Rom. 10.  sent of God: so that against the authority of god, who giveth both his word and preachers, and by them true faith, you have the general and common calling of men, which give authority to that company to be the Church, which is surnamed Catholic, which company so called may cause you to believe what they list, and this indeed is the ground of all your heresies, if you had gone one step lower, that the Devil inspireth ignorant, and wicked men, to call his fowl blouse the Romish synagogue, by the name of the beautiful spouse of Christ his Catholic Church.  ALLEN. 
The second cause that moved me to reverence the power of pardoning in the high Bishup, and to like his Indulgences, was the very persons of them which first reproved the same. In whom because I saw the world to note and wonder at other many most blasphemous and inexcusable heresies, I verily deemed (though I was then for my age almost ignorant of all things) that this opinion and impugnation of Pardons, could neither be of God, nor of good motion, that first began in them, & begat such a number of most wicked & contentio is opinions, as straight upon the controlling of the Church's power herein did ensue, not only against Christ's officers in earth, but against his Saints in heaven, & against himself in the blessed Sacrament. This extreme & intolerable issue me thought verily could have no holy entrance, and therefore, with the other named cause stayed me in the Church's faith, even then when I had no feeling nor sense in the meaning of these matters.  FVLKE. 
You were a wise young man in those days, when being almost ignorant of all things, as you confess, you would follow the judgement of the world, in condemning the persons of them that reproved pardons, and were not able to judge whether they were justly condemned of other blasphemous & inexcusable heresies. Nay at this present time as great a clerk as you are taken to be among your friends, you are not able to convince them of such blasphemous & inexcusable heresies as you prate of. And yet if you had been thou as able justly to have reproved them by the scriptures of such monsters as the world did wonder at in them, yet you stayed upon a weak staff, except this be a good atgument with you: heretics hold manifest false opinions, therefore they hold no true opinions. Much more wisely and soundly you should have sought the true Church, as Saint Augustine teacheth, out of the scriptures, and thereby judged of the worlds noting and wondering, which because it consisteth most of wicked men, doth commonly condemn Christ and his Gospel. Out of the same scripture you should have learned, who were Christ's officers, and who the limbs of Antichrist, what honour is due unto the saints in heaven, and what manner presence there is of Christ upon earth. But as your faith was then grounded upon simple sophistry, in supposing that which no wise man will grant: so is it not now much differing from the same, although you have learned with more craft, to pervert a few scriptures, and to wrest the sayings of some dctors, for a flourish, having no more substance of true faith which is builded upon the word of God, than you had before. For if your shameless principle be denied, that you are the Church of Christ, than you come back to these beggarly motives, as in your articles, and Bristow'S motives is manifest, being not able either to find the notes of the true Church in the synagogue of Rome, nor to justify the doctrine of the Church of Rome, to be builded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, when trial is to be made by their writings.  ALLEN. 
But afterwad, reading the history of the pitiful fall of our time, and there considering the sinister intent and occasion of the first improofe of Pardons, and all the strange endeavours of Luther (whose name is cursed to all good men) who first in all man's memory, saving one Wicleffe, who was condemned in Constance Council for the same, was so bold only upon contention and covetousness to condemn that, which himself in Conscience knew to be true and lawful, I could not but much be confirmed in my faith thereby. And yet all this while though the matter of pardons seemed to me to be more and more sound in itself, and as true as the Spirit of God is true, who was the author thereof in the Church, yet I did not then consider of it, as a thing of any great importance, but I conceived it to be a small matter, subject to a certain juggling in reason, such as wicked men lightly make their close and crafty entrance by, to more mischief, and further attempts against the common faith of the Church: I could not then conceive, which I after ward so plainly, and now more and more by the better survey of the cause do perceive, that in this one falsehood there was covertly contained the very pith of falsehood, and improofe of the greatest matters which life and faith doth stand upon.  FVLKE. 
Your first motives to this faith of yours were not more feeble, than your confutations in the same were fond and foolish. You did read the story of the alteration in religion that hath fallen in our time. But of whose writing I pray you? even of such as were proctor's for the Pope's pedlary ware, or pillars of his pretenced power, which was none other, but according to the proverb before mentioned, ask my fellow if I be a thief. If you had read the story written indifferently, without partiality to either party, you might have judged better of the whole matter. Some perhaps are living that can testify of the things that were done, & public monuments are extant totestifie the same, so much more intolerable is your arrogancy, to judge upon the only sinister report of the adversaries of Luther (of holy and blessed memory, with all true Christians) that only contention and covetousness moved him to condemn that, which himself in conscience knew to be true and lawful. Like boldness you show in affirming, that Luther was the first in all man's memory, saving one 〈◊〉 that despised pardons, forgetting the Waldenses, that were long before Wiclefe, and the Bohemians that were after him before Luther, who condemned popish pardons as much as Wiclife or Luther. For they condemned the Pope to be Antichrist, as much as these did. But now let us examine the story as it is known to be most true in Saxony where Luther first found fault with pardons. When Pope Leo. 10. had sent abroad his pardons, which were preached by Terelius a Dominike friar in such impudent manner, that they seemed to serve for no end, but the Pope's covetousness, and the licentiousness of the people: Luther at that time having a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge, did mildly and modestly admonish the people of the deceits and abuses of pardons and pardoners, which long before his time were reproved, in the councils of Latrean, and Vienna, he complained to the Archbishop of Ments, to the Bishop of Branderburg, to the provincial of the Augustine friars, and to the Pope himself: in all things submitting himself to the Pope, and Church of Rome, so it were not against the holy scriptures. When he could find no equity, nor redress of these abuses, 
In suppl. Nau.  which even Surius the papist, confesseth to have been justly complained of by him, and unjustly manteined, or dissembled by the prelate's, he proceeded farther, as God gave him knowledge; and at length compelled by intolerable injury, and neglect of manifest truth and reformation of lise, did cast of the Anrichristian yoke of the Pope's obedience. Now whereas you charge him with contention, and covetousness, the world your judge before, may gather whether Luther, if against his conscience he would have set forth the Pope's pardons, especially at such time as the Pope had great need of money for war against the Turks, might not have made a more easy way, for himself, to honour and riches, then by setting himself against them. But howsoever it was your fault, faith was thus confirmed, and that to such blasphemous boldness, that without authority of the holy scriptures, the matter of pardons, seemed to you, as true, as the spirit of God is true, and having none other arguments to persuade you, but that Papists called themselves the Catholic Church, and condemned Luther of many heresies, and write in their stories that Luther was moved by contention and covetousness, to oppose himself against them, you nothing doubted but that the spirit of God was author of pope's pardons in the Church. Being now resolved of the substance, you were not yet persuaded of the quantity, but thinkeing the matter at the first was but small, at length you came to a perfect knowledge, how great and weighty it is, and how it draweth with it all other weight, in so much that the very pith of the greatest matters of popish life and faith do stand upon it. If then the pith of the greatest matters of popery do stand in Pope's pardons, and this pith hath no ground either in the scriptures, or the fathers of the Church, for a thousand years after Christ, we may the more easily see, that the plant of popery, whereof pardons is the pith, is not of Gods own planting, and therefore shallbe plucked up by the roots.  ALLEN. 
Thou wouldst not think, I dare say, into what a sum and abridgement heresy hath by the devils devise and Luther's service drawn herself into. For by this one false conclusion, and for maintenance thereof, this man and his posterity have taken away all penance and satisfaction for sin, have spoiled the Church of her just and and most necessary discipline, controlled Gods own holy usage incorrection of his children, have entered into his secrets of the next world, and there abandoned the place of his justice and judgement for sins that be remitted, but not enough to his wisdom and will corrected, have rob the holy Saints of all their merits, that is to say, Christ of his gifts and grace, whereby only they besosoneraigne and satisfactory, have imbarred the body mystical of Christ, of the benefit which the whole and every member thereof should receive by the satisfaction and holy works of the common head, which is Christ, have broken the communion of Saints, and the sweet fellowship of all the holy members of God's Church, and the benefit which riseth frometh to other, by mutual participation of their good works and deserts, and to be short, have by this one falsehood preached against pardons, done injury to Christ, to his Church, to his Saints, and to his sacraments, and have mightily shaken the whole frame of Christian religion and doctrine. I do not here riot in words to overrun my adversaries in talk, or to make more of the matter than it is: but assuredly without destruction of all these so necessary articles of our faith, there can no man defend Luther's doctrine against Indulgences. I know he fumbled at the beginning otherwise then his fellows and followers to disgrace the same, sometimes by holding the pardons to be lawful, but not profitable: other while, to be deceits, but yet invented for holy purposes, now by avouching they could not stand with God's justice, if they should remit any part of the appointed pain for sins, and else when that there was no pain for remitted sins at all, whereupon the indulgences should not be needful but vain and frivolous: with such other inconstant stammering, as lightly is common to them that seek to up hold falsehood against their own skill and consciences.  
But his followers, as well of the Protestants, as zwinglians and calvinists, to make the way of wickedness more easy and plain, have boldly denied all penance and temporal pain for sin remitted, whether it be by Christ's or the Churches enjoining, have taken away Purgatory, have bereaved Priesthood of all power, and the Church of all her treasure of Christ's copious and abundant redemption. Whereupon I cannot otherwise judge, but that doctrine which else can not be refelled, but by the waste of so many undoubted articles, should stand exceeding fast, and be grounded most surely upon all these foresaid truths, without the destruction whereof it can not be of any force overturned.  FVLKE. 
As no man would think any such matter, if you had not put it in their heads: so no wise men can think otherwise of Pardons, than he did before you took in hand their defence, saving that all reasonable men may think them so much the worse, because you are able to defend them no better. And if all the principles of popery (as you say) be contained in the matter of pardons, as in a sum, or abridgement, the children of God may behold the providence of god, more clearly, in setting Luther first against them, at such time as he knew no such matter, neither had any purpose but to dissuade the most gross abuses, and palpable impostures which were that time maintained about them, allowing the pardons still as good and lawful. But for the mantainers of this conclusion, you say, he and his, have taken away all penance, and satisfaction for sin, etc. Nay they have established and restored the true use of repentance and showed that the death of Christ, is the only satisfaction for sins: the discipline of the Church, from a barbarous antichristian tyranny, they have reduced within the limmites of the scriptures, and the practise of the primative and pureit age of the Church: the chastising that God useth, for correction of his children, they have taught out of the scriptures, how it is to be taken patiently as an admonition for amendment, not an amends for our misdoing, which savoureth as much of pride, as their doctrine doth of humility. The secrets of the next world not revealed in the scriptures, they leave until the time of the general revelation of all secrets, and therefore they presume not to allow purgatory pains, for the cleansing of those sins, which the scripture teacheth to be purged, by the blood of Christ, in whom all our sins are thoroughly punished, to the full satisfaction of the justice and wisdom of God. They have left to the saints all their merits, which is nothing else but the grace of God, sufficient for their salvation, not placing the works of saints in the place of Christ's passion which is only of itself sovereign and satisfactory for all men. The mystical body of Christ, and the holy communion of saints, they believe to receive all virtue and power of life from Christ the head, and every member to exercise that office, which by his grace is assigned unto it, therefore they have done no injury to Christ, his Church, his saints, sacraments, or his holy Religion, but their duty in purging the doctrine ofChrist, his Church, his saints, sacraments, and Religion, from error, falsehood, heresy, and blasphemy. You tell the reader that you do not riot in words to overrun your adversary: but if he be wise, he will remember, that a crafty orator, doth soonest deceive, when he pretendeth most plainness. What Luther thought, and taught, at the first of pardons his writings are extant in print to declare, in which he confesseth that he did fight in the dark, yet it pleased God by the importunity of his adversaries, to stir him up to search the truth out of the holy scriptures. Neither hath Zuinglius or Caluine, or any of the Protestants taught otherwise of repentance, satisfaction, power of priesthood, or the treasure of the Church, than Luther did, after God had revealed the truth unto him, and he openly preached the same. Seeing therefore the matter of pardons cannot stand, but upon the blasphemous heresies, which the popish antichristian Church doth teach, against the glory of the only redemption of jesus Christ, our only and whole saviour and reedemer, it must needs be one of those pestilent poisons, which Satan, after his losing out of, the bottomless pit, hath powered forth into the world the defacing of the glory of Christ, and the destruction of many ignorant souls.  ALLEN. 
Therefore, lest any man by making smaller account of so little a branch of the Church's faith, than he should do, fall further unto the mistrusting of other many of known importance, I thought it good, to debate the question of Indulgences, which be now commonly called the Pope's Pardons, though not only he, but also other Prelates of Christendom have their several right, each one according to the measure of the Churches grant, and his jurisdiction therein. In which matter, because most men of smalller travail have erred, rather by misconstruing the case, & mistaking the state of the cause, then for any lack of sufficient proof of the matter after it were well understanded: I will study first clearly to open the meaning of that, whereon we stand, and then to go through the whole question with as much light and brevity as I can: tempering myself, as much as I may, from all such 〈◊〉, as the depth of so grounded a conclusion, and the learned disputation of Schoolmen might drive me unto. Wherein I am content, rather to follow the desire and contentation of the reader, then to satisfy my own appetite, which I feel in myself, to be somewhat more greedy of matter sometimes, than the common people, whom I study most to help, can well bear: and yet if they think it any vantage to know truth, and the necessary Doctrine of their faith, they must learn to abide the orderly method, and compass of the cause, and further I shall not charge them.  FVLKE. 
You come to late after the vanity. treachery, and blasphemy of pardons hath been so long set abroad, and known to the world, and bringing no better stuff than you do, to suppose that you shallbe able to restore pardons, into the ancient credit they had, within these four score years, even with the simplest papist in Europe. You would make the matter more plausible, by communicating the right of pardons, to all prelate's of christendom, as well as to the Pope, whereas indeed your popish Church keeping no proportion, alloweth none of them above 40. days at once, except it be at the dedication of a Church, & then he hath but one year: & this authority also pinched with divers restraintes, whereas the pope smelling the sweetness of them, since the Lateran council, in which his modesty is commended, that though he had fullness of power, yet he used it not, to be overlavish in granting of pardons, hath bro ken all banks of moderation, & granted 10000 20000. 40000. 100000. years of pardon, yea general pardons ofIubelie, à poena & culpa, from all sins and penances due for them, whether men have erred by misconstruing the case, and what orderly method you have observed with regard of the people's capacity we shall consider in that which followeth.   

For the true meaning of Pardons, and to remove some untrue surmises touching the same, it is declared that the Pope never took upon him by pardoning to remit deadly sin, much less to give any man licence to sin.  
THE SECOND CHAP.  ALLEN. 
FOr the understanding therefore of the term, Pardon, or grace, or Indulgence, let it be oansidered, that proper lie they import not the remission of any deadly crime considered in themselves, and as separated from the sacrament of penance, nor yet signify any release of eternal damnation or everlasting punishment, which only always is remitted when the deadly sin, for which it was due, is forgiven. For there can no power in earth be so great, nor any man's jurisdiction so simple, that he may forgive mortal offences, since the institution of the sacrament of penance, except he use the confession of the party with his contrition and sure intent never to commit the like again, yea and with purpose to satisfy the justice of God, by Christ's grace, as he may, according to the enjoining of his judge therein. For God himself, because he is righteous and true, can not forgive any man his sins, either by this sacrament of penance, or otherwise, being of years and time of discretion, except he be penitent for the same: that is to say, except he be both contrite, and at the least willing to confess his offences, if it be after relapse, and to suffer due correction therefore. And seeing God can not pardon any man of his deadly sins, except he be thus qualified, much less may a mortal man, be he never so great in dignity or calling in the Church, take upon him to forgive or pardon him that is guilty of deadly sin and damnation, without the confession and submission of the penitent, as is premised. All this truth hangeth orderly upon the necessity of the sacrament of Penance, and Christ's ordinance therein, whereby he hath made deadly sins only remissible in that sacrament, by the confession of the party to a Priest, who hath in his order received power to remit them, as is sufficiently proved in the former part of this treatise, and it is only a Priest, whether he be of base state, or high dignity, that can lawfully lose men's sins, as by the key of his order, as they term it, with sufficient jurisdiction over the penitent, for the secret discussing of his conscience in this sacrament of Confession.  FVLKE. 
This whole Chapter containeth nothing but positions, without any ground of authority of scripture, or testimonte of Doctors, as though it were sufficient only to affirm them: which if they be not granted, all that followeth of Pardons is nothing worth. The first is, That Pardons do not properly import the remission of any deadly crime, or the punishment due for the same. The reasons that follow serve to prove, that pardons for deadly sins, and the pain due for them, are unprofitable, but they prove not, that they do not import such remission, either by the Pope's intendment, or by the pardoners preaching of them, or in the opinion of the purchasers, and receivers of them. The gloss upon the Clementine. l. 5. de poenitentiis, & re missionibus. c. 2. yielding a reason why the Pope reproveth the pardoners which took upon them to grant ple nary remission of sins, & to absolve men à poena & culpa, hath these words: à poena & culpa ista est plenissima peccatorum remissio, quae conceditur cruce signatis pro subsidio ultramarino, etc. quam solus papa concedit. From the pain and the fault, this is a most full remission of sins, which is granted to them that are marked with the cross, for aid beyond the sea, which the Pope alone doth grant: by which it appeareth, that the Pope taketh upon him justly, to grant pardon of all sins, mortal and venial, which the pardoners unjustly presumed to do, without sufficient warrant. So doth Pope Boneface the 8, the inventor of jubilee pardons, grant, Non solùm plenam & largiorem, immo plenissimam omnium suorum veniam peccatorum, not only a full and large pardon, but a most full pardon of all their sins. If the pope speak unproperly, when he uttereth such emphatical and superlative speeches, how shall plain men underst and what he meaneth. I know that some of the canonists, who have more care that his decrees should hang together, than the Pope himself, when he granteth pardons for advantage, do interpret the word peccatorum to signify pains due for sins, & yet by this cursed gloss, that corrupteth the text, release of eternal pain due for deadly sin is not excluded. The author of the gloss confesseth, that this epistle was very grossly made. Haecepistola satis grossè fuit composita, and therefore it must be helped by glosses, for their sakes that can dispute against it, but for the common people it is good enough in the literal sense. In so much that the gloss saith upon the word plenissimam. Sed quomodo ista compatiuntur plenam, largiorem, & plenissimam? Dico Papam interpretatum fuisse in consistorio me presence, have indulgentiam adeo plenam, prout clavium potestas se extendet, quod intelligo prout verba patiuntur. But how do these words hang together, & the one abide the other, a full, a more large, & a most full pardon? I say that the pope in the consistory in my presence, did interpret this pardon, to be so full as the power of the keys doth extend itself, which I do understand as the words do suffer. Whereby it is manifest that the Pope restraining the fullness of his open pardon, sent into all the world by his privy interpretations in his consistory, doth nothing else but delude the world by his pardons, as it shall more plainly appear by the rea sons that are afterward brought forth to defend them from the pretended slanders of their impugners. But further to prove, that the Pope hath taken upon him, by pardon to remit deadly sin, I allege a Bull of confirmation granted by Pope Leo the tenth anno. 1513. Sept. id. martij, Pontif. anno primo, the copy whereof is printed, with the subscription of two public notaries, to testify that it agreeth with the original: which Bull was granted, Hospitali Sancti 〈◊〉 in Saxia almae urbis. In which is an approbation of all pardons granted by his predecessors to the said hospital and the members thereof. Whereof there are rehearsed, that Innocent the third granted to the faith and devotion of the faithful, and the salvation of their souls, to all that visit the said hospital and the members thereof, from the feast of the nativity of our Lord, and every day unto the octaves thereof, two thousand and 800. years of pardons. The same Innocent granted to the said hospital and the members thereof in every festivite of the Apostles 2000 years of pardons. The same jonocent granted to the said hospital, and the members thereof, every day of the whole year, one year, and 40. days of pardon. Also Pope Alexander the fourth, granted to the said hospital, and the members thereof, from the feast of the holy ghost, in the month of januarie, every day until the octaves of the same feast four thousand years, and eight hundred Lents of pardon, & remission of the seventh part of all their sins. And on the Sunday in which there is song, for the introite of the Mass, Omnis terra, the said Alexander granted to the said hospital, and to all and every the members thereof, the first Sundays of every month of the year 3000. years, and as many Lentes, and remission of the third part of all their sins. The same Alexander granted to the said hospital and the members thereof, from the feast of Corpus Christi every day until the octaves 2000 years, and remission of the seventh part of all their sins. Pope Celestinus the 5. granted to the said hospital and the members thereof, from the feast of the Epiphany unto the octaves every day, a hundredth thousand years of Pardons. The same Celestine granted to the said hospital, and the members thereof, from the feast of the nativity of the Virgin Marie, and in the octaves every day thirty thousand years of Pardon, & as many Lentes. Also Pope Clement the 5. granted to the said hospital and the members thereof, from the feast of the resurrection of Christ unto the octaves thereof, every day, two thousand and eight hundredth years of Pardon. Item Pope Boneface the 8. granted to the 〈◊〉 hospital, and to the members thereof, from the feast of the ascension of Christ unto the octaves 2500 years of Pardons. Item Pope Clement the sixth granted to the said hospital, and to all the members thereof, from the feast of Pentecost unto the octaves thereof every day 8000. years & 8000. Lentes, & full remission of all their sins. Item Pope Innocent the 6. hath granted to the said hospital, and to the members thereof, from the feast of the assumption of the blessed Marie, unto the octaves thereof, every day, 2000 years and 2000 Lentes of Pardons, Item Pope Benedict the 12. hath granted to the said hospital and the members thereof, from the feast of all Saints, to the feast of Saint Leonard 3000. years, and as many Lentes of Pardons. The sum of the days of pardon granted by Popes, and by 60 Archbishops, and by 70. Bishops, in the consistory of Lateran confirmed by the authority Apostolic, maketh 700. years and as many Lentes. The sum of the Masses of the whole order by the year, maketh thirty two thousand, and as many psalters of the brethren which are of the order.  
In these liberal grants, where there is not only thousands of years and Lents, by which you understand pains, & penances, enjoined, or due for sin, what meaneth the remission of the seventh part, of the third part of all their sins, yea full remission of all their sins? except the Pope mean either to mock men, that receive his pardons, or else took upon him to remit deadly sin, as the words sound, & can have none other sense, seeing there is not only the universal particle, all their sins, but also remission of sins is distinct from pain of penance due for sins. Again, what should need so large pardon for venial sins, which may so easily be remitted without pardon, except the pope meaneth to release the pains, due for deadly sins? Do ventall sins, which may be washed away with holy water, deserve so many hundred thousand years of penance or punishment, as are contained in these pardons? Finally what shall we say to those pardons that are granted for saying of certain prayers, whereof diverse printed books are full, in which is express mention of pardon, for mortal sins. As for example, Pope Alexander the sixth, granteth to him that saith a certain prayer devoutly in the worship of Saint Anne, and the Virgin Marie, and her son jesus, ten thousand years of pardon, for deadly sins, and twenty years for venial sins, tottes, quoties. The prayer with the indulgence, is to be found in a book printed at Paris, no longer ago, then in anno. 1534. fol. 85. in horis sanctae virgins. What face then hath this proctor for the Pope's pardons to affirm, that the Pope never took upon him by pardon to remit deadly sin?  
But now let us consider his reasons, how he proveth that the Pope's pardons do not properly import remission of any deadly crime, etc. Since the institution of the sacrament of penance, no man can forgive deadly sin without confession of the party, and purpose to satisfy the justice of God. Here are three positions assumed, without proof, always denied of us, namely the institution of the sacrament of penance, the necessity of Popish confession, or of the purpose of satisfying the justice of God, which no man can satisfy in any part, but only Christ hath fully satisfied the same for us: and therefore it is open blasphemy to say that God can not forgive a man his sins, except he be willingly to suffer due correction therefore. For Christ hath once suffered for us and found eternal redemption: That God requireth 
1. Pet. 3. Heb. 9 10.  repentance in them that receive forgiveness of sins, being of discretion, that is such as hear the word and believe it, is not so to be understood, as though God were restrained of his power, by the impenitency of man, but that God giveth repentance to all such as whose sins he forgiveth: For except he convert us we cannot repent. Therefore it is a presumptuous saying to affirm, that god cannot, because he is righteous, forgive a man without he be penitent. For his righteousness is thoroughly satisfied in Christ, before we were borne. And if it be his pleasure to forgive a man his sins, he will also give him repentance, and faith to apprehend Christ, to his justification. But the Pope, who is not able to give repentance, is no more able to forgive sins. If this matter hang (as you say) upon the necessity of the sacrament of penance and confession to a Priest, neither of both those necessities being proved, it hangeth in the air, and is concluded without proof. Now if God only by the ministery of every priest, with the conditions by you required, do forgive sins, it followeth that the Pope's pardons are nothing, but mere delusions, to promise that which he cannot perform, or which every hedge Priest of his Church, is able to perform to his subjects, as largely as the Pope, concerning the remission of deadly sins.  ALLEN. 
Upon which ground you may well perceive, that the Pope's remission and pardon, being a public act of the key of his jurisdiction and rule over the flock of Christ, and not an exercise of his power of order, which only is occupied in ministering the sacraments, and such like, you may well perceive (I say) that his Pardon or assoiling out of the Sacrament, cannot extend in any case so far, as to forgive sins without confession of the penitent, yea although he be otherwise sorrowful for the same: much less may he release any offences without all repentance of the party. And therefore it is a great slander, to say as many do that for money ye may obtain of the Pope a free Pardon before hand, of any grievous sins that you commit afterward, as of robberies, murders, misbehaviours in body, or such like, which were no pardon of sins, but a wicked protection and licence to commit sins. There was never Bishop of Rome, or of other place, that ever gave or could give any such pardon. Nay, not only they take upon them no such thing, but they never gave pardon to this intent to remit mortali sins at all, by force of the Pardon only, and without the confession of the party, were they of never so large or liberal grant. For every Indulgence hath this clause in it, either expressly, or necessarily, and by course to be supplied: Confessis, & contritis, to the confessed and contrite: and sometimes this clause of like importance, to all as be in state of grace. Whereby it is evident, that the giver meaneth not, to make any man partaker of the Indulgence, grace, or pardon, and that the party cannot have any benefit thereby, if he be not released of his sins before, and by the sacrament of penance, set in state of salvation. Whereby also you see, that the Pope taketh not upon him to forgive any their sins (I mean always deadly sins in this case) by his pardon. For the Priest before hand, that heareth his confession, doth forgive him in the sacrament, and so needeth not of any Pardon for those offences themselves, which belong to the Priest's office to remit, and therefore be alway in the said sacramental manner forgiven. And if he be unworthy of forgiveness and losing by the just judgement of his ghostly father, then cannot the pope or any other power in earth forgive him by any grace or Indulgence, which taketh only place from such as be already loosed from their mortal crimes.  FVLKE. 
The second position is, that the Pope's pardon cannot extend to forgive sins without the confession of the party, much less release sins without all repentance of the party. We do easily grant, that the pope's pardons, is of no validity at all, and therefore you may pinch it and strain it in, at your pleasure. But where you say, it is a great slander to say as many do, that for money men may obtain pardon afore hand, etc. You should have done well, to have set down, who saith so, or what impugner of pardons so slandereth them or the Pope. And yet it is manifest, that although no such pardon go forth in such form of words, the Pope's pardons dispensations and absolutions, tend to that effect: seeing they are openly prostrate for all men that will give money for them. For what skilleth it, If a man can not have a license to commit murder, perjury, adultery, & c? If he be sure before hand to have a pardon, dispensation, or absolution for the same, he will not be greatly afraid to commit any of them. And seeing the Pope taketh upon him to dispense against the commandment of God, in many cases, and to grant absolution for any crime never so great, the Pope is not greatly slandered, if he be called a protector of sin, and a granter of licence to commit the same. Neither can he be excused by requiring contrition, confession, and satisfaction in the parties, seeing he granteth pardon for the defaults of every one of them, and that which is the chiefest, of satisfaction, which according to your learning, must be greater or lesser, as the contrition is more or less, according to the priests simple discretion. For the gloss upon the Bull of Pope Boneface the 8. saith, that the contrition of him that confesseth may be so great, that not only the fault, but also the pain, may be clean taken away without penance: but because men can not judge of that, some satisfactory penance must be enjoined, by the Priest or Pope, etc. Now if the Pope by his pardons, as you say, forgiveth no sins, but such as be forgiven before by the priest, in the sacrament of penance, then doth he nothing but play mockholiedaie with his most full pardons, à poena & culpa, with the pardons of the third part or of the seventh part of men's sins, and so is he no better than a co●ener, to sell his pardons for money which contain nothing but that men have before they bought them. Thus while you go about to excuse the pope's pardons of presumption, you condemn them of cozening, and declare them to be merely unprofitable, which promise pardons of deadly sins, yet take place only upon such as be already loosed from their mortal sins.  ALLEN. 
Then hereupon the Reader must learn, and diligently consider, that we attribute a great deal more power to any simple and base Priest, in this case, and by force of the sacrament, than we do to the highest Pope or Patriarch in the world, out of the sacrament, working only by the right of his jurisdiction and governance of the people. The cause is, that the effect of remission of sins proceedeth from Christ more abundantly in the grace of sacraments, which be ministered by the priest, principally by his power of orders, than it doth by the high jurisdiction and key of government of any man without the sacrament. I trust every man understandeth, that there is in the Church a double key (for so the Doctors and schools follow Christ in that Metaphor, and himself the Prophets) the one of order, which is the power annexed or given in the order to work any holy function, by ministering of sacraments, or other things to them belonging: as to consecrate the Sacrament of the Altar, to absolve in penance, and so forth in the rest, to work in every of them according to their institution.  FVLKE. 
The metaphor of the Keys is well known, to the Doctors, as used by Christ, & the Prophets, but this division of the keys, if the ancient Doctors had known, you would not have spared to make us partners of their knowledge in the keys, and yours in the Doctors. The schoolmen in deed be authors of that double key you speak of, namely the key of jurisdiction or government, and the key of order. But the ancient Doctors knew no such distinction. The keys of power or authority & the key of knowledge the Scripture speaketh of, and so do the ancient doctors. How be it even as your fathers the Scribes & Pharises & lawyer did take away the keys of knowledge, and shut up the kingdom of heaven from men, neither entering in themselves nor suffering 
Math. 23. 5. Luk. 11.  other that would: so do you: for you have taken away the key of knowledge of the Scriptures, by which as chrysostom saith, in opere imperfecto the kingdom of 
Hom 44. in c. Matt. 23.  heaven is opened, & in steed thereof forged a key of strange and tyrannical jurisdiction, which neither Christ nor Peter, nor any of his godly successors did know or exercise. This ancient writers words are these. Regnum coelorum est beatitudo coelestis, ianua autem etus est Scriptura, per quam introitur ad eam. Clavicularij autem sunt Sacerdotes, quibus creditum est verbum dicendi, & interpretandi Scripturas. Clavis autem est verbum scientiae Scripturarum, per quam aperitur hominibus ianua veritatis. Adapertio autem est interpretatio vera. The kingdom of heaven is the heavenly blessedness, the gate thereof is the Scripture, by which men go into it: the key-keepers are the priests, to whom is committed the word of preaching and interpreting the Scriptures. And the key is the word of the knowledge of the Scriptures by which the gate of truth is opened unto men. The opening is the true interpretation of the scriptures. These two keys of authority and knowledge, will make a sufficient minister of the Gospel, that is able to open, and shut, bind and lose, forgive and retain sins, and where these want, or either of them, there can be no good minister of Christ to open the kingdom of heaven, that men may enter therein. But now let us see the reason you give, why you attribute more power to a simple priest in remitting of mortal sins in shrift, then to the Pope's high jurisdiction by pardons. The cause is (say you) that the effect of remission of sins, proceedeth from Christ, more abundantly in the grace of sacraments, then by the high jurisdiction without the sacraments. This is nakedly affirmed, without any proof in the world, as other positions before and after. But in deed there is no reason that the effect of remission of sins, should proceed more large from the sacrament of penance, as you call it, then from the jurisdiction of the Pope, if it had the same foundation which you would bear men in hand it hath. For if Peter's and the Pope's jurisdiction be builded upon Tu es Petrus, and to thee I will give the keys, and what soever thou bindest or losest, shall be bound in heaven, etc. Why should not all mortal sins be subject to his jurisdiction, as well as to the priests power in penance. The words be as ample to Peter, Math. 16. as to the Apostles. joh. 20. If Peter's key of jurisdiction papal be not grounded upon this text, as you advouched lib. 1. cap. 4. Sect. 7. tell us where he hath it any where else committed unto him. If it be committed by this text, certainly the key of jurisdiction is as large as the key of orders. Therefore either he forgiveth mortal sins by his jurisdiction, or else his jurisdiction is no greater than any other man's, that hath any key committed unto him.  ALLEN. 
There is another key of Regiment and rule of the Church or some principal portion thereof, which is called the key or power of jurisdiction. Now by this power of regiment and rule, as no man can take upon him to consecrate, so no man out of the sacrament of penance, can take upon him to absolve any man of deadly sins and damnation due therefore. For though some do think, that Saint Paul did absolve the incestuous Corinthian both of his sin and damnation, with all temporal punishment due therefore, after assured repentance of the party, out of the sacrament of penance: yet I cannot agree in any case thereunto, because the sacrament of confession hath ever been of necessity since Christ's institution thereof, and because the remission of sins is so proper a work unto God, that no creature could ever work the same absolutely without sacrament, saving only the humanity of Christ, to which the acts, of divinity, as being united to the godhead, were communicated, upon which it is certain, that Christ our saviour might remit sins absolutely out of all external sacraments, by his word and will only, which being the power of excellency, was, as Divines do think, communicated to no other creature, in what jurisdiction or pre-eminence soever he should be placed: and in the act of absolution & remission of sins proceedeth jointly from that one excellent person, being both God and man. Neither is it to be thought that Saint Paul did pardon the foresaid Penitent any other ways, then by the hands of the ministers and Priests of the Corinthian Church. For though the confession and penance of the party were public, as the sin itself was open, yet the usage of the Apostie, and open practise of the Corinthian Church towards him, was no less a sacrament then, than it is now being secret. Therefore I doubt not, but Saint Paul spoke especially to the Priests of the Corinthians, when he willed them to confirm their charity towards the sinner, and to forgive him by their ministery, whom he thought in absence worthy to receive the grace and pardon at their hands, whereof we shall speak more hereafter in place convenient. We do not then exalt the Pope or Bishops in this case any thing so far as heresy seemeth, or the simplicity of many men conceiveth, whereas they may well understand, that we give more authority to the most simple Priest alive, in respect of his order, and because of the sacrament, by which he worketh, then to the Pope or highest Potentate in the world, considering but only his jurisdiction. And therefore Saint Peter himself, who received both the keys, as also other Apostles and Bishops, having as well the key or power of Orders, as the key of jurisdiction, and regiment of their subjects, may do the acts of both the keys, that is to say, may as well lawfully minister sacraments of all sorts, as also exercise jurisdiction upon their subjects in such things, as we hereafter shall declare. But out of the sacraments only by the virtue of their jurisdiction, to absolve men of mortal sins, though they be subject unto them, they can not, nor, as I think, ever Pope or Prelace took upon him any such pre-eminence. And therefore let this be the first point of our consideration: that the Pope's Pardons or Indulgences, which he giveth in respect of his jurisdiction, which also, as most men do think, he might give when he were once elected, before he were a priest or any other bishop in like case, according to the compass of this regiment: let it be first noted, I say, that such pardons, howsoever they be given out of the sacraments, do not forgive sins that be deadly. And if any man thought before, that the Pope might or did use to give such liberal grants or pardons, whereby without the sacrament of penance or confession any man might claim full remission of all his deadly sins, let him correct the misconstruing the matter in himself, and assuredly know, that it is not sothought of gods Church, nor so meant by the giver, nor so expressed in any pardon.  FVLKE. 
Still you follow your positions without probations. The Pope dispenseth with oaths, with vows, with 
〈◊〉 de auco: de potestate Ec. quaest. 49. 52.  killing of men, etc. without the sacrament of penance; which things if they were donewithout this dispensation, I think you will account to be mortal sins, and this he doth by his key of jurisdiction: therefore he may as well by the same power absolve men of periutie, breach of vows, killing of men: or if his key be nought in absolution, it can be no better in dispensation. Cettaine it is that Saint Paul with the Church of Corinth, did release and absolve the incestuous man, as largely as he had bound him. For so his words are plain, Whatsoever you do pardon I also pardon. But you can not agree 
2. Cor. 2. 10  thereto, in any case, although other men be of that mind; and Saint Paul saith as much himself. Peradventure you will rather believe chrysostom, who upon the former words of Saint Paul, thus writeth: Ne redderet illos elatos, quasi huius negotij authoritas penes ipsos esset, itaque fieret ut non absoluerent hominem, 〈◊〉 adigit illos ad hoc, dicens sese quoque ills condonasse. Lest he should make them to proud, as though the authority of this matter were wholly in their power, and so it might be that they would not absolve the man again, he driveth them to this, saying that he also hath pardoned him. Again he speaketh inthe person of Saint Paul. Ego iam condonavi, qui in priore epistola condemnaveram. I have already pardoned him, which in my former epistle had condemned him. This is Chrysostom's judgement, whereto in any case you can not agree. The reason you add of the necessity of the sacrament confession, and institution thereof, is nothing, except you prove them out of the scriptures, as you never shall be able the one or the other. That remission of sins is so proper a work to God, as it is incommunicable to any creature, to grant the same absolutely, you say true, whether it be with sacrament or without sacrament. For remission of sins followeth not the external administratio of the sacraments: but the sacraments as seals of his word, follow the pleasure of God therein. Wherefore your determination of God's absolute power in remission of sins, as also your discourse which followeth, of Christ's humanity united to the Godhead remitting sins, is clean contrary to your former deliberate assertions, contained in the first book, Chapter the 1. 2. as appeareth by the very titles of the chapters, and in the latter end of the 4. Chapter, where you make your syllogism, the mayor whereof is this: They truly and properly do remit sins, upon whose sentence in earth, the pardons of God immediately doth ensue in heaven. Thus you dangle up and down, looking only upon your purpose in hand and forgetting how your matter should hang together, which every mean reader will find out of himself though you do not admonishhim thereof. You return again to Saint Paul's absolution, which although the text, and the doctor's interpretation upon the text, be most manifest, that Saint Paul as a principal party in his excommunication, doth also as principal minister restore him, yet you will have him to be, but only an exhorter or counsellor of other men, what they should do. But the text is plain, he did not only judge him worthy, to receive pardon at the hands of priests or Church of Corinth; but he also did for his part, and according to that interest he had over the Churchof Corinth, himself pardon him & that in the person or presence of Christ. But hereof you admonish us that we shall have occasion to consider more hereafter. In the mean time while you would make the Pope's pardons seem more tolerable to ignorant persons, you go about to persuade them, that you do not exalt the Pope so far, but that you give to every simple priest authority, in respect of his order, more than to the Pope, and repeat again, that the Pope can not absolve men of mortal sin, and yet hath the Pope as I have proved, taken upon him to absolve men of mortal sin. If he did contrary to the Popish Church's 〈◊〉, let the Popish Church expostulate with him: if his meaning were otherwise, then might be gathered by his words, than was he a shameful dissembler, cosener, and deceiver.  ALLEN. 
Notwithstanding, the power of jurisdiction sometimes joineth with the sacrament of penance and the power of orders: as when any indulgence is given forth by the Pope, in which is expressed, that whosoever shall be partaker thereof, must confess himself, and be contrite for his sins past, and therewith receive the holy sacrament of the Altar, and such like, by this pardon so joining with the sacrament of remission, or in a manner including the same, a full forgiveness is had of all sins and pains therefore, which in that case may be called, as it is, a plenary remission or a pardon à poena & culpa, from both the fault, and the pain due therefore.  FVLKE. 
Howsoever you join or disjoin the Pope's pardons to or from the singlesoled sacrament of popish confession, the Pope's pardons for mortal sins will prove no better than fools babbles, by your own confession. For without the sacrament of confession, you say, they are not able to forgive deadly sins, and in the sacrament of confession you hold that deadly sins may be forgiven without the Pope's pardons: therefore either with it or without it the Pope's pardons for deadly sins, are not worth a rotten nutshell. So that while men pay money to the Pope or his pardoning questors, for leaden bulls, they are made lewd Calves, to buy that for money at his hands, which their Parish priests are bound to give them freely without money. The Pope therefore in granting plenary pardons, à poena & culpa, both from the fault and the pain, due therefore, doth nothing else but deiude the world, seeing he can neither grant pardon for any mortal fault, as you confess, and when he pretendeth to pardon such faults, he pardoneth no more than was pardoned before, or which might receive pardon without his pardon.  ALLEN. 
There be also certain grievous crimes which every Curate or Priest Parochian can not remit, because they be reserved to the audience of the higher Pastors. For in the sacrament of penance there is a power judiciary, and therefore can not be practised lawfully, but upon subject persons, and causes not exempted from their judgement, and excepted from their audience. In which cases the persons of higher jurisdiction, to whom by right and law the cognition of those reserved sins belong, do sometimes upon occasion given, communicate their power to the said simple priests, and do licence them to exercise their jurisdiction upon persons and causes not properly pertaining unto them: as when the Pope's Indulgence giveth the sinner leave to choose his ghostly father, and by him that he may be assoiled even from such sins as be reserved to the supreme power of the Church. In this matter also, the Indulgence joineth with the ordinary sacrament of penance, and the minister receiveth jurisdiction by the Indulgence. to hear and assoil the Penitent of such sins, as before were not subject to his peculiar regiment: and therefore this is also called a pardon from sin, and the pain for sin, and a full remission.  FVLKE. 
You have hitherto held hard, that neither the Pope nor any Bishop can give pardon of any mortal sin: but by reservation of cases it appeareth, that the Pope challengeth this prerogative, that he only may give absolution and pardon in these grievous crimes, that be called cases papal, and the Bishop in cases episcopal. Now let us see how this gear hangeth together. The Pope hath this prerogative in respect of his high jurisdiction, for in the sacrament of penance every priest, by order, as we heard before, hath as much authority as he. Then if these cases be reserved to the Pope's jurisdiction, this reservation doth prove, that the Pope taketh upon him to pardon the most grievous sins, by his jurisdiction only, or else he deceiveth them that seek for absolution of them at his hands. And whereas you would cloak the matter by saying, the Pope's indulgence doth grant, that the priest in confession may assoil a man from such sins, as be reserved to the supreme power of the Church, it is to no purpose: For the Priest in this case, is but the pope's deputy, to exercise the Pope's jurisdiction (as you say) as well upon persons as causes, not properly pertaining to him, but by the Pope's licence; whereupon it followeth, that the Pope may do in his own person, that which he doth by his deputy, but by his deputy he taketh upon him to remit most deadly sins: therefore the Pope taketh upon him to remit deadly sins, by his jurisdiction only. If you say, the absolution cometh from the sacrament, and not from his jurisdiction, then show us out of the scriptures, how the Pope hath authority to restrain the grace of sacraments in respect of the person that ministereth them, or else your reservation of cases and exemption of persons, will prove no better than an Antichristian tyranny. For if Christ have given power to every Priest to remit all sins, as you have often affirmed, upon the text joh. 20. whose sins you remit, etc. what is he but Antichrist, exalting himself above all that is called God, which controlleth the liberal grant of Christ, exempting both persons, and sins from their power, without all ground or war rant of God's word?  ALLEN. 
That thou be not deceived herein, understand, good Reader, that every Priest in his taking Orders, and by Christ's grant, hath full power to remit all sins, and all men of their sins that be penitent, and yet that this power can not be practised by the law of nature indifferently upon all, because this sacrament, and none other, is judicial, and therefore profitably can be extended no further, but to them that be of their subjection and regiment. Wheresoever the Priest consecrateth, it is effectual: whomsoever he baptizeth, he is lawfully Christianed: whomsoever the Bishop ordereth, he standeth truly ordered, and so forth, though they should not herein meddle in other men's cures, without special licence, sufferance, or necessity. But no man can assoil any person at all, that is not subject unto him, either ordinarily or otherwise, because it is an act of jurisdiction, and therefore though his power of orders be in itself sufficient, yet by that only he can not absolve any man, but in necessity, except he have withal authority over the person, and in that case, wherein the penitent requireth his sentence, which jurisdiction he may have, either ordinarily, as upon all those that be of his charge, or else extraordinarily, by some special grant of the superior, as Bishop, or Pope, as we may see in the forms and course of Indulgencies divers times. And thus considering of the matter, you see that the Pope's pardons, as they be only proper to the act of jurisdiction, separated from the power of priesthood, and sacramental confession, can not remit the sins themselves, neither damnation due for their reward, though, because licence cometh and proceedeth by them, to the inferior Priests, to remit sins in all cases, they may be called, as I said, plenary and most liberal graces and grants, to assoil man both from sin, and the punishment that is due therefore.  FVLKE. 
You pretend as though you would render a reason, why all Priests have not equal power over all men, and to remit all sins, and for the former you say somewhat, though not sufficient, but for the later you say nothing at all. First you confess that every Priest rightly ordered, hath by Christ's grant power to remit all sins, and all men of their sins that be penitent. But this power can not be practised, you say, by the law of nature, indifferently upon all. Then belike Christ hath granted, and they received, an unprofitable power: for why have they power to remit all sins, and all men's sins, and yet may practise the same, but upon some sins, and some men's sins only? In truth Christ hath given full power to all his ministers, according to the measure of every one of their charges. the Apostles over all the world, their successors the bishop's pastors, & teachers within the compass of their several cures: and therefore you say well, that God hath so ordered the case, that no man may intermeddle in an others cure, without licence, sufferance, or necessity: the Pope than doth wickedly to exempt any man from his lawful pastor, to whom the charge of his soul is by Christ committed The reason you give, wherefore this power can not be practised, upon all, is frivolous, because this sacrament, and none other is judicial. For who will grant you that the power of remitting sins in repentance is more judicial then in baptism, or in the lords supper? For the minister ought to have a judgement whom he baptizeth and whom he admitteth unto the Lord's table. If the children of Turks, or jews, be offered to baptism, without the conversion or consent of their parents, by what warrant shall he receive them? If Turks, jews, or Gentiles that be of years of discretion, offer themselves to baptism, before they be instructed in Christian belief, shall they be baptised? If children, natural fools, and such as can not examine themselves, notorious offenders, that have given no signs of repentance, men known to be in malice, etc. shall present themselves to the Lords table, must they without all judgement, or discretion be accepted or repulsed? By this therefore it appeareth that there is nothing more judicial in receiving of sinners to repentance, if that were a sacrament, then in the only true sacraments of baptism and the Lords supper. Wherefore, there is no reason that the Pope should restrain any man of that power, which you confess he hath by Christ's grant, over all persons of his charge, by exempting any of them, or giving them liberty to choose their ghostly Father, according to their own appetite, and much less, that he should reserve unto himself, the absolution from the greatest sins, the power whereof was granted by Christ to every Priest, as you confess, over his own parishioners, for which reservation you bring not so much as the shadow of any reason to shroud him from the the note of Antichristian tryanny.  ALLEN. 
The Pope's Pardons also may wellreach so far, as to take away venial and daily infirmities, which be of their nature punishable, but by some temporal pain and correction, because they be remissible many ways out of the sacrament, both here in this life, and in the next. For the merits of Christ may be applied sufficiently to the offenders in such light manner of trespasses, without the especial grace of a sacrament: as by saying our lords prayer (saith Saint Augustine) and by almese, and by the holy Sacrament of the altar, either received, or devoutly adored, by sacrifice now of the holy Mass, much more than in old time in the sacrifices of the law, and by the holy peace or blessings of Christ and his Apostles, and Bishops after them, and by their Pardons. Therefore to him that is free from grievous sins, or pardoned of the same, all these things shallbe commodious towards the remission of his lesser infirmities: but if he be in state of damnation, and out of God's favour, which grace must be procured only by the Sacraments of Baptism or penance, he can not obtain any Pardon at the pope's hands neither alive nor dead, nor none was ever meant unto him.  FVLKE. 
