wher of the high Priest was a figure Neither was the citie of refuge appointed onelie for the triall of the slaughter whether it were willinglie or vnwillinglie committed as you saie but also for a kinde 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 auenger of blood might kill him and not be charged with his blood Where you refuse the mysterie of Christes death in the death of the high Priest and flie to the fantasies of the Iewes you declare that you care not what you bring so you maie obtaine your purpose But Chri stian diuines as Cyrillus Maximus and others of the death of the high priest in that place gather deliuerance by the death of Christ. Saint Ambrose also is cleere that the high Priest in this place signifieth Iesus Christ and confuteth the politike reasons by you rehearsed out of R. Mose and R. Leui for that in causis paribus there was impar euentus In equal causes vnequall end For the high Priest might die saith he the next daie after the manslaier hath taken his refuge Againe he addeth that Christ is exors omnium voluntariorum accidentium delictorum void of all offences voluntarie and chaunceable by which he acknowledgeth vnwilling manslaughter to be an offence Saint Ierome also Dialog aduers. Pel. lib. 1. is plaine in that wholl case and sinne of ignorance and that he which is fled to the citie must tarie vntill the high Priest die that is vntill he be redeemed by the blood of our Sauiour Beda also vpon this place by his allegorie sheweth how he thought of that kinde of sinne Also Theodoretus in lib. Num. quaest 51. declareth both the mysterie of the high Priests death and sheweth that such vnwilling manslaughter is sinne Cur ad obitum Pontificis praescribet eireditum qui nolens interfecit Qnia 〈◊〉 Pontificis secundùm ordinem Melchisedech erat humani peccati solutio Whte vntill the death of the high Priest doth he prescribereturne vnto him which hath slaine a man vnwillinglie Because the death of the high Priest after the order of Melchisedech was the loosing of the sinne of man and so forth to the same effect And if all the politike reasons be graunted of the mans tarying vntill the high Priest die yet the mysterie of Christes death is not thereby taken away whoos 's blood clenseth vs from all sinne voluntarie or vnuoluntarie The last fault of the definition is that the Iesuites acknowledge not the sinne of ignorance you answer they do of that ignorance whereof a man him-selfe is the cause but not of that ignorance which the schoolemen call inuincible which is not in the doers power to auoid nor he fell into it by his owne defaulte as in the example of the Queenes subiect being in his Princes affaires in India and commaunded by proclamation in Westminster to appeare there at a certaine daie in which cause his absence is excused by inuincible ignorance This case graunted betweene the Prince and his subiect prooueth not that ignorance excuseth before God because there is not the like reason seeing no such ignorance whereby a man should transgresse the law of God is in man but by voluntarie and witting transgression of the first man and his owne negligence which maketh his fact sinfull because he is cause of his ignorance by negligence or in the sinne of Adam in whome you confesse that all men sinned At least wise if originall sinne be voluntarie by the sinne of Adam so also is the transgression of gods law in these cases of inuincible ignorance wittinglie committed by the same sinne of Adam Augustine whome you quote for your purpose speaketh of naturallignorance and infirmitie which is in insants not of that whereby men fall into error and so transgresse Gods law For that he calleth penall ignorance and difficultie which is iustlie laid vpon them that neglected to seeke knowledge and is sinfull therefore cannot excúse sinne Chrisostome whome you quote likewise is manifestly against you his wordes are these Quòdsi ea ignoraueris quae scriri non possunt praeter culpam eris siverò quae scitu possibilia sunt facilia extremas poenas merito dabis If thou be ignorant of those thinges which are not possible to beknowne thoushalt be blamles but if they be possible and easie to be knowne thou shalt worthelie suffer extreame punishment As in the cases of Abimelech with Abrahams wife and Iacob with Lea who if they had made diligent inquirie needed not to haue beene deceiued through ignorance Neither doth God excuse Abimelech from sinne altogether as you saie albeit he pardoned his ignorance and kept him from the fact of adulterie acknowledged his minde to haue beene free from the purpose of Adulterie For the punishmeut laid vpon him argueth what he deserued by his ouer hastie purpose of mariage with Sara and Abimelech confesseth that Abraham had brought vpon him and his Kingdom a