childishlie doe you cast in an exception of euill men and such like that they are agaynst the lawe of God confounding and huddling in deede The question is altogether of the corruption transgression and sinne which man câ—mitteth and you runne to beasts and to the sinne of deuils where in it is good to note that as you speake not to the question so your speach is not true For euill men as they are the creatures of GOD are not against the Lawe but the euill in men not the deuils but the corruption and euill in them not euill lawes as they commande but y t euil in lawes as it is either commanded or executed You must put a difference betweene the creatures and ordinances of God which are all good as they were created and ordeined and the same as they are nowe by themselues corrupted and made abominable To that you say these things are not properly sinnes for that they are no actions I answere If nothing be sin but that which is an action what Censure will you giue vpon Gods iudgement against Hely for not vsing discipline toward his sonnes What sentence will you pronounce for those watchmen that sound not the trumpet when they see the enemie comming Here is no euill action done but a good action left vndone y t is a sin and hath receiued the punishmeÌ„t of sinne It followeth in the Iesuites definition Sinne is an humane or reasonable action I would not say sinne is an humane or reasonable but a beastly or vnreasonable action of a man indued with reason Yet in the Censurers iudgement if a madde man or a foole kil a man it is properly no sinne but these effects of sinne these great inâ—irmities of folly and madnes shall excuse murder adulteriâ— and other like enormities Lastly you say in the definitioÌ„ of sinne it must be added that it is a voluntarie action done wittingly Al these additions are additions in deede and lay open notable corruptions in your doctrine For whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne be it against thy will or w t thy will bee it an action or no action be it reasonable as you speake or against reason If this part of their definitioÌ„ were true theÌ„ original sin should he no sin because you cannot make it an action done willingly or wittingly Moreouer touching manslaughter done vnwillingly or vnwittingly and to one that is not hated it may be answered that hee that hath so killed a man must flee to the citie of refuge if he be found from the bounds and liberties thereof then the anenger of bloud may kill him Also he cannot depart from the Citie of refuge till the death of the high Priest whose death seemeth herein in some sort to prefigure the forgiuenes of his sinne in the death of Christ the great high Priest Lastly Howlets booke acknowledgeth a sin of ignorance against Christ the wisedome of the Father and hee maketh willing sinne and wittingly committed to come neere the sinne against the holy Ghost Thus betweene your doctrine and his it will fall out that some sinnes are no sinnes and againe that all sinnes are done wittingly and therefore are in some sort against the holy Ghost not easely remitted Which doctrine condemneth all veniall sinne and leaueth no place for indulgences and Pardons for al sinne is wittingly and willingly done sayth the Censure and all such sinnes are against the conscience and therfore damnable saith Howlets author This is the harmonie and consent of your doctrine to mitigate the sorowes of a weake conscience w t many discordes placed in an euil concord As for your example that Iacob sinned not in lying with Lea because he knewe it not it is to make no sinne of a double sinne for Iacob sinned in iudgement not knowing what he did and so sinned as vpon the like ignorance for want of regarde hee might easily haue committed the fowlest incest Also it cannot bee proued that the bed was altogether vndefiled To conclude therefore howsoeuer you alledge Austen to approue your definition it is no way so large as sinne and therefore a most vnlearned definition You prouide for some way to escape by these your last woordes And this is to bee vnderstoode of actual sinne properly betweene properly and vnproperly betweene actuall and not actuall you thinke to finde a defence because the wordes may be diuersly taken But if euery thing repugnant to the lawe of God bee sinne in deede though not actuall the question is graunted and nothing left to you but a warre of woordes against the trueth The contrary doctrine followeth The transgression of the lawe is sinne Howe tauntingly how scornefully doth y â— masker play his part Hee woulde make his reader beleeue I haue made a vowe not to deale plainly in any one thing and that I can not alleadge one litle senteÌ„ce without falsifying I prayse the Lorde it is farre from me to make any such vowe or to haue any such vngodly purpose 〈◊〉 〈…〉 approue my coÌ„science eueÌ„ to my enemies That you may haue a proofe heâ—â—of this very place out of S. Ioh. which you so wâ—der at shal be a witnes being in sense truly fitly aleaged to proue it sin whatsoeuer is against or beside y t law of God For as siâ— is the transgression of the law so again the transgression of the Lawe is sinne these two are conuerted as the â—â—finition and the thing defined and as the termes which are mutually verified one of another To giue you an example whereof we say The Gospeâ— is the power of God to saluation againe The power of God to saluation is the