Seeing venial sins may so easily be pardoned as you do show, and by so many means, you make great fools of all them, that travel to Rome, for a plenary Pardon of jubilee, or that will pay one halfpenny for any at home, when without travel, without expenses, without danger, he may so lightly obtain forgiveness of them. But howsoever you play, and blear men's eyes, with venial sins, the word of truth saith, that everlasting death is 
Rom. 6. 23.  the reward of sin, if it be not pardoned through the merits of Christ's death, applied to us by faith. The grace of God is all one, whether it be testified by his 〈◊〉, or by a sacrament. But you would have it seen, that Saint Augustine is an author of this distinction, of venial and mortal sins and showeth these means by which venial sins may be wiped away, without the grace of a Sacrament: but you pervert his words, far from his meaning. For his purpose is to show, that a man cannot be purged from his greevose sins by alms, except he be heartily penitent and careful, never to commit them again: but of smaller sins, without the which a man can not lead his life, he cannot determine that he will forsake them, but must continually crave Pardon for them, and avoid them, as much as he can. His words are these. Sanè cavendum, ne quisquam existimet infanda illa crimina, qualia qui agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt, quotidiè perpetranda, & eleemosynis quotidiè redimenda. In melius quip est vita mutanda, & per eleemosinas de peccatis praeteritis, est propitiandus Deus, non ad hoc emendus quodam modo, ut ea semper liceat impunè committere. Nemini enim dedit laxamentum peccandi, quamuis miserando deleatiam facta peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negligatur. De quotidianis autem brevibus levibusque peccatis, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur, quotidiana oratio fidelium satis facit. Eorum est enim dicere, Pater noster qui es in coelis, Quiiam patri tali regenerati sunt, ex aqua & Spiritu Sancto. Delet omninò haec oratio minima & quotidiana peccata. Delet & illa, à quibus vita fidelium sceleratè etiam gesta, sed poenitendo in melius mutata, discedit. Si quemadmodum veraciter dicitur, Demitte nobis debita nostra, quoniam non desunt quae dimittantur, ita veraciter dicatur, sicut & nos dimittimus debitorib. nostris, id est, fiat, quod dicitur, quia ipsa eleemosyna est, veniam petenti homini ignoscere. Surly we must take heed lest any man think those wicked crimer, which they that commit them, shall not possess the kingdom of God, are daily to be committed, and daily to be redeemed by alms. For the life must be changed into better, and God is to be entreated through almese, for sins past, he is not to be bought after asort, for this end, that it may be lawful to commit them always without punishment. For he hath given to no man licence of sinning, although by his mercy he do wipe away sins already committed, if meet satisfaction be not neglected. But for daily, short, and light sins, without which this life is not led, the daily prayer of the faithful doth make satisfaction. For it pertaineth to them to say, Our Father which art in heaven, which are already regenerate to such a father by water and the holy Ghost. For this prayer doth altogether wipe away these least and daily sins. It wipeth away also those, from which the life of the faithful, having been wickedly passed, but by repentance being changed into better, doth departed: if, as it is truly said, forgive us our debts, because there want not dets to be forgiven, even so it may be truly said, as we also do forgive our debtor, that is to say, if that be done which is spoken. For that is also alms, to give pardon to a man which desireth it. First of receiving the Sacrament of the altar, or adoring the same, of the sacrifice of the Mass, of the Bishop's blessing, & of their pardons, here is no mention. Secondly he showeth that great crimes are pardoned also by saying the lords prayer, if changing of life do follow: by which it is manifest, that by satisfaction he meaneth the fruits of repentance, which as the offences are greater, or lesser, so it is meet they be showed accordingly, in small offences. contrition of heart and humble acknowledging of them before God is sufficient: in great offences, the change of life into better, must be manifest even to the Church, and the sins repent of, must be forsaken: which in lesser offences, it is not possible altogether to avoid. But while you make the sacrifice of the Mass, etc. to serve only for venial sins, you do more dishonour to it, than your adversary would have thought you could. But confession, the great cozenage of the world, is so precious, for all your popish purposes, that in respect of it, you make light of all points of popery beside.   

That the pope's pardons properly pertain to the remission of temporal pain due for mortal sins, remitted before in the Sacrament of penance, whereupon the full meaning of pardons, is opened.  
THE THIRD CHAP.  ALLEN. 
THe Pope's holiness then, being disburdened by most just means from all causes of envy rising upon the surmise or open slander, that he would forgive men's sins even before they were committed, as though he should grant further a licence, for men to commit notorious crimes, yea, being proved to be so far from the fact, that he taketh not upon-him by his pardons, so much as to release any mortal sin at all, and therefore, that he never arrogated so much unto himself in these matters, in respect of his jurisdiction only, as is justly granted to the simplest priest alive that is lawfully ordered: the case standing then before God and all the world so clear with him, let us see what he claimeth by his jurisdiction, and in what sense his Pardons do remit or release any thing to man, seeing in matters of mortal sin, otherwise then by joying with the sacrament of penance, he doth not intermeddle with remission at all.  ALLEN. 
Truly to be plain and brief, they that be the governors of God's Church do challenge nothing else, nor mean nothing else by their Pardons, but the release and pardoning of such punishment as is often due after the sins be remitted in the sacrament of Confession, that is to say, they pardon the penance enjoined by the holy Ghostly Father, or that should have been enjoined by the rigour of their Canons, and by the law, according to the quantity of the sin confessed: And what less can they, being the appointed pastors of our souls and governors of the Church, what less can they challenge, then to forgive that punishment, or some part thereof, which the laws did provide, whereof they were the makers or executors themselves, and consequently to remit such punishment as might ensue for the lack of fullfilling thereof? There is no temporal Prince, but he may by his Princely Prerogative pardon any several fault committed either against his own person, or the commonwealth, that is to say, discharge the offender, of that pain, which by the law he should suffer. And why should we think it strange, that those men, to whom by express words of Christ more pre-eminence is given for their jurisdiction spiritual, then to any Prince alive is given by law or nature for their Regiment? why should we think it strange, that they should pardon or release the pains and penalty appointed by the Ghostly Father, or prescribed by the law, or due to the sin itself by God's justice, if there were no law for the case, or order taken of the Church past?  FVLKE. 
The Pope's pardons being not only prostrate as common harlotts, to every man that will pay for them, but also his dispensations against the commandment of God, which are of the same nature with his pardons, as ready to be sold, whereby he taketh upon him to make perjury, incest, and many other horrible crimes lawful, as in discharging subjects from their oath of obedience to their lawful princes, in licensing the Uncle to marry his Niece, yea the brother to marry his sister, for Augustinus de Ancona excludeth no degree from his dispensation, but the marriage of the parents with their own children, his execrable holiness 
De potest. Eccle. quest. 53. quod libetina.  is not yet discharged, from that shameful Antichristian tyranny, which he is justly accused to usurp: as also it hath been showed plainly, that howsoever some Canonists have restrained the force of his pardons, from remitting of deadly sin, yet are his pardons extant to be seen, wherein he promiseth full remission of all sins. In which if he delude men, he is so much the more wicked to promise pardon of all sins, and yet is not able to remit so much by his pardon, as a Parish Priest may do without his pardons. Wherefore your impudency is the greater, to affirm so often, they challenge nothing else, nor mean nothing else, but the release of penance, or punishment due. I have before proved both by the gloss of their law, and by the very words of their pardons, that they challenge this authority to release not only the pain, but also the saultes. If they mean otherwise, than they writ and speak, then are they detestable dissemblers. But howsoever some Canonists to salve their matter of shrift, have expounded them to pertain only to the punishment due for sins, remitted in the sacrament of penance, yet their exposition can by no means stand, with the words of many pardons. But seeing you will needs have it so, let us see what you say to prove it. First you ask, what less, they being appointed pastors of our souls, and governors of the Church, can challenge, then to forgive the punishment, which the law, whereof they were makers or executors, doth provide? To this we answer, that we neither acknowledge them to be pastors, or governors of gods church, nor if they were, to have authority, to make laws to entangle men's consciences, and then to strain them or lose them at their pleasures. Christ gave power to remit or retain, to bind or loosethe penitent or unpenitent, but not to bind the penitent to punishment, whose sins are loosed and remitted. The example of temporal Princes pardoning or releasing the punishment of transgressors, will not serve. For the pastors of the Church must do that which Christ hath commanded, and no more, which are so governors of the Church, that they be not Lords and Princes thereof, but servants of the Church and of Christ. But lest of all can any Pastor of our souls, or governor of the Church, release any punishment due to sin itself by God's justice, which none but God of his mercy can do, his justice, being before answered in Christ our Saviour.  ALLEN. 
And that it is the punishment only, which they mean to pardon by their Indulgences, it may be evident both by that we have said before, and also by the words of course in most Indulgences, in which lightly you see this clause, De poenitentijs iniunct is, we assoil them from the penance of so many days or years, as may be seen planlie in the holy Council of Lateran, and in the decrees both of Innocentius the third and the fourth. The sin itself is not measurable 
Can. 62. De penitent & remission Cap. quod autem.  by times and years, for it is a simple and indivisible act or affection of mind or man, as our schools speak in such matters, and therefore a man can not be assoiled from part of his sin, and bound in the other part, but he that forgiveth the guilt and fault of sin, which the Prophet calleth iniquitatem 
Psal. 31.  peccati, he releaseth no days or years, but he forgiveth the very fault itself. Neither is there any eternal punishment, which can be eased by any number of days, were they never so many. Take you from an infinite and endless thing, how much you list, and it shallbe eternal still. Then it is only temporal punishment, which before God and the world is limited by certain proportion of the wickedness committed, and of that satisfaction which gods justice requireth at the party penitent which can be released by days or years, in part, or in whole. And therefore the Popes or Bishop's Pardons only forgive temporal punishment enjoined, or at the left due for answer of God's righteousness to be enjoined. Wherein also the Magistrates of the Church have such care and consideration, that they remit not so much as any one day of enjoined penance or deserved punishment, but by recompense of the lack of man's satisfying, with some portion of Christ's abundant deserts applied by the use of their keys, to the relief of such as do lack, and for their zeal and devotion, are not worthy to receive benefit by the singular treasure of the common wealth, to help them in their private need. But for this matter look for more toward the end of the book.  FVLKE. 
This first reason is very feeble, some pardons have this clause, de poenitenties iniunctis, of penance enjoined, therefore in all other pardons in which is express mention, not only of penance enjoined, but also of pardoning of sins, either all, or some part of them, the temporal punishment only is meant to be pardoned. The second reason is as good. Sin is undivisible, and so is the punishment for sin and eternal, therefore it is only temporal punishment, which is released by days and years. But what say you then to most full pardons of all sin and all punishments, where there is no limitation of days nor years? what say you to the release of the third part or the seventh part of all sins, beside many thousand years of punishment remitted, as I have showed before in the Pardons of Alexander the fourth confirmed by Pope Leo the tenth within these eighty years?  
The third argument is, that the magistrates of the Church, remit not so much as one day of punishment due to God's justice for sin, but by recompensing the want of man's satisfaction, with some portion of Christ's abundant deserts, applied by the use of the keys, etc. But what intolerable blasphemy is this to apply the merits of Christ but only in default of man's satisfaction, whose blood is the only purgation of our sins, whose righteousness is the whole propitiation for our iniquities, whose redemption by his death purchased is eternal for all them that are sanctified? Again what an horrible blasphemy is it, to make a merchandise of the merits of Christ our saviour, as the Pope doth in the sail of his pardons? And finally, what scripture giveth any dispensation of Christ's merits unto any mortal man, and lest of all to the Pope the man of sin? if it be lawful thus to imagine, imply, apply, forge and feign, without all ground of the holy scriptures, religion shall be nothing, but as it pleaseth men to make it, as it is plain in the Popish synagogue.  ALLEN. 
And now upon the fore said declaration, let this be as it were agreed upon, and let the adversaries well understand, this to be the meaning of the Catholic Church, that an Indulgence or pardon is nothing else but a remission in part or in whole of the bond of that punishment which is enjoined or deserved, after the mortal sins be remitted, God's justice being otherwise for the said sins recompensed by the common treasure of Christ and his Saint's satisfaction, which is applied unto the parties use by the keys of jurisdiction granted to such, as Christ made the Stewards of his household, the disposers of his mysteries. For the Church of God and her Pastors, though they be merciful & inclining to remission, rather than rigour, yet they take not upon them, neither in the sacrament of penance to remit sin and damnation, neither out of the sacrament to release any pain or part of punishment enjoined, without recompense thereof by Christ's copious redemption, and the communion of holy works, that is betwixt the head and members of this mysticali body of Christ.  FVLKE. 
So often as you repeat this untruth, so often it must be told you, that it is false, that the pope's pardon by the meaning of the giver, and receivers, is nothing else but a remission of punishment, enjoined, or deserved, after mortal sins be remitted: when it is expressed in the same, that it is either for all sins, at well as pains, or else for some part of the sins as well as some part of the veins: except you will accuse the Pope of manifest falsehood and cozenage, to promise that which he meaneth not to give, and wotteth well is not in his power to give. Again, where you say, that God's justice is otherwise recompensed, we know his justice is throughly satisfied, by the obedience and suffering of Christ, as well for all our sins, as for the punishment due for the same, therefore 
Rom. 3. 5.  your Pope's pardons are needles where God forgiveth our sins, & justifieth us freely for Christ's sake. But where you join the satisfaction of saints, unto the common treasure of Christ, it is exceeding blasphemous against the sufficiency of his satisfaction, and the grace of God's free justification: For all have sinned, and are destitute 
Rom. 3. 23.  of the glory of God, being freely justified by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, by saith in his blood. But admit all these lies and blasphemies, hitherto advouched, were granted, who gave the Pope authority to apply the same by the key of jurisdiction? How prove you the key of jurisdiction, to extend so far? For the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatsoever 
Mat. 18. john. 20.  they are, be committed to the whole Church, and not to one person only, as Cyprian, Augustine, chrysostom, Jerome, and all the ancient Doctors agreeably to the scriptures do confess. And God hath made all the Pastors of the Church stewards of his household and dispensers of his mysteries. And if every Pastor over his charge be a steward and dispenser of God's mysteries, as you seem to grant, why hath he not authority to release the penance by himself enjoined, or the punishment due for sin remitted, as well as the Bishop, or the Pope? Why hath he not the key of jurisdiction over his parish, in as large and ample manner, as the Bishop hath over his diocese, or the Pope over all men, seeing the keys are not given to one, but to the unity, as the ancient fathers teach? Why should the Bishop, and the Pope have two keys, and they but one? resolve us these matters out of the holy scripture, and you shall come somewhat nearer your purpose of pardons. As for the communion of holy works, which is between the head and the members, if you mean thereby the works of men joined with the satisfaction or merits of Christ, either show us where it is taught in the scriptures, or give us le ave to deny it, until you can prove it.  ALLEN. 
Perchance some Protestant will here call us back, and require proof, that there should be any pain or tempor all correction remaining for those persons, which havetheir sins forgiven by God in the sacrament of Penance, or otherwise by the only faith of the party penitent, as he may perhaps surmise. If he list to be satisfied in this case, let him turn back and make a short view of the works of God since the beginning, and there consider well, whether God himself hath not commonly visited his children received to mercy, with some correction answerable in respect of his justice to the grievousness of the crime forgiven. Who is so froward or so rude, but he may well discern betwixt the salt of our first Father, and the punishment of everlasting damnation deserved thereby? His sin was one thing, his deserved punishment an other thing, his sin was disobedience, his punishment correspondent to that, was everlasting death. Yet whensoever one of these two is forgiven, the other must needs be forgiven also, because he can neither be subject to damnation, whose sin, for which damnation was ordained, is forgiven, neither his fault be forgotten, whose everlasting punishing is pardoned, which is the reward of sin. But now, both these being once, through Christ remitted to Adam, as we read in the book of wisdom, who perceiveth not, that he was for all that long afterward 
Cap. 10.  subject to temporal death and many other miseries both of this life and of the next, being only punishments appointed by God for the full satisfying even of those sins, which were forgiven him.  FVLKE. 
Out of all peradventure, we require proof not only of this point, but of many more positions, which you have barely affirmed, to build your popish pardons upon them. And touching this point we do require proof, not only that after sins and eternal pains remitted, there are temporal pains remaining to satisfy God's justice, but also if there were any such remaining, by what authority you should release them. I know that often times, after sin remitted, God sendeth or suffereth a temporal pain to remain, but that is not for satisfaction of his justice; but for a merciful chastisement, of his fatherly discipline. The punishment due to God's justice is eternal damnation for every sin, as even the gloss upon the Extravagant of Boneface the eight doth acknowledge. 
Extrava. 〈◊〉 lib. 1. de poenit. & remissi. Cap. 1.  And when God doth freely remit the sin, he doth as freely remit the punishment, due for the same. For what remaineth to be punished when the sin is remitted? Temporal pains therefore satisfy not his justice, but admonish his children of their ductie, and make them careful not to commit sin, which by his chastisement they are put in mind to be displeasing unto him. The temporal death and miseries that Adam was subject unto, through his disobedience, remained in him and his posterity, not as a satisfaction of God's justice, for his sin remitted, and satisfied by Christ, but as a monument, and example, of his justice for sin; and therefore they remain not only in the elect, but in the reprobate: for an admonition to beware of sin, unto the Godly; and to take excuse away from the wicked, of ignorance of God's punishment for sin. yet are all those punishments unto the Godie turned into blessings, being either made his fatherly chastisements, for their amendment, or else occasions of their eternal 〈◊〉, as adversity by humbling of them, death by delivering them into the possession of eternal life: and therefore is blessedness pronounced both of the one and of the other. But 
Mat. 5. Apoc. 14.  that Adam was subject to any miseries after this life, or in this life, as being only punishments appointed by God, for the 〈◊〉 satisfying even of those sins, which were forgiven him, we deny utterly. For the obedience of Christ was 〈◊〉 full satisfaction for the disobedience of Adam, both for him and all Gods elect ofhi posterity. For if by the transgression of one, many have died, much more the grace of 
Rom. 5. 15. & caetera.  God and the free gift in grace, which is of one man jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. For if through the transgression of one death hath reigned by one, much more they which receive the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one jesus Christ. For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so by the obidience of one man many shall be made just. This and much more hath the Apostle to prove, that the redemption of Christ was more bountiful toward them which are justified through faith, than the transgression of Adam was rigorous to their condemnation: which could not be, if any part of God's justice remained to be satisfied by the punishment of the party after his sins were remitted, and he made just by the redemption and justification of Christ. Therefore the temporal pains, whereto Gods children are subject after their sins remitted, are not left for the satisfying of the justice of God. Or if you will needs contend that they are so left, and that the Pope out of the treasure of the Church, hath authority to pardon all such punishment, or any part thereof, let him make trial ofhis power, in such corporal punishments as God layeth upon his children, for their corrections let him by his pardon release any man of his sickness, age, death: if he can do none of these, then either these are no punishments due to satisfy God's justice, or else he hath no such power as is bragged of, by dispensing of the treasure of Christ's copious redemption, to pardon men of all their punishment due to the justice of God for sin. For if he had such power, every sick man that receiveth a ple narie pardon, à poena & culpa, should presently recover of his disease: yea I marvel how he should die, if death be a penalty due to the justice of God for sin, which hath such a plentiful indulgence of all pains enjoined or deserved by sin. But if he cannot release one fit of an ague, with all the pardons, I marvel how he should release a man of all his pains of purgatory, yea spoil all purgatory at once of all them that suffer pains therein: except it be because he hath power only over that prison, which is of his own building, and all that come therein, but hath no power at all over them upon whom God layeth any affliction, either bodily, or spiritually.  ALLEN. 
Look at the Prophet David, whether God corrected him not with temporal scourge, after he had expressly forgiven him by the warrant of the Prophet Nathan, his grievous 
2. Reg. 12.  sins. Consider the case of all Gods elect people, how sharply they were visited for sin, after it was in them pardoned. 
Exod. 32.  Mark whether Marie Moses his sister was not punished and 
Num. 12.  separated seven days, as it were for penance, after her brethren had procured her pardon at God's hands. Thus hath God of respect not only to mercy, but also partly to justice, so always pardoned, that he had consideration of judgement and righteousness. Now whom should the Church follow in remitting of sins, but him by whofe power and warrant she doth remit sins?  FVLKE. 
We see that god did chastise the Prophet David and his posterititie with a rod of man, and with a fatherly correction, but his mercy and loving kindness, he never took from them. Neither punished them to satisfy his justice for their sin remitted, but to make them, and other by their example, more careful not to commit sin in time to come. The case of God's elect people was somewhat otherwise. Exod. 32. where, although he received to mercy the whole people, that they should not be destroyed from the face of the earth, yet he might of his justice punish a number of particular persons that were most rebellious, and authors of the defection and Idolatry. Marry the sister of Moses, was also punished of God, first to humble her, and bring her to repentance: and that punishment was continued on her for a few days, partly to exercise her in earnest, and hearty repentance, partly to admonish the people by her example, to beware of murmuring against God's ministers, their lawful magistrates, not in respect of any satisfaction of God's justice, which can receive none but a full & sufficient satisfaction, in his beloved son jesus Christ. Wherefore if the Church will follow God in remission of sins, she must remit them freely, as God doth in jesus Christ forgive us: for so Saint Paul meaneth that men should forgive one another their trespasses, and not to remit the fault and retain 
Eph. 4. 32.  the pain, except it be in case where men are appointed by God to execute pains, as the Magistrates are, or to practise discipline, as the Church is, in which case the Church may not think to satisfy God's justice, but to seek reformation of the offender, and to provide for the example of others.  ALLEN. 
Seeing God than himself after he hath by his own means and absolute power pardoned man's faults, and discharged him of the sentence of death and damnation, had yet enjoined penance, as when he said to Adam: In the sweat of thy brows thou shalt provide for thy living: And to Eue. Thou shalt in pain bring forth thy Children: And to them both, that they should die the temporal death, though they might escape by his mercy everlasting misery: seeing this, we need not to doubt, but temporal punishment often remaineth after the sins be remitted, and that the Church of God doth imitate most conveniently the said mercy enjoined with justice, in all her most righteous practise of pardoning and punishing sin in Christ's behalf, by whose jurisdiction she herein holdeth. But for the further proof of the matter, I have said much in the defence of Purgatotie, and this question properly of Purgatotie, and this question properly pertaineth to 〈◊〉 place.  FVLKE. 
That temporal punishment is laid upon men often times, although their sins be remitted, it is no question, but whether such punishment be a satisfaction to the justice of God, or a fatherly discipline of his mercy, that is the matter in controversy. The Church therefore in exercising the discipline of God upon offenders, may and aught to imitate the example of god, but then she must beware of two things, the one that she lay no other burden of punishment upon the offenders, than the word of God will warrant: therefore penance is not arbitrary, as the Canonists do say, but to be directed by the word of God. secondly she must take heed that she release no more punishment, than she is able to lay on. And therefore she must be assured by the word of God, whether she can ejoine penance to be suffered in Purgatory, before she take upon her to remit any such punishment: touching which matter, as you have said more in the defence of Purgatory, so have I answered sufficiently to the overthrow of Purgatory, and all that dependeth thereupon.   

That Christ gave by his express word authority to the pastors of God's Church, to bind and lose not only the sins themselves, but also the temporal pain or penance remaining.  
THE FOURTH CHAP.  ALLEN. 
But now for the jurisdiction that God's Church hath in releasing the same punishment which remaineth after the fault be forgiven, it standeth, no doubt, upon that high commission which Christ received of his Father, and did communicate most amply to the Apostles, and by then to all Bishops for ever. For the father did not only honour Christ his son, according to his humanity, with the power of priesthood, or with other soveraignitic, for the institutious of sacraments, or such like, but with all regiment of that body, whereof he is the heads, as he is man. By which key of jurisdiction he corrected sinners with great Majesty, and pardoned them at his pleasure, not only of sin and everlasting pain, where the penitency of the party did so require, but also of such correction, as the law had prescribed for sin, or God's justice had enjoined for the same.  FVLKE. 
That the Church hath any jurisdiction in releasing that punishment, which remaineth after the fault for given, for a satisfaction of God's justice, it hath not hitherto been proved, nor ever shall be proved by authority of the holy scriptures, which teach the contrary, that Christ alone hath by his one sacrifice made perfect for ever, those that are sanctified. And therefore it is unreasonable, to seek whereupon it standeth. For neither did Christ receive any such commission, in his humanity, neither did he deliver over, any such jurisdiction unto his Apostles, to release temporal punishment due to God's justice unsatisfied, by his death and passion. For by one oblation once offered by his eternal spirit, he made perfect for ever, those that are sanctified. 
Heb. 9 & 10.  And the power of Priesthood, and sovereign authority, to institute sacraments, and to be head of his Church, he received not as man only, but as our mediator, God and man. The Lord said unto my Lord (saith David) sit thou on my right hand, Thou art a Priest 
Psal. 110.  for ever, etc. Which offices & authorities can not beseparated from his divinity, without Nestorian impiety. Christ is head of his Church, & a Priest for ever, as he is David's Lord, but as he is David's Lord, he is not only his son, but his God, therefore he is head of his Church, and a priest after the order of Melchisedeeh, not as he is man only, but as he is God & man: neither did he pardon any man of sin and everlasting pain, whom he also punished for the same sin with temporal pain, as a satisfaction to the justice of God, which none could satisfy, in part or in whole, but he only by his obedience and suffering.  ALLEN. 
And this jurisdiction and power of regiment he gave to Peter principally, when he bestowed on him the keys of heaven 
Mat. 10. & 18.  & upon the rest of the Apostles with him the power of binding and losing, which is most principally and properly meant of enjoining penance or punishing by sharp discipline the sinners evil life, either before they forgine his sins, or afterward. For as the place of the 20. of Saint john properly concerneth the power of pardoning, retaining or forgiving penance for satisfaction in the sacrament by the right of Priesthood received in their orders, though it may somewhat concern the jurisdiction of the high Magistrates also: so the place of Saint Matthew rather pertaineth to the chastisement of the wicked by the 
Cap. 〈◊〉.  open discipline, as they have the regiment of all our affairs, than it doth to the sacramental remisstion or satisfaction enjoined. For ligare there doth signify some bond of punishment, wherewith the party is tied and charged for his correction, and not only bond of sin, wherewith the Church bindeth no man, no more than God himself doth, but every man only bindeth himself in his own sins. And the Church or her ministers do properly then bind, when they punish by their jurisdiction the sins committed, not for the damnation of them that did fall, but for their correction and amendment. And the plain mention of excommunication, which there is expressed to be given to the Apostles for the chastisement of such, as by more gentle admonition will not amend nor obey the Church, doth prove that to bind in that place, namely importeth power of punishment, to be executed on the offenders, which way of chastisement is an open exercise of discipline given to the Apostles, to be used at their discretions for the edifying of Christ's Church. Therefore as to bind there is as well an act of the proper power of jurisdiction, as it is a function of pry sthoode, to be exercised in the sacrament of penance, so to lose, solvere, in that place, though it may signify to remit sins in way of sacramental confession, yet it is more aptly correspondent so the words that went before, of binding, which was not sin, but the pain and punishment for sin: whereby it must needs fillow, that as to bind, doth signify to charge that penitent person with some temporal pain, so to lose must also mean to dissolve the band, which before was laid on him for present correction  FVLKE. 
Christ gave no more jurisdiction or power of regiment, to Peter pricipallie, when he bestowed the keys of the kingdom of heaven upon him, then upon the rest of the Apostles, unto whom he gave the like and equal power of binding and losing, of opening and shutting the kingdom of heaven, as he did to Peter. The same thing verily, saith Saint Cyprien, were the rest of the Apostles that Peter was, endued with the same fellowspip 
Tract. 3. de simplicit. 〈◊〉.  both of honour and of power. That the power granted in the 18. of Matthew pertaineth most properly and principally to the chaistisment, or reconcilement of open offenders, by discipline, the circumstance of place affordeth no less, as the text john the 20. ratifieth the effect of their message, in them that embrace or refuse the doctrine of the Gospel. And that the governors of the Church, have power by excommunication to bind, and by absolution to lose, upon good ground and cause, in both cases, you need not half these words to prove it: for we do acknowledge and practise no less in the Churches of Christ, where we have government, likewise that the Church hath authority for trial of the party's repentance, to enjoin some exercise of humiliation, and to release the same, or part thereof, being satisfied with the manifest signs of repentance and submission, it is also out of controversy. But of your sacrament of penance 
Whsoever you shall bind &c. whose sins you forgive  or satisfaction for sins, by either discipline established, Matthew the eighteen, or power of remission of sins, granted in the text john the twenty, we shall never be agreed, until you can make plain demonstration out of the holy scriptures, that either God hath instituted the one, or alloweth the other which you shall never be able to do.  ALLEN. 
For this is a rule most certain, that all the bands, which the Church layeth upon any offender be medicinable, if the party list to take them, and may be loosed by the same power of the Church, by which they were bound before. And therefore ever as mention is made in scripture, of binding, or which is all one, punishing of sins, there is also mention of the like power of losing: for Christ would not give power to the Church to bind or correct sins, but much more he would have the Church resemble himself, being her head, in mercy, and therefore gave her always power, to lose that kind of punishment, which she by her ministers had bound or inoyned before. For these two acts being answerable in conference and contrariety, must necessarily follow each other, and properly to the like power and prerogative. Then the one being given to the Apostles even out of the sacrament of penance, the other must needs also by the like right be received.  
S. Ambrose rebuketh much the novatians, because they would have the Church enjoin penance, but they liked not 
Lib. 1. de poenit. Cap. 2.  that he should mercifully release the same again, nor the penitents sins neither. Dominus (saith he) par ius soluendi esse 〈◊〉 & ligandi, qui utrumque pari conditione permisit: ergo qui soluendi ius non habet, nec ligandi babes. Our Lord would have the right of losing & binding to be like: for equally he gave the power of both. Therefore whosoever hath not power to lose he hath no power to bind. If any man than list follow the novatians, he may hold at his pleasure, that it preteineth to the Church's jurisdiction to bind that, which she can not lose again, contrary to Christ's express grant made unto her, first in the person of Peter, and then in the right of all the Apostles, to whom when he had promised as well the keys of order, as jurisdiction, he said unto them: whatsoever you shall bind in earth, it shallbe bound in heaven: and whatsoever you lose in earth, it shallbe loosed in heaven: first giving them thereby authority to punish, and then to pardon. And therefore as the sacrament of penance, wherein sins be released or retained, was grounded upon the words of Christ spoken to the Apostles after his resurrection, whereof we talked so much in the former treatise, so the power of giving pardon or punishing out of the sacrament, by the virtue of the jurisdiction, as the Pope and other Bishops now do, and always have done, is founded most fast upon this place of Saint Matthew, spoken first and principally to Saint Peter, and then to other Apostles universally. 
Cap. 16. & Cap. 18.   
Now, if any list be assured by the Doctors interpretation, that the words of our Saviour of binding and losing do directly give power to the pastors of his Church, to punish the offenders, and release their sentence of severity again, let them read Saint Augustine's 75. Epistle, where they shall find much of this matter, and thus amongst other things: spiritalis 
Ad Auxilium Episcopum.  poena, de qua scriptum est, Quae ligaveritis in terra, erunt ligata & in coelo, ipsas animas obligat. The spiritual punishment, whereof Christ spoke when he said, whatsoever you bind in earth it shall be bound in heaven, do fast bind the souls themselves. And Saint chrysostom disputing excellently upon these words of binding or losing, compareth the jurisdiction of Princes temporal unto the spiritual power herein, and maketh this to excel that, as far as heaven passeth the earth, and the soul in dignity surmounteth the body. If any King (saith chrysostom) should give unto some subject such authority under him, that whom whosoever he would he might cast into prison, and again release him when 
Tib. de sacerdot..  he list, all men would account that subject most happy. But he that hath received, not of an earthly King, but of God himself a power that passeth that other, as far as heaven is from the earth, and the soul excelleth the body, I trow him every man must both wonder at, and highly reverence. Thus far said the Doctor acknowledging, that as some by Princes grants may prison or pardon the bodies: so the Priests may punish men's souls, and lose or pardon them again. For the proof whereof, he apply fitly both the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter, and the like afterward to all the Apostles, concerning binding and losing.  FVLKE. 
Whether all the bands of the Church be medicinable, if the party list to take them, Doctors do dour, seeing there is a sin unto death not to be prayed for. And S. Paul laid such a band upon Alexander the copper smith, that he desired the Lord to requited him according to his works, which 
1. john. 5. 2. Tim. 4. Heb. 12.  could be no less than eternal damnation, without hope of true and faithful repentance, for which Esaw found no place, though he sought the blessing with tears. For true repentance is not a matter of men's list, but an excellent gift of God. That case excepted, it is out of question, that the Church hath power as well to lose as to bind, what or whom soever, and God in heaven doth ratify that, which the Church, upon good cause, doth on earth. And therefore to prove this, whereof there is no doubt, there needed neither Ambrose, Augustine, nor Chrysostmes authority to be cited, except it be to show how prodigal you are of proof where there is no need, and how dry and barren, where there is most necessity, unless you will have your words and sayings go without all warrantise: as even in this section, that this power or jurisdiction, as you call it, is given principally to Peter, that the sacrament of penance is grounded upon Christ's words spoken to his Apostles after his resurrection, which of the Doctors affirmeth? Contrariwise chrysostom in the place by you cited, as you yourself confess, doth fitly apply the words of Christ spoken to Saint Peter, and the like to all the Apostles, concerning binding and losing, unto all priests alike: therefore no principality in Peter. For these and such like matters of controversy, the Doctors serve not your true: but you would have the ignorant suppose, that as you can cite the Doctor's full and direct for many things, whereof we do not contend, so in all matters of contention the Doctors are full on your side. But if any papist have but half an eye, he will or may espy your infirmity, though you do never so cunningly dissemble it.  ALLEN. 
Again Saint Cyprian and other holy bishops of Africa, 
Epist. 2. Lib.  which had enjoined long penance to certain that had fallen in time of persecution from their faith, for flattery or fear of the world, and had thought to have given them any Indulgences, peace or pardon (for that then they called, dare pacem, which we now term, to give a Pardon) till the hour of death came: Statueramus (say they) ut agerent diu plenam poenitentiam: we had verily determined, that they should have done out all their full enjoined penance: but now upon other great respects we do agree to give peace of pardon to those, that have earnestly done some penance already, and lamented bitterly their former fall. But mark well here, by what authority they challenge this power, and what they do challenge. They challenge, pardie, power to give penance to the offenders, and they claim by right the release thereof. Again they clearly take upon them, in consideration of the fault, to inloine what they list, and how long they list, and upon like just respect by their wisdoms, to pardon some piece of the same again, either after death, or else, if good matter move them, long before.  
But by what Scripture do they claim such jurisdiction that they may give discipline to offenders, even without the 〈◊〉 of penance, only by their jurisdiction and right of regiment, and then by their only letters to give them in absence peace and pardon of their enjoined penance again? Saint Cyprian and all his honourable fellows shall answer you in the same place: for there they give a reason of that their proper right: Quia ipsepermisit qui legem dedit, ut ligata in 〈◊〉 is etiam in coelo ligata essent, solui autem possent illic, qui hic prius in Ecclesia soluerentur. That is to say, he doth permit us, who made this law, that whatsoever we bond on earth, should be bound in heaven, and those things should be loosed in heaven above, which the Church here beneath releaseth before. Let us therefore be bold also, to answer our adversaries with the said holy Fathers, if they ask us by what right the Pope or Bishop give pardon, or what is that he doth forgive by his pardon, let us answer for them, and for our Mother the Church, that they pardon only the penance enjoined, or other pain due for grievous sins, after they be remitted in the sacrament of penance. And that they may so do by good authority, we allege Christ's own worthiness with the named holy Fathers: whatsoever you bind in earth, it shall be bound in heaven: and if you lose it in earth before, it shall also be released in heaven. But upon this practice of God's Church, I will charge them further hereafter.  FVLKE. 
This authority of Saint Cyprian is no more necessary, than the former of chrysostom; Augustine, Ambrose. For we doubt not, but the Church with the governors thereof, have sufficient power by Christ's grant, to release such time of penance, or part thereof, as is enjoined to offenders, to prove their repentance, and to make satisfaction to the Church, when there appeareth just cause so to do. But let us see how many untruths you do boldly avouch, which are beside this authority. First, that these Bishops had thought not to have given peace to them that had fallen, till the hour of death came. But that is not so: for they say only, they had determined, that they should have performed the penance that was enjoined for a long time unto them, unto the full, except danger of infirmity required to give peace at the point of death. Their words are these: Totheir brother Cornelius' Bishop of Rome. Statueramus quidem iampridem, frater charissimè, participato invicem nobiscum consilio, ut qui in persecutionio 〈◊〉 supplantati ab adversario & lapsifuissent, ac sacrificiis se illicitis maculassent, agerent diu poenitentiam plenam, & si periculum infirmitatis urgeret, pacem sub ictu mortis acciperent. Nec enim fas erat, aut permittebat paterna pietas, & divina clementia, ecclesiam pulsantibus claudi, & dolentibus & deprecantib. speisulutaris subsidium denegari, ut de saculo recedentes sine communicatione, aut pace domini dimitterentur, cùm permiserit ipse, qui tegem dedit, ut ligata in terris, etiam in Coelis ligata essent, solui autem possent illic, que hîc prius in Ecclesia soluerentur. Sed cum videamus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infestationis appropinquare coepisse, & crebris atque assiduis ostensionibus admoneamur, ut ad cert 〈◊〉 quod nobis hostis indicit armati & parati simus, plebem 〈◊〉 nobis divina dignatione commissam exhortationibus nostris praeparemus, & omnes omnino milites Christi, qui arma desiaerant, & praelium flagitant, intra castra domini colligamus necessitate cogente censuimus, eyes qui de Ecclesia domini recesserunt, sed poenitentiam agere & lamentari, ac dominum deprecari, à primo lapsus sui die non destiterunt pacem dandam esse, & eos ad praelium quod imminet armari & instrui oportere. We had decreed indeed long since most dear brother, by advise taken amongst ourselves, that such as in the trouble of persecution were supplanied by the adversary and fallen, and had defiled themselves with unlawful sacrifices should do full penance a long time, and if danger of infirmity did urge, they should receive peace at the point of death. For it was not lawful, neither did the fatherly piety and clementy of God permit, that the Church should be shut up to them that knock, and that aid of healthful hope should be denied to them that sorrowed and prayed for it, that departing out of the world they should be sent away without any communicaiion or the lords peace, seeing he hath permitted which made the law, that those things that are bound in earth should also be bound in heaven, that those things also might be loosed there, which were loosed here in the Church. But for as much as we see, that the day of another trouble beginneth to approach, and are admonished by often and daily showings or visions, that we should be armed and prepared unto the battle, which the enemy doth denounce unto us, we should also prepare the people by gods vouchsafing committed unto us, with our exhortations, and should gather in any wise all the soldiers of Christ which call for armour, and desire to fight, into the lords camp, necessity compelling us we have thought good, that peace is to be granted to them which have departed out of the Lords Church, but from the day of their falling have not ceased to show repentance, and to lament, and to entreat our Lord, and that they also ought to be armed and furnished against the battle which is at hand. These are the words of Cyprian, & his fellow Bishops, which you have abridged at your pleasure, if your note book did not deceive you, to set down, that you have done, as the very words of the epi stle. Out of which you gather, beside that I have noted before, power to enjoin penance, and to release the same again. But where you say, they take upon them clearly to enjoin what they list, and how long they list, that is not so, but what is just and convenient, and so likewise upon just cause they release the same, or some part thereof. Again, you slander them, in saying they take upon them to pardon after death: for there is no such word or matter in all the Epistle. They released and received them to the communion, being in danger of death, but after death, they received no man to the communion. Nay, they decreed, that whereas Geminius Victor, who had made Geminius Faustinus a clergy man his executor, contrary to the decrees of their synods, there should be no oblation made for his falling a sleep, nor any prayer frequented in the Church in his name. So far of was it that they would pardon any man after death, when no repentance availeth. The scripture they do rightly apply for the establishing of the discipline of excommunication & receiving again into the fellowship of the Church such, as were fallen, upon their repentance: as for the sacrament of penance, you say well, they exercised discipline without it: for such a sacrament they knew not, but they claimed no jurisdiction to receive offenders without good tokens of their repentance, as their words be manifest. Where you say, they claimed jurisdiction by their only letters, to give them in absence peace & pardon of their enjoined penance, as though their letter did resemble the Pope's pardons in writing, you speak beside the book: for they do not give peace by these letters only, but signify unto Cornelius what they thought necessary to be done, & upon what reasons left they might be thought to light in losing the sinews of discipline toward so notorious offenders. Your conclusion followeth not upon this example, Cyprian and his fellow Bishope did upon necessary cause release the time of penance enjoined to certain grievous offenders, and received them to the communion upon certain persuasion of their répentance, therefore the Pope and his popelings may give pardon of pain due for sins remitted, where hone is due, and in the sacrament of penance, when no such sacrament can be proved out of the scripture: neither do you rightly allege Christ's words, as those holy Fathers did: for they alleged them for the discipline of excommunication, and absolving, which is necessary to be used in the Church, but you to maintain a tyrannical jurisdiction, to lose that which other men have bound, without good cause, as they did, but for many often times, as they did never. Therefore there is as great odds between their practise of discipline, and these Pope's pardons, as there is distance between their ages, which is more than a thousand years.  ALLEN. 
And now to make up this matter for the true meaning of the said text, which we now prove to pertain to the establishing 
Cap. 11. li. 2. de const.  of the true title of giving pardons, I will recite the saying of S. Clement himself, in time the Apostles equal, expert in their regiment, and privy to all their doings. He lively expresseth the dignity of the chief pastors & power of their government, unto which he apply the power of binding and losing in such sort as we have said. But hear his own words, as Carolus Bovius hath translatedthë: O Episcope, stude munditie operum excellere, cognoscens locum tuum ac dignitatem, tanquam locum Dei obtinens, eò quod praees omnib. Dominis, Sacerdotib. Regib. Principih. patrib. filiis, magistris, atque subditis simul omnib. sicque in Ecclesia sede, cùm sermomen facies, ut potestatem habens judicandi eos qui peccaverunt: quoniam vobis Episcopis dictum est, quodcunque ligaveritis super terram, erit ligatum in coelo, & quodcunque solueritis super terram, erit solutum in coelo. judica igitur (o Episcope) cum potestate, tanquam Deus, sed poenitentes recipe. In English, O thou that art a Bishop, study and endeavour to excel other in the beauty of good works, in respect of thy place & dignity: & consider thou sittest in Gods own room, being promoted above all Lords, Priests, Kings, Princes, Parents, children, Masters, servants every one. Therefore so sit in the Church, when thou dost speak, as one that hath power to judge all those that have sinned. For to you Bishops it was said: whatsoever you bind in earth, it shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall lose in earth, it shallbe loosed in heaven. judge then (O Bishop) with power and majesty, as God, but yet have mercy on the penitent. Thus saith S. Clement. By whose words you may preceiue, God's right to be in a manner conferred upon his ministers by the terms of binding & losing, not only given for the remitting or retaining of sins in the sacrament of penance, but also for the correcting or giving pardon, by supreme jurisdiction, out of the said sacrament.  FVLKE. 
And now to make up a number and a show of antiquity, S Clement's constitution is alleged, which is neither authentical, nor any thing to the purpose in controversy, if it were as ancient, as he whose name it beareth. For watsoever is said in this whole clause, if it be rightly understood, is true of the dignity of Bishops in their spiritual authority, and power of preaching the word, and exercising of discipline. But for that blasphemous conclusion that you draw out of it, Gods right to be in a manner conferred upon his ministers by the terms of binding and losing, with the rest that followeth, can never be gathered of these premises. God's right remaineth whole and absolute unto himself, for any power of binding or losing that he hath committed to his servants. As for the sacrament of penance, and giving pardon by supreme jurisdiction out of the said sacrament, how can they be deduced out of the words of this pretended Clemens?  ALLEN. 
Now then let calvin, or his ancient Luther come forth and deny all spiritual jurisdiction of holy Bishops, touching temporal punishment, or release of pains appointed for sinnelet them writh the plain place both of binding and losing, to the preaching of the gospel, as their fashion is, rather than they would grant this sovereignty to the Church of Christ: let them say, that Christ, when he whipped out the unlawful occupiers of merchandise in the temple, did nothing else but preach the 
Marci. 12.  Gospel: let them hold that this was a sermon, and not an act of jurisdiction, when he said to divers, thy sins be forgiven thee, or when he with power and terror gave to judas the sop, by which it is thought, that he excommunicated him and gave 
Lucae. 5. joan. 13.  him up wholly to the Devil, and separated him from the company of the Apostles, and from his Church. For then the Devil entered into him, and he went out, as the gospel saith. But (say Master Luther) was this the power of preaching only, or an exercise of most high jurisdiction, given him of his father everlasting, as he was he head of the Church? No, no, vain fellows, this is no preaching which you would have only to be the Church's property, that you might, being void of all other authority in God's Church, compare with his Apostles, in your prating, because your glory amongst the people standeth on your glafe tongues. Cores had a tickling tongue, and Moses tongue was tied: yet God gave sentence on his servants side, and revenged the disobedience of the contrary. No, no, I tellyou, if all the Bishops and Priests of the Christian world were as rude & as simple in their preaching, as you think yourselves eloquent, yet their only jurisdiction, and Majesty of their power, assisted by Christ perpetually, by whom it was given them, shall bear you down, and your vain name of preaching the word. And God be thanked, beside the right of the cause, there be in the Churchmany that are honoured with the gift of true preaching, to whom God giucth the word in deed with great and unspeakable force and increase of the truth, and daily decay of your vain shade of preaching. His name be blessed for ever, that hath given such a guard to his Church, that hell gates, nor the eloquence neither of man not Angel shall prevail against her.  FULXE. 
Now then let Allen or all his ancients, & punies the papists in Rome or Rheims show out of either Caluines or Luther's writings any place, where they or either of them, denied all power of binding and losing, other, then by preaching of the gospel: where they affirmed, that excommunication and receiving again into the Church, was nothing but preaching of the gospel. If Allen be not able to prove with all his complices, that calvin and Luther denied the discipline of the Church, or have not established the same in the Churches, by them reform, then is he an impudent slanderer, and detestable deceiver, to bear simple men in hand, that they acknowledge not discipline, either in binding or in releasing of open offenders, but preaching of the gospel. His further storming and malicious railing, as also his vain bragging and threatening, I pass over, as unworthy of any other answer then silence, as bewraying sufficiently the sincerity, wisdom, & honesty of the author. Neither will I disrusse that weighty argument, of giving the sop to judas, whereby the proveth the exercise of Christ's jurisdiction, as head of the Church. Wise men may easily see what arguments he hath to prove things in question, when he hath no better demonstration of a matter out of all controversy.   

The Apostles & bishops have ever, besides the preaching of the Gospel, punished mens sinens and practised judgement upon men's souls, both in binding & losing.  
THE 5. CHAP.  ALLEN. 
CHrist then having not only the preaching of the Gospel to punish & pardon by, but jurisdiction also to give discipline, and to release the same, in that he was made the supreme governor of all Christian people, did communicate both functions at once, and gave the Magistrates of the Church not only by preaching to threaten or exhort men to virtue, or promise them release of their sins by only faith, as men have now plained the way to heaven, but also by force of their regiment, to give great penance, as we have proved, & greatpardon again, as to their wisdoms, and for the Churches edifying may seem most convenient. Of this great power of Christ communicated to his Apostles, we have practise, as well for punishing sinners, as pardoning them: For upon this sovereign jurisdiction it rose, that the Apostles mightily ministered justice upon offenders, as well by afflicting their bodies, with enjoined long fasies, and large almoses, as by excommunicaton, & other means. Which thing whsoever well weigheth in the manifold examples of God's word, they shall not wonder, that the holy Bishops of Christ's Church may give a pardon of penance enjoined. For by this authority did S. Peter, who first received 
Act. 5.  the keys of jurisdiction & power over the Church, kill both Ananias and Saphira his wife, which is as great a bodily punishment for sin, as may be: By this authority did he excommunicate Simon the Sorcerer: by this power did S. Paul offer to revenge disobedience, by this did he threaten tocome to the faithful with a rod of discipline: By this he prescribed to 
1. Cor. 4. 2. Tim. 1. 3. Tim. 1.  Timothy, whom he consecrated Bishop, how he should hear accusations, and behave himself in rebuking sin, & correction of diverse states. By this power did he mightily deliver up some to Satan, and bodily vexation: By this power did he strike blind Elimas' the witch, and released him at his pleasure 
Act. 13.  again.  FVLKE. 
That the ministers of the Church have authority not only to preach the word of life most comfortably, to all penitent sinners, and most terribly to all reproba tes and impenitent persons, but also to exercise discipline of correction upon offenders, and to release the same upon hope and appearance of their amendment, it is at all times and in all places by us willingly confessed and acknowledged. Wherefore this discourse is altogether needless, but that you must interlace some truth not denied, among so many unpropable and unreasonable propositions, that of no wise men will ever be granted. The way to heaven is no other wise plained by us, in promising men release of their sins by faith only, than it was by Saint Paul. Rom. 4. and before him, by David psal. 32. That the Apostles ministered justice upon offenders, as well by afflicting their bodies with enjoined long fasts & large alms, as by excommunication and other means, when you prove it out of the scriptures, we will yield unto you. We find they did excommunicate, and that they exhorted men to fasting and alms, but that they enjoined any prescript fasts or alms, such we find not And yet we doubt not, but they esteemed fasting, praying, and sorrowing for sins, alms, and other Godly exercises, to be fruits of true repentance: in beholding of which they were moved to receive again into the Church, such as for their offences were justly cast out. Neither did Saint Peter by the same keys of jurisdiction, as you call them, kill Ananias and his wife, by which he did excommunicate Simon the sorcerer, if that denunciation of God's judgement may be called an excommunication. Neither did Peter properly kill Ananias, who was stricken immediately of God for lying against the holy ghost: neither hath any successor of his authority to kill men's bodies, howsoever you would insinuate, that your Antichrist the Pope haththe power of both the swords, to slay men's bodies with the one, as he murdereth their souls with his pestilent heresies. That the Apostles delivered some to Satan to be vexed in their bodies, it proveth no ordinary 
1. Cor. 5. 12.  jurisdiction of punishing men's bodies, for that it was only a miraculous power they had, which goeth not by succession unto their posterity, like as the example of Saint Paul striking Elimas' with blindness, can not be drawn to discipline, which is practised only upon the members of the Church, whereof that Sorcerer was never any part: neither did Saint Paul release him at his pleasure, but at the time appointed by God.  ALLEN. 
