THE FIRST CHAP.

CHrist Iesus the Sonne of the liuing God, being euerla­stinglie of the same substance, power, and nature, that his Father and the holie Ghost be of, as being equall and one God with them both, worketh mightelie all thinges in heauen and in eartb iointlie with them both: and therefore by excel­lencie of power, propertie of nature, and by full and perfect dominion ouer his owne creature, he remitteth mans sinnos by the same soueraingne right that they do. Who being thus in all excellencie equall with God, hath notwithstanding vouch­safed of his singular bountifullnes, ioined with maruelous hu­militis, to abase him-selfe to the receiuing of our nature: in [Page 18] which now he hath wrought the same thinges in earth, by seruice, sute, and commission, which before he onelie did by might and maiestie of his owne power procure, Euen the selfe same God, that by will and commaundement might most iustly both haue punished and pardoned whome he list, of loue and wisdome infinite (continuing alwaies in like excellencie as be­fore) became the minister of our reconcilement to God. In which state he offereth sacrifice as a Priest for sinne, he vseth sacramentes for the remission of sinne, he praied to God his Fa­ther for the sinnefull, he is made the head of the Church, the Gouernour of the Church, and the iudge of the Church. All which functions perteine to our Sauiour, in respect and consideration of his humane nature: according vnto which, power is giuen him of the Father, thorugh the holie Ghost, to pra­ctise the same.

THat the ignorant be not ouertaken with the subtiltie of this Sophister, which to deriue his popish absolution from the perso of our sauiour Christ, plaieth on while the Nestorian, ano­ther while the Eutichian, It shalbe good for them to remember, what they are taught in their Creed concerning the person of Christ, which is verie God and verie man, consi­sting of two moste diuers natures, so vnited into one person, as they maie neither be deuided, nor confoun­ded, without horrible blasphemie. In which person ech nature so retaineth the essentiall proprieties of it selfe vnconfounded, or destroied, that he is but one person our Lord and sauiour Iesus Christ. Whereupon it fol­loweth, that some actions arepeculiar to his godhead, some proper to his manhood, and some proceeding iointlie from him, as he is God and man. As God he Iohn. 5. 17. Mat. 9. 4. worketh euen as his Father, he knoweth the th oughts [Page 19] of mens heartes, he knoweth the last daie, whereof he is ignorant as man. Againe that he did eate, drinke, Mar. 13. 32. sleepe, sorrow, die, it was proper to his humanitie. Finallie that he preached the Gospell, wrought mi­racles, offered sacrifice for our sinnes, rose againe, &c. and such like thinges, he did as the Mediatour God and man. And although by reason of the vnitie of the person, that is often spoken of the whole person, which is peculiar to either nature, or of God, which is pro­per to man, or of man, which is proper to God: yet to preserue the essentiall properties of ech nature, we must wiselie distinguish, that which is proper vnto the diuinitie, from that which is proper vnto the humani­tie, whereof we see Master Allen hath small regard. while he affirmeth that all these functions of Christ, whereby he offereth sacrifice as a Priest, vseth sacra­mentes, praied to God, is made the head of the Church, the gouernour of the Church, and the iudge ofthe Church, pertaine vnto him in respect and con­sideration of his humane nature. For of the sacri­fice ofhim-selfe, the Apostle expresselie affirmeth, that it was made by his eternall spirit, which being offered by an inferior nature, could not haue beene accep­table vnto God. Heb. 9. 14. Also that Christ God and man, is the head of the Church, and aduanced in his humanitie, to be iudge of the worlde, it is in respect and consideration ofhis godhead, vnto which his hu­manitie is vnited. For as he is the image of the inui­sible God, by whome all thinges are created in heauen and earth, he is the head of his bodie the Church, Col. 1. 15. &c. And the Apostle Phil. 2. 10. shewing his exaltation from the base shape of a Seruant to be the most honorable iudge of the world, vsing the words of the Prophet Esaie, cap. 45. in which God challeng­eth the iudgement to him selfe, sheweth plainelie, that Christ hath this honour in respect of his godhead, which is proper vnto it.

[Page 20]

Andwhatsoeuer in holie scripture is read to be exercised of him through the might of Gods spirit, by the vertue of his an­nointing, by the finger of God, by the sending of the Father, by power receiued from aboue, by Priesthood, praiers or sacri­fice, by the Sonne of man, of the head of the Church, or iudge of the liuing and dead: whatsoeuer is in this sort said to be done, it is not otherwise lightlie meant, but in respect of Christs humanitie, by which and in which he worketh the same, not as by the proper and naturall power or force there­of, but as by iurisdiction receiued of the blessed Trinitie, and imploied vpon the sonne of man, for the procuring of saluation to his people, whereof he is become in our very nature the head.

This generall rule is so abridged with the excepti­on lightlie, that it is hard to bring anie instance a­gainst it: but Allen would haue his starting hole in it. Neuerthelesse seeing he concludeth the examples before remembred, to be included within this rule, we maie be bolde to charge him with a spice of Ne­storianisme, seeing those workes which are certaine to haue beene the workes of the Mediator God and man, he ascribeth to the onelie humanitie by iu­risdiction receiued from the blessed Trinitie: whereby it should followe, that the worke of Christe in this respect, should not differ from the workes of Moses, Elias, Dauid, or anie of the Prophets, whoe recei­ued iurisdiction from the blessed Trinitie, whereby they performed manie workes, which the same blessed Trinitie had appointed for the procuring of saluation vnto his people.

Therefore no Christian man maie doubt, but as our Sa­uiour, by the omnipotent power of his Godhead; might and did forgiue sinnes to the penitent, so likewise, that, as he was Priest, & the sonne of man, he might by the right of his office, vnction, and ministerie, in the vertue of the holie Ghost, re­mitte sinnes also. And for that cause principallie in the Pro­phet Esay it is said, Spiritus Dominisuper me, eò quòd [Page 21] vnxerit me, ad annunciandum mansuetis misit me, vt mederer contritis corde, & praedicarem captiuis indulgentiam, & clausis apertionem: The Spirit of the Lord vopn me, because he hath annointed me, and sent me to signifie vnto the meeke, that I should heal the contrite in heart, to preach pardon to the prisoners, and freedome to the closed. The which place of the Prophet our Sauiour applied vnto him selfe in the Church of Nazareth, and is to be vn­derstanded onelie of preaching, and pardoning, by the holie vnction of the Spirit of God, and his Fathers calling. And therefore, it must needes, according to Saint Augustines iudgement, concerne the shape of his seruice and manhood taken on him, in which he preached so, that yet it pleased him to affirme, that his Doctrine was not his owne, but his Fathers that sent him: and healed the contrite in heart, which is nothing els, but to forgiue sinnes to the penitent, af­ter such a sort, that it might well appeare to be receiued and practised by the vnction of the Spirit of God, and sending of his Father, whereby the Sonne of man might doe that as Gods minister in his manhood in earth, which both he, and his eternall Father, with the holie Spirit of them both, doe worke by their owne, one, and equall authoritie in heauen euer­lastinglie.

And seeing he willeth vs to note the ground of the cause, which is, that Christ as he was Priest, and the sonne of man, might remit sinnes by a ministeriereceiued by vnction of the holie Ghost, it is not lightlie to be passed ouer. That the sonne of man had power vpon earth to for­giue sinnes, he him-selfe affirmeth Mat. 9. 6. but this was the power of his godhead, which was not restrei­ned, nor abased, by the shape of a seruant, in which he appeered on earth. That he was authorized by vn­ction of the holie Ghost, to preach remission of sinnes vnto the penitent, it pertaneth indeede vnto him, in respect of his manhood, although Saint Augustine in the place by Allen quoted, saieth not so, but citeth the place of Esaie, to prooue that Christ, in respct of his [Page 22] humanity, was inferior to the holy Ghost, but that this is all the power, that Christ had vpon earth to remit sinnes, it is not prooued by anie argument. For this ministerie of reconciliation to remit sinnes, by prea­ching of the Gospell, doth remaine still with the Church: the other, that was proper to his Deitie, no mortall man without Sacriledge can arrogate, or v­surpe.

And though God hath neuer [...] mans fall, vsed the meanes and seruice of man, to his restore againe, and to the re­liefe of his lackes, and therefore hath giuen authority by his holie spirite and vnction, to diuerse of the olde law to offer sa­crifice, praier, and procure remission to the people of all their offences: and no lesse [...], occasion serued, and the matter requi­red, to correct their misdeedes by iudgement and iurisdiction giuen vnto them, for which soueraigne calling they were called the annointed of God, an externall ceremonie of anoyting being solemnelie annexed thereunto: yet our Lord an Ma­ster, whether you consider his high Priesthoode, by which in moste ample manner through commission receiued, he maie pro­cure our pardone, or his calling to be head of the Church, by which he ruleth and keepeth all the bodie in due subiection and order, or his ministerie of preaching, whereby, farre a­boue all the Prophets and preachers of the olde law, he open­eth to his flock the Church, the secret mysteries of Gods trueth; Christ, I saie, in all these respectes being man, is yet much more abundantlie blessed, and anointed without comparison, aboue all his fellowes and copartners, as the holy Pro­phet Dauid doth testifie. Vpon whose wordes touching that matter, Saint Hilarie writeth thus: Vnxit te Deus, De­us tuus oleo exultationis prae participibus tuis: non secundùm sacramentum aliud, quàm secundùm dis­pensationem assumpti corporis. Vnctio enim illa, non beatae, illi & incorrupt, & in natura dei man enti nati­uitati profecit, sed sanctificationi hominis assumpti. Nam & in Actis ait Petrus, vnxit illum Deus in spiri­tu sancto & virtute. Thus he meaneth in English: God e­tien [Page 23] thy God hath anointed thee with the oile of ioy, farre a­boue thy copartners, not in anie other meaning, but accor­ding to the dispensation of a bodie receaued. For that vnction could not be beneficiall to the holie, vnspotted, and euerlasting natiuitie in the nature of his Godhead, but onelie it was a­greeable to the mysterie of his manhood and flesh assumpted in his temporal natiuitie: whereof Saint Peter speaketh in the Actes, that God hath annointed him with the holie ghost and with power.

The holie Father also Saint Cyrill agreeth hereunto, con­fessing that all this honour, power, and authoritie, which the Prophets haue signified so long before by the annointing of the sonne of God, came vnto Christ in consideration of his man­hood: thus he saith, Quòd vnctio sit secundúm huma­nitatem, nemo qui rectè sapere solet, dubitabit, quia absque omni controuersia minus à maiore benedici­tur. That the annointing of Christ should be meant of his humanitie, no man doubteth that is of anie right vnderstanding. For without all controuersie the inferiour and lesse euer receiueth blessing of the su­periour and greater. There can be no question then, but all soueraigntie and supreme iurisdiction, which he exercised ouer the Church, being his bodie and spouse, in that respect that he was either Priest and Bishop of our soules, as Saint Peter calleth him, or els as he was out head and pastour, it is certaine, that all this came vnto him by his fathers sending, and the vnction of the holie Ghost, and the benediction of the holie Trinitie, to which he was inferiour accor ding to his manhood.

That our sauiour Christ by his vnction receaued no gift or blessing of God, but in respect of his hu­manitie, it is more cleere then it needed to haue beene declared, by the testimonies of Hilarius and Cyrillus: but that all soueraigntie and supreame inrisdiction, which he exercised ouer the Church in respect that he was Priest and Bishop of our soules, or as he was our head and Pastor, came [Page 24] onelie to his manhoode (as Allen maketh it certaine) it is vtterlie false, and blasphemous against his godheade. For vnto all soueraigntie and authori­tie, he hath full right in respect of his diuinitie. and therefore the Apostle Heb. 3. 5. &c. saith that Moses was faithfull in Godds house as a seruant, but Christ as the sonne ouer his owne house, which was builded by him­selfe, as God which hath made all thinges. For what cause Allen speaking of the soueraigntie of Christ ouer his Church vseth the time past, saying he was our Priest and Bishop, he was our head and pastour, it is easie to gesse, seeing he laboureth to establish such a soueraigntie and supreme iurisdiction on earth, as is derogatorie to the high authoritie of Christ in heauen. But the scripture teacheth vs, that he is an eternall Priest. Heb. 7. & 9. &c. that he is the shepheard and Bishop of our soules, 1. Peter. 2. that he is and shall be to the end of the world, the heade of his Church. Eph. 1,

If thou doubt of his Priesthood in this case, heare Theo­doretus: Christus autem, quód ad humanitatem qui­dem attinet, Sacerdos appellatus est, non aliam au­tem hostiam, quám suum corpus, obtulit: Christ Dialog. 1. ( saith he) touching his humanitie, was called a Priest, and he offered no other hoste, but his owne bodie. But we maie haue more forcible testimonie hereof in Saint Paull him selfe, who in sundrie other places that are knowen, professeth euerie Bishop to be elected and chosen out a­mong a number of men, to offer sacrifice for sinne. Heb. 5. 5.

And that he is made the supreame gouernour & head of the Church in his humanitie, yea and in respect thereof, is ap­pointed to be the high minister of God the father in pardoning or iudgeing the world, it is an assured ground of our faith, ap­proued not onelie by the consent of all Doctors, but also by the Scriptures, euerie where protesting, that all power in heauen and earth is giuen to Christ: in so much, that the Apostle [Page 25] calleth him, the man, in quo viro statuit iudicare orbem tetratum: In which, or by which appointed man he will iudge the world. All these thinges, though they maie Act. 7. seeme to the simple to be farre from the matter, yet they be both neare our purpose, and necessarie to be laied vp in memorie for the further establishing of our faith in the Article proposed, and diuerse other profitable pointes of Christian beliefe now impugned.

We doubt not that Christ was a Priest, as touching his humanitie, as Theodoret saith, but we beleeue that he was a Priest, as he was the mediator, God and man. Fot as some ministeriall partes of that office did re­quire that he should be a man, áccording to which na­ture he might be subiect, so other parts of the same office required the authoritie of God. For none but God, hath authoritie to reconcile man, and to bring him into the holiest place, into the presence and sight of God, whereunto he hath full right of his owne na­ture and dignitie. The forcible testimonies that Ma­ster Allen citeth out of the Apostle, Heb. 5. & 9. haue no force to prooue, that Christ is not a Priest, as he is God and man, although they prooue that he is a Priest, as he is man. But contrariwise if these scrip­tures be well marked, which the Apostle doth alledge out of the second Psalme: Thou art my sonne, this daie haue I begotten the: and out of the 110. psalme, thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchiseàech, they will make euident proofe vnto vs, that Christ not onelie in respect of his humanitie, but also in respect of his deitie, is our eternall high Priest, as he is our sauiour, our mediator, our redeemer, as in o­ther places the Apostle sheweth more plainlie, and I haue argued purposelie, and plentifullie against the slaunderous note of the Rhemistes in my confutation of the Papistes quarreils against my writings. pag 64. vnto the end, whereunto I referre the reader for more full satisfaction. That Christ in his humani­tie [Page 26] is made the supreame gouernor and head of his Church, we do constantlie bleeue: but that he hath this excellent authoritie, in respect of his humanitie alone, and not in respect of his diuinitie, we can not acknowledge. For in respect of his diuinitie his person is capable of all honour, glorie, power, and authoritie, which in the onelie respect of his humanitie it were not. That he is appointed to iudge the world also, in his humanitie, we confesse according to the scriptures: but seeing I haue prooued before, that to be iudge of the world, is Gen. 18. 25. proper to the deitie, we must needes confesse, that the man Iesus Christ, is appointed to be iudge of the quick and the dead, not onely as an high minister de­puted of God, in respect of his humanitie, but as God him-selfe, of supreame authority in respect of his diui­nitie. For to holde that Christ, is no otherwise iudge of the world, but as an high minister, as kings and Princes are iudges of the earth, as high ministers by deputation onelie of Gods authoritie committed to them, and not by right of their nature, I see not how it can be excused from grosse Nestorianisme. The scrip­tures which protest, that all power in heauen and earth is geuen to Christ, are to be vnderstood in deede of the ex­altation of his humanitie, and crowning of his man­hood, with glorie and maiestie: but thereof it follow­eth not, that Christ enioyeth all that power, that is giuen to him, by the onelie right of his humanitie. For except Christ were God, as verilie as he is man, he were not able to receiue such a gift, which no creature can haue, except he be also creator and God himselfe, therefore Christ truelie as man, receiueth that which is giuen, but in respect and right of his godheade, he is able to receiue and exercise that power, which none can haue but God onelie. These thinges indeede maie seeme vnto the simple to be farre fetched, and farre from the question of priests power to remit sinnes, but they are much farther from the truth of our Catholike [Page 27] faith and Religion, that our sauiour Christ in respect of his Diuine nature, should be spoiled of his autho­rity, or els should thereby worke nothing in a manner, in the cheife & most necessarie partes of our redempti­on, that Popish priests might be made equall, or not farre vnlike him, in the power of pardoning sinnes.

For as the due consideration of Christes authoritie and ex­cellent office touching his manhood, will helpe vp the decaied honour and iurisdiction, that the guides of Gods Church, by the right of his high calling, do iustlie challenge: so it shall expresse the boldnesse of certaine miscreants of this age, who, to further their sundrie euil in tents, and detestable doctrines, haue dishonoured Christes dignitie, touching his incarnation and office of his redemption, exceeding much, both in him­selfe, and in persons of his Pristes and substitutes, some of them fearing (as I take it) lest the honour and office of Christes Priesthood might, by participation, descend to the Apostles and Priestes of the Church, letted not to hold that Christ was his fathers Priest according to his diuine nature: of which blasphemie Iohn Caluine was iustlie noted, wherein the wic­ked man, Vide Ori­chouii Chi­mer. whiles he went about to disgrace the dignitie of mor­tall men, became exceeding iniurious to the second person in Trinitie. One other of that schoole, and of his owne neast, denied that Christ in his manhoode should iudge the world, lest there might seeme to be some force of punishment and correcti­on of wickednes practized by mans ministerie in this life, for the resemblance of Christes iudgement to come. And so taught one Richerius, of a Carmelite a Caluinist. Other de­ny Vide Ville­gag. contra articulos Caluini. Ita Hartop. Monhem & alij. Heb. 7. Christ being now in heauen, to make praier for vs according to his manhoode, because it tendeth towardes the intercession, as Saint Paulin expresse wordes recordeth of him: Quòd sal­uare in perpetuum potest, accedens ad Deum per se­metipsum, semper viuens ad interpellandum pro no­bis. That for euer he is of power to giue saluation, ha­uing accesse to God by him-selfe, and alwaies Iiuing to make intercession for vs. Yea most of the Sacramentaries, for the aduantage of their vngodlie assertion, that Christ in his [Page 28] owne person as he is God and man should not be present in the sacrament, doe couertlie blaspheme the blessed and highlie Vide Ciril in Ioan lib. 3. Cap. 4. sanctified fleshof our sauiour, auouching it to be vnprofitable: whereby they vnaduisedlie dishonour the dreadfull incarnati­on of Christ, and all the workes wrought by the meane of his flesh and blood, and ministerie of his manhoode, for the remission of our sinnes, and purchasing saluation to his Church.

The due consideration of Christes authoritie, and excellent office touching his manhoode, will nothing helpe to restore the decaied honour and iurisdiction of Popish priesthoode, except you can both prooue your Popish priests capable of such honour and pow­er, as the sonne of God is, and also bring forth the re­cordes out of the holy scriptures, for that high calling, whereof you boast. That any faithful Christian, whome you to maintaine an Antichristian authoritie, call Miscreantes, haue dishonoured Christs dignitie, touch­ing his incarnation and office of his redemption, it is a slaunder stronglie aduouched, but slenderlie prooued. For first Caluine affirming Christ to be a priest in his wholl person, God and man, derogateth nothing from that dignitie, neither is he iniurious against the second person in trinitie: for Christ is an high priest after the order of Melchesidech, and our redeemer, not as a minister and seruant onelie, but as the sonne, as the King os peace and righteousnes, without father, without mother, without genealogy, hauing neither be­ginning of his daies, nor end of his life, al which things can not be restrained to the humanitie of Christ, but are proper to him as he is equall and eternall with his father. That Richerius should denie that Christ in his manhoode should iudge the world, it might well be a slaunder of that grosse potheaded Cyclops Villegag­non, which when he durst not abide the inuasions of the barbarous people in Gallia antarctica, where he had enterprised a conquest, he quarelled with Richerius, [Page 29] and other godlie persons, to haue a colour of returne, and a wellcome of the Papists. And as touching his slaunderous libell, that you send the reader vnto, I re­ferre you & them to the answere & confutation of Ri­cherius. Thirdlie that Christ doth make praiers for vs accor­ding to his manhoode, it is not sufficiently prooued by the text of the Apostle to the Heb. 7. because he may and doth make continuall intercession for vs, by the ver­tue and worthines of the sacrifice of his death, al­though he conceiue no prayers for vs, in forme of wordes. as men vse vpon earth. And if it be graunted that Christ so praieth for vs, yet it tendeth nothing towardes the intercession of Saints, but rather against it, because the interceffion of Christ is sufficient without them, yea if the intercession of Saints were prooued, it draweth not of necessity praier vnto Saints after it, and therefore there were smal purpose in them that denie Christ in such forme to praie for vs, to con­troul the inuocatiō of Saints, which thing being either graunted or denied, prooueth neither too nor fro, that Saints are to be praied vnto or [...]. That any one of those, whome you cal Sacramentaries, doth either ouert­ly or couertly blaspheme the blessed flesh of our Sauiour, a­uouching it to be vnprofitable (otherwise then our sauiour Christ himselfe auouched, if it were separated from his diuine, and quickening spirite, doth profitte nothing) you are not able to iustifie, and therefore you send vs in the margent to Cyrill vpon Iohn. lib. 4. Cap 14. whoe sheweth in deede that the flesh of Christ, as it is the flesh of the sonne of God, hath quickening vertue and power in it, to our eternall redemption, but otherwise affirmeth nothing thereof, that we all are not readie to subscribe vnto.

Let vs therefore Christianlie confes with the scripture and with the Church of Christ, that our sauiour not onelie by pow­er equall to his father concerning his diuine nature, but also by the sending and graunt of his father, and vnction of the holie [Page 30] spirit, beeing farre vnder them both in his humane nature, doth remit sinnes. Whereupon it orderlie followeth, that, who­soeuer denyeth man to haue authoritie, or that he maie haue power graunted him by God to forgiue sinnes, he is highlie in­iuriouse to our sauiours owne person, & dispensation of his flesh, and mysterie of his holie incarnation. For though there be great diuersitie betwixt his state and others, because in one per­son both God and man be perfectlie vnited in him, and there­fore much more prerogatiue might be, and doubtles was giuen to his humanitie, as to him that was both God and man, in re­spect of his baser nature, then to anie other of his brethren bee­ing but meere men: yet this is assuredlie to be beleeued, that he which could without derogation to his Godheade, communicate with the sonne of man, and graunt him, in consideration of his assumpted nature, the rule and redemption of his people, the assoyling of our sinnes, and to worke all wonders in the power, fin­ger, and force of the holie ghost, the same God, without all doubt, through his sonne and our sauiour, may at his pleasure without all vnseemelines or derogation to his eternall honour (andso it shall be prooued) that he doth giue power to the go­uernours of his Church and houshodle, to pardone and giue pe­naunce, to iudge and rule the people in the right of our said Sa­uiour, to the edefying of his bodie and making perfect of his saints.

We doe Christianly confesse according to the scrip­ture, and with the Church of Christ, that our sauiour Christ not onelie by power equall to his father, con­cerning his diuine nature, but also by graunt of God his father, in his humane nature, which is farre infe­riour to his father, doth remit sinnes absolutelie, and of soueraigne authoritie, in respect of his diuinitie, as the mediatour God and man and that he did the same vpon earth also, as a minister and preacher of repen­tance and reconciliation, according to his humanitie. But hereupon it followeth not, by any order, or neces­sitie of consequence, that whoesoeuer denyeth meere man to haue authoritie, or power to forgiue sinnes, is [Page 31] iniurious to Christs person, and the dispensation of his flesh, or mysterie of his holie incarnation. For al­though that man haue this authoritie which is God, yet it followeth not that such mē as are onely men, are capable of the same authoritie. The diuersitie betwixt the state of our sauiour Christ, and others is so great, that nothing can be communicated to others, which is proper to him in respect of his diuine nature. And such a thing is the absolute power to forgiue sinnes, for which he hath made satisfaction to the iustice of God, which, whensoeuer we speake of the remission of sins, may not be forgotten. For the mercie of god forgiueth no sinne, but that for which his iustice is thorouglie satisfied in the obedience and iustice of our Lord and redeemer Iesus Christ. Therefore as no other man hath the dispensation of his satisfaction, but himselfe, so no other man can giue absolute forgiuenes of sins but him-selfe. But as all his ministers haue power to pronounce forgiuenes of sins to the penitent, which is noe more but to expresse his will and pleasure, con­cerning the remission of sinnes, and in what sort and condition he bestoweth the same, so haue they power to teteine sinnes, not of them whome he will pardon, but of such as doe not repent, and therefore by his worde, are denied of forgiuenes: so that man in this case followeth the iudgement and authoritie of God, not God the iudgement and authoritie of man. For if a trew priest, elder, or minister, of the gospell, lawful­lie authorized, would forgiue the sins of an hypocrite, that faigneth repentance, they are not forgiuen be­fore God: and if man would reteine the sinnes of a true penitent, yet are they forgiuen before God. For to man is giuen no absolute power to forgiue sins, any more then there is giuen to man an vndouted iudge­ment, to discerne betweene hypocrites and true faith­full persons.

But where you saie, that God could without derogation to [Page 32] his godheade, communicat with the sonne of man, and graunt him in consideration of his assumpted nature, the rule & redem­ption of his people, the gouernment of our soules, the assoyling of our sinnes, &c. I must know how farre you extend your consideration. For if you meane therebie, that God in respect of, or according to this assumpted humane na­ture, did communicate to our sauiout Christ, none o­ther but such power as he might without derogation to his deitie, haue communicated vnto Moses, Samuel, or any other, which was a meere mortall man, for the redemption of our soules, and forgiuenes of our sins, I doe vtterlie abhorre your Nestorian, and worsse then Nestorian blasphemie but if you meane, that such pow er, as might without the derogation of his godhead be communicated to the sonne of man, is by him deliue­red to the ministers of his Church, which execute the office of shepheardes, and teachers in his place, I doe gladlie confesse, that without all vnseemelinesse and derogation to his eternal honour, the ministers of the Church haue power, by his graunt to reteine, and for­giue sinnes, that is, to declare the iudgement of God, in forgiuing or reteining of sinnes, according to such conditions as he hath expressed in his holie worde: which iudgement, according to those conditions, is so ratifyed by God him-selfe, that it is as certaine, as if it were pronounced, and vttered by his owne voice out of heauen. But where you speake of pardoning, and ge­uing of penance, I must once againe distinguish of your meaning. For if you meane, by your Popish terme of penance, repentance, so that you saie, man hath power to giue repentance, which is a conuersion of the heart vnto God, and a chaunge of the minde from sinne to obedience of God, I spit at your blaspemous saying. For it is proper onelie to God, to giue repentance to Israell, and to all true Israelites of the gentiles his elected children, as the holie ghost teacheth, Acts. 5. and 11. in which places, your pupills the Rhemists, [Page 33] durst not for gal of conscience, and shame of the world, translate the latine worde paenitentia (as they doe com­monly els where, except it be taken in the euil part) pe­nance, but repentance. Yet if by the word penance you meane a time, or exercise of trial of true repentance, which the aunciēt writers do sometimes metonimical­ly cal [...], and paenitentia, which was graunted by the elders of the Church, to such as had greeuouslie fallen, that they might haue some experience of their true conuersion, before they were admitted into the com­munion of the faithful, I may yeald to your terme. And further I will not denie, but that God hath geuen pow­er vnto the gouernours of his Church and household, to pardon such penance, thatis, to remit vpon due and good consideration, some part, or the wholl of that time, and exercise, which to such penitents by them is enioyned: but that any mortall creature hath pow­er to pardon penance, in such sorte, that the partie which is to receiue the pardon, neede not to be peni­tent for his sinnes, I stand still to the flat deniall.

Neither must we here make any great account of such as shal obiect to the priests of gods Church, as the Scribes did vn­to Christ him-selfe, when they saw him in expresse wordes ab­solue many of their sinnes, conceiuing in their heartes, as it is recorded by Saint Matthew in the historie of the healing of the man that had the palsie, that Christ did iniurie to God, and Cap. 9. committed blaspemie in taking vpon him to remit mans offen­ces. whose malitious mindes and cogitations, Christ did so reprehend, that they might well perceiue by his sight of their inwarde secrets, that he was verie God, whoe onelie by nature looketh into mans heart, and therefore did therebie well insi­nuate, that they could not iustlie reprehend his doings, seeing he was God in deede, and might as God pardon mans offences. Yet that notwithstanding, he stoode not with them then vpon the right of his Godhead for the doing of this ex­cellent function, which in deede by nature and propertie is onelie perteining to him, but he gaue this reason of [Page 34] his doeing, that the Sonne of man had power to remit sinnes in earth: wherebie me seemeth (wherein yet I submit my iudgement to the more learned) that he plainlie professed, that by power receiued, he might in respect of his manhoode and calling forgiue sinners, and that in earth, as meaning therebie to institute an order and waie, how to remit sinnes here in the worlde, either by him-selfe, or by his ministers, at whose sentence past in earth, the penitent should be frree by iudgement of God in heauen. For so our sauiour two or three times talking of mans ministerie, in the remission of [...], ter­meth it, loosing in earth, and the contrarie, binding in earth, as also he calleth Gods high sentence in the same cause, loosing and binding in heauen. Neither doth the in­terpretation of Saint Hilarie anie whit hinder my meaning, whoe vpon that place affirmeth Christ to haue remitted this Mat. 16. & 18. In explā. Mat. Can. 18 mans sinnes by the might of his Godheade: for it standeth well, that one worke should be wrought by the principall cause, and yet by the office and ministerie of some secondarie cause appoin­ted by the ordinance of God for the same vse, as we see in baptisme to the remission of the childes sinne, both the might of God, and the ministery of man to concurre at once, whereof we shall haue, I trust, better occasion to speake anon.

It is well that you can make such light account, of such as shal obiect against you, that it is not lawfull for mā to vsurpe any thing, which is proper to god, as is the absolute power to forgiue sinnes, which none can pro­perlie and absolutelie forgiue, but he against whome they be committed. Therefore there is a broad diffe­rence betweene the power of God, and the [...] of man, in forgiuing of sinnes. God doth absolutelie and properlie forgiue sinnes committed against his law, and maiestie. Man by his appointment doth assure the penitent sinners of his sinnes forgiuen by God: and therefore in some phrase of [...] is said to forgiue sins, as he is said, to saue mens soules, to whom he preached the saluation by Iesus Christ. The Scribes did rightlie affirme, that none could forgiue sinnes, but God onelie but they erred in that they did not acknowledge Christ [Page 35] to be God, whoe in the person of the mediator, euen in that state of humilitie, in which he was conuersant vpon earth was no whit abridged of his diuine authori­tie, but that he might by the same power forgiue sins, that he did heale diseases. And whereas he saith, that the sonne of man had power to forgiue sinnes vpon earth, he meaneth not that he had it, as meere man: but as God and man in one person, and that his man­hoode was no let vnto him, to exercise that power of his Godheade. Iohn. 3. he saith, the sonne of man came downe from heauen, and that the sonne of man is in heauen. But this is not to be vnderstood of the sonne of man, according to his manhood, but according to his God­head, as many other such speaches are in the scripture, which in respect of the vnitie of the person, ascribe to the one nature, that which is proper to the other, as Act. 20. to feede the Church of God, which he hath redeemed with his owne bloode. where redemption by his bloode is affirmed of God, which is proper and true, in respect of Christs humanity. Your modestie is commendable, that you doe submit your selfe to the iudgement of o­ther, in that your conceite of Christes meaning, there­by to institute an order, &c. for the order that he hath instituted, and the power that he hath giuen, of bin­ding and loosing in earth, is els where plainly, and pur­posedlie set forth, that we neede not such vnnecessary & vnlikelie coniectures to ground it vpon. And where­as you affirme, that the interpretation of Saint Hilarie doth not any whit hinder your meaning, because one worke may be wrought by the principall cause, and yet by the office and mini­sterie of some secundarie, I answere, the questions is not, what may be, but what was done in that case, whereof Saint Hilaries iudgement is flat against you. His words are, in Mat. com. Canon. 8. Mouet Scribas remissum ab homine peccatum. Hominem enim tantùm in Iesu Christo confiteban­tur, & remissum ab eo quod lex laxare non poteratifides enim [...] iustificat: deinde murmurationem eorum dominus intro­spicit, [Page 36] dicit (que) facilè esse filio hominis in terra peccata dimittere Verùm enim nemo potest dimittere pecoata, nisi solus Deus: ergo quiremittit, Deus est, quia nemo remittie nisi Deus: deus in ho­mine manens curationem homini praestabat, & nulla ei agen­di aut loquendi erat difficultas, cui subest totum posse quod lo­quitur. Porro autem vt ipse in corpore positus, intelligi possit esse, qui & animis peccata dimitteret, & resurrectionem corporibus prestaret, ait, vt siatis quoniam silius hominis habet potectatem in terra dimittendi peccata, &c. It mooueth the Scribes that sinne is remitted by a man. for they did beholde a man onelie in Iesus Christ, and that to be remitted by him, which the law could not release. For faith alone doth iustifie afterward our Lord looketh into their murmuring, and saith, that it is easie for the sonne of man on earth to forgiue sinnes. But none truelie can forgiue sinnes but God alone, therefore he which forgiueth, is God, be ause no man remitteth but God. God abiding in man performed healing to the man, and there was no difficultie to him of doing or speaking, who hath power so be able to doe all that he speaketh. But that he beeing placed in the bodie, might be vnderstood to be the same which forgi­ueth sinnes to mens soules, and performeth resurrection to their bodies, he saith, that you may know that the sonne of man, hath power on earth to forgiue sinnes, &c. Let the reader iudge whether Saint Hilarie doe any whit in these wordes hinder your meaning. And yet more plainlie Saint Chrysostome controlleth your meaning, and spea­keth expresselie, and directlie against it, in Mat. Hom. 30. entreating vpon this place. Illud verò non praetermit­tendum, quòd quando peccata paralytici dimisit non apertè po­testatem suam manifesiauit. Non enim dixit, dimitto tibi peccata tua: sed dimittuntur tibi peccata tua, inimicis autem vr­gentibus manifestius, suam potestatem oftendit. Ait enim, vt sciatis quia potestatem habet filius bominis in terra peccata di mittere: perpendisne quam longè abest, vt nolit aequalis patri putari? non enim dixit, potestatem habere à deo filium homi­nis, aut quia dedit sibi Deus potestatem, sed potestatem habet filius hominis: nec ad gloriam dico, ait, sed vt vobis persuadeam, [Page 37] quia non blasphemo, cùm meip sum patri aequalem faciam. But this thing, is not to be passed by, that when he forgaue the sins of the palsy man, he did not openlie manifest his power: for he did not saie, I forgiue thee thy sinnes, but thy sinnes are for­giuenthes. But when his enimies vrged him, hee showeth his power more manifestlie: for he saith, that you maie knowe, that the sonne of man hath power on earth to forgiue sinnes. Doest thou not marke howe farre of it is, that he would not bee thought equall to his father? for he saide not, that the sonne of man hath power from God, or that God hath giuen him pow­er, but the sonne of man hath power: neither, saith he, doe I speake it for to glorie in, but that I might perswade you that I doe not blaspheme, when I make my selfe equall with my father. The same interpretatiō hath Euthymius vpon the place. S. Ambrose also acknowledgeth the diuinitie of Christ to be prooued by forgiuenes of sinnes, in Luc. 5. Cognosce in­terioris hominis sanitatem cui peccata donantur, quae cùm Iu­doaei asserunt a solo Deo, posse donari, deum vti (que) confitentur, suoque iudicio perfidiam suam produnt, vt opus astruant, per­sonam negent, &c. Acknowledge the healing of the innar man to whome his sinnes are forgiuen, which when the Iewes doe af­firme that they can be forgiuen by God alone, they do confesse verely, that he is god, & by their owne argument bewray their falshoode, that they allowe his worke, and denie his person. Therefore euen of them the sonne of god receiueth testimonie of his worke, & requireth not the suffrage of their voice. For fals­hoode can confesse, but it cannot beleeue. Therefore there wan­teth no testimonie to his diuinitie, but faith is wanting to their saluation: for both it is more straunge for credit which they confesse vnwilling, and also more pernitious to their fauls that they denie, which are conuinced by their owne assertions. Great therefore is the madnes of the vnfaithfull people, that when they haue confessed that it pertaineth to God onelie to forgiue sinnes, they will not giue credit to God, when he doth forgiue sinnes. And a litle after, where he also acknow­ledgeth the power of remitting sinnes, which is graun­ted to men, he doth neuerthelesse affirme, that God [Page 38] onelie doth forgiue sinnes. Quamuis igitur magnum sit hominibus peccata dimittere (quis enim potest peccata dimit­tere, nisi solus Deus, quiper eos quo (que) dimittit, quibus dimit­tendi tribuit potestatein?) tamen multò diuinius est resurrecti onem donare corporibus. For although it be a great thing to forgiue sinnes to men (for who can forgiue sinnes but god alone, whoe also forgiueth by them, to whome he hath giuen power of for giuing?) yet it is a much more diuine worke to giue resurre­ction to mens bodies. This [...] of S. Ambrose, shew­eth not onelie, that Christ by his diuine power, as god, forgaue sinnes in this place, but that God onelie doth properlie [...], when he vseth the ministery of men: so that not [...] S. Hilarie, but euen the consent of al the auncient writers is a gainst your new imagination.

But to returne [...] to our [...]: when Christ had decla­red that the Sonne of man had in earth power to remit sinnes, he then by this farther proofe and argument ouerturneth the wholl cause of their [...] and inward [...] against him for the same: whether is it more easie to saie, thy sinnes be forgiuen thee, or to saie to the incurable person, take vp thy bed and walke? I due the one in all your sightes, and he is cured at my worde: why then mistrust you the other? It was no lesse the propertie of God alone to he all him sodainlie of his corporall infirmitie, that had beene desperatclie sicke so long, then to forgiue sinnes: but the one power though by [...] it was proper to him selfe, yet he gaue it in the sight of you all to the sonne of man in earth: why then mistrust you but he might well giue the other? This reason proceeding from the wisedome of Gods owne sonne, shall helpe our faith much touch­ing this article, and shall not a litle further the dignitie of the [...], whoe also after their masters example, may prooue the force of their authoritie vppon mennes soules, which cannot be open to our bodelie eyes, by the apparant power that their wordes shal be seene openlie to worke on mens bodies, especiallie if it be well weighed, that Christ wrought miracles also, not onelie by the excellent dominion and force of his godhead, but also, as Saint Augustine prooueth, by the spirts of God, in respect of his manhoode: In quo spiritu san­flo [Page 39] (saith he) operatus est virtuies, dicens: Si ego in spiritu dei De Trin. lib. 1. c. 11. eiicto daemonia, certè superuenit in vosregnum Dei: In the pow er of which holie ghost Christ wrought miracles, according to his owne saying in these words: if I expel out deuils by the spirit of god, then surelie the kingdome of God wil come on you. The Iews therefore seing themselues thus ouercome in their cogitatiòns, waxed affraied, and glorified God, who gaue such power to men. For though no man euer had equall authoritie or like power to Christ, who was both God and man, yet of this plen­tifull spirit and vnction, manie of his brethren haue through his ordinance recciued part, as shortlie now is shall be prooued. In the meane time arme thy selfe against [...] with this approoued and certaine trueth, that not onelie God by his pas­sing prerogatiue, maie forgiue sinnes, but that he hath so so­ueraignclie [...] Christ our Priest and head, that as he is man, and occupieth the said functions in earth, he maie remit by the vertue of the holie Ghost our offences also.

That which before, but doubtinglie, and vnder cor­rection of better learned men, you propounded, to the end that like a subull serpent you might writhe in your head, now as a conquerer of the wholl cause, you thrust in your wholl bodie: and as though you had gained your purpose, you affirme steadfastlie, that al­though, it was no lesse the propertie of God alone to heale the man sodainelie of his corporall infirmitie, then to forgiue sinnes, yet as he gaue the one power to the sonne of man, which was proper to him-selfe, so he might well giue the other. Your argument in à posse adesse, which is not worth a strawe, among them that knowe that argumentes doe meane. That power which God might giue to meere mortall men, whoe doubteth but God might also giue to Christ his sonne, to exercise according to his humaine nature: but that he did exercise the same onelie as man, & not as God, by what argument is it prooued? we knowe that in cast­ing out of deuilles, he vsed his diuine authoritie, and in his owne name commaunded them to come forth, [Page 40] and they obeied. Marke. 1. 27. he raised the dead by his owne authoritie as God, and in his owne name, Luke. 7. 14. Saint Iohn restifieth, that of the eternall worde, which was made flesh, and dwelt among vs, he and his fellowe Apostles did see the glorie, as the glorie of the one­lie begotten Jonne of God, full of grace and trueth. From whence come you therefore, with a Ghospell, to teach vs that Christ did forgiue sinnes, heale the sicke, cast out deuills, and doe miracles, but as a man onelie, by power receiued from God? whereby you shew your selfe to be a good procter for the Arrians, if those works which were proper to Christ, in respect of his diuinitie, you wil draw downe to his humanitie, so that he raised the dead. clensed the leapers, &c. not otherwise thē by power receiued frō; god, as Elizeus did, or as anie of his Apostles, which did al things in his name: whose digni­tie you are so careful to further, that you care not how you abase the honour of their Master, & al to bring in a popish, that is, an Antichristian tyrannie ouer mens soules, which is blasphemous against the authoritie of God. For if the plaine text of the scripture, Iohn 20. 23. whose sinnes you forgiue, they are forgiuen, &c. would yeald you so much authority, as you would gladly excercise, you would not trouble your selfe, to make such imper­tinent, and inconsequent collections, by which you would haue it seeme, as though Christ in respect of his diuine nature, was vnoccupied, as concerning the worke of our redemption in the world, but that he did all thinges in respect of his humane nature, by power receiued from God. But Saint Augustine (you saie) proo­ueth, that by the spirit of God, in respect of his manhood, Christ wrought miracles, which although it be not the matter in question, yet you drawe S. Austen to another matter, then euer was in his meaning. For although it be true, that Christ did cast out Deuills in the spirit of God, as man, yet it followeth not, that he did not cast out deuills by his owne authoritie as God, seeing the [Page 41] workes of the Trinitie are vndeuided, and Saint Augu­stine, in the place by you quoted, distinguisheth be­tween those sayings that speake of him, as in the forme of God, and those that pertaine vnto him, in respect, of the shape of a seruant.

But an other argument you haue, of that the Iewes, which seeing themselues thus ouercome in their vaine cogita­tions, waxed afraid, and glorifyed God, who gaue such power to men. That the Scribes and Pharises which first moo­ued the question of forgiuenes of sinnes, were mooued with reuerence of our sauiour Christ, or yealded glorie God, I finde not: but that al the rest of the people glorifyed Math. 9. Mark. 2. Luk. 5. to god, which had giuen such power to men. What power saie you? to forgiue sinnes. The text saith not so, but of working such miracles, to heale the man sicke of the palsie, so that he was presentlie changed from ex­treame weaknes, to perfect strengh. whereof: as S. Luke reporteth) they said, we haue seene sirange things to day, and as S. Marke rocordeth it, they said, we neuer sawe it thus. But as for the ordinarie power of making attone­ment for sinnes, which the Priests vsed according to the lawe, it was no strange thing vnto them, and they had seene it often times before. These therefore are the best interpreters of S. Math. which did write by the same spirit. But because mans authority with you is many times preferred before god, you shal heare what S. Hilarie saith in that place, which ere while you affir­med to make nothing against your meaning: his inter­pretation of the text, Et honorificauerunt deum, quòd tantā dedit potestatem hominib. &c. is this. Conclusa sunt omnia suo ordine, & cessante iam desperationis timore, honor Deo red­ditur, quòd tantam dederit hominibus potestatem: sed soli hoc Christo erat debitum, solide communione paternae substantiae hoc agere erat familiare. All thinges are concluded in due or­der, and the feare of disperation now ceasing, honour is ren­dered to God, because he hath giuen so great power to men. But this was due onelie to Christ, to him alone it was familiar or [Page 42] accustomable to doe these thinges by the communion of his fa­thers substance. These wordes doe plainelie shew that Saint Hilary dissenteth euerie whit from your meaning: and that you arme your schollers with no armour of proofe, when you wil them to looke for the like power, of remitting sins in Christs humanity, which he did ex­ercise according to the authoritie of his diuinitie.

Let the proud cogitations of men here attend, that so high­lie disdaine the ministerie of mortall men in the remission of their sinnes: let them controulle the wounderfull wisdome of God, which would no otherwise saue the pitifull sores of our soules, but by the seruile forme of our owne nature, ioined meruelouslie in our person, to the worde and eternall Sonne of God the father: let them reprehend the vnsearchable secret councell of the holie Trinitie, which being of power infinite to worke their wil in al creatures, yet would not repaire the world, nor remit our sinnes anie otherwise, but by the seruice of the Sonne of man: let them mislike, that flesh, blood, and the soule of our blessed sauiour being al creatures, should ioyne with the onelie almightie creator of all thinger, in the remission of all our offences: let the presumptuose thus doe, and let vs hum­blie reuerence Gods ordinance, and glorifye him in his Sonnes high calling in our kinde, through whose singular prerogatiue we shall vndoubtedlie finde exceeding power to be giuen to his bodie and brethren in earth, to his moste deare spouse the Church.

The ministerie of mortall men in remission of sinnes, no man I hope is so madde to disdaine, when Christ him-selfe in so plaine termes hath authorized the same. But where you saie, that the wisdome of God, would no otherwise salue the pittifuli sores of our soules, but by the seruile forme of our nature, ioined meruelouslie in one person to the word and eternall sonne of God, I cannot but maruaile at your Nestorian blasphemie. For although it be moste certaine, that in the forme of a seruant, the wisdome of God preformed that, which to the glorie of his iustice was expedient, yet that the deitic was alto­gether [Page 43] idle, or vnoccupied, in the worke of our re­demption, yea that the godhead did not worke the principall and moste necessarie part thereof, it is too too abominable, and intollerable heresie. Out of the like stinking puddle it proceedeth that you saie, that the holie Trinitie, being of infinit power to worke their will in all creatures, yet would not repaire the world, nor remit our sinnes anie otherwise, but by the seruice of the sonne of man. That the seruice of the sonne of man was necessarie to be vsed, it is moste true, but that authoritie of the sonne of God, was not necessarie for so great a worke, as wel as the seruise of the sonne of man, it is such an impu­dent blasphemie, as I thinke the Pope him-selfe would condemne it, if his opinion without partialitie thereof might be knowne. As for the worke of Christes huma­nitie ioyned in one person to his deitie, and the com­mission graunted to his ministers to remit sinnes, are nothing hindred by acknowledging, that God onelie doth properlie and absolutelie forgiue sinnes, euen when his ministers, according to his commaunde­ment, doe forgiue sinnes, as S. Ambrose saith, and all an­tiquitie doth accord.

THE SECOND CHAP.

IN what high reputation man hath euer bene with god his maker, it is not my purpose now to treat of: neither will I make anie tediouse talke, though it be somewhat more neere the matter, how estimation is encreased by the honoura­ble and most merueilous matching of Gods onelie sonne with our nature and kinde: whereof whosoeuer hath anie conside ration, he shall nothing wonder, I warrant him, at the [Page 44] soueraingtie of such, as be placed in the seat of iudgement and gouernement, for the rule of that comonwealth, where­of Christ is the head. These thinges, though they be well worthie our labour and deepe remembrance, and not verie far from our matter, yet so will I charge my selfe with continu­ance in my cause, that I will onelie seeke out the dignitie of priesthood, touching the right, that the order: laimeth in re­mission and retaining of mans sinnes. In all which cause, I take this a grounde, that our Masters messenger stood vpon, when his disciples grudged that Christ had his followers, and practized Baptisme no lesse then him selfe did, which is: That no man can rightlie receiue anie thing, that is Iohn. 3. not giuen him from aboue. Therefore if it may be suffici­entlie declared, that the order holdeth by good warrant this their preheminence of pardoning, or punishing of the peoples offences, and that by commission from him, who without al con­trouersie is the head of the Church, then the contrarie must learne to leaue their contentious reasoning, and vniust con­tempt of that order, which is honoured by power and preroga­tiue proceeding from Christ Iesus.

That God of his meere goodnes and mercie hath vouchsafed man of so great honour, that of him selfe deserueth eternall shame, it is more reason to wonder at Gods mercie, then to insinuate anie peece of mans dignitie or worthines. That it hath pleased god to ad­uaunce some men to the gouernment of his Church vpon earth, we haue cause to magnifie his maiestie, that disdaineth not our base condition, but putteth his honour and authoritie vpon them, driueth vs not from them by the excellencie of their nature aboue ours, but familiarly inuiteth vs to obedience of his wil, that we may attaine to his promis of eternal happines. The title of this chapter, That our sauiour Christ gaue vn­to his Apostles, the same power of remitting sinnes, which God the father by commission gaue vnto his sonne, as he was man, we do all agree: but that Christ did exercise a more so­ueraigne authoritie in forgiuing sinnes, then he did [Page 45] bestow vpon his Apostles, or their nature was capable to receiue, it is prooued sufficientlie in the Chapter going before. Neuerthelesse I will examin all partes of this chapter, and if in anie thing I dissent from you, I will shew that you dissent from the trueth. And first where you professe onelie to seeke out the dignitie of Priesthood, touching the right that the order clai­meth in remission and retention of mans sinnes, you should haue done better, to haue sought and set out the duetie of such persons also, to whome such dignity is committed, lest, as it falleth out in your bastarde Popish Priesthood, the dignitie be onelie sought for, the labour and duetie almost, or altogether neglected. The ground you take out of Saint Iohn, is infallible: Ioh. 3. and therefore your Popish priesthood doth blasphe­mouslie vsurpe a pretended power, to offer vp our sa­uiour Christ vnto his father, as a sacrifice propitiato­rie for the sinnns of the quick and the dead for graunt of which power from aboue, you can shew no warrant out of the written word of God, the onelie true record of Gods graunt, and sufficient euidence for so great an authoritie.

And of two or three places in holie scripture pertaining to this purpose, that shall be first proposed, which with moste force driueth downe falsehood, and most properlie pertaineth to the pith and principall state of the cause which we haue in hand. Thus then we finde of Christes wordes, will, and beha­uiour, concerning the commission graunted out to his holy Apo­stles for the remission and punishment of our sinnes, in the 20. Chapter of the Gospell of Saint Iohn. Where the Euangelist thus reporteth, that Christ after his glorious resurrection, came into a secret chamber, where his disciples were together, the dore being shut for feare of the Iewes, and there after he had gi­uen them, as his custome was, his peace, and his blessing, and she wed him self to their infinite comfort, that he was perfectlie risen againe in the same bodie that so latelie was buried, he then straight afterwarde, to make worthie entrance to so high [Page 46] a purpose, gaue them this peace againe, in manner of a solemne benediction, and therewith said: Sicut misit me Pater, & e­go mitto vos. Euen as the father hath sent me, so I do send you. And when he had so spoken, he breathed on them and said, Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata, re­mittuntur eis: & quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt. Re­ceaue you the holie ghoste: whose sinnes soeuer you shall forgiue, they are forgiuen them: and whose sinnes you shall retaine, they be retained. This is the place, lo, in which the iudgement and rule of our soules with all authoritie in correcting our sinnes, in moste expresse and effectuall termes, and in moste ample manner is giuen to the Aposiles and their successours. Christ him seife doth commu­nicate vnto them the iurisdiction that he receiued of his Fa­ther: he giueth them in a solemne ceremonie that same spirit of God, by which in earth him-selfe did remitte sianes: hema­keth them an assured promis, that whatsoeuer they pardoned or corrected in mans life, the same should stand in force before God.

Our sauiour Christ in this place, doth first of all au­thorize his Apostles, to execute the office of publike preaching of the Gospell in all the world, vnto the which he had before chosen & appointed them. Then doth he furnish them with giftes of the holie Ghost meete for so high and painfull a calling: last of all he ratifieth the effect of their ministerie, to be accom­plished in the remission of the sinnes, of all them that beleeue their preaching: and in the retaining of their sinnes, that do not obey the voice of the Gospell, to beleeue it. For the power of remitting sinnes, must not be separated from the office of teaching, whereun­to it is annexed by our sauiour Christ: who doth not giue his Apostles authoritie to remit sinnes, so that he would transferre into them anie thing that is pro­per vnto him-selfe. For it is proper to him to remit sinnes: which honour, so farre forth as it pertaineth to his onelie person, he doth not resigne to his Apostles, [Page 47] but commaundeth them in his name to testifie the for­giuenes of sinnes, that he might reconcile men to God by their ministerie. For I haue shewed before in the words of S. Hilarie, that to speake properlie, God one­lie by men remitteth sinnes, not following the sen­tence of man, but man following the iudgement of God, which is to pardon all penitent sinners, and to retaine the sinnes of vnbeleeuers, vnto eternall con­demnation. Therefore it is much more then the place doth afforde, that you affirme the iudgement and rule of our soules, with al authoritie in correcting our sinnes in most expresse and effectuall tearmes, and in moste ample manner is giuen to the Apostles, and their suc­cessors in this place. For Christ in this place doth con­stitute Apostles, and not Iudges, messengers and de­clarers of his good pleasure and will vnto men, not ru­lers of mens soules: he giueth them power to remit or retaine sinnes in his name, to the inestimable com­fort of all penitent sinners, and to the terrour and in crease of damnation of all vnbeleeuers: he giueth them not al authoritie, and that in moste ample man­ner in correcting our sinnes: neither are there in the place anie expresse or effectual tearmes, our of which such omnipotent authoritie can be concluded, as af­terward when we come to your syllogisme, we shall platnlie declare. Againe, there is no mention in the text, of anie iurisdiction communicated vnto them, but of the office of teaching, whereunto Christ was sent for a time, which he committeth to his Apostles and their successours. For these wordes of our sauiour ( As my father hrth sent me, I also do send you) can not be enlarged generallie, to all such purposes as God sent Christ: but must be vnderstood, according to the mat­ter he speaketh of, that is, of the office of Preaching & teaching, which Christ at that time did cease to ex­ecute in his humanitie, remaining yet still the onelie doctor and teacher of his Church, because he is author [Page 48] of the doctrine that is taught, and by his holie spirit teacheth continually, in giuing effect to the labours of his Apostles, Euangelists, Prophets, Pastours, & teach ers, which he hath giuen vnto his Church, for the ex­ternal ministerie of instructing the same in al truth ne­cessarie to the eternall saluation of his elect: He substi­tuteth therfore his Apostles in that necessarie office of preaching the Gospell, he enableth them by his spirit, which he testifieth vntothem by an holy signe, to pro­ceed from him. He maketh an assured promis, that they should not labour in vaine, but that in pardoning & re­taining sinnes according to the doctrine of his Gospel, whatsoeuer they did, should stand in force before God.

What dignitie could euer be giuen more? in what tearmes more plain? by what order more honourable? for surelie if ei­ther Christ could remit sinnes, as we haue at large prooued that he could, by commission and sending of his father, or if the ho­lie spirit of God maie remit sinnes, or if Christes word will pro­cure man anie power to remit sinnes, then vndoubtedlie maie the Apostles remit sinnes: For they haue the expresse warrant of them all. Much said Paul, when he affirmed in the Apo­stles name and person of all Priestes, Quòd [...] erat in Chri­sto mundum reconcilians sibi, & posuit in nobis verbum re­conciliationis. 1. Cor. 5. Pro Christo ergo legatione fungimur: That God was in Christ reconciling the world to him selfe, and hath put in vs the word of reconcilement: therfore our calling is to serue as an Embasy in Christes owne stead. These wordes be of great waight, and exceedinglie set forth the vocation of the spirituall gouernours, as of those, that holde by the warrant of Gods sending, and thereby occupie Christes owne roome. Marie the place for all that appertain­eth to their calling generallie, as wel to preach, as otherwise to guide the people of God in the behalfe of their Master, to whome we al be subiect: but this present text, whereupon we now treat, doth properlie concerne the commission giuen to the A­postles for the sacrament of penance and remission of sinnes. For it doth in moste cleere and vndoubted sense giue to them the [Page 49] like right in that case, that Christ him selfe had by the sen­ding of God the father: that is to saie, the very same authority that he had in respect of his mediation and manhoode: A Equa­lem patri filium nouimus (saith Saint Augustine) sed bîc ver­ba Mediatoris agnoscimus: medium quippe se ostendit dicen­do, Super hune locum. ille me, & ego vus. We know the sonne to be equall with the father, but here we must acknowledge the wordes of a mediator. For he shewed him selfe to be as a meane, when he said: He sent me, and I send you. That is to saie (as Theophilact expoun­deth In Ioannena cap. 20. it) Take vpon you my worke and function, and doe it with confidence: For as my father did send me, so I send you againe, and I will be with you to the ende of the worlde.

There is no dout, but the Apostles had power to remit sins, but yet for al your thetorical interrogations, none other, then I haue expressed before; nor greater, then may stand with the glory of Christ, who maketh not men equal with him. when he authorizeth them as his seruants, to be ministers of his mysteries, and stew­ardes of his gracious giftes. And Paul trulie said much, when he affirmed, that god was in Christ recōciling the world to himselfe, not imputing to them their offences (which clause I know not why you haue omitted) & hath put in vs that word of recōciliation. We are therfore embassadours for Christ, &c. For he said, that it is proper to god to reconcile the world, to forgiue sins, or not to impute them, & that is but a ministery of reconciliation, which he hath geuen vnto men, & she weth how this ministerie is executed, namely by preaching reconciliation, as the embassa­dours of God, to desire men, to be reconciled vnto God: which only meane of preaching expressed in this place you (with a Marie for all that) fumble vp, with I cannot tell what guidance because you cannot content your selfe to be a minister, a seruant, a subiect: but you must be a Lord a Prince, a ruler.

But the other text of Ioh. 20. (yousay) doth properlie con­cerne the commission giuen to the Apostles, for the sacrament of penaunce, and remission of sins. But whether I praie you in [Page 50] the scripture shal we read of this your sacrament, or the institution thereof? what is the visible worde or ele­ment thereof? yet you saie, that this text doth in moste cleare, and vndoubted sense, giue to them the like right in that case, that Christ him-selfe had, by the sending of God the fa­ther: that is to saie, the verie same authoritie, that he had in respect of his mediation and manhood. So that be like Christ, as Mediator, hath no authority peculiar to himselfe, in respect of the excellency of his person, but that which is communicable vnto others, and is communicated to his Apostles. But that is a strange doctrine, neuer heard of before in the Church of God, except it were from the mouth of Nestorius, or any of his disciples. For our sauiour Christ receiued in his manhoode, that which no other man is able to receiue, because he one lie is God and man: he receiued the spirit, not according to measure, Iohn. 3. 34. as all men muste do that receiue it: therefore no man can receiue such power by the spi­rit in measure, which he receiued by the spirit infinite­lie or without measure. But Saint Augnstine is called to witnes, that this text doth giue theverie same authoritie to the Apostles, that Christ had in respect of his mediation, and manhoode. Whereas Saint Augustines words import no such thing, but onelie shew, that Christ, though e­qual to his father in respect of his Godheade, yet as he is our Mediatour, is sent of his father in respect of his manhood. But of the verie same authoritie that Christ had in respect of his mediation, giuen to the Apostles, he speaketh not a word. That you ioyne his māhood to his mediation, as though the mediator were nothing but man, or as though the man Iesus Christ, which is our onelie mediator, were not Immannell, that is, God with vs, it is not without some smack of Nestorian he­resie, wherebie you seeme so to separate the man from God, as though any thing might be verified of the man, which in respect of the vnitie of person, might not be verified of God, or as though there were not [Page 51] such a perfect vnion ofthe two natures in one person, that although they both continue vnconfounded, re­teining their essentiall properties, yet any part of the office and authoritie of Christ, which he exercised in his humanitie, might as latgelie, as fullie, and with the verie same authoritie, be committed ouer to any other mortall man, to be exercised, as it was by Christ him­selfe. But Theophilact is cited to be an interpreter of Saint Augustine, whoe saith vpon these wordes, as the father hath sent me, &c. in the person of Christ: take vpon you my worke, and be sure that I will be with you, meaning that he com­mitteth to them the office of teaching, whereunto he was sent by his father, but of equall authoritie with him, he speaketh no worde. Which place you haue verie licentiouslie translated, to draw it to your pur­pose. For the words are no more but these, as Philippus Montanus hath translated them: Meum opus, inquit, sus­cipite, & confidite quod vobiscum sum futurus. And in the ende he willeth men to consider the dignitie of priests, that it is diuine. For it perteineth to God to remit sinnes: so there­fore are they to be honoured, as God. For although they be vnworthie, what is that? they are the ministers of Gods giftes, and grace worketh by them, euen as he spake by Balaams asse. For our vnworthines hindreth not grace. so because by meanes of priests, grace is graunted, they are to be honou­red. Thefe wordes of Theophilact declare, that although he ascribe much to the dignitie of Priests, yet he doth not allowe them the verie same authoritie, that Christ had in respect of his mediation, but a farre inferior mi­nisterie.

And excellentlie to our purpose wrote the holie father Cyril, as well for the dignitie of the Apostolike vocation, as for the Super. 20. c. Ioannis. honourable legacie, in these wordes. Ad gloriosum Apostola­latum Dominus noster Iesus Christus Discipulos suos vocd­uit, qui commotum orbem firmarunt, sustentacula eius facti: vnde per Psalmistam de terra & de Apostolis dicit, quia ego firmaui columnas eius. Columnae enim & robur veritatis disci­pulisunt, [Page 52] quos ita dicit se mittere, sicut à patre ipse missus est, vs Apostolatus dignitatem ostenderet, & magnitudinem po­testatis eorum aperiret. These wordes and the residue following concerning the same purpose goe thus in english. Our Lord and master Christ Iesus promoted his disciple, to a glorious Apostle­ship: whoe becing made the proppes and staies of all the earth, haue established the wauering worlde: whereupon the Psal­mist sayeth thus of the earth and the Apostles: I haue surelie and firmelie set the pillers thereof. For the disciples no doubt be the verie pillers strength, and staie of trueth, whome Christ saith that he doth send, euen as his father did send him, that thereby he might declare to the worlde as well the dignitie of their Apostleship, as open to all men their excellencie and the might of their power: and no lesse signifie vnto them, what way they had to take in all their life and studies. For if they be so sent as Christ him selfe was sent of the father, it is requisite to consider, for what worke & purpose the father euerlasting sent his sonne in flesh to the worlde. And that him selfe els where declareth: saying: Non veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores ad poe­nitentiam: I came not to cal the iust, but sinners to repen tance: Math. 9. & in another place it is said. God sent not his sonne Ioan. 3. into the world to iudge the worlde, but that the worlde shold be saued by him: al these thinges and other he touch­ed brieflie in these few wordes: Sicus misit me pater, & ego mit­to vos. vt hinc intelligant vocandos esse [...] ad poeni­tentiam, [...] corpore simul & spiritumale habentes. Like as my father sent me, so I send you: that sinners should be called to repentance, and be healed both in bodie and soule. Thus farre spake S. Cyril of the excellent calling of the disciples, & of the cause of their large commission not restri­cted by any streighter tearmes, then Christs owne commission was, which he receiued from his euerlasting Father.

The wordes of Saint Cyrillus declare no more then I haue said before, that the Apostles were sent of Christ as Christ was sent of his father, to call sinners to repen­tance by their ministerie of preaching, not that they were sent with as large commission, in euery respect, [Page 53] as Christ was sent, to be our mediator and redeemer. The wordes of Cyrill which you haue mangled and chopped at your pleasure, I will recite wholl together, that the reader may see, how iniutiouslie you would draw to farre other meaning, then his saying wil yeald. In Ioh. lib. 12. C. 55. vpon these words. Dicit ergo eis iterum, pax vobis: sicut misit me pater, & ego mitto vos. He writeth thus. Ordinauit his verbis orbis doctores, &c. He ordeined thē by these words, teachers of the world, & ministers of the diuine mysteries, whome he sent as lightes, to the lightening, not of the region of the Iewes onelie, which according to the measure of the legall commaundement, extended from Dan to Bersebe, as it is written: but he commaunded them to lighten the wholl worlde. Therefore Paul saith truelie, that no man taketh ho­nour vpon him, except he be called of God. For our Lord Iesus Christ called his disciples vnto the glorious Apostleship, which staied the world that was moued, beeing made the pillers there­of. Whereof by the Psalmist, he saith, of the earth, and the Apostles,: I haue strengthned the pillers thereof. For his disci­ples are the pillers and strength of truth. Whome he saith that he doth so send, as he him-selfe is sent of his father: that also he might shew the dignitie of their Apostleship, and open to all men the greatnes of their power, and with all might shew, what way they ought to follow in their studies, and in their life. For if they be so sent, as Christ is sent of his father, how is it not ne­cessarie to consider, vnto what the father sent his sonne? for so, not otherwise, they may be able to follow him. But if expoun­ding to vs the cause of his sending many waies, one while he saide: I came not to call the iust, but sinners to repentance: an other while, The holl haue no neede of the Phisitian, but such as be diseased: And moreouer, I came downe from heauen (saith he) not that I might doe mine owne will, but the will of him that sent me: And againe, God sent not his sonne into the worlde, that he should iudge or condemne the world, but that the world might be saued by him. All which thinges he signifi­ed in most few wordes, saying that he doth so send them, as he was sent by his father: that hereof they might vnderstand, [Page 54] that sinners are to be called to repentance, that they which ar diseased might be healed both in bodie and in minde. And in the dispensation of thinges they must not doe their owne will, but the will of him that sent them, and that the world by prea­ching and the doctrine of faith must be saued. All which things with what great diligence they performed, you may learne with small labour, in the booke of the Acts of the Apostles & in the Epistles of Paul. Thus farre Cyrillus whose saying if you had not clipped and gelded for your aduantage, would haue made no colour for your purpose, but against it.

And truelie it was the singular prouidence of God, that be­forē the graunt of the gouernment of mens soules to his Disciples beeing but mortal men, mention should be made of his owne right therein, that the wicked should neuer haue face to disgrace the authoritie of them, that dependeth so fullie of the soueraigne calling, and commission of Gods owne sonne. This high wisedome was practized also, to the vtter confusion of the wicked and wilfull persons, at their calling to the office of preaching and baptizing. The which function lest any contemptuous person should in such base men disdaine, Christ alledgeth his owne power and preheminence, to which the dignitie of priesthoode is so neere, and so euerlastinglie ioy­ned, that euerie dishonour and neglecting of the one, is great derogation to the other. And therefore he saith: Omnis pote­st as data est mihi in coelo & in terra. All power in heauen and Math. 28. in earth is giuen to my handes. Therefore goe you forward and teach all natious, babtizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holie Ghost. Thus before the insti­tution of sacraments, whereof God him selfe must onelie be the author (as saith Saint Cyprian) Christ voutchsafed for the quiet instruction of the world, to declare his authoritie and Serm. de bapt. Christ prerogatiue, that all men might farther vnderstand there­by, that the ministerie and excllent founction in the vse of the same, did orderlie proceed of that authoritie and supreame power, that Christ hath receiued ouer all mankind.

Cyrillus telleth you there is none other graunt of the gouernment of mens soules, contained in these [Page 55] wordes, but to be teachers of the Gospell, and to be ministers of the diuine mysteries, to preach remission of sinnes to the penitent, and to seale it vp with the sacraments, to denounce vengeance to the impenitent & vnbeleeuers, & in all things to attend, that they do not their owne wil, but the wil of him that sent them. And in so doing their authoritie is exceeding great, deriued from God him selfe, the onelie author of their Doctrine, and of the sacraments they doe mini­ster. Wherein you seeme somewhat to forget your selfe, which hitherto haue mainteined, and still af­firme, that Christ did remit sinnes, and gaue his Apo­stles authoritie to doe the same, by power receiued from God in his manhoode, and that the holie Trini­tie would not remit our sinnes otherwise, then by the seruise of the sonne of man. But now you confesse with S. Cyprian, that God himselfe, must be the onelie au­thor of Sacraments. Wherefore if this power of remit­ting sins, be a Sacrament, as you holde, Christ must be the onelie author of it, as God himselfe, & not as man, by power receiued from God, by the holie Ghost.

And this sequel of Christes reason hath maruelous efficacie and force, if we will consider thereof: All power is giuen to me both in heauen and earth, therefore goe you and preach, and baptize, and remit sinnes. If a man would aske the Priest or Apostle, how he dare be so bold to exercise any of these functi­ons? he might vpon Christes word be so bolde to make him this answere: marie sir, I baptize, because all power is giuen to Christ: I preach, because all power is giuen to Christe: I remit sins, because all power was giuen to Christ. For in my ministerie he practiseth daielie all these functions: in his power I am be­come the lawfull worker of all actions, that are so proper to Christ him selfe. Therefore it was Christ (saith Saint Augu­stine) Supertract. 4. 5. & 6. that baptized, and had moe Disciples then Iohn: and yet Christ baptized not, but his Disciples onelie. So saie you to all contemners of Gods ordinance: it is Christ that pardo­neth and enioyneth penance for mans sinnes, and yet he doth [Page 56] it not him-selfe as in his owne person, but Christ doth it daily, by the power which he established after his resurrection, and which continueth for euer in the high ministerie and seruice of the Church. Thus (I saie) doth he remit sinnes: Hunt Act. 5. principem & Saluatorem exaltauit dextra sua ad dandam poenitentiam Israeli, & remissionem peccatorum. This our Prince and Sauiour hath God exalted with his right hand, to giue penance and remission to Israell of all their sinnes. This power hath our high priest de serued for his obedience, & ther­fore as he receiued it, so he hath left it in his Church: his owne holie wordes dot protest that same. For vpon his power and sending, which he did receiue of his father, all the Priestes doe euerlastingly hold the right of al holy functions, which ells, but by Christes owne commission and sending, they could ne­uer, nor neuer durst haue practized so long.

It were a more direct sequele, for a Priest or Elder of the Church, to maintaine and defend his power, that he practizeth in preaching, baptizing, and remit­ting of sinnes, by the calling of Christ; who hath all power in heauen and in earth: for otherwise it follow­eth not, because Christ hath all power, therefore man without calling, and authoritie receiued from Christ maie execute anie part thereof. But in your applicati­on, where you saie, that Christ pardoneth and enioineth pennance for mans sinnes, in the ministerie of the Church. I graunt he pardoneth, where the power which he hath giuen to the Church, is duelie executed. But for enioining penance, in that sense that papistes doe speake it, which is a peece of satisfaction for mens sinnes, you are neuer able to prooue, that Christ either in his owne person enioyned anie, or by meane, or mi­nisterie of anie man, doth enioine such penance: and therefore the text you cire Acts the 5. is wretchedlie writhen from the true meaning, and falselie transla­ted, as I haue shewed before, by testimonies of your owne translaters, the English Rhemists, who read it thus, This Prince and sauiour, God hath exalted with his [Page 57] right hand, to giue repentance to Israell, and remission of sins. Where the text is so plaine, of the [...] conuersi­on of the Iewes vnto Christ, that they were ashamed to turne the worde poenitentia as they doe moste com­monlie ( penance) by which they meane some workes of satisfaction, which are enioined to them that com­mit sinne after baptisme. As likewise Acts. II. where it is said, God then to the Gentills hath giuen repentance vnto life. Where by as good reason, and in like sense you might saie, that God hath giuen penance to the gentiles, taking penance in your popsh meaning, or els you haue greatlie abused the scripture to prooue that Christ enioineth penance by popish Priests, by that saying of the Apostles Actes. 5. whereby they meane, that God hath exalted Christ to conuert the Israelites, from Iudaisme to the Gospell, and to giue them saluation in the free remission of sinnes, which of it selfe excludeth all other satisfaction, then such as Christ him-selfe hath made, to answere the iustice of God, whose obedience hauing satisfied for our disobedience, vpon our true and vnfained repen­tance, which will appeare by the fruites thereof, we are receiued into fauour, all our sinnes being freelie forgiuen for Iesus Christes sake.

And whosoeuer seeth not how the power & iurisdiction of so excellent actions passeth from God the Father to his onelie Sonne, and from him againe to such as he hath sent, and made the messengers of his blessed minde, and disposers of mysteries, he hath no feeling at al of the waies that he wrought for mans redemption: he can not atteine to the intelligence of Christs vnction, whereby he is made our head & priest: he, in the middest of the glorious light of the Church can not beholde In Epist. sua Canonica. the practize of so he auenlie mysteries, and therefore such things as he knoweth not, he blasphemeth, saith S. Iude. But to worke all in light and order, I will build vpon the for­said, the intended conclusion, that the a duersaries maie see and behold the force of our faith, and the singular weaknes of [Page 58] their assertions, I thus ioyne with them in arguments bare­lie and plainlie without couert. That power and commission which was giuen to Christ by his heauenlie Father, concerning remission or retaining of sinnes, was giuen to the Apostles at his departure hence: But Christ him selfe did truclie, effectu­allie, and in proper forme of speach, by his Fathers sending and and commission remit sinnes: Ergo, The ministers of Christ maie, and doe truclie and perfectlie remit sinnes. Or thus more briefilie: As Christ was sent of his Father, so are the Apostles sent by Christ: But Christ was sent to forgiue sinnes: Ergo, the Apostles be fent to forgiue sinnes also. The second part of the reasons, which is, that Christ had power of his Father to remit sinnes, and was sent for the same purpose, is sussicienlie prooued in the Chapter before. The first part of the argument standeth vpon the sure ground of Christs owne wordes, which be these. Like as my Father sent me, so I doe send you. Which wordes were so plaine and so deepelie noted for this intent, of Saint Chrysostome, that with admiration of the dignitie and excellent calling of Priesthood, he thus trim­lie discourseth vpon them. I will report his saying in Latin, as Germanus Brixius hath translated it: all that speaketh for De sacer­dot. lib. 3. that purpose hereafter shall be recited, but now no more but this: Quid hoc aliud esse dicas, nisi omnium rerum coelestium potestatem illis à Deo esse concessam? Ait enim, Quorumcun (que) peccata retinueritis, retenta sunt. Quaenam obsecro potestas hac vna maior esse queat? Pater omnifariam filio potestatem dedit: caeterùm video ipsam eandem omnifariam potesiatem à Deo filio illis traditam. Nam quasi iam in coelum translati, ac supra humanam naturam positi, atque nostris ab affectibus exempti, sic illi ad principatum istum perducti sunt. And in English thus it is: What e's canst thou make of this, or what lesse, then that the power and iurisdiction of all heauenlie things is by God graunted vnto them? for it is said: whose sinnes soeuer you doe holde or reteine, they be retained. For Gods loue, what power can be giuen in the world so great? the Father bestowed all manner of power vpon his Sonne, & I finde the verie selfe same power of all thinges to be deliuered to the [Page 59] Apostles by God the Sonne. For now as though they were al readie translated out of this life to heauen, and there promoted aboue mans nature, and discharged of all our feeble affecti­ons, they are aduanced to the Princelie soueraigntie, whereof we now haue said. Thus farre Chrysostome. So doth this worthie father helpe our cause, and so doth he thinke of the excellent au­thority giuen by the father to his Sonne, & deriued from him to the ministers of his holy will & testament in earth. Whose iuris­diction so highlie holden, so truely obteined, so neerely ioyned vnto Christs honour, and so dailie practized no otherwise but in his right & name, whosoeuer shall controlle or cōremne, they not onely irreuerently touch gods annointed, but they sacrilegiously laie handes on ipsum Christum Domini, euen on him that is an­nointed aboue all his fellowes. Well, I conclud vp this matter with these few wordes of Saint Ambrose: Vult Dominus pluri­mum posse Li 1. de poe­nitent. c. 7. discipulos suos: Vult á seruis suis e a fieri in nomi­nesuo, quaefaciebat ipse positus in terris. Our lordes plea­sure is, that his disciples should haue great prerogatiue: he will haue the same thinges wrought by his seruants in his name that him-selfe did in his owne person, when he was in earth.

He that seeth not the difference of the ministerie of man from the power of God in those actions, wherein God worketh by man, gropeth in the darke, & seeth no­thing as he ought to see. Therefore, let vs come to the light of your logick, and thereby consider, if we can, the distinction of the one from the other. If the maior or first proposition of your former syllogisme, be vnder­stood of a power or commission graunted to the man­hood of Christ, such as might haue beene graunted by God to anie other meere man, then your Minor is not true, that Christ by such a power and commission onelie, setting his Godhead aside, though truelie and effectuallie, yet not in proper forme ofspeach, by his fathers sending and commission remitted sinnes for then could he not be the author of remission of sinnes, but onelie a minister thereof: and therefore in proper forme ofspeach, he could not be said to forgiue sinnes, [Page 60] which is proper onely to god, but to preach the forgiue nes of sinnes, in Gods name, or to testifie that God did forgiue sinnes, as the ministers of the Church do. Butif the Maior be vnderstood, of such power & commission as was giuen to Christ, as the Mediator, in respect of his manhood, but yet such, as he couldnot receiue & exercise, but in respect of his godhead, & such as could not be graunted to any, but vnto that person which is God & man, such is the absolute & principall power of remission of sinnes, then I denie that such power was giuen to the Apostles at his departure. For when Christ him-selfe did truelie, effectuallie, and in proper forme of speech remit sinnes, he did it as God, hauing equal, and principall authoritie with the father, and the ho­lie ghost so to do. The conclusion of your second syllo­gisme, I graunt, that the Apostles were sent to for­giue sinnes, but retaining the former distinction, of the authoritie of God, and the ministerie of man. For as Christ was sent of his father to preach the remission of sinnes, so were the Apostles sent by Christ to preach remission of sinnes: therefore such power as he had, by preaching onely of remission of sinnes, to forgiue sinnes such power be graunted to his Apostles, whome he ordained preachers in his place: but the proper pow er of his deity he graunted not, nor any power which is proper to the person of the Mediator God and man. Theresore these wordes of Christ, As the father sent me, so send I you, must not be extended further then our sauiour Christ in that place meaneth. For els infinite absurdities might be concluded thereof, as that he sent his Apostles to redeeme the world, to die for the sinnes of the world, to be sauiours of the world, &c. or that he sendeth all ministers of the Church, to whome this commission extendeth, to clense leapers to raise the dead, to giue sight to the blinde, and to do all other miracles, that he was sent to do. According to this distinction, that Rhetoricall amplification of [Page 61] Chrisostome, is to be vnderstood: and doubtles won­derfull great is the authoritie, that man doth exer­cise in the name of God, although that which is pe­culiar to God, be not attributed to men. The simili­tude that Chrysostome vseth in the same chapter, Lib. 3. cap. 5. of a King graunting power to one of his sub­iects, to imprison men, and to release them, sheweth that he knew the difference of the Lord, from the ser­uant, who if he abuse the authoritie committed vnto him, deserueth sharpe punishment, and therefore hath not absolute authoritie, to do all things as his Lord, and can not transgresse in doing. And in the next Chapter he sheweth, that Priestes do exercise this power of forgiuing sinnes, by teaching, admo­nition, and by praier. Not onelie by teaching and ad­monishing, but also by the helpe of praiers: and a ma­nifest difference sheweth Saint Ambrose, when he saith, Christ would haue his disciples to do in his name the same thinges which he did on earth, partlie in his fathers name, and partlie in his owne name.

THE THIRD CHAP.

THe commission and power that our Master Christ re­ceiued of his euerlasting father, being in moste ample manner communicated with the Apostles, made great proofe and euidence for the right that they claime in remission of sinnes: but the present power of Gods spirit breathed by Christ vpon them, and giuen vnto them for the ministerie and execu­tion of that function, helpeth our matter so much, that who­so euer now denieth this authoritie of the Apostles, concerning the pardoning of our offences, doth not so much sinne against [Page 62] the sonne of man, which of it selfe is greeuous inough, as he doth controll the worke of the spirit of Christ, which is the ho­lie Ghost, in whome both he and his Church doth remit sinnes. The more plaine and more exact our master Christ was in the bestowing of that power to remit and retaine sinnes, the more is our contempt in the disobedience and deniall thereof. He sendeth them [...] with his owne authoritie in this case: he giueth them the verie spirit of God, by whose diuine power they maie execute the function to which he called them: he giueth them the expresse warrant of his owne word, that sinnes they might pardon and punish: and yet we make doubt of their vsurpation. But how they might forgiue sinnes by Christes sen­ding, we haue alreadie said.

Now for the holie Ghostes power and prerogatiue in the same action, which was breathed on the Apostles, we must further conferre with such as call in question matters so plaine. And first I am in goodhope, that no man will denie, but Christ gaue them the holie ghost for no other purpose so much, as to remit sinnes: Secondlie, I doubt not of their faith and be­liese in this point, but they will confesse the holie ghost to be of power by nature and proprietie to forgiue sinnes: Thirdlie, I claime of their sinceritie thus much more, that Christ being as well God as man, was well able, for the furniture of their cal­ling, to giue them the holie ghost: all which being confessed of all men, and denied of no Christian aline, how the conclu­sion, so beset with all proofe on euerie side, standeth not, let the aduersaries tell me. In the Apostles there can be no lack touching that officie, for the execution whereof they receaued both Christes commission first, and the holie spirit of God af­terwarde: In Christ there can be no default, who was well able to giue, and in deade did giue the holie ghost: In the holie ghost there can be no let nor lacke, whose power is infinie, and his verie proprietie to remit sinnes. All thinges then standing on so safe and sure groundes, the giuer, the gift, and the re­ceiuer competent, and fullie answereable each to other on e­uerie side, let the discontented ioyne in argument, let him alledge, why the Priests so authorized by Christ, and [Page 63] so assured of the holie Ghost, maie not either pardon or forgiue penance. Neuer man auouched that he exercised the high a­ction vpon his owne authoritie: but, that he maie not, as a mi­nister and seruant, practize it vpon the warrant of Christ, and present power of the holie Ghost, that no faithfull person can affirme, nor anie reasonable man stand in.

The commission that our sauiour Christ receiued in his manhood to preach remission of sinnes, was by him committed to his Apostles, but in such ample manner, as Christ had power to remit sinnes, it is not prooued, that Christ did communicate the same with his Apostles. The visible signe of breathing, by which our sauiour Christ testified, that he did giue them the ho­lie Ghost, declareth that they were enabled with spi­rituall giftes, to exercise their function, the chiefe and principall end whereof, was to pronounce in his name remission of sinnes to the beleeuers of the Gos­pell, and condemnation to the contemners. And this authoritie of the Apostles, concerning the par­doning of our offences, I know no man that denieth. And therefore you spend vainlie the one halfe of your booke'in proouing that which no man doth denie, namely, that the Apostles and their lawful succesiours had, and haue power, by Christes graunt, to remitte or to retaine sinnes. The matters in question are these. 1. Whither Popish Priestes be the lawful successours of the Apostles. 2. What manner of power is this which is graunted. and thirdly, How it is to be exercised, by Preach­ing the gospell, or by Popish absolution and pardons. For we denie your shauelings, for the most part vnlearned, to be the Priests or elders of the Church of god, towhome this power is deriued from the Apostles: we denie an absolute power to be graunted, but a ministerie of te­stification, and assurance of that which God onelie doth properlie and principallie. Thirdly we deny that by Popish shrift, absolution, and pardons, this power is to be exercised, but by preaching of the Gospell, [Page 64] whereunto are annexed the sacraments, as seales of the doctrine. These questions would haue beene di­rectlie handled, without such a tedious discourse, to prooue confuselie the power that is graunted by Christ to his Apostles, which is not denied: but the kinde of power about which you wander vncertainly, somtimes making it to be a meere ministery & seruice vnder god, the onelie worker therein: sometime more then ob­scurelie insinuating, that it is the verie same authori­tie, and none other but the same, which Christ did ex­ercise vpon earth, and now hath committed it ouer, or communicated it to Priestes, as though he were bound to stand to their sentence, in remitting or re­taining sinnes, or that they might remit as well as he, and he must accept whatsoeuer they do in that case.

But seeing you wil not go directlie to worke, we must follow you in your crooked path, as well as we maie. And for the first part of your conference, where you are in good hope that no man wil deny, but Christ gaue them the holy ghost for no other purpose so much as to remit sinnes, I must say vnto you for my parte, that forasmuch as remission of sinnes is the principall scope of preaching the Gospel, they were indued with giftes of the holie ghost, especi­ally to call men to repentance & forgiuenes of sinnes, and to assure the repentant and beleeuers of the re­mission of sinnes, by that authoritie and commission which they receaued of Christ. But if you meane, that Christ gaue them the holie ghost, for no other pur­pose so much, as that they should heare mens shrift, and giue them absolution in such forme of wordes, as your Popish Priests do vse, without preaching the gos­pell to them, and setting forth the grace of god in Ie­sus Christ, I denie that they receaued the holy ghost for any such purpose. The other two partes I graunt: but I know not what is your conclusion. If you wil con­clude, that they haue power to remit sinnes, I graunt it, neither do I know anie man that denyeth it: [Page 65] But if you meane to conclude thus; because the holy Ghost which was giuen to the Apostles, is of power by nature, & proprietie to forgiue sins, therefore the Apo­stles did as properlie forgiue sins as god himselfe, I de­nie your consequence. And it seemeth you meane such a matter, when you saie, In the holie Ghost, there can be no let nor lacke, whose power is infinite, and his verie propertie to remit sinnes: which is verie true: but yet it followeth not thereof, that whosoeuer is endued with the holie Ghost, hath infinite power, and maie properlie remit sinnes. For the holie Ghost is giuen in measure to all men, not that his substance is diuisible, that it maie be apportionated, but that his gifts are distributed by him selfe, in such measure, as the wisdome of God seeth to be moste conuenient. His essence is infinit and incom­prehensible, but he is said in Scripture to be present with them, or in them, on whome he bestoweth his graces and giftes. Therefore I see not what conse­quence can be made of the holy ghostes infinit power, and verie propertie to remit sins, to conclude that the Apostles, which receiued the holie Ghost, rereiued in­finite power, or the verie propertie to remitre sinnes.

