I answere If the learned erre not knowing the scriptures the vnlearned are in more danger of errour through the same want Secondly if the want were not noted in all the supplie shoulde not be made and commanded to all but all euen the people are commaunded to search the Scriptures therefore not to search them or to bee ignoraunt of them is a fault in al be they learned or vnlearned Your argumeÌ„t that Christ shoulde speake onely to the Sadduces and of the resurrection because it is added you know not the power of God is alreadie answered for it is a generall fault aswell to bee ignorant of the power of God as not to knowe the Scriptures Therefore as the ignorance of the one is condemned in all so is the ignorance of the other and the remedie for both is found in the exercise and search of the holy scriptures Your similitude of woordes spoken as by my Lorde Chauncellor to the doctors of the Arches is vnlearned for with an example of speach concerning a speciall matter you would ouerthrow that which was spokeÌ„ by Christ of a generall cause But let your example stande As the studie of the ciuill lawe is proper to all Lawyers and therefore their lawe bookes to bee read and studied of all Lawyers so the studie of the spirituall and heauenly Lawe is the profession of all christians and therefore the bookes of that law to be read and studied by all professors of the same because to erre not knowing the Scriptures is a thing common to all men as was declared An example of the lyke had bene nothing for your purpose as if my Lorde Chauncellor should say to some Iesuites Yee runne into daunger of treason not knowing the Law against al those that withdrawe the Queenes subiects from their naturall obedience to her Maiestie this should be a note not only to those Iesuites but to al whatsoeuer they be Iesuites or Seminaries or massepriestes or what persons soeuer y â— they must eyther knowe and keepe the lawe or incurre the punishment therein expressed agaynst the offenders Vse good wordes of your countreymen clowne them not for though they bee simple and not trayned in the studie of good letters yet they haue soules to bee fed with the woord and howsoeuer you prayse the Colliers fayth and would put it in execution they are to take heede they find not Christs word verefied against theÌ„ aswell as against y â— Sadduces Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God In the eyght article the Iesuites are reported to say That the righteous man liueth by fayth he hath it not in Christ but by his owne workes First in this question I am charged with vntrueth for the Iesuites haue no such thing as the Censurer affirmeth For answere in this behalfe I referre you to my author whose wordes being truely reported the charge you laye vpon mee is causelesse and must returne But what is this stil to denie the articles to mayntaine quarell and yet to auowe the doctrine to defende the Iesuites Your owne wordes teache that a mans workes are meritorious in Christ and meanes to make him righteous with the seconde righteousnesse as you call it which is playnely to graunt the doctrine denyed before For although you vsey â— name of Christ in this question yet the Apostle coÌ„cludeth that you impute your saluation not to Christ but to your owne workes I testifie sayeth the Apostle speaking of them that dyd not exclude Christ that if yee bee circumcised Christ doeth nothing profit you teaching thereby that whosoeuer will in any part bee righteous in them selues can haue no righteousnesse in Iesus Christ Therefore there was no cause of your impudent lyes You come next to the place auouched for confutation of this errour If righteousnesse come by our workes it is not nowe grace This sentence you truely conster as alledged by mee to prooue that no man 〈◊〉 can bee ryghteous in this life which you say is both from the purpose and false But if the woordes be ful of proofe to shewe there is no righteousnesse in mans woorkes if it be the manifest doctrine of the Apostle what coulde more fitly conuince the blasphemie derogating from the righteousnesse which is by Christ and arrogating to our owne workes then that place which sheweth there is no righteousnesse in our workes but in Christ alone which is imputed to vs by grace onely Nowe let vs see how false it is This you woulde proue by a distinction of a double righteousnesse the first of being called from infidelitie to gayth in Christ which you say is onely of Gods mercie and nor by any merit of our workes the seconde righteousnesse is of such workes as proceede from men after the former calling if they remayne in grace But if this reede whereupon you leane be broken you must needes confesse the former proofe against you to be both pertinent and true For this purpose it is to be considered that as there was but one blessing shewed to Isaac so there is but one onely righteousnes which is not founde in any person or subiect but in our Sauiour Christ Iesus alone This righteousnesse is accounted and imputed to all those that beleeue as their owne In which imputation it is needefull to consider the proportion betweene y t redeemer his redeemed for it giueth great light to this questiâ— As in Christ there was found no cause of death at al yet hee died onely by imputation of our sin so in vs there is fouÌ„d no cause of life at al yet we shal liue onely