great sinne Also when God saith to him I haue kept thee thatthou shouldest not sinne against me he declareth plainlie that if Abimelech had lien with Sara vpon that ignorance he had sinned against God But of Iacobslying with Lea in steade of Rachell you mooue a greater contention and alledge Saint Augustine in his defense But whosoeuer gaue you your notes through your negligence in not reading the places your selfe made you erre through ignorance For S. Augustine doth notin all those Chapters once touch the question whether Iacob sinned in that he did not regarde what woman was laid in his bedde by which negligence as Master Charke saith he might haue committed most horribleincest with his mother aunt or daughter Onelie he defendeth his Polygamie by the custome of that time and the contention of his wiues for their lodgeing with him and last of all allegorizeth vpon the wholl storie drawing the error of Iacob and all the rest to a mysterie Nor yet de ciuit dei lib. 16. c. 38. doth he defend his negligence rehearsing onelie how he came to haue foure wiues when he went into Mesopotamia for one onelie adding that because he had lyen with Lea vnwittinglie he did not put her awaie lest he might be thought to haue mocked her Neither hath Iustinus Martyr lib. de verit Christ. rel anie defense of Iacobs innocencie or excuse of his negligence in this fact but sheweth onelie what mysterie maie be gathered of his marriages as Saint Augustine doth Finallie Theodores your last auncient witnes agreeing with the rest saith that Iacob betrothed onelie Rachell and beside the purpose of his will had to doe with Lea. But immediatelie assoone as he perceiued the deceit he tooke it heauilie and complained to his father in law what word of defense or excuse of his fact committed through ignorance negligence haue you in this saying yet you conclude after your vaunting mannner And what one
But in what asses eares should it so sound when euerie reasonable man must needes vnderstand that there be offences against the Prince and common wealth as fellonie 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 confesse that there is something that doth repugne the law of God and yet is no sinne at all if it be without will or consent as the first motions of concupiscence are Another cauill you haue that his authors haue not onelie these wordes but somewhat more as when they saie Sinne is not whatsoeuer repugneth the law of God but c. If Master Chark had denied the rest it were somewhat that you saie but seeing you graunt they haue 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 cauill is that he chaungeth the place of the negatiue which in framing propositions altereth often the sense as for peccatum est non quicquid he saith non est peccatum quicquid If Master Charkes chaunging in this place did alter the sense you would haue tolde vs of it but seeing the sense is all one the chaunge is no fault Lastlie for repugneth the law of God you say he putteth it is against the worde of God But here by your leaue you make a peece of a lie for in his first answere he saith it repugneth the law of God which when he repeateth in his replie it is against the worde of God it can haue none other sense then before That you will admit as much as the Iesuites in word or sence haue vttered it is as much as Master Charke requireth Now to the obiection against the Iesuites definition made by Master Charke you saie that to prooue that sinne is no act he obiecteth that iniustice is a sinne and yet no act He were a poore sophister that could not espie your paultrie in this place Master Charke doth not prooue that sinne generallie taken is no act but he affirmeth that there is some sinne which is not an act And therefore the Iesuites in their definition haue not geuen the right Genus or materiall cause of sinne Now for iniustice to passe ouer your knauish example of the execution of Campian and his fellowes so innocent and learned men by great iniustice You take vpon you to teach Master Charke an high point of learning Of the difference betweene a vice that is an habite and a sinne that is a singuler fact which perhapps you weene he learned not before yet euerie young sophister in Cambridge knoweth it well enough But Master Charke speaketh of generall iniustice as his wordes are plaine which is a sinne in not doing the thing commaunded because it is a manifest transgression of the lawe of God whoe commaundeth the wholl and euerie part to be fullfilled and is the sinne of omission which you make the second obiection But euerie omission you saie includeth an act which is a grosse absurditie meaning such an act as is sinne For I maie doe a good act while I omit a better the omission of a better act is sinne the doing of a good act is no sinne