By this power have holy Bishops excommunicated mighty Emperors, suspended many from the sacraments, disgraded divers spiritual men from their functions, interdicted whole Realms, and to be short, by this power hath the Church of God prescribed a due punishment for every deadly sin, justly respecting the grievousness thereof, and continuance therein. As we may see in the penitential book of I heodotus 
Vide decret Iuo par. 15  and Bede, the cannons whereof be translated into the book of decrees, which is the 15. entitled De penitent. And namely in the most ancient Council of Ancyre, which was holden well near 1300. years since, in the most pure time of Christian religion, when I trow our adversaries dare not say that the faith was corrupted. There the Priests and deacons that relented 
Cap. 1 etc. 2  in persecution were suspended from the executing of their several functions. Such as supped in the temples of Idols, and sacrificed 
Cap. 4.  to false Gods, were charged, beside abstaining from the sa craments, with 3. years penance: those that committed brutish 
Cap. 15.  sins & unnatural, should do 25. years' penance for adultery 7 years penance: for women that destroyed their birth, 10. years. 
Cap. 20.  for murderers 7. if it be not voluntary: if it be wilful, till the endof man's life: for superstitious soothsayers or dream readers, 
Cap. 21.  or sorcerers, and witches, five years. Finally for rape, 10. years 
Cap. 22.  were prescribed. The like were made for divers crimes in the 
Cap. 23.  council of Nice. But it is enough that we know though the eternal 
Cap. 24.  pains deserved by dcadlie sins be forgiven with the sins themselves, and yet there remaineth for the satisfying of God's justice, some temporal scourge, to prevent which, the Church enjoineth pain for faults remitted, that both God's mercy be followed in the remission of their sins, and his justice partly answered in the punishment of the same, the which debt of deserved pain, being not here fulfilied or released, it must in another world be answered.  FVLKE. 
By power received from Christ, holy Bishops have practised christian discipline, in excommunicating even Emperors, and great estates, separating from the sacraments and displasing of ecclesiastical persons from their functions. But I never read that any holy Bishop did interdict whole realms, but only Antichrist of Rome. Victor of old time did take upon him to excommunicate all the Churches of the East, for not celebrating of the feast of Easter, as he did: but he was countermanded and reproved by his fellow Bishops, not only of the East, but even of the West, which agreed not with him in that ceremony, as by Ireneus Bishop of Lions in France and other. That the Church of great antiquity prescribed a certain time of punish meant, for every kind of heinous sin, it was partly to reform the facility of some Bishops, that were to easy in granting reconciliation to grievous offenders: partly to meet with the hypocrisy of many sinners, which upon hope to be easily received, made less account to become offenders, & cast out of the Church. Andhereof came those severe canons of the Ancyrane council, which were soon afterward somewhat mitigated in the Nicen council, and charge given to the Bishop, to deal more gently with them that showed great tokens of repentance before their time of penance expired. Abomnibus verò illud praecipué obseruetur, ut animus eorum & fructus poenitentiae attendatur. But let this be chiefly observed of all men, that their mind, and their fruit of repentance be considered. Whereby they declare for what cause such time of penance was prescribed, namely by the fruits of repentance to make trial, whether men were truly penitent for their sins, and meet to be received again into the congregation or no. The council of Carthage aster that perceiving many inconveniences to arise by those certain prescript times of penance, decreed, Vt poenitentibus secundùm peccatorum differentias, episcopi arbitrio, poenitentiae tempora decernantur. That times of repentance, by the discretion of the Bishop, should be appointed unto them that do penance, according to the differences of their sins. but that there remaineth for the satisfying of God's justice some temporal scourge, after eternal pains by deadly sins deserved be forgiven with the sins themselves, we know not out of the scriptures, but the contrary, namely that these sins being forgiven, and God's justice throughly satisfied in Christ, there remaineth no temporal punishment due for the sins forgiven, but sometimes a merciful and fatherly chastisement, which is not in any man's power to release or remit, but when it pleaseth the father of his wisdom and clemency to take it away.  ALLEN. 
And therefore S. Augustine saith of the Church's usage in prescribing penance thus: Sed neque de ipsis criminil us quamlibet magnis remittendis in Sancta Ecclesia, Dei desperanda est misericordia, agentibus poenitentiam secundùm modum sui cuiusque, peccati: & avia plerunque dolor alterius cordis occultus est alteri, rectè constituuntur ab iis qui Ecclesiae praesunt tempora poenitentiae, ut fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae, in qua peccata remittuntur. Even for sins being never so grievous and great, we may not despair of God's mercy, nor of reneission to be had in the Church: marry always presupposed, that the offenders must do penance, according to the quantity and grievousness of their offences. And because often it chanceth, that the sorrow of man's hart, wherein much standeth, is unknown to other men, it is very reasonable that the Church should limit their penance by her governor, to be accomplished in certain times and appointed seasons, for the answer of the Churches right, in which only all sins be remitted, as out of her lap none at all be forgiven, for any benefit to the party. So saith this doctor of public penance.  
And of secret satisfaction, which now is more used after confession, lest any man should fear, that that were not sufficient to satisfy for the remnant of debt due for mortal sins forgiven, thus saith the author of that book de Eccles. dogm. set forth with Saint Augustine's name: Sed & secreta satisfactione solui mortalia crimina non negamus: Neither we do deny, but mortal sins may be loosed by secret satisfaction. Fear nos the word satisfaction, as though it derogated any thing to the redemption which is in Christ jesus. It is here and in many places of S. Augustine's works most common, and no less used of all Catholic writers since Christ's time, who knew right well, that the fruits of Christian penance done in the virtue and force of God's grace, do apply Christ's satisfaction effectually to our benefit, and not remove the use thereof from us. But they have a faith so solitary now a days, that it will alpne apprehend what ye list, and reach so far into Christ's justice, that her fautors shall have no need of Christian works, or fruitful repentance.  FVLKE. 
Saint Augustine saith to very good purpose, but nothing to the maintenance of your purpose, for which you allege him: namely that temporal punishment is due to God's justice for sin remitted, whose saying I marvel why you do so geld, that you recite it not wholly, as he hath written, but that either you would not have men certainly know that he speaketh of open penance, done for great crimes committed, or else you have cited the place of some other man's credit, rather than of your own reading. After he hath said, that some man may live without crime, but no man without sin, his words be these; Sed neque deipsis criminibus quamlibet magnis remittendis in sancta Ecclesia, Dei desperanda est misericordia, agentibus poenitentiam secundùm modum sui cuiusque peccati. In actione autem poenitentiae ubitae lecrimen commissum est, ut is qui commisit, a Christi etiam corpore separetur, nontam consideranda est mensura temporis, quàm doloris: cor enim contritum & humiliatum Deus non spernit. Verùm quia pierunque dolor ●lterius cordis occultus est alteri, neque in aliorum notitiam per verba vel quaecunque alia signa procedit, cùm sit coram illo cui dicitur, gemitus meus à le non est absconditus, rectè constituuntur ab iis qui Ecclesiae praesunt tempora poenitentiae, ut fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae in qua remittuntur ipsa peccata, extra eam quip non remittuntur. Ipsa namque propriè Spiritum Sanctum pignus accepit, sine quo non remittuntur ulla peccata, ita ut quibus dimittuntur, consequantur vitam aeternam. But neither of those crimes, be they never so great to be remitted in the holy Church, the mercy of God is to be despaired of, to them that repent according to the measure of every man's sin. But in the doing of penance, where such a crime is committed, that he which hath committed it, is also to be separated from the body of Christ, the measure of time is not so much to be considered, as of the sorrow for God despiseth not a contrite and an humbled heart. But because often times the sorrow of one man's heart is hidden to an other and cometh not into the knowledge of other men by words, or other signs whatsoever, although it be known before him, to whom it is said, my groaning is not hid from thee, there be rightly appointed by them that govern the Church, times of repentance, that the Church also may be satisfied, in which those sins are remitted: for without they are not remitted. For she hath properly received the pledge of the holy Ghost, without whom no sins are remitted, so that they to whom they are remitted do obtain eternal life. In these words Saint Augustine showeth plainly that times of penance or repentance were enjoined, not to recompense God's justice, but to make satisfaction to the Church; which is not to grant remission in those cases, but upon good hope of the parties true conversion and inward and unfeigned repentance. But as Augustine speaketh here of open satisfaction not to God's justice, but to the Church's judgement, so you have his authority or as good, for secret satisfaction which is now more used, lest any man should fear that were not sufficient to satisfy for the remnant of the debt, due for mortal sins forgiven. I know not whether to impute it to ignorance, or impudency, but most intolerable presumption it is, to make that author, whatsoever he was, a falter of your popish secret satis faction, now used to be prescribed in your secret shrifts. For this writer, as I have before declared, alloweth no secret satisfaction for the losing of mortal crimes, but upon a very hard condition, namely, sed mutato priùs saeculari habitu, etc. but so that the secular habit be first changed, and the study of religion be confessed by correction of life, and continual and perpetual sorrow, through the mercy of God, but so only that he do contrary things to them, for which he repenteth, & every Sunday humby and submmissivelie unto his death, he receive the Eucharist, etc. This is not to say, pater noster in remembrance of the five wounds, or to give five pence, groats, or shillings, to five poor men, or to fast five fridays, or such single satisfaction, as your Popish priests in shirst do enjoin. Touching the word satisfaction used by this Monkish Augustine, it is never used by the right, & authentic Austin, to grant that the sufferings, or doings of man can satisfy the justice of god, who is satisfied by Christ's obedience only, and by none other mean; the virtue of whose satisfaction is communicated unto us by the holy Ghost, whereof we are assured by faith only, but not by a solitary faith, as this heretic doth slander us, but by a faith accompanied, fruitful, huelie, effectual, and working by love, as the holy scripture teacheth us, whatsoever these blasphemous dog's bark against it.  ALLEN. 
Now to this end have we said all this, that the faithful may understand perfectly, what the Pope may by right remit thorough his Pardon and Indulgence. For look what the officers of God's Church may bind, that without all doubt may they upon good consideration release again. Therefore if they may enjoin penance for years and days, both openly out of the sacrament, and also in private satisfaction after Confession, then may they release certain days and years of the same penance which was prescribed before. For losing and binding pertain by reason, law, & Christ's own grant, as to one act of jurisdiction, that the one being lawful, the other must needs so be also. If the Church be of right power and authority to prescribe penance of seven years, she hath the like right to remit upon just respect, either all those years, or some part of the same, especially having means otherwise, to supply the lack of fatisfaction of God's justice in the party penitent.  FVLKE. 
There is no faithful man can perceive by any thing that you have said, what right the Pope hath to remit by his pardon, and indulgence, that which is enjoined by an other. It is out of doubt that the officers of the Church upon good consideration, may release that which they bind, except for in emissibie sins they bind with insoluble bands. And therefore they may release days or years appointed for trial of the repentance, if the Church can be satisfied, in shorter time. But for private satisfaction of God's justice, or any satisfaction of his justice, they can neither bind nor lose, enjoin, nor release. Therefore if the Church be of power to enjoin and prescribe penance for seven years, she is of power also to release seven years, or part of the same: but she hath no means to supply the satisfaction of God's justice, which is fully satisfied in Christ, whose satisfaction is not to be disposed according to the judgement of men, but is applied to all the elect of God, according to his will and pleasure. Now whereas you speak of seven years penance, and the straightest Canons of Ancyre prescribe but 25. years for the greatest crime, whereto serve so many thousand years of Pardon? If therefore all that you have said tend to this end, that men may understand that the Pope hath power to release times of penance enjoined, seeing no council ever enjoined a thousand years penance nor any penance beyond the time of a man's life, in so much that the Council of Nice decreed that they which depart out of the world, should be received into the communion, although their time were not expired, why doth the Pope take upon him to grant an hundred thousand years of pardon at a clap, as I have showed before out of a pardon imprinted and confirmed by Leo 10? But if the Pope have authority to grant pardon for so many thousand years of penance, enjoined by the right of binding and losing, which you say by reason, law, and grant of Christ pertain to one act of jurisdiction, that the one being lawful, the other must needs be so also, Then may every priest enjoin an hundred, 50. 40. 10. or 7. thousand years of penance to them that come to shrift, as well as the Pope give pardon for so many thousand years: for hundreds be but beggarly things to talk of, where thousand be so rife. If you answer, that the Pope doth pardon not only years of penance enjoined, but also of years due to be enjoined; the difficulty is nothing avoided: for if thousands of years be due, the priest may enjoin thousands of years. But then he shall exceed all the Canons penitential, that ever were made in any council, and yet be forced to grant pardon at the hour of death.  ALLEN. 
And therefore I join in argument and open reason with our adversaries thus: To give pardon in most common and Catholic sense of that word, is to release some part, or all the enjoined penance for sins remitted: But the Pope, because he is the principal governor of God's Church, may release any penance enjoined, upon just considerations: Ergo, the Pope may lawfully give Pardons. The Minor, wherein the adversaries may perchance give back, I prove thus: That which was bound by the Churches or Pope's authority, may be lawfully loosed by the same authority again, because Christ himself joined in his grant both these acts togetber, and they are proved to be proper to one jurisdiction: But the Church by the Decrees of Bishops and councils hath appointed such penance, and so many years of correction for sundry faults: therefore the same Bishops, or such as be of the like authority, when they see occasion, may remit the penance of the said years or some part of it, by limitation of days or seasons, as the state of the penitent requireth, or the time itself doth move them.  FVLKE. 
These arguments I like well, for they bewray your infirmity most of al. And now for answer, I say, that your Mayor is false, as weil as your Minor: for the common Popish sense of pardons is as the words of them pretend, that is, to give pardon not only of penance enjoined, but also of sins. Again the governors of the Church (as your Mayor should have been framed, but that you dare not come within the compass of a lawful, syllogism) have no power either to enjoin penance for sins remitted, or to remit penance enjoined for sins remitted, but of time of penance enjoined for satisfaction of the Church, as we heard lately out of Saint Augustine, when the Church may be satisfied in shorter time. Your Minor, which you knew would not be admitted, you take upon you to prove, but you come nothing near the matter: for this is the point of your Minor, which we deny, that the Pope is the principal governor of God's Church, yea, that he is any governor of God's Church. But if he were a Bishop of Rome, as many were, whose successor he claimeth to be, he might be allowed in his Church of Rome to bind and lose, enjoin and remit, so far as Christian discipline will bear, but not to claim tryanny over all Churches, as he doth. Now you in your misshapen syllogism, in which you fumble diverse matters together, to deceive the ignorant, prove that the Church and governors thereof have power to release that which they have power to enjoin, which is not the matter in controversy. But whether they have power to enjoin penance for sins remitted, to answer God's justice, or whether the Pope be a lawful governor of the Church, these and such like be matters of controversy, which you are never able to conclude in any lawful and true syllogism.  ALLEN. 
And this argument shall be unmovable, except they reject with the Pope's Pardons all manner of discipline, as well of excommunication, as other lesser satisfactions, whereof we have already spoken, as in deed to maintain their falsehood they must needs do, as also they shall be enforced to reprove both the Council of Nice, all the holy Fathers, and the general practise of the Church, and with them the express scriptures, in which the worthy fruits of penance, sharp discipline, 
Math. 7. 1. Cor. 11. Heb. 13. Mat. 16. 18. 〈◊〉. Tim. 1.  judging ourselves, obedience to our Prelates, binding & retaining of sins, excommunicating and delivering up to Satan, be so often condemned. It must needs be a miserabe doctrine of these Protestants which cannot be upholden but by so shameful shifts, and when we drive them into such straits, in a matter where they think most may be said for themselves, and lest for our defence, where shall they stand in our plain causes, in which almost our adversaries confess us to have the vantage of antiquity, and the pre-eminence of all 〈◊〉 councils in the world? But surely, I think falsehood hath so little hold in all matters, that it standeth only upright, whiles the contrary is not seen, or not understanded, which she seeketh ever by all means she may, to cover and keep close. For the night she loveth, and in darkness she delighteth. Do but open the true sense of any article by them impugned, and it is more than half proved, and the enemies without argument, upon the sight of truth, in a manner discomfited. So it fareth with them in our present cause, which they have long toiled and troubled in the mist of their fantasies, and upon false interpretation discharged amongst the simple sort, that that thing, which in this sense, as God's Church, that hath the ruling of the matter, taketh it, is so sure and so clear in itself, that I think they shall never be able with honesty, to speak against in any one parcel thereof.  FVLKE. 
A boy that hath studied Logic half a year may be ashamed to make such syllogisms, and yet you are not ashamed to affirm before the world, that this argument is unmovable, except we reject with the Pope's pardons all manner of discipline. And though it be manifest unto the world, that we practise all Godly discipline, which is according to the scriptures, in requiring the worthy fruits of repentance, judging of ourselves, obedience to Christian Prelates, practising also the binding and retaining of sins, excommunication, and delivering up to Satan, giving that reverence we ought to the holy Council of Nice, to all holy fathers, and to the general practise of the Church yet you blush not to write, that we shall be enforced to reprove all these. It is not these beggarly arguments, M. Allen, that shall enforce us to these absurdities. If you have any better stuff in store for Pardons, bring it out for shame, or else talk no more of enforcement, except it be in shrift, where no man can control you. The rest to the end of this Chapter, containing nothing but general railing, and arrogant boasting, after your accustomed manner, I pass over, as needless to be answered, 〈◊〉 wise than it doth discover itself, in any wise man's judgement.   

That there be diverse ways of temporal punishment remaining after sins be remitted, every of which ways may be in some cases released in part, or in whole, by the Pardons of Popes and Bishops.  
THE sixth CHAP.  ALLEN. 
ANd yet to give more light to the matter, and the greater overthrow to falsehood, let us drive the cause forward, and weigh with ourselves the whole state of things in this order. First that there be three ways of punishment of man's sins after they be released in the sacrament of Penance (besides the fruits of repentance which man chargeth himself withal, and besides the punishment appointed for offences by the civil or temporal laws, whereof I now speak not) the first & the easiest is that penance, which is in secret confession enjoined by our Confessor, which is lightly (as these times be) much less than the nature of the offence, for which it was prescribed, requireth. Yet because it is taken obediently, and by our judges prescription, and in a sacrament in which God always worketh much more grace, than he doth by the self same things without the sacrament, and because the penitent is ready to take more if more had been prescribed, in all these respects, it standeth often, if it be any thing correspondent to the crimes for which it was enjoined, for a full satisfaction before god, when it is accomplished.  FVLKE. 
In the first Chapter of this book you charged the reader to abide the orderly method and compass of this cause. but the method you follow is such, as becometh your cause, namely the method of deceitfulness, which is that you call the compass of your cause. For true method requireth to proceed from things more & better known, to things less known, as it were to build upon a good foundation, but your manner is to assume that which is the chief matter in controversy, and thereupon to build as it were upon an imaginary foundation, & afterward to make a flourish in words, and a vain 〈◊〉 of confirming your foundation. As in this cause it had been most necessary, if the compass of your cause could have borne it, to have first proved substantially that there remaineth temporal punishment after sin remitted to satisfy the justice of God. Then that the justice of God not satisfied by the act of Christ's sacrifice, on the cross, may be satisfied afterward. thirdly the mean whereby it may be satisfied, which you call the treasure of the Church. four that dispensation thereof belongeth to the pope: & these things once proved, the way had been plainner to bring in the Pope's pardons, for proof of which to be good, you have played the proctor all this while. But these matters must be daintily touched, the compass of your cause can not abide to have them thoroughly handled. And therefore it is sufficient to affirm them, for other proof you have none of them. And yet as though you brought with you no worse than mathematical demonstrations, you blow the trump afore hand to give more light to the matter, the greater overthrow to falsehood, to drive the cause forward, and weigh the whole state of things. And what say you to the purpose? forsooth, you tell us, that there be three kinds of punishment of man's sins after they be remitted. But sir, we believe you not, where is your demonstration? Why? Is it not sufficient that M. Allen saith so? what an unrea sonable man are you, that will not learn to abide the orderly method, and compass of the cause? well, seeing we must have none other proof of your sayings let us see what you say: first, the fruits of repentance, which man chargeth himself with all, are none. What those be I know not, except it be some superstitious vows, and such like matters: but the fruits of repentance, which God chargeth a man withal, be so necessary to be brought forth, that otherwise the repentance is feigned, and thereof followeth no remission. Again civil punishment is none, and yet nothing is more like to prove that purpose. what is it then? The first & easiest is that penance which is enjoined in secret confession. In deed that is easy, and such as may encourage men to commit sins, for which they make so easy satisfaction, toties, quoties. But what is the effect of this satisfactió? It standeth for a full satisfaction before God, when it is accomplished. What alway? Nay often times if it be any thing correspondent to the crimes. Then is there no certainty in this matter, but in steed of a quietness of conscience, a torment followeth upon it, if the sinner be not assured that his penance enjoined will go for payment or satisfaction. Well when this easy penance is a full satisfaction, whence taketh it so great force? you answer, small works by force of the sacraments are very effectual. But to prove this patch of Popery to be a sacrament, what day will you take? for that which is the ground of all your disputation is denied of us as you know. So that hitherto, but by petition of principles, you get nothing.  ALLEN. 
The second way of punishment is appointed by the Canons generally, for such faults as be committed after Baptism, that is to say, by the laws of the Church, or Decrees of Bishops and chief Magistrates thereof, and is called Canonical satisfaction. Which is much more sparpe and grievous than the other, that in private penance is commonly given, and a great deal more answerable to God's justice and the grievousness of the crimes committed. And so the Canons were not only prescribed, as some judge not right of them, for open offences, to satisfy the Church and the offence of the people, but also even for secret sins, as we may perceive by Saint Augustine, Tertullian, and other that have written of penance. And this way prescribed satisfaction by the ancient decrees of councils, which lightly appointed seven years of penance for every deadly sin, was almost a rule for such as heard secret confessions to moderate their penance by, which they lightly gave to the penitents even after the limitation of the said decrees & ancient Canons. Now to give so many years or days of penance, signifieth the injunction or prescriptions of fasts by certain weekly throughout the said prefixed times, or continualfasting from most meats every day in all those years of penance, other than would suffice for sustaining of nature, as bread and water, and such shin diet, which 〈◊〉 body, in this fall of our strength and manners, could now scarce bear, & with this continual mourning in outward behaviour of countenance, speech and apparel, and, which was the greatest of all, necessary abstinence from the holy sacrament, till the said penance was accomplished. And this great penance was in the Primitiye Church prescribed by the Canons, not only for cautel and provision for the like sins afterward to be committed (then when the Church had her punishment for sins, several from the pains appointed by the civil laws for the same) but also for the satisfying of god's justice for the penitents sins, the burden whereof, then was counted (as indeed it is) so intolerable, that neither the Church spared to enjoin great satisfaction, nor the offenders refused to receive and accomplish the same with humility. This therefore is the second way of punishment or prescription of penance for mortal sins remitted, or in way to be remitted, by the penance of the party. In which kind, you may account also the severe punishments which concern the soul most, although sometimes they are joined unto some corporal afflictions, as excommunication, suspension, degradation, & such like: for all these were usual in the beginning of Christian days for correction of sin.  FVLKE. 
Canonical punishment, as we heard lately in the next Chapter before, was, ut satis fait Ecclesiae, to make satisfaction to the Church, and not to the justice of God, who accepteth a contrite and an humble heart through the virtue of Christ's death and passion, as a full satisfaction to his justice. You say, the Canons were not only prescribed, as some judge not rightly of them for open offences to satisfy the Church, & the offence of the people, but also even for secret sins. But how is this proved, that you say? you tell us that we may perceive it by S. Austin, Tertullian, and others that have written of penance. If it be as you say, why be not their sayings set down, and we with them that judge not rightly convinced by them? At lest why be not the places quoted, where we may perceive such a matter? belike the compass of the cause cannot abide it, as also you sat, this fall of our strength and manners could scarce bear such straight penance, as by the Canons is prescribed. You join two things together of diverse natutes. If the strength of man's body be so greatly fallen as they are not able to endure such hard punishment, the Church should of duty initigate the rigour of those Canons, and not send men to seek pardons for them. Whereas many a man that hath needc, lacketh either money or other occasions, to purchase pardons: but if the manners of men be so dissolute as they like not straight penance, they are more dissolute unto sin, and so had need of the bit of straighter penance to keep them in, than the rain of pardons, and easy penance to let them run. You repeat again that this penance Canonical was appointed, not only for cautel and provision against the like sins, but also for satisfying of God's justice. But hereof no proof at all, but a bare affirmation.  ALLEN. 
The third way of punishment of temporal sin, is by Gods own hand, as when he striketh some by sickness, 〈◊〉 by temporal death, or by the pains of Purgatory, which 〈◊〉 a place of temporal satisfaction & correction of the soul only in the next life. Thus were divers of the Corinthians cast into infir mites, many stricken dead, and further also punished in the next world in the place of judgement there, not eternal, but transitory because they would not justly judge and correct themselves. 
1. Cor. 11.  And, which is much to be noted for our purpose, the Apostles also had authority given them, to punish the offenders often by bodily vexation, and death sometimes, that they might thereby make true show and proof to all the world, that they and their successors had jurisdiction over the souls of men, whiles they made it evident by manifest signs wrought in the face of all the world, even upon the bodies themselves, which are not so properly subject to the governors of the Church, as the souls of the faithful be, though their bodies to, for the soul's sake, be subject to the said power. And not withstanding the same miraculous force in correcting sinners did cease afterwards, yet the like power, ordinarily to be exercised by giving penance and separating from the Sacraments, remaineth in the Churches right still.  
And here we may not think, that the kill of divers, as well by Gods own hand amongst the people of Israel in Moset time, 
Exod. 32. Num. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 16. 1. Cor 11. Act. 5. Hier. in Comment. Ezechiells. c. 20  as of other that died of diseases, for punishment of unworthy receiving the Sacrament in Saint Paul's daics, or slaying of Ananias and his wife by S. Peter's hand, many more perhaps whereof there is no talk in the text, we may not deny, I say, that these were all killed either of God or Christ's Apostles, to eternal damnation, but rather for their temporal correction and the avoiding of God's judgements to come, especially where any of them did repent them of their fault, before their deserved death came upon them.  FVLKE. 
That God striketh by sickness or temporal death his children for their chastisement and example of others, it is very certain; but that he sendeth any into purgatory or punisheth for satisfaction of his justice, I must still deny, until I see it plainly proved. Neither do I find that the Corinthians which neglected to judge themselves in this life, were punished with any transitory punishment in the next world. That the Apostles had authority to aftlict men's bodies, proveth not that they or their successors had jurisdiction over men's souls. But their spiritual power is otherwise sufficiently testified, as well in retaming sins, as in casting out of the Church, such as teem by gentler discipline incorrigible, Concerning all those that have been or be stricken with the hand of God with temporal death, we leave the judgement to himself. If they did truly repent before their death, we have sure testimony, that God hath received them to mercy. But hereof it followeth not, that their temporal punishment was a satisfaction of God's justice, neither-saith Saint Jerome any such thing.  ALIEN. 
Now by these three divers ways of correction for sinnesremitted no doubt the Pardons of God's ministers must be limited and understanded, so that whosoever giveth a pardon lawfully, he must either discharge the penitent of the punishment which his Ghostly Father enjoined him, or that the old laws of most holy Counsels charged the like offenders withal, or that God himself enjoined sometimes in this world, but especially in the next life, where god more exactly & properly punisheth both for sins remitted & not remitted. If the pardon be large, it taketh away the whole pain, if it be otherwise, it determineth the number of days, and releaseth not all, but part of the penance only: that is to saic, so many days or years, as in the Indulgence is mentioned. Whereof no man can now be ignorant, if he do but mark, that the penance which the Pope taketh upon him to remit, was also limited by years of fasting, praying, abstinence from the Sacraments, and such 〈◊〉 as if your Confessor had given you in penance, to fast every friday bread and drink only, for some notorious sins confessed unto him, than the Pardon for twenty days, would discharge you of so many days, from your said bond, as be named: and if it be a free and plenary Indulgence, it shall discharge you of the bond of all the days or years appointed, which you have not before the receipt of the said pardon accomplished. And this is exceeding plain for the two first kinds of punishments, which we said were adjoined for satisfaction by the Church's laws, and by the confessors prescription. For they stood upon daiet and years, so the remission of the same must needs keep the like form. For which cause you shall see often expressed De Poenitentiis iniunctis, in the Indulgence. And that form of grant & remission was used always in god's Church. For S. Cyprian did remit a great piece sometimes De poenitentiis 
De poen. iniunctis.  inunctis, of the enjoined penance, when he gave peace to such as fell in time of persecution, long before they had fulifilled their prescribed penance: and so did S. Paul to the Corinthian that had committed incest. And so doth Nice Council prescribe to Bishops that they should or might at the jest, Humaniùs agere, deal more gently with those that denied their faith in the persecution of Licinius, & that they might pardon 
Can. 11.  them before, if they saw cause, though seven years penance was prescribed unto them. In which places, that the Church now calleth a Pardon or Indulgence, was termed sometimes, donare aliquid in persona Christi, to give or grant something to the offender in Christ's person: and so called Saint Paul it: sometimes it was called Dare pacem, as Saint Cyprin termeth it in many places of his works, sometimes it was called Humaniùs agere, To deal gently with sinners, or to show unto them humanity, and so doth Nicen and Ancyran councils term it: Licebit etiam Episcopo humanius circa aliquid cogitare, It shall be lawful for the 
Can. 11. Cap. 5.  Bishop to deal more courteously with them, saith the holy Council.  FVLKE. 
First you tell us, that the pardon must discharge men, either of all, or some part of these three kinds of punishment. secondly you assure us, If the pardon be large, it taketh away the whole pain: than it followeth that if God punish a man for his sins, with the gout, or any other bodily sickness, a large pardon would take away the whole pain thereof. Surely if you would become suitor to his holiness, for a large pardon that would take away the whole pain of bodily sickness, you might do an acceptable deed, and be well paid for your pains. But if the Pope's pardon be not able to take away the pain of one scab or flebiting, you will hardly persuade us, that it can take away all the pain of purgatory, if it were proved that any such pain or place were after this life. But if the pardon (say you) determine the number of days, or years, than it releaseth but part of the penance only, as you bring exampls of 20. days pardon: but if the pardon determine the number of years, to an hundred thousand years, than this explication is insufficient: yet you have an other quirk to help it afterward, by stretching it into purgatory, your imaginary prison. But the ancient canons never enjoined so many years penance, nor never did any Catholic Bithoppe grant pardon of so many years. Saint Cyprian, as we heard before, with his colleagues determined to release some part of the appointed time upon good hope of the amendment of the parties, and great signs showed of their hearty repentance, and for danger of present persecution at hand. Saint Paul received the incestuous person unto the fellowship of the Church, upon his repentance. The Council of Nice also willed the Bishops in seeing the fruits of repentance ripebefore the time, assigned by the Canons, to deal more gently with the lapsed persons. But all these have no resemblance with the Antichristian pardons of the Pope, which are not granted upon like cause, nor by a person of like authority, nor to persons of like qualites, nor to the like end, nor only of penance enjoined, but of such as no man would enjoin, beside remission à culpa & pana, or if not for all sins, yet for some third or seventh parteof sins, or else full remission of all sins, beside 8000. years, and 8000. Lentes, as in the pardon of Clement the sixth, confirmed by Leo the tenth, it is to be seen.  ALLEN. 
Whereby we see this pardoning of enjoined penance, is an ancient usage and counted most holy of all the Church, whereof we make this assured ground and foundation of our Pardons, and for the truth of them we make this argument Saint Paul did remit enjoined penance in Christ's person: Saint Cyprian and all the Bishops of Africa did remit penance enjoined: Nicene Council giveth licence to bishops to remit penance prescribed by the law: Therefore the Pope by their example, & as in the person of Christ may remit enjoined penance, & there fore may lawfuilie give a Pardon. The pain prescribed by the law he may release, because he is the principal executer of the law: the penance appointed by the inferior priest in confession, he may likewise remit, because that, which is prescribed by the inferior may by good reason be, upon considerations, altered by the superior, especially where the Magistrate hath good means to provide, that neither the common wealth suffer damage thereby, nor the partien to whom it doth pertain to be loosed or bound in penance, receive any loss thereby. By like authority also doth a Pardon change sometimes a sharper & longer pain enjoined into some more gentle penance and more fit and needful works for the time and state then being, as his power, that is the chief governor may be exceeding benefi ciall to the world in such cases, which ever ought to be practised for edifying, & never for destruction. For it is to be considered, that the high Pastor usualite graunieth no release of the debt of good works, or the bond of deserved punishment, but by prescription of some other holy work to be accomplished before the party obtain the benefit of his remission. 〈◊〉 when a penitent hath enjoined him to punish his body by continual fasting or long peregrination, or other exceeding much temporal pain, according to the grievousness of his deserts, the freedom of a Pardon of ten times turneth the said due pains enjoined into some easier work of Christian charity, yet being much more to the glory of god. & beneficial to the Church, as the time standeth, than the other could be. As when the Turk, or other enemies of Christianity, do invade any Christian kingdom, it is more beneficial to put to our helping hand in with standing his cruelty, either by resisting him in our own person, or contributing any piece of our goods towards the same, than any private Penance that may concern our persons. Therefore the governors of the Church often, to move the people to such necessary denotion giveth them a release of all pain due for their sins, or at least, of the bond of their enjoined penance only upon respect of some small furtherance in such a good and Godly purpose.  FVLKE. 
We acknowledge that pardoning of ecclesiastical pu nishment, commonly called penance, is very ancient. And being granted by them that had authority, upon good consideration is very necessary. But it is very young and new, that the Pope should take upon him, though he proceeded no further than pardon of penance enjoy nedto release the penance enjoined by the governors of other Churches, to persons whose repentance he knoweth not, & for other causes, then of ancient were allowed, and especially for money. But now upon this ancient, and accustomed practise of God's Church, let us see what Antichrist can claim: and that is set forth in an assured argument. Saint Paul did remit; S. Cyprian, with the Bishops of Africa, and the Nicene council doth allow remitting of penance prescribed; therefore the Pope by their example may remit enjoined penance, and lawfully give a pardon. Call you this an assured argument for pardons, where there wanteth one leg, and that the better leg of the argument to stand upon? Aristotle doth well admonish that in an Enthimeme lightly the weaker part is hidden, and not expressed. For this argument every man may lawfully deny, except you add the Mayor, that whatsoever Saint Paul, Saint Cyprian with his fellows, and the Nicene coun cell lawfully did, and allowed, the Pope doing as they did, may lawfully do. But then this Mayor will be denied, and so the conclusion will not hold. For the Pope is neither any governor, nor yet any member of the Church of Christ. But if he were a lawful Bishop he might do within his own charge, as Saint Paul, Saint Cyprian, and the rest with the Nicen council did and allowed to be done. And yet if he were allowed to be a Bishop, and would grant such pardons, as he doth, to men of other Churches, and upon such occasions as he doth, this argument would not defend him, because the Minor would not follow him: for neither Saint Paul, Saint Cyprian, nor the council of Nice granted such pardons, to such persons, and for such causes, as he doth: therefore he followeth not their example, but his own presumption. Yet let us see how this argument is fortified. First the pain prescribed by law he may release, because he is the principal executor of the law. But who will allow him any such principality in the Church, that is no member of the same? secondly he may remit the penance enjoined by the Priest, because he is superior to all piestes, which is nothing but a miserable begging of that which is in controversy. The like is to be said of his changing of penance, whereby he challengeth the like authority. Although his changing of sharp pe nance into easy payment, doth bewray what is the end of such permutation: money is intended, whatsoever is pretended. Vrbanus the 2. in the council of Claremounte, exhorting men of all nations to the war of jerusalem, began that release of penance, for serving in that cause, which his successors afterward have used, as a gay and gainful pretence, when they were disposed to enrich their coffers, and maintain their private quarrels.  ALLEN. 
The like they do also often, to set forward other works of charity, to the benefit of God's people, as for the relieving of Hospitals, of Churches, of high ways, and such like. Sometimes again, they extend their power, which Christ gave them, to edify his Church. and increase religion and devotion in the people, as when thy give pardon for so many days to such as shall receive the blessed Sacrament, fast and pray, that heresy may cease in the Church, that the enemies of Christianity may not prevail, that infidels, jews, and heretics may be converted, and Schismatics knit themselves obediently to the fellowship of Chistes' fold. So doth the Pope for the increase of zealous devotion and advancing God's honour, give days of remission or full pardon, to such as shall usually have meditations of Christ's passion and death by certain holy prayers appointed, or by visiting places in which there be seen some lively sieppes, memories, and express tokens of Christ miraculous works, or his Saints. Thus to help up the dullness of praying and serving God in our days he giveth grace and pardon to such as shall freavent the Churches at the times of their dedication, or on certain principal Feasts, there either to be confessed and receive the 〈◊〉 sacrament, or else to join in prayer and devotion with other the faithful people that thither at those days have principal recourse. Hereof we have example not only in the story of the institution of the solemn. Feast of Corpus Christi, but also in the great general council holden at Laterane. For this cause also, and the like maintenance 
Can. 62.  of holy prayer, by which the Church of God most standeth, hath he mercifully & with singular wisdom, given a pardon of certain days or years to such as should devoutly occupy such beads, books, or prayers: in all which things orderly given, & reverently received, I see not what can be reprehended of any, but such as are offended with all works and ways of mercy, charity, and devotion. The power and jurisdiction is proved lawful, the causes, why he should exercise his authority herein, be very urgent, & God's honour with the people's commodity exceeding well respected: all things here do edify, and nothing at all destroy: all things do stand by good reason, nothing can be reproved either with rea son or good religion.  FVLKE. 
You tell us, what the Pope doth; but neither by what authoritic of the holy scriptures, nor by what example of the holy ancient Church. He could never sit in the Temple of God, boasting himself to be God, except he had some religious colour, to blind the eyes of the world, which submitteth unto his antichiristan power. And yet all the world knoweth, that money obtained, for hospitals, Churches, beads, books, and such baggage, all the pardons in a manner that have been granted. As for the pretence of setting forward the works of charity, fasting, praying, etc. is not only hypocritical, but also wicked. For neither men must be hired to the works of charity, and other Christian exercises, by pardon of their punishments; but exhorted and charged for the love of God, and upon their duties neither should a sale be made of that which ought to be freely granted, if the Church had such authority. For freely (saith he) you have received, therefore freely you ought to give. Therefore, though you cannot see in this filthy nundination, what is to be reprehended, we can see nothing that can be defended, where neither the power is proved lawful, nor the causes reasonable, nor the end godly, whatsoever is pretended: nor means by the word of God or example of the Pimitive Church allowable.   

That not only the penance enjoined in the sacrament, otherwise by canonical correction, but also such pain as God himself provideth for sin, may be released by the Pope's Pardons, and that Purgatory pains may especially be prevented by the same remissions.  
THE 7. CHAP.  ALLEN. 
But now because some may by course of our matter, look that I should declare, whether the Pope's Pardons may release any whit of that pain, which God himself putteth the penttent unto, after his sins be forgiven; I must somewhat stand hereupon, the cause is weighty, and much misliked of our adversaries, and some other perchance to, that see not so far into the matter as they should do, before they give any judgement thereof, That the governors of the Church, should remit Canonical correction, and priuse satisfaction, with the bond of penance, either enjoined, or else which by the laws spiritual might be enjoined, many will confess. But that their power should reach to the remitting of that pain, which Gods hand hath laid upon the offender of temporal correction, that they understand not. Truly, for this they must be instructed, first, that the temporal punishment, which God taketh on sinners that be penitent, though it standeth by the law of nature, and was practised of the laws of nature, and was practised of God himself before any man's laws were made for pwishment of sins, yet now it riseth principally, upon lack of punishing of ourselves, or the accomplishing of such penance, as the Church of God prescribeth. For if the Church punish her children's faults by sharp discipline, doubtless it satisficeth God's righteousness, and he will not punish bis in id ipsum, twice for one fault: or if man earnestly and sufficiently judge himself, God hath promised by S. Paul, that he will not judge him also, that is to say, that he will not correct him with more heavy discipline of this life or the life to come, for that signifieth this word judicare, as the Apostle himself doth interpret it. Then it followeth, that the bond of any temporal punishment to be inflicted by God himself doth not now bind man otherwise, then for the lack of necessary discipline to be taken in this life, and therefore that Purgatory bindeth no man, but in respect of satisfying God's justice, which was not answered here before, either by ourselves, or by the Church's correction and enjoined penance.  FVLKE. 
The cause you confess to be weighty that the governors of the Church should release that pain, which Gods hand hath laid upon the offender, for his temporal correction, and therefore you must stand upon it: but as long as you stand you bring neither authority of scripture, testimony of antiquity, reasonable argument, or sensible experience. For first the ground of all your disputation is utterly false; that God punisheth for sins remitted, to satisfy his justice. And therefore though I grant your first consideration (which is, that God punisheth us for sin the more, because we punish not ourselves) yet I may not grant your conclusion, the argument whereof is nothing, but your asseveration: if the Church punish her children's faults by sharp discipline, doubtless it satisfieth God's righteousness. For no punishing, or suffering of punishment can satisfy God's justice, or any part thereof, but the punishment suffered by Christ, who was beaten for our faults and stricken for our offences: and therefore his suffering is a full satisfaction for our unrighteousness. Neither doth Saint Paul speak of any discipline in the life to come, when he exhorteth us to judge ourselves: but showeth that the punishment, or judgement, which God executeth in this world upon his children, is a chastisement, that we be not condemned with the world, as they that neither by doctrine, nor by punishment are brought to repentance. your next conclusion is, that the bond of any temporal punishment to be inflicted by God himself, doth not bind man, but for lack of necessary discipline, to be taken in this life. But this conclusion you yourself do afterward deny, when you affirm, that bodily punishment cometh upon men for many other causes, then for correction for sin only, or a purgation of a man's life past. Finally, if purgatory do bind no man, but in respect of satisfying gods justice, so long as it is certain, that God's justice is satisfied toward all his elect, in the death and obedience of Christ, it is out of doubt that purgacorie hath nothing to do with any of Gods elect, to whom Christ is given of his father to be wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption, that as it is written, he that rejoiceth, may rejoice in the Lord.  ALLEN. 
Consider secondly that he thatfully is discharged of the bond of satisfaction in this life, whether it be just accomplishing of his due and deserved penance, or by remission of God's Church and answering otherwise his lack therein, the same person must of necessity be also charged of Purgatory, and alpaine in this life which else God could have enjoined for sin, because this debt of Purgatory rose unto the penitent for the answer of God's justice, and lack of payment in this life, the which being discharged to the honour of God, and the relief of the party, there remaineth no bond of pain to come. For debt is discharged properly either by remitting it freely, or by payment justly. and I speak rather of 〈◊〉, then of other painer enjoined by God in this life, because that is ever appointed to man, only as a recompense of God's justice, and as due correction for sin remitted, when of all other pains in this world, whether it be sickness or death, no man can assuredly say, that this or that bodily punishment came upon any man as a correction for his sins only, or as a purgation of his life past. For sometimes suchthings follow the necessary of our corrupted nature, sometimes they be for our proof and exercise, and sometimes for other causes. But those kinds of punishments which God layeth upon man only for correction and satisfying for his sins, never fall upon him after he be either judged by his own tears, or the Churches sufficient satisfaction enjoined, or else upon reasonable cause remitted. The like afflictions may continue in any person, after the bond of them be removed, or may be given afterward: but for the satisfaction of his own sins, or any debt proceeding thereof, they be not, because the debt is discharged: in so much, that I dare be bold to say, if any man were sick by God's appointment, for that cause only, to satisfy for his sins remitted before in the sacrament, that he should strait recover upon the discharge of the debt which he did owe to God for his justice, if that into mitie were for no other cause but that only, as it may be for many more, whereof no man can easily judge.  FVLKE. 
He that is fully discharged of the bond of satisfaction, in this life, by free remission of his sins, through the satisfaction of jesus Christ, must needs be discharged of Purgatory, except you will say, that accomplishing of penance, and remission of the Church is of more force, than the suffering of Christ, and the remission of God. For debt, as you say truly, is discharged properly, either by remitting it freely, or by payment justly. But God sorgiveth our sins freely, and Christ hath paid the redemption for them justly, as all the scriptures do testify. Therefore there remaineth no bond of pain to come. But now you render a reason, why you speak of purgatory, rather than of other pains enjoined by God in this life. And that is this; that purgatory is never suffered, but for satisfying for sin only: where other pains of this life may be for other causes. Mark how this gear hangeth together. First you have no show of proof, that there remaineth any pain due to satisfy God's justice for sins remitted, but the afflictions of this life: and now you confess, that they may be, and often are for other causes. How prove you then, that ever they be for this pretended cause, namely for satisfying of God's justice for sins remitted? Well, let that pass. Seeing the afflictions of this life were brought to prove that there be three diverse ways of temporal punishment remaining after sins be remitted, every of which ways may in some cases be released in part, or in whole, by the Pope's pardons, how happeneth it, that we can have no experience of the Pope's pardonsin releasing any man of the temporal afflictions of this life, as sickness, imprisonment, etc., You answer that these bodily afflictions may be for other causes, & so fly quite from your hold; yet that you may stand in a corner, & pelt your enemies, you turn again & say. that you dare be bold to say, if any man were sick by gods appoint meant, for that cause only, etc. that he should strait way recover upon the discharging of that debt which he did owe to god's justice: but a pardon will discharge that debt: therefore a pardon will make him recover. This I confess, is boldly said of you, But where is the experience: show one man that ever recovered by the Pope's pardon among so many 1000 sick persons, as have received the Pope's pardon: was never none sick by gods appointment, for satisfying of his justice only? But admit he were sick for other causes, as well as for that, should not the pope's pardon at the least take away some part of his sickness, namely so much as was laid upon him for that cause only? Let the Pope, if he will make trial of his power to the confusion of his abversaries, grant a general pardon to all Papists, as he may easily do, and then let it be tried whether any one shall strait recover of his bodily sickness, or other affliction, or how many shall be eased in their bodily or worldly affliction. Provided always that we have no counterfeit cranks, that shall step up suddenly recovered of that disease, whereof they were never sick. But if you dare be bold to say, that the Pope's pardon can cause any man to recover strait upon the receipt of it, you must also be bold to say that the pope's pardon can work miracles: for no man can suddenly recover of any disease which is not come to the period, without miracle, if the natural cause thereof be not first taken away. But alas who doth not see your miserable startinghole, if that infirmity were for none other cause, but that only, as it may be for many more, whereof no man can easily judge. A wretched clout to hide your infirmity, where no one example among so many thousand as are sick in the world, can be showed. So that purgatory pains, and the release of them, are grounded upon temporal afflictions, whereof no man can judge, for what cause they are, no man can show one example of the release of them by pardons.  ALLEN. 
And therefore, not only Christ himself, as I shall declare hereafter, but Aaron also healed in the old law the infirmities of thousands, which came upon them only for temporal punishment of sins. And in the sacrament of extreme unction the Apostle Saint james affirmeth, that our Lord shall upon the priests prayer lift up the penitent, or ease him of his sickness, whichhe meant only or chiefly of that sickness, which cometh upon the party by God's hand, as a punishment of those sins, which be remissible in the sacrament for such like means. As Saint Chysostome showeth also a passiing power in 
lib. 3. desacerdot.  the ministers of God, Church, saying, That they may keep man's soul from perishing, and may charge him with more easy pain even at his passing hence, besides that they may ease his bodily infirmity also by their holy prayers in the act of extreme unction: in this sense speaketh he thereof,  Fulke. 