by imputation of his righteousnes The like proportion is betweene the couenant in the law and the couenant of faith in Christ for as y â— law admitteth no transgression if a man will liue by it so Christ admitteth no satisfaction or merit to ioyne 〈◊〉 his perfect merits if any man will liue by him that y â— whole woorke of our saluation may be of y e grace of God in Christ Iesus the auâ—thour and fynisher of our fayth But to proue this righteousnesse one there is a place to the Romanes in the which the righteousnesse wherby God saueth the beleeuers is called the righâ—eousnes of God and said to be that which is reuealed in the Gospell This is the righteousnesse of faith as the Apostle proueth out of the Prophet witnessing that the righteous maÌ„ liueth by faith which place proueth there is but one righteousnesse of men not onely because the Apostle speaketh of it as one but in naming it expressely the righteousnesse of God and giuing to this faith both righteousnesse and life For if the righteousnesse of faith be the righteousnesse of God that is such as God accompteth for righteousnesse which may also stand before him and make vs holy in his sight what second righteousnesse can there be or what can it doe before God that is
is doubtfull for the tongue is the instrument of speache and not such a cause The naturall knowledge of the latin speach or the knowledge thereof by arte is the cause If the tongue were the proper cause whosoeuer had a tongue should speake latin because where the cause is the effect followeth By which reason your owne woordes againe make concupiscense to bee sinne saying it is the affect of originall s 〈…〉 because such as the proper cause is 〈…〉 is also the proper effect the â—ause sinne and sinneful the effect also sinne and sinful But you that make many demaundes to me let me aske you what you meant to bring in the example of Christ who is called sinne in thâ—â— chapter and â—epâ—stle to the Corâ—th forwhich you falsely quote the 8. â—o the Râ—man 〈◊〉 you make the example like Shall 〈◊〉 expâ—â—â—de the former speach of Saint Paul calling concupiscense sinne Surely hereby you proue that Paul calling concupiscense sinne meant notwithstanding that it was altogether no sinne for Christ is altogether no sinne Againe howe vnlike are these examples Christ is called sinne because hee was a sacrifice for sinne that is to take away sinne concupiscense is called sinne because it is the effect fruite of originall sinne not taking it away but increasing it continually If you made conscience of your speach you would neuer misconâ—â—er the plaine woâ—rdes of the Apostles bring nothing for your defeÌ„ce but such impertinent similitudes For I appeale to your conscience may you not as fitly by these similitudes proue that the Apostle calleth fornication sinne by a figure or any other sinne neuer so great Saint Austeâ—â— place making it no sinne in y e 〈…〉 rate without conâ—â—t is expounded by himselfe afterwarde saying Concupiscence is not so forgiuen in Baptisme that it is not sinne but that it is not imputed as sinne For a clearer proofe hereof in another booke hee saith plainely it is 〈◊〉 For when Iulian obiected that conâ—â—piscence is wortâ—y praise because it is a punishment of sinne Austen tooke that away by an example of the wicked deuils whâ— though they in respect of Gods hande doâ— iustly punish yet themselues are vniust and sinfull whereupon this similitude fol 〈…〉 eth to proue concupiscence sinne euen when there is no consent As the blyndnesse of the heart which God remoueth who alone doth illuminate is both sinne whereby we beleeue not in God and the punishment of sinne whereby a proude heart is punished with worthie punishment the cause of sinne when any euill is committed by the error of a blind heart so the concupiscense of the flesh agaynst which the good spirit â—usteth is both sinne because there is in it a disobedieÌ„ce against the regiment of the minde and a punishment of sin because it is rendred to y e merites of the disobedient the cause of sin through the defect of that y t consenteth or the conâ—agion of that that springeth You were deceiued in citing Austen twise as hauing written but one booke De Nup. et Concup Clement hath no such place but against you hee hath these woordes in the booke of his exhortation to the GeÌ„tiâ—â—s speaking of the seuenth commandement among others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt not lust for by concupiscense alone thou hast committed adulterie Which sentence sheweth what a sinne bare concupiscense is that alone without consent commeth so neere a degree of actuall adulterie You were also deceiued in quoting Ambrose for he hath no such place where you cite him Nazianzen I thinke hath no such oration as you dreame of such is your cause and such are your testimonies Wherefore it is false that all those good fathers are partakers with the Iesuites of that doctrine which blasphemously maketh the breach of the tenth commandement no sinne And because you so often presse the worde blasphemie so seldome vsed by me you must vnderstande that such doctrines especially now after so great reuelation of the trueth are the doctrines of deuils blasphemoâ—s against God and his holy woorde which teacheth the contrary as hath and shall bee further declared But nowe followeth the place of Gotuisus