To tith mint and anise is a good act of it selfe for it was commaunded by God must not be omitted yet was it sinne to omit mer cie and iustice as the wordes of Christ are plaine this you ought to doe and not to omit the other The examples you bring of one resoluing not to goe 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 principall part of the sinne are foolish For there maie be omission which is sinne where there is no resolution and determination to the contrarie of that which should be done but negligence or forgetfullnes yea there is omission which is sinne where there is no power in vs to performe that should be done as in all the reprobate and vnregenerate and in the regenerate also in part which neither doe nor can in this life loue God and their neighbour in such perfection as the lawe of God requireth There is omission also through ignorance of Godes lawe which is sinne and deserueth stripes and yet ignorance the cause thereof is no act but the lacke of knowledge But being ouercome by scripture and reason you flie to the authoritie of the auncient fathers and first you quote Chrysost. Homil. 16. in Epist. ad Eph. moste impudentlie where by scriptures reason examples he teacheth the cleane contrarie that omission of dutie is sinne though there be no act to the contrary as when Christ shall saie I was an hungred c. and concludeth Nihilenim boni facere hoc ipsum est malum facere to doe no good euen that is to doe euill or to sinne The like he saieth Hom. de virtut vitiis Satis est igitur mali hoc ipsum nihil fecisse boni Euen this is euill inough to haue done noe good Ambrose hom 18 hath nothing to the purpose or if you meane 81. which is translated out of Basils hom which you quote nexte he hath nothing to your purpose but rather against it For vpon the wordes of Christ Math. 25. I was an hungred and you gaue me not to eat he writeth thus Neque enim in his verbis qui aliena inuasit arguitur sed is qui non communiter vsus est iis que habuit condemnatur For in these wordes he is not reprooued which hath laid bolde vpon other mens goodes but he which hath not communicated those thinges which he had is condem ned Basills wordes in Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the extorcioner is not there accused but he that doth not communicate is condemned Last of all you charge vs with that definition of Saint Augustine contra Faust. lib. 22. cap. 27. Peccatum est factum vel c. Sinne is something done or said or coueted against the eternall lawe But if this were a perfect definitiō what needed the Iesuites to frame another according to whose definition this of Saint Augustine is larger then the word defined and in respect of the sinne of omission it is streighter then the terme of sinne yet it serued Saint Augustine for his purpose in hand concerning the facts of the Patriarches 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 then Augustine and a more perfect taken out of Saint Iohn Quidest enim peccatum saith he nisi praeuaricatio legis diuinae coelestium inobedientia praeceptorum For what is sin but the transgression of the lawe of God and a disobedience of the heauenlie commaundements This definition of Ambrose is perfect and maketh
flatlie against you for he that doth not that which god commaundeth sinneth although in the meane time he doe some other thing that is good or not euill yea although he sleepe and doe nothing Where Master Charke doth distinguish the creatures and ordinances of God which are good from the corruption and preuarication that is in them which is euill you picke a fond quarrell to him and make him to saie that deuills and euill men doe not repugne against the law of God and that they doe not sinne properlie Which is false for he saith no such thing but that euill men as they are the creatures of God are not against the law but the euill in men and so of the rest yet euil men doe sinne properlie and repugne against the law of God by the euill that is in them as in your owne example the Phisitian cureth his patient not as he is a man but as he is a Phisitian and by knowledge of Phisicke which is in him And as for the repugnance of contrarietie whereof the question is in the definition of sin it is not in the creature of god but the corruption of that good crearure A blacke horsse is not contrarie to the colour of white but the colour of blacke so not an euil man but sin of an euil man is contrary to the iustice of Gods law So a Phitisian driueth away an ague yet aPhisitian is not contrary to an ague but thevertue of the medicine which he ministreth When euerie childe may vnderstand your cauilling it is no meruaile though you charge M. Chark with such absurditie and ignorance yea with heresie and that out of Augustine Tom. 8. fol. 665. not telling