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in so vndouted a couenaunt as is that which the Lorde hath confirmed to his children with an othe that cā neuer be repealed 2 In the second place out of his sermon touching Moses misreporting the title as I thinke you cite these wordes The ten commandements apperteine nothing vnto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
not already accomplished by that first righteousnesse Moreouer if this righteousnesse bee that which the Gospell teacheth and not the Gospell only but as the same Apostle writeth afterward which is testified by the law and the Prophets wheÌ„ce haue you brought vs a second righteousnesse that neither the Lawe nor the Prophets nor the Gospell haue reueiled vnto vs The vanitie of this your deuise may further appeare if we coÌ„sider the iustice of God which can not allowe for righteous any thing but y t which is absolutely perfect and holy in all respects as the Lawe is most perfect most holy Wherfore both the satisfaction for â—ur sinne committed must be such as mâ—y fully endure whatsoeuer the Lawe hath threatened for sin and the obedience so exact and precise as it faile not in any poynt But this righteousnesse is but one and is in none but in our sauiour Christ none other being able to make that ful satisfactioÌ„ for sinne nor perfectly to keepe the Lawe but he alone therefore there can â—ee but one righteousnesse which is in Christ Iesus accompted vnto those which beleeue in him according to the Gospell The holy Apostles teach that after men be conuerted from infidelitie to faith they stande righteous and liue in the sight of God not by meanes of their woorkes but by this faith whereby they beleeued Abrahams example maketh this good who after he was called from idolatrie to the seruice of God is said to haue beleeued and that his faith was reckoned to him for righteousnesse not his workes first or last least hee might haue wherein to reioyce and not in God The Apostle to the Galathians maketh this euident We knowing saith he that a man is not iustified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ we also haue beleeued in Iesus Christ that we may bee iustified by the faith of Christ and not by workes of the Law because by the works of the Lawe no flesh shalbe iustified In which words the Apostle plainely maketh saluation an effect of faith and not of any workes which we do after wee haue beleeued Our sauiour Christ confirmeth this in diuers places as in Ioh He that beleeueth in him that hath sent me hath euerlasting life shal not come into condeÌ„natioÌ„ but is already passed from death to life He that beleeueth in the sonne hath life euerlasting An other place to the Galathians maketh all this yet more manifest where the Apostle speaking of himselfe long after his conuersion saith That I nowe liue I liue by the faith of him that loued me and gaue him selfe for me By these proofes it is euident that there is but one onely righteousnesse for which men are accompted righteous before him which is the righteousnes of faith To this may be added that the only righteousnes of God is that which giueth all the glorie of our saluation to God only in Christ Iesus and shutteth out all vaunting and boasting of man but the second righteousnes which you imagine doth not so but Ieaueth somewhat for man to glory of therefore it is no righteousnes taught by the Apostle Lastly this also is against your second righteousnes that our workes done by faith yet are not perfect and therefore cannot make vs righteous before God These reasons may suffice in this great question of our saluation briefly to conuince the blasphemie of your deuise inuented of Satan to deceiue those that seeking saluation more or lesse by their owne workes faile of that righteousnesse which is by faith onely in GOD through Christ Iesus our Lorde Nowe seeing the folly of this absurd distinction of a first and of a second righteousnesse is euidently coÌ„uicted it is also worthy of consideration how this Censurer that taketh vpon him so iustly to deuide and giue euery thing his owne doeth here notwithstanding huddle and confound righteousnesse with regeneration and iustification with sanctification For that which hee calleth the second righteousnesse is that which the Scripture calleth the New man the fruits of the Spirit or regeneratioÌ„ Furder also where he saith The first righteousnesse is of Gods mercie only and no way of our workes or by any merit of the same it is to be noted that hee is constrayned to acknowledge a righteâ—usnesse by faith onely without any deâ—â—â—â— of workes whereupon it â—hould be obserued that the Censureâ— him selfe seemeth tâ— be ashamed of y e merit of coÌ„gruence as the Schoolemen terme it while he so â—â—atly fully affirmeth our calling to bee onely of Gods grace without any merit of ours Now to returne to his Censure againe he addeth in the end a Censure vpon the allegation of the text vouched out of the Romanes for the disproofe of the former blasphemous opinion This he blameth as impertinent and vntrue impertinent because in his construction it is against the righteousnesse of good workes before our calling and not generally against the righteousnesse of all good workes wherein hee seemeth not to haue regarded the reason of the Apostle which is taken from the nature of grace and workes so contrarie that the one can neuer nor in any wise stande with