Where you will the discontented to ioyne in argument, why the Priest so authorized by Christ, and so assured of the holy Ghost may not either pardon, or giue penance, Thus I ioyne with you: For remitting of sinnes I see authoritie: but for giuing of penance, none: therefore I graunt the for­mer, and denie the latter. For if by penance true repen­tance be vnderstood god onelie can giue repentance, who onelie can turne the heart of man to feare him. If you meane popish penance, that is enioyning of sa­tisfactorie works or punishment, I denie that it is men­tioned in the scriptures, neither can it be contained in retaining of sinne. Where you saie, that neuer man aduouched that high action vpon his owne authoritie, it is vntrue: for Antichrist, that lifteth him-selfe to be e­quall with God and Christ, auoucheth vpon his [Page 66] owne authoritie, although to cloke his manifest impi­etie, & that he might deceiue the simple, he pretendeth the name & authoritie of God & Christ. But that the Apostles and their true successours, by the warrant of Christ, & his power receiued by the holy ghost, maie as ministers & seruants remit or retaine sins, we do most willinglie consent and confesse. But then they practise this power as seruants, when they beinterpreters and declarers of the Lordes will and pleasure, and require not that God should followe their sentence, or attend how they be affected to forgiue or retaine, and so to subscribe vnto their doing: for that is an Antichristian vsurpation, farre from the meaning of that power. which Christ did graunt to his A postles.

Some holie writers vpon this text of S. Iohn, in which the order of Christes authorizing his Apostles for the remission of sinnes is described, doe dispute of the difference of giuing the holie Ghost then to his Disciples, and afterward on Whit­sondaie: some note the eternall ceremonie that our Master v­sed, when he gaue them the holie spirit, which was by brea­thing on them, that such outward actions might both be an eui­dence to them of that excellent gift, which they inwardlie then receiued, and should further be an euerlasting instruction to the Church, that Gods grace and giftes be often ioyned to ex­ternall elements for the solace of our nature, that delighteth to haue our outward man schooled, as wel as the inward man nou­rished. These and manie things moe be of profitable remem­brance and consideration, but not so much to our purpose. Therefore let vs see, whether the iudgement of the holie Fa­thers doe not wholie helpe our present cause, prouing the Priests ministerie, through the holie Ghostes authoritie, that our declaration standing on the plaine wordes of scripture with their vndoubted sense, maie obtaine inuincible force a­gainst the aduersaries, & worthie credit of the true beleeuers.

If you had expressed what the writers are, that thus dispute or discourse vpon this text, we might better haue considred, how pertinent or impertinent [Page 67] their opinions are to our matter in controuersie. S. Chrysost. seemeth to allowe the opinion of some, and Euthymius plainely affirmeth the same, that the Apo­stles at this time did not presentlie receiue the ho­lie ghost, but onelie were prepared, or made capable thereof, which if it were true, is contrarie to the title of your Chapter. I like better of Cyrillus iudgement. which thinketh they presentlie receiued the holie Ghost in some measure, but not so plentifullie, nor with such diuersitie of giftes, as on the daie of Pente­cost. That the grace of God is testified, assured, and sealed vp vnto vs, for the help of our infirmitie, by out­ward signes, and externall elementes ioined thereto, we know & confesse: but as for the solace of our nature, or delight to haue our outward man schooled, I knowe not what they meane. It is great mercie of God to beare with our weakenes, but it agreeth not with the discipline of the Gospell, that we should delight in out­ward thinges, but rather to exercise our faith, in spiri­tuall and heauenlie meditations.

We will make our entrance first with Saint Cyrill, whoe de­bating with himselfe vppon the incomparable authoritie and power giuen to the Apostles for remission of sinnes, standeth first as in contention with him selfe, and with Christs words, how it maie be, that they being but men, should forgiue the sinnes of our soules, being sure of this, that it is the propertie onelie of the true & liuing god to assoile vs of our sinnes, against whom onlie all sins be properlie committed. And therfore being not of stomake, as men be now a daies, to denie that, which Christes words so plainelie do import, he made answere, that the Apo­stles were in deed deified, and made, as you would saie, partakers Cap. 50. l. 12. in Io [...] interpre. Trapezun. of Gods nature to worke Gods owne office in the world. Qua igitur ratione (saieth he) diuinae naturae dignitatem ac pote­statem discipulis suis saluator largitus est? Quia certè absur­dum non est peccata remitti posse ab illis, qui Spiritum san­ctum in seipsis habeant. Nam cùm ipsi remmittunt aut deti­nent, spiritus qui habitat in eis, remittit & detines. By [Page 68] what meanes did our Sauiour giue vnto the Apostles the prehe­minence and power of Gods owne nature? Surelie because it agreeth verie well, that they should rimit mans sins, that haue in themselues the holie Ghost. For when they assoile or retaine sins, it is the holie spirit that dwelleth in them, which by their ministery doth remit or retaine sins. Thus he. I maruell not now whie this same father termeth the Apostles sometimes protecto­res & curatores animarum & corporum, the protectors & cu­rers both of bodies & soules: it is not strange whie S. Ambrose should call the order of priestood, Ordinem [...]: Neither that he should terme, Officium Sacerdotis, munus S. S. The Lib. 6. cont. Jul. De Sacerd. Priests office, to be the function of the holie Ghost. No, I doe not wonder at some of our forefathers, that, in the admi­ration of Gods Maiestic, which they same to be so present in the execution of so high in office, they did simplie and plainely terme the principall Pastours of the Church halfe Gods, and not meere men: not hauing respect to their persons, which be compassed with infirmities as other the sinfull sort of people in the world be, but casting eie vpward to the holie and excellent function, which they practised by the spirit of God, which dwelleth in them, and deifieth their persons, to make them of habilitie to exercise the workes of God.

Saint Cyrill is farre from that blasphemie, to saie that the Apostles were in deede deified, and made partakers of Gods nature, to worke Gods owne office in the world. For, ascribing to God that which is pro­per to him, & incommunicable to anie meere crea­ture, he maketh this obiection: how our sauiour did graunt to his disciples the dignitie & power of his diuine nature: & an­swereth, that they were only made ministers & instru­ments In Ioh. Ho. 25. of the holy ghost, to expresse his power in remit­ting sinnes, by baptisme, and repentance: whereof S. Chrysostome also saieth vpon the same text, that the Priest giueth onelie his tongue, and his hand, but the Fa­ther, the sonne, and the holie Ghost doth all things in this case. I will rehearse the whole saying of Cyrillus, that his iudgement maie more fullie appeare vpon this text. [Page 69] Et certè solius veri Dei est, &c. And suerlie it pertaineth to the onelie true God, that he is able to loose men from their sinnes. For to what other person is it lawfull, to deliuer the transgressors of the law from sinne, but to the author of the law him-selfe? for so in mennes affaires we see it to be done. For no man without punishment doth reprooue the lawes of Kings, but the Kinges them-selues, in whome the crime of transgression hath no place. For it is wiselie said, that he is im­plous, which shall saie to a King, thou doest vniustlie. By what meanes then did our Sauiour graunt to his disciples the dig­nitie and power of the diuine nature? because trulie it is not absurde, that sinnes may be remitted by them, which haue the holie ghost in them-selues. For when they remit or retaine, the spirit which dwelleth in them, remitteth or retaineth by them. And that shalbe by them, as I thinke, by two meanes: first by baptisme, and then by repeatence: for either they induce men that beleeve, and are approoued for holines of life, vnto baptisme, and diligentlie expill from them that are vnwor­thie; or where the children of the Church doe offend, they re­buke them indeede, and pardon them that repent. As Paul did once commit the fornicator among the Corinthians, vnto the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit might be saued, and re­ceiued him againe, lest he should be drowned with greater sorrowe. Therefore when the spirit of Christ, dwelling in men, performeth the worke of the true God, how shall he not be God by nature, which naturallie possesseth the power and digni­tie of the diuine nature, when he hath so excellent authority vpon the lawe of God. This last argument of Saint Cy­rill, by which he prooueth against the Macidonian here­tikes, that the holie Ghost is verie God, declareth that he neuer meant to deifie Priests, with the same autho­rity that is proper to god, by which it should follow, that the holie Ghost were not God, if men had that autho­rity of remitting sin, that god hath: wherefore it follow­eth, that men are onely instruments by which the holie ghost speaketh & declareth his own will of remission of sins, & not that the holie Ghost is subiect to the Censure [Page 70] of man, which were intollerable blasphemie. And therefore if the same father did anie where cal the mi­nisters of the Church, protectours an̄d curers both of bodies and soules, it cannot be drawne to anie such meaning, as though they were in deede deified, and made, as you would saie, partakers of Gods nature, to worke Gods owne office in the world, but the mini­sters of God, appointed to serue for the eternall saluation of the Elect, both in bodie and soule. Their order is diuine, and they exercise the office of the holie ghost, as S. Ambrose saith, but yet so, that no­thing is communicated vnto man, that is proper to God. Who they were that did simplie and plainlie tearme the principall Pastours of the Church halfe gods, & not meere men, you do not expresse: perhaps you meane the Author of that blasphemous verse, wri­ten to the the Pope, and by him not refused, Nec Deus es, nec homo, quasi neuter es inter vtrumque. Thou art nei­ther god nor man, but a neuter between both. I finde in the scripture, that ciuil princes are called not halfe Gods, but whole Gods, because they execute some parte of Gods authoritie among men. Yet he that shall saie their persons̄ are therebie deified, might well be ac­counted a most blaspemous flatterer. We may now see, out of what pudle, the toades of the familie of Loue are crept, that vpon pretence of the spirit of god dwel­ling in men, moste blasphemouslie affirme, that it deifieth their persons, to make them of abilitie to ex­ercise the workes of God. whereas the power of remit­ting of sinnes, is graunted euen to wicked Priestes, in which the holie Ghost dwelleth not, although he hath bestowed his giftes vpon them, to make them suffici­ent in knowledge and vtterance to preach the gospell.

But Saint Ambrose helpeth our matter with a long discourse. all I will not now reporte: for the present purpose, thus he saith, disputing against the Nouarians, for the assertion of Priestly Cap. 2. l. 1. De poen. dignitie in assoyling our sinnes: Qui Spiritum sanctum accipit, [Page 71] sic enim scriptum est: Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorum re­miseritis peccata, remittuntur eis, & quorum retinueritis, re­tenta sunt. Ergo qui soluere peccatum non potest, non habet Spiritum sanctum. Munus spiritus sancti est officium sacer­dotis, ius autem spiritus sancti in soluendis ligandis que crimi­nib. est. He thatreceiueth the holy ghost (his meaning is in the taking of orders) receiueth therewith the power to binde and loose. For so is it written, Receiue you the holie Ghost: whose sinnes you doe forgiue, they are forgiuen them, whose sinnes you doe reseine, they are reteined. Therefore they which can­not forgiue mens offences, they haue not the holie ghost (that is to saie, they haue not the gift of the holie Ghost, which is giuen to the officers for their execution of their function in Christes behalfe) for the gift of the holie Ghost is the office of the priest: and proper right of remission of sinnes standeth in the holie Ghost. Thus wrote Saint Ambrose against the heretikes of his time, and both toucheth and ouer ouercommeth all the falsehoode of our daies, against the minesterie of man, which so ioyneth Gods spirit in all these diuine functions, that it cannot, with­out blasphemie and special contempt of God, be contemned.

S. Ambr. helpeth your matter neuera whit, if you be not content with a mynistery, a seruise, a power subiect to the wil of God. But you wil be halfe gods, and more then men: you wil haue your persons deified, you wilbe able to exercise the proper works of God. For S. Ambr. reasoneth against the Nouatians, which would take vpō them to binde them that were fallen, but would not loose them, nor receue them againe into the Church vpon their repētance: signifying that the power of the one is as wel graunted to the Church, as of the other, & that it was as proper to God to reteine sinnes, as it was to forgiue them: so that if they renounced the one, they must renounce the other also, by the same reason: for it is the proper right of the holie ghost, to doe the one as well as the other. And the Nouatian heretikes were found transgressours of Gods commaundement, who willeth the repentant to be loosed, as well as the [Page 72] obstinate offender to be bound. Ambrose therefore sayeth nothing for the deifying of mens persons, but for the executing of gods commaundement of mercy, as well as of iustice.

But I remember Saint Augustine, the Churches great Captaine against her aduersaries of those daies, did euer in Contra pe­lagianes, Manicheos, & Donatist. passim. disputation against the Pelagians and other like enemies of faith, make the greatest accoumpt of victorie, and their ouerthrow, when they were driuen to denie that, which euer before had beene not onelie acknowledged of all men for trueth, but also had beene vsed as a graunted trueth, ground, and principle, for the notable euidence thereof, to the impug­ning of other falsehoodes. For there can be no doubt, but that which our holie Fathers did vse without controlling and contradiction euen of their aduersaries, to impugne their aduersaries withall, there is no doubt, but that it hath in it selfe exceeding much light and force of trueth, as a thing ha­uing so litle neede of proofe, that it may be made and taken for a probation of other matters that be doubtefull and vn­certaine. The matter which we haue now in hand is of that sort. For the authoritie and power practized of priests in the vertue of the holie Ghost, hath euer beene in it selfe bòth so plaine and so firme, that the holie fathers haue vsed it, as a ground, to prooue against heretikes of Eunomius, and Macedonius sectc, the Godhheade of the holie Ghost, the third person in Trinitie.

You remember Saint Augustine, but you can rehearse nothing that he saith touching this matter, to confirme the deifying of your poeticall Popish halfe gods, the Popish Faunes, and Satyres, saue onelie the generall argument of vniuersall consent, and practize: which if it be denyed you, you are at a stale, til you can prooue it. You saide that priests as deified persons, halfe Gods, not meere men, had abilitie to exercise the proper workes of God. For otherwise the lawfull pow­er, and practize of remitting sinnes, is so sufficientlie authorized by the words of the Gospel, that it neede [Page 73] not be vnderproped, with Saint Augustines gene­rall argument, wherein yet he neuer placed so great force, as you affirme of him.

S. Bernard is too young, good man, to name amongst these olde fathers of our new Church, els, perdie, with the vertuous, his wordes sound full sweetelie. Thus saith he to prooue the equa­litie Serm. 1. Pentecost. of the holie Ghost with the Father and the sonne: Sicut in nobis interpellas pro nobis, ita a in patre: & delicta donat­cum ipso Patre: & vt omnino scias, quòd remissionem pec­catorum spiritus sanctus operatur, audi, quod aliquando audierunt Apostoli: Accipite Spiritum sanctum: quo­rum remiserit is peccata, remittuntur eis. In English thus: Like as in vs he maketh sute for vs, so in the father he pardo­neth sinnes with the father: and that thou maiest vnderstande, that the holy Ghost worketh remission of sinnes, hear that which she Apostles once heard: Receiue you the holie Ghost: whose sins you doe forgiue, they are forgiuen. Thus he. And Saint Ambrose his auncient, to prooue the holie Ghost to be God, al­ledgeth, that he remitteth sins by the priests ministerie, which he could not in any wise doe, if he were not in all pointes equall and omnipotent God with the father and sonne: Let vs see, (saith he) Whether the holie Ghost doth pardon sinnes: and he answereth him-selfe thus: Sedhinc dubitari non potest: cùm ipse Dominus dixerit, Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorum re­miseritis Lib. 3. de Sp. S. Cap. 19. peccata, remittuntur: ecce quia per spiritum sanctum peccata donantur, homines autem in remissionem peccatoris ministerium suum exhibent, non ius alicuius potestatis exer­cent. It is thus much to saie: There can be no doubt thereof, seeing our Lord saide, Receiue you the holie Ghost: whose sinnes you doe forgiue, they shalbe forgiuen: lookeye, that by the holie Ghost sinnes be forgiuen: men doe but exercise their seruice and ministerie, and claime not the right of power and principa­litie therein. And Saine Basill vpon this assured ground Lib. 5. frameth in full forme against Eunomius this argument: Do­minus sanctis Apostolis insufflans, inquit, Accipite spiritum sanctum: quorumcunque dimittetis peccata, dimittentur eis: si­ergo nullius est peccata dimittere, nisi solius Dei, dimittit au­tem [Page 74] spiritus sanctus per Apostolos: Deus ergo spiritus sanctus. Our lord breathing on the Apostles, said, take ye the holy ghost: for whose sinnes soeuer you shall pardon, they be pardoned: therefore if it be the onelie proprietie of God to forgiue sinnes, and the holie Ghost so doth by the Apostles: Ergo, the holie Ghost is truelie God.

Saint Bernarde is not to be despised for his youth, where he agreeth with the most auncient and eternall truth, reuealed in the holie scriptures. His purpose is to prooue the equallity of the holy ghost with the father and the sonne, and prooueth it by his effects, because he forgiueth sinnes, which is proper to God. His say­ing, Hom. de Pentecost. 1. is mangled by you, I know not for what purpose, except you follow some Iesuites di­ctates, more then your owne reading. But in trueth, there is nothing which can prooue the deification of priests, but contrariwise, that it is the holie Ghost that properlie remitteth sinnes, of whose pleasure, according to the holie scriptures, the priestes are but interpreters and reporters.

As for the saying of Saint Ambrose, is flat against you, if you had not falsified it in translation. For you traslate, Exhibent ministerium, non ius alicuius potestatis exercent, They doe but exercise their seruice and ministerie, and claime not the right of power and principallitie. Where you should saie; men doe exhibit or yeald their ministerie or seruise, they exercise not the right of any power. And he ad­deth a reason which you omit. Ne (que) enim in suo, sed in pa­tris, & filii, &. SS. nomine peccata dimittuntur. Isti rogant, di­uinitas donat: humanum enim obsequium, sed munificentia su­pernae est potestatis. For sins are not forgiuen in their name, but in the name of the father, and of the sonne, & of the holie Ghost. These men do intreate, the godhead doth graunt: for the seruice is mans, but the bowntiful gift is of the highest power. Saint Basill also, if his wholl saying were recited, would appeare more manifest against you, as he ma­keth, vpon your owne report, no shew at all for you. [Page 75] His wordes are these against Eunomius. Lib. 5. Cap. 3. [...], &c. It is proper to God to for­giue sinnes, he him-selfe affirming the same: I am he which put­teth away thy sinnes: if your sinnes were as purple, I will make them as white as snow, and if they were as scarlet, I will make them as white as woll. Afterward when God, the sonne of God, Iesus forgiueth sinnes to the man sicke of the palsie, saying, sonne, thy sinnes are forgiuen thee, whereupon he was thought to blaspheme of the Iewes, which knew not that he was God, saying: that this man blasphemeth, for it perteineth to none to forgiue sinnes, but to god alone. But our Lord breathing vpon his holie Apostles said, receiue the holie ghost: whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen to them. If therfore it perteineth to none to forgiue sinnes (as it doth not) but onelie to God, and the holy ghost by the Apostles forgiueth, then the holy ghost is God, and of the same efficacie and power with the father and the sonne. In this saying of Saint Basil, you haue not onelie omitted the former parte, which ascribeth the power of forgiuing of sinnes as proper to God, but also haue gelded out these wordes, in that parte you al­ledge, both in your latine and English translation ( [...]) as in deede it is not) of what purpose, let the in­different reader iudge.

Thus you perceiue that the ground of this our faith and as­sertion was of olde accounted so sure, that it was a singular aide and for tresse of faith against the vnfaithfull attemptes of most wicked persons in diuerse ages. The onelie practize that priests vse, by the Sacrament of penance to pardon sinnes, was a full proofe that the holie ghost was God, by whose authoritie and proper power, they did alwaies since Christs word was spo­ken, remitte the same. The which beeing true (as it cannot be false, that is so agreeable both to scriptures and to all our fa­thers faith) the heresy of our time must needes directly impugne the vertue and power of Gods owne spirit. For as the proofe of mans ministerie in this foresaid function induceth the true and euerlasting Godhead of the holy ghost, by whome they practize that power, so the denial thereof, and robberie of priesthoode of [Page 76] this their moste iust claime, doth directlie spoile God of his ho­nour, and of the euerlasting right that he hath in remission of sinnes. So whiles these goodmen seeke to abase man vniustlie, they blaspheme God highlie, and together with mans ministerie, they bring vnto vtter contempt Gods owne authoritie.

Your deifying of popish priests, doth altogether weaken the force of that argument, which our fathers vsed a­gainst the auncient heretikes, to prooue the diuinitie of the holie Ghost. For it were an easie matter for Eunomius, Macedonius, or anie other heretike, that was against his godhead, to replie, that by ministerie of God, the holie Ghost might as properlie forgiue sinnes, as Priestes do by the ministerie of Christ, and of the holie ghost: yea so farre forth, as thereby they are made halfe Gods, yea deified, and made Gods in deede. But you vtter repugnancie, when you saie, that, by Gods authoritie and proper power, Priestes do forgiue sinnes. Where you make it not proper to God, which is common to others with him. Therefore you should speake more properlie to saie, that God the holy ghost by his owne authoritie and power proper to the deitie, doth forgiue sinnes in their ministery, & men thereto authorized, do no more, in proper speach and sense, but testifie and declare what God doth: for which de­claration, and testification, seeing they are the em­bassadours and messengers of God vnto the world, to declare his pleasure of reconciliation or condemnati­on, they are said to forgiue sinnes, or to retaine them which they do not properlie, but pronounce the sentence of God concerning the remission or re­tention of mens sinnes. And that this was the meaning of the Auncient fathers concerning the authoritie and power of Gods ministers, it is moste manifest by this argument, whereby they choke the enuier of the holie ghostes diuinitie: from which you cutte of all the sinnewes and force it hath to prooue it, when you communicate to men, [Page 77] that which is proper to God, and aduance men aboue the nature of meere men, when you deifie their per­sons, by meanes of the giftes of the holie Ghost giuen to them, and make them of abilitie to exercise the pro­per workes of God. As for the deniall and robberie that you ascribe, I can not tell to what heretikes of this time, we detest as much as ye, not seeking to a­base man beneath the nature and condition of man, norseeking to extoll him, by robbing God of his glo­rie, and proper effects, to magnifie menne, to deifie the persoas of men, as you do in plaine termes. Where­by it is manifest we are as far from blaspheming god, or making mans ministerie contemptible, which he exerciseth in the name of God, as you are from sobri­etie thus to iudge, if your meaning be of vs, or thus to reason, if you would defend the argument of the auncient fathers against the auncient heretikes.

But for the readersease, and more light of our cause, I ioyne thus in argument with them againe, vpon the second part of Christes owne wordes and action had in the authorizing of his Apostles: Whatsoeuer the holie Ghost maie doe in this case by the proper power of his Godhead, that may the Apostles and Priestcs do by seruice and ministerie through the pow­er of the holie Ghost: But the holie Ghost properlie and right­lie doth remit sinnes: Therefore the Apostles doe right­lie remit sinnes by their ministerie in the said holie Ghost. All partes of this conclusion stand vpright, and feare no falsehood: they be guarded on euerie side by Christes action, by wordes of scripture, by the Doctors plain warrant, and by all reason. With all which, whosoeuer is not contented, but will needes extinguere spiritum, extinguish Gods spirit, and violent­lie take from the Church the greatest comfort of all mans life, 1. Thes. [...] that in this infirmitie of our flesh, standeth in moste hope by his gift in remission of sinnes, for which especiall cause the said spirit was mercifullie breathed vpon the Apostles peculi­arly, before the mare common sending of the same from heauen aboue. If all this reason and iust demonstration of trueth will [Page 78] not serue them, I will charge them with this graue conclusion of S. Augustine, vttered partlie against the Nouatians, & especallie against the desperate, that would not seeke for Gods mercie by the Churches ministerie in the sacrament of penance. To be briefe I will speake it in English. Whosoeuer he be Cap. 83. Enchir. that beleeueth no: mans sinnes to be remitted in Gods Church, and therefore despiseth the bountifulnes of God inso mightie a worke, if he in that obstinate minde continue til his liues end, he is guiltie of sinne against the holie Ghost, in which holy ghost Christ remitteth sinnes.

I doe greatlie commend you, that you haue such re­gard of the readers ease, and it seemeth you haue good confidence of your cause, that you flie not the light of Logicall iudgement, by which the trueth shall more plainelie appeere to all sortes of men, then by anie dis­courses at large, vnder which many great errors may be often couered, vnder sophistical cloudes & ambiguity of words, which in a briefe syllogisme is soone and easi­lie espied. To answere your argument therefore, First I distinguish of your Maior: for if you meane by seruice and ministerie, the expressing and declaring of the will and pleasure of the holy ghost, wherunto they are authori­zed, I acknowledge your Maior proposition to be true: whatsoeuer the holie Ghost maie doe in this case, by the pro­per power of his godhead, that maie the Apostles and Priestes doe by seruice & ministerie through the power of the holie Ghost. But if you meane by seruice and ministerie, that the proper power of God is communicated to men, I denie your Maior, as false, and absurde. For the A­postles and Priests maie not by seruice and ministerie, through the power of the holie Ghost, forgiue sinnes properlie, which the holie ghost by proper power of his godhead may doe: for this is a proper power not com municable vnto any creature, but a declaration of the will of him that hath such power, is the ministeriall au­thoritie, by which men forgiue sinnes. Secondlie I an­swere, that your conclusion is deceitfull. For your [Page 79] Minor, Extreame, or Assumption is not perfectlie ioyned with your Maior or Proposition in the conclusion. For your Minor is, that the holie ghost properly & rightlie doth remit sinnes. So your conclusion should be, there­fore the Apostles properlie and rightlie doe, remit sinnes by their ministerie: in stead of which word pro­perlie, you craftelie conueigh in the worde truelie: so your wholl syllogisme, is a paralogisme, and may law­fully be denied. Notwithstanding your conclusion, as it is, we do graunt, that the Apostles do rightlie and true­ly remit sinnes, by their ministery in the holie ghost: but as it should be inferred vpon your premises, we de­nie it, which cannot be gathered, but vpon a false Ma­ior. Whatsoeuer the holie ghost may doe properlie, in remitting sinnes, the Apostles may do by ministerie, as properlie. As for the comfort of mans life, taken away, by denying sinnes to be properlie forgiuen by Priestes, is a fond cauill, and meere slaunder. For we acknow­ledge it a singular comfort of mans life, that God hath appointed men, by their ministerie, to assure vs of his fauour, and reconciliation in the remission of oursins. And we beleeue with Saint Augustine that sinnes are forgiuen in Gods Church vpon earth, acknowledge­ing the bountefullnes of God in so mightie a worke, a­nathematizing and detesting the Nouatians, and all other heretikes, that obstinatelie and willfullie main­teine the contrarie.

THE FOVRTH CHAP.

[Page 80]

HOw the priestes of Christes Church haue defended this right and calling for remission of sinnes, as wel by the commission that Christ first receiued of his father, and after­ward bestowed vpon them, as by the assured receiuing of the spi rit of god from Christes blessed breath to the same and & pur­pose, I haue hitherto declared at large. Now the third part of the place before alledged out of S. Iohns gospel, concerneth the words of Christes promis and warrant made vnto his Apostles: out of which wordes distinctly vttered we must see what force may be further added vnto our Catholike assertion, for the pristes autho rity to remit and retaine sinnes. And surely if none of the former wordes of commission, nor any other mean or mention had beene made of the holy ghostes assistaunce herein, these onlie woordes vpon the credit that faithful men owe to Christ, had bin suffi­cient to haue assured the world of the authoritie of priesthood, & of the wholl cause that now is called in controuersie. For what can be said either of god or man more properlie or more playnlie then this: whose sinnes you shal forgiue, they be forgi­uen: whose sinnes you shal retaine, they be retained? I must needes heree complaine of these vnfaithful and vnhappie times, that in the continuall lothsome bragges of the scripture, and Gods word, in perpetuall tossing and tumbling of the booke of the Bible, in endlesse contention and disputation of most high mysteries in them contained, haue wholie conuerted the cleerest and onely vndoubted meaning of such places specially, as moste touch the verie life and saluation of all mankinde, and which be of all other thinges in termes of scripture most open and eui­dent, sull foolishlie and vnlearnedlie haue both the simple sort handled Gods word, as in such grosse ignorance of al thinges they needes must, and their new procured Masters also, in not much more knowledge and farre passing pride can not otherwise do, but whilest they plaie them selues in things of smaler im­portance, they are to be laughed at, rather then lamented: but if the deuil driue them farther, as he lightlie doth, wherere he se quietlie possesseth, and cause them to dallie, and delude the pla­ces of scripture, that principally concerne the state and saluation of vs al then we must with al force resist, lest we leese the fruite [Page 81] and good of our Christianitie. What can be of higher impor­tance in the world, or touch our soules and saluation so neere, as the holie sacraments of Christ Church, by which grace and mercy through gods appointment be procured? & yet these bles­sed fountains especiallie euen these waters springing euerla­stingly to our life and comfort, haue these men most infected.

You fare as though we denied all power of remit­ting or retaining of sinnes: whereas we do moste glad­lie imbrace all such power as Christ hath giuen vs, which we must so take, as it be not dishonourable to the godhead, that man should exercise that which is proper to God him-selfe. The power therefore we graunt, but what manner of power this is, we must inquire, whether an absolute power for priests at their pleasure (as you speake afterward in this Chap­ter) Sect. 6. to forgiue sinnes properlie, or a power to declare the same to be forgiuen according to the pleasure of God, to them that repent and beleeue the Gospell: and also, whether this power is to be exercised by preaching the Ghospel, or by auricular confession. You spend manie words therefore in vaine, to prooue the power and authoritie, whereof we stand in no contro­uersie with you: but what manner of power this is, and by what meanes it is to be exercised. As for the loth­some bragges of the scripture, and Gods word in per­petuall tossing and tumbling of the bookes of the Bi­ble, doe argue, that you complaine of, sauoreth not of the spirit of Christ, which willeth the scriptures to be searched, as those which beare witnes of him. To glory in the truth of Gods word contained in his holie scrip­tures, is no vaine bragging, but such as Christians ought moste of all to delight in. The rest of your rai­ling I passe ouer, as vnworthie anie answere, when, whatsoeuer you prate in generall, shalbe founde false in speciall, when you come to prooue the particu­lers.

In the institution of Sacraments Christs wordes were euer [Page 82] plaine without colour or figure, as wordes that worke with sin­gular efficacie, grace and vertue, and therewith giue to the ministers iust authoritie for the execution of Christes meaning: which could not be done in figuratiue speaches and parables without infinit error. Did God speake parables when he insti­tuted the solemnitie of so manie sacrifices in the olde lawe? when he signified vnto Moses and Aaron euerie seuerall sorte of beast or creature with their sexe & kind & all the ceremonie thereunto belonging? Did he speake parables, when the sacra­ment of the lambe was to be instituted? Did he speake by figure Exod. 12. to Abraham, when he commaunded him to circumcise the male of euerie of his people? Did he speake by figure, when he institu­ted Gen. 17. Ex. 35. the Sabbath? Did he, to be breefe, euer in the olde lawe speake one thing, and meane another, when anie externall worke by the charge of his worde was to be practized for euer a­mongest the people? In common speach, in prophecying, in prea­ching, in similitudes, in examples vttered for the declaration of manie thinges, and for grace and varietie of talke, to stirre vp mans industrie in searching the secretes of the trueth, there figures of all sortes be vsed: but where, by externall wordes and actions, force of inward grace must be procured, or perpe­tuall vsages in the Church are in outward signes and elements to be instituted, or commission of great matters graunted, or charge of singular waight giuen to seruants in absense of their Masters, in all such cases plaine speaking by Gods prouidence was euer vsed, and by all reason must be vsed, or ells man fall­ing into error in the execution of his commission, is sufficient­lie to be excused, because he could not attaine to the meaning of his Masters wordes. And yet the wicked of these daies, haue found such light in scripture, that they haue made our Master Christ to speake one thing and meane the contrarie, in the very instiution of Sacraments, and haue found figures to delude & deseat the world of the necessarie fruit of them al.

Since you were a Papist, you neuer vttered a more fase proposition, that in the institution of Sacraments Christs wordes were euer plaine and without colour or figure: nor yet a more foolish and vnlearnd assertion. For [Page 83] you oppose figure to plainenes and colorablenes. As for your Metaphor of colour, I will not meddle with it: but if you meane thereby, as it is commonlie taken for dissimulation, I protest that Christ in no speach euer vsed anie. As for plainenes, he sought, when he vsed figures, or rhetorical colours. Therefore as I graunt, that in institution of Sacraments, Christs wordes were euer plaine, so Ivtterlie denie, that in in­stitution of sacraments Christes wordes were neuer fi­guratiue: and I holde him for a verie either ignorant, or impudent person, that dare affirme the contrarie. That the wordes of Christ could not worke with sin­gular efficacie grace and vertue, and therewith giue to the ministers iust authoritie, for the execution of Christs meaning, being vttered in figuratiue speaches & parables, without infinite error, is a brutish affirma­tion, as afterward I wil shewe, by manie particular ex­amples. In the meane time, that which commeth neare to this cause, what boie that learneth Moselanes figures will denie, that these speaches, of binding, of loosing, of the keies, of the kingdome of heauen, of Peter being a rocke, or stone, on which the Church is builded, are figura­tiue speaches and parables, meaning not proper bin­ding, loosing, keies, Rocke, or building, but parables, or thinges like vnto those? But against this you obiect, with interrogation, did God speake parables, when he in­stituted the solemnitie of so manie sacrifices, &c? Yea veri­lie, then did he moste of all speake parables. For then he signified, that reconciliation was onelie by Christs death, whereof all these sacrifices were parables, si­militudes and figures, as the Apostle declareth, Heb. 9. verse 9. in plaine wordes. And yet it followeth not, that euerie word was figuratiue or parabolicall, which he vsed in the institution of euerie sacrifice, and there­fore the seuerall sorte of the beast or creature, with the sexe and kinde, and other partes of the ceremonie thereto belonging, might be in proper tearmes, with­out [Page 84] iustifying of that monstrous paradox, that no figu­ratiue speaches were vsed in the institution of sacra­ments, or that in the institution of sacraments, Christs wordes were euer without figure. But you vrge vs farther, asking, whether he did speake parables, when the sa­crament of the Lambe was to be instituted? I hope you plaie not the lad, to trifle about the distinction of parables and figures: but you meane that he vsed no figuratiue speaches, as your first proposition was. I answer you, he did, and that doe I plainelie prooue when he said, the Lambe so taken, prepared, and eaten with haste, is the Ex. 12. 11. Lordes passeouer, where indeede it was a sacrament, and signe thereof, and not the Lordes passeouer, in proper speach. Moses also reporting the Lords institution, biddeth the people to slaie the passeouer, and the people are willed to teach their yonge children, ignorant of Ex. 12. 21. the end and vse thereof, that it is the Lordes passeouer, and so diuerse times both in the 12. and 13. Chapters Ex. 12. 27. it is repeated, that the lambe so slaine, is the passeouer of the Lord. Therefore it is plaine, that God did vse figuratiue speach in the institution of the Sacrament of the Lambe, euen when he did teach the people the vse and end thereof: not to obscure the mysterie, but by similitude of passing ouer their houses, where the posts were sprinckled with the blood, more plainelie to expresse and set forth the same.

You aske the third time, whether God did speake by fi­gure to Abraham, when he commaunded him to circumcise the male of euerie one of his people, Gen. 17? I answere you, yea, he did speake by figure. For when he begane to speake of that matter ver. 10. He said, this is my couenant betweene me and you, and betweene thy seed after the, which ye shal keepe: that euerie male among you be circumcised. Which that you should not doubt to be a figure, in the next verse following he expoundeth it saying: that circumcisi­on shalbe a signe of the couenant that is betweene me and you, And verse 13. he saith, so shall my couenant be in your [Page 85] flesh, for a perpetuall couenant. And in the 14. verse, the soule of the vncircumcised male, shalbe rooted out from his peo­ple, because (saith he) he hath transgressed or made void my couenant. The like demaund you make of the institution of the Sabbaoth, which I knowe not whether you num­ber among the sacraments or no. In Gen. 2. where it is said, that God rested from all his worke, which he had made, there is a figure, because he ceased onelie from creati­on, but not from gouernment and preseruation of those thinges which he hath made. And in the 35. of Exod. whereunto you send vs, if you take the wordes of the law, without anie figure ( whosoeuer shall do anie worke on the Sabboth day, shal die the death) you condemne a great manie, whome our sauionr Christ doth excuse, not onelie from punishment of death, but euen from breach of the cōmaundement, Luke 13. & 14. Mat. 12.

To your last question I answere, that he neuer dis­sembled in the olde lawe, or the new: but if you vn­derstand, by speaking on thing and meaning an other, figu­ratiue speaches, I saie he often vsed them, when anie externall worke was to be practized for euer by charge of his worde among the people, as is moste euident in the sacramentes of circumcision and the passeouer: therefore your distinction is falsc, & friuolous; for God hath vsed figuratiue speaches often times, in the insti­tution of the sacraments, not to deceiue the people, that they should take one thing for an other, but the better to expresse the vertue and effect of them, ac­cording to the capacitie of the people. As in calling the Lambe the pascal, they were more liuely put in minde, both of the temporall benifit, and passing ouer, and also of their spirituall deliuerance. When circumcision is called the couenant, whereof it was a signe, the people were admonished, what was the spirituall meaning thereof, namelie, that they should cut of the olde man with all concupiscences of the flesh, which God re­quireth of all them, that shall accept him for their Fa­ther [Page 86] and mercisull redemer.

There were some of olde that droue the mysteries of Christs incarnation and speaches that prooue his equalitie with his Father in Godhead, to figuratiue phrases, and sought for the defence of their folie the like phrases in other of Christes talkes but neuer none were comparable in this kinde to our new de­uisers. For by the face and crake of gods word they haue brought to passe amongst fooles, that no one text of scripture which per­taineth to anie of the Sacramentes can haue his meaning, and such sense as the the verie word beareth, and the world hath euer taken and confirued of it. The blessed and moste soue­raigne The B. Sacr. of the altar. sacrament of the altar, instituted in a solemne action, in moste carefull manner, amongst his moste secret seruants, the last almoste of all his workes in earth, in moste euident tearmes, with sore charge giuen to the Apostles of the continuance of his euerlasting memorie in the same, yet must Mat. 26. meane nothing lesse, then that which our Master made it, and must by a thousand figures be wrasted and writhen to what you list & like, so that is be not to importe that, which our Ma­ster said it did, and the Church hath euer beleeued of the same. Wordes of the like solemnitie were vsed for the ordering of the holie vse of Baptisme, to be done, as the worde doth also import, Baptisme. necessarilie in the externall element of water, with certaine most holie prescribed wordes, vnder paine and perill of euerla­sting perishing to the neglecters thereof: yet in such plainnes figures are found out by these pernicious conueiers, that neither water is counted so much necessary, nor the wordes of such strength, but that one of these malapert fellowes was bolde to Brentius contra Pe­trum á Solo write, that it was much superstition to binde the Church to the same, as to the prescribed wordes of art Magike, sorcerie, and witchcrafie. Of the honourable act and sacrament of extream vnction, what can be said with more euidence of wordes then is Extreame vnction. Cap. 5. spoken of the holie Apostle Saint Iames? If any man be sicke amongst you, let him cal for the Priests of the Church, and let them annoynt him with oile: and yet so litle mat­ter these men make of the Apostles spirit, word, and writing, that they haue condemned the whole vse thereof as superstitious, not [Page 87] helping them-selues by figures, but by openforce. Grace is Holle or­ders. 1. Tim. 4. Matrimony giuen to Timothie, as in a sacrament, when he toke orders of Paull: the Apostle saith so much in expresse tearmes: yet this grace and the whole sacrament of orders, these holie men reiect. Matrimonie to S. Paule is a great sacrament, and of our ministers not misliked, so faire as concerneth their flesh­lie Eph. 5. coniunction, which they onelie lust after: but grace they list not receiue thereby, lest it should be a sacrament, where­by the vnitie of Christ and his spouse the Church, which in no sauce they can abide, might be fullie represented and sig­nified.

It is one thing ro drawe violentlie al things expres­sed in the scriptures vnto alligories & other figuratiue speaches, an other thing not to acknowledge any fi­gures which yet be so vsuall in the institution of sacra­mēts. The face & crake of gods word, with the sequele thereof, that you speake of, so long as it resteth vpon your owne cracked credit, shalbe litle regarded by any wise man. But to examine the examples you bring, to iustifie your saying: first you begin with the Lords supper, where you saie, it was instituted in most euident tearmes. Wherebie you meane termes properlie vsed, and with­out figure, as though you had forgotten the wordes of our sauiour Christ, perteining to the institution of the cuppe, This cup is the new testament in my blood, Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Where I maruell whether you haue the face to saie, the wordes are not figuratiue which he vsed, or whether you will saie, the Euangelist and Apostle did expresse the words of Christ in more obscure tearmes then he spake them, or whether there be not the same sense of these figuratiue wordes, This cup is the new testa­ment in my blood, and those other reported by the other Euangelists, This is my blood. In saying we wold haue the words of our Sauiour Christ meane nothing lesse then the sacrament that he made it, you slaunder vs without mea­sure or cause. For we would haue the words of our Sa­uiour meane nothing more, nor lesse, but euen alto­gether [Page 88] as much as our sauiour Christ did meane to teach vs by them. And the hyperbolic all lie of a thou­sand figures, by which we should wrest them, may in respect of greater number of figures you make in your grosse and carnall exposition, be iustified of you, rather then of vs, whose interpretation maketh but one figure, and one meaning, and that warranted by the wordes of diuerse of the most auncient and Catholike Doctors.

In the sacrament of baptisme, who make the external e­lement of water more necessary to be vsed? they that re quire water for the vse thereof, or els require that the external elemét be forborne, rather then that it should be chaunged into wine, milke, broth; or any othre more vile licour? of which kinde of questions & other mostrous cases your treatises of the sacraméts are ful. What Brentius hath written, I haue not to do to answer: yet it seemeth that the words of Brentius are wrested of you, to another meaning, rather then that he would haue them either altered, or the sense of them not re­teined. Wherein for any thing that I can see, he vari­eth not from the iudgement of your Master of the sen­tences & al sententionaries, which allow baptisme mi­nistred in the name of Christ, to be as good as in the name of the blessed trinitie. lib. 4. distinct. 3.

Of extreame vnction, we finde nothing in Saint Iames, but of a ceremonie of annointing with oyle, ioyned with the gift of healing, vsed in the primitiue Church, but not to be drawne into example of them that con­fesse, they are void of that mirarulous gift. The vse of which ceremonie, without the gift whereunto it was annexed, without any force or figure, we may be bolde to condemne, as superstitious. The grace that was gi­uen to Timothie, and the order of the Ecclesiasticall ministe­rie, distinct from the common people, we acknowledge and reteine. But that any gift of prophesie, or of any other grace, is dispensed by imposition of the handes of the [Page 89] presbyterie in these daies, as it was in the Apostles time, we cannot acknowledge, before we see it. for he that was voide of all spirituall giftes, before his taking of orders, remaineth as verie an asse among you, as he was before. Seeing matrimonie was instituted in paradise, before the fall of man, we cannot accoumpt it a sacrament of the new testament, by which we are assured of grace in the forgiuenes of sinnes: and yet we doe (howsoeuer it pleaseth you to raile vpon our mini­sters) acknowledge that great and excellent mysterie of the spirituall vnitie of Christ and his spouse the Church, which you saie in no sauce we can abide: as though wheresoeuer any mysterie is confessed to be, there muste needes follow a Sacrament of the new te­stament.

These fellowes therefore that dare be so bolde to disturbe all the orders and sacramentes of Gods Church, and to main­teine their phantasies, dare brust the sacred bandes of ex­presse scriptures in such pointes as doe directlie touch the wholl policie of our Christian common wealth and ordered waics of our saluation, euen in those which Christ moste carefullie left to be practized for the vse of his louing slocke, by the war­rant of wordes moste plaine, what shall we saie to such bold and impudent faces, that thus dare doe, and yet which I more mer­naile at, in this their vncurtesie, and most vnhonest dealing, will not sticke to crie and call vpon Gods worde, as though they did that by scripture, the contrarie whereof they expresslie finde in scripture. And truelie where they be not holpen by the verte wordes, vaine it shallbe for them to stand with vs, and with all our Fathers, and with the practize of all nations, and with the very expresse iudgement of the Church of God, it shal not boote them, I saie, in their darke ignorance & infinite pride to stand with vs, hauing so many helpes for the true meaning, and the expresse text of the worde for our selues and side.

He must needes haue an impudent face, and a wick­ed conscience, that so shamefullie slaundereth vs, to bereake the sacred bandes of the expresse scriptures, [Page 90] wherunto we seeme to attribute al credit: as though we denie any one word of expresse scripture, & do not af­firme, whatsoeuer the scripture doth affirme in ex­presse words, or denie, whatsoeuer the holy scripture in expresse words doth deny, according to such sense and meaning, as the scripture must haue, as it is agreable to it selfe in all places. The expresse wordes of scripture touching the Lords supper are these: that it is the body & blood of Christ: we confesse and beleeue as much. The expresse wordes of scripture concerning the Apostles authoritie, in pardoning or reteining sinnes, are, as they haue beene often alledged. we beleeue they, and their successours (of whome there is no expresse word) haue power to remit or reteine sins. The expresse words of scripture concerning the Lords supper are also, The rocke was Christ: we beleeue that the rocke was Christ. The cup is the new testament: we beleeue that the cup is the new testament. Also by expresse words, to the Apo­stles there is graunted power to binde and to loose. We confesse and beleeue that they haue power to binde and to loose. And yet I trust we may be bolde to saie, without breaking the sacred bondes of expresse scrip­tures: The rocke was not Christ, in nature of his hu­manitie and diuinitie, but a sacrament of Christ. The cup is not the new couenant it selfe, but that which is in the cup is an holie signe or seale thereof. The A­postles had no power giuen them, to binde men with chaines or coardes, nor to loose the chaines & coards of them, that be bound by other: but a spirituall au­thoritie, to binde and loose spirituallie. In like manner we doe not breake the sacred bandes of expresse scripture, when we affirme that the Sacramen­tall bread and wine are not by transsbustantiation turned into the naturall bodie and bloode of Christ, or the bodie and blood of Christ in the sacrament are not corporallie receiued, but spirituallie. For the contrarie of these we finde not expresselie in the [Page 91] scripture. So when we saie, the Apostles had not power to remit sinnes properlie, which is peculiar onelie to God, but to aslure men in Christes name, whose em­bassadours they were, of the forgiuenes of their sinnes by Christ, we breake no bandes of expresse scriptures. For we confesle the wordes according to their true meaning, agreeable with other places of scripture, that teach it to be peculiar to God, to remit sinnes pro­perlie. An embassadour is said to make peace or warre, when he declareth, according to his commission, his Princes determination of peace or warre. The Kinges Liuetenant hauing such commission, offereth or graun teth pardon to rebells or other offenders, where he doth onelie declare the kinges pleasure, in pardoning or releasing their offences. As for the Popish bragge of all our fathers, with the practize of all nations, and the verie expresse iudgement of the Church of God, to be for your assertion, how vaine it is, will easilie ap­peare, when you come to cite fathers, shew forth the practize of all nations, declare the iudgement of Gods Church, and when the contradictorie shall be manifestlie prooued and brough forth against you.

Sometimes where it may appeare that the wordes and out­warde face of scripture serue not our assertions so plainlie as the holie traditions of Christes Church doe, there they call vpon vs with infinite clamours to abide the iudgement of the word, which they would be thought to esteeme aboue all mans mea­ning. But whether would they now runne thinke you, where all our sacraments stand vpon euident words, & more then words, vpon the verie expresse & notorious action of Christ him selfe? al instituted sincerelie to be practized of the Church after his de parture hence: all commended in knowne termes of greatest & moste efficacie that could be, not by way of preaching, in which he vsed sometimes figures, not at such time as he vsed other then common knowne speach, but after his resurrection, when he now vttered no more parables as he did before, that such as Mat. 13. Marc. 4. faw, should not see, and such as were of vnderstanding, [Page 92] might not vnderstand, but did open vnto his dearest their senses, that they might vnderstand scriptures, and more care­fullie expressed his meaning for the instruction of his holie Disciples, to the better bearing of that charge which he meant to leaue them in, after his departure: whither will these men (I saie) where they see all thinges so enuironed with trueth, whi­ther will they flie? The scriptures be plainlie ours, the Doctors they dare not claime, reason is against them, there is then no waie to beare it out, but with boldnes and exercised audacitie. Yet here we wil assay, by the notorious euidence of this one cause that we now haue in hand, to breake their stonie heartes to the obedience of Christs Church & word, for whose faith, if they haue seene great light & force of argument allready, & shal yet see much more, I trust they wil not stil with stand the knowen truth.

We will runne no further for the vnderstanding of Christes wordes, concerning the institution and pra­ctize of his holie sacramentes, although we haue the consent of the moste auncient and approoued doctors of the primitiue Church, as witnesses of the same. That the sacraments are commended in knowne terms of greatest and most efficacie that could be, we cofesse: but therof it followeth not, that they were not in some part commended by figuratiue speeches, which are often and almost alwaies, if they be rightlie vsed, bet­ter knowne, and of greater efficacie, then proper tearmes. That you saie, the sacraments were not commended by way of Preaching, it is a grosse and impudent absurdi­tie, when they were instituted and commended to be seales of the doctrine, that was preached, for confir­mation of faith, which is builded vpon the hearing of Gods word preached. As also it is a brutish assertion, that Christ vsed no figuratiue speeches after his resurrection. For what are these but figuratiue speeches, feede my sheepe, feede my lambes? And what was that but a parable of Peters bandes girding him-selfe, and being girded, walking where he would, and led whither he would not, to sig­nifie by what death he should glorifie God? Neither [Page 93] did he affect obscurity by parables before his resurrection. For his parables were vttered for better and more plaine vnderstanding of his obedient disciples, al­though to the reprobate contemners of his doctrine, they seemed hard and inexplicate, and were, as all things are vnto them, and as Christ him-selfe was, a stumbling block, and stone of offence, that they might fall and perish. That our sauiour Christ did open the senses of his Apostles, that they might vnderstand the scriptures, they were the better able to vnderstand fi­guratiue speeches, of which the scripture is full. But that he did more carefully expresse his meaning, for the instru­ction of his holie disciples, I do denie, for he had alwaies before as great care to expresse his meaning: and with­out care was alwaies hable to vtter his diuine pleasure, considering that he had appointed the doctrine, which he preached before his resurrection, to be committed to writing, for the publike and perpetuall instruction of his wholl Church. To the vaine insultation and boasting that followeth, I answer, as in the end of the last section before.

All wordes then of institution of sacraments, being literal­lie to be taken, and things of so great charge not otherwise to be vnderstanded, then are both by act and word of Christ sincerelie vttered, we neede not doubt but the forme of Christes sentence, in which he giueth the Apostles power to remit sinnes, is plainly to be taken in that common sense, as the same by wordes impor­teth, and therefore that by force thereof, they maie remitte sinnes. And yet to make more proofe to satisfie all men, I will ioyne to these wordes of our sauiour that most properlie concerne the sacrament of penance, other his wordes touching our prin­cipall couclusion not vnlike, whereby in conference of the like sayinges together (which our aduersaries do alwaies, as they would seeme, well to allow) trueth maie trie it selfe. Therefore as our master here saith: whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they be forgiuen, And whose sinnes you retaine they be also retained: euen so said he twice before vnto the Apo­stles, [Page 94] expressing in other wordes almost the same meaning and sense: once to them altogether in the 18. of Saint Mathew, and an other time before that, in the 16. of the same Gospel to S. Peter alone.

To them in generall thus saith Christ: If thy brother haue committed anie offence towards thee, go to him & admonish him priuately betwixt him and thy selfe. If he take it well, thou hast wonne thy brother: if he regarde thee not, take one or two with the, that in the mouthes of two or three witnesses euerie word maie stand: if he regarde not them neither, then make complaint of him to the Church ( that is to saie, as Saint Chrisostome expoundeth it, to the gouernours of the Church) and if he will not obey the Church, then take him for no better then a Heathen, and a Publicane. And straight Super hunc locum vpon these wordes, lest anie man should set light by the Church, or rulers thereof, Christ added (saith Saint Augu­stine) a wonderfull terrour of her seuere authoritie, saying: De side & o­perib. c. 3. Amen dico vobis, quaecunque alligaueritis super ter­ram, erunt ligata & in coelo: & quaecunque solueritis super terram, erunr soluta & in coelo: Surelie I saie vnto you, what things soeuer you binde in earth, it shal be bound in heauen: And whatsoeuer you loose in earth, it shall be loosed in heauen. This text is cleere for the Churches claime in remission of sinnes, though it proper­lie pertaine rather to the outward power iudiciarie and court of external iudgement for open crimes and notorious contemptes, then for the sinnes of the people that be secret, and onelie sub­iect to power practized in the sacrament of penance, which now lightlie is close, and onelie vttered in secret to him, that hath charge of his soule. Neuerthelesse, if the Priestes of God haue receiued power to loose and binde, which is, to pardon and punish open notorious crimes and contemptes, which touch­ing the guiltines of the fault, doth no lesse pertaine to the pow­er of God, then the absoluing of secres sinnes doth: then, without question they maie pardon orretaine mans sinnes of al sortes, as well in the sacrament of penance, all that be confes­sed: [Page 95] as in publike iudgement, whatsoeuer is by witnesse proo­ued. And as in this, they maie at their pleasure, where iustice requireth, correct the open offender by most graue censures of Gods Church: so maie the Priestes giue due penance in the sa­crament, for the chastisment of such sinnes as be to them con­fessed, and for the satisfying of Gods iustice by sinne violated.

If al wordes of institution of sacramets must be ta­ken literallie, then must these wordes be taken literal­lie, This cup is the new testament in my blood. The lambe is the Lordes passeouer, Circumcision is the co­uenant, and such like. But as for your conclusion, though inferred vpon a false principle, I confesse to be true, that the Apostles by force of the wordes of commission graunted to them, maie remit sinnes: but not properly, for that the wordes do not enforce. Both the places that you will ioyne to this, of Math. 18. and Math. 16. are parables and figuratiue speaches of bind­ing and loosing, of the keies of the Kingdome of heauen, and of a stone, and buildilng of che Church thereupon: neuerthe­lesse the text Math 18. I do acknowledge to be cleere, for the Churches claime in remitting offences, and that it pertaineth more properlie to the discipline of the Church, then to the preaching of repentance, and remission of sins, whereunto the text of Iohn 21. moste properlie belongeth. That you saie, pennance is now lightlie close, and the sinnes vttered onelie in secret, to him that hath charge of his soule: you do closelie confesse, that otherwise lightlie you will not openlie acknow­ledge, that your practize is contrarie to the vse of the most auncient, and primitiue Church. But that the mi­nisters of the Church haue authoritie to remit sinnes as well o­penlie, as secretlie, I am content it be without question: onelie this is the question, whether anie thing pertai­ning to the proper power of God, be made common to men. For we holde, that they do in such sorte remit sinnes, as they exercise nothing that pertaineth to the proper power of God, touching the release of the [Page 96] guiltinesse of sinnes, although in executing of disci­pline, they maie pardon the exercise of repentance, that is appointed for triall of the parties true peniten­cie, or some part thereof, which as it is enioyned, by the iudgement and discretion of men, so they may by the same release it, as vpon good cause, they thinke conuenient.

Where you say, that Priestes may pardon or retaine mans sinnes, of al sortes, as wel in the sarcrament of penance, al that be confessed, as in publike iudgement, You thrust in diuerse matters, whereof there is neither mention in the text, nor anie necessarie collection to be made of them, out of it: as the sacrament of pennance, whereof there is no outward element or signe instituted: then your kinde of penance which includeth some peece of satisfaction for sinnes & last of all your auricular and particuler confession: as though genetall confession and acknowledging of mens sinnes before God, might not obtaine remission of sinnes in his sight: And as though, if anie sinne be not remembred in shrift, the priestes remission exten­deth not vnto it, or if it were remembred, and be hy­pocriticallie concealed, yet the remission were good & auaileable for al other sinnes that are confessed. A­gaine, it is an insolent power you giue them in open Iudgement, that they may at their pleasure, where Iustice re­quireth correct the open offender. For though you seeme to qualifie their pleasure by iustice: yet to ascribe that to their pleasure, which is laid vpon them of necessi­tie, what warrant haue you for it? For if they maie at their pleasure, they neede not, except it please them. Finallie, your argument holdeth not, that as in exerci­sing of discipline, they maie chastice the offender, by the cen­sures of the Church: so they may giue due punishment, for sinnes [...] in shrift. Neither are those two endes you alledge, true. For the chastisement of sinnes per­taineth not to them, but to God, and the ci­uill Magistrate: and the iustice of God violated by [Page 95] sinne, is satisfied by the obedience and suffering of our sauiour Christ. Wherebie also it should follow, that the power of remitting of sinnes were made void and frustrate, if men must endure due punishment, which you call penance, for the satisfying of Gods iu­stice, by sinne violated.

The other text of holie scripture, containing Christes wordes to Saint Peter seuerallie, by certaine notable circum­stances of the letter, and by wordes of great graunt spoken sin­gularlie to him, giueth the chiefe of all his Apostles in more ample termes and beneficiall clauses this power and perogatiue also. To him it was onelie said, thou art Peter ( which is as much to saie as a rock: for our Master gaue him that name new at his first calling, in signification of further intent and purpose which he here vttered) and vpon this rocke will Ioh. 1. I set my Church: and hell gates shall not preuaile a­gainst it. That so said, he thus spake in plaine termes: Et ti­bi dabo claues regni caelorum. Et quodcunque ligaueris super terram, erit ligatum & in caelis, & quodcunque solueris su­per terram, erit solutum & in caelis: And to thee wil I giue the Keies of the Kingdome of heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde in earth, it shall be bound in the hea­uens, And what thou loosest in earth, it shall be loo­sed in the heauens. This promis made vnto Peter and per­formed no doubt after his resurrection, when he committed to him the feeding and gouernement of all his deare flock both Ibid. 21. yong and olde, doth exceedinglie import a wonderfull incom­parable soueraigntie and-iurisdiction ouer mens soules. For a mortall man to receiue the keies of Christes Kingdome, and by them to binde & loose, to lock out and let in, before our Master Christ who had the full iurisdiction therein, it was neuer heard of. And when the holie Prophets do meane to set out the great and passing power giuen by God the father to his onelie sonne in earth, they vse to expresse the same often by the termes, of keyes, as when the Prophet Esaie saith: I will laie the keies of the house of Dauid vpon his shoulder: he shall shut, and there can none be hable to open, and he shall o­pen [Page 96] so, that none can shut agiane. And Christ him-selfe Cap. 21. Apoc. 1. & 3. speaking to his beloued Iohn in the Apocalips saith: I am the first and the last. I am aliue, and was dead before, and I haue the keies of death and hell. The keies there­fore, euer signifying power andgouernment of the houshold, was giuen to Christ, as to whom, being the principal and most excel­lent rectour of his owne Church that he bought so dearelie, they moste duelie belong. But he communicated vnto Peter, as to his speciall stewarde, the vse of the same, for the gouernment of our soules, with exceeding much preheminence both in bin­ding and loosing. Yet I do not remember that anie of the olde writers do put anie great difference betwixt the authorities of Peter and the rest of the Apostles, concerning the remitting of sinnes, which is a thing perteining indifferentlie to the wholl order of priesthood, and therfore no more proper to the Pope or Peter, then to Priestes and Apostles: though Origen noted well, that the iurisdiction of Peter seemed by these words to be enlarged aboue the residue, by that our sauiour said to him, that, whatsoeuer he bound or loosed in earth, it should be loo­sed or bound in the heauens: where to the rest he spoke of hea­uen onelie in the singular number. I speake onelie of this lat­ter clause of binding and loosing with the keies thereunto be­longing. For there is no doubt, but great preheminence of rule and iurisdiction is promised before in the sametext now re­cited, and els where actuallie giuen vnto him, more then to the rest of his breethren. Neuerthelesse euen this power of bin­ding and loosing, common to all the holie order, was in him first seuerally planted, for the commendation of vnitie and or­der, as Saint Cyprian sath, and so the same authoritie giuen De simpli­citate Prae­latorum. to other, might yet after a sort be deriued from his fullnes of power and perogatiue, as from a fountaine.

The other text of scripture, containing the wordes of our sa­uiour Christ to Peter seuerallie, giueth to him (as you saie) this power and prerogatiue also. As for the not able circumstan­ces of the letter, the wordes of great graunt spoken singularlie to him, the more ample tearmes, and beneficiall clauses, let vs examine, what they are, and whether they be of [Page 97] force to make him chiefe of all his Apostles. First, to him it was onelie said, thou art Peter, which is as much to saie as a rock: what then? ergo he was chiefe of all the A­postles? who is so madd to gtaunt the consequence? To the sonnes of Zebede onelie it was said, that they were Bonarges, that is, the Children of thunder, ergo they had greater authoritie then the rest of the Apostles. But of all the Apostles it was said, 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 Math. 28. Marc. 16. 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 [Page 98] 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.

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 [Page 99] 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, Homil. In natali Petri & Pau. 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 [Page 100] 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 of their roomes, the dores by which we must enter into heauē, or euerlastingly byde out: which is a feareful saying to al such as contemne their authority. His Ca. 16. l. 28. in Iob. wordes be these: Quid cuncti Apostoli, nisi sanctae Ecclesiae ostia, existunt? cùm eis dicitur, Accipite spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, &c. ac si illis apertè diceretur: per vos ingrediuntur ad me hi quibus vos ipsi panditis, & repellen­tur quibus obseratis. What are all the Apostles else, but the dores of holie Church? Seeing it is said of them, take you the holie Ghost. whose sinnes you doe forgiue, they be forgiuen: euen as though in plainer termes it had beene spoken thus: by you all must enter that will come vnto me, those, I saie, to whom you open the dore by loosing of thir sins, and those that be put backe, that you locke out. Hitherto Saint Gregorie. This won­derfull authoritie caused Saint Hilarie thus to make exclama­tiō: De Trin. l. 6. O holie & most happie men! for the desert of your faith you haue obtained the keies of heauen, & now the whole right both of binding & loosing in heauen & earth is assuredlie in you. But that you maie fullie beholde their right herein, consider his notable words vpon the alledged place of S. Matthew: Ad terrororē metus maximi, quo in praesens omnes continerentur, Super Math. 18. Some read Confessio­ne for concessione immobile seueritatis Apostolicum iudicium praemisit, vt quos in terrae ligauerint. i. peccatorum nodis innexos reliquerint, & quos soluerint, concessione scilicet veniae, receperint in salu­tem, [Page 101] in Apostolicae conditione sententiae, in caelis quoque aut soulti sint, aut ligati. That is to saie: To she terror and feare of all men, and necessarie keeping of them in awe and disct­plne, Christ promised the immooueable iudgement of the Apo­stles seueritie, that whomesoeuer they hound in earth, that is to saie, left fast tied in the bandes of sinnes, and whome they loosed, that is to witte, by mercie receiued to the benefit of par­don, that the same persons so bound or so released, in the same case that the Apostles left them, should be in the heauens, either loose or fast. Thus farre S. Hilarie: by whome we eui­dentlie maie learne, in what carefull case all men be that passe this life not loosed by them, whose sentence in earth is so surely ratified in heauen aboue, and no leesse how the wordes of Christ vttered sometimes in termes of binding & loosing, other times in remitting and retaining, doe literallie signifie.

If these two textes of binding and loosing, shalbe the ground of your whole discourse, when you come to the popes pardons, we maie see before hand vpon how feeble a ground you build. For they beeing brought as you confesse indifferentlie of the holie Fathers, with the other wordes vttered by Saint Iohn, in which you saie, the verie [...] [...] of penance, and Priests iudgement of our soules and sinnes be most properlie grounded, do prooue that all Priestes haue equall power in giuing of par­dons, as they haue in remitting of sinnes: When you conclude, that by all these wordes, so often vttered by our sa uiour, we maie perceiue the verie litterall and vndoubted meaning to be, that Priestes haue authoritie by Christes war­rant, effectuallie to remit and [...] sinnes, you ioyne to­gether things that are of no necessary consequence, and in this case are to be disioyned. For we acknow­ledge that it is the vndoubted meaning of Christ, that his ministers should haue authoritie, effectuallie to remit or retaine sinnes. But the verie literall meaning (so you call the grammaticall sense) is otherwise then you take it. For in those two textes, binding and loosing are plaine Metaphors, as all men wil confesse, that [Page 102] can put a difference betweene proper and figuratiue speaches. And in the third, of remitting or retaining, either we must acknowledge a Metonymie, or els the Proper office & authoritie of God is made common to men. The places of the auncient fathers that you cite, make nothing at al to cleare the controuersie on your side, namelie whether Priestes forgiue sins as proper­lie as God him selfe. First the saying of Maximus, or whosoeuer was author of that Homelie, interpreting the keie, of the kingdome of heauen, to be Peters word or tongue, doth signifie, that by preaching he exreciseth that power of iudgement, by which he openeth or shutteth the kingdome of heaué, according as euery one recei­ueth, or refuseth his Doctrine. Againe, comparing this power of iudgeing, with the text of S. Iohn, he declareth that Peters keie is common to him, with all the A­postles, and their successours. S. Gregorie also comparing them to dores, meaneth not to take anie thing from our sauiour Christ, the onelie dore. Also in the same place he sheweth in plaine words, that they are dores, to let in and keepe out by preaching. Et quia Doctores sancti praedicatione quidem sequentibus [...] sunt, authori­tate autem suaresistentibus clausi, non immeritò ostia vocan­tur: id est, aperta conuersationi humilium, & clausa terrori­bus, superborum. Non immeritò ostia vocantur: quia & in­gressum fidelibus aperiunt, & rursum sese perfidis ne ingredi­antur opponunt. Pensemus quale Ecclesie ostium extitit Pe­trus, qui inuestigantem fidem Cornelium recepit, pertio quae­rentem miracula Simonem reppulit, illi dicens: In veritate comperi, quoniam non est personarum acceptor Deus, secreta regni benignè aperuit: huic inquiens, Pecunia tua tecum sit in perditionem, per districtae damnationis sententiam, celestis aulae aditum claudit. And because holy teachers by preaching truelie, are open to them that followe them, and by their authoritie shut to them that resist, they are not vnworthe­lie called dores: that is, open to the conuersation of the hum­ble, and shut to the terrours of the proude. They are not vn­worthely [Page 103] called dores, because they do both open an entry vnto the faithsull, and againe oppose them. selues against the vn­faithfull, that they should not enter. Let vs consider what manner a dore of the Church Peter was: which receiued Cor­nelius searching out the faith, and kept out Simon seeking miracles for monie: saying to the one: Of a trueth I preceiue that God is not an acceptor of persons, he gentlie opened the secretes of the kingdome: saying to the other Thy monit with thee be vnto destruction, by sentence of straight damnation he shut vp the entrie of the heauenlie court. Then followe immediatlie the wordes by you cited. Quid cuncti A­postolie, &c. whereby it is euident that Saint Gregories iudgement is, that by preaching they remit or retaine sinnes, as by the same they are dores of the Church. The former place of Saint Hilarie, is vnfaithfullie translated by you. In neither is their anie admiration, or exclamationi in his wordes, in respect of their au­thoritie, neither saith he, that the whole right of bin­ding and loosing is assuredlie in you. I will recite his words, whereby all men may see, how bolde you are to sttetch forth the Doctors meaning, when you will be so impu­dent with their wordes. The Apostles said, In hoc credimus, quia a Deo exîsti. Quae rogo haec verbi huius ad­miratio est, quod se exisse à Deo professus sit? Tanta & tam deo propria vos, O Sancti & beati viri, ob fidei vestrae meritum claues regni caelorum sortitt, & ligandi atque soluendi in caelo & in terraius adepti, gestacsse per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Dei filium [...], & ad id quod à Deo exisse dixit, nunc primùm vos veri intelligentiam assecutos protestamini? In this we beleeue that thou art come out from God. What admiration I praie you is this of this word, that he professeth that he came out from God? so great thinges and so proper to God, O ye holie and blessed men, which had obteined the keies of the kingdome of heauen, for the wor­thinesse of your faith, and haue obtained right of binding and loosing in heauen and earth, had you seene done by our Lord Iesus Christ the sonne of God: And doe you now first protest, [Page 104] that you haue obtained the vnderstanding of the trueth, as concerning that he said he came forth from God? In these wordes it is apparant, that all the Apostles haue the keies, as well as Peter, and right or authoritie of bind­ing and loosing, but that the whole right thereof is in them, as though God had resigned his right to them, or giuen them equall right with him-selfe, S. Hilarie neuer said nor thought. The latter sentence toucheth not the cōtrouersy between vs. For we graunt the power of binding and loosing, forgiuing and re­taining, to be ratified in heauen, but that the wordes of Christ be of an absolute power properlie to doe that, which is the office of God alone, we cannot learne by this, or anie other saying of Saint Hi­larie.

But I will adde S. Chrysostomes testimonie thereunto, the rather because our aduersaries doe abuse his wordes sometimes against confession, which necessarilie hangeth on the authority of Priesthood in remission and retaining sinnes, as anon I shal declare. That I be not ouer tediuose, I will report his saying in English onelie: Those (saith he) that dwelleth in earth and are conuersant amongst men, haue receiued power and com­mission Lib. 3 de Sacer. to dispose and dispense such thinges as be in heauen: yea these men haue receieud power, such as neither God either gaue to Angelles, for, it was neuer said to them, whatsoeuer you bind in earth it shall be bound in heauen, and whatsoeuer you loose in earth, it shall be loosed in heauen. Earthlie Prin­ces in deed haue power to binde, but that pertaineth to the bo­dies of their subiectes onelie: but that which I now talke of, that is proper to the Priests, touching the verie soule it selfe, and is so ample, that it reacheth to the heauens aboue: yea & that so largelie, that whatsoeuer the Priestes doe beneath, the verie selfe same God wil allow and ratifie in heauen aboue, and so the Lord will confirme the iudgement and sentence of the seruants. Thus farre speaketh Chrysostome. His words be so plaine that to stand long on them, for farther proofe of my mat­ter, then the verrie face of the sentence doth importe, it were [Page 105] vaine. For man maie here rather maruell to see such strange power vpon Christes wordes giuen to the holie order, and yet that to be so litle esteemed of wicked men and so litle regarded euen of the honester sort of simple folkes, that few either seeke after their iudgement in cause of their soules, or duelie ho­nour that power in them which passeth all other prelacie, that euer either man or Angell receiued in this great contempt (I saie) of most holie things, wickednes is rather to be wondered at, and lamented, then by long reasoning to be confuted. The sequele of true thinges is so plaine in it selfe, the diuerse pla­ces of scripture so answere iustlie ech to other, the fathers so consonantlie confirme the knowne meaning of the same and the verie tearmes of so many scriptures writen at diuerse times by sundrie of the Euangelists, so fall vpon one vndoub­ted sense, that we may rightly conclude the power to be in all cases giuen to the Apostles of remission of sinne.

The wordes of Chrysostome are large enough of themselues, although you had not augmented them, with your additions and explications, beside that you haue altered the number, in the text of Mat 16. where in lieth a mysteric. For Chrysostome by these wordes spoken in the singular number to Peter, prooueth the authoritie that is common to all Priests. What soeuer, thou shalt binde, & whatsoeuer thou shalt loose. The summe is, that the power and dignitie of Priests is exceeding great, which maketh a mortall man, to come neere to the blessed, and incorrupted nature of God, as he sai­eth before. But if an absolute and proper power of re­mitting sins were graūted to them, they come not one ly neere, but are translated in deede, into the diuine na ture, which is intollerable blasphemy. That the Lord rati­fieth in heauen & confirmeth the sentence of his seruants giuen vpon earth, it is to be vnderstoode, that God approo­ueth the sentence which he before hath appointed them to pronounce. As if the Queene in England should protest that shee is content to ratifie and con­firme whatsoeuer her embassadour doth in France, ac­ding [Page 106] to his commission, and the instructions receiued from her, thee neither resigneth her authoritie to her embassadour, neither giueth him equall power with her selfe, but onelie maketh him the interpreter, and declarer of her will and pleasure, which shee is con­tent to ratifie, and not otherwise.

And vpon such knowne termes I make this argument against the aduersaries. They truelie and properlie doe remit sinnes, vpon whose sentence in earth the pardon of God immediatelie ensueth in heauen: but Gods pardon vndoubted­lie followeth the priests pardon in remission in earth (Claue non errante) Ergo they assuredlie remit sins. The Ma­ior is manifest, the Minor hangeth vpon plaine scripture thrise tolde: which first appointed man to loose in earth, and then that God shall in the same instant forgiue in heauen: God shall confirme the sentence of his seruants, saith S. Chry­sostome. Mans iudgement (saith Hilarie) shall be as a sen­tence preiudiciall to God in heauen. And thus farre for the wordes of Christ at this present, and farther strength shal more and more be gathered vnto them, by diuerse partes of all the processe following.

You make such argumentes for your friendes, and not against your aduersaries. For what aduersarie would you choose vnto your selfe so simple, that could not espie these grosse faults of your syllogisme. For first your Maior is false, which you saie is manifest. But you haue not yet prooued that they doe properlie re­mit sinnes, vpon whose sentence in earth, the pardon of God immediately ensueth in heauen, that is, whose sentence on earth, is ratified & confirmed in heauen. That they doe truelie forgiue sinnes, it is graunted: but not that they doe properlie forgiue sinnes, beeing but Gods seruants appointed to declare his forgiuenes. Second­ly your Minor bringeth in a fourth tearme, Claue non er­rante: beside that it is ambiguous, that you saie, Gods pardon followeth the preists pardon: for if by following, you meane succeading later in time, or depending vpon [Page 710] the priests pardon, your Minor is false, wtih Claue non errante: if you meane, as I haue explicated in your Maior, the worde ensueth, it is true. Last of all your conclusion ioyneth not your two extreames together as it ought to doe, but leaueth out the worde which is of most importance and question among vs, namelie this tearme Properlie. For you should couclude, that Priestes doe truelie and properlie remit sinnes, which in respect of the worde properlie, is false. But as you set it downe with the worde assuredlie, it is graunted. For we acknowledge, that the lawfull minister, elder, or priest of the Church, doth truelie and assuredlie re­mit sinnes, but yet not properlie. So you misse the cu­shion, and make a shew in your Maior, as though you would reason directlie: but in your Minor you giue backe, with Claue non errante, in your conclusion you fly quite from the question. Where you interpret your Minor, so that God in the same instant forgiueth in heauen, you rid vs of one doubt of the posteritie in time. But where you saie out of Saint Hilarie, that mans sentence shall be as a sentence preiudiciall to God in heauen, you giue vs to vnderstand that Gods sentence dependeth vp­on mans sentence, which is horrible blasphemie: nei­ther doe I beleeue that you are able to shew any such saying of Saint Hilarie: for out of the places before alledged, there is no such thinge to be seene or ga­thered.

THE FIFT CHAP.

IF I had here to doe onelie with the learned, it were e­nough that is alreadie prooued for the power & prehemi­nence giuen to the Apostles in remission of sinnes, thereupon to ground most assuredlie the like right in the same cause to per­teine to all Bishoppes and priestes of Christes Church. But we studie to helpe such as cannot by this so farre consider, that the power giuen to his Apostles or to any of them is one eternall power, not ceasing in their persons, but during in their suc­cession to the worlds ende. For I haue my selfe met with many such, as could be content, as they saide, to acknowledge vpon so plaine scripture the singular priuiledge giuen to the Apostles, and thereupon if they might haue had an Apostle, they would not haue sticked to haue made there confession and sute to him for the remission of their sinnes: but because I had not the like wordes of Christ spoken to all priests particularlie, they thought it was no reason that any such challenge should be made for them: nor any such charge to be giuen to others to confesse their sinnes vnto them. This simplicitie of the common sorte, or rather this rude frowardnes rising vpon contempt and disobe­dience to Gods Church, is mainteined euen of the more learned sort, whoe haue charged them-selues in all behauiour to be so populare and so plausible, that euen against knowne order of things they will drawe backe from the light of the trueth, with the common, rude, and vnlearned reasons of the people. For Iohn Caluine, a man borne to sedition and the Churches ca­lamitie, Caluin. mainteineth the madnes of the multitude by this rea­son: The Apostles (saith he) had the holy ghost, whereof our priests haue no warrant. But enquire of them, whether they haue the holie ghost: if they saie yea, demaund of them further, whether the holie Ghost may erre: if they confesse, that the holy ghost can not erre, then they prooue themselues not to haue the holie Ghost, because it is well seene that they may erre, and doe erre, both in loosing and binding many, otherwise then Gods sentence will allow. But brieflie to satisfie all sides in this case, I shall declare the like power to be left by Christes meaning to al Bispopes and priests, no lesse then to the Apostles them-selues, to whome Christ then presentlie spake: that both the peoples [Page 109] lacke of vnderstanding may be corrected, and the false and craftie conueiance of their captaine may be, to his shame and the diuells, plainlie disclosed.

It seemeth, that those which you met with, which would not acknowledge the same power to be in the ministers of the Church, that was in the Apostles, concerning remitting of sinnes, were some of your owne chickens, whome ignorance, the mother of Po­pish deuotion, had blooded vp in such phantasticall and soolish errors. But least you should seeme to fight onelie with the simple sorte, you saie, the same opinion is vpon popularitie and plausibilitie mainteined euen of the more learned sort, yea of Iohn Caluine him-selfe: but you dare not set downe where or in which of his writings, lest your impudencie should be manifestlie conuin­ced. In deede Instit. lib. 3. Cap. 4. Sect. 20. he denieth that ignorant Popish confessours, or shrift priests, haue the power of the keyes, which are voide of the spirit of God, that is, of the giftes of the holie ghost, that they may know who me to binde, & whome to loose: but he acknowledgeth, the power of remitting sinnes to be perpetuall in the true preachers, and faithfull mini­sters of the Ghospell. And therefore you take neede­lesse paines, to prooue this matter against him, vnles you will take vpon you, to defend the ignorance of your priesthoode, and answere the arguments that he bringeth against it.

First this is plaine, that whatsoeuer Christ after his resur­rection or before did institute for the commoditie of the people and weale of the wholl Church, that did not decaie in the per­sons of them to whome Christ presentlie spake the wordes: for ells all sacraments had beene ended, and all gouernment cea­sed at the death of them to whome in person that charge was first giuen by Christ. For example: Christ in his institution of the holie Sacrament of the altar spake onelie to his twelue, & to those present persons he onelie said presently, hoc facite, do 1. Cor. 11. this: yet in their persons, the Church was so instructed, and all [Page 110] priests so authorized, that the same soueraigne worke hath vpon that warrant beene truelie practized of the Church, and by vaine imitation followed by their aduersaries, euen till this daie. And in deede, the verie wordes of the instruction did importe no lesse: for it is said Mortem Domini annunciabi­tis, donec [...]. You shall set forth Christes death till his comming: which could not be, if the ministerie had decayed with their persons, to whome Christ spake. So the charge both of preaching and babtizing was giuen to a fewe chosen men then present: but that al the world might preceiue, that of his wisdome & careful prouidence the charge & autho­ritie pertained to the gouernours of the Church for euer, no lesse then to them, whome he then called to that function, he added: I will be with you to the end of the world, mea­ning, that they should exercise that office in his name & assi­stance Math. vlt. to the daie of iudgement Which in their own persons was not true, but in their successours. For this cause, it is no doubt, but what authoritie soeuer Peter had alone aboue the residewe of his fellowes, that the same is by all reason to be di­riued from him to all his successours: and that caused Chryso­stome to saie, that Christ shed his [...] to winne the sheepe, which he committed to Peter and his successours to feed: where Christ in person presentlie spake but to Peter alone: and yet because he knew the like gouernment was both necessarie af­ter Peters death, as well as in his time, and no lesse by Christs appointement to be continued in the Church after, as before, the Doctours doubted not to enlarge Christes worde vttered to Peter alone, to al them that sis cceeded in the same roome. Vp­on these most strong groundes euerie man plainlie may argue, the like power yet to be in the Church of God in euerie case, euen as Christ did institute at the beginning, when he gaue the charge to the Apostles first. For looke what forme of gouerne­ment and order of the Church was thought vnto his wisedome to be best then, the same must needes be best now (I speake for the substance of thinges: for by diuersities of time and person some alteration may rise in the circumstances) Therefore if it were good at that time that one should be the generall Vicar of [Page 111] Christ, and pastour of all the sheepe, for which he shed his bles­sed blood, it is good yet also: if some had authoritie then to consecrate Christs body, some haue the same power till this time: if some then must needes baptize & preach, other some must now also do the same: finally if certaine then had commission by Christ, & the holie ghost giuen them to remit sins, & therewith power by his word both to pardon & punish, to bind & to loose, it must by force of the foresaide argument necessarilie be induced, that some at this date must haue the like office. For els Christ could not continue the same power & office in the Church which he for the Churches sake did first institute: & which he coun­ted of his heauenlie wisedome moste necessarie for the Chucrhes gouernement. But I think no man hath yet so shaken of shame and feare of God, that he dare holde that Christ was not hable to mainteine all power, rule, and iurisaiction, with all kinde of functions which he instituted for the benefite of the people till the worldes ende, both him-selfe and the holie ghost promised to be present for that purpose till the generall iudge­ment. And that those functions were necessarie for his euerla­sting common wealth, his solemne institution and carefull pro­uision of them doe declare: that he meaneth no lesse to esta­blish the same which he then instituted, not onelie the foresaid reasons, but that saying of Saint Paull doth prooue: He gaue vnto the Church some to be Apostles, some to be Pro­phets, some to be Euangelists, some to be Pastours and Ephes. 4. Doctours: and all this to the worke and maintenaunce of the ministerie for the persiting of the Saints, and vpholding of Christes bodie, till the time of the ac­knowledgeing of Gods sonne. Thus doth Christ prouide for his deare Church in all manner of seruice and office euen til the last daie. Wherebie it is most cleare, that the power of re­mission of sinnes beeing once giuen to the Church can neuer cease, whiles man of his continuall frailtie ceaseth not to sinne. That which was then counted a necessarie refuge and reme­die for sinnes committed, can not now perish in the worlde, where sinne is a great deale more rife, and the remedie more needefull.

There was a certaine power committed to the Apo­stles, to haue a generall charge to preache ouer all the world, which ceased by their death, as that which was proper to the office of the Apostleship. But such power as they had for the building vp of particuler Churches, by preaching, administring the sacramentes, and exercising of discipline, is perpetuall, and died not with the Apostles. And this authoritie is deriued vnto them, immediately from Christ, and not from Peter. And therfore you abuse the name of Chrisostome, to make him witnes of your deriuation: for he acknow­ledgeth Christ him selfe, in the wordes by you alleadged, to haue [...] feeding of his sheep to Peters successors, that is, to all preistes, which be successours of the Aposties, as Saint Hierome saith, no les, then vnto Peter him selfe: for they are not Peters commissaries, but Christes em­bassadours, ministers, and dispensers. That one should be general vicar of Christ, & pastour of al the sheepe, for which he shed his blood, it was neither good, not possible, and therefore he instituted many, and no one with such singular authoritie as is pretended. The bodie of Christ is of perfect holines, and there­fore needeth no consecration of men: but there re­maineth authoritie with the ministers of the Church, to consecrate breade and wine, to be the bodie and blood of Chist, that is, the sacrament, signe, or figure thereof. Likewise to preach and baptize, to excommunicate, and to receiue againe. And that for which you bring in the rest, to remit and reteine sinnes, according to the pleasure of God, reuealed in his holie Ghospell, whereof the true dispensours are appointed to be true and faithfull interpreters and declarers.

But to conuince them plainlie that thinke contrarie let them tell me whether Thomas beeing not then present, as the Euan­gelist saith, and therefore the wordes not vttered to him in person, let them shew me whether he had not afterwarde, by [Page 113] force of that institution, power also to remit sinnes. If he had, as by reason I am sure they cannot denie, as full preheminence and power to doe all thinges, that then Christ charged his ten Disciples, which were present, to do in his name, then the power of remission of sinnes was not so streightlie limited, as the words might seeme to be vttered, by which no doubt a sacramen: was instituted to take force in the Church both then & afterward to the worlds ende: not that any man may of his owne head, vpon force onelie of Christs commission giuen at that time to his A­postles, take that high function vpon him: but that he which ordinarilie shall be called by receiuing of grace and the holie Ghost in externall sacrament by laying on of handes of Priest­hoode, may likewise vpon his owne flocke and cure exercise that office, no lesse then those holie men might after Christes calling thereunto, occupie the same worke of binding and loo­sing of such sheepe of Christes folde, as to them were commit­ted. And so did Saint Thomas, who then was not there: so did Saint Matthew who then was no Apostle: so did Barnabas, so did Timothie and Titus who were ordeined by Saint Paul, and so did Paul him selfe, of whome Saint Ambrose saith Lib. 1 [...] Poenit. Cap. 16. that he did remit sinnes without all derogation.