vs of what edition you speake so that it were harde to finde if it were worth the search that which you talke of but you are to be pardoned for your note was vnperfect did not expresse in what homelie vpon what Psalme The second fault of the Iesuites definition is that they call it an humane or reasonable action Master Charke would rather saie a beastly or vnreasonable action of a man indued with reason Here you take on and aske whether Master Charke be so vnlearned in all foundation of Philosophie And Aristotle and Saint Augustine are called to witnes that sin proceedeth from the minde indued with reason and what other thing I beseech you doth Master Charke saie his wordes are plaine as I haue set them downe and the same that you cite out of Augustine Now if you will defend that sinne is an action agreeable to right reason because it proceedeth frō a reasonable man he giueth you a weapon to play with al against your next encounter otherwise he hath better reformed the wordes of your definition thé you haue either wit or grace to vnderstand It hath a better colour that you obiect of the morall workes of iustice temperance other vertues in the gentils which M. Chark wil acknowledge to be sin and yet they seeme 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 darkenes and the darkenes comprehendeth it not no acceptable worke to God can be brought forth therebie Yea for so much as all the morall workes of the gentiles respected not the right ende of obedience and glorie of God whome they knew not their wholl actions were therebie vitiated and corrupted so that they may iustlie be called sinne Euen as praier is turned into sin and the sacrifice of the vngodlie is abhomination to the Lord. And M. Charke faith truelie whatsoeuer is not of faith is sin be it reasonable as you speake or against reason And in deede against right reason it is that the gentiles in their morall workes sought not to obey God according to his lawe and therefore euen their best workes of iustice and temperance were sinne But this is so iumpe you saie 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 beastes as your Saint Francis witnes your Legend did preach to brute beastes you had iumped neere the matter but when none but an asse would vnderstand Saint Paul to speake of any other actions then such as proceede from men you iumpe as neere as Germans lippes that were nine mile a sunder But you will answere to Saint Paul with S. Ambrose that he meaneth whoesoeuer doth a thing against that which faith prescribeth that is against a mans own conscience and iudgement he sinneth The words of S. Ambrose are these Rectè peccatum appellat quod aliter fit quà m probatum est He doth rightlie call that sinne which is done otherwise then is allowed Now this allowance or approbation is not referred to euerie mans corrupt conscience or ignorant iudgement as you expound it but is measured by faith which is a certaine knowledge and perswasion grounded vpon the worde of God as Saint Paul sheweth in the 14. verse of the 14. Chap. I know am perswaded by our Lord Iesus that nothing is vncleane of it selfe which faith when the Gentiles had not in their workes their works were sinne And therfore you abuse S. Ambrose by your glose to restreine the prescription of faith onelie to that which a man doth against his conscience and iudgement But Saint Augustine you say prooueth at large against Master Charke that the morall good workes of infidels were not sinne lib. de spiritu litera cap. 26. 27. 28. In truth S. Augustine though he call such workes iustice liberalitie wrought by infidels as we doe commonlie good workes yet his iudgement is none other then I haue before expressed and that he declareth in the latter ende of the 27. Chapter for in the 26. he hath nothing sounding that wase Speaking of infidels Quaedam tamen fact a vel legimus vel nouimus vel audimus quae secundùm iusticiae regulam non solùm vituper are non possumus verumetiam meritò recteque laudamus quanquam si discutiatur quo fine fiant vix iuueniuntur quae insticiae debitam laudem defensionemue mereantur Yet some deedes we either reade or know or heare of which according to the rule of righteousnes 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 scarslie found which deserue the praise or defense dew to righteousnes But most cleerelie his iudgement is for Master Charke against you sir defender as well for the allegation of the text Rom. 14. where you scornfullie iumped in your sinfull horse as for the matter in question that the morall workes of Gentiles are sin before God Contra Iulianum Pelagianum lib. 4. cap. 3. towarde the ende in these wordes Si Gentilis inquis nudum