Said I that no man can show one example of the release of bodily afflictions? Master Allen showeth here examples of thousands, healed not only by Christ, but by Aaron also, of infirmities, that came upon them for temporal punishment of sins, as he will declare hereafter. But I reply, what miracles Christ or Aaron wrought in his name, they be no examples of the Pope's pardons, by which if he can prove that any man receiveth recovery of his sickness, it is somewhat to the purpose. The llke I say of anointing with oil, by which the elders of the primitive, and Apostolic Church endued with the miraculous gift of healing, cured many of their bodily infirmities: but that any extreme unction restoreth any man to health, or ever did, I utterly deny; and therefore we will not dispute of what sickness they heal them. Neither doth chrysostom say, that the Ministers of God's Church have such a passing power, that they may ease bodily infirmity by their holy prayers, in the act of extreme unction, neither hath his words any sense thereof: and therefore you deal fraudulently, to tell us of the sense, when you rehearse not the words. Plain dealing becometh an honest cause: but when neither words nor sense can help you, you must feign a sense, which can not be proved of the words: which are these, De sacerdotio lib. 3. cap. 6. preferring the ministers of the Church before bodily parents, by so much as the life to come excelleth this life for they truly do beget unto this life, but these unto that to come. And they truly can not so much as deliver them from bodily death, nor drive away sickness that falleth upon them: but these have often saved the soul that was stck and ready to perish, causing some to have a gentler punishment, suffering some not to fall from the beginning, and helping them not only by teaching and admonishing, but also by prayers. For not only when they regenerate us, but after ward they have power to forgive sins. It any man sick among you? saith he, let him call for, etc. Where the text of Saint james is alleged only to prove that they have power to obtain forgiveness of sins by prayer, and neither for healing of bodily sickness, nor for extreme unction. The ceremony whereof, with the miracle, whereunto it was annexed, was ceased long before Saint Chrysostom's time.  ALLEN. 
But, as I said, because no man can well judge, when man is afflicted only for temporal discipline or satisfaction, or when far other purposes to us unknown, the Church of God that useth high wisdom and moderation in all things, meddleth not directly in pardoning by her jurisdiction, with any such bodily afflictions as god chargeth man with alin this life, which may be to the forsaken as a beginning of their eternal damnation, as Saint Augustine saith, as well as a temporal correction, and therefore not effectually remissible in the Church. But the bond of Purgatory, that, I say, in the Church may be released, and is released, at every time that man worthily receiveth a full and plenary remission of all penance enjoined, & due to be enjoined by the law of the Church's decrees. I do not speak now, of the delivery of any person from the pains of purgatory, which already is actually there, or for the Church's power in releasing of their painet, after they be in the course of God's judgement for the same: I am not so far yet: but I speak of the discharge of the bond thereof, or some portion of the same, now before the party do pass hence, which is a great deal more proper to the Church's power, and more easy to be brought to pass, then when the penitents soul is already in judge meant there, to which place, the Church's jurisdiction (as some suppose) doth not extend. If the simple understand me not, let him mark my meaning by an example: The pains of hell can not, neither by God, nor man, ordinarily be helpen or released, after man be in the same: but the debt of Hell which is due for every mortal sin, is discharged always at our repentance, in so much that the priest in the sacrament of penance, with the sin ever remitteth the bond of Hell, and preventeth God's judgement in the same. So if Purgatory could not at all belong to the jurisdiction of the Church, nor 〈◊〉 person therein, yet in the life of the party some piece of the debt thereof, oral may be released afore hand, whiles the party is in the power of the Church and her discipline: ad so it must needs be at every time that the Church pardoneth the party of all satisfaction, or anic portion there of recompensing the same by application of Christ's satisfaction and his saints. For the bond of Purgatory riseth, as I have said, upon some satisfaction and penance to be fulfilled or done in this life, the which 〈◊〉 bue either by our pains accomplished to the satisfying of God's righteausnes, or o therwise pardoned, there is no debt or bond of purgatory at all, the which is so canceled by thy Church our Mother, that it can not be required of God our father.  FVLKE. 
The Popish Church 〈◊〉 more sabtillie, if she take not upon her at all, either directly, or indirectly, to heal bodily sickness by pardons, not because men can not judge so well for what cause they are laid upon the diseased, but because she knoweth right well that though she may in the dark bregg of such a matter, yet hath she in deed no such power, nor authority, neither in the fortaken or reprobate, nor in any of Gods elect. But the bond of Purgatory, where of there is neither argument, nor experience, she may be bold to deal with all at her pleasure, either in preventing, or releasing: Wherein I marvel you make the matter so dainty, seeing it is holden on 〈◊〉 side, that the Pope hath authority by his pardon, 〈◊〉 only to release some out of the pains of purgatory, but 
 also to spoil all Purgatory, and to leave it 〈◊〉. Your example, of the pains of hell, that can not neither by God, nor man be helped, or released, hath an instance in your own school, of the Emperor trajan eased of hell pains at the prayer of Saint Gregory, if the toll be true. Beside Augustinus de Ancona disputeth earnestly, that the Pope hath power in hell, to mitigate 
quest. 34.  or release the pains of the damned, or at the lest of some of them, and that the Church prayeth for that end. Wherefore you agree not with your fellows, nor with the Popish Church, which prayeth for the dead, ut liberentur de ore Leonis, & de profundo lacu: that they be delivered from the mouth of the Lion, and from the deep lake. But be it as you say, yet your argument of the similitude of hell and Purgatory is of no force, because we know certainly by the scriptures, that there is hell: but Purgatory we find not in the holy scriptures, as Saint Augustine saith of any third place. But by the scripture 
Cont. Pelag hypognost. lib. 5.  we find, the end wherefore Purgatory is imagined, to be forged, false, & blasphemous against the sacrifice of Christ his death and satisfaction, which was once perfectly performed by himself, and not committed to the application of any other man. 
Heb. 9 & 10   ALLEN. 
And this moved always the Church of God diligently to provide of her tender mercy toward her loving Children, that they should never depart out of this life in any debt of penance, knowing well, that the residue not satisfied here, should be required at their hands afore God in the next life. And therefore though many years of penance were prescribed to all such as did notorious crimes, yet there was made ever lightly a proviso, that at the hour of their extremity they should have peace and pardon, and the Church's blessing in the holy sacrament, and so depart free from bond of the Church's discipline, & as far as in her lay, might be also discharged of the temporal scourge in the next life, as no doubt they were, if their remained no other impediment in themselves. 
Can. 12. Lib. 3. Epist. 17.  So doth Nice Council most mercifully provide, and so doth Cyprian and other fathers of the Primitive Church, that saw in their high wisdom, the temporal pain to come, much to hang on the party's satisfaction, and the bond of the Churches enjoined penance. And even at this day provision is also made, that no penance be given, but upon condition of his recovery, to any man that lieth at the extremity of death, lest he depart hence, Ligatus, bound, as Saint Augustine termeth 
Epist. 180.  it, whereby the debt of his enjoined satisfaction, might be required in Purgatory. And nothing in the world proveth more the Church's doctrine of purgatory & Pardons, then doth the continual concord and most agreeable practise of these holy acts of binding and losing used in her government.  FVLKE. 
The ancient Church in deed not acknowledging that she had any authority to release any punishment to be suffered after this life, determined always the times of Canonical penance with the end of men's lives, as I have showed before, & now you do acknowledge no less. But if the Church had power after men were dead, to release them of any pains, she needed not to have been so careful in that point, as she was willing to comfort the penitent offenders at their departure: as for the canceling of all debt, due for the satisfying of gods righteousness, which you did ascribe unto the Church, was the proper office of our saviour Christ, who performed that most necessary work to our eternal benefit, once for all, when he did put out the handwriting that was 
Col. 2. 15.  against us in decrees, and utterly abolished it, nailing it to his cross. Finally if nothing in the world proveth more the Popish Church's doctrine of Purgatory and pardons, than the continual practise of binding and losing, justly used in government, as you do constantly affirm, it will easily appear, that nothing in the world can prove at all your blasphemous heresies, of Purgatory, and pardons, seeing the right use of that power can be none other, then according to the authority granted by our saviour Christ of binding and losing: but neither purgatory, nor pardon out of that authority in any lawful form of argument can ever be concluded, howsoever in lose talk, or scribbling, ignorant men may be carried away with the flow of words where there is no pitho argument.   

How the practise of pardons of these late hundred veares, differeth from the usage of the primitive Church, and in what sense such great numbers of years and days be remitted by the Pope's pardons.  
THE 8. CHAP.  ALLEN. 
But here we must note some diversity in giving Pardons, and preventing Purgatory pains, betwixt the primitive Church of old, and ours of these latter hundred years, which did most justly rise upon the alteration of meant manners & state of things. For in the primitive Church enjoined penance was so large for every mortal crime, that it might seem very answerable unto the nature of the fault. And doubtless it may not otherwise be thought, but the spirit of God did limitate satisfaction by the Canons, as agreeable in all points to the debt of sins forgiven, which God required for answer. And therefore when they gave a Pardon of the enjoined penance, there could be no great doubt, but the penitent being in zeal and devotion qualified thereunto, was therewith fully pardoned of Purgatory, and the bond of all pains to come in the next life.  
But now of days when penance and large satisfaction (our nature declining ever to the worse, and devotion continually decaying) is not enjoined according to the old Canons, and but a small sign thereof, remaining only in secret satisfction, which is not of itself in this exceeding flow of sin any thing agreeable to the faults committed: in this case, to remit only the enjoined penance, were not enough commonly to prevent Purgatory pains, or to discharge the penitent of all satisfactory correction to come. Whereby the Church by instigation of God's spirit dealeth so much more mercifully now then before, because the people had never so much need, to hang on pardon, as when their sins be greatest, and their recompense lest. Nevertheless, such is the frowardness of our time, that they had rather take away penance contemptuously, then have it released by the power of god lawfully. For the great infirmity of this world was the manifold 〈◊〉 used, and yet the meekness of the Church, which by the motion of God she apply herself unto, for the distress of these days, and for the sinner's sake, is yet most of sinners now commonly contemned, and of very many, that have full great need thereof, as mere folly laughed at. Yet the Church for her children's relief bestoweth mercy still, and a great deal less it is offended on that side, than the other, as no doubt the holy ghost guiding her affairs, she standeth upright on both sides.  FVIKE. 
You do not amiss, to note a diversity between the practise of the ancient primitive Church, from the late Popish Church, touching the Pope's pardons, and purgatory: for the most ancient primitive Church, knew neither the one nor the other. But you will have the difference to arise most justly upon the alteration of men's manners, and state of thing's. Touching the state of things, it is so large a term, that I know not what you mean thereby. And I marvel what state of things that should be, that should bring in a new religion into the church of Christ, as this of Pope's pardons, & purgatory is. But the alteration of men's manners, if it require another form of discipline, the change of manners from better to worse, requireth a discipline to be changed from milder, to sharper, and not as your Popish Church pretendeth to have done, from sharper, to mil der, and from milder to none at all. For Canonical penance & satisfaction, you have changed to arbitrary penance & satisfaction, which you confess to be but a sign of the Canonical, & nothing agreeable to the faults committed. And of the same arbitrary satisfaction, with all the deserts thereof, you have set the release to sale, in your pope's Pardons; which in effect is nothing else, but to sell a lisentiousnes of sin, when you have taken away all fear of punishment therefroe: eternal by shrift, and temporal by pardons, and pelting commutations, without exacting true repentance, and the true fruits thereof, which appear in amendment of life. But to follow your vain, you say the penance enjoined in the primitive Church, was so large, that it might seem very answerable to the nature of the fault. It is true, that as the faults were greater, so the discipline was harder for satisfying of the Church's judgement: in accepting the offender's repentance, and reconciliation to the Church. But there was no meaning to satisfy the justice of god, unsatisfied in the sacrifice of Christ's death, howsoever you make it a doubtless case, as also you use to do every thing, by bold and stout asseveration, which you are not able to prove by any sound or probable argument. Well, if it were, as you say, there was no use of pardons in the primitive Church, nor fear of purgatory pains, which is a true conclusion, although it be brought in upon false principles. But now, you say, the Church by instigation of God's spirit, granteth many great Pardons, because the people in respect of their great sins, and small or no penance and satisfaction for them, had never so much need to hang on pardon. In deed the greater men's sins be, the more need they have that grace and mercy should abound for the release of them: but then they must have recourse to the fountain of mercy and only ground, where grace groweth, even the God of all consolation reconciled in jesus Christ, unto all them that truly repent of their sins, & purpose unfeignedly to lead a new life agreeable to his laws, and commandments. But whereas the popish Church taking away in a manner all sorrow for sione, and fear of punishment, by offering satisfaction of pardons, openeth a wide field unto all wickedness, and beside teacheth men to depend upon the pardon of a man, who commonly selleth the same for advantage, and disposeth it at his pleasure, it is out of doubt she doth this by the instigation of the Devil, and not by the spirit of God. For the spirit of God is the spirit of truth, of pureness & of holiness, giving no licence, encouragement, or consent to continue in sin, as the doctrine of pardons doth most manifestly; the blasphemy of which is more to be detested, than the folly to be laughed at, of all them, that be zealous of Christ's glory, & salvation of his people.  ALLEN. 
She seeing therefore, that remission of the enjoined penance could not discharge us of the bond of the transitory pain to come, & being sure that it is no les lawful to remit the pains due by the canons, is enjoined effectually, by the canons, she giveth now 〈◊〉 not only de 〈◊〉 penitentus, but also, de iniun 〈◊〉, of such penance as by the nature of the fault before god, or the decrees of councils should or had wont to be enjoined. For there is no man that hath in penance prescribed either of fasting or praying or such like a 1000 or more years, and yet it is known, that many such pardons are, and have been given long, Neither could the 〈◊〉 of Purgatory wholly be discharged now, as it was of old by the pardons of the primitive Church, in which only there was remission of the penance appointed (because all penance thought reedful was then appointed) except there were releasing also sometimes of all the penance, or a great piece of the penance that shouldby law and reason have been enjoined.  FVLKE. 
The man of sin, supreme head of the synagogue of Satan upon earth, seeing that his glory, power, and profit ariseth principally by the increase of the people's sins, hath first taken away all bridles of canonical repentance, & ancient discipline, & secondly given pardon, not only of penance enjoined, which is nothing in effect, as you confess, but also of penance to be enjoined, whereby he hath set the sinner out of fear of all discipline, & so at liberty to commit what wickedness he will, without punishment. Whereby it appeareth how true it is that you said, that the pope was slandered by them that said, that for money you may obtain of the Pope a free pardon before hand of any grievous sins that you commit afterward, when you now do acknowledge that he giveth pardons not only the iniunct is poenitentiis, but also the iniungendis, of penance to be enjoined, which you extend further by interpreting it of penance, that should or ought to be enjoined, though it be not enjoined at all. So that it is all one in effect whether a man have a pardon before hand of any grieves sin, or whether he hath a pardon aforehand of all punishment due for the same, or a pardon of course as they term it, for his money, after he hath committed the sin.  ALLEN. 
And this is the Church's meaning, in giving somanie days and years, as be often times expressed in pardons, in titles of prayers, or use of certain sanctified creatures, made holy by God's word and prayer. Of which, because we see not the original, and because by unlawful practise of Printers or writers, the grants of divers Bishops for multiplication of the years, may be joined together, against the meaning of the givers there may be some forged, & not authentical, yet we will not stand in that point, because it is certain, that such be indeed granted diverse times, by them that have lawful authority in the Church. The undoubted sense whereof, though every man may easily understand by the premises, yet fully to open the case which is now so common in most men's mouths, & not well considered of many; Look how many days or years a man may deserve to be punished in this life, if his sins were to the uttermost taxed, and the appointed penance of the Church fulfiled, so many years may the governors of the Church remit, and forgive by a Pardon. But many a man may, and God knoweth, often times doth commit so many 〈◊〉 offences, continue so long in sin, live so wantonly and so carelessly, in all manner of wicked 〈◊〉 even to his lives end alalmoste, that being converted by Christer grace, and so departing hence in his favour, as it often through much mercy falleth, he must needs be in exceeding great debt for so long a life so evil spent. And, I think, if you call him to account for all his common and daily offences, for all his days unthriftily wasted, for every of his idle words, for every of his vain thoughts, for so many occasions of good works omitted, which he ought to have done, for often fellowship in other men's misdeeds besides his own, all this willriseto a great debt in a men's case that never required in all his time effectually, to have his debts forgiven him, and therefore he must needs stand much bound, even for his venial trespasses: which, though they deserve not of their nature damnation eternal, yet being not remitted, they bind man to transitory punishment, according to the number, time, and weight of them.  
But now if you sit on the audit of the greater matters of this man's conscience, where every of his sins deserved by the Church's limitation, for correction only, after they be remitted, necre hand seven years penance, and some many more, where he hath done nothing else all his evil and long time, but heaped sin upon sin, where infinite sacrilege boldly hath been committed, where his flesh was never satisfied of most unlawful lusts, where his mind was ever full of greedy gain, where his hands or heart were always imbrued with innocent blood, were no part of his mind or body hath been free from what iniquity you can name; in all this corrupt case of many a man's life, where no good works (that I may use Saint Chrysostom's words) are found, by which there may be any hope of release, where there is abundance of all sins without any satisfaction in this lamentable state of a life so evil spent, how many years' penance (if it were possible for the party to live so long) were he by the Church's judgement, by the weight of his wickedness, or by Christ's justice, to be charged with all? Surely if his life were not only a thousand years (for so long almost aid some of the old Fatherslive) but if it were ten thousand years, he could not fatisfiefor so much temporal pain and bebt of sins, as reason law, and God's justice would, and well might charge him withal, though the great debt of everlasting damnation by Christ's grace, were mercifully remitted in the Priest's absolution at his confession before. therefore, whether the party live or die, he is in debt for such penance, if rigour were showed, as so great sinner deserved. And if he lived ten thousand years, he were bound in his life time, and in his body, to accomplish as he might, the due penance for his deserts: and if he die strait upon his repentance, he is not less bound by suffering pain and punishment in the next world to fulfil the same. For god's justice loseth no right, because man loseth his life.  FVLKE. 
As privy as you make yourself to the Church's meaning, the popish Church could have no good meaning in granting pardon for so many thousand years, yea for so many hundredth thousand years, which the Church of Christ, for a thousand years after Christ's ascension, never heard of Some part of the fault is laid upon printers, and writers, which for lucre have increased the numbers; but in the end the greater numbers are coufeised, for otherwise the bulls of lead, as dumb as they be, would cry out against you. But whereas these years be expressed in pardons, in titles of prayers, or use of certain creatures, the last of these are said to be sanctified, and made holy by God's word and prayer. Why Sir? All the creatures of God are sanctified, in the lawful use of them, by the word of God and by prayers, as the Apostle teacheth us, to which no such pardon is annexed. Who is he then that despising the holiness given by God to all his creatures, in the ordinary use of them, taketh upon him to add agreater holiness to certain creatures, to apply them to another use, and join not only holiness unto them; but also remission of sins, and of pain due for sins to the use of them, for which he hath no word of God to warrant him, and therefore can have no prayer to help him? surely this can be none other, than he that exalteth himself above God, which can make God's creatures more holy than God hath made them. But now for this number of years, whereof you make your Audit at your pleasure, valuing men's offences in a heavy balance to make your pope's pardons seem more probable, & saleable, your account nevertheless will fall short of many thousand years, by your former reckoning. You confessed in the beginning of this Chapter, that the satisfaction limited by the Canons was agreeable in all points to the debt of sins forgiven, which God required for answer of his justice. Further you must remember, that the Canons did limit times of penance, not only for an act of sin, but also for customable continuance in such sins, as you may see in the decrees of Iuo quoted by you before, and in the Ancyran Council. Now if you will feign a man to be such a monster, as that he have committed all these sins, for which the Canons do limit times, and have continued in them also accustomably, yet by those Canons he could not deserve so many thousand years of penance as the Pope granteth of pardon. Nay if you make your Audit of the times limited for all offences, adding all the days, years, and Lents prescribed in the Canons together, you shall not find the sum of one thousand years of penance due to be enjoined, if a man had committed all those sins. Whereof it followeth, that so many 1000 years as have been ordinarily granted by the Pope's pardons, can have no such meaning, as your dream of Audit and account surmiseth, and so it remaineth, that these numbers of years were multiplied only to set a greater price of the pardons, & so to rob both the purses of the people, and deceive their souls. For the old Canons never appointed any time of penance for any time, exceeding the time of a man's life: but 7. years 14. years, 24. years, etc., or to the end of a man's life at the most, and always the party to be received at his end, though he had not accomplished his time perfixed. It is not the time appointed by the old canons therefore, that can excuse so many thousand years of pardon for pain to be suffered in purgatory, seeing you acknowledge the time by them limited, to be limited by the spirit of god, as agreeable in all points to the debt of sins forgiven, which God requirerth for answer of his justice. But blessed be god, who hath taken sufficient satisfaction to answer his justice in the obedience & suffering of jesus Christ, which is our justice, in whom seeing we are made the iustiee of God, we neither fear Allens Audit for purgatory, nor desire the Pope's mercy for pardon.  ALLEN. 
Neither is it necessary for the due payment of that great debt of so many years, that the pain of purgatory should endure so long, or so many years, as had been necessary for the accomplishing of his penance in this life. For the might, the force,, the hougenes, the excess, and the nature of the pain in the next world, is so fearful and so great, as Saint Augustine often noteth, that a great deal less time sufferance of the same, is answerable to much more in the world and this 
Super psal. 37.  present life. For what comparation is there berwixt a days fasting here, & a days punishment in purgatory? better it were surely to suffer a hundred years such penance as the Church prescribeth in this mortal life, that hath in it much worldly ease, and comfort for the release of the enjoined pain, then to abide one day or wecke in so grievous a torment, as the holy Doctors and all the Church holdeth Purgatory to be. Therefore to forgive such a grievous sinner in the latter end of his life received to mercy, as we have now spoken of, a thousand or two thousand years of penance, is as much in effect and nature of the terms, as to remit and release him of so much punishment, or the debt and bond of so much punishment in purgatory, as is proportional and correspondent to so many days or years 
Origen in Num. limp. Hom. 11.  of penance, as the penitent in this life was bound unto by the Canons of the Church, or the just enjoining of his Ghostly Father. For the Pardons measure the matter, not by the limits of Purgatory, the bonds, borders, or way of limitation, whereof the Church knoweth not, but by the years and times of penance prescribed to sinners by the holy Canons, upon the bond whereof, Gods justice temporal in the next world, doth, as I have proved, much depend. To be short then & plain, to give a pardon of a 10001. or 2000 years or more, if the grant goeth so, is as much to say, as to forgive so much punishment as might be answerable for so great penance, not fulfiled in this life. As if I were behind with the Church and indebted to God hard before my death of a hundredth days fasting, in which case, I cannot recompense, if my Bishop then, or the chief head of all the Eccle siasticall Hierachie do forgive me twenty of the said days, than my punishment shallbe so much less in Purgatory, not by twenty days, I say, of Purgatory pains, but by as much as in force of satisfaction there, is answerable to twenty days fast here. So that, the Church measuring her mercies, by the years of penance deserved by the law in this life, or else where, taketh effect, not only in this life, where there cannot be so many days in our short time, but especially in preventing Purgatory pains, where there may well be punishment answerable in a very short time, to all the days prescribed by the measures of the law, and discipline of our present days in the world.  FVLKE. 
If the fire of Purgatory be so much hotter, than this elemental fire, as this is hotter than a fire painted on a wall, as some of your own poets have feigned, you may add this imaginary proportion, of greatness of pain against length of time. And who can let you to imagine what you list? seeing you require to be credited upon your bare word, without authority of scripture, or witness of the ancient Doctors. But the holy Doctors, you say, and all the Church holdeth purgatory to be so grievous a torment, and Saint Augustine noteth it often, namely in Psal. 37. Verily Saint Austen in that place saith, that the fire, by which some that build straw, hay, etc. upon the foundation Christ, shallbe more grievous, than any thing that any man can suffer in this life, but else where he can say nothing of certainty of the fire of Purgatory, whether any such fire after this life be, or no, as de fide & operibus, c. 6. de oct. dulcit. qu. 1. as I have showed more at large in confutation of your book of purgatory. You quote Origen also, but I know not how, nor what to find by your quotation: but certain it is, that Origen knew not the Pope's purgatory; although he allegorize of a certain purgatory, which neither the papists themselves do allow and it teacheth the heresy wherewith he is charged, that the devils and all wicked persons at length shallbe saved. To conclude, the old canons granting remission to everte man that is prevented by death at his last end, had no meaning of any recompense of years, and days in Purgatory, as without all proof or authority you do so confidently affirm.  ALLEN. 
And yet I talk not now of taking or delivering anle man out of Purgatory, so much sooner as so many days release doth import, when he is in it already, but I mean (as I often say for the simples sake) of him, that is yet alive, and in the Church's jurisdiction, and therefore may have by the keys of the Church a pardon of his dets, either all, or part, to prevent the pains of Purgatory, or discharge the debt thereof, before that terrible day come, when it shallbe actually required. And in this sense undoubtedly are the great number of years & days to be taken, which be exceeding necessary to procure mercy in these evil times, wherein we may behold the pitifulwaste of Christian works every where, and little penance to be done, no not of the better sort of Christian people. As for the other disobedient children, that every way laugh their mother to scorn, whether she use sextritie of discipline, or lenity in remission, they have no part, neither of the Church's blessing, nor of the holy works of Saints, nor of Gods own peace and pardon. Our Lord give them the grace of repentance, that they may have a taste, either of the Churcher discipline, or of her mercy and lensty.  FVLKE. 
You talk and mean that men should make haste while they are alive, to take their pardons, whereof perhaps you are a proctor, or petty merchant under the Pope, not regarding so much, what the Pope's jurisdiction is over poor souls in Purgatory, as how to get money out of living men's purses, for pardons and dispensations, to maintain you in your traitorous popery. Your complaint of little penance done, is vain & hypocritical, seeing you yourself, by maintaining of pardons, are occasion that none at all need to be done of them that have money to pay for them. God open the eyes of the simple, if it be his will, to see your treachery, and either give you true repentance, or else that which your treasons, heresies, & hypocrisy have long ago deserved.   

It is proved as well by sundry examples of the old law, as by Christ's one often fact & his Apostles, that enjoined or deserved punishment may be released by the governors of the Church in their pardons.  
THE 9 CHAP.  ALLEN. 
Some may here marvel perchance, that such power should be given to mortal men, as to remit such great portion of penance, as by justice ought to be enjoined, or such a number of years, as are appointed for satisfaction & correction of former misdeeds, thereby to remove from the party the heavy hand of god prepared for judgement, who would not wonder much hereat, if they considered that the debt of hell pains and eternity of punishment, which incomparably exceedeth many thousand years, might by the priests office, and always is in the due execution of the sacrament of penance, fully removed from the party penitent. And where mercy putteth away deserved damnation, there may much less force of grace turn away the punishment of Purgatory, being not transitory, and equivalent only to the penance of a number of years prescribed. In which case, if the Church of God should have no pre-eminence now after the incarnation of Christ, since which time the waiet of mercy towards mankind must needs be much enlarged, our state & government should be much inferior to the regiment and to the priesthood of the old law, which truly did in all things, but as a shadow and figure, resemble the Majesty of our Church's prcheminence, especially there, where mercy & grace were to be showed, which came by Christ jesus.  
Behold then some sleep of this most excellent power given to our chief Priests, in the persons of Moses and Aaron, who are noted in the book of Exodus and Numbers marvelously to have procured God's mercy, and sometimes by force of sacrifice, prayer, and singular zeal, to havereleased some great portion of the pains and punishment which God himself by his own mouth and determination had laid upon the people. With what marvelous confidence of his office, and pity of the afflicted sort, did one of them cry out unto god to hold his hand, and pardon the people, after they had deserved see great punishment for worspiping the golden Idol of the Calf in the wilderness? Lord (saith Moses) this people hath committed an horrible sin, and they have erected golden Gods. Forgive them this sin, Lord, or else if thou wilt not, dash me out of thy book to, which thou hast written. This governor and this priest, prayed not after a common sort for pardon of the people's punishment, but he claimeth it wish confidence, and in a manner requireth it as by his jurisdiction and office. Such was the force of prayer and priesthood, before Christ's spiritual sooner aignitie was honoured in the world, otherwise then in a figure. And yet, god in a manner, was at that point with them then, that he would pardon & punish at their pleasures. For when the sin was exceeding grievous, he maketh as it were means to Moses, that he should not stay him, nor his anger, from punishing of the offenders, Let me alone Moses (saith our Lord) & suffer me to be angry. 
Ibid.   FVLKE. 
Men may justly marvel, that you professing method, do set the Cart before the horse, and frame of your building, the roof, before the foundation: but if they consider that this way you take is of more force to confound a simple wit, then to teach a matter plainly, they may cease to marvel; and acknowledge that the compass of your cause, whereof you speak in the beginning, will abide none other order. But to the matter and argument of this Chapter it hath been answered before, that in the discipline of the Church, the governors thereof have power upon good consideration, and trial of the offender's repentance, and not otherwise, at their pleasure to release enjoined time of repentance, which was enjoined for none other end so much, as to bring the party to repentanes and thereof to assure, or satisfy the Church. But as the discipline of the Church militant, serveth for the only time of her warfare in this life, so the governors of the Church have no authority either to enjoin, or to release, out of the compass of this life. And therefore this power of binding & losing upon earth, cannot be extended to any purgatory pains, or rather pickpurse, after this life, and consequently it can be no shadow to cover the filthy and blasohemous nundination and chaffering of the Pope's pardons, for thousands and hundredth thousands of years. What authority the ministers of the Church have in remitting sins, hath been handled sufficiently before. They are Gods messengers, to declare his forgiveness to them that truly repent, and so they are to release the band of discipline in open offenders, where the fruits of repentance do appear. Your argument, that the priesthood in the new law is of more power to purchase mercy, then in the old law, to prove that the Pope's pardons extend unto purgatory, is very far fett. For the priest hood of our saviour Christ, hath succeeded to the priesthood of the law, as the body to the figure or shadow thereof. But purchasing of mercy pertaineth not to the ministers of the Church, but preaching and declaring of God's mercy: wherein they excel the preaching office of the priests of the law, in more large, plain, and clear demonstration thereof, in Christ exhibited, borne, suffered, raised from dead, and ascended into heaven, not in the matter of mercy, or the only mean meritorius to obtain it, which is jesus Christ. As for the discipline of the Church now, is not unlike to the discipline then, neither is there any cause in respect of Christ exhibited, that it should be any jooser now, than it was then. For the grace of God which bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared, instructing us that we should utterly deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, justly, and godly in this 
Tit. 2. 11. etc.  world waiting for the blessed hope, and glorious appearing, of the great god, and our saviour jesus Chest, which hath given himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniovity, and purge us a peculiar people unto himself, zealous of good works. Thus the holy Ghost describeth the end and effect of the mercy of God in Christ exhibited, charging Titus to speak and exhort to these things, to reprehend with alearnestnes, and suffer no man to contemn him. There is no cause therefore why the sinews of discipline in the Church of Christ, should be loosened, or rather cut in sunder by the Podes pardons, which taketh upon him to release all time of repentance appointed by the governors of the Church, under pretence of greater mercy showed by Christ, then was showed in the old law. But Maises and Aaron, you say, procured mercy and pardon for the people, and then you bring in the example of paid no breined for worshipping the golden Image of a calse, where Aaron him self was so deep in, that he was no meet person to make intercession for others. But in the example you prove not any power or jurisdiction of priesthood, which doth sir forth only the effect of the prayer of the faithful, as Saint james saith of Helias, that he was a man and yet obtained great things by his prayer. Neither doth Moses pray with confidence of his priest lie office, which he had not: for Aaron was priest, both by the law of nature, as the elder, and afterward by God's especial appointment, but Moses prayeth upon confidence of God's promises, which were these, that the people should be brought into the land of Chanaon, and that Christ should come of the tribe of juda, which could not have had their effect, if all the people had been destroyed, though a great nation had been made of Moses. He strengtheneth his faith also, by two other reasons in his prayer, the one of the glory of God, which should be blasphemed by the Egyptians, if the people were destroyed in the wilderness, the other of the benefits of God already bestowed upon the people, which should be in vain, if the people should thus suddenly be consumed. But of claiming it with confidence of his priesthood, and requiring it, as by his jurisdiction and office, there is no mention. For what jurisdiction or office could he have to control God in his judgements? And therefore it is a horrible blasphemous saying, that God in a manner was at that point with them, that he would pardon and punish at their pleasures. Where your meaning is yet more biasphemous, that God should much rather he at that point now, to pardon and punish, at the Pope's pleasure, which is nothing else, but to exalt Antichrist above God, when his justice and mercy should depend upon that devil incarnates pleasure. Yet for reason to excuse this blasphemy, you say, that God maketh as it were means to Moses, that he should not stay him, nor his anger from punishing of the offenders: Let me alone Moses (saith our Lord) and suffer me to be angry. But who is so meanly exercised in the scriptures, that he doth not acknowledge, that this speech of God, as a thousand more in the scriptures, is uttered after the affection and infirmity of man, whereof God is most free, yet condescending to the weakness of man's understanding, often useth so to speak? Of which phrases of speech, who so shall conclude as you do, may infer an hundred horrible heresies, and more. The true sense therefore of those words is, that the people indeed had deserved to be destroyed, but that he had otherwise determined at the prayer of Moses, and for those causes, which his spirit instructed Moses to utter, whom by this speech he provoketh and stirreth up to pretty for the people, he was purposed to pardon and spare them, not that he ever was of mind to submit his justice and mercy to men's pleasure, in such sort as he should be driven to make means to men, that he might execute his judgements, and show his mercy, both which he doth according to his own most free will, most excellent wisdom, and incomparable glory.  ALLEN. 
So when his sister Marie was punished by a leprosy for envying at her brother's authority, he cried unto our Lord and 
Num. 12.  said: Lord God heal her again of this disease, and of his mercy so he did, enjoining only unto her seven days separation. Aaron also procured pardon for the people by the 
Num. 16.  like force of his prayer, and prieslhood, when by sedition the people had highly offended God: yea he did as it were limit and moderate God's appointed punishment, that his wrath should extend no farther, but to the deslruction of a certain number. For when God said unto Moses and Aaron, depait you hence from amongst this people, for even now will I consume them. Upon which word straight the destruction began and grew very sore, a flame of fire pitifully consuming them. But Aaron out of hand with his incense, ran to that part where the plague of God's ire wasted most, and there censed up towards heaven, and carnestlie requested for the people, and so placing him even just betwixt those that were slain, and the residue that were alive, the wrath and indignation of God ceased.  FVLKE. 
Moses by his prayer obtained of God that he did heal his sister of her jeprosie, Ergo the Pope by his pardons may release men of the punishment laid on them by God. when in his pardons he useth not humble prayers, but standeth upon his power and jurisdiction, upon the power of Peter and Paul, and in pain of their indignation, beside God's wrath, and sometimes most presumptuously commandeth the angels to execute his pleasure. But whereas God enjoined to Marie seven days separation, you should have made your argument somewhat more probable, if you could have showed out of the scripture, that Moses by his pontifical jurisdiction, released those days, or any part of them. The example of Aaron's intercession, as he was the high priest, showed the effect of Christ's priesthood, of whom he was a figure, whose perfect sacrifice represented in the incense, was a sweet savour of reconciliation unto God, for the preservation not only of the Israelites, but of all Gods elect both from temporal and eternal destruction. This example of Aaron's incense therefore is as far differing from the Pope's pardons, as Aaron's office differeth from Antichristes presumption.  ALLEN. 
But it were to long to make rehearsal of all such punishments as God hath afflicted his people with all for sin, and yet hath been either wholly put of, or much thereof abated by these priests even of the old law, when they had no warrant, promise, nor commission in sacrament or otherwise, either to bind or lose, as by jurisdiction, or any otherwise, but by their prayers: where ours of the new law and testament have expressly received a full power and commission concerning the same. Therefore now in the new law and in the days of grace, where mercy and judgement be met together, truth and peace be joined, we shall find express examples of justice and judgement on the one side, and grace and mercy on the other, 
Psal. 84.  not only in the government of Popes and Bishops, but in Christ's own regiment and his holy Apostles, from whom to our priests, all this power prooceedeth. In them then, of whom heresy and falsehood do stand in awe, let us see whether any examples may be found of pardoning the pain due for sin. The seven devils possession of one woman's body, was no small punishment for sin: yet when it pleased Christ, he both forgave her the sin, & discharged her of that horrible punishment for the same: & she had a grand pardon & a plenary Indulgence, because she loved much. Yea a woman that had committed adultery, and therefore by the law subject to 
Lucae. 7, & 8  death, was pardoned by Christ, not only of her sin and damnation, but of that penalty which by God's law she was subject 
jon. 8.  unto for the same sin, whereby he declared that he had full power, not only to remit sins, but also to give pardon for any temporal punishment provided by law for sin. Where are they, woman, that do accuse thee? quoth Christ: Here is none here, said she, Lord. If none have condemned thee, go thy way therefore, and sin no more. And this is the 8. of Saint john's Gospel.  FVLKE. 
If the Priests of the old law had no warrant, promise, or commission, to bind, or lose, any way, but by their prayers, for as much as the duty of prayer is not proper to priests, but common to all faithful persons, you can prove no shadow of the power of Priests in releasing Gods punishment by their putting of or abating such punishment by prayer only. Although you say untruely, that they had no warrant of binding and losing in sacrament, or otherwise. For they had power and commission to separate the clean from the unclean, to exclude from the participation of the Sacraments and sacrifices, to cast out of the synagogue, and to receive again. But thereof I will not dispute at this time. That is a greater matter, you speak of, that Christ himself gave a pardon. Who doubreth but that Christ had fullness of power, to pardon according to his divine pleasure. If the Pope may do whatsoever Christ did, let him cast out Devils, cleanse the Lepers, raise the dead, yea let him make another world. But where you say, that the adulteres, john. 8. was pardoned by Christ of the temporal penalty, that she was subject unto by God's law for her sin, that was stoning to death, you speak beside the Gospel, for there is no one word to prove it, but rather Christ showeth that he had not to do with civil punishments, as when he refused to divide the inheritance between the brethren, and discovereth the hypocrisy of the pharisees, who when they had no authority to execute any offender by death, being restrained by the Roman laws and power, come to tempt him, that either he should give sentence of her, against the law of God, or else seem cruel in pronouncing sentence of death against her, whose life the civil authority did spare. What is here like the Pope's pardons? or what hath any pardon of Christ like to the Pope's pardons?  ALLEN. 
Which example I allege the rather, because Saint Augustine noreth it as a strange power and jurisdiction, that should remit the punishment enjoined by the law itself for a public 
Epist. 54.  crime, where the person was taken with the manner. Yea he apply it to the Priests, and Bishops, and proveth, that it becometh them at the lest to make intercession to the temporal officers, by occasion, for the release of offenders, even where they be subject unto the appointed punishment of the laws. Wherein, he saith, that though they cannot by their authority command their release, yet that it behoveth the Civil Magistrates to release the pain, where they do make request. For which cause Macedonius a Magistrate had challenged Saint Augustine, or rather asked him the question, why Bishops did so much intermeddle in the temporal judgement for procuring pardon to offenders, in so much that they would not take it well, if they obtained not the remission of the party's punishment, for whom they made intercession. To whom Saint Augustine answereth trimelie and largely: where amongst other things he saith, Ipse Dommus intercessit, ne lapidaretur adultera, & eo modo nobis commendautt intercessionis officium. Our Lord himself made intercession for the woman taken in adultery, & by that fact commended unto us the office of intercession. And Saint Augustine excommunicated County Bonifacius, that he took from the Church an offender, and put him to execution, 
Epist. 187.  when he came to the Church for mercy & pardon. So prone hath God's Church ever been to remit the pain for sin deserved, not only where she had full authority to pardon at her pleasure, but even there where it could not otherwise be had, but by intercession to other men who had to do therewith.  FVLKE. 
You quote Saint Augustine's epist. 54 ad Macedonium, as though he should note it a strange power and iurisction, that should remit the punishment enjoined by the law itself for a public crime But there is no such note of any such strange power and jurisdiction in all that Epistle. In deed he supposeth that this duty of intercession for offenders, is commended to the Ecclesiastical persons by this example, and that Magistrates are to be moved with pity, to pardon offenders at their request. But he speaketh not of any power or jurisdiction in this intercession, but of humble petition. Our Lord himself, saith he, was a mean among men, that the adulteres should not be stoned, and by that means commended to us the duty of intercession, saving that he did it by terrifying, that we do by petition. For he was the Lord, and we are his servants, yet he so terrified, that we all ought to fear. For which of us is without sin? which when he had said to them, by whom the sinner was offered to be punished, that he which knew himself to be without sin should first cast a stone at her, their cruelty fell down by trembling of their conscience. For than they slipping away out of that congregation, left the poor wretch alone to him that is merciful. Let the piety of Christians give place to this sentence, to which the impiety of the jews gave place: let the humility of them that are obedient give place to that, to which the pride of persecutors gave place: let the confession of the faithful yeld to that, whereto yielded the dissembling of the tempter. What have we here for this strange jurisdiction? or for the Pope's pardons in this example, or in the example of Saint Augustine excommunicating or suspending of Bonifacius for violating the privilege of the Church in taking away a man worthy to die, that fled thither for succour, when he did not execute, as you say, but restored him unhurt to life, as appearerh by his answer. The proneness of Ecclesiastical persons unto mercy and pity, may be gathered by this example, but no argument to prove the Pope's pardons to be good, that I say not, it may be doubted whether such clemency standeth with God's justice, that commandeth the murderer to be drawn even from his altar & to be executed. And Augustine himself in his Epistle of intercession commendeth the punishing mercy, and con demneth 
Exod. 21. 14.  the pardoning cruelty: beside that, we must live according to laws, and not according to examples. 
Macedo. 54.   ALLEN. 
Again Christ delivered in the fift of Saint john, one that had been feeble eight and thirty years long for a punishment of his sins: and that he might understand, that, that sickness came unto him for correction of his former offences, he said unto him after in the temple: Lo, thou art made whole, look thou sin no more, lest a worse thing happen unto thee. Neither is it unlike, but the party had his sins remitted long before Christ healed him of his corporal infirmity, by the sacrifices of the law, and by ordinary means of that time, through the faith in Christ jesus. Whereby you may perceive, that our high Bishop Christ hath given pardon to many, not only of their sins and ever lasting damnation, but also of the temporal pain and punishment, either prescribed by the law, or enjoined by Gods own appointment. Then we need not wonder, that the Church's officer, holding by his right both the title to pardon and to punish, should be by his example so prone to mercy, which of the two is always most commended in spiritual regiment.  FVLKE. 
Christ healed many that suffered punishment of bodily diseases for their sins, to show that he was appointed of god to be the heavenly physician to heal the diseases of our souls by pardoning our sins. But that the party whereof you speak, had his sins remitted long before Christ healed him of his corprall infirmity by sacrifices of the law, and ordinary means of that time, through the faith in Christ jesus, though you say, it is like, yet it is very unlike. For he had lain eight and thirty years in the porch of Siloam, weighting for the miraculous manner of healing, that God showed at certain times upon them that first entered aster the water of the pool was moved. All which time it is not like, that he could be partaker of the sacrifices, or ordinary means, by which remission of sins through faith in jesus Christ was testified to the participants of those means. But rather, as his own words sound, it is like he was only attentive to the usual mean which God showed to attain health of body thereby, not caring for true repentance, and conversion to god, yet it appeareth he had small taste of spiritual doctrine, when he knew not of whom he received the benefit of health, and so was unthankesull unto him for it. But what is concluded out of this example? that the officers of the Church in spiritual regiment, aught to be prone to mercy. Many examples prove that more directly: but that the officers of the Church have power to punish and pardon as Christ had, this example proveth not.  ALLEN. 
Nevertheless we mean not, that the priest hath always such power as Christ had in removing of bodily sickness, not only because they know not when it is the deserved pain for sin, as he did, but also because, as Saint Augustine saith, Remissio in Ecclesia magis fit propter futurum judicium: Pardoning in the Church hath more respect to the judgement of the next world: he meaneth by the temporal judgement, and for that he allegeth out of Saint Paul, that the judgement, which he willeth us to prevent by punishing ourselves, is the correction of such as God loveth, lest, they be damned with the world, which cannot signify the everlasting judgement. We mean not then, that the Pardons of the Ecclesiastical Magistrates should pertain to the releasing of bodily pains duly deserved for sin, or for other causes appointed, because Christ so did not unto all, but unto some, as it pleased his wisdom: but this we say, that as he of his mercy took away and released the sinners of certain temporal afflictions, as well appointed by the law of Moses, as enjoined by Gods own hand, and so gave a Pardon of that which both Moses and his own Father appointed: even so may the Apostles and their successors, pardon any man, that is worthy of that benefit, of some part or all such penance, as their own law prescribed, or the justice of God, upon the bond of their decrees, and the debt of the sinners, hath in the next life prepared. Although, as I have once noted before, not only the Apostles miraculously, but also Gods Priests daily do heal in the sacrament of extreme unction and prayers, not only sins, but the penitent of their sickness and infirmity, where the disease especially came of sin, as I suppose, or otherwise, when it is expedient to the party, and glorious to God's name.  FVLKE. 
You were bold to say before, that if any man were sick by God's appointment, for that cause only to satisfy for his sins remitted, that he should straight recover by the Pope's pardon, which is to grant him such power as Christ had in removing ofbodelie sickness suffered for the cause above specified. That the priest wanteth this power, because he knoweth not when bodily sickness is the deserved pain for sin (as though there were any pain that were not deserved for sin) it is no reason. For an empirike healeth by virtue of his medicines oftentimes, though he know not the cause of the sickness, and so should the priest by laying to his plaster, if he had any such: but none ever recovered suddenly by the Pope's pardon, or the priest's power, therefore it is a feigned for gerie that they have any such power of healing bodily diseases. It is a better reason that you allege out of Saint Augustine, that remission of sins in the Church respecteth the judgement to come, but that he speaketh there of any temporal judgement after this life, you are not able to prove. Neither doth the citing of the text of Saint Paul. I. Cor. II. help you, which he citeth to prove. that temporal pains are laid upon men, in this life, to them whose sins are done away, that they should not be reserved to the end, as his words are plain in that whole Chapter. Magis enim propter futurum judicium fit remissio peccatorum. In hac autem vita, etc. For remission of sins ie made rather for the judgement to come. For in this life it prevaileth so much which is written: a heavy yoke upon the sons of Adam, from the day of their coming forth of their mother's womb, unto the day of their burial into the mother of all: thus we see even little children after the laver of regeneration, to be tormented with the affliction of diverse evils: that we may understand, that all which is dove by the healthful sacraments. doth pertain rather to the hope of good things to come, then to retaining or obtaining things present. Many evils also seem to forgiven here, and to be revenged with no punishments, but the pains of them are reseruea until afterward. For not in vain is that called properly the day of judgement, when the judge of the quick and the dead shall come. As on the contrary side, some things are revenged here, and yet if they be remitted, verily in the world to come they shall not hurt. Wherefore of certain temporal pains, which are laid upon sinners in this life, in them whose sins are done away, that they should not be reserved unto the end, the Apostle saith: for if we judged ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord, but when we are judged of the Lord, we are chastened, that we should not be damned with this world. Thus it is plain by Saint Augustine's judgement, that Saint Paul speaketh of temporal pains, laid upon sinners in this life, to bring them to repentance, not of temporal judgement to be exercised after this life. But you mean not that Popes, or Bishop's pardons, should always take away bodily sickness, because Christ did not so unto ai. Nay rather because they are not able to heal a sore finger in any one man. For Christ healed as many as he would: if the Pope have Christ's power, why should he not as well heal whom he will? Your similitude, that as Christ took away temporal pains, so may Popes and priests, holdeth not: for there is great odds between Christ, and his servants. he did what he would, they may do no more than he hath given them power and charge. And for releasing of times of repentance, appointed to satisfy the Church, they may by power given from him: but for the releasing of debt to be paid in the world to come, he gave them neither authority, nor commandment. That the priest doth daily heal in your sacrament of aneling, it is an impudent lie. For first, they anoint none in their daily practise, but such as are in despair of life: of whom if any recover by the wilof God, it is sacrilege to impure it to the power of the priests anointing, who havenot the gift of healing, as the elders of the Apostles Church had, whom S. james willeth to be sent for, to heal the diseased.  ALLEN. 