The good studiousereader must marke wel then, that al these holie functions or passing preheminencies, are not giuen to the priuate persons, in respect of themselues, neither of Peter, nor of Paul, nor any other, but they are bestowed vpon them for the vse of the Church which dieth in their persons, and therefore must be honoured with the same offices by other, after they be dead, by perpetuall succession they shall neuer cease. And that caused Saint Augustine, and other holie fathers to saie, the keies were giuen to the Church and authoritie to re­mit sinnes, De doct. Christ. lib. 1. c. 18. to baptize and to enioyne penance: not because the wholl Church, by gathering all her children together, must giue sentence vpon euerie sinner, or els the priests iudgement to be nothing, as some foolish seditious heades haue now to the distrurbance of the world deuised: but because it is our com­mon wealth and house of faith, which is so beutified in her mi­nisters, with all kinde of sacraments and good orders for the go­uernment [Page 114] of her children, and because all men may see, it was the earnest loue and carefull prouidence for this his spouse, and not the persons of the Apostles in respect of them selues, which mooued his wisedome to the institution of such per­petuall offices in the Church.

Your conclusion is true, that the power extended to al the Apostles successors; but it is not strongly prooued, by the example of Thomas, Matthew, Paull, and Ber­nabas, who were Apostles them-selues, in the highest degree: and therefore I like better the solution of Cy­rillus, which vnderstandeth the intention of Christ, to haue beene of the wholl order of the Apostles, and their successours, although more then Thomas had beene absent, at such time as he gaue that power, al­ledging the examples of Eldad, and Meldad, which be­ing of the number, that were chosen to be gouer­nours, to assist Moses, although they were not pre­sent with the rest before the tabernacle, yet they were indued with the spirit of prophesie, because they were of the number appointed. Where you saie, that no doubt a Sacrament was instituted by these wordes of Christ, and often haue so saide, you onelie saie it, and bring no proofe thereof. neither doe you declare what is the visible signe of the inuisible grace, nor what [...] the element to which the worde commeth, that we might acknowledge a sacrament with you. That the keies are giuen to the Church, although it prooue [...] that euerie member of the Church should execute them, yet it prooueth, that Peter had no soueraigne nor singular authoritie of the keies aboue the rest of the Apostles, but that the Pastour of euerie Church hath the same, not of the gift, graunt commission, or permission of Peter; but of the graunt and immediate commission from Iesus Christ him-selfe. Whether the power of excom­munication perteine to all the Church, or to cer­taine chosen gouernours thereof, it is a question [Page 115] not incident to this to be handled.

Hereupon therefore, and in consideration that the keies of opening and shutting heauen, by binding and loosing mans sinnes, shall euer remaine for the vse and honour of the Church, the saied holie Saint Augustine hath these wordes: Claues dedit Ecclesiae suae, vt quae solucrit in terra, soluta essent & in coelo: quae ligauerit in terra, ligata essent & in [...] Lib. 1. c. 18. De doct. Christ. Christ deliured the keyes to the Church, that whoesoeuer shee loosed in earth, should be loosed in heauen: and whatsoeuer shee bound in earth, should be bound likewise in heauen. And Optatus his equall striuing with the Donatistes for all holie giftes which Christ bestowed vpon his Church, challeng­eth Lib. 1. & 2. cont. Dona­tist. all other sacraments, and namelie the keies for the Catho­like and vniuersall Church, from the part of Donatus the heretike, as in the right of Peter. He saieth exceeding pithely: Claues darae sunt Petro, & non haereticis: And afterwade: Cathedram Petri, quae nostra est, per ipsam & caeteras dotes apud nos esse probamus. etiam sacerdotium. The keies are giuen to Peter, and not to heretikes: by the chaier of Peter which is ours: we prooue all other giftes of the Church to be ours yea euen priesthoode. Thus he hath in sense in diuerse places. By which we see, the inrisdiction and power giuen to the principall Apostle, yet to remaine, and by it all other the Churches notable preheminences, which he calleth Ecclesiae do­tes, The douries of the Church, through his wholl discourse a­gainst the Donatists. So doth Epiphanius attribute the power of penance and pardon to the Church likewise, not one­lie in baptisme, which he calleth the moste perfect penance, but also afterwarde vpon the parties relapse, in which case the he­retikes called Cathari, affirmed that the Church had no au­thoritie to pardon them any more. Against which pernicious Cathari. sect he sayeth, If any man fall after his baptisme, the Church will not be vnmercifull to him: Dat enim reuersionem, & Lib. 2. To. heres. 59. post poenitentiam. For shee giueth him leaue to returne, and hath penance after penance. By which he noteth, that the Church hath two sacraments for remission of sinne, the one is baptisme, which he termeth perfect penance, with Saint Paul [Page 116] to the Hebrewes: And Saint Augustine doth call it in his En. chiridion, Magnam indulgentiam, a graund pardon. And Gap. 6. afterward, The Church hath an other kinde of remission, which Epiphanius calleth poenitentiam post poenitentiam: But of these two more shalbe said anon.

After this [...] doth Lactantius [...] to the true Church, confession, penance, and profitable healing of our woundes, and such sores as be found in our soules. By all which, euerie man Lib. 4. de Sap. cap. 30. may conceiue easelie, that this honour and commission of priest­hoode, for the remission of our sinnes, did not decaie with the Aposties appointed by Christ, nor shall cease till Christes com­ming to [...] the worlde.

These testimonies needed not to be heaped vp in vaine, but that you would beare the ignorant in hand most iniurioslie, that Caluin and the better learned of the protestants do holde, that the power of binding and loosing ated with the Apostles, and continueth not in the Church. Saint Augustines wordes are as you cite them, but there followeth immediatlie an expli­cation, which you haue omitted. Scilicet vt quis quis in Ecclesia eius dmitti sibi peccata non crederet, non eidi­mitterentur, quisquis autem crederet, seque ab his correctus auerteret, in eiusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus, eadem fide at (que) correctione sanareiur. Quisquis enim non cred it dimitti sibi posse peccata, fit deterior disperando, quasi nihil illi meli­us quàm malum esse remanear, vbi de fructu suae conuersionis infidus est. Christ deliuered the keies to the Church (saith S. Augustine) that whatsoeuer she loosed in earth should be loosed in heauen, and what soeuer she bound in earth should be, &c. that is to saie, that whosoeuer would not beleeue, that sinnes should be forgiuen him in his Church, they should not beforgiuen vnto him: but whosoeuer did beleeue, and being corrected, did turne him-selfe awaie from them, being placed in the bosome of the same Church, should be healed by the same faith and correction. For whosoeuer doth not beleeue that his sinnes maie be forgiuen vnto him, is made worsse by dispairing, [Page 117] as though nothing remained better for him then to beleue, when he is vnfaithful & vnbeleeuing of the fruite of his conuersion. These wordes of Saint Augustine do shew, that sinnes are forgiuen to the penitent, and faithfull, that be­leeue the doctrine of repentance and forgiuenes of sinnes, which is preached in the Church. The place of Optatus vrging the vnitie of Peters chaire against the schis­matikes that were deuided from the communion of the Catho­like Church, ascribeth no greater authoritie to Peters chaire in exercising the keyes, or anie other power of the Priesthood, then to all other chaires. That E­piphanius allowethrepentance after baptisine against the Ca­tharistes, it prooueth no more an other sacrament of penance, then that we do, euen as he, graunt that there is place of repentance before god, & reconciliati­on vnto the Church, for such as do daily fall after bap­tisme. But contrary wise it appeareth, that Epiphanius alloweth but one sacrament of repentance, which is baptisme. Andyet (saith he) we take not awaie the mer­cie of God knowing the preaching of the trueth, and the mer­cie of the Lord, &c, the pardonable nature, the vnstedfastnes of the soule, the weaknes of the flesh, the deepenes of the sense of manie men, because no man is void of sinne, and pure from filthines, though his life be but one daie vpon the earth. And perfect repentance in deede is in the lauer of baptisme but if a man fall, the holie Church of god doth not loose him, for it gran teth him a returne, and after that repentance an other re­pentance. The Greeke word is [...], signifying a sorowfullnes for that which is committed, by which the partie maie be brought to [...], the perfect repentance that he spake of before, that is, re­couer the grace of forgiuenes of sins, confirmed vnto him in baptisme, which is the onelie sacrament of re­pentance, the fruite whereof endureth vnto our liues end, to make vs partakers of the fruite of regenerati­on, that is, life euerlasting. The examples that he bring­eth of repentanee offered to Cain, and graunted to Peter, do [Page 118] Prooue that he speaketh not of any sacrament of re­Pentance, but sheweth that God receaueth them that fall after baptisme, vnto repentance, according to the preaching of trueth, and of the mercie of God. I muse what you meane, when you saie, that Epiphanius termeth baptisme perfect repentance, with Saint Paul to the Hebr. cap. 6. For the Apostle to the Hebrewes hath no such terme, either in that chapter, or in anie other place of that epistle: except you dreamed of such a matter, because he professeth to leaue the first principles of religion, as repentance from dead workes, &c. which pertaineth to the doctrine of baptisme, and Impositi­on of hands, and to grow to perfection. In the Catho­like Church, as Lactantius saith, there is confession, because there is faith: there is also repentance, which wholsomlie healeth the sinnes and wound to which the weakenes of the fleshis subiect: by which it is proo­ued that there is remission of sinnes in the Church, continuing vntill the comming of Christ to iudge­ment.

But he that listeth to see in what office, and by whome he holdeth this singular honour of remission of sinnes, he shall finde, not onelie the Apostles, who were called by Christ, but all other Bishops also, that succeede them in the Church, to be her ministers herein. Whereof let him reade the 26. Homely of Saint Gregorie, pertaining almost whollie to that purpose. I will repeat a few wordes onelie out of it, committing the rest to the diligence of the reader. Libet intueri (saith he) illi discipuli ad tanta onera humilitatis vocati, ad quantum cul­men gloriae sint oeruecti. Ecce non solùm de semetipsis securi fiunt, sed etiam alienae obligationis, & relaxationis potesta­tem accipiunt: principatumque superniiudicij sortiuntur, vt vice Dei quibusdam peccata retineant, quibusdam relaxent. Ecce, qui districtum iudicium Dei metuunt, animarum iudi­ces fiunt & alios damnant, velliberant, qui semetipsos dam­nare metuebant. Horum profectò nunc in Ecclesia Dei, Epis­copi locum tenent, ligandi atque soluendi authoritatem sumunt: [Page 119] grandis honor, sed graue pondus est istud honoris. It is my meaning now, to beholde to what marueilous honour the Disciples of Christ be exalted, which before were called in their base state to great burden and troubles. For now, they be not onelie in assurance of their owne state, but they haue obtained power of binding and releasing other, and the verie soueraign­tie of heauenly iudgement, that in Gods owne steade, they may some mans sinnes release, and other offencesreteine, Loe, those that once feared the straight sentence of Gods owne iudgement are made the iudges of other mens soules, to condemne or deli­uer where they list, that before doubted of them-selues. And now truelie in these mens roomes are the Bishops of Gods Church, and receiue the authoritie of binding and loosing, and their owne state ofregiment. High surclie is their Chaire, but greater is their charge. S. Gregorie said so farre.

But Saint Augustine shall make vp this matter, with words of such waight, that I trust euerie man shall see the trueth, and almost feele the grossenesse of falsehood thereby. He wri­teth thus vpon this verse of the Psalme Eructauit, which is the 44. in number with him: Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij, constitueseos Principes super omnem terram: In place of thy parentes thou hast Children borne thee, them thou maist make the Princes of the wholl earth. The Apo­stles did beget thee, they were sent them-selues, they preached in their owne persons, and finallie they were thy fathers.

But could they alwaies corporallie abide here? And though one of them said, I would gladlie be dissolued and be withChrist, Phil. 1. yet for your sake I counted it more necessarie to tarie in flesh. Thus he said: but how long could his life last? he might not re­maine til this daie, much lesse for the time to come. What then? is the Church desoiate after the departure of her parents? God forbid. In steade of thy parentes thou hast sonnes, saith the text: what is that to saie? Marie the Apostles sent by Christ are as fathers, and for them God hath raised vp chil­dren or sonnes, which be the holie Bishops of the world. For at this daie the Bishops that be throughout all Christendome, how rose they to that roome? The Church calleth them fathers, [Page 120] and yet shee did beget them, and she placed them in that roome of their fathers: Non ergo reputes desertam, quia non vi­des Petrum, quòd non vides Paulum, quòd non vides illos per quos nataes: de prole tua tibi creuit paternitas: pra pa­tribus tuis natisunt tibi filij, constitues eos principes super om­nem terram. Do not therefore think thy selfe desolate, because thou hast not Paull, because thou hast them not now present, by whome thou wast borne: of thy owne issue, fatherhood is growne to thee: and for thy fathers thou hast brought forth sonnes, them shalt thou make the rulers ouer al the earth. Thus much out of Saint Augustine. By whome you maie perceaue the great prouidence of God that euerlastinglie vpholdeth the ordinance of his sonne Christ Iesus, as well now by the children borne from time to time in the Churches lap, as before in the spring of our faith by the Apostles sent and appointed in person by Christ him-selfe.

I suppose the title of your booke, will admonish you not to restraine this office onelie to Bishops, which so often you haue made common to all priestes. For Gregory also in the same homyly nameth often times all pastours of the Church, to whome the power of binding and loosing doth appertaine, which are many other beside Bishops. Moreouer, inueighing against the ignorance, and vnworthines of them that occupi­ed such places, which take vpon them to loose, where God doth binde, and binde where God doth loose, he concludeth, that then the absolution of the gouernours of the Chuch is true, when it followeth the will of the eternall Iudge. By which saying, and more to the like effect in that place, he declareth his iudgement, of the kinde of power or authoritie which the Church hath, that it is not absolute, but subiect vuto the will of God, and is an expressing of Gods forgiuenes, or retaining, not a proper forgiuing or retaining. The saying of Saint Au­gustine prooueth in deede, a continuance of the mini­stery of the Apostles in the office of Bishops, but here­of [Page 121] it followeth not, that onelie Bishops, as they are di­stinct from priestes, haue this power: for not onelie Bishops be the children of the Church, but all faith­full men to whome the inheritance of the world is like wise appointed.

And here you must know, that not onelie Bishops who suc­ceede the Apostles in all kinde of power and regiment, but also all other inferiour Priestes to be compted with them, as successors in ministring diuerse sacraments, as baptisme, pe­nance, the reuerend Sacrament of the Aultar, and such like: but looke what power either Apostle or Bishop hath in remission of sinnes, in consecrating Christes bodie, in baptizing, the same hath the wholl order of holie Priesthood by the right of their order, and maie practize the same vpon such as be sub­iect vnto them in all causes not exempted for reasonable cau­ses, by such as haue further iurisdiction ouer the people. Wher­of I will not now talke particularlie, the learned of that order know the limits of their charge and commission, better then I can instruct them, and the simpler sort must seeke for knowledge of their duetie, by the holie Canons of Councels and decrees of Bishops made for that purpose. I can not now stand thereon: meaning at this present onelie to defend the holie order, and challenge for it such right, as the scripture and Chistes owne word giueth, which in this contempt of vertue and religion is moste necessarie for all men to consider.

There is no power or authoritie graunted by our sa­uiour Christ to preach the word of God, or to mini­ster anie sacrament, but the same is common to euerie one of the Pastoures of the Church, and not onelie lawfull, but also necessarie for them, to exercise in their seuerall charges. Where­fore that ministering of some sacraments is permitted to them, and of other denied them, it is beside the word of god. Againe the word of god, that giueth them general power, whose sinnes soeuer, whatsoeuer you shal bind or loose, is directlie against al exempted cases, which sauor of no­thing, [Page 122] but of Antichristian tyrannie. As for the cannons of Counceles, and decrees of Bishoppes, whether you send the simple, to learne the limites of their charge, can not restraine that Christ hath enlarged, and therefore if your meaning were, as your wordes professe, to de­fend the holie order, and challenge for it such right as the scripture and Christes owne worde geueth, you would enueigh against the pride, and ambition of the Pope, & other prelates that exempt anie cases from the Priests power and authoritie, which the holie scripture, and the expresse wordsof our sauiour Christ doth in such ample manner graunt vnto them.

Therefore vpon our large discourses for this last point, I now deduct the particulars to this summe, which maie stand for a certaine marke, as well for the good to discerne the trueth, as for the aduersaries to shoote at whiles they liue. Alpower and euery iurisdiction or right of Christs Church, remaineth as am­plie, and in as full force and strength at this daie, and shall till the worlds end so continue, as they were, by Christ graun­ted first in the persons of the Apostles or other, instituted. But the power of remission of sinnes, was giuen properlie and in ex­presse termes to the Apostles: Ergo the same remaineth still in Gods Church. Whereupon it is so cleare, that the Priestes at this day haue as ful power to forgiue sins, as the Apostles had. And this argument of the continuance of all offices and righte of the Church, is the moste plainest and readiest waie, not one­lie to helpe our cause now taken in hand, but vtterlie to im­prooue all false doctrines and detestable practises of heretikes. For they must here be examined diligentlie what common wealth that is, what Church that is, in which Christ doth pre­scrue the gouernment giuen to the Apostles? where it is that the power not onely os making, but also of practizing al sacraments hath continued still? what companie of Christian people that is, wherein the Apostles, Doctors, preachers, ministers, through the perpetuall assistance of Gods spirit, be continued, for the building vp of Christes bodie, which is the number of faithful people? What Church that is, which bringeth forth from time [Page 123] to time sonnes to occupy the romes of their fathers before them. It is not (good reader) the pelting packe of Protestants? It is not, I saie, and they knowe it is not their petie congregati­ons, that hath till this daie continued the succession of Bl­shoppes, by whome the world, as Saint Augustine saith, is ru­led, as by the Apostles, and first Fathers of Religion. Surely our mother the Church hath hene long baren, if for her Fathers the Apostles, who died so long since, she neuer brought forth children til now to occupie their roomes, and great lacke ofru­lers, if she haue made her onelie contemners to be her owne go­uernours. No, these sellowes holde not by her, but they holde against her: these sit in no seat Apostolike, but they by all force dishonour the seat Apostolike: these are not they, qui pro patribus nati sunt tibi filij: but these are the sonnes, quos enutriuisti & genuisti, ipsi spreueruntte. If you aske of these men how they holde? they seeke no Fathers after whome they maie rightly rule: they seeke no large rew of predecessours in whose places they may sit: they aske no counsell of Gods Church, by whose calling they should gouerne: but they make a long discourse of statutes and temporall lawes, to couer their ambitious vsurpation, that in great lacke of Christes calling, their vniust honour may be approoued by mans fauour. There­by let them holde their temporall dignities, their landes, their liuelihoodes, their wiues also, if ther can obtaine so much at the commō wealthes handes: but their spiritual functions, their ministering of Sacraments, their gouernance of our soules, and what els soeuer they vsurpe without the warrant of Gods Church, the longer they exercise them, the farther they be from saluation, and the neerer to eternall woe and miserie. But to come to our purpose: it is our Church Catholike, in which all holie functions haue bene practized after Christes institu­tion euer since his ascension vp to heauen. And therefore this principall power of remitting and retaining sinnes, must needes be contained in the Church by her ministers and priests as it was begonne in the Apostles before.

I like well your pretence after a large discourse to knit vp your whole entent, in a Syllogisme: which [Page 124] you set as a matke for vs to shoote at, while we liue. ve­rilie your argument, if one word were awaie, I would willinglie graunt: but the word properlie, you are ne­uer able to prooue while you liue, nor all the papists in the world after you are dead: therefore in respect of that word, I denie your Minor. And yet I graunt, that you inferre vpon it your conclusion in such termes as you haue set it downe: that lawfull Priestes, Elders, or ministers of Gods Church, at this daie, haue as fullpower to forgiue sinnes in their seuerall charges, as the A­postles had in their gener all commission. But here you will needes examine vs, what Church that is, in which Christ doth preserue the gouernment giuen to the Apostles? The Ca­tholike Church forsooth. 2. Where the power of mini­string the sacraments (if you meane that, by your termes of making and practizing) hath continued still? in the Catholike Church. 3. What companie of Christ an people that is, wherein the Apostles, Doctours, preachers ministers through the perpetuall assistance of Gods spirit, be continued, for the building vp of Christes bodie, which is the number of the faithfull? Still I answere, the companie of the Ca­tholike Church. 4. What Church that is, which bringeth forth from time to time, sonnes to occupie the romes of their Fathers before them. Here I answere, manie hereticall and malignant Churches: but onelie the Catholike Church hath continued from the beginning in such propagation. You answere your selfe and saie, it is not, it is not the pelting-packe, & petrie congregation of the Prote­stants, to your double negatiō, a single affirmation may serue. It is the Church of them you cal Potestantes in Europe, which is a part of the Catholike Church dis­persed ouer all the earth: which Church of the Prote­stantes I see not, why you should so pelt at it, with your pettierhetorike. It is (God be thanked) as great, and as glorious at this time, in the eies of the world, as the Romish rable, except that the ministers thereof be not so prowde, nor so gorgeous. That whore of Ba­bilon [Page 125] your dame, whome you would haue to be ac­cepted for the Catholike Church of Christ, which boasted her selfe that she was no widow, is now of ma­nie forsaken, & of her spirituall for nication begetteih but feew bastardes, in comparison of that she was wont to doe. Therefore it is not, no, no, that wil be able to pul vs out of the Apostolike chaires, in which we teach nothing but the Doctrine of the Apostles, consonant vnto the Doctrine of the Prophets. These Fathers we seek to holde of, and all other that holde of the same line, we hold with them: as for large view of pre­decessours, we know it must necessarilie insue the do­ctrine of the Prophets, and Apostles, because of the perpetuall continuance of the Church. And therefore we take not vp olde, mouldie, and mothen parche­mentes to seeke our progenitours names, but by con­sanguinitie of Doctrine with the Apostles, as Tertul­lian calleth it, knowe we are Apostolike, and set in A­postolike places. As for the long discourse of statutes & temporall lawes that you talke of, we claime no spiritu­all inheritance thereby: although we accept the con­firmation of temporall lawes, for the better execution of our offices. What I pray you Sir? had not you Pa­pists in Queene Maries time, as large a discourse of statutes and temporal lawes, as we haue, for the main­tenance of your popish superstition, and all thinges thereto belonging? and yet you would procure enuie to vs, of statutes and temporall lawes, as though wee helde onelie by them. As for temporal dignites, landes lieuely hodes, I knowe not how they shoulde be main­teined, but by temporall lawes. Out wiues we holde by the law of God, against which there is no temporal lawe of the land, by infinit better right, then you doe hold your stewes, and other remedies of your incon­tinencie: and as for spiritual functions, we holde them by the same right, that they were first giuen to the Church and haue therein continued euen to this daie.

THE SIXTH CHAP.

ANd to Caluin or other of his secte, that require the like vertue and force of the holie Ghostes assi­stance in all men that take vpon them to remit sinnes, as it was giuen to the Apostles, who first receiued that power, I an­swer: that the same gift of the holie Ghost is yet in the mi­nisters of the same Sacrament, no lesse then in the Apostles. For though they had more plentifull sanctification whereby they were in all their life more holie, and more vertuous, then lightlie anie other, either Priestes or laie men, were after them, yet the giftes of the holie Ghost, touching the ministerie and seruice of Gods Church, which were not so much giuen them for their owne sakes, as for the vse of the common wealth, and for the right of practizing certaine ho­ly functions requisite for the peoples sanctification, as they were also giuen to diuers that were neither good nor vertuous, and therefore lacked that, which properlie is that grace of the holie Ghost that is called of our schoole men, gratia gra­tum faciens, such a grace as maketh a man accepta­ble to God. Therefore, the holie Ghost breathed vpon the Apostles then by Christ, and giuen yet to Priests in their ordering by Bishopes; is a gift of God, and a grace of the ho­ly ghost, not whereby man is made rertuous, or cunning, or happie before God, but it is a gift onelie of God, whereby man is called aboue his owne nature and dignitie, to haue power and authoritie, to doe and exercise anie function in Gods Church to the spirituall benefit of the people, which is not onelie not alwaies ioyned to vertue and holie knowledge, but it full often, by calling, due to them which are moste wicked per­sons, [Page 127] without anie impaire of their authoritie. And these kinde of giftes and graces of the holie Ghost, be called gratiae gratis datae, certaine giftes giuen to men for no desertes of their persons, but freelie, for the vse of other men, to whome they be beneficiall, euen there, where they be hurtfull to the bestowers. In which sense Saint Paule numbreth a great sorte, in the fourth to the Ephesians, and the first Epistle to the Eph. 4. Cap. 12. Corinshians: and he calleth them, not onelie the graces of the spirite, but also the diuisions of functions, and ministrations: as, the gift of working of miracles, the gift of tongues, the gift of prophecying, the gift of preaching, and so foorth: all which being the giftes and graces of the spirit for the Churches edifying, and of Saint Peter being called the holy Ghost, in the Actes, yet they were giuen to euill men of­ten, Cap. 2. as well as to good, without all imparing of Gods honoure: yea with the great encrease of God glorie, that euen by the wicked is able to worke his wil and holie purpose for the benefit of his Elect. And in this sense, the spirite of God breathed vpon the Apostles, was a gift of the holie Ghost, whereby man should remit by lawfull power the sinnes of the people. In 20. cap Ioan Whereupon Theophilact sayeth, that, Potestatem quan­dam & donum spirituale dedit Apostolis, vs remittant pec­cata, ostendens quod genus spiritualium donorum eis dederit, inquit: quorum remiser it is peccata, remittuntur eis: that is to saie: Christ gaue to his Apostles a certaine power and spi­rituall gift, whereby they might remit sins: for he shewed what power of the spirit it was that breathed on them, when he said: whose sinnes you doe for giue, they be forgiuen.

Whosoeuer shall vndoubtedlie remit sinnes, and absolue sinners, must haue the same gift of the holie Ghost, which the Apostles had, whereby he cannot erre. And this gift no man denieth, but it maie be in a wicked and vngodlie man. For euen such an one may preach the doctrine of Christ, of remission of sinnes, publikelie, and priuatlie, if he haue the calling, that is required to that office. Neither doth Caluine, or any other that are of his iudgement, otherwise re­quire [Page 128] the like force of the holie ghostes assistance, in al men that take vpon them to remit sinnes. For there is not onelie a power, but a knowledge required in him that shall assuredlie and vndoubtedlie forgiue sinnes. And therefore the papistes doe vnreasonably make a diuorse, of the keie of power, from the keie of know­ledge: which power, if it be no guided by knowledge, doth nothing, but insteade of opening and shut­ting with the keies committed to the Church, throw forth the keies, as the blinde man casteth his staffe, which cannot happen so right in to the locke that they should open it, to the penitent sinners. For it is not the Priestes authoritie that can open the dore of comforte to a sinners conscience, except he can de­clare vnto him, out of the word of God, how and by what meanes, he maie be reconciled vnto God. That the holie Ghost is giuen by Bishopes to Priestes in their orde­ring, it is more boldlie affirmed, then euer it can be prooued: for Christ onelie hath authoritie to giue the holy Ghost, and therefore to declare, that it commeth from him alone among men, he breathed vpon his A­postles: which though the Bishops doe, vntill their longues ake, yet can they not furnish their parties by them ordered, with giftes meet for their calling, as Christ did his Apostles. They must make choise there­fore, according to the Doctrine of the Apostle, of those that haue those gratious and necessarie giftes of God before, and to them they must commit the power and authoritie to exercise the same, to the pub­like benefice of the Church. But if they wil giue autho­ritie to them, that haue no wisdome to exercise the same, they make the most foolish iudges of all the world, and such are worthelie contemned. Therefore howsoeuer you distinguish grace, you must not seeke to winne credit to them, which haue nothing but pre­tense of authoritie, when they be voide of all vnder­standing, how to vse it, as manie hundreds, yea thou­sandes [Page 129] of your hedge Priests are, if their calling were neuer so good, as it is moste corrupt and vnlaw­full.

If our aduersaries be ignorant of these thinges, which be so common in schooles of diuinitie, yet we think they should remember, that Saint Paul did not dissalow the authoritie nor power of preaching, in such as were euil men, and taught Philip. 1. for emulation and not of sincere zeale of the Gospell, and that Christ him-selfe stopped not such as cast out deuilles in his Mat. 7. name, and therefore were not without the gifte of workeing miracles, though he professed, that manie of them at the date of iudgement, challenging some right of heauen vpou that acte, should not be receiued to glory: & how the gift of prophecy was common in the olde [...], not onelie to the wicked, but to such as willinglie would deceiue the people: And Caiphas Ioan. 11. he prophecied by the spirit of God, as by force of his office, be­ing yet in purpose to worke wickednes against Christ himselfe, for whose trueth he then, by force of the spirit, prophecied. But of the Sacramentes of Gods Church euerie one, that they may beministred beneficiallie, to the receiuing in much wickednes of the giuer, there is no man can be ignorant. For it is a rule and a principle moste certaine, that God worketh his will in them by the ministerie of men, be they neuer so euill. For elle they were mans sacraments, and not Gods. and we could not be certaine neither of our baptisme, neither of right receiuing of Christes bodie in the holie sacrament of his eultar, nor of any other spirituall benefit that we now by mans ministery re­ceiue in the Church. Much cōsort it were for al Christian peo­ple, to hauesuch [...] [...] then soules, and such disposers of Gods mysteries, as would & could in all sinceritie and faith­fulnes worke Gods [...], and that would alwaies vse the high power giuen them, to [...], and neuer to destroie: and that they would so doe, both S. Peter and S. Paule doe often ex­hort 1. Pet. 4. them. But neither the miserie of mans sinsull nature can suffer that, nor our wickednes can desirue so much. S. Peter Gal. 2. him-selfe was reprehensible in his gouernement: therefore let vs not maruell, that other which be not of so full spirit, as he [Page 130] was, either maie commit thinges worthie of reprehension a­mongst the good, or subiect to the malitious slaunder of the euill.

These things are not such high pointes of learning that your aduersaries need not to be ignorant in thē. Your distinction as common as it is in the schooles, yea & hath a good entēdement, yet it is vttered in such termes, as be coincident. For gratia gratum faciens, is also gratîs data. Although euerie grace or gift of God, doth not make a man acceptable, or beloued of God, yet is euerie grace or gift of God freely giuen, and not in respect of merites or desertes, and least of all that grace, by which we are made acceptable., and belo­ued of God. And touching your other point, we do not holde, that the sacraments, or anie other part of the ad­ministration of the Gospell dependeth vpon the vertue or vices of men, that exercise the same. And yet the first rea­son you vse to strengthen that point, is verie feeble. For you saie, S. Paul did not disalowe the authority nor power of preaching in such as were euill men, and taught for emulation, and not of sincere zeale, of the Gospell. Phil. 1. Whereas it doth no waie appeare, that he did allowe the authoritie of those men, who perhappes were not lawfullie called, and so it is most like, but reioysed, that Christ was preached, by what meanes soeuer, because God both can, and doth con­uert the vnlawfulintentes and actes of wicked men, to serue to his glorie. Some other arguments you vse, that are not verie strong: but forasmuch as I agree with you in the summe of the matter, I will spend no time about them.

And suerlie for our matter, beeing of such importance, Priests had need moste carefullie to studie, how to practize so high a function, which is proper to Gods owne iudgement and heauenlie courte. For though by Christ they haue vndoubtedly receiued commission aud power in the vertue of the holy ghost, when they toke holie orders, to forgiue and remit sinnes, yet [Page 131] cursed be they by Gods owne mouth, if they doe it either neg­ligently, because it is the worke of our Lord, or with affection of pride and Pharisaical dominion, as though they were Lords of the sacraments and Christian Religion, and not ministers or seruitours of Christ in his Church. Whereof it seemed that Ieorm. in 16. Mat. S. Ierome in his daies, had some cause to complaine, nothing reproouing their authoritie, but correcting the abuse of their authoritie. Penance in those daies was so hardlie obtained, that it seemed to S. Icreme, that their austeritie grew to some spice of Pharisaicall regiment, that would lay importable burdens on other mens neckes, and not touch any at all them selues. Whereupon he taketh occasion to aduertise Mat. 23. them, that eucrie power of remission, and the office of absolu­tion was properlie Gods, and theirs but by ministerie. And therefore that their mercie and iudgement ought to be tried and measured by his sentence, and not his by theirs. These thinges were to be admonished and reprehended then: but now the disease lieth on the other side, and they offende rather in ouer much lenitie. For as both be contemned of the wicked, so there is almoste amongst the good none left, but loosing now a daies, when men had rather be bound in sinne, then bound in penance for sinne. Therefore the office os binding and loo­sing requireth truelie good knowledge, much discretion, zeale and stowtnes in Gods quarell. For as it is moste high, so surelie it is moste hard and burdenous. It pitieth my heart to see it so litle esteemed, but much more, that it should be lesse esteemed through their ignorance or euill life, to whom the keies of re­mission be committed. The keie of remission and retaining sinnes, they had of God in their orders, but discretion, know­ledge, vertue with other qualities, meete for the exercise of that office, they must by praier and industrie obtaine, lest whilest they profit other men to saluation, they become repro­bate them selues, as Saint Paul said of him selfe in case of preaching.

But in deede, it is not so cömendable for vs, as the case stand­eth now, nor so needefull to prie into the Priests bosomes, or to vewe their lackes in ministring of this sacrament of penance [Page 132] which, if anie be, doe lightlie redound to their owne harmes & not so mech to mine, or to anie other which vse their office to our saluation. For though for counsell and comforte, and such other respectes, a descrete and learned man were rather to be wished for then a worsse, yet being assured that the partie is called by Gods Church to the function, and hath iurisdiction ordinarie, or graunted extraordinarilie by the appointint­ment of lawfull superiours, and if by schisme and excommuni­cation or otherwise he be not suspended from the practize of the said functions, I need nothing to doubt for his other lackes, but much more for mine owne sufficience, or lacke of contrition, or some other like want in my selfe, why the fruit of the Priests absolution cannot be deriued vnto me, as else, if it were not my owne default, it should by force of the sacrament vndoubted­lie be.

Except you haue no regarde of the propertie of speach, I maruell you can saie, this function is so proper to gods owne iudgement and heauenly court, and yet allowe the iudgement of Saint Ierome that all power of remission and absolution is properlie Gods, and mans but by ministerie: In which sentence, if you would con­tinue, we should haue small controuersie with you, touching the argument of this first booke of your treatise. The wordes of Ierome vpon the 16. of Saint Mathewe are these: Et dabo tibi claues regni caelorum. I­stum locum Episcopi & presbyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi de Pharisaeorum assumuns supercilio, vt vel damnens in­nocentes, vel soluere se noxios arbitrentur: cùm apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed reorum vita quaeratur. Legi­musin Leuitico de leprosis, vbi iubentur vt ostendant se sacerdotibus, & si lepram habuerint tunc a sacerdote immun­difierent: non quòd sacerdotes leprosos faciunt, & immundos, sed quòd habeant notitiam leprosi & non leprosi, & possint dis­cernere qui mundus, quiuè immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi le prosum sacerdos mundum vel immundum facit, sic & hîc alli­gat vel soluit Episcopus & pres biter: non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxij, sed pro officio suo cùm peccatorum audierit va­rietates, [Page 133] rietates, scit qui ligandus sit, quiue soluendus. And to the I will giue the keies of the kingedome of heauen. This place Bishopes and priests not vnderstanding, doe take vpon them somewhat of the pride of the Pharises, that either they condemne innocentes, or thinke that they due loose guilty persons, whereas before God, not the sentence of priests, but the life of the parties accused in iudgement is enquired of. We reade in Leuit. of the Lepers, where they are commaunded to shew themselues vnto the priests, and if they haue the Lepro­sie, then they are made vncleane by the prieste. Not that the priests doe make men Lepers and vncleane, but for that they haue knowledge of a Leper, and of him that is no Leper, & can discerne who is cleane, & who is vncleane, Therefore looke how priest doth there make a Leper cleane, or vncleane, so here doth a Bishop or priest binde or loose, not them that are vnguiltie or guilty, but according to his office, when he hath heard the vari­ety of sinners, he knoweth who is to be bound, or who is to be loo­sed. In this saying of S. Ierome diuerse things are to be considered: First that the gift of the keies & the power of binding & loosing graunted to Peter, by his iudge­ment and al mens in his time, peiteineth to euerie Bi­shoppe, elder, or priest of Gods Church. Secondlie that God onelie doth properlie and absolutelie for­giue sinnes: and thirdlie that the priests sentence vp­on earth is but declaratorie, vpon his knowledge of the offendours of Gods sentence, as the priests autho­ritie to make a Leper cleane or vncleane, was onelie vpon certaine knowledge to pronounce that which God had wrought vpon him to his punishment or de­liuerance, and according thereunto, either to seperate him, or to receiue him into the congregation. That pe­nance in those daies was giuen greater then the fault required, you finde not in Saint Ierome, either in the one place, or in the other, that you quote. Onelie in the later vpon the text of Mat. 23. which you cite of importable burthens, he saieth. Hoc generaliter aduersus omnes magistros, qui grauiaiubent, & minora non faciunt. This is spoken gene­rallie [Page 134] against all such Masters, as commaund burthenous things, and them-selues doe not lesser thinges. So that you would seeme to auoide Saint Ieromes iudgement vp­on a false surmise. For Saint lerome findeth as much fault with the prelates of his time, for loosing them that are guiltie, as for binding them that are inno­cent. The contempt of your priests which you lament, is both for there ignorance, & vnlawfull calling. Where­as you assure them of the keie of remission and reteining of sinnes to be giuen them by God, in their orders, and then you send them to obteine discretion, knowledge, vertue, with o­ther qualities meete to exercise that office by praier and indu­strie, you take a wrong course, and contrarie to that which the Apostle prescribeth: for he will haue men first, to be tried and then to minister. They must first by praier and other ordinarie meanes, seeke to be fit for their office, & afterwarde lawfully be admitted there­to. But where this order is peruerted, they may haue calling and admission by men, but I see not how, they can haue power and approbation of God. And there­fore Saint Ieromes sentence standing, your conclusion of the fruite of an ignorant priests absolution is no­thing worth, though there were no doubt of his cal­ling.

For this I dare be bolde to saie, that the lacke of the ap­pointed fruite of any sacrament, ariseth a thousand times oft­ner, by the vnworthines of the subiect, and him that receiueth the sacrament, then vpon any lacke of the giuer and minister thereof, and namelie in this sacrament of the Churches dis­cipline it chaunceth more often. For as Saint Basil saith: Po­testas remittendi peccata non est absolutè data, sed in recipien­tis obedientia, & in consensu cum eo qui animae ipsius curam Quaest 15. Regula con­tract. gerit, sita est. The power of remitting sinnes is not absolute­lie, without condition, giuen: but it standeth in the obedi­ence of the penitent, and in his agreement with him that hath the charge of his soul. Therefore, for Christs loue, let vs cast pe­rill oftner of our owne case, then vpon other mens states: for we [Page 135] are not so assured of the holie spirit, or his grace to qualifie vs for the worthie receiuing, as they are out of doubt for the right power of ministerie.

And to conclude against Caluin, and all other, that thinke the power of priestes either to be lesse for lacke of good life, or want of much learning, I alledge Saint Cyprian thus: Remissio peccatorum per baptismum, siue per alia sacramenta donetur, propriè spiritus sancti est, & ipsi soli huius efficientiae priuilegi­um manet. Thus in English: Remission of sinnes, whether it be by baptisme or by other sacraments giuen, it properlie per­teineth to the holie ghost, and the preheminence of the forece­able effect is onelie his: the solemnitie of wordes, the inuo­cation of Gods name, and the externall signes prescribed to the priests ministeries, by the Apostles to make vp the visible sa­crament: but the thing it selfe, and effect of the sacrament, the holie ghost worketh: and the author of all goodnesse putteth his hand inuisible, to the externall and visible consecration of Serm. de baptis. Chr sti. the priests. So saith Saint Cyprian, and maketh a farre long discourse how the diuersitie of the ministers desertes doe no­thing Vidi Au­gust. 1. 5. contra Do­natistas Cap. 20. Act. 1. alter the sacraments or the effect thereof, but beeing a like to all receiuers of fit capacitie and condition, by whomesoe­uer they be serued and dispensed with iustice, authoritie, and calling thereunto. The Baptisine of Iudas Iscarioth, was no worsse then Simon Peters. For S. Peter saith, Connumera­tus erat in nobis, & sortitus est sortem ministerij huius: He was counted as one of our number, & had the lotte of the ministerie. Nor the ministerie of Nicolas of lesse ac­ceptation in it selfe, then the function of Stephen, being men of one office, but of unlike deseruings. The prophesie of Esate no more true then the prophesie of Caiphas: nor the prophesie of Balaam lesse true, then the prophesie of Baruc. If we were either absolued, or baptized in the name of Peter and Paull, or Iudas, or Apollo, then we might bragge, who were best baptized, or sureliest loosed from sinne, and euery one might so either crake, or be ashamed of his minister, whereof Saint Paull earnestly checked the Corinthians. But now euery one beeing both baptized, and loosed, and houseled, and annointed, and [Page 136] honoured in all other spirituall acts, in no other name, but in the name of Iesus, his father euerlasting, and the holie ghost proceeding from them both, all must needes receiue the like benefite that be like qualified thereunto, of whome soeuer the office is exercised, if he be lawfullie called, that is to saie, haue by the handes of priesthood, receiued the gift and grace of the holie ghost for his lawfull authorizing in that case, the which gift of the holy Ghost, being the selfe same that the Apostles receiued of Christ for the like functions, continueth with them still, though their life and desertes be neuer so euill, and their ignorance neuer so much: yea though they be by inst occasion, as for heresie, schisme, or notorious life, through the Censures of the Church imbaryed from the vse and exercise of that of­fice of remitting sinnes, and such other the like spirituall fun­ctions.

That the lacke of the fruit of any sacrament is most commmonlie in the receiuer, rather then in the in­sufficiencie of the minister, it prooueth that the mini­ster doth not properlie giue the effect of the sa­craments, but the outwarde seales thereof, as Saint Iohn Baptist doth moste wiselie distinguish them, saying, I baptize with water, but he that com­meth after me, shall baptize with the holie ghost and with fire, Saint Basill in the place by you quoted, saying that the power of remitting of sinnes is not giuen absolutelie, but in the obedience of him that repenteth, &c. declareth what manner of power this is, contrarie to that you haue hetherto for the moste part maintained. As also that he sayeth within few wordes after, that the new testa­ment doth promise remission of all sinnes to them that worthely repent, he concludeth plainlie against your long dis­course, wherin you would haue it seeme, as though the priest had absolute power of remitting, and not an au­thoritie of declaring the sentence of God concerning such. And Saint Cyprian, or whoesoeuer is author of that worke, De cardinalibus Christi operibus, confirmeth that which I saide, that the minister doth not proper­lie [Page 137] giue the effects of the sacrament, but onelie the outwarde seales thereof, as Iohn Baptist doth testi­fie. His whol sentence I will repeate, because you haue not so fullie set it downe, not so truelie translated it. Veniebat Christus ad Baptismum, non egens lauacro, in quo peccatum non erat, sed vt sacramento perennis daretur autori­tas, & tanti virtutem operis, nulla personarum acceptio com­mendaret: quoniam remissio peccaterum siue per Baptismum siue per alia sacramenta donetur, propriè spiritus sancti est, vt ipsi soli huius efficientiae priuilegium mancat. Verborum solen­nitas, & sacri inuocatio nominis & signa institutionibus Apo­stolicis sacerdotum ministerits attributa, visibile celebrant sa­cramentum: rem verò ipsam spiritus sanctus format, & ef­ficit, & consecrationibus visibilibus inuisibiliter manum to­tius bonitatis author apponit, & plenitudinem gratiae vnctio­nis diuinae pinguedo sanctificationibus officialibus infundit, & remsacramenti consummat & persicit. Christe came to Bap­tisme not wanting that [...], as he that was free from sinne, but that perpetuall authoritie might be giuen to the sacra­ment, and that no respect of persous might commend the ver­tue of so great a worke: because remission of sinnes, whether it be giuen by Baptisme, or by other sacraments, is properlie the holie ghostes, and to him alone the priuiledge of this essectuall workeing remaineth. The solemnitie of wordes and the in­uocation of the holy name, and the signes appointed for the ministery of the Preists by the Apostles doctrine and in­struction, doe celebrate the visible sacrament: but the thing it selfe, the holie ghost formeth and worketh, and the author of all goodnes doth inuisiblie put his hande to the visible consecrations: and the fatnes of the diuine vnction doth power the fullnes of grace into the ministeriall sanctifica­tions: and doth make consummate or make perfect the matter of the sacrament. That the ministers desertes doth no­thing alter the sacramentes or the effect of them, it is no controuersie betweene vs, howsoeuer you would make the ignorant beleeue that Caluine is of another [Page 138] opinion, wherein his writings are moste manifest to the contrarie. Where you approoued him that is lawfullie called, to haue receaued the gift and grace of the holie Ghost, which is the selfe same that the Apostles receaued of Christ for the like functions, you take too much vpon you: for the ordinarie and externall calling, to exercise an out­warde ministerie, where of Cyprian discourseth, may be without receauing of the holie Ghoste. Againe no man hath authoritie to giue the holie Ghost, in or­daining, more then in Baptisme or anie other parte of the ministerie of the Gospell. Thirdlie, where you re­quire lawfull calling and ordaining in the minister of the sacrament, that the receiuer being rightlie qualified, maie obtaine like benefit of whomsoeuer the office is exercised, you exclude lay men and women from ministring of the sa­crament of Baptisme, which your doctrine doth ad­mitte. Finallie, where you assure the minister of the continuance of his authoritie, by that gift of the holie Ghost, be his life and desertes neuer so euill, you saie verie much. For what if he be an Idolater, a persecutor of Christi­ans, or degenerated into Mahometisme, wil you say his gift and authoritie doth still continue? nay, you saie it continueth, though he be neuer so ignorant. Then if he be a naturall foole, or a mad man, or one void of all Christian knowledge, either when he was ordained, or fallen since into such extremitie of igno­rance, yet by your rule, he retaineth his gift. Nay, if he be for heresie, schisme, or notorious euill life law­fullie embarred from the vse and exercise of remitting sinnes, and other like spirituall functions, yet his gift of the holie Ghost continueth still with him. This is in deede an indeleble character, that is imprinted so deepe, that nothing can scrape it awaie, ex­cept perhappes a glasse or knife in degradation: For as I take it, you meane of him that is onely suspen­ded from his office, as though the practize onelie, and not the authoritie for a time might be taken from him.

[Page 139]

But to make an end of this matter, I turne Caluins reason against him selfe. He and his flocke be of that fond and blinde iudgment, that the whole text of the twentith of S. Iohn, wher­in Christ giueth authoritie to the Apstoles to remit sinnes, is meant onelie of preaching the Gospell, for which function Christ gaue them the holie Ghost: Now sir, vpon this I vrge him with his owne reason: I ask him first, whether the mini­sters that by him cresent to preach the word of the holie ghost, as for example Beza that he sent into Fraunce first, or Riche­rus, whome he sent to Coligninia, or Hermam that came by the holie Ghostes sending vnto Flaunders & Brabant, had these the holie ghost, or no? If they saie yea, as I think they will (they be so bolde in an other mans house) then demaund of them further, whether the said spirit maie erre? If they saie no, as possiblie they will, then conclude against them thus: The holie Ghost can not erre, ergo you haue not the holie Ghost, and consequentlie you haue then no better right in preaching, then poore Priestes haue in remitting or absoluing. Therefore I leaue Caluine wrestling with his owne shadow, and will fol­low on my purpose and course of matter, which I haue in hande.

Now we shall heare how cunninglie you can turne Caluins reason againste him selfe. First you saie, he and his flock be of that fond and blinde iudgement that the wholl text, wherein Christ geueth authoritie to his Apostles to remit sinnes, is meant onelie of Preaching the Gospell, for which function Christ gaue them the holie Ghost. But Caluinsaith notso, but that authoritie to remit sinnes, is graun­ted to be exercised by preaching. both priuatelie and publikelie: that is, to assure men, that God doth re­mit their sinnes, and that the giftes of the holie Ghost were graunted to the Apostles, that they might be in­abled to exercise that high office and function: which giftes no man hath power to giue, but onelie God, nei­ther doth anie man at this daie receiue them in such plentifull measure, but that he maie erre, of whomeso­euer he be ordeined, or sent to preach. Neither doth [Page 140] Caluin require that power of not erring, but onelie in them that arrogate vnto them-selues an absolute pow­er to remit sinnes, as properlie as the holy Ghost doth forgiue them, who we knowe cannot erre, in binding him, that is to be loosed, or loosinge him that is to be bounde, as popishe pristes doe, which yet presumptu­cusly, and blasphe mouslie arrogate vnto them-selues such power and authoritie.

THE SEVENTH CHAP.

Now by all our former discourse, the right of remissi­on of sinnes sufficiently prooued to pertain to priesthood, some will perhaps count it vaine labour, to make more decla­ration of that which is so plaine, or further to establish that by reason, which standeth so fast on scriptures. But if a­nie so thinke, they see net the wyde waies of heresie, nor the manifolde shifies that she attempteth euen there, where shee maie seeme to be fullie beaten. The simple and the sinfullstand moste in her danger, that can not in their lack of intelligence, compare reason to reason, nor gather one trueth of an other, and therefore to their mouthes we must chew all meates verie small, els there could be no great need of their further information, how this claime of remission of sinnes or the vsisall practize thereof, could stand with Gods glorie. For being answerable to his ordinance, it can not but be agreeable with his honour. But because in desperate cases our aduersaries haue taught their fellows there to wrangle vncurteouslie where they can not mantaine reason pithelie, I will not onelie serue my cause, but sometimes pursue their follie, though I doubt not but the wisdome of God shal more and more appeare, touch [Page 141] ing his meaning in our matter, not alonelie by our defence but a great deale the rather by their discontentation,

Now therefore intending to declare, that this preheminence of priesthood, doth nothing abase, or derogate to Gods aignitie, I think it not amisse to match our new doctours, of whome I heare often this complaint, with other their forefathers, that at once both trueth maie fullie be serued, and a yoke of aduer­saries ioyntlie drawing against the Church and our saluation, may be almost with one breath refuted. Our yong masters may be glad, to grow so high in gods Church, as to be reprooued with them who were condemned thirteene hundreth yeares since: and though they be so modest, that lightlie they list not crack of their auncestours, yet we will not defraud them of that glo­rie, nor healpe our cause by dissimulation of their great anti­quitie. It is their pusillanimitie, I know, that they will not often in distresse of their doctrine, call for aid of their forefa­thers, who were doubtlesse verie auncient, and manie of them within the first six hundred yeares. In other causes Vigilan­tius might healpe: in some Iouinian would attend vpon them: Manes might do them often high pleasure. Iulianus the apostata, a prince for their purpose, Simon Magus, one of the Apostles age, would stand by them: surelie if our aduer­saries had [...], they would well neere winne of vs by antiqui­tie. And truelie I can not dissemble with them in this cause, that now is in hand: they haue one patron against vs, of yeares very auncient, and of reason much much like vnto themselues, Nouatus is his name, of whome the followers were called of the Church Nouatians, but them-selues liked to be called Cathari, that is to saie, cleane and vndefiled persons. Their opinion was, that such as did fall into anie mortall sinne after Baptisme, could not by anie man or meanes be assoiled there­of: and for that they dissalowed the Churches wholl practize of mercie and remission of sinnes in the sacrament of penance, no­thing dissagreeing from Caluin, that condemneth the saying of Saint Ierome, as sacrilegious, where he writeth that penance is as a second beord of refuge, whereby after shipwrack a man may be saued. Neither did Nouatus denie, but himselfe might [Page 142] haue mercie, and giue pardon after mansfall, but the Church could not therein meadle, as he thought, without singular in­iurie to Christ, and his onelie prerogatiue. And that he ioy­neth in this matter fullie with our men, that they maie take more comfort on him, you shall perceiue by Socrates one of the writers of the Tripartit historie, who saith thus: Nouatus scribebat Ecclesus ne eos qui Daemonibus immolauerant, ad sacramenta susciperent, sed inuitarent quidem ad poenitenti­am, remissionem verò Dei relinquerent potestati, cuius solius est peccata remittere. Nouatus wrote his letters to diuerse Churches, that they should not admitte anie man to the Sacra­mentes, that had sacrificed to Diuelles, but that they should onelie mooue them to doe Pennance, and com­mitte to God the remission of their sinne, who onelie can forgiue mans offences. And therefore though in some other point Nouatus did ouerpricke his children, yet herein they fullie meet in one. Epiphanius writeth, that he denied salua­tion to those that did fal to greeuous crimes after their Chri­stendome, and therewith did holde, that there was but one pe­nance, which was done in baptisme, & after that the Church to haue none. How hansomelie he defended this error, and vnmercifull heresie, ye shall see anone by Saint Ambrose, who learnedlie followed and chased him or his followers in an wholl worke written for that purpose. In the meane time it were good for the more credit of the man and his cause, to note with the auncient Doctors of his daies, his conditions, his comming vp, his proceeding, and practizes. S. Cyprian, who was most mo­lested with him, & knew him best, geueth him this praise: No­uatus was a man that delighted much in nouelties and newes, of insatiable auarice, a furious rauin, with pride and intol­lerable arrogancie almoste puffed past him selfe, knowen and taken of all Bishoppes for a naughtie packe, condemned by the common iudgement of all good Priestes for a faithlesse here­tike, curious and inquisitiue them to betraie, for to deceiue, alwaies readie to flatter, in loue neuer faithfull nor trustie, a match euer fired to kindle sedition, a whirle winde and storme to procure the shipwrake of faith, and to be short, an aduer­sarie [Page 143] to tranquilitie, and an enimie of peace. These were his conditions then.

In the latter end of the Chapter next before, you said in your brauerie, that you would leaue Caluine wrestling with his owne shadow, and follow on your purpose, and course of matter, a greate parte whereof is, as it appeareth, to wrastle with your owne shadowe. For no man ther is in these dayes, especially of them whome you count your aduersaryes in this cause, but doeth acknowledge, that it standeth well with gods honour, that mortall men should remit sins, according to that commission which they haue reccaued of him, who only hath power absolutely and properly to re­mitte sinnes. The heresie of Nouatus is also generallie condemned of all men, neither holde we anie error common with him, in denying the priestes authoritie, much lesse any heresie. To omitte therfore your im­pertinent declaration, who be moste in daunger of heresy, I acknowledge your argument to be good and found. Nothing that is answerable to Gods ordinance, can be disagreeable to his honour: the authoritie of the Church is agreeable to Gods ordinance: therefore not contrarie to his honour? But if your Priestes will claime further autho­ritie, then is answerable to Gods ordinance, as you do in their name, that is to saie, that they haue pow­er properlie to forgiue sinnes, then they claime that which is not agreeable to Gods honour. For it is God alone that properlie taketh awaie sinnes. And Gods ordinance is, that they should be declarers, inter­preters and expressers of his holie will and pleasure concerning remission of sinnes, not properlie pardo­ners, forgiuers, or remitters of sinnes, as though the sentence in heauen depended vpon the sentence in earth, and not rather the sentence of man, should be framed, and depend vpon the sentence of God. Your skornefull trifling in matching vs with auncient here­tiks, and graunting vs some preheminence of antiqui­tie, [Page 144] as though we were not hable to prooue our do ctrine in all pointes of controuersie, more auncient then yours, I passe ouer, as needing no answere, ex­cept it were to such, with whome no answere will preuaile.

The heresie of Nouatus, of diuers writers is diuersly reported: some affirme that he vtterly denied allre­pentance to them that had fallen after Baptisme: other that he denied only the absolution and admis­sion into the Church vpon any repentance or submis­sion of them, that for falling into idolatrie for feare of persecution, were excommunicated or excluded from the Church. As for the popish Sacramente of pe­nance, was not instituted in his daies: but the power, that the Church hath in loosing them that werebound in such cases, or of assuring the penitent osfenders of remission of sinnes, he vtterlie denyed. But, you saie, he was nothing disagreeing from Caluin, that condemneth the saying of Hierome as sacrilegious, where he writeth that pe­nance is a second borde of refuge, whereby, after shipwrack, a man maie be saued. In which affirmation you vtter ma­nie vntruethes at once. For Caluine denyeth not with Nouatus, the benefit of repentance, absolution, loosing, or forgiuenes of sinnes after Baptisme, as you shamefullie slaunder him, but reprooueth the sophisti­call papistes, which to the derogation of Baptisme, and the perpetuall fruite thereof, cal their pretended sacrament a second borde aftershipwrack, as though the be­nefit of Baptisme beeing lost, they should haue remis­sion of sinnes by this counterfet sacrament of popish penance and absolution. Secondlie, Caluin simpliecon demneth not the saying of Ierome as sacrilegious, but saith, that whose saying soeuer it is, it can not be ex­cused, but it is plainlie impious, if it be expounded according to their meaning. As though (saith he) Inst. lib. 4. c. 19. Sect. 17. by sinne Baptisme were cleane put out, and not rather that it is to be called into remembrance to the sinner, so often as he [Page 145] thinketh of remission of sinnes, that thereof he maie gather him-selfe together be comforted, and confirme his faith, that he shall obtaine remission of sinnes, which was promised to him in Baptisme. Now that which Hierome spoke hardlie and vn­properly, that by repentance Baptisme is repaired (from whence they fal, which deserue to be excommunicated from the Church) these good interpreters draw to their impietie. Therefore you maie saie moste aptlie, if you call Baptisme the sacrament of repentance, seeing it is giuen for a confirmation of grace and faith in them that think vpon repentance. These words of Caluin declare that he thought not so vnreuenthe of Saint Hierome as you would haue it seeme, but that he reprooued their impudencie, which to mainteine their sacrilegious opinion of their new found sacra­ment do draw his wordes, though in them selues som­what hard, & vnproper, yet farre beyond his meaning. And certainlie whosoeuer shall reade the place it selfe where Hierome hath these wordes, in Esaie, cap. 3. shal plainly perceiue that he speaketh neither of Baptisme, nor of any other sacrament of penance or repentance, nor of anie exercise of repentance in the Church of Christ, but rather of them that were neuer baptized, thelews which impudently cryed, Crucifyhim, we haue no King but Caesar, or those elder Iewes, against whome E­saie prophecied. For vpon these wordes of the Pro­phet, They haue declared their sinne as Sodoma, &c. Et quomodo Sodomitae in omni libertate peccantes, & nec pudo­rem quidem vllum habentes in scelere, dixerunt ad Loth, E­ducforas viros, vt concubamus cum eis, sic & isti publi­cè proclamantes, suum praedicauerunt peccatum, nec vllam in blasphemando habuere vereeundiam: secunda enim [...] naufragium tabula poenitentia est, & consolatio miseriarum impietatem suam abscondere. And as the Sodomites sinning with all licentiousnes, and hauing not so much as anie shame in their wickednes, said vnto Lot, bring forth those men that we maie lie with them, euen so these men haue declared their owne sinne, openlle proclaiming it, and in blaspheming had no [Page 146] shamefastnes. For the second borde after shipwrack is repen­tance, and a comfort of miseries to hide their owne vngodlines. The sense is manifest, that they which are not ashamed of their sinnes, are farre from repentance and in a de­sperate state. For they that haue made shipwrack of honestie and Godlines, haue no recouerie but by re­pentance. So that Hieromes saying, except it be vio­lentlie wrested to those things, of which he neuer meant, soundeth nothing to the maintenance of anie patch of Poperie,

That Nouatus reserued to him selfe anie power of giuing pardon after mans fall, which he denied to the Church, I know not where you finde it. But Socrates must testi­fie, that he ioyned fullie with vs: yea though in some other point, he did ouerprick his children, yet herein they fully meete in one. Why sir? do we refuse to admit anie man to the sacramentes, which haue sacrificed to Deuilles? yea though they haue beene excommu­nicated from the Church fot their wickednes, do not we vpon repentance graunt them absolution, and as­sure them of remission of their sinnes? This is too intollerable impudencie to charge vs with Nouatus heresie, especiallie in that point, in which we are as directlie repugnant vnto him, as contradictoric say­ings and contrarie doings may be. What Epiphani­us writeth of his heresie, and Saint Ambrose confuted the same, is shewed before, as also how truelie Cal­uine is charged to iumpe with Nouatus in denying re­pentance after Baptisme, because he calleth bap­tisme the sacrament of repentance, as before him, the auncient writers vsed accustomablie, whereof you maie reade in his institution, the place before men­tioned.

Mary long before that his fall to heresie, S. Cornelius wri­tein, that he was possessed in his youth with an euill spirit, for Epist. ad Pa­bianū exen. which he had to do great while with coniurers, & that he lacked all the holie solemnitie of Baptisme and confirmation, and con­sequentlie [Page 147] the Spirit of God, which by them he should haue receiued, and therefore tooke orders against the law vpon sini­ster fauour, and afterward by vnlawfull artes attempted to get abishopricke, with great othes protesting that he would not be a Bishop if he might. But when indeede he could not at­taine to that holie dignitie, which he so inwardlie and intolle­rablie gaped for, he fell in despite of Gods Church to heresie, that he might get that without order, whch he could not ob­taine, in the right manner of the Churches making. And for that purpose, he procured three base Bishops out of a straunge and remote part of Italie, who neither knew the case, the man, nor his manners, and them through ignorance he beguiled, and by force caused them to consecrate him Bishop, by the colour whereof (for true imposition of hands was it none) sodenlie he appeareth as a new creature & a Bishop of a strange stamp, apparuit Episcopus, velut nouum Plasma, saith Cornelius: And for this attempt one of the poore Bishops did great penance, the other two were deposed. In the meane time this mocke Bishop vendicabat sibi euangelium: challen­ged the word of the Lord for him-selfe, denied him-selfe to be a Priest, because he would not giue to the people (as Theodo­ritus Lib. 3. here­ticatum Fa­bularnm, ca Nouat saith) in their extremitie, the remedie for their sinnes, which is nothing els, but to giue them absoluti­on, which worke he could neuer abide. To be short, he was so incensed against his lawful Paslour and superiour the holie Bishop of Roome, that in the deliuerie of the blessed sa­crament to the people, he would force them to take an oth by the blessed bodie which they had in their handes readie to re­ceiue, that they should stick to him, and for sake the Bishop of Rome Cornelius.

All these thinges in sense hath Eusebius of Nouatus, the first patron of the Protestants doctrine concerning the im­pugning, Lib. 6. c. 33. Vide Aug. de heres. haer. 38. of the Churches title in remission of sins, of which her right he would haue robbed her in pretence of maintenance of Gods honour. Whereby he also abrogated the wholl Sacra­ment of penance. This falsehood, though it were streight with he author condemned in a great Councell holden at Rome, [Page 148] and afterward in diuerse Prouinciall Synodes, and by the ho­lie councell of Nice it selfe repressed also, Yet it spred very sort, and cintinued long, and was not onelie by S. Cyprian, but also by Dyonisius Alexandrinus, Saint Amb ose, and Saint Chrysostome refused in sundrie workes written against the Nouatians. By whome and other, though the course of that false assertion was often broken in gods Church, yet in some partes they did knit againe, sometimes by certaine heretikes, of Nouatus daies called Tessarescedecatitae, qui auersabantur poenitentiam, saith Theodoritus, who did abhorre penance: and sometimes, by a sort called Iacobitae, [...] whiles by wrcliffe & his, else, by the Waldenses, now and than, by the Anabaptistes, & latly by the Lutherans, & moste of the protestantes, & by the Caluinistes, eueryone.

All which blacke band, though they agree not at euery pinch of Nouatus heresit (for it is not possible, that such should e­uer fullie consent) yet all these knit tailes together in this, that there is no sacrament of penance after Baptisme, in which the priest may forgiue sinnes, and that it standeth not with gods honour, so to remit the peoples offences. Of other the like here­sies which he lent our men, as of forbidding holie Chrisme, and annointing of such as were by him baptized, in so much that the holie fathers were glad, to make vp the lacke thereof, in all such as came from their heresie to the vnitie of Christes Church, I will not here speake: purposing onelie, because, that onelie concerneth our matter, to refute that olde heresie raised so long since against the prerogatiue of Gods priests, and onelie helpe of our sinnes, that at once both the author, and the of­spring may be fullie ouer throwen.

Nouatus, as he is described by Cyprian, but that he came too soone before the open reuelation of Anti­christ, had beene a man much more fit to make a Pope of the Church of Rome, whereof he was mock­bishop, then a poore minister of the Church of Eng­land. And whatsoeuer you gatherout of Euseb. Theo­doret, or any other writer against him, declareth that he was an execrable man, but maketh no resemblance [Page 149] of his heresie with our doctrine, concerning the power of remitting of sinnes. You saie that he lacked all the solemnitie of baptisme and confirmation, and consequentlie the spirit of God, which by them he should haue receiued Eu­sebius indeed out of the Epistle of Cornelius writeth, that after he was helped by exorcistes, he fell into dangerous sicknes, and being at the point of death, and not considering, he receiued baptisme in his bed, if it may be said that such a one receiued. For after he escaped his sicknes he obtained not therest, whereof he should haue bin partaker according to the canon of the Church, that is, to be sealed or confirmed of the Bishope, and hauing not obtained this, how obtained he the holie Ghost? By which wordes Cornelius meant, that he which was baptized in extreamitie, when he knew not what was done vnto him, and afterward when he was whole, had no care to approoue his baptisme by the Bishoppes iudgement, vpon his owne confession & acknowledging of Christian Religion, could not be taken for a right Christian, much lesse, according to the discipline of those daies, might be admitted vnto the ministerie. But being admitted by a singular, and if you will, a sinister dispensation, in time of persecuti­on, he was so fearefull, that he denied himselfe to be a Priest, when he was desired to come vnto them, and onelie by wordes to confirme them that were stricken with the terrour of the tyrant, as Therdoret writeth. The oathe that he exacted of such as re­ceiued the Sacrament of the Lordes supper at his handes, was more like the oath that the pope exact­eth of all Bishopes at their consecration, then anie ministred in the Queenes Maiesties visitation. That Wickliffe, the Waldenses, Luther or Caluine, do denie repentance, or reconciliation of them, that are fallen after Baptisme, it is a meere slaunder, although they denie the Popish sacrament of penance, whereof there was no mention in the Chuch, manie hundred yeares after Nouatus. That the Nouatians did not anoint those [Page 150] that were by them Baptized, it seemeth they take it of their Master Nouatus, who because he had contem­ned: he ceremonie, vsed in that time of the Church, him-selfe taught his schollers to doe the same, left it should hawe beene reputed a want in him. Although not the omission of the ceremonie, but the contempt of the vsage of the Church, being not im­pious, in it selfe, was chiefelie condemned in him. For at such times as he was ordained Elder or Priest of the Church of [...], it was thought by the Bi­shope a matter that might be remitted in him, that for other respectes seemed meete for the office, nei­ther was it thought necessarie, that he should receiue that cerimonie so by him omitted, but not yet, as it was thought, in despight of the Church refused. The Fathers oflater time (as Theodoret writeth) decreed, that such as came from his heresie, and would be incorporated into the Church, should by receiuing that cerimonie, which in time of their heresie they despised, declare that they were truelie conuerted from it, and willinghe. submitted them­selues to the Catholike Church and her Doctrine. But of late daies when that ceremonie of anointing hath beene accounted a Sacrament, yea and a grea­ter Sacrament then Baptisme, and thought necessary to eternall saluation, whereas yet it hath no institu­tion of Christ set forth in the holie Scriptures: the reformed Churches haue iustlie abrogated that cu­stome, according to that libertie, which the Church hath in all ceremonies, not commaunded by God, & according to the example of the Church in former ages, which hath abrogated manie ceremonies vsed of auncient times, aswell as that of anointing with oile them that are Baptized.

And first, because generallie all the foresaid ioyne together against the trueth in this argument, that it is dishonour to god and great presumption in a mortall man, to claime the power [Page 151] so proper to God: let the studious reader well consider, that no function, power, ne dignitie, be it neuer so peculiar to God him-selfe by naturaii excellencie, but the same maie be occu­pied of man secondarilie, as by the waie of seruice, ministery, or participation, so that man challenge nor vsurpe it not as of him selfe, or when it is not lawfuliie receaued, nor orderlie gi­uen. All the workes that extraordinarilie and miraculouslie were wrought, either by Christ in his humanitie, or by the Pro­phets, or Apostles wordes, or by their garments, or by what other instrumēt so euer they were donne, were the works of god no lesse then to remit sins: yet al these things & other the like brought to passe by man, through the power of god that worketh by mans ministerie the same, nothing derogateth to gods glorie, but infi­nitelie augmenteth his honour: euen so the power of pardoning mans sins, being emploied by God the father vpon Christ his sonne, & by Christ vpon his Church & ministers, & practized by them, not of their owne might & heades, but in the [...] of the holie ghost, which by the sonne of god was [...] vpon them, this authoritie (I saie) is no derogation, but an eui­dent signe of his mightie power of saluation, left for the faith­fulls sake in the Church.

When the person that was lame from his birth begged of Peter and Iohn somewhat for his reliefe at the Temole dore, as his manner was, Peter answered him, that golde and siluer he had none to giue, but that which he had, he would willinglie bestowe, which was power to heale him of his incu­rable maladie: for proofe whereof, he bad him arise, and walke, and so he did at his word, in the sight of all that there Act. 3. were gathered: which being done, and the people wondering thereat, the Apostle thus instructed them: Brethren ( faith he) why wonder you at vs, as though we had brought this strange worke to passe by our owne strength and power: it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Iacob, that hath glorified his sonne Iesus whome you refused, and betraied to Pontius Pilatus to be crucified: in his name and faith this poore man is recouered. Marcke well, that the same thing which peter said, him selfe had to [Page 138] giue quod habeo, tibi do, the same yet he professeth that he holdeth not as of his owne right, or might, but as of Christ Ie­sus, in whose name he willed the lame to walke: euen so the the power of pardoning sinner is truely and properly in the Priestes, as the power of working miracles is properly in Pe­ters hands, neither the one noryet the other holden as of their owne might and power, but both practized for the glory of God in the name of Iesus of Nazareth, by their appointed mi­nistery. And as truly as Peter might saie to the feeble in body, that which I haue, I giue thee: rise and walke, in the name of iesos of Nazareth, so surelie may the Priest saie to the sicke in souie, that which I haue, I giue thee, in the name of Iesus thy Ennes (my sonne) be forgiuen thee. No lesse is the one the peculiar worke of God, then the other: no more doth one dishonor god then the other.

Nothing that is proper or peculiar to God, can be communicated to man, but it ceaseth to be proper to God. For it is against the nature of properties, to be made common to any other subiect, then to that whereof they are proper adiuncts. And yet I denie not but that which is proper to God, he doth exercise of­ten times, by the seruice or ministery of men, in which they are but instrumental causes, & he him selfe is the principal efficient: otherwise man maie not occupie, or execute secondly, or thirdly, or last of all, by waie of participation, that which is proper or peculiar to God. So that it remaneth still an vndoubted truth, that God onelie doth forgiue sinnes properlie, and man doth not forgiue sinnes properlie, but is the in­strument of God to vtter, and declare the good plea­sure of God in forgiuing sinnes to all and euerie one that repent, and beleeue the Gospe ll. Your general negatiue, that there is no function, power, nor dignitie be it neuer so peculiar to God, by naturall excellencie, but it maie be occupied of man secondly, as by the waie of seruice, ministery, or participation, if it were vrged against you, would breed horrible absurdities. To omit all other, [Page 153] the power of creating thinges of nothing, by what meanes maie man be partaker thereof, occupie it, or exercise it? But let vs consider your induction, All Mi­raculous workes worught by Christ in his humanitie, the Pro­phets, or Apostles, were no lesse proper to God, then the power to remit sinnes. Yes verilie: for manie miraculous workes, that God did by Moses, the inchaunters of Egipt did the like, by the power of the deuill: whereby it appeareth, that although ail power be deriued from God, as from the first cause thereof, euen that power which the deuill hath, yet it is otherwise commu­nicated to creatures, then the power of remission of sinnes is. For that remaineth onelie in the hande of God, and is not properlie executed by any other man, but onelie by our sauiour Christ, the mediarour of god and man. In which power he hath ordained man, but as a seruant, to doe nothing after his owne will, but onlie to declare and pronounce the will of God therof. In working of miracles it is otherwise, in which mā so exerciseth that power, either receiued of god, or of the deuil, that often times he causeth effects accor­ding to his owne wil, & contrarie to the wil of God re­uealed in his word, though nothing can be contrarie to his absolute will. But the power of remitting sins no man can execute, contrarie to the reuealed wil of God: For Peter could not forgiue the sinnes of Iudes Iscariot, Smon Magus, Alexander the copper smith, or anie other that sinned against the holy Ghost, or that was not truly penitent for his sinnes, or that beleeued not the promise of God. Neither could Peter, or can anie man retaine the sins of him that repenteth, and taketh holde of Gods mercie by faith, but he shall haue remission of sinnes, though all the men in the world would saie the contrarie: so that man hath no power in reteining or remitting of sins, but by declaring the will of God, wherof he hath no warrant but out of his worde. For I aske this question of you, [Page 154] if two priests hauing heard one mans confession at the same time be in contrarie opinions, so that the one doth forgiue sinnes, the other doth reteine them, Whether of these sentences shal take place? No doubt but you will saie, that which is agreeable to the will of God. Then doth it follow of necessitie, that man doth onelie declare Gods will, and hath no absolute or pro­per power, to exercise this authoritie according to his owne will. But as Peter saide to the lame man, that which I haue, I giue to thee, and yet he had it not of his owne right of might, but from God: euen so saie you, The power of pardoning sinnes, is truelie and properlie in the priests, as the power of working mitacles is properlie in Peters hands. Idenie your consequence. For although the pow er of working miracles were properly in Peters hands, yet it followeth not, that the power of pardoning sins was properlie in him. For, as I haue shewed, there is great diuersitie betweene the one power, and the o­ther. The power of miracles is graunted to Peter, to be exercised according to the direction of Gods holie spirit, agreeablie vnto the secret and absolute will of God: But the power of pardoning sinnes is not graun­ted to Peter, or any man, but as to a messenger, and declarer of Gods will as it is reuealed in his worde; be­side which, if any presume to remit. he doth but spend his breath in vaine. But a wicked man hauing the pow­er of miracles, maie sometimes abuse it, contrarie to Gods law, as to mainteine false doctrine, and Idolatry, to hurt or to murther innocents thereby: and yet wee may saie in some respect, that the power of working miracles is not properlie in Peters handes, both be­cause it is not in him, to heale whome and when he will, but after as he hath a secret instinct of him that is the author of his gift, and also because he is but an in­strument of God, whoe onelie doth great maruells properlie, Psal. 136. as he confessed in the healing of AEneas, Acts 9. saying, Christ Ie sus heale thee. So Acts. 3: [Page 155] His name hath made him strong, and the faith which is by him hath giuen him his perfect health. Where you conclude that the priests may saie likewise to the sicke soull, That which I haue, I giue thee, In the name of Iesus Thy sinnes, my sonne, be forgiuen thee. Although the sorme of speach be somewhat insolent and strange, yet you confesse that the priest hath nothing to giue him, but a declaration of Gods will, when he saieth, thy sins are forgiuen thee in the name of Iesus. Yea if he shall saie, in the name of lesus I forgiue thee thy sins, the sense were no more, but this, Iesus doth assure thee by me, his seruant and messenger, that he hath, satisfied for thy sinnes, and therefore they shall no more be imputed vnto thee, for God hath forgiuen them.

And this worke of remitting sinnes is much more certain then the miraculous healing of the bodie, beeing ioyned by Gods promise to a sacrament that shall neuer cease in the Church, where miracles for most part ceased long since: yea the name and maiestie of God is a thousand parts more honoured, not onelie that God, in his owne person, but in the frailtie of hu ministers, is able to accomplish such mightie miracles, both in the cure of bodie and soull. But the fondnes of this here­sie is so great, that it maketh those things to tend to Gods dis­gracing, which he hath appointed properlie and onelie in a manner, for the purpose, to set forth the name of his sonne Ie­sus. For if both sinnes of mans soull, and sores of his bodie could not visiblie by externall meanes be healed in the glorious inuocation of Gods name, it would surelie be forgotten in the Church of Christ, that such power is giuen by God the father to his onelie sonne, & mans minde would not reach to that in­wardly, whereof he had no proofe nor assurance outwardelie. I beseech you, Sir, the working of strange miracles giuen to some, as well of the Prophets, as of the Apostles of Christ, were they any whit preiudicial to Gods honour, or were they giuento man aboue his naturall power, for the setting forth of God, honour, that the Prophets should see long before thinges that afterwarde did fall, which is the proprietie of God alone, and [Page 156] theirs onelie by gift and graunt of him, to who me onelie it doth belong, doe they dishonour God, or els was it not alwaies graun­ted to some men, for the glorie of God? That Eliseus could see the heart and inwarde thoughts of Giezi his seruant, which is Gods onelie propertie, did it dishonour God, or rather wonder­fullie 4. Reg. c. 5. augment his glorie? The passing preheminence that Pe­ter and the rest receiued, when they were hable by laying on of handes to giue the holie ghost, can it not be practized without Act. 3. the dishonour of God, or ells was it not principallse giuen to them to set forth the glory of God? This was so great power, that it was much more astonied at of the beholders, then either work­ing of miracles, or remitting sinnes: in so much that Simon the forcerer, whoe was so glorious before, that he called him selfe the power of God, would haue giuen the Apostles money large­ly, that vpon whome soeuer he had practized the like laying on of hands, he might receiue the holie ghost also. Then if the power of giuing the holie ghost, or power of giuing grace, which 2. Tim. 4. both Peter and Paull practized in a visible sacrament, by a solemne ceremonie, in the sight of all the worlde, by laying on of their handes, if this passing worke, and moste proper to God, I dare saie, of all other actes that be exercised in Christes name in the Church, doth not onelie no whit abase Gods excellency, but was purposelie instituted to honour the maiestie of God in the face of all people, and to set out the glorie of his house, how dare any man for feare of Gods high indignation, controlle the worke of Christ in remitting mans sinnes, by such a visible sacrament, as to the honour of God is most conuenient, and to our saluation most necessarie? If they will not let pristes remit sinnes for feare of offending God, and dishonouring his name, then let them not baptize, not preach, not teach, not doe mi­racles, not giue the holie ghost, not correct faultes, not giue or­ders, nor doe any other functions. For these euerie one be no lesse proper to God, then remission of sinnes.

You ground your argument vpon a sacrament, be­fore you haue prooued any. The power of remitting sinnes is graunted to be perpetual in the Church, and nothing derogatorie to the honour of God. But that [Page 157] there is any other sacrament, whereby men are assu­red of the forgiuenes of their sinnes, by any externall ceremonie, except the sacraments of Baptisme, and of the Lordes supper, which is the cheife matter in con­trouersie, you goe not once about to prooue If Christs Church were like your Popish Church, wherein all thinges are taught by Images, & dumme ceremonies, and the worde of God neuerpreached, it might come to passe as you say, that it would be forgotten, that such power is giuen by God to Christ. But in the Church of God many thinges are remembered by meanes of preaching the Gospell, and word of God, whereof there is no visible sacrament or cere­mony, although to helpe our weakenes, the mercy of God hath by his sacraments sealed vp the moste ne­cessarie and generail pointes of doctrine of our rege­neration, to be the Children of God, and of our spi­rituall feeding or norishment, to continue vs perpetu­allie in the same. But whereas you saie, that if both sinnes of mans soull, and sores of his bodie, could not visiblie by externall meanes he healed in the glorious inuoration of Gods name, it would surclie be forgottenin the Church of Christ that such power is giuen by God the father to his onelie sonne, &c. I praie you what externall meanes haue you visiblie to heale the sores of mans bodie by inuocation of Gods name, lest it should be forgotten in the Church that the father hath giuen such power to his sonne? Will you now send vs to the mocke miracles, & lying signes regestred in your Legendes? wrought at your pilgra­mages, Idolls, or in an other worlde by the Iapponical Iesuites? These because they are not seene, mooue nothing the inwarde man, whose minde, you saie, ful learnedlie, will not reach to that inwardelie, whereof he hath no proofe nor assu­rance outwardelie. As though faith were not a substance of things that are hoped for, and an euidence of things that are Heb. 11. not seene. Where of the minde of man hath no assurance outwardelie. For the sacramentall seales, but by faith, [Page 158] make no assurance outwardelie. Can I gather an assu­rance, but by faith of Gods promise that my bodie be­ing washed outwardelie, my soull is clensed inwarde­lie? Is it the receiuing of the outward elements in the Lordes supper, that assureth me of my spirituall nou­rishment to eternall life, or faith graunted vpon the worde, which comming to the elements, maketh them the seales of assurance of gods promises? The question you aske, of the Prophets foreseeing of things so long before things that afterwarde did fall, whether it was graunted with dishonour of God, or to his glorie? I answere that the pro­pertie of God alone, to whome all things are present, was not, ne could not be communicated to men. But God to his glorie, by the instrument of their mouth did foreshew those things, which he had reuealed vnto thē by his spirit, in prophetical vision, or dreame. Nei­ther could Elizeus see the heart & inward thoughts, of Gihezei his seruant, which is gods onelie propertie, but God did reueale, and declare vnto him, what hipocri­sie was hid in the heart of Gihezei: so that Elizeus knew no more properlie what was in the heart of Gihezei then any other man, to whome Gihezei him-selfe might open his thoughtes, sauing that Elizeus knew more certenlie, and by 2 more wonderfull meane. For to man Gihezei might ly, but god who onely searcheth the heart & the reines, reuealed the truth to Elizeus. Neither was Peter and the rest hable by laying on of handes to giue the holy ghost, that is the visible gists of the holv ghost, but according to gods good pleasure & will. For Acts. 8. Peter and Iohn sent by the Apostles into Samaria, praied for them that were baptized, that they might receiue the holie Ghost, and after laide their hands vpon them, and they receiued from god the sensible graces of the holie ghost, as speaking with tongues, in­terpretation of tongues, healing of sicknes, casting out of deuills, and such like. Therefore in such wonder­full effects as followed laying on of hands, nothing [Page 159] that is most proper to god passed to men. But it pleased God, who is the onelie author of such graces and gifts, to bestow the same by his faithfull stewards, at their praier, whereunto they were mooued, and assisted by him, and with that visible sacrament or ceremo­nie. But such ceremonies we haue not for remission of sinnes, or reteining of them by Gods institution. Therefore no sacrament, but a doctrine of remitting or reteining of sinnes.

O heresie most shamefull, that then goeth about to disho­nour God most, when she most pretendeth gods honour, where­of shee is so tender and so carefull, that shee hath barred his owne spouse, of his blessed bodie, of remission of sinnes, of the spirit of God, of all sacraments, of all holie ceremonies, of me­mories, of miracles, of all holie functions, and to be short, of all gifts, and graces: and all this for Gods honour, so honou­rable a thing it is for Christ to be the king of so beggerlie a common wealth, as they make of the Church: such glorie it is for Christ to haue his onelie spouse robbed of the treasures of his giftes and graces: so comelie it is for Christ, to haue such sacraments, as neither conteine him-selfe, nor his grace: so worthie a thing it is, for Christ to haue ministers, that vpon his owne warrant can neither pardon nor punish mans misdeedes. Gloriosa dicta sunt de te Ciuitas Dei. Glorious thinges Pial. 8c. haue beene reported of thee, thou Citie of God, and how arte thou now so barrenne and so contemptible, that thy honour must needes redound to the dishonour of him, by whome all thy honour onelie standeth?

But I cease to pursue the Churchces enemies now in mine owne wordes, I will rather ioyne with the holie fathers, for their ouerthrow, whose, not onelie reason and sufficient answere to this their vaine replie founded on the pretence of Gods honour, but also, their onelie name and authoritie shall sufficientlie beate downe these mens boldnes. Saint Am­brose in this case is moste plaine, and standeth with the Noua­tians, Ambros. de poen. l. 1. c. 2. as I doe now with the Zuinglians, euen in the verie same argument, in these wordes: Sed aiunt, se Domino de­ferre [Page 160] reuerentiam, cui soli remittend orum oriminum potesta­tem reseruent: imò nulli maiorem iniuriam faciunt, quàm qui eius volunt mandata res indere, commissum munus refindere: nam cùm ipse in Euangelis suo dixerit Dominus Iesus, accipi­te Spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, &c. quis est ergo qui magis honorat? Vtrum qui mandat is attemperat, an qui resistit? Ecclesia in vtroque seruat obedientiam, vt pec­catism & alliget, & laxat. That is to saie: These Noua­tians saie that they denie penance or power to remit sinnes in earth, in respect of the maintenance of such honour as is due to God, to whome onely they will reserue the pardoning of mans sinnes. But in deede none doe so much iniury to Gods glory, as those which breake his commaundements, and make a diuision of that charge and commission, which he giueth. For seeing our Lord Iesus by his owne mouth spake these words: Receiue ye the holy ghost, whose sinnes you doe forgiue, they be forgiuen, and whose sinnes you holde, they behol­den, who in this case more honoureth God? He that obeieth his commaundement, or he that resisteth the same? The Church obeieth in both, as well in binding as in loosing. Thus there. And a litle after: Looke to whome this charge was giuen, and that person may lawfullie and with Gods good leaue vse the same. Au l therefore the Church may lawfullie both binde and loose: heresie and her attendants can rightlie doe neither. This right is onelie committed to priests, and therefore the Church rightlie challengeth that authoritie be­cause shee hath lawfull priests: and so heresie cannot doe, be­cause shee hath not the priests of God in her cursed congrega­tion. Thus said Saint. Ambrose for the answere of the Noua­tians in his daies, and so say I now in the Churches behalfe against the like affected enemies of Christs honour, which whiles they in face of scripture and Gods word would seeme to defend, they are become sworne aduersaries of his honour, and open contemners of his commaundements and holy ordi­nance. Saint Ambrose here taketh it for a ground, that it is Gods ordinance, that Priests should remit sinnes, he is bolde to call the contrarie doctrine, heresie, he maketh a principle [Page 161] of this, that it neuer dishonoureth God, that man should doe that which God giueth him either commaundement or com­mission to doe in his behalfe, he taketh it for a knowne trueth, that, as the Church of God hath true and lawfull priests, so shee may by them, vpon Christes warrant, bath loose and binde: and contrariwise, that heresie may well enough giue o­uer that right of remission of sinnes, because shee hath light­lie no lawfull priests, by whome shee may practize the same.