worde can Master Chark now peepe against all this O you papists that with sinceritie of Religion haue not caste of all humane honestie doe 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 onelie agreeable to his wordes First that sinne is no action where he holdeth that all sinne as the sinne of omission is no action Secondlie that no euill men doe sinne but the euill in men which he saith not but that man as he is the creature of God is not against the lawe but the euill in man Thirdlie that sinne is not voluntarie which he saieth not generally but of some sin speakeing properlie Forthlie that sinne is no humane or reasonable action which he saieth rather to be a beastlie and vnreasonable action of a man endued with reason Fiftlie that it requireth neither will nor knowledge in the doer where he saith that the transgression of Gods law is sin in some case and sort which is without the will and knowledge of the doer Last of all that fooles and madde men may as properlie commit sinne as others but this he saith not at al but that the infirmites of follie and madnes shal not excuse sin and that if a madde man or a foole kil a man in the Censurcrs iudgement it is properly no sinne Whereof you may inferr that it is sinne properlie but not that it is as properlie sinne as in others But if madde men and fooles coulde not commit sinne properlie whie are they punished for sinne To conclude where you saie that Master Charke reiecteth Saint Augustine about the definition of sinne it is false For these are his wordes Howsoeuer you alledge Austen to approoue your definition it is no waie so large as sinne and iherefore a most vnlearned definition These words of his declare that he reiecteth not Augustine in this matter but your false and fraudulent allegation of him which is manifestly shewed before by Augustines sound iudgement in his retractions The eight section Of sinne MAster Chark hauing said out of the definition of Saint Iohn which also Saint Ambrose doth vse as I haue shewed before that all transgression of the lawe is sinne was charged by the Censurer with transposition because the Apostles wordes lie thus in the text Sinne is transgression of the law Master Charke defendeth him-selfe alledging that these wordes sinne and the transgression of the law are as the definition and the thing defined which are mutuallie verified the one of the other The defender bringeth nothing to prooue that this is no definition but that which he hath saide in the section before which is ouerthrowne Onelie he quarrelleth that Master Charke said the Gospell is as generall as the power of God to saluation whereas Christ also is called the power of God to saluation As though the Gospell did not include Christ. For when it is said the Gospell is the power of God to saluation you must vnderstand the generall matter namelie the doctrine or the preaching That transposition of wordes is sometimes lawfull M. Charke sheweth by an example God is a spirite where the wordes lie in the text a spirite is God The defender wrangleth that it is not alwaies lawfull which shall be graunted vnto him without controuersie That in this question it is not lawful he hath nothing to prooue but a beggerlie demaund of that in question that transgression of Gods lawe is larger then sinne Where Master Chark alledgeth out of 1. Iohn 5. 17. that euerie iniquitie is sin he maketh no small adoe because the greeke 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 quarrell with Saint Augustine which vpon 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 saie sin is one thing iniquitie is an other thing let no man say I am a sinful man but I am not vniust euery one that committeth sin doth commit iniquity for sin is iniquity what then shall we do with our sinnes and iniquities c You see here that S. Augustine accounteth sin iniquitie or vniustice to be all one So doth he in 1. Iohn Tr. 5. And where the Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is vnrighteuosnes what say you meaneth he generall iniustice or speciall If he meane generall as you must needes say for shame then it is as large as sinne and it is manifest that the Apostle vseth the worde Iustice as contrarie to sinne therefore iustice must needes be the same that sinne If you can make a diuersitie between general iniquity general iniustice you are wiser then the vulgar interpreter speciallie if he speake in this latter place of great sinnes onelie as you say whereas iniquitie in the former place may signifie such small transgression as is no sinne at all Verelie Oecumenius is against you and saith Simpliciter tanquam à genere peccati facit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis iniquitas peccatum est hoc est siue sit ad mortem siue non He maketh a plaine diuision of sinne as it were from the generall and saith all inquitie is sinne that is whether it be vnto death or not And vpon 1. 