the other Therefore the argument is strong to proue that our saluation cannot â—e both deserued and also freely giueÌ„ Nâ—â—ther doth this argument holde in election onely but whatsoeuer is of grace as â—â—â—â—tion iustification sanctification glory all these are in no 〈◊〉 or part of works Thus the place is so forcible to the purpose it was alledged for that the Censurer is not able â—o escape the sentence therof He complaineth lastly of wordes added which are but to cleare the sense and taken out of the second to the Galathians where to like effect the Apostle faith If righteousnesse be by the lawe Christ dyed without cause Thus hauing satisfied all the Censurers pretensed doubtes and conuicted him of errour in the blasphemous doctrine of a second righteousnesse I may worthely leaue the Iesuice to his voluntary Whip for reformation of his iudgement otherwise if he wil not learne to giue al the honour and causes of saluation to God in Christ but will in establishing his owne righteousnesse abandon the righteousnesse of God by fayth which must stand altogether of it selfe then in so teaching he wil drawe vpon him selfe other Whippes euen Scorpiâ—ns whose sting abide for euer For auoyding hereof I pray God if it may make for his glory that you Iesuites may receiue the loue of the trueth that you maye seeke finde saluation in the merites of Christ alone to life euerlasting The ninth report of â—esuiâ—eâ— doctrine is Men doe surely hope that euerlasting life shalbe giuen them but they doe not beleeue it now hope often faileth â—â—herwise it were no hope This 〈…〉 cle 〈◊〉 coâ—fessed without any coâ—â—radiction that the wicked seruant may be iudged by his owne mouth But
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
separate him from the loue of God that is in Christ Iesus But in mayntenance of these errours you are wont to say this was a speciall pâ—etogatiue of the Apostle which is easely taken away by that S. Peter writeth to this purpose that the Saints had obtayned lyke precious fayth with him which was true not in the degree but in the kind and substance of faith which shoulde wholly differ if the Apostles had a faith of their particular saluation and we not Agayne the certaintie of fayth appeareth by these reasons which the Apostle alleadgeth Who shall 〈◊〉 the chosen of God It is God that iustifieth who shall condemne It is Christ that hath died nay rather who is raysed vp againe who is also at the ryght hande of God who maketh into cession for vs. These reasons of a most sure faith and hope that wauereth not are of no particular reuelation but of the generall doctrine of the Gospel and of the common saluation as Iude calleth it which of right apper 〈…〉 to euery beleeuer aswel as to Peter or to Paul The Consurers set onne reason is that the faithfull may fallaway from the fayth and from saluation where as the things beleeued remaine most certayne The grouÌ„d of this reason is to be denieâ— for it is most vntrue that any man who hath had fayth can euer afterward finally fallaway This may bee prooued by euident testimonies of the scripture beside those alleadged aboue as that which Christ teacheth of the beleeuer in the eyght chapter of Iohn He shall neuer see death in the fourth But the water that I shall giue him shall be in him a spring of waters flowing vp to euerlasting life in the tenth The father is greater then all and none is able to take them out of the fathers hand Againe of the faithfull it is true which the Apostle vniteth that God hath iustified and glorified them So certayne it is as if it were already euery way perfourmed But it were long to repeate any inoâ—e Notwithstanding there are places that mention a fayth which seemed for a time to be faythfull but 〈◊〉 as the fig tree was full of leaues but without fruite As for the examples of Iudan who hath falne and of your selfe who 〈◊〉 saye may likewise cast your selfe away if you list I can saye of Iudas hee neuer beleeued because he was y e childe of distruction For your selfe if you haue bene alwaies of that minde you were of when you wrote this you neuer had any true faith and therfore coulde neuer yet fall awaye from it What God may vouchsafe you hereafter I knowe not but leaue it to his wisedome to dispose of his owne as it shal please him but if euer he vouchsafe you this gift I am sure the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against you Your seconde poynt is of hope which in your doctrine hath two respectes one of Gods mercie and in that regard it is full of confidence the other in respect of Gods iustice which hath feare and doubt annexed with it The places alledged before of hope you expaunde for the confidence thereof which is true if you stayed there not adding other respects to roote out that which you woulde seeme to plant for you shoulde haue made hopesâ— firme and sure that it can not be deceiued But as being of an other iudgement you say that hope respecteth also the iustice of God and the feareful effectes of his feueritie which you quote out of the Scriptures concernyng which effectes I will not dispute with you Onely in alleadging the last I note your wantes that without all regarde or any warrant of the text dare say that those reprobates shall come confidently in the last day hoping to be saued For besides that it is vnpossible that their conscience can haue any sparke of confidence or hope of saluation there is not