But in Saint Paul we have invincible proof of the authority and jurisdiction of Bishops and princivali pastcurs, touching as well the power of enjoined pename and satisfaction for sins committed, as the lawful power of pardoning the same which before was enjoined, and so in one fact of the Apostle a clear practise of binding and losing. He first bond him by excommunication that had so grievously offended, and to show what a terrible torment this kind of panishment is, and how much it is to be dread, he maketh it evident by a slraunge corporal vexation, that all Chrillian men might conceive the misery of those persons which be excommunicated hereafter, when the external sign and miraculous torment should cease in the Church. I wili report the matter fully: There was amongst the 
1. Cor. 5.  Corinthians one of reputation, that kept unlawfully his father's wife, the which being known to their Apostle Saint Paul, who then was absent from them, and being accounted of him, as in deed it was, an exceeding grievous fact and notorious, he gave in charge to the Church of Corinth, to take the person that had so offended, as excommunicated, that is to say, to be separated from the sacraments, the service, and common fellowship of Saints. But see with what a majesty and might of operation, with what force of words, and authority of his calling, with what a kind of punishment Christ's officer here correcteth the offender. Thus runneth his determinate sentence, on the offender, that all the world may take heed and wonder at the Church's authority, and condemn the vain voices of them that do restrain the power of God's ministers only to the preaching of the Gospel. I being absent in body, but present in spirit, have already given judgement, as well as if I were present, that the person, that hath thus wickedly wrought, should be delivered upto Satan, in the virtue of our Lord Christ jesus, you there being gathered with my spirit in the name of our said Lord Christ jesus, and all for the vexation of his flesh, that his soul may be safe in the day of our Lord jesus Christ. This in effect, is the Apostles sentence on that incestuous person, whereby he was temporally tormented by the force of Saint Paul's power of binding sinners, given by Christ, and exercised no otherwise, as you may see, but in Christ's virtue & holy name. Where it may be noted for a strange 〈◊〉 of man's word, that the devil himse fe should be thereby appointed to torment a sinner's body, not as he would, but as far as the divine Magistrate shall limit him. Diabolus enim, quia ad hoc paratus est, ut averses à Deo 〈◊〉 in potestatem, audita 
In 1. cap. 1. ad Tim.  sententia, corripit eos. The 〈◊〉 (saith Saint Ambrose) who is always ready to take them to his power, that are turned from God, sireight as soon as he heareth the sentence pronounced upon sinners, he doth afflict and correct them. As it may also appear by our saviours words in the Gospel, of a woman that had spiritum infirmitatis, the spirit of infirmity, whom the devil had eighteen years together fast bound in sickness for 
Luc. 13.  her sins, to whom also Christ gave a pardon by imposition of his holy hands. Where we may have an other example of his mercy, in losing the temporal band and punishment appointed for sin.  
But let us turn to Saint Paul's patient, whom we left by the key of the Apostles jurisdiction so fast locked and bound for his wickedness, and let us consider whether by the sime jurisdiction, he may not receive pardon and be loosed, by which he was bound and punished before: Yea let us not doubt but it stood in Pavis pleasure, to pardon the man sooner or later. as he thought most convenient for the Churches edifying, and the party's profit, and therefore might have tied him for twenty years together either in Satan's bonds, or other enjoined penance, or conirarie, if he had thought expedient, might have loosed him within one hour, and so have given him so many days of pardon as he list, and meant to recompense by Christ's satisfaction and the communion of saints, in which, the lacks of certain may be supplied by the abundance of others. Thus Saint Paul meaning to pardon the penitent, giveth the Church of Corinth to understand his pleasure touching the said sinner, that there 
2. Cor. 2.  stood in the bands of penance, upon his former sentence. Lot his 〈◊〉 and check given him of many, be enough. And now rather, it were expedient that you did forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps, he be drowned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with excessive sorrow. Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, renew and confirm your love towards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 move you in this matter to prove, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you be obedien in all things. And where you 〈◊〉, there do I forgive also. In deed as for me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is for your sake, and in the person of 〈◊〉, that we be not circumvented of the devil, whose meaning (in such matters) I well understand. That you 〈◊〉 did the Apostle punish, and thus did he remie again, 〈◊〉 the moderation of the Churchs' discipline in his 〈◊〉, so far as his jurisdiction did extend amongst Christ's people, whose obedience in all such matters be claimed, as you may perceive by his own words, yet not without great respect and consideration of the offender's case, and especial care of the Churches edifying. For full 〈◊〉 Saint Augustine said: In actione autem poenitentioe, ubi tale crimen commissum est, ut 
Cap. 65. Enchir.  is qui commisit à Christi etiam corpore separetur, non tam consideranda est mensura temporis, quàm doloris: In the docing of penance, where the sin is such that, it deserveth excommunication, there is not so much respect to be had of the time, as of his sorowfullnes that committed the fact.  FVLKE. 
So long as you will gather nothing but the exercise of Christian discipline, in binding & losing, excommunicating and absolving, enjoining of Canonical 〈◊〉, and pardoning of the sin, out of this example of Saint Paul, you have an invincible proof of the authority or jurisdiction of the governors of the Church of Christ, against which we will never contend. But when you will urge more than the text will afford, you can gain no victory at our hands. As first, that the devist was is aopointed to torment the sinner's body, it is not proved by this text. And Saint Ambrose, whom you cite upon Timothic, speaking of the punishments of Hymineus and Alexander, who perhaps were tormented for their blasphemy, doth not so think upon this very text, but expoundeth this delivery unto Satan to the destruction of the flesh, to be his casting out of the Church, which is the kingdom of god, into the power of Satan, as one that had deserved destruction both of body and soul, that his carnal lust might be over come or mortified: which Saint Augustine expoundeth also in like manner, and more plainly. Quidergo agebal Apostelus? nisi ut per interitum carnis 〈◊〉 spiritual, 〈◊〉, ut sive aliqua poena 〈◊〉 corporali, sicut Ananias & uxer 〈◊〉 ante pedes Apostole Petri ceciderunt: siuè per 〈◊〉, quoniam Satana traditus erat, interimeret in se sceleratam carnis concupisientiam quia ipse 〈◊〉 dicit, 〈◊〉 membra vestia quae sunt super terram, inter quae & for nicationem commemorat. Et iterum, Si enim 
Cont. Epist. 〈◊〉. c. 3. lib. 1.  〈◊〉 carnem vixeritis, moriemini, etc. For what did the Apostle? but that by destruction of the flesh, he might provide for his spiritual health: that whether by some temporal pain or death, as Ananias and his wife fell down before the Apostle Peter's feet, or whether by repentance, because he was delivered to Satan, he might kill in himself the wicked concupiscence of the flesh. For he saith also, Mortify your members which are upon earth, among which he rehearseth fornication. And again, for if ye shall live according to the flesh, ye shall die. By this you may see, the opinion of corporal torment in this discipline of S. Paul, is not necessary. Again where you say, it stood in Paul's pleasure, to pardon the man, sooner, or later, and he giveth the Corinthians to understand his pleasure touching the said sinner, you would persuade the ignorant, that the governors of the Church vere bound to no law, or rule in these matters, but might do what pleased them. Although in the former you mitigate the matter, by adding, as he thought most convenient, for the Churches edisying, and the party's profit, which is well said, if by his thought you mean a sound and right judgement. For the matter is not left to every man: thinking, more than to their pleasure, but to a Godly and necessary consideration. And therefore it stood not in Paulles pleasure to pardon the man, sooner than he saw in him the fruits of repentance, nor later, than he had certain intelligence thereof. Neither might he have tied him for twenty years, but upon condition to release him immediately upon his true repentance, neither have loosed him within an hour, except within the space of that hour he had sufficient arguments of his repentance, and satisfaction of the Church's offence and judgement. The reasons that he allegeth, why he judged him now to be pardoned. do show no less, lest he be swallowed up by too much sorrow, lest we be intercepted by Satan. It was not lawful for the Apostle, to suffer the penitent to be overcome with too much sorrow, not the Church to be circumvented by Satan. Therefore it was not lawful for him to have differred his losing any longer. As for the recompensing by Christ's satisfaction & the communion of Saints, which is the blasphemous dispensation of the imaginary treasure of the popish Church, is not mentioned in this text, nor in any text of the bible, nor in any ancient Father, but was lathe devised, to set a gloss upon the pope's pardons, and practises in purgatory. In the end you say well, both, that the Apostle had great respect of the offender's case, and care of the Churches edifying, which proveth, that without neglecting that consideration and care, he might not sooner or later have loosed him, nor tied him, otherwise than he did. And the saying of Augustine doth prove well, that the prescript times of penance, limited before his age, were not so convenient, as the liberty of time, where in the party's repentance might be judged best, as it was in the Apostles.   

That the Church of God meaneth not to make all men partakers of the pardons which would seem to be rel eved thereby, but such only, as be of sit disposition therefore, and how they ought to be qualified, that must be partakers thereof.  
THE 10. CHAP.  ALLEN. 
IT is here necessary therefore that we should advertise all men, that the Popes and Bishops of holy Church, though they have not only by Christ's express word, but also by the warrant of the Apostles, and practise of their predecessors, authority to bind and lose, yet cuerse of their Pardons or releasing of penance, not always to be beneficiali to every one that shall claim benefit thereby, either in the world present, or the next. For the holy sacraments themselves do not at all times attain to that effect in man, for which they were instituted by Christ, through the unworthiness of the party that should receive them. Therefore to make the Pardons beneficial, at there must be good consideration and respect in the giver, so the receiver must, by especial love, zeal, and devotion, be made fit and apt to be par taker of so singular a treasure.  
The giver of the Pardons, because he is man, may have sinester respect to the party's person, whom he seeketh to pleasure, either for kindred, for friendship, for fear, for riches, for honour, and such like: and they which required them, may for slothfullness, because they lost not do penance for their sins, or for delicateness whiles they refuse to abstain from things that be pleasant, for recompense of their pleasures past: in these and such other cases, some Popes may give by the abuse of their keys & authority, or by error, proceeding on false suggestion, a pardon, as the penitent may also receive in the face of man. But let them assure themselves that so be affected, that God himself, who cannot be deluded, nor by sinester affection carried from just judgement, will not here confirm the sentence of his servant, who was in this matter either himself to blame, without cause to bestow so precious a pearl of God's mercy, or else the party unfit, that required to be partaker of that grace, whereof, afore God he is proved unworthy. Though the pre-eminence be never so great, yet as 〈◊〉 the key of order may err through the fault of one party in remitting sins in the sacrament, as the keic of jurisdiction may err, in pardoning the enjoined penance out of the sac 〈◊〉. Therefore it is not good for 〈◊〉 man to leave his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undore, or to omie such necessary works of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at whereby he shalrather be unworthy to be partaker of a 〈◊〉.  FVLKE. 
If the poopish Church have another meaning, than the Pope, the head in meaning is divided from the body. The Pope's meaning is 〈◊〉 by his words, which he useth in his Pardons. If the Pope also have a contrary meaning to his words, what is he then but an impupent dissembler, which 〈◊〉 great things, and deceiveth them that pay for them, which suppose, that their ware is as good as it seemeth to be? But by your determination, the matter is altogether mistaken. Your first reason to prove that pardons are not always beneficial to the receivers, is, that the sacraments have not always their effect, through the unworthiness of the receivers. But if the receiver be disposed according to the conditions expressed in the pardon, he is capable of it by the judgement of the canonists. Your second reason, is the sinister respect, or error that may be in the giver. But it is not right, that the receiver being a capable person, especially having paid for his ware, should lose his benefit through the default of the giver, if he be such a one as hath authority to give. That slothfulness or delicateness should exclude a man from the benefit of his pardon, that is in state of grace, as they term it, I suppose you are not able to prove by any grounds of popery. The gloss upon the Bull of jubileie first granted by Pope Boniface 8. saith, that the Pope declared consistorially, that penances enjoined before, are also taken away by commutation of the satisfactotic work in this pardon prescribed, and that vows also, except the vow of jerusalem, are taken away by this paidon, not only those vows which were enjoined for commutation of penance, as for satisfaction of sins, but also those vows that have no such respect, as if a man being in danger of the sea, or in sickness, do vow to go to S. James. So that if a man will perform such penance or vows it is but a work of supererogation. But if the Pope may so easily err in occupying of his key of jurisdiction as here you pretend, no man can have confidence in any pardon, or dispensation of the Pope, because he can not be assured, whether the key did err in that pardon or jurisdiction: likewise seeing the key of order may so easily go awry, what trust may a poor Papist have, that his sins be forgiven him, that must hang upon the hitting or missing of tow so uncertain keys?  ALLEN. 
Christ our Lord pardoned Mary Magdelen of many sins, and by all likelihood forgave her all the pain due for her greevaus' offences, both eternal and temporal. Marry she was wonderfully well framed and apt to receive such a singular benefit, for she loved exceeding much, and therefore much was forgiven her. She washed Christ's feet with her 
Luc. 7.  tears, and with her hear of her head she wiped them again. She honoured Christ's body with ointment of price towards his burial, with other such express tokens of passing love of our Lord, which did win her a pardon of so many sins. For of love it is written, Charitas operit multitudinem peccatorum, Charity covereth a number of faults. And yet 
1. Pet. 4.  after all this large remission, if we believe histories of the Church, she ceased not all her life to do passing penance.  FVLKE. 
It is certain that Christ pardoned the sinful woman, whereof Saint Luke speaketh, as well of 
Luc. 7. 48.  all pain, as of all sin. And she was wonderfully well framed to receive his pardon by the grace of God, by which she was endued with faith, as he himself acknowledgeth, saying unto her, thy faith hath saved thee. And this her faith was not idle, but wrought through love, which she acknowledged, aught to be the greater, as she had received the greater mercy, & so gave forth great tokens thereof. But her love was not cause of her pardon, or forgiveness of her sins: but because many sins were forgiven her, therefore she loved much, as she had greater cause, for he to whom little is forgiven, ioveth little, as it is manifest by the parable of the two debtor. Neither doth charity cover many sins, by winning a pardon for them, but as S. Peter citeth the proverb, out of Solomon, who declareth that it is the effect of love to hide our neighbour's 
Prou. 10.  faults, where hatred contrariwise breedeth contention and exprobration of men's sins. Of penance done by Marie Magdelen no ancient authentical florie doth testify, and if it did, it were hard to prove, that this sinful woman was Marie Magdelen.  ALLEN. 
Indeed if we speak exactly, a Pardon doth not so much remit to the penitent any good work, either freely done, or charged unto us by others appointmrnt, as it doth release the bond or debt of penance: that where before I was of necessity bound to satisfaction for penance of my sins, I may now after the debt be remitted, pay my penance freely, that I may not appear unworthy of other men's relief, whiles I refuse not to work also myself as a poor member in the whole mystical body of Christ, in the knot whereof his mercy cometh unto me. And if it then so fall out, that I by reason of sickness or short life, can not fulfil my penance, I shall then departing hence, be free by the grace of Christ, granted me in the Indulgence, and so be wholly free of such debt, as I else should have supplied in purgatory, in my soul. Let no man therefore, do less penance for any pardons sake, if his ability serve thereunto, which is never given to hinder the fruits of good works and repentance. But where there is before God and our consciences just cause, why we can not fulfil such necessary and requisite satisfaction, as is enjoined or deserved, there we may be in assured hope, that God will confirm the sentence of his servants Otherwise, as Saint Cyprian saith, if any man not thus qualified, seek deceitfully for a peace or pardon, he deceiveth himself and Gods priest to, who seethe the faces outwardly of the penitents, but the hearts of them God only beholdeth, and accordieg to the behaviour 
Lib. 1. Epist, 2. & l. 4 Ep. 2.  of their minds and meanings shall judge them in the next world, and amend in their punishment the sentence of his priests.  FVLKE. 
If you spoke exactly before, any good work that is enjoined as a penance, and satisfaction for sin, is released by a pardon. And the Pope's declaration, which I did lately set down, out of the gloss, affirmeth no less upon his pardon. But now to cover the shameful abuse of the Pope's pardons, you extenuate the force and validity of them almost as much, as else where you magnified them. Canonical penance, which you said, aught to be a rule of secret and shrift penance, bindeth no man longer than his life. For the Canons grant a pardon of course at the hour of 
Conc. Nicen. Can. 12.  death, even to them that were excommunicated: whereof it followeth, that if the Pope's pardon release not penance in this life, it is good sore nothing. As for cases of necessity, are dispensed with all by God himself, without the Popes or any mortal man's pardon. For no enjoined penance can be of greater band, than the rest of the sabbath, which yet for necessity may be broken, as our Saviour showeth, by the example of David, eating the show bread, which otherwise, 
Mat. 12.  then in the case of necessity, had been sacrilege for him to do. Saint Cyprian speaketh of hypocrites, which counterfeiting repentance, desired to be received into the Church, from which they were justly excluded, which if they deceived the Church by feigned repentance, yet should not they escape the judgement of God. He speaketh not of receiving the Pope's pardons, jubeleys, dispensations, absolutions, and such like baggage.  ALLEN. 
God, Church, though she be much inclined to mercy, yet she crieth not with the flatterers and false preachers of the world, peace, where there is no peace And of our mother the Church it may well be verified, that Saint Augustine spoke 
Enchir. c. 70  of God himself in the like case. Nemini dedit laxamentum peccandi (saith he) quamuis miserando deleat iam facta peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negligatur. She hath given no man a frreedome to sin, though by mercy she remitteth sins already past, if competent satisfaction be not neglected. So that a Pardon can not well be beneficial to any man that neglecteth penance, or without all cause omitteth his 〈◊〉 in fulfilling the same, though it be exceeding commodious and profitable to him that lacketh time and space to satisfy, where of good will and devout intent he is ready thereunto.  
Therefore I would advertise all such, as have a Pardon or Indulgence upon just and true suggestion obtained, for release of their enjoined penance, or other deserved pain, and thereupon omit to do their said satisfaction, that they help the lack thereof otherwise, where their ability is the better. As if they can not through feebleres, or other notorious perceiving of harm thereby fast for satisfaction of their sins, then let them supply that by more liberal alms, and charitable relief of such as be in necessity. For that kind of charity Christ 〈◊〉 charge to the pharisees for the purging of their sins, 〈◊〉 signifiesh the recompense of the residue of their pain, and necessary cleansing of the remnants of their faults and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the remission of the same. For alms will not purge deadly sin, and the very iniquity thereof, as Saint Augustine well noted in the place last out of him alleged. Of the pain temporal than Christ said, give alms, and all is clear with you. But if you can not that way for lack and insufficiency, then be earnest in prayer, and continually cry out in Pater noster, forgive us our debts, dimit nobis debitae nostra: and by the Orison not only venial sins, but also the temporal debt that remaineth for deadly crimes, aster they be remitted and repent for, be forgiven.  
In this case also, it is very good to help both by counsel & travel to turn the wicked sinners from their evil ways, and to call Heretics and Schismatics home to God's Church and Christ's faith. For of that work it is written, that it covereth a multitude of sins. Again, to be daily and devout at the blessed sacrifice of the Mass, there with zeal and love to embrace with Marie Magdalene the holy body of our saviour, and often to receive the same with Zacheus into our house and temple of our body, in the holy sacrament: This most excellent act of religion doth wonderfully diminish the deserved pain for sin, and make us fit to receive fruitfully, the Pardons given by the Magistrates spiritual in the person of Christ. Or if this, in these dismal days, may not be had, yet learn at the least, as well to lameut the lack of it, as to be sorrowful and conirite for thy sins: for earnest unfeigned tears proceeding of love and devotion have purchased many one a pardon. Peter wept bitterly, and loved heartily, and therefore he was restored to grace and mercy, and after Christ had punished, as in way of penance, his three denials, with a triple demand of his love, as though he had doubted of his heart towards him, as Saint Hilary, Saint cyril, and other do inscrpret it, he not only gave him a pardon of all that was past, but made him his substitute in earth and chief pastor of all his flock.  FVLKE. 
If a pardon can not take away penance, than you recant that you defended before so eagerly. If the debt of penance may be taken away by the Pope's pardon, as you told us oft before, he can not justly be said to neglect penance, which doth not perform it, because that is pardoned, which he was content to have performed, if he had not been pardoned. If he be charged for omitting his duty that performeth not his pardoned penance; then were he as good to have no pardon at all. If a pardon serve only for them that lack time, and space to satisfy, than no man can have benefit of a pardon in this life. Beside the pardons are false, that promise to all men, that go on such voyage, or pilgrimage, or say such a prayer, or pray on such beads, or give to such a building or hospital, full remission à poena & culpa, or so many years or lents of pardon de penitentiis iniunctis & iniungendis, of penance enjoined, or to be enjoined. Beware therefore left while you urge so earnesthe the necessity of penance to be performed, you fight against Pope's pardons, which you took upon you to maintain. And whereas you take upon you by your advertisement, as it were to enjoin or commute penance, where the Pope hath pardoned the sin, you do in effect make frust rate the Pope's pardon: as the gloss upon the bull of Pope Boneface 8. doth show, where he saith. That the Pope declared consistorialiter, that his penitentiary ought to enjoin nothing more, then is enjoined in his pardon: for ets (as he said) the pardons should be made frustrate. And whereas you presume to prescribe, the change of one penance into another, the Pope doth that always in his pardon, or else it is not of force, as the same gloss teacheth, that there must 4. things 〈◊〉 as principal, to make a pardon effectual. Authority in the granter, capacity in the receiver, godliness in the end, & profitableness in the work. Now this work into which the Pope changeth all penanceremitted, though it be never so small, yet being profitable to the honour of God, or the exaltation of faith, is sufficient without any other supply, because in a pardon (saith he) not the quantity, but the kind of the work is considered, by reason that a pardon principally respecteth grace, and not merit, or else it should not be called a pardon. For which cause also they that dwelled at Rome, and visited the Churches in Rome, appointed by the Pope's pardon, had as great Indulgence, as they that came with great cost and travel out of the furthest parts of Scotland, or Ireland. If this that the gloss writeth be currant popery, then doth your advertisement differ from the judgement of the Popish Charch, and of the Pope himself. But whereas you affirm, that Christ gave the Pharistes in charge, to purge their sins by alms, and that almespurgeth ventall sins, you speak more than the text alloweth. For Christ teacheth not the pharisees to purge any sins with alms, but after he hath rebuked their hypoctisie, that were careful to make clean the outside of the cup or platter, when the inward part of their heart was full of ravin and wickedness, he prescribeth them the contrary practice, to purge the inward man by repentance, and to testify the same by alms, which is contrary to rapine, & spoiling, and then all the creatures of God should be clean unto them, although they used no such superstitious washing with water. And if it be as you say, that not only venial sins, but also the temporal debt that remaineth for deadly crimes, after they be remitted, be forgiven, by saying the Pater noster: who is so foolish to pay any money for a pardon, or what meaneth the Pope to make such a brag of his pardons, which can remiit no more, than every man may obtain at home, by saying his Pater noster? As for hearing of Mass, & taking their rights, if it be no more worth, but to make men fit to receive fruitfully the Pope's pardon, they be little worth, seeing the pardon itself, as in all this chapter you labour to prove, is but of small profit, and the Pater nosier saying, is as good as any pardon. Finally where Saint Hilary, & Saint cyril say, that Christ caused Peter to wipe away the blot of his triple denying, with a triple confession: neither of them both say, that Christ made him his substitute on earth, & chief pastor of all his flock, otherwise than he made every one of the other Apostles.  ALLEN. 
If it stand thus therefore with the party penitent, than the Pope's pardon shall undoubtedly be beneficial unto him, & otherwise either not at all, or else nothing so much as they seem so sound. For although it be an old saying, quod indulgentie tantum valent, quantum sonant, that Indulgencies be of as great force and valour, as the form of their words do import, yet that is not otherwise to be understood, then there, where there may seem just cause of grant to the givers, and not evil disposition in the receivers. For as Adrianus that once 
Adrianus.  was Pope himself reasoneth: If the magistrates of the Church may not without just cause give dispensation concerning vows, oaths, fasts, marriages, or such like, nor dispose the temporal treasures of the Church without reasonable cause; then may not surely the Bishops be lavish of the treasure of God's house, which is much more precious, whereof there can be no man partaker, that is an unprofitable member of the body.  FVLKE. 
If the party penitent be so qualified, as he need not the Pope's pardon, than it shall undoubtedly be beneficial to him. But the Pope will not have the power of his pardons to be so much extenuated, nor his liberality restrained to so few persons, nor to so narrow a case. And that old saying, Indulgentiae tantum valent, quantum sonant: pardons be of as great valour, as the form of the words do import, shall be taken for a good principle in the Pope's consistory, when you with your new provisoes, shall be taken for a curious and a dangerous Papist. The gloss upon the first pardon of jubilee, granted by Pope Boneface the 8. determineth idoneitie, or capacity in the receiver, that he be a member of the Church, and purged from the fault. Oportet quòd capax indulgentiae sit purgatus à culpa, quòd sit in contritione: ille ergo est habilis indulgentiam recipere, qui est verè penitens & confessus, It behoveth that he which is capable, or meet to receive a pardon, be purged from fault, which is brought to pass in contrition: he therefore is able to receive a pardon, which is truclie penitent and confessed. The like saith 
Depot. eccles. qu. 3.  Augustinus de Ancona. Ex part recipientis requiritur quòd habeat fidem in intellectu, quia non nist homini Christtano indulgentia potest dari, qui firmiter credat Papam posse dare, & se posserecipere, & habeat charitatem in affectu ut sit verè contritus & confessus. Of the part of him that receiveth ae pardon, it is required that he have faith in understanding, because a pardon cannot be given, but to a Christian man, which steadfastly believeth, that the Pope is able to give, and he able to receive, and that he have charity in affection, that he be truly contrite and confessed. More than this, beside the fulfilling of the cause, for which the pardon was granted, he doth not require. In so much that he alloweth, that a man may receive a pardon for his father and mother, whether they be living or dead, if the Pope do so apply his pardon, that he which will go over the sea, or to S. james in his fathers, or mother's name, shall enjoy it for them, and the receiver doth perform as much for them. The just cause of grant in the givers, is determined by the gloss aforesaid, to be the honour of God, and the exaltation of faith, by such profitable works, as are expressed and required in the pardons, as pilgrimage, saying of such a prayer, giving to such a fraternity, etc. in which not the quantity, but the kind of the work is to be considered: so that for a very small work marvelous large pardon may be granted, if it please the Pope; to whom the dispensation of the treasure of the Church is principally committed (for Bishops, which are able to give, but forty days out of that treasure, are but petty bailies) whom if you will accuse for lavishing the treasure, in granting of over large pardons, you break the Canon law, which telleth you, that you must not call him to an account for his doings.  ALLEN. 
Nevertheless the causes of giving indulgencies may be more or less reasonable, according to the state and variety of things, which to the wisdom of God's Vicar in earth is best seen, whom Christ so ruleth in that case, that he may be most beneficial to his holy household: in so much, that it is not to be doubted, but in these days and in this great contempt of devout and religious exercises, the moving only of the people, to prayer, to holy peregrinations, to the obedience of the Church, may be a sufficient cause, why there should be to prayers said upon books, beads, or sanctified creatures, for such purpose annexed great remission. For look what things be most condemned of heretics, those things must Christian men be induced to reverence with most singular zeal & religion. Neither can there be any thing in the world so necessary for us christian men of these times, that be so void of good works, as by devotion and entire zeal to join with our elders, that in the holy communion of Saints, we may be partakers of their virtuous deeds. And that is the very end of all the Pope's Pardons, to make us, in our lake of satisfaction for our sins, fellows and coparteners of the abundance that was in Christ first, and then by him in our holy brethren departed before us.  FVLKE. 
Throughout this chapter hitherto, you have disputed against the power of the Pope, and the force of his pardons: now it is time for you, to coy him again and to raise up his pardons, which you have pressed down so low. Now the wisdom of God's vicar is sufficient to judge the causes of giving indulgences, and Christ so ruleth him in that case, that he may be most beneficial to his household, in so much that it is not to be doubted, but in these days the Pope's large pardons, for little works, may be of great force. Then belike your former discourse serveth not for these days, that men must fulfil their penance if they may, notwithstanding any pardon; that a pardon doth not remit any good work enjoined in penance, that if a man lack power to fulfil this penance, he must supply it with other works countervailable, or else the Pope's pardons shall not be beneficial to them at all, or nothing so much as they seem to sound. But why say you, that in these days, Christ ruleth his Vicar in this case, that he may be most beneficial to his holy household? Hath not Christ as great care of his holy household the Church, in all times, and in all cases, as in these days, and in this case? Yes verily. But Christ hath not always, and in all cases, ruled the Pope, as it might be most beneficial to his Church: for then his key of jurisdiction should never have erred, nor his life been wicked, to the great hurt, and shame of his Church, that I speak not of his criors in doctrine, which you will not grant, as you do the other. Therefore it followeth that the Pope is not Christ's vicar in earth, appointed for the most benefit of his Church. Your principle, that things which heretics do hate, must be most reverenced, is false. For nothing is to be esteemed more, than the nature of the thing requireth, whether it be loved or hated of heretics. The Anabaptists hate the wearing of armour: it followeth not therefore that the wearing of armour should be counted a religious thing, or more reverenced, then as a lawful usage, and sometimes necessary among Christians. The very end of the Pope's pardons, is well known to be the maintenance of the Pope's pride, and covetousness: the pretended end is wicked, & blasphemous, derogating from the sacrifice of Christ's death, which is a full satisfaction, and purging of all our sins: the participation whereof is through faith wrought in our hearts, by the spirit of God: and not by the Pope's application, or coupling of any Saints merits, with the only, and omnisufficient sacrifice of Christ.  ALLEN. 
Upon all which it is very plain, that every man can not beneficiallie receive the fruit of a Pardon, this at least being requisite in every man, that listeth to attain benefit thereby, that he be in state of grace, and in earnest intent to continue in the knot of Christ his Church, with love and liking of the holy works of his Christian brethren, and accomplishing at least, that small work, which commonly now is joined to the Pardon, for increase of Christian devotion. The continuance of which devotion, that more and more decayeth, maketh the Pardons to be more common at this day & of late years, than they were in the primitive Church, when most men in the spring of Christian religion and fervour of faith, sought to satisfy exactly the debt of the penance, or else, which was a common case then, recompensed it by Martyrdom? though S. Gregory the first of that name more than nine hundred year 
Vide chor na Pandadalion Lutherani.  since, in the ordering of the slations at Rome, is known to have given Pardons for years or days, in like form as now is used. And clear it is, that the thing itself being found lamfull, & no Protestant alive can ever be able to show me the first user thereof, much less that it was ever controlled by any man that ever was counted Catholic, it may be measured according to the necessity of the time, and so, as the Church may be most edified.  FULK I. 
The qualification that you now prescribe, differeth not a little from that severity of your former exacting of penance, or at the least a counterpoise thereof, to make pardons beneficial. That the decale of devotion should make pardons more common in these latter times, there is no reason, but rather that pardons should cause devotion to decay. For the nature of men is, to be best affected to that, which is most easily obtained, and where there is hope of impunity, to be less careful in offending. But you would have pardons seem to be as old as Gregory the first, by authority of Pantaleon, a Lutheran: who could not know what Gregory did, but by relation of other stories: why do you not therefore cite some ancient credible story, that justifieth as much of Gregory? For Pantaleon doth not avouch what Gregory did, but what the late popish writers ascribe unto him. But though it be not ancient to grant such pardons, yet you say, it is clear, that the thing itself is lawful, although of this clearness you have as yet made no demonstration. You say further, that no Protestant is able to show you the first user thereof. If that were true, yet thereby pardons are neither proved ancient, nor lawful. But what if Gregory were named, (For I will not name Boneface the eight, seeing you make challenge of Gregory) whom can you show, that used to grant such pardons, before him. Although in truth you are not able to prove that Gregory granted such pardons, oranie Pope after him, for 400. years. Your third assertion, that these manner of pardons were never controlled by any man that ever was accounted Catholic, is a sophistical caption, and petition of the principle. For many are true Catholics, that are not so accounted, and the Pope with his papists challenge to be accounted the only Catholics, which of all other are the greatest heretics.  ALLEN. 
And thanks be given to God, the effect of the love of Indulgences, and the contrary issue of the contempt thereof. do well prove the Churches good meaning therein. For if you view both parties well, you shall perceive more profitable devotion, more Christian charity, more furtherance of common wealths causes, in that side that feareth pains for their sins, with the Prophet David, even after they be remitted, and therefore seek for all means most humbly by man's ministery to receive mercy: in one year you shall see in these devout persons more fruits of repentance, then in a whole old man's life can be found in all the other side, that contemptuously disdain or scornfully deride the most profitable usage both of penance and pardons in God's Church. Therefore in so great proof of the benefit that proceedeth 
Vide tit. de penitent. & remis.  from this kind of remissions (for so Alexander the third above four hundredth years since termed Pardons used then to be given in dedication of Churches) and upon most assured grounds, that it well agreeth both with God's word, and practise of the primitive Church, and never condemned of any, but of such as be themselves worthily condemned of other great heresies and errors, the Magisirates will show mercy still in Christ's behalf, and all the holy bishops succeeding lawfully the Apostles of Christ, will give peace and benediction 
Math. 10.  to such as humbly ask it at their hands, and if the parties be worthy, their peace by Christ's promise shall rest upon them: if they either contemn it, or be unworthy of it, than no harm done, it will return to the givers again.  FVLKE. 
Although this argument of the effects, especially when they are assigned to a wrong cause, is no sufficient proof of the lawfulness of a thing, where an event is taken instead of an effect, yet do we utterly deny this assumpt, that more profitable deuotion' more Christian charity, more furtherance of common wealths is in them that hold of pardons, then in them that upon true confidence of Christ's satisfaction do despise them. Let the experience of the six years of Kings Edward's reign, and the five and twenty years of her majesties most Godly and prosperous royal government, make trial, & decide the controversy, in the erection of of hospitals, providing for the poor, setting up of schools, and amplifying of the universities, relieving of strangers, redeeming of captives, & such other works of Christian charity, & fruits of repentance: in which although it must be confessed to our shame, that we have been more slack, than our holy profession requireth, yet will we give over the advantage offered of one year, against fourscore and ten, which is an old man's age, and join issue upon equal time, of Queen Mary's reign, or any other time of Popery since pardons have been in price. Provided, that the maintenance of superstition and Idolatry, in which the world hath always been mad, be not accounted a Christian work, or fruit of repentance. Ad hereunto, that such works as have been done by ours, proceeded of a free love to God, and thankfulness for his mercy, not of a servile fear, or covetous desire of reward, wherein men show the love of themselves, more than the love of god. That Alexander the 3. who was somewhat above 400. years ago, calleth pardons used to be given in dedication of churches remissions, it proveth no more the fullness of them, then that it is not lawful for the pope to tread upon the Emperor's neck, as the said Alexander did upon the Emperor Fredrick, before the gate of S. Marks church at Venice. But by the same rescript or decretal epistle of Alexander the third, in which mention is made of remissions, it appeareth, that such pardons were then but new come up, because the Archbishop of Canterbury could not resolve himself, neither by his own learning, nor by the clergy of all England's judgement, how far they did extend, & therefore was feign to send to the Pope of Rome for the resolution. It is in the decretals of Gregory in the title by you named, cap 4. inscribed, Arch: episcopo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quòd autem consisluisti, utrum remissiones quae siunt in dedicationibus Ecclesiarum, aut conferentium ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aliis prosint, quàm his qui remittentib. subsunt, hoc volumus tuam fraternitatem senere quòd cùm à non suo indice 〈◊〉 nullus raleat, vel absolui, remissiones predict as illis prodesse 〈◊〉 modo 〈◊〉, quib. ut prosint propris indices spiritualiter vel specialiter indulsirunt. To the Archbishop of Canterbury: Whereas thou diddest ask me counsel, whether remissions which be granted in the dedication of Churches, or to them that confer to the building of bridges, do profit any other, then them which are under their jurisdiction that do remit, this we will thy brotherhood to hold: that where is none can be bound or absolved, but of his owneiudge, we think that the foresaid remissions do profit them only, to whom that they might profit, their own judges have spiritually or specially granted. Also the gloss upon this decretal, the author whereof lived after the Later an Council, saith: that it was an old complaint, and yet in his days very doubtful, to what purpose these remissions or pardons were profitable: remissiones ad quid valeant, vetus est querela, adhuc tamen satis dubia: and rehearseth four several opinions concerning the validity of them. Some say they avail only toward God, but not toward the church. secondly, other say that they avail toward the Church, but not toward God. thirdly, other say that as they are given, they avail both toward God, and toward the Church. And the fourth saith that they avail onclie to the remission of that penance, which is negligently omitted. To which the gloss addeth his opinson, agreeing fully with none of them all, nor with the later Canonists. Among which opinions you have patched up your wavering sentence of the validity. or invalidity of pardons in this Chapter. This diversity of opinions among the Papists themselves argueth, that the doctrine of pardons was very raw, and not half digested in those days. The agreeableness thereof with the word of God, and the practise of the primitive Church, when it shallbe showed, we shall think better of them, in the mean time you must bring better proof out of the scriptures for them, than you do for Popish Bishop's blessing, out of the 10. of Saint Matthew, or else we shall have little cause to esteem them more than it  ALLEN. 
Truly, that holypeace which Christ gave to his Apostles at his coming into them, at his departure from them, and else as 〈◊〉 entereth upon any holy action, signified nothing else but an 
joan. 20.  agreement and peace of man's soul with God, and did no doubt purge them from their daily infirmities, which we call venial sins, and the bond of all pain, as it may be thought, due for the same, that in the presence of God's majesty sin might cease, and the parties appear clean afore his face, that had nospot of sin in himself at all, as by the said peace yet given to the worthy receivers by holy bishops ministery, some like effect doth surely ensue. I use this term of peace, when I speak of pardons, not because they are precisely meant in the action of giving peace, common to Christ & his Apostles, but because I see the old fathers lightly call that peace, which we now call pardoning: and perchance they did allude to that which Christ willed his Disciples to bestow on every household for a kind of blessing. Which no doubt was some great benefit, and so great, that our Master signified unto 
Math. 10.  them, that many should be unworthy of it, and that the fruit thereof, should redound to themselves. Which caused both Bishops of old (for Saint Augustine maketh mention thereof) 
De civi. De i li. 23. Gap. 8.  to give their blessings, and every man humbly to require the same on their knees, whereby surely some spiritual grace was received, and remission either of venial trespasses, or pain due unto formmer sins, given. Let apish Camites here mock and mow at their Mother, as they customably do, whiles the obedient children, the discreet and devout of God's Church think it an high point of wisdom, only to consider the marvelous direction of our father's ways, in the doctrine of discipline, and awe of God's relgion.  FVLKE. 
That peace which Christ gave to his Apostles, was the quietness of conscience reconciled to god, and discharged of all sins, and the pain due to satisfy gods righteousness for them, and the same peace did Christ send his Apostles to offer, preach, and wish to all them that would receive it, which if they refused, became unprofitable to them. But the Popish Bishop's blessing, which consisteth in shaking his fingers, and murmuring some words, perhaps not understood of the people, whom they never teach, what the peace of conscience meaneth, is no better than a wild mockery of the peace that Christ gave, and willed his Apostles to offer where they became. Whereas you allege Saint Augustine for the antiquity of the Bishop's blessing, it is a frivolous matter. For he maketh no other mention, but that after earnest praierhad been made for patience and constancy of faith in one that was the next day with danger of his life to be cut for a fistula, both by the party himself, a Bishop, and many other Godly persons then present, that they arose from prayer, & accepta ab episcopo benedictione, discessimus, and having received blessing of the Bishop, we departed. How can the superstitious blessing of Popish Bishops be resembled to this, but only in the name of blessing? For here is no requiring of it on knees, nor any opinion of remission of sins by it, but only a Christian salutation, or farewell by prayer mentioned, which all Godly Bishops and elders do in our Church use even at this day, specially in dismission of a Godly congregation gathered to hear the preaching, to prayer, or participation of the sacraments, or such holy purposes: which all Christians do esteem as it becometh them without making an Idol of the minister, or trusting in the ceremony, confirming their faith in God by the praior and blessing of his servants in his name, in whom is all their hope, trust, and joy reposed.   

That the Bishops being the highest ministers of God's Church, and namely the Pope, as the principal of the rest, may only lawfully give Pardons, and in what sense the souls depatted may be relieved by the same.  
THE 11. CHAP.  ALLEN. 
OF the necessary disposition of them that should effectually receive benefit by the pardons of the Church, and of the right intent of them that should give the same, we have already sufficiently spoken. And now perchance some may think it necessary, that it should be opened briefly, in whom this authority of releasing the pains enjoined for sin doth principally consist. Whereof I shall with better will bestow a few words, because we shall have occasion thereby to open the common sense of a whole Council both learned and godly, touching the matter of Pardons, in the judgement whereof, assuredly proceeding from the holy ghost, we may with safety take our rest.  
Of the lawful minister therefore of these remissions, the scripture in precise terms prescribeth nothing, though the power of binding and losing, whereupon the matter standeth, is proved properly to be an act of the key, namely of jurisdiction and external regiment, which agreeth not to the simple Priests, having no further jurisdiction, but in the secret court of man's conscience. Whereupon, as also by the usage of all ages, and by the prescription of the law, it is proved, that Bishops only or such as have their authority for the execution of their office, may lawfully give remission of satisfactions appointed for sins remitted. Neither were it convenient, that the release of deserved penance should be had of every inferior priest, lest the discipline of the church should so become contemptible, the release thereof being made common to so many.  
And it is the high providence of God, that the way to remit 〈◊〉 ally sins, which is of necessary to our salvation should be near us in every place, and by the common ministers of the Church at all times to be obtained, where the remission of the Church's discipline being more necessary to be fulfilled, and never or very seldom necessary to be wholly released, should not be so easily obtained, but hardly had at the hands of a sex, and them of excellent authority and reverence in God's Church.  FVLKE. 
Throughout this book he thereto you have joined the Bishops with the Pope, in granting of indulgencies, as though their power in pardoning had been somewhat proportionable unto his. But now you begin to shake them of, and it will appear plainly, that hitherto you have concealed, how little a piece of pardoning power is allotted to bishops, and infinite authority left with the Pope: wherem either the popish council of Lateran, too much abased the bishops, or else the Pope too much hath advanced his practise. But in the argument of the Chapter you do well and honestly confess that the scripture prescribeth nothing of the lawful ministers of these remissions: & by the same reason you should confess, that the scripture prescribeth nothing of such kind of remissions. For God never granteth any power or authority, but he appointeth also who shall be the lawful exercisers, and executors of the same. And if simple priests, as you call them, have authority to enjoin penance, which is to bind by the plain words of Christ, they have authority also to remit, which is to lose. But the jurisdiction, and external regimens of the Church (you say) agreeth not to them which have no further jurisdiction, but in the secret court of man's conscience. Let that be as you say, yet it were reason that as far as their jurisdiction extendeth, they should remit and lose in the secret Court of man's conscience, where they did bind, although they gave no public pardons. Neither can the usage of any ancient time be alleged against this that I say, nor the prescriptions of the ancient Canons, which were made and practised of public penance openly enjoined, in which the inferior priests were prohibited to reconcile or remit without the knowledge of the Bishop. But as there was no penance privately enjoined by Priests, so there was no prohibition that it should not privately be remitted of them, by whom it was appointed. The reasons that you allege of the inconvenience of releasing of penance by every inferior Priest, are of no value: for the discipline of the Church should be no more contemptible in releasing of tempor all penance, then in releasing of eternal 〈◊〉, which power you allow to every hedge Priest. Again the punishment of so many thousand years in purgatory, should not with such difficulty be obtained, if either cruelty or covetousness in the Pope did not prohibit. Where you say, the Church discipline is never or seldom to be wholly released, you reprove the Popes often jubilees, and daily plenary Pardons, granted of course to any man that will buy them.  ALLEN. 
And not only that, but also the nature of the act of pardoning, doth wholly challenge this function of the higher Magistrates of Christ's common wealth. For it standeth not only upon the remission of debt, but also upon recompense of repairing again the band thereof, by the common treasure of the whole household of the faithful, which can not be by reason dispensed and bestowed upon any man that lacked, by any, but such as are principal stewards and rulers of some whole portion of the said family, as Bishops lawfully succeeding the Apostles are known in this case to have received the keys of Christ's kingdom, and the dispensing of his holy mysteries, and therefore may justly dispose the treasure of Christ and his Saints satisfactions to the benefit of the faithful, in whose large cures, it can no otherwise be thought, but there be the merits of divers holy and blessed men laid up in store before God, for the relief of their brethren, which may be disposed at the Blshoppes' wisdom, to such namely as be of his own charge and regiment. But of particular parishes, it cannot be certain, that there should always be some sufficiency of abundant satisfactions, to remain without decay, for the continual bestowing upon some of the said small circuit, and that is it, which the school divines say, In particulari Ecolesta merita non sunt indeficientia: merits of Saints be not unspendable in particular Churches.  
But the communion of saints being the general benefit of the whole common wealth of Christ's Church, continueth for ever by the abundance of many holy works, which may satisfy for other men's sins, according to the disposition of such as be the governors and guiders of our souls, that the overplus and abundance of one sort, may ever relieve the lacks of an other sort, as S. Paul speaketh in the like matter.  FVLKE. 
The next argument to prove that priests cannot pardon, is, because the disposition of the treasure, out of which the payment goeth, by reason pertaineth to none, but to such as are principal stewards, and rulers of some whole portion of the family, as bishops, etc. But are not priests also stewards, and rulers of their own parishes, which are also whole portions of the family, and consist of many parts? Why may they not then be dispensers of that unknown treasure you speak of? You answer that in the large cures of bishops, it cannot otherwise be thought but there be the merits of diverse holy and blessed men laid up in store to be bestowed by the Bishop, to such as be of his own regiment: but merits of Saints be not unspendable in particular Churches. Mark this reason well: for hereof it followeth, that the super abundance of Christ's satisfaction, which you make to be the ground of this imaginary treasure, is not of force of itself, without the help of the merits of saints. secondly the communion of Saints, whereupon you would ground another part of this treasure of satisfaction, being limited by dioceses, and not by parishes, loseth the nature of a communion, which extendeth itself unto all, unto whom it is common. For if the merit of Christ were sufficient to ground a pardon upon, the priest in his parish, being a steward of Christ's satisfaction, might grant a pardon: but because he lacketh perhaps the merits of Saints, he may not presume so much upon Christ's satisfaction alone. Again, if the merits of Saints were founded upon the communion of saints, why should not the merits of the saints of the whole diocese, yea of the whole world, be available, and appliable to every man of every parish, by the particular governor and guider of the souls of that parish? so well hang together these blasphemous dreams of Saints merits and Christ's satisfaction separated from the act of his passion, claimed to be at the Popes, and prelate's disposition.  
The abundance of one relieving the lack of another, whereof Saint Paul speaketh, is no communication of merits, nor any thing like unto it: but a participation of the gifts of God in this life. As for merits of Saints, what should we speak of them, or whence should they have them, when mercy is their crown, as Saint Ambrose saith? Finally, howsoever you abase the dignity and authority of inferrior ministers in granting of pardon, the ancient Church admitted them to reconcile in the absence of the Bishop, or in case of necessity, as diverse Cannons do show. Wherefore if this power of pardoning were any such a thing as the ancient discipline, the popish Priests should not be wholly excluded from it.  ALLEN. 
And yet the Bishops themself, have not in this case so full power and prorogatiue, being but rulers of portiones of Christ's Church as he hath whom Christ appointed to be his own Vicar through his whole dominion. For as Christ that head of the whole body is anointed far more plentifully, than all his brethren, so doubtless he that occupieth his seat of judgement throughout the whole earth, to whom not only the affairs of all private men, but also the confirmation and government of all his brethren Bishops, of what dignity so ever they be doth belong: Upon whom Christ hath laid the foundation of his Church, and to whom he severally gave the keys of heaven with most ample authority both to lose and bind, feed and govern all the sheep of his fold: It is this man, no doubt, that hath the full treasure of the holy communion of Saints to bestow, with marvelous authority over man's soul, with wonderful might in binding, and exceeding grace and mercy in losing. This is the man of whom Saint Bernard saith: alluding to joseph's pre-eminence in Pharos 
Ad Eugenium.  house, constituit eum Dominum Domus suae, & Principem omnis possessionis suae: He hath made this man the Lord of all his house, and the Prince of his whole possession. This man therefore representing Christ's own person through the whole Church, and having the cure and regiment of every one of Christ's sheep, may most lawfully, donare aliquid in persona Christi, show mercy to any man in Christ's behalf, 
2, Cor. 2.  none being exempted from his jurisdiction, nor any of the church's treasure restreinea from his disposition.  FVLKE. 
The Pope granteth to the Bishops as it pleaseth him, a shadow of this power of pardoning, reserving the rest to himself, for his own advantage, and pray ferment. The reasons here alleged to prove that no Bishop hath so great pre-eminence in pardoning as the Pope, are all petitions of principles: which as they are here barely affirmed; so it shall be sufficient for me flatly to deny them, as that the Pope is Christ's Vicar, head of the Church, occupieth Christ's seat of judgement, hath the foundation of the Church laid upon him, hath the keys of heaven severally, and so of all the rest. Neither is S. Bernard a late writer sufficient to give the Pope the stevardship of God's house, as joseph had of Potiphar the Egyptian, & therefore he hath no more power to pardon, than any other Bishop, admitting he were Bishop of Rome, and not Antichrist, which hath no power at all, but usurped tyranny over God's house.  ALLEN 
But because I cannot ground this my meaning better, then upon a general Council, I will report the decree of the most holy assembly holden at Lateran more than three hundredth years since, under Innocentius the third by which not only this doctrine of Pardons is approved, but also the superfluttie thereof, and such disorder as was therein through covetousness of evil persons, or lack of authoritte in the givers, is 
Can. 62.  corrected, with a declaration who be the only lawful ministers in such remissions of enjoined penance. Thus goeth the decree: Quia per indiseretas indulgentias atque superfluas, quai quidam Ecclessarum Praelati facere non verentur, & claves Ecclesiae contemnuntur, & poeniientialis satisfactio eneruatur: decernimus, ut cum dedicatur Basilica, non extendatur indulgentia extra annum, sive ab uno solo, sive à pluribus Episcopis dedicetur: ac deinde in anniversario dedicationis tempore, quadraginta dies de iniunctis poenitentiis, indultaremissio non excedat. & intra hunc quoque dierum numerum, indulgentiarum literas praecipim is moderari, quae pro quibuslibet causis aliquoties concedantur, cùm Romanus Pontisex (qui plenitudinem obtinet potestatis) hoc in talibus moderamen consueverit observare. That is to say: Because the keys of the Church be contemned, and sacramental satisfaction is much weakened by certain indiscreet and superfluous Indulgences, the which certain Prelates of the Churches are over bold to bestow: we decree, that hereafter at the dedication of any Chapel no pardon be given more than for one year whether it be dedicated by one bishop or more, & the that there be noremissions afterward in the yearly celebrating of the said dedications, more than of forty days of enjoined penance. The like also to be observed in all other common instruments, by which for other good causes and holy purposes pardons shall be given, seeing the Bishop of Rome himself, who hath the fullness of power herein, useth customably so to moderate the letters of pardons that proceed from him.  