Gospel As for the 〈◊〉 let the same Aposties words be ma 〈…〉 〈◊〉 the fourth chapter where he sayth God is a Spirit yet the woordes lye thus in the Greeke text a Spirit is God wherefore let not a transposition seeme 〈◊〉 to you when you see it bringeth no 〈◊〉 but a true sense â—either accus◠〈…〉 when there is no fraude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of trueth To make some shewâ— of your faâ—â—â— accusation you lay downe a falâ—â— example for a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not termes generally verified one of another being one the generall and conteyning more the other the speciall and hauing lesse If you had brought an example of the like it would haue followed wel without any shewe of fraude For as Euery reasonable creature is a man so againe Euery man is a reasonable creature They that are exercised but a litle in the knowledge of these propositions may easily see your erroâ—r or purposed deceit in the example and your false accusation in the matter But after a false example let vs see a false conclusion you conclude saying So these words as Saint Iohn 〈…〉 eth theÌ„ are most true Euery sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the lawe But as I vtter theâ— you say they are false to witte that euery iniquitie or
transgression of the law be it neuer so litle or done without either consent or knowledge or by a mad man or bruite beast should be properly a mortal sinne Here you playnely conclude that nâ—gaâ—â—uâ—ly which Saint Iohn him selfe layeth downe affirmatiuely saying afterwards in the 〈◊〉 Chapt. Euery iniquitie or transgression is sinne if sinne a mortall sinne as hath bene proued Thus the Câ—â—surer hath not added nor altered alone but playnely denyed that to conde 〈…〉 mee which Saint Iohn hath worde for worde to iustifie mee All my places that you so condemne being written and layde together haue I thanke God no cause to make mee blushe but this alone hath â—ause to moue you to the repentance reâ—antation of this speache so directly contrary to the wordes of the holy Ghost But the Lorde remooue all blindnesse from our eyes and haâ—dnesse from our heartes that wee may not struggle agaynst the trueth and so fall into these grosse denials of the manifest worde of God You that charge me in this place with transposition your selfe may be as worthily charged with alteration of the text putting one verbe for an other and two wordes for one both the Greeke and the vulgar translatioÌ„ hath Euery one that committeth sinne and you haue agaynst them both Euery one that sinneth This you woulde haue made a â—olde part in me but I am contented to gâ—aunt it is neither bouldnesse nor ignorance iâ— you 〈◊〉 though the first may stande better yet your translation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You 〈◊〉 perhappes to serue the Lorde in your 〈◊〉 and I knowe I serue the Lorde his cause is to be had in high estimation and the examination thereof must be without such disgracing quarrels otherwise he will punish euen him that shall not vse good meanes in the handling of a good cause But to conclude you graunt the question though as you say it commeth not to be so haynous a blasphemie For your vsual taunts of confounding and hudling you may worthily receiue them backe agayne with this vaâ—â—tage that you haue manifestly denyed that which the Apostle doth manifestly affirme and so stande vpon a contradiction not onely agaynst my wordes but against the holy and perfect word of God In the second poynt the Iesuiâ—es doctrine is thus reported Concupiscence remayning in the regenerate although it be against the lawe of God yet is it not sinne properly in it selfe or of his owne nature I am charged for mine authour that these wordes although it bee agaynst the lawe of God are not founde in the â—ensure oâ— Colen To what purpose 〈◊〉 the caâ—ill agaynst these wordes which if they had not beâ—e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neuer 〈…〉 of necessitie 〈…〉 is of conâ—upiscense against the lawe and you so take it and so defend it Also by your owne graunt the Iesuites of Colen expresse those wordes in effect saying Albeit this concupiscense doe styrre or moue a man sometimes to doe things which are repugnant to the lawe of God yet if no consent of heart bee yeelded vnto it it reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne worthy of eternal damnation That concupiscense which doeth styrre or moue a man to doe thinges against the lawe of GOD is it not also it selfe agaynst the law As you thus graunt the words which before were denyed so vnderhande or at vnwares you graunt the matter wherwith you are charged For saying that concupiscense without consent reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne worthy of eternall damnation in some sorte you giue vs to vnderstande that it is neuerthelesse some kind of sinne which is to graunt the question or to loade and disguise the sentence with many waste woordes that you may in so doing hide the errour Moreouer you and the Iesuites confesse concupiscense to be sinne by Saint Paules manifest woordes who as you graunt sometimes calleth it sinne But as you wrangle with mee so you misconster the Apostle saying hee meaneth not that it is a sinne properly but by a figure Wherefore his large disputation is shortly to bee layde downe that thereby it may appeare howe corruptly you interprete his meaning