any mention of such confident hope in the text eyther expresly or by implication If they had some hope then also they must haue some faith for they goe together hande in hande Although I thus linke them together yet I do not confound them but acknowledge this differeÌ„ce that as faith is a full persuasion of the promise so hope is a patient expectation and looking for of the things which are beleeued It is you therfore that in deede huddle and confounde hope and a vaine perswasion as one thing where as hope is no lesse sure then fayth being grounded vpon the same foundation of the worde and hath the same fulnes of persuasion But this is ignorance and confusion which who so discrieth may well marueyle what cause you or your friendes finde to hoast of your learning or order for disputation Such coÌ„fusion must be in Babell which leauing with you I saye further that hope neuer respecteth Gods iustice nor any thing else but the things that are beleeued which are y â— most sweete and pretious promises of his life kingdome and glorie Therfore what causes shoulde hope haue to feare True it is that neither fayth nor hope is so perfect in vs but that in these respects you name we often feare but this feare is no woorke of hope no more then doubt is a woorke of fayth For to say that hope feareth in some respects is as much as to say faith in some respectes doubteth and is no faith We doe both doubt and feare such are our infirmities but that we doubt it is not of fayth but of vnbeliefe neyther doe we feare as you speake of feare by any effect of hope but by the contrary worke of desperation But after so many and sufficient reasons out of the worde to prooue this question of importance the woordes of the Censurer offer one not to be neglected He affirmeth that hope in respect of the goodnesse of God is full of confidence and assurance Therefore although he will needes against reason make confidence fearefull yet shall he neuer cast any shadowe of feare vpon assurance especially vpon a full assurance such as he confesseth Nowe for the places you alleadge they concerne not this feare nowe in question but expresse a godly care to liue woorthie our calling which is not against the confidence of hope but a remedie agaynst presumption and securitie The place which you alleadge out of the preacher sheweth you to be a great clarke able to reade and cite a place though you come not neere the matter by many degrees The wise man there disputeth of that a man may gather by prosperitie and aduersitie and not what he knoweth by the worde of God For neyther can aduersitie nor prosperitie shewe the loue or hatred of God toward vs it was the deceitfull counsell of Iobs frendes to drawe him into these argumentes of Gods purpose But Iob by fayth coulde confesse agaynst all calamities and extremities saying though he kill mee yet will I beleeue in him still
knowledge how to distinguish aright But what is this to proue all distinctions good euen those that Iesuites make only to auoyde the power of trueth Simples generally are good seruing for the health of man but what is this to proue those euill simples good which haue lost their vertue and which an euill Apothecarie may serue in place of good for a triall of the Iesuites distinctions you referre me to their disputation but I may haue a sufficient triall of them and of their disputation before hand in this your booke if there were no other proofe to iustifie my report As you would bring your quilits into credit so you labour to bring my arguments and interpretations into discredit as lying and false but in a good conscience and according to the trueth I haue auowed them true and good as will easely appeare to the indiffereÌ„t reader You that before made me much inferiour to Edmund Campion now make mee inferiour to thousandes of the Iesuites scholers Whatsoeuer I am to the meanest of them the Lorde I trust wil inable me to mainteine his trueth euen against Campion your great champion to say nothing of his disciples I confesse your distinctions offend 〈…〉 as being full of 〈…〉 ltie and sometimes so darke and vnlearned that there appeareth neither good cause nor good vse of them yet you take it to heart that I should account them vnlearned and peruish As for the accusatioÌ„ of Iude against the despisers of good 〈◊〉 ses it was corrupcly brought against mee for reiecting your sophisticall deuises against the trueth for proofe whereof I referre me to these your distinctions chosen out of many for your purpose which one excepted are all vnlearned and peeuish seruing to put darkenesse for 〈…〉 ght and â—â—olâ—trie in place of Gods seruice For as they that distinguish not where the word hath distinguished may soone fall into schisme and heresie so also you in distinguishing where the worde admitteth no distinction do offend in like â—orâ— and with no lesse danger There is you lay cleare difference betweene an Idol and an image Surely this is somwhat that you saye for an idol is the image of the superstitious Gentiles and an image is the 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 named Christians There is I graunt a cleare difference in the letters but no difference at all in the word no more then is betweene Omnipotent and Almightie For to passe by Phauorine Hesychius and some places in Plutarch who all make these two wordes of one signification Plato maketh the matter most euident who mouing a question