First, you make a vaine exclamation or outcrie, as though heresie hath spoiled the Church of her trea­sures vnder pretence of Gods glorie: but such rheto­ricall vamties all wise men will deride. The Church is not spoiled of her treasures, when neither Christ, nor his grace is conteined in the sacraments: but when Christ, her onelie treasure, is spoiled of his glo­rie, of sole redemption and fatisfaction for our sinnes, or of any other parte of the office that belongeth to the mediator. Therefore it is her greatest honour that Christ may haue his true honour, in whome & with whome she hath al things, not to the glory of flesh & bloode, but to the glorie of God, to whome all glorie of right belongeth: what Saint Ambrose did write a­gainst the Nouatians, pertaineth not to vs, who denie neither the power of remitting nor of reteining of sinnes, but graunt both. But that Saint Ambrose did not meane of such a power as the Papists doe claime, I haue shewed before out of his owne wordes in the same place, where he saieth, that our Lord hath chosen such Disciples, as should be interpreters of their Lordes will. This power is graunted to all true ministers of the Church, that they are the Legates or embassadors of god, to declare his wil & pleasure vnto men, aswel for remitting, as for reteining of sins. And therefore No­uatus, or Nouatianus, did very absurdlie by Saint Am­brose his iudgement, that did arrogate vnto himselfe power to reteine sinnes, while he pronounced that they which fell into Idolatrie after Baptisme, might [Page 162] not be receiued into the Church vpon any trial of their repentance: and would not yeald that the ministers of the Church by the same authoritie might pronounce, that they which were truelie penitent of their former wicked behauiour, were forgiuen in the iudgement of God, which was to remit their sins vpon earth, with faith in Gods promise, that they shall be forgiuen in heauen. Thus the answere of Saint Ambrose vnto the Nouatians, doth nothing in the world make a­gainst vs, which denie no power that Christ hath graunted to his Church, vnder collour of mainte­nance of Gods honour.

And surelie, it is a maruclous force of trueth, or rather the might of Gods prouidence, that driueth Heretikes to disdaine, destroie, and dissanull the graces and manifold giftes of Christes Church, that impugning them, where the verie right of such holie actes doe lie, they may plainlte confesse, and to their shame acknowledge, that they haue none such themselues, nor cannot by Gods warrant challenge any such giftes, which with all their might they would wholie if they could, together with Gods spirit and Church, extinguish.

Alas into what miserie hath this forfaken flocke willfullie cast them selues and their adherentes, which can forsake Gods house, vbi mandauit Dominus benedictionem, vpon which God hath bestowed his blessing, & abide there, where, by their owne confession, there is no Priesthood, no penance, no host, no sacrifice, no remission (where they can let) of sinnes, no grace in sacramentes, nor no gift of the holie Ghost. All other herisies lightlie by force of the Fathers Doctrine and iudgement, lost either their Priesthood, because they had no waie out of the Church to make Priestes, as Saint Hierome writeth of Hilarie the Deacon, or els the vse and function of Aduersus Luciferia­nos. Priesthood, by reason, the workes of God cannot be orderly nor benefi iallie vsed out of the house of God: and yet, they euer claimed to themselues, not onlie the order, but for moste parte all other functions that by Christ and his Church were annexed to that order: but ours (wherein they passe all their [Page 163] forefathers) in a manner willinglie giue ouer the wholl profession freelie and without compulsion, denie them selues, with Nouatus, to be priestes, denie to sacri­fice, denie to enioyne penance, denie to giue the holie ghost, either by imposition of handes, or by Chrisme, or by any other solemne right of Gods Church. To be short, take nothing from these fellowes that belongeth to Christianitie, for they will giue all ouer them selues.

But briefllie to conclude vp the answere to their reason founded vpon Nouatus his principle touching Gods honour, thus I saie: That neuer derogateth to Gods honour, which is agreable to gods ordinance: but that priests should remit sinnes is the ordinance of God, as is declared: therefore the vse thereof doth not derogate any whit to gods honour. Againe: as great workes and as proper to god, as remission of sinnes, was practized by the Apostles, and yet is vsed by the Bishops of holie Church without all dishonour of god, giuing the ho­lie ghost, and gods grace, by laying on of [...]: Ergo re­mission of sinnes may be also practized of priests, without all iniurie to God and the onelie right therein.

Whethersoeuer the force of trueth, or prouidence of God driue heretikes, we haue no purpose to follow them. The gifts which god bestoweth on his Church, and the ministers thereof, with all humilitie and thankefulnes, we acknowledge, receiue, and exercise to his glorie, and the benefit of his Church: although we arrogate nothing vnto our selues, either in them, or in any other thing that is proper to God. And therefore it is both a vaine and a false complaint, that the Church adorned with Gods blessinges is forsaken, and a congregation barren of all Gods giftes, imbraced. All offices of ministerie in the Church, that God hath ordained, we admit and practise, neither will we giue ouer anie thing for all your childish prating, whereof we haue warrant to enioie it, out of the word of God. To your syllogis­mes I answere, thus to the first, That to exercise the [Page 164] Power of remission of sinnes, in such sorte, as it is or­dained of God, is no dishonour to God, but a great honour. To the second, I denie that anie thing proper to God, as remission of sinnes, giuing the holie Ghost and Gods grace, as it is proper to God, was or could be practised by the Apostles, or anie mortal man, pro­perly: otherwise I confesse, that remission of sinnes, as Christ hath commaunded it, may be practised with­out all iniurie to God and his onelie right therein.

THE EIGHT CHAP.

FVrthermore, we must here consider, that what worke soeuer God appointeth man to exercise in his Church, either in remission of sinnes, or giuing grace of Gods spirit, or what other holie action soeuer may in his name be done, for the benefite of the people, by the ministerie and seruice of man, either by the meanes and mediation of any other instrumen­tall cause, we must learne, that in these workes so wrought ei­ther by man, or through other creatures, God doth not re­signe his right to the waies and workers thereof, and giue o­uer the wholl title that is due to himselfe in the saide diuine acts. For then in deede mans practize should dero­gate from Gods power, and he should as it were succeed God in the right of his proper power, and euerlasting inheritance: which onelie to surmise, as heretikes do, were meere follie.

Christ is by euerlasting right made the head of the Church, and he resigneth not this office to anie mortall man. For if he did, then the partie that should by his graunt occupie for a season the same dignitie, were his fuccessour, and should holde in like right the same office as he did before. But that notwith­standing, [Page 165] he hath made his substitute and vicegerent, by whom in his corporall absence he ruleth now the Church, as he did before in his owne person, not giuing ouer his preheminence & supreame power therein, but now practizing that by another, which afore he exercised him selfe in his owne person. It had beene a great derogation to Christ that Peter should haue bin Christes heir and successour: for then Christ had lost the per­peiuitie, an other man gouerning after him in like right and preheminence as he had before. But, for Peter to rule the Church vnder him, in his steade, & as by his euerlasting right, with commission from him that holdeth that soueraigntie for euer, by whomesoeuer the Church shall be ruled till the worlds end in earth, this (I saie) is no derogation to God, nor his sonne Christ at all, but it much prooueth that Christ according to his manhood is the head of the Church for euer, because by man in earth he ruleth the same til his comming again, the whichman, Psal. 44. though he be his vicar & vicegerent, yet he is not his successour.

Saint Augustine did trimlie allude to the vse of the olde law, comparing the ministers of Gods Church to the yonger bre­thren who were charged to marrie the elder brothers wife, when he died without issue, in whose name they did practize the worke of mariage, and therefore could not call their children by their owne names, but by the name of their elder breethren. For as they raised seede to their brother, and for their brothers honour, so the Priests that haue taken vpon them (as it were in mariage) to gouerne Christes Church, and to bring forth children, not in their owne names, but in the name of their elder brother, and her departed Husband. As when they bring foorth children in Baptisme, as through the wombe of the Church, they bring them not forth as for them-selues, and in their owne names, but in the name of Iesus Christ, beeing their elder brother: euen so it is in remission of sinnes also, in which case Christ resigneth not his authoritie, as though he lacked that power him-selfe, but practzeth that mightie worke by the ministerie of man, which before he exercised in his owne person. And as the baptzing not in the name of Peter, nor Paull, nor Apolle, but in the name of Christ the [Page 166] first husband of the Church, after whome the Children be called Christianes, not Petrianes, nor Paulianes, doth much set foorth the honour of the eldest spouse: so it proo­ueth and augmenteth Christes euerlasting honour and moste iuste title in remission of sinnes, that till this daie, no lesse now in absence by the seruice of his Priestes, then before when he was present, by his owne worde and will, sinnes be, in his name and faith, fullie remitted: yea, euen the verie function of Preaching the Gospell, which they saie is meant by remitting of sinnes (although they say most foolishlie there­in, and against the common sense of all the fathers) yet euen that function is Christs still, though it be vsed of man in earth.

You are as plentifull in proofe of that which is con­fessed, as you are naked and barren in proouing that which is denyed. The title of your Chapter we will graunt you without proofe, and according thereunto, we are content to decide this controuersie. But you will no longer abide by it, then vntill you haue made a shew of trueth, and then straight giue it ouer, chal­lenging a proper power, & properlie to remit sinnes, euen the power that is proper to God, and the same to exercise as properlie as God doth, with deificati­on of your Priestes persons, and such other arrogant assumptions. Where you saie, that God doth not resigne his right to the waies and workes of anie diuine function, & giue ouer the wholl title that is due to him-selfe in the said di­uine actes, I adde that he doth neither resigne his right nor his practize or exercise there of, he doth not giue ouer his wholl title, or anie parte or portion thereof. When you go about to demonstrate your proposition, you saie that Christ resigned his roome, but not his right. A pretie collusion of words, but a matter ful of her eticall meaning. For Christ resigned neither his roome nor his right, when he ascended into heauen, but set him­selfe downe in the throne of magnificence, that he might fullfill all things, with his glorious an gracious presence, by which he continueth with his Church [Page 167] vnto the end of the world. Neither hath he neede of anie substitute or vicegerent, to exercise anie point of that office, which is proper to the vniuersall head of the vniuersall Church: neither can anie mortal crea­ture exercise the office of the head of the whol Churh, because it is a meere diuine power, by euerlasting right, as you confes, proper to our sauiour Christ, that from him, as from the head, life and all powers of life should flowe into his wholl Church, and euerie true Eph. 4. member thereof. And therefore whatsoeuer from the beginning he hath exercised in his owne person, he doth not now practize by anie other, but still by him­selfe and in his owne person. But the office of teaching which in his humanity he exercised and before his in­carnation was exercised, by the Prophets and Priests, he hath committed to his Apostles, Euangelistes, Pro­phets, Pastours, and Teachers, vnto the end of the world: but that one man should rule his whol Church, either by doctrine, or discipline, whereunto it is not possible for him to haue an eye, and ouerseeing, Christ hath neuer appointed: but as he hath appointed seue­rall teachers, so also hath he ordained seuerall gouer­nours. And no more possible it is, that one man should rule and gouerne al the Church, then it is pos­sible that one man should teach al the Church desper­sed, as it is now, and hath been of olde, ouer al the face of the earth. But that Peter or anie other man should rule the Church in Christes steade, you saie it proo­ueth much, that Christ is head of the Church accor­ding to his manhood. That Christ, who is God and man, is head of his Church, it is a Christian confession: But that Christ is head of his Church according to his manhood, I see not how it differeth from flat Nestorianisme, or Arria­nisme. For wholl Christ is head of his Church, ac­cording to that he was head thereof before his incar­nation, and flesh assumpted, yet intended: and he is head of his Church according to that he filleth all in [Page 168] all, Ephes. 1. It is one thing to saie that Iesus Christ, or the man Iesus Christ is head of his Church, ano­ther thing to saie, that Christ is head of his Church, according to his manhood. Beside, I know not what humane head ship you ascribe vnto Christ, that make him head in respect of such externall regiment as may be exercised by man, and yet by no one man alone, but by manie men, at once, in this dispersion of the Church: all which acknowledge Christ to be their onelie head, because they must gouerne the Church by his word onelie, and by lawes framed agreeable vn­to the same. That the Protestantes bring foorth children to Caluin or Luther, it is nothing but tailing without rea­son. For the Protestantes are willing to departe with anie pretence of right or honout, so that God maie haue his whol glory by such meanes as he hath appoin ted. Therefore according to Saint Augustines allusion, they beget children by preaching of the Gospell vn­to Christ, and not to them selues. The function of Prea­ching. you saie, is Christes still. If you meane, that he is the author of the doctrine preached, and so the one­lie master and teacher of his Church, it is true but this function the Protestantes claime not; but to be mini­sters appointed to declare this doctrine in the world. This function as a part of his humiliation, hath he cleane giuen ouer, since his ascension, and appoin­ted in his stead, Apostles, Euangelistes, Prophets, Pastours, and teachers, to exercise the same functi­on, to the edifying of his Church, vntill the end of the world. You charge vs to saie, that the function of Preaching is meant by remitting of sinnes: which we saie not: For Preaching extendeth further, then the re­mitting of sinnes. But we saie, that by preaching pub­liklie, or declaring priuatelie, as the case requireth, the grace and mercie of God in pardoning all penitent, and beleeuing sinners, the minister of God doth re­mit sinnes in the name of Christ, while the pardon [Page 169] pronounced by him, is of as great force to assure the re pentaunt sinner of remission of his sinnes, as if Christ him-selfe should declare it out of heauen: wherein we speake neither foolishlie, nor against the common sence of all the fathers, as by some of their writinges alledged before I haue plainlie declared.

And they that are most tender in outward words of Godsho­nour, will yet seeme to occupie that his proper function with out all derogation to his right therein. But in deede their prea­ching, which is their remission of sinne, is not the power of God to saluation, but it is his permission for our great punishment. The lawful doctrine of Christs Church, is truely no lesse thepro­per work of Christ, then is forgiuenes of sinnes, & yet it is with out controlling of Nouatians & Heretiks, exercised by mans ministerie in earth. S. Augustine saith hereof thus: Christus est qui docet, Cathedram in coelo haber, scholaipsius in terra est De discipl. Christiana ca. vlt. & scholaipsius corpus ipsius est. It is Christ which teacheth, and he hath his pulpit in heauen, and his schoole in earth, and his schoole is his body the Church. Christ doth not then resigne vp his office in preaching, no more then he doth his authority of pardoning: no man succeeding him in either of the roomes, but occupieth both vnder him in his Church, which is his in­heritance for euer: the which Churh holdeth by him as a schoole to teach trueth in, as a court and iudgement seat to pardon or punish sinnes in. Thus he.

The proper function of Christ, which is to be the onelie author of the true Doctrine, that is taught in the Church, none of vs will presume to occupie; we leaue that blasphemie to the Pope, and the popish Church: but the Gospel which we preach, is the pow­er of God vnto saluation in the remission of our sins, reuealed in this age by the singular mercie of God, to the vndoubted saluation of many thousands. The outward preaching of Christes Doctrine, is not the proper worke of Christ, but common to all his true and faithfull seruantes, the Prophettes, Apostles, and their successoures, Bishopes, Pastours, and teachers. [Page 170] It is Christ, as Austine saieth, that teacheth inwardly by his spirit from heauen, and is the author of the do­ctrine that is taught on earth: in which respect he saith, He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. But it is the voice of man that vttereth this Doctrine in the outward eares of men, and not the voice of Christ.

But to beare downe the aduersaries of trueth fullly, we will ioyne with them touching the sacrament of extream vnction, the sacrament of baptisme, and such other, in which they can­not, nor doe not denie, concerning one of them, but man with­out all derogation to Gods honour, remitteth sinnes. And how can it here seeme strange, that in the sacrament of pe­nance God should by mans office remit mortall crimes, seeing it cannot be denied, but God vseth, not onelie mans ministerie, but also the externall seruice of bare and base water, which is much inferiour by nature and dignitie to a Priest or anie o­ther man, to take awaie sinnes both originall and actuall, in the sacrament of baptisme: in which sacrament, seeing as­well the Priest is the minister, as the water an instrument, whereby God remitteth all sinnes, be they neuer so many and grieuouse, whether they be committed by their owne acte, or by our fathers ofspring, why doth it dishonour God any more, that the Priest should be the minister of remission in the sacrament of penance, then it doth by as great an office almoste, in remit­ting of sinnes in the sacrament of baptisme? Againe, read the Epistle of S. Iamer, and you shall finde the Priest made a mi­nister, the oile an instrument in the extreamitie of sicknes, Cap. vlt. to forgiue sinnes: how much more is the priest, without anie imparing of Gods power, the worker vnder him of our recon­ciliation, and pardoning in the sacrament of penance: in which especiallie the grace of God is giuen aboue all other sacraments, to that onlie end and purpose.

I may be more bold to vse this comparing of sundrie Sacra­ments together, because not onely Saint Ambrose refuteth the Father of this fond heresie by the same reason, but also be­cause moste of the Doctors of the Church doe confesse, that she euer had these waies to remit mans sinnes by, without deroga­tion [Page 171] to Christes soueraigntie herein, of whome onelie she hold­eth her right, as well in the sacrament of penance, as in bap­tisme or extreame vnction. Saint Chrysostome saith Neque e­nim solùm cùm nos regenerant, sed postea etiam condonan­dorum De Sacer­lib. 3. nobis peccatorum potestatem obtinent: infirmatur (in­quit) inter vos aliquis? Accersat presbyteros Ecclesiae. Nei­ther haue Priests power in baptisme onelie, but afterward al­so they haue good authoritie to forgiue our sinnes: Is any man feeble amongst you, saith he, Call for the Priests of the Church, let them saie praiers ouer him, annoint him with oile, and the praier of faith shall saue the sicke, and if he be in sinnes, they shall be forgiuen him. But this sacrament instituted by Gods word, and Christes authoritie, vsed of olde, and well knowne to all the Fathers, is now become nothing in our building. Sinne is now a daies so fauored, that no sacrament may be abiden for the release thereof. The verie expresse wordes of Scripture can take no place, where flattering of wickednes and phantasie ruleth to the contrarie.

Touching extreame vnction, we shall speake anone: but of baptisme we saie, that to speake properlie, man baptiseth with water vnto repentance, as an outward seale of the forgiuenes of sinnes: Christ onelie bapti­zeth with the holie Ghost and with fire, actuallie, and ef­fectuallie to purge and clense our sinnes. Of the sa­crament of penance, we must first be resolued, before we can acknowledge any office of man to remitte mortal crimes therein. If Christ had instituted a sacrament of penance, as he hath of baptisme, we wold acknowledge the like effectes in the one, that we doe in the other. Concerning the anointing with oile, spoken of in Saint Iames, whereunto besides bodelie health, remission of sins was promised, it was a sacrament, while that spe­cial gift of healing continued, but no instituriō of per­petuall continuance. Chrysostome citeth this text of Saint Iames to prooue, that not onelie in the sacra­ment of regeneration, but afterwards also, the Priests hath power to remit sinnes, not onelie by teaching, [Page 172] and admonishing, but also by helpe of praier. But of anie perpetuall sacrament, there is no mention in him, neither was it instituted by our sauiour Christ, with anie commaundement of perpetuall continu­ance, as babtisme & the Lordes supper are, but onely so long as the gift should continue. Neither doth Saint Iames giue it in charge, as a perpetuall sacra­ment, but onelie admonisheth the Church to vse that benefit of healing, so long as it should remaine with men.

There be some that affirme, this annoiling to haue beene a miraculous practise to take awaie the diseases of the sicke, and therefore that it did decaie with the working of other the like miracles, which after the spring of our religion were not v­sual. But that is a fond glosse. For I aske of thē, whether the peo­ple then Christianed, were instructed, or rather commaunded, to call for the Apostles or others, to heale them miraculously of their diseases, or whether all Priestes had the gift of working miracles in the Primitiue Church? If they saie, yea, touching the first piont, then as well were they charged to send for them to reuiue them, after they were dead, because the Apostles so could doe when they same occasion, and so did by some. But that is plaine absurde and false, that euer Apostle gaue in charge to anie man, much lesse to make a generall precept (as S. Iames here doth) to seeke after miracles: for that were to tempt God. And for the second, they are not so vnreasonable to answere me, that all Priestes could worke miracles, which is a seuerall gift of the holie Ghost, from the power of their mi­nisterie, and therefore Saint Iames would not haue charged the sicke persons to haue called indifferentlie for Priestes, to heale them miraculouslie, the gift of miracles being not com­mon to them all, nor perpetuallie promised to anie of them all. Againe I would knowe of them, whether there was anie mira­culous healing that had the remission of sinnes ioyned vnto it, or to the externall creature, by which they healed any person? If they saie yea: then it followeth, that the Priestes might by the office of that creature, heale a man of his sinnes, which [Page 173] they affirme to be blaspemie, and dishonour to God. But to what absurditie so euer you bring them, they will not confesse mortall men in externall Sacraments to remit sinnes.

You are better aduised now, concerning Caluines iudgement, of the oile, where of Saint Iames speak­eth, then you were when you wrot your defence of purgatorie: for there you were not ashamed to affirme, that Caluine did expound it for a medicinable salue, or ointment to ease the sicke mans sore. But now let vs see how you will prooue, his interpretation to be a fond glosse. First you aske, whether the people then chri­stianed, were instructed, or rather commaunded, to call for the Apostles or others to heale thē miraculouslie of their diseases? I answere, they were admonished by the Apostles, that they might vse the benefit of that speciall gift of healing, and that is manifest by the wordes of Saint Iames. Secondlie you aske, whether all Priests had the gift of working miracles in the primitiue Church? I answere, I cannot tell of euerie one: but that in euerie Church some had the gift of healing, it is most probable, in the Apostles time. And therefore Saint lames willeth not one Priest, but all the Priests or Elders of the Church, to be called for. But against my first answer, you obiect that by like reason they were charged to send for them to reuine the dead, & that to seeke after miracles were to tempt God. I replie, the gift of raising the dead, was verie rare, insomuch as we read but of two that were raised by the Apostles them selues, Tabytha by Peter, and Eutycus by Paul. And Saint Iames willeth not the A­postles, which were not in al places hand, but the el­ders of the Church, which were in euery Christian con­gregation, to be sent for. Neither is it a tempting of God to seeke after miracles of healing, at their hands, to whome God hath giuen that gift. To your se­cond obiection, I answere, that albeit euerie Priest had not that gift, whereof as I cannot affirme, so can­not you denie of certaintie, yet it is certaine that in e­uerie [Page 174] congregation ofthe dispersed Iews, to whome [...] writeth, there were some that had that gift, as it is manifest by the promise that he maketh, that the praier offaith shall giue health to the sicke man, and the Lord shall raise him vp. But howsoeuer it be, if there were anie miracles of healing, that had remission of sinnes ioyned to it, or to the externall creature, the Priests might by that office of that creature, heale a man of his sinnes, which they af­firme to be blasphemie, &c. I answere, Saint Iames his wordes are plaine, from whence remission of sinnes commeth properlie. The oile was a seale of assurance, both of bodelie health, and of remission of sinnes, with are the cause often times that man is visited which sicknes and bodelie infirmite, but not allwaies, as our sauiour Christ sheweth of the blind man: there­fore he saith, if he haue committed sinne, it shalbe forgiuen, meaning if he had this bodely infirmitie laid vpon him for some greiuos sinne. For otherwise there is no man but sinneth. and whome God may iustly punish for his sinne, although he deal more mercifully, with his chil­dren, who though they want not his fatherly chastise­ment, yet he doth not alwaies laie vpon them the crosse of bodely affliction.

In the sacrament of baptisme they will not stand with me openlie: for they will seeme to acknowldge the forgiuenes of sinnes thereby, and I thinke by the Ministerie of man to, though in their priuat schooles, yea and in their open blaspe­moous bookes, the whole packe of Protestantes and Zuing­lians denie that sacrament also to remit sinnes, both acknow­ledging that children may be saued and be receiued to heauen without it, & auouching that sinne remaineth still in the chil­dren after their Christendome, though God will not impute the same vnto them for the hinderance of their saluation. Which false Doctrine is the ground of their more subtill opi­nions touching onelie saith, and imputed iustice, and other their pelting paradoxes concerning mans iustification, which I cannot now stand vpon. Would God the ignorant sort of [Page] their followers could see through the dunghil of this confuse Do­ctrine. For these haue euer, besides the florish of their faith that they make abroad amongst fooles, an other more impro­bable which they keepe for the strong ones at home, that will no more be offended to heare the Turkish, then the christian faith. And so had the Epicure, as Tullie teacheth. For pleasure of the minde gathered by contentation and contemplation of hea­uenlie thinges was his chiefe God and extreame end of his endeuours abroade, but his dearlinge [...] at home had the plea­sures of the bodelie lustes, and wantonnesse for the end of all goodnes.

Well, but I will reason with them vpon the ground of their outward profession, that baptisme is a sacrament, in which truelie sinnes be remitted by the ministerie of men, and with­out all dishonour of God, seeing it was Gods owne ordinance & appointment. But heare S. Ambrose againe, I praie you, en­countering Ibidem. in this matter with our mens masters: Cur baptisa­tis (saith he) per hominem peccata dimitti non licet? in bap­tismo vtique remissio peccatorum omnium est. Quid inter­est, vtrum per poenitentiam, an per lauacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent? vnum in vtro (que) ministerium est. Sed dices, quia in lauacro operatur mysteriorum gratia: quid in poenitentia? non Dei nomen operatur? Why do they baptize, if man may not remit sinnes? for surelie in Baptisme all sinnes be remitted: and what difference (I beseech you) whether Priestes chalenge this gift to be theirs in baptisme, or in pen­nance? The ministerie of man is like in both. But you will re­plie perchaunce, that in baptisme the grace of the ministeries worketh: And what worketh, I praie you, in penance? Doth not Gods name bring all to passe there also? Thus he. But here, good reader, marke diligently in this doctoures words, as also in other the like of all auncient Fathers, that penance is not here taken for anie vertue either morall, or theologicall, which is in a priuat man, when he amendeth or changeth his purpose, or former euill life to the better: whereof there was some shade amongst the heathen, & is now both commended in scripture, and giuen man by Christes graces not onelie afore [Page 176] the remitting of the sacrament of baptisme, if the party were in case of actuall deadly sinne, but also goeth alwaie, as a neccssary preparatiue, before sacramentali confession, and is called in our tongue properlie, repentance: this Doctor therefore speaketh not of this kinde of penitence, but of a publike act of the Church, touching the reconciliation or repayring of mans state defiled after his baptisme by greeuous crimes, in which by Priestes iudgement the sinnes committed be either pardoned, or punished. And this must be called repentance onely, or the amendement of life, as Heretiques do tearme it, to con­found the Doctrine of Gods trueth & Sacraments: but it is an externall and visible act-on appointed by Christ in the 20. of Saint Iohn, to reconcile sinners by that forme of absoluing, which the Church vseth in the name and inuocation of God for that purpose. And therefore, hauing the grace of God and remission of sinnes ioyned vnto it by Christes promise, it must needes be a sacrament, as baptisme is: which all the fa­thers doe insinuate, when they make penance to be one pre­scribed ordinance of Christ, to forgiue sinnes no lesse then Bap­tisme is. Neither was it the preaching of the Gospell, nor the inward sorowfullnes or repentance of former sinnes, that No­uatus did condemne: but it was the sacrament of penance, and act of absolution, by the Priestes ministerie, which he so much abhorred, and meant wickedlie to remooue. For which cause as he was iustlie condemned of heresie by the Roman & Nicen Councelles, so were you, Master Protestants, both then in them, and since in your Masters, Wiclife, Luther, Cal­uine, and the like, accused by Gods Church and Coun­cels.

We will neuer graunt, that baptisme, or anie sacra­ment doth remit sinnes properlie: but God by sacra­ments ministered by man, doth assure vs, that he doth remit our sins. vnproperly, we may say the sacraments, and the ministers of them doe remit sinnes, because the one is the mouth of god, to declare his sentence of forgiuenes of our sins, the other are the seals of god, to confirme our faith in his promises of remission of sins. [Page 177] To holde that the children of Christian Parentss, in whome is no contempt or neglect of baptisme, cannot be saued, and re­ceiued into heauen without it, is to abridge the power of God, as though he could not giue saluation without sacraments: neither hath he declared anie necessitie of his will to the contrarie. For the text of Iohn. 3. Except a man be borne againe of water, and of the spirit, per­taineth not to the externall sacrament of baptisme, more then the like saying of our sauiour Christ Iohn. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke hu blood, you haue no life in you, pertaineth to the sacra­ment of the Lordes supper.

That Originall sinne remaineth in the baptized, though it be not imputed to the elect, both the scrip­ture and our owne experience teacheth. Saint Paull did see another lawe in his members, withstanding the lawe of his minde, and bringing him captiue vnder the law of sinne, which is in his members. The Doctrine of onelie faith iusti­fyng, Rom. 7. and of imputed iustice, although they be the Do­ctrine Rom. 3. 4. of the holie Ghost, your blasphemous spirit calleth, pelting paradoxes, as your slaunderous malice, not onelie imagineth, but stoutlie affirmeth, that we haue a secret Doctrine of Epicurisme, which we teach secretly to certaine strangers at home, &c. Whereof let God, who knoweth all secretes, be iudge and reuenger. Your argument of remission of sinnes in baptisme, confirmed by testimonie of Saint Ambrose, we graunt, that it is no dishonour to God, that man should remit sinnes, by that power which god hath graunted him. But where­as in his wordes, you would haue the good reader to marke, that poenitentia doth not signifie repentance, but your popish sacrament of penance, I will desire the good reader to marke the contrarie. For Saint Ambrose by making obiection doth plainelie distinguish mysterio­rum gratiam, which is in baptisme, from panitentia, in which is onelie the inuocation of Gods name, or the name of God aduouched, for assurance of remission [Page 178] of sinnes: which whether it be in the solemne act of re­conciling those which are open penitents, or in prea­ching: and declaring remission of sinnes to al trulie re­pentant sinners, it commeth all to one end. For there is not in that repentance mysterium gratiae, that is, a pro­mise, adioyned to an outward sacrament, which spiritu­allie worketh that, which externallie it representeth. Yet you saie, there is an externall and visible action appoin­ted by Christ 20. of Saint Iohn. to reconcile sinners by the forme of absoluing, which the Church vseth, &c. Here wanteth nothing, but proofe of that you saie. Here such syllogismes, as you make at the end of euerie Chapter, were necessarie to demonstrate this conclu­sion. For we can see no external or visible action inthese words, whose sins you retaine they are retained, & whose sins you remit, they are remitted, therefore no sacrament. But all the fathers, you saie, doe insinuat the same, when they make penance one prescribed ordinance of Christ, to forgiue sinnes by, no lesse, then baptisme. I denie this argument, for euerie ordinance of Christ whereby sinnes are for­giuen, is not a sacrament. But it was not the preaching of the Gospell, or repentance (saie you) that Nouatus did condemne, but the sacrament of penance, & act of absolution, by the Priestes ministerie. Epiphanius and others doe writ, that he denied remission of sins, to thé that had fallen into idolatrie, after baptisme, although they were re­pentant. Other more fauourablie write of him, that he denied onely the outward reconciling vnto the Church, or act of absolution by the priests ministe­rie, for them that had so fallen. But of the sacrament of penance, there is no mention in any auncient wri­ter of those, or much later times. Therefore Wiclif, Luther, Caluin, and we all doe subscribe to the auncient Churches condemnation of Nouatus for an heretike, and his opinion for heresie.

The doctours therefore, as I haue said, ioyne lightlie in tal­king of remission of sinnes, Baptisme, and penance, and some [Page 179] time extreame vnction also, that you neede not doubt but they tooke them all three for sacraments workeing remission of sinnes. For they doe not talke of inwarde repentance, but of an action solemlie exercised in Gods Church, whereof the priest, as you heare by Saint Ambrose and Saint Chysostome, is the minister. And therefore Epiphanius saieth, that the Church hath two penances, one for an other, insinuating there­by, the double act of the Church and sacrament, whereby sinnes be remitted. As Saint Augustine also saieth by the Nouati­ans, quòd poenitentiam denegant, that they denie penance. By Heres. 38. Lib. 4. Cap. 30. de Sap. which penance, Lactantius teacheth vs also a way to discerne the true Church from the false, as in which there is both con­fession and penance for the healing of mans frailtie. Whereby it is euident, that this penance which they speake of, was an vsuall ceremonie, and holy sacrament of the Church, whereby sinnes were remitted.

Such a sacrament, such arguments: the Doctorsioyne lightlie in talking of remission of sinnes, baptisme, and pe­nance, and sometime extreame vnction: Therefore you neede not doubt that they toke them all three for sacraments. And yet you haue not brought one Doctor, that spea­keth of extreame vnction. For Chrysostome speaketh of the effect of praier made by the priest, to obtaine remission of sinnes, although the gift of healing be ceased in the Church. And it is manifest that Saint Iames speaketh not of extreame vnction, which you minister to none, but such as are ready to die, when he promiseth restitution of health to the diseased that were anointed in those daies. Againe his vnction was onelie with oyle, yours is with I cannot tell what slib­bersauce cōsecrated by the Bishop. That anointing was not extreame, when it might be repeated, as sickenes might often take holde of men. Yours is not extreame, it may be repeated: if it may not be repeated, it is not the vnction that S. Iames speaketh of Of the sayings of Epiphanius, and Lactantius, we haue spoken before, which it were needeles here to repeate. That there [Page 180] was a ceremonie vsed in reconciling of publike peni­tents, I denie not: but that there was a sacrament of penance, you haue hetherto brought no good eui­dence. For your argument to prooue, that they talke not of inward repentance, but of an action solemnly exercised, because we heare that the priest is minister, is no good euidence: for the priest is minister of the worde, as well as of the sacraments.

Which trueth Saint Cyrill vttereth most plainlie for our purpose, treating thus vpon the words of institution of this sa­crament: Cùm ipsiremittunt aut detinent, spiritus qui ha­bitat in eis, per ipsosremittit aut detinet: fit autem id duobus In 20. 10. Serm. de nupt. Chri­st. modis: primùm, Baptisme, deinde, Poenitenita. When the priestes remit sinnes, or reteine them, the holie ghost which which dwelleth in them doth remit or retein by them. Which is done two manner of waies: first in Baptisme, and then after­ward in penance. Saint Cyprian also said, that the holie ghost worketh remission of sinnes, whether it be in baptisme, or by o­ther sacraments. Whereby he cleerelie vttereth his meaning, that there should be moe sacraments then one, instituted by Christ for that purpose. In all which congruitie of Gods holie working, by diuerse sacraments, the remission of sinnes, we conclude against heresie, that the priesis power herein, deroga­teth no more to god nor our sauiour, in the sacrament of penance, then is doth before by baptisme, or after by extreame vnction: in none of al which, as I haue prooued before, Christ doth resigne his power and proper iurisdiction to the priestes, but continuing euerlastinglie in like preheminence and power as before, work­eth his grace and remission of sinnes, in all these Sacraments, by the priests seruice and ministerie, that it maybe yet as truelie, as in his life time said, and so shall be to the worlds ende, Christ baptizeth, Christ shriueth, assoileth, and anointeth sinners, for remission of their offences: Although Iesus doth none of these now, nor much did in his life time, but his disciples then, and his disciples now, doe the same holie actions in his name.

There is nothing in Saint Cyrills wordes to prooue that there is a sacrament of repentance beside bap­tisme [Page 181] but that the holie ghost doth remit or reteine by his ministers by two waies, namelie by baptisme, & by repentance after baptisme. For if you will restraine the worde poenitentia, to your pretended sacrament, then this absurditie will follow, that seeing there are but two waies by which the spirit remitteth sinnes, they are not remitted without that sacrament, nei­ther by true contrition of heart without any sacra­ment, not by receiuing the Lordes supper, nor by your extreame vnction. Therefore poenitentia in Saint Cy­rill signifieth repentance, and is necessarilie required in them, that shall obteine remission of sinnes by par­ticipation of the Lordes supper, or by faith without any sacrament. That Cyprian maketh moe sacra­ments then one, instituted by Christ, to assure vs of re­mission of sinnes, it is true. For by the sacrament of the bodie and bloode of Christ worthelie receiued, we haue this assurance also, as well as by the sacrament of baptisme. To conclude, the power of Christ or of his ministers, graunted by him, we denie not, but the institution of the sacrament of penance we require, to be shewed out of the holie scriptures, if you will haue vs to beleeue it.

To conclude this matter, I argue thus. It is no dishonour to God for the priest to remit sinnes, as well originall as actuall, of all sortes and grauitie in the sacrament of Baptisme, by the Protestantes owne confession, nor by extreame vnction, by the warrant both of scripture and Doctors: Ergo, remission of sinnes is not vnlawfull, nor dishonourable to God, to be giuen by the priest in the solemne sacrament of penance. And further I ioyne with them thus: The word of God is much more plaine and expresse for the priests warrant to remit sinnes in penance, then in Baptisme: but they may lawfullie doe it in Baptisme, Ergo they may doe it no lesse lawfullie in penance. Compare the wordes of institution of them both, and iudge your selues of your indifferencie and sinceritie, by what right you remooue the one, and reteine the other. I praie God, you seeke not [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 182] shortelie to baptize vs onely by your preaching, as you now will onelie absolue vs by the same. But truelie, I thinke you be in the case that Saint Ambrose tooke Nouatus your forefather to haue bene in, not onelie for that, that he saieth, Nouatus where he listed would admit power to priests of remission: But Vbi supra where he listed not, there the grace giuen to them must be dis­honoured to God. So that of thinges equallie commended by scripture, and commaunded by God, the good man must haue choise for his tooth, not onelie in this point, I now compare our choise men, but much more in that which followeth in the saide Saint Ambrose of all Nouatians, whome he trippeth pretelie with this terme, delicati mei: My delicate gentlemen (saith he) with their lustie lookes, and swelling hartes, can not abide in their brauerie to looke vpon a poore caitisse weeping for his sinnes abundantlie, apparelled mourninglie, in sad and sorowfull companie, and so forth. And this surelie is the disease of our daies, which hath not onelie infected the vn­faithfull, but also hath made these holie thinges lothsome euen to the better sorte of Gods people. So much is mans will and pleasure pampered, where Gods worde and writing should be onelie followed. For the necessarie bearing with such frail­tie, euen of the good, almost generallie, the Church of God hath sought and allowed much more gentle remedies, then the worlde had wont full gladlie to beare for their greeuous sinnes.

We confesse that it is no dishonour to God, that the minister, lawfullie authorized, should remit sinnes in such sorte as he hath commission, namelie by decla­ring the wil of God, that they are by him remitted, and giuing the seales or sacraments of God for more full assurance of performance, as euen the Master. of the sentences teacheth out of S. Augustine, and other Doctors, whose words I wil set downe, that the indiffe­rent Lib. 4. dist. 18. reader may see, how you agree with your owne principal piller and post of Poperie, who in this point, seemeth to be more sound yet then you. Cùm veraci­ter de bapt. contr. Don. lid. 6. ad Deum conuerso, peccata dimittuntur, ab iis dimittun­tur quibus ipse veraci conuersione coniungitur. Spiritus san­ctus [Page 183] ea dimittit, qui datus est omnibus sanctis sibi charitare cohaer entibus, siue se nouerint corporaliter, siue non. Similiter cum alicuius tenentur peccato, ab eis tenentur, quibus ille cor­dis prauitate disiungitur, siue notis corporaliter, siue ignotis. Omnes enim mali spiritualiter à bonis seiuncti sunt Ecce hic dicit peccata dimitti vel teneri à sanctis viris: & tamen spi­ritum sanctum ea dimittere dicit: & quod maiori consideratione dignum est, idem etiam dicit, quod Deus per se vel per sanctos suos, tantùm dimittit peccata, ait enim sic: sacramentum gratiae dat Deus etiam per malos, ipsam vero gratiam non nisi per seipsum vel pcr sanctos suos, & ideo remissionem peccato­rum, vel per seipsum facit, velper ipsius columbae membra, quibus ait: si quibus dimiseritis, aimittentur. Ecce quàm va­ria à doctoribus traduntur super his, & in hactanta varietate quid tenendum? Hoc sane discere & sentire possumus, quod so­lus Deus dimittit peccata & retinet, & tamen Ecclesiae contu­lit potestatem ligands & soluendi: Sed aliter ipse soluit vel li­gat, aliter Ecclesia Ipse enim per se tantùm dimittit pecca tum, quia enim animam mundat ab interiore macula, & à de­bito aeternae mortis soluit. Non autem hoc sacerdotibus conces­sit, quibus tamen tribuit potestatem soluendi & ligandi: id est, ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos vnde Dominus leprosū sanitati priùs per se restituit, deinde ad sacerdotes misit, quorum iudicio ostenderetur mundatus. When sinnes are forgiuen to him that is truelie turned to God, they are forgiuen by them, to whome he him selfe by true conuersion is ioyned. The holie ghost forgiueth them, which is giuen to all the Saints, which are knit together in charitie, whether they know one another corporallie or not. Likewise when any mans sinnes are reteined, they are reteined by them, from whome, he is disioyned by pra­uitie of heart, whether they be corporally knowne or vnknowne. For all euill men are spirituallie separated from good men. Be­holde here he saieth, that sinnes are forgiuen or reteined by the Saints or holiemen: Ana'yet he saieth, that the holy ghost doth forgiue them, and that which is worthie of greater conside­ration, the same Doctor also saith: that God by himselfe or by his Saints onelie remittesh sinnes. For thus he saieth, The sa­crament [Page 184] of grace god giueth euen by euilmen, but grace it selfe, not but by himselfe he causeth, or by the members of that doue, to whome, he saith if to any ye shal forgiue, they shal be forgi­uen. Beholde how diuerse thinges are deliuered by the Doctors, concerning these matters, and in this so great variety what is to be holden? This truelie, we may saie and thinke, that onely God forgiueth sinnes and reteineth, and yet he hath giuen power to the Church of binding and loosing, but otherwise doth he him selfe bind and loose, otherwise the Church. For he him selfe by him selfe onelie forgiueth sinne, because both he clensith the soul from the inward spot, and looseeh from the debt of eternall death. But this he hath not graunted to the priests, to whome notwihstanding, he hath giuen power of binding and loosing, that is to saie, of declaring men to be bound or loosed, whereup­on our Lord did first by him seifere store the Leper to health, as­terwards sent him to the priests, by whose iudgement he might be declared to be clensed. Thus writeth the Master of the sentences, with more to this effect.

In your second argument brought to prooue, that penance is a sacrament, I denie the Antecedent, that there is any wordes of institution, to prooue your sa­crament of penance. Where you feare vainlie, least we will shortly seeke to baptize by preaching, as we wil absolue you onelie by the same, you declare nothing, but your harde conceit of vs. For we are olde enough to know the dif­ference of the ministerie of the worde, and the sacra­ment a sunder. To compare vs with Nouatus, either in the one point, or in the other, you haue no cause in the world, but your owne malicious and slaunderous hu­mor. For we doe not admit the power of remission where we list, but wheresoeuer God hath graunted it, and in what manner soeuer, he hath appointed it to be exercised. We are readie to receiue the publike peni­tents, that with plentie of teares and other outward signes, doe testifie the inward sorowe of their hearts, conceiued for their greeuous and notorious sinnes. Yea we receiue them, whose offences being not open­lie [Page 185] knowne, doe neuertheles secretlie bewaile their sinnes. And therefore that you saie of pampering mans will, and pleasure, where Gods worde and wri­ting should be onely followed, seeke among your owne sect, where it may take place. For sinnes openlie com­mitted, or knowne to be committed, we holde that they ought with open confession to be chastised, for satisfying the Church, that is offended by them: As for sinnes committed in secret, whereby our neighbour is neither hurt nor offended, it is sufficient that they be acknowledged, with hartie repentance before god, if the offendours conscience be not troubled with fur­ther doubtfulnes about them. In which case we holde that it is conuenient, that he should consult with the learned minister, for his further comfort and satis­faction, out of the worde of God, concerning the re­mission of his sinnes.

And therefore the manner and order of Penance hath bin diuerse in sundry ages and countries: sometimes solemne, which could be but once taken in al a mans life somtimes not solemne, but yet open and publike, which might be iterated, as ofien as mans mortal sinnes so required: other times priuat onelie, be­twixt the priest and the penitent: which is now vsed, and long hath beene, in a manner gencrallie thorough the wholl worlde. Of all which diuersities we will not now intreat, nor for our matter the consideration of them is virie needfull, seing that in all sortes, and in euerie of the sundry formes of doing penance this is a most firme principle, that the penitent had remission of sinnes, for which he did penance, no otherwise but by the ministerie of the Priestes. Therefore the substance of the matter being one, of the diuersitie of vse, and circumstances which maie be according to the time and manners of men al­tered, we need not much to care. Baptisme was once vsed with solemnitie, at two or three principall feastes of the yeare, for the time so required then, and the condition of the people, yet the same sacrament of Baptisme ministerea'now priuatlie as occasion serueth by the birth of euerie childe, is of the same force [Page 186] and grace now, that it was then. Wherein to reprehend the wis­dome of Gods Church, that is assuredlie ruled by the spirit of God, is ouermuch wantonnes of will, and sedition not tolerable.

There hath beene diuerse manners and orders ap­pointed for the punishment of sins, and for triall of the offenders true repentance & conuersion vnto god: but all these prooue not any sacrament of penance. The manner which the Popish Church doth vse in the ex­ercise of this pretensed sacrament, is partly tyrannical, while you inforce men to confesse their secret sinnes, to a popish Priest, where of there is no commaunde­ment in the holie scriptures, and partlie it is an encou­ragement vnto securitie, & a pampering in sinne, while the fraile and foolish man is persuaded, that by the heard confession & absolution receiued of the Priest, he is cleerelie discharged of his sinnes, and may be toti es quoties, with a litle pretie penance enioyned him for satisfaction. But it is a firme principle (you saie) that in all formes of penance, the penitent had remission of his sinnes, for which he did penance, no otherwise but by the ministerie of the Priestes. A heauie case where the Priestes were straight laced, and would retaine sinnes, where God was readie to forgiue. What is this els, but to restraine the mercie of God to the ministerie of vnskilfull men. At what howre so euer the sinner doth truelie repent, the Lord remitteth his sinnes. But man can not allwaies see, or by outward tokens iudge of true and inward repen­tance. Therefore it is a firme principle, that God of­ten times forgaue sinnes to the penitent, otherwise then by the ministerie of the Prieste. Men maie erre in exercising outward discipline, but Gods remission is not staied vpon mans error. Where you conclude that as the diuerse vse of baptisme hindreth not, but that in substance it is the same: so the sacrament of penance, notwith­standing the diuers formes, and manners, in which it hath or is now vsed, Your comparison is nought. For baptisme is a sacrament of Christes institution, your popish pe­nance [Page 187] can neuer be prooued to be a sacrament. Ther­fore your argument à paribus is of no force. Whether the Church did well to restraine baptisme to certaine solemne feastes, I will not here dispute.

THE NINTH CHAP.

LEt no man, vpon consideration of these thinges, either reprehend or maruatle at the counsel and ordinance of god, Fxternal sa­craments or deined and mans mini­sterie vsed for good causes. that he being hable to gouerne his creatures, and amend or cor­rect, pardon or punish euerie mans misdeedes by him-selfe, without all helpe and seruice of anie other his subiect natures, that it pleaseth his wisdome for all that, to forgiue sinnes no o­therwise in his Church, but by externall orders ioyned to mans ministerie in sundrie sacramentes. In sober consideration of these thinges, mans reason maie well be satisfied, if he can conceiue, that it is the honour and estimation of our kinde with almightie God our maker, that he gouerneth not our affaires onelie by him selfe in his owne person, but also that we be ru­led and led in the waies of Gods will, by one an other: that the maiestie of God, which most appeareth in regiment, and in remitting of sinnes, in correcting of [...] and iudgement, might be cleerelie seene in our kinde amongst our selues, to our comfort, and Gods no disgracing nor dishonour at all. And therefore Saint Augustine saith of the like doubt of some in his daies, which would not be taught by man, but by Gods owne spirit: Abiecta esset humana conditio, si per homines homini­bus In prefa. de doct. Christ. verbum suum Deus ministrare nolle videretur. Quomo­do enim verum esset, quod dictum est: Templum enim Dei sanctum est quod estis vos, si de humano templo Deus respon­sa non redderet? Mans state were too base, if God would not, that his word should be ministred by one man to another. [Page 188] For how should this truelie be spoken: the temple of God is ho­lie, the which temple you are, if God gaue not answers by mans temple? This is one great respect surelie, especialle since the second person in Trinitie tooke vpon him our nature. by whome the woorthines of mankinde is much increased, and more fit then euer before to serue ech other, as in the workes that be di­uine, and properlie by nature belonging to God himselfe. An other respect why we should by externall sacraments and mans ministerie receiue grace and remission of sinnes, is the singular respect had by God of our infirmitie, as well of minde, as bodie. For the minde requireth in her assured deseruing of damnation some externall token, by which she maie haue good cause to hope of mercie and grace. For where I know and assure myselfe that originall sinne is remitted by baptisme, when I haue once receiued the same, then I am in no further doubt of my selfe nor anie damnation for that sinne, which by the promis of God I haue learned, shall be washed awaie thereby, as by an externall instrument in which he conueigheth that benefit to my soule, if my soule by indisposition and unaptnes do not hin­der the assured fruit thereof: So where after Baptisme mans life is often defiled by greeuons sinnes, and God highlie displea­sed therefore, what an infinite treaskre it is, and how great a comfort to haue an assured helpe therof, wrought so by mans ministery in a visible action. that I maie know (sauing for mine owne lack of connenient disposition) my sinnes to be forgiuen, and Gods mercie and fauour to be obteined againe. We maie conceiue easily what a passing comfort it was to the parties that heard sensiblie, by the outward wordes of Christes owne mouth, thy sinnes be forgiuen thee. The said persons beleeuing in Christ, and lamenting for their sinnes past, might haue had some hope of remission by Christ, though he had said no such thing vnto them: yet he that perceiueth not, what comfort of conscience, what inward ioy of minde, what reioysing of the spirit they must needes haue, that had Christes testimonie and blessing in plaine termes, for the same purpose, he seeth nothing at all.

That God hath vsed in all ages, to testifie and assure [Page 189] men, of his grace and mercie, to the forgiuenes of their sinnes, by outward signes, and sacraments, and that for diuerse good causes, we are allwaies readie to acknowledge. But that it pleaseth his wisdome, (as you saie) to forgiue sinnes no otherwise in his Church, but by exter­nall orders ioyned to mans ministery, in sundry sacraments, we do vtterlie denie. For that were to tie the grace of God to the outward sacraments, which is most free to worke, either with them or without them. The pe­nitent publicane, an example of persons, that seeke Luk. 18. iustification, had his sinnes forgiuen him, by the one­lie grace and mercie of God, taken holde of by faith, without al external orders, ioyned to mans ministerie in any sacrament. For if we acknowledge our sins, he is faith­full and iust to forgiue vs our sinnes, and to clense vs from all vnrighteousnes. And Iesus Christ is our aduocate 1. Ioh. 1. a. & 5. with the father, to obtaine remission of sinnes. And if anie man shal see his brother sinne a sinne not to death, he shall ask, & he will giue life vnto him that sinneth not vnto death. By all which testimonies, and an hundreth more, that are euery where to be found in the scripture, it is most cleere, that God forgiueth our sinnes otherwise, then by externall orders or sacramets. Againe the sacra­ment of Baptisme is a seale and assurance vnto vs of the forgiuenes of our sinnes, not onely such as are com mitted before baptisme receiued, but euen vnto our liues end, whensoeuer we are truelie penitent for the same. Also the sacrament of the Lords supper in which we are spirituallie fed with the bodie of Christ, which was giuen for vs, and with his blood, which was shed for the remission of our sinnes, is a sure pledge, token, and seale of the remission of our sinnes committed af­ter baptisme, that we neede not the Popish sacrament of pennance for the same.

As for my selfe good Christian Reader, I am not so free from sinne, wo is me therefore, nor so void of mans affection, but as often I heare in the sacrament of penance the Priest, who to me [Page 190] then is Christ in full power of pardoning, saying the wordes of absolution ouer me, me think truelie I heare the sweete voice of Christ saying with authoritie: thy sinnes be forgiuen thee. Whereof no mortallman shall euer forbid me to take hope and singular trust of remission of sinnes with the passing comfort that thereon ensueth. All these that are without Christes folde, seeke not to heare his voice, for all their load of sinne, from the heauenlie and intire ioy whereof they be as farre, as from the conceiuing of of the felicitie to come in hea­uen it selfe. But let them assure themselues, that Christ wri­teth with his holie finger all their sinnes, though to Christ they will not now confesse them, whiles they refuse the power ofre­mission that he both had, aud hath in earth to the worldes end: without which outward solemne act of penance, man should ei­ther dispaire of Gods mercie, and liue in feare intollerable of euerlasting perishing, which often fall to timerous conscien­ces: or els, which is now of daies more common, men would liue in such passing presumption, and vaine securitie of heauen, that they should neuer, till the very last breath of their euill time, either be sorie for sinne, or seke to do any good worke at al.

This time shall testifie with me herein, and the verie diuer­sitie that is betweene these our corrupt conditions and the holy studies and endeauours of our forefathers shalltestifie: but the daies that yet are to come must need, most feele the smart of it, when these that now haue the direction of other mens steppes shall be gone, by whome for olde discipline, wherein they were brought vp. Some signes and remnantes of vertue be continued in the world. For when they be spent, and our yonkers that ne­uer heard of the Churches discipline, but haue had their full swinge in sinne, with the instruction of a most wanton doctrine, shall be the principall of the people, if this diuision so long con­tinue (which God forbid) into what terms shal trueth and ver­tue be then brought? Me think I see before hand the lamenta­ble state of things, and in a manner beholde the fruit of our onelie faith, of this bolde presumption of Gods mercie, of remo­uing the discipline of penance, of refusing the onely ordinance of God for remission of our mortall sinnes. Euil are we now, but [Page 191] a thousand partes worsse shal they be then, which in long nouse­ling in this naughtie learning of libertie shall be in perpetuall wo, and haue no feele nor sense thereof. And all this must needs follow vpon the lack of these outward acts & external waies of pardoning & punishing offences, and intended either for mans present comfort and solace, or els to keepe in awe the wantons of the world by the rodde of outward discipline, which in the Church hath euer especiallie beene obserued in the sacrament of penance.

When we heare the authorized embassadours and messengers of reconciliation, pronounce in the name of Christ, according to the scriptures, and promises of God, that our sinnes are forgiuen vs, whensoeuer we be hartilie sorie & truely penitent for the same, we haue sufficient warrant out of Gods word, to assure our selues of remission of them, with inestimable ioy & comfort of conscience. But for the sacrament of pe­nance, or the Priest to be Christ vnto vs, in fullpow­er of pardoning, or to haue anie wordes of absolution said ouer vs, because we haue no ground in Gods word, whatsoeuer imaginarie pleasure you haue therein, we finde nothing that is of force to staie a weake consci­ence, to comfort a troubled spirit, or to heale a bro­ken heart. To confesse our sinnes to Christ, who one­lie knoweth whether our repentance be vnfained, God forbid, that we should refuse. But to confesse them to a Popish Priest, or anie lawfull minister, if they be secret, there is no law or commaundement of God to require vs. If our conscience be not satisfied, about a­nie offence that we haue committed, how we should declare our vnfained conuersion, or repentance, we maie vse the aduise of the Godlie and learned pastor, who is able out of the word of god toresolue our doubts and quiet our conscience. That the want of Popish pen­nance will driue all men, either to desperation, or securitie and presumption, it is affirmed, without anie proofe. God be praised, experience cryeth out of the contrarie side. [Page 192] But rather the doctrine of poperie concerning the pre­tensed sacrament of penance, is manifest occasion of securitie, in them that are carnallie minded; of des­peration, in them that haue a tender conscience. For the one thinketh he hath an easy remedy for his sinnes to discharge them into a priestes eare: the other con­sidering the impossibilitie of confession, and vnsuffici­ency of the satisfaction, that be parts of this counterfet sacrament, can finde smal comfort in the priests absolu­tion. Your blasphemous rayling at the doctrine of God iu­stifying by faith onely, which you cal the instruction of a most wanton doctrine, and the naughtie learning of libertie, is suf­ficiently confuted by the examples of many thousands of Gods Saints, who acknowledging that they are iu­stified in the sight of God, by faith onelie in the me­rites of Christ, are more fruitfull in good workes, then all the popish hypocrites in the world. Where you terme your popish penance to be the onely ordinance of god, for remission of our mortall sinnes, you vtter not onelie a grosse contradiction of the trueth taught in the holie scriptures, but also directlie contrarie to the doctrine of all Papists, and euen of your selfe. For what saie you, M. Allen, were you wel aduised, when you said, that pe­nance is the onely ordinance of God for remission of our mortal sins: If it be as you saie, then the sacrifice of the masse is not the ordinance of God for remission of our mor­tall sinnes, as al Papists beside you do holde and man­taine: and extreame vnction, wherof you haue latelie affir med the contrarie, is not the ordinance of God for the remission of our mortall sinnes. The discipline of the Church, wherby wantons are kept in awe, is not exclu­ded by remoouing the sacrament of penance, which is neither the discipline of the Church, nor the power of re mission of sins graunted to the ministers of the Church.

It were too teadious, further to declare, how these externall meanes of working inward grace and remission of sinnes, be ne­cessarie for the outward man, which is sometimes refreshed, [Page 193] otherwhiles bridled, by things answerable, as well outwardlie to the bodie, as inwardlie to the minde. It is needlesse also to treat at large, how it is necessarie for the one and visible com­mon wealth of Christes Church, to agree together in all pointes thereof, and be notoriouslie knowne from all other sectes and sortes of peoples, that do not professe Christes name, by the outward practize of all holie functions, by which God hath promised to giue grace, remission, and sanctification to all his faithfull subiects. All these considerations with many the like maie serue and satisfie the quiet peaceable children of Christes Church, that haue learned to rest in Christes ordinance, though the causes thereof be not to them opened.

As for other, that are euer doubting, and neuer settelledin their faith, that alwaies be learning, and yet neuer attaine 2. Tim. 3. to knowledge: that had rather vnderstand much, then be­leeue a litle, such fellowes I must not so much instruct, as by the scriptures and examples of all ages, controlle and confound, if I maie. Let them therefore be charged, that God hath not onelie vsed from the creation of man to bring vp al people that serue him, in some especiall waies of outward worshipping, but hath also, these manie worlds, deliuered man from originall and a­ctuall sinnes, by externall sacraments and sacrifices, not with­out the priestes especiall procurement and ministerie therein. What did circumcision instituted by God in the law of nature, commaunded to Abraham and his seede, and continued so many ages, euen till Christes law tooke place? Did it not after a sorte remit sinnes? Was it anie other thing, but an externall worke in the face of the world? Was it ministred by man? Did it derogate anie thing to the honour of God, which by himselfe for his owne glorie and namesake was ordeined? And after­ward in the law of Moses, which did draw neere vnto Christi­an vsages, by manie actions of sacrifices and solemne rites in­stituted purposelie to represent & foreshew the state of our pre­sent Church, there we haue plaine proofe of certaine outward orders instituted for procuring remission and pardon of sins: not without especiall mention of the priestes ministerie in euerie of the said actions. Whereof Saint Paul speaketh to the He­brewes, [Page 194] in these wordes: Omnia penè in sanguine mundari, ac sine sanguinis effusione non esse remissionem. That all things Cap. 9. were in a manner clensed by blood, and that no remis­sion could be had without blood. For so in the 17. of Le­uiticus, they were charged to absteine from drinking of blood: Leuit. 17. because, sanguis animalium propiaculo est, the blood of beastes stood for an expiation and cleaning of sinnes. And therefore, amongst the diuers orders of sacrifice, mentio­ned Cap, 4. in the said booke of their ceremonies, there be diuers ex­presse waies by sacrifice to purge mens sinnes: some for the Priests sinnes, other for the Princes, and the third for the com­mon peoples offences. And one wait for their sinnes committed of ignorance, an other for crimes wittinglie done. Finallie some for thoughtes, and other some for euill deedes, with ma­nie mo diuersities, as you maie see in the said booke. In all which it is euer expressed, that the Priest is not onelie the mi­nister in the said sacrifice (as needes must be) but also, with offering of the said oblations for sinne, that he must make prai­er especiallie for the offenders, and euerie of them seuerallie, that God maie pardon them of that sinne, for which they offer their sacrifice. For allwaies after the forme and manner of of­fering be prescribed, according to the diuersitie of the peoples offences, it is added. Rogabitque pro eo sacerdos, & pro pecca­to eius, & dimittetur ei. And the Priest shal pray for him, and for his sinne, and it shall be forgiuen him. And a­gaine, Agat poenitentiam pro peccato, & offerat de gregibus agnam siue capram, orabitque pro ea sacerdos, & pro peccatis eius. Let the soule do penance, and offer a kidde of the flock, or an ewe lambe, and so the priest shall praie for that soule and the sinnes thereof.

That the ministery of man in al ages of the Church and externall sacraments, haue beene instituted of God, as well for the exercise os men in his worship, as for the assurance of remission of their sinnes, it is euer­more confessed of vs, and that now also the like be or­dained since the comming of Christ in the flesh. Wher fore your long discourse to prooue, that we neuer de­nied, [Page 195] is vaine, except you meane it against the Ana­baptistes, Libertines, Swinkfeldians, and such other condemned heretikes. That in all the sacrifices of the law that were appointed for sinne, the priest is ordei­ned the minister not onelie to offer the sacrifice, but also by praier to obteine remission of sinnes, it must be referred vnto the onelie high Priest, whereof the Iewish Priesthood sacrifices, aultars, &c. were sacra­mentall figures, and shadowes. And therefore by that the Priests had then to do according to the law, you do vnfitlie gather, that the like is to be donne by Priests vnder the Gospell. For that Iewish priesthood, is wholie translated vnto our sauiour Christ, who hath it perpetual and without anie passing from him to others. The ministerie of the Gospel hath no sacrifices to offer for sinnes, but to preach the onelie sacrifice of Christs death, and the propitiation of our sinne by him, and thereof to assure our infirmitie more plentifullie, to deliuer vnto vs the seales of our iustification by faith, instituted by God, the sacraments of baptisme, and the Lordes supper.

All which, doth not onelie couuince, that Gods will was, that remission of sinnes should be had, by externall sacrifices, penance and oblation, and that not otherwise, but by the priests mediationn, but also that there was an order euen then often in thé olde law, that man should vtter his sinnes, with the gre­uousnes thereof and circumstances, that according to the diffe­rence of the faultes the diuersitie of sacrifices and expiation might be vsed, and that the priest seuerallie might praie for the remission thereof. In all which doing, I will not now dispute, whether a carnall Iew that then had no further respect: but to the present obseruation of those commaunded Ceremonies and sacrifices, did obtaine therby remission of sins, by which the soule is reconciled to God: or els onelie a freedome from some temporal punishment due to the same by law amongst the people, or otherwise by Gods appointment: but moste sure it is, that the spirituall sorte, which from those sacrifices did not separate, but [Page 196] include Christs blood, in respect whereof, all their sacrifices had their force, though not so full as ours now haue, nor with August. su­pra Num. 25. & Leo serm. 3. de nati. Do­mini. so ample promise of Gods grace: yet sure it is, that they by faith in Christ, and yet not without those obseruations, which it was necessarie that they should then keepe, were sanctified and purged verilie from their sinnes, nor without the ministery of the priest, whose praier and sacrifice was requisite for the same purpose.

Neither were all externall waies of Gods worship and re­mission of sinnes, abrogated by the Gospell, as some doe falselie faine, but, to the externall elements, that now euen in the new law be instituted for grace and remission of sinnes, Gods fauour is giuen and graunted a great deale more fullie, and sanctifica­tion more plentifullie. For els, let vs with penance reiect bap­tisme, and other waies of Gods seruice, that be not onelie inter­nall, & separated wholy from outward elements of water, bread, wine, imposition of hands, oile and such like: which if they dare not do, how can they anouch, that God remitted not sinnes by externall sacraments? or, not by the handes of priesthood? seeing without that order, none of these holy actes can be due­lie ministred. Seeing then that allmightie God of his passing wisdome and carefull prouidence towards man, hath remitted sinnes in all ages, as by the ministerie of man in outward so­lemne ceremonies, as by circumcision in the law of nature, and by the same in Moses gouernment, besides manie other sacrifices vsed and commaunded for diuers sinnes actual both greater and lesse: how can it be otherwise, but there should be sacraments ordeined in the new law: first for remitting of o­riginall sinnes, and other of all sortes at our, first entrance into Christs house, & then an other, for more greeuous actual offen­ces committed by relapse after baptisme? For els the law should not fullie in figure fore shew the truth, & great grace of our sacraments to come, whereof lightly, by Gods appointment it did beare a plaine and expresse resemblance.

Al this doth conuince, that there was an order, that man should confesse and acknowledge his sins before God, but not in auricular confession to the Priestes, [Page 197] but by the open act of sacrifising. As for the vttering with the greeuousnes thereof, and the circumstances whereby you wold make a resemblance of your popish shrift, you finde not in the lawe anie thing, by ana­logie whreof you might commend it. Diuerse kindes of sacrifice indeed were appointed for diuerse states and persons of mé, as for the high Priest, the whole congre­gation, the Prince, or the priuat man, but no difference in the same state, or kinde of men, of sinnes, with the grieuousnes and circumstances thereof. Leu. 4. Ne­uertheles by faith in Christ, those sacrifices were seales and assurances vnto the godlie, of remission of their sinnes, as full as ours, and with as ample promise of Gods grace, as concerning the effect, which was the saluation of their soules, but not with so ful, ample, or cleare declaration, of the effectual meanes thereof as we haue. The ceremonies of the law were abrogated by the Gospell, not that we should be without all ceremo­nies, but that in stead of the multitude of darke, & ob­scure figures, the goodnes of god hath bound the soci­etie of the Christian people, with sacraments, in number the feewest, in obseruation the easiest, in sig­nification the moste excellent, as baptisme the sacra­ment of regeneration, and the Lordes supper, the sa­crament of heauenlie and spirituall nourishment, and preseruation in the same state, of the children of God, into which we are sacramentally incorporated by bap­tisme, the onelie perpetuall sacraments, commen­ded and commaunded in the new Testament, and which comprehend in them, the whole mysterie of the dispensation of God, for our eternall saluation, by which is sealed vp vnto vs, the doctrine of the remissi­on of all our sinnes, committed either before baptisme or after, and of that naturall corruption, wherein we are al borne & conceiued, which we call originall sin.

But besides these for said sacrifices, in which sinnes were af­ter their manner remitted, there was another vsuall act practi­zed [Page 198] by the Priestes, which did more properlie prefigur at and re­present our sacrament of penance, and the Priests authoritie in the new law, concerning the iudgement of our soules, and the exact discussing of our misdeedes. For neither circumcision nor sacrifice of old had anie face of power iudiciarie, and there­fore could not exactlie represent our Priests power giuen them by Christ, for the iudgement of our sinne. But the authority giuen them by the law to discerne, shut vp, and seperat the le­prous and vncleane persons, from other the cleane of the peo­ple, did plainly represent our sacrament of penance: whereun­to by the Doctors it is often resembled, wherein order is taken the 13. and 14. of Leuiticus, the authoritie and practize Leuit. 13. & 14. thereof being often alowed by our Master Christ, who obser­ued the lawes so humblie therein, that he alwaies, after be had healed anie such seperated persons, sent them for all that to the Priests afterward, to offer their oblations prescribed by the lawe for the same.

And that this power pronouncing the leapers to be sound or sore, to be seperated or admitted to the company of the faithful; did represent the power of priesthood, concerning the leprosie of our soules, not onely S Bede, but S. Chryso also doth declare. For he talking of confession of sins to the Priest, writeth thus: Quamuis leprae immunditiam iuxtalegem sacerdoti panda­mus, atque ad eius arbitrium qualiter & quanto tempore ius­serit, purificari curemus. The vncleannes of the more grieuous leprosie (he meaneth deadlie sinne) let vs open to the Priest, and according to his arbitrement, howsoeùer he commaundeth vs, let vs seeke to purifie our selues. And. S Ierome: Quo­modo ergo ibi leprosum sacerdos mundum vel immundum fecit, sic & hîc alligat, vel soluit Episcopus & presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt velnoxy, sed pro officio suo cùm peccate rum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, quine soluen­dus. Looke therefore (saith he) how the Priest maketh there in the olde lawe a person cleane or vncleane, so here doth the Bishopor Priest binde or loose, not binding the innocent, nor loosing the guiltie: but when he hath heard the varietie and diuersitie of our sinnes, then he knoweth, whome to loose, and [Page 199] whome to binde. This place is verie plaine for confession and distinct rekening of euery of our mortall sinnes. The which the holie Doctor prooueth to be necessarie, because else the Priest of God could not doe iustice in punishing and par­doning, but should of ignorance either bind the good, or loose the wicked. In which case almightie God that knoweth ex­actlie the worthines and vnworshines of all persons, will not a­lowe the Priestes sentence that did proceed of ignorance, but will himselfe giue iudgement according to the partics deseru­ing. For the Priest is but a minister of his sacrament, and not the Lord and instituter thereof he must therefore conforme himselfe to Gods will, whose place he there occupieth. For as the Priest in the olde lawe could not make the cleane person to be vncleane, no more can the Priest of the new lawe bind the innocent, or absolue the person that continueth in sinne. Ne­uertheles the Priest worketh more properly vnder god, touching the remission of sinnes, because he is appointed the minister of grace and reconciliation, then the Priest in the olde lawe. For there in the making of any man whole of the leprosie, or other vncleanes, the Priest had not to do at all, but onelie when one was made whole by god, it was the priestes office to discerne the same, to shewe it vnto the people, and to admit him againe into the fellowspip of theresidue, after oblation made for that pur­pose. For to them it was not said, whome-soeuer you punish with leprosie, or make vncleane, or whome-soeuer you heale & make cleane, he shalbe whole: no such promise was made vnto them. For it was enough, that it might represent and haue resembling of our sacrament of penance, and of the maruelouse authoritte giuen in the new law to our Priestes, concerning the remission of sinnes. For to ours it was not saide, you shall dis­cerne whome I haue loosed alreadie in heauen, and shewe to the world whom I haue retained bound, or not forgiuen in hea­uen: but, as Hilarie saith, the Priests sentence is made pre­iudiciall to God in heauen, not the Priestes forgiuing is first, and then Gods afterward, as two distinct actions in time, but because the Priestes, is prius quoad nos, as the Philoso­phers doe tearme such thinges, and by the Priestes worke, [Page 200] which is plaine to vs, we streight come to the knowledge of Gods like worke of remission in heauen, which is prius natu­ra, because Gods action is the principall, and mans must ne­cessarily depend theron. But eis both Gods worke and mans runne ioyntly together in remission of sins, as al infirmental & secondarie causes neuer make a seuerall action from the prin­cipal, but they concur ioyntly to euery effect, as it is most plaine in all sacraments, whereby god worketh grace, the which grace as it proceedeth from god, so it commeth by mans seruice, not by distinct operation of the principall, and the seruing and secon­darie causes, but in one worke & vndeuided operation of them both. For in baptisme God worketh the remission of origi­nall or actuall sinnes first, and then sendeth the partie to the fount afterward, that the Priest therein may declare what god hath wrought before, or to worke the same againe, that so the partie might haue a double grace of remission, first by Ggd, and then by the Priest: for that were foolish to surmise. But god by the Priests ministerie and the sacrament doth rewit sinnes so, that the action hereof, at once sitly may fall vpon them both.

The power of remitting sinnes, as you saie, is often com­pared by the auncient Fathers, to that authoritie which the priests of the old law had, in discerning and pronouncing, who were lepers and who were cleane, which is to giue a sen­tence declaratorie, to pronunce, who was striken or healed by God, not a proper power to strike or heale, and yet the words of the lawe are, that the Priest should make him cleane, or vncleane: meaning that he should so declare him with authoritie, to be either seperated, or receiued as the case required, according to those di­rections, and descriptions, which he had in the lawe of God. For though other men by the instruction of the law, might descerne a leaper from a clean person, yet no man had authority to put him out, or to receiue him into the congregation but the Priest. In citing the authoritie of Saint Bede, and Saint Chrisostome, you vse such confusion, as I know not whose words you pre­tend [Page 201] to alledge, sauing that Bede hath written vpon Saint lames epistle, Chrisostome hath not. In cyting therefore of Saint Bedes testimonie, it may seeme that you follow some other mens dictates, collection, or notebooke, and not your owne reading. For Bedes wordes, vpon that place of the 5. of Saint Iames are these, differing both in wordes, and sense from your allegation, Si ergo infirmi in peccatis sint, & haec presby­teris ecclesiae confessi fuerunt, ac perfecto corde ea relinquere at (que) emendare sategerint, dimittentur eis: Ne (que) enim sine confessione emendationis, peccata qucunt demitti. unde recte subtungitur, Confitemini ergo alterutrum peccata vestra, & orate pro inuicem, & saluemini, In hac autem sententiailla debet esse discretio, vt quotidiana leuia (que) peccata alterutrum coaequalibus confiteamur, corumque quotidiana credamus ora­tione saluari. Porro grauioris leprae immunditiam, iuxta le­gem sacerdoti pandamus, atque ad eius arbitrium, qualiter & quanto tempore insserit, purificari curemus. Therefore if the sick be in sinnes, and shal confesse them to the elders or priests of the Church, and with perfect heart shall indeuour to forsake and amend them, they shall be forgiuen to them. For without the confession of amendment, sinnes can not be forgiuen wher­upon it is rightlie added, Confesse therefore your sins one to an other, that ye maie be saued. Now in this sentence this disereti­on ought to be, that we confesse, our daily light offences to our e­qualls, one to another, & that we should beleeue that by their daily praier, we are saued. But the vncleanes of the more gree­uous Leprosie, according to the law let vs open to the priest, & according to his arbitrement, how, and how long time, he shall commaunde, let vs haue regard to be purified. In this te­stimonie of Saint Bede, though I doe not altogether allow his iudgement, and euerie man may see, how he restreineth in some case to the priest, that which the Apostle speaketh of confessing one to another in all cases mutual offered, yet we may see his sentence con­trary to your citation, quamuis Leprae, &c. although you haue amended it in your translation. Also that it is [Page 202] confession, acknowledging, or purposing of amend­ment that Saint Bede counteth necessarie for them, that shall obteine remission of their sinnes, and not a particular declaration of all sinnes counted in a priests eare. Thirdlie that the text of Saint Iames is to be vnderstood directlie of mutuall confession, of one man to an other, although in cases of greeuous sinnes he allude to the law of Leprosie.

In translating the place ofIerome, you render for peccatorum, sinnes, where you should rather translate it sinners, that peccatorum may be the antecedent to the relatiue that followeth: but as for auricular confession, or distinct reckoning of euerie of our particuler mor­tall sinnes, this place maketh nothing in the worlde, as verie plaine as you say it is. The reason you adde of do­ing iustice in punishing or pardoning, is of your owne imagination. For Ierome saith, that by hearing the diuer­sitie of sinners (speaking of them that haue openly offé­ded) and finding some to be penitent, some to be obstinate, or dissemblers, he may know who is to be bound, and who to be loo­sed, which he cānot do by hearing the diuersity of their sins. For if their sins be as red as scarlet, if they be true­lie penitent, they are to be loosed and if they seeme ne­uer so small, if they be not repentant, nor humblie contrite in heart for them, they are to be bound. While you seeke to make a difference betweene the authoritie of the minister in the Ghospell of pardoning sinnes more proper­lie, then the priest clensed the Leper, you declare that you are not content with the sentence of Saint Ierome, nor of so many of the auncient fathers as made the case all alike. And where you saie, it was not said vnto them, as vnto ours, whomsoeuer you punish with Leprosie, or make vn­cleane, he shal haue a Leprosie, you speake beside the booke. For this authoritie was giuen to them, that they should make cleane or vncleane, and whomesoeuer they made cleane, he was admitted into the congregation, and whomesoeuer they made vncleane, he was so ac­counted [Page 203] of all men. Yet properlie they made neither cleane, nor vncleane, but declared them so to be, ac­cording to the institution which they had of Gods law, in exercise whereof although they erred, and so the partie might be receiued or refused, according to their error, yet was he neither cleane nor vncleane in deede by their sentence, but by the work of God, and so be sinners. The blasphemie, that you ascribe to Saint Hilarie, I haue confuted before. Your distinction of prius natura, and quoad nos, is foolish sophistrie in this case. For except God first worke in our hearts by his holie spirit faith of forgiuenes, we can haue but small comfort, in the priests absolution. That God doth alwaies De bapt. cont. Don. 1. 4. c. 1. wörke at the instant in which Baptisme is ministred, it is false, if Saint Augustines doctrine be true, who reacheth that Baptisme may be receiued out of the Church, but cannot haue effect but in the Church, that is, if the partie came from heresie, and submit him selfe to the Catholike Church.

And so it is in penance, where God the principall, and the priest the secondarie or seruisable cause ioyntlie forgiue toge­ther. For so the words of institution of this sacrament doe moste plainlie conuince: whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they beforgiuen, he speaketh in the present tence, as though he would saie: as you forgiue them, or reteine them, ipso facto, I forgiue them, or reteine them. And therefore, sauing the ho­nour of the Master of the sentences, he had not good consi­deration when he did holde (as some other did after him) that first mans sinnes be remitted by God in his contrition and pur­pose to come to the sacrament, and afterwarde, the same re­mission to be declared by the priests, and as it were confirmed by his approbation in confession: being therein partlie deceiued by the saying of Saint Hierome before alledged, whome he tooke, perchaunce, to haue compared in all respects, the office of the olde Priest, for the viewe of the vncleane, and ours of the new law, in the iudgement vsed vpon mans sinnes: and part­lie, as I take it, by a sentence of Saint Augustine, which [Page 204] compared together the receiuing of Lazarus by Christ, and the Disciples loosing his bandes, to Christes pardoning of sinnes first, and then the priests loosing the same afterward in the face of the Church. This, to be shorte, is a peece of Saint Augustines sentence: Quid ergo facit Ecclesia, cui dictum est: De verbis Domini. fed. 8. Quae solueritis in terra, erunt soluta? nisi quod ait Domi­nus, soluite illum, & sinite abire. What doth the Church then, to whome it was said: vhatsoeuer you loose, it shall be loosed? Marie, she doth that which our Lorde saied, loose him and let him goe. Wherein Saint Augustine meaneth no­thing els, but that Christ is the principall agent, and that he properlie doth giue life to the soull, the Priest for all that, bee­ing his seruant and minister therein, and therefore by nature is a latter agent in the same worke, which els, as I haue proo­ued, ioynilie perteineth to them both, for that the effect of a Sacrament commeth not to any man till it be receiued, except it be in certaine cases of necessitie, where the parties can not obteine the externall rse of the appointed element, though they earnestlie desire the same.

But how the olde Priests office touching the Lepers of the law, representeth our sacrament of the priests ministerie in the new Testament, and how farre ours, which is the truth, excel­leth that which was but a shadow of ours, Saint Chrysostome doth excellentlic declare: and therewith fullie may put out of doubt all men, that our Priests properlie worke remission of sinnes, as ministers in the same diuine action, and not as de­clarers or approouers of that effect, which before was wrought De Sacer. Lib. 3. by God himselfe. Thus he saith: Corporis lepram purgare, seu veriùs dicam, haud purgare quidem, sed purgatos proba­re, Iudaeorum sacerdotibus solis liccbat: at verò nostris sacer­dotibus, non corporis lepram, verùm animae sordes, non dico purgatas probare, sed purgare prorsus concessum cst: Quam­obrem mco iudicio, qui istos despiciunt contemnuntque, multò sceleratiores ac maiori supplicio digni fuerint, quàm fuerit Dathan vnà cum suis omnibus. That is to saie: To purge the Leprosie of the bodie, or ells to saie as it was in deede, not to purge, but to discerne who were cleane, was graunted onelie to [Page 205] the Priests of the olde law: but it is fullie graunted to our Priests, not to purge the bodilie lcprosie, nor to snew who are cleaner purged, but vtterlie to purge the verie filth of mans soull. Therefore by my iudgement, whosoeuer doe contemne or despise them, they are much more worthie punishment, then the disobedient Dathan with all his companie. Thus saith this holie Father, with many wordes moe, which were worthie all consideration, and rememberance in this case, if the mat­ter were not so abundant, that it may not suffer ouer long a­bode in one place, lest iniurie be done to other braunches of the cause, no lesse necessarie to be knowne for full vpholding the truth thereof.

Your argument taken of Christs speaking in the present tense is vaine, and of no force to prooue, that the forgiuenes or reteining of God and man concurre in one instant. For in the latter sentence of reteining the verbe is of the preterperfect tense, [...], but in the same sense that the verbe [...] in the former sentence, which is of the present tence proouing Gods forgiuenes to goe before mans declaration thereof. The Master of the sentences is litle behol­ding to you, that doc so flatlie condemne him of error, whereas he did write nothing in this point, which was not commonly receiued in the Church of Rome in his time, and long after. For among the articles in quibus Magister non tenetur, there is no fault found with his sentence, of the Priestes power in bin­ding and loosing. Gratian also declareth, that learned and religious men in his time, were in diuerse opini­ons about that point and other, concerning this po­pish sacrament of penance. whereby it appeareth that the sentence which you holde, was not accounted Catholike nor vniuersallie receiued in their times. If Peter Lumbard the Master of the sentences was decei­ued by the sayings of Saint Ierome and S. Augustine, they were first deceiued themselues. for other sense out of their sayings, then the master of the sentences ga­thereth, [Page 206] no reasonable man can conclude. And it is but one onelie saying of S. Augustine that he citeth, not diuers: and not onely out of Augustine and Hierome but out of other writers also, as Ambrose, and Cassio­dorus, and Gratian citeth maniemore: all which you must answere, if you wil take part against the two prin­cipall posts of poperie, Gratiane, and Lumbard, with all them that take their part. But you thinke one say­ing of Chrysostome inough to wipe awaie all their au­thorities and reasons, and to prooue that the priestes of the new lawe doe purge the fitlh of the soull, and not onely declare it to be purged, as the Priestes of the olde lawe did of the leprosie of the body. The meaning of Chrysostome is, that the Ministers of the Gospell haue power, not onelie to pronounce & declare the penitent sinner to be deliuered from the vncleanes of his soule, vnto o­ther men, that he may be accepted into the congrega­tion, if he haue bene excluded: but to assure the pe­nitents conscience in Gods name, of the remission of their sinnes, wherein he doth much more for the be­nefit of his soule, then the priest of the olde law, who onelie declared vnto other men how the partie was to be taken, who knew in himselfe whether he were sicke or healed, before he came to the priest. Therefore where Chrysostome saith, It is graunted vnto the priests of the new testament, not onelie to trie & approoue the soule to be deliuered of the filihines thereof, but altogether to deliuer it, he meaneth of deliuering by assuring the conscience of the penitent sinner of Gods mercie and forgiuenes, whereby he is throughly, or altogether deliuered ther­from: whereas otherwise it were blasphemous, & con­rrarie to Chrysostomes iudgement in many other places, if the wholl act of purging or deliuering the soull from filthines were ascribed to man, as the words seeme to sounde.

Now vpon all this foresaid declaration, it maie be well vn­derstood, that our aduersaries haue small reason in reprehen­ding [Page 207] the ordinance of God, who is prooued in all ages and diu­sities of lawes, to haue giuen grace and remission of sinnes, not onelie by externall elementes, and actions of diuerse cere­monies, sacraments, and sacrifices: but also euer to haue dispen­sed the said benefites, by mans seruice and ministerie, without all dishonour of his personage, or diminishing his owne proper interest and right therein. And so much more hath he vsed in the new law of the Gospell, the ministerie of the priests and ex­ternall sacraments, to the procuring of the saied benefites, by how much more, our law, our sacraments, our sacrifices, and our priests, be glorified and preferred in respect of the olde, and Chrisost. ibi­dem. haue the more abundant blessing of the spirit, and Christs blood, which by these conduites, most largelie flowe to all mens fouls, that despise not the blessed benefit thereof.