The Apostle hauing declared that the Lawe doth thorow our corruption worke in vs the lustes passions of sinne to meete with a doubt that might bee made against the law as if it were sinne because through our rebellion it stirreth vs vp thereunto answereth saying The Lawe is holy and wee solde vnder sinne the Law spirituall and we carnall In which answere it is diligently to be considered by the waye that were it not holy and the commaundement holy and iust and good euen the Lawe should seeme to bee sinne for occasion of sinne that commeth thereby through our corruption But this occasion is not giuen by the Lawe but altogether taken by our corruption rebelling against the commandement So the Lawe being of it selfe holy altogether and giuen against sinne is not to be charged with our rebellion which is sinfull of it selfe and prouoked by such restraint If the Lawe which hath in it nosinne nor shadowe of sinne come notwithstanding to the question of sinne for the fruite of our corrupt 〈…〉 re prouoked and discouered thereby what shall wee saye of concupiscence that is it selfe vncleane and of it selfe maketh sinne exceedingly sinfull S. Paul following the question doth open the nature of concupiscence in his owne person comparing his estate before the knowledge of the tenth commandement with his state afterwarde Vpon which comparison hee declareth that hee knewe not sinne 〈◊〉 hee knewe the Lawe that saith Thou shalt not couet He knewe other sinnes before by the Lawe and light of nature but he knewe not concupiscence to be sinne So the very Gentiles in their Lawes condemned adulterie murder and other like sinnes but the iustice of God condemâ—ing concupiscence the Gentiles could not see the Philosophers could not finde it neither will the Papistes acknowledge it although they knowe with the Apostle the Lawe which saith Thou shalt not couer Therefore the Apostle hath set before vs by his owne example what wee may learne by that tenth commandement which sheweth most cleerely y t the Lord our God is a spirituall Lawgiuer binding our spirites our very thoughtes least desires to y â— obedience of his most holy most pure most perfect Law If any of these bee beside the Law it is against y â— holines wherein we were created which is required of vs by the Lawe and so plainely and properly a sinne howsoeuer the Iesuites distinguishe betweene sinne properly so called not properly called sinne Euery sinne is sinne these sinnes which by the Iesuites doctrine are so called figuratiuely except we finde mercie they will bring no figuratiue condemnation in y t day when y â— secretes of all heartes shall be layde open and wee called to giue an account of euery idle worde Your similitude of the Latine tongue taken out of Austen
soule and incourage him to the hope of mercie if hee shall consider the promise of God made towarde him of which promise Martin Luther saith it is vnpossible it should lie being entire and not changed or change able through any of our sinnes And hereupō he declareth what armour we haue in respect of Gods true promise how to answere when sin troubleth the conscience Afterwarde speaking of the riches of a beleeuer he concludeth saying Thus thou seest a Christian man or one baptised howe rich he is who though willing yet cannot lose his saluatiō through his sinnes howe great soeuer except hee wil not beleeue for no sinnes can damne him but incredulitie alone if faith in the promise of God made to the baptised returne and stand all other vices are swallowed vp in a moment by the same faith yea by the trueth of God that can not denie him selfe if thou confesse him and cleaue faithfully to him that promiseth In which wordes Martin Luther speaketh not of a faith separated from good workes or accompanyed with sinne onely but of that faith which bringeth foorch as fruites and effectes those good workes which God hath prepared that wee shoulde walke in them This is the true and comfortable doctrine of Martin Luther to proue it impossible that the elect shoulde bee deceiued or fall awaye or that the multitude of their sinnes shoulde barre the grace and promyse of God Wherefore seeing Martin Luther sayth Incredulitie is the greatest sinne and you say he affirmeth there is no sinne but incredulitie Seeing hee sayeth in respect of Gods promyse all the sinnes of the righteous man without want of faith can not condemne him and you vtter it most corruptly as if he saide a man can not damne himselfe do what sinne he can Lastly seeing Martin Luther speaketh of the elect and you vtter it as spoken of all euen of the wicked the godly reader may beholde your malicious and false reportes that haue in this first place hainously charged Martin Luther with a doctrine which was neuer in his hearte to embrace much lesse in his purpose to publish by writing Yet I confesse this his found doctrine of our certaine saluation is against your Trent doubtfulnes in so vndouted a couenaunt as is that which the Lorde hath confirmed to his children with an othe that cā neuer be repealed 2 In the second place out of his sermon touching Moses misreporting the title as I thinke you cite these wordes The ten commandements apperteine nothing vnto vs. Wherin you would bring the reader vnto an opinion that Martin Luther altogether reiecteth the morall lawe of God setting men free from the obedience or regard thereof If you could proue but this one article