By which holy Council you may perceive, not only that the Bishops of God's Church may give pardons, but that the Bishop of Romesright is much more ample in this case, than theirs can be: and especially how careful the Church ever hath been, to purge all corruption of doctrine or usage, crept into the world through the disorder of man's misbehaviour, & how wicked the endeavours of some evil disposed persons be, who cease not unhonestly to attribute that to the Church of Christ, which she hath ever sought to redress in the evil manners of them that have disgraced the doctrine of truth, and made contemptible the most profitable practise of holy things, by their misuse of the same.  FVLKE. 
Seeing you can ground your meaning no better, as you yourself confess, then upon this popish Lateran Council; all indifferent readers may see, how weak, and lately laid ground, and foundation it hath. To omit your translation of Basilica, for a Chapel, which rather signifieth a Cathedral or Princely Church, I will consider what you gather out of this Council. First that Bishops may pardon. nay rather that Bishops than did pardon. secondly that the Bishop of Rome's right is more ample: nay rather that every Bishop of old did grant larger pardons, than the Pope used to grant, who used not to pass one year in dedication, and 40 days in all other occasions. For according to that moderation the Bishop of Rome did use, all other Bishops are restrained to that measure. By which it appeareth, that even in that time which was little more than three hundredth years ago, the large pardons of so many thousand years were neither known nor thought needful. For if they had, it had been great injury to drive men of all parts of the world, to seek for that at Rome, which they might have had near hand of their own Bishops. thirdly you would have us consider the care of the Church in purging of corruptions. But rather by the sequel we may gather, that this was nothing else, but the ambition and covetousness of the Pope, upon whose sleeve the Council was pinned to bereave other Bishops of their accustomably practised power, all the world of their benefit, and to rake unto himself all the profit that might come by pardons: as for the shameful corruptions of pardons and pardoners, hath been an hundred times worse since that time, then ever it can be proved that it was before.  ALLEN. 
But he that list fully to see, how little the Catholic Church liketh the abuse of wicked men in these matters, and yet how severely she accurseth all the contemners of this holy function in the right use thereof, let him read the Decree of the last general Council touching as well the use of holy pardons, 
Consilium Triden. Sess. vlt.  as the earnest consideration had of reforming all disorder there in, and he shall fully be satisfied in this article, if he have learned so much, as to give over the prejudice of all private opinion, to the common judgement of God's Church. Being now thus far in our matter, that it is well known the Bishops of God's Church principally to have this binding and losing by the key of their jurisdiction to be exercised in the open court of the Church, and that the power of the Bishop of Rome, not only by special privileges given by Christ, but also by law and prescription of all antiquities, passeth in this point, as in all other government, the terms or several limits of all his brethren, it shall not be needful to dispute, whether the key of jurisdiction only separated from the key of order proper to priesthood, be sufficient to give remission of enjoined penance by. Commonly it is holden, that as excommunication, and other like acts of jurisdiction, may be exercised by the Bishop's Legates or Substitutes being no priests, or by themselves being elected Bishops, and yet neither consecrated nor ordered: even so many Indulgences be also profitably granted. Whereof I will not now talk, because it is not much material, seeing commonly they be not granted otherwise but of Bishops, neither so oft of other as of the Pope, and never any otherwise, but by his or other Bishop's authority by whomsoever the function is executed  Fulke. 
The Council of Trent, unto which you send us, is as much the common judgement of God's Church, as the Pope is the head thereof: who when he is accused not only to be an horrible heretic, but also to be Antichrist himself, will stand to the determination of no Council, but such as he himself shall allow. The gross & impudent cozenage of pardons being discovered to all the world more than 40. years before, the Pope Pius. 4. not able to justify before his own papists that have but mother wit, giveth leave to those 100 thing pages of Tient, to restrain the immoderate largnes of them, which few or none doth esteem, and to stay the sale of them which none will vouchsafe to buy. O goodly reformation: O great care of the popish Church; which being challenged for the abuse of pardons can not find time to redress them in more than 40. years, and in more than 2. years consultation in popish Council. Touching the other question it is not worth the deciding, whether the key of jurisdiction separated from the key of order can do any thing, seeing both those keys in the popish Church are false, and counterfeit, having no power to open the kingdom of heaven, or to shut it.  ALLEN. 
But this I know will be required rather at my hands, the course of the matter giving occasion thereunto, how far the limits of the Pope's jurisdiction, who hath the sovereignty herein, doth extend, and whether the benefit of any Pardon may pertain to any person that is already appointed to suffer in his soul the pains of the next life, and is at this present in the course of God's correction in Purgatory: and finally, whether, the grant of an Indulgence may release them there of some piece, or all their pains, as it might have done whiles they were in this present life.  
To all this I answer briefly, that the Pope may do it lawfully, whereof there can be no more doubt, than there is of the other, of which we have made the plain argument already, though in the way & means of applying the Church's remission or the Saint's satisfaction unto them, there may be some diversity, not such as may any thing hinder the truth of the cause, which of all catholic men is most certainly agreed upon, but such as may stir up man's industry in the moderate search of God's truth and mysteries. For the souls departed and being assured to be saved, must needs be of the same body mystical and fellowship of Saints, that the faithful be of alive: & therefore, they may according to their aptness more or less be profited by the holy works and satisfaction of their head & fellow members, because in every lawful Pardon there is made by the keys of jurisdiction & application of Christ's holy merits & his Saints, in that respect as they be satisfactory, to the use of their inferior members, that do lack that wherein the other do abound. Whereupon it standeth with plain reason and meaning of God's word, touching binding and losing, that the souls in Purgatory should sometimes be partakers of this blessing no less than other that be yet alive. For the denial of which catholic assertion Leo the tenth accursed and condemned Luther by his letters patents, as ever since his memory hath been condemned most worthily of all good men continuing 
in Bulla condemn. Luth.  in the unity of Christ's Church.  FVLKE. 
A question meet to be handled by the pope's proctor for purgatory, seeing in purgatory the Pope's prison is all his jurisdiction. For it is meet that he should bear rule over his own creature. But in heaven no man hath authority but God: because it is the seat of his majesty, and the reward of his blessed, and beloved in his son Christ jesus, who hath opened the same to all faithful. and shut up the same from all unbelievers; of whose will and pleasure he hath commanded his servants, the true ministers of his Church to be interpreters unto the world. The question you assoil, as you do all other of popery, that whatsoever the Pope, and popish Church hath once allowed, must needs be good, although it have no warrant out of the word of God, nor testimony of the ancient Church. First you say therefore, that the Pope may lawfully grant pardons to them that be in Purgatory, whereof, you say, there canbe no more doubt, than there can be of the other. In deed they be both of like certainty, saving that for this later question, it must first be proved, whether there be any purgatory, before it be demanded whether the Pope's pardons extend to purgatory. Saint Augustine somewhile doubted whether there were any such place, and saith it may be doubted of, and perhaps be found, perhaps never be found: other while he utterly denieth any 
Ench. ad laur. cap. 69. Cont. pel. hy pognost. l. 5.  third place, because he findeth it not in the scriptures, neither shall the pope be able ever to find such fictions in the scriptures. The like I say of his power of application of the merits of Christ, or his Saints, or that the saints have any merits for themselves, much less for other men. Wherefore it standeth neither upon reason, nor upon any meaning of God's word, whereof there can no words be showed, including or importing any such meaning, that the Pope's pardons should reach to the release of purgatory pains, if any such were, which cannot release the least pain that any man suffereth upon the earth. That Leo the tenth did excommunicate Luther, it proveth no more the Pope's doctrine to be true, then that Caiphas condemned Christ, proveth Caiphas to have been an honest man.  ALLEN 
Marry whether the Indulgences take place so often upon the dead, as upon the live, that is not so well known, because the persons departed be not in case to make themselves more apt to take benefit thereby, than they were at their departure hence: And therefore if they were not with singular zeal and devotion so qualified in the end of their life, they cannot now any whit abetter their own case, or otherwise dispose themselves to attain the fruit of those singular remissions. And more than that, no Indulgence, is lightly granted, but upon the fullfilling of some appointed work of piety, and the departed not having always in this life such friends as will accomplish competently the work prescribed by the Pardon, nor himself now in case to do the same, he often misseth the benefit of the Church's remission which else he might have had by the meaning of the giver. Whereupon it seemeth to some to be no surer, how far the departed may be relieved by the keys of the Church than it is of other holy suffragies and good works either of priests or private persons, all which do assuredly relieve them that be in Purgatory, but without any limitation of benefit, which wholly is unknown to the living, without special revelation, in what state they stand.  FVLKE. 
Two causes you assign why it is not known, whether indulgences take place, so often upon the dead as upon the living The first, because the souls there can take no benefit of pardons, but according to the merits of their life. But this reason is confuted by authority of the gloss, upon the first bull of jubilee, which saith that pardons respect grace, and not merit; which if it be true, not the merits of the receiver, but the power and will of the giver were to be observed. The second reason is, that pardons lightly require some work to be fulfilled. But that work is never so laborious, as the pains already by them sustained in purgatory, if we believe you, which if it will not serve for a recompense, or commutation of penance, you will hardly persuade men, that saying of such a prayer, giving of such an alms, visiting such an Idol, should be sufficient to make the Popes pardon available. But it is a pitiful case that poor souls in purgatórie, which lack nothing for their release but such a trifling work to be performed for them and have no friend in this life, that will accomplish it for them, should lie still broiling in the frying pan and be so little regarded of the Pope, that he will not appoint that his clergy at the least of their charity should take pains for them, although they have no penny for their Pater noster. That some among you think the profit of pardons, is no surer, then of other suffrages and works to them in purgatory, which are available, but you know not how much; first it showeth the certainty of your faith, which leaneth upon such helps, as you know not whereto they will serve you. secondly it showeth that you are not agreed among yourselves of such articles as you thrust upon other men to be credited. And thirdly, that every one among you being not resolved of the Pope's keys of jurisdiction, some think that the Pope hath arrogan the abused his keys, when he hath taken upon him to dzale further in purgatory, than they are persuaded he hath authority. For certain it is, the Pope hath pretended by his pardons not only to release souls out of purgatory, but also to give other men power to release three or four a piece whom they will choose.  ALLEN. 
And therefore upon this consiacration, the learned divines do teach, that the Pope doth, and lawfully may apply unto the souls departed, by his keys, some part of the Church's treasure, which consisteth of Christ's satisfaction and other his Saints, by which they departed, as they have need and be in competent terms to receive benefit by the merits of their head or fellows, may be released from some part of their pains: but yet they will not charge any man with necessity of belceving, that the Pope or Church should use mere jurisdiction over them, that be in an other world. To be plain for the people's understanding, the meaning is, that in a pardon there are two things: the one is a sentence of absolution definitely pronounced upon any person penitent: the second is the recompense of the debt of sin remitted by the said absolution through the application of the Church's treasure by the power of the officers keys. Both these two jointly can never be exercised upon any person not subject, though the one may. Absolution can not properly be given nor fruitfully, to any man not subject to the givers regiment, but the application of the treasure may be made by the keys to procure mercy for them that be not under their power, but that is not by proper jurisdiction but by aid of request made by just offers why the party should be received unto mercy. In this sense then the Pope absolveth no man departed absolutely. But only offereth in the person of Christ for the relief of him that is in Purgatory to God his mightis judge there the abundant price of Christ's passion and the satisfaction of Saints: And no doubt for his reverence and representing Christ's, person, he is more often heard then any private man offering only his own alms and prayer for the soul departed. And for that cause, in this sense the Pope's pardon worketh only per modum suffragij, as by aid of suit, and not by regiment or jurisdiction, which many suppose doth not extend past the compass of this world, and therefore that he cannot exercise the act of binding or losing which be proper to his power and government over any in the next life, though to make suit for them before God he may apply some portion of Christ's copious redemption, and Saints satisfaction, by the use of his keys, which there make forcible intercession, though they cannot give judiciary absolution.  FVLKE. 
If the Pope have not mere jurisdiction in Purgatory, how could Clement grant the release of souls to be at other men's arbitrement, by his pardon. Again how could he be able to spoil all purgatory, which is affirmed to be possible to his absolute power. But for plainer understanding, of this mystery of iniquity, and abominable blasphemy: you consider two things in a pardon, the absolution, and the application: which later (you say) may be made for them, that be not under their power: whereof it will follow, that all Bishops having the dispensation of the treasure committed unto them, as well as the Pope, may grant pardons to them, that be none of their jurisdiction, which by application may be profitable to them, though they be not by absolution. But what is, this application? You answer, it is not by regiment, but by aid of suit. A gross devise, to turn a pardon or remission, into a suit or request for a pardon; when in the pardon, there is no words of prayer or request, but of concession and grant. But by this pardon (you say) the Pope offereth to God the price of Christ's passion, and the satisfaction of Saints. Then have we a new oblation never before heard of, proper to the Pope in granting of pardons. Or if it be a prerogative of the Pope, that he may be said to pray, when he doth grant or command, and offer a bargain ofre compence, where he can do no more but entreat the judge to accept it, (no pass over all other blasphemies contained in this chaffer with god) I demand why the Pope's prayer should be heard rather than the prayer of other Bishops and priests. You answer, no doubt for his reverence, blasphemously applying to the Pope, that which according to the volgar translation is alleged to be the cause, why Christ was heard of his father, You 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he representeth Christ's person. Why? how far is Christ from God's presence, that he hath need to be represented by the Pope. The scripture indeed doth often allow that the minister of Christ doth represent the person of Christ unto men, because his person is not visible, nor his humanity present unto them. But that any mortal man should represent the person of Christ before God, and by the virtue of that representation apply the merits of Christ, otherwise than he applied by his passion, it is strange and intolerable blasphemy, and such as none but a limb of Antichrist would utter. As also it is hòrrible to hear, that the Pope's keys in porgatorie should make forcible intercession, where they can not give judiciary absolution. Before we had but two keys, the one of order, the other of jurisdiction. Now cometh in the third key of suffrage, by application, which is rather a picklock, than a key, because it maketh a forcible entry, where the key hath no lawful jurisdiction.  ALLEN. 
And all this, that the folly os many men so much wondereth at, is nothing else but to set before God the Father, the death of his own Son, and his grace in all Saints, for to procure mercy for their poor brethren in misery in the next life: as the like is done with great piety in many other holy acts of religion continually practised in the Church for the mutual help one of another. And in deed, the Church hath used these many years to put this clause in such Indulgencies as did in unie part concern the departed (per modum suffragy) as Sixtus the fourth, Innocentius the eight, and now of late both Pius the fourth and the fift, and all other lightly in the like grants. Whereby it is plain that we are not charged by the Church further to believe, then that the Pope may assuredly release the departed of some part of their pains, or all, by the way of suffrage and suit, as other holy works of Christianity applied unto them by their brethren alive, may do. For it were no reason, that private persons should as it were communicate and send unto them their fasts alms, and prayers for the release of their pain, and he that representeth Christ's person, should not in Christ's name and the whole Churches, apply unto them some part of the common wealths treasure, to sue for their delivery and help to satisfy for them in their lacks. This therefore they call a Pardon, per modum suffragy, as by way of aid of request. Which doctrine is most true in itself, and agreeable to the practice of the Church and form of Indulgences always used, and may assuredly relieve such as departed hence in grace and zeal of God's house, which I count disposition enough in the party, and have friendship in the world of such as for their sakes will be content to accomplish the appointed work of the Pardon.  FVLKE. 
So long as you may be allowed to say, what you list, without proof, you may say all this is nothing else, but to set before God, etc. or what you will beside. The clause you speak of, per modum suffragy, hath not been added of many years seeing Sixtus the fourth the first that added it, lived not 100 years before you did wright of this matter. The cause of this addition, was a certain book set forth by one Petrus Oxoniensis doctor of divinity in the university of Salmantica in Spain containing divers conclusions contrary to the Popish Churchs' doctrine, which by the Archbishop of Toledo, Alphonsus Cirillus were committed to be disputed & discussed, in a congregation of 52. doctors in divinity & Canon law. The first of which conclusions was, that deadly sins, as touching the fault, and the punishment of the other world, are put away by only contrition of the heart, without order unto the keys. The fift, that penitents are not to be absolved before their penance enjoined be performed. The sixth, that the Pope can not pardon any man alive, the pain of purgatory. The discussing of these conclusions, caused Pope Sixtus, & the rest to devise this new clause & interpretation of their pardons, per modum suffragii, whereas before, there was neither any such words, nor meaning in their pardons, but the contrary to be gathered very plainly: that the pope had jurisdiction in purgatory: in so much that Augustinus de Ancona, which lived before this time, doubteth not to conclude, that the Pope by his absolute 
De potestate Eccles. quest. 32.  jurisdiction, may spottle all purgatory of all those persons, which are subject to his jurisdiction: which are all, except they that lack merit conditional, and such as may do for them those things, for which pardons are ordained to avail: and except them that lack merit sacramental, which are saved immediately by the grace of God, which is not bound unto the sacraments. But it were no reason (you say) that private persons should communicate and send to the souls in purgatory, there fasts, alms, and prayer, for the release of their pain, & he that represents Christ's person, should not apply some part of the common treasure for their delivery, etc. I answer we acknowledge no such communication, sending or lending by private persons, for any such purpose or to any such effect into Purgatory. But if that were granted, yet were it no reason, that the Pope, where he hath no authority, should by any colour do more than a private man, of the same worthiness or merit. And when the Pope is a wicked man of life, as you will not deny but many have been, what should his suit or suffrage prevail? whereas, if he were twice as great in office, as you feign him to be, yet where his office extendeth not, he should by suit prevail no more then private men of such behaviour. That this pardon, per modum suffragij, is agreeable to the practise of the Church, and form of pardons always used, you say, without proof, but I have proved the contrary before. That you require in the party to be benefited, by this new kind of pardons, not only that he departed hence in grace and zeal of the Church but also friendship in the world, of such as will be contended to accomplish the appointed work of the pardon, you declare that the Pope's pardons, go not as God's pardons, without respect of persons, but with a necessary respect of worldly friendship: so that the souls of poor men, & such as lack friendship in this world, are in nothing so good a case, as the souls of rich men that with their pens are able to purchase friendship enough in the world. So that with you the poor, whom Christ pronounceth happy, are most miserable: the rich, even they to whom Christ maketh the entrance of heaven impossible, may have soon dispatch, out of purgatory, for the old proverb was always true in the Popish Church, no penny no paternoster. No friendship in the world no help of the Pope's pardons, for poor men's souls, for whom yet the redemption of Christ is as plentiful and effectual, as for the scules of rich men. Whatsoever the Devil, or the Pope hath imagined to deface the glory thereof, and to make the friendship of the world which is enmity with God, to be necessary for the applying of his most free grace, general pardon, and undeserved reconciliation.   

A declaration of the Church's meaning touching the common treasure, which is said to remain in her store for the recompense of such iniouned penance, as she releaseth by her pardons, with the conclusion of the whole matter.  
THE 12. CHAP.  ALLEN. 
But now if you ask me here how it standeth with the justice of God, thus to forgive the pain and debt of satisfaction, which either God or the Church enjoineth, for the recompense of the former sins especially seeing the Catholic Church doth hold that it pertaineth to God's justice, no less to punish sins with some temporal scourge after it be forgiven, than it doth pertain to his mercy to forgive the said sin and the debt of everlasting damnation. Now if it stand not with his justice, to let a sinner escape wholly without correction or satisfaction, than it may much more appear to be against his justice also, that any power of man should remit & release that bond of satisfaction, which Gods justice required, and was to the offender enjoined. For the answer and perfect understanding of this doubt, it is to be known and well weighed, that in deed no release could be had of such enjoined penance or deserved pain for sins past, if God's justice were not otherwise recompensed, and the lack of the party's punishment, supplied again by the abundance of satisfaction made by Christ upon the Cross, everic drop of whose innocent blood and stroke laid upon his blessed body, were able of the infinite & inestimable worth and force thereof, to satisfy for all debt due to all the sin in the world, whether it be death and everlasting damnation or tempor all pain and purgation. By which abundant price of his passion, and copious ransom, the Church for whose sake this precious price, was paid, doth not only hold herself to be redeemed from death and damnation, and so saved by Christ her head, for he is the saviour of his body, saith Saint Paul, but she holdeth the overplus (as a man wouldsaie) of so abundant copious, and infinite redemption, to be a treasure in the house of God, to relieve her children's lacks, to release their pains, to work with them in satisfying for their sin, and to work mercy for them also for lack of satisfying for their offences: that want being found in our penance towards the recompensing of our evil life paste, may be supplied by the treasure of Christsdeath that remaineth yet of full force and strength, to be applied unto us in such our necessities, as shall be thought meet unto Christ's, Vicar general in earth, & other his holy appointed ministers, with whom (as Saint Paul saith) he left the bestowing of gods mysteries. For although the holy and precious treasure of Christ's pain and satisfaction be of itself sufficient to relieve the lacks of all men without exception, not only of those which shall be saved, but also for the damned and for the whole world (saith Saint john) yet no man may be so hardy, to claim the benefit thereof otherwise, then through such means as he hath appointed, and by the ministry of such men as he hath placed over his household and family, to give the Children meat and sustenance in due season not as they shall inordinately crave it, but as he shall discreetly find to be mere for them. Therefore where this wise steward of Christ's holy household, to whom he gave the kcies of the treasure, and sufficient authority to fceae and govern his whole flock, where he shall orderly judge the offender meet, and of good congruity, worthy of grace and mercy, there he may pardon, and recompense the residue that can not be fulfilled of the party penitent, with some piece of that inestimable treasure of Christ's redemption, which remaineth in the Church impossible to be wasted, and so shall remain to the unspeakable benefit of the faithful.  FVLKE. 
This dream of the Church's treasure & the power of dispensing of the same, resting infinitely in the Pope, in comparison of a few small crumbs left unto the Bishops, should have been first handled, as the foundation of popish pardon, if the compass of your cause and the method of deceit, could have abidden it, which if it had been done, many a one that had seen the foundation to be no surer would never have taken pains to view the rest of the building. But as it was last invented (for none of the ancient Church, for a thousand years and more ever heard of it) so you have done well to thrust it unto the last end of your book. And first you begin with an objection, upon your own ground, that for answering of God's justice, there remaineth a temporal pain after sin remitted. But because the objection is such as you are never able to answer (so well your principles of popery hang one upon another) you cover the hardest point and will not let it appear, namely that God's justice requireth punishment of the party himself, that offended, for satisfying his justice, which was not satisfied by the death and obedience of Christ: which if it be true, then can there be no remission by any other means (saving the justice of God) but by the parties own suffering. Yet let us see how you avoid the objection so favourably set down for yourself to answer. you say that God's justice is otherwise satisfied by the abundant satisfaction made by Christ, upon the cross and by the merits of his saints. If this be true, then is the other principle false, that God's justice requireth temporal punishment of the party: for the recompense of Christ's satisfaction, and saints merits, is not the parties own punishment. wherefore as in the objection you run from Christ's most perfect satisfaction, so in the answer you run from the objection, which is no answer, or satisfaction. The scripture is plain, that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all sin: and, Christ by one oblation hath made perfect for ever, 
1. john 1. Heb. 10. Heb. 9  those that are sanctified he hath once entered into the holy place by his own blood, and found eternal redemption. The satisfaction for sin, the purging of unrightcousnes, the perfecting of the saints, and everlasting redemption, can abide no reservation of punishment, either temporal, or eternal, in which the justice of god is throughly answered by the obedience, and suffering of Christ: whose stripes having healed us, there remaineth no suffering of our part for satisfying of his justice. And you confess that there is a sufficient value in the suffering of Christ, for the taking away of all temporal punishment, if it be well applied by the Pope. So that Christ's redemption was but a power of redeeming and not an act of redemption, & a power depending upon the will of man, to apply according to his pleasure, as you were wont to speak, and not according to God's determination, and eternal election; And so you rob Christ of the effect of his death & passion, by which he obtained eternal redemption for all gods elect, to enrich the pope with a treasure infinite, and unspendable (for that word youlent me before) which he might bestow and dispense at his pleasure. But let us a little enter into your storehouse, & see what treasure there is, and how you came by it. First you tell us, of the infinite ability and the inestimable value of every drop of Christ's blood, etc. to satisfy all debt due for all sin, and all pain for the same: and yet you allow to the act, and effect of his bloody sacrifice, the value but of half a drop, denying the same to have satisfied God's justice for temporal pain: all the rest you claim for the treasure of the Popish Church; which dream was never hard of, before the jubilee granted by Boneface the 8. in the gloss whereof it was first devised. where it is said, that pardons are founded upon the merits of Christ and taken out of it. Passio namque Christi excessiva fuit unde & excessus vocatur in Luca: ubi dicitur, quod in transfiguratione Christi apparuerunt Moses & Elias cùm eo, & dicebans excessum quem completurus erat in jerusalem, unica enim guita sanguinis tam preciost, suffecisset pro redemptione totiu, mundi. Nam propter coniunctionem humanitatis cùm divinitate: 〈◊〉 passio Christi perpessa pro redemptione nostra habebat precium infinitum. Noluit autem Christus quod excessus isie frustra fuisset, & quod de nihilo nobis 〈◊〉: sed volait quod esset Thesaurus Ecclesiae per suum vicarium Ro pontificem pro fidelibus loco & tempore dispensandus: dispensatur autem, cum eis indulgentiae conceduntur. For the passion of Christ was excessive, whereof also in Saint Luke it is called an excess, where it is said, that in the transfiguration of Christ, appeared Moses and Elias with him: and they spoke of the excess which he should fulfil at jerusalem. For one drop of so precious blood, might have sufficed for the redemption of the whole world: For because of the conjunction of the humanity with the divinity, never so small a suffering of Christ, suffered for our redemption had an infinite price. But Christ would not that this excess should be in vain, and that it should serve us for nothing, but he would that it should be the treasure of the Church to be bestowed by his vicar the Bishop of Rome, in time and place for the faithful, and it is bestowed when pardons are granted to them. Mark upon what text this treasure is grounded, and how clarkly it is expounded. Moses and Elias talked with Christ of his departure out of this life, which he should finish at jerusalem: this departure being termed in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Latin, excessum, this Doctor interpreteth to be an excess, or superfluity of the passion of Christ: the overplus whereof lest it should be in vain, and serve for nothing, is made the treasure of the Church, to be dispensed by the pope. But who will grant such excess or superfluity of the passion of Christ, as you imagine? or that never so small a suffering of Christ, had been sufficient for the redemption of the whole world, which if it were granted, seeing Christ from his infancy snffered many things for us, every one of them might have been our redemption, and so the sacrifice of Christ's death was unnecessary for our redemption. So that his blood shed in his circumcision, and much more in his scourging & crowning with thorn, had been infinitely more than enough, although he had not suffered death, and shed his blood on the cross. Again as it doth most excellently set forth the justice and mercy of God to the everlasting comfort of the faithful, that Christ by his obedience and suffering, did most perfectly satisfy the one, and most plentifully purchase the other, to the eternal redemption and everlasting felicity of all Gods elect: so it is against the justice of god, that he should require that his son should suffer infinitely more, than was needful to answer his justice, & work a perfect redemption, as this glossary dream of the Popish Church's treasure, doth imagine. Neither doth the argument of the conjunction of the humanity with the divinity prove any such matter. But if that were granted, by what scripture is the infinite overplus made a treasure of the Church? the gloss thinketh that it should be in vain, if it should serve us to no purpose: as though if any such thing were, & might stand with God's justice, it might not serve to set forth the glory and riches of Christ's incarnation. Ad hereunto, that the overplus were needless for us, if the value of one drop be sufficient for the perfect redemption of the whole world, it might also be sufficient to take away all temporal pain. But if we should further admit that there were such a treasure of the Church, who made the Pope general steward of it, and other Bishops to have so small a portion of so infinite a treasure? You answer, that Saint Paul saith, that Christ left to his Vicar general, and other his holy appointed ministers, the beslowing of God's mysteries. But Saint Paul speaketh of no Vicar general, but of all God's ministers, which be not only bishops (I trow) that they be stewards of his mysteries, which mysteries are his holy word and sacraments, or if this treasure were part of them, the dispensation of it pertaineth to priests, as well as unto Bishops. To proceed, this treasure being so plentiful, as you say, no man notwithstanding may claim the benefit of it, otherwise then through such means, as God hath appointed, and by the ministry of the man that he hath appointed. But neither this treasure, nor the means, nor the man are appointed of God, as far as we can learn out of his written word, neither is the Pope any such steward, to whom Christ would commit the keys of so inestimable a treasure, which considereth not the worthiness of the person, but of the price which he receiveth for his pardons, as the greatest practise of them hath been ever since they were invented. Again, if the offender be meet, and of good congruity worthy of grace and mercy, what need any piece of his treasure to be laid out about him? for God's justice is as much bound unto congruity, as unto condignity. Neither can he deny pardon to any, that in any respect is worthy to receive it; saving that grace is no grace, where their is the worthiness of the party to deserve it, but the reward is accounted according to debt, and not according to grace.  ALLEN. 
And such a perfect knot there is, now since Christ's incarnation, of every member in Christ's mystical body, which is the Church and company of faithful, with him being the head of the said body, that his merits, works, suffering and satisfaction may well be applied to serve and supply all wants of each member thereof: yea more than that, the holy suffering and tribulation of holy Saints, as of our blessed Lady Christ's mother, and the holy Apostles, with numbers of constant Martyrs, Confessors, and Virgins, help to supply our lack also, and increase the huge treasure of the Church, for the satisfying for our sins, which yet notwithstanding, as they were meritorious to the sufferers, be fully rewarded by the glory of Christ's kingdom and eternal felicity, which far exceedeth not only the merits of all Saints, but sufficiently rewardeth the incomparable humility and obedience of Christ to his father, in suffering death upon the cross, though his works as they be satisfactory for us, are not yet answered in us nor can not be till the worlds end.  ALLEN. 
That knot of communication of the benefits of Christ's death, was as effectual before his incarnation as since, although it became effectual by means of his incarnation, even as the effect of his death extended to the salvation of his elect before his death. But you do well to follow your author at the hard heels, the writer of that glavering gloss upon Pope Bonefacius Bull, which: immediately aster the words by me last cited addeth. Nam propter unionem capitis & membrorum, meritum capitis attribuitur membris: & quia sic per alienum meritun, non per proprium meritum liberantur à poena, ideo quantum ad ipsos talis liberalior dicitur remissio, seu indulgentia: licet quoad Christum qui hoc nobis meruit vocetur redemptio copiosa. For because of the union of the head and the members, the merit of the head is attributed and applied unto the members: and because they are so delivered from pain by the merit of an other, and not by their own merit, therefore in respect of themselves such deliverance is called a remission or pardon, although in respect of Christ which deserved this for us, it is called a plentiful redemption. We know that by means of the union of the head unto the members, the redemption wrought by the head pertaineth to the members: but the application thereof, is by the spirit of God, and not by the Pope's pardon, or any ministry of man in speaking properly, which extendeth no further than the outward senses in speaking the word of God to the hearing, in washing with water, or delivering the bodily food, in sign of baptizing with the holy ghost, and feeding with the body and blood of Christ. But more than that (you say) the holy sufferings, and tribulation of Saints do help to supply our lack, and increase the huge treasure of the Church. Your words found as though your meaning were, that the suffering of Saints doth more supply our lack, than the infinite treasure of the passion of Christ. But that I may not take you at the worst, you mean at the jest, that they add unto it, & you say plainly, they increase the treasure of the Church. But you forget the infinite valour of Christ's, bloodwhich you spoke of before, which can no more receive any increase, than it can be diminished: for there is no proportion of that which is infinite, tò that which is finite. But if the treasure of the Church which is infinite by Christ's merit, may be made greater by the merit, of Saints, which are finite, than the quantity thereof must be greater by so much, or so many parts as are added: and so there shall be proportion of finite to infinite, or else the treasure of Christ's merit shall not be infinite. This gross and impossible absurdity therefore came in after the first devise of the Churches infinite treasure by Christ's merit. For Clemens the fixed which brought the jubilee year, from every hundred, to every 50. as he learned of Aug. de Ancona, that lived in this time, joineth in his bull the merits of all Saints, to increase the infinite treasure of Christ's merits. Of what value the merits of Saints be, we shall hear in the next section.  ALLEN. 
And for Christ in this case our adversaries perchance would not much stick with us, but for the remain of Saints satisfaction, they can not abide. And if Saint Paul in express words did not utter this my meaning concerning the travail of holy Saints for Christ's body, which is his Church, the little kolie ones of these days would have spurned at these kind of speeches, for fear of doing injury to Christ, of whose honour the good men make themselves so tender. These words than doth 
Colos. 1.  Saint Paul utter of his travail taken for the Church's sake: Now I do rejoice in my passions or tribulations, taken for your sake, and I fulfil those things that do want of Christ passions, in mine own flesh, for his body which is the Church. Thus said Saint Paul. Whereby you see, that not only the want of one member may be supplied of the head of the body, but that each member may help the insufficiency of an other member. Whereby for all that, we may not conceive, that there is any lack or insufficiency on Christ's part or passion, which was so full and abundant of it own valour, that by itself alone without the help of all man's merits or other creatures, it was a sufficient price for the sins of all the world, and more if more might be. But the lack that this his passion was not in effect so forcible and so fully in all men's cases, was the want of some pains and passion in his body the Church, by which she and every of hers were bound to conform themselves unto Christ, by taking pains in their flesh and suffering together with Christ their head. For so long Christ's passion wanteth his due effect in us, (though it were never so full and sufficient in itself) as we do not conform ourselves to his pain & tribulation taken for us. Therefore, though Christ in his own person suffer now no more, yet he doth suffer, and daily shall suffer till the world's end in divers members of his holy body: as the head, saith Saint Augustine suffereth when the finger acheth, and as Christ himself charged Saint Paul that he persecuted him, when he only molested his members. And so long as the Church militant travailesh here in earth, so long hath Christ our Master somewhat to suffer to 
Act. 8.  make his passion effectual in such as shall be saved, and in that sense some piece of his passion, in every of the faithfuls bodies must be supplied. By all which holy pains of the head himself principallia and of the holy members of his body, who wrought not only for themselves, but expressly meant to benefit other by their works, as the Apostle confesseth of himself, we need not to doubt, but the lack of many a poor member of this blessed incorporation, is duly supplied, and the want of work satisfactory in some, recompensed by the abundance of pains and penance of others. For this is the blessed cause of such as be in the Church of God, in the fellowship of the faithful, in the knot of those members, whereof our saviour is the head, that is to say, in the holy communion of Saints, in which as some do lack so other some by Christ's gift do abound and are able to procure mercy for the needy, and to satisfy God for their poor breethrens' sins. And yet all this intercourse 
1. Cor. 8.  of benefits and mutual helps passeth not from the head to the members, nor from one member of the body to another, but by the ordinary means of Christ's appointment, as by sacraments, sacrifice, and sundry ways of his service, and that not without the ministery of men, in whom he hath out the word of his reconciliation, to whom he hath committed his keys to keep, his sheep to feed, his mysteries to dispose, and to whom finally he hath given full power both to bind and lose.  FVLKE. 
Of all the ancient doctors, and learned of the Church whose writings have come to our hands, it is great marvel no one could see the increase of the Church's treasure in this text of Saint Paul. But seeing they saw not all things, let us consider in what express words Saint Paul uttereth your meaning. Where is mention of the treasure of the Church in this text? where is mention of the merit of saints? where is mention of the remains of Saint's satisfaction over and above their own necessity? where is mention of the want of satisfying God's justice for temporal pains?? If there be never a word of all these things; in what express words doth Saint Paul utter your meaning. First he rejoiceth in his afflictions, which he suffered for their sake, because they tended to the confirmation of their faith, and example of Constancy. secondly he fulfilleth those things that want or remain, of Christ's passion in his own body: this argueth no insufficiency of Christ's passion (you confess) for his part, but the want of some pains in his body the Church, so far we agree with you: for Christ was to suffer in his members the saints, and they are by suffering to be made conformable unto him, that they might reign 
Rom. 8. 17. 2. Tim. 211. 3. Cor. 4. 10.  with him: but that these sifferinges were satisfactions unto God's righteousness for temporal pain, to make the passion of Christ effectual to themselves, or unto other, Saint Paul saith not in express words, neither shall you ever be able to prove by a true syllogism out of this place, or any text in the scripture that he meaneth. But Saint Paul saith he suffereth for Christ's body which is his Church: namely to confirm the faith of the Church, as all the old Fathers do expound it, and as he doth a best expound: himself. 2. Cor. 1. 6. but to satisfic for pain not satisfied by Christ's death, he never saith, ne meaneth. In tribulationibus (saith S. Ambrose upon this text) quas: patiebatur exultare se satetur, quia profectum 〈◊〉 videt in side credentium, Saint Paul acknowledgeth that he rejoiceth in the afflictions which he suffered, because he seethe his profit in the faith of the believers. And the words of S. Paul are plain, when he saith, that he suffereth for the Church according to that dispensation, which was committed unto him, which was to edify the Church in the faith, not to redeem the Church by his sufferings: S. Augustine speaking of the suffering of martyrs, and the effect 
Tract. 84. In joan.  of them, and comparing them with the passion of Christ, thus writeth. Ille nobis non 〈◊〉 nos saluos saceret, nos sine illo nihil possumus facere: ille se nobis palmitibus praebuit vitem, nos habere preter illum non possumus vitam. postremo etst fratres pro fratrib. moriantur, tamen in fraternoruam peccatorum remissionem nullius sanguis martyris funditur, quod fecit ille pro nobis: neque in hoc quid imitaremur sed quid gratularemur. He had no need of us that he might save us, we without him can do nothing. He hath given himself to be a vine to us the branches: we be side him can have no life. Finally although brethren do die for their brethren, yet the blood of no martyr is shed for the remission of his brcethrens' sins, which he did for us, neither hath bestowed upon us herein any thing that we should follow, but that we might reioycein, In these words Augustine denieth that Christ's passion wanted the pains and pass sions of martyrs to be fully effectual in all men's cases, that no man can follow Christ herein, that his blood should be shed for remission of sins, or the pain due for the same. And very excellently writeth Leo the first Bishop of Rome against the blasphemies of Nestorius and Eutiches, concerning the effect of martyrs 
Epist. 97. Leont. August. cap. 2.  sufferings in these words. Dicant quo sacrificio reconciliati: dicant quo sanguine sint redempti. Quis est ut ait Apostolus qui tradidit seipsum pro nobis oblattonem & hostiam Deo in odorem suavitasis? Aut quod unquam sacrificium sacratius fuit, quam quod verus & aeternus pontisex, altari crucis, per immolationem fuae carnis, imposuit? Quamuis enim multorum sanctorum in conspectu domini pretiosa mors fuerit, nullius tamen insontis occisio redemptio fuit mundi. Acceperunt justi non dederunt coronas, & de for titudine fidelium exempla nata sunt patientiae, non dona justitiae. Singulares quip in singulis mortes fuerunt, nec alterius quisquam debitum suo fine persoluit, cum inter filios hominum unus solus dominus noster jesus Christus, qui verè erat agnus immaculatus extiterit, in quo omnes crucifixi, omnes mortui, omnes sepulti, omnes sunt etiam suscitati de quibus ipse dicebat: Cum ex altatus fuero à terra, omnia traham ad meipsum. Fides enim vera iustificannimpios & creans justos, ad humanttatis suae 〈◊〉 a participem in illo acquit it salutem, in quo solo homo se invenit innocentem, liberum habens per gratiam deide potentia eius gloriari, qui contra hostem humani generis in carnis no sirae humilitate congressus, his victoriam suam tribuit, in quorum corpore triumphavit. Let them tell by what sacrifice they be reconciled: with what blood they be redeemed, who it is (as the Apostle saith) which gave himself for us an oblation and sacrifice of sweet savour unto God? or what sacrifice was ever more holy than that which the true and eucrlasting high Priest laid upon the altar of the cross, by the sacrificing of his own stesh? For although the death of many Saints hath been precious in the sight of the Lord, yet the slaughter of no guiltless person was the redemption of the world. The just men have received, they have not given crowns, and of the valiantness of the faithful are grown examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness. For the deaths in every one were singular, nei theridamas did any man by his end pay the debt of another, seeing among the sons of men there was but one alone, our Lord je sus Christ, which was truly the immaculate lamb, in whom all are crucified, all dead, all buried, all also raised again. Of whom he himseife said, when I shall be exalted from the earth I will draw all things unto myself. For true faith which justifieth ungodly men, and maketh them just, being drawn to the partaker of his humanity, obtaineth salvation in him, in whom alone man findeth himself innocent, having liberty by the grace of God to boast of his power, which encountering with the enemy of mankind in the baseness of our flesh, giveth the victory to them, in whose body he triumphed. If the Romish Antichristes that followed Leo the Bishop of Rome in place, had followed, and allowed this his doctrine, they would never have devised nor manteined this increase of their treasure by the merits and sufferings of Saints: whose martyrdom profited the Church, by the examples of patience to the confirming of faith, not communicating of justice to the en crease of merit. Whose deaths were singular, and proper to themselves to receive the crowns of glory which Christ had merited for them: not common by way of desert, to gain crowns for other, or to satisfy for the debt of other, For that was the power efficacy and effect of the only sacrifice of our saviour jesus Christ, to satisfy for the sins of his people, and to purchase the crown of eternal glory for them.  
The conformity therefore of the members unto the head in suffering, and the suffering of Christ in his members, proveth no satisfaction necessary to be wrought by the members to make the passion of the head effectual for them, that are saved; and much less the want of works satisfactory, in some to be recompensed by the abundance of pains & penance in other: neither doth Saint Paul confess any such thing, whose sufferings did otherwise benefit the Church, then by satisfying for the pain due to other, that wanted works satisfactory. Neither doth the communion of Saints, favour any such in which all power of spiritual life by joints and sinews is conveyed from the head to the members, & every member yieldeth to the rest the duty of love and service which is appointed unto it. But to satisfy for an others sins, is not the office of any member of the Church, neither hath S. Paul where you quote, or any where else, either the words or meaning of any such merit or satisfaction of any man for himself, much less for other. The ordinary ministry of men for such end & purposes as it is ordained of God, is to be thankfully embraced: but he hath no where appointed men to sacrifice, or satisfy his justice for sin, albeit he hath committed to men the word of reconciliation, the keys of the kingdom of heaven to keep and exercise, his sheep to feed, his mysteries to bestow, and full power to bind and lose according to his word, and not according to their affection will and pleasure.  ALLEN. 
Let no man marvel, that in such a face of God's justice, as we see by the enjoining of great penance in the Church after sins be remitted, and by Gods own often scourgies temporal both in this world and the next, let no man (I say) marvel, that yet there be ways of God's mercy, and means through the ministery of man to turn away the wrath of our Lord, and by other helps to satisfy his justice again. Only let the party in all his insufficiency be zealous, devous, and diligent as he may, and God himself will a thousand ways seek of his own mercy to satisfy himselfc with his sons pains applied by the travail of other the faithful that have been and be in his Church, to the help and relief of that member that hath nothing left but love, and the fellowship of holy Saints, whereby he may crave mercy and pardon. Let them consider that doubt of this point, how often God hath, as it were, determined to plague the people of Israel, which he cheese to be his peculiar, and yet in the midst of his decree and justice, hath given mercy and grace at Moses and Aaron's requests. Yea, how often he hath, as it were, procured the just to stand betwixt him and the people whom he meant to punish. Mansuetum habemus dominum, solùm occastonem arripere vult, & mox omnem praese fert misericordiam, saith Saint chrysostom. We 
Homil. 10. de poenit.  have a meek master, he only taketh occasion, and sireight he showeth himself wholly to be given to mercy. He appointeth to punish, that they may see, what of justice their sin requireth yet he seeketh means himself, that their high priests and guides may turn away the iniouned plague, that they may learn (said the said holy Doctor) that they had their pardon, not of their own merits or deservings, but by Moses Patronage and prayers. That you may see thereby how one member relieveth, through God's mercy, his sellowe member that lacked. Whereby there appeareth both exceeding justice, & much more mercy. All his ways truly be mercy and judgement, to such as love his testimonies.  FVLKE. 
Men must needs marvel at yourimpudencie, that will defend a necessity of temporal pain to be suffered by the party whose sins are remitted for satisfying of God's justice, and yet will have the same be released without the parties suffering, and God's justice be answered without the pain of the soul that offended. For otherwise the passion of Christ we know is sufficient and effectual to take away all pain, because God's justice is throughly satisfied by him. You grant it sufficient, and deny it to be effectual, because God's justice requireth temporal pain of the party that offended, as well as satisfaction for the sin ' and eternal pain thereby deserved, which heretical assertion cannot stand with any pardon or satisfaction by an other, how soever you go about the bush in words, and show of setting forth God's mercy to reconcile them. Neither doth enjoining of ponance by the ancient Church, nor Gods own temporal scourges in this life prove any necessity of suffering for satisfaction of God's justice unsatisfied by the passion of Christ. The temporal scourges after this life, you must first prove that there be such, before you can conclude any thing by such. Neither hath God a thousand ways to seek, to satisfy himself with his sons pains, but the only mediation, and propitiation of his son, is the way to satisfy his justice for sin: Neither requireth he the travel of any man other 
1. Tim. 2. 1. joh. 2. 2.  than the external ministery of the Church, to apply the pains of his son unto the benefit of sinners, which ministery consisteth in preaching his word, delivery of his sacraments, and exercising of discipline, not in meriting and making satisfaction for sin, or in deserving that Christ satisfaction should be available to take away sin, or any pain due for the same. That God hath often given mercy and grace at Moses and Aaron's request, it proveth not his justice to be satisfied by Moses or Aaron's works; but only by Christ, in whom all prayers of the saints are effectual, or to obtain mercy, either for themselves, or for others. And when he stirreth up the just to stand betwixt him and the people, when he should punish, he 
joh. 5.  setteth not man's justice or merits between his justice and the offenders, but provoketh them to seek mercy and forgiveness for jesus Christ's sake, the only Mediator of God and man. And that is the meaning of chrysostom, whose words you cite, and translate at your pleasure: but thus they are, hom. de penit, & confess. Mansuetum habemus dominum, solùm occasionem arripere vult, & mox omnem praese fert misericordiam. Nam ne peccantes & inulti manentes nos efficeremur deteriores, non remisit nobis supplicium, sed vidit hoc manifestè, quòd peccatis ipsis non minus damnosum sit non puniri: propter hoc imponit poenam, non exigens supplicium de peccatis, sed ad futura nos corrigent. Et ut discas quod hoc sit verum: audi quid dicatad Mosem: dimite me, & iratus delebeos: dimit me, non quod Moseseum retinuerit, neque enim locutus erat ad eum, sed silenter astabat sua pro illis oratione: non autem supplicacionem ei dare volebat, quonamilli digna suppliciis comiserant, suppliciisque inevitabilibus, punire autem volebat sed miserecorditer: quod eos segniores reddebat. Viraque autem fecit, & us paenam non infers, neque illos faceret ignaviores paena non irrogata. Discebant. n. quod non sue merito, sed Mosis patrocinio, iram dominicam effugerint. We hau a gentle Lord, he only will take an occasion and straight he showeth forth all mercy. For lest we sinning and abiding unpunisbed should be made worscr, he hath not remitted the punishment unto us, but this he saw manifestly, that it is no less hurtful than the sins themselves, not to be punished, for this cause he layeth on us a pain, not exacting punishment for sins, but correcting us for the time to come. And that thou mayest learn, that this is true, hear what he saith to Moses. Let me alone, and in mine anger I will destroy them. Let me alone (saith he) not that Moses did hold him, for he had not spoken unto him. But stood with silence in his prayer for them. But he would give him no supplication, because they had committed things worthy of punishment, and of punishment unavoidable. He meaned to punish, but mercifully, which made them more slothful. But these two things he did, both that he should not lay punishment on them, nor make them more sloth full because punishment was not taken. For they learned that not by their own merit, but by patronage of Moses they escaped the Lords anger. These words of S. Chrysostom do manifestly declare, that the temporal punishment that God layeth upon his people, are not satisfactions of his justice, but corrections of his mercy. The patronage of Moses in this place signifieth not the merits of Moses, but his prayers and entreaty made for them, which are heard for Christ's sake, and not for the worthiness of him that prayeth. For no man hath access to God, but only in the worthiness and merits of jesus Christ: in whom 
joh. 14. 6.  God hath set forth his wonderful glory of mercy & justice, to the eternal salvation of all his saints, which love his testimonies, and unto whom all his ways are merit and truth, as the Prophet saith Psal. 25. 10.  ALLEN. 