Yet if they will not be satisfied herewith, because they sur­mise our new law to be so spirituall, that man may looke for nothing at mans handes, but all immediatelie of God and his spirit, for by him they will be taught the meaning of the scrip­ture, by him they will be baptized, by him they must haue re­mission and absolution, and at length they are become Ana­baptistes, and refuse to obey Prelates of the Church, and Prin­ces of the world, because by God they wil onelie be ruled and In prolog. l. de doct. Christ. punished for their offences: Against such proud cogitations, as Saint Augustine tearmeth them, God hath purposelie, to teach humilitie and obedience one to another, both in temporal causes, and especiallie in spirituall matters perteining to mens sinnes and soules, he hath (I saie) for the nonst, not one­lie instituted these waies of baser creatures vsed in the sacra­ments, to atteine his grace by, but also hath made man the master almost and executor of his meaning in the same, whose seruice he vseth so much for our saluation, that he sticked not to send his most chosen and dearest euen of those daies of grace and plentifulnes of the spirit, to be instructed by man, and made readie for his ministerie no otherwise but by man. A strange thing surelie, and to be well noted for this purpose, not onelie of our aduersaries for their confusion, but of the good studious readers for their instruction, how that Paul beeing prostrate, [Page 208] and miraculouslie called by Iesus Christes owne voice, was yet sent by Christ himselfe, to confirme the authority of his priests, to Ananias, of him to receiue as well instructions, as the sa­craments of the Church, for his incorporation to the faithfull, and remission of his sinnes paste. And againe, that Corneli­us, Act. 9. though his praiers were heard, and his almes acceptable to Ibid. 10. god, & an Angel sent vnto him to declare the same, which was a signe of high reputatiō, was yet charged to goe to Peter, of him not onelie to receiue the sacraments, but a so by his instruction to learne, what to beleeue, what to hope, & what to loue, saith S. Austine The Eunuch, might by god himselfe in his owne coun try, haue bene schooledor sanctified, & yet it pleased his maiesty Ibid. 8. so to vse the matter, that by Philip both the sense of scripture, & the sacrament of Baptisme should be vnderstanded & recei­ued at once. So hath God in all ages confirmed the authori­tie of his holie priests and ministers, & so hath he euer checked by his owne holie examples the presumptuous temptation of man, who euer hath disdained mans office and ministerie for his owne saluation. Therefore let no man maruell, why Christ hath giuen authoritie to man to forgiue sinnes, seeing he hath from the beginning, not remitted ordinarilie otherwise then by mans seruice, nor any way ells, for the moste parte, but by ex­ternall acts of ceremonies, sacraments, and sacrifices, that we may learne thereby humility, & obedience to Gods ordinance, by the warrant whereof they all (as I haue prooued) challenge all manner of interest in the gouernment of our soules.

That God by externall sacraments, and by the mi­nisterie and seruice of man hath dispensed his spiritu­al benefits, it is prooued but so, that his grace was ne­uer bound, either to the one or to the other, but that he maie, and hath bestowed the same most freelie, according to the good pleasure of his will. The fansie of the Anabaptistes, that would seeme to looke for all thinges immediatlie from God, despising the sacrá­ments and ministerie of man, we abhor and detest, no lesse then you. We maruaile not why Christ hath gi­uen authoritie to man to forgiue sinnes, whose mini­sterie [Page 209] he hath vsed in all times, both by preaching his worde, and by administring his sacraments, to dispense his misteries vnto the rest of his Church vpon earth: But that God doth not ordinarilie remit sinnes but by the mi­nisterie of the priest, nor any way ells for the moste parte, but by externall acts, we maruel how you are able to prooue it, seeing God often times vseth many other occasi­ons, then the priests ministerie, to bring men to repen­tance, and without all waies of externall acts or sa­crifices, to assure men of the remission of their sinnes by faith. But this admiration altogether passeth the reach of our capacitie, to vnderstand how it may be conuinced, That all priestes by warrant hereof, may challenge all manner of interest in the gouernement of our soules. It were much to challenge any interest in go­uernment of our soules, which is proper to our Sauiour Christ: but to challenge all manner of interest in go­uernment, it sauoureth to stronglie of Antichristian presumption, that any Christian should abide it. The Apostles in exercise of their calling, acknowledged them selues, not onelie to be the seruants of God, but also of the Church: for we preach not our selues (saith the 2. Cor. 4. Apostle) but Iesus Christ, and our selues to be your seruants for Iesus Christ. It is a ministerie, and not a Lordeship, that we must exercise, not as temporall Princes, who although they may be saide after a sorte, to serue the common wealth, yet they are so seruants, as they are also Lordes. But the ministers of the Church in their spirituall gouernement, are seruants, and not Lordes, as Saint Peter testifieth: therefore they cannot iustlie challenge, all manner of interest in the gouernement 1. Pet. 5. of our soules. For if they might, we should haue many Lordes of our soules, and denie God, our onelie Iud. lorde, our Lorde Iesus Christ our onelie sauiour.

Much more might be said out of diuerse holie fathers, much out of the decrees as well of Bishopes as Councells: the autho­ritie wherof no Christian Catholike did euer reiect. In Lateran, [Page 210] in Florence and in Trent Councells, Penance is decreed to be a sacrament, and of necessitie, to all such as fall into deadelie Can. 21. Tract de Sa­cra. De poen. sinne after Baptisme. The minister thereof by their holie de­termination, is a Priest lawfullie ordered: the remission of sins is in them all, challenged to be his right, not onelie by de­claration that God hath or will pardon them, nor by the prea­ching of the Gospell, nor any other waies newlie deuised by the Deuill to delude Christes ordinance, and misconstrue his plaine wordes: But properlie is the priest prooued, to be the minister vnder God of reconciliation, and therefore may, by his wordes, absolue men, in the saide sacrament, of their sinnes, as in Christs owne steade, whose honourable iudgement seat, byhis commission, and the holie ghosts assistance, he doth lawfullie possesse. And so surelie, doe Gods ministers holde this power and preheminence, that no power or dignitie of man could euer be so well warranted and approoued by Gods owne worde, and practize of all ages and nations christened, as this is. All the Princes in earth, though they reigne full righteouslie, can not yet shew the tenth part of the euidence, that Gods priests can doe, for their title of remission of sinnes: and it booteth not mee in this my base state to admonish them, though I hartelie wish they would consider it, that the contempt of spirituall iurisdi­ction and the dignitie of priesthoode, salleth at length to the difobedience of all temporal power, and wicked contempt of ci­uil gouernement also: as in these disordered daies, we may to our great griefe beholde, when, vnder pretence of religion and Gods worde, whereof they haue no more respect surelie then the Deuil him selfe hath they haue disobeied not onelie Peters keies, but also Cesars sworde: Neither let any man thinke, that, where the bands of conscience, the awe of gods maiestie, the feare of hell and damnation, the hope of heauen and saluation is remooued that there can be any ciuil obedience long. Feare of man is much, flatterie of man is more, but bond of conscience passeth them both. Thiu therefore haue Gods priests made ac­count of their calling, and long practised power of remitting and reteining the peoples offences.

Whatsoeuer you can saie out of any auncient fathers [Page 211] will not prooue your intent of shrift and pardons: your sacrament of penance, is but a young beginner that can shew no auncienter councells, for her authoritie, then Lateran, Florence, and Trent, the eldest of which is not much aboue 300, yeares olde: and yet in the place you send vs vnto, Confession is straightlie commaunded, but penance is not decreed to be a sacrament. Declarati­on of the pastour by preaching, that God wil pardon al peni­tent sinners, you count to be awaie newlie deuised by the diuil, to delude Christes ordinance, and misconstrue his plaine wordes, as though your deuelishand blas­phemous witte and tongue, were hable to prooue out of Christes wordes your popish shrifts, pe­nance, and satisfaction to be of Christes ordinance, whereas it hath beene the doctrine and practize of all the Prophetes and Apostles, to preach remission of sinnes to all that truelie repented, and were turned vnto God, and by authoritie of their commission re­ceiued from God, to assure all such of perfect forgiue­nes, of all their sinnes. To compare the euidence, wher­by they holde this authoritie, with the right of princes wherby they holde their croune, & so farre to preferre it, is a point of antichristian and anabaptisticall presumption. For ciuill Princes haue as cleere euidence in the scripture to auouch al their lawful authority, as priestes haue to exercise that whereunto they be called. Otherwise the particuler calling of euerie priest must leane vpon aiust title, as well as the aduancement of princes in­to their throne, and much more, or els they haue not so great euidence, as you talke of. For a Prince being in the throne, by what right soeuer he possesseth it, is to be obeied: But a minister of the Church, except he be lawfullie called, is not to be regarded. You haue great cause to complaine of these daies, that vnder pre­tense of Gods word and religion, temporall and ciuill power is disobeied and contemned, where there is no such manifest examples of such disobedience & contempt, as in your [Page 212] popish Northern rebellion, and in an hundreth other vile attemptes, to wring the scepter out of the hands of Gods anointed, and your most lawful Prince, vnder pretense (in the Deuils name) of religion and the Ca­tholike Church. But such religion, and such a Church, as aloweth in Italian Priest to depose anie Christian Prince from his throne, God of his infinite mercie de­liuer this Ileland, and graunt all true subiectes of the same, to yealde their faithfull obebience to their God­lie Prince, not onely for feare, but alfo for conscience.

THE TENTH CHAP.

ANd now I must aduertise my louing breethrenof the neces­sarie sequele hereof, which to some I know, seemeth so hard and vpleasant, that the verie consideration thereof hath driuen manie, that haue not felt the sweetenesse of Gods spirit, by which euerie of his commaundements, be they neuer so rough in apparance, are made easie and delectable, to the feare, mis­liking, and lothsomenes of the sacrament of penance. Which, as it is, for other causes manie, much abhorred of the wantons latelie departed out of the Church, and of some worldlie Ca­tholikes to, that be not so zelouse in following trueth, as they be desirous to know trueth: so it is most lothed and feared, for that in it, there is required a distinct, simple, sincere and plaine confesfion to be made of euerie sinne that is knowne or su­spected to be mortall, vnto a Priest, which is the lawfull mi­nister of the same Sacrament, with such diligent and exact ex­amination of our consciences, as a matter of such importance doth of reason require. This is the great offence and staie, that the weaklings of Christes Church do so earnestlie respect: and [Page 213] so long they shall be vexed and molested in minde with the sow­er remembrance thereof, as they do not prooue the sweete, gra­tious, and incomparable effect ensueing most assuredlie there­on: so long shall they stumble at so small a straw, as they do not feele the burden of sinne, feare the paines of hell, follow the qui­et of conscience, foresee the dreadfull daie of iudgement: so long shall they be bashfull to submit them selues, to one mans most close, secret, meeke and merciful iudgement, as they feare not the infinite shame, open horrible confusion, and euerlasting rebuke before God, Angell, man, and Deuill, at the seat and sentence that shall be pronounced in the face of all creatures, which must fall to them, that close vp vnder couer and compas of their conscience, such a number of manifold sinnes, whereof in that daie both account and confession must be made, to their vttermost confusion. Finally, so long shal mans will and corru­pted nature disobey Gods ordinance heerein, as he earnestlie and humbly seeketh not by praier at Christes handes the grace and gift of obedience and repentance. Fot as the fulfilling of e­uerie of Gods commaundements cannot otherwise be had, but by his speciall fauour, so saith Saint Augustine, or, as some thinke rather, Fulgentius: Firmissime tene, & nullatenus du­bites, De fide ad Petrum. Cap. 31. neminem hic posse hominem panitentiam agere, nist quem Deus illuminauerit, & gratuita sua mis ratione conuertis. Hold this for an assurance, that no man can here do penance, except he be illumined and conuerted theseunto by his singular mercie. Neither doth this Doctour mean of anie otherway of repentance, then is vsed for mortal sinnes after baptisme in the sacrament of the Church, putting there, in a manner by ex­presse wordes, a double sacrament, one for originall sinne, that is in children onelie, and that he calleth Sacramentum fidei, that other for sinnes afterward committed, which he tearmeth, Poenitentiam, Penance.

That auricular confession, or popish shrift is a ne­cessarie sequele, of the power that Christ hath giuen to the ministers of his Church, to forgiue sinnes, we must now see in what sorre you are able to prooue In which argument, though most needfull for your purpose, you [Page 214] haue verie litle to saie, and that nothing to the pur­pose in deede, either out of the scripture, or out of the auncient fathers. First you saie, that shrift seemeth hard to them, that haue not felt the sweete­nes of Gods spirit, by which euerie of his commaundements are made easie and delectable. Here therefore were conue­nient place for you to shew, where in all the scriptures God hath commaunded men to confesse all their mortal sinnes, committed in thought, word, or deede, vnto a priest of your order. But now you are as drie as a kixe, and as barren of proofe as a pumisse stone of water. There be many other causes then you alledge, why popish shrift is so burthenous. And the principall cause is, because it is a tradition of man, to clogge the conscience with intollerable seruitude. And in stead of al the causes of the contempt thereof, that you alledge, so long shall euerie Christian man despise your auricu­lar confession, as any thing necessary required of him, vntill you be able out of the holie scriptures, inspired of God, to prooue that it is such an ordinance of God, as you in many wordes to no purpose doe bragge of, be­fore you bring forth the worde of God to prooue it. The saying of Fulgentius is verie Godly and grounded vpon the holy scriptures, but that he doth not meane of any other waie of repentance, then is vsed in your po­pish Church, what argument haue you to shew? He putteth there, you saie, in a manner, by expresse wordes, a double sacrament, calling the one, sacramentum fidei, and the other, poenitentiam, the sacrament of faith and repentance. This is a strange manner of expresse wordes, to prooue poenitentia to be a sacrament, because baptisme is so. yea it is manifest, by his expresse words, that he acknowledgeth no sacramentum poenitentiae, but baptisine, Cap. 30. Firmissimè tene & nullatenus dubites, exeptis illis qui pro nomine Christi suo sanguine baptizantur, nullum hominem accepturum vitam aeternam, qui non hîc à malis suis fuerit per penitentiam, fidem (que), conuersus, & per sa­cramentum [Page 215] fidei, & penitentioe, id est per baptismum libera­tus: & maioribus quidem necessarium esse, & poenitentiam de malis suis agere, & fidem Catholicam secundùm regulam veritatis tenere, & sacramentum baptismatis accipere. Par­uulis verò qui nec propria voluntate credere, nec poenitentiam pro peccato, quod originaliter trahunt, agere possunt, sacra­mentum fidei quod est sanctum baptisma, quamdiu rationis oe­tas eorum capax esse non potest, sufficere ad salutem. Holde thou most stedfastlie, and nothing doubt, that except those, which for the name of Christ are baptized in their owne blood, no man shall receiue life euerlasting, which shall not be here conuerted from his euills, by repentance, and faith, and by the sacrament of faith and repentance, that is, by baptisme be deli­uered. And for them that be of yeares, truelie it is necessarie, both to repent of their euills, and to know the Catholike faith according to the rule of trueth, and to receiue the sacrament of Baptisme. But for infants which neither can beleeue by their owne will, nor be penitent for the sinne, which they draw originally, the sacrament of faith, which is baptisme, is suf­ficient for them vnto saluation, so long as their age cannot be ca pable of reason. yea it semeth by this saying going imme diately before, that he speaketh in the next chapter of the first repentance that in men of discretion, might goe before baptisme, although it be true of all true re­pentance, and conuersion vnto God.

And let no man think, that true repentance can be in anie or effectuall for the remission of sinnes, if he follow not the ap­pointed ordinance of God for remission of sinnes. For I dare be bolde to saie, that, as since the time that our Sauiours wordes tooke place: Nisi quis renatus fuerit, Except a man be borne againe of water and the holie Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdome of heauen, that as since these words no man can be saued without baptisme: so likewise since Christ spake these wordes, Whose sinnes you do forgiue, they be forgiuen, I dare saie neuer man was saued, nor can be saued, that either contemneth or neglecteth confession, or ear­nestlie seeketh not for it, if he fall in relapse of deadlie crimes [Page 216] after his baptisme. I will speake it plainlie, because I would haue it thought on earnestlie. As no man ordinarilie can be saued without baptisme, so can no man that euer after baptisme committeth deadlie sinne, be saued without sacramentall con­fession, or the earnest desire and seeking for the same. This maie seeme sharpe to some, but this will prooue true to all contemners of Gods ordinance. For whenso­euer God worketh his giftes and grace among men, by a­nie ordinarie meanes appointed for the purpose, it is great sinne to seeke for the same eitherwithout it, or to presume to haue it at Gods handes, otherwise then he hath prescribed: But the sacrament of penance, and confession made to the priest, is the appointed meanes that God vseth in his Church for remission of mortall sinnes: therefore whosoeuer thinketh to haue remission immediatly at Gods hand, he shall first be voide of his purpose, and then further be charged of high pre­sumption and contempt of his will and ordinance. The re­mission of originall sinner as properly pertaineth to God, as of mortall sinner: yet because Christ hath instituted a sacrament, as an instrument & meanes to conuey that singular benefit to man, he that would now claime the same immediatly at Gods owne hand, and therefore neglecteth the sacrament of bap­tisme, or would minister it to him selfe, without the Priests of­fice, he should neuer obtaine remission of his originall sinne, but adde to that high persumption and disobedience of gods commaundement, which of it selfe without originall sinne were damnable.

No wise man thinketh that true repentance can be in any, or effectuall for the remission of sins, if he dis­pise to follow the appointed ordinance of God for re­mission of sins: but you shalneuer prooue, that shrift, or auricular confession, is a necessarie, and generall ordi­nance of god, for al that shal obtein forgiuenes of sins committed after baptisme. How manie mortall sinnes are committed by children and others, where of they haue no remembrance, to confesse them, so that if confession were necessarie, remission of those sinnes [Page 217] for them were impossible. That you dare be bolde to saie that no man can be saued without externall baptisme of water, it argueth more boldnes then wisdome, except you were able to prooue that the wordes of Christ by you cited are necessarie to be vnderstood of the baptisme of water. And you are bolder, then Fulgentius, for he as you hard erewhile excepteth them that suffer mar­tyredome for Christs name, before they be baptized in water. And Saint Ambrose is bolde against you, to af­firme, that the Emperour, Valentinianus the yonger, who was slaine before he was baptized, was vndoub­tedlie saued. For comforting his sisters, he saith to them in that seueral oration, which he made vpon the death of Valentinian the Emperour. Sed audiui vos dolere, quod nō acceperit sacramentū baptismatis. Dicitemihi, quid aliud in nobis est nisi voluntas, nisi petitio? Atqui etiam dudum hoc votum habuit, vt antequam in Italiam venisset, initiaretur, & proximè baptizari se à me velle signifi­cauit, & ideo prae coeteris carsis me accipiendum putauit. Non habet ergo gratiam quam desiderauit? non habet quam po­poseit, & quia poposcit accepit? & vbi est illud, iustus qua­cunque morse praeuentus fuerit, anima eius in refrigerio erit? Solue igitur pater sancte munus seruo tuo: quod Moses dum in Siritu vidit accepit, quod Dauid, quia ex reuelatione, cog­nouit emeruit. Solue inquam, seruo tuo Valentiniano, munus quod concupiuit, munus quod poposcit sanus, robustus, inco­lumis. Si affectus aegritudine distulisset, tamen non penitus à tua misericordia esset alienus, qui celeritate temporis esset, non voluntate sraudatus: solue ergo seruo tuo, munus tuae gra­tiae, quam ilie nunquam negauit, qui ante diem mortis tem­plorum priuilegia negauit insurgentibus, quos reuereriposset, astabat virorum catcrua gentilium supplicabat senatus. Non metuebat hominibus displicere in Christo: qui habuit spiritum tuum, quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam? Aut si quia solen­niter non sunt celebrata mysteria, hoc mouet: ergo ne mar­tyres, si catechumeni fuerint, coronentur, non enim coronan­tur, si non initiansur. Quòd si suo abluuntur sanguint, [Page 218] & hunc swa pietas abluit & voluntas. But I haue heard that you are greeued, because he receiued not the sacrament of bap­tisme. Tell me then, what other thing is there in vs, but our will, but our desire? But long since, he had this purpose, that before he came into Italie, he would be dedicated, and next he signified that he would be baptized by me. And there­fore, before other causes, he thought that I was to be taken. Hath he not then the grace which he desired? hath he not the grace that he called for, & receiued it because he called for it? And where is then that saying, the iust, by what death so euer he be preuented, his soule shalbe in rest? performe therfore holy Sap. 4. Father, that gift vnto thy seruant, which Moses while he sawe in spirit receiued, which Dauid because he knewe by re­uelation obtained, performe, I saie, vnto thy seruant Valen­tinian, the gift which he called for, being sounde, strong & in good health. If being stroken with sicknes, he had differred, yet he should not be vtterly estranged from thy mercie, which was depriued by swiftnes of time, not by his owne will. Per­forme therefore vnto thy seruant the gift of thy grace, which he neuer denied, which before the day of his death denied the priuiledges of the Idols temples to them that rose vp, of whome he might haue stood in awe. There stoode by a great rout of heathen men, the senat made supplication. Neuertheles he feared not for Christ to displease men. He that had thy spirit, how did he not receiue thy grace? Or if this doth mooue, because the mysteries were not solemnlie celebrated, therefore let neither martyres be crowned, if they haue not beene bapti­zed, for they are not crowned if they be not didicated. But if they be washed in their own blood, this mans will & pietie also hath washed him. Againe he saith speaking in an Apo­strophe to him. Quis dabit tefrater, fratrem mihi lactentem vbera matris meae? hoc est, non quicun (que) te, sed Christus illu­minabit gratia spirituali, ille te baptizauit, quia humana tibi officia defuerunt. Who shall giue thee brother to be my bro­ther, sucking the papes of my mother, that is, not euerie one, but Christ him selfe shall lighten thee with spirituall grace. He hath baptized thee, because the seruice of man was wan­ting [Page 219] to thee. By all which wordes it is manifest that S. Ambrose vnderstood not those wordes of our sauiour Christ of externall baptisme, as you doe, when he re­fuseth not them that haue a purpose and will to be baptized, and are preuented by necessity of time. But where you proceed, and dare be bolde to saie, that neuer man was saued, that either contemned or neglected confession, if you meane popish, auricular, and, as you after call it, sacramentall confession, I dare be bolde to saie, you speake vntrulie: because the word of God prescribeth no such confession, as necessarie to salua­tion. Confession of that we beleeue, and of our sins before God, I knowe to be necessarie to saluation. Neither can you prooue, that they which dispise po­pish shrift, be contemners of Gods ordinance: for the Minor of your syllogisme that followeth, is a lowd lie, that your popish sacrament of penance, and confession made to the Priest, is the appointed meanes, that God vseth in his Church, for remission of mortall sinnes: for God hath ap­pointed no such sacrament or confession, as necessa­rie meanes, without the which remission of sinnes may not be obtained. Your similitude of baptisme will prooue nothing, except you can first prooue, your confession to be of Gods institution, as necessarie for doing awaie sinnes committed after baptisme, as bap­tisme is by Christs ordinance the seale of regenerati­on, by which we are assured of the remissiō of our sins.

And yet me thinke, I heare alreadie the sounde of the deceitfull voices of our Preachers: It is Christes bloode that remitteth sinnes: Come to me all ye that are heauie loaden, and I shall refresh you. I am he, Mat. 1 1. Esa. 43. saith the Lord, that putteth awaie thy sinnes, with a thousand such like: as though Christes bloode did not stand with Christes ordinances and sacraments, as though they came not to Christ that keepe the waie of his will and sacraments to come vnto him: as though God did not remit those sinnes, which in his name, and in his sacraments, and by his appoin­ted [Page 220] minister, be remitted. Protestant, saie plainlie, will thou refuse baptisme, because Christes bloode washeth awaie originall sinnes? If thou darest not openlie so preach, although couertly thou maie chaunce so intend, how darest thou deceiue the people, and draw them from penance and confession, be­cause Christes blood doth remit sinnes? For if the one sacrament may stand with the honour of God, and with all those places that thou bringest so deceitfullie out of the scripture, why may not the other, seeing both are prooued alike to be instituted of Christ? For the same selfe sauiour which said: Come to me, ye that be loaden, and I shall refresh you: he, and no other, said, except you be borne of water and the ho­lie Math. 12. Ioa. 3. Ghost, you cannot enter into the kingdome of hea­uen. The same God that said: I am he that putteth awaie thy sinnes, saith now to the Apostles and Priestss whose Psal. 43. Ioa. 20, Psal. 105. Iac. 5. Origin. ho­mil. 2. super Leui. Beda super hunc locum sinnes you doe forgiue, forgiuen be they. The same Spirit of God that said in the Prophet, Confesse your selues to the Lorde, for he his good, said now againe in the Apo­stle, confesse your sinnes one to another, that you maie be saued. By which he meaneth not, as Origen, venera­ble Bede, and other doe declare, so much brotherly ac­knowledging, sor counsellor other causes, the greefe of minde ech man to his fellowe, as he doth the order of sacramentall confession, to be made vnto gods Priests, as it may well appeere by the circumstance of the letter. For there he had willed them to send for the Priestes of the Church to annoile them, & streight after addeth this alledged text, of confession and praing ouer the sicke. The which place the heretikes sawe to sounde so manie waies, as well towardes the sacrament of ex­treame vnction, as the sacrament of confession, both which they haue vnworthilie abandoned, that they thought it not a­misse, either to denie the Apostles authoritie and the wholl epistle, as no peece of holie scripture, as Luther and other did: or else, which was after thought more handsome conuei­ance, to corrupt the text, and write instead of, send for the Priestes of the Church, thus, call the elders of the congregation. For they thought it might sounde euill, to [Page 221] haue in one sentence, priestes, Church, confession, re­mission of sinnes, release of paines for sinne, annoi­ling, praying ouer the sicke, and so forth.

It is no deceitfull voice of our preachers, to af­firme, by these, and a thousand such like textes of scri­pture that it belongeth to God onelie to forgiue sins properlie, satisfaction being made for them by the bloode of Christ. And yet we derogat nothing from Christes ordinances, and sacraments, by which he worketh effectuall assurance of the same. We acknow­ledge the ministerie of the Apostles, and their lawful successours, for the remission and retaining of sinnes, both by preaching, and by ministering of the sacra­ments, instituted by our sauiour Christ. But we de­nie and dare stand to the deniall, with all the papists that hath beene, are, or shalbe, that popish penance, and confession, is anie sacrament, of our sauiour Christes institution: for he that said, whose sinnes you forgiue, forgiuen be they, hath not said, whosoeuer will haue his sinnes forgiuen by you, must haue some penance by you inioyned, for satisfaction of Gods iu­stice: yea there is nothing more contrarie to forgiue­nes then satisfaction made by the partie to whome sinnes should be forgiuen. And he that said, confesse your offences one to another, and praie one for an other, that you maie be healed, saith no where, confesse all your sinnes vnto a Priest, that you may be saued: but willeth a mutuall acknoledgeing, and reconciliation of one Christian man to another, where there hath bin anie trespasse of such offences, as one man hath com­mitted against another, and a mutuall acknowled­ging of our sinfullnes one to another, that we may be sturred vp to mutuall praier. By which textre the Priest is asmuch bounde to shriue himselfe to his parishioner, as the parishioner to the Priest. But Origen and Bede are alledged, to prooue that the Apo­stle meaneth not onlie of such acknowledgeing, nor so [Page 222] much thereof, as the order of sacramental confession. Verilie when the wordes of the scripture are plaine, & the sense [...] to be gathered of the plaine words, we may not restin anie mans opinion that is contrary to the same. The word [...], euerie man that hath but small knowledge in the tongue, doth know to sig­nifie and require a mutual confession, aswell as a mu­tuall praier of one man for another. But yet let vs examine what your authorities doe containe. First Origen in the place by you cited, speaketh not a word of this text, confesse your offences one to another, but only of the two verses going before. For, making seauen meanes of remitting of sinnes, after his corrupt, & vnpure manner of teaching, By baptisme, by martyrdome, by almes, by forgiueing one another, by conuerting of sinners, by aboundance of charitie, he addeth the seauenth in these wordes; Est adhuc & septima, licet dura, & labo­riosa, perpaenitentiam, remissio peccatorum, cum lauat pec­cator in lachrimis stratum suum, & fiunt ei lachrima suae pánes die & nocte. Et cùm non erubescit sacerdoti Do­mini indicare peccatum suum, & quaerere medicinam se­cundùm eum, qui ait, Dixi, pronunciabo aduersum me iniusti­tiam meam Domino, & tu remisisti impietatem cordis mei: in quo impletur & illud quod Apostolus dicit, si quis autem in­sirmatur, vocet Presbyteror Ecclesiae, & imponant ei manus, vngentes eum oleo, in nomine Domini, & oratio fidei salua­bit [...] si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei. There re­maineth yet the seauenth, kinde of remission of sins, although it be verie harde, and painfull by repentance, When the sinner washeth his bed in teares, and his teares are made vnto him breade daie and night, and when he is not ashamed to de­clare his sinne to the Priest of the Lorde, and to seeke medi­cine acording to him which saith, I haue said, I will pronounce against my selfe my owne vnrighteousnes vnto the Lord, and thou hast forgiuen me the vngodlines of my heart. In which also that is fullfilled which the Apostle saith, if anie man be diseasedl, et him call the Elders of the Church, & let them lay [Page 223] hands vpon him, anoynting him with oile, in the name of the Lord, and the praier of faith shall saue the diseased, and if he shalbe in sinnes, they shalbe forgiuen vnto him. Thus much writeth Origen. Now it is to be vnderstood, that after his manner, he alligorizeth vpon the sacri­fices of the lawe, comparing these meanes of re­mission to them. And lest you should thinke that by declaring of sinne to the Priest of the Lord, he doth meane confession to a popish priest, he himselfe ex­poundeth before, whom he meaneth by this Priest. In morali loco potest pontisex isse esse sensus pietatis & religionis videri, qui in nobis per orationem & obsecrationes, quas Deo fundimus, velut quodam sacerdotio fungitur. In morall place, this high Priest may seeme to be the sense of godli­nes & religion, which within vs by praiers and supplications, which we powre forth to God, exerciseth, as it were a certaine priesthood. And so likewise he taketh the place of Saint Iames alligoricallie, as his application of the seauenth waie of remission vnto the Iudaicall sacri­fice, doth declare. Si autem in amaritudine fletus fueris, luctu, lachrimis, & lamentatione confect us, si carnem tuam maceraueris, & [...], ac multa abstinentia aridam fe­ceris & dixeris, quia sicut frixorium confrixa sunt ossa mea, tunc sacrificium, similam à sartagine, vel à craticula obiu­lisse te [...]. But if thou hast bene in the bitternes of weeping, consumed with sorowe, teares and lamentation, if thou hast afflicted thy slesh and made it drie with fasting, and much abstinence, and said, my bones are fried, as a frying pane, or a fire thing, then knowe that thou hast offered in sa­crifice flower, of the frying panne, or of the gredeyorn. Origen therefore giueth a colour in words, but no substance in matter, vnto this popish confession. Concerning the opinion, and authoritie of Bede touching this matter, I haue spoken before, but by the circum­stance of the letter, you saie it may well appeere, that the Apostle speaketh of sacramentall confession to be made to gods priests. How so, I praie you? forsooth, Because he had there [Page 224] willed them to send for the Priestes of the Church, to anoynt them, and streight after addeth this text of confession, and praying ouer the sicke. A simple reason god wot, because priests were spoken of in an other matter, therefore none but priests may be vnderstoode in that which followeth: nay rather the circumstances make against auricular confession, and popish anointing also. For what needes more priests then one to be sent for, to o­ther of those popish purposes, or what papist send­eth for more, although there be neuer so manie priests in the Church. But the companie of elders in the primitiue Church, being chosen of the moste repleni­shed with heauenly graces, that were in the congrega­tiō, both for the gift of healing, & for praier to be made ouer the sick man, were most conuenient to be sent for. But it is in vaine by couller of anie circumstances, to restraine the confession to priestes, when the verie wordes of the letter (as you call the text) doe make it generall, and mutual: and therefore here was no cause for Luther to denie the authoritie of the epistle, or for anie other to corrupt the text. But where you count it a corruption, to writ in stead of, send for the priestes of the Church, this, call for the Elders of the congregation, you doe either abuse the ignorant of willfull malice, to make them thinke the sounde of words being changed, the sense is anie thing altered, or else you ignorantlie quarell about the translation, which is word for word out of the originall greeke into English, as no man meanelie learned in that tongue can doubt. It is not the sounde of the wordes you rehearse that troubleth vs, for we both like, and vse them in their right sense our selues, but it sufficeth you to haue an accidentall sounde, when you cannot sinde a substantiall reason of your popish ceremonies, and sacraments, in the ho­lie scriptures.

But that thou maiest see, good Christian reader, the necessity of confession the better, and that it is not growne to such a ge­nerall [Page 225] practize and opinion of necessitie, vpon anie charge giuen by man or positiue lawes, marke well with me, that it dependeth directlie vpon Christes owne wordes, whose sinnes you doe forgiue, they be forgiuen, and whose sinnes you doe retaine, they be retained, And therefore sacra­mentall confession to be of Christes institution. For if Christ gaue power to Priestes, to forgiue, or retaine mens sinnes, then there must needes be some subiect to their power & iudgement: else in vaine were so long a confession of binding and lossing mens sinnes, if the right of the power did not necessarilie charge all men that haue such sinnes, to be subiect to their binding and loosing. Therefore this is a cleare case, that in the ve­rie [...] wordes, that the power was deliuered vnto them, the bond of obedience was also perscribed to vs. So that after that daie, no sinnes mortal could ordinariely be loosed, but by thē, & that sacrament, which in their ministery he then did institute.

Now you come towarde the point, when you promis to let vs see, how your popish confession is of Christes institution. It dependeth, you saie, directly vpon Christes owne wordes, whose sinnes you doe forgiue, &c. That would we faine see how. For you your selfe, though you make a very disorderly syliogisme, cannot tel which way to in­fer it vpon your premises. But thus you reason, If Christ gaue power to Priestes to forgiue or retaine sinnes, then there must needes be some subiect to their power, and iudge­ment. I answere you, that euery power draweth not a iudgement with it, and therefore you foist in the word iudgement vnreasonablie, although I graunt also a kinde of iudgement vnto them, and that men are sub­iect to this power and iudegment of the ministers, by whome is declared the infallible sentence of God. Then saie you, it is a cleare case, that in the verie same words that power was deliuered to them, the bond of obedience was al­so prescribed to vs. Of what obedience, I pray you? that we should obay them in any thing they shal speake? or only when they speake in the word of the Lord? If the latter only, for no man wil graunt the former, shew vs if you be [Page 226] able, the Lords word, and commaundement for sacra­mental confessō, as you terme it, to be necessary. Your con­clusion hangeth as wel by your premises, as confession dependeh vpon Christs words, That after that date no sins mortall could ordinarilie be loosed, [...] by them and in that sa­crament, which in their ministery he then did institute. All sin is mortall and deseruing death. The wages of sinne (saith the Apostle) is death. But your conclusion is confuted by your selfe afterward, graunting sinnes to be re­mitted Rom. 6. by baptisme: and as for other sacraments, I dare saie you will not exempt them, but that sinnes are forgiuen by them. And that which is the chiefe matter in controuersie, namelie that a sacrament was there, and then instituted, you alwaies affirme, but ne­uer are able to prooue. And whereas you affirme that the necessitie of auricular confession standeth not vpon positiue lawes, but by Christes institution, it is maruell, that this institution should so manie hundreth yeares be vn­knowne in the Church: The Master of the sentences can saie nothing for it, but alledgeth diuers authorities to and froe, and in the end hath no certaine argument to perswade vs, that it is of Christes institution. Gratian likewise in his decrees, after diuers testimonies produ­cted on both sides, whether it be necessarie or no, concludeth in these words. Quib authoritatibus, vel qui­buslibetrationum firmamentis, vtroque sententia satisfacti­onis & confessionis innitatur, in medium breuiter exposui­mus, cui autem harum [...] adhaerendum sit [...] is iudicio referatur, viraque enim [...] habet sarientes & religi osor viros. Vpon what authorites, and what fundations of reasons, both the iudgement of satisfaction and confession doth leane, we haue briefely brought forth and declared. But to whether of these we ought chieflie to sticke, it is reserued to the iudgement of the reader, for either of both opinions, hath wise and religious men fauorers of it. If the Romish Church in Gratianstime, had receiued the opinion, of the necessitie of shrift to a Priest, to be grounded vpon the [Page 227] institution of Christ, neither he nor the Master of the sentences would haue bin in such a mamering about it wherfore it appeereth to be but young ware, the in­stitution whereof was so vncertaine to those principal pillers of popery. In so much that the glosse vpō the 5. aistinct. In penitentia, was bolde to vtter these wordes, which should haue prooued him an heretike, if the popish Churh in his time, had held that confession was of Christs institution, and not vpon any positiue laws, In hac distinctione & in aliis duabus sequentibus, agitur [...] de illa parte poenitentiae, que dicitur oris confessio, & ope­ris satisfactio, quàm de aliis, & ider videndum est [...] oris confessio fuerit instituta, virum, necessaria sit, vel [...] voluntaria, qualiter sit facienda, & cui, et quando: dicunt quidam institutam fuisse in Paradiso [...] [...] pecca­tum, dicente Donino ad Adam, Adam [...], [...]. ideo e­nim [...], vt ipso conficente peccatum, [...] sorma aliis in posterum confitendi. Sed quoniam in ille interrogatione do­minus minùs expressè videbatur adconfirendum [...], idro post exquisiuit á Cain fratricida expressi [...]s, vbi est Abel frater tuus? Alij dicunt quód sub lege primò instituta, quando Iosua percepit A [...]hor, [...]rimen s [...]um confiteri, [...] lapidatus est 45. dist. secundum & illud. Alij dicunt quód in Novo te­stamento á Iacobo dicente, consitemini alter [...]um peccata ve­stra. &c. Sed melius dicitur eam institutam fuisse a qu [...]d [...]m vniuersale Ecclesiae traditione, potius quám ex nouo vel vete­ri testamento: authorit [...]s & traditio Ecclesiae obligatoria est vt preceptum, ait 1.1. di. in his rebus: Ergo necessaria est con­fessio in mortalib. apud nos, apud graecos non, quoniam non ema­nauit apud illos traditio talis, [...] nec confisiunt in [...], sed in firmentatis. 5. di cap. 1. si illud ergo [...], [...] alteru [...]rum peccata vestra, [...] consilium primó, ali [...]uin li [...]o­ret et Grecos, non obstanto eor [...] consuetudine. In this distincti­on, and the other two that follow, it is intreated as well of that part of penance that is called confession of the mouth and sa­tisfaction of the worke, as of other partes. And therefore it is to be seene, when confession of the mouth was instituted: whether [Page 228] it be necessarie, or onelie voluntarie. How it is to be made, and to whome & when: Some say it was instituted in paradise imme­diately after sin committed, when the Lord saide vnto Adam, Adam, where are thou? for therefore he enquired, that he con­fessing his sinne, a forme of confessing should be giuen to others afterwarde. But because in that confession the Lord secmed not so expresselie to haue warned him to confession, therefore he en­quired afterward of Cain, the murtherer of his brother, more expresselie, where is Abel thy brother? Other say, it was first instituted vnder the law, where Iosua commaunded Achar to confesse his fault, and he was stoned, 45. di. sed & illud. Other saie, that it was instituted in the new Testament by Saint Iames saying, confesse your sinnes, &c. But it is better to saie, that it was institutad by a certaine vniuersal tradition of the Church, rather then by authoritie, out of the new or olde te­stament. And the tradition of the Church is of authoritie to binde, as it is commaunded (ar. 11. di.) in these things. There­fore confession in mortal sinnes is necessarie with vs, but not with the Greekes, because such tradition hath not flowed vnto them. Like as they make not the sacrament, in vnlea­uened bread, but in leauened, 5. di. 1. cap. si. Therefore that saying of Iames, confesse your sinnes one to an other, was at the first but of counsel, or els is should binde the Greekes, notwith­standing the custome. That which followeth, in the glosse, that confession in some case may be made to a laie man, which also both Gratian & Lumbard doe holde, & that which Bede writeth of confession of sins to euery man, doth prooue that confessio to a priest is not of Christs institution by their iudgement. For if it were, it ought to be of all, & euery sin, as wel as of those you cal mortall, to a priest onelie. For if Christ instituted a sacrament in these words, whose sins you forgiue, &c. and ordeined a priest mi­nister thereof, by no other meanes, but by hearing a sin ners particular confession, as you seeme to holde, what reason is there, that a laie man should be a hearer of confession, or an absoluer, or that any sin, be it neuer so small, should not be confessed?

And that is yet more euident by the second parte of Christes sentence, where he saith: whose sins you do reteine, they be Hilar. super hunclocū. reteined. The which worde retinere, by Saint Hilarie signi­fieth, non soluere, or non remittere: to reteinis as much as not to loose, or not to forgiue. Whercupon, by Christes expresse wordes, it ensueth, that whose sinnes the priest doth not forgiue, they be not forgiuen, and therfore, that euerie man beeing guiltie of deadelie sinne in his conscience, is subiect to the priests iudge­ment, by the plaine tearmes of Christs owne wordes. Mary we must well note, that the priest hath in other sacraments, and namelie in Baptisme, a right in remitting sinnes both originall and actuall, but there, in the graund pardon of all that is past, he is not made a iudge, or a corrector: because the Church can not practize iudgement or exercise discipline vpon the peni­tents, for any things done before they came iinto the householde, and therfore can appoint the party no penance nor punishment, nor binde him according to the diuersitie and number of his faultes, nor can make search exactlie of all his secres sinnes by him committed, that the sentence may proceede according to the parties desertes, but onelie vpon his seeking that sacrament Concil. tri­dent. Cap. 2. sess. 14. to minister it vnto him, according to Christs institution: where­upon without any sentence of remission giuen by the priest, as I absolue thee, or such like, a pardon generall of all his sinnes committed, if he come thether qualified, most assuredlie ensueth.

But now, in the other sacrament of penance, not onelie par­don Damas. de ortha. fidel 1. 4. cap. 9. of sinnes, but punishment for sinnes, is put in the Apo­postles and priests handes, which can not be done without iudi­ciarie power and exact examination of the penitent: because Christ would, that, if any did greeuouslie sinne after Baptisme, he shold, as it were, be conuented before his iudgement seate in earth, in which, as in his roome, he hath placed the Apostles & priests, as is alreadie prooued. And therefore, mens sinnes must in this case be knowne, with diuersitie of their kindes, and en­crease, by diuersitie of place, time, person, number, and intent. For withoout this particular intelligence, can neither the ap­pointed iudges of our soules doe iustice, nor the penitent receiue iustice for his offences. Therefore it is euident, that seeing this [Page 230] holie order is authorized not onelie to remit sinnes generallie, as in Baptisme, but also placed with all power ouer vs as the iudges of our sinnes, we must needes by force of Christs instituti­on be driuen to acknowledge and confesse all our sinnes to the Priest, so sitting in iudgement vpon the examination of our conscience. For no man euer tooke vpon him, not in any ciuil causes, to determine and giue sentēce in the matter, whereof he hath not by some meanes or other, persit and particular instru­ction, and in causes criminall much lesse, because the impor­tance of the matter is much more. Then in Gods causes and ca­ses of our conscience, and in things belonging directlie to mans euerlasting wealth or woe, which is the life or death perpctuall of our soules, there, if either negligence in the iudge in sear­ching out of our sins, or consempt in vs in declaration, opening, confessing, or cleare vtterance of them, doe hinder the righte­ousnes of Gods iudgement executed by the Priests office, or driuing them to giue wrong sentence of deliuerie and remission, there the perill is exceeding great, and the daunger wel neare damnation perpetual.

Although to reteine is somewhat more then not to loose, or not to forgiue, yet the conclusion is true, that whose sinnes the minister of the Gospell doth not for­giue, of them that heare the Gospell, they are not forgiuen. But herofit doth not follow, that euerie man is bound to shriue himselfe to the priest. If you meane that by being subiect, to the priests iudgement, the minister of the gospell denounceth damnation, to all impeni­tent and obstinate sinners: vnto this sentence he is sub­iect by the plain tearmes of Christs owne wordes, that is such a one. But if he be truelie penitent in the sight of God, he is absolued by the sentence of the minister, which pronounceth in the name of God, forgiuenes to all them, that be truelie conuerted vnto God. Where­fore here is no place for the necessitie of auricular con­fession, except you can draw it in by the wordes of de­monstratiue syllogismes, which I suppose, to be impos­sible, and you your selfe shall in conscience confesse no [Page 231] lesse, whensoeuer you dare goe about it. As touching the difference you shew betwixt the priests office, in remitting sins by Baptisme and penance, it standeth altogether vpon your owne surmise, without any authoritie of the holie scriptures: For the minister of the ghospelis made as much a iudge, whome to admit and whome to refuse from the sacraments, as he is to pronounce, whose sins be forgiuen, and whose reteined. Other iudgement or correction, he hath not in the one nor in the other, neither is there any punishments put into the Apostles or priests handes, for those sinnes that are to be par­doned, nor pardon to those that are to be puni­shed. The punishment is no lesse then the sentence of eternall damnation, vnder which all obstinate, and vn­repentant sinners doe remaine so iong as they conti­nue in their obstinacie, and impenirencie. And there­fore the power iudiciarie and exact examination of the pe­nitent, and the conuention before Gods iudgement feare in earth, which should be the priest, is nothing but imaginary vanitie, without all ground of authoritie out of Christs institution. wherefore except you can prooue, that Christ by giuing his Apostles authoritie to sorgiue or reteine sinnes, did giue this inordinarie power that you speake of, and set vp this iudgement on earth like to the courts in ciuill iudgement, in canonicall causes, whatsoeuer you saie without warrant of Gods worde, is as easily by vs denied, as by you it is affirmed. Where you quote Damascene, I finde in him nothing for, nor any thing sounding that waie in the place by you noted. But in the tenth Chapter, where he speaketh of eight kindes of baptisme the fifte he maketh Baptisme by the holie ghost and fire. Which may be saith he, [...], a punishing Baptisme, because of the fire to come: & immediatelie followeth the sixth kinde of bap­tisme, which is verie painfall, by repentance and teares. So that the one beeing distinct by the author from the o­ther, I know not by what learning you doe confound [Page 232] to make it seeme as both were one.

Neither may we thinke, that this authoritie and approoued power of priests, concerneth onelie the open offences, which by witnesse and proofe may be conuinced, and deferred to the pub­like Magistrates of the Church, as some Protestantes, con­founding all places of like wordes and tearmes in scripture doe. Wherein they consider not, that the perfectnesse of the Gospell teacheth man willinglie to accuse, condemne, and iudge 1. Cor. 11. himselfe, that he be not iudged of our Lorde. Neither doe they weigh, that this iudgement of our sinnes, though it be ministred by man, is yet the seate and court of Christ, to whome it no lesse perteineth, to binde and loose our secret sinnes, then our open offences. And he without exception, committed remission of all manner of sinnes vnto the Apostles and priestes, saying: Like as my father sent me, so doe I send you: But Christ was sent to heale the contrite and sorowfull of al sinnes, priuate and publike: therefore al manner of offences, be they neuer so secret, belong to the priests not onelie pardon, but also correction and punishment, whereof, because they be men, they cannot iustlie discerne or determine, to remit or reteine, giue pardon or giue penance, except they be confessed by the parties penitent. Christ him selfe, perfectlie seeing all diseases both of bodie and soule, Marc. 10. & the inwarde sorow and sute of euerie mans heart, yet saied to the sicke man & blinde: Quid vis faciam [...]? what wouldest thou haue at my hands? And shal the priest being a mortall man take vpon him to giue sentence of the diseases of our soules before he knowe them, or pardō him that wil not shew vnto him, wherein & for what sin he asketh a pardō? Furthermore the sins of mans cogitation, that cannot be discerned by the priest, with out the confession of the partie, be often no lesse greeuous & dā ­nable before God, then the open offences: therefore there may be no doubt, but Christ hath ordeined mercie, as well for them, as other that be actuallie committed, and subiect to the sight of the world, but yet no otherwise, but by the sacramēt of penance, in which, without exception, the priests haue power to remit or reteine sinnes, as well priuate, as publike. Therefore the same secret sinnes beeing subiect to the Churches iudgement no [Page 283] lesse then the open, they must needes be vttered and confessed, or els they cannot be realesed, much lesse haue any enioyned penance for them.

But it is mecre wrangling of our aduersaries in so plaine a case, & follie in all other to doubt, whether secret offences, euen committed in thought onelie against the last two commaunde­ments forbiding vnlawfull coueting and desires of the minde, be properly subiect to the Priests iudgement, seeing they can by no otherwise be released, but in the sacrament of penance, & sin­cere confession of them. For here is practized a iudgement. not of ciuile Magistrates, which onelie punish by laws of all na­tions actually committed faultes against the weale publike, but of soule and conscience, which properly pertaine to the cure of Priestes, as they properly occupie Christes owne roome, to whose pardon and punishment, not onelie open sinnes, but also priuate offences, either in deede or thought committed, doe in like perteine. For external penance, or publike, is rather vsed to satisfie the Church of her right, in which sinnes can not open­lie be committed, but to the great offence of her children, and therefore must in her, by publike penance, be corrected, for the example of discipline, and prouiso of the like sinnes to come.

I knowe no Protestantes, neither I suppose you can name anie writer of them, that doth think that the authoritie of sorgiuing and retaining sinnes, concer­neth onelie open offences, and not secret. But it maie be that some protestantes haue written, as all I think do holde, and you your selfe in the end of this section do acknowledge, that open confession is most conuenient, fot the satisfaction of the Church which is offended, where and by whome open and notori­ous sinnes haue beene committed. But that secret con­fession made to a priest, is necessarie for the discharge of secret sinnes, all Protestants denie, neither can anie Pa­pistes prooue it. For such reasons as you bring are verie weake and friuolous. The perfectnes of the Gospell, teacheth man, willinglie to accuse, condemne, and iudge him­selfe, that he be not iudged of our Lord: Ergo, he is bound to [Page 234] shriue him-selfe to a Priest. Nay contrariewise, if he be made accuser, condemner, and iudge of himselfe, he neede not seeke anie other externall iudge, but in his owne conscience, accuse, examine, condemne, and iudge him-selfe before God. And this court of con­science, we acknowledge to be the seat, and court of Christ, where no priest or other mortal man hath au­thoritie to sit and iudge. Neither doth anie correction & punishment of our sins belong to priestes by reason that Christ sent the Apostles, and their successours, to Preach, as he was sent by his father: but they may remit or retaine sinnes, without hearing the particuler confession of e­uerie sinner, by declaring the mercie of God to all that repent, and his iustice, to all that continue in sinne without repentance. But it is a maruetlous strong argument, Iweene, to prooue the necessitie of con­fession, because our sauiour Christ caused the blinde man, by vttering his request in particuler, to declare his faith. Nay if he had caused all them whose sinnes he pronounced to be forgiuen, first to make particuler confession vn­to him, it had beene more coloure, and yet no suf­ficient argument to prooue the necessity of confession to be made vnto other men, much lesse that he would haue the blind mā acknowledge, that he beleeued that he was able to giue him sight: wherfore vpon a Princi­ple shamefully begged, that confession to a priest is necessa­ry, you go about to proue that confessiō of secret faults, and cogitations of mans heart, is also to be made to a priest, & you accuse your aduersaries of wrangling in so plaine a case, and all men of follie, that doubt, whe­ther such secret offences be subiect to the Priestes iudgement, seeing they can not otherwise be released but in the sacrament of penance, and sincere confessi­on of them: but which of your aduersaries will graunt that they can not otherwise be released, or how will you satisfie them that doubt out of the holie scrip­tures of the institution of such a sacrament, and of [Page 235] auriculer confession as necessarie.

Moreouer the sacrifices of the olde law were in manie cases done by the Priestes, as well for priuate sinnes as open; which could not be without the confession of the penitent: ergo, much more the secrets of our soules be subiect to our Priestes, to whom Christ hath giuen all iudgement. Yet all this notwithstanding there be some that keepe them-selues by vaine excuse of sinne, from the verie principall point and pith of this sacrament, which is the particuler examination of a mans sinnes commit­ted by thought, word, or worke, and will yet draw back, and holde, that a generall confession is enough with tearmes vni­uersall, acknowledgeing a mans selfe to haue sinnes by minde, word, and deede, though he expresse not the seuerall pointes thereof. But this opinion is confuted, both by all the fore said reasons, and other, as a moste absord and wilfull mainte­nance of sinne. For by this rule, he that killed and murdered thousandes, should confesse no more after his wicked actes then before, nor no more then the innocentest man that liueth. Da­uids weeping and confession should haue beene one after his double deadlie sinne committed, as before in his innocencie. Peter should not haue more bitterlie went after his for saking of his master, then before. Neither should our confession then pertaine more to our selues then to other, who by like generall clauses maie truelie make the like and the same confession, as it is now in the Church of England. But the holie King Dauid confessed not sinnes common to him selfe and other men, but my sinne, my wickednes, my impietie, saith he, and this in confessing to God that know alreadie his sinnes: How much more now, where Gods iudgement is exercised by man, that can not discerne our faultes him selfe, must we confesse our sinnes, that he maie rightlie iudge thereof?

The sacrifices of the olde law did in deede containe a confession of sinne, but no particuler declaration vnto the priest, of anie sin committed in secret, ther­fore your conclusion is naught, as also it is blasphe­mous that you saie therein, that Christ hath giuen to your priestes all iudgement. But confession by a ge­nerall [Page 236] clause, you do not allow to be sufficient to sal­uation, not answerable to Christes meaning. I praie you sit at the length, bring forth those words of Christ by which you know his meaning so well, that you dare deny saluation to them that make not a particuler confession to a priest. By this rule you saie, the murtherer of thousands should confesse no more then the innocentest man aliue: verily to a priest he is no more bound to confesse his murthers, then an innocent man his lester trespas­ses. But as anie mans sinnes are more heinous and greeuous, so ought he to bewaile and lament the same more earnestlie before God: So did Dauid and Peter, after their seuerall and greeuous falles, not to enforme God, which knew their sinnes more exactlie then they could make confession of them, but to stirre vp them­selues to more earnest hartie sorrow, and repentance for them. That Gods iudgement is so exercised by priests as you meane, you must first prooue, & after vse for an argument, or els you begge and gette no­thing.

Penance must be donne for euery of our sinnes. So Peter prescribed Simon the sorcerer, when he attempted to haue bought the gift of Goddes Spirit, that he should doo penance for that especiall greeuous crime: Poenitentiam age, saith he, ab hac nequitia tua, Doe penance for this thy wicked Act. 8. attempte, if perchaunce God will forgiue thee this ab­hominable intent. The man was baptised not long before, and then no such Penance was prescribed for his most gree­uous and blasphemous practises of Nicromancie and witch­crafte long exercised before. Wherein this naughty pack Simon Magus, is a thousand partes more religious then our newe maisters. For he desired the Apostles to pray to God for him, that this sinne might be forgiuen him: where these care no more for the priest or Apostle, concerning their sinnes, then they doo for dogges Againe, Saint Paule did not onely con­fesse his sinnes by a generall clause, but acknowledged his owne sinnes, wherein he in his owne person had offended, he confessed [Page 237] he was of al sinners the greatest, that he had obteined commission to attache them that beleeued in Christes name, and so forth. 1. Tim. 1. Act. 15. Such as were faithfull also at Ephesus, as we reade in the 19. of the Actes, came to the Apostles, Et confitebantur actus suos, and confessed their actes and misdees, In so much, that certaine which had followed vnlaufull artes, as Magike, Ni­cromancie, and such like curiositie, confessed their faultes, and burned their bookes before all the people.

We must be poenitent for al and euerie of oursinnes, that we know or can call to minde: but that penance must be enioyned by a Priest, as you meane, for euerie sinne, let vs see how you can prooue it. S. Peter prescribed Simon Magus, that he should do penance for that greeuous crime: Therfore penance must be done for eucrie of our sinnes. Although the antecedent were true, yet the conse­quence is naught penance must be done for one open and hainous sinne, ergo, for all secret sinnes. But I de­nie that anie such penance as you meane, was enioy­ned vnto him by Peter. But that he exhorted Simon to repentance, if he looked to haue any forgiuenes of his sinnes, [...], repent, saith he, or change thy minde from this thy wickednes, and not as you translate, for this thy wickednes, as though repentance were a satisfaction for his sin. Moreouer I answere, you vse not to enioyne penance, before men haue confessed their sinne. But when Peter exhorted Simon to repent, he had not yet confessed his sinne, but was a couetous hipo­crite. [...] you dissent from your pupills of Rhe­mis which denie that doing of pennance, was prescri­bed to men before they were baptized. For they tran­slate agite panitentiam, as well before baptisme, as af­ter, to do penance, satisfaction for sinne. Where you saie that your new maislers care no more for the Priest or Apostle concerning their sinnes, then they do for degges, it is a saucic Censure, of a dogged Papist. For they whome you scorne, do reuerence all the ministers of God, as well in the power they haue to remitte sinnes, [Page 238] as also in al other partes of their office. An other argu­ment on haue of Saint Pauls example, who confessed his owne sinnes, and namelie the greatest, of persecu­ting the Church of Christ. Yea but not his secret sinnes to a priest: but his open faultes before his conuersion, and Baptisme. And so likewise they that beleeued, Act. 19 made open confession of some of their deuilish practizes committed before they were Christians, and in detestation of their former wickednes, and signe of true repentance burned their bookes to a great value.

If the priestes had nothing elles to doe with oursins, but as they had in the olde lawe to doo with 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 [Page 239] 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 1. Cor. 11. be not iudged of our Lord in the life to come.

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 [Page 240] 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 [Page 241] 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.

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 Christes owne person. Which pro­uing and iudging of mans selfe, to be meant by the diligent dif cussing of our consciences, sinnes, and misdeedes, by contrition and confession of them to our ghostlie Father, the practise of the Church doth most plainlie prooue, which neuer suffered any greeuous sinner to communicat, before he had called him selfe to a reckning of his sinnes, before the minister of God, and so iudged him selfe, that he receiue not to his damnation that, which to euery worthy person is his life and saluation. Whereof S. Augustine, or the authour of the booke de Ecclesiasticis De Ecclesi­ast. dog. ca. 53. dogmatibus, set forth with his name, giueth vs good notice for his time. Quem mortalia crimina post Baptismum commissa premunt, hortor priùs publica poenitentia satisfacere, & ita sacerdotis iudicio reconciliatum, communioni sociari, si vult non ad iudicium & condemnationem sui, Eucharistiam [Page 242] percipere, sed & secreta satisfactione solui mortalia crimina non negamus. I exhorte euerie man (saith this holie doctour) that is burdened after his baptisme with mortall sinne, to satis­fie for the same by publique penance, and to be reconciled by the priests iudgement, & to be restored to the communion of saints, if he meane to receiue the holy Sacrament, not to his iudge­ment and condemnation. And I denie not in this case, but deadly sinnes may be remitted by secret satisfaction. Thus he. By whose wordes you see, in what a damnahle state men now of daies stand, seeing that whosoeuer receiueth the sacrament of Christes bodie and blood, before he be reconciled by a priestes sentence, and assoiled of his sinnes, he doth receiue it to his euerlasting damnation. Vnto whose iudgement I ioyne Saint Cyprian in this same matter, complainig verie earnestly vpon certaine Conuersies in his daies, that would aduenture vpon Serm. de la­psis. Christes bodie and blood, ante exomologesim factam criminis, ante purgatam conscientiam, sacrificio & manu sacerdotis: Before their sinnes be confessed, and their consciences purged by sacrifice, and the Priests hand.

Al these thinges might be at large declared, and confirmed farther by the iudgement of mostauncient Fathers: but because I haue bene verie long, and enough alreadie maie seeme to be said for such as by reason will be satisfied, & a great deale more then anie Protestant will answere vnto, and also the scrip­tures them selues, giuing the Priest so plaine power of binding and retaining, as wel as of remitting and loosing, will do more with these that haue charged themselues with the beleefe of nothing that is not in expresse writing of Gods word, then the vniforme consent of all ages, and the moste notable persons in the same. In respect of their humor therefore, I will not saie much more for this point, then I haue said: onely my meaning now is, for the Catholikes comfort, to repeat a few such euident sentences out of moste authentique authors, by whom we take a [...] not onely of their meaninges, which is much for the mat­ter, but especiallie, of the Churches practise in all ages and moste countries christened, since the Apostles time, which I account the moste surest waie to touch & trie truth by, that by [Page 243] the example of al our forefathers, euery man may willingly learne to submit him selfe to the sentence of such as God hath made the iudges of his soule, and sinnes.

Yf Saint Poul had meant Popish shrift, he could and would haue said, Submit your selues to the examinati­on & iudgement of the Priest, and not as he hath said, Let a man trie him selfe: &, Iudge your selues brèthren. Yf au­ricular confession be necessarie, vnder paine of dam­nation, for euerie one that receiueth the sacrament of Christes bodie and bloode, immediately before it, ma­ny thousandes of your priests which saie masse eue­rie daie, without shriuing themselues, are in a dam­nable case. I or there passeth no day of mans life, with­out some deadelie sinne, if not in deede not word, yet at the least in thought: but that you popish hypocrites by your distinction of veniall sinnes, flatter your selues to be cleare, when you are moste foull and filthie. but the perpetuall practize of the Church, you saie, prooueth the necessitie of auricular confession, whereof you take witnes the author of the booke, de Ecclesiasticis dog­matibus for his time, which you doe honestly not to fa­ther vpon Saint Augustine, being a man of much later time, lesse learning, and more corruption of doctrine: but you do fraudulentlie cut of his saying in the waste, because that which followeth declareth plainlie, that either he meaneth not of mortall sinnes, as the Po­pish Church now doth holde, or else his opinion for se­cret satisfaction is farre differing from that you would haue men weene that he meaneth: namely such as you vse to inioine in your confession, fiue Ladies Psal­ters, fiue fridaies fast, fiue pence, groates or shillings, to so many poore men in remembrance of the 5. wounds and such like stuffe: but these authors wordes require, another manner of satisfaction. Sed & secreta satis­factione solui mortalia crimina non negamus, sed mutato prius secularihabitu, & confesso religionis studio, per vitae cor­rectionem, & iugi, immò perpetuo luctu miserante Deo: it a [Page 244] duntaxat vt contraria pro his quae poenitet [...], & eucharisti­am omnibus dominic is diebus, supplex & submissus vs (que) ad mortem percipiat. Poenitentia vera est penitenda non admitte­re, & admissa deflere. Satisfactio paenitentiae, est causas pec­catorum excidere, nec eorum suggestionibus aditum indulgere. But also that by secret satisfaction mortall crimes may be loosed we doe not denie, but so that the secular habite be first chan­ged, and the studie of religion confessed by amendment of life, and by continuall, yea perpetuall sorow, God being mercifull: so onelie that he doe the contrarie things to those for which he doth penance, and humblie and lowlie receiue the Euchariste euerie sondaie to his dying day. It is true repentance not to committe things to be repented, and to bewaile such as are com­mitted. The satisfaction of repentance is, to cut of the causes of sinnes, and to yeald no entrie vnto their suggestions. Wherefore it is plaine, that in this writers time there was no auricular confession, but an open confes­sion, and publike penance for open and hainous of­fences, and that none was admitted to secret sa­tisfaction, except he changed his habite, became a Monke, & performed other conditions by him requi­red, by which it is manifest that the iudgement of this writer, though corrupt, yet is contrarie to the practize of the popish Church at this daie. But Saint Cyprian is a better witnes (I trow) for the necessitie of auricular cōfession of secret sins, sauing that he speaketh of them that had openlie fallen to Idolatrie, and without open confession of their fault and publike satisfaction of the Church, by some vndiscreete pastours, were admitted to the Lordes table: describing them he saith, Morti­feros Idolorum cibos adhuc pene ructantes, exhalanti­bus etiamnum scelus suum faucibus, & contagia funesta [...], Dominicorpus inuadunt, &c. Almoste yet bel­ching out the deadly meates of their Idoles, the iawes as yet breathing out their owne wickednes, & sauoring of the deadelie infection, they set vpon our Lordes bodie. And immediately before the wordes by you cited, Plus modò in dominum manib, [Page 245] at (que) ore delinquunt, quàm cum Dominum negauerant. They doe more offende now against the Lord with their hands and their mouth, then at such time as they denied the Lorde. These wordes declare of what kinde of men, of what kinde of sinnes, of what kinde of confession, and of what kinde of satisfaction, this Doctor doth speake, whose vehemencie tendeth to the main­tenance of discipline, being in great daunger of decaie, by the vntimelie and vngodlie lenitie of some flattering Church men in those daies, that would re­concile such vnto the Church by admitting them to the communion, which after their moste greeuous fall and deniall of Christ before men, had not giuen sufficient tokens and testimonies of their hearty re­pentance before God, without the which, the wrath of God iustly kindled against them for their henious of­fences, couldnot be appeased.

Hetherto therefore, for the necessitie of auricular confession, we haue seene nothing, that anie learned protestant might voutchsafe of anie answere: & as for the scriptures giuing the Priest so plaine power, as wel of binding and retaining, as of loosing and remitting, doe laie no necessity vpon anie man to confesse vnto them the particularities of his secret faultes, nor giue any authoritie vnto the priestes to exact the same, I saie not by expresse wordes, but not by any necessary illation or conclusion out of the expresse words of the scripture, which we holde to be of as great credit, as that which is contained in expresse wordes. As for the vniforme consent of all ages, and the mosie notable persons in the same, whereof you make your cómon vaunt, can ne­uer be shewed for the necessitie of auricular shrift, no nor for anie other point of poperie, though you would make choise of the eldest error that you holde. That you take the Churches practize in al ages, to be the moste surest way to touch and trie truth by, you declare what re­uerent opinion you haue of the word of God, which [Page 246] our Sauiour Christ saith, is the truth, wherin he praieth his father to sanctifie al his disciples vnto the worldes end. Vnto which rule of truth al practize of mé must be exacted, and by it be tried. For what mad blasphemie were it to saie, that the word of God, which was be­fore all practize the onelie trueth of touch, hath now lost his credit, or the best part thereof, if practize of men in all ages be now become the most surest waie to trie and touch trueth by, as if the manners of men were alwaies the best interpretation of the lawe.

THE 11. CHAP.

I Am the longer in this approoued trueth, because I remember what Saint Chrysostome saith: And I see by De sacer. li. 2. these daies, that it is verie true which he writeth, Multa arie opus esse, vt qui laborant Christiani, vltrò sibi [...] persua­deant, sacerdotum curationibus sese submittere: That it is a point of high wisdome and cunning, to bring to passe that Christian men which are sicke in soule, would persuade them­selues to submit in all causes them selues to the priests curing. For indeede, in Nectarius his predecessours daies, there was such an offence arose in the simple sorte, and such a tragedie in Constantinople Church, by the naughtie fact of a deaton there, that their Bishoppe was glad to make the state of penance, which then was often published euen for priuat sinnes, to be a great deale more free then before. Whereupon, the people tooke occasion of such libertie and licentious life, that when their common Penitenciarie, by the commaundement of Necta­rius was remóoued, they were exceeding loath to confesse, or doe iust penance for their sinnes actuall. Though that good man condescending to the peoples weaknes, meant neuer to take [Page 247] awaie that wholl order, wherein he had no authoritie, because it is no politike prouision, but Christes institution: but onely that the penance should not be publike, except the party listed, of those sinnes which were to the said Penitentiarie confessed in secret. Which fact of his, though perchaunce it was necessa­rie for that time, yet was not allowed of the writers of the same Historie. As a thing (saith Sozomenus) that brought much Lib. 9. cap. 35. tripar. histor. dissolute life, and alteration of the peoples manners into the Church. Yet our aduersaries are in such aistresse, for their maintenance of their contrarie assertion, against holie confes­sion, that they be not ashamed to alledge this mans doubtfull example. Which if it were good and to be followed: yet made it nothing against shrift, which they cal now auricular confession, or if it did make against the whole Sacrament euerie waie mi­nistered, yet it could not of reason be followed, being but one bi­shoppes compelled act, and that disalowed euen of the reporters them selues, and prooued to be euill, by the practize of all Churches christened to the contrarie.

Chrysostomes wordes by you translated, if you had not falsifyed in translation, by adding of your owne, these wordes ( in all causes) which are neither in the ori­ginall Greeke, nor in the latine version, make but a small shew for the necessitie of the auriculer confessi­on. For in that place, Chrysostome sheweth how much more difficult the office of a spirituall shepard is, then the charge of a bodely herdman, by this, that the shep­perd of vnresonable sheepe may both see the diseases of his cattell, and also compell them to take his medi­cines and diet: but the spirituall shepheard cannot al­waies see with what diseases his flocke are infected, neither can he compell them, but must exhort them, willinglie to submit them selues to his cure, whereby he meaneth his doctrine of admonition, reprehension, and such like. But because you make mention of a sto­rie, and doe not expresse it, and yet excuse Chryso­stome thereby in any thing that he hath written, soun­ding against the necessitie of confessing before men, of [Page 248] sinnes committed in secret: as though he durst not fullie set downe his iudgement thereof before the peo ple. I will set forth the storie as it is reported, by the Ecclesiasticall writers, Socrates and Sozomenus. Socrates, L. 5. C. 19. writeth thus. About the same time it was thought good, to take awaie those elders or priests of the Churches, which were appointed ouer publike repentance, vpon such cause. Since the time that the Nouatians were deuided from the Church, for that they would not communicate with them, that had fallen in the persecution, that was vnder Decius, the Bishops of the Church added vnto the Ecclesiastical canon or rule, a certeine priest or elder which should be ouer them that repented, that they which were fallen after baptisme, should confesse their sinnes before this appointed priest. And this rule holdeth still vnto this time in other sects. Onelie they that holde Christ to be of the same substance with his father, and the Nouatians which agree with thē in this faith, haue reiected this priest appointed ouer them that repent. The Nouatians in deede at the first, re­ceiued not this additiō. But they which now hold the Churches, hauing obserued it for a long time vnder Nectarius, haue changed it, by occasion of this matter that happened in the Church. A certeine noble woman came to the priest appointed for repentance, and made particular confession of those sinnes she had committed after baptisme: the priest charged this wo­man to fast and praie cominuallie, that with her confession she might shew forth the worke that was meete for repentance. But the woman proceeding accused her selfe of another offence, for she declared that a certaine Deacon of the Church had line with her. This being declared, caused the Deacon to be cast out of the Church, but a tumult was raised among the priests: for they were sore greeued, not onelie with that which was done, but also because this fact tended greatlie to the slaunder and contu­melie of the Church. So while cleargie men were in great re­proch for these thinges, a certaine blessed elder of the Church borne at Alexandria gaue in councell to the Bishop Nectarius, to take awaie this priest, that was appointed ouer repentance and to permit euerie man according to his owne conscience to [Page 249] be partaker of the mysteries. For by that meanes onelie, he should haue the Church voide of slaunder. These thinges be­cause I heard my selfe of that blessed man, I was [...] to com­mit vnto this writing. For as I haue often said, I haue giuen all diligence to learne of euerie man that knew these matters, and exactlie to search them out, that I might write nothing beside the truth. But I saied vnto Eudemon or that blessed man: your counsell, Sir, hath, brought into the Church God knoweth what or no. But I see that you haue giuen occasion, that one should not reprehend an others sinnes, nor to obserue that precept of the Apostle, which saieth: Communicate not with the vnfruitfull workes of darkenes, but rather reprooue them. But of these matters sufficient. Sozomenus, Lib. 7. Cap. 16. reporteth the matter after this manner. About this time Nectarius, which gouerned the Church of Constantinople, was the first that would no longer permit that priest, which was appointed for them that repented. And him followed al most al other Bishops. Now, this matter what it is, or whence it began, or for what cause it ceased, diuerse men report diuerselie. I will declare what I thinke. For seeing not to sinne at all, it is a matter more diuine, then agreeable to mans nature, and that God hath commaunded to graunt pardon to them that repent, although they offend often times, and in refusing to confesse sinnes, the debt groweth more burthenous, as it is like, it was thought good among the priestes of olde time, that as it were in an open thea­ter, vnder the witnesse of the multitude of the Church, men should declare their sinnes. And for this purpose they appointed a priest or elder of the best conuersation, continent of speach, & wise, to whome they came which had sinned, and confessed such things as they had committed in their life. And he according to euerie mans sin, after he had appointed a mulct what he ought to doe, or to abide, absolued them, when they had performed their penaltie by themselues. But as for the Nouatians, which made no account of repentance, needed not this matter. But in other sects of heretikes, it is obserued euen vntill this time. And it is diligintlie obserued in the westerne Churches, and especi­allie in the Church of the Romans. For there is a certein open [Page 250] place appointed, for them that are in exercise of repentance For they stand with heauie cheere and as it were sorowing. And when the seruice of God is ended, being not made partakers of those things, that are lawfull for the holie ones, with weeping & lamentation, they cast themselues downe flat vpon the earth: the Bishop beholding them, runneth to them weeping and like­wise falling vpon the earth, the wholl multitude of the Church is then filled with mourning and weeping. Then first the Bishop riseth vp, and lifteth vp the sinners that lie on the ground, & after he hath praied as it is meetes for the penitents that haue sinned, he dismisseth them. Then euerie one of them willinglie afflicting himselfe, either with fastings, or abstinēce from wash­ings or certein meats, or with other things that are enioyned thē, cōtinueth a seaso, so long as the Bishop hath appointed vnto him. And at the time appointed, after he hath payed, as it were a certaine debt, he is released of the punishment of fin, and com meth into the congregation with the rest of the people. These things the priests of Rome obserue euen vntill our daies. But in the Church of Constantinople, the priest or elder that was ap­pointed ouer the penitent, did exercise that office, vntill ā cer­tein noble woman, being appointed by the priests to fast, and pray to God for those sinnes which she had declared, while she continued in the Church, for this purpose, confessed that shee had committed fornication with a Deacon, whereof the multi­tude hauiug vnderstanding, was sore greeued, for defiling the Church, and it was an exceeding great slaunder vnto the whol cleargie. Nectarius beeing in doubt how to handle this matter, that had happened, first depriueth the fornicator of his mini­sterie. And beeing counselled by certein men, to permit euerie man, as his conscience serued him, and as he might be bolde, to cōmunicate the mysteries, he caused the priest to giue ouer that was appointed for repentance, and from that time this cu­stome taking holde, hath hetherto continued. Now I thinke the auncient grauitie and precisenes, hauing begon by litle and litle to fall awaie, into a diuerse and negligent custome, seeing before, as I suppose, the offences were lesse, both through shame of them which declared their owne trans­gressions, [Page 251] & through the precisenes of them that were appointed iudges in this case. And for the same cause I gather that the Emperour Theodosius prouiding for the good name & grauitie of the Churches, made a law that women should not be admmit­ted to the ministerie of god, except they had children, and were aboue threescore yeares old, according to the expresse cōmaun­dement of the Apostle, and to expell out of the Churches, those women that were shorne in the head, & to depriue such Bishops from their Bishoppricke, which did admit any such women. The storie beeing as I haue set it forth, out of the re­porte of the Ecclesiasticall writers, now let vs see how sincerely you handle the matter, and report thereof at your pleasure. First you say, that Nectarius made the state of penance more free, then before: where as by the storie it is plaine, that he toke awaie altogether that publique forme, and triall of repentance, leauing euerie man to his conscience. Secondlie, you saie, the people tooke such occasion of libertie, that they were loth to confesse, or doe iust penance for their sinnes at all. It is not vnlike that the wicked sort, as they abuse all Christian libertie, so be­ing left to the examination of their owne conscience, whereunto the scripture leaueth them, would be more dissolute: But the godly being deliuered from such a burthenous & vnnecessarie ceremonie and custome, would neuerthelesse confesse their sinnes before God, and be truelie penitent, and hartelie sorie for the same. Thirdlie you saie, Nectarius, neuer meant to take awaie that whole order, wherein he had no authoritie. But that he toke it wholie awaie, the storie is plaine, and that he had authoritie in an order, and decree of the Church, first made against the Nouatians, which was subiect to mutation, Socrates doth declare. And So­zomene reporteth the consent, & imitation, of all the Catholike Bishoppes of the East, which they, it is not like, would haue yealded vnto, if it had beene as you say, an institutio of shrist. That it was not alowed of the wri­ter of the storie Sozomenus, it is a small matter, seing it was [Page 252] alowed of so many hundred bishops for so manyyeares before him, that were better deuines then he, & there­fore you saie vntruly, that it was but one mans doubtfull ex­ample, & but one bishops compelled act, which was alowed of all the Bishops of the East, & followed. But if it were good, you saie, it maketh nothing against priuat shrift, yes verily. for a thousand times greater incōuenience hath come by auricular confession, then the abusing of one gentlewoman. To omit all other, the storie is famous and fresh in memorie, within these few yeares, when the Inquisitors in Spaine, charged al honest women & matrons that had beene sollicited by their ghostlie fa­thers vnto adulterie, to confesse the same before them, how the holie house was pestred with accusa­tions, and how full the streates were of women repai­ring to the holie house, to declare the abuse of confessi­on against their ghostlie fathers. Wherfore if one such a fact, as the old storie reporteth, were thought a suffi­cient cause vnto all the godlie and learned Bishops of the East, to abolish that vnnecessarie order & custome, of confessing and doeing open penance in the Church for secret faults, how much more so many & so shame­full abuses as haue ensued of this eare shrift, ought to haue mooued the Church of God in these dates, to put awaie the necessitie thereof: that I speake nothing of the vngodlie opinions that are helde therof, to the snare of mens consciences, which make it alltogether intollerable. Last of all, where you alledge the pra­ctize of all Churches christianed to the contrarie, how vn­true it is, the verie storie is plaine, and the custome of the Greeke Churches confessed by Gratian not to ad­mit this kinde of confession, as beeing onelie a posi­tiue decree of men, no necessarie institution of God.

And sure it, is that Saint Crysostome, who succeeded Necta­rius, hadmuch a doe to bring the people, made more li­centious, by the foresaide graunt, to the distinct numbering of all their sinnes to the priest againe, which he knew to be neces­sarie [Page 253] by Christes institution: and therefore in exhorting them to Sermon. de poeniten. & confess. confession, he speaketh much of bashfulnes, which the people had in vttering their sinnes, and of feare of vpbraiding such things as they had confessed to the priests, and of comming forth as it were, to a publike stage to open their offences, as the vse was in his predecessors daies. Of all which things and other im­pediments of confession, this doctor doth discharge the penitents by a warranting of them, that priuate confession, which is made without witnesse, and to him that shall not laie any thing con­fessed to their charge, or open it to the world, is enough, though the open order vsed before, he counteth the more perfect and better, wherein he saieth, that Iob was not ashamed to con­fesse his faultes before the worlde, much lesse Christen men should be aboshed to open themselues to God, not meaning so by confession made to god, as though he discharged them of ope­ning their sinnes in the close consistory of the priests iudgement, which he in deede did not, but he meaneth, as the Master first answered, and other schoole men of great and exact iudgement Magister quarto sen­tentiarum. after him, that in steede of publike confession, made in the face of the Church, secret opening to the priest (who occupieth there the seat of God, and therefore would neuer shame him afore men) would serue.

Marie the truth is, that the late libertie that his people was set in through the disordered demeanour of the foresaid Dea­con, made this cunning shepheard and expert preacher, so to vse his wordes, as they might winne moste of the worste, and be least offence to the weake. And therefore he speaketh so warelie and indifferentlie, that sometimes he biddeth them confesse to God, and yet with seuerall numbering of euery of their sinnes, and other whiles in the very same ser­mon, he saieth, at (que) oportebat maximè apud homines ea dicerc, and yet they should be opened to men, that so they might vn­derstand his meaning, and yet not be able to reprehend his words, who were so weake, as I said, and so vsed to libertie, by the loosing of the law in Nectatius daies, that Saint Chryso­stome had much a doe to make them submit themselues, and their sinnes, to the pastours of their soules. Wherein, not onelie [Page 254] his great obtestations in the beginning of his sermon, but also his continuall beating on this string, that they should not be confounded nor abashed to vtter their sinnes, prooueth plain­lie, that his onelie purpose was, to bring them to confession & penance sacramentall, done by the priestes ministerie For there he chargeth them, that they did not weepe nor lament, which he could not doe rightlie, if those thinges were onelie inwardelie in cogitation & harte to be done. For how could be know, that they did not make confession to man, as we now know that no heretike maketh, confession, neither lamenteth, neither doth penance for his sinnes, because they haue remooued the way of Gods Church, wherebie such things had wont to be done. And by which Christ hath appointed is to be done: Otherwise they will saie, they confesse themselues dailie to God, and so did Saint Chysostomes flocke, I warrant you, but he counted that no sacramentall con­fessing, except they did it to God by the priestes ministerie, which is the waie of confession, which God hath appointed.

So sure it is that Saint Chrysostome went about to bring the people to the necessity of auricular cōfession, that it standeth only vpon your owne assurance with­out any warrant of Chrysostomes wordes, which are cleane contrarie thereunto, euen in that sermon you quote, requiring confession of secret faultes to be made onelie to God, and not to men. Sed confunderis & erubescis peccata tua effari: Atqui oportebat maximè apud homines ea dicere, & inuulgare. Confusio enim est peccare, non est confusio confiteri peccata, nunc autem ne (que) necessariùm pre­sentibus testibus confusio confiteri: Cogitatione fiat delictorum exquisi­tio, absque teste sit hoc iudicium. Solus te Deus confitentem vi­deat: Deus qui non exprobat peccata tua, sed soluit peccata propter confusionem. Nunquid & sic grauaris, & retrocedis? verùm & ego scio, quòd conscientia non sustinet sua delicta. But thou art ashamed, and abashed to vtter thy sinnes. Yet thou oughtest moste of all to declare and publish them before men. For it is ashame to sinne, it is no shame to confesse thy sinnes. But now it is neither necessarie to confesse in the presence of witnesses. Let examination of thine [Page 255] offences be made in thought, let this iudgement be without a witnesse, let god only see thee making thy confession, god which casteth not thy sinnes in thy teeth, but too seth thy sinnes for thy shame: what? and arte thou greeued to doe so much, and goest backe? yet I know shy conscience cānot abide her owne offences: These wordes a man would thinke should be plaine e­nough, against the necessitie of auricular confession, but that you haue found out a moste impudent inter­pretation of them, to saie that by confessing to God, he meaneth the close consistory of the priests iudgement, who occupieth the seate of God, and of this exposition the Master of the sentences should be author, & other schoolemen should be approouers. Verelie whosoeuer inuented it, or whosoeuer haue alowed it, Chrysostome crieth out plainly, that it is not his meaning, which re­quireth the examination to be in thought alone, and the iudgement without witnes, which cannot be, if the priest doe heare it. And although he count it greater perfection to make open confession before men, yet he denieth it to be necessarie. Again in his commenta­rie vpon the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cap. 12. Hom. 30. more plainlie, after he hath exhorted men, to count all their sinnes seuerally, before God, and to make an har­tie confession of our vnworthines, he addeth, Non [...] tibi vt te prodas in publicum, ne (que) vt te a pud alios accuses, sed obedire te volo Prophetae dicenti, reuela domino taunt viam. Ante Deum ergo confitere peccata, apud verum iudicem cum oratione delicta tua pronuncia, non lingua, sed conscientiae tuae memoria, & tunc demum spera, misericordiam te posse conse­qut: sihabueris in mente peccata tua contiuuò, nunquam ma­lum aduersus proximum in corde retinebis. I say not to thee, that thou oughtest to bewraie thy selfe abroad, nor that thou shouldest accuse thy selfe before other men. But I will haue thee obey the Prophet saying, open thy wait before the Lorde. Confesse thy sinnes therefore before God, prononnce thy offences before the true iudge with praier, not with thy tongue, but with rememberance of thy conscience, and then hope that thou [Page 256] maist obteine mercie: if thou shalt haue thy sinnes in minde con­tinuallie, thou shalt neuer reieine euill in thy heart against thy neighbour. We must confesse our selues before the consistorie of that true iudge, where we neede not to pronounce with our tongue, but in our constience, our sinfull state: which is not the close consistorie of popish shrift, where without the tongue, the priest can know nothing. Yet again the same Doctor, vpon the 50. Psal. Hom. 2. writeth moste plainlie. Pecoata tua dictio vt deleas illa: si confunderis elicui dicere, quia peccasti, dicito eaquotide in anima tuas non dico vt confiter [...] seruo tuo, vt exprobret: dicito deo, qui curateoe. Haec enim si non dixeris, ignorat ea Deus? nun­quid à te vultea [...] Cùm faciehas ea, practo erat, cùm admitteres [...] are non erubuisti, & confiteri erubes­cis dicito in [...] vs in illa requiem habeas, dicito inge­miscens & lachrimans. Declare thy sinnes, that thou maiest [...] them out: if thou be ashamed to declare to any that thou hast sinned, declare them dailie in thine owne soule. I doe not saie that thou oughtest to confesse them to thy fellow ser­uent, that he may cast thee in the teeth: declare them to God, which doth heale them. For if thou shalt not declare them, is God ignorant of them? Or would he know them by thee? when thou didest them, he was present: when thou didest commit them he knew, Thou waste not ashamed to sinne, and art thou ashamed to confesse? declare thy sinnes in this life, that thou maist haue rest in that life, declare them groning and wee­ping. With what conscience could the Master of the sentences first, or any man after him, wrest these words of Chrysostome to so contrarie a meaning. But what durst they not doe, which had giuen ouer them selues whollie to mainteine the corrupt customes of the Ro­mish Church, how concrarie soeuer they were, either to the holie scriptures, or to the testimonies of the auncient Doctors: But you haue an inuincible argu­ment to prooue plainlie, that his onelie purpose was to [Page 257] bring men to confession and penance sacramentall, you meane to Popish shrift. For there he chargeth them (saie you) that they did not wcepe, nor lament, nor confesse their sinnes, which he could not doe rightlie, if those thinges were onelie inwardlie in cogitation and heart to be done. For how could he knowthat they did not make confession. Yes, Master Allen, beeing their pastour and ouerseer of their soules, he might know, by their outward, sinfull, and carelesse conuersation, that they did not weepe, nor lament, nor confesse their sinnes before God. For if they did dailie examine themselues, as he chargeth them, they would not haue bene so loose in life as they were, and therefore you haue not so much as obscure­lie prooued your purpose, & lest of al that it was Chry­sostomes onelie purpose, to driue his people to shrift, which if it had beene a necessarie institution of Christ, as you holde, he would not haue beene so daintie, for any offence of the weake, as you make him, to cal men vnto it, vpon necessitie of saluation. He that feared not openlie to reprehend the Empresse, would he haue beene afraide of the peoples displeasure? No, no, Master Allen, Gods institution, necessarie to saluation, maie not be concealed, though heauen and earth should runne together, about the publi­shing thereof.