against him without your furder reproches it were sufficiēt to bring his honour to the dust But I dare auowe in your name that you are not so ignorant as not to know his cleare doctrine to the contrarie both in other bookes and in that from whence you drewe out these wordes leauing the sense behinde I graunt he hath such words but neuer laid downe so nakedly or to proue such an error as your report importeth For speaking against such as vrged the policie of the Iewes and layde the yoke of Moses Law vpon christians he resisted this doctrine expounding the differences betweene the two couenantes of God one in the ministerie of Moses which is the perfect obedience af all the Law the other in the mercie of Christ apprehending righteousnes by faith The first as he teacheth apperteyned for a time to the Iewes alone y t seconde afterwarde both to Iewes and Gentiles as many as beleeue Wherupon he proueth at large that the law doth not apperteyne vnto vs as it did to the Iewes the yoke and ceremonies thereof lie not vpon vs to obserue in such sort as it pressed them All which doctrine is as largely taught by the Apostle proouing that wee are not vnder the Lawe but vnder grace and in another place that the lawe was giuen because of transgression til the seede came which was promised againe in the same place the Lawe was our schoolemaster to Christ that we might be made righteous by faith but after faith is come we are no more vnder the schoolemaster Which places do cleerely shewe y t Moses Lawe apperteineth not to vs as to the Iewes wee are not vnder it as they were the yoke and condemnation thereof doth not binde vs as it did them which is al that Martin Luther teacheth distinguishing our time from their time and our estate vnder Christ and the Gospell from their condition vnder Moses and the Law according to that excellent distinction of S. Iohn The lawe was giuen by Moses but grace trueth came by Iesus Christ Wee are vnder Christ and vnder grace not vnder Moses and the yoke of his lawe we haue the trueth and not the multitude of shadowes and ceremonies that were vnder the Mosaical administration Now that Martin Luther did acknowledge the doctrine of the lawe profitable to vs though the yoke and former mynisterie thereof be taken away it appeareth by his exposition of the Lawe and by his wordes out of the same sermon which you alleadge where he saith We receiue and acknowledge Moses for a teacher in deede whence we learne much wholesome doctrine as a lawegiuer or gouernour we do not acknowledge him Also afterwarde hauing repeated the commaundementes he demaundeth saying Is it not necessarie for vs to keepe these are they not vniuersally commaunded to all men I answere saieth he they are to be kept of all and apperteyne vnto all Thus it is cleere although M. Luther acknowledgeth not the yoke the curse the Mosaicall gouernment which were proper to the Iewes and appertayne not vnto vs yet in other respectes hee is plentifull in shewing the profite and vse thereof to Christians for it is as Dauid saith a lanterne to our steppes and a light vnto our path Therefore you shall doe well to regard your steps least your selfe seeme to neglect the lawe of loue and trueth as apperteyning nothing to you if you thus misreport misconster any mans wholesome doctrine 3 Your thirde report of Luthers doctrine is that it is a false opinion and to be abolished that there are foure Gospels Touching this third place I find the effect of your report els where for these first and chiefe wordes but the latter wordes concerning Iohns Gospell that it is the onely faire true and principall gospell I cannot finde I thinke there was neuer any such preface written in latin by Luther as you cite for your defence You haue in many places vsed the auouch at large which Lawiers thinke vnlearned in their cases and oftentimes you cite bookes not to bee gotten as this preface and that booke de missa angulari and laide downe one title for an other with such like practises
Although the sentence were true yet woulde you not censure him that should giue sentence against your vnholie father according to Martin Luthers testimonie Why then doe you thinke that we will any more admitte Lindan and his fellowes against Martin Luther then you will admit him against the Pope Therefore in alledging Lindan Cochleus Hosius and Xaintes with some others you commit many faultes without any gayne to your cause First you abase your selfe more then needeth in not thinking your owne credit as sufficient with vs to proue any thing against vs as their credit is For although these witnesses are dashed in to make a shewe in the margent and to deceyue the ignorant readers that knowe neyther their names nor their weake authoritie yet the Censurer if his name were well knowen hath against vs as much credit in his owne cause as Lindan hath or Hosius albeit hee was your great president in the Councill of Trent Secondly in citing your owne partiall men more carryed I thinke with malice against Luther and these causes then your self their sentence can haue no more authoritie then when a man doth stande out to beare witnesse in his owne cause or when one thiefe giueth in euidence to acquite an other Wee goe not about to ouerbeare you in the like causes with the bare authoritie or reportes of Martin Luther of Iohn Caluin of Peter Martyr or other like men for these are all parties and the law