what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be maketh this answere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest we will make answere that those things are idoles which are seene in water and in looking glasses and those moreouer that are painted or set out in types or portratures other things of this sort whatsoeuer By these words of Plato the Censurer may learne that any image carued paynted represented by a glasse or seene in water is among the Grecians where the worde is in his owne countrie and proper vse called an Idol Tullie moreouer who could aswell iudge of the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Latine word image as the Censurer be in his translatioÌ„ maketh them one Lastly to returne to the holy Scriptures God in the second Commandement forbiddeth both the making and worshipping of an Image to represent the true God or any of the false Gods Thus much to she we your vnlearned and most vntrue distinction betweene an Image and an Idol which you and your fellowes repeate so often and vrge so much You doe it to vpholde Idoles vnder a more honest title of Images as you suppose but as they differ not in name so in nature they are all one euen stumbling blockes of offence the worshippers whereof are open idolaters I am taught by the word of GOD that there were materiall and are still spiritual sacrifices in the Church but for sinne I read y â— there is no sacrifice without bloud So that your second distinction of bloudie and vnbloudy sacrifices is plainly against scripture Iustice by faith wee acknowledge but merite by workes is proued to be against the worde So the mediation of Christ is according to faith but your intercession of saintes against the scripture For who is more mercifull then the Lorde that he may saue or who more ready to heare vs that he may be the Lordes remembranceâ— faith that beleeueth the promise and hope that patiently wayteth for the issue of faith we acknowledge and the distinction I haue layde downe in the ninth article Your counterfeit traditions of men and of the Apostles are al without warrant in the causes necessary to saluation But why haue you left out the distinction of the two worshippings Latria to God and Dulia to images Is it left out because wee condenine it and you now allowe no more of it All these distinctions are most daungerous when you will with some distinction or change of a name reteine still the same iniquitie forging such wicked deuises of man to disanull the truth of God Therfore they are but your vntrue assertions and vaine bragges that you distinguishe things into their proper natures that you can proue eche part of your distinction consonant to the word of God that when you haue so distinguished wee haue no more to saie that wee bewray our ignorance and finally that the truth is made manifest to euery mans eyes When any one of these fiue definitiue sentences is proued true I will acknowledge the rest I much maruaile that in such vanting speach you would not set down one true assertion of so many But you care not what you say to reproche the godly making account that your owne side will take it in good part be it neuer so vntrue neuer so reprochfull The fourth argument touching the libertie of your pen I haue answered already but I answere further you may haue it without print and if that will not content you there are printes inough neerer hande beyonde seas where you are if we may beleeue you so often affirming it The daunger persecution you speake of is a fruite of your murmuring spirits complaining without a cause For you go safely away w t many matters as much as you coÌ„playne against vs openly as intercepting all your bookes other Popish stuffe I thinke you doe much more brag among your selues of many escapes But if you had as many prints as you can set a worke what can you of lesser giftes write that the most learned of your side haue not written long agoe as Ecchius Pighius Hosius and which nowe Turrianus Andradius doenot furboish in a vaine hope at last to make an ende of Sifyphus labour What issue all these haue had of coursing discoursing againe the questious betweene you and vs we may consider it with great ioy of heart
you in this kingdome and in our neighbour kingdomes may behold it with vexatiō of spirit Therefore notwithstanding your bragges before you come to the triall and that you tell vs misusing the place in the forehead of your booke of the fier in the moūtame yet we feare no more to encountre with you then they that see their enemies without armoure or ouerthrowne before they come to giue them the charge Lastly you like not my opinion that only the Scriptures should bee admitted for iudges in disputation But the opinion is good and the practise needefull seeing the holy scripture is the onely touchstone to make triall and the onely iudge to giue sentence in all questions apperteyning to the doctrine of fayth and saluation Howe reuerently I thinke of the chiefe councils of the fathers and doctors and what profit I acknowledge to come by their great labour it was declared in my answere But you euermore omit that which maketh not for your purpose where in you take an euil but yet a readie waye to condemne a good cause Notwithstanding to determine controuersies in iudgement of religion I admit them no seate but refuse them al not onely with one breath but with this one short sentence The rule is not ouerruled