But whosoeuer list see the moste assured and vndoubted meaning of this holie Father touching confession to apriest, whereon I stand the longer, because our aduersaries would picke quarells with Gods Church vpon certeine particles of his sentence, let him read the second and third booke of the dignitie of priesthoode, where he doth not onelie attribute more dignitie to that order, then to any other creature vnder God, but also maketh the priestes to be as well the iudges as surgeons of our soules, as to whome the searching, the cutting, the burning, the hard griping, the opening or the closing of Lib. 2. de sacerdotie our woundes and sores of conscience, doth apperteine. In all which cases he saith. Quî igitur phramacum ei morbo [Page 258] adhibere quis possit, cuius genus nequaquam intelligat? How should a man salue that sore, the nature and kinde whereof he knoweth not? and to know it without confession of the partie, is not possible. For the things within a man none knoweth, but the spirit, which is in man. And truelie said the Countie Boni­facius to Saint Augustine: Ipse sibi denegat curam, qui suam Epist. 188. medico non publicat causam: He hindereth his owne health, that will not vtter his disease and the cause thereof to his Phi­sitian. And further if you will be assured of the said Chryso­stomes minde, touching confession, read his exposition vpon the wordes of the institution of this sacrament, and of Christes breathing the holie Ghost vpon his Disciples, for their Super. 20. Ioannis. power to remit sinnes. Where he declareth, that these holie things committed to the priests charge, doe properlie apper­teine to God, by whose speciall grace we obteine remission, euen then, when the priest doth absolue vs: where he also expresseth the verie manner of the Church, in giuing absolution, till this daie, saying: that the priest doth but, as you would saie, lende his voice, and his hande: Signifiyng, that the manner was then, as it is yet, to speake the wordes of absolution, and laie the hande vpon the penitents heade, in the sacrament of pe­nance. So in sense saith Saint Chrysostome.

Whosoeuer list to read that booke, shall finde no­thing in the worlde, to prooue his iudgement, for the necessitie of auricular confession, but rather who so list to see Chrysostomes iudgement of the necessitie of shrift, let him consider what we haue cited out of his writings in the last section. For in this place by you ci­ted, he speaketh not of confession, but of the difficulty of a Priests office, as I haue shewed before, to exact more knowledge, and diligence of them, because it is harder to be a shepheard of men, then of beastes. For the diseases of beastes maie moste commonlie be seene, and they compelled to take the remedie: the diseases of men are harde, and sometimes impossible to be knowne, and no waie either to com­pell men to discouer them, or to receiue medicine for [Page 259] them. Whereas, if confession were a necessarie institu tion of God, he might haue aptlie brought it forth in this place, to shew what waie the spirituall shephearde hath, to vnderstand the diseases of his sheepe. His wordes are these, after he hath spoken of the bodelie shephearde and his sheepe. But the diseases of man first it is not easie for a man to see. For no man knoweth those things that perteine to man, but the spirit of man which is within him. How wherefore should a man vse a medicine for that disease, the manner whereof he knoweth not: yea manie times he cannot know whether a man be sicke. But when that is made manifest, he hath more dissicultie about him. For he can not heale all men, with so great power, as the shephearde doth his sheepe. For there he may binde him, restraine him of meate, burne him, cut him. But here the power to receiue health, lieth not in him that offereth the medicine, but in the sicke per­son. For this that wonderfull man saw, when he saide to the Co­rinthians, not that we are Lordes of your faith, but we are hel­pers of your ioye. And moste of all it is not required in Chri­stians by force to reforme the transgressions of them that sinne. But the forreine iudges when they take malefactors vnder the lawes, doe shew great power ouer them, and restreine them, against their will, to vse the same manners. But here not by compulsion, but by perswasion, we must make such a one better: for there is no such power giuen vs by the laws to restreine sinnes, neither if the lawes gaue such power, haue we where to vse it, seeing God crowneth not them which of necessitie ab­staine from wickednes, but them that voluntaryly refraine from it. Therfore there is neede of great cunning, that they which are sicke may be perswaded willingly to submit themselues vnto the healing of the Priestes. Thus much Chrysostome, nothing fauouring the necessitie of auricular confession, but ra­ther denying any means, wherby the inward disease of a man may be knowne, except it be by voluntarie & not extorted cōfession. The countie Boniface speaketh of a publike fact, which he cōmitted in taking a mā by force out of the Church, for which he was suspended by S. [Page 260] Augustine, vntil he did acknowledge his fault, and shew him selfe penitent. Therefore his saying can not be drawne to the necessitie of auricular shrift. Nei­ther doth Chrisostome, vpon the 20. of Iohn, de­clare anie iudgement or opinion, that he thought it necessarie, for a man to shriue himselfe to a Priest. And where you vrge his wordes, that the Priest doth lend his voice and his hands, it is to farre of to prooue, that it is necessarie for euery man to confesse al his secret faults to a Priest. But I will set downe all that he saith, in that place, least anie man which hath not, or can not vnderstand the booke, may suspect there is further matter contained thererein, toward this purpose then in deed there is. Magna enim dignit as sacerdotum, Quo­rumoun (que), &c. For great is the dignitie of Priestes. Whose sinnes you shall remit, saith he, they are remitted. Wherefore Paule saide, Obey your gouernours, and be subiect to them, that you maie doe them the greatest honour. For thou lookest to thine owne matter, which if thou hast well ordered, there is none other charge laide vpon the. The priest, if he doe dispose his owne life, and haue not diligentlie cared for thine, he shall be thrust with the vngodlie into [...]: and sometime he is not damned for his owne deedes, but for ours, except he doe all things that perteine vnto him. Therefore seing you see the greatnes of the daunger, embrace them with much beneuo­cence: which Paule also signified saying, They doe watch, as those which shall giue an account of your soules, and therefore they are much to be looued. But if you shal insult against them, you shal not dispose your own things wel. For so long as the ma­ster of the ship is of good & cheereful minde, the Mariners also are in quiet. But if he begin to be hated of thē, & to be greeued, he cannot likwise watch, nor exercise his cunning & being gree­ued against his will, he shall trouble them with manie euills. Euen so the priest if he shall see, that the reuerence due to him is performed by vs, he shall be able to gouerne vs well. But if you shall kill him weakning his handes, although he be of ne­uer so great courage, you shall cast him into the waues toge­ther [Page 261] with your selues. Vnderstād what Christ saith of the Iewes, Vpon the chaire of Moses the Scribes and Pharisies did sit, do ye all things whatsoeuer they shall saie to you. Now we must not saie the priestes are set vpon the chaire of Moses, but vp­on the chaire of Christ: for they haue receiued his doctrine: wherefore Paul saith, we are embassadours for Chist, as though Christ did exhore by vs: Doe ye not se that all men are subiect to the Princes of the worlde, and that often times the worse in birthe, life, and wisdome, are preferred before the better: Ne­uerthelesse, men consider the reuerence of the Prince that hath preferred them, not the persons whatsoeuer they be. so that if man appoint one ouer vs, there is so great feare: if God haue appointed anie man, we despise him, [...] on him, and vexe him with innumerable contumelies: and whereas we are for­bidden to iudge our breethren, we whet our tongues against the priests. Of what excuse are these thinges worthie, when we se not a beame in our owne eye, and iudge so seuerelse, a mote in our neighbours eye? Doest thou not know, that thou prescribest to thy selfe a more heauie iudgement, when thou so iudgest an­other? This I saie, not that I allowe vnworthie persons to be taken into the priestes office, but hauing compassion and wee­ping: For they are not therefore to be iudged by their sub­iects, although they liue euillie, and vitiouslie. But if thou looke well to thy selfe: thou shalt not affend end in anie'thing that is committed to them. For if he made an Asse to speake, and gaue spirituall blessinges by a southsayer, and wrought in a dumbe mouth, and the vncleane tongue of Balaam, for the stumbling Iewes: much more for you that be faithfull, although the priests be naught, God shall persorme all thinges by them, and send his holie spirite: for a pure minde doeth not therefore loose his purenes, but grace worketh all things. for all are yours, saith he, whether it be Paule or Apollo, or Cephas. For what­soeuer the priest goeth about, it is the gift of God alone, and when he exerciseth mans wisdome, his grace appeereth lesse. Neither doe I saie this, that we might liue more slouthfullie, but least while they that are set ouer you liue slouthfullie, you that are committed to them, should at anie time procure euill [Page 262] to your selues. And what speak I of the Priest? Neither an An­gell, nor an Archangell can bring anie thing to passe, in those thinges which are giuen by God. But the father, the sonne, and the holie ghost, doeth all things. The priest giueth his tongue, and his handes, for it is not iust, that for malice of an other man, they that come to our saluation should be offended. All which thinges considered, let vs both seare God, and greatlie reuerence his priestes, that honour being giuen both to our workes, and to them, we maie receiue great reward of God, by the grace and goodnes of our Lorde Iesus Christ, to whome with the father and the holie ghost be glorie for euer, and euer. A­men. These wordes of Chrisostome declare that the ministration of the worde and of the sacraments, in which the Priest lendeth his tongue, and his handes, are not defiled by the euill life of the Priest, so he sit in the chaire of Christ & preach the doctrine receiued by him, confirming the same by the sacrament of his institution. But of the popish sacrament of penance, or auricular confession, they speake nothing at all. Con­trariwise they shewe by what meanes the Priestes doe execute the authoritie graunted them in remission of sinnes, namelie in the whole office of their ministerie, consisting principallie in preaching and ministring the sacraments, not in giuing priuate absolution, one­lie, or principallie.

But to leaue him, and fall to other of great antiquitie and learning, whose iudgements also will prooue, not onelie for the trueth of his doctrine, but also (which is much more) for the vniformitie of this open Ceremonie, which the Church of olde vsed, and therefore in the like trueth of thinges, yet keepeth: Theodoritus therefore, a Greeke author also, doth plaine­lie Diuinorum decret. Epi. cap. de poe­niten. insinuate not onelie the whole sacrameut, but euen this Ce­remonie of laying on handes in the acte of absolution. Sunt me­dicabilia (saith he) etiam quae post baptismum fiunt vulnera: medicabilia autem, non [...] olim per solam fidem data remissi­one, sed per multas lachrymas, & fletus, & iciunium, & o­rationem, & laborem facti peccati quantitate moderatum. [Page 263] Quienim non sic affecti sunt, eos nec admittere quidem didi­cimus, nee diuina sunt manu impertienda. Nolite, inquit, dare sanctum canibus nec margaritas porcis. The woundes which are made euen after Baptisme, be to be healed: marie they can­not be remedied, as before in Baptisme, by remission obteyned by onelie faith, but they must nowe be cured by teares and wee­ping, by fasting and praying, and by penance measured after the quantitie and nature of the fault. For whosoeuer be not so qualified, we haue not learned to receiue them to grace, neither be the holie giftes to be bestowed vpon them, by our hand. Giue not, saieth he, holie thinges to dogges, nor precious stones to swine. Thus doth Theodoritus allude also to our manner yet vsed in the sacrament, where remission is giuen by the priestes worde, and hand. For which cause Saint Aogustine calleth this sacrament of reconciliation, sometimes, Imposition of hands, as he doth other sacraments moe also, where the priests, by this externall Ceremonie of laying on of handes, vse to giue grace,

Theodoret which liued so long after confession was abrogated by Nectarius in the Greeke Church, spea­keth nothing for it, but that repentance muste best be testified by manie teares, & weeping, fasting and prai­er, and such like labour, moderated according to the quantitie of the sinne committed, otherwise they are not to be admitted into the Church, nor to be made partakers of the holie communion. So that he spea­keth of them, that for grieuous sinnes are excommu­nicated, whoe are not to be receiued but vpon their hartie repentance, nor the diuine mysteries to be deli­uered vnto them. Wherefore there is no allusion in his wordes vnto the popish manner of absolution, with the worde and hande. For he speaketh of admis­sion and deliuerie, with the hande. Which must be vn­derstoode of them that were excluded, and debarred from receiuing, which are accounted dogges, and hogges. For I hope you account not all sinners, for dogges and hogges, before they be shriuen, if they [Page 264] be not by the sword of excommunication cut of from the Church. But Saint Augustine, as you saie, calleth this your sacrament, Imposition of handes. If you meane the place De bapt. contr. Donatistas lib. quinto, cap 20. Because there is no eight booke, whereunto your mar­gent sendeth vs, he speaketh in deede of them, on whome handes are laide, which maie be them that are confirmed, or ordained to the ministerie of the Church, as well as of anie other, on whome handes were laide: but of the sacrament of penance, he spea­keth not there or else where, in all his workes, nor of the necessitie of confessing of secret sinnes to a Priest.

But to go forward in our matter, Saint Basill a greeke wri­ter also, doth euidentlie shewe both his meaning, and his Churches practise, touching confession, both often els, & name­lie Quaest. 288. regula con­era. where he saith, vpon the occasion of a question mooued tou­ching that matter, thus: Necessarium est, vt iis fiat confessio peccatorum, quibus dispensatio mysteriorum Dei [...] est. Nam & hoc pacto qui olim inter sanctos poenitentiam ege­runt, fecisse reperiuntur. It is necessarie (saith he) that our confession should be made to them, to whom God hath cre­dited the disposing, & bestowing of his holy mysteries. For so the Saints did penance, as we reade. And he alledgeth more, that penance was vsed, & speciall sorowfulnes for sinnes with some kinde of confession of sinnes in baptisme, how much more then must we now vse the same, where it is more required, & where Christ hath instituted a Sacrament to that end, to remit suines committed by relapse after Baptisme.

And in deed the custome of Iohn the Baptist prooueth that there was a kinde of confession necessarie, or at the least conue­nient, Mat. 3. & Mar. 1. before the institution of this Sacrament. For the Euan­gelisten doe saie: Baptizabantur ab eo in Iordane, confitentes peccata sua: Men were baptized of him in Iordane, and made confession of their sinnes. So that Iohn maie seeme to haue pre­pared the waie to Christes doctrine and Sacraments, not onely by his baptisme but also by the vsing of the people to confess [Page 265] their faultes: and yet it is not necessarie that his vsage of pe­nance should be of like force, or shoulde containe an exact con­confession of euerie sinne, as the institution of Christ after­ward did include, no more then this Baptisme maie be thought to be fullie answerable, either in manner of vsage, or force and efficacie, to the holie sacrament of Baptisme by Christ instituted, for the office of the newe lawe. And in an other place the saide S. Basill treateth how young Nuns and holie sa­cred Quaest. 110. Virgens should confesse themselues. And in an other place he admonisheth all men to be circumspect in choice of their ghostlie father, by whose sentence sinnes ought with singuler discretion to be iudged or examined. Whereby it is most ma­nifest, that confession to the priestes was vsed, and counted necessarie in his daies.

You saie well that S. Basill speaketh vpon occasion of a question that was mooued touching this matter, which question if it had pleased you to set downe, Saint Basill shoulde haue serued you for no shew or colour, of the necessitie of shrifte, or confession of priuate of­fences. The question is this O [...]. He that is willing to confesse his sinnes, whether ought be to confesse them to all men, whatsoeuer they be, or to certain men. By which question it is manifest that cōfession was not necessary but voluntarie. But if anie man will make con­fession, S. Basill saith, he ought to do it to them, to whome the dispensation of Gods mysteries is committed. For so they which repented of olde time, are found to haue done, vnto the holie men: for it is written in the Gospell, that they confessea' their sins to Iohn the Baptist: & in the Actes of the Apostles, all men confessed to them, by whome they were baptized. And we acknowledge as much, that if any man will confesse his secret sinnes, to be partaker of spirituall counsell, and comfort, for quieting of his conscience, he may & ought to confesse the same to them to whome the dis­pensation of Gods mysteries are committed. But what is this for the necessitie of enumeration of all [Page 266] sinnes vnto a priest. The same Basill in the Hom. 21. vpon Psal. 37. acknowledgeth in the person of Dauid, confession to God alone to be sufficient, yea the secret groning of the heart, without moouing of lippes, or vt­tering anie wordes, to suffice. In the 110. question, for which you haue placed question the 100. as there is somewhat to prooue that confession was vsed to the priest or Elder, so there is nothing to prooue, that it was counted necessarie in his daies. The question is this, whether as at such time a sister maketh confession to an Elder, the Elder women must be present. This question de­clareth, that priestes had not such familiar and secret shriuing of virgines in those daies, as they haue now among the papists. S. Basils answer is this. The confession shal be made more decentlie, and more reuerentlie, by the Elder woman vnto the Elder man, which is able wiselie to set downe the forme of repentance & reformation. This answer decla­reth that Saint Basell would not haue yong women to shriue them selues at all, vnto the Priest, but that if anie thing troubled their conscience, which they were disirous to vtter, they should first expresse it to an aun­cient woman, and she should make report thereof to the Priest, as in the colledges of virgines he prescrib­eth it moste conuenient, to be done by the matrone or Elder woman, that had the ouersight of the yonge sisters: and in the next question he affirmeth, that the said Elder woman, or gouernesse hath iust cause to be angrie with the Priest, if he appoint anie thing to be done by the sisters, that are vnder her charge, without her knowe­ledge. Whereby he declareth plainelie that he allow­eth not that priestes should heare the secret confessi­on of such yonge women, or appoint them anie pe­nance, without the knowledge of their gouernesse. That men ought to make good choise of them to whome they wil confesse their secret offences, it prooueth not that con­fession is necessarie, whereupon we stand, or that it was accounted necessarie in Saint Basills daies. That [Page 267] Iohn Baptist made a preparatiō to shrift, it is a fond dreame, when you your selfe acknowledge, that your sacra­ment hath no place in them that are not babtized. That the institution of Christ doth include an exact confession of euerie sinne to the Priest, you can neuer be able to prooue. The Baptisme of Iohn was not instituted by man but by God: therefore of as great efficacie, as that which was ministered by the Apostles: for Christ was baptized for vs, not with the worse baptisme which was ministered by the hands of Iohn.

Necephorus later then he, but a learned Greeke writer, declareth also vnto Theodosius a Monke, that the power of Niceph. [...] cartophilax ad Theodos. binding and loosing sinnes was committed to bishoppes, by our mercifull Lord Christ Iesus, in so much (saith he) that once all men came and confessed their secret sinnes to them, by whom they either receued pardon, or were put backe. But now through the encrease of Christian people, and great tediousnes of the worke, they haue committed this busines much what to re­ligious persons, such as be of tried conditions, for to be moste profitable to others. Thus saith he in sense.

This Nicephorus is too late a Greeke writer, that we should approoue his iudgement, for the necessitie or perpetuall practise of auricular confession. Againe there is nothing but a fragment of an Epistle remain­ing, by which we cannot thoroughlie gather what his iudgement was. But this is manifest in him, that men ought no more to confesse them selues to an vn­learned man, then in sicknes to take counsell of one that is ignorant in phisike. Againe he saith not (as you report,) that once al men came, & confessed their sinnes to Bishopes. But he gathered vpon the com­mission graunted to Bishoppes, by those wordes, which were spoken to Peter, whatsoeuer thou shalt binde, shalbe bound, and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose, shalbe loosed: that olim omnes oportehat ad ipsos pontifices accedere, suaque illis occulta prodere, & sic vel reconciliationem, vel repudium fer­re. Ignoro autem quî factum sit, cur haec minùs obseruentur, [Page 268] quamuis existmem pontifices negocij taedio frequenti (que) [...] turbulentia defatigatos id operae ad Monachos trans­misisse, eos scilicet qui verè probati sint aliis (que) valeant esse v­tiles: nihil enim tale inexpertis & indoctis permiserunt. In times past it behoued all men to come to the bishoppes them selues, & to vtter their secretes vnto them, and so to receiue ei­ther reconciliation or refusall. But I am ignorant how it is come to passe that these thinges are not obserued, although I thinke that the Bishoppes being wearied by the tediousnes of the busines and the often troublesomenes of the multitude, haue set ouer that labour to the monkes, namelie those that are tru­lie appooued, and are able to be profitable vnto other: for to vnexpert and vnlearned men they haue permitted no such thing. In this writer there is nothing, but his owne collection and coniecture, which is not sufficient to [...] mens consciences with a necessity of confessing all their secret sinnes to a Bishoppe or Monke, and lest of all to an ignorant and vnlearned priest, such as are and haue bene the moste rife, and readie confes­sors among the papists.

These therfore and manie other do testifie for their Church, in what solemne vse sacramentall confession hath euer beene. Wherein we haue the lesse need to stand long, seeing the same Historie that our aduersaries doe sometime alledge, plainlie re­porteth, not onelie in the Church of Constantinople, but also in the West Churches, and namelie at Rome, alwaies since No­uatus the Heretikes false opinion touching penance rose, a vertuous Priest, sadde, secret, and wise, was appointed to heare the sinnes of all men, and was called the Pnitentiarie then, as he and the like of that office he called yet. We call them Confessours, and of olde in Greeke, they were named Spirituall Masters or Fathers, as we now terme them in our Mother tongue, Ghostlie Fathers also, Quisecundùm vni­uscuiusque culpam indicebant & mulctans. Who (saith Sozomenus) according to euerie mans fault, prescribed due penance. Which penance though it were often openlie done by the confessours appointment: yet the sinnes were not knowne, [Page 269] for which the penance was preseribed. For the confession was secret or auricular, as we call it now, as is plaine by the histo­rie (else the Priest of that office should not haue beene char­ged with secrecie and silence) though the confession sometimes was also open, where the penitents deuotion or desire so requi­red, as it maie be yet. For it is no matter for the substance of the sacrament, whether it be publike or priuate. And it is the condiscending to the peoples weakenesse, that, that should be so secret generallie, which often in olde time hath beene o­pen. And yet I think no man was euer compelled by anie pre­cept of the Church, to confesse in the publike face of the Church his sinnes that were committed secretlie. Though in Leo the greathis daies, there was a custome not allowable, that men Epist. ad Episc. Pice ni & Cam­paniae. were forced to giue vp a libell openlie of all their sinnes. Which rigorous custome, the said holie father afterward abrogated. Neuerthelesse the penance was of olde often publike, the forme whereof appeareth in Saint Ambrose, in Tertullian, who both Poenitētes. haue written seuerall bookes De poenitentia, in Saint Augu­stine in sundrie places, and in this present Historie of Sozome­nus. And long after their daies there were called Poeniten­tes, Penitents, which were barred from the holie communion, & the secrets & soueraigne holie of the blessed mysteries of the Masse, so long as their prescribed penance indured, besides fast­ing, almes, and other like penalties inioyed And especially in Lent time, there were of these deuout publike penitentes, as ap­peereth by diuerse orders of the seruice in the Church, appointed & agreeing to them, who lightly were separated till the celebra­ting of the Lords supper & passion, in the holie daies next before Easter. Whereof yet in most Churches there remaineth a small signe, by discipline giuen to the people with roddes on the same daies. But now these manie yeares, the peoples feablenes con­sidered, there is no publike penance giuen nor receiued in the Sacrament, much lesse open confession made of anie secret crimes, the Church being well assured, that this auricular con­fession sullie answereth Christes institution, and agreeth also with the often practise of the Primitiue Church herein, though the heretikes, and some of their faulters, as Beatus Rhe­nanus, [Page 270] or who else soeuer wrot the preface, that commonlie [...] annexed to Tertullian, denie the same. And truly, seeing their wanton pleasure is, not to beare secret confession, I dare saie, they can much lesse awaie with publike penance or con­fession, which is a thousand times more burdenous.

There hath hitherto no ancient writer bin brought, to testifie the necessitie of confession of secret sinnes, nor that there is anie sacrament, whereof such confes­sion should be part. The storie before remembred te­stifieth of the abolishing of such confession in the Church of Constantinople, but that there was anie such Priest, or confession vsed in the Church of Rome, it maketh no mention, but onelie sheweth that they which did open penance, which was for open offences, for which they were excommunicated, were enioyned an exercise or triall, after the performance whereof they were receiued into the Church againe. As you thinke, that no man for his sinnes committed secretlie, was compelled to make confession in the publike face of the Church, so doe I thinke, that no man in those auncient and bet­ter times was euer compelled to make anie confession open, or secret, of all his secret faultes committed in thought, word, and deede. The publike penance men­tioned in Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, was for pub­like offences. The ridiculous discipline giuen with rodds in the popish Church, by the verie name therof declareth, that it is a mockery of the old discipline, & no signe of anie sacrament of confession. And therfore as yet, nothing is brought to prooue auricular confes­sing of secret sinnes, to be a necessary institution of Christ, or agreeable with the practise of the Primitiue Church, or to disprooue Beatus Rhenanus, which de­nieth the same, accusing both the noueltie, and and the tyranie thereof, and the danger that mens con­sciences haue beene in through it, beside manie other knowne inconueniences.

But now if you conferre with the Fathers of all ages and of [Page 301] euerie notable Church, touching this confession to Gods Priests, you may beginne if you list, euen at this daie, and driue vp both the trueth of the doctrine, and the perpetuall practise thereof, euen to the Apostles time. In the late holie Council holden at Trent, both the doctrine is confirmed, and declared Sess. 14. Cap. 5. de Confess. c. 3. & 6. with all grauitie, and also the aduersaries of that sacrament, and the misconstructers of Christes wordes of remission, to per­taine to preaching of the Gospell, & not to the verie act of abso­lution, be by the consent of all Catholike states of the Christian world, accursed & excommunicated. It was at Furence also de­creed De Sacra­ment. Poeni­ten. in a most generall assemblie of both the Latine and Greek Church that as wel the whol sacrament of penance, as that espe­ciall part which is called confession, was of Christes instituti­on. In the great councell holden at Lateran, there is so plaine charge giuen to euerie Christian to confesse his sinnes, either to Can. 21. Omnis [...]; sexus. his owne ordinarie Parochian, or to some other Priest, that hath by him, or otherwise, authoritie and iurisdiction ouer the penitent, that Protestantes affirme, albeit verie false'y, that confession was first instituted in the said Councel: and this was more then three hundred yeares since. And foure hundred yeares before that in a Prouinciall Councell that was kept at Can. 7. Vormacia, there is a Canon made concerning the qualities of the priests, that are constituted to be confessours and Peniten­tiaries, where it is commaunded, that they be such. Qui possunt singulorum causas, originem quoque, & modum culparum sigillatim considerare & examinare, That can par­ticularlie trie out and examine the causes of euerie offender, the manner and ground of their faultes.

We are so well accquainted with your often bragges of Fathers, and Councells, that we neuer start for them: seeing we knowe, you haue nothing, but the drosse of the latter times, to cast at vs. For the Coun­cell of Trentes decree, we esteeme it, as it is worthie, being made by a few buckeram Bishoppes of Italie, and some other Epicurian prelates of other countries to patch vp, rather then to repaire the ruines and decaies of the kingdome of Antichrist. In the late Councel of [Page 302] Florence, I remember nothing decreed of this matter, neither doe you note, where we should finde it. In the Lateran Councell, that was kept litle more then 300. yeares since, the Protestantes doe trulie affirme, that the necessitie of auricular confession was first imposed vpon men, of the Romish Church. For in the councell of Wormes, which you saie was 400 yeares elder, there is neuer a word of confession, or confessor, but of wife consideration to be had of them that did penance, by which are ment open offenders, that did open pen­nance: neither are you able to prooue the contrarie. Paenitentibue (saith the Canon) serundum differentiam peccatorum, &c. To the penitents or such as doe penance, let penance be decreed by the iudgement of the Priest, according to the difference of their sinnes. Therefore in giuing penance the Priest ought seuerallie to consider the causer of euerie one, the beginning also & manner of the faulies, and diligentlie to ex­amine and manifestlie to know the affection and sighings of the offenders, also to consider the qualities of the times, & persons, of the places, & ages: that according to the consideration of the places, ages, or times, or according to the qualitie of the offences, & the groning of euery offendor, he turne not his eies from the holie rules. Thus sarre the Canon, after which follow the rules of penance to be apointed for diuers kindes of offences: as for him that hath killed a Priest, a pa­gane, his parents, or brother or for him that hath slain a man in his madnes, or against his will, and such like, whereby it appeereth that the Canon was made for penance to be enioyned to publike offenders, and not to compell men to confesse their secret sinnes.

Which decree is borowed word for word almoste, out of the last Canon of Constantinople Councell, called the sixth generall, Can. 102. which was long before all the forsaid Synodes. Their discourse is long vpon the Priestes dutie, which shoulde sitte on confes­sions, whome they instruct by these wordes: Oportebit, qui facultatem absoluendi & ligandi à Deo receperunt, peccati qualitatem speculentur, & peccatoris promptitudinem ad re­uersionem, [Page 303] vt sic medicamentum admoueant aegritudini ap­tum, ne si de peccato sine discrimine statuant, aberrent à salu­te aegrotantis. Those that haue receiued of our Lorde power to loose and binde, must trie out the qualitie of euerie fault, and the readines of the offender to returne vnto vertue, that they maie prouide a medicine meet to the maladie, lest if they should without distinct knowledge of their sinne giue iudgement, they should erre in poruiding health for the sicke person. By which Councell kept in Constantinople, you maie easelie gather, that neither confession was euer omitted by the lawe, nor the com­mon Penitentiarie long abrogated out of Constaninople Church. And when I name these decrees of so manie gene­rall Councels in diu rfe ages, I do not onelie call them general­lie to witnesse for my cause, which were inough, seeing euerie determination there, passeth as by the sentence of the holie Ghoste and Christes owne iudgement, of whose presence such ho­tie assemblance is assured, but I appeale to eueric holy Bishop, Priest, and Prince of the world, that agreed to the same, and were there assembled, euerie of which was of more experience, learning, and vertue, or at the least of more humilitie, then all our aduersaries aliue. But now if you go to trie other the learned writers of all times, for the practize of this point, then our labour shall be infinite, but our cause more strong, and [...] aduersaries sooner confounded. I need not for that practize, name the learned schoolemem, of excellent capacitie in deepe mysteries, because they were so late, and because Heretikes can not denie, but they are all vndoubtedlie against them, and euerie one for vs: Thomas Aquinas is ours, Dionysius is ours, I meane the Carthusian. If anie man doubt of Saint Bernard, let him reade the life of Malachie, whome he praiseth sor bringing into vre the most profitable vse of con­fession, In vitam Malach. Super 5. ca. Iacob. in the rude partes of Ireland. Saint Bede is prooued before, not onelie to haue allowed confession to the Priest, but to haue expounded Saint Iames wordes of confession for the sa­crament of pennance, and vttering our sinnes to Gods Mi­nisters. And he recordeth that in our Countrie of England, before his daies, confession was vsed to a Priest. Whereof, as [Page 304] also os pennance and satisfaction, there is an example or two in the fourth booke of his ecclesiasticall historie of our Church.

The decree of the Constantinopolitan councell in sense is the same with the former, but not word for word, nay, almoste it hath neuer a word alike. But it is to be vnderstood of publike penitentes, to be bounde, or loosed according to their qualitie of the of­fence & the greatnes of their repentance. The words are these. It behoueth that they which haue receiued of god the power of loosing and binding, consider the qualitie of the sinne, and the readines of the sinner vnto returning, that so they maie vse a medicine fit for the disease, lest if they should determine of sinne without difference, they should erre from the health of the sick person. For the disease of sinne is not simple, but diuerse and of manie formes, and budding vp with manie hurtfull branches, by which the euill is spred farre and wide, and creepeth so farre, vntill at length it withstandeth the ver­tue of that which healeth. Therefore he that will shew what skill he hath in the spirituall art of healing, must diligentlie search out, how he that hath sinned is affected, whether he in­cline vnto health, or contrariwise, by those manners to which he is familiarlie accustomed, prouoke the diseased to looke a­gainst him, and whether he by him-selfe obeyeth his Master or whether the sore of the minde doth encrease by medicins that are laid to it: and so mercie is to be bestowed by equall measure. For there is great regarde both with God, and with the gouer­nour of this pastorall care, to bring home the wandring sheepe, and to heale it being wounded by the serpent, and neither to thrust it downe by the hedlonges of desperation, nor to loose the raines vnto dissolution of life, and contempt, but by all meanes as well by sharp medicines as by gentle, to withstand and striue, that the sore maie be healed, that he which knoweth the fruites of repentance, maie wiselie gouerne the man, being called vnto that heauenlie glorie. Therefore he ought to know both kindes of medicines, as well them that be of rigor, as them that be of pittie, and not to follow them, which haue taken in hand onelie the vpper face of figures that are de­liuered [Page 305] as Saint Basill hath taught vs. In this Canon there is no worde of confession, or whereby the ne­cessitie of confession maie be inferred vpon all men for their secret offences. Neither can it be prooued that the penitentiarie priest once abrogated by Necta­rius was euer restored. The schoolmes opinion we are no more bound to follow in this, then in other pointes of poperie. Saint Bernard alloweth in deede confession made vnto the Priests, and ministers of God, but the necessitie thereof he doth not laie as a clogge on mens consciences. The like I saie of S. Bede, who in the booke and Chapter by you quoted, speaketh of one Adamanus a scot, who hauing com­mitted some great wickednes in his youth, when he considered the greeuosnes of his fact, was in great di­strust of minde: and comming to a priest, of whome he hoped that the waie of saluation might be shewed vnto him, he confessed his guiltines, and desired him to giue him counsell how he might auoid the wrath of God that was to come. Af­ter this manner to come to confession, we denie not, but it is most expedient for them that are not quiered in conscience but that al men are bound by this or any other example, to make a perticuler rehersall of their sinnes to a priest, before they can haue remission, Beda neither here, nor els where teacheth.

Before him, S. Gregorie, so well liketh and knoweth this practize of sacramentall confession, that in his Pastorll, he Cap. 15. In Pastorall Gregorij. prescribeth the Priests of Gods Ghurch, manie waies how to seeke out the diseases of their peoples soules, and according to the varietie of the same, to admit or put backe, to pardon or to punish: yea so plaine he is in this matter, that he De Poen. dist. 6. Cap. de Sacer. 5. chargeth the Priest to be exceeding grieuoslie punished, that in anie case shall vtter the Penitentes confession or anie parte thereof. Againe farre aboue these, holy Leo the great amending the hard custome that in some places of Italie Epist. 80. & Campania, was vsed, touching publike confession of priuat sins, he saieth: Reatus conscientiarum sussiciat solis sacerdotib? [Page 306] indicari, confessione secreta. Quamuis enim plenitudo fidei vi­detur esse laudabilis, que propter Dei timorem apud homines Vide eundē ad Theo. dor. Iuli. [...]. eruhescere non veretur, tamen quia non omnium huiusmodi suntpeccata, vt velint in poenitentiam ed publicari, remouea­tur tam improbabilis cohsuetudo, ne multi à poenitentiae reme­dijs arceantur, dum aut erubescunt, aut metuunt [...] sais facta suareserare, quibus possint legum constitutione per elli. Sufficit enim illa confessio, quae primùm Deo offertur, tunc [...] saccrdoti, qui pro debitis confitentium precator accedit. Tunc enim demum piures ad poenitentiam potuerunt prouocari si populi auribus non publicetur conscientia confitentis. It is enough, that the guilt & offences of mans conscience be opened to the Priests alone in secret confession. For though the for­uour of faith be verie laudable, which is content for Gods sake to be ashamed before men, yet because the sinnes of euerie man be not such, that the penitent would gladlie vtter openlie, let so raprobale custome be abolished, lest manie be holden from the remedies of penāce, whiles either they are ashamed, or feare to open their deedes to their enimes, by whom they might by order of law be punished. For that confession is sufficient, which is made first to God, and then to the Priest also, who will be an intercessour for the sinnes of them that confesse. For then might moe be prouoked to penance, if the secret conscience of the confessed be not published to the eares of the people. Thus saith Saint Leo, a man of that time and credit, as our aduersa­ries would wish. Let them saie now, that priuat confession began in the Lateran Councell, because that thing which euer was counted and vsed as necessarie, was there decreed for the amending of the peoples sloth, to be done euerie yeare once at the lest, before they receiued the blessed sacrament. As tru­ly maie they saie, that the Euchariste and receiuing thereof, was begune in the same Councell, & by the verie same Canon. For as there is charge, that euerie man should be confessed, so there is commaundement giuen, that euerie man shall receiue once a yeare the blessed Sacrament. So litle care they haue, what they saie, so that they saie enough to beguile them, that can skil of nothing.

Yf Saint Gregorie in his pastorall or els where, had written any thing that might but make a face of the necessitie of auricular confession, you would haue set downe some parte of his wordes, or at least quoted the booke, and Chapter: where we might finde them: but in trueth there is no such matter in all that worke conteining three partes and many Chapters, but he teacheth the behauiour of a pastour and preacher to­wardes alkindes of persons, both in his life, and in his doctrine: of auricular confession neuer a worde. There­fore you fly to Gratians decres, where Gregory in deed is cited for such a matter, but which Gregorie, it doth not appeare, therefore it is more like to be one of the later Gregories, then Gregorie the first: in whose workes long enough you can not shew that sentence: and where you saie, the priest may not in any case vtter the penitents confession, the glosse vpon the text is against you, who holdeth that he may lawfullie reueal it, to auoide excommunication, if the Bishop shall excommunicate all them that are priuie of such a fact. But Leo in deede speaketh of auricular confession, or at the least of confession made onelie to the priests, not vrging it as necessarie to saluation, nor requiring an exact numbering of eue­rie mortall sinne, as the Papists doe, which be the matters we stand vpon, and not whether it be lawfull for men to confesse their offences to their pa­stour, which we thinke to be moste expedient for them that are troubled in minde, about them, but not neces­rie for all men, nor for all sinnes. The time and credit of Leo, although it be of better account then of his successours, yet it is not such, as wee would wish. For the time had manie corruptions and super­stitions: the person was ouer careful to mainteine the dignitie of his sea, which by litle and litle after him was turned into the seat of Antichrist, and therefore his ambition was controlled by the generall councell of Chalcedon, which made the Bishop of Constanti­nople [Page 308] his equall in all primacie of honour and au­thoritie, although he by his Legates would haue with­stoode it: but in vaine: for all the Bishops allowed it, except Lucentius and Pascasius his deputies. We may still saie that the necessitie of auricular confession came first from the Lateran Councel, for before it, you cannot prooue that it was inioyned vpon necessitie, although it was vsed voluntarily, and thought of some verie conuenient.

But to holde on vpward, holie Prosper giueth good eui­dence for his time, touching the practize of Confession, and needefull recourse to Priests for the release of their sinnes. De vita con tempt. Sundrie remedies he sheweth for euerie sore of mans soule, and much he mooueth al Christians to confesse their sinnes, aduerti­sing them of the daunger thereof, if they keepe them close. Thus he saith: Illi, quorum peccata humanam notitiam latent, nec ab ipsis confessa, nec ab [...] publicata, si ea confiteri aut emendare noluerint, deum quem habent testem, ipsum habituri sunt & vltorem. Et quid eis prodest, humanum vitare iudici­um, cùm si in malo suo permanserint, ituri sunt in aeternum [...] retribuente supplicium? That is to saie, Those men, whose sinnes be secret, and be not confessed of themselues, nor lib. 2. c. 7. published by other men, if they will not confesse them or cor­rect them, they shall haue God their iust reuenger, whome they haue now a record of their wickednes. And what are they the better to escape mans verdict, when, if they continue in wickednes, by the iust iudgement of God they shall goe into e­uerlasting punishment? And afterwarde in the same Chap­ter, which is exceeding much to be considered, he giueth all Priests carefull admonition, that if any of them hauing com­mitted deadelie sinne, doe notwistanding without confession and vttering of the same holde on his ministery of the blessed Sacrament, because he would not in the sight of men be noted worthie, that in this case he damneth himselfe before God, whose heauie indignation he cannot auoide, whiles he is asha­med to vtter his sinnes vnto men.

Prosper hath nothing for the necessitie of auricular [Page 309] confession, but rather against it. For he speaketh a­gainst them that will neither confesse their secret sinnes, nor amende their liues without confession to other men, shewing that if they continue in their sinne in vaine shall they auoide the iudgement of man, and fall into the eternall iudgement of God. It followeth immediatelie. Quòd si ipsi iudices fiant, & veluti suae ini­quttatis vltores huius in se voluntariam poenam seuerissimae animaduersionis exerceant, temporalibus poenis mutabunt aeterna supplicia, & lachrimis ex vera cordis compunctione fluentibus restinguent aeterna ignis incendia. But if they become iudges themselues and as it were reuengers of their owne iniquitie, doe exercise hereupon themselues the punish­ment of moste seuere correction, with temporall paines, they shall change eternall punishments, and with teares flowing out of true compunction of heart, they shall quench the burning of eternall fire. These wordes declare by what meanes without confession of secret faultes men maie obteine remission and auoide euerlasting punishment. Which thing is yet more cleare in that carefull admonition, which he giueth to Priests, not to communicate with­out confession, or at least wise secret repentance, and punishment enioyned to themselues. His wordes are these. Quapropter Deum sibi facilius placabunt illi, qui non humano conuict iudicio, sed vltrò crimen cognoscunt, qui aut proprijs illorum confessionibus produnt, aut [...] alijs quoles occulti sint, ipsi in se voluntariae excommunication is sententiam ferant, & ab altari cui ministrabant, non ani­mo, sed officio seperati vitam tanquam mortuam plangunt, cer­ti quòd reconciliato sibi efficacis poenitentiae fructibus Deo, non solùm amissa recipiunt, sed etiam ciues supernae ciuitatis effecti ad gaudia sempiterna perueniant. Wherefore those men, shall more easilie pacifie God vnto themselues, which be­ing not conuicted by mans iudgement, but of their owne ac­cord acknowledge there fault: which either bewraie the same by their owne confessions, or though other men know not what they are in secret, they themselues giue sentence of voluntarie [Page 310] excommunication against themselues, and being seperated not in minde but in office, from the altar which they serued, doe be­waile their life as dead, beeing certeine, that God being recon­ciled to them by the ftuites of effectuall repentance, they doe not onelie recouer that they haue lost, but also being made citizens of the heauenlie citie, they come into the eternall ioyes. By these wordes of Prosper it is euident, that confession of all particular sinnes, was not thought necessarie to sal­uation, but that a man confessing his sinnes before God, and enioyning vnto himselfe the ftuites of re­pentance without the knowledge of men, he might assure himselfe of remission and of eternall felicitie

All this meaning hath Saint Prosper, and his equall in age Saint Augustine toucheth the disease of our daies verie sharpelie, saying thus: There be some which thinke that it is e­nough De visit. in­firmorum 1. 2. cap. 4. for their saluation, if they confesse their faultes to God alone, to whome nothing is hid, and from whome no mans con­science is close. For they will not, or they are ashamed, or at the least they disdaine to submit themselues to the Priests, whom God hath giuen power vnto, to discearne the cleane from the vncleane. But I would thou shouldest not beguile thy selfe by false perswasion, or some respect of shame that thou hast to confesse vnto the priest, who is Gods Vicare. For I tell thee, thou must vnder his iudgement, whome God doth not disdaine, to constitute his Vicegerent. But this Doctour made a wholl worke of penance, and the waies of recouerie of Christian mans fall after Baptisme by the Priests iudgement, and sacrament of Confession. Of the which bookes if any man list doubt, yet let him be assured, that they be both auncient, Catholike, learned, and agreeable to the doctrine of Saint Augustines daies, who­soeuer made them. And our cause is so much more holpen, because not onelie Saint Austine, who is plaine in these mat­ters, vpon Saint Matthwes Gospel, and els where, as it is de­clared alreadie, but also other of great antiquitie, confirme the same, and plainly confound the pride of our daies, in which men are not somuch ashamed of their sinnes, as they be disdainefull to confesse their sinnes vnto a poore priest, though he iustlie ac­cupie [Page 311] the verie iudgement seat of God.

You doe wiselie to deuorce vpon his meaning when you haue not his wordes to warrant you. For so you maie blinde the eyes of the ignorant, to beleeue that you haue som farther intelligence of meaning then can appeare euen by the words that you haue cited out of him. For the [...] of condemnation, is not by [...] [...] against them, which are ashamed to con­fes their faults to men, if they amend them before god, but against them that flie the knowledge and iudge­ment of men, and yet doe not repent before God. And therefore he saith, si ea confiteri aut emendare nolue­rirt, if they will not confesse them or amende them, and againe, si in maio suo permanserint, if they shall continue in their euill. But if they will amend their faultes, and not continue in sinne, he dare promise them forgiuenes and life euerlasting, as is declared in the last section. But now you charge vs with Saint Agustines authori­tie, and yet you will not abide by it that it is Saint Au­gastines authoritie, wherein you deale more sincerely, then Papists are commonlie wont to doe, to acknow­ledge that these bookes you vouch are not admitted for Saint Augustines authoritie. Among so many great and large volumes, as are certeinlie knowne and gene­rally receiued to be of Saint Augustines writing, where you can finde nothing but these bookes of vncerteine credit, to mainteine the necessitie of auricular confes­sion, the indifferent reader may well gather how litle ground your purpose cā finde in that age of S. Austins. For that you haue declared alreadie out of S. Austine vpon S. Matthewes Gospel, & ells where, how plaine it is for these matters, let the reader iudge by that I haue answered in those seuerall places. But as touching the bookes de visitatione [...], being one of the two trea­tises that you cite, as it is certaine that it was not of S. Austines writing, so hath it no similitude with the do­ctrine of his time, or with the stile of anie learned or [Page 312] auncient father. The Censure of Erasmus vpon these bookes is this, Sermo locutulei, nec docti nec diserti. Quid habuerunt vel frontis vel mentis, qui talia scripta nobis ob­truserunt nomine Augustini, &c. These bookes are the speach of a pratler neither learned nor eloquent. What shame or wit had they which haue thrust vpon vs such writings vnder the name of S. Augustine? Yet you dare assure vs that they be auncient, Catholike, learned, and agreeable to the doctrine of Saint Augustines daies. But the reasons of your assurance you spare to shewe, giuing vs nothing but your bare word, which is sufficient among vnlear­ned and sottish Papists, whose ignorance you knewe would accept whatsoeuer you brought, and therefore were carles what all the learned of the contrarie parte might iudge of your impudent and shameles asserti­ons. Concerning the other whole worke of penance, which you affirme that this doctour made, although it were graunted that Saint Augustine was author of that worke of repentance, as it shall be easilie graunted, that if not Saint Augustine, yet some other aunci­ent and learned father, was the writer of them: ne­uertheles there is nothing in them by which you are able to prooue the matter in controuersie, name­lie the necessitie of confession of all mortall sinnes to a Priest. And therefore albeit you set a good face vpon the matter, you haue neuer a sentence to set downe, out of those bookes, that is able to giue but onely a glosse, or colour to your Popish confession. For if you had, you woulde not haue beene silent in set­ting forth the sentence of another beside Saint Au­gustine, as you saie, and as I thinke, of great antiquitie, who against them that be impenitent, and neither ac­knowledge their sinnes vnfainedlie before God, nor studie to amend and reforme their wicked life, wri­teth vehementlie, shewing three kindes of repentance, one before baptisme, in them that are of yeares, another after baptisme, which is dailie sorowing for our infirmities in [Page 313] saying the Lordes prayer, the third of heinous and notori­ous sinnes offensiue to the Church, of them that are excom­municated and are not to be receiued, without open confession and signes of humilitie. But the necessitie of confessing all thinges to a poore priest iustlie oc­cupying the verie iudgement seate of God, there is no word in either of those two bookes, De medicina poeni­tentiae & de vtilitate poenitentiae.

And Saint Ambrose, these mens auncient somewhat, did knowe this practise so well, and allow it, that he did sit in his Ambrosius ex Paulino. owne person on confession, as Paulinus doth recorde, whose be­hauiour in that diuine office, that all Priestes maie perceiue, and all the people note, I will report: Quotie scunque illi ali­quis ob percipiendam poenitentiam lapsus suos confessus esset, it a flebat, vt ilium flere compellerat. Causas autem crimi­num, quas illi confitebaniur, nulli nisi Domino soli apud quens intercedebat, loquebatur, bonum relinquens exemplum poste­ris sacerdotibus, vt intercessores apud Deum sin: magis quàm accusatores apud homines. That is to saie: So often as anie man came vnto him to confesse his faultes and receiue penance, he so wept, that he made the Penitent to weepe also. But the faults themselues which they confessed, he vttered to no man, but to God alone, to whome for their sinnes he made sute, lea­uing a blessed example to all Priestes of the posteritie, to ac­count themselues rather as intercessours to God for sinnes, then accusers of men before the worlde for their sinne. This saieth Paulinus of Saint Ambrose, whereby at once we see the iudge­ment of them both for our matter.

The iudgement of Saint Ambrose concerning the necessitie of popish thrift, or auricular confession, we haue heard before out of his owne writinges. Neither doth Paulinus testifie anie other thing of him: nor a­ny other thing then might be said of Luther and Cal­uin, whoe were no friendes of Papisticall confession. For if anie man did confesse vnto them his offences, that he might shew himselfe truelie penitent, and re­ceiue comfort, and counsell for his amendment, no [Page 314] doubt but those holie men were greatlie grieued at his fall, which mooued the offendour to greater sorow for his sinne: and yet those faultes, as were discouered to them, being such as might with duetie to God, and the state be concealed, they would neuer vtter to anie­bodie. What would this make to prooue, that they saie on confessions like popish Priestes, and required all men vnder paine of damnation to confesse vnto them their secret deadlie sinnes, as pop sh Priests doe. But popish prelates disdaine to doe that which they faine Saint Ambrose to haue done. Manie of them being such for their knoweledge, as you might rather seeke water out of a pumise stone, then the doctrine of com­fort out of their mouthes, and for their liues and con­uersations, such as deserue, if there were anie hope of amendment in them, to stand in the Church among open penitents, rather than to sit in the chaires of go­uernment, and iudgement ouer other men. Wherefore by this citation we neither see the iudgement of Pau­linus nor of saint Ambrose, for your matter of the ne­cessitie of auricular confession. For that secret con­fession maie be made in some case we denie not: but that it is necessarie to be made of all deadlie sinnes, that man can remember, you haue not yet prooued.

But to go forward, Saint Cyprians meaning is so plaine for confession of sinnnes, that he prescribeth the verie thoughtes of man, that be sinnefull and damnable, to be vttered vnto the Priestes, praising them, that vpon onelie intent and purpose Sermon de lapsis. of committing idolatrie, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes Dei do­lenter & simpliciter confitebantur, did simplie and sorowfullie make confession thereof to the Priests of God. And now that we are for the practise and proofe hereof at S. Cyprian, which is high in Gods Church, we neede not staie here, though we be farre enough paste our aduersaries account in such cases, that laie it downe at I ateran Councell, a whole thousand yeares shorte of those daies. I will not much speak of Tertullian, whome Tertul. de poenit. Saint Cyprian calleth Master, his wholl booke writen of pe­nance, [Page 315] doth make altogether for this sacrament, and for confessi­on to be made to Gods Priestes, which he calleth exomologesin, & prosternendi atque humiliandi hominis disciplinam: and amongst other things pertaining to the act of confession and pe­nance, which then was much more publike and seuere then it is now, he reckeneth this to be one, Presbiteris aduolui, to be humblie laid at the Priests fecte, where he also resembleth a man that is lothe to confesse his inwarde faultes, to him, that hauing a filthie botch in the secret partes of his bodie, had ra­ther let it [...] vp the member, then for foolish shamefastnes, vtter the griefe to his surgeane.

You slaunder Saint Cyprian greatlie, to make him be so plaine of your meaning, that he perscribeth the verie thoughts of man, that be sinneful and damnable, to be vttered vnto the priests, although he praise them that vpon onelie intent and purpose of committing Idolattie did sorowfullie and simplie confesse the same before the priests of God. His wordes are these. Deni (que) quando & fide maiore & timore meliore sunt, qui quamuis nullo sacrificij aut libelli facinore constricti, quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitauerūt, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes dei dolenter & simpliciter [...] exomologesin conscientiae faciunt, animi sui pondus exponunt, salutarem medelam, paruis licet & modi­cis vulneribus exquirunt, scientes scriptum esse: Deus non de­ridetur. Finallie seeing they are both of greater faith, and better feare, which although they be guiltie of no wicked fact of sacrifice, or libell, yet because they haue so much as thought of such a matter, they sorowfullie and simplie confesse the same, before the Priests of God, they make confession of their consci­ence, they declare the burthen of their minde, they seeke for wholsome medicine, although for small and litle woundes, know­ing that it is writen. God is not mocked. What prescripti­on is in these wordes, of anie necessitie of confession of all the sinnefull thoughts of men? his meaning is, that they shewe them selues more faithfull, and to feare God better, which voluntarilie, when there is no necessitie, offer themselues to open repentance. For [Page 316] their onelie purpose of sacrificing, to the better quiet­ing of their conscience, then they which being pollu­ted with libells as they called them (by which they professed to paie monie, that they might not be com­pelied to sacrifice to Idolls) yet would not acknowe­ledge that they were in anie faulte, which was necessarie for them to doe, before they could be ad­mitted into the congregation. And therefore you haue neither practize nor proofe, of the necessitie of auri­cular confession in Cyprians time, which was 1000. yeares before the Lateran Councell, which decreed the necessitie thereof. That you will not speake much of Tertullian, it is because you haue litle, yea nothing at all in him to vpholde your purpose. His booke de Poeni­tentia is well knowen, to be written of open penance for such as were to be baptized, or els had openlie fal­len with offence of the Church, but as for your popish sacrament of penance or confession before the priests, otherwise then before the whole Church, you haue nothing in that booke: and therefore among other thinges pertaning to that seuere discipline, of publike repentance, where he reckeneth Pres­byteris aduolui to be one, he addeth immediatelie, & arie dei adgeniculari, omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis sue [...]. And to kneele before the altars of God, to re­quire all the brethren to praie for them. And immediately it followeth, haec omnia exomologesis vt poenitentiam com­mender, All these things confession requireth to set forth re­pentance. And as touching him that refuseth this disci­pline for shamefastenes, his wordes are these: Pleros (que) tamen hoc opus vt publicationem sui aut suffugere, aut de die in diem differre, praesumo, pudoris magis memores quàm sa­lutis, velut illi qui in partibus verecundioribus corporis con­tracta vexatione conscteniam medentium vitant & ita cum rubescentia sua pereunt. Yet I suppose that many doe either es­chew, or defer from day to daie this worke, as a defamation of themselues, being more mindeful of shamefastnes then of their [Page 317] health, as those men, which hauing gotten a vexation in the se­cret partes of their bodie do auoide to haue it knowne to them that should heale it, & so perish with their shamefastnes. This saying doeth not prooue the necessitie of confession of all our sinnes so often as we fall, but the necessitie of open confession for them that had openlie and notori­ouslie fallen, in so much that the auncient Church did admit no man, but once in his life vnto this kinde of confession and open penance, and so the wordes of Tertullian are plaine of this austere worke of publike confession, which he calleth exomologesis by the greeke name. Haecigitur venena eius prouidens Deus, clausalices ignoscentiae ianua & intinctionis sera obstructa, aliquid ad­buc permisit patere. Collocauit in vestibulo poenitentiam se­cundam, quae pulsantibus patefaciat: sediam semel, quiaiam secundó: sed amplius nunquam, quia proximè frustra. Non enim & hoc semel satis est? God therefore foreseing these poysons, (of the deuill) although the gate of pardon be shut vp, and the locke of baptisme be stopped, yet hath permitted some­thing to be open. He hath placed in the porch or entrie, the se­cond repentance which maie open to them that [...] but now no more but once, because it is now the second time: but neuer hereafter, for the next time is in vaine. For is not this once e­nough? Habes quodiam non merebaris, amisisti enim quod acceperas. Thou hast now that thou didst not deserue, for thou hast lost that which thou hadst receiued. These wordes doe euidentlie declare, that this doctour speaketh not of the popish sacrament of penance, nor of popish confes­sion, which is iterated often times, but of a rigorous kinde of discipline, vsed in the primitiue Church, if he doe not incline to the heresie of Montanus as in other places. But it appeareth by Augustine that this so­lemne kinde of penance before the Church, was ad­mitted euen of the Catholike Church, but as for them that had greeuousely fallen in all their life, although they did not exclude offenders from repentance be­fore God, and remission of sinnes, so often as they [Page 318] truelie repented.

But of all other Origen is moste plaine. In one place he saith thus: Qui non priùs animae suae vitia, & peccatorum cogno­ueritmala, & proprij oris confessione prodiderit, purgari at (que) absolui non poterit. He that knoweth not perfectlie the sinnes Lib. 3. peri archon. of his owne soule and the naughtines of his offences, that he may vtter them by the confession of his owne mouth, he can not be clensed nor absolued of his sinne. And in an other place thus: there is one painefull waie of remission of sinnes, Cùm lauat super Leuit. homili. 2. peccator lachrymis stratum suum & non erubescit sacerdoti Domini indicare, & quaerere medecinam, sicut scriptum est, Iniquitaiem means pronunciabo. When the sinner watereth his coutch with teares, and is not ashamed to vtter al his sinnes to the Priest of God, and to seeke remedie, as it is written: I will confesse mine iniquitie.

We had need of a plainer testimonie then we haue hard anie yet, and therefore let vs see now toward the ende what Origen hath for the necessitie of popish shrift to a Priest. The first place is Li peri archon. 3. Cap. 1. which I wil rehearse somewhat more at large, that the readers maie iudge how plaine it is, for the necessitie of auricular confession. His purpose is to declare, how men are saide to be forsaken of God. Hi verò qui nondum se tanta constantia neque tanto affectu offerunt Deo, neque parati sunt accedentes adseruitutem Dei, praeparare a­nimus suos ad tentationem, derelinqui dicuntur à Deo, id est, non erudiri, pro eo quod ad erudiendum parati non sunt, in po­sterum sine dubio tempus eorum dispensatione, vel curatione dilata: qui vti (que) quid à Deo consequentur ignorant, nisi pri­ùs ad beneficia consequenda per desiderium venerint: quod it a demum fiet, si quis ante seipsum cognoscat, & sentiat quid sibi desit: & quid sibi deest, à quo quaerere vel debeat, vel possit, intelligat. Qui enim non intellexerit prius infirmitatem, vel aegritudinem suam, medicum quaerere nescit, vel certè cùm re­ceperit sanitatem, non egerit gratias medico, quoniam non priùs periculum sui languoris cognouit: It a & si qui non pri­ùs animae suae vitia, & peccatorum suoruns cognouerit mala, [Page 319] ac proprij oris confessione prodiderit, purgari is, absolui (que) non paterit, ne ignoret sibi per gratiam concessum fuisse quod possi­det, & diuinam liberalitatem proprium bonum putet: quae ret sine dubio arrogantiam generes & elationem, & denuo ei cau­sa sit ruinae. Quodetiam de Diabolo sentiendum est, qui primi­tus honores suos proprios, & non à Deo datos esse credidit, quos habebat tunc cùm immaculatus erat: & impleta est in eo illa sententia quae dicit, quòd omnis qui se exaltat humiliabitur. But they which do not yet offèr themselues to God with so great constancie, nor with so great affection, neither are readie when they come to the seruice of God, to prepare themselues vnto temptation, are saide to be forsaken of God, that is, not to be taught, because they are not prepared to be taught, the dispo­sing, or healing of them without doubt being deferred vnto the time to come: who trulie knowe not what they shall obteine of God, except they come first by desire vnto the obteining of be­nefits. Which thing at the length shall be brought to passe, if a man know himselfe first, and feele what is wanting to him: and vnderstande of whome, he ought or maie seeke for that which is wanting vnto him. For he that shall not first vnder­stand his owne infirmity or sicknes, cannot seeke the Phisitian: so if there be anie also which shall not first knowe the vices of his soule and the euills of his sinnes, and bewraie them by the confession of his owne mouth, he cannot be purged and absolued, least he should be ignorant, that thing to be graunted to him by grace, which he possesseth, and thinketh the liberalitie of God to be his owne goodnes: which thing without doubt maie gender arrogancie and pride, and maie againe be cause to him of falling. Which thing also we muste thinke of the deuill, which at the first did beleeue that his honours which he had, when he was vndefiled were his owne, and not giuen by God, and that sentence was fulfilled in him which saith, euerie one that exalteth himselfe shalbe be brought lowe. What rea­sonable man out of this discourse woulde gather the necessitie of shrift to a priest, where it is certaine the writer speaketh of the acknowledgeing of our sinnes before God, without which we can obteine no pardon, [Page 320] or remission of them at his handes, and not of confes­sing them to a Priest, as he woulde haue the ignorant reader to surmise. But let vs examine the second place, and see if that be not more plaine, for the necessitie of auricular confession. Origen in that place in Leuit. Hom. 2. allegorizeth vpon the seauen kindes of sacri­fices prescribed by the Lord for remission of sinnes, & saieth there are seauen kindes of remission of sinnes in the gos­pell, namelie. 1. In baptisme. 2. In martyrdome. 3. In al­mes giuing. 4. Inforgiuing to other men. 5. In conuerting a sinner. 6. In abundance of charitie. the seauenth he ex­presseth in these wordes, which you rehearse verie vnperfectlie, and translate falselie. Est adhuc & septima, licet dura & laboriosa, per poanitentiam remissio peccatorum, cùm lauat peccator in lachrimis stratum suum, & fiunt ei lachrimae suae panes die ac nocte, & cùm nou erubescit sacerdoti domini indicare peccatum suum. & quaerere medecinam, secundùm cum qui ait: dixi, pronunciabo aduersum me iniustitiam me­am domino, & turemisisti impietatem cordis mei. In quo im­pletur & illud quod Apostolus dicit: Si quis autem infirma­tur, vocet presbyteros Ecclesiae & imponant ei manus, vn­genteseum oleo, in nomine domini, & oratio fidei saluabit in­firmum, & si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei. There is yet a seauenth kinde of remission of sinnes, though hard and paine­full by repentance, when the sinner washeth his bed with teares, and his teares are made to him his foode daie and night, and when he is not ashamed to declare his sinne to the priest of the Lorde, and to seeke medecine, according to him which saith: I haue saide, I will pronounce against my selfe mine owne vnrighteousnes vnto the Lorde: and thou hast remitted the vngodlines of my heart: wherein that also is fulfilled which the Apostle saith: if anie man be sick, let him call the elders of the Church, and let them laie their handes vpon him, an­nointing him with oyle, in the name of the Lord, and the prai­er of faith shall saue the sicke person, and if he haue bene in sins theyshal be remitted to him. These are the words of O­rigen, but you in your latine after indicare, leaue out pee [Page 321] catum suum, and translate it, and is not ashamed to vtter all his sinnes, to make the place seeme more pregnant for auricular confession. I passe ouer that you alter the wordes folowing, which are secundùm cum qui ait initio, sicut scriptum est, by which it appareth that you borow­ed this place out of some other mans allegation, or note-booke negligentlie gathered, and doe not cite it of your owne reading. But to the matter, I answere, that Origen is not plaine for anie necessitie of shrifte to obteine remission of sinnes, when he sheweth fiue other meanes to obtaine it after baptisme, beside this. Secondlie it is euident, that he speaketh of open con­fession to be made in the exercise of publique repen­tance, which is not necessarie for all men. For other­wise there is no remission of sinnes after baptisme, but vnto them that be penitent before God, althouh they suffer martirdome, giue almes, forgiue other men, conuert sinnes, abound in charitie, if they be not sory and repent for their owne sinnes, they shall not ob­taine forgiuenes at the hands of God. He speaketh therefore of open repentance where there is open confession, which also maie be gathered by his allega­tion of the texte of Saint Iames, where not one priest for auricular confession, but the Elders of the Church are called for. The priest of the Lord also. that he nameth, by the text following of Dauides confession before God, maie be vnderstood of Christ, of whome the Leuiticall Priest, to whome Origen alludeth, was a figure, as I haue declared before: so that here is no plaine testimony, nor any certeine warrant for the ne­cessitie of eare confession: For that confession maie be made for quieting of a mans conscience we denie not: but that it is necessarie to be made by all men of all their mortall sinnes, and that without such confession there can be no remission of sinnes, that (I saie) we vt­terlie, and alwaies denie.

S. Dionise also an Apostolike man, doth inuinciblie prooue [Page 322] vnto vs, that confession to a priest, and the sacrament of pen­nance was in vse in his daies, that is to saie, in the Apostles time, for he was S. Paules scholler. He checketh verie earnestly Epist. ad De mophilum. one Demophilus a naughty Monke, that you maie see Monkes be olde, when there was an euill one in S. Dionise daies, and yet there was an euill Apostle, before there was an euill Monke, that you maie see both orders be auncient, though, be they ne­uer so holie, they cannot be alwaies void of euill. But this De­mophilus I saie, bare a great rebuke of Dyonisius, that he vsur­ped once a Priestes place and function, and that on a time he thrust backe from the Priest, and rebuked contemptuouslie a poore penitent that came to confession, and called the Prieste sitting on confession a wretch and a miser, that he durst take vpon him to make a sinner a iust man. Which wordes were verie fitte for Luthers mouth, an other. religious man of like humour and honestie. So soone was con­fession hated of the wicked, and so speedilie was it desended of the faithfull, as of Saint Dionise, who here calleth the orders & diuine actes of penance the decrees and institutions of God.

Indeed we reade that one Dionysius Areopagita was conuerted by Saint Paul, but that the author of these bookes, which goe vnder that name, was an Apostolike man, we doe vtterlie denie. For Eusebius, S. Hierome, Gennadius woulde not haue omitted the mention of such a writer and such bookes, being so diligent sertch­ers of auncient monuments of the Church as they were, if anie such had bene heard of in their times, by the space of fiue, or sixe hundreth yeares after Christ. But concerning the matter, this Dyonise who­soeuer he be, saieth nothing for the necessitie of auri­cular confession, which is the matter in question, al­though he rebuke Demophilus for abusing a poore peni­tent, & presuming to raile vpon the Priest and to com­maund him to auoide. Neither is there anie mention that the Priest did sit vpon confession, or that the pe­nitent came in popish manner to shriue himselfe, but to seeke medecine for his sinnes, perhaps to offer him­selfe to open penance for some hainous transgression [Page 323] openlie knowne, as it shoulde seeme by the wordes of Demophilus reported by Dyonisius. But thou as thine owne betters declare, didst thrust awaie with thy heeles, an vngod­lie and sinnefull man (as thou saiest) euen when he was fallen downe before the priest. Thou being present against thy selfe, then did he intreate and confesse that he was come for the hea­ling of his diseases. But thou wast not terrified, but increasing in boldnes, didst raile vpon the good priest, that he was a wretch in iustifying a penitent and an vngodlie person, and at length saidest vnto him, get the out, &c. These words prooue not although they were the wordes of Dyonisius the Areo­pagite himselfe, that it is necessarie, that euerie man is bound to confesse, euen his secret sinnes, to a Priest: And as for the sacrament of penance, which you say is in­uinciblie prooued by this place, to haue bene in vse in his daies, here is no mention thereof. Finallie where you would build the antiquity of works vpon this mans authority, to be as high as the Apostles, I must tell you, that by this place you can not, albeit the Epiflle were graun­ted to be writen by the Areopagite: For he calleth not Demophilus a Munke, as Perionius translateth the word, but [...], a seruant or inferior minister. I knowe that Maximus and Pachymeres, expound that worde to be meant of Munkes, and that this Dynoise also else­where nameth Monachos, that were in his time, but his time was farre vnder the Apostles, as is prooued inuin­ciblie by this argument, that neither Eusebius, nor Hierome, nor Gennadius maketh mention of anie such workes extant in their time, of Dyonisius Areopagita, and therefore it is certaine they were counterfaited long after, vnder his name.

I can not stand vpon euerie point, which greeueth me much, my matter is so fruitfull, and one worthie witnes is yet behinde, S. Clement (I meane him that S. Peter made his successour. Si fortè (saith he) in alicuius cor vel liuor vel infidelitas, vel ali­quod Epist. adfra trem Domi­ni. malum labenter irrepserit, non erubescat, qui animae suae curam [...] confiteri ei qui praeest, vt ab ipso per verbum & [Page 324] consilium salubre curetur, quò possit fide integra & bonis operibus, poenas aeterni ignis euadere, & ad perpetuae vitae praemia peruenire. If either enuie, or infidelitie, or anie o­ther greeuouse sore priuilie possesse mans soule, let not him that hath anie care of his saluation, be ashamed to confesse it to him that is his Prelate, that through his word and counsell, he maie be healed of his sinnes, and that in true faith and good workes he maie escape hell, and attaine to euerlasting life. Thus Saint Clement.

The points are not so manie that you should proue, but you might haue leasure enough to stand vpon them, your matter is so passing barren that for lacke of authenticall writers, you are driuen to praie aid of impudent counterfeiters, as of shameles and vnlear­ned asses, which counterfeyted the Epistles that goe vnder the name of Clemens and that without either wit, or learning, or likelihood of trueth. For who would thinke that the holie man Clemens could not write his minde in true latine? who would thinke, that such bar­barous latine was written by the bishoppe of Rome at that time, when boyes and girles did speake a hund­reth fold more pure latine? what wise bodie would thinke, that Clemens the Apostles schooler would take vpon him to teach the Apostle Saint Iames, and that such bables, as of keeping the sacraments from myse dong and rottennes, nay not onelie to teach him, but to giue him charge, à principio Epistolae vsque ad hunc lo­cum de sacramentis deleganti bene intuendis, vbi non muri­rum stercora inter fragmenta dominicae portionis appareant, neque putrida per negligentiam remaneant clericorum. From the beginning of this Epistle vnto this place, I haue giuen in charge of the sacraments to be well looked vnto, where no mise [...]urdes maie appeere among the fragments of the Lords porti­on, neither maie they remaine rotten through the negligence of clarkes. This is that worshipfull Clemens that pre­scribeth confession to a Priest. I besech thee reader (as Erasmus saith) what wit, shame, or honestie haue they, [Page 325] that will beare men in hand, these Epistles to be writ­ten by so auncient, so holy, so wise, & so learned fathers, in which is nothing but follie, barbarousnes, igno­rance, and impudencie.

THE FIRST CHAP.

OF the high power of remission and pardoning of sinnes, giuen by Christ to his onelie spouse the Church, in the Church, in the persons of her holy Bishops and priests, as a thing annexed to the wholl order, and to be exercised in the sacra­ment of penance, vpon all men that be of their seuerall iurisdi­ctions, and humblie shall submit themselues by confession of their faultes to their iudgements, I haue alreadie spoken so much, as may suffice for the satisfying of the sober, and iust re­proofe of the contentious. And now because, as well the course of my former matter, as the speciall neede of these daies driueth me thereunto, I will make further search and triall of the right of that challenge, which as well the high priest, as other princi­pall Pastours and Bishops make, by the force of their Prelacie and keye of iurisdiction, ouer and aboue the power of orders, touching Pardons and Indulgences. Whereof whiles I doe intreate, the more attention and heede I require of thee [Page 334] (gentle reader) because here all the lamentable tragedie and toile of this time first did begin, and here haue al those that perished in the late contradiction of Core principallie fallen. And in no article of Christian faith euer more offence hath bin receiued of all sortes almoste euen of the wise, then in this one of the Popes pardons.

WHen you haue heard what were these iust causes which he pretendeth, you shall plainlie see, that the authors faith was not grounded vpon Gods word, but vpon humane presumption, and therefore deserueth to be called rather a fansie then a faith. Likewise, when you shall haue read ouer the whol treatise to the ende, you shall perceiue though you read no confuta­tion, that he hath not any warrant either out of the holie scriptures, or out of the auncient fathers, for any Popes pardons, such as he should take vpon him to de­fende. For that the Church of God and pastours ther­of, haue power to release them that are bounde, and vpon perswasion of their repentance, to remit or par­don some part of the triall appointed for them, it is no question betweene vs: but of the popes pardons, graun­ted vnder his Leaden Bulls for remission of sinnes, but a poena & culpa, from the paine and from the fault, some plenarie of al their sinnes, some partial of part of their sins, some for a number of daies, some for many thou­sands of yeares, which euery one that paieth mony for them, shall haue the benefit of them, or which he gi­ueth to such an hospitall, gylde, or brotherhoode, or to him which saith such a praier, or goeth on such a pilgri mage, & such like, wherunto may be added his dispen­sations, absolutiós, exemptions, lycenses, these are the popes pardons of which the controuersy is between vs, & of which he cānot prooue, that there was either vse, or approbation, no not in the Church of Rome for a [Page 335] wholl 1000. yeares after Christ. And these when he hath saied, as much as he hath learned to saie for them, out of the decretalls, Clementines, and Extraua­gants, you shall finde to be by his & their owne determi­nation, nothing ells but as they are called in Latine, Bullae Bubles, great in appeerance, but altogether emp­tie and voide of profit. The attention of the gentle reader I do likewise require, beccause he may see, what good occasion Luther had to seperate himselfe from the Popish Church, as from the whore of Babylon, Apocal. 16. which so obstinately defended such abhominable blas­phemies, which all wise and reasonable men haue ei­ther abhorred, or as he confesseth, beene offended at them. And yet let the reader marke, how boldlie he cal­leth this article of the popes pardons, an article of Chri­stian faith, whereof the Church of god neuer heard for a thousand yeares & more since Christs assension, be­fore the loosing of Satā out of the bottomles pit, when Antichrist was bolde to set abroad al his impieties, and to sit not in a mysterie of iniquitie, but openlie in the sight of al men, in the temple of God, and to exalt him-selfe aboue all that is called God or worshiped.

And to be plaine in the matter, where sinceritie is moste re­quired, two causes mooued me to beleeue, like, and allow of the power of pardons and indulgencies, long before I either knew the commodities of them, or had sought out the ground and meaning of them. The first was the Churches authoritie, which I credited in all other articles before I knew any of them, or could by reason or scripture mainteine them. Whose iudge­ment to follow by my Christian profession in all other pointes, and to forsake in this one of Popes pardons, had beene meere follie, and a signe of phantasticall choise of things indif­ferent, which is the proper passion of heresie. Neither did I then know, that the Church of Christ had allowed such thinges, because I had read the determination of any generall Councells, or decrees of some chiefe gouernours of the saide Church, touching such pardons, or because I had by hi­stories [Page 336] and note of diuerse ages seene the practize of the faithfull people herein, by which waies her meaning of doubtfull things is most assuredlie knowne, but onelie I deemed that the Church allowed them, and misliked the contrarie, be­cause such as bare the name of Christian folke and Catholike did approoue them, and sometimes lamented the lacke of them. And surelie for an vnlearned man, I count it the brie­fest rule in the worlde, to keepe him selfe both in faith and conuersation euer with that companie, which by the generall and common calling of the people, be named Catholikes. For that name kept Saint Augustine himselfe in the trueth and Contra Epi­stolam Ma nicgaei quā vocant fun­dament. Cap. 4. true Church, much more it may doe the simple sorte, who is not hable to stande with an heretike, that will challenge the Church to himselfe, by Sophisticall reasons, from the Chri­stians, that for lacke of learning can not answere him. Well, this companie of Catholikes brought me to know the Church, and my creede caused me to beleeue the Church no lesse con­cerning the Popes Pardons, then any other article of our Chri­stian profession, which though it were not of like weight, yet it was to me of like trueth, and all in like vnknowne at that time.

Your pretence of plainnes, & sinceritie, is but craft and sub tiltie, to deceiue the simple and ignorant, that they might please themselues in their blindenes, and by your example thinke themselues at ease in their ig­norance. For what reasonable man will be perswa­ded, that you could beleeue, like, and allow that thing, whereof you know no vse, nor whence it came, or what it meaned. But here you shew what faith is accounted among the Papists, a fond perswasion of any thing that is tolde them by their teachers, although they nei­ther knowe what commoditie it bringeth, nor what ground of trueth it hath, nor finallie what it meaneth. But howsoeuer it was, two causes mooued you, where­of you professe that hearing of the worde of God was neither. The first was the Churches authoritie, which you credited in all other articles, before you knew any of them, or [Page 337] could by reason, or scripture, mainteine them. So by your owne confession you did as many papists doe, beleeue you knew not what, which faith would neuer bring you to eternall life, which consisteth in knowledge of God and Iesus Christ according to that which is writen, that Ioh. 17. & 20. wee might beleeue and be saued. But seeing you could nei­ther by reason, nor by scripture, mainteine those ar­ticles to be true, which you beleeued, how could you be perswaded that this companie was the Church of Christ, the piller of trueth, rather then the Church of Antichrist, the mother of heresies and errors? For all swarmes of heretikes challenge vnto themselues the name of the Church, and require credit to be giuen vnto them: and the more heretikes the lesse care they haue to make any triall of their doctrine to be trueth: what had you more to per­swade your conscience, that you were in the right waie, then a lew or a Turke hath, which credi­teth the companie amongst whome he is bred and borne, without examining by reason, or the scrip­ture, whether those thinges which they teach them be the trueth or no? But it had beene a signe of phan­tasticall choyce of thinges indifferent (you saie) which is the proper passion of heresie, to follow the Churches iudgement in all other points, and to forsake it in this one of Popes Pardons. Where you saie the phantasticall choice of things indifferent is the proper passion of heresie, I know not what you meane, except you thinke that he­retikes are deceiued onelie in the choise of thinges in­different, or that whosoeuer maketh some phantastical choise of thinges indifferent, is an heretike: neither of which opinions, I trowe, you are able to main­teine. For though some heretikes make a phanta­sticall choise of thinges indifferent, I suppose it is not proper onelie to heretikes: for some schismatikes that be not heretikes, make such a phantasticall choise; and the phantastical choise of heretikes is most [Page 338] occupied about principall groundes, and articles of faith, not about thinges indifferent onelie. Moreouer I would know, whether you account the Popes pardons to be things indifferent, or necessarie for the Church: for if they be but thinges indifferent, you doe not wise­lie, to be contentious about them. Finallie, seeing a companie of heretikes maie erre in one article, and teach soundlie in all other, as the Arians, Donatists, Nouatians, and such like, a man maie followe the iudgement of such a companie, in all other points, and without follie or signe of fantasticall choise, departe from them in that one wherein they erre. And there­fore your faith was as good, as his, that beleeueth there is a man in the moone, because he heareth ma­nie men saie so, whome he dare credit in other mat­ters, and is loth to forsake them in this' one. But your Christian profession, mooued you to follow the Churches iudge­ment in all things. And what heretike will not saie as much, without triall or proofe, which is the Church, or what is Christian profession? Therefore what ground had you that your profession was Christian, or your felowship the Church of Christ? You confesse you had neither the determination of generall coun­cells, nor the decrees of the chife gouernours of your Church, nor the practise of the people in diuers ages, by which waies you saie the Churches mea­ning of doubtfull thinges, is moste assuredlie knowne: but onelie you deeme the Church allowed them. So that you, because such as bare the name of Chri­stian folke and Catholike men did approoue them, had nothing but the bare name of Christian folke, and Catholike men to ground your deeme vpon. And is the bare and onelie name of Christian and Catho­like men, so sure a ground to build faith vpon, without either the authoritie of the scriptures, reason, deter­mination of general councels, or decrees of the chief gouernours of the same, or the practise of the faithful [Page 339] in auncient times? then surelie Iet all heretikes con­tent themselues, where they are, and dwell togither: for there they shall haue the name of Christian folke and Catholike men: which you account to be the bree­fest rule in the worlde for an vnlearned man, to keepe himselfe both in faith, and conuersation, with that companie, which, by the generall and common cal­ling of the people, be named Catholikes. The rule in­deed is verie briefe, and you saie in the margent also, that it is good. But who I praie you prescribeth this rule, doth God the author of trueth? where finde you it in his worde? shall the generall and common calling of the people be the vnlearned mans rule to direct him to the Church, which is the piller and staie of truth? then surelie the vnlearned Gre­cians, Aethiopians, Armenians, and other that dissent from the Church of Rome, and from the truth it selfe, haue a good and briefe rule to holde them where they are, for by the generall and common cal­ling of the people in those partes of the world, they be named Christians, and Catholikes. Yea the rule ser­ueth them ten times better then you Papists, the for­gers of it, for they haue the more generall and com­mon calling of the people, to be Catholikes in those places, then you haue here in Europe, by a hundred parts. For there no man calleth them otherwise then Christians and Catholikes, here you haue (God be praised) many hundreth thousandes of the people, that commonlie call you Papists, heretikes, antichristians, Cacolikes and such other names, agreeing to your heresies. If you will cauill that by the generall and common calling of the people, they be not named Catholikes, because you Papistes doe neither so call them, nor count them, they maie answere you by the same reason, that you are not by generall & common calling of the people named Catholikes, because nei­ther they nor we doe so call you, or account you. But it [Page 340] is fufficient belike that you call your selues, so and the rule is to be restrained to people of these partes of the world, and among them to Papists onelie; and so it is as good a rule, as that, aske my fellow if I be a theefe. A good rule indeed for vnlearned Papists, because draffe is good enough for swine, which had rather sleepe in the myre, and puddle of ignorance, then come to the knowledge of the truth by searching the scriptures, in which Christ the waie, the truth, and the life, is to be Ioh. 14. 6. Ioh 5. 39. 1. Pet. 3. 15. found, and out of which all Christians ought to gather knowledge, that they maie be able to giue account of that hope that is in them.

But Saint Augustine (I wene) should be author of this rule, for vnlearned men, although he himselfe were not vnlearned, Contra epistolam Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti, Cap 4. This is great impietie to faine so absurd a rule, and then to slaunder so godly a father, to be either the author or approouer therof. For Saint Augustine indeed, against the Maniches, which were a particuler sect of heretikes, confesseth that among manie other thinges, the name of the Catholike Church did holde him in the bosome thereof: but not that the onelie name of Catholikes was a good rule for vnlearned men to know the Church by. But pro­testing to reason the matter with them, without anie preiudice, and to trie the trueth without anie rashnes, as one willing to yeald vnto thē, if they can perswade him with trueth, so that they shall not require him to yeald, before they can giue him a cleere reason with­out anie darkenes, of allthinges pertaining to the sal­uation of his soule, thus he beginneth; In Catholica e­nim Ecclesia, vt omittā, &c. For in the Catholike Church, that I maie omitte that moste sincere wisdome, vnto the knowledge where of a fewe spirituall men doe come in this life, that they maie knowe it, but of the lest part, because they are men, but yet without doubt: for the rest of the multitude not the quick­nes of vnderstanding, but the simplicitie of beleeuing doeth, [Page 341] make moste false: Therefore that I maie omitte this wisdome, which you beleeue not to be in the Catholike Church, there are manie other thinges which maie moste iustlie holde me in her lappe. The consent of people and nations holdeth me, the au­thoritie begunne with miracles, nourished with hope, increa­sed with charitie, confirmed with antiquitie, holdeth me: The succession of Priests from the verie seate of Peter the Apostle, to whome our Lorde after his resurrection commended his sheeepe to be fedde, vnto this present bishoprike doeth holde me: last of all the verie name of Catholike Church doth holde me, which not without cause among so manie heresies, this Church alone hath so obtained, that whereas all heretikes would haue themselues to be called Catholikes, yet to a straun­ger that asketh, where men meet at the Catholike Church, none of the heretikes dare shewe either their owne Church or house. Therfore these so manie & so great most deare bondes of Chri­stian name, doe rightlie holde a man that beleeueth in the Catholike Church: although for the dulnes of our vnderstan­ding, or the desert of our life, the tructh doth not yet shewe it selfe moste openlie. But among you, where none of these things is that maie inuite or holde me, there soundeth nothing but the promise of truth, which indeed if it be shewed so manifest, that it cannot come in doubt, it is to be preferred before all those things, by which I am holden in the Catholike Church. But if it be onelie promised, and not exhibited, no man shall mooue me from that faith, which bindeth my minde with so manie and great knottes vnto Christian religion. Let vs see therfore what Maniche doth teach me, &c. These wordes declare that setting aside the wisdom of the Church grounded vpō the scriptures which the heretikes would not acknow­ledge, there were manie other things that might iust­lie holde him in the Catholike Church, among which the name of Catholikes was but one, and serued one­lie at that time, when the Catholike religion was moste commonlie imbraced: therefore he denied not that the name of Catholike onelie was sufficient to teach a man to knowe the Church, and the trueth [Page 342] by it: but acknowledgeth that all these motiues of vniuersalitie, consent, miracles, succession, name of Catholike, must giue place to the trueth, when it is plainlie shewed out of the canonicall scriptures, as in the chapter following he vrgeth them to shew out of the gospells of Christ, wher it is writen, that Manicheus was an A­postle of Christ, as his sect affirmed, and his epistle pre­tended. As for the reason you alledge, that vnlearned men are not able to stand with heretikes in disputation, which wil challenge the Church to themselues, is of no force. for the vnlearned man ought to know the Church by the true notes thereof, conteined in the scriptures, which is sufficient for to satisfie his conscience, although he can not cunninglie auoide all the Sophisticall arguments that the aduersarie bringeth: whereas theonelie name of Catholikes can breede no true faith, or quietnes of minde, which is not obteined by the peoples iudge­ment, but by authoritie of the worde of God. And seing the people are commonlie deceiued in many matters of difficultie, and moste of all in misnaming of things, what assurance shall the vnlearned haue, that they be not deceiued in this so weightie a matter, and wherein their speach may so easilie be abused. But howsoeuer it was, the common calling of the people, brought you to know Catholikes, Catholikes to know the Church, and the creede taught you to beleeue the Church rules in Popes pardons, then in other articles. Thus is your faith builded altogether vpon humane presumptions, the ladder whereof is this. you beleeue Popes pardons, because the Church of Rome alloweth them, you beleeue the Church of Rome, because it is the Catholike Church. you be­leeue that it is the Catholike Church, because the people commonlie call it so. But of Christian faith, Saint Paull describeth another ladder, faith commeth by hearing, hearing by the worde of God, preached by mini­sters Rom. 10. sent of God: so that against the authoritie of god, who giueth both his worde and preachers, and by [Page 343] them true faith, you haue the generall and common calling of men, which giue authority to that companie to be the Church, which is surnamed Catholike, which company so called may cause you to beleeue what they list, and this indeed is the ground of al your heresies, if you had gone one step lower, that the Deuill inspi­reth ignorant, and wicked men, to call his fowle blouse the Romish synagogue, by the name of the beautifull spouse of Christ his Catholike Church.