And it fareth with our Lord God, as it doth with a wise and discreet master towards his servants, or with a father towards his loving children for they will often show themselves to be rigorous & bend to chastise, the faults of their servants & children, and yet themselves of their own accord will often procure some other to hinder their intended punishments, and to take from them as it were by force their children or other offenders: even so standeth it between God & the children of his chosen Church, who though he often justly show himself angry, and bend to correction, never the less he doth not only mercifully remit, but procureth himself, other, either patrons, or intercessors for whose sakes he may justly & by good reason remit, After many threatenings of the city and people of jerusalem he thus moveth himself to mercy: Circuit vias jerusalem, 
Hiere. 5.  & a spicite, & considerate, & quaerite in plateis eius, an invenias virum facientem judicium, & quaerentem fidem, & propitius ero ei. Look round about the city, and view the streets thereof and have good consideration whether any one may be found there that doth justice, and studeth after faithfulness, and I will have mercy on the City. In the fift of jeremy. Where you may perceive that God will forgive all, for ones deserts, and that the good works of one, may by God's justice supply the lack of many other, not yet to deliver any man from everlasting damnation that is impenitent, and therefore in case and state of eternal death. For the work of the faithful can not extend to do good to such as be for ever separated from their fellowship, and therefore can be no members of the common body, in the firm knot whereof only, their is mutual health and help, among such as partly lack and partly do abound, for release of the rod of temporal correction, that is often laid upon the children, and not of any eternal punishment, that only happeth to such as be separated and cut of effectually from Christ's body, which is the Church, for ever.  FVLKE. 
You continue still in Chrysostom's argument, but you follow neither his words nor his meaning: for he speaketh neither of meriting nor satisfying. For his words are these immediately following that which I have last rehearsed? Haec & nos Saepe facimus & famulos qui peccaverunt dignos suppliciis nolentes punire, neque à supplicij metu liberari, anico, jubemus, ut illos è nostris eripiant manibiatque ut ita timor illorum in eyes crescat, & nostra effugiant verbera. Hoc & Deus fecit. Et quòd hoc sit verīs ex ipsis verb is manifestum est. dimit me inquit & irascar. Etenim nullus remittit qui punire vult: tuncenim irascimur: Ipse autem dicit dimit me & irascar: ut scias quodirain Deo non sit affectio, sed pana in nos eo vocabulo nominetur. Quando igitur audis Mosem dicentem, siquidem dimittis pecceatum dimit: prae servo Dominum obstupesee, quod ipse sibi ipsi miserecordiae occasionem quaerit. Non hîc autem solum hoc fecit, sed & ad jeremiam, & ad Ezechielem idem hoc dicit: circuit & videte in viis Jerusalem, num sit qui faciat judicium & insticiam, & miserieors ero cis. Vidisti misericordiam? Multietiam impij unius virture simul fruuntur. Multorum autem malitia quamuis unus sit qui rectè agat in medio magni populi non 〈◊〉. Sed vnes quidem homo rectè vivens populum integrumeri pere potest ab ira Dei. Civitas autem integra per nersaque in suam poenam & supplicium attrahere bene viventem, & dietecre non potest. Et hoc de Noah manifestum. Pereuntibus enim omnibus, solus seruatus est. Et de Mose clarum est. Solus enim potuit tanto populo impetrare veniam. This do we also oftentimes, and being neither willing to punish our servants worthy of punishment which have offended, nor to deliver them from the fear of punishment, we bid our friends that they should deliver them out of our hands, and that so their fear may increafe in them, and they may avoid our stripes. This did god also, & that this is true it is manifest out of the very words. Let me alone (saith he) and I will be angry. for no man relenteth that will punish: for than we are, angry. But he saith, let me alone and I will be angry: that thou mayest know that anger in God is no affection, but punishment toward us is named by that term. Therefore when thou hearest Moses saying. If thou dost forgive this sin, forgive it, wonder at the Lord in comparison of the servant, that he himself seeketh unto himself occasions of mercy. Neither did he this thing here only, but also unto jeremy, and Ezechtel he saith the same thing, go round about, and see in the ways of jerusalem: whether there be any that doth judgement and justice, and I will be merciful unto them. Hast thou seen his mercy? many also ungodly persons enjoy the virtue of one man together. And by the malice of many although there be but one that doth well in the midst of a great people, he doth not fall. But one man truly living well, may deliver a whole people from the wrath of God: but a whole commonalty that is perverse, cannot draw into their pain, and punishment him that liveth well, nor cast him down. And this is manifest of Noah, for when all perished he alone was preserved. And of Moses it is clear. For he alone was able to obtain pardon for so great a people. In all these words, here is no mention or meaning of merit or satisfaction, but only of mercy, as appeareth in the example of men requiring their friends to deliver their servants from punishment: where not the worthiness of the friends can be the cause, but the mercy of the Master. Again he speaketh of the avoiding of temporal plagues in this life, whereof even the ungodly, and they that pertain not to the communion of Saints, often times are partakers, which proceedeth of the love of God towards his children, and not of their merit, which you confess can not extend to them, that be for ever separated from their fellowship.  ALLEN. 
Neither do the deserts only of the living help the necessity of their fellow members being yet alive, but such as bedead also, do communicate in their works with their brethren yet abiding in this world. And God of his singular mercy is often contented, to be answered by them for their poor fellow servants that be indebted so far in the Church, that they be not able in their own persons to dscharge their own debt 
Sermon de poeniten. & confess.  nor come out of the same, whereof the said Saint chrysostom doth excellently well consider in these words of his sermon de poenitentia: mihi autem (saith he) aliud maius est divinae misericordiae judicium, quod dicam. Cum enim non invenis homines vivos, & fiducia praeditos, qui possint intercedendo veniam obtinere, confugit ad defunctos, & per illos inquit, se remissurum peccata. Ezechiae enim dicit, protegam civitatem hanc propter me, & propter david puerum meum. Olim enim mortuus erat David. That is to say: I have yet a plainer and greater token of God's mercy, which I will show you. For when he findeth none alive that be of confidence, which might by intercession procure pardon, he turneth to the departed, and saith he will remit sins for their sakes. For he spoke to Ezechias thus: I will defend this city for my own sake, and my child 
4. Reg. 10 & Esa. 57  David's sake and yet David was dead long afore.  FVLKE. 
This place of chrysostom followeth immediately after his words set dowen in the section last before: in which he speaketh neither of the deserts of the living, nor of the dead, able to answer his justice for other: but altogether of the mercy of god, which taketh occasion even of his love, which he beareth towards his Saints that are departed, to show compassion upon them that are alive: & this for his covenants sake: although chrysostom seemeth to speak of the intercession of them that are departed, which yet proveth no merit or satisfaction. For to become an humble suitor for a benefit, or a pardon, is not to deserve a benefit, or to satisfy for an offender's trespass. And this benefit he giveth (saith Saint cyril upon this text) unto the memory of holy men, that sometime he forgetteth the evils which their posterity have committed. 
In Esa. l. 3.  To the like effect speaketh Saint Jerome, that which God giveth of his mercy is no merit or satisfaction to his justice.  ALLEN. 
And surly if in the days of old, where neither so much grace nor mercy was to be found, nor Christ which is the fountain of all pardon, was not yet offered up to pay the debts of his brethren sins, nor the communion of Saint was yet so fully established, whereby the merits, of one might redound to an other, nor the Church so honoured with the gift of God's spirit for remission of man's offences, nor the priesthood of God so credited with the keys of the kingdom: if afore all these things were no otherwise wrought, but in base figurse, such ways were found out, and that by Gods own procurement of mercy and grace. in the midst, of intoyned penance and punishment, what need we to doubt, but their now be many means made in this happy society of Saints, so to remit the bond of satisfaction to some, that God's justice may be answered again by other of this happy household in the abundance of their holy works, which the Church holdeth most holily for to be a perfect and everlasting treasure, to satisfy God's righteousness and procure mercy to the needy, which by love, zeal & devotion do deserve the same? If God remitted of old, temporal pain unto his people at the call of Moses and Aaron, and for his child David's sake that was dead, what will not he mercifully forgive by our high priests procurements, whose pardons and punishments Christ hath solemnly promised he would ratify and allow in heaven above? What will he not do in respect of the pains and abundant passions of his own child jesus, that hath yet in the Catholic Church his death so duly represented for the remission of our daily debts? what can be denied to the intercession of so many Saints, to the chaste combat of so many Virgins, to the bloody fight of so many Martyrs, to the stout standing of so many Confessors? what mercy may not the Church crave and doubtless obtain for any of her children, either in penance ' in this world, or in pain in the next: that hath in her treasure such abundance of satisfaction, first in our head Christ jesus, through whose gracious works all other men's pains, are become beneficial either to themselves or their brethren, and then in the store of all holy saints travilles not yet wasted in procuring mercy for others, besides more ways of grace and remission, that our mother the Church hath in readiness to relieve her children that do continue in her happy lap and in the society of her communion, with humble submission of themselves to the powers ordained of Christ for the government of their souls, with request for this pardon, at their hands, to whom be given the bestowing and disposing of the inestimable treasure of so blessed a ministery?  FVLKE. 
The grace and mercy of God in jesus Christ, was as largely to be found for the salvation of his people in the days of old, as in these days. jesus Christ was yesterday, and to day is the same, and for evermore. And the Lamb was slain, from the beginning of the world 
Heb. 12. 8.  as touching the effect of his death unto all Gods elect: and the communion of the Saints was as fully established, to the receiving of all virtue of life from Christ their head, and to the mutual service of love, and ministering of gods gifts one to another: but not to merit at all, either for themselves, or for other. Such meriting is dishonourable to the head, from whom every member receiveth life, and all power and offices thereof, according to the measure of every member, to the increase, and 
Eph. 4. 1. 6  building up of the whole body in love. The Church of old had also the ministery of remission of sins, and the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and that not in base figures only, but insufficient effect, to the everlasting salvation of God's people. And therefore to say, that all these things were none otherwise wrought, but in base figures, is to deny the salvation of all the fathers that died before the incarnation of Christ. For base figures could have but base effects: base figures could not work eternal life. The ministery figures of the law separated from Christ, are in deed the weak and beg gerlie elements of the world: but being referred to Christ, and made effectual by his death through faith in the partakers, they are of the same power and riches unto everlasting salvation, that the ministery and sacraments of the new Testament. But admit that nothing was wrought to them but in base figures; yet it followeth not, that after the incarnation and actual death of Christ, there should be any more means to remit the bond of satisfaction, by answering God's justice, then in that only sacrifice obedience, and suffering of Christ, or that the Church should have such a store house of man's merits to satisfy God's righteousness, or that men by love, zeal, and devotion, may deserve God's mercy: these popish positions can never be proved. Again whatsoever God remitted at the prayer of Moses and Aaron, and for his covenant made with David, or whatsoever he gave to the memory of that holy man, he remitted, and gave for jesus Christ's sake, in whom only his justice was satisfied, and he well pleased. But your high priest with his Antichristian pardons, and punishments, which are grounded upon the merits of men, or coloured with the merits of Christ, which yet are rend and rorne from the effect of his death, Christ will destroy with the breath of his mouth, and abolish with his glorious appearing. For the death and passion of his son jesus Christ, God will be merciful to his servants that by faith take hold of the power of his death: but neither by masses nor pardons doth he bestow the virtue thereof. The good works and sufferings of the saints, be examples of virtue and patience, not merits or gifts of righteousness. The death of Christ answering God's justice, and reconciling us to his favour, hath made that good works of his saints, which are the gifts of his grace though unperfect, as they proceed from us unpure and unworthy vessels, yet nevertheless to be acceptable before God unto reward, which he giveth of mere mercy, and not of merit or desert. Therefore there is no shadow for Popish pardons, to shroud themselves under the wings of the good works of Saints, which are the fruits of faith, to declare them to be justified, not any cause by which in the sight of God they can appear just, and much less be able to justify other.  ALLEN. 
Would God every man could feel, how happy a thing it is, to dwell as brethren together in the house of God under the appointed Pastors of that family, in which only God's favour is everlastingly found, that they might therewith be partakers of all their works that fear God, & might have some sense and taste of that holy ointment of God's spirit, and gift 
Ps. 132. In Psal. 132.  of his grace, that first was upon the head of this household, our Master Christ jesus, and then dropped down abundantly to his beard, even to the very beard of Aaren, whereby (as S. Augustine saith) the holy Apostles be signified, and by them is issued down to the homme of Christ's coat, and imbrued all the borders of his garments, that every one of the fellowship might receive benefit, and feel the verdure thereof. Quoniam 〈◊〉 mandavit Dominus benedictionem, & vitam usque in seculum. For in this happy fellowship only our Lord bestoweth his manifold blessings, and life for evermore. Amen.  FVLKE. 
Who so looketh for sense, from any other fountain or beginning, then from the head alone, shall feel no more than a stone. But who so through faith is become a lively member of the mystical body of Christ, by the operation of his holy spirit, shall undoubtedly have a most sweet feeling of that most happy & spiritual conjunction of himself, first unto the head which is Christ, then unto his body, which is the Church, and may cheerfully sing with David: Behold how good and pleasant a thing it is, that brethren dwell together. But such is the abundance of grace and virtue in the head Christ, that he seeketh not for merit or desert in himself, or in any of his fellow members, although he receive the gracious ointment of spiritual doctrine, as S. Augustine doth expound it, flowing from Christ to his Apostles, and from them into all parts of his Church: by which he is not taught to trust in himself, or to depend upon other men's merits or pardons: but to repose the whole hope of his salvation & deliverance from the wrath of God in the merits and satisfaction of jesus Christ his head: towhome with the father and the holy ghost be everlasting praise of our redemption, reconciliation, salvation, glorification in his holy Church, and fellowship of Saints throughout all generations, & world without end,   
Amen.  
God be praised for ever.   

AN APOLOGY OF THE PROFESSORS OF THE GOSPEL IN france AGAINST THE RAILING DECLAMATION OF PEter Frarine a Lovanian turned into English by john Fowler.  
Written by William Fulke.   

AN APOLOGY AGAINST THE RAILING DECLAMATION OF PETER FRARINE.  
IT is pity, that the precedent of the quodlibetical disputations of Louane, had no more discretion, then to propound in steed of exercises, of learning, a question pertaining to the estate, and doings of other people, with whom, neither the speaker, nor the hearers had any thing to do, neither were able by knowledge of their affairs to discern the cause, nor by authority of their place, to decide the controversy. But seeing they are disposed, otherwise then wise men would be, to be curious in a foreign common wealth; and Fowler hath fantafied, that the same also may appertain to England, which in Flaunders was declaimed against France: Let us see what Peter Frarine bringeth, which may concern the common cause of religion, where in they of France, against whom he hath shot his bolt, do agree with us in England. First he saith, as most wicked persons, they have disturbed religion, and peace. A grievous accusation. But where is the proof? The question of religion, he leaveth to be handled of others, the deciding whereof nevertheless, would purge the persons accused, for the most part of the other crime of disturbance, of peace. Well, the respondent is not to be blamed, that standeth upon that question which according to the custom of the school, was propounded to be the argument of his talk at that time. And therefore he will open & declare, first that there was no cause, or just occasion why these men should rise, and make insurrection. Then that they took weapon in hand without authority, contrary to law, and in despite of all Magistrates and Rulers. Last and finally, that they used themselves to cruelly, & handled their sword to bloodelie, to the greatest damage, hindrance, and loss, that ever was felt in Christendom. These are the divisions of the circle, with in which the orator hath enclosed himself. But all these points, so far as they concern the troubles in France, are fully and directly confuted, by all the edicts of pacification, given forth to the knowledge of the world, by Charles the ninth, and Henry the third, Kings of France: in which they have always acknowledged, that the Protestants upon just cause, with sufficient authority, and in their service, and to their honour, have put themselves in arms, and done whatsoever the necessity of war lawfully taken in hand, hath enforced them to do. Then judge, whether against the public testimony of two Kings, whom the matter most concerned, and that more than once, or twice repeated, I need to stand in the confutation of Peter Frarines petty & private declamation. Notwithstanding although I have with one hatchet hewn a sunder the whole stoke, of this railing oration, yet I will not spare to brattell out the bows, and branches thereof, in answering to every particular quarrel, and cavil of the same.  
There was not any good or reasonable cause (saith he) why the founders, and brokers of this new Gospel, should be driven to put themselves in arms, against the Catholics. See how the vain declaimer, which refused before, to handle the question of religion, now taketh upon him most arrogantly to decide the same. For if the Protestants be founders and brokers of a new Gospel, and the Papists be good Catholics, there is no cause, why they should once open their mouths against the Papists, much less arm themselves, (as he said they did) against the Catholics. But if this matter pertain to the question of religion, the debating whereof is not presently intended, let us pardon him these prejudicial terms, as well now, as hereafter, and consider only, what reasons he bringeth, to prove his purpose. No laws ought to be changed, with out great cause, least of all the laws of religion. So far we both agree: but there is great cause to change laws ofreligion; when Antichristes decrees have displaced the laws of God, the only rule of true religion. Yet (saith he) there can never be any reason, or sufficient cause alleged, that innovation of religion, should be attempted by force of arms, by war, and rebellion, by fire, and sword, by murder, and blood shed, of good and faithful subjects, Let this also be granted: for this nothing toucheth the cause of them, which, to maintain a law made for religion, and to defend themselves from the cruelty of private persons, are required by the governors of the realm to arm themselves, for defence of the King his laws, and their own lives.  
The law of the Locrensians pleaseth him well: that the procurer of any alteration, should preach with a rope about his neck, wherewith he should be strangled, if the audience misliked his devise. The rope had need to be in wise men's hands, where that law should be practised; or else the Apostles, and first preachers of religion in the world, might have been hardly handled, before they had half uttered their message. And therefore the Princes, and rulers of the word in this our time, are wiser than Peter Frarine, or john Fowler, in not establishing, and practising of this jaw, as these men would wish they had. But the default thereof (saith he) hath caused so lamentable an estate of all things, wars, tumults, slaughters, ruins, Churches, and towns overturned, etc. Admit these were the effects (as they are nothing less) of the Protestants preaching; what would the law of the Locrensians have stayed in this case; when with the good liking both of the Prince, and of the people, these preachers have been heard, and their doctrine received? It grieveth him, that it was free for these preachers, without any fear of the rope frankly and boldly to persuade with the people. And thinketh he that fear of the Locrensians rope would have restrained them, whom the terror of Antichristes fire, and tragical torments, never discouraged to publish the message of Christ their master? Nay they went further, from words to wounds, and blows, they attempted reformation, by civil war and rebellion. There was a company of desperate persons that ran about the strcetes of Paris, with naked sword in their hands, and cried out, the gospel, the gospel, (as Claudius de sanctes, an utter enemy of the gospel, beareth witness) But I pray you M. Frarine were these preachers that so ran and cried, that beside varnished words disbursed wounds and blows? If they were not preachers, (as your author Claudius cannot say they were) how hangeth your talk together? Must the preachers be charged with every disorder of their hearers. Then let the Popish preachers answer, for all thefts, murders, treasons, incests, rebellions, and other offences, of papists; but if any such desperate persons ran about, as you say, how prove you, that they were disciples, of the protestant Preachers, and not rather futious firebrands, of the popish friars, and sorbonical teachers, by whose seditious sermons, they were incensed to murder the Protestants, and true professors of the Gospel; for how like is it, that so small a number of the Protestants, as was never able to afford but an handful of fight men in Paris, would attempt to arm themselves, against such an infinite multitude of zealous, & mutinous Papists, as were in that City? Where the very Croisters and common porters, (that I speak nothing of so many thousand artificers) had been able, not only to have withstood their attempt, but also to have chased them out of the city. Notwithstanding, if you willneedes urge your Author's report, that they were Protestants, why do you not tell us how many they slew with those glistering sword? At least wise name one whom they wounded with those weopons in their hands, when they cried out, The gospel, the gospel.  
Contrariwise how thirsty of blood the Papists & their preachers have been, it is an easy matter to make manifest proof. For that I speak nothing of the horrible massacre most cruelly executed not only in Paris; but throughout all the realm of France: the cruelty whereof would over whelm at once, and swallow up whatsoever can be feigned of the Protestants severity. There be many hundredth witnesses alive, which can report, that in the latter end of the reign of King Henry the second, the Popish preachers perceiving how greatly he favoured their cause, stirred up the people in their daily sermons unto sedition, affirming that it was a thing acceptable unto God, and meritorious, if any man should kill a lutheran: whereupon ensued many horrible murders, of which some are particularly recorded in history. In the Church yard of Saint Innocent's immediately after a sermon, when two were brawling as the people came 
Comment. de statu lib. 1.  forth of the Church, and the one more of spite, then of any cause, called the other lutheran, the people straight way ran upon him, and pursued him into the Church, whether he fled for sanctuary. A certain gentleman passing that way, with his brother, which was a Popish Priest, hearing that a man should be slain of the people, in devoureth to pacify their minds with fair words, to deliver the poor man from their hands. A hedge Priest by and by crieth out, that this gentleman was the man whom they sought for, which durst defend a lutheran. The people immediately set upon the gentleman. The priest his brother began to speak for him: but thereby they were more enraged. To be short, after they were both drawn out of the Church, the gentleman hardly escaped into the curates house: The poor priest with many wounds was cruelly murdered, saying his Confiteor, by which it did sufficiently appear he was no lutheran. Not many days before that, a certain Sorbonist (whom they called the Picardes soul, a common trumpet of sedition in those days) to inflame the people against the Lutherans, used often to beat upon this point, that it was an holy thing to shed the Lutherans blood. The slaughter of whom, as of the Canaanites of old time, was very acceptable to God, and that the hands of the godly Catholics should so be consecrated. Acertaine student, which came to hear one of his sermons, chanced to smile upon his fellow which sat by him: an old woman that espying, cried out, that there was a lutheran which mocked the preacher. The brutish people no sooner heard that voice but without further enquiry, they drew that student out of the Church, and most cruelly digged out his eyes, and dinged out his brains.  
The indiferent reader may reasonablelie by these examples gather, what havoc was made of them that were known to be Protestants indeed; when upon so light occasions, they that were not, known, nor justly suspected, were so suddenly murdered: when the Priestly apparel could not defend the priest, who favoured the Lutherans no further, then to speak a word for his own brother, who was in manifest danger of being murdered, while he sought no more, but by honest persuasions, to deliver a third person from murder. against whom there passed no sentence, to convict him of Lutheranizme, but the malicious reproach of his enemy, who by all likelihood was as much a Lutheran as the other, and perhaps, neither of them both either of religion, or of honesty. These preachers of Paris most worthy not of the Locrensians rope, but ofa much greater torment, as procures of so wilful murder, should M. Frarine call upon with the saying of Christ unto Saint Peter: put up thy sword into thy sheath: rather than the preachers of the Gospel, who neither drew any sword themselves, nor ever were authors or counsellors to any man, of murder and cruel bloodshedyea to the pope himself which vaunteth that he is Peter's successor, this text should be most aptly applied, when he not only stirreth up Princes to make wars, one against an other, but he himself also maketh bloody battles, not for defence of religion, but to maintain his one worldly quarrels, not to hold his own right, but to invade other prince's dominions. Put up thy sword into thy sheath (said Christ unto S. Peter) the sword of Paul, said julie the second, shall defend us, when yonder key of Peter will no longer serve us. But Friar Luther is called to witness, that it was not the Gospel, which the Protestants took in hand to maintain, by these bloody wars: who said in the assembly at Lipsia. (Neither was this matter ever begun for God's quarrel, neither shall be ended for God's sake.) Hereupon follow great outcries: but who is witness, that these were Luther's words, which every Papist doth so spitfullie gnaw upon? None but Luther's enemies Emser and Eccius, and the Legate: yet was there present many other, not only his friends, but more indifferent persons, than his professed adversaries: yet none of them can bear witness of this speech. But admit the words were spoken in the only hearing of his enemies, doth it follow that they must needs have no other sense, but that which the Papists do most maliciously imagine of the? Might not Luther mean of that cause, & matter, which his adversaries had begone against him? or is it proable to any reasonable man's judgement, that Luther would deny, that the contention which he then maintained against the popish heresy, was ever begone for God's quarrel, or should be ended for his sake? If then this malicious sense carry with it no likelihood of truth, whereto serveth that exclamation? O noble, sentence, etc. & the rest that followeth. What wars did Euther ever make or move, that he should be called forth by Frarine, to show his commission from god for soul doings? Yea if at were true, that Luther both spoke & meant as you falsty charge him: & had been as great: an hypocrite, as he was a sincere preacher, were those only word sufficient to carry away the whole cause of the Gospel, from the Protestants to the papists, and to prove that no other protestant had commission or authority from God, if Luther confessed he had none? See I pray you what weighty arguments the papists lean unto while they accuse the protestants to have made war without just cause. But P. Frarine dissembleth no this adversaries objection, that faith was well nigh querched and out of the Church, which the Protestants purposed to reform. Neither may we dissemble his answer. Christ prayed (saith he) for S. Peter, that his faith should never fail, and will you say that he prayed in vain? No verily: for we believe that S. Peter's faith, neither in that most grievous temptation, against which he was comforred by these words of our saviour Christ, neither in any other to his lives end did ever fail. But what doth that appertain to the pope or popish Church? Again he saith, hath not the holy Ghost taught the Church all truth, for which cause he came down from heaven? we believe the holy ghost taught all truth to the Apostles according to Christ's promise, and upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles the Church is builded to continue forever. If the popish synagogue host of the holy Ghost without the foundation of the Prophets and apostles, who shall believe that she is the Church of Christ?  
But if your purpose was (saith Frarine) to reform the Christian faith, when you could not persuade the people by reason, did you think it the best way with gunshot and beetles to drive the faith into their heads? You are greatly deceived: the mind may be induced by reason, it can not be compelled by stripes. No sir: they never had purpose to persuade faith by blows and battle, neither did they ever put on armour for such purpose; but constrained by injury, and allowed by authority to defend themselves. Neither did they ever think, that the vicious manners of men, were to be reform by any other means, then by preaching of God's word, Christian discipline and godly laws. And therefore to term them but fling-braines and light Lack straws, and all their doings nothing but a bloody butchery, a heinous wickedness, a devilish dealing an impiety never to be pardoned (as Frarine doth) it is the sentence of a light, and lavish orator, & not of a grave and lawful judge. What would this man have termed the massacre of Paris, and the executioners there of? where not in painted words, but in most cruel and lamentable deeds, more than ten thousand persons of all degrees, ages, and sexes were murdered in one day, without any examination, process, or sentence; but being called together under the pretence of 〈◊〉, league, and marriage.  
But to proceed in our matter, you that accuse the papists (saith Frarine) for their evil life, are the work men and naughtiest livers that ever trod on earth. And that did Luther himself, (whom he calleth the third Elias) plainly confess, that the manners of men were far more vicious under his Gospel, than ever they were before under the Popedom. But I pray you Master Frarine, saith Luther so much of all that professed the Gospel, which he preached: or of some hypocrites, whose wickedness was greater after knowledge received, them it was in ignorance? The truth is, Luther neither flattereth the ungodly, which out wardlie professed the Gospel, nor yet accuseth all true professors, for the wickedness of some hypocrites. What then doth Luther's testimony make for Frarines' slander? that they which accuse the papists are the worst men in the world. But if anyof the disciples (saith he) dare deny this matter the adulterous beds, the smoke of burnt houses; the earth yet moist with blood, theirpurses swelling with spoil, bear witness against them. These general acusations deserve no answer, except they be exemplified by particulars. And therefore he calleth forth Martin Luther, being ready to charge him if he dare show his face, with rebellion, sedition, sacrilege, impiety, heresy, and all manner of wicked vices, and heinous offences that can reign in a man, by the testimony of Charles the Emperor, Henry the eight, King of England, and Sigismonde King of Pole, in their several edicts, and public writings. And as though he had him bound with invincible chains of this argument, he asketh him, what he can lay against these witnesses? As though it were not the easiest thing in the world to answer, that all these (though the noblest, the best, and worthiest of credit in their time, yet were to far distant from the place where he lived, to be eye witnesses of his naughty behaviour. And therefore whatsoever they did write, must needs proceed from the false suggestion of his enemies. Where otherwise it is not credible, that the Duke of Saxony under whom Luther lived, if he had known him to be so vile a person, would have suffered him to live, much les would have reform religion according to his preaching. From Luther thus summoned to appear, he taketh upon him, as the Pythonesse played with Samuel, to call up calvin out of hell, to confess, that he kept a Nun five years in his chamber, until she was great with child by him, and that he married her to an Apostata cannon that dwelled at Lausanna. And this (he saith) that all the world knoweth. If you ask him, by what testimony? he produceth a slanderous libellintituled passavant Parisien printed at Paris 1559. Against the falsehood whereof, which never deserved credit with any reasonable man, the whole city of Geneva is ready to give testimony, under their common seal, if need were, that there was never any colour of such a slander, so impudently devised: which in deed sufficiently confuteth itself: that in so many years, and among so many, enemies as calvin had both in that city, and abroad, it could never be broached, until the year 1559, which was 24. years, after his coming to Geneva, which vile slander Fowler in the description of his infamous, picture, setterh forth, with blasphemous abusing of the holy name of the Gospel, to signify the most vile and filthy act of lechery.  
From calvin our Frarine passeth to Beza, whom with like impudency he burdeneth with two heinous crimes: and yet so confidently, that he doubteth not to speak unto him in these words. Deny if thou dare Theodore Beza, deny if thou canst for shame: Would you not think, he had manifest proofs of the crimes in such sort objected? Let us hear then, what they are. First he chargeth Beza, to have sold his eccleslasticall livings (which he had in France) before his departure to two divers men for ready monié. For which double dealing he was denounced excommunicate, and so proclaimed in all the market places of Paris. To prove this crime, he quoteth in the margin, the preface of Bezaes' confession. But in that preface Beza indeed confesseth, that the revenues of those Church livings (which his friends had procured for him) were a great let to him for a long season, to make open confession of his faith, from the sweetness of which gain, as a filthy dog from greasy leather, he could hardly be driven away, until almighty God by an extreme sickness, so waked him out of that security, that immediately after his first recovery, he left at once his country, Parents, and friends, and departed with his wife unto Geneva. But of selling his benefices in such an unhonest manner, there is no mention: but contrariwise in the same preface, he defieth all the world, for any other crime of dishonesty, than the setting forth of certain wanton verses, which were made when he was a child, and printed while he was under the age of twenty years. The second crime objected is: that he married an other man's wife, who was a tailor, dwelling in Harp street at Paris: whom Master Charkes Censurer out of Bolsec, affirmeth to have dwelled in the Calendar street (that you may know how well the witnesses agree together) with further slaunderrs: as that she was called of Beza Mistress Candidae or mistress Beauty in his bawdy verses. Whereas it is well known, that Beza in that poetical fiction, devised after the imitation of ancient Poets, meant no special person; and least of all could mean his wife: for that in those verses he commendeth Candidae, being great with child to the Gods, Whereas his wife never had any child by him. Further he saith that she fled to the stews, because her husband having taken her in adultery had given her a gash with a knife in the hip. A pretty invention, if the gash had been in her face, or in any other part of her body, that might have been seen with honesty; some or other should have been witness of the scar: and therefore it is placed, where none for shame, might demand the sight for trial. another cause of her flight unto the stews was (as he saith) because she had been put in prison, for that she fetched a friscoll when she was dawnsing in a tavern with her customers, & said. Hoy one leap more for all Christian souls. A sorry cause why she should fly to the come stews, because she had been imprisoned. Is it not more like if any such thing had been, or if she had been willing to departed from her husband, that she having so many customers, as this tale pretendeth, and specially Beza, who could spend seven hundred crowns by the year, (as he confesseth) would not have sought aid of him, or them, rather than to have cast herself into a place of such public infamy. But all this fable is utterly denied of Beza, as containing no spark of truth: for his wife (whom he married privily in Paris, in the presence of one or two only of his friends) was of so godly and honest behavionr, that she would not consent to the match, but upon express promise and condition, that assoon as he could conveniently, all impediments set aside, he should carry her into the Church of God, and openly confirm the matrimony between them, and also that in the mean time he should enter into none of the Popish orders: both which conditions he faithfully performed. Here isnothing therefore brought against Beza, or his virtuous wife, but accusations without witness, slanders without proof, lies without colour or show of truth. The like I say of that general railing which followeth, both against the scholars of this gospellish congregation (as he scornfully termeth them) and the Mistress of the same: whose wickedness in all kind of horrible sins he affirmeth to be so great that if the lot had been between the Protestants and the papists (which order of justice he wisheth had been observed) that whether have most wickedly transgressed gods and man's laws, should have gone first to the gallows, there had not been one Protestant left alive to hold war against the Papists. I am ashamed to use any words in confutation of such a monstrous a lie, which no eninmie of the Protestants being in his right wits, doth think in his conscience to bear any credit, or similitude of truth. Many called Protestants have been wicked livers: but that all should be condemned in capital crimes, beyond the most wicked of the Papists, it is too beyond measure, a most pestilent, but yet a riduculous slander. But you (saith he) that can be are with no man's faults but your own, did not subscribe to the crime, as the law ordaineth, to bind yourselves to the punishment of the faults, which you could not prove against other. Yes verily, either for the general crime of heresies laid against Antichrist, and his synagogue, or the particular crimes, against the persons of many Papists, the reachers of this learning, which we profess, and many professors also have put to their names, and subscribed with their own hands. And although they failed not of proof, if they had been heard before indifferent judges, yet have they been cruelly tormented, and put to death, for the testimony of the truth: whereas if Frarine should have been bound to the ordinance of the law, which he prescribeth to others, if he had as many lives, as Hydra is feigned to have heads, his body would not have sufficed, to the execution which he hath deserved, both for his particular slanders against some men, and for his last general accusation of all Protestants. But yet more impudently you behaved yourselves, and more contrary to all order and form of lawful proceeding: for in this your monstrous judgement of reformation, you were accusers, witnesses, judges, and hang men yourselves. How much more rightly, might he have uttered this against the Pope, who being accused of heresy and blasphemy, would be his own judge, and tried by no witness, butof his own allowing: whereas the Protestants never refused the arbitrament of a free, and lawful council, the ancient remedy to decide the controversies of the Church, where the word of God should be the highest judge, against which no convocation of men have power to define any thing.  
But it may be saith Frarine) that your vow of chastity which you were not suffered to break by marriage (which he calleth bathing their bodies in the stinking puddle of carnal pleasures) was the cause of your uproars. How unfitly this quarrel of vows is alleged against calvin and Beza, the principal teachers of the french nation, who never made that vow; all wise men may laugh to consider. Yet he followeth the matter very whotlie, and saith: that faith and promise to a mortal enemy is to be kept: much more made to almighty God. I would this eloquent orator had been alive in the time of the council of Constance, that he might have persuaded the Popish Church to have kept the public faith, and safe conduit granted to Hus and Jerome, which was shamefully violated, under colour, that faith was not to be kept with heretics: or in the time of the slaughter of Varni, which drew with it the destruction of the noble realm of Hungary, that he might have dissuaded the pope, from stirring up the king of Hangary to break the faith, and league of peace, made with the great Turk, upon pretence, that faith is not to be kept with infidels. But as for vows made to god, except they be of things unlawful, or which are not in our power to perform, who doubteth but they are inviolably to be observed. The vow of chastity in such as are not able to contain, is not kept, by not marrying; But rather daily broken in burning. The remedy whereof, by the judgement of Epiphanius, and Saint Hierom, and the Catholic Church of their times, is marriage: and not the common stews, and brothel houses, light women, married and unmarried, and Nuns fallen from their profession; which Frarine doth leave unto them, as a less evil than marriage. But where are those common stews, and brothel houses, which (he saith) are open at all times, and every where at men's pleasures? Are there any to be showed under such Christian Princes & Magistrates, as maintain the doctrine of the Gospel? no verily: but where popery reigneth, & where the Pope setreth himself at Rome. No marvel though such gross impiety. be not only suffered to be unpunished: but also by the Pope's proctor's to be descended, as convenient. Yet some towns are so well ordered, that votaries can not be suffered to have a mistresses 
Harding contra Apoligiam.  Candida, for a vessel of easement, which (he saith) is Coverdales' phrase (yet showeth no place where) he demandeth then, whether that were a sufficient quarrel, to bid battle, to maintain the kingdom, and Gospel of Venus in every place (so chaste & religious his phrases be) while he carpeth at Coverdales' phrase: whom perhaps he belieth, in such sense as he meaneth. I answer there was no such cause: For if they had been as greatly addict to Lady Lechery, as he feigneth of them: those well ordered towns are not so many in Popery, but that they might with much more ease, have removed to Cities of greater licence: then to have taken in hand, and endured so great and dangerous wars. And if the satisfying of lust, without regard of conscience had been the mark they shot at, they needed not so to have bound themselves to one woman in marriage, which bringeth many cares, and troubles with it, when they might without controllement have had their change and choice (as you confess) by the common stews every where, even to the cloying of carnal lust, if they had continued still in Popery.  
But yet further searching out the cause of these wars taken in hand, he objecteth, that some of our 
1. Tim. 5.  side suffered for the words sake, for so (saith he) ye call that cursed Gospel of yours. Doubtless we call the word of God, and no Gospel of ours, but the Gospel of Christ, by that term, which we find used in the holy scriptures, & therefore are not afraid of it. Nay but you suffered worthily (saith he) for barking at prelate's, & Princes, for working all means to wring the sword out of their hands for troubling and disordering the state of common weals, for blaspheming the sacrament of the altar, and therefore they were no Martyrs, but rather devils. This lastcrime dependeth upon that controversy of doctrine, whether that which he termeth a sacrament, be not rather a sacrilege, & detestable Idol, as it is used in popery. The other crimes are utterly false, and manifestly confuted, by the quiet behaviour of those professors, in all places, where they be not assaulted with intolerable injuries, and by the flourishing estate of those kingdoms, & common wealths, where this doctrine, by public authority, hath long time been received. But was it meet (saith he) that because they could not freely preach the word, therefore they should, by and by, lay hand on the sword. The Apostles were went to suffer, and not to strike. But O Master Ministers, your word is very hard, you speak gunnestones, you preach fire, and powder, you ride to preach on barbed horses, you put on your corpsiet, not of faith but of iron. Al your proceed and teachings are contrary to Christ, and his doctrine. What wise man may not laugh, at this vain rhetoric, who hath seen or hard the modest and Christianlike behaviour of our preachers (that I speak nothing of their doctrine) yea Christ) saith he) was content to ride on an Ass, the Apostles to go barefot, in planting the Gospel. But whereon 〈◊〉 the pope, and how be his Cardinal's feet surbaighted, in going barefoot, to preach the Gospel? Although, I know not where he findeth in holy scripture, that the Apostles went barefote, in planting the Gospel. Their travel was great into all parts of the world, though they had been well should, yea booted, and ridden on horseback. But if the comparison be made, between the ministers of the Gospel, and Antichrist the Pope, and his proud prelate's, whether in patience, humility, and mildness of behaviour, be more like to Christ, and his apostles: we doubt not our cause, though the trial were before very partial judges. Well, howsoever it were, you should have suffered martyrdom, rather than to have resisted and murdered other, but that you would not, for you sought to live licentiously, and had no hope of eternal life after this. Among so many thousand as suffered martyrdom most quietly without resistance, when they were imprisoned, tormented, and condemned, by those which had power to kill their bodies, he can find no examples of patience, and hope of eternal life, except all the Protestants in the world will give there throats to be cut, and suffer themselves to be murdered, contrary to law, and liberties established by lawful authority, and that by private persons and bloody Tyrants: as the poor Christians were by the Duke of guise, at Vassi: and so should all the rest in France have been, if God had not stirred up divers Princes and noble men, at the request of the Queen Mother, to oppose themselves against the furious and traitorous attempts of that bloody tyrant: who abusing the minority of the King, whom he took captive, with his mother, usurped most unlawful power against the King, the Queen, the estates, and all the realm.  
Frarine therefore fareth with us, as that seditious Ruffian of Rome, who sued an action against his enemy, whom he had wrongfully wounded, because he received not his weapon deep enough, to death. Christ himself the pattern of patience, said to the servant, which most injuriously smote him, when he stood in judgement before the high priest, why smitest, thou me? if I have spoken evil, bear witness of evil, that is deal with me as order of justice requireth. And Saint Paul his faithful disciple, could not forbear that painted wall Ananias, who pretending to sit in judgement, according to the law, did (contrary to the law) command him to be smitten: and should the Protestants in France having both authority, and power to defend themselves, suffer the Duke of guise, a private man, and a stranger with his complices, to smite of all their heads, as it were with one stroke? and not rather, to oppose themselves against his fury; not only for defence of the gospel, but also for the maintenance of the law, and the liberty of their nation? There resistance therefore, was not treason, rebellion, cruelty, (as this declaimer raveth) butobedience, justice, and authority, to withstand treason, cruelty, and rebellion. Yet again he repeateth, that lack of liberty, was no just cause of these wars, seeing every where they might fill their paunches, carry a sister wife, about with them, toll Nuns out of cloisters, & filthily abuse them, still he speaketh as though none were Authors, Captains or Soldiers of these wars, but such licentious ministers, or as though so many princes, noble men, gentlemen, and valiant soldiers, as served in those wars, had no other quarrel, but to maintain the gluttony and lechery of a few lewd ministers; of which sort yet he is not able to name one: Nevertheless he saith that most commonly every Apostate Monk, had his Nun at his toil: and holy Kate her holy mate: Although the world knoweth that this might better be verified of Clauster all Monks and Nuns, of limiting friars, and their holy sisters. But srier Luther's pleasure was (if we believe this man) that his Lady Venus' court should be frank and free, if the wife (saith he) will not do it, let the maid supply her place. The will of God commandeth and necessity bindeth, as well to have carnal copulation as to eat and drink. See how malice draweth all words to the worst meaning. Luther in his book of Babylonical captivity, speaking in the person of Assuerus, taking Hester his maid to wife, when Vasti refused to come to him; hath some such words as he reporteth: If the wife will not, let the maid come, and possess her place, meaning nothing else, but the divorcing of Vasti, and the marrying of Hester: but nothing (as the Papists cavil) that a man having a wife, may abuse his maid. The other saying of the necessity of carnal copulation, is spoken only of them, that have not the gift of continency, for whom marriage is the lawful and necessary remedy, ordained by God, to avoid sin.  
To conclude this first part, he saith, it was neither religion, nor gospel, nor God's quarrel, they meant to further, but malice against the pope. as Luther in an epistle ad argentin: confesseth. But Luther never confessed any such matter, he might well acknowledge his just hatred against the Pope, as the enemy of Christ, and so do all true Christians. And if the estates of France had raised war for malice against the Pope, they would have sent a power into Italy to have annoyed him, or his possessions, there, as Charles the 5. and Philip, his Catholic sons have done for the love they bore to the Pope. As for the restitution of Christian faith well near worn out, there was no need (he saith) to labour. For the Church of God, the seat, and pillar of truth, had always without force, & battle kept that most recurently. Then it followeth the Church of Rome was not the Church of God, for which Christ prayed Ihon. 17. To which he promiseth the holy Ghost Ihon. 14. In which are found so few sparks of true faith, & which maintaineth so many gross errors, eontrarie to the express words of God, contained in the holy scriptures, as often and most clear demonstrations hath been made. To be short, if the cause of these wars taken in hand be demanded (which he calleth Tragical and cruel doings) you shall have a short answer (saith he) with Mum Budget, except they will allege perhaps the ambition, avarice, boldness, wantoness, of certain lose Friars. as though he could be ignorant of the public protestation of the Prince of Condy, and a great part of the nobility of France, set forth when they began the first 
Comment. de stat Relig. & Rei. part. 2. Lib. 4.  wars: In which they neither allege the fond surmised causes by Frarine, nor mumble them over in Mum Budget, but plainly declare the reasonable sufficient, and necessary causes which moved them to that attempt. The copy whereof is yet extant in story, to be seen and read.  
Now is he come to the second part, wherein he will prove that as without just cause, so without authority and commission they have made wars. And first he saith, though Kings for light or no just causes making wars are greatly in fault, yet the soldiers are excusable because they obey lawful authority. But in these wars, where no Magistrate biddeth them strike, all are private men, or rather all 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, and most cruel murderers, & so with many needle's words, he runneth out into the common place of treason, & rebellion, in which whatsoever cause be pray tended, the war is unlawful, because it wanteth lawful authority. But such was not the cause of the protestāns wars in France, where the King being under age, and brought into captivity against his will by a traitor, by 
Edict of januar.  whom also the edict made by the authority of the three estates of the Realm was violated, witha most barbarous, and cruel slaughter, ofinnocent men, being in exercise of their Religion, as it was lawful for them to do, by the Princes of his blood, and other nobles, called also thereunto by the often letters of the Queen his mother to deliver him and her from captivity, was sought to be set at liberty, his laws to be observed, and the public quiet of the realm to be restored. and so Frarines' question is answered, whence came you? who sent you? by what authority do you all these things.  
The princes and noble men that joined in leagu to withstand the tyranny of the Guisians have declared their commission in a public instrument set forth to the view of the world, the copy of the Queen mother's letters are set forth in story for every man to reed. The originals remain with the prince of Condyes heirs and have been seen of many, But what shall Guise answer, if he be called to show his commission, by what authority he slew the poor people at Vassie: by what authority he seized upon the persons of the King and the Queen his mother, against their wills, as was manifest by the Queen's great pro testation against the violence, and injury, and the young King's tears. By what authority he removed them from the palace of Fountain de Bleu first unto the 
〈◊〉. de 〈◊〉. rel. & 〈◊〉. part. 2. 〈◊〉.  prison of Melun castle, and afterward to Paris, a place indeed more mere for a King, if the violence of the enemy had not made that also a prison. For not somuch the place as the restraint of liberty maketh a prisoner. It is certain that guise had no commission, no authority, no lawful power to do these things, nor whatsoever he did afterward, abusing the name of the captive King, and the authority of the King of Navarre contrary to the edict, and true meaning of them that laid government upon him. As for Beza and the ministers of the reformed Church, (whom he feigneth to have been dumb) when they were demanded by the Cardinal of Lorraine in the assembly at Poysie answered for their vocation, first to the Sorbonist Espensius (who proponed those questions) that they were lawfully called, and approved in the Churches, where they served. And the next day more at large, to the shame and confusion of the Popish clergy, and their unlawful and simoniacal vocation, contrary both to the old Canons of the Church, and to the authority of the holy scriptures. declaring also that as the ceremony of imposition of hands by the ordinaries (as they call them) is not always needful in an extraordinary 
〈◊〉. prim. lib 〈◊〉.  calling. So miracles are not always necessary to approve an extraordinary vocation: as the examples of Esay, Zacharie, Amos, and others of the Prophets declareth. But Martin Luther (whom Frarine maketh our chief Apostle, and patriarch) he taketh upon him to know very well, what he was whence he came, and what authority he had. First his name was not Luther, but Luder, which signifieth a slave or knave, but that for shame he changed that filthy name of his. He would make us believe that he was driven to do the same, that Pope Os porci, or Hogs snout did, which turned his name to Sergius, of whom all Popes since, save one, have taken the custom to change there names: which thing if Luther had done, he had done, no worse, than the pope had given him example, to do. It is a foolish quarrel, that is picked against a man's name which he hath received of his elders, although the name of Luther, being of honest 
Luther in dutch signifieth pure or clear. Luther M. of people  signification, needed no such change for who will think that Luther knew not his own name, as well as Frarine. But it it is a greater matter, that he was begotten of a spirit Incubus, as the common report goeth, saith Frarine. For that he was borne at Islebium in Saxony, I trust it is no reproach to him, more than for Frarine to be borne at Antwerp in Brabant. But is Frarine such a great philosopher to believe the common report of Luther's conception by a spirit Incubus, which is impossible? And who should be the authors of such a report? But such impudent wretches, as showed more malice than wit, in devising such a monstrous lie, as never was, nor ever could be. And yet what papist is there, of any account, which favoureth not this foolish fable: which although in their conscience they know, it neither was, nor can be true, yet are not only content that it run among fools, as a currant argument: but also offer it in their writings to the ignorant, as a matter sufficient to discredit Luther, and all his teaching. But to proceed, that he studied the civil law, when he was young: that he was moved to become an Augustine friar, by terror of his companion slain with thunder or lightning: if it were never so true, what needed it to be rehearsed: seeing it maketh nothing to the lawfulness of his calling, or to the discredit of his doctrine. But at last (saith he) he was made Doctor with shame enough, for he came to that degree, with the money that was bequeathed unto an other man, whom with the help of his prior he beguiled. If Luther were not sufficiently known to the world, to have been excellently well learned, he would insinuate, thathe were like a doctor Bullatus which bought his doctorshippe of the Pope for money. But seeing for the solemnity of that degree in schools, their is usual some expenses, he chargeth Luther at the least, to have come by that money wrongfully, and as it were by theft. They that writ the story of his life affirm, that the Prince his sovereign, did bear the charges of his commencement. And this slander of Frarine, as it is void of proof, so hath it not so much as any likely hood of truth. For Luther being at that time a friar, could possess nothing in proper, no more could any other friar possess any money, that was bequeathed unto them. Now if the prior of the house did defray the charges of Luther's commencement, with the legacy that was given to any other of his brethren, it was all one, as if he had done it out of there common box: for friars possess nothing in proper, but in common, the disposition whereof pertaineth to the head of the house. But if he will say, this other man was no friar, than he must show what he was, who was the testator, what fraud Luther and his Prior used to deceive him, and bring good proof thereof, or else who is bound to believe him?  