〈◊〉 3. he saith Sciendum autem quòd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 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 namelie sinne the 〈◊〉 from that which is good iniquitie to doe 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 marke which is according to nature and in nature is selfe For the scope or marke 〈◊〉 nature is to liue according to reason farre from vnreasonablenes Likewise he that doth 〈◊〉 offendeth about the lawe giuen in nature beeing affected intemperatelie Rectè ergo discipulus domini 〈◊〉 inidem 〈◊〉 Therefore the disciple of our Lorde hath rightlie vsed the one for the other Here iniquitie is as large as sinne Against this what haue you to saie Aristotell in praedicam qual For which I send you to Aristotell Eth. lib. 5. c. 1. But 〈◊〉 euery iniquitie is not sinne you haue Saint Augustine lib. 2. cont Iulian cap. 5. When you can set downe his wordes you shall receiue an answere in the meane time as you saie Master Charke reserued a sure carde for the ende I may
that they are the twelue rocks or stones the foundation of the walles of the new Ierusalem Apoc. 21. 14. and the Church is builded vpon the foundation of all the Apostles Eph. 2. 20. Secondlie you saie the promis made to him Ioan. 1. Math. 16. was perfourmed no doubt after his resurrection when he committed to him the feeding of all his sheepe yong and olde Ioh. 21. 2. We graunt as much but that it doth exceedinglie import a wonderful incomparable soueraigntie and iurisdiction ouer mens soules greater or other then was equally graunted to the rest of the Apostles we see not how it can be inferred of anie scripture Euerie one of the Apostles being sent into all the world to teach all nations and to preach the Gospell to euerie creature hath as generall authority to feede the shepe of Christ both olde and yong as Peter Thirdlie you saie for a mortall man to receiue the keies of the kingdome of heauen and by them to binde and loose to lock out and let in before our Master Christ who had full iurisdiction therein it was neuer heard of But we read that the samekeies were committed to the scribes and Pharisees and teachers of the law which they did shamefullie abuse and therfore are threatned by our sauiour Christ woe be to you teachers of the law for you haue taken awaie the key of knowledge and neither you your selues do enter and you forbid them that would Woe be vnto you Scribes and Pharisees ye hypocrites for you shut vp the kingdome of heauen before men For neither you your selues 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 kingdome of heauen should haue beene opened taken awaie and the kingdome of heauen shut vp from them that gladlie would enter if they knew which way The keies in deede do signifie power and authoritie but that onelie Peter hath those keies and not the Church and euerie true Pastour of the same or that Peter by them had greater power and authoritie then the rest of the Apostles which had them also you shall neuer be hable to make demonstration Your remembrance serueth you well that all the olde writers do make no difference betweene the authoritie of Peter and the rest of the Apostles concerning the remitting of sins But you do forget that the power of bynding and loosing was by our sauiour Christ graunted equallie to all the Apostles and to their successours though it were once singularlie vttered to one The subtiltie of Origen to make a difference betweene binding and loosing in all the heauens and in one heauen onelie beside that it is vaine in it selfe yet is it not brought of Origen to dignifie Peter aboue all the Apostles whome both vpon the place of Mat. 16. and this also he confesseth to haue receiued equall power with Peter but to prefer Peter and such as Peter was before them that haue thrise reprehended offenders and beeing not heard haue bound the sinner vpon earth iudgeing him as an heathen or publicane whereof he inferreth Quanto melior fuerit qui ligat c how much better he is that bindeth by somuch he that is bound is bound more then in one heauen and how much better he is that looseth by so much he shall be more happie that is loosed for he is loosed in all the heauens The greater preheminence of rule and iurisdiction the fullnes of power and prerogatiue deriued from Peter as from a fountaine be matters of bolde assertion but void of all manner of proofe or demonstration ALLEN But we will not stand hereon now nor yet to put difference betwixt these wordes and tearmes loosing or remitting binding or retaining nor to dispute whether these two textes more properlie signifie the authoritie and iurisdiction giuen to the spiritual Magistrates for punishing by temporal pain enioyned and releasing by mercie as they see