The second cause that mooued me to reuerence the power of pardoning in the high Bishup, and to like his Indulgences, was the verie persons of them which first reprooued the same. In whome because I saw the worlde to note and wonder at other manie moste blasphemous and inexcusable heresies, I verilie deemed (though I was then for my age almoste ignorant of all thinges) that this opinion and impugnation of Pardons, could neither be of God, nor of good motion, that first began in them, & begate such a number of most wicked & cōtentio is opinions, as streight vpon the controlling of the Churches power herein did ensue, not onelie against Christs officers in earth, but against his Saints in heauen, & against himselfe in the blessed Sacra­ment. This extreame & intollerable issue mee thought verilie could haue no holie entraunce, and therfore, with the other na­med cause stayed me in the Churches faith, euen then when I had no feeling nor sense in the meaning of these matters.

You were a wise young man in those daies, when be­ing almost ignorant of all things, as you confesse, you would follow the iudgement of the worlde, in condemning the persons of them that reprooued pardons, and were not able to iudge whe­ther they were iustlie condemned of other blasphemous & inex­cusable heresies. Nay at this presēt time as great a cleark as you are taken to be among your friends, you are not able to conuince thē of such blasphemous & inexcusa­ble heresies as you prate of. And yet if you had bin thō as able iustly to haue reproued thē by the scriptures of such monsters as the world did wonder at in them, yet you staied vpō a weake staffe, except this be a good at­gumēt with you: heretiks hold manifest false opinions, [Page 344] therefore they holde no true opinions. Much more wiselie and soundlie you should haue sought the true Church, as Saint Augustine teacheth, out of the scrip­tures, and thereby iudged of the worldes noting and wondring, which because it consisteth moste of wic­ked men, doth commonlie condemne Christ and his Gospell. Out of the same scripture you should haue learned, who were Christes officers, and whoe the limmes of Antichrist, what honour is due vnto the saints in heauen, and what manner presense there is of Christ vpon earth. But as your faith was thē grounded vpō simple sophistrie, in supposing that which no wise man will graunt: so is it not now much differing from the same, although you haue learned with more craft, to peruert a few scriptures, and to wrest the sayinges of some dctors, for a florish, hauing no more substance of true faith which is builded vpon the word of God, then you had before. For if your shameles principle be denyed, that you are the Church of Christ, then you come back to these beggerlie motyues, as in your articles, and Bristowes motyues is manifest, being not able either to finde the notes of the true Church in the synagogue of Rome, nor to iustify the doctrine of the Church of Rome, to be builded vpon the foun­dation of the Prophets and Apostles, when triall is to be made by their writings.

But afterwad, reading the historie of the pitifull fal of our time, and there considering the sinister intent and occasion of the first improofe of Pardons, and all the strange endeuours of Luther (whose name is cursed to all good men) who first in all mans memorie, sauing one Wicleffe, who was condemned in Constance Councell for the same, was so bolde onelie vpon contention and couetousnes to condemne that, which himselfe in Conscience knew to be true and lawfull, I could not but much be confirmed in my faith thereby. And yet all this while though the matter of pardons seemed to me to be more and more sound in it selfe, and as true as the Spirit of God is true, [Page 345] who was the author thereof in the Church, yet I did not then consider of it, as a thing of anie great importance, but I con­ceiued it to be a small matter, subiect to a certaine iugling in reason, such as wicked men lightlie make their close and craf­tie entrance by, to more mischiefe, and further attemptes a­gainst the common faith of the Church: I could not then con­ceiue, which I after ward so plainlie, and now more and more by the better surueie of the cause do perceiue, that in this one falsehood there was couertlie conteined the verie pith of falsehood, and improofe of the greatest matters which life and faith doth stand vpon.

Your first motiues to this faith of yours were not more feeble, then your confutations in the same were fond and foolish. You did reade the storie of the alteration in religion that hath fallen in our time. But of whose writing I praie you? euen of such as were proctors for the Popes pedlarie ware, or pillers of his pretensed pow­er, which was none other, but according to the pro­uerb before mentioned, aske my fellow if I be a thiefe. If you had read the storie written indifferentlie, with­out partialitie to either partie, you might haue iud­ged better of the wholle matter. Some perhapes are liuing that can testifie of the things that were done, & publike monuments are extant totestifie the same, so much more intollerable is your arrogancie, to iudge vpon the onelie sinister report of the aduersaries of Luther (of holie and blessed memorie, with all true Christians) that onelie contention and couetousnes mooued him to condemne that, which himselfe in conscience knew to be true and lawfull. Like boldnes you shew in affirming, that Luther was the first in all mans memorie, sauing one [...] that despised pardons, forgetting the Waldenses, that were long before Wiclefe, and the Bohemians that were after him before Luther, who condemned popish pardons as much as Wiclife or Luther. For they con­demned the Pope to be Antichrist, as much as these did. But now let vs examine the storie as it is [Page 346] knowne to be moste true in Saxonie where Luther first found fault with pardons. When Pope Leo. 10. had sent abroad his pardons, which were preached by Terelius a Dominike frier in such impudent manner, that they seemed to serue for no end, but the Popes couetousnes, and the licentiousnes of the people: Lu­ther at that time hauing a zeale of God, but not ac­cording to knowledge, did mildelie and modestlie ad­monish the people of the deceites and abuses of par­dons and pardoners, which long before his time were reprooued, in the Councells of Latrean, and Vienna, he complained to the Archbishoppe of Ments, to the Bishop of Branderburg, to the prouinciall of the Augustine friers, and to the Pope him selfe: in all thinges submitting him selfe to the Pope, and Church of Rome, so it were not against the holie scriptures. When he could finde no equity, nor redresse of these a­buses, In suppl. Nau. which euen Surius the papist, confesseth to haue bene iustlie complained of by him, and vniustlie man­teined, or dissembled by the prelates, he proceeded farther, as God gaue him knowledge; and at length compelled by intollerable iniurie, and neglect of ma­nifest trueth and reformation of lise, did cast of the Anrichristian yoke of the Popes obedience. Now whereas you charge him with contention, and coue­tousnes, the world your iudge before, maie gather whether Luther, if against his conscience he would haue set forth the Popes pardons, especiallie at such time as the Pope had great neede of monie for warre against the Turkes, might not haue made a more easie waie, for him selfe, to honour and ri hes, then by set­ting himselfe against them. But howsoeuer it was your fault, faith was thus confirmed, and that to such blasphemous boldnes, that without authoritie of the holie scriptures, the matter of pardons, seemed to you, as true, as the spirit of God is true, and hauing none other arguments to perswade you, but that Pa­pistes [Page 347] called them selues the Catholike Church, and condemned Luther of manie heresies, and write in their stories that Luther was mooued by contention and couetousnes, to oppose him selfe against them, you nothing doubted but that the spirit of God was author of popes pardons in the Church. Beeing now resolued of the substance, you were not yet per­swaded of the quantitie, but thinkeing the matter at the first was but small, at length you came to a perfect knowledge, how great and weightie it is, and how it draweth with it all other waight, in so much that the verie pith of the greatest matters of popish life and faith doe stand vpon it. If then the pith ofthe grea­test matters of poperie doe stand in Popes pardons, and this pith hath no ground either in the scriptures, or the fathers of the Church, for a thousand yeares after Christ, we maie the more easily see, that the plant of poperie, whereof pardons is the pith, is not of Gods owne planting, and therefore shalbe plucked vp by the rootes.

Thou wouldest not thinke, I dare saie, into what a summe and abridgment heresie hath by the Deuilles deuise and Lu­thers seruice drawne her selfe into. For by this one false con­clusion, and for maintenance thereof, this man and his posteri­tie haue taken awaie all penance and satisfaction for sinne, haue spoiled the Church of her iust and and moste necessarie discipline, controlled Gods owne holie vsage incorrection of his children, haue entered into his secrets of the next world, and there abandoned the place of his iustice and iudgement for sinnes that be remitted, but not enough to his wisdome and will corrected, haue robbed the holie Saints of all their me­rites, that is to saie, Christ of his giftes and grace, whereby onelie they besosoneraigne and satisfactorie, haue imbarred the bodie mysticall of Christ, of the benefit which the wholl and euerie member thereof should receiue by the satisfaction and holie workes of the common head, which is Christ, haue broken the communion of Saints, and the sweet felowship of all [Page 348] the holie members of Gods Church, and the benefit which ri­seth frometh to other, by mutuall participation of their good works and desertes, and to be short, haue by this one falsehood preached against pardons, done iniurie to Christ, to his Church, to his Saints, and to his sacraments, and haue mightelie shaken the whole frame of Christian religion and doctrine. I doe not here riot in wordes to ouerrunne my aduersaries in talke, or to make more of the matter then it is: but assuredlie without de­struction of all these so necessarie articles of our faith, there can no man defend Luthers doctrine against Indulgences. I knowe he fumbled at the beginning otherwise then his fel­lowes and followers to disgrace the same, sometimes by holding the pardons to be lawfull, but not profitable: other whiles, to be deceites, but yet inuented for holie purposes, now by avouching they could not stand with Gods iustice, if they shoulde remitte anie part of the appointed paine for sinnes, and else when that there was no paine for remitted sinnes at all, whereupon the indulgences should not be needfull but vaine and friuolous: with such other inconstant stammering, as lightlie is common to them that seeke to vp hold falshood against their owne skill and consciences.

But his followers, as well of the Protestants, as Zuinglians and Caluinistes, to make the waie of wickednes more easie and plaine, haue boldlie denied all penance and temporall paine for sinne remitted, whether it be by Christs or the Churches en­ioyning, haue taken awaie Purgatorie, haue bereued Priest­hood of all power, and the Church of all her treasure of Christes copious and abundant redemption. Whereupon I cannot o­therwise iudge, but that doctrine which else can not be refelled, but by the waste of so manie vndoubted articles, should stande exceeding fast, and be grounded moste surelie vpon all these foresaide truthes, without the destruction whereof it can not be of anie force ouerturned.

As no man would thinke any such matter, if you had not put it in their heades: so no wise men can thinke otherwise of Pardons, then he did before you tooke in hande their defence, sauing that all [Page 349] reasonable men may thinke them so much the worsse, because you are able to defend them no better. And if all the principles of popery (as you saie) be contained in the matter of pardons, as in a summe, or abridgment, the chil­dren of God maie behold the prouidence of god, more clearelie, in setting Luther first against them, at such time as he knewe no such matter, neither had anie pur­pose but to disswade the moste grosse abuses, and pal­pable impostures which were that time mantained a­bout them, alowing the pardons still as good and law­ful. But for the mantainers of this conclusion, you say, he and his, haue taken awaie all penance, and satisfaction for sinne, &c. Naie they haue established and restored the true vse of repentance and shewed that the death of Christ, is the onelie satisfaction for sinnes: the disci­pline of the Church, from a batbarous antichristian tyrannie, they haue reduced within the limmites of the scriptures, and the practize of the primatiue and pureit age of the Church: the chastising that God vseth, for correction of his children, they haue taught out of the scriptures, how it is to be taken patientlie as an admo­nition for amendement, not an amends for our misdo­ing, which sauoreth as much of pride, as their doctrine doth of humility. The secrets of the next world not re­ueiled in the scriptures, they leaue vntil the time of the general reuelation of al secrets, and therfore they pre­sume not to allow purgatorie paines, for the clensing of those sinnes, which the scripture teacheth to be purged, by the bloode of Christ, in whome all our sinnes are thorowlie punished, to the full satisfaction of the iustice and wisedome of God. They haue left to the saints al their merits, which is nothing els but the grace of God, sufficient for their saluation, not pla­cing the workes of saints in the place of Christes pas­sion which is onelie of it selfe soueraigne and satisfa­ctorie for all men. The mysticall bodie of Christ, and the holie cōmunion of saints, they beleeue to receiue [Page 350] all vertue and power of life from Christ the head, and euery member to exercise that office, which by his grace is assigned vnto it, therefore they haue done no iniurie to Christ, his Church, his saints, sacraments, or his holy Religion, but their dutie in purging the doctrine ofChrist, his Church, his saints, sacraments, and Religion, from error, falsehood, heresie, and blasphemie. You tell the reader that you doe not riot in wordes to ouerrunne your aduersarie: but if he be wise, he will remēber, that a crafty orator, doth sonest deceiue, when he pretendeth moste plainenes. What Luther thought, and taught, at the first of pardons his writings are extant in print to declare, in which he confesseth that he did fight in the darke, yet it pleased God by the importunitie of his aduersaries, to sturre him vp to search the trueth out of the holie scriptures. Nei­ther hath Zuinglius or Caluine, or anie of the Protestants taught otherwise of repentance, satisfaction, power of priesthood, or the tresure of the Church, then Lu­ther did, after God had reueiled the trueth vnto him, and he openlie preached the same. Seeing therefore the matter of pardons cannot stand, but vpon the blasphemous heresies, which the popish antichristian Church doth teach, against the glorie of the onelie redemption of Iesus Christ, our onelie and whole sa­uiour and reedemer, it must needs be one of those pe­stilent poisons, which Sathan, after his loosing out of, the bottomeles pit, hath powred forth into the world the defacing of the glorie of Christ, and the destructi­on of manie ignorant soules.

Therefore, least any man by making smaller accompt of so litle a braunch of the Churches faith, then he should do, fall further vnto the mistrusting of other many of knowen impor­tance, I thought it good, to debate the question of Indulgen­ces, which be now commonly called the Popes Pardons, though not onely he, but also other Prelates of Christendome haue their seuerall right, eche one according to the measure of [Page 351] the Churches graunt, and his iurisdiction therein. In which matter, because most men of smaler trauail haue erred, rather by misconstruing the case, & mistaking the state of the cause, then for any lacke of sufficient proofe of the matter after it were wel vnderstanded: I will studie first clearly to open the meaning of that, whereon we stande, and then to go through the whole question with as much light and breuitie as I can: tempering my selfe, as much as I maie, from all such [...], as the depth of so grounded a conclusion, and the learned dis­putation of Schoolmen might driue me vnto. Wherein I am content, rather to followe the desire and contentation of the reader, then to satisfie my owne appetite, which I feele in my selfe, to be somewhat more greedie of matter sometimes, then the common people, whome I studie moste to helpe, can well beare: and yet if they thinke it anie vantage to knowe trueth, and the necessarie Doctrine of their faith, they must learne to abide the orderlie methode, and compasse of the cause, and fur­ther I shall not charge them.

You come to late after the vanitie. treacherie, and blasphemie of pardons hath beene so long set abroad, and knowen to the world, and bringing no better stuffe then you do, to suppose that you shalbe able to re­store pardons, into the auncient credit they had, within these foure score yeares, euen with the simplest papist in Europe. You would make the matter more plausible, by communicating the right of pardons, to all prelates of christendome, as wel as to the Pope, whereas indeed your popish Church keeping no proportion, aloweth none of thē aboue 40. daies at once, except it be at the dedication of a Church, & thē he hath but one yeare: & this authoritie also pinched with diuers restraintes, whereas the pope smelling the sweetnes of them, since the Laterane councel, in which his modesty is comen­ded, that though he had fulnes of power, yet he vsed it not, to be ouerlauish in graunting of pardons, hath bro ken al banks of moderation, & graunted 10000 20000. 40000. 100000. yeares of pardon, yea generall pardons [Page 352] ofIubelie, à poena & culpa, from all sinnes and penances due for them, whether men haue erred by misconstru­ing the case, and what orderlie method you haue obserued with regard of the peoples capacitie we shall consider in that which followeth.

THE SECOND CHAP.

FOr the vnderstanding therefore of the tearme, Par­don, or grace, or Indulgence, let it be oansidered, that proper lie they import not the remission of anie deadlie crime considered in them-selues, and as seperated from the sa­crament of penance, nor yet signifie anie release of eternall damnation or euerlasting punishment, which onelie allwaies is remitted when the deadlie sinne, for which it was due, is forgi­uen. For there can no power in earth be so great, nor any mans iurisdiction so simple, that he maie forgiue mortall offences, since the institution of the sacrament of penance, except he vse the confession of the partie with his contrition and sure intent neuer to commit the like againe, yea and with purpose to satis­fie the iustice of God, by Christes grace, as he maie, according to the enioyning of his iudge therein. For God him-selfe, be­cause he is righteous and true, can not forgiue anie man his sinnes, either by this sacrament of penance, or otherwise, be­ing of yeares and time of discretion, except he be penitent for the same: that is to saie, except he be both contrite, and at the least willing to confesse his offences, if it be after relapse, and to suffer due correction therefore. And seeing God can not pardon anie man of his deadlie sinnes, except he be thus qualified, much lesse maie a mortall man, be he neuer so great in dignitie or calling in the Church, take vp­on [Page 353] him to forgiue or pardon him that is guiltie of deadlie sinne and damnation, without the confession and submission of the penitent, as is premised. All this trueth hangeth orderlie vp­on the necessitie of the sacrament of Penance, and Christs or­dinance therein, whereby he hath made deadly sinnes onely re­missible in that sacrament, by the confession of the partie to a Priest, who hath in his order receiued power to remit them, as is sufficientlie prooued in the former parte of this treatise, and it is onely a Priest, whether he be of base state, or high dignitie, that can lawfullie loose mens sinnes, as by the key of his order, as they terme it, with sufficient iurisdiction ouer the penitent, for the secret discussing of his conscience in this sacrament of Confession.

This wholl Chapter conteineth nothing but po­sitions, without any ground of authoritie of scripture, or testimonte of Doctours, as though it were sufficient onely to affirme them: which if they be not graunted, all that followeth of Pardons is nothing worth. The first is, That Pardons do not properly importe the remission of any deadly crime, or the punishmēt due for the same. The rea­sons that followe serue to prooue, that pardons for deadlie sinnes, and the paine due for them, are vnprofitable, but they prooue not, that they doe not import such remission, either by the Popes intende­ment, or by the pardoners preaching of them, or in the opinion of the purchasers, and receiuers of them. The glosse vpon the Clementine. l. 5. de poenitentiis, & re missionibus. c. 2. yealding a reason why the Pope repro­ueth the pardoners which toke vpon thē to graunt ple nary remission of sins, & to absolue men à poena & culpa, hath these wordes: à poena & culpa ista est plenissima pec­catorum remissio, quae conceditur cruce signatis pro subsidio vl­tramarino, &c. quam solus papa concedit. From the paine and the fault, this is a moste full remission of sinnes, which is graun­ted to them that are marked with the crosse, for aide beyond the sea, which the Pope alone doth graunt: by which it appee­reth, that the Pope taketh vpon him iustlie, to graunt [Page 354] pardon of all sinnes, mortall and veniall, which the pardoners vniustlie presumed to do, without suffici­ent warrant. So doth Pope Boneface the 8, the inuen­tor of Iubilie pardons, graunt, Non solùm plenam & largi­orem, immo plenissimam omnium suorum veniam peccatorum, not onelie a full and large pardon, but a most full pardon of all their sinnes. If the pope speake vnproperlie, when he vt­tereth such emphatical and superlatiue speeches, how shal plaine men vnderst and what he meaneth. I know that some of the Canonistes, who haue more care that his decrees should hang together, then the Pope him self, when he graunteth pardons for aduantage, do in­terpret the word peccatorum to signify paines due for sins, & yet by this cursed glosse, that corrupteth the text, release of eternal paine due for deadly sinne is not ex­cluded. The author of the glosse confesseth, that this epistle was verie grosly made. Haecepistola satis gros­sè fuit composita, and therefore it must be healped by glosses, for their sakes that can dispute against it, but for the common people it is good enough in the literal sense. In so much that the glosse saith vpon the word plenissimam. Sed quomodo ista compatiuntur plenā, largiorem, & plenissimā? Dico Papam interpretatum fuisse in consistorio me presense, hane indulgentiam adeo plenam, prout clauium po­testas se extendet, quod intelligo prout verba patiūtur. But how do these words hang together, & the one abide the other, a ful, a more large, & a most ful pardon? I say that the pope in the consi­story in my presense, did interpret this pardon, to be so ful as the power of the keies doth extend it selfe, which I do vnderstand as the words doe suffer. Whereby it is manifest that the Pope restraining the fullnesse of his open pardon, sent into all the world by his priuie interpretations in his consistorie, doth nothing els but delude the world by his pardons, as it shal more plainly appeare by the rea sons that are afterward brought forth to defend them from the pretended slaunders of their impugners. But further to prooue, that the Pope hath taken [Page 355] vpon him, by pardon to remit deadlie sinne, I alledge a Bul of confirmation graunted by Pope Leo the tenth anno. 1513. Sept. id. martij, Pontif. anno primo, the copie wherof is printed, with the subscription of two publike notaries, to testifie that it agreeth with the originall: which Bull was graunted, Hospitali Sancti [...] in Saxia almae vrbis. In which is an approbation of all pardons graunted by his predecessours to the saide hospitall and the members thereof. Whereof there are rehearsed, that Innocent the third graunted to the faith and deuotion of the faithfull, and the saluation of their soules, to all that visit the said hospitall and the members thereof, from the feast of the natiuitie of our Lord, and euerie day vnto the octaues thereof, two thousand and 800. yeares of pardons. The same In­nocent graunted to the said hospitall and the mem­bers thereof in euerie festiuite of the Apostles 2000. yeares of pardons. The same Ionocent graunted to the said hospitall, and the members thereof, euerie daie of the wholl yeare, one yeare, and 40. daies of par­don. Also Pope Alexander the fourth, graunted to the saied hospitall, and the members thereof, from the feast of the holie ghost, in the moneth of Ianuarie, eue­rie daie vntill the octaues of the same feast foure thou­sand yeares, and eight hundred Lents of pardon, & re­mission of the seuenth part of al their sins. And on the Sundaie in which there is song, for the introite of the Masse, Omnis terra, the said Alexander graunted to the saied hospitall, and to all and euerie the members thereof, the first Sondaies of euerie moneth of the yeare 3000. yeares, and as many Lentes, and remissi­on of the third part of all their sinnes. The same A­lexander graunted to the saide hospitall and the mem­bers thereof, from the feast of Corpus Christi euerie daie vntill the octaues 2000. yeares, and remission of the seuenth part of all their sinnes. Pope Celestinus the 5. graunted to the saide hospitall and the members [Page 356] therof, from the feast of the Epiphany vnto the octaues euerie daie, a hundreth thousand yeares of Pardons. The same Celestine graunted to the saied hospitall, and the members thereof, from the feast of the natiuitie of the Virgin Marie, and in the octaues euerie daie thirtie thousand yeares of Pardon, & as many Lentes. Also Pope Clement the 5. graunted to the said hospitall and the members thereof, from the feast of the resur­rection of Christ vnto the octaues thereof, euerie daie, two thousand and eight hundreth yeares of Par­don. Item Pope Boneface the 8. graunted to the [...] hospitall, and to the members thereof, from the feast of the ascension of Christ vnto the octaues 2500 yeares of Pardons. Item Pope Clement the sixt graunted to the said hospitall, and to all the members thereof, from the feast of Pentecost vnto the octaues thereof euerie daie 8000. yeares & 8000. Lentes, & full remis­sion of all their sinnes. Item Pope Innocent the 6. hath graunted to the said hospitall, and to the members thereof, from the feast of the assumption of the blessed Marie, vnto the octaues thereof, euerie daie, 2000. yeares and 2000. Lentes of Pardons, Item Pope Benedict the 12. hath graunted to the saide hospi­tall and the members thereof, from the feast of all Saints, to the feast of Saint Leonard 3000. yeares, and as many Lentes of Pardons. The summe of the daies of pardon graunted by Popes, and by 60 Archbishops, and by 70. Bishops, in the consistorie of Lateran con­firmed by the authoritie Apostolike, maketh 700. yeares and as many Lentes. The summe of the Mas­ses of the wholl order by the yeare, maketh thirtie two thousand, and as many psalters of the bretheren which are of the order.

In these liberall grauntes, where there is not onely thousandes of yeares and Lents, by which you vnder­stand paines, & penances, inioyned, or due for sinne, what meaneth the remission of the seuenth part, of the third [Page 357] part of all their sinnes, yea full remission of all their sinnes? ex­cept the Pope meane either to mocke men, that re­ceiue his pardons, or els tooke vpon him to remit dead­ly sin, as the words sound, & can haue none other sense, seeing there is not onelie the vniuersall particle, all their sinnes, but also remission of sinnes is distinct from paine of penance due for sinnes. Againe, what should neede so large pardon for veniall sinnes, which may so easilie be remitted without pardon, except the pope meaneth to release the paines, due for deadlie sinnes? Doe ventall sinnes, which may be washed away with holie water, deserue so many hundred thousand yeares of penance or punishment, as are conteined in these pardons? Finallie what shal we saie to those pardons that are graunted for saying of certeine praiers, wher­of diuerse printed bookes are full, in which is expresse mention of pardon, for mortall sinnes. As for example, Pope Alexander the sixt, graunteth to him that saieth a certeine praier deuoutlie in the worship of Saint Anne, and the Virgin Marie, and her sonne Iesus, ten thousand yeares of pardon, for deadlie sinnes, and twentie yeares for veniall sinnes, tottes, quoties. The praier with the indulgence, is to be found in a booke printed at Paris, no longer agoe, then in anno. 1534. fol. 85. in horis sanctae virginis. What face then hath this proctor for the Popes pardons to affirme, that the Pope neuer tooke vpon him by pardon to remit deadlie sinne?

But now let vs consider his reasons, how he proo­ueth that the Popes pardons doe not properlie import remission of any deadlie crime, &c. Since the institution of the sacrament of penance, no man can forgiue deadlie sinne without confession of the partie, and purpose to satisfie the iu­stice of God. Here are three positions assumed, without proofe, alwaies denied of vs, namelie the institution of the sacrament of penance, the necessitie of Popish confession, or of the purpose of satisfying the iustice of God, which no man can satisfie in any part, but [Page 358] onelie Christ hath fullie satisfied the same for vs: and therefore it is open blasphemie to saie that God can not forgiue a man his sinnes, except he be willinglie to suffer due correction therefore. For Christ hath once suffered for vs and found eternall redemption: That God re­quireth 1. Pet. 3. Heb. 9. 10. repentance in them that receiue forgiuenes of sinnes, beeing of discretion, that is such as heare the worde and beleeue it, is not so to be vnderstood, as though God were restrained of his power, by the im­penitencie of man, but that God giueth repentance to all such as whose sinnes he forgiueth: For except he conuert vs we cannot repent. Therefore it is a pre­sumptuous saying to affirme, that god cannot, because he is righteous, forgiue a man without he be penitent. For his righteousnes is thoroughlie satisfied in Christ, before we were borne. And if it be his pleasure to for­giue a man his sinnes, he will also giue him repen­tance, and faith to apprehend Christ, to his iustifica­tion. But the Pope, who is not able to giue repentance, is no more able to forgiue sinnes. If this matter hang (as you saie) vpon the necessitie of the sacrament of penance and confession to a Priest, neither of both those necessities beeing prooued, it hangeth in the aire, and is concluded without proofe. Now if God onelie by the ministerie of euerie priest, with the con­ditions by you required, doe forgiue sinnes, it follow­eth that the Popes pardons are nothing, but mere de­lusions, to promise that which he cannot performe, or which euerie hedge Priest of his Church, is able to performe to his subiects, as largelie as the Pope, con­cerning the remission of deadlie sinnes.

Vpon which ground you may well perceiue, that the Popes remission and pardon, beeing a publike act of the key of his iurisdiction and rule ouer the flocke of Christ, and not an exer­cise of his power of order, which onelie is occupied in ministring the sacraments, and such like, you may well perceiue (I saie) that his Pardon or assoyling out of the Sacrament, can­not [Page 359] extend in any case so farre, as to forgiue sinnes with­out confession of the penitent, yea although he be otherwise sorowfull for the same: much lesse may he release any offences without all repentance of the partie. And therefore it is a great slaunder, to say as manie doe that for mony ye maie ob­teine of the Pope a free Pardon before hand, of any gree­uouse sinnes that you commit afterward, as of robberies, murders, misbehauiours in bodie, or such like, which were no pardon of sinnes, but a wicked protection and license to com­mit sinnes. There was neuer Bishop of Rome, or of other place, that euer gaue or could giue any such pardon. Naie, not onelie they take vpon them no such thing, but they neuer gaue pardon to this intent to remit mortali sinnes at all, by force of the Pardon onelie, and without the confession of the partie, were they of neuer so large or liberall graunt. For euerie Indulgence hath this clause in it, either expresselie, or necessarilie, and by course to be supplied: Confessis, & con­tritis, to the confessed and contrite: and sometimes this clause of like importance, to all as be in state of grace. Whereby it is euident, that the giuer meaneth not, to make any man partaker of the Indulgence, grace, or pardon, and that the partie cannot haue any benefit thereby, if he be not released of his sinnes before, and by the sacrament of penance, set in state of saluation. Whereby also you see, that the Pope taketh not vpon him to forgiue anie their sinnes (I meane alwaies deadlie sinnes in this case) by his pardon. For the Priest before hand, that heareth his confession, doth forgiue him in the sacra­ment, and so needeth not of any Pardon for those offences them selues, which belong to the Priests office to remit, and therefore be alwaie in the said sacramentall manner forgiuen. And if he be vnworthie of forgiuenes and loosing by the iust iudgement of his ghostlie father, then cannot the pope or any other power in earth forgiue him by any grace or Indulgence, which taketh onelie place from such as be alreadie loosed from their mortall crimes.

The second position is, that the Popes pardon cannot extend to forgiue sins without the confession of the partie, much [Page 360] lesse release sinnes without all repentance of the partie. We do easilie graunt, that the popes pardons, is of no va­liditie at al, and therfore you maie pinch it and straine it in, at your pleasure. But where you saie, it is a great slaunder to saie as manie do, that for monie men maie obteine pardon afore hand, &c. You should haue done well, to haue set downe, who saith so, or what im­pugner of pardons so slaundereth them or the Pope. And yet it is manifest, that although no such pardon go forth in such forme of wordes, the Popes pardons dispensations and absolutions, tend to that effect: se­ing they are openlie prostrate for all men that will giue monie for them. For what skilleth it, If a man can not haue a lycense to commit murther, periurie, adulterie, &c? If he be sure before hand to haue a par­don, dispensation, or absolution for the same, he will not be greatlie affraid to commit anie of them. And seeing the Pope taketh vpon him to dispense against the commaundement of God, in manie cases, and to graunt absolution for anie crime neuer so great, the Pope is not greatlie slaundered, if he be called a pro­tector of sinne, and a graunter of license to committe the same. Neither can he be excused by requiring con­trition, confession, and satisfaction in the parties, seeing he graunteth pardon for the defaults of euerie one of them, and that which is the chiefest, of satisfa­ction, which according to your learning, must be grea­ter or lesser, as the contrition is more or lesse, accor­ding to the priestes simple discretion. For the glosse vpon the Bull of Pope Boneface the 8. saith, that the contrition of him that confesseth may be so great, that not one­lie the fault, but also the paine, maie be cleane taken awaie without penance: but because men can not iudge of that, some satisfactorie penance must be enioyned, by the Priest or Pope, &c. Now if the Pope by his pardons, as you saie, for­giueth no sinnes, but such as be forgiuen before by the priest, in the sacrament of penance, then doth he no­thing [Page 361] but plaie mockholiedaie with his moste full par­dons, à poena & culpa, with the pardons of the third part or of the seuenth part of mens sinnes, and so is he no better then a co [...]ener, to sel his pardons for monie which conteine nothing but that men haue before they bought them. Thus while you go about to excuse the popes pardons of presumption, you condemne them of cosening, and declare them to be meerelie vn­profitable, which promis pardons of deadlie sinnes, yet take place onely vpon such as be alreadie loosed from their mortal sinnes.

Then hereupon the Reader must learne, and diligentlie con­sider, that we attribute a great deale more power to anie sim­ple and base Priest, in this case, and by force of the sacrament, then we do to the highest Pope or Patriarch in the world, out of the sacrament, working onelie by the right of his iurisdicti­on and gouernance of the people. The cause is, that the effect of remission of sins proceedeth from Christ more abundantlie in the grace of sacraments, which be ministred by the priest, prin­cipallie by his power of orders, then it doth by the high iuris­diction and key of gouernment of any man without the sacra­ment. I trust euerie man vnderstandeth, that there is in the Church a double key (for so the Doctours and schooles follow Christ in that Metaphore, and himselfe the Prophets) the one of order, which is the power annexed or giuen in the order to worke anie holie function, by ministring of sacraments, or o­ther things to them belonging: as to consecrate the Sacrament of the Altar, to absolue in penance, and so forth in the rest, to worke in euerie of them according to their institution.

The metaphore of the Keies is well knowne, to the Doctors, as vsed by Christ, & the Prophets, but this diuision of the keies, if the auncient Doctours had knowne, you would not haue spared to make vs part­ners of their knowledge in the keies, and yours in the Doctors. The schoolemen in deede be authors of that double keie you speake of, namelie the keie of iurisdiction or gouernment, and the key of order. But the auncient Do­ctors [Page 362] knew no such distinction. The keies of power or auctoritie & the keie of knowledge the Scripture spea­keth of, and so doe the auncient doctors. How be it euen as your fathers the Scribes & Pharises & lawier did take away the keies of knowledge, and shut vp the kingdom of heauen from men, neither entring in them selues nor suffe­ring Math. 23. 5. Luk. 11. other that would: so do you: for you haue taken away the key of knowledge of the Scriptures, by which as Chrysostome saith, in opere imperfecto the kingdom of Hom 44. in c. Matt. 23. heauen is opened, & in steed thereof forged a key of straunge and tyrannicall iurisdiction, which neither Christ nor Peter, nor any of his godly successors did know or exercise. This ancient writers words are these. Regnum coelorum est beatitudo coelestis, ianua autem etus est Scriptura, per quam introitur ad eam. Clauicularij autem sunt Sacerdotes, quibus creditum est verbum dicendi, & in­terpretandi Scripturas. Clauis autem est verbum scientiae Scripturarum, per quam aperitur hominibus ianua veritatis. Adapertio autem est interpretatio vera. The kingdome of heauen is the heauenly blessednes, the gate thereof is the Scrip­ture, by which men goe into it: the key-keepers are the priests, to whome is committed the word of preaching and interpreting the Scriptures. And the key is the word of the knowledg of the Scriptures by which the gate of truth is opened vnto men. The opening is the true interpretation of the scriptures. These two keies of authoritie and knowledge, will make a sufficient minister of the Gospell, that is able to open, and shut, binde and loose, forgiue and retaine sinnes, and where these want, or either of them, there can be no good minister of Christ to open the kingdome of heauen, that men maie enter therein. But now let vs see the reason you giue, why you attribute more power to a simple priest in remitting of mortal sinnes in shrift, then to the Popes high iurisdiction by pardons. The cause is (saie you) that the effect of remission of sinnes, pro­ceedeth from Christ, more abundantlie in the grace of sacra­ments, then by the high iurisdiction without the sacraments. [Page 363] This is nakedlie affirmed, without anie proofe in the world, as other positions before and after. But in deed there is no reason that the effect of remission of sinnes, shoud proceede more large from the sacrament of pe­nance, as you call it, then from the iurisdiction of the Pope, if it had the same foundation which you would beare men in hand it hath. For if Peters and the Popes iurisdiction be builded vpon Tu es Petrus, and to thee I will giue the keies, and what soeuer thou bindest or loosest, shall be bound in heauen, &c. Why should not all mortall sinnes be subiect to his iurisdiction, as well as to the priestes power in penance. The wordes be as ample to Peter, Math. 16. as to the Apostles. Ioh. 20. If Peters key of iurisdiction papall be not grounded vp­on this text, as you aduouched lib. 1. cap. 4. Sect. 7. tell vs where he hath it anie where els committed vnto him. If it be committed by this text, certainlie the key of iurisdiction is as large as the key of orders. Therfore either he forgiueth mortall sinnes by his iurisdiction, or els his iurisdiction is no greater then anie other mans, that hath anie key committed vnto him.

There is another key of Regiment and rule of the Church or some principall portion thereof, which is called the key or pow­er of iurisdiction. Now by this power of regiment and rule, as no man can take vpon him to consecrate, so no man out of the sacrament of penance, can take vpon him to absolue anie man of deadlie sinnes and damnation due therefore. For though some do thinke, that Saint Paull did absolue the incestuous Corinthian both of his sinne and damnation, with all tempo­rall punishment due therefore, after assured repentance of the partie, out of the sacrament of penance: yet I cannot agree in anie case thereunto, because the sacrament of confession hath euer beene of necessitie since Christes institution thereof, and because the remission of sinnes is so proper a worke vnto God, that no creature could euer worke the same absolutelie without sacramēt, sauing only the humanitie of Christ, to which the acts, of diuinity, as being vnited to the godhead, were communicated, [Page 364] vpon which it is certaine, that Christ our sauiour might remit sinnes absolutelie out of all externall sacraments, by his word and will onelie, which beeing the power of excellencie, was, as Diuines do thinke, communicated to no other creature, in what iurisdiction or preheminence soeuer he should be placed: and in the act of absolution & remission of sinnes proceedeth ioynt­lie from that one excellent person, beeing both God and man. Neither is it to be thought that Saint Paull did pardon the foresaid Penitent anie other waies, then by the handes of the ministers and Priestes of the Corinthian Church. For though the confession and penance of the partie were publike, as the sinne it selfe was open, yet the vsage of the Apostie, and open practize of the Corinthian Church towards him, was no lesse a sacrament then, then it is now beeing secret. Therefore I doubt not, but Saint Paull spake especiallie to the Priestes of the Corinthians, when he willed them to confirme their charitie towards the sinner, and to forgiue him by their ministerie, whome he thought in absence worthie to receiue the grace and pardon at their handes, whereof we shall speake more hereafter in place conuenient. We do not then exalte the Pope or Bi­shops in this case anie thing so farre as heresie seemeth, or the simplicity of manie men conceiueth, whereas they maie wel vn­derstand, that we giue more authoritie to the most simple Priest aliue, in respect of his order, and because of the sacrament, by which he worketh, then to the Pope or highest Potentate in the world, considering but onelie his iurisdiction. And ther­fore Saint Peter him self, who receiued both the keies, as al­so other Apostles and Bishops, hauing as well the keie or pow­er of Orders, as the keie of iurisdiction, and regiment of their subiects, maie do the actes of both the keies, that is to saie, maie as well lawfullie minister sacraments of all sortes, as also exercise iurisdiction vpon their subiects in such thinges, as we hereafter shall declare. But out of the sacraments onelie by the vertue of their iurisdiction, to absolue men of mortall sinnes, though they be subiect vnto them, they can not, nor, as I think, euer Pope or Prelace tooke vpon him anie such prehe­minence. And therefore let this be the first point of our consi­deration: [Page 365] that the Popes Pardons or Indulgences, which he giueth in respect of his iurisdiction, which also, as moste men do thinke, he might giue when he were once elected, before he were a priest or anie other bishop in like case, according to the compasse of this regiment: let it be first noted, I saie, that such pardons, howsoeuer they be giuen out of the sacraments, do not forgiue sinnes that be deadlie. And if anie man thought before, that the Pope might or did vse to giue such liberall graunts or pardons, wherby without the sacrament of penance or consession anie man might claime full remission of all his deadlie sinnes, let him correct the misconstruing the matter in him-selfe, and assuredlie know, that it is not sothought of gods Church, nor so meant by the giuer, nor so expressed in any pardon.

Stil you follow your positions without probations. The Pope dispenseth with othes, with vowes, with [...] de auco: de potestate Ec. quaest. 49. 52. killing of men, &c. without the sacrament of penance; which things if they were donewithout this dispensati­on, I think you will accompt to be mortall sinnes, and this he doth by his key of iurisdiction: therfore he may as well by the same power absolue men of periutie, breach of vowes, killing of men: or if his key be naught in absolution, it can be no better in dispensation. Cet­taine it is that Saint Paul with the Church of Corinth, did release and absolue the incestuous man, as largelie as he had bound him. For so his words are plaine, Whatsoeuer you do pardon I also pardon. But you can not a­gree 2. Cor. 2. 10 thereto, in anie case, although other men be of that minde; and Saint Paull saith as much him selfe. Peraduenture you will rather beleeue Chrysostome, who vpon the former wordes of Saint Paul, thus wri­teth: Ne redderet illos elatos, quasi huius negotij authoritas penes ipsos esset, ita (que) fieret vt non absoluerent hominem, [...] adigit illos ad hoc, dicens sese quoque ills condonasse. Least he should make them to proude, as though the authori­tie of this matter were wholie in their power, and so it might be that they would not absolue the man againe, he dri­ueth [Page 366] them to this, saying that he also hath pardoned him. Againe he speaketh inthe person of Saint Paul. Ego iam condonaui, qui in priore epistola condemnaueram. I haue alrea­dy pardoned him, which in my former epistle had condemned him. This is Chrysostomes iudgement, whereto in any case you can not agree. The reason you adde of the ne­cessitie of the sacrament confession, and institution thereof, is nothing, except you prooue them out of the scriptures, as you neuer shall be able the one or the o­ther. That remission of sinnes is so proper a worke to God, as it is incommunicable to anie creature, to graunt the same ab­solutelie, you saie true, whether it be with sacrament or without sacrament. For remission of sinnes follow­eth not the external administratio of the sacraments: but the sacraments as seales of his worde, follow the pleasure of God therein. Wherefore your determi­nation of Gods absolute power in remission of sinnes, as also your discourse which followeth, of Christes hu­manitie vnited to the Godhead remitting sinnes, is cleane contrarie to your former deliberate assertions, conteined in the first booke, Chapter the 1. 2. as ap­peareth by the verie titles of the chapters, and in the latter end of the 4. Chapter, where you make your syllogisme, the maior whereof is this: They truelie and properlie do remit sinnes, vpon whose sentence in earth, the par­dons of God immediatlie doth insue in heauen. Thus you dangle vp and downe, looking onelie vpon your pur­pose in hand and forgetting how your matter should hang together, which euerie meane reader will finde out of himselfe though you do not admonishhim ther­of. You returne againe to Saint Pauls absolution, which although the text, and the doctors interpretation vp­pon the text, be most manifest, that Saint Paull as a principall partie in his excommunication, doth also as principall minister restore him, yet you will haue him to be, but onelie an exhorter or counseller of other men, what they should do. But the text is plaine, he did not onelie [Page 367] iudge him worthie, to receiue pardon at the hands of priestes or Church of Corinth; but he also did for his parte, and according to that interest he had ouer the Churchof Corinth, himselfe pardon him & that in the person or presens of Christ. But hereof you admonish vs that we shal haue occasion to consider more hereafter. In the meane time while you would make the Popes pardons seeme more tollerable to ignorant persons, you go about to persuade them, that you do not exalt the Pope so farre, but that you giue to euerie simple priest autho­ritie, in respect of his order, more then to the Pope, and repeat againe, that the Pope can not absolue men of mortall sinne, and yet hath the Pope as I haue prooued, taken vpon him to absolue men of mortall sinne. If he did contrarie to the Popish Churches [...], let the Popish Church expostulate with him: if his mea­ning were otherwise, then might be gathered by his wordes, then was he a shamefull dissembler, cosener, and deceiuer.

Notwithstanding, the power of iurisdiction sometimes ioy­neth with the sacrament of penance and the power of orders: as when anie indulgence is geuen forth by the Pope, in which is expressed, that whosoeuer shall be partaker thereof, must con­fesse him-selfe, and be contrite for his sinnes past, and therewith receiue the holie sacrament of the Altar, and such like, by this pardon so ioyning with the sacrament of remission, or in a man­ner including the same, a full forgiuenes is had of all sinnes and paines therfore, which in that case maie be called, as it is, a plenarie remission or a pardon à poena & culpa, from both the fault, and the paine due therefore.

Howsoeuer you ioyne or disioyne the Popes pardons to or from the singlesoled sacrament of popish confes­sion, the Popes pardons for mortall sinnes will prooue no better then fooles bables, by your owne confession. For without the sacrament of confession, you saie, they are not able to forgiue deadly sinnes, and in the sacrament of confession you holde that deadlie sinnes maie be forgiuen without the [Page 368] Popes pardons: therefore either with it or without it the Popes pardons for deadlie sinnes, are not worth a rot­ten nutshell. So that while men paie monie to the Pope or his pardoning questors, for leaden bulles, they are made leude Calues, to buy that for mony at his hands, which their Parish priests are bound to giue them free­lie without monie. The Pope therefore in graunting plenarie pardons, à poena & culpa, both from the fault and the paine, due therefore, doth nothing els but deiude the world, seing he can neither graunt par­don for anie mortall fault, as you confesse, and when he pretendeth to pardon such faultes, he pardoneth no more then was pardoned before, or which might re­ceiue pardon without his pardon.

There be also certaine greeuous crimes which euerie Curate or Priest Parochian can not remit, because they be reserued to the audience of the higher Pastours. For in the sacrament of penance there is a power iudiciarie, and therefore can not be practized lawfullie, but vpon subiect persons, and causes not exempted from their iudgement, and excepted from their audi­ence. In which cases the persons of higher iurisdiction, to whome by right and law the cognition of those reserued sinnes belong, do sometimes vpon occasion giuen, communicate their power to the said simple priestes, and do license them to exer­cise their iurisdiction vpon persons and causes not properly per­taining vnto them: as when the Popes Indulgence giueth the sinner leaue to choose his ghostlie father, and by him that he maie be assoiled euen from such sinnes as be reserued to the su­preame power of the Church. In this matter also, the Indul­gence ioyneth with the ordinarie sacrament of penance, and the minister receiueth iurisdiction by the Indulgence. to heare and assoile the Penitent of such sinnes, as before were not sub­iect to his peculiar regiment: and therefore this is also called a pardon from sinne, and the paine for sinne, and a full remis­sion.

You haue hitherto held hard, that neither the Pope nor anie Bishop can giue pardon of anie mortal sinne: [Page 369] but by reseruation of cases it appeareth, that the Pope challengeth this prerogatiue, that he onelie may giue absolution and pardon in these greeuous crimes, that be called cases papall, and the Bishop in cases episco­pall. Now let vs see how this geare hangeth together. The Pope hath this prerogatiue in respect of his high iurisdi­ction, for in the sacramēt of penance euery priest, by or­der, as we heard before, hath as much authority as he. Then if these cases be reserued to the Popes iurisdicti­on, this reseruation doth prooue, that the Pope tak­eth vpon him to pardon the most greeuous sinnes, by his iurisdiction onelie, or els he deceaueth them that seeke for absolution of them at his hands. And where­as you would cloake the matter by saying, the Popes in­dulgence doth graunt, that the priest in confession maie assoile a man from such sinnes, as be reserued to the supreame power of the Church, it is to no purpose: For the Priest in this case, is but the popes deputie, to exercise the Popes iurisdiction (as you saie) as well vpon persons as cau­ses, not properlie pertaining to him, but by the Popes license; whereupon it followeth, that the Pope may do in his owne person, that which he doth by his de­putie, but by his deputie he taketh vpon him to remit most deadlie sinnes: therefore the Pope taketh vpon him to remit deadlie sinnes, by his iurisdiction onelie. If you saie, the absolution commeth from the sacra­ment, and not from his iurisdiction, then shew vs out of the scriptures, how the Pope hath authoritie to re­straine the grace of sacraments in respect of the person that ministreth them, or els your reseruation of cases and exemption of persons, will prooue no better then an Antichristian tyrannie. For if Christ haue giuen power to euerie Priest to remitte all sinnes, as you haue often affirmed, vpon the text Ioh. 20. whose sinnes you remit, &c. what is he but Antichrist, exalting him­selfe aboue all that is called God, which controlleth the liberall graunt of Christ, exempting both persons, [Page 370] and sinnes from their power, without al ground or war rant of Gods word?

That thou be not deceiued herein, vnderstand, good Rea­der, that euerie Priest in his taking Orders, and by Christes graunt, hath full power to remit all sinnes, and all men of their sinnes that be penitent, and yet that this power can not be practized by the law of nature indifferentlie vpon all, be­cause this sacrament, and none other, is iudiciall, and therfore profitablie can be extended no further, but to them that be of their subiection and regiment. Wheresoeuer the Priest consecrateth, it is effectuall: whomesoeuer he baptizeth, he is lawfullie Christianed: whomesoeuer the Bishop ordereth, he standeth trulie ordered, and so forth, though they should not herein meddle in other mens cures, without speciall li­cence, sufferance, or necessitie. But no man can assoile anie person at all, that is not subiect vnto him, either ordinarilie or otherwise, because it is an act of iurisdiction, and therefore though his power of orders be in it selfe sufficient, yet by that onelie he can not absolue anie man, but in necessitie, except he haue withall authoritie ouer the person, and in that case, wherein the penitent requireth his sentence, which iuris­diction he maie haue, either ordinarilie, as vpon all those that be of his charge, or els extraordinarilie, by some special graunt of the superiour, as Bishop, or Pope, as we maie see in the formes and course of Indulgencies diuers times. And thus con­sidering of the matter, you see that the Popes pardons, as they be onelie proper to the act of iurisdiction, separated from the power of priesthood, and sacramentall confession, can not remit the sinnes them-selues, neither damnation due for their reward, though, because licence commeth and procee­deth by them, to the inferiour Priestes, to remitte sinnes in all cases, they maie be called, as I said, plenarie and most li­beral graces and graunts, to assoile man both from sinne, and the punishment that is due therefore.

You pretend as though you would render a reason, why all Priestes haue not equall power ouer all men, and to remit all sinnes, and for the former you saie [Page 371] somewhat, though not sufficient, but for the later you saie nothing at all. First you confesse that euerie Priest rightly ordered, hath by Christes graunt power to re­mit all sinnes, and all men of their sinnes that be penitent. But this power can not be practized, you say, by the law of na­ture, indifferentlie vpon all. Then belike Christ hath graunted, and they receiued, an vnprofitable power: for why haue they power to remitte all sinnes, and al mens sinnes, and yet maie practize the same, but vp­on some sinnes, and some mens sinnes onelie? In truth Christ hath giuen ful power to al his ministers, accor­ding to the measure of euerie one of their charges. the Apostles ouer al the world, their successors the bishops pastors, & teachers within the compasse of their seue­rall cures: and therefore you saie well, that God hath so ordered the case, that no man maie intermedle in an others cure, without licence, sufferance, or necessitie: the Pope then doth wickedlie to exempt anie man from his lau­full pastor, to whome the charge of his soule is by Christ committed The reason you giue, wherfore this power can not be practized, vpon all, is friuolous, be­cause this sacrament, and none other is iudiciall. For who will graunt you that the power of remitting sinnes in repentance is more iudiciall then in baptisme, or in the Lordes supper? For the minister ought to haue a iudgement whome he baptizeth and whome he ad­mitteth vnto the Lords table. If the children of Turks, or Iews, be offered to baptisme, without the conuersion or consent of their parentes, by what warrant shall he receiue them? If Turkes, Iewes, or Gentiles that be of yeares of discretion, offer them selues to baptisme, before they be instructed in Christian beliefe, shal they be baptized? If children, naturall fooles, and such as can not examine themselues, notorious offenders, that haue giuen no signes of repentance, men knowen to be in malice, &c. shal present thēselues to the Lords table, must they without al iudgement, or discretiō be [Page 372] accepted or repulsed? By this therefore it appeereth that there is nothing more iudiciall in receiuing of sinners to repentance, if that were a sacrament, then in the only true sacraments of baptisme and the Lords supper. Wherefore, there is no reason that the Pope should restraine anie man of that power, which you confesse he hath by Christes graunt, ouer all persons of his charge, by exempting anie of them, or giuing them libertie to chuse their gostlie Father, according to their owne appetite, and much lesse, that he should reserue vnto him selfe, the absolution from the grea­test sinnes, the power whereof was graunted by Christ to euerie Priest, as you confesse, ouer his owne pari­shioners, for which reseruation you bring not so much as the shadow of anie reason to shroud him from the the note of Antichristian tiranie.

The Popes Pardons also maie wellreach so farre, as to take awaie veniall and dailie infirmites, which be of their nature punishable, but by some temporall paine and correction, be­cause they be remissible manie waies out of the sacrament, both here in this life, and in the next. For the merites of Christ maie be applied sufficientlie to the offenders in such light man­ner of trespaces, without the especiall grace of a sacrament: as by saying our Lordes praier (saieth Saint Augustine) and by almese, and by the holie Sacrament of the aultar, either recei­ued, or deuoutlie adored, by sacrifice now of the holie Masse, much more then in olde time in the sacrifices of the lawe, and by the holie peace or blessinges of Christ and his Apostles, and Bishoppes after them, and by their Pardons. Therefore to him that is free from greeuous sinnes, or pardoned of the same, all these thinges shalbe commodious towards the remission of his lesser infirmities: but if he be in state of damnation, and out of Gods fauour, which grace must be procured onelie by the Sacraments of Baptisme or penance, he can not obtaine anie Pardon at the popes hands neither aliue nor dead, nor none was euer meant vnto him.

Seeing veniall sinnes maie so easilie be pardoned [Page 373] as you doe shewe, and by so manie meanes, you make great fooles of all them, that trauell to Rome, for a plenarie Pardon of Iubelie, or that will paie one halfepenie for anie at home, when without trauell, without expences, without daunger, he maie so light­lie obtaine forgiuenes of them. But howsoeuer you plaie, and blear mens eies, with veniall sinnes, the worde of trueth saieth, that euerlasting death is Rom. 6. 23. the reward of sinne, if it be not pardoned through the merites of Christes death, applied to vs by faith. The grace of God is all one, whether it be testified by his [...], or by a sacrament. But you would haue it seene, that Saint Augustine is an author of this distinction, of veniall and mortall sinnes and shew­eth these meanes by which veniall sinnes maie be wiped awaie, without the grace of a Sacrament: but you peruert his wordes, farre from his mea­ning. For his purpose is to shewe, that a man can­not be purged from his greeuose sinnes by almes, except he be heartelie penitent and carefull, neuer to commit them againe: but of smaller sinnes, with­out the which a man can not lead his life, he can­not determine that he will forsake them, but must continuallie craue Pardon for them, and auoide them, as much as he can. His wordes are these. Sanè cauendum, ne quisquam existimet infanda illa crimi­na, qualia qui agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt, quotidiè perpetranda, & eleemosynis quotidiè redimenda. In meli­us quippe est vita mutanda, & per eleemosinas de peccatis praeteritis, est propitiandus Deus, non ad hoc emendus quo­dam modo, vt ea semper liceat impunè committere. Nemi­ni enim dedit laxamentum peccandi, quamuis miserando deleatiam facta peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negli­gatur. De quotidianis autem breuibus leuibusque peccatis, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur, quotidiana oratio fidelium satis facit. Eorum est enim dicere, Pater noster qui es in coelis, Quiiam patri tali regenerati sunt, ex [Page 374] aqua & Spiritu Sancto. Delet omninò haec oratio minima & quotidiana peccata. Delet & illa, à quibus vita fidelium sceleratè etiam gesta, sed poenitendo in melius mutata, discedit. Si quemadmodum veraciter dicitur, Demitte nobis debita nostra, quoniam non desunt quae dimittantur, ita veraciter dicatur, sicut & nos dimittimus debitorib. nostris, id est, fiat, quod dicitur, quia ipsa eleemosyna est, veniam petenti homini ignoscere. Suerlie we must take heede lest anie man thinke those wicked crimer, which they that committe them, shall not possesse the kingdome of God, are dailie to be commit­ted, and dailie to be redeemed by almes. For the life must be changed into better, and God is to be intreated through al­mese, for sinnes past, he is not to be bought after asort, for this end, that it maie be lawfull to commit them alwais with­out punishment. For he hath giuen to no man licence of sin­ning, although by his mercie he doe wipe awaie sinnes al­readie committed, if meet satisfaction be not neglected. But for daily, short, and light sins, without which this life is not ledde, the daily praier of the faithfull doth make satisfaction. For it pertaineth to them to saie, Our Father which art in heauen, which are alreadie regenerat to such a father by water and the holie Ghost. For this praier doth altogether wipe awaie these least and dailie sinnes. It wipeth awaie also those, from which the life of the faithfull, hauing beene wickedlie passed, but by repentance being changed into better, doth depart: if, as it is trulie saied, forgiue vs our debtes, because there want not dets to be forgiuē, euen so it may be truly said, as we also do forgiue our debters, that is to saie, if that be done which is spo­ken. For that is also almes, to giue pardon to a man which desireth it. First of receiuing the Sacrament of the al­tar, or adoring the same, of the sacrifice of the Masse, of the Bishops blessing, & of their pardons, here is no mention. Secondly he sheweth that great crimes are pardoned also by saying the Lordes praier, if change­ing of life do followe: by which it is manifest, that by satisfaction he meaneth the fruites of repentance, which as the offences are greater, or lesser, so it is [Page 375] meete they be shewed accordinglie, in small offences. contrition of heart and humble acknowledging of them before God is sufficient: in great offences, the change of life into better, must be manifest euen to the Church, and the sinnes repented of, must be forsaken: which in lesser offences, it is not possible altogether to auoide. But while you make the sacrifice of the Masse, &c. to serue onelie for veniall sinnes, you doe more dishonour to it, then your aduersarie would haue thought you could. But confession, the great couso­nage of the world, is so precious, for all your popish purposes, that in respect of it, you make light of all pointes of poperie beside.

THE THIRD CHAP.

THe Popes holines then, being disburdened by most iust meanes from all causes of enuie rising vpon the surmise or open sclaunder, that he would forgiue mens sinnes euen before they were committed, as though he should graunt fur­ther a licence, for men to commit notorius crimes, yea, being prooued to be so farre from the fact, that he taketh not vpon-him by his pardons, so much as to release anie mortall sinne at all, and therefore, that he neuer arrogated so much vnto him selfe in these matters, in respect of his iurisdiction onelie, as is iustlie graunted to the simplest priest aliue that is lawfully or­dered: the case standing then before God and all the world so cleare with him, let vs see what he claimeth by his iurisdictiō, and in what sense his Pardons do remit or release anie thing to man, seeing in matters of mortall sinne, otherwise then by ioying with the sacrament of penance, he doth not intermedle with remission at all.

Truelie to be plain and briefe, they that be the gouernours of Gods Church doe challenge nothing ells, nor meane nothing ells by their Pardons, but the release and pardoning of such punishment as is often due after the sinnes be remitted in the sacrament of Confession, that is to saie, they pardon the pe­nance enioyned by the holie Ghostlie Father, or that should haue bene enioyned by the rigour of their Canons, and by the law, according to the quantitie of the sinne confessed: And what lesse can they, beeing the appointed pastours of our soules and gouernours of the Church, what lesse can they challenge, then to forgiue that punishment, or some part thereof, which the lawes did prouide, whereof they were the makers or exe­cutors themselues, and consequentlie to remit such punish­ment as might ensue for the lacke of fullfilling thereof? There is no temporall Prince, but he may by his Princelie Perogatiue pardon any seuerall fault committed either a­gainst his owne person, or the commonwealth, that is to saie, discharge the offendour, of that paine, which by the law he should suffer. And why should we thinke it strange, that those men, to whome by expresse wordes of Christ more preheminence is giuen for their iurisdiction spirituall, then to any Prince a­liue is giuen by law or nature for their Regiment? why should we thinke it strange, that they should pardon or release the paines and penaltie appointed by the Ghostlie Father, or pre­scribed by the law, or due to the sinne it selfe by Gods iustice, if there were no law for the case, or order taken of the Church past?

The Popes pardons beeing not onelie prostrate as common harlotts, to euerie man that will paie for them, but also his dispensations against the com­maundement of God, which are of the same nature with his pardons, as readie to be solde, wherebie he taketh vpon him to make periurie, incest, and many other horrible crimes lawful, as in discharging subiects from their oth of obedience to their lawful princes, in licensing the Vncle to marry his Neece, yea the bro­ther to marry his sister, for Augustinus de Ancona exclu­deth [Page 377] no degree from his dispensatiō, but the mariage of the parents with their owne children, his execrable holi­nes De potest. Eccle. quest. 53. quod libe­tina. is not yet discharged, from that shamful Antichri­stian tyranie, which he is iustlie accused to vsurpe: as also it hath beene shewed plainly, that howsoeuer some Canonists haue restreined the force of his par­dons, from remitting of deadlie sinne, yet are his par­dons extant to be seene, wherein he promiseth full re­mission of all sinnes. In which if he delude men, he is so much the more wicked to promise pardon of all sinnes, and yet is not able to remit so much by his par­don, as a Parish Priest may doe without his pardons. Wherefore your impudencie is the greater, to affirme so often, they challenge nothing ells, nor meane nothing ells, but the release of penance, or punishment due. I haue before prooued both by the glosse of their law, and by the verie wordes of their pardons, that they challenge this authority to release not onelie the paine, but also the saultes. If they meane otherwise, then they write and speake, then are they detestable dissemblers. But howsoeuer some Canonists to salue their matter of shrift, haue expounded them to perteine onelie to the punishment due for sinnes, remitted in the sacrament of penance, yet their exposition can by no meanes stand, with the wordes of many pardons. But seeing you will needes haue it so, let vs see what you saie to prooue it. First you aske, what lesse, they beeing appointed pastours of our soules, and gouernours of the Church, can chal­lenge, then to forgiue the punishment, which the law, whereof they were makers or executors, doth prouide? To this we an­swere, that we neither acknowledge them to be pastors, or gouernours of gods church, nor if they were, to haue authoritie, to make lawes to intangle mens consci­ences, and then to streine them or loose them at their pleasures. Christ gaue power to remit or retaine, to binde or loosethe penitent or vnpenitent, but not to binde the penitent to punishment, whose sins are loo­sed [Page 378] and remitted. The example of temporall Princes pardoning or releasing the punishment of transgres­sours, will not serue. For the pastours of the Church must doe that which Christ hath commaunded, and no more, which are so gouernours of the Church, that they be not Lordes and Princes thereof, but seruants of the Church and of Christ. But lest of all can any Pastour of our soules, or gouernour of the Church, re­lease any punishment due to sinne it selfe by Gods iu­stice, which none but God of his mercie can doe, his iustice, beeing before answered in Christ our Saui­our.

And that it is the punishment onelie, which they meane to pardon by their Indulgences, it may be euident both by that we haue said before, and also by the wordes of course in moste Indulgences, in which lightlie you see this clause, De poenitentijs iniunct is, we assoile them from the penance of so many daies or yeares, as may be seene planlie in the holie Councell of Lateran, and in the decrees both of Innocen­tius the third and the fourth. The sinne it selfe is not measu­rable Can. 62. De penitent & remission Cap. quod autem. by times and yeares, for it is a simple and indiuisible act or affection of minde or man, as our schooles speake in such mat­ters, and therefore a man can not be assoiled from part of his sinne, and bound in the other part, but he that forgiueth the guilt and faulte of sinne, which the Prophet calleth iniquita­tem Psal. 31. peccati, he releaseth no daies or yeares, but he forgiueth the verie fault it selfe. Neither is there any eternall punish­ment, which can be eased by any number of daies, were they ne­uer so many. Take you from an infinite and endlesse thing, how much you list, and it shalbe eternall still. Then it is onelie tem­poral punishment, which before God and the world is limited by certaine proportion of the wickednes committed, and of that satisfaction which gods iustice requireth at the partie penitent which can be released by daies or yeares, in part, or in whol. And therefore the Popes or Bishops Pardons onelie forgiue tempo­rall punishment enioyned, or at the left due for answere of Gods righteousnes to be enioyned. Wherein also the Magi­strates [Page 379] of the Church haue such care and consideration, that they remit not so much as any one daie of enioyned penance or deserued punishment, but by recompence of the lacke of mans satisfying, with some portion of Christes abundant desertes ap­plied by the vse of their keies, to the reliefe of such as doe lacke, and for their zeale and deuotion, are not worthie to receiue benefit by the singular treasure of the common wealth, to helpe them in their priuate neede. But for this matter looke for more toward the end of the booke.

This first reason is verie feeble, some pardons haue this clause, de poenitentys iniunctis, of penance inioyned, therfore in al other pardons in which is expresse men­tion, not onelie of penance inioyned, but also of par­doning of sins, either al, or some part of them, the tem­porall punishment onely is meant to be pardoned. The second reason is as good. Sinne is vndiuisible, and so is the punishment for sinne and eternall, therefore it is onelie tempo­rall punishment, which is released by daies and yeares. But what saie you then to moste full pardons of all sinne and all punishments, where there is no limitation of daies nor yeares? what saie you to the release of the third part or the seuenth part of all sinnes, beside ma­ny thousand yeares of punishment remitted, as I haue shewed before in the Pardons of Alexander the fourth confirmed by Pope Leo the tenth within these eightie yeares?

The third argument is, that the magistrates of the Church, remit not so much as one daie of punishment due to Gods iustice for sinne, but by recompensing the want of mans satisfaction, with some portion of Christs abundant desertes, ap­plied by the vse of the keies, &c. But what intollerable blasphemie is this to applie the merites of Christ but onelie in defaulte of mans satisfaction, whose bloode is the onelie purgation of our sinnes, whose righteousnes is the wholl propitiation for our iniqui­ties, whose redemption by his death purchased is eter­nall for all them that are sanctified? Againe what an [Page 380] horrible blasphemie is it, to make a marchandise of the merites of Christ our sauiour, as the Pope doth in the saile of his pardons? And finallie, what scripture giueth anie dispensation of Christes merites vnto anie mortall man, and lest of all to the Pope the man of sin? if it be lawful thus to imagine, implie, applie, forge and faine, without al ground of the holie scriptures, re­ligion shal be nothing, but as it pleaseth men to make it, as it is plaine in the Popish synagogue.

And now vpon the fore said declaration, let this be as it were agreed vpon, and let the aduersaries well vnderstand, this to be the meaning of the Catholike Church, that an Indulgence or pardon is nothing els but a remission in parte or in whole of the bond of that punishment which is enioyned or deserued, af­ter the mortall sinnes be remitted, Gods iustice being otherwise for the said sinnes recompensed by the common treasure of Christ and his Saints satisfaction, which is applied vnto the parties vse by the keis of iurisdiction graunted to such, as Christ made the Stewards of his household, the disposers of his mysteries. For the Church of God and her Pastours, though they be mercifull & inclining to remission, rather then rigour, yet they take not vpon them, neither in the sacrament of penance to remit sinne and damnation, neither out of the sacrament to release anie paine or parte of punishment enioyned, without recompence thereof by Christes copious redemption, and the communion of holie workes, that is betwixt the head and members of this my­sticali bodie of Christ.

So often as you repeat this vntrueth, so often it must be tolde you, that it is false, that the popes pardon by the meaning of the giuer, and receiuers, is nothing els but a remission of punishment, enioyned, or de­serued, after mortall sinnes be remitted: when it is expressed in the same, that it is either for all sinnes, at well as paines, or els for some parte of the sinnes as well as some part of the vaines: except you will accuse the Pope of manifest falsehoode and cosonage, to pro­mise that which he meaneth not to giue, and wotteth [Page 381] well is not in his power to giue. Againe, where you saie, that Gods iustice is otherwise recom­pensed, we know his iustice is throughlie satisfied, by the obedience and suffering of Christ, as wel for al our sinnes, as for the punishment due for the same, there­fore Rom. 3. 5. your Popes pardons are needles where God forgi­ueth our sinnes, & iustifieth vs freely for Christes sake. But where you ioyne the satisfaction of saints, vnto the common treasure of Christ, it is exceeding blasphemous a­gainst the sufficiency of his satisfaction, and the grace of Gods free iustification: For all haue sinned, and are de­stitute Rom. 3. 23. of the glorie of God, beeing freelie iustisied by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus, whome God hath set forth to be a propitiation, by saith in his blood. But admit all these lies and blasphemies, hetherto aduou­ched, were graunted, who gaue the Pope authoritie to applie the same by the key of iurisdiction? How prooue you the key of iurisdiction, to extend so farre? For the keies of the kingdome of heauen, whatsoeuer Mat. 18. Iohn. 20. they are, be committed to the wholl Church, and not to one person onelie, as Cyprian, Augustine, Chry­sostome, Ierome, and all the auncient Doctors agre­ablie to the scriptures do confesse. And God hath made all the Pastors of the Church stewardes of his household and dispensers of his mysteries. And if eue­rie Pastour ouer his charge be a steward and dispenser of Gods mysteries, as you seem to graunt, why hath he not authoritie to release the penance by him-selfe in­ioyned, or the punishment due for sinne remitted, as well as the Bishop, or the Pope? Why hath he not the key of iurisdiction ouer his parish, in as large and am­ple manner, as the Bishop hath ouer his dioces, or the Pope ouer all men, seeing the keies are not giuen to one, but to the vnitie, as the auncient fathers teach? Whie should the Bishop, and the Pope haue two keies, and they but one? resolue vs these matters out of the holie scripture, and you shall come some­what [Page 382] nearer your purpose of pardons. As for the com­munion of holie works, which is betweene the heade and the members, if you meane thereby the workes of men ioy­ned with the satisfaction or merites of Christ, ei­ther shew vs where it is taught in the scriptures, or giue vs le aue to denie it, vntill you can prooue it.

Perchaunce some Protestant will here call vs back, and re­quire proofe, that there should be anie paine or tempor all cor­rection remaining for those persons, which hauetheir sinnes for­giuen by God in the sacrament of Penance, or otherwise by the onelie faith of the partie penitent, as he maie perhaps sur­mise. If he list to be satisfied in this case, let him turne backe and make a short view of the works of God since the beginning, and there consider well, whether God him-selfe hath not com­monlie visited his children receiued to mercie, with some cor­rection answerable in respect of his iustice to the greeuousnes of the crime forgiuen. Who is so froward or so rude, but he may well discerne betwixt the sault of our first Father, and the pu­nishment of euerlasting damnation deserued thereby? His sinne was one thing, his deserued punishment an other thing, his sinne was disobedience, his punishment correspondent to that, was euerlasting death. Yet whensoeuer one of these two is forgiuen, the other must needes be forgiuen also, because he can neither be subiect to damnation, whose sinne, for which damnation was ordeined, is forgiuen, neither his fault be forgotten, whose euerlasting punishing is pardoned, which is the rewarde of sinne. But now, both these being once, through Christ remitted to Adam, as we read in the booke of wisedome, who perceiueth not, that he was for all that long afterward Cap. 10. subiect to temporall death and manie other miseries both of this life and of the next, beeing onelie punishments appoin­ted by God for the ful satisfying euen of those sinnes, which were forgiuen him.

Out of all peraduenture, we require proofe not onelie of this point, but of manie more positions, which you haue barelie affirmed, to build your popish pardons vpon them. And touching this point we do [Page 383] require proofe, not onely that after sinnes and eternal paines remitted, there are temporall paines remai­ning to satisfie Gods iustice, but also if there were a­nie such remaining, by what authoritie you should re­lease them. I know that often times, after sinne re­mitted, God sendeth or suffereth a temporal paine to remaine, but that is not for satisfaction of his iustice; but for a mercifull chastisement, of his fatherlie disci­pline. The punishment due to Gods iustice is eternall damnation for euery sinne, as euen the glosse vpon the Extrauagant of Boneface the eight doth acknowledge. Extraua. [...] lib. 1. de poe­nit. & remis­si. Cap. 1. And when God doth freelie remit the sinne, he doth as freelie remit the punishment, due for the same. For what remaineth to be punished when the sinne is re­mitted? Temporall paines therefore satisfie not his iustice, but admonish his children of their ductie, and make them carefull not to commit sinne, which by his chastisment they are put in minde to be displea­sing vnto him. The temporall death and miseries that A­dam was subiect vnto, through his disobedience, remained in him and his posteritie, not as a satisfaction of Gods iustice, for his sinne remitted, and satisfied by Christ, but as a monument, and example, of his iu­stice for sinne; and therefore they remaine not onelie in the elect, but in the reprobate: for an admonition to beware of sinne, vnto the Godlie; and to take ex­cuse awaie from the wicked, of ignorance of Gods pu­nishment for sinne. yet are all those punishments vn­to the Godie turned into blessings, being either made his fatherlie chastisments, for their amendment, or els occasions of their eternall [...], as aduersitie by humbling of them, death by deliuering them into the possession of eternall life: and therefore is blessed­nes pronounced both of the one and of the other. But Mat. 5. Apoc. 14. that Adam was subiect to anie miseries after this life, or in this life, as being onelie punishments appointed by God, for the [...] satisfying euen of those sinnes, which were forgiuen him, [Page 384] we denie vtterlie. For the obedience of Christ was [...] full satisfaction for the disobedience of Adam, both for him and all Gods elect ofhis posteritie. For if by the transgression of one, manie haue died, much more the grace of Rom. 5. 15. & caetera. God and the free gift in grace, which is of one man Iesus Christ, hath abounded vnto manie. For if through the trans­gression of one death hath raigned by one, much more they which receaue the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righ­teousnes, shall raigne in life by one Iesus Christ. For as by the disobedience of one man manie were made sinners, so by the obi­dience of one man manie shall be made iust. This and much more hath the Apostle to prooue, that the redempti­on of Christ was more bountifull toward them which are iustified thorough faith, then the transgression of Adam was rigorous to their condemnation: which could not be, if anie parte of Gods iustice remained to be satisfied by the punishment of the partie after his sinnes were remitted, and he made iust by the redem­ption and iustification of Christ. Therefore the tem­porall paines, whereto Gods children are subiect after their sinnes remitted, are not left for the satisfi­ing of the iustice of God. Or if you will needes con­tend that they are so left, and that the Pope out of the treasure of the Church, hath authority to pardon all such punishment, or anie parte thereof, let him make triall ofhis power, in such corporal punishments as God laieth vpon his children, for their corrections let him by his pardon release anie man of his sicknes, age, death: if he can do none of these, then either these are no punishments due to satisfie Gods iustice, or els he hath no such power as is bragged of, by dispensing of the treasure of Christes copious redemption, to pardon men of all their punishment due to the iustice of God for sinne. For if he had such power, euerie sick man that receiueth a ple narie pardon, à poena & culpa, should presentlie recouer of his disease: yea I maruell how he should die, if death be a penaltie due to the iustice of God for sinne, which [Page 385] hath such a plentiful indulgence of all paines inioyned or deserued by sinne. But if he cannot release one fit of an ague, with all the pardons, I maruell how he should release a man of all his paines of purgatorie, yea spoile all purgatorie at once of all them that suffer paines therin: except it be because he hath power onelie ouer that prison, which is of his owne building, and all that come therin, but hath no power at all ouer them vpon whom God laieth any affliction, either bodilie, or spiri­tuallie.

Looke at the Prophet Dauid, whether God corrected him not with temporall scourge, after he had expresselie forgiuen him by the warrant of the Prophet Nathan, his greeuous 2. Reg. 12. sinnes. Consider the case of all Gods elect people, how sharpelie they were visited for sinne, after it was in them pardoned. Exod. 32. Marke whether Marie Moises his sister was not punished and Num. 12. separated seuen daies, as it were for penance, after her brethren had procured her pardon at Gods handes. Thus hath God of respect not onelie to mercie, but also partlie to iustice, so al­waies pardoned, that he had consideration of iudgement and righteousnes. Now whome should the Church follow in remit­ting of sinnes, but him by whofe power and warrant she doth re­mit sinnes?

We see that god did chastise the Prophet Dauid and his posterititie with a rodde of man, and with a fatherlie correction, but his mercie and louing kind­nes, he neuer tooke from them. Neither punished them to satisfie his iustice for their sinne remitted, but to make them, and other by their example, more carefull not to commit sinne in time to come. The case of Gods elect people was somewhat other­wise. Exod. 32. where, although he receiued to mercie the wholl people, that they should not be de­stroied from the face of the earth, yet he might of his iustice punish a number of particular persons that were moste rebellious, and authors of the defection and Idolatrie. Marie the sister of Moses, was also puni­shed [Page 386] of God, first to humble her, and bring her to re­pentance: and that punishment was continued on her for a few daies, partlie to exercise her in earnest, and hartie repentance, partlie to admonish the people by her example, to beware of murmuring against Gods mi­nisters, their lawfull magistrates, not in respect of anie satisfaction of Gods iustice, which can receiue none but a ful & sufficient satisfaction, in his beloued sonne Iesus Christ. Wherefore if the Church will follow God in remission of sinnes, she must remit them freelie, as God doth in Iesus Christ forgiue vs: for so Saint Paull meaneth that men should forgiue one another their trespasses, and not to remit the fault and retaine Eph. 4. 32. the paine, except it be in case where men are appoin­ted by God to execute paines, as the Magistrates are, or to practize discipline, as the Church is, in which case the Church may not think to satisfy Gods iustice, but to seek reformation of the offender, and to prouide for the example of others.

Seeing God then him-selfe after he hath by his owne means and absolute power pardoned mans faultes, and discharged him of the sentence of death and damnation, had yet enioyned penance, as when he said to Adam: In the sweate of thy browes thou shalt prouide for thy liuing: And to Eue. Thou shalt in paine bring forth thy Children: And to them both, that they should die the temporall death, though they might escape by his mercie euerlasting miserie: seeing this, we neede not to doubt, but temporall punishment often remaineth after the sinnes be remitted, and that the Church of God doth imitate moste conuenientlie the saied mercie enioyned with iustice, in all her most righte­ous practize of pardoning and punishing sinne in Christes be­halfe, by whose iurisdiction she herein holdeth. But for the further proofe of the matter, I haue saide much in the defense of Purgatotie, and this question properlie of Purgatotie, and this question properlie perteineth to [...] place.

That temporall punishment is laied vpon men of­ten [Page 387] times, although their sinnes be remitted, it is no question, but whether such punishment be a satisfa­ction to the iustice of God, or a fatherlie discipline of his mercie, that is the matter in controuersie. The Church therefore in exercising the discipline of God vpon offendours, may and ought to imitate the ex­ample of god, but then shee must beware of two things, the one that she laie no other burthen of punishment vpon the offendours, then the worde of God will war­rant: therefore penance is not arbitrarie, as the Ca­nonists doe saie, but to be directed by the worde of God. Secondlie shee must take heede that shee re­lease no more punishment, then shee is able to laie on. And therefore shee must be assured by the worde of God, whether shee can eioyne penance to be suffered in Purgatorie, before shee take vpon her to remit any such punishment: touching which matter, as you haue saied more in the defence of Pur­gatorie, so haue I answered sufficientlie to the o­uerthrow of Purgatorie, and all that dependeth there­upon.

THE FOVRTH CHAP.

BVt now for the iurisdiction that Gods Church hath in releasing the same punishment which remaineth after the fault be forgiuen, it standeth, no doubt, vpon that high commission which Christ receiued of his Father, and did communicate moste amplie to the Apostles, and by then to all Bishops for euer. For the father did not onelie honour Christ his sonne, according to his humanity, with the power of priesthoode, [Page 388] or with other soueraignitic, for the institutious of sacraments, or such like, but with all regiment of that bodie, whereof he is the heads, as he is man. By which keye of iurisdi­ction he corrected sinners with great Maiestie, and pardoned them at his pleasure, not onelie of sinne and euerlasting paine, where the penitencie of the partie did so require, but also of such correction, as the law had prescribed for sinne, or Gods iustice had enioyned for the same.

That the Church hath any iurisdiction in releasing that punishment, which remaineth after the faulte for giuen, for a satisfaction of Gods iustice, it hath not hetherto beene prooued, nor euer shall be prooued by authoritie of the holie scriptures, which teach the contrarie, that Christ alone hath by his one sacrifice made perfect for euer, those that are sanctified. And there­fore it is vnreasonable, to seeke whereupon it standeth. For neither did Christ receiue any such commission, in his humanitie, neither did he deliuer ouer, any such iurisdiction vnto his Apostles, to release temporall punishment due to Gods iustice vnsatisfied, by his death and passion. For by one oblation once offered by his eternall spirit, he made perfect for euer, those that are sancti­fied. Heb. 9. & 10. And the power of Priesthoode, and soueraigne au­thoritie, to institute sacraments, and to be head of his Church, he receiued not as man onelie, but as our me­diatour, God and man. The Lorde said vnto my Lorde (saith Dauid) sit thou on my right hand, Thou art a Priest Psal. 110. for euer, &c. Which offices & authorities can not bese­parated from his diuinity, without Nestorian impiety. Christ is head of his Church, & a Priest for euer, as he is Dauids Lord, but as he is Dauids Lord, he is not onelie his sonne, but his God, therefore he is heade of his Church, and a priest after the order of Melchise­deeh, not as he is man onelie, but as he is God & man: neither did he pardon any man of sinne and euerla­sting paine, whome he also punished for the same sinne with temporal paine, as a satisfaction to the iustice of [Page 389] God, which none could satisfie, in part or in wholl, but he onelie by his obedience and suffering.

And this iurisdiction and power of regiment he gaue to Peter principallie, when he bestowed on him the keies of heauen Mat. 10. & 18. & vpon the rest of the Apostles with him the power of binding and loosing, which is moste principallie and properlie meant of enioyning penance or punishing by sharpe discipline the sin­ners euill life, either before they forgine his sinnes, or afterward. For as the place of the 20. of Saint Iohn properly concerneth the power of pardoning, reteining or forgiuing penance for satis­faction in the sacrament by the right of Priesthoode receiued in their orders, though it may somewhat concerne the iurisdi­ction of the high Magistrates also: so the place of Saint Mat­thew rather perteineth to the chastisment of the wicked by the Cap. [...]. open discipline, as they haue the regiment of al our affaires, then it doth to the sacramentall remisstion or satisfaction enioyned. For ligare there doth signifie some bond of punishment, where­with the partie is tied and charged for his correction, and not onelie bonde of sinne, wherewith the Church bindeth no man, no more then God himselfe doth, but euerie man onelie bindeth himselfe in his owne sinnes. And the Church or her ministers doe properlie then binde, when they punish by their iurisdi­ction the sinnes committed, not for the damnation of them that did fall, but for their correction and amendment. And the plaine mention of excommunication, which there is expressed to be giuen to the Apostles for the chastisment of such, as by more gentle admonition will not amend nor obeie the Church, doth prooue that to binde in that place, namelie importeth power of punishment, to be executed on the offenders, which way of chastisment is an open exercise of discipline giuen to the A­postles, to be vsed at their discretions for the edifiyng of Christs Church. Therefore as to binde there is as well an act of the pro­per power of iurisdiction, as it is a function of prie sthoode, to be exercised in the sacrament of penance, so to loose, solue­re, in that place, though it may signifie to remit sinnes in waie of sacramentall confession, yet it is more aptlie correspondent so the words that went before, of binding, which was not [Page 390] sinne, but the paine and punishment for sinne: whereby it must needes fillow, that as to binde, doth fignifie to charge that pe­nitent person with some temporall paine, so to loose must also meane to dissolue the bande, which before was laied on him for present correction

Christ gaue no more iurisdiction or power of regi­ment, to Peter pricipallie, when he bestowed the keies of the kingdome of heauen vpon him, then vpon the rest of the Apostles, vnto whome he gaue the like and equall power of binding and loosing, of opening and shutting the kingdome of heauen, as he did to Peter. The same thing verilie, saith Saint Cyprien, were the rest of the Apostles that Peter was, indued with the same fellowspip Tract. 3. de simplicit. [...]. both of honour and of power. That the power graunted in the 18. of Matthew pertaineth moste properlie and principallie to the chaistisment, or reconcilement of open offendours, by discipline, the circumstance of place affordeth no lesse, as the text Iohn the 20. rati­fieth the effect of their message, in them that imbrace or refuse the doctrine of the Gospell. And that the gouernours of the Church, haue power by excommu­nication to binde, and by absolution to loose, vpon good ground and cause, in both cases, you neede not halfe these wordes to prooue it: for we doe acknow­ledge and practize no lesse in the Churches of Christ, where we haue gouernement, likewise that the Church hath authoritie for triall of the parties repentance, to enioyne some exercise of humiliation, and to release the same, or part thereof, beeing satisfied with the manifest signes of repentance and submission, it is also out of controuersie. But of your sacrament of penance Whsoeuer you shall binde &c. whose sins you forgiue or satisfaction for sinnes, by either discipline establi­shed, Matthew the eighteene, or power of remission of sinnes, graunted in the text Iohn the twentie, we shall neuer be agreed, vntill you can make plaine demon­stration out of the holie scriptures, that either God hath instituted the one, or alloweth the other which [Page 391] you shall neuer be able to doe.