But to go forward: other estate, or degree, or Apostleship he knoweth not, that Luther had any. what then? was not this sufficient calling for him that was a Doctor of the Popish Church, to preach against the abuses and errors thereof? and when his doctrine and conclusions were undoubtedly agreeable to the holy scriptures, might he not justly affirm that they were from heaven? And that he was sent from heaven to teach the Germans the truth of the Gospel, which of long time had been hidden from them. For that he was their first Apostle or that before his days, they never had any true religion or Christian doctrine, he never said. Neither did he make more account of himself, then of Saint Augustine, and all other Fathers of the Church, although in the book quoted, by Frarine he preferreth that doctrine, which is agreeable to the holy scriptures, before the judgement of Augustine, and all men that ever were. As for the familiar conference and talk with the Devil, which Frarine affirmeth that he reporieth of himself. And that Cocleus and all his enemies do gnaw so much upon, to prove, that he was set on by the Devil, to gainsay the mass: Is nothing but a ridiculous cavil. For Luther speaketh of a spiritual conflict that he had with Satan, for saying mass so long, which at length he acknowledged to be blasphemous against the death of Christ. Not of any bodily appearance of the Devil or familiar talk with him, as the malice of the Papists do expound him. Next Luther, our Orator will examine Caluins' vocation. calvin (saith he) was borne at Noviodunum in Picardy. What of that? He was banished from his country for his wicked behaviour. That is false. For he lived in his country in good credit, both of learning and honesty, till the cruelty of the Papists caused him to seek the liberty and profession of religion abroad, which he could not have at home. That he was the veriest unthrist, & naughtiest varlet of all his companions, when he was in his country, is an impudent slander: for at Orleans, 
Beza in 〈◊〉 calvini.  he read the law lecture oftentimes, in the place of Petrus Stella, the public reader, and was so well accounted, both for his learning, and virtue, that the degree of Doctorship in that faculty, with full consent of all the teachers was offered him, without any expenses, as one that had very well deserved of the university. Afterward, at Paris, he set forth that notable commentary of his, of Seneca de Clementia. He was of great familiarity with Nicolaus Copus, Rector of the university of Paris: and in good credit with the Queen of Navarre, sister unto King Francis: He had conference with jacobus Faber Stapulensis in Aquitanes and after he had set forth that worthy book of his, called Psychopanuchia, at Orleans, against them which taught, that the souls departed do sleep until the resurrection, without sense of good or evil, he came to the City of basil. This course of his life, as it is written in his story, with much more to this effect, doth witness, that he was, even from his youth, a man endued with singular modesty, temperance, and godliness, whatsoever his adversaries, without all proof, or show of truth, are not ashamed to invent, and brute against him. When he was at basil he did not hide his head, as the slanderer saith, but desired in deed to be private, that he might better apply his studies, and especially the Hebrew tongue. But such was his excellency, that he could not be hid from the principal learned men of that university: and so little was he hid, that there he first set forth his Institution, dedicated to King Francis. Our declaimer saith, that from Basile he passed to Strasburg, and there began to show his head, and preach to the Runnagats. But that is false, for from basil he went into Italy, to visit the Duchess of Ferrara: from whence he returned into France, where having set all his affairs in order, he brought away his only brother, AntonieCaluine, intending to settle himself either at basil, or at Strasburg. But all other passages being stopped, he was forced to travail through Savoye: and coming to Geneva, only to visit Farellus and Viretus, by whose zealous & earnest labours, Popery being banished, and the Church there reform, he was stayed by the terrible obtestation of Farellus) and by the Presbytery and Magistrates, chosen to be a teacher and intepreter of the Scriptures, in that Church. But that he put out the deputy of the city, expelled the Bishops, and Popish clergy, reigned there like a conqueror by the law of ireason, and force of arms (as Frarine saith) it is a most impudent lie, though an hundred Lindanes had sworn, that it was true. For the Bishop with his Popish clergy was departed out of the city, and the Religion reform, by public authority received, long time before Caluines first arrival thither. Of like truth it is, that Beza, in his bawdy, and filthy epigrams (as it pleaseth Frarine to call them) far passeth the wanton Pagan poets, martial, and Tibullus. For in the most licentious of these epigrams, first condemned by Beza himself, there is not one word of obscenity, although they were made in a feigned argument, after the imitation of those Poets. And if they had been as full of bawdy terms, and matters, as martial himself: Yet, so long as Beza continued in popery, where they were freely printed, & seld, they were catholic enough. What should I speak (saith he) of Bernardinus Ochinus, the preacher of Polygamy? verily there is no cause why he should speak of him, seeing both the man, and the doctrine are detested in our Churches, and by our writings confuted. He nameth also Bernard Rotman, and john of Leyd, authors of the anabaptistical sedition at Monster, as though we had any thing to do with them. Yes (saith he) they conquered the field against the Lutherans, by pretence of scripture only, as Rotman before vanquished the Papists. The story is written, who list to read, wherein may be found they used other crafts, beside force of arms, than pretence of scripture only, to compass their devilish attempts. And what if they had used the pretence of scripture only, as the devil did in tempting our saviour Christ, was the scripture only of less force to confute their false pretence, then when it was used by our Saviour Christ against the Devil? He telleth us of Hosiander, reproved of us for heresy & of Carolostadius, who through folly & madness became a ploughnian. The names also of Peter Martyr, Illiricus, Musculus, Farellus, Viretus, and Bucer, a 'gainst whom he hath nothing to say, beside I know not what Marote, & Malote. And that these should usurp a lordly authority, and imperial sooner aignitie, he knoweth not by what right except it be from sathan. But we know, that from sathan the first father of falsehood come these shameless lies of their usurpation of Lordship, or affectation of imperial sovereignty. Well yet he proceedeth and saith, the Bishops do excommunicase them, and the Princes banish them, God showeth no sign for them, except it be a miracle to make the live, stark dead, while they feign that they are able by the virtue of there gospel to restore the dead to life, as one Mathias did in Polonia. And the like is reported of calvin credibly in Geneva. Touching the excommunication and banishment by the Prelates of Antichrists Church, and Prince's thrall unto the same: it ought to be no more prejudice to the preachers of the Gospel now, than the condemnation of the high priests of Pilate, and Herod, was to the author of the Gospel of old. As for miracles they are not to be required, where the same doctrine is taught, which so long ago hath been confirmed by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles, and those fables of raising up dead men by calvin and others, are like the tales of Robin Goodfellow, which are reported to be done in so many places, that no wise man thinketh them to be done in any. Next this followeth a whole flood of tedious rhetorical railing, in general accusations of schism, heresy, tumulis, sedition, rebellion, contempt of Princes and laws, order, and honesty. At length he desireth to be excused of his bitterness, in respect of the cursed mouths of them which rail against Princes and Prelates. Yet bringeth no example, but of Luther's pen, whom many men wish in deed to have used a more temperate style, sometime, especially against Princes, & temporal estates, and he himself did openly acknowledge his fault therein, especially his immoderate invection against King Henry the 8. But as For the Pope and his wicked clergy of heretics (the ungodly enemies of Christ and his Gospel) it were a hard matter to exceed measure in vehemency against them, so lies & slanders be always avoided. If Luther said that the Turk in suffering all religions is wiser than Popish Princes in persecuting the gospel: I see not that his saying is greatly to be misliked. For it is more wisdom, to follow Gamaliels' council in letting all alone, then to fight against god, against whom they are sure not to prevail. That Luther dissuaded all men to obey the ungodly decree of the Emperor, proclaimed at Worms: who can justly be offended, which knoweth, that the obedience to Princes may not be yielded with manifest disobedience unto God? But here a great matter. Luther said in hearing of the Emperor at Worms, upon those words of our Saviour Christ in the Gospel (I came not to send peace, but the sword.) That it ought to be a thing wished for, as most acceptable to Christistian men, and especially unto him that strife and contention should rise and grow about the word of God. The witness of this report is Lindane, who farseth his Dialogues of dubitantius, with all manner of fables that he can hear, sounding to the discredit of Luther, and the Protestants. Although I see not what great harm should be in these words, being understood according to the saying of our saviour Christ: that seeing all men will never agree to embrace the word of God; it were to be wished, that many men would contend against the impugners, for it; then that all men should agree to withstand it. But Luther is charged, to have set out to the view of the whole world, seditious, and heresicall books, wherein he laboured to abolish all due obedience, and to persuade the people torebellion, robbing, murth er, sacking and burning of Cities, and Churches. I hope there is no man so far carried beyond all judgement of reason, that he will believe this slander to be true, seeing it is not possible, that such a monster (as he feigneth him to be) should have been so much favoured and cherished by Princes and estates, as Luther was. Nevertheless you shall hear his proofs. First, Wicelius, Luther's enemy reporteth, that he said, that men should wash their hands in the blood of the Romish clergy. If this report were true, it proveth not the former accusation. For albeit the Popish clergy were all slain, by lawful authority, in detestation of there blasphemy and idolatry. The government both of the Church and common wealth, should never the more decay: but how are we bound to believe Wicelius without proof in this, or in any other matter. Then saith Frarine, he affirmed in his writings, that it was the very nature of the Gospel to move and stir up war & sedition, that there ought to be no Magistrate, no superior at all among Christian men. For which he quoteth Epist. add frat. infer. Ger. which is an impudent fiction. For he never writ any such epistle, or taught any such doctrine; but the clean contrary, of the necessity of Magistrates in all Christian common wealths. secondly he chargeth him to have written, lib. de Potest, seculari, that men ought to pray to God, that the uplandish men obey not their Princes, nor go to war against the Turk, the title of which book find not in his works. And sure I am, no such matter is contained in any book, of what title soever, but contrariwise he writeth, many treatises against the rebellious Bowers, very earnestly condemning their disobedience and sedition. thirdly he quoteth lib. contr. duo edict. Caesaris, that men should contribute nothing towards the charges of the wars against the Turk: which is maliciously construed, as though he denied tribute to the Emperor, whereas he commendeth the iudgemét of the slates of Germany (which when the Emperor would yield nothing to their requests for the liberty of religion) denied to grant him a subsidy or contribution. which he required under a pretence to resist the Turk, when his purpose seems rather to be bend against the French King, and perhaps even against them, whose money he desireth to be given him. He warneth them also that they attempt not rashly to war upon the Turk, who in council and moderation doth far excel these Princes, and living as they did might hope of no victory. Forthlie he noteth lib, de bello contra Turcam, and Luther assert artic. 24, that it was not lawful for Christian men to war against the Turk, and whosoever did fight against the Turk, fought against God's punishment. Whereas Luther's meaning was in any such writings, that those Christians which were under the Turks dominion and had free liberty of there religion, should not rebel against him, although they were otherwise grievously oppressed.  
Last of all he allegeth out of his book the 〈◊〉. Babil. that neither man nor angel, had any authority at all to make any law or one syllable whereunto Christian men should be bound to obey more or longer than it pleaseth them. For we are (said Luther) free from all things, and there could be no hope of reformation, except all laws of men were abolished, and the Gospel of liberty 〈◊〉 home, with much more to the like effect: whereupon Fowler the wise man concludeth in the margin, that Luther chief preacher of that Gospel would have been king alone himself, and of those his pardoxes sprang the rebellion of Muntzer and the Boores. But good God what shame have the Papists in slandering? Luther in that book speaketh of the spiritual freedom of conscience, which Christ hath purchased for us, and which ought not to be entangled with any traditions or precepts of men: against civil laws and ordinances he writeth not one syllable. But whereas the false Prophet and traitor Muntzer, boasted that he did fight the lords battles: Frarine calleth Melancthon to witness, that Luther affirmed the same, namely that God himself did rise and stand against the estates of Germany and their tyranny. And who doubteth but (how wicked soever the attempt & doings of those seditious persons were) that God used them as a scourge to punish the sins of the rulers. That Luther prophesied of the victory of the rebels, it is a fable as many others are, which Frarine reporteth but contrar iwise in his writing against them, he threateneth them destruction both of body and soul except they gave over their devilish enterprices. After the discourse of the Muntzerian rebels, he cometh to Luther's marriage with a Nun, against which he inveigheth in two respects. First of the time which was immediately after the calamity of Germany. And then of the person which was a Nun, stolen with eight others out of the Nunnery of Nimike, upon good frydaie by his Bawd Leonard Knoppen. after which time she was broken with wanton toys and lecherous recreations, by the space of two years among the scholars of wittenberg: yea Luther took it no scorn, to dance and drink carouse, etc. and all for very penance and sorrow of these mischiefs whereof he himself was author. Though many men misliked Luther's marriage with a Nun, which he perhaps did the rather to confirm by his own act the liberty of matrimony in them, that had made a rash vow, which they were not able to perform: yet no wise man, I hope believeth, that he made no better choice than Frarine affirmeth, or that he was of so light behaviour to dance, & drink carouse; of all which slanders there is no proof brought, but Frarines' bare affirmation, whose bold lying else where, & dogged scorning here, let indifferent men judge what credit it deserveth. But whereas Luther did write most vehe mently against the seditious Boors, by which the impudent slanders of Frarine are most manifest he convicted, he now feigneth that Luther turning with the blast of fortune, when they were overthrown did write most bitterly against them, affirming that the nobles might win heaven by shedding the blood of such traitorous rebels, whereas it is manifest that Luther having diverse times before by his writings at their first attempts, dissuaded them from rebellion, and exhorted them to obedience, when by no means they would yield to his Godly persuasions, did at 
fleidan 1. 5.  the last most sharply inveigh against them, and denounce their utter destruction, but yet at such time as they were in the ruff of their rebellion, & when they were most terrible to all good men, after they had committed many horrible outrages: yet may Luther the traitorous Catiline of our time be thanked for all these bloody tragedies, & not of them only, but for the turkish wars also. For he citeth out of Stoltius in somnio Luth, etc. that Luther came in favour with Soliman the great Turk by such practices: yea Solyman wrote in plain words, but he showeth not to whom, that he wished Luther long life, that he hoped the day should come that Luther should find him his good ma star. Doth any man believe these vanities? yet Fowler in his infamous picture would have it seem, as though the Turk by his letters was called to make war upon Christendom. But Frarine saith more craftily that by occasion of debate about the lutheran Gospel, and so through Luther's means the Turk conceived hope to conquer all Germany, when he came to the City of Vienna being the key of Christ endome, with such a huge great host. What if this be granted, is Luther (which preached the Gospel of Christ) the cause of the Turks invasion, or they that will not embrace the truth of God by him revealed?  
But he clean omitteth by whose good service that noble City of Vienna was defended against the Turk, that worthy prince Philip the Palesgrave a faverour of the religion reform. As also it is certain that Solyman by the provocation of john the vaivode made by his ambassador Jerome lask an Hungarian was called into Hungary & ostrich against the Emperor and his brother Ferdinand, by whom he was debarred to enjoy 
sleidan 1. 6.  that right which he pretended to have to the kingdom of Hungary: so true it is, that Luther was the only cause of Soliman's invasion of Christendom. Likewise where Charles the fift without just cause made war upon the princes and states of Germany that were entered into the legue of Smalcalde, as the stories of that war and the protestation of the states sufficiently declare, to satisfy the Pope's cruelty, and oppress the liberty of Gerard many, Frarine maketh a great matter of their resistance, saying, that Germany should have obeyed him at a beck: as though the king of Spain were made Emperor of Almain, not for the defence of Germany, according to the ancient priveliges and liberties thereof, but to the utter overthrough and destruction of the same. But his victory pleaseth Frarine well: and no cause why it should displease us, seeing it pleased god so to punish the security of Germany, and to show how vain it is to trust in the strength of men. Albeit Charles carried not this victory clear, for while he keepeth no covenants with the conquered, and against the laws of arms detained the Lantgrane prisoner, who of his own accord came unto him to entreat of agreement, his unjust dealings provoked even those, whom he had most advanced, to seek revenge of his falsehood 
Duke Moris of Saxony Marquis of Brandenburg.  by means where of he sustained more ignomine in the end, than ever he got glory in the beginning of those wars.  
But if Frarine think it so necessary for Germany to be at the emperors beck in all cases, why did he not persuade the lovanians, and all other Popish states of the low countries, to be obedient at a beck to all the commandments of the Spanish King their sovereign? But if the King of Spain's sufferaignetie was not so absolute, but that it was limited within the compass of certain conditions, against which they were not bound to obey: let him not doubt but Germany hath better ground of their doings, than all the young Orators of Louane have wit to control. As for the war of the Heluetians, it is a wonder to see how he termeth it sedition and insurrection stirred up by Zuinglius: whereas it is certain, that the five Cantones of the Popish faction by intolerable injury provoked them of Zurek and Bernes to lawful wars: whose cause if it had been never so unjust, yet might it not be termed insurrection; because they were states of themselves, and aught no obedience to the other.  
The rebellion of Wyatt, and practices to kill Queen Marie, were never allowed by the teachers of the gospel in England. And Knookes his book was misliked, and forbidden to be sold, even at Geneva where it was put in print. But the Pope (the head of the Popish faction) hath not only 〈◊〉 up rebellion against the most honourable Prince of Europe Queen Elizabeth 
Hebellion in the North.  in England, but also hath sent his standard and Soldiers to invade her dominions in Ireland. And to omit the traitorous writing of Saunder & Bristol, what is more vile, than that beastly Bull of Pius the fist, against our said most noble sovereign, confirmed by that hypocrite, which now sitteth in the chair of Pestilence at Rome, with a faculty granted to parsons, and Campiane, by which he licenseth the Papists to dissemble their obedience, until public execution of that Bull may be had: that is to be privy Traitors till with hope of success, they may be open rebels. The Scottish Queen's behaviour hath so much dishonoured her Person, that Frarine is to be pardoned, if he spoke any thing in her praise, before the uttermost of her reproach was made manifest to the world. The rebellion of the gentlemen in Suevia, and of the commons in Denmark I pass over, (as Frarine doth) seeing if it were unlawful, our religion alloweth it not: if it were upon just cause, and by sufficient authority, it is unjustly called rebellion, and uproar. But he cannot omit the late treason, and cruel conspiracy of the Hugonites in France, whereof Calvin was dictator, and general, Beza lieutenant, Othomannus, and Spisamius petty captains? who can refrain laughing to hear these pleasant devices, but lest you should think he jested, he saith these were the chief doers indeed, though they used the names and service of certain of the Nobility to bear out the brunt, whilst they slept as the Knaves in the stock and as for the other, they were but their trumping cards. Such pesantes he maketh all the Princes and Noblemen, which took arms, to deliver the King and his Mother from captivity, his law from oppression, and his subjects from cruel murder, and tyranny. Yet he confesseth, this tragedy had a peaceable beginning, for they got a law by force and extorsion (saith he) against the King, and Magistrates will and pleasure, Mark how probably he speaketh. A law was made whereunto none gave assent, that had authority to make a law. But their consent was enforced, for the Parliament of Paris made answer at the first, we cannot, we will not, we ought not. But afterward they were compelled to let the bill pass, and so the edict of januarie was made. Here is force, here is extorsion, and compulsion alleged, to elude the authority of the law: but by what persons, what means, and in what manner, it is not showed in one word. And indeed it is unpossible to be showed, that never was: for in truth, the edict was made by the consent of the three estates in France, in time of peace, when their was not so much as any fear or suspicion of war, but of policy to maintain peace, and to avoid all troubles that might ensue through controversy of religion.  
The quiet and peaceable behaviour of the Protestants in the conference at Poysie was so notorious, that our Orator being not able to deny it, saith it was dissembled, that they might more easily obtain a laweunder shadow whereof, they might banish all law, and religion out of the world, root out all civil order and policy of all temporal affairs, out of all Christian realms, countries & cities. A most wicked purpose. But how is it proved? First they made a conspiracy to rob & spoil all the Churches in France in one night, witness hereof Claudius de sanctes, a man very like to be made privy of such a conspiracy, an utter enemy of all true religion, and the professors thereof; But the execution in Gascoine and divers other places do testify of this conspiracy. Indeed by some more zealous than wise, at Turon and Bloise the Popish Churches were bereaved of their Idols, which fact because 
Comment de stat. rell. & reip. part. 2. Lib. 4.  it was contrary to the edict, the prince of Condie, forthwith gaúe charge to the kings officers, that the authors thereof should be diligently sought out, and severely punished, according to the edict. Compare with this fact, the horrible murder of the faithful by the Guisians at Vassie, by which the edict was first broken, whereas these men in time of the war without the hurt of any man's person, did only break a few stocks and stones by which God was dishonered. Nevertheless the punishment of the offenders confuteth the pretended conspiracy, which to say the truth, hath not so much as the shadow of truth in it? For how was it possible for them to spoil all the Churches of France in one night, where they were not of power to spoil the tenth part, if they had so conspired? But it is a greater matter which followeth, that at Challone in Burgundy, they made a Synodical decree that every man should endeavour to his power to drive three vermins out of Christendom: The Church of Rome, the Nobility, the public order of justice. And this if you deny (saith he) your names are to be seen yet in the records of the high court of Parliament at Paris: where many of you were accused for it, by the rulers and estates of Burgundy. A sufficient proof no doubt, that the names of them that were accused are extant in record. It is sufficient proof among the Papists that men be accused, and that by their malicious adversaries, yea the very accusation is a condemnation. But it seemeth the Parliament of Paris had more regard of law and justice, then to give sentence against them upon a bare accusation: for if it be sufficient to accuse, no man shall be innocent. If the court had condemned them, he would have alleged the sentence and lawful process remaining in record against them. But almighty God knoweth that the Protestants have not only been free, but have always abhorred such anabaptistical conclusions, and laboured by all means to establish the authority and obedience due unto Princes, which the Pope by his pretended supremacy, shamefully usurpeth against them; as though the charge of feeding & spiritual government were granted only to the Pope by those words of Christ to Peter, Or if it were, that under colour of feeding and spiritual government, 
john. 21.  he had authority to command Princes at his pleasure, yea to command their crowns of their heads, and their sceptres out of their hands as even at this present, that vile Antichrist ceaseth not to practise against the most lawful and Christian Queen of England.  
But by what scriptures (saith Frarine) did you conspire at Geneva, like villains & traitorous to murder king Francis, and the scottish Queen his wife, his mother, brethren and all the nobles, and Catholic osficers of France? Surely I know not what conspiracy he meaneth: I remember not, that I have hard of any in the time of Francis, but that whereof ensued the tumult of Amboyse, never allowed at Geneva, as the letters of calvin to his friends do testify, nor heard of until it was on foot and suppressed. The beginning where of; was at Nantes in Brittany. The purpose was to remove the Guisians from government.  
The articles of which divers were these. That nothing should be done against the King, the Princes of his blood, and the state of the realm. That their dignity and the liberty of their country, should be defended as much as might be from the violence of strangers. But if you ask Frarine how he knoweth all this, he answereth by a book set out in print, under the king's privilege, entitled. Defence Reg: & Relig. As though all must needs be as true as the Gospel which is printed with privilege: where it were more reason, that he should give credit to the kings own edict of pacification, signed with his hand, printed with privilege, and proclamied with sound of trumpet in all cities of his realm, in which he cleareth the princes and them that took arms for his liberty against the Guisians, and the mantainance of the edict of jaunarie, of all crime of treason, and sedition, and acknowledgeth that they did all things in his service, and to his honour. But Frarine being at Orleans in the time of that war, did see with his eyes a seditious sibell, printed in the name of all Hugonites, wherein was nothing but impudent boldness, threatening, and weasand. Nevertheless he confesseth that this libel was not allowed of the Prince, and states, when he saith, the printer was kept and feasted a few days with the officers of that town, within their houser instead of a prison. Belike the libel was not so harnous (as Frarire affirmeth) else it is not to be thought, but that the printer should have had greater punishment. Concerning Goodman's book, being of the same argument and ume with that of Knox before mentioned, shall need no other answer than I set down before. But a greater accusation is behind. When the Emperor Charles was entangled at Oenipont, the great Turk was requested to make war in defence of there Gospel, and the Bassa of Bude to set upon his brother Ferdinand in Hungary. Who affirmeth this? Staphilus the runagate which never, lied, or rather which seldom spoke the truth. tush saith Frarine, the letters of that conspiracy were taken, their treason by no colour can be cloaked. Whose letters Frarine? by whom were they taken, by whom were they sent? to whom were they directed? If you answer nothing, we say, it is as easy for you or Staphilus, to feign the taking of letters, as the conspiracy with the Turk. The next complaint is of abolishing the laws of the Imperial chamber, that all things may be decided with fire & sword, (as Brunus saith) which is an impudent slander. For Germany was never in greater peace & quieines since the reformation, of the unreasonable customs of that court, more than thirty years ago. As for the abro gating of the civil laws, and making of a new policy of their own, devise which he saith, appeareth by many books, & libels, is a foolish slander, not worthy of any answer, seeing he nameth no author of those books, by which it might appear, that the Protestants had such fantastical coys in their heads. Unto the last place he reserved the weightiest matter of all, and that is: their contempt of the council of Trent, in railing at all the Prelates & Princes, & in refusing to come thither under sufficient safe conduct. As for Princes, which are no part of the council, it is false that they contemned them: but Antichrist, and his rabble of Idolatrous Priests and prelate's deserve a worse thing than contempt. that they refuse to come to the Chapter of Trent among many reasons they have two most evident to defend them. For the tragedy of Constance council doth admonish them, that no safe conduct can be sufficient among papists. And where he which is chief accused of heresy & Idolatry will be the only judge of all controversies, what should it avail them to be heard in such a council, in which is an hundredth times less equity, than was showed in any heretical council of Arrianes, Nestorianes, Eutichianes, or any other ancient heretics.  
And now he is come to the third and last section of his circle, to declare how cruelly they have behaved themselves in their wars, & what hurth o'th' come by them, in which part, after much vain babbling & general accusing of all faith, religion, justice, chastity, devotion, learning, nurture, goodness, & godliness, banishea from many places & persons, & planting of Turkish, heathenish, jewish, & unsensible blindness, at last he toucheth particulares that Lu there by that verse of his (Host is eram 〈◊〉, moriens tua mors ero Papa) Thine enemy I was living, and thy death O Pope I will be dying, attempted the utter overthrow both of the spirituality, and of the Empire, by what reason I know not; for I see no consequence but as the rising of the Pope was by the decay of the Empire: so the falling of the pope, whose enemy Luther threatened to be quick and dead, would be the establishing, and advancement of the Empire. After this he reckoneth the expenses, travails and care of mind. that Charles the fifth was put unto by fight against them. For answer whereof, it may be said, that Charles the fift, with more gain, les labour, & thought of mind, first and last, might have suffered them to enjoy their religion, according to the liberty of Germany. and not to have made such cruel war upon them, for no just cause, as he did. Further our Orator czieth out, how many cities, castler, Abbeys, Hospitals, schools, colleges, Palaces, gentelmen's houses, and cloisters, hath this gospelish rebellion quite overthrown and sacked. All which damages, who seethe not are to to be ascribed to their fault, who were authores of unjust wars, and not of the Protestants, who were either defenders of their liberty, or revengers of intolerable iniarie? It is a pleasant jest with Frarine, when he saith, their gospel is both negative, & destructive of all goodness. As if it were not as easy for us to say that papistry, is both affirmative, & extructtive of all wickedness. God be thanked we affirm all that the holy scripture affirmeth, the rest we are bold to deny, & we are willing to build, both spiritually, and bodily, whatsoever appertaineth to the glory of God, and the pro fit of the common wealth. Besides this he imputeth to those wars the Turks gain of Hungary, and whatsoever calamity ensued thereupon. As though the first misery of Hungary began not at the breath of the league with the Turk, whereof the Pope was cause. The next, which fell in Luther's time, when Belgrade was taken, was long before any wars were moved by the Protestants or against them, and so was that overthrow, in which jews the King was overthrown and slain. All other invasions of Hungary by the Turk have been by occasion of the claim which Ferdinand the emperors brother, made to that kingdom, wherein be was resisted by the Vaivode of Transiluania. The conquest against the Turk (that Frarin dreameth of) might be achieved by occasion of his overthrow at Malta, (were not these dissensions in religion) I pass over, as a thing to be wished for, rather than looked for, until God see the good time. When all was Popery, and no appearance of dissension in religion, the Turk nevertheless gained and Christendom went to wrack. Therefore most unreasonablelie is the Turks gain and our loss, imputed to the Protestants wars, who move none, but such as are necessary, for defence of religion, and the common wealth, when they are lawfully called thereunto. Likewise the shutting up of the school doors, and the solitariness of diverse universities in France, which is an usual effect of war, must be laid to the charge of them, whose oppression, cruelty and tyranny enforced those wars. That Luther despised the university of Louvain, and called it a stable of Asset, stews, and school of the devil, it was not for hatred of good learning; but in contempt of those Barbarous dolts, which in those days opposed themselves against the light of the truth. (Erasmus whom all men knew to have deserved very well of good learning) writeth as hardly of the university of Louvain in respect of the multitude of 
Epithal. Pet agid  unlearned sophisters, which were in that time, as Luther: saying, there was no place for the muses there, where so many hogs grunted, where so many asses routed, so many Camels blattered, so many jaies chattered, so many pies prattled. But doctor Cox is charged to answer, why the schools in Oxford were suffered to go down in King Edward's time, and the ordinary disputations in Logic and Philosophy were left of. Not for contempt of learning I warrant you: but either because the Papists his predecessers, had so wasted the university stock, as it was not sufficient to set them up, or else because those little celles were thought to be unsufficient, for so famous an university: and therefore they hoped that through liberality of the king, or of the nobles, a more magnifical building, able to receive the multitude of that university, should have been erected. In the mean time the exercises of learning ceased not in every college, no nor yet the ordinary disputations inlogick and philosophy were left of, but removed to a more public place, namely to Saint Mary's Church, where Master Warde, the great professor of philosophy, in the hearing of many yet a live, did exercise the same: by means of which, good learning was as much promoted in King Edward's time, as ever it was before or since. Nay saith Frarine, they have set their heads together, and fully agreed among themselves, to banish the greek, and latin tongues quite and clean out of the country. O monster of impudency: who hath more deserved, of the Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Caldy, Syrian, and Arabic tongues, than such as have been professors of the Gospel? Who are found in all places better learned in the tongues than they? who have more care to instruct youth in the knowledge of the tongues, than they? I knew the university of Cambridge in Queen Mary's time; and this I dare be bold to say, there are more good Grecians in one of the little colleges now; then was in those days in the whole university. But it is a great confirmation of Frarines or Fowlers senseless slander, that a preacher in the diocese of Sarum, being ignorant in the Latin tongue, thanked God, that he had never learned that Romish, and Papistical tongue. If any such thing were, it showed the folly of one man, which might be requited with an hundred merry tales, of Sir John Lacklatines' in popery, if a man were disposed to blot paper with such babbles. But their overthrow of schools and universities (saith he) they excuse, by bringing all knowledge into the mother tongue, and by inventing, a compendious order of teaching, whereby children in short time may profit more, then ancient men in many years of old time. True it is that much knowledge is brought into the vulgar tongue, for the benefit of them, which have not studied the learned languages; and the method of teaching, hath found an easy way in short time to great knowledge & learning: but it is utterly false, that any such excuse is made, for the overthrow of schools and universities, which the professors of Christian religion desire by all means to be maintained and increased, as there is manifest experience in all places where our religion is embraced by public authority. When Luther burned certain books of the Canon law, he meant no decay of good learning, but protested 
Epit hall. Pont. aeg.  against the heresy & blasphemy of the Pope, of which those books were full. who nevertheless most injuriously condemned Luther unhard, & burned his books unconfuted. Whatsoever Corolostadius did against good learning, seeing Frarine confesieth it was misliked by Luther, what should the blame thereof extend any further than the offender? But Frarine wisheth they had been satisfied with burning of books, and had not proceeded to burning of men, cutting of throats, tearing, & chopping in peèces, with much foolish amplification of their cruelty in general terms. All which might be exemplified more truly of Popish tyranny in time of peace, than it can be verified of any outrage committed in time of war, & allowed by the Princes and captains of the field, or by the preachers and teachers of the Gospel. But at length he descendeth to some particulars, & calleth forth Beza to tell him, why he went up to the pulpit in Orlians with his sword by his side, and a pistolate in his hand, and exhorted the people to show their manhood, rather in killing the papists, then in breaking of images, all which was reported to him at Orlians. Although in time of war it were not much to be wondered, if the peacher especially in such places where be many traitorous enemies (as were that time in Orlians) should be armed as well as other men: yet it hath been reported unto me, by them which heard daily Beza preaching at Orlianes, that there was no such matter. But if he exhorted soldiers to exercise their manhood against their enemies, rather than upon stokes and stones, seeing the war was lawful and necessary, I see not why he should be reprehended. The rest which followeth, wherein he is charged with murder of Magistrates, selling of towns, spoiling the country, pulling down of Churches, giving the spoil to strangers, profaning of Churches with his whores, and laying up of armour, and lodging of soldiers, robbing of all Churches in which he came, is nothing but general slandering unworthy of any wise man's answer, other than a flat & general denial of al. In like manner, that he saith was reported unto him, by Caluines schoolefellowes in law, that he stole the 〈◊〉, cross and vestiments which were committed to his custody, when he departed from Orleanes, is thoroughly confuted by the public decree of the university, whereby the degree of doctorship was freely offered unto him at his departure: and by his continuance afterward in divers Universities of France, where this sacrilege should have been required at his hands, if ever any such had been. Also that Beza in Champanie took many priests prisoners, sat in judgement upon them, condemned some to dungeons, some to be hanged, some to be burned, other to be beheaded, so that his mouth was sprinkled with the blood and brains of those that were murdered at his feet: Is any man so mad, that he will believe it? That many priests were slain in time of that war, it is not altogether unlike. For the enemies spared not to murder the preachers of the gospel most cruelly, wheresoever they found them: yet of certain and true report we hear not of many, beside those two which were hanged at Orleans, of which Parson Guisent being a cruel in quisitor, had cast the precedent of Orleanes in prison, and they both had been extreme persecutors of the Gospel in time of Popish tyranny. Yet had not this example of severity been showed upon them, if the Papists by hanging up of Augustine Marlorate, and other learned and Godly preachers at Rone, after they were taken prisoners, contrary to the law of arms, had not enforced the Prince and estates unto this warlike kind of revenge, upon two which had well deserved it, to teach them to use more clemency toward such of the religion, as might afterward hap to fall into their hands.  
What outrage soever was committed by the Soldiers, without commandment and consent of the Princes and Captains, no wise man will impute to the whole state of Protestants, as Frarine doth: and yet he bringeth nothing but flying tales, such as in time of war are blown abroad on both sides. I have given some diligence to inquire of them which lived in France at that time, and they can say nothing, that they heard of any such examples of barbarous cruelty committed by the Soldiers of the Protestants camp, as Frarine hath heaped together: except the report of one, which made him a chain of priests cares, who for his cruelty (when he required to be of the Church of Geneva) was not received & yet it followeth not that he killed all those Priests whose ears he cut of. Nevertheless they confess, that although the discipline of war was as well looked unto, as in that state of things it could be, yet many things were done by unruly Soldiers: which neither the captains, nor the Preachers could think well of. If any that fled out of Orleans to carry news to the enemies, were hardly dealt with all, it is the less marvel, seeing within the city keeping themselves quietly, they might have continued without any man hurting them, as a great number of the Popish priests lived there even to the end of the war. whereby it appeareth that those reports of cruelty deserve less credit. that Priests were dragged with ropes about their necks in the street, bound to trees, and shot at with guns for exercise: that their guts were wound about a staff, and drawn out of their bellies, and cast about the house, that they were hanged upon the rood in the Church, that their eyes were put out, their noses cut of, the tops of their fingers cut of, the skin of their crowns pared, their privy members cut of, roasted, & they compelled to eat them, & afterwards their bellies ripped to see how they could digest such meat, and such like monstrous inventions, which if they had been true, should have found some Papist of France, that would have committed them to writing, & set them forth with all the circumstances, that they should not stand upon the only light report of an Orator of Louane, who bringeth no testimony, but report of one prebendary of the Cathedral Church of Orleans, whose name he hath forgotten which lay hid in a bench hole, and through the chinks of the bench saw, while the butchers cut of a priests members, pulled out his guts, and cast his entrails all about the house. But what if the poor prebendary was so overcome with fear, that he imagined he saw through the narrow crevices that which was never done, nor intended? For what similitude of truth hath it, that the soldiers would so beraie that house with blood and bowels, wherein they themselves lodged? peradventure a hog or some other beast was killed & dressed for the soldiers supper, which he in the bench hole thought to be the Curate of the town. The cutting of little children in pieces at one stroke with a sword, the burning of children in a Church at pat, not far from Orleans, who will think they were like to be true, when Baldwine in his invective against Beza, could find no such matter to object unto him, although he objected a great many things more than were true? But these and such matters, if they had been committed (as they are impudently feigned) by barbaous and outrageous soldiers, why should the reformers of religion bear the blame of them? you will say perhaps, they should retain no soldiers, of so cruel and wicked a disposition; and certain it is, that willingly and wittingly they did not: but such is the necessity of war, that soldiers be not always saints. David for his necessary defence, was feign to retain such as came unto him, which as the scripture describeth them, were scarce honest men, but a sight of male contents, which for debt and deserts could not abide to ta rye in their country. And yet was David the lords anointed, and used that band both for his own defence, for annoyance of his enemies and for obtaining of his right in the kingdom. Let not the cruelty therefore & outrage of soldiers, if any such were, as none is proved, be objected against the preachers, and procurers of reformation. Other damages and losses he rehearseth, the rasing of the King's house, and diverse Churches in Orleanes, filling up the ditches, throwing down the bulwarks, making the walls plain and passable, destroying the suburbs and vines about the city. All which things who is so mad, that he will not acknowledge to be the act of their enemies for the most part, except that the necessity of war requireth some places in such towns to be razed for fortification? He complaneth of the Image & tomb of king Lewis the eleventh, broken down, his body burned with the Church, wherein he was buried, overthrown at Cleris, four leagues from Orleans, which is like to have been in detestation of idolatry there committed. For otherwise if it had been in hatred of his monument and memory: the Protestants being so long in possession of the town of S. Dennis, two leagues from Paris, would not have spared so many monuments of the kings, as are there yet to be seen untouched. The burning of K. Francis the 2. his heart at Orleans, whom he suspecteth to have been poisoned by the Gospelers, is a fond fable. For which he citeth Claudius de sanctes, a lying friar of Paris, where as if anysuch thing had been, Frarine might have learned the truth when he was at Orleans himself. As for the crime of poisoning was never objected by the papists themselves of France, neither is there any likelihood, seeing it is certain that he died of an apostume in his head, where of grew an intolerable pain in his ear, which after it took him, being ready to take his journey, left him not, until life so iooke him.  
The impoverishing of many wealthy towns in France, the slaughter of men, and all other incommodities of war: how unjustly he objecteth unto the Protestants, which were no cause of the wars, all indifferent men may judge, though I say nothing. But the poverty of S. Peter and the riches of our preachers gotten with sacrilegious spoil of Churches, were more meet to be objected to the pope, and his proud prelate's, which by the spoil, both of Churches and towns, have made themselves, Lords of the earth. Yet is it most certain (saith Frarine) that Beza and his companions stole out of the Churches at Towers 2000 marks in silver, and 1000 marks in gold, besides precious stones, chains, and jewels of great value, and and in so great abundance of treasure were so greedy, that they left not a nail behind them. Which wickedness he doubled, by burning the shrine, and casting the ashes of Saint Martin into the river. But Beza himself, when the like was objected unto him by Baldwine the apossata, answered, that all this is a most impudent slander. For he was then at Orleans, when the treasure of the canons of Towers was taken, not spoiled, before sufficient witnesses, a goldsmith weighing all things, the notaries writing all things, by the commandment of the most Noble Prince of Condie, and that for most just 
Beza respons. ad 〈◊〉.  causes, as they themselves will testify, which most misliked that sight. All which things are testified in public acts, and were allowed after by the king's counsel, that no reasonable person may say, that any thing was done unjustly, or unlawfully in so necessary a time. And as for the dispersing of S. Martin's relics, for which he declameth so tragically, Beza confesseth that he alloweth the same by the exampell of the brazen serpent in like manner destroyed, when it was abused to Idolatry. As were thereliques also of S. Iraene, & S hilary, to the great dishonour of God, and ignominte of those holy men: and this supposing, they were true relics. But to the intent all men may know, what manner of relics they were, the abolishing where of he so pitefullie bewaileth: Beza bringeth two or three examples. There was at Towers a silver cross, set with many precious stones, which there was worshipped, with shameful superstition. Among which stones there was an Acates of ancient and curious graving, which after it was brought to Orleans, and viewed in his hands which had brought it, there was found the image of Venus bewailing the death of her minió Adonis slain with a boar. And this stone was that, which on goodfridaie was most devoutly kissed of them, that crept on their knees to the croslc, as the Image of the blessed Virgin Marie. There was also brought forth a silver arm, as the case of an holy relic of the Saint, which when it was unclasped in the presence of the Canons, themselves by the goldesmith, & that which was hidden within with marvelous folding of silks, was brought forth, there was 〈◊〉 first a paper, which contained a bawdy song, written in old Rhythm, and within that a Card, commonly called the knave of Picques or Diamonds. At an other place, that is at Biturige, in an other case of relics, there was found a stick thrust into the nave of a wooden wheel, with this magical or foolish verse written in partchement.  
Quand cesteroüe tournera.  
Celleque i aim in aimeraidest.  
When this wheel shallbe turned, she that I love, shall love me. and these things Beza offereth to prove by five hundred witnesses, and affirmeth moreover, that a large volume will not suffice to rehearse such shameful dishonour to God, and dilusions of the people. Let Frarine therefore cry out as long as he will, against the destruction of Idolatry, & compare it with the cruelty of the Panimes mentioned in Eusebius, which for hatred of Christian religion, raged against the bodies of the saines whom they murdered: yet all reasonable men must acknowledge a wonderful great difference, not only in the facts of them, and these: but also most specially in the ends.  
But yet again to return to Orleans, Frarine rehearseth the uncomely stripping of an honest maid, and shameful groping of her to search, if she had hid any money above the rate of the proclamation, to carry privily out of the town about her: a foul fact surely if it were true, and worthy to be punished: for they might rather have committed the search of her to honest women. But a thousand times more detestable was the violent ravishing of a maid in Picardy by that Popish captain Monsieur de pontes, whose soldiers held the maid till the captain forced her: for indignation whereof, she slew him with a knife. The soldiers slew her with their guns. And the Peasants of the country destroyed the soldiers, as is testified by a Pamphlet set forth in French and English. And yet more monstrous, even in time of the first wars in France (whereof Frarine speaketh) was the rage of the Popish women of Province, against their own sex; which having cast of-al womanhood, yea all humanity, like furies of hell, ran about in the night spoiling the houses of the faithful, and such women as they found, they dragged through the city, with many stripes unto the place which they had appointed for their devilish cruelty, and there they hanged them by the heels, and by thrusting a staff in their priviest parts (a thing most shameful to be rehearsed or heard of) in that most beastly manner murdered 
Comment. de stat reip. & rell. l. b. 5.  them. Of this hellish. practise the cities of Marciles and Aix are witnesses. What witness Frarine hath of a Traitor, as he calleth him by Angiers, which to save his fort from gunshot, hung a noble woman out in a basket. I know not: but if any such thing were, it was a stratagem or policy of war, the like whereof in such cases hath often heretofore been used. But that there full purpose was to rob and spoil all, he proveth by the words of Gabuston, Master of the watch at Paris, whoriding into the high altar of Saint Medardes' Church, cried to his 
Spoil all.  mates in Barbarous french, Pilla tout, pilla tout. What words he spoke I know not, but all men know it is a foolish argument, to prove the purpose of all the Protestants, by the words of one captain uttered in heat, in time of shameful sedition moved by the Papists, for while the congregation of the faithful was hearing the sermon in the suburbs of S. marcel, in the place appointed by the King for that purpose, the priests of S. Medardes' Church thereby, kept such a tangling with their bells, that the preacher could not be heard; whereupon two of the company went and gently desired the Priests to stay their bells, but they being guarded with a number of men, fell upon those two, and the one they slew in the Church, the other escaped by flight. The priests than went up into the steeple, and rang the bells backward, which they call Tocksaine, whereupon the people of the suburbs flocked rogither, and disturoed the audience with stones. I he servant of the Magistrate was sent in his master's name, to command them to cease their tumult, and keep peace: But with stones and arrows he was compelied to return, whereupon the sermon being broke of, the multitude of the Protestants hasting to the Church, broke open the doors; where finding the dead body of him that was slain, marvel not if they were moved with indignation: and therefore some of the armed Priests with their complices they apprehended, the rest fled into the stecple, from whence with staves, logs, arrows, and such like matter, which they had provided for the purpose; not sparing to throw down their Idols, which they had carried up least they should have been destroyed by the Protestants, they defended themselves a great space, still ringing the Tocksaine, till at the last being threatened that the steeple should be fired, they ceased, about forty of them being wounded, and 15. taken and committed to the officer. And that their could be no great spoil made in the Church, the priests had before provided, for they had carried out 
Comment. de stat. Rel. & retp. lib. 4.  all their massing stuff, and other trumpery, as chalices, basins, vestments that were of any value before they attempted this sedition. The next day the furious people having other priests to their captains, came into the house appointed for the assembly of the faithful, broke down the pulpit and the stools, and fired the house in many places, until by the said captain of the watch they were put to flight. This is of truth the some of that sedition. The cause whereof was yet so handled by the Popish judges, that the Papists were acquitted, and certain of the Protestants committed to prison for it. The most heinous fact of all, except one perhaps, is yet behind, and that is, the profaning of the precious body of Christ himself, which with furious and outrageous impiety, was cast on the ground, trodden under feet, hurled into the fire, and into the water, and so desperate ely all to be pricked with their sword, and carried upon the tops of their spears. This he meaneth of their Idol of the altar, called of the french men Jean blank, which of old time (if we believe the fables of the Papists, still avouched by great plenty of miraculous hosts and blood to be showed in divers places) was so moody, that if he had been pricked but with knives of jews and Miscreants, he yielded forth not only great streams of blood, but also was avenged by fire or other means, of those that so abused him. But where are now those miracles? where is one drop of blood? where be the examples of his vengeance, against so manifest and spiteful contemners? I suppose it was no more but a thing forgotten. For otherwise he might have feigned miracles, blood and vengeance, as well as all the rest, wherein he hath impudently lied and counterfeited. The greatest matter of all think, is reserved to the last place, that is, the Traitorous murdering of the Duke of Guise, by conspiracy of that vilecaytife Beza, inventor of all these mischiefs, bondslave of all bawdy, lust, and all detestable sin and vice. You know Frarines' eloquence, in handling such matters. The crime objected (to omit his ruffinlike railing, and whorish scolding) he proveth by Poltrotei confession: but Beza even by the same confession, proveth that it is false & forged. For therein Poltrote is made to confess, that Beza should counsel him to commit that fact, as a work very meritorious, whereas the wiser sort of Papists know full well, that Beza would never use any such persuasion. And Poltrote himself at his death; howsoever that pretended confession was either forged, or by torture enforced, did clear both Beza, and the Admiral of being a counsel with the enterprise, affirming that it was his own only devise. And yet I see not how that fact of his should be counted treason in the Admiral, if he had been of counsel thereof, seeing Guise was an open enemy, and slain in time of war, by one also, who ought him no service, or allegiance. howsoever it was, it was a just plague of god upon him, & a great benefit to the whole Realm of France. For his end made an end of the lamentable wars for thattime. The rest that followeth in two or three leaves to the end, containing nothing, but either tedious repetitions of matters handled before, or else odious amplifications of general accusations without proof, or likelihood of truth, I will spare to trouble the Reader withal, trusting that every man, which with indifferent judgement shall consider these matters, will confess, that Frarine (having taken in hand to prove three points, in his oration) is able to justify none of them all, bringing nothing but accusations without proof, Reports without witness, lies without truth, and words without matter.  
God be praised.