brought to proue the contrary doctrine Whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her hee hath already committed adulterie with her in his heart The Censurer in this place to note my ignoraunce bewrayeth his owne confounding hudling the first last part of the proposition which in Scholes are called subiectu and praedicatum For the question sta 〈…〉 th in y â— former place where Christ vsetâ— a word of concupiscence affirming that 〈◊〉 a man see a woman to lust or in concupisâ—enâ—e to desyre her where the force of sinne worketh in the first degree it is with content of heart brought to a further degree and becommeth actuall adulterie before God though it bee not actuall before men Therefore if I had as you miâ—conâ—â—er alleaged this place of Matthewe altogether in respect of the effect and as it is a breach of the seuenth commandement it had not made against the doctrine of concupiscense without consent But I cite it for the former part of the propositioÌ„ which sufficiently proueth bare concupiscense to bee sinne For if the consent of the heart make concupisceÌ„se to be adulterie theÌ„ must concupiscense it selfe be also sinne because otherwise the consent of the heart cannot make any lawful desire to be adulterie but the fruite and the tree must be of the same nature Saint Iames doeth moreouer proue this who wil not that a man should say God tempteth him and so charge the Lord with sinne but he turneth vpon man the whole worke and al the blame of sinne froÌ„ the first sinne of tempting to the ripe ful birth thereof The Apostles wordes in this place are full to make this proofe calling it a mans owne lust or lusting adding moreouer that a man is tempted therwith drawen away and as with a baite intited which thinges can not bee in bare concupisâ—ense except it were sinne and a sinful cause of sinne from the which Iames doth carefully quite the Lorde Also this concupifcense because it hath â—entation violence and a baite to sinne before câ—nsent of heart be giuen and before the secret adulterie of the heart be coÌ„mitted it cannot be of faith and therefore the Apostle giueth sentence that it is sin for whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne be it before or after the consent of heart Therefore out of these woordes of Christ it is truely proued by the nature and effect of concupiscense that it is sinne of it selfe seeing presently with consent it is made a sinne in so high a degree as is adulterie Also herein my alleadging of Scripture is founde to be according to the matter and argument without any error of doctrine alteration of sense or appiying it otherwise then it may be truely and profitably applied wherefore you gaue to much
libertie to your penne in charging mee with common misalleadging of Scripture But seeing you graunt y t this second point of doctrine is also mainteined by the Iesuites euen in such sort as they are charged all men may see It is hard to say whether you are more ready to defeÌ„d their doctrine or to take a pretensed aduantage of quarell against my wordes In the thirde place the Iesuites are charged to say The first motions of lust are without hurt of sinne This third doctrine is graunted by the Censurer as most true and playne but yet I must not go without â—ome accustamed taunt Hee chargeth mee that by clipping their wordes I make euery thing to seeme a Paradox This is only says to accuse without any shew of proofe For what â—â—nefit was there to mee in leauing out these wordes If they come of naturall in 〈…〉 onely without any cause giuen by vs or what gayne you by adding them seeing they are superfluous For I pray you are not all the first motions of lust meerely natural euermore of some cause giuen by vs and dwelling within vs namely the corruption of old Adam what shiftes are they then which you vse to helpe a weake cause If to defende this addition of waste wordes you shall obiect the temptations of Satan offered without any cause giuen by vs I answere you cannot properly call them motions of lust being but outwarde prouocations to lust and sinne wherewith many times a mortified man is not prouoked to lusting sinning by which neuerthelesse Satan woulde moue but is resisted by faith he entreth not in to worke those motions of lust which do affect vs and whereof our question is moued Your comparison bet 〈…〉 e these first motions of lust and the pulse making the one to be no more sinne then the other is without iudgement For you can not conclude from that part of our natural soule wherby we haue life and sense only to that part wherein our reason and affections are placed because the former is not in the same sort corrupted as the second neyther doeth sinne so woorke in naturall life and sense as it doeth in the heart by the corruptions and guiltinesse of the soule The necessarie actions of life as eating drinking sleepe breath also the â—â—cessarie actions of sense as smelling seeing hearing feeling and the rest they are of themselues al free from sinne remaining as they were in man before his fall But euery imagination and cogitation of maâ—s heart is euill euermore as God testified to Noâ— much more the lusts and desires thereof Wherefore to compare the lustes of sinne to the puâ—se which is meerely naturall and without sinne was to bring the simple into a dangerous opinion that the one is as lawfull