For this is a rule moste certein, that all the bandes, which the Church laieth vpon any offender be medicinable, if the partie list to take them, and may be loosed by the same power of the Church, by which they were bounde before. And therefore euer as mention is made in scripture, of binding, or which is all one, punishing of sinnes, there is also mention of the like power of loosing: for Christ would not giue power to the Church to binde or correct sinnes, but much more he would haue the Church resemble himselfe, being her head, in mercie, and therefore gaue her alwaies power, to loose that kinde of puni­shment, which shee by her ministers had bounde or inoyned be­fore. For these two actes beeing answerable in conference and contrarietie, muste necessarilie follow ech other, and properlie to the like power and prerogatiue. Then the one beeing giuen to the Apostles euen out of the sacrament of penance, the other muste needes also by the like right be receiued.

S. Ambrose rebuketh much the Nouatians, because they would haue the Church enioyne penance, but they liked not Lib. 1. de poenit. Cap. 2. that he should mercifullie release the same againe, nor the pe­nitents sinnes neither. Dominus (saith he) par ius soluendi esse [...] & ligandi, qui vtrumque pari conditione permisit: ergo qui soluendi ius non habet, nec ligandi babes. Our Lord would haue the right of losing & binding to be like: for equally he gaue the power of both. Therfore whosoeuer hath not power to loose he hath no power to binde. If anie man then list follow the Noua­tians, he maie holde at his pleasure, that it preteineth to the Churches iurisdiction to binde that, which she can not loose a­gaine, contrarie to Christes expresse graunt made vnto her, first in the person of Peter, and then in the right of all the A­postles, to whome when he had promised as well the keies of or­der, as iurisdiction, he said vnto them: whatsoeuer you shall binde in earth, it shalbe bound in heauen: and whatsoeuer you loose in earth, it shalbe loosed in hea­uen: first giuing them thereby authorititie to punish, and then to pardon. And therefore as the sacrament of penance, wherein sinnes be released or retained, was grounded vpon the [Page 392] wordes of Christ spoken to the Apostles after his resurrection, whereof we talked so much in the former treatise, so the power of giuing pardon or punishing out of the sacrament, by the ver­tue of the iurisdiction, as the Pope and other Bishoppes now doe, and alwaies haue done, is founded moste fast vpon this place of Saint Matthew, spoken first and principallie to Saint Peter, and then to other Apostles vniuersallie. Cap. 16. & Cap. 18.

Now, if anie list be assured by the Doctours interpretation, that the wordes of our Sauiour of binding and loosing doe dire­ctlie giue power to the pastours of his Church, to punish the of­fenders, and release their sentence of seueritie againe, let them read Saint Augustines 75. Epistle, where they shall finde much of this matter, and thus amongst other thinges: spiri­talis Ad Auxili­um Episco­pum. poena, de qua scriptum est, Quae ligaueritis in terra, e­runt ligata & in coelo, ipsas animas obligat. The spirituall punishment, whereof Christ spake when he said, what-soeuer you binde in earth it shall be bound in heauen, do fast binde the soules themselues. And Saint Chrysostome disputing excel­lently vpon these wordes of binding or loosing, compareth the iurisdiction of Princes temporall vnto the spirituall power herein, and maketh this to excell that, as farre as heauen pas­seth the earth, and the soule in dignitie surmounteth the bo­die. If anie King (saieth Chrysostome) should giue vnto some subiect such authoritie vnder him, that whome whosoeuer he would he might cast into prison, and againe release him when Tib. de sacer dot. he list, all men would account that subiect moste happie. But he that hath receiued, not of an earthlie King, but of God him selfe a power that passeth that other, as farre as heauen is from the earth, and the soule excelleth the bodie, I trow him eue­rie man must both wonder at, and highlie reuerence. Thus farre said the Doctor acknowledging, that as some by Princes grauntes maie prison or pardon the bodies: so the Priestes maie punish mens soules, and loose or pardon them againe. For the proofe whereof, he applieth fitlie both the woordes of Christ spoken to S. Peter, aud the like afterward to all the Apostles, concerning binding and loosing.

Whether all the bands of the Church be medicina­ble, [Page 393] if the partie list to take them, Doctors doe dour, se­ing there is a sin vnto death not to be praied for. And S. Paul layed such a band vpon Alexander the copper smith, that he desired the Lord to requit him according to his workes, which 1. Iohn. 5. 2. Tim. 4. Heb. 12. could be no lesse then eternall damnation, without hope of true and faithfull repentance, for which Esaw found no place, though he sought the blessing with teares. For true repentance is not a matter of mens list, but an ex­cellent gift of God. That case excepted, it is out of question, that the Church hath power as well to loose as to binde, what or whome soeuer, and God in heauen doth ratifie that, which the Church, vpon good cause, doth on earth. And therefore to prooue this, whereof there is no doubt, there needed neither Ambrose, Au­gustine, nor Chrysostmes authoritie to be cited, ex­cept it be to shew how prodigall you are of proofe where there is no neede, and howe drie and barren, where there is most necessitie, vnlesse you will haue your wordes and sayings go without al warrantize: as euen in this section, that this power or iurisdiction, as you call it, is giuen principallie to Peter, that the sacrament of penance is grounded vpon Christes words spoken to his Apo­stles after his resurrectiō, which of the Doctors affirmeth? Contrariwise Chrysostome in the place by you cited, as you your selfe confesse, doth fitlie applie the words of Christ spoken to Saint Peter, and the like to al the Apostles, concerning binding and loosing, vnto all priests alike: therefore no principalitie in Peter. For these and such like matters of controuersie, the Do­ctors serue not your true: but you would haue the ig­norant suppose, that as you can cite the Doctors full and direct for manie thinges, whereof we doe not con­tend, so in all matters of contention the Doctors are full on your side. But if anie papist haue but halfe an eie, he will or maie espie your insirmitie, though you doe neuer so cunninglie dissemble it.

Againe Saint Cyprian and other holy bishoppes of Affrike, Epist. 2. Lib. [Page 394] which had inioyned long penance to certaine that had fallen in time of persecution from their faith, for flatterie or feare of the worlde, and had thought to haue giuen them anie Indulgences, peace or pardon (for that then they called, dare pacem, which we now tearme, to giue a Pardon) til the houre of death came: Statueramus (saie they) vt agerent diu plenam poeni­tentiam: we had verilie determined, that they should haue done out all their full inioyned penance: but now vpon other great respectes we doe agree to giue peace of pardon to those, that haue earnestlie done some penance alreadie, and lamen­ted bitterlie their former fall. But marke well here, by what au­thoritie they chalenge this power, and what they doe chalenge. They chalenge, pardie, power to giue penance to the offenders, and they claime by right the release thereof. Againe they clearelie take vpon them, in consideration of the fault, to in­loine what they list, and how long they list, and vpon like iust respect by their wisdomes, to pardon some peece of the same againe, either after death, or else, if good matter mooue them, long before.

But by what Scripture doe they claime such iurisdiction that they maie giue discipline to offenders, euen without the [...] of penance, onelie by their iurisdiction and right of regiment, and then by their onelie letters to giue them in absence peace and pardon of their inioyned penance againe? Saint Cyprian and all his honorable fellowes shall answere you in the same place: for there they giue a reason of that their proper right: Quia ipsepermisit qui legem dedit, vt ligata in [...] is etiam in coelo ligata essent, solui autem possent illic, qui hic prius in Ecclesia soluerentur. That is to saie, he doth permit vs, who made this lawe, that whatsoeuer we bound on earth, should be bound in heauen, and those thinges should be loosed in heauē aboue, which the Church here beneath releaseth before. Let vs therefore be bolde also, to answere our aduer­saries with the said holie Fathers, if they aske vs by what right the Pope or Bishoppe giue pardon, or what is that he doth forgiue by his pardon, let vs answere for them, and for our Mother the Church, that they pardon onelie the penance in­ioyned, [Page 395] or other paine due for greeuous sinnes, after they be re­mitted in the sacrament of penance. And that they maie so doe by good authoritie, we alleadge Christes owne worthines with the named holie Fathers: whatsoeuer you binde in earth, it shal be bound in heauen: and if you loose it in earth before, it shall also be released in heauen. But vpon this practise of Gods Church, I will charge them further hereafter.

This authoritie of Saint Cyprian is no more neces­sarie, then the former of Chrisostome; Augustine, Am­brose. For we doubt not, but the Church with the go­uernours thereof, haue sufficient power by Christes graunt, to release such time of penance, or parte ther­of, as is enioyned to offenders, to prooue their repen­tance, and to make satisfaction to the Church, when there appeereth iust cause so to doe. But let vs see how manie vntruthes you do boldlie aduouch, which are besides this authoritie. First, that these Bishops had thought not to haue giuen peace to them that had fallen, till the houre of death came. But that is not so: for they saie onelie, they had determined, that they should haue performed the penance that was enioyned for a long time vnto them, vnto the ful, except danger of infirmi­tie required to giue peace at the point of death. Their wordes are these: Totheir brother Cornelius Bishoppe of Rome. Statueramus quidem iampridem, frater charissimè, participato inuicem nobiscum consilio, vt qui in persecutionio [...] supplantati ab aduersario & lapsifuissent, ac sa­crificiis se illicitis maculassent, agerent diu poenitentiam ple­nam, & si periculum infirmitatis vrgeret, pacem sub ictu mortis acciperent. Nec enim fas erat, aut permittebat paterna pietas, & diuina clementia, ecclesiam pulsantibus claudi, & dolentibus & deprecantib. speisulutaris subsidium denegari, vt de saculo recedentes sine communicatione, aut pace domini dimitterentur, cùm permiserit ipse, qui tegem dedit, vt liga­ta in terris, etiam in Coelis ligata essent, solui autem possent illic, que hîc prius in Ecclesia soluerentur. Sed cum videamus [...] [...] infestationis appropinquare coepisse, & cre­bris [Page 396] atque assiduis ostensionibus admoneamur, vt ad cert [...] quod nobis hostis indicit armati & parati simus, plebem [...] nobis diuina dignatione commissam exhortationibus nostris praeparemus, & omnes omnino milites Christi, qui arma de­siaerant, & praelium flagitant, intra castra domini colligamus necessitate cogente censuimus, eis qui de Ecclesia domini recesserunt, sed poenitentiam agere & lamentari, ac domi­num deprecari, à primo lapsus sui die non destiterunt pacem dandam esse, & eos ad praelium quod imminet armari & in­strui oportere. We had decreed indeed long since moste deer bro­ther, by aduise taken amongst our selues, that such as in the trouble of persecution were supplanied by the aduersarie and fallen, and had defiled themselues with vnlawfull sacrifices should doe full penance a long time, and if daunger of infirmity did vrge, they should receiue peace at the point of death. For it was not lawfull, neither did the Fatherlie pietie and clemen­tie of God permit, that the Church should be shut vp to them that knocke, and that aid of healthfull hope should be denied to them that sorrowed and praied for it, that departing out of the world they should be sent awaie without anie communicaiion or the Lordes peace, seeing he hath permitted which made the lawe, that those things that are bound in earth should also be bound in heauen, that those things also might be loosed there, which were loosed here in the Church. But for as much as we see, that the daie of another trouble beginneth to approch, and are admonished by often and dailie shewings or visions, that we should be armed and prepared vnto the battell, which the enemie doth denounce vnto vs, we should also pre­pare the people by gods voutsafing committed vnto vs, with our exhortations, and should gather in anie wise all the souldiers of Christ which call for armour, and desire to fight, into the Lordes campe, necessity compelling vs we haue thought good, that peace is to be graunted to them which haue departed out of the Lords Church, but from the daie of their falling haue not ceased to shew repentance, and to lament, and to intreat our Lord, and that they also ought to be armed and furnished against the bat­tell which is at hand. These are the words of Cyprian, [Page 397] & his fellow Bishops, which you haue abridged at your pleasure, if your note booke did not deceiue you, to set down, that you haue done, as the very words of the epi stle. Out of which you gather, beside that I haue noted before, power to inioyne penance, and to release the same againe. But where you saie, they take vpon them cleerelie to inioyne what they list, and how long they list, that is not so, but what is iust and conuenient, and so likewise vpon iust cause they release the same, or some parte thereof. Againe, you slaunder them, in saying they take vpon thē to pardon after death: for there is no such word or matter in all the Epistle. They released and receiued them to the communion, being in daunger of death, but after death, they receiued no man to the communion. Nay, they decreed, that whereas Geminius Victor, who had made Geminius Fau­stinus a clergie man his executor, contrarie to the de­crees of their synods, there should be no oblation made for his falling a sleepe, nor anie praier frequen­ted in the Church in his name. So farre of was it that they would pardon anie man after death, when no re­pentance auaileth. The scripture they doe rightlie ap­plie for the establishing of the discipline of excommu­nication & receiuing againe into the fellowship of the Church such, as were fallen, vpon their repentance: as for the sacrament of penance, you say wel, they exercized discipline without it: for such a sacrament they knew not, but they claimed no iurisdiction to receiue offenders without good tokens of their repentāce, as their words be manifest. Where you saie, they claimed iurisdiction by their onelie letters, to giue them in absence peace & pardon of their inioyned penāce, as though their letter did resemble the Popes pardons in writing, you speake beside the booke: for they doe not giue peace by these letters on­lie, but signifie vnto Cornelius what they thought ne­cessary to be done, & vpō what reasons left they might be thought to light in loosing the sinews of discipline [Page 398] toward so notorius offenders. Your conclusion follow eth not vpon this example, Cyprian and his fellow Bishope did vpon necessary cause release the time of penāce enioyned to certaine greeuous offenders, and receiued them to the com­munion vpon certaine perswasion of their répentance, there­fore the Pope and his popelings maie giue pardon of paine due for sinnes remitted, where hone is due, and in the sacra­ment of penance, when no such sacrament can be proo­ued out of the scripture: neither doe you rightlie al­ledge Christes wordes, as those holie Fathers did: for they alledged them for the discipline of excommuni­cation, and absoluing, which is necessarie to be vsed in the Church, but you to maintaine a tirannical iu­risdiction, to loose that which other men haue bound, without good cause, as they did, but for manie often times, as they did neuer. Therefore there is as great oddes betweene their practize of discipline, and these Popes pardons, as there is distance betweene their ages, which is more then a thousand yeares.

And now to make vp this matter for the true meaning of the said text, which we now prooue to pertaine to the establish­ing Cap. 11. li. 2. de const. of the true title of giuing pardons, I will recite the saying of S. Clement him selfe, in time the Apostles equall, expert in their regement, and priuie to al their doings. He liuelie expres­seth the dignity of the chiefe pastours & power of their gouern­ment, vnto which he applieth the power of binding and loo­sing in such sort as we haue said. But heare his owne wordes, as Carolus Bouius hath translatedthë: O Episcope, stude mun­ditie operum excellere, cognoscens locum tuum ac dignitatem, tanquam locum Dei obtinens, eò quod praees omnib. Dominis, Sacerdotib. Regib. Principih. patrib. filiis, magistris, at (que) sub­ditis simul omnib. sicque in Ecclesia sede, cùm sermomen facies, vt potestatem habens iudicandi eos qui peccauerunt: quoni­am vobis Episcopis dictum est, quodcunque ligaueritis super terram, erit ligatum in coelo, & quodcunque solueritis super terram, erit solutum in coelo. Iudica igitur (o Episcope) cum potestate, tanquam Deus, sed poenitentes recipe. In English, O [Page 399] thou that art a Bishop, studie and endeuoure to excell other in the beutie of good works, in respect of thy place & dignitie: & consider thou sittest in Gods owne roome, being promoted aboue al Lords, Priestes, Kinges, Princes, Parentes, children, Ma­sters, seruants euerie one. Therfore so sit in the Church, when thou doest speake, as one that hath power to iudge al those that haue sinned. For to you Bishops it was said: whatsoeuer you binde in earth, it shal be bound in heauen, and what­soeuer you shall loose in earth, it shalbe loosed in hea­uen. Iudge then (O Bishop) with power and maiestie, as God, but yet haue mercie on the penitent. Thus saith S. Clement. By whose wordes you may preceiue, Gods right to be in a man­ner conferred vpon his ministers by the tearmes of binding & losing, not onlie giuen for the remitting or retaining of sins in the sacrament of penance, but also for the correcting or giuing pardon, by supreame iurisdiction, out of the said sacrament.

And now to make vp a number and a shew of an­tiquity, S Clements constitution is alledged, which is nei­ther authenticall, nor any thing to the purpose in controuersie, if it were as auntient, as he whose name it beareth. For watsoeuer is said in this whole clause, if it be rightly vnderstood, is true of the dignitie of Bishops in their spirituall authoritie, and power of preaching the worde, and exercising of discipline. But for that blasphe mous conclusion that you draw out of it, Gods right to be in a manner conferred vpon his ministers by the tearmes of binding and loosing, with the rest that followeth, can neuer be gathered of these premises. Gods right remaineth whole and absolute vnto him selfe, for any power of binding or losing that he hath committed to his seruantes. As for the sacrament of penance, and giuing pardon by supreame iurisdiction out of the said sacrament, how can they be deduced out of the wordes of this pretended Clemens?

Now then let Caluine, or his auncient Luther come sorth and denie all spirituall iurisdiction of holie Bishops, touching temporall punishment, or release of paines appointed for sinne­let [Page 400] them writh the plaine place both of binding and loosing, to the preaching of the ghospel, as their fashion is, rather thē they would graunt this soueraignty to the Church of Christ: let them saie, that Christ, when he whipped out the vnlawfull occupiers of marchandies in the temple, did nothing else but preach the Marci. 12. Gospell: let them hold that this was a sermon, and not an act of iurisdiction, when he said to diuers, thy sins be forgiuen thee, or when he with power and terror gaue to Iudas the soppe, by which it is thought, that he excommunicated him and gaue Lucae. 5. Ioan. 13. him vp whollie to the Deuill, and seperated him from the companie of the Apostles, and from his Church. For then the Deuill entred into him, and he went out, as the gospell saieth. But (saie Master Luther) was this the power of preaching only, or an exercise of moste high iurisdiction, giuen him of his fa­ther euerlasting, as he was he head of the Church? No, no, vaine fellowes, this is no preaching which you would haue one­lie to be the Churches propertie, that you might, being void of all other authoritie in Gods Church, compare with his Apo­stles, in your prating, because your glorie amongst the people standeth on your glafe tongues. Cores had a ticling tongue, and Moses tongue was tied: yet God gaue sentence on his ser­uants side, and reuenged the disobedience of the contrarie. No, no, I tellyou, if all the Bishoppes and Priestes of the Christian world were as rude & as simple in their preaching, as you thinke your selues eloquent, yet their onelie iurisdiction, and Ma­iestie of their power, assisted by Christ perpetuallie, by whome it was giuen them, shall beare you downe, and your vaine name of preaching the word. And God be thanked, beside the right of the cause, there be in the Churchmany that are honoured with the gift of true preaching, to whome God giucth the worde in deed with great and vnspeakeable force and encrease of the truth, and daily decaie of your vaine shade of preaching. His name be blessed for euer, that hath giuen such a guard to his Church, that hell gates, nor the eloquence neither of man not Angell shall preuaile against her.

Now then let Allen or al his auncients, & punies the papists in Rome or Rhemes shew out of either Cal­uines [Page 401] or Luthers writings anie place, where they or either of them, denied all power of binding and loo­sing, other, then by preaching of the gospell: where they affirmed, that excommunication and receiuing againe into the Church, was nothing but preaching of the gospell. If Allen be not able to prooue with all his complices, that Caluine and Luther denied the disci­pline of the Church, or haue not established the same in the Churches, by them reformed, then is he an impudent slaunderer, and detestable deceiuer, to beare simple men in hand, that they acknowledge not discipline, either in binding or in releasing of open of­fendours, but preaching of the gospel. His further stor­ming and malitious rayling, as also his vaine bragging and threatening, I passe ouer, as vnworthie of anie o­ther answere then silence, as bewraying sufficientlie the sincerity, wisdome, & honesty of the author. Neither wil I disrusse that waighty argument, of giuing the soppe to Iudas, whereby the prooueth the exercise of Christes iurisdiction, as head of the Church. Wise men may ea­sely see what arguments he hath to prooue things in question, when he hath no better demonstration of a matter out of all controuersie.

THE 5. CHAP.

CHrist then hauing not only the preaching of the Gospel to punish & pardon by, but iurisdiction also to giue dis­cipline, and to release the same, in that he was made the su­preame gouernour of al Christian people, did communicat both functions at once, and gaue the Magistrates of the Church not onlie by preaching to threaten or exhort men to vertue, or pro­mise them release of their sinnes by only faith, as men haue now plained the waie to heauen, but also by force of their regiment, to [Page 402] giue great penance, as we haue prooued, & greatpardon againe, as to their wisdomes, and for the Churches edifying may seeme most conuenient. Of this great power of Christ communi­cated to his Apostles, we haue practize, as well for punishing sinners, as pardoning them: For vpon this soueraigne iurisdi­ction it rose, that the Apostles mightelie ministred iustice vpon offendours, as well by afflicting their bodies, with enioyned long fasies, and large almoses, as by excommunicaton, & other meanes. Which thing whsoeuer well weigheth in the mani­folde examples of Gods worde, they shall not wonder, that the holie Bishops of Christs Church may giue a pardon of penance enioyned. For by this authoritie did S. Peter, who first receiued Act. 5. the keies of iurisdictiō & power ouer the Church, kil both Ana­nias and Saphira his wife, which is as great a bodilie punish­ment for sinne, as may be: By this authoritie did he excommu­nicate Simon the Sorcerer: by this power did S. Paull offer to reuenge disobedience, by this did he threaten tocome to the faithfull with a rodde of discipline: By this he prescribed to 1. Cor. 4. 2. Tim. 1. 3. Tim. 1. Timothie, whom he consecrated Bishop, how he should heare accusations, and behaue himselfe in rebuking sinne, & corre­ction of diuerse states. By this power did he mightely deliuer vp some to Sathan, and bodelie vexation: By this power did he strike blinde Elimas the witch, and released him at his pleasure Act. 13. againe.

That the ministers of the Church haue authoritie not onelie to preach the worde of life moste comforta­blie, to al penitent sinners, and moste terribly to all re­proba tes and impenitent persons, but also to exercise discipline of correction vpon offendours, and to re­lease the same vpon hope and apparance of their a­mendment, it is at all times and in all places by vs wil­linglie confessed and acknowledged. Wherefore this discourse is altogether needelesse, but that you muste interlace some trueth not denied, among so manie vnpropable and vnreasonable propositions, that of no wise men will euer be graunted. The waie to heauen is no other wise plained by vs, in promising men re­lease [Page 403] of their sinnes by faith onelie, then it was by Saint Paul. Rom. 4. and before him, by Dauid psal. 32. That the Apostles ministred iustice vpon offenders, as well by afflicting their bodies with enioyned long fastes & large almes, as by excommunication and other meanes, when you prooue it out of the scriptures, we will yeelde vnto you. We finde they did excommunicate, and that they exhor­ted men to fasting and almes, but that they enioyned any prescript fastes or almes, such we finde not And yet we doubt not, but they esteemed fasting, praying, and sorowing for sinnes, almes, and other Godlie exercises, to be fruites of true repentance: in be­holding of which they were mooued to receiue a­gaine into the Church, such as for their offences were iustlie cast out. Neither did Saint Peter by the same keies of iurisdiction, as you call them, kill Ananias and his wife, by which he did excommunicate Simon the sorcerer, if that denuntiation of Gods iudgement maie be called an excommunication. Neither did Peter properlie kil Ananias, who was stryken immediatelie of God for lying against the holie ghost: neither hath anie succes­sour of his authoritie to kill mens bodies, howsoeuer you would insinuate, that your Antichrist the Pope haththe power of both the swords, to slaie mens bodies with the one, as he murdereth their soules with his pe­stilent heresies. That the Apostles deliuered some to Sa­tan to be vexed in their bodies, it prooueth no ordinarie 1. Cor. 5. 12. iurisdiction of punishing mens bodies, for that it was onelie a miraculous power they had, which goeth not by succession vnto their posteritie, like as the example of Saint Paul striking Elimas with blindnes, can not be drawne to discipline, which is practized onelie vpon the members of the Church, whereof that Sorcerer was neuer anie parte: neither did Saint Paull release him at his pleasure, but at the time appointed by God.

By this power haue holie Bishops excommunicated mightie Emperours, suspended manie from the sacraments, disgraded [Page 404] diuers spirituall men from their functions, interdicted wholl Realmes, and to be short, by this power hath the Church of God prescribed a due punishment for euerie deadlie sinne, iust­lie respecting the greeuousnes thereof, and continuance there­in. As we maie see in the penitentiall booke of I heodotus Vide decret Iuo par. 15 and Bede, the cannons whereof be translated into the booke of decrees, which is the 15. intituled De poenitent. And namelie in the most auncient Councell of Ancyre, which was hol­den well neare 1300. yeares since, in the most pure time of Chri­stian religion, when I trow our aduersaries dare not saie that the faith was corrupted. There the Priests and deacons that re­lented Cap. 1 &c. 2 in persecution were suspended from the executing of their seuerall functions. Such as supt in the temples of Idols, and sa­crificed Cap. 4. to false Gods, were charged, beside absteining from the sa craments, with 3. yeares penance: those that committed brutish Cap. 15. sinnes & vnnatural, should do 25. years penance for adultery 7 yeares penance: for women that destroied their birth, 10. years. Cap. 20. for murtherers 7. if it be not voluntarie: if it be wilfull, til the endof mans life: for superstitious southsaiers or dreame readers, Cap. 21. or sorcerers, and witches, fiue yeares. Finallie for rape, 10. yeares Cap. 22. were prescribed. The like were made for diuers crimes in the Cap. 23. councell of Nice. But it is inough that we know though the e­ternall Cap. 24. paines deserued by dcadlie sinnes be forgiuen with the sinnes them-selues, and yet there remaineth for the satisfying of Gods iustice, some temporall scourge, to preuent which, the Church enioyneth paine for faults remitted, that both Gods mercie be followed in the remission of their sinnes, and his iu­stice partlie answered in the punishment of the same, the which debt of deserued paine, being not here fulfilied or released, it must in another world be answered.

By power receaued from Christ, holie Bishops haue practized christian discipline, in excommunicating euen Emperours, and great estates, separating from the sacraments and displasing of ecclesiasticall persons from their functions. But I neuer read that anie holie Bishop did interdict wholl realmes, but onelie Anti­christ of Rome. Victor of olde time did take vpon him [Page 405] to excommunicate all the Churches of the East, for not celebrating of the feast of Easter, as he did: but he was counter maunded and reprooued by his fellow Bishops, not onelie of the East, but euen of the West, which agreed not with him in that ceremonie, as by I­reneus Bishop of Lions in Fraunce and other. That the Church of great antiquity prescribed a certaine time of punish ment, for euery kinde of heinous sinne, it was partly to re­forme the facility of som Bishops, that were to easie in graunting reconciliation to greeuous offenders: part­lie to meete with the hyporisie of manie sinners, which vpon hope to be easily receiued, made lesse account to become offenders, & cast out of the Church. Andhere­of came those seuere canons of the Ancyrane councell, which were soone afterward somwhat mitigated in the Nicen councell, and charge giuen to the Bishop, to deale more gently with them that shewed great tokens of re­pentance before their time of penance expired. Abo­mnibus verò illud praecipué obseruetur, vt animus eorum & fructus poenitentiae attendatur. But let this be chiefelie obser­ued of all men, that their minde, and their fruite of repen­tance be considered. Wherby they declare for what cause such time of penance was prescribed, namelie by the fruites of repentance to make triall, whether men were truelie penitent for their sinnes, and meete to be receaued againe into the congregation or no. The councell of Carthage aster that perceiuing manie incon­ueniences to arise by those certaine prescript times of penance, decreed, Vt poenitentibus secundùm peccatorum differentias, episcopi arbitrio, poenitentiae tempora decernan­tur. That times of repentance, by the discretion of the Bishop, should be appointed vnto them that doe penance, according to the differences of their sinnes. but that there remaineth for the satisfying of Gods iustice some temporall scourge, after eternall paines by deadlie sinnes deser­ued be forgiuen with the sinnes themselues, we know not out of the scriptures, but the contrarie, namelie [Page 406] that these sinnes being forgiuen, and Gods iustice throughlie satisfied in Christ, there remaineth no tem­porall punishment due for the sinnes forgiuen, but sometimes a mercifull and fatherly chastisment, which is not in anie mans power to release or remit, but when it pleaseth the father of his wisdome and clemency to take it awaie.

And therefore S. Augustine saith of the Churches vsage in prescribing penance thus: Sed neque de ipsis criminil us quam­libet magnis remittendis in Sancta Ecclesia, Dei desperanda est misericordia, agentibus poenitentiam secundùm modum sui cuius (que), peccati: & auia plerun (que) dolor alterius cordis occultus est alteri, rectè constituuntur ab iis qui Ecclesiae praesunt tem­pora poenitentiae, vt fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae, in qua peccata remittuntur. Euen for sinnes being neuer so greeuous and great, we maie not dispaire of Gods mercie, nor of reneission to be had in the Church: marie alwaies presupposed, that the of­fenders must doe penance, according to the quantitie and gree­uousnes of their offences. And because often it chaunceth, that the sorrow of mans hart, wherein much standeth, is vnknowne to other men, it is verie reasonable that the Church should li­mite their penance by her gouernour, to be accomplished in cer­taine times and appointed seasons, for the answere of the Chur­ches right, in which onelie all sinnes be remitted, as out of her lappe none at al be forgiuen, for any benefit to the partie. So saith this doctour of publike penance.

And of secret satisfaction, which nowe is more vsed after confession, lest anie man should feare, that that were not suf­ficient to satisfie for the remnant of debt due for mortall sinnes forgiuen, thus saith the author of that booke de Eccles. dogm. set forth with Saint Augustines name: Sed & secreta satisfa­ctione solui mortalia crimina non negamus: Neither we doe denie, but mortall sinnes maie be loosed by secret satisfaction. Feare nos the worde satisfaction, as though it derogated a­nie thing to the redemption which is in Christ Iesus. It is here and in manie places of S. Augustines workes most common, and no lesse vsed of all Catholike writers since Christes time, who [Page 407] knew right well, that the fruites of Christian penance done in the vertue and force of Gods grace, doe applie Christes satisfa­ction effectuallie to our benefit, and not remooue the vse ther­of from vs. But they haue a faith so solitarie now a daies, that it will alpne apprehend what ye list, and reach so farre in­to Christes iustice, that her fautors shall haue no need of Chri­stian workes, or fruitfull repentance.

Saint Augustine saith to verie good purpose, but no­thing to the maintenance of your purpose, for which you alledge him: namelie that temporall punishment is due to Gods iustice for sinne remitted, whose saying I maruell why you do so geld, that you recite it not whollie, as he hath written, but that either you would not haue men certainlie know that he speaketh of open penance, done for great crimes committed, or else you haue cited the place of some other mans cre­dit, rather then of your owne reading. After he hath said, that some man maie liue without crime, but no man without sinne, his wordes be these; Sed neque deipsis cri­minibus quamlibet magnis remittendis in sancta Ecclesia, Dei desperanda est misericordia, agentibus poenitentiam secundùm modum sui cuius (que) peccati. In actione autem poenitentiae vbitae lecrimen commissum est, vt is qui commisit, a Christi etiam corpore separetur, nōtam consideranda est mensura temporis, quàm doloris: cor enim contritum & humiliatum Deus non spernit. Verùm quia pierunque dolor [...]lterius cordis occultus est alteri, neque in aliorum notitiam per verba vel quaecunque alia sig­na procedit, cùm sit coram illo cui dicitur, gemitus meus à le nō est absconditus, rectè constituuntur ab iis qui Ecclesiae praesunt tempora poenitentiae, vt fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae in qua remit­tuntur ipsa peccata, extra eam quippe non remittuntur. Ipsa namque propriè Spiritum Sanctum pignus accepit, sine quo non remittuntur vlla peccata, ita vt quibus dimittuntur, con­sequantur vitam aeternam. But neither of those crimes, be they neuer so great to be remitted in the holy Church, the mer­cie of God is to be dispaired of, to them that repent accor­ding to the measure of euery mans sinne. But in the doing of pe­nance, [Page 408] where such a crime is committed, that he which hath committed it, is also to be separated from the bodie of Christ, the measure of time is not so much to be considered, as of the sorrowe for God dispiseth not a contrite and an humbled heart. But because often times the sorrow of one mans heart is hidden to an other and commeth not into the knowledge of other men by wordes, or other signes whatsoeuer, although it be knowne before him, to whome it is said, my groning is not hid from thee, there be rightlie appointed by them that gouerne the Church, times of repentance, that the Church also maie be satisfied, in which those sinnes are remitted: for whithout they are not remitted. For she hath properlie receaued the pledge of the holie Ghost, without whome no sinnes are remitted, so that they to whome they are remitted doe obtaine eternall life. In these wordes Saint Augustine sheweth plainely that times of penance or repentance were enioyned, not to recompence Gods iustice, but to make satisfa­ction to the Church; which is not to graunt remission in those cases, but vpon good hope of the parties true conuersion and inwarde and vnfained repentance. But as Augustine speaketh here of open satisfaction not to Gods iustice, but to the Churches iudgement, so you haue his authority or as good, for secret satisfactiō which is now more vsed, lest any man should feare that were not sufficiēt to satisfy for the remnant of the debt, due for mortall sinnes forgiuen. I know not whe­ther to impute it to ignorance, or impudencie, but most intollerable presumption it is, to make that author, whatsoeuer he was, a faulter of your popish secret satis faction, now vsed to be prescribed in your secret shrifts. For this writer, as I haue before declared, aloweth no secret satisfaction for the loosing of mortal crimes, but vpon a verie hard condition, namely, sed mutato priùs sae­culari habitu, &c. but so that the secular habit be first chang­ed, and the studie of religion be confessed by correction of life, and continuall and perpetuall sorow, thorough the mercie of God, but so onelie that he doe contrarie things to them, for [Page 409] which he repenteth, & euery Sundaie humby and submmissiue­lie vnto his death, he receiue the Eucharist, &c. This is not to say, pater noster in rememberance of the fiue wounds, or to giue fiue pence, grotes, or shillings, to fiue poore men, or to fast fiue frydaies, or such single satisfacti­on, as your Popish priests in shirst doe enioyne. Touch­ing the worde satisfaction vsed by this Monkish Augu­stine, it is neuer vsed by the right, & autentike Austine, to graunt that the sufferings, or doeings of man can satisfy the iustice of god, who is satisfied by Christs obedience onelie, and by none other meane; the ver­tue of whose satisfaction is communicated vnto vs by the holie Ghost, whereof we are assured by faith one­lie, but not by a solitarie faith, as this heretike doth slaunder vs, but by a faith accompanied, fruiteful, hue­lie, effectuall, and workeing by loue, as the holie scrip­ture teacheth vs, whatsoeuer these blasphemous dogs barke against it.

Now to this ende haue we saied al this, that the faithful may vnderstand perfectlie, what the Pope may by right remit thorugh his Pardon and Indulgence. For looke what the of­ficers of Gods Church may binde, that without all doubt may they vpon good consideration release againe. Therefore if they may enioyne penance for yeares and daies, both openlie out of the sacrament, and also in priuate satisfaction after Confession, then may they release certaine daies and yeares of the same pe­nance which was prescribed before. For loosing and binding pertaine by reason, law, & Christs owne graunt, as to one act of iurisdiction, that the one beeing lawfull, the other must needes so be also. If the Church be of right power and authoritie to pre­scribe penance of seuen yeares, she hath the like right to remit vpon iust respect, either all those yeares, or some part of the same, especiallie hauing meanes otherwise, to supplie the lacke of fatisfaction of Gods iustice in the partie penitent.

There is no faithfull man can perceiue by any thing that you haue saide, what right the Pope hath to remit by his pardon, and indulgence, that which is [Page 410] enioyned by an other. It is out of doubt that the offi­cers of the Church vpon good consideration, may re­lease that which they binde, except for in emissibie sins they binde with insoluble bandes. And therefore they may release daies or yeares appointed for triall of the repentance, if the Church can be satisfied, in shorter time. But for priuate satisfaction of Gods iustice, or any satisfaction of his iustice, they can neither binde nor loose, enioyne, nor release. Therefore if the Church be of power to enioyne and prescribe pe­nance for seauen yeares, shee is of power also to release seuen yeares, or part of the same: but shee hath no meanes to supplie the satisfaction of Gods iustice, which is fullie satisfied in Christ, whose satisfaction is not to be disposed according to the iudgement of men, but is applied to all the elect of God, according to his will and pleasure. Now whereas you speake of seauen yeares penance, and the streightest Canons of Ancyre pre­scribe but 25. yeares for the greatest crime, whereto serue so many thousand yeares of Pardon? If therefore all that you haue saide tende to this ende, that men may vnderstand that the Pope hath power to release times of penance enioyned, seeing no councell euer enioy­ned a thousand yeares penance nor any penance be­yonde the time of a mans life, in so much that the Coun­cell of Nice decreed that they which departe out of the world, should be receiued into the communion, although their time were not expired, why doth the Pope take vpon him to graunt an hundred thousand yeares of pardon at a clap, as I haue shewed before out of a pardon imprinted and confirmed by Leo 10? But if the Pope haue authoritie to graunt pardon for so many thousand yeares of pe­nance, enioyned by the right of binding and loosing, which you saie by reason, law, and graunt of Christ pertaine to one act of iurisdiction, that the one beeing lawfull, the other must needs be so also, Then may eue­rie priest enioyne an hundred, 50. 40. 10. or 7. thousand [Page 411] yeares of penance to them that come to shrift, as wel as the Pope giue pardon for so many thousand yeares: for hundreds be but beggerly things to talke of, where thousand be so rife. If you answere, that the Pope doth pardon not onelie yeares of penance enioyned, but al­so of yeares due to be enioyned; the difficultie is no­thing auoided: for if thousands of yeares be due, the priest may enioyne thousands of yeares. But then he shal exceede al the Canons penitential, that euer were made in any councel, and yet be forced to graunt par­don at the houre of death.

And therefore I ioyne in argument and open reason with our aduersaries thus: To giue pardon in moste common and Catholike sense of that worde, is to release some part, or all the enioyned penance for sinnes remitted: But the Pope, because he is the principall gouernour of Gods Church, may release any pe­nance enioyned, vpon iust considerations: Ergo, the Pope may lawfullie giue Pardons. The Minor, wherein the aduer­saries may perchance giue backe, I prooue thus: That which was bound by the Churches or Popes authoritie, may be lawful­lie loosed by the same authoritie againe, because Christ him­selfe ioyned in his graunt both these acts togetber, and they are prooued to be proper to one iurisdiction: But the Church by the Decrees of Bishops and Councells hath appointed such penance, and so many yeares of correction for sundrie faults: therefore the same Bishops, or such as be of the like authoritie, when they see occasion, may remit the penance of the saied yeares or some part of it, by limitation of daies or seasons, as the state of the penitent requireth, or the time it selfe doth mooue them.

These arguments I like well, for they bewraie your infirmitie moste of al. And now for answere, I saie, that your Maior is false, as weil as your Minor: for the com­mon Popish sense of pardons is as the wordes of them pretend, that is, to giue pardon not onelie of penance enioyned, but also of sinnes. Againe the gouernours of the Church (as your Maior should haue beene framed, but that you dare not come within the compasse of a [Page 412] lawfull, syllogisme) haue no power either to enioyne penance for sinnes remitted, or to remit penance en­ioyned for sins remitted, but of time of penance enioy­ned for satisfaction of the Church, as we heard latelie out of Saint Augustine, when the Church may be sa­tisfied in shorter time. Your Minor, which you knew would not be admitted, you take vpon you to prooue, but you come nothing neere the matter: for this is the point of your Minor, which we denie, that the Pope is the principall gouernour of Gods Church, yea, that he is any go­uernour of Gods Church. But if he were a Bishop of Rome, as many were, whose successour he claimeth to be, he might be allowed in his Church of Rome to binde and loose, enioyne and remit, so farre as Christi­an discipline will beare, but not to claime tiranie ouer all Churches, as he doth. Now you in your mishapen syllogisme, in which you fumble diuerse matters toge­ther, to deceiue the ignorant, prooue that the Church and gouernours thereof haue power to release that which they haue power to enioyne, which is not the matter in controuersie. But whether they haue power to enioyne penance for sinnes remitted, to an­swere Gods iustice, or whether the Pope be a lawfull gouernour of the Church, these and such like be mat­ters of controuersie, which you are neuer able to con­clude in any lawfull and true syllogisme.

And this argument shal be vnmooueable, except they reiect with the Popes Pardons all manner of discipline, as well of excommunication, as other lesser satisfactions, whereof we haue allreadie spoken, as in deede to mainteine their false­hoode they must needes doe, as also they shall be enforced to re­prooue both the Councell of Nice, all the holie Fathers, and the generall practize of the Church, and with them the expresse scriptures, in which the worthie fruites of penance, sharpe disci­pline, Math. 7. 1. Cor. 11. Heb. 13. Mat. 16. 18. [...]. Tim. 1. iudging our selues, obedience to our Prelates, binding & reteining of sinnes, excommunicating and deliuering vp to Sa­than, be so often condemned. It must needes be a miserabe [Page 413] doctrine of these Protestants which cannot be vpholden but by so shamefull shiftes, and when we driue them into such straites, in a matter where they thinke most may be saied for themselues, and lest for our defence, where shall they stand in our plaine causes, in which almost our aduersaries confesse vs to haue the vantage of antiquitie, and the preheminence of all [...] Councells in the world? But surelie, I thinke falsehood hath so litle holde in all matters, that it standeth onelie vpright, whiles the contrarie is not seene, or not vnderstanded, which shee seeketh euer by all meanes shee may, to couer and keepe close. For the night shee loueth, and in darkenes shee deligh­teth. Doe but open the true sense of anie article by them im­pugned, and it is more then halfe prooued, and the enemies without argument, vpon the sight of trueth, in a manner dis­comfited. So it fareth with them in our present cause, which they haue long toyled and troubled in the mist of their phanta­sies, and vpon false interpretation discharged amongst the sim­ple sorte, that that thing, which in this sense, as Gods Church, that hath the ruling of the matter, taketh it, is so sure and so cleare in it selfe, that I thinke they shall neuer be hable with honestie, to speake against in any one parcell thereof.

A boy that hath studied Logicke halfe a yeare may be ashamed to make such syllogismes, and yet you are not ashamed to affirme before the worlde, that this ar­gument is vnmooueable, except we reiect with the Popes pardons all manner of discipline. And though it be manifest vnto the worlde, that we practize all Godlie discipline, which is according to the scriptures, in re­quiring the worthie fruites of repentance, iudgeing of our selues, obedience to Christian Prelates, practi­zing also the binding and reteining of sinnes, excom­munication, and deliuering vp to Satan, giuing that reuerence we ought to the holie Councell of Nice, to all holie fathers, and to the generall practize of the Church yet you blush not to write, that we shall be enfor­ced to reprooue all these. It is not these beggerlie argu­ments, M. Allen, that shall enforce vs to these absurdi­ties. [Page 414] If you haue any better stuffe in store for Pardons, bring it out for shame, or ells talke no more of en­forcement, except it be in shrift, where no man can controll you. The rest to the ende of this Chapter, conteining nothing but generall rayling, and arrogant boasting, after your accustomed man­ner, I passe ouer, as needelesse to be answered, [...] wise then it doth discouer it selfe, in any wise mans iudgement.

THE SIXT CHAP.

ANd yet to giue more light to the matter, and the grea­ter ouerthrow to falsehood, let vs driue the cause for­ward, and weigh with our selues the wholl state of things in this order. First that there be three waies of punishment of mans sinnes after they be released in the sacrament of Penance (be­sides the fruites of repentance which man chargeth himselfe withall, and besides the punishment appointed for offences by the ciuill or temporall lawes, whereof I now speake not) the first & the easiest is that penāce, which is in secret confessiō inioyned by our Confessor, which is lightlie (as these times be) much lesse then the nature of the offence, for which it was prescribed, re­quireth. Yet because it is taken obedientlie, and by our iudges prescription, and in a sacrament in which God alwaies worketh much more grace, then he doth by the selfe same things without the sacrament, and because the penitent is readie to take more if more had beene prescribed, in all these respects, it standeth often, if it be any thing correspondent to the crimes for which it was inioyned, for a ful satisfaction before god, when it is accom­plished.

In the first Chapter of this booke you charged the reader to abide the orderlie methode and compasse of this cause. but the methode you follow is such, as be­commeth your cause, namelie the methode of deceit­fulnes, which is that you call the compasse of your cause. For true methode requireth to proceede from things more & better knowne, to things lesse knowne, as it were to build vpon a good foundation, but your manner is to assume that which is the chiefe mat­ter in controuersie, and thereupon to builde as it were vpon an imaginarie fundation, & afterwarde to make a florish in wordes, and a vaine [...] of confirming your foundation. As in this cause it had beene moste necessarie, if the compasse of your cause could haue borne it, to haue first prooued substantiallie that there remaineth temporall punishment after sinne remitted to satisfie the iustice of God. Then that the iustice of God not satisfied by the act of Christs sacrifice, on the crosse, may be satisfied afterward. Thirdlie the meane wherby it may be satisfied, which you cal the treasure of the Church. fourthly that dispensation therof belong­eth to the pope: & these things once prooued, the way had beene plainner to bring in the Popes pardons, for proofe of which to be good, you haue plaide the pro­ctour all this while. But these matters must be dainte­lie touched, the compasse of your cause can not abide to haue them thoroughlie handled. And therefore it is sufficient to affirme them, for other proofe you haue none of them. And yet as though you brought with you noe worsse then mathematicall demonstrations, you blow the trumpe afore hand to giue more light to the matter, the greater ouerthrow to falsehood, to driue the cause forward, and weigh the wholl state of things. And what saie you to the purpose? forsooth, you tell vs, that there be three kindes of punishment of mans sinnes after they be remitted. But sir, wee be­leeue you not, where is your demonstration? Why? [Page 414] Is it not sufficient that M. Allen saith so? what an vnrea sonable man are you, that will not learne to abide the orderlie methode, and compasse of the cause? well, see­ing we muste haue none other proofe of your sayings let vs see what you say: first, the fruites of repentance, which man chargeth himselfe with all, are none. What those be I know not, except it be some superstitious vowes, and such like matters: but the fruites of repentance, which God chargeth a man withal, be so necessarie to be brought forth, that otherwise the repentance is fained, and thereof followeth no remission. Againe ciuill pu­nishment is none, and yet nothing is more like to prooue that purpose. what is it then? The first & easiest is that penance which is enioyned in secret confession. In deed that is easie, and such as may encourage men to com­mit sinnes, for which they make so easie satisfaction, toties, quoties. But what is the effect of this satisfactió? It standeth for a full satisfaction before God, when it is accompli­shed. What alwaie? Nay often times if it be any thing correspondent to the crimes. Then is there no cer­taintie in this matter, but in steede of a quietnes of conscience, a torment followeth vpon it, if the sinner be not assured that his penance enioyned will goe for paiement or satisfaction. Well when this easie pe­nance is a full satisfaction, whence taketh it so great force? you answere, small workes by force of the sa­craments are verie effectuall. But to prooue this patch of Poperie to be a sacrament, what daie wil you take? for that which is the grounde of al your disputation is de­nied of vs as you know. So that hetherto, but by peti­on of principles, you get nothing.

The second way of punishment is appointed by the Canons generallie, for such faultes as be committed after Baptisme, that is to saie, by the lawes of the Church, or Decrees of Bishops and chiefe Magistrates thereof, and is called Canonicall satis­faction. Which is much more sparpe and greeuous then the o­ther, that in priuate penance is commonlie giuen, and a great [Page 415] deale more answerable to Gods iustice and the greeuousnes of the crimes committed. And so the Canons were not onelie pre­scribed, as some iudge not right of them, for open offences, to satisfie the Church and the offence of the people, but also euen for secret sinnes, as we may perceiue by Saint Augustine, Ter­tullian, and other that haue written of penance. And this waie prescribed satisfaction by the auncient decrees of Councells, which lightlie appointed seuen yeares of penance for euerie deadelie sinne, was almost a rule for such as heard secret con­fessions to moderate their penance by, which they lightlie gaue to the penitents euen after the limitation of the saide decrees & auncient Canons. Now to giue so many yeares or daies of pe­nance, signifieth the iniunction or prescriptions of fasts by cer­taine weekelie thoroughout the said prefixed times, or continu­alfasting from moste meates euerie daie in all those yeares of penance, other then would suffice for susteining of nature, as bread and water, and such shinne diet, which [...] bodie, in this fall of our strength and manners, could now scarse beare, & with this continuall mourning in outward behauiour of coun­tenance, speach and apparell, and, which was the greatest of all, necessarie abstinence from the holie sacrament, till the said pe­nance was accomplished. And this great penance was in the Primitiye Church prescribed by the Canons, not onelie for cau­tell and prouision for the like sinnes afterward to be committed (then when the Church had her punishment for sinnes, seuerall from the paines appointed by the ciuill lawes for the same) but also for the satisfiyng of gods iustice for the penitents sinnes, the burden whereof, then was counted (as indeede it is) so intol­lerable, that neither the Church spared to enioyne great satis­faction, nor the offenders refused to receiue and accomplish the same with humilitie. This therefore is the second waie of puni­shment or prescription of penance for mortall sinnes remitted, or in waie to be remitted, by the penance of the partie. In which kinde, you may account also the seuere punishments which con­cerne the soull moste, although sometimes they are ioyned vnto some corporall afflictions, as excommunication, suspension, de­gradation, & such like: for al these were vsual in the beginning [Page 418] of Christian daies for correction of sinne.

Canonical punishment, as we heard latelie in the next Chapter before, was, vt satis fait Ecclesiae, to make satisfa­ction to the Church, and not to the iustice of God, who accepteth a contrite and an humble heart thorough the vertue of Christs death and passion, as a full satis­faction to his instice. You saie, the Canons were not onelie prescribed, as some iudge not rightlie of them for open offences to satisfie the Church, & the offence of the people, but also euen for secret sinnes. But how is this prooued, that you saie? you tell vs that we may perceiue it by S. Austine, Ter­tullian, and others that haue written of penance. If it be as you saie, why be not their sayings set downe, and we with them that iudge not rightlie conuinced by them? At lest why be not the places quoted, where we may perceiue such a matter? belike the compasse of the cause cannot abide it, as also you sate, this fal of our strength and manners could scarse beare such streight penance, as by the Canons is prescribed. You ioyne two things toge­ther of diuerse natutes. If the strength of mans bodie be so greatly fallen as they are not able to endure such hard punishment, the Church should of dutie initi­gate the rigor of those Canons, and not send men to secke pardons for them. Whereas many a man that hath needc, lacketh either monie or other occasions, to purchase pardons: but if the manners of men be so dissolute as they like not streight penance, they are more dissolute vnto sinne, and so had need of the bitte of streighter penance to keepe them in, then the raine of pardons, and easie penance to let them runne. You repeat againe that this penance Canonicall was ap­pointed, not onelie for cautele and prouision against the like sinnes, but also for satisfying of Gods iustice. But hereof no proofe at all, but a bare affirmation.

The third waie of punishment of temporal sinne, is by Gods owne hand, as when he striketh some by sickenes, [...] by temporal death, or by the paines of Purgatorie, which [...] [Page 419] a place of temporal satisfaction & correction of the soule only in the next life. Thus were diuers of the Corinthians cast into infir mites, manie striken dead, and further also punished in the next world in the place of iudgement there, not eternal, but transitory because they would not iustly iudge and correct themselues. 1. Cor. 11. And, which is much to be noted for our purpose, the Apostles also had authoritie giuen them, to punish the offendours often by bodelie vexation, and death sometimes, that they might thereby make true shew and proofe to all the world, that they and their successours had iurisdiction ouer the soules of men, whiles they made it euident by manifest signes wrought in the face of all the world, euen vppon the bodies themselues, which are not so properlie subiect to the gouernours of the Church, as the soules of the faithfull be, though their bodies to, for the soules sake, be subiect to the said power. And not withstanding the same miraculous force in correcting sinners did cease after­wardes, yet the like power, ordinarilie to be exercised by giuing penance and seperating from the Sacraments, remaineth in the Churches right still.

And here we maie not thinke, that the killing of diuers, as well by Gods owne hand amongest the people of Israell in Mo­set time, Exod. 32. Num. [...]. [...]. 16. 1. Cor 11. Act. 5. Hier. in Cō ­ment. Eze­chiells. c. 20 as of other that died of diseases, for punishment of vnworthie receiuing the Sacrament in Saint Paules daics, or sleaing of Ananias and his wife by S. Peters hand, manie moe perhapes whereof there is no talke in the text, we maie not de­ny, I saie, that these were all killed either of God or Christes Apostles, to eternall damnation, but rather for their temporall correction and the auoiding of Gods iudgements to come, espe­ciallie where anie of them did repent them of their fault, before their deserued death came vpon them.

That God striketh by sicknes or temporal death his children sor their chastisment and example of others, it is verie certaine; but that he sendeth anie into purga­torie or punisheth for satisfaction of his iustice, I must stil denie, vntil I see it plainly proued. Neither do I finde that the Corinthians which neglected to iudge them­selues in this life, were punished with anie transitorie [Page 416] punishment in the next world. That the Apostles had authoritie to aftlict mens bodies, prooueth not that they or their successours had iurisdiction ouer mens soules. But their spirituall power is otherwise suffici­ently testified, as well in retaming sinnes, as in cast­ing out of the Church, such as teeme by gentler disci­pline incorrigible, Concerning all those that haue bin or be striken with the hand of God with temporall death, we leaue the iudgement to him selfe. If they did trulie repent before their death, we haue sure testimo­nie, that God hath receiued them to mercie. But hereof it followeth not, that their temporall punish­ment was a satisfaction of Gods iustice, neither-saith Saint Hierome anie such thing.

Now by these three diuers waies of correction for sinnesre­mitted no doubt the Pardons of Gods ministers must be limi­ted and vnderstanded, so that whosoeuer giueth a pardon law­fully, he must either discharge the penitent of the punishment which his Ghostlie Father enioyned him, or that the olde lawes of most holie Councels charged the like offenders withal, or that God himselfe enioyned sometimes in this world, but especiallie in the next life, where god more exactlie & properlie punisheth both for sins remitted & not remitted. If the pardō be large, it taketh awaie the whole pain, if it be otherwise, it determineth the number of daies, and releaseth not all, but part of the pen­nance onelie: that is to saic, so manie daies or yeares, as in the Indulgence is mentioned. Whereof no man can now be igno­rant, if he doe but marke, that the penance which the Pope ta­keth vpon him to remit, was also limited by yeares of fasting, praying, abstinence from the Sacraments, and such [...] as if your Confessour had giuen you in penance, to fast euerie fridaie bread and drinke onelie, for some notorius sinnes confessed vn­to him, then the Pardon for twentie daies, would discharge you of so manie daies, from your said bond, as be named: and if it be a free and plenarie Indulgence, it shall discharge you of the bond of all the daies or yeares appointed, which you haue not before the receit of the said pardon accomplished. And this [Page 417] is exceeding plaine for the two first kindes of punishments, which we said were adioyned for satisfaction by the Churches lawes, and by the confessours prescription. For they stood vp­on daiet and yeares, so the remission of the same must needes keepe the like forme. For which cause you shal see often expres­sed De Poenitentiis iniunctis, in the Indulgence. And that forme of graunt & remission was vsed alwaies in gods Church. For S. Cyprian did remit a great peece sometimes De poeniten­tiis De poen. in­iunctis. inunctis, of the enioyned penance, when he gaue peace to such as fell in time of persecution, long before they had fulifilled their prescribed penance: and so did S. Paull to the Corinthi­an that had committed incest. And so doth Nice Councel pre­scribe to Bishops that they should or might at the lest, Huma­niùs agere, deale more gentlie with those that denied their faith in the persecution of Licinius, & that they might pardō Can. 11. them before, if they saw cause, though seauen yeares penance was prescribed vnto them. In which places, that the Church now calleth a Pardon or Indulgence, was tearmed some­times, donare aliquid in persona Christi, to giue or graunt something to the offender in Christes person: and so called Saint Paull it: sometimes it was called Dare pacem, as Saint Cyprin termeth it in manie places of his workes, some­times it was called Humaniùs agere, To deale gentlie with sinners, or to shew vnto them humanitie, and so doth Ni­cen and Ancyran Councells terme it: Licebit etiam Episcopo humanius circa aliquid cogitare, It shall be lawfull for the Can. 11. Cap. 5. Bishop to deale more curteouslie with them, saith the holie Councell.

First you tell vs, that the pardon must discharge men, ei­ther of al, or some part of these three kindes of punishment. Se­condlie you assure vs, If the pardon be large, it taketh a­waie the whole paine: then it followeth that if God pu­nish a man for his sinnes, with the goute, or anie other bodelie sicknes, a large pardon would take awaie the whole paine thereof. Surelie if you would become su­ter to his holines, for a large pardō that would take a­waie the whole paine of bodelie sicknes, you might [Page 422] doe an acceptable deede, and be well paied for your paines. But if the Popes pardon be not able to take a­waie the paine of one scabbe or flebiting, you wil hard­lie perswade vs, that it can take awaie all the paine of purgatorie, if it were prooued that anie such paine or place were after this life. But if the pardon (saie you) determine the number of daies, or yeares, then it releaseth but part of the penāce onlie, as you bring exampls of 20. daies pardon: but if the pardon determine the number of yeares, to an hundred thousand yeares, then this ex­plication is insufficient: yet you haue an other quirke to helpe it afterward, by stretching it into purgatorie, your imaginarie prison. But the auncient canons neuer inioyned so manie yeares penance, nor neuer did anie Catholike Bithoppe graunt pardon of so ma­nie yeares. Saint Cyprian, as we heard before, with his colleagues determined to release some parte of the appointed time vpon good hope of the amende­ment of the parties, and great signes shewed of their heartie repentance, and for daunger of present perse­cution at hand. Saint Paull receiued the incestuous person vnto the fellowship of the Church, vpon his re­pentance. The Councel of Nice also willed the Bishops in see­ing the fruits of repentance ripebefore the time, assigned by the Canons, to deale more gently with the lapsed persons. But all these haue no resemblance with the Antichristian par­dons of the Pope, which are not graunted vpon like cause, nor by a person of like authoritie, nor to persons of like qualites, nor to the like end, nor onelie of pe­nance enioyned, but of such as no man would en­ioyne, beside remission à culpa & pana, or if not for all sinnes, yet for some third or seauenth parteof sinnes, or else full remission of all sinnes, beside 8000. yeares, and 8000. Lentes, as in the pardon of Clement the sixt, confirmed by Leo the tenth, it is to be seene.

Whereby we see this pardoning of enioyned penance, is an auncient vsage and counted moste holie of all the Church, [Page 423] whereof we make this assured ground and foundation of our Pardons, and for the trueth of them we make this argument Saint Paul did remit enioyned penance in Christs person: Saint Cyprian and al the Bishops of Affrike did remit penance en­ioyned: Nicē Councel giueth licence to bishops to remit penance prescribed by the law: Therefore the Pope by their example, & as in the person of Christ may remit enioyned penance, & there fore may lawfuilie giue a Pardon. The paine prescribed by the law he may release, because he is the principal executer of the law: the penance appointed by the inferiour priest in con­fession, he may likewise remit, because that, which is prescribed by the inferiour may by good reason be, vpon considerations, al­tered by the superiour, especiallie where the Magistrate hath good meanes to prouide, that neither the common wealth suffer damage thereby, nor the partiē to whome it doth perteine to be loosed or bounde in penance, receiue any losse thereby. By like authoritie also doth a Pardon change sometimes a sharper & longer paine enioyned into some more gentle penance and more fit and needeful workes for the time and state then beeing, as his power, that is the chiefe gouernour may be exceeding benefi ciall to the worlde in such cases, which euer ought to be practi­zed for edifying, & neuer for destruction. For it is to be conside­red, that the high Pastour vsualite graunieth no release of the debt of good workes, or the bond of deserued punishment, but by prescription of some other holie worke to be accomplished before the partie obteine the benefit of his remission. [...] when a peni­tent hath enioyned him to punish his bodie by continual fasting or long peregrination, or other exceeding much temporall pain, according to the grieuousnes of his desertes, the freedome of a Pardon of tentimes turneth the saide due paines enioyned into some easier worke of Christian charitie, yet beeing much more to the glory of god. & beneficial to the Church, as the time stand­eth, then the other could be. As when the Turke, or other ene­mies of Christianitie, doe inuade any Christian kingdome, it is more beneficiall to put to our helping hand in with standing his crueltie, either by resisting him in our owne person, or contribu­ting anie peece of our goods towardes the same, then anie pri­uate [Page 420] Penance that maie concerne our persons. Therefore the gouernours of the Church often, to mooue the people to such necessarie denotion giueth them a release of all paine due for their sinnes, or at least, of the bonde of their enioyned penance onelie vpon respect of some smal furtherance in such a good and Godlie purpose.

We acknowledge that pardoning of ecclesiastical pu nishment, commonly called penance, is very auncient. And being graunted by them that had authoritie, vpon good consideration is very necessary. But it is very yong and new, that the Pope should take vpon him, though he proceeded no further then pardon of penance enioy nedto release the penance enioyned by the gouernours of other Churches, to persons whose repentance he knoweth not, & for other causes, then of auncient were allowed, and especiallie for money. But now vpon this auncient, and accustomed practize of Gods Church, let vs see what Antichrist can claime: and that is set forth in an assured argument. Saint Paull did remit; S. Cyprian, with the Bishops of Afrike, and the Nicene coun­cell doth allow remitting of penance prescribed; therefore the Pope by their example maie remit enioyned penance, and law­fullie giue a pardon. Call you this an assured argument for pardons, where there wanteth one leg, and that the better leg of the argument to stand vpon? Aristo­tle doth well admonish that in an Enthimeme lightlie the weaker part is hidden, and not expressed. For this argument euerie man maie lawfullie denie, ex­cept you adde the Maior, that whatsoeuer Saint Paull, Saint Cyprian with his fellowes, and the Nicene coun cell lawfullie did, and allowed, the Pope doing as they did, maie lawfullie do. But then this Maior will be denied, and so the conclusion will not holde. For the Pope is neither anie gouernour, nor yet any mem­ber of the Church of Christ. But if he were a lawfull Bishop he might do within his owne charge, as Saint Paul, Saint Cyprian, and the rest with the Nicen coun­cell [Page 421] did and allowed to be done. And yet if he were al­lowed to be a Bishop, and would graunt such pardons, as he doth, to men of other Churches, and vpon such occasions as he doth, this argument would not defend him, because the Minor would not follow him: for neither Saint Paull, Saint Cyprian, nor the councell of Nice graunted such pardons, to such persons, and for such causes, as he doth: therefore he followeth not their example, but his owne presumption. Yet let vs see how this argument is fortified. First the paine prescribed by law he maie release, because he is the principall executor of the law. But who will allow him anie such principalitie in the Church, that is no mem­ber of the same? Secondlie he maie remit the pen­nance enioyned by the Priest, because he is superiour to all piestes, which is nothing but a miserable beg­ging of that which is in controuersie. The like is to be said of his changing of penance, whereby he challengeth the like authority. Although his changing of sharpe pe nance into easie paiment, doth bewray what is the end of such permutation: money is intended, whatsoeuer is pretended. Vrbanus the 2. in the councell of Clare­mounte, exhorting men of al nations to the warre of Ierusalem, began that release of penance, for seruing in that cause, which his successours afterward haue v­sed, as a gaie and gainfull pretense, when they were disposed to enrich their coffers, and mantaine their pri­uate quarrels.

The like they do also often, to set forward other workes of charitie, to the benefit of Gods people, as for the relieuing of Hospitals, of Churches, of high waies, and such like. Some­times againe, they extende their power, which Christ gaue them, to edifie his Church. and increase religion and deuotion in the people, as when thy giue pardon for so manie daies to such as shall receiue the blessed Sacrament, faste and praie, that heresie maie cease in the Church, that the enemies of Christia­nitie maie not preuaile, that infidels, Iewes, and heretikes [Page 426] maie be conuerted, and Schismatikes knit them-selues obedi­entlie to the fellowship of Chistes folde. So doth the Pope for the encrease of zelous deuotion and aduancing Gods honour, giue daies of remission or full pardon, to such as shall vsuallie haue meditations of Christes passion and death by certaine ho­lie praiers appointed, or by visiting places in which there be seene some liuelie sieppes, memories, and expresse tokens of Christe miraculous workes, or his Saintes. Thus to helpe vp the dulnesse of praying and seruing God in our daies he geueth grace and pardon to such as shall freauent the Churches at the times of their dedication, or on certaine principall Feastes, there either to be confessed and receiue the [...] sacrament, or els to ioyne in praier and deuotion with other the faithful people that thither at those daies haue principall recourse. Hereof we haue example not onelie in the storie of the institution of the solemne. Feast of Corpus Christi, but also in the great generall coun­cell holden at Laterane. For this cause also, and the like main­tenance Can. 62. of holie praier, by which the Church of God moste standeth, hath he mercifully & with singular wisdome, giuen a pardon of certaine daies or years to such as should deuoutlie oc­cupie such beades, books, or praiers: in all which things orderlie giuen, & reuerentlie receiued, I see not what can be repre­hended of anie, but such as are offended with all workes and waies of mercie, charitie, and deuotion. The power and iurisdiction is prooued lawfull, the causes, why he should exercise his authoritie herein, be verie vrgent, & Gods honour with the peoples commodite exceeding well respected: all thinges here do edify, and nothing at all destroy: all things do stande by good reason, nothing can be reprooued either with rea son or good religion.

You tell vs, what the Pope doth; but neither by what authoritic of the holie scriptures, nor by what example of the holie auncient Church. He could neuer sit in the Temple of God, boasting him-selfe to be God, except he had some religious colour, to blinde the eies of the world, which submitteth vnto his anti­chiristan power. And yet all the world knoweth, that [Page 427] monie obtained, for hospitalles, Churches, beades, bookes, and such baggage, all the pardons in a manner that haue beene graunted. As for the pretense of set­ting forward the workes of charitie, fasting, praing, &c. is not onelie hypocriticall, but also wicked. For nei­ther men muste be hired to the workes of charitie, and other Christian exercises, by pardon of their puni­shments; but exhorted and charged for the loue of God, and vpon their duties neither should a sale be made of that which ought to be freelie graun­ted, if the Church had such authoritie. For freely (saith he) you haue receiued, therefore freely you ought to giue. Therefore, though you cannot see in this filthy nundination, what is to be reprehended, we can see nothing that can be defended, where neither the pow­er is proued lawfull, nor the causes reasonable, nor the end godlie, whatsoeuer is pretended: nor meanes by the worde of God or example of the Pimitiue Church allowable.

THE 7. CHAP.

BVt now because some may by course of our matter, looke that I should declare, whether the Popes Par­dons may release any whit of that paine, which God himselfe putteth the penttent vnto, after his sinnes be forgiuen; I must somewhat stand hereupon, the cause is weightie, and much misliked of our aduersaries, and some other perchance to, that see not so farre into the matter as they should doe, before [Page 424] they giue anie iudgement thereof, That the gouernours of the Church, should remit Canonicall correction, and priuse sa­tisfaction, with the bonde of penance, either enioyned, or els which by the lawes spirituall might be enioyned, manie will confesse. But that their power should reach to the remitting of that paine, which Gods hand hath laied vpon the offender of temporall correction, that they vnderstand not. Truely, for this they must be instructed, first, that the temporall punish­ment, which God taketh on sinners that be penitent, though it standeth by the law of nature, aud was practized of the laws of nature, and was practized of God himselfe before anie mans lawes were made for puuishment of sinnes, yet now it riseth prin cipallie, vpon lack of punishing of our selues, or the accom­plishing of such penance, as the Church of God prescribeth. For if the Church punish her childrens faults by sharpe discipline, doubtles it satisficeth Gods righteousnesse, and he will not pu­nish bis in id ipsum, twise for one fault: or if man earnest­lie and sufficientlie iudge him-selfe, God hath promised by S. Paul, that he will not iudge him also, that is to saie, that he will not correct him with more heauie discipline of this life or the life to come, for that signifieth this word iudicare, as the Apostle him-selfe doth interpret it. Then it followeth, that the bond of anie temporall punishment to be inflicted by God him-selfe doth not now binde man otherwise, then for the lack of necessarie discipline to be taken in this life, and therefore that Purgatorie bindeth no man, but in respect of satisfying Gods iustice, which was not answered here before, either by our selues, or by the Churches correction and enioyned pe­nance.

The cause you confesse to be waightie that the go­uernours of the Church should release that paine, which Gods hand hath laid vpon the offender, for his temporall correction, and therefore you must stand v­pon it: but as long as you stand you bring neither au­thoritie of scripture, testimonie of antiquitie, reason­able argument, or sensible experience. For first the ground of al your disputation is vtterlie false; that God [Page 429] punisheth for sinnes remitted, to satisfie his iustice. And therefore though I graunt your first consideration (which is, that God punisheth vs for sinne the more, because we punish not our selues) yet I may not graunt your conclusion, the argument whereof is nothing, but your asseueration: if the Church punish her childrens faults by sharpe discipline, doubtles it satisfieth Gods righteousnes. For no punishing, or suffering of punishment can satis­fie Gods iustice, or anie part thereof, but the punish­ment suffered by Christ, who was beaten for our faults and striken for our offences: and therefore his suffering is a full satisfaction for our vnrighteousnes. Neither doth Saint Paull speak of anie discipline in the life to come, when he exhorteth vs to iudge ourselues: but sheweth that the punishment, or iudgement, which God executeth in this world vpon his children, is a cha stisment, that we be not condemned with the world, as they that neither by doctrine, nor by punishment are brought to repentance. your next conclusion is, that the bond of anie temporall punishment to be inflicted by God him selfe, doth not binde man, but for lack of ne­cessarie discipline, to be taken in this life. But this conclusion you your selfe do afterward denie, when you affirme, that bodelie punishment commeth vpon men for ma­nie other causes, then for correction for sinne onelie, or a pur­gation of a mans life past. Finallie, if purgatorie do binde no man, but in respect of satisfying gods iustice, so long as it is certaine, that Gods iustice is satisfied toward al his elect, in the death and obedience of Christ, it is out of doubt that purgacorie hath nothing to do with anie of Gods elect, to whome Christ is giuen of his father to be wisdome, righteousnes, holines, and redemption, that as it is written, he that reioyceth, maie reioyce in the Lord.

Consider secondlie that he thatfully is discharged of the bond of satisfaction in this life, whether it be iust accomplishing of his due aud deserued penance, or by remission of Gods Church and answering otherwise his lack therein, the same person must [Page 430] of necessitie be also charged of Purgatory, and alpaine in this life which els God could haue enioyned for sinne, because this debt of Purgatorie rose vnto the penitent for the answer of Gods iustice, and lack of paiment in this life, the which being discharged to the honour of God, and the reliefe of the partie, there remaineth no bond of paine to come. For debt is dischar­ged properlie either by remitting it freelie, or by paiment iust­lie. and I speake rather of [...], then of other painer enioyned by God in this life, because that is euer appointed to man, onelie as a recompence of Gods iustice, and as due corre­ction for sinne remitted, when of all other paines in this world, whether it be sicknes or death, no man can assuredlie saie, that this or that bodelie punishment came vpon anie man as a cor­rection for his sinnes onelie, or as a purgation of his life past. For somtimes suchthings folow the necessary of our corrupted nature, sometimes they be for our proofe and exercise, and sometimes for other causes. But those kindes of punishments which God laieth vpon man onelie for correction and satisfying for his sins, neuer fal vpon him after he be either iudged by his owne teares, or the Churches sufficient satisfaction enioyned, or els vpon rea­sonable cause remitted. The like afflictions maie continue in a­nie person, after the bonde of them be remooued, or maie be gi­uen afterward: but for the satisfaction of his owne sinnes, or a­nie debt proceeding thereof, they be not, because the debt is dis­charged: in so much, that I dare be bolde to saie, if anie man were sick by Gods appointment, for that cause onelie, to satis­fie for his sinnes remitted before in the sacrament, that he should straight recouer vpon the discharge of the debt which he did owe to God for his iustice, if that into mitie were for no other cause but that onelie, as it maie be for manie mo, wherof no man can casilie iudge.

He that is fullie discharged of the bond of satisfacti­on, in this life, by free remission of his sinnes, through the satisfaction of Iesus Christ, must needes be dischar ged of Purgatorie, except you will saie, that accom­plishing of penance, and remission of the Church is of more force, then the suffering of Christ, and the re­mission [Page 431] of God. For debt, as you saie truelie, is dischar­ged properlie, either by remitting it freelie, or by paiment iust­lie. But God sorgiueth our sinnes freelie, and Christ hath paied the redemption for them iustlie, as all the scriptures do testifie. Therefore there remaineth no bond of paine to come. But now you render a reason, why you speake of purgatorie, rather then of other paines enioyned by God in this life. And that is this; that purgatorie is neuer suffered, but sor satisfying for sinne onely: where other paines of this life maie be for other causes. Marke how this geare hangeth together. First you haue no shew of proofe, that there remaineth anie paine due to satisfie Gods iustice for sinnes remitted, but the afflictions of this life: and now you confesse, that they maie be, and often are for other causes. How prooue you then, that euer they be for this pretended cause, namelie for satisfying of Gods iustice for sinnes remitted? Well, let that passe. Seeing the afflictions of this life were brought to prooue that there be three di­uerse waies of temporal punishment remaining after sinnes be remitted, euerie of which waies maie in some cases be released in parte, or in wholl, by the Popes pardons, how happeneth it, that we can haue no experience of the Popes par­donsin releasing any man of the temporall afflictions of this life, as sicknes, imprisonment, &c, You answer that these bodilie afflictions maie be for other causes, & so flie quite from your holde; yet that you may stand in a corner, & pelt your enemies, you turne again & say. that you dare be bold to say, if any man were sick by gods appoint ment, for that cause onely, &c. that he should straight waie re­couer vpon the discharging of that debt which he did owe to gods iustice: but a pardon wil discharge that debt: therfore a pardō wil make him recouer. This I confes, is boldly said of you, But where is the experience: shew one man that euer recouered by the Popes pardon among so many 1000. sick persons, as haue receaued the Popes pardon: was neuer none sick by gods appointment, for satisfying [Page 432] of his iustice onelie? But admit he were sick for other causes, as welll as for that, should not the popes par­don at the least take away some parte of his sicknes, namelie so much as was laid vpon him for that cause onelie? Let the Pope, if he will make triall of his pow­er to the confusion of his abuersaries, graunt a gene­rall pardon to all Papistes, as he maie easilie do, and then let it be tryed whether anie one shall straight re­couer of his bodelie sicknes, or other affliction, or how manie shall be eased in their bodilie or wordly afflicti­on. Prouided alwaies that we haue no counter fait crankes, that shall step vp sodenlie recouered of that disease, whereof they were neuer sick. But if you dare be bolde to saie, that the Popes pardon can cause anie man to recouer straight vpon the recept of it, you must also be bolde to say that the popes pardon can worke miracles: for no man can sodainlie recouer of any disease which is not come to the period, without miracle, if the na­turall cause thereof be not first taken awaie. But alas who doth not see your miserable startinghole, if that infirmitie were for none other cause, but that onelie, as it may be for manie mo, wherof no man can easilie iudge. A wretched clout to hide your infirmitie, where no one example a­mong so manie thousand as are sick in the world, can be shewed. So that purgatorie paines, and the release of them, are grounded vpon temporall afflictions, whereof noe man can iudge, for what cause they are, no man can shew one example of the release of them by pardons.

And therfore, not onelie Christ him-selfe, as I shall declare hereafter, but Aaron also healed in the olde law the infirmities of thousands, which came vpon them onelie for temporall pu­nishment of sinnes. And in the sacrament of extreme vnction the Apostle Saint Iames affirmeth, that our Lord shall vpon the priestes praier lift vp the penitent, or ease him of his sick­nes, whichhe meant onely or chiefely of that sicknes, which com­meth vpon the partie by Gods hand, as a punishment of those [Page 433] sinnes, which be remissible in the sacrament for such like means. As Saint Chysostome sheweth also a passiing power in lib. 3. desa­cerdot. the ministers of God, Church, saying, That they maie keepe mans soule from perishing, and maie charge him with more ea­sie paine euen at his passing hence, besides that they maie ease his bodelie infirmitie also by their holie praiers in the act of ex­treame vnction: in this sense speaketh he thereof,

Said I that no man can shew one example of the re­lease of bodilie afflictions? Master Allen sheweth here examples of thowsands, healed not onelie by Christ, but by Aa­ron also, of infirmities, that came vpon them for temporal pu­nishment of sinnes, as he will declare hereafter. But I re­plie, what miracles Christ or Aaron wrought in his name, they be no examples of the Popes pardons, by which if he can prooue that anie man receaueth re­couerie of his sicknes, it is somewhat to the purpose. The llke I saie of annointing with oile, by which the el­ders of the primitiue, and Apostolike Church endued with the miraculous gift of healing, cured manie of their bodilie infirmities: but that anie extreame vncti­on restoreth anie man to health, or euer did, I vtter­lie denie; and therefore we will not dispute of what sicknes they heale them. Neither doth Chrysostome saie, that the Ministers of Gods Church haue such a passing power, that they maie ease bodilie infirmitie by their holie praiers, in the act of extreame vnction, neither hath his words anie sense thereof: and there­fore you deale fraudulentlie, to tell vs of the sense, when you rehearse not the wordes. Plaine dealing be­commeth an honest cause: but when neither wordes nor sense can helpe you, you must faine a sense, which can not be prooued of the wordes: which are these, De sacerdotio lib. 3. cap. 6. preferring the ministers of the Church before bodelie parents, by so much as the life to come excelleth this life for they truelie do beget vnto this life, but these vnto that to come. And they truelie [Page 434] can not so much as deliuer them from bodylie death, nor driue awaie sicknes that falleth vpon them: but these have often sa­ued the soule that was stck and readie to perish, causing some to haue a gentler punishment, suffering some not to fall from the beginning, and helping them not onely by teaching and ad­monishing, but also by praiers. For not onelie when they rege­nerate vs, but after warde they haue power to forgiue sinnes. It anie man sick among you? saith he, let him call for, &c. Where the text of Saint Iames is alledged onelie to prooue that they haue power to obteine forgiuenes of sinnes by praier, and neither for healing of bodylie sicknes, nor for extreme vnction. The ceremonie whereof, with the miracle, whereunto it was annexed, was cea­sed long before Saint Chrysostomes time.

But, as I said, because no man can well iudge, when man is afflicted onelie for temporall discipline or satisfaction, or when far other purposes to vs vnknowne, the Church of God that vseth high wisdome and moderation in all things, med­leth not directly in pardoning by her iurisdiction, with any such bodily afflictions as god chargeth man with alin this life, which maie be to the forsaken as a beginning of their eternall damna­tion, as Saint Augustine saith, as well as a temporall correcti­on, and therefore not effectuallie remissible in the Church. But the bond of Purgatorie, that, I saie, in the Church maie be released, and is released, at euerie time that man worthilie re­ceiueth a full and plenarie remission of all penance enioyned, & due to be enioyned by the law of the Churches decrees. I do not speake now, of the deliuerie of anie person from the paines of purgatory, which alreadie is actuallie there, or for the Churches power in releasing of their painet, after they be in the course of Gods iudgement for the same: I am not so farre yet: but I speak of the discharge of the bond thereof, or some portion of the same, now before the partie do passe hence, which is a great deale more proper to the Churches power, and more easie to be brought to passe, then when the penitents soule is alredy in iudge ment there, to which place, the Churches iurisdiction (as some suppose) doth not extend. If the simple vnderstand me not, let [Page 435] him marke my meaning by an example: The paines of hell can not, neither by God, nor man, ordinarilie be helpen or released, after man be in the same: but the debt of Hell which is due for euerie mortall sinne, is discharged allwaies at our repentance, in so much that the priest in the sacrament of penance, with the sinne euer remitteth the bonde of Hell, and preuenteth Gods iudgement in the same. So if Purgatory could not at al belong to the iurisdiction of the Church, nor [...] person therein, yet in the life of the party some peece of the debt thereof, oral may be released afore hand, whiles the partie is in the power of the Church and her discipline: ad so it must needs be at euerie time that the Church pardoneth the partie of all satisfaction, or anic portion there of recompensing the same by application of Christes satisfaction and his saints. For the bond of Purgatory riseth, as I haue said, vpon some satisfaction and penance to be fulfilled or done in this life, the which [...] bue either by our paines accomplished to the satisfying of Gods righteausnes, or o therwise pardoned, there is no debt or bond of purgatorie at all, the which is so cancelled by thy Church our Mother, that it can not be required of God our father.

The Popish Church [...] more sabtillie, if shee take not vpon her at all, either directlie, or indirectlie, to heale bodilie sicknes by pardons, not because men can not iudge so well for what cause they are laid vpon the diseased, but because shee knoweth right well that though shee may in the darke bregg of such a mat­ter, yet hath shee in deede no such power, nor autho­ritie, neither in the fortaken or reprobate, nor in any of Gods elect. But the bonde of Purgatorie, where of there is neither argument, nor experience, shee may be bolde to deale with al at her pleasure, either in pre­uenting, or releasing: Wherein I maruell you make the matter so deintie, seeing it is holden on [...] side, that the Pope hath authoritie by his pardon, [...] onelie to release some out of the paines of purgatorie, but [...] also to spoile all Purgatorie, and to leaue it [...]. Your example, of the paines of hell, that can not [Page 436] neither by God, nor man be helped, or released, hath an in­stance in your owne schoole, of the Emperour Traiane eased of hell paines at the praier of Saint Gregorie, if the tole be true. Beside Augustinus de Ancona dispu­teth earnestlie, that the Pope hath power in hell, to miti­gate quest. 34. or release the paines of the damned, or at the lest of some of them, and that the Church praieth for that ende. Wherfore you agree not with your fellowes, nor with the Popish Church, which praieth for the deade, vt liberentur de ore Leonis, & de profundo lacu: that they be deliuered from the mouth of the Lion, and from the deepe lake. But be it as you saie, yet your argument of the similitude of hell and Purgatorie is of no force, because we know cer­tainlie by the scriptures, that there is hell: but Pur­gatorie we finde not in the holie scriptures, as Saint Augustine saith of any third place. But by the scrip­ture Cont. Pelag hypognost. lib. 5. we finde, the ende wherefore Purgatorie is imagi­ned, to be forged, false, & blasphemous against the sa­crifice of Christ his death and satisfaction, which was once perfectlie performed by himselfe, and not com­mitted to the application of any other man. Heb. 9. & 10

And this mooued alwaies the Church of God diligentlie to prouide of her tender mercie toward her louing Children, that they should neuer departe out of this life in any debt of penance, knowing well, that the residue not satisfied here, should be required at their handes afore God in the next life. And therefore though many yeares of penance were prescribed to all such as did notorious crimes, yet there was made euer lightlie a prouiso, that at the houre of their extremitie they should haue peace and pardon, and the Churches blessing in the holie sacrament, and so departe free from bond of the Churches discipline, & as far as in her laie, might be also discharged of the temporall scourge in the next life, as no doubt they were, if their remained no other impediment in thēselues. Can. 12. Lib. 3. Epist. 17. So doth Nice Councell moste mercifullie prouide, and so doth Ciprian and other fathers of the Primitiue Church, that saw in their high wisedome, the temporall paine to come, much to [Page 437] hang on the parties satisfaction, and the bond of the Churches enioyned penance. And euen at this daie prouision is also made, that no penance be giuen, but vpon condition of his recoue­rie, to any man that lieth at the extremitie of death, lest he depart hence, Ligatus, bounde, as Saint Augustine tearmeth Epist. 180. it, whereby the debt of his enioyned satisfaction, might be re­quired in Purgatory. And nothing in the world prooueth more the Churches doctrine of purgatory & Pardons, then doth the continuall concorde and moste agreeable practize of these holie acts of binding and loosing vsed in her gouernement.

The auncient Church in deede not acknowledging that shee had any authority to release any punishment to be suffered after this life, determined alwaies the times of Canonicall penance with the ende of mens liues, as I haue shewed before, & now you do acknow­ledge no lesse. But if the Church had power after men were deade, to release them of any paines, shee needed not to haue beene so carefull in that point, as shee was willing to comfort the penitent offenders at their depar ture: as for the cancelling of all debt, due for the satisfying of gods righteousnes, which you did ascribe vnto the Church, was the proper office of our sauiour Christ, who perfor­med that most necessarie worke to our eternal benefit, once for all, when he did put out the handwriting that was Col. 2. 15. against vs in decrees, and vtterlie abolished it, nayling it to his crosse. Finallie if nothing in the worlde prooueth more the Popish Churches doctrine of Purgatorie and pardons, then the continuall practize of binding and loosing, iustlie vsed in go­uernement, as you doe constantlie affirme, it will easilie appeare, that nothing in the world can prooue at all your blaspemous heresies, of Purgatorie, and pardons, seeing the right vse of that power can be none other, then according to the authoritie graunted by our saui­our Christ of binding and loosing: but neither purga­torie, nor pardon out of that authoritie in any lawful forme of argument can euer be concluded, howsoeuer in loose talke, or scribling, ignorant men may be caried [Page 438] awaie with the flow of wordes where there is no pitho argument.