occasion the same appointed penance againe or els it properlie concerneth the verie release of sinne it selfe or retaining the sinne which they vpon iust causes will not forgiue These thinges would grow to ouer tedious a tale and ouercurious for the simple whome I would moste helpe in these matters and I shall briefllie touch so much hereof as is necessarie hereafter when I shall dispute of pardons For in deede these two textes of binding and loosing as well spoken to Peter as to the residue afterward shall be the ground of our wholl discourse there and therefore till then we must touch these textes no further but as in common pertaineth to remitting or retaining sinnes For they are brought indifferentlie of the holie fathers with the foresaid wordes of Saint Iohn in which as I haue declared the verie institution of penance and Priestes iudgement of our soules and sinnes be moste properlie grounded Theresore that by all these wordes so often vttered by our sauiour you maie well perceiue the verie literall and vudoubted meaning to be that Priestes haue authoritie by Christes warrant to remit and retaine sinnes I will recite one or two places of most auncient fathers that they ioyning with such plaine wordes of sundrie places of scripture maie make all most sure to such as can by anie reason be satisfied First Ialledge the saying of S. Maximus an olde author a blessed saint He doth by conference couple together these textes whereon we now stand thus hespeaketh verie pithely therefore you shal heare his owne words Ne qua vos fiatres de creditis Petro clauibus regni more nostrarum clauium cogitatio terrena promoueat Clauis caeli lingua est Petri quam singulorum meritae censendo Aposiolus vnicuique regnum coelorum aut claudit aut aperit Non est ergo clauis ista mortalis artificis aptata manu sed data à Christo potestas est iudicandi Denique ait eis quorum remiseritis peccata remissa erunt quorum detinueritis detenta erunt Thus he saith in our tongue Least anie earthlie cogitation mooue you to think of anie such materiall keies as we occupy in earth when you heare of committing the keies of the kingdome to Peter you must thus vnderstand that the key of heauen is Peters word or tongue because the Apostle weighing well euerie of our deserts openeth or shutteth to euery man the kingdome of Christ. This key therfore is not made by mortal mans hand but it is the power of iudgement giuen by Christ. To be briefe he saith to them al whose sins you shal forgiue they shal be forgiuē c. Thus saith Maximus ioyning together fitly two textes for one purpose out of both maketh a moste forcible argument that the iudgement of our soules which is a passing authoritie and the verie letting in and keeping out of heauen is addicted by the keies to Peters and the Apostles ministerie For which cause also S. Gregorie calleth all Christes Apostles and the iust occupiers
the leprous persons that is to say should onely discerne which were by God remitted or not remitted they could not that doo excepte they sawe the varietie of the saide sinnes by mans confession But now seeing they haue further interest in our matters and must properly both pardon and giue iust penaunce for sinne how is it possible they should doo this without exacte knowlege of entry of oure greeuous offences In deed a general confession such as is often made in diuine seruice to God or his priestes such as be Catholik doth some times take away the common infirmities of our sinfull life that our light trespasses be not imputed to vs or such as we haue so forgotten that we cannot by anie conuenient search call againe to our remembrance But other greater crimes and deadly sinnes for which the sacrament of discipline was instituted and the priestes iudgement seat erected in the Church are not discharged before God without seuerall contrition and distinct confession with readie in tent of the penitent to accomplish such fruites of penance as by the priest shall be appointed for the satisfying for his sinnes And what a marucilous disorder is brought into Christes Church by plaine flatterie of our selues herein whiles we holde that this generall confession is sufficient we see by experience of these our euill daies where there is now put no difference betwixt small offenders and most greeuous sinners no diuersitie 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 liuer A common murtherer a filthie whoremunger a dailie drunkerd a false robber a greedie extorcioner confes as litle do as litle penance lament as litle yea a great deale lesse then the honest sort of people do for much more small and fewer faultes All men repose them-selues now of daies so much in Christes passion and there onelie no faith that they will neither confesse to God nor man neither sigh