You shoulde haue proued that the doctours and councils haue not places contrary one to another and sometimes contrary to themselues If you had cleered them of this warre among themselues you had made them somewhat fitter to make peace amongst vs. In affirming that I say some of the fathers are condemned of forgerie you doe manifestly peruert my playne wordes for I spake of the places and you drawe it to the persons It is one thing to say some places in Austen are forged and an other to say Austen him selfe is forged Now that places in Austen are forged and namely many of his short sermans to the brethren in the wildernes it appeareth by the iudgement of Erasinus and by the notes of bastardie set downe in your owne editions Cyprians places are also acknowledged by your selues especially that notorious booke of the reuelation of Iohn Baptistes head where Cyprian maketh mention of king Pipin that liued fiue hundred yeeres after that Cyprian was dead But I neede not to alleadge any more you wil not deny but there are many Now there followeth a comparison that you ground your beliefe onely vpon the word of God and make it the onely obiect of fayth more thē we do Your reports here and in the ninth place confirmed 〈◊〉 an othe can haue no credit against your knowen doctrine and dealinges to the contrary For doe you not in this verie question pleade the authoritie of men as the warrant whereby we receyue the Scriptures Doe you not denie that wee are saued by faith onely Howe then doe you buylde your beleefe onely vpon the word of God or make that the onely obiect of faith more then we doe In the wordes following you keepe on your course prouing that which is graunted and affirming that which shoulde bee proued I dyd graunt that Councils Fathers and stories yeeld profitable helpes to shewe the estate of the Church from time to time and also for the better vnderstanding of the worde of God yet this is that which you make y ◠questiō as denyed by me and to be proued by you After this strange order of disputation you myght as fitly in forme and more truely in matter proue your doctrine blasphemous and your practises full of rebellion If you woulde proue this it were a true proposition but no confutation of that I say affirming the same So in prouing that doctors bring great helpes to learning you proue a trueth but not in any ouerthrowe of my answere For I haue acknowledged as much The questiō in deede is whether Councils and Fathers be iudges to giue sentence in controuersies and rules to ouer rule interpretations to the proofe whereof you shoulde haue tyed your selfe but without any further proofe you affirme it as a cleare matter and altogether out of dout Is this that disputation which you so boast of to proue that is graunted and to leaue that without proofe which is in question I shall not escape the note of audacitie If vpon your Censures false report I shal be thought to denie that which I doe most manifestly anouch But this note of audacious bouldnes cleaueth to you who blush not to say that the authoritie of Scriptures dependeth vpon the testimonie and allowance of men and that otherwise we know not which is the word of God and which not As many as hold this opinion had neuer their eares bored nor their heartes opened by the Spirite of GOD to heare and see more then the bare letter they neuer felt the lyfe and spirite thereof which is the holy spirite of God not onely bearing witnesse with our spirite that we are the sounes of God but also that the holy scriptures are the worde of God and his power to saluation that they are also the rule which should rule all and not be ouerruled of any Neither haue those disciples of the word humbled them selues at the footestoole of the Lorde to behold his absolute perfection in all his wayes especially in the full reuelation of his will to the sonnes of men by his holy scriptures neither haue they considered y ◠vanitie of vanities y ◠infinite hardnesse of heart and corruption of iudgement which is in all flesh This humilitie would confirme them in the faith of that saying no man knoweth the things of God but the spirit of God This Spirit leadeth vs into all trueth to knowe it and to proue it and to be comforted thereby not in the iudgemēt or after the sense of man but according to the worke of God opening our hearts and sanctifiyng our vnderstanding so that the worke and iudgement is of the spirite according to the woorde of God Herein also standeth an answere to your seconde assertion that by the fathers wee knowe which is the right meaning of the word of God for as the authoritie of the worde is confirmed by the spirit so are the interpretations thereof also As man is not the author so he is not the interpreter of the worde of God otherwise then by the autoritie of the worde it selfe This saint Peter proueth making it a reason why no Scripture is of a priuate interpretation because it came not from man but the holy men of God spake as they were moued and caried with the holy Ghost so that the holy Ghost doeth deliuer and warrant and interprete vnto vs the holy woord of God expounding scripture by scriptures and not leauing this high office to men otherwise then to ministers conteyning themselues within the faithfull seruice of their charge in their written and authenticall commission And you dare not say who dare say much y ◠an interpretation is true because an ancient father hath it