alloweth no such for sufficient witnesses in their owne causes Therefore howe vnequall is your measure how insufficient is your trial in bringing such testimonies against vs as your selues would hisse at if the lyke or better were brought against you 〈…〉 Lastly in alleadging such partiall and forsworne witnesses you bewray an euill cause that can not otherwise bee maintayned then by such vnlawfull insufficient proofes But seeing there can be had nothing from you and your witnesses but slauÌ„ders let vs examine how small cause you haue so bitterly to slaunder those that are gone before and for so wicked purposes to infect the iudgement of such as shal come after Entring into the slaunders of Martin Luther you giue a note that he was the beginner of the newe Gospel Doe you not still bewray Campions spirit in charging the religion nowe established in this lande with nouelties and most scornefully calling the Gospel of Iesus Christ which we preache a newe doctrine This is not vpon good grounde to speake against a fewe Fryers but in a blasphemous spirite to speake against God But before I answere the particular slaunders layde downe against Martin Luther I must againe adde that which you haue left out namely howe Luther was begotteÌ„ of a deuil Surely this is as true as the rest and Proteolus as much to be beleeued as the others Therefore the same sparke of modestie which made your paper blush to receiue this as a thing incredible as offensiue to euery mans eares and as bewraying your vnsatiable malice myght also haue refused to tell the other slaunders of lyke bitternesse and no lesse vntrueth Nowe that Martin Luther was stroken with a thunderbolt in a medow though you easily dare report it from an enemie yet you shall hardly â—â—nde a wise man that will beleeue you the matter being of it selfe so incredible A thunderbolt woulde haue taken awaye lyfe or lefte a marke behinde it for a manifest and sure note of that which otherwise can not bee proued I will no more beleeue Lindan in this then in his large and wonderfull tale of a madde dogge pursued with a multitude of armed men whose venemous teeth Lindan himself escaped by the helpe of Saint Hubert as they call him for the which deliuerie he and all his house were afterwarde dedicated to the worshippe of the same Hubert I will beleeue him no more against Martin Luther then agaynst our owne countrey men of whom he writeth that they of the religion in Englande whom he calleth Caluinists doe worship the image of y e deuil Of like credit is your other tale of y e deuil horribly crying out of Martin Luthers mouth and as much to be beleeued from Cochleus alone as froÌ„ him and a thousand such making no conscience to cast out in their writings so malitious and so intollerable libels You adde these wordes that vpon a certaine emulation contention betweene him and the Fryers of Dominiks order hee left his religion cast away his habit broke his vowes maried a Nunne and by litle and litle began to preache strange newe doctrines especially tending to all libertie and carnalitie Howe roundlye are these things written and howe calme doth the floud of malicious wordes seeme to flowe partly to disgrace that y t was lawfully done partly to charge him with that euill which he neuer thought For when the Lord did open his eyes to see as many before haue seene the abhominable hypocrisie and superstition of your religion and orders no otherwise then for hatred thereof he left his former superstition which you call religion he cast away also his superstitious order the pharisaicall habit thereof and thinking him selfe no longer tyed to his vnaduised and superstitious vowe he maried in the Lorde and all this was lawfull That by litle and litle he began to preach straÌ„ge and newe doctrines especially tending to all libertie and carnalitie it shalbe founde an vntrueth deliuered against the man and a malice agaynst the doctrine which hee taught your owne examples shall make the proofe First therfore you charge him to teach there is no sinne but incredulitie neither can a man damne himselfe doe what mischiefe he can except he will refuse to beleeue I will not here measure vnto you as you haue measured vnto me I wil not disgrace you first and then examine the matter for therein you haue offered me great wrong as shall appeare when I come to answere those places But I may plainely pronounce that in this place you doe in wordes and matter report an opeÌ„ vntruth For Martin Luther hath no such doctrine First it was farre from him to thinke there was no sinne but incredulitie and therfore he woulde neuer write so manifest an vntruth He is vehement in condemning many other sinnes as beside infinite other places it appeareth in his expounding the xv Psalme and more largely in his briefe exposition vpon the tenne commaundementes This it is that you haue wonderfully peruerted Martin Luther saith Incredulitie y t is not to beleeue the promise of God doth argue the promise of God to be a lying promise which is a most high sinne of all other Againe he doth not saye as you report a man can not damne him selfe for that is against all knowledge either of mans iniquitie or of Gods iust iudgementes but he speaketh of the baptised which beleeue of the trueth of Gods promise who cannot denie himself Wherin he sheweth that it doth woÌ„derfully comforte a mans
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