nor sorrow nor do satisfaction for their sinnes Well let all men be assured that God in the next world will not go by general Chapters but will haue an accompt of all our proper works and misdeedes till it come to our idle words and vaine thoughtes The which iudgement because Gods Church and ministers sentence to whome Christ gaue all iudgement of our sinnes in earth doth most cleerelie resemble we maie be out of doubt that the like particular discussing and examination of our owne selues here before his ministers must needes be had that we be not iudged of our Lord in the life to come FVLKE By seeing the varietie of sinnes though the Priest could see them as clearlie 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 neuer discerne which were by God remitted or not remitted except he could see the repentance of the sins according to which God doth either remitte or retain sinnes Therefore confession to this purpose is neither necessarie nor profitable For the further interest you claime you must bring better euidence then he therto you haue shewed forth or els we maie neuer yeelde it vnto you And greatlie I maruaile how you can affirme that the Priest can properlie pardon sinne when he can not to anie man pronounce pardon of his sinne except he be true lie contrite and penitent before god God onelie and the partie penitent are priuy to the con trition of his heart which in an Hipocrit with a thousand confessions maie be dissembled And I trow you will not saie that without vnfained contrition of the heart the priest maie pardon a sinner The doctrine of your masters is but with condition if the partie be contrite without counterfayting therefore he that can not pardon absolutely can much les pardon properlie Where you make generall confession auailable either for small and light offences or else for greater sinnes forgotten you speake without proofe and therefore your authoritite may be denied without doubt The disorder you speake of for lacke of shrift was greater when most mé went to shrift and not fearing the iugdement seat of God and thought they were sufficientlie discharged of their sinnes if they had powred them out into a priests lape or friers coule God be praised they that repose them selues moste in Christs passion and by the merites thereof beleeue to receiue forgiuenes of sinnes by faith in his bloode are more ready to confesse their vnworthines both before God man then any popish hypocrite that trusteth in the merit of his workes and his owne satisfaction for his sinnes and doe more sigh and sorrow for their sinnes although they be such as mans lawe cannot punish although they were knowne then they that whisper halfe an hower in a priestes eare for the sinnes of one whole yeare whereas one howers offences if they were particularie called to minde and repeated would aske longer time to confesse them We know that in the next world God will haue an account of al our misdeeds euen to our idle words thoughts therfore our wholl life ought to be a continuall meditation and profession of repentance yet we know by his word and assurance ofhis spirit that the same infinit multitude heape of our sinnes shal not be laid to our charge because out sauiour Christ is the lambe of God that hath taken them awaie and satisfied the iustice of God for them That Christ hath giuen al iudgement of our sinnes in earth to his Church and the ministers thereof you often affirme thereupon build vp your court of confession but by what wordes this may be prooued you are neuer able to shew For that text whose sinnes you forgiue c. imporeth no such manner of iudgement but an authoritie to pronunce a sentence declaratorie of Gods mercie in pardoning all them that trulie repent and of his iustice in punishing all them that obstinatly refuse the grace of God offered in the preaching of the Ghospel The examining iudgeing of our selues whch the Apostle requireth that we be not iudged of the Lord vrgeth vs not to commit our selues to the examination iudgement of othermen but to a diligent discussing of our owne conscience before god that we come not with hypocrisie or without dew regard of his presence and benefites to the participation of his sacraments ALLEN And this particular discussing Saint Paull meant when he commended vnto the Corinthians and by them commaunded all Christian men to prooue trie and iudge themselues especiallie afore the receipt of the blessed sacrament of Christes bodie and blood which requireth moste puritie of life in the receiuer that can be For to attempt to receiue the holie bodie of Christ before we haue in contrite manner confessed our selues and purged our consciences by the iudgement of Christes Church of the guilt of deadlie sinne is exceeding damnable to vs and much dishonour to