as the other For a cleere example of this difference it may be 〈◊〉 that Christ had the working of the pulse and other naturall opera 〈…〉 of life and â—ense but hee was far euen from the least concupiscense I thinke in your owne iudgement Therefore this your example of the pulse to defende the first motions of lust is neyther in substance nor in shewe to any purpose Moreouer you make the first motions of lust no sinne because it lyeth not in our power to prohibite them by which reason you defende sinne by the necessitie thereof But seeing this necessitie commeth of our selues by our corruption and custome of sinne how can it be any excuse or defence for the trespasse what wil you say to originall sinne shall it be no sinne because it lyeth not in vs to resist it no more then we can resist our owne conception and is lesse in our power to resist then the pulse Like to the former comparison of the pulse is that which followeth making the first motions of lust to be no more sinne in vs theÌ„ they are in beastes But this comparison proueth no more theâ— the other for as there is no law giuen to prohibit the pulse so there is no lawe to restraine these motions in beastes but man is tyed to a lawe for euery action last or first great or small as is proued by the great commandement Thou shalt loue the Lorde thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule and with all thy strength and with all thy mynde So that what lust or thought soeuer swarueth from this entire and absolute loue of God it is against this his commandement and therefore a sinne against his most soueraigne and most glorious Maiestie to whome wee owe all the seruice and holinesse of all the heart of all the mynde and of al our powers whatsoeuer Therefore to say wee must not or can not pull in the raynes of our first lustes or that they are as lawfull in vs. as the pulse or as they are in bruite beastes is indeede to reache a beastly libertie and to laye open the way to all vncleannesse without controulement Yf all your readers did knowe howe little proofe is made by similitudes they would all see the insufficiencie of your defence that so often vse them and so vnfitly in place of playne and sure arguments Now for the tenth commaundement alledged as a contrary doctrine y t Censurer sayth it is not any way repugnant to that the Iesuits teach For proofe whereof as the Papistes make of the tenth commaundement two commaundementes so this fellowe maketh of two seuerall breaches of two diuers commaundementes but one sinne and that agaynst the seuenth commaundement onely But there can not be a commaundement agaynst the which there is no sinne Therfore as it was declared in the former article there is a sinneful desire first which is concupiscense agaynst the tenth the assent whereunto maketh it adulterie which is a sinne of another degree and agaynst the seuenth commaundement So the Censurer must by duetie receyue home agayne his owne â—aunt of hudling and confounding for confounding the sinnes of two diuers commandements Furdermore y â— Censurer being caâ—ied awaye into errour by the olde translation against the trueth and other faithfull translations woulde proue that the lawe is in our power to doe it and that therefore these first motions of luste are not forbidden by the tenth commaundement because it is not in our power to resist them That his argument may appeare I will set it downe to be more easily discouered Whatsoeuer is commaunded that is not aboue vs but in our power to resist the first motions of lust is not in our power therefore to resist the first motions of lust is not commaunded The first proposition is false and as I said a false translatioÌ„ brought to proue it For Moses saith The Lawe is not hidden from vs and the Censurer saith It is not aboue vs Moses sheweth that it is reuealed the Censurer would proue that it is in our power Moses speaketh chiefly of the Gospell and the Censurer referreth it altogether vnto the tenne commandemeÌ„ts But that the
all others what did y â— Cloysters foster afterwardes Your other place of Austen to proue it a great fault to reproch many for one or two I graunt to be true but for your purpose falsely alleadged because it is not one or two of you or so fewe as one or two hundred which are accused of superstition hypocrisie but y â— accusation is against you all for you apparell idolatrie with the name of deuotion you nourish ambitioÌ„ vnder a Friers weed and seeke an empire vnder a Priestes gaberdine you exercise a Wolues rauening crueltie vnder Sheepes clothing Treason is conscience among you and a iust execution is made a glorious martyrdome These are the diseases that haue infected the hearte and spread them selues as a leprosie throughout all the bodie of your vnholy orders and irreligious men So that we blame not many for a fewe but cannot finde a few to hope wel of in so great diuers swarmes This is not my complaint as you knowe or of this time alone but the complaint of many and long agoe Therefore in drawing Saint Austens wordes to condemne mee as insulting against Christ and his religion for the fall of some one religious man is to drawe him against his will to condemne one for another as was noted before Your seconde exception to Frankens dialogue is taken because in your opinion he applieth good thinges in the societie to euill purposes by which practise you haue well noted that any good thing in religion or policie may be depraued This practise you shoulde haue prooued in Franken so y â— exception had bene good but you affirme it onely as a man whose word must be taken for a proofe his opinion for an oracle What Franken hath written you see what he can write to a further accusation of the Iesuites life I knowe not I thinke it was his minde to passe by personal matters and to note onely the corruptions and superstitions of their orders and doctrine for which cause also he was alleaged Your bitter taunts against our ministerie as loose are accusations reaching to him that wil not be pacified for the sin with all your vnbloodie sacrifices The ignorant and vnfit ministers we defende not or any that may among so many be iustly accused of loosenes but the godly preachers receiue the testimonie of learning and godly life euen their enemies being made iudges Whereas you finde a place in the dialogue to commende Iesuites for great labour diuine meditations chastising of the flesh and such like I answere there is an vse and abuse in some of these actions you are charged with the abuse The rest as your whippe and voluntarie abandoning of Gods blessings both are superstitions as was noted before in a fitter place You remember who complayneth that of all iniust men they are most iniust which when they doe most deceiue and greatest harme they do it notwithstanding that they may be esteemed good men Againe wherin you haue a singular grace you taunt vs as that we can not well bee charged with such faultes as you count vertues in the Iesuites True it is we wish not to be charged with the righteousnes of Scribes and Pharisees but seeke a righteousnes that may exceede it such as standeth in the synceritie of a good conscience according to godlines The thirde and last exception is against Frankens conuersion as not strong to prooue any thing seeing you can presse vs with many examples for one which is your franke and bould assertion But if you cannot truely alleadge a man for a citie or a towne for a kingdome this is a note who it is that in deede dare venture vpon any assertion though all the worlde see the vanitie and vntrueth thereof In place of manye two examples are brought in with their pretended reasons But first you giue sentence before the triall that Franken departed from vs vpon a fancie and your fellowes vpon great reasons and inuincible proofes For Franken I answere though I knowe he be not throwly cleansed from the dregges of Poperie but carieth some corruption that hath infected the hearte which you haue not at all blamed him for yet his reasons of departure were such as enforced him therunto being otherwise superstitiously addicted and desirous to continue Of your two men I can saie nothing I knowe not what roote they had takeÌ„ that were so soone withered But you that condemned me without cause as blaming al your Catholiques for the fault of one abusing a sentence out of Austen against mee for that purpose what is it that your selfe now bring in two runnagates to the slaunder of all that constantly remaine in the trueth must it bee no fault in you that was made so haynous in mee There are belike some indulgeÌ„ces from the pope that what you do shalbe no fault and what you say shalbe no lye To come to your two rumiagates Xilander and Flaschius albeit you auowe their proofes of running out to be great and inuincible yet they are in deede so insufficient that they haue plainely condemned theÌ„ selues by y â— apologie wherein they seeke to be iustified may soone finde better arguments why to returne if their true repentance did opeÌ„ a doore for their reentrie 1 For what reason is the first that Xilander giueth The Catholiques haue endured these fifteene hundred yeeres in concorde of one doctrine and 16 sectes haue sprong of Luther within these sixtie yeres therefore he departeth to you First this reason standeth vpon two false and often confuted assumptions For neither hath the Popish Church endured so long nor so many sects so lately growne vp of Luther Secondly though the assumptions were true yet the argument doth not followe For if antiquitie might prooue a Church the Iewes would make a great clayme to the title If sects springing vp prooue no Church what shal we say to the Churches of God at Corinth and in Galatia Xilander did but salute our religion as passing by that had no better reason of his falling away then this so often and so many wayes confuced His seconde reason that moued him to leaue our religion for Poperie is succession of Bishops in the Popish Church from Christ till now which some Fathers make a great reason Surely those fathers knew some good by the bishops that had bene before their time but they could not iudge of the Apostacie of these that came after to occupie that Chaire Againe those fathers esteemed not so much a Succession of persons as the succession of doctrine which is farre from the bishops of Rome that teach many things against the word and against the practise of the Primatiue and true Apostol 〈…〉 Church as hath beene declared But 〈◊〉 Xilander that maketh this Sâ—ccession a 〈◊〉 able motiue as you speake mouing him to rocaâ—â— did he consider the xxvi graunted Schismes when one Pope cursed and pâ—osecuted an other to the horrible